EFTA00194687

KIRKLAND &ELLIS LLP 
Ma /WILIAM) MOMIlielittS 
Jay P. LoOtowlz, 
To 
y: 
Mk 
.own 
VIA FACSIMILE (561.1820-8777 
Cittgroup Carder 
i83 East 83rd street 
New York, Now York 18022.4811 
www.kirldond.00m 
n 
September 2, 2008 
A. Marie Villafana 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Re.:,Jefflayhtstern 
Fao&cnlro: 
Dear Mario: 
. In response to your letter dated August 26, 2008, I am confirming that Mr. Goldberger 
should continue to be listed as the contact person in the' mended victim notification letters and 
should receive the carbon copies of those letters as they are sent. 
• 
Also, we plan on speaking to Mr. Josefsberg this week to discuss a procedure for paying 
his fees. We intend to comply fully with the agreement and Mr. Epstein will pay Mr. Josfsberg's 
usual and customary hourly rates for his work pursuant to the agreement facilitating settlements 
under 2255. 
co: 
Karen Atkinson, Chief, Northern Division 
Jack Goldberger 
Roy Black 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
Lee Angeles 
Munloh 
San French:co 
Wastdnglon, 
EFTA00194687

ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG 
From: 
ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG 
Sent: 
Tuesday, February 03, 2009 2:16 PM ' 
To: 
'RBLACK@royblack.com' 
Subject: 
Re: Epstein 
Roy - I need to go on record regarding Mr Epsteins message that without any settlements 
there will be a "push back" on any future payments. First, Mr Epstein has no authority to 
"push back" on payments. Secondly,.although I am vey interested in settling some cases, I 
will not let Mr Epstein coerce me into settling for some clients so that I can get paid 
for representing others. It would be unethical for me to settle any cases in order to 
avoid Mr F.pstins threatened "push back". If I do settle any cases, it will have nothing to 
do with Mr epstein waving the money carrot in front of me. Third, on friday, Jan 23rd,(or 
Sat the 24th) you advised that Mr Epstein would promptly pay all costs and all legal fees 
through and including 1/23. I told you that I questioned his authity to "stop" paying for 
time and costs incurred after 1/23. BUT - I appreciated the fact that he would promptly 
pay our next bill - covering only through 1/23. I told you that I would not send out this 
new bill untill Mr epstein paid our prior, 120 and 90 day overdue statements. I didn't 
want a "new" statement to delay payment on the old overdue statments. Does your last email 
mean that Mr epstein is breaching his agreement to promptly pay for all time/costs 
incurred up to 1/23 7 I will send a new statement covering everything from approx 12/15 
through 1/23. Please let me know whether Mr Epstein will comply with your message of 
1/23, or he will "push back" on this next statement. My next statement will be sent the 
day after Mr Epstein pays the other old staements. If he did actually send the check 
today, I should have the next statment mailed by thurs or fri. Thus far Mr Epstein has 
made 3 changes re where I should send the statements. In order to avoid further delay and 
confusion, please let me know where you want me to send the next statements. I apologize 
if this email has typos!, etc but its the best I can do while I'm in trial. I do not 
apologize for the tone of this note - I am hurt and upset - I think that Mr Epstein is 
taking advantage of me, and taking advantage of our (Roy/Bob) relationship. Will further 
discuss this w you by phone or in personm. Thanks 
 
 Original Message  
From: Roy BLACK <RBLACKeroyblack.com> 
To: ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG 
Sent: Tue Feb 03 12:47:59 2009 
Subject: Epstein 
Bob: I am told a check went out today. I am also told there will be push back on further 
expenses without a settlement. So we need to discuss settling the cases. Jeffrey will not 
pay more for the fees and expenses without the start of settlement negotiations. So let's 
discuss. Roy 
1 
EFTA00194688

BERT PATTON 
From: 
ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG 
Sent: 
Wednesday, February 11, 200912:47 PM 
To: 
'Amy Eded'; 'Evelyn Sheehan'; KATHERINE W. EZELL; BERT PATTON 
Subject: 
FW: Epstein 
 
Original Message 
From: Roy BLACK fmailto:RBLACKOroyblack.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:53 AM 
To: ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG 
Subject: Re: Epstein 
The client has informed me and I will send you a note today on his position. Sorry for the 
delay. 
>>> "ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG" <RJOSEFSBERG.PODHURST.com> 2/6/2009 2:39 PM 
>>> >>> 
Having not heard from you, I assume that you still do not have sufficient direction, or 
are still lacking client input. I've had 3 or 4 issues pending since our conversation of 
1/23 or 1/24. I've waited two weeks for your responses, and + am running out of time. I 
understand and sympathize with your situation. I wish someone would attempt to understand 
my situation. You are leaving me very limited alternatives. 
 
