EFTA00184224

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 5 
EXHIBIT 
88 
EFTA00184904

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 5 
12/00/07 11W 15:22 FAX 300 Ss0 5440 
Mal-LIVE OFFICE 
ramo2 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Ildted States Attorney 
Southent District of Florida 
P9 N.2.4") &met 
Altana. IL 33732-211.1 
December 6, 2007 
alliajWiteAgadag 
Jay B. Letkowitz, Esq. 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
Citigroup Center 
153 Bad 53rd Street 
New York, New York 10022-4675 
Re: 
affimy_lipstein
Deat Jay; 
write in response to your recent o-mells and totters regarding victim notification and other 
issues. Our Office is hying to perform our contractual obligations under the Agreement, which we 
fbc) am being frustrated by &Anse counsel's objections. The Office also is concerned about Mt. 
Bpstoin's nonperformance. 
Moro than three weeks ego we spoke about the Mare to set a timely plea and sentencing 
date. At that time, you assured me that the scheduling delay was caused by the unavailability of 
Judge McSorley. You promised that a date would be set promptly. On November 15M, Rotondo 
Garcia met with Barry Krisher on another Matta, and was told by Mr. ICriabor that he NO ust 
spoken with Jack Goldberger, and that Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing were set to occur on 
December H. 2007. Since that time, wo have tried to confirm the date and time of the hearing in 
order to include thatinformationInMevletimnotificationletters. You continue to refer to tho plea 
and sentencing es though it will be in January; Mr. Keleher's office has not confirmed any dale; and 
Mr. Goldberger recently told Marie Vlllafbfia that "there is no date." 
I must reiterate that a delayed guilty plea and sentencing — now more than two months 
beyond the original deadline — is unacceptable to the Office. As you will recall, the plea and 
sentencing hearing orighuttlywas to occur in early October 2007, but was delayed until October26th 
to allow Mr. Goldberger to attend. IL was delayed again until November to allow you to attend. 
Rather than using your beat efforts to insure that the plea and sentencing occur in November, we 
recentlylearned that a plea conitxmice had been scheduled with Judge McSolley for November 20, 
2007, but was canceled at the request of the parties, not the judge. Judge IvicSorloy has not been 
away tbr any extended period, and there is no basis for your assertion that the judge is the cause of 
US_Atty_Cor_001 90 
EFTA00184905

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 5 
fr
12/05/07 Tan 15t23 PAX 306 530 0440 
fay P. Issgowitz, ESQ. 
DaCeectiteitt% 2007 
Non 2 0P4 
MECUMS Olutica 
glotta 
any past or Altura delay. Mr. Epstein currently has four Florida Bar members on his defense team, 
so attorney scheduling is not an adequate basis for delay. 
Three weeks ago/ sts° asked you to provide our Office wIththe terms of the Plea Agreement 
with the State Attorney's Office. It is now more than two Months since the signing of the Non-
Prosecution Agreement Cud Wobaveyct to see anyibmwl agreement, or (wane list of essentlat terms 
of such an agreement. 
Neat, let me address your allegation that attorneys In our office and agents of tho EBIbave 
leaked information to the press in an effort to affect possible civil litigation with Mr. Epstein. This 
is untrue, There has been no contact between any member of the press and any employee of our 
office or the FBI since you Incorrectly accused investigators of telling "Vanity Fair" about Mr. 
Stair's eanployrbent by Mr. Epstein several months ago. We Intend to continue to refrain from 
commenting or providing information to the press. We would ask that your client and all of his 
representatives do the same. 
I also want to address your interpretation of several statements that were included in. 
correspondence— at yewinsistence— as proof that the designated victims have invalid claims. Let 
me make clear that each of the listed individuals are persons whom the Office identified as victims 
as defined in Section 2255, that is, as parsons "who, while a minor, was a victim of a vielation of 
notion 
2422 or 2423 of this title." In other words, the Office is prepared to indict Mr. Epstein 
based upon Mr. Epstedn's "interactions" with these individuals! This conclusion is based upon a 
thorough and proper investigation —one in which none of the victims was informed of any right to 
receive damages of any amount prior to the investigation of her claim. The Office agrees that it is 
not a party to, and will not take a role in, any civil litigation, but the Office can say, without 
hesItadon, that the evidence demonstrates that each person on the.list was a victim of Mr. Epstein's 
criminal behavior. Mr. Slarr's letter also suggests that the number olvictims to whom Mr. Epstein 
is exposed by the Agreement Is limitless. As you know, early drafts of the Agreement contained a 
numerical limit of40 victims, which was removed at your request. The Office repeatedlyconfirmed 
that the number would not exceed 40; and the list is significantly shorter than that_ Once the list is 
provided to you, ifyou have a good faith basis for assentag that a victim never met Mr. Epstein, we 
remain willing to listen and to modify the fist if you convince to of your position. 
Finally, letme address your objections to thedraft VictimNotificationLoner. You write that 
you don't understand the basis for the Office's belief that It is appropriate to notify the victims. 
Pursuant to the "Justice for All Act of2004," crime victims we:Aided to: "The right to reasonable, 
accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding ... involving the crime" and the "right 
'Unlike the States investigation, the federal investigation shows criminal conduct by Mr. 
Epstein at least as early as ZOO I, so all of the victims were minors at the rime of the offense. 
US_Atty_Cor_00191 
EFTA00184906

