EFTA00214702

Dec-01-01 
Mike 
Fro,-Fowler-White Burnett 
1061//6201 
T-066 
P 00I/004 
F-076 
LAW OP MKS 
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT 
MIAMI, rLOIU DA 33131.3302 
FAX TRANSMITTAL 
DATE: December 7, 2007 
Name 
Fax Numhcr 
ex 
sta  
FROM: Lilly Ann Sanchez 
FAX NUMBER: 
MATTER NO: 71200 
REMARKS: please see attached. 
NUMBER OF PAGES: 3 
(Excluding trinaminal page) 
TEI.EPHONF. NUMBER: 
Original documents will O will not O follow by mail. 
TIME OF TRANSMITTAL:  
a.m./p.m. TRANSMITTED BY:  
Phan:copy should he token of this IMIWItillift41 if it is to be retained since facsimile paper has limited storage lift 
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF 
THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, 
DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS 
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE (IF LONG DISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 
COLLECT) AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. 
THANK YOU. 
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY CAWNG (308)180-9200, IF THERE IS ANY PROBLEM. 
EFTA00214702

Dec-07-07 
04:5444 
From-Fowler-Whits Burnett 
3057000201 
1-086 
P.002/004 
F-076 
FOWLERWHITE 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
BURNTT 
Aiwa • Fogril•aa • Werrimulaleacm • 07.90TERSCURO 
December 7, 2007 
First Assistant United States Attorney 
United States Auomey's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
(WPM 11.W10 INATA 
1.0.1Mit0T4 noes 
I 395 BilIGICW. AVOW( 
MIMe. 1%.O1,11OA 3313 1 
TC...0•1•214 (3001 7590200 
ratans MOGI 769-9 to 
gontromirtionoari 
ULLY AWN SANCHEZ 
Down Rene No.: (3051 7099279 
Noon Maslow's Mo.. 13011 725-7579 
gavoCterobitlintli-tort 
Re: Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear 
Pursuant to your letter dated December 6, 2007, attached is a signed 
Affirmation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to same dated 
October 30. 2007 (collectively "Agreement" signed by my client Jeffrey E Epstein 
(see attached). 
Moreover, pursuant to the tams of the Agreement, please note that the plea 
and sentencing hearing have been scheduled foe January 4, 2008 at 8:30 am. before 
Judge Sandra McSorley (please see attached notice of hearing). In addition. as 
expressed in my voicemail message to you earlier, I would request that the Office 
hold off on sending any victim notification letters until we can further discuss the 
contents therein. Please call me at your earliest convenience. 
Sincerely, 
cc. Alex A. Acosta 
Judge Kenneth Star 
Lilly Ann Sanchez 
Dal Vt.911O9LBITIM34oroatAll(32nO-13:51) 
FOWLAR Win &SWETT PA. 
EFTA00214703

Doc -B7 -07 
04:55m 
Froe-fowlsr -Whits Burnett 
3057609201 
T-966 
P 003/004 
F-976 
Affirms Oars 
I. Jeffrey B. Epstein do hereby re-affum the Noo-P:o see =on Ayer:lac it acid Ack.letatra to 
tune dined October 30, 2007. 
J7/1) 44-
Du, 
EFTA00214704

Dee-07-0T 
04:Slee 
From-Fowler-White Burnett 
305/11020I 
T-011 
P.004/004 
F-076 
STATE OF FLORIDA 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEEN111 
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH 
COUNTY, FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 
2006CF009454AIOC 
NOTICE OF HEARING 
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hu called up for hewing the following: 
JUDGE: 
Sandra McSorley 
DATE: 
January 4, 2008 
TIME: 
8:30 a.m. 
PLACE: 
Roam 11F. Palm Beath County Courthouse 
MATTER: 
Plea Confizence 
r
Y CERTIFY that a copy of the fore o• 
has been furnished by mall r
sEB
quire. State Attorney's Office, 
West Palm Bear& Flonda 
33401 this 7* day of December. 2007. 
ATIERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
West Palm Batch, Fleri • 33401 
(56 
9-8300 
IA* 
LDBERGER, ESQUIRE 
Fl 
Bar No. 262013 
co: The Honorable Sandra McSorley 
EFTA00214705

