EFTA00230208

LAW CONCIES Or 
GERALD B. IncounT, P.C. 
A. 
Esq. 
O ce o the United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
June 25, 2007 
Page 19 
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. We look forward to meeting on June 26, 
2007. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. 
cc: 
Esq. 
Roy Black, Esq. 
Alan Dershowitz, Esq. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013323 
EFTA00230228

4cpcmS-k-
14- ae -Le-o 'to klazfd/W-0- 
vo-LA- Vtuit_ r0(-Wok& ru
---
.unityprek bi-czAkzit-
h.* •6v-OL-3 4e/vd- lenft p(aLv-N 
46(_, 
tryv:A. 
te 
iv4usitc[e_ cs-Y-
NOT 1-14C 
IN,oF 
oR €NS OF Cu4kac. 
Suss l 
tkrraNe -
-11/•,- -4-64cwv 'to 0, •C 
CetlY \SY \ 
( 
uok.tv-t_-fe \ 
lairooctoic t'o dear, 
v,450 +0 
-to [ 
ye 
arb9t Ca C01. 44 
CCP+C"1 
VOF Okt ,
-to wrd.sLryiNi\o- 
pkavio 
rivak-S 
IN\tayuaHok
Jai-jcoo-k low-votk- fictr, -;s v, 6covrAO, 
2t c., 
36k ci-te ,ct --1
_ei-th Gr. 2DooXeniver.)
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013324 
EFTA00230229

14- 
1 
"tu 
cAyrinruk"vt-dflovis 
-Trautk ActrvtA4 
—"()OJ-evi [A1, f '' 
GIS" /5)11-4'1, /3(0 Feat 
325 
CI I-I-14 Cir 2_00s) - (AS ■ 64Y-e-tt) 
(,&S 
. goynoda)-1 , 372 r3d 
) 
3( 
• 
1
34- 
Gr, Zoog 
141/1 
') 
C I 
zoc.4) L /, 
- C-0-COCISpL/1001? 1 
: 
U%•S v Pisrmin 443 F.324 912- C-141/ 1
Cir, 2-Doc.
„Acajf-YAr-,5* 
1--art 
-V 
.orN ak,o.ix\vit-to\4113 pufpost( 
— Prot 
Z3 7 P. 
(04;) 4,t'a 
Cr. 191
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013325 
EFTA00230230

`161/0 1 Viliar-do-io'_ tp LzrAguj 
ii---
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013326 
EFTA00230231

(USAFLS) 
From: 
. (USAFLS) 
Sent: 
on 
t•m er 17, 2007 10:35 AM 
To: 
USAFLS); 
Subject: 
(USAFLS) 
Ili Rolando —I lore is the last e-mail that I sent to Jay last night. Jay talked with his client about it and reports 
that they are leaning towards options 1 or 4. They are going to try to make that decision today (there seems to 
be some dissension in the ranks because Jack Goldberger gave some incorrect information), and draft a 
proposed either Non-Prosecution Agreement or Plea Agreement. As you can see from my list below, there are a 
number of things in their last draft that were unacceptable. All of the loopholes that I sewed up they tried to 
open. So, Jay is supposed to be consulting with Roy Black regarding the correct state information and then will 
give me a call. 
I agreed to ask the Judge to take the hearing off calendar tomorrow and to postpone the grand jury appearances 
that were scheduled from tomorrow, but I told him in no uncertain terms that I am indicting on the 25th so this 
needs to be resolved early this week. 
and I talked about all of this as well. Long answer to a short 
question, sorry. 
Hi Jay — 
n wait until
l
ia
after the show, but my voice is going so I thought I would type it up. I 
talked to 
and he still doesn't like the factual basis. In his opinion, the plea should only address 
the crimes a we were addressing, and we were not investigating Mr. Epstein abusing his girlfriend. 
So, these are the only options that he recommended: 
1. We go back to the original agreement where Mr. Epstein pleads only to state charges and serves 
his time in the state, except that we can agree to only 18 months imprisonment. 
2. Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to the state charges and also pleads to either two obstruction counts or to 
one count of violating 47 USC 223(a)(1)(B), with a joint non-binding recommendation of 18 months, 
so that Mr. Epstein can serve his time federally. 
3. (My suggestion only, not 
1): I go back to the U.S. Attorney and ask him to agree to an ABA-
plea to a 371 count (conspiracy o violate 2422(b)) with a binding 20-month recommendation so that 
Mr. Epstein can serve all of his time in a federal facility. 
Or 4. Mr. Epstein pleads to one obstruction count, and serves part of his time federally and part state. 
On your other proposed changes, some are fine and some are problematic. 
Re your paragraph 2: As to timing, it is my understanding that Mr. Epstein needs to be sentenced in 
the state after he is sentenced in the fed 
se, but not that he needs to plead guilty and be 
sentenced after serving his federal time. 
recommended that some of the timing issues be 
addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that we are trying to create 
federal jurisdiction for prison purposes. My understanding is that Mr. Epstein should sign a state plea 
agreement, plead guilty to the federal offenses, plead guilty to the state offenses, be sentenced on the 
federal offenses, and then be sentenced on the state offenses, and then start serving the federal 
sentence. 
Re your paragraph 3: As to the reservation of Mr. Epstein's right to withdraw his state plea or to 
appeal his stale plea or sentence, that is fine, but we need the caveat that, if he were to do so, the 
United States could proceed on our charges. 
Re your paragraph 6: With respect to the waiver of the right to appeal the federal sentence, given the 
way we have drafted the information, it is possible that getting to the 18 month sentence will require 
an upward departure. The version of the agreement that you were working from is a federal non-
266 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013327 
EFTA00230232

