EFTA00230208

West side of an existing concrete seawall and the northerly extension thereof 
as shown on the Adair & Brady, Inc., drawing IS-I298, dated March 25, 1981, 
and bounded on the East by the shoreline as shown on the plat of El Bravo 
Park, and bounded on the North and South by the Westerly extensions of the 
North and South lines respectively of Lot 40, containing 0.07 acres, more or 
less. 
Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1594(b). 
A TRUE BILL. 
FOREPERSON 
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
A. 
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
54 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013503 
EFTA00230408

Case No. 08-80736-CV-141.11.5 
P-013504 
EFTA00230409

Mw Ken Starr Ak Acos-k 34 
Sfe, 
etper_r(nkhrt 
it/4'4164-
5-r-Aaa  are- ryorc Okla& Yht,frm fegticeN) 
hofvu-- 
V8 
pyrd)--LAA.Vgatkii Itacd 
ihmovt heA.0 
votwnir
io-cin,-
evaani 
_ 
winviinaicalC 
Asicoberi
tractaic Corszt. 
oao^
Lux_ tin A 1 curjco,_ _ 
EFTA00230410

P' 
T-i-imt 
_ Apaza-kit.a. 
i -toli
tiOn 
_72k 
Lai/1 
rlakti! (ANL' 
_ _ 
-14 -frit(A---
------C
,-
k 
_ArythnijaK61 
Cy- \ c\_an):16- 
__.
.).442A-v- Ce Ti. -4,-c 
c_C 
 .-, 
+hil-1242,), 
CL,,,Lii a
. 
_ 
____ 
________ 
0,4\ :_purAwkrof\A"t+ 
AL-4mila_i-udirydukti 
a-itory9A 
ia.4 ___acUii-u-1,1 
eiN 14,0-1)eo 
.fr• 
.„es_.#1,
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011506 
EFTA00230411

- 
I
6V1 
vnt, . 
tzWvi 
69-Arte cAtIAQ 
• ••illh"-AIGYI 
- 
C-Ar'0-Vok 
-Pv-ri 
2-k
- 
•-dttho,AA:et—
Ir-n0v i - -
. 
9 
c;v60.khik 
A-16\--1 ft) 'idiot.1/4.) 
4' Irk -5. _cc 
41j4A 4;LA"N;411/7(\""' 
• 
_ 
_AnagAJCI l,-aiv-e- IrtiRktd 
.gefr\t-0-\..024 
Int ore- ig:k Civil 
cA.4 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011507 
EFTA00230412

• 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-01508 
EFTA00230413

From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Subject: 
(USAFLS) 
(USAFLS) 
PRI 
November 28, 2007 4:35 PM 
(USAFLS) 
Fw: Epstein 
Can u send Jay the proposed letter and redact the names? Thx, Jeff 
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld 
Original Message 
From: Jay Lefkowitz 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) 
Sent: Wed Nov 28 16:29:09 2007 
Subject: Re: Epstein 
Dear Jeff: 
I received your email yesterday and was a little surprised at the tone of your 
letter, given the fact that we spoke last week and had what I thought was a productive 
meeting. I was especially surprised given that your letter arrived on only the second day 
back to work after the Thanksgiving Holiday, and yet your demands regarding timing suggest 
that I have been sitting on my hands for days. 
You should know that the first time I learned about Judge Davis's selection of 
Podhurst and Josephsberg, and indeed the first time I ever heard their names, was in our 
meeting with you on Wednesday of last week. Nevertheless, I have now been able to confer 
with my client, and we have determined that the selection of Podhurst and Josephsberg are 
acceptable to us, reserving, of course, our previously stated objections to the manner in 
which you have interpreted the section 2255 portions of the Agreement. 
We do, however, strongly and emphatically object to your sending a letter to the 
alleged victims. Without a fair opportunity to review and the ability to make objections to 
this letter, it is completely unacceptable that you would send it without our consideration. 
Additionally, given that the US Attorney's office has made clear it cannot vouch for the 
claims of the victims, it would be incendiary and inappropriate for your Office to send such 
a letter. Indeed, because it is a certainty that any such letter would immediately be leaked 
to the press, your actions will only have the effect of injuring Mr. Epstein and promoting 
spurious civil litigation directed at him. We believe it is entirely unprecedented, and in 
any event, inappropriate for the Government to be the instigator of such lawsuits. 
Finally, we disagree with your view that you are required to notify the alleged 
victims pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. First, 18 USC section 2255, the 
relevant statute under the Non-Prosecution Agreement for the settlement of civil remedies, 
does not have any connection to the Justice for All Act. Section 2255 was enacted as part of 
a different statute. Second, the Justice for All Act refers to restitution, and section 2255 
is not a restitution statute. It is a civil remedy. As you know, we had offered to provide 
a restitution fund for the alleged victims in this matter; however that option was rejected 
by your Office. Had that option been chosen, we would not object to your notifying the 
alleged victims at this point. At this juncture, however, we do not accept your contention 
Case No. 08-807i6-CV-MARRA 
P-013509 
EFTA00230414

