EFTA00211482

12/21/2007 11:55 FAX 
la 001/008 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Fax Transmittal 
Ctligroup Center 
153 Cast 53rd Street 
New York. New Y rk 1602 -4611 
Phone: 
Fax 
Please notify us immediately if any pages are not received. 
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL. MAY 
BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, MAY CONS 7ITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION, AND 
IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. UNAUTHORIZED USE. 
DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL 
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, 
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: 
To: 
Company: 
Fax ft: 
Direct I: 
R. Alexander Acosta 
US Altorney's Mice 
305-530-6444 
305-961-91(8) 
CC: 
Company: 
Fax 0: 
Oliva 0: 
305-530+144 
305-961-9299 
Alin k: 1:;..1...•, 
IN  
 ,.4. I ,,, ., • 
202-514-9.112 
202-514-2601 
From: 
Jay P. Lelkowity. 
Date: 
Paps wtsww: 
Fax 
December 21. 2007 
8 
M-446-6460 
Direct 0: 
Message: 
Please see attached. 
EFTA00211482

12/21/2007 11 55 FAX 
002/008 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Jay P. LekOlvaa. 
To Call Wrier Dernelly. 
lelkowda 
I
M
L
Iamicorri 
VIA FACSIMILE (305) 530-6444 
I lonnrable It. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NE 4th Street 
Miami. Fl. 33132 
I kar Alex: 
ANO ANN IA1M PAROVCRANO% 
Ciaoroup Cantor 
153 Coal 53W Slowl 
New York. Now York 1002: •4611 
www.kakinnO corn 
not:ember I , 2007 
Re: Jeffrey Epsicin 
We again extend our appreciation for meeting with us on December 14 and for carefully 
considering the issues we have raised both at that meeting and in our submissions to your Office. 
I laving received your Idler of December 19. we can see that you have made a significant %Mint 
to address Our concerns regarding the § 2255 portion of the non-prosecution agreement (the 
"Agreement"), and we recognize that you have proposed some substantial and imporumt 
modifications. 
Respectfully, however. I would suggest that your proposal raises several 
troubling questions that require careful consideration. We arc authoring this letter to respond to 
your request that we set forth our position regarding §§ 2255 and 3771 us quickly us possible. 
As we have all discovered. the problem of integrating in an unprecedented manner what 
is at its core a $150,000 minimum lump sum damage federal civil statute (* 2255 in its current 
Mon) into a federal deferred/non-prosecution agreement that requires pleas of guilty to state 
criminal offenses that arc correlated to stale criminal restitution statutes but not to a disparate 
federal civil non-restitution statute has proved very challenging. The concomitant problem of 
bow fairly to implement the § 2255 portions or Ilw Agreement so that real victims. if any. who in 
fact sulkrcd "personal injury UN a result of [the] violation" 
if any of specified federal 
criminal statutes such as I It U.S.C. § 242201) arc placed in the same position as if there had been 
a trial and conviction also requires serious and careful consideration. In this letter, i want to 
highlight some specific concerns. See also Whitley Opinion. 
First, your proposal wording the § 2235 remedy provisions continues to ask us to 
assume that each and every woman not only was a victim under § 2255. hut that the facts alleged 
could have been proven to satisfy each element of either § 2422(b) (the Internet luring statute) 
or § 2423 (the sex-tourism statute). within § 2255 of Title IR. Although we have heen denied tlx: 
Chicago 
'long Kong 
London 
Los Angeles 
Munich 
San Francisco 
Workington, D.C. 
EFTA00211483

