RE: Epstein

Sorry Jay I just got this and have to run off to I will revise and re-email you tomorrow or late tonight.

ssist ant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone 561 209-1047
Fax 561 820-8777

-----Original Message--
From: Jay Lefkowitz [mailt
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:40 AM
To: (USAFLS)
Subject: Follow up

The image contains text that has been largely obscured by black marker. The visible text elements are:

• A few small, isolated markings at the top left.
• A horizontal line of text near the top.
• Multiple horizontal lines of text in the middle section.
• A small "d" character is visible to the right of the middle section.
• A horizontal line of text at the bottom.

The overall impression is of a document where sensitive information has been redacted.

---

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for

the use of the addressee. It is the property of Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP.

Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited

Hi Jay--Sorry -- I didn't get your message until this morning. I will call you at 9:15. If that doesn't work, let me know a better time, otherwise I will just plan to speak to you at 9:15. Thanks.

Sounds fine. Thanks. Can you e-mail me the number where you want me to call you?

Hi Jay--I will wait to hear from you before I change the documents back to the 1512, but can you tell me when you call back whether you had any issues with the language of the plea agreement or the information that I sent earlier? Thanks.

Hi Jay -- I looked up some 11th Circuit cases on simple assault and found some good language. I also learned that, every moment that one is aboard an enclosed civil airplane, they are in the "special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States," so the assault charge is really a violation of 49 USC 46506, which doesn't change the penalties.

I have drafted up a factual proffer that I would use at the change of plea based upon our brief conversation and the agents' interaction with Ms. Groff at her home. The agents and I would need to speak with Ms. and Ms. Groff briefly to confirm that these facts are true. Feel free to make suggestions.

On an "avoid the press" note, I believe that Mr. Epstein's airplane was in Miami on the day of the Ms. Groff telephone call. If he was in Miami-Dade County at the time, then I can file the charge in the District Court in Miami, which will hopefully cut the press coverage significantly. Do you want to check that out?

<<< Attachment 'Epstein Plea Proffer.doc' has been archived by user 'CommonStore/IT/Kirkland-Ellis' on '11/26/2007 01:08:17'. >>>

I will talk to you later. Thanks.

Hi Jay -- This can wait until after the show, but my voice is going so I thought I would type it up. I talked to Andy and he still doesn't like the factual basis. In his opinion, the plea should only address the crimes that we were addressing, and we were not investigating Mr. Epstein abusing his girlfriend.

So, these are the only options that he recommended:

1. We go back to the original agreement where Mr. Epstein pleads only to state charges and serves his time in the state, except that we can agree to only 18 months imprisonment.

• 2.Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to the state charges and also pleads to either two obstructioncounts or to one count of violating 47 USC 223(aX1)(B), with a joint non-binding recommendation of 18 months, so that Mr. Epstein can serve his time federally.

3. (Mysuggestion only, not Andy's): I go back to the U.S.

Attorney and ask him to agree to an ABA-plea to a 371 count (conspiracy to violate2422(6)) with a binding 20-month recommendation so that Mr. Epstein can serve allof his time in a federalfacility.

Or 4. Mr. Epstein pleads to one obstruction count, and serves part of his time federally and part state.

On your other proposed changes, some are fine and some are problematic.

Re your paragraph 2: As to timing, it is my understanding that Mr.

Epsteinneeds to be sentenced in the stateafter he is sentenced in the federalcase, but not that he needs to pleadguilty and be sentenced afterserving his federal time. Andyrecommended that some of the timingissues be addressedonly in the stateagreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prisonpurposes. My understanding is that Mr. Epsteinshould sign a state pleaagreement, pleadguilty to the

federal offenses, plead guilty to the state offenses, be sentenced on the federal offenses, and then be sentenced on the state offenses, and then start serving the federal sentence.

Re your paragraph 3: As to the reservation of Mr. Epstein's right to withdraw his state plea or to appeal his state plea or sentence, that is fine, but we need the caveat that, if he were to do so, the United States could proceed on our charges.

Re your paragraph 6: With respect to the waiver of the right to appeal the federal sentence, given the way we have drafted the information, it is possible that getting to the 18 month sentence will require an upward departure. The version of the agreement that you were working from is a federal non-prosecution agreement, the ones I have sent you recently are plea agreements that get filed with the court. Please see if the appeal waiver language in those versions is alright.

