Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1 EFTA00213048 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 East Broward Boulevard. 7th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 (954) 660-5946 Facsimile. (954) 356-7230 June 15, 2009 DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400 250 Australian Ave S. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5015 Re' Jeffrey Epstein Dear Messrs. Lefkowitz, Goldberger, and Black: I write to confirm my conversation with Mr. Lefkowitz of June 12, 2009. As I mentioned during that conversation and during the hearing with Judge Marra, the U.S. Attorney's Office is not a party to any of the civil suits against Mr. Epstein pending in the U.S. District Court or any state court and takes no position regarding those lawsuits. The U.S. Attorney's Office is not advising or requiring that Mr. Epstein take any action regarding those lawsuits, rather, Mr. Epstein should proceed as he sees fit. The U.S. Attorney's Office will continue to exercise its independent judgment and proceed in accordance with its rights under the Non-Prosecution Agreement. My statements during our conversation and during the court proceeding contained no promises and did not alter or modify the Non-Prosecution EFTA00213049 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. JUNE 15,2009 PAGE 2 OF 4 Agreement. I would like to address what appears to be a continuing pattern in this matter. There have been several instances of breaches by Mr. Epstein of the letter and spirit of the Non- Prosecution Agreement, including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. As soon as Notice is provided by the United States, we are told that Mr. Epstein "was relying on his lawyers" and had not intended to willfully breach the Agreement. Mr. Epstein, through those same lawyers, then undertakes a perfunctory "cure" and continues to enjoy the benefit of his bargain until he decides to breach yet again. Notifications of breach have been provided on several occasions in the past. From the start, and as mentioned in extensive correspondence in October and November 2007, Mr. Epstein did not use his "best efforts" to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced within the time frame set by the Agreement. After several appeals were made throughout the Department of Justice resulting in a nine-month delay, the U.S. Attorney's Office had to remind Mr. Epstein of his obligation to provide a copy of the plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office prior to his entering into that agreement. Despite numerous requests, the proposed state plea agreement and notice of the state change of plea were not provided until I sent our first Notice of Breach letter at 3:15 p.m. on the last business day before the plea. Thereafter, I received a copy of the proposed state agreement, which contained language that directly contradicted the Non-Prosecution Agreement. A second Notice of Breach had to be prepared and sent to bring the state plea agreement into compliance. After Mr. Epstein entered his guilty plea and was sentenced, another set of problems arose. First, Mr. Epstein's counsel obstructed our ability to abide by our obligations to notify the victims of the outcome of the federal investigation. Second, Mr. Epstein refused to fulfill promptly Mr. Epstein's obligation to secure the services of an attorney representative for the victims. Third, Messrs. Goldberger and Tein approved the dissemination of a victim notification letter that Messrs. Leflcowitz and Epstein contended contained incorrect information. Fourth, Mr. Epstein's counsel informed the Court that a motion to quash subpoenas was still pending, despite the Non-Prosecution Agreement's requirement that Mr. Epstein withdraw that motion. Extensive correspondence and telephone conferences were required to resolve each of these situations. For example, on July 17, 2008, the United States had to issue a third Notice of Breach, instructing Mr. Epstein's counsel: If, in fact, your position is that the federal criminal action is still pending, then EFTA00213050 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. JUNE 15, 2009 PAGE 3 OF 4 the Office proposes that we seek the prompt resolution of the Motion to Quash, so that the computer equipment can be analyzed and the investigation can continue, including the identification of additional victims. If, instead, Mr. Epstein intends to continue performing his obligations under the Non-Prosecution Agreement, then the investigation will remain closed, and no federal criminal action will be pending. Please advise whether you would like to proceed on the Motion to Quash or, if not, please correct the representations to the Court regarding the status of the federal investigation. In November, more issues arose when we learned—not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that Mr. Epstein was spending more than twelve hours each day outside the Palm Beach County Stockade. Mr. Epstein's release prior to the Office's notification of that release, resulted in accusations from victims that the Office had violated its statutory victim notification obligations. Our investigation of Mr. Epstein's application for the work release program demonstrated that Mr. Epstein made several false statements in his application and made threatening statements to the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office about legal repercussions if he was not admitted to the program. I also discovered—again, not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that Judge McSorley had modified Mr. Epstein's judgment motc pro tune to an "Order of Community Control I," which directly contradicted the terms of the Non- Prosecution Agreement. This required a fourth Notice of Breach and another claim that there was no "intended breach" followed by a meaningless "cure." During my conversation with Mr. Lefkowitz of June 12th regarding our fifth written Notice of Breach, and during the proceeding before Judge Marra, I heard again that Mr. Epstein had no intent to breach the Non-Prosecution Agreement but was merely relying on his attorneys. In light of the fact that Mr. Epstein is highly intelligent and experienced with the law, and is reportedly spending more than twelve hours a day at his attorney's office working on nothing but the litigation pending against him, this excuse will not be accepted. This letter is being provided to all three of you with the recommendation that you circulate it to any attorney who is acting on Mr. Epstein's behalf. Importantly, while Mr. Epstein has continued to receive the benefit of his bargain by not facing federal prosecution, our Office has not received the benefits of finality, savings of resources, or the punishment and victim restitution terms envisioned by the Non- EFTA00213051 JAY P. LEFKOWD7, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. JUNE IS, 2009 PAGE 4 OF 4 Prosecution Agreement. As I mentioned in our telephone call, I have asked Mr. Josefsberg to provide me with the correspondence that he referenced during the hearing before Judge Marra. That will be reviewed to determine if there has been yet another breach by Mr. Epstein. As I stated, and as mentioned in the Notice Letter served upon Mr. Goldberger, notice of any breaches that we discover will be provided as required by the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Our Office also will review the new pleading in the Jane Doe 101 matter that Mr. Lefkowitz mentioned, prior to deciding what, if any, remedies we will pursue for /vit. Epstein's breach. However, I note that, while the U.S. Attorney's Office is required to provide notice of any breach, there is no requirement that Mr. Epstein be allowed the opportunity to cure any breach. The pattern of behavior described above will be factored into the Office's decision on what remedies it will pursue in connection with this most recent breach and any future violations. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney By: cc: Assistant United tares Attorney EFTA00213052 Exhibit 2 EFTA00213053 IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: (1) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(O, with minor females; in violation Page 1 of 7 EFTA00213054 of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney's Office; IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State Attorneys Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the Defendant will be served by the following procedure; THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph °hall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. Page 2 of 7 EFTA00213055 Terms of the Agreement I. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nob contendere) to the Indictment as currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXX3IMB) charging one (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires hint to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage inprostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03; 2. Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: (a) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment, and (b) Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Term 2(a), supra. 3. This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this agreement. 4. The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or incarceration. 5. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph (2), supra. 6. Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all Page 3 of 7 EFTA00213056 proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements. 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person andtor the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. 11. Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be Page 4 of 7 EFTA00213057 sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008. 12. Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. 