EFTA00225672

(USAFLS) 
From: 
'ent: 
fo: 
Subject: 
Esptei Itr 5 19 
08. pdf 
r..on a 
a 
2U00613A5FADS4)PM 
Epstein 
EFTA00225672

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 6 Ellis LLP or Kirkland 6 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 
EFTA00225673

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. 
isten 
of witnesses such as 
, and 
, and the civil complainan 
an 
eir a 
rneys, confirm the 
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. 
unclear terms that there was never any discussion over the phone abou 
Mr. Epstein's home to e 
ual activity: "The only thing that ever occurred on any of 
these phone calls [with 
or another assistan 
, 'Are you willing to come over,' 
or, 'Would you like to come over an give a massage.'" 
Tr. A at 15. Second, the 
underage women who visited Mr. Epstein have testified t a 
ey lied about their age in order 
to gain admittance into his home and women who brought t 
nderage friends to Mr. 
Epstein counseled them to lie ab 
ages as well. Ms. 
stated the following: "I 
would tell my girlfriends just like 
approached me. 
a e sure you tell him you're 18. 
Well, these girls that I brought, I nowt at they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't 
know 
don't know if they were lying or not, I would say make sure that you tell him you're 
18." 
Tr. at 22. Third, there was no routine or h 
gesting an intent to transform a 
massage into an illegal sexual act. For instance, Ms. 
stated that Mr. Epstein "never 
touched [her] physically" 
at 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, vio ence, drugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. 
Epstein's encounters with these women. 
testified in no 
er coming over to 
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 agailles 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 
2 
EFTA00225674

Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) 
From: 
Jay Lefkowitz 
Sent: 
Monday, May 1 , 
To: 
Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
confidential communication 
Attachments: 
Letter from CEOS.TIF 
Dear Alex: 
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 
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 werebot unsympathetic" to our various 
federalism concerns, but stated that because you serve within the "unitary Executive," you 
believed your hands were tied by Main Justit,c  You were also extremely gracious in stating 
that you did not want the United States to b 
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. 
ew 
information 
that 
has 
come 
to 
light 
strongly 
suggests 
that 
the 
facts 
of 
this 
case 
cannot
possibly
p
 implicate a federal prosecutorial priority. Due to established state procedures and 
EXHIBIT B-35 
EFTA00225675

(USAFLS) 
From: 
Vil!Mena, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Friday, June 13, 2008 2:45 PM 
To: 
Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Call 
Hi Karen -- Not today. I am going to meet with Bob about the indictment. 
 
Original Message 
From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Sent* 
' 
2:23 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Ca 
Are you coming back home? 
 
Original Message 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM 
To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: Call 
Hi karen. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to 
greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called jeff to propose a 
"final solution" (his words not mine). Jeff told him to call me. (Imagine that). 
So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls? 
956 
EFTA00225676

Villafana, Ann 
C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
1,91111,112:52PM 
To: 
AffiMson,Kamn(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Call 
One week. We told the DAG that we need his decision by end of next week so we 
can indict on July 1st before the July 7th state trial. 
 
Original Message 
From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Sent* 
2:51 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: 
How long after the final decision--if there is such a thing--does he have before 
we indict? 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Fr ay, June 1 , 
:45 PM 
To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Call 
Hi Karen -- Not today. I am going to meet with Bob about the indictment. 
 
Original Message 
From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:23 PM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Call 
Are you coming back home? 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Fr a 
ly, June 13, 
1:56 AM 
To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: Call 
Hi karen. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to 
greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called jeff to propose a 
"final solution" (his words not mine). Jeff told him to call me. (Imagine that). 
So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls? 
955 
EFTA00225677

(USAFLS) 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Fn 4, une
 PM 
To: 
Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Call 
Hi Karen -- Not today. I am going to meet with Bob about the indictment. 
 
Original Message 
From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:23 PM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Call 
Are you coming back home? 
 
