(USAFLS)

(USAFLS) From: 'ent: fo: Subject: Esptei Itr 5 19 08. pdf r..on a a 2U00613A5FADS4)PM Epstein EFTA00225672 sure I do everything within my power to obviate a need for trial through a reasonable alternative resolution. Although it is clear that CEOS is not directing a prosecution here, and has stated only that you have the authority to commence such a prosecution, I am well aware that the decision whether to proceed, subject to any further process in Washington, is now within your discretion. I think the new facts should greatly influence your decision and accordingly, I hope you will agree to meet with me, both to discuss the new evidence and to discuss a resolution to this matter once and for all. I am available to meet with you at your earliest convenience subject to our mutual availability. Respectfully, Jay The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Kirkland 6 Ellis LLP or Kirkland 6 Ellis International LLP. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to postmaster@kirkland.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. 3 EFTA00225673 following the initiation of multiple civil lawsuits, Mr. Epstein's counsel was able to take limited discovery of certain women in this matter. The sworn statements provided by these women all confirm that federal prosecution is not appropriate in this case. isten of witnesses such as , and , and the civil complainan an eir a rneys, confirm the following key points: First, there was no telephonic communication that met the requirements of § 2422(b). For example, as many other witnesses have stated, Ms. unclear terms that there was never any discussion over the phone abou Mr. Epstein's home to e ual activity: "The only thing that ever occurred on any of these phone calls [with or another assistan , 'Are you willing to come over,' or, 'Would you like to come over an give a massage.'" Tr. A at 15. Second, the underage women who visited Mr. Epstein have testified t a ey lied about their age in order to gain admittance into his home and women who brought t nderage friends to Mr. Epstein counseled them to lie ab ages as well. Ms. stated the following: "I would tell my girlfriends just like approached me. a e sure you tell him you're 18. Well, these girls that I brought, I nowt at they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't know don't know if they were lying or not, I would say make sure that you tell him you're 18." Tr. at 22. Third, there was no routine or h gesting an intent to transform a massage into an illegal sexual act. For instance, Ms. stated that Mr. Epstein "never touched [her] physically" at all she did was "massage ] his back, his chest and his thighs and that was it." Tr. at 12-13. Finally, as you are well aware, there was no force, coercion, fraud, vio ence, drugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with these women. testified in no er coming over to The civil suits confirm that the plaintiffs did not discuss engaging in sexually-related activities with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's residence. This reinforces the fact that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of any kind occurred. Furthermore, Mr. Herman, the attorney for most of the civil complainants, 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. In short, the new evidence establishing that the women deliberately lied about their age because they knew Mr. Epstein did not want anyone under 18 in his house directly undercuts the claim that Mr. Epstein willfully blinded himself as to their ages. Willful blindness is not a substitute for evidence of knowledge nor is it a negligence standard. It requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of deliberate intent and specific action to hide one's knowledge. There is absolutely no such evidence of that here, so it is not even a jury issue. Furthermore, willful ignorance cannot constitute the required mens rea for a crime of conspiracy or aiding and abetting. Through the recent witness statements, we have also discovered another serious issue that implicates the integrity of the federal investigation. We have learned that FBI Special Agent Kurkendayl attempted to convince these adult women, now in their twenties, that they were in fact "victims" even though the women themselves strongly disagreed with this characterization. This conduct, once agailles to the heart of the integrity of the investigation. In a sworn statement, Ms. was highly critical of the overreaching by federal law enforcement officers in this case. She testified—in no uncertain terms—that she does not, and never did, feel like a "victim," despite the fact that the FBI repeatedly tried to convince her otherwise. I am mindful of the fact that we have a state court date of July 8 on which either to enter a plea or to commence trial. As I review the trial options with Mr. Epstein, I certainly want to make 2 EFTA00225674 Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) From: Jay Lefkowitz Sent: Monday, May 1 , To: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) Subject: confidential communication Attachments: Letter from CEOS.TIF Dear Alex: I am writing to you because I have just received the attached letter from Drew Oosterbaan. In light of that letter, and given the critical new evidence discussed below, I would like to request a meeting with you, mindful of our July 8 deadline, at your earliest opportunity. Given your personal involvement in this matter to date, and the fact that at this juncture it is clear that CEOS has referred the matter back to you, I respectfully request that you not shunt me off to one of your staff. You and I have both spent a great deal of time on this matter, and I know that we both would like to resolve this matter in a way that bestows integrity both on the Department and the process. In our prior discussions. you expressed that you werebot unsympathetic" to our various federalism concerns, but stated that because you serve within the "unitary Executive," you believed your hands were tied by Main Justit,c You were also extremely gracious in stating that you did not want the United States to b unfair". Although CEOS limited its assessment to the federal statutes your Office had brought forth and to the application of those laws to the facts as presented, it is abundantly clear from Drew's letter that Main Justice is not directing this prosecution. In fact, CEOS plainly acknowledged that a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein would involve a "novel application" of federal statutes and that our arguments against federal involvement are "compelling." Moreover, the language used by Drew in his concluding paragraph, that he cannot conclude that a prosecution by you in this case "would be an abuse of discretion" is hardly an endorsement that you move forward. Moreover, as you know, Drew made clear that the scope of his review did not extend to the other significant issues we have raised with you, such as the undo interest by some members of your staff with the financial and civil aspects of this matter, or with the inappropriate discussion one member of your Office had with a senior reporter at the New York Times. (In fact, I have met with that reporter and have reviewed copious notes of his conversation with Mr. Weinstein). At stage, we have no alternative but to raise our serious concerns regarding the issues Drew refused to address with the Deputy or, if necessary, the Attorney General, because we believe those issues have significantly impacted the investigation and any recommendation by your staff to proceed with an indictmenDThat being said, it would obviously be much more constructive and efficient if we could resolve this matter directly with you in the advance of further proceedings in Washington. Because it is clear that national policy, as determined by Main Justice, is not driving this case, the resolution of this matter is squarely, and solely, your responsibility. I know you want to do the right thing. and it is because you have made clear to me on several occasions that you will always look at all of the relevant and material facts that I call the following to your attention. ew information that has come to light strongly suggests that the facts of this case cannot possibly p implicate a federal prosecutorial priority. Due to established state procedures and EXHIBIT B-35 EFTA00225675 (USAFLS) From: Vil!Mena, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:45 PM To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Call Hi Karen -- Not today. I am going to meet with Bob about the indictment. Original Message From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Sent* ' 2:23 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Ca Are you coming back home? Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Call Hi karen. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called jeff to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). Jeff told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls? 956 EFTA00225676 Villafana, Ann C. (USAFLS) From: (USAFLS) Sent: 1,91111,112:52PM To: AffiMson,Kamn(USAFLS) Subject: RE: Call One week. We told the DAG that we need his decision by end of next week so we can indict on July 1st before the July 7th state trial. Original Message From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Sent* 2:51 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: How long after the final decision--if there is such a thing--does he have before we indict? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Fr ay, June 1 , :45 PM To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Call Hi Karen -- Not today. I am going to meet with Bob about the indictment. Original Message From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:23 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Call Are you coming back home? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Fr a ly, June 13, 1:56 AM To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Call Hi karen. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called jeff to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). Jeff told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls? 955 EFTA00225677 (USAFLS) From: (USAFLS) Sent: Fn 4, une PM To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Call Hi Karen -- Not today. I am going to meet with Bob about the indictment. Original Message From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:23 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Call Are you coming back home? Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Call Hi karen. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called jeff to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). Jeff told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls? 956 EFTA00225678 (USA FLS) From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: — 6:15 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject: : peen) Sorry, forgot to cc you. From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 6:09 PM To: Roth, John (ODAG) (SMO) Cc: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject Epstein John, Epstein is facing trial on a felony charge of solicitation of prostitution. This does not resemble the charges that Epstein agreed to plead guilty to in the September 24th Agreement nor what he would face federally. That case is set for trial on Monday July 7. If we are given the go ahead from the DAG's office, we would give Epstein one final chance to comply with the September 24th Agreement. In that regard, it would be most preferable to have a decision by next week. That would give us the opportunity to seek an indictment on Tuesday July if Epstein fails to comply with the September 24th Agreement by Monday June 30th. The reason this timetable is important is to address our concern that Epstein may continue to keep us in a holding pattern if he pleads to the pending state solicitation of prostitution charge before a federal indictment is returned. In that scenario, I anticipate Epstein's counsel raising petit policy issues, thus throwing another possible monkey wrench in the process. Although I don't believe that the petit policy would be affected, I can imagine someone calling a timeout until the issue is vetted. That's why I would prefer being able to seek an indictment before Epstein pleads to the pending charge and after he has repudiated the September 24th Agreement. Thanks, Jeff 951 EFTA00225679 (USAFLS) From: (USAFLS) Sent: 8 10:43 AM To: (USAFLS) Cc: Senior, Ro erl SAFLS) Subject: Draft Indictment Hi Cyndec — Bob called and said that Jeff needed a copy of this. The first copy has a "draft" watermark on it, and the second is exactly the same except that the watermark is removed. 080429 revised ndictment with... Thanks! 080429 revised ndictment with... A. VillafaHa Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 982 EFTA00225680 (USAFLS) From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Sent: 8 3:25 PM To: (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: t inson, aren LS) Subject: RE: Epstein Marie, are you back ? We need to spend some time together on the indictment. I was planning on Monday because I thought you were back that day but if you're already back let me know. By the way, Jeff and Alex have been very clear that we are not negotiating with this guy any more in any way. Thx. Bob Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:54 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Hi jeff. Karen sent me an email about epstein wanting to do less time. I hope that his request will be denied. The original deal was supposed to be 2 years so he has already gotten a big break. Plus we have identified more victims since we agreed to the 18 months. Please keep me posted. Thanks. 1014 EXHIBIT B-34 EFTA00225681 g9N-15in -Lri. ID 'OS WIN 13:20 FAX I 21a 0a0 $500 EMAGIVE OFFICE IIVJIUD OT KIRK, AND&10 L I S Quiz 013/013 et 00U 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 cam appropriately bring this matter to closure. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet With you to discuss these important issues. Such it meeting would provide the Department with an opportunity to review the paramotun issues of federalism and the appearance of selectivity that are generated by the unprecedented attempts to broaden the ambit of federal statutes to places that they have never before reached. We sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter. ttespeetililly submitted, Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis LLP Joc D. Whitley Alston & Bird LIP EFTA00225682 tAVULfUO WAN £O:VL CAA OU0 0001 OGSV otp. in • n8 WIN 13:211 PAX 1 213 080 8500 well namvullro urrimx, 1®012/01a ........ I KLANUSLE1.1.1 S I.LJ WOOS 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 nines, and revealed confidential information about she Government's allegations against Mr. Epstein. The Assistant U.S. Attorney also revealed the substance of confidential plea negotiations. • When counsel for Mr. Epstein complained about the media leaks, First Assistant Stomata responded by assening that "Mr. l'homas was given, pursuant to his request, non-case specific information concerning specific federal statutes." Based on Mr. Thomas' contemporaneous notes. that assertion appears to be false. For example, Mr. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that federal authorities believed that Mr. Epstein had hired girls over the telephone and traveled in interstate corn incite for the purpose of engaging in underage sex. lie recounted to Mr. Themes the USAO's theory of prosecution against Mr. F Lein, replete with an analysis of the key statutes being considered. Furtherm after Mr. Epstein's defrost team complained about the leak to the USAO, . Weinstein, in Mr. Thomas' own description, then admonished him for talking to the defense, and getting him in trouble, Mr. Weinstein further told him not to believe the "spin" of Mr, Epsteites "high-priced attorneys,' and then, according to Mr. Thomas. Mr. Weinstein forcefully "reminded" Mr. Thomas - that all prior conversations were merely hypothetical. We are constrained to conclude that the actions of federal officials in this case strike at the heart of one of the vitally important, enduring values in this country: the honest enforcement of federal law, free of political considerations and free of the taint of personal financial motivations on the 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 retie he requested, the Department had the authority, and his consent, to make any determination it tried appropriate te regarding this matter, including a decision to decline federal prosecution. Yet, CEOS's only conclusion, based on its limited review of the investigation, is that U.S. Attorney Acosta would not abuse his discretion by proceeding against Mr. Epstein. Thus, the decision of Ithother As recently as two months ago. Mr. Women Was still lined publicly os t pan of his former law firm. While wv assume this was an oversight, Mr. Stoma identification as pan or the firm raises the appearance of impropriety. EFTA00225683 06/02/08 MON 15:02 FAX ol3/28/201:18 00:10 FAX 202 • ps, LION IA:Z5 FAA 1 =13 ONO 8500 EXECUTIVE OFFICE b0.1/00AC KIRKIANDMILLTS 1d1010 gtolvols 4g u87 Honorable Mark Hip May 19, 2008 Page 6 • Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Mr. Epstein pay u minimum of 5150,000 per person to an unnamed list of women they referred to as minors and whom they insisted required representation by a guardian ad them. Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these individuals were actuully adults, not minors. Even then, though demanding payment to the women, the USAO eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of any of the . claims that these women might make. • Federal prosecutors made the highly unusual demand that Mr. Epstein pay the fees of a civil gamey chosen by the prosecutors to represent these alleged "victims" should the choose to bring any civil litigation against him. They also proposed t sending a ties 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 tees. The prosecutors fitrther demanded that Mr. Epstein Waive his right to challenge any of the allegations made by these "victhns." • The Assistant U.S. Attorney involved in this matter recommended for the civil attorney, a highly lucrative position, an individual that we later discovered was closely and personally connected to the Assistant U.S. Attorney's Own boyfriend. • Federal prosecutors represented to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they had identified (and later rechecked and re-identitied) several alleged -victims" of federal crimes that qualified for payment under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a civil remedy designed to provide financial benefits to victims. Daly through state discovery previsions 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 civil recovery under § 2255. Moreover, these women stated that they did not, no or in the past, ti consider themselves to-be victims. • During the last few months, Mr. Mennen, First Assistant Sloroan's former law partner, has tiled several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged "victims." ft is our understanding that each of Mr. Herman's clients arc on the EFTA00225684 UO/V4IV9 sun CAA OVO 00V O1%V 05/28/2008 00:09 FAX 2026161230 DA VON 13:24 KAX 1 :13 660 6500 LSGVUAAVD UrrAteta DOJ/ODAC K I RKI.AND&ELI-1 S 1.1-P Wt", O 490Oi/013 Ciijurni • Honorable Mark Filip May 19. 2008 Page 5. In fact, recent testimony of several alleged "victims" contradicts claims made by federal prosecutors during the negotiations of a deterred prosecution agreement. The consistent representations of key Government wimesses (such as Tatum Miller. Brittany Beak, Saige Gonzalez. and Jennifer Laduke) confirm the following critical points: First, there was no communication, telephonic or otherwise, that meets the requirements of § 2422(b). Par 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 about their ages as well. Ms. Miller stated the following: "I would tell my girlfriends just like Carolyn approached me. Make sure you tell hint you're. 18. Well, these girls that I brought, i know that they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that !didn't !mow and I don't know if they were lying or not, 1 would say make sure that you tell him you're 18." Miller Tr. at 22. Third, there was no routine or habit of improper cotrununication expressing an intent to transfomi a massage into an illegal sexual act. In bet, there was often no sexual activity at all daring the massage. Ms. Miller testified that "(s)ometimes [Mr. Epstein) just wanted his feet massaged. Sometimes he just wanted a back massage." Miller Tr. at 19. Jennifer Laduke also stated that Mr. Epstein "never touched (her) 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. Epstei 'S encounters with these women. Ms. Beak stated that "[Mr. Epstein) never tried to force me to u anything." Bale Tr. A at 12. These accounts are far from the usual testimony in sex slaver Internet stings and sex tourism cases previously brought. The women in actuality were not younger than 16, which is the age of consent hi most of the 50 states, and the sex activity was in'egular and in large parr. 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, occun'ed. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey Merman, the former law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the attorney fyq most of the civil complainants (as described in derail below), was quoted in the Palm Beach Pe). as saying that "k doesn't matter" that his clients lied about their ages and told Mr. 1 Epstein the''{{ they were 18 or 19. Not only is a federal prosecution or this matter unwarranted, but the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the deferred prosecution agreement. arc beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a.prosecutor's responsibilities. The list of improprieties includes, but.is not limited to, the following facts: EFTA00225685 06/02/08 MON 15:01 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE 05/28/2008 00:09 FAX 202 1 39 DOVODAC in.na. NOS 1312A VAN : 213 680 A500 KIRKLANDWILIS 1.11' 10 008 ei 009/013 CO 005 Honorable Mark Fi I ip May 19, 2003 l'age 4 These statutes are intended to tuna 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 § 2473 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 I3 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b), and 2423(b), we found that not a single cast involves facts or a scenario similar to the situation at hand. Our review of each precedent reflects that there have been no reported prosecutions un r § 1591 of a 'john' whose conduct with u minor lacked force. coercion_ or fraud and who as not profiling from commercial sexual trafficking. There have likewise been no eases undo • 2422(b)—a crime of communication—where th c was no sus inducing use: of the Internet. and where the content of phone communications did not contain ri or enticing of a minor to have illegal sexual activity as expressly required by the language of the statute. l'urtherniore, the Government's contention that "routine and habit" can fill the factual and legal void created by the lack of evidence that such a communication ever occurred sets this case apart from every reported case brought under § 2422(6). Lastly, there arc no reported eases of violations of § 2423(b) of a person whose dominant purpose in traveling was merely to go to his own home.3 Although these matters were within the scope of the CEOS review, rather than cunsideting whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOS only determined that U.S. Attorney 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. his borne that amounted (0, at most, the *elicitation of prostitution. is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a suite concern. (sek United Slights it Evan; 476 F.3d I 176, r..l (nth Cir. 2001) (federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulations)). and thoro is no evidence that Palm Beach County authorities and Florida prOSocutors cannot cifectively prosecute and punish the conduct, there is no reason why this matter should be extracted from the hands ornate prosecutors in Florida. EFTA00225686 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 00J/OD5C lalthEAND&ELL.15 1.1.P ID 007 fsbo08/0.1.3 0114 06/02/08 VON 15:00 FAX 05/28/2008 09:05 PAX 202 ,'05 JO;08 80‘ 13:23 FAN I 213 080 8500 . , Honorable Mark lip May 19, 2008 Page 3 private practice in South Florida wit sonal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved. Federal prosecutors then leaked hi sensitive information about the case to a New York Times reporter.' The immediate re f this confluence of extraordinary circumstances is an onslaught of civil lawsuits, all save one brought by the First Assistant's former boutique law Jim in Miami. The facts in this case all revolve around the classic state crime of solicitation of prostitution? The State Attorney's Office in Palm Beach County had conducted a diligent investigation, convened a Grand Jury that returned an indictment, and made a final determination about how to proceed. That is where, in our federal republic, this matter should rest. Mr. Epstein faces a felony conviction in state court by virtue of his conduct, and the only reason the Suite has not resolved this matter is that the federal prosecutors in Miami have continued to insist that wt, Mr. Epstein's counsel, approach and demand from the State Attorney's Office a harsher charge and a more severe punishment than that Office believes are appropriate under the circumstances. Yet despite the USAO's refusal to allow the State to resolve this matter on the terms the State has determined are 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 he conditioned on Mr. Epstein persuading the State to seek a criminal punishment unlike that imposed on other defendants within rho 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 paten Beech 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 histo whatsoever. Also, Mr. Epstein has never been the subject of general media interest until a few ears ago. after it was widely perceived by the public that he was a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. The conduct at issue is simply not within the purview of federal jurisdiction and lies outside the heartland of the three federal statutes that have been identified by prosecutors-1S U.S.C. 1591.2422(b), and 2423(b). (Inv of the other members of Mr. Epstein's defense team, Jay Letkowitz, has personally reviewed tho reporter's contemporaneous news. Although some of the women alleged to he involved were 16 arid 17 years of age, several of these women openly admitted to lying to Mr. Epstein about their age in their recent sworn statement:. EFTA00225687 VV/ 4/VO nun tO;VV 'MA ova coy ••• 1/40,0•0 . ,et • •40 4 ran auceinAcJv , b3. 19•SIN NOS t3:22 PAX I I.113 can 4500 AADVLIAATZ UltrAtoG IMJ, UVAG HXLANII&EIJ.IS 1.1? WA LW In007/013 4L1"3 Honorable Murk Pilip May 19. ZOOS 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 USAO's suggested "novel application" of federal law in this matter. Even so. CEOS concluded. in minimalist fashion. that "we do not see anything that says to us categorically that a federal case should not be brought" and that the C.S. Anoint) "would no he abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal 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, CEOS. using a lowbaseline for its evaluation, determined only that "it would not be impossible to prove . . ." certain allegations made against Mr. Epstein. The CEOS review failed to address the significant problems involving the appearance of impermissible selectivity that would necessarily result from a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. We respect CEOS's conclusion that its authority to review "misconduct" issues wes precluded by Criminal Division practice. We further respect CEOS's view that it understood its mission as significantly limited. Specifically, the contemplated objective was to determine I tether the I.:SAO would he.abusing its discretion by bringing a federal prosecution rather than eking 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 fcder investigation against Mr. Epstein, we summarize the facts and circumstances of this matter bolo The two base-level concerns we hold are Ihat (1) federal prosecution of this matter is not warranted based on the purely-local conduct and the unprecedented application of federal statutes to facts such as these and (2) the actions of federal authorities are both highly questionable and give rise to an appearance of substantial impropriety. The issues that we have raised, but which have not yet been addressed or resolved by the Department, are more than isolated allegations of professional mistakes or misconduct. These issues, instead, affect the appearance and administration of criminal justice with profound consequences beyond the resolution in the matter at hand. 1 In a. precedenr-shattering investigation of Jeffry Epstein that raises important policy questions—and serious issues as to the fair and honor le enforcement of federal law—the USAO 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 EFTA00225688 na,4 Piz VUo Ile, I *ON • • win 14:0V rAA 000 04U 044U VW: u / resa ZUZ0 1 U I Za NON 1:1:22 PAS I 218 tc$o 85o0 tsr.'AuS1rc urr . sun DOJ/ODAu xl iaii.ANDV.I.I.1 5 In' III IMO klionarn13 4000 Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Fisncrou Street LOR A11,50liat LA _90017..5800 Phone: 21.3-ette 8440 Fax: :au- 680-8500 kstarrekirkiand.com VIA FACST/tell...? (2021 51441467 I lonorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N,W. Washington, D.C. 20530 May 19. 2008 Joe D. Whitley Alston & Bird LIP The Atlantic Building 95o 17 Street, NW Washington, DC aotiottacit Ph: 202.756-3189 Fax: 2W-654.48149 joc.whillty@aiXtmeum CONFIDENTML DearJudgeFiliee In his confirmation hearings Jest dill, Judge Mukascy admirably lifted up rim finest traditions of the Department of Justice in assuring the United States Senate, and the American people, of his solemn intent to ensure fairness and integrity in the administration of justice. Your own confirmation hearings echoed that bedrock determination to assure that the Department conduct itself with honor and integrity, especially in the enforcement of federal criminal law. We come to you in that spirit and respectfully ask for a review of the federal involvement in a quintessentially stale 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 such au examination. Based on our collective experiences, as well as those of other former senior Justice Department officials whose advice we have sought, we have never before seen a case more appropriate for oversight and review. Thus, while neither of us has previously made such a request. we do so now in the recognition that both the Department's reputation, as well as the due process rights of our client, are at issue. Recently, the Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter tit the request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review deliberately excluded many important aspects of this ease. Just this past Friday, on May 16, 2008, we received a tenet- from the head of CEOS informing us that CF-OS had conducted a review of this case. By its own admission, the CEOS review was "limited, both factually and legally." Part of the self-imposed limitation was CEOS's abstention from addressing our "allegations of professional misconduct by federal prosecutors".—even though such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the accusatio being made against Mr. Epstein by the United State:: Attorney's Office in Miami ("USAO"). oreover, CEOS did not assess the terms of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement now in effect or did CEOS review the federal prosecutors' inappropriate efforts to implement those tenns. We detail this point below. EFTA00225689 06/02/08 MON 1459 FAX nafieti/zutnr ou:os FAX 20 05 19 OR MON 13:21 FAX 1 '113 88e 8508 EXECUTIVE OFFICE DU/08AG KIRKLANORALLIS LLF td)004 46ouS/013 KIRKLAND & FILLS LLA Fax Transmittal 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 00017 Phone, (213) 680-8400 Fax: (213) 680-8500 Please notify us Immediately If any pages aro not r000lved. 511? gw310 es. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL. MAY 13E ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION. AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE UNAUTHORIZED USE. DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: (213) 680-8400. To: Honorable Mark Filip From: Kenneth W. Stun- Company: Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department oflusticc Date: May 19, 2008 Pages vetoven Fax II: Direct It: (202) 514-(1467 (202) 514-2101 Fax g: Direct #: 9 (313)680.8500 (213) 680-8440 Message. EFTA00225690 • ona wh;27,200R 1? II! AX . UVJ I VOM: 0004/013 is vin/ uvs I fortnrahle Mark »bly 27. 200.1i Page 2 tu a charge thai the State .