EFTA00214696.pdf

From: " ==n To:' Subject: RE: Epstein Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:48:03 +0000 Importance: Normal Yes! I originally nominated M, and then Jay asked if he could have a list of people from which to choose. We exchanged lists of acceptable people (including two people from Podhurst) and he said "Well, we probably should just stick with M." The problem only started when sent a laundry list of questions that he and the firm's conflicts counsel had and we started trying to set up a conference call. You then raised the Special Master issue, and I agreed that was best. Then Guy Lewis got involved and there was radio silence as they started communicating only with you. Ori inal Messa e From: Sent: Wednesda , December 12, 2007 7:43 AM To: Subject: Re: Epstein 1 question: page 2, 3rd par. states "since mr. had been told that you concurred in his selection ... I informed (him) of the office's decision to use a special master...." I'm a little confused - did Jay originally concur with M? Sent from my BlackBerty Wireless Handheld Original Message From: To: Cc: Sent: Tue Dec 11 17:20:55 2007 Subject: RE: Epstein I am out today, but I will start pulling everything together tomorrow. We don't have transcripts of all of the state interviews, but we have audio or videotapes of all of them. I drafted the attached letter, which I would like to send to Jay. <<071211 Ltr to Leflcowitz.pdf>> EFTA00214696 From: Sent: Tuesda , December 11 2007 5:17 PM To: Cc: Subject: Epstein In light of the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence, I've asked to conduct a de novo review of the evidence underlying the proposed indictment. I've provided with the proposed indictment package but can you make copies of the 302s , state GJ and interview transcripts, and any other underlying investigative information that can review a.s.a.p.? Thanks, • EFTA00214697