EFTA00176111

12/11/2007 11:43 FAX 
e021/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11, 2007 
Page 18 
the alleged "victims" in question were currently minors and needed special representation. We 
later teamed that the government's list of individuals included a woman as old as twenty-four. 
which flies in the face of prior representations (it should be noted that any person who is 
currently twenty four years old or older could not have been a "victim" under 18 U.S.C. § 2253. 
even if the conduct occurred in 2001). At Ms. Villarana's insistence, the parties ultimately 
agreed to the appointment of an attnmey representative. hut Ms. Villafann then took the position 
that Mr. Epstein should pay for the representative's fees. which effectiwly meant that Mr. 
Epstein must pay to sue hlmsell.8
Mx. Marano also proposed wholly irrelevant charges such as making obscene phone 
calls and violations of child privacy laws. When Mr. Laurie learned of these proposed charges 
he asked Mr. Epstein's defense team to ignore them as they would "embarrass the Office." 
IL 
Ms. Villafana Continually And Purposefully Misinterpreted The Crilieni 
Terms of the Agreement. 
Since the execution of the Agreement, Ms. Villulana has repeatedly misconstrued the 
terms contained therein. As you know. several facets of this matter have been highly contested 
by the parties. We sometimes have obtained two competing views as to your willingness to 
compromise on specific issues that we have mimed with your Office. In particular, them arc 
times when we have received verbal agreement from you or your staff (and sometimes from Ms. 
Villafana herself) on a particular issue. only to subsequently receive a contradictory 
interpretation from Ms. Villains that negates our prior common understanding. 
tier 
misinterpretations appear to he attempts to effectively change the spirit and the meaning of the 
Non-Prosecution Agreement. We onto several examples ofsignilicant misinterpretations. 
First. despite the filet that we received several commitments from your Office that it 
would monitor Mr. Epstein's state sentencing but not interfere with it in any way. Ms. Villafana 
sought to do just that. Ms. Villafana's decision to utilize 
a civil remedy statute in the place of a 
restitution fund for the alleged victims eliminates the notification requirement under the Justice 
for All Act of 2004. a federal law that requires federal authorities to notify victims us to any 
available restitution, not of any potential civil remedies, to which they are entitled. Despite this 
fuel Ms. Villafana proposed a Victims Notification letter to he sent to the alleged (Wend 
victims. Ms. Villafana has gone even further. alleging that the "victims" may make written 
statements or testily against Mr. Epstein at the sentencing. We lind no basis in law or the 
Agreement that pmvides the identified individuals with either a right to appear at Mr. Epstein's 
plea and sentence or to submit a written statement to be flied by the State Attorney. Here. Mr. 
This anangenuna does not put these alleged "victims" in the same position as they %mild have been had Mr. 
Epstein been convicted at trial .— in W. they an much better nit 
EFTA00176131

12/11/2007 11:44 FAX 
Z022/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I.2007 
Page 19 
Epstein is pleading guilty to. and being sentenced Its, state offenses, not the federal offenses 
under which the government has unilaterally recognized these identified individuals as "victims". 
The notion that individuals whose names arc not even known to the charging prosecutor in a 
state action should somehow be allowed to speak at a proceeding is unjustifiable. 
Furthermore. only after obtaining the executed Agreement did Ms. Villafana begin 
insisting that the selected mpresentative's duties go beyond settlement and include litigating 
claims for individuals. In Ms. Villalima's Victims Notification letter, she states that Mr. 
I'odhurst and Mr. Josefsberg. the selected attorney representatives, may -represent- the identified 
individuals. This language assumes that the selected representatives will agree to serve in the 
capacity envisioned by Ms. Villafisna. which is patently incorrect. Yet, neglecting the spirit of 
the negotiations; neglecting the tem% of the Agreement; and neglecting commonly-held 
principles of ethics with respect to conflicts, Ms. Villaftmu continues to improperly emphasize 
that the chosen attorney representative should be able to litigate the claims of individuals. 
In a similar fashion. Ms. Villafana has overstated the scope of Mr. Epstein's waiver of 
liability pursuant to the Agreement. Ms. Vihlalbna began asserting that Mr. Epstein has waived 
liability even when claims with the identified individuals are not settled just after the execution 
of the Agreement. Ocspite the fact that at that time. we obtained an agreement from you that Mr. 
Epstein's waiver would not stretch past settlement. Ms. Villafana continues to espouse this 
erroneous interpretation. 
E. 
Ms. Villafana ad The Settlement Process. 
We are concerned that Ms. Villalima has repeatedly attempted to manipulate the process 
under which Mr. Epstein has agreed to settle civil claims. First. she inappropriately attempted to 
nominate ilumben "Herr Ocariz for attorney representative, despite the fact that Mr. Ocariz has 
a longstanding relationship with Ms. Villafana. Mr. Ocariz turns out to be a very good personal 
friend and law school classmate of Ms. Villathna's boyfriend, a fact she assiduously kept hidden 
from counsel. We also learned from Ms. Villafana that she shared with Ocariz the summary of 
charges the government was considering against Mr. Epstein. Even oiler your Office conceded 
that it was inappmpriate for its attorneys to select the attorney representative. Ms. Villafana 
continued to lobby for Mr. Ocariz's appointment. On October 19. 2007, retired Judge Edward B. 
who was appointed by the parties to select the attorney representative. informed Mr. 
Epstein'
 that he received a telephone call from Mr. Ocariz directly requesting that 
Judge 
appoint him as the attorney representative in this matter. 
Furthermore. federal interference continues to plague the integrity of the implementation 
of the Agreement. We recently learned that despite the fact that them was no communication 
between state and federal authorities as to the investigation of Mr. Epstein. the FBI visited the 
State Attorney's Office two weeks ago to request that Mr. Epstein he disqualifitx1 to participate 
in work release even though the Agreement mandates that Mr. Epstein he treated as any other 
inmate. 
EFTA00176132

