EFTA01089193.pdf

EPSTEIN BREACH CORRESPONDENCE EFTA01089193  TABLE OF CONTENTS TAB DATE DESCRIPTION 1. 6/12/09 M. hr to J. Goldberger notifying breach of NPA 2. 6-12-09 J. Lefkowitz Itr. to M. in response to 6-12-09 letter giving notice of breach. 3. 6-15-09 J. Lefkowitz hr to M. attaching R. Critton's letter representing agreement to resolve outstanding fee issues re attorney representation. 4. 6-15-09 M. hr to J. Lefkowitz, R. Black & J. Goldberger con riming the US Attorney's Office takes no position re the civil suits. 5. 6-17-09 M. hr to J. Lefkowitz re compliance with NPA. 6. 6-19-09 J. Lefkowitz ltr to M. re obligations under NPA & ltr in response to 6-15-09 letter. Breach Correspondence Binder TOC.doc EFTA01089194 TAB 1 EFTA01089195  U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida June 12, 2009 DELIVERY BY HAND Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterb , Goldber er & Weiss, P.A. Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Goldberger: Pursuant to the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida hereby provides you with notice that the United States Attorney has determined, based on reliable evidence, that Jeffrey Epstein has willfully violated one of the conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Specifically, on May 26, 2009, Jeffrey Epstein, through his counsel, filed a "Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement," in the matter of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Court File No. 09-CV-80591-KAM. "Jane Doe,No. 101" was on the list provided to Mr. Epstein's attorneys of individuals whom the United States had identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and "Jane Doe No. 101" has elected to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. By filing the Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Epstein is contesting liability and, therefore, has violated Term 8 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Based upon Mr. Epstein's breach of that term, the U.S. Attorney's Office will pursue its remedies. The U.S. Attorney's Office also is continuing its review of Mr. Epstein's filings in the civil suits to determine whether additional breaches have occurred. If any are EFTA01089196 JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. JUNE 12, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 2 identified, they will be communicated to you in accordance with the terms of the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney By: cc: Northern Division Roy Black, Esq. EFTA01089197 TAB 2 EFTA01089198  KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AN0 AMLIATED PARTNZNIPS CAI r Jay P. LekOat% P.C. To Call Writer DireW yeinviairklane.com June 12, 2009 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS United States Attorney's Office louithe m n District of mitFlorida Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ian I am in possession of your June 12, 2009 letter giving notice of breach. I respectfully submit that the Motion to Dismiss that is referenced therei n did not constitute a willful breach of Mr. Epstein's obligations under the non-prosecution agreement. Mr. Epstein's counsel unanimously determined that the filing of this Motio n to Dismiss was not a breach of the non- prosecution agreement, and the Motion to Dismiss was filed by counsel without Mr. Epstein's final approval. I want to inform you that immediately upon receipt of your letter, Mr. Epstein directed his counsel to file the attached Notice withdrawing all but issue number VIII of the previously filed Motion to Dismiss. The same issue also is described briefly in subparagraph Don page 3 of the Motion, which likewise was not withdrawn. Please note that this issue relates exclusively to the damages available under § 2255. The Notice has already been filed. If your continued review of the civil dockets causes you to have additional conce rns about any other filing, consistent with the notice provisions of the non-prosecution agreem ent and consistent with our prior practice regarding such matters, please provide me with notice and the opportunity to address the same with you. I believe that with today's filing withdrawing these issues Mr. Epstein, through counsel, has fully remedied any perceived breach. Please advise if you for any reason disagree. Respectfully submitted, Jay P. Le owitz, P.C. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco wasninoon. D.C. EFTA01089199  KIRKLAND 8,ELLIS LLP CC: Esq. EFTA01089200 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80591- KAM JANE DOE NO. 101, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANTJEFFREY EPSTEIN'S NOTICES)? YVITHDRAWL OF ARGUMENTS I THROUGH VII OF THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAIN TIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DE29) Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby withdraws arguments I through VII as set forth in the Defen dant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (FAC) [DE 29], dated May 26, 2009. Defendant withdraws his arguments contained subparagraphs A, B, C and Sectio ns I (The Complaint Must Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Is Not A Minor), II (The FAC Must Be Dismissed Because The Defendant Has Not Been Convicted Of A Predicate Offense), DI (Count One Of The FAC Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Please A Violation Of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(1))). IV (Count Two Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Plead A Violation Of 18 U.S.C. §2423(b)), V (Count Three Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Plead A Violation Of 18 U.S.C. § 2251, VI (Counts Four and Five Must Be Dismissed Because They Do Not Plead Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(1) Or 2252(a)(1), and VU (Count Six Must Be Dismissed Because 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g) Was Not Enacted Until 2006). Defendant will rely only on those arguments set forth in subparagraph D. on page 3, and Paragraph VIII (Any Surviving Count Should Be Merge d Into A Single Count) of the EFTA01089201 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 2 of 2 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint Or, I The Alternative, For A More Definite Statement [DE 29] dated May 26, 2009. Counsel for De dant EPSTEIN Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CWECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this . day on all counsel record entified on the following Service list in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this;/ ay of t r 2009 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Counselfor Plaintiff Respectfully submitted By: ROBERT D Florida B MICH.AELJ_,.. PIKE ESQ. Florida Bar (Counselfor Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA01089202  Page 1 of I From Ofig1ri 10 ,1RBA (212) 9C9-3257 Ship Date 12J12409 Jay Lofltuth AdWst 0.212 CAD: 5560$0h4Ei9011 E Otivery Address Bar Code SHPla Ref C 22168000 POCU Invoke C Dept M0N -15JUN A2 7966 9083 5419 PRIORITY OVERNIGHT 33132 SH MPBA FL-US MIA After printing this label: 1. Use the 'Print button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer. 2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line. 3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned. Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purpose result in additional billing charges, along with the s is fraudulent and could cancellation of your FedEx account number. Use p this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the cunent FedEx Service Gukte, available responsible for any claim in excess 0$1120 per package , whether the result of loss, damage. delay. nondeiv on fedeccom.FedEx will not be you declare a higher value. pay an addtional charge, ery,mIsderrvery.or misinformation unless Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for any docume nt your actual loss and fie a rimely clairn.Um itations loss. bond h correct FedEx Service costs, and other forms of damage whether direct. incidenn including intrinsic valued the package, loss of sales, income interest, port. attorneys tees. Ul,cdnsequon0al, cc special is limited to the greater of $100 Recovery cannot exceed actual documented tosstikaxirrnim or the authorized declared value. for items of extraordinary value is $500, e.g. jewelry, instruments and other items listed In our ServiceGuide. Written precious metals, negotiable claims must be fried within strict rime limits. see current FedEx Service Glide. EFTA01089203 FedEx Ship Manager - Print Your Label(s) Page 1 of 1 Fran: Won V AafA (112) WWS2s1 Slip War 1?4UM) Jay Lamer PAINgt 0.203 Kirkland lapw CAD. 556O04WET9011 Amen*. Sn"—^ E Defivery Add ess Bar Code SHIP BILL SAVER ••••••111:113 IIIIII Ref # 1011111 22 68000 IIII IIIIII II Invoice II PO # me sauce Dept ri M0N - 15JUN m91 7976 7810 4287 PRIORITY OVERNIGI 33401 SH PBIA FL-US FLL After printing this label: 1. Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer. 2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line. 3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix B to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned. Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for result in additional bluing charges. along with the cancellation of your FedEx account shipping purposes is fraudulent and ca number. Use of nods system ccnsdlutes your agreement to the service con:Miens in Ise anent FedEx Service Guide. available on fedexcom.FedEx will m responsible (or any claim In excess of S100 per package, whether the result of loss. damage. delay. nondetivery.misdctnitryor misinformation. u you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge. document your actual loss and fee a timely cialm.Unetations Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for arty loss, Including intrinsic value! found In the current FedEx See the package, loss of sales, income Interest. Pier& attorney's costs, and other forms of damage whether amt, inoldentalconsequenUal, or special's limited to the greater of S100 or the authorized declared v Recovery cannot exceed actual documented lossMaxirnunt for hems of exUaordirary yak* is $500. e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable Instruments and other Items listed In ow ServiceGuide. Written claims must be rded within shirt time knits, sect current FedEx Service Guide. Global Home I FedEx Mobile j Service Info I About FedEx I Investor Relations I Careers fedex.com Terms I of Use I Privacy Potty I See Map I This silo is protected by copyright and trademark laws under US and International law. Ali rights reserved.