Target Audience: Senior Legal and Crisis Management Team
Abstract:
This document is an unredacted internal communication (dated 7/18/2013) drafted by Jeffrey Epstein to "Bill," expressing profound dismay over the termination of their six-year friendship and professional relationship following an undisclosed "unfortunate event" or "accident." The sender alleges he was discharged, accused of "morally inappropriate behavior" by the recipient's PR representative (Larry), and subsequently requested by the recipient to be the "major actor in a cover up" to protect the recipient’s reputation. The letter outlines the recipient’s demands for strict confidentiality, cessation of direct communication, and avoidance of truthful statements regarding future business dealings. The sender contrasts the inadequate two-year severance package offered with his own proposed compensation structure had the roles been reversed, which included a house, five years of severance, and a $30 million buyout of a $100 million partnership interest. Furthermore, the sender claims the recipient, with tears in his eyes, implored him to delete highly sensitive emails referencing an STD, a request for surreptitious antibiotics for "Melinda," and an explicit physical description. The communication concludes with a thinly veiled threat, noting the potential multi-billion dollar damage to the recipient's "pledge program" and reputation should "Melinda" proceed with a public divorce resulting from this situation.
Summary of Communication: Jeffrey Epstein to “Bill” (7/18/2013)
1:33:32 PM, 7/18/2013 The sender ("Jeffrey Epstein") registers disbelief and dismay over the recipient’s ("Bill's") decision to "disregard and discard" their six-year friendship following an "unfortunate event" or "accident."
Termination and Accusation: The sender claims he was discharged from his job and was told by "Larry" (the recipient’s PR person) that he had engaged in "morally inappropriate behavior."
Cover-Up Demand: The recipient allegedly requested the sender to be the "major actor in a cover up" to maintain the recipient's reputation.
Reputational Damage: The sender claims the recipient has shown "total disregard" for the impact of the termination on the sender's public reputation.
Confidentiality Requirements: The recipient has reportedly asked the sender to:
Recommit to a confidentiality agreement.
Diligently avoid the truth.
Tell people the recipient will not invest with the sender.
Craft answers that suit the needs of "Bill and Melinda."
Ignore their friendship and communicate only if "Larry" is copied or present (as insisted upon by Melinda).
Compensation Discrepancy: The sender notes that despite being consistently maintained as having done a superb job and being underpaid, the severance offer for "keeping the gates reputation intact" was limited:
Two years of severance (similar to "Christine Turner, a casualty of a former accident").
Proposed Alternative Compensation Model: The sender outlines what he would have done in the recipient’s place, citing his own wealth as mediating factor:
Assure the recipient that the "accident" was not his fault.
Buy the house the recipient "had his heart set on."
Five years of severance.
Buyout of the investment contract (30-40% of a $100 million partnership) for $30 million.
Highly Sensitive Material (Sexual Misconduct/Health): The sender claims that subsequent to the severance discussion, the recipient, "with tears in [his] eyes," implored the sender to delete emails regarding:
The recipient’s STD.
A request for the sender to provide antibiotics to surreptitiously give to Melinda.
A description of the recipient’s penis.
Further Demands: The recipient also made it clear that the sender is "not to refer to s," a topic that must remain confidential.
Continued Service: In return for acceding to these requests, the sender was told he is "not to attend meetings with Melinda" but should "continue to provide [Bill] the same level of service and dedication" until the recipient is ready to "discard me and our friendship," sometime after the first of the year (2014).
Risk Assessment/Implicit Threat: The sender expresses concern that if Melinda files for a public divorce, the resulting damage to the "pledge program alone would result in billions of dollars of money no longer being used for social good," thereby stifling the recipient’s philanthropic voice and damaging the careers of both parties.