# Profoundd archive — Epstein Files
# Bates number: EFTA00813780
# Title:        From: "Jeffrey E." <jeevacation@gmail.com>
# Dataset:      9
# Pages:        6
# Images:       6 detected
# Tags:         epstein, doj, dataset-9, image-described
# Source PDF:   https://profoundd.com/epstein-docs/EFTA00813780/download
# Doc viewer:   https://profoundd.com/epstein-docs/EFTA00813780
#
# Text below is what Profoundd has extracted from the source PDF.
# 'ocr-enriched' tag means OCR was applied to scan-only pages.
# Image descriptions are AI-generated factual captions (llava:13b).
#----------------------------------------------------------------------

=== SUMMARY ===
From: "Jeffrey E." <jeevacation@gmail.com> To: <IS Subject: Re: BBJ SN 30884 [CC-MERO.FID1500434] Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:51:08 +0000 Inline-Images: image004.png; image001.png tell them he is coming , on 31st On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:27 AM,alMin wrote: Again asking for DAR to view in JFK, something's up?? Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Nelson, Michael" 4 Date: October 25, 2016 at 1:33:00 AM EDT To: Darren Ind ke Cc: La Rob DiCastri , "Claire Brugirard" , Ashok Kumar , Hus


=== EXTRACTED TEXT ===
From: "Jeffrey E." <jeevacation@gmail.com> 
To: <IS Subject: Re: BBJ SN 30884 [CC-MERO.FID1500434] 
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:51:08 +0000 
Inline-Images: image004.png; image001.png 
tell them he is coming , on 31st 
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:27 AM,alMin wrote: 
Again asking for DAR to view in JFK, something's up?? 
Sent from my iPhone 
Begin forwarded message: 
From: "Nelson, Michael" 4 
Date: October 25, 2016 at 1:33:00 AM EDT 
To: Darren Ind ke 
Cc: La Rob DiCastri , "Claire Brugirard" 
, Ashok Kumar , Husham Osman 
Subject: RE: BBJ SN 30884 [CC-MERO.FID1500434I 
Dear Darren, 
Further to my email below, please let us know if you have any comments or queries in relation to the revised draft of 
the Aircraft Purchase Agreement. 
In addition, are you able to assist with having a DAR look at the aircraft whilst it is in New York? 
Kind regards, 
Mike 
Michael Nelson Senior Associ Direct Dial: I Mobile: 
ithttp://su bscri pt ions 
.clydeco.com/reaction 
fi ma crochionnti I rPdriV PO Bower I Sheikh Za ed Road I Dubai, UAE Main I Fax I www.clydeco.com 
Winner, Law Firm of the Year 2016. The Lawyer 
EFTA00813780
Follow us on twitter @AviationClydeCo
Airline Economics Law Firm of the Year (2016) 
Who's Who Legal Aviation Firm of the Year 2005 - 2016 
From: Nelson, Michael [mailto 
Sent: 20 October 2016 22:42 
To: Darren Indyke 
Cc: Larry; Rob DiCastri; Claire Brugirard; Ashok Kumar; Husham Osman 
Subject: RE: 663 SN 30884 [CC-MERO.FID1500434] 
Dear Darren, 
Thank you for your email below. 
Please find attached a revised draft of the Aircraft Purchase Agreement (in clean and red-line). 
Please note the following comments: 
1. Section 2(a)(v): Royal Jet can't agree to rectify prior to delivery ADs and SBs with a compliance date far in the 
future. As a compromise, they can agree to rectify prior to delivery those ADs and SBs with a compliance date on or 
before 31 December 2016. 
2. Section 2(a)(viii): Royal Jet proposes "major damage history outside manufacturer's tolerances". 
3. Section 2(a)(xi): The determination by the DAR of the aircraft being able to obtain a US certificate of airworthiness 
is still under consideration by Royal Jet. Notwithstanding the US$500,000 threshold on rectifications, Royal Jet is not 
keen to proceed where the extent of those rectifications will be subject to a DAR whose guidelines are unknown to 
Royal Jet. I understand that Claire from Royal Jet has been liaising with Larry on seeing the aircraft when it is in New 
York on 26 October. Would it be possible for a DAR to see the aircraft then to narrow the issues on this point? It may 
be helpful for the DAR to do this in order that the parties know if there is, in fact, any issue here and can then proceed 
accordingly. 
4. Section 3(d): Royal Jet are unable to permit the Purchaser's representatives to "participate in" and "assist with" 
the pre-purchase inspection (but they are, of course, welcome to "observe"). This would not be appropriate for third 
parties to do, but there are also legal certification issues to consider. 
5. Section 3(e): We propose that we compromise on a flight test duration of 2 hours. In addition, further flight tests 
should only be undertaken to check the rectification of discrepancies if that is necessary to evidence such rectification 
pursuant to the manufacturer's maintenance manual. 
EFTA00813781
6. Section 3(g) and (h): We have followed the acceptance process set out in the LOI. The Purchaser should not 
have discretion to accept the aircraft regardless of its compliance with the Delivery Condition. Further, if the Purchase 
fails to participate in the acceptance process, it should be deemed to have technically accepted the aircraft (subject to 
rectification of discrepancies). 
7. Section 3(i): Royal Jet can't agree to its failure "to agree to" a discrepancy being grounds for termination. 
Classification of discrepancies should be objective. 
8. Section 5(e)(i): The provision in relation to the Escrow Agent receiving "notice of any lien, claim or encumbrance 
asserted by any third patty" as preventing closing is not acceptable. Liens, claims or encumbrances registered with the 
International Registry is different, but if the Escrow Agent receives an unsubstantiated claim from an unknown third 
party, that should not delay closing and it is unusual to include a provision like this. The Purchaser is, of course, 
receiving warranties as to title free from liens claims and encumbrances from Royal Jet pursuant to the Warranty Bill of 
Sale. 
9. Section 8(a) (now deleted): The Purchaser will have an opportunity to inspect the records during the pre-
purchase inspection. Any issues and discrepancies can be raised then, but Royal Jet can't give warranties as to 
condition which survive closing (generally, the only warranties that survive closing in relation to the aircraft should 
relate to title). 
10. Section 14: We have now included a mirroring indemnity from Royal Jet to Purchaser for issues prior to delivery 
to coincide with the indemnity from the Purchaser to Royal Jet for issues after delivery. That is not unusual. In relation 
