EFTA00176111

'0450,V Q+ t-Pc4IA
T ) 
--t el.! "'o'f j 
P
l '
a
.,1_4,a-IS 4Q/ Il l'21 
EFTA00176111

12/11/2007 11:37 FAX 
la 002/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
WO. 
WM I I IMkIuI OM. MN 
Konnulh W. Slam 
to Coll WMOr ChrOdy. 
(213) 6111)-U4-10 
leilautektrklond.com 
V lajtAOSIMILF: (30a.530-6444 
I lonorable R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NE 4th Street 
Miami, FL 33132 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
INair Alex: 
777 South Finumon Sunni 
tun Attuuluu, et-tidying, 900'7 
(213) 080-8400 
www.lorNItuul.com 
December I I. 2007 
HICSul Wu: 
(213) 600.8500 
As we discussed during our telephone conversations un both Friday and Monday 
(yesterday). we arc submitting two separate letters that address our broad areas of deep concern 
in this matter: Finn, the cluster of limdamemal policy issues surrounding the use and 
implementation of 2255. n richly policy-luden but uncharted area of federal law: and second. our 
profound concerns as to the background and conduct of the investigation. Consistent with our 
conversations, we submit these letters with the assurance and understanding that our doing so in 
no manner constitutes a breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement or unwinds that Agreement. 
We arc grateful for your courtesy in agreeing to receive and consider these submissions, and then 
to meet to discuss them. 
As you undertake your study and reflection. kindly allow me to make this pivotal point: 
In the combined 250 years experience ofJeffrey's defense team, we have together and 
individually concluded that this case is not only extraordinary and unprecedented. it is deeply 
and uniquely troubling. The constellation of issues. large and small. renders Jeffrey's matter 
entirely sal genesis. We say this not lightly. Indeed, as you will glean from our two letters. we 
arc gravely concerned Mat in addition to its odd conceptualization and genesis, the matter in its 
day-to-day implementation has been handled in a manner that raises deeply troubling questions 
with respect to both federal policy and individual judgment in a system that is, at its best 
assiduously devoted to the rule of law. The latest episodes involving 2255 notification to the 
alleged victims put illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice. time and 
aµain, are not being served. Fly way of illustration, hut it is only one among a cascading list or 
grave concerns, we now understand that the Assistant United States Attorney whose conduct has 
troubled us from day one has quite recently reached out to the attorney fur Tatum 
and 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
Now York 
San Francisco 
Washington, D.C. 
EFTA00176112

12/11/2007 11:37 FAX 
1b003/033 
KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP 
Honorable R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I. 2007 
Page 2 
provided oral notification of the victim notification letter. This notification, as we have stated 
time and again. is profoundly unfair. But quite apart from our substantive concerns. which are 
abiding and which had prompted our appeal to the Assistant Attorney General in the first 
instance, we had thought that the notification process had been held in abeyance until completion 
°four ongoing discussions with respect to that process. That appears not to be so. This latest in 
a baleful line of prosecutorial actions 
si.th irony. We respectfully cull your attention 
to the transcript of the interview with 
and guide you 
as the duly confirmed 
Executive Branch official charged wit Imo mg judgments consistent with our constitutional 
order 
to the telling fact that Ms. Miler did not in any manner view herself as a victim. Quite to 
the contrary. She is not alone. 
We draw attention to this episode as but a recent indication of the deepening need for 
your thoughtful and independent review. And for your agreeing to pmvide that review. our 
defense team is very grateful. 
Respectfully Submitted. 
• .•
-**1 • 
Kenneth W. Starr 
EFTA00176113

12/1 1/2007 11:3? FAX 
la 004/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Jay P I nIknwilz. P.G. 
0 Call Writer Diforily 
lalkowitz 
VIA FACSIMILE (305) 530-6444 
Honorable R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
United Slates Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NE 4th Street 
Miami. Fl. 33132 
Dear Alex: 
AND MIOLIAILP rAKINIVAIPr. 
Ckigroop Cloths 
153 Eusl 53(6 Strout 
Now Yolk, Nov Yolk 10022.4611 
www.kirklantcom 
December I I. 2007 
Re: .141frey 
441.4000 
appreciate the opportunity you have provided to review some of the issues and concerns 
of Mr. Epstein's defense learn. Importantly. I appreciate your agreement that this submission 
would neither be understood by you as constituting a breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement 
("Agreement-) nor result in any unwinding of the Agreement by your Office. Implicit in this 
agreement is the understanding that I can share with you our concerns and request a review on 
the basis for these concerns. while at the same time assure any client that this submission will not 
in any respect result in limn& or lamina, repercussions or attempts by any member of the 
prosecution or investigative team to involve themselves io Mr. Epstein's detriment in any matter 
related to the Agreement. particularly in the state prosecution. This letter is intended to support 
our assertion to you that the manner in which both the investigation of allegations against Mr. 
Epstein and the resolution thereof were highly irregular and warrant a full review. We appreciate 
your willingness to consider the evidence. We respectfully request that you review Judge Stern's 
letter to Alan Dershowitz. faxed to you on December 7. 2007. in connection with the concerns 
we set forth in this submission. 
I. 
FEDF.RAL INVESTIGATORS RELIED UPON TAINTED EVIDENCE. 
We have serious concerns that the summaries of the evidence that have been presented to 
you have been materially inaccurate. As you may know. the principal witnesses in this case were 
first interviewed by Detective Recarey of the Palm Reach Police Department (the "PRPIT) and 
other state law enlbrcement officers. These interviews (the "witness statement() were olden 
tape-recorded thus providing a verbatim and detailed record of the recollections of the witnesses 
au a point in time prior to any federal involvement. Unfortunately. the police report authored by 
Detective Katy and certain affidavits executed by him contained both material misstatements 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
I muffin 
LOU Atlaulr,r 
Munich 
Son Francisco 
Washington. n.C. 
EFTA00176114

