EFTA00206173

Basically, the attorneys for Doe 1 and 2 are saying the USAO did not notify the victims before signing 
the NPA, which violates the Crime Victims Rights Act. They are saying that the NPA should be 
invalidated because of it. They also allege in the motion that the USAO agreed to keeping the NPA 
secret (it was originally sealed) because of pressure from Epstein's attorneys and higher ups in the 
Justice Dept. 
I'm reaching out to you for a response to the court filing. I am on deadline with the story. 
Thanks, 
Michele 
Michele Dargan 
Staff Writer 
Palm Beach Daily News 
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com 
Cox Conserves. 
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 
Contents of this e-mail may be confidential and proprietary. 
Use discretion when forwarding. 
From: 
(USAFLS)<
> 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 5:39 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
FW: Epstein -- DOJ letter to defense 
I am waiting to hear back. 
Will let you know. 
From: 
(SMO) 
Sent: Thuinla, March 24, 2011 5:34 PM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Epstein -- DOJ letter to defense 
I think this is going to be a 
call, but let me check. 
EFTA00206393

From: 
Sent: Thursda 
To: 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
March 24, 2011 5:31 PM 
(SMO); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Epstein -- DOJ letter to defense 
SMO); 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
Here is what we propose to say, but wanted to run this past you: 
As you know from your communications with the DOJ's Office of Public Affairs, the defense in this 
case asked for an independent DOJ review of all facts, circumstances and allegations surrounding this 
prosecution. The Office of the Deputy Attorney General did in fact review the case, which is not 
uncommon, and determined that no misconduct occurred and that prosecutorial discretion in the case 
appropriately rested with the U.S. Attorney's Office. 
The italicized wording is new but 100% accurate. 
Please advise ASAP - time is of the essence. 
Thanks - 
From: 
(SMO) 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 4:49 PM 
To: 
USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: RE: Epstein -- DOJ letter to defense 
SMO); 
SMO 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Adding Tracy and Jess. I think you are correct. 
Here is what I sent to her (per your previous email) 
Thanks for your patience. I checked into your two questions on who was the USA's boss and why the 
"defense was allowed to negotiate with Main Justice", as you put it. Here's what I have for you — The 
Office of the Deputy Attorney General did review the case, which is not uncommon, and determined 
that prosecutorial discretion in the case appropriately rested with the U.S. Attorney's Office. (Off the 
record, note "review" would be the appropriate word, not "negotiate".) In terms of a boss, the U.S. 
Attorneys' Offices report through the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (at the time, Mark Filip was 
the DAG.) 
EFTA00206394

Best, 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda March 24, 2011 4:45 PM 
Co: 
(SMO) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: RE: Epstein -- DOJ letter to defense 
. (USAFLS); 
Can we make this letter public? I don't think so, but wanted to check with you. 
This would put to rest some of her questions. 
«080623 DAG Ltr to Lefkowitz and Starr.pdf» 
From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: 
(USAFLS) ‹
> 
Monday, March 21, 2011 5:52 PM 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
Should there be a final sentence such as the following? 
(USAFLS) 
.(USAFLS); 
Because the matter remains pending in court, it would be inappropriate at this time to provide 
additional comment on the merits of the motion. 
Just a thought. 
From: 
Sent: Monda 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: 
(USAFLS) 
March 21, 2011 5:35 PM 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
(USAFLS); 
EFTA00206395

Suggest deleting first sentence (since we are kind of responding) 
The U.S. Attorney's Office will file its response to the instant motion in court. However, as we stated 
more than two years ago in July 2008 in our response to the plaintiffs' then emergency petition for 
enforcement of the Crime Victim Rights Act (CVRA), the CVRA was not violated since no federal 
charges were ever filed in the Southern District of Florida. 
From: Michele Dargan [mailto 
Sent: Monc
March 21, 2011 4:52 PM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein 
Hi 
There's been a new court filing in West Palm Beach federal court regarding Jeffrey Epstein. In case # 
08-CV-80736, attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and #2 are challenging the validity of the federal NPA, 
worked out between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's criminal attorneys before he pled guilty to his 
state charges. 
Basically, the attorneys for Doe 1 and 2 are saying the USAO did not notify the victims before signing 
the NPA, which violates the Crime Victims Rights Act. They are saying that the NPA should be 
invalidated because of it. They also allege in the motion that the USAO agreed to keeping the NPA 
secret (it was originally sealed) because of pressure from Epstein's attorneys and higher ups in the 
Justice Dept. 
I'm reaching out to you for a response to the court filing. I am on deadline with the story. 
Thanks, 
Michele 
Michele Dargan 
Staff Writer 
Palm Beach Daily News 
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com 
Cox Conserves. 
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 
EFTA00206396

