RE: Epstein

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

This image is not a chart. It is an email with most of the content redacted.

Key Information:

• Sender: Jay Lefkowitz
• Date Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007, 9:40 AM
• Subject: Follow up
• The sender is an Assistant U.S. Attorney.
• The body of the email is heavily redacted.
• The surrounding text indicates the sender is in a hurry and will revise the email later.

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.

Hi Jay--Sorry to trouble you over the weekend. Here are the revised documents with the 403 charge. I have gotten some negative reaction to the assault charge with as the victim, since she is considered one of the main perpetrators of the offenses that we planned to charge in the indictment. Can you talk to Mr. Epstein about a young woman named We have hearsay evidence that she traveled on Mr. Epstein's airplane when she was under 18, in around the 2000 or 2001 time frame. That falls outside the statute of limitations, but perhaps we could construct a 371 conspiracy around that?

Let me know what you think.

Thank you.

<<< Attachment 'Information charging 403 and 113.pdf has been archived by user 'CommonStore/IT/Kirkland-Ellis' on '11/26/2007 01:07:57'. >>> <<< Attachment 'OLY Plea Agreement v5 403 and 113 violations.pdf has been archived by user 'CommonStore/IT/Kirkland-Ellis' on 11/26/2007 01:07:57'. >>>

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
Phone
Fax

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).

To: Jay Lefkowitz
CC: [Redacted]
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 pleaagreement to a federalcharge or charges;

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. [ ] 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.

The image contains contact information.

• Title: Assistant U.S. Attorney
• Phone: [Blacked out]
• Fax: [Blacked out]

Hi Jay - I think that you are referring to USSG 1B1.9, which doesn't apply to Class A misdemeanors. If you have some other 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
Phone

Sure

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message ------
From: Jay Lefkowitz < [REDACTED] >
To: [REDACTED], [REDACTED] (USAFLS)
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.

Jay,

The Section Chief of DOJ's ChildExploitation ObscenitySection(CEOS) notified me today that he will review the matterinvolving yourclient Jeffrey Epstein. TheSection Chief hasindicated that he is ready to proceed immediately, and I understandyou are in the processof providing him this week with a summary of issues to be reviewed, andexpect 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'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 to Jay Lefkowitz.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney

SouthernDistrict 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 tohis 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.

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.

FAUSA

Jay,

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

FAUSA

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

Jeff,

The image contains a document with significant portions blacked out. The visible text indicates a communication, potentially an email or letter, addressing a recipient named Jeff. The content seems to discuss ongoing matters or decisions related to an office, with implications for future actions and a reference to "stories by". There's also a mention of "continuing informati..." and "the fast artist". The overall tone suggests a professional or business context.

----- Original Message ------
From: ' , (USAFLS)" [Redacted]
Sent: 02/29/2008 07:17 PM EST
To: Jay Lefkowitz

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 12th. Obviously, I am heartened to hear of this development. Please be assured that it is not, and never has been, this 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.

, FAUSA