EFTA00194732¶
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP¶
J. MICHAEL BURMAN, P.A.¹¶
GREGORY W. COLEMAN, P.A.¶
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., P.A.¹¶
BERNARD LEBEDEKER¶
MARK T. LUTTIER, P.A.¶
JEFFREY C. PEPIN¶
MICHAEL J. PIKE¶
HEATHER McNAMARA RUDA¶
1 FLORIDA BOARD CERTIFIED¶
CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER¶
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP¶
ADELQUI J. BENAVENTE¶
PARALEGAL / INVESTIGATOR¶
July 8, 2009¶
| BARBARA M. McKENNA |
| ASHLIE STOKEN-BARING |
| BETTY STOKES |
| PARALEGALS |
RITA H. BUDNYK¶
OF COUNSEL¶
SENT BY FEDERAL EXPRESS¶
A. Marie Villafana, Esq.¶
Assistant U.S. Attorney¶
Southern District of Florida¶
500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor¶
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394¶
Re: Jane Doe No. 8 Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 09-CV-80802-Marra/Johnson¶
Dear Ms. Villafana:¶
As you are aware, I am Mr. Epstein’s attorney in the civil cases that have been filed against him. While I am certainly familiar with the NPA, it is clear to me that my interpretation of it may differ from yours (USAO) or one of the many plaintiffs’ attorneys as it relates to what I can do or assert in defense of Mr. Epstein.¶
As I expressed to Judge Marra, my charge from Mr. Epstein is to take no action that could reasonably be considered to be a violation of the NPA. With that in mind, I am sending our motion to dismiss in Jane Doe #8, along with a copy of her complaint.¶
While I know you expressed to Mr. Lefkowitz that you (USAO) were not inclined to review pleadings and offer advisory opinions, I would ask that you reconsider and review our motion.¶
The Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 8 is not exclusively asserting a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255, and thus, the terms of the NPA are not implicated. In fact, Jane Doe No. 8’s counsel, Adam Horowitz, who also is counsel for Plaintiffs Jane Does Nos. 2 through 7 in other civil actions against Mr. Epstein, in the June 12, 2009 hearing before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra (at which you were also present) conceded that –¶
The provision (of the NPA) relating to Mr. Epstein being unable to contest liability pertains only to those plaintiffs who have chosen as their sole remedy¶
L · A · W · Y · E · R · S¶
515 N. FLAGLER DRIVE / SUITE 400 / WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 TELEPHONE (561) 842-2820 FAX (561) 844-6929 mail@bclclaw.com¶
EFTA00194733¶
July 8, 2009 Page 2¶
the federal statute. My clients, Jane Doe 2 through 7, have elected to bring additional causes of action, and it’s for that reason we were silent when you said does anyone here find Mr. Epstein to be in breach of the nonprosecution agreement. This provision, as we understand it, it does not relate to our clients.¶
June 12, 2009, Transcript of hearing in Jane Doe, et al. Epstein, Case No. 08-80119-Civ-Marra, U.S. District Ct., S.D. Fla., p. 29, line 19-25, p. 30, line 1. A copy of the relevant portions of the hearing transcript is enclosed.¶
I agree with his comments as they relate to all of his clients, including Jane Doe 8. I believe that nothing in this motion involves any aspect of the NPA. If you disagree, would you please contact me as soon as possible. I must file this motion by July $14^{\text{th}}$ as per my extension agreement with Mr. Horowitz. However, I stand ready to have a discussion or meeting with you regarding this motion or any other civil related pleadings or matter that may implicate the NPA. I look forward to your response.¶
Cordially yours,¶
Robert D. Critton, Jr.¶
RDC/clz¶
cc by pdf:¶
Jack A. Goldberger, Esq.¶
Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.¶
Roy Black, Esq.¶
Jay Lefkowitz, Esq.¶