EFTA00225102

The issue of the inclusion of a restitution-type remedy for the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 2255 was specifically raised and discussed at the September t meeting, and MT. Starr thanked 
AUSA Villafafta for bringing it to his attention as a novel approach to allowing the victims to receive 
essentially federal restitution while allowing a plea to a state charge. After considering everything 
said and written by Epstein's legal team, and after conferring with Chief Oosterbahn, U.S. Attorney 
Acosta informed Epstein's counsel that the SDFL still intended to proceed to indictment. Since 
counsel indicated a desire to appeal the matter to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, 
or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Acosta agreed to delay 
the presentation of the indictment for two weeks to allow them to speak with someone in 
Washington, E., if they so chose. 
Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiate the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and on September 
12, 2007, counsel for the SDFL (AUSAs Lourie, Garcia, and Villafafia) and counsel for Epstein 
(Messrs. Lefcourt, Lefkowitz, and Goldberger) met with Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry 
Krisher and Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek to discuss a plea to an Information in the 
state court that would satisfy the federal interest in the case. As noted on the term sheet of July 31" 
(Tab A), one of those essential terms was a guilty plea to a charge requiring sex offender registration. 
During that meeting, the issue of sex offender registration was raised, and Mr. Goldberger told the 
federal prosecutors that there was no problem, Mr. Epstein would plead guilty to the charge of 
procurement of minors for prostitution (Fl. Stat 796.03), which was one of the statutes listed on the 
original term sheet. Although the SDFL had wanted Epstein to plead guilty to three different 
offenses, we agreed to this compromise' Of course, the SDFL later learned that, at the time Mr. 
Goldberger made that statement, he incorrectly believed, based upon a statement from ASA 
Belohlavek, that Fl. Stat. § 796.03 did not require sex offender registration. 
The parties then began working first on a plea agreement to a federal charge and, when it was 
clear that there was no guarantee that Epstein would serve his sentence in a minimum security prison 
camp, the discussion turned to a Non-Prosecution Agreement. Both the federal plea agreement and 
the Non-Prosecution Agreement included references to § 2255 because neither the contemplated 
federal charges nor the proposed state charges encompassed all of the identified victims. If Epstein 
had been prosecuted under the planned indictment, the identified victims would have been eligible 
for restitution and damages under § 2255. As explained above, one of our interests, which had to 
be satisfied by the Non-Prosecution Agreement, was providing appropriate compensation to the 
victims. This provision of the Agreement was heavily negotiated. As Mr. Lefkowitz wrote in his 
November 29" e-mail to FAUSA Sloman, Epstein "offered to provide a restitution fund for the 
alleged victims in this matter; however, that option was rejected by [our] Office." That option was 
rejected for several reasons. First, the SDFL does not serve as legal representatives to the victims and 
has no authority to bind victims, nor could it provide a monetary figure that would represent a "loss" 
amount for restitution purposes. Second, there would be no legal basis for federal restitution without 
7 Another significant compromise reached at the meeting was a reduction in the amount of jail 
time - from 24 months down to 18 months, which would be served at the Palm Beach County Jail rather 
than a state prison facility. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-5-
EFTA00225182

4* I 
a conviction for a federal offense. And, third, it was the U.S. Attorney's belief that the SDFL should 
not be put in the position of administering a restitution fund. Our § 2255 proposal put the victims 
in the same position that they would have been in if we had proceeded to trial and convicted Epstein 
of his crimes, with the exception that the victims were provided with counsel. The appointment of 
counsel was not such a benefit to the victims but, rather, was done, in part, to benefit Epstein by 
allowing him to try to privately negotiate a group resolution of all claims with one attorney. Epstein 
and his lawyers agreed with this alternative. 
The negotiation of the Agreement was lengthy and difficult. Mr. Lefkowitz and AUSA 
Villafafia went through several drafts of both a federal plea agreement and a Non-Prosecution 
Agreement. Throughout these negotiations, when a member of the defense team was dissatisfied 
with the SDFL's position, it was repeatedly appealed throughout the Office. So several members of 
the defense team spoke with the chain of command regarding the terms of the Agreement, including 
the § 2255 provisions. At the eleventh hour, when Epstein's legal team realized that Fl. Stat 796.03 
would require him to register as a sex offender, they sought to change the most essential term of the 
agreement - a term that Messrs. Goldberger, Lefkowitz, and Lefcourt had specifically agreed to at 
the September 12th meeting with the State Attorney's Office - asking to allow Epstein to plead to a 
charge that would not require registration. When this was rejected, several members of the defense 
team appealed directly to U.S. Attorney Acosta which also failed. When that failed, according to 
press reports, apparently Mr. Lefcourt "leaked" a letter intended for the U.S. Attorney to the press 
containing the reasons why he/Lefcourt did not believe Epstein should have to register. See October 
9, 2007 New York Post article attached at Tab C. 
Prior to signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein's defense team included Ken 
Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Guy Lewis, 
Martin Weinberg, Jack Goldberger, Stephanie Thacker", and the associates at Kirkland & Ellis who 
conducted research on discrete issues. This impressive legal team reviewed the Agreement and 
counseled Epstein. Based upon that counsel, Epstein decided that it was in his best interest to execute 
the Non-Prosecution Agreement which was signed on September 24 2007 by Mr. Lefcourt, Ms. 
Sanchez and Epstein. A copy of which is attached hereto as Tab g The core principles of the 
Agreement are incarceration, registration as a sex offender and a method of compensation? 
Furthermore, and significantly, Epstein agreed that he had the burden of ensuring compliance of the 
'Ms. Thacker had recently resigned from CEOS as a Trial Attorney and entered private practice. 
9 Specifically, the Agreement mandates, inter alia, (1) a guilty plea in Palm Beach County 
Circuit Court to solicitation of prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.07) and procurement of minors to engage in 
prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.03) (an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender); (2) a 30-
month sentence including 18 months' incarceration in county jail; (3) a methodology to compensate the 
victims identified by the United States utilizing 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 such that they would be placed in 
the same position as if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in Title 
18, United States Code, § 2255; (4) entry of the guilty plea and sentence no later than October 26, 2007; 
and (5) the start of the above-mentioned sentence no later than January 4, 2008. 
Confidential and Privileged —Attorney Work Product 
-6-
EFTA00225183

Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office and the Judge of the 15' Judicial 
Circuit and "that the failure toclo so will be a breach of the agreement" (emphasis added). To this 
day, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to Epstein's lawyers. 
Within a week of the execution of the Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest 
its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's 
recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers 
in private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved," 
it was done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection of the attorney representative. 
As a result, the parties executed an addendum which documented the SDFL's right to assign the 
selection of an attorney representative to an independent third-party. A copy of the October 29,2007 
Addendum is attached hereto as Tab E. The parties subsequently agreed that retired Federal District 
Court Jude Edward B. 
should be that independent third-party/special master. Ultimately, 
Judge 
selected Ro rt . Josefsberg of the law finn of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, et a l°
During is same time frame, Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz sought to delay the entry of his guilty 
plea and sentence. After the SDFL accommodated his request (from October 26" to November 20th), 
Mr. Starr began taking issue with the methodology of compensation, notification to the victims, and 
the issues that had been previously considered and rejected during negotiations, i.e., that the conduct 
does not require registration and the contemplated state and federal statutes have no applicability to 
the instant matter. 
In response to Mr. Starr's protests, the SDFL offered numerous and various reasonable 
modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in U.S. Attorney Acosta's December 
19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez. See attached Tab F. In that letter, U.S. Attorney Acosta tried 
to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone 
consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language 
regarding the 2255 provision: 
"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense 
enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, § 2255, will have the same rights to 
proceed under § 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and 
convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, 
the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals 
whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense 
by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any 
authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall 
consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same 
position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; 
no less." 
10 Duc to the subsequent objections raised by Epstein's counsel, Mr. Josofsberg was never given 
the opportunity to become the attorney representative. 
Confidential and Privileged Attorney Work Product 
-7-
EFTA00225184

Mr. Starr also objected to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker 
who advised him to make the following proposal: "[wie will defer to the discretion of the State 
Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, 
although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes." These proposals 
were immediately rejected by Epstein in Mr. Letkowitz's December 26, 2007 correspondence to 
USA Acosta. 
At our December 14, 2007 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, counsel for 
Epstein articulated that it was a "profound injustice" to require Epstein to register as a sex offender 
and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. § 2422(6), had been committed since the 
statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading 
or inducing. This particular attack on this statute had been previously raised and thoroughly 
considered and rejected by the SDFL and CEOS prior to the execution of the Agreement. Epstein's 
lawyers also argued that the facts were inapplicable to the contemplated state statutes and that he 
should not have been allowed to have been induced into the Agreement because the facts were not 
what he understood them to be. To reiterate, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to anyone on 
the Epstein legal team. Once counsel for Epstein failed to persuade us that federal involvement was 
inappropriate, they mounted an aggressive campaign to defer federal prosecution. When we refused 
to compromise on anything except the length of incarceration, they finally executed the Non-
Prosecution Agreement. 
Subsequent to the December 14, 2007 meeting, the SDFL received three letters from Mr. 
Lefkowitz and/or Mr. Starr which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 14th
meeting. Essentially, trying to portray the SDFL as trying to coerce a plea to unknown allegations 
and incoherent theories. In his December 17, 2007 correspondence, Mr. Lefkowitz decreed that 
Epstein's conduct did not meet the requirements of one of the state statutes Epstein agreed to plead 
guilty to - procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.03); that Epstein's 
conduct does not require registration under Florida law in contravention of the September 241h
Agreement; and the State Attorney's Office does not believe the conduct is registrable. On December 
21, 2007, Mr. Lefkowitz rejected the U.S. Attorney's proposed resolution of the 2255 provision 
because they "strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these 
individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 U.S.C. Section[s] 2422(b) ... or ... 
2423(b)." In his December 26, 2007 correspondence, he stated that "we have reiterated in previous 
submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is guilty of the federal charges enumerated under 
section 2255" and requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not 
commit the requisite offense." 
The SDFL reiterated time and time again that it had never wanted nor expected Epstein to 
plead guilty to a charge he did not believe he committed and repeatedly offered to dissolve the 
agreement to allow Epstein to contest the charges in the court system. As a result, the SDFL obliged 
his request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such a review at 
the highest levels of the Department of Justice. As you know, on May 15, 2008, after months of 
considering the matter, the Criminal Division considered whether there is a legitimate basis for the 
Confidential and Privileged —Attorney Work Product 
-8-
EFTA00225185

