Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00917539DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation®gmail.com>

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta00917539
Pages
2
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation®gmail.com> To: Subject: Re: Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:16:25 +0000 rackel v. Allstate Ins. Co., 92 P.3d 882 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). A jury may find abuse of process against an insurer where defendant had an improper intent during any of the court procedures and used the proceeding in a fashion inconsistent with its legitimate goals, an Arizona appellate court held. Here, two people injured in an automobile collision sued a driver. The driver's insurer offered them a fraction of their medical expenses, in keeping with its policy of not settling "minor impact, soft tissue" claims, even though it acknowledged its insured was fully at fault. Related Results • Fresh Start Private Processing Over $1 Million in Insurance Claims in February • Phone claim 'should be dropped' • A man of rank: George R. Fay CNA's claims chief applies his militar • Insurers Abusing Their Powers In Accident Claims Warn Solicitors • PSC Report Sounds the Alarm on Contracting-out Abuses The parties went to arbitration, and the arbitrator awarded damages to plaintiffs. The insurer appealed the award. During a mandatory settlement conference, the court determined defendant was not acting in good faith because it told the court nothing would change its negotiating position, among other tilings. Eventually, the parties settled. Plaintiffs then sued for abuse of process, alleging defendant acted in bad faith. A jury found for plaintiffs, and the trial court denied defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law. Affirming, the appellate court noted that the elements of an abuse-of-process claim are (I) a willful act in the use of judicial process, (2) for an ulterior purpose not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings. The court agreed with defendant that it is not enough to allege defendant had an improper motive throughout the entire legal process, without alleging specific actions during specific events. However, the court held abuse-of-process claims are allowed when a litigant has abused any of the entire range of court procedures incident to litigation. Before an abuse-of-process claim may proceed, claimants must overcome two hurdles. First, the court determined, they must present specific evidence that the defendant has used court processes with an improper intent as the primary motivation, rather than merely an incidental motivation. Second, claimants must demonstrate the defendant took an action that could not logically be explained without reference to the improper motive, the court said. In this case, plaintiffs presented evidence that defendant's refusal to settle stemmed from its policy to make it hard for claimants or attorneys to pursue litigation economically. The court said jurors could have concluded the primary purpose of defendant's conduct was to harass and intimidate claimants to discourage them from litigating. Moreover, the trial court found defendant's conduct during settlement negotiations to be in bad faith, which is contrary to public policy and was to the detriment of plaintiffs' right to pursue litigation. Plaintiffs' Counsel EFTA00917539 On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:09 PM, < wrote: Their continued faith in abuse claim seems unwarranted Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:08:23 +0200 To: Jay Lefkowitz ; Martin Weinbe Indyk Subject: >; Darren I seems more than a little odd, that my lawyers in florida, take over a complaint from critten, then file and amended complaint. , in the beginning telling me that we have to bolster damages. I am then told that the chances of losing on the MTD is negligible. . Im told this by my lawyers. , and now somehow I am on the hook for damages for filing the lawsuit. IT MAKES NO SENSE> 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 Jeffrey Epstein 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 jeevacation®gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved 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 Jeffrey Epstein 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 jeevacation®gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved EFTA00917540

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

Wire Refreference

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subject: Epstein

From To Cc: Subject: Epstein Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:42:55 +0000 Importance: Normal Jay, The Section Chief of DOJ's Child Exploitation Obscenity Section (CEOS) notified me today that he will review the matter involving your client Jeffrey Epstein. The Section Chief has indicated that he is ready to proceed immediately, and I understand you are in the process of providing him this week with a summary of issues to be reviewed, and expect to meet with him next week. The Section Chief also indicated that you would be calling this Office regarding the upcoming March 3, 2008 court date in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County. As you know, the Agreement entered into by your client originally provided that the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (this Office) would defer prosecution if your client pled guilty to enumerated state charges by October 26, 2007. Since then, that date has been postponed for a number of reaso

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Rol Slack lir „kite'

Rol Slack lir „kite' 2/949 Arcrwite a." 2434 7 Antai, Liu) 3 cut, , 4,/e EFTA00183732 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AfilL/ArtO PART/H.3We; ' Cntercup Cantor 163 East 53'd Street New York, New York 10022-4611 WNW rwerA.COM September 2, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE (56D 820-8777 United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re:Jeffrey Bpstein Dear • Facsimile: In response to your letter dated August 26, 2008, I am confirming that Mr. Goldberger should continue to be listed as the contact pawn in the' mended victim notification letters and should receive the carbon copies of thoso letters as they are sent. • Also, we plan on speaking to Mr. Josofsberg this week to discuss a procedure for paying his fees. We intend to comply fully with the agreement and Mr. Epstein will pay Mr. Josfsberg's usual and customary hourly rates for his work pursuant to the agreement facilitating settlements unde

136p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Prosecutors allegedly colluded with Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyers to downplay federal charges and secure a lenient plea

The passage alleges that senior U.S. attorneys and a federal prosecutor (Andrew Acosta, Paul Villafafia) worked with Epstein’s legal team to limit federal prosecution, manipulate venue, and keep victi Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Lourie attempted to strike references to a defendant’s prior sexual c U.S. Attorney Paul Villafafia negotiated with Epstein’s lawyers while an FBI investigation was act

1p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01729176

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: '

From: ' To:' . (USAFLS)" </O=USA/OU=FLS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN > (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Epstein Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:54:49 +0000 Importance: Normal Hey M— I am going to come down tomorrow to gather the boxes and talk with M. He has some ideas on the indictment. Are you free for a non-Epstein coffee? Just to get out of the office? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesda January 09, 2008 4:44 PM To: Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Subject: Epstein . (USAFLS) We just informed Jay Lefkowitz and Ken Starr that CEOS will provide a lawyer to join the SDFL team regarding Jeffrey Epstein. We advised that that lawyer will be an expert in the area and, more importantly, someone who has a national perspective concerning these matters. We also advised them that the CEOS lawyer will begin to review the investigative materials and defense submissions to determine how best to proceed. Lefkowitz said that he believes that is a fair way to proceed and requested that the CEOS lawyer contact him to a

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70 EXHIBIT A PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS EFTA00208682 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 70 PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS Key to Objections (linking to Victims' Motion to Compel Production of Docments that Are Not Prig ileged Objection General Objections -- Inadequate Privilege Log Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim Waiver of Confidentiality Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Privilege Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered Factual Materials Not Covered Documents Not Prepared in Anticipation of CVRA Litigation Attorney Client Objections - Ordinary Governmental Communications Not Covered Attorney-Client Relationship Not Established Deliberative Process Objections - Privilege Not Properly Invoked Final Decision Exempted from Privilege Qualified Privilege Ove

70p

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.