EFTA00206173

Criminal Division. Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
 
Original Message 
From: 
[mailto: 
Sent: Sunda . March 27, 2011 1:31 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
USAFLS 
«CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd>> Hi 
and MI --
Obviously, this is just a rough draft of an introduction. I have been 
side-tracked by research. I found a case where a prisoner tried to use 
the CVRA in a habeas/Rule 35 type claim. I think that is a good example 
of how the CVRA, as Cassell sees it, could be abused. Since every 
assault on a federal prisoner is a federal crime, federal defendants 
could demand meetings with AUSAs claiming that they were assaulted 
(whether or not the assaults actually occurred) and, even if the USAO 
decided to defer to administrative authorities, i.e., the Bureau of 
Prisons, according to Cassell, we would be forced to go meet with them. 
I also have found good language in several cases that suggest that the 
Petitioners' failure to prosecute the case will end up being a second 
reason to dismiss the petition. Cassell will, no doubt, try to pin the 
blame on us, but they had no contact with us for over a year while they 
were pursuing their civil claims against Epstein. In the meantime, 
Epstein finished serving his entire criminal sentence. And now they 
want to try to attack the "plea" agreement. There is good language 
about the need for finality in criminal proceedings that should help 
with that. 
Talk to you all on Monday. 
Thanks. 
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link 
attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent 
sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your 
e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 
From: 
(USAFLS) e
> 
Sent: 
Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:13 AM 
To: 
); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
«CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd» It would help if I sent this along. Sorry! 
EFTA00206473

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file 
attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 
From: 
(USAFLS) ‹
> 
Sent: 
Wednesday, March 30, 2011 11:55 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Please click on link below 
Just FYI — The blog is, for the most part, completely nuts, but the link to William Riley is real. William Riley is the person 
who removed the computers from Mr. Epstein's house after Epstein or Roy Black somehow found out that a state search 
warrant was coming. (It was suspected that a court reporter at the state courthouse was the source of the leak, but never 
confirmed.) He also was one of the private investigators who investigated the agents and probably me during the 
investigation. 
Special Agent 
accent). 
See how much fun this is! 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
was followed to her home this past weekend, but it is believed that it was a reporter (British 
 
Ori inal Message 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Wednesda March 30, 2011 10:51 AM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: FW: Please click on link below 
This is wackiest thing I have ever read. 
----Original Message 
From: csamoff (mailto:csamoff@bellsouth.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 7:55 AM 
To: MI, 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: Please click on link below 
Good morning, 
(USAFLS) 
(USAFLS) 
Off The Record- Please can you comment on this piece? Just received and fitting pieces together. Call when you can. 
Thank you, 
Conchita 
http://acivilcontemptblog.blogspot.com/ 
EFTA00206474

From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:20 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: Statement re Epstein 
It is supposedly part of the 350 pages of correspondence that the Jane Does filed on Monday. I am trying to check now. It 
was filed under seal and I just got it at 4:00 today 
Origiia
. 
l Message ---- 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thurscla , March 24, 2011 08:16 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Re: Statement re Epstein 
When and where was the Itr filed? That is news to me 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 07:57 PM 
To: 
USAFLS 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: RE: Statement re Epstein 
And it has already been filed with the court! 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
----Ori_guS Message 
From: =, 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 7:51 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Fw: Statement re Epstein 
Sorry. Here it is 
---- Original Message —
From: csamoff (mailto: 
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 06:56 PM 
To: =, 
(USAFLS); Janet Aitken 
Subject: Re: Statement re Epstein 
Thank you 
Best, 
Conchita 
Message-----
From: == 
To: Janet Aitken 
Cc: 
Subject: Statement re Epstein 
Sent: 24 Mar 2011 18:40 
(USAFLS) 
EFTA00206475

After reviewing the U.S. Attorneyaes handling of this matter, including allegations of misconduct, the office of the deputy 
attorney general determined there was no basis to intervene in the matter. We will not be making additional comments. 
Thanks for checking with us. 
Special Counsel to the US Attorney 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:17 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: Statement re Epstein 
When and where was the Itr filed? That is news to me 
---- Ono inal Messa e 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 07:57 PM 
To: 
USAFLS 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: RE: Statement re Epstein 
And it has already been filed with the court! 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
 
