EFTA00067364

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
SUMMARY OF MISCONDUCT ISSUES IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN 
The manner in 
which federal prosecutors have pursued the allegations against Mr. Epstein is highly irregular 
and warrants full review by the Department. While we repeatedly have raised our concerns 
regarding misconduct with the United States Attorney's Office in Miami (the "USAO"), not only 
has it has remained unwilling to address these issues, but Mr. Epstein's defense counsel has been 
instructed to limit its contact to the very prosecutors who are the subject of this misconduct 
complaint. For your review, this document summarizes the USAO's conduct in this case. 
Background 
1. 
In March 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department opened a criminal investigation of 
Palm Beach resident, Jeffrey E. Epstein. The press has widely reported that Mr. Epstein 
is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. 
2. 
In July 2006, after an intensive probe, including interviews of dozens of witnesses, 
returns of numerous document subpoenas, multiple trash pulls and the execution of a 
search warrant on his residence, Mr. Epstein was indicted by a Florida Grand Jury on one 
count of felony solicitation of prostitution. 
3. 
In a publicly released letter, Palm Beach Police Chief 
riticized the Grand 
Jury's decision and the State Attorney's handling o 
e case. Shortly after the Grand 
Jury's indictment, the Chief took the unprecedented step of releasin his Department's 
raw police reports of the investigation (including Detective 
unedited written 
reports of witness statements and witness identification in ormation , that were later 
proven to be highly inaccurate transcriptions of witnesses' actual statements. The Chief 
also publicly asked federal authorities to prosecute the case. 
Becomes Involved in Mr. Epstein's Case at the Earliest Stage 
4. 
In early November of 2006, Epstein's lawyers had their initial contact with the newly 
assigned line federal prosecutor, 
Although it is extremely unusual 
for a First Assistant United States Attorney to participate in such a communication, 
was present on that very first phone call. 
5. 
On November 16, 2006, despite that the fact that the investigation exclusively concerned 
illegal sexual conduct during massage sessions, AUSA 
issued irrelevant official 
document requests seeking Mr. Epstein's 2004 and 2005 personal income-tax returns, 
and later subpoenaed his medical records. See Tab 16, November 16, 2006 Letter from 
Becomes Personally Involved in a Dispute Over Another State Sex Case 
6. 
In March 2007, FAUSA 
reported to local police an attempted trespass by a 17-
year-old male. Mr. 
claimed that the individual had attempted to enter Mr. 
home without invitation to make contact with his 16-year-old daughter, but he 
spotted the young man before the perpetrator had an opportunity to enter the house. The 
EFTA00067364

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
same individual had previously fled the home of another neighbor after entering that 
house uninvited, when, looking for the bedroom of their 17-year-old daughter, he 
mistakenly entered the bedroom of their 14-year-old daughter, touched her on the leg and 
startled her awake. State of Florida v. Johnathan Jeffrey Zirulnikoff, Case No. F078646 
(June 28, 2007). 
7. 
After a thorough review by the Miami State Attorney's Office, and sex-crimes prosecutor 
a, 
the investigation revealed that the defendant and both the neighbor's 17-
year-old daughter and Mr. 
daughter were previously acquainted. 
The 
defendant was charged with simple trespass in connection with his unauthorized entry 
into the neighbor's house. Id. 
8. 
FAUSA 
however, demanded that the young man be registered as a sex offender 
and objected to any sentence short of incarceration. The Assistant State Attorney in 
charge of the sex-crimes unit reported Mr. 
conduct during the proceedings as 
"outrageous." The defendant's attorney described Mr. 
as being "out of control." 
Shortly after, Mr. 
began publicly deriding the elected State Attorney, his office 
and the state process for prosecuting sex offenses, as "a joke." 
Unauthorized Tactics in Disregard of the United States Attorney's Manual are Used 
9. 
