EFTA00209047

US. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
(561) 820-8711 
Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 
December 6, 2007 
DELIVERY BY UNITED STATES MAIL 
Miss 
Re: 
Crime Victims' Rights — Notification of Resolution of Epstein Investigation 
Dear Miss 
Several months ago, I provided you with' letter notifying you of your rights as' 
victim pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004 and other federal legislation, including: 
(1) 
The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. 
(2) 
The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court 
proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. 
(3) 
The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court 
determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for 
other portions of I proceeding. 
(4) 
The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court 
involving release, plea, or sentencing. 
(5) 
The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the 
case. 
(6) 
The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. 
(7) 
The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. 
(8) 
The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity 
and privacy. 
I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been 
completed, and that Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement 
containing the following terms. 
RFP MIA 000021 
EFTA00209067

• 
• 
• 
Miss 
NOVEMBER 29, 2007 
PAGE 2 
First, Mr. Epstein agrees that he will plead guilty to two state offenses, including the 
offense of soliciting minors to engage in prostitution, which will require him to register as 
'sexual offender for the remainder of his life. 
Second, Mr. Epstein has agreed to make' binding recommendation of 18 months' 
imprisonment to the state court judge who sentences him. Mr. Epstein will serve that 
sentence of imprisonment at the Palm Beach County Jail. 
Third, Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will compensate you for damages you have 
suffered, under the following circumstances. That portion of the agreement that relates to 
those claims reads as follows: 
7. 
The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with' list of 
individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 
§ 2255, after Epstein has signed this agsceiiivnt and been sentenced. 
Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation 
with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall 
select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for 
by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals 
through that representative. 
8. 
if any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to 
file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the 
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District 
of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives 
his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages 
up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and 
Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed 
exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other 
claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. 
Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names 
appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on 
this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such 
damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any 
criminal or civil liability. 
9. 
Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an 
admission of civil or criminal liability or' waiver of any jurisdictional 
RFP MIA 000022 
EFTA00209068

MISS 
NOVEMBER 29, 2007 
PAGE 3 
or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the 
list provided by the United States. 
10. 
Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 
18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's 
signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or 
settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of 
civil or criminal liability or' waiver of any jurisdictional or other 
defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list 
provided by the United States. 
Pursuant to the terms of the agreement and an addendum, to assist you in making such 
I claim, the U.S. Attorney's Office has asked an independent Special Master to select 
attorneys to represent you. Those attorneys are Aaron Podhurst and Robert ("Bob") 
Josefsberg with the law firm of Podhurst Orseck, 
They can be reached at (305) 358-
2800. I anticipate that someone from their law firm will be contacting you shortly. I must 
also advise you that you are not obligated to use these attorneys. In fact. you have the 
absolute right to select your own attorney, so you can decide not to sneak with Mess 
Podhurst/Joscfsberg at all. or you can speak with them and decide at any time to use I 
different attorney, If you do decide to seek damages from Mr. Epstein and you decide to use 
Messrs. Podhurst/Josefsberg as your attorneys, Mr. Epstein will be responsible for paying 
attorney's fees incurred during the time spent trying to negotiate' settlement. If you are 
unable to reach' settlement with Mr. Epstein, you and Mr. Josefsberg can discuss how best 
to proceed. 
As I mentioned above, as part of the resolution of the federal investigation, Mr. 
Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges. Mr. E tein's change of plea and 
sentencing will occur on December 14, 2007, at  
 
., before Judge Sandra K. 
McSorley, in Courtroom 11F at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie 
Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 960.001 ( I Xk) 
and 921.143(1), you are entitled to be present and to make' statement under oath. If you 
choose, you can submit' written statement under oath, which may be filed by the State 
Attorney's Office on your behalf. If you elect to prepare' written statement, it should 
address the following: 
the facts of the case and the extent of any harm, including social, 
psychological, or physical harm, financial losses, loss of earnings directly or 
indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced, 
RFP MIA 000023 
EFTA00209069

• 
• 
• 
MISS 
NOVEMBER 29, 2007 
PAGE 4 
and any matter relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence. Fl. Stat. 
921.143(2). 
You also are entitled to notification when Mr. Epstein is released from imprisonment 
at the end of his prison term and/or if he is allowed to participate in' work release program. 
To receive such notification, please provide the State Attorney's Office with the following 
information: 
1. 
Your name 
2. 
Your address 
3. 
Your home, work, and/or cell phone numbers 
4. 
Your e-mail address 
5. 
I notation of whether you would like to participate in the "VINE system," 
which provides automated notification calls any time an inmate is moved. (To 
use this system, your calls must go to you directly, not through' switchboard.) 
Thank you for all of your help during the course of the investigation. If you have any 
questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me or Special Agent Nesbitt 
at (561) 822-5946. 
By: 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
Assistant United States Attorney 
cc: 
Special Agent 
F.B.I. 
Ms. Clearetha Wright, Victim-Witness Coordinator, U.S. Attorney's Office 
RFP MIA 000024 
EFTA00209070