OrigirS Message 
From: =, 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 7:51 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Fw: Statement re Epstein 
Sorry. Here it is 
(USAFLS) 
 
 Original Message ---
From: csamoff 
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 06:56 PM 
To: =,= 
(USAFLS); Janet Aitken e
> 
Subject: Re: Statement re Epstein 
Thank you 
Best, 
Conchita 
Message-----
From: == 
To: Janet Aitken 
Cc: 
Subject: Statement re Epstein 
Sent: 24 Mar 2011 18:40 
EFTA00206476

After reviewing the U.S. Attorneyaems handling of this matter, including allegations of misconduct, the office of the deputy 
attorney general determined there was no basis to intervene in the matter. We will not be making additional comments. 
Thanks for checking with us. 
Special Counsel to the US Attorney 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:29 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Statement re Epstein 
Sure. I am still at the office but leaving soon. 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
----Ori inal Messa e--
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 8:28 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Re: Statement re Epstein 
I'm at this AUSA reception thing. Can I call you later if it's not too late? 
---- Ori inWtiesm—
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 07:56 PM 
To: 
USAFLS 
Cc: 
(USAFLS): 
Subject: RE: Statement re Epstein 
(USAFLS) 
Why do you make it so hard for the good guys to follow the rules? Just release the letter. It isn't a privileged 
communication. It was sent to opposing counsel. 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
Origial Message 
From: =. 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 7:51 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Fw: Statement re Epstein 
Sorry. Here it is 
EFTA00206477

 
 Original Message 
From: csamoff [mailto: 
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 06:56 PM 
To: 'MI= 
(USAFLS); Janet Aitken 
Subject: Re: Statement re Epstein 
Thank you 
Best, 
Conchita 
Message------
From: == 
To: Janet Aitken 
Cc: 
Subject: Statement re Epstein 
Sent: 24 Mar 2011 18:40 
After reviewing the U.S. Attorneya€Tms handling of this matter, including allegations of misconduct, the office of the deputy 
attorney general determined there was no basis to intervene in the matter. We will not be making additional comments. 
Thanks for checking with us. 
Special Counsel to the US Attorney 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry 
From: 
(USAFLS) < 
Sent: 
Friday, March 25, 2011 9:15 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Fw: published today, The Daily Beast/Newsweek 
FYI 
From: 
[mailto: 
Sent: Fridl
arch 25, 2011 09:08 AM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: published today, The Daily Beast/Newsweek 
(USAFLS) 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-25/jeffrey-epstein-how-the-billionaire-
pedophile-got-off-easy/?cid=hp:mainpromo1 
Conchita SarnoffThe message and any attachment may be confidential or privileged and isintended 
only for the individual or entity identified above as theaddressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this 
message has beenaddressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy ordistribute this 
message or any attachments and we ask that you please deletethis message and any attachments 
and notify the sender by return email.Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person (s) 
is notintended in any way to waive confidentially or a privilege. 
From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Ann 
Friday, March 25, 2011 7:39 AM 
. (USAFLS) 
EFTA00206478

Subject: 
Jeffrey Epstein: How the Hedge Fund Mogul Pedophile Got Off Easy - The Daily Beast 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-25/jeffrey-epstein-how-the-billionaire-pedophile-got-off-easy/2/ 
A. 
From: 
(USAFLS)<
> 
Sent: 
Friday, March 25, 2011 5:41 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Attachments: 
Facts response.wpd 
<<Facts response.wpd» 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS)<
> 
Sent: 
Friday, March 25, 2011 9:24 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS); Waters, Robert (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
FW: published today, The Daily Beast/Newsweek 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
EFTA00206479

From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Frida March 25, 2011 9:15 AM 
To: 
. (USAFLS 
(USAFLS; 
(USAFLS); 
USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Fw: published today, The Daily Beast/Newsweek 
FYI 
From: 
[mailto: 
Sent: Fridly
arch 25, 2011 09:08 AM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: published today, The Daily Beast/Newsweek 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-25/jeffrey-epstein-how-the-billionaire-
pedophile-got-off-easy/?cid=hp:mainpromo1 
Conchita SarnoffThe message and any attachment may be confidential or privileged and isintended 
only for the individual or entity identified above as theaddressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this 
message has beenaddressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy ordistribute this 
message or any attachments and we ask that you please deletethis message and any attachments 
and notify the sender by return email.Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person (s) 
is notintended in any way to waive confidentially or a privilege. 
From: 
(USAFLS)<
> 
Sent: 
Monday, March 28, 2011 2:45 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine -- Proposed responses 
(USAFLS) 
Hi guys —
Below please find my proposed answers [in red ink] to John Conolly of Vanity Fair. 
Let's discuss ASAP so I can send him a response. 
After we agree on a proposed response, I need to run this by DOJ-Public Affairs before sending out. 
Thanks 
From: john1885c [mailto: 
Sent: Frid
larch 18, 2011 1:51 PM 
To: 
,M 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt. 
EFTA00206480