In June 2007, AUSA 
subpoenaed the investigating agent of Epstein's attorney, 
Roy Black, in a clear effort to invade the defense camp. The subpoena was specifically 
drafted to discover the investigator's contacts, with all prospective witnesses, Mr. Epstein 
and his attorneys.' Not surprisingly, Ms. 
issued this subpoena without the 
requisite prior approval by the DOJ's Office of Enforcement Operations. See United 
States Attorneys' Manual, § 9-13.410. When confronted, she misleadingly responded 
that she had consulted with the Department of Justice and was not required to obtain 
0E0 approval because her subpoena was not directed to "an office physically located 
within an attorney's office." See Tab 18, December 13, 2007 Letter from 
at 
4 n.1. This answer clearly suggests that Ms. 
had intentionally misled the 
Department officials about the items that her subpoena sought.2
The subpoena sought, among other things: "All documents and information related to the nature of the 
relationship between [the investigator and/or his firm] and Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, including but not limited to . . . 
records of the dates when services were performed . . . telephone logs or records of dates of communications 
with Mr. Epstein (or with a third party on Mr. Epstein's behalf); appointment calendars/dateboolcs and the like 
(whether in hard copy or electronic form) for any period when work was performed on behalf of Mr. Epstein or 
when any communication was had with Mr. Epstein (or with a third party on Mr. Epstein's behalf) . See Tab 
17, June 18, 2007 Subpoena to William Riley/ Riley Kiraly, ¶ 3. 
2 
Indeed, we arc aware of two other recent instances in which 
placed serious misrepresentations before 
attaching the state detective's affidavit in support of a search warrant for Epstein's house. See 
y 31, 2007, in the grand-jury litigation arising out of this case, she filed the "Declaration of 
In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecun 
d OLY-64, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla. July 31, 
2007). 
At the time she filed Detective 
affidavit, she knew it contained numerous material 
misrepresentations, including gross misstatements o witness statements and other evidence. Second, we 
(Continued...) 
2 
EFTA00067365

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Mr. Epstein is Required to Agree to Civil Liability In Order to Avoid a Federal Indictment 
10. 
On
 31, 2007, during negotiations over a possible federal plea agreement, FAUSA 
and AUSA -demanded that Mr. Epstein agree to the imposition of civil 
liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 as a pre-condition to deferral of federal prosecution. To 
the best of our knowledge, the inclusion of such a term in a deferred prosecution 
agreement of this kind is absolutely unprecedented.; 
Specifically, Ms. 
demanded that Mr. Epstein waive the right to contest civil liability to a list of individuals 
she said were "victims" of § 2255, whose names, however, she refused to disclose, and 
agree to pay damages of a minimum of $150,000 to each and every one of such 
undisclosed individuals, and hire an attorney to represent them if they decided to sue 
him. See Tab 20, July 31, 2007 Draft of Deferred Prosecution Agreement. 
11. 
FAUSA 
and AUSA 
insisted that the identities of the individuals on the 
list not be disclosed to Mr. .pstem or his counsel until after Mr. Epstein was already 
sentenced in the state case. 
(a) 
Over the next two months, Mr.l
refused to negotiate these terms. They 
ultimately became incorporated into the final deferred prosecution agreement. 
See Tab 21, September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement, ¶¶ 7-11. 
(b) 
It was not until seven months later, in February 2008, that Epstein's lawyers were 
able to take their first official statement from one of the women FAUSA 
alleged were minor victims of federal offenses. 
(c) 
This statement, a deposition 
of 
the initial complainant in the state 
case, taken in the presence 
,
oved that none of the necessary 
elements for any federal charge could be satisfied based on Ms. 
brief 
contact with Mr. Epstein. The witness also admitted lying to Mr. Epstein, 
testifying that she told him that she was an adult and wanted him to believe that 
she was an adult. See Tab 13, 
Tr. (deposition), p. 35 ("Q. So you 
told Jeff that you were 18 years old, correct? A. Yes."), 37 ("Q. You wanted Mr. 
Epstein to believe that you really were 18, right? A. Correct."). 
(d) 
Shortly after this de osition, the defense was able to obtain statements from other 
women on Mr. 
o called "list of § 2255 victims" and, so far, all such 
statements also continue to demonstrate that Mr. 
repeated 
representations to the defense about the existence of federal jurisdiction were 
false. 
understand that 
was recently reprimanded at a special hearing convened by a United States District 
Judge in the West Palm Beach Division of the Southern District of Florida, for making misrepresentations 
during a prior sentencing proceeding. 
