Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00081315Other

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-53 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 4

Date
Unknown
Source
Reference
EFTA 00081315
Pages
4
Persons
5
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-53 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT 53 EFTA00081315 (c./A§g 91tEt-cytdclaktMnsDocument 361-53 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 21 °c~f41 Gm it Re: JE negotiations 1 message Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:41 AM To: Jay Lefkowitz <[email protected]> Hi Jay -- I looked up some 11th Circuit cases on simple assault and found some good language. I also learned that, every moment that one is aboard an enclosed civil airplane, they are in the "special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States," so the assault charge is really a violation of 49 USC 46506, which doesn't change the penalties. I have drafted up a factual proffer that I would use at the change of plea based upon our brief conversation and the agents' interaction with 'at her home. The agents and I would need to speak with Ms. briefly to confirm that these facts are true. Feel free to make suggestions. On an "avoid the press" note, I believe that Mr. Eps

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-53 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT 53 EFTA00081315 (c./A§g 91tEt-cytdclaktMnsDocument 361-53 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 21 °c~f41 Gm it Re: JE negotiations 1 message Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:41 AM To: Jay Lefkowitz <[email protected]> Hi Jay -- I looked up some 11th Circuit cases on simple assault and found some good language. I also learned that, every moment that one is aboard an enclosed civil airplane, they are in the "special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States," so the assault charge is really a violation of 49 USC 46506, which doesn't change the penalties. I have drafted up a factual proffer that I would use at the change of plea based upon our brief conversation and the agents' interaction with 'at her home. The agents and I would need to speak with Ms. briefly to confirm that these facts are true. Feel free to make suggestions. On an "avoid the press" note, I believe that Mr. Epstein's airplane was in Miami on the day of the telephone call. If he was in Miami-Dade County at the time, then I can file the charge in the District Court in Miami, which will hopefully cut the press coverage significantly. Do you want to check that out? I will talk to you later. Thanks. tz Epstein Plea Proffer.doc 21K EFTA00081316 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-53 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 4 UNITED STATES vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN PLEA PROFFER On August __, 2007, FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards traveled to the home of to serve her with a subpoena in connection with an investigation pending in the Southern District of Florida. works as the personal assistant of the defendant. began speaking with the agents and then excused herself to go upstairs to check on her sleeping child. While upstairs, telephoned the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and informed him that the FBI agents were at her home. Mr. Epstein was then aboard a civilian aircraft in the Southern District of Florida, and was about to return to Teterboro, New Jersey. Mr. Epstein instructed not to speak with the agents and reprimanded her for allowing them into her home. Mr. Epstein then re-directed his airplane, traveling to the U.S. Virgin Islands instead of the New York City area, thereby keeping the Special Agents from serving target letters on liming that flight, while in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United_States., the defendant telephoned and applied pressure to keep her from complying with the that the agents had served upon her. In particular, Mr. Epstein warned against turning over documents and electronic evidence responsive to the and pressured her to delay her appearance before the federal in the Southern District of Florida. Also during that flight, while in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, the defendant became angry regarding the federal investigation and became verbally abusive and threatening towards his female companion, 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000125 EFTA00081317 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-53 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 4 although he did not intend to strike her. Based upon Mr. Epstein's words, Ms. reasonably was in fear that Mr. Epstein was about to touch her offensively. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000126 EFTA00081318

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

09/18/2007 02:53

09/18/2007 02:53 PM To 'Jay Lefkowite < cc bec Subject Factual proffer Hi Jay — I didn't want us to get sidetracked during the conference call. I want to make sure that we have a factual basis for "harassment" Forcibly flying omewhere else is a different 1512 offense with a 10 year cap. 1 is is the factual proffer that I drafted up earlier this afternoon, to give you an idea of what it would look like. When I include a factual proffer in a plea agreement, I usually use prefatory language like: The parties agree that, had this case proceeded to trial, the United States would have proven the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the following facts are true and correct and are sufficient to support a plea of guilty . <Cpstein Plea Proffer.doc>> Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone Fax «< Attachment 'Epstein Plea Proffer.doc' has been archived by user 'CommonStorellT/Klrkland•Ellls' on '11/26/2007

85p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES, Defendant JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S SECOND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO THEIR_ PENDING ACTION CONCERNING THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 ("the victims), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to admit or deny the following facts within 30 days: BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims' "summary judgment motion"). On September 26, 2011, the Court has ordered discovery to develop the factual rec

7p
OtherUnknown

Subject: SDNY News Clips Tuesday, July 9, 2019

From: Cc: Bcc Subject: SDNY News Clips Tuesday, July 9, 2019 Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 21:12:37 +0000 Importance: Normal Attachments: 2019_7-9.pdf SDNY News Clips Tuesday, July 9, 2019 EFTA00076625 Contents Public Corruption Epstein Complex Frauds lure Terrorism & Narcotics Wise Honest Matters of Interest Trump Can't Block Twitter Followers US Appeals Court Rules Judicial Review of Claims of Government Misconduct in Parallel Investigations Barr Says Legal Path to Census Citizenship Question Exists but He Gives No Details Public Corruption Epstein Who Protected Jeffrey Epstein? New York Times By The Editorial Board 7/8/19 On Monday, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York unsealed a 14-page indictment against Jeffrey Epstein, charging the wealthy financier with operating and conspiring to operate a sex trafficking ring of girls out of his luxe homes on Manhattan's Upper East Side and in Palm Beach, Fla., "among other locations."

32p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/2672011 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES, Defendant. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52), Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49), Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50), and Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79).1 All motions are fully briefed and ripe for review, and the Court has heard oral arguments on all motions. The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the parties' arguments and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is awaiting supplemental brie

14p
OtherUnknown

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP SUMMARY OF MISCONDUCT ISSUES IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN The manner in which federal prosecutors have pursued the allegations against Mr. Epstein is highly irregular and warrants full review by the Department. While we repeatedly have raised our concerns regarding misconduct with the United States Attorney's Office in Miami (the "USAO"), not only has it has remained unwilling to address these issues, but Mr. Epstein's defense counsel has been instructed to limit its contact to the very prosecutors who are the subject of this misconduct complaint. For your review, this document summarizes the USAO's conduct in this case. Background 1. In March 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department opened a criminal investigation of Palm Beach resident, Jeffrey E. Epstein. The press has widely reported that Mr. Epstein is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. 2. In July 2006, after an intensive probe, including interviews of dozens of witnesses, re

11p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT, REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IF FACTS ARE CONTESTED, AND REQUEST FOR HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES COMES NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for a finding from this Court that their rights as crime victims under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) have been repeatedly violated by the U.S. Attorney's Office, to request an evidentiary hearing to establish those violations if the U.S. Attorney's Office contests the underlying facts, and to request a brief schedule and a hearing on the appropriate remedies for these violations. As recounted in more detail below, the victims have recently-obtained correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and defendant Jeffre

29p

Forum Discussions

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

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