AUSA 
It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning. As per your request here are questions I 
would like to have answered for a piece I am researching on Jeffrey Epstein. As life would have it I am 
going to be on a busman's holiday this coming week on Singer Island, FL. I would like to meet you 
and whomever else you think I should speak with. If not, I understand perfectly. 
Let me preface these questions by saying that AUSA 
who was in charge of the 
investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has a remarkably record as a prosecutor. I also know that an AUSA 
does not have the authority to grant a potential defendant a non -prosecution agreement without the 
permission of higher ups in the Justice Department. 
Not quite three years ago, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, granted Jeffrey Epstein 
a non-prosecution agreement in return for his accepting a FL State plea deal for his illegal acts 
regarding sex with minor females. The state case was handled by the West Palm Beach State 
Prosecutor who has since left office. 
Re terms and conditions of imprisonment: 
--Was your office aware of the extraordinary sweet deal that Mr. Epstein was granted by that state 
prosecutor? 
--Was your office at the time of the agreement aware that Mr. Epstein would not be sent to a state 
prison facility as almost all defendants who are sentenced to more that a year in prison are required to 
do? 
--Was your office aware that Mr. Epstein would serve his sentence in the local WPB jail? 
--Was your office aware that Mr. Epstein would be allowed, what most FL law enforcement officials 
describe as "beyond a sweetheart deal", in that six days a week at 7:00 AM Mr. Epstein would leave 
the the WPB jail with a corrections officer he was personally paying for, and be escorted to the office of 
attorney Jack Goldberger where he would be allowed to stay until 11:00 PM and then be returned to 
jail for the evening? 
Ostensibly this was so that Mr. Epstein could work on a new charity he had formed. This despite the 
fact that just prior to beginning his jail sentence, Mr. Epstein liquidated his charity and gave $18 million 
to a charity run by the wife of his former patron. 
--Does the US Attorney believe that Mr. Epstein was working on a charity? 
--Was Mr. Epstein doing work as a Confidential Informer for the federal government as he has in the 
past? 
Mr. Eptein was Victim # 1 in the federal indictment of two Bear Stears executives on fraud charges 
stemming from a mortgage backed fund that went under. Mr. Epstein lost almost $70 million in that 
fund. 
EFTA00206481

--Was Mr. Epstein working on the government case while working on "His Charity"? 
--Has your office ever agreed to any allow any other prisoner the same or similar sweet deal? 
--Was your office aware that in return for Mr. Goldberger's help, Mr. Epstein purchased for him a top of 
the line black BMW? (Sadly for Goldberger he was in an accident and totaled the vehicle three weeks 
later.) 
The USAO reached a NPA with Mr. Epstein in good faith. The Agreement speaks for itself about the 
expectations of the USAO regarding the length and conditions of punishment. Ultimately, the 
sentence was imposed by the State Court Judge who presided over the matter. 
At this time, we cannot comment further on your questions regarding any possible cooperation by Mr. 
Epstein, or what the USAO might have known or not known at the time of the negotiations. 
Re Alex Acosta alleged Conflict/Recusal Issue: 
It has come to my attention that the R. Alexander Acos to former Attorney General for the Southern 
District of Florida during the investigation and non-prosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein had been a 
law partner and friend of two Mr. Epstein's lawyers. Both Ken Star and Jay Lefkowitz had been 
partners with Mr. Acosta at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis prior to his being appointed by President 
Bush. 
I have been told by sources that Mr. Acosta was the person responsible for the decision not to 
prosecute Mr. Epstein. 
I have also been told that during Mr. Starr's trip to FL to speak with federal prosecutors he complained 
to Mr. Acosta that the press coverage of his trips to FL on Mr. Epstein's private jets were being leaked 
by FBI agents. ( I can assure you that was not true.) 
--Did Mr. Acosta recuse himself from any discussions about the Epstein case so as to avoid even the 
appearance of impropriety? 
--Was the possibility of his removing himself from the case ever discussed by officials in the Justice 
Department? 
--Are there any memos regarding that? 
--Is there currently an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation into the facts surrounding the 
handling of this case and Mr. Acosta actions in it? 
Mr. Acosta recused from the matter in November 2008. That recusal was reviewed and approved by 
the Department of Justice, as is the standard procedure in all recusal matters. 
EFTA00206482

