EFTA01248625

12/11/2007 11:37 FAX 
£ 004/099 
Jay P I ntlwniz. P.C. 
10 Call Writer Dewar 
(2'9)440.4970 
loSl0W.12Okabild Coll 
Chicacjo 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
VIA FACSIMILE (305) 530-6444
United States Attorney 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 N r. 4th Street 
Miami. FI, 33132 
Dear 
I appreciate the opportunity you have provided to review some ol' the issues and concerns 
of Mr. F.pstein's defense team. Importantly. I appreciate your agreement that this submission 
would neither be understood by you as constituting a breach or thc Non-Prosecution Agreement 
("Agreement") nor result in any unwinding of the Agreement by your Office. Implicit in this 
agreement is the understanding that I can share with you our concerns and request a review on 
the basis Ibr these concerns. while at the same time assure my client that this submission will not 
in any respect result in thrmal or intimnal repercussions or attempts by any member of the 
prosecution or investigative team to involve themselves In Mr. Epstein's detriment in any matter 
related to the Agreement, particularly in the state prosecution. This Idler is intended to support 
our assertion to you that the manner in which both the investigation of allegations against Mr. 
Epstein and the resolution thereof were highly irregular and wammt a full review. We appreciate 
your willingness to consider the evidence. We respectfully request that you review Judge Stern's 
letter to Alan Dershowilz faxed to you on December 7. 20(17. in connection with the concerns 
we set forth in this submission. 
A
 A0,111411. l'A•1041,:ali.. 
O61VMM Ca.11140 
193 Eau! 53r0 Slowl 
New York. New Volk 10022.4611 
(2121 4484800 
tOm 
December I I. 2007 
Re: Jilliey Epstein 
(212) 4404%00 
I. 
FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS RELIED UPON TAINTED EVIDENCE. 
We have serious concerns that the summaries of the evidence that have been presented to 
you have been materially inaccurate. As you may know. tlw principal witnesses in this case were 
first interviewed by Detective 
of the Palm Beach Police Department (the "PIWIT) and 
other state law enforcement 4)1'1-leers. Thew interviews (the ••witness statements") were ollen 
tape-recorded thus providing a verbatim and detailed record orthe recollections or thc witnesses 
at a point in time prior to any federal involvetnent. Unfortunately. the police report authored by 
Detective 
and certain affidavits executed 1w him contained both material misstatements 
Ham Kong 
I Mann 
Los Anaitlet. 
Munich 
San Francisco 
Washington. D C. 
3501.211.025 
Page 1 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095001 
EFTA01248625

12/11/2007 11:37 FAX 
005/089 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December I I. 200 
Page 2 
regarding the specifics of what he was told by his witnesses and also contained omissions of 
critical and often exculpatory infOrmation that was recorded verbatim during the taped interview 
sessions. The federal investigation involved interviews with many of the same witnesses. We 
are awn that at least one federal interview ( 
Was recorded. 
We understand that Detective 
provided his police report and certain affidavits to 
the federal authorities but did not pow' e t e actual witness statements of the taped haterviews to 
your Office or to the FRI. These witness statements constitute the hest evidence available (they 
are verbatim and earlier in time to the federal interviews), and they contain statements that arc 
highly exculpatory to Mr. Epstein. 
Because understanding the compromised nature of the 
"evidence" against Mr. Epstein is key to a proper view or this case, we summarize it in detail 
below. 
A. 
The Witness Statements Kstablish That Mr. Ensicin 
MANSCIMS Under IS. 
Indeed. the witness statements demonstrate that the opposite is true. 
shows that the many of the masseuses were eighteen or over. including 
Nnt Target 
First. the evidence 
at the time they 
visited Mr. Lpstein's home. Also, there is substantial evidence. !Nand in the sworn statements of 
the women themselves, which indicate that. to the extent others were in fact under the age of 
ei hteen, man affirmatively lied about her age. As 
herself told the PHPI): 
told me to say I was 13 because 
said . . . if you're not then he [EpsteinI 
won't really let you in his house. So I said I was IX". Detective 
however. largely 
ignored these critical admissions in his Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
• 
Q: At any time, did he speak to you and does he know how old you are? Did he know 
how old you were 
A: . . .As a mater of fact. Haley [Robson] told one to say I was IS because Haley said 
tell him you're 18 because if you'll: not. then he won't molly let you in his house. So 
I said I was IS. As I was giving him a massage. he's like, how old are you? And 
then I was like IS. But I kind of said it really fast because I didn't want to make it 
sound like I was lying or anything. (Swum Statement 012(ISA15). 
Q: Did he ask you your age? 
A: Yeah, I told him I was I S. (Sworn Statement of 10/05105). 
3501.211-025 
Page 2 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095002 
EFTA01248626

12/11/2007 11:38 FAX 
It 008/089 
KIRKLAND S. ELLIS LLP 
December II. 2007 
Page 3 
• 
• 
• 
Q: Did he know your uge? 
A: I don't think — I think he did. Downstairs 
was like oh. well if they ask 
you how old are you just say you're IR but he never asked me how old I was. I 
thought you had to be 18 to give a massage (inaudible). (Sworn Statement of 
12/13/O5) 
A: We went supposed to say we were 111. 
Q: Who told you that, to say that? 
A:_. 
(Sworn Statement of 11!R/05). 
A: I told him I was I S. (Sworn Statement of 10/3/051. 
Wall with 
I don't know how old she is because she lied about her 
age. Slw lied to me when I first mei her. When I was IR she told me she was IS. 
(Inaudible.) Well she left her purse at my house and she told me to make sure that I 
didn't look in her purse. When I went through her purse I found her state license that 
said she was I6 so she lied to me about her age. (Sworn Statement of ICl/03/0W 
0: Now. how old were you when you first started going there? 
A: Eighteen. I'm 19 now this last March." (Sworn Statement of 10/12/05). 
Q: And all this occurred when you %sure 18 though? 
I In addition to giving a swam matentent at the PRPD Station. ItehsOn's conversations with Delectivellill 
while being transported to nod from the Malign, wen: also recorded. This excerpt h. taken from the recording of 
traveling from the station. 
3501.211-025 
Page 3 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095003 
EFTA01248627

