EFTA00190318

of ensuring compliance of the Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office 
and the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit and 'that the failure to do so will be a breach of the 
agreement* (emphasis added). To this day, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to Epstein's 
lawyers. 
Within a week of the execution of the Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to 
divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and 
Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit 
particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the 
prosecutors involved", it WaS done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection of the attorney 
representative. As a result, the parties executed an addendum which documented the SDFL's right to 
assign the selection of an attorney representative to an independent third-party. A copy of the 
October 29, 2007 Addendum is attached hereto as Tab E. The parties subsequently agreed that 
retired Federal District Court Judge Edward B. 
should be that independent 
third-party/special master. Ultimately, Judge 
selected Robert C. Josefsberg of the law firm 
of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, et all  During this same time frame, Epstein lawyer Jay 
Lefkowitz sought to delay the entry of his guilty plea and sentence. After the SDFL 
accommodated his request (from October 26ih to November 20th), Mr. Starr began taking issue 
with the methodology of compensation, notification to the victims, and the issues that had been 
previously considered and rejected during negotiations, i.e. that the conduct does not require registration and 
the contemplated state and federal statutes have no applicability to the instant matter. 
In response to Mr. Starr's protests, the SDFL offered numerous and various reasonable modifications and 
accommodations which ultimately resulted in U.S. Attorney Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez.. See 
attached Tab F. In that letter, U.S. Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not 
obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DA,AG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language 
regarding the 2255 provision: 
"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United 
States Code, § 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under § 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. 
Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this 
paragraph. the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was 
prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. My judicial 
including 18 months' incarceration in county jail; (3) a methodology to compensate the victims identified 
by the United States utilizing 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 such that they would be placed in the same position 
as if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in Title 18, United States 
Code, § 2255; (4) entry of the guilty plea and sentence no later than October 26, 2007; and (5) the 
start of the above-mentioned sentence no later than January 4, 2008. 
I° Due to the subsequent objections raised by Epstein's counsel, Mr. Josefsberg was never 
given the opportunity to become the attorney representative. 
7 
EFTA00190458

authority Interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any 
a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the 
same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 
Mr. Starr also objected to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771. In response to Mr. 
Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal: "bode 
will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state 
proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes." These proposals were 
immediately rejected by Epstein in Mr. Lefkowitz's December 26, 2007 correspondence to USA Acosta. 
At our December 14, 2007 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami counsel for 
Epstein articulated that it 
was a "profound injustice" to require 
Epstein to register as a sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 
U.S.C. § 2422(b), had been committed since the statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used 
to do the persuading or inducing. This particular attack on this statute had been previously raised and thoroughly considered 
and rejected by the SDFL and CEOS prior to the execution of the Agreement. Epstein's lawyers also argued that the facts were 
inapplicable to the contemplated state statutes and that he should not have been allowed to have been induced into the 
Agreement because the facts were not what he understood them to be. To reiterate, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to 
anyone on the Epstein legal team. Once counsel for Epstein failed to persuade us that federal involvement was inappropriate, 
they mounted an aggressive campaign to defer federal prosecution. When we refused to compromise on anything except the 
length of incarceration, they finally executed the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 
Subsequent to the December 14, 2007 meeting, the SDFL received three letters from Mr. Lefkowitz and/or Mr. Starr 
which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 14th meeting. Essentially, trying to portray the SDFL as 
trying to coerce a plea to unknown allegations and incoherent theories. In his December 17, 2007 correspondence, Mr. 
Lefkowitz decreed that 
Epstein's conduct did not meet the requirements of one of the state statutes Epstein agreed to plead 
guilty to - procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.03); that 
Epstein's conduct does not require 
registration under Florida law in contravention of the September 24th Agreement; and the State Attorney's Office does not 
believe the conduct is registrable. On December 21, 2007, Mr. Lefkowitz 
rejected the U.S. Attorney's proposed resolution of 
the 2255 provision because they "strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these individuals 
fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 U.S.C. Section(s) 2422(b) ... or ... 2423(b)." In his December 26, 2007 
correspondence, he stated that "we have reiterated in previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is guilty of the 
federal charges enumerated under section 2255" and requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he 
did not commit the requisite offense." 
The SDFL reiterated time and time again that it had never wanted nor expected Epstein to plead guilty to a charge he 
did not believe he committed and repeatedly offered to dissolve the agreement to allow Epstein to 
contest the charges in the court system. As a result, the SDFL obliged his request for an independent de novo 
review of the investigation and facilitated such a review at the highest levels of the Department 
of Justice. Asyou know, on May 15, 2008, after months of considering the matter, the Criminal Division considered whether 
there is a legitimate basis for the SDFL to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. CEOS Section Chief 
Oosterbahn concluded that "federal prosecution would not be improper or inappropriate." See 
attached May 15, 2008 letter from CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn to Jay Lefkowitz. On May 
8 
EFTA00190459

