5/obb Sow See issioN

5/obb Sow See issioN To ME 1* EXHIBIT 8-33 EFTA00224786 cool 06/02/08 1ION 14:58 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of*Florida UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 99 NE 41" STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132-211 1 Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant U.S. Attorney 305 961 9299 Cyndee Campos Staff Assistant 305 961 9461 305 530-6444 fax FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE: June 2, 2008 TO: Marie Villafana FAX NUMBER: (561) 820 8777 SUBJECT: Epstein NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 9 Message/Comments: This facsimile contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this facsimile, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or coping of this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original facsimile to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. EFTA00224787 06/02/08 :skla FAX 305° ,521 6440 :15/27/2006, 12 19 !TA!! , • . EXECUTIVE OFFICE DO.I/OOAC ra 002 1g1 0034013 *I 'me • too.> liZenttrth SA'. Starr Kirkland & E1Iie i.1.1' soca: Flit:gene, It twi ttttt triV17.:IC:cr :!1-6:44.1•Stb.% “ I'•rDerplfil : ray :1; 6%0 SSL's Lmarrnlarldaihkt sue VIA F&CSIMILI:: (2021 514-(14(10 I lonor.tole Mark Filip H 40: 01 the Udtul y Attorney General t inilcrt Sties l)epartntent or) ma ice ti50 PelifegyiVania Avenue. N.W. 1(153t/ May 27, 2008 Jne A Winn C.:. Bird Thr net) l .9:ett . NW ; .%)..•14 •::04 ii.. —......7•7;11.11.V.• ::?Z•hi.i.irti rw %Otis lin.viFtl .I.ol :seise CO.N7•7OAN77.4/. Vear wipe Fi ip: This letter briefly supplements our prior submission to you dated May I'7.20(18. In Mat communication. we urgently requested that your °like conduct an independent review of the proposed federal proceeution or our Okla Jefficy fipsiein. The dual reallons fur our request that you review this mailer are 0; Ow bedrock need fur inlewity in the enlcireement of Raba al criminal laws. and lift tlw profinind questions raised by the unpreetalenh,d k:•:lcusinn ier (*edema by the t :idled States Attortwy*> Orrice in Minmi (the "t ISAO- i to a premment figure Min liks ehme ties le Winner President annum The need for review is III all the more exigent. On Monday. May It 200K. first Assistant Jefliey Shogun of the litiAO responded tn an email from Jay l.ellow.im inuirming1 I.S Attorney Alex AtoNla (11.3t would be. Seekirc your oirme sS revicil air. SIOnleicS which imposed a deadline or June 2. 2008 to ;timid), with all the termh of the cur; cot Non. Prosecution Agreement (the 'Agreement.). plus new unilateral modifications, on pain of heing deemed in breach of that Agreement. uppear:4 to have been deli herately designed to deprive tut or an adequine opportunity RP Neck your Offices review in this mot ter. The USW!: desire to 'brut:lose a complete revieu is understandablc. given that the Child i'vpinitation and Obscenity Section ("Cl S") has already determined that our Substantive arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. 149nein is not unrranied were - compelling.- I Inwever. in contradiction to Mr. Sloinairs acsenion that CLOS had provided an independent. dr ;uwn review. CFOS made clear that it did not tin so. indeed. rlift5t declined u. examine several of the more troubling aspects of the hwestigation or Mr. ...I:psi...In. indutlinr the deliberate balk in the rod Times of numerous highly confidential aspects or the investigation anti riettraialitms between the parties as well us the icon crop of coil lawsuits filed againit Mr. Epstein by Mr. Sloman's roam: law partner. The untweesgary and arbitrarily imposed deadline set by the I /SAC) ustaz done without any respeo tor (he normal ' and sehedurny or shoe judicial matters. II require:. that Mr. filutitin . b counsel persuade the Sute Attorney nt Palm beach to issue a criminal inthrmation EFTA00224788 06/02/08 MON 14:59 FAX 305 530 6440 . 04./2.:12006 1? IS fAX uuJIWA EXECUTIVE OFFICE U 0003 ktitiovot.3 tel1:3“».04 linnet:Mk: Mark »lin 27.200a Page 2 to a chage that the State Attorney hus not. despite a (v.o year invest's: [[ 44 da ...3 I »Wed Ill be approprimu. Mr. Hp:titbits counsel must also successfully espedite a plea of guilty to this charge on a date prior to July S. 200X. which is the date presently set hy the sink coon Judge. Further, tbc unnecessary deadline is even more problematic beeausc Mr. Ipsteiifs etton tu reconcile the state charge turd sCIlIC/ICC with the terms or the Agreement requites an unusual and unprecedented threatened application of federal law. Thus. it places Mr Epstein In dn• untested oosith in of having to demand that the $talc acquiesce to a own; >net.: pnnisltntenl Iltan it had already determined g•as appropriate. We have attempted to resolve these and other issues through the h:SA<1 and CF.ON, um:twilit, raising our uomurn.4 about the tismrs inappropriate condttet with rotpool to Orb manes. run those avenues have now been shut donna. Mr. Shuman's letter purports to prohibit any further cantata between Mr. lipskirrk