vision-fixhub/ds9-unparsed-05/0562c2c7e67da7bdea6dc0da3216e94ac831ed3a29aa83dfc035ea51b0351830.md

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)
From:
sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
RE: Epstein
Signed Plea Agreement. pdf; Final Addendum.pdf
Here is the signed agreement and an addendum.
Please note that it has a
confidentiality clause.
Thanks.
A. Marie Villafaña
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
west Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone 561 209-1047
Fax 561 820-8777
-----Original Message-....-
From: Lourie, Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:02 PM
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Oosterbaan, Andrew
Cc: Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS)
Subject: Re: Epstein
ok thx. Would you send me your last proposed nonpros with them with the 2255
language?
----- Original Message -----
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) ‹
To: Lourie, Andrew; Oosterbaan, Andrew
Cc: Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) <RGarcia@usa.doj.gov>
Sent: Wed Nov 28 16:48:48 2007
Subject: FW: Epstein
illafana@usdoj.gov>
Hi Andy and Drew -- This is the first that I have heard about another attempt to
meet with someone in Washington. I thought I would give you a heads up.
Hope all is well, Andy.
A. Marie Villafaña
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave,
Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone 561 209-1047
Fax 561 820-8777
2530
P-014330


---Original Message-----
From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:35 PM
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)
Subject: Fw: Epstein
Marie,
Can u send Jay the proposed letter and redact the names? Thy, Jeff
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
•---- Original Message -----
From: Jay Lefkowitz ‹JLefkowitz@kirkland. com>
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)
Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)
Sent: Wed Nov 28 16:29:09 2007
Subject: Re: Epstein
Dear Jeff:
I received your email yesterday and was a little surprised at the tone of
your letter, given the fact that we spoke last week and had what I thought was a
productive meeting. I was especially surprised given that your letter arrived on
only the second day back to work after the Thanksgiving Holiday, and yet your
demands regarding timing suggest that I have been sitting on my hands for days.
You should know that the first time I learned about Judge
selection of Podhurst and Josephsberg, and indeed the first time I ever heard
their names, was in our meeting with you on Wednesday of last week.
Nevertheless, I have now been able to confer with my client, and we have
determined that the selection of Podhurst and Josephsberg are acceptable to us,
reserving, of course, our previously stated objections to the manner in which you
have interpreted the section 2255 portions of the Agreement.
We do, however, strongly and emphatically object to your sending a letter
to the alleged victims. Without a fair opportunity to review and the ability to
make objections to this letter, it is completely unacceptable that you would send
it without our consideration.
has made clear it cannot vouch for the claims of the victims, it would be
incendiary and inappropriate for your Office to send such a letter. Indeed,
because it is a certainty that any such letter would immediately be leaked to the
press, your actions will only have the effect of injuring Mr. Epstein and
promoting spurious civil litigation directed at him. We believe it is entirely
unprecedented, and in any event, inappropriate for the Government to be the
instigator of such lawsuits.
2531
P-014331