SDFI. to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn 
concluded that "federal prosecution would not be improper or inappropriate." See attached May 15, 
2008 letter from CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn to Jay Lefkowitz. On May 19, 2008, I notified Mr. 
Letkowitz that the SDFL would give Epstein a full two weeks (close of business on Monday, June 
2, 2008) to comply with the terms and conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, as modified 
by the USA's December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez." Therefore, despite the fact that the investigation 
has identified several more victims, the SDFL is still offering Epstein the opportunity to comply with 
the terms and conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 
The SDFL was recently notified that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General has agreed 
to consider additional allegations not considered by CEOS which were recently raised in 
correspondence by two former high-ranking members of the Department of Justice - Ken Stan. and 
Joe Whitley. On May 28,2008,1 notified Mr. Lefkowitz by e-mail that the SDFL has postponed the 
June 2, 2008 deadline until the DAG's Office has completed its review of this matter. Their 
correspondence to the DAG alleges that the SDFL's investigation lacks integrity because it has 
leaked "highly confidential aspects" of the investigation and negotiations to the New York Times 
and that FAUSA Sloman directed some of the victims to my former law firm. They also claim that 
the "unprecedented extension of federal law" by the SDFL suggests that this is politically motivated 
because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr 
and Whitley go on to claim that FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed 
a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from seeking your Office's review and that "the 
unnecessary deadline is even more problematic because Mr. Epstein's effort to reconcile the state 
charge and sentence with the terms of the Agreement requires an unusual and unprecedented 
threatened application of federal law." 
1. 
The Alleged "Leak" to the New York Times. 
AUSA David Weinstein became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the 
District's Public Information Officer (PIO). While the District's PIO was on annual leave, he was 
the acting PIO during the first week of January 2008. The entirety of his conduct in connection with 
the Epstein matter began on January 2, 2008 and ended on January 7, 2008.'2 Specifically, his 
contact involved five telephone conversation with Landon Thomas, a reporter for the New York 
Times. These conversations occurred on I) the morning of January 2, 2008, 2) the afternoon of 
January 2, 2008, 3) the afternoon of January 3, 2008, 4) the afternoon of January 4, 2008, and 5) the 
afternoon of January 7, 2008. 
" Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on notice on February 25, 2008, that in the event that CEOS 
disagreed with Epstein's position, Epstein would have one week to comply with the terms and conditions 
of the Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez. 
12AUSA Weinstein has self-reported to the Office of Professional Responsibility. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-9-
EFTA00225186

A. 
The Morning of January 2, 2008. 
AUSA Weinstein began his conversation with Mr. Thomas by explaining that he was the 
acting PIO for the week and that he had received Mr.Thomas's December 31, 2007 e-mail requesting 
an interview and asking for comments on the following five statements." First, "that in the summer 
of 2005 the palm beach police department referred the Epstein case to you." Second, "that the case 
is being overseen by Jeffrey Sloman, and above him, R. Alexander Acosta." Third, "that Mr. Acosta 
has made child pornography a focus are [sic] for your office." Fourth, "that this summer your office 
gave Mr. Epstein an ultimatum: plead guilty to a charge that would require him to register as a sex 
offender, or the government would release a 52 page indictment, charging him with crimes that could 
include procuring sex for a third party or engaging in sexual tourism. Both of these charges carry jail 
sentences of as much as 15 years." Fifth, "that your office told Mr. Epstein and his lawyers: we are 
ready to pull the trigger." Sixth, "I also wanted to ask Mr. Sloman about his role in a case involving 
Jonathan Zirulnikoff and his daughter earlier this year." 
At the outset, Weinstein said that he could not comment on any specific pending matters and 
that he would do his best to answer some of his questions. Thomas said that his questions were 
based, in part, upon conversations that he had already had with members of Mr. Epstein's defense 
team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information 
available through the State Court system. 
Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told him 
that any matter arising out of conduct in Palm Beach County, was prosecuted by our West Palm 
Beach branch office. He also told him that as First Assistant, the FAUSA had supervisory authority 
over all AUSAs throughout the District. In turn, the FAUSA answered directly to the U.S. Attorney. 
In response to the third question, Weinstein discussed the difference between child 
exploitation and child pornography. Weinstein said that federal crimes involving child exploitation 
were one of several focus points of our Office. He further explained that in addition to traditional 
federal areas of prosecution the other focus points included health care fraud and gang prosecutions. 
Weinstein refused to answer the fourth and fifth topics but did discuss the general nature of 
pre-trial proceedings in federal court. He said that the SDFL does not offer ultimatums, nor are we 
in the business of issuing ultimatums. He explained that in cases where a party wants to plead guilty 
prior to indictment, we will discuss the parameters of guilty pleas and that people always have the 
right to proceed to trial if they choose to do so and that we do not favor one resolution over the other. 
Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that he would not discuss his specific question about Mr. Epstein's 
lawyer's statement that someone from our Office told them that "we are ready to pull the trigger." 
13After reviewing his e-mail, AUSA Weinstein discussed the matter with U.S. Attorney Acosta. 
Pursuant to USAM 1-7330 and the Media Relations Guide, Section III D2, after consultation with and 
prior approval from the US Attorney, he called Mr. Thomas on the morning of January 2nd. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-10-
EFTA00225187

