EFTA00206173

Thanks you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Paul Cassell, Co-Counsel for Jane Doe 
Paul G. Cassell 
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law 
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 
Voice: 
Fax: 
Email: 
http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul 
CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This 
message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the 
person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or 
copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the 
sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 17, 2011 12:17 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Government's Position on Several Pending Issues? Still Waiting for Answer 
Hi 
— I think that some of these positions may conflict with other positions taken by the 
Department. In particular I believe that the Department's position is that the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure do not apply because this is not a civil action. 
As to point number 4, I would recommend that we make clear that the matter should be filed under 
seal in accordance with Judge Marra's order, however, if the plaintiffs abide by the terms of that order 
(in terms of providing notice and the opportunity to be heard) and make a motion to unseal, we will not 
oppose the motion to unseal. 
EFTA00206373

Thank you. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda March 17, 2011 11:20 AM 
To: 
USAFLS); 
USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: FW: Government's Position on Several Pending Issues? Still Waiting for Answer 
and M, 
I would like to respond to Cassell's requests today. As to paragraph 1, I provided him a phone 
number and contact person yesterday, March 16. 
As to paragraph 2, I would like to tell Cassell we won't be making initial disclosures, because we don't 
believe Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 applies in this hybrid civil matter. 
As to paragraph 3, I would like to tell Cassell that the CVRA applies to the criminal case which has 
been filed in district court, where an individual is deemed to be a "victim," not any civil litigation which 
may be initiated to enforce those rights. Any rights to discovery in an action to enforce the CVRA 
would emanate from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if at all. 
Moreover, I would like to tell him 
that whatever Ken Starr said to our office, and what our office said to Ken Starr, has no bearing on 
whether a legal duty to consult, in the absence of any charge filed in the district court, existed. 
We 
will respond to any motion he files, claiming he has a right of access to these materials. 
As to paragraph 4, I discern no privilege attaching to e-mail and mail correspondence our office had 
with Epstein's attorneys. These could be considered plea discussions, but normally, one of the 
parties to the negotiation is complaining about the other side using information gleaned from such 
discussions improperly in the merits of the case. We could argue that disclosure to third parties could 
EFTA00206374

assert a chilling effect, but that seems to be a stretch. In any event, I think we should advise Cassell 
the U.S. Attorney's Office has no independent objection to the release of this correspondence between 
our office and Epstein's attorneys. It will be the victims' burden to notify Epstein, and respond to 
whatever objections he lodges. 
Thanks. 
From: Paul Cassell [mailto: 
Sent: Tuesda , March 15, 2011 7:21 PM 
To: 
USAFLS 
Cc: 
. (USAFLS); Brad Edwards 
Subject: RE: Government's Position on Several Pending Issues? Still Waiting for Answer 
Dear 
Brad and I have received Mr. 
letter of today. We are deeply disappointed. We will file our 
court pleadings on Friday. 
Mr. 
- again. 
letter still leaves unanswered a number of questions, which I am writing to raise with you - 
1. 
You still have not provided, as you promised you would, the name of the person coordinating the 
OPR investigation. As a result we have not been able to obtain any information about the status of the 
investigation. Just to be clear, we intend to include in our filing information that OPR has begun an 
investigation and to include the information that we currently have about 
— we assume 
that making that information public will not compromise OPR's work. 
2. 
We will be making initial disclosures to you under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shortly. 
We have not heard back from you on whether you will be making parallel disclosures. Accordingly, we 
understand your position to be that you are not obligated to provide to us any documents under Rule 
26. 
3. 
We understand your position to be that, despite the "best efforts" clause in the CVRA and your 
obligation to treat victims with fairness, you can withhold evidence from the victims that will help them 
prove CVRA violations. For example, we understand you to take the position that you can withhold the 
other half of the U.S. Attorney's correspondence, correspondence between the Department and Ken 
Starr and Lillian 
on behalf of Epstein, and information about 
role in the 
Epstein case. In short, we understand you to be asserting a blanket position that you can withhold 
EFTA00206375