Original Message 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM 
To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: Call 
Hi karen. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to 
greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called jeff to propose a 
"final solution" (his words not mine). Jeff told him to call me. (Imagine that). 
So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls? 
956 
EFTA00225678

(USA FLS) 
From: 
Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Sent: 
— 
6:15 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
: peen) 
Sorry, forgot to cc you. 
From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 6:09 PM 
To: Roth, John (ODAG) (SMO) 
Cc: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) 
Subject Epstein 
John, 
Epstein is facing trial on a felony charge of solicitation of prostitution. This does not 
resemble the charges that Epstein agreed to plead guilty to in the September 24th Agreement 
nor what he would face federally. That case is set for trial on Monday July 7. 
If we are given the go ahead from the DAG's office, we would give Epstein one final 
chance to comply with the September 24th Agreement. In that regard, it would be most 
preferable to have a decision by next week. That would give us the opportunity to seek an 
indictment on Tuesday July 
if Epstein fails to comply with the September 24th Agreement by 
Monday June 30th. 
The reason this timetable is important is to address our concern that Epstein may 
continue to keep us in a holding pattern if he pleads to the pending state solicitation of 
prostitution charge before a federal indictment is returned. In that scenario, I anticipate 
Epstein's counsel raising petit policy issues, thus throwing another possible monkey wrench in 
the process. Although I don't believe that the petit policy would be affected, I can imagine 
someone calling a timeout until the issue is vetted. That's why I would prefer being able to 
seek an indictment before Epstein pleads to the pending charge and after he has repudiated 
the September 24th Agreement. Thanks, 
Jeff 
951 
EFTA00225679

(USAFLS) 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
8 10:43 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
Senior, Ro erl 
SAFLS) 
Subject: 
Draft Indictment 
Hi Cyndec — Bob called and said that Jeff needed a copy of this. The first copy has a "draft" watermark on it, 
and the second is exactly the same except that the watermark is removed. 
080429 revised 
ndictment with... 
Thanks! 
080429 revised 
ndictment with... 
A. 
VillafaHa 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
Tracking: 
982 
EFTA00225680

(USAFLS) 
From: 
Senior, Robert (USAFLS) 
Sent: 
8 3:25 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Cc: 
t inson, aren 
LS) 
Subject: 
RE: Epstein 
Marie, are you back ? We need to spend some time together on the indictment. I 
was planning on Monday because I thought you were back that day but if you're 
already back let me know. By the way, Jeff and Alex have been very clear that we 
are not negotiating with this guy any more in any way. 
Thx. Bob 
 
Original Message 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:54 PM 
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: Epstein 
Hi jeff. Karen sent me an email about epstein wanting to do less time. I hope 
that his request will be denied. The original deal was supposed to be 2 years so 
he has already gotten a big break. Plus we have identified more victims since we 
agreed to the 18 months. Please keep me posted. Thanks. 
1014 
EXHIBIT B-34 
EFTA00225681

g9N-15in 
-Lri. ID 'OS WIN 13:20 FAX I 21a 0a0 $500 
EMAGIVE OFFICE 
IIVJIUD OT
KIRK, AND&10 L I S 
Quiz 
013/013 
et 00U 
Honorable Mark Filip 
May 19. 2008 
Page 8 
prosecution is fair and appropriate has been placed, once again, in U.S. Attorney Acosta's 
hands. 
in light of the foregoing, we respectfully ask that you review this matter and discontinue 
all federal involvement so that the State cam appropriately bring this matter to closure. We 
would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet With you to discuss these important issues. 
Such it meeting would provide the Department with an opportunity to review the paramotun 
issues of federalism and the appearance of selectivity that are generated by the unprecedented 
attempts to broaden the ambit of federal statutes to places that they have never before reached. 
We sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter. 
ttespeetililly submitted, 
Kenneth W. Starr 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
Joc D. Whitley 
Alston & Bird LIP 
EFTA00225682

tAVULfUO WAN £O:VL CAA OU0 0001 OGSV 
otp. in • n8 
WIN 13:211 PAX 1 213 080 8500 
well 
namvullro urrimx, 
1®012/01a 
........
 