12/11/2007 11:44 FAX 
W1023/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11. 2007 
Page 20 
III. 
CONCLUSION 
In sum, we request that you review the evidence supporting the prosecution of Mr. 
Epstein. Such n review would serve to address similar concerns as those raised in Neuro,
Maryland. which mandate the disclosure of evidence material to guilt or innocence even oiler the 
execution of an Agreement to enter a plea of guilty. Sec 373 1).8. 83 (1963). Wc believe that the 
'prosecution team" was informed by its witnesses (including persons other than 
and Snigc (inmates who are discussed at length above) that Mr. Epstein's practice was o s e -
won e t it than 18 rather than targeting those under I8. We would expect, for instance, that 
a key witness whose interview with the FBI was recordal would have provided 
such exonerating inforntation as well us many others. We would also expect the review to 
uncover clear evidence that demonstrates that Mr. Epstein did not travel to Florida for the 
purpose of having illegal underage sex nor that he induced underage women by using the 
Internet or the phones. 
Furthermore, we ask you to consider whether there is reliable evidence tan just that Mr. 
Epstein had sexual contact with witnesses who were in fuel underage but whether the allegations 
arc based on trustworthy (and corroborated) evidence that (0 Mr. Epstein knew that the lianille(s) 
in question was under 18 at the time of the sexual contact. (ii) Mr. Epstein traveled to his home 
in Palm Beach for the purpose of having such sexual contact to the extent the allegation charges 
a violation of IX I 
et 2423(h) and (e) Mt Epstein induced such sexual contact by using an 
instrumentality of interstate commerce to the extent the allegations charge a violation of IS 
U.S.C. § 2422(b) (there is no evidence of interne) solicitation which is the norm upon which 
Xxlerul jurisdiction is usually modeled under this statute). We believe that the information we 
provide to you in this submission will be informative and spark a motivation to gain more 
information with respect to the investigation of this matter. 
Again, we are not seeking to unwind the Agreement: we are only seeking for you to 
exercise your discretion in directing that an impartial and respected member of your Office test 
the evidence upon which the droll federal indictment was based against the "best evidence." 
including the transcripts of the tape recorded pre-federal involvement interviews. 
Finally. I would like to reiterate our appreciation for the opponunity you have provided 
to review same of our issues and concerns. 1 look forward to speaking with you shortly. 
Sincerely. 
t
y/11 Lotto% i 
EFTA00176133

12/11/2007 11:44 FAX 
O024/089 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Juy P. Lelhowitz. P.0 
fe Call Writer Directly: 
VIA FAC:SIN411,14: (3051 530-W4 
I lonorable B. Alexander Acosta 
United Slates Attorney 
United Slates Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NI:: 4th Street 
Miami, FL 33132 
Dear Alex. 
*Nu AIIILUir,0 rAltINtitmirt 
CilinfOUP Conlin 
153 Coot Gant faroot 
NOW York. NOw York 10022.4611 
www.kiikkrnd.com 
December I I. 2007 
Re: Mfrey Epstein 
f thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns with the Section 2255 component 
of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreements. I provide this submission as a good faith 
effort to communicate all of our concerns on this matter. I respectfully request that you consider 
the issues I discuss below in conjunction with the ethics opinion of Mr. Joe D. Whitley shut 1 
faxed to your Office on December 7. 
Beckerman( of Negotiations 
I believe it is important 11w you to he aware of tlx: full scope and substance of our 
communications with your Office with respect to first, the negotiations regarding the inclusion of 
the Section 2255 component and stand. the process of implementation of its (eons. Contrary to 
your Offices view. we do not raise our concerns about the Section 2255 component of the 
Agreement at the "eleventh hour." Since the very firm negotiation or the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement between the USAO and Mr. Epstein, we have verbalked our objections to the 
inclusion of and specific language relating to Section 2255. 
Also, when negotiating the 
settlement portion or the fedend plea agreement. we immediately sought an alternative to the 
2255 language. in NO. for the sake of expediting any monetary settlements that were to be made 
and to allow for a quick resolution of the matter, we repeatedly ollimel 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. This option. 
however, was rejected by your Office. Notably, while in our December 4 later to ine, you 
indicate that the reason for the rejection of a Fund was because it would place an upper limit on 
Chicago 
Hang K(Ing 
Lgldun 
Los Angeles 
Multldl 
Son Francisco 
Washinglon,O.C. 
EFTA00176134