that there is a requirement that the government notify the alleged victims of a potential 
civil remedy in this case. 
Accordingly, for all the reasons we have stated above, we respectfully -- and firmly 
-- object to your sending any letter whatsoever to the alleged victims in this matter. 
Furthermore, if a letter is to be sent to these individuals, we believe we should have a 
right to review and make objections to that submission prior to it being sent to any alleged 
victims. We also request that if your Office believes that it must send a letter to go to 
the alleged victims, who still have not been identified to us, it should happen only after 
Mr. Epstein has entered his plea. This letter should then come from the attorney 
representative, and not from the Government, to avoid any bias. 
As you know, Judge Starr has requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General 
Fisher to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the section 2255 component 
of the Agreement. We are hopeful that this meeting will take place as early as next week. 
Accordingly, we respectfully request that we postpone our discussion of sending a letter to 
the alleged victims until after that meeting. We strongly believe that rushing to send any 
letter out this week is not the wisest manner in which to proceed. Given that Mr. Epstein 
will not even enter his plea for another few weeks, time is clearly not of the essence 
regarding any notification to the identified individuals. 
Thanks very much, 
Jay 
"Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)" < 
11/27/2007 01:55 PM 
To 
"Jay Lefkowitz" 
"Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" 
Epstein 
Jay, 
CC 
Subject 
Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner but I was a little under the 
weather yesterday. I hope that you enjoyed your Thanksgiving. 
Regarding the issue of due diligence concerning Judge Davis' selection, I'd like to make a 
few observations. First, Guy Lewis has known for some time that Judge Davis was making 
reasonable efforts to secure Aaron Podhurst and Bob Josephsberg for this assignment. In fact, 
when I told you of Judge Davis's selection during our meeting last Wednesday, November 21st, 
you and Professor Dershowitz seemed very comfortable, and certainly not surprised, with the 
selection. Podhurst and Josephsberg are no strangers to nearly the entire Epstein defense 
team including Guy Lewis, Lili Ann Sanchez, Roy Black, and, apparently, Professor Dershowitz 
who said he knew Mr. Josephsberg from law school. Second, Podhurst and Josephsberg have long-
standing stellar reputations for their legal acumen and ethics. It's hard for me to imagine 
how much more vetting needs to be done. 
Case No. 08-807i6-CV-MARRA 
P-013510 
EFTA00230415

The United States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the 
victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement 
entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will make one 
full week since you were formally notified of the selection. I must insist that the vetting 
process come to an end. Therefore, unless you provide me with a good faith objection to 
Judge Davis's selection by COB tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification 
of the victims. Should you give me the go-ahead on Podhurst and Josephsberg selection by COB 
tomorrow, I will simultaneously send you a draft of the letter. I intend to notify the 
victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29th. Thanks, 
Jeff 
*********************************************************** 
The information contained in this communication is 
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may 
constitute inside information, and is intended only for 
the use of the addressee. It is the property of 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to postmaster@kirkland.com, and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
*********************************************************** 
Case No. 08-807i6-CV-MARRA 
P-013511 
EFTA00230416