3 
In fact, 
a former deputy to CEOS Chief 
has stated that she knew of no 
other case like this being prosecuted by CEOS. 
3 
EFTA00067366

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
12. 
In August 2007, in a clear attempt to coerce a state settlement, Ms. 
threatened 
to broaden the investigation to include a money laundering violation (18 U.S.C. § 1956), 
though all the funds expended were simply Mr. Epstein's, and a violation for operating an 
unlicensed money-transmitting business (18 U.S.C. § 1960), though Mr. Epstein never 
had such a business. See Tab 22, August 31, 2007 Letter from 
to Ross 
(reciting, in a target letter to one of Epstein's employees, that the investigation concerns 
"suspected violations of federal law, including but not limited to, possible violations of 
Title 18, United States Code, Sections . . . 1591, . . . 1956, 1960 . . . .") (emphasis 
added). 
13. 
On the very same day that the grand jury issued subpoenas to the records-custodian and 
em lo ees of Epstein's businesses for all financial transactions from 2003 forward, Ms. 
(who we were told was not authorized to act in this regard without supervisory 
approval) promised to close the money-laundering investigation "if the sex offense case 
is resolved." See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter from 
to G. Lefcourt ("In 
other words, if the sex offense case is resolved, the Office would close its investigation 
into other areas as well. The matter has not been, and it does not appear that it will be, 
resolved so the money laundering investigation continues, and Request Number 6 
[seeking records of every financial transaction conducted by Epstein and his six 
businesses from "January 1, 2003 to the present"] will not be withdrawn."). 
14. 
Two weeks later, when Mr. Epstein continued to oppose federal prosecution during 
negotiations and Mr. Epstein's counsel sought a meeting with the United States Attorney, 
AUSA 
then classified all of Mr. Epstein's assistants as targets (sending a target 
letter to one of them and promising the attorney of the other two that additional target 
letters would be served on them as well), dispatched FBI agents to the homes of two of 
his secretaries, and personally telephoned Mr. Epstein's largest business client to advise 
him of the nature of the investigation. See Tab 22, August 31, 2007 Letter from 
to A. Ross. 
FAUSA 
Forces Mr. Epstein's Lawyers to Convince the State Prosecutors To 
Impose a More Severe Sentence Than They Believe Is Appropriate 
15. 
Throughout the plea negotiations with the USAO, Mr. 
and Ms. 
continually insisted that the only way they would agree not to bring a federal indictment 
was if Epstein's lawyers, not the state prosecutors as required under the Petite Policy, 
convinced the state prosecutors to impose a more severe punishment than the state 
believed was appropriate under the circumstances. 
16. 
FAUSA 
version of the history with respect to the sentence he required Mr. 
Epstein's lawyers to seek from the State contradicts his later assertion, which is patently 
false—that "the SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of 
incarceration" and "considered a plea to federal charges that limited Epstein's 
sentencing exposure . . . " See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from 
In fact, by a 
email dated August 3, 2007, Criminal Division Chief 
advised the 
defense that the federal government required a minimum term of two years of 
incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from 
Subsequently, Ms. 
4 
EFTA00067367

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
emailed the defense stating that United States Attorney Acosta would accept no 
less than 18 months of incarceration, following by a one-year term of house arrest. 
Federal Prosecutors Misrepresented the Number of Alleged "Victims." 
17. 
In September 2007, in order to add additional pressure on Mr. Epstein to execute a 
deferred prosecution agreement, AUSA 
claimed that there were "40" minors on 
the government's list of purported § 2255 victims. To compound that misleading 
characterization, she continued to insist that a guardian-ad-litem be appointed to represent 
these purported "minors" in the proceedings. See Tab 24, September 19, 2007 Email 
from 
to J. Lefkowitz. 
18. 
