Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
99 N. E. 4 gh Street
Miami, FL 33132-2111
(305) 961-9299
Facsimile: (305) 530-6444
November 13, 2007
Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Citigroup Center
153 East 53rd Street
New York, New York 10022-4675
Re: Jeffrey Epstein
Dear Jay:
I write in response to your letter of November 8, 2007.
Most importantly, I want to re-iterate that a guilty plea and sentencing more than two months
beyond the original deadline is unacceptable to the Office. Contrary to your assertion, the Non-
Prosecution Agreement does not contemplate a staggered plea and sentencing (that was contemplated
only in a federal plea, where the rules provide for such staggering). Instead, the Agreement contemplates
a combined plea and sentencing followed by a later surrender date for Mr. Epstein to begin serving his
jail sentence. As you will recall, the plea and sentencing hearing originally was to occur in early October
2007, but was delayed until the end of October to allow Mr. Goldberger to attend. It was delayed again
until November to allow you to attend. You have provided no showing of how you and your client have
used your best efforts to insure that the plea and sentencing occur in November. A prompt hearing would
end speculation by the press and others about Mr. Epstein's intentions and, more importantly, would show
the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI that Mr. Epstein intends to comply with all of the terms of the
Non-Prosecution Agreement. Accordingly, I again advise you that the Office requires Mr. Epstein to
make his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and to be sentenced forthwith. Please advise me of the new
date and time so that someone from our Office can be present.
Your letter asserts that Mr. Epstein and the State Attorney's Office have reached an agreement as
to the terms of Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing, but no such agreements have yet been provided to us.
As you know, the Non-Prosecution Agreement requires Mr. Epstein to secure our approval prior to
entering into any agreement — not just prior to signing an agreement. Please immediately provide us with
the terms of any agreements that have been negotiated with the State Attorney's Office on Mr. Epstein's
behalf, whether or not they have yet been reduced to writing, so that we have adequate time to review
them prior to the change of plea and sentencing.
As to the type of sentence that Mr. Epstein hopes to receive, the Agreement clearly indicates that
Mr. Epstein is to be incarcerated. In addition to the terms of the Agreement, the Florida Department of
Corrections does not allow persons who are registered sex offenders to participate in "community
release" (which includes "work release"). Since Mr. Epstein will have to register as a sex offender
promptly after his guilty plea and sentencing, he will not be eligible for such a program. Thus, the U.S.
Attorney's Office is simply putting you on notice that it intends to make certain that Mr. Epstein is
"treated no better and no worse than anyone else" convicted of the same offense. If Mr. Epstein is
somehow allowed to participate in a work release program despite the Department of Corrections' rules
and practices, the Office intends to investigate the reasons why an exception was granted in Mr. Epstein's
case.
Finally, as to the matters related to contacting the victims and the civil litigation, let me address
your issues in turn. First, one of the material terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement was Mr. Epstein's
agreement to waive the right to contest the "veracity" of the victims' claims. Second, the questions put to
the victims who have already been contacted did not address the "veracity" of their claims. Instead, they
were told that the investigators' questions were limited to whether they had been contacted by any law
enforcement officers and told that there would be a civil settlement. Third, the Non-Prosecution
EFTA01659903
Agreement did not anticipate such a lengthy delay in the selection of an attorney representative, and the
victims would have been "represented parties" without such delay; thus, the use of the phrase "may
contact" meant "has permission to contact." That issue will soon be moot. I have spoken with Judge
Davis who tells me that he has selected a firm to represent the victims. That firm has stated an intention
to accept the designation, but wants to confer with its partners and conduct any necessary conflicts check
before officially accepting. Upon the firm's formal acceptance, I will contact lead counsel and ask him to
contact you after conferring with the victims. In the meantime, please treat all of the victims as
represented parties who must be contacted only through their counsel.
Your concerns regarding the Section 2255 litigation are unfounded. As you know, Mr. Ocariz had
been told that he would be the attorney representative for the victims. As a matter of professional
courtesy, he was informed that the Office decided to use a Special Master in the selection of the attorney
representative. His decision to contact Judge Davis to express his interest in continuing to work on the
case was no more "lobbying" than contacts made by your colleagues to Judge Davis to persuade him to
select your choice of an attorney and to persuade him that the non-prosecution agreement's terms did not
contemplate litigation. You state that you are concerned that the Office has continued to insist that a
primary criteria for the appointment of counsel is the ability to handle litigation against Mr. Epstein, yet
your continued reference to challenging the "veracity" of the victims' claims, your contacting of victims
whom you knew were soon to be represented, your attempts to muzzle the Office's and the FBI's abilities
to comply with victim notification rules, and your client's consistent attacks upon the victims in the press
all confirm the need for appointed counsel to be prepared for such litigation.
Lastly, the statement at the end of your letter that you "reserve [the] right to object to certain
aspects of the § 2255 provisions of the Agreement" needs explanation. The provisions regarding Section
2255 appeared in the first statement of terms and every draft of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. By
signing the Agreement, your client gave up the right to "object" to its provisions. Mr. Epstein entered
into a binding contract, and the breach of any of its terms is a breach of the entire Agreement. Please
clarify your position on this point.
Please provide me with the terms of the agreement(s) with the State Attorney's Office and the new
date for the change of plea and sentencing by Friday, November 16, 2007.
Sincerely,
R. Alexander Acosta
United States Attorney
By:
First Assistant United States Attorney
AUS
EFTA01659904