DOJ policy and the Privacy Act prohibit comment on the existence or non-existence of OPR 
investigations. However, please note that, at the request of the defense, the office of the deputy 
attorney general reviewed the U.S. Attorney's handling of this matter, including allegations of 
misconduct, and determined there was no basis to intervene in the matter. We will not be making 
additional comments. Thanks for checking with us. 
Thanks so much for your help, John Connolly 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Monday, March 28, 2011 3:05 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine -- Proposed responses 
I am here at my desk. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda March 28, 2011 2:45 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine -- Proposed responses 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Hi guys —
Below please find my proposed answers [in red ink] to John Conolly of Vanity Fair. 
Let's discuss ASAP so I can send him a response. 
After we agree on a proposed response, I need to run this by DOJ-Public Affairs before sending out. 
EFTA00206483

Thanks 
From: john1885c [mailto: 
Sent: Frid
larch 18, 2011 1:51 PM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt. 
AUSA 
It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning. As per your request here are questions I 
would like to have answered for a piece I am researching on Jeffrey Epstein. As life would have it I am 
going to be on a busman's holiday this coming week on Singer Island, FL. I would like to meet you 
and whomever else you think I should speak with. If not, I understand perfectly. 
Let me preface these questions by saying that AUSA 
who was in charge of the 
investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has a remarkably record as a prosecutor. I also know that an AUSA 
does not have the authority to grant a potential defendant a non -prosecution agreement without the 
permission of higher ups in the Justice Department. 
Not quite three years ago, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, granted Jeffrey Epstein 
a non-prosecution agreement in return for his accepting a FL State plea deal for his illegal acts 
regarding sex with minor females. The state case was handled by the West Palm Beach State 
Prosecutor who has since left office. 
Re terms and conditions of imprisonment: 
--Was your office aware of the extraordinary sweet deal that Mr. Epstein was granted by that state 
prosecutor? 
--Was your office at the time of the agreement aware that Mr. Epstein would not be sent to a state 
prison facility as almost all defendants who are sentenced to more that a year in prison are required to 
do? 
--Was your office aware that Mr. Epstein would serve his sentence in the local WPB jail? 
--Was your office aware that Mr. Epstein would be allowed, what most FL law enforcement officials 
describe as "beyond a sweetheart deal", in that six days a week at 7:00 AM Mr. Epstein would leave 
the the WPB jail with a corrections officer he was personally paying for, and be escorted to the office of 
attorney Jack Goldberger where he would be allowed to stay until 11:00 PM and then be returned to 
jail for the evening? 
Ostensibly this was so that Mr. Epstein could work on a new charity he had formed. This despite the 
fact that just prior to beginning his jail sentence, Mr. Epstein liquidated his charity and gave $18 million 
to a charity run by the wife of his former patron. 
EFTA00206484

