EFTA00727507.pdf

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 15. I am-sorry-te-read-it-as-1-sense-year frustratien-with-the-entire-matterrhoweverrl-wfite-respond to try to set the record straight. Your letter is filled-with-tnisstated-faetsr aiseahreseratiaaionsrand inisr-epresentatie any-instanee-that-directly contradicted in many cases bys the written records As to each and every allegation that Mr Epstein has "breached" his obligations under the NPA IN-eaeh-instanee-whereyetehave-suggested-a-breaeh in-the-past I have attached Fthe-releveant correspondence or documents; that clearly refute some of your statements the merits of each allegation. In addition it is important to place these allegations in context: would-r-ernind-you-that-Mmr Epstein has almost completed his county jail sentence - a sentence imposed as a direct result of the NPA. he has: OF-143-menthsrA-sentenee-ef-ineareeratimi-that-lie teek-only-as-a-resu esec-ation,14e-plead guilty to a registrable offense as your required - a plea that was not otherwise required by the State Attorney other than as a condition of the NPA - and has already registered as a sex offend€erg: He has paid over $100.00010k thousand dollars in fees to the attorney representative and agreed to submit issues regarding substantial further fees to a Special Master - a procedure proposed by the attorney representative - any reperesat-ive and have paid over $150.000at 440-thoussand-dollars in settlements to victims on your lislt„ in one case to someone, he had no recollecetion of meeting, and whe-who was paid a statutory minimum settlement only because she appeared on your list was-ne-t-shalleneged-to-provide-any-evienee-te4est-the-veraeity-of-her elann: To begin you suggest that Mr Epstein did not use hisd best efforts to enter his guilty plea in a prompt fashion (DETAIL HER ALLEGATION). as I am sure The deferral of ,estate plea however was made with the express consent of the United States Attorney himself. His email is attached. The subsequent 9 month "delay" was as a result of the Department of Justice's having convened an intense and time consuming review of the charge decision. yoti-r-eernner-this-was-tlone-wit-14-the personal consent of alex-accost the us attorney, whose email to that regard is attached. Thi.e. the e nine month delay was dictated not by Mr Epstein but instead by the review process which evolved on a time frame set by the Department of Justice. by-the-jastie-depatanets-tane-fr-atnerWhen in late Dune of when-the last appeal was exhausted Mr Epstein plead guilty. without delay. in the state in conformity with a date set by Acting United States Attorney Sloman. see email ATTACHED. Surely nothing about these events could reasonably support a finding of "willful" breach by Mr Epstein we You alleged as a second "breach" a delay in Mr Epstein's providing you. through counsel. with the state plea agreement as required by the NPA. The state plea agreement. however. was sent to you upon its receipt from the State. i.e. had-only one-week-to-pleadr wWe sent the state plea to you , as soon as we received it. It had only been prepared by the Sstate Attorney the day before. DOCUMENT THIS. The State Attorney not Mr Epstein's state lawyers drafted the plea agreement and EFTA00727507 following discussion with you. you and Mr Goldberger both agreed that the language as drafted by the State Attorney was in conformity with the NPA. JAY AND JACK NEED TO MAKE SURE OF THESE FACTS -I AM UNAWARE OF THE DETAILS FOR REBUTTAL - Again, any language changes resulting from your communications with Mr Goldberger simply cannot be attributed to Mr Epstein and do not in any way constitute a "willful" breach by Mr Epstein of the NPA agr-eement-was-dr-afted-by-the-state-pr-eseeuter-net-Mr-epstiens-atter-neysnSe44n4 your-eleitn-eibFeeell4fiaesufate: 2. NEED JAY AND JACK TO REBUT NOTIFICATION COMPLAINTyou then clai that mr Epstein attorney obstructed your ability to notify victims s. we took issue with your procedure but that was reflected in coorespondence from months before. (JACK WE Need of provide letters compling about the victim noifaction procedure. JAY). 3. If you recall you presented my Goldberger and tein with a fete comple, they at the time eithr approved or disapproved .. corresondence attached. 4. NEED JAY TO REBUT ATTY REP COMPLAINT as soon as the operative provision for attny rep was confirmed, if you recall you suggested that mr acostas paragraph , re as if convicted no more no less was the operative languge. As soon as it was agreed that the attorney rep was now the way to go, we immediately contacted mr jos bur who had conversatonwws with both mr black and mr lefcourt. I reiterate , that he has been paid over 160 I k thousand dollars to date, for only two cases that settled. Each for 50 thousand dollars. And has billed and addtionla 230k which we have decided to have a third party resolve. 