Re your paragraph 7: As I mentioned, we will not waive the presentence investigation. I know that this will delay Mr. Epstein's sentencing by 70 days, but that will allow him to get all of his affairs in order. As to bail, it will be set at the time of arraignment, and we can work out a joint recommendation regarding the amount and its limitations. I have no objection to making a joint recommendation that Mr. Epstein remain out on bond pending his sentencing, but I'm not sure that it belongs in a plea agreement, especially since I can't bind the court on that issue. However, I can assure you, and we can put it on the record during the plea collooquy, that I will join in your recommendation that he remain out on bond pending sentencing. The same goes for the prison camp issue. As I mentioned, I have opposed a designation only once in a very particular case. I can assure you, and we can put it on the record at the plea colloquy that I will not oppose your recommendation for Mr. Epstein's designation.

Re your paragraph 8: As I mentioned over the telephone, I cannot bind the girls to the Trust Agreement, and I don't think it is appropriate that a state court would administer a trust that seeks to pay for federal civil claims. We both want to avoid unscrupulous attorneys and/or litigants from coming forward, and I know that your client wants to keep these matters outside of public court filings, but I just don't have the power to do what you ask. Here is my recommendation. During the period between Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing, I make a motion for appointment of the Guardian Ad Litem. The three of us sit down and discuss things,

and I will facilitate as much as I can getting the girls' approval of this procedure because, as I mentioned, I think it is probably in their best interests. In terms of plea agreement language, let me suggest the following:

The United States agrees to make a motion seeking the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem to represent the identified victims. Following the appointment of such Guardian, the parties agree to work together in good faith to develop a Trust Agreement, subject to the Court's approval, that would provide for any damages owed to the identified victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2255. Then include the last two sentences of your paragraph 8.

Re the two paragraphs following your paragraph 8: I will include our standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability and I will mention "co-conspirators," but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge. Also, we do not have the power to bind Immigration and we make it a policy not to try to, however, I can tell you that, as far as I know, there is no plan to try to proceed on any immigration charges against either Ms or Ms.

こ

Also, on the grand jury subpoenas, I can prepare letters withdrawing them as of the signing of the plea agreement, but I would prefer to take out that language. In my eyes, once we have a plea agreement, the grand jury's investigation has ended and there can be no more use of the grand jury's subpoena power.

I had hoped that we were far closer to resolving this than it appears that we are. Can I suggest that tomorrow we either meet live or via teleconference, either with your client or having him within a quick phone call, to hash out these items? I was hoping to work only a half day tomorrow to save my voice for Tuesday's hearing and grand jury, if necessary, but maybe we can set a time to meet. If you want to meet "off campus" somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that I have all the necessary decision makers present or "on call," as well.

If we can resolve some of these issues today, let's try to, and then save only the difficult issues for tomorrow.

Sorry for the long e-mail, and for ruining

Roy and Jay-I received a call from Jenny, who is standing in as Judge Marra's CRD. She spoke with the judge and he agreed to take the matter off the calendar. I told Jenny that if we are able to reach a plea agreement, we will withdraw the subpoena and Mr. Black will withdraw his motion to quash.

Pleasecall if you have questions.

Assistant U.S. Attorney

500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400

EFTA00213708

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

こ

Phone

Fax

Hi Jay-To avoid you having to reinvent the wheel, here is a copy of the last version of the non-prosecution agreement in Word and WordPerfect.

<<070911 Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.wpd>> <<070911 Epstein
Non-Prosecution Agreement.doc>>

Assistant U.S. Attorney

500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400

C

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Phone

Fax 56

070911 Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.wpd

070911 Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.doc

い

Hi Jay – I am headed home. If a document is ready to be reviewed later today, can you send a copy to me and also to (who is stepping in for Andy). Please send to my home e-mail address – , and give me a call on my cell so I can be ready for some discussions tomorrow. If anything else comes up, please don’t hesitate to call.

Thanks,

C

Hi Jay- I know that the U.S. Attorney will not go below 18 months of prison/jail time (and I would strongly oppose the suggestion).

Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
To: Jay Lefkowitz
Subject: Draft Agreements?
Date: 09/18/2007 08:44 AM

[ ]

Hi Jay - I was hoping there would be things for me to read this morning, but I will try to remain patient.

I believe there are only two types of agreements that would apply to this case: (1) a plea agreement to a federal charge or charges;

EFTA00213720

and (2) a non-prosecution agreement (which is really a deferred prosecution agreement because the defendant agrees that if he violates the agreement, the U.S. can prosecute him).

A plea agreement is part of the court file. It is not accessible on-line via PACER, but someone can go to the Clerk's Office to obtain a copy.

