| Field | Extracted |
|---|---|
| Subject | RE: Forfeiture question |
| From | [Sender name shown in image — withheld/redacted] |
| To | [Single recipient — name/address redacted] |
| Cc | [Multiple recipients — names/addresses redacted] |

Subject: RE: Forfeiture question

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:38:52 +0000

Attachments: 2019.10.15 Letter re Hyperion Air.pdf

- Document: screenshot of an email thread (attachment referenced: "2019.10.15 Letter re Hyperion Air.pdf" attached in the thread).
- Subject line: "RE: Forfeiture question".
- Dates/times visible:
  - Tuesday, October 15, 2019 — 1:58 PM; 1:56 PM; 1:39:21 PM EDT.
  - Monday, October 14, 2019 — 9:10 PM.
- Participants: multiple email addresses mostly redacted; several CCs redacted. One participant signs with initials "MLS" (email/name redacted).
- Key message highlights:
  - Top note: "Thanks for speaking earlier. Attached is a letter setting out the same information I relayed to you on the phone. Let me know if you need anything more."
  - Reply: "Sounds great, thanks, I'm at my desk: [redacted]."
  - Reply: "I just freed up and can call you in a few minutes if that works."
  - Earlier reply: needs to meet with a witness starting at 4, so 4:30 no longer works; offers alternatives — available between now and 4, later this evening, 9:30 tomorrow morning, or between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. tomorrow.
- Signatures/contacts: phone numbers and names largely redacted.
- Many fields (names, emails, phone numbers) are redacted throughout.

EFTA00021653

Cc:

Subject:  Re: Forfeiture question

4:30 is perfect. Where should I call?

Matthew L. Schwartz
<empty> (o)
<empty> (m)
On October 14, 2019 at 6:40:46 PM EDT,
<empty> ) <
<empty> > wrote:

Hi Matt,

I'm available for a call tomorrow either at 1 p.m. or anytime from 4:30 onwards, if either of those windows works for you.

Best,

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 13, 2019, at 8:23 PM, Matthew L. Schwartz <<empty>> wrote:
Thanks. If any of you have a moment for a forfeiture-related question in the next few days, please let me know. FYI, this has nothing to do with my firm's representation of certain victims. Thanks.
-mls

Matthew L. Schwartz

(0)

(m)

On October 13, 2019 at 7:44:17 PM EDT, > wrote:

Hi Matt,

The Epstein case team are AUSA's [REDACTED], [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], all cc'd on this email. They're the right people to talk to about anything Epstein-related.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 13, 2019, at 2:59 PM, Matthew L. Schwartz < > wrote:

Do either of you guys or the appropriate other person have 2 minutes to discuss a somewhat timesensitive, but by no means urgent, Epstein-related forfeiture question in the next few days?

Matthew L. Schwartz
( o )
( m )

EFTA00021654

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contain information that, among other protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1 08201831BSF]

EFTA00021655