EFTA00224786

5/obb Sow See issioN 
To ME 1* 
EXHIBIT 8-33 
EFTA00224786

cool 
06/02/08 
1ION 14:58 FAX 305 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of*Florida 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
99 NE 41" STREET 
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132-211 1 
Jeffrey H. Sloman 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
305 961 9299 
Cyndee Campos 
Staff Assistant 
305 961 9461 
305 530-6444 fax 
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 
COVER SHEET 
DATE: 
June 2, 2008 
TO: 
Marie Villafana 
FAX NUMBER: 
(561) 820 8777 
SUBJECT: 
Epstein 
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 9 
Message/Comments: 
This facsimile contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use of the 
Addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this facsimile, or the employee or agent responsible 
for delivering it to the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or coping of this facsimile is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the 
original facsimile to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. 
EFTA00224787

06/02/08 
:skla FAX 305° ,521 6440 
:15/27/2006, 12 19 !TA!! 
, 
• . 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
DO.I/OOAC 
ra 002 
1g1 0034013 
*I 'me • too.> 
liZenttrth SA'. Starr 
Kirkland & E1Iie i.1.1' 
soca: Flit:gene, It twi 
ttttt 
triV17.:IC:cr 
:!1-6:44.1•Stb.% 
“ I'•rDerplfil : 
ray :1; 6%0 SSL's 
Lmarrnlarldaihkt sue 
VIA F&CSIMILI:: (2021 514-(14(10
I lonor.tole Mark Filip 
H 40: 01 the Udtul y Attorney General 
t inilcrt Sties l)epartntent or) ma ice 
ti50 PelifegyiVania Avenue. N.W. 
1(153t/ 
May 27, 2008 
Jne 
A Winn C.:. Bird 
Thr 
net) l .9:ett . NW 
; 
.%)..•14 •:04 
ii.. —......7•7;11.11.V.• 
::?Z•hi.i.irti 
rw %Otis lin.viFtl .I.ol :seise 
CO.N7•7OAN77.4/. 
Vear wipe Fi ip: 
This letter briefly supplements our prior submission to you dated May I'7.20(18. In Mat 
communication. we urgently requested that your °like conduct an independent review of the 
proposed federal proceeution or our Okla Jefficy fipsiein. The dual reallons fur our request that 
you review this mailer are 0; Ow bedrock need fur inlewity in the enlcireement of Raba al 
criminal laws. and lift tlw profinind questions raised by the unpreetalenh,d k:•:lcusinn ier (*edema 
by the t :idled States Attortwy*> Orrice in Minmi (the "t ISAO- i to a premment 
figure 
Min liks ehme ties le Winner President annum 
The need for review is III all the more exigent. On Monday. May It 200K. first 
Assistant Jefliey Shogun of the litiAO responded tn an email from Jay l.ellow.im inuirming1 I.S 
Attorney Alex AtoNla (11.3t 
would be. Seekirc your oirme sS revicil 
air. SIOnleicS 
which imposed a deadline or June 2. 2008 to ;timid), with all the termh of the cur; cot Non. 
Prosecution Agreement (the 'Agreement.). plus new unilateral modifications, on pain of heing 
deemed in breach of that Agreement. uppear:4 to have been deli herately designed to deprive tut or 
an adequine opportunity RP Neck your Offices review in this mot ter. 
The USW!: desire to 'brut:lose a complete revieu is understandablc. given that the 
Child i'vpinitation and Obscenity Section ("Cl S") has already determined that our Substantive 
arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. 
149nein is not unrranied were 
- compelling.-  I Inwever. in contradiction to Mr. Sloinairs acsenion that CLOS had provided an 
independent. dr ;uwn review. CFOS made clear that it did not tin so. indeed. rlift5t declined u. 
examine several of the more troubling aspects of the hwestigation or Mr. ...I:psi...In. indutlinr the 
deliberate balk in the 
rod Times of numerous highly confidential aspects or the 
investigation anti riettraialitms between the parties as well us the icon crop of coil lawsuits 
filed againit Mr. Epstein by Mr. Sloman's roam: law partner. 
The untweesgary and arbitrarily imposed deadline set by the I /SAC) ustaz done without any 
respeo tor (he normal 
'  and sehedurny or shoe judicial matters. II require:. that 
Mr. filutitin . b counsel persuade the Sute Attorney nt Palm beach to issue a criminal inthrmation 
EFTA00224788