19, 2008, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz that the SDFL would give Epstein a full two weeks (close of 
business on Monday, June 2, 2008) to comply with the terms and conditions of the 
Non-Prosecution Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 19111 letter to Ms. Sanchez." 
Therefore, despite the fact that the investigation has identified several more victims, the SDFL is 
still offering Epstein the opportunity to comply with the terms and conditions of the 
Non-Prosecution Agreement. 
The SDFL was recently notified that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General has 
agreed to consider additional allegations not considered by CEOS which were recently raised in 
correspondence by two former high-ranking members of the Department of Justice - Ken Starr 
and Joe Whitley. On May 28, 2008, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz by e-mail that the SDFL has 
postponed the June 2, 2008 deadline until the DAG's Office has completed its review of this 
matter. Their correspondence to the DAG alleges that the SDFL's investigation lacks integrity 
because it has leaked "highly confidential aspects° of the investigation and negotiations to the 
New York Times and that 1/FAUSA Sloman directed some of the victims to my former law firm. 
They also claim that the "unprecedented extension of federal law" by the SDFL suggests that this 
is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President 
Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily 
and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from seeking your 
Office's review and that "the unnecessary deadline is even more problematic because Mr. 
Epstein's effort to reconcile the state charge and sentence with the terms of the Agreement 
requires an unusual and unprecedented threatened application of federal law." 
1. 
The Alleged teak' to the New York Times. 
AUSA David Weinstein became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the 
District's Public Information Officer (PIO). While the District's PIO was on annual leave, he 
was the acting PIO during the first week of January 2008. The entirety of his conduct in 
connection with the Epstein matter began on January 2, 2008 and ended on January 7, 2008.12
Specifically, his contact involved five telephone conversation with Landon Thomas, a reporter 
for the New York Times. These conversations occurred on 1) the morning of January 2, 2008, 
2) the afternoon of January 2, 2008, 3) the afternoon of January 3, 2008, 4) the afternoon of 
January 4, 2008, and 5) the afternoon of January 7, 2008. 
A. 
The Morning ofJanuary 2, 2008. 
11 Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on notice on February 25, 2008, that in the event that CEOS 
disagreed with Epstein's position, Epstein would have one week to comply with the terms and conditions 
of the Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 10 letter to Ms. Sanchez. 
12AUSA Weinstein has self-reported to the Office of Professional Responsibility. 
9 
EFTA00190460