defense learn and U.S. Attorney Acosta. and instead requires us to communicate with the IJSAO only though Mr. Sloman's subordinatcx. While it pains us to say this, this misguided proscouion lion, the ukase! gives (he appearance that il may have been politically motivantd Mr. Epoch] is a biOly suceessaul. self• made iNnsineSsnian and philanthmpist who entered the public arena only 1» % irrur Oi lic elow personal association with former President Bill Clintutt. There is link doubt oar minds that the 1!S:10 nevi!' would have contemplated a prosecution in this case it Mr. Epstein teer: just anodler U.S. Attorney Acosta previously has slued that Ile is -Sympathetic:" 1(1 our rederalisio. Mated contents. but be has taken the position that his authority is finilied bt ciffinvensem policieS Set pooh in Washington. D.C. As expressed in our prior enmenunication to you, We believe that a complete and independent appraisal and resolution of this case most approprisicly would he undertaken by your Office beginning with the rescission nr the arhiirary. unrair• and unprinedemed deadline that Mr, Slaman demands to have imposed in this ease. At the very kW would appreciate a tolling, of the arhitrac timeline imposed on our client by the I:SAO ill (II(IVE U. allow dint: for your office to consider out lUtilleql that yin: ontlerudo: a re'. ten Of this ease. 'not:A yeti ter your time and attention. It zspcei fully submitted. r Kenneth I. Starr Kirldielal 4K: KIHS C), -7 ,471.442, „.".• (...,0 4il) Whitley er.1 Alston Bird IL EFTA00224789 06/02/08 MON 14:59 FAX 305 530 8440 on/46/2uoa 69:06 FAX 2026161239 05 10 hn 330N I3:21 VAS 1 233 08(1 hhoo EXECUTIVE OFFICE D0VODAG KTRKLANIAELLIS Lit g1004 56605/013 twit), KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone. (213) 680-8400 Fax: (213) 680-8500 Please notify us immediately If any pages are not recolved. 5117 Cuej e:s• THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN Tills COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL. MAY SE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION. AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE UNAUTHORIZEO USE. DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: (213) 680-8400. ro: Company: Fax II: Direct It: Office of the Deputy Attorney General Honorable Mark Filip (202) 514-0467 (202) 514-2101 United States Department ofJustiet From: Date: Pages 'stover: Fax U: Direct ft: Kenneth W. Starr May 19, 2008 9 (313) 680.8500 (213) 680-8440 Message. EFTA00224790 na /08 MON 14.; 59 FAX 305 530 644 0 agave utnui tit& Z UZ6 id I.:439 OA. III •Ile AON 13:22 FAX I 213 680 8500 • EXECUTIVE OFFICE DOJiODAU KI RKI,AN0019.1 3 S lit' 005 lm 006n013 IQI II U Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles: CA _90017-5800 Phone: ats-rglo-844o Pax: 213-680-8300 listarro,kirkland.com VIA FACSDALInallik&LU honorable Murk Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue; N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 May 19, 2008 Joe D. Whitley . -4Jstora & Bird LI.P The Atlantic Building 95o P Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1404 Ph: 2o2-7 6-3189 Fax: 202-654.4889 4'aiston.com CONFIDENTIAL Dear Judge Flap: In his confirmation hearings .last WI, Judge Mukascy admirably lifted up the finest traditions of the Department of Justice in assuring the United States Senate, and the American people, of his solemn intent to unsure fairness and integrity in the administration of justice. Your own confirmation hearings echoed that bedrock determination to assure that the Department conduct itself with honor aad integrity, especially in the enforcement of federal criminal law. We come to you in that spirit and respectfully ask for a review of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein: While we arc well aware of the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we arc confident that the circumstances at issue warrant such an examination. Based on our collective experiences, as well as those of other former senior Justice Department officials whose advice we have sought, we have never before seen a ease more appropriate for oversight and review. Thus, while neither of us has previously made such a request. we do so now in the recognition that both the Department's reputation, as well as the due process rights of our client, are at issue. Recently. the Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter at the request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review deliberately excluded many important aspects of this case. Just this past Friday, on May 16, 2008, We received a letter from the head of CEOS informing us that CEOS had conducted * review of this case. By its own admission, the C13OS review was "limited, both factually and legally." Part of the self-imposed limitation was CEOS's abstention from addressing our "allegations of professional misconduct by federal prosecutorr—even though such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably intenwined with the credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office