EFTA00208923

12/11/2007 11:44 FAX 
0022/099 
• 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I.2007 
Page I9 
Epstein is pleading guilty to. and being sentenced for. state offenses. not the federal offenses 
under which the government has unilaterally recognized these identified individuals as - victims". 
The notion that individuals whose names arc not even known to the charging prosecutor in a 
state action should somehow be allowed to speak at a proceeding Ls unjustifiable. 
Furthermore. only after obtaining the executed Agreement did Ms. 
begin 
insisting that the selected nairesentative's duties go beyond settlement and include litigating 
claims thr individuals. In Ms. 
halms Notification letter. she states that Mr. 
rodhurst and Mr. JosetSberg, the se et. t. a o ey representatives. may -repnrsent- the identified 
individuals. This language assumes that the selected representatives will agree to serve in the 
capacity envisioned by Ms. Shah 
is patently incorrect. Yet, neglecting the spirit of 
the negotiations; neglecting the terms of the Agreement: and neglecting commonly-held 
principles of ethics with respect to conflicts. Ms. 
continues to improperly emphasize 
that the chosen attorney representative should he able to litigate the claims of individuals. 
In a similar fashion. Ms. 
has overstated the scope of Mr. lipswin's waiver of 
liability pursuant to the Agreement. Ms. 
began asserting that Mr. Epstein has waived 
liability even when cluims with tlx: identified individuals are not settled just after the execution 
of the Agreement. Despite the fact that at that time. we obtained an a !gement from you that Mr. 
Epstein's waiver would not stretch past settlement. Ms. 
mimics to espouse this 
erroneous interprctat ion. 
F. 
Ms. 
and The Settlement Process. 
We are concerned that Ms. 
has repeatedly attempted to manipulate the process 
under which Mr. Epstein has agreed to settle civil claims. First, she inappropriately attempted to 
nominate I 'lambert - Hen-  Ocariz for attorney representative. despite the bet that Mr. Deariz has 
a longstanding relationship with Ms. `MI. 
Mr. (kariz turns out to he a very good personal 
friend and law school classmate of ms. 
boyfriend, a fact she assiduously kept hidden 
from counsel. We also learned from Ms. 
that she shared with Ocariz the summary of 
charges the government was considering against Mr. Epstein. Even after your Office conceded 
that it was inappmpriate for its attorneys to select the attorney representative. Ms. 
continued to lobby for Mr. Oeariz's appointment. ()n October 19. 2007, retired Judge 
%%3 
Davis. who was appointed by the panics to select the attorney representative. informed Mr. 
Epstein's counsel that he received a telephone call fmni Mr. Ocariz directly requesting that 
Judge Davis appoint him as the imomey representative in this matter. 
Furthermore, federal interference continues to plague the integrity of the implementation 
of the Agreement. We recently learned that despite the fact that there was no communiattion 
hetween stale and federal authorities as to the investigation of Mr. Epstein. the FBI visited the 
State Attorney's Office two weeks ago to request that Mr. Epstein be disqualified to participate 
in work release even though the Agreement mandates that Mr. Kpstein he treated as any other 
inmate. 
RFP MIA 000462 
EFTA00208943

12/11/2007 11:44 FAX 
0023/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLi' 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11. 2007 
Page 20 
III. 
CONCLUSION 
In sum, we request that you review the evidence supporting the prosecution of Mr. 
Epstein. Such a review would serve to address similar concerns as those raised in May v. 
Maryland. which mandate the disclosure of evidence material to guilt or innocence even after the 
execution Ulan Agreement to enter a plea of guilty. See 373 11.S. 83 (1 963). We believe that the 
"prosecution team" was informed by its witnesses (including persons other than 
and 
who are discussed at length above) that Mr. Epstein's practice was to see • 
women older than 18 rather than targeting those under I8. We would expect, for instance, that 
a key witness whose interview with the FBI was recorded, would have provided 
sac exonerating information us well us many others. We would also expect the review to 
uncover clear evidence that demonstrates that Mr. Epstein did not travel to Florida for the 
purpose of having illegal underage sex nor that he induced underage women by using the 
Internet or the phones. 
Furthermore, we ask you to consider whether there is reliable evidence not just that Mr. 
Epstein had sexual contact with witnesses who were in fact underage but whether the allegations 
arc based on trustworthy (and corroborated) evidence that (i) Mr. Epstein knew that the remelt) 
in question was under 18 at the time of the sexual contact. (ii) Mr. Epstein traveled to his home 
in Palm Beach lin the purpose of having such sexual contact to the extent the allegation charges 
a violation of Itt U.S.C. § 2423(b) and (e) Mr. Epstein induced such sexual contact by using an 
instrumentality of interstate commerce to the extent the allegations charge a violation of 18 
U.S.C. 
2422(b) (there is no evidence of Internet solicitation which is the norm upon which 
federal jurisdiction is usually modeled under this statute). We believe that the intimation we 
provide to you in this submission will be informative and spark a motivation to gain more 
information with respect to the investigation of this matter. 
Again, we are not seeking to unwind the Agreement: we arc only seeking for you to 
exercise your discretion in directing that an impartial and respected member of your Office test 
the evidence upon which the drat) federal indictment was based against the -hest evidence." 
including the transcripts of the tape recorded pre-federal involvement interviews. 
Finally. I would like to reiterate our appreciation for the opportunity you have provided 
to review some of our issues and concerns. 1 look forward to speaking with you shortly. 
Sincerely. 
RFP MLA 000463 
EFTA00208944