13. The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement. In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal ch a • tan tg ors of E e' including but not limited or Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain. grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. Page 5 of 7 EFTA00213058 By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all federal offenses. By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein herebyrequests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District ofFlorida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the subject ofthe grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as to any such offense. /I/ /// /// Page 6 of 7 EFTA00213059 By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: va,_ Dated: Dated: ASSIST RNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA00213060 By signing this agreement Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: Dated: /Lg. 07 Dated: ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA00213061 By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with than. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Date& Dated: Dated: Dated:q—A BY: ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN Z, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA00213062 Exhibit 3 EFTA00213063 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AITILIATLD PAPINININDS Jay P. LottkovAtz. P.C. To y: AXIM VIA E-MAIL CItcroup Center 153 East 63rd Street New York. New York 10022-4811 www.kkidand.com November 29, 2007 R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffley Epstein Dear Alex: Facsimito: I am responding to the draft letter Marie sent to me last night, which purports to be a letter that you would sign and send to each of the individuals whom you have not even identified to us, and'about whom the government has made clear it "takes no position" as to the validity of potential claims that these individuals may have against Mr. Epstein. I cannot reconcile your commitment to "take no position" regarding these potential claims with your intention to sign such a letter, which will surely find its way almost immediately into the press, refers to these individuals as "minor victims," refers to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual predator," misstates the terms of our federal non-prosecution agreement (the "Agreement"), and invites federal witnesses to attend Mr. Epstein's state sentencing in order to give victim impact statements, although they are in most respects not state victims at all. More fundamentally, we don't understand the basis for your Office's belief that it is appropriate for any letter to be sent to these individuals at this stage — before Mr. Epstein has either entered a plea or been sentenced. We respectfully disagree with your view that you are required to notify the alleged victims pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. First, 18 U.S.C. § 2255, the relevant statute under the Agreement for the settlement of civil remedies, does not have any connection to the Justice for All Act The Justice for All Act refers to restitution, and § 2255 is a civil remedy, not a restitution statute. We also believe that the draft letter could not diverge more dramatically from your statement last week that your Office would not intervene in the state process from this point forward, and that you would merely monitor it Indeed, the letter as currently drafted invites federal witnesses to become participants in a state proceeding, thus federalizing the state plea and sentencing in the same manner as would the appearance and statements of a member of your Office or the FBI. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, D.C. EFTA00213064 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta November 29, 2007 Page 2 With that said, I respectfully identify below the specific objections we have with the proposed letter. First, it states that "Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will not contest jurisdiction or liability if [the alleged victims] elect to seek damages from him ..." This language implies that Mr. Epstein has agreed to concede jurisdiction and has waived liability whether or not each individual identified by the government as a "victim" of federal crimes ultimately settles her claim pursuant to the Agreement. The letter as drafted invites the witnesses to whom it is sent to believe that they can litigate their claims without Mr. Epstein being able to contest jurisdiction or liability — a construction of the Agreement that is in direct conflict with its terms. The Agreement we entered makes clear that Mr. Epstein's waiver of jurisdiction and liability is limited to those instances where the identified individual settles with him pursuant to Sections 7 through 8 of the Agreement and Addendum. As you are well aware, Mr. Epstein has no obligation or intention to concede jurisdiction or liability in any claim for damages — by an enumerated "victim" or anyone else — where that party fails to settle her claims pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. Second, there is no basis to refer to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual predator." Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Mr. Epstein will be required to register as a "sexual offender," not a "sexual predator." Those are very different categories under Florida law. Mr. Epstein has agreed to enter a plea of guilty to two counts of violation of Florida Statutes §§ 796.03 and 796.07. Under Florida law, those charges do not classify him as a sexual predator. See Florida Statute § 775.21(4)(a). Rather, he is only a sexual offender as defined by Florida Statute § 943.0435(1)00. To identify Mr. Epstein as a sexual predator, in this letter or elsewhere, is inaccurate and would irreparably harm him. Third, we find no basis in law that provides the identified individuals with either a right to appear at Mr. Epstein's plea and sentence, or to submit a written statement to be filed by the State Attorney. According to Florida Statutes §§ 960.001(k) and 921.143(1), the sentencing court permits only "the victim of the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced ... to [a]ppear before the sentencing court for the purpose of making a statement under oath for the record; and [s]ubmit a written statement under oath to the office of the state attorney, which statement shall be filed with the sentencing court" Florida Smut, § 960.001(k) citing § 921.143(1) (emphasis added). Here, Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to, and being sentenced for, state offenses, not the federal offenses under which the government has recognized these identified individuals as "victims." The state charges for which Mr. Epstein will be sentenced are not coextensive with the federal investigation. Under Florida law, only those persons identified as victims of the state offenses may make a statement at the hearing or submit a written statement EFTA00213065 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta November 29, 2007 Page 3 With respect, encouraging these individuals to participate in the state sentencing will have the effect of creating a media frenzy that will surely impact the sentence Mr. Epstein receives — precisely what your Office promised to avoid. Such an intrusion into state affairs, when the identified individuals are not even victims of the crime for which Mr. Epstein is being sentenced is highly inappropriate. The federal investigation of Mr. Epstein has been concluded, and witnesses or civil claimants identified as purported victims of federal offenses have no place in the state proceeding. We also think it will likely promote spurious civil litigation against Mr. Epstein, a result that would be highly irresponsible to encourage. Fourth, we take serious issue with the assertion in the letter that the government has identified each recipient of the letter as a "minor victim." The term "minor victim" is notably absent from the Agreement. Section 7 of the Agreement states only that the government will provide a list of individuals "whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255." Indeed, you have told us that at least one identified individual is currently 24 years old, and thus would appear not to have been a minor at the time of the alleged conduct (and therefore is presumably not eligible to settle her claims under the Agreement). To confer on these women the imprimatur of a government "finding" is both incendiary and unwarranted. Fifth, your letter mischaracterizes the nature of Mr. Epstein's liability under the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 provisions of the Agreement. Your letter states that every individual who receives the letter is a victim of "certain offenses, including travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution." This construction implies that these individuals are all victims of both offenses (travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution.) Clearly that is not the case. Consequently, the language should be revised to reflect that the identified individuals may be victims of certain offenses, but not necessarily both offenses. Additionally, for the sake of fairness and candor, we believe the same language contained in your letter to Judge Davis, stating that "[t]he United States takes no position as to the validity of any such claim under this statute," should be included in any proposed letter. Sixth, your letter states that Mr. Podhurst and Mr. Josefsberg may "represent" the identified individuals. Since we have not yet had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Podhurst or Mr. Josefsberg (though we hope to do so this week), we do not know that they will even agree to serve in this capacity. Since I believe the role you are casting for these attorneys creates a significant ethical