Epstein Secrets

Esq. Company: Fax it: Direct #: prated States Attorney, Southern bistrict of Florida Company: Fax #: Direct it: From: Sandra Musumeci for Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. Message: Date: July 29, 2011 Pages w/cover: 4 Fax #; Direct #: Please see the attached letter, in response to your letter to Martin Wei

ed similar language in tying the names of the "victims" to the basis for a potential indictment, see December 6, 2007 letter from Mr. Sloman to Mr. Lelkowitz at 2, 3; see gla your email to Mr. Lefkowitz and Mr. Black on August 14, 2008 at 3:27 p.m., where you state that the list contains "only those 'indi

ty agreement between your Office and Mr. Epstein as well as the provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). As to the NPA, you have repeatedly asserted in Doe v United States No. 9:08-cv-80736- KAM, that the NPA was a confidential document. For instance, in paragraph 6 of Document 14, your own Declaration, you stated that

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AFFILIATED PARTNERSHIPS 601 Lexington Avenue New York. New York 10022 Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. To Call Writer Directly: (212)446-4800 Facsimile: (212)446-4900 winv.kirkland.00m July 29, 2011 Delivery by Facsimile CONFIDENTIAL A.

"victims" to the basis for a potential indictment, see December 6, 2007 letter from Mr. Sloman to Mr. Lefkowitz at 2, 3; see also your email to Mr. Lefkowitz and Mr. Black on August 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, where you state that the list contains "only those `individuals whom [the United States] was prepared

tiality agreement between your Office and Mr. Epstein as well as the provisions of F.R.Crim.P. 6(e). As to the NPA, you have repeatedly asserted in Doe v United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736- ICAM, that the NPA was a confidential document. For instance, in paragraph 6 of Document 14, your own Declaration, you stated th

, Esq. Company; Pax #: Direct #: United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida Company: Fax #: Direct it From: Sandra Musumeci for Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. Message: Date: July 29, 2011 Pages w/cover: 4 Fax #: Direct #: Please see the attached letter, in response to your letter to Martin Wei

ed similar language in tying the names of the "victims" to the basis for a potential indictment, see December 6, 2007 letter from Mr. Sloman to Mr. Lefkowitz at 2, 3; see also your email to Mr. Lefkowitz and Mr. Black on August 14, 2008 at 3:27 p.m., where you state that the list contains "only those 'ind

ty agreement between your Office and Mr. Epstein as well as the provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). As to the NPA, you have repeatedly asserted in Doe v United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736- KAM, that the NPA was a confidential document. For instance, in paragraph 6 of Document 14, your own Declaration, you stated tha

Esq. Company: United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida Company: Fax #: Direct #: Fax #: Direct tt: From: Sandra Musumeci for Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. Message: Date: July 29, 2011 Pages Weaver: 4 Fax Direct Please see the attached letter, in response to your letter to Martin Weinberg o

Attorney used similar language in tying the names ', victims" to the basis for a potential indictment, see December 6, 2007 letter from Mr. to Mr. Lefkowitz at 2, 3; see aiv your email to Mr. Lcfkowitz and Mr. Black on August 14, 2008 at 3:27 p.m., where you state that the list contains "only those 'indi

ty agreement between your Office and Mr. Epstein as well as the provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). As to the NPA, you have repeatedly asserted in Doe v United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736- KAM, that the NPA was a confidential document. For instance, in paragraph 6 of Document 14, your own Declaration, you stated tha

loman used similar language in tying the names of the "victims" to the basis for a potential indictment, see December 6, 2007 letter from Sloman to Lefkowitz at pgs 2,3, see also your email to Mr. Leflcowitz and Mr. Black on August 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM where you state that the list contains "only those `i

ntiality agreement between your Office and Mr. Epstein as well as the provisions of F.R.Crim.P 6(e). As to the NPA, you have repeatedly asserted in Doe v United States 9:08cv80736-KAM that the NPA was a confidential document. For instance, in par 6 of document 14, your own declaration, you stated that the NPA con

closure of the NPA to her has the potential to result in its use in that appeal and the real risk that the appellate court will unseal it. Both Mr. Lefkowitz, who is co-signing this letter, and myself believe it to violate both the spirit and the most logical interpretation of the NPA, par 13, for you to

tiality agreement between your Office and Mr. Epstein as well as the provisions of F.R.Crim.P 6(e). As to the NPA, you have repeatedly asserted in Doe v United States 9:08cv80736-KAM that the NPA was a confidential document. For instance, in par 6 of document 14, your own declaration, you stated that the NPA con

closure of the NPA to her has the potential to result in its use in that appeal and the real risk that the appellate court will unseal it. Both Mr. Lefkowitz, who is co-signing this letter, and myself believe it to violate both the spirit and the most logical interpretation of the NPA, par 13, for you to

tiality agreement between your Office and Mr. Epstein as well as the provisions of F.R.Crim.P 6(e). As to the NPA, you have repeatedly asserted in Doe v United States 9:08cv80736-KAM that the NPA was a confidential document. For instance, in par 6 of document 14, your own declaration, you stated that the NPA con