12/11/2007 11:45 FAX 
W/1025/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December II. 2007 
Page 2 
the victims recovery, we placed no such limit on the amount that the alleged victims could 
recover. 
Our objections regarding the Section 2255 component of the Agreement began as early as 
August 2 when. after receiving the LISAO's proposed Non-Prosecution Agreement, we 
suggested that the 2255 component of the Agreement could be satisfied by the creation of tt 
restitution fund: 
. ..Mr. Epstein is prepared to fully fund die identified group of victims which ure the focus of the 
Office — thai is, Ike 12 individuals noted al the meeting on July 31, 2007. This would allow the 
victims to he able tit promptly pin this behind them and go fanards with their lives. I rgiven the 
opportunity to opine ns lei the appropriateness of Mr. Epstein's proposal, in my extensive 
experience in these types or eases, die victims prefer a quick resolution with compensatinn for 
damages and will always supped any disposition UM eliminates the need For trial. 
See letter from Lily Ann Sanchez to Chief Matthew Menchel dated August 2. 2007.1 For the 
duration of the negotiations. we then continued to encourage the use of a restitution fund in place 
of civil liability under Section 2255. For example. in our draft plea agreement sent to your 
Office on September 16. 2007. we included the following paragraph: 
Epstein agrees to fund a Trust set up in concert with the Government and under the supervision of 
the I51k Judicial Circuit in and for Palm peach County. Epstein mutes dun a Trustee will be 
appointed by the Circuit Conn and that funds lion the Trust will be availuble to be disbursed tit 
the Trustee's discretion to on agreed list of persons who seek reimbursement and make it good 
thith showing to the Trustee that they suffered injury us n result of the conduct of Epstein. 
Epstein waives his right to contest liability ur damages up to an amount agreed to by the ponies 
for nny settlements entered into by the Trustee. epaein's waiver is not to be construed as an 
admission of civil or criminal liability in regards to any of those who seek compensation from the 
Trust. 
See dmft proposal sent from Jay Lelkowitz to Andrew Laurie dated September 15, 2007. In 
response, Ms. Villafamt demanded that the Agreement contain language considering the 
inclusion of a guardian ad !item in the proceedings. despite the fact that. we ure now led to 
believe that all but one of the women in question are in fact not minors. Interestingly. Mx. 
Villafana not only raises the same concerns that now have become issues with respect to the 
implementation of the Section 2255 component, she also believes that the creation of a trust
be in the victims' hest interests. Flamm writes: 
I It was not until alter receipt of this letter that Mr. Menchel Indicated to its that the scope of liability would 
=compass nut just the 12 individuals named in the Indictment, but "all of the minor girls identified during the 
federal investigation." See Mtnichel email to Stinchez dated August 3, 2007. 
EFTA00176135

12/11/2007 11:45 FAX 
0026/099 
KIRKLAND S. ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11, 2007 
Page 3 
As I mentioned over the telephone. I cannot hied the girls to the Trust Agreement. and I don't 
think it is appropriate that a state court would administer a urea that seeks to pay for federal civil 
claims. We both wont Plinth! onsertandvas tattooer endow liligatas from enoatigiorwortl.  
I know that year client wants to keep these motets !onside el pstMe mart filings, but I just don't 
have the power to do what you ask. Hen is my retanntnendation. During the period between Mr. 
Epstein's plea and sentencing. I make a motion for appointment or the GuarrIlan Ad Litem. The 
three of us sit clown and discuss things, and trili.fartiuter ar much as I can Rating the girls' 
unbowed of this procedure because. as I mentIona I think It to probably in their best WOWS. 
In terms of plea agreement language. let me suggest the following: 
Thu United Slates agrees to make a minion seeking the appointment of a Guardian ad titan to 
mpresent the identified victims, Following the appointment of such Guardian., the parties agree to 
work together in good faith to develop a Trust Agreement, object to the Court's approval. that 
would provide fin any damages owed to the identified victims minimal to I R U.S.C. Section 
2255. Then include the lust two sentences of your paragraph S. 
See email from Villafana to I ,elkowitz dated September 16. 2007 (emphasis added). I however. 
notably, in the draft agreement that follows. Ms. Villafana keeps the same objectionable 
language and only adds a portion of what was suggested in her communication to us: 
Epstein agsvcs that, if any of Ow victims idcmifiel in the Mend investigation tile suit pursuant 
to IS U.S.C. 5 2235. Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Coun for the 
Southern District of Florida over his person and/or tlw subject matter, and Epstein will not contest 
that the identified victims me persons who. while minors. were victims of violations Wilde IR, 
United Slates Code. Sections(s) 2422 nndlor 2423. 
The United States shall provide Epstein's anorne” with a list of the identified victims. which 
will not exceed fury. alter Epstein has signed this agreement and hats been sentenced. The 
I hiked States shall make a motion with the United Stales District Conn for the Southern District 
of Florida fur the appointment of a guardian ad them for the identified victims and Epswin's 
counsel may contact the identified victims through that Col/MCI. 
See droll non-prosecution agreement c-mailed from Villafana to Lelkowitz dated September 17. 
2007. The inclusion of a guardian ad Mem, however. only served to complicate matters. We 
continued to reiterate our objections to the inclusion of § 2255 in the Agreement repeatedly. as 
evidenced in an email from Ms. Villafana to myself on September 23, 2005 where she writes: 
"we have been over paragraph 6 I the then relevant 2255 paragraph] an infinite number of times." 
During negotiations. it was decided that an attorney representative be appointed in rho place of a 
guardian ad litem -- not for the sake of litigating claims. but based on the belief that a guardian 
ad litem would not be appropriate lbr adults that are capable of making their own decisions. 
Ilowever. the IJSAO included into the Agreement that we pay Ibr the attorney representative --
when originally Ms. Villafana stated that the representative could he paid for by us or the federal 
court See c-mail from Villafana to Lelkowitz dated September 23. 2007. 
EFTA00176136

