EFTA00184224

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 11 of 
24 
LAW OFFICES OF 
ALP B. LEVCOURT. P.C. 
Jeffreygisq. 
Matthe 
, Esq. 
Andrew I .nurie F. 
 
 , Esq. 
The United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
July 6, 2007 
Page 10 
To the extent that §2422(b) criminalizes the use of the intemet (or telephone) by a 
sexual predator to target a vulnerable minor and to convince, or to try to convince, her to 
engage in conduct proscribed by law, the statute may not be unconstitutional on its face. 
See United States" 23,1carsky, 446 F.3d 458, 470 (3d Cir. 2006) (both §§ 2422(b) and 
2423(6) "fall squarely within Congress's power to regulate the first two categories of 
activities described in Lopez"). The statute would, however, be plainly unconstitutional if 
it were applied to situations like Mr. Epstein's, where neither the telephone nor the 
intemet was used in that fashion, and where the use of the telephone was, at most, a 
tenuous link in a chaiii of events that may, or may not, have preceded or followed sexual 
contact with a minor.9 In other words, if the instrumentality of commerce is not the 
vehicle used to facilitate the harm Congress is trying to address, but is simply a 
'jurisdictional hook," the hook is too weakly connected to the problem (sexual crimes 
against minors) to sustain the statute as a proper exercise of Commerce Clause power. 
Questions about the nature of federalism, and, specifically, just how far the 
federal government may go into matters of traditionally state concern, will continue to 
arise and ill be answered case-by-case. As Justice O'Connor said in her dissent in 
Gonzales. Rakh, 545 U.S. 1, 47 (2005), ".. . the task is to identify a mode of analysis 
that allows Congress to regulate more thy' nothing ... and less than everything. .." 
(O'Connor, J. dissenting). United States" Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2005), 
illustrates the difficulty of the task. In that case, the deeply split en ham: Court 
considered whether and to what extent the Commerce Clause authority included the 
power to punish a church arsonist who had traveled in interstate commerce to commit his 
e 
arsons. 
Though clearly not settled, what is clear is that Congress's specification of a 
jurisdictional element such as the use of an instrumentality or channel of interstate 
9 As can be readily noted on the chart at Tab "B", to the extent discernable, every case brought 
under §2422(b) in this district includes use of the internet. There are only four reported cases in 
the Eleventh Circuit involving use of the phones only: three of them concern telephone calls to 
travel agencies advertising overseas underage sex tour and involved explicit talk of sexual 
activity with known minors. A fourth is United States'. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2007) 
(11th Cir, 2007). But there, in facts far different from those presented here, the defendant 
"admitted using both a cellular telephone and a land-line telephone to entice Jane Doe to engage 
in prostitution" (emphasis added). That admission makes Evans no precedent for a prosecution 
here, since there is no evidence the phones were used "to entice". 
MIA__CE0S_00086 
EFTA00184644

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 12 of 
24 
LAW OPIICC• OF 
BALD B. LEVCOUBT, PC. 
Jeffrey Sloman, Esq. 
Matthew 
Esq. 
Andrew Lour
g
it
. 
A. 1=Villafafla, Esq. 
The United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
July 6, 2007 
Page 11 
commerce does not, in and of itself, end the inquiry. Where the use of such 
instrumentality is far removed from the conduct being targeted (in the case of §2422(b), . 
sexual exploitation of children), the lack of any basis for federal jurisdiction presents 
itself squarely. 
' 
In Mr. Epstein's case, since the crime being considered (as Congress intended) is 
the use of the Internet by interact predators to target and lure vulnerable children to 
engage in illicit sex, the law is arguably within Congress' Commerce Clause powers. But 
Mr. Epstein's conduct would be outside the law's scope. If you were to contend that any 
use of the telephone which is connected in any fashion to an act of sexual misconduct 
with a minor is within the statute's scope, Congress would then have reached well into 
traditional state spheres, and there is a powerful argument that Congress would have been 
acting in excess of its Commerce Clause authority. 
Elimination of Constitutional uncertainty regarding §2422(b) depends upon 
confining it to situations where an instrumentality of interstate commerce has itself been 
:: used for an immoral or injurious purpose. Statutes must be read to eliminate serious 
doubts as to Constitutionality, as long as such a reading is not plainly contrary to the 
.• intent of Con ess. United States X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 78 (1994), 
citing 
. DeBartolo Corp. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Thades 
Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988). At c least, to eliminate questions as to its 
constitutionality, §2422(b)'s reach must be limited to situations where there is a very 
close connection between the use of an instrumentality of interstate commerce and the 
persuasion or attempted persuasion that the statute makes a crime. 
Moreover, even if, arguendo, the expansive reading of the statute would not 
violate the Commerce Clause — which current case law strongly suggests it would —
nevertheless the federal interest in prosecuting sexual offenses involving minors where 
t the facility or means of interstate commerce was not the vehicle for committing the crime 
is so attenuated that no such federal prosecution should be brought. 
.. 
Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Epstein himself ever persuaded, induced, 
60004 or coerced anyone under the age of 18 over the telephone or internet to engage in 
restitution or other illegal conduct. Any prosecution would therefore have to be 
redicated on a theory that he was criminally culpable for a telephone call made by a 
)4 party. Such a theory of vicarious liability requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt 
person making the telephone call and Mr. Epstein shared the same criminal intent 
MIA_CEOS_00087 
EFTA00184645

