EFTA00224810

Gmail - Fw: confidential communication 
Page 1 of -1 
Gmalif 
Ann Marie Villafana< 
byCoosk 
Fw: confidential communication 
1 message 
 
Original Message 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
Sent: Mon May 19 12:40:32 2008 
Subject: FW: confidential communication 
For your records. 
(USAFLS); 
From: Jay Lefkowitz [mailto:JLefkowitz©kirkland.Com] 
Sent: Monda May 19, 2008 10:54 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: confidential communication 
Thu, May 22, 2008 at 
3:38 AM 
.(USAFLS) 
Dear 
I am writing to you because I have just received the attached letter from DreW Oosterbaan. In 
light of that letter, and given the critical new evidence discussed below, I would like to request a 
meeting with you, mindful of our July 8 deadline;at your.earliest opportunity. Given your 
petsonal 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 expreised that you were "not unsympathetic" to our various 
federalism concerns, but stated that because you serve within the "unitary Executive," you.
believed your hands were tied by Main Justice. 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 th6se 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 proiecution 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 
EXHIBIT 8736 
EFTA00224810

Gmail - Fw: confidential communication 
Page 2 of 4 
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 this 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 indictment. That 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 ease, 
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 fads that I call the following to your attention. 
New 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 
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 re resen ations of witnesses such as T
 la 
• 
and the civil complainants and their attorneys, con 
e 
ollowing key points: 
irst, t ere was no telephonic communication 
et the requirements of 
§ 2422(b). For example, as many other witnesses have stated, Ms. 
testified in no unclear 
terms that there was never any discussion over the phone about her coming over to Mr. 
____ _ __Epstein's home t 
• 
exual activity: "The only thing that ever occurred on any of these 
i
phone calls [with 
or another assistant] 
•s 'Are you willing to come over,' or, 
'Would you like to come over and give a massage.'" 
Tr. A at 15. Second, the underage 
women who visited Mr. Epstein have testified that they lie 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-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, Msestated that Mr. Epstein "never touched [her] 
phy • 
" and that all she did was "massage( ] his back, his chest and his thighs and that was 
it." 
Tr. at 12-13. Finally, as you are well aware, there was no force, coercion, fraud, 
violence, i rugs, 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 
EFTA00224811

Gmail - Fw: confidential communication 
Page 3 of 4 
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 mans rea for a crime of 
conspiracy or aiding and abetting. 
Through the recent witness statements, we have also discovered another serious issue that 
he integrity of the federal investigation. We have learned that FBI Special Agent 
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. 
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 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'accordihgly, 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 -mail or by e-mail to postmaster@kirkland.com, and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
***** ***************** 
***** ************** 
************** 
**** 
EFTA00224812

Gniail - Fw: confidential communication 
Page 4 of 4 
• 
• 2-
EZ
: 
Letter from CEOS.TIF 
360K 
EFTA00224813