12/07/07 FRI 15:31 FAX 1 213 680 8500 
KIRRLAND&ELLIS LLP 
I& 001 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Fax Transmittal 
777 South Figueroa Street 
Los Angeles, California 90017 
Phone. (213) 680-8400 
Fax: (213) 680-8500 
Please notify us Immediately If any pages ars not received. 
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL, MAY 
BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION. AND 
IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE UNAUTHORIZED USE. 
DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. 
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, 
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: 
(213) 680-8400. 
To: 
lion. R. Alexander Acosta 
Company: 
Fax N: 
Direct N: 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
From: 
Date: 
Kenneth W. Starr 
Rpm 
vet os: 
December 7, 2007 
34 
Message 
Fax N: 
Direct SI: 
EFTA00214706

12/07/07 
FRI 15:31 FAX 1 213 680 6500 
KIRKLAND&F.I.LIS 
III' 
00 2 
Kennett W. Starr 
To Cali Wrier Directly; 
(213)6604440 
Mitarmakkalanacorn 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
VIA FACSIMILE (3051530-6444 
Honorable R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
United States Attorney's Office 
Sou
District of orida 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Alex: 
Jun) APIllIA) b '.UM 111/01. 
777 8c
 Naito@ Sant 
Lois Amain CaMornis 00317 
(213) 600.1400 
www.liirklend.00m 
December 7, 2007 
Faceim1le. 
(213) 840-6603 
As we discussed by phone earlier today, we will be providing submissions with respect to 
(i) concerns regarding the implementation of Section 2255, which raises, in our view, serious 
policy issues and (ii) concerns regarding the conduct and background of the investigation. 
We propose to have both submissions to you by no later than 3:00 PM on Monday 
December 10. In the meantime, we are furnishing herewith the independent ethics opinions of 
Judge Herbert J. Stern and Joe D. Whitley regarding the federal investigation of this matter, and 
the Section 2255 component of the Agreement, respectively. Please note that these opinions are 
in the process of being revised and updated. However, we send these opinions to you now to 
meet the tight deadline to which the parties have agreed upon. We will follow up with you by 
phone regarding our submissions before the close of business on Monday. 
As we discussed earlier today, these submissions will not be viewed as a breach of the 
Agreement. We, like you, are eager to achieve finality in this matter. 
QT1  
Kenneth W. Starr 
cc: 
Assistant Attorney General 
Chicago 
First 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Hong Kong 
London 
Munich 
Nov Yost 
San Francesco 
Washington. D.0 
EFTA00214707

12/07/07 FRI 15:31 FAX 1 213 680 8500 
K I RKLANDILEILL IS 
LLP 
Ilt] 003 
ALSTON&B1RD UT 
Privileged and Confidential 
Attorney-Client Work Product 
'Fa 
Jay P. Letkowitz 
FROM: Joe D. Whitley 
DATE: December 5, 2007 
RE: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
have been asked to offer my views regarding the case of Jeffrey Epstein ("Mr. 
Epstein"), who entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("the Agreement") with 
the United State's Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") to 
resolve state and federal criminal investigations relating to his actions involving 
numerous young women. I am writing because the Agreement entered into by Mr. 
Epstein raises a variety of significant legal and policy issues that I believe merit further 
consideration by the Department of Justice ("the Department"). 
Please note that I only recently became involved in this matter. I was provided 
with the following documents by Mr. Epstein's defense counsel: the Agreement and the 
addendum thereto; the USAO's letter of Crime Victims' Rights —Notification of 
Resolution of Epstein Investigation; Jay Lefkowitz's letter to R. Alexander Acosta dated 
October 10, 2007; Jay Lefkowitz's letter to R. Alexander Acosta dated October 23, 2007; 
R. Alexander Acosta's letter to Judge Edward B. Davis dated October 25, 2007; Jay 
l,cfkowitz's letter to 
dated November 8, 2007; Judge Kenneth Starr's 
letter to Alice Fisher dated November 28, 2007; Jay Lefkowitz's letter to R. Alexander 
Acosta dated November 29, 2007; and R. Alexander Acosta's letter to Jay Letkowitz 
dated November 30, 2007. My opinion is based on my background and experience, a 
review of these documents, and independent legal research. 
PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
It is my understanding that Mr. Epstein entered into the Agreement with the 
USAO in order to resolve dual state and federal investigations into his alleged criminal 
conduct. As a condition of the Agreement, and to avoid federal indictment, Mr. Epstein 
was required to waive jurisdiction and liability for any monetary claims brought under 18 
U.S.C. § 2255 by any member of a group of alleged victims who would later be identified 
to Mr. Epstein by the USAO. In addition, Mr. Epstein was required to waive the right to 
contest damages up to the statutory minimum in settling each of those claims. The 
Agreement does not provide for Mr. Epstein to conduct an independent inquiry to 
determine whether any colorable bases for any claims claim exist once he learns the 
identities of the alleged victims. Nor does it provide for any other mechanism for such a 
review. 
Atlanta • Ourimte • Dallas • New York • Research Triangle • Washington. D.C. 
www.•blon.com 
EFTA00214708

