Epstein Secrets

t 361-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 "ViIlatena. Ann Marie C. 09/12/2007 03:44 PM To <[email protected]> cc bee Subject Jeffrey Epstein Jay — It was nice seeing you again. and I talked with and Jeff. We are all satisfied in principle with the agreement, t the Office is uncomfortable w

t the Office is uncomfortable with the recommended federal charge. Specifically, we are concerned about the effect of taking the position that Mr. Epstein's house Is in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and we have no evidence of any assaults occurring either on M

M To <[email protected]> cc bee Subject Jeffrey Epstein Jay — It was nice seeing you again. and

ned about the effect of taking the position that Mr. Epstein's house Is in the special maritime and territori

(USAFLS) From: , Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) nt: 4u Illieptember 14, 2007 9:54 AM leflcowliziakIrkland.coml; 'Jay Lerkowltz' bject: Plea documents Iii Jay — I'm not sure which of those c-mail addresses is correct. I{ere are drafts of the pica agreement and information. They have not yet been blessed by

et 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 7 IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN I NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein") has committed offenses against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around October 2005, including: (I) knowingly and willfull

red on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 ell b,Cat isk Re: JE negotiations 1 message Ann Ann Sun, Sep 16,20

02/10/2016 Page 4 of 7 IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN I NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEA

rned about the effect of taking the position that Mr. Epstein's house is in the special maritime and territori

itz" <[email protected]> cc bcc Subject Re: JE negotiations _,,,,Xigredasiwtha,Wypiligpit t hasogifogo ; RiV.Wiallar '! Lea egt:W*, -vat Iii Jay -- I looked up some 11th Circuit cases on simple assault and found some good language. I also learned that, every moment that one is aboard an encl

g your December proposal, there are a couple of things I don't understand. What limits are placed upon individuals who proceed under 2255 as if "Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense." In other words, what individuals would have this right? And would these individual

mber Agreement still be operative? I am trying hard to understand what you have intended by the December letter. Alex has says he thinks it benefits Jeffrey, and I am open to understanding it that way. But I would like some clarity on these issues. Thanks — Jay "Villalana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)" <Ann.

ed upon individuals who proceed under 2255 as if "Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enu

[email protected] oan4nooa 12:44 PM To <lerkeeitztgkirkland.ccal> cc 'Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS)- <Karen [email protected]> Subject Follow-up point Iii Jay —1 forgot to mention that I can no longer argue that the Court shouldn't force us to produce the agreement because we have already provided the vict

ponding to my email. You have narrowed down some of the implementation issues. As I told you this morning, we cannot accept your contention that Mr. Epstein is bound by an agreement he didn't sign as opposed to one he did sign, particularly in light of my written communications to your office dated Dece

mber Agreement still be operative? I am trying hard to understand what you have intended by the December letter. Alex has says he thinks it benefits Jeffrey, and I am open to understanding it that way. But I would like some clarity on these issues. Thanks —Jay 1 la c. jig 081141200$12:44 PM To <lefk

is morning, we cannot accept your contention that Mr. Epstein is bound by an agreement he didn't sign as oppos

e issues. Thanks —Jay 1 la c. jig 081141200$12:44 PM To <lefkotentz@titirklan4 corn, cc Subject Follow-up point )" <Karen.Atkinson@uscloigov> Iii Jay — I forgot to mention that I can no longer argue that the Court shouldn't force us to produce the agreement because we have already provided the vic

ponding to my email. You have narrowed down some of the implementation issues. As I told you this morning, we cannot accept your contention that Mr. Epstein is bound by an agreement he didn't sign as opposed to one he did sign, particularly in light of my written communications to your office dated Dece

mber Agreement still be operative? I am trying hard to understand what you have intended by the December letter. Alex has says he thinks it benefits Jeffrey, and I am open to understanding it that way. But I would like some clarity on these issues. Thanks —Jay 081141200612:44 PM cc Subject Follow-up

is morning, we cannot accept your contention that Mr. Epstein is bound by an agreement he didn't sign as oppos

I am open to understanding it that way. But I would like some clarity on these issues. Thanks —Jay 081141200612:44 PM cc Subject Follow-up point Iii Jay — I forgot to mention that 1 can no longer argue that the Court shouldn't force us to produce the agreement because we have already provided the vic

tions of Ms. Groff. We will need to interview her to confirm the accuracy of those facts. On a second count, we could rely on the incident where Mr. Epstein's private investigators 3 EFTA00225932 followed father, forcing him off the road. Or, if there is something more recent related to any grand ju

second count, we could rely on the incident where Mr. Epstein's private investigators 3 EFTA00225932 follow

(USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:13 AM To: 'Jay LefkowitY Subject: RE: Draft Agreements? Iii Jay -- I know that the U.S. Attorney will not go below 18 months of time (and I would strongly oppose the suggestion). A. Marie Villafaiia Assistant