EFTA00224799

Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) 
From: 
Jay Lefkowitz PLefkowitz@kirkland.comj 
Sent: 
Monday, May 19, 2008 10,54 AM 
To: 
Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
confidential communication 
Attachments: 
Letter from CEOS TIE 
Dear Alex: 
I am writing to you because I have just received the attached letter fro 
n 
light of that letter, and given the critical new evidence discussed below, 
st 
a meeting with you, mindful of our July 8 deadline, at your earliest opportunity. Given your 
personal involvement in this matter to date, and the fact that at this juncture it is clear that 
CEOS has referred the matter back to you, I respectfully request that you not shunt me off to 
one of your staff. You and I have both spent a great deal of time on this matter, and I know 
that we both would like to resolve this matter in a way that bestows integrity both on the 
Department and the process. 
In our prior discussions, you expressed that you wereEnot unsympathetic" to our various 
federalism concerns, but stated that because you serve within the "unitary Executive," you 
believed your hands were tied by Main Justrq You were also extremely gracious in stating 
that you did not want the United States to be'unfair". Although CEOS limited its assessment 
to the federal statutes your Office had brought forth and to the application of those laws to the 
facts as presented, it is abundantly clear from Drew's letter that Main Justice is not directing 
this prosecution. In fact, CEOS plainly acknowledged that a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein 
would involve a "novel application" of federal statutes and that our arguments against federal 
involvement are "compelling." Moreover, the language used by Drew in his concluding 
paragraph, that he cannot conclude that a prosecution by you in this case "would be an abuse 
of discretion" is hardly an endorsement that you move forward. 
Moreover, as you know, Drew made clear that the scope of his review did not extend to the 
other significant issues we have raised with you, such as the undo interest by some members 
of your staff with the financial and civil aspects of this matter, or with the inappropriate 
discussion one member of your Office had with a senior reporter at the New York Times. (In 
fact, I have met with that reporter and have reviewed copious notes of his conversation with 
Mr. Weinstein. At
 stage, we have no alternative but to raise our serious concerns 
regarding the issues Drew refused to address with the Deputy or, if necessary, the Attorney 
General, because we believe those issues have significantly impacted the investigation and 
any recommendation by your staff to proceed with an indictmenDThat being said, it would 
obviously be much more constructive and efficient if we could resolve this matter directly with 
you in the advance of further proceedings in Washington. 
Because it is clear that national policy, as determined by Main Justice, is not driving this case, 
the resolution of this matter is squarely, and solely, your responsibility. I know you want to do 
the right thing, and it is because you have made clear to me on several occasions that you will 
always look at all of the relevant and material facts that I call the following to your attention. 
n
ew information that has come to light strongly suggests that the facts of this case cannot 
possibly implicate a federal prosecutorial priority. Due to established state procedures and 
EXHIBIT B-35 
EFTA00224799

following the initiation of multiple civil lawsuits, Mr. Epstein's counsel was able to take limited 
discovery of certain women in this matter. The sworn statements provided by these women 
all confirm that federal prosecution is not appropriate in this case. 
The consistent representations of witnesses such as 
nd the civil complai 
following key points: First, there was no telephonic communication that met the requirements 
of § 2422(b). For example, as many other witnesses have stated, Ms. Beale testified in no 
unclear terms that there was never any discussion over the phone about her coming over to 
Mr. Epstein's home to engage in sexual activity: "The only thing that ever occurred on any of 
these phone calls [with 
or another assistant] was, 'Are you willing to come over,' 
or, 'Would you like to come over and give a massage.'" Beale Tr. A at 15. Second, the 
underage women who visited Mr. Epstein have testified that they lied about their age in order 
to gain admittance into his home and women who brought their underage friends to Mr. 
Epstein counseled them to lie about their ages as well. Ms. Miller stated the following: "I 
would tell my girlfriends just like Carolyn approached me. Make sure you tell him you're 18. 
Well, these girls that I brought, I know that they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't 
know and I don't know if they were lying or not, I would say make sure that you tell him you're 
18." Miller Tr. at 22. Third, there was no routine or habit suggesting an intent to transform a 
massage into an illegal sexual act. For instance, Ms. Laduke stated that Mr. Epstein "never 
touched [her] physically" and that all she did was "massage[] his back, his chest and his 
thighs and that was it." Laduke Tr. at 12-13. Finally, as you are well aware, there was no 
force, coercion, fraud, violence, drugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. 
Epstein's encounters with these women. 
The civil suits confirm that the plaintiffs did not discuss engaging in sexually-related activities 
with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's residence. This reinforces the fact that no 
telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of any kind occurred. 
Furthermore, Mr. Herman, the attorney for most of the civil complainants, was quoted in the 
Palm Beach Post as saying that "it doesn't matter" that his clients lied about their ages and 
told Mr. Epstein that they were 18 or 19. In short, the new evidence establishing that the 
women deliberately lied about their age because they knew Mr. Epstein did not want anyone 
under 18 in his house directly undercuts the claim that Mr. Epstein willfully blinded himself as 
to their ages. Willful blindness is not a substitute for evidence of knowledge nor is it a 
negligence standard. It requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of deliberate intent and 
specific action to hide one's knowledge. There is absolutely no such evidence of that here, so 
it is not even a jury issue. Furthermore, willful ignorance cannot constitute the required mens 
rea for a crime of conspiracy or aiding and abetting. 
Through the recent witness statements, we have also discovered another serious issue that 
implicates the integrity of the federal investigation. We have learned that FBI Special Agent 
Kurkendayl attempted to convince these adult women, now in their twenties, that they were in 
fact "victims" even though the women themselves strongly disagreed with this 
characterization. This conduct, once again, goes to the heart of the integrity of the 
investigation. In a sworn statement, Ms. Beale was highly critical of the overreaching by 
federal law enforcement officers in this case. She testified—in no uncertain terms—that she 
does not, and never did, feel like a "victim," despite the fact that the FBI repeatedly tried to 
convince her otherwise. 
I am mindful of the fact that we have a state court date of July 8 on which either to enter a plea 
or to commence trial. As I review the trial options with Mr. Epstein, I certainly want to make 
2 
EFTA00224800