 Original Message  
From: Roy BLACK <RBLACKeroyblack.com> 
To: ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG 
Sent: Thu Feb 05 12:04:21 2009 
Subject: Re: Epstein 
I am talking to the client this afternoon. So I have no direction yet. 
>>> "ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG" cRJOSEFSBERGOPODBURST.com> 2/5/2009 11:17 AM 
>» >>> 
Roy - you wrote on 2/3 that you were advised that "a check went out today". It did not. 
This morning 100,000 was wired. There was 200,000 that was more than 90 days overdue. The 
50 percent payment is not acceptable. Unfortunately, this matter is going to blow up. My 
partner, Podhuret wants to bring this to a head by tomorrow. I will try to reach you 
during the lunch break in my arbitration. You were supposed to get back to me on yesterday 
- after you received °client input". I understand your situation - but it is apparent that 
your client does not care about his agreements, and is. Making everything impossible. I 
though it was appropriate to let you know before we take further action. 
 
 Original Message  
From: Roy BLACK cRBLACKOroyblack.com> 
To: ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG 
Sent: Tue Feb 03 13:41:21 2009 
Subject: Re: Epstein 
no problem. I will keep you informed. 
>>> "ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG" cRJOSEFSBERGOPODHURST.con> 2/3/2009 1:33 PM 
>>> >>> 
I'll be at my arbitration from approx 9 till 6. I'll try to call you during a break - or 
you can call me after 6. Why don't you email me after you get your client input - and I'll 
call you after that. 
 
 Original Message  
From: Roy BLACK cRBLACKWroyblack.Com> 
To: ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG 
Sent: Tue Feb 03 13:19:40 2009 
Subject: Re: Epstein 
1 
EFTA00194689

Bob let's talk tomorrow. I need more input from the client before we discuss this. 
>>> "ROBERT 
JOSEFSBERG" <RJOSEFSBERGOPODHURST.com> 2/3/2009 1:11 PM 
>>> 
Roy - I'm not satisfied with my last email to you - am in a rush because I'm in an 8 day 
arbitration. I need to talk to you - will you (at the milt hirsch function tonight? I'll 
try to get there btwn 6:45 and 7:30 - if we don't talk there, please call me after 7:30 
at 632 9230 
 
 Original Message  
From: ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG 
To: IRBLACKGroyblack.com, <RBLACKOioyblack.com> 
Sent: Tue Feb 03 12:55:53 2009 
Subject: Re: Epstein 
Fine - can we settle 
- as to the "delay" in talking about settlement , 
when I met with Jay L in ear y ec e said that Jeff would not be ready to talk about 
settling till the end of Jan. Both you and Jay did not return my 3 or 4 calls to each of 
you between Jan 10 and approx Jan 25 when I finally dpoke to you. 
 
 Original Message  
From: Roy BLACK <RBLACKOroyblack.com> 
To: ROBERT C. J0SEFSBERG 
Sent: Tue Feb 03 12:47:59 2009 
Subject: Epstein 
Bob: I am told a check went out today. I am also told there will be push back on further 
expenses without a settlement. So we need to discuss settling the cases. Jeffrey will not 
pay more for the fees and expenses without the start of settlement negotiations. So let's 
discuss. Roy 
2 
EFTA00194690

13/200g 13:11 FAX 
e1002/003 
Jay P. LefkovAlz, P.C. 
To Call Writer 
redly: 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
AND AffPLIATED PARTNILPSHIPS 
Citlgroup Center 
153 East 53rd Street 
Now York, New York 10022-4811 
lefic 
an .can 
' www.kirkland.com 
February 13, 2009 
VIA FACSIMILE 
Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. 
Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 
City National Bank Building 
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 
Miami, FL 33130 
Dear Bob, 
Facsimile: 
Confidential 
For Settlement Purposes Only 
Pursuant to Rule 408 
We have received copies of your firm's invoices for the last several months as related 
your representation of a select group of individuals in connection with a matter between 
Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida (the 
"USAO"). We write this letter to (1) address issues raised by those invoices and (2) suggest a 
resolution to this matter that would benefit all parties involved. 
First and foremost, after thoroughly reviewing the invoices from your firm, it is clear that 
the services you have provided to the women at issue far exceed the scope of services for which 
Mr. Epstein agreed to pay under the federal Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement") 
and Addendum. Pursuant to the relevant Agreement and Addendum, Mr. Epstein agreed to pay 
the attorney representative for his representation of a select group of individuals at "his or her 
regular customary hourly rate." 
Importantly, the Addendum limits the scope of this 
representation and specifies that the Agreement "shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and 
costs of contested litigation filed against him." The Addendum further provides that Mr. 
Epstein's obligation to pay the fees of an attorney representative ceases when the work 
performed is aimed at pursuing "a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255" or "any other 
contested remedy." Simply put, the Agreement and Addendum only require Mr. Epstein to pay 
fees expended in connection with negotiating a settlement for each of the relevant individuals, 
not for services relating to any type of pre-litigation effort. Thus, any charges related to work 
performed beyond, or extraneous to, reaching a settlement should not be Mr. Epstein's' 
responsibility. Mr. Epstein fully intends to fulfill his agreement and pay for all fees associated 
with settlement at your firm's regular hourly rates. However, Mr. Epstein will not pay for any 
services beyond those directed towards reaching a settlement. To resolve this matter, we are 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Los Angeles 
Munich 
San Francisco 
Washington. D.C. 
EFTA00194691

