EFTA00208923

12/11/2007 11:37 FAX 
a 002/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
NO 
ma MI IN It% 
Kenneth W Sten 
I o CAN NOW Ootelty 
Hiccintakc 
wcwouniMilacOrn 
Ikcember I I. 2007 
O051 530-6444 
I lonomble R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
United States Attorney's Unice 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Alex: 
As we discussed during our telephone conversations on both Friday and Monday 
(yesterday), we arc submitting two separate letters that address our broad areas of deep concern 
in this matter: First, the cluster of fundamental policy issues surrounding the use and 
implementation of 2255. a richly policy-laden but uncharted area of federttl law: and second. our 
profound concerns as to the background and conduct of the investigation. Consistent with our 
conversations, we submit these letters with the assurance and understanding that our doing so in 
no manner constitutes a breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement or unwinds that Agreement. 
We arc grateful for your courtesy in agreeing to receive and consider these submissions, and then 
to meet to discuss them. 
As you undertake your study and reflection. kindly allow me to make this pivotal point: 
In the combined 250 years experience of Jeffrey's defense team, we have together and 
individually concluded that this case is not only extraordinary and unprecedented. it is deeply 
and uniquely troubling. 'the constellation of issues. large and small. renders Jeffrey's matter 
entirely. ad generic. We say this not lightly. Indeed, as you will glean from our tsvo letters. we 
are gravely concerned that, in addition to its odd conceptualization and genesis, the matter in Rs 
day-to-day implementation has been handled in a manner that raises deeply troubling questions 
with respect to both federal policy and individual judgment in a system that is, at its best. 
assiduously devoted to the rule of law. The latest episodes involving 2255 notification to the 
alleged victims put illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice. time and 
again, are nut being served. By way of illustration. but it is only one among a cascading list of 
grave concerns. we now understand that the Assistant United States Attorney w 1 • it act has 
troubled us from day one has quite recently reached out to the attorney for 
and 
CNcago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Munich 
Now 'stook 
Son rrancieco 
Washingla D.C. 
RFP MIA 000442 
EFTA00208923

12/11/2007 1 1.37 FAX 
6)003/089 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Honorable R. Alexander Acosta 
Decemhcr I I. 2007 
Page 2 
pmvidcd oral notification of the victim notification letter. This notification. as we have slated 
time and again_ is profoundly unfair. But quite apart from our substantive concerns, which am 
abiding and which had prompted our appeal to the Assistant Attorney General in the ant 
instance, we had thought that the notification process had been held in abeyance until completion 
of our ongoing discussions with respect to that process. That appears not to be so. This latest in 
a baleful line of pmseeutorial actions is drippin with irony. We respectfully cull your attention 
to the transcript of the interview with 
and guide you -- as the duly confirmed 
Executive Branch official charged wit making Judgments consistent with our constitutional 
order — to the telling fact that Ms. Miler did not in any manner view herself as u victim. Quite to 
the contrary. She is not alone. 
We draw attention to this episode as but a recent indication of the deepening need for 
your thoughtful and independent review. And for your agreeing to provide that review, our 
defense team is very grateful. 
Respectfully Submitted. 
Kenneth W. Starr 
RFP MIA 000443 
EFTA00208924

12/11/2007 11:37 FAX 
la 004/099 
• 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
near ru1tURA l'AtINLICAPrit 
J'y P I ellcowdz. P C 
I o C 'I Wr r 
wintildittand.Can 
December I I.2007 
VIA FACSIMILE (305) 5.30-6444 
I lonorable K. Alexander Acosta 
linked States Attorney 
United States Attorney's (Mice 
Re: .1rffix;v Epstein 
Dear Alex: 
I appreciate the opportunity you have provided to review some of the issues and concerns 
of Mr. Epstein's defense team. Importantly. I appreciate your agreement dud this submission 
would neither be understood by you as constituting a breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement 
("Agreement- ) nor result in any unwinding of the Agreement by your Office. Implicit in this 
awl-I:mem is the understanding that I can share with you our concerns and request a review on 
the basis for these concerns. while at the same time assure my client that this submission will not 
in any respect result in formal ur informal repercussions or attempts by any member of the 
prosecution or investigative team to involve themselves in Mr. Epstein's detriment in any matter 
related to the Agreement. particularly in the state prosecution. This letter is intended to support 
our assertion to you that the manner in which both the investigation of allegations against Mr. 
Epstein and the resolution thereof were highly irregular and warrant a full review. We appreciate 
your willingness to consider the evidence. We respectfully request that you review Judge Stem's 
letter to Alan Dershowitz faxed to you on December 7. 2007, in connection with the ameems 
we set forth in this submission. 
I. 
FEDERAL INVESTICATORS RELIED UPON TAINTED EVIDENCE. 
We have serious concerns that the summaries of the evidence that have been presented to 
you have been materially inaccurate. As you may know, the principal witnesses in this cam %sae 
tirst interviewed by Detectiven 
the Palm Beach Police Department (the -PRPIT) and 
other state law enforcement officers. These interviews (the - witness statements- ) were often 
tape-recorded thus providing a verbatim and detailed record of the recollections of the witnesses 
nt a point in time prior to any federal involvement. Unfortunately. the police report authored by 
Detective and 
certain affidavits executed by him contained both material misstatements 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
I antinn 
Los Armpits 
munch 
San Francisco 
Washington. D C 
RFP MIA 000444 
EFTA00208925