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
(561) 820-8711 
Facsimile: (561)820-8777 
December 14, 2007 
DELIVERY BY UNITED STATES MAIL 
Miss 
Re: 
Crime Victims' Rights — Notification of Resolution of Epstein Investigation 
Dear Miss : 
Several months ago, 1 provided you with a letter notifying you of your rights as a victim 
pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004 and other federal legislation, including: 
(1) 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
(5) 
(6) 
(7) 
(8) 
The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. 
The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding 
involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. 
The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court 
determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other 
portions of a proceeding. 
The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court 
involving release, plea, or sentencing. 
The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. 
The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. 
The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. 
The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and 
privacy. 
I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been 
completed, and that Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement 
containing the following terms. 
First, Mr. Epstein agrees that he will plead guilty to two state offenses, including the offense 
of soliciting minors to engage in prostitution, which will require him to register as a sexual offender 
for the remainder of his life. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013512 
EFTA00230417

MISS 
DECEMBER 14, 2007 
PAGE 2 
Second, Mr. Epstein has agreed to make a binding recommendation of 18 months' 
imprisonment to the state court judge who sentences him. Mr. Epstein will serve that sentence of 
imprisonment at the Palm Beach County Jail. 
Third, Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will compensate you for damages you have suffered, 
under the following circumstances. That portion of the agreement that relates to those claims reads 
as follows: 
7. 
The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals 
whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after 
Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution 
of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the 
good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney 
representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's 
counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. 
8. 
If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit 
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the 
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his 
person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest 
liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as 
agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the 
identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, 
and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, 
federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals 
whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's 
signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and 
such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any 
criminal or civil liability. 
9. 
Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an 
admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or 
other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list 
provided by the United States. 
10. 
Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 
U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature 
on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by 
Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal 
liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, 
whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013513 
EFTA00230418

Miss 
DECEMBER 14, 2007 
PAGE 3 
Pursuant to the terms of the agreement and an addendum, to assist you in making such a 
claim, the U.S. Attorney's Office has asked an independent Special Master to select attorneys to 
represent you. Those attorneys are Aaron Podhurst and Robert ("Bob') Josefsberg with the law firm 
of Podhurst Orseck, P.A. They can be reached at 
I anticipate that someone from 
their law firm will be contacting you shortly. I must also advise you that you are not obligated to use 
these attorneys. In fact, you have the absolute right to select your own attorney. so you can decide 
not to speak with Messrs. Podhurst/Josefsberg at all, or you can speak with them and decide at any 
time to use a different attorney. If you do decide to seek damages from Mr. Epstein and you decide 
to use Messrs. Podhurst/Josefsberg as your attorneys, Mr. Epstein will be responsible for paying 
attorney's fees incurred during the time spent trying to negotiate a settlement. If you are unable to 
reach a settlement with Mr. Epstein, you and Mr. Josefsberg can discuss how best to proceed. 
M I mentioned above, as part of the resolution of the federal investigation, Mr. Epstein has 
agreed to plead guilty to state charges. Mr. Epstein's change of plea and sentencing will occur on 
January 4, 2007, at 8:30 a.m. before Judge Sandra K. McSorley, in Courtroom 11F at the Palm Beach 
County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida. If you would like any 
further information regarding the state matter, please contact Assistant State Attorney Lanna 
Belohlavek at 561 355-7100. 
Thank you for all of your help during the course of the investigation. If you have any 
questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number shown above or Special 
Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall at 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
By: 
A. 
Assistant United States Attorney 
cc: 
Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek 
Special Agent 
F.B.I. 
Ms. 
Victim-Witness Coordinator, U.S. Attorney's Office 
Robert Josefsberg, Esq. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013514 
EFTA00230419

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
99 N.E. 4th Street 
Miami, FL 33132-2111 
(305) 961-9299 
Facsimile: (305) 530-6444 
November 30, 2007 
DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE 
Kenneth W. Starr, Esq. 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
777 South Figueroa Street 
Los Angeles, CA 90017 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Mr. Starr: 
I write in response to your letter of November 28,2007, to Assistant Attorney General Fisher. 
There are a number of issues that must be addressed, but I believe that a history of the negotiations 
with the various counsel for Mr. Epstein would best illustrate how the Non-Prosecution Agreement 
was reached. I then will address some of your client's attempts to attack the agreement that he 
signed, and I finally will address how our Office intends to proceed.' 
At the end of 2006, Guy Lewis contacted AUSA A. 
when he learned that she 
was handling the federal investigation of Mr. Epstein. He asked to Tetttifith.her 
sir stated that 
she believed such a meeting would be
 In December,  
 