06/02/08 MON 14:59 FAX 305 530 6440 
. 
04./2.:12006 1? IS fAX 
uuJIWA
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
U 
0003 
ktitiovot.3 
tel1:3“».04 
linnet:Mk: Mark 
»lin 27.200a 
Page 2 
to a chage that the State Attorney hus not. despite a (v.o year invest's: [[ 44 
da
. .3 I »Wed 
Ill be 
approprimu. Mr. Hp:titbits counsel must also successfully espedite a plea of guilty to this charge 
on a date prior to July S. 200X. which is the date presently set hy the sink coon Judge. 
Further, tbc unnecessary deadline is even more problematic beeausc Mr. Ipsteiifs etton 
tu reconcile the state charge turd sCIlIC/ICC with the terms or the Agreement requites an unusual 
and unprecedented threatened application of federal law. Thus. it places Mr Epstein In dn• 
untested oosith in of having to demand that the $talc acquiesce to a own; >net.: 
pnnisltntenl Iltan it had already determined g•as appropriate. 
We have attempted to resolve these and other issues through the h:SA<1 and CF.ON, 
um:twilit, raising our uomurn.4 about the tismrs inappropriate condttet with rotpool to Orb 
manes. run those avenues have now been shut donna. Mr. Shuman's letter purports to prohibit 
any further cantata between Mr. lipskirrk defense learn and U.S. Attorney Acosta. and instead 
requires us to communicate with the IJSAO only though Mr. Sloman's subordinatcx. 
While it pains us to say this, this misguided proscouion lion, the ukase! gives (he 
appearance that il may have been politically motivantd Mr. Epoch] is a biOly suceessaul. self• 
made iNnsineSsnian and philanthmpist who entered the public arena only 1» % irrur Oi lic elow 
personal association with former President Bill Clintutt. There is link doubt 
oar minds that 
the 1!S:10 nevi!' would have contemplated a prosecution in this case it Mr. Epstein teer: just 
anodler 
U.S. Attorney Acosta previously has slued that Ile is -Sympathetic:" 1(1 our rederalisio. 
Mated contents. but be has taken the position that his authority is finilied bt ciffinvensem 
policieS Set pooh in Washington. D.C. As expressed in our prior enmenunication to you, We 
believe that a complete and independent appraisal and resolution of this case most approprisicly 
would he undertaken by your Office 
beginning with the rescission nr the arhiirary. unrair• and 
unprinedemed deadline that Mr, Slaman demands to have imposed in this ease. At the very 
kW would appreciate a tolling, of the arhitrac timeline imposed on our client by the I:SAO 
ill (II(IVE U. allow dint: for your office to consider out lUtilleql that yin: ontlerudo: a re'. ten Of this 
ease. 
'not:A yeti ter your time and attention. 
It zspcei fully submitted. 
r 
Kenneth I. Starr 
Kirldielal 4K: KIHS 
C), 
-7 ,471.442, „.".• 
(...,0 4il) Whitley 
er.1 
Alston 
Bird IL 
EFTA00224789