Contents of this e-mail may be confidential and proprietary. 
Use discretion when forwarding. 
From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Subject: 
I agree with the revised. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
Sent: Monda 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: 
(USAFLS)
). 
Monday, March 21, 2011 5:36 PM 
(USAFLS) 
RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
(USAFLS) 
March 21, 2011 5:33 PM 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
Revised response: 
It would be inappropriate to comment on the merits of this motion, as the case is pending in court. 
The U.S. Attorney's Office will file its response to the instant motion in court. However, as we stated 
more than two years ago in July 2008 in our response to the plaintiffs' then emergency petition for 
enforcement of the Crime Victim Rights Act (CVRA), the CVRA was not violated since no federal 
charges were ever filed in the Southern District of Florida. 
From: Michele Dargan [mailto 
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 4:52 PM 
EFTA00206397

To: 
, 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein 
Hi 
There's been a new court filing in West Palm Beach federal court regarding Jeffrey Epstein. In case # 
08-CV-80736, attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and #2 are challenging the validity of the federal NPA, 
worked out between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's criminal attorneys before he pled guilty to his 
state charges. 
Basically, the attorneys for Doe 1 and 2 are saying the USAO did not notify the victims before signing 
the NPA, which violates the Crime Victims Rights Act. They are saying that the NPA should be 
invalidated because of it. They also allege in the motion that the USAO agreed to keeping the NPA 
secret (it was originally sealed) because of pressure from Epstein's attorneys and higher ups in the 
Justice Dept. 
I'm reaching out to you for a response to the court filing. I am on deadline with the story. 
Thanks, 
Michele 
Michele Dargan 
Staff Writer 
Palm Beach Daily News 
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com 
Cox Conserves. 
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 
Contents of this e-mail may be confidential and proprietary. 
Use discretion when forwarding. 
From: 
(USAFLS)<
> 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 5:19 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
I asked DOJ that questions already -- tentative answer is no. working on it 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) 
EFTA00206398

Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 5:13 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
How about giving them the letter??? 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
Ori2ir 
Message 
From: =. 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda . March 24, 2011 5:09 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
I understand why you want that, and I would love to include it, but that is beyond the response DOJ gave to Conchita. I will 
have to run this by them. 
Any other thoughts before I send this to DOJ?? 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 5:07 PM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
Please add the capitalized language (below). 
I am trying to find 
letter to them. 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
 
Ori inal Message 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 4:57 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS), 
(USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
Proposed SDFL (non)response: 
(USAFLS) 
As you know from your communications with the DOJ's Office of Public Affairs, the defense in this case asked for an 
independent DOJ review of all facts, circumstances and allegations surrounding this prosecution. The Office of the Deputy 
Attorney General did in fact review the case, which is not uncommon, and determined that NO MISCONDUCT 
OCCURRED AND THAT prosecutorial discretion in the case appropriately rested with the U.S. Attorney's Office. 
EFTA00206399

If you agree, I need to run this by DOJ. DOJ already provided the following comment -- but ours is slightly different (ergo, 
the need to run it by them) DOJ response: The Office of the Deputy Attorney General did review the case, which is not 
uncommon, and determined that prosecutorial discretion in the case appropriately rested with the U.S. Attorney's Office. 
(Off the record, note "review' would be the appropriate word, not "negotiate".) In terms of a boss, the U.S. Attorneys' 
Offices report through the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (at the time, Mark Filip was the DAG.) 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda . March 24. 2011 4:12 PM 
To: 
. 
USAFLS 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: FW: jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
Importance: High 
— This just arrived. Why do they always wait until 2 minutes before their deadline to contact us99999 I did not fail to 
call her back, I referred the matter to you. Can you please handle this. Making clear that all allegations raised by Epstein's 
team were investigated by DOJ and found to be completely meritless. You might also add that Epstein had previously 
made false allegations against the Palm Beach Police Chief. 
I would love to know how they got the letter, but they probably will not tell you their source. 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
----Original Message 
From: Aitken, Lee [mailto 
Sent: Thursda . March 24, 2011 4:07 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS)
Subject: jeffrey epstein prosecution 
Dear Ms. 
I am an editor at both Newsweek and the Daily Beast website. I left a phone message last week but have not received a 
call back. Now we are facing a deadline for posting on the Daily Beast tonight, so I'd like to give you another chance to 
respond to our query. We have obtained a five-page letter you wrote to attorney Jay Lefkowitz on December 13, 2007 
protesting charges of misconduct on your part and laying out several details about your interactions with Jeffrey Epstein's 
legal team. Your co-signer, Alex Accosta, has already acknowledged the vaiidity of this letter, but I would also like you to 
confirm that it came from your office. If you have any further comment to make about it or facts to add about this case I 
would love to hear back from you right away. We plan to post a story about the negotiations behind the Non-Prosecution 
agreement at 8 pm this evening. 
Thank you for your time and prompt attention, Lee Aitken 
From: 
. (USAFLS) <WFerrer@usa.doj.gov> 
Sent: 
Monday, March 21, 2011 5:53 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
(USAFLS); 
That's fine with me. 
EFTA00206400