• 
• 
U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MALI 
lay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. 
Kirkland & Ellis LIP 
Re: 
,leffrev Epstein 
Dear Jay: 
December 13, 2007 
I am writing not to respond to your asserted "policy concerns" regarding Mr. Epstein's Non-
Prosecution Agreement, which will be addressed by the United States Attorney, but the time has 
come for me to respond to the ever-increasing attacks on my role in the investigation and 
negotiations. 
It is an understatement to say that I am surprised by your allegations regarding my role 
because I thought that we had worked very well together in resolving this dispute. 1 also am 
surprised because I feel that I bent over backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement 
would have on Mr. Epstein and to make sure that you (and he) understood the repercussions of the 
agreement. For example, I brought to your attention that one potential plea could result in no gain 
time for your client; I corrected one of your calculations of the Sentencing Guidelines that would 
have resulted in Mr. Epstein spending far more time in prison than you projected; I contacted the 
Bureau of Prisons to see whether Mr. Epstein would be eligible for the prison camp that you desired; 
and I told you my suspicions about the source of the press "leak" and suggested ways to avoid the 
press. Importantly, I continued to work with you in a professional manner even after I learned that 
you had been proceeding in bad faith for several weeks - thinking that 1 had incorrectly concluded 
that solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution was a registrable offense and that you would 
"fool" our Office into letting Mr. Epstein plead to a non-registrable offense. Even now, when it is 
clear that neither you nor your client ever intended to abide by the terms of the agreement that he 
signed, I have never alleged misconduct on your part. 
The first allegation that you raise is that I "assiduously" hid from you the fact that Bert 
Ocariz is a friend of my boyfriend and that I have a "longstanding relationship" with Mr. Ocariz. 
RFP MIA 000464 
EFTA00208945

• 
• 
JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
DECEMBER 13, 2007 
PAGE 2 OF 5 
I informed you that I selected Mr. Ocariz because he was a friend and classmate of two people 
whom I respected, and that I had never met or spoken with Mr. Ocariz prior to contacting him about 
this case. All of those facts arc true. I still have never met Mr. Ocariz, and, at the time that he and 
I spoke about this case, he did not know about my relationship with his friend. You suggest that I 
should have explicitly informed you that one of the referrals came from my "boyfriend" rather than 
simply a "friend." which is the term I used, but it is not my nature to discuss my personal 
relationships with opposing counsel. Your attacks on me and on the victims establish why I wanted 
to find someone whom I could trust with safeguarding the victims' best interests in the face of 
intense pressure from an unlimited number of highly skilled and well paid attorneys. Mr. Ocariz 
was that person. 
One of your letters suggests a business relationship between Mr. Ocariz and my boyfriend. 
This is patently untrue and neither my boyfriend nor I would have received any financial benefit 
from Mr. Ocariz's appointment. Furthermore, after Mr. Ocariz learned more about Mr. Epstein's 
actions (as described below), he expressed a willingness to handle the case pro bono, with no 
financial benefit even to himself. Furthermore, you were given several other options to choose from, 
including the Podhurst firm, which was later selected by Judge Davis. You rejected those other 
options. 
You also allege that I improperly disclosed information about the case to Mr. Ocariz. I 
provided Mr. Ocariz with a bare bones summary of the agreement's terms related to his appointment 
to help him decide whether the case was something he and his firm would be willing to undertake. 
I did not provide Mr. Ocariz with facts related to the investigation because they were confidential 
and instead recommended that he "Google" Mr. Epstein's name for background information. When 
Mr. Ocariz asked for additional information to assist his firm in addressing conflicts issues, I 
forwarded those questions to you, and you raised objections for the first time. I did not share any 
further information about Mr. Epstein or the case. Since Mr. Ocariz had been told that you 
concurred in his selection, out of professional courtesy, I informed Mr. Ocariz of the Office's 
decision to use a Special Master to make the selection and told him that the Office had made contact 
with Judge Davis. We have had no further contact since then and I have never had contact with 
Judge Davis. I understand from you that Mr. Ocariz contacted Judge Davis. You criticize his 
decision to do so, yet you feel that you and your co-counsel were entitled to contact Judge Davis to 
try to "lobby" him to select someone to your liking, despite the fact that the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement vested the Office with the exclusive right to select the attorney representative. 
Another reason for my surprise about your allegations regarding misconduct related to the 
Section 2255 litigation is your earlier desire to have me perform the role of "facilitator" to convince 
the victims that the lawyer representative was selected by the Office to represent their interests alone 
and that the out-of-court settlement of their claims was in their best interests. You now state that 
doing the same things that you had asked me to do earlier is improper meddling in civil litigation. 
Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detectiva 
investigation that have 
RFP MIA 000465 
EFTA00208946

•)
• 
• 
JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
DECEMBER 13,2007 
PAGE 3 OF 5 
already been submitted to the Office on several occasions and you suggest that I have kept that 
information from those who reviewed the proposed indictment package. Contrary to your 
suggestion, those submissions were attached to and incorporated in the proposed indictment 
package, so your suggestion that I tried to hide something from the reviewers is false. I also take 
issue with the duplicity of stating that we must accept as true those parts of the Recarey reports and 
witness statements that you like and we must accept as false those parts that you do not like. You 
and your co-counsel also impressed upon me from the beginning the need to undertake an 
independent investigation. It seems inappropriate now to complain because our independent 
investigation uncovered facts that are unfavorable to your client. 
You complain that I "forced" your client and the State Attorney's Office to proceed on 
charges that they do not believe in, yet you do not want our Office to inform the State Attorney's 
Office of facts that support the additional charge nor do you want any of the victims of that charge 
to contact Ms. Belohlavek or the Court. Ms. Belohlavek's opinion may change if she knows the full 
scope of your client's actions. You and I spent several weeks trying to identify and put together a 
plea to federal charges that your client was willing to accept. Yet your letter now accuses me of 
"manufacturing" charges of obstruction of justice, making obscene phone calls, and violating child 
privacy laws. When Mr. Lourie told you that those charges would "embarrass the Office," he meant 
that the Office was unwilling to bend the facts to satisfy Mr. Epstein's desired prison sentence — a 
statement with which I agree. 
I hope that you understand how your accusations that I imposed "ultimatums" and "forced" 
you and your client to agree to unconscionable contract terms cannot square with the true facts of 
this case. As explained in letters from Messrs. Acosta and 
the indictment was postponed 
for more than five months to allow you and Mr. Epstein's other attorneys to make presentations to 
the Office to convince the Office not to prosecute. Those presentations were unsuccessful. As you 
mention in your letter, I -a simple line AUSA — handled the primary negotiations for the Office, and 
conducted those negotiations with you, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Lewis, and a host of other highly skilled 
and experienced practitioners. As you put it, your group has a "combined 250 years experience" to 
my fourteen. The agreement itself was signed by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. Lefcourt, 
whose experience speaks for itself. You and I spent hours negotiating the terms, including when to 
use "a" versus "the" and other minutiae. When you and I could not reach agreement, you repeatedly 
went over my head, involving Messrs. l
and Acosta in the negotiations at 
various times. In any and all plea negotiations the defendant understands that his options are to 
plead or to continue with the investigation and proceed to trial. Those were the same options that 
were proposed to Mr. Epstein, and they are not "persecution or intimidation tactics." Mr. Epstein 
chose to sign the agreement with the advice of a multitude of extremely noteworthy counsel. 
You also make much of the fact that the names of the victims were not released to Mr. 
Epstein prior to signing the Agreement. You never asked for such a term. During an earlier 
meeting, where Mr. Black was present, he raised the concern that you now voice. Mr. Black and 
I did not have a chance to discuss the issue, but I had already conceived of a way to resolve that 
RFP MIA 000466 
EFTA00208947