information that will help prove the victims' CVRA case. If this is incorrect, please advise us promptly. 
If we have misunderstood you and you are willing to provide us relevant information, we will promptly 
provide you with a list of such information. If we have understood you correctly, we will be filing a 
motion with the Court shortly to block the Justice Department from suppressing such highly relevant 
information. 
4. 
You still have not given us your position on the victims' motion to file an unsealed, unredacted 
pleading reciting the U.S. Attorney's correspondence. What is your position on that motion: We have 
been asking for your position on this motion for some time now. If we have not heard back from you 
by c.o.b. Wednesday, March 16, 2011, we will include in our pleadings the following statement: "The 
Justice Department attorneys handling this case have been contacted several times for their position 
on this issue but have refused to respond to give their position." 
Thanks you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Paul Cassell, Co-Counsel for Jane Doe 
Paul G. Cassell 
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law 
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 
Voice: 
Fax: 
Email: 
http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul 
CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This 
message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the 
person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or 
copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the 
sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. 
From: 
(USAFLS) < 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 17, 2011 11:20 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
FW: Government's Position on Several Pending Issues? Still Waiting for Answer 
and M, 
EFTA00206376

I would like to respond to Cassell's requests today. As to paragraph 1, I provided him a phone 
number and contact person yesterday, March 16. 
As to paragraph 2, I would like to tell Cassell we won't be making initial disclosures, because we don't 
believe Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 applies in this hybrid civil matter. 
As to paragraph 3, I would like to tell Cassell that the CVRA applies to the criminal case which has 
been filed in district court, where an individual is deemed to be a "victim," not any civil litigation which 
may be initiated to enforce those rights. Any rights to discovery in an action to enforce the CVRA 
would emanate from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if at all. 
Moreover, I would like to tell him 
that whatever Ken Starr said to our office, and what our office said to Ken Starr, has no bearing on 
whether a legal duty to consult, in the absence of any charge filed in the district court, existed. 
We 
will respond to any motion he files, claiming he has a right of access to these materials. 
As to paragraph 4, I discern no privilege attaching to e-mail and mail correspondence our office had 
with Epstein's attorneys. These could be considered plea discussions, but normally, one of the 
parties to the negotiation is complaining about the other side using information gleaned from such 
discussions improperly in the merits of the case. We could argue that disclosure to third parties could 
assert a chilling effect, but that seems to be a stretch. In any event, I think we should advise Cassell 
the U.S. Attorney's Office has no independent objection to the release of this correspondence between 
our office and Epstein's attorneys. It will be the victims' burden to notify Epstein, and respond to 
whatever objections he lodges. 
Thanks. 
From: Paul Cassell [mailto: 
Sent: Tuesda , March 15, 2011 7:21 PM 
To: 
USAFLS 
Cc: 
. (USAFLS); Brad Edwards 
Subject: RE: Government's Position on Several Pending Issues? Still Waiting for Answer 
Dear 
EFTA00206377

Brad and I have received Mr. 
letter of today. We are deeply disappointed. We will file our 
court pleadings on Friday. 
Mr. 
- again. 
letter still leaves unanswered a number of questions, which I am writing to raise with you - 
1. 
You still have not provided, as you promised you would, the name of the person coordinating the 
OPR investigation. As a result we have not been able to obtain any information about the status of the 
investigation. Just to be clear, we intend to include in our filing information that OPR has begun an 
investigation and to include the information that we currently have about 
— we assume 
that making that information public will not compromise OPR's work. 
2. 
We will be making initial disclosures to you under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shortly. 
We have not heard back from you on whether you will be making parallel disclosures. Accordingly, we 
understand your position to be that you are not obligated to provide to us any documents under Rule 
26. 
3. 
We understand your position to be that, despite the "best efforts" clause in the CVRA and your 
obligation to treat victims with fairness, you can withhold evidence from the victims that will help them 
prove CVRA violations. For example, we understand you to take the position that you can withhold the 
other half of the U.S. Attorney's correspondence, correspondence between the Department and Ken 
Starr and Lillian 
on behalf of Epstein, and information about 
role in the 
Epstein case. In short, we understand you to be asserting a blanket position that you can withhold 
information that will help prove the victims' CVRA case. If this is incorrect, please advise us promptly. 
If we have misunderstood you and you are willing to provide us relevant information, we will promptly 
provide you with a list of such information. If we have understood you correctly, we will be filing a 
motion with the Court shortly to block the Justice Department from suppressing such highly relevant 
information. 
4. 
You still have not given us your position on the victims' motion to file an unsealed, unredacted 
pleading reciting the U.S. Attorney's correspondence. What is your position on that motion: We have 
been asking for your position on this motion for some time now. If we have not heard back from you 
by c.o.b. Wednesday, March 16, 2011, we will include in our pleadings the following statement: "The 
Justice Department attorneys handling this case have been contacted several times for their position 
on this issue but have refused to respond to give their position." 
Thanks you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Paul Cassell, Co-Counsel for Jane Doe 
Paul G. Cassell 
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law 
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 
EFTA00206378

