EFTA01080591

CONFIDENTIAL SUBMISSION TO 
CHILD EXPLOITATION AND OBSCENITY SECTION 
RE JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
EFTA01080591

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
AND AOILIARD PARTNUSIIIIS 
Kenneth W. Starr 
To 
ksta
cam 
www.klrkland.com 
March 28, 2008 
BY RAND DELIVERY 
Honorable Sigal P. Mandelker 
De ut Assistant Attorney General 
Dear Ms. Mandelker and Mr. Oosterbaan: 
Facsimile: 
Enclosed, please fmd our submission as discussed at the meeting. This submission 
includes a brief executive summary; an analysis of the relevant federal statutes and their 
application to the facts in this matter; a discussion of the Petite Policy, and an appendix, which 
includes significant documentary evidence including testimony by witnesses that was obtained 
after the Deferred Prosecution Agreement was signed. For the reasons we discuss in the 
submission, we do not believe this is an appropriate case for federal prosecution. 
I want to call your attention to the recent statements made under oath by some of the 
alleged victims. As we have previously explained, the United States Attorney's Office has 
refused to disclose the identities of the alleged victims, and First Assistant United States 
Attorney 
has made the unusual demand that Mr. Epstein's defense team make no 
effort to discover their identities or contact any of them. See November 5, 2007 Letter from J. 
M
g Exhibit 1. However, due to a procedure available under state law, and folloilite 
wave of recent lawsuits that have been filed against Mr. Epstein (ironically by Mr. 
former law partner), we have been able to engage in discovery and take sworn statements from 
several of the alleged victims. These statements, which would never have been obtained under 
the First Assistant's directive, are extremely important for two reasons. First, because this new 
testimony post-dates the state investigation, all discussions regarding plea negotiations, the 
execution of the federal Deferred Prosecution Agreement, and the drafting of any prosecution 
memos, no federal or state prosecutor has ever reviewed this material.' Second, and without 
I 
However, in connection with Ms. 
statement, which was taken by the FBI, she may have been 
debriefed by either the FBI or a federal prosecutor. 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Munich 
New York 
San Francisco 
Washington. 
EFTA01080592

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
March 28, 2008 
Page 2 
exception, the new evidence strongly supports the conclusion that this is not a case of federal 
concern. 
This recent testimony can be found in its entirety. See Exhibits 2-7. This evidence 
clearly calls into serious doubt the notion that the alleged conduct constitutes a federal crime. 
For example, one of the alleged victims adamantly states that she "never had sex with [Mr. 
Epstein]" and that she did not know him and had absolutely no contact with him—be it through 
Internet chatrooms, email, or phone—prior to her coming to his home. 
(deposition) 
at 24, 30, Exhibit 3. The same woman stated that she was not persuaded, induced, enticed or 
coerced by anyone to engage in any sexual activity. Id. at 31. This woman, who was described 
as the "lynchpin" of the federal prosecution particularly due to her age at the time of the alleged 
conduct, expressly admits to lying to Mr. Epstein about her age. Id. at 37. Another alleged 
victim made similarly exculpatory statements to the FBI. She stated that not only did she always 
make sure she had a fake ID with her and lie to Mr. Epstein by telling him she was 18 but that 
she also had conversations with other women in which these women hoped that 
didn't 
Tr. at 45, Exhibit 2. When this alleged "victim" was asked if Mr. 
Epstein ever "pulled [her closer to him in a sexual way," she responded, "I wish. No, no, never, 
ever, ever, no, never. 
is an awesome man, no." Id. at 21. Yet another alleged victim 
stated that Mr. Epstein "never touched [her] physic," and that all she did was "massage[ ] his 
back, his chest and his thighs and that was it." 
Tr. at 12-13, Exhibit 4. Finally, another 
alleged victim stated in no unclear terms that there was never any discussion over the phone 
about her coming over to Mr. Epstein's home to en a e in sexual activity: "The only thing that 
ever occurred on any of these phone calls [with 
or another assistant was, `Are you 
willing to come over,' or, `Would you like to come over and give a massage." 
Tr. at 15, 
Exhibit 5A. And as each of these women confirmed, this woman stated: "[Mr. Epstein] never 
tried to force me to do anything." Id. at 12. 
We believe that these transcripts are of critical importance because they clearly indicate 
that not only did no intercourse take place with these women, but that any sexual activity that 
took place was unplanned and consensual. Furthermore, these women corroborate the fact that 
there was no pattern of luring or enticing these women to do more than give a massage, and that 
any activity that went beyond the massage was by no means forced upon them. We would urge 
you to review these particular sworn statements in their entirety both because this is new 
evidence that post-dates the Deferred Prosecution Agreement and because it discloses critical 
information about the true facts and circumstances of this case. 
find out [their] age[s]." 
Importantly, at your request, we have limited the scope of the submission. Thus, this 
submission does not focus extensively on our concerns relating to the principles of federalism, 
abuse of power, prosecutorial misconduct, or many of the improper tactics used by federal 
EFTA01080593

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
March 28, 2008 
Page 3 
prosecutors? Notwithstanding that, we think it important that you be made aware of the types of 
actions that have caused us serious concern, and have influenced the process and distorted the 
facts: 
• 
Federal involvement in a state criminal prosecution without any communication with 
state authorities; 
• 
The issuance of subpoenas and letters requesting documents whose subject matter had 
no connection to the conduct at issue including medical records and tax returns (for 
example, subpoenas were issued to an agent of Mr. Epstein's counsel without 
following guidelines provided in the United States Attorneys' Manual which ask for: 
"All documents and information related to the nature of the relationship between (the 
agent] and Mr. 
Epstein, including all third party contacts had on behalf of Mr. 
Epstein all agreements not limited to, retainer agreements; employment agreements; 
billing statements . .. telephone logs . . . appointment calendars/datebooks . .."); 
• . . 
• 
The use of threats of expanding the investigation to include money transmitting and 
money laundering, though none of the mandatory prerequisites could be described 
(for example, the federal prosecutors referred to the following litany of federal 
statutes in a letter to a potential grand jury witness as the universe of relevant federal 
violations: "including but not limited to, possible violations of Title 18, United States 
Code, Sections 2, 371, 1512, 1591, 1952, 1956, 1960, 2421, 2422, and 2423.") nor 
was any specific unlawful activity, which is the predicate act for a money laundering 
charge, ever identified; 
• 
The nomination of an individual closely associated with one of the Assistant United 
States Attorneys involved in this case for the highly lucrative position of independent 
attorney demanded for the alleged victims; 
• 
The insistence on a victims notification letter, which invited all alleged victims to 
make sworn statements at Mr. Epstein's state sentence even though there was no basis 
for inviting alleged victims of federal crimes to make statements in a state 
proceeding; 
2 
The relevant documents for each of these propositions are available for your review upon request. 
EFTA01080594