12/11/2007 11:37 FAX 
005/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
K. Alcsander Acosta 
December I I. 21)07 
Page 2 
reganling the specifics or what he was told by his witnesses and also contained omissions of 
critical and often exculpatory information that was recorded verbatim during the taped interview 
sessions. The federal investigation involved intent
 with many of the same witnesses. We 
are aware that at least one federal interview 1 
) was recorded. 
We understand that Detective Recarcy provided his police report and certain affidavits to 
the federal authorities but did not provide the actual witness statements of the taped interviews to 
your Office or to the FBI. These witness statements constitute the best evidence available (they 
are verbatim and earlier in time to the federal interviews), and they contain statements that are 
highly exculpatory to Mr. Epstein. 
Because understanding the compromised nature of the 
"evidence" against Mr. Epstein is key to a proper view of this case. we summarize it in detail 
below. 
A. 
The Witness Statements !establish That Mr. Iln.tein Dirt Not Tame 
Masseuses tinder 18. 
Indeed, the witness statements demonstrate that the opposite is true. First. the evidence 
shows that the many of the masseuses were ei ghteen or over. ineludin 
and 
at the time they 
visited Mr. Epstein's home. Also, there is substantial evidence, linind in the sworn statements of 
the women themselves, which indicate that, to the extent others were in fact under the age of 
ei hteen, man affirmatively lied about her age. As 
herself told the PftPI): 
told me to say I was IS because 
said . . . if you're not then he [Epstein' 
won't really let you in his house. So I said I was Ir. Detective Recarey. however. largely 
ignored these critical admissions in his Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit. 
Q: At any time. did he speak to you and does he know how old you are? Did he know 
how old you were? 
A: . . As a mater of lact. 
old me to say I was 18 because 
-lid 
tell him you're IS because if you're not, then he won't really let you in his 
+use. Su 
I said I was IS. As I was giving him a massage. he's like. how old arc you? And 
then I was like IS. But I kind of said it really fast because I didn't want to make it 
sound like I was lying or anything. (Swum Statement of 3/I 5/05). 
Q: Did he ask von your age? 
A: Yeah. I mid him I %%as IS. (Sworn Statement of 10/05/05). 
RFP MIA 000445 
EFTA00208926

12/11/2007 11:38 FAX 
la 008/089 
K. Alexander Acosta 
December 11.2007 
Page 3 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LL(' 
Q: Did he know your age? 
A: I don't think — I think he did. 
you how old are you just say you re 
thought you had to be IS to give a 
12/13/05) 
A: We were supposed to say we were I S. 
(1: Who told you that, to say that? 
A: 
(Sworn Statement of 11/8/05). 
wni: like oh. well if they ask 
Lit 
c :set cr .tsked me how old I was. 1 
massage (inaudible). (Sworn Statement of 
A: I told him I was IS. (Sworn Statement of 10/3/05). 
concerning 
Well with 
don't know how old she is because she lied about her 
age. She lied In me when I first met her. When 1 was IR she told me she was I& 
(Inaudible.) Well she tell her purse at my house and she told me to make sure that I 
didn't look in her purse. When I went through her purse I found her state license that 
said she was lb so she lied to me about her age. (Sworn Statement of 10/03/051) 
0: Now. how old were you when you first started going there? 
A: Eighteen. I'm 19 now this last March." (Sworn Statement of 10/12/05). 
Q: And all this occurred when you were IS though? 
I In addition to giving a swam mmement au the MINI Station. 
nnversat ions with I )eteet v 
while being muisported to illki from the station were also re 
. -his ew:erpt 
taken from the act in of 
raveling from the Mahon. 
RFP MIA 000446 
EFTA00208927

12/11/2007 11:38 FAX 
la 007/089 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I.2007 
Page 4 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLI' 
A: I Ih-huh. I had been DI for like 8 months, nine months already. My birthday is in 
June so I had been 18 for a while. (Sworn Statement of 2/3/05). 
Q: Okay. Flow old arc you now? You're - 
A: I'm 20 
Q: You're 20. So a couple months ago you would have been what. 19? 
A: tlh-huh. 
Q: Alright. So July. August you would have been 19.20. On the verge of 20? 
A: Llh-huh. (Sworn Statement of 11/4105) 
We believe that other witnesses have similarly told the FRI that Mr. Epstein attempted to 
monitor the ages of the masseuses who came to his home. We further believe that these 
transcripts would show that the federal interest in prosecuting Mr. Epstein fur paradigmatic state 
offenses was far less compelling than the inaccurate police reports suggest. 
B. 
Reflective a
 Made Crucial Misstatements in the Police Henna and 
Probable Cause Affidavits. 
We have reviewed the sworn and recorded witness statements of many of the individuals 
who were interviewed (conducted in person or by telephone) as well as a number of the 
controlled calls cited in the Police Report. Time alter time, we found statements in the Police 
Report attributed to statements made in the sworn recordings that either simply were not said. or 
in some instances. arc flatly eontradiewd, by the witness who purportedly made the statement. In 
fact, they ellen stand in stark contrast to representations made by I klAtlia 
in both the 
official Police Report and in affidavits signed by him under oath . 
We highlight the most 
significant ones identified to date: 
• el 
Not Report that Epstein Told Her to Lie Ahout her Age 
[he Probable Cousc Affidavit indicates that during her sworn statement 
advised 
that during her frequent visits Epstein asked for her real age.. state
 WAS 
sixteen [and thatI Epstein advised her not to tell anyone her rea a
Probable Cause Affidavit at II. That statement appears nowhere in 
swum 
statement. 
RFP MIA 000447 
EFTA00208928

