EFTA Document EFTA01718606

(199) .On or about July 22, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and I= traveled from to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (200) On or about August 18, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEINS and traveled from to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (201) On or about August 18, 2005, Defendant placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (202) On or about August 19, 2005, Defendant wk/a placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (203) On or about August 21, 2005, Defendant placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (204) On or about September 3, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and , a/Ida traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (205) On or about September 3, 2005, Defendant , ailda` placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (206) On or about September 18, 2005, Defendant= placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (207) On or about September 18, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and , afich traveled from 30 EFTA01718606 to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (208) On or about September 18, 2005, Defendant sent a text message to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (209) On or about September 29, 2005, Defendant placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (210) On or about September 29, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and traveled from to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (211) On or about September 30, 2005, Defendant , a/k/a placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (212) On or about October 1, 2005, Defendant left a telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stating: "[Jane Doe #14] confirmed at 11 AM and [Jane Doe #17] — 4PM". (213) On or about October 2, 2005, DefendantM placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (214) On or about October 3, 2005, Defendant caused one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. 31 EFTA01718607 (215) On or about October 3, 2005, Defendant left a telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stating: "[Jane Doe #17) will be 1/2 hour late". (216) In or around the first week of October of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN engaged in sexual intercourse with Jane Doe #17, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (217) In or around the first week of October of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $350.00 to Jane Doe #17, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 2. 32 EFTA01718608 COUNT 2 (Conspiracy to Travel: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e)) 25. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as fully set for the herein. 26. From at least as early as 2001 through in or around October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, n ur o and did knowingly and willfully conspire with each other and with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with another person, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e). COUNT 3 (Facilitation of Unlawful Travel of Another: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(d)) 27. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 28. From at least as early as in or about 2001 through in or around October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, did, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, arrange and facilitate the travel of a person, that is Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, knowing that such person was traveling in 33 EFTA01718609 interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(d). COUNT 4 (Sex Trafficking: 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(2)) 29. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 30. From at least as early as in or about 2001 through in or about October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, and did knowingly benefit, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(3), which had engaged in an act described in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), that is, the recruiting, enticing, providing, and obtaining by any means a person, in or affecting interstate commerce, knowing that the person or persons had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(2), 1591(b)(2), and 2. COUNT 5 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 31. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 34 EFTA01718610 32. From in or around the spring of 2003 through on or about October 2, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #4, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is violations of Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(5)(a), 800.04(6)(a), and 800.04(7)(a); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 6 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 33. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 34. In or around March 2004, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #5, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 7 35 EFTA01718611 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 35. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 36. From in or around April 2004 through on or around June 29, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and , a/k/a did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #6, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 8 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 37. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 38. In or around July 2004, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand July, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #7, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. 36 EFTA01718612 COUNT 9 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 39. Paragraphs I through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 40. From in or around July 2004 through on or around December 29, 2004, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #8, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is a violation of Florida Statutes Section 794.05; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 10 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 41. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 42. From in or around July 2004 through on or about January 31, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 37 EFTA01718613 did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #9, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 11 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 43. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 44. From in or around the middle of 2004 through on or about April 22, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #10, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 12 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 38 EFTA01718614 45. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 46. From in or around August 2004 through on or about May 27, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and a did use a facility or means o interstate commerce, that is, e to ep one, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #11, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 13 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 47. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 48. From in or around November 2004 through in or around March 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and a' did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #13, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal 39 EFTA01718615 . offense, that is a violation of Florida Statutes Section 794.05; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 14 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 49. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 50. From in or around December 2004 through on or about June 5, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and a/k/a ' did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #14, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 15 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 51. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 52. In or around December 2004, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and 40 EFTA01718616 did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #15, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 16 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 53. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 54. In or around February 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #I6, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is violations of Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(5)(a), 800.04(6)(a), and 800.04(7)(a); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 17 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 55. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 56. From in or around February 2005 through in or around the first week of October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, 41 EFTA01718617 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce or entice Jane Doe #17, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is a violation of Florida Statutes Section 794.05; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 18 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 57. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 58. From in or around February 2005 through in or around April 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and a/k/a did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #18, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNTS 19 THROUGH 22 (Travel to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)) 42 EFTA01718618 59. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 60. On or about the dates enumerated as to each count listed below, from a place outside the Southern District of Florida to a place inside :he Southern District of Florida, the Defendant(s) listed below traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with a person under 18 years of age, that is, the person(s) listed in each count below: COUNT DATE(S) MINOR(S)INVOLVED DEFENDANT(S) 19 7/16/2004 Jane Doe 47 Jane Doe 48 Jane Doe 49 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 20 3/31/2005 Jane Doe #6 Jane Doe #13 Jane Doe #14 Jane Doe #16 Jane Doe #17 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 21 9/18/2005 Jane Doe #17 JEFFREY EPSTEIN a/a JEFFREY EPSTEIN a/k/ 22 9/29/05 Jane Doe #17 All in violation of Tit e 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(b) and 2. COUNTS 23 THROUGH 32 (Sex Trafficking: 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1)) 43 EFTA01718619 61. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 62. On or about the dates enumerated as to each count listed below, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the Defendants listed below did knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruit, entice, provide, and obtain by any means a person, that is, the person in each count listed below, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1): COUNT DATE(S) MINOR(S) INVOLVED DEFENDANT(S) 23 2001 - 2004 Jane Doe #2 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 24 April 2004 through June 29, 2005 Jane Doe #6 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 11111 25 . July 2004 Jane Doe #7 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 26 July 2004 through December 29, 2004 Jane Doe #8 JEFFREY EPSTEL\ I wk. 27 July 2004 through January 31, 2005 Jane Doe #9 • JEFFREY EPSTEIN 44 EFTA01718620 COUNT DATE(S) MINOR(S) INVOLVED DEFENDANT(S) 28 Mid-2004 through April 22, 2005 Jane Doe #10 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 29 August 2004 through May 27, 2005 Jane Doe #11 JEFFREY EPSTEIN aAJMIL 30 November 2004 through March 2005 Jane Doe #13 JEFFREY EPSTEIN l aileilL 31 December 2004 through June 5, 2005 Jane Doe #14 JEFFREY EPSTEIN aike 32 February 2005 through first week of October 2005 Jane Doe #17 JEFFREY EPSTEIN a All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2. FORFEITURE 1 Upon conviction of the violation alleged in Count 1 of this indictment, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, aAcia and hall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the violation. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461; Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C); and Title 21, United States Code, Section 853. 45 EFTA01718621 If the property described above as being subject to forfeiture, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a/k/a and (1) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (2) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with a third person; (3) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; (4) has been substantially diminished in value; or (5) has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendants up to the value of the above forfeitable property. All pursuant to Tide 28 United States Code, Section 2461; Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C); and Title 21 United States Code, Section 853. FORFEITURE 2 Upon conviction of any of the violations alleged in Counts 2, 3, 5-50, 59, 60, of this indictment, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, anda shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, constituting or traceable to gross profits or other proceeds obtained from such offense; and any property, real or personal, used or intended to be used to 46 EFTA01718622 commit or to promote the commission of such offense, including but not limited to the following: a. A parcel of land located at a, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, including all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments, and easements found therein or thereon, and more particularly described as: Being all of recorded in and as in the records of Palm Beach County, Florida , as recorded m Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, being bounded on the West by the West side of an existing concrete seawall and the northerly extension thereof as shown on the Adair & Brady, Inc., drawing and bounded on the East by the shoreline as s own on e p -and bounded on the North and South by the Westerly extensions of the North and South lines respectively of containing 0.07 acres, more or less. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253. If any of the forfeitable property described in the forfeiture section of this indictment, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, anda and =I M• (a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; ' (b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person; (c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; (d) has been substantially diminished in value; or 47 EFTA01718623 (e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253(o), to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendant up to the value of the above forfeitable property. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253. FORFEITURE 3 Upon conviction of any of the violations alleged in Counts 4, 51-58, of this indictment, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a/k/a " and shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of such violation; and any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from any proceeds that such person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation, including but not limited to the following: a. A parcel of land located at , Palm Beach, Florida 33480, including all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments, and easements found therein or thereon, and more particularly described as: Being all of recorded in and as in the records o Palm Beach County, Florida BEING thatportion 1 in West of , as reco e m e 48 EFTA01718624 Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, being bounded on the West by the West side of an existing concrete seawall and the northerly extension thereof as shown on the Adair & Brady, Inc., drawing and bounded on the East by the shoreline as s own on epa o and bounded on the North and South the Westerly extensions o North and South lines respectively of containing 0.07 acres, more or less. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1594(b). A TRUE BILL. FOREPERSON R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 49 EFTA01718625 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP ew York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: acsrmi December 13, 2007 . lam writing not to respond to your asserted "policy concerns" regarding Mr. Epstein's Non- Prosecution Agreement, which will be addressed by the United States Attorney, but the time has come for me to respond to the ever-increasing attacks on my role in the investigation and negotiations. It is an understatement to say that I am surprised by your allegations regarding my role because I thought that we had worked very well together in resolving this dispute. I also am surprised because I feel that I bent over backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement would have on Mr. Epstein and to make sure that you (and he) understood the repercussions of the agreement. For example, I brought to your attention that one potential plea could result in no gain time for your client; I corrected one of your calculations of the Sentencing Guidelines that would have resulted in Mr. Epstein spending far more time in prison than you projected; I contacted the Bureau of Prisons to see whether Mr. Epstein would be eligible for the prison camp that you desired; and I told you my suspicions about the source of the press "leak" and suggested ways to avoid the press. Importantly, I continued to work with you in a professional manner even after I learned that you had been proceeding in bad faith for several weeks — thinking that I had incorrectly concluded that solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution was a registrable offense and that you would "fool" our Office into letting Mr. Epstein plead to a non-registrable offense. Even now, when it is clear that neither you nor your client ever intended to abide by the terms of the agreement that he signed, I have never alleged misconduct on your part. The first allegation that raise is that I "assiduously" hid from you the fact that ea friend of my and that I have a "longstanding relationship" with Mr. EFTA01718626 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 5 I informed you that I selected Mr. because he was a friend and classmate of two people whom I respected, and that I had never met or spoken with Mr. rior to contacting him about this case. All of those facts are true. I still have never' met Mr. and, at the time that he and I spoke about this case, he did not know about my relationship wi is friend. You sir gest that I should have ex licitly informed you that one of the referrals came from my ther than sim I a which is the term I used, but it is not my nature to iscuss my opposing counsel. Your attacks on me and on the victims establish why wanted to find someone whom I could trust with safeguarding the victims' best interests in the face of intense pressure from an unlimited number of highly skilled and well paid attorneys. Mr. was that person. One of your letters suggests a business relationship between Mr. d This is patentl untrue and neither my nor I would have recent any financial bene t from Mr. appointment. Furthermore, after Mr. = learned more about Mr. Epstein's actions (as escn below), he expressed a willingness to handle the case pro bono, with no financial benefit even to himself. Furthermore, you were given several other options to choose from, including the Podhurst firm, which was later selected by . You rejected those other options. You also allege that I improperly disclosed information about the case to Mr. ME I to help him deer the case was something he and his firm would be willing to undertake. provided Mr. with a bare bones summary ofthe agreement's terms related to his appointment confidential and instead recommen!Rat he "Google" Mr. Epstein's name for background information. When I did not provide Mr. with facts related to the investigation because they were forM ked for additional a:se questions to you, and you raised objections for the first time. I did not share any information to assist his firm in addressing conflicts issues, I further information about Mr. Epstein or the case. Since Mr. had been told that you concurred in his selection, out of professional courtesy, I inform Mr. f the Office's decision to use a Special Master to make the selection and told him that the ice ad made contact with •. We have had no further contact since then and I have never had contact with understand from you that Mr. = contacted . You criticize his ecision to do so, yet you feel that you and your co-counsel were emit to contact to try to "lobby" him to select someone to your liking, despite the fact that the Non-Prosecution Agreement vested the Office with the exclusive right to select the attorney representative. Another reason for my surprise about your allegations regarding misconduct related to the Section 2255 litigation is your earlier desire to have me perform the role of "facilitator" to convince the victims that the lawyer representative was selected by the Office to represent their interests alone and that the out-of-court settlement of their claims was in their best interests. You now state that doing the same things that you had asked me to do earlier is improper meddling in civil litigation. Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective investigation that have EFTA01718627 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 5 already been submitted to the Office on several occasions and you suggest that I have kept that information from those who reviewed the proposed indictment package. Contrary to your suggestion, those submissions were attached to and incorporated in the proposed indictment package, so your suggestion that I tried to hide something from the reviewers is false. I also take issue with the duplicity of stating that we must accept as true those parts of the reports and witness statements that you like and we must accept as false those parts that you o not like. You and your co-counsel also impressed upon me from the beginning the need to undertake an independent investigation. It seems inappropriate now to complain because our independent investigation uncovered facts that are unfavorable to your client. You complain that I "forced" your client and the State Attorney's Office to proceed on charges that they do not believe in, yet you do not want our Office to inform the State Attorney's Office of facts that support the additional charge nor do you want any of the victims of that charge to contact Ms. Belohlavek or the Court. Ms. Belohlavek's opinion may change if she knows the full scope of your client's actions. You and I spent several weeks trying to identify and put together a plea to federal charges that your client was willing to accept. Yet your letter now accuses me of "manufacturing" charges of obstruction ofjustice, making obscene phone calls, and violating child privacy laws. When Mr. Lourie told you that those charges would "embarrass the Office," he meant that the Office was unwilling to bend the facts to satisfy Mr. Epstein's desired prison sentence — a statement with which I agree. I hope that you understand how your accusations that I imposed "ultimatums" and "forced" you and your client to agree to unconscionable contract terms cannot square with the true facts of this case. As explained in letters from Messrs. Acosta and Sloman, the indictment was postponed for more than five months to allow you and Mr. Epstein's other attorneys to make presentations to the Office to convince the Office not to prosecute. Those presentations were unsuccessful. As you mention in your letter, I -a simple line AUSA — handled the primary negotiations for the Office, and conducted those negotiations with you, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Lewis, and a host of other highly skilled and experienced practitioners. As you put it, your group has a "combined 250 years experience" to my fourteen. The agreement itself was signed by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. Lefcourt, whose experience speaks for itself. You and I spent hours negotiating the terms, including when to use "a" versus "the" and other minutiae. When you and I could not reach agreement, you repeatedly went over my head, involving Messrs. Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta in the negotiations at various times. In any and all plea negotiations the defendant understands that his options are to plead or to continue with the investigation and proceed to trial. Those were the same options that were proposed to Mr. Epstein, and they are not "persecution or intimidation tactics." Mr. Epstein chose to sign the agreement with the advice of a multitude of extremely noteworthy counsel. You also make much of the fact that the names of the victims were not released to Mr. Epstein prior to signing the Agreement. You never asked for such a term. During an earlier meeting, where Mr. Black was present, he raised the concern that you now voice. Mr. Black and I did not have a chance to discuss the issue, but I had already conceived of a way to resolve that EFTA01718628 JAY P. LEFKOvitn, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 4 or 5 issue if it were raised during negotiations. As I stated, it was not, leading me to believe that it was not a matter of concern to the defense. Since the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the agents and I have vetted the list of victims more than once. In one instance, we decided to remove a name because, although the minor victim was touched inappropriately by Mr. Epstein, we decided that the link to a payment was insufficient to call it "prostitution." I have always remained open to a challenge to the list, so your suggestion that Mr. Epstein was forced to write a blank check is simply unfounded. Your last set of allegations relates to the investigation of the matter. For instance, you claim that some of the victims were informed of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of their allegations against Mr. Epstein. This also is false. None of the victims was informed of the right to sue under Section 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement of the general terms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done. Throughout this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as though it would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility of damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case. If my reassurances are insufficient, the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein should assure you of the integrity of the investigation.' 'There are numerous other unfounded allegations in your letter about document demands, the money laundering investigation, contacting potential witnesses, speaking with the press, and the like. For the most part, these allegations have been raised and disproven earlier and need not be readdressed. However, with respect to the subpoena served upon the private investigator, contrary to your assertion, and as your co-counsel has already been told, I did consult with the Justice Department prior to issuing the subpoena and I was told that because I was not subpoenaing an attorney's office or an office physically located within an attorney's office, and because the business did private investigation work for individuals (rather than working exclusively for Mr. Black), I could issue a grand jury subpoena in the normal course, which is what I did. I also did not "threaten" the State Attorney's Office with a grand jury subpoena, as the correspondence with their grand jury coordinator makes perfectly clear. With regard to your allegation of my filing the Palm Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit "with the court knowing that the public could access it," I do not know to what you are referring. All documents related to the grand jury investigation have been filed under seal, and the Palm Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit has never been filed with the Court. If, in fact, you are referring to the Ex Pane Declaration on that was filed in response to the motion to quash the grand jury subpoena, it was filed both under seal and ex pane, so no one should have access to it except the Court and myself. Those documents are still in the Court file only because you have violated one of the terms of the Agreement by failing to "withdraw [Epstein's] pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas." EFTA01718629 • JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 5 OF 5 With respect to Ms.= I contacted her attorney — who was paid for by Mr. Epstein and was directed by counsel for Mr. Epstein to demand immunity — and asked only whether he still Ill represented Ms. and if he wanted me to send the victim notification letter to hint. He asked what the letter wou say and I told him that the letter would be forthcoming in about a week and that I could not provide him with the terms. With respect to Ms. status as a victim, you again want us to accept as true onIS'acts that are beneficial to your client and to reject as false anything detrimental to him. Ms. made a number of statements that are contradicted by documentary evidence and a review of her recorded statement shows her lack of credibility with respect to a number of statements. Based upon all of the evidence collected Ms. is classified as a victim as defined by statute. Of course, that does not mean that Ms. considers herself a victim or that she would seek damages from Mr. Epstein. I believe that a num r of the identified victims will not seek damages, but that does not negate their legal status as victims. I hope that you now understand that your accusations against myself and the agents are unfounded. In the future, I recommend that you address your accusations to me so that I can correct any misunderstandings before you make false allegations to others in the Department. I hope that we can move forward with a professional resolution of this matter, whether that be by your client's adherence to the contract that he signed, or by virtue of a trial. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney First Assistant U.S. Attorney You also accuse me of "broaden[ing] the scope of the investigation without any foundation for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money transmitting business to the investigation." Again, I consulted with the Justice Department's Money Laundering Section about my analysis before expanding that scope. The duty attorney agreed with my analysis. EFTA01718630 U.S. Department of.Justiee United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Leflcowitz, Esq. Kirkland 8c Ellis LLP New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: West Palm Beach, FL 3 acsuni e: December 13, 2007 I am writing not to respond to your asserted "policy concerns" regarding Mr. Epstein's Non- Prosecution Agreement, which will be addressed by the United States Attorney, but the time has come for me to respond to the ever-increasing attacks on my role in the investigation and negotiations. It is an understatement to say that I am surprised by your allegations regarding my role because I thought that we had worked very well together in resolving this dispute. I also am surprised because I feel that I bent over backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement would have on Mr. Epstein and to make sure that you (and he) understood the repercussions of the agreement. For example, I brought to your attention that one potential plea could result in no gain time for your client; I corrected one of your calculations of the Sentencing Guidelines that would have resulted in Mr. Epstein spending far more time in prison than you projected; I contacted the Bureau ofPrisons to see whether Mr. Epstein would be eligible for the prison camp that you desired; and I told you my suspicions about the source of the press "leak" and suggested ways to avoid the press. Importantly, I continued to work with you in a professional manner even after I learned that you had been proceeding in bad faith for several weeks — thinking that I had incorrectly concluded that solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution was a