AUSA Weinstein began his conversation with Mr. Thomas by explaining that he was the 
acting PIO for the week and that he had received Mr.Thomas's December 31, 2007 e-mail 
requesting an interview and asking for comments on the following five statements.I3 First, "that in 
the summer of 2005 the palm beach police department referred the Epstein case to you." Second, "that the case is being 
overseen by Jeffrey Sloman, and above him, R. Alexander Acosta." Third, "that Mr. Acosta has made child pornography a focus 
are lsid for your office." Fourth, "that this summer your office gave Mr. Epstein an ultimatum: 
plead guilty to a charge that 
would require him to register as a sex offender, or the government would release a 52 page indictment, charging him with 
crimes that could include procuring sex for a third party or engaging in sexual tourism. Both of these charges carry jail sentences 
of as much as 15 years." Fifth, "that your office told Mr. Epstein and his lawyers: we are ready to pull the trigger." Sixth, "I also 
wanted to ask Mr. Sloman about his role in a case involving Jonathan Zirulnikoff and his daughter earlier thisyear." 
At the outset, Weinstein said that he could not comment on any specific pending matters 
and that he would do his best to answer some of his questions. Thomas said that his questions 
were based, in part, upon conversations that he had already had with members of Mr. Epstein's 
defense team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public 
information available through the State Court system. 
Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told 
him that any matter arising out of conduct in Palm Beach County, was prosecuted by our West 
Palm Beach branch office. He also told him that as First Assistant, the FAUSA had supervisory 
authority over all AUSAs throughout the District. In turn, the FAUSA answered directly to the 
U.S. Attorney. 
In response to the third question, Weinstein discussed the difference between child 
exploitation and child pornography. Weinstein said that federal crimes involving child 
exploitation were one of several focus points of our Office. He further explained that in addition 
to traditional federal areas of prosecution the other focus points included health care fraud and 
gang prosecutions. 
Weinstein refused to answer the fourth and fifth topics but did discuss the general nature 
of pre-trial proceedings in federal court. He said that the SDFL does not offer ultimatums, nor 
are we in the business of issuing ultimatums. He explained that in cases where a party wants to 
plead guilty prior to indictment, we will discuss the parameters of guilty pleas and that people 
always have the right to proceed to trial if they choose to do so and that we do not favor one 
resolution over the other. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that he would not discuss his specific 
question about Mr. Epstein's lawyer's statement that someone from our Office told them that "we 
are ready to pull the trigger." Nor would he discuss anything about who might or might not be 
representing Mr. Epstein. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that he should not allow himself to be spun 
13After reviewing his e-mail, AUSA Weinstein discussed the matter with U.S. Attorney Acosta. 
Pursuant to USAM 1-7.530 and the Media Relations Guide, Section III D2, after consultation with and 
prior approval from the US Attorney, he called Mr. Thomas on the morning of January 2nd. 
10 
EFTA00190461

one way or the other in response to statements Mr. Thomas said he had received from attorneys 
who said that they represented Mr. Epstein. Weinstein ended the conversation by telling Mr. 
Thomas that he would check further into his sixth and final topic and get back to him later in the 
day. 
B. 
Afternoon ofJanuary 2, 2008. 
Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that in regard to his sixth topic, the SDFL had no reason 
to question FAUSA Sloman's judgment or integrity. He also said that this particular subject 
matter was a private matter that FAUSA Sloman did not want to discuss with him.14 Mr. Thomas 
told him that if he had any further questions, he would call back. 
C. 
Afternoon of January 3, 2008. 
This call was in response to a voice mail message that Mr. Thomas had left regarding 
legal issues involving specific state and federal statutes. Specifically, Mr. Thomas had some 
questions about the burden of proof and strict liability in some state and federal statutes that 
governed illegal sexual activity. Again, Weinstein told him that he would not discuss any 
specific cases, but that he would assist him in understanding the statutes about which he had 
some questions. Weinstein explained that some statutes contained defenses that must be proven 
by a defendant, while there were other statutes that did not require a defendant to affirmatively 
prove a defense. The discussion centered around Title 18, United States Code, § 2423(g). Once 
again, Mr. Thomas told Weinstein that if he had any further questions, he would call back. 
D. 
Afternoon ofJanuary 4, 2008. 
This was another call in response to a voice mail message that Mr. Thomas had left 
regarding some additional questions. Weinstein prefaced the conversation by saying that he 
would not discuss any specific cases The conversation centered around three specific statutes, 
18 United States Code, § 2422(b), 18 United States Code, § 1591, and 18 United States Code, § 
2423(b) as well as the burden of proof and the applicability of affirmative defenses. They 
discussed the difference between an attempt and a substantive charge pursuant to § 2422(6) and 
how that affected the government's burden of proof vis-a-vis the age of a child. They also 
14 The case involving "Jonathan Zirulnikoff" involved a March 7, 2007 early morning attempted 
break-in of my/Sloman's house. Zirulnikoff, age 19 at the time, confessed and said that he wanted to "talks 
to my daughter who was then 16. He also confessed to a prior unrelated break in which Zirulnikoff 
caressed the inner thigh of a 15 year old female. Zirulnikoff who had graduated from my daughter's high 
school in June 2006, dated my daughter's friend and had little if any contact with my daughter for over one 
year. Zirulnikoff negotiated a plea deal, over my objection, with the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office to 
a misdemeanor trespass. That conviction resulted in a sentence of two years probation and a withhold of 
adjudication upon successful completion of his probationary period. Since this information was completely 
irrelevant to the facts and issues in the instant Epstein matter, I refused to allow Mr. Weinstein to comment 
about this matter to Mr. Thomas. Furthermore, none of this information had been publicized and, upon 
information and belief, only one member of Epstein's legal team knew anything about this matter, my 
former colleague, Lilly Ann Sanchez. 
11 
EFTA00190462