12/11/200? 11:38 FAX 
la 007/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS ur 
Meet1... H.2(11
Page 4 
A: t Ih-huh. I had been IS for like S months. nine months already. My birthday is in 
June so I had been IS fora while. (Sworn Statement of 2/3/05). 
O: Okay. How old are you now? You're - 
A: I'm 20 
O: You're 20. So a couple months ago you would have been what. IQ? 
A: I Ih-huh. 
Q: Alright. So July. August you would have been I% 20. On the verge of 20? 
A: Llb-huh. (Sworn Statement of 11/4/05) 
We believe that other witnesses have similarly told the hill that Mr. Epstein attempted to 
monitor the ages of the masseuses who came to his home. 
We further believe that these 
transcripts would show that the federal interest in prosecuting Mr. Epstein for paradigmatic state 
offenses was far less compelling than the inaccurate police reports suggest. 
D. 
Detective 
Made Crucial Misstatements In the Police Report and 
Probable Cause Affidavits. 
We have reviewed the sworn and recorded witness statements of many of the individuals 
who were interviewed (conducted in person or by telephone) as well as a number of the 
controlled calls cited in the Police Report. Time idler time, we found statements in the Police 
Report attributed to statements made in the sworn recordings that either simply were nut said. or 
in some instances. arc flatly contradicted, by the witness who purportedly made the statement. In 
fact. they often stand in stark contrast to representations made by Detective 
in both the 
official Police Report and in affidavits signed by him under oath . We hig t tg t the most 
signilictun ones identified to date: 
• 
Hall Did Not Report that Epstein Told Her to Lie About her Age 
The Probable Cause Affidavit indicates that during her sworn statement "'loll advised 
that during her frequent visits Lipstein asked for her real age. I fall shard she was 
sixteen land that' Epstein advised her not to tell anyone her real age.-  
Arrest 
Probable Cause Affidavit at II. That statement appears nowhere in Hall's sworn 
statement. 
3501.211-025 
Page 4 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095004 
EFTA01248628

12/11/2007 11 38 FAX 
a 008/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December I I. 2007 
Page 5 
Hall Did Nut State that Epstein Photographed Her I laving Sex 
Detective Reearey also reports Ilall as claiming that "Epstein would photograph 
Marcinkova and her naked and having sex and proudly display the photographs 
within the home." kl. at 12. Again, this statement is not in I Ian's sworn statement. 
To the contrary. the transcript reflects that Hall stated: "I was just like. it was me 
standing in front of a big white marble bathtub ... in the guest bathroom in his master 
suite. And it wasn't like I was you know spreading my legs or anything for the 
camera, I was like. I was standing up. I think I was standing up and I just like. it was 
me kind of looking over my shoulder kinds smiling. and that was that." Sworn 
Statement of 10/11/05 at 35. 2
Said Epstein Did Not Touch tier Inappropriately 
Detective 
recounts that Fayth 
advised that "Epstein grabbed her 
buttocks and pulled her close to him." Probable Cause Affidavit at 6. See also. Police 
Report (10/07/05) at 30 (same). Penick never made this statement. In Butt when 
Detective 
asked. "He did not touch you inappropriately'!" Pentek responded. 
"No.-  Sworn Statement of 10/04/05 at I I. 
Was Nat Sixteen When She First When to Epstein's I tome. 
CCHAPA: 
states: 
also stated she Was sixteen years old when she 
first went to Epsiein's house". 
Incident Report at 52. 
However. 
affirmatively stales that she was seventeen when she first went to Epstein's home: 
"Q: Okay. How old were you when you first went there? A: Seventeen. Q: 
Seventeen. A: And I was 17 the last time I went there mo. 1 Rimed 18 this past 
June". Sworn Statement of 11/14/05. 
• 
Li
Told Detective= that Epstein Did Nut Mite out Sex Toys. 
The Probable Cause Affidavit indicates that 
suited, "Epstein would 
use a massager/vibrator. which she described as white in color and a large head. 
Epstein would rub the vibrator/massager on her vaginal area as he would masturbate.-
Pmhable Cause Affidavit at 14: see also Police Report 11 I/10/05) at 49 ("Epstein 
would use a massager/vibrator, which she described as white in color with a large 
head, on her."). 'this statement appears nowhere in the transcript of Velasco's swum 
2 [Ian was intervkwed by Detective 
twice. (Mee by telephone. and once in person. The portions of the 
Police Report to which we refer speei wally cite the in•persun interview of I tall as the source for the 
information reported. We have reviewed the recording of that interview and base the comparison on that 
review. We have never heard a recording of the telephone interview. 
3501.211-025 
Page 5 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095005 
EFTA01248629

12/11/2007 11:39 FAX 
if1009/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December 1 I. 2007 
Page 6 
statement. In Net. when Detective 
asked whether Mr. Epstein had "ever 
takeliel out any toys," 
respo 
.- Sworn Statement of 1 I/08/05 at 17. 
Did Not Recall Mr. Epstein Masturbating 
Dcteetivel 
recounts that 
• -advised she was sure (Mr. Epstein] 
was MASIIII lung based on his an movements going up and dawn on his penis 
area." Probable Cause Affidavit at IL See a/so Police Report  ( I0/07105) at 35 (same). 
Detective 
account is in direct contradiction to 
true 
statement, specifically: 
Q: Okay did he ever take oil—did lie ever touch himself? 
A: I don't think wt. 
Q: No. Did he ever masturbate himself in front of you? 
A: I don't remember him doing that. Ile might have hut I really don't 
remember. (Sworn Statement of 10/05/05 at 7). 
• 
Stated that Only One Cirl Leaked Young 
Police Report at 57: 
stated that towards the end or his employment. the 
masseuses were younger and younger. However, he said no such thing: 
Q: Did they seem young to you? 
A. No. sir. Mostly no. We saw one or two young ones in the last year. Rehire that. 
it WM all adults 
. I nancmher one girl as young. We never asked how old she 
was. It was not in my job . . . But I imagine she was 16. IT'. (Sworn Statement of 
I I /2I/05) 
C. 
Detective 
Made Material Omissions in the Police Report. 
In addition to the misstatements in the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit as to 
the evidentiary record, them were also material omissions. both of facts known to the PBPD and 
also of facts not known to the PRIV, though known by the State Attorney. In the halter instance. 
the lack of knowledge was the result of the MOD's refusal to receive the exculpatory evidence. 
In fact. they refused to attend a meeting called by the State Attorney specifically to provide the 
relevant evidence. Thus, the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit only offer a skewed 
view of the facts material to this matter. Examples follow. 
I. 
The Video Surveillance Equipment Located in Mr. Epstein 
Office and Garage. 
Both the Police Report (at 43) and the Probable Cause Affidavit (at IX) make 
3501.211-025 
Page 6 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095006 
EFTA01248630