Voice: 
Fax: 
Email: 
http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul 
CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This 
message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the 
person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or 
copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the 
sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. 
Subject: 
Epstein 
Location: 
oft 
Start: 
End: 
Fri 3/18/2011 10:30 AM 
Fri 3/18/2011 11:00 AM 
Recurrence: 
(none) 
Organizer: 
Required Attendees: 
call in 
. (USAFLS) 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
When: Fri
March 18, 2011 10:30 AM-11:00 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). 
Where: IMMI ofci 
call in 
Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Frida March 18, 2011 9:06 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Hole. Can 
lease set a conference call for 10:30 this morning in 
office re: Epstein with 
and 
and ask for a number we should call in WPB? Thanks. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Friday, March 18, 2011 11:44 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Emailing: 081124 
Ltr to Black final.wpd 
EFTA00206379

Attachments: 
081124 
Ltr to Black final.wpd 
«081124 
Ltr to Black final.wpd» This was the letter that was sent. 
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: 
081124 
Ltr to Black final.wpd 
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file 
attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Monday, March 21, 20115:07 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Filings from Cassell 
Attachments: 
DE51_20110321_Motion to use correspondence and unseal.pdf; DE49_20110321_Motion 
to Have Facts Accepted as True.pdf; DE50_20110321_Motn for Brady-type evidence.pdf; 
DE50-1_20110321_Exhibit Edwards Letter.pdf; DESO-2_20110321_Proposed Order.pdf; 
DE48 
302.pdf; DE48 
Victim notification 
Itr.pdf; DE48 
victim notification Ittpdf; DE48-5_20110321_NPA.pdf; 
DE48-6_20110321_Twiler Itr to 
DE48-7_20110321_Twiler Itr to Jim Eisenberg 
for 
• DE48-8_20110321_302 of 
from Jan 2008.pdf; DE48-
9_20110321_Twiler Itr to 
DE48_20110321_Motn for finding a violation of 
CVRA.pdf 
Here they all are 
<<DE51_20110321_Motion to use correspondence and unseal.pdf>> «DE49_20110321_Motion to Have Facts Accepted 
as True.pdf» <<DE50_20110321_Motn for Brady-type evidence.pdf» «DE50-1 20110321_Exhibit Edwards 
Letter. df>> «DE50-2 20110321 Proposed Order.pdf» <<DE48 
302.pdf» «DE48-
Victim notification Itrpdf» «DE48 
victim notification Itrpdf» <<DE48-
5_20110321_NPA. f>> <<DE48-6_20110321_Twiler Itr to 
> <<DE48-7_20110321_Twiler ltr to Jim 
Eisenbe 
for
> «DE48-8 20110321 302 of
from Jan 2008.pdf>> «DE48-9_20110321_Twiler Itr to 
> <<DE48_20110321_MOtn for finding a violation of CVRA.pdf»
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
Subject: 
Epstein 
Location: 
ofc 
call in 
EFTA00206380