discussed the fact that a charge pursuant to § 1591 required the government to prove that the 
defendant had actual knowledge of the age of the victim. Finally, they discussed the fact that if 
the government was charging a defendant with traveling to engage in prostitution, pursuant to § 
2423(b), there was an affirmative defense available to the defendant regarding the reasonable 
belief of the defendant about the age of the victim. 
E. 
Afternoon of January 7, 2008. 
This final call was made after the U.S. Attorney and FAUSA Sloman had received a call 
from a member of Mr. Epstein's defense team alleging that the SDFL had provided case specific 
information to the media. Weinstein called Mr. Thomas who acknowledged that both before 
and after each of the above-mentioned conversations, he had also called attorneys who were 
representing Mr. Epstein on his pending State charges. Mr. Thomas also acknowledged that all 
of our prior conversations had been about general legal issues and that Weinstein never spoke 
about any specific case. Since the January 7,2008 conversation, Weinstein has not had any 
further contact with Mr. Thomas. 
2. 
Herman Roman &Mermehrein. 
Sevenyears ago, I resigned from the SDFL for private practice. Less than five months later, I resigned from the law firm 
and returned to the SDFL. Public records reflect the following: on May 8, 2001, articles of amendment were filed with the 
Florida Division of Corporations to reflect that the firm name of "Herman & Mermelstein" was changed to "Herman Sloman & 
Mermelstein" on May 7, 2001. 
I joined the firm at that time and remained a non-equity partner until on or about October 1, 
2001. At that time, I resigned from the firm and returned to the SDFL. Since I never had an equity interest in the firm, I never 
retained an interest in the firm. That was over six and one half years ago. 
Unbeknownst to FAUSA Sloman, on July 2, 2002, articles of amendment were filed with the Florida Division of 
Corporations to reflect that the firm name of "Herman Sloman & Mermelstein" was changed back to "Herman & 
Mermelstein." 
The article of amendment indicates the amendment was adopted on July 1, 2002, without shareholder action. 
Although the filing was not immediate upon my departure from the law firm, it pre-dated for years any dealings with the 
subject case now under consideration by the SDFL. Recently, I learned that there is a reference to the law firm of "Herman 
Shaman& Mermelstein" on the Florida Bar website, under a section called "Find A Lawyer." This reference appears when Stuart 
Mermelstein's name and information is accessed. To reiterate, since October 2001, I have had no relationship with that law 
firm, financial or otherwise, and no input or control over the firm's filings with the Florida Division of Corporations and/or the 
Florida Bar. 
On Friday, January 18, 2008, at approximately 1:15 pm, I received a call from Jeffrey Herman of Herman & 
Mermelstein. 
Herman said that he was planning to file a civil lawsuit the next week against Jeffrey Epstein. He said that his 
clients were frustrated with the lack of progress of the state's investigation and wanted to know whether the SDFL could file 
criminal charges even though the state was looking into the matter. I told 
Herman that I would not answer any question 
related to Epstein — hypothetical or otherwise. I asked him how his clients retained him and he said that it was through another 
Inver. I then specifically asked him whether the referral was the result of anyone in law enforcement contacting him and/or 
the other lawyer. He said "no .° At the conclusion of the conversation, I reiterated and confirmed with him that I had refused to 
answer any questions he asked of me. I immediately documented this conversation and informed the U.S. Attorney who 
12 
EFTA00190463

