EFTA00209047

12/21/200f 11:55 FAX 
10uuz/uuu
• 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Jay P. Letkowdz_ 
To flag WM777 Thredly 
(212)4464970 
kolkow44491utklano cool 
VIA FACSIMILE (3115) 530-6414 
I lonnrable K. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
United Slates Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NE 4th Street 
Miami. Pl. 33132 
1)car Alex: 
AND 
ramoorr.777.. 
Cifigroop enntm 
753 Cast 53771577ov' 
New York. Now York 100:2.4411 
www.lorklancl tom 
December 21. 2(11)7 
Re: Jeffny Epstein 
Facsimile 
We again extend our appreciation for meeting with us on December 14 and for cordially 
considering die issues we have raised both at that meeting and in our submissions to your °nice. 
I hiving received your letter of December 19. we can see that you have made I significant effort 
to address our concerns regarding the § 2255 portion of the non-prosecution agreement (the 
"Agreement"). and we recognize that you have proposed some substantial and important 
modifications. 
Respectfully, however. I would suggest that your proposal raises several 
tmubling questions that require careful consideration. We arc authoring this letter to respond to 
your request than we set !brill our position regarding §§ 2255 and 3771 as quickly as passible. 
As we have all discovered, the problem of integrating in an unprecedented manner what 
is at its core' SI 50,01X) minimum lump sum damage federal civil statute (§ 2255 in its current 
form) into I fifiteral deferred/non-prosecution agreement that requires pleas of guilty to state 
criminal offenses that are correlated to state criminal restitution statutes but not to' disparate 
fixleral civil non-restitution statute has proved very challenging. The concomitant problem of 
how fairly to implement the § 2255portions of the Agreement so that real victims. ifany. who in 
thet sullised "personal injury as I result of (the) violation` 
if any of specified federal 
criminal statutes such as IX U.S.C. § 2422(h) arc placed in the same imition as if there had been 
'trial and conviction also requires serious and careful consideration. In this letter, I want to 
highlight some specific concerns. See also Whitley Opinion. 
First, your proposal regarding the § 2255 remedy provisions continues to ask us to 
immune that each and every woman not only was' victim tinder § 2255. but that the facts alleged 
could have been proven to satisfy each element of either § 2422(b) (the Internet luring statute) 
ur § 2423 (the sex-tourism statute). within * 2255 of ide I R. Although we have been denied the 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Los Angelus 
Munich 
San Francisco 
Washinglon, 0 C. 
RFP MIA 000041 
EFTA00209087