12/11/2007 11:45 FAX 
lit 027/089 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page 4 
The final agreement was very similar to what was proposed by Ms. Villotbna in her initial 
draft agreement on July 31. 2007: 
The United Stoles shall provide l3poein's anomey's with u list of individuals whom ii fins 
identified as victims, as defined in IR U.S.C. § 2255. alter Epstein has signed this agreement and 
has been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement. the United States. in consultation with 
and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel. shall select an attorney representative 
for these persons. who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified 
individuals through the. representative. 
If any of the individuals referred in in paragraph (7), caper, elects to 614: suit PIIMUld to IS 
U.S.C. 
2255. Epstein will not contest lac jurisdiction or the United Suites District Court Mr the 
Southern District or Florida over this person andmr the subject matter, and Epstein waives his 
right to cattiest liability and also waives his right to contest damages top to an amount as agreed to 
between the identified individunt and Epstein. so long as the identified individual elects to 
proceed exclusively under I S U.S.C. § 2255. and agrees to waive any other claim for damages. 
whether pursuant to slate. federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver. as to those 
individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on 
this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit arc not to 
he construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 
See limit plea agreement. The Agreement requires Mr. Epstein to waive jurisdiction and liability 
under IR U.S.C. p2255 For the settlement ol' any monetary claims that might be made by alleged 
victims identified by the USAO (the "identified individuals"). Mr. Epstein is precluded from 
contesting liability as to civil lawsuits seeking monetary compensation for damages for those 
identified individuals who elect to settle the civil claims for the statutory minimum of either 
$50.000 (the amount set by Congress as of the date of the occurrences) or $150.000 (the amount 
currently set by statute) or some other agreed upon damage amount. Mr. Lipstein must pay for 
the services of the selected attorney representative as long as they arc limited to settling the 
claims of the identified individuals. 
'Mc implementation of the terms of the Agreement was just as contentious as was the 
drafting and negotiation this portion of the Agreement. The first major obstacle was a direct 
result of Ms. Villafanu's improper attempt to appoint. Mr. Bert Ocariz, a close, person friend of 
her boyfriend's for the role of attorney representative. We objected in the strongest terms to 
such an appointment due to our serious concerns regarding the lack of independence of this and 
the appearance of impropriety caused by this choice. As n result. the USA° drafted an 
addendum to the Agreement. This addendum provides for the use of an independent third party 
to select the attorney representative and also specifies that Mr. IlpsWin is not obligated to pay the 
cost of litigation against him. Upon the decision that we would appoint an independent party to 
choose the attorney representative, we were engaged in consistent and constant dialogue with 
your stuff as to the precise language that would he transmitted to the independent party to explain 
his or role. 
EFTA00176137

12/11/2007 11:48 FAX 
028/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11. 2007 
rage 5 
At each juncture, the inclusion of a civil remedy in the Agreement has resulted in 
unending debates and disagreements with respect to the appropriate manner in which to 
implement the terms of the Section 2255 component. The main issues that have arisen since the 
drafting and execution of the final agreement include the process for the selection of an attorney 
representative: the scope of Mr. Epstein's waiver of liability and jurisdiction: the role of the 
attorney representative; the language contained in various drafts of the letter to the independent 
third party; the correct amount of minimum damages pursuant to Section 2255; the extent and 
substance of communications between the witnesses and alleged victims and the LISAO and the 
FBI. particularly with respect to the settlement process; the language contained in the letters 
proposed to be sent to the alleged victims; and the extent of continued federal involvement in the 
state procedures of Mr. Epstein's state plea and sentence. 
Notably, neither Section 2255. nor any other civil remedy statute, has been used as a pre-
requisite to criminal plea agreement and it is clear that the use of these terms creates 
unanticipated issues. Furthermore, the waiver of rights of which the USA° insisted is also not a 
traditional aspect of criminal resolutions. While we were reluctant and cautious about a Non-
Prosecution Agreement in which a criminal defendant gives up certain rights to contest liability 
for a civil settlement, we did not believe there was room for contention given the USAO's, and 
specifically. Ms. Villafana's ultimatums that required that we acquiesce to these unprecedented 
terms. 
Concerns Reeardinst Section 2255 
Mr Epstein unconditionally re-asserts his intention to fidfill and not seek to withdraw 
from or unwind the Agreement previously entered. Ile raises important issues regarding the 
implementation of the 2255 provisions not to unwind the provisions or invalidate the Agreement 
but instead to cull attention to serious matters or policy and principles that you are requested to 
review. 
As you will see below our main policy-related concerns are (1) tlx: inclusion of Section 
2255. a civil remedies statutes in a criminal plea agreement. (2) the blanket waiver of jurisdiction 
and liability as to certain unidentified individuals to whose claims the government has asserted 
they take no position, and (3) any communications between federal authorities, including your 
staff and the FIIL and witnesses and alleged victims and the nature of such communications. 
With respect to the interpretation of the terms of the Agreement, we do not agree: with your 
Office's interpretation of the expansive scope of Mr. Epstein's agreement to waive liability and 
jurisdiction. Nor do we agree with your Office's view of the expansive role of the attorney 
representative. Below. I describe first, the policy implications and the practical problems that 
these terms have created or will create. Second. I describe points of contention as to the 
interpretation of various terms of the Section 2255 component of the Agreement. 
EFTA00176138