12/11/2007 11:37 FAX 
i 005/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December II. 2007 
Page 2 
regarding the specifics of what he was told by his witnesses and also contained omissions of 
critical and often exculpatory infonnation that was recorded verbatim during the taped interview 
sessions. The federal investigation involved interviews with many of the satne wimesscs. We 
are aware that at least one federal interview 
) was recorded. 
We understand that Detective Recarcy provided his police report and certain affidavits to 
the federal authorities but did not provide the actual witness statements of the taped interviews to 
your Office or to the FBI. nese witness statements constitute the hest evidence available (they 
are verbatim and earlier in time to the federal interviews), and they contain statements that are 
highly exculpatory to Mr. Rpstein. Because understanding the compromised nature of the 
"evidence" against Mr. Epstein is key to a proper view of this ease, we summarize it in detail 
below. 
A. 
The Witness Statements Establish That Mr. Epstein Old Not Target 
Masseuses Under IS. 
Indeed. the witness statements demonstrate that the opposite is true. First. the evidence 
shows that the many of the masseuses wet...at:en or over. including inhaling Sjoberg,. Julie 
Brabon, 
Vencro. 
M. 
and Christine I=. 
at the time they 
visited Mr. ISpstein's home. Also, there is substantial evidence. found in the sworn statements of 
the women themselves, which indicate that, to the extent others were in fact under the nee of 
eighteen, many affirmatively lied about her age. As
m
IM 
herself told the PKPD: 
-Ilaley IRobson] told the to say I Was I S because 
said .. . if you're not then he [Epsteinl 
won't wally let you in his house. So I said I was IX". Detective Recerey. however. largely 
ignored these critical admissions in his Police Report and Probable Cause Allidavit. 
Q: At any time, did he speak to you and does he know how old you arc? Did 1w know 
how old you were? 
A: .. .As a mater of thet. 
In 
told me to say I was IX because 
said 
tell him you're 18 because if you're nut, then he won't really let you in his house. So 
I said I was IS. As I was giving him a massage. he's like, how old arc you? And 
then I was like IR. But 1 kind of said it really fast because l didn't want to nuke it 
sound like I was lying or anything. (Swum Statement of 3/18/(15). 
• 
Jennifer 
Q: Did he usk you your age? 
A: Yeah, I told him I was IS. (Sworn Statement of 10/05/05). 
EFTA00176115

12/11/2007 11:38 FAX 
l  008/099 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December 11. 2007 
Page 3 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Q: Did he know your age? 
A: I don't think -- I think he did. Downstairs 
was like oh. well if they ask 
you how old are you just say you're IR but he never asked me how old I wax. I 
thought you had to be 18 to give a massage (inaudible). (Sworn Statement of 
12/13/05) 
• 
SIVINdy VCISISCO: 
A: We were supposed to say we were 18. 
Q: Who told you that, to say that? 
A: 
. (Sworn Statement of 11/8/05). 
Italey 
A: I told him I was 18. (Sworn Statement of 10/3/05). 
• 
Robson concerning Serina Figueroa: 
Well with Serina [Figueroa, I don't know how old she is because she lied about her 
age. She lied to me when I first met her. When I was IA she told me she was IS. 
(Inaudible.) Well she told her purse at my house and she told me to make sure that I 
didn't look in her purse. When I went thmugh her purse I found her state license that 
said she was 16 so she lied to me about her age. (Sworn Statement of ICl/03/05/i 
Q: Now. how old were you when you lint started going there? 
A: Eighteen. I'm 19 now this last March." (Sworn Statement of 10/12/05). 
Q: And all this occurred when you were 18 though? 
In addition to giving a sworn staletneol ai the PRPD station. 
conversations with Deleviive Recurvy 
trwmportrd to and from die minion were also recorded. lids excerpt is taken fromtlw recording of 
(raveling from the siathm. 
EFTA00176116

12/11/2007 11:38 FAX 
l 007/099 
KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11.2007 
Page 4 
A: I ih-huh. 1 had been IS for like S months. nine months already. My birthday is in 
June so I had been 18 tbr a while. (Sworn Statement of 2/3/OS). 
• 
Angela Thomas: 
0: Okay. How old are you now? You're -
A: I'm 20 
Q: You're 20. So a couple months ago you would have been what. I')'? 
A: t Ih-huh. 
Q: Alright. So July. August you would have been 19. 20. On the verge of 20? 
A: Uh-huh. (Sworn Statement of 1 I/4/05) 
We believe that other witnesses have similarly told the HD that Mr. Epstein attempted to 
monitor the ages of the masseuses who cunt to his home. 
We thriller believe than these 
transcripts would show that the federal interest in prosecuting Mr. Epstein fur paradigmatic stale 
offenses was far less compelling than the inaccurate police reports suggest. 
D. 
Detective Recarev Made Crucial Misstatements in the Police Report and 
Probable Cause Affidavits. 
We have reviewed the sworn and recorded witness statements of many of the individuals 
who were interviewed (conducted in person or by telephone) as well as a number of the 
controlled calls cited in the Police Report. 'lime Idler time, we found statements in the Police 
Report attributed to statements made in the sworn recordings that either simply were not said. or 
in some instances, are flatly contradicted. by the witness who purportedly made the statement. Tn 
fact. they often stand in stark contrast to representations made by Detective Reearey in both the 
official Police Report and in affidavits signed by him under oath . We highlight the most 
significant ones identified to date: 
• 
LTA Did Nol Report that Epstein 'fold Her to Lie About her Age 
The Probable Cause Affidavit indicates that during her sworn stall 
"Dail advised 
that during her frequent visits Epstein asked fur her real age. 
stated she was 
sixteen [and that Epstein advised her not to tell anyone her real age.- Arrest 
Probable Cause Affidavit al I I. That statement appears nowhere in hall's sworn 
statement. 
EFTA00176117

