Epstein Secrets

ce e-mails attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013847 Thru P-013849 E-mail to and September 18, 2007, 11:43 , RE: Draft Agreements?, with e-mail from Jay Leflcowitz (September 18, 2007, 11:09 M. attached Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013850 E-mail, to Alex Acosta and September 18, 2007, 9:31 RE: Epste

torney handwritten notes Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013334 Thru P-013337 File folder entitled "11/13/07 Sloman to Lefkowitz (was this sent?" containing draft 11/13/07 letter from responding to J. Lefkowitz's letter Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Page 2 of 14

P-013334 Thru P-013337 File folder entitled "11/13/07 Sloman to Lefkowitz (was this sent?" containing draft 11/13/07 letter from responding to J. Lefkowitz's letter Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Page 2 of 14 EFTA00185415 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/20

public mention of the NPA and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards—and thus to Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doc 5—of the possible existence of a NPA.137 122. Mr. Edwards detrimentally relied on the misleading representations made by the Office that the case was still under investigation when he was w

orney's Office has not produced any emails sent to or from any home e-mail addresses of its prosecutors. 30. On September 17, 2007, defense counsel Jay Leflcowitz responded: "[D]o you have another obstruction proffer I can review that you have drafted? Also, if we go that route, would you intend to make the d

tempted to notify or confer with the victims about the existence of the NPA. 35. On September 23, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an email to Lefkowitz stating: "It is factually accurate that the list we are going to give you are persons we have identified as victims. If we did not think they were

public mention of the NPA and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards—and thus to Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 5—of the possible existence of a NPA.137 122. Mr. Edwards detrimentally relied on the misleading representations made by the Office that the case was still under investigation when he was w

orney's Office has not produced any emails sent to or from any home e-mail addresses of its prosecutors. 30. On September 17, 2007, defense counsel Jay Leflcowitz responded: "[D]o you have another obstruction proffer I can review that you have drafted? Also, if we go that route, would you intend to make the d

tempted to notify or confer with the victims about the existence of the NPA. 35. On September 23, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an email to Lefkowitz stating: "It is factually accurate that the list we are going to give you are persons we have identified as victims. If we did not think they were

public mention of the NPA and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards—and thus to Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 5—of the possible existence of a NPA.137 122. Mr. Edwards detrimentally relied on the misleading representations made by the Office that the case was still under investigation when he was w