Good morning, everyone.¶
I have attached a letter from Jay Lefkowitz that came in by fax on Friday night. The good news is that they seem to be in agreement regarding Mr. Josefsberg. Most of the letter doesn’t really require a comment, but I wanted to get feedback regarding the notification to the victims of their right to see the agreement. Here is the language from my proposed victim notification letter:¶
“In addition, a judge has ordered that the United States make available to any designated victim (and/or her attorney) a copy of the actual agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States, so long as the victim (and/or her attorney) reviews, signs, and agrees to be bound by a Protective Order entered by the Court. If Ms. would like to review the Agreement, please let me know, and I will forward a copy of the Protective Order for her signature.”¶
Lefkowitz objects, but I am wondering whether agrees that the spirit of our discussions with Judge Marra requires such a notification. If we make the entire agreement available to Mr. Josefsberg and he conveys that information to all of his clients, the concern becomes moot, I suppose.¶
Lastly, from my discussion with , it appears that the Office does not want to add to the list the names of victims identified after the date of signing the September agreement unless our investigation had provided enough information that we were prepared to include them in the indictment – . the New York girls – and that you do not want me to re-add to the list, even though we have extensive corroboration of her involvement with Epstein. Can someone please confirm?¶
Thank you all.¶
Assistant U.S. Attorney¶
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400¶
West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶
08-80736-CV-MARRA¶
385¶
P-015173¶
EFTA00189056¶
From:¶
Sent:¶
To:¶
Subject:¶
During our telephonic hearing, I received the clear impression that Judge Marra wanted the other victims (non-parties to the Jane Doe litigation), would be given the opportunity to see the Agreement, subject to each one agreeing to be bound by the protective order. I believe it would be contrary to Judge Marra’s intent for us to go through the trouble of creating a mechanism for the other non-party victims to have access to the Agreement, and then not tell them there is an Agreement.¶
Also, does CVRA impose any obligation on us, independent of what Judge Marra ordered, to advise the victims of the Agreement?¶
Subject: Letter re Epstein and Protective Order¶
Good morning, everyone.¶
I have attached a letter from Jay Lefkowitz that came in by fax on Friday night. The good news is that they seem to be in agreement regarding Mr. Josefsberg. Most of the letter doesn’t really require a comment, but I wanted to get feedback regarding the notification to the victims of their right to see the agreement. Here is the language from my proposed victim notification letter:¶
“In addition, a judge has ordered that the United States make available to any designated victim (and/or her attorney) a copy of the actual agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States, so long as the victim (and/or her attorney) reviews, signs, and agrees to be bound by a Protective Order entered by the Court. If Ms. would like to review the Agreement, please let me know, and I will forward a copy of the Protective Order for her signature.”¶
Lefkowitz objects, but I am wondering whether agrees that the spirit of our discussions with Judge Marra requires such a notification. If we make the entire agreement available to Mr. Josefsberg and he conveys that information to all of his clients, the concern becomes moot, I suppose.¶
Lastly, from my discussion with , it appears that the Office does not want to add to the list the names of victims identified after the date of signing the September agreement unless our investigation had provided 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-015174¶
386¶
EFTA00189057¶
enough information that we were prepared to include them in the indictment - ., the New York girls – and that you do not want me to re-add to the list, even though we have extensive corroboration of her involvement with Epstein. Can someone please confirm?¶
Thank you all.¶
<< File: 080822 Lefkowitz ltr to >>¶
Assistant U.S. Attorney¶
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400¶
West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶
08-80736-CV-MARRA¶
387¶
P-015175¶
EFTA00189058¶
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP¶
AND AFFILIATED PARTNERShips¶
Critigroup Center¶
New York, New York 10022-4G11¶
Jay P. Lofkowitz, P.C.¶
To Call Writer Directly¶
Facsimile¶
August 22, 2008¶
VIA FACSIMILE (¶
United States Attorney’s Office¶
Southern District of Florida¶
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400¶
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401¶
Re: Jeffrey Epstein¶
Dear¶
I write this letter to correct certain misstatements made in your letter dated August 21, 2008, and the accompanying draft notification.¶
First, you state that “Mr. Josefsberg expended time, effort and funds in preparing to serve as attorney representative in October of 2007.” Neither I, nor any other attorney on Mr. Epstein’s defense team, was notified of this work by Mr. Josefsberg.¶
Second, in the victim notification letter, no judge “has ordered that the United States” make available a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Section (d) of the Order to Compel Production and Protective Order provides that if any of the alleged “victims” and/or their attorneys “request the opportunity to review the Agreement,” the USAO shall comply with the request so long as those individuals agree not to disclose the Non-Prosecution Agreement. There is no court order requiring the government to provide the alleged “victims” with notice that the Non-Prosecution Agreement is available to them upon request and doing so is in conflict with the confidentiality provisions of the Agreement. Given that the individuals on the list will have an attorney representative who is fully aware of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, this conflicting paragraph of your notice is unnecessary in any event and should be excised.¶
Third, misstatements in your prior notification were not made “with the approval of Mr. Epstein’s counsel.”¶
Fourth, we are concerned with your open-ended description of Mr. Epstein’s responsibilities regarding civil restitution. The resolution of liability pursuant to 18 U.S.C.¶
08-80736-CV-MARRA¶
P-015176¶
EFTA00189059¶
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP¶
August 22, 2008¶
Page 2¶
§ 2255 is as stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement and the Addendum to the Agreement, no more, no less.¶
Fifth, while you state, in your letter, that the USAO does not intend to delete any of the names on the list provided to Mr. Epstein’s counsel, you do not confirm that the prior list is final and complete. There can be no expansion of the list of individuals that you informed us had been memorialized as of September 24, 2007 and disclosed to Mr. Epstein on June 30, 2008 (the date of sentence pursuant to the Agreement’s disclosure requirements). Please confirm the exact name and number of individuals the government plans on notifying as provided for under the Agreement.¶
Sixth, based on express language in prior communications from your Office, we are in agreement that paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement are in need of clarification and implementation. We will work with the attorney representative in attempting to reach a fair resolution of the outstanding civil matters in a manner that is in accordance with the Agreement.¶
Seventh, we have previously communicated our objections to the propriety of the attorney representative engaging in contested litigation. We again dispute the assertion that Mr. Joselsberg’s duties include filing contested litigation. In any case, that issue is not ripe for resolution at this point, but again, given his agreement to be the attorney representative, we will address these matters directly with Mr. Josefsberg.¶
08-80736-CV-MARRA¶
P-015177¶