12/21/2007 11:55 FAX 
v1003/008 
• 
# . 
KIRKI AND & ELLIS LLP 
• 
• 
• 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 21.2007 
Page 2 
his of alleged - victims-  (and lack definitive inftirmation as to which federal statutes would serve 
asii predicate for each particular alleged victim). or even' lino number as to how many you 
suµgest there are. we strongly believe that the priwahie conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to 
these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either IS USC § 2422(b) (which we 
understand from prior discu.ssions to be the principal predicate offense upon which the f 2255 
provisions rely) or 18 USC 0 2423(b) (another predicate of 0 2255 that has been the subject of 
discussions between the parties). Sec Stern Opinion. We believe that the problem arises from 
the incongruity that exists when attempting to lit I ledend civil remedies statute into' criminal 
plea agreement. 
gain. I note that this problem could have been avoided had the government 
t 
opted instead for restitution fund us we suggested. 
Our •nowledge of the list" of alleged victims is limited However I prototypical 
example of 
witness whom 
the government has requested we compensate and we believe is 
inaccurately abeled as I - victim-  oil federal c ' 
• is 
whom we have been told 
remains on the government's "list"). The transcript of 7 interview with the Palm Beach police 
over I year before the MU became involved in any investigation shows that Ms. 
admitted to lying about. her age. that she did nut engage in sexual intercourse with Mr. .pstem. 
and that she was never induced over the telephone. computer or any other means of 
communication required by § 2422(h). In Mo. Ms. 
rune to Mr. Epstein's home on 
only one occasion. She testified that she was informs: 
p 
• opportunity to give' massage 
t 
to Mr. Epstein not on I telephone. corn titer
party who was her friend (Ms.
ter or any other facility of interstate commerce. hut 
rather in t face-to-face discussion with 
and who 
told her in lie to Mr. Epstein about her age. As such. it is simply impossible to sin -horn this 
conduct into any of the above-discussed federal statutes. 
In addition. Mr. Epstein did not know of Ms. pliiiibefore she actually came to his
did not induce or persuade her to come b. ham, 
t speak to her at all by phone prior 
oi
l
to her visit, did not induce or persuade Ms. 
to bring an underage girl to his residence, 
and did not otherwise violate either the reds t 
. 
c 0 2422(b) nor the travel for the purpose 
statute § 2423(b). Indeed, in her statement. Ms. 
estilied: "little>. told me to say I was 
III because I laity said ... if you're not then he .praem won't really let you in his boat. So I 
said I was 18." 
'wont Statement at 38.39). In fact. there is no evidence that Mr. 
Epstein expected an un erage girl to visit bun prior to his regular travel to Florida. his borne of 
fifteen years. Thus the travel could not ha - • been for the purpose of having illegal sexual 
contact and 0 2423(b) is no snore available as 
predicate kir 0 2255 recovery than is 2422(h). 
nuld 
still have to 
ve that she sulleral I personal injury. Further, unknown to Meat 
the 
lime. Ms. 
-p/esensed herself to be 18 not only to him but also to the public on her web 
page whe L. 
. ed. nude photo clearly looking at least IS yams old. 
Never having reached the threshold violations enumerated under of § 2255. Ms. 
At the December 14 meeting. we also discussed 
concerns surrounding the governments selection of t'vietims." As you are aware. Ms. 
as emblematic 
RFP MIA 000042 
EFTA00209088

12/21/200? 11:56 FAX 
Id 004/008 
• 
• 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
K. Alexander Acosta 
December 21, 2007 
Page 3 
was identified in previous correspondence as' erson who remained on the Govenunenrs list of 
ia 
s 
ct 
"victims" even alter Cat lea. • 
Le -1) ing to Ms.
letter) the list wa subje ed to careful
multi-party review. Ms.. 
sworn statement clearly reflects the fact that she is not' 
- victim. under § 3422(6). She plainly admits that she suffered no injury; the conduct was 
consensual: she lied to Mr.. Epstein about her age: she instructed others to lie about their ages: 
there was no sexual contact between herself and Mr. Lipstein at any lime; and there was never 
any inducement over the telephone, computer or through any other means of interstate commerce 
We ask that you consider the most relevant highlights from her testimony offered below: 
• Consent 
I : I said. I told Jeffrey. I heard you like massages topless. And he's like, yeah, he 
said, but you don't have to do anythir.eu you don't feel combinable with. And I 
said okay. hot I willingly took it Mt 
Sworn Statement at 10) 
• 
Lied About Der Age 
. . . I had' fake II) anyways. saying that I was IR. And she 'ust said make sure 
you're IS because Jeffrey doesn't want any underage girls. 
Sworn Statement 
at 8) 
. . . or course. he thought 1 wars IS. . . 
Sworn Statement at 11) 
• 
Instructed Others to Lie About Their Ages 
I: . 
I would tell my girlfriends just like 
pproached me. Make sum you 
tell him you're IX. Well, these girls that I b 
. know that they were IR or 19 or 
20. And the girls that I didn't know and I don't know if they were lying or not. I 
would say make sure that you tell hint you're I X. ( 
Sworn Statement at 22) 
• 
No Sexual Contact 
0: Ile never pulled you closer to him in' sexual way? 
• I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no. never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. 
Sworn Statement at 21 ) 
• No Inducement 
I : No, I gave Jeffrey my number. And I said. you know any time you want me to 
pave you massage again, I'll more than welcome to. 
Sworn Statement at 8) 
RFP MLA 000043 
EFTA00209089