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
March 28, 2008 
Page 4 
• 
Clear violations of ethics rules by discussing specific details of the case and 
negotiations with a New York Times Reporter, and 
• 
The relationship between the law firm representing several of the alleged victims in 
civil suits against Mr. Epstein and the First Assistant United States Attorney from the 
Southern District of Florida. 
We believe these concerns are significant and that they should have bearing on the 
reliability and integrity of the investigation. We respectfully reserve our right to raise our 
concerns in the future. 
Furthermore, our submission is guided by an overarching principle: Federal authority 
should not be stretched to override the considered judgment of a duly elected state official who, 
guided by a highly professional prosecutorial staff, carefully assessed the actual facts (not a 
sensationalized, fictionalized version of them), applicable state law, and fundamental principles 
of fair treatment as embodied in the practical experience of that highly respected State's 
Attorney's Office. A career state prosecutor looked the witnesses in the eye, evaluated the facts, 
and took this matter before a state grand jury, and thereafter invoked the judicial process of the 
State of Florida to bring about a just and fair resolution consistent with that Office's experience. 
The record is clear and undisputed: This matter began as a state matter in Palm Beach County; it 
was treated with professionalism and thoroughly investigated by the State's Attorney's Office; 
then, in an affront to principles of comity in our federal republic, disgruntled local police 
officials seeking to subvert the thoughtful judgment of state officials aired their disagreement 
publicly to an eager press and summoned the FBI. This should not be. But that is the undisputed 
genesis of a federal investigation that, in view of Congress' intent embodied in the statutes that 
we will closely analyze in this submission, should never have been commenced. 
Federal authorities in this case have brushed aside federalism-inspired methods of 
professional conduct, stretched both law and facts, and emphasized the importance of financial 
gain -- not only to individual women but to private attorneys who stood to benefit financially 
from the federal authorities' involvement. The result has been that many of the witnesses who 
swore under oath that there was no inappropriate conduct whatever (much less a crime), have 
now been inspired by the beguiling prospect of financial gain and have, filed civil complaints 
demanding $50 million each. This should not be. There is no justification for stretching federal 
law, stretching the facts, and then bringing the power of the federal government to tear apart 
what the State of Florida has determined is a just and fair resolution -- namely, a felony 
conviction under criminal statutes duly passed by the Florida legislature. That considered 
judgment—grounded in law and in principles of fair treatment of all persons, regardless of the 
wealth or station in life—should be respected in the finest traditions of federalism and comity. 
EFTA01080595

KIRKl_AND & ELLIS LLP 
March 28, 2008 
Page 5 
We hope that your office and the Department will consider all of the evidence included in 
the submission and exhibits we put forth today, as well as the areas of concerns on which we did 
not focus extensively, because as we believe that all aspects of reconsideration in this case fall 
squarely within the overseeing responsibilities of the Department of Justice. 
We greatly 
appreciate your time and consideration of this matter. 
Sincerely, 
Kenneth W. Starr 
EFTA01080596

SUBMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN THE 
MATTER OF 
E. EPSTEIN 
This submission addresses (i) whether existing federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b), 
1591 and 2423, apply to the conduct at issue; and (ii) whether the circumstances of this case 
overcome the significant hurdles established by the Department's Petite Policy against dual and 
successive prosecution. As explained below, existing statutes do not apply to Mr. Epstein's 
conduct, and the Petite Policy's bar against successive prosecution has not been surmounted. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Jeffrey Epstein, a successful self-made businessman with no prior criminal history, 
should not be prosecuted federally for conduct that amounts to, at most, the solicitation of 
prostitution. To prosecute Mr. Epstein federally based upon the facts presented by this case 
would be an unprecedented exercise of federal power and use of federal resources. It would 
effectively represent the adherence to a novel legal theory never before sanctioned by federal 
law. As described more fully below, Mr. Epstein did not engage in any conduct covered by any 
of the three federal criminal statutes being considered for federal prosecution, namely 18 U.S.C. 
§§ 2422(b), 2423(b), and 1591. Moreover, the new evidence obtained through the use of a State 
discovery statute and in connection with the civil lawsuits that have been filed confirms that 
federal involvement in this matter is inappropriate. We highlight this evidence for you because it 
has never been reviewed by the federal or state prosecutors overseeing this matter. See Exhibits 
2-7. 
Mr. Epstein has had a home in Palm Beach, Florida for the past 20 years. As a routine 
part of Mr. Epstein's activities while at his residence in Florida, which included attending to 
business, socializing, visiting his elderly mother, and attending to doctors' appointments, Mr. 
Epstein often had masseuses come to his residence to provide him massages following his 
exercise. Mr. Epstein did not personally schedule the massage appointments or communicate 
with the women who provided massages to him, either over the telephone or otherwise, prior to 
the time they arrived at his residence. Rather, all these appointments were scheduled by his 
assistants. Often it was the masseuse who contacted Mr. Epstein's assistant inquiring about Mr. 
Epstein's availability rather than vice versa, the message pads reflecting incoming calls to Mr. 
Epstein's house, which were improperly seized during the execution of a State search warrant 
(actions for which the State later apologized) are replete with requests by masseuses to return to 
Mr. Epstein's residence to provide massages.' See Message Book Entries, Exhibit 8. 
The majority of the massages were just that—massages and nothing else. Mr. Epstein 
would routinely be on the telephone conducting business while he received his massage. At 
times, the masseuses would be topless, and some sexual activity might occur, primarily self-
We are including some but not all examples of this pattern of behavior but are open to sharing more examples 
won request 
EFTA01080597