12/11/2007 11:14 FAX 
t 024 /0 2 5 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLD' 
Jay P. 
P C 
ID 
DMOCIIT 
(MI 
446.4970 
lollionszentsontenen 
VIA FACSIM 
(31)5) 530-6444 
I lonorahle R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NE 4th Street 
Miami, FL 33132 
Dear Alex. 
AM. Ion LOU. PAMStleaort 
Cilwrouo Com
m
153 Cast rani Street 
Now York. Now York 10022-4511 
www.lorkland corn 
December I I. 2007 
Re: Afikey Epstein 
Focounilir 
I thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns with the Section 225 
imprment 
of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement"). I provide this submission as good faith 
effort to communicate all of cuir concerns on this matter. I respectfully request that you consider 
the issues I discuss below in conjunction with the ethics opinion of Mr. Joe D. Whitley that I 
faxed to your Office on December 7. 
liackifroond of Negotiations 
I believe it is inmortant fur you to he aware of the full scope and substance of our 
communications with your Office with respect to first, the negotiations regarding the inclusion of 
the Section 2255 component and second. the process of implementation of its terms. Contrary to 
your Office's view, we do not raise our concerns about the Section 2255 component of the 
Agreement at the "eleventh hour." Since the very first negotiation of the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement between the USA() and Mr. Epstein. we have verbalized our objections to the 
inclusion of and specific language relating to Section 2255. 
Also. when negotiating the 
settlement portion of the federal plea agreement. we immediately sought an alternative to the 
2255 language. In fact. fur the sake of expediting any monetary settlements that were to he made 
and to allow for' quick resolution of the matter, we repeatedly olTered that Mr. Epstein establish 
I restitution fund specifically for the settlement of the identified individuals' civil claims and that 
an impartial, independent representative be appointed to administer that fund. This option. 
however, was rejected by your Office. Notably. while in our December 4 letter to me. you 
indicate that the reason for the rejection of I fund was because it would place an upper limit on 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
Los Angeles 
memo 
San Francisco 
Wasknoion. O.c:. 
RFP MIA 000025 
EFTA00209071

12/11/2007 11:45 FAX 
1025/03:1 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
K. Alexander Acosta 
December 11.2007 
Page 2 
the victims' recovery, we placed no such limit nn the amount that the alleged victims could 
recover. 
Our objections regarding the Section 2255 component of the Agreement began as early as 
August 2 when, after receiving the LISAO's proposed Non-Prosecution Agreement. we 
suggested that the 2255 component of the Agreement could be satisfied by the creation of I 
restitution fund: 
.. Mr. Epstein is prepared to ridly fund die identified group or victims which are the focus of the 
Mice — that is. the 12 individuals noted at the netting on July JI, 3007. This would allow the 
victims to be able to promptly pot this behind them and go forwards with their lives. Irgiven the 
opportunity to opine as to the appropriateness Or Mr. Epstein's proposal. in my extensive 
experience in these types of eases. the victims miter I quick resolution with compensation for 
damages and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need Fur trial. 
See letter (tom Lily Ann Sanchez to ChiefSated 
August 2. 2007.1 For the 
duration of the negotiations. we then continued to encourage the use o f restitution fund in place 
of civil liability under Section 2255. For example. in our draft plea agreement 
to your 
Office on September 16. 2007. we included the ffillowing paragraph: 
Epstein agrees to hind' That set up in concert with the Government and under the supervision of 
the 15* Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Reach County. Epstein agrees tun' Trustee will be 
appointed by the Circuit Conn and that funds from the Trust will be available to he disbursed at 
the buster's discretitm to an agreed list of persons who se •k reimbursement and make' gutid 
Milli showing to the 'immix: that they suffered Injury as I result or the conduct or Epstein. 
Epstein waives his right m contest liability or damages up to an amount agreed to by the parties 
for any settlements entered into by the Twice. Epuein's waiver is not to he construed as an 
admission of civil or criminal liability in regards to any of those who seek compensation from the 
Trust. 
See draft proposal 
from Jay Lelkowitz to Andrew l.nurie dated September 15. 2007. In 
response, Ms. 
• nded that the Agreement contain language considering the 
inclusion of guardian ad Mem in the proceedings. despite the fact that, we arc now led to 
believe that all but one of the women in question are in fact not minors. Interestingly. Ms. 
not only raises the =me concerns them now have become issues with respect to the 
implementation of the Section 2255 cum ment, she also believes that the creation of trust 
would be in the victims' hest interests. 
writes: 
It was not until after receipt of this letter that Mr. Menthol indicated to us that the scope of liability would 
encompass not just the 12 individuals named in the indictment. hut -all of the inintw Lints identified during the 
federal investigation." See Metwhel e-mail to Sanchez dated August 3, 2007. 
RFP MIA 000026 
EFTA00209072