sure I do everything within my power to obviate a need for trial through a reasonable 
alternative resolution. Although it is clear that CEOS is not directing a prosecution here, and 
has stated only that you have the authority to commence such a prosecution, I am well aware 
that the decision whether to proceed, subject to any further process in Washington, is now 
within your discretion. I think the new facts should greatly influence your decision and 
accordingly, I hope you will agree to meet with me, both to discuss the new evidence and to 
discuss a resolution to this matter once and for all. I am available to meet with you at your 
earliest convenience subject to our mutual availability. 
Respectfully, 
Jay 
The information contained in this communication is 
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may 
constitute inside information, and is intended only for 
the use of the addressee. It is the property of 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to postmaster@kirkland.com, and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
3 
EFTA00224801

Campos, Cyndee (USAFLS) 
From: 
ent: 
Monday, May 19, 2008 5:04 P 
o: 
ilefkowitz©kirkland.corre 
Subject: 
Epstein 
Esptein Itr 5 19 
08.pdf 
EFTA00224802

05/19/08 MON 15:50 FAX 305 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
[6001 
-.z231M
---;72 
iir*stiors************** 
sx4c 
TX REPORT 
*** 
4******************** 
3494 
912124464900 
05/19 15:47 
03'03 
7 
OK 
U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
99 NE 4 STREET 
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132-211. 1 
ACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 
COVER SHEET 
DATE: 
May 19, 2008 
TO: 
Jay P. Lefkowitz., Esquire 
FAX NUMBER: 
SUBJECT: 
Epstein 
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 7 
EFTA00224803

First Assistant U.S Attorney 
DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
Citigroup Center 
153 East 53rd Street 
New York, New York 10022-4675 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Mr. Lefkowitz, 
U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
May 19, 2008 
I am in receipt of your e-mail dated May 19.2008 to the United States Attorney. The U.S. 
Attorney would like me 
ications and inquiries related to the Epstein 
matter, will be handled b 
or her supervisor,a) 
he does 
not intend to respond to your e-mail or calls unle 
/or her supervisors advise 
him otherwise. Furthermore, you make reference to "our July 8 deadline." Respectfully, the United 
States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL") has never agreed to any such 
deadline. Should you decide to provide the SD 
v additional information, please do so 
timuge
nd, in her absence, 
On September 24, 2007, your client, Jeffrey Epstein, in consultation with Gerald Lefcourt, 
Esq. and Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq., as well as numerous other nationally-renowned lawyers, including 
but not limited to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, former Independent Counsel and 
Solicitor General of the United States Kenneth Starr, just to name a few, entered into a global 
resolution of state and federal liabilities faced by your client ("the Agreement") with the SDFL. 
Although you and other members of the defense team have since claimed that the Agreement was 
the product of adhesion, the following facts demonstrate that Epstein knowingly and voluntarily 
entered into the Agreement in order to avoid a federal indictment regarding his sexual conduct 
involving minor victims. Despite the fact that by signing the Agreement, Epstein gave up the right 
to object to its provisions, the SDFL bent over backwards to exhaustively consider and re-consider 
your objections. Since these objections have finally been exhausted and Epstein has previously 
expressed his intent to not comply with several of the terms and conditions of the Agreement as set 
forth below, the SDFL hereby notifies you that unless he complies with all of the terms and 
conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the United States Attorney's December 19, 2007 letter 
to Ms. Sanchez by close of business on Monday, June 2, 2008, the SDFL will elect to terminate the 
Agreement. 
EFTA00224804

