EFTA00229646

Memorandum 
Subject 
Self Reporting - 
Corrected Version of the previously subnimed 
April 21, 2008 Letter to OPR 
April 23, 2008 
To 
Office of Professional Responsibility 
From 
, First Assistant 
United States Attorney SDFL 
On April 21. 2008, I sent OPR a letter referenced "Self Reporting - 
FAUSA 
S.D.F.L." Upon further review. I noticed some minor typographical errors. Attached is the corrected 
version along with the referenced documents. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013227 
EFTA00229646

• 
U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
Firm Asstsions 
S Ano'ne 
Office of Professional Responsibility 
U.S. Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 3266 
Washington. DC 20530-0001 
VIA Federal Express 
99N E 
Mum. FL 33131 
O031961.9100 
April 21, 2008 
Re: 
Self Reporting - 
FAUSA S.D.F.L. 
Dear Sir or Madam. 
I am taking this opportunity to advise you that I have learned that lawyers for an individual 
named Jeffrey Epstein have raised ethical concerns regarding my involvement in his potential 
prosecution in the Southern District of Florida. Upon information and belief, Epstein has notified 
Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher and/or her staff that I have an actual and/or perceived 
conflict of interest because two of Epstcin's alleged victims hired my former law firm to represent 
them in civil proceedings against Epstein. Although I am not privy to the actual allegations, I 
understand that Epstein's counsel claims that I should be removed from supervising the current 
investigation and/or disciplined. Mr. Epstein is represented by Jay Lelkowitz, Esq. and Dean 
Kenneth Starr of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, 
Esq., Martin Weinberg, Esq., Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq., Guy Lewis, Esq. and Michael Tein, Esq. to 
name a few. 
Background.
On September 24, 2007, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of 
Florida ("SDFL") entered into a Non-Prosecut ion Agreement ("the Agreement") with Jeffrey Epstein 
regarding his sexual conduct involving minor victims. Since then, members of Epstein's defense 
team have claimed that the Agreement was the product of adhesion. 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 his objections. 
The Agreement was the product of months of negotiations. Specifically, counsel for Epstein 
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 the allegations; 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 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013228 
EFTA00229647

• 
• 
• 
decision, but before proceeding any further, the SDFL provided Epstein with 30 days to appeal the 
decision to the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Alice Fisher. Epstein and his lawyers 
decided to forego this opportunity. 
The crux of the Agreement deferred 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 IX, United States 
Code, Section 2255. Specifically, the Agreement mandated, 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! 8 months' incarceration in county jail; (3) a 
methodology to compensate the victims identified by the United States; (4) entry 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 lie had the burden o f ensuring compliance 
of the Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office and the Judge of the 15" 
Judicial Circuit and "that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement" (emphasis added). 
Within weeks of the execution of the Agreement, Epstein sought to delay the entry of his guilty plea 
and sentence. After the SDFL agreed to accommodate his 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. 
At a 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(b), 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. 
Counsel 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. Ultimately, by the beginning of January 2008, Epstein's 
lawyers requested an independent review, which was granted. As of April 21, 2008, members of 
AAG Alice Fisher's staff are still conducting that review. 
Upon information and belief, lawyers for Epstein have alleged that I have a conflict of 
interest and, presumably. should be disciplined and/or removed from all involvement in this matter. 
The basis for this allegation is the fact that one or more of Epstein's alleged victims is/are being 
represented by a law firm that I was associated with between May 2001 and October 2001.1 presume 
that Epstein's lawyers have alleged that I referred these victims to this law firm. 
2 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013229 
EFTA00229648

• 
• 
• 
Response.
On May 8. 2001, articles of amendment were filed with the Florida Division of Corporations 
to reflect that the firm name of "Herman & Mermelstein" was changed to "Herman Sloman & 
Mermelstein" on May 7, 2001. A copy of the filing is attached. I joined the firm at that time and 
remained a non equity partner until on or about October I, 2001. At that time, I resigned and 
returned to the SDFL. 
On July 2, 2002. articles ofamendment were filed with the Florida Division of Corporations 
to reflect that the firm name of "Herman Sloman & Mermelstein" was changed back to "1Ierman & 
Mennelstein." The article of amendment indicates the amended was adopted on July 1, 2002, 
without shareholder action. Although the filing was not immediate, it pre-dated for years any 
dealings with the subject case now under consideration by the SDFL. Recently, I learned that there 
is a reference to the law firm of"Herman Shaman & Mermelstein" on the Florida Bar website, under 
a section called "Find A Lawyer." This reference appears when Stuart Mermelstein's name and 
information is accessed. A copy of that document is also attached. Since October 2001,1 have had 
no relationship with that law firm, financial or otherwise, and no input or control over the firm's 
filings with the Florida Division of Corporations and/or the Florida Bar. 
On Friday. January 18, 2008, at approximately 1:15 pm, I received a call from lawyer Jeff 
Herman. Herman told me that he was planning to file a civil lawsuit the next week against Jeffrey 
Epstein. lie said that his clients are frustrated with the lack of progress of the state's investigation 
and wanted to know whether the USAO could file criminal charges even though the state was 
looking into the matter. I told Herman that I would not answer any questions related to Epstein —
hypothetical or otherwise. I asked him how the family retained him and he said that it was through 
another lawyer. I then specifically asked him whether the referral was the result of anyone in law 
enforcement contacting him and/or the other lawyer. He said no. At the conclusion of the 
conversation, I reiterated and confirmed with him that I refused to answer any questions he asked 
of me. I immediately documented this conversation and informed the United States Attorney who 
informed Senior Litigation Counsel and Ethics Advisor =. 
AUSA ■ 
opined that he did 
not see a conflict. Should you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me. 
By: 
cc: 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States At me
•-1/4----
First Assistant United States Attorney 
3 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013230 
EFTA00229649