12/11/2007 11:45 FAX 
0026/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 1 1. 2007 
Page 3 
As I mentioned over the dephone. I cannot bind 11w g' s to the Trust Agreement. and I don't 
think it is appropriate that 
state court would administer trust that seeks to pay fur kdend civil 
claims. We bolls toil In WON unscrupulous attormys anikor litigants from entning.ftni raed, and 
I know Hun ,var client wants to keep thew matters rwitsidc ttlpitNic court Platys, but I just don't 
have Ilw power to do what you ask. Hie is my recommendation. During tile period between Mr. 
F.p.st cin's plea 
sentencing.
 and sentencing. I make 
motion for appointment oldie Girardeau Ad I.item. The 
three of us sit down and discuss things. and I will facilitate at molt at I can ge 
g the girls' 
approval Wilts, twoccdure brrainc. at I ntaitioncil I think it ti probably in thew hest macron. 
In terms of pica agreement language. let me suggi.74 the Conniving: 
-flw linlied States agrees to make I nun inn welting. the appointment of a Guardian ad I.itcm In 
represent the identified victims. Follow it the appointment of such (Mardian, the parties agree 
work together in good faith to develop 
'trust Agreement, subject to the Crituts approval diet 
would provide for any damage% owed in the identified victims pursuant to IN II.S.C. Section 
2235. Then include the last two sentences of your paragraph X. 
See email from 
to Letkowitt dated September 16. 2007 (emphasis added). however. 
notably. in the drall agreement that follows. Ms. 
keeps the same objectionable 
language and only adds a portion of what was suggested in her communication to us: 
Epstein ogres that. if any of the victims identified h the federal investigation lilt suit pursuant 
to IX O.S.C. it 2255. Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction ill' the 11.5. District Coun her the 
StHAIRTI1 District of Plurida over his person and'or Ow subject mailer, and Epstein will not contest 
that the identified victims arc persons who, while minors, were victims of violations of litle I A. 
United States Code. Seetions(sl 2422 ;metric 2123. 
'the United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with I list of the identified victims, which 
lir
will not exceed forty. al 
Epstein has signed this agreement and has been sentenced. The 
I/oiled Slates shall nrake motion •ith the united Stales oistriet Court for the Southern District 
of Florida for the appointment of guanhan ad .item for the identified victims and Epstein's 
counsel may contort the identified victims through that counsel. 
Sere draft non-pmsecutio agreement nailed from 
to Lelkowitz dated September 17. 
20117. The inclusion of I guardian ad litem. however. only served to complicate mailers. We 
continued to reiterate our objections to the inclusion of 
2255 in the Agreement repeatedly. as 
evidenced in an email from Ms. 
to myself on September 23. 2005 where she writes: 
"we have been over paragraph 6 'the then relevant 2255 paragraph an infinite number of times." 
During negotiations. it was decided that an attorney representative be appointed in the lace 
guardian ad litem -- not for the sake of litigating claims. but based on the belief that I guardian 
ad litem would not be appropriate for adults that are capable of making their own decisions. 
llowever. the USA() included into the Agreement that we pay fir the attorney representative --
when originally Ms. Villafana stated that the representative could he paid for by us or the federal 
court. See e-mail from 
to Lelkowitz dated September 23. 2007. 
RFP MIA 000027 
EFTA00209073

12/11/2007 11:45 FAX 
Q027/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLI' 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I. 2007 
Page 4 
the final agreement was very similar to what was proposed by Ms. 
in her initial 
draft agreement on July 31. 2007: 
the United Stales shall provide F.pstein's attorney's with a list of individuals whom it has 
identified as victims, as defined in IS U.S.C. f 2255. alter Epsicin has signed this agreement and 
has been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement. the United States. in consultation with 
und subject to the good faith approval of Lipstein's counsel. shall .elect an attorney representative 
for these persons. who shall be paid fin by Ipsteiti. tostein's counsel may contact the identified 
individuals through that representative. 
If any of the individuals referred to in paragispii (7), supra. elects in file suit pursuant to IS 
U.S.C. 3 2255. Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the 
Southern Diaries of Florida over this person andior the subject matter. and Epstein waives his 
right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to 
between the identified individual and Epstein, sot long as the identified individual elects to 
proceed exclusively under IS U.S.C. 
2255. and agrees to waive any other claim fin damages. 
whether pursuant to state. federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those 
individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on 
this agreement. his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any still are not to 
he corn:nu:A as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 
See thud plea agreement. the Agreement requires Mr. Epstein to waive jurisdiction and liability 
under IR U.S.C. §2255 for the settlement of any monetary claims that might be made by alleged 
victims identified by the LISAO (the "identified individualf). Mr. Epstein is precluded from 
contesting liability as to civil lawsuits seeking monetary compensation for damages fur those 
identified individuals who elect to settle the civil claims for the statutory minimum of either 
$50.000 (the amount set by Congress as of the date of the occurrences) or $ 150.000 (the amount 
currently set by statute) or some other agreed upon damage amount. Mr. Epstein must pay for 
the services of the selected attorney representative is long as they are limited to settling the 
claims of the identified individuals. 
'Die implementation of the tunas of the Agreement was just as contentious as was the 
dralling and nr iodation this portion of the Agreement. The first major obstacle was' direct 
result of Ms. 
improper attempt to appoint, Mr. Bert Ocariz. I close, person friend of 
her boyfriend's for the role of attorney representative. we objected in the strongest terms to 
such an appointment due to our serious concerns regarding the lack of independence of this and 
the appearance of impropriety caused by this choice. As' result. the LISA() drafted an 
addendum to the Agreement. This addendum provides for the use of an independent third party 
to select the attorney representative and also specifies that Mr. Epstein is not obligated to pay the 
cost of litigation against him. Upon the decision that we would appoint an independent party to 
choose the attorney representative. we were engaged in consistent and constant dialogue with 
your staff as to the precise language that would he transmitted to the independent party to explain 
his or role. 
RFP MIA 000028 
EFTA00209074