12/07/07 
FRI 15:32 FAX 1 213 880 8500 
K IRKLANDRELL I S 
LLP 
Z004 
Jeffrey Epstein 
December 5, 2007 
Page 2 
Privileged & Confidential 
Attorney-Client Work Product 
ANALYSIS 
It has long been recognized that it is both appropriate and desirable for a federal 
prosecutor to require a criminal defendant to make restitution to his victims in order to 
satisfy the conditions of a plea agreement. Indeed. the United States Attorney's Manual 
specifically authorizes federal prosecutors to take restitution into consideration in making 
charging decisions. This case presents the more novel question of whether and in what 
circumstances the government may condition a plea agreement on a defendant's 
willingness to waive the right to contest civil liability for claims by his or her alleged 
victims. To my knowledge, this is a case of first impression because settlement of civil 
claims under 18 U'.S.C. § 2255 has never been required as a condition precedent to the 
satisfaction of a criminal plea agreement prior to the Agreement of Mr. Epstein. 
Use of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in the manner outlined in the Agreement as a proxy for 
traditional criminal restitution in the Agreement raises a number of significant legal and 
policy concerns including: (I) the potential for entanglement of the federal government in 
a private civil suit, including the use of governmental resources and potential for 
improper influence on such a suit; (II) the due process implications of requiring a 
defendant to waive the right to contest jurisdiction, civil liability, and damages in future 
suits by as yet unnamed plaintiffs; and (III) the risk that the promise of uncontested 
damages may compromise victim testimony thereby undermining the legitimacy of the 
federal investigative inquiry. Given the significance of the issues implicated by the 
Agreement in this case, the Department would be well-served to make a high-level policy 
decision about whether and in what circumstances a federal prosecutor could properly 
require a waiver of the right to contest liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and other civil 
statutes as a proxy for traditional victim restitution. 
I. Excessive entanglement 
It is well-settled that the federal government should not ordinarily use its power or 
resources to influence the outcome of private civil litigation. This is so because 
unnecessary entanglement of the government in such cases and the use of federal 
resources could improperly influence such cases and create the appearance of 
impropriety. Thus, any criminal plea agreement that causes the government to have a 
direct impact in the outcome of a private civil suit should be carefully scrutinized by the 
Department to avoid even the specter of such impropriety. The Agreement of Mr. 
Epstein. and similar plea agreements conflating civil liability with more traditional 
criminal restitution, are certainly cases that would warrant such Department-level review. 
This is so for several reasons. 
First, requiring a defendant to waive the right to contest civil liability as a 
condition of satisfying a plea agreement could give the appearance that a federal 
prosecutor was using the threat of the government's criminal enforcement power simply 
to extract private civil settlements from a defendant. Second, in order to ensure that a 
defendant settled the civil suits as required, the government would have to provide 
continuing oversight of the settlement process thus further enmeshing it in a purely 
ADMEN 20164491.2 
EFTA00214709