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Ave.. Suite 400 
West Palm Beach. FL 3340! 
(561)820-8711 
Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 
April 22, 2008 
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 
H. Marshall Jarrett, Counsel 
Office of Professional Responsibility 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Room 4304 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 
Washington, DC 20530-0001 
Re: 
Self-Report of Allegation of Conflict of Interest 
Dear Mr. Jarrett: 
I write to advise you that I have learned that lawyers for a target of one of my 
investigations, Jeffrey Epstein, have raised ethical concerns regarding my involvement in his 
potential prosecution in the Southern District of Florida. Specifically, 1 understand that 
Epstein's attorneys have notified Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher and/or her staff that 
I have an actual conflict of interest. As part of pre-indictment plea negotiations, the parties 
agreed that Epstein's victims would be allowed to collect civil damages from Epstein and that 
Epstein would provide counsel for the victims. I provided Epstein's counsel with a series of 
possible attorss, including Humberto Ocariz ("Ocariz"), who is a friend of my boyfriend, 
E.J. 
(M"). At the time, I identified Ocariz as a friend of a "good friend." Epstein's 
attorneys rejected the other suggestions and selected Ocariz. After conferring with the First 
Assistant and the U.S. Attorney, we decided that, despite the terms of the non-prosecution 
agreement, the Office should not be responsible for selecting the attorney to represent the 
victims, and that a Special Master, working pro bono, should make the selection. Accordingly, 
the matter was submitted to a Special Master, and Ocariz was not selected as the attorney for 
the victims. Despite this resolution, Epstein's counsel continue to allege that my suggestion 
of Ocariz to serve as counsel for the victims represents a conflict of interest and that I should 
be removed from prosecuting the case and/or disciplined. Therefore, I am self-reporting this 
allegation for review by the Office of Professional Responsibility. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013231 
EFTA00229650

• 
• 
H. M 
SHALL humnr. COUNSEL 
AIIU1 22.2008 
PAGE 2 
Background of Investigation 
Operation Leap Year is a child exploitation investigation when; the main target, Jeffrey 
Epstein, used his personal assistants and others as "recruiters" who would find high school 
girls, most of whom were minors, to travel to his home in Palm Beach, where they would 
perform "sexual massages." The sexual behavior ranged from fondling the girls, placing 
vibrators on their vaginas, digitally penetrating them, performing oral sex on them, asking them 
to engage in sexual activity with Epstein's girlfriend, and engaging in vaginal intercourse with 
them. In all cases, Epstein masturbated in the presence of the minor females. More than 
twenty-five minor victims have been identified. 
The case was originally investigated by the City of Palm Beach Police Department and 
was presented to the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office. Epstein immediately hired 
"high-powered" attorneys' with connections to the State Attorney and pressured the State 
Attorney's Office to forego filing charges. As part of their presentation to the State Attorney's 
Office, Epstein's attorneys raised allegations of misconduct on the part of the lead investigator 
from the Palm Beach Police Department. 
They also presented information from the 
"MySpace" pages of several victims that portrayed them as drug and/or alcohol abusers and 
I i ars. 
The Palm Beach Police Department, seeing that the State Attorney's Office was likely 
to do nothing about E stein a 
coached the FBI, who, in turn, approached me. We met with 
the police detective, 
, and discussed the investigation. When the State Attorney's 
Office presented the case to a grand jury (an extremely unusual step for a non-murder case) and 
obtained an indictment charging only three counts of solicitation of adults to engage in 
prostitution, we decided to open an investigation. 
The investigation was lengthy and extensive. Because I was aware of the allegations 
of wrongdoing by the police department, the FBI and I consciously decided to undertake an 
independent investigation, which involved an independent review of the audio and videotaped 
interviews of the victims, subsequent interviews by FBI agents, and obtaining and reviewing 
extensive documentary evidence. 
'In connection with the state litigation, Epstein hired Guy Fronstin and Jack Goldberger 
from West Palm Beach, television legal commentators Roy Black and Gerald Lefcourt, and 
author and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz_ In connection with the federal 
investigation, Epstein added Rimier Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and Jay Lcfkowitz from 
•
Kirkland and Ellis, former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis, former Assistant U.S. Attorneys Lilly Ann 
Sanchez and Michael Tien, and Massachusetts defense attomcy Martin Weinberg. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013232 
EFTA00229651