06/02/08 MON 14:59 FAX 305 530 8440 
on/46/2uoa 69:06 FAX 2026161239 
05 10 hn 
330N I3:21 VAS 1 233 08(1 hhoo 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
D0VODAG 
KTRKLANIAELLIS Lit 
g1004 
56605/013 
twit), 
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 are not recolved. 
5117 Cuej 
e:s• 
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN Tills COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL. MAY 
SE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION. AND 
IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE UNAUTHORIZEO 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. 
ro: 
Company: 
Fax II: 
Direct It: 
Office of the Deputy Attorney General 
Honorable Mark Filip 
(202) 514-0467 
(202) 514-2101 
United States Department ofJustiet 
From: 
Date: 
Pages 'stover: 
Fax U: 
Direct ft: 
Kenneth W. Starr 
May 19, 2008 
9 
(313) 680.8500 
(213) 680-8440 
Message. 
EFTA00224790

na /08 
MON 14.; 59 FAX 305 530 644 0
agave utnui 
tit& 
Z UZ6 id I.:439 
OA. III •Ile 
AON 13:22 FAX 
I 213 680 8500 
• 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
DOJiODAU 
KI RKI,AN0019.1 3  S 
lit' 
005 
lm 006n013 
IQI II U 
Kenneth W. Starr 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
777 South Figueroa Street 
Los Angeles: CA _90017-5800 
Phone: ats-rglo-844o 
Pax: 213-680-8300 
listarro,kirkland.com 
VIA FACSDALInallik&LU 
honorable Murk Filip 
Office of the Deputy Attorney General 
United States Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue; N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
May 19, 2008 
Joe D. Whitley 
. -4Jstora & Bird LI.P 
The Atlantic Building 
95o P Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20004-1404 
Ph: 2o2-7 6-3189 
Fax: 202-654.4889 
4'aiston.com
CONFIDENTIAL 
Dear Judge Flap: 
In his confirmation hearings .last WI, Judge Mukascy admirably lifted up the finest 
traditions of the Department of Justice in assuring the United States Senate, and the American 
people, of his solemn intent to unsure 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 aad integrity, especially in the enforcement of federal criminal law. 
We come to you in that spirit and respectfully ask for a review of the federal involvement 
in a quintessentially state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein:  While we arc well aware 
of the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we arc confident that the 
circumstances at issue warrant 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 ease 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 * review of this case. By its own 
admission, the C13OS 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 prosecutorr—even though such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably 
intenwined 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 terms. We detail this point below. 
EFTA00224791

06/02/08 NON 15:00 FAX 305 530 6440 
yleiblOsiWWW 
WA. W4 CAA 
,na. ts.pts MO' 13:22 PAX 1 213 G80 8500 
• 
• 
• 
DuJEXECUTIVE OFFICE 
itioAc 
x I 8NLAND&EIJ .1s 1.1.P 
la 006 
143007/0t3 
to Cilia 
Honorable Mark Rip 
May 19, 2008 
Page 2 
By 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 IJSAO's suggested "novel application" 
of federal law in this mutter. Even so. CF.OS concluded. in minimalist fashion. that "we do nor 
see anything that says to us categorically that a federal cafe should not be brought" and that the 
U.S. Anoint) "would nor be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize fedentl 
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 
he appropriate, CUOS, using a low.baschne for its evaluation, determined only that "it would not 
be impossible to prove . . ." certain allegations made against Mr. Epstein. The CEC)S review 
failed to address the significant problems involving the appearance of impermissible 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 
precluded by Criminal Division practice. We further respect CF.OS'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 novo 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 investigation against 
Mr. Epstein, we summarize the facts and circumstances of this matter below. 
The two base-level concerns we hold are that (t) 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. 
4 
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 
EFTA00224792

06/02/08 
MON 15:00 FAX 305 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
05/24/200a 09:08 PAX 
20.26161239 
DOJ/ODAC 
(Fog 
pm( 13:23 FM 1 213 080 8600 
,
 
•
 
,
 
Icilth LAMEU1S IJ.I' 
0 007 
42006/013 
Gaoll4 
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 
Times 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 firm 
in Miami. 
The facts in this case all revolve around the classic state crime of solicitation of 
prostitution :I 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. 
Thai 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 oniy reason 
the State has not 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 
harsher charge and a inure 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 arc appropriate, the USAO has not made any attempt to 
coordinate its efforts with the State. In fact, the USAO 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 for 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, atter 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(h). 
One of the other members of Mr. Epstein's defense team, lay Leficowitz, has personally reviewed the reporter's 
contemporaneous notes. 
Although some of the women alleged to be involved were 16 and 17 years of age, several or Mese women 
openly admitted to lying to Mr. Epstein about their age in their recent sworn statements. 
EFTA00224793

