Epstein Secrets

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

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 gr

Epstein concerning the criminal investigation conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the resolution of that investigation. 19. Jay Lefkowitz Kirkland and Ellis, LLP Mr. Lefkowitz represented Jeffrey Epstein concerning the criminal investigation conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the reso

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S INITIAL DISCLOSURES Respondent United States of America, by and through

superstars: Harvard Professor Alan Dashowitz, former Judge and Mete Pepperdine Law Dean Kameth Starr, fauna Deputy Ass:staor z teePresident and abmi Kirkland a: Ellis Partner Jay Loranvim, and stymie others, incleirry4 prosecutors ?dm had formally worked in the U.S. hap://www.tdbimg.com/files/2011/03/24/

ndant Lk-its-Ant; Class Code: LIU Closed: No Statute: no Jury Demand: None Demand Amount: S$0 NOS Description: Civil Rights: Other Attorneys Jane Doe Bradley James Edwards Petitioner Lead Attorney Farmer Jaffe WeIssin • Edwards Fstos & Lehrman Pl. United States of Amer ca Respondent Jay C. H

U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 June 23, 2008 Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. Kenneth Starr, Esq. Kirkland and Ellis LLP Gentlemen: This Office has completed a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's handling of the matter involving your client, Jeffrey

n the originals of both documents to me by November 9, 2010. With respect to the claims asserted in the litigation, in the Victim's Petition (DE I), Jane Doe # I brought claims against the United States for alleged violation of her rights under the Crime Victim's Rights Act ("CVRA"). The Jane Doe #1 petit

80736-CV-MARRA P-011819 EFTA00192865 U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 June 23, 2008 Jay Lefkowitz„ Esq. Kenneth Starr, Esq. Kirkland and Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Gentlemen: This Office has completed a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's handl

IM G., the first victim identified in PBPD's investigation. Plaintiff filed motion to remand to state court, which was granted by Judge Marra. 2. Jane Doe #2I. Epstein, 08-CV-80 I 19-KAM: Complaint filed on February 6, 2008, alleging: sexual assault (Count l), and intentional infliction of emotional di

FTA01718630 U.S. Department of.Justiee United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Leflcowitz, Esq. Kirkland 8c Ellis LLP New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: West Palm Beach, FL 3 acsuni e: December 13, 2007 I am writing not t

tream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (201) On or about August 18, 2005, Defendant placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (202) On or about August 19, 2005, Defendant wk/a placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (203) On or about

ecusal from the Justice Department's internal probe into the non-prosecution of Epstein as signed off by Acosta. "Due to his prior association with Kirkland and Ellis, the Attorney General has and will remain recused from any retrospective review of the resolution of the earlier [Southern District of Flo

.' Questions about Epstein's deal started to surface after a series of lawsuits were filed by two of his alleged victims. The women, identified as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, claim in court papers that they were unaware of the secret deal being made between the defense team and prosecutors back in 2007 tha

ecusal from the Justice Department's internal probe into the non-prosecution of Epstein as signed off by Acosta. "Due to his prior association with Kirkland and Ellis, the Attorney General has and will remain recused from any retrospective review of the resolution of the earlier [Southern District of Flo

.' Questions about Epstein's deal started to surface after a series of lawsuits were filed by two of his alleged victims. The women, identified as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, claim in court papers that they were unaware of the secret deal being made between the defense team and prosecutors back in 2007 tha

cpt?action=cpt&title=Another+suittalleg... 4/2/2008 . HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012652 TAB 34 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012653 Jay Lefkowitz/New To Ami Sheth/New York/Kirkland-Ellis@K&E York/Kirktand-Eli Sent by: Kasin AndarsarvNee cc Eugene Kornel/New York/Kirkland-Ellis@K&E York/Kirkland-Ellis bcc 12/12/2007 04:20 PM S

012635 TAB 32 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012636 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 20069 " JANE DOE NO. 1, by and through JANE DOE’s FATHER as parent and natural guardian, and JANE DOR’s FATHER, and . . JANE DOE’s STEPMOTHER, individually, ciV-MA RRA Plaintiffs, MAGISTRATE JUDGH

oyment a decade earlier as an associate at the firm.94 On the evening of August 6, 2007, Sloman emailed Acosta: “Just saw Menchel. I didn’t know Kirkland made a call into you. You were right. Unbelievable.” During their OPR interviews, neither Acosta nor Sloman remembered the call from Kirkland & E

.C. Section 3771, Doe v. United States, Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Another victim subsequently joined the litigation as “Jane Doe 2.” iii Soon after he was incarcerated, Epstein applied for the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s work release program, and the Sheriff approved his a