12/11/2007 11:38 FAX 
a 008/099 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I 1. 2007 
Page 5 
.m.••••• 
2 I Intl was interviewed by Detective Itecarey twice, once by telephone, and once in Nrson. The portions of the 
Police Roan at which we refer speci0cally cite the inperson interview of l kill as the source for the 
inronnation reported. We have reviewed the recording of that interview and base doe comparison on that 
review. We have never heard a recording (tribe telephone interview. 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
• 
Hall Did Nat State that Epstein Phutographed Her I laving Sex 
Detective Recarey also reports Hall as claiming that "Epstein would photograph 
Marcinkova and her naked and having sex and proudly tf 
the photographs 
within the home." Id. at 12. Again, this statement is not in 
swam statement. 
To the contrary, the transcript reflects that hall stated: "I was just like. it was me 
standing in front of a big white marble bathtub ... in the guest bathroom in his master 
suite. And It wasn't like 
was you know spreading my legs or anything for the 
camera, I was like. I was standing up. I think I Wits standing up and I just like. it was 
me kind of looking over my shoulder kinds smiling. and that was that." Sworn 
Statement of 10/11/05 at 35. 2
• 
Pentek Said Epstein Did Nat Touch I ler Inappropriately 
Detective Recarey recounts that rayth Penick advised that "Epstein grabbed her 
bullocks and pulled her close to him." Probable Cause Affidavit at 6. See also. Police 
Report (10/07/05) at 30 (same). Pentek never made this slulethent, to rael. when 
Detective Recarey asked. "He did not touch you inappropriately!" Penick responded. 
"No." Sworn Statement of 10/04/05 at I I. 
• MOB Esposito Was Nut Sixteen When 8110 First When to Epstein's Home. 
Detective Reality states: 
also stated she was sixteen years old when she 
first went to Epstein's house". 
Incident Report al 52. 
However. 
affirmatively states that she was seventeen when she first went to Epstein's home: 
"Q: Okay. How old were you when you first went there? A: Seventeen. Q: 
Seventeen. A: And I was 17 the last time I went them too. 1 turned 18 this past 
June". Sworn Statement of 11/14/05. 
• 
Shasdy Velaseo Told Detective Keeney that Epstein Did Nut Take out Sex Toys. 
The Pmbable Cause Affidavit indicates that Shandy Velasco stated, "Epstein would 
use a massager/vibrator, which she described as white in color and a large head. 
Epstein would nib the vibrator/massager on her vaginal area as he would masturbate." 
Probable Cause Affidavit at 14: see also Police Report (1 I/10/05) at 49 ("Epstein 
would use a massager/vibrator, which she described as white in color with a large 
head, on herr). This statement appears nowhere in the transcript of Velascols sworn 
EFTA00176118

12/11/2007 11:39 FAX 
009/099 
ICIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December I I. 2007 
Page 6 
statement. In Nei when Detective Recarey asked whether Mr. Epstein had "ever 
take(n1 out any toys," Vclascn responded. "No." Sworn Statement of 11/08/05 ut I7. 
• 
Did Not Recall Mr. Epstein Masturbating 
Detective Recarey recounts that 
"advised she was sure (Mr. Epstein] 
was masturbating based on his hand movements going up and down on his penis 
area." Probable Cause Affidavit at B. See also Police Report (10/07/05) at 35 (same). 
Detective Recarey's account is in direct contradiction to 
Laduke's true 
statement, speci tient ly: 
Q: Okay did he ever take off — did he ever touch himself? 
A: don't think so. 
Q: No. Did he ever masturbate himself in front of you? 
A: I don't remember him doing that. Ile might have hut I really don't 
remember. (Sworn Statement of I (/05/05 at 7). 
• Juan Alessi Staled that OthiOne Girl Looked Young 
Police Report at 57: "Alessi slated that towards the end of his employment. the 
masseuses were younger and younger". However, he said no such thing: 
Q: Did they seem young to you? 
A. No. sir. Mostly no. We saw one or two young ones in the last year. Before that. 
it was all adults 
. I remcmhcr one girl was young. We never asked how old she 
was. It was not in my job . . . But I imagine she was 16, IT'. (Sworn Statement of 
11/21/05) 
C. 
Detective Recarey Made Material Omissions in the Police Report. 
In addition to the misstatements in the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit as to 
the evidentiary record, there were also material omissions. both of facts known to the PBPD and 
also of filets not known to the PBPD, though known by the State Attorney. In the latter instance. 
the lack of knowledge was the result or the PLIPD's relbsal to receive the exculpatory evidence. 
in fuel. they refused to attend a meeting called by the State Attorney specifically to provide the 
relevant evidence. Thus, the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit only affix a skewed 
view of the facts material to this matter. Examples follow. 
1. 
The Video Surveillance Equipment Located in Mr. Epstein's Office and Garage. 
Both the Police Report (at 43) and the Probable Cause Affidavit (at I 
make 
EFTA00176119