• 
• 
JAY P. LEFKON972, ESQ. 
DECEMBER 13,2007 
PAGE 4 OF S 
issue if it were raised during negotiations. As I stated, it was not, leading me to believe that it was 
not a matter of concern to the defense. Since the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the 
agents and I have vetted the list of victims more than once. In one instance, we decided to remove 
a name because, although the minor victim was touched inappropriately by Mr. Epstein, we decided 
that the link to a payment was insufficient to call it "prostitution." I have always remained open to 
a challenge to the list, so your suggestion that Mr. Epstein was forced to write a blank check is 
simply unfounded. 
Your last set of allegations relates to the investigation of the matter. For instance, you claim 
that some of the victims were informed of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough 
investigation of their allegations against Mr. Epstein. This also is false. None of the victims was 
informed of the right to sue under Section 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three 
victims were notified shortly after the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement of the general 
terms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further 
notifications were done. Throughout this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as 
though it would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility of damages claims prior 
to concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case. If my reassurances are 
insufficient, the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein should assure you of 
the integrity of the investigation.' 
'There arc numerous other unfounded allegations in your letter about document demands, 
the money laundering investigation, contacting potential witnesses, speaking with the press, and the 
like. For the most part, these allegations have been raised and disprovcn earlier and need not be 
readdressed. However, with respect to the subpoena served upon the private investigator, contrary 
to your assertion, and as your co-counsel has already been told, I did consult with the Justice 
Department prior to issuing the subpoena and I was told that because I was im subpoenaing an 
attorney's office or an office physically located within an attorney's office, and because the business 
did private investigation work for individuals (rather than working exclusively for Mr. Black), I 
could issue a grand jury subpoena in the normal course, which is what I did. I also did not 
"threaten" the State Attorney's Office with a grand jury subpoena, as the correspondence with their 
grand jury coordinator makes perfectly clear. 
With regard to your allegation of my filing the Palm Beach Police Department's probable 
cause affidavit "with the court knowing that the public could access it," I do not know to what you 
are referring. Ali documents related to the grand jury investigation have been filed under seal, and 
the Palm Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit has never been filed with the Court. 
If, in fact, you are referring to the Ex Pane Declaration of Joseph Recarey that was filed in response 
to the motion to quash the grand jury subpoena, it was filed both under seal and er pane, so no one 
should have access to it except the Court and myself. Those documents are still in the Court file 
only because you  have violated one of the terms of the Agreement by failing to "withdraw 
[Epstein's] pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas." 
RFP MIA 000467 
EFTA00208948

• 
JAY P. LEFROwin, ESQ. 
DECEMBER 13,2007 
PAGE $ OF $ 
With respect to Ms. Miller, I contacted her attorney — who was paid for by Mr. Epstein and 
was directed by counsel for Mr. Epstein to demand immunity — and asked only whether he still 
represented Ms. Miller and if he wanted me to send the victim notification letter to him. He asked 
what the letter would say and I told him that the letter would be forthcoming in about a week and 
that I could not provide him with the terms. With respect to Ms. Miller's status as a victim, you 
again want us to accept as true only facts that am beneficial to your client and to reject as false 
anything detrimental to him. Ms. Miller made a number of statements that arc contradicted by 
documentary evidence and a review of her recorded statement shows her lack of credibility with 
iespc‘t to a number of statements. Based upon all of the evidence collected, Ms. Miller is classified 
as a victim as defined by statute. Of course, that does not mean that Ms. Miller considers herself 
a victim or that she would seek damages from Mr. Epstein. I believe that a number of the identified 
victims will not seek damages, but that does not negate their legal status as victims. 
I hope that you now understand that your accusations against myself and the agents arc 
unfounded. In the future, I recommend that you address your accusations to me so that I can correct 
any misunderstandings before you make false allegations to others in the Department. I hope that 
we can move forward with a professional resolution of this matter, whether that be by your client's 
adherence to the contract that he signed, or by virtue of a trial. 
By: 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
Assistant United States Attorney 
cc: 
R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
You also accuse me of "broaden[ing] the scope of the investigation without any foundation 
for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money transmitting business 
to the investigation." Again, I consulted with the Justice Department's Money Laundering Section 
about my analysis before expanding that scope. The duty attorney agreed with my analysis. 
RFP MIA 000468 
EFTA00208949

• 
• 
• 
Jay Leflowilz/New 
York/Kirkland-Ellis 
02/29)2008 03.11 PM 
Dear Alex, 
to 
cc 
Dec 
Subject Fw: Epstein 
I received the attached email from 
this week and to put it mildly, I was shocked. As you will 
recall, back at the beginning of January, when 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 individuals in your Office were not acting appropriately in relation to this matter. In particular, 
we were very concerned that one of your prosecutors had given a substantial amount of information to a 
New York 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 learned 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
o 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 clear -- 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: 
RFP MIA 000469 
EFTA00208950