Start: 
End: 
Fri 3/18/2011 10:30 AM 
Fri 3/18/2011 11:00 AM 
Recurrence: 
(none) 
Organizer: 
Required Attendees: 
.(USAFLS) 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
When: Fric 
March 18, 2011 10:30 AM-11:00 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). 
Where: IMMI ofci 
call in 
Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Fncla , March 18, 2011 9:06 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Hola. Can oL
fi
pl_
se set a conference call for 10:30 this morning in 
office re: Epstein with MI 
and 
and ask for a number we should call in WPB? Thanks. 
Subject: 
Epstein 
Location: 
oft 
Start: 
End: 
Fri 3/18/2011 10:30 AM 
Fri 3/18/2011 11:00 AM 
Recurrence: 
(none) 
Organizer: 
Required Attendees: 
(USAFLS); 
call in 
(USAFLS) 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
When: Fric 
March 18, 2011 10:30 AM-11:00 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). 
Where: IMMI ofci 
call in 
Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Ft-Ida , March 18, 2011 9:06 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Hola. Can ot
y_
se set a conference call for 10:30 this morning in 
office re: Epstein with MI 
and 
and ask for a number we should call in WPB? Thanks. 
EFTA00206381

From: 
(USAFLS) e
> 
Sent: 
Friday, March 18, 2011 2:50 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine 
Please confirm receipt. 
(USAFLS); 
Just a thought, but my letter to 
should be accessible via a public records request to 
PBSO. It certainly would show that, at the very least, I did not know that JE would be allowed on work 
release and that serious concerns were raised to PBSO and a request was made for judicial 
intervention. It addresses a number of his questions regarding the legitimacy of the "foundation." 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Frid
larch 18, 2011 2:30 PM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
USAFLS; 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt. 
Okay, continuing on. Please see below. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
EFTA00206382

From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Fridl
arch 18, 2011 1:16 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS 
USAFLS; 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt. 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
See my comments below. Also, when I was lookin for the notice of breach letter regarding the work 
release, I found a letter that I had written to 
at PBSO regarding FBI's and my 
investigation into Epstein's sham charity work. I have attached that. That, also, should have formed 
the basis of a breach of the NPA, but we couldn't breach because of AA's side dealings. 
I have to run to court. I will answer the rest of the questions when I get back. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Frida March 18, 2011 1:09 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
USAFLS 
Cc: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Fw: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt. 
Hi all. Here are the is from Vanity Fair. I would appreciate your input. 
Thanks all 
From: john1885c [mailto 
Sent: Frid
arch 18, 2011 01:50 PM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt. 
(USAFLS); 
EFTA00206383

AUSA 
It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning. As per your request here are questions I 
would like to have answered for a piece I am researching on Jeffrey Epstein. As life would have it I am 
going to be on a busman's holiday this coming week on Singer Island, FL. I would like to meet you 
and whomever else you think I should speak with. If not, I understand perfectly. 
Let me preface these questions by saying that AUSA 
who was in charge of the 
investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has a remarkably record as a prosecutor. I also know that an AUSA 
does not have the authority to grant a potential defendant a non -prosecution agreement without the 
permission of higher ups in the Justice Department. 
Not quite three years ago, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, granted Jeffrey Epstein 
a non-prosecution agreement in return for his accepting a FL State plea deal for his illegal acts 
regarding sex with minor females. The state case was handled by the West Palm Beach State 
Prosecutor who has since left office. 
Was your office aware of the extraordinary sweet deal that Mr. Epstein was granted by that state 
prosecutor? YES. BUT FOR OUR INSISTENCE, THE SAO WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO DO 
PRETRIAL DIVERSION WITH EPSTEIN ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE OF SOLICITATION OF 
ADULT PROSTITUTION. 
Was your office at the time of the agreement aware that Mr. Epstein would not be sent to a state prison 
facility as almost all defendants who are sentenced to more that a y
iriiison are required to do? 
DURING A MEETING ATTENDED BY 
, STATE ATTORNEY 
BARRY KRISCHER, ASA LANNA BELOLAVEK AND MYSELF, IT WAS AGREED THAT JE WOULD 
STAY IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AT THE PALM BEACH COUNTY JAIL. 
Was your office aware that Mr. Epstein would serve his sentence in the local WPB jail? AT THE PALM 
BEACH COUNTY JAIL, NOT AT THE STOCKADE. 
Was your office aware that Mr. Epstein would be allowed, what most FL law enforcement officials 
describe as "beyond a sweetheart deal", in that six days a week at 7:00 AM Mr. Epstein would leave 
the the WPB jail with a corrections officer he was personally paying for, and be escorted to the office of 
attorney Jack Goldberger where he would be allowed to stay until 11:00 PM and then be returned to 
jail for the evening? Ostensibly this was so that Mr. Epstein could work on a new charity he had 
formed. This despite the fact that just prior to beginning his jail sentence, Mr. Epstein liquidated his 
charity and gave $18 million to a charity run by the wife of his former patron. 
Does the US Attorney believe that Mr. Epstein was working on a charity? AS MENTIONED DURING 
OUR PHONE CALL, DURING THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS, WORK RELEASE WAS NEVER 
EFTA00206384