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 13 of 
24 
LAW Orrices or 
GERALD B. LEFCOURT, P.C. 
JeffreyMtg. 
Matthe 
, Esq. 
, Esq. 
The United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
July 6, 2007 
Page 12 
and knowledge and, critically, that the shared intent and knowledge existed at the time of 
the communication in question. Absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. 
Epstein had actual knowledge that the person making a telephone call would induce or 
persuade a specific underage person during the telephone call to engage in unlawful 
sexual activity or to engage in prostitution, there can be no federal crime. 
If the telephone call in question were simply to schedule a topless massage, then 
the call lacked the essential element of inducement, persuasion, enticement, or coercion. 
If the telephone call in question was to schedule a topless massage (or even more) with a 
woman whose age was not known by Mr. Epstein to be under 18, it also fails to satisfy 
the requirements of §2422(b). If Mr. Epstein had not formed the intent to engage in 
unlawful sexual activity as of the time of the communication (even if he did form the 
intent thereafter), an essential clement of the federal statute is again lacking. If the 
person making the call had knowledge or a criminal intent or belief not fully shared by 
Mr. Epstein (for example, Mr. Epstein did not know the telephone call was intended to 
induce a minor to engage in unlawful activity), the essential element of shared intent and 
shared knowledge is again lacking.1' Finally, even if there were a call to schedule a 
second meeting with someone who had previously been to the Epstein residence, this call 
lacks the necessary element of persuasion, inducement, or enticing even if the person 
receiving the call hoped or expected remuneration from the return visit. That is so 
because the statute focuses on the content of the communication, not on any quid pro quo 
that occurs thereafter at a meeting. The latter conduct is exclusively within the ambit of 
state prosecution. 
5. Other Reasons Why & 2422(3) Does Not Apply 
As we demonstrate above, this statute is addressed to those who purposely and 
intentionally target children. Here, there was no such targeting. As the Sixth Circuit said 
in rejecting a First Amendment challenge to the statute: "The statute only applies to those 
who 'knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice minors. United 
States I. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000). See United States'. Pali!, 338 F.3d 
10 Indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any calls 
may claim to have made 
to solicit persons to massage Mr. Epstein. Though Ms. 
may lave known the actual ages 
of the women whom she called at the time she called, and may therefore have known that one or 
more was in fact under 18, she was clear in speaking to detectives that she never communicated 
such information to Mr.. Epstein. Rather, she understood Mr. E stein wanted massages from 
women at least 18 years of age. (Video Interview o 
on October 3, 2005). 
MIA CEOS_00088 
EFTA00184646

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 14 of 
24 
LAW OFFICES or 
GERALD B. LEITCOURT, P.C. 
Jeffrey MIN. 
Matthew 
, Esq. 
Andrew Lowrie Esq. 
A. 
Esq.
The United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
July 6, 2007 
Page 13 
1299 (11th Cir. 2003) (scienter requirement discourages "unscrupulous enforcement" and 
clarifies §2422(b)). Directed towards those who commit "the most serious crimes against 
children," it cannot properly be used as a trap for the unwary, sweeping within its net all 
who may — even unwittingly and unintentionally — communicate or otherwise interact 
improperly with persons who turn out to be minors. 
A prosecution of Mr. Epstein would violate the teachings of Bailey and Panfil. As 
we believe we persuaded you at the June 26'h meeting, Mr. Epstein never targeted minors. 
On the contrary, what he did — at worst — was akin to putting up a sign saying to all, come 
in if you are interested in giving a massage for $200. A few among those who accepted 
the general invitation may have in fact been under 18 (though they lied about that age and 
said they were 18), but that is, at its worst, comparable to "post[ing] messages for all 
interne users, either adults or children, to seek out and read at their discretion," which the 
courts have held does not violate §2422(b). 
Thus, for this reason as well, Mr. Epstein's case is far outside the parameters of 
the §2422(b) cases that have been prosecuted. A key factor common to cases brought 
under §2422(b) is not present here: Prosecutions under this statute have focused on a 
sexual predator who used the intemet to identify and to communicate with a child or 
purported child (or a person with influence over such child or purported child), and did so 
with the intent to arrange to engage in sexual activity with the child, with full knowledge 
that sexual activity with an individual of that age was illegal. In light of this common and 
well-accepted understanding, the cases decided under §2422(b) take as a given that its 
proper application lies only where the defendant knows or believes the person with whom 
he is interacting is a child. 
Virtually all of the prosecutions brought under §2422(b) resulting in published 
decisions have involved undercover "sting" operations, involving an essentially standard 
fact pattern in which over an extended period of time and in the course of multiple 
conversations on line an undercover agent pretends to be a young teenager. In each of the 
cases, the prosecution had, from the very words used by the defendant, an all but 
irrefutable case showing the clear knowledge and intent of the defendant. A prototypical 
case is United States' Farner, 251 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2001), where the defendant 
participated, over time, in instant messaging, e-mail, and follow-up telephone calls with a 
person who identified herself as 14 years old, engaged in explicit intemet conversation, 
sent her pornographic pictures, persuaded her to meet with him for sexual activity, 
arranged such a meeting, and traveled to the meeting place. The Fifth Circuit held that 
MIA CEOS_00089 
EFTA00184647