12/21/2007 11:5C FAX 
IS005/000 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
ft. Alexander Acosta 
December 2I.2007 
Page 4 
I: Every girl that I brought to Jeffrey. they said they were flow with it. And like. for 
instance. Courtney — Courtney Wild.' lot of girls begged me to bring them back. 
The wanted to come back for the money. And as far as I know, we all had fun there. 
Sworn Statement at 45) 
• 
• 
the sworn testimony of 
contains explicit denials from the alleged "victim" 
herself that she suffered any physical. emotional, or personal iriury as re( uircd by the express 
language of § 2255. Further, the sworn testimon of Ms. 
contains 
complete disavowal 
that Mr. Epstein or anyone on his behalf used 
facility of interstate commerce to knowingly 
persuade. coerce, entice, or induce her to enga m in sexual offenses as required by § 2422(b 
Likewise. the transcript provides no basis for 
§ 2423(h) violation in that Mr. Epstein had . 
i 
Lesidenee in Palm Beach for over 10 years at the time of these events. traveled to Palm Beach for 
myriad of legitimate reasons ranging from medical appointments to business appointments 
having nothing to do with' sexual objective, and could not be legally charged with traveling to 
his own home particularly in the absence of any provable nexus 
i 
betwecs e travel and' 
dominant purpose to engage .in illicit sexual conduct. Although Ms. 
inlinmed us 
during the December 14 meeting hat she had I telephone toll record showing an out-of-state call 
to or from Ms. Miller's phone to phone number associated with Mr. Epstein. such' record fails 
to pmve the content of the call. t w identity of the communicators. whether the call discussed or 
resulted in' plan fur Ms. 
to visit Mr. Epstein's residence, whether any inducement 
occurred on the out of state call or. more importantly for purposes of the sex tourism statute 
whether any travel was planned to Florida or resulted foot the phone call. Ms. 
testimony is that she believed that at any time she was called by Mr.. Epstein or anyone on his 
behalf. Mr. Epstein was already in Florida. She also testified to the absence of any sexual 
contact other than topless massages (topless intwaus are lawful in Florida at age 16. unless the 
definition at' ostitution is unnaturally expanded),I complete transcript of the federal interview 
of Ms. 
has previously been provided to you. 
Your wish to put these women in the same position as they would have been had there 
been I federal conviction assumes they are each legitimate victims of at least. one of the two 
specific federal crimes enumerated under §2255. We respectfully have to disagree with that 
assumption, and even your current formulation of § 2255 would prejudice Mr. Epstein in this 
regard. 
Sccond. your proposal also effectively deprives Mr.. Epstein of his opportunity to test the 
validity of these womens' claims claims that would have been extensively tested at trial. In 
light of what we have already learned about 
scinti Tatum MIit 
is inappropriate 
to deny Mr.. Epstein and his counsel the right to test the merits of each of these womens- cases. 
in order to verify that they in fact suffered "personal injury" as required by § 2255 and to assess 
whether they are in last victims of any violations of § 2422(b) or t 2423(b) as also required by 
RFP MIA 000044 
EFTA00209090

