From: To: Subject: Re: Epstein Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:11:19 +0000 Importance: Normal Do u think ed De : Subject: RE: Epstein Yes! | 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 | agreed that was best. Then ot involved and there was radio silence as they started communicating only with you. Sen :43 AM To: Su 1 question: page 2, 3rd par. states "since mr. Ocariz had been told that you concurred in his selection ... | informed (him) of the office's decision to use a special master... ." I'm a little confused - did Jay originally concur with Ocariz? ue Dec : Subject: RE: Epstein | am out today, but | 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. | drafted the attached letter, which | would like to send to Jay. <<071211 |g to Lefkowitz.pdf>> EFTA00013543

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

In light of the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence, I've asked fi to conduct a de novo review of the evidence underlying the proposed indictment. I've provided Bit the proposed indictment package but can you make copies of the 302s , state GJ and interview transcripts, and any other underlying investigative information that an review a.s.a.p.? Thanks, EFTA00013544