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 5 
12/03/07 THU 16:23 FAX 305 530 0440 
EXECUTIVE OPFrICE 
JAY P.Lancovrret, ESQ. 
bscataint 6,2007 
PACS 3 OP4 
not to bo excluded from any such public court proceeding .. ." 18 U.S.C, § 3771(3)(2) & (3). 
Section 3771 also commands that "employees of the Department efhistico ... engaged In the 
detection, investigation, orprosecution of otimeshall make their best efforts tosee that crime victims 
=notified of, and accorded, the rights describedin subsection (a)." 18 U.S.C. § 377I(o)(1). 
Additionally, pursuant to the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 199O, our Office Is 
obligated to "inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled 
under this or any other la W turd [Me) manner in which such relief maybe obtained." 42 U.S.C. § 
10607(eX1)(B). With rove* to notification of the other information that wo propose to disclose, 
the statute requires that we provide a victim with the earliest possible notice of the status of the 
investigation; the filing of charges against a suspected offender; mid the acceptance of a. plea. 42 
U.S.C. § 10607(c)(3). Just as in 18 U.S.C. § 3771, those sections are not limited to proceedings in 
a,edam/ district court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the 'Mural investigation by 
allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal 
investigation should bo appropriately informed, and out Neu-Prosecution Agreement dots not 
require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego its legal obligations. 
With respect to your assertion that we arc seeking to "jederalrze" the'state plea, our dike 
is simply Informingthe victims of their rights. It does not command them to appear at the hearing 
or to file avictIm impact statement. In fact, the letter recommends the sending of any statement to 
the State Attorney's Office so that ASA Beloblevek cur determine which, if any, statements are 
appropriate to Me with the Court. 
Next, you assert that our letter miscbareetcrizes Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay damages to 
the victims. To avoid that suggestion, Uwe asked AUSA Villafatia to simply quote the terms of 
the Agreement directly into the Notification Letter. We also have no objection to referring to Mr. 
Epstein as a "sexual offender" rather than a "predator." 
We 
offense(s) of hich the recipient was a victim. We will not bolude the language that we take no 
hir no objection to USIng the conjunction "and/of' in referring to the particular 
position as to the validity of ally claims. While theOffice has no Intention to take any position in 
any ei villitigation arising between Mr. Epstein and anyIndividual victim, as stated above, the Offico 
believes that it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each listed individual was a victim of Mr. 
Epstein's criminal Conduct wltilo the victim was a minor. The law requires us fo treat all victims 
"with thimcss and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(0(8), We 
will not include any language that demeans the harm Mornay have suffered. 
The lett 
anions regarding representation by the Podhurst firm and Mr, fosefsberg are 
accurate. Judge 
conferred with Mean Podhurst and iosefeberg to insure their willingness 
to undertake this assignment prior to finalizing his selection. 
Roon 
US_Atty_Cor_00192 
EFTA00184907