informed Senior Litigation Counsel and Ethics Advisor Dexter Lee. AUSA Lee opined that he did not see a conflict. As soon as I 
became aware of these allegations, reported myself to the Office of Professional Regulation on or about April 21, 2008. 
3. 
The Alleged Unprecedented Extension of Federal Law and the Allegations of 
Political Motivation for the Prosecution. 
It is my hope that this letter has sufficiently explained how thoroughly this matter has 
been reviewed, how seriously the issues have been considered, and how additional delays may 
adversely affect the case going forward and, more importantly, the victims. I have attached the 
proposed indictment for you to consider the nature and gravity of the crimes. See Tab G. You are 
invited to evaluate whether I, along with U.S. Attorney Acosta, Criminal Division Chiefs 
Menchel and, later Robert Senior, Deputy Criminal Division Chiefs Lourie, followed by Rolando 
Garcia, and AUSA Villafafla have somehow steered this investigation toward "an unprecedented 
extension of federal law"despite being simultaneously and/or subsequently reviewed by CEOS, 
DAAG Mandelker, and AAG Fisher. I also hope that the reputations of the above-mentioned 
professional prosecutors combined with the documented layers of methodical and thorough 
review of all issues raised by Epstein are enough to summarily dismiss the idea that this matter is 
politically motivated. It seems incomprehensible how Messrs. Starr and Whitley could expect 
further review when the due process rights of their client have been considered and reconsidered 
to the point of absurdity. 
With respect to the other allegations of misconduct leveled against investigators and 
prosecutors, similarly false allegations were made against the local police detective who first 
investigated the case. Those false allegations apparently were accepted as true and were not 
investigated or challenged by the State Attorney's Office and, when coupled with the immense 
pressure brought to bear upon the State Attorney by some of these same lawyers who represent 
Epstein today, resulted in a single felony charge related to only two of the more than 20 victims 
identified in the state investigation. Contrary to the claims of Epstein's attorneys, the SDFL is not 
trying to prosecute Epstein more harshly because of his political friends or his financial status; 
rather, the SDFL is attempting to follow Department policy by treating Epstein like all other 
criminal defendants - charging him with the most serious readily provable offenses. The SDFL 
has even continued to allow Epstein the opportunity to perform his obligations under the 
Non-Prosecution Agreement despite his numerous breaches of and attacks on the terms to which 
he already agreed. 
Without attempting to address each and every allegation, I would like to highlight some 
of the misstatements contained in counsels' letter, to provide some sense of counsels' conduct 
throughout this case, particularly after their attempts at legal persuasion failed. Throughout the 
case, counsel have misrepresented the facts of the case to our Office, CEOS, and the press. For 
example, Epstein's counsel reference to this case as "precedent-shattering," suggests that all of 
the victims were at least 16 years old, and that the conduct "was purely local in nature." The 
SDFL has prosecuted several "sex tourism" cases where the "John" communicated via telephone 
with an undercover "pimp" in the SDFL to meet minor females to engage in prostitution. All 
were charged and convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1591. The SDFL has charged and 
convicted a 21-year-old man of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423 when he traveled to Florida to meet 
13 
EFTA00190464

his 14-year-old girlfriend and later digitally penetrated her. The SDFL has prosecuted numerous 
violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 where the "facility of interstate commerce" - generally the Internet 
and telephones - are used by a defendant and an undercover pretending to be the parent of a 
minor, to arrange for a meeting that the defendant hopes will result in sexual activity. There is 
nothing extraordinary about Epstein's case except the large number of victims involved. 
Epstein's counsel neglected to inform you that the age range of the victims includes girls 
as young as 14, and glosses over the fact that Epstein did not simply engage in "solo 
self-pleasuring" in front of the victims. Instead, with each visit, he pressured the victims to 
allow him to engage in more and more sexual activity - fondling breasts and vaginas, digital 
penetration, use of a vibrator on their vaginas, performing oral sex on them, having them perform 
oral sex on his adult girlfriend, and engaging in sexual intercourse. Counsel also neglected to 
inform you that many girls did affirmatively tell Epstein their true ages and he told several that he 
"did not care about age." 
Epstein's conduct was not "purely local." He and his assistants called and sent text 
messages to victims in Palm Beach County from other states to arrange "appointments" for his 
upcoming visits to Palm Beach. And, while in Palm Beach, Epstein and his assistants called 
victims in New York to arrange "appointments" for his return to New York. Epstein wired 
money to some victims and sent gifts through the mails. This case falls squarely within federal 
jurisdiction. 
Epstein also falsely claims that certain facts related to the resolution of the case were 
hidden and later discovered by his lawyers. For example, they complain about the proposed use 
of a guardian ad litem, stating that "Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of 
these individuals were adults, not minors." It was AUSA Villafafla who told Epstein's counsel 
that all of the victims but one had already reached the age of majority, which was one reason why 
the guardian ad litem procedure proposed by Epstein's counsel would not work. Likewise, 
AUSA Villafafla disclosed to Epstein's counsel that one of the five attorney-representatives that 
she recommended for consideration by Epstein's counsel was a "good friend" of a "good friend." 
Despite the disclosure of this relationship, Epstein's counsel selected that person, before the 
SDFL, on its own, decided to use an independent Special Master to make the selection. 
Epstein's counsel states that the "USAO eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the 
veracity of any of the claims that these women might make," but neglects to disclose that the 
SDFL made that statement at Epstein & request to avoid the suggestion that the SDFL was 
involving itself in the outcome of civil litigation. 
Epstein's counsel have repeatedly attacked the SDFL and the FBI for classifying the 
victims as "victims." As you know, all Justice Department employees have the obligation to 
identify victims and to notify them of their rights. "Victims" are defined by law, not by 
self-selection. The girls whom have been identified by the FBI and the SDFL fall within the 
legal definition - they were all minors who engaged in illicit sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein, 
at his request, in exchange for money. From interviewing them, the FBI Special Agents, the FBI 
Victim-Witness Coordinator, and AUSA Villafafia all feel confident that they suffered harm, in a 
14 
EFTA00190465