12/11/2007 11:39 FAX 
0010/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
l'age 7 
particular mention of the "discovery" of video surveillance equipment (or "covert 
cameras" as they are called) in Epstein's garage and library/office. Inclusion of this 
inthrination insinuates a link between the equipment and the events al issue: in the 
Probable Cause Affidavit Detective Recarcy states, "on the first floor of the !Epstein' 
residence I [Detective Reetueyl found two covert cameras hidden within clocks. Onc 
was located in the garage and the other located in the library area on a shellbehind 
Epstein's desk . 
' 
• computer's hard drive was reviewed which showed several 
images of I laley 
and other witnesses that have been interviewed. All of these 
images appeared to come from the camera positioned behind Epstein's desk". See 
Probable Cause Affidavit at IR.
Clearly omitted from both the Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the 
fact that the PIM and specifically Detective Rocarey. knew about the cameras since 
they were installed in 2003. with the help of the PAPA, to address the theft of cash 
from Epstein's home. This fact is detailed in a Palm Reach Police Report prepared in 
October 2003 detailing the thefts, the installation of video equipment, the video 
recording capturing Juan Alessi (Mr. Epstein's then house manager) "red handed-. 
and the incriminating statements made by Alessi when he was confronted at the lime. 
See Alessi Police Report at 5. 8. The contemporaneous police report confirms the 
fact that the video footage was turned over to Detective Rectircy himself. 
2. 
Polygraph examination atuasprt. On May 2. 2006. Mr. Epstein submitted to a 
polygraph examination by M 
Slattery. a highly respected polygraph examiner 
who is regularly used by the State Attorney. The examination was done at a time 
when we were told that the sole focus of the investigation was the conduct with 
Gonralez. 
Mr. Epstein was asked (a) whether he had "se tad contact with 
n: 
(11)
i
anyway threatenledl
: (c) whether Inc was told by
• 
••• 
"that she was IR years old"; an ( ) whether he "believed 
i was IR years old". As set lbrth in the Report of the examination, the term 
"sexual contact" was given an extremely broad meaning in order to capture any 
inappropriate conduct that could have occurred:I The results of the examination 
confirmed thati.to such conduct occurred: (ii) Mr. Epstein never threatened 
: (iii) 
told Mr. Epstein she was IR years old: and (iv) Mr. Epstein 
believed Gonzalez was IR years old. 
4 the eetelehle included: -sexual intereolusc. oral sex acts (penis in muds ur Ohne!' on vagina). linger penetration 
ore he vagina. linger penetration of the anus. touching or its: vagina for sexual gratification purposes, touching 
orate penis for sexual gratiliCalion purposes. masturbation by or to another. touching or nthhing, of the breasts. 
or any other physical contact involving sexual thoughts multur desires with another person-. 
EFTA00176120

12/11/2007 11:39 FAX 
0011/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
K. Alexander Acosta 
December 11. 2007 
Page 8 
3. 
Broken "Sex Top" in Mr. Epstein's Trash. The Police Report details the police 
finding in Mr. Epstein's trash what is described as broken pieces of a "sex toy" and 
that this "discovery" purportedly corroborated witness statements. Omitted from both 
the Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the find that during the course 
Of executing the search warrant in Epstein's home, the police discovered the other 
piece of that key "sex toy" and realized it was in litct only the broken handle of a 
salad server. Though "sex toys" play a prominent role in the Police Report and 
Probable Cause Affidavit. the Police Report was never amended to rellect the 
discovery of this new and highly relevant evidence. 
4. 
Failure to Consider Evcidpatory or Impeaching Evidence. Other exculpatory and 
impeaching evidence known by the PBPD was omitted from the Police Report and 
Probable Cause Affidavit hy. in our view, manipulating the date the investigation was 
allegedly closed. 
According to the Police Report (at 85). Detective Recurey 
"explained Ito MA Relnhlavek) that the PBPD had concluded its CUM in December 
of 2005". That assertion, which is false. conveniently resulted in the omission °fall 
information adduced subsequent to that date. Thus, though the Police Report in fact 
contains information obtained Mier December 2005. the POP!) purported to justify its 
refusal to consider, or even to include, in the Police Report, the Probable Cause 
Affidavit or what it released to the public, all the exculpatory and evidence 
impeaching the witnesses submitted on behalf of Mr. Epstein. most of which was 
provided Idler December 2005. That evidence is listed below. 
5. 
Unreported Criminal Histories and Mental /tenth Problems of the Witnesses 
Itidied on in the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit. Evidence obtained 
concerning the wimesses relied upon to support the Probable Cause Affidavit casts 
significant doubt on whether these witnesses are sufficiently credible to support a 
finding at' probable cause, let alone to sustain what would he the prosecution's burden 
of proof at a trial.4 Though such evidence was submitted to the MD. none of it was 
included in the Police Report or the Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• Juan Alessi: While the Police Report (at 57) and the Probable Cause Affidavit (at 
21) contain assertions by Alessi, which allegedly support bringing a criminal charge. 
the evidence revealing Alessi's evident mental instability; prior criminal conduct 
against Epstein: and bias towards Epstein is notably omitted. As detailed above, in 
2003, Alessi was filmed taking money from Epstein's home. After being caught on 
videotape unlawfully entering Epstein's home and stealing cash from a briefcase, 
While we have never intended to and do not here seek lu gratuitously cue aspersions on any or the whin:saw. in 
previously asking the Stale and now asking you to evaluate the strength of this case. we have been constrained 
to point out the fact that the alleged victims chose to present themselves to the world through MySpace profiles 
with self selected monikers such us "Pimp Juice" and " 
Flicking 
or with nude photos. 
EFTA00176121