12/11/2007 11:39 FAX 
11010/0£411 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December 11.2007 
Page 7 
particular mention of the "discovery- of video surveillance equipment (or "coven 
cameras" as they arc called) in Epstein's garage and library/office. Inclusion of this 
information insinuates a link between the equipment and the events at issue: in the 
Probable Cause Affidavit 
states, "on the first floor or the IEpstein, 
residence I 
found two covert cameras hidden within clocks. One 
was located in the garage and the other located in the library area on a shell behind 
Epstein's desk . . . The computer's hard drive was reviewed which showed several 
images of I laley Robson and other witnesses that have been interviewed. All of these 
images appeared to come from the camera positioned behind Lipstein's desk". See 
Probable Cause Affidavit at lit 
Clearly omitted from both the Police Re Ion and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the 
fact that the PBPL). and specifically 
knew about the cameras since 
they were installed in 2003. with the help q t re 
D. to address the theft of cash 
from Epstein's home. 'Ibis fact is detailed in a Palm Mach Police Report prepared in 
October 2003 detailing the thefts. the installation or video equipment. the video 
recording capturing 
(Mr. Epstein's then house manager) "red handed". 
and the incriminating statements made by =when he was confronted at the lime. 
See MIMI Police Report at 5. 8. The contemporaneous police report confirms the 
fact that the video footage was turned over to Detective 
himself. 
2. 
Polygraph Examination and Report. On May 2. 2006. Mr. Epstein submitted to a 
polygraph examination by George Slattery. a highly respected polygraph examiner 
who is regularly used by the State Attorney. The examination was done at a time 
when we were told that the sole focus of the investigation was the conduct with 
Mr. Epstein was asked (a) whether 1w had "sexual contact with 
: (h) 
whether he "in anyway threatenl.x11 
(c) whether he was told by 
That she was IR years o 
an 
whether he "believed WM 
 
years old-. As set forth in the Itepon or the examination. the term 
"sexual contact" was given an extremely broad meaning in order to capture any 
inappropriate conduct that could have occurred.) llw results or the examination 
confirmed that (i) no such conduct occurred: (ii) Mr. Epstein never Threatened 
1=IMIIIIIIIMMIE told Mr. Epstein she was IR years old: and (iv) Mr. Epstein 
believed •was 
IR years uhf. 
the thainnion incluilml: ••:usual intercourse. Mid ses mss (penis in mouth err 'mind, on vagina). linger penetration 
of the vagina. linger penetration or the anus. touching or the vagina for %canal gratilieautm purposes. touching 
of the penis for sexual gnstilicaiinn imposts. masturbation by or to another. touching or nihhing of the breasts. 
tit any other physical contact involving sexual thoughts :outgo/ desires with another peratn-. 
3501.211-025 
Page 7 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFFA_00095007 
EFTA01248631

12/11/2007 11:39 FAX 
0 1 von 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLr 
December I I. 2007 
Page 8 
3. 
Broken "Sex ik,w" in Mr. Epstein's Trash. The Police Report details the police 
finding in Mr. Epstein's trash what is described as broken picas of a "sex toy" and 
that this "discovery" purportedly corroburauxl witness statements. Omitted from both 
11w Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is 11w filet that during the course 
of executing the search warrant in Epstein's home, the police discovered the other 
piece of that key "sex toy- and realized it was in litet only the broken handle of a 
salad server. Though "sex toys" play a prominent role in the Police Report and 
Probable Cause Affidavit. tlx: Police Report was never amended to relied the 
discovery of this new and highly relevant evidence. 
4. 
Failure to Consider Evetilpatory or Impeaching Evidence. Other exculpatory and 
impeaching evidence known by the PBPD was omitted from the Police Report and 
Probable Cause Affidavit by, in our view, manipulating the date the investigation was 
allegedly closed. 
According to the Police Report (at 85). Detective 
'explained Ito ASA 
1 that the PBPD had concluded its ease in December 
of 2005". That assertion, which is false. conveniently resulted in the omission of all 
information adduced subsequent to that date. Thus, though the Police Report in fact 
contains information obtained after December 2005. the PRPD purported to justify its 
refusal to consider, or even to include, in the Police Report, the Probable Cause 
Affidavit or what it released to the public, all the exculpatory and evidence 
impeaching the witnesses submitted on behalf of Mr. Epstein. most of which was 
provided tiller December 2005. That evidence is listed below. 
S. 
Unreported Criminal Histories and Mental Health Problems of the Witnesses 
Relied ost in the Police Report and Probable Cruse Affidavit. Evidence obtainixl 
concerning the witnesses relied upon to support the Probable Cause Affidavit casts 
significant doubt on whether these witnesses arc sufficiently credible to support a 
finding of probable cause, lea alone to sustain what would be the prosecution's burden 
of proof at a trial:: Though such evidence was submitted to the PRP!). none of it was 
included in the Police Report or the Probable Cause Affidavit. 
While the Police Report (at 57') and the Probable Cause Affidavit fat 
21) contain assertions by 
which allegedly support bringing a criminal charge. 
the evidence revealing 
evident mental instability; prior criminal conduct 
against Epstein,. and bias towards Epstein is notably omitted. As detailed above, in 
2003, 
was filmed taking money from Epstein's home. After being caught on 
videotape unlawfully entering Epstein's home and stealing cash from a brierense, 
While we have never intended to and do nOl here seek to SISIUSOUsly cowl aspersions on any oldie witnesses, in 
previously asking the Stoic and now asking you to evaluate the strength of this ease, we have been constrained 
to porn out the fact that the alleged victims chow to present themselves to the work) through MySpace profiles 
with self-selected monikers such as "Pimp Juke and -Ashley Fucking Davis- or will, node photos. 
3501.211-025 
Page 8 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095008 
EFTA01248632

12/11/2007 11:40 FAX 
012/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December 11, 2007 
1'age 
admitted to the PBPD that he entered the house unlawfully on numerous 
occasions. stealing cash and attempting to steal Epstein's licensed handgun to commit 
suicide. Although this information was known by DetcetivaM at the time the 
Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit were prepared. and is clearly material to 
any detennination of credibility. it was omitted. 
. 
I 
 