12/11/2007 11.38 FAX 
a 008/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLI' 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I 1. 2007 
Page 5 
• 
Did Nut State that Epstein Photographed Her I laving Sex 
Detective 
also reports 
as claiming shut "Epstein would photograph 
Marcinkova and her naked andrwing sex and proudly dis lav the photographs 
within the home." Id at 12. Again, this statement is not in 
sworn statement. 
To the contrary. the transcript reflects that 
stated: "I was just like. it was me 
standing in front of a big white marble bathtu ... in the guest bathroom in his master 
suite. And it wasn't like I was you know spreading my legs or anything for the 
camera. I was like. I wax standing up. I think I was standing up and I just like. it was 
me kind of looking over my shoulder kinda smiling, and that was that." Sworn 
Statement of 10/11/05 at 35.2
'aid Epstein Did Not Touch Her Inappropriately 
tee' we 
recounts that 
advised that "P.pstein grabbed her 
buttocks and pulled her close to him. 
ron e .ause Affidavit at 6. See also. Police 
Report (10/07/05) at 30 (same). 
ever made this statement. In fact. when 
Detective 
asked. "He did no ouch you inappropriately?" 
responded. 
-No.- Sworn Statement of 10/04/05 at I I. 
• 
War Nut Sixteen When She First When to Epstein's I tome. 
Detective 
states: • 
also stated she was sixteen years old when she 
first went to Epstein's house . 
Incident Kepon at 52. 
lowever. 
affirmatively states that she was seventeen when she first went to Epstein's home: 
"U: Okay. How old were you when you first went there? A: Seventeen. 
Q: 
Seventeen. A: And 1 was 17 the last time I went there too. 
turned IS this past 
June". Sworn Statement of 11/14/05. 
fold Detective Keeney that Epstein Did Not Take out Sex Toys. 
Epstein 
Pmhahlc Cause Affidavit at 14: see also Police Report (11/10/05) at 49 C'Epstein 
'this statement appears nowhere in the transcript of -sworn 
21.11/Als interviewed by Oacclivveice. 
once by telephone. and once in person. The portions of thc 
Police Report to which we refer specific:all) cite the interson interview of 
as the source for the 
inlbrmation nponcd. We have reviewed the reconling of that interview and base the coniretrison on that 
review. We have never Nand a recording of the telephone intervievi. 
RFP MIA 000448 
EFTA00208929

12/11/2007 11:38 FAX 
QI009/093 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I. 2007 
Page 6 
statement. In fuel. when Deicelive 
asked whether Mr. Epstein had "ever 
mkt] out any toys,"Illinesponded. "No." Sworn Statement of 11/08/05 at 17. 
• 
Nil Nov Recall Mr. Epstein Masturbating 
Detective 
Meottnts that-"advised 
she was sure [Mr. Epstein' 
was inasitirbating based on his hand movements going up and down on his penis 
area.- Probable Cause Affidavit at R. See also Police Report ( I 0/07/05) at 35 (same). 
Detective 
account is in direct contradiction to 
true 
statement. specilically: 
Q: Okay did he ever take off— did he ever touch himself? 
A: I don't think so. 
Q: No. Did he ever masturbate himself in front of you? 
A: I don't remember him doing that. Ile might have hut I really don't 
remember. (Sworn Statement of I0/05/05 at 7). 
• Juan Alessi Stated that Only One Girl Looked Young 
Police Report at 57: "Alessi stated that towards the end of his employment the 
masseuses were younger and younger-. However, he said no such thing: 
Q: Did they seem young to you? 
A. No. sir, Mostly no. We saw one or two young ones in the last year. Before that. 
it was all adults . . . I remember one girl was young. We never asked how old she 
was. It was not in my job . . . But I imagine she was 16. 17". (Sworn Statement of 
I I/21/05) 
C. 
Detective 
Made Material Omissions in the Police Report. 
In addition to the misstatements in the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit as to 
the evidentiary record. there were also material omixsions, both of facts known to the POPD and 
also of facts not known to the POPO, though known by the State Attorney. In the latter instance. 
the luck of knowledge was the result of the PBPD's refusal to receive the exculpatory evidence. 
In feet they refused to attend a meeting called by the State Attorney specifically to provide the 
relevant evidence. Thus. the Police Report and Pmbahle Cause Affidavit only affix a skewed 
view of the facts material to this matter. examples follow. 
1. 
The Video Surveillance Equipment Located in Mr. Enteln's Office and G'arame. 
Ruth the Police Report (at 43) and the Probable Cause Affidavit (at IS) make 
RFP MIA 000449 
EFTA00208930

12/11/2007 11:39 FAX 
8010/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11.2007 
Page 7 
particular mention of the "discovery" of video surveillance equipment (or "coven 
cameras" as they are called) in Epstein's garage and library/office. Inclusion of this 
information insinuates a link between the equipment and the events at issue: in the 
Probable Cause Affidavit fletectiv.
 states. "on the flat floor of the I Epstein' 
residence I [Detective Sund 
two covert cameras hidden within clocks. One 
was located in the garage and the other located in the library area on a shell' behind 
Epstein's desk . . . The computer's hard drive was reviewed which showed several 
images of 
and other witnesses that have been interviewed. All of these 
images appeared 10 come from the camera positioned behind Epstein's desk". See 
Probable Cause Affidavit at 1K. 
Clearly omitted from both the Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the 
fact that the PIM and specifically Detective 
knew about the trAMCM since 
they were installed in 2003. with the help of w 
D, to address the theft of cash 
from Epstein's home. 'Ibis fact is detailed in a Palm Beach Police Report prepared in 
October 1003 detailing the thefts. the installation of video equipment. the video 
recording capturing Juan Alessi (Mr. Epstein's then house manager) "red handed-. 
and the incriminating statements made by Alessi when he was confronted at the time. 
See Alessi Police Report at 5. R. The contemporaneous police report confirms the 
fact that the video footage was turned over to Detective 
himself. 
2. 
Polygraph Examination (mann. 
On May 2. 2006. Mr. Epstein submitted to a 
polygraph examination by NUM Slattery. a highly respected polygraph examiner 
who is regularly used by the State Attorney. The examination was done at a time 
when we were told that the sole focus of the investigation was the conduct with 
Mr. Epstein was asked (a) whether he bad "sexual contact with 
(b) 
shcther he "in anyway threatenledi 
(c) whe cr w was o t by 
that she was IR years LI 
whether he "believed 
vas 
years old". As set forth in the Report or the examination. the term 
"sexual contact" was given an extremely broad meaning in order to capture any 
inappropriate conduct that could have occurred) The results of the examination 
confirmed that (i) no such conduct occurred: (ii) Mr. Epstein never threatened 
(iii) 
told Mr. Epstein she was 18 years old: and (iv) Mr. Epstein 
believed 
.as K vests old. 
Ile deiinninn included: - soda' intercourse. oral sex acts (penis in mouth ur 'initial on vagina). linger penetration 
of the vagina. linger penetration of the anus. touching of the vagina for sexual gratification purposes, touching 
orate penal for sexual gratilieat.on purposes. niamurbalion by at to :another. hushing or rubbing of toe breasts. 
or any other physical contact involving :sexual ihoughis :rod or desire. with another person". 
RFP MIA 000450 
EFTA00208931