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
May 19, 2008 
PAGE 2 OF 6 
Background 
The Agreement was the product of months of negotiations. Specifically, you requested and 
received numerous meetings, at the highest levels of the SDFL and DOJ's Child Exploitation and 
Obscenity Section (CEOS) concerning claims that (a) the investigation merely produced evidence 
of relatively innocuous sexual conduct with some minors who, unbeknownst to Epstein, 
misrepresented their ages; (b) the authorities investigating Epstein engaged in misconduct; (c) the 
contemplated federal statutes have no applicability to this matter; and (d) the federal authorities 
disregarded the fundamental policy against federal intervention with state criminal proceedings. 
After careful review, the SDFL ultimately rejected those claims. Subsequent to its decision, however, 
but before proceeding any further, the SDFL provided you with 30 days to appeal the decision to the 
Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Alice Fisher. As you recall, you chose to forego an 
appeal to AAG Fisher, and instead pursued a negotiated resolution which, ultimately, resulted in the 
execution of the Agreement. 
The Negotiation Phase 
During negotiations, you tried to avoid a resolution that called for incarceration and 
registration as a sexual offender — both of which would be triggered by a successful federal 
prosecution. The SDFL believed and continues to believe that should this matter proceed to trial, 
your client would be convicted of the federal statutes identified in the Agreement. In order to achieve 
a global resolution, the SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of incarceration; 
however, it remained adamant that Epstein register as a sex offender and that all victims identified 
during the investigation remain eligible for compensation. In order to achieve this result, the parties 
considered two alternatives, a plea to federal charges that limited Epstein's sentencing exposure, or, 
as suggested by you, a plea to state charges encompassing Epstein's conduct. Ultimately, the parties 
agreed to, inter alia, a plea to the state charges outlined in the Agreement, registration and a method 
of compensation. 
The Agreement 
The crux of the Agreement defers in favor of the State federal prosecution of Epstein for his 
sexual conduct involving those minor victims identified as of September 24, 2007, in exchange for 
a guilty plea to a state offense that requires registration as a sex offender; a sufficient term of 
imprisonment; and a method of compensation for the victims such that they would be placed in the 
same position as if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in Title 
18, United States Code, Section 2255. Specifically, the Agreement mandates, inter alia, (1) a guilty 
plea in Palm Beach County Circuit Court to solicitation of prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.07) and 
procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03) (an offense that requires 
him to register as a sex offender); (2) a 30-month sentence including 18 months' incarceration in 
county jail; (3) a methodology to compensate the victims identified by the United States; (4) entry 
EFTA00224805

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
May 19, 2008 
PAGE 3 OF 6 
of the guilty plea and sentence no later than October 26, 2007; and (5) the start of the above-
mentioned sentence no later than January 4, 2008. 
Furthermore, and significantly, Epstein agreed that he had the burden ofensuring compliance 
of the Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office and the Judge of the 15ih
Judicial Circuit and "that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement" (emphasis added). 
cost execution of the Agreement 
Within weeks of the execution of the Agreement, you sought to delay the entry of Epstein's 
guilty plea and sentence. After the SDFL agreed to accommodate your request, counsel for Epstein 
began taking issue with the methodology of compensation, notification to the victims, and the issues 
that had been previously considered and rejected during negotiations, i.e., that the conduct does not 
require registration and the contemplated state and federal statutes have no applicability to the instant 
matter. 
A. 
Delay. 
The Agreement required that "Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and 
be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-
reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008." Agreement, pages 4-5, 
paragraph 11 (emphasis added). After the Agreement was executed, the SDFL accommodated your 
request to extend the October 26th plea deadline to November 20th based upon, what seemed to be, 
reasonable scheduling conflict issues.' By early November, you represented that the presiding state 
court judge would not "stagger the plea and sentencing as contemplated in the Agreement."A 'though 
the Agreement clearly did not contemplate a staggered "plea and sentencing," the SDFL again agreed 
to accommodate Epstein's request to appear in state court for plea and sentencing on January 4, 
2008.2
I "Accordingly, I have now continued with Mr. Epstein's Florida counsel that the state's 
attorneys office and the court will be available to have him enter his plea on November 20. So we will 
plan to proceed on one that date." October 18, 2007 email from Jay Lefkowitz to USA R. Alexander 
Acosta. 
On the same day, Mr. Lefkowitz confirmed with First Assistant Jeffrey H. Sloman that this 
postponement " will not affect when Epstein begins serving his sentence." 
2 Correspondence from Jay Lefkowitz to 
ted November 8, 2007 ("the judge 
has invited the parties to appear for the plea and sentencing on January 4th, we do not anticipate any delay 
beyond that date.") 
EFTA00224806

