Epstein Project

EFTA00013801.pdf

Type
pdf
Source set
data-set-8

Original source

Extracted text

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Response to Letter by FAUSA MI
 Dated May 19, 2008 
In al 
2008 letter to Jay Lefkowitz (See Tab 1), SDFL First Assistant U.S. 
rn
Attoey 
MI 
provided what purported to be a summ 
of the events that have 
occurred during the investigation of Mr. Epstein. 
Mr. 
letter is fraught with 
inconsistencies, false and misleading characterizations and outright falsehoods. The comparison 
below between the false assertions in Mr. 
letter and what actually transpired is only the 
tip of the iceberg. We respectfully submit that Mr. 
letter alone demonstrates the 
degree to which the record of facts have been distorted and these distortions have permeated this 
unprecedented investigation. 
1. 
"INDEPENDENT" AND "DE NOVO" REVIEW. 
Mr. 
Letter: 
• 
"[W]e obliged your request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and 
facilitated such review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. " Tab 1, May 
19, 2008 Letter from'. 
P. 5, 1 3. 
The Truth: 
• 
CEOS' review, concluded in May 2008, was neither independent nor de novo. 
o CEOS' review was not "independent:" 
• 
who conducted the review on behalf of CEOS, had 
already reviewed the prosecution memo on this matter eight months 
earlier. During a meeting with defense counsel at the United States 
Attorney's Office in Miami (the "USAO") in September of 2007, he 
opined that he so believed in the prosecution that he "would try the case 
myself" 
• Indeed, Mr. 
acknowledges that Mr. 
opined on this matter, stating: 
had previously 
This particular attack on this statute [18 U.S.C. § 2242(b)] 
had been previously raised and thoroughly considered and 
rejected by . . . CEOS prior to the execution of the 
[Deferred Prosecution] Agreement [in September 2007]. 
Id., p. 5 (emphasis added). 
• The statute Mr. 
referred to (§ 2422(b) lies at the heart of the 
Epstein investigation. Thus, according to Mr. 
, Mr. 
was tasked with reviewing his own prior decision regarding applying the 
key statute …

Open in the interactive archive →