12/11/2007 11:40 FAX 
012/090 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page9 
Alessi admitted to the PON) that he entered the house unlawlially on numerous 
occasions, stealing cash and attempting to steal lipstein's licensed handgun to commit 
suicide. Although this information was known by Detective Recurey at the time the 
Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit were prepared. and is clearly material to 
any determination of credibility. it was omitted. 
was the source or the vast majority or the serious 
allegations made a mast Epst-. While the Police Report and Probable Cause 
Affidavit rely on 
numerous assertions, there are two significant pmblems with 
that reliance. First there is no mention or certain critical admissions made by Hall 
during her interview, as well as on her MySpace wehpage (discovered by defense 
investigators and turned over to the State Attorney). Second. all but omitted limn the 
Police Report is any reference to the facts known about her by the PBPD. specifically, 
that at the lime I tall was making these assertions die had been arrested hp the PAPA 
and was heing prosecuted for possession of maryuana and drug paraphernalia. We 
take each in mm. 
• 
Admits Voluntary Sexual Coughed With Epstein. 
Refuses to ise ose the &position of the Monies She Earned, and 
Lies About Being "Given" a Car by E midi): Detective Recarcy 
failed to include in the Police Report 
admission that on one 
occasion she engaged in sexual conduct wit Epstein's girlfriend us 
her hirthda "gilt" to Epstein. Nor does Detective Recurey include the 
fact that 
flatly refused to discuss with him the disposition of the 
thousands o dollars she said she was given by Epstein. or that she 
falsely claimed that she did not use drugs. despite her My-Space entries 
in which she exclaims "I can't wait to buy some weedmunn. 
Detective Recarey was aware the car had been rented. not purchased. 
and only it was only leased on a monthly basis for two months. While 
familial claim that she was given a car appears in the Police 
Report, it is never corrected. 
• 
Was Arrested for Possession qf Marijuana and Drug 
trap reran :a. As noted. on September I I. 2005, I tall was arrested 
for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. In response to 
this arrest 
"came forward' (as the Probable Cause Affidavit 
implies at 
claiming she had knowledge of "sexual activity 
taking place" nt Epstein's residence and misconduct by Epstein. (this 
"coming forward- as 
no where in the Police Report) Thus, it 
becomes clear that 
assertions of misconduct by Epstein were 
motivated by a desire to avoid the repercussions or her own criminal 
conduct. which should have been taken into account when assessing 
her credibility as a witness. 
EFTA00176122

12/11/2007 11:40 FAX 
la 013/099 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11. 2007 
Page 10 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
• 
■ 
Steals From a 
Secret Store. 
An 
investigation by private investigators wor •e ! 
• lefense revealed 
that in lute 2005 ((all was employed at a 
Secret store in 
s 
Florida. Three days after her liana case was terminated. I rail was 
caught by a store manager a 
attempted to leave the store with 
merchandise in her purse, the security tag still attached. Seeing the 
manager, Hall claimed "someone is (tying to set me up". Following an 
internal investigation. which disclosed additional thells from both the 
store and a customer, she was fired. In a recorded interview. I loll 
admitted to stealing and asserted that her reason for doing so was that 
"she was not getting paid enough". This information and supporting 
documentation was presented to the PBPD. but was never included in 
the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
flail Lies on MySpace About 
Secret tore 
Term:nation. 
Also uncovered 
• '• ise investigators is 
dissembling version of the 
Secret debacle on 
cr 
"MySpace" webpage. Them Hall gmouneed that she ". . tbrgot to 
let everyone know quit my job at M. They said they suspected me 
of 'causing losses to their company' 
which by the way is bullshit. I 
was 'by the book' on EVERY]] IING!!! . . . I got so fed up in that 
office that I handed the toss Prevention lady back my keys and 
walked out". This intommtion and supporting documentation was 
provided by the defense to the PBPD, but was not included in the 
Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
Lies on I 
Secret Jab Application. 
Additional
tuition on 
MySpace webpage casts further 
in
doubt on her credibility. For 
mpl she
 to having engaged in 
a fraudulent scheme to get hired by 
Secret, explaining. "Oh, 
it wa so funny 
I used [my boyfriend' as one of my relCrenees for 
my 
Secret job and the lady called me back and told me thin 
William Tucker gave me such an outstanding reference that she did 
not need to call anyone else hack... . he got me the job! Just like that . 
.. I lied and said he was the old stock manager at flolister she bought 
it. . ." 'Ibis infiumation and supporting documentation was provided 
by the defense to the PRPD, but was not included in the Police Report 
or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• Alexandra ■ 
ltoastc About Her Marijuana Use. 
Also on her 
MySpace webpage can be found I lall's admissions of purciwi g and 
using marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia. Specifically, 
states 
she "can't wait to buy some weed!!! . . . 1 can't wait!!! . .. (Hold on: 
EFTA00176123

12/11/2007 11:40 FAX 
e
l
 
0 
1 4 / 
0 
8 9 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS I_LP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page 11 
let me say that again) I can't wait to buy some weed!!!. . . I also want 
to get a vaporizer so I can smoke in my room because apparently there 
cigarette and labeled it gl at heaven looks like to me". 
This
 vi
are 'mires' everywhere", 
also posted a photograph of a marijuana 
information and supporting documentation was provided by the 
defense to the MOD, was not included in the Police Report or 
Probable Cause Affidavit (although there is both a fleeting reference in 
..7 
the Police Report to ))all's use of marijuana with her boyfriend (at 47) 
and in the Probable Cause Affidavit to I lull's marijuana arrest (at 10-
1 I )). 
• 
MI 
While the Police Re ri and Probable Cause Affidavit contain 
numerous assertions intended to negate 
taped admission that she clear) 
told lipstein she was IR, omitted from t lese moments is reference to 
MySpace webpage. presented to the State Attorney's Office, where . in no comet: ion 
to this case, she allirtnialvely represented to the world that she was 18. thereby 
corroborating her lie to Epstein. Also omitted is any reference to her long history of 
run-ins with law entbreement. Among those arc multiple runaway complaints by her 
parents and her assignment to a special high school for drug abusers. 
• 
Gonzakc's AlySpare Webpage Slates She Drinks, Uses Drugs, Gets 
haa Trouble, Has Denten Someone Up, Shoplifts. Has Lost her 
Virginity, Earns $250,000 and Higher, and Contains Naked and 
Provocative Photographs. 
The first image seen on 
MySpaee webpage, the photo 
chose to represent ler. Is I at 
ola naked woman provocatively. mg on the beach. The illuminating 
webpage also contains 
assertions that of all her body pans. 
she - love(s1 her ass". sic no s to excess. uses drugs, "gets into 
trouble", has beaten someone up. has shoplifted -lots", "already lost" 
her virginity, and earns "S250,000 and higher". As with the other 
impeaching information. this material. vital to determining credibility, 
was provided by the defense to the PRPD but was never included in 
the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
Home. 
has a history of running away/turning up missing 
GonzalersPS Record — Drags, Alcohol, R 
lug Away Front 
• 
from her pamnts various homes; of using drugs and alcohol; and of 
associating with individuals of questionable judgment. For example, a 
Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office Report details how only two days 
after she returned to Florida to live with her lather, on March 31, 2006. 
police were called to the home in response to her father's report that 
she and her twin sister were missing. 'Ile Police Report describes her 
as "under the influence of a narcotic as 'she' could barely stand up. 
EFTA00176124