_ _ 1t/Ir1/.07 FRI 15:33 FAX 1 213 880 8500 
K I RKLAND&ELL I S 
LLP 
litoo5 
Jeffrey Epstein 
December 5, 2007 
Page 3 
Privileged & Confidential 
Attorney-Client Work Product 
private civil suit. Third, depending on the breadth of the waiver of liability demanded, a 
plea agreement of the sort entered into by Mr. Epstein could force a defendant to settle 
otherwise merit-less civil claims in contravention of the government's fundamental 
mandate to promote justice. 
Thus, inherent in a criminal plea agreement conditioned on thc defendant waiving 
the right to contest civil liability for claims brought by alleged victims is the risk of 
excessive government influence in private civil matters. Therefore, the Department of 
Justice should seriously consider whether the use of such conditions in criminal plea 
agreements is appropriate at all, and if so, what restrictions and oversight should be in 
place to prevent undue entanglement. 
II. Due process 
Plea agreements of the sort entered into by Mr. Epstein may also have significant 
due process implications. In legislating and applying the principles of restitution in the 
criminal justice context, Congress and the courts have been concerned with several 
aspects of due process. To wit, they have uniformly required a factual and temporal 
nexus between the victims who arc to be compensated and the crimes charged When 
incorporating these principles of restitution into a deferred or non-prosecution agreement, 
the same care should be taken to ensure a proper nexus exists between the crimes charged 
and the victims to be compensated. This correlation between crime and punishment is 
one of the hallmarks of justice. 
When a plea agreement requires a defendant to waive his or her right to contest 
civil liability for future claims that may be brought by as yet unnamed plaintiffs whose 
bases for suit are unknown to the defendant, careful consideration should be given to 
ensure that proper safeguards arc in place. These due process considerations are even 
more pronounced when, as in this case, the defendant is required to waive the right to 
contest liability for suits filed under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. 
Under IK U.S.C. § 2255, if a defendant is found liable for violation of one of the 
predicate crimes, an injured minor victim is entitled to recover at least the statutorily 
prescribed minimum amount in damages. Thus, a plea agreement that requires a 
defendant to waive thc right to contest liability under this provision could leave a 
criminal defendant open to liability for claims with no factual merit by purported 
plaintiffs who suffered no actual injury. Indeed, the Agreement in Mr. Epstein's case 
requires him to waive the right to contest jurisdiction, liability, and damages as to an 
unnamed group of alleged victims who will only later he identified to Mr. Epstein by the 
USAO. Thus, because Mr. Epstein did not know the identities of the alleged victims 
identified by the government, he had absolutely no opportunity to conduct even a cursory 
ADMINICOM910 
EFTA00214710

12/07/07 FRI 15:33 FAX 1 213 880 8500 
K RKIANDAELLI 
LLP 
RI 006 
Jeffrey Epstein 
December 5, 2007 
Page 4 
Privileged & Confidential 
Attorney-Client Work Product 
inquiry to ensure that an alleged plaintiff has a legitimate claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 
prior to waiving his right to contest liability.' 
Mr. Epstein's case highlights the potential problems inherent in allowing federal 
prosecutors unfettered authority to condition a criminal plea agreement on a waiver of the 
right to contest civil liability. Indeed, given the fundamental prosecutorial mandate to do 
justice, one can query whether the government should ever accept a waiver of the right to 
contest liability from a defendant without providing him or her with sufficient 
information to at least identify the potential claimant and the basis for his or her claim. 
Thus, it is apparent that there is a need for the Department to establish clear and well-
reasoned policies to guide federal prosecutors in determining if and under what 
circumstances civil liability waiver provisions in plea agreements such as the one used in 
the Agreement of Mr. Epstein are appropriate and, if appropriate, what safeguards should 
be employed. 
III.Compromising witness reliability and undermining the federal 
investigative process 
Plea agreements that require the defendant to waive the right to contest civil 
liability for claims of alleged victims also pose a risk of compromising the reliability of 
victims' testimony and undermining the legitimacy of the federal criminal investigative 
process. As already noted, the terms of Mr. Epstein's agreement require him to settle 
civil suits filed under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 by any alleged victim identified by the USAO 
without providing him with any opportunity to determine whether there is even a 
colorable factual basis for the individual's claim. Thus, to the extent that a witness is 
informed of this fact during an investigation, there is a risk that the witness' claims might 
be colored by the prospect of a guaranteed monetary settlement without any adversarial 
vetting process. This heightened risk that a witness might make false or misleading 
claims could thus undermine both the actual and perceived legitimacy of the federal 
investigative process. 
Given the inherent risk involved when a potential victim learns that he or she 
could obtain a substantial monetary settlement, the Department has a significant interest 
in protecting the perceived integrity of federal investigations in cases involving plea 
agreements of the sort entered into by Mr. Epstein. Thus, the Department should 
consider developing processes and procedures to ensure that the investigative process is 
insulated from such risks. Indeed, given that the Agreement in this case is apparently a 
matter of first impression, it seems appropriate fix both Mr. Epstein's counsel and the 
USAO to agree not to contact the alleged victims directly from this point forward and for 
the Department to conduct a thorough, independent inquiry to confirm that any alleged 
In fact, based on the documents I reviewed, it appears that at least one of the alleged victims is now 24 
years-old. This suggests that the victim was either not a minor at the time of the alleged events or that the 
events fall outside of the timeframe of the charged crimes.
ADsO14/20i64443•2 
•
 