multitude of ways, by their interaction with Epstein. 
Finally, in contrast to Epstein's counsel allegation that my June 2, 2008 deadline was 
"arbitrary, unfair, and unprecedented," please consider that Mr. Lefkowitz has known since 
February that in the event that CEOS disagreed with his position, Epstein would be given 
one-week to comply with the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Subsequent to the receipt of CEOS 
Section Chief Oosterbahn's May 15, 2008 letter, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz that Epstein would 
have a full two-weeks to comply with the Non-Prosecution Agreement as modified by the 
December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez. We believe it is finally time to shift the focus from 
Epstein's due process rights to treating him like all other similarly situated criminal defendants 
and perhaps, most importantly, to consider the rights of his victims. Continued delays adversely 
effect the case and the victims in the following ways: 
(I) 
at the time of the offenses, the victims ranged in age 
from 14 to 17 years old. The change 
in physical appearance of many of 
the victims since then has been 
dramatic. Epstein has been claiming 
that he did not know they were 
minors. Obviously, the older they 
look when the case is at issue, the 
harder it will be to overcome that 
defense; 
(2) 
it allows Epstein's lawyers to conduct depositions of the victims in the 
pending state criminal case and allows his private investigators to further 
harass and intimidate the victims; 
(3) 
more victims will seek the services of civil lawyers to file lawsuits thus 
allowing Epstein to make more powerful arguments demeaning the 
credibility of the victims; 
(4) 
the prosecutors and agents may retire, transfer and/or leave the Department 
for other opportunities thus affecting the potential outcome and 
prosecutorial resources. Additionally, 
several of the victims have 
relocated thus increasing the likelihood that crucial witnesses will be lost; 
(5) 
the SDFL has afforded more consideration to Epstein's arguments than any 
other defendant in my years of being the FAUSA and, before that, the 
Chief of the Criminal Division (January I, 2004 to the present). I believe 
that we have been disproportionally fair to Epstein at the expense of other 
matters; and 
(6) 
prolonged delay may adversely affect the statute of limitations for some of 
the victims. 
15 
EFTA00190466

On behalf of the SDFL and the victims in this case, please expedite the review and 
decision of the issues under consideration. 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
By: 
Jeffrey H. Sloman 
First Assistant United States Attorney 
Ends. 
cc: 
Robert Senior, Chief 
Criminal Division 
A. Marie Villafalla 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Karen Atkinson 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
16 
EFTA00190467

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <AVillafana@usa.doj.gov> 
Sent: 
Friday, June 06, 2008 3:04 PM 
To: 
Kuyrkendall, E N. (MM) (FBI) 
Subject: 
RE: Call from M's attorney 
Does she have any criminal history? And can you subpoena her driver's license and autotrack? 
Thanks. 
A. Marie Villafana 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
 
Original Message 
From: Kuyrkendall, E N. (FBI) 
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 2:50 PM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Re: Call from M's attorney 
I can do a more extensive phone interview with 
and cont to try and locate Leanne. Idont know of anyone else that would have 
info on Marina, other Leslie G. 
I II check on A file on Monday. 
Previous phone numbers and/or bills from 
04.05. Plus standard lang about gifts, cards and such pertaining to Epstein, Leslie, Ciceila and Nadia. 
 