prosecution agreement, the ones I have sent you recently are plea agreements that get filed with the 
court. Please see if the appeal waiver language in those versions is alright. 
Re your paragraph 7: As I mentioned, we will not waive the presentence investigation. I know that 
this will delay Mr. Epstein's sentencing by 70 days, but that will allow him to get all of his affairs in 
order. As to bail, it will be set at the time of arraignment, and we can work out a joint recommendation 
regarding the amount and its limitations. I have no objection to making a joint recommendation that 
Mr. Epstein remain out on bond pending his sentencing, but I'm not sure that it belongs in a plea 
agreement, especially since I can't bind the court on that issue. However, I can assure you, and we 
can put it on the record during the plea colloquy, that I will join in your recommendation that he remain 
out on bond pending sentencing. The same goes for the prison camp issue. As I mentioned, I have 
opposed a designation only once in a very particular case. I can assure you, and we can put it on the 
record at the plea colloquy that I will not oppose your recommendation for Mr. Epstein's designation. 
Re your paragraph 8: As I mentioned over the telephone, I cannot bind the girls to the Trust 
Agreement, and I don't think it is appropriate that a state court would administer a trust that seeks to 
pay for federal civil claims. We both want to avoid unscrupulous attorneys and/or litigants from 
coming forward, and I know that your client wants to keep these matters outside of public court filings, 
but I just don't have the power to do what you ask. Here is my recommendation. During the period 
between Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing, I make a motion for appointment of the Guardian Ad 
Litem. The three of us sit down and discuss things, and I will facilitate as much as I can getting the 
girls' approval of this procedure because, as I mentioned, I think it is probably in their best interests. 
In terms of plea agreement language, let me suggest the following: 
The United States agrees to make a motion seeking the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem to 
represent the identified victims. Following the appointment of such Guardian, the parties agree to 
work together in good faith to develop a Trust Agreement, subject to the Courts approval, that would 
provide for any damages owed to the identified victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2255. Then 
include the last two sentences of your paragraph 8. 
Re the two paragraphs following your paragraph 8: I will include our standard language regarding 
resolving all criminal liability and I will mention "co-conspirators," but I would prefer not to highlight for 
the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge. Also, we do not 
have the power to bind Immigration and we make it a policy not to try to, however, I can tell you that, 
as far as I know, there is no plan to by to proceed on any immigration charges against either Ms. 
Ross or Ms. Marcinkova. 
Also, on the grand jury subpoenas, I can prepare letters withdrawing them as of the signing of the 
plea agreement, but I would prefer to take out that language. In my eyes, once we have a plea 
agreement, the grand jury's investigation has ended and there can be no more use of the grand jury's 
subpoena power. 
I had hoped that we were far closer to resolving this than it appears that we are. Can I suggest that 
tomorrow we either meet live or via teleconference, either with your client or having him within a quick 
phone call, to hash out these items? I was hoping to work only a half day tomorrow to save my voice 
for Tuesday's hearing and grand jury, if necessary, but maybe we can set a time to meet. If you want 
to meet 'off campus" somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that I have all the necessary decision 
makers present or 'on call,' as well. 
If we can resolve some of these issues today, lets try to, and then save only the difficult issues for 
tomorrow. 
Sony for the long e-mail, and for ruining your date with your daughter. 
A. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
267 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013328 
EFTA00230233