EFTA00214711

12/07/07 FRI 15:34 FAX 1 213 680 8500 
K I RKLANINLELLI S LLP 
ch 007 
Jeffrey Epstein 
December 5, 2007 
Page 5 
Privileged & Confidential 
Attorney-Client Work Product 
victims were not improperly influenced, even if unwittingly, during the course of the 
federal investigation of Mr. Epstein. 
CONCLUSION 
There is no doubt that a federal prosecutor can and should consider restitution to 
victims as a factor in determining the appropriate plea agreement in a federal criminal 
case. It is unclear, however, whether and in what circumstances a federal prosecutor can 
properly condition a criminal plea agreement on the requirement that a defendant waive 
the right to contest civil liability and damages for a claim brought by an alleged victim. 
Indeed, it is apparent that conflating restitution with civil liability in this context has 
significant legal and policy implications that have yet to be adequately addressed by the 
Department. 
Given the many potential pitfalls of a plea agreement of the sort entered into by 
Mr. Epstein, even though it was entered into on a voluntary basis, I submit that the 
Department should devote its attention to the development of policies, procedures, and 
appropriate mechanisms for oversight of such plea agreements. Furthermore, given that 
no such review process currently exists, in the interest of justice, Mr. Epstein's case 
should be given appropriate departmental review at this time. 1 do not say this lightly, 
because I believe that such Department oversight should be reserved only for the 
exceptional case. In my view, however, the legal and policy issues implicated here arc so 
significant that such review is warranted. 
ADMP720169493v2 
EFTA00214712

12/07/07 FRI 15:34 FAX 1 213 680 8500 
KiRKLAND&ELLIS LLP 
411008 
STERN & KILCULLEN, LLC 
COUNSELORS AT LAW 
HERBERT J STERN 
KEVIN M KILCULI.EN 
JEFFREY SPEISER 
JOEL M. SILVERSTEIN 
EDWARD S. NATHAN 
PASOUALE J RUFOLO 
JOHN P INGLESINO 
LINDA A ELI-ENRON 
TERRY L YRANTINA 
JOHN P. WYCISKAI A 
ALAIN LEIBMAN 
LISA D. TAYLOR 
MARK W. RUFOLO 
STEVEN D GORELICK 
75 LIVINGSTON AVENUE 
ROSELAND. NEW JERSEY O7O69 
Alan Dershowitz, Esq. 
Harvard Law School 
1563 Massachusetts Avenue 
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 
TEE 973 53640C° 
FAX; 973 536-9684 
December 7.2007 
LING LAU 
MELISSA L. NIGLIO OCLADE 
SHAUN T. HUGHEY 
NATHAN .J STEIN 
MICHAEL GINGER 
BRIAN J. DEBOER 
HOWARD B TAT 
EDUARDO J JIMENEZ 
RICHARD EDWARD HAMILTON 
Of couNKEL 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Mr. Dershowitz: 
You have asked me to review the procedures and methods employed by the 
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida in injecting itself into 
the State of Florida investigation and prosecution of your client, Jeffrey Epstein. 
In short, and as will be set forth at greater length herein, my review indicates that 
the federal authorities inappropriately involved themselves in the investigation by the 
state authorities and employed highly irregular and coercive tactics to override the 
judgment of state law enforcement authorities as to the appropriate disposition of their 
case against your client. What is particularly unusual here is that the allegations against 
Mr. Epstein are the type that are routinely and traditionally investigated and disposed of 
by state authorities and which the United States only rarely, if ever, retains jurisdiction. 
What is even more extraordinary here is the obvious purpose of the federal authorities to 
EFTA00214713