Finally, we disagree with your view that you are required to notify the
alleged victims pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. First, 18 USC
section 2255, the relevant statute under the Non-Prosecution Agreement for the
settlement of civil remedies, does not have any connection to the Justice for All
Section 2255 was enacted as part of a different statute. Second, the
Justice for All Act refers to restitution, and section 2255 is not a restitution
statute.
It is a civil remedy. As you know, we had offered to provide a
restitution fund for the alleged victims in this matter; however that option was
rejected by your Office. Had that option been chosen, we would not object to
your notifying the alleged victims at this point. At this juncture, however, we
do not accept your contention that there is a requirement that the government
notify the alleged victims of a potential civil remedy in this case.
Accordingly, for all the reasons we have stated above, we respectfully --
and firmly -- object to your sending any letter whatsoever to the alleged victims
in this matter.
Furthermore, if a letter is to be sent to these individuals, we
believe we should have a right to review and make objections to that submission
prior to it being sent to any alleged victims. We also request that if your
Office believes that it must send a letter to go to the alleged victims, who
still have not been identified to us, it should happen only after Mr. Epstein has
entered his plea.
This letter should then come from the attorney representative,
and not from the Government, to avoid any bias.
As you know, Judge Starr has requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney
General Fisher to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the
section 2255 component of the Agreement. We are hopeful that this meeting will
take place as early as next week. Accordingly, we respectfully request that we
postpone our discussion of sending a letter to the alleged victims until after
that meeting. We strongly believe that rushing to send any letter out this week
is not the wisest manner in which to proceed. Given that Mr. Epstein will not
even enter his plea for another few weeks, time is clearly not of the essence
regarding any notification to the identified individuals.
Thanks very much,
Jay
"Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)" <Jeff.Sloman@usdoj.gov>
11/27/2007 01:55 PM
To
"Jay Lefkowitz" <JLefkowitz@kirkland.com> cc
"Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" ‹Alex.Acosta@usdoj. gov› Subject
Epstein
2532
P-014332


Jay,
Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner but I was a little
under the weather yesterday. I hope that you enjoyed your Thanksgiving.
Regarding the issue of due diligence concerning Judge
selection, I'd like
to make a few observations. First, Guy Lewis has known for some time that Judge
Davis was making reasonable efforts to secure Aaron Podi
and Bob Josephsberg
for this assignment. In fact, when I told you of Judge
s selection during
our meeting last Wednesday, November 21st, you and Professor Dershowitz seemed
very comfortable, and certainly not surprised, with the selection. Podhurst and
Josephsberg are no strangers to nearly the entire Epstein defense team including
have long-standing stellar reputations for their legal acumen and ethics. It's
ave ones at nester part on, do tar engi core.
hard for me to imagine how much more vetting needs to be done.
The United States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to
notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights
associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein
in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will make one full week since you were formally
notified of the selection. I must insist that the vetting process come
n end.
Therefore, unless you provide me with a good faith objection to Judge
selection by COB tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification
tomor ou five the easy send ost
go-ahead on Podhurst and Josephsberg
I intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29th.
Thanks,
Jeff
**:
*****
***÷
The information contained in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the property of
kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP.
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
communication or
any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or by e-mail to postmaster@kirkland.com, and
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments.
*************************
*************
Tracking:
2533
P-014333


Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)
From
Sent
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)
Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:49 PM
_ourie, Andrew; Oosterbaan, Andrev
W. Epstelando (USAFLS)
Hi Andy and Drew -- This is the first that I have heard about another attempt to
meet with someone in Washington. I thought I would give you a heads up.
Hope all is well, Andy.
A. Marie Villafaña
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone 561 209-1047
Fax 561 820-8777
-----Original Message-----
From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:35 PM
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)
Subject: Fw: Epstein
Marie,
Can u send Jay the proposed letter and redact the names? Thx, Jeff
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
----
Original Message -----
From: Jay Lefkowitz <JLefkowitz@kirkland.com>
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)
Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)
Sent: Wed Nov 28 16:29:09 2007
Subject: Re: Epstein
Dear Jeff:
I received your email yesterday and was a little surprised at the tone of
your letter, given the fact that we spoke last week and had what I thought was a
I was especially surprised given that your letter arrived on
only the second day back to work after the Thanksgiving Holiday, and yet your
demands regarding timing suggest that I have been sitting on my hands for days.
2537
P-014334