'was the source of the vast majority of the serious 
allegations made against Epstein. 
While the Police Report and Probable Cause 
Affidavit rely on 
numerous assertions. there are two significant prnblems with 
that reliance. First there is no mention of certain critical admissions made by a 
during her interview, as well as on her MySpace wehpage (discovered by defense 
investigators and turned over to the State Attorney). Second. all but omitted from the 
Police Report is an reference to the fads known about her by the PBPD. specifically, 
that at the lime 
was making these assertions the had been arrested by the MD 
and way being prosecuted *possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. We 
take each in turn. 
• 
Admits Voluntary Sexual C' lea With Epstein. 
Refuses to Disclose the Disposition of the Monies She Earned, and 
Lies About Being "Gime a Car by Epstein: 
Detective 
railed to include in the rolice Report Hall's admission that on one 
01.1:35101) she engaged in sexual conduct with Epstein's girlfriend us 
her hirthligir 
to Epstein. Nor does Detective 
include the 
fact that 
flatly refused to discuss with him the disposition of the 
thousands of dollars she said she was given by Epstein. or that she 
falsely claimed that she did not use drugs. despite her MySpacc entries 
in which she exclaims "I can't wait to buy some wcialumn"
Detective IMMII was aware the car had been rented. not purchased. 
and only ii was only leased on a monthly basis for two months. While 
MIIIINfanciful claim that she was given a car appears in the Police 
Report, it is never corrected. 
• 
Was Arrested for Possession of Marijuana and Drug 
map :emu au. As noted, on September II. 2005. I lull was arrested 
for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. In response in 
this arrest. I call 'came forward" (as the Probable Cause Affidavit 
implies at 10-I I). claiming she had knowledge of -squat activity 
taking place" at Epstein's residence and misconduct by Epstein. (This 
"coming forward" lawyers no where in the Police Report.) Thus, it 
becomes clear that I= 
assertions of misconduct by Epstein were 
motivated by a desire to avoid the repercussions of her own criminal 
conduct. which should have been taken into account when assessing 
her credibility as a witness. 
3501.211-025 
Page 9 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095009 
EFTA01248633

12/11/2007 11:40 FAX 
a013/099 
December 11. 2007 
Page 10 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
• 
Steals Front a Victoria's Secret Stun,. 
An 
investigation y private investigators working for the defense revealed 
that in late 2005 I tall was employed at a Victoria's Secret store in 
Florida. Three days alter her marijuana case was terminated, I tall was 
caught by 
store manager as Hall attempted to leave the store with 
merchandise in her purse, the security tag still attached. Seeing the 
manager. alaimed -someone is trying to set me up". Following an 
internal investigation, which disclosed additional thefts Crum both the 
store and a customer. she was fired. In a recorded interview. Ilall 
udrained to stealing and asserted that her reason 1hr doing so was that 
"she was not getting paid enough". This information and supporting 
documentation was presented to the PBPD. but was never included in 
the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
Lies on MySpace About Victoria's Secret Store 
ertnination. 
 Is° uncovered by defense investigators is I laWs 
dissembling version of the Victoria's Secret debacle on her 
"MySpace" wehpage. There. Hall announced that she ". 
forgot to 
let everyone know I quit my job at V.S. 'Hwy said they suspected me 
oreau.sing losses to their company' 
which by the way is bullshit. I 
was 'by the honk' on EVCRY1 I HNC)!!! . . . l got so red up in that 
office that I handed the Loss Prevention lady back my keys and 
walked out". This information and supporting documentation was 
provided by the defense to the run). hut was not included in the 
Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
Lies on her Victoria's Stern Job Application. 
Additional information on 
MySpace webixtge casts further 
doubt on her credibility. For example. she boasts to having engaged in 
a Ihnidttlent scheme to get hired by Victoria's Secret. explaining. "Oh. 
it was so funny 
I used [my boyfriend! as one or my references for 
my Victoria's Secret job and the lady called me back and told me that 
William Tucker gave me such an outstanding reference that she did 
not need to call anyone else hack... . he got me the job! Just like that . 
.. I lied and said he was the old stock manager at Holistcr she hought 
it. .." This inlbrmation and supporting documentation was provided 
by the defense to the 19O1), but was not included in the Police Report 
or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
Anoxic About Iler Marijuana Use. 
Also on her 
MySpace %vebpage can be found I Iall's admissions of purchasing and 
using marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia. Specifically. 
s
t
a
t
e
s
 
she "can't wait to buy sonic weed!!! . . . I can't wait!!! ... 
Mid on: 
3501.211-025 
Page 10 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095010 
EFTA01248634

12/11/2007 11 40 FAX 
1010/088 
December I I, 2007 
Page 11 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
let me say that again) I can't wait to buy some %coda . I also want 
to get a vaporizer so I can smoke in my room because apparently there 
are 'flares' everywhere". Hall also posted a photograph oral marijuana 
cigarette and labeled it "what heaven looks like to me", 
This 
information and supporting documentation was provided by the 
defense to the KIM. was nut included in the Police Report or 
Probable Cause Affidavit (although there is both a heeling reference in 
the Police Report to Hall's use of marijuana with her boyfriend (at 67) 
and in the Probable Cause Affidavit to l hill's marijuana arrest (at 10-
I I)). 
• 
While the Police R. 
• 
'ratable Cause Affidavit contain 
numerous assertions intended to negate 
taped admission that she clearly 
told Epstein she was IS, omitted from these documents is reference to 
MyStrace webreige. presented to the State Attorney's ()Ince. where . in no connection 
to this case, she affirmatively represented to the world that she was /8, thereby 
corroborating her lie to Epstein. Also omitted is any reference to her long history of 
run-ins with laws:aorta:anent. Among those arc multiple runaway complaints by her 
patron's and her assignment to a special high school for drug abusers. 
• 
,,t ('Space Webpage States She Drinks, Uses Drugs. Gels 
into Trouble, Has /(eaten Someone Up, Shoplifts. Has Last her 
Virginity, Earns 5250,000 and Higher, and Contains Naked and 
Provocatfre Photographs. 
The firm image seen on 
MySpace webpage, the photo Min 
chose to represent her, is that 
of a naked woman provocatively I ing on the beach. The illuminating 
wcbpagc also contains 
assertions that of all her body parts. 
she "lovolsl her an". she drinks to excess, uses drugs. "gets into 
trouble', has beaten someone up. has shoplifted "lots". "already *sr" 
her virginity, and earns "S250,000 and higher". As with the other 
impeaching infortraation. this material. vital to determining credibility, 
was provided by the defense to the P13PD but was never included in 
the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
Prior Record — Drugs, Alcohol, Running Away From 
Home. 'has 
a history 01' running away/taming up missing 
from her parents' various homes; of using drugs and alcohol; and of 
associating with individuals of questionable judgment. For example, at 
Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Report details how only two days 
after she returned to Florida to live with her father. on March 31. 20(*. 
police were called to the home in response to her father's report that 
she and her twin sister were missing. The Police Report describes her 
as "under the influence of a narcotic as 'she' could barely stand up. 
3501.211.025 
Page II of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095011 
EFTA01248635