From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monc
March 21, 2011 5:52 PM 
To: 
, M 
(USAFLS);
USAFLS 
(USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS);
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
Should there be a final sentence such as the following? 
. (USAFLS); 
Because the matter remains pending in court, it would be inappropriate at this time to provide 
additional comment on the merits of the motion. 
Just a thought. 
From: 
Sent: Monda 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: 
(USAFLS) 
March 21, 2011 5:35 PM 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
Suggest deleting first sentence (since we are kind of responding) 
(USAFLS); 
The U.S. Attorney's Office will file its response to the instant motion in court. However, as we stated 
more than two years ago in July 2008 in our response to the plaintiffs' then emergency petition for 
enforcement of the Crime Victim Rights Act (CVRA), the CVRA was not violated since no federal 
charges were ever filed in the Southern District of Florida. 
From: Michele Dargan [mailto 
Sent: Monda
 21, 2011 4:52 PM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein 
Hi 
There's been a new court filing in West Palm Beach federal court regarding Jeffrey Epstein. In case # 
08-CV-80736, attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and #2 are challenging the validity of the federal NPA, 
worked out between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's criminal attorneys before he pled guilty to his 
EFTA00206401

state charges. 
Basically, the attorneys for Doe 1 and 2 are saying the USAO did not notify the victims before signing 
the NPA, which violates the Crime Victims Rights Act. They are saying that the NPA should be 
invalidated because of it. They also allege in the motion that the USAO agreed to keeping the NPA 
secret (it was originally sealed) because of pressure from Epstein's attorneys and higher ups in the 
Justice Dept. 
I'm reaching out to you for a response to the court filing. I am on deadline with the story. 
Thanks, 
Michele 
Michele Dargan 
Staff Writer 
Palm Beach Daily News 
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com 
Cox Conserves. 
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 
Contents of this e-mail may be confidential and proprietary. 
Use discretion when forwarding. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:02 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Jeffrey epstein prosecution 
Have you heard anything? 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
 
Original Message 
From: =. 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda March 24. 2011 5:41 PM 
To: 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey epstein prosecution 
a -- 
forwarded your email to me. I handle all media inquiries for the Office, and have been in touch with Conchita. 
EFTA00206402

I will get back to you as soon as I can. 
Thanks, 
----Original Message 
From: Aitken, Lee [mailto: 
Sent: Thursda March 24. 2011 4:07 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS)
Subject: Jeffrey epstein prosecution 
Dear Ms. 
I am an editor at both Newsweek and the Daily Beast website. I left a phone message last week but have not received a 
call back. Now we are facing a deadline for posting on the Daily Beast tonight, so I'd like to give you another chance to 
respond to our query. We have obtained a five-page letter you wrote to attorney Jay Lefkowitz on December 13, 2007 
protesting charges of misconduct on your part and laying out several details about your interactions with Jeffrey Epstein's 
legal team. Your co-signer, Alex Accosta, has already acknowledged the vaiidity of this letter, but I would also like you to 
confirm that it came from your office. If you have any further comment to make about it or facts to add about this case I 
would love to hear back from you right away. We plan to post a story about the negotiations behind the Non-Prosecution 
agreement at 8 pm this evening. 
Thank you for your time and prompt attention, Lee Aitken 
From: 
(USAFLS) <
> 
Sent: 
Monday, March 21, 2011 5:53 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
Sure. I will add and send out. 
Ok with everyone? 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monc
March 21, 2011 5:52 PM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS); 
USAFLS 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
Should there be a final sentence such as the following? 
Because the matter remains pending in court, it would be inappropriate at this time to provide 
additional comment on the merits of the motion. 
EFTA00206403