12/11/2007 11:46 FAX 
a 028/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LL(
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I. 2007 
Page 5 
At each juncture. the inclusion of I civil remedy in the Agreement has resulted in 
unending debates and disagreements with respect to the appropriate manner in which to 
implement the terms of the Section 2255 component. The main issues that have arisen since the 
drafting and execution of the final agreement include the process fur the selection elan attorney 
representative: the scope of Mr. Epstein's waiver of liability and jurisdiction: the role of the 
attorney representative: the language contained in various drafts of the later to the independent 
third party: the correct amount of minimum damages pursuant to Section 2255: the extent and 
substance of communications between the witnesses and alleged victims and the OSAO and the 
particular) with respect to the settlemem process: the language contained in the letters 
proposed to be 
to the alleged victims: and the extent of continued federal involvement in the 
state procedures of Mr. Epstein's state plea and sentence. 
Notably. neither Section 2255. nor any other civil remedy statute, has been used as' pre-
requisite to criminal plea agreement and it is clear that the ass, of these terms treatek 
unanticipated issues. Furthermore. the waiver of rights of which the ((SAO insisted is also not I 
traditional aspect of criminal r.-volutions. While we were reluctant and cautious about' Non. 
Prurcution Agreement in which' criminal defendant gives up certain rights to contest liability 
for I civil settlement eve did not believe there was room for contention given the I JSAO's. and 
specifically, Ms. 
ultimatums that required that we acquiesce to these unprecedented 
tams. 
Concerns Ream-dint Section 2255 
Mr Epstein unconditionally rn-asserts his intention to fidfill and not seek to withdraw 
from or unwind the Agreement previously entered. I le raises important issues regarding the 
implementation of the 2255 provisions not to unwind the provisions or invalidate the Agreement 
but instead to call attention to serious matters of policy and principles that you are requested to 
review. 
As you will see below our main policy-related concerns are (1) the inclusion of Section 
22551 civil remedies statutes in' criminal plea agreement. (2) the blanket waiver of jurisdiction 
and liability as to certain unidentified individuals to whose claims the government has a.s.serted 
they take no position, and (3) any communications between federal authorities, including your 
staff and the FBI. and witnesses and alleged victims and the nature of such communications. 
With 'tweet to the interpretation of the terms of the Agreement. we do not agree with your 
Office's interpretation of the expansive scope of Mr. Epstein's agreement to waive liability and 
jurisdiction. Nor do we agree with your Office's view of the expansive role of the attorney 
representative. Below. I describe first, the policy implications and the practical problems that 
these terms have created or will create. Second. I describe points of contention us to the 
interpretation of various terms of the Section 2255 component of the Agreement. 
RFP MIA 000029 
EFTA00209075

12/11/2007 11:48 FAX 
/1028/099 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page 6 
1. 
Policy Considerations 
The inclusion of Section 2255 in' criminal plea agreement is unprecedented and raises 
significant policy-related concerns. Some of these issues can create and have created problems 
as to the ability of this component to (1) maintain the integrity and independence of the tISAO, 
(2) serve its purpose. namely to provide litir and appropriate recovery to any victims in' prompt 
fashion, and (3) protect the rights of the defendant. While we appreciate your consideration of 
our concerns described below, we arc also confident that your commitment to justice and 
integrity will cause you to consider any additional policy and ethical issues that the Section 2255 
component raises. 
A. 
Government Involvement 
The inclusion of Section 2255.' purely civil remedy. raises the risk of excessive 
government interference in private. civil matters. As Mr. Whisky slates in his opinion. 
. . 
.unnecessary entanglement of the government in such cases and the use of federal resources 
could improperly influence such eases and create the appearance of impropriety.-  It is well 
established that the government should refrain Imm getting involved in lawsuits. However. to 
include Section 2255 in' linkral agreement inherently exacerbates the risk of federal 
involvement in civil litigation and thus far. in practice. the inclusion of this statute, as opposed so 
the creation of I restitution fund, has resulted in continued federal involvement in this matter. 
Federal criminal investigators and prosecutors should not be in the business of helping 
alleged victims of state crimes secure civil financial settlements as' condition precedent to 
entering non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements. 'Ibis is especially true where the 
defendant is pleading to static crimes for which there exists' state statute allowing victims to 
recover damages. See Florida Statutes 
796.09. The fact that state law accounts for the ability 
of victims to recover truly eliminates the need for' waiver of liability under' federal statute. 
Furthermore. the vehicle for the financial settlement under the Agreement requires 
restitution in' lump suns without requiring proof of actual injury or loss 
federal authorities 
should therefore be particularly sensitive In avoid causing I prejudiced and unfair result. Section 
2255 is' civil statute implanted in the criminal code that in contrast to all other criminal 
restitution statutes fails to correlate payments to specific injuries or losses and instead presumes 
that victims under the statute have sustained damages of at least' minimum lump sum without 
regard to whether the complainants sulfured actual medical, psychological or other forms of 
individualized hann. We presume that it is for this reason that Section 2255 has never before 
been employed in this manner in connection with' non-prosecution or deferred prosecution 
agreement. 
RFP MIA 000030 
EFTA00209076

12/11/2007 11:47 FAX 
it 030/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
• 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I.2007 
Page 7 
Mr. Epstein's blanket waiver of liability as to civil claims gives the appearance of 
impropriety. While your Office has, on several occasions, asserted that they take no position as 
to the claims 2f the individuals it identifies as "victims.- the fact that they continue to promote 
the award of civil settlement to these individuals is problematic. As you know, government 
contracts and ple7g.reement must not diminish or undermine the inn 
'ty of the criminal justice 
system. See 'S 
McGovern. 822 F.2d 730. 743 (8th Cir. 1987) (' 
plea agreement, however, 
Az;
is not simply
 contract between two panics. It necessarily implicates the integrity &Ike criminal 
justice system and requires the courts to exercise judicial authority in considering the pica 
agreement and in twirling or rejecting the plea."). The requirement that Mr. Epstein blindly 
sacrifice his rights. as civil litigant. to contest allegations made against him seem to contradict 
the principles of justice and fairness that are embedded in the tenets of the United Stales 
. 
Attorney's Office. 
I 
I also assert that on both' principled and practical level, the mere involvement of your 
Office in the matter with respect to civil settlement is inappropriate. Even though we understood 
fmm you that federal involvement in this matter would cease after the attorney representative 
was selected, your Office continues to assert their obligation to he in contact with the alleged 
victims in this matter. Had we agreed to I restitution fund for the victims instead of the civil 
remedies provision, we would not have objected to your Office's communications with these 
individuals. However. because the alleged victims have the ability to recover damages based on 
I civil claim pursuant to the Agreement. we are concerned with your Office's ongoing efforts to 
stay involved in this matter. Contact with federal authorities at this point can only invite the 
possibility for impermissible or partial communications. Most recently, your Office 
l
a
 
