EFTA00193954.pdf

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 5:04 PM To: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein I just received a call from the FBI telling me that Vanity Fair is sniffing around again. The reporter is a former detective. He told the FBI agent that his sources tell him "the State has been bought off," and asked if our investigation had been sent to "the circular file." Nesbitt responded, "All I can tell you is that we have an open investigation." On another note, I am going to see the grand jury tomorrow and I anticipate a number of questions regarding the status of the indictment. I'm not sure what, if anything, I can tell them. And I did not hear back regarding making changes to the indictment. Can I get some feedback on that? Thank you. A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 128 EFTA00193954 Villafana, Ann Marie C.(USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 3:24 PM To: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Meeting Next Week Sounds good. I will stop by on Monday afternoon. Could you just let you assistant know that I may be stopping by to get a copy of whatever the defense sends over? Thanks. A. Marie Valeria Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:58 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Cc: Lourle, Andrew (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Meeting Next Week Meeting on Monday is fine. I have meetings with Alex and Jeff till around 11 but after that I'm free. As for who is going to be at the meeting from our side, I thought you, me, Andy, and Jeff. I thought it best to leave Alex out of it at this venture. As for the Epstein camp, I'm not entirely sure because I don't think Lily was sure last time we spoke. Probably her, Lefcourt, Black and maybe Lewis. Lily told me that they wanted to present something in writing before the meeting which was why she was pushing us for the statutes. I view the-meeting more as-us-listening and them-presenting their-position so-twould say that-you don't— need to prepare anything (you are quite knowledgeable on the law in any event) but if you disagree we can discuss on Monday. As for the documents that they have yet to produce, I'll mention it to Lily if you like or we can raise it with them at the Tuesday meeting. From: Vlllafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 1:37 PM To: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); McMillan, John (USAFLS); Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS); Slornan, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: Meeting Next Week Importance: High Hi Matt: I would like to prepare for next week's meeting, and I am wondering if you can tell me who will attend, both from our side and for Mr. Epstein. I am hoping that we can meet on Monday to discuss any issues and/or strategy before the meeting on Tuesday, so please let me know when you will be available on Monday. 114 EFTA00193955 EFTA00193956 "Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)" <[email protected]> 11/27/2007 01:55 PM To "Jay Lefkowitz" <[email protected]> cc "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" <[email protected]> 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 to make a few observations. First, Guy Lewis has known for some that Judge was making reasonable efforts to secure Aaron.Podhurst 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 Dershoilli!!!med 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 to an 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 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. 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 [email protected], and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. ***********************************************iii********* 3 EFTA00193957 EFTA00193958  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 considerat ion. 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 unprecede nted, 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 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 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 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 2 EFTA00193959 EFTA00193960  Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 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) <Ann.Marie.C.Villafa [email protected]> To: Lourie, Andrew; Oosterbaan, Andrew Cc: Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) <RGarciarglusa.doj.gov> Sent: Wed Nov 28 16:48:48 2007 Subject: FW: Epstein 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 Villafana 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 redac t the names? Thx, Jeff Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld Original Message From: Jay Lefkowitz <JLefkowitzekirkland .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 letter, given the fact that we tone of your spoke last week and had what I meeting. I was especially surpr thought was a productive ised given that your letter arrived on only the second day EFTA00193961 EFTA00193962 Thelinited 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 selec tion. I must insist that the vetting process come to an end. Therefore, unless you provi de me with a good faith objection to Judge selection by COB tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will of the victims. Should you give me the go-ahead authorize the notification on Podhurst and Josephsberg selection by COB tomorrow, I will simultaneously send you a draft of the letter. I intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29th. Thanks, Jeff The information contained in this communicat ion 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 Inter national LLP. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohi bited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediatel y by return e-mail or by e-mail to postmastentkirk land.com, and destroy this communication and all copies there of, including all attachments. 3 EFTA00193963 EFTA00193964  that there'is a'requirement that the government notify the alleged victims civil remedy in this case. of a potential .Accordingly, for all the reasons we have stated above, we respectfully -- object to your sending any let -- and firmly ter whatsoever to the alleged victims Furthermore, if a letter is to be in this matter. sent to these individuals, we beli right to review and make objections eve we should have a to that submission prior to it bein victims. We also request that if you g sent to any alleged r Office believes that it must send the alleged victims, who still hav a letter to go to e not been identified to us, it shou Mr. Epstein has entered his plea. ld happen only after This letter should then come from representative, and not from the the attorney Government, to avoid any bias. As you know, Judge Starr has requ ested a meeting with Assistant Atto Fisher to address what we believe rney General is the unprecedented nature of the of the Agreement. We are hopefu section 2255 component l that this meeting will take plac Accordingly, we respectfully req e as early as next week. uest that we postpone our discussi the alleged victims until after tha on of sending a letter to t meeting. We strongly believe tha letter out this week is not the t rushing to send any wisest manner in which to proceed. will not even enter his plea for Given that Mr. Epstein another few weeks, time is clearl regarding any notification to y not of the essence the identified individuals. Thanks very much, Jay "Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)" <Jeff.Sl [email protected]> 11/27/2007 01:55 PM To "Jay Lefkowitz" (JLefkowitz@kir kland.com> cc "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" (Alex. [email protected]> Subject Epstein Jay, Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner weather yesterday. I hope tha but I was a little under the t you enjoyed your Thanksgiv ing. Regarding the issue of due dil igence concerning Judge few observations. First, Guy Lewi selection, I'd like to make a s has known for some Wh reasonable efforts to secu at Judge IIIII was making re Aaron Podhurst and Bob when I told you of Judge Josephsberg for this assignme selection during our meeting nt. In fact, you and Professor Dershowi last Wednesday, November 21s tz seemed very comfortable, t, selection. Podhurst and Jose and certainly not surprised phsberg are no strangers to , with the team including Guy Lewis, nearly the entire Epstein Lili Ann Sanchez, Roy Bla defense who said he knew Mr. ck, and, apparently, Prof Josephsberg from law school essor Dershowitz standing stellar reputations . Second, Podhurst and for their legal acumen and Josephsberg have long- how much more vetting need ethics. It's hard for me s to be done. to imagine 2 EFTA00193965 EFTA00193966  Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 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 Hand held 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 letter, given the fact that we spoke of your last week and had what I thought meeting. I was especially surprise was a productive d given that your letter arrived on back to work after the Thanksgiving only the second day Holiday, and yet your demands rega that I have been sitting on my hand rdin g timing suggest s for days. You should know that the first tim e I learned about Judge selection of Podhurst and Josephsberg, and ind eed the first time I ever heard thei meeting with you on Wednesday of r names, was in our last week. Nevertheless, I have with my client, and we have determin now been able to confer ed that the selection of Podhurst acceptable to us, reserving, of cou and Josephsberg are rse, our previously stated objectio which you have interpreted the ns to the manner in section 2255 portions of the Agre ement. We do, however, strongly and emphatically object to your send alleged victims. Without a ing a letter to the fair opportunity to review and this letter, it is completely the ability to make objections unacceptable that you would to Additionally, given that the send it without our consideratio US Attorney's office has made n. claims of the victims, it woul clear it cannot vouch for the d be incendiary and inappropr a letter. Indeed, because it iate for your Office to send is a certainty that any such such to the press, your actions will letter would immediately be only have the effect of inj leaked spurious civil litigation dire uring Mr. Epstein and promotin cted at him. We believe it g any event, inappropriate for is entirely unprecedented, and the Government to be the ins in tigator of such lawsuits. Finally, we disagree with victims pursuant to the Just your view that you are requ ired to notify the alleged ice for All Act of 2004. relevant statute under the First, 18 USC section 2255, Non -Prosecution Agreement the does not have any connecti for the settlement of civi on to the Justice for All l remedies, a different statute. Sec Act. Section 2255 was enac ond, the Justice for All Act ted as part of is not a restitution sta refers to restitution, and tute. It is a civil rem section 2255 a restitution fund for edy. As you know, we had the alleged victims