Epstein Secrets

behalf of such person) during the very• communication that constitutes the required basis for federal jurisdiction. EFTA00079412 LAW OF/PICCO OP GERALD B. LEFCOURT. P.C. FCre₹ o Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 25, 2007 Page 5 To our knowledge, the c

T TB" STREET NEW YORE, NEW YORK 10021 GERALD B LEFCOURT SHERYL E. REICH riBlialloROWEWN:orn RENATO C.

ding of this statutory language would raise constitutional problems of fair warning, vagueness and lenity. EFTA00079411 LAW o•ICCS or GERALD 13. LEVCOURT. PC Chiefo the Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 25, 2007 Page 4 We are, of course, mindf

8 EFTA00079461 4 VAT ' ' ''; - . • *-- - il tlIitakt . . - -2 M lar ft; ..... IgeffAIKOE:% ASc. :4.e tfa.1. i' I. Aa.:1 Z' U.S. v. Clarke, 159 Fed. Appx. 128 (111h Cir. 2005) Unpublished Foreign Travel Sting No specific information available but implication is that this is a sex

even when the information would incriminate the client "in the very case in which the Firm was engaged to provide criminal defense representation." Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. v. United States , 125 F.3d 79, 87 (2d Cir. 1997). In that case, Attorney Lefcourt refused to identify in an IRS reporting form a client who p

aged to provide criminal defense representation." Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. v. United States , 125 F.3d 79, 87 (2d Cir. 1997). In that case, Attorney Lefcourt refused to identify in an IRS reporting form a client who paid him more than $10,000 cash, and Lefcourt was fined $25,000. Lefcourt sought to avoid

vilege are tested by refusing to answer specific questions. Davis , 636 F.2d at 1039. See also Nguyen v. Excel Corp. , 197 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1999); Clarke v. American Commerce Nat. Bank , 974 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. White , 950 F.2d 426, 430 (7th Cir. 1991). In his motion, Epstein

even when the information would incriminate the client "in the very case in which the Firm was engaged to provide criminal defense representation." Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. I United States , 125 F.3d 79, 87 (2d Cir. 1997). In that case, Attorney Lefcourt refused to identify in an IRS reporting form a client who pa

gaged to provide criminal defense representation." Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. I United States , 125 F.3d 79, 87 (2d Cir. 1997). In that case, Attorney Lefcourt refused to identify in an IRS reporting form a client who paid him more than $10,000 cash, and Lefcourt was fined $25,000. Lefcourt sought to avoid

ee arrangements reached with that client," including the amount paid for legal services and the form of payment) EFTA00223008 (citation omitted); Clarke, American Commerce Nat'l Bank , 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992) ("the identity of the client, the amount of the fee, the identification of payment

meeting with R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney, to further discuss this matter. Sincerely. Lilly Ann Sanchez cc. R. Alexander Acosta Gerald Lefcourt Roy Black FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. EFTA00310836 MAY 14, 2008 - FROM THE DEFENSE TO THE GOVT EFTA00310837 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Kenneth W. St

kends. EFTA00310824 LAW OF'ICCS OF GEFLALD B. LEFCOURT, P.G. ce o e rue tates Attorney Southern Dist

tate interest is relatively minimal and United States treaty obligations have made federal intervention a high priority. See, e.g., United States v. Clarke, 159 Fed. Appx. 128, 2005 WL 3438434 (11th Cir. 2005Xunpublished); United States v. Strevell, 185 Fed. Appx. 841, 2005 WL 1697529 (11th Cir. 2006Xu

tein matter and the letter in response of Gerald Lefcourt and I would like to speak to you further regar in

one Number: (305) 789-9200 71200 - Epstein Please see attached correspondence from Roy BI e Jeffrey Epstein matter and the letter in response of Gerald Lefcourt and I would like to speak to you further regar ing same since we do not believe that Marie's letter es raised by Roy Black. I am in my office at

state interest is relatively minimal and United States treaty obligations have made federal intervention a high priority. See, e.g., United States' Clarke, 159 Fed. Appx. 128, 2005 WL 3438434 (11th Cir. 2005Xunpublished); United StatesIStrevell, 185 Fed. Appx. 841, 2005 WI. 1697529 (II' Cir. 2006Xunpu

LS) (USAFLS) Cc: . (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein Attachments: 2007-05-22 letter to AUSe Gentlemen, l a and I have already met with Lefcourt, which is really the meeting I promised him. I spoke to him last week and he said he had more information they wanted to present. I told him he coul

ssed with you, but with others if it is not resolved. Thanks for your attention. Could you email back so that I know you have received this letter? Gerald B. Lefcourt Gerald B I Afrat , P.C. Ne rk 10021 Tel. 1 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013303 EFTA00230208 cp/2.54 LekotAyf-to No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-

tate interest is relatively minimal and United States treaty obligations have made federal intervention a high priority. See, e.g., United States v. Clarke, 159 Fed. Appx. 128, 2005 WL 3438434 (11th Cir. 2005)(unpublished); United States v. Strevell, 185 Fed. Appx. 841, 2005 WI, 1697529 (11th Cir. 2006

LAW OFFICES OF GERALD B. LEFCOURT, P.C. • PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION I AS EAST 7S"

owed up. 2422(b); 2594(a) Not Consummated Showed up for meeting 50 EFTA00224184 COURT CASES FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE 11. U.S.' Clarke, 159 Fed. Appx. 128 (11th Cir. 2005) Unpublished Foreign Travel Sting No specific information available but implication is that this is a sex t

701^ STREET NEW YORE, NEW YORE 100E1 GERALD S. LEFCOuRT lefccuradercourtlaw.com SHERYL E. REICH INEVIM

state interest is relatively minimal and United States treaty obligations have made federal intervention a high priority. See, e.g., United States 'Clarke, 159 Fed. Appx. 128, 2005 WL 3438434 (It ch Cir. 2005)(unpublished); United States I Strevell, 185 Fed. Appx. 841, 2005 WL 1697529 (11th Cir. 2006)

48 EAST 78Th NEW YORE, NEW YORK 10021 GERALD B. LEFCOURT [email protected] SHERYL E. REICH NIcle

ringer 3 18 U.S.C.S. 2423(e); Knowingly attempted to 20551 18 U.S.C.S. 1594(a) induce minor to engage in prostitution. [no other facts] 04- Clarke 18 U.S.C.S. 2423(e); D attempted to arrange to 20656 18 U.S.C.S. 1594(a) have sex w/ minor girls in Costa Rica thru fake "travel agency." 04-

ld" neighbor; arrested in hotel where supposed to meet. • Not Consummated Showed up for meeting Sting Conviction affirmed. 87 EFTA01729571 I LEFCOURT'S LIST EFTA01729572

ting 48 EFTA01729532 . .— . ... . COURT LASES . n. .!. C . i „... ,, ., . , .. ous 44 ,-;..f.,400fispmtclti textig L- . - . U.S. v. Clarke, 159 Fed. Appx. 128 (11'' Cir. 2005) Unpublished Foreign Travel Sting No specific information available but implication is that this is a sex