When challenged as to whether there was a genuine need for a guardian, given that Ms. 
continued to refuse to disclose the names or any other information about her 
putative list of "minors," she eventually conceded that only "1 is definitely under l8 still, 
and I think there is another minor." See Tab 25, September 23, 2007 Email from ■ 
to J. Lefkowitz (emphasis added). 
19. 
The next day, AUSA 
retreated from the number "40," stating that she had now 
"compiled a list of 34 confirmed minor victims with no definition of how they would be 
considered as such.. There are six others, whose names we already have, who need to be 
interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time of their activity 
with Mr. Epstein." See Tab 26, September 24, 2007 Email from 
to J. 
Lefkowitz (emphasis added). This statement indicated that, at least the "six others" (and, 
as it turns out, all those identified except two) had reached the age of majority, and, in 
fact, no guardian was necessary to represent their interests. 
Defense Counsel was Falsely Advised That the Non Prosecution Agreement Would Be Kept 
Confidential. 
20. 
On September 24, Epstein and the USAO executed a Non Prosecution Agreement. 
21. 
His attorneys asked Ms. 
to "please do whatever you can to keep this from 
becomin 
ublic." See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Lefkowitz to ■ 
22. 
Ms. 
replied that she had "forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], 
I don't anticipate it going any further than that." Id. 
23. 
Ms. 
stated that the agreement would be "placed in the case file, which will be 
kept confidential since it also contains identifying information about the girls." Id. 
The Prosecution Immediately Notifies Three Plaintiffs That Mr. Epstein Has Executed A 
Non Prosecution Agreement 
24. 
In direct violation of these representations, "shortly after the signing," the government 
notified "three victims" of the "general terms" of the Non Prosecution Agreement. See 
5 
EFTA00067368

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Tab 18, December 13, 2007 Letter from 
occurred "shortly after the signing"). 
AUSA 
Misleads Mr. Epstein In An Attempt To Refer Plaintiffs to Her 
Boyfriend's Close Friend 
(admitting that the notification 
25. 
On September 25, Ms. 
recommended a local products-liability defense 
attorney, Humberto "Bert" Ocariz, Esq., for the highly lucrative post of attorney 
representative for the government's list of as-yet-undisclosed "victims."4
(a) 
Ms. 
wrote to the defense, "I have never met Bert, but a good friend in 
our appellate section and one of the district judges in Miami are good friends 
with him and recommended him." See Tab 28, September 25, 2007 Email from 
to J. Lefkowitz (bottom email) (emphasis added). 
(b) 
Ms. 
failed to disclose that this "good friend in our appellate section" 
was her live-in boyfriend. See Tab 18, December 13, 2007 Letter from 
I
l(conceding the "relationship" with "my boyfriend"). 
Beyond her clear conflict-of-interest and affirmative effort to conceal it, it is 
unimaginable that AUSA 
would have engaged in an ex-parte 
communication with a United States District Judge in the same district about the 
details of a pending grand-jury investigation without prior disclosure and 
supervisory approval. 
(c) 
(d) 
Later, it became clear that Ms. 
also had at least one other ex-parte 
communication with that same United States District Judge about the grand jury's 
investigation. See Tab 29, October 5, 2007 Email from 
to J. 
Lefkowitz (stating that "one of the District Judges in Miami mentioned [retired 
Judge Joseph Hatchett] as a good choice" to decide any fee disputes concerning 
Epstein's paying for a lawyer to represent the unnamed women in claims against 
Epstein). 
26. 
The next day, AUSA 
advised the defense that she was removing one of the 
alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that "one of his partners is 
married to an AUSA here," and explained that, because of that personal relationship, 
4 
These actions were improper. As you know, the Department prohibits employees from using any nonpublic 
information to secure private benefits of any kind: "An employee shall not ... allow the improper use of 
nonpublic information to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through advice or 
recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure." 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703 (emphasis added). Among 
the examples of prohibited disclosure specifically illustrated by this regulation is the disclosure of nonpublic 
information to "friends" to further their financial interests, id., at Example 1, and the disclosure of nonpublic 
information to a newspaper reporter, id., at Example 5 (see allegations below regarding the leak to the New York 
Times). Furthermore, the Justice Department prohibits its employees from using their position to benefit friends 
or relatives. See 5. C.F.R. § 2635.702; see also 5. C.F.R. § 2535.502. 