A non-prosecution agreement would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part of our case file. It probably would be subject to a FOIA request, but it is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process.

On the obstruction charges, many of the facts I included in that first proffer were hypothesized based upon our discussions and the agents' observations of Ms. Groff. We will need to interview her to confirm the accuracy of those facts. On a second count, we could rely on the incident where Mr. Epstein's private investigators followed father, forcing him off the road. Or, if there is something more recent related to any grand jury subpoenas, we could consider that.

Hope that helps.

Assistant U.S. Attorney

500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Phone

Fax 5

Hi Jay — I think that you are referring to USSG1B1.9, which

doesn'tapply to Class A misdemeanors. If you have someother basis, please let me know.

Could you share the attached draft with your colleagues. It is in keeping with what Andy communicated to me was the operative "deal." The U.S. Attorney hasn't had a chance to review all of the language, but agrees with it in principle. The only thing we haven' t been able to discuss is the highlighted language regarding the state sentence. I believe that takes care of your client's concern about having to serve "duplicate" time in the state, and our concern about getting the state guilty plea wrapped up at the beginning rather than years down the road.

and I will both be available at 2:00. You can reach us at One of my suggestions is going to be (again) that we all sit down together in the same room, including Barry and/or Lanna, so we can hash out the still existing issues and get a signed document.

Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone

Sure

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message ------
From: Jay Lefkowitz [REDACTED]
To: SLOMAN, Jeff (JOSH LS)
Sent: Wed Nov 21 14:47:24 2007

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP.
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited

Sure

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Lefkowitz <
To: S
Sent: Wed Nov 21 14:47:24 2007

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP.
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to postmaster@kirkland.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.

Re:

Jay,

Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner but I was a little under the weather yesterday. I hope that you enjoyed your Thanksgiving.

Regarding the issue of due diligence concerning Judge Davis' selection, I'd like to make a few observations. First, Guy Lewis has known for some time that Judge Davis was making reasonable efforts to secure Aaron Podhurst and Bob Josephsberg for this assignment. In fact, when I told you of Judge Davis's selection during our meeting last Wednesday, November 21, you and Professor Dershowitz seemed very comfortable, and certainly not surprised, with the selection. Podhurst and Josephsberg are no strangers to nearly the entire Epstein defense team including Guy Lewis, Lili Ann Sanchez, Roy Black, and, apparently, Professor Dershowitz who said he knew Mr. Josephsberg from law school. Second, Podhurst and Josephsberg have long-standing stellar reputations for their legal acumen and ethics. It's hard for me to imagine how much more vetting needs to be done.

The United States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will make one full week since you were formally notified of the selection. I must insist that the vetting process come to an end. Therefore, unless you provide me with a good faith objection to Judge Davis's selection by COB tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification of the victims. Should you give me the go-ahead on Podhurst and Josephsberg selection by COB tomorrow, I will simultaneously send you a draft of the letter. I intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29th. Thanks,

Jeff

Jay,

The Section Chief of DOJ's Child Exploitation Obscenity Section (CEOS) notified me today that he will review the matter involving your client Jeffrey Epstein. The Section Chief has indicated that he is ready to proceed immediately, and I understand you are in the process of providing him this week with a summary of issues to be reviewed, and expect to meet with him next week.

The Section Chief also indicated that you would be calling this Office regarding the upcoming March 3, 2008 court date in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County. As you know, the Agreement entered into by your client originally provided that the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (this Office) would defer prosecution if your client pled guilty to enumerated state charges by October 26, 2007. Since then, that date has been postponed for a number of reasons. At this juncture, it would not be reasonable to keep the current March 3rd date as a deadline for compliance with the Agreement. That said, this Office is very concerned about additional delays. Despite this concern, I want to assure you that if counsel for Mr. Epstein meets with CEOS next week (the week of March 3"), this Office will extend the time for compliance with the Agreement to provide CEOS time to engage in a thorough review.

It goeswithout saying that in theevent that CEOS

decides that a federalprosecutionshould not be undertakenagainst Mr. Epstein, this Office will close its

investigation. However, should CEOS disagree with Mr.

Epstein'sposition, Mr. Epsteinshall have one week to abide by the terms and conditions of the September 24, 2007 Agreement as amended by letter from United States Attorney Acosta to Jay Lefkowitz.

Jeffrey H. Sloman

First Assistant U.S. Attorney

Southern District of Florida

Jay,

You have renewed your request for certain information which this office does not generally make available in similar pre-indictment situations. After carefully considering your request, I have decided, in my capacity as the First Assistant U.S. Attorney, not to make an exception here.