problem, specifically the conflict between counseling the clients to settle for the statutory amount and rewarding the attorneys for litigating rather than settling their claims, I would not assume that they, or any ethical attorney, would agree to accept this assignment as you define it. Whether that will mean that other attorneys will have to be sought, or you will realize that the role is untenable as described, either result will require modification of the letter. EFTA00213066 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta November 29, 2007 Page 4 Seventh, the identified individuals should not contact lawyers in your Office or agents of the FBI. To encourage these individuals to contact federal law enforcement officials is entirely inconsistent with your promise that there will be no further federal involvement in this case. Moreover, such contact can only invite the possibility for impermissible or partial communications. Recently, you asked the defense not to contact potential witnesses in this matter in part because the Agreement contemplated the selection of an attorney representative. For the same reason there should be no continuing invitation for the witnesses to remain in contact with either your Office or the FBI. Any questions these individuals may have regarding their rights under the Agreement should be answered by Judge Davis or the attorney representative. Eighth, this letter should be mailed rather than delivered by hand. We see no reason for hand delivery, and mailing will ensure that there are no impermissible or partial communications made to the identified individuals upon delivery of the letter. If your Office insists on hand delivery of any such letter, however, it should only be made by a third party service, not by law enforcement agents. Finally, as you know, Judge Starr has requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General Fisher to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the § 2255 component of the Agreement. We are hopeful that this meeting will take place as early as next week. Accordingly, we respectfully request that we postpone our discussion of sending a letter to the alleged victims until after that meeting. We strongly believe that rushing to send any letter out this week is not the wisest manner in which to proceed. Given that Mr. Epstein will not even enter his plea for another few weeks, time is clearly not of the essence regarding any notification to the identified individuals. Sincerely, ilyjti a . Lefko 'tz EFTA00213067 Exhibit 4 EFTA00213068 12/04/07 TUE 16:46 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida R. ALEXANDER ACas-rn UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DELIVERY EY FACSIMILE Kenneth W. Starr, Esq Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Jeffrey Eckstein Dear Mr. Starr: 99 N.E. 4 Ewen Afloat Ft 33132 1303) 961-9100 - Telephone (305)330-W4 - Vookelle I write in response to your November 281° letter, in which you raise concerns regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement between this Office and your client, Mr. Epstein. I take these concerns seriously. As your letter focused on the Section 2255 portion of the Agreement, my response will focus primarily on that issue as well. I do wish to make some more general observations, however. Section 2255 provides that "[alny person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of [enumerated sections of Title 18) and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation . . . may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." Thus, had this Office proceeded to trial, and had Mr. Epstein been convicted, the victims of his actions would have been able to seek to relief under this Section. The Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (1) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable" offense; (2) that this plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term ofimprisonment and (3) that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. This third point deserves elaboration. The intent is to place the victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. With this in mind, I turn to the language of the Agreement Paragraph 8 of the Agreement provides: If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States 0002 EFTA00213069 12/04/07 TUE 16:46 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter,' and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified victim and Epstein, so long as the identified victim elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United Slates, Epstein's signature on this agreement is not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability other than that contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Although these two sentences are far from simple, they appear to incorporate our intent to narrowly tailor the Agreement to place the identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. I would note that I have conferred with our prosecutors and have been told that Paragraph 8 was vigorously negotiated and that the final language was suggested largely by defense counsel. The concerns raised in your letter with respect to Paragraph 8 fall within several general categories. First, you raise concerns regarding the nature of Section 2255. As you note, Section 2255 is a civil statute implanted in the criminal code; in contrast to other criminal statutes, Section 2255 fails to correlate payments to specific injuries or losses. Instead the statute presumes that victims have sustained damages of at least a minimum lump sum without regard to whether the complainants suffered actual medical, physiological or other forms of individualized harm. These concerns were, I would expect, aired when Congress adopted this statute. Even if they were not, this provision is now law. Rule of law requires now requires this District to consider the victims' rights under this statute in negotiating this Agreement. Second, you raise concerns regarding the identity-of-the-victims issue. Your concerns appear based on the belief that Paragraph 8 is a blanket waiver of liability with respect to any number of unnamed and undisclosed victims. I would invite you to confer with your co-counsel regarding this matter. Although the language of Paragraph S could be so construed, our First Assistant informed Mr. Lefkowitz some weeks ago that this was not our position. As Mr. Lefkowitz has noted, were Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims in a subsequent Section 2255 suit would still have had some burden to prove that they were "victims." It is also the case, however, that were Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims would not have to show that a violation of an enumerated section of Title 18 took place. Accordingly, our First Assistant informed Mr. Lefkowitz some weeks ago that we understood that if a victim-plaintiff elects to proceed to trial, Mr. Epstein's Although not identified as an issue by defense counsel, having reviewed this language, I note that Paragraph 8 raises the question of what is meant by "subject matter." I have conferred with the AUSA who negotiated this language, and have been informed that parties Intended this to address issues of venue. This Office will not interpret this paragraph as any waiver of subject matter jurisdiction. Please inform int if defense counsel disagrees. _2- 1 EFTA00213070 12/04/07 TUE 16:47 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE legal team might conduct due diligence to confirm the that victim-plaintiff in fact had inappropriate contact with Mr. Epstein. Once again, our interpretive principle is our intent to place the victim in the same position she would have been had Mr. Epstein proceeded to trial. Third, you raise concerns regarding our decision not to create a restitution fund. Throughout the negotiations, defense counsel suggested several similar arrangements, including a Trust fund. Again, our decision not to create a fund flows from our belief that the Agreement should provide the same relief to the victims as they would have been entitled had we proceeded to trial. A restitution fund or trust fund would place an upper limit on the victims' recovery. It is not for this Office to make that decision for the victims. They may choose to walk away, they may choose to settle, or they may choose to sue. The choice should remain with each individual victim? Fourth, you raise concerns regarding the selection process for the attorney representative. As you may be aware, the suggestion that we appoint an attorney representative originated with defense counsel. Defense counsel, I believe, found it advantageous to attempt to negotiate a settlement of the many victims' claims with one attorney representative. My Office agreed to appoint such a representative, in part, because we too thought it valuable for the victims to have the advice of an attorney who could advise them of their choices: whether to walk away, to settle or to sue. Since the signing of the Agreement, several issues have arisen with respect to this provision. First, l elected to assign this Office's right to appoint the representative to an independent third-party, former federal Judge Davis. 