Page 2 
masturbation on the part of Mr. Epstein. On other occasions, no sexual activity would occur at 
all. There was no particular pattern or practice as to which masseuse would be scheduled ort any 
particular day—if at all—or whether any sexual activity might occur. Indeed, many times Mr. 
Epstein would not know which masseuse his assistants had scheduled until that individual 
showed up. See =Toll 
Records, Exhibit 9. Mr. Epstein requested the individual be over 
the age of 18. The vast majority of the masseuses were in fact 18 or over, and the testimony 
available to us in this case demonstrates that those under the a e of 18 have admitted to 
Isiii
T
matically lying to Mr. E 
ein about their age. See
at 38-39, Exhibit 10; 
r. at 9, Exhibit 4- 
r. at 6, 8, 22, 45, Exhibit 2,
Tr. 13, Exhibit 11; 
Tr. at 12, Exhibit 12; 
Tr. at 5, Exhibit 13; arr. 
at 1415, Exhibit 14. 
In light of these facts, the case against Mr. Epstein lacks any of the hallmarks that typify 
federal prosecution under the identified statutes. Not only did all of the conduct take place in 
Mr. Epstein's home in Palm Beach, there was no commercial for-profit enterprise; no interstate 
component; no use by Mr. Epstein of an instrumentality of interstate commerce; no violence; no 
force; no alcohol; no drugs; and no child pornography. 
An objective review of the facts should make clear that this is not a federal case. Indeed, 
Mr. Epstein's counsel have reviewed every case involving 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b), 2423(b), and 
1591 and have not found a single case suggesting that federal prosecution can be brought under 
these facts. Instead, as the State Attorney's Office determined, and still believes, Mr. Epstein 
was a customer, a "John," for whom prosecutions are best left to the State to address. Notably, 
the Department of Justice has repeatedly recognized the predominant State role in such 
prosecutions, even as recently as November 9, 2007.2
Besides lacking the facts necessary to support a federal prosecution, the federal 
prosecutors responsible for this case have employed a process rife with prosecutorial 
misconduct, abuse and profound lack of respect for the State Attorneys of Florida. First, 
following the imposition of a State charge against Mr. Epstein, the local police chief, who 
disagreed with the decision of both the State Attorney's Office and the Grand Jury, took actions 
that undermined the credibility of everything that followed in the federal investigation; he 
referred the matter to the FBI and at the same time released the police reports containing raw 
allegations to the press. Significantly, these reports, when compared to the actual transcripts 
of sworn taped interviews of witnesses, are demonstrably inaccurate. They contain both 
glaring misquotes and omissions of fact 
2 
See November 9, 2007 DOJ letter to the Judiciary, Exhibit 15 ("[P]rostitution-related offenses have historically 
been prosecuted at the state or local level. This allocation between state and Federal enforcement authority does 
not imply that these crimes are less serious, but rather reflects important structural allocations of responsibility 
between state and Federal governments . . . the Department is not aware of any reasons why state and local 
authorities are not currently able to pursue prostitution-related crimes such that Federal jurisdiction is 
necessary."). 
EFTA01080598

Page 3 
The intentional release of the police reports to the press not only shaped how the 
prosecutors in the United States Attorney's Office viewed the case, but more importantly, 
influenced many of the witnesses who would later be interviewed by the FBI. Indeed, multiple 
civil lawsuits have recently been filed
 Mr. Epstein (many by the former partner of First 
Assistant United States Attorney 
MIE; and those suits contain word-for-word 
narratives taken directly from the publicly released police report, narratives that are factually 
inaccurate when compared to the actual transcripts. 
Many of Mr. Epstein's alleged victims and other witnesses have recently given sworn 
statements establishing that (i) Mr. Epstein was only interested in women over 18; (ii) they lied 
and told Mr. Epstein they were 18 when they were not; (iii) there was no interstate travel; (iv) 
there was no use of the Internet or telephone to communicate with Mr. Epstein; (v) there was no 
inducement over any instrumentality of interstate commerce; (vi) there was no force or coercion 
by anyone. See Herman Public Statement, Exhibit 16. 
The facts—as opposed to the deeply flawed press reports—were carefully assessed by 
experienced State prosecutors who aggressively enforce State criminal laws. Following an 
extensive 15-month State investigation by the Florida State Attorney's Office in Palm Beach, led 
by the chief of the Sex Crimes Division, Mr. Epstein was indicted by a State Grand fury on a 
single felony count of solicitation of prostitution. During the investigation, the State prosecutor 
exhaustively reviewed the evidence, met face-to-face with many of the alleged victims, 
considered their credibility—or lack thereof—and considered the extent of exculpatory evidence, 
including a psychosexual evaluation of Mr. Epstein and a polygraph examination demonstrating 
that Mr. Epstein genuinely believed at the time of the alleged conduct that the State's key 
witness was over the age of 18. Then, after months of negotiations, the State reached what it 
believed was an appropriate resolution of the case. Importantly, this resolution was consistent 
with that of cases involving other defendants who had engaged in similar conduct. 
Implementation of the State resolution of the case was held in abeyance, however, due to the 
unexpected commencement of the successive federal criminal investigation. 
After many months of attempting, to no avail, to fit this case into its vision of what it 
initially believed (based upon the inaccurate police reports) to be a wide-spread commercial 
trafficking ring targeting minors, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of 
Florida agreed to defer prosecution to the State. 
Notably, however, the Agreement also 
contained many unorthodox requirements, including requiring Mr. Epstein not only to blindly 
agree to pay an undisclosed list of alleged victims a minimum of $150,000 each, but also to pay 
for an attorney to represent such unidentified victims if any chose to bring civil litigation 
against him. The United States Attorney's Office also represented at the time the Agreement 
was signed that it had identified, on a list, up to 40 alleged minor victims of federal crimes, and 
to bolster the claim that they were minors suggested that they required a guardian ad litem. This 
is all untrue. In fact, it was later firmly established that only one girl on the list was still a minor, 
and the other women on the list, after examining their testimony, could in no way qualify as 
"victims." There is now also a sworn statement to the effect that the FBI attempted to persuade 
EFTA01080599