• 
• 
H. MARSHALL JARRETT, COUNSEL 
Ma 22.2008 
PAGE 3 
From the start, Epstein's attorneys tried to convince me to stop the investigation and 
defer to the state prosecution. As part of this, they presented the same allegations of 
wrongdoing by the police detective and by the victims that they had presented to the State 
Attorney's Office. I assured them that we would do an independent review of the evidence 
before making a decision. As part of the investigation, I asked the FBI to follow up on the 
allegations of wrongdoing by the police detective. They did so, and determined that, with the 
exception of one error in a police report, the allegations were false. We also reviewed the 
"MySpace" pages and considered how they would affect the prosecution of the case. 
When it became evident that I would not stop the investigation, Epstein's attorneys 
complained to others in my chain of command that I was harassing Epstein, violating various 
rules, and was simply trying to advance my career. In the press, his counsel even suggested 
that he was being persecuted based upon his religion or because he was wealthy. Epstein also 
began to hire additional attorneys with connections to our Office (a series of former Assistant 
U.S. Attorneys and a former U.S. Attorney) to try to influence the Office's decision. 
The Pm-Indictment Plea Negotiations 
I prepared an indictment package for review by the Office. B this time, E stein's 
counsel had already met with the head of the West Palm Beach office 
and I 
and was demanding the opportunit to meet with the Chief of the Criminal Division 
M
) and the First Assistant 
. The four of us met with counsel for Epstein 
and rejected their proposed resolution of the case, which involved no jail time. 
A 
counter-proposal was made by the Chief of the Criminal Division, which included a plea to a 
state charge that carried a sex offender registration requirement, a jail term, and the payment 
of damages to the victims pursuant to a federal law that would have been implicated if we had 
proceeded on the federal charges, 18 U.S.C. § 2255. 
Epstein's counsel asked to meet with the U.S. Attorney (Alexander Acosta) and the 
Chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section at the Department of Justice. After that 
meeting, Epstein's counsel was again informed that we intended to proceed. At that point, 
Epstein's counsel asked for the opportunity to "appeal" the decision to Washington, D.C. The 
U.S. Attorney agreed to give them two weeks for that appeal. At the same time, Epstein's 
counsel asked to begin negotiations to resolve the dispute in accordance with the terms set 
forth by the Chief of the Criminal Division. 
At the Office's request, I began crafting an agreement containing those terms. Epstein's 
counsel expressed concerns about Epstein's safety while incarcerated, and asked if there was 
a way to plead to a federal charge that would bring about the desired outcome. I, therefore, 
•
undertook drafting two separate sets of documents: ( ) a Non-Prosecution Agreement setting 
forth a plea to state offenses; and (2) a federal Plea Agreement with a federal Information to 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013233 
EFTA00229652