and Gerald 
Lefcourt again contacted AUSA 
to set a meeting. AUSA 
requested documents 
in advance of such a meeting, but the request was refused. Ms. Sanchez then contacted AUSA 
ME who agreed to meet with Mishez and Mr. Lefcourt. On February 1, 2007, Ms. 
Sanchez and Mr. Lefcourt met with AUSAs 
and a, 
as well as a member o f the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, presented defense counsel's view of the case, and promised a willingness 
to assist in the investigation. The Office was unpersuaded by their presentation, and the 
investigation continued. 
By the late Spring and early Summer, the focus of the investigation left investigating the facts 
of the victims' claims and turned more to Mr. Epstein's background, his asserted defenses, co-
'First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
is sending a letter under separate cover 
addressing some of the items in the correspondence from you and Mr. Lefkowitz, since he has been 
directly involved in discussions of those issues. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013515 
EFTA00230420

KENNETH STARR, ESQ. 
NovEmma 30, 2007 
PAGE 2 OP 6 
conspirators, and possible witnesses who could corroborate the victims' statements. 
The 
investigation also began to look into financial aspects of the case, requiring the issuance of several 
subpoenas. At that time, Mr. Lefcourt began leveling accusations of improprieties with the 
investigation and sought a meeting with 
who was then Chief of the Criminal 
Section. By that time, our Office had already received a proposed initial indictment package, which 
had been reviewed by the supervisors in our West Palm Beach Office and by attorneys with the 
Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, but which was awaiting review by 
Mr. Menchel and FAUSA Sloman. The Office deferred presenting the indictment to the grand jury 
to accommodate your client's request for a meeting. The Office also agreed to wait several weeks 
for that meeting to occur to allow four of Mr. Epstein's attorneys to be present, and also provided 
Mr. Epstein's counsel with a list of the statutes that were the subject of the federal investigation. 
On June 26, 2007, FAUSA Sloman, Mr. Menchel, AUSAs 
and
and two 
Special Agents with the FBI met with four attorne for Mr. Epstein, Plialcally, Alan Dershowitz, 
Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and 
During that meeting, Professor Dershowitz and 
other members of the defense team present 
egal and factual arguments against a federal 
indictment. Counsel for the defense also requested the opportunity to present written arguments, 
which was granted. The arguments and written materials provided by the defense were examined 
by the Office and rejected. 
On July 31, 2007, FAUSA Sloman, Mr. Menchel, AUSAs 
and 
and two FBI 
agents again met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and 
On that date, the Office 
presented a written sheet of terms that would satisfy e 
ce s 
era interest in the case and 
discussed the substance of those terms. That term sheet is attached hereto. As you will note, one 
of those terms was: 
Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file 
suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. 
District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject 
matter. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while 
minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s) 2422 
and/or 2423. 
During that meeting, the focus was on Mr. Epstein's unwillingness to spend time in prison, and 
various suggestions were raised by defense counsel, including the proposal that Mr. Epstein could 
serve a sentence of home confinement or probation. This was repeatedly mentioned by counsel for 
Mr. Epstein as being equivalent to a term of incarceration in a state or federal prison. Mr. Epstein's 
counsel mentioned their concerns about his safety in prison, and our Office offered to explore a plea 
to a federal charge to allow Mr. Epstein to serve his time in a federal facility. Counsel were also 
presented with a conservative estimate of the sentence that Mr. Epstein would face if he were 
convicted: an advisory guideline range of 188 - 235 months of imprisonment with a five-year 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013516 
EFTA00230421