12/07/07 FRI 15:34 FAX 1 213 880 8500 
KIRRLANDSIELLI 
LLI1 
lit 009 
Alan Dershowitz, Esq. 
December 7, 2007 
Page 2 
dictate the outcome of a state proceeding under circumstances of limited, if not actually 
nonexistent federal interest 
My Background 
I have extensive experience in the administration of criminal justice both on the 
state and on the federal level. I was employed as an Assistant District Attorney in New 
York County from February 1962 until October 1965. One of the investigations I was 
responsible for was the death of Malcolm X. From 1965 until 1969 I was employed by 
the United States Department of Justice in Washington as a trial attorney in the organized 
crime and racketeering section of the Criminal Division. I was assigned to investigate 
and to prosecute cases involving wrongdoing in municipal government and in the trade 
union movement. in 1969 I became the Chief Assistant to the United States Attorney for 
the District of New Jersey. From 1970 to 1971, I was the acting United States Attorney 
for the District of New Jersey. From 1971 through 1973, I was the United States 
Attorney for the District of New Jersey. In these positions I personally conducted or 
supervised trials of numerous public officials on both the state and federal level as well as 
a myriad of other federal crimes, and worked closely with law enforcement officials at 
the local and state levels. From 1973 through 1987, I was a United States District Judge 
for the District of New Jersey and presided over many criminal trials and proceedings. In 
1979 1 was selected by the United States Department of State to be the United States 
Judge for Berlin to preside over a trial of individuals who allegedly highjacked an 
airplane from East Germany to West Berlin. Since 1987, 1 have been in the private 
EFTA00214714

12 07'07 
FRI 15135 FAX 
1 213 680 8500 
KIHNIAND&I-11.1.1S 
LIT 
a010 
Alan Dershowitz, Esq. 
December 7, 2007 
Pagc 1 
practice of law and have represented clients in various jurisdictions who have been 
investigated by federal and state authorities. Attached is a copy of my resume. 
Thus, I am very familiar with the operation of the criminal justice system both on 
the federal and state levels, as well as the factors used by federal and state prosecutors in 
charging defendants. 
The Allegations 
Mr. Epstein is alleged to have had improper sexual contact, solely in Florida, with 
womcn who were under the age of 18. Mr. Epstein maintained residences both in New 
York and Florida and would repeatedly fly from New York to Florida where his primary 
residence was located 
He would travel to Florida for purposes of returning to his home. Upon his return 
he would ask his assistants to make various day to day arrangements including social 
visits, exercise appointments, appointments with physicians and the like. On numerous 
occasions telephone calls would be made by his assistants for women to come to his 
home to provide him with massages, for which they were paid. On occasions those calls 
were made after Mr. Epstein and his staff arrived in Florida and at other times massages 
were scheduled after the masseuse called Mr. Epstein's home looking for "work". Mr. 
Epstein preferred that the masseuses be over the age of 18 and many were, in fact, in their 
early to mid twenties. There are allegations that Mr. Epstein routinely masturbated and 
repeatedly sought to touch the masseuses. We are aware the government has alleged 
sexual intercourse and digital penetration in a number of instances 
EFTA00214715

12/07/07 FRI 15:35 FAX I 213 680 8500 
K I RKI.AND&FI.I.I 
LI.P 
rit 011 
Alan Denhowitz, Esq. 
December 7, 2007 
Page 4 
What does not seem to be in dispute is that there are no claims that Mr. Epstein 
transported any minors in interstate commerce, nor did he troll the internet or use the 
interact to identify or lure any minor to engage in any improper conduct. There is no 
credible evidence that Mr. Epstein specifically targeted young children for sexual activity 
of any sort or that he is a sexual predator who preys on children, although it later turned 
out that some of the women were younger than 18. Nor are there any plausible claims 
that Mr. Epstein used force or threats against anyone or that he profited fmancially. 
The matter came under investigation by the State officials in Florida After Mr. 
Epstein learned of the allegations, he fully cooperated with the State authorities. The 
investigation revealed what is stated above - - no violence was ever used, there was no 
targeting of minors, there was no coercion, financial gain etc. - - and, importantly, there 
were serious creditability problems with many of the witnesses, at least one of whom 
refused to comply with a grand jury subpoena to testify. Accordingly, after a 13 month 
investigation, the State offered Mr. Epstein a plea to aggravated assault with a sentence of 
5 years probation, with a 3 year early termination of probation. After being preliminary 
accepted by Mr. Epstein's counsel, the plea was re-evaluated and ultimately rejected 
because of the concerns that sex offender registration could be required. During further 
negotiations, at which time discussions were held regarding the lack of creditability of 
certain key witnesses, the State Attorney decided to present the matter to the grand jury. 
At the grand jury presentation one of the state's key witnesses failed to appear and the 
grand jury returned an indictment of felony solicitation of a prostitute. 
EFTA00214716