• 
• 
• 
II. MARSHALL huuttn.Covresta 
Amu/ 22.2008 
PAGE 
be filed with the Court. The negotiations were difficult and tedious. Whenever Epstein's 
attorneys and I reached an impasse, they would "appeal" to the powers above me, starting with 
the head of the West Palm Beach office, then to the Chief of the Criminal Division, then to the 
First Assistant and the U.S. Attorney. Although the U.S. Attorney continued to defer to Mr. 
Lourie and me, Epstein's counsel would constantly ask the U.S. Attorney to intervene. 
As mentioned above, with respect to the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement,' 
from the Office's perspective, there were three necessary terms: (I) a sentence of eighteen 
months' imprisonment [reduced from twenty-four months after negotiations with the defense]; 
(2) a plea to one state offense that required sex offender registration [reduced from pleading 
to three separate state offenses that each required sex offender registration); and (3) an 
agreement to pay damages to the victims in accordance with federal law. Because of the state 
component of the agreement, 
(also from our Office), and I met 
with the State Attorney for Palm Beach County and an Assistant State Attorney, and three of 
Epstein's lawyers, Jack Goldberger, Gerald Lefcourt, and Jay I.elkowitz.' At that meeting, we 
discussed the issue of sex offender registration, and Jack Goldberger said that Epstein was 
willing to plead guilty to procuring minors to engage in prostitution, one of the three charges 
for which sex offender registration was required. Goldberger specifically noted that this charge 
required registration but was still acceptable to the defense. 
After several weeks of 
negotiations, Epstein's attorneys began to complain about the sex offender registration 
requirement and, in some drafts, tried to "slip in" a citation to a different state offense that did 
not require registration. When I inquired why there was a sudden objection to a term that had 
been agreed upon several weeks before, I learned that, when Goldberger made that 
representation and throughout the first few weeks of negotiations, the defense believed that 
procuring minors to engage in prostitution did not require sex offender registration. When they 
learned that my research was correct, and that the charge did require registration, they then 
tried to avoid that term, first b t n to "sli in" the char e to the agreement, and then by re-
arguing the point with me,
 , and the U.S. Attorney. Their 
arguments were rejected, and the term remained in the Agreement. 
I note that for at least the first two weeks of the negotiations, Epstein's counsel shifted 
back and forth between a plea to state charges and a plea to federal charges, so I was drafting 
both a Non-Prosecution Agreement and a plea agreement. The federal plea agreement did not go 
through because Epstein's counsel were concerned that Epstein would not be eligible to serve his 
term in a "prison camp" and because the Office was concerned about finding appropriate federal 
charges that would "cap" Epstein's sentence at the agreed eighteen months. 
'Jay Lefkowitz handled the majority of the negotiations with me. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013234 
EFTA00229653

H. MARSHALL JARRETT, COUNSEL 
APRIL 22.2008 
PAGE $ 
With respect to the second term, regarding a jail sentence, we later learned that 
Epstein's attorneys had been trying to arrange with the State Attorney and the Palm Beach 
Sheriff's Office to allow Epstein to serve his term on "work release," which would allow him 
to be out of custody all day, just returning to a "halfway house" to sleep at night. 
With respect to the third term, there were also intense negotiations. Epstein's attorneys 
wanted us to bind the victims to a set settlement amount or pool of funds, bar them from 
litigating any issues, and require them to waive their federal claims in lieu of a state restitution 
fund. All of these requests were refused for several reasons, including, first, that the Office 
did not have the power to bind the victims to any contractual terms; and second, that the federal 
statute presumed damages in an amount not less than $150,000, so binding them to a state 
restitution fund would greatly decrease their opportunity to recover. Under the federal 
damages statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a victim's attorney was entitled to recover attorney's fees 
from the defendant. This, however, would require the victims to find their own attorneys. The 
defense wanted to avoid this to keep from having to litigate against several different attorneys 
at the same time, and as a way to keep the terms of the agreement from widespread disclosure. 
I considered it in the victims' best interests to provide a way for them to have an attorney who 
was competent to represent them and to negotiate on their behalf without each victim having 
to run the gauntlet of finding a plaintiffs' attorney.' I therefore developed a list of criteria for 
the attorney who should be appointed to represent the victims. I also began thinking about 
possible attorneys to serve in that position. 
Virtually all of the drafts of the Non-Prosecution Agreement contained an agreement 
that the United States would move for the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem to represent the 
victims in the U.S. District Court, using the following language: 
Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States will file a motion with 
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for the 
appointment of a guardian ad litcm for these persons [referring to the victims). 
On September 24, 2007, for the first time, Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz, revised the 
paragraph regarding the Guardian ad Litem to the following: 
Upon execution of this agreement, the United States will either file a motion 
under seal with the United States District Court for the Southern District of 
Florida for the appointment of a representative who is: (a) a lawyer; (b) 
• 
'The agreement provided that the girls would not be required to use the attorney, he or 
she would simply advise the victim of her rights and she could then decide to stay with that 
attorney or find another attorney on her own. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013235 
EFTA00229654

