547/4 SrfraSsiissioN

547/4 SrfraSsiissioN To met" EFTA00192754 06/02/08 ICON 14:58 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Q001 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 99 NE 474 STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132-2111 Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant U.S. Attorney 305 961 9299 Cyndee Campos Staff Assistant 305 961 9461 305 530-6444 fax FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE: June 2, 2008 TO: Marie Villafana FAX NUMBER: (561) 820 8777 SUBJECT: Epstein NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 9 Message/Comments: This facsimile contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this facsimile, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or coping of this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original facsimile to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. EFTA00192755 06/02/08 M0N 14. 58 FAX 305 530 8440 .. 'run tucOLuteaY 48/27/2(ina 12 19 Sf.5‘ EXECUTIVE OFFICE VOJ/ODAG QD002 r&oalli ? IS:eat/will W. Starr kirk-land 141.11 j:. %malt iirsh•nia Ninyi 9:1e17 .58M A.:I. I late. 1 4c.serHir.: trl : MIL irklinIJA ur:. jot: I). Windt-% ANina Cc Hint I.LP .inc:a. ik.i.lnacani. :N.: i 171. ..4:4:::444.1181, F44 4‘ rivtristdrYfrJa..II:Igai May 27, 2008 fn rACS1M(.11:: <2021 514-0467 CONNOKA177.4/. I lottomhle Mark Filip ( /like blthe l)epiity adarnincy General I initial States Department °rho:lice Q50 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.V.'. WaShi !Wien. D.C. 7.0531) Dear Judge This ytrer briefly supplements our prior submission ut you dated May IQ. 2001. In that communication. we urgently requested that your orrice • Itita an independent reviv%. of the PrnPosed federal pro...win:on of our Client, Jell-icy The dual reasons nil' vu!' request that you review tins mailer are (1) the bedrock need ror integrity in the eitrinecment o;' federal criminal laws. and fill the prOrmind oucstionS raised by Mc unpreecilemed e•aensiiiii (*WIC:rill ;:4W by the lathed Slates Attorney's Office in hlirnti Jibe "liSACY1 to a pan/mi.-1,m public ligure who lots cliKe to thriller President Climuo. The need lix review is nnw all the mon: exigent. Ost Monday. May 19. 200K. Assistant Azirrey Rloinan of the (iSAC) responded rn an email fruen Ja; it,. informing Attorney Alex Aecixtu that we would he seeking your Offices review. Mr. Straw:ifs letter. which intprisvtl a ti,:adline of June 2. 2U0S toe mply with all (Itu lerme of the ‘ur; on Non- Prosecution Agreement (the - Agreement.). plus new unilateral modifieations, on pain of heing deemed in brutieb af that Agreement. appears to have been deliberately designed it: deprive us or an adequate a)pontinity ti• seek your Office's review in this enruter. The I.ISAn's desire to fl recluse a complete revien is undersiand,tble. given ibm the Child I:solidi:Moo und Obseonity Section ("CliON-1 has already determined dim our sultstanube arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. h.pinein is not nu:timed were "compelling.- I Inwever. in euniradielion In Mr. Sloman's assertion that CliQS had provided an independent. de unto review. CMS; made clear that it did nol. du sit. indeed. C1'.O5 declined In uNteiiiille seven! of the more troubling inspects of the investigation Or Mr. U.pslem. the delibenne balk in the New Fork Times of numerous highly criniidemial aspects O1. Ilis invesiigatitm and Tit:god:diem: between the panie$ as well us die I Ceelll aril'. ni coil Ian Snits !lied apinil Mr. Fpstein by Mr. Slumnot's forme: law partner. The and arbitrarily imposed deadline set by the I/SAt / win; done without any resport for (he nurmill rutted eeee i ll g ;mid scheduling or stale judicial nmitcrs. It retildres that Mr. 141:acin's counsel persuade the Slide All4tney of Palm Death to issue u criminal inliimiation EFTA00192756 semit, MON. %tue s% 530 6440 Vine:1200R 1? te Ho, EXECUTIVE OFFICE UW/UVAU 2003 4g004/013 lej tg I Intime& Mark Ma> 27. ;MM rage ta, a a.:harge Mat the State A itorney hus not. despite a tv.O year ito•estLatigio. tlavttisitIZU in hl; appropriait.% :th. I ipstein's counNel must also successailly expedite a pied or _,vil: !• to dus eltarve on :a date prior In inly S, 2005. which k chue presently set hy tic Nunc court indg.. i:urther. the tomccessary deadline is even more problematit heeause Mr. hpsteiti"s &on tr«, feCORCile the suite charge tuul sentence with the terms or the Aereemenc requitea an noueux' und unpreca:clonted threatened application ni retlend lav. nus. n places Mr lipstein in the Intdily apaisai:d position or flavine in demand that the Statu aCquiesix to a mon: se‘eic punishment titan it.had alresuly determinecl WaS appropriait. We have attempted to resolve these and other iNstic.s amatie the t:S:\( l and CF.OS, including raisin; our coteverns about the USAt.l's inappropriate etanduct with respect to (lais matte. But thoNe avenues have now heen shut d . Mr. Sloman's lette• t'atriums to proldhit any limiter comma betwetn Mr. Epstein:1e dentnsc tealt and t:.