in thi offered to provide by your Office. Had that s matter; however that option been chosen, we wou option was rejected alleged victims at this ld not object to your point. At this juncture, notifying the however, we do not accept your contention EFTA00193967 Gmail - (no subject) Page 1 of 1 Ann Marie Villafa (no subject) 1 message Jay Lefkowitz< JLefkowitz kirkland.co > Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:25 PM To: "Marie Villafana, An Marie - I will call you as soon as the show ends. Jay ********************* ******** ************* ********* ******** 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 [email protected], and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. ************* ******** ******ft*** ********* ************* ***** EFTA00193968 Gmail - Re: Page 3 of 3 I had hoped that we were far closer to resolving this than it appears that we are. Can I suggest that tomorrow we either meet live or via teleconference, either with your client or having him within a quick phone call, to hash out these items? I was hoping to work only a half day tomorrow to save my voice for Tuesday's hearing and grand jury, if necessary, but maybe we can set a time to meet. If you want to meet "off campus" somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that I have all the necessary decision makers present or "on call," as well. If we can resolve some of these issues today, let's try to, and then save only the difficult issues for tomorrow. Sorry for the long e-mail, and for ruining your date with your daughter. *******************************4*************************** 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 [email protected], and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. ************* ***** *********** ***** ************** ****** ***** EFTA00193969 Gmail - Re: Page 2 of 3 Re your paragraph 3: As to the reservation of Mr. Epstein's right to withdraw his state plea or to appeal his state plea or sentence, that is fine, but we need the caveat that, if he were to do so, the United States could proceed on our charges. Re your paragraph 6: With respect to the waiver of the right to appeal the federal sentence, given the way we have drafted the information, it is possible that getting to the 18 month sentence will require an upward departure. The version of the agreement that you were working from is a federal non-prosecution agreement, the ones I have sent you recently are plea agreements that get filed with the court. Please see if the appeal waiver language in those versions is alright. Re your paragraph 7: As I mentioned, we will not waive the presentence investigation. I know that this will delay Mr. Epstein's sentencing by 70 days, but that will allow him to get all of his affairs in order. As to.bail, it will be set at the time of arraignment, and we can work out a joint recommendation regarding the amount and its limitations. I have no objection to making a joint recommendation that Mr. Epstein remain out on bond pending his sentencing, but I'm not sure that it belongs in a plea agreement, especially since I can't bind the court on that issue. However, I can assure you, and we can put it on the record during the plea collooquy, that I will join in your recommendation that he remain out on bond pending sentencing. The same goes for the prison camp issue. As I mentioned, I have opposed a designation only once in a very particular case. I can assure you, and we can put it on the record at the plea colloquy that I will not oppose yoUr recommendation for Mr. Epstein's designation. . Re your paragraph 8: As I mentioned over the telephone, I cannot bind the girls to the Trust Agreement, and I don't think it is appropriate that a state court would administer a trust that seeks to pay for federal civil claims. We both want to avoid unscrupulous attorneys and/or • litigants from coming forward, and I know that your client wants to keep these matters outside of public court filings, but I just don't have the power to do what you ask. Here is my recommendation. During the period between Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing, I make a motion for appointment of the Guardian_Ad Olen _T_he_tttree.of.us sit_down and .discuss_things,.._..__ and I will facilitate as much as I can getting the girls' approval of this procedure because, as I mentioned, I think it is probably in their best interests. In terms of plea agreement language, let me suggest the following: The United States agrees to make a motion seeking the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem to represent the identified victims. Following the appointment of such Guardian, the parties agree to work together in good faith to develop a Trust Agreement, subject to the Court's approval, that would provide for any damages owed to the identified victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2255. Then include the last two sentences of your paragraph 8. Re the two paragraphs following your paragraph 8: I will include our standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability and I will mention "co-conspirators," but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge. Also, we do not have the power to bind Immigration and we make it a policy not to try to, however, I can tell you that, as far as I know, there is no plan to try to proceed on any immigration charges against either Ms. Ross or Ms. Marcinkova. Also, on the grand jury subpoenas, I can prepare letters withdrawing them as of the signing of the plea agreement, but I would prefer to take out that language. In