12/21/2007 11:57 FAX 
10 006/008 
6) 
• 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 21, 2007 
Page 5
§ 2255. Given your Office's informing us that Ms. 
remained on' reduced list of federal 
"victim s" and given our understanding that Ms. 
as well was one of those who is also 
on the list of persons thg Government contends were vie ims of Mr. Epstein's alleged violation. 
of federal law. we have I principl 
concern about adopting your recommended language which 
would leave Mr. Epstein without 
basis to challenge the good faith premise ol'an application to 
recover SI50.000. 
Third, the Aucement. even if modified in accord with your December 19 letter. would 
poi the witnesses in I better position than if Mr. Epstein had been federally prosecuted rather 
than in an equal position and in fact, encourages the witnesses to snake unfisundcd claims with 
impunity. Had there been I conviction. these women would have been thoroughly cross-
examined. for the veracity of their statements, their credibility and the foundations. il' any. for 
claiming personal istiory. Also. Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or 
Jencks. material in the Ponta of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they 
learned of any financial benefit that may be available to them—evidence that should be 
considered in determining the credibility of their application for I substantial civil recovery. 
Furthermir, Mr. Epstein would be with 
t the means to challenge whether the claimant could 
make out I prima facie ease that she was I victim of a violation by Mr. Epstein of §2422(b) or 
an other federal smue 
denial of his rights that would insulate potential claimants such as Ms. 
' 
and Ms. 
from any challenge on this clement even if under other circumstances'
challenge wool rest t in I summary judgment in Mr. Epstein's favor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. 
Lastly, the modified language recommended by you presupposes that Mr. Epstein would have 
been charged and convicted or substantive violations rather than charged and convicted 
conspiracy allegation. Conspiracy convictions arc not amongst the predicates enumerated by 
§ 2255 and do not. without more, result in the basis leer' determination of "personal injury". 
Since our request to view the draft indictment was rejected on December 14, we have no means 
to know what it contained by way of allegations. 
Fourth, I want to respond to several statements in your letter that we believe require 
immediate correction. With regard to your first &ohmic. I want to he absolutely clear. We do 
not helkve for one moment that you had prior knowledge of the At ISA's attempt to require us to 
hire the friend of her live-in boyfriend. and pay his lees on' contingency basis to sue Mr. 
Epstein. We realize you corrected that irregular situation as soon as you discovered it. We 
thought this was precipitated by our complaint. hut have no real knowledge as to the timing of 
events. Furthermore, your letter also suggests that our objection to your Office's proposed 
victims notification letter was that the women identified as victims of federal crimes should not 
he notified of the state proceedings. Than is ran true, as our previous letter clearly states. Puffins; 
aside our threshold contention that many of those to whom 3771 notification letters arc intended 
are in fact not victims as defined in the Attorney General's 2000 Victim Witness Guidelines—I 
swum requiring physical. emotional or pecuniary injury of the deli ndant—it was and remains our 
position that these women may be notified of such proceedings but since they arc neither 
witnesses nor victims to the state prosecution of this matter. they should not he inlbnned of 
RFP MIA 000045 
EFTA00209091

12/21/2007 11:57 FAX 
e 
007/008 
• 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LIP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 21.2007 
Page 6 
fictitious "rights" or invited to make sworn written or in-court testimonial statements against Mr. 
Epstein at such proceedings. as Ms.. 
repeatedly maintained they had the right to do. 
Additionally, it was and remains our position that any notification should he by mail and that all 
proactive efforts by the FRI to have communications with the witnesses after the execution of the 
Agreement should finally come to an end. 
We agree. however, with your December 19 
modification of the previously drafted federal notification letter and agree that the decision as to 
who can he heard at' state sentencing is. amongst many other issues, properly within the aegis 
ofstate decision making. 
Your December 19 letter references Professor Dershowitz's position on the 
inapplicability of Florida Statute § 796.03. Professor Dershowitz made such arguments in the 
context of saying that he had been unable to discern. after great effort. and supported by years of 
experience, any basis for the application of § 2422(b) or of r federal sex statutes to Mr. 
Epstein's conduct and that the federal statutes required more of stretch to lit the filets than the 
prnposed state statute to which Ms. Villafana wanted Mr. Epstein to plead. 
Professor 
Dershowitz also stated that Ms. 
had represented that it was she who had the facts to 
support, both the threatened federal charges of * 2422 andfor § 2423 and the proposed state 
cha ie of s 796.03 (which the parties understood to be the state charge of soliciting I minor. as 
Ms. 
last letter clearly states). Only last week we learned for the first time that Ms. 
did not realize that the charge was actually for "procuring" not "soliciting-. The 
charge 
pin statute) of procuring I prostitute for I third party for financial gain is one for 
which Ms. 
now states she does not have the facts to support. 
Furthermore. you suggest that we have purposefully delayed the date of Mr.. Epstein's 
plea and sentencing in breach of the Agreement and now seek an "I lilt hour appear in 
Washington. I believe we have already responded to this objection satisfactorily, both in our 
discussion earlier this week and in the email IM to you two days ago in which I specifically 
addressed this issue. Indeed any impediment to the resolution at issue is' direct cause of the 
disagreements between the parties as to' common interpretation of the Agreement. and we have 
at all times made and will continue to make sincere efforts to resolve and finalize issues as 
expeditiously as possible. In fact, since the initiation of negotiations between Mr.. Epstein's 
counsel and your Olliee. we have always proceeded in I timely manner and made several efforts 
to meet with the attorneys in your Office in person when we believed that' face-to-face meeting 
would facilitate, resolution. 
Finally, the suggestion by your staff that you hold Mr. Epstein in breach of the 
Agreement by his failure to plea and he sentenced on October 26. 2007 is directly contradicted 
by Mr.. 
e-mail to me dated October 31 in which he states. "Your understanding from 
Jack fin 
rger conforms to my understanding that Mr.. Epstein's plea and sentence will take 
place on the same day. 1 understand that the plea and sentence will occur on or before the 
January 4th date.-  This has been our common understanding for some 
. which we Ittive now 
RFP MIA 000046 
EFTA00209092

