EFTA01089193

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
ROY BLACK, ESQ. 
JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. 
JUNE 15, 2009 
PAGE 3 OF 4 
the Office proposes that we seek the prompt resolution of the Motion to Quash, 
so that the computer equipment can be analyzed and the investigation can 
continue, including the identification of additional victims. If, instead, Mr. 
Epstein intends to continue performing his obligations under the 
Non-Prosecution Agreement, then the investigation will remain closed, and no 
federal criminal action will be pending. 
Please advise whether you would like to proceed on the Motion to Quash or, 
if not, please correct the representations to the Court regarding the status of the 
federal investigation. 
In November, more issues arose when we learned—not from Mr. Epstein or his 
attorneys—that Mr. Epstein was spending more than twelve hours each day outside the Palm 
Beach County Stockade. Mr. Epstein's release prior to the Office's notification of that 
release, resulted in accusations from victims that the Office had violated its statutory victim 
notification obligations. Our investigation of Mr. Epstein's application for the work release 
program demonstrated that Mr. Epstein made several false statements in his application and 
made threatening statements to the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office about legal repercussions 
if he was not admitted to the program. I also discovered—again, not from Mr. Epstein or his 
attorneys—that Judge McSorley had modified Mr. Epstein's judgment nunc pro tunc to an 
"Order of Community Control I," which directly contradicted the terms of the Non-
Prosecution Agreement. This required a fourth Notice of Breach and another claim that there 
was no "intended breach" followed by a meaningless "cure." 
During my conversation with Mr. Lefkowitz of June 12th regarding our fifth written 
Notice of Breach, and during the proceeding before Judge Marra, I heard again that Mr. 
Epstein had no intent to breach the Non-Prosecution Agreement but was merely relying on 
his attorneys. In light of the fact that Mr. Epstein is highly intelligent and experienced with 
the law, and is reportedly spending more than twelve hours a day at his attorney's office 
working on nothing but the litigation pending against him, this excuse will not be accepted. 
This letter is being provided to all three of you with the recommendation that you circulate 
it to any attorney who is acting on Mr. Epstein's behalf. 
Importantly, while Mr. Epstein has continued to receive the benefit of his bargain by 
not facing federal prosecution, our Office has not received the benefits of finality, savings 
of resources, or the punishment and victim restitution terms envisioned by the Non-
EFTA01089213

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ EsQ. 
ROY BLACK, ESQ. 
JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. 
JUNE 15, 2009 
PAGE 4 OF 4 
Prosecution Agreement. 
As I mentioned in our telephone call, I have asked Mr. Josefsberg to provide me with 
the correspondence that he referenced during the hearing before Judge Marra. That will be 
reviewed to determine if there has been yet another breach by Mr. Epstein. As I stated, and 
as mentioned in the Notice Letter served upon Mr. Goldberger, notice of any breaches that 
we discover will be provided as required by the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Our Office 
also will review the new pleading in the Jane Doe 101 matter that Mr. Lefkowitz mentioned, 
prior to deciding what, if any, remedies we will pursue for Mr. Epstein's breach. However, 
I note that, while the U.S. Attorney's Office is required to provide notice of any breach, there 
is no requirement that Mr. Epstein be allowed the opportunity to cure any breach. The 
pattern of behavior described above will be factored into the Office's decision on what 
remedies it will pursue in connection with this most recent breach and any future violations. 
Sincerely, 
Jeffrey H. Sloman 
Acting United States Attorney 
By: 
Assistant United States Attorney 
cc: 
Northern Division 
EFTA01089214

TAB 5 
EFTA01089215

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Jay: 
June 17, 2009 
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 2009. I did not receive your letter until late 
yesterday afternoon because I am shuttling back and forth between the Fort Lauderdale and 
West Palm Beach offices. The best way to reach me is via e-mail. 
With respect to the substance of your letter, the Office has not completed its review 
of Mr. Epstein's civil filings and correspondence related to the payment of the attorney 
representative's fees, so I cannot confirm that all outstanding issues have been resolved. If 
and when additional breaches are identified, timely notice will be provided in accordance 
with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 
As to your proposal. our Office cannot and will not become involved in the civil suits 
filed against Mr. Epstein; as counsel for Mr. Epstein has expressed on several occasions, it 
is inappropriate for the government to involve itself in civil litigation. We likewise do not 
think it is appropriate to review civil pleadings in order to provide advisory opinions, even 
at your request. 
The duty to stay within the bounds of the Non-Prosecution Agreement lies with Mr. 
Epstein and he alone has the power to remain in compliance. Mr. Epstein has a highly skilled 
team to assist him, and compliance with the Agreement is not difficult, as you suggest. For 
example, it is not complicated to understand that, when a named victim files a claim 
EFTA01089216