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 15 of 
24 
LAW OFFICIO, OF 
ALD B. LEFCOURT, P.C. 
N 
Jeffrey I
Esq. 
Matthew 
Esq. 
Andrew Lot
i
q. 
A. 
Esq. 
The 
toes
 Office 
Southern District of Florida 
July 6, 2007 
Page 14 
defendant's §2422(b) attempt conviction was valid; it mattered not that the 14 year old 
was really an adult FBI agent engaged in a sting operation, for the defendant "believed 
Cindy to be a minor and acted on that belief." 251 F.3d at 512. Our own survey of the 
cases brought in this district under §2422(b) confirms that prosecutions in this District 
have also been all but limited to intemet sting cases. See Tab "B". 
In the context of this standard fact pattern involving the intemet's use by 
predators, other Circuits, including the Eleventh, have been unanimous in holding that the 
non-existence of an actual minor was of no moment; defendant's belief that he was 
F.3d 1222, 1227-32 (11th Cir. 2002); United States1 Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 0th Cir. 
dealing with a minor was sufficient to make out the crime. See United States 
Root, 296 
2005); United States I Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8Ih Or. 2006); United States I Meek, 366 
F.3d 705, 717-20 (0 Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void or vagueness, 
overbreadth, and First Amendment challenges to the statute, brought in the context of 
these prototypical prosecutions where the intemet was the vehicle of communication and 
enticement, and the defendant demonstrated in writing his belief that he was dealing with 
(3d 
Cir. 
2OO6); 
United 
States 
Thomas, 
41O 
F.3d 
1235, 
12 
3-44 
(1O
a child well below the age of ionsent. E.g., United States t Tilkarskli4 
Cir. 2005); United 
446 F.3d 458, 473 
States 1 Panfil, supra, 338 F.3d at 1300-01 (11th Cir. 2003).11
"There are approximately two dozen Eleventh Circuit cases that include a prosecution under 
§2422(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States Morton, 
364 F.3d 1300 (11 th Cir. 2004), judgment vacated for Booker consideration, 125 S. Ct. 338 
(2006); United States !Orrega, 363 F.3d 1093 (I I" Cir. 2004); United States "'Miranda, 348 
17.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 20 3); United StatesITYllmon, 195 F.3d 640 (11th Cir. 190.9); United States I 
Panful, supra, 338 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 20 3); United States 1 Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 
1999); United States! Burgess, 175 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 1949); United States Rojas, 145 Fed. 
Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 
05); United States I Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11'h Cir. 200 ). 
United States I Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004), is in the same mold, except that, in that 
tiling operation, the defendant communicated, not with the purported 13 year old girl, but with an 
Undercover agent holding himself out to be the imaginary girl's father. The initial contacts 
Between Murrell and the agent occurred in Internet chatrooms named "family love" and "Rent F 
ry Yng." Over time, Murrell sought to make arrangements with the girl's father to make his 
daughter available for sex in exchange for money. After the initial intemet communications 
Otnicerning renting the girl for sexual purposes, further negotiations between the defendant and 
11;0 undercover occurred via the phone, per the defendant's suggestion. The Eleventh Circuit, 
Aiming the issue to be whether the defendant must communicate directly with the minor or 
Opposed minor to violate §2422(b), answered the question in the negative, reasoning that "the 
MIA .CEOS_00090 
EFTA00184648

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 16 of 
24 
LAW CWIICCS Or 
Jeffrey Mi
si q. 
Matthew 
Esq. 
Andrew Lourie, Esq. 
 
 Esq. 
The United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
July 6, 2007 
Page 15 
In light of this common and well-accepted understanding, the cases decided under 
§2422(b) take as a given that its proper application lies only where the facts demonstrate 
beyond dispute that the defendant knows or believes the person with whom he is 
interacting is a minor. 
The Ninth Circuit has so held. United States' Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 718 (9th Cir. 
2004), held that the term "knowingly" refers both to the verbs — "persuades", "induces", 
"entices", or "coerces" — as well as tope object —"a person who has not achieved the 
age of 11. years," citing United States I X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994), and 
Staples, United States, 511 U.S. 606 (1994). The Meek Court wrote: 
The statute requires mens rea, that is, a guilty mind. The 
guilt arises from the defendant's knowledge of what he 
intends to do. In this case, knowledge is subjective — it is 
what is in the mind of the defendant. it
The very lengthy sentence under §2422(b) speaks against strict liability, 
especially since it applies in eases whcre there is no sexual contact at all with any 
person, let alone with a real minor. The Eleventh Circuit's decision in United States
Murrell, supra, reflects this same understanding of the statute. The Murrell court wrote 
that, under the "plain language" of §2422(b), "to prove an attempt the government must 
efficacy of §2422(b) would be eviscerated if a defendant could circumvent the statute simply by 
employing an intermediary to cant out his intended objective. Id. at 1287. Fact patterns slat 
to Murrell's exist in Chatted States Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2004); United States 
Houston, 177 Fed. Agpx. 57 (11* Cir. 2006); United States Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193 (Da Cir. 
2005); United States' Scott, 426 F. 3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2005); and United States' Bolen, 136 Fed. 
Appx. 325 (11111Cir. 2002). 
12 Several Courts of Appeal have held that, in a prosecution under §2422(a), the defendant need 
not know that the individual that a defendant has persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced to 
travel in interstate commerce is under the age of 18. United States' Jones, 471 F.3d 535 (46
Cir. 2006), is ono of these cases, though its facts are very different, and much more egregious 
than Mr. Epstein's. Assuming Jones was correctly decided and that the government need not 
prove defendant's knowledge under §2422(a), that still does not answer the question under 
§2422(b). The two are very different statutes, with different histories and different purposes. 
And §2422(a), unlike subsection (b), carries no mandatory minimum sentence, let alone ten years. 
MIA_CE0S_00091 
EFTA00184649