12/11/2007 11:38 FAX 
x011/088 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I. 2007 
Page 8 
3. 
Broken "Sex Top" i►► Mr. Epstein's Trash. The Police Report details the police 
finding in Mr. Epstein's trash what is described as broken pieces of a "sex toy" and 
that this "discovery** purportedly corroborated witness statements. Omitted from both 
the Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the fact that during the course 
of executing the search warrant in Epstein's home, the police discovered the other 
piece of that key "sex toy" and milted it was in fact only the broken handle of a 
salad server. Though "sex toys" play a prominent role in the Police Report and 
Probable Cause Affidavit. the Police Report was never amended to reflect the 
discovery of this new and highly relevant evidence. 
4. 
Failure to Consider Ernelpatory or Impeaching Evidence. Other exculpatory and 
impeaching evidence known by the PBPD tau omitted from the Police Report and 
Probable Cause Affidavit by, in our view, manipulating the date the investigation was 
allegedly closed. 
According to the Police Report tat 85). Detective 
"explained Ito ASA Itclohlavek) that the PBPD had concluded its case in 
of 2005". That assertion, which is false. conveniently resulted in the omission of all 
inlbnnation adduced subsequent to that dale. Thus. though the Police Report in fact 
contains information obtained after December 2005. the PBPD purported to justify its 
refusal to consider, or even to include, in the Police Report. the Probable Cause 
Affidavit or what ii released to the public, all the exculpatory and evidence 
impeaching the witnesses submitted on behalf of Mr. Epstein. most of which was 
provided idler December 2005. That evidence is listed below. 
5. 
Unreported Criminal Histories and Mental Health Problems of Me Witnenes 
Relied on in the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit. Evidence obtained 
concerning the witnesses relied upon to support the Probable Cause Affidavit casts 
significant doubt on whether these witm.-1/4ws are sufficiently credible to support a 
finding of probable cause, let alone to sustain what would be the prosecution's burden 
of proof at a trial .4 Though such evidence was submitted to the PBPD. none of it was 
included in the Police Report or the Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
Juan Alessi: While the Police Report (at 57) and the Probable Cause Affidavit (at 
2I ) contain assertions by Alessi. which allegedly support bringing a criminal charge. 
the evidence revealing. Alessi's evident mental instability: prior criminal conduct 
against Epstein: and bias towards Epstein is notably omitted. As detailed above. in 
2003, Alessi was filmed taking money from Epstein's home. After being caught on 
videotape unlawfully entering Epstein's home and stealing cash from a briefcase, 
1 Whit,: WC haw never intended to and do not here seek to watuitously coo aspersions on any of tlw witnesses. in 
previously asking the Stale and now asking you to evaluate she strength of this ease, we have been constrained 
to point out the fact thin the alleged victims chose to present themselves to 
• world through MySpace profiles 
with self-selected monikers such as -Pimp Juice- and' 
' or with nude photos. 
RFP MIA 000451 
EFTA00208932

12/11/2007 11:40 FAX 
ill 012/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11, 2007 
Page') 
Alessi admitted to the PRPD that he entered the house unlawfully on numerous 
occasions, stealing cash and attempting to steal Epstein's licensed handgun to commit 
suicide. Although this information was known by Detective 
at the time the 
Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit were prepared. and is clearly material to 
any determination of credibility. it was omitted. 
• 
was the source of the vast majority of the serious 
clowns 
tags( Epstein. While the Police Report and Probable CUM: 
Affidavit rely on 
numerous assertions, them are two significant problems with 
that reliance. First there is no mention al certain critical admissions made by 
during her interview, as well as on her MySpace %%vilage (discovered by defense 
investigators and turned over to the State Attorney). Second. all but omitted from the 
Police Report is an • reference to the facts known about her by the PBPD. specifically. 
that at the time 
was making these assertions she had been arrested hr the PBPD 
and was being prosecuted jar possession 4 marijuana and drug paraphernalia. We 
take each in turn. 
• 
Admits Voluntary Sexual Conduct With Epstein. 
tan to ac ose Me Disposition of /be Monies She Lamed. and 
Lies About Being "Chen" a Car by tifiin: 
Detective 
thiled to include in the Police Report 
admission that on one 
occasion she engaged in sexual conduct with Epstein's girlfriend us 
her hirthda " ill"' to Epstein. Nor does Detective S 
include the 
n
fact that s 
lady refused to discuss with him the disposition of the 
thousa 
&Jars she said she was given by Epstein. or that she 
falsely claimed that she did not use drugs. despite her MySpace entries 
in which she exclaims "I can't wail to buy some weed 
" 
Detective a 
was aware the car had been rented. not purchased 
and only ii was only leased on a monthly basis for two months. While 
fanciful claim that she was given a car appears in the Police 
Itcport, it is never corrected. 
itt Arrested for Possession of Marijuana and Drug 
amp tern sit As noted. on September I I. 2005. 
was arrested 
tbr possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. In response to 
this arrest. ="came forward" (as the Probable Cause Affidavit 
implies at FOTiT), claiming she had knowledge of "sexual activity 
taking place" at Epstein's residence and misconduct by Epstein. ('Ibis 
"coming forward" appears no where in the Police Report.) Thus. it 
becomes clear that 
assertions of misconduct by Epstein were 
motivated by a desire to avoid the repercussions of her Own criminal 
conduct, which should have been taken into account when assessing 
her credibility as a witness. 
RFP MIA 000452 
EFTA00208933