CONTEMPLATED AND IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE NON PROSECUTION AGREEMENT. AFTER 
THE "APPEAL" TO MAIN JUSTICE, WHEN IT CAME BACK DOWN TO OUR OFFICE, 
AND I TOOK A MUCH HARDER LINE, AND 
ALSO BECAME 
INVOLVED, AND HE ALSO TOOK A MUCH HARDER LINE. THE FBI AND I HEARD THROUGH THE 
GRAPEVINE THAT JE WAS SNIFFING AROUND ABOUT WORK RELEASE, SO 
AND I HAD 
A SPECIFIC SERIES OF CONVERSATIONS WITH ROY BLACK AND JACK GOLDBERGER ABOUT 
JE SERVING HIS TIME INCARCERATED 24 HOURS PER DAY. PURSUANT TO THE NPA, OUR 
OFFICE WAS ENTITLED TO REVIEW THE STATE PLEAAGREEMENT BEFORE IT WAS SIGNED. 
THE STATE PLEA AGREEMENT DID NOT CONFORM TO THE NPAAND WE OBJECTED 
BECAUSE IT DID NOT REQUIRE INCARCERATION. EVEN AFTER ALL OF THAT, JE APPLIED 
FOR AND WAS APPROVED FOR WORK RELEASE. WE SENT A NOTICE OF BREACH LETTER, 
AND THAT WAS WHEN I RECEIVED THE CALL FROM JAY LEFKOWITZ SAYING THAT JAY AND 
ALAN DERSHOWITZ HAD GOTTEN APPROVAL FROM ALEX FOR JE TO GO OUT ON WORK 
RELEASE. AS FOR WHETHER JE WAS REALLY WORKING ON A CHARITY, SEE MY EARLIER 
LETTER. 
Was Mr. Epstein doing work as a Confidential Informer for the federal government as he has in the 
past? 
Mr. Eptein was Victim # 1 in the federal indictment of two Bear Stears executives on fraud charges 
stemming from a mortgage backed fund that went under. Mr. Epstein lost almost $70 million in that 
fund. 
Was Mr. Epstein working on the government case while working on "His Charity'? WE BELIEVE 
THAT ALL OF THIS IS URBAN MYTH. THE FBI AND I LOOKED INTO THIS AND DO NOT BELIEVE 
THAT ANY OF IT IS TRUE. 
Has your office ever agreed to any allow any other prisoner the same or similar sweet deal? NO 
AUSA I HAVE EVER TALKED TO HAS HEARD OF ONE. 
Was your office aware that in return for Mr. Goldberger's help, Mr. Epstein purchased for him a top of 
the line black BMW? (Sadly for Goldberger he was in an accident and totaled the vehicle three weeks 
later.) THIS WAS REPORTED IN THE PALM BEACH POST AND I HAVE SEEN HIM DRIVING THE 
CAR. (EPSTEIN BOUGHT HIM A REPLACEMENT AFTER HE TOTALED THE FIRST ONE.) 
It has come to my attention that the R. Alexander Acos to former Attorney General for the Southern 
District of Florida during the investigation and non-prosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein had been a 
law partner and friend of two Mr. Epstein's lawyers. Both Ken Star and Jay Lefkowitz had been 
partners with Mr. Acosta at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis prior to his being appointed by President 
Bush. 
I have been told by sources that Mr. Acosta was the person responsible for the decision not to 
prosecute Mr. Epstein. 
I have also been told that during Mr. Starr's trip to FL to speak with federal prosecutors he complained 
to Mr. Acosta that the press coverage of his trips to FL on Mr. Epstein's private jets were being leaked 
by FBI agents. ( I can assure you that was not true.) 
EFTA00206385