12/07/07 FRI 15:36 FAX 1 213 680 8500 
IC I RKIANDRELL IS 
I.I.P 
IZ 012 
Alan Dershowitz, Esq. 
December 7, 2007 
Page 5 
After a disgruntled local police officer complained of the terms of the plea 
agreement between Mr. Epstein and the State of Florida, the United States Attorney's 
office interjected itself in the disposition of this case, conducted an investigation, and 
advised Mr. Epstein that he must consent to a plea with the State of Florida that would 
require. a) at least an 18 month jail sentence, b) that he register as a sex offender, c) that 
he agree, without even knowing their names, that women who claimed they provided him 
with massages - - as many as 40 persons - - be allowed to sue him, d) that he would not 
contest jurisdiction or the facts of those suits, e) that cach woman be entitled to S150,000 
in damages (or an amount agreed to by the parties), f) and that the United States 
Attorney's office select the attorney for the women (a business colleague of the boyfriend 
of the Assistant United States Attorney handling the case was initially chosen)'. Mr. 
Epstein was threatened that upon a failure by him to comply with all of these demands, 
the United States Attorney would bring additional charges against him for violations of 
federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2422(cXEnticement of a Minor to Engage in Sexual 
Activity) and/or 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) (Travel with Intent to Engage in Illegal Sexual 
Conduct) and perhaps money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(3)(3). 
These threats, if implemented, would have exposed Mr. Epstein to a period of 
incarceration of approximately 180 months (15 years) under the Sentencing Guidelines. 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Negotiations with the State Attorney thereafter never resulted in an agreed upon plea because of the 
ongoing federal investigation However, the State has consistently maintained its position that the conduct 
alleged does not warrant sex offender registration or even a jail sentence. 
EFTA00214717

12/07/07 FRI 15:30 FAX 1 213 080 8500 
RIRRLANDAELLI5 LLP 
la1013 
Alan Dershowitr, Esq. 
December 7,2007 
Page 6 
I have reviewed the submissions made on behalf of Mr. Epstein to the United 
States Attorney's office 
— 
in the Southern District of Florida, which concluded that the 
cited federal statutes are inapplicable to the allegations made against Mr. Epstcin and 
therefore, as a matter of substantive federal law, it was inappropriate for the United States 
Attorney's office to threaten such a prosecution. In my professional opinion, these 
conclusions arc correct. I will first address those statutes and explain why I believe the 
conclusions reached in the prior submissions were appropriate. 
18 V.S.C. & 2422(b) (Enticement of a Minor) 
Section 2422(b) provides: 
Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of 
interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special 
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States 
knowingly persuades, induces, entices or coerces any 
individual who has not attained the age of IR years, to 
engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any 
person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts 
to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not 
less than 5 years and not more than 30 years. 
Section 2422(b) was added to the Mann Act ten years ago, as part of the 
Telecommunications Act of I996, in order to combat Internet predators. As the Eleventh 
Circuit has recognized: 
particular sub-section was included in Title V of the 
Telecommunications Act, which is the section titled 
'Obscenity and Violence,' after the Senate Judiciary 
Committee held a hearing regarding child endangerment 
via the intemet. 
EFTA00214718