Regarding the Landon Thomas matter, Mr. Thomas was given, pursuant to his request, non-case specific information concerning specific federal statutes.

Regarding the offer to extend the current deadline of March 3, 2008 contained in my February 25th email. That offer was based on counsel for Mr. Epstein meeting with CEOS the week of March 3rd. You indicate that you are unavailable. It is hard to imagine that some or all of the other attorneys representing Mr. Epstein cannot serve this function. After all, Mr. Epstein is also represented by Dean Kenneth Starr, Martin Weinberg, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, Lily Ann Sanchez, and Guy Lewis.

That being said, the Southern District of Florida will only renew the offer to extend the current deadline if you and the CEOS Section Chief mutually agree on a timetable by close of business on Friday, February 29, 2008 to meet and complete presentations no later than March 19, 2008. Given that CEOS is ready to proceed

immediately, this seems like more than ample time. As I indicated in my previous email, if CEOS subsequently decides that a federal prosecution should not be undertaken against Mr. Epstein, this Office will close its investigation. However, should CEOS disagree with Mr. Epstein's position, Mr. Epstein shall have one week to abide by the terms and conditions of the September 24, 2007 Agreement as amended by letter from United States Attorney Acosta.

Jeffrey H. Sloman

First Asst. US Attorney

Southern District of Florida

Jay,

I know youemailed the U.S. Attorney but I feel

compelled to respond.

In my Monday, February 25th email, I tried to express my concern, on behalf of the SDFL, about additional delays concerning this matter and the desire to expedite review without interfering or restricting the process. When you replied on Wednesday, February 27th, it seemed to me that nothing had much changed. Your email stated" because I am currently scheduled to be on trial all next week in Delaware, I don't think we will actually be able to begin meeting with Drew until the following week, at the earliest." I felt that no effort was being made towards scheduling, and that, at the very least, one of Mr. Epstein 's other lawyers could have attempted to schedule a meeting with CEOS. To put it another way, it appeared to me that this matter was going to drag unnecessarily. Obviously you sensed my frustration in my responding email which, in turn, generated your email to the USA.

Late this afternoon, I was informed that you have scheduled a meeting with CEOS for March le. Obviously, I am heartened to hear of this development. Please be assured that it is not, and never has been, this Office's intent to interfere with or restrict the review process for either Mr. Epstein or CEOS. I leave it to you and CEOS to fi gure out how best to proceedand will await the results of that process.

Jeff Sloman, FAUSA

Jay,

I have again carefully considered your request and have decided not to make an exception here.

From: Jay Lefkowitz [mailto]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 4:35 PM
To: Siroman, Jeff (USAFS)
Subject: Re: Epstein

Jeff,

This image is not a chart. It is a document with significant portions blacked out. The visible text fragments suggest a formal communication, likely a letter or memo. Key entities and information that can be deciphered include:

• Recipient: "Jeff" (from the surrounding text)
• Content Focus: References to "office," "continue," and "information."
• Tone: Appears to be professional and possibly informative or instructional.
• Purpose (Inferred): Likely related to an office matter, potentially regarding the sharing or handling of information.

----- Original Message -----
From: "S...
Sent: 02/29/2008 07:17 PM EST
To: Jay Lefkowitz

EFTA00213659

Subject: Epstein

Jay,

I know you emailed the U.S. Attorney but I feel

compelled to respond.

In my Monday, February 25th email, I tried to express my concern, on behalf of the SDFL, about additional delays concerning this matter and the desire to expedite review without interfering or restricting the process. When you replied on Wednesday, February 27th, it seemed to me that nothing had much changed. Your email stated "because I am currently scheduled to be on trial all next week in Delaware, I don't think we will actually be able to begin meeting with Drew until the following week, at the earliest." I felt that no effort was being made towards scheduling, and that, at the very least, one of Mr. Epstein's other lawyers could have attempted to schedule a meeting with CEOS. To put it another way, it appeared to me that this matter was going to drag unnecessarily. Obviously you sensed my frustration in my responding email which, in turn, 'generated your email to the USA.

[ ]

Late this afternoon, I was informed that you have scheduled a meeting with CEOS for March 12". Obviously, I am heartened to hear of this development. Please be assured that it is not, and never has been, this Office's intent to interfere with or restrict the review process for either Mr. Epstein or CEOS. I leave it to you and CEOS to figure out how best to proceed and will await the results of that process.

Jeff Sloman, FAUSA