EFTA00013632.pdf
62.2 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email chain
File Size:
62.2 KB
Summary
This document is an email chain from December 2007 between likely government prosecutors or officials discussing the Jeffrey Epstein case. The conversation covers the selection of a 'Special Master' (discussing candidates 'Bert' and 'Mr. Ocariz'), communications with Epstein's defense attorney 'Jay' (Lefkowitz) and the firm Kirkland & Ellis. The emails also detail a request for a 'de novo review' of evidence for a proposed indictment, specifically asking for FBI '302s' and state Grand Jury transcripts.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jay | Attorney (Defense) |
Likely Jay Lefkowitz (based on attachment name); negotiating with the sender regarding a Special Master/Bert.
|
| Bert | Nominee |
Originally nominated, likely for Special Master or similar oversight role; sent a 'laundry list of questions'.
|
| Mr. Ocariz | Nominee |
Mentioned in relation to the selection of a special master; question raised if Jay concurred with his selection.
|
| Lefkowitz | Attorney |
Mentioned in file attachment name 'Ltr to Lefkowitz.pdf'. Likely Jay Lefkowitz.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Kirkland & Ellis |
Law firm; sent recent correspondence prompting a 'de novo review of the evidence'.
|
|
| Podhurst |
Law firm; sender exchanged lists of acceptable people including two from this firm.
|
|
| FBI |
Implied by mention of '302s' (FBI interview reports).
|
|
| State Grand Jury (State GJ) |
Mentioned regarding transcripts.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2007-12-11
Request for de novo review of evidence underlying proposed indictment.
Internal Office
Kirkland & Ellis
Redacted Reviewer
Relationships (2)
Discussion regarding whether Jay concurred with Ocariz's selection.
Key Quotes (4)
"I originally nominated Bert, and then Jay asked if he could have a list of people from which to choose."Source
EFTA00013632.pdf
Quote #1
"Well, we probably should just stick with Bert."Source
EFTA00013632.pdf
Quote #2
"In light of the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence, I've asked [Redacted] to conduct a de novo review of the evidence underlying the proposed indictment."Source
EFTA00013632.pdf
Quote #3
"can you make copies of the 302s , state GJ and interview transcripts"Source
EFTA00013632.pdf
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,132 characters)
From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
Subject: RE: Epstein
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:48:03 +0000
Importance: Normal
To: [Redacted]
Subject: RE: Epstein
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:48:03 +0000
Importance: Normal
Yes! I originally nominated Bert, and then Jay asked if he could have a list of people from which to choose. We exchanged lists of acceptable people (including two people from Podhurst) and he said "Well, we probably should just stick with Bert." The problem only started when Bert sent a laundry list of questions that he and the firm's conflicts counsel had and we started trying to set up a conference call. You then raised the Special Master issue, and I agreed that was best. Then [Redacted] got involved and there was radio silence as they started communicating only with you.
[Redacted Block]
-----Original Message-----
From: [Redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 7:43 AM
To: [Redacted]
Subject: Re: Epstein
From: [Redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 7:43 AM
To: [Redacted]
Subject: Re: Epstein
1 question: page 2, 3rd par. states "since mr. Ocariz had been told that you concurred in his selection ... I informed (him) of the office's decision to use a special master... ."
I'm a little confused - did Jay originally concur with Ocariz?
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message -----
From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
Cc: [Redacted]
Sent: Tue Dec 11 17:20:55 2007
Subject: RE: Epstein
From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
Cc: [Redacted]
Sent: Tue Dec 11 17:20:55 2007
Subject: RE: Epstein
I am out today, but I will start pulling everything together tomorrow. We don't have transcripts of all of the state interviews, but we have audio or videotapes of all of them.
I drafted the attached letter, which I would like to send to Jay.
<<07121[Redacted]Ltr to Lefkowitz.pdf>>
[Redacted Block]
From: [Redacted]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 5:17 PM
To: [Redacted]
Cc: [Redacted]
Subject: Epstein
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 5:17 PM
To: [Redacted]
Cc: [Redacted]
Subject: Epstein
[Page 2]
[Redacted Block]
In light of the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence, I've asked [Redacted] to conduct a de novo review of the evidence underlying the proposed indictment. I've provided [Redacted] with the proposed indictment package but can you make copies of the 302s , state GJ and interview transcripts, and any other underlying investigative information that [Redacted] can review a.s.a.p.? Thanks,
[Redacted Block]
In light of the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence, I've asked [Redacted] to conduct a de novo review of the evidence underlying the proposed indictment. I've provided [Redacted] with the proposed indictment package but can you make copies of the 302s , state GJ and interview transcripts, and any other underlying investigative information that [Redacted] can review a.s.a.p.? Thanks,
EFTA00013632
EFTA00013633
EFTA00013633
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document