EFTA00013543.pdf

Type: pdf
Source set: data-set-8
Extracted text

From: 
To: 
Subject: Re: Epstein 
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:11:19 +0000 
Importance: Normal 
Do u think 
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld 
•
 
Fro 
To: 
Sen : 
e 
ec 
• 
Subject: RE: Epstein 
Yes! I originally nominated Bert, and then Jay asked if he could have a list of people from which to choose. 
lists of acceptable people (including two people from Podhurst) and he said "Well, we probably should just 
The problem only started when Bert sent a laundry list of questions that he and the firm's conflicts counsel 
started trying to set up a conference call. You then raised the Special Master issue, and I agreed that was 
not involved and there was radio silence as they started communicating only with you. 
We exchanged 
stick with Bert." 
had and we 
best. Then 
From 
Sen • 
:43 AM 
To: 
Sub 
. 
. 
1 question: page 2, 3rd par. states "since mr. Ocariz had been told that you concurred in his selection ... I informed (him) of 
the office's decision to use a special master.. ." 
I'm a little confused - did Jay originally concur with Ocariz? 
--------- ---------- ---
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld 
O 
Fro 
To: 
Cc: 
Sen. ue 'ec 
Subject: RE: Epstein 
I am out today, but I will start pulling everything together tomorrow. We don't have transcripts of all of the state interviews, 
but we have audio or videotapes of all of them. 
I drafted the attached letter, which I would like to send to Jay. 
«071211 
Ltr to Lefkowitz.pdf» 
EFTA00013543


From: 
Se 
• 
• 
PM 
To: 
Cc: 
Subjec : ps ein 
In light of the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence_i _I've asked 
to conduct a de novo review of the evidence 
underlying the proposed indictment. I've provided =with the proposed indictment package but can you make copies of 
the 302s , state GJ and interview transcripts, and any other underlying investigative information thatMan review 
a.s.a.p.? Thanks, 
EFTA00013544
Open in the interactive archive →