\. Attorney Aeosta. anal ansieati rcquires us to communia:lite with the USA() only though Mr. Slornan's subtirdinatea. White it pains us ta say this, this mistsided proseention nom the mise: Id vus the appearantc Mat it niny have been I ralitically inotivanel Mr. lipstein as a hienly sut:ces:am, selj• made businessman and philanthropist %sahib entered the publie arena t. loue of hic dom: persenal assecieliun with fumier President Bill elintun. tionln ua u::r minds thai the 1!S.\() nevet %muid have contemplated a pmseuution in this Mr. Epstein wet,e jus; another "John.- U.S. AitorneY .koeau previnusly has st»wd thai lu; is -sympailunic- to our lederalisin• rektied contents, but lac has takcn the position thai his authoriiy is limited cnroreement ',n'ides set Rink in Washington. U.C. As expressed in our prior communication ro >ion. we hellave that a complets; and independeni :mortaisai and restitution or Ibis case motu appropriatel) would he undertaken by your Orliee btginning with the rottassion or the arbitntry. unrair. and Ilnpnnetionicei Jcadtinc thot Mr. S'ornait clentnnds to have impcsed in this case. At 0:6: mcv leaSt. %“: WOUld tif dit:arbitra! thnelinc hnposed on our client by the t :SAO in enfer allow titnit Ior gour Office Io tai:eider sein rennes: lhal vat: undurrake u retieu omhis env. Thauk yuu for ycur time and attention. zspect rully etibmiited. Kenneth W. Siam ' jvilaV ie-Lani te f _. .10/5 I) Whitley K irkland &I d1k I.11' Bird EFTA00192757 06/02/08 MON 14:59 FAX 305 530 8440 os/zer/svus et): oft FAX 2uetifal239 03 III at; NON l3:21 VAS 1 213 680 h500 EXECUTIVE OFFICE DOJ/00AC KTRKLAND&ELLIS I.I.I la 004 @op:S/013 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone. (213) 680-8400 Fax: (213) 680-8500 SP? euiti*e:c. Please notify us immediately If any pages are not received. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL • MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION. AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE UNAUTHORIZED USE. DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: (213) 680-8400. To: Honorable Mark Filip From: Company: Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department offusticc Date: Pagersinetovel Fax #: Direct #: (202) 514-0467 (202) 514-2101 Fax #: Direct it: Kenneth W. Starr May 19, 2008 9 (2/3) 680.8500 (213) 680-8440 Message' EFTA00192758 08/02/08 MON 14 FAX 305 530 6440 golativo t8& ZUVIII3I.Z39 OILIO:ON MON IA:22 IPAX I 213 880 8500 EXECUTIVE OFFICE no.r/OuAu K I RKI.Atilukiiii.15 1.1.1* 0(15 Winne/0u MI MIX Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Elkis LLP 777 South Riney)! Street Los Angeles; C.A 90017-5800 Phone: 213-6am-844o Fax: 31348o-830o 1:starrdlirldand.eom V1A FACSIMILE (202) 514.4467 Honorable Mark Filip office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 May 19.2008 Joe D. Whitley Alston & Bird LI.P The Atlantic Building 950 F Si reet,KW waslaington, DC souo4-1404 Ph: 202-7.56-3189 Fag: 202.654.4889 joc.whitleytitiaistencom CONFIDENTIAL Dear Judge Fillip: In his confirmation hearings last WI, Judge Mukascy admirably lifted up the finest traditions of the Department of Justice in assuring the United States Senate, and the American people, of his solemn intent to ensure fairness and integrity in the administration of justice. Your own confirmation hearings echoed that bedrock determination to assure that the Department conduct itself with honor and integrity, especially in the enforcement of federal criminal law. We come to you in that spirit and respectfully ask for a review of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we are well aware of the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we are confident that the circumstances at issue warrant such tut examination. Based on our collective experiences, as well as those of other former senior Justice Department officials whose advice we have sought, we have never before seen a case more appropriate for oversight and review. Thus, while neither of us has previously made such a request. we do so now in the recognition that both the Department's reputation. as well as the due process rights of our client, arc at issue. Recently, the Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter at the request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review deliberately excluded many important aspects of this case. Just this past Friday, on May 16, 2008, we received a letter from the head of CEOS informing us that CEOS had conducted a review of this case. By its own admission, the CEOS review was "limited, both factually and legally." Part of the self-imposed limitation was CEOS's abstention from addressing our "allegations of professional misconduct by federal prosccutors".