12/11/2007 11:01 FAX 
el015/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page I 2 
filed eyes wen: blood 
[heti pupils were diluted [sic'". It 
flintier documents that 
and her sister had stayed out all night 
returned home by a -• nig dealer. This event coincided with 
having been found at an "inappropriate locution" by Georgia 
police in response to a call about Gonzalez's disappearance. Although 
this information. material to determining credibility. was provided by 
the defense and known to the PBPD. it was never included in the 
Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
Daniel 
While the Po 
rt nd Probable Cause 
vit rely on statements of 
father. Daniel 
. his federal hank fraud conviction. which defense 
investigators discovered and turned over 
t t 
PBPD during the 
course of the investigation, was omitted. 
. served 21 months 
in federal prison for his offense. 
• 
Erika 
: While the Police I 
'rod 
m able Cause
Affidavit rely on statements 
stepmother. omitted is Erika 
state conviction ler identity 
fraud. This information. uncovered by defense investigators, was also 
turned over to the PBPD during the course of the investigation. 
O. 
In Licht Of The Compromised Nature Of The Evidence, A Fulsome Review 
Should Re Conducted 
These tainted and inaccurate reports compromised the federal investigation.' As you may 
know, the PBPD took the unprecedented and highly unethical step of releasing these reports to 
the media as well. These reports spread across the Internet, and were undoubtedly read by the 
other individuals who were later interviewed by the FBI for giving Mr. Epstein massages. As we 
have shown, these reports contain multiple fabrications, omissions. and outright misstatements of 
rod. Moreover, the evidence and the allegations were undeniably misrepresented to the 1:14I. 
with no inclusion or the evidence exposing the deficiencies or the "proof' and the exculpatory 
evidence upon which the State relied. Furthermore, it should be noted that many of these same 
individuals were also interviewed by the FBI after their state interviews but prior to Mr. 
Epstein's counsel providing the government with the transcripts or the recorded interviews. The 
Although we twee liven informed that the FBI identified and then interviewed additiontil potential witnesses, many 
Of their diseoveries are believed to have emanated from message pads containing amino information that were 
seinal from Mr Lipsiein's home pursuant ton state search wnrrani that was deeply and constitutionally flawed by 
Keen ey's misontements and omissions as well as other facial deficiencies. 
EFTA00176125

12/11/2007 11:41 FAX 
lill018/089 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page 13 
transcripts and tapes, which %vt hope to share with you in person, will likely present a very 
different view of those interviews taken afterwards. 
Therefore. in the Interest of truth. we ask you to review the transcripts. compare them to 
the FBI reports upon which the indictment was predicated. and then determine whether the FBI 
summaries and the prosecution memorandum upon which the charging decisions were made 
overstate Mr. lipstein's federal culpability. Concomitant to these requests. we would ask that 
you determine whether the investigative team ever provided these trustworthy tapes and 
transcripts to those in your Mee who were being asked to authorize the prosecution so that they 
could themselves assess the reliability of the FBI interview reports against a verbatim record of 
tlx: same witness's prior statements. We believe that this request is lair and would not be unduly 
burdensome. 
II. 
THE IMPROPER INVOLVEMENT AND CONDUCT OF FEDERAL 
AUTHORITIES. 
As established above. the State's charting decision. of one count of the solicitation of 
prostitution. was hardly irrational or irregular. 
Indeed. Lana Beloblavelt. a Florida sex 
prosecutor for 13 years, concluded that the women in question were prostitutes and that •there 
arc no victims here." There was no evidence of violence. Ante. drugs. alcohol, coercion ur an 
abuse of a position of authority. Each and every one of the alleged "victims" knew what to 
expect when they arrived at Mr. F.patein's house and each was paid for her services. In fact, Mr. 
Epstein's message book establishes that many of these women routinely scheduled massage 
sessions with Mr. F.pstein themselves. without any prompting. Ms. Belohlavck also noted that 
many of these individuals worked either us exotic dancers or in one of the many massage parlors 
dotted across West Palm Beach. Ms. Delohlavek also specifically stated that Alex I lall could not 
be trusted and was "only interested in money." She further found that it was inappropriate for 
Mr. Epstein UP register as a sex offender because she did not believe that he constituted a threat 
to young girls and because registration had not been required in similar or even more serious 
eases. Ms. Belohtavak thought. and still believes, that the appropriate punishment is a term of 
probation. 
Yet. the government has devoted an extraordinary amount of its time and =mimes to 
prosecute Mr. Epstein for conduct the State believes amounts to a "sex for money" case. While 
we are loathe to single-out for criticism the conduct of any particular professional, we cannel 
escape the conclusion that the cumulative effect of the conduct of Assistant United States 
Attorney Marie Villafana led your Office to take positions during the investigation and 
negotiation of this matter that has led to unprecedented federal overreaching. In fact. Judge 
Herbert Stern's states " . The federal authorities inappropriately involved themselves in the 
investigation by the slate authorities and employed highly irregular and coercive tactics to 
override the judgment of state law enforcement authorities as to the appropriate disposition of 
their case against your client." See. Judge Stern's letter faxed to you on December 7. 2007. 
EFTA00176126