Page 4 
at least one of these women that she was in fact a "victim" of federal crimes when she herself 
rig
edly confirmed that she was not. See, e.g. 
Tr. at 10, 19-22, 31, 57-58, Exhibit 2; 
Tr. at 9-12, Exhibit 5A; =Tr. 
at 7, Exhibit 5B. 
Beyond that, because the United States Attorney's Office had not, and still has not, made 
any effort to coordinate with its State counterpart about the case. Thus, the Deferred Prosecution 
Agreement put Mr. Epstein in the extraordinary position of requiring him, not the federal 
authorities, to convince the State Attorney's Office to impose a more severe charge and 
punishment than the State Attorney's Office (and the State grand jury) had determined to be 
appropriate. 
As a result, Mr. Epstein, and the United States Attorney's Office—which has insisted that 
its prosecutorial decision in this case was mandated by policy decisions in Washington, D.C.—
has now asked the Department of Justice to review whether a federal prosecution is warranted. 
Respectfully, a federal prosecution of this matter should be declined because (1) it is not 
supported by the facts; (2) it would require an unprecedented interpretation of the federal statutes 
in question; (3) it would unnecessarily result in an expansion of federal powers into an area 
properly reserved to the States; and (4) it would require an unequal application of the law. 
We urge the Department of Justice to review the 
transcript and then all of 
the new evidence in this case. On February 20, 2008, 
—the alleged victim upon 
which this entire investigation was initially launched3—was deposed. Under oath, Ms. 
reiterated that she "swore on her mother's grave" that she and Mr. Epstein did not engage in sex 
of any kind. See
 (Deposition) at 24, Exhibit 3. She also reaffirmed that she lied to 
Mr. Epstein about her age because it was her understandiri,f she was not over 18, Mr. 
Epstein would not let her in his house. See id. at 32. Ms. 
further repeatedly explained 
that prior to the time she went to Mr. Epstein's house (she went there only once), nobody ever 
tried to coerce her to engage in sexual activity with Mr. Epstein, not over the Internet, not over 
the telephone, not at all, period. See id at 31. No federal prosecution should proceed on these 
facts. 
Among the attachments appended to this submission are several new depositions and 
sworn statements of persons whom the prosecutors have alleged are "victims" of Mr. Epstein's 
conduct, as well as copies of recent civil lawsuits, several for $50 million dollars, brought by the 
victim/witness-claimants. Each of these attachments (even the allegations in the civil complaints 
3 
The Policetgirt indicates that the originating complainants in the investigation were 
and 
father and stepmother. See Police Report at 11, Exhibit 17. Nollihe Police Report or 
the search warrant affidavit) omits are the fact that both Mr. 
and Mrs. 
have prior federal 
felony fraud convictions. 
EFTA01080600

Page 5 
themselves) negates thepredicates for a federal prosecution.° The consistent representations of 
witnesses such as 
a 
la 
and 
and the 
civil complainants and their attorneys, confirm the following key points: first, there was no 
telephonic communication that met the requirements of § 2422(b); second, the underage women 
who visited Mr. Epstein lied about their age in order to gain admittance into his home; third, any 
women who brought their underage friends to Mr. Epstein counseled them to lie about their ages 
in order to gain admittance into his home; fourth, there was no routine or habit suggesting an 
intent to transform a massage into an illegal sexual act. Finally, there was no force, coercion, 
fraud, violence, drugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with 
these women. 
Mr. Epstein's counsel believe that further depositions, sworn statements, or interviews 
would, if permitted to occur prior to a final determination on the viability of any federal 
prosecution, would establish that the facts simply do not fit within any proper construction of any 
of the federal criminal statutes under consideration. 
4 
First Assistant United States Attorney 
sought to preclude Mr. F. stein or his agents from 
communicating with the alleged "victims. 
See November 5, 2007 Letter from .1. 
Exhibit 1. Due to 
established state procedures and following the initiation of the civil lawsuits, Mr. Epstein's counsel was able to 
take limited discovery of certain women in this matter. 
EFTA01080601

