EFTA00183495



Here are my thoughts:

1. **Notification only by mail**: For those girls who are currently not represented (or for whom we do not know of any representation), we intend to contact the victims by telephone to tell them of the resolution and to get mailing addresses to send the written notification or to determine if they have secured counsel to send it to them. For the girls who are represented, contact will be made by telephone followed by the mailing of the notification. I think a “live” thank you is the least that is required at this point and a “check in” to make sure that girls who need counseling are getting it. (FBI has already arranged counseling for several girls.) In any written response to Mr. Goldberger, I would simply ignore this request.

2. Separate mailings: I have no objection to this change. The notice was drafted the way it was so that Epstein would only have to sign one document rather than 33. Since he isn't going to sign any, that change is fine with me.

3. Notification limited to the information on the first page of the draft notification: In light of Epstein’s refusal to sign the acknowledgement, I think some additional explanation is required. I will prepare that revision and send to you shortly.

4. Eliminate the Acknowledgement portion: I have no objection to this.

5. Supplement the notification with our previous statement that we are not vouching for the veracity of any claim: I would reject this request and, in our response to Goldberger, state that we have limited our list to those whom we were prepared to name in an indictment and, accordingly, we believe that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each was a victim of Epstein’s.

6. Explain why the acknowledgement is required: In our response to Goldberger, I think we should explain that the acknowledgement language was meant to create a means for proving the existence of the agreement without having to provide copies of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, which contains a confidentiality clause. While I have no objection to revising the language, I think that Epstein’s position will lead to litigation regarding the need to disclose the full agreement, which is contrary to the parties’ interest in confidentiality. I agree that we cannot force him to sign the acknowledgement, but he must accept the consequences of that decision.

7. Names of pro bono lawyers and information regarding their communications: I have already advised Mr. Goldberger that I will provide him with the names and contact information of attorneys who represent the victims, so I have no objection to that. I also have no objection to telling him that they were recommended by the Crime Victims Rights Advocacy Group based upon a referral from the Justice Department. Other than that, I have no intention of disclosing any “communications” that I had with them.

I will take a crack at revising the victim notifications and drafting a response to Goldberger. Any other thoughts I should incorporate?



Tracking:

1

EFTA00183496



<table><tr><td>Read</td></tr><tr><td>Read: 7/9/2008 1:26 PM</td></tr><tr><td>Read: 7/9/2008 1:05 PM</td></tr></table>

2