12/11/200? 11:41 FAX 
0015/099 
December I I, 2007 
Page 12 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Bled eyes were bloodshot. and Baal pupils wen; diluted frier. It 
further documents that 
and her sister had stayed out all night 
and were returned home by a "drug dealer". This event coincided with 
having been found at an "ins ro riate location" by Georgia 
police in response to n call about 
disappearance. Although 
this information. material to determining credibility. was provided by 
the defense and known to the PBPD. it was never included in the 
Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
While the Police Report and Probable Cause 
AI t avit m y on statements or 
father. IME 
his federal hank fraud conviction. which defense 
investigators discovered and turned over to the PBPD during the 
course or the investigation, was omitted. Gonzalez served 21 months 
in federal prison for his offense. 
While the Police Report and Probable Cause 
 
 statements or 
stepmother, omitted is 
state conviction fur identity 
fraud. This information. uncovered by defense investigators, was also 
turned over to the PBPD during the course of the investigation. 
D. 
In Liteht Of The Compromised Nature or The Evidence, A Fulsome Review 
Should Be Conducted. 
These tainted and inaccurate reports compromised the federal investigation?' As you may 
know, the PBPD took the unprecedented and highly unethical step of releasing these reports to 
the media as well. These reports spread across the Internet, and were undoubtedly read by the 
other individuals who were later interviewed by the FBI for giving Mr. Epstein massages. As we 
have shown, these reports contain multiple fabrications, omissions. and outright misstatements of 
fact. Moreover, the evidence and the allegations were undeniably misrepresented to the FRI. 
with no inclusion of the evidence exposing the deficiencies of the "proof' and the exculpatory 
evidence upon which the State relied. Funhennore. it should he noted that many of these same 
individuals were also interviewed by the FBI after their state interviews but prior to Mr. 
Epstein's counsel providing the government with the transcripts of the recorded interviews. The 
Although we have been informed that the FBI identified and then interviewed additional potential willlo.tim:K, many 
'Wilk:it discoveries arc believed to have emanated from mcssasc pads containing contact information that were 
seined from Mr Lpstein1/2 home pursuant to a state .search %entrant that was deeply and constitutionally flawed by 
ReCtreys ntimlatetnettls and omissions as well as other facial deficiencies. 
3501.211-025 
Page 12 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095012 
EFTA01248636

12/11/2007 11:41 FAX 
O01B/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December I I, 2007 
Page 13 
transcripts mid tapes, which we hope w share with you in person, will likely present a very 
di lthrent view of those interviews taken afterwards. 
'Therefore, in the interest of truth. we ask you to review the transcripts. compare them to 
the FBI reports upon which the indictment was predicated. and then determine whether the FBI 
summaries and the prosecution memorandum upon which the charging decisions were made 
overstate Mr. lipstein*s federal culpability. Concomitant to these requests. we would ask that 
you determine whether the investigative team ever provided these trustworthy tapes and 
transcripts to those in your Oilier: who were being asked to authorize the prosecution so that they 
could themselves assess the reliability or the FBI interview reports against a verbatim neon) of 
the same witness's prior statements. We believe thin this request is lair and would not be unduly 
burdensome. 
II. 
THE IMPROPER INVOLVEMENT AND CONDUCT OF FEDERAL 
A lIT1IORITIES. 
As established above. the State's charging decision. of one count of the solicitation of 
prostitution, was hardly irrational or irregular. 
Indeed. 
a Florida sex 
prosecutor for 13 years, concluded that the women in question were pros times and that - there 
arc no victims here." There was no evidence of violence. force, drugs. alcohol, euereiun ur an 
abuse of a position of authority. Each and every one of the alleged "victims" knew what to 
expect when they arrived at Mr. Epstein's house and each was paid for her services. In fact, Mr. 
Epstein 's message book establishes that many of these women routinely scheduled massage 
sessions with Mr. Epstein themselves, without any prompting. 
also noted that 
many of these individuals worked either as exotic dancers or in on 
massage parlors 
dotted across West Palm Beach. 
also specifically stated that lallIMOIN could not 
be trusted and was "only interested in money.-  She limber found that if was inappropriate for 
Mr. Epstein to register as a sex olTender because she did not believe that he constituted a threat 
to young girls and because registration had not hcen required in similar or even more seriota 
cases. 
thought. and still believes, that the appropriate punishment is a term of 
probation. 
Yet. the government has devoted an extraordinary amount of its time and resources to 
prosecute Mr. Epstein for conduct the State believes amounts to a "sex for money" case. While 
we are loathe to single-out for criticism the conduct or any particular professional, we cannot 
escape the conclusion that the cumulative effect of the conduct of Assistant United States 
Attorney 
led your Office to take positions during the investigation and 
ne qui:Ilion of this matter that has led to unprecedented thdend overreaching. In fact. Judge 
slates " . . .the federal authorities inappropriately involved themselves in the 
investigation by the slate authorities and employed highly irregular and coercive tactics to 
override the judgment of state law enforcement authorities as to the appropriate disposition of 
their case against your client See 
letter faxed to you on December 7. 2007. 
3501.211-025 
Page 13 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095013 
EFTA01248637

