HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012676.jpg

Jay Lefkowitz/New To Ami Sheth/New York/Kirkland-Ellis@K&E Sent by. Kristin Arwiersen ie ce Eugene Kornel/New York/Kirkland-Ellis@K&E York/Kirkland-Ellis bec 42/12/2007 04:19 PM Subject Fw: Epstein ----~ Forwarded by Kristin Andersen/New York/Kirkland-Ellis on 12/12/2007 04:19 PM ----- Jay Lefkowitz/New York/Kirkland-Ellis To "Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)" 11/28/2007 04:29 PM cc "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" Subject Re: EpsteinE) Dear Jeff: [received your email yesterday and was a little surprised at the tone of your letter, given the fact that we spoke last week and had what I thought was a productive meeting. I was especially surprised given that your letter arrived on only the second day back to work after the Thanksgiving Holiday, and yet your demands regarding timing suggest that I have been sitting on my hands for days. You should know that the first time I learned about Judge Davis’s selection of Podhurst and Josephsberg, and indeed the first time I ever heard their names, was in our meeting with you on Wednesday of last week. Nevertheless, I have now been able to confer with my client, and we have determined that the selection of Podhurst and Josephsberg are acceptable to us, reserving, of course, our previously stated objections to the manner in which you have interpreted the section 2255 portions of the Agreement. We do, however, strongly and emphatically object to your sending a letter to the alleged victims. Without a fair opportunity to review and the ability to make objections to this letter, it is completely unacceptable that you would send it without our consideration. Additionally, given that the US Attorney’s office has made clear it cannot vouch for the claims of the victims, it would be incendiary and inappropriate for your Office to send such a letter. Indeed, because it is a certainty that any such letter would immediately be leaked to the press, your actions will only have the effect of injuring Mr. Epstein and promoting spurious civil litigation directed at him. We believe it is entirely unprecedented, and in any event, inappropriate for the Government to be the instigator of such lawsuits. Finally, we disagree with your view that you are required to notify the alleged victims pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. First, 18 USC section 2255, the relevant statute under the Non-Prosecution Agreement for the settlement of civil remedies, does not have any connection to the Justice for All Act. Section 2255 was enacted as part of a different statute. Second, the Justice for All Act refers to restitution, and section 2255 is not a restitution statute. It is a civil remedy. As you know, we had offered to provide a restitution fund for the alleged . HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012676