12/07/07 FRI 15:36 FAX 1 213 680 8500 
KIRKLAND&ELLIS LLP 
ra014 
Alan Dershowitz, Esq. 
December 7, 2007 
Page 7 
See United Sates v. Searcy 418 F.3d 1193, 1197 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 
104.458, at 193 (1996) (Conf. Rep.)). ace ast K. Seto, Note- How S_hould Legislation Deal 
with Children and the Victims aid terpetrators of Cyberstalicina? 9 Cardozo Women's 
L.J. 67 (2002). 
in enacting subsection (b), Congressional concerns were focused on a particular 
and recent phenomenon. Young people were using the intemet in ever-increasing 
numbers, and it was proving to be a dangerous place. According to a DOJ study, one in 
five youths (ages 10 to 17) had received a sexual approach or solicitation over the 
Internet in the previous year. One in 33 had received an "aggressive sexual solicitation," 
in which a predator had asked a young person to meet somewhere, called a young person 
on the phone, and/or sent the young person correspondence, money, or gifts through the 
U.S. Postal Service. See Office for Victims of Crime, U.S. Dept of Justice OVC 
Bulletin, "Internet crinflingt
 Children" (3d png. 2005). 
Unfortunately, computers and the intemet had facilitated sexual predators who 
prey on children. Historically, child predators found their victims in public places where 
children tend to gather, such as schoolyards and playgrounds. But, as Congress 
recognized, with so many children online, the interne provided predators a new place - 
cyberspace - to target children for criminal acts. Use of the Internet, which occurs in 
private, and the secrecy and deception it permits, eliminates many of the risks predators 
face when making contact in person, and presents special law enforcement problems that 
are difficult for any local jurisdiction to tackle. 
EFTA00214719

12/07/07 FRI 15:37 FAX 1 213 680 8500 
K I RKIAND&EI.I. I S 
I.I.P 
015 
Alan Dershowitz, Esq 
December 7, 2007 
Page 8 
The statutory language and reported decisions confirm the statute's important but 
narrow focus. Unlike 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241 et se_q„ § 2422(b) does not establish any federal 
sex crimes with a minor. Section 2422's subject is not sex, sexual activity, or face-to-face 
sexual exploitation of minors. Such behavior remains a matter of state, not federal, 
concern. 
Section 2422(b) defines a crime of communication, not of contact. It makes 
unlawful a narrow category of communication, one not protected by the First 
Amendment because the target is a minor, and the subject is one that enjoys no 
constitutional protection Both the attempt and the substantive crime defined by § 2422 are 
complete at the time that communication with a minor, or purported minor, takes place; 
the essence of the crime occurs before any face to face meeting or any sexual activity with 
a minor has taken place, regardless of whether any meeting or activity ever eventuates. 
In sum, the statute was designed to address, and is therefore limited to situations 
where a person, purposefully and knowingly, targets a minor, and communicates with that 
minor by means of an instrumentality of interstate commerce. 
This conduct almost 
always originates in a chatroom on the Internet or by email - - to use the anonymity and 
opportunities for deception permitted by these media - - to persuade a person he knows or 
believes to be a minor to engage in sexual activity, which would constitute a crime under 
state law, were it to occur. 
The reported cases reveal that is the way federal prosecutors have understood the 
statute. Virtually all of the prosecutions brought under § 2422(b), resulting in published 
EFTA00214720

12/07/07 FRI 15:37 FAX 1 213 880 8500 
K I RKLARDRELL I 
I.I.P 
016 
Alan Dershowitz, Esq.
December 7, 2007 
Page 9 
decisions, have essentially involved a standard fact pattern what an undercover agent 
pretends to be a young teenager on-line, and is directly solicitated. See United States v 
Farner 251 F.3d 510 (5°' Cir. 2001). See also United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227-
28 (11'h Cir. 2002); United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 (10°' Cir. 2005); United 
States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8°  Cir. 2006); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-
20 (9°' Cir. 2004). 
There are approximately two dozen Eleventh Circuit races involving prosecutions 
under § 2422(b). most of which involve this prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United 
States v. Mono, 364 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004), vacated for further consideration in light 
of Booker, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006), opinion reinstated by, 144 Fed. Appx. 804 (2005); 
United  States v. Omega, 363 F.3d 1093 (1Is  Cir. 2004); United States v. Miranda, 348 F.3d 
1322 (11th Cir. 2003). United States v Tillmog, 195 F.3d 640 (1l d' Cir. 1999)• USA 
States v.Panfil 338 F.3d 1299 (11° Cir. 2003); United States v. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 
Ws  Cir. 1999). United States v. Burgess, 175 F.3d 1261 (11°  Cir. 1999). United States v. 
Roias, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (111° Cir. 2005); United States v. Root 296 F. 3d 1222 (11 °
Cir. 2002). 
What all of these cases have in common is that the defendant used the inteinet to 
purposefully communicate directly with a minor or a purported minor (or a person with 
influence over such a minor or purported minor), with the intent to arrange a sexual tryst 
believing that the individual was a minor and with the knowledge that such sexual 
activity was illegal because of the age of the victim. This is precisely the situation the 
EFTA00214721