us 
drafts of, letter that your Office proposed to send to the alleged victims (the "victim notibeation 
letter"). While the revised draft of this letter states that victims should contact the State 
Attorney's Office for assistance with their rights. there is no phone number provided for the 
office and instead, the letter provides the telephone number and an invitation to contact Special 
Agent Ncshitt Kuyrkcndall of the FRI. Indeed, the letter as currently drafted invites not only 
contact between your Office and the victims, it also asserts that federal witnesses may become 
participants in' state proceeding. thus federalizing the state plea and sentencing in the same 
manner as would the appearance and statements or a member of your Office or the pB12
2 We arc concerned with the fact that some of the victims were previously notified, as Mr. Jeffrey 
slates in 
his letter of December 6 letter. In your letter of December 4. you state that you would not issue the Victim 
Notification lamer until December 7. Thus, it is troubling to learn that some victims were notified prior to that 
date. Please confirm when the victims were notified. who sus notified. the method of communication for the 
notification, and the individual who notified them. 
RFP MIA 000031 
EFTA00209077

12/11/2007 11:47 FAX 
la031/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I. 2007 
Page 
The proposed victim notification letter asserts that the kderal *victims' have tln: right to 
appear at Mr. Epstein's plea and sentence or to submit' written statement to be tiled by the State 
Attorney. However, as agreed to in the federal non-prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein will be 
pleading to lie charges and he will be sentenced 1hr the commission of same offenses. 
'victims the government identifies relate only to the federal charges for which Mr. Epstein was 
under investigation. The draft victim notification letter cites Florida Statutes §§ 960.001(k) and 
921.143(1) as the authority Ibr allowing the alleged victims to appear or give statements. 
however these provisions apply only to "the victim of the crime for which the defendant is being 
sentenced . . . "Thus Florida law only :Minds victims of state crimes to appear or submit 
statements in criminal proceedings and the state charges for which Mr. Epstein will be sentenced 
are not coextensive with the federal investigation. Further. any questions at this point involving 
the charges against Mr. Epstein or the proper slate procedures under which he will plead or be 
sentenced am appropriately made to the State Attorney's Office. 
Continued federal involvement in this matter has led to an impropriety that was 
unanticipated as well. Ms. Villafana attempted to manipulate the terms of Mr. Epstein's 
settlement so that persons close to her would personally profit. Ms. 
inappropriutely 
attempted toterinate Bert ()cariz for attorney re 
despite thi fact that Mr. Ocariz 
• 
turns out to be I very good personal friend or Ms. 
boyfriend. 
linen she assiduously 
kept hidden from counsel. We requested alternate c owes immediately. but were told that Mr. 
()writ had been inlbnned of the charges the government would bring against Epstein and in 
response. he ask 
' 
-mail whether his fees would be capped. Needless to say. we were 
elisi 
alarmed that Ms. 
would attempt to influence the settlement process on such improper 
grounds. And even alter the IJSAO conceded that it was inappropriate for its attorneys to select 
the attorney representative. Ms. Villafana continued to improperly lobby for Mr. Ocariz's 
appointment. On October 19, 2007, retired Judge Edward 13. Davis, who was appointed by the 
parties to select the attorney representative, informed Mr. Epstein's counsel that he received' 
telephone call from Mr. (\wiz directly requesting that Judge Davis appoint him 11.% the attorney 
representative in this matter. Although it is unclear how Mr. Ocariz even knows that Judge 
Davis • s been chosen to administer the settlement process, it can only be understood as Ms. 
attempts to compromise the fairness or the settlement process. 
B. 
Integrity of the Process and the Legitimacy of the Claims 
The waiver of liability Mr. Epstein must make in relation to Section 2255 endangers the 
legitimacy of the claims made by the alleged victims. There is' heightened risk that the alleged 
victims will make false and exaggerated claims once they are inlbnned of Mr. Epstein's waiver 
under Section 2255 for the settlement of claims pursuant to the Agreement. Indeed, Mr. Whitley 
states. " . . .the Department [of Justice] should consider developing processes and procedures to 
ensure that the investigative process is insulated horn such risks." It is also well settled that 
witnesses cannot be given any special treatment due to the fact that it may affect the reliability or 
RFP MIA 000032 
EFTA00209078