JAY P. LEFKOW1TZ, ESQ. 
JUNE 17, 2009 
PAGE 2 OF 2 
exclusively under Section 2255, Mr. Epstein cannot assert that there is no liability, just as 
providing the state plea agreement to our Office in advance of entering the state guilty plea 
was not complicated. 
I remain hopeful that Mr. Epstein will take all of his obligations seriously and elect 
to err on the side of caution in making decisions that relate to the performance of his duties. 
Sincerely, 
Jeffrey If. Sloman 
Acting United States Attorney 
cc: 
Jack Goldberger, Esq. 
Roy Black, Esq. 
By: 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Northern Division 
EFTA01089217

TAB 6 
EFTA01089218

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
AND AFFILIATED MRTNISSMIES 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. 
To Call Writer Direct' • 
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
Des 
Citigroup Center 
WWW.lorkland.com 
June 19, 2009 
Re: Jeffrey Epstein 
Facsimile: 
I appreciate your letter of June 17, 2009. I sincerely hope that any and all issues that 
could generate an adversarial relationship between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney's 
Office are in our past. Like you, we hope that the ongoing, complex, and at times vigorous 
litigation will not again require your involvement, nor result in any belief on your part that any 
legal position taken by Mr. Epstein's counsel conflicts with the Non-Prosecution Agreement 
("NPA"). 
In order to avoid future misunderstandings, however, I would like to have a discussion 
with you specifically about our ongoing obli ations as you understand them under the NPA. As 
you know from past experience, and as 
previously acknowledged in letters to my 
partner Ken Starr (on December 4, 2007 an 
r y Ann Sanchez (on December 19, 2007), the 
language of ¶ 8 is "far from simple," and, in certain respects, subject to significant ambiguity. 
I believe it is both necessary and appropriate to seek immediate clarification from the 
government about its understanding of a few provisions in the NPA. It is likely by no fault of our 
own that these issues will come before a judge or an independent third party, whose job it will be 
to interpret the intent of the parties. In those circumstances, I think the court would most likely 
turn to both of us and directly seek our views, as the drafters of the agreement, before rendering 
its own opinion. Therefore, I believe it would bring about the finality that we both seek in a 
much reduced time frame if we could discuss several of the more ambiguous provisions 
contained in the NPA. 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Los Angeles 
Munich 
San Francisco 
Washington, D.C. 
EFTA01089219

Ms. 
June 19, 2009 
Page 2 
One specific example comes to mind. First, we clearly understood during the course of 
negotiating the NPA, and believe that both the language of the NPA and our prior 
correspondence with your Office confirm, that the waiver of liability set forth in Paragraph 8 at 
most was designed to allow an identified individual the right to assert a single violation of a 
section 2255 predicate. The waiver of liability does not embrace situations where a particular 
plaintiff asserts multiple violations. Thus, compliance with paragraph 8's waiver of liability 
would require at most that Mr. Epstein stipulate to the existence of a single enumerated predicate 
that would entitle an otherwise eligible plaintiff to actual damages (or the applicable statutory 
minimum damages where actual damages fall short of that floor), leaving aside the issue of 
whether the waiver is applicable to contested litigation or only the cases where there would be 
agreed damage resolutions. In addition, if we believe that a predicate act is time-barred, as 
indeed we understand was the case with respect to all such acts in relation to one plaintiff, a 
proper construction of the waiver of liability would not preclude the reliance on a statute of 
limitations defense. 
Given your Office's prior acknowledgements that the language of the NPA is far from 
clear, we very much would appreciate an opportunity to discuss Paragraph 8 with you in the very 
near future in order to clarify a few pivotal questions raised by the NPA. I assure you that 
Mr. Epstein intends to abide fully by the terms of the NPA. And it is my sincere hope that our 
discussion can avert future risks that anything we do will cause you to believe that there has been 
a breach of the NPA. 
Finally, I enclose a letter in response to your June 15 letter in order to provide you with 
our perspective on the issues you raised. I hope our differing views on certain events over the 
past several years as reflected in my letter will not in anyway divert us from a common goal of 
having Mr. Epstein complete his NPA obligations without further tension with your Office. 
• ce 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. 
Enclosures 
EFTA01089220