From: Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) 
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:26 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Epstein 
Where are we at in the plea negotiations? 
Tracking: 
268 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013329 
EFTA00230234

LIM°  7 1Xiskat,olh /2) SiaoCu'l 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013330 
EFTA00230235

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
AND AIFILIAIE0 PARTNERSHIPS 
rtraete
vokm 
Jay P. Letkowitz, P.C. 
To ca Writer Directly: 
VIA E-MAIL 
Jeffrey H. Sloman 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NE 4th Street 
Miami, Florida 33132-2111 
Dear Jeff: 
Citigroup Center 
169 East 63rd Street 
New York, New York 10022.4611 
www.kkkiand.com 
November 8, 2007 
Re: Jeffrey Epstein 
Facsimile: 
I write in response to your recent letter, dated November 5, 2007. I want to make clear at 
the outset that Mr. Epstein is complying fully with the Non Prosecution Agreement (the 
"Agreement") and that he has every intention of continuing to honor its terms in good faith. Any 
disagreement the parties have regarding the terms of the Agreement should be resolved through 
open dialogue and should not be construed as a repudiation of the Agreement. I do, however, 
want to address each of the points you raise in your letter. 
First, we do not believe Mr. Epstein's agents are precluded from speaking to any 
individuals at this point in time. We carefully reviewed the Agreement and the laws governing 
contact with witnesses and proceeded under the belief that Mr. Epstein's agents could properly 
contact potential witnesses in this matter. We believe that nothing in the Agreement precludes 
contact by Mr. Epstein's agents with any individuals. Paragraph 7 of the Agreement states that 
"Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through [the attorney representative]," 
but it in no way restricts any other contacts that are both lawful and appropriate. Furthermore, 
your Office has not yet identified the alleged victims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 nor has an attorney 
representative been selected. 
Indeed, it is quite common for a party's agents, and even his attorneys, to speak with 
potential claimants prior to their retaining formal representation. And in this situation — where 
Mr. Epstein faces significant potential civil exposure, and he has a right to 
veraci
 —Jp 
i 
these claims — it is appropriate that his agents would seek to obtain as much information about 
potential -dims as possible. Nevertheless, because we want to cooperate with your Office and 
since you object to such communications, we will cease all contact with these individuals until 
the date of Mr. Epstein's plea. We request, however, that your Office provide a basis for 
precluding Mr. Epstein or his agents from speaking to any individuals at this time. 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Los Angeles 
Munich 
San Frandsco 
Washington, D.C. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013331 
EFTA00230236