--Does the US Attorney believe that Mr. Epstein was working on a charity? 
--Was Mr. Epstein doing work as a Confidential Informer for the federal government as he has in the 
past? 
Mr. Eptein was Victim # 1 in the federal indictment of two Bear Stears executives on fraud charges 
stemming from a mortgage backed fund that went under. Mr. Epstein lost almost $70 million in that 
fund. 
--Was Mr. Epstein working on the government case while working on "His Charity"? 
--Has your office ever agreed to any allow any other prisoner the same or similar sweet deal? 
--Was your office aware that in return for Mr. Goldberger's help, Mr. Epstein purchased for him a top of 
the line black BMW? (Sadly for Goldberger he was in an accident and totaled the vehicle three weeks 
later.) 
The USAO reached a NPA with Mr. Epstein in good faith. The Agreement speaks for itself about the 
expectations of the USAO regarding the length and conditions of punishment. Ultimately, the 
sentence was imposed by the State Court Judge who presided over the matter. 
At this time, we cannot comment further on your questions regarding any possible cooperation by Mr. 
Epstein, or what the USAO might have known or not known at the time of the negotiations. 
Re Alex Acosta alleged Conflict/Recusal Issue: 
It has come to my attention that the R. Alexander Acos to former Attorney General for the Southern 
District of Florida during the investigation and non-prosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein had been a 
law partner and friend of two Mr. Epstein's lawyers. Both Ken Star and Jay Lefkowitz had been 
partners with Mr. Acosta at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis prior to his being appointed by President 
Bush. 
I have been told by sources that Mr. Acosta was the person responsible for the decision not to 
prosecute Mr. Epstein. 
I have also been told that during Mr. Starr's trip to FL to speak with federal prosecutors he complained 
to Mr. Acosta that the press coverage of his trips to FL on Mr. Epstein's private jets were being leaked 
by FBI agents. ( I can assure you that was not true.) 
--Did Mr. Acosta recuse himself from any discussions about the Epstein case so as to avoid even the 
appearance of impropriety? 
--Was the possibility of his removing himself from the case ever discussed by officials in the Justice 
Department? 
--Are there any memos regarding that? 
EFTA00206485

--Is there currently an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation into the facts surrounding the 
handling of this case and Mr. Acosta actions in it? 
Mr. Acosta recused from the matter in November 2008. That recusal was reviewed and approved by 
the Department of Justice, as is the standard procedure in all recusal matters. 
DOJ policy and the Privacy Act prohibit comment on the existence or non-existence of OPR 
investigations. However, please note that, at the request of the defense, the office of the deputy 
attorney general reviewed the U.S. Attorney's handling of this matter, including allegations of 
misconduct, and determined there was no basis to intervene in the matter. We will not be making 
additional comments. Thanks for checking with us. 
Thanks so much for your help, John Connolly 
From: 
(USAFLS)<
> 
Sent: 
Sunday, March 27, 2011 1:31 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: 
Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
«CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd» Hi 
and MI --
Obviously, this is just a rough draft of an introduction. I have been side-tracked by research. I found a case where a 
prisoner tried to use the CVRA in a habeas/Rule 35 type claim. I think that is a good example of how the CVRA, as Cassell 
sees it, could be abused. Since every assault on a federal prisoner is a federal crime, federal defendants could demand 
meetings with AUSAs claiming that they were assaulted (whether or not the assaults actually occurred) and, even if the 
USAO decided to defer to administrative authorities, i.e., the Bureau of Prisons, according to Cassell, we would be forced 
to go meet with them. 
I also have found good language in several cases that suggest that the Petitioners' failure to prosecute the case will end up 
being a second reason to dismiss the petition. Cassell will, no doubt, try to pin the blame on us, but they had no contact 
with us for over a year while they were pursuing their civil claims against Epstein. In the meantime, Epstein finished 
serving his entire criminal sentence. And now they want to try to attack the "plea" agreement. There is good language 
about the need for finality in criminal proceedings that should help with that. 
Talk to you all on Monday. 
Thanks. 
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file 
attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 
From: 
R. (FBI) 
Sent: 
Friday, March 25, 2011 6:03 PM 
EFTA00206486

To: 
Subject: 
(USAFLS) 
Re: Epstein suit in the news 
New article online re: letter from Acosta. Your mentioned. 
From: 
USAFLS) 
To: 
R. 
Sent: Tue Mar 22 13:27:21 2011 
Subject: Epstein suit in the news 
Just FYI — The victims' rights suit is back in the news. 
or I may be reaching out to you re affidavits 
or hearing dates. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Subject: 
Attachments: 
(USAFLS) 
Monday, March 28, 2011 11:57 PM 
Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
<<CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd» Hi 
-- I am headed home now. Can you tell me if you think this is too 
cerebral99999
And take a look at 2010 WL 5108692. 
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file 
attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 
From: 
Sent: 
(USAFLS) 
Monday, March 28, 2011 10:59 AM 
EFTA00206487