in Miami ("USAO"). Moreover, CEOS did not assess the terms of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement now in effect, nor did CEOS review the federal prosecutors' inappropriate efforts to implement those terms. We detail this point below. EFTA00224791 06/02/08 NON 15:00 FAX 305 530 6440 yleiblOsiWWW WA. W4 CAA ,na. ts.pts MO' 13:22 PAX 1 213 G80 8500 • • • DuJEXECUTIVE OFFICE itioAc x I 8NLAND&EIJ .1s 1.1.P la 006 143007/0t3 to Cilia Honorable Mark Rip May 19, 2008 Page 2 By way of background. we were informed by Mr. Acosta that, at his request, CEOS would be conducting a review to determine whether federal prosecution was both appropriate and, in his words. -fair." That is not what occurred. Instead, CEOS has now acknowledged that we had raised "many compelling arguments" against the IJSAO's suggested "novel application" of federal law in this mutter. Even so. CF.OS concluded. in minimalist fashion. that "we do nor see anything that says to us categorically that a federal cafe should not be brought" and that the U.S. Anoint) "would nor be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize fedentl prosecution of Mr. Epstein!" thus delegating back to Mr. Acosta the decision of whether federal prosecution was warranted (emphasis added). Rather than assessing whether prosecution would he appropriate, CUOS, using a low.baschne for its evaluation, determined only that "it would not be impossible to prove . . ." certain allegations made against Mr. Epstein. The CEC)S review failed to address the significant problems involving the appearance of impermissible selectivity that would necessarily result from a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. We respect CEOS's conclusion that its authority to review -misconduct" issues was precluded by Criminal Division practice. We further respect CF.OS's view that it understood its mission as significantly limited. Specifically, the contemplated objective was to determine whether the USAO would be Abusing its discretion by bringing a federal prosecution rather than making its own de novo recommendations on the appropriate reach of federal law. However, we respectfully submit that a full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the Justice Department. In an effort to inform you of the nature of the federal investigation against Mr. Epstein, we summarize the facts and circumstances of this matter below. The two base-level concerns we hold are that (t) federal prosecution of this matter is not warranted based on the purely-local conduct and the unprecedented application of federal statutes to facts such as these and (2) the actions of federal authorities are both highly questionable and give rise to an appearance of substantial impropriety. The issues that we have raised, but which have not yet been addressed or resolved by the Department, are more than isolated allegations of professional mistakes or misconduct. These issues, instead, affect the appearance and administration of criminal justice with profound consequences beyond the resolution in the matter at hand. 4 In a. precedent-shattering investigation of Jeffrey Epstein that raises important policy questions—and serious issues as to the fair and honorable enforcement of federal law—the USA() in Miami is considering extending federal law beyond the bounds of precedent and reason. Federal prosecutors stretched the underlying facts in ways that raise fundamental questions of basic prOfessionalism. Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition of deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in EFTA00224792 06/02/08 MON 15:00 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 05/24/200a 09:08 PAX 20.26161239 DOJ/ODAC (Fog pm( 13:23 FM 1 213 080 8600 , • , Icilth LAMEU1S IJ.I' 0 007 42006/013 Gaoll4 Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 3 private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved. Federal prosecutors then leaked highly sensitive information about the case to a New York Times reporter.' The immediate result of this confluence of extraordinary circumstances is an onslaught of civil lawsuits, all save one brought by the First Assistant's former boutique law firm in Miami. The facts in this case all revolve around the classic state crime of solicitation of prostitution :I The State Attorney's Office in Palm Beach County had conducted a diligent investigation, convened a Grand Jury that returned an indictment, and made a final determination about how to proceed. Thai is where, in our federal republic, this matter should rest. Mr. Epstein faces a felony conviction in state court by virtue of his conduct, and the oniy reason the State has not resolved this matter is that the federal prosecutors in Miami have continued to insist that we, Mr. Epstein's counsel, approach and demand from the State Attorney's Office harsher charge and a inure severe punishment than that Office believes are appropriate under the circumstances. Yet despite the USAO's refusal to allow the State