02/13/2009 13:12 FAX 
1 003/003 
Confidential 
For Settlement Purposes Only 
Pursuant to Rule 408 
Robert C. Josefsberg 
February 13, 2009 
Page 2 
available and ready to discuss the invoices.with you on a line-by-line basis and believe that we 
can come to an agreeable resolution as to the fees accumulated to date. During the same 
discussion, we hope to clarify with you the exact number of women who have agreed to utilize 
your services for the purpose of reaching a settlement with Mr. Epstein. 
Second, upon serious consideration and discussion, Mr. Epstein is prepared to offer your 
clients a settlement that we believe will serve to compensate each individual appropriately. As a 
final resolution to this matter, Mr. Epstein would pay each individual who agrees to relinquish 
any and all potential civil claims against him $50,000.00, which is the statutory amount provided 
by 18 U.S.C. § 2255, at the time of the alleged violations. Each individual would receive this 
amount, without any need to offer proof of claim or injury and without any further delay. We 
hope that you discuss this offer with your clients in the next 30 days, as Mr. Epstein's offer to 
settle will remain open until March 13, 2009. 
Very truly yours, 
Jay P 
fkowitz 
EFTA00194692

ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG 
From: 
ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG 
Sent: 
Tuesday, February 03, 2009 2:16 PM 
To: 
'RBLACK@royblack.com' 
Subject: 
Re: Epstein 
Roy - I need to go on record regarding Mr Epsteins message that without any settlements 
there will be a "push back" on any future payments. First, Mr Epstein has no authority to 
"push back" on payments. Secondly,- although I am vey interested in settling some cases, 
will not let Mr Epstein coerce me into settling for some clients so that I can get paid 
for representing others. It would be unethical for me to settle any cases in order to 
avoid Mr Epstins threatened "push back". If I do settle any cases, it will have nothing to 
do with Mr epstein waving the money carrot in front of me. Third, on friday, Jan 23rd,(or 
Sat the 24th) you advised that Mr Epstein would promptly pay all costs and all legal fees 
through and including 1/23. I told you that I questioned his authity to "stop" paying for 
time and costs incurred after 1/23. BUT - i appreciated the fact that he would promptly 
pay our next bill - covering only through 1/23. I told you that I would not send out this 
new bill untill Mr epstein paid our prior, 120 and 90 day overdue statements. I didn't 
want a "new" statement to delay payment on the old overdue statments. Does your last email 
mean that Mr epstein is breaching his agreement to promptly pay for all time/costs 
incurred up to 1/23 7 I will send a new statement covering everything from approx 12/15 
through 1/23. Please let me know whether Mr Epstein will comply with your message of 
1/23, or he will "push back" on this next statement. My next statement will be sent the 
day after Mr Epstein pays the other old staements. If he did actually send the check 
today, I should have the next statment mailed by thurs or fri. Thus far Mr Epstein has 
made 3 changes re where I should send the statements. In order to avoid further delay and 
confusion, please let me know where you want me to send the next statements. I apologize 
if this email has typos!, etc but its the best I can do while I'm in trial. I do not 
apologize for the tone of this note - I am hurt and upset - I think that Mr Epstein is 
taking advantage of me, and taking advantage of our (Roy/Bob) relationship. Will further 
discuss this w you by phone or in personm. Thanks 
 
 Original Message  
From: Roy BLACK <RBLACK@royblack.com> 
To: ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG 
Sent: Tue Feb 03 12:47:59 2009 
Subject: Epstein 
Bob: I am told a check went out today. I am also told there will be push back on further 
expenses without a settlement. So we need to discuss settling the cases. Jeffrey will not 
pay more for the fees and expenses without the start of settlement negotiations. So let's 
discuss. Roy 
1 
EFTA00194693