To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Conversation with Roy Black - Redacted Materials 
Attachments: 
Facts response.wpd 
Hi everyone — I am going to be in Miami tomorrow to meet with 
about some of these things. I started 
drafting a response to a number of issues, one being a response to the allegations of "fact." And those 
allegations, if we had agreed with them, would have violated DOJ policy. (See footnote I of the attached.) 
There is something to be said for Mr. Black's raising of this objection. For example, in one of the letters filed by 
Cassell, 
writes something to the effect of, "we were prepared to indict Mr. Epstein so, obviously, we believe 
that we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed these crimes." This obviously is a comment on 
Epstein's guilt. If another U.S. Attorney's Office tried to indict Mr. Epstein in the future, it would be held up as 
an instance of the "Department of Justice" poisoning the jury pool. 
I do not believe that Professor Cassell has advised his clients that this will be the effect of his filing. 
Shall we discuss tomorrow? 
«Facts response.wpd>> 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 10:45 AM 
To: 
1 (USAFLS)•
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Conversation with Roy Black - Redacted Materials 
Colleagues, 
I just spoke with Roy Black regarding the U.S. Attorney's Correspondence materials the victims seek to have 
unredacted. I told him we advised Cassell we had no independent objection to the public filing of the 
correspondence. 
Black told me they intended to file a notice today advising the court that Epstein intended to object, and would 
be filing a detailed legal memo by next Monday. 
Black said they would send us a courtesy copy by the end of 
this week. Black will assert three grounds: (1) some of the correspondence contains material covered by 
Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e); (2) the correspondence included plea negotiations; and (3) victims' counsel could not be 
trusted to keep material from the press. Black advised he believed the five-page letter had been leaked to the 
Daily Beast by the victims' lawyers. 
EFTA00206488

Black said he understood the DOJ had policies about public disclosure, but he wanted to know if the 
government would join in their motion. 
From: 
(USAFLS)<
> 
Sent: 
Monday, March 28, 2011 3:33 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine -- Proposed responses 
is an individual's recusal and the basis thereof Privacy Act protected? 
After discussing with M, I am ok leaving that out. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda March 28, 2011 3:31 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS ; 
USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Re: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine -- Proposed responses 
. (USAFLS) 
(USAFLS) 
Would the recusal request also be governed by the Privacy Act? While I do not like commenting on the 
2008 recusal in a vacuum because of the erroneous inferences to which it could lead, it also seems to 
me that we might want to say something about why we're not responding to the recusal question. It 
also seems to me that an individual's recusal and the basis thereof might potentially fall under the 
Privacy Act. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda March 28, 2011 03:16 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine -- Proposed responses 
(USAFLS) 
I think we should delete the line "Mr. Acosta recused from the matter in November 2008. That recusal 
was reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice, as is the standard procedure in all recusal 
matters." We simply shouldn't comment on 2008 Alex's recusal. I am comfortable with the rest with 
one caveat. If (and only if) the Roth letter has in fact been publicly filed, we could send that as well. 
Make sense? 
EFTA00206489

From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda March 28, 2011 2:45 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine -- Proposed responses 
(USAFLS) 
Hi guys —
Below please find my proposed answers [in red ink] to John Conolly of Vanity Fair. 
Let's discuss ASAP so I can send him a response. 
After we agree on a proposed response, I need to run this by DOJ-Public Affairs before sending out. 
Thanks 
From: john1885c [mailto: 
Sent: Fridl
larch 18, 2011 1:51 PM 
To: 
,M 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt. 
AUSA 
It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning. As per your request here are questions I 
would like to have answered for a piece I am researching on Jeffrey Epstein. As life would have it I am 
going to be on a busman's holiday this coming week on Singer Island, FL. I would like to meet you 
and whomever else you think I should speak with. If not, I understand perfectly. 
Let me preface these questions by saying that AUSA 
who was in charge of the 
investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has a remarkably record as a prosecutor. I also know that an AUSA 
does not have the authority to grant a potential defendant a non -prosecution agreement without the 
permission of higher ups in the Justice Department. 
Not quite three years ago, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, granted Jeffrey Epstein 
a non-prosecution agreement in return for his accepting a FL State plea deal for his illegal acts 
regarding sex with minor females. The state case was handled by the West Palm Beach State 
Prosecutor who has since left office. 
Re terms and conditions of imprisonment: 
EFTA00206490