• 
11 MARSHALL JARRETT. COUNSEL 
APRIL 22.2005 
PAGE 6 
independent; (c) selected by a federal judge; and (d) paid for by the federal court 
or, in consultation with Epstein's counsel, the United States shall select a 
representative who shall be paid for by Epstein. 
September 24, 2007 was the final deadline that had been set for the signing of the Non-
Prosecution Agreement (it had been extended several times over several months at the request 
of Epstein's lawyers), so this significant change needed to be dealt with quickly. I explained 
to Lefkowitz that, unless a case was pending, there was no basis for the United States to file 
such a motion and there was no basis for the federal court to pay for the attorney, especially 
since the statute at issue called for the defendant to pay for attorneys' fees. Lefkowitz then 
suggested that we drop the first half of the sentence and just have the attorney selected by the 
United States in consultation with Epstein's attorneys. I agreed, and the final language was 
the following: 
Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with 
and subject to the good faith approval of Epstcin's counsel, shall select an 
attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. 
The agreement was completed and signed that day, September 24, 2007. 
The Selection of the Attorney Representative 
As mentioned above, I had given some thought to the attributes of the attorney 
appointed to represent the victims, which I had planned to include in the motion for 
appointment of a guardian ad litem. These attributes included experience representing 
plaintiffs and defendants, employment with a firm large enough to handle multiple lawsuits 
simultaneously, federal trial experience, tenacity, honesty, and a person at a place in his or her 
career where he or she could put the interests of the victims first and not be concerned about 
currying favor with Epstein's high-profile attorneys or the press. 
Although I had never met him, I was aware of Ben Ocariz, a friend of my boyfriend, 
5 Ocariz was a seasoned trial attorney who had represented both plaintiffs and 
defendants and who hadlated against other high profile attorneys under difficult 
circumstances. I knew that 
and another mutual friend of 
and Ocariz found him, 
trustworthy and I felt that he could be trusted to protect the victims' interests. I asked 
whether he thought Ocariz was suitable for and would be willing to accept the assignment and 
•
the Appellate Section. Contrary to allegations raised by Epstein's attorneys, 
business relationship with Ocariz; they have been friends since law school. 
Ile is assigned to 
has no 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013236 
EFTA00229655

• 
• 
H. MARSHALL JARRETT. COUNSEL 
Am. 22. 2008 
PAGE 7 
he said he thought so. 
recommended that I give Ocariz a call and provided me with his 
contact information. I then called Ocariz and told him a little bit about what I was looking for 
under the terms of the agreement. I told Ocariz that I had gotten his contact information from 
IS 
but I did not tell him about my relationship with E.J. To avoid any claim that I had 
disclosed grand jury information to him, I told Ocariz that if he wanted detailed information 
about the case, he could "Google" Epstein's name and find all the public sources of 
information about the case, Ocariz and I corresponded by c-mail and he ran a conflicts check 
to insure that he was able to accept the appointment, if it was made. 
After the agreement was signed, I mentioned Ocariz's name to Lefkowitz. I told him 
that he was mutual friends with two people whom I respected. I also told Leflcowitz that 
Ocariz worked at the Shook, Hardy, and Bacon finn, and that he had worked with Guy Lewis, 
another of Epstein's attorneys. Later, Leflcowitz called me and said that he had checked on 
Ocariz and he sounded like a good choice, but he asked to be provided with additional names 
from which to choose. On September 25, 2007 (the day after the agreement was signed), I sent 
Lefkowitz a list of four additional attorneys. In that c-mail, I wrote: "Just so you know, I have 
never met Ben [Ocariz), but a good friend in our appellate section' and one of the district 
judges in Miami are good friends with him and reconunended him." The following morning, 
I asked Lefkowitz to disregard two of the names, one of whom was partners with the husband 
of an Assistant U.S. Attorney in West Palm Beach because of the Department's conflict of 
issue rules. 
On September 26th, Leflcowitz provided me with two names to consider. I researched 
their backgrounds and determined that they were both retired state court judges who were of 
advanced age who were no longer practicing law full-time. I declined those names, writing: 
"Meaning no disrespect to these distinguished gentlemen, one of my criteria is that, if 
negotiations with you don't work out, they have the stamina to take you all to trial, so I politely 
decline your suggestion." Lefkowitz later told me that he had considered the other names and 
decided that Ocariz was the best choice. I then started to try to work out the details of the 
°A number of documents related to the state investigation were available at 
ThcSmokingGun.com and other websites. I know that, after he did this, Ocariz contacted 
to 
thank him for the referral and he mentioned that he had found out information about the case and 
that this was the type of case he would be willing to do pro bono. During that conversation, 
did not tell Ocariz about the personal relationship between us. 
'The "good friend in our appellate section" refers.... 
Reading this now, it is a 
•
bit unclear because the recommendation came only from 
not from their mutual friend, the 
district judge, who was never asked for and who never provided a reconuncndation. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013237 
EFTA00229656