12/11/2007 11 40 FAX 
51013/099 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11.2007 
Page 10 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
• 
Steals From a Victoria's Secret Stun. 
An 
Investigation y private investigators working for the defense revealed 
that in late 2005 MI was employed at a Victoria's Secret store in 
Florida. Three days after her marijuana case was laminated. !fall was 
caught by a store manager asattempted to leave the more with 
merchandise in her purse, the security tag Mill attached. Seeing the 
manager. 
claimed "someone is trying to set me up". Following an 
internal investigation, which disclosed additional thefts from both the 
store mid a customer. she was fired. In a recorded interview. 
admitted to stealing and asserted that her reason for doing so was that 
"she was not gening paid enough". This information and supporting 
documentation was presented to the PDPD. but was never included in 
the Police Report or Pmbahle Cause Affidavit. 
• 
ics on MySpace About Victoria's Secret Store 
Inntination. 
Also uncovered by defense investigators is 
dissembling version of the Victoria's Secret debacle on her 
"MySpace" webpage. There, 
announced that she ". . . forgot to 
let everyone know I quit my job at M. They said they suspected me 
of 'causing losses to their company' 
which by the way is bullshit. I 
was 'by the book' on EVIIRYTI IING!!! . . . I got o fed up in that 
office that I handed the Loss Prevention lady back my keys and 
walked nut". This information and supporting documentation was 
provided by the defense to the PBPD, but was not included in the 
Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
Lies on her Victoria's Secret Job Application. 
Additional 
 d 
information on 
MySpace webpage casts further 
doubt on her credibility. For example. she boasts to having engaged in 
a fraudulent scheme to get hired by Victoria's Secret, explaining. "oh, 
it was so funny 
I used (my boyfriend) as one of my references for 
my Victoria's Secret job and the lady called me back and told me that 
William fucker gave me such an outstanding reference that she did 
not need to call anyone else hack... . he got me the job! Just like that . 
.. I lied and said he was the old stock manager at Mister she bought 
„" This information and supporting documentation was provided 
by the defense to the PRPD, but was not included in the Police Report 
or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
Roast About Her Marijuana Use. 
Also on her 
y pace we page can be Mond 
admissions of purchasing and 
using marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia. Specifically,-states 
she "can't wail to buy some weed!!! . 
can't wait!!! . . . (I told on: 
RFP MIA 000453 
EFTA00208934

12/11/2007 11:40 FAX 
a 
01 4 / 0 98 
• 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
Di:ember I I, 2007 
Page 11 
let me say that again) I can't wait to buy some weedn 
I also want 
to get a vaporizer so I can smoke in my room because apparently there 
arc 'nares' everywhere". 
also posted a photograph of a marijuana 
cigarette and labeled it "what heaven looks like to me". 
This 
information and supporting documentation was provided by the 
defense to the PBPD, was not included in the Police Report or 
Probable Cause Affidavit (although there is both a fleeting reference in 
the Police Report to 
use of marijuana with her boyfriend (au 47) 
and in the Probable Cause Affidavit to 
marijuana arrest (at fil-
1 l )). 
• 
: While the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit contain 
numerous as. 
ions intended to negate 
taped admission that she clearly 
told Epstein she was IR, omitted from t ewe moments is reference to 
MySpace webpage. presented to the State Attorney's Office, where . in no connection 
to this case, she teirmatively represented to the world that she was /8. thereby 
corroborating her lie to Epstein. Also omitted is any reference to her long history of 
run-ins with law colons:mem. Among those arc multiple runaway complaints by her 
parents and her assignment to a special high school for drug abusers. 
• 
*Space Webpage Slates She Drinks, Uses Drugs, Gels 
m u ran de, Has Reaten Someone Up, Shoplifts. Has Lost her 
Virginity, Earns 5250.000 and Higher, and Contains Naked and 
Provocative Photographs. 
The first image seen on 
MySpace wetmage, the photo 
chose to represent her. is that 
of a naked woman provocative 
mg on the beach. The illuminating 
webpage also contains 
ssertions that of all her body pans. 
she "love[sj her ass". she drinks to excess. uses drugs, "gets into 
trouble', has beaten someone up. has simplified "lots". "already lost" 
her virginity, and cams "$250,000 and higher". As with the other 
impeaching information, this material, vital to determining enzlibility, 
was provided by the defense to the PUN) but was never included in 
the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
'a Record — Drugs. Alcohol, Running Away From 
°MC 
as a history of running away/turning up missing 
from her parents' various homes; of using drugs and alcohol; and of 
associating with individuals of questionable judgment. For example, a 
Palm Beach County Sheriff's Mee Report details how only two days 
alter she returned to Florida to live with her father, on March 31, 2004. 
police were called to the home in response to her father's report that 
she and her twin sister were missing. The Police Report describes her 
as "under the influence of a narcotic as Ishii could barely stand up. 
RFP MIA 000454 
EFTA00208935