KENNETH STARR, ESQ. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2007 
PAGE 3 OF 6 
mandatory minimum prison term, to be followed by lifetime supervised release. Counsel was told 
that Mr. Epstein had two weeks to accept or reject the proposal. 
Mr. Epstein's counsel, still dissatisfied with the Office's review of the case, demanded to 
meet with me and to have the opportunity to meet with someone in Washington, D.C. To 
accommodate Mr. Black, the meeting was put o ff until September 7, 2007, despite the fact that the 
indictment was ready for presentation to the grand jury. In the interim, AUSA Villafafia and the 
investigators met with the Chief of the Child Exploitation Section, Drew Oosterbaan, to review, yet 
again, the evidence and legal theories of prosecution. Chief Oosterbaan strongly supported the 
indictment and even offered to join the trial team and provide additional support from his Section. 
On September 7, 2007, I met with you, Mr. Lefkowitz, and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief 
Oosterbaan, FAUSA Sloman, and AUSAs McMillan and Villafafta.2 You and other counsel for Mr. 
Epstein again presented arguments regarding the sufficiency of the federal interest in the case and 
other legal and factual issues. Your arguments were discussed afterwards and the unanimous 
opinion of all of the attorneys present was in favor of prosecution. 
During the September 711) meeting, your co-counsel, Mr. Lefkowitz, also offered a plea 
resolution. His offer, in essence, was that your client be subject to home confinement at his Palm 
Beach home, using private security officers who would serve as "wardens," if necessary. Mr. 
Lefkowitz expressed the belief that such a sentence would be particularly appropriate because, as a 
wealthy white man, your client may be the subject of violence or extortion while in prison. Finally, 
both you and your co-counsel expressed the belief that Mr. Epstein's extensive charitable giving 
should be considered in our prosecution decision. I summarily rejected these proposals, and 
indicated that the twenty-four month offer presented previously by this Office stood. I should add 
that there were four other prosecutors present at the meeting, representing a combined experience 
of more than fifty years. Never had any of them heard, or heard of, an attorney making a similar 
argument, and especially not in a child exploitation case. 
The issue of the inclusion of a restitution-type remedy for the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 2255 was specifically raised and discussed at the September 7th meeting, and you thanked AUSA 
Villafafia for bringing it to your attention as a novel approach to allowing the victims to receive 
essentially federal restitution while allowing a plea to a state charge. 
After considering everything said and written by Mr. Epstein's legal defense team, and after 
conferring with Chief Oosterbaan, I informed you that we still intended to proceed to indictment. 
Since counsel had indicated a desire to appeal the matter to the Attorney General, the Deputy 
2I note that this meeting had been delayed several weeks to allow for Mr. Black's 
participation, yet he was not present. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013517 
EFTA00230422

KENNETH STARR, ESQ. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2007 
PAGE 4 OF 6 
Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, I agreed to delay the 
presentation of the indictment for two weeks to allow you to speak with someone in Washington, 
D.C., if you so chose. 
Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiate the Non-Prosecution
nt, and on September 
12, 2007, counsel for the United States (AUSAs IN 
Garcia, and 
) and counsel for Mr. 
Epstein (Messrs. Lefcourt, Leflcowitz, and Goldberger) met with State Attorney Barry Krisher and 
Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek to discuss a plea to an Information in the state court that 
would satisfy the federal interest in the case. As noted on the term sheet of July 31g, one of those 
essential terms was a guilty plea to a charge requiting sex offender registration. During that meeting, 
the issue of sex offender registration was raised, and Mr. Goldberger told the federal prosecutors that 
there was no problem, Mr. Epstein would plead guilty to the charge of solicitation of minors for 
prostitution (FL Stat. 796.03), which was one of the statutes listed on the original term sheet. 
Although our Office had wanted Mr. Epstein to plead guilty to three different offenses, we agreed 
to this compromise.' Of course, we later learned that, at the time Mr. Goldberger made that 
statement, he incorrectly believed, based upon a statement from ASA Belohlavek, that Fl. Stat. 
796.03 did not require sex offender registration. 
The parties then began working first on a plea agreement to a federal charge and, when it was 
clear that there was no guarantee the Mr. Epstein would serve his sentence in a minimum security 
prison camp, the discussion turned to a Non-Prosecution Agreement. Both the federal plea 
agreement and the Non-Prosecution Agreement included references to Section 2255 because neither 
the contemplated federal charges nor the proposed state charges encompassed all of the identified 
victims. If Mr. Epstein had been prosecuted under the planned indictment, the identified victims 
would have been eligible for restitution and damages under Section 2255. As explained above, one 
of the United States' interests, which had to be satisfied by the Non-Prosecution Agreement, was 
providing appropriate compensation to the victims. This provision of the Agreement was heavily 
negotiated. As Mr. Lefkowitz wrote in his November 29th e-mail to Mr. Sloman, which we received 
the same day as your letter, your client "offered to provide a restitution fund for the alleged victims 
in this matter; however that option was rejected by [our] Office." The option was rejected for several 
reasons. First, the Office does not serve as legal representatives to the victims and has no authority 
to bind the victims, nor could it provide a monetary figure that would represent a "loss" amount for 
restitution purposes. Second, there would be no legal basis for federal restitution without a 
conviction for a federal offense. And, third, it was my belief that this Office should not be put in the 
position of administering a restitution fund. Our Section 2255 proposal put the victims in the same 
position that they would have been in if we had proceeded to trial and convicted Mr. Epstein of his 
'Another significant compromise reached at the meeting was a reduction in the amount of 
jail time — from twenty-four months down to eighteen months, which would be served at the Palm 
Beach County Jail rather than a state prison facility. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013518 
EFTA00230423