I KLANUSLE1.1.1 S 
I.LJ 
WOOS 
Honorable Mark Filip 
May 19, 2008 
Page 7 
Government's confidential "list of victims." Most of these lawsuits seek S50 
million in money damages"
• 
Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein spoke about the case in great detail to 
Landon Thomas, a reporter with the New York nines, and revealed confidential 
information about she Government's allegations against Mr. Epstein. The Assistant 
U.S. Attorney also revealed the substance of confidential plea negotiations. 
• 
When counsel for Mr. Epstein complained about the media leaks, First Assistant 
Stomata responded by assening that "Mr. l'homas was given, pursuant to his 
request, non-case specific information concerning specific federal statutes." Based 
on Mr. Thomas' contemporaneous notes. that assertion appears to be false. For 
example, Mr. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that federal authorities believed that 
Mr. Epstein had hired girls over the telephone and traveled in interstate corn incite 
for the purpose of engaging in underage sex. lie recounted to Mr. Themes the 
USAO's theory of prosecution against Mr. F 
Lein, replete with an analysis of the 
key statutes being considered. 
Furtherm 
after Mr. Epstein's defrost team 
complained about the leak to the USAO, 
. Weinstein, in Mr. Thomas' own 
description, then admonished him for talking to the defense, and getting him in 
trouble, Mr. Weinstein further told him not to believe the "spin" of Mr, Epsteites 
"high-priced attorneys,' and then, according to Mr. Thomas. Mr. Weinstein 
forcefully "reminded" Mr. Thomas - that all prior conversations were merely 
hypothetical. 
We are constrained to conclude that the actions of federal officials in this case strike at 
the heart of one of the vitally important, enduring values in this country: the honest enforcement 
of federal law, free of political considerations and free of the taint of personal financial 
motivations on the part of federal prosecutors that, at a minimum, raise the appearance of serious 
impropriety.
We were told by U.S. Attorney Acosta that as part of the retie 
he requested, the 
Department had the authority, and his consent, to make any determination it 
tried appropriate 
te
regarding this matter, including a decision to decline federal prosecution. Yet, CEOS's only 
conclusion, based on its limited review of the investigation, is that U.S. Attorney Acosta would 
not abuse his discretion by proceeding against Mr. Epstein. Thus, the decision of Ithother 
As recently as two months ago. Mr. Women Was still lined publicly os t pan of his former law firm. While wv 
assume this was an oversight, Mr. Stoma identification as pan or the firm raises the appearance of 
impropriety. 
EFTA00225683

06/02/08 MON 15:02 FAX 
ol3/28/201:18 00:10 FAX 202 
• 
ps, LION IA:Z5 FAA 1 =13 ONO 8500 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
b0.1/00AC 
KIRKIANDMILLTS 
1d1010 
gtolvols 
4g u87 
Honorable Mark Hip 
May 19, 2008 
Page 6 
• 
Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Mr. Epstein pay u 
minimum of 5150,000 per person to an unnamed list of women they referred to as 
minors and whom they insisted required representation by a guardian ad them. Mr. 
Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these individuals were actuully 
adults, not minors. Even then, though demanding payment to the women, the 
USAO eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of any of the 
. claims that these women might make. 
• 
Federal prosecutors made the highly unusual demand that Mr. Epstein pay the fees 
of a civil 
gamey chosen by the prosecutors to represent these alleged "victims" 
should the choose to bring any civil litigation against him. They also proposed 
t 
sending a 
ties to the alleged "victims," stating, in an underlined sentence, that 
should they choose their own attorney, Mr. Epstein would not be required to pay 
their tees. The prosecutors fitrther demanded that Mr. Epstein Waive his right to 
challenge any of the allegations made by these "victhns." 
• 
The Assistant U.S. Attorney involved in this matter recommended for the civil 
attorney, a highly lucrative position, an individual that we later discovered was 
closely and personally connected to the Assistant U.S. Attorney's Own boyfriend. 
• Federal prosecutors represented to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they had identified 
(and later rechecked and re-identitied) several alleged -victims" of federal crimes 
that qualified for payment under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a civil remedy designed to 
provide financial benefits to victims. Daly through state discovery previsions did 
we later learn that many of the women on the rechecked "victim list" could not 
possibly qualify under § 2255. The reason is that they, themselves, testified that 
they did not suffer any type of harm whatsoever, a prerequisite for 
civil recovery 
under § 2255. Moreover, these women stated that they did not, no or in the past, 
ti 
consider themselves to-be victims. 
• 
During the last few months, Mr. Mennen, First Assistant Sloroan's former law 
partner, has tiled several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged 
"victims." ft is our understanding that each of Mr. Herman's clients arc on the 
EFTA00225684