Did Mr. Acosta recuse himself from any discussions about the Epstein case so as to avoid even the 
appearance of impropriety? 
Was the possibility of his removing himself from the case ever discussed by officials in the Justice 
Department? 
Are there any memos regarding that? 
Is there currently an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation into the facts surrounding the 
handling of this case and Mr. Acosta actions in it? 
EPSTEIN'S M.O. WAS TO HIRE ATTORNEYS WHO COULD GET HIM ACCESS. FOR THE SAO, 
THE FIRST ASA WAS MAKING REAL HEADWAY, SO HE FIRED HIS FIRST ATTORNEY (GUY 
FRONSTIN) AND REPLACED HIM WITH JACK GOLDBERGER, WHO IS PARTNERS WITH THE 
FIRST ASA'S HUSBAND, AND IS GOOD FRIENDS WITH THE THEN STATE ATTORNEY, BARRY 
KRISHER. THAT ENDED THE SAO CASE. 
WHEN THE CASE CAME TO OUR OFFICE, HE HIRED GUY LEWIS, THE USA WHO HIRED ME. 
GUY STARTED CALLING ME INCESSENTLY (5 OR MORE TIMES A DAY). WHEN I WOULDN'T 
RETURN HIS CALLS AND REFUSED TO MEET WITH HIM, JE HIRED LILLY ANN, WHO ALSO 
TRIED ME. WHEN I REFUSED TO MEET HER, SHE IMMEDIATELY CALLED 
, WHO 
GRANTED MEETINGS. WHEN IT WENT ABOVE 
AND 
LEVEL, JE HIRED 
LEFKOWITZ AND STARR, WHO HAD CONNECTIONS TO ACOSTA. WHEN THE CASE WENT TO 
CEOS, JE HIRED A FORMER CEOS ATTORNEY. 
Thanks so much for your help, John Connolly 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Friday, March 18, 2011 1:09 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Fw: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine 
Please confirm receipt. 
Hi all. Here are the is from Vanity Fair. I would appreciate your input. 
Thanks all 
From: john1885c [mailto 
Sent: Fridl
larch 18, 2011 01:50 PM 
To: 
,= 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt. 
EFTA00206386

AUSA 
It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning. As per your request here are questions I would like 
to have answered for a piece I am researching on Jeffrey Epstein. As life would have it I am going to 
be on a busman's holiday this coming week on Singer Island, FL. I would like to meet you and 
whomever else you think I should speak with. If not, I understand perfectly. 
Let me preface these questions by saying that AUSA 
who was in charge of the 
investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has a remarkably record as a prosecutor. I also know that an AUSA 
does not have the authority to grant a potential defendant a non -prosecution agreement without the 
permission of higher ups in the Justice Department. 
Not quite three years ago, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, granted Jeffrey Epstein 
a non-prosecution agreement in return for his accepting a FL State plea deal for his illegal acts 
regarding sex with minor females. The state case was handled by the West Palm Beach State 
Prosecutor who has since left office. 
Was your office aware of the extraordinary sweet deal that Mr. Epstein was granted by that state 
prosecutor? 
Was your office at the time of the agreement aware that Mr. Epstein would not be sent to a state prison 
facility as almost all defendants who are sentenced to more that a year in prison are required to 
do? Was your office aware that Mr. Epstein would serve his sentence in the local WPB jail? 
Was your office aware that Mr. Epstein would be allowed, what most FL law enforcement officials 
describe as "beyond a sweetheart deal", in that six days a week at 7:00 AM Mr. Epstein would leave 
the the WPB jail with a corrections officer he was personally paying for, and be escorted to the office of 
attorney Jack Goldberger where he would be allowed to stay until 11:00 PM and then be returned to 
jail for the evening? 
Ostensibly this was so that Mr. Epstein could work on a new charity he had formed. This despite the 
fact that just prior to beginning his jail sentence, Mr. Epstein liquidated his charity and gave $18 million 
to a charity run by the wife of his former patron. 
Does the US Attorney believ e that Mr. Epstein was working on a charity? 
Was Mr. Epstein doing work as a Confidential Informer for the federal government as he has in the 
past? 
Mr. Eptein was Victim # 1 in the federal indictment of two Bear Stears executives on fraud charges 
stemming from a mortgage backed fund that went under. Mr. Epstein lost almost $70 million in that 
fund. 
Was Mr. Epstein working on the government case while working on "His Charity"? 
Has your office ever agreed to any allow any other prisoner the same or similar sweet deal? 
Was your office aware that in return for Mr. Goldberger's help, Mr. Epstein purchased for him a top of 
the line black BMW? (Sadly for Goldberger he was in an accident and totaled the vehicle three weeks 
later.) 
It has come to my attention that the R. Alexander Acos to former Attorney General for the Southern 
District of Florida during the investigation and non-prosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein had been a 
law partner and friend of two Mr. Epstein's lawyers. Both Ken Star and Jay Lefkowitz had been 
EFTA00206387