Nor would he discuss anything about who might or might not be representing Mr. Epstein. Weinstein 
told Mr. Thomas that he should not allow himself to be spun one way or the other in response to 
statements Mr. Thomas said he had received from attorneys who said that they represented Mr. 
Epstein. Weinstein ended the conversation by telling Mr. Thomas that he would check further into 
his sixth and final topic and get back to him later in the day. 
B. 
Afternoon of January 2, 2008. 
Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that in regard to his sixth topic, the SDFL had no reason 
to question FAUSA Sloman's judgment or integrity. He also said that this particular subject matter 
was a private matter that FAUSA Sloman did not want to discuss with him.1e Mr. Thomas told him 
that if he had any further questions, he would call back. 
C. 
Afternoon of January 3, 2008. 
This call was in response to a voice mail message that Mr. Thomas had left regarding legal 
issues involving specific state and federal statutes. Specifically, Mr. Thomas had some questions 
about the burden of proof and strict liability in some state and federal statutes that governed illegal 
sexual activity. Again, Weinstein told him that he would not discuss any specific cases, but that he 
would assist him in understanding the statutes about which he had some questions. Weinstein 
explained that some statutes contained defenses that must be proven by a defendant, while there were 
other statutes that did not require a defendant to affirmatively prove a defense. The discussion 
centered around Title 18, United States Code, § 2423(g). Once again, Mr. Thomas told Weinstein 
that if he had any further questions, he would call back. 
I
Afternoon ofJanuary 4, 2008. 
This was another call in response to a voice mail message that Mr. Thomas had left regarding 
some additional questions. Weinstein prefaced the conversation by saying that he would not discuss 
any specific cases. The conversation centered around three specific statutes, 18 United States Code, 
§ 2422(b), 18 United States Code, § 1591, and 18 United States Code, § 2423(b) as well as the 
14 The case involving "Jonathan Zirulnikoff " involved a March 7, 2007 early morning attempted 
break-in of my/Sloman's house. Zirulnikoff, age 19 at the time, confessed and said that he wanted to 
"talk" to my daughter who was then 16. He also confessed to a prior unrelated break in which Zirulnikoff 
caressed the inner thigh of a 15 year old female. Zirulnikoff who had graduated from my daughter's high 
school in June 2006, dated my daughter's friend and had little if any contact with my daughter for over 
one year. Zirulnikoff negotiated a plea deal, over my objection, with the Miami-Dade State Attorney's 
Office to a misdemeanor trespass. That conviction resulted in a sentence of two years probation and a 
withhold of adjudication upon successful completion of his probationary period. Since this information 
was completely irrelevant to the facts and issues in the instant Epstein matter, I refused to allow Mr. 
Weinstein to comment about this matter to Mr. Thomas. Furthermore, none of this information had been 
publicized and, upon information and belief, only one member of Epstein's legal team knew anything 
about this matter, my former colleague, Lilly Ann Sanchez. 
Confidential and Privileged —Attorney Work Product 
-I I-
EFTA00225188

• 
burden of proof and the applicability of affirmative defenses. They discussed the difference between 
an attempt and a substantive charge pursuant to § 2422(b) and how that affected the government's 
burden of proof vis-a-vis the age of a child. They also discussed the fact that a charge pursuant to 
§ 1591 required the government to prove that the defendant had actual knowledge of the age of the 
victim. Finally, they discussed the fact that if the government was charging a defendant with 
traveling to engage in prostitution, pursuant to § 2423(b), there was an affirmative defense available 
to the defendant regarding the reasonable belief of the defendant about the age of the victim. 
E. 
Afternoon ofJanuary 7, 2008. 
This final call was made after the U.S. Attorney and FAUSA Sloman had received a call from 
a member of Mr. Epstein's defense team alleging that the SDFL had provided case specific 
information to the media. Weinstein called Mr. Thomas who acknowledged that both before and 
after each of the above-mentioned conversations, he had also called attorneys who were representing 
Mr. Epstein on his pending State charges. Mr. Thomas also acknowledged that all of our prior 
conversations had been about general legal issues and that Weinstein never spoke about any specific 
case. Since the January 7, 2008 conversation, Weinstein has not had any further contact with Mr. 
Thomas. 
2. 
Herman Sloman & Mermelstein (May 5, 2001 - October 1, 2001). 
Seven years ago, I resigned from the SDFL for private practice. Less than five months later, 
I resigned from the law firm and returned to the SDFL. Public records reflect the following: on May 
8, 2001, articles of amendment were filed with the Florida Division of Corporations to reflect that 
the firm name of "Herman & Mermelstein" was changed to "Herman Sloman & Mermelstein" on 
May 7, 2001. 1 joined the firm at that time and remained a non-equity partner until on or about 
October 1, 2001. At that time, I resigned from the firm and returned to the SDFL. Since I never had 
an equity interest in the firm, I never retained an interest in the firm. That was over six and one half 
years ago. 
Unbeknownst to FAUSA Sloman, on July 2, 2002, articles of amendment were filed with the 
Florida Division of Corporations to reflect that the firm name of "Herman Sloman & Mermelstein" 
was changed back to "Herman & Mermelstein." The article of amendment indicates the amendment 
was adopted on July 1, 2002, without shareholder action. Although the filing was not immediate 
upon my departure from the law firm, it pre-dated for years any dealings with the subject case now 
under consideration by the SDFL. Recently, I learned that there is a reference to the law firm of 
"Herman Sluman & Mermelstein" on the Florida Bar websitc, under a section called "Find A 
Lawyer." This reference appears when Stuart Mermelstein's name and information is accessed. To 
reiterate, since October 2001, I have had no relationship with that law firm, financial or otherwise, 
and no input or control over the firm's filings with the Florida Division of Corporations and/or the 
Florida Bar. 
On Friday, January 18, 2008, at approximately 1:15 pm, I received a call from Jeffrey 
Herman of Herman & Mermelstein. Herman said that he was planning to file a civil lawsuit the next 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-12-
EFTA00225189

