<table><tr><th>From:</th><th>Michael Wolff</th></tr><tr><td>Sent:</td><td>Friday, March 18, 2016 3:40 PM</td></tr><tr><td>To:</td><td>Jeffrey Epstein</td></tr><tr><td>Subject:</td><td>Patterson</td></tr></table>

A few things to think about:

That being said, you do=need an immediate counter narrative to the book. I believe Trump offers an=ideal opportunity. It's a chance to make the story about something oth=r than you, while, at the same time, letting you frame your own story. Als=, becoming an anti-Trump voice gives you a certain political cover which y=u decidedly don't have now. Still, this necessary involves you going p=blic. And so the most basic decision is about your willingness to do that.=My view is that in a couple of weeks you could master message and technica= proficiency. I know a bunch of people who could be very helpful here. Thi= would involve something along the lines of you writing an op-ed, doing a =igh profile television interview (Charlie Rose, I'd say), and perhaps =ome social media efforts.

Speaking of which, agai=, I think a strategic plan, involving your public identity, philanthropic =ctivities and interests, and the development of media allies, ought finall= to be put in place. A big, comprehensive, expensive effort.

The alternative is to continue to keep head down and hope Patte=son book is just more he-said she-said and Connolly getting lost in the re=ds (which, as an inveterate conspiracist, he always does). My worry is tha= Patterson can be counted on to produce a bestseller, and while he isn'=t regarded as a serious writer, he'll surely be unloading a lot of tab=oid copy. Because this will be tied to the election, the Trump-Clinton ang=e will amp up the attention 10-fold, in fact, possibly, a hundred fold. Po=sibly more than anything you've encountered before.

Meanwhile--

In a lawyer's letter, I'=d suggest including the following points--not necessarily legal, but a war=ing about how a press campaign might unfold (publishers are more worried a=out being caught in negative media controversy than they are of legal thre=ts):

1) Little, Brown has made on the record repr=sentations to at least one well-known journalist that it was not publishin= a book by James Patterson about Jeffrey Epstein--possibly an effort to av=id inquiries about the questionable nature of the book; ar>

2) The actual author of the book, John Connolly, is some=ne other than the stated author, James Patterson. Connolly is known to hav= developed an obsession with Epstein, such that, his longtime employer, Va=ity Fair, has refused to allow him to write about Epstein for the magazine=

3) Sources have confirmed for us that Patterson =as had little more than a minimal consulting role in the book, and that Co=nolly has functioned in every material way as the book's researcher an= writer. We believe Patterson's "authorship" of the book wil= not stand up to scrutiny. And, indeed, that the entire notion of an exten=ion of the Patterson franchise into nonfiction, as it has been used in fic=ion and children's book--effectively other authors writing under the P=tterson name—presents a host of journalism ethical issues.