—even though such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office in Miami ("USAO"). Moreover, CEOS did not assess the terms of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement now in effect, nor did CEOS review the federal prosecutors' inappropriate effbrrs to implement those terms. We detail this point below. EFTA00192759 08/02/08 tom _1;5 iati FAX 305 6440 i bA.I9.po MON 13:22 FAX 1 213 GIO 8500 DUJ/Q EXECUTIVE OFFICE UAG I atil.A6oart s Qhoos 4Doonots toun3 Honorable Mark Pilip May 19, 2008 Page 2 fly way of background. we were informed by Mr. Acosta chat, at his request, CEOS would be conducting a review to determine whether federal prosecution was both appropriate and, in his words. That is not what occurred. instead, CEOS has now acknowledged that we had raised "many compelling arguments" against the USAO's suggested "novel application" of federal law in this mutter. Even so. CEOS concluded. in minimalist fashion. that "we do not see anything that says to us categorically that a federal mite should not be brought" and that the G.S. Amine) "would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should 1w authorize federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein!' thus delegating back to Mr. Acosta the decision of whether federal pmsecution was warranted (emphasis added). Rather than assessing whether prosecution would he appropriate, CEOS. using a low.baseline for its evaluation, determined only that "it would not be impossible to prove . . ." certain allegations made against Mr. Epstein. The CEOS review failed to address the significant problems involving the appearance of impermissible selectivity that would necessarily result from a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. We respect CEOS's conclusion that its authority to review "misconduct" issues was precluded by CrinUnal Division practice. We hardier respect CROS's view that it understood its mission as significantly limited. Specifically, the contemplated objective was to determine whether the USAO would benbusing its discretion by bringing a federal prosecution rather than making its own de novo recommendations on the appropriate reach of federal law. However. we respectfully submit that a full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the Justice Department. In an effort to inform you of the nature of the federal investigation against Mr. Epstein, we suntmarize the facts and circumstances of this matter below. The two bast-level concerns we hold are that (1.) federal prosecution of this matter is not warranted based on the purely-local conduct and the unprecedented application of federal statutes to facts such as these and (2) the actions of federal authorities are both highly questionable and give rise to an appearance of substantial impropriety. The issues that we have raised, but which have not yet been addressed or resolved by the Department, are more than isolated allegations of professional mistakes or misconduct. These issues, instead, affect the appearance and administration of criminal justice with profound consequences beyond the resolution in the matter at hand. In a precedent-shattering investigation of Jeffrey Epstein that raises important policy questions—and serious issues as to the fair and honorable enforcement of federal law—the lISAO in Miami is considering extending federal law beyond the bounds of precedent and reason. Federal prosecutors stretched the underlying facts in ways that raise fundamental questions of basic professionalism. Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition of deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in EFTA00192760 06/02/08 MON 1500 FAX 305 630 8440 05/28/2008 09:05 FAX 2026161239 na ta:os NW( 13:23 FAX I 213 080 8500 . , EXECUTIVE OFFICE DOJ/ODAG Kilthl.AND&Cf.1.1S 1.1.I' 007 0005/013 GO 004 Honorable Mark Filip May :9,2008 Page 3 private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved. Federal prosecutors then leaked highly sensitive information about the case to a New York Times reporter.' The immediate result of this confluence of extraordinary circumstances is an onslaught of civil lawsuits, all save one brought by the First Assistant's former boutique law firm in The facts in this case all revolve around the classic state crime of solicitation of prostitution? The State Attorney's Office in Palm Beach County had conducted a diligent investigation, convened a Grand Jury that returned an indictment, and made a final determination about how to proceed. That is where, in our federal republic, this matter should rest. Mr. Epstein faces a felony conviction in state court by virtue of his conduct, and the only reason the State has not resolved this matter is that the federal prosecutors in Miami have continued to insist that we, Mr. Epstein's counsel, approach and demand from the State Attorney's Office a harsher charge and a more severe punishment than that Office believes are appropriate under the circumstances. Yet despite the USAO's refusal to allow the State to resolve this metier on the terms the Stare has determined are appropriate, the USA() has not made any attempt