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 17 of 
24 
I. AV! orrocc• or 
Jeffrey 
Esq. 
Matthew 
Esq. 
Andrew Loune, Esq. 
A. iliVillafahe, Esq. 
The United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
July 6, 2007 
Page 16 
first prove that Murrell, using the intemet, acted with a specific intent to persuade a 
minor to engage in unlawful sex." 368 F.3d at 1286 (emphasis added).13 United States 
Root, supra, 296 F.3d at 1227, follows this pattern, and confirms that, at the time the 
defendant induces or entices the minor, he must intend to have sexual conduct with a 
minor or one he believes to be a minor and know that such conduct is proscribed. 
("Root's statement to task force agents upon his arrest confirmed that he believed he 
would meet a 13-year-old girl for sex, which he said he knew was wrong but 'exciting"). 
See also United States i Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 2005) (unpublished). This 
mens rea requirement applies equally where the completed crime occurs.14
Finally, actus non facit ream, nisi mens sit rea — the act alone does not amount to 
guilt; it must be accompanied by a guilty mind. This principle of concurrence mandates 
that the actus reus and the mens reus concur in time. See Paull-I. Robinson, Criminal 
Law §4.1 at 217 (1997) (concurrence requirement "means that the required culpability as 
to the element must exist at the time of the conduct constituting the offense"); LaFave, 
Substantive Criminal Law §3.I1(a) (West 1986) (noting that Concurrence is a basic 
principle of criminal law and "the better view is that there is concurrence when the 
defendant's mental state actuates the physical conduct"). See also United States, Bailey, 
supra, 444 U.S. at 402. In this case, the requisite actus reus is absent; likewise the 
required mental state. Even if those two fatal defects could be set aside, nevertheless, 
there was no concurrence of guilty mind and evil act, providing an additional reason why 
a successful prosecution under §2422(b) could not be brought. 
6. Conclusion 
In Mr. Epstein's case, there was no use of the intemet to induce, etc., and, given 
the legislative history and purpose, that is itself dispositive. Nor does the case present 
any of the dangers associated with intemet predators and cyberspace. Not surprisingly 
13 Otherwise, the police could, for example, conduct a sting operation with a 17 year-old 
pretending to be an 18 year-old. Such an absurd operation is surely not intended by the statute. 
14 Even the completed crime does not require any sexual activity. Arguably, one commits the 
attempt offense when the actor, on the interact, asks a known or believed-to-be minor to have sex, 
"riven if she says no. The completed offense occurs when he takes an additional step, even before 
imy sexual activity and regardless of whether one ever takes place. 
MIA_CEOS_00092 
EFTA00184650

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 18 of 
24 
LAW orricce 
or 
ALD B. LEFC017RT, 'PC. 
Jeffrey 
Esq. 
Matthew 
Esq. 
Andrew Louric, Esq. 
 
 Esq. 
the United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
July 6, 2.007 
Page 17 
then, the statutory language does not fit: Mr. Epstein did not use any facility of interstate 
commerce to do the forbidden act — to persuade, entice, induce, or coerce — nor did he 
attempt to do so. Others did use the telephone to make a variety of arrangements for Mr. 
Epstein's residence in Palm Beach, including getting the house ready for his arrival, 
checking movie schedules, and making telephone calls to schedule doctor's 
appbintments, personal training, physical therapy and massages. Even if Mr. Epstein 
could be held responsible for the use of the telephone on his behalf, nevertheless, calls 
made by others regarding massages were not the statutorily proscribed persuasions or 
enticements of a known minor to do acts known to be illegal. Within his home, even if 
Mr. Epstein may arguably have persuaded or induced individuals to engage in forbidden 
conduct with him, he did not violate §2422(b). If he engaged in such persuasion or 
inducement, it occurred only face to face and spontaneously. 
If such conduct constituted a crime, it would be a classic state offense. The state 
is the appropriate forum for addressing these issues. Though in our meeting it was 
asserted that cases under §2422(b) are often brought where there was simply use of a 
telephone, and casual use at that, it would not from our survey appear to be so on either 
count — that is, use of a telephone rather than the interact, and use of the means of 
communication remote from the enticing, etc. This is neither the defendant, nor the 
factual context, to break new ground. 
II. 
Mr. Epstein Warrants Declination to Prosecute as Exercise of Discretion. 
We believe strongly that no federal case would lie under the facts here. Moreover, 
as we discussed, there is a pending state case against Mr. Epstein which can be resolved 
in a way that vindicates the state's rights and obligations in this matter. 
In considering an appropriate disposition in a case such as this, where the 
applicability of the statute, both legally and as a matter of policy, raise serious questions, 
and both the reliability and admissibility of much of the evidence is in doubt, it is useful 
to consider how best to use the broad discretion you enjoy in choosing whether to 
prosecute. In this regard, we suggest that having a greater understanding of who Jeffrey 
Epstein is as a person may help inform how best to proceed. 
Jeffrey Epstein was raised in a middle class neighborhood in Brooklyn, New 
York, by hardworking parents. His father was a laborer and his mother a secretary. They 
lived comfortably, but were by no means well off. Mr. Epstein's parents instilled a strong 
work ethic in him, and growing up he held a variety of jobs to support himself, from 
MIPLCEOt00093 
EFTA00184651