Page 6 
I. 
BACKGROUND 
This case involves conduct that, although prosecutable under State law (and indeed is 
being prosecuted under State law), will not support a federal conviction. The facts simply do not 
meet the elements of any federal offense, and in particular not those required for a 
prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 24220). This case is not about using the telephone, the Internet, 
or any other facility of interstate commerce to lure, induce, entice, persuade or coerce 
unsuspecting women to Mr. Epstein's residence to engage in unlawful sexual activity. It is not 
about traveling in interstate commerce to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Nor does it involve 
a commercial sex enterprise. It is certainly not the quintessential sting case involving children. 
Instead, this case is about fiends who spoke to friends (in person) and brought them to 
Mr. Epstein's residence to perform massages on Mr. Epstein. To the extent sexual activity 
prohibited by State law occurred (which we deny), any inducement, enticement, and/or 
persuasion necessary to make out a violation of federal law took place during a face-to-face 
encounter and involved spur-of-the-moment decisions. It is, furthermore, a case about young 
women who sought to provide Mr. Epstein massages either by calling his assistants or through 
fiends who they knew could introduce them to Mr. Epstein. It is a case where, in instance after 
instance, these young women have testified that they lied or otherwise concealed their ages and 
counseled others to do the same. It is a case in which Mr. Epstein and his assistants routinely 
were unaware of the identities of many of these young women before they arrived and, in fact, 
some visited Mr. Epstein's home only once. Finally, it is a case about purely local activity, 
involving local actors, and affecting local interests and thus, should be handled by local 
authorities. 
The suggestion that calling to schedule massage appointments satisfies the elements of an 
offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2242 is belied by the evidence in this case, which establishes (i) that 
most of the masseuses were over 18, and that they were scheduled depending on their 
availability, and not on any instructions from Mr. Epstein either as to a particular young woman 
or a particular set of qualifications (e.g., underage); (ii) Mr. Epstein would not have known at the 
time the phone call was made that any particular masseuse was being scheduled and therefore 
that any underage masseuse was being scheduled; (iii) Mr. Epstein's "directive" to all the women 
was to refer only other young women who were at least 18 years of age; (iv) Mr. Epstein would 
not know the identities of the masseuses until after they were scheduled and in many instances 
until they arrived, and, therefore, under no circumstances would he have known their ages; (v) 
there were many occasions where the masseuse who was called and agreed to visit (or herself 
called and asked to visit) was not the young woman who actually provided the massage, but 
rather, a friend; (vi) decisions as to the type of conduct Mr. Epstein would request that the young 
women engage in during any particular massage were made in the massage room, while the 
massage was being conducted, in a face-to-face encounter—never in advance and never over the 
phone; and (vii) many appointments resulted in massages that did not involve unlawful sexual 
activity, where the masseuses were of age or no sexual activity was engaged in at all, or even no 
massages were performed. These facts are repeatedly corroborated by the actual transcripts. 
EFTA01080602

Page 7 
Under such circumstances, it cannot be reasonably said that when Mr. Epstein purportedly 
caused his assistants to arrange the massage appointments (directly or indirectly), he did so with 
the intent to lure, induce, entice, persuade, or coerce unlawful sexual activity with minors. 
Nor can it be said that the scheduling calls to "repeat" masseuses can be considered an 
inducement based on claims that many of the young women previously engaged in unlawful 
sexual activity with Mr. Epstein. 
Not every call, even to "repeat" masseuses, resulted in 
unlawful sexual activity. And as such, calling to schedule an appointment, without more, is not 
tantamount to luring, inducing, enticing, persuading, or coercing someone to engage in such 
activity. In this regard, to the extent a masseuse visited Mr. Epstein's home on more than one 
occasion, there is no evidence that Mr. Epstein or the macs use knew what would occur during 
the next massage, let alone that they would engage in unlawful sexual activity. As many stated 
in sworn statements: during the course of a massage Mr. Epstein would at times request and/or 
offer them additional money to engage in activities in which they had never previously engaged, 
and some of them on some occasions would accept while others would not. See, e.g., 
'Fr. at 7, Exhibit 18; In Tr. 1 at 6, 7, 20, 21, 24-25, Exhibit 19; 
Tr. at 9, 18, Exhibit 
20; 
Tr. at 4, Exhibit 13. Further, no two massages with the same woman could be 
predicted to be the same. Thus, a call arranging a second or third visit from the same woman did 
not ever mean, implicitly or explicitly, "more of the same". 
Further, Mr. Epstein would not ask his assistants to schedule a particular masseuse for a 
particular visit, let alone an underage masseuse; rather, he either asked his assistants to schedule 
massages while he was in Palm Beach or, more regularly, the assistants took it upon themselves 
to schedule the appointments. As a result, Mr. Epstein never knew who the individual would be 
until after the massages were scheduled. He requested that the masseuses be at least 18 years of
wand expected them to be so and in fact most were). See 
Tr. at 12, Exhibit 12; 
Tr. at 13, Exhibit 11; 
at 38-39, Exhibit 10; 
Tr. at 13, 22, Exhibit 2; 
Tr. at 9, 22, 23, Exhibit 5A; and 
Tr. at 16-17, 18, Exhibit 4. 
Specifically, there is no evidence that Mr. Epstein targeted minors as his assistants called 
various m 
S
asseuses many of whom were clearly o 
to 
determine who was available and wished to come to Mr. Epstein's residence and provide a 
massage. This fact is readily confirmed by the assistant's toll records. Mr. Epstein's assistant. 
The decision of whom to call was not guided by instructions from Mr. Epstein, had nothing to do 
with the age of the masseuse, nothing to do with the identity of the masseuse, and most 
particularliiithing to do with the conduct that would occur (except, of course, a massage). 
See, e.g., 
Tr. at 14-16. Exhibit 5A. The identity of the individual who ultimately provided 
a massage was simply a matter of who expressed an interest, or was brought by a friend. In the 
latter circumstance, neither Mr. Epstein nor his assistants knew who the masseuse would be, 
other than by name (if even by name), let alone knew her age or the conduct in which she and 
Mr. Epstein would ultimately engage on any particular occasion. See, e.g., 
. at 3, 19, 
Exhibit 10; 
Tr. at 19-20, 23-24, Exhibit 2; see also Message Book Entries, Exhibit 8. 
EFTA01080603