12/21/2007 11:57 FAX 
fa 008/008 
• 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R.AlexanderAtmsta 
December 21. 2007 
Page 7 
reiterated several times. With that said. please be advised that we 
resolution and do not seek to delay the proceedings. 
are working tin' quick 
Thank you again for your time and consideration. We look forward to your rt.:sponse to 
the concerns we have raised that have not yet been addressed. 
I wish you I very happy and' healthy new year. 
cc : 
Sincerely. 
Le1ko, itz 
ssistant Attorney General 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
RFP MIA 000047 
EFTA00209093

12/26/2007 14:45 FAX 
KIRKLANDAELLIS 
IN002/006 
. 
• 
0 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Jai P. LaikaM13. P.C. 
To 
W
nom 
VIA FACSIMILE (305) 530-6444 
I lcmarable R. Alexander Acosta 
I /tilted States Attorney 
United States Attorney's Office 
.outhem District of Florida 
Nll 4th Street 
Miami, FL 33132 
Dear Alex: 
MOD APIZSMID raring 'Wei 
Odorous Conic 
163 East 53rd Suitt 
lira Vora Nava York MO32.41811 
ininsiandsral.com 
December 26, 2007 
Re: Jeffrey Epstein 
I write to address the questions you posed to me during' conversation we had late last 
week. Specifically, you requested' clarification of our position on two issues: (1) our view on 
your latest proposal regarding notification to the alleged victims under 18 U.S.C. § 3771; and (2) 
our response to your proposed language regarding the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 component of the 
deferred-prosecution agreement (the "Agreement"). Before 1 turn to these questions. I would 
like to reiterate that this letter responds to your invitation to discuss proposed modifications to 
the Agreement and should not be construed in any way as' breach of the Agreement. With that 
Slid, I must tell you that the more 1 look into these issues, the more difficulties 1 see in trying to 
tic the resolution of I federal criminal matter with' federal civil matter involving minors, and 
this is even further complicated when the premise of the resolution is' deferred federal 
prosecution conditioned on' plea to specific state offenses with' specific sentence pre-
determined and required to be imposed by the state court, without consideration of the fact that 
the State view of this case differs dramatically from yours. With that in mind, 1 turn to each of 
your questions below. 
First, although we appreciate your willingness to modify your Office's § 3771 notice, 
which is embodied in your latest proposal, we must still object to aspects of your proposal on the 
ground that notice under § 3771 is per se inapplicable to this case under the Attorney General's 
own guidelines, because the alleged victims are not "crime victims" under § 3771. The Attorney 
General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance defines "crime victim" as follows: 
For the purpose of enforcing the rights enumerated in article 1.15' ' victim ix 1 person 
directly and imnsimately harmed as I result of the commission of  Federal offense or an 
offense in the District of_Columbia' (18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)) if the offense is chatted in 
Federal district court. If
victim is under 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or 
• 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
/maim 
Um wises 
Munich 
San Francisco 
WrishirglOn. D.C. 
RFP MIA 000048 
EFTA00209094