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 19 of 
24 
LAW OFFICE. Of 
finALD B. LEPCOURT. PC. 
Jeffrey asq. 
Matthew 
Esq. 
Andrew Lotir!q. 
A. 1=Villafafta, Esq. 
The rated States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
July 6, 2007 
Page 18 
driving a taxi cab to working as a mechanic. Any notion that he was born with a "silver 
spoon in his mouth" should be dismissed. 
Although Mr. Epstein is self-made and worked long and hard, he could not have 
achieved his successes without the personal guidance and support of others. These key 
people first identified the promise in Mr. Epstein and brought him to Bear Steams and 
Company, Inc. There, starting in 1976 at the age of 23 as a floor trader's junior assistant, 
he became in 1980 a limited partner. Among the very many benefits that his experience 
there provided was an introduction to the people who ultimately became his clients. 
• Early in his professional career, Mr. Epstein realized the profound impact that 
even one person can have on the life of another. His gratitude for the assistance he 
personally received, and his sense of obligation to provide similar assistance and 
guidance to others, is in large part, the motive for the primacy of philanthropy in his life 
or his particular philanthropic interests. Mr. Epstein has devoted a substantial portion of 
his time, efforts and financial resources to helping others, both on an individual basis and 
on a more far reaching scope. Mr. Epstein gives generously, of both his time and his 
financial resources equally to individuals whom he knows personally and well and to 
those with whom he has had little or no personal contact. Just a few examples: 
Some time ago, the two year old son of an employee was diagnosed with retinal 
blastoma. When told, Mr. Epstein not only gave the employee unlimited time off to 
attend to his son and promised whatever financial support was needed, but Mr. Epstein 
made the MI list of his medical and research contacts available. The employee was put 
in contact with a former colleague who was then conducting eye research at Washington 
University. Mr. Epstein organized several meetings to determine how the colleague could 
be of assistance, including by arranging for further meetings with experts at Washington 
University. Though the employee's son lost one eye, he is now an otherwise normal 
twelve year old who attends private school along with his five siblings, the expenses of 
which arc borne by Mr. Epstein. 
Several years ago, a new employee with whom Mr. Epstein had little or no prior 
contact approached Mr. Epstein to request a change in his medical insurance. It was soon 
revealed that the employee and his wife were experiencing fertility problems and they 
were seeking treatments that cost nearly $15,000 per month. Mr. Epstein insisted on 
paying'directly for the treatments, and did so month after month. After each 
unsuccessful cycle, Mr. Epstein sat with the employee, exploring available alternatives, 
including adoption, and encouraging the employee to continue additional cycles at Mr. 
Epstein's. Mr. Epstein referred the employee to medical experts with whom Mr. Epstein 
MIA_CE0S_00094 
EFTA00184652

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 20 of 
24 
LAW orrice* or 
LE,- B. LEFCOUBT, PC. 
N. 
Jeffrey Misq. 
Matthew 
, Esq. 
Andrew Lourie, Esq. 
A. 
Villafafia, Esq. 
The United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
July 6, 2007 
Page 19 
was acquainted and assigned personnel to assist the employee with administrative and 
secretarial needs that arose in seeking a solution to the problem. Mr. Epstein is now the 
godfather of the employee's seven-year old twins. 
Recently, both a second employee and a consultant of Mr. Epstein each confided 
that they and their respective spouses were experiencing similar fertility problems. 
Again, Mr. Epstein offered to pay the uncovered medical costs. The consultant and his 
wife are now expecting their first child. The second employee continues with infertility 
treatments. 
Two years ago, a building workman approached Mr. Epstein with news that the 
workman's wife needed a kidney transplant and that the workman's sister-in-law in 
Colombia was a willing donor. The non English speaking workman had neither the 
financial resources nor the know-how to get the sister-in-law to the United States. Mr. 
Epstein arranged for immigration counsel to expedite a visa for the sister-in-law and 
purchased the plane tickets for the sister-in-law's visit to the United States. The surgery 
was a success and both patients recovered completely. The sister-in-law flew back to 
Colombia at Mr. Epstein's expense. 
Mr. Epstein is a devoted advocate of personal improvement through education. 
As a former board member of Rockefeller University, Mr. Epstein has made available 
academic scholarships to worthy students, most of whom he has had no prior connection 
to whatsoever. In addition, Mr. Epstein covers the tuition required to send the family 
members of his employees to nursery, private elementary, middle and secondary schools 
and colleges. He has funded and personally encouraged continuing education programs 
for his adult employees and professional consultants. 
Among his other acts: 
• 
On a trip to Rwanda to inspect the genocide camps, Mr. Eittein 
approached the President of Rwanda and offered to help identify and then 
to fund two worthy Rwandan students to earn undergraduate degrees in 
the United States. The student, whom Mr. Epstein did not meet until after 
their second year of studies, both are expected to graduate with honors 
from the City University of New York in 2008. Notes from each of them 
are annexed at Tab "C". 
• 
Even to those with less lofty goals, seeking only to advance in their chosen 
paths, Mr.. Epstein freely gives of his time to provide guidance and, when 
appropriate, financial support. For example, Mr. Epstein has been meeting 
MIA CEOS_00095 
EFTA00184653