partners with Mr. Acosta at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis prior to his being appointed by President 
Bush. 
I have been told by sources that Mr. Acosta was the person responsible for the decision not to 
prosecute Mr. Epstein. 
I have also been told that during Mr. Starr's trip to FL to speak with federal prosecutors he complained 
to Mr. Acosta that the press coverage of his trips to FL on Mr. Epstein's private jets were being leaked 
by FBI agents. ( I can assure you that was not true.) 
Did Mr. Acosta recuse himself from any discussions about the Epstein case so as to avoid even the 
appearance of impropriety? 
Was the possibility of his removing himself from the case ever discussed by officials in the Justice 
Department? 
Are there any memos regarding that? 
Is there currently an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation into the facts surrounding the 
handling of this case and Mr. Acosta actions in it? 
Thanks so much for your help, John Connolly 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Friday, March 18, 2011 1:16 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine 
Please confirm receipt. 
Attachments: 
081211 
Ltr Final.wpd 
(USAFLS); 
See my comments below. Also, when I was lookin for the notice of breach letter regarding the work 
release, I found a letter that I had written to 
at PBSO regarding FBI's and my 
investigation into Epstein's sham charity work. I have attached that. That, also, should have formed 
the basis of a breach of the NPA, but we couldn't breach because of AA's side dealings. 
I have to run to court. I will answer the rest of the questions when I get back. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
EFTA00206388

Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Frida March 18, 2011 1:09 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
USAFLS 
Cc: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Fw: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt. 
Hi all. Here are the is from Vanity Fair. I would appreciate your input. 
Thanks all 
From: john1885c [mailto 
Sent: Frid
arch 18, 2011 01:50 PM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt. 
AUSA 
(USAFLS); 
It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning. As per your request here are questions I 
would like to have answered for a piece I am researching on Jeffrey Epstein. As life would have it I am 
going to be on a busman's holiday this coming week on Singer Island, FL. I would like to meet you 
and whomever else you think I should speak with. If not, I understand perfectly. 
Let me preface these questions by saying that AUSA 
who was in charge of the 
investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has a remarkably record as a prosecutor. I also know that an AUSA 
does not have the authority to grant a potential defendant a non -prosecution agreement without the 
permission of higher ups in the Justice Department. 
Not quite three years ago, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, granted Jeffrey Epstein 
a non-prosecution agreement in return for his accepting a FL State plea deal for his illegal acts 
regarding sex with minor females. The state case was handled by the West Palm Beach State 
Prosecutor who has since left office. 
Was your office aware of the extraordinary sweet deal that Mr. Epstein was granted by that state 
prosecutor? YES. BUT FOR OUR INSISTENCE, THE SAO WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO DO 
PRETRIAL DIVERSION WITH EPSTEIN ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE OF SOLICITATION OF 
ADULT PROSTITUTION. 
Was your office at the time of the agreement aware that Mr. Epstein would not be sent to a state prison 
facility as almost all defendants who are sentenced to more that a 
.iriiison are required to do? 
DURING A MEETING ATTENDED BY 
, STATE ATTORNEY 
EFTA00206389