12/11/2007 11:42 FAX 
W017/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Aeoslu 
December I I, 2007 
Page 14 
A. 
The Petite Policy Should Have Precluded Federal involvement. 
As you know, prior to negotiating the terms of the Agreement. we requested that the 
government consider the Petite Policy and the problems associated with conducting a dual and 
successive prosecution. We stressed to your Office, on u number of occasions, that we had 
reached a final negotiated resolution with the Stale and were only being forced to postpone the 
execution of that agreement for the sake of the federal investigation. We made submissions and 
met with your Office to present analyses of the fact that federal prosecution in this matter was in 
direct conflict with the requirements of the Perin. Policy. It was our contention, and remains our 
contention, that federal prosecutors had never intervened in a matter such as this one. And 
because there was no deficiency in the state criminal process that would otherwise require 
federal intervention, the express term of the l'cille Policy precluded federal prosecution 
regardless q'the outcome oPhe mate case. Since the :Mc investigation was thorough and in no 
way inadequate and the concerns implicated by tlx: matter all involved local issues and areas of 
traditionally local concern. we urged your Office to contemplate whether a federal prOSCCUtiall 
Was appropriate. 
However, on August 3. 2007. Matthew Menchel rejected a proposed state plea which 
included that Mr. Epstein serve two years of supervised custody followed by two years of 
incarceration in a suite prison, with the option of eliminating incarceration upon successful 
completion of the term of supervised custody. among other terms. Mr. Menchel stated that "the 
federal interest will not he vindicated in the absence of a Iwo year term in state prison." See 
August 3.2007 letter. Such an articulation of the federal interest, we believe. misunderstands the 
Petite Policy on two grounds. First, the Office's position that the federal interest would not be 
vindicated in the absence of a jail term for Mr. Epstein. runs contrary to Section 9-2.03ID of the 
United States Attorney's Manual, because this section requires the federal prosecutor to focus 
exclusively on the quality or process of the prior prosecution, not the sentencing outcome. 
Second, the slate plea agreement offered was not "manifestly inadequate" under U.S.A.M. & 9-
2.03ID. indeed, the only real difference between the state and federal plea proposals was 
whether Mr. Epstein served his sentence in jail or community quarantine. 
We formerly believal that our Petite Policy concerns were being addressed or, at least. 
preserved, hut we learned that only after reaching a final compromise with your Mee as to the 
terms of the Agreement, and at the very last minute, that language regarding the Petite Policy 
was removed from the final version. The two following references to the Petite Policy had been 
included in the draft prosecution Agreements up until September 24. 2007, the day the 
Agreement was executed. at which point they were eliminated by your Office: 
IT APPEARING, idler an invizligation of the offenses and Epstcin's background, thin the interest 
or the United Stales pursuant to the Petite policy will be served by the Following procedure ... 
Epstein understands that the United Stales Attorney has no authority to require the Slate 
Attorney's Orrice to abide by any terms of this agreement. lipstein understands that it is his 
EFTA00176127

12/11/2007 11:42 FAX 
la019/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
ft. Alexander Acosta 
December 11.2007 
Page 15 
obligation w undertake discussion with the Stow Attorney's Office to unsure compliance with 
these procedures. which compliance will he necessary to satisfy the United Snit& 
pursuant to the Petite policy. 
We reiterate that this ease was at heart a local matter that was being fully addressed by 
the state criminal justice system. The state process resulted in an appropriate resolution of this 
mailer and would have vindicated any conceivable federal interest. 
Thus, there was no 
substantial federal interest that justified a falend prosecution. 
11 has recently come to our 
attention that that tlx: CEOS chief statements may be relevant to this mutter. While we welcome 
the opportunity to consider these statements. our extensive research had found only one federal 
action that was remotely similar to the federal investigation fix the prosecution of this matter. 
and that ease has since been distinguished as well. 
B. 
Mg. Villafana Prompted An Unduly Invasive linvestiantion Of Mr. Epstein. 
Ms. 
investigation of Mr. Epstein raises serious questions. Despite the. IS 
that she was made aware of the inaccuracies in the PBPD's Probable Cause Affidavit, she chose 
to include the affidavit in a document filed with the court knowing that the public could access it. 
Them Ms. Villafana issued letters requesting documents whose subject matter have no relation to 
the allegations against Mr. Epstein. Notably, after we objected to these overly broad and 
intrusive requests. Deputy Chief Andrew Laurie denied knowledge of Ms. Villalima's actions 
and Mr. Laurie commendably sought to significantly narrow the list of documents requested. In 
a subsequent court filing. Ms. Villafana referred to our agreement to remove these items from 
her demand list as evidence of Mr. Epstein's "non-cooperation". 
'Ibis was only the beginning. Ms. Villafana also subpoenaed an agent of Roy Black 
(without Ibliowing the guidelines provided in the United States Attorney's Manual that require 
prior notification to Washington necessary to seek a lawyer's records). We once more requested 
Mr. Laurie to intervene. Despite these efTorts. Ms. Villafana followed up with a subpoena fur 
Mr. Epstein's confidential medical records served directly on his chiropractor (with no notice to 
Mr. Epstein). Ms. Villeins also made the unusual request of asking the State Attorney's °Mee 
for some of the grand jury materials. She threatened to subpoena the State when she was 
infmmed that it was a violation of Florida law to rehatse this information. 
After compiling this "evidence". Ms. Villafana stated she would he initiating an 
investigation into purported violations of IR U.S.C. §1591 (again without the required prior I)W 
notification). 
Ms. Villadima then broadened the scope of the investigation without any 
foundation for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money 
transmitting business to the investigation. Mr. F.pstein's counsel explained that there could be no 
basis for these charges since Mr. Epstein did not commit any prerequisite act for a money 
laundering charge and has never even been engaged in a money transmitting business. Ms. 
Villalana responded that Mr. Epstein could be charged under these statutes because he funded 
EFTA00176128