12/11/2007 11:46 FAX 
l 029/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page 6 
1. 
Policy Considerations 
The inclusion of Section 2255 in a criminal plea agreement is unprecedented and rakes 
significant policy-related concerns. Some of these issues can create and have created pmblems 
as to the ability of this component to (1) maintain the integrity and Independence of the USAD, 
(2) serve its purpose. namely to provide lair and actin-tmeline recovery to any victims in a prompt 
fashion, and (3) protect the rights of the defendant. While we appreciate your consideration of 
our concerns described below, we are also confident that your commitment to justice and 
integrity will cause you to consider any additional policy and ethical issues that tlx: Suction 2255 
component raises. 
A. 
Government Involvement 
The inclusion of Section 2255. a purely civil remedy. raises the risk of excessive 
government interference in private, civil matters. As Mr. Whitley states in his opinion, " . . 
.unueccssary entanglement of the government in such eases and the use of federal resources 
could improperly influence such cases and create the appearance of impropriety." It is well 
established that the government should refrain from getting involved in lawsuits. I lowevur, to 
include Section 2255 in a federal agreement inherently exacerbates the risk of federal 
involvement in civil litigation and thus far, in practice, the inclusion of this statute, as opposed to 
the creation of a restitution fund, has resulted in continued Wend involvement in this matter. 
Federal criminal investigators and prosecutors should not be in the business of helping 
alleged victims of state crimes secure civil financial settlements us a condition precedent to 
entering non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements. This is especially true where the 
defendant is pleading to state crimes for which there exists a state statute allowing victims to 
recover damages. See Florida Statutes 
796.09. The fact that Mute law accounts for the ability 
of victims to recover truly eliminates the need fora waiver of liability under a federal statute. 
Furthermore. the vehicle for the financial settlement under the Agreement requires 
restitution in a lump sum without requiring proof of actual injury or loss 
federal authorities 
should therefore be particularly sensitive to avoid causing a prejudiced and unfair result. Section 
2255 is a civil statute implanted in the criminal code that in contrast to all other criminal 
restitution statutes fails to correlate payments to specific injuries or losses and instead presumes 
that victims under the statute have sustained damages of at least u minimum lump sum without 
regard to whether the complain:tins suffered actual medical, psychological or other Ihrms of 
individualized harm. We presume that it is Ihr this reason that Section 2255 has never before 
been employed in this manner in connection with a non-prosecution or deferred prosecution 
agreement. 
EFTA00176139

12/11/2007 11:47 FAX 
1  030/09B 
KIRKLAND S. ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11.2007 
Page 7 
Mr. Epstein's blanket waiver ol' liability as to civil claims gives the appearance of 
impropriety. While your Office has, on several occasions. asserted that they take no position as 
to the claims of the individuals it identifies as "victims," the fact that they continue to promote 
the award of a civil settlement to these individuals is problematic. As you know, government 
contracts and plea agreement must not diminish or undermine the integrity of the criminal justice 
system. See (ISI McGovern. 822 F.2d 730, 743 (8th Cir. 087) ("A plea agreement, however, 
is not simply a contract between two parties. It necessarily implicates the integrity of the criminal 
justice system and requires the awns to exercise judicial authority in considering the plea 
agreement and in accepting or rejecting the plea."). The requirement that Mr. Epstein blindly 
sacrifice his rights. UN a civil litigant. to contest allegations made against him seem to contradict 
the principles of justice and litimess that arc embedded in the tenets of the Ilnited Slates 
Attorney's Office. 
I also assert that on both a principled and practical level, the mere involvement of your 
Mice in the matter with respect to civil settlement is inappropriate. Even though we understood 
from you that federal involvement in this matter would cease slier the attorney representative 
was selected, your Office continues to assert their obligation to he in contact with the alleged 
victims in this matter. Had we agreed to a restitution fund for the victims instead of the civil 
remedies provision, we would not have objected to your Office's communications with then 
individuals. however. because the alleged victims have the ability to recover damages based on 
a civil claim pursuant to the Agreement, we are concerned with your Of ice's ongoing efforts to 
stay involved in this matter. Contact with federal authorities at this point can only invite the 
possibility for impermissible or partial communications. Mast recently, your Otlice sent us 
drafts of a letter that your Office proposed to send to the alleged victims (the "victim notification 
letter"). While the revised draft of this letter states that victims should contact the State 
Attorney's Office fur assistance with their rights, there is no phone number provided for the 
office and instead, the letter provides the telephone number and an invitation to contact Special 
Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkundall of the FBI. Indeed, the letter as currently drafted invites not only 
contact between your Office and the victims, it also asserts that federal witnesses may become 
participants in a state proceeding, thus federalizing the state plea and sentencing in the same 
manner as would the appearance and statements ol'a member of your Office or the Fill 
2 We arc concerned with the fact that some of the victims were previously notified, as Mr. Jeffrey Shemin slates in 
his ktiur of December 6 letter. In your letter of December 4. you state that you would not issue the Victim 
Notification Low until Deeemher 7. Thus, it is mudding to learn that sonic victims were notified prior to that 
date. Please confirm when the victims were notified, who was notified, the method of communication ftw the 
notification, and die individual who notified them. 
EFTA00176140