EFTA01089221

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
AND AHILINIED PARTNERSHIPS 
Jay R Lefkovatz, P.C. 
To Call Writer Directly: 
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 
United tates Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
June 19, 2009 
Re: Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear 
Facsimile: 
We prepared this answer in response to your letter dated June 15, 2009 and before 
receiving your follow up letter of June 17, 2009. At this point it has been almost three years 
since the federal government first intervened in what was originally a matter investigated and 
charged by state prosecutorial authorities. It has been almost a year since Mr. Epstein pleaded 
guilty in state court and began serving his sentence in county jail, pursuant to the terms and as a 
direct result of the federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "NPA"). When Mr. Epstein was 
sentenced, the U.S. Attorney promised me and my co-counsel that the United States Attorney's 
Office's involvement would cease with Mr. Epstein's execution of the NPA and incarceration in 
state custody. We were also promised that the federal government would not intervene in 
discretionary state or county decisions regarding the implementation of Mr. Epstein's sentence. 
We take this opportunity to address in detail each of the alleged instances you describe to 
support your position that Mr. Epstein has engaged in a pattern of breaching the NPA. 
Mr. Epstein's overriding commitment is, and has always been, to complete his jail sentence, 
fulfill his other obligations under the NPA, and reach final settlements of pending section 2255 
cases with plaintiffs who are agreeable to such settlements. We respectfully submit (and support 
through documentary evidence) that there have been no past breaches of the NPA. There have 
been no "willful" breaches of the NPA. There has been no pattern of breaches of the NPA. 
As an initial matter, it is important to consider your letter of June 15 and its contents in 
context. Mr. Epstein has satisfied, and continues to satisfy, his obligations pursuant to the NPA. 
Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty to a registerable state offense. He has already registered as a sex 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Los Angeles 
Munich 
San Francisco 
Washington, D.C. 
EFTA01089222

Page 2 
offender, and has served over 11 months of his sentence in county jail. While such a plea and 
punishment were not otherwise sought by the State Attorney, Mr. Epstein agreed to the plea, the 
sentence, and the obligation to register as a sex offender as a direct result of obligations he 
agreed to undertake pursuant to the NPA. Furthermore, Mr. Epstein has already paid over 
$300,000 in civil settlements and fees for the attorney representative, and has agreed to submit 
issues regarding further fees to a Special Master pursuant to a proposal suggested by the attorney 
representative himself. The claimants whose matters have already been settled were identified 
by you as victims and, in one case, as a sign of good faith, Mr. Epstein paid a settlement to an 
individual he had no recollection of ever meeting, solely because she appeared on your July 2008 
list. 
We are prepared to address each of the statements contained in your June 15 letter. First, 
your statement that Mr. Epstein did not use his "best efforts" to enter his guilty plea and to be 
sentenced is, respectfully, without merit. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2. The date of entry 
of the state plea was deferred with the express written consent of United States Attorney Acosta, 
who recognized and expressly provided us with the opportunity to pursue an independent 
assessment of this matter by the Justice Department. The subsequent nine-month "delay" was a 
direct result of the Justice Department's determination that it was appropriate to convene an 
intense and time-consuming review. Thus, the delay was not dictated at all by Mr. Epstein, but 
instead, by the review process agreed to and, if you recall, initiated by Mr. Acosta. 
On June 23, 2008, the Justice Department concluded its final review and only seven days 
later, Mr. Epstein promptly entered his plea (on June 30, 2008) and immediately began serving 
his sentence. As the following timeline of events leading up to Mr. Epstein's entry of plea 
makes clear, the facts do not support your conclusion that Mr. Epstein willfully breached the 
NPA by delaying his sentence, and, instead, compellingly demonstrates that Mr. Epstein's 
participation in high-level Department of Justice reviews cannot factually or legally ground a 
claim that he "willfully" breached the NPA: 
• The NPA, signed on September 24, 2007, provides that Mr. Epstein "begin serving his 
sentence not later than January 4, 2008." See Exhibit 2, NPA1111. 
• 
On November 28 2007, Mr. Epstein's defense counsel contacted 
to request a review of certain provisions of the NPA. We informed 
the USAO of this request the very next day in a letter to Mr. Acosta. See Exhibit 3, 
November 29, 2007 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta at 4. 
• In a December 4, 2007 letter, Mr. Acosta stated that he supported the defense's appeal to 
Washington. See Exhibit 4, December 4, 2007 letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta to K. 
Starr with a copy to 
at 5 ("I do not mind this Office's decision being 
EFTA01089223