12/11/2007 1107 FAX 
032/088 
• 
• 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS nr 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11. 2007 
Page 9 
their testimony. Any and all communications between the federal authorities and the alleged 
- victims" and witnesses in this matter has the ability to influence the reliability orate testimony 
obtained and the validity of the civil settlements that result. 
Thus. there is still' real concern that some of the statements that federal prosecutors 
relied upon in its prosecution of this matter may have been tainted. An inquiry is required to 
confirm that at the time witness statements were given, there were no communications made by 
fcdend agents regarding potential civil remedies. The eovemmem should not provide promises 
of guaranteed monetary settlements to encourage cooperation because they run the risk of 
seriously tainting the reliability of witness statements. While we by no means are uccusins your 
office of making improper communications at this point the fact that 11w award of I civil 
settlement, without any requirement to prove liability. is available to the identified individuals. 
raises cause for concern us to the nature or all conununications that are made to the 'victims.' 
You previously stated that the USAO's main objective with respect to the Section 2255 
component of the Agreement was to "place the victims in the same position as they would have 
been had Mr. Epstein been convicted ut trial." I lowcver. to accomplish this goal. your Office 
rejected using traditional terms that allow for the restitution of victims. Instead, your Office 
chose to insert itself into the negotiations, settlement, and potential litigation of civil suit. With 
all due respect. we object to your Office's attempt to make the victims whole by requiring that 
Mr. Epstein deprive himself of rights accorded to him as' potential civil defendant. While we 
are aware one of the responsibilities of your Olliee is to provide tor restitution for victims of 
crimes, this does not give the government the responsibility to enable alleged victims to collect' 
civil settlement. 
Despite this concern, it should also be noted that, the Agreement. both as written and as 
interpreted by your Office significantly enlarges the victims' ability to recover from Mr. Epstein. 
For instance. ir the individuals attent 
to litigate against Mr. Epstein. they would have been 
determined to be victims only after 
lengthy trial, in winch they would have been thoroughly 
deposed, their credibility tested and their statements subject to cross-examination. 
The 
defendant, under these circumstances, would nut have had pay the plaintiffs' legal fees. 
Mortmver, these individuals would face significant evidentiary hurdles. unwanted publicity, and 
most importantly. no certainty of success on the merits. Therefore. the notion that your Office is 
merely attempting to restore these " victims" to the same position as they would have been had 
Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial misunderstands the Agreement and your Office's 
implementation of its terms. 
C. 
Rights of. Defendant 
Requiring Mr. Epstein to make 
blanket waiver of liability and jurisdiction as to 
unidentified victims whose claims to whit the government takes no position can be construed as 
1 
RFP MIA 000033 
EFTA00209079

12/11/2007 11:48 FAX 
/033/088 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLI' 
R. Alexander Acosta 
Decernbcr 1 I. 2007 
Page III
violative of his Due Process rights. Furthermore. the bet that the statute at issue in this matter 
does not connect harm to the minimum amount available to the victim and simply includes' 
lump sum exacerbates the potential for injustice and an abridgement of Mr. Epstein's rights. At 
the very least. Mr. Epstein should he given the risht to know the identity of the victims and the 
evidence upon which each one was identified as I victim by the government. 
The USA() has provided no information as to the specific claims that were made by each 
identified individual. nor were we given the names or ages of tlx: individuals or the time-frame 
of the alleged conduct at issue. The IJSAO's reluctance to provide Mr. Epstein with any 
information regarding the allegations against him leaves wide open the opportunity for 
misconduct by the federal investigators and eliminates the ability for Mr. Epstein and/or his 
agents to verify that the allegations at issue are grounded in factual assertions and real evidence. 
Indeed, the requirement that' target of lideral criminal prosecution agree to waive his right to 
contest liability as to unnamed civil complainants creates at minimum an appearance of injustice, 
both because of the obvious Due Process concerns of waiving rights without notice of even the 
identity of the complainant and because of the involvement of the federal criminal justice system 
in civil settlements between private individuals. We reaffirm the right to test the veracity of the 
victims' claims as provided to us in the letter from you to Judge Davis dated October 25. 2007. 
It has recently come to our attention that your staff has identified 
as' 
"victim" for purposes of Section 2255 relief. Ms. 
• who initially and repeatedly refused to 
cooperate with federal authorities durin the course of the investigation, only submitted to an 
interview after she was conferred with I grant of immunity. Surely this is tot' demand typically 
made by someone who is' crime "victim". Moreover, Ms. Millers sworn testimony does not 
suggest that she is' victim. Ms. 
has not only admitted that she lied to Mr. Epstein about 
her age claiming she was 1$ years old. but that she counseled others to lie to Mr. Epstein in the 
same manner. Ms. 
also states that Mr. Epstein was clear with her that he was only 
interested in "women" who were or age and that most of the y 
men she brought to his 
home were indeed over IS years of age. Moreover. while Ms. 
claims to have provided 
massages to Mr. Epstein. she does not allege to have engaged in sexual intercourse with Mr. 
Epstein: does not claim she provided him with oral sex: does not purport that Mr. Epstein 
penetrated her in any manner: denies Mr. IMstein ever used I vibrator. massager. or any type of 
"sex toy" on her: denies he touched her breasts, buttocks. or vagina: and states that she never 
touched Mr. Epstein's sexual organs — nor was she asked to do so by Mr. Epstein. Without' 
right to contest the liability of claims. Ms. Miller will likely receive fur more in civil damages 
than what would he she would have had Mr. Epstein been convicted. 
In addition, the Asreement with the USA° only defers federal prosecution of Mr. 
Epstein: it does not assert I declination to prosecute. as was lint contemplated in the negotiation 
of the Agreement. Any payments made and/or settlement agreements reached with the alleged 
RFP MIA 000034 
EFTA00209080