Page 8 
In many cases, the young women themselves, without any prompting by Mr. Epstein or 
his assistants, would leave a message seeking to visit Mr. Epstein at his home. See, 
Tr. at 6, Exhibit 21; see also Message Book Entries, Exhibit 8. The proactive step of calling to 
request to provide a massage is the antithesis of having been lured, induced, enticed, persuaded 
or coerced. It demonstrates that these women sought to engage in the conduct alleged, even 
assuming these women had been to the house before and engaged in such activities. Indeed, as 
word of the opportunity s read amongst groups of friends, others sought out thaportunity 
through friends. See 
Tr. at 15, Exhibit 14; 
Ti. at 45, 57, Exhibit 2; 
Tr. at 22, 
Exhibit 19; 
Tr. at 13, Exhibit 22; Police Report at 24, Exhibit 17. 
Finally, many massages involved conduct which even if engaged in with an underage 
masseuse is not proscribed by federal law, either because the masseuses were of age and the calls 
thus resulted in conduct between two consenting adults; or because conduct with underage 
masseuses only involved topless massages, massages in undergarments, or naked massages. 
These points are made over and over in the record before you, as the following sampling 
illustrates: 
the youngest woman involved in this case, and the catalyst for and 
subject of the State prosecution, came to Mr. Epstein's house by way of Mille
—the 
same 
who swore under oath that Maiin 
wanted women between the ages of 
18 and 20 to perform massages. It was
who approached 
(in 
person), not Mr. Epstein and not one of Mr. Epstein's assistants. And, it was 
who 
spoke to Mr. Epstein's assistant to arrange an appointment for Ms. 
to 
orm a 
massage. Neither Mr. Epstein nor his assistants were given information about 
Nor were details of the massa c discussed over the phone. The appointment was simply 
scheduled for a "friend" of 
presumably one who met the directive of being between 18 
and 20 years of age, to provide Mr. Epstein with a massage. The only fact about Ms. 
that Mr. Epstein or any assistant knew was her name (but not age), and they learned of her name 
only after she first visited Mr. Epstein's home. Indeed, it was not until the State investigation 
that it became known to Mr. Epstein that Ms. 
was underage. 
Ms. 
constructed an elaborate back story to make her claim of being 18 credible and stuck to the story. 
Ms. 
provided one massage and never returned to Mr. Epstein's residence. Thus, there 
is no factual basis from which to claim that any federal law was broken here. 
The relevant circumstances of 
encounters with Mr. Epstein are 
different, but they lead to the same conclusion. A review of the phone Message Book Entries 
obtained from Mr. Epstein's residence, as a result of
 seizure during the execution 
of a questionable search warrant, is telling. Ms. 
like many of the other young women 
involved in this case, actively sought to participate in the activities in which she engaged with 
Mr. Epstein. She, like many others, did so by making unsolicited telephone calls to Mr. 
Epstein's assistants looking for a chance to provide Mr. Epstein with a massage. Ms. MIE, 
like others, left messages to the effect: "do you have work for me." Message Book Entries, 
EFTA01080604

Page 9 
Exhibit 8 (the following entries are also included: "was wondering if she can work. . ." and "I'd 
like to work for him today"). Again, these facts do not support a federal case. 
The conduct o 
is likewise illustrative of why this is not a federal case. In 
the same way Ms. 
as referred to Mr. Epstein and brought to his home without having 
been introduced or acquainted with Mr. E stein or his assistants in any manner, Ms. = 
too, 
was referred by someone el 
who told her to lie to Mr. Epstein about 
r age, 
which she did. =Tr. 
at 8-9 Exhibit 5A. Ms. = 
too, admits that she lied to Mr. Epstein 
about her age. And, Ms. ME like so many others, called Mr. Epstein's residence seeking the 
opportunity to provide Mr. Epstein a massage and leaving messages such as: "Please call her." 
See Message Book Entries, Exhibit 8. FinailMs. =confirmed that there was absolutely no 
element of coercion or force involved. 
Tr. at 9-10, 13, Exhibit 5A ("And like I said, he 
also, you know, reassured if I wasn't comfortable with anything, then just tell him ..."). 
And, there are other young women who left similar messages (see Message Book Entries, 
Exhibit 8); who were introduced to Mr. 
stein 
stein in a similar fashion see 
Tr. at 2-3, 
Exhibit 23; 
Tr. at 3, Exhibit 19; =MR. at 4, 6, Exhibit 20; 
r. at 2, Exhibit 
22; 
3, Exhibit 11; MMTr. at 2-3, Exhibit 24; 
at 3, Exhibit 25; 
Tr. 
at 3, Exhibit 13; air. 
at 3, Exhibit 26); who visited the residence only once and prior to 
that were unknown to Mr. Epstein and his staff (see 
Tr. at 10, Exhibit 26; 1.Tr. 
at 
11, Exhibit 11;al 
Tr. at 5-6, Exhibit 4; 1
 Tr. at 7-8, Exhibit 27); who only 
ormed 
laves (see
Tr. at 4, 5, 6-7, 9, 11, Exhibit 13; 
NTL at 4, 5, 6, 10, Exhibit 24; 
Tr. at 7, Exhibit 25); who never en aged in unlawful sexual activity or any sexual activity 
for that matter (id. ienerak; 
Tr., Exhibit 20; INTr., Exhibit 27; Police Report at 
78, Exhibit 17; 
Tr., Exhibit 24, 
Tr., Exhibit 26; and 
Tr., Exhibit 2); or, 
who lied and counseled others to lie about their ages (see 
j 
at 38-39, Exhibit 10; 
Tr. at 16, Exhibit 4; 
Tr. at 6, 8, 22, 45, 
• bit 2, 
Tr. 13, Exhibit 11; 
Tr. at 12, Exhibit 12; iTr. 
at 14-15, Exhibit 14). 
These facts do not support a federal conviction. There was no use of the phones to lure, 
induce, entice, persuade or coerce another to engage in unlawful sexual activity. There was no 
travel for the purpose of engaging in such activity. And, no commercial enterprise from which 
Mr. Epstein derived a financial benefit. To conclude that merely scheduling a massage under 
these circumstances, or returning an uninitiated call would support a federal prosecution under 
§ 2242 stands in stark contrast to that which would support a conviction under the statute. 
Nor do the facts of this case meet the requirements for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 
2423(b). As discussed in greater detail below, the amount of time Mr. Epstein spent at his home 
in Florida, and the extensive list of his Florida-based activities clearly undermines the contention 
that he was a New York resident, government filing also corroborate this fact, and defeats the 
notion that his purpose in traveling to Florida was to engage in illicit sexual conduct. On the 
contrary, Mr. Epstein returned to Florida to engage in the routine activities of daily living. 
EFTA01080605