to the post-delivery insurances, we'd request that you check with your insurance broker that they can comply with this 
(normally, there is no issue adding another party as an additional insured at no cost). From Royal Jet's perspective, it 
is not uncommon in the aviation industry for a purchaser to arrange for a seller to be named as an additional insured 
as, from a seller's perspective, whilst they usually have the benefit of an indemnity, the strength of that indemnity may 
be limited and, as liabilities arising from aircraft accidents to passengers and persons on the ground may be extremely 
high, a seller will invariably insist on insurance protection. A period of two years is the industry norm (the underlying 
theory being that during this period the aircraft will undergo a major overhaul and the possibility of a third party being 
able to sustain a claim against a seller for a post-sale accident is considerably reduced). 
Please note that the revised draft remains subject to the further review and comment of Royal Jet. 
We look forward to hearing from you (particularly in relation to point 3 above as this may help progress in relation to the 
DAR / US certificate of airworthiness issue). 
Kind regards, 
Mike 
Michael Nelson 
Senior Assoc. I 
Direct Dial: I Mobile: 
EFTA00813782
Rhttp://subscriptions .ciydeco.com/reaction 
iimansichignatiirodrivPO Box 7001 I Rolex Tower I Sheikh Za ed Road I Dubai. UAE 
Main Fax I www.clydeco.com 
Winner, Law Firm of the Year 2016, The Lawyer 
;Ill Follow us on twitter @AviationClydeCo
Airline Economics Law firm of the Year (2016) 
Who's Who Legal Aviation Firm of the Year 2005 - 2016 
From: Darren Indyke 
Sent: 19 October 2016 02:27 
To: Nelson, Michael 
Cc: Larry; Rob DiCastri; Claire Brugirard 
Subject: Re: BB] SN 30884 [CC-MERO.FID1500434] mailto: 
Mike, 
Please see below my comments to the last draft of the Purchase Agreement. Please note that in the interest of 
saving time, I am sending the draft to my client (with whom I have not discussed it) at the same time that I 
am sending it to you. The attached revision is therefore subject to further comment and revision after I have 
had an opportunity to discuss it with my client. 
1. Would you please send me directly the most recent version of Exhibit A, which includes a reference 
to the two Auxiliary Fuel Tanks. 
2. I have made certain changes to your revisions imposing limits on the Pre-Purchase Inspection based 
on my consultation with the DAR. They are noted on the attached document. 
3. I have made delivery condition changes as marked on the attached document based on my 
consultation with the DAR as well. 
4. Although I can understand why you would wish to exclude the administrative aspects of FAA 
registration from the purchase agreement, I cannot agree that an FAA Registration qualified aircraft need not 
be delivered. Items which would cause the Aircraft not to qualify are to be considered Discrepancies. 
Ultimately if the cost to achieve that compliance is more than $500K you have the option of walking away 
without reimbursing me. Since you agreed to that Threshold, I believe this requirement is reasonable. 
5. I agree that discrepancies should not be based on aesthetic issues, like the wood. However, my 
client's discretion to accept (with or without Discrepancies to be corrected) or reject, should not be tied to 
EFTA00813783
whether its reasons qualify as Discrepancies, particularly in light of the unanticipated issues (that were not 
strictly Airworthiness items) already discovered. The incentive not to walk away is already built in because 
my client will be paying for the costs and expenses of the Pre-Purchase Inspection. 
6. In the same way that the Purchaser is required to accept (with or without correction of Discrepancies) 
or reject the aircraft with a notice, the Seller should be required to give notice of its intentions to proceed or 
not after receipt of a technical acceptance certificate. The same two business days notice should apply to the 
Seller after it gets a Certificate of Technical Acceptance. 
7. The imbalance of no warranties other than title and generally no post closing obligations for the Seller 
but a requirement of a continuing indemnity and insurance obligation for the Purchaser is unacceptable. I 
have never agreed to such post closing obligations. 
8. I also noted that you did not wish for Seller to provide any representation as to the truth, accuracy and 
completeness of the Aircraft records. Is there a reason for this? 
9. I will have to discuss your insistence on England and Wales as the governing law. Neither party is a 
citizen of England or Wales and most of the financial risk until closing is on the Purchaser. I have typically 
insisted on Purchaser's jurisdiction for governing law, but will ask about England and Wales. 
I look forward to hearing from you regarding the foregoing and the attached revision. 
Best, 
DARREN K. INDYKE 
DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 
575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor 
New York, 
Telephone 
Telecop' 
Mobile: 
email: 
Clyde & Co LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number OC326539. 
A list of members is available for inspection at its registered office The St Botolph Building,138 
Houndsditch, London, EC3A 7AR. Clyde & Co LLP uses the word "partner" to refer to a member of the 
LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. Authorised and Regulated by 
the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Qatar Financial Centre Branch licensed by the Qatar Financial Centre 
Authority. 
EFTA00813784
LEGAL NOTICE: This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you have 
received this message in error, please (a) notify the sender immediately, (b) destroy this email and any 
attachments, and (c) do not use, copy, store and/or disclose to any person this email and any attachments. 
please note 
The information contained in this communication is 
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may 
constitute inside information, and is intended only for 
the use of the addressee. It is the property of 
JEE 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com,  and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved 
EFTA00813785



