EFTA00225378

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Friday, June 27, 2008 10:14 AM 
To: 
Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Cc: 
Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Still haven't heard anything 
How did things go with Chief Reiter? 
A. Marie Villafana 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
Tracking: 
EXHIBIT B-52 
797 
EFTA00225638

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:56 PM 
To: 
Villeama,AnnblarieC.(JSAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: Chief reiter 
Good 
 
 Original Message  
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Sent: Sat Jun 28 11:21:34 2008 
Subject: Chief reiter 
Jeff. I spoke with the chief this morning. He is going to notify victims about 
the plea. 
770 
EXHIBIT B-53 
EFTA00225639

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Friday, December 07, 2007 5:08 PM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: Epstein 
Hold the letter 
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld 
 
 Original Message  
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) 
Sent: Fri Dec 07 17:05:56 2007 
Subject: Epstein 
Hello - Any word? Am I free to send out the victim notification letter? And, is 
it alright to send copies of the victim notification letter to Mr. Josefsberg? 
A. Marie Villafana 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
EXHIBIT B-54 
2327 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-014420 
EFTA00225640

r callziai artezza-
-Lesii 
k lenre
stakilsaf_ra_liut-gv 111MJ. ; Aka_ 
_ a_stgi1/2
RS  251 4 -  9;544_ 
I1: 50 aa16.12,_LA aimd_ 
a-to el 
---a, _Can----411AXIBLOCICS  
ibiat0121/S_ _ crednACh6<15...!. 
'ILAtainAl2/2eA. " _We 
2.Lthe#__16
1
vt _ 
A i_J-A4_nistad__ 
/1/4 _trasiai• 
11%52- Fax 
EQCL12ak 
calt
 • 
- 
EXHIBIT B-43 
EFTA00225641

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Brad Edwards (be@bradedwardslaw.com] 
Sent: 
Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:34 AM 
To: 
Villafana. Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Jeff Epstein 
Hi Marie, 
I have information and concerns that I would like to share. While I understand that you are limited in what you can 
discuss. I would like to meet with you and discuss my plans. This would be beneficial to you and me. Let me know if you 
are interested in meeting and talking. My schedule is free next Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, July 23-25. If any of 
those days are open for you, then I will go to you and can meet you at any time convenient for you. I am scheduling to 
meet with my client again next week in your area anyway, so it would be no problem for me to meet you on the same 
day. I look forward to hearing back from you. 
Sincerely, 
Brad Edwards, Esquire 
Law Office of Brad Edwards & Associates 
2028 Harrison Street 
Suite 202 
Hollywood, Florida 33020 
Telephone: 
954414-8033 (Broward) 
305-935-2011 (Miami-Dade) 
Facsimile: 
954-924- 1530(Broward) 
305/935-4227 (Miami-Dade) 
e-mail: 
be@bradedwardslaw.com 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended for the 
use of the individual or entity to which it is 
addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure 
under applicable laws. If the reader of this 
message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, printing, 
reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. 
909 
EFTA00225642

j.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 
West Palm Reach, FL 33401 
(561)820-8711 
Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 
April 9, 2008 
VIA FACSIMILE 
Richard H. Willets, Esq. 
Mr. Michael Danchuk 
2290 10th Avenue North, Suite 404 
Lake Worth, FL 33461 
Re: 
Carolyn El 
Dear Messrs. Willits and Danchuk: 
Thank you for your letter of March 28, 2008, regarding 
Pursuant to the strict rules of grand jury secrecy, I am not able to prow e you wt 
e 
information that you have requested. I believe that some of the information you are 
seeking is available from ublic sources on the intemet. We also do not have any 
photographs of Ms. 
I regret that I cannot be of more assistance. I would appreciate it if you would 
keep me updated on the course of the civil litigation. 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
A. Marie Vitfafaka 
Assistant United States 
Attorney 
cc: 
E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, FBI 
EXHIBIT B-42 
EFTA00225643

A. Maria Di Ilafana, F-sq. 
March 28, 2008 
Paga 2 
We look forward to hearing from you on whether you can assist us. 
Thank you for your assistance. 
Sincerely, 
Michael Danchuk 
Legal Administrator/Paralegal 
MD/ 
cc: 
chard H.
 Esq. 
EFTA00225644