• nonie)• hus not. despiic a lera yxar vesiigalion. tijiemitut;41 ett eec approprime. Mr. I ipStein's enunrcl must also strecessfully espediteg pka of y lo this charuc • on :e date prior in dirly S. 20024. which ie lite date pre enly set hy tbc siste enurt Judge. i:tirther, the unnecessary deadline is ewn more Fobi:made because Mr, itgejn"s cffnn tu real:lede the state charge mul seneene with the terms of Mc A:tm:entent requitea an tmustral und unprecedented threatened application of federal IZW:. Thi;. it place,. Mr Pitstein in the I eilddy ueittate:ol position of havinp to thanand thai the State :amok:see to a mon; set etc punishmeni ;han •Itad alrendy delermined was approprime. We hatt attempted to resolve Mest: tu id ca I eur i>sues thrkettgl i die USA0 avd (EON, ruising our eorreernx ahnut the LISAC's inappropritue eunduel will: respeet lo (hi) maltet. not Omse avenue; have now been shut dumt. Mr. Slontan'n letter purpnns to prohihit ann lurdur contael hetween Mr. Papskin' S defense team mul :.S. Anomi:y Aerma. and insieart repures us ta eommunicate with the USA° only thouph Mr. ..Chennta s stihrirdinmen. 11 'hi it pain:: tis In :my this, this mis)tuided proseention fi om Ilie omse: gives the alme:trance thai it may havt helst poliiiesilly intiriwired Mr. Rpercin is :e highiy surxeS:dni. Sel r, made businessman and philanihropist who entered the public- ansrui oniy inne of hk ck..? personal as:mej:diam with former President Bill Clinton. nerv is litile dt. tt! Il; uur minds thai the IN-N() nevet would hatt conrempiated a proNecution in this case if Mr. Epstein teer:: just anm her lolla.- t AltnnieY Aeosin previnusly has slated thai hr is "sympatin:lie- lo om Federalism• related eoneents. but he has token the position that his audtority is lintiicd bt enfon:ement policirx set inritt in Washington. D.C. As expresse4 in our prior conumenicatinn oml. tve helieve i hat a crunrilele and independent apprnisul and n:solution of this case most appropriateb would be undertaken by your Office heginniny with the reseission of the arhirrury. unfair. and improeedenred deadline that Mr, ~Inman demands to have iinpn.sed in this At die verv leas(. etc would apprcciate a killing of the arbitnm, timeline impost:d till our ciiew hy the I :SA() in order to allow tisne: for your office to soplider eau: Amnesi Ittel klit: Ill itteriake te ryt len of th is cam;. Titank you for your time and attention. gaspeelfully sulunicted. Kenneth W. Starr K iddand I .LP Cr V -1\-7 , .106 I) WhitiCy Alslup Bird IL EFTA00225691 08/OP/08 YON r5n8a MOEN n5127/26(4 12 18 b).8 EXECUTIVE OFFICE UOJIODAG 12002 lä003/.0i 3 tomp,"liva. Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland tV hill i 1.1.1' ; , NI :vet ‘nrolue.....:.^. 901/4:17 .3kirr n •IIV. 4:13. tS;Kt‘ .7;1 -1O A:•. rItAne. S 1 e'.5(11-46".: 11.e•• :1 ; (NC $/:f.t: baarraktrkl.ta.kom VIA r kcst (2021 $14-040 I loatmtble Mark Filip )I lice OI the Dupnly Attorney General (haled titates Department tif Just ice 050 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington. 0.4'. 70530 Dc.ir Judy.: Filip: May :7, 2008 Pk 0. I: it /c., & Bird LLP The t dated Kidder: ' 19. 1 .mteet. NW *.e .!:“;;;;;Pti. ; ":5‘4 rdh -i1P"-; pv who lin.w.d.e. y 1 .1 C'ONI•%p/::'\'7'/..11. •_ • 'Ibis letter briefly supplements ttttt prior submission to u dated May I.1. 2008. OW! conirmaneation. we urgently requested that your Office etualuel an independent 'reeitm the moused federal pro•annitIon of our client. Miley Epstein. The dual Iti:INONIS Jill' that you review this newer am lit the bedrock need fin integrity in the enfiteentrat flitfe: ud ell "'MI laws. and iiil the prOfteind questions raised hy the unprecedented eKlcumeem id' federal taw by the t Siats Attorney> Office in Mimed (the ESAU') tu a preminem public figure who •:h1µ Iles 11, 'boner President 'Mc need for review is now all the more eNigent. Ou Monday. MaY 19. 2008. Assistant JetTrey Shaun af the t ;SAO responded m an email from JD) I.elkowiitittfintuitu; k Attorney Alex Aeostu that we wnuld he seekinG your Oilliee's review. Mr. Slonew's letter. tvhkh improa:d a deadline of June 2. 2008 to comply with all the terms of the k.ue: cm von. Prosecution Agreement (die - Ago:emu:tn. pies new unilateral modifications, an pain of being deemed in breach Mat Agreement. ;Appeal, lo hove been deliberately designed to deprive UN Of an adequate opportunity Iu aret. your Office's review in ibis minter. (.!SAO'S desire to foreclose a complete revielk is widerstancLible. give!) den ibe Child Esplibitation and Obscenity Section retiON.3 has already delenemed that our subsiaite arg.1111148118 retarding WilY a ((:terot prosecution of mr. upsigin is not warranted were • nelling.- I Inwever. in contradiction w Mr. Sloman's assertion that 8ä0S luad provided an independent. dr Jew° (RÖS made clear that it did not do so. indeed. elifiR declined ut examine several of the more troubling aspgets of the investigation al' Mr. Upstem. the deliberate leak In the New York Times of mInterous highly vontidetekil aspects of the i 'west; gati un and nettothu kin:; Ec t," 3.41 I h e punk% US Weil US tie i«unt coll., of c kw,:'IrisK filed againu Mr. Epstein by Mr. Sloman's former law partner. The t ttttt eeessary anti arbitrarily imposed deadline set by the I /SIMI was done without any ruspee4 an' (lie turmal rum:tip ll tt and scheduling of state judicial neuters. It require< den Mr. Ep stein's counsel persuade the Slate Attorney of l'alen peach tu issue a criminal in !brit union EFTA00225692 uoiuzive AWN 14:3a /AA 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE (moot U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 99 NE 4Th STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132-2111 Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant U.S. Attorney 305 961 9299 Cyndee Campos Staff Assistant fax FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE: June 2, 2008 TO: 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 am 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 (ho U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. EFTA00225693 51z7bb SrauS...644issJoN To n 44 tXHIBIT 11 EFTA00225694 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. May 19, 2008 PAGE 6 OF 6 Conclusion On February 25, 2008, I sent you an e-mail setting forth a timetable for moving forward in the event that CEOS disagreed with your position. That time is now. As you know, my February 25"' email stated that I would give you one week to comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the USA's December I94 letter to Ms. Sanchez. In light of the upcoming Memorial Day weekend, I have decided to extend that timetable to the close of business on Monday, June 2, 2008, which is a full two weeks. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant United States Attorney cc: R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney A. Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Atkinson Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00225695 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. May 19, 2008 PAGE 5 OF 6 C. "Mr. Epstein Does Not Believe He Is Guilty Of The Federal Charges Enumerated Under Section 2255." At our December 14, 2007 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, counsel for Epstein announced, inter alia, that it was a "profound injustice" to require Epstein to register as a sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(6), had been committed since the statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading or inducing. This particular attack on this statute had been previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by the SDFL and COS prior to the execution of the Agreement. You also argued that the facts were inapplicable to the contemplated state statutes and that Epstein should not have been allowed to have been induced into the Agreement because the facts were not what he understood them to be, It should be noted that the SDFL has never provided you with any evidence suppolg its investigation. This is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see North Carolina Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct: 160 (1970)). Ultimately, you requested an independent review. Subsequent to the above-mentioned meeting, the SDFL received three letters from you and/or Mr. Starr which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 14th meeting. Essentially, you portrayed the SDFL as trying to coerce a plea to unknown allegations and incoherent theories. On December 17, 2007, you decreed that Epstein's conduct did not meet the requirements of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03) one of the enumerated crimes Epstein had previously agreed to plead guilty to; that Epstein's conduct does not require registration under Florida law; and the State Attorney's Office does not believe the conduct is registrable. On December 21, 2007, you rejected the USA's proposed resolution of the 2255 provision because you "strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 U.S.C. Section[s] 2422(6) ... or ... 2423(6)." In your December 26, 2007 correspondence you stated that "we have reiterated in previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is guilty of the federal charges enumerated under section 2255" and requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not commit the requisite offense." As the SDFL has reiterated time and time again, it does not want, nor does it expect, Epstein to plead guilty to a charge he does not believe he committed. As a result, we obliged your request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such a review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. It is our understanding that that independent review is complete and a determination has been made that there arc no impediments to a federal prosec by the SDFL. EFTA00225696 JAY P. I.F.FKOWITZ, ESQ. May 19, 2008 PAGE 4 OF 6 B. Method of Compensation and Notification. During this same time period, you and others, including the former Solicitor General of the United States Kenneth Starr, took issue with the implementation of the methodology of compensation (hereinafter "the 2255 provision")3 and the SDFL's intention to notify the victims under 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 (you objected to victims being notified of time and place of Epstein's state court sentencing hearing). In response, the SUFI, offered, in my opinion, numerous and various reasonable modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta's' December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez. In that letter, the United States Attorney tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. He proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "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." Regarding the issue of notice to the victims, USA Acosta proposed to notify them of the federal resolution as required by law; however, "rwle will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he 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." As you know, you rejected these proposals as well. See December 26, 2007 correspondence from Jay Lefkowitz to USA Acosta. 