5. Wwith regard to your complaint about the pendency of anl►e outstanding motion to quash , you are 4.00%-right, }stand it was an administrative an4e-oversight,_one that was immediately remedied upon notice. one that did not prejudice the Government. one that gave Mr Epstein no strategic or practical advantage. one that remained pending because of lawyer oversight. not client mendacity. and one that occurred clearly under the "radar" of Mr Epstein who was incarcerated and played absolutely no role - and had no prior notice - of the existence of an unwithdrawn motion to quash. Clearly. this oversight. more my fault than anyone's. cannot support and should not support any further sanction t-hat-was-c4ear-e€1-upwhen-we-wer-e-netified-t-hat-it4ad-net-been-islene-pr-eWeuslyr( oversight J> 6. As for the work release issue. in novermber of 2008 if-yekt-resall-mr black met with you Karen Atkinson bob senor and jeff sloman in Miami , and reviewed the work release issue. We presented you with your own e amil that acknowledged the sheriff had s discretion in the matter. Mr Acosta had previously assured me and other counsel that the United States Attorney would not interfere in the ordinary implementation of discretionary administrative decisions by state or county officials. WE were under no Qpbligation found in the NPA or in any other agreement to notify you of such discretionary and ordinary state decision-making, and, indeed. EFTA00727508 as you had thellad same notice of the Sheriffs decision as we did. FN THIS - pr-evieus eentaet-with-the-effree-ever-the-exaet-matter-at-handrAs to your requirments and obligation s to your victims , the state was never given their names, and to the best of our knowledge it was there obligation not ours in any way to notify you. ( e mail attached ) the sheriff reviewed his documents . and found no problems.. Yyour allegation that Mr Epstein made threaeting stateents to the sheriffs office is neither blown to his counsel nor true . Is-just-net-truerWe-ean-deeument-thist ifyou-se preferJACK - DOCUMENT REBUTTAL IF WE CAN - IT'S A MATTER OF CREDIBILITY OF JE . There was nothing out of the oridinary , he was treated like any other inmate, and if any different at all, it was he was kept in jail longer than he would would have otherwise been. 7. JACK TAKE CHARGE REBUTTING THIS COMPLAINT WITH DOCUMENTS AND DETAIL AND DATES I am surprised to see you once again suugest that the judges order correcting her clearks scrivner error, as somehow an Epstein didrected breach. We had nothing to do with this whatsoever. The non prescutin agreement called for community control and the plea agreement called for community control 1. In advertantly the clerk, checked the wrong box, the plea agreement was always clear. It was nothing more that a clearks error, to suggst otherwise, can only be as a result of the lack of the actual facts. To suggest that by asking the clerk to change the error to the right bax is a meaningless cure, makes little sense. 8. SET FORTH THE COMPLAINT AND THEN THE REBUTTAL WITH DOC PROOF mr Epstein does not work at his attorneys office. I believe we have corrected you on that fact more than onve.. 9. We have sent you a separate letter that describeds the motion to dismss. A document that we can review together. This document was never signed off on by mr epstin i.e. he never gave his prior approval to the filing nor was he advised before the filing that there was any issues of its conflicting with the NPA. To the contrary. the motion was but-was-in-faet-vetted-liy-many-ef-his-eetteselrit-vaw-s drafted by myself and the Kirkland and Eelllis team. WE took the lead as there would be we thought no better firm to do so as we had negotiated the agreement with you. As I mentioned on the phone ;NPA PAR 8 STATES THE FOLLOWING: " QUOTE TWIN CONDITIONS QUALIFYING PLAINTIFF FOR ANY WAIVERS UNDER NPA. Although lane Doe 101 stated, through counsel. that her lawsuit was exclusively under 2255. neither she nor her counsel. the attorney representative i.e. an attorney in possession of the NPA ever made the additional representations in a pleading, affidavit, or letter that his client had relinquished her rights to file future lawsuits (eg through other counsel) on any otherfederal. state or common law grounds. The words of paragraph 8 clearly require such a waiver otherwise why would the language after "and" be included. I recall, in fact, that they were drafted by you (and at least adopted by you). lane Doe lels lawsuit absent such waivers gave her no rights under the NPA and thus Kirkland and Ellis believes today that the Motion to Dismiss was well grounded. It was withdrawn at the insistence of Mr Epstein who prioritizes his desire to avoid contentious additional litigation with the USAO over whatever civil litigation advantages he got derive from the filing. the weiver-thet-mr-Epeteie-agreeel-te-was-net-tpiggereel-elee-te-afrineempe ne EFTA00727509  FN OR OMIT lin addtion we believed were asking the court, to opine on the applicability of the statute to this particular women and not negating any waiver of liability under the NM. Mg. you suggest that mr esptein is working on nothing but his litiagation but that is also not true. 10. mr Epstein , who has almost completed hi s incarecetaive sentecen , and as registered as a sex offender hs already been predgjcided.. he would have never plead guilty to a registrable offeenc e . or as you recall the statue to which he was indicted carried no jail time . 3 of your vicims have already been compensated, and we have been in negoatioation to settle more cases. The pattern of behavior that you refer to , as you can see from the above , shows no willful breach, at all. Many misunderstanding confirmed by the attachments, and we would hope that we could have the oppottunity forastall 1 any future misundetaings by being able to present to you before filing anything we think you might find as a breachj. EFTA00727510