06/02/08 
YON 15:01 FAX 305 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
05/28/2008 00:09 FAX 2029161239 
DOJ/ODAG 
1'1O 
ph. MOM 13:::3 rAs 1 213 SRO 8500 
KIRKLANT&FLLis 1.1.1`
l
o
o
s
e
J
 
0
0
9
/
0
1
3
 
10005 
Honorable Mark Fi lip 
May 19, 2003 
Page 4 
These statutes arc intended to target crimes of a truly national and international scope. 
Specifically, § 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 IR 
U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b), and 2423(b), we found that not a single case 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. Punhormore, the Government's contention that "routine and habit" can fill the factual 
and legal void crested by the lack of evidence that such a communication ever occurred sets this 
case apart from every reported case brought under § 2422(b). Lastly, there arc no reported cases 
of violations of § 2423(b) of a person whose dominant purpose in traveling was merely to go to 
his own home? 
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. 
Attomes Acosta "would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal 
prosecution- iu this case. The "abuse of discretion" standard constitutes an extremely low bar of 
evaluation and while it may be appropriate when the consideration of issues are 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 hls home that amounted to, at most, the 
solicitation or prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a state concern. cone United 
Sal. Evan; 476 F.3d I I 76, e.1 (11th Cir. 2007)(1-Waal law "does not aimlnalize all acts ot prostitution (a 
vice traditionally governed by state regulation)")). and there is nu evidence tbat Palm Beach County authorities 
and Florida prosecutors cannot cobetively prosecute and punish the conduct, there is no reason why this matter 
should he extracted front the bands ofstate prosecutors in Florida. 
EFTA00224794

06/02/08 IION 1501 FAX 305 530 6440 
os/28/20os uv:08 FAX 
2u26161239 
.11.: IU as 
MOV I 3 : 
FAX I 213 680 8500 
DOJ/ODAC 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
AK LANDAELLI 5 
I LP 
1009 
0010/0) 
;a000 
Honorable Mark Filip 
May 19.2008 
Page'S. 
in fact, recent testimony of several alleged "victims' contradicts claims made by federal 
prosecutors during the negotiations of a detbrred prosecution agreement. 
The consistent 
representations of key Government witnesses (such as Tatum Miller. Brittany Beale, Saige 
Gonzalez, and Jennifer Laduke) confirm the following critical points: rips!, there was no 
communication, telephonic or othcnvisc, that meets the requirements of § 2422(b). For instance. 
Ms. Gonzalez confirmed that Mr. Epstein never entailed, text-messaged, or used any facility of 
interstate commerce whatsoever. before or after her one (and. only) visit to his home. Gonzalez 
Tr. (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 shout their 
ages as well. Ms. Miller stated the following: "I would tell my girlfriends just like Carolyn 
approached me. Make sure you tall hiin you're IR. 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, I would say make sure that you tell him you're 18." Miller Tr. at 22. Third, there was no 
routine or habit of improper communication expressing an intent to transfonn a massage into an 
illegal sexual act. In fact, there was often no sexual activity et all during the massage. Ms. 
Miller testified that "Is]ometimes (Mr. Epstein] just wanted his feet massaged. Sometimes he 
just warned a back massage." Miller Tr. at 19. Jennifer Laduke also stated that Mr. Epstein 
"never touched Liter] physically" and that all she did was "massage( ) his back, his chest and his 
thighs and that was it." Laduke Tr. at 12-13. Finally, there was no force, coercion, fraud, 
violence, drugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with these 
women, Ms. Beale stated that "[Mr. Epstein] never tried to force me to do anything." Beale 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 is 
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 
llerrnan, 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. • 
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 arty reasonable interpretation of the scope of a.prosecutor's responsibilities. 'the list of 
improprieties includes, but.is not limited to, the following facts: 
EFTA00224795