Just a thought. 
From: 
Sent: Monda 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: 
(USAFLS) 
March 21, 2011 5:35 PM 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
Suggest deleting first sentence (since we are kind of responding) 
(USAFLS); 
The U.S. Attorney's Office will file its response to the instant motion in court. However, as we stated 
more than two years ago in July 2008 in our response to the plaintiffs' then emergency petition for 
enforcement of the Crime Victim Rights Act (CVRA), the CVRA was not violated since no federal 
charges were ever filed in the Southern District of Florida. 
From: Michele Dargan [mailto 
Sent: Monda
 21, 2011 4:52 PM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein 
Hi 
There's been a new court filing in West Palm Beach federal court regarding Jeffrey Epstein. In case # 
08-CV-80736, attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and #2 are challenging the validity of the federal NPA, 
worked out between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's criminal attorneys before he pled guilty to his 
state charges. 
Basically, the attorneys for Doe 1 and 2 are saying the USAO did not notify the victims before signing 
the NPA, which violates the Crime Victims Rights Act. They are saying that the NPA should be 
invalidated because of it. They also allege in the motion that the USAO agreed to keeping the NPA 
secret (it was originally sealed) because of pressure from Epstein's attorneys and higher ups in the 
Justice Dept. 
I'm reaching out to you for a response to the court filing. I am on deadline with the story. 
Thanks, 
Michele 
Michele Dargan 
Staff Writer 
EFTA00206404

Palm Beach Daily News 
voice: 
fax: 
Toll-free: 
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com 
Cox Conserves. 
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 
Contents of this e-mail may be confidential and proprietary. 
Use discretion when forwarding. 
From: 
(USAFLS)<
I> 
Sent: 
Tuesday, March 22, 20119:09 AM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Fw: Filings from Cassell 
Attachments: 
DE51_20110321_Motion to use correspondence and unseal.pdf; DE49_20110321_Motion 
to Have Facts Accepted as True.pdf; DE50_20110321_Motn for Brady-type evidence.pdf; 
DE50-1_20110321_Exhibit Edwards Letter.pdf; DE50-2_20110321_Proposed 0rder.pdf; 
DE48 
302.pdf; DE48- 
Victim notification 
Itr.pdf; DE48 
victim notification Itcpdf; DE48-5_20110321_NPA.pdf; 
DE48-6_20110321_Twiler Itr to 
DE48-7_20110321_Twiler Itr to Jim Eisenberg 
for 
• 0E48-8_20110321 302 of 
from Jan 2008.pdf; DE48-
9_20110321_Twiler Itr to 
DE48_20110321_Motn for finding a violation of 
CVRA.pdf 
Mr. Rotker, 
This is what Cassell filed yesterday. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda March 21, 2011 05:06 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS ; 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: Filings from Cassell 
Here they all are 
(USAFLS) 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
<<DE51_20110321_Motion to use correspondence and unseal.pdf>> «DE49_20110321_Motion to Have Facts Accepted 
as True.pdf» <<DE50_20110321_Motn for Brady-type evidence.pdf» «DE50-1 20110321_Exhibit Edwards 
Letter. df>> «DE50-2 20110321 Proposed Order.pdf» <<DE48 
302.pdf» «DE48-
Victim notification Itrpdf» «DE48 
victim notification Itrpdf» <<DE48-
5_20110321_NPA. f>> <<DE48-6_20110321_Twiler Itr to 
> <<DE48-7_20110321_Twiler Itr to Jim 
Eisenbe 
for
> «DE48-8 20110321 302 of
from Jan 2008.pdf>> «DE48-9_20110321_Twiler Itr to 
> «DE48_20110321_MOtn for finding a violation of CVRA.pdf»
EFTA00206405

Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) <
M> 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:51 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Fw: Statement re Epstein 
Sorry. Here it is 
 