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 21 of 
24 
LAM °MCC., or 
ERALD B. LEFCOURT. PC 
Jeffrey Sizajailsq. 
Matthea, 
Esq. 
Andrew Laurie F 
Esq. 
The United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
July 6, 2007 
Page 20 
monthly with a teenage building workman whose expenses of vocational 
school are being paid by Mr. Epstein. Each month, Mr. Epstein reviews 
the workman's school progress and discusses career opportunities. One of 
the monthly reports is annexed at Tab "D". 
• 
In addition, Mr. Epstein blocks out time each week to meet with young 
professionals to discuss their career prospects and counsel them regarding 
appropriate next steps. 
Although Mr. Epstein is deeply committed to helping others in very personal and 
meaningful ways, he has also sought to use his good fortune to help others on a broader 
basis. Mr. Epstein has sponsored more than 70 athlete wellness programs, building 
projects, scholarship funds and community interest programs in the United States Virgin 
Islands alone. 
Moreover, Mr. Epstein has given generously to support philanthropic 
organizations across the United States and around the world, including America's 
Agenda; Robin Hood; Alliance for Lupus Research; Ovarian Cancer Research Fund; 
Friends of Israel Defense Forces; Seeds of Peace; the Jewish National Fund; the Hillel 
Foundation; the National Council of Jewish Women; and the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund 
— to name only a few. 
In a feature article about Mr. Epstein in New York Magazine, former President 
Clinton aptly described Mr. Epstein as "a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of 
global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science." President 
Clinton reached this conclusion during'a month-long trip to Africa with Mr. Epstein, 
which Mr. Epstein hosted. The purpose of that trip was to increase AIDS awareness; to 
work towards a solution to the AIDS crisis; and to provide funding to reduce the costs of 
delivering medications to those inflicted with the disease. 
Both before and after that trip to Africa, Mr. Epstein worked hard to achieve 
improvements in people's lives on a global basis. He actively sought advancement of his 
philanthropic goals through his participation and generous support of both the Trilateral 
Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. As you may know, the Trilateral 
Commission was formed to foster closer cooperation among core democratic 
industrialized areas of the world in the pursuit of goals beneficial to the global 
population. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, national membership 
organization and a nonpartisan center for scholars dedicated to increase international 
understanding of world issues and the foreign policy decisions that affect those issues. 
MIA_CEO8_00096 
EFTA00184654

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 22 of 
24 
LAW armee 
OF 
LD B. LEPCOTJEtt PC. 
Jeffrelicl• 
Matth 
 Esq. 
, Esq. 
The United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
July 6, 2007 
Page 21 
Mr. Epstein was part of the original group that conceived the.Clinton Global 
Initiative, which is described as a project "bringing together a community of global 
leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world's most 
pressing challenges." Focuses of this initiative include poverty, climate change, global 
health, and religious and ethnic conflicts. 
Mr. Epstein has sought to improve people's lives through active participation in • 
worthy scientific and academic research projects, as well. He spent hundreds of hours 
researching the world's best scientists, and he himself studied as a Harvard Fellow in 
order to increase his own knowledge in fields that he believed could provide solutions to 
the world's most difficult problems. He is committed to helping the right researchers find 
those solutions, especially in the fields of medical science, human behavior and the 
environment. 
In the past four years alone, Mr. Epstein has made grants to research programs at 
major institutions under the supervision of some of the most highly regarded research 
professionals and scholars in their fields, including Martin Nowak, a mathematical 
biologist who studies, among other things, the dynamics of infectious diseases and cancer 
genetics; Martin Seligman, known for his work on Positive Psychology — that is to say 
the psychology of personal fulfillment; Roger Schank, a leading researcher in the 
application of cogniti 
theory to the curricula of formal education; the renown 
physicist/cosmologist
 Krauss, and many others. Institutions funded include 
Harvard University; Penn State University; Lenox Hill Hospital (New York); the 
Biomedical Research and Education Foundation; the Santa Fe Institute; Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology; Case Western Reserve University; and Harvard Medical School's 
Institute for Music and Brain Science. 
Moreover, Mr. Epstein has sponsored and chaired, symposia that have provided a 
rare opportunity for the world's leading scholars and research professionals to share ideas 
across interdisciplinary lines. These leaders gather to discuss important and complex 
topics, including the origin of life, systems for understanding human behavior, and 
personal genomics. 
In order to expand the pool of qualified research professionals actively engaged in 
addressing the world's numerous problems, Mr. Epstein co-founded, and served as a 
trustee and actively participated in the selection committee of, the Scholar Rescue Fund. 
The Scholar Rescue Fund (SRF) is a program of the Institute of International Education, 
the group that, inter alia, administers the Fulbright Scholarship program. The SRF 
provides support and safe haven to scholars at risk from around the world. Over the past 
MIA_CEOS_00097 
EFTA00184655

Case 9:O8-cv-8O736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket O2/1O/2O16 Page 23 of 
24 
LAW OFIIICCS OI 
LD B. LEIrCOURT. PC. 
JefTreyMisq. 
Matthew 
, Esq. 
Andrew Laurie R  q, 
 