06/02/08 
EON 15:02 FAX 305 530 6440 
05/28/2008 00:10 FAX 
2o26i61239 
• 1.C.,.icr. us, MON 11: 
FAX 1 211 nen MO 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
b0.1,0DAG 
KIRKI.ANOTini.1.15
al)10 
QP111/011 
kin07 
Honorable Mark Filip 
May 19, 2008 
Page 6 
• 
Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Mr. Epstein pay 
minimum of $150,000 per person to an unnamed list of women they referred to ss 
minors and whom they insisted required representation by a guardian ad Mem. Mr. 
Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these indiitiduals were actually 
adults, not minors. Even then, though demanding payment to the women, the 
USA() eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of tiny 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 fees. 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 oisit boyfriend. 
• Federal prosecutors represented to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they had identified 
(and later rechecked and re-identificd) several alleged "victims" of federal crimes 
that quilified for paymc,nt under IS U.S.C. § 2255, a civil remedy designed to 
provide financial benefits TO victims. Dilly 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 not, now or in the past, 
consider themselves to•be victims. 
• 
During the last few months, Mr. Herman, First Assistant Slornan's former kw 
partner, has tiled several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged 
"victims." It is our understanding that each of Mr. Herman's clients arc on the 
EFTA00224796

08/02/08 
MON 18:02 FAX 305 530 8440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
.02. 10.0N MON 13:25 FAX 1 213 6811 S500 
KIRKLANDEELLIS LLP 
• 
• 
14011 
46012/O3 
Fans 
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 David Weinstein spoke about the case in great detail to 
Landon Thomas, a reporter with the New York Times, and revealed confidential 
inforination about the Government's allegations against Mr. Epstein. The Assistant 
U.S. Attorney also revealed the substance of confidential plea negotiations. 
• 
When counsel for Mr. Epstein complained about the media leeks, First Assistant 
Shaman responded by asserting that "Mr. Thomas was given, pursuant w his 
request, non-cast specific information concerning specific federal statutes." Based 
on Mr. Thomas' contemporaneous notes. that assertion appears to be false. For 
example, Mr. Weinstein 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 Mr. Thames the 
USAO's theory of prosecution against Mr. Epstein. replete with an analysis of the 
key statutes being considered. 
Furthermore, after Mr. Epstein's defense ream 
complained about the leak to the CSAO, Mr. Weinstein, in Mr. Thomas' own 
description, then admonished him for talking to the defense, and gettine hint in 
trouble. Mr. Weinstein further told him not to believe the "spin" of Mr. Epstein's 
"high-priced attorneys," and then, according to Mr. Thomas. Mr. Weinstein 
forcefully "reminded" Mr. Thomas • that all prior conversations were meter) 
hypothetical. 
We are constrained to conclude that the actions of {Mere) 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, at a minimum, raise the appearance of serious 
impropriety. 
We were told by U.S. Attorney Acosta that as part 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, CEOS.% 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 
sl 
As recently as two months ago. Mr. Sicilian was still limit publicly aril pan of his format law fine. While we 
assume this was an oversight, Mr. Stoman'S ideatifieatIon as part of the flan mists the appearance of 
impropriety. 
EFTA00224797

08/02/08 
MON...15:03. FAX 305 530 8440 
-US 
N US 
MIN 13:26 FAN I 213 52LI 8500 
• 
' 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
UUJ,UDAG 
X RK 
Nll&lf.I.L I S 
I_LI' 
la012 
0013/013 
21008 
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 mein 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•tho appearance of selectivity that are generated by the unprecedented 
attempts to broaden the ambit of federal statutes to places that they have never before readied. 
We sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter. 
Respectfully submitted, 
Kenneth W. Starr 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
Joe D. Whitley 
Alston & Bird LLP 
EFTA00224798