my eyes, once we have a plea agreement, the grand jury's investigation has ended and there can be no more use of the grand jury's subpoena power. EFTA00193970 Gmail - Re: Page 1 of 3 Gmail bi cansk Ann Marie Villafana Re: message Jay Lefkowitz< JLefkowi z kirkland Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 4:08 PM To: "Marie Villafana, Ann • Ok. Hard to respond this second. But I think we are getting there. Will call later. Thx Original Message From: "Ann Marie Villafana Sent: 09/16/2007 03:54 PM To: Jay Lefkowitz Subject: Re: Hi Jay -- This can wait until after the show, but my voice is going so I thought I would type it up. I talked to Andy and he still doesn't like the factual basis. In his opinion, the plea should only address the crimes that we were addressing, and we were not investigating Mr. Epstein abusing his girlfriend. • So, these are the only options that he recommended: 1. We go back to the original agreement where Mr. Epstein pleads only to state charges and serves his time in the state, except that we can agree to only 18 months imprisonment. 2. Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to the state charges and also pleads to either two obstruction counts or to one count of violating 47 USC 223(a)(1)(B), with a joint non-binding recommendation of 18 months, so that Mr. Epstein can serve his time federally. 3. (My suggestion only, not Andy's): I go back to the U.S. Attorney and ask him to agree to an ABA-plea to a 371 count (conspiracy to violate 2422(b)) with a binding 20-month recommendation so that Mr. Epstein can serve all of his time in a federal facility. Or 4. Mr. Epstein pleads to one obstruction count, and serves part of his time federally and part state. On your other proposed changes, some are fine and some are problematic. Re your paragraph 2: As to timing, it is my understanding that Mr. Epstein needs to be sentenced in the state after he is sentenced in the federal case, but not that he needs to plead guilty and be sentenced after serving his federal time. Andy recommended that some of the timing issues be addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes. My understanding is that Mr. Epstein should sign a state plea agreement, plead guilty to the federal offenses, plead guilty to the state offenses, be sentenced on the federal offenses, and then be sentenced on the state offenses, and then start serving the federal sentence. EFTA00193971 Gmail - Re: Page 3 of 3 Also, on the grand jury subpoenas, I can prepare letters withdrawing them as of the signing of the plea agreement, but I would prefer to take out that language. In my eyes, once we have a plea agreement, the grand jury's investigation has ended and there can be no more use of the grand jury's subpoena power. I had hoped that we were far closer to resolving this than it appears that we are. Can I suggest that tomorrow we either meet live or via teleconference, either with your client or having him within a quick phone call, to hash out these items? I Was hoping to work only a half day tomorrow to save my voice for Tuesday's hearing and grand jury, if necessary, but maybe we can set a time to meet If you want to meet "off campus" somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that I have all the necessary decision makers present or "on call," as well. If we can resolve some of these issues today, let's try to, and then save only the difficult issues for tomorrow. Sorry for the long e-mail, and for ruining your date with your daughter. ***************************** ********* ********** ***** ****** 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 [email protected], and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. ...*******.*************************************.***********_..._ EFTA00193972 Gmail - Re: Page 2 of 3 we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes. My understanding is that Mr. Epstein should sign a state plea agreement, plead guilty to the federal offenses, plead guilty to the state offenses, be sentenced on the federal offenses, and then be sentenced on the state offenses, and then start serving the federal sentence. Re your paragraph 3: As to the reservation of Mr. Epstein's right to withdraw his state plea or to appeal his state plea or sentence, that is fine, but we need the caveat that, if he were to do so, the United States could proceed on our charges. Re your paragraph 6: With respect to the waiver of the right to appeal the federal sentence, given the way we have drafted the information, it is possible that getting to the 18 month sentence will require an upward departure. The version of the agreement that you were working from is a federal non-prosecution agreement, the ones I have sent you recently are plea agreements that get filed with the court. Please see if the appeal waiver language in those versions is alright. Re your paragraph 7: As I mentioned, we will not waive the presentence investigation. I know that this will delay Mr. Epstein's sentencing by 70 days, but that will allow him to get all of his affairs in order. As to bail, it will be set at the time of arraignment, and we can work out a joint recommendation regarding the amount and its limitations. I have no objection to making a joint recommendation that Mr. Epstein remain out on bond pending his sentencing, but I'm not sure that it belongs in a plea agreement, especially since I can't bind the court on that issue. However, I can assure you, and we can put it on the record during the plea collooquy, that I will join in your recommendation that he remain out on bond pending