From: (USAFLS)" <1 To: ' (USAFLS)" Subject: Re: Ghislaine Maxwell Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:55:49 +0000 Importance: Normal Inline-Images: image001.jpg (USAFLS)" If my edits make sense to both of you, I guess there's no reason we need to talk about them. On Apr 12, 2016, at 7:20 PM, (USAFLS) < > wrote: Here is my suggestion regarding a response, but we should discuss tomorrow. -Ed Dear Ms. Menninger: I am in receipt of your letter of April 6, 2016, where you have attempted to memorialize a telephone conversation in which you called me concerning Giuffre' Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS (S.D.N.Y.), a civil case of which I have no knowledge beyond what you have represented. With respect to your understanding of our telephone conversation, let me make some clarifications. Due to pending litigation that was instituted against the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "Office"), the Office was recused by the Department of Justice from prospective responsibility for any criminal investigation or potential prosecution relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual activities with minor females. As a result, the Office was also recused from any criminal investigation of Ms. Maxwell or anyone else relating to those allegations, and it thus has no pending investigations involving such matters. I did not understand your inquiry to involve any other criminal allegations, and my comments should not be understood to have addressed any other circumstances. (As a general matter, we do not comment on the existence or non- existence of criminal investigations for a variety of reasons.) Additionally, while I am personally unaware of any pending criminal investigation of Ms. Maxwell by any other authority, my lack of knowledge should not be construed as signifying either that there is or that there is not a pending criminal investigation of Ms. Maxwell. As for the Non-Prosecution Agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein, my only repres