® 1995.- 2009 FedEx • EFTA01089204  Pagel of I Frew Origin et JRBA (21279G}3257 Slip Dade: 12.0439 Jay Lew& Fet ActlAigt 0/ LB can 5564104ANET90I I AceouraSs•••"" E very Address Bar Code SHP TO: (S61)120-8711 Bill. SENDER Mr tf,I11111 212I)18 111111 Qalil111 111111 111111 11111111 United States Attorne s Office POs MON -15JUN 42 RK# 7966 9087 9521 PRIORITY OVERNIGHT 33401 SH PBIA FL-US FLL After printing this label: 1. Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer. 2. Feld the printed page along the horizontal line. 11 3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it lo your shipme nt so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned. Warning: Use only the printed original label (or shippin g. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is result in additional tiling charges, along with the cancella fraudulent and could tion of your FedEx account number. Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guido. available responsilNe (or any claim in excess of $100 per package, on leda.can.FedEx vial not be whether the result of loss, damage. deAay, non-deSvery,rrisdeetefy. you declare a NOW, ValUO, pay an addlional charge, or misinformarbn Wens Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for anydocume nt your actual loss and file a Grey clakntimitatIons loss, inducing intrinsic valued the package, loss of sales, bund in the Curtin FedEx Service costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, income interest, profit, attorney's fees, incidental,consequential, or special is knifed to the greater of $100 or the a uthodzed declared Recovery cannot exceed actual documented lossflax value. lmum for items of extraordinary value is $500. e.g. instruments and other items fisted In our ScwiceG jewelry, precious metals. negotiable uide. Written claims must be Med within strict time lirnits. see current FodEx Service Guide. EFTA01089205 TAB 3 EFTA01089206  KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AMLIATIO PAINNIASIIIPS Citi ro Center Jay P. Lefkowitz. P.C. TO ca Writer Directly: Facsimile: www.kiridand.com June 15, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE Mss Esq. United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear I am attaching a letter authored by my co-counsel, Robert Critton, on today's date. It represents our agreement with a proposal that Kathy Ezell indicated in a letter dated June 8, 2009 would be fully acceptable to her and Bob Josefsberg as a means to resolve expeditiously all outstanding fcc issues regarding the attorney representative. Mr. Epstein has directed his counsel to take immediate steps to address and resolve the attorney representative's outstanding fee- related issues and we are doing so without delay. The suggestion of a Special Master, agreed to by both parties, to resolve the issues in the immediate future, will assure all parties that there will be no delay and no need for adversarial litigation regarding fees. More generally, I want to assure you that Mr. Epstein has directed all counsel to make sure that there is no filing that could constitute a breach of the NM. Accordingly, a new internal screening process has been established to provide focused decision-making on each filing. To the extent we believe any filing may be perceived as implicating any of the issues generically addressed in the NPA (a document including sentences within paragraph 8 that even Mr. Acosta agreed were "far from simple"), we intend to address such issues with you prior to any filing and hope that you will agree to review the draft filing and inform us whether or not from your perspective it would, if filed, constitute a "breach". This will be especially important regarding issues that we believe fall at the intersection of Section 2255 and the civil litigation. We reserve our right, if you believe a proposed filing to conflict with the NPA or if you wish not to address these issues with us, thereafter to address such substantive issues with the Court. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington. D.C. EFTA01089207  KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Ms Esq. June 15, 2009 Page 2 We hope that these proposals—in combination with our immediate withdrawal of the previously filed Motion to Dismiss—resolve all outstanding issues at the intersection of the NPA and 2255. Please advise if any remain. Sincerely, a P. Le owitz Enclosure cc: EFTA01089208  BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP J. MICHAEL BURMAN, PA., A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ADELQUII. BENAYENTE OREOCRY W.COLEMAN. PA. PAIIALZOAL/ 41VBSTI0XI0R ROBERT D.CRITTON, JR.. BERNARD L.EBEDEXER BARBARA M. Mc.KENNA MARK T. LUTHER.PA. ASHLJB STOKENBARING JEFFREY C. PEIN BETTY STOKES MRALICALS MICHAEL J. PIKE HEATHER McNAMARA RUDA FLORIDA BOARDCERTIMO June 15, 2009 RITA H. BUDNYK or coma CIVIL TRIAL taViYES Sent by E-mail and U.S. Mail Robert Josefsberg, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. Re: Epstein Matter Dear Bob: On June 8, 2009, Kathy Ezell wrote a letter to me regarding outstanding fee payment issues. At page 3, she stated that she was not adverse to an earlier proposal that had been discussed amongst the parties to rely on a Special Master to resolve outstanding fee-related Issues. We agree with Kathy's "proposal" that we rely on a Special Master to resolve all outstanding fee issues. Lets work during our Wednesday meeting to select an appropriate Special Master and let's agree to see whether, in the interim, we can resolve these issues even y are submitted to the S.M. Cordially Robe i, non, Jr. RDCIdz cc: Jack Goldberger, Esq. L•A•W•Y•E •R ' S EFTA01089209 TAB 4 EFTA01089210  U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida June 15, 2009 DELIVERY BY_ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf P.A. Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Messrs. Lefkowitz, Goldberger, and Black: I write to confirm my conversation with Mr. Letkowitz of June 12, 2009. As I mentioned during that conversation and during the hearing with Judge Marra, the U.S. Attorney's Office is not a party to any of the civil suits against Mr. Epstein pending in the U.S. District Court or any state court and takes no position regarding those lawsuits. The U.S. Attorney's Office is not advising or requiring that Mr. Epstein take any action regarding those lawsuits, rather, Mr. Epstein should proceed as he sees fit. The U.S. Attorney's Office will continue to exercise its independent judgment and proceed in accordance with its rights under the Non-Prosecution Agreement. My statements during our conversation and during the court proceeding contained no promises and did not alter or modify the Non-Prosecution EFTA01089211 JAY P. LEFKOWFI2, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GOLDBERGEFt, ESQ. JUNE 15, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 4 Agreement. I would like to address what appears to be a continuing pattern in this matter. There have been several instances of breaches by Mr. Epstein of the letter and spirit of the Non- Prosecution Agreement, including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. As soon as Notice is provided by the United States, we are told that Mr. Epstein "was relying on his lawyers" and had not intended to willfully breach the Agreement. Mr. Epstein, through those same lawyers, then undertakes a perfunctory "cure" and continues to enjoy the benefit of his bargain until he decides to breach yet again. Notifications of breach have been provided on several occasions in the past. From the start, and as mentioned in extensive correspondence in October and November 2007, Mr. Epstein did not use his "best efforts" to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced within the time frame set by the Agreement. After several appeals were made throughout the Department of Justice resulting in a nine-month delay, the U.S. Attorney's Office had to remind Mr. Epstein of his obligation to provide a copy of the plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office prior to his entering into that agreement. Despite numerous requests, the proposed state plea agreement and notice of the state change of plea were not provided until I sent our first Notice of Breach letter at 3:15 p.m. on the last business day before the plea. Thereafter, I received a copy of the proposed state agreement, which contained language that directly contradicted the Non-Prosecution Agreement. A second Notice o f Breach had to be prepared and sent to bring the state plea agreement into compliance. After Mr. Epstein entered his guilty plea and was sentenced, another set of problems arose. First, Mr. Epstein's counsel obstructed our ability to abide by our obligations to notify the victims of the outcome of the federal investigation. Second, Mr. Epstein refused to fulfill promptly Mr. Epstein's obligation to secure the services of an attorney representative for the victims. Third, Messrs. Goldberger and Tein approved the dissemination of a victim notification letter that Messrs. Lefkowitz and Epstein contended contained incorrect information. Fourth, Mr. Epstein's counsel informed the Court that a motion to quash subpoenas was still pending, despite the Non-Prosecution Agreement's requirement that Mr. Epstein withdraw that motion. Extensive correspondence and telephone conferences were required to resolve each of these situations. For example, on July 17, 2008, the United States had to issue a third Notice of Breach, instructing Mr. Epstein's counsel: If, in fact, your position is that the federal criminal action is still pending, then EFTA01089212 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. JUNE 15, 2009 PAGE 3 OF 4 the Office proposes that we seek the prompt resolution of the Motion to Quash, so that the computer equipment can be