Page 10 
Finally, as will be explained, this case does not involve the quintessential conduct present 
in prosecutions under the commercial sexual enterprise statue: there is no trafficking; no "force, 
fraud or coercion"; no threats; no sexual servitude; no financial venture; no profit from a 
financial venture; no forced work in the commercial sex industry; and no transporting of children 
from underdeveloped countries to the United States or even within the United States across state 
lines. Nor was there any conduct, whatsoever, which could be considered so extremely abusive 
or violent, that an expansion of the statutes beyond their intended purpose would be warranted. 
In short, the facts of this case fail to support a charge under any of the statutes identified. 
At its worst, the conduct violates Florida State law and should be prosecuted as such—which it 
has been, by the State authorities. 
IL 
STATUTORY ANALYSIS 
Federal prosecutors have identified three statutes under which Mr. Epstein might be 
charged: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422, and 2423. None of these statutes applies to this matter. 
Instead, as their plain text and history indicate, these statutes were designed to address problems 
that are truly national and international in scope: human trafficking in § 1591; telephone or 
Internet sexual predation in § 2422; and sex tourism in § 2423. Unlike the alleged conduct at 
issue here, those problems unquestionably present multi-jurisdictional problems that States and 
localities cannot confront effectively on their own. But Mr. Epstein's conduct was purely local 
in nature, and the State of Florida and Palm Beach County are effectively prosecuting and 
punishing that conduct. 
Any attempt to federalize Mr. Epstein's case would require prosecutors to stretch these 
statutes far beyond prior precedent—and well beyond their text and purposes. Indeed, Mr. 
Epstein's alleged conduct involves quintessentially State and local offenses that never before 
have been thought to fall within the purview of federal law. Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct was 
non-violent—there was absolutely no force, coercion or fraud. Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct 
occurred at his home—he did not travel to other locations (much less cross State lines) for 
surreptitious meetings with known minors. Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct did not involve the use 
or reliance on the Internet, email, or on faceless chat room meetings. No drugs were involved. 
Mr. Epstein did not profit from any underage sex. And the young women's own testimony 
confirms that their alleged meetings with Mr. Epstein lacked any semblance of violence or 
predation. 
Most of the women were 18 or over, and those minors who have testified 
acknowledge that they falsely represented themselves to be at least 18. Many of the young 
women telephoned Mr. Epstein's residence and left messages on seized documents seeking to 
give massages; some even came to Mr. Epstein's residence bringing friends or their boyfriends. 
None was explicitly induced or persuaded to have illegal sex during phone conversations, as 
federal law would require in order to convert this State-law solicitation case into a federal matter. 
Finally, we have examined the hundreds of federal prosecutions under §§ 2422, 1591 and 
2423. See Table of § 2422 Cases, Exhibit 28; Table of § 1591 Cases, Exhibit 29; Table of 
§ 2423 Cases, Exhibit 30. Not one resembles this case; a federal prosecution on these alleged 
EFTA01080606

Page 11 
facts would be entirely unprecedented. There is simply no reason for the Department to strain 
these statutes to achieve that result. This is a State and local matter, and State authorities have 
actively, competently, and thoroughly addressed it. 
A. 
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) 
Section 2422(b) reads as follows: 
Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign 
commerce ... knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual 
who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual 
activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts 
to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than [5] years or 
for life. 
(Emphasis added.)5
By its plain text, the statute thus applies only to those who "use" the "means of interstate 
... commerce" to "knowingly" convince a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct. That is 
not what happened here. 
1. 
Plain Language 
§ 2422(b) criminalizes the "us[ej" of a facility or means of interstate commerce in order 
to induce otherwise prohibited sexual conduct, but not the sexual conduct itself. In other words, 
the statute criminalizes communication over the phone or Internet—not sexual contact—by 
unambiguously requiring that the facility or means of interstate commerce be used to induce 
sexual activity that is independently unlawful. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 
1286 (11th Cir. 2004); United States v. Davis, 165 Fed. Appx. 586, 588 (10th Cir. 2006). That 
requirement is not merely a jurisdictional hook to federalize State crimes. Rather, using the 
means of interstate commerce to induce (or attempt to induce) a minor to engage in otherwise 
prohibited sexual conduct is itself the crime. 
By its plain text, then, § 2422(b) requires the government to prove beyond a reasonable 
doubt that the defendant engaged in communication over an interstate facility (e.g., the Internet 
or phone) with four concurrent intentions: (1) to knowingly (2) persuade, induce, entice or 
coerce, or attempt to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce (3) a minor (4) to engage in prostitution 
or criminal sexual activity. Put differently, the caller must use the phone to induce a minor (or 
5 
During the events at issue, § 2422(b) carried a mandatory five-year period of incarceration. Congress raised the 
mandatory minimum to ten years in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. 
EFTA01080607

Page 12 
one believed to be a minor if the charge is attempt) to engage in illegal sexual activities at the 
time of the use of the interstate facility—and the inducement must in fact occur during the use 
itself. If the defendant forms the intent to induce criminal sexual activity at some point after 
such use, or if the defendant does not actually induce during the use, § 2422(b) does not apply. 
The Eleventh Circuit's Pattern Jury Instructions recognize as much. According to those 
Instructions, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: 
First: That the Defendant knowingly used [the mail][a computer][describe other 
interstate facility as alleged in indictment] to attempt to persuade, induce, entice 
[or coerce] an individual under the age of eighteen (18) to engage in sexual 
activity, as charged; 
Second: That the Defendant believed that such individual was less than eighteen 
(18) years of age; 
Third: That if the sexual activity had occurred, the Defendant could have been 
charged with a criminal offense under the law of [identify the state]; and 
Fourth: That the Defendant acted knowingly and willfully. 
Offense Instructions 80, Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions-Criminal (2003). These 
instructions thus make clear that the Government must prove that the defendant used the 
interstate facility to knowingly persuade or induce or entice or coerce a known minor to engage 
in illegal sexual activity; if the persuasion or inducement is not made over the phone or via 
Internet, the defendant cannot be convicted under § 2422(b). 
In this case, phone calls allegedly made to schedule a massage for Mr. Epstein did not 
violate § 2422(b). While Mr. Epstein later may have persuaded a minor to engage in unlawful 
activity during the massage, that does not work retroactively to render the earlier phone call an 
offense under § 2422(b). 
In that respect, § 2422(b) is distinguishable from the mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 
U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, where there is no temporal link between the use of the mail or wires 
and the scheme to defraud. With wire fraud, for instance, the essence of the crime is the 
underlying fraud itself: activity that constitutes fraud under State law becomes a federal crime 
when the defendant takes the additional step of using the wires at any point in the course of the 
underlying fraud, or even after the principal fraudulent conduct has been completed. But the 
fraud itself need not be undertaken or executed over the phone or wires; those transmissions are 
incidental. 
Moreover, the wire fraud statute does not tie the wire communication (i.e., the phone call) 
in any temporal way to the scheme to defraud. To the contrary, that relationship is deliberately 
loose in order to encompass the broader fraudulent activity. The fraud scheme can be either 
EFTA01080608