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 5 
12/00/0? 710 2812$ FA/ 301 630 6440 
BXECUTIVIOFFIC8 
JAY P. Lsfacrwrn, 23Q. 
Drent4DER6, 2007 
PA064 DP4 
Lastly. you object to personal communication between the victims and federal attorneys or 
agents. to have no objection to sending the letters through the male but we will not remove the 
language about contacting AUSA Vinarelia or Special Agent kllyrkendall with questions or 
concerns. Again, federal law requires that victims have the "reasonable right to confer with the 
attorney for the Govecaincnt in this east" la 
3771(aX5). The three victims who were 
notified prior to your objection had questions directed to Mr. Epstein's punishment, not the civil 
litigation. Those questions are appropriately directed to law enforcement. If questions arise related 
to the civil litigation, AUSA Villatlatis and Special Agent itoyrkendall will recommend that the 
victims direct those questions to Mr. Josofsberg 
I have attached a revised letter incorporating the changes on which we can agree. Please 
provide, anytther comments bytes oloseo(busixtessonEriday. In addition, pleaseprovide us with 
adefinitive statement, signed by your client, of his intention to abide by each and every term of the 
Agreementby closes of business on Friday, December '7,20071 By that time, you muss also provide 
us with the agreement(s)withfito State Attomers Office and a date and tine Certain fbr theplea and 
sentencing, which must occur no later than DeceMber 14, 2007. That must be closure in this 
matter. 
Sincerely, 
U ted Staten Ajtorney 
By 
Jeffrey a Menem 
First Assistant United States Attorney 
Enclosure 
cc: 
U.S. Attorney 
AUSA A. Mane Vi a1'aita 
zlihis is contingent, however, on being able to provide adequate notice of the change of 
plea and sentencing. The sooner that )ou schedule that hearing with Judge McSorley, the sooner 
we coo dispatch these tenet's, If you delay Thither, we will have to rely on telephone or petsonal 
notification. 
•006 
US_Atty_Cor_00193 
EFTA00184908

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 
EXHIBIT 
89 
EFTA00184909

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 
12/06/07 TEU 16:24 FAX 306 630 8440 
BIECUTIVE OFFICE 
U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 
Palm Reach, PL 334W 
DELIVERY BY10NITED STATES MAE, 
Miss 
December 6, 2007 
Re: 
Crime Victims' Rights — Notification of Resoluticsas4Thistein Investigation 
Dear Miss 
Several months ago, I provided you with a letter notifying you of your rights as a 
victim pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004 and other federal legislation, including; 
(1) 
The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. 
(2) 
The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court 
proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. 
(3) 
The right not to be excluded from anypublic court proceeding, unless the court 
determines that your testimony may be materially altered ifyou are present for 
other portions of a proceeding. 
(4) 
The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court 
involving release, plea, or sentencing. 
(5) 
The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the 
case. 
(6) 
The right to hill and timely restitution as provided in law. 
(7) 
The right to proceedings flee from unreasonable delay. 
(8) 
The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity 
and privacy. 
I ern writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been 
completed, and that Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement 
containing the following terms. 
VI 008 
ng_grrru_rivAAARR A 
PPP WPE 000620 
EFTA00184910

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-20 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 
EXHIBIT 
90 
EFTA00184911

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-20 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 
Duc-07-07 
04:64pm 
From-Fowler-White Burnett 
F OWL E RWH I T E 
All'otiNgTS AT LAW 
B URNETT 
MIAMI • F00 LAUDERDALE • WraT PALM UfA01 • 5T. PETER5OLMO 
3067800201 
December 7, 2007 
Jeffrey Sloman 
First Assisiam United States Attorney 
United Stales Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
Re: Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Jeff: 
1-(466 
P.002/004 
F-016 
Callnac) 5810 FIALA 
FouNi0arni nowt 
1300 akat(lal. AvLhur 
HA", notran 331 3I 
Tata•floag (306) 760.0200 
ri•r-afrOF (305)760.9 t 0 I 
WNW. FCMLIC/VollITC,C 
LILLY ANN SANCHEZ 
DmIlAY Prout No.; (3051 780.9270 
paw= FA(c.almrta NO. (3010 125-7b70 
LIANc)tIVreml.erevinert.tori 
Pursuant to your letter dated December 6, 2007, attached is a signed 
Affirmation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to sumo dated 
October 30, 2007 (collectively "Agreement") signed by my client Jeill-ey E. Epstein 
(see attached). 
Moreover, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, please note that the plea 
and sentencing hearing have been scheduled for January 4, 2008 at 8:30 am. before 
Judge Sandra MeSorley (please sea attached notice of hearing). In addition, us 
expressed in my voicemail message to you earlier, I would request that the Office 
hold off on sending any victim notification letters until we can further discuss the 
contents therein. Please call me at your earliest convenience. 
Sincerely, 
cc. 
A. 
Ju ge Kenn.
Lilly Ann Sanchez 
tilubl WaMANL51111712.(tommtita3(17/70-11.51) 
FOWLER METE BurtNarr P.A. 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001557 
EFTA00184912

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-21 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 
EXHIBIT 
91 
EFTA00184913