registrable offense and that you would "fool" our Office into letting Mr. Epstein plead to a non-registrable offense. Even now, when it is clear that neither you nor your client ever intended to abide by the terms of the agreement that he signed, I have never alleged misconduct on your part. The first allegation that ou raise is that I "assiduously" hid from you the fact that is a friend of my and that I have a "longstanding relationship" with Mr. EFTA01718631 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ,EsQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 5 I informed you that I selected Mr. because he was a friend and classmate of two people whom I respected, and that I had never met or spoken with Mr. rior to contacting him about this case. All of those facts are true. I still have never met Mr. and, at the time that he and I spoke about this case, he did not know about my relationship wt is friend. You su gest that I should have ex licitly informed you that one of the referrals came from my rather than simply a ' which is the term I used, but it is not my nature to iscuss my personal relationships wi opposing counsel. Your attacks on me and on the victims establish why I wanted to find someone whom I could trust with safeguarding the victims' best interests in the face of intense pressure from an unlimited number of highly skilled and well paid attorneys. Mr. was that person. One of your letters suggests a business relationship between Mr. d my This is patentl untrue and neither my nor I would have received any financial bene t from Mr. appointment. Furthermore, after Mr. learned more about Mr. Epstein's actions (as escri below), he expressed a willingnes•andle the case pro bono, with no financial benefit even to himself. Furthermore, you were given several other options to choose from, including the Podhurst firm, which was later selected by M. You rejected those other options. You also allege that I improperly disclosed information about the case to Mr. I provided Mr. with a bare bones summary of the agreement's terms related to his appointment to help him deci e whether the case was something he and his firm would be willing to undertake. I did not provide Mr with facts related to the investigation because they were confidential and instead recommen at he "Google" Mr. Epstein's name for background information. When Mrr;varig asked for additional information to assist his firm in addressing conflicts issues, I fo those questions to you, and you raised objections for the first time. I did not share any further information about Mr. Epstein or the case. Since Mr. had been told that you concurred in his selection, out of professional courtesy, I inform of the Office's decision to use a Special Master to make the selection and told him that the ce ad made contact with •. We have had no further contact since then and I have never had contact with understand from you that Mr. contacted . You criticize his ecision to o so, yet you feel that you and your co-counsel were entit to contact to try to "lobby" him to select someone to your liking, despite the fact that the N on Agreement vested the Office with the exclusive right to select the attorney representative. Another reason for my surprise about your allegations regarding misconduct related to the Section 2255 litigation is your earlier desire to have me perform the role of "faci litator" to convince the victims that the lawyer representative was selected by the Office to represent their interests alone and that the out-of-court settlement of their claims was in their best interests. You now state that doing the same things that you had asked me to do earlier is improper meddling in civil litigation. Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective investigation that have EFTA01718632 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 5 already been submitted to the Office on several (tensions and you suggest that I have kept that information from those who reviewed the proposed indictment package. Contrary to your suggestion, those submissions were attached to and incorporated in the proposed indictment package, so your suggestion that I tried to hide something from the reviewers is false. I also take issue with the duplicity of stating that we must accept as true those parts of the reports and witness statements that you like and we must accept as false those parts that you not like. You and your co-counsel also impressed upon me from the beginning the need to undertake an independent investigation. It seems inappropriate now to complain because our independent investigation uncovered facts that are unfavorable to your client. You complain that I "forced" your client and the State Attorney's Office to proceed on charges that they do not believe in, yet you do not want our Office to inform the State Attorney's Office of facts that support the additional charge nor do you want any of the victims of that charge to contact Ms. Belohlavek or the Court. Ms. Belohlavek's opinion may change if she knows the full scope of your client's actions. You and I spent several weeks trying to identify and put together a plea to federal charges that your client was willing to accept. Yet your letter now accuses me of "manufacturing" charges of obstruction of justice, malting obscene phone calls, and violating child privacy laws. When Mr. Lourie told you that those charges would "embarrass the Office," he meant that the Office was unwilling to bend the facts to satisfy Mr. Epstein's desired prison sentence — a statement with which I agree. I hope that you understand how your accusations that I imposed "ultimatums" and "forced" you and your client to agree to unconscionable contract terms cannot square with the true facts of this case. As explained in letters from Messrs. Acosta and Sloman, the indictment was postponed for more than five months to allow you and Mr. Epstein's other attorneys to make presentations to the Office to convince the Office not to prosecute. Those presentations were unsuccessful. As you mention in your letter, I—a simple line AUSA — handled the primary negotiations for the Office, and conducted those negotiations with you, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Lewis, and a host of other highly skilled and experienced practitioners. As you put it, your group has a "combined 250 years experience" to my fourteen. The agreement itself was signed by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. Lefeourt, whose experience speaks for itself. You and I spent hours negotiating the terms, including when to use "a" versus "the" and other minutiae. When you and I could not reach agreement, you repeatedly went over my head, involving Messrs. Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta in the negotiations at various times. In any and all plea negotiations the defendant understands that his options are to plead or to continue with the investigation and proceed to trial. Those were the same options that were proposed to Mr. Epstein, and they are not "persecution or intimidation tactics." Mr. Epstein chose to sign the agreement with the advice of a multitude of extremely noteworthy counsel. • You also make much of the fact that the names of the victims were not released to Mr. Epstein prior to signing the Agreement. You never asked for such a term. During an earlier meeting, where Mr. Black was present, he raised the concern that you now voice. Mr. Black and I did not have a chance to discuss the issue, but I had already conceived of a way to resolve that EFTA01718633 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 4 OF 5 issue if it were raised during negotiations. As I stated, it was not, leading me to believe that it was not a matter of concern to the defense. Since the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the agents and I have vetted the list of victims more than once. In one instance, we decided to remove a name because, although the minor victim was touched inappropriately by Mr. Epstein, we decided that the link to a payment was insufficient to call it "prostitution." I have always remained open to a challenge to the list, so your suggestion that Mr. Epstein was forced to write a blank check is simply unfounded. Your last set of allegations relates to the investigation of the matter. For instance, you claim that some of the victims were informed of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of their allegations against Mr. Epstein. This also is false. None of the victims was informed of the right to sue under Section 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement of the general terms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done. Throughout this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as though it would proceed to trial. Notifying the wine ses of the possibility of damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case. If my reassurances are insufficient, the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein should assure you of the integrity of the investigation.' 'There are numerous other unfounded allegations in your letter about document demands, the money laundering investigation, contacting potential witnesses, speaking with the press, and the like. For the most part, these allegations have been raised and disproven earlier and need not be readdressed. However, with respect to the subpoena served upon the private investigator, contrary to your assertion, and as your co-counsel has already been told, I did consult with the Justice Department prior to issuing the subpoena and I was told that because I was not subpoenaing an attorney's office or an office physically located within an attorney's office, and because the business did private investigation work for individuals (rather than working exclusively for Mr. Black), I could issue a grand jury subpoena in the normal course, which is what I did. I also did not "threaten" the State Attorney's Office with a grand jury subpoena, as the correspondence with their grand jury coordinator makes perfectly clear. With regard to your allegation of my filing the Palm Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit "with the court knowing that the public could access it," I do not know to what you are referring. All documents related to the grand jury investigation have been filed under seal, and the Palm Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit has never been filed with the Court. If, in fact, you are referring to the Ex Parte Declaration o that was filed in response to the motion to quash the grand jury subpoena, it was fil both under seal and ex parte, so no one should have access to it except the Court and myself. Those documents are still in the Court file only because you have violated one of the terms of the Agreement by failing to "withdraw [Epstein's] pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas." EFTA01718634 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 5 OF 5 was directed by counsel forl ipstein to demand immunity — and asked only whether he still With respect to Ms. I contacted her attorney — who was paid for by Mr. Epstein and represented Ms.