to resolve this matter on the terms the State has determined arc appropriate, the USAO has not made any attempt to coordinate its efforts with the State. In fact, the USAO mandated that any federal agreement would be conditioned on Mr. Epstein persuading the State to seek a criminal punishment unlike that imposed on other defendants within the jurisdiction of the State Attorney for similar conduct. From the inception of the USAO's involvement in this case, which at the end of the day is a case about solicitation of prostitution within the confines of Palm Beach County, Florida, we have asked ourselves why the Department of Justice is involved. Regrettably, we are unable to suggest any appropriate basis for the Department's involvement. Mr. Epstein has no criminal history whatsoever. Also, Mr. Epstein has never been the subject of general media interest until a few years ago, atter it was widely perceived by the public that he was a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. The conduct at issue is simply not within the purview of federal jurisdiction and lies outside the heartland of the three federal statutes that have been identified by prosecutors-18 U.S.C. § 1591. 2422(b), and 2423(h). One of the other members of Mr. Epstein's defense team, lay Leficowitz, has personally reviewed the reporter's contemporaneous notes. Although some of the women alleged to be involved were 16 and 17 years of age, several or Mese women openly admitted to lying to Mr. Epstein about their age in their recent sworn statements. EFTA00224793 06/02/08 YON 15:01 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 05/28/2008 00:09 FAX 2029161239 DOJ/ODAG 1'1O ph. MOM 13:::3 rAs 1 213 SRO 8500 KIRKLANT&FLLis 1.1.1` l o o s e J 0 0 9 / 0 1 3 10005 Honorable Mark Fi lip May 19, 2003 Page 4 These statutes arc intended to target crimes of a truly national and international scope. Specifically, § 1591 was enacted to combat human trafficking, § 2422 is aimed at sexual predation of minors through the Internet. and § 2423 deals with sex tourism. The nature of these crimes results in multi jurisdictional problems that state and local authorities cannot effectively confront on their own. However, Mr. Epstein's conduct was purely local in nature and, thus. does not implicate federal involvement. After researching every reported ease brought under IR U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b), and 2423(b), we found that not a single case involves facts or a scenario similar to the situation at hand. Our review of each precedent reflects that there have been no reported prosecutions under § 1591 of a 'john' whose conduct with a minor lacked force. coercion. or fraud and who was not profiting from commercial sexual trafficking. There have likewise been no cases under § 2422(b)—a crime of communication—where there was no use of the Internet. and where the content of phone communications did not contain any inducing or enticing of a minor to have illegal sexual activity as expressly required by the language of the statute. Punhormore, the Government's contention that "routine and habit" can fill the factual and legal void crested by the lack of evidence that such a communication ever occurred sets this case apart from every reported case brought under § 2422(b). Lastly, there arc no reported cases of violations of § 2423(b) of a person whose dominant purpose in traveling was merely to go to his own home? Although these matters were within the scope of the CEOS review, rather than considering whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOS only determined that U.S. Attomes Acosta "would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution- iu this case. The "abuse of discretion" standard constitutes an extremely low bar of evaluation and while it may be appropriate when the consideration of issues are exclusively factual in nature, this standard fails to address concerns particular to this situation, namely the - novel application" of federal statutes. The "abuse of discretion" standard in such pure legal matters of statutory application risks causing a lack of uniformity. The same federal statutes that would be stretched beyond their bounds in Miami have been limited to their heartland in each of the other federal districts. Also, because this case implicates broader issues of the administration of equal justice, federal prosecution in this matter risks the appearance of selectivity in its stretching of federal law to fit these facts. Federal prosecution of a man who engaged in consensual conduct in hls home that amounted to, at most, the solicitation or prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a state concern. cone United Sal. Evan; 476 F.3d I I 76, e.1 (11th Cir. 2007)(1-Waal law "does not aimlnalize all acts ot prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)")). and there is nu evidence tbat Palm Beach County authorities and Florida prosecutors cannot cobetively prosecute and punish the conduct, there is no reason why this matter should