12/11/2007 11:48 FAX 
Z034/098 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLi
• 
• 
• 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page II 
victims prior to the fon.-elosure of any future federal prosecution carrbrs the potential of being 
used as evidence against Mr. Epstein. *Illus. to protect his rights ax I defendant. Mr. Epstein 
should nut be required to pay any of the alleged victims until after the threat of prosecution no 
longer exists. 
II. 
Misinterpretations of the Agreement 
The contentiousness caused by the implementation of the Section 2255 portion of die 
Agreement has also been caused by what we believe are misinterpretations of the terms by your 
Office. These problems, which I describe below, are' practical outgrowth of the fact that civil 
settlement, us opposed to restitution. is considered in the Agreement. 
U 
Rule of the Attorney Representative 
The IJSAO has improperly emphasized that the chosen :wormy representative should be 
able to litigate the claims of individuals. which violates the terms, and deeply infringes upon the 
spirit and nature of. the Agreement. However. after the panics agreed to the appointment of an 
independent third party in select the representative, the government announced ilia the criteria 
for choosing an appropriate attorney representative would include that they be '■ plaintiffs 
i 
lawyer capable of handling multiple lawsuits against high profile attorneys." 'lids interpretation 
of the scope of the attorney representative's role is liar outside the common understanding that 
existed when we negotiated Mr. Epstein's settlement with the USAO. Moreover, we have made 
the USAO aware of the potential ethical problems that would arise should the selected 
representative be allowed to litigate and settle various claims against Mr. Epstein. The initial 
draft victim notification letter contained language that confirmed your Office's interpretation and 
indicated that Mr. Podhurst and Mr. Joscfsberg, the selected attorney representatives. may 
"represent" the identified individuals. This language assumes that the selected representatives 
will agree to serve in the capacity envisioned by the IJSAO. which we believe is patently 
incorrect. To suggest this notion in' letter to victims who have limited or no knowledge of the 
ethical principles at issue will only lead to confusion, misunderstanding and disappointment 
among the identified individuals when they learn that such representation is foreclosed. 
B. 
Scope of Mr. Epstein's Waiver 
Your Office has taken the position that Mr. Epstein waives liability beyond the settlement 
of claims and that he will waive liability even in lawsuits brought by the identified individuals. 
However, this overstates the scope or Mr. Epstein's waiver pursuant to the Agreement. Mr. 
Epstein has only agreed that he will waive the right to contest liability and jurisdiction for the 
purpose of settling claims with the alleged victims pursuant to Sections 7 through 8 of the 
Agreement and Addendum. Mr. Epstein has no obligation to waive this right to contest liability 
RFP MIA 000035 
EFTA00209081

12/11/2007 11:49 FAX 
11035/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
K. Alexander Acosta 
December 11.2007 
Page 12 
in any claim lig damages • • by an enumerated - victim- or anyone else - where that puny fails to 
settle her claims pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. The revised draft of the letter avoids 
this misinterpretation and directly quotes Paragraphs 7. 8. 9 and It) of the Agreement. While we 
do not have any objection to including this portion of the Agreement in the proposed letter. we 
request that Paragraphs 7A. 7Ti. and 7C of the Addendum to the Agreement also be included 
because the language contaits.xl there in most clearly ntnlincs the scope of Mr. Epstein's 
obligation to pay damages under the Agreement. 
C. 
Right of the Alleged Victims to Be Notified 
As we have expressed to you previously. we do not agree with your O1lice's assertion 
that it is either an obligation and even appmpriate for the USAO to send' victims notification 
letter to the alleged victims. The Justice for All Act of 2004 only contemplates notification in 
relation to available restitution for the victims of crimes. However, since Section 2255 is only 
one of many civil remedies, there is no requirement that the USAO inform alleged victims 
pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. Notably. if the USN) had agreed to include' 
restitution fund in the Agreement us opposed to' civil remedy statute, the alleged victims would 
have the right to be notified pursuant to the relevant Act. 
Further. we note that the reasons you cite in favor of issuing the proposed Victims 
Notification letter in your correspondence of December 4 are also inapplicable to this scenario. 
For instance, you cite IS 
§ 3771 for the proposition that your Office is obligated to 
provide certain notices to the alleged victims. However. IS 
§ 37711)12) & (3) provide: 
crime victim has the lidlowing rights: 
()9 11w right to reasonable. accurate. and timely notice of any public court proceeding. or any 
parole proevialine. involving die crime nr any release or escarp' Of the accused. 
131 flu: right not to he excluded from any such public court proceeding. oaten. the coral, aver 
receiving clear and convincing cviiknix. d1.11MIIIIIIS that testimony by the victim would he 
materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at the proceeding. 
(emphasis added). Your interpretation or * 3771 is emmeous hecause the rights conferred by the 
statute indicate that these rights are for the notification and appearance at public proccalings 
involving the crime for which the relevant individual is' victim. As you know, the public 
proceeding in this mallet' will be in state court tie the purpose of the entry of I plea on state 
charges. Therefore, IS 
§ 3771 clearly does not apply to "victims" who are not state 
"victims." You additionally cite your Office's obligations under § 3771(c)(I) of the Justice for 
All Act of 2004, However, this subsection relates back to the "rights described in subsection 
•." Thus, since the rights set forth in subsection 
only apply to the victims or the crimes fur 
RFP MIA 000036 
EFTA00209082