r • 
week against Jeffrey Epstein. He said that his clients were frustrated with the lack of progress of the 
state's investigation and wanted to know whether the SDFL could file criminal charges even though 
the state was looking into the matter. I told Herman that I would not answer any question related to 
Epstein — hypothetical or otherwise. I asked him how his clients retained him and he said that it was 
through another lawyer. I then specifically asked him whether the referral was the result of anyone 
in law enforcement contacting him and/or the other lawyer. He said "no." At the conclusion of the 
conversation,1 reiterated and confirmed with him that I had refused to answer any questions he asked 
of me. I immediately documented this conversation and informed the U.S. Attorney who informed 
Senior Litigation Counsel and Ethics Advisor Dexter Lee. AUSA Lee opined that he did not see a 
conflict. As soon as I -became aware of these allegations, 1 reported myself to the Office of 
Professional Regulation on or about April 21, 2008. 
3. 
The Alleged Unprecedented Extension of Federal Law and the Allegations of 
Political Motivation for the Prosecution. 
It is my hope that this letter has sufficiently explained how thoroughly this matter has been 
reviewed, how seriously the issues have been considered, and how additional delays may adversely 
affect the case going forward and, more importantly, the victims. I have attached the proposed draft 
indictment for you to consider the nature and gravity of the crimes. See Tab G. You are invited to 
evaluate whether I, along with U.S. Attorney Acosta, Criminal Division Chiefs Menchel and, later 
Robert Senior, Deputy Criminal Division Chiefs Laurie, followed by Rolando Garcia, and AUSA 
Villafafia have somehow steered this investigation toward "an unprecedented extension of federal 
law"despite being simultaneously and/or subsequently reviewed by CEOS, DAAG Mandelker, and 
AAG Fisher. I also hope that the reputations of the above-mentioned professional prosecutors 
combined with the documented layers of methodical and thorough review of all issues raised by 
Epstein are enough to summarily dismiss the idea that this matter is politically motivated. It seems 
incomprehensible how Messrs. Starr and Whitley could expect further review when the due process 
rights of their client have been considered and reconsidered to the point of absurdity. 
With respect to the other allegations of misconduct leveled against investigators and 
prosecutors, similarly false allegations were made against the local police detective who first 
investigated the case. Those false allegations apparently were accepted as true and were not 
investigated or challenged by the State Attorney's Office and, when coupled with the immense 
pressure brought to bear upon the State Attorney by some of these same lawyers who represent 
Epstein today, resulted in a single felony charge related to only two of the more than 20 victims 
identified in the state investigation. Contrary to the claims of Epstein's attorneys, the SDFL is not 
tying to prosecute Epstein more harshly because of his political friends or his financial status; rather, 
the SDFL is attempting to follow Department policy by treating Epstein like all other criminal 
defendants — charging him with the most serious readily provable offenses. The SDFL has even 
continued to allow Epstein the opportunity to perform his obligations under the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement despite his numerous breaches of and attacks on the terms to which he already agreed. 
Without attempting to address each and every allegation, I would like to highlight some of 
the misstatements contained in counsels' letter, to provide some sense of counsels' conduct 
Confidential and Privileged —Attorney Work Product 
-13-
EFTA00225190

