RE: Epstein
Jay - It was nice seeing you again. Andy and I talked with Alex and Jeff. We are all satisfied in principle with the agreement, but the Office is uncomfortable with the recommended federal charge. Specifically, we are concerned about the effect of taking the position that Mr. Epstein's house is in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and we have no evidence of any assaults occurring either on Mr. Epstein's plane or offshore from his residence.
We are hoping that you can find an alternative federal statute that can be used. I also will wait to hear from Jack Goldberger to discuss logistics.
Thank you.
A. Marie Villafaña
Assistant U.S. Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL
Phone: [Redacted]
Fax: [Redacted]
Hi Jay Yes, I am. I have been spending some quality time with Title 18 looking for misdemeanors. Do you want to take a look at 18 USC 403, 18 USC 1512 (d), and 47 USC 223 (a) (1) (B) and we can talk about. them tomorrow? I know that someone mentioned there being activity on an airplane, I just want to make sure that there is factual basis for the plea that the agents can confirm.
I'm not sure exactly where I will be tomorrow morning, so is it alright if I call you?
Have agood evening.
A. Marie Villafaña
Assistant U.S. Attorney
S.
West Palm Beach, FL
Phone
Fax
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Lefkowitz [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:21 PM
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)
Subject:
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 I'm not sure which of those e-mail addresses is correct. Here are drafts of the plea agreement and information. They have not yet been blessed by Miami, but they have approved of prior similar drafts, so these should be close to what is needed. My home e-mail is You also can get me over the weekend on my cell phone at
<<Information charging 1512 and 113.pdf>>
<<OLY Plea Agreement v4 1512 and 113 violations.pdf>>
<<OLY Plea Agreement v4 1512 and 113 violations.pdf>>
Regards,
Marie
A. Marie Villafaña
Assistant U.S. Attorney
S. [Redacted], [Redacted]
West Palm Beach, FL [Redacted]
Phone [Redacted]
Fax [Redacted]
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.
A. Marie Villafaña
Assistant U.S. Attorney
S.
West Palm Beach, FL
Phone
Fax
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Lefkowitz [mailto:
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:40 AM
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)
Subject: Follow up
The image is not a chart. It is a document with sections that have been obscured by black marker. There is some text visible that is not marked out. The visible text includes: "Jay Lefkowitz", "Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:40 AM", "To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)", "Subject: Follow up", and a lowercase "d" at the end of one of the marked lines.
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.
--
Ann Marie Villafana
Ann Marie Villafana
<<<< 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>>
A. Marie Villafaña
Assistant U.S. Attorney
S. [Redacted]
Phone [Redacted]
Fax [Redacted]
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 Rolando (who is stepping in for Andy). Please send to my home e-mail address-, and give me a call on my cell [x] , so I can be ready for some discussions tomorrow. If anything else comes up, please don't hesitate to call.
Thanks,
Marie
Hi Jay — I know that the U.S. Attorneywill not go below 18 months of prison/jail time (and I would stronglyoppose the suggestion).
Sender:
A. Marie Villafaña
Assistant U.S. Attorney
[Redacted Information]
Recipient:
Jay Lefkowitz
Date:
09/18/2007 08:44 AM
Subject:
Draft Agreements?
Body:
[Redacted Information]
[ ]
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 wouldapply 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.
A. Marie Villafaña
Assistant U.S. Attorney
S. [Redacted]
Phone: [Redacted]
Fax: [Redacted]
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.
Rolando 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.
A. Marie Villafaña
Assistant U.S. Attorney
[Redacted Information]
West [Redacted Information], L [Redacted Information]
Phone [Redacted Information]
Fax number: [Redacted]
Addressee: [Redacted]
Name: [Redacted]
Organization: [Redacted]
Phone number: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Additional information: [Redacted]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)"
Sent: 09/18/2007 12:43 PM AST
To: Jay Lefkowitz
Subject: RE: Draft Agreements?
Hi Jay - It looks like I will be here all afternoon, but earlier is better than later. There are a number of issues with your version, but one that you can look at before our call is the calculation of the guidelines on the 1512(d) counts. The cross-reference to 2X3.1 applies, which then takes us to 2G1.3. Giving Mr. Epstein the benefit of the doubt (that they would treat this as though there were only one victim), he would have a base offense level of 24, plus 2 for a commercial sex act, totaling 26. Returning to 2X3.1, we would subtract 6 levels and subtract another 3 levels for acceptance for a total offense level of 17. With criminal history category of I, that results in 24 to 30 months, which is in Zone D.
A. Marie Villafaña
Assistant U.S. Attorney
S.,,
Wes
Phone
Sure
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message
From: Jay Lefkowitz THE
To: Sloman, Jeff (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.
[Content redacted]
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 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'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
Sent from myBlackBerry Wireless Handheld
--- Original Message
From: Jeffrey Sloman
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)
Sent: Wed Feb 27 21:37:02 2008
Subject: Epstein
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.
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
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.
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.
Jeff Sloman, FAUSA
From: Jay Lefkowitz [mailto:JLefkowitz@kirkland.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 4:35 PM
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)
Subject: Re: Epstein
Jeff,
The image is not a chart. It is a document with several sections blacked out with a thick marker. The visible text suggests a communication between "Jeff" and "Jay Lefkowitz" concerning an office that will not interfere and a discussion of stories. One sentence mentions "information lost."
----- Original Message-----
From: "Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)"
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 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