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
November
Page 2 
Second, I am a little surprised by your insistence that we request that the state court 
conduct the plea and sentence in November. You may recall that we previously discussed, and txil.. 
you agreed, that because the state judge will not  stagger the plea and sentencing as we 
...clot  contemplated in the Agreement, Mr. Epstein could plea and be sentenced at any point before CP -1*hr 
Nts‘01‘ 
January 4, 2008. As you know, the judge's refusal to stagger the plea and sentencing actually "" Y-Op ittl°
harms Mr. Epstein because this delays the timing under which he can receive the names of the 4,2&41,44A 
individuals identified by the United States as "victims" under § 2255. But we believe we must 
defer to the judge's decision in this matter. To clear up any misunderstanding, however, the 
judge has set this case "for trial" on January 7 only as a formal matter. The judge has invited the 
parties to appear for the plea and sentencing on January 4, and we do not anticipate any delay 
beyond that date. 
Third, I want to clear up any confusion regarding the many inaccurate media reports 
about Mr. Epstein. With the hope of maintaining some semblance of privacy for Mr. Epstein, we 
have avoided interacting with the media regarding this matter. Indeed, the only recent comment 
was Howard Rubenstein's confirmation to the Palm Beach Daily News that this matter had been 
resolved and would not proceed to a trial. That comment was authorized only out of concern that 
you might read an inaccurate story and believe, mistakenly, that Mr. Epstein had decided not to 
proceed under the Agreement. 
Fourth, regarding the sentence to be imposed by the court, the Agreement, and all of the 
discussions we have had about it, are very clear: Mr. Epstein is to be sentenced to ap 18-month 
term in accordance with the same rules and regulations (and the same rights and privileges) that 
apply to everyone in the state of Florida. That Mr. Epstein would be treated no better and no 
worse than anyone else was a material term of the Agreement. 
u Office now believes 
is 
not entitled to equal treatment, I would ve 
e an ex lanation o t re asis of such 
view. 
am su icient y concerned about comments in your letter to seek clarification on this 
point, especially because the lawyers in your Office have made clear on numerous occasions to 
me that as long as Mr. Epstein received an 18-month sentence, your Office would not seek to 
interfere with the implementation of the state sentence. 
/‘ 
Fifth, pursuant to the Agreement, Mr. Epstein, through his counsel, agrees to provide the 
c‘ ,5146::e
n
(-Le 
(4/..
14: 212/4/4/
.
agreements made with the State Attorney's Office. 
1174-re<t
i, 
Finally, I must tell you that I am troubled by the manner in which your Office has dealt 
 
with the § 2255 issues that are encompassed in the Agreement. As you already know, one of the 't
ea s Thhil 
lawyers initially recommended by your Office contacted Judge Davis to lobby for the assignment /VC 
>lb
elefik 
of attorney representative even before Judge Davis was formally selected to appoint an attorney 
representative. Moreover, I find it highly unusual that your Office has continued to insist that a 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013332 
EFTA00230237

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
November 8, 2007 
Page 3 
primary criteria for the appointment of the attorney representative should be the ability to take on 
contingency fee cases directed at Mr. Epstein. I trust you understand that I raise these concerns 
with you out of respect 
your Office. However, despite Mr. Epstein's full intention to abide 
by all of the terms of the Agreement, we must reserve our right to object to certain aspects of the e_22O 
Yet ---
a nSr
ee 
2255_12mvisions of the Agreement. 
I look forward to continuing to work with your Office to resolve any outstanding issues, 
and I sincerely anticipate a conclusion of this matter in the very near future. 
Sincerely, 
X
Ja 
. Le owitz 
cvlat 
ic
a t (co2fc
(21d11:41.4,QL. 
a- •iF i
sc et,h4Lot 6410 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013333 
EFTA00230238

" /13/0 I S(60--)-104; Le:4w 1.3 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013334 
EFTA00230239

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
Citigroup Center 
153 East 53rd Street 
New York, New York 10022-4675 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Jay: 
99 N.E. 44 Street 
Miami. FL 33132-2111 
Facsimile: (305) 330-6444 
November 13, 2007 
I write in response to your letter of November 8, 2007. 
Most importantly, I want to reiterate that a guilty plea and sentencing more than two months 
beyond the original deadline is unacceptable to the Office. Contrary to your assertion, the Non-
Prosecution Agreement does not contemplate a staggered plea and sentencing (that was contemplated 
only in a federal plea, where the federal rules provide for such staggering). Instead, the Agreement 
contemplates a combined plea and sentencing followed by a later surrender date for Mr. Epstein to 
begin serving his jail sentence. As you will recall, the plea and sentencing hearing originally was 
to occur in early October 2007, but was delayed until October 26th to allow Mr. Goldberger to 
attend. It was delayed again until November to allow you to attend. You have provided no showing 
of how you and your client have used your best efforts to insure that the plea and sentencing occur 
in November. A prompt hearing would end speculation by the press and others about Mr. Epstein's 
intentions and, more importantly, would show the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI that Mr. 
Epstein intends to comply with all of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Accordingly, 
I again advise you that the Office requires Mr. Epstein to make his best efforts to enter his guilty plea 
and to be sentenced forthwith. Please advise me of the new date and time so that someone from our 
Office can be present. 
Your letter asserts that Mr. Epstein and the State Attorney's Office have reached an 
agreement as to the terms of Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing, but no such agreements have yet 
been provided to us. As you know, the Non-Prosecution Agreement requires Mr. Epstein to provide 
copies of all proposed agreements prior to entering into any agreement — not just prior to signing an 
agreement. Please immediately provide us with the terms of any agreements that have been 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013335 
EFTA00230240