12/11/2007 11:41 FAX 
S015/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LIP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page 12 
IhcrJ eyes were bloodshot. and Pied pupils were diluted frier. It 
further documents that 
and her sister had stayed out all night 
'crc retumed home by a "drug dealer". This event coincided with 
wing been found at an "ina ro date location" by Georgia 
po tee in response to a call nboul 
disappearance. Although 
this information. material to determining credibility. was provided by 
the defense and known to the PBPD. it was never included in the 
Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
Affidavit rely on statements of 
father. 
While the Police Re ft and Probable Cause 
his federal hank fraud conviction. which dctense 
mvestignicas discovered and turned over to the PIIPI) during the 
course of the investigation, was omitted. 
served 21 months 
in federal prison for his offense. 
• 
While the Police Report and Probable Cause 
Affidavit rely on statements of 
stepmother. omitted is 
state conviction for identity 
fraud. This information. uncovers, 
y efense investigators. was also 
turned over to the PBPD during the course of the investigation. 
In leitht Of The (.7omneoniised Nature Of The Evidence. A Fulsome Review 
Should Be Conducted. 
These tainted and inaccurate reports compromised the federal investigation.' As you may 
know. the PBPI) took the unprecedented and highly unethical step of releasing these reports to 
the media as well. These reports spread across the Internet, and were undoubtedly read by the 
other individuals who were later interviewed by tlx: FBI for giving Mr. Epstein massages. As we 
have shown. these reports contain multiple fabrications, omissions. and outright misstatements or 
fact. Moreover. the evidence and the allegations were undeniably misrepresented to the FBI. 
with no inclusion of the evidence exposing tlx: deficiencies of the -proof" and the exculpatory 
evidence upon which the State relied. Furthermore. it should he noted that many of these same 
individuals were also interviewed by the FBI after their state interviews but prior to Mr. 
Epstein's counsel providing the government with the transcripts of the recorded interviews. The 
4 Although we have hc'cn informed that the Flit identified and then interviewed lidditivasal potential witnecses, many 
of their discoveries an: believed to have emanated from message pads containing contact information that were 
seized from Mr Lpslein's home pursuant to a state search wamint that was deeply and constitutionally flawed by 
Re ivy's misstatements and omissions as well as other facial deficiencies. 
RFP MIA 000455 
EFTA00208936

12/11/2007 11:41 FAX 
el018/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
Decetnber I I. 2007 
Page 13 
transcripts and tapes, which we hope to share with you in person, will likely present a very 
different view of those interviews taken afterwards. 
Therefore. in the interest of truth, we ask you to review the transcripts. compare them to 
the FBI reports upon which the indictment was predicated. and then determine whether the FBI 
summaries and the prosecution memorandum upon which the charging decisions were made 
overstate Mr. Epstein's federal culpability. Concomitant to these requests. we would ask that 
you determine whether the investigative team ever provided these trustworthy tapes and 
transcripts to those in your Olliee who were being asked to authorize the prosecution so that they 
could themselves assess the reliability of the no interview reports against a verbatim record or 
the same witness's prior statements. We believe that this request is fair and would not be unduly 
burdensome. 
11. 
THE IMPROPER INVOLVEMENT AND CONDUCT OF FEDERAL 
AUTHORITIES. 
As established above. the State's charging decision. of one wow of the solicitation of 
prostitution. MIS hardly irrational or irregular. 
Indeed, Lana Belohlavek. a Florida sex 
prosecutor for 13 years. concluded that the women in question were prostitutes and that "there 
arc no victims here." there was no evidence of violence. Aec., drugs. alcohol, coercion or au 
abuse of a position of authority. Each and every one of the alleged "victims" knew what to 
expect when they arrived at Mr. Epstein's house and each was paid for her services. In fact. Mr. 
Epstein's message book establishes that many of these women routinely scheduled massage 
sessions with Mr. Epstein themselves, without any prompting. Ms. Belohlavek also noted that 
many of these individuals worked either as exotic dancers or in one of the man • masse e parlors 
dotted across West Palm Beach. Ms. Belohlavek also specifically stated that 
could not 
be trusted and was "only interested in money." She further found that it was inappropriate for 
Mr. Epstein to register as a sex offender because she did not believe that he constituted a threat 
to young girls and because registration hod not been required in similar or even more serious 
cases. Ms. Belohlavak thought. and still believes, that the appropriate punishment is a term of 
probation. 
Yet. the government has devoted an extraordinary amount of its time and resources to 
prosecute Mr. Epstein for conduct the State believes amounts to a "sex for money" case. While 
we are loathe to single-nut for criticism the conduct of any particular professional, we cannot 
escape the conclusion that the cumulative effect of the conduct of Assistant United States 
Attorney Marie Villafana led your Office to take positions during the investigation and 
negotiation of this matter that has led to unprecedented federal overreaching. In fact. Judge 
I lerben Stern's states " . . Alta federal authorities inappropriately involved themselves in the 
investigation by the state authorities and employed highly irregular and coercive tactics to 
override the judgment of state law enforcement authorities us to the appropriate disposition of 
their case against your client." See Judge Stern's letter faxed to you on December 7. 2007. 
RFP MLA 000456 
EFTA00208937

12/11/2007 11:42 FAX 
gi 017/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11, 2007 
Page 14 
A. 
The Petite Poliev Should Have Precluded Federal Involvement. 
As you know, prior to negotiating the terms of the Agreement. we requested that the 
government consider the Petite Policy and the problems associated with conducting a dual and 
successive prosecution. We stressed to your Office, on u number of occasions, that we had 
reached a final negotiated resolution with the State and were only being forced to postpone the 
execution of that agreement for the sake of the federal investigation. We made submissions and 
met with your Office to present analyses of die fact that federal prosecution in this mutter was in 
dirtiest conflict with the requirements or the Petite Policy. It was our contention, and remains our 
contention, that federal prosecutors had never intervened in a matter such as this one. And 
because there was no deficiency in the state criminal process that would otherwise require 
federal intervention. the express terms of the Petite Policy precluded federal prosecution 
regardless glum outcome at the state case. Since the suite investigation was thorough and in no 
way inadequate and the concerns implicated by the matter all involved local issues and areas of 
traditionally local concern, we urged your Office to contemplate whether a federal prosecution 
was appropriate. 
However, on August 3, 2007. Matthew Menchel rejected a proposed state plea which 
included that Mr. Epstein serve two years of supervised custody followed by two years of 
incarceration in a state prison, with the option of eliminating incarceration upon StItA.L55fili 
completion of the term of supervised custody. among other terms. Mr. Menchel stated that "the 
federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two year term in state prison." Sec 
August 3. 2007 letter. Such an articulation of the federal interest, we believe. misunderstands the 
Petite Policy on two grounds. Finn. the Office's position that the federal interest would not be 
vindicated in the absence of a jail tcnn for Mr. Epstein. runs contrary to Section 9-2.0310 of the 
United States Attorney's Manual, because this section requires the federal prosecutor to focus 
exclusively on the quality or process of the prior prosecution. not the sentencing outcome. 
Second, tlx: slate plea agreement offered was not "manifestly inadequate" under LJ.S.A.M. Si 9-
2.03111 indeed, the only real difference between the suite and federal plea proposals was 
whether Mr. Epstein served his sentence in jail or community quarantine. 
We formerly believed that our Petite Policy concerns were being addressed or, at least, 
preserved. hut we learned that only offer reaching a final compromise with your Office as to the 
terms of the Agreement. and at the very last minute. that language regarding the Petite Policy 
was removed from the final version. The two following references to the Petite Policy had lawn 
included in the droll prosecution Agreements up until September 24. 2007. the day the 
Agreement was executed, at which point they were eliminated by your Office: 
IT APPEARING, alter an inv.:30101km of the ulTenses and Upslein's background, that the interest 
of the United States pursuant to the Petite policy will be served by the hallowing procedure . . . 
Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State 
Attorney's Unice to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his 
RFP MIA 000457 
EFTA00208938