= and if he wanted me to send the victim notification letter to him. He asked what the letter would say and I told him that the letter would be forthcoming in about a week and that I could not provide him with the terms. With respect to Ms. status as a victim, you again want us to accept as true onl facts that are beneficial to your c lent and to reject as false anything detrimental to him. Ms. made a number of statements that are contradicted by documentary evidence and a review o her recorded statement shows her lack of credibility with respect to a number of statements. Based upon all of the evidence collected Ms. is classified as a victim as defined by statute. Of course, that does not mean that Ms. considers herself a victim or that she would seek damages from Mr. Epstein. I believe that a num r of the identified victims will not seek damages, but that does not negate their legal status as victims. I hope that you now understand that your accusations against myself and the agents are unfounded. In the future, I recommend that you address your accusations to me so that I can correct any misunderstandings before you make false allegations to others in the Department. I hope that we can move forward with a professional resolution of this matter, whether that be by your client's adherence to the contract that he signed, or by virtue of a trial. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: s/A. Assistant United tates Attorney cc: R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney First Assistant U.S. Attorney You also accuse me of "broaden[ing] the scope of the investigation without any foundation for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money transmitting business to the investigation." Again, I consulted with the Justice Department's Money Laundering Section about my analysis before expanding that scope. The duty attorney agreed with my analysis. EFTA01718635 U.S. Department of Justice DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Leflcovvitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP New Yorlc, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: United States Attorney Southern District of Florida PS INS -2111 ezahni e: November 13, 2007 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 Areement. 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 EFTA01718636 , JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. Novi:mesa 13, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 3 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 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, because Judge Davis intends to name the attorney representative shortly. Upon the naming of that person, I will contact 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 to express his interest in continuing to work on the case was no more "lobbying" than contacts made by your colleagues to 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. EFTA01718637 4 4 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 3 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 cc: R. Alexander Acosta U.S. Attorney AUSA EFTA01718638 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MA1L Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 CICS1MI December 13, 2007 I am writing not to respond to your asserted "policy concerns" regarding Mr. Epstein's Non- Prosecution Agreement, which will be addressed by the United States Attorney, but the time has come for me to respond to the ever-increasing attacks on my role in the investigation and negotiations. It is an understatement to say that I am surprised by your allegations regarding my role because I thought that we had worked very well together in resolving this dispute. I also am surprised because I feel that I bent over backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement would have on Mr. Epstein and to make sure that you (and he) understood the repercussions of the agreement. For example, I brought to your attention that one potential plea could result in no gain time for your client; I corrected one of your calculations of the Sentencing Guidelines that would have resulted in Mr. Epstein spending far more time in prison than you projected; I contacted the Bureau of Prisons to see whether Mr. Epstein would be eligible for the prison camp that you desired; and I told you my suspicions about the source of the press "leak" and suggested ways to avoid the press. Importantly, I continued to work with you in a professional manner even after I learned that you had been proceeding in bad faith for several weeks — thinking that I had incorrectly concluded that solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution was a registrable offense and that you would "fool" our Office into letting Mr. Epstein plead to a non-registrable offense. Even now, when it is clear that neither you nor your client ever intended to abide by the terms of the agreement that he signed, I have never alleged misconduct on your part. The first allegation tltou raise is that I "assiduously" hid from you the fact that =Is a friend of my and that I have a "longstanding relationship" with Mr. EFTA01718639 • JAY P. LEFKOW1TZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 5 I informed you that I selected Mr. I= because he was a friend and classmate of two people whom I respected, and that I had never met or spoken with Mr. prior to contacting him about this case. All of those facts are true. I still have never met Mr. and, at the time that he and I spoke about this case, he did not know about my relationship with his friend. You suggest that I ather than should have licitly informed you that one of the referrals came from my a ti simply a which is the term I used, but it is not my nature to discuss my personal relationships wi opposing counsel. Your attacks on me and on the victims establish why I wanted to find someone whom I could trust with safeguarding the victims' best interests in the face of intense pressure from an unlimited number of highly skilled and well paid attorneys. Mr. was that person. One of your letters suggests a business relationship between Mr.= and This is patent) untrue and neither nor I would have received any financial bene it from Mr. appointment. Fu htre after Mr. learned more about Mr. Epstein's actions (as described below), he expressed a willingness andle the case pro Bono, with no financial benefit even to himself. Furthermore, you were given several other options to choose from, including the Podhurst firm, which was later selected by You rejected those other options. You also allege that I improperly disclosed information about the case to Mr. provided Mr. with a bare bones summary of the agreement's terms related to his appointment to help him deci e whether the case was something he and his firm would be willing to undertake. I did not provide Mr with facts related to the investigation because they were confidential and instead recommen e t at he "Google" Mr. Epstein's name for background information. When forwigthose questions to you, and you raised objections for the first time. I did not share any Mr. asked for additional information to assist his firm in addressing conflicts issues, I further information about Mr. Epstein or the case. Since Mr. had been told that you concurred in his selection, out of professional courtesy, I informe Mr. of the Office's decision to use a Special Master to make the selection and told him that the Office had made contact with . We have had no further contact since then and I have never had contact with . I understand from you that Mr. I= contacted . You criticize his ecisi on to do so, yet you feel that you and your co-counsel were entit to contact to try to "lobby" him to select someone to your liking, despite the fact that the Non- rosecution Agreement vested the Office with the exclusive right to select the attorney representative. Another reason for my surprise about your allegations regarding misconduct related to the Section 2255 litigation is your earlier desire to have me perform the role of "faci litator" to convince the victims that the lawyer representative was selected by the Office to represent their interests alone and that the out-of-court settlement of their claims was in their best interests. You now state that doing the same things that you had asked me to do earlier is improper meddling in civil litigation. Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective investigation that have EFTA01718640 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 5 already been submitted to the Office on several occasions and you suggest that I have kept that information from those who reviewed the proposed indictment package. Contrary to your suggestion, those submissions were attached to and incorporated in the proposed indictment package, so your suggestion that I tried to hide something from the reviewers is false. I also take issue with the duplicity of stating that we must accept as true those parts of the reports and witness statements that you like and we must accept as false those parts that you o not like. You and your co-counsel also impressed upon me from the beginning the need to undertake an independent investigation. It seems inappropriate now to complain because our independent investigation uncovered facts that are unfavorable to your client. You complain that I "forced" your client and the State Attorney's Office to proceed on charges that they do not believe in, yet you do not want our Office to inform the State Attorney's Office of facts that support the additional charge nor do you want any of the victims of that charge to contact Ms. Belohlavek or the Court. Ms. Belohlavek's opinion may change if she knows the full scope of your client's actions. You and I spent several weeks trying to identify and put together a plea to federal charges that your client was willing to accept. Yet your letter now accuses me of "manufacturing" charges of obstruction ofjustice, making obscene phone calls, and violating child privacy laws. When Mr. Lourie told you that those charges would "embarrass the Office," he meant that the Office was unwilling to bend the facts to satisfy Mr. Epstein's desired prison sentence — a statement with which I agree. I hope that you understand how your accusations that I imposed "ultimatums" and "forced" you and your client to agree to unconscionable contract terms cannot square with the true facts of this case. As explained in letters from Messrs. Acosta and Sloman, the indictment was postponed for more than five months to allow you and Mr. Epstein's other attorneys to make presentations to the Office to convince the Office not to prosecute. Those presentations were unsuccessful. As you mention in your letter, I —a simple line AUSA — handled the primary negotiations for the Office, and conducted those negotiations with you, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Lewis, and a host of other highly skilled and experienced practitioners. As you put it, your group has a "combined 250 years experience" to my fourteen. The agreement itself was signed by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. Lefcourt, whose experience speaks for itself. You and I spent hours negotiating the terms, including when to use "a" versus "the and other minutiae. When you and I could not reach agreement, you repeatedly went over my head, involving Messrs. Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta in the negotiations at various times. In any and all plea negotiations the defendant understands that his options are to plead or to continue with the investigation and proceed to trial. Those were the same options that were proposed to Mr. Epstein, and they are not "persecution or intimidation tactics." Mr. Epstein chose to sign the agreement with the advice of a multitude of extremely noteworthy counsel. You also make much of the fact that the names of the victims were not released to Mr. Epstein prior to signing the Agreement. You never asked for such a term. During an earlier meeting, where Mr. Black was present, he raised the concern that you now voice. Mr. Black and I did not have a chance to discuss the issue, but I had already conceived of a way to resolve that EFTA01718641 JAY P. LEFKOW1TZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 4 OF 5 issue if it were raised during negotiations. As I stated, it was not, leading me to believe that it was not a matter of concern to the defense. Since the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the agents and I have vetted the list of victims more than once. In one instance, we decided to remove a name because, although the minor victim was touched inappropriately by Mr. Epstein, we decided that the link to a payment was insufficient to call it "prostitution." I have always remained open to a challenge to the list, so your suggestion that Mr. Epstein was forced to write a blank check is simply unfounded. Your last set of allegations relates to the investigation of the matter. For instance, you claim that some of the victims were informed of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of their allegations against Mr. Epstein. This also is false. None of the victims was informed of the right to sue under Section 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement of the general terms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done. Throughout this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as though it would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility of damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case. If my reassurances are insufficient, the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein should assure you of the integrity of the investigation.' 'There are numerous other unfounded allegations in your letter about document demands, the money laundering investigation, contacting potential witnesses, speaking with the press, and the like. For the most part, these allegations have been raised and disproven earlier and need not be readdrissed. However, with respect to the subpoena served upon the private investigator, contrary to your assertion, and as your co-counsel has already been told, I did consult with the Justice Department prior to issuing the subpoena and I was told that because I was net subpoenaing an attorney's office or an office physically located within an attorney's office, and because the business did private investigation work for individuals (rather than working exclusively for Mr. Black), I could issue a grand jury subpoena in the normal course, which is what I did. I also did not "threaten" the State Attorney's Office with a grand jury subpoena, as the correspondence with their grand jury coordinator makes perfectly clear. With regard to your allegation of my filing the Palm Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit "with the court knowing that the public could access it," I do not know to what you are referring. All documents related to the grand jury investigation have been filed under seal, and the Palm Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit has never been filed with the Court. If, in fact, you are referring to the Ex Parte Declaration of== that was filed in response to the motion to quash the grand jury subpoena, it was filed both under seal and ex parte, so no one should have access to it except the Court and myself. Those documents are still in the Court file only because you have violated one of the terms of the Agreement by failing to "withdraw [Epstein's] pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas." EFTA01718642 • JAY P. LEMON/1ff, EsQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 5 OF 5 was directed by counsel fotapstein to demand immunity - and asked only whether he still With respect to Ms. I contacted her attorney — who was paid for by Mr. Epstein and represented Ms. El and if he wanted me to send the victim notification letter to him. He asked what the letter wou say and I told him that the letter would be forthcoming in about a week and that I could not provide him with the terms. With respect to Ms. status as a victim, you again want us to accept as true onl facts that are beneficial to your c lent and to reject as false anything detrimental to him. Ms. made a number of statements that are contradicted by documentary evidence and a review o her recorded statement shows her lack of credibility with respect to a number of statements. Based upon all of the evidence collected Ms. is classified as a victim as defined by statute. Of course, that does not mean that Ms. considers herself a victim or that she would seek damages from Mr. Epstein. I believe that a num er of the identified victims will not seek damages, but that does not negate their legal status as victims. I hope that you now understand that your accusations against myself and the agents are unfounded. In the future, I recommend that you address your accusations to me so that I can correct any misunderstandings before you make false allegations to others in the Department. I hope that we can move forward with a professional resolution of this matter, whether that be by your client's adherence to the contract that he signed, or by virtue of a trial. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: It. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney First Assistant U.S. Attorney You also accuse me of "broaden[ing] the scope of the investigation without any foundation for doing so by adding charges ofmoney laundering and violations of a money transmitting business to the investigation." Again, I consulted with the Justice Department's Money Laundering Section about my analysis before expanding that scope. The duty attorney agreed with my analysis. EFTA01718643 FW: Emailing: epstein 1 2.11.07.pdf Page 1 of 1 FW: Emailing: epstein 12.11.07.pdf . (USAFLS) (40 uscloi.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 :2:57 PM To: (USA); (USA) Attachments: epstein 17 11 07 pdf (1 MS) «epstein 12.11.07.pdf>> Can you add these to the book of letters? -- The attacks are growing more and more vicious. Ken Starr, Jay LONOwit, and probably Lilly Ann Sanchez are meeting with. on Friday at 1:00. Assistant U.S. Attorney ax Original M e From: (USAFLS) Sent: y, mber 11, 2007 12:00 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject: Emailing: epstein 12.11.07.pdf The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: cpstein 12.11.07.pdf Note: To protect against computer viruses, c mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of f e attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 12'11 /2007 EFTA01718644 12/11/2007 11:38 FAX 008/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS L R. Alexander Acosta December 11.2007 Page 5 • DM Nut State that Epstein Photographed Her I laving Sex Dace also reports is claiming that "Epstein would photograph er naked and iaving sex and proudly di lav the photographs wit lin 1 nc tome." ht at 12. Again, this statement is not in sworn statement. In the contrary, the transcript reflects that stated: -I was just like. it was me standing in front of a big white marble Indite ... in the guest bathroom in his master suite. And it wasn't like i was you know spreading my legs or anything for the camera, I was like. I wits standing up. I think I was standing up and I just like. it was me kind of looking over my shoulder kinds smiling. and that was that." Sworn Statement of 10/I 1105 at 33. 2 Said Epstein Did Nat Touch tier inappropriately buttocks an .1 1d her close to him." Probable Cause Affidavit at 6. Sect also. Police Detective =counts that advised that "Epstein grabbed her Report (10/0 5 at 30 (some). never made this statement. In fact. when "No." Sworn Statement of 10/04/05 at I I. Detective asked. "He did not touch you inappropriately'?" responded. Wax Nut Sixteen When She First When to Epstein's Home. Detective M. states: " also stated she was sixteen years old when she first went to Epstein's house-. incident Report at 52. However. affirmatively stales that she was seventeen when she first went In Epstein s toe: "U: Okay. How old were you when you first went there? A: Seventeen. Q: Seventeen. A: And I was 17 the last time I went there too. I turned 18 this past June". Sworn Statement of 11/14/05. sold Detective i that Epstein Did Nol Take out Sex Toys. The Probable Cause Affidavit indicates that Sated, "Epstein would use a massager/vibrator. which she described us white in color and a large head. 