6 
EFTA00067369

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
"[tjhere is too great a chance of an appearance of impropriety." See Tab 28, September 
26, 2007 Email from 
to J. Lefkowitz. 
27. 
The following day, Ms. 
relayed that, and asked us to respond to, the very first 
concern raised Mr. Ocariz, which was "how are they going to get paid" and whether 
"there is any cap or other limitation on attorney's fees that [Epstein] will pay in the civil 
case." See Tab 30, September 27, 2007 Email from 
to J. Lefkowitz. 
28. 
Ms. 
clearly contemplated that Mr. Epstein would be paying for Mr. Ocariz at 
his "hourly rate" to represent the alleged "victims" against Epstein even "if all [the] girls 
decide they want to sue." Id. 
29. 
When the defense complained of Ms. 
undisclosed conflict-of-interest in 
selecting her boyfriend's friend to prosecute civil claims a ainst Mr. Epstein on behalf of 
her undisclosed list of purported "victims," Ms. 
later argued that Mr. Epstein 
had no right to complain because "the Non-Prosecution Agreement vested the Office with 
the exclusive right to select the attorney representative." See Tab 18, December 13, 2007 
Letter from 
Shortly after being notified, however, United States Attorney 
Acosta removed Mr. Ocariz from consideration, and requested an amendment to the Non 
Prosecution Agreement. 
30. 
In response to the many complaints about Ms. misconduct 
and violations of 
the United States Attorney's Manual, Criminal Division Chief 
characterized her as "unsupervisable." 
31. 
Contrary to the express agreement of United States Attorney Acosta that the federal 
si
lent would not interfere in the administration of any state sentence, FAUSA 
continued to try to deny the right of the State to issue work release and/or gain 
time by stating that Mr. Epstein must "make a binding recommendation that the Court 
impose" a sentence of 18 months of continuous confinement in the county jail. See Tab 
21, September 24, 2007 Non Prosecution Agreement. Shortly thereafter, Mr. 
sent the FBI to meet with the state sex-crimes prosecutor in an attempt to secure her 
commitment to oppose a work release option. 
FAUSAMttempts to Thwart Discovery 
32. 
On October 31, Mr. 
emailed Mr. Epstein's counsel, confirming that "I understand 
that the plea and sentence will occur on or before the January 4th [2008] date." See Tab 
41, October 31, 2007 Email fromlao 
J. Lefkowitz (emphasis added). 
33. 
On November 5, despite Mr. 
having sent that email just one week before, after 
learning that the defense had egun to question women on their "list," Mr. 
vrote 
Mr. Epstein's attorneys demanding that his plea and sentencing in the S 
ow be 
moved up to November 2007. See Tab 2, November 5, 2007 Letter fro 
34. 
Mr. 
further demanded in the letter that Mr. Epstein's attorneys "confirm that 
there will be no further efforts to contact any victims" until the victims are represented by 
counsel. Id. As the women were all adults, there could be no lawful justification for Mr. 
7 
EFTA00067370

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
demand, other than to protect prospective plaintiffs from being interviewed 
prior to their retaining an attorney (including, as it turned out, Mr. 
former law 
partner) to bring civil lawsuits against Epstein. 
Janu
 
8," id., which turned out to be just three weeks before the first civil lawsuit 
35. 
Mr.also 
demanded that Epstein "begin his term of incarceration not later than 
would be filed against Epstein. 
36. 
Contrary to the express agreement of United States Attorney Acosta that the federal 
government would not interfere in the administration of any state sentence, Mr. 
tried to limit gain time and or work release by stating that Mr. Epstein must "make a 
binding recommendation that the Court impose a sentence of 18 months of continuous 
confinement in the county jail." Id. (This followed Mr. 
position that the Office 
would consider a state sentence ordering probation in lieu of incarceration to be a breach 
of the deferred-prosecution agreement.) Shortly thereafter, Mr. 
tent the FBI to 
meet with the state sex-crimes prosecutor in an attempt to secure er commitment to 
oppose work release. 