12/21/2001 11:55 FAX 
la 003/009 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLI' 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 21. 2007 
Page 2 
list of alleged "victims" (and lack definitive information as to which federal statutes would serve 
as a predicate for each particular alleged victim). or even a firm number as to how many you 
suµest there are, we strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to 
these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either IS USC § 2422(b) (which we 
understand from prior discussions to be the principal predicate offense upon which the #2255 
provisions My) or IS USC § 2423(b) (another predicate of § 2255 that has ham the subject of 
discussions between the parties.). Sec Stem Opinion. We believe that the problem arises from 
the incongruity that exists when attempting to lit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal 
plea agreement. Again. I note that this problem could have ball avoided had the government 
opted instead for a restitution fund as we suggested. 
Our knowledge of the "list" of alleged victims is limited However a prototypical 
example of a witness whom the government has requested we compensate and we believe is 
inaccurately labeled as a - victim" or a federal crime is lisiamilesoknimitun we have been told 
remains on the government's "list"). The transcript or her interview with the Palo 
over a year before the EIJI became involved in any investigation shows that 
admitted to lying about her age. that she did nut engage in sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein. 
and that she was never induced over the te 
e 
• matter or any other means of 
communication required by § 2422(b). In fact. 
came to Mr. Epstein's home on 
only one occasion. She testified that she was informed about the opportunity to give a massage 
to Mr. Epstein not on a telephone, computer or any other facility of interstate commerce. hut 
rather in a litee-to-face discussion with a third party who was her friend tM, 
and who 
told her to lie to Mr. Epstein about her age. As such, it is simply impossible to shoehorn this 
conduct into any of the above-discussed federal statutes. 
In addition, Mr. Epstein did not know ofefore 
she actually came to his 
home. did not induce or persuade her to come by phone, did not speak to her at all by phone prior 
to her visit, did not induce or persuade Ms. Robson to bring an underage girl to his residence. 
and did not otherwise violate either the federal statute ' 2422(b) nor the travel for the purpose 
statute § 2423(b). Indeed. in her statement. 
testified: "lisle), told me to say I was 
18 because Haley said .. . if you're not then he (Epstein] won't really let you in his house. So I 
said l was 18." (Gonzalez Sworn Statement at 38-39). In fact. there is 130 evidence that Mr. 
Epstein expected an underage girl to visit him prior to his regular travel to Florida. his home of 
[liken years. Thus the travel could not have been for the purpose of having illegal sexual 
contact and § 2423(b) is no more available as a predicate list * 2255 move • 
• 
s 2422(b). 
Never having reached the threshold violations enumerated under of f 1255. 
would
still have toprove that she suffered a personal injury. Further, unknown to Mr. Epstein at the 
time, 
represented herself to be IS not only to him but also to the public on her web 
page 
re s 
posted a nude photo clearly looking at least IN years old. 
At the December 14 meeting, we also discussed 
as entblen 
concerns surmunding the government's selection of "victims. , s you are aware. 
EFTA00211484

12/21/2007 11:56 FAX 
0004/008 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December 21, 2007 
Page 3 
was identified in previous correspondence as a .rson who remained on the Governmenis list of 
- victims" even after (at least according to 
letter) the list was subjected to careful 
multi-party review. 
swum statement clearly reflects the fact that she is not a 
"victim" under § 2422(b). She plainly admits that she suffered no injury; the conduct was 
consensual; she lied to Mr.. Epstein about her age; she instructed others to lie about their ages: 
there was no sexual contact between herself and Mr. Lipstein at any time; and there was never 
any inducement over the telephone, computer or through any other means of interstate commerce 
We ask that you consider the most relevant highlights from her testimony offered below: 
• Consent 
A: I said. I told Jeffrey. I heard you like massages topless. And he's like. yeah, he 
said, hut you don't have to do anything that you don't feel comfortable with. And I 
said okay. hut I willingly took it off. "tree,..
. .......
 
 " '"' 
• Lied About tier Age 
A: . . . I bud a rake ID anyways. saying that I was 18. And she just said make sure 
you're 18 because Jeffrey doesn't want any underage girls. " 
I 
at 8) 
* * * * * 
A: . . . oleourse. he thought I was IS. . . 
• 
Instructed Others to Lie About Their Ages 
A: . . . I would tell my girlfriends just likellmlum)proached me. Make sure you 
tell him you're IX. Well, these girls that I brought. I know that they were I8 or 19 or 
20. And the girls that I didn't know and I don't know II' they were lying or not. I 
would say make sure that you tell him you're IS. 
• No Sexual Contact 
Q: Ile never pulled you closer to him in a sexual way? 
A: I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no. never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. 
No Inducement 
A: No. I gave Jeffrey my number. And I said. you know. any time you want me to 
give you a massage again, I'll more than welcome to. r ''" 
0' 
"" 
' "I 
EFTA00211485

