From: 
To: 
Subject: Re: Epstein

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:11:19 +0000

Importance: Normal

Do u think
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

_ Original Message …………
From
To:
Sent: Wed Dec 12 07:48:03 2007
Subject: RE: Epstein

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 [ ]
not involved and there was radio silence as they started communicating only with you.

-----Original Message-----
From
Sent: Wednesday. December 12 2007 7:43 AM
To:
Subject potent

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

Original Message -----
From
To:
Cc:
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.
<<071211 Ltr to Lefkowitz.pdf>>

EFTA00013543

From:
Sent: Tuesday. December 11, 2007 5:17 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Epstein

In light of the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence_i _I've asked to conduct a de novo review of the evidence underlying the proposed indictment. I've provided =with the proposed indictment package but can you make copies of the 302s , state GJ and interview transcripts, and any other underlying investigative information thatMan review a.s.a.p.? Thanks,

EFTA00013544