KENNETH STARR, ESQ. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2007 
PACE 5 op 6 
crimes, with the exception that the victims were provided with counsel.' Your client and his 
attorneys agreed with this alternative. 
The negotiation of the Agreement was lengthy and difficult. Mr. Lefkowitz and AUSA 
went through several drafts of both a federal Plea Agreement and a Non-Prosecution 
Agreement. Throughout these negotiations, when a member of the defense team was dissatisfied 
with the Office's position, it was
o
i jai 
appealed through the Office. So several members of the 
defense team spoke with 
, currently chief of staff to Assistant Attorney General 
Fisher, and FAUSA Sloman regarding the terms of the Agreement, including the Section 2255 
provisions. At the eleventh hour, when your legal team realized that Fl. Stat. 796.03 would require 
Mr. Epstein to register as a sex offender, you sought to change the most essential term of the 
agreement — a tam that Messrs. Goldberger, Lefkowitz, and Lefcourt had specifically agreed to at 
the September 12th meeting with the State Attorney's Office — 
kin to allow Mr. Epstein to plead 
to a charge that would not require registration. When AUSAs 
, and Sloman rejected 
the suggestion, several members of the defense team appealed directly to me, which also failed. 
When that failed, according to press reports, apparently Mr. Lefcourt "leaked" a letter intended for 
me to the press containing the reasons why he did not believe Mr. Epstein should have to register. 
Prior to signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein's defense team included 
yourself, Ms. Sanchez, and Messrs. Dershowitz, Lefcourt, Leflcowitz, Lewis, Black, and Goldberger. 
At least one other "criminal law expert" was involved in plea negotiations, and several associates 
at your firm conducted research on discrete issues. This impressive legal team reviewed the 
Agreement and counseled Mr. Epstein. Based upon that counsel, Mr. Epstein decided that it was in 
his best interests to enter into the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and the Non-Prosecution Agreement 
itself is signed both by Mr. Lefcourt and Ms. Sanchez as well as by Mr. Epstein. 
Since the signing of the Agreement on September 24th, more than two months' ago, it appears 
that several attorneys on your legal team are dissatisfied with the Agreement. Counsel have objected 
to several steps taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office to effectuate the terms of the Agreement, in 
essence presenting collateral challenges to portions of the Agreement. Your letter is the latest 
example. It is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an 
agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. If your client is 
dissatisfied with his Agreement, or believes that it is unlawful or unfair, we stand ready to unwind 
the Agreement. One of the reasons the Office agreed to forego federal prosecution was to avoid the 
expenditure of extensive resources, yet these interminable "negotiations" have caused the 
'As FAUSA Sloman will address in his letter to Mr. Lefkowitz, Section 2255 provides that 
the perpetrator shall pay the attorney's fees of the victim, so the appointment of counsel was not such 
a benefit to the victims but, rather, was don; in part, to benefit Mr. Epstein by allowing him to try 
to privately negotiate a group resolution of all claims with one attorney. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013519 
EFTA00230424

KENNETH STARR, ESQ. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2007 
PAGE 6 OF 6 
expenditure of excessive management resources, and the Office is unwilling to invest any more of 
those resources. The prosecution of the case also has been delayed almost eight months to allow you 
to raise any and all issues; we will not tolerate any further delay. 
Accordingly, please provide us with a definitive statement, signed by your client, of his 
intention to abide by each and every term of the Agreement by close of business on Tuesday, 
December 4, 2007. By that time, you must also provide us with the agreement(s) with the State 
Attorney's Office and a date and time certain for the plea and sentencing, which must occur no later 
than December 14, 2007. If we do not receive these items by that time, we will deem the agreement 
to be rescinded and will proceed with the prosecution. There must be closure in this matter. 
Sincerely, 
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
cc: 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
AUSA A. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013520 
EFTA00230425