 Original Message --
From: csamoff (mailta
) 
Sent: Thursda March 24, 2011 06:56 PM 
To: =,= 
(USAFLS); Janet Aitken ‹
> 
Subject: Re: Statement re Epstein 
Thank you 
Best, 
Conchita 
Message-----
From: == 
To: Janet Aitken 
Cc: 
Subject: Statement re Epstein 
Sent: 24 Mar 2011 18:40 
After reviewing the U.S. Attorneya€TMs handling of this matter, including allegations of misconduct, the office of the deputy 
attorney general determined there was no basis to intervene in the matter. We will not be making additional comments. 
Thanks for checking with us. 
Special Counsel to the US Attorney 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:02 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Automatic reply: jeffrey epstein prosecution 
I will be out of the office on Friday, March 25. 2011. 
For press matters, please contact AUSA 
by e-mail at 
or by phone at 
EFTA00206406

Thank, 
Estare fuera de la oficina el viemes, 25 de marzo. Si se trata de un asunto de prensa, favor de comunicarse con el fiscal 
anotado anteriormente. Gracias y que tenga muy buen dia. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:57 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Statement re Epstein 
And it has already been filed with the court! 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
-----OrigirS Message 
From: =, 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 7:51 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Fw: Statement re Epstein 
Sorry. Here it is 
 
 Original Message ---
From: csarnoff (rnailto: 
Sent: The, 
March 24, 2011 06:56 PM 
To: =,=I 
(USAFLS); Janet Aitken •:
.> 
Subject: Re: Statement re Epstein 
Thank you 
Best, 
Conchita 
Message----
From: == 
To: Janet Aitken 
Cc: 
Subject: Statement re Epstein 
Sent: 24 Mar 2011 18:40 
After reviewing the U.S. Attorneyaems handling of this matter, including allegations of misconduct, the office of the deputy 
attorney general determined there was no basis to intervene in the matter. We will not be making additional comments. 
Thanks for checking with us. 
Special Counsel to the US Attorney 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
EFTA00206407

Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:57 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: 
RE: Statement re Epstein 
(USAFLS) 
Why do you make it so hard for the good guys to follow the rules? Just release the letter. It isn't a privileged 
communication. It was sent to opposing counsel. 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
 
Original Message 
From: =, 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 7:51 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Fw: Statement re Epstein 
Sorry. Here it is 
 
 Original Message ----
From: csamoff [mailto: 
Sent: Thurnla , March 24, 2011 06:56 PM 
To: =,= 
(USAFLS); Janet Aitken ‹
> 
Subject: Re: Statement re Epstein 
Thank you 
Best, 
Conchita 
 
Original Message-- 
From: == 
To: Janet Aitken 
Cc: 
Subject: Statement re Epstein 
Sent: 24 Mar 2011 18:40 
After reviewing the U.S. Attorneyaems handling of this matter, including allegations of misconduct, the office of the deputy 
attorney general determined there was no basis to intervene in the matter. We will not be making additional comments. 
Thanks for checking with us. 
Special Counsel to the US Attorney 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry 
From: 
Aitken, Lee 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 4:07 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
jeffrey epstein prosecution 
Dear Ms. 
I am an editor at both Newsweek and the Daily Beast website. I left a phone message last week but have not received a 
call back. Now we are facing a deadline for posting on the Daily Beast tonight, so I'd like to give you another chance to 
respond to our query. We have obtained a five-page letter you wrote to attorney Jay Lefkowitz on December 13, 2007 
EFTA00206408

protesting charges of misconduct on your part and laying out several details about your interactions with Jeffrey Epstein's 
legal team. Your co-signer, Alex Accosta, has already acknowledged the vaiidity of this letter, but I would also like you to 
confirm that it came from your office. If you have any further comment to make about it or facts to add about this case I 
would love to hear back from you right away. We plan to post a story about the negotiations behind the Non-Prosecution 
agreement at 8 pm this evening. 
Thank you for your time and prompt attention, Lee Aitken 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 5:07 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
Attachments: 
Letter from CEOS.TIF 
Please add the capitalized language (below). 
I am trying to find 
letter to them. 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
 
Ori inal Message 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda March 24, 2011 4:57 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS)• 
(USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
Proposed SDFL (non)response: 
(USAFLS) 
(USAFLS); 
As you know from your communications with the DOJ's Office of Public Affairs, the defense in this case asked for an 
independent DOJ review of all facts, circumstances and allegations surrounding this prosecution. The Office of the Deputy 
Attorney General did in fact review the case, which is not uncommon, and determined that NO MISCONDUCT 
OCCURRED AND THAT prosecutorial discretion in the case appropriately rested with the U.S. Attorney's Office. 
If you agree, I need to run this by DOJ. DOJ already provided the following comment -- but ours is slightly different (ergo, 
the need to run it by them) 
DOJ response: The Office of the Deputy Attorney General did review the case, which is not uncommon, and determined 
that prosecutorial discretion in the case appropriately rested with the U.S. Attorney's Office. (Off the record, note 'review" 
would be the appropriate word, not "negotiate".) In terms of a boss, the U.S. Attorneys' Offices report through the Office of 
the Deputy Attorney General (at the time, Mark Filip was the DAG.) 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 4:12 PM 
To: 
. 
USAFLS 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: FW: jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
Importance: High 
EFTA00206409