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-21 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 
Jay Lefkowlz/New 
York/Kirkland-Ellis 
02/29/2008 03:11 PM 
To 
ec 
bec 
Subject Fw: Epstein 
Dear., 
I received the attached email from Jeff 
this week and to put it mildly, I was shocked. As you will 
recall, back at the beginning of January, w n we both agreed that there were significant irregularities 
with the deferred prosecution agreement, you called a time-out. You had decided to ask Drew's Office to 
take a look at the matter and suggested that we would be hearing him within days. 
At that time, we welcomed the development — especially given that we had reason to be concerned that 
some of the individuats in your Office were not acting appropriately in relation to thus matter. In particular, 
we were very concerned that one of your prosecutors had given a substantial amount of Information to a 
New Yak Times reporter — telling him not only about specific aspects of our plea negotiations, but also 
sharing with him details about your Office's theory concerning what laws you believe Mr. Epstein has 
violated. In broad strokes, Mr. David Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that the Office was contemplating 
charging Mr. Epstein under Sections 2422(b) (with a full discussion of principal liability), 2423. and 1591. 
He also complained about Mr. Epstein's lawyers and told Mr. Thomas not to "believe the spin from Mr. 
Epstein's high priced attorneys." Mr. Weinstein even Informed Mr. Thomas that we had "asked for 
privately paid armed guards* as part of a house arrest proposal we had made. Even more surprising, he 
subsequently told Mr. Thomas that we had teamed of the conversation, complained about it and 
suggested an explanation. Needless to say, we were very troubled by these conversations. 
At this same time, we agreed that in order to provide Drew a sufficient amount of time to evaluate the 
matter, it made sense to move the deadline for state plea to March, which we did. I was therefore quite 
surprised to receive, in rapid succession, a call from Drew asking to begin the review process and then 
only two days later, an email from Jeff informing me of new and extremely short and arbitrary deadlines. 
The one thing I had become certain about in this case was that you were sincere in your desire to ensure 
that the DOJ took a proper and principled position with respect to this matter, and that you fully accepted 
our desire, and our right, to appeal any adverse decision by your Office to the DOJ. In fact, on several 
occasions -- including our meeting before Thanksgiving In your Office -- you stated precisely as much to 
me. That Is why I am so surprised by Jeff's latest email. We are very interested in having the meetings 
you suggested with Drew. It would be very unfortunate to begin the review process that you have asked 
Drew to conduct and at the same time artificially constrict it As you know, the timing of a thorough review 
would cause no prejudice to the government's prosecution of Mr. Epstein. To the contrary, we hope that 
our dialogue with Drew will allow for the government to make a more informed decision concerning this 
matter. 
We have been waiting eagerly for a call from Drew for nearly two months. Now that he is prepared to 
meet with us, it is unfair for Jeff to seek to impose artificial deadlines. Since I will be in trial next week, we 
are planning to begin our meetings with Drew during the second week in March. 
I sincerely hope we can resolve this matter in the near future. To be dear -- at this stage -- we are not 
asking for anything but the same due process that you promised to afford to us when we last spoke In 
early January. 
Best, Jay 
cc: Jeff 
RFP MIA 000469 
EFTA00184914

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-22 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 4 
EXHIBIT 
92 
EFTA00184915

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-22 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 4 
12/10/07 Imp 17:03 FAX. 305 530 5440 
FIXECVTIV13 OFFICE 
U.S. Department of Justice 
United Slates Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
ALUMDIelt ACOSTA 
9r N.E 4 SInvr 
WINO rt4163.4710RNRY 
Mato. Ml. 33131 
Def./ember 19, 2007 
DELIVERY BY
Lilly Ann Sanchez 
Fowler White Burnett, PA 
1395 Briekell 
14th Floor 
Miami, FL 33131 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Ms. Sanchez.: 
I write to follow up on the December le' meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein 
prosecutors, as welt es our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' 
write to you because lain not certain who among the defense team Is the appropriate recipient of this 
letter. L address issues raised by several members of the defense team, and would thus ask that you 
please provide a copy of this letter to all appropriate defense team members. 
• 
First, i would like to address the Section 2255 issue,2 As I stated in my December 4th letter, 
my understanding is thot thaTion-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. 
Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein' s desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal 
liability. Under this Agreement, this District hes agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections 
) Over the past two weeks, we have received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits from defense counsel. 
This Is not the forum to respond to the several items raised, and ow silence should not be interpret as agreaticni; I 
would, however, like to address ono Issue. Your December Irletter stain that as a fault of defense counsel 
objections to the appointment process, the USA() imposed an addendum to the Agreanent to provide fur the mac of 
at) independent third potty selector. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowledge of defense counsel 
objections, I sue spots's proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowiot nt an October mooting in Palm Beach. t did this 
in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious lelettlen process. It was only attar 1 propoied Ihis 
change that Mr. LI:Nowlin raised with me his enumerated concerns. 
2 Section V55 provides that: lalny person who, while a minor, was o victim of a violation of lenumemtod $04)(1011x 
of Title l8) and who suffers personal injury as a m
utt of such violation ...may sue In any oppropioto United Stales 
011trint Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, includingii 
reasonable attorney's fee." 
toot 
US_Atty_Cor_00272 
EFTA00184916