05/28/2008 09:07 FAX 
2026161239 
DOJ/ODAC 
05 10 :Is 
MO\ 13:22 1:;\ 1 213 6h0 8500 
It I RKLINDLF.I.I.1 5 lip 
111006/013 
1 
Kenneth W. Starr 
Joe D. Whitley 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
Alston & Bird LIP 
May 19, 2008 
VIA FACSIMILE (202) 514.0467 
CONFIDENTIAL 
honorable Mark Filip 
Office of the Deputy Attorney General 
United States Department of Justice 
Dear Judge Filip: 
In his confirmation hearings last fall, Judge Mukasey admirably lifted up the finest 
traditions of the Department of Justice an assuring the United States Senate, and the American 
people, of his solemn intent to ensure fairness and integrity' in the administration of justice Your 
own confirmation hearings echoed that bedrock determination to assure that the Department 
conduct itself with honor and integrity, especially in the enforcement of federal criminal law. 
We come to you iii that spirit and respectfully ask for a review of the federal involvement 
in a quintessentially state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we are well aware 
of the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we arc confident that the 
circumstances at issue tvaaant such an examination. Based on our collective experiences, as 
well as those of other former senior Justice Department officials whose advice we have sought, 
we have never before seen a case more appropriate for oversight and review. Thus, while neither 
of us has previously made such a request. we do so now in the recognition that both the 
Department's reputation, as well as the due process rights of our client, are at issue. 
Recently, the Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter at the 
request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review deliberately excluded 
many important aspects of this case Just this past Friday, on May 16, 2008, we received a letter 
from the head of CEOS informing us that CEOS had conducted a review of this case. By its own 
admission, the CEOS review was "limited, both factually and legally." Part of the self-imposed 
limitation was CEOS's abstention from addressing our "allegations of professional misconduct 
by federal prosecutors"--even though such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably 
intertwined with the credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United 
States Attorney's Office in Miami (''USAO"). Moreover. CEOS did not assess the terms of the 
Deferred Prosecution Agreement now in effect, nor did CEOS review the federal prosecutors' 
inappropriate efforts to implement those tcnns. We detail this point below.
RFP MIA 000470 
EFTA00208951

05/28/2008 09:07 FAX 2026161239 
DOJ/ODAC 
n3- 19. oh 
NM\ IA 2:2 I \\ I 2I3 6/0 S.SUO 
KIRKLANIMELLIS LLP 
id1007/013 
CIO 3 
Honorable Mark Filip 
May 19. 2008 
Page 2 
Ry way of background, we were informed by Mr. Acosta that, at his request, CEOS 
would be conducting a review to determine whether federal prosecution was both appropriate 
and, in his words, "fair." That is not what occurred. Instead, CEOS has now acknowledged that 
we had raised "many compelling arguments" against the USAO's suggested -novel application" 
of federal law in this matter. Even so. CEOS concluded. in minimalist fashion, that "we do not 
see anything that says to us categorically that a federal case should not be brought" and that the 
U.S. Attorney "would not he abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal 
prosecution of Mr. Epstein" thus delegating back to Mr. Acosta the decision of whether federal 
prosecution was warranted (emphasis added). Rather than assessing whether prosecution would 
be appropriate, CEOS, using a low baseline for its evaluation, determined only that "it would not 
be impossible to prove . ." certain allegations made against Mr. Epstein. The CEOS review 
failed to address the significant problems involving the appearance of hnpormissible selectivity 
that would necessarily result from a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. 
We respect CEOS's conclusion that its authority to review "misconduct" issues was 
pen. luded by Criminal Division practice. We further respect CEOS's view that it understood its 
mission as significantly limited. Specifically, the contemplated objective was to determine 
whether the USAO would be abusing its discretion by bringing a federal prosecution rather than 
making its own de nova recommendations on the appropriate reach of federal law. However, we 
respectfully submit that a full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the 
Justice Department. In an effort to inform you of the nature of the federal investieation against 
Mr. Epstein. we summarize the facts and circumstances of this matter below. 
Re two base-level concerns we hold arc that (1) federal prosecution of this matter is not 
warranted based on the purely-local conduct and the unprecedented application of federal 
statutes to facts such as these and (2) the actions of federal authorities are both highly 
questionable and give rise to an appearance of substantial impropriety. The issues that we have 
raised, but which have not yet been addressed or resolved by the Department, are more than 
isolated allegations of professional mistakes or misconduct. These issues, instead, affect the 
appearance and administration of criminal justice with profound consequences beyond the 
resolution in the matter at hand. 
In a precedent-shattering investigation of Jeffrey Epstein that raises important policy 
questions—and serious issues as to the fair and honorable enforcement of federal law—the 
USA() in Miami is considering extending federal law beyond the bounds of precedent and 
reason. 
Federal prosecutors stretched the underlying facts in ways that raise fundamental 
questions of basic professionalism. Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition 
of deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a 
proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in 
RFP MIA 000471 
EFTA00208952

05/28/2008 09:08 FAX 2028161239 
05 19 08 NO\ 13:23 FAN 1 213 880 8300 
1 RKLAND&FLLIS LLP 
DOJ/ODAC 
Woos/els 
oo 
Honorable Mark Filip 
May 19, 2008 
Page 3 
private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved. 
Federal prosecutors then leaked highly sensitive information about the case to a New York 
Tunes reporter.' The immediate result of this confluence of extraordinary circumstances is an 
onslaught of civil lawsuits, all save one brought by the First Assistant's former boutique law fimi 
in Miami. 
The facts in this case all revolve around the classic state crime of solicitation of 
prostitution.2 
The State Attorney's Office in Palm Beach County had conducted a diligent 
investigation, convened a Grand Jury that returned an indictment, and made a final determination 
about how to proceed. 
That is where, in our federal republic, this matter should rest. 
Mr. Epstein faces a felony conviction in state court by virtue of his conduct, and the only reason 
the State has nut resolved this matter is that the federal prosecutors in Miami have continued to 
insist that we, Mr Epstein's counsel, approach and demand from the State Attorney's Office a 
harsher charge and a more severe punishment than that Office believes are appropriate under the 
circumstances. Yet despite the USAO's refusal to allow the State to resolve this matter on the 
terms the State has determined are appropriate, the USAO has not made any attempt to 
coordinate its efforts with the State. In fact, the USA° mandated that any federal agreement 
would be conditioned on Mr. Epstein persuading the State to seek a criminal punishment unlike 
that imposed on other defendants within the jurisdiction of the State Attorney fur similar 
conduct. 
From the inception of the USAO's involvement in this case, which at the end of the day 
is a case about solicitation of prostitution within the confines of Palm Beach County, Florida, we 
have asked ourselves why the Department of Justice is involved. Regrettably, we are unable to 
suggest any appropriate basis for the Department's involvement. Mr. Epstein has no criminal 
history whatsoever. Also. Mr. Epstein has never been the subject of general media interest until 
a few years ago, after it was widely perceived by the public that he was a close friend of former 
President Bill Clinton. 
The conduct at issue is simply not within the purview of federal jurisdiction and lies 
outside the heartland of the three federal statutes that have been identified by prosecutors-18 
U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b), and 2423(b). 
One of the other members of Mr. Epsteln's defense team, lay Le&owitz, has personally reviewed the reporter's 
contemporaneous notes. 
Although wine of the women alleged to be involved were 16 and 17 years of age, several of these women 
openly admitted to lying to Mr Epstein about their age in their recent sworn statements. 
RFP MIA 000472 
EFTA00208953