12/11/2007 11. 02 FAX 
e017/039 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December 11, 2007 
Page 14 
A. 
The Petite Policy Should Have Precluded Federal Involvement. 
As you know, prior to negotiating the terms of the Agreement. we requested that the 
government consider the Pefire Policy and the problems associated with conducting a dual and 
successive prosecution. We stressed to your Office, on u number of occasions. that we had 
reached a final negotiated resolution with the Stale and were only being forced to postpone the 
execution of that agreement for the sake of the federal investigation. We made submissions and 
met with your Office to present analyses of the fact dint federal prosecution in this matter was in 
direct conflict with the requirements of the Petite• Policy. It was our contention, and remains our 
contention• that federal prosecutors had never intervened in a matter such as this one. And 
because there was no deficiency in the state criminal process that would otherwise require 
federal intervention. the express terms of the halm Policy precluded federal prosecution 
regardless glare auteame gjrhe soar ease. Since the state investigation was thorough and in no 
way inadequate and the concerns implicated by the matter all involved local issues and areas of 
traditionally local concern, we urged your Office to contemplate whether a federal prosecution 
was appropriate. 
However, on August 3. 2007. 
rejected a proposed state plea which 
included that Mr. Epstein serve two years of supervised custody followed by Iwo years of 
incarceration in a state prison, with the option of eliminating incarceration upon successful 
completion of the term of supervised custody. among other terms. 
stated that - the 
federal interest will not he vindicated in the absence of a two year term in state prison." .War 
August 3.2007 letter. Such an articulation of the federal interest, we believe. misunderstands the 
Petite Policy on two grounds. First. the Offices position that the federal interest would not be 
vindicated in the absence of a jail term for Mr. Epstein. runs contrary to Section 9-2.0311) of the 
United States Attorney's Manual, because this section requires the federal prosecutor to focus 
exclusively on the quality or process of the prior prosecution. not the sentencing outcome. 
Second, the slate plea agreement offered was not -manifestly inadequate" under U.S.A.M. § 9-
2.03 ID. Indeed, the only real dilTennwe between the suite and federal plea proposals was 
whether Mr. Epstein served his sentence in jail or community quarantine. 
We formerly believed that our Petite Policy concerns were being addressed nr, at least. 
preserved. hut we learned that only after reaching a final compromise with your Ollice as to the 
tams of the Agreement, and at the very last minute. that language regarding the l'eilte Policy 
was removed from the final version. The two following references to the Perin Policy had been 
included in the drall prosecution Agreements up until September 24. 2007. the day the 
Agreement was executed. at which point they were eliminated by your Office: 
IT APPEARING, after an investigation urihe offenses and t•.pstein's background. that the interest 
only United Slater pununnt to the Petite policy will be served by the Ibllowing procedure ... 
Epstein understands that the United Slates Ationsty has no authority to require the State 
Attorney's (Mice to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his 
3501.211.025 
Page 14 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_000950 14 
EFTA01248638

12/11/2007 11.42 FAX 
018/099 
December I I. 2007 
Page IS 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
obligation to undertake discussion with the Sink Attorney's Ollicc to cusun: compliance with 
these pnacedures, which compliance will he necessary to satisfy the United States' interest. 
pursuant In the Petite policy. 
We reiterate that this case was at heart a local matter that was being fully addressed by 
the state criminal justice system. The state process resulted in an appropriate resolution or this 
matter and would have vindicated any conceivable federal interest. 
Thus, there was nu 
substantial federal interest that justified a federal prosecution. It has recently come to our 
attention that that the CEOS chief statements may be relevant to this mutter. While we welcome 
the opportunity to consider these statements, our extensive research had found only one federal 
action that was remotely similar to the federal investigation for the prosecution of this matter. 
and that ease has sin= been distinguished as well. 
R. 
Prompted An Unduly Invasive lovestity 
Of Mr. Epstein. 
investigation of Mr. Epstein raises serious questions. Despite the fact 
that she was made aware of the inaccuracies in the PBPD's Probable Cause Affidavit, she chose 
to include the affidavit in a document tiled with the court knowing that the public could access it. 
Then. 
issued letters requesting documents whose subject matter have no relation to 
the allegations against Mr. Epstein. Notably, after we objected to these overly broad and 
intrusive reuests. Deputy Chief 
denied knowledge of 
actions
and 
commendably sought to significantly narrow the list of documents requested. In 
a subsequent court filing. Ms. II...referred to our agreement to remove these items from 
her demand list as evidence of Mr. Epstem's "non-cooperation". 
This was only the beginning. 
also subpoenaed an agent or Roy Black 
(without fidlowing the guidelines provided in the United States Attorney's Manual that require 
prior notification to Washington necessary to seek a lawyer's records). We once more requested 
to intervene. Despite these efforts. Sowed 
up with a subpoena fur 
Mr. Epstein's confidential medical records served directly on his chiropractor (with no notice to 
Mr. Epstein). 
also made the unusual request of asking the Stale Attorney's Office 
for some ol' the grand jury materials. She threatened to subpoena the State when she was 
informed that it was a violation of Florida law to release this information. 
After compiling this "evidence-. 
stated she would he initiating an 
investigation into purported violations of IR U.S.C. 3159I (again without the required prior DOJ 
notification). 
then broadened the scope of the investigation without any 
foundation for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money 
transmitting business to the investigation. Mr. Epstein's counsel explained that there could be no 
basis for these charges since Mr. Epstein did not commit any prerequisite act for a money 
laundering charge and has never even been engaged in a money transmitting business. Ms. 
responded that Mr. Epstein could he charged under these statutes because he funded 
3501.211.025 
Page 15 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095015 
EFTA01248639