12/21/2007 11:56 FAX 
it 005/008 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
K. Alexander Acosta 
December 21. 2007 
Page 4 
A: Every girl that I hiought to J.:Ilk.). they said they were line with it. And like. for 
instance. 
lot of girls begged me to bring them back. 
lhey wanted to come hack lie the money. And as fur as I know. we all had fun there. 
(Miller Sworn Statement at 45) 
The sworn testimony or =Oa 
contains explicit denials front the alleged 'victim" 
herself that she suffered any physical. emotional, or • • nal injury as required by the express 
language of § 2255. Further, the sworn testimony of 
contains a complete disavowal 
that Mr. Epstein or anyone on his behalf used a facility of interstate commerce to knowingly 
persuade. coerce, entice. or induce her to engage in sexual offenses as required by § 2422(b). 
Likewise, the transcript provides no basis for a § 2423(h) violation in that Mr. Epstein had a 
residence in Palm Beach for over 10 years at the time of these esamts, traveled to Palm Beach for 
a myriad of legitimate reasons ranging from medical appointments to business appointments 
having nothing to do with a sexual objective, and could not he legally charged with traveling to 
his own home particularly in the absence of any provable nexus between the travel and a 
dominant purpose to engage in illicit sexual conduct. Although Manlbrmed 
us 
during the December 14 meeting that she had a telephone toll record showing tut out-of-state call 
to or from 
phone to a phone number associated with Mr. Epstein. such n record fails 
to prove the content of the call, the identity of the communicators. whether the call discussed or 
resulted in a plan for 
to visit Mr. Epstein's residence, whether any inducement 
occurred nn the out of state call or. more importantly for purposes of the sex tourism statute• 
whether any travel was planned to Florida or resulted from the phone call. 
testimony is that she believed that at any time she was called by Mr.. Epstein or anyone on his 
behalf. Mr. Epstein was already in Florida. She also testified to the absence of any sexual 
contact other than topless massages (topless massages are lawful in Florida at age 16, unless the 
definition ofprostitution is unnaturally expanded). A complete transcript of tlx: federal interview 
of 
has previously been provided to you. 
Your wish to pm these women in the same position as they would have been bud there 
been a federal conviction assumes they are each legitimate victims of at least one of the Iwo 
specific federal crimes enumerated under * 2255. We respectfully have to disagree with that 
assumption. and even your currant formulation of * 2255 would prejudice Mr. Epstein in this 
regard. 
Second. your proposal also effixlively deprives Mr.. Epstein of his opportunity to test the 
validity of these womens' claims claims 
• 
• 
• 
e 
tested at trial. In 
light of what we have already learned ahnu 
xi ••
• 
. it is inappropriate 
to deny Mr.. Epstein and his counsel the right to test the merits or each of these swamis' cases. 
in order to verify that they in fact suffered "personal injury- as required by 
2255 and to assess 
whether they are in fact victims of any violations of * 2422(b) or §2423(b) as also required by 
EFTA00211486

12/21/2007 11:57 FAX 
la 006/008 
KIM AND & El LIS LLP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December 21, 2007 
Page 5 
§ 2255. Given your Offices informing us t 
remained on a reduced list of federal 
- victims" and given our understanding that 
as well was one of those who is also 
on the list of persons tlx: Government contends were victims of Mr. Epstein's alleged violation 
of federal law, we have a principled concern about adopting your recommended language which 
would leave Mr. Epstein without a basis to challenge the good faith premise of an application to 
recover SI 50.000. 
Third, the Agreement. even if modified in accord with your December tat letter would 
put the witnesses in a better position than if Mr. Epstein had been federally prosecuted rather 
than in an equal position and. in fact, encourages the witnesses to make unfounded claims with 
impunity. [lad there been a conviction. these women would have been thoroughly cross-
examined. for the veracity of their statements, their credibility and the foundations. if any. for 
claiming personal injury. Also. Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or 
Jencks. material in the lbrm of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they 
learned of any financial benefit that may be available to them—evidence that should be 
considered in determining the credibility of their application for a substantial civil recovery. 
Furthermore, Mr. Epstein would be without the means to challenge whether the claimant could 
make out a prima lbeie ease that she was a victim of a violation by Mr. Epstein of § 24221b or 
an other federal statute—a denial of his rights that would insulate potential claimants such as 
and 
from any challenge on this dement even if under other circumstances a 
challenge would result in a summary judgment in Mr. Epstein's favor under Ped. R. Civ. P. 56. 
Lastly. the modified language recommended by you presupposes that Mr. Epstein would have 
been charged and convicted of substantive violations rather than charged and convicted of a 
conspiracy allegation. Conspiracy convictions arc not amongst the predicates enumerated by 
§ 2255 and do not. without more, result in the basis for a determination of "personal injury". 
Since our request to view the draft indictment was rejected on December 14. we have no means 
to know what it contained by way of allegations. 
Fourth, I want to respond to several statements in your letter that we believe require 
immediate correction. With regard to your first Windt% I want to he absolutely clear. We do 
not believe for one moment that you had prior knowledge of the AUSA's attempt to require us to 
hire the friend of her live-in boyfriend. and pay his lees on a contingency basis to sue Mr. 
Epstein. We realize you corrected that irregular situation as soon as you discovered it. We 
thought this was precipitated by our complaint. hut hove no real knowledge as to the timing of 
events. Furthermore, your letter also suggests that our objection to your Office's proposed 
victims notification letter was that the women identified as victims of federal crimes should not 
be notified or the state proceedings. That is nut true, as our previous letter clearly states. Putting 
aside our threshold contention that many of those to whom 3771 notification letters arc intended 
arc in fact not victims as defined in the Attorney General's 2000 Victim Witness Guidelines—a 
status requiring physical. emotional or pecuniary injury of the defendant—it was and remains our 
position that these women may he notified of such proceedings but since they are neither 
witnesses nor victims to the stoic prosecution of this matter, they should not be informed of 
EFTA00211487