throughout this case, particularly after their attempts at legal persuasion failed. Throughout the case, 
counsel have misrepresented the facts of the case to our Office, CEOS, and the press. For example, 
Epstein's counsel reference to this case as "precedent-shattering," suggests that all of the victims 
were at least 16 years old, and that the conduct "was purely local in nature." The SDFL has 
prosecuted several "sex tourism" cases where the "john" communicated via telephone with an 
undercover "pimp" in the SDFL to meet minor females to engage in prostitution. All were charged 
and convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1591. The SDFL has charged and convicted a 21-year-old 
man of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423 when he traveled to Florida to meet his 14-year-old girlfriend and 
later digitally penetrated her. The SDFL has prosecuted numerous violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 
where the "facility of interstate commerce" — generally the Internet and telephones — are used by a 
defendant and an undercover pretending to be the parent of a minor, to arrange for a meeting that the 
defendant hopes will result in sexual activity. There is nothing extraordinary about Epstein's case 
except the large number of victims involved. 
Epstein's counsel neglected to inform you that the age range of the victims includes girls as 
young as 14, and glosses over the fact that Epstein did not simply engage in "solo self-pleasuring" 
in front of the victims. Instead, with each visit, he pressured the victims to allow him to engage in 
more and more sexual activity fondling breasts and vaginas, digital penetration, use of a vibrator 
on their vaginas, performing oral sex on them, having them perform oral sex on his adult girlfriend, 
and engaging in sexual intercourse. Counsel also neglected to inform you that many girls did 
affirmatively tell Epstein their true ages and he told several that he "did not care about age." 
Epstein's conduct was not "purely local." lie and his assistants called and sent text messages 
to victims in Palm Beach County from other states to arrange "appointments" for his upcoming visits 
to Palm Beach. And, while in Palm Beach, Epstein and his assistants called victims in New York 
to arrange "appointments" for his return to New York. Epstein wired money to some victims and 
sent gifts through the mails. This case falls squarely within federal jurisdiction. 
Epstein also falsely claims that certain facts related to the resolution of the case were hidden 
and later discovered by his lawyers. For example, they complain about the proposed use of a 
guardian ad litem, stating that "Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these 
individuals were adults, not minors." It was AUSA Villafafla who told Epstein's counsel that all of 
the victims but one had already reached the age of majority, which was one reason why the guardian 
ad litem procedure proposed by Epstein's counsel would not work. Likewise, AUSA V Manta 
disclosed to Epstein's counsel that one of the five attorney-representatives that she recommended 
for consideration by Epstein's counsel was a "good friend" of a "good friend." Despite the disclosure 
of this relationship, Epstein's counsel selected that person, before the SDFL, on its own, decided to 
use an independent Special Master to make the selection. 
Epstein's counsel states that the "USAO eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the 
veracity of any of the claims that these women might make," but neglects to disclose that the SDFL 
made that statement at Epstein's request to avoid the suggestion that the SDFL was involving itself 
in the outcome of civil litigation. 
Confidential and Privileged —Attorney Work Product 
-14-
EFTA00225191

Epstein's counsel have repeatedly attacked the SDFL and the FBI for classifying the victims 
as " victims." As you know, all Justice Department employees have the obligation to identify victims 
and to notify them of their rights. "Victims" are defined by law, not by self-selection. The girls 
whom have been identified by the FBI and the SDFL fall within the legal definition — they were all 
minors who engaged in illicit sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein, at his request, in exchange for 
money. From interviewing them, the FBI Special Agents, the FBI Victim-Witness Coordinator, and 
AUSA Villafafla all feel confident that they suffered harm, in a multitude of ways, by their 
interaction with Epstein. 
Finally, in contrast to Epstein's counsel allegation that my June 2, 2008 deadline was 
"arbitrary, unfair, and unprecedented," please consider that Mr. Lefkowitz has known since February 
that in the event that CEOS disagreed with his position, Epstein would be given one-week to comply 
with the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Subsequent to the receipt of CEOS Section Chief 
Oosterbahn's May 15,2008 letter, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz that Epstein would have a full two-weeks 
to comply with the Non-Prosecution Agreement as modified by the December 19i6 letter to Ms. 
Sanchez. We believe it is finally time to shift the focus from Epstein's due process rights to treating 
him like all other similarly situated criminal defendants and perhaps, most importantly, to consider 
the rights of his victims. Continued delays adversely effect the case and the victims in the following 
ways: 
(1) 
at the time of the offenses, the victims ranged in age from 14 to 17 years old. The 
change in physical appearance of many of the victims since then has been dramatic. 
Epstein has been claiming that he did not know they were minors. Obviously, the 
older they look when the case is at issue, the harder it will be to overcome that 
defense; 
(2) 
it allows Epstein's lawyers to conduct depositions of the victims in the pending state 
criminal case and allows his private investigators to further harass and intimidate the 
victims; 
(3) 
more victims will seek the services of civil lawyers to file lawsuits thus allowing 
Epstein to make more powerful arguments demeaning the credibility of the victims; 
(4) 
the prosecutors and agents may retire, transfer and/or leave the Department for other 
opportunities thus affecting the potential outcome and prosecutorial resources. 
Additionally, several of the victims have relocated thus increasing the likelihood that 
crucial witnesses will be lost; 
(5) 
the SDFL has afforded more consideration to Epstein's arguments than any other 
defendant in my years of being the FAUSA and, before that, the Chief of the 
Criminal Division (January 1, 2004 to the present). I believe that we have been 
disproportionally fair to Epstein at the expense of other matters; and 
(6) 
prolonged delay may adversely affect the statute of limitations for some of the 
victims. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-15-
EFTA00225192

On behalf of the SDFL and the victims in this case, please expedite the review and decision 
of the issues under consideration. 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
By: 
Jeffrey H. Slonian 
First Assistant United States Attorney 
Ends. 
cc: 
Robert Senior, Chief 
Criminal Division 
A. Marie Villafana 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Karen Atkinson 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-16-
EFTA00225193