12/11/2007 11:47 FAX 
e1031/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Pngc 8 
The proposed victim notification letter asserts that the federal 'victims' have the right to 
appear at Mr. Epstein's plea and sentence or to submit a written statement to be filed by the State 
Attorney. However, as (freed to in the federal non-prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein will be 
pleading to Note charge and he will be sentenced pier the commission of slate axes. The 
'victims' the government identifies relate only to the federal charges raw which Mr. Epstein was 
under investigation. Thc draft victim notification letter cites Florida Statutes § 960.001t lc) and 
921.143(1) as the authority 
allowing the alleged victims to appear or give statements. 
however these provisions apply only to "the victim of the crime liar which the defendant is being 
sentenced . . . " Thus Florida law only affords victims of state crimes to appear or submit 
statements in criminal proceedings and the state charges for which Mr. Epstein will be sentenced 
are not coextensive with the ibderal investigation. Further. any questions at this point involving 
the charges against Mr. Epstein or the proper state procedures under which he will plead or be 
sentenced are appropriately made to the State Attorney's Office. 
Continued federal involvement in this matter has led to an impropriety that WM 
unanticipated us well. Ms. Villafana attempted to manipulate the terms of Mr. Epstein's 
settlement so that persons close to her would personally profit. Ms. Villatima inappropriately 
attempted to nominate Bert Ocariz for attorney representative. despite the fact that Mr. Ocariz 
turns out in be a very good personal friend of Ms. Villalima's boyfriend, a Pact she assiduously 
kept hidden from counsel. We requested alternate choices immediately. but were told that Mr. 
Ocariz had been informed of the charges the government would bring against Epstein and in 
response. he asks in an e-mail whether his fees would be capped. Needless to say. we were 
alarmed that Ms. 'Reyna would attempt to influence the settlement process on such improper 
grounds. And even alter the IJSAO conceded that it was inappropriate for its attorneys to select 
the attorney representative, Ms. Villafana continued to impro rly lobby for Mr. Oeariz's 
appointment. On October 19, 2007, retired Judge Edward B. 
who was appointed by the 
parties to select the attorney representative. informed Mr. Ells em s counsel that he received a 
telephone call from Mr. Oeariz directly requesting that Judge Davis appoint him as the attorney 
rim
entative in this matter. Although it is unclear how Mr. Ocariz even knows that Judge 
has been chosen to administer the settlement process, it can only he understood as Ms. 
Vinalima's attempts to compromise the fairness of the settlement process. 
II. 
Integrity of the Process and the Legitimacy of the Claims 
The waiver of liability Mr. Epstein must make in relation to Section 2255 endangers the 
legitimacy of the claims made by the alleged victims. There is a heightened risk that the alleged 
victims will make false and exaggerated claims once they are inlbmwd of Mr. fipstein's waiver 
under Section 2255 for the settlement of claims pursuant to the Agreement. Indeed, Mr. Whitley 
states. " . . .the Department [of Justice) should consider developing processes and procedures to 
ensure that the investigative process is insulated from such risks." It is also well settled that 
witnesses cannot be given any special treatment due to the fact that it may affect the reliability of 
EFTA00176141

12/11/2007 11:47 FAX 
032/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LIT 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December I I.2007 
Page 9 
their testimony. Any and all communications between the federal authorities and the alleged 
"victims" and witnesses in this matter has the ability to influence the reliability of the testimony 
obtained and the validity of the civil settlements that result. 
Thus, there is still a real concern that Mime of the statements that federal prosecutors 
relied upon in its prosecution of this mallet may have been tainted. An inquiry is required to 
confirm that at the time witness statements were given, there were no communications made by 
federal agents regarding potential civil remedies. The government should not provide promises 
of guaranteed monetary settlements to encourage cooperation because they run the risk of 
seriously tainting the reliability of witness shnemems. While we by no means are accusing your 
Office of snaking improper communications at this point the fact that the award ol' a civil 
settlement, without any requirement to prove liability. is available to the identified individuals, 
raises cause for concern us to the nature of all communications that are made to the 'victims.' 
You previously stated that the USAO's main objective with respect to the Section 2255 
component of the Agreement was to "place the victims in the same position us they would have 
Oven had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial." I lowever. to accomplish this goal. your Office 
rejected using traditional kilns that allow for the restitution of victims. Instead, your Office 
chose to insert itself into the negotiations, settlement, and potential litigation of a civil suit. With 
all due respect we object to your Offices attempt to make the victims whole by requiring that 
Mr. F.p.sicin deprive himself of rights accorded to him as a potential civil defendant. While we 
are aware one of the responsibilities of your Office is to pmvidc lie restitution for victims of 
crimes, this does not give the government the responsibility to enable alleged victims to collect a 
civil settlement. 
Despite this concern, it should also he noted that, the Agreement. Moth as written and us 
interpreted by your Office significantly enlarges the victims' ability to recover from Mr. Lipstein. 
For instance. it' the individuals attempted to litigate against Mr. Epstein. they would have been 
determined to be victims only after a lengthy trial, in which they would have been thoroughly 
deposed, their credibility tested and their statements subject to cross-examination. 
The 
defendant, under these circumstances, would not have had pay the plaintiffs' legal fees. 
Moreover, these individuals would face significant evidentiary hurdles, unwanted publicity, and 
most importantly. no certainty of success on the merits. Therefore. the notion that your Office is 
merely attempting to restore these - victims" to the same position as they would have been had 
Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial misunderstands the Agreement and your 011ice's 
implementation of its terms. 
C. 
Rights of a Defendant 
Requiring Mr. Epstein to snake a blanket waiver of liability and jurisdiction as to 
unidentified victims whose claims to which the government takes no position can be construed as 
EFTA00176142