'Epstein would nib the vibrator/massager on ha vaginal area as he would masturbate." Probable Cause Affidavit at 14: see also Police Report (I I/10/05) at 49 ("Epstein would use a massager/vibrator, which she described as while in color with a large head, on her."). This statement appears nowhere in the Inmseript of swum I hill was interviewed by Detective twice. once by telephone, and once in woo. The portions of the Police Iteport to which we refer specifically cite tlw imperson interview ass the source for the information reported. We have reviewed the recording of that interview and base the comparison on that review. We have never hcwd n recording of the telephone interview. EFTA01718645 12/11/2007 11.39 FAX 009/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 1 I.2007 !'age 6 statement, In km when Detective asked whether Mr. Epstein had "ever 1= take[nl out any toys," remain cd. - No." Sworn Statement of 11/08/05 at 17. • Did Not Recall Mr. Epstein Masturbating Detective recounts tha "advised she was sure [Mr. Epstein] was manta Ling based on his han movements going up and dawn on his penis area." Probable Cau Affidavit at 8. See also Police Report (10/07/05) at 35 (stunts). Detective account is in direct contradiction to true statement, spei l”y: Q: Okay did he ever take off— did he ever touch himself/ A:1 don't think so. Q: No. Did he ever masturbate himself in fmnt of you? A: 1 don't remember him doing that. lk might have hut I really don't remember. (Sworn Statement of IW05/05 at 7). • Staled that Only One Girl Looked Young Police Report at 57: stated that towards the end of his employment. the masseuses were younger and younger". However. he said no such thing: Q: Did they seem young to you? A. No. sir. Mostly no. We saw one or two young ones in the last year. Hefore that. it was all adults . I remember one girl was young. We never asked how old she was. It was not in my job ... But I imagine she was 16. IT'. (Swum Statement of 11/21/05) C. DeteetivallVlade Material Omissions in the Police Report. In addition to the misstatements in the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit as to the evidentiary record, there were also material omissions. both of facts known to the PBPD and also of facts not known to the PBPD, though known by the State Attorney. In the latter instance. the lack of knowledge was the result of the PBPD's refusal to receive the exculpatory evidence. In Net. they refused to attend a meeting called by the State Attorney specifically to provide the relevant evidence. 'I'hus, the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit only offer a skewed view of the facts material to this matter. Examples follow. I. The Video Surreillance Equipment Located in Mr. Epstein's Office mid Garage. Beth the Police Report (at 43) and the Probable Cause Affidavit (at 18) make EFTA01718646 12/11/2007 11:39 FAX el 010/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 11.2007 Page 7 particular mention of the "distxneery" of video surveillance equipment (or "covert cameras" as they are called) in Epstein's garage and library/office, inclusion of this inlinination insinuates a link between the equipment and the events at issue: in the Probable Cause Affidavit Detective states, "on the first Am. al tlw lbpsteml residence I [Detective I foun two covert cameras hidden within clocks. One was located in the garage an the other located in the library area on a shelf behind Epstein's T computer's hard drive was reviewed which showed several images of and other witnesses that have been interviewed. All of these images appeart, to come from the camera positioned behind Epstein's desk". Sue Probable Cause Affidavit at 18. Clearly omitted from both the Police Report and the robable Cause Affidavit is the fact that the PI3PD. and specifically Detective knew about the cameras since they were installed in 2003. with the help oft re A to address the theft of cash from Epstein's home. This fact is detailed in a Palm Beach Police Report prepared in October 2003 detai ' het efts. the installation of video • ui ment, the video recording capturing (Mr. Epstein's then ) "red handed". and the ineritrunaling statements made by when le was coo onied at the time. Sect aletilat t it: video footage was turned over to Detective Police Report at 5. 8. The eonrtemporaneofile report confirms the himself. 2. Polygraph Examination and R rt. On May 2. 2006. Mr. Epstein submitted to a polygraph examination by . a highly respected polygraph examiner who is regularly used by tie . tate ttorney. The examination was done at a time when we were told that the sole thous of the investigation was the conduct with IM Mr. Epstein was asked (a) whether he la "se tail contact with (b) whether he "in anyway threatenledl (e) whether c was to c by "that she was 18 veers o an t whether he "believed was 8 years old". As set forth in the Report of the examination, the term sexual contact" was given an extremely broad meaning in order to capture any inappmpriate conduct that could have occurred) The results of the examination confirmed that I no such conduct occurred: lii) Mr. Epstein never threatened (iii) told Mr. Epstein she was 18 years old: and (iv) Mr, Epstein tevt Ginza C7, was R years old, the dctioution included: "sexual intercourse. oral sex awls (penis in ;mud' ur mouth on vagina). linger petwontion of the vagina, finger penetration untie anus. touching of the vapiron for sexual publication purposes. touching tlw penis for sexual gratification parpoxes, noasturbation by or to another, touching or nthhing of the breasts. or any other physical contact involving sexual thoughts ouldlot desires with another permte. EFTA01718647 12/11/2007 11:39 FAX e011/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS us R. Alexander Acosta Da:ember 11.2007 Page 8 a. Broken "Sex Toss" in Mr. Epstein's Trash. The Police Report details the police finding in Mr. Epstein's trash what is described as broken pieces of a "sex toy" and that this "discovery" purportedly corroborated witness statements. Omitted from both the Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the filet that during the course of executing the search warrant in Epstein's home, the police discovered the other piece of that key "sex toy" and realized it was in Iitct only the broken handle of a salad server. Though "sex toys" play a prominent role in the Police Report and Pmbable Cause Affidavit. the Ma: Report was never amended to reflect the discovery of this new and highly relevant evidence. 4. Failure to Consider Exculpatory or Impeaching Evidence. Other exculpatory and impeaching evidence known by the PBPD was omitted from the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit by. in our view, manipulating the date the investigation was allegedly dosed. According to the Police Report (at $5). Detective "explained Ito MA Belohlavek) that the PBPD had concluded its ease in Deccm ler of 2005". That assertion, which is false. conveniently resulted in the omission of all information adduced subsequent to that date. Thus, though the Police Report in fact contains information obtained after December 2005. the PBPD purported to justify its refusal to consider, or even to include, in the Police Report, the Probable Cause Affidavit or what it released to the public, all the exculpatory• and evidence impeaching the witnesses submitted on behalf of Mr. Epstein. most or which was provided alter December 2005. That evidence is listed below. 5. unreported Criminal Histories and Mental Health Problems of the Witnesses Relied on in the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit. Evidence obtained concerning the wimesses relied upon to support the Probable Cause Affidavit casts significant doubt on whether these witnesses are sufficiently credible to support a finding of probable cause, let alone to sustain what would be the pmseention's burden &proof at a trial .4 Though such evidence was submitted to the MD. none or it was included in the Police Report or the Probable Cause Affidavit. • While the t e Report (at 57) and the Probable Cause Affidavit (at _ contain assertions by which allegedly support bringing a criminal charge. the evidence revealing evident mental instability; prior criminal conduct against stein; and bias towards Epstein is notably omitted. As detailed above, in 2001, was filmed taking money from Epstein's home. Ma being caught an videotape unlawfully entering Epstein's home and stealing cash from a briefcase, While we have never intended to and do not hcrc seek lu gratuitously COM aspersions on any unite witnesses. in previously asking the State and now .raking you to evaluate the strength lir IR% cuse, we have been constrained to point out the fact that the alleged victims chose to pri witwelves world through MvSpace profiles with self-selected monikers such us "Pimp Juice" and • Fucking ur with nude photos. EFTA01718648 12/11/2007 11:40 FAX la 012/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Awsiu December I I, 2007 Page 9 MI admitted to the Pan) that he entered the house unlawfully on numerous occasions, stealing cash and attempting to steal tipslein's licensed handgun to commit suicide. Although this information was known by Detective at the time the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit were prepared, an is c early material to any determination of credibility. it was omitted. was the source of the vast majority of the serious a egations ma e a mast ipstein. While the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit rely on numerous assertions. there are two significant problems with that reliance. Pintthere is no mention of certain critical admissions made .by, during her interview, as well as on her MySpace welmage (discovered by defense investigators and turned over to the State Attorney). Second. all but omitted from the Police Report is an • reference to the facts known about her • the P13PD. s that at the time was makin these assertions r. e take catch In turn. • Admits Volantaq Sexual Gt l.ct With Epstein, uses to otiose the Disposition of the Monies She Earned and Lies About Being "Ghat" a Car by Eau e/u: Detective dmission that on one tidied to include in the Police Report occasion she engaged in sexual conduct Epstein's girlfriend as her birthday - gill- to Epstein. Nor does Detective include the fact that Hall flatly refused to discuss with him the c is tosition of the thousands of diallers she said she was given by or that she falsely claimed that she did not use drugs. despite en, y.'puee entries in which she exclaims ni can't wait to buy some wtaxlmun- Detective was aware the car had been rented. not purchased. • my it was only leased on a monthly basis for two months. While bneiful claim Mai she was given a car appears in the Police elm.% it is never corrected. n response to this ante lanyard" (as the Probable Cause Affidavit implies at 10-I I), claiming she had knowledge of 'sexual activity taking place" at lipstein's residence and mistxmduct by Epstein. Otis -coming forward- i no where in the Police Report.) Thus. it becomes clear that assertions of misconduct by F. stein were motivate by a desire to avoid the repercussions of her which should have been taken into account w ten assessing ter ere ibility ns a witness. EFTA01718649 12/11/2007 11:40 FAX O013/099 R. Alexander Acosta December 11.2007 Page IC KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Investigation y pnvate investigators wor • mu or t ense res. t‘otreal/c\iiCII: • that in lute 200$. was em lo ed a Florida. Three days tiller her vas terminate was caught by a store manager as attempted to leave the store with merchandise in her purse, the security tag still attached. Seeing the manager. Mlaimed "someone is trying to set me tip". Following an internal iiinligation, which disclosed additional thefts from both the store and a customer, she was fired. In a recorded interview. udmitted to stealing and asserted that her reason for doing so was t at "she was not getting paid enough". This information and supporting documentation was presented to the PBPD. but was never included in the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. • Lies on MySpace About ernmia on. Also uncovered b di:tense investigators is dissembling version of the debacle on cr "MySpace" wchpage. There, met.