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
AMC:AKLMTCDPAILWMPO, 
Jay P. Le*oyez, P.C. 
To 
y: 
I . 
.corn 
• 
Chigrouo COMM-
169 East 63rd Strom 
Now York, Now York 10022-4911 
Se 
rail»: 
4.46-4000 
• 
VIA FACSIMILE (561) $29-87/7 
' 
www.larktand.oam 
September 2, 2008 
A. Marie Villafans 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Re.: Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Marie: 
, . 
In response to your letter dated August 26, 2008, I am confirming that Mr. Goldberger 
should continue to be listed as the contact person in the amended victim notification letters and 
should receive the carbon copies of those letters as they are sent. 
Also, wo plan on speaking to Mr. Josefsberg this week to discuss a procedure for paying 
his fees. We intend to comply fully with the agreement and Mr. Epstein will pay Mr. Josfsberg's 
usual and customary hourly rates for his work pursuant to the agreement facilitating settlements 
under 2255. 
cc: 
Karen Atkinson, Chief, Northern Division 
Jack Goldberger 
Roy Black 
ChIcago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Los Angeles 
Munich 
San Francisco 
Washington, D.C. 
aged 
>1 I, • VT 
OBIS- OSO-S06 
t laP3 
Rall9 
Vida° S 600a 
BO uni 
06TS zsz 502 61:81 
600E/80/90 
EFTA00194694

PodhurstOrseck 
TRIAL St APPELLATE LAWYERS 
Aaron S. Podhurat 
Ro
 fsberg 
Joel D 
Steven C. Marks 
Victor M. Diaz, Jr. 
Katherine W. Bzell 
Stephen P. Rosenthal 
Ricardo M. Martfnez-Cid 
Ramon A. Rasco 
Alexander T. Rundlet 
John Gravante, 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
Citigroup Center 
153 East 53ffi Street 
New York, NY 10022-4611 
Dear Mr. Lcficowitz: 
February 20, 2009 
Robert Orseck (19344978) 
Walter H. Beckham, Jr. 
Karen Podhurst Dem 
Of Counsel 
I received your letter dated February 13, 2009. What your client is doing is obvious, and it 
is in breach of his Non-Prosecution Agreement. The agreement speaks for itself. Enclosed is a copy 
of the marching orders I received from Mr. Sloman. Pursuant to these directions and the ethical 
requirements of the legal profession to zealously represent my clients, I have attempted to efficiently 
and effectively pursue my clients' claims against Mr. Epstein. Perhaps your client thought that he 
could victimize and intimidate countless underage girls, that he would then agree to provide minimal 
compensation to them for the damage he inflicted upon them and that I would then simply let them 
come in and "sign the paperwork" for the absolute minimum recovery. My role is not a clerical one 
where I merely document a settlement that simply offers the statutory minimum even though courts 
have provided recovery for each occurrence. What's more, your letter presumes that I should allow 
my clients to accept such an offer without fully evaluating their claims. Settling their cases in a 
vacuum would amount to malpractice. 
As we see it, each of our 9 or 10 clients has three choices: to do nothing, to settle, or to sue 
your client. In order to make an educated decision, we are required to conduct a comprehensive 
review of each client's personal history, the events surrounding their abuse at the hands of Mr. 
Epstein and what has happened to them since he sexually exploited and abused them. Collateral 
interviews and psychological evaluations are crucial components of corroborating facts and assessing 
a fair damages calculation. Extensive legal research into their potential legal claims and resulting 
damages must also take place. Such an investigation is, of course, going to be helpful at trial if any 
of them choose to litigate their claims. This, however, does not change the fact that everything 
we've done is necessary in order to determine if we should settle: As a matter of fact, you and I 
discussed hiring Sandy Marks, a jury consultant. Again, such an exercise would be extremely 
helpful at trial, but an analysis of what would happen at trial is exceptionally beneficial at the 
settlement stage. 
Podhurst Orseck P.A. 25 West Mgt& Street, Suite 800, Maud, FL 33130 
Miami 305358.2800 Fax 305358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 
www.podhurstcom 
EFTA00194695