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
May 19, 2008 
PAGE 4 OF 6 
B. 
Method of Compensation and Notification. 
During this same time period, you and others, including the former Solicitor General of the 
United States Kenneth Stan, took issue with the implementation of the methodology of 
compensation (hereinafter "the 2255 provision")3 and the SDFL's intention to notify the victims 
under 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 (you objected to victims being notified of time and place of Epstein's 
state court sentencing hearing). In response, the SDFL offered, in my opinion, numerous and various 
reasonable modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in United States Attorney 
R. Alexander Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez. In that letter, the United 
States Attorney tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to 
address, let alone consider. He proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: 
"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in 
Title 18, United States Code, 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 a 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 a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these 
identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been 
convicted at trial. No more; no less." 
Regarding the issue of notice to the victims, USA Acosta proposed to notify them of the 
federal resolution as required by law; however, "[wje 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." As you know, 
you rejected these proposals as well. See December 26, 2007 correspondence from Jay Leflcowitz 
to USA Acosta. 
3 Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL 
unilaterally agreed to assign its responsibility to select the attorney representative for the alleged victims 
to an independent third-party. This was done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection 
of the attorney representative. As a result, on October 29, 2007, the parties executed an Addendum 
wherein it was mutually agreed that former United States District Court Judge Edward B. Davis would 
serve as the independent third-party. Judge Davis selected the venerable law firm of Podhurst and 
Josefsberg to represent the approximately 34 alleged identified victims. 
EFTA00224807

JAY P. LEFKOWG7.., ESQ. 
May 19, 2008 
PAGE 5 OF 6 
C. 
"Mr. Epstein Does Not Believe He Is Guilty Of The Federal Charges Enumerated 
Under Section 2255." 
At our December 14, 2007 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, counsel for 
Epstein announced, inter alia, that it was a "profound injustice" to require Epstein to register as a 
sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(6), had been 
committed since the statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used 
to do the persuading or inducing. This particular attack on this statute had been previously raised and 
thoroughly considered and rejected by the SDFL and CEOS prior to the execution of the Agreement. 
You also argued that the facts were inapplicable to the contemplated state statutes and that Epstein 
should not have been allowed to have been induced into the Agreement because the facts were not 
what he understood them to be. It should be noted that the SDFL has never provided you with any 
evidence supporting its investigation. This is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see 
North Carolina'. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 5.O. 160 (1970)). Ultimately, you requested an 
independent review. 
Subsequent to the above-mentioned meeting, the SDFL received three letters from you and/or 
Mr. Starr which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 10 meeting. 
Essentially, you portrayed the SDFL as trying to coerce a plea to unknown allegations and incoherent 
theories. On December 17, 2007, you decreed that Epstein's conduct did not meet the requirements 
of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03) one of the enumerated 
crimes Epstein had previously agreed to plead guilty to; that Epstein's conduct does not require 
registration under Florida law; and the State Attorney's Office does not believe the conduct is 
registrable. On December 21, 2007, you rejected the USA's proposed resolution of the 2255 
provision because you "strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to 
these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 U.S.C. Section[s] 2422(6) ... or 
2423(b)." In your December 26, 2007 correspondence you stated that "we have reiterated in 
previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is guilty of the federal charges enumerated 
under section 2255" and requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did 
not commit the requisite offense." 
As the SDFL has reiterated time and time again, it does not want, nor does it expect, Epstein 
to plead guilty to a charge he does not believe he committed. As a result, we obliged your request 
for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such a review at the highest 
levels of the Department of Justice. It is our understanding that that independent review is now 
complete and a determination has been made that there are no impediments to a federal prosecution 
by the SDFL. 
EFTA00224808

JAY P. LEFKOWT12, ESQ. 
May 19, 2008 
PAGE 6 OF 6 
Conclusion 
On February 25, 2008, I sent you an e-mail setting forth a timetable for moving forward in 
the event that CEOS disagreed with your position. That time is now. As you know, my February 25' 
email stated that I would give you one week to comply with the terms and conditions of the 
Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 19ih letter to Ms. Sanchez. In light of the upcoming 
Memorial Day weekend, I have decided to extend that timetable to the close of business on Monday, 
June 2, 2008, which is a full two weeks. 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
cc: 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
EFTA00224809