Epstein Secrets

HERYL E. REICH INEVIMEOURMW.ccen RENATO C. STABILE 11104110WONSEinvcom FAITH A. FRIEDMAN filedmeneldwurlaw.wco BY HAND DELIVERY June 25, 2007 Jeffrey Sloman, Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Menchel, Esq., Chief, Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern Distric

's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey E. Epstein Dear Messrs. Sloman, Menchcl and Lourie and Ms. Villafatia: TELEPHONE 12121737.0400 FACSIMILE As you are aware, we represent Jeffrey E. Epstein in connection with yo

Page 4 proceeds of specified unlawful activity,' orAc) `to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law". United States'. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2003);5 see also United States" Arditti, 955 F.2d 331 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, cert denied 506 U.S. 998 (1992), cert. de

's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey E. Epstein Dear Messrs. Sloman, Menchel and Lourie and Ms. Villafana: LLLLL .R3Nt .2o2I 7370400 FACSIMILE 221/066102 As you are aware, we represent Jeffrey E. Epstein in conne

W YORE. NSW YORE 10021 GERALD 0. LEFCOURT leloarypekouituroccom SHERYL E RE1CR Nv C. STABILE ow FRIEDM•N -Oln June 25, 2007 BY HAND DELIVERY Jeffrey Sloman, Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Menchel, Esq., Chief, Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern Distric

Int:our, P.G I proceeds of specified unlawful activity,' or ) 'to avoid araction reporting requirement under State orf ederal law"'. United States Puche, 350 3d 1137 (11" Cir. 2003);' see also United States I Arditti, 955'.2d 331 (5° Cir.), reh'g denied cert. denied 506 U.S. 998 (1992), cert. denie

t responds to CEOS’s assessment of its limited review of Mr. Epstein’s case; and a point-by- point rebuttal to First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Sloman’s recent letter which we believe contains factual inaccuracies typical of our correspondence from the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (the “

et them in his house if they were under the age of 18. See United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 857-858 (11" Cir. 2006), quoting, United States v. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137, 1149 (11™ Cir. 2003) (An instruction on deliberate ignorance is appropriate only if it is shown [among other things] . . . that the d