EFTA00032215.pdf

From: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>, [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 21:22:41 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.jpg

Sounds good.

From: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 5:20 PM
To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

10:30 tomorrow works for me. Let's discuss then.

From: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 5:18 PM
To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: FW: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

Email from Bachner re: [Redacted] – do you guys think at this point we should try to move forward with a phone interview with her?? I have no problem telling him we're just in a holding pattern, and we'll hold off until further notice, but I also didn't expect on March 16 that three months later we'd be where were are.

Happy to discuss in real time, too, when we chat about the indictment. Speaking of which, what's good for people tomorrow? I could do anytime. Say, 10:30 or 11:00? But whatever works for you both.

From: Michael Bachner <[Redacted]>
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2020 12:27
To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: Re: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

Hey [Redacted] hope all is well. Checking in to see the status of matters.

Stay well

Michael Bachner
Bachner & Weiner, PC
[Redacted]
Please excuse typographical errors. Messages sent through dictation.
EFTA00032215

https://www.actl.com/
NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is legally privileged and/or confidential information, which is intended only for use of recipient. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient (or the agent or employee responsible to deliver it to the intended (recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication by error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete this email from your system. Nothing in this email should be construed as a legal opinion or tax advice.

On Mar 16, 2020, at 11:50 AM, [Redacted] <[Redacted]> wrote:

Michael,

The world has obviously changed substantially even since late last week – I know we had conveyed that we wanted to meet with Ms. [Redacted] sooner rather than later, but if you and/or she has any preference at all to postpone tomorrow’s meeting, that would be fine. If she has a strong inclination to do the meeting and would *prefer* to do it tomorrow, please let us know and we should be able to make that work at your office, but otherwise we’re happy to touch base in the coming weeks and see what makes sense. The last thing we want to do is endanger anyone’s health or safety. Please let us know what you prefer, and we’ll go from there.

thanks,
[Redacted]

From: Michael Bachner <[Redacted]>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 11:25
To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Cc: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: Re: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

[Redacted] let’s do the meeting at my office on Tuesday.

Michael Bachner
Bachner & Weiner, PC
[Redacted]
[Redacted] errors. Messages sent through dictation.
<~WRD000.jpg>
https://www.actl.com/
EFTA00032216

NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is legally privileged and/or confidential information... [Standard Disclaimer]

On Mar 11, 2020, at 9:53 PM, [Redacted] <[Redacted]> wrote:

Michael,

We’ll put it in the calendar for then, certainly with the understanding that it’s a fluid situation. We’ll keep in touch and hope for the best. Stay safe and we’ll talk soon.

thanks,
[Redacted]

From: Michael Bachner [Redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 21:48
To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Cc: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: Re: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

[Redacted] confirming March 17 at 1030. However please I understand that these dates and times have to remember fluid given the coronavirus situation. A resident of the The Connecticut town where [Redacted] lives just tested positive

Michael

Michael Bachner
Bachner & Weiner PC
[Redacted]

EFTA00032217

On Mar 11, 2020, at 5:06 PM, [Redacted] <[Redacted]> wrote:

Michael,

We appreciate that, thank you. Shall we plan to do a first meeting on Tuesday the 17th at 10:30 a.m.? But again, please let us know if you prefer a different time, we should be flexible that day.

thank you,
[Redacted]

From: Michael Bachner <[Redacted]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 16:32
To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Cc: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

[Redacted] [Redacted] will meet earlier. How does next week look. 17 18 or 19

From: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 1:04 PM
To: Michael Bachner [Redacted]
Cc: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

Sure, and given that timing I actually think it would be helpful to schedule two meetings, so we can be on track to get all the information we need efficiently, unless you have any objection to that. Can we put meetings on the calendar for Tuesday the 31st and Thursday the 2nd, say at 10:30 a.m. each day? Or let us know if she or you prefer different timing.

And I would just add that because we do think she may have useful information for the ongoing investigation, which continues to proceed, if her personal issues resolve – or allow for a meeting – sooner than those dates three weeks out, we would prefer to meet earlier if that becomes possible. Understand if not, but wanted to note it.

thanks,
[Redacted]

From: Michael Bachner <[Redacted]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 12:30
To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Cc: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

[Redacted] has some persona issues to deal with. Can we sometime between March 31 and April 3?
EFTA00032218

From: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 2:37 PM
To: Michael Bachner [Redacted]
Cc: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

Michael,

Thanks for getting back to us, and we could do anytime this Monday, March 16. What time that day would be good for you and Ms. [Redacted]?

thank you,
[Redacted]

From: Michael Bachner [Redacted]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2020 16:09
To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

[Redacted] following are dates that are bad for [Redacted]. Please let me know dates that work for oy and I will confirm on my calendar.