12/26/2007 14:45 FAX 
KIRKLANDZELLIS 
qb 003/006 
• 
• 
December 26, 2007 
Page 2 
deceased,' family member or legal guardian of the victim.' representative of the 
victim's estate, or any other person so appointed b the court may exercise the victim's 
rights, but in no cvcnt shall the accused serve as I guardian or representative for this 
purpose. (18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)). 
The Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance, at 9 (emphasis added). 
Here, the women are clearly not "crime victims" under the Attorney General Guidelines 
definition. To be' "crime victim", 
I
 
person or entity must be harmed by an offense that has 
peen charged in Federal district court. See U.S. I. Guevara-Toloso, 2005 WL 1210982 at '12 
(E.D.N.Y. May 23, zoosi (noting that § 3771's reference to "the crime" suggests 'I focus only 
on the crime with which I defendant is gljugggI in the case in which' victim seeks to assert her 
statutory rights.") (emphasis added) Since there has been no offense charged in Federal district 
court in this matter, the identified individuals necessarily do not qualify as "crime victims". In 
addition, the Attorney General Guidelines further defines "crime victim" as '1 person that has 
suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as 
result of the commission of 
I
 
crime. 
(•12 U.S.C. § 10607(eX2))" Id. As you know, we believe we have shown that at least some (if 
not all) of the identified individuals did not suffer any injury at all in connection with Mr. 
Epstein's alleged conduct.' 
In addition, under the Attorney General Guidelines, notification must be balanced against 
I t), action that may impinge on Mr. Epstein's duc process rights. The Attorney General 
Guidelines clearly call into question "the wisdom and practicality of giving notice" to I "possible 
a itness in the ease and the effect that relaying any information may have on the defendant's right 
to I fair trial." The Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance, at 30. The 
Attorney General Guidelines caution federal prosecutors from providing notice to potential 
t; itnesses in instances where such notice could compromise the defendant's due process rights. 
This is particularly true, as here, if the notice includes confidential information, including the 
conditions of I confidential deferred-prosecution agreement or non-prosecution agreement. In 
li.;ht of these concerns, we respectfully request that you reconsider sending notices to the alleged 
victims pursuant to § 3771. 
Our objection to § 3771 notwithstanding, we do not object (as we made clear in our letter 
last week) that some form of notice be given to the alkLed victims. To that end, we request an 
opportunity to review the notification before it is M 
in order to avoid any confusion or 
misunderstandings. We believe, however, that any and all notices with respect to the alleged 
victims of state offenses should be IN by the State Attorney rather than your Office, and we 
I 
Soo for example, our prior submissions regarding Med 
RFP MIA 000049 
EFTA00209095

12/26/2007 14 46 FAX 
KIRKLAND&ELLIS 
It 004/006 
• 
• 
• 
December 26, 2007 
l'age 3 
gree that your Office should defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding all matters 
frith regard to those victims and the state proceedings. 
Second, the more we work to resolve our mutual concerns regarding the § 2255 
component of the Agreement, the more our growing fears are realized that the implementation of 
2255 in this case is inherently flawed and becoming truly unmanageable. In the first instance, 
t 1e implementation of § 2255 in this matter causes manageability concerns because it appears the 
civil component of this case must be stayed until after all phases of I criminal action have been 
resolved. I8 Ll S.C. § 3509(k), which codifies child victims' and child witnesses' rights, seems 
en its face to preclude any interference arisin from' potential or pending civil action on' 
related criminal proceeding in order to protect I defendant's right to due process_ 
the statute 
slates' 
it
If, at any time t at' cause of Ection for recovery of compensation for damage or injury to 
the person of 
child exists, 
criminal action is pending which arises out of the same 
occurrence and in which the child is the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the 
end of all phases of the criminal action and any mention of the civil action dunng the 
criminal proceeding is prohibited. As used in this subsection,' criminal action is pending 
until its final adjudication in the trial court. 
IS U.S.C. § 3509(k). See also, John Doc II 
Francis, 2005 WL 517847, at • 2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 
1), 2005) 'the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) is clear that 
I
 