=== IMAGE DESCRIPTIONS ===
[Image 1] The image shows a document with text, which appears to be a letter or a report. The document is titled "REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN" and includes sections with headings such as "Background," "Status of the Plan," "Recommendations," and "Conclusion." There are also bullet points under each section, detailing specific information related to the employee stock opt

[Image 2] The image shows a scanned document, which appears to be a letter. The visible text includes a salutation, a list of points or instructions, and a closing. The document is addressed to an individual named "Dear [Name]." The visible text includes phrases such as "I am writing to you," "I am unable to accept," "I am unable to accept any responsibility," and "I am unable to accept any responsibility f

[Image 3] The image shows a digital screenshot of an email. The email is from a sender named "Lawyer" and is addressed to a recipient whose name is not visible in the image. The email contains a list of instructions or reminders, which are numbered from 1 to 6. The text is too small to read the specific details of the instructions. The email appears to be a professional communication, possibly related to le

[Image 4] The image shows a screenshot of an email. The email is addressed to a person named "Barry" and is signed by "Michael." The email contains a request for assistance with a matter related to the Air Travel Organizer's Agreement. The sender mentions that the agreement has been signed by the Royal Air Maroc and requests Barry's assistance in obtaining a copy of the agreement. The email also includes a 

[Image 5] The image shows a screenshot of an email. The email is from a sender with an email address that is partially obscured. The subject line of the email is not fully visible. The body of the email contains a message that is too small to read clearly. The email appears to be a professional communication, possibly related to a business or legal matter, given the context of the visible text. The sender's

[Image 6] The image appears to be a photograph of a printed document, specifically a notice or disclaimer. The text is written in English and includes a header that reads "LEGAL NOTICE" followed by a statement about the use of the document and a warning about the potential for errors. The notice mentions that it is not intended to replace any instructions or advice given by a professional, and it advises th