12/11/2007 11:40 FAX 
1i:1033/098 
KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11. 2007 
Page 10 
violative of his Due Process rights. Furthermore, the fact that the statute at issue in this matter 
does not connect harm to the minimum 011100111 available to the victim and simply includes a 
lump sum exacerbates the potential for injustice and an abridgement of Mr. Epstein's rights. At 
the very least. Mr. Epstein should be given the right to know the identity of the victims and the 
evidence upon which each one was identified as a victim by the government. 
The USAO has provided no information us to the specific claims that were made by each 
idauilioxl individual, nor were we given the names or ages of the individuals or the 'imam 
of the alleged conduct at issue. The USAO's reluctance to provide Mr. Epstein with any 
information regarding the allegations against him leaves wide open the opportunity Ihr 
misconduct by the federal investigators and eliminates the ability for Mr. Epstein and/or his 
agents to verily that the allegations at issue are grounded in factual assertions and real evidence. 
Indeed, the requirement that a target of federal criminal prosecution agree to waive his right to 
contest liability as to unnamed civil complainants creates at minimum an appearance of injustice, 
both because of the obvious Due Process concerns of waiving rights without notice of even the 
identity of the complainant and because of the involvement of the federal criminal justice system 
in civil settlements between private individuals. We reaffirm the ri ht to test the veracity of the 
victims' claims as provided to us in the letter from you to Judge 
dated October 25. 2007. 
"victim- 11w purposes of Section 2255 relict: Ms. 
who initially al ri
.al
lirefused tn 
asa 
It has recently come to our attention that your staff has identified 
cooperate with federal authorities during the course o t nc investigation, only submitted to an 
interview after she wits conferred with a grant of immunity. Surely this is not a demand typically 
made by someone who is a crime "victim". Moreover, Ms. Millers sworn testimony does not 
suggest that she is a victim. Ms. 
has not only admitted that she lied to Mr. Epstein about 
her age claiming she was 18 years old, ut that she counseled others to lie to Mr. Epstein in the 
same manner. Ms. 
also states that Mr. Epstein was clear with her that he was only 
interested in "women w to were ol'age and that most of the youn g women she brought to his 
home were Sued over 18 years of age. Moreover. while Ms. 
claims to have provided 
massages to Mr. Epstein. she does not allege to have engaged in sexual intercourse with Mr. 
Epstein: does not claim she provided him with and sex: does not purport that Mr. Epstein 
penetrated her in any manner: denies Mr. Epstein ever used a vibrator. massager. or any type of 
"sex toy" on her: denies he touched her breasts. buttocks. or vagina: and states that she never 
touched Mr. Epstein's sexual organs — nor was she asked to do so by Mr. Epstein. Without a 
right to contest the liability of claims. Ms. 
will likely receive far more in civil damages 
than what would he she would have had Mr. :web) been convicted. 
In addition, the Agreement with the MAO only defers federal prosecution of Mr. 
Epstein: it does not assert a declination to prosecute. as was first contemplated in the negotiation 
of the Agreement. Any payments made and/or settlement agreements reached with the alleged 
EFTA00176143

