Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00215376DOJ Data Set 9Other

U.S. Department of Justice

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00215376
Pages
2
Persons
7
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile: August 21, 2008 DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay and Roy: Thank you for your response to my earlier letter. The U.S. Attorney's Office shares in your desire to implement all of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. As you are aware, the jointly-approved Special Master, Judge Davis, has already selected an attorney representative, Robert Josefsberg, who was accepted by both parties. The Office has conferred with Mr. Josefsberg, who has agreed to continue in that role. In October 2007, Mr. Josefsberg expended time, effort, and funds in preparing to serve as the attorney represent

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.
U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile: August 21, 2008 DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay and Roy: Thank you for your response to my earlier letter. The U.S. Attorney's Office shares in your desire to implement all of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. As you are aware, the jointly-approved Special Master, Judge Davis, has already selected an attorney representative, Robert Josefsberg, who was accepted by both parties. The Office has conferred with Mr. Josefsberg, who has agreed to continue in that role. In October 2007, Mr. Josefsberg expended time, effort, and funds in preparing to serve as the attorney representative, and he will need a written confirmation from you that his future fees and expenses will be paid in accordance with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Please provide me with a copy of that correspondence for my file. With that matter settled, I believe that the requirement for a joint written submission to the Special Master has been extinguished. Nonetheless, I have no objection to attempting to create a joint statement to assist Mr. Josefsberg in serving his duties. Regarding your suggestion that we ask Judge Davis to "offer the final word on how certain clauses should be interpreted and satisfied," I believe that the Agreement speaks for itself Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, following Mr. Epstein's sentencing, the U.S. Attorney's Office provided Mr. Epstein's counsel with a list of the individuals whom it was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an offense enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and none of those names will be deleted. By his agreement, Mr. Epstein sought to resolve liability for all criminal activity known to the United States as of the time of his plea and sentencing, and he is responsible for damages to all victims of that criminal activity. Copies of the victim notifications will continue to be provided to counsel for Mr. Epstein. Please let me know whether I should continue to list Mr. Goldberger as the point of contact for the civil litigation. Regarding your suggestion on the content of the notification letters, I intend to use the same format that was used in the letters previously approved by Messrs. Goldberger and Tein, except that I will include the language from the September and October agreements. I have enclosed a draft herewith. Because I previously provided the victims with incorrect information—albeit with the approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel—it is imperative that I correct the error promptly. Accordingly, if you have any substantive objections to the letter, please advise me by tomorrow afternoon. EFTA00215376 Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: ssistant United States Attorney c EFTA00215377

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

IthibiSlornam

IthibiSlornam taco L•fhwitit EFTA00176182 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: 99 M.E. 41' Street Miami, FL 33132-211! (305) 961-9299 Facsimile: (305) 530-6444 December 6, 2007 I write in response to your recent e-mails and letters regarding victim notification and other issues. Our Office is trying to perform our contractual obligations under the Agreement, which we feel are being frustrated by defense counsel's objections. The Office also is concerned about Mr. Epstein's nonperformance. More than three weeks ago we spoke about the failure to set a timely plea and sentencing date. At that time, you assured me that the scheduling delay was caused by the unavailability of Judge McSorley. You promised that a date would be set promptly. On November 15th, Roland

18p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: 99 N.E. '0 Street Miami. FL 33132-2111 Facsimile: November 30, 2007 I write in response to your recent e-mails and letters regarding victim notification and other issues. Some of these issues also are addressed in the U.S. Attorney's letter to Mr. Starr, but in light of our discussions, I believe a separate response is needed. In a recent e-mail, you write that you were surprised at the tone of my e-mail of November 27, 2007. That tone was engendered by the continuing failures to abide by the terms of the Non- Prosecution Agreement, unfounded allegations of misconduct on the part of our office, attacks upon our investigation and the victims in the press, and the mounting evidence that you did not enter into our plea negotiati

8p
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

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. 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
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N. E. 4 gh Street Miami, FL 33132-2111 (305) 961-9299 Facsimile: (305) 530-6444 December 3, 2007 DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: I write in response to your recent e-mails and letters regarding victim notification and other issues. Some of these issues also are addressed in the U.S. Attorney's letter to Mr. Starr, but in light of our discussions, I believe a separate response is needed. In a recent e-mail, you write that you were surprised at the tone of my e-mail of November 27, 2007. That tone was engendered by the roadblocks that you continue to erect as we try to perform our contractual obligations coupled with Mr. Epstein's nonperformance. This letter sets forth the last opportunity for your client and his entire defense team to conform unwaveringly

5p

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.