05/28/2008 00:09 FILI 2028181239 
DOJ/ODAC 
19: pa 
MON 13:23 FAN I 213 660 8600 
KIRKLANDSIELL S 
1.1.1' 
II09/013 
Honorable Mark Filip 
Ma' !9 2008 
rage 4 
These statutes are intended to target climes of a truly national and international scope. 
Specifically, tj 1591 was enacted to combat human trafficking, § 2422 is aimed at sexual 
predation of minors through the Internet. and § 2423 deals with sex tourism. The nature of these 
crimes results in multi-jurisdictional problems that state and local authorities cannot effectively 
confront on their own. However, Mr. Epstein's conduct was purely local in nature and, thus. 
does not implicate federal involvement. After researching every reported ease brought under 18 
U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b), and 2423(b), we found that not a single casc involves facts or a 
scenario similar to the situation at hand. Our review of each precedent reflects that there have 
been no reported prosecutions under § 1591 of a 'john' whose conduct with a minor lacked 
force, coercion, or fraud and who was not profiting from commercial sexual trafficking. There 
have likewise been no cases under § 2422(b)—a crime of communication—where there was no 
use of the Internet. and where the content of phone communications did not contain any inducing 
or enticing of a minor to have illegal sexual activity as expressly required by the language of the 
statute. Furthermore, the Government's contention that "routine and habit" can fill the factual 
and legal void created by the lack of evidence that such a communication ever occurred sets this 
case apart front every reported case brought under § 2422(6). Lastly, there are no reported cases 
of violations of § 2423(b) of a person whose dominant purpose in traveling was merely to go to 
his own home.3
Although these matters were within the scope of the CEOS review, rather than 
considering whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOS only determined that U.S. 
Attorney Acosta "would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal 
prosecution" in this case. The "abuse of discretion" standard constitutes an extremely tow bar of 
evaluation and while it may be appropriate when the consideration of issues arc exclusively 
factual in nature, this standard fails to address concerns particular to this situation, namely the 
"novel application" of federal statutes. The "abuse of discretion" standard in such pure legal 
matters of statutory application risks causing a lack of uniformity. The same federal statutes that 
would be stretched beyond their bounds in Miami have been limited to their heartland in each of 
the other federal districts. Also, because this case implicates broader issues of the administration 
of equal justice, federal prosecution in this matter risks the appearance of selectivity in its 
stretching of federal law to fit these facts. 
Federal prosecution of a man who engaged in consensual conduct in his home that amounted to, at most, the 
solicitation of prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a mute concern, (see United 
Stares' Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (1Ith Cir. 2007) (federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a 
vice traditionally governed by state regulation)")). and that is no evidence that Palm Beach County authorities 
and Flout prosecutors cannot effectively prosecute and punish the conduct, there is no reason why this matter 
should be extracted from the hands of state prosecutors in Florida. 
RFP MIA 000473 
EFTA00208954

05/28/2008 09:09 FAX 2026161239 
.0:p ;8 Oh 
MON 13:24 FXX 1
213 680 8500 
DOJ/ODAG 
KIRKIANDLELLIS LLP 
14010/013 
;(!) aim 
Honorable Mark Filip 
May 19. 2008 
Page 5 
in fact, recent testimony of several alleged "victims" contradicts claims made by federal 
prosecutors during the negotiations of a deferred prosecution 
representations of kev Government witnesses (such as 
and 
confirm the following 
First, there was no 
communication, telephonic or otherwise, that meets the requirements of § 2422(b). For instance. 
Ms. 
confirmed that Mr. Epstein never emailed, text-messaged, or used any facility of 
interstate commerce whatsoever. bcfore or after her one (and only) visit to his home. 
Ti. (deposition} at 30. Second, the women who testified admitted that they lied to Mr. Epstein 
about their age in order to gain admittance into his home. Indeed, the women who brought their 
underage friends to Mr. Epstein testified that they would counsel their friends to lie about then 
ages as well. Ms. Miller stated the following: "I would tell my girlfriends just like 
approached me. Make sure you tell him you're 18. Well. these girls that I brought, I know that 
they were IS or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't know and I don't know if they were lying or 
not, 1 would say make sure that you tell him you're 18." Miller Tr. at 22. Third, there was no 
tontine or habit of improper communication expressing an intent to transform a massage into an 
illegal sexual act. In fact, there was often no sexual activity at all during the massage. Ms 
Miller testified that IsJoinetimes [Mr. Epstein] just wanted his feet massaged. Sometimes he 
just wanted a hack massage." Miller Tr. at 19. 
also stated that Mr. Epstein 
"never touched [her] physically" and that all she di was -massage I his back. his chest and his 
thighs and that was it." 
Tr. at 12-13. Finally, there was no force, coercion, fraud. 
violence, dm 
ven alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with these 
i 
women. Ms. s 
tilted that "[Mr. Epstein] never tried to force me to do anything." 
Tr 
A at 12. These accounts are far from the usual testimony in sex slavery, Internet stings and sex 
tourism cases previously brought. The women in actuality were not younger than 16, which b 
the age of consent in most of the 50 states, and the sex activity was irregular and in large part. 
consisted of solo self-pleasuring. 
The recent crop of civil suits brought against Mr. Epstein confirm that the plaintiffs did 
not discuss any sexually-related activities with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's 
residence. This reinforces our contention that no telephonic or Internet persuasion. inducement, 
enticement or coercion of a minor, or of any other individual, occurred. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey 
Herman, the former law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the 
attorney for most of the civil complainants (as described in detail below), was quoted in the Palm 
Beach Post as saying that "it doesn't matter that his clients lied about their ages and told Mr. 
Epstein that they were 18 or 19. 
agreement. 
The consistent 
Not only is a federal prosecution of this matter unwarranted, but the irregularity of 
conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the deferred prosecution agreement arc 
beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutor's responsibilities. Elie list of 
improprieties includes, but is not limited to, the following facts: 
RFP MIA 000474 
EFTA00208955