Richard H. Willits, P.A. 
Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer 
2290 10th Avenue North, Suite 404 
Lake Worth, Florida 33461 
Office: (561) 582-7600 
Fax: (561) 588-8819 
March 28, 2008 
A. Maria Dillafana, Esq. 
US Dept. of Justice 
500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Re: 
Our Client: 
Defendant: 
Je ey Epstein 
Dear Ms. Dillafana: 
Please be advised we have been retained to represent 
EM 
as a result of a relationship 
with Mr. Epstein. 
As we understand you are investigating this matter, we wanted you to be aware of our involvement. 
We have filed a lawsuit in Palm Beach County Circuit Court under Ms. 
initials, C.M.A. 
We are using the initials to try to keep publicity on this matter limited for Ms. Andriano's benefit. 
Possibly, you can help us with one of the problems that we are having. We have not been able to 
serve Mr. Epstein, and his attorney will not accept service on his behalf 
We had discussed this with FBI Agent Elizabeth Kirkdale, and she suggested that we contact you to 
see if you could provide us the information we are requesting. 
We are trying to locate Mr. Epstein's airplane "tail registration number" for the 727 plane that he 
has. If you have this information and can provide it to us, it would be greatly appreciated. 
Also we understand that either the FBI or your office may have photographs taken of Ms. 
by 
allegedly for Mr. Epstein. 
If you do have these photographs, we, of course, would request that they be preserved and also 
copies made for us. 
If there are any copy charges involved, we would be happy to reimburse your department. 
EXI-I1B1T 8-41 
EFTA00225645

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) <JSIoman@usa.doj.gov> 
Sent: 
Thursday, May 29, 2008 9:29 AM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) 
Cc: 
Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Kuyrkendall, E N. (MM) (FBI); Richards, Jason R. (MM) (FBI) 
Subject: 
RE: Epstein 
No telling how long the DAG's office will take to decide. Tuesday is off. 
—Original Message—
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 9:03 AM 
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Kuyrkendall, E N. (FBI); Richards, Jason R. (FBI) 
Subject: Epstein 
Hi Jeff and Bob. I received Jeff's e-mail stating that the DAG agreed to meet with epstein's people. Does this mean that Tuesday is 
off? I need to let the gj coordinator know. 
Also, I am sure that you remember 
in. She was the person whom we initially classified as a victim until epstein's attorneys 
complained. Well. nesbitt ha
inigted a girl who was I4 or I5 when she first went to epstein's house who reports that epstein 
told her that he had sex with. 
probably would have been 15 or 16 when this conversation occurred.) The girl also reports 
that she told epstein her true age and epstein told her that he doesn't care about age. 
I know that cpstein's people will, no doubt, continue to tell the dag and others that epstein didn't know about the girls' ages so I 
thought you should know. 
Please let me know about tuesday so I don't needlessly spoil nesbitt's sunday. And, any chance the case was discussed with the ag 
when he was in town? 
Thanks. 
EXHIBIT B-40 
EFTA00225646

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <AVillafana@usa.doj.gov> 
Sent: 
Tuesday, May 27, 2008 1:20 PM 
To: 
Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: Epstein 
Please tell me you that you are joking. Maybe we should throw him a party and tell him we are sorry to have bothered him. 
 
Original Message 
From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Tue May 27 10:27:10 2008 
Subject: Epstein 
Don't know what is up but Barry talked to Rolando and according to Rolando said something about 90 days in jail. Rolando is talking 
to Jeff-he said. K 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
EXHIBIT B-39 
40 
EFTA00225647

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Senior, Robert (USAFLS) <RSenior@usa.doi.gou> 
Sent: 
Tuesday, May 27, 2008 5:09 PM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Epstein 
Perfect. Enjoy your trip. Wc'rc in good shape (so far). 
 
Original Message 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:56 PM 
To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) 
Subject: Re: Epstein 
Hi bob. I get back on saturday. I will spend sunday with nesbitt and monday with you. I will be there by 10:00 unless you need me 
there earlier. 
 