1 did this to avoid any suggestion that this Office's choice of representative was intended to influence the outcome of civil litigation. Second, your co-counsel expressed concerns similar to those raised in your letter regarding the criteria used to select the representative. These criteria were: (1) Experience doing both plaintiffs' and defense litigation; (2) Experience with state and federal statutory and common law tort claims; (3) Ability to communicate effectively with young women; (4) Experience litigating against large law firms and high profile attorneys who may test the veracity of the victims' claims; (5) Sensitivity to the nature of the suit and the victims' interest in maintaining their privacy; (6) Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida; Your lent,. references U.S. v Boehm, No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Ala 2004) as a model for a restitution fund statement I asked our prosecutor to contact the AUSA in that case. In that matter, the District of Alaska sought out and obtained the consent of all the victims before entering into that settlement. In addition, they developed an elaborate procedure for deciding which victim would receive what. My view, in this case, Is that those types of negotiations arc better handled between Mr. Epstein and the victims' representatives, and that this Office should not act as intermediary. Finally, I would note that in Boehm as well, the victims' identities were not initially disclosed. As the AUSA wrote in that cast "This filing is made cx parte because Boehm, in his plea agreement, waived any rights he had pertaining to the selection of beneficiaries and the disbursement of fluids to such beneficiaries." -3- (1004 EFTA00213071 12/04/07 TUE 16:47 FAX 906 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE (7) The resources to hire experts and others, while working on a contingency fee basis, in order to prepare for trial if a settlement cannot be reached (defense counsel has reserved the right to challenge such litigation); and (8) The ability to negotiate effectively. At my direction, our First Assistant provided our criteria to your co-counsel, Mr. Lefkowitz, in advance, and at co-counsel's request, he noted in our communication with Judge Davis, defense counsel's objection to criteria 7. I have now reviewed these criteria and find them balanced and reasonable. They appear designed to provide the victims with an attorney who can advise them on all their options, whether it be to walk away, to settle (as your client prefers), or to litigate. Again, our intent is not to favor any one of these options, but rather to leave the choice to each victim. Fifth, you assert that this Office "has improperly insisted that the chosen attorney representative should be able to litigate the claims of the individuals," should a resolution not be possible. This issue, likewise, bas already been raised and addressed in discussions between your co-counsel and our First Assistant We understand your position that it would be a conflict of interest for the attorney representative to subsequently represent victim-plaintiffs in a civil suit. Your interpretation of the ethics rules may be correct, or it may be wrong. Far from insisting that the attorney representative can represent victim-plaintiffs in subsequent litigation, our First Assistant and J have repeatedly told defense counsel that we take no position on this matter. Indeed, 1 fully expect your defense team to litigate this issue with the attorney representative if a resolution is not reached. 1 have responded personally and in some detail to your concerns because I deeply care about both the law and the integrity of this Office. f have responded personally and in some detail as well because your letter troubled me on a number of levels. My understanding of the negotiations in this matter informs my concerns. The Section 2255 provision issue was first discussed at a July 31, 2007, mcetin between F,AUSA IM tea —W.1 4441 • — • fi r . re• A and two FBI agents wbo met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. On t t • te, the prosecutors presented a written, four-bullet-point term sheet that would satisfy the federal interest in the case and discussed the substance of those terms. One of these four points was the following provision: Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject matter. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s) 2422 and/or 2423. -4- la005 EFTA00213072 12/04/07 TUE 16:48 FAX 305 630 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE lane In mid August 2007, your defense team, dissatisfied with my staff's review ofthe case, asked to meet with me. Mr. Letkowtiz indicated your busy schedule, and asked me to put off until September 7, 2007, so that you could attend. Mr. Lefkowitz also indicated that he might appeal my decision to Washington D.C., if my decision was contrary to his client's interest I agreed to the September 7th meeting, despite the fact that our AUSA had an indictment ready for presentation to thegrandjury. An explicit condition ofthat agreement, however, was anunderstanding between Mr. Lefkowitz and myself that any appeal to Washington would be undertaken expeditiously. On September 7, 2007,1, along withFAUSA OM AUSAs FBI agents, met with you, Mr. Lefkowitz, and Ms. Sanchez. I understood that you wished to present federalism-based regarding ur prosecution. To ensure a Ml consideration of your arguments, 1 invite Chief of the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, to travel from Washington to attend our meeting. During the September 7th meeting, your co-counsel, Mr. Lefkowitz, offered a plea resolution. The inclusion of a Section 2255 remedy was specifically raised and discussed at the September 7t° meeting. Indeed, according to AUSA Villafafia's notes, you thanked her for bringing it to your attention. Again, no objection to the Section 2255 issue was raised. After considering the ar ems raised at the September 7h meeting, and after conferring with the FBI and with Chie ur Office decided to proceed with the indictment. At that time, I reminded Mr. Lefkowitz that he had previously indicated his desire to appeal such a decision to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, and I offered to direct our prosecutors to delay the presentation of the indictment to allow you or he to appeal our decision if you so chose. lie decided not to do so. Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiate theNon-Frosecution Agreement These negotiations were detailed and time-consuming. Mr. Epstein's defense team, including yourself, Professor Dershowitz, former United States Attorney Guy Lewis, Ms. Lilly Ann Sanchez and Messrs. Roy Black, Jack Goldberger, Gerry Lefcourt and Jay Lefkowitz had the opportunity to review and raise objections to the terms of the Agreement. Again, no one raised objections to the Section 2255 language. Since the signing of the Agreement, the defense team and our Office have addressed several issues that have arisen under the Agreement Although the exchanges were at times a bit litigious, it appears that these issues have been resolved by mutual consent, some in favor of your client, some not so. It is against these many previous foregone opportunities to object that I receive with surprise your letter requesting an 11th hour, after-the-fact review of our Agreement. Although it happens rarely, 1 do not mind this Office's decision being appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although 1 am confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal analysis, I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in the Criminal -5- EFTA00213073 12/04/07 TUE 18:48 FAX 305 530 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving their indictment package. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in fact resolved, in your client's favor. I am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement. The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must be closure on this matter. Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind. Finally, I am most concerned about any belief on the part of defense counsel that the Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitutional in any way.' In closing, I would ask that you consult with co-counsel. If after consultations within the defense team, you believe that our Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitutional, I would ask that you notify us immediately so that we can discuss the matter by phone or in person. I have consulted with the chief prosecutor in this cast, who has advised me that she is ready to unwind the Agreement and proceed to trial if necessary or if appropriate. I would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although time is of the essence (I understand that certain filings are due to our Office no later than December 7th and that certain events must take place no later than December le), lam directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options with your client. We are available by phone or in person, in the interim, to It is not clear from your knot whether you believe that attorneys in this Office have acted improperly. Your letter, for example, alludes to the need to engage in an Inquiry to assure that disclosures to potential wimesses did not undermine the reliability of the results of this fedcnl investigation. M a former Department of Justice attorney. I am certain that you recognize that this is a serious allegation. I have raised this matter with AUSA Villareal% who informed me that the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 miler during the investigation phase of this matter. If you have specific concerns. I ask that you raise these with me immediately, so that I can make appropriate inquiries. -6- 61007 EFTA00213074 12/04/07 TOE 16:45 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Woos address any matters that might remain unaddressed in this letter. We expect a written decision by this Friday at 5 p.m., indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the Agreement. cc: -7- Sincerely, It ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY EFTA00213075 Exhibit 5 EFTA00213076 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND ANILIARD PARINVASNIPS 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Mensal W. Start To Can Writer Directly: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: (213) 6130-8440 (219) 8804503 lostaurekkkland.com www.kladand.com December I I, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE (3051 530-6444 Honorable