📄 Extracted Text (819 words)
Matins Klugman/New To Michelle Denny/New YorkflOrkland-alls@K&E
York/Kirkland-Ellis
cc
09/22/200912:40 PM
bee
Subject Fvr Please see the attached letter.
Forwarded by Kristin Andersen/New York/Kirkland-Ellis on 0922/200912:26 PM —
Jay Lefkowitz/New
York/Kirkland-Ellis To
Sent by: Courtney D.E.
Smith/New York/Kirkland-Ells CC
Subject Please see the attached letter.
06/12/2009 04:17 PM
I
lelkovalr toWotan/IOC 12 2009.POF Notice of Withdrawripdf
0
EFTA00623124
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
AND AMLIATID PAIIMIOSNWS
Cit!group Ceder
153 EMI 53rd Sven
Jay P. Lenans4O., P.C. New Yak, New York 100224611
To . Faosknly
June 12, 2009
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. A. Marie Villafana, Esq.
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of Florida
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Re: Jeffrey Epstein
Dear Ms. Villafana,
I am in possession of your June 12, 2009 letter giving notice of breach. I respectfully
submit that the Motion to Dismiss that is referenced therein did not constitute a will breach of
Mr. Epstein's obligations under the non-prosecution agreement. Mr. Epstein's counsel
6 unanimously determined that the filing of this Motion to Dismiss was not a breach of the non-
prosecution agreement, and the Motion to Dismiss was filed by counsel without Mr. Epstein's
final approval.
I want to inform you that immediately upon receipt of your letter, Mr. Epstein directed his
counsel to file the attached Notice withdrawing all but issue number VIII of the previously filed
Motion to Dismiss. The same issue also is described briefly in subparagraph D on page 3 of the
Motion, which likewise was not withdrawn. Please note that this issue relates exclusively to the
damages available under § 2255. The Notice has already been filed. If your continued review of
the civil dockets causes you to have additional concerns about any other filing, consistent with
the notice provisions of the non-prosecution agreement and consistent with our prior practice
regarding such matters, please provide me with notice and the opportunity to address the same
with you.
I believe that with today's filing withdrawing these issues Mr. Epstein, through counsel,
has fully remedied any perceived breach. Please advise if you for any reason disagree.
Respectfully submitted,
Jay P. Le owiiz, P.C.
Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angolan Munch San Frandsoo Washington. 0.C.
EFTA00623125
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
CC: Jeffrey Sloman, Esq.
Karen Atkinson, Esq.
O
EFTA00623126
Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80591 - KAM
JANE DOB NO. 101,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT jmEmELE
THROUGH VII OF THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT (DE291
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby
withdraws arguments I through VII as set forth in the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (FAC) [DE 29), dated May 26, 2009. Defendant withdraws
his arguments contained subparagraphs A, B, C and Sections 1 (The Complaint Must Be
Dismissed Because Plaintiff Is Not A Minor). II (The FAC Must Be Dismissed Because The
Defendant Has Not Been Convicted Of A Predicate Offense), DI (Count One Of The FAC Must
Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Please A Violation Of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)), IV (Count Two
Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Plead A Violation Of 18 U.S.C. §2423(b)), V (Count
Three Must Bo Dismissed Because It Does Not Plead A Violation Of 18 US.C. § 2251, VI
(Counts Four and Five Must Be Dismissed Because They Do Not Plead Violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2252(a)(1) Or 2252(a)(1), and VII (Count Six Must Be Dismissed Because 18 U.S.C. §
2252A(g) Was Not Enacted Until 2006).
Defendant will rely only on those arguments set forth in subparagraph D, on page 3, and
Paragraph VIII (Any Surviving Count Should Be Merged Into A Single Count) of the
EFTA00623127
Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 2 of 2
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint Or, In The Alternative, For A
More Definite Statement PE 29) dated May 26, 2009.
Counsel fora dant EPSTEIN
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the
Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this
day on all counselsi record entified on the following Service List in the manner specified by
CMJECF on thieaay of 2009
Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South
25 West Hagler Street, Suite 800 Suite 1400
Miami, FL 33130 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
Counselfor Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
IMP
Wounsel for Plaintiff
Respectfully submitted
By:
ROBERT D ITTON, JR., ESQ.
Florida B o. 224162
rcrit@bc law.com
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
Florida Bar #617296
BURMAN, CRITTON, LurnER & COLEMAN
515 N. Hagler Drive, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
EFTA00623128
ℹ️ Document Details
SHA-256
ac2012a44365245bcd421745362f9b3bf13ba3aa5695a092673b7a0a214d718e
Bates Number
EFTA00623124
Dataset
DataSet-9
Document Type
document
Pages
5
Comments 0