February 20, 2009 
Page 2 
You are welcome to set up a conference call or visit us so we can go through my bills line 
by line in search of "any charges related to work performed beyond, or extraneous to, reaching a 
settlement." To be clear, nothing in our bills is extraneous to settlement of our clients' claims. Our 
bills represent our work on behalf of 9 or'10 clients. I will take this opportunity to remind you that 
of the $412,827.76 that we have sent you itemized bills for, only $163, 992.15 has been paid. Mr. 
Black wrote on February 31d that he was advised that a check had been sent out that day. It had not. 
By the rime we got 50% of outstanding fees, outstanding bills were more than 90 days overdue. 
Failure to pay our fees jeopardizes your client's agreement with the United States Attorney's Office. 
My exchange with Mr. Black (copies of e-mails are attached) illustrates that promises that 
have been written or said by you or Mr. Black have been breached. I find myself in a position where 
I do not know if Mr. Epstein is bound by what you or Mr. Black say. Before we go further, I need 
confirmation that you and/or Roy Black can commit Mr. Epstein. 
Ono of Mr. Black's e-mails clearly states that "Jeffrey will not pay more for the fees and 
expenses without the start of settlement negotiations." I am frankly baffled by your client's 
misguided pretense. When I met with you on November 26, 2008, you said Mr. Epstein would not 
be ready to talk about settling until the end of January. Both you and Mr. Black did not return three 
or four calls to each of you between January 10 and approximately January 25. Just so the record 
is clear, we have diligently pursued reaching the stage of active settlement negotiations and have 
been stonewalled by your side, until your February 13th "take it or leave it" $50,000 per client offer. 
In addition, I have attempted to tackle any procedural and logistical problems in an efficient, 
economical and timely manner. At each step, I have either encountered delay or a complete lack 
of response. For example, I wasted a lot of time and energy on your client's frivolous claim that I 
cannot represent my clients at trial. You shocked me with that position on November 21' and 
promised to get back to me to discuss it. Since we met in November, we haven't received a response 
regarding this issue. You apparently have finally abandoned this position. In addition, at that 
November meeting, I told you that some victims have severe psychological problems and that their 
claims warranted far in excess of $150,000 but that we are sensitive to concerns about them using 
the money otherwise. As a result, we discussed putting the money in special trusts expressly 
restricted for payment of psychological treatment. Again, I have received no response. 
Finally, the March 131° cutoff date is nonsensical. I trust that you wouldn't dare be 
attempting to say that Mr. Epstein's offer is withdrawn after that. As I said before, your client is in 
clear breach ofhis Non-Prosecution Agreement. I am at a loss as to why he would be willing to face 
the prospect of numerous civil trials, which will be ugly for him, and a federal prosecution in order 
to avoid fairly compensating my clients for the harm he inflicted upon them. 
V
ery truly yours, 
Robert C. Jo 
cc: 
Roy Black 
Alan Dershowitz 
EFTA00194696

PodhurstOrseck 
TRIAL & APPELLATE LAWYERS 
Qty National Bank Building 
25 West F1agler Street, Suite 800 
lvliami, Florida 33130 
A. Marie Villafana 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Office of the U.S. Attorney 
Seventh District of Florida 
500 East Broward Blvd., 7th Floor 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 
333,4$301-6 
0007 
inn 
sii 
y~PtE9 P0st
r r-iy. 
--will 
not Y t*WCS 
02 1M 
00042733 79 
JUN 24 2009 
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 331 3 0 
• 11.11,illit.l.iplattll 
$ 00.44° 
EFTA00194697

• 03/03/2008 18:32 FAX 
e002/004 
KIRKLAND &ELLIS LLP 
Ant, AMLIMID PARTHLRSIIIPS 
Jay P. Lotkowitz, P.C. 
To 
• 
ly: 
folkova 
I an corn 
VIA FACSIMILE 
Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. 
Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 
City National Bank Building 
25 West nat ier Street, Suite 800 
Miami, FL 33130 
Dear Mr. Josefsberg, 
Citlgroup Conies 
163 East 33rd Shoot 
New York, Now York 10022-4(111 
www.kickland.com 
March 3, 2009 
Fat
=
Confidential 
For Settlement Purposes Only 
Pursuant to Rule 408 
I write in response to your letter dated February 20, 2009. First, there is no merit whatsoever to 
your contention that Mr. Epstein has breached the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and your 
implication that he has is simply unsupported by the facts. As you state in that letter, the 
"agreement speaks for itself" and should be honored as such. My February 13, 2009 letter to you 
was an attempt to ensure that the portion of the Agreement concerning restitution be carried out 
as intended and written. Indeed, our objections to your expanded role in representing the alleged 
victims and to Mr. Epstein's obligations to pay fees incurred outside of the settlement context we 
valid. Furthermore, nowhere in the Agreement or Addendum does it state that a fee dispute or 
contentions as to the exact role of the attorney representative constitute a breach of that 
Agreement. In fact, them is a requirement that fee disputes be resolved with a special master. 
As I further explain below, your letter and accompanying documents, as well as the description 
of services performed in your invoices, lead us to believe that there has been a misunderstanding 
as to your role. 
1/4
With your letter, you enclosed a communication from Mr. **man to Judge 
dated 
October 25, 2007 and an additional document, presumably also from Mr. Slomen, entitled 
"PROPOSAL FOR PROCEEDING ONCE ATTORNEY IS SELECTED," While you refer to 
these documents as your "marching orders," neither document is part of the signed Agreement 
between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney's Offigrs calSAO"). The October 25, 2007 
letter was not even addressed to you, but rather to Judge =, 
the individual responsible for 
selecting an appropriate attorney representative. And since the October 2007 letter was drafted, 
there have been several communications between Mr. Epstein's defense team and the USAO 
which served to further clarify the Agreement with respect the role of the attorney representative. 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
t.03 Angeles 
Munich 
Sen Francisco 
Washington, D.C. 
EFTA00194698