IL Alexander Acosta United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Alex: As we discussed during our telephone conversations on both Friday and Monday (yesterday), we are submitting two separate letters that address ow broad areas of deep concern in this matter. First, the cluster of fundamental policy issues surrounding the use and implementation of 2255, a richly policy-laden but uncharted area of federal law; and second, our profound concerns as to the background and conduct of the investigation. Consistent with our conversations, we submit these letters with the assurance and understanding that our doing so in no manner constitutes a breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement or unwinds that Agreement We are grateful for your courtesy in agreeing to receive and consider these submissions, and then to meet to discuss them. As you undertake your study and reflection, kindly allow me to make this pivotal point In the combined 250 years experience of Jeffrey's defense team, we have together and individually concluded that this case is not only extraordinary and unprecedented, it is deeply and uniquely troubling. The constellation of issues, large and small, renders Jeffrey's matter entirely sui genesis. We say this not lightly. Indeed, as you will glean from our two letters, we are gravely concerned that, in addition to its odd conceptualization and genesis, the matter in its day-to-day implementation has been handled in a manner that raises deeply troubling questions with respect to both federal policy and individual judgment in a system that is, at its best, assiduously devoted to the rule of law. The latest episodes involving 2255 notification to the alleged victims put illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice, time and again, are not being served. By way of illustration, but it is only one among a eaceading list of grave concerns, we now understand that the Assistant United States Atto duct has troubled us from day one has quite recently reached out to the attorney fox and Chicago Hong Kong London Munich New York San Francisco waseinaton, EFTA00213077 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Honorable R. Alexander Acosta December 11, 2007 Page 2 provided oral notification of the victim notification letter. This notification, as we have stated time and again, is profoundly unfair. But quite apart from our substantive concerns, which are abiding and which had prompted our appeal to the Assistant Attorney General in the first instance, we had thought that the notification process had been held in abeyance until completion of our ongoing discussions with respect to that process. That appears not to be so. This latest in a baleful line of prosecutorial actions is dri in irony. We respectfully call your attention to the transcript of the interview with .nd guide you — as the duly confirmed Executive Branch official charged wi malting judgments consistent with our constitutional order — to the telling fact that Ms. did not in any manner view herself as a victim. Quite to the contrary. She is not alone. We draw attention to this episode as but a recent indication of the deepening need for your thoughtful and independent review. And for your agreeing to provide that review, our defense team is very grateful. Respectfully Submitted, )4)C,-,L Kenneth W. Starr EFTA00213078 Exhibit 6 EFTA00213079 12/19/07 WED 17:03 FAX. .305 630 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 0002 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida AISKANDKI t ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATIORNRY DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Lilly Ann Sanchez Fowler White Burnett, PA 1395 Brickell Ave, 14th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. Sanchez: W N.E. 4 Sweat Maw, Fl. 33132 O05)96i-9100 - Telephony O05)530.4444 - Foaling° December 19, 2007 I write to follow up on the December 14th meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' write to yon because 1 am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this letter. I address issues raised by several members of the defense team, and would thus ask that you please provide a copy of this letter to all appropriate defense team members. First, I would like to address the Section 2255 issue? As I stated in my December 4th letter, my understanding is that the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections l Over the past two weeks, we have received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits from defense counsel. This is not the forum to respond to the several items raised, and our silence should not be interpret as agreement I would, however, like to address one issue. Your December 11e letter states that as a result of defense counsel objections to the appointment process, the USAO proposed an addendum to the Agreement to provide fur die use of an independent third party selector. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowledge of defense counsel objeuions, I suer spomo proposed the Addendum to Mr. Leflcowitx at an October meeting in Palm Beach. I did this in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process. It was only after I proposed this change that Mr.l.cfkowitz raised with me his enumerated concerns. 2 Section 2255 provides that "tally person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of [enumerated sections of Title 18) and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation ... may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, Including a reasonable attorney's fec." EFTA00213080 __42/19/07 WED 17:03 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 0 003 of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (1) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable" state offense; (2) that this state plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. With this in mind, I have considered defense counsel arguments regarding the Section 2255 portions of the Agreement. As I previously observed, our intent has been to place the victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. From our meeting, it appears that the defense agrees that this was the intent. During the course of negotiations that intent was reduced to writing in Paragraphs 7 and 8, which as i wrote previously, appear far from simple to understand. I would thus propose that we solve our disagreements over interpretations by saying precisely what we mean, in a simple fashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 and 8 with the following language: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Second, 1 would like to address the issue of victim's rights pursuant to Section 3771. I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place of Mr. Epstein's state co art sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense as a courtesy. In addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of proceeding and results of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether be wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes. Third, I would like to address the issue raised regarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At our meeting, Professor Dershowitz took the position that Mr. Epstein believes that his conduct does not satisfy the elements of this offense. His assertion raises for me substantial concerns. This Office will not, and cannot, be a parry to an agreement in which Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to an offense that he believes he did not commit. We are considering how best to proceed. 2 EFTA00213081 12/19/07 WED 17:04 FAX 305 530 0440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE e004 Finally, I would like to address a more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on September 24th, 2007. Pursuant to paragraph 11, Mr. Epstein was to use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced no later than. October 26, 2007. As outlined in correspondence between our prosecutors and defense counsel, this deadline came and went. Our prosecutors reiterated to defense counsel several times their concerns regarding delays, and in fact, asked me several weeks ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. 1 resisted that invitation. I share this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an 1 I th hour appeal, weeks before the now scheduled January 4th plea date. This said, the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns. We hope to preserve the January 4th date. I understand that defense counsel shares our desire not to move that appearance and will work with our office to expedite this process over the next several days. With this in mind, and in the event that defense counsel may wish to seek review of our determinations in Washington D.C., I spoke this past Monday with the Assistant Attorney General Fisher, to inform her of a possible appeal, to ask her to grant the potential request for review, and to in fact review this case in an expedited manner to attempt to preserve the January 4th plea date. I want to again reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial, and he should do so if he believes that he did not commit the elements of the charged offense. I will respond to the pending issues shortly. In the interim, I would ask that you communicate your position with respect to the sections 2255 and 3371 issues as quickly as possible. cc: 3 Sincerely, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY EFTA00213082 Exhibit 7 EFTA00213083 Jay Lefkowitz/New Yorktlarldand-Ellis 021291200803:11 PM Dear Alex, To bce Subject Fw: Epstein I received the attached email fro this week and to put it mildly, I was shocked. As you will recall, back at the beginning of January, en we both agreed that there were significant irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement, you called a time-out. You had decided to ask Drew's Office