, Esq. 
The United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
July 6, 2007 
Page 22 
five years, SRF has made 155 grants to scholars from more than 37 countries. Scholars 
are placed at host universities in a safe country. More than 87 institutions around the 
world have hosted SRF scholars to date, including eight of the top ten universities in the 
United States. Most recently, SRF launched the Iraq Scholar Rescue Project to save 
scholars in Iraq, many of whom have been particularly targeted for kidnapping and death 
since the conflict there began. Mr. Epstein is a highly valued member of the selection 
committee. Just a few articles mentioning these and other projects are annexed at Tab 
Even a casual review of the good works large and small in which he has involved 
himself leads one to conclude that he has a powerful instinct to help others. He does this 
not simply because he can, but because he has a deeply ingrained desire to do so. In fact, 
he believes that, as a result of his good fortune, he is obligated to do so. 
Since 2000, Mr. Epstein has funded educational assistance, science and research 
and community and civic activities. As you can see, his philanthropy is not limited to 
financial support. To the contrary, it has involved the dedication of a remarkable amount 
of his time and effort and has yielded admirable results. It is noteworthy that a majority 
of the people he has helped over the years have been those with whom he has had little or 
no contact, which further confirms that he derives no personal benefit from his good 
works, other than the personal satisfaction derived from using his good fortune to help 
others. 
The sincere devotion to others evidenced by Mr. Epstein's philanthropic activities 
is no less apparent in his interpersonal relationships. Mr. Epstein has maintained both 
long term significant, intimate as well as professional relationships. He remains close 
personal friends with people with whom he went to high school and, to this day, 
maintains close business contacts with his former colleagues at Dear Stearns.. Those who 
know Mr. Epstein well describe him admittedly as quirky but certainly not immoral; and 
overall as kind, generous and warm-hearted. They have remained staunch supporters 
despite the Iwid media attention during this two-year investigation. 
Mr. Epstein acknowledges that the activities under investigation, as well as the 
investigation itself, have had and continue to have an unfortunate impact on many people. 
With a profound sense of regret, Mr. Epstein hopes to end any further embarrassment to 
all who are and who may become involved in this serious matter. Resolution of the 
outstanding charges in the state would put an appropriate end to the matter for everyone. 
MIA_CEOS_00098 
EFTA00184656

C e 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLED Docket 02/10/2016 Page 24 of 
24 
LAW OIFICL• or 
:',Gmastin B. LEFcouirr. P.C. 
Jeffreasq. 
Matth 
, Esq. 
Andrew Lourie, Esq. 
A. 
Villafatia, Esq. 
The United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
July 6, 2007 
Page 23 
Again, we and our colleagues thank you for your attention at the June 26 meeting. 
I welcome any questions or comments you may have and am available to discuss this and 
any other issues at your earliest convenience. 
Very truly yours, 
Gerald 13. Lefcourt 
a idt 
Alan Dershowitz 
cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. 
Roy Black, Esq. 
MIA CEOS._00099 
EFTA00184657

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-47 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 
EXHIBIT 
47 
EFTA00184658

.Case,9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-47 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 
F • 
1 
From: 
nt: 
ttumber 23, 2007 11:58 AM 
Lourie, Andrew; 
, Jeff (USAFLS); 
Subject: 
Jeffrey Epstein - con I ential 
(USAFLS) 
Dear Mr.
Jay Lefkowitz [JLetkowitz@kirkland.corn] 
(USAFLS) 
I write to follow up on our conversation on Friday and to ask you to reconsider your decision 
to require that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a registerable state charge. It appears that 
there was a misunderstanding at the meeting I had with Messrs. 
Lourie, Krischer, 
Goldberger, Lefcourt, Ms. 
and Ms. 
Please confirm 
this with IIII Lourie. 
Before the meeting, Mr. Krischer, and Ms. 
a sex prosecutor for 13 years, told us 
that solicitation of a minor, under 796.03, is not a registerable offense. However, as it 
turned out, 796.03 is a registerable offense and our discussion at the meeting was based on a 
mistaken 
assumption. 
We suggest that Mr. Epstein enter two 
pleas -- one to the Indictment and a second to a non-registerable charge. This charge could 
still allow for restitution under chapter 796. Indeed, because the conduct at issue here 
involves woman under the age of majority, I would suggest that Mr. Epstein plead either to a 
11
arge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, child abuse, and/or agree to a 
3 
tement of facts that he should have known that women under the age of majority were 
volved. Such a statement combined with a plea should address any concerns you have 
regarding Mr. Epstein's accepting responsibility for his conduct. 
To require registration based on the facts alleged in this case, however, simply does not 
make sense. 
Registration is a life sentence and the FBI's involvement in this case and their interest in 
vindication for their efforts cannot justify a punishment harsher than what Mr. Epstein 
deserves. I ask you to look at the manner in which the state settled the Kutun case last 
week. As you know, Mr. Kutun was a public figure who had videotaped 
sexual intercourse with a 16 year old. 
Consider the 
following factors, which we believe, indicate that registration is not justified in Mr. 
Epstein's case: 
• Mr. Epstein has no prior criminal record and no 
previous history of 
sexual offenses; 
• The vast majority of the girls alleged to be 
involved were over the 
age of 16, and many were months away from reaching the age of majority; 
• There are no allegations of substance or alcohol 
abuse or that Mr. Epstein provided drugs or alcohol to anyone; 
IIII) There is no suggestion that Mr. Epstein is a 
pedophile; 
1 
RFP MLA 000189 
EFTA00184659

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-48 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 4 
EXHIBIT 
48 
( 
EFTA00184660