analyzed and the investigation can continue, including the identification of additional victims. If, instead, Mr. Epstein intends to continue performing his obligations under the Non-Prosecution Agreement, then the investigation will remain closed, and no federal criminal action will be pending. Please advise whether you would like to proceed on the Motion to Quash or, if not, please correct the representations to the Court regarding the status of the federal investigation. In November, more issues arose when we learned—not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that Mr. Epstein was spending more than twelve hours each day outside the Palm Beach County Stockade. Mr. Epstein's release prior to the Office's notification of that release, resulted in accusations from victims that the Office had violated its statutory victim notification obligations. Our investigation of Mr. Epstein's application for the work release program demonstrated that Mr. Epstein made several false statements in his application and made threatening statements to the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office about legal repercussions if he was not admitted to the program. I also discovered—again, not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that Judge McSorley had modified Mr. Epstein's judgment nunc pro tunc to an "Order of Community Control I," which directly contradicted the terms of the Non- Prosecution Agreement. This required a fourth Notice of Breach and another claim that there was no "intended breach" followed by a meaningless "cure." During my conversation with Mr. Lefkowitz of June 12th regarding our fifth written Notice of Breach, and during the proceeding before Judge Marra, I heard again that Mr. Epstein had no intent to breach the Non-Prosecution Agreement but was merely relying on his attorneys. In light of the fact that Mr. Epstein is highly intelligent and experienced with the law, and is reportedly spending more than twelve hours a day at his attorney's office working on nothing but the litigation pending against him, this excuse will not be accepted. This letter is being provided to all three of you with the recommendation that you circulate it to any attorney who is acting on Mr. Epstein's behalf. Importantly, while Mr. Epstein has continued to receive the benefit of his bargain by not facing federal prosecution, our Office has not received the benefits of finality, savings of resources, or the punishment and victim restitution terms envisioned by the Non- EFTA01089213 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ EsQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. JUNE 15, 2009 PAGE 4 OF 4 Prosecution Agreement. As I mentioned in our telephone call, I have asked Mr. Josefsberg to provide me with the correspondence that he referenced during the hearing before Judge Marra. That will be reviewed to determine if there has been yet another breach by Mr. Epstein. As I stated, and as mentioned in the Notice Letter served upon Mr. Goldberger, notice of any breaches that we discover will be provided as required by the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Our Office also will review the new pleading in the Jane Doe 101 matter that Mr. Lefkowitz mentioned, prior to deciding what, if any, remedies we will pursue for Mr. Epstein's breach. However, I note that, while the U.S. Attorney's Office is required to provide notice of any breach, there is no requirement that Mr. Epstein be allowed the opportunity to cure any breach. The pattern of behavior described above will be factored into the Office's decision on what remedies it will pursue in connection with this most recent breach and any future violations. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: Northern Division EFTA01089214 TAB 5 EFTA01089215  U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District ofFlorida June 17, 2009 DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: Thank you for your letter of June 15, 2009. I did not receive your letter until late yesterday afternoon because I am shuttling back and forth between the Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach offices. The best way to reach me is via e-mail. With respect to the substance of your letter, the Office has not completed its review of Mr. Epstein's civil filings and correspondence related to the payment of the attorney representative's fees, so I cannot confirm that all outstanding issues have been resolved. If and when additional breaches are identified, timely notice will be provided in accordance with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. As to your proposal. our Office cannot and will not become involved in the civil suits filed against Mr. Epstein; as counsel for Mr. Epstein has expressed on several occasions, it is inappropriate for the government to involve itself in civil litigation. We likewise do not think it is appropriate to review civil pleadings in order to provide advisory opinions, even at your request. The duty to stay within the bounds of the Non-Prosecution Agreement lies with Mr. Epstein and he alone has the