sentencing. The same goes for the prison camp issue. As I mentioned, I have opposed a designation only once in a very particular case. I can assure you, and we can put it on the record at the plea colloquy that I will not oppose your recommendation for Mr. Epstein's designation. Re your paragraph 8: As I mentioned over the telephone, I cannot bind the girls to the Trust Agreement, and I don't think it is appropriate that a state court would administer a trust that seeks to pay for federal-civil claims:- We both want to-avoid unscrupulous attorneys-and/or —- litigants from coming forward, and I know that your client wants to keep these matters outside of public court filings, but I just don't have the power to do what you ask. Here is my recommendation. During the period between Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing, I make a motion for appointment of the Guardian Ad Litem. The three of us sit down and discuss things, and I will facilitate as much as I can getting the girls' approval of this procedure because, as I mentioned, I think it is probably in their best interests. In terms of plea agreement language, let me suggest the following: The United States agrees to make a motion seeking the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem to represent the identified victims. Following the appointment of such Guardian, the parties agree to work together in good faith to develop a Trust Agreement, subject to the Court's approval, that would provide for any damages owed to the identified victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2255. Then include the last two sentences of your paragraph 8. Re the two paragraphs following your paragraph 8: I will include our standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability and I will mention "co-conspirators," but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge. Also, we do not have the power to bind Immigration and we make it a policy not to try to, however, I can tell you that, as far as I know, there is no plan to try to proceed on any immigration charges against either Ms. Ross or Ms. Marcinkova. EFTA00193973 Gmail - Re: Page 1 of 3 Ann Marie VillafanSIMMINIMMIE Re: 1 message Jay Lefkowitz< [email protected]> Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 5:50 PM To: "Marie Villafana, An Marie - left message for Nat re Leslie. Roy will call you in am tomorrow re rescheduling the hearing and dealing the Riley and the other GJ subpoenas. You have my commitment regarding the extension issue. Thx Original Message From: "Ann Marie Villafana Sent: 09/16/2007 03:54 PM To: Jay Lefkowitz Subject Re: Hi Jay -- This can wait until after the show, but my voice is going so I thought I would type it up. I talked to Andy and he still doesn't like the factual basis. In his opinion, the plea should only address the crimes that we were addressing, and we were not investigating Mr. Epstein abusing his girlfriend. —So, these are the-only- options-that-he recommended:- - 1. We go back to the original agreement where Mr. Epstein pleads only to state charges and serves his time in the state, except that we can agree to only 18 months imprisonment. 2. Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to the state charges and also pleads to either two obstruction counts or to one count of violating 47 USC 223(a)(1)(B), with a joint non-binding recommendation of 18 months, so that Mr. Epstein can serve his time federally. 3. (My suggestion only, not Andy's): I go back to the U.S. Attorney and ask him to agree to an ABA-plea to a 371 count (conspiracy to violate 2422(b)) with a binding 20-month recommendation so that Mr. Epstein can serve all of his time in a federal facility. Or 4. Mr. Epstein pleads to one obstruction count, and serves part of his time federally and part state. On your other proposed changes, some are fine and some are problematic. Re your paragraph 2: As to timing, it is my understanding that Mr. Epstein needs to be • sentenced in the state after he is sentenced in the federal case, but not that he needs to plead guilty and be sentenced after serving his federal time. Andy recommended that some of the timing issues be addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that EFTA00193974 Gmail - Re: Draft Agreement Page 2 of 2 Agreement (without Term 1) (Redlined).doc" deleted by Jay Lefkowitz/New York/Kirkland-Ellis] **********************************Itt*********************** . 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 corrimunication 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 [email protected], and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. it*************** ******* **********Itint*********************** EFTA00193975 Gmail - Re: Draft Agreement Page 1 of 2 Gnali b,G003k Ann Marie VillafanaellIMIMI Re: Draft Agreement 1 message Jay Lefkowitz< [email protected]> Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 1:57 PM To: Ami Sheth <[email protected]>, "Villafana, Ann Marie C. USAFLS " <[email protected]>, "Marie Villafana, Ann Marie - if 2 pm doesn't work, can we arrange to go through the entire document at 5 pm?. Thanks. Jay Original Message From: Ami Sheth Sent: 09/23/2007 01:56 PM EDT To: "Villafana, Ann Marie C. \(USAFLS\)" Ann.Marie.C.Villafana usdd QV]; Cc: Jay Lefkovvitz Subject: Draft Agreement Marie - Jay is having some computer trouble and asked me to send this e-mail to you. Attached is a draft for discuslion purposes aryour convenience for s`ometime this afternoon. It does not include Term 1 of the • agreement, but it reflects all the issues we would like to dis