05/28/2006 09:10 FAX 
2026161239 
10 us 
M0N 13:25 FAN 1 213 660 6500 
DOJ/ODAG 
1.1 
W11011/013 
45007 
Honorable Mark Filip 
May 19. 2008 
Page 6 
• 
Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Mr. Epstein pay 
minimum of S150.000 per person to an unnamed list of women they referred to as 
minors and whom they insisted required representation by a guardian ad litem. Mr.
Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these individuals were actual!) 
adults, not minors. Even then, though demanding payment to the women, the 
USAO eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of any of the 
claims that these women might make. 
• 
Federal prosecutors made the highly unusual demand that Mr. Epstein pay the fees 
of a civil attorney chosen by the prosecutors to represent these alleged "victims" 
should they choose to bring any civil litigation against him. They also proposed 
sending a notice to the alleged "victims," stating, in an underlined sentence, that 
should they choose their own attorney, Mr. Epstein would not be required to pay 
their lees. The prosecutors further demanded that Mr. Epstein waive his right to 
challenge any of the allegations made by these "victims.-
• 
The Assistant U.S. Attorney involved in this matter recommended for the civil 
attorney, a highly lucrative position. an individual that we later discovered was 
closely and personally connected to the Assistant U.S. Attorney's own boyfriend. 
• 
Federal prosecutors represented to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they had identified 
(and later rechecked and re-identitied) several alleged "victims" of federal crimes 
that qualified for payment under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a civil remedy designed to 
provide financial benefits to victims. Only through state discovery provisions did 
we later learn that many of the women on the rechecked "victim list" could not 
possibly qualify under § 2255. The reason is that they, themselves. testified that 
they did not suffer any type of harm whatsoever, a prerequisite for the civil recovery 
under § 2255. Moreover, these women stated that they did riot, now or in the past, 
consider themselves to be victims. 
• 
During the last few months. Mr. Herman, First Assistant...MI former law 
partner, has filed several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged 
4-victims." It is our understanding that each of Mr. Herman's clients are on the 
RFP MIA 000475 
EFTA00208956

05/28/2006 09:10 FAX 2026161239 
DOJ/ODAC 
.05 In 08 MON 13:25 FAX 1 213 680 8500 
hIRKLAMMELLIS 
LLP 
wa012.013 
tt0ot. 
• 
Honorable Mark Filip 
May 19, 2008 
Page 7 
Government's confidential "list of victims." Most of these lawsuits seek S50 
million in money damages.' 
• 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
spoke about the case in great detail to 
Landon Thomas, a reporter with the New York Tunes, and revealed confidential 
information about the Government's allegations against Mr. Epstein. Tht• Assistant 
U.S. Attorney also revealed the substance of confidential plea negotiations. 
• 
When counsel for Mr. Epstein complained about the media leaks. First Assistant 
responded by asserting that "Mr. Thomas was given, pursuant to his 
request, non-case specific information concerning specific federal statutes" Based 
on Mr. Thomas' contemporaneous notcs, that assertion appears to be false. For 
example, Mr. 1==told 
Mr. Thomas that federal authorities believed that 
Mr. Epstein had lured girls over the telephone and traveled in interstate commerce 
for the purpose of engaging in underage sex. He recounted to Mt. Thomas the 
USAO's theory of prosecution against Mr. Epstein. replete with an anaiysis of the 
key statutes being considered. 
Furthermore, after Mr Epstein's defense team 
complained about the leak to the t2SAO, Mr. 
in Mr. Thomas' own 
description. then admonished him for talking to the defense, and getting him in 
trouble. Mr. 
further told him not to believe the - spin- of Mr. Epstein's 
"high-priced attorneys," and then, according to Mr. Thomas, Mr. 
forcefully "reminded" Mr. Thomas that all prior conversations were mere') 
hypothetical. 
We are constrained to conclude that the actions of federal officials in this case strike at 
the heart of one of the vitally important, enduring values in this country the honest enforcement 
of federal law, free of political considerations and free of the taint of personal financial 
motivations on the part of federal prosecutors that, al a minimum, raise the appearance of serious 
impropriety. 
We were told by U.S. Attorney Acosta that as pan of the review he requested, the 
Department had the authority. and his consent, to make any determination it deemed appropriate 
regarding this matter, including a decision to decline federal prosecution. Yet. CEUS's only 
conclusion, based on its limited review of the investigation, is that U.S. Attorney Acosta would 
not abuse his discretion by proceeding against Mr. Epstein. Thus, the decision of whether 
4 
As recently as two months ago. Mr. 
still listed publicly as a pun of his former law firm. M hile we 
assume this was an oversight. Mr 
identification as pan of the firm raises the appearance of 
impropriety 
RFP MIA 000476 
EFTA00208957