JAY P. LEPKOWIT2, ESQ. 
NOVEMBER 13, 2007 
PAGE 2 OF 3 
negotiated with the State Attorney's Office on Mr. Epstein's behalf, whether or not they have yet 
been reduced to writing, so that we have adequate time to review them prior to the change of plea 
and sentencing to determine that Mr. Epstein is complying with the terms of the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement. 
As to the type of sentence that Mr. Epstein hopes to receive, the Agreement clearly indicates 
that Mr. Epstein is to be incarcerated. In addition to the terms of the Agreement, the Florida 
Department of Corrections does not allow persons who are registered sex offenders to participate 
in "community release" (which includes "work release"). Since Mr. Epstein will have to register as 
a sex offender promptly after his guilty plea and sentencing, he will not be eligible for such a 
program. Thus, the U.S. Attorney's Office is simply putting you on notice that it intends to make 
certain that Mr. Epstein is "treated no better and no worse than anyone else" convicted of the same 
offense. If Mr. Epstein is somehow allowed to participate in a work release program despite the 
Department of Corrections' rules and practices, the Office intends to investigate the reasons why an 
exception was granted in Mr. Epstein's case. 
Finally, as to the matters related to contacting the victims and the civil litigation, let me 
address your issues in turn. First, one of the material terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement was 
Mr. Epstein's agreement to waive the right to contest the "veracity" of the victims' claims. Second, 
the questions put to the victims who have already been contacted did not address the "veracity" of 
their claims. Instead, the investigators' questions were limited to whether they had been contacted 
by any law enforcement officers and told that there would be a civil settlement. Third, the Non-
Prosecution Agreement did not anticipate such a lengthy delay in the selection of an attorney 
representative, and the victims would have been "represented parties" without such delay; thus, the 
use of the phrase "may contact" meant "has permission to contact." Hopefully, that issue will soon 
be moot. I anticipate that Judge Davis will announce the selection of a lawyer/firm in the near 
future. Upon the lawyer/firm's formal acceptance, I will contact the lawyer/firm and request that 
he/she contact you after conferring with the victims. In the meantime, please treat all of the victims 
as represented parties who must be contacted only through their counsel. 
Your concerns regarding the § 2255 litigation are unfounded. As you know, Mr. Ocariz had 
been told that he would be the attorney representative for the victims. As a matter of professional 
courtesy, he was informed that the Office decided to use a Special Master in the selection of the 
attorney representative. His decision to contact Judge Davis to express his interest in continuing to 
work on the case was no more "lobbying" than contacts made by your colleagues to Judge Davis to 
persuade him to select your choice of an attorney and to persuade him that the non-prosecution 
agreement's terms did not contemplate litigation. You state that you are concerned that the Office 
has continued to insist that a primary criteria for the appointment of counsel is the ability to handle 
litigation against Mr. Epstein, yet your continued reference to challenging the "veracity" of the 
victims' claims, your contacting of victims whom you knew were soon to be represented, your 
attempts to muzzle the Office's and the FBI's abilities to comply with victim notification rules, and 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013336 
EFTA00230241

JAY P. LEFKOW1TZ, ESQ. 
NOVEMBER 13, 2007 
PAGE 3 OF 3 
your client's consistent attacks upon the victims in the press all confirm the need for appointed 
counsel to be prepared for such litigation. 
Lastly, the statement at the end of your letter that you "reserve [the] right to object to certain 
aspects of the §2255 provisions of the Agreement" needs explanation. The provisions regarding 
§2255 appeared in the first statement of terms and every draft of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 
By signing the Agreement, your client gave up the right to "object" to its provisions. Mr. Epstein 
entered into a binding contract, and the breach of any of its terms is a breach of the entire Agreement, 
as summarized at the top of page 6 of the Agreement. Please clarify your position on this point. 
Please provide me with the terms of the agreement(s) with the State Attorney's Office and 
the new date for the change of plea and sentencing by Friday, November 16, 2007. 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
cc: 
By: 
R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney 
AUS A A. 
First Assistant United States Attorney 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013337 
EFTA00230242

stNei Slorron i'D 
Lekktuitv, 
Case No, 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013338 
EFTA00230243