UO/V4IV9 
sun 
CAA OVO 00V O1%V 
05/28/2008 00:09 FAX 2026161230 
DA 
VON 13:24 KAX 1 :13 660 6500 
LSGVUAAVD UrrAteta 
DOJ/ODAC 
K I RKI.AND&ELI-1 S 1.1-P 
Wt", O 
490Oi/013 
Ciijurni 
•
 
Honorable Mark Filip 
May 19. 2008 
Page 5.
In fact, recent testimony of several alleged "victims" contradicts claims made by federal 
prosecutors during the negotiations of a deterred prosecution agreement. 
The consistent 
representations of key Government wimesses (such as Tatum Miller. Brittany Beak, Saige 
Gonzalez. and Jennifer Laduke) confirm the following critical points: First, there was no 
communication, telephonic or otherwise, that meets the requirements of § 2422(b). Par instance. 
Ms. Gonzalez confirmed that Mr. Epstein never entailed, text-messaged, or used any facility of 
interstate commerce whatsoever. before or after her one (and. only) visit to his home. Gonzalez 
Tr. (deposition) at 30. Second, the women who testified admitted that they lied to Mr. Epstein 
about their age in order to gain admittance into his home. Indeed. the women who brought their 
underage friends to Mr. Epstein testified that they would counsel their friends 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 hint you're. 18. Well, these girls that I brought, i know that 
they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that !didn't !mow and I don't know if they were lying or 
not, 1 would say make sure that you tell him you're 18." Miller Tr. at 22. Third, there was no 
routine or habit of improper cotrununication expressing an intent to transfomi a massage into an 
illegal sexual act. In bet, there was often no sexual activity at all daring the massage. Ms. 
Miller testified that "(s)ometimes [Mr. Epstein) just wanted his feet massaged. Sometimes he 
just wanted a back massage." Miller Tr. at 19. Jennifer Laduke also 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, there was no force, coercion, fraud:
violence, drugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstei 'S encounters with these 
women. Ms. Beak stated that "[Mr. Epstein) never tried to force me to u anything." Bale Tr. 
A at 12. These accounts are far from the usual testimony in sex slaver Internet stings and sex 
tourism cases previously brought. The women in actuality were not younger than 16, which is 
the age of consent hi most of the 50 states, and the sex activity was in'egular and in large parr. 
consisted of solo self-pleasuring. 
The recent crop of civil suits brought against Mr. Epstein confirm that the plaintiffs did 
not discuss any sexually-related activities with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's 
residence. This reinforces our contention that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, 
enticement or coercion of a minor, or of any other individual, occun'ed. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey 
Merman, the former law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the 
attorney fyq most of the civil complainants (as described in derail below), was quoted in the Palm
Beach Pe). as saying that "k doesn't matter" that his clients lied about their ages and told Mr. 
1
Epstein the''{{ they were 18 or 19. 
Not only is a federal prosecution or this matter unwarranted, but the irregularity of 
conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the deferred prosecution agreement. arc 
beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a.prosecutor's responsibilities. The list of 
improprieties includes, but.is not limited to, the following facts: 
EFTA00225685