12/11/2007 11:42 FAX 
0018/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS I Lr 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11.2007 
Page I5 
obligation to undcdakc discussion with the Slate Attomey's Office Ia custom caswpiiiiitim with 
these procedures. which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' intero.t, 
pursuant to the Petite policy. 
We reiterate that this case was at heart a local mutter that was being billy addressed by 
the state criminal justice system. The state process resulted in an appropriate resolution of this 
matter and would have vindicated any conceivable federal interest. 
Thus, there was no 
substantial federal interest that justified a fedend prosecution. It has recently come to our 
attention that that the CEOS chief statements may be relevant to this matter. While we welcome 
the opportunity to consider these statements. our extensive research had found only one federal 
action that was remotely similar to the federal investigation for the prosecution of this matter. 
and that case has since. been distinguished as well. 
R. 
romnted An Unduh• Invasive Inuesliention Of Mr. Epstein. 
vestigation of Mr. Epstein raises serious questions. Despite the fact 
that she was made aware of the inaccuracies in the PBPD's Probable Cause Affidavit. she chose 
to include the affidavit in a document tiled with the court knowing that the public could access it. 
Thena 
issued letters requesting documents whose subject matter have no relation to 
the allegations against Mr. Epstein. Notably, after we objected to these overly broad and 
intrusive requests. Deputy Chief Andrew 'Annie denied knowledge of lotions 
and Mr. I.ourie commendably sought to significantly narrow the list of documents requested. In 
a subsequent court tiling. 
Mimed to our agreement to remove these items from 
her demand list as evidence of Mr. Epstein's "non-conperation-. 
'Ibis was only the beginning. 
also subpoenaed an agent of Roy Black 
(without following the guidelines provided in the United States Attorney's Manual that require 
prior notification to Washington necessary to seek a lawyer's records). We once more requested 
Mr. Laurie to intervene. Despite these efforts. 
followed up with a subpoena liar 
Mr. Epstein's confidential medical records served directly on his chiropractor (with no notice to 
Mr. Epstein). 
made the unusual request of asking the State Attorney's Office 
for some of the grand jury materials. She threatened to subpoena the State when she was 
informed that it was a violation of Florida law to release this information. 
Alter compiling this "evidence-. 
stated she would he initiating an 
investigation into purported violations of IR U.S.C. §l59l (again without the required prior OW 
notification). MIME 
then broadened the scope of the investigation without any 
foundation tie doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money 
transmitting business to the investigation. Mr. F.pstein's counsel explained that there could be no 
basis for these charges since Mr. Epstein did not commit any prerequisite act for a money 
laundering charge and has never even been engaged in a money transmitting business. Ms. 
responded that Mr. Epstein could he charged under these statutes because he funded 
RFP MIA 000458 
EFTA00208939

12/11/200? 11:42 FAX 
el 019/099 
• 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11, 2007 
Page 16 
illegal activities. To suggest that Mr. Epstein could violate these statutes simply by spending his 
legally earned money on prostitutes is manifestly an erroneous interpretation of the law. 
To our relict. after briefing Matthew Menchel at a meeting regarding the spurious 
application of these statutes, we were told to ignore the laundry list and that defense counsels' 
focus should he turned to IS U.S.C. §2422(b). Once Mr. Epstein's counsel submitted and 
presented the reasons why a federal case would require stretching the relevant federal statutes 
beyond recognition, and that federal involvement in this mutter should be precluded butt on 
federalism concerns, the Petite Policy, and general principles of prosecutorial disattion, the 
panics corn 
•
discussions of a possible plea agreement. Around this time, we received an 
e-mail from 
suggesting that she wanted to discuss the possibility of a concurrent 
federal and state resolution. We were immediately informed by your Office that 
did not have the authority to make any such plea proposals and would not he involved in any 
further negotiations of n plea. 
Uespite this commitment. 
was the principle 
negotiator of the Agreement. At our meeting on September 7. she made reference to an 
allegation against Mr. Epstein involving a 12 year old individual. This allegation is without 
merit and without foundmion. Though your last lever suggests there was "nu contact" between 
individuals in your Office and the press. we were previously told by Mr. Laurie that the FBI was 
receiving "infonnatinn" specifically from Connolly. a Vanity Fair reporter, and not vice versa. 
C. 
Included Unfair Terms in the Aereement, 
took positions in negotiating this matter that stray from both stated policy 
and established law. First. 
insisted that as part of the federal plea agreement. the 
State Attorney's Office. without being shown new evidence, should be convinced to charge Mr. 
lifmacin with violations of law and recommend a sentence that are significantly harsher than what 
the State deemed appropriate. In fact, the State Attorney viewed this matter as a straightforward 
restitution case and believed that a term of probation was - and is - the appropriate sentence. At 
's insistence, however, Mr. Epstein was kited to undertake the highly unusual and 
unprecedented action al directing his defense team to contract the State prosecutors themselves 
and ask for an upward departure in bath his indictment and sentence. There was no ellim by the 
stale and federal prosecutors to coordinate the prosecutions, a practice which is against the tenets 
of the Poke Policy. In our view. it is unprecedented to micro-manage each and every term of 
Mr. Epstein's State plea, including the exact state charges to which Mr. Epstein plead guilty; the 
time-frame within which Mr. Lipstein must enter that state pica and surrender to state olficials; 
and the amount of time he must spend in county jail. This is particularly true where the State 
RFP MIA 000459 
EFTA00208940