June 19, 2009 
Page 3
appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in 
this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decision."). 
• 
On December 11, 2007, pursuant to Mr. Acosta's request, the defense team sent him 
submissions detailing the defense's concerns related to the NPA. 
See Exhibit 5, 
December 11, 2007 Letter from K. Stan• to U.S. Attorney Acosta. 
• 
On December 14, 2007, Mr. Acosta met with members of the defense team to discuss the 
serious issues raised about the NPA. 
• 
In a December 19, 2007 letter, Mr. Acosta stated that "the issues raised are important and 
must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns." See Exhibit 6, December 19, 
2007 Letter from U.S. Attorney Aco
Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez at 3. He also 
stated that he had spoken with 
to ask that she review this matter and to 
expedite the process. Id. 
• 
In the beginning of January, 2008, Mr. Acosta and I discussed the need for further 
consideration of the issues raised by the defense. He postponed the plea and sentencing 
until the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) was finished with its review 
of the case. 
• 
In a February 29, 2008 email I sent to Mr. Acosta, I confirmed that that "there were 
significant irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement" and that he would ask 
CEOS to evaluate the matter. I also confirmed Mr. Acosta's agreement to 
st ne the 
state plea deadline until after the matter was reviewed. On that same day, 
responded in writing as follows: "Please be assured at it as 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." See Exhibits 7 and 8 February 29, 
2008 Emails to U.S. Attorney Acosta and from 
• 
Given that CEOS determined that it would not review many of the defense's objections 
and that its review would be limited on the rest of the objections, CEOS's decision, 
rendered on May 15, 2008, left open the need for a more thorough review of critical 
issues by others at the Justice Department. 
• In a May 28, 2008 email from 
to myselt 
further postponed the 
deadline to plead until the Deputy Attorney General's Office (DAG) com leted its 
review. See Exhibit 9, May 28, 2008 Email from 
to J. 
Lefkowitz. 
EFTA01089224

June 19, 2009 
Page 4 
• 
A final letter of determination was not issued by the Department of Justice until June 23, 
2008. 
• 
Just one week after that date, Mr. Epstein promptly entered his plea and immediately 
began serving his state sentence on June 30, 2008. 
While you state that a breach occurred because Mr. Epstein and the defense team did not 
provide you with the state plea documents until the last business day before the plea, neither 
Mr. Epstein nor his counsel bear sole responsibility for timing of the delivery of these 
documents. It was the responsibility of the State Attorney's Office to provide the defense with 
the plea agreement. Defense counsel did not receive the plea agreement from the State until 
10:00 A.M. on June 27 2008 the Friday before the plea). See Exhibit 10, June 27, 2008 Email 
from 
to J. Goldberger. Once the plea agreement was reviewed 
by Mr. Epstein's defense team, Mr. Goldberger sent it to you that same afternoon. At 5:55 P.M. 
on June 27, 2008, following your receipt of the agreement sent to you by Mr. Goldberger, 
Messrs. Black and Goldberger received a responsive letter from you alleging that the plea 
agreement violas 
the NPA. See Exhibit 11, June 27/28, 2008 Email String between Assistant 
U.S. Attorney 
and R. Black and J. Goldberger (attaching Notice of Non-Compliance). 
Second, you state that language contained in the first draft of the plea agreement 
proposed by the State violated the NPA, because it called for community control in lieu of jail. 
Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2. You now suggest that this "error" evidences Mr. Epstein's 
alleged efforts to undermine the NPA. I respectfully submit that you are mistaken in both cases. 
The language in the first draft of the plea agreement was prepared by the State and, as stated 
above, it was not sent to the defense until the very day that it was sent to you. 
Moreover, as Mr. Goldberger confirmed to you in a telephone conversation on the same 
day that he received your June 27 letter, the plea agreement, as originally drafted by the State, 
would have resulted in the exact same 12-month and 6-month consecutive jail sentences, 
followed by one year of community control, as was required by the NPA and ultimately imposed 
on Mr. Epstein. Although defense counsel asked the State to change the language of the plea 
agreement to alleviate your concerns, the same exact sentence and period of incarceration as 
required by the NPA would have been imposed on Mr. Epstein had the language of the State's 
first draft been allowed to a 
1 
See Exhibit 11, June 27/28, 2008 Email String between 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
and R. Black and J. Goldberger (confirming a telephone 
conversation between the parties on June 27 that the state plea agree
 in compliance 
with the NPA and indicating a request by Assistant U.S. Attorney 
to modify the 
language in the state plea agreement); see also Exhibit 12, the initial version and the signed 
version of the state plea agreements. 
EFTA01089225