You should know that the first time I learned about Judge
selection of Podhurst and Josephsberg, and indeed the first time I ever heard
their names, was in our meeting with you on Wednesday of last week.
Nevertheless, I have now been able to confer with my client, and we have
determined that the selection of Podhurst and Josephsberg are acceptable to us,
reserving, of course, our previously stated objections to the manner in which you
have interpreted the section 2255 portions of the Agreement.
We do, however, strongly and emphatically object to your sending a letter
to the alleged victims. Without a fair opportunity to review and the ability to
make objections to this letter, it is completely unacceptable that you would send
it without our consideration.
Additionally, given that the US Attorney's office
has made clear it cannot vouch for the claims of the victims, it would be
incendiary and inappropriate for your Office to send such a letter. Indeed,
because it is a certainty that any such letter would immediately be leaked to the
press, your actions will only have the effect of injuring Mr. Epstein and
promoting spurious civil litigation directed at him. We believe it is entirely
unprecedented, and in any event, inappropriate for the Government to be the
instigator of
such lawsuits.
Finally, we disagree with your view that you are required to notify the
alleged victims pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. First, 18 USC
settlement of civil remedies, does not have any connection to the Justice for All
Act. Section 2255 was enacted as part of a different statute. Second, the
Justice for All Act refers to restitution, and section 2255 is not a restitution
It is a civil remedy. As you know, we had offered to provide a
restitution fund for the alleged victims in this matter; however that option was
rejected by your Office.
Had that option been chosen, we would not object to
your notifying the alleged victims at this point. At this juncture, however, we
do not accept your contention that there is a requirement that the government
notify the alleged victims of a potential civil remedy in this case.
Accordingly, for all the reasons we have stated above, we respectfully --
and firmly -- object to your sending any letter whatsoever to the alleged victims
in this matter.
Furthermore, if a letter is to be sent to these individuals, we
believe we should have a right to review and make objections to that submission
prior to it being sent to any alleged victims. We also request that if your
Office believes that it must send a letter to go to the alleged victims, who
still have not been identified to us, it should happen only after Mr. Epstein has
entered his plea.
This letter should then come from the attorney representative,
and not from the Government, to avoid any bias.
As you know, Judge Starr has requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney
General Fisher to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the
section 2255 component of the Agreement. We are hopeful that this meeting will
take place as early as next week.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that we
postpone our discussion of sending a letter to the alleged victims until after
that meeting.
We strongly believe that rushing to send any letter out this week
is not the wisest manner in which to proceed. Given that Mr. Epstein will not
2538
P-014335


even enter his plea for another few weeks, time is clearly not of the essence
regarding any notification to the identified individuals."
Thanks very much,
Jay
•
"Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)" <Jeff.S1oman@usdoj.gov>
11/27/2007 01:55 PM
To
"Jay Lefkowitz" <JLefkowitz@kirkland.com> cc
"Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" < Alex. Acosta@usdoj.gov› Subject
Epstein
Jay,
Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner but I was a little
under the weather yesterday. I hope that you enjoyed your Thanksgiving.
Regarding the issue of due diligence concerning Judge
selection, I'd like
make a few observations. First, Guy Lewis has known for some time that Judge
was making reasonable efforts to secure Aaron Pod'
and Bob Josephsberg
for this assignment. In fact, when I told you of Judge
selection during
our meeting last Wednesday, November 21st, you and Professor Dershowitz seemed
very comfortable, and certainly not surprised, with the selection. Podhurst and
Josephsberg are no strangers to nearly the entire Epstein defense team including
Guy Lewis, Lili Ann Sanchez, Roy Black, and, apparently, Professor Dershowitz who
said he knew Mr. Josephsberg from law school. Second, Podhurst and Josephsberg
have long-standing stellar reputations for their legal acumen and ethics. It's
hard for me to imagine how much more vetting needs to be done.
The United States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to
notify the victims of
the anticipated upcoming events and their rights
associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein
in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will make one full week since you were formally
notified of the selection. I must insist that the vetting process come"
Therefore, unless you provide me with a good faith objection to Judge
selection by COB tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification
of the victims. Should you give me the go-ahead on Podhurst and Josephsberg
selection by COB tomorrow, I will simultaneously send you a draft of the letter.
2539
P-014336


I intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29th.
Thanks,
Jeff
*****
*****:
*************
The information contained in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the property of
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP.
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or by e-mail to postmaster@kirkland.com, and
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments.
************************************************
Tracking:
2540
P-014337