05/28/2008 09:11 FAX 2026161239 
•o 
tO OS MO% 13:26 FAX 1 213 650 $500 
DOJ/ODAC 
KIRKLANMELLIS LLP 
fal013/013 
42) 009 
Honorable Mark Filip 
May 19. 2008 
Page 8 
prosecution is fair and appropriate has been placed, once again, in U.S. Attorney Acosta's 
hands. 
In light of the foregoing, we respectfully ask that you review this matter and discontinue 
all federal involvement so that the State can appropriately bring this matter to closure. We 
would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these important issues 
Such a meeting would provide the Department with an opportunity to review the paramount 
issues of federalism and the appearance of selectivity that are generated by the unprecedented 
attempts to broaden the ambit of federal statutes to places that they have never before reached. 
We sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter. 
Respectfully submitted, 
Kenneth W. Starr 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
Joe D. Whitley 
Alston & Bird I.LP 
RFP MIA 000477 
EFTA00208958

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
SUMMARY OF MISCONDUCT ISSUES IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTE/N 
The manner in 
which federal prosecutors have pursued the allegations against Mr. Epstein is highly irregular 
and warrants full review by the Department. While we repeatedly have raised our concerns 
regarding misconduct with the United States Attorney's Office in Miami (the "USAO"), not only 
has it has remained unwilling to address these issues, but Mr. Epstein's defense counsel has been 
instructed to limit its contact to the very prosecutors who are the subject of this misconduct 
complaint. For your review, this document summarizes the USAO's conduct in this case. 
Background
I. 
In March 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department opened a criminal investigation of 
Palm Beach resident, Jeffrey E. Epstein. The press has widely reported that Mr. Epstein 
is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. 
2. 
In July 2006, after an intensive probe, including interviews of dozens of witnesses, 
returns of numerous document subpoenas, multiple trash pulls and the execution of a 
search warrant on his residence, Mr. Epstein was indicted by a Florida Grand Jury on one 
count of felony solicitation of prostitution. 
3. 
In a publicly released letter, Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter criticized the Grand 
Jury's decision and the State Attorney's handling of the case. Shortly after the Grand 
Jury's indictment, the Chief took the unprecedented step of releasing his Department's 
raw police reports of the investigation (including Detective Recarey's unedited written 
reports of witness statements and witness identification information), that were later 
proven to be highly inaccurate transcriptions of witnesses' actual statements. The Chief 
also publicly asked federal authorities to prosecute the case. 
I
llilliecomes Involved in Mr. Epstein's Case at the Earliest Stage 
4. 
In early November of 2006, Epstein's lawyers had their initial contact with the newly 
assigned line federal prosecutor
. Although it is extremely unusual 
for a First Assistant United States Attorney to participate in such a communication. 
FAUSA 
was present on that very first phone call. 
5. 
On November 16, 2006, despite that the fact that the investi ation exclusively concerned 
illegal sexual conduct during massage sessions, AUSA 
issued irrelevant official 
document requests seeking Mr. Epstein's 2004 and 2005 personal income-tax returns, 
ocnaed his medical records. See Tab 16, November 16, 2006 Letter from 
Becomes Personally Involved in a Dispute Over Another State Sex Case 
6. 
In March 2007, FAUSA 
reported to local police an attempted trespass by a 17-
year-old male. Mr. 
claimed that the individual had attempted to enter Mr. 
home without invitation to make contact with his 16-year-old daughter, but he 
spotted the young man before the perpetrator had an opportunity to enter the house. The 
RIP MIA 000478 
EFTA00208959

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
same individual had previously fled the home of another neighbor after entering that 
house uninvited, when, looking for the bedroom of their I7-year-old daughter, he 
mistakenly entered the bedroom of their 14-year-old daughter, touched her on the leg and 
startled her awake. State of Florida. Johnathan Jeffrey Zirulnikoff, Case No. F078646 
(June 28, 2007). 
7. 
After a thorough review by the Miami State Attorney's Office, and sex-crimes prosecutor 
Laura Adams, the investigation revealed that the defendant and both the neighbor's 17-
year-old daughter and Mr. a 
daughter were previously acquainted. 
The 
defendant was charged with simple trespass in connection with his unauthorized entry 
into the neighbor's house. Id. 
8. 
FAUSA MIL 
however, demanded that the young man be registered as a sex offender 
and objected to any sentence short of incarceration. The Assistant State Attorney in 
charge of the sex-crimes unit reported Mr. Sloman's conduct during the proceedings as 
"outrageous." The defendant's attorney described Mr. 
being "out of control." 
Shortly after, Mr. 
began publicly deriding the elected State Attorney, his office 
and the state process for prosecuting sex offenses, as "a joke." 
Unauthorized Tactics in Disregard of the United States Attorney's Manual are Used 
9. 
In June 2007, AUSA 
subpoenaed the investigating agent of Epstein's attorney, 
Roy Black, in a clear effort to invade the defense camp. The subpoena was specifically 
drafted to discover the investigator's contacts, with all prospective witnesses, Mr. Epstein 
and his attorneys.' Not surprisingly, Ms. 
issued this subpoena without the 
requisite prior approval by the DOJ's Office of Enforcement Operations. See United 
States Attorneys' Manual, § 9-13.410. When confronted, she misleadingly responded 
that she had consulted with the Department of Justice and was not required to obtain 
OEO approval because her subpoena was not directed to "an office physicall located 
within an attorney's office." See Tab 18, December 13, 2007 Letter from 
at 
4 n.I . This answer clearly suggests that 
had intentionally misled the 
Department officials about the items that her subpoena sought.2
The subpoena sought, among other things: "All docurnents and information related to the nature of the 
relationship between (the investigator and/or his firm) and Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. including but not limited to . . . 
records of the dates when services were performed . . telephone logs or records of data of conummications 
with Mr. Epstein (or with a third party on Mr. Epstein's behalf); appointment calendars/datebooks and the like 
(whether in hard copy or electronic form) for any period when work was performed on behalf of Mr. Epstein or 
when any communication was had with Mr. Epstein (or with a third party on Mr. Epstein's behalf) . See Tab 
17, June 18, 2007 Subpoena to William Riley/ Riley Kiraly, 1 3. 
2 
Indeed, we are aware of two other recent instances in which =placed 
serious misrepresentations before 
a court On July 31, 2007, in the grand-jury litigation arising out of this case, she filed the "Declaration of 
" attaching the state detective's affidavit in support of a search warrant for Epstein's house. See 
In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum OLY-63 and OLY-64, No. Fal 07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla. July 31, 
2007). 
At the time she filed Detectiv. 
affidavit, she knew it contained numerous material 
misrepresentations, including gross misstatements of witness statements and other evidence. Second, we 
(Continued...) 
2 
RFP MIA 000479 
EFTA00208960