37. 
Mr. 
insisted that Mr. Epstein not learn the identities of the government's list of 
alleged "victims" until after Epstein was sentenced and incarcerated. 
38. 
We have reason to believe that, around this same time, Mr. -former 
law partner, 
Jeffre 
had met with the father of one of the prospective plaintiffs, 
on a 
ar website continued to identify Mr. 
At the same time (and until as recera.s March of 2008), the Official 
as a named partner in Mr. 
firm. See Tab 31, Florida Bar Website page. 
39. 
who is the named partner in the former firm of 
filed five lawsuits, each asking for $50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each 
lawsuit is entitled "Jane Doe # vs. Jeffrey Epstein," despite the fact that each of the 
plaintiffs is an adult and not entitled to plead anonymously. See Tab 32, Examples of 
Federal Complaints. 
40. 
Mr. 
convened press conferences contemporaneously with filing three of the 
suits. In the most recent press conference he admitted that all of the plaintiffs lied to 
Epstein about their ages. See Tab 33 
blic Statement. One of the supposedly 
traumatized "victims" actually pled in er complaint that she returned to Epstein's house 
"on many occasions for approximately three years." Another of these supposedly 
traumatized "victims" herself acted to introduce her friends and acquaintances to Mr. 
5 
The Justice Department rules disqualify employees from working on matters in which their former employers 
have an interest: "an employee shall be disqualified for two years from participating in any particular matter 
in which a former employer is a party or represents a party if he received an extraordinary payment from 
that person prior to entering Government service. The two-year period of disqualification begins to run on the 
date that the extraordinary payment is received." 5 C.F.R. § 2635.503(a) (emphasis added). 
8 
EFTA00067371

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Epstein. 
All of these plaintiffs are apparently on the above-described government 
"victim" list. 
FAUSA 
Attempts to Encourage Civil Suits and the Hiring of the Government's 
Choice of Attorney 
41. 
On November 27, Mr. 
sent an email to Mr. Epstein's attorneys stating that "I 
intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday [two days later]." See Tab 34, 
November 27, 2007 Email from 
to J. Leflcowitz. 
42. 
The morning of November 28, attorneys for Mr. Epstein faxed a letter to Assistant 
Attorney General Alice Fisher, requesting a meeting with her to discuss the impropriety 
of the USAO's encouraging civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein under the guise of the 
terms of the Non Prosecution Agreement. See Tab 35, November 28, 2007 Letter from 
K. Starr to A. Fisher. 
43. 
Late in the day on November 28, Epstein's attorneys received from AUSA 
a 
copy of the USAO's proposed victim-notification letter that 
asked that I 
forward." See Tab 36, November 28, 2007 Email from 
to J. Lefkowitz. 
(a) 
The proposed victim-notification letter cited as authority the "Justice for All Act 
of 2004" (which U.S. Attorney Acosta later agreed had no application to these 
circumstances). It referred to the addressees as minor "victims," suggested they 
make statements in state court, that they were not entitled to make, and referred 
incorrectly to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual predator." Id. 
(b) 
FAUSA 
also proposed advising recipients, in an underlined sentence that, 
"You have the absolute right to select your own attorney" to "assist you in making 
. . a claim" for "damages from [Epstein]." But that "[i]f you do decide to use 
[two attorneys selected by the U.S. Attorney's "special master"] as your attorneys, 
Mr. Epstein will be responsible for paying attorney's fees incurred during the time 
spent trying to negotiate a settlement." Id. 
The USAO Leaks Confidential Information to the New York Times 
44. 
Perhaps most troubling of all, the USAO has repeatedly leaked information about this 
case to the media—including to Landon Thomas, the senior business correspondent for 
the New York Times. We have personally reviewed Mr. Thomas's own notes, and they 
are remarkably detailed about highly confidential aspects of the prosecution's theory of 
the case and the plea negotiations. 
45. 
