From:

To:

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 ot 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: 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

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>>

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

EFTA00013824



In light of the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence, I've asked

underlying the proposed indictment. I've provided with the proposed indictment package but can you make copies of



to conduct a de novo review of the evidence

the 302s, state GJ and interview transcripts, and any other underlying investigative information that|

a.s.a.p.? Thanks,

can review

EFTA00013825