06/02/08 MON 15:01 FAX 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
05/28/2008 00:09 FAX 
202 
1 39 
DOVODAC 
in.na. NOS 1312A VAN : 213 680 A500 
KIRKLANDWILIS 1.11' 
10 008 
ei 009/013 
CO 005 
Honorable Mark Fi I ip 
May 19, 2003 
l'age 4 
These statutes are intended to tuna crimes of a truly national and international scope. 
Specifically, § 1591 was enacted to combat human trafficking, § 2422 is aimed at sexual 
predation of minors through the Internet. and § 2473 deals with sex tourism. The nature of these 
crimes results in multi-jurisdictional problems that state and local authorities cannot effectively 
confront on their own. However, Mr. Epstein's conduct was purely local in nature and, thus. 
does not implicate federal involvement. After researching every reported ease brought under I3 
U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b), and 2423(b), we found that not a single cast involves facts or a 
scenario similar to the situation at hand. Our review of each precedent reflects that there have 
been no reported prosecutions un r § 1591 of a 'john' whose conduct with u minor lacked 
force. coercion_ or fraud and who 
as not profiling from commercial sexual trafficking. There 
have likewise been no eases undo 
• 2422(b)—a crime of communication—where th c was no 
sus inducing 
use: of the Internet. and where the content of phone communications did not contain 
ri 
or enticing of a minor to have illegal sexual activity as expressly required by the language of the 
statute. l'urtherniore, the Government's contention that "routine and habit" can fill the factual 
and legal void created by the lack of evidence that such a communication ever occurred sets this 
case apart from every reported case brought under § 2422(6). Lastly, there arc no reported eases 
of violations of § 2423(b) of a person whose dominant purpose in traveling was merely to go to 
his own home.3 
Although these matters were within the scope of the CEOS review, rather than 
cunsideting whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOS only determined that U.S. 
Attorney Acosta "would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize. federal 
prosecution" iu this case. The "abuse of discretion" standard constitutes an extremely low bar of 
evaluation and while it may be appropriate when the consideration of issues are exclusively 
factual in nature, this standard fails to address concerns particular to this situation, namely the 
-novel application" of federal statutes. The "abuse of discretion" standard in such pure legal 
matters of statutory application risks causing a lack of uniformity. The same federal statutes that 
would be stretched beyond their bounds in Miami have been limited to their heartland in each of 
the other federal districts. Also, because this case implicates broader issues of the administration 
of equal justice, federal prosecution in this matter risks the appearance of selectivity in its 
stretching of federal law to fit these facts. 
federal prosecution of a man who engaged in consensual conduct in. his borne that amounted (0, at most, the 
*elicitation of prostitution. is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a suite concern. (sek United 
Slights it Evan;  476 F.3d I 176, r..l (nth Cir. 2001) (federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a 
vice traditionally governed by state regulations)). and thoro is no evidence that Palm Beach County authorities 
and Florida prOSocutors cannot cifectively prosecute and punish the conduct, there is no reason why this matter 
should be extracted from the hands ornate prosecutors in Florida. 
EFTA00225686

EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
00J/OD5C 
lalthEAND&ELL.15 
1.1.P 
ID 007 
fsbo08/0.1.3 
0114 
06/02/08 
VON 15:00 FAX 
05/28/2008 09:05 PAX 202 
,'05 JO;08 80‘ 13:23 FAN I 213 080 8500 
. 
, 
Honorable Mark lip 
May 19, 2008 
Page 3 
private practice in South Florida wit 
sonal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved. 
Federal prosecutors then leaked hi 
sensitive information about the case to a New York 
Times reporter.' The immediate re 
f this confluence of extraordinary circumstances is an 
onslaught of civil lawsuits, all save one brought by the First Assistant's former boutique law Jim 
in Miami. 
The facts in this case all revolve around the classic state crime of solicitation of 
prostitution? The State Attorney's Office in Palm Beach County had conducted a diligent 
investigation, convened a Grand Jury that returned an indictment, and made a final determination 
about how to proceed. 
That is where, in our federal republic, this matter should rest. 
Mr. Epstein faces a felony conviction in state court by virtue of his conduct, and the only reason 
the Suite has not resolved this matter is that the federal prosecutors in Miami have continued to 
insist that wt, Mr. Epstein's counsel, approach and demand from the State Attorney's Office a 
harsher charge and a more severe punishment than that Office believes are appropriate under the 
circumstances. Yet despite the USAO's refusal to allow the State to resolve this matter on the 
terms the State has determined are appropriate, the USAO has not made any attempt to 
coordinate its efforts with the State. In fact, the USAO mandated that any federal agreement 
would he conditioned on Mr. Epstein persuading the State to seek a criminal punishment unlike 
that imposed on other defendants within rho jurisdiction of the State Attorney for similar 
conduct. 
From the inception of the USAO's involvement in this case, which at the end of the day 
is a case about solicitation of prostitution within the confines of paten Beech County, Florida, we 
have asked ourselves why the Department of Justice is involved. Regrettably, we are unable to 
suggest' any appropriate basis for the Department's involvement. Mr. Epstein has no criminal 
histo 
whatsoever. Also, Mr. Epstein has never been the subject of general media interest until 
a few  ears ago. after it was widely perceived by the public that he was a close friend of former 
President Bill Clinton. 
The conduct at issue is simply not within the purview of federal jurisdiction and lies 
outside the heartland of the three federal statutes that have been identified by prosecutors-1S 
U.S.C. 
1591.2422(b), and 2423(b). 
(Inv of the other members of Mr. Epstein's defense team, Jay Letkowitz, has personally reviewed tho reporter's 
contemporaneous news. 
Although some of the women alleged to he involved were 16 arid 17 years of age, several of these women 
openly admitted to lying to Mr. Epstein about their age in their recent sworn statement:. 
EFTA00225687

VV/ 4/VO 
nun tO;VV 'MA ova coy 
••• 
1/40,0•0 
. ,et • •40 4 ran 
auceinAcJv 
, b3. 19•SIN 
NOS t3:22 PAX 
I 
I.113 can 4500 
AADVLIAATZ UltrAtoG 
IMJ, UVAG 
HXLANII&EIJ.IS 
1.1? 
WA LW 
In007/013 
4L1"3
Honorable Murk Pilip 
May 19. ZOOS 
Page 2 
By way of background. we were informed by Mr. Acosta that, at his request, CEOS 
would be conducting a review to determine whether federal prosecution was both appropriate 
and, in his words. --fair." That is not what occurred. instead, CEOS has now acknowledged that 
we had raised "many compelling arguments" against the USAO's suggested "novel application" 
of federal law in this matter. Even so. CEOS concluded. in minimalist fashion. that "we do not 
see anything that says to us categorically that a federal case should not be brought" and that the 
C.S. Anoint) "would no he abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal 
prosecution of Mr. Epstein!' thus delegating back to Mr. Acosta the decision of whether federal 
prosecution was warranted (emphasis added). Rather than assessing whether prosecution would 
he appropriate, CEOS. using a lowbaseline for its evaluation, determined only that "it would not 
be impossible to prove . . ." certain allegations made against Mr. Epstein. The CEOS review 
failed to address the significant problems involving the appearance of impermissible selectivity 
that would necessarily result from a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. 
We respect CEOS's conclusion that its authority to review "misconduct" issues wes 
precluded by Criminal Division practice. We further respect CEOS's view that it understood its 
mission as significantly limited. Specifically, the contemplated objective was to determine 
I
tether the I.:SAO would he.abusing its discretion by bringing a federal prosecution rather than 
eking its own de novo recommendations on the appropriate reach of federal law. However. we 
respectfully submit that a full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the 
Justice Department. in an effort to inform you of the nature of the fcder investigation against 
Mr. Epstein, we summarize the facts and circumstances of this matter bolo 
The two base-level concerns we hold are Ihat (1) federal prosecution of this matter is not 
warranted based on the purely-local conduct and the unprecedented application of federal 
statutes to facts such as these and (2) the actions of federal authorities are both highly 
questionable and give rise to an appearance of substantial impropriety. The issues that we have 
raised, but which have not yet been addressed or resolved by the Department, are more than 
isolated allegations of professional mistakes or misconduct. These issues, instead, affect the 
appearance and administration of criminal justice with profound consequences beyond the 
resolution in the matter at hand. 
1
In a. precedenr-shattering investigation of Jeffry Epstein that raises important policy 
questions—and serious issues as to the fair and honor le enforcement of federal law—the 
USAO in Miami is considering extending federal law beyond the bounds of precedent and 
reason. 
Federal prosecutors stretched the underlying facts in ways that raise fundamental 
questions of basic professionalism. Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition 
of deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a 
proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in 
EFTA00225688

