DOJ-OGR-00023126.tif

a proposal regarding the special master’s responsibilities, along with a draft letter to send to the special master explaining the procedure for selecting an attorney representative. Lefkowitz objected to this proposal in a letter to Villafafia, pointing out that the NPA did not provide for the appointment of a special master. More importantly, Lefkowitz used the discussion of the special master as an opening to press for other alterations to the language of the NPA or, at least, to its interpretation. Focusing on the attorney representative, Lefkowitz argued that the attorney’s role should be viewed as limited to negotiating settlements and that the attorney was precluded from filing lawsuits on behalf of victims who could not reach a negotiated settlement with Epstein. Lefkowitz proposed: [T]he selected attorney should evaluate the claims of each identified individual, negotiate a total fund amount with Mr. Epstein, then distribute the monies based on the strength of each case. For those identified individuals who elect not to settle with Mr. Epstein, they may proceed on their own, but by doing so, they would not be suing under § 2255 as contemplated by [the NPA] and therefore may not continue to be represented by the selected attorney. Lefkowitz also objected to Villafafia’s draft letter to the special master, asserting that it was essential for the defense to participate in crafting a “mutually acceptable communication” to the victims. Going further, Lefkowitz claimed that any contact between the USAO and the victims about the § 2255 provision would violate the agreement’s confidentiality provision. Lefkowitz admonished the government not to contact the victims “to inform them of the resolution of the case, including [the] appointment of the selected attorney and the settlement process.” Villafafia forwarded Lefkowitz’s letter to Sloman, complaining that the defense interpretation of the § 2255 procedure violated the clear language of the NPA and asking, “Can I please just indict him [Epstein]?” Days later, Sanchez emailed Sloman, and then sent a follow-up letter, asking that Sloman “help resolve” the issue regarding the attorney representative’s role, and arguing that Epstein had never intended by signing the NPA to promise to pay fees for the victims’ civil lawsuits in the event a settlement could not be reached. When Villafafia explained to Sloman her views on Sanchez’s arguments, Sloman responded, “I suggest that you communicate your proposal back to [Sanchez]. The more ‘voices’ they hear the more wedges they try to drive between us.” Villafafia agreed, noting that “[t]here are so many of them over there, I am afraid we are getting triple-teamed.”!*° Villafafia sent Sanchez a letter regarding the roles of the special master and attorney representative. The next day, October 10, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a six-page letter to Acosta, asa “follow up to our conversation yesterday,” expressing “serious disagreements” with Villafafia’s view of the process for victims to claim § 2255 damages under the NPA. Lefkowitz reiterated the defense position that the attorney representative’s role was meant to be limited to negotiating settlements for the victims, rather than pursuing litigation. Lefkowitz claimed that a requirement 136 Villafafia also alerted Sloman that a newspaper was reporting that defense counsel was writing a letter to Acosta asking for reconsideration of the requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender. Villafafia commented, “Tt appears they don’t understand that a signed contract is binding.” 88 DOJ-OGR-00023126