12/11/2007 11:42 FAX 
lib 019/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page 16 
illegal activities. To suggest that Mr. Epstein could violate these statutes simply by spending his 
legally earned money on prostitutes is manifestly. an erroneous interpretation of the law. 
1U our relief. tiller briefing Matthew Menchel at a meeting regarding the spurious 
application of these statutes, we were told to ignore the laundry list and that defense counsels' 
Mcus should he turned to 18 U.S.C. §2422(h). Once Mr. Epstein's counsel submitted and 
presented the reasons why a federal case would require stretching the relevant federal statutes 
beyond recognition, and that federal involvement in this matter should he precluded based on 
federalism concerns, the /Wire Policy, and general principles of prosecutorial discretion. the 
parties commenced discussions of a possible pica agreement. Around this time, we received an 
ellutil from Ms. Villafana suggesting that she wanted to discuss the possibility of a concurrent 
federal and state resolution. We were immediately 'Mimed by your Office that Ms. Villafana 
did not have the authority to make any such pica proposals and would not he involved in any 
further negotiations of a plea. Despite this commitment. Ms. Villarreal was the principle 
negotiator of the Agreement. At our meeting on September 7. she made reference to an 
allegation against Mr. Epstein involving a 12 year old individual. This allegation is without 
merit and without foimel
...raion. Though your last lever suggests there was "no contact" between 
individuals in your Office and the press. we were previously told by Mr. Lottrie that the FBI was 
receiving "inthrmation" specifically from Connolly, u Vanity Fair reporter, and not vice versa. 
C. 
'Ws. Villafana Included I Inthir Terms in the Aercement. 
Ms. Villafana took positions in negotiating this matter that stray from both stated policy 
and established law. First, Ms. Villafana insisted that as part of the federal plea agreement. the 
Stale Attorney's Office. without being shown new evidence, should be convinced to charge Mr. 
Emcin with violations or law and recommend a sentence that are significantly harsher than what 
the State deemed appropriate. In fact, the State Attorney viewed this matter as a straightforward 
prostitution case and believed that a term of probation was - and is - the appropriate sentence. At 
Ms. Villatima's insistence, however. Mr. Epstein was forced to undertake the highly unusual and 
unprecedented action of directing his defense team to contract the State prosecutors themselves 
and ask for an upward departure in both his Indictment and sentence. There was no effort by the 
state and federal prosecutors to coordinate the prosecutions. a practice which is against the tenets 
of the Futile Policy. In our view, it is unprecedented to micro-manage each and every term of 
Mr. Epstein's State plea. including the exact state charges to which Mr. Epstein plead guilty; the 
lime-frame within which Mr. Lipstein must enter that state plea and surrender to slate officials; 
and the amount of time he must spend in county jail. This is particularly true where the State 
EFTA00176129

12/11/2007 11:43 FAX 
020/098 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page 17 
Attorney's Office has a different view of the case and there has been no coordination with stale 
authorities./' 
In addition. Ms. Villafana required that Mr. P.psteln's sentence include a registerahle 
offense. As you know, requiring sexual offender registration will have a significant impact both 
immediately and forever alter. This harsh term, which is said to be suggested by ihe FBI. was 
added despite the fact that the State believed that Mr. Epstein's conduct did not warrant any such 
registration. As you' know. state officials have special expertise in deciding which offenders 
pose a threat to their community. Moreover. this demand places the state pmseeutore credibility 
al issue and diminishes the force of sexual registration when It is applied to offenders who state 
prosecutors do not believe are dangerous or require registration. Ms. Villafana's decision not to 
permit the State Attorney to determine a matter uniquely within its province was unwarranted. 
What is more. when negotiating the settlement portion of the Agreement. Ms. Villafana 
insisted that a civil settlement provision be included in the Agreement namely, the inclusion of 
IS U.S.G. § 2255. u negotiating terns which is unprecedented in nature.? While we were 
reluctant and cautious about a plea agreement in which a criminal defendant gives up certain 
rights to contest liability for a civil settlement. Ms. Villalana's ultimatums required that we 
acquiesce to these unprecedented terms. For instance, when plea discussion stalled as a result of 
Ms. Villafann's demands, Mr. Epstein's counsel received a letter from her stating as it "now 
appears you will not settle." At this point. Ms. Villafana expressed her intention to re-launch the 
government's previously set aside money laundering investigation. She also issued a nuth of 
subpoenas and sent target letters to Mr. Epstein's employees. adding new federal charges 
including obstruction or justice. She then personally called Mr. lipmein's largest and most 
valued business client without any basis to inlimn him of the investigation. 
In an attempt to prevent further persecution and intimidation tactics. we proposed that 
Mr. Epstein establish a restitution fund specifically for the settlement of the identified 
individuals' civil claims and that an impartial. independent representative be appointed to 
administer that fund. There was nn dollar amount limit discussed for the fund, hut the idea was 
still rejected. We then pointed out that the state charges to which Mr. Epstein was to plead guilty 
carried with it a mute restitution provision that would allow "victims" to recover damages. Ms. 
Villafana. however, rejected this idea and suggested requiring a guardian ad Mem. implying that 
When asked whether Department or Justice polices regarding coordination with state authorities had been 
Followed, Mx. Illatbna gave no response other than stating. "il is none of your concern." 
7 In thin. Stephanie Thacker. a former deputy to Drew Osterbolom has muted that she knew urno other case like this 
being prosecuted by ('L'OS. With that in mind. we welcome the opportunity to review the extensive research 
that CIEOS has done, as indicated by your Office. 
EFTA00176130