12/11/2007 11:42 FAX 
e 018/098 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December II, 2007 
Page 16 
illegal activities. To suggest that Mr. Epstein could violate these statutes simply by spending his 
legally earned money on prostitutes is manilinaly an erroneous interpretation of the law. 
To our relict'. tiller briefing 
c1 at a meeting regarding the spurious 
application of these statutes, we were told to ignore the laundry list and that defense coitus:1s' 
lbeus should be turned to IN U.S.C. §2422(b). Once Mr. Epstein's counsel submitted and 
presented the reasons why a federal case would require stretching the relevant federal statutes 
beyond recognition, and that federal involvement in this matter should be precluded based on 
federalism concerns. the Perric Policy, and general principles of prosecutorial discretion. the 
parties commenced discussions of a possihle plea agreement. Around this time, we received an 
e-mail from 
suggesting that she wanted to discuss the possibility of a concurrent 
federal and state reso talon. We were immediately informed hy your Office that 
did not have the authority to make any such plea proposals and would not he involved in any 
further negotiations of a plea. Despite this commitment. 
was the principle 
negotiator of the Agreement. At our meeting on September 
s le made reference to an 
allegation against Mr. Epstein involving a 12 year old individual. This allegation is without 
merit and without foundation. Though your last letter suggests there was "no contact" between 
individuals in your Office and the press. we were previously told hy 
that the FM was 
receiving "information- specifically from Connolly. a Vanity Fair reporter, and not vice versa. 
C. 
Included linfair Terms in the Aura:mein., 
took positions in negotiating this matter that stray from both stated policy 
and established law. First, 
insisted that as part of rule federal plea agreement, the 
State Attorney's Office. without •ing s town new evidence, should be convinced to charge Mr. 
Epstein with violations of law and recommend a sentence that are significantly harsher than what 
the State deemed appropriate. In fact. the State Attorney viewed this nuttier as a straightforward 
prostitution 
and believed that a term of probation was - and is - the app mpriale sentence. Al 
insistence, however, Mr. Epstein was forced to undertake the highly unusual and 
unprecedented action of directing his defense te.un to contract the State prosecutors themselves 
and ask for an upward departure in both his indictment and sentence. Tlwre was no effort by the 
state and lederal prosecutors to coordinate the prosecutions. a practice which is against the tenets 
of the Petite Policy. In our view. it is unprecedented to micro-manage each and every term of 
Mr. Epstein's State plea. including the exact state charges to which Mr. Epstein plead guilty; the 
time-frame within which Mr. Epstein must enter that state plea and surrender to state officials: 
and the amount of time he must spend in county jail. This is particularly true where the State 
3501.211-025 
Page 16 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095016 
EFTA01248640

12/11/2007 11:43 FAX 
la 020/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December I 1.2007 
Page 17 
Attorney's °nice has a different view of the case and there has been no coordination with state 
authorities.6
In addition. 
required that Mr. Epstein's sentence include a registeroble 
offense. As you know, requiring sexual offender registration will have a significant impact both 
immediately and forever alter. This harsh term. which is said to be suggested by the FEL was 
added despite the fact that the State believed that Mr. Ersuein's conduct did nut warrant any such 
registration. As yod know. state officials have special expertise in deciding which offenders 
pose a threat to their community. Moreover. this demand places the state prnscemors credibility 
at issue and diminishes the force of sexual registration when it is applied to offenders who state 
prosecutors do not believe are dangerous or require registration. =
,Iceisiun not to 
penoit the State Attorney to determine a matter uniquely within its province was unwarranted. 
What is more, when negotiating the settlement portion or the Ameernern. -
insisted that a civil settlement pmvision be included in the Agreement. namely, the inclusion of 
IS U.S.C. 
2255, a negotiating term which is unprecedented in nature.,  While we were 
reluctant and cautious about a plea agreement in which a criminal defendant gives up certain 
rights to contest liability for a chi/ settlement, 
ultimatums required that we 
a • uiesee to these unprecedented terms. For instance, when plea discussion stalled as a result of 
demands. Mr. lipstcin's counsel received a letter from her slating as it "now 
appears you will not settle." Al this point, 
expressed her intention to re-launch the 
government's previously set amide money laundering investigation. She also issued a nisi of 
subpoenas and sent target tenors to Mr. Epstein's employees. adding new ledund charges 
including obstruction of justice. She then personally called Mr. Epstein's largest and most 
valued business client without any basis to infonn him of the investigation. 
In an attempt to prevent further persecution and intimidation tactics. we proposed that 
Mr. Epstein establish a re:dilution fund specifically for the settlement of the identified 
individuals' civil claims and that an impartial. independent representative be appointed to 
administer that fund. There was no dollar amount limit discussed for the fund, hut the idea was 
still rejected. We then pointed out that the state charges to which Mr. Epstein was to plead guilty 
carried with it a slate restitution provision that would allow "victims" to recover damages. Ms. 
however, rejected this idea and suggested requiring a guardian ad litem. implying that 
" When asked whether De 
fawn of husice polices regarding courclinatiOn with stole stuthorities had been 
follownl: 
save no reponse other than stating: -it is nonc of your eons:ern?' 
7 In thet. 
a foreseer deputy enairiiii. 
has mused that she knew tar no other cam: like Ibis 
being prosecuted by CEOS. With that in mind, we welcome the opportunity to review the extensive research 
that CEOS has done, as indicated by your Arnim. 
3501.211-025 
Page 17 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_000950 17 
EFTA01248641

12/11/2007 11:43 FAX 
® 021/098 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS ILI' 
December I I, 2007 
Page 18 
the alleged "victims" in question were currently minors and needed special representation. We 
later learned that the government's list of individuals included a woman as old as twenty-four. 
which flies in the face of prior representations (it should be noted that any person who is 
currently twenty four years old or older could not have been a "victim" under IR U.S.C. § 2253. 
even if the conduct occurred in 2001). Al 
insistence, the parties ultimately 
egress( to the appointment of an attorney representative. but 
then took the position 
that Mr. lipstein should pay for the n:presentalive's fees, which effectively meant that Mr. 
Epstein must pay to sue himscffin 
also proposed wholly irrelevant chi es such as making obscene phone 
culls and violations of child privacy laws. When 
learned of these proposed charges 
he asked Mr. Epstein's defense team to ignore them as they would "embarrass the Office.-
Continually And Purposefully Misinterpreted The Critical 
Terms of the Agreement. 
Since the execution of the Agreement. 
has repeatedly misconstrued the 
terms contained therein. As you know. several wags o t is matter have been highly contested 
by the parties. We sometimes have obtained two competing views as to your willingness to 
compromise on specific issues that we have raised with your Office. In particular. there arc 
times when we have received verbal agreement from you or your stall(and sometimes from Ms. 
herself) on a particular issue, only to subsequently receive a contradictory 
interpretation from 
that negates our prior common understanding. 
I ler 
misinterpretations appear to 
• attempts to effectively change the spirit and the meaning of the 
Non-Prosecution Agreement. We ofikr several examples of significent misinterpretations. 
First. despite the fact that we received several commitments from your Mix that 
would monitor Mr. Epstein's state sentencing but not interfere with it in any way. 
sought to do just that. 
decision to utilize a civil remedy statute in the place of a 
restitution fund for the alleged victims eliminates the notification requirement under the Justice 
for All Act or 2004. n federal law that requires 'Wend authorities to notify victims as to any 
available restitution, not of any potential civil remedies• to which they are entitled. Despite this 
'beti 
roposed a Victims Notification letter to he sent to the alleged fedend 
victims. 
has gone even further. alleging that the "victims" may make written 
statements or testy against Mr. Epstein at the sentencing. We hind no basis in law or the 
Agreement that provides the identified individuals with either a right to appear at Mr. Epstein's 
plea and sentence or to submit a written statement m be filed by the State Attorney. Here. Mr. 
s This arrangement does not put these alleged "victims" in the same position as !hey would have been had Mr. 
Epstein been convicted at trial 
in fact. they am much better off. 
3501.211-025 
Page 18 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095018 
EFTA01248642