BARRY KRISCHER, ASA LANNA BELOLAVEK AND MYSELF, IT WAS AGREED THAT JE WOULD 
STAY IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AT THE PALM BEACH COUNTY JAIL. 
Was your office aware that Mr. Epstein would serve his sentence in the local WPB jail? 
Was your office aware that Mr. Epstein would be allowed, what most FL law enforcement officials 
describe as "beyond a sweetheart deal", in that six days a week at 7:00 AM Mr. Epstein would leave 
the the WPB jail with a corrections officer he was personally paying for, and be escorted to the office of 
attorney Jack Goldberger where he would be allowed to stay until 11:00 PM and then be returned to 
jail for the evening? 
Ostensibly this was so that Mr. Epstein could work on a new charity he had formed. This despite the 
fact that just prior to beginning his jail sentence, Mr. Epstein liquidated his charity and gave $18 million 
to a charity run by the wife of his former patron. 
Does the US Attorney believ e that Mr. Epstein was working on a charity? 
Was Mr. Epstein doing work as a Confidential Informer for the federal government as he has in the 
past? 
Mr. Eptein was Victim # 1 in the federal indictment of two Bear Stears executives on fraud charges 
stemming from a mortgage backed fund that went under. Mr. Epstein lost almost $70 million in that 
fund. 
Was Mr. Epstein working on the government case while working on "His Charity"? 
Has your office ever agreed to any allow any other prisoner the same or similar sweet deal? 
Was your office aware that in return for Mr. Goldberger's help, Mr. Epstein purchased for him a top of 
the line black BMW? (Sadly for Goldberger he was in an accident and totaled the vehicle three weeks 
later.) 
It has come to my attention that the R. Alexander Acos to former Attorney General for the Southern 
District of Florida during the investigation and non-prosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein had been a 
law partner and friend of two Mr. Epstein's lawyers. Both Ken Star and Jay Lefkowitz had been 
partners with Mr. Acosta at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis prior to his being appointed by President 
Bush. 
I have been told by sources that Mr. Acosta was the person responsible for the decision not to 
prosecute Mr. Epstein. 
I have also been told that during Mr. Starr's trip to FL to speak with federal prosecutors he complained 
to Mr. Acosta that the press coverage of his trips to FL on Mr. Epstein's private jets were being leaked 
by FBI agents. ( I can assure you that was not true.) 
Did Mr. Acosta recuse himself from any discussions about the Epstein case so as to avoid even the 
appearance of impropriety? 
EFTA00206390

Was the possibility of his removing himself from the case ever discussed by officials in the Justice 
Department? 
Are there any memos regarding that? 
Is there currently an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation into the facts surrounding the 
handling of this case and Mr. Acosta actions in it? 
Thanks so much for your help, John Connolly 
From: 
(USAFLS) <
> 
Sent: 
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:22 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: Telephone call 
I got it. I am sending him the statement we drafted yesterday. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Tuesc 
March 22, 2011 01:20 PM 
To: 
,M 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: FW: Telephone call 
FYI. See below. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: Fernandez, Aida I. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Tuesday, March 22,  2011 12:59 PM 
To: 
 
 
 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Telephone call 
Telephone call fm John Pasanti, Daily Business Review 
re: Epstein filing of 3/21/2011. I referred 
him to 
EFTA00206391

From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:27 PM 
To: 
(FBI); 
R. (MM)(FBI) 
Subject: 
Epstein suit in the news 
Just FYI — The victims' rights suit is back in the news. 
or I may be reaching out to you re affidavits 
or hearing dates. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) <
> 
Sent: 
Monday, March 21, 2011 5:35 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT 
Suggest deleting first sentence (since we are kind of responding) 
(USAFLS); 
The U.S. Attorney's Office will file its response to the instant motion in court. However, as we stated 
more than two years ago in July 2008 in our response to the plaintiffs' then emergency petition for 
enforcement of the Crime Victim Rights Act (CVRA), the CVRA was not violated since no federal 
charges were ever filed in the Southern District of Florida. 
From: Michele Dargan [mailto 
Sent: Monc
March 21, 2011 4:52 PM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein 
Hi 
There's been a new court filing in West Palm Beach federal court regarding Jeffrey Epstein. In case # 
08-CV-80736, attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and #2 are challenging the validity of the federal NPA, 
worked out between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's criminal attorneys before he pled guilty to his 
state charges. 
EFTA00206392