12/11/2007 11:48 FAX 
094/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December t I. 2007 
Page I I 
victims prior to the foreclosure of any future federal prosecution carries the potential of being 
used as evidence against Mr. Epstein. Thus, to protect his rights as a defendant. Mr. Epstein 
should nut be required to pay any of the alleged victims until after the threat of prosecution no 
longer exists. 
II. 
Misinterpretations of the Agreement 
The contentiousness caused by the implementation of the Section 2255 portion of the 
Agreement has also been caused by what we believe are misinterpretations of the terms by your 
Office. These problems, which I describe below, area practical outgrowth of the fact that civil 
settlement. us opposed to restitution, is considered in the Agreement. 
A. 
Rule of the Attorney Representative 
The LIMO has improperly emphasized that ate chosen tummy representative should be 
able to litigate the claims of individuals, which violates the terms, and deeply infringes upon the 
spirit and nature of. the Agreement. I lowever. after the panics agreed to the appointment of an 
independent third puny to select the representative, the government announced that the criteria 
for choosing an appropriate attorney representative would include that they be `•a plaintiff's 
lawyer capable of handling multiple lawsuits against high profile attorneys." This interpretation 
of the scope of the attorney representative's role is lift outside the common understanding that 
existed when we negotiated Mr. Epstein's settlement with the MAO. Moreover, we have made 
the USA° aware of the potential ethical problems that would arise should the selected 
representative be allowed to litigate and settle various claims against Mr. Epstein. The initial 
draft victim notification letter contained language that confirmed your Office's interpretation and 
indicated that Mr. Podhurst and Mr. Josefsberg, the selected attorney representatives. may 
"represent" the identified individuals. This language assumes that the selected representatives 
will agree to serve in the capacity envisioned by the 0SA°. which we believe is patently 
incorrect. To suggest this notion in a letter to victims who have limited or no knowledge of the 
ethical principles ut issue will only lead to confusion, misunderstanding and disappointment 
among the identified individuals when they learn that such representation is foreclosed. 
B. 
Scope of Mr. Epstein's Waiver 
Your Office has taken the position that Mr. Epstein waives liability beyond the settlement 
of claims and that he will waive liability even in lawsuits brought by the identified individuals. 
However. this overstates the scope of Mr. Epstein's waiver pursuant to the Agreement. Mr. 
Epstein has only agreed that he will waive the right to contest liability and jurisdiction for the 
purpose of settling claims with the alleged victims pursuant to Sections 7 duough 8 of the 
Agreememand Addendum. Mr. Epstein has no obligation to waive this right to contest liability 
EFTA00176144

12/11/2007 11:49 FAX 
la 035/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11, 2007 
Page 12 
in any claim liar damages • • by an enumerated "victim" or anyone else — where that party fails to 
settle her claims pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. The revised droll of the letter avoids 
this misinterpretation and directly quotes Paragraphs 7. 8, 9 and to of the Agreement. While we 
do not have any objection to including this portion of the Agreement in the proposed letter, we 
request rhat Paragraphs 7A, 711. and 7C of the Addendum to the Agreement also be included 
because the hinguatte containixl there in most clearly outlines the scope of Mr. Epstein's 
obligation to pay damages under the Agreement. 
C. 
Right of the Alleged Victims to Be Notified 
As we have expressed to you previously, we do not agree with your Office's assertion 
that it is either am obligation and even appropriate for the MAO to send a victims notification 
letter to the alleged victims. The Justice Sr All Act of 2004 only contemplates notification in 
relation to available restitution for the victims of crimes. However, since Section 2255 is only 
one of many civil remedies, there is no requirement that the USAO inform alleged victims 
pursuant to the Justice Sr All Act of 2004. Notably. if the USAO had agreed to include a 
restitution fund in the Agreement as opposed to a civil remedy statute, the alleged victims would 
have the right to be notified pursuant to the relevant Act. 
Further. we note that the reasons you cite in favor of issuing the proposed Victims 
Notification letter in your correspondence of December 4 are also inapplicable to this scenario. 
For instance, you cite 18 U.S.C. * 3771 for the proposition that your Office is obligated to 
provide certain notices to the alleged victims. However. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(0)(2) & (3) provide: 
A crime victim has the fallowing rights: 
(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely' notice of any public court proceeding, or any 
parole proeeeding, invoking the crime nr any release or escape ot'ihc meat:nal. 
I.31.11}1.1 right not to he excluded limn any such public court proceeding. unless the court, alter 
receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would he 
materially altered 011ie victim heard other testimony at the proceeding. 
(emphasis added). Your interpretation of § 3771 is erroneous because the rights conferred by the 
statute indicate that these rights an: for the notification and appearance at public proceedings 
involving the crime for which the relevant individual is a victim. As you know, the public 
proceeding in this matter will be in stale court thr the purpose of the entry of a plea on state 
charges. Therefore, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 clearly does not apply to *Victims" who are not stale 
"victims." You additionally cite your Office's obligations under § 3771(0(1) of the Justice for 
All Act of 2004, However, this subsection relates back to the "rights described in subsection 
(a)." Thus, since the rights set forth in subsection (a) only apply to the victims of the crimes fur 
EFTA00176145

12/11/2007 11:49 FAX 
0098/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December I I. 2007 
Page 13 
which the public proceeding is being held, the individuals identified by your Office have no 
rights to notification or appearance under this Act. 
You further cite 42 U.S.C. 
10007(c)( I )(B) and (e)(3) which, you state. obligates your 
Office to inform victims of "any restitution or other relief' to which that victim may he emitted 
and ()I' notice of the status of the investigation: the filing of charges against a suspected offender: 
and the acceptance of a plea. Although we do not believe this applies here Air the same reasons 
stated above. we further assert that your proposed Victims Notification letter seeks to go beyond 
what is prescribed under 42 U.S.C'. 
10607. Indeed. there is nothing in the statute that n)quires 
your Office to solicit witness testimony or statements fir the purposes of Mr. F.pstein's 
sentencing hearing. Furthermore, we assert that any notification obligation you believe you have 
under this statute should be addressed by Judge 
We submit to you bused on the policy concerns of including u civil remedies statute in u 
criminal agreement and requiring the waiver of a defendants rights under that agreement creates 
a host of problems that, in this case, have led to a serious delay in achieving finality to the 
satisfaction of all parties affected. We appreciate your consideration of these issues and hope 
that we can find a solution that resolves our concerns. 
Sincerely. 
ay n.1.e ko. tz 
EFTA00176146