Original Message 
From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Sent: Tue May 27 15:24:50 2008 
Subject: RE: Epstein 
Marie, are you back ? We need to spend some time together on the indictment. I was planning on Monday because I thought you 
were back that day but if you're already back let me know. By the way, Jeff and Alex have been very clear that we are not negotiating 
with this guy any more in any way. 
Thx. Bob 
----Original Message 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFI.S) 
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:54 PM 
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: Epstein 
Hi jeff. Karen sent me an email about epstein wanting to do less time. I hope that his request will be denied. The original deal was 
supposed to be 2 years so he has already gotten a big break. Plus we have identified more victims since we agreed to the 18 months. 
Please keep me posted. Thanks. 
EXHIBIT B-38 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-014927 
44 
EFTA00225648

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <AVillafana@usa.doj.gov> 
Sent: 
Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:56 PM 
To: 
Senior, Robert (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: Epstein 
Hi bob. I get back on saturday. I will spend sunday with nesbitt and monday with you. I will be there by 10:00 unless you need me 
there earlier. 
---- Original Message 
From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Sent: Tue May 27 15:24:50 2008 
Subject: RE: Epstein 
Marie, are you back ? We need to spend some time together on the indictment. I was planning on Monday because I thought you 
were back that day but if you're already back let me know. By the way, Jeff and Alex have been very clear that we are not negotiating 
with this guy any more in any way. 
Thx. Bob 
 
Original Message-----
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:54 PM 
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) 
Ce: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: Epstein 
Ili jeff. Karen sent me an email about cpstein wanting to do less time. I hope that his request will be denied. The original deal was 
supposed to be 2 years so he has already gotten a big break. Plus we have identified more victims since we agreed to the 18 months. 
Please keep me posted. Thanks. 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
42 
P-014926 
EFTA00225649

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Senior, Robert (USAFLS) <RSenior@usa.doj.gov> 
Sent: 
Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:25 PM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Cc: 
Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Epstein 
Marie, are you back ? We need to spend some time together on the indictment. I was planning on Monday because I thought you 
were back that day but if you're already back let me know. By the way, Jeff and Alex have been very clear that we arc not negotiating 
with this guy any more in any way. 
Thx. Bob 
 
Original Message 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:54 PM 
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: Epstein 
Hi jeff. Karen sent me an email about cpstein wanting to do less time. I hope that his request will be denied. The original deal was 
supposed to be 2 years so he has already gotten a big break. Plus we have identified more victims since we agreed to the III months. 
Please keep me posted. Thanks. 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-014925 
41 
EFTA00225650

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
make an independent decision not adversely affected by conclusions that over and over have 
proven, witness by witness, allegation by allegation, to be inaccurate and unwarranted and not an 
appropriate basis for the exercise of federal prosecutorial authority. 
10 
RFP MIA 000440 
EFTA00225651

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
role. They said they would only advise on an abuse of discretion standard. Making the 
outcome a foregone conclusion. Furthermore, in response to the February 25 e-mail, 
which attempted to establish a schedule to limit the entire review process (the defense has 
repeatedly suggested that the misconduct was intertwined with the investigation and 
would therefore seek higher review), Mr. Lefkowitz e-mailed Mr. Acosta directly. On 
February 29, 2008, Mr. Sloman responded to Mr. Lefkowitz's e-mail to Mr. Acosta, 
stating that Mr. Sloman was acting out of frustration, but "[p]lease be assured that it has 
not, and never has been, this Office's intent to interfere or restrict the "review process" 
for either Mr. Epstein or CEOS. I leave it to you and CEOS to figure out how best to 
proceed and will await the results of that process." As stated above, CEOS determined 
that it would not review many of the defense's objections and as to the remainder of those 
objections, its review would be limited (contrary to Mr. Acosta's assurances), which left 
the need, supplemented by the defense's subsequent request, for a more thorough review 
of critical issues by others at the Department of Justice. Mr. Sloman's re-imposition of 
the (albeit modestly extended) timetable was an obvious attempt, in violation of his 
February 29 agreement, to thwart the request made by the defense to the Deputy Attorney 
general, to complete the review process that Mr. Acosta bad promised. 
11. 
"DELAY." 
Mr. Sloman's Letter: 
• In a section entitled "Delay." Mr. Sloman states that "the SDFL again agreed to 
accommodate Epstein's request to appear in state court for plea and sentencing on 
January 4, 2008." 
Id., p. 3. 
The Truth: 
• 
Curiously, Mr. Sloman fails to mention correspondence from the U.S. Attorney stating 
that delay of that date would be "inevitable" as the defense has raised "serious questions" 
about the propriety of the prosecution. Strikingly, in that same section, Mr. Sloman 
claims that "the Agreement did not contemplate a staggered 'plea and sentencing,'" 
despite quoting, three sentences earlier, from the Agreement's staggered requirement 
that Epstein plead and be sentenced by October 26, and "begin serving his sentence not 
later than January 4, 2008." 
• 
• 
• 
We are, like most attorneys seeking Department review, without access to the USAO 
prosecution summaries or other submissions to the Department. Given the substantial issues that 
have been raised in this and other submissions, we request that you conduct a de novo review 
that goes beneath the face of any conclusions being advocated by the USAO; instead, we seek a 
review that is based on the transcripts of witness testimony themselves so that the reviewer can 
9 
RFP MIA 000439 
EFTA00225652