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-22 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 4 
12/19/07 QED 17:03 FAX 305 530 6140 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies 
three general federal interests: (1) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registemble" state offense; (2) 
that this state plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) 
that the Agretmtent not hann the interests of his victims. 
With this in mind, I have considered defense counsel arguments regarding the Section 2255 
portions oldie Agreement. As I previously observed, our Intent has been to place the victims in the 
same position as they would have been had Mr. Epsteinbeen convicted at trial. No more; no less. 
From our meeting, it appears that the defense agrees that this was the intent During the course of 
negotiations that intent was reduced to writing in Paragraphs 7 and 8, which as T wrote previously, 
appear far from simple to understand. I would thus propose that wo solve our disagreements over 
interpretations by saying precisely what we mean, in a simple ilashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 
and 8 with the hollowing language: 
"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation or an offense enumerated in 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under 
Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of en 
enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall 
provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it wasprepared to mune in an 
indictment as victims of an entmicmted offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority 
interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if 
any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that It is the intent of the parties to place these 
identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been 
convicted at trial. No mote; no less." 
Second, I would like to address the issue of victim's rights pursuant to Section 3771. I 
understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place of Mr. 
Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and 
the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense ns a courtesy. in 
addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several 
edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of 
proceedings and results of investigations of federal trims as opposed to the state crime. We intend 
to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will de& to the 
discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the 
state proceedings, although we will provide him with the Information Deuces/ay to do so if he wishes. 
Third, I would like to address the issue raised regarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At 
our meeting, Professor Dcrsliowttz took theposition that Mr. Epstein believes that his conduct does 
Pot satisfy the elements of this offense. His assertion raises for me substantial concerns. This Mee 
will not, and cannot, be a parry to an nweement in which Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to an offense that 
ho believes ho did not commit We are considering how best to proceed. 
2 
0006 
US_Atty_Cor_00273 
EFTA00184917

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-22 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 4 
12/10/07 VID 
PAZ 305 830 8440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
Finally, I would like to address a more general point Our Agreement was first signed on 
September 24th, 2007. Pursuant to paragraph II, Mr. Epsteinwas to use his best efforts to enter his 
guilty pies raid be sentenced no later than October 26,2007. As outlined in correspondence between 
our prosecutors and defense counsel, this deadline came and weal. Our prosecutors reiterated to 
defense counsel several times their concerns regarding delays, and in fact, asked me several weeks 
ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. I resisted that levitation. I share 
this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an 1 tth hour appeal, 
weeks before the now scheduled January 4th plea data 
This said, the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness 
concerns. We hope to preserve the January 4th date. I understand that defense counsel shares our 
desire not to move that appearance and will work with our office to expedite this process over the 
next several days. With this in mind, and In the event that defense counsel may wish to seek review 
of our determinations in Washington A.C., I spoke this past Monday with the Assistant Attorney 
General Fisher, to Inform her of a possible appeal, to ask her to grant the potential tequest for review, 
and to In fattreview this case in an expedited manner to attempt to preserve the January 4th plea date. 
I want to again reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to fotvo the hand of a 
defendant to enter into an agreemeetagainst his wishes. Your Menthes the right to proceed to trial, 
and he should do so if he believes that he did not oommit the elements of the charged offense. 
1 will respond to the pending issues shortly. In the interim, I would ask that you 
communicate your position with respect to the sections 2255 and 3371 issues as quickly as possible. 
Sincerely, 
R. ALEXANDER 
UNITED STATES7CCCOKI4EY
cc: 
Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General 
Jeffrey Stoma% First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
AIJSA A. Mark Villefatia 
3 
0004 
US_Atty_Cor_00274 
EFTA00184918

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-23 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 4 
EXHIBIT 
93 
EFTA00184919