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Mr. Epstein is Required to Agree to Civil I.iabilitv In Order to Avoid a Federal Indictment 
10. 
On July 31, 2007, during negotiations over a possible federal plea agreement, FAUSA 
demanded that Mr. Epstein agree to the imposition of civil 
liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 as a precondition to deferral of federal prosecution. To 
the best of our knowledge, the inclusion of such a term in a deferred prosecution 
agreement of this kind is absolutely unprecedented.3 
Specifically, Ms. 
demanded that Mr. Epstein waive the right to contest civil liability to a list of individuals 
she said were "victims" of § 2255, whose names, however, she refused to disclose, and 
agree to pay damages of a minimum of $150,000 to each and every one of such 
undisclosed individuals, and hire an attorney to represent them if they decided to sue 
him. See Tab 20, July 31, 2007 Draft of Deferred Prosecution Agreement. 
FAUSA glIMPINFIRINIPPIIIIIIP insisted that the identities of the individuals on the 
list not be disclosed to Mr. Epstein or his counsel until after Mr. Epstein was already 
sentenced in the state case. 
(a) 
Over the next two months, Mr. 
refused to negotiate these terms. "they 
ultimately became incorporated into the final deferred prosecution agreement.
See Tab 21, September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement, /I 7-11. 
It was not until seven months later, in February 2008, that Epstein's lawyers were 
able to take their first official statement from one of the women FAUSA 
alleged were minor victims of federal offenses. 
(b) 
(c) 
;pm
This statement, a deposition o 
the initial complainant in the state 
case, taken in the presence o 
cr 
wycr, proved that none of the necessary 
elements for any federal charge could be satisfied based on Ms. 
brief 
contact with Mr. Epstein. The witness also admitted lying to Mr. Epstein, 
testifying that she told him that she was an adult and wanted him to believe that 
she was an adult. Sec Tab 13, 
i ll.. (deposition), p. 35 ("Q. So you 
told Jeff that you were 18 years o , correct. 
. Yes."), 37 (- Q. You wanted Mr. 
Epstein to believe that you really were 18, right? A. Correct."). 
(d) 
Shortly after this deposition, the defense was able to obtain statements from other 
women on Mr. 
.o called "list of § 2255 victims" and, so far, all such 
statements 
also continue 
to demonstrate 
that Mr. 
repeated 
representations to the defense about the existence of federal jurisdiction were 
false. 
3 
understand that 
was recently reprimanded at a special hearing convened by a United States District 
Judge in the West Palm Beach Division of the Southern District of Florida, for making misrepresentations 
during a prior sentencing proceeding. 
In fact, Stephanie Thacker, a former deputy to CEOS Chief Drew Oosterbaan, has stated that she knew of no 
other case like this being prosecuted by CEOS. 
• 
3 
RIP MIA 006480 
EFTA00208961

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
12. 
In August 2007, in a clear attempt to coerce a state settlement, Ms. 
threatened 
to broaden the investigation to include a money laundering violation 1 
. . . § 1956), 
though all the funds expended were simply Mr. Epstein's, and a violation for operating an 
unlicensed money-transmitting business (18 U.S.C. § 1960), though Mr. Epstein never 
had such a business. See Tab 22, August 31, 2007 Letter from 
to Ross 
(reciting, in a target letter to one of Epstein's employees, that the investigation concerns 
"suspected violations of federal law, including but not limited to, possible violations of 
Title 18, United States Code, Sections . . . 1591, . . . 1956, 1960 . . . .") (emphasis 
added). 
13. 
On the very same day that the grand jury issued subpoenas to the records-custodian and 
employees of Epstein's businesses for all financial transactions from 2003 forward, Ms. 
Villafana (who we were told was not authorized to act in this regard without supervisory 
approval) promised to close the money-laundering investigation "if the sex offense case 
is resolved." See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter froze 
to G. Lefcourt ("In 
other words, if the sex offense case is resolved, the Office would close its investigation 
into other areas as well. The matter has not been, and it does not appear that it will be, 
resolved so the money laundering investigation continues, and Request Number 6 
[seeking records of every financial transaction conducted by Epstein and his six 
businesses from "January I, 2003 to the present") will not be withdrawn."). 
14. 
Two weeks later, when Mr. Epstein continued to oppose federal prosecution during 
negotiations and Mr. Epstein's counsel sought a meeting with the United States Attorney, 
en classified all of Mr. Epstein's assistants as targets (sending a target 
letter to one of them and promising the attorney of the other two that additional target 
letters would be served on them as well), dispatched FBI agents to the homes of two of 
his secretaries, and personally telephoned Mr. Epstein's largest business client to advise 
him of the nature of the investigation. See Tab 22, August 31, 2007 Letter from M. 
Villafana to A. Ross. 
FAUSA EMI Forces Mr. Epstein's Lawyers to Convince the State Prosecutors To 
Impose a More Severe Sentence Than They Believe Is Appropriate 
15. 
Throughout the plea negotiations with the USAO, Mr. 
continually insisted that the only way they would agree not to bring a federal indictment 
was if Epstein's lawyers, not the state prosecutors as required under the Petite Policy, 
convinced the state prosecutors to impose a more severe punishment than the state 
believed was appropriate under the circumstances. 
16. 
FAUSA 
ersion of the history with respect to the sentence he required Mr. 
Epstein's lawyers to seek from the State contradicts his later assertion, which is patently 
false—that "the SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of 
incarceration" and "considered a plea to federal charges that limited Epstein's 
sentencing exposure ... " See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from 
In fact, by a 
email dated August 3, 2007, Criminal Division Chief 
advised the 
defense that the federal government required a m' 
of two years of 
incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from 
Subsequently, Ms. 
4 
RFP MIA 000481 
EFTA00208962