Epstein Secrets

As set forth in caption. There has been no change in the parties. 3. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT OR PETITIONER: Jay P. Lefkowitz, Sandra Lynn Musumeci KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, Neiril4611 Telephone: Facsimile: 4. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUM

W PENDING IN ANY COURT OF THIS OR ANY OTHER JURISDICTION. 10. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL APPEAL PENDING IN THIS ACTION. Dated: February 9, 2011 Ja . Lefkowitz, P.C. S dra Lynn Musumeci KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, Ne i -4611 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorneys for Defendant-Appella

Alan Dershowitz, former Judge and then Pepperdine Law Dean Kenneth Starr, former Deputy Assistant to the President and then Kirkland & Ellis Partner Jay Lefkowitz, and several others, including prosecutors who had formally worked in the U.S. EFTA00232721 Attorney's Office and in the Child Exploitation and Ob

er restrain them from notifying the Sheriff's Office if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is completely within the discretion of the Sheriff's Office. The purpose of this letter is simply to provide y

cy to commit an assault on I plane. I just want to make sure that we have something that is factually accurate. Just trying to plan ahead" (id.). At Jay Lefkowitz's request, MAUSA and I scheduled conference call with him for early on the morning of September 14, 2007 (id. at 25). Mr. did not attend the confere

After correspondence with Roy Black and I telephone conference with Mr. Black and Jay Leflcowitz, we were advised that USA Acosta had informed Mr. Lefkowitz31 that Epstein could be considered for any Erogram that was available to other prisoners. At that point, I was unable to press forward with I breach,

o let us know if Epstein did, in fact, apply for work release. We never received any notice ofas application. Instead, on November 20, 2008, when Gauger stopped by to see on another matter he told her that Epstein had been on work release for the past few weeks (Exhibit 82). Sil spoke with the work

As set forth in caption. There has been no change in the parties. 3. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT OR PETITIONER: Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. Sandra Lynn Musumeci KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, Neirri4611 Telephone: Facsimile: 4. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHON

W PENDING IN ANY COURT OF THIS OR ANY OTHER JURISDICTION. 10. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL APPEAL PENDING IN THIS ACTION. Dated: February 9, 2011 Ja . Lefkowitz, P.C. S dra Lynn Musumeci KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, Nellii4611 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorneys for Defendant-Appella

her restrain them from notifying the Sheriffs Office if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is completely within the discretion of the Sheriff's Office. The purpose of this letter is simply to provide y

eys Starr and Lefkowitz stating their finding that there was no abuse of discretion and no misconduct (Exhibit B-44). I immediately sent an email to Jay Lefkowitz in accordance with Mr. Senior's instructions (Ex. B-49). The following day, Roy Black and Jack Goldberger, as local counsel for Epstein, contacted m

2007, Jay Lefkowitz, counsel for Epstein, objected to the victim notification letter in a letter to USA Acosta. (Exhibit B-9). USA Acosta asked Mr. Lefkowitz to discuss the matter with Jeff Sloman and me. (Exhibit B-10). On December 5, 2007, Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz wrote a letter to USA Acosta re

s know if Epstein did, in fact, apply for work release. We never received any notice of Epstein's application. Instead, on November 20, 2008, when Gauger stopped by to see Karen Atkinson on another matter, he told her that Epstein had been on work release for the past few weeks (Exhibit 82). S/A Kuyrk