June 19, 2009 
Page 5 
The bottom line here is that while Florida counsel for Mr. Epstein fully believed that the 
initial language in the State's draft would result in a sentence identical to the mandates of the 
NPA, changes were made solely to conform to your requests. Neither the USAO or the 
administration of federal criminal justice suffered any prejudice: lawyers often make linguistic 
alterations of form; we did so here. The changes were made in short order, namely, during the 
Friday and Saturday before Mr. Epstein's state plea; the plea and plea agreement completely 
complied with the NPA as did Mr. Epstein's sentence; and there was neither a breach, nor harm. 
Moreover, all communications were through counsel. Mr. Epstein was not a party to these 
communications and in no way can be considered, factually or legally, to have committed a 
"willful" breach of the NPA in this regard. 
Third, you state that defense "counsel obstructed [your] ability to abide by [your] 
obligations to notify the victims of the outcome of the federal investigation." Exhibit 1, June 15, 
2009 Letter at 2. We believe that this statement misconstrues the intentions and conduct of the 
defense team and, does not support any charge of "obstruction" against Mr. Epstein, as would be 
required to sanction him for a "willful" breach of the NPA. In October 2007, a full nine months 
before Mr. Epstein was sentenced, we first raised the issue of the notification. On October 10, 
2007, I stated in a letter to Mr. Acosta that the defense team did not believe "it was the 
government's place to be co-counsel to the identified individuals," and reasonably proposed that 
the alleged victims be contacted by the selected attorney representative. See Exhibit 13, October 
10, 2007 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta at 4-5. 
Then, on November 28, 2007, you sent defense counsel the proposed victim notification 
letter indicating that the alleged victims had a federal right to be notified of the resolution of this 
matter pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights under § 3771. Se Ex i 
14, November 29, 2007 
Draft Victim Notification Letter from Assistant U.S. Attorney 
. Mr. Epstein's counsel 
objected to your draft letter and the proposed method and procedure for notifying the alleged 
victims and challenged whether you were in fact obligated to notify these individuals pursuant to 
18 U.S.C. § 3771. Those objections were made in a timely and appropriate manner and our 
dialogue regarding notification issues continued. As you know, the notification letter was not 
finalized for several months. 
The key point here is that our objections to the letter were made in good faith and were 
well-founded. After all, on December 6, 2007, Mr. Acosta agreed to many of our objections and 
adopted several of our modifications to resolve problems raised by the draft notification letter. 
See Exhibit 15, December 6, 2007 Letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta to J. Lefkowitz. This fact 
confirms both the good-faith nature of our objections and that neither Mr. Epstein nor his counsel 
could be considered to have violated the NPA by raising those objections in the first place. 
Fourth, Mr. Epstein did not, as you stated, refuse "to fulfill promptly Mr. Epstein's 
obligation to secure the services of an attorney representative for the victims." Exhibit 1, June 
EFTA01089226