12/11/2007 11:44 FAX 
a 022/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS L Li' 
December 11.2007 
Page I9 
Epstein is pleading guilty to. and being sentenced lit state offenses. not the federal offenses 
under which the government has unilaterally recognized these identified individuals as - victims". 
The notion that individuals whnse names are not even known to the charging prosecutor in a 
state action should somehow be allowed to speak at a proceeding is unjustifiable. 
Furthermore. only after obtaining the executed Agreement did 
begin 
insisting that the selected re resentative's duties go beyond settlement and include litigating 
claims for individuals. In 
Victims Notification letter, she states that Mr. 
Podlturst and Mr. Josefsherg. the selected attorney representatives. may -represent-  the identified 
individuals. This language assumes that the selected representatives will agree to serve in the 
capacity envisioned by 
which is patently incorrect. Vet. neglecting the spirit of 
the negotiations: neglecting the terms of the Agreement: and neglecting commonly-held 
principles 01 ethics with respect to conflicts. 
continues in improperly emphasize 
that the chosen attorney representative should 
the claims of individuals. 
ha a similar tbshion.-d 
has overstated the scope of Mr. Epstein's waiver of 
liability pursuant to the Agreement. Ms. Villalana began assening that Mr. Epstein has waived 
liability even when claims with the identified individuals are not settled just after the execution 
of the Agreement. Despite the fact that at that time. we obtained an agreement from you that Mr. 
Epstein's waiver would not stretch past settlement. 
continues to espouse this 
erroneous interpretation. 
F.. 
and The Settlement Process. 
We are concerned that 
has repeatedly attempted to manipulate the process 
under which Mr. Epstein has agreed to settle civil claims. First, she inappropriately attempted to 
nominate I lumber 
Ocariz for attorney repn:sentative, despite the fact that Mr. ()earlz has 
a longstanding relationship with 
Mr. Ocariz turns out to he a very good personal 
friend and law school classmate ulliMINIM. 
boyfriend, a fact she assiduously kept hidden 
from counsel. We also learned from 1.M.that 
she shared with Ocariz the summary of 
charges the government was considenng against Mr. Epstein. Even alter your Office concealed 
that it was inappropriate for its attorneys to select the attorney representative. 
continued to lobby lift Mr. Dennis appointment. On October 19. 2007, retired Judgelialmille 
PAW who was appointed by the parties to select the attorney representative. inlbrmed Mr. 
Epstein's counsel that he received a telephone call from Mr. Atari,: directly requesting that 
Judge 
appoint him as the attorney representative iu this matter. 
Furthermore. federal interference continues to plague the integrity of the implementation 
of the Agreement. We recently learned that despite the fact that then: was no communication 
between state and federal authorities as in the investigation of Mr. Epstein. the FIJI visited the 
Stale Attorney's Unice two weeks ago to request that Mr. Epstein he diseµtalified to participate 
in work release even though the Agreement mandates that Mr. Epstein he treated as any other 
inmate. 
3501.211-025 
Page 19 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095019 
EFTA01248643

12/11/2007 11:44 FAX 
la 023/089 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December II. ..00 / 
Page 20 
III. 
CONCLUSION 
In sum, we reamest that you review the evidence supporting the prosecution of Mr. 
Epstein. Such a review would serve to address similar concerns as those raised in firmly v. 
Maryland. which mandate the disclosure of evidence material to guilt or innocence even after the 
execution (Wan Agreement to enter a plea of guilty. See 373 U.S. 831.1'63). We believe that the 
"pzusecution team- was informal by its witnesses (including pentons other than 
and 
who arc discussed at length above) that Mr. Epstein's practice was to seek 
women older than 18 rather than targeting those tinder IS. We would expect, for instance. that 
a key witness whose interview with the FRI was recordeal. would have provided 
such exonerating information as well us many others. We would 0150 expect tlx: review to 
uncover clear evidence that demonstrates that Mr. Epstein did 11Ot travel to Florida for the 
purpose of having illegal underage sex nor that he induced underage women by using the 
Internet or the phones. 
Furthermore, we ask you to consider whether there is reliable evidence nut just that Mr. 
Epstein had sexual contact with witnesses who were in fact underage hut whether the allegations 
are based on trustworthy (and corroliorated) evidence that (i) Mr. Epstein knew that the lianale(s) 
in question was under IS at the time of the sexual enamel. (ii) Mr. Epstein traveled to his home 
in Palm Beach For the purpose of having such sexual contact to the extent the allegation charges 
a violation of IX J.K.C. § 2423(h) and (e) Mr. F.pstein induced such sexual contact by using an 
instrumentality of interstate commerce to the extent the allegations charge a violation of IS 
U.S.C. § 2422(b) (there is no evidence or interne( solicitation which is the norm upon which 
federal jurisdiction is usually modeled under this statute). We believe that the information we 
provide to you in this submission will be informative and spark a motivation to gain more 
information with respect to the investigation of this matter. 
Again, we are not seeking to unwind the Agreement: we are only seeking for you to 
exercise your discretion in directing that an impartial and respected member of your Office test 
the evidence upon which the drat) federal indictment was based against the - best evidence;' 
including the transcripts of the tape recorded pm-federal involvement interviews. 
Finally. I would like to reiterate our appreciation for the opportunity you have provided 
to review some of our issues and concerns. I look forward to speaking with you shortly. 
Sincerely. 
3501.21 b025 
Page 20 of 20 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00095020 
EFTA01248644