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-48 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of .4 
• 
FOVVLERWHITE 
W BURNETT 
MIAMI • FORT LAUDERDALE • WEST PALI/ BEACH • ST. PETERSBURG 
August 2, 2007 
Mr. Matthew 
Chief, Criminal Division 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NE 4 Street 
Miami, Florida 33132 
Re: Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Matt: 
ESPIRRO SANTO PLAZA 
FOURTEENTH FLOOR 
1395 BRICKELL AVENUE 
MIAML FLORIDA 3313 
TELEPHONE (3051 789-9200 
FACSIMILE (3051 789-9201 
WWW.TOWURYMITE.COM 
LILLY ANN SANCHEZ 
DIRECT PHONE No.: 1305) 789.9279 
DIRECT FACSIMILE No.: (305/ 728-7579 
LSANCTIZZOPOWLCIPMITIE.COM 
As we discussed at Tuesday's meeting, and consistent with our view that no 
federal prosecution should lie in this matter, Mr. Epstein is prepared to resolve this 
matter via a state forum. We are in receipt of your memo regarding same and as the 
dynamics of the meeting did not allow for us to fully detail our proposal, we do so 
now. We believe that our respective positions are not very far apart and that a 
mutually agreeable resolution can be reached that will accomplish the interests of the 
United States Attorney's Office as well as those of the community. 
We welcomed your recognition that a state prison sentence is neither 
appropriate for, nor acceptable to, Mr. Epstein, as the dangers of the state prison 
system pose risks that are clearly untenable. We acknowledge that your suggestion 
of a plea to two federal misdemeanors was an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Our 
proposal is significantly punitive, and if implemented, would, we believe, leave little 
doubt that the federal interest was demonstrably vindicated. 
The Florida state judicial system, unlike the federal system, provides for 
numerous types of onerous sanctions after a defendant is remanded to the custody of 
the state. The sentence is tailored to the needs of the local community and the risk 
posed by a specific defendant. After a great deal of thought, our proposal consists 
of both a severe supervised custody, with an assurance that any violation would result 
in the immediate implementation of the two year period of incarceration. We must 
keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein is a 54-year old man who has never been arrested 
before. He has lived an otherwise exemplary life, characterized by both many 
charitable contributions and philanthropic acts. His reputation has suffered 
significantly as a result of his poor judgment in these matters. He is well aware of the 
ramifications of his past behavior and, accordingly, there is no concern, whatsoever, 
that he will re-offend. 
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A.
RFP MIA 000053 
EFTA00184661

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-48 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 4 
• 
Page 2 
The following proposal is offered as an assurance to the community that the 
goals of appropriate punishment and rehabilitation are attained. 
We will agree to a sentence of two years in state prison pursuant to Florida 
Statute 948.012(2) which permits a split sentence whereby Mr. Epstein will be 
sentenced to a term of supervised custody, followed by a period of incarceration. 
Supervised custody in the state system includes potential daily surveillance, 
administered by officers with restricted case loads. Supervised custody is an 
individualized program in which the freedom of Mr. Epstein is limited to the 
confines of his residence with specific sanctions imposed and enforced. See Florida 
Statute 948.001(2). Should Mr. Epstein successfully complete the terms and 
conditions of his custody, the Judge will eliminate the incarcerative portion of the 
sentence. If Mr. Epstein, however, fails to comply with the conditions of his 
supervised custody. The period of incarceration will be immediately implemented. 
We, therefore, propose the following: 
Two years supervised custody with the following mandatory and special 
conditions: 
o Confinement to home 
o Report to a community control officer at least once a week or more 
often as directed by the officer 
o Permit a community control officer to visit him unannounced at home 
at any time, day or night 
o Obtain psychological counseling 
o No unsupervised contact with all the victims in the instant case 
o Perform community service 
o Payment of Restitution 
o Application of 18 U.S.C. § 2255' 
o Payment of a contribution of a defined amount to a charitable 
organization benefitting victims of sexual assault 
o Payment of Court and probationary costs 
o Payment of law enforcement investigative costs 
o Submit to random drug testing 
o Refrain from associating with persons engaged in criminal activities 
o Refrain from committing any new law offenses 
o Any other specific conditions that the Office may deem necessary 
Two additional years of reporting probation: 
18 U.S.C. 2255 provides that any minor who suffers injury as a result of the commission of certain offenses 
shall recover actual damages and the cost of any suit. It is important to note that Mr. Epstein is prepared to hilly 
fund the identified group of victims which are the focus of the Office — that is, the 12 individuals noted at the 
meeting on July 31, 2007. This would allow the victims to be able to promptly put this behind them and go 
forward with their lives. If given the opportunity to opine as to the appropriateness of Mr. Epstein's proposal, 
in my extensive experience in these types of cases, the victims prefer a quick resolution with compensation for 
damages and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. 
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. 
RFP MIA 000054 
EFTA00184662

• 'Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-48 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 4 
Page 3 
o Mandatory conditions as provided in Florida Statute § 948.03 
o Special conditions as stated above 
If the terms of supervised custody and probation are successfully completed, 
then the two years of state prison is eliminated. 
This proposal provides for the two year imposition of the state prison sentence 
if any violation of the supervised custody or probation occurs. Accordingly, the 
Office's position that Mr. Epstein agree to a resolution that includes jail time is 
satisfied by this proposal. It would immediately bring closure to a matter that has 
been pending for over two years, allows Mr. Epstein to commence with his sentence, 
and, most significantly, allow the victims to move forward with their lives. We are 
in process of scheduling a meeting with 
United States 
Attorney, to further discuss this matter. 
Sincerely, 
cc. 
Lilly Ann Sanchez 
Gerald Lefcourt 
Roy Black 
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. 
RFP MIA 000055 
EFTA00184663