'03/03/2009 18:93 FAX 
141003/004 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Robert C. Josefsberg 
March 3, 2009 
Page 2 
Confidential 
For Settlement Purposes Only 
Pursuant to Rule 408 
Thus, this document may have contributed to the apparent misunderstanding concerning your 
defined responsibilities in this matter. In any case, your purported reliance on this letter raises 
more questions than it answers. For example, the letter clearly indicates that the parties were to 
"jointly prepare a short written submission . . . regarding the role of the attorney representative 
and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her regular 
customary hourly rate . ." (emphasis added). However, you never inquired as to the existence 
of such a joint statement to help inform you of your defined role. Indeed, you failed to reach out 
to anyone on Mr. Epstein's defense team to obtain such a document 
Even though the October 2007 letter does not provide any direct instructions as to your particular 
responsibilities, it does quote relevant portions of the Agreement which expressly limit Mr. 
Epstein's obligation to pay the attorney representative. Specifically, the Agreement "shall not 
obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him." Furthermore, 
the proposed instructions are represented in a document that was not agreed upon between the 
USAO and Mr. Epstein's defense team. Indeed, we clearly rejected the notion that (1) the 
selected attorney be able to fulfill any role beyond negotiating a settlement, and (2) that Epstein 
would pay for any services beyond those incurred while trying to reach a settlement. 
While we have no objections to your representation of the relevant individual; we believe that 
your role, as made clear in the Agreement, is limited to settlement negotiations. In other words, 
under the Agreement, if an individual wants to consider any measure beyond settlement with 
Mr. Epstein, she must pursue those avenues through another lawyer. Based on the language of 
the Agreement, it is our position that you are not responsible for pursing your clients' claims, as 
you state in your letter. 
Furthermore, Mr. Epstein is certainly not trying to "victimize and intimidate anyone. The offer 
to settle was an earnest effort to avoid any further delay in resolving this matter. Notably, the 
government has expressly provided that it takes no position regarding potential claims of 
government witnesses., Given this lack of 
ilk 
offer of $50,000 to resolve 
claims that are not time-barred (as we believe 
' claim to be), without any 
On several occasion, USAO representatives have asserted that the government takes no position as to the 
claims of the individuals identified as alleged victims. For the sake of confidentiality, we will not produce the 
relevant documents. One such communication, however, was made in a December 6, 2007 letter from United 
States Attorney Acosta to myself, in which he stated that "the Office has no intention to take any position in any 
civil litigation arising between Mr. Epstein and any individual victim . .." 
EFTA00194699

'03/03;2008 18:34 FAX 
V1004/004 
KIRKLAND & EI.LIS LLP 
Robert C. Josefsberg 
March 3, 2009 
Page 3 
Confidential 
For Settlement Purposes Only 
Pursuant to Rule 408 
requirement to verify the allegations made, is more than reasonable.2 And while you are surely 
entitled to your personal opinion as to the merits of our settlement offer, we remind you that you 
are under an obligation to discuss our offer with your clients and to allow each one to determine 
whether she would like to accept such an offer. If these individuals choose to reject Mr. 
Epstein's offer and consider potential litigation against Mr. Epstein, another lawyer, not paid by 
Mr. Epstein, will have to perform that work. 
1 hope these matters can be resolved in an amicable manner. I would welcome the opportunity to 
meet with you face-to-face so that we are able to move forward. I am certain that a great deal of 
the confusion can be resolved through an in-person meeting. Due to the fact that them are many 
lawyers involved, I fear that some your past correspondence was not returned in a timely 
manner. I will endeavor to make certain that this does not happen again. 
Very truly yours, 
J 
P. LefIowitz 
2 S50,000 represents tile statutory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, constitutionally questionably statute r 
reasons we will not address here, at the time of the alleged conduct. 
a th. mumalt fus whk.b tvt 
stein 
agreed to settle claims with the relevant individuals pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. 
EFTA00194700