to take a look at the matter and suggested that we would be hearing him within days. At that time, we welcomed the development -- especially given that we had reason to be concerned that some of the individuals in your Office were not acting appropriately in relation to this matter. In particular, we were very concerned that one of your prosecutors had given a substantial amount of information to a New York Times reporter -- telling him not only about specific aspects of our plea negotiations, but also sharing with him details about y r ffi theory concerning what laws you believe Mr. Epstein has violated. In broad strokes, Mr. told Mr. Thomas that the Office was contemplating charging Mr. Epstein under Sections 4 (b) (with a full discussion of principal liability), 2423, and 1591. He also complained about Mr. Epstein's la ers and told Mr. Thomas not to "believe the spin from Mr. Epstein's high priced attorneys? Mr. even informed Mr. Thomas that we had "asked for privately paid armed guards" as part of a house arrest proposal we had made. Even more surprising, he subsequently told Mr. Thomas that we had teamed of the conversation, complained about it and suggested an explanation. Needless to say, we were very troubled by these conversations. At this same time, we agreed that in order to provide Drew a sufficient amount of time to evaluate the matter, it made sense to move the deadline for state plea to March, which we did. I was therefore quite surprised to receive, in rapid succession, a call from Drew asking to begin the review process and then only two days later, an email from Jeff informing me of new and extremely short and arbitrary deadlines. The one thing I had become certain about in this case was that you were sincere in your desire to ensure that the DOJ took a proper and principled position with respect to this matter, and that you fully accepted our desire, and our right, to appeal any adverse decision by your Office to the DOJ. In fact, on several occasions — including our meeting before Thanksgiving in your Office -- you stated precisely as much to me. That is why I am so surprised by Jeff's latest email. We are very interested in having the meetings you suggested with Drew. It would be very unfortunate to begin the review process that you have asked Drew to conduct and at the same time artificially constrict it. As you know, the timing of a thorough review would cause no prejudice to the government's prosecution of Mr. Epstein. To the contrary, we hope that our dialogue with Drew will allow for the government to make a more informed decision concerning this matter. We have been waiting eagerly for a call from Drew for nearly two months. Now that he is prepared to meet with us, it is unfair for Jeff to seek to impose artificial deadlines. Since I will be in trial next week, we are planning to begin our meetings with Drew during the second week in March. I sincerely hope we can resolve this matter in the near future. To be dear -- at this stage -- we are not asking for anything but the same due process that you promised to afford to us when we last spoke in early January. Best, Jay cc: Jeff EFTA00213084 Exhibit 8 EFTA00213085 Jay, 02/29/2008 07:17 PM To cc bcc Subject Epstein I know you emailed the U.S. Attorney but I feel compelled to respond. In my Monday, February 25th email, I tried to express my concern, on behalf of the SDFL, about additional delays concerning this matter and the desire to expedite review without interfering or restricting the process. When you replied on Wednesday , February 27', it seemed to me that nothing had much changed. Your email stated "because I am currently scheduled to be on trial all next week in Delaware, I don't think we will actually be able to begin meeting with Drew until the following week, at the earliest" I felt that no effort was being made towards scheduling, and that, at the very least, one of Mr. Epstein's other lawyers could have attempted to schedule a meeting with CEOS. To put it another way, it appeared to me that this matter was going to drag unnecessarily. Obviously you sensed my frustration in my responding email which, in turn, generated your email to the USA. Late this afternoon, I was informed that you have scheduled a meeting with CEOS for March 12th. Obviously, I am heartened to hear of this development. Please be assured that it is not, and never has been, this Office's intent to interfere with or restrict the review process for either Mr. Epstein or CEOS. I leave it to you and CEOS to figure out how best to proceed and will await the results of that process. Jeff Sloman, FAUSA EFTA00213086 Exhibit 9 EFTA00213087 Mr. Lefkowitz, 05/28/2008 04:51 PM To cc bcc Subject Jeffrey Epstein The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was recently notified that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, at your request, intends to review certain aspects of the investigation involving Mr. Epstein's sexual conduct involving minor victims. Naturally, until the DAG's Office has completed its review, this Office has postponed the current June 2, 2008 deadline requiring compliance by your client with the terms and conditions of the September 24, 2007 global resolution of state and federal liabilities, as modified by the United States Attorney's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant US Attorney Southern District of Florida EFTA00213088 Exhibit 10 EFTA00213089 Jack Goldberger From: Jack Goldberger Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 10:22 AM To: Jack Goldberger Subject: FW: Have a great weekend! Attachments: PLEA.Epsteln.doc From: Sent Friday, June 27, 2008 10:00 AM To: Jack Goldberger Subject Have a great weekend! EFTA00213090 Exhibit 11 EFTA00213091 Jack Goldberger Sent: mas...J11:31 AM From: SAFLS) To: Jack Goldberger Cc: USAFLS); RBlack©RoyBlack.com Subject: Re: Notice of Non-Compliance Dear Jack: I have conferred with a state court practitioner who stated that there is nothing that prohibits you from agreeing to a consecutive six-month sentence of incarceration followed by one year of community control as specified in the non-prosecution agreement. If you elect to proceed with the plea agreement as currently drafted, we ask that you insert the word "imprisoned" following the words "six months" in the second sentencing paragraph. Please confirm that this change is acceptable. Thank you. Original Message From* Goldberger To: Ann Mart..... Cc: Jack Goldberger Sent: Sat Jun 28 08:49:55 2008 Subject: RE: Notice of Non-Compliance Dear Ms please allow this e-mail to confirm our telephone conference of 6:30 pm on June 27 wherein we discussed the Epstein plea agreement and we agreed that the Epstein state plea agreement was in compliance with the September 2007 non-prosecution agreement entered into between Mr. Epstein and the USAO for the Souhern District of Florida. Jack Goldberger From: EMS C. (USAFLS) Sent: Fri 6/27/2008 5:45 PM To: Jack Goldberger; Roy BLACK Cc: Notice o Non-Compliance Dear Messrs. Goldberger and Black: Please see the attached Notification Letter. «080627 Goldberger Black notification ltr.pdf» Assistant U.S. Attorney 1 EFTA00213092 Exhibit 12 EFTA00213093 PLEA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT THE FOLLOWING IS TO REFLECT ALL TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT Name: JeffreyE. Epstein Plea: Guilty Case No. Charge Count Lesser Degree 06CF009454AMB Felony Solicitation of Prostitution 1 No 3 FEL 08CF009381AM8 Procuring Person Under 18 for Prostitution 1 No 2 FEL PSI: Waived/Not Required X Required/Requested ADJUDICATION: Adjudicate [x SENTENCE: On 06CF009454AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 12 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, with credit for 1 (one) day time served. On 08CF009381AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 18 months Community Control 1 (one). As a special condition of this Community Control, the Defendant must serve the first 6 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, with credit for 1 (one) day time served. This sentence is to be served consecutive to the 12 month sentence in 06CF009454AMB. The conditions of community control are attached hereto and incorporated herein. OTHER COMMENTS OR CONDITIONS; Court Costs: $474.00 Cost of Prosecution: $50.00 Drug Trust Fund: $50.00 As a special condition of his community control, the Defendant is to have no unsupervised contact with minors, and the supervising adult must be approved by the Department of Corrections. The Defendant is designated as a Sexual Offender pursuant to Florida Statute 943.0435 and must abide by all the corresponding requirements of the statute, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Defendant must provide a DNA sample in court at the time of this plea. Assistant State Attorney Attorney for the Defendant Date of Plea Defendant EFTA00213094 PLEA Ilk THE CIRCUITCOURT THE FOLLOWING IS TO REFLECT ALL TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT Name: Jeffrey E Epstein Plea: Gusty Dfle No. Charge Count Lester Degree C6CF039454AMB Felony Solicitation of Prostitution 1 No 3 FEL OSCF0D9361AMB Pr curing Person Under 1S for Prostitution 1 No 2 FEE. PSI: tribNedfNot Required X Required/Requested ADJUDICATION: Adjudicate (x SENTENCE: On D6CF03945/4AMB, the Defendant Is sentenced to 12 months in the Palm Beads County Detention FaSty, with credt for 1 (one) day time served. On U8C,F009381AlvlB, the Defendant is sentenced to 6 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, vsti men for 1 (one) day time served. This 6 month sentence Is to b served =nsevartive to the 12 month sentence in OSCF0394-50.AMB. Fotroviiing this 6 • . . • . month sentence, the Defendant will be placed on 12 months Community Control 1 (one). The conditions of community ,..