12/11/200? 11:43 FAX 
a 020/099 
• 
KIRKLAND S. ELLIS LLP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page 17 
Attorney's Office has a different view of the case and there has heen no coordination with state 
authorities.6
In addition. 
required that Mr. Epstein's sentence include a registemble 
offense. As you know, requiring sexual offender registration will have a significant impact both 
immediately and forever after. This harsh term. which is said to be suggested by the FBI. was 
added despite the fact that the State believed that Mr. Epstein's conduct did not warrant any such 
registration. As yoti know. slate officials have special expertise in deciding which offend= 
pose a threat to their conununity. Moreover, this demand places the state pmseeutors' credibility 
at issue and diminishes the force of sexual registration when it is applied to ollenders who state 
prosecutors do not believe arc dangerous or require registration. 
decision not to 
permit the State Attorney to determine a matter uniquely within its province was tin v.arr.-mu:Al 
What is more, when negotiating the settlement portion of the Agreement. 
insisted that a civil settlement provision be included in the Agreement, namely, the inclusion of 
IS I I.S.C. § 2255. u negotiating term which is unprecedented in nature.7 While we were 
reluctant and cautious about a plea agreement in which a criminal defendant gives up certain 
rights to contest liability for a civil settlement, 
ultimatums required that we 
acquiesce to these unprecedented terms. For instance, when plea discussion stalled as a exult of 
emands. Mr. tipstein's counsel received a letter from her stating as it "now 
appears you will not settle." At this point. 
:xpn:ssed her intention to re-launch the 
government's previously set aside money laundering investigation. She also issued a rash of 
subpoenas and sent target letters to Mr. Epstein's employees. adding new federal charges 
including obstruction of justice. She then personally called Mr. Epstein's largest and most 
valued business client without any basis to inform him of the investigation. 
In an attempt to prevent further persecution and intimidation tactics. we proposed that 
Mr. Epstein establish a restitution fund specifically for the settlement of the identified 
individuals' civil claims and that an impartial, independent representative be appointed to 
administer that fund. 'There was no dollar amount limit discussed for the fund, but the idea was 
still rejected. We then pointed out that the state charges to which Mr. Epstein was to plead guilty 
carried with it a state restitution provision that would allow "victims" to recover damages. Ms. 
however, rejected this idea and suggested requiring a guardian ad !item. implying that 
When asked whether Dv anonym of Janice polices regarding coordination with .sale &authorities had been 
fidlowed. 
gave no response other than stating. "it is none of your concern:* 
7 In fact. Stephanie Thacker. a former deputy to Drew Osterbahm, has stated that she knew of no other case like this 
heing prosecuted by ('EOS. With that in mind, we welcome the upponanity to review 11w extensive research 
that CLOS bas done, as indicated by your Orrice. 
RFP MIA 000460 
EFTA00208941

12/11/2007 11:48 FAX 
e021/099 
• 
KiRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page 18 
the alleged "victims" in question were currently minors and needed special representation. We 
later learned that the government's list of individuals included a woman as old a twenty-four. 
which flies in the face of prior representations (it should be noted that any person who is 
currently twenty four years old or older could not haw been a "victim" under 18 U.S.C. 2255. 
even if the conduct occurred in 2001). At 
insistence, the panics ultimately 
agreed to the appointment of an attorney representative. hut 
then took the position 
that Mr. Epstein should pay for the representative's fees. which ell'ectively meant that Mr. 
Epstein must pay to sue himself,' 
also proposed wholly irrelevant charges such as making obscene phone 
calls and violations of child privacy laws. When Mr. Lunde learned of these proposed charges 
he asked Mr. Epstein's defense team to ignore them as they would "embarrass the Office.-
Continually And Purposefully_ Misinterpreted The Critical 
Terms of the Agreement. 
Since the execution of the Agreement.IIIIMIIIIIIhas repeatedly misconstrued the 
terms contained therein. As you know. several facets of this matter have been highly contested 
by the parties. We sometimes have obtained two competing views as to your willingness In 
compromise on specific issues that we have raised with your Office. In particular. them arc 
times when we have received verbal agreement from you or your staff (and sometimes from Ms. 
howl() on a 
'articular issue, only to subsequently receive a contradictory 
interpretation from Ms. 
hat negates our prior common understanding. 
I per 
misinterpretations appear to he attempts to effectively change the spirit and the meaning of the 
Non-Prosecution Agreement. We offer several examples of significant misinterpretations. 
First. despite the fact that we received several commitments I'mm your Unice that it 
would monitor Mr. Epstein's state sentencing but not interfere with it in any way, Ms. 
sought to do just that. Ms. IMMINOMIlecision to utilise a civil remedy statute in the place of a 
restitution fund for the alleged victims eliminates the notification requirement under the Justice 
for All Act of 2004. a federal law that requires federal authorities to notify victims as to any 
available restitution, not of any potential civil remedies, to which they are entitled. Despite this 
fact. Ms. proposed 
a Victims Notification letter to be sent to the alleged lialeral 
victims. Ms. IIMIM has gone even Wither. alleging that the "victims" may make written 
statements or testily against Mr. Epstein at the sentencing. We lind no basis in law or the 
Agreement that provides the identified individuals with either a right to appear at Mr. Epstein's 
plea and sentence or to submit a written statement to be filed by the State Attorney. Here. Mr. 
1 this arranrement does not put these alleged "victiins- in the same position as they would have heel, had Mr. 
Epstein been convicted at trial • - in radt obey arc much kilo- tall 
RFP MIA 000461 
EFTA00208942