to coordinate its efforts with the State. in fact, the USAO mandated that any federal agreement would be conditioned on Mr. Epstein persuading the State to seek a criminal punishment unlike that imposed on other defendants within the jurisdiction of the State Attorney for similar conduct. From the inception of the USAO's involvement in this case, which at the end of the day is a case about solicitation of prostitution within the confines of Palm Beach County, Florida, we have asked ourselves why the Department ofJustice is involved. Regrettably, we are unable to suggest any appropriate basis for the Department's involvement. Mr. Epstein has no criminal history whatsoever. Also, Mr. Epstein has never been the subject of general media interest until a few years ago. atter it was widely perceived by the public that he was a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. The conduct at issue is simply not within the purview of federal jurisdiction and lies outside the heartland of the three federal statutes that have been identified by prosecutors-1S U.S.C. §§ 159 l . 2422(b), and 2423(b). One of the other members of Mr. Epstein .3 defense team, Jay Leocowitz, has personally reviewed the reporter's contemporaneous notes. Although some of the women alleged to be involved ware 1E and 17 years of age, several of these wrimen openly admitted to lying to Mr. Epstein ghoul their age in their recent sworn statements. EFTA00192761 06/02/08 MON 15:01 FAX 306 530 8440 0s/26/2008 00:0A FAX 202018123s 03 4n . nit, NON 13:23 rAs 1 213 SR° &SOO EXECUTIVE OFFICE DOVODAG K I RICI-AND&EI.I. I S Woolf envon 4:1°05 Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2003 Page 4 These statures arc intended to target critnes of a truly national and international scope. Specifically, § 1591 was enacted to combat human trafficking, § 2422 is aimed at sexual predation of minors through the Internet. and § 2423 deals with sex tourism. The nature of these crimes results in multi-jurisdictional problems that state and local authorities cannot effectively confront on their own. However, Mr. Epstein's conduct was purely local in nature and, thus. does not implicate federal involvement, After researching every reported ease brought under le §§ 1591, 2422(b), and 2423(b), we found that not a single case involves facts or a scenario similar to the situation at hand. Our review of each precedent reflects that there have been no reported prosecutions under § 1591 of a 'John' whose conduct with a minor lacked force. coercion. or fraud and who was not profiting from commercial sexual trafficking. There have likewise been no cases under § 2422(6)—a crime of communication—where there was no use of the Internet, and where the content of phone communications did not contain way inducing or enticing of a minor to have illegal sexual activity as expressly required by the language of the statute. Furthermore, the Government's contention that "routine and habit" can fill the factual and legal void created by the lack of evidence that such a communication ever occurred sets this case apart from every reported case brought under § 2422(b). Lastly, there arc no reported cases of violations of § 2123(b) of a person whose dominant purpose in traveling was merely to go to his OWI1 hortle.3 Although these matters were within the scope of the CEOS review, rather than considering whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOS only determined that U.S. Attornee Acosta "would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution" its this case. The "abuse of discretion" standard constitutes an :extremely low bar of evaluation and while it may be appropriate when the consideration of issues are exclusively factual in nature, this standard fails to address concerns particular to this situation, namely the "novel application" of federal statutes. The "abuse of discretion" standard in such pure legal matters of statutory application risks causing a lack of uniformity. The same federal statutes that would be stretched beyond their bounds in Miami have been limited to their heartland in each of . the other federal districts. Also, because this case implicates broader issues of the administration of equal justice, federal prosecution in this matter risks the appearance of selectivity in its stretching of federal law to fit these facts. Federal prosecution of a man who engaged in consensual conduct in his home that amounted to, at most, the solicitation of prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a state concern. free United Stater v. Evans, 476 F.36 3176, 1 (I lot Cir. 2007) (federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state rogulationy)). and there is no evidence that Palm Beach County authorities and Florid* prosecutors cannot effectively prosecuic and punish the conduct, there is no reason why this matter should be extracted from die hands of state prosecutors in Florida. EFTA00192762 06/02/08 NON 1501 FAX 305 