June 19, 2009 
Page 6 
15, 2009 Letter at 2. 
It was the United States' obligation to select a suitable attorney 
representative, subject to the good-faith approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel. See Exhibit 2, NPA 
¶ 7. Indeed, due to a concern we had raised, your Office specificall 
cd the procedure to 
select an attorney representative and delegated that task to 
See Exhibit 16, 
Addendum to NPA ¶ 7A. Again, the fact that your Office accommo ate our concerns validates 
their legitimacy and undermines any claim that the NPA was breached by raising those concerns 
with you. To the contrary, Mr. Epstein executed the Addendum in an attempt to resolve 
outstanding, high) unorthodox and complex issues at the intersection of civil and criminal law. 
A letter to 
(authored by then 
dated October 25, 2007 followed. 
See Exhibit 17, October 25, 2007 Letter to 
Once Mr. Podhurst's firm was selected by MIMI 
Mr. Epstein did not object to the 
selection. Moreover, as you have acknowledged to the court, the open issues involving the 
attorney representative portions of the N 
were not finally resolved until September 3, 2008. 
See Exhibit 18, December 22, 2008 
Supplemental Declaration at 3 ¶ 9. Only five days 
later, on September 8, 2008, I sent a letter to Robert Josefsberg advising him that Mr. Epstein 
would pay his fees pursuant to the NPA for his role as an attorney representative. See Exhibit 
19, September 8, 2008 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to R. Josefsberg. Furthermore, in an effort to 
comply with the obligations under the NPA, Mr. Epstein already has paid Mr. Podhurst's firm 
over $160,000 in legal fees, despite significant concerns over the scope of the work for which he 
is billing Mr. Epstein, and has agreed with Mr. Josefsberg's proposal that a Special Master be 
empowered to resolve any fee related issues that the Podhurst firm and Mr. Epstein's civil 
counsel cannot resolve. See Exhibit 20, June 15, 2009 Letter from Robert Critton to Kathy Ezell. 
There is nothing about the exchanges between counsel and the USAO regarding the attorney 
representative that even begins to approach a "willful" breach by Mr. Epstein. 
Fifth, you suggest that Mr. Epstein willfully breached the NPA because of the actions of 
Mr. Tein and Mr. Goldberger, whom you state failed to approve the victim notification letter that 
contained incorrect information. See Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2. The incorrect 
information in the letter was a proposed unilateral modification to the NPA without prior 
approval by Mr. Epstein or any member of the defense team. It was only first suggested by your 
Office in a letter from Mr. Acosta on December 19, 2007. We never agreed to that language. In 
fact, I personally raised several objections to the suggested modification in my letter to Mr. 
Acosta, dated December 21, 2007. See Exhibit 21, December 21, 2007 Letter from J. Lefkowitz 
to U.S. Attorney Acosta. I personally became aware of the inclusion of that language on 
Wednesday, August 13, 2008 and discussed the matter with you immediate) . See Exhibits 22 
and 23, August 13 and 15, 2008 Letters from Assistant U.S. Attorney 
to J. Lefkowitz 
(confirming that the "December modification" is not a part of the NP 
gain, that oversight 
was not a willful breach or an expression of intent to violate the terms of the Agreement, but 
instead represented the efforts of counsel, acting in good faith, in an attempt to insure that the 
letter contained only previously agreed-upon language. 
EFTA01089227

June 19, 2009 
Page 7 
Sixth, you raise the issue of a delayed withdrawal of a motion to quash. See Exhibit I, 
June 15, 2009 Letter at 2-3. There is no motion to quash that still remains pending. The fact that 
the motion was not withdrawn for some time was merely due to an administrative oversight that 
has long been remedied, but at no time did it prejudice the Government in any way. Nor did it 
result from an effort by myself or co-counsel to gain some tactical advantage. Furthermore, no 
effort was made by any counsel to seek a judicial decision on the pending motion. The motion 
had no adverse effect on the Government, and the delay in its withdrawal is legally and factually 
unrelated to the type of material and willful breach that alone could warrant remedies—not least 
of all because Mr. Epstein has suffered irreversible prejudice by complying with the core 
provisions of the NPA. Again, he has been imprisoned, he has pled guilty, he is registered, he 
has paid sums to claimants, all to comply with his obligations under the NPA. 
Seventh, you state that additional issues arose in November regarding the issuance of 
work release to Mr. Epstein. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 3. We have previously reviewed 
this very matter with you and other individuals in your Office in November 2008. At that time, 
Mr. Roy Black met with you, 
in Miami to 
review the work release issue. 
mong of er sign' want ocuments shown to you, we presented 
you with your own email in which you had previously acknowledged that the sheriff had 
discretion in the matter. See Exhibit 24, July 3, 2008 Email from Assistant U.S. Attorney 
to 
("If Mr. Epstein is truly eligible for the [work release] program, we 
have no objection to him being treated like any other similarly situated prisoner . . ."). 
Furthermore, Mr. Acosta, as already stated, had previously assured me and other counsel that the 
USA° would not interfere in the ordinary implementation of discretionary administrative 
decisions by state or county officials. We believe we were under no obligation (in the NPA or 
anywhere else) to notify you of such discretionary and ordinary state-made decisions, and the 
fact that your Office confirmed that Mr. Epstein was entitled to the same discretionary 
administrative decisions as other similarly situated inmates fundamentally undermines any claim 
that Mr. Epstein breached the NPA in connection with the state and county officials' decision. In 
any event, after thoroughly reviewing and evaluating Mr. Epstein's application, the Palm Beach 
County Sheriff's Office properly exercised its discretion, in full compliance with its stated 
requirements, policies and procedures, to grant Mr. Epstein work release. In addition, after the 
Sheriff's Office received a multi-page letter from you to =ME, 
which recited the very 
allegations of errors on Mr. Epstein's work release application to which you refer in your latest 
letter, each allegation was fully reviewed, and the Sheriff's office found its initial decision 
appropriate. 
Eighth, it is both unreasonable and unjustifiable to hold Mr. Epstein responsible—never 
mind declare him in breach—with regard to 
nunc pro tunc order. Exhibit 1, 
June 15, 2009 Letter at 3. Neither Mr. Epstein nor defense counsel had anything to do with and 
certainly no prior knowledge of this order. Defense counsel only learned of it after you brought 
it to our attention. The facts are as follows: the Department of Corrections requires an order 
EFTA01089228