power to remain in compliance. Mr. Epstein has a highly skilled team to assist him, and compliance with the Agreement is not difficult, as you suggest. For example, it is not complicated to understand that, when a named victim files a claim EFTA01089216 JAY P. LEFKOW1TZ, ESQ. JUNE 17, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 2 exclusively under Section 2255, Mr. Epstein cannot assert that there is no liability, just as providing the state plea agreement to our Office in advance of entering the state guilty plea was not complicated. I remain hopeful that Mr. Epstein will take all of his obligations seriously and elect to err on the side of caution in making decisions that relate to the performance of his duties. Sincerely, Jeffrey If. Sloman Acting United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: Northern Division Jack Goldberger, Esq. Roy Black, Esq. EFTA01089217 TAB 6 EFTA01089218  KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AFFILIATED MRTNISSMIES Citigroup Center Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. To Call Writer Direct' • Facsimile: WWW.lorkland.com June 19, 2009 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida Re: Jeffrey Epstein Des I appreciate your letter of June 17, 2009. I sincerely hope that any and all issues that could generate an adversarial relationship between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office are in our past. Like you, we hope that the ongoing, complex, and at times vigorous litigation will not again require your involvement, nor result in any belief on your part that any legal position taken by Mr. Epstein's counsel conflicts with the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA"). In order to avoid future misunderstandings, however, I would like to have a discussion with you specifically about our ongoing obli ations as you understand them under the NPA. As you know from past experience, and as previously acknowledged in letters to my partner Ken Starr (on December 4, 2007 an r y Ann Sanchez (on December 19, 2007), the language of ¶ 8 is "far from simple," and, in certain respects, subject to significant ambiguity. I believe it is both necessary and appropriate to seek immediate clarification from the government about its understanding of a few provisions in the NPA. It is likely by no fault of our own that these issues will come before a judge or an independent third party, whose job it will be to interpret the intent of the parties. In those circumstances, I think the court would most likely turn to both of us and directly seek our views, as the drafters of the agreement, before rendering its own opinion. Therefore, I believe it would bring about the finality that we both seek in a much reduced time frame if we could discuss several of the more ambiguous provisions contained in the NPA. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, D.C. EFTA01089219 Ms. June 19, 2009 Page 2 One specific example comes to mind. First, we clearly understood during the course of negotiating the NPA, and believe that both the language of the NPA and our prior correspondence with your Office confirm, that the waiver of liability set forth in Paragraph 8 at most was designed to allow an identified individual the right to assert a single violation of a section 2255 predicate. The waiver of liability does not embrace situations where a particular plaintiff asserts multiple violations. Thus, compliance with paragraph 8's waiver of liability would require at most that Mr. Epstein stipulate to the existence of a single enumerated predicate that would entitle an otherwise eligible plaintiff to actual damages (or the applicable statutory minimum damages where actual damages fall short of that floor), leaving aside the issue of whether the waiver is applicable to contested litigation or only the cases where there would be agreed damage resolutions. In addition, if we believe that a predicate act is time-barred, as indeed we understand was the case with respect to all such acts in relation to one plaintiff, a proper construction of the waiver of liability would not preclude the reliance on a statute of limitations defense. Given your Office's prior acknowledgements that the language of the NPA is far from clear, we very much would appreciate an opportunity to discuss Paragraph 8 with you in the very near future in order to clarify a few pivotal questions raised by the NPA. I assure you that Mr. Epstein intends to abide fully by the terms of the NPA. And it is my sincere hope that our discussion can avert future risks that anything we do will cause you to believe that there has been a breach of the NPA. Finally, I enclose a letter in response to your June 15 letter in order to provide you with our perspective on the issues you raised. I hope our differing views on certain events over the past several years as reflected in my letter will not in anyway divert us from a common goal of having Mr. Epstein complete his NPA obligations without further tension with your Office. • ce Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. Enclosures EFTA01089220 EFTA0