PodhurstOrseck 
TRIAL & APPELLATE LAWYERS 
Aaron S. Podhurst 
Robert C. Josefsberg 
Joel D. Eaton 
Steven C. Marks 
Victor M. Diaz, Jr. 
Katherine W. Ezell 
Stephen P. Rosenthal 
Ricardo M. Martinez-Cid 
Ramon A. Rasco 
Alexander T. Rundlet 
John Gravante, III 
Via Fax and U.S. Mail 
Robert Crittor 
q. 
Burman, Critt 
uttier 
8c Coleman, 
515 North Fla 
Drive, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Re: 
Epstein Case 
Our File No.: 30608 
Dear Bob: 
June 8, 2009 
Robert Orseck (1934-1978) 
Walter H. Beckham, Jr. 
Karen Podhurst Dem 
Of Counsel. 
I was shocked when I heard from Bob Josefsberg that Jeffrey Epstein and counsel do not 
recall, or have decided to ignore, his contractual obligation to pay this firm's fees and costs relating 
to any of his victims/our clients who elect to settle their claims without filing suit. You asked Bob 
to put his position in writing, and this letter is our rough attempt to do so. 
The Agreement 
Paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") provides for the selection of an 
attorney representative ("Atty Rep") for the individuals who are on a list of individuals whom the 
United States has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Victims"), which list was 
to be provided and was provided to Epstein's attorneys, Jack Goldberger and Michael Tien, after 
Epstein signed the NPA and was sentenced. 
Subsequently, there was an Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("Addendum"), 
the stated intent of which was to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 of the NPA. In 
paragraph 7A of the Addendum, it was agreed that the United States had the right to assign to an 
independent third-party, the responsibility of selecting the Atty Rep, subject to the good faith 
approval of Epstein's counsel. As you know, former Chiefiudge Edward Davis was the independent 
third-party chosen by the United States in consultation with and with the good faith approval of 
Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Plaster Street, Suite 800, Miami, F1.33130
Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.388.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4546 
EFTA00194701

Robert Critton, Esq. 
June 8, 2009 
Page 2 
Epstein's counsel. Judge 
in turn and in accordance with paragraph 7, selected our partner 
Robert C. Josefsberg as Atty Rep for the victims. Both parties had the right to object to his selection 
prior to his final designation. Mr. Josefsberg was formally designated as Atty Rep on or about 
September 2, 2008, without objection from either side. 
Pursuant to paragraph 7 of the NPA, Mr. Josefsberg is to be paid for [his services as Atty 
Rep] by Epstein. Paragraph 7B of the Addendum directed the Parties to jointly prepare a short 
written submission to Judge =regarding the role of the Atty Rep and Epstein's Agreement to 
pay such Atty Rep his customary hourly 
representing the victims. The United States 
prepared a proposal and submitted it to Judge
 to which Epstein apparently objected. Not only 
did neither Epstein nor his counsel deign to join with the United States in preparing such a proposal, 
but they failed and refused to submit their own proposed protocol. In that circumstance, Epstein 
clearly. waived his right to submit a joint proposal or any proposal at all. Accordingly, he has no 
right to object to the proposal submitted by the United States. A clear reading of the Addendum at 
78 demonstrates that there was no disagreement, nor could there have been any misunderstanding 
regarding what is referred to as "Epstein's Agreement to pay . . . [Mr. Josefsberg's] regular 
customary hourly rate." 
This obligation is reiterated in the first sentence of paragraph 7C. Epstein's choosing not to 
submit a proposal as to the role of the Any Rep in no way relieved him of his obligation to pay the 
Atty Rep his regular hourly rate for his representation of the designated victims, so long as they are 
engaged in the settlement process. This is particularly apt when Epstein chose to avail himself of 
this settlement opportunity so as to preclude the Atty Rep's filing of a lawsuit on behalf of the 
victim. Epstein's obligation to pay the Atty Rep's fees and costs pursuant tot he NPA and its 
Addendum ceases only in the event that the Atty Rep files contested litigation against Epstein on 
behalf of a victim. 
The Recent Settlement 
During the last six months there have been meetings, emails and phone conversations 
between Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz and Bob Josefsberg that corroborate our position. Please check 
with Jay and Roy as to their recollection of these matters. 
Despite his putting up one road block after another, Mr. Epstein, through you as his counsel, 
and the Atty itently settled the claim of one of Epstein's listed and identified victims, our client 
Skye 
Thi
 is in the process of putting together our final bill relating to our 
representation of Ms. land 
will be submitting it to you or Mr. Goldberger as soon as the 
entitlement issue is resolved. We fully expect Jeffrey Epstein to honor his agreement by paying the 
fees and costs related to this representation according to the terms of the NPA and the Addendum. 
We are also prepared to make a second settlement proposal (for another client) and expect similar 
EFTA00194702