June 19, 2009 
Page 8 
placing someone on community control before the Department of Corrections will supervise that 
person. a, 
the retired judge that took Mr. Epstein's plea, inadvertently neglected to 
enter the order placing Mr. Epstein on Community Control 1. When 
learned of 
this, she properly entered the order nunc pro tunc to the date of the plea. See Exhibit 25, Order 
of Community Control. If you will note on the 3-page court event form, circled at the top of 
page 2, is "C.C.1" (community control 1). Mr. Epstein was properly placed on community 
control 1 on the day of his plea to begin only after he completes his jail sentence, and the nunc 
pro tunc order simply ratifies the oral pronouncement made by the court at the time of the plea. 
Given that the NPA expressly provides that Mr. Epstein is to serve a sentence of 12 months in 
"community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail," Exhibit 2, NPA ¶ 2(b), your 
assertion that the inclusion of community control "directly contradicted the terms of the" NPA is 
incorrect. 
Finally, the motion to dismiss that was the topic of discussion on June 12 has been 
withdrawn. As indicated in the letter I sent you on June 15, we have adopted an internal 
screening process aimed at eliminating future concerns about anything that reasonably could be 
considered a breach of the NPA. See Exhibit 26, June 15, 2009 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Mr. Epstein has directed all counsel to make certain that no 
filing could be construed 
h of the NPA. Furthermore, we proposed a supplemental new 
process, as stated in my June 15 letter to you, that would have provided you, if you chose, the 
opportunity to review any such filing before it is submitted to the court so that you may 
determine whether or not it constitutes a breach. 
That being said, I wish to reiterate our firm belief that the NPA allowed Mr. Epstein the 
right to contest litigation whenever an express waiver of all other state, federal or common law 
claims or the right to bring contested litigation in the future was not sufficiently or correctly 
pleaded. As you know, we spent several weeks negotiating the language of the NPA with you 
and Mr. Acosta. We firmly believe that the motion to dismiss that was recently filed (and then 
promptly withdrawn) did not constitute a violation. 
First, Paragraph 8 of the NPA clearly limits those who may benefit from any waivers by 
Mr. Epstein to an "identified individual" who "elects to proceed exclusively under 18 USC 2255, 
and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common 
law". Exhibit 2, NPA ¶ 8. More is required of a plaintiff than to simply allege, as did Jane Doe 
101, that she "exclusively seeks civil remedies pursuant to 18 USC 2255." Exhibit 27, Amended 
Complaint ¶ 24. Such an averment satisfies only the exclusivity portion of the twin conditions 
set forth in the NPA at ¶ 8. The word "and" followed by the requirement of an affirmative 
waiver of any other claims, federal, state, or common law mandates an additional affirmative act 
by the plaintiff. No such waiver was filed or even pled. Jane Doe 101 did no more than restate 
that her complaint in civil action no 9:09-cv-80591-KAM was only for 2255 damages. She 
never affirmatively waived all future claims in state or federal court, as required by the NPA. 
EFTA01089229

