United States v. Libby, 461 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D.D.C. 2006) passim United States v. Lumpkin, 192 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 1999) 20,21,22,31 United States v. Mathis, 264 F.3d 321 (3d Cir. 2001) 29 United States v. Moore, 798 F.2d 1308 (5th Cir. 1986) 27, 28 United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001)

2.047 Sy I 9, acc 3. da/f) CONFIDENTIAL FastBankPRO00444 SDNY_GM_00013281 CONFIDENTIAL EFTA_00123924 EFTA01269128 • ' Arteclec el °menhir, Mathis Wash I Aft, LLC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed these Finn Amended ,,, Articles of Organization of Thomas World Air. LLC this jir

d) disadvantage[s] the offender affected by it' by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime." Lynce v. Mathis 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). U.S. v. Siegel

] disadvantage[s) the offender affected by it' by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime." Lvnce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29,101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). U.S. v. Siegel

] disadvantage[s] the offender affected by it' by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime." Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). U.S. v. Siege

diately and delete all copies. From: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> To: Cecile de Jongh < Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 3:17:38 PM Subject: Mathis or Orieol this week? The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside inf

ediately and delete all copies. From: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> To: Cecile de knob < Sent Mon, August 9, 2010 3:17:38 PM Subject: Mathis or Orieol this week? The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside inf

urt cannot disallow an entitlement to an award of fees." Downs v. Coastal Sys. Int'l, Inc., 972 So. 2d 258, 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (citing Vines v. Mathis, 867 So.2d 548 (Ha. 1st DCA 2004)). See also McMahan v. Toto, 311 F.3d 1077,1083 (11th Cir. 2002). An offer of judgment is typically deemed to be a

all copies. From: jeffrey epstein <'eevacation@ mail.com> To: Cecile de Jongh < Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 11:36:31 AM Subject: Al? Hobson , Mathis, hassle megee,fuel Sorry for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone EFTA00649101

e all copies. From: jeffrey epstein < [email protected]> To: Cecile de Jongh < Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 11:36:31 AM Subject: Al? Hobson , Mathis, hassle megee,fuel Sorry for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone EFTA00649103

From: jeffrey epstein <[email protected]> To: Cecile de Jongh Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:36:31 +0000 Al? Hobson , Mathis, hassle megee,fuel Sony for all the typos .Sent from my iPhonc EFTA00649099

EFTA00649106 From: Jeffrey epstein < [email protected]> To: Cecile de Jongh < Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 11:36:31 AM Subject: Al? Hobson , Mathis, hassle megee,fuel Sorry for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone EFTA00649107

and the Evolving Landscape of Global Financial Centers in the Post-Crisis Era Chair: Stuart FRASER Policy Chairman, City of London ' Panelists: Mathis CABIALLAVETTA Vice Chairman, SwissRe Group" Lawrence LEIBOWITZ Chief Operating Officer, NYSE Euronext • Michael SMITH Chief Executive Officer. A

ourt cannot disallow an entitlement to an award of fees." Downs v. Coastal Sys. Int?, Inc., 972 So. 2d 258, 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (citing Vines v. Mathis, 867 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). See also McMahan v. Toto, 311 F.3d 1077,1083 (11th Cir. 2002). An offer of judgment is typically deemed to be

ourt cannot disallow an entitlement to an award of fees." Downs v. Coastal Sys. Intl, Inc., 972 So. 2d 258, 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (citing Vines v. Mathis, 867 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). See also McMahan v. Toto, 311 F.3d 1077,1083 (11th Cir. 2002). An offer of judgment is typically deemed to be a

urt cannot disallow an entitlement to an award of fees." Downs v. Coastal Sys. Int'l, Inc., 972 So. 2d 258, 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (citing Vines v. Mathis, 867 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). See also McMahan v. Toto, 311 F.3d 1077,1083 (11th Cir. 2002). An offer ofjudgment is typically deemed to be a

se notify the sender immediately and delete all copies. From: Jeffrey Epstein To: Cecile de Jongh Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 3:17:38 PM Subject: Mathis or Orieol this week? *********************************************************** The information contained in this communication is EFTA_R1_001868

To: Cecile de Jongh( From: Jeffrey Epstein Sent Mon 8/9/2010 7:17:38 PM Mathis or Orieol this week? *********************************************************** The information contained in this communication is confidential,

mediately and delete all copies. From: Jeffrey Epstein < eevacation mail.com> To: Cecile de Jongh Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 3:17:38 PM Subject: Mathis or Oricol this week? *********************************************************** The information contained in this communication is confidential,

To: Cecile de Jongh From: jeffrey epstein Sent: Mon 12/20/2010 4:36:31 PM Al? Hobson , Mathis, hassle megee,fuel Sorry for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone EFTA_R1_00206421 EFTA01830251