Cap 9:08.-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-23 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 4 
U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE 
Lilly Ann Sanchez 
Fowler White Burnett, PA 
1395 Brickell Ave, 14th Floor 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Ms. Sanchez: 
99 N.E. 4 Street 
Miami. FL 33132 
(305) 961-9100 - Telephone 
(303) 530-6444 - Facsimile 
December 19, 2007 
I write to follow up on the December 146 meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein 
prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' 
write to you because I am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this 
letter. I address issues raised by several members of the defense team, and would thus ask that you 
please provide a copy of this letter to all appropriate defense team members. 
First, I would like to address the Section 2255 issue.2 As I stated in my December 4'h letter, 
my understanding is that the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. 
Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal 
liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections 
a Over the past two weeks, we have received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits from defense counsel. 
This is not the forum to respond to the several items raised, and our silence should not be interpret as agreement; I 
would, however, like to address one issue. Your December I I d' letter states that as a result of defense counsel 
objections to the appointment process, the USAO proposed an addendum to the Agreement to provide for the use of 
an independent third party selector. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowledge of defense counsel 
objections, I sua sponte proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowitz at an October meeting in Palm Beach. I did this 
in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process. It was only after I proposed this 
change that Mr. Letkowitz raised with me his enumerated concerns. 
2 Section 2255 provides that: "[ajny person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of (enumerated sections 
of Title IS) and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation . . . may sue in any appropriate United States 
District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit. including a 
reasonable attorney's fee." 
RFP MIA 000038 
EFTA00184920

Cate 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-23 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 4 
of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies 
three general federal interests: (I) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable" state offense; (2) 
that this state plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) 
that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. 
With this in mind, I have considered defense counsel arguments regarding the Section 2255 
portions of the Agreement. As I previously observed, our intent has been to place the victims in the 
same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. 
From our meeting, it appears that the defense agrees that this was the intent. During the course of 
negotiations that intent was reduced to writing in Paragraphs 7 and 8, which as 1 wrote previously, 
appear far from simple to understand. I would thus propose that we solve our disagreements over 
interpretations by saying precisely what we mean, in a simple fashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 
and 8 with the following language: 
"My person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under 
Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an 
enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall 
provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an 
Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority 
interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if 
any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these 
identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been 
convicted at trial. No more; no less." 
Second, I would like to address the issue of victim's rights pursuant to Section 3771. 1 
understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place of Mr. 
Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and 
the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense as a courtesy. In 
addition, First Assistant United States Attorney 
already incorporated in the letter several 
edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of 
proceedings and results of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend 
to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the 
discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the 
state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes. 
Third, I would like to address the issue raised.regarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At 
our meeting, Professor Dershowitz took the position that Mr. Epstein believes that his conduct does 
not satisfy the elements of this offense. His assertion raises for me substantial concerns. This Office 
will not, and cannot, be a party to an agreement in which Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to an offense that 
he believes he did not commit. We are considering how best to proceed. 
2 
RFP MIA 000039 
EFTA00184921

• 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-23 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 4 
Finally, I would like to address a more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on 
September 24th, 2007. Pursuant to paragraph I I, Mr. Epstein was to use his best efforts to enter his 
guilty plea and be sentenced no later than October 26, 2007. As outlined in correspondence between 
our prosecutors and defense counsel, this deadline came and went. Our prosecutors reiterated to 
defense counsel several times their concerns regarding delays, and in fact, asked me several weeks 
ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. I resisted that invitation. I share 
this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an I 1 th hour appeal, 
weeks before the now scheduled January 4th plea date. 
This said, the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness 
concerns. We hope to preserve the January 4th date. I understand that defense counsel shares our 
desire not to move that appearance and will work with our office to expedite this process over the 
next several days. With this in mind, and in the event that defense counsel may wish to seek review 
of our determinations in Washington D.C., I spoke this past Monday with the Assistant Attorney 
General Fisher, to inform her of a possible appeal, to ask her to grant the potential request for review, 
and to in fact review this case in an expedited manner to attempt to preserve the January 4th plea date. 
I want to again reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a 
defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial, 
and he should do so if he believes that he did not commit the elements of the charged offense. 
I will respond to the pending issues shortly. In the interim, I would ask that you 
communicate your position with respect to the sections 2255 and 3371 issues as quickly as possible. 
Sincerely, 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
cc: 
Alice Fi er Assistant Attorney General 
Jeffrey 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
AUSA AA. 
Villafafia 
3 
RFP MR 000040 
EFTA00184922

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-24 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 8 
EXHIBIT 
94 
EFTA00184923