530 6440 ol/26/20os oa:os FAX 2028161239 Mc 'ICV 13:24 FAX I 213 630 950D EXECUTIVE OFFICE DOJ/ODAC KIHNIANO&ELLIS LLP [2009 tJ 00/013 a4! uur Honorable Mark Filip May 19.2008 Page 5 . In fact, recent testimony of several alleged "victims' contradicts claims made by federal prosecutors during the negotiations of a deterred prosecution a reement. The consistent a re . resentations of ke Government witnesses (such as Tatum. Brittany Beak, Saige . and in) confirm the following critical points: First, there was no communication, totelephonic or otherwise, that meets the requirements of § 2422(b). For instance. Ms.IIIIII confirmed that Mr. Epstein never emailed, text-messaged, or used any facility of interstate commerce whatsoever. before or after her one (and. only) visit to his home. . Tr. (deposition) at 30. Second, the women who testified admitted that they lied to r. •pstein about their age in order to gain admittance into his home. Indeed, the women who brought their underage friends to Mr. Epstein testified that they would counsel their friends to lie about their approached Inc. Mialli .re you tell him you're IFL Well, these girls that I brought, I know tat ages as well. Ms. stated the following: "I would tell my girlfriends just like they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't 'MOW and I don't know if they were lying or not, 1 would say make sure that you tell him you* 18." le Tr. at 22. Third, there was no routine or habit of improper communication expressing an intent to transform a massage into an ille al sexual act. In fact, there was often no sexual activity at all during the massage. Ms. testified that "[s]ometimes Mr. Epstein] just wanted his feet massaged. Sometimes lit just wanted a back massage." Tr. at 19. IIIII also suited that Mr. Epstein - never touched [her) physically' and that all she di was - massage( ) his back. his chest and his thighs and that was it." Egli Tr. at 12-13. Finally, there was no force, coercion, fraud, violence, drugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with these women, Ms. Beale stated that "[Mr. Epstein) never tried to force me to du anything." Tr. A et 12. These accounts are far from the usual testimony in sex slavery, Internet stings an sex tourism cases previously brought. The women in actuality were not younger than 16, which is the age of consent in most of the 50 states, and the sex activity was irregular and in large part. consisted of solo self-pleasuring. The recent crop of civil suits brought against Mr. Epstein confirm that the plaintiffs did not discuss any sexually-related activities with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's residence. This reinforces our contention that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a minor, or of any other individual, occurred. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey Ilcrman, the former law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the attorney for most of the civil complainants (as described in detail below), was quoted in the Palm Beach Post as saying that "it doesn't matter" that his clients lied about their ages and told Mr. Epstein that they were I8 or l9. • Not only is a federal prosecution of this matter unwarranted, but the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the deferred prosecution agreement arc beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a.prosecutor's responsibilities. The list of improprieties includes, but.is not limited to, the following facts: EFTA00192763 06/02/08 NON 15:02 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 06/28/2008 00:10 FAX 2026361230 n0.1/0DAT: ir,,J Os, HON IA: r5 FM I _1i an 8500 KIRKLANDLELITS 1.12 a 010 Q011/013 iduoi Honorable Mark Pilip May 19, 2008 page 6 • Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Mr. Epstein pay a minimum of $150,000 per person to an unnamed list of women they referred to as minors and whom they insisted required representation by a guardian ad 'item. Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these individuals were actually adults, not minors. Even then, though demanding payment to the women, the USA() eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of any of the claims that these women might make. • Federal prosecutors made the highly unusual demand that Mr. Epstein pay the fees of a civil attorney chosen by the prosecutors to represent these alleged "victims" should they choose to bring any civil litigation against him. They also proposed sending a notice to the alleged "victims," stating, in an underlined sentence, that should they choose their own attorney, Mr. Epstein would not be required to pay their fees, The prosecutors fiuther demanded that Mr. Epstein Waive his right to challenge any of the allegations made by these "victims." • The Assistant U.S. Attorney involved in this matter recommended for the civil attorney, a highly lucrative position, an individual that we later discovered was closely and