EFTA00206173

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 
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); 
. (USAFLS) 
Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
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. 
EFTA00206413

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 
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: 
Monday, March 21, 2011 5:56 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
(USAFLS); 
EFTA00206414

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); MI 
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) 
Cc: r
 (USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
Sure. I will add and send out. 
Ok with everyone? 
. (USAFLS); 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monc
March 21, 2011 5:52 PM 
To: 
,M 
(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. 
Just a thought. 
EFTA00206415

From: 
Sent: Monda 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: 
(USAFLS) 
March 21, 2011 5:35 PM 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
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 
EFTA00206416

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)c 
Sent: 
Monday, March 21, 2011 5:54 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
.(USAFLS); 
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) 
Cc: r
 (USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
Sure. I will add and send out. 
Ok with everyone? 
. (USAFLS); 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monc
March 21, 2011 5:52 PM 
To: 
,M 
(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? 
EFTA00206417

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: 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. 
EFTA00206418

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: 
Sent: 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: 
Ok - will send out now. 
From: 
Sent: Monda 
To: 
(USAFLS) <
> 
Monday, March 21, 2011 5:54 PM 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
(USAFLS); 
RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
. (USAFLS) 
March 21, 2011 5:53 PM 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
That's fine with me. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monc
March 21, 2011 5:52 PM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
USAFLS 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
EFTA00206419

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. 
Just a thought. 
From: 
Sent: Monda 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: 
(USAFLS) 
March 21, 2011 5:35 PM 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
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. 
EFTA00206420

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: 
Sent: 
To: 
Subject: 
(USAFLS)<
> 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 4:13 PM 
FW: jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
Importance: 
High 
Hi 
— This is why I don't want to ask for more time. The only way that I have to defend myself is through the court 
system. 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
 
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. 
EFTA00206421

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: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 4:16 PM 
To: 
Brad Edwards 
Subject: 
FW: jeffrey epstein prosecution 
FYI 
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 
EFTA00206422

From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Thursday, 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) 
Sent: 
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 10:11 AM 
To: 
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 Order.pdf; 
DE48 
302.pdf; DE48 
Victim notification 
Itr.pdf; DE48 
victim notification Itrpdf; DE48-5_20110321_NPA.pdf; 
DE48-6_20110321_Twiler Itr to 
DE48-7_20110321_Twiler Itr to Jim Eisenberg 
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 
EFTA00206423

I am back from the doctor. Here they all are (see below). After you have had a chance to look, can we discuss? 
I think that we need you on the team now. We made a few missteps early on, like conceding that this should be 
treated as a civil matter, which we tried to fix later, but it would help a lot if we had some guidance. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda March 21, 2011 5:07 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.pdf>> <<DE50-2 20110321 Proposed Order.pdf» «DE48 
302.pdf» «DE48-
 
Victim notification Itrpdf» «DE48 
victim notification Itrpdf» <<DE48-
5_20110321_NPA. 
> «DE48-6_20110321_Twiler Rr to 
» «DE48-7_20110321_Twiler Itr to Jim 
Eisenbe 
for
> «DE48-8 20110321 302 of 
from Jan 2008.pdf>> «DE48-9_20110321_Twiler lb. to 
> <<DE48_20110321_Motn for finding a violation of CVRA.pdf»
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) < 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 4:12 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Automatic reply: jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
I will be on government travel from March 24-25, 2011. If you need to reach me, please call me at 
Thanks. 
EFTA00206424

From: 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 4:49 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: Jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
Understood. 
Ori inal Messa e — 
Front 
. (USAFLS) < 
To: 
Sent: Thu Mar 24 16:12:55 2011 
Subject: FW: Jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
Hi 
-- This is why I don't want to ask for more time. The only way that I have to defend myself is through the court 
system. 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
-----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 
EFTA00206425

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: 
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:20 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
FW: Telephone call 
FYI. See below. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: Fernandez, Aida I. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Tuesday, March 22,  2011 12:59 PM 
To:  
 . (USAFLS) 
Subject: Telephone call 
Telephone call fm John Pasanti, Daily Business Review 
re: Epstein filing of 3/21/2011. I referred 
him to 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 4:18 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
FW: Jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
Importance: 
High 
You jinxed it 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
---Original Message--
From: 
 
(USAFLS) 
EFTA00206426

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: 
Sent: 
To: 
Subject: 
(USAFLS)
). 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 4:31 PM 
FW: jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
Importance: 
High 
And even more good times. 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 4:12 PM 
EFTA00206427

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. His tactics are limited to (1) influence/persuasion or (2) 
intimidation. (1) didn't work on me, so they tried (2). 
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: 
Fernandez, Aida I. (USAFLS) <afernandez@usa.doj.gov> 
Sent: 
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 12:59 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Telephone call 
Telephone call fm John Pasanti, Daily Business Review 
re: Epstein filing of 3/21/2011. I referred 
him to 
From: 
(USAFLS)<
> 
Sent: 
Thursday, 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. 
EFTA00206428

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. 
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. Attome 
EFTA00206429

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: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 5:13 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
How about giving them the letter??? 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
----OrigirS Message 
From: MI, 
(USAFLS) 
Sent Thursda , March 24, 2011 5:09 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK 
(USAFLS); 
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 
EFTA00206430

Please add the capitalized language (below). 
I am trying to find 
letter to them. 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
Original Message 
(USAFLS) 
March 24, 2011 4:57 PM 
.(USAFLS): 
(USAFLS); 
(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. 
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 
EFTA00206431

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: 
Sent: 
Monday, March 28, 2011 9:43 AM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
Subject: 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Let me know when you want to chat and I'll make myself available. 
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division. Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) [mailto: 
Sent: Monda March 28. 2011 9:36 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Hi MI and 
-- Just read all of your emails from yesterday. 
(USAFLS) 
-- I think that, having read more cases, and then re-read the Department's guidance, that our position should be that 
the petitioners are not entitled to file a civil cause of action, even for a declaratory judgment. The statute provides them 
with a remedy, which is a referral of DOJ attomeys for disciplinary sanctions, and specifies that "the Attorney General, or 
the designee of the Attorney General, shall be the final arbiter of the complaint, and that there shall be no judicial review of 
the final decision of the Attorney General by the complainant." (18 USC 3771(f)(2)(D)) "Where a statute expressly 
provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it." U.S. v. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 
F.3d 46, 54 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting TAMA v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 19 (1979)). 
Why don't we get together tomorrow face-to-face and talk it through? I can come down to Miami. 
-- maybe we can steal you for 30 minutes just to bounce some ideas off of you? 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
EFTA00206432