• 
• 
H. MARSHALL JARRETT, COUNSEL 
AMR 22.2008 
PAGE 8 
representation so that the girls could be told about their attorney and they could start deciding 
how they wanted to proceed. 
On September 27th, I corresponded both with Lefkowitz and Ocariz about how the 
representation would be paid for, and with Lefkowitz about what information I could share 
with Ocariz. I tried to schedule a conference call to discuss the matter but Lefkowitz was 
unwilling to meet. Late that afternoon, I spoke with the First Assistant, 
who had 
been out of the office during the last week of negotiations. He expressed concern about our 
Office selecting any individual attorney and wanted to refer the matter to a Special Master to 
make the selection. I informed Ocariz about this new development and told him that I would 
get back to him when I knew the Office's final decision about how to proceed. 
I then began working with Lefkowitz to select a Special Master and to create procedures 
for how the Special Master would select the attorney and, once chosen, how the attorney would 
proceed with representing the victims. Immediately, Lefkowitz and other attorneys for Epstein 
began to seek delays and objected to things already contained in the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement — an attempt to re-open the plea negotiations that had been concluded. They also 
began to object to my attempts to abide by our legal obligations to inform victims about the 
outcome of investigations and prosecutions. In early October, I took an unpaid leave of 
absence to deal with a number of health issues. I attempted to resolve the Special Master issue 
before I left, but was unable to because of the defense objections. On October 5th, I again 
asked Lefkowitz to meet with me via telephone to finalize the decision regarding a Special 
Master. In that e-mail, I gave Lefkowitz the list of attorneys whom we intended to provide to 
the Special Master for his selection:8 "As far as the five attorney names that we will be 
providing, I propose Bert Ocariz, Katherine Ezell at Podhurst Orseck, Stuart Grossman, Ed 
Rogers, and Walter Cobath." 
While I was on leave, First Assistant 
negotiated an Addendum to the 
Non-Prosecution Agreement that called for a Special Master to select one or more attorneys 
to represent the victims. Those negotiations were almost as difficult as the ones leading to the 
Non-Prosecution Agreement, and the Addendum was not signed until October 29, 2007. In 
mid-October, after I learned of the Office's final decision, I informed Ocariz that the decision 
to use a Special Master had been made and told him the name of the Special Master. In 
addition, I stated: "I will leave it to you whether you or someone in your firm wants to contact 
Judge Davis. I apologize that this process has become so cumbersome. It has reminded me 
why government bureaucracy moves so slowly. Thank you for your willingness to step up and 
undertake this difficult project." I next had contact with Ocariz on October 29th, when Ocariz 
•
'Please note that, in the final version, no list of attorneys was provided to the Special 
Master. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013238 
EFTA00229657

• 
• 
H. MARSHALL JARREIT, COUNSEL 
APRIL 22, 2008 
PAGE 9 
sent me an e-mail asking whether Judge Davis had been selected as the Special Master. I 
responded that Judge Davis had been selected. Following that exchange, I have had no further 
contact with Ocariz and I still have never met him face-to-face. At some time after these 
events, E.J. 
told Ocariz about our relationship, but I do not know exactly when that 
occurred. 
I understand from Epstein's attorneys that Ocariz did contact Judge Davis about serving 
as the attorney for the victims. Judge Davis selected a different firm (ironically, one of the 
firms I had included in my October Sth list, which the defense rejected at the time). After 
pressure from Epstein's attorneys, the firm chosen by Judge Davis declined the appointment 
and no other firm has been appointed or selected. Several of the victims have since obtained 
private counsel. No one has selected Ocariz to be her attorney and when victims have asked 
me to recommend an attorney, I have simply declined, stating that I could not provide them 
with that advice. Despite the existence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Epstein's counsel 
and several private investigators have tried to contact the victims, greatly upsetting some 
victims. On the advice of other child exploitation prosecutors, I contacted a national crime 
victims' organization, which was able to appoint pro bono attorneys for those victims who 
wanted representation regarding the state and federal criminal cases. 
Conclusion 
At this time, none of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement have been followed 
or enforced. In light of Epstein's failure to abide by the term of the Agreement, the Office will 
consider prosecuting Epstein. I wanted to bring this allegation to the attention of the Office 
of Professional Responsibility, and to provide your Office with any other information that is 
needed. 
Please advise me if any further information or action is needed. Thank you for your 
assistance with this matter. 
By: 
• 
cc: R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013239 
EFTA00229658

• 
• 
• 
U.S. Department ofJustice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
I test Auutant U S Attorney 
Office of Professional Responsibility 
U.S. Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 3266 
Washington, DC 20530-0001 
VIA Federal Express 
99 N I. I Sorel 
Alnum II 33132 
O05)96191x 
April 21. 2008 
Re: 
Self Reportine - 
FAUSA S.D.F.L. 
Dear Sir or Madam, 
I am taking this opportunity to advise you that I have learned that lawyers for an individual 
named Jeffrey Epstein have raised ethical concerns regarding my involvement in his potential 
prosecution in the Southern District of Florida. Upon information and belief, Epstein has notified 
Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher and/or her staff that I have an actual and/or perceived 
conflict of interest because two of Epstein's alleged victims hired my former law firm to represent 
them in civil proceedings against Epstein. Although I am not privy to the actual allegations, I 
understand that Epstein's counsel claims that I should be removed from supervising the current 
investigation and/or disciplined. Mr. Epstein is represented by Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. and Dean 
Kenneth Starr of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, 
Esq., Martin Weinberg, Esq.. Lily Ann Sanchez, Esq., Guy Lewis, Esq. and Michael Tein, Esq. to 
name a few. 
Background.
On September 24, 2007, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of 
Florida ("SDFL') entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("the Agreement") with Jeffrey Epstein 
regarding his sexual conduct involving minor victims. Since then, members of Epstein's defense 
team have since claimed that the Agreement was the product of adhesion. 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 his objections. 
The Agreement was the product of months of negotiations. Specifically, counsel for Epstein 
requested and received numerous meetings at the highest levels of the SDFI. and Dal'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 
your client. misrepresented their ages: (b) the authorities investigating Epstein engaged in 
misconduct: (c) the contemplated federal statutes have no applicability to the allegations: and (d) the 
federal authorities disregarded the fundamental policy against federal intervention with state criminal 
proceedings. After careful review. the SDFI. ultimately rejected those claims. Subsequent to its 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013240 
EFTA00229659