„.inhul are attached hereto and incorporated herein. OTHER CONVENTS OR CONDITIONS: As a special condition of his community control, the De dant is to have no unsupervised contact with minors, and the supervisirrg adult must be pproved by the Department of Conedions. The Defendant is designated as a Sexual Offender pursuant to Florida Statute 943.0435 and must abkle by all the corresponding requirements of the statute, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. t The Defendant must provide a DNA sample in court at the time of ' V . • !iiah Assitetaittlaie Adorn,* • /c://. O f Defendant EFTA00213095 Exhibit 13 EFTA00213096 KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP AND At TILIATED PAIONIASMItS Jay P. lielcowitt, P.C. To . Cingroup Center 163 East SW Street New York, New York 10022-4811 www.kirklancLeom Octobcr 10, 2007 VIA E-MAIL R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Alex: Facsimile: Dlr. Fax Confidential. For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 408. I write as a follow up to our conversation yesterday regarding the open issues that remain M m in stein matter. As you are aware, we continue to have serious disagreements with Ms. regarding the nature of the settlement process for identified individuals' § 2255 claims. representation in a lawsuit was never contemplated by the Federal Plea Agreement (the "Agreement,. Over the course of the negotiations of the Agreement, the parties worked diligently to create an alternative dispute resolution for those identified individuals seeking a civil remedy for the conduct at issue, in an effort to avoid long drawn out disputes over liability in public adversarial litigations. Initially, we proposed that Mr. Epstein create a trust whereby a trustee would be appointed by the Circuit Court to disperses to the identified individuals based on a good faith showing of injury. In response, t proposed the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the identified individuals, not an attorney, which suggests that litigation was never contemplated by either party. Ultimately, the parties agreed to Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement, which allow for a single attorney representative to settle the claims of the identified individuals and create a procedural alternative to public adversarial litigation. In keeping with the parties' understanding of Paragraphs 7 and 8, you should know that we are in agreement with your choice of Judge Edward Davis, but we believe Judge Davis should act as the attorney representative to settle claims pursuant to the Agreement and the parties' longstanding understanding of the settlement process. Because the process we have agreed to does not contemplate litigation with respect to the attorney representative, Judge Davis can work to negotiate settlements with the identified individuals without further involvement by the government or its agents. Below, I've outlined our main areas of concern with the approach Ms. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, D.C. EFTA00213097 Confidential. For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 008. It Alexander Acosta October 10, 2007 Page 2 a lias taken regarding the role of the attorney representative and the settlement process for § 2255 claims pursuant to Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement. First Issue: The Settlement Process and the Role of the Attorney Representative. The settlement procedure we propose, and which we believe is made clear by the Agreement, is reasonable and consistent with the intention of the parties: the attorney representative will represent the identified individuals provided they opt to enter into a settlement agreement with Mr. Epstein with respect to their § 2255 claims. The attorney representative will negotiate a total settlement amount with Mr. Epstein. Once the United States has formally declined to prosecute Mr. Epstein in this matter, and each identified individual electing to settle has waived her right to pursue any other claims against Mr. Epstein, the attorney representative will distribute the proceeds in the manner he sees fit. If the identified individuals cannot settle or opt not to settle on a damages amount with Mr. Epstein, then the attorney representative may not continue his representation and is barred from filing lawsuits pursuant to § 2255 and the identified individuals would not be suing under § 2255 as contemplated by Paragraph 8. Based on the specific language in the contract and the intent of both parties, we believe that the Agreement clearly provides that the identified individuals may opt to make use of the attorney representative so long as they can reach a settlement agreement with Mr. Friein. If the parties cannot settle on a damages amount with Mr. Epstein, then the attorney representative may not continue his representation and is barred from filing lawsuits pursuant to § 2255. The provisions of the Agreement make clear that the role of the attorney representative is limited to cipnling claims brought by identified individuals pursuant to the Agreement. While Paragraph 7 defines who may be represented by the attorney representative, Paragraph 8 outlines the scope of that representation. Paragraph 7 states: The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in IS U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and has been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. Under Paragraph 8 of the Agreement, which provides the terms of the representation, the attorney representative is only appointed to protect the interests of those identified individuals who elect to waive any claim for damages other than the damages agreed to by the parties. Paragraph 8 states: If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over this person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the EFTA00213098 ConfidentlaL For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 408. R. Alexander Acosta October 10, 2007 Page 3 identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 US.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit arc not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. Paragraph 8 addresses how Mr. Epstein's waivers are triggered pursuant to a settlement with each identified individual. Paragraph 8 is clear that Mr. Epstein will only waive § 2255 liability "so long as" each identified individual proceeds exclusively under § 2255 and agrees to waive damages other than "an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein." The Agreement's silence with respect to what happens if the parties cannot settle on a damages amount indicates that the parties intended for the scope of the attorney representative's representation to be limited to settling claims with Mr. Epstein, not representing these identified individuals in § 2255 lawsuits. MIMS however, insists that the attorney representative's duties include pursuing a lawsuit un § 2255 on behalf of each identified individual in the event that settlement talks are unsuccessful. This interpretation is incorrect because Ms.IIM ignores Paragraph 8, which limits the scope of the attorney representative's representation. The longstanding intention of the parties is also consistent with our interpretation of the Agreement based on prior iterations of the Agreement, which only refer to appointing a trustee or a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of the identified individuals. Thus, legal representation in a lawsuit was never contemplated under the Agreement. Also, Mr. Epstein's agreement to pay the attorney representative's fees reaffirms that the parties never intended for the attorney int. representative to bring lawsuits. § 2255 includes a provision for attorne 's fees, but only if there is a monetary recovery. If the Agreement contemplates, as Ms. suggests, that the attorney representative could file suit on behalf of each identified • ss , Mr. Epstein would never have agreed to pay attorneys fees for those that being suit and lose. It is clear that Mr. Epstein agreed to pay the attorney representative's fees because he assumed that each identified individual represented by the attorney representative would recover something by settling on their respective damages claim. Ms. interpretation of the Agreement would also trigger profound ethical problems due to the conflicts of interests that would arise. For instance, if Mr. Epstein agrees to pay for the attorney representative's fees and monthly expenses in any potentially litigated matter, then the attorney representative would effectively be incentivized to reject settlement 'under § 2255 in an effort to draw out the lawsuits and incur more fees. If the lawyer were allowed to represent the identified individuals in a lawsuit, the best interests of each identified individual might not be served, because the attorney representative will always be more interested in pursuing lawsuits in lieu of settling claims against Mr. Epstein efficiently and fairly. This conflict EFTA00213099 Confidential. For Settlement Purpose.. Only, Pursuant to Rule 408. R. Alexander Acosta October 10, 2007 Page 4 could compromise the attorney representative's duty of loyalty. See ABA Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.8(O ("A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless... there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship"). And Mr. Epstein would essentially be paying the attorney representative to sue himself. Such a result is inappropriate and unconscionable. The attorney representative will face other conflicts as well. As a general matter, multiple representation of a group of individuals that elects to settle on damages as well as one or more individuals who reject settlement carries with it the heightened potential for irreparable conflicts. For example, the ethics rules preclude an attorney from simultaneously representing parties that are likely to end up in conflict. See ABA Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7 ("A lawyer shall not represent a client if...there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer."). Here, I can imagine a case where one of the identified individuals is called as a witness by Mr. Epstein to dispute an allegation by another identified individual who is a party to the case. The attorney representative would have to cross examine the witness, who is also his client. In another scenario, the attorney representative may receive privileged information from one identified individual, which precludes him from using that information with rospect to another identified individual. In each scenario, the attorney representative will be simultaneously representing parties that may be in conflict, in violation of Rule 1.7. For these reasons, we believe that Ms. Villafana's interpretation of the Agreement in connection with the attorney representative's role in the settlement process must be rejected. Second Issue: Waiver of Liability. Ms. incorrectly alleges that Mr. Epstein has waived liability even when claims are not sett) ant to the Agreement, if the identified individuals choose not to settle with Mr. Epstein, he will not waive liability for those individuals whose claims are not settled by the attorney representative. Paragraph 8 is clear that Mr. Epstein will only waive § 2255 liability so long as each identified individual proceeds exclusively under § 2255 and agrees to waive damages other than "an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein." (Paragraph 8, Agreement) Consequently, those identified individuals who choose not to settle with Mr. Epstein are not covered by the terms of the Agreement and will have to prove, among other things, that they are victims under the enumerated statutes. Third Issue: Communication to Identified Individuals. Ms. proposes that either she or federal agents will speak with the identified individuals regarding the settlement process. We do not think it is the government's place to be co-counsel to the identified individuals, nor should the FBI be their personal investigators. Neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the EFTA00213100 Confidential. For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rile 408. Alexander Acosta October 10, 2007 Page 5 case, including appointment of the attorney representative and the settlement process. Not only would that violate the confidentiality of the Agreement, but Mr. Epstein also will have no control over what is communicated to the identified individuals at this most critical stage. We believe it is essential that we participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication to the identified individuals. We further believe that communications between your Office or your case agents and the identified individuals might well violate Rule 6(eX2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The powers of the federal grand jury should not, even in appearance, be utilized to advance the interests of a party to a civil lawsuit. We propose that the following joint communication be made to Judge Davis, who will act as the attorney representative and communicate accordingly with the identified individuals: As counsel for the United States of America and Jeffrey Epstein, we jointly write to you to provide information relevant to your services as the attorney representative to represent certain identified individuals who may have a civil claim against Mr. Epstein. The United States has conducted an investigation of Mr. Epstein regarding his solicitation of females, some of whom the government alleges were underage, to engage in prostitution in his Palm Beach County home. Based on this investigation, the United States has identified certain individuals who may be eligible to seek a civil remedy against Mr. Epstein pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The United States and Mr. Epstein have agreed to a resolution of this investigation. As part of the resolution of this matter, the parties have agreed to a settlement process for these identified individuals. The parties agree that you will contact each identified individual and explain the nature of the resolution of this matter, including the settlement process, in accordance with a joint communication drafted by the United States and Mr. Epstein. The parties further agree that you will interview each identified individual to confirm that they have a viable claim against Mr. Epstein pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to the resolution of this matter, you will represent only those identified individuals who elect to settle their claims with Mr. Epstein, and your duties will be limited to negotiating a settlement on the identified individuals' behalf and dispersing the settlement proceeds. Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will not contest jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida, and he will not contest liability pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 for those identified individuals who elect to settle all potential claims against him regarding this matter. Mr. Epstein has also agreed to pay reasonable attorney's fees and expenses that you incur as a result of settlement negotiations and settlement administration of this matter. EFTA00213101 Confidential. For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 403. R. Alexander Acosta October 10, 2007 Page 6 To settle these claims, the parties agree that you will negotiate a total settlement amount with Mr. Epstein for each identified individual who elects to settle. After the United States formally declines to initiate any prosecution against Mr. Epstein related to this matter and each identified individual you represent executes a waiver of all rights to pursue any litigation regarding this matter, you may then distribute the proceeds from the total settlement amount to the identified individuals in the manner you see fit. For those identified individuals who elect not to settle their claims, Mr. Epstein will not waive his right to contest jurisdiction, liability or damages. Furthermore, Mr. Epstein will not pay for their attorney's fees or expenses, and you may not represent these individuals in any capacity. Each of these individuals will be responsible for finding, hiring and paying for her own attorney. The details regarding the United State's investigation of this matter and its resolution with Mr. Epstein is confidential. You may not make public statements regarding this matter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, including the settlement process, you must contact Mr. Epstein's counsel and request a joint clarification from said counsel and the United States. You should not contact the United States directly. The parties will make every effort to answer your questions via a joint communication. Alex, as you know, when Mr. Epstein signed the Agreement, he did so in order to reach finality with your Office and with the express representation that the federal investigation against him would cease. To that end, I would like your assurance that after you and I agree to the issues raised in this letter, that it will be the end of the United States' involvement barring a willful breech of the Agreement. Specifically, the government or any of its agents will not make any further communications to the identified individuals and will not make any ex parte communications with Judge Davis. I look forward to resolving these open issues with you during our 4:30 call today. Sincerely, P. Leflcowitz EFTA00213102 Exhibit 14 EFTA00213103 *2 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820.8711 Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 November 29, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND Miss Re: Crime Victims' Rights — Notification of Resolution of Epstein Investigation Dear Miss Several months ago, I provided you with a letter notifying you of your rights as a victim pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004 and other federal legislation, including: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. (3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other portions of a proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms. First, Mr. Epstein agrees that he will plead guilty to two state offenses, including the offense of soliciting minors to engage in prostitution, which will require him to register as a sexual predator for the remainder of his life. EFTA00213104 MISS NOVEMBER 29,2007 PAGE 2 Second, Mr. Epstein has agreed to make a binding recommendation of 18 months' imprisonment to the state court judge who sentences him. Mr. Epstein will serve that sentence of imprisonment at the Palm Beach County Jail. Third, Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will not contest jurisdiction or liability if you elect to seek damages from him because the United States has identified you as a minor victim of certain federal offenses, including travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution. To assist you in making such a claim, the U.S. Attorney's Office has asked an independent Special Master to select attorneys to represent you. Those attorneys are Aaron Podhurst and Robert ("Bob") Josefsberg with the law firm of Podhurst Orseck, P.A. They can be reached at (305) 358-2800. I anticipate that someone from their law firm will be contacting you shortly. J must also advise you that you are not obligated to use these attorneys. In fact. you have the absolute right to select your own attorney. so yon_can decide not to—sneak with Rom. Podhurst/ Josefsberg at all. or you can speak with them and decide at any time to use a different attorney If you do decide to seek damages from Mr. Epstein and you decide to use Messrs. Podhurst / Josefsberg as your attorneys, Mr. Epstein will be responsible for paying attorney's fees incurred during the time spent trying to negotiate a settlement. If you