na,4 
Piz 
VUo 
Ile, I *ON 
• 
• 
win 14:0V rAA 000 04U 044U 
VW: u / resa 
ZUZ0 
1 U I Za 
NON 1:1:22 PAS I 218 tc$o 85o0 
tsr.'AuS1rc urr
.
 sun 
DOJ/ODAu 
xl iaii.ANDV.I.I.1 5 In' 
III IMO 
klionarn13 
4000 
Kenneth W. Starr 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
777 South Fisncrou Street 
LOR A11,50liat LA _90017..5800 
Phone: 21.3-ette 8440 
Fax: :au- 680-8500 
kstarrekirkiand.com 
VIA FACST/tell...? (2021 51441467 
I lonorable Mark Filip 
Office of the Deputy Attorney General 
United States Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N,W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
May 19. 2008 
Joe D. Whitley 
Alston & Bird LIP 
The Atlantic Building 
95o 17 Street, NW 
Washington, DC aotiottacit 
Ph: 202.756-3189 
Fax: 2W-654.48149 
joc.whillty@aiXtmeum 
CONFIDENTML 
DearJudgeFiliee 
In his confirmation hearings Jest dill, Judge Mukascy admirably lifted up rim finest 
traditions of the Department of Justice in assuring the United States Senate, and the American 
people, of his solemn intent to ensure fairness and integrity in the administration of justice. Your 
own confirmation hearings echoed that bedrock determination to assure that the Department 
conduct itself with honor and integrity, especially in the enforcement of federal criminal law. 
We come to you in that spirit and respectfully ask for a review of the federal involvement 
in a quintessentially stale matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we arc well aware 
of the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we arc confident that the 
circumstances at issue 
such au examination. Based on our collective experiences, as 
well as those of other former senior Justice Department officials whose advice we have sought, 
we have never before seen a case more appropriate for oversight and review. Thus, while neither 
of us has previously made such a request. we do so now in the recognition that both the 
Department's reputation, as well as the due process rights of our client, are at issue. 
Recently, the Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter tit the 
request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review deliberately excluded 
many important aspects of this ease. Just this past Friday, on May 16, 2008, we received a tenet-
from the head of CEOS informing us that CF-OS had conducted a review of this case. By its own 
admission, the CEOS review was "limited, both factually and legally." Part of the self-imposed 
limitation was CEOS's abstention from addressing our "allegations of professional misconduct 
by federal prosecutors".—even though such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably 
intertwined with the credibility of the accusatio 
being made against Mr. Epstein by the United 
State:: Attorney's Office in Miami ("USAO"). 
oreover, CEOS did not assess the terms of the 
Deferred Prosecution Agreement now in effect 
or did CEOS review the federal prosecutors' 
inappropriate efforts to implement those tenns. We detail this point below. 
EFTA00225689