March 12
March 18-20
March 25-30
April 7-15

From: Michael Bachner [Redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2020 17:31
To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Cc: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: Re: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

[Redacted] in DC on biz. Get back to u soon

Michael Bachner
Bachner & Weiner, PC
[Redacted]

EFTA00032219

On Mar 3, 2020, at 6:15 PM, [Redacted] <[Redacted]> wrote:

Michael,

Wanted to get back to you, as promised – as we indicated previously, the attorney proffers we’ve received from you haven’t caused us to change our view of Ms. [Redacted] status, and I think you’ve generally addressed the initial and follow-up questions we’ve had. I think from our perspective the next step would be to have a conversation with Ms. [Redacted] directly, and to cover with her the same topics that we’ve addressed with you. Ordinarily we would approach a discussion like that simply by going chronologically, and asking follow-up questions as appropriate along the way, but as I’ve mentioned to you previously, if it would be useful to proceed in a different format, or to focus (or avoid) specific topics in a first meeting, I think we would generally be amenable to that. And of course as we’ve also discussed, any discussion would be completely voluntary—not just the interview overall, but any specific topic or question that she wanted to pass on, or discuss with you in the moment, etc., would be totally up to her. Please let us know what you think? We’re also happy to chat via phone if that would be helpful as well.

thanks,
[Redacted]

From: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2020 21:59
To: Michael Bachner <[Redacted]>
Cc: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

Michael,

Received, thank you. This information is helpful, and as with the prior attorney proffer, does not cause us to change our view of Ms. [Redacted] status.

We will be traveling most of this upcoming week, but I hope that we will be able to follow up with you the following week to discuss possible next steps.

thank you,
[Redacted]

From: Michael Bachner <[Redacted]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 10:45
To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

[Redacted], pls see attached replies to your questions.

From: Michael Bachner <[Redacted]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 12:01
EFTA00032220

To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Cc: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

Good morning. [Redacted] was away over the weekend. I expect to have a reply to your questions by tomorrow.

From: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 3:44 PM
To: Michael Bachner [Redacted]
Cc: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

Got it -- I had that down as London, rather than Paris, so that’s helpful. And I should say, these questions aren’t immediately time-sensitive, I just didn’t want to forget to ask, since I’m reviewing the notes now.

thanks,
[Redacted]

From: Michael Bachner <[Redacted]>
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 15:41
To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Cc: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: Re: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

Hi [Redacted]. [Redacted] is away for the weekend. In our meeting I indicated that she stayed in the Paris apartment with her husband on one occasion. I will get back to you on Monday or Tuesday regarding the other questions you’ve asked today as well as at the meeting. Have a nice weekend

Michael Bachner
[Redacted]
EFTA00032221

On Feb 15, 2020, at 3:05 PM, [Redacted] <[Redacted]> wrote:

Michael,

Following up on our meeting, one additional question / clarification we have from reviewing our notes is about whether Ms. [Redacted] ever visited certain Epstein properties other than his New York mansion and the brief visit to the Palm Beach residence. I apologize if you addressed that and I missed it, but we wanted to add it to the list of additional questions – in particular, whether she ever visited the New Mexico ranch, the Little St. James Island, the Great St. James island, and/or the Paris residence. Also, is it correct that she just visited the Palm Beach residence the one time you referenced? It’s not a problem or issue if she visited any of those other locations, we just wanted to clarify one way or the other. And happy to discuss via phone if that’s useful.

thank you,
[Redacted]

From: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 13:40
To: Michael Bachner [Redacted]
Cc: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: RE: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

Michael,

We do understand that your attorney proffer today will be preliminary, and to the best of your client’s current recollection and to the best of your current understanding, and without, e.g., having been provided documents or other materials by the Government.

We also confirm that your statements will be considered to be made pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 410 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f), and therefore under those protections. Regarding Rule 408, we’ll just note what we have for other counsel in this case and others who have made similar statements or submissions, which is that we don’t take any position on the effect or application of Rule 408 in a prospective or hypothetical dispute in civil litigation, because it doesn’t implicate any rights the Government would or would not have, but you can consider us advised that your position is that your statements are also covered under 408. (While our Office itself can’t guarantee the protections of Rule 408 because any dispute on that issue would be beyond our purview, we are also not taking the position that we believe it does not apply.)

thank you,
[Redacted]

From: Michael Bachner <[Redacted]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 10:08
To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Subject: [Redacted] Attorney Proffer

Hi Alex:

Prior to our meeting today, I am writing to confirm that statements I make to you today are preliminary and subject to further refinement once Ms. [Redacted] and I have the benefit of additional document review and refreshed recollection if necessary based upon input we may receive from your office. My statements to you are intended in hypothetical form only and in any event, we understand that the provisions of FRE 408 and 410 apply.

EFTA00032222

Please advise if my understanding is correct.

Thanks.

Michael Bachner
Bachner & Associates, PC
EFTA00032223