Original Message ----
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <Ann.Marie.C.Villafana®usdoj.gov> 
To: Kuyrkendall, E N.; Richards, Jason R. 
Sent: Fri Jun 06 14:40:06 2008 
Subject: Call from M's attorney 
Marina's attorney called and she would really like full immunity. I said no, so she will have to come and testify in front of the grand 
jury and assert the fifth as to each question. I will start putting together a list of questions for her and send it to you. I also am 
wondering whether we should subpoena any records from her to bring with her to the grand jury. 
I told him that we will need to see her on a Tuesday in June, he is going to call me back with a date. I also told him that we would pay 
for her plane ticket but not his. 
Can you try to find out if she has an A-file and, if so, get a copy before then? And do you want to try to interview some other New 
York people before she comes to testify? 
Thank you. 
A. Marie Villafa0a 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
60 
EFTA00190468

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
61 
EFTA00190469

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Kuyrkendall, E N. (FBI) <E.Kuyrkendall@icibi.gov> 
Sent: 
Friday, June 06, 2008 3:39 PM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: Call from M's attorney 
I will provide info to u on Monday. 
 
Original Message 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <Ann.Marie.C.Villafana®usdoj.gov> 
To: Kuyrkendall, E N. 
Sent: Fri Jun 06 15:04:04 2008 
Subject: RE: Call from M's attorney 
Does she have any criminal history? And can you subpoena her driver's license and autotrack? 
'flanks. 
A. Marie Villafa0a 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820.8777 
-----Original Message 
From: Kuyrkendall, E N (FBI) 
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 2:50 PM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Re: Call from M's attorney 
I can do a more extensive phone interview with 
and cont to try and locate Leanne. Wont know of anyone else that would have 
info on Marina, other Leslie G. 
I II check on A file on Monday. 
Previous phone numbers and/or bills from 
04.05. Plus standard lang about gifts, cards and such pertaining to Epstein, Leslie, Ciceila and Nadia. 
 
Original Message 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)<Ann.Marie.C.Villafana®usdoj.gov> 
To: Kuyrkendall, E N.; Richards, Jason R. 
Sent: Fri Jun 06 14:40:06 2008 
Subject: Call from M's attorney 
Marina's attorney called and she would really like full immunity. I said no, so she will have to come and testify in front of the grand 
jury and assert the fifth as to each question. I will start putting together a list of questions for her and send it to you. I also am 
wondering whether we should subpoena any records from her to bring with her to the grand jury. 
I told him that we will need to see her on a Tuesday in June, he is going to call me back with a date. I also told him that we would pay 
for her plane ticket but not his. 
Can you try to find out if she has an A-file and, if so, get a copy before then? And do you want to try to interview some other New 
York people before she comes to testify? 
Thank you. 
A. Marie Villafafia 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
62 
EFTA00190470

500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
63 
EFTA00190471

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Senior, Robert (USAFLS) <RSenior@usa.doj.gov> 
Sent: 
Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:20 PM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Epstein -- Call with Roy Black 
Nothing that I know of by way of final decision. 
From: Villafana, Ann Made C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:53 PM 
To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Cc: Garda, Rolando (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: Epstein -- Call with Roy Black 
Karen and I spoke with Roy. Roy said that he had called because he had heard that Rolando had discussed the 
matter with Barry Krischer and Roy wanted to see if there was any way to wrap this up before July 71h. Roy 
also said that he had seen a letter from Jeff Sloman that said that the matter of incarceration would be left to the 
State. (I am not certain what letter he is referring to, but I think Jeff wrote a letter about not taking a position on 
where Epstein would be incarcerated, not the length of time.) So, Roy wondered whether we would go away if 
Epstein took Barry's 60-day deal. 
Karen explained that Rolando had not had substantive discussions with Barry about the case and that all 
communication regarding the case is being handled by Karen and me. In response to the question of whether 
there was anything that could "make this go away," we said that our position is that if Epstein stops the process 
in Washington and pleads in accordance with the terms of the signed agreement, then we will perform pursuant 
to the agreement. Karen explained that if Epstein pleads to something else or gets sentenced to a lower amount, 
then we will consider that a breach of our agreement and we will proceed accordingly. 
On that note, has there been any word from Washington? 
Thank you. 
A. Marie Villafaila 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
65 
EFTA00190472