he extracted front the bands ofstate prosecutors in Florida. EFTA00224794 06/02/08 IION 1501 FAX 305 530 6440 os/28/20os uv:08 FAX 2u26161239 .11.: IU as MOV I 3 : FAX I 213 680 8500 DOJ/ODAC EXECUTIVE OFFICE AK LANDAELLI 5 I LP 1009 0010/0) ;a000 Honorable Mark Filip May 19.2008 Page'S. in fact, recent testimony of several alleged "victims' contradicts claims made by federal prosecutors during the negotiations of a detbrred prosecution agreement. The consistent representations of key Government witnesses (such as Tatum Miller. Brittany Beale, Saige Gonzalez, and Jennifer Laduke) confirm the following critical points: rips!, there was no communication, telephonic or othcnvisc, that meets the requirements of § 2422(b). For instance. Ms. Gonzalez confirmed that Mr. Epstein never entailed, text-messaged, or used any facility of interstate commerce whatsoever. before or after her one (and. only) visit to his home. Gonzalez Tr. (deposition) at 30. Second, the women who testified admitted that they lied to Mr. Epstein about their age in order to gain admittance into his home. Indeed, the women who brought their underage friends to Mr. Epstein testified that they would counsel their friends to lie shout their ages as well. Ms. Miller stated the following: "I would tell my girlfriends just like Carolyn approached me. Make sure you tall hiin you're IR. Well, these girls that I brought, I know that they were IS or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't know and I don't know if they were lying or not, I would say make sure that you tell him you're 18." Miller Tr. at 22. Third, there was no routine or habit of improper communication expressing an intent to transfonn a massage into an illegal sexual act. In fact, there was often no sexual activity et all during the massage. Ms. Miller testified that "Is]ometimes (Mr. Epstein] just wanted his feet massaged. Sometimes he just warned a back massage." Miller Tr. at 19. Jennifer Laduke also stated that Mr. Epstein "never touched Liter] physically" and that all she did was "massage( ) his back, his chest and his thighs and that was it." Laduke Tr. at 12-13. Finally, there was no force, coercion, fraud, violence, drugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with these women, Ms. Beale stated that "[Mr. Epstein] never tried to force me to do anything." Beale Tr. A at 12. These accounts are far from the usual testimony in sex slavery, Internet stings and sex tourism cases previously brought. The women in actuality were not younger than 16, which is the age of consent in most of the 50 states, and the sex activity was irregular and in large part. consisted of solo self-pleasuring. The recent crop of civil suits brought against Mr. Epstein confirm that the plaintiffs did not discuss any sexually-related activities with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's residence. This reinforces our contention that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a minor, or of any other individual, occurred. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey llerrnan, the former law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the attorney for most of the civil complainants (as described in detail below), was quoted in the Palm Beach Post as saying that "it doesn't matter" that his clients lied about their ages and told Mr. Epstein that they were 18 or 19. • Not only is a federal prosecution of this matter unwarranted, but the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the deferred prosecution agreement arc beyond arty reasonable interpretation of the scope of a.prosecutor's responsibilities. 'the list of improprieties includes, but.is not limited to, the following facts: EFTA00224795 06/02/08 EON 15:02 FAX 305 530 6440 05/28/2008 00:10 FAX 2o26i61239 • 1.C.,.icr. us, MON 11: FAX 1 211 nen MO EXECUTIVE OFFICE b0.1,0DAG KIRKI.ANOTini.1.15 al)10 QP111/011 kin07 Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 6 • Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Mr. Epstein pay minimum of $150,000 per person to an unnamed list of women they referred to ss minors and whom they insisted required representation by a guardian ad Mem. Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these indiitiduals were actually adults, not minors. Even then, though demanding payment to the women, the USA() eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of tiny of the . claims that these women might make. • Federal prosecutors made the highly unusual demand that Mr. Epstein pay the fees of a civil attorney chosen by the prosecutors to represent These alleged "victims" should they choose to bring any civil litigation against him. They also proposed sending a notice to the alleged "victims," stating, in an underlined sentence, that should they choose their own attorney, Mr. Epstein would not be required to pay their fees. The prosecutors further demanded that Mr. Epstein waive his right to challenge any of the allegations made by these "victims." • The Assistant U.S. Attorney involved