From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Subject: 
(USAFLS) 
(USAFLS) 
9, 2007 12:11 PM 
.(USAFLS) 
Here are some of Alex's thoughts. One other and that is that Lefkowitz, Dershowitz, Starr, etc. all had the opportunity to 
object to the agreement but did not. 
From: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda November 29, 2007 11:54 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
This is over the top, but some thoughts ----
In 
FAUSA, WPB Chief and 
met with professor dershowitz to consider. They unanimous conclusion from 
\ha meeting was that the case should proceed. 
\ 
Mn deference to dershowitz' expertise, I directed our prosecutors to consult with the criminal division to seek 
clarification regarding our interpretation of the statutes. They did so, and received the endorsement of CEOS. 
IN 
Lefkowitz indcicated that you would like a meeting. The prosecutors were ready to indict at that time. In 
deference to mutual schedules, including yours and yoru co-counsels', I asked the prosecutors to defer 
i 
ictment until we met. In addition, sensitive to the policy concerns, I invited the head of CEOS to the meeting, 
to once again obtain their expert opinion. 
At the meeting, you presented several arguments with respect to whether this prosecution was appropriate in 
ight of federalism concerns. The arguemtns were discussed afterwards. The unanimous opinion of all presents 
was in support of a prosecution. This included the head of CEOS, who has offered to try the matter himself. 
At the meeting, your co-counsel also offered a plea resolution. His offer, in essence, was that your client be 
subject to home confinement at his Palm Beach home, under guard paid for by him if necessary. Your co-
opnsel also expressed the belief that such a sentence would be particularly appropriate because as a wealthy 
w ite man, your client may be the subject of violence while in prison. Finally, both you and your co-counsel 
expressed the belief that your client's extensive charitable giving should be considered in our prosecution 
decision. I summarily rejected these proposals, and indicated that the offer presented previously by this office 
of 
stood. I should add that there were 
prosecutors present at the meeting, representing a combined 
experience of 
years. Never had any of them heard, or heard of, an attorney making a similar argument. 
5. 
fter the meeting, either you or your co-counsel indicated that you may want to appeal this matter to the 
tt rney General, the Deputy Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. I 
in icated no objection, and in fact offered to ask the prosecutors to delay indictment if you wished to appeal the 
matter. Your client's legal team chose not to do so. 
. Subsequently, the client's legal team and this office continued negotiations. Extensive time was spent on this 
matter. In fact, different members of your legal team on several occasions spoke with Mr. 
, presently 
chief of staff to Alice Fisher, and Mr. Sloman, our FAUSA, regarding these. The negotiations were, to say the 
as , extensive. One issue address was restitution for the victims. As expressed in an email sent by your co-
co 
sel, Mr. Lefkowitz, to our FAUSA, Mr. Sloman, the same day we received your letter, your client " offered to 
provide a restitution fund for the alleged victims in this matter; however that option was rejected by (our] 
Office." The offer was rejected because of my belief that this Office should not be put in the position of 
administering a restitution fund. The 2255 language was then adopted, by mutual consent between your legal 
team and this office, as an alternative to your restitution fund offer. 
Case No. 08-807J6-CV-MARRA 
P-013521 
EFTA00230426

. Since then, on several occasions, your legal team has objected to several steps take pursuant to the agreement, 
in ssence presenting collateral challenges to portions of the agreement. Your letter is the latest example. 
're the legal team hired by your client is impressive. In addition to yourself, Mr. Epstein has hired 
None of these individuals raised concerns with our Office with respect to this agreement at the time it was 
negotiated. 
8\ It now appears that several attorneys on your legal team are dissatisfied with the agreement. It is not the 
intention of this Office to ever force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against their wishes. 
client has the right to proceed to trial. If your client is dissatisfied with his agreement, or believes that the 
agreement is unlawful or unfair, we stand ready to unwind the agreement. I would ask for a definitive decision, 
however. There must be closure in this matter. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013522 
EFTA00230427