• 
• 
• 
decision. however, but before proceeding any further, the SDFL provided Epstein with 30 days to 
appeal the decision to the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Alice Fisher. Epstein and 
his lawyers decided to forego this opportunity. 
The crux of the Agreement deferred 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 IX, United States 
Code. Section 2255. Specifically, the Agreement mandated, inter alit:, (1) a guilty plea in Palm 
Beach County Circuit Court to solicitation of prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.07) and solicitation 
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 - 18 months' incarceration in county jail; (3) a 
methodology to compensate the victims identified by the United States; (4) entry 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 of ensuring 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). 
Within weeks of the execution of the Agreement, Epstein sought to delay the entry of his guilty plea 
and sentence. After the SDFL agreed to accommodate his 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. 
At a December 14, 2007 meeting at the 11.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, counsel for Epstein 
announced, inter alio. that it was a -profound injustice" to require Epstein to register as a sex 
offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially I8 U.S.C. Section 2422(b), 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. 
Counsel 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. Ultimately, by the beginning of January 2008. Epstein's 
lawyers requested an independent review, which was granted. As of April 21, 2008, members of 
AAG Alice Fisher's staff are still conducting that review. 
Upon information and belief. lawyers for Epstein have alleged that I have a conflict of 
interest and, presumably. should be disciplined and/or removed from all involvement in this matter. 
The basis for this allegation is the fact that one or more of Epstein's alleged victims is/are being 
represented by a law firm that I was associated with between May 2001 and October 2001. I presume 
that Epstein's lawyers have alleged that I referred these victims to this law firm. 
2 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013241 
EFTA00229660

• 
• 
• 
Response.
On May 8, 2001. articles of amendment were filed with the Florida Division of Corporations 
to reflect that the firm name of "Herman & Mermelstein" was changed to "Herman Sloman & 
Mermelstein" on May 7, 2001. A copy of the filing is attached. I joined the firm at that time and 
remained a non-equity partner until on or about October I, 2001. At that time, I resigned and 
returned to the SDFL. 
On July 2, 2002. articles of amendment were filed with the Florida Division of Corporations 
to reflect that the firm name of "I lerman Sloman & Mermelstein" was changed back to "Herman & 
Mermelstein." The article of amendment indicates the amended was adopted on July I, 2002. 
without shareholder action. Although the filing was not immediate, it pre-dated for years any 
dealings with the subject case now under consideration by the SDFL. Recently, I learned that there 
is a reference to the law firm of "Herman Sluman & Mermelstein" on the Florida Bar website, under 
a section called "Find A Lawyer." This reference appears when Stuart Mermelstein's name and 
information is accessed. A copy of that document is also attached. Since October 2001, I have had 
no relationship with that law firm, financial or otherwise, and no input or control over the firm's 
filings with the Florida Division of Corporations and/or the Florida Bar. 
On Friday, January 18, 2008, at approximately 1:15 pm, I received a call from lawyer Jeff 
Herman. Henan told me that he was planning to file a civil lawsuit the next week against Jeffrey 
Epstein. He said that his clients are frustrated with the lack of progress of the state's investigation 
and wanted to know whether the USAO could file criminal charges even though the state was 
looking into the matter. I told Herman that I would not answer any questions related to Epstein -
hypothetical or otherwise. l asked him how the family retained him and he said that it was through 
another lawyer. I then specifically asked him whether the referral was the result of anyone in law 
enforcement contacting him and/or the other lawyer. He said no. At the conclusion of the 
conversation. I reiterated and confirmed with him that I refused to answer any questions he asked 
of me. I immediately documented this conversation and informed the United States Attorney who 
informed Senior Litigation Counsel and Ethics Advisor 
. AUSA El opined that he did 
not see a conflict. Should you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me. 
By: 
cc: 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
First Assistant United States Attorney 
3 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013242 
EFTA00229661