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
this same individual would nevertheless be entitled to engage an attorney paid for by Mr. 
Epstein to recover $150,000 of damages from Mr. Epstein under § 2255 without ever 
alleging any injury. In fact, the defense was told that the only question Mr. Epstein 
would be permitted to ask before paying the girls is " have you ever met Epstein.". Thus, 
the Deferred Prosecution Agreement places identified individuals in a far better position 
than they would be in if Mr. Epstein were convicted at trial. 
9. 
ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO SELECT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. 
Mr. Sloman's Letter: 
• "Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the 
SDFL unilaterally agreed to assign its responsibility to select the attorney representative 
for the alleged victims to an independent third-party." 
See Tab I, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 4, f.3. 
The Truth: 
• 
That such an assignment was the SDFL's "unilateral" decision is false. Before the 
SDFL decided to assign selection of the "attorney representative" to an independent third 
party, AUSA Marie Villafana had already proposed an "attorney representative." She 
had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he bad been 
recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. Villafana's account was 
misleading, as it omitted that this "good friend" was her live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. 
Ocariz was his former law-school roommate. When we discovered this independently, 
we objected. 
Only then did the SDFL propose assigning the selection process to an 
independent special master and agree to amend the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. 
Thus, while it may be true that the SDFL assigned its selection responsibility to avoid the 
appearance of favoritism, it did not do it "unilaterally," but, rather, only after Epstein 
uncovered the Office's misleading disclosure and apparent conflict-of-interest. 
10. 
TIMETABLE FOR MOVING FORWARD. 
Mr. Sloman's Letter: 
• "On February 25, 2008, I sent you an e-mail setting forth a timetable for moving forward 
in the event that CEOS disagreed with your position. That time is now." 
Id., p. 6. 
The Truth: 
• Mr. Sloman provides only part of the history of this case in order to justify his improper 
actions. He had stated he would close the investigation if CEOS told him to. However, 
CEOS at our very first contact said that under no circumstances did they see that as their 
8 
RFP MIA 000438 
EFTA00225653

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
8. 
ALL IDENTIFIED VICTIMS BE PUT IN SAME POSITION AS IF EPSTEIN 
HAD BEEN TRIED. 
Mr. Sloman's Letter: 
• 
"The Agreement provides for a method of compensation for the victims 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 Section, 2255." 
Id. 
The Truth: 
• Mr. Sloman continues to mischaracterize the highly irregular provisions of the Deferred 
Prosecution Agreement. The SDFL did not merely attempt to preserve the compensation 
rights of those it identified as victims; it attempted to create compensation rights for those 
it identified, without imposing on them the burden of proving that they were in fact 
victims under § 2255. 
o In the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, the SDFL required Mr. Epstein to waive 
the right to contest liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 as to a list of individuals that 
the SDFL would not disclose to Mr. Epstein until after he was sentenced and to 
pay for an attorney to secure compensation under § 2255 for those undisclosed 
individuals, or if they decided to sue Mr. Epstein. 
o § 2255 ordinarily provides individuals with a right to recover minimum guaranteed 
damages of $150,000, without having to prove actual damages, only if: (I) they 
were victims of an enumerated federal offense, including offenses under 18 U.S.C. 
§§ 2422 and 2423, (2) they were minors at the time of the offense, and most 
importantly (3) they were personally injured as a result of the offense. 
o The defense has confirmed examples of women who testified that they were not 
victims of Mr. Epstein and suffered no personal injury. These women were, 
nevertheless, on the list of "victims" identified by the government. . In fact, when 
confronted with the testimony of a women who denied both being a victim and 
incurring personal injury, Ms. Villafana actually acknowledged such testimony. 
To justify inclusion of that woman on the government's list, however, Ms. 
Villafana then challenged her own witness's credibility. 
• For this reason, it is false to state that these "identified" individuals are in the same 
position that they would have been had Epstein been convicted at trial. Had there been a 
trial, Mr. Epstein would have had a right to confront these individuals through cross-
examination. Any individual that did not establish that she was a minor victim of conduct 
that satisfied each element of an enumerated statute under § 2255,or that she suffered 
personal injury, would not qualify for any treatment under § 2255. However, under the 
Deferred Prosecution Agreement, as an "identified individual" on the government's list, 
7 
RFP MIA 000437 
EFTA00225654