CONFIDENTIAL PLEA NEGOTIATIONS 
TERMS OF EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT 
■ 
Epstein pleads guilty (not nolo contendere) to an Information filed by the 
Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office charging him with: 
(a) 
lewd and lascivious battery on a child, in violation of Fl. Stat. 
800.04(4); 
(b) 
solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Fl. 
Stat. 796.03; and 
(c) 
engaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of age, 
in violation of Fl. Stat. 794.05. 
■ 
Epstein and the State Attorney's Office make a joint, binding 
recommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison, without any 
opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing; and without 
probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment. 
■ 
Epstein agrees to waive all challenges to the information filed by the State 
and the right to appeal. 
■ 
Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal 
investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest 
the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 
Florida over his person and the subject matter. Epstein will not contest that 
the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of 
violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s) 2422 and/or 2423. 
■ 
After Epstein enters his state court plea and is sentenced, the FBI and the 
U.S. Attorney's Office will close their investigations. 
EFTA00225194

FOWLERWHITE 
AIII)kiaLv5 
BURNETT 
MIAMI • FORT LAUDERDALE • WEST PALM BEACH • ST. PETERSBURG 
August 2, 2007 
Mr. Matthew Menchel 
Chief, Criminal Division 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NE 4 Street 
Miami, Florida 33132 
Re: Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Matt: 
Esimiro Stwro PLAZA 
FOUTTC0410 FLOOR 
I 305 BRiotZtl AVItaut 
MIAMI, FLORIOA 33131 
TDIPITOAL(3O5) 789 .9200 
FACsimiLI (30517899201 
WAWSITTLERAVIIIILCOM 
LILL. ANN SANCHEZ 
Motor Roe No.: 1305) 780.9279 
DIRECT &CUNHA No.: (305) 728-7579 
Lsaftema@rowuriwn.C43.4 
As we discussed at Tuesday's meeting, and consistent with our view that no 
federal prosecution should lie in this matter, Mr. Epstein is prepared to resolve this 
matter via a state forum. We are in receipt of your memo regarding same and as the 
dynamics of the meeting did not allow for us to fully detail our proposal, we do so 
now. We believe that our respective positions are not very far apart and that a 
mutually agreeable resolution can be reached that will accomplish the interests of the 
United States Attorney's Office as well as those of the community. 
We welcomed your recognition that a state prison sentence is neither 
appropriate for, nor acceptable to, Mr. Epstein, as the dangers of the state prison 
system pose risks that are clearly untenable. We acknowledge that your suggestion 
of a plea to two federal misdemeanors was an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Our 
proposal is significantly punitive, and i f implemented, would, we believe, leave little 
doubt that the federal interest was demonstrably vindicated. 
The Florida state judicial system, unlike the federal system, provides for 
numerous types of onerous sanctions after a defendant is remanded to the custody of 
the state. The sentence is tailored to the needs of the local community and the risk 
posed by a specific defendant. After a great deal of thought, our proposal consists 
of both a severe supervised custody, with an assurance that any violation would result 
in the immediate implementation of the two year period of incarceration. We must 
keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein is a 54-year old man who has never been arrested 
before. He has lived an otherwise exemplary life, characterized by both many 
charitable contributions and philanthropic acts. His reputation has suffered 
significantly as a result of his poor judgment in these matters. He is well aware of the 
ramifications of his past behavior and, accordingly, there is no concern, whatsoever, 
that he will re-offend. 
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. 
EFTA00225195

Page 2 
The following proposal is offered as an assurance to the community that the 
goals of appropriate punishment and rehabilitation are attained. 
We will agree to a sentence of two years in state prison pursuant to Florida 
Statute 948.012(2) which permits a split sentence whereby Mr. Epstein will be 
sentenced to a term of supervised custody, followed by a period of incarceration. 
Supervised custody in the state system includes potential daily surveillance, 
administered by officers with restricted case loads. Supervised custody is an 
individualized program in which the freedom of Mr. Epstein is limited to the 
confines of his residence with specific sanctions imposed and enforced. See Florida 
Statute 948.001(2). Should Mr. Epstein successfully complete the terms and 
conditions of his custody, the Judge will eliminate the incarcerative portion of the 
sentence. If Mr. Epstein, however, fails to comply with the conditions of his 
supervised custody. The period of incarceration will be immediately implemented. 
We, therefore, propose the following: 
Two years supervised custody with the following mandatory and special 
conditions: 
o Confinement to home 
o Report to a community control officer at least once a week or more 
often as directed by the officer 
o Permit a community control officer to visit him unannounced at home 
at any time, day or night 
o Obtain psychological counseling 
o No unsupervised contact with all the victims in the instant case 
o Perform community service 
o Payment of Restitution 
o Application of 18 U.S.C. § 2255' 
o 
Payment of a contribution of a defined amount to a charitable 
organization benefitting victims of sexual assault 
o Payment of Court and probationary costs 
o 
Payment of law enforcement investigative costs 
o Submit to random drug testing 
o 
Refrain from associating with persons engaged in criminal activities 
o 
Refrain from committing any new law offenses 
o Any other specific conditions that the Office may deem necessary 
Two additional years of reporting probation: 
18 U.S.C. 2255 provides that any minor who suffers injury as a result of the commission of certain offenses 
shall recover actual damages and the cost ofany suit, 
is important to note that Mr. Epstein is prepared to fully 
fund the identified group of victims which are the focus of the Office - that is, the 12 individuals noted at the 
meeting on July 31, 2007. This would allow the victims to be able to promptly put this behind them and go 
forward with their lives. If given the opportunity to opine as to the appropriateness of Mr. Epstein's proposal, 
in my extensive experience in these types of cases, the victims prefer a quick resolution with compensation for 
damages and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. 
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT PA. 
EFTA00225196