12/21/2007 11:57 FAX 
a 007/008 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
K. Alexander Acosta 
December 21.2007 
Page 6 
fictitious "rights" or invited to make sw,
 nen or in-court testimonial statements against Mr. 
Epstein at such proceedings. as Ms.. 
repeatedly maintained they had the right to do. 
Additionally, it was and remains our position that any notification should he by mail and that all 
proactive efforts by the FRI to have communications with the witnesses after the execution of the 
Agreement should finally come to an end. 
We agree. however, with your December 19 
modification ul the previously drafted federal nal ilication letter and agna: that the decision as to 
who can he heard at a state sentencing is. amongst many other issues. properly within the aegis 
astute decision making. 
Your December 19 letter references Professor Dershowitz's position on the 
inapplicability of Florida Statute f 796.03. Professor Dershowitz made such arguments in the 
context of saying that he had been unable to discern, alter great effort. and supported by years of 
experience, any basis for the application of 3 2422(b) or other federal sex statutes to Mr. 
Epstein's conduct and that the federal statutes regaird more of a stretch to lit the facts than the 
proposed state statute to w 
Dershowitz also stated that 
wanted Mr. Epstein to plead. 
Professor 
had represented that it was she who had the facts to 
support, both the threatened federal charges of § 2422 and/or 
2423 and the proposed state 
charge of $ 796.03 (which the panics understood to be the state charge of soliciting a minor, as 
last letter clearly states). Only last week we learned for the first time that Ms. 
not realize that the charge was actually for "procuring" nut "soliciting". The 
charge (a pim statute) of procuring a prostitute for a third party for financial gain is one for 
which Ms. 
now states she does not have the facts to support. 
Furthermore, you suggest that we have purposefully delayed the date of Mr.. Epstein's 
plea and sentencing in breach of the Agreement and now seek an "11 th hour appeal" in 
Washington. I believe we have already responded to this objection satisfactorily, both in our 
discussion earlier this week and in the email I sent to you two days ago in which I specifically 
addressed this issue. indeed. any impediment to the resolution at issue is a direct cause of the 
disagreements between the parties as to a common interpretation of the Agreement. and we have 
at all times made and will continue to make sincere efforts to resolve and finalize issues as 
expeditiously as possible. In fact, since the initiation of negotiations between Mr.. Epstein's 
counsel and your Ollice. we have always proceeded in a timely manner and made several elliirts 
to meet with the attorneys in your Office in person when we believed that a face-to-face meeting 
would facilitate a resolution. 
Finally, the suggestion by your staff that you hold Mr. Epstein in breach of the 
Agreement by his failure to plea and he sentenced on October 26. 2007 is directly contradicted 
by Mr.. 
e-mail to me dated October 31 in which he states. "Your understanding from 
Jack fin 
rger conforms to my understanding that Mr.. Epstein's plea and sentence will take 
place on the same day. 1 understand that the plea and sentence will occur on or beam: the 
January 4th date." This has been ow common understanding for some time, which we have now 
EFTA00211488

12/21/2007 11:57 FAX 
a 000/008 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
K. Alexander Acosta 
December 21. 2007 
Page 7 
reiterated several times. With that said. please he 
resolution and do not seek to delay the pnweedings. 
Thank you attain for your time and consideration. We look forward to your response to 
the concerns we have raised that have not yet been addressed. 
cc: 
advised that we are working for a quick 
I wish you a very happy and a healthy new year. 
sti 
• • 
Sincerely. 
/IA 
. Lefkoyiitz 
EFTA00211489