personally connected to the Assistant U.S. Attorney's own boyfriend. • Federal prosecutors represented to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they had identified (and later rechecked and re-identificd) several alleged "victims" of federal crimes that qualified for payment under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a civil remedy designed to provide financial benefits to Victims. Only through state discovery provisions did we later learn that many of the women on the rechecked "victim list" could not possibly qualify under § 2255. The reason is that they, themselves, testified that they did not suffer any type of harm whatsoever, a prerequisite for the civil recovery under § 2255. Moreover, these women stated that they did not, now or in the past, consider themselves to•be victims. • During the last few months, Mr. Hannan, First Assistant Sloman's former law partner, has filed several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged "victims." It is our understanding that each of Mr. Herman's clients are on the EFTA00192764 &bell 08/02/08 05. 10.11$ MON 15: 02 MON 13:25 FAX FAX 305 I 530 213 6440 080 8500 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Al RKIANDVIELLI S LLP mina/ Di 3 %MIS Honorable Mark Pilip May 19, 200R Page 7 Government's confidential "list of victims." Most of these lawsuits seek S50 million in money damages.' • Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein spoke about the case in great detail to Landon Thomas, a reporter with the New York Times, and revealed confidential information about the Government's- allegations against Mr. Epstein. The Assistant U.S. Attorney also revealed the substance of confidential plea negotiations. • When counsel for Mr. Epstein complained about the media leaks, First Assistant Sluman responded by asserting that "Mr. Thomas was given, pursuant CO his request, non-case specific information concerning specific federal statutes." Based on Mr. Thomas' contemporaneous notes. that assertion appears to be false. For example, Mr. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that federal authorities believed that Mr. Epstein had lured girls over the telephone and traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in underage sex. 1-k recounted to Mr. Thomas the USAO's theory of prosecution' against Mr. Epstein. replete with an analysis of the key statutes being considered. Furthermore, after Mr. Epstein's defense ream complained about the leak to the 1.:SAO, Mr. Weinstein, in Mr. Thomas' own description, then admonished him for talking to the defense, 'and getting him in trouble. Ms. Weinstein further told him not to believe the "spin" of Mr. Epstein's "high-priced attorneys," and then, according to Mr. Thomas. Mr. Weinstein forcefully "reminded" Mr. Thomas • that all prior conversations were merely hypothetical. We are constrained to conclude that the actions of federal officials in this case strike at the heart of one of the vitally important, enduring values in this country: the honest enforcement of federal law, free of political considerations and free of the taint of personal financial motivations on the pan of fedeml prosecutors that, at a minimum, raise the appearance of serious impropriety. We were told by U.S. Attorney Acosta that as part of the review he requested, the Department had the authority, and his consent, to make any determination it deemed appropriate regarding this matter, including a decision to decline federal prosecution. Yet, CEUS's only conclusion, based on its limited review of the investigation, is that U.S. Attorney Acosta would not abuse his discretion by proceeding against Mr. Epstein. Thus, the decision of whether As recently as two months ago. Mr. Slomim was still retell publicly us r. pun of hls former law firm. Whtte NY' assume this was an oversight, Mr. Stoman'S identification as part of the ruin raises the appearance of impropriety. EFTA00192765 olt/02/08_ liglA5:11. ,,,,, 530 6440 -ors.iiruS WIN 13:20 FAX I 213 000 8500 • I • EXECUTIVE OFFICE PUJ,UDACi liKLANI)40 S • 012 (2013/o)3 R., Oil ll Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 8 prosecution is fair and appropriate has been placed, once again, in U.S. Attorney Acosta's hands. In light of the foregoing, we respectfully ask that you review this matter and discontinue all federal involvement so that the State can appropriately bring this matter to closure. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these importani issues. Such a meeting would provide the Department with an opportunity to review the paramount issues of federalism and•thc appearance of selectivity that are generated by the unprecedented attempts to broaden the ambit of federal statutes to places that they have never before reached. Wc sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter. Respectfully subrid Red, Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis UP Joe D. Whitley Alston St Bird LL.P EFTA00192766