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Agreement to Defer Prosecution to the State, an agreement without precedent and fraught 
with substantial practical and legal hurdles to its implementation. 
6. 
THE SDFL DID NOT DEFER TO THE STATE. 
Sloman's Letter: 
• 
"(Tihe SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of incarceration." 
Id., p. 2. 
The Truth: 
• 
The SDFL neither deferred to the State, nor even discussed with the State, the length of 
Mr. Epstein's incarceration. In a letter to the defense, Criminal Division Chief, Matthew 
Menchel rejected the sentence contemplated by the State's plea agreement, writing that 
"the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two-year term of state 
imprisonment." See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from M. Menchel. Of course, this 
position is contrary to Section 9-2031D of the U.S. Attorney's Manual (indicating that 
the "result" of a state prosecution is "presumefdf' to have vindicated the federal interest). 
It is understandable, therefore, that Mr. Sloman might want to retreat from it now. 
Indeed, the final Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) restricts the state-court judge 
from exercising any of his rightful discretion and to specifically prohibit the judge from 
offering probation, community control or any other alternative in lieu of incarceration. 
DPA, 1) 2(a). 
7. 
SUGGESTION OF ADDITIONAL STATE PLEA 
Mr. Sloman's Letter: 
• The parties considered: "as suggested by [the defense], a plea to state charges 
encompassing Epstein's conduct." See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p.2, 
1 2. 
The Truth: 
• It was the government, and not the defense, that suggested a plea to state charges to 
resolve the federal investigation. Andrew Lourie proposed declining prosecution in favor 
of the state. Although Mr. Epstein and the State Attorney's Office had already reached 
a plea agreement, in August 2007, Mr. Sloman and AUSA Marie Villafana warned that 
they intended to prosecute Epstein federally unless his counsel (i.e., not the U.S. 
Attorney's Office) sought more stringent conditions to the State's proposed plea 
agreement. These stringent conditions included, among other things, the two-year prison 
term demanded by Mr. Menchel (discussed above) and a charge requiring him to register 
as a sex offender. 
6 
RFP MIA 000436 
EFTA00225655

• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
describes the additional charge to which Mr. Epstein is required to plead guilty 
under the Deferred Prosecution Agreement as "procurement of minors to engage 
in prostitution" or "solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution." The former 
is an offense for which Mr. Epstein would be required to register, but one for 
which the state has no evidence to charge Mr. Epstein and the SDFL refuses or is 
unable to provide evidence that it claims it has. 
The latter requires no 
registration, but it is the offense which, over and over again, Ms. Villafana 
insisted upon including in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, and is one which 
the State believes is appropriate. The inconsistency between the description of 
the offense required by the SDFL, the elements of an offense that can be justified 
on the facts of this case and the SDFL's requirement that the offense be a 
registrable one has created substantial confusion. 
o As a result of this confusion, in December 2007, both the defense and the state 
requested that the SDFL provide the factual allegations to enable Mr. Epstein and 
the State to create a truthful factual recitation of a registrable offense required by 
the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, but, to date, the SDFL has failed to do so 
without any explanation. 
• Mr. Sloman refuses to provide the requested factual allegations, which the State cannot 
furnish, and now demands a two week deadline to comply. Thus Mr. Sloman has 
unreasonably imposed a deadline with which he himself has made it impossible for Mr. 
Epstein to comply. 
5. 
WAIVER OF APPEAL TO ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FISHER. 
Mr. Sloman's Letter: 
• "[T]he SDFL provided you with 30 days to appeal the decision to the Assistant Attorney 
General of the United States Alice Fisher" and "you chose to forego an appeal to AAG 
Fisher." 
Id., p. 2. 
The Truth: 
• Mr. Acosta tolled an August 17 deadline, acknowledging that there were "serious issues" 
about the case that needed to be discussed, and scheduled a meeting with the defense for 
September 7, 2007. At the September 7, 2007 meeting, with Drew Oosterbaan in 
attendance, the government dismissed the defense's objections and set a September 21, 
2007 deadline to finalize a non-prosecution agreement or the defense would face an 
already-drafted 53-page indictment, purportedly identifying 40 minors, with a guideline 
range of 188 months. 
• Facing Ms. Villafana's threatened draconian indictment, without the claimed offer of the 
right to raise objections in an appeal to AAG Fisher, the defense chose to negotiate an 
5 
RFP MIA 000435 
EFTA00225656

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
evidence that Mr. Epstein routinely and daily receives massages from adults. Only a 
small percentage of the masseuses turned out to be minors. The majority of those minors 
interviewed by law enforcement admitted to lying directly to Epstein about their ages 
(not "unbeknownst to Epstein"), and inventing further false details to substantiate their 
lies. Indeed, the civil attorney for several of these women admitted at his recent press 
conference that they lied to Mr. Epstein about their ages. Numerous witnesses testified 
that Mr. Epstein asked that all masseuses be over the age of 18. Further, the evidence is 
undisputed that Mr. Epstein's assistants scheduled the massages and Mr. Epstein did not 
know which masseuses his assistants had scheduled on a particular day, until the massage 
took place. We admitted that there was sexual conduct, and argued—not that it was 
"innocuous" as Mr. Sloman alleges—but that it was mostly Mr. Epstein's own self-
pleasuring, which did not satisfy the requisite federal element of criminal sexual conduct 
(which is, in turn, defined by state law). These are important distinctions and show that 
Mr. Sloman has misrepresented the record about the most basic part of our defense. 
4. 
SLOMAN DEMANDS AN UNREALISTIC DEADLINE TO COMPLY WITH AN 
AGREEMENT HE UNILATERALLY MODIFIES. 
Mr. Sloman's Letter: 
• "Unless [Mr. Epstein] complies with all of the terms and conditions of the [Deferred 
Prosecution] Agreement, as modified by the United States Attorney's December 19, 
2007 letter to Ms. Sanchez by close of business on Monday, June 2, 2008, the SDFL will 
elect to terminate the Agreement." Id., p.1 
The Truth: 
• The Deferred Prosecution Agreement was never modified by U.S. Attorney Acosta's 
December 19, 2007 letter. Oddly, Mr. Sloman acknowledges this on page 4 of his May 
19 letter, where he writes that Mr. Acosta "proposed" this modification and that "[Mr. 
Lefkowitz] rejected these proposals." Thus, Mr. Sloman is threatening to terminate the 
Deferred Prosecution Agreement, unless Mr. Epstein complies with a unilateral 
modification that Mr. Sloman concedes was never agreed to by defense counsel. 
• Orchestrating the information, plea and sentencing requirements of the Deferred 
Prosecution Agreement within the extremely limited two-week timeframe imposed by 
Mr. Sloman's June 2, 2008 deadline would have been difficult enough. 
• More importantly, as explained below, the SDFL has refused to provide the defense with 
information it requires to enable Mr. Epstein to comply with the additional plea and 
sentencing requirements of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (let alone, by the June 2 
deadline arbitrarily imposed by Mr. Sloman). 
o The Deferred Prosecution Agreement requires Mr. Epstein to plead guilty to and 
be sentenced for an additional offense which requires that he be registered as a 
sex offender. In different places in his May 19, 2008 letter, Mr. Sloman 
4 
RFP MIA 000434 
EFTA00225657