HERMAN SLOMAN bE MERMELSTEIN, P.A. 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
BANK Or AMERICA TOWER 
I00 
SOUTHEAST SECOND STREET 
SUITE 2Goo 
FLORIDA 331 3 I 
• 
TELEPHONE (3053 377-2200 
FACSIMILE 
1305) 377.251
1 
WWW.HERMANLAW.COM 
Via Federal Express 
Department of State 
Division of Corporations 
409 East Gaines Street 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 
613°Cliat3600i 
*****3.5,00 
Re: 
Filing of Articles of Amendment 
of Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. 
New Corporate Name: Herman Sloman & Mermelstein, P.A. 
Dear Sir/Madam: 
Enclosed herewith for filing please find the executed Articles of Amendment for Herman 
& Mermelstein, P-A. in duplicate. Also enclosed is our check payable to the Secretary of State 
in the amount of $35.00 for the Dept. fees. 
Please return the extra copy as filed to my attention. 
Should you require any further information in order to proceed, please contact the 
undersigned at (305) 377-2200, extension 7905. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 
Enclosure 
LitISULSVINSCOU'Acnciat. 
• 4) 
Very truly yours, 
Brigette Brew, CLA 
Certified Legal Assistant 
mot; 
r 
n 
r -C) 
2' 1"" 
tea 
rn 
PI 0 
- n 
r 
O 
- -c 
BROWN MAY 162001 
0 
3 
—c 
Ce? 
cn 
cn 
EFTA00229662

• 
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT 
0/ hAyPitt() 
13, 
OF 
eller lo r  
56 
84SSEel-Pille 
HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, PA. 
• F?OR/DA
Pursuant to Section 607.1006 of the Florida Business Corporation Act, the 
• 
• 
undersigned corporation adopts the following Amendment to its Articles of incorporation. 
1. 
The name of the corporation is Herman & Mennelstcin, P.A. 
2. 
The following amendment to the Articles of Incorporation was adopted by 
the corporation. 
3. 
ARTICLE I of the Articles of Incorporation of Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. 
is hereby amended as follows: 
The name of this Corporation shall be: 
BERMAN SLOMAN & MERMEISTEIN, P.A. 
4. 
The Amendment was adopted by the undersigned incorporator on May 7, 
2001, without shareholder action. 
5. 
Shareholder action for the adoption of this Amendment was not required 
Dated: Ofr
LIUSERALIPVCORPViss41104 
ITF:RMLAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. 
By 
Herman 
Director/Incorporator 
EFTA00229663

Pq 
• 
• 
• 
0 OOO, Iff2.
t
.
HERMAN St 
EAMELSTEIIFF
Via Federal Express 
Department of State 
Division of Corporations 
409 East Gaines Street 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 
Re: 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
3230 STIRLING ROAD 
SUITE ONE 
HOLLYWOOD. rLORIDA 33021 
TELEPHONE 1054) 962.2200 
rACSIMILE 
1054, 962 4202 
www.HERMANLAW COm 
July 2, 2002 
Filing of Articles of Amendment 
of Herman Sloman & Mermelstein, P.A. 
New Corporal Name: Herman & Meimelstein. P.A• 
Dear Sir/Madam: 
1 OOOO62O29° 
1 --El 
-07/03/02--01
--°01 
***35.00
43S. 00 
Enclosed herewith for filing please find the executed Articles of Amendment for Herman 
Sloman & Mermelstein, P.A. in duplicate. Also enclosed is our check payable to the Secretary of 
State in the amount of $35.00 for the Dept. fees. 
Please return the extra copy as filed to my attention. 
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 
Very 
SSM:ch 
Enclosures 
IUSIENSW2W0/11rAmels3 
Stuart S. 
ennelstein 
/le 
'
SHEPARD JUL 1 z 2002 
EFTA00229664

• 
• 
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT 
OF 
Saw(rl FILeti
iRy 0-, 
OT Cr:FL.-iTATE 
02 JUL -3 
115: 
Pif 3; 4
HERMAN SLOMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. 
Pursuant to Section 607.1006 of the Florida Business Corporation Act, the 
undersigned corporation adopts the following Amendment to its Ankles of Incorporation. 
The name of the corporation is Herman Sloman & Memtelstein, P.A. 
2. 
The following amendment to the Articles of Incorporation was adopted by 
the corporation. 
3. 
ARTICLE I of the Articles of Incorporation of Herman Sloman & 
Menttelstein, P.A. is hereby amended as follows: 
The name of this Corporation shall be: 
HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. 
4. 
The Amendment was adopted by the undersigned incorporator on July 1, 
2002, without shareholder action. 
5. 
Shareholder action for the adoption of this Amendment was not required. 
Dated: 
LvJSZIOSPOSCORPArva1311)4.wpd 
HERMAN SLOMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. 
By 
cy M. Herman 
DirectorfIncorporator 
9 
EFTA00229665