— This just arrived. Why do they always wait until 2 minutes before their deadline to contact us99999 I did not fail to 
call her back, I referred the matter to you. Can you please handle this. Making clear that all allegations raised by Epstein's 
team were investigated by DOJ and found to be completely meritless. You might also add that Epstein had previously 
made false allegations against the Palm Beach Police Chief. 
I would love to know how they got the letter, but they probably will not tell you their source. 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
 
Original Message 
From: Aitken, Lee (mailto• 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 4:07 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS)
Subject: jeffrey epstein prosecution 
Dear Ms. 
I am an editor at both Newsweek and the Daily Beast website. I left a phone message last week but have not received a 
call back. Now we are facing a deadline for posting on the Daily Beast tonight, so I'd like to give you another chance to 
respond to our query. We have obtained a five-page letter you wrote to attorney Jay Lefkowitz on December 13, 2007 
protesting charges of misconduct on your part and laying out several details about your interactions with Jeffrey Epstein's 
legal team. Your co-signer, Alex Accosta, has already acknowledged the vaiidity of this letter, but I would also like you to 
confirm that it came from your office. If you have any further comment to make about it or facts to add about this case I 
would love to hear back from you right away. We plan to post a story about the negotiations behind the Non-Prosecution 
agreement at 8 pm this evening. 
Thank you for your time and prompt attention, Lee Aitken 
From: 
(USAFLS) <
> 
Sent: 
Monday, March 21, 2011 5:58 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
FW: Jeffrey Epstein 
Here is our response. 
Although technically incorrect, using the term plaintiff does make it easier to follow. 
Let me know if you want me to change for future use. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 5:55 PM 
To: Michele Dar an 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein 
(USAFLS); 
EFTA00206410

The U.S. Attorney's Office will file its response to the instant motion in court. However, as we stated 
more than two years ago in July 2008 in our response to the plaintiffs' then-emergency petition for 
enforcement of the Crime Victim Rights Act (CVRA), the CVRA was not violated because no federal 
charges were ever filed in the Southern District of Florida. Because the matter remains pending in 
court, it would be inappropriate at this time to provide additional comment on the merits of the current 
motion. 
Special Counsel to the U.S. Attorney 
From: Michele Dargan 
Sent: Monda
 21, 2011 4:52 PM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein 
Hi 
There's been a new court filing in West Palm Beach federal court regarding Jeffrey Epstein. In case # 
08-CV-80736, attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and #2 are challenging the validity of the federal NPA, 
worked out between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's criminal attorneys before he pled guilty to his 
state charges. 
Basically, the attorneys for Doe 1 and 2 are saying the USAO did not notify the victims before signing 
the NPA, which violates the Crime Victims Rights Act. They are saying that the NPA should be 
invalidated because of it. They also allege in the motion that the USAO agreed to keeping the NPA 
secret (it was originally sealed) because of pressure from Epstein's attorneys and higher ups in the 
Justice Dept. 
I'm reaching out to you for a response to the court filing. I am on deadline with the story. 
Thanks, 
Michele 
Michele Dargan 
Staff Writer 
Palm Beach Dail News 
voice: 
fax: 
Toll-free: 
EFTA00206411

http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com 
Cox Conserves. 
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 
Contents of this e-mail may be confidential and proprietary. 
Use discretion when forwarding. 
From: 
(USAFLS) ‹
> 
Sent: 
Monday, March 21, 2011 5:57 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
No, although I might feel different if it were a pleading. And then again, I might not. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda March 21, 2011 5:56 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
. (USAFLS);IMI 
. (USAFLS); 
Too late.... Went out. I don't think it's worth resending, do you? I will correct for future use. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monc
March 21, 2011 5:54 PM 
To: 
,M 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS); 
USAFLS 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
It just occurred to me that perhaps we should not refer to the Jane Does as plaintiffs since there is no 
independent civil action, just a motion in a miscellaneous proceeding. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda , March 21, 2011 5:53 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
EFTA00206412