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <AVillafana@usa.doj.gov> 
Sent: 
Thursday, June 19, 2008 1:23 PM 
To: 
Kuyrkendall, E N. (MM) (FBI); Richards, Jason R. (MM) (FBI) 
Subject: 
FW: Jeff Epstein 
Hi Guys — This is 
attorney. He seems like a very good guy — much better than the others, but 1 am 
concerned about allegations of misconduct. What do you think? Maybe we could meet with him and with 
A. Marie Villafafia 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: Brad Edwards [mailto:be@bradedwardslaw.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:34 AM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Jeff Epstein 
Hi Marie, 
I have information and concerns that I would like to share. While I understand that you are limited in what you can 
discuss, I would like to meet with you and discuss my plans. This would be beneficial to you and me. Let me know if you 
are interested in meeting and talking. My schedule is free next Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, July 23-25. If any of 
those days are open for you, then I will go to you and can meet you at any time convenient for you. I am scheduling to 
meet with my client again next week in your area anyway, so it would be no problem for me to meet you on the same 
day. I look forward to hearing back from you. 
Sincerely, 
Brad Edwards, Esquire 
Law Office of Brad Edwards & Associates 
2028 
Street 
Suite 202 
Hollywood, Florida 33020 
Telephone: 
954-414-8033 (Broward) 
305-935-2011 (Miami-Dade) 
Facsimile: 
954-924-1530(Broward) 
305/935-4227 (Miami-Dade) 
e-mail: 
be@bradedwardslaw.com 
2.,o 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended for the 
use of the individual or entity to which it is 
addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure 
under applicable laws. If the reader of this 
message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, printing, 
66 
EFTA00190473

reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. 
67 
EFTA00190474

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Fernandez, Aida I. (USAFLS) <afernandez@usa.doj.gov> 
Sent: 
Monday, June 23, 2008 9:23 AM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Grand Jury on 6/26 and 7/1 
Ok - got it - thx 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 9:19 AM 
To: Fernandez, Aida I. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Grand Jury on 6/26 and 7/1 
Hi Aida. Thank you for asking. We will be presenting the witness testimony after the indictment. (I would like 
to do the indictment in the morning and the witness in the afternoon, if possible.) 
A. Marie Villafaha 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: Fernandez, Alda I. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 9:18 AM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Cc: Ball, Shawn (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Grand Jury on 6/26 and 7/1 
I assume you will be presenting your witness testimony first? Pls advise so that I know the order in which to 
present them next week. 
Pls advise. 
Thx. 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 9:09 AM 
To: Fernandez, Aida 1. (USAFLS) 
Cc: Ball, Shawn (USAFLS) 
Subject: Grand Jury on 6/26 and 7/1 
6 
EFTA00190475

Hi Aida — I think you already have this, but, if not: 
Can you put me down for a half-hour on Thursday, 6/26, in the morning, for an indictmen 
And, on 7/1 can I have 2 hours in the morning for an indictment on Operation Leap Year. Witness will be 
Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, FBI. It will be sealed. 
, I will need 2 hours for witness testimony on Operation Leap Year. Witness will be 
Thank you! 
A. Marie Villafaila 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
7 
EFTA00190476

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Senior, Robert (USAFLS) <RSenior@usa.doj.gov> 
Sent: 
Monday, June 23, 2008 10:06 AM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Kuyrkendall, E N. (MM) (FBI); Richards, Jason R. (MM) 
(FBI) 
Cc: 
Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Trip to New York, etc. 
Ok. Marie, hoping to hear from DAG's office today giving the green light. Let's talk when that decision is 
made. 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 9:15 AM 
To: Kuyrkendall, E N. (FBI); Richards, Jason R. (FBI) 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) 
Subject: Trip to New York, etc. 
We will not be interviewing Marina in New York. Her attorney gave a copy of the grand jury subpoena to 
Epstein's lawyers. They, in turn, promptly sent it on to Washington complaining, yet again, about me. So, I do 
not want to do an interview with him present, and we will have to put her in the grand jury. 
Given that, let's take the New York section out of the indictment so we can present the indictment Tuesday 
morning. Then we can do Marina's interview in the afternoon with plans to supersede. It probably makes sense 
to wait on the rest of the interviews until we hear what Marina has to say, so let's plan to do the New York trip 
in a few weeks. 
Bob — I will revise everything accordingly and send it down to you. We have another girl from Florida, so I 
will replace our New York Jane Doe with her. 
A. Marie Villafana 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
78 
EFTA00190477