June 19, 2009 
Page 9 
Because of this threshold issue, Jane Doe 101 did not, through the attorney representative, satisfy 
the NPA ¶ 8 requirements.' While Mr. Epstein's counsel still believe for these reasons that the 
motion did not conflict with Mr. Epstein's obligations under the NPA, the motion was in relevant 
part withdrawn at Mr. Epstein's insistence—further demonstrating that Mr. Epstein has 
prioritized his desire to avoid contentious additional litigation with the USAO over this matter. 
In short, our good-faith efforts to raise litigation issues will be more carefully scrutinized 
in the future as to limit the possibility of being construed by your Office as supporting a notice 
that Mr. Epstein is in "willful" breach. Issues regarding the scope of the ¶ 8 waivers are 
unorthodox and even unprecedented. They result in part from the NPA being executed before 
you identified the individuals listed, see Exhibit 2, NPA ¶ 7, and, importantly, given the 
evolution of the civil litigation, before any joint statement as required by the terms of the NPA 
was provided to Mr. Josefsberg. Nevertheless, as we stated on June 15, we had intended to 
provide you with future filings in advance so that we could discuss their interaction with the 
NPA before rather than after any filing, However given your rejection of that procedure, in a 
good faith attempt to avoid future conflict, we would nevertheless hope to clarify some of the 
more ambiguous parts of ¶ 8 of the agreement with you as soon as possible. To repeat, it is 
Mr. Epstein's overriding intent to fulfill his obligations under the NPA -- an intent we as his 
attorneys will do everything in our power to effectuate. 
The facts demonstrate that Mr. Epstein has clearly not committed any breach of the NPA, 
much less a willful breach. As we have reiterated and as has been proven by Mr. Epstein's own 
actions, Mr. Epstein has no intention of breaching the NPA and has never had any such intention. 
Although you claim that Mr. Epstein received the benefits of the NPA and the Government only 
its burdens, I believe the reality is to the contrary. Mr. Epstein has suffered significant and 
in-eversible prejudice: he has been imprisoned in a county jail for almost a year, he has pleaded 
guilty to a state felony that required sex registration and has, in fact, registered as a sex offender, 
he accepted civil burdens in his ongoing litigation that may result in millions of dollars of future 
payments, he has settled cases that could be won, in deference to the NPA and he is paying and 
That Jane Doe 101 did not meet the threshold requirements for the imposition of the waiver of liability portion 
of Paragraph 8 of the NPA is demonstrated by the filings of Jane Doe II in 09-80469-CIV-Marra, a federal 
lawsuit filed in March, 2009 seeking "exclusively 2255" damages, while Jane Doe 11 already bad a pending 
state court suit filed in July of 2008 seeking damages against Epstein for sexual assault and conspiracy. Jane 
Doe II in her federal complaint alleged Epstein could "not contest liability for claims brought exclusively 
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255". Exhibit 27, Amended Complaint 1 24. In her response to Epstein's Motion to 
Dismiss in which Epstein challenged the "exclusivity" claim, she argued at page 7 that "Epstein appeared to be 
violating the agreement . . (NPA)". However, her attorney withdrew that claim at the June 12, 2009 hearing 
(and in her subsequent Amended Response) agreeing that the state filing negated the "exclusivity" of the federal 
2255 lawsuit. On the current record, nothing prevents Jane Doe 101 from filing a parallel state court claim. 
EFTA01089230

June 19, 2009 
Page 10 
will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for his adversaries to pursue him in court. 
The Government may have endured some delays and administrative costs due to certain of its 
own its decision — such as to evaluate the Sheriff's exercise of discretionary authority in 
implementing the Sheriff's own work release program —but neither the Government nor any 
civil plaintiff has suffered any harm, any prejudice, or any disadvantage as a result of the events 
you have identified. We signed a contract -- the NPA -- with you in good faith, and in exchange, 
Mr. Epstein gave consideration that cannot be returned (12 months of his freedom and his 
reputation). He is legally entitled to its benefits. He committed no "willful breach." As such, 
we believe it would constitute both a contractual and constitutional error to seek further remedy 
or to in any way withdraw from the NPA. 
We will continue to make our best efforts to communicate with you about any potential 
problems and hope, in the interest of fairness, you will do the same. 
Jay . Lefkowitz, P.C. 
Enclosures 
EFTA01089231

Exhibit 1 
EFTA01089232