Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00214952Other

FOWLERWHITE

Date
Unknown
Source
Reference
EFTA 00214952
Pages
3
Persons
7
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

FOWLERWHITE ATTORNEYS AT LAW BURNETT MIAMI • FORT LAUDERDALE • WEST PALM BEACH • ST. PETERSBURG October 8, 2007 ited States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jeff: EsmArro SANTO PLAZA FOURTEENTH FLOOR 1395 BRICKELL AVENUE MIAMI. FLORIDA 331 31 TELEPNOIE FACSIMILE www.cOwLER-NwiTE.EOm LILLY ANN SANCHEZ DIRECT PHONE No.: DIRECT FACSIMILE No.: VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS I write to follow up on the conversation we had regarding the role of the attorney representative and the settlement process for 18 U.S.C. § 2255 claims pursuant to the Federal Plea Agreement between your Office and Mr. Epstein the "Agreement"). First, thank you for reaching out to Marie on these issues. has already left me a voicemail this afternoon asking that I clarify the selection process for the attorney representative and the scope of his role pursuant to the Agreem

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.
FOWLERWHITE ATTORNEYS AT LAW BURNETT MIAMI • FORT LAUDERDALE • WEST PALM BEACH • ST. PETERSBURG October 8, 2007 ited States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jeff: EsmArro SANTO PLAZA FOURTEENTH FLOOR 1395 BRICKELL AVENUE MIAMI. FLORIDA 331 31 TELEPNOIE FACSIMILE www.cOwLER-NwiTE.EOm LILLY ANN SANCHEZ DIRECT PHONE No.: DIRECT FACSIMILE No.: VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS I write to follow up on the conversation we had regarding the role of the attorney representative and the settlement process for 18 U.S.C. § 2255 claims pursuant to the Federal Plea Agreement between your Office and Mr. Epstein the "Agreement"). First, thank you for reaching out to Marie on these issues. has already left me a voicemail this afternoon asking that I clarify the selection process for the attorney representative and the scope of his role pursuant to the Agreement. With respect to the selection of the attorney representative, you have suggested Former Judge Edward B. Davis of Akerman Senterfitt. We are comfortable with Judge Davis. Pursuant to the Agreement, Judge Davis will represent the identified individuals provided they opt to enter into a settlement agreement with Mr. Epstein with respect to their § 2255 claims. If the identified individuals cannot settle or opt not to settle on a damages amount with Mr. Epstein, then Judge Davis may not continue his representation and is barred from filing lawsuits pursuant to § 2255. As agreed, Mr. Epstein will pay the fees for the services of Judge Davis. The provisions of the Agreement make clear that the role of the attorney representative is to settle the claims of the identified individuals pursuant to the Agreement. While Paragraph 7 defines who may be represented by the attorney representative, Paragraph 8 outlines the scope of that representation. Paragraph 7 states: The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. EFTA00214952 Page 2 has signed this agreement and has been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. Under Paragraph 8 of the Agreement, which provides the terms of the representation, the attorney representative is only appointed to protect the interests of the identified individuals who elect to waive any claim for damages other than the damages agreed to by the parties. Paragraph 8 states: If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over this person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. Mr. Epstein's waivers are triggered pursuant to a settlement with each identified individual. Paragraph 8 is clear that Mr. Epstein will only waive § 2255 liability "so long as" each identified individual proceeds exclusively under § 2255 and agrees to waive damages other than "an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein." To that end, Judge Davis' role should be limited to contact, coordination and mediation. This would include the following: — Interviewing each identified individual to confirm standing; — Explaining the identified individual's option to settle § 2255 claims pursuant to the Agreement; — Explaining Mr. Epstein's waivers as to jurisdiction, liability and damages only if the identified individuals elect to settle claims pursuant to the Agreement; FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. EFTA00214953 Page 3 — Explaining the capacity of his representation, including an explanation that his role is limited to negotiating settlement amounts for each identified individual; — Negotiating a total amount with Mr. Epstein pursuant to the Agreement for each identified individual; — Distribute the monies to each identified individual in the manner he sees fit; and — Assure that the United States Attorney's Office and the FBI not be involved in the civil settlement or litigation. If any of the identified individuals decide not to utilize Judge Davis pursuant to the Agreement, they may proceed on their own, but by doing so, they would not be proceeding as contemplated by Paragraph 8 and therefore may not continue to be represented by Judge Davis. indicated in her message that she would be talking to Jay Lefkowitz tomorrow. In the interest of finality on this matter, I would greatly appreciate it if you could confirm for me that both the settlement procedure and the scope of Judge Davis' representation is resolved. Finally, I find it imperative that we have a meeting later this week with you to finalize this agreement. It should not take longer than 90 minutes. I hope you can set aside the time. Jeff, I greatly appreciate your efforts in helping to resolve this matter. I look forward to hearing from you shortly regarding your availability. Very truly yours, /s/ Lilly Ann Sanchez cc: Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. Alan Dershowitz, Esq. Martin Weinberg, Esq. pas) WM1200LLETTIt282.LASE10/8/140:251 FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. EFTA00214954

Related Documents (6)

OtherUnknown

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 I UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN 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 produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. 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

13p
OtherUnknown

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida First AuLstant U.S. 4liortrty 99 NE thStreti Miam& FL 31132 DELIVERY BY FEDERAL EXPRESS June 3, 2008 Honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Judge Filip, Jeffrey Epstein was a part-time resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.' In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investi tin alle ations that over a two-year period, Epstein paid approximately 28 minor females to come to his house for sexual favors? In July 2006, the matter was presented to AUSA of our West Palm Beach branch office to pursue a formal criminal investigation. That investigation resulted in the discovery of approximately one dozen additional minor victims. Over the last several months, approximately six more minor victims hive been identified. AUSA has been ready to present an

92p
OtherUnknown

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 April 22, 2008 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS la, Counsel Office of Professional Responsibility U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530-0001 Re: Self-Report of Allegation of Conflict of Interest Dear Mr. I write to advise you that I have learned that lawyers for a target of one of my investigations, Jeffrey Epstein, have raised ethical concerns regarding my involvement in his potential prosecution in the Southern District of Florida. Specifically, I understand that Epstein's attorneys have notified Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher and/or her staff that I have an actual conflict of interest. As part of pre-indictment plea negotiations, the parties agreed that Epstein's victims would be allowed to collect civil damages from Epstein and that Epstein would provide counsel for the vict

7p
OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08-ev-80736-Civ-ICAM JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2 I UNITED STATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER COME NOW Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to file this response in opposition to Epstein's Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order (DE 247). Epstein's motion is a thinly-disguised attempt to relitigate issues already covered by the court's earlier ruling eleven months ago (DE 188), which allowed the victims to file correspondence relating to Epstein's non-prosecution agreement in the public court file. Rather than reverse its previous ruling, this Court should reaffirm it — and allow the important issues presented by this case to be litigated in the light of day. BACKGROUND Because of Epstein's penchant for relitigating issues that have already been decided, it

20p
OtherUnknown

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 I UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN 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 produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. 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

13p
OtherUnknown

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, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN 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 produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. 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 4

13p

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.