in this matter recommended for the civil attorney, a highly lucrative position, an individual that we later discovered was closely and personally connected to the Assistant U.S. Attorney's oisit boyfriend. • Federal prosecutors represented to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they had identified (and later rechecked and re-identificd) several alleged "victims" of federal crimes that quilified for paymc,nt under IS U.S.C. § 2255, a civil remedy designed to provide financial benefits TO victims. Dilly through state discovery provisions did we later learn that many of the women on the rechecked "victim list" could not possibly qualify under § 2255. The reason is that they, themselves, testified that they did not suffer any type of harm whatsoever, a prerequisite for the civil recovery under § 2255. Moreover, these women stated that they did not, now or in the past, consider themselves to•be victims. • During the last few months, Mr. Herman, First Assistant Slornan's former kw partner, has tiled several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged "victims." It is our understanding that each of Mr. Herman's clients arc on the EFTA00224796 08/02/08 MON 18:02 FAX 305 530 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE .02. 10.0N MON 13:25 FAX 1 213 6811 S500 KIRKLANDEELLIS LLP • • 14011 46012/O3 Fans Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 7 Government's confidential "list of victims." Most of these lawsuits seek S50 million in money damages.• • Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein spoke about the case in great detail to Landon Thomas, a reporter with the New York Times, and revealed confidential inforination about the Government's allegations against Mr. Epstein. The Assistant U.S. Attorney also revealed the substance of confidential plea negotiations. • When counsel for Mr. Epstein complained about the media leeks, First Assistant Shaman responded by asserting that "Mr. Thomas was given, pursuant w his request, non-cast specific information concerning specific federal statutes." Based on Mr. Thomas' contemporaneous notes. that assertion appears to be false. For example, Mr. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that federal authorities believed that Mr. Epstein had lured girls over the telephone and traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in underage sex. He recounted to Mr. Thames the USAO's theory of prosecution against Mr. Epstein. replete with an analysis of the key statutes being considered. Furthermore, after Mr. Epstein's defense ream complained about the leak to the CSAO, Mr. Weinstein, in Mr. Thomas' own description, then admonished him for talking to the defense, and gettine hint in trouble. Mr. Weinstein further told him not to believe the "spin" of Mr. Epstein's "high-priced attorneys," and then, according to Mr. Thomas. Mr. Weinstein forcefully "reminded" Mr. Thomas • that all prior conversations were meter) hypothetical. We are constrained to conclude that the actions of {Mere) officials in this case strike at the heart of one of the vitally important, enduring values in this country: the honest enforcement of federal law, free of political considerations and free of the taint of personal financial motivations on the part of federal prosecutors that, at a minimum, raise the appearance of serious impropriety. We were told by U.S. Attorney Acosta that as part of the review he requested, the Department had the authority, and his consent, to make any determination it deemed appropriate regarding this matter, including a decision to decline federal prosecution. Yet, CEOS.% only conclusion, based on its limited review of the investigation, is that U.S. Attorney Acosta would not abuse his discretion by proceeding against Mr. Epstein. Thus, the decision of whether sl As recently as two months ago. Mr. Sicilian was still limit publicly aril pan of his format law fine. While we assume this was an oversight, Mr. Stoman'S ideatifieatIon as part of the flan mists the appearance of impropriety. EFTA00224797 08/02/08 MON...15:03. FAX 305 530 8440 -US N US MIN 13:26 FAN I 213 52LI 8500 • ' EXECUTIVE OFFICE UUJ,UDAG X RK Nll&lf.I.L I S I_LI' la012 0013/013 21008 Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 8 prosecution is fair and appropriate has been placed, once again, in U.S. Attorney Acosta's hands. In light of the foregoing, we respectfully ask that you review this matter and discontinue all federal involvement so that the State can appropriately bring this matter to closure. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to mein with you to discuss these important issues. Such a meeting would provide the Department with an opportunity to review the paramount issues of federalism and•tho appearance of selectivity that are generated by the unprecedented attempts to broaden the ambit of federal statutes to places that they have never before readied. We sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis LLP Joe D. Whitley Alston & Bird LLP EFTA00224798