stay is required in I case such as 
this where I parallel criminal action is pending which arises from the same occurrence involving 
minor victims. See 18 U.S.0 § 3509(k). Inasmuch as Plaintiffs have offered no authority or 
evidence to the contrary, the Court finds that the stay in this case must remain in effect until final 
adjudication of the criminal case by the state court.") 
It appears that any attempt to resolve the civil component of this case (be it through 
structured settlements or civil litigation) may be precluded by § 3509(k) insofar as all phases of 
II c criminal action have not yet been resolved. To allow for' civil cause of action while' 
related criminal action remains pending can unduly bias the witnesses who could be improperly 
irccntivized by I potential monetary recovery. The prevention of such' result is precisely the 
reason that § 3509(k) was enacted Indeed, there can be no such resolution of "all phases of the 
criminal action" here, until Mr. Epstein's state sentence is concluded and all opportunity for the 
initiation of I federal prosecution is foreclosed. 
In addition, we have reiterated in previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe 
he is guilty of the federal charges enumerated under § 2255. For this reason, we believe that 
your proposed language regarding an appropriate § 2255 procedure unfairly asks Mr. Epstein to 
alter that each and every alleged victim identified by the Government is I victim of an 
urnerated federal offense under § 2255 and should, therefore, be placed in the same position 
RFP MIA 000050 
EFTA00209096

12/26/2007 14 46 FAX 
KIRKLANIMELLIS 
Ill 005/006 
December 26, 2007 
Page 4 
the would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted of such an offense. As we discussed last 
week, it is this requirement that makes your § 2255 proposal so problematic. As much as we 
pprcciate your willingness to revisit the § 2255 issues, we cannot accept your language as 
proposed, because we believe that the conduct of Mr_ Epstein with respect to these alleged 
i ictinis fails to satisfy the requisite elements of any of the enumerated offenses, including 18 
U.S.C. § 2422(b) or 18 U.S.C. § 2423(6). in light of the information we have presented to you 
regarding the two alleged victims whom we understand appear on your list, we hope you 
i nderstand why your Ian stage presents us with these concerns. Essentially, you are asking us to 
I cap put these women in position that may not be warranted. 
i 
In short, your proposed language regarding § 2255 states that Mr. Epstein should be 
treated "as if he had been convicted" of an enumerated federal crime. This requires Mr. Epstein 
to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not commit the requisite offense. The United 
States Attorney Manual ("USAM") 9-27.440, Principles of Federal Prosecution, sets forth' clear 
r,:quirement when' defendant tenders' pica of guilty but subsequently denies committing the 
offense to which he has offered to plead. Specifically, 9-27.440 provides, in part: 
In' case in which the defendant tenders' pica of guilty but denies committing the 
offense to which heishe offers to plead guilty, the anomey for the government should 
make an offer of proof of all facts known to the government to support the conclusion 
that the defendant is in fact guilty. See also U.SAM 9-16.015. 
To date, your Office has refused our requests to share such information with us. For the 
parposes of attempting to resolve the * 2255 issue, we once again request that your Office make 
this proof available 
Specifically, your Office has represented that liability exists under 
§ 2422(b) and § 2423(b), as well as the state offense, Florida Statute § 796.03. 
We would 
elcomc this reviously sought information at your earliest convenience to enable us to resolve 
tl is matter in I timely fashion 
Finally, 1 would like to address your request that we provide revised language to your 
Office regarding the appropriate § 2255 procedure. Given the inherent complexities described 
above, we have not been able to find language that comports with the Agreement and your stated 
goals, especially given your insistence that the women be placed in the same position as if Mr. 
E )stem "had been convicted".2 However, if you so choose — and keeping in mind that we 
2 
• 
In addition, we remind you that wholly and apart from the judicial stay that appears to be required under 
3509(k), we believe that the nuaimum damages amount referenced in § 2255 (S150,000) is subject to un cx-
post lido motion, as the statutory minimum was $50,000 at the time of the alleged conduct and the statute is 
being implemented in' deferred-prosecution agreement. 
RIP MIA 000051 
EFTA00209097

12/26/2007 14:47 FAX 
KIRKLANDSELLIS 
46006/006 
. 
• 4 
December 245.2007 
”age 5 
Intend to abide by the Agreement — we would be willing at you earliest convenience to discuss 
possible alternatives. 
Thank you for your time and consideration. We remain available to work with you to 
i esolve these difficult issues in' constructive manner, and we look forward to your response to 
i he concerns we have raised that have not yet been addressed by your Office. 
• 
• 
Sincerely, 
UP. Lefkowitz 
cc: 
Jeffrey H. M, 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
RFP MIA 000052 
EFTA00209098