EFTA00013855

Date

Unknown

Source

DOJ Data Set 8

Reference

efta-efta00013855

Pages

Persons

Integrity

Loading PDF viewer...

Summary

Download Original PDF Save PDF

Ask AI About This Document

0upvotesShare

Post Reddit

Save Post Watch

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure

Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AFFILIATED PARTNERSHIPS Jay P. Lelkowitz, P.C. To Call Writ r it ctly: Ynyw.kirkland.com June 19, 2009 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Facsimile: 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 obligations as you understand them under the NPA. As you know from past experience, and as Mr. Acosta previously acknowledged in letters to my partner Ken Starr (on December 4, 2007) and Lilly 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 goverment 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. EFTA00013855 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. Sincerely, P. Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. Enclosures EFTA00013856

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Domainynyw.kirkland.com

Wire Refreflected

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

-- I have received and reviewed your letter. I cannot print and sign until I am back in the office on 11/15.

Dear -- I have received and reviewed your letter. I cannot print and sign until I am back in the office on 11/15. From: To: Cc: Subject: L.n.scb E. ktc Jcincy J-pw.ctiti - Lsni6atiun nuustivital Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 14:20:52 +0000 Importance: Normal Thanks much Enjoy your cruise and thank you very much for the information. I.(USAFLS) Thursday. November I4Rrt> arp the FRI aceRntc invnlvprl in the original investigation: Original supervisor was (I think he is now in DC). Later replaced by The ASAC and SAC also attended meetings to discuss the plea negotiations. From our Office, most of the key players are gone, but their electronic files will have to be preserved: R. Alexander Acosta At DOJ, there is/was At Palm Beach PD, was the Chief, he is no longer there. as the Detective. I think he is still there. Those were the only two we ever dealt with. The lawyers for Epstein were: Kenneth Starr Jay Lefkowitz Alan Dershowitz Lily Roy Black Jack Goldber

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Olt LexisNexis°

14p

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res

65p

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S INITIAL DISCLOSURES Respondent United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, makes its Initial Disclosures, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A), and state: Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)fil: 1. R. Alexander Acosta Dean, School of Law Florida International University Rafael Diaz-Balart Hall 11200 S.W. 8'h Street Miami, Florida 33199 (305) 348-1118 Dean Acosta was the United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida, during the time when the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein was opened in the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the non-prosecution agreement was negotiated. 2. was the First Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office, during the time when the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein was opened, and the non-prosecution agreement was negot

10p

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 2

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto. The documents referenced in the Privilege Log are being delivered today to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex pane in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: I I I I a EFTA00209306 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIF

16p

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 1 of 23

23p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Donate More ways to support →

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.