12/11/2007 11:49 FAX 
la 036/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
• 
• 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I.2_007 
Page 13 
which the public proceeding is being held. the individuals identified by your Office have no 
rights to notification or appearance under this Act. 
You further cite 42 U.S.C. § 10607(e)b I RD) and (O(3) which. you state. obligates your 
Office to inform victims of "any restitution or other relief' to which that victim may be entitled 
and of notice of the sugus of the investigation: the filing of charges against I suspected of
and the acceptance of I plea. Although we do not believe this applies here for the same reasons 
stated above. we further assert that your proposed Victims Notification letter seeks to go beyond 
what is prescribed under 42 U.S.C'. § 10607. Indeed, there is nothing in the statute that requires 
your Office to solicit witness testimony or statements liar the purposes of Mr. Epstein's 
sentencing hearing. Furthermore, we assert that any notification obligation you believe you have 
under this statute should be addressed by Judge Davis. 
We submit to you based on the policy concerns of including' civil remedies statute in' 
sriminal agreement and requiring the waiver of I de'  ndants' rights under that agreement creates 
oproblems
host
 
 that. in this case, have led to I serious delay in achieving finality to the 
satisfaction of al parties affected. We appreciate your consideration of these issues and hope 
that we can find solution that resolves our concerns. 
Sincerely. 
ay It lanko 
RFP MIA 000037 
EFTA00209083

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
It ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES A7TORNEY 
DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE 
Lilly Ann Sanchez 
Fowler White Burnett, PA 
1395 Brickell Ave, 14th Floor 
Miami, FL 33131 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Ms. Sanchez: 
99 N E 4 Sure, 
Moat FL 3O31 
O031961.9100. Telephone 
(303)330-6444 - Fawn* 
December 19, 2007 
I write to follow up on the December lel meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein 
prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' I 
write to you because I am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this 
letter. I address issues raised by several members of the defense team, and would thus ask that you 
please provide' copy of this letter to all appropriate defense team members. 
First, I would like to address the Section 2255 issue! As I stated in my December e letter, 
my understanding is that the Non-Prosecution A reement entered into between this Office and Mr. 
Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach global resolution of his state and federal criminal 
liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections 
Over the past two weeks, we have received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits from defense counsel. 
This is not the forum to respond to the several items raised, and our silence should not be interpret as agreement; I 
would, however, like to address one issue. Your December I I*  letter states that as' result of defense counsel 
objections to the appointment process, the MAO proposed an addendum to the Agreement to provide for the use of 
an independent third party selector. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowledge of defense counsel 
objections, I suo sponte proposed the Addendum to Mr. lefkowitz at an October meeting in Palm Beach. I did this 
in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be 'litigious seleaion process. It was only after I proposed this 
change that Mr. Lelkowitz raised with me his enumerated concerns. 
2 Section 2255 provides that: "[tiny person who, while' minor, was' victim of violation of [enumerated sections 
of Titk 181 and who suffers personal injury as t  result of such violation . . may sue in any appropriate United States 
District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit. including t 
reasonable attorney's fee." 
RFP MIA 000038 
EFTA00209084

S 
of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies 
three general federal interests: (1) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to' "registerable" state offense; (2) 
that this state plea include 'binding recommendation for I sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) 
that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. 
With this in mind, I have considered defense counsel arguments regarding the Section 2255 
portions of the Agreement. As I previously observed, our intent has been to place the victims in the 
same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. 
From our meeting, it appears that the defense agrees that this was the intent. During the course of 
negotiations that intent was reduced to writing in Paragraphs 7 and 8, which as I wrote previously, 
appear far from simple to understand. I would thus ropose that we solve our disagreements over 
interpretations by saying precisely what we mean, in I simple fashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 
and 8 with the following language: 
"Any person, who while' minor, was' victim of violation of an offense enumerated in 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under 
Section 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' list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an 
Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority 
interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if 
any t  plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the panics 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." 
Second, I would like to address the issue of victim's rights pursuant to Section 3771. I 
understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place of Mr. 
Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and 
the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense as' courtesy. In 
addition, First Assistant United States Attorney 
already incorporated in the letter several 
edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of 
proceedings and results of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend 
to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We 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. 
Third, I would like to address the issue raised regarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At 
our meeting, Professor Dershowitz took the position that Mr. Epstein believes that his conduct does 
not satisfy the elements f this offense. His assertion raises for me substantial concerns. This Office 
will not, and cannot, be  party to an agreement in which Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to an offense that 
he believes he did not commit. We are considering how best to proceed. 
2 
RFP MIA 000039 
EFTA00209085

• 
• 
Finally, I would like to address' more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on 
September 246, 2007. Pursuant to paragraph I I, Mr. Epstein was to use his best efforts to enter his 
guilty plea and be sentenced no later than October 26, 2007. As outlined in correspondence between 
our prosecutors and defense counsel, this deadline came and went. Our prosecutors reiterated to 
defense counsel several times their concerns regarding delays, and in fact, asked me several weeks 
ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. I resisted that invitation. I share 
this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an I I6 hour appeal, 
weeks before the now scheduled January 4th plea date. 
This said, the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness 
concerns. We hope to preserve the January e date. I understand that defense counsel shares our 
desire not to move that appearance and will work with our office to expedite this process over the 
next several days. With this in mind, and in the event that defense counsel may wish to seek review 
of our determinations in Washington U.C., I spoke this past Monday with the Assistant Attorney 
General Fisher, to inform her of possible appeal, to ask her to grant the potential request for review, 
and to in fact review this case in an expedited manner to attempt to preserve the January 4th plea date. 
I want to again reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of I 
defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial, 
and he should do so if he believes that he did not commit the elements of the charged offense. 
I will respond to the pending issues shortly. In the interim, I would ask that you 
communicate your position with respect to the sections 2255 and 3371 issues as quickly as possible. 
Sincerely, rr 
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
cc: 
Alice Fisher Assistant Attorney General 
, First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
AUSA 
Marie 
3 
RFP MIA 000040 
EFTA00209086