3 Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDP', unilaterally agreed to assign its responsibility to select the attorney representative for the alleged victims to an independent third-party. This was done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection of the attorney representative. As a result, on October 29, 2007, the parties executed an Addendum wherein it was mutually agreed that former United States District Court Judge Edward B. would serve as the independent third-party. Judge Davis selected the venerable law firm of Podhurs and Josefsberg to represent the approximately 34 alleged identified victims. EFTA00225697 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. May 19, 2008 PAGE 3 OF 6 of the guilty plea and sentence no later than October 26, 2007; and (5) the start of the above- mentioned sentence no later than January 4, 2008. Furthermore, and significantly, Epstein agreed that he had the burden of ensuring compliance of the Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office and the Judge of the 15111 Judicial Circuit and "that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement" (emphasis added). Post-Execution of the Agreement Within weeks of the execution of the Agreement, you sought to delay the entry of Epstein's guilty plea and sentence. After the SDFL agreed to accommodate your request, counsel for Epstein began taking issue with the methodology of compensation, notification to the victims, and the issues that had been previously considered and rejected during negotiations, i.e., that the conduct does not require registration and the contemplated state and federal statutes have no applicability to the instant matter. A. Delay. The Agreement required that "Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be 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." Agreement, pages 4-5, paragraph I I (emphasis added). After the Agreement was executed, the SDFL accommodated your request to extend the October 26th plea deadline to November 20111 based upon, what seemed to be, reasonable scheduling conflict issues.' By early November, you represented that the presiding state court judge would not "stagger the plea and sentencing as contemplated in the Agreement."Al though the Agreement clearly did not contemplate a staggered "plea and sentencing," the SDFL again agreed to accommodate Epstein's request to appear in state court for plea and sentencing on January 4, 2008.2 I "Accordingly, I have now confirmed with Mr. Epstein's Florida counsel that the state's attorney's office and the court will be available to have him enter his plea on November 20. So we will plan to proceed on one that date." October 18, 2007 email from Jay Lefkowitz to USA R. Alexander Acosta. On the same day, Mr. Lelkowitz confirmed with First Assistant Jeffrey H. Sloman that this postponement " will not affect when Epstein begins serving his sentence." 2 Correspondence from Jay Lefkowitz to FAUSA Sloman dated November 8, 2007 ("the judge has invited the parties to appear for the plea and sentencing on January 4th, we do not anticipate any delay beyond that date.") EFTA00225698 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. May 19, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 6 Background The Agreement was the product of months of negotiations. Specifically, you requested and received numerous meetings, at the highest levels of the SDFL and DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) concerning claims that (a) the investigation merely produced evidence of relatively innocuous sexual conduct with some minors who, unbeknownst to Epstein, misrepresented their ages; (b) the authorities investigating Epstein engaged in misconduct; (c) the contemplated federal statutes have no applicability to this matter; and (d) the federal authorities disregarded the fundamental policy against federal intervention with state criminal proceedings. After careful review, the SDFL ultimately rejected those claims. Subsequent to its decision, however, but before proceeding any further, the SIMI, provided you with 30 days to appeal the decision to the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Alice Fisher. As you recall, you chose to forego an appeal to AAG Fisher, and instead pursued a negotiated resolution which, ultimately, resulted in the execution of the Agreement. The Negotiation Phase During negotiations, you tried to avoid a resolution that called for incarceration and registration as a sexual offender — both of which would be triggered by a successful federal prosecution. The SDFL believed and continues to believe that should this matter proceed to trial, your client would be convicted of the federal statutes identified in the Agreement. In order to achieve a global resolution, the SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of incarceration; however, it remained adamant that Epstein register as a sex offender and that all victims identified during the investigation remain eligible for compensation. In order to achieve this result, the parties considered two alternatives, a plea to federal charges that limited Epstein's sentencing exposure, or, as suggested by you, a plea to state charges encompassing Epstein's conduct. Ultimately, the parties agreed to, inter alia, a plea to the state charges outlined in the Agreement, registration and a method of compensation. The Agreement The crux of the Agreement defers in favor of the State federal prosecution of Epstein for his sexual conduct involving those minor victims identified as of September 24, 2007, in exchange for a guilty plea to a state offense that requires registration as a sex offender; a sufficient term of imprisonment; and a method of compensation for the victims such that they would be placed in the same position as if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255. Specifically, the Agreement mandates, inter alia, (1) a guilty plea in Palm Beach County Circuit Court to solicitation of prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.07) and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03) (an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender); (2) a 30-month sentence including IS months' incarceration in county jail; (3) a methodology to compensate the victims identified by the United States; (4) entry EFTA00225699 U.S. Department of Justice United Slates Attorney Southern District of Florida First As,ramt US Attorney DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Cifigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Lefkowitz, 99 N.F.. a Suter Mw ,v. Fl. 33132 961-9/00 May 19, 2008 I am in receipt of your e-mail dated May 19, 2008 to the United States Attorney. The U.S. Attorney would like me to advisearthat all communications and inquiries related to the Epstein matter, will be handled by AUSA Villafana and/or her supervisor, Karen Atkinson, so he does not intend to respond to your e-mail or calls unless AUSA Villafana and/or her supervisors advise him otherwise. Furthermore, you make reference to "our July 8 deadline." Respectfully, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL") has never agreed to any such deadline. Should you decide to provide the SDFL with any additional information, please do so through AUSA Villafana, and, in her absence, AUSA Atkinson. On September 24, 2007, your client, Jeffrey Epstein, in consultation with Gerald Lefcourt, Esq. and Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq., as well as numerous other nationally-renowned lawyers, including but not limited to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, former Independent Counsel and Solicitor General of the United States Kenneth Starr, just to name a few, entered into a global resolution of state and federal liabilities faced by your client ("the Agreement') with the SDFL. Although you and other members of the defense team have since claimed that the Agreement was the product of adhesion, the following facts demonstrate that Epstein knowingly and voluntarily entered into the Agreement in order to avoid a federal indictment regarding his sexual conduct involving minor victims. Despite the fact that by signing the Agreement, Epstein gave up the right to object to its provisions, the SDFL bent over backwards to exhaustively consider and re-consider your objections. Since these objections have finally been exhausted and Epstein has previously expressed his intent to not comply with several of the terms and conditions of the Agreement as set forth below, the SIN!, hereby notifies you that unless he complies with all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the United States Attorney's December 19, 2007 letter to Ms. Sanchez by close of business on Monday, June 2, 2008, the SDFL will elect to terminate the Agreement. EXHIBIT B-32 EFTA00225700 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. May 19, 2008 PAGE 6 OF 6 Conclusion On February 25, 2008, I sent you an e-mail setting forth a timetable for moving forward in the event that CEOS disagreed with your position. That time is now. As you know, my February 25th email stated that I would give you one week to comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez. In light of the upcoming Memorial Day weekend, I have decided to extend that timetable to the close of business on Monday, June 2, 2008, which is a full two weeks. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant United States Attorney cc: R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney A. Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Atkinson Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00225701 JAY P. LEFICOWITZ, ESQ. May 19, 2008 PAGE 5 OF 6 C. "Mr. Epstein Does Not Believe lie Is Guilty Of The Federal Charges Enumerated Under Section 2255." At our December 14, 2007 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, counsel for Epstein announced, inter alia, that it was a "profound injustice" to require Epstein to register as a sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(6), had been committed since the statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading or inducing. This particular attack on this statute had been previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by the SDFL and CEOS prior to the execution of the Agreement. You also argued that the facts were inapplicable to the contemplated state statutes and that Epstein should not have been allowed to have been induced into the Agreement because the facts were not what he understood them to be, It should be noted that the SDFL has never provided you with any ii evidence support g its investigation. This is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see North Carolina Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct: 160 (1970)). Ultimately, you requested an independent review. Subsequent to the above-mentioned meeting, the SDFL received three letters from you and/or Mr. Starr which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 14" meeting. Essentially, you portrayed the SDFL as trying to coerce a plea to unknown allegations and incoherent theories. On December 17, 2007, you decreed that Epstein's conduct did not meet the requirements of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03) one of the enumerated crimes Epstein had previously agreed to plead guilty to; that Epstein's conduct does not require registration under Florida law; and the State Attorney's Office does not believe the conduct is registrable. On December 21, 2007, you rejected the USA's proposed resolution of the 2255 provision because you "strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 U.S.C. Section[s] 2422(6) ... or 2423(b)." In your December 26, 2007 correspondence you stated that "we have reiterated in previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is guilty of the federal charges enumerated under section 2255" and requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not commit the requisite offense." As the SDFL has reiterated time and time again, it does not want, nor does it expect, Epstein to plead guilty to a charge he does not believe he committed. As a result, we obliged your request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such a review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. It is our understanding that that independent review is now complete and a determination has been made that there arc no impediments to a federal prosecution by the SDFL. EFTA00225702 JAY P. LEFKOWITL, ESQ. May 19, 2008 PAGE 4 OF 6 B. Method of Compensation and Notification. During this same time period, you and others, including the former Solicitor General of the United States Kenneth Starr, took issue with the implementation of the methodology of compensation (hereinafter "the 2255 provision")3 and the SDFL's intention to notify the victims under 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 (you objected to victims being notified of time and place of Epstein's state court sentencing hearing). In response, the SDFL offered, in my opinion, numerous and various reasonable modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez. In that letter, the United States Attorney tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. He proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Codc, 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." Regarding the issue of notice to the victims, USA Acosta proposed to notify them of the federal resolution as required by law; however, "rwle will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he 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." As you know, you rejected these proposals as well. See December 26, 2007 correspondence from Jay Lefkowitz to USA Acosta. 3 Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL unilaterally agreed to assign its responsibility to select the attorney representative for the alleged victims to an independent third-party. This was done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection of the attorney representative. As a result, on October 29, 2007, the parties executed an Addendum wherein it was mutually agreed that former United States District Court Judge Edward B. would serve as the independent third-party. Judge Davis selected the venerable law firm of Podhurs and Josefsberg to represent the approximately 34 alleged identified victims. EFTA00225703 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. May 19, 2008 PAGE 3 OF 6 of the guilty plea and sentence no later than October 26, 2007; and (5) the start of the above- mentioned sentence no later than January 4, 2008. Furthermore, and significantly, Epstein agreed that he had the burden of ensuring compliance of the Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office and the Judge of the 15'h Judicial Circuit and "that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement" (emphasis added). Post-Execution of the Agreement Within weeks of the execution of the Agreement, you sought to delay the entry of Epstein's guilty plea and sentence. After the SDFL agreed to accommodate your request, counsel for Epstein began taking issue with the methodology of compensation, notification to the victims, and the issues that had been previously considered and rejected during negotiations, i.e., that the conduct does not require registration and the contemplated state and federal statutes have no applicability to the instant matter. A. Delay. The Agreement required that "Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be 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." Agreement, pages 4-5, paragraph I 1 (emphasis added). After the Agreement was executed, the SDFL accommodated your request to extend the October 26th plea deadline to November 20'h based upon, what seemed to be, reasonable scheduling conflict issues.' By early November, you represented that the presiding state court judge would not "stagger the plea and sentencing as contemplated in the Agreement."Although the Agreement clearly did not contemplate a staggered "plea and sentencing," the SDFL again agreed to accommodate Epstein's request to appear in state court for plea and sentencing on January 4, 2008.2 I "Accordingly, I have now confirmed with Mr. Epstein's Florida counsel that the state's attomey's office and the court will be available to have him enter his plea on November 20. So we will plan to proceed on one that date." October 18, 2007 email from Jay Lefkowitz to USA R. Alexander Acosta. On the same day, Mr. Lefkowitz confirmed with First Assistant Jeffrey H. Sloman that this postponement " will not affect when Epstein begins serving his sentence." 2 Correspondence from Jay Lefkowitz to FAUSA Sloman dated November 8, 2007 ("the judge has invited the parties to appear for the plea and sentencing on January 41, we do not anticipate any delay beyond that date.") EFTA00225704 JAY P. LEFKOWIT7., ESQ. May 19, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 6 Background The Agreement was the product of months of negotiations. Specifically, you requested and received numerous meetings, at the highest levels of the SDFL and DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) concerning claims that (a) the investigation merely produced evidence of relatively innocuous sexual conduct with some minors who, unbeknownst to Epstein, misrepresented their ages; (b) the authorities investigating Epstein engaged in misconduct; (c) the contemplated federal statutes have no applicability to this matter; and (d) the federal authorities disregarded the fundamental policy against federal intervention with state criminal proceedings. After careful review, the SDFL ultimately rejected those claims. Subsequent to its decision, however, but before proceeding any further, the SDFL provided you with 30 days to appeal the decision to the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Alice Fisher. As you recall, you chose to forego an appeal to AAG Fisher, and instead pursued a negotiated resolution which, ultimately, resulted in the execution of the Agreement. The Negotiation Phase During negotiations, you tried to avoid a resolution that called for incarceration and registration as a sexual offender — both of which would be triggered by a successful federal prosecution. The SDFL believed and continues to believe that should this matter proceed to trial, your client would be convicted of the federal statutes identified in the Agreement. In order to achieve a global resolution, the SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of incarceration; however, it remained adamant that Epstein register as a sex offender and that all victims identified during the investigation remain eligible for compensation. In order to achieve this result, the parties considered two alternatives, a plea to federal charges that limited Epstein's sentencing exposure, or, as suggested by you, a plea to state charges encompassing Epstein's conduct. Ultimately, the parties agreed to, inter alia, a plea to the state charges outlined in the Agreement, registration and a method of compensation. The Agreement The crux of the Agreement defers in favor of the State federal prosecution of Epstein for his sexual conduct involving those minor victims identified as of September 24, 2007, in exchange for a guilty plea to a state offense that requires registration as a sex offender; a sufficient term of imprisonment; and a method of compensation for the victims such that they would be placed in the same position as if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255. Specifically, the Agreement mandates, inter alia, (1) a guilty plea in Palm Beach County Circuit Court to solicitation of prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.07) and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03) (an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender); (2) a 30-month sentence including 18 months' incarceration in county jail; (3) a methodology to compensate the victims identified by the United States; (4) entry EFTA00225705 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida First Assistant U.S. Attorney DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Lefitowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Leficowitz, 99114E. 4 Street Mann. FL 13132 (305) 961.9100 May 19, 2008 I am in receipt of your e-mail dated May 19, 2008 to the United States Attorney. The U.S. Attorney would like me to advisesithat all communications and inquiries related to the Epstein matter, will be handled by AUSA Villafana and/or her supervisor, Karen Atkinson, so he does not intend to respond to your e-mail or calls unless AUSA Villafana and/or her supervisors advise him otherwise. Furthermore, you make reference to "our July 8 deadline." Respectfully, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL") has never agreed to any such deadline. Should you decide to provide the SDFL with any additional information, please do so through AUSA Villafana, and, in her absence, AUSA Atkinson. On September 24, 2007, your client, Jeffrey Epstein, in consultation with Gerald Lefcourt, Esq. and Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq., as well as numerous other nationally-renowned lawyers, including but not limited to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, former Independent Counsel and Solicitor General of the United States Kenneth Starr, just to name a few, entered into a global resolution of state and federal liabilities faced by your client ("the Agreement") with the SDFL. Although you and other members of the defense team have since claimed that the Agreement was the product of adhesion, the following facts demonstrate that Epstein knowingly and voluntarily entered into the Agreement in order to avoid a federal indictment regarding his sexual conduct involving minor victims. Despite the fact that by signing the Agreement, Epstein gave up the right to object to its provisions, the SDFL bent over backwards to exhaustively consider and re-consider your objections. Since these objections have finally been exhausted and Epstein has previously expressed his intent to not comply with several of the terms and conditions of the Agreement as set forth below, the SDFL hereby notifies you that unless he complies with all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the United States Attorney's December 19, 2007 letter to Ms. Sanchez by close of business on Monday, June 2, 2008, the SDFL will elect to terminate the Agreement. EXHIBIT B-32 EFTA00225706 FD-302 (Rev. 10495) -1- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 10/04/2007 LANE RIVERA, date of birth 06/17/1988, Social Security Accoun Number 593-70-9393, telephone number (561)689- 4717, was contacted telephonically regarding a federal investigation involving the sexual exploitation of minors. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, RIVERA stated that she would not provide any info ' regarding JEFFREY EPSTEIN. The interviewing agent provided with FBI contact information. RIVERA was informed to contac t e BI should she decide to cooperate with authorities. It should be noted that RIVERA had an active warrant with the State of Florida for failure to appear regarding an arrest for shoplifting. Investigation on 10/02/2007 at West Palm Beach, Florida (telephonically) Aka 31E-MM-108062 by SA E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall Date dictated 10/02/2007 This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your *racy CAN No 011-110716CV.MARRA P.012645 EFTA00225707 FD•302a (Rev 10.6-931 31E-MM-108062 Comirusion of FD•302 of hair. hair. Molls/ Smythe .On 06/12/2001 .Pagc 3 described one of the UWFs as tan with long brown er UWF was described as having short, bobbed, blonde said that both UWFs spoke with an accent. SMYTHE believed that an individual named STEPHANIE LNU, who is FIGUEROA's age, also provided believed she drove a Jeep Cherokee. female shay have provided name was drug over EPSTEIN told with massages. She knew of only one other N with massages. Her She was a student at RPBHS who died of a that he was a scientist. Case No 08-607M,CV•MARR EFTA00225708 FD-302a (Rev. 10-645) 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 or Moll, Smythe On 06/12/2007 .Par 2 he responded by telling her to relax. EPSTEIN told ral times to ref STEIN also insinuated that he wan to touch him. stated that she believed EPSTEIN wante o do more than u massage him. She said that EPSTEIN propositioned her when he told her that she would get more money if she did more. She understood that to x. SMYTHE viewed EPSTEIN climax and the massa over. believed EPSTEIN got up and took a shower. did not de EPSTEIN with any further massages because s e i not want to be put in that position again. was unsure who paid her I for providing TEIN with the massage. 0.00 she received hat FIGUEROA was also paid $200.00. This was the only provided EPSTEIN with a massage. After departing the re , FIGUEROA stated that she coul ore money if she was willing to do ording to ke of an exgirlfriend, dentified who had gone to EPSTEIN's rest many occasions. said that was the reas that had so much money and was able to support him. state a 0BERTS had a nice apartment and nice clothes. believed ROBERTS had sex with EPSTEIN. and IIIIIII den i ie as oo er shirt off w en prove ing P she might have to do the same. She told age she should say she was eighteen and t back she co eive more money. FIGUEROA and pool while massage. received for friend, at she e mas age and that that if asked her called sat by the went upstairs to provide EPSTEI wi i the receiIIIIIII.00 from FIGUEROA's $200.00 he ringing to EPSTEIN. went to ROYAL PALM BEACH HIGH complet grade and a few classes during year. was unable to recall her exac provide IN with a massage. However, vided EPSTEIN with a massage shortly e about massaging EPSTEIN. III left her jewelry on a bench at EPSTEIN's residence during one o er visits to the EPSTEIN residence. She and FIGUEROA returned to the residence to retrieve her jewelry. SCHOOL where she her eleventh grade t the time she ore recalled that she ore she approached Cast No 01407364N.MARRA P-012644 EFTA00225709 FD-302 (Rev. 10-645) -t- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dale or vansalPhon 06/12/2007 regarding of minors. agent and following MOLLY was interviewed in West Palm Beach, Florida, a fede investigation involving the sexual exploitation After being advised of the Mr of the interviewing the nature of the interview, provided the information: was introduced to JEFFREY E by a friend of hers, "TON tified as TONY FIGUEROA). stated that she knew FIGUEROA through her neighbors. She ha nown FIGUEROA for about a year when he said that she could make some easy providing a massage to a guy who lived in Palm Beach. said that FIGUEROA used the name "JEFFREY". She was aware o IN's last name only because she saw it in a Vanity Fair magazine she was looking at on and visit to Epstein's Palm Beach residence. FIGUEROA told that she would make $200.00 for providing the massage. He a s d her if asked her age she was to say she was eighteen. Prior to going to the residence with FIGUEROA, that she had "smoked weed" with FIGUEROA to calm her own. said that during that time in her life she believed she was so using Cocaine and Ecstasy. Once at the residence, EPSTEIN walked her through the house and upstairs to the spa/bathroom. One of two Unidentified White Females(UWFs).she had met previously downstairs was upstairs preparing the room for the massage. The UWF, who was topless, set ou lotions to be used during the massag UWF "coached" and had her remove her shirt and bra. was very nervous an ensed he UWF started to perform e massage on EPSTEIN. Later, began providing EPSTEIN with the massage and the UWF lef e room. EP egan the massage by lying on his stomach and instructing to perform the massag r and lower down on his back. o point, EPSTEIN asked to t his towel. After a short time EPSTEIN turne o r and continued the massage. EPSTEIN soon began to mas while E was performing the massage. Epstein asked if she rvous because she did not watch him while he mas ur ated. said that told breas s. IIIIIII feeling uncomfortable. During the massage, STEIN she had nice shaped breasts. EPSTEIN fondled her told EPSTEIN again that she was uncomfortable and maminmomml 06/12/2007 at West Palm Beach, Florida Filer 31E-MM-108062 SA E.1Ntsbitt Kuyrkendall by SA Jason R. Richards Date dictated 06/12/2007 This document contains neither rceonunendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the properly of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your aaencv. Cu No 0840716,CV•MARRA P.012641 EFTA00225710 FD-302 (Rev. 104-95) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Om trainctwoon 10/04/2007 AMANDA BJORKLAND FREELING, date of birth 08/22/1987, Social Security Account Number 594-56-7772, cellular telephone number ( FREELING's father, MARK LNU's telephone number ( was interviewed telephonically regarding a federal i n involving the sexual exploitation of minors. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, FREELING provided the following information: FREELING currently resides with her husband, BRAD FREELING, at GROTON NAVY BASE located in Connecticut. The interviewing agent inquired if FREELING was able to speak freely over the phone with her husband in the car with her. FREELING stated she was fine. When FREELING was asked about JEFFREY EPSTEIN, she told the interviewing agent that she believed she knew an EPSTEIN that had been a math teacher in the middle school she had attended. FREELING stated that she could not recall traveling with her friend ALEX HALL to EPSTEIN's Palm Beach residence. FREELING stated that she could not recall providing EPSTEIN with a massage. She asked the interviewing agent if she could take some time to think about it. At this time, FREELING was advised that she was not in any trouble but that she needed to be completely honest with the interviewing agent. FREELING stated that she was unable to remember any details regarding a JEFFREY EPSTEIN that resided in Palm Beach. The interview was concluded. Investigation on 10/02/2007 at Groton Base, Connecticut ifts 31E-MM-108062 by SA E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall Date dictated 10/02/2007 This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI It is the progeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. Case No 08 SO lo ( ARR A P.012642 EFTA00225711 FD.302 (Rev. 10-6-95) - - FEDERAL. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription _10/04/2007 AMANDA LASZLO, date of birth 01/21/1986, Social Security Accost ular telephone number (561)577- 0988, LNU's cellular number (954)436-9315 was in rviewe e p onica y regarding a federal investigation involving the sexual exploitation of minors. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, LASZLO provided the following information: LASZLO informed the interviewing agent that she was at her new job, GROUND WORKS, a landscaping business, and did not want to get involved in an investigation regarding JEFFREY EPSTEIN. The interviewing agent attempted to set up a better time for the Illi • ew but LASZLO did not want to be interviewed. However, i een confirmed that she first met JEFFREY EPSTEIN when she was or sixteen years old. She was take STEIN's residence in Palm Beach by one of her good friends. stated that she provided EPSTEIN with massages and that she a provided these massages alone. LASZLO stated that EPSTEIN had not inappropriately her and that EPSTEIN had not masturbated in her presence. said that her friend was paid more so s ght more was a ing place between her friend and EPSTEIN. again stated to the interviewing agent that she did not wan involved and was not going to provide anymore information. said, "good luck with the case" and disconnected from the 1 invemigmwnon 10/03/2007 at Boynton Beach, FL (telephonically) Filet 31E-MM-108062 10/03/2007 Date dictated by SA E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency, it and its contents am not to be distributed outside your agency. Caw No 0849716.MMARRA P.01]611 EFTA00225712 FD-302. (RA 10.6-95) - I • FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 10/29/2007 PIPPR date of birth 05/30/1986, Social Security Account Nu er - - 3, cellular telephone number (561)294- 8542, telephone number (561)863-9461(aunt), and telephone number (561)718-7220(father), was interviewed in West Palm Beach, Florida, regarding a federal investigation involving the sexual exploitation of minors. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, HENDERSON provided the following information: believed she was first approached about N with a massage during her Junior year in as sixte friend, by drove HENDERSON and another friend, to residence. EPSTEIN gave them a tour o e ouse. recalled naked photographs of girls, especially in the here she would later provide EPSTEIN with a massage. visit, she and RADABAUGH stayed downstairs and e• vile went upstairs. providing High School. when she first met she could state IN. make at leas A few days to a e returned to EPSTEIN's residence with taken upstairs by EPSTEIN. HENDERSON began e massage y massaging EPSTEIN's feet and lower legs. EPSTEIN wearing only a towel was lying on his stomach and talking on the telephone. After approximately 10-15 minutes on the telephone, EPSTEIN hung up and turned over. EPSTEIN asked HENDERSON if she had been told t uld remove her told EPSTEIN that ve her shirt. uneasy and upset, was pal• $100.00. shirt when providing him the massage she was not told that and that she w EPSTEIN stood up completely told EPSTEIN, "I'm done." • ely ten minutes residence and AMEN department s p one number. department they contacted to repor with EPSTEIN. after leaving EPSTEIN's 911 to get the police was unsure of which police e incident that had occurred stated that there from EPSTE or is assistants. were no telephone calls to or Influigationm 10/03/2007 at West Palm Beach, rite a 31E-MM-108032 SA E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall by SA Jason R. Richards Florida Dale dictated 10/03/2007 This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FRI IL is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency. it and its contents arc not to be distributed outside your agency. Case No. 08-80736-C V-MA RRA I'-012640 EFTA00225713 FD•302a (Re. 10-6-951 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of Danielle DICENSO .0010/25/2007 Mr 2 pulled her underwear to side, and stroked her vagina. EPSTEIN also fondled DICENSO's breasts. DICENSO stated that EPSTEIN climaxed during both massages and that he would make really weird noises while masturbating. DICENSO said that GARCIA and EPSTEIN argued. DICENSO believed GARCIA stood up for herself regarding the payment of a girl GARCIA brought to EPSTEIN to provide him with a massage. DICENSO received $200.00 each time she provided EPSTEIN with a massage. She believed GARCIA received the same amount. According to DICENSO, KELLEN may have paid their taxi fare. DICENSO stated that would call her once in a while on her cellphone to see if she vailable to provide a massage. DICENSO said that EPSTEIN told her that he was a Brain Scientist. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA l'-012639 EFTA00225714 FD-302 (Rev 10-6-95) -1- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 10/26/2007 DANIELLE DICENSO, maiden name HEDRICK, dob 08/15/2007, 4608 Diana Drive, Apartment 3, Great Falls, Montana 59405, cellular telephone (954)801-0217, was interviewed telephonically regarding a federal investigation involving the sexual exploitation of minors. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, DICENSO provided the following information: DICENSO learned through friends that there was a rich guy in Palm Beach that had a lot of models at his house and that his house was a place to hang out and have fun. DICENSO and a friend, ANGELIQUE GARCIA, maiden name CAVALLARO, traveled to JEFFREY EPSTEIN's residence in Palm Beach via a taxi cab. DICENSO believed this occurred during her 10th grade year, while attending Wellington High School. DICENSO stated that SARAH LNU(identified as ans he door and showed the girls around ouse. ven ua ly, took DICENSO and GARCIA upstairs. The girls IIIIII were sitting on ! e couch when EPSTEIN entered the room. He told them he had just come from a run and needed to shower. After showering, EPSTEIN entered the room wearing a towel. EPSTEIN conversed with DICENSO and GARCIA. DICENSO stated that when EPSTEIN asked her age she told him her true age at that time. She believed she was sixteen when she went to his residence. Later during the massage, EPSTEIN asked both girls to remove their tops. DICENSO complied with EPSTEIN's request. DICENSO stated that GARCIA refused. DICENSO believed that GARCIA was self conscious about being heavy. Both girls continued to massage EPSTEIN. At one point, EPSTEIN turned over on to his back and began to masturbate while the girls massaged him. He instructed them to massage and touch his chest. EPSTEIN rubbed and touched the girls legs and buttocks during the massage. DICENSO believed the massage lasted approximately twenty to thirty minutes. On the second visit to EPSTEIN's reside believed she accompanied her friends, GARCIA and EPSTEIN again took a shower and wore a towel. Pe request, DICENSO provided EPSTEIN with a massage wearing only her underwear. During the massage, EPSTEIN put DICENSO on the table, Invesugatmn on 10/25/2007 .t West Palm Beach, Florida (telephonically) ▪ 31E-MM-108062 Date euma 10/25/2007 SA E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall by SA Jason R Richards This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-012638 EFTA00225715 FD-302• (Rev. 10-6-9S) 31E-MM-108062 CominuationaF0.Med Ellen Pitts .Oo 10/02/2007 .Par touched her. stated that when Epstein noticed she was uneasy uld pull er ack closer to him. Epstein continued to touch and digitally pe ted her vag Epstein also placed a vi rating massager on ' vagina. ' ated that Epstein touched her for approxima ely 2-5 minu es. descri he massager as a large, white back massager. Eps ein told 114 t be nervous." Epstein made a comment about how muc he liked body and how good it felt. Epstein commented that he liked e arge, firm breasts and firm butt. Pitts had no knowledge that Epstein might attempt to touch her the way he did and she believed she would only provide him a massage in nderwear. At the conclusion of the massage, Epstein paid $200-$300 in one hundred dollar bills and he asked, "does h have your numb s not recall providing her former tele mber, to anyone at the Epstein residence. was also -$300 by someone at the residence. Pitts nt Pitts believed times. Pitts be ieve Epstein's residence a coup Garcia. Garcia North Carolina. Wellingto months. Epstein's I'll' later heard that Epstein sometimes had multiple massage sessions in a day and would masturbate during each massage but would not ejaculate until the final massage of the day. Pitts stated Epstein's penis was really little and there wasn't much there. to Epstein's residence on one occasion. 's residence multiple e gone to e o Imes. married Andy is serving in the military an• may be based in Garcia formerly lived at Bahia Bay Circle, is pregnant and due in a couple of (phonetic) may have also gone to III stated she went to a Florida Marlins baseball game the weekena er her visit to Epstein's residence. Casc No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-012637 EFTA00225716 FO-101(Rev.10-6-91) - FEDERAL BUREAU BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 10/18/2007 Pursuant to a 'nvestigation regarding the sexual exploitation of minors, Ellen Pitts, was interviewed by the Federal Bureau of In iga ion (FBI). After being advised of the identit the interviewing agents and purpose of the interview, voluntarily provided the following information: Spring drove ori r e e. Eps e went inside the residence. in engaged in cony Pitts. Epstein as t ' life plans and her wanted to know wha ig school they attended. ana is were in high Epstein was aware both attended Palm Beach Central High School. ' Junior year of high school, o Jeffrey Epstein's ch, n answered the door and and anon with interests. becaige and described the house as maze-like and "kind of creepy." peared that Epstein had girls living at the residence wi m. Pitts also observed many vehicles at the residence. walked through the main part of the house and sat on a couch w ere she began reading a magazine to try to learn little bit about Epstein. While she was seated on the couch met Sarah Last Name Unknown(LNU). glass naked room. remove her c o ing. and were wearing oniy their thong panties when Eps el ered e shower area wearing his sweat pants and a T-shirt. Epstein disrobed an aring towel when he laid down on the massage table. gave guidance and th began m • Epstein's egs. Epstein later asked to leave. put her clothes on and left Pitts alone wi pstein. went upstairs with Hedrick to an area that had two showers, a massage table and a couch. There were pictures of gib shelf located next to the couch in tower o fo tein and told to knew After left the shower area, Pitts continued massaging Epstein s egs. Epstein told Pitt "come here" and he began masturbating. Epstein began touching ' body all over. Pitts thought to herself, "Oh my god, I'm go hrow up." Epstein grabbe butt, touched her breasts and tried to pull her panties off. was very uneasy and pulled away from Epstein when he Investigation on 10/02/2007 at Palm Beach Gardens, Florida coda 31E-MM-108062 SA E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall by SA Jason R. Richards Date dimmed 10/18/2007 This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-012636 EFTA00225717 FD-302a (Rev 104.9S) 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302of Sabrina Marie Ewart told that she also was ng someone you'll and did not talk much . 0a10/26/2007 .Pap 2_ paid that evening. 'lilt told get $200." Ewart was upset with on the cab ride home. App • tely one week la pstein's assistant named Sarah called Sarah invited to come back to the residence and her if you come ac with a friend he will pay Ewa ieved Sarah obtained her telephone number from s telephone number may have be -676-5619 or a• e mov oat of state to get Sarah to stop ca ing. Sarah called 2-3 more times. toll she . did not return to Epstein's residence. you. ii. was aware that Angelique and Hedrick ha een to Epstein's residence. a so hear rumors that Carrie Kincaid, who was older than had sex with Epstein. ted her mother message th had sent her. reference to to Jeffrey's h time the cab would pick her up. going downtown. was suspicious about a text The text message was in IIIIIrt a certain time and the told her mother she was Approximately two months ago, Ewart was contacted by private investigators working on behalf of Epstein. She met with a female and a male investigator and told them the details of her relationship with Epstein. She described the male private investigator as an older man. Casc No. 08-80736-C V-MARRA P-012635 EFTA00225718 FD-302 (Rcv 10-6-95) - I - FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 10/29/2007 Pursuant to a on regarding the sexual exploitation of minors, was interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investiga i er being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and purpose of the interview, Ewart voluntarily provided the following information: Ewart was introduced to Jeffrey Epstein when she approximately 16 or 17 years old. During the begi 11th year at Palm Beach Central High School, told about a "filthy rilllifuy who would pay girlsrror ge. Miller told she could make $300 by giving jiving him a Epstein a massage. raveled with Miller to Epstein's residence in a taxi cab. ' the kitchen area of the residence prior to going upstairs. noticed pictures of naked women in the upstairs room. S o observed a massage table and a shower/sauna area in the room. Epstein entered the massage r