12/05/01 WED 15:23 FAX 1 213 680 8500 
KIRKLANDAELLIS LIP 
Ligon! 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Fax Transmittal 
777 South Figueroa Street 
Los Angeles, California 90017 
Phone: (213) 880-8400 
Fax: (213)660-8500 
Please notify us Immediately if any pages are not received. 
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL, MAY 
BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION, AND 
IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. UNAUTHORIZED USE, 
DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. 
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, 
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: 
(213) 680-8400. 
To: 
Company: 
Fax 
Direct It 
United States Attorney's Office 
Hon. R. Alexander Acosta 
(305) 530-6444 
Southern District of Florida 
Pages 
From: 
Date; 
Fax It: 
Direct Si: 
arintir 
Kenneth W. Starr 
December 5, 2007 
3 
(213) 680-8500 
Message: 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013339 
EFTA00230244

12/05/07 WED 15:24 FAX 1 213 880 8500 
KIRKLAND&ELLIS LLP 
la1003 
Honorable It Alexander Acosta 
December 5, 2007 
Page 2 
Finally, you state that you intend to issue the victim notification letters o rda 
December 7. However, in a discussion late last week between Jeff Sloman and 
Mr. Sloman indicated that your Office would send us a revised version o 
e 
non 
on letter, which we have not received to date. ,While we believe that it is wholly 
inappropriate for your Office to send this letter under any circumstances, it is certainly 
inappropriate to issue this letter without affording us the right to review it. We strongly urge that 
you withhold the notification letter until after we are able to discuss this matter with Assistant 
Attorney General Fisher. 
Yours S 
Ciely, 
Kenneth W. Starr 
Jg 
witz 
ic
cc: 
Honorable Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General 
Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
I
.
1 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013340 
EFTA00230245

12/05iti7 WED 15:24 FAX 1 213 680 8500 
KIRKMAN:ELLIS LLP 
ZOO 2 
1400•6 Vi. Stan 
TorlaWriter
: 
kstanakirkland.com 
KIRKLAND & ELUS LLP 
VIA FACSIMILE (305) 530-6444 
Honorable IL Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NE 4th Street 
Miami, FL 33132 
Dear Alex: 
tam ullWw PAILTNEASIOPS 
777 South Figueroa Steel 
Los Annie, Callfornia 90017 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
(213) 0800400 
wmos.kirkland.com 
December 5, 2007 
Facatm115: 
(213) 6804500 
We are in receipt of your letter faxed to Jay on December 4 and faxed to Ken today in 
Los Angeles, and write to inform you that we will respond in full to that letter no later than 
Friday, December 7. We take this opportunity to address a few of the initial issues. 
First and foremost, we reaffirm the Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement"). Mr. 
Epstein has no intention of unwinding the Agreement. Indeed, he has already performed under 
the Agreement by directing his lawyers to urge the State of Florida to allow him to plead guilty 
to crimes more egregious than the State believes he committed, and to sentence bim more 
harshly than the State still believes is appropriate. However, as you know, we take serious issue 
with your staff's interpretation and implementation of the Agreement, in particular the use of 
Section 2255, but also other aspects of your office's investigation and prosecution of this matter. 
As we have expressed to you on prior occasions — where you have made clear you have no 
objection — we hope to address these issues with Assistant Attorney General Fisher in 
Washington. 
Second, your letter makes reference to "certain filings" that you state are due to your 
Office by December 7 and to "certain events" that must occur before December 14. We have no 
knowledge of any such deadlines and in fact do not bow what filings and events to which you 
are referring. Please let us know what the December 7 and December 14 deadlines are, if any, so 
that we can make sure to comply with them. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013341 
EFTA00230246

Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013342 
EFTA00230247