Page 13 
already in place or even merely intended; the only requirement is that a phone call be made at 
any point "for the purposes of executing" the fraud. It does not matter whether the phone call is 
made before, during, or after the fraud itself. The use of the telephone serves only to bring the 
fraud—the primary criminal act—within the purview of federal law. Without the phone call that 
uses the interstate wires, the fraud might well be merely a State crime. That is clearly not the 
case under § 2422. 
2. 
Legislative History 
The legislative history of § 2422(b) confirms that it was not intended to apply to cases 
like this one. Congress enacted § 2422(b) as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to 
combat sexual predators who solicit minors over the Internet. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, 
at 193 (1996) (expressing "the need for Congress to take effective action to protect children and 
families from online harm"); see also United States v. Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193, 1197 (11th Cir. 
2005). Congress at that time recognized that the Internet allows anonymous predators to target 
children anywhere in the world, presenting unique jurisdictional problems that local law 
enforcement—and the existing federal statute—was ill-equipped to address. 
To that end, Congress purposefully targeted the use of interstate instrumentalities for the 
first time. Indeed, prior to 1996, § 2422 made no such provision. It simply provided that: 
Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices or coerces any individual to 
travel in interstate or foreign commerce . . . to engage in prostitution or any 
[criminal] sexual activity . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more 
than five years, or both. 
As a result, § 2422 at that time criminalized only knowing inducement to travel across interstate 
or international borders—which obviously did nothing to address the problem of Internet 
predators, whose persuasion or inducement might have nothing to do with persuading a 
prospective victim to engage in interstate or foreign travel, but which unquestionably corrupts an 
interstate instrumentality—the wires. Accordingly, when Congress added § 2422(b), it borrowed 
the language about knowing persuasion from the prior statute, and—given the growth of the 
Internet—then criminalized the use of an interstate facility to knowingly persuade a minor to 
engage in otherwise unlawful conduct, whether or not the minor crosses State lines. Congress, in 
short, was aiming at the use of interstate facilities (like the Internet) to recruit minors into 
unlawful sexual activity. In contrast to the mail and wire elements of the mail and wire fraud 
statutes, that element is central, not tangential, to Congress's clear intent in enacting § 2422(b). 
Finally, it is important to remember that § 2422(b) now carries a 10-year mandatory 
minimum sentence. Congress was addressing very serious crimes of substantial federal interest; 
it was not federalizing a broad swath of essentially local sexual misconduct whenever a minor 
was involved and there was some tangential use of an interstate facility. That is why § 2422(b) 
must be limited to situations where a person purposefully and knowingly communicates with a 
minor by means of an instrumentality of interstate commerce, generally beginning with an 
EFTA01080609

Page 14 
Internet chatroom or email. Congress's target was online predators who lure unsuspecting 
minors into dangerous and unlawful sexual activity—a crime that is difficult to monitor or 
regulate. Subjecting Mr. Epstein's conduct (and apparent lack of use of the Internet, email, or 
phone) to § 2422(b)'s harsh mandatory minimum sentence is a far cry from what Congress 
intended. 
3. 
Inability To Satisfy Elements 
As discussed above, § 2422(6) makes it a crime for a defendant (1) to use an 
instrumentality of interstate commerce (2) to knowingly (3) induce or entice, or attempt to 
induce or entice (4) a minor (5) to engage in unlawful sexual activity. The Government will 
have great difficulty establishing that any of these elements is satisfied in this case, let alone all 
of them. 
a. 
Mr. Epstein Did Not Use An Interstate Instrumentality. 
As set forth above, the actus reus of § 2422(b) is the use of an interstate facility in order 
to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in a proscribed sexual act—rather than 
the sexual act itself. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 2004) ("The 
underlying criminal conduct Congress expressly proscribed in passing § 2422(b) is the 
persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of the minor rather than the sex act itself."). 
But that element plainly is not satisfied here, because Mr. Epstein did not himself use an 
interstate facility to contact any of the women—let alone use an interstate facility to persuade or 
induce a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity. That fact alone takes this case well outside 
the heartland of a § 2422(b) offense.' See generally, Table of § 2422 Cases, Exhibit 28. 
b. 
Mr. Epstein Did Not Target Minors. 
§ 2422(b) further requires that the defendant specifically intended to target a minor. See, 
e.g, United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]o prove an attempt the 
government must first prove that [defendant], using the internet, acted with a specific intent to 
persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in unlawful sex.") (emphasis added). 
After all, § 2422(b) expressly requires that the crime be committed "knowingly," and that 
requisite mental element for each element of the crime. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 
513 U.S. 64, 68-69 (1994); United States v Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 718 (9th Cir. 2004); United 
States v Root, 2% F.3d 1222, 1227 (11th Cir. 2002); United States vBailey, 228 F.3d 637, 638-
639 (6th Cir. 2000). 
6 
Mr. Epstein's assistants maintain his schedule, and be often is not involved at all. See infra part II.A.3.d. 
EFTA01080610