Robert Critton, Esq. 
June 8, 2009 
Page 3 
treatment of attorney fees in that matter. 
Remedies 
There are several alternatives available to us, should Jeffrey Epstein refuse to honor his 
agreement to pay according to those terms. Both our victim clients and the Atty Rep and bis firm 
are and were intended to be third party beneficiaries of the NPA and the Addendum. As such, we 
have the right to bring suit for specific performance of and/or declaratory judgment regarding the 
terms of the agreement between Epstein and the United States. In the alternative, other Epstein 
counsel have stated that all fee disagreements should be resolved by a special master. We are not 
averse to that. I am sure that I need not remind you that with regard to the Atty Rep's work thus far, 
there has been complete performance on our side and partial performance by the Defendant. Epstein 
did make partial payment of our initially invoiced fees earlier in these proceedings. When he 
stopped paying, his counsel communicated that he would start paying again when there were 
settlements. This in itself constitutes an acknowledgment of his obligation to do so. Having initially 
paid and thus inducing continued performance by the Atty Rep, Epstein is now equitably estopped 
in
t
to deny his contractual obligation. The Atty Rep, on the other hand, has full completed his part of 
the bargain by providing the necessary services to make it possible for 
Skye 
to settle 
her claim without filing a contested lawsuit, and the Atty Rep is entiti 
to 
paidlifor those 
services by Epstein. Finally, there is the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing inherent 
in every contract, including those intended to benefit third parties. 
Please advise us of your position prior to Friday's hearing, because your position may 
influence our involvement at that hearing. 
Very truly yours, 
cog-Lrgi-Al fnag 
Katherine W. Ezell 
KWEAnce 
EFTA00194703

ViWane. Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
KATHERINE W. EZELL IKEZZLLOP0DHURST.ocenj 
Sent: 
Tuesday. June 16.20094:49 PM 
To: 
t Migrant. Mn Made C. (USAF:A 
Subject: 
FW 
Attachment: 
20090616162017672 pd1 
I had attached a sticky to this one stating that it was followed by a letter stating that 
everything we discuss tomorrow will be confidential unless both parties agree in writing. 
EFTA00194704

ViNahna. Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
KATHERINE W. ICTAL ROMELLWOOHLIFIST.comj 
Sent 
Thursday. June 11. 250943:13 PR 
To: 
Valera. Mn Merle C. (NSAFLE) 
Subject 
Letter from GUM Darning any Fees and heaMg tomorrow 
HI. markt I len you a phone message. We received a whrte ago a letter from Bob Craton who is seerning:y Mcredulous 
that we believe women:Med to any fees. If you are near a fac.l coon send It to you. I we bring a to the beating 
tomorrow. Kathy 
EFTA00194705

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
AND AFFILIATED PARINEPSHIPS 
Jay P. LefkovAtz, P.C. 
To Cali Writer Directly: 
jay.lefln.com 
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 
Citigroup Center 
153 East 53rd Street 
New York, New York 10022-4611 
Ms. A. Marie Villafana, Esq. 
United States Attorney's Office 
•
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Ms. Villafana, 
M 
www.kirkland.com 
June 12, 2009 
Facsimile: 
I am in possession of your June 12, 2009 letter giving notice of breach. I respectfully 
submit that the Motion to Dismiss that is referenced therein did not constitute a willful breach of 
Mr. Epstein's obligations under the non-prosecution agreement. Mr. Epstein's counsel 
unanimously determined that the filing of this Motion to Dismiss was not a breach of the non-
prosecution agreement, and the Motion to Dismiss was filed by counsel without Mr. Epstein's 
final approval. 
I want to inform you that immediately upon receipt of your letter, Mr. Epstein directed his 
counsel to file the attached Notice withdrawing all but issue number VIII of the previously filed 
Motion to Dismiss. The same issue also is described briefly in subparagraph D on page 3 of the 
Motion, which likewise was not withdrawn. Please note that this issue relates exclusively to the 
damages available under § 2255. The Notice has already been filed. If your continued review of 
the civil dockets causes you to have additional concerns about any other filing, consistent with 
the notice provisions of the non-prosecution agreement and consistent with our prior practice 
regarding such matters, please provide me with notice and the opportunity to address the same 
with you. 
I believe that with today's filing withdrawing these issues Mr. Epstein, through counsel, 
has fully remedied any perceived breach. Please advise if you for any reason disagree. 
Respectfully submitted, 
Jay P. Le owiiz, P.C. 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Los Angeles 
Munich 
San Francisco 
Washington, D.C. 
EFTA00194706