--Was your office aware of the extraordinary sweet deal that Mr. Epstein was granted by that state 
prosecutor? 
--Was your office at the time of the agreement aware that Mr. Epstein would not be sent to a state 
prison facility as almost all defendants who are sentenced to more that a year in prison are required to 
do? 
--Was your office aware that Mr. Epstein would serve his sentence in the local WPB jail? 
--Was your office aware that Mr. Epstein would be allowed, what most FL law enforcement officials 
describe as "beyond a sweetheart deal", in that six days a week at 7:00 AM Mr. Epstein would leave 
the the WPB jail with a corrections officer he was personally paying for, and be escorted to the office of 
attorney Jack Goldberger where he would be allowed to stay until 11:00 PM and then be returned to 
jail for the evening? 
Ostensibly this was so that Mr. Epstein could work on a new charity he had formed. This despite the 
fact that just prior to beginning his jail sentence, Mr. Epstein liquidated his charity and gave $18 million 
to a charity run by the wife of his former patron. 
--Does the US Attorney believe that Mr. Epstein was working on a charity? 
--Was Mr. Epstein doing work as a Confidential Informer for the federal government as he has in the 
past? 
Mr. Eptein was Victim # 1 in the federal indictment of two Bear Stears executives on fraud charges 
stemming from a mortgage backed fund that went under. Mr. Epstein lost almost $70 million in that 
fund. 
--Was Mr. Epstein working on the government case while working on "His Charity"? 
--Has your office ever agreed to any allow any other prisoner the same or similar sweet deal? 
--Was your office aware that in return for Mr. Goldberger's help, Mr. Epstein purchased for him a top of 
the line black BMW? (Sadly for Goldberger he was in an accident and totaled the vehicle three weeks 
later.) 
The USAO reached a NPA with Mr. Epstein in good faith. The Agreement speaks for itself about the 
expectations of the USAO regarding the length and conditions of punishment. Ultimately, the 
sentence was imposed by the State Court Judge who presided over the matter. 
At this time, we cannot comment further on your questions regarding any possible cooperation by Mr. 
Epstein, or what the USAO might have known or not known at the time of the negotiations. 
Re Alex Acosta alleged Conflict/Recusal Issue: 
It has come to my attention that the R. Alexander Acos to former Attorney General for the Southern 
District of Florida during the investigation and non-prosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein had been a 
law partner and friend of two Mr. Epstein's lawyers. Both Ken Star and Jay Lefkowitz had been 
partners with Mr. Acosta at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis prior to his being appointed by President 
Bush. 
EFTA00206491

I have been told by sources that Mr. Acosta was the person responsible for the decision not to 
prosecute Mr. Epstein. 
I have also been told that during Mr. Starr's trip to FL to speak with federal prosecutors he complained 
to Mr. Acosta that the press coverage of his trips to FL on Mr. Epstein's private jets were being leaked 
by FBI agents. ( I can assure you that was not true.) 
--Did Mr. Acosta recuse himself from any discussions about the Epstein case so as to avoid even the 
appearance of impropriety? 
--Was the possibility of his removing himself from the case ever discussed by officials in the Justice 
Department? 
--Are there any memos regarding that? 
--Is there currently an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation into the facts surrounding the 
handling of this case and Mr. Acosta actions in it? 
Mr. Acosta recused from the matter in November 2008. That recusal was reviewed and approved by 
the Department of Justice, as is the standard procedure in all recusal matters. 
DOJ policy and the Privacy Act prohibit comment on the existence or non-existence of OPR 
investigations. However, please note that, at the request of the defense, the office of the deputy 
attorney general reviewed the U.S. Attorney's handling of this matter, including allegations of 
misconduct, and determined there was no basis to intervene in the matter. We will not be making 
additional comments. Thanks for checking with us. 
Thanks so much for your help, John Connolly 
From: 
(USAFLS) < 
Sent: 
Monday, March 28, 2011 4:33 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
Subject: 
(USAFLS) 
RE: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine -- Proposed responses 
Information that is contained in a "system of records" is protected by the Privacy Act. 
Disclosure 
could only occur if the disclosure was pursuant to a routine use (law enforcement agencies); upon the 
consent of the individual; or pursuant to a court order of a court of competent jurisdiction. 
I do 
believe a recusal would be within a system of records maintained by the DOJ. 
EFTA00206492