06/02/08 
MON 1459 FAX 
nafieti/zutnr ou:os FAX 
20 
05 19 OR 
MON 13:21 FAX 1 '113 88e 8508 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
DU/08AG 
KIRKLANORALLIS 
LLF 
td)004 
46ouS/013 
KIRKLAND & FILLS LLA 
Fax Transmittal 
777 South Figueroa Street 
Los Angeles, California 00017 
Phone, (213) 680-8400 
Fax: (213) 680-8500 
Please notify us Immediately If any pages aro not r000lved. 
511? gw310 es. 
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL. MAY 
13E ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. MAY CONSTITUTE 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: 
(213) 680-8400. 
To: 
Honorable Mark Filip 
From: 
Kenneth W. Stun-
Company: 
Office of the Deputy Attorney General 
United States Department oflusticc 
Date: 
May 19, 2008 
Pages vetoven 
Fax II: 
Direct It: 
(202) 514-(1467 
(202) 514-2101 
Fax g: 
Direct #: 
9 
(313)680.8500 
(213) 680-8440 
Message. 
EFTA00225690

• 
ona 
wh;27,200R 1? II! 
AX 
. 
UVJ I VOM: 
0004/013 
is vin/ uvs 
I fortnrahle Mark 
»bly 27. 200.1i 
Page 2 
tu a charge thai the State .• nonie)• hus not. despiic a lera yxar 
vesiigalion. tijiemitut;41 ett eec 
approprime. Mr. I ipStein's enunrcl must also strecessfully espediteg pka of 
y lo this charuc 
• on :e date prior in dirly S. 20024. which ie lite date pre enly set hy tbc siste enurt Judge. 
i:tirther, the unnecessary deadline is ewn more Fobi:made because Mr, itgejn"s cffnn 
tu real:lede the state charge mul seneene with the terms of Mc A:tm:entent requitea an tmustral 
und unprecedented threatened application of federal IZW:. 
Thi;. it place,. Mr Pitstein in the 
I eilddy ueittate:ol position of havinp to thanand thai the State :amok:see to a mon; set etc 
punishmeni ;han •Itad alrendy delermined was approprime. 
We hatt attempted to resolve Mest: tu id ca I eur i>sues thrkettgl i die USA0 avd (EON, 
ruising our eorreernx ahnut the LISAC's inappropritue eunduel will: respeet lo (hi) 
maltet. not Omse avenue; have now been shut dumt. Mr. Slontan'n letter purpnns to prohihit 
ann lurdur contael hetween Mr. Papskin' S defense team mul :.S. Anomi:y Aerma. and insieart 
repures us ta eommunicate with the USA° only thouph Mr. ..Chennta s stihrirdinmen. 
11 'hi  it pain:: tis In :my this, this mis)tuided proseention fi om Ilie omse: gives the 
alme:trance thai it may havt  helst poliiiesilly intiriwired Mr. Rpercin is :e highiy surxeS:dni. Sel r,
made businessman and philanihropist who entered the public- ansrui oniy 
inne of hk ck..? 
personal as:mej:diam with former President Bill Clinton. nerv is litile dt. tt! Il; uur minds thai 
the IN-N() nevet would hatt conrempiated a proNecution in this case if Mr. Epstein teer:: just 
anm her lolla.-
t 
AltnnieY Aeosin previnusly has slated thai hr is "sympatin:lie- lo om Federalism• 
related eoneents. but he has token the position that his audtority is lintiicd bt enfon:ement 
policirx set inritt in Washington. D.C. As expresse4 in our prior conumenicatinn 
oml. tve 
helieve i hat a crunrilele and independent apprnisul and n:solution of this case most appropriateb 
would be undertaken by your Office heginniny with the reseission of the arhirrury. unfair. and 
improeedenred deadline that Mr, ~Inman demands to have iinpn.sed in this 
At die verv 
leas(. etc would apprcciate a killing of the arbitnm, timeline impost:d till our ciiew hy the I :SA() 
in order to allow tisne: for your office to soplider eau: Amnesi Ittel klit: Ill itteriake te ryt len of th is 
cam;. 
Titank you for your time and attention. 
gaspeelfully sulunicted. 
Kenneth W. Starr 
K iddand 
I .LP 
Cr V
-1\-7
, 
.106 I) WhitiCy 
Alslup 
Bird IL 
EFTA00225691