Page 3 
o Mandatory conditions as provided in Florida Statute § 948.03 
o 
Special conditions as stated above 
If the terms of supervised custody and probation are successfully completed, 
then the two years of state prison is eliminated. 
This proposal provides for the two year imposition of the state prison sentence 
if any violation of the supervised custody or probation occurs. Accordingly, the 
Office's position that Mr. Epstein agree to a resolution that includes jail time is 
satisfied by this proposal. It would immediately bring closure to a matter that has 
been pending for over two years, allows Mr. Epstein to commence with his sentence, 
and, most significantly, allow the victims to move forward with their lives. We are 
in process of scheduling a meeting with R. Alexander Acosta, United States 
Attorney, to further discuss this matter. 
Sincerely, 
Lilly Ann Sanchez 
cc. 
R. Alexander Acosta 
Gerald Lefcourt 
Roy Black 
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. 
EFTA00225197

Pagc I of 
EPSTEIN EYES SEX-RAP RELIEF 
saPtES 
Business-
Bundle-A-Day, 
GI
VEAWAI 
October 9, 2007 -- LAWYERS for Jeffrey Epstein - the billionaire Manhattan 
investment manager who's agreed to plead guilty to soliciting underage 
prostitutes at his Palm Beach mansion in exchange for just 18 months in the 
stammer - are mulling asking federal prosecutors to drop their demand that he 
register as a sex offender. In a letter drafted, but not sent, to U.S. Attorney 
Alexander Costa and obtained by Page Six, Epstein's lawyer, Gerald 
Lefcourt, writes, "Doing so will have a profound impact (on Epstein) both 
immediately and forever after. Not only will he be restricted to a wholly 
inappropriate ma! facility, but he will be required for the rest of his We to 
account for his whereabouts." Epstein, a former business partner of Daily 
News owner Mort Zuckerman, pleaded guilty to a state charge in exchange 
for the feds' dropping their probe into possible federal criminal violations. 
Lefcourt argues that only the feds have demanded that Epstein register, 
"despite the fact that the state was of the view that Mr. Epstein's conduct did 
not warrant registration." A rep for Epstein had no comment. 
NEW YORK POST Isa registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM. and 
NEWYORKPOST.COM 
are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc. 
Copyright 2008 NW Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. 
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?uri=http://www.nypost.com/seven/ 1009200... 6/3/2008 
EFTA00225198

IN RE: 
INVESTIGATION OF 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT 
IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State 
Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, 
the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey 
Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); 
IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment 
with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; 
IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any 
offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or 
around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: 
(I) 
knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to 
commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means 
of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice 
minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States 
Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 
371; 
(2) 
knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel 
in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as 
defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(O, with minor females, in violation of Title 18, 
United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States 
Code, Section 2423(e); 
(3) 
using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly 
persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in 
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; 
(4) 
traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual 
conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(0, with minor females; in violation 
Page 1 of 7 
EFTA00225199

of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and 
(5) 
knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, 
enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had 
not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a 
commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(cXl); in violation of Title 
18, United States Code, Sections 159 l(aX1) and 2; and 
IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal 
liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits 
provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain 
actions with the State Attorney's Office; 
IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by 
both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State 
Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the 
Defendant will be served by the following procedure; 
THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for 
the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be 
deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the 
following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. 
If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, 
during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this 
Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the 
expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely 
notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its 
prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any 
notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the 
United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of 
the Agreement. 
Alter timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution 
for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have 
been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the 
United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury 
investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be 
dismissed. 
Page 2 of 7 
EFTA00225200

Terms of the Agreement: 
I. 
Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to the Indictment as 
currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for 
Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB) charging 
one (I) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Ft. Stat. 
796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed 
by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that 
requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of 
minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 
796.03; 
2. 
Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a 
thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: 
(a) 
Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) 
months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without 
any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and 
without probation or conununity control 
in 
lieu of 
imprisotunent; and 
(b) 
Epstein shall be sentenced to a tarn of twelve (12) months of 
community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail 
as described in Term 2(a), supra. 
3. 
This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit 
accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State 
Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which arc set forth in this 
agreement. 
4. 
The terms contained in paragraphs I and 2, supra, do not foreclose 
Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend 
any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or 
incarceration. 
5. 
Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State 
Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and 
sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph 
(2), supra. 
6. 
Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all 
Page 3 of 7 
EFTA00225201