Mr. Thomas's calls to the USAO initially were referred to Assistant United States 
Attorney 
AUSA 
informed Mr. Thomas that federal 
authorities were considering charging Mr. Epstein under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422 and 
2423, and told the reporter that Mr. Epstein had both lured girls over the telephone and 
traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in sex with minors. AUSA 
also divulged the terms and conditions of the USAO's negotiations with Mr. 
Epstein—including the fact that Mr. Epstein had proposed "house arrest" with extra 
9 
EFTA00067372

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
stringent conditions—which Mr. 
could only have learned from FAUSA 
AUSA 
or UnitedSMrtorney Acosta himself. 
46. 
AUSA 
then asked why Mr. Epstein should ... be treated differently than 
anyone else. Mr. Thomas apparently stated that he understood that there was evidence 
that the women had lied about their ages. AUSA 
replied that this was not a 
defense and that Mr. Thomas should not believe "the spin" of Mr. Epstein's "high-priced 
attorneys." Indeed, Mr. 
told Mr. Thomas that the USAO was very concerned 
about a Palm Beach editorial that questioned whether Mr. Epstein would receive a rich 
man's justice. AUSA 
then stated that, in fact, Mr. Epstein "doesn't have a 
defense." 
47. 
Mr. Epstein's attorneys learned of the call and complained to the USAO. Counsel for 
Mr. Epstein then had an in-person meeting with FAUSA NM 
and United States 
Attorney Acosta describing these leaks to the New York Times. During Mr. Thomas' next 
call to the USAO, made two weeks later, AUSA 1
"admonished" him (in the 
words of Mr. Thomas) for disclosing the contents of their rior conversation to the 
defense, and strongly "reminded" Mr. Thomas that AUSA 
nor comments 
about Mr. E stein had only been "hypothetical" in nature. 
at c aim is sheer nonsense: 
AUSA 
had disclosed specific details of Mr. Epstcin's case, including plea 
terms proposed by the defense, as revealed based on Mr. Thomas's own 
contemporaneous hand-written notes. 
MI)
48. 
Shortly thereafter, Mr. 
wrote to the defense that Mr. Thomas was given, pursuant 
to his request, non-case specs
specific information concerning specific federal statutes." See 
Tab 37, February 27, 2008 Email from 
Again, that claim was utterly false; 
Mr. Thomas's contemporaneous hand-written notes, reviewed by Jay Lefkowitz, confirm 
that the USAO had violated settled Department policy and ethical rules by providing 
case-specific information about the Department's legal theories and plea negotiations. 
Conclusion 
We bring these difficult and delicate matters of misconduct to your attention not to 
require any disciplinary action or review by the Office of Professional Responsibility. Although 
we have been told that some of this misconduct has been self-reported (only after we raised these 
complaints in writing), we feel confident that not all the facts were adequately presented. Rather, 
we believe that they are highly relevant to your decision whether to authorize a federal 
prosecution in this case. This pattern of overzealous prosecutorial activity strongly suggests 
improper motives in targeting Jeffrey Epstein, not because of his actions (which are more 
appropriately the subject of state prosecution), but, rather, because of who he is and who he 
knows. We also bring this pervasive pattern of misconduct to your attention because we believe 
it taints any ongoing federal prosecution. The misconduct pervades the evidence in this case. 
The offers of financial inducement to witnesses, improperly encouraged by the government, 
make their potential testimony suspect. The reliance on tainted evidence gathered by the state 
will require a careful sorting out of poisonous fruits. 
10 
EFTA00067373

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Most important, however, is that the extraordinary nature of this misconduct, so unusual 
in ordinary federal prosecutions, raises the gravest of concerns about why prosecutors would go 
to such lengths in a case already being prosecuted by the State and with so little, if any, federal 
concern. Accordingly, we ask you to conduct your own investigation of these matters, because 
we believe that what we have provided you may constitute only the tip of a very deep iceberg. 
Without the power of subpoena, which we currently lack, we are unable to dig deeper. We 
strongly believe that there is far more exculpatory evidence that has not been disclosed, more 
leaks that we have not yet uncovered and more questionable behavior. This is a case that cries 
out for a deeper investigation than we are capable of conducting, before any decision to 
prosecute is permitted. 
1I 
EFTA00067374