• t at she ". . . Ibrgot to let everyone know I quit my jo at They said they suspected me of 'causing losses to their company' which by the way is bullshit. I was `by the book' on EVERYMING!!! . . . I got so fed up in that office that I handed the l.oss Prevention lady back my keys and walked our. This information and supporting documentation vats provided by the defense to the PBPO. but was not Included in the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. • Lies on her c Job Application. y pace we page CMS further doubt on her credibility. For example, she hoists to having engaged in a fraudulent scheme to get hired by explaining, 'VII, it t so funn • I used (my boyfheri, as one of my reit:rows for ntv job and the lady called me back and told me that gave me such an outstanding reference that she did not nee to ea anyone else back.... he got me the 'oh! Just like that . .. I lied and said he was the old stock manager at she bought it. .." This information and supporting documental on was provided by the defense to the PHPD, hut was nor included in the Police Report or Probable Causelaidavit. • Boast About Her Marijuana Use. Also on her MySpace webpagc can be found admissions of purchasin and using marijuana and marijuana pare ernalia. Specifically, ates she "can't wail to buy some weed!!! ... 1 can't wait!!! . . . o d on: mono in ()motion on EFTA01718650 12/11/2007 11:40 FAX Vh 014/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLF R. Alexander Acosta December I I. 2007 Page 11 let me say that again) I can't wait to buy some weed!!!.. . I also want to gel a vaporizer so I can smoke in my room because apparently there arc 'name everywhere". ilso posted a photograph of a marijuana cigarette and labeled it • w at heaven looks like to me". This information and supporting documentation was provichx1 by the defense to the PlIPD. Vas not included in the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit (although there is both a heeling reference in the Police Report to Hall's use of marijuana with her boyfriend (at 67) and in the Probable Cause Affidavit to (at IC- I I )). While the Police Re ort and Probable Cause Affidavit contain numerous assertions intended to negate aped. admission that she dead • told Epstein she was It omitted from t esc ocuments is reference to IvlySpacc wcbpage. presented to the State Attorney's Office. where in no connection to this case, she affirmative°. reinvented to the world that she was i6. thereby corroborating her lie to Epstein. any reference to her lone: history of run-ins with law e Tome • MySpacc Webpage Stales She Drinks, Uses Drugs, Gets into ran le, Has Beaten Someone Up, Shoplifts. Has Lost her Virginity, Earns $250,000 and Higher, and Contains Naked and Provocative Photographs. The lirst image seen on MySpace wetxige, the photo of a naked woman prov webpage also contains she "lovers' her ass". s he rm •s to excess. uses drugs, "gets into trouble", has beaten someone up. has shoplifted "lots". "already lost" her virginity. and earns "$250,000 and higher". As with the other impeaching information. this material, vital to detemining was provided by the defense to the riwn hut was never included in the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. ' chose to represent ter. is ;mg on the beach. The illuminating assertions that of nll her body pans. Prior Record — Drags, Alcohol, Running Away From Home. . has a history or running away/turning uj) missing from her parents various hoaxes; of using drugs and alcohol; and of associating with individuals of questionable judgment. For example, a Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Repon details how only two days alter she returned to Florida to live with her father. on March 31, 2006. police wore called to the home in response to her father's report that she and her twin sister were missing. 'Me Police Report describes her as "under the influence of a narcotic as lithe' could barely stand up. EFTA01718651 12/11/2007 11:41 FAX 015/098 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP It. Alexander Acosta December I I, 2007 Page I2 Uteri eyes were blood -I et. and Pier' pupils were diluted Vier. it further documents that and her sister had stayed out all night and were returned home a t rug dealer". This event coincided with having been found at an "Una riots: location" by Georgia po ice in response to a call idiom isappearentx:. Although this information, material to determining credibility. was pmvided by the defense and known to the PBPD. it was never included in the Police Report or l'robable Cause Affidavit. While the Police Re rt and W to C cnsc investigators • iscovere an tome( over to c PBPD during the cot : of the i my l firm, was omitted. • While the Police Affidavit rely on statements of omitted is state conviction or i enti y s information. uncovered by earrate investigators, was also turned over to the PBPD during the course of the investigation. Probable Cause D. In Linht Of The Compromised Nature Of The Evidence, A Fulsome Review Should Re Conducted. These tainted and inaccurate reports compromised the ledertil investigation' As you may know, the PBPD took the unprecedented and highly unethical step of releasing these reports to the media as well. These reports spread across the Internet, and were undoubtedly read by the other individuals who wen: later interviewed by the FBI for giving Mr. Epstein massages. As we have shown, these reports contain multiple fabrications, omissions, and outright misstatements of fact. Moreover, the evidence and the allegations were undeniably misrepresented to the FIB. with no inclusion of the evidence exposing the deficiencies of the "proof' and the exculpatory evidence upon which the State relied. Furthermore. it should be noted that many of these same individuals were also interviewed by the FBI after their state interviews but prior to Mr.. Epstein's counsel providing the government with the transcripts of the recorded interviews. The Although we have keen informed that the FBI identified and then intemiewed addition°, potential witnesces, many of their discoveries are believed to have emanated from massage pads cuntnining coigne' inroMUltiOn that were min-41nm Mr Luskin's home pursuant ton stale search %omit that was deeply and constitutionally flowed by misstatements and omissions as well as other facial 4eliciencies. EFTA01718652 12/11/2007 11:41 FAX GB 016/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLI' It. Alexander Acosta December I I, 2007 Page 13 transcripts and tapes, which we hope to share with you in person, will likely present a very different view of those interviews taken afterwards. Therefore. in the interest of truth. we ask you to review the transcripts. compare them to the FBI reports upon which the indictment was predicated. and then determine whether the FBI summaries and the prosecution memorandum upon which the charging decisions were made • overstate Mr. Epstein's federal culpability. Concomitant to these requests. we would ask that you determine whether the investigative team ever proVided these trustworthy tapes and transcripts to those in your Ofiiee who were being asked to authorize the prosecution so that they could themselves assess the reliability of the MN interview reports against a verbatim record of the same witness's prior statements. We believe that this request is Bair and would not be unduly burdensome. II. THE IMPROPER INVM.VEMF.NT AND CONDUCT OF FEDERAL IORITIES. As established above. the State's charging decision. of one count of the solicitation of prostitution, was hardly irrational or irreµular. Indeed. Lana Belohlavek. a Florida sex prosecutor for 13 years. concluded that the women in question were prostitutes and that "there arc no victims here.- There was no evidence of violenete force. drugs. alcohol, coercion or au abuse or a position of authority. Each and every one of the alleged 'victims" knew what to expect when they arrived at Mr. Epstein's house and each was paid for her services. In fact. Mr. Epstein's message book establishes that many of these women routinely scheduled massage sessions with Mr. Epstein themselves. without any prompting. Ms. Belohlavek also noted that many of these individuals worked either as exotic dancers or in one of then ge parlors dotted across West Palm Beach. Ms. Belohlavek also specifically stated that could not be trusted and was "only interested in money." She further found that it was nappropriate for Mr. Epstein to register as a sex offender because she did not believe that he constituted a threat to young girls and because registration had not been required in similar or even more serious cases. Ms. Mollie vak thought. and still believes, that the appropriate punishment is a term of probation. Yet. the government has devoted an extraordinary amount of its time and resouretz to prosecute Mr. Epstein for conduct the State believes amounts to a "sex for money- case. While we are loathe to singlu-out for criticism the conduct of any particular professional, we cannot escape the conclusion that the cumulative effect of the conduct of Assistant United States Attorney led your Office to take positions during the investigation and ne sotiation of this matter that has led to unprecedented Ibderal overreaching. In Incl. states " . . .the federal authorities inappropriately involved themselves to t e investigation y the state authorities and employed highly irregular and coercive tactics to override the judgment of state low eis authorities as to the appropriate disposition of their case against your client." See letter faxed to you on December 7. 2007. EFTA01718653 12/11/2007 11.:42 FAX 017/088 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 11, 2007 Page 14 A. The Petite Pellet Should Have Precluded Federal involvement. As you know, prior to negotiating the terms of (he Agreement. we requested that the government consider the Petite Policy and the problems associated with conducting a dual and successive prosecution. We stressed to your Office, on u number of occasions. that we had reached a final negotiated resolution with the Stale and were only being forced to postpone the execution of that agreement for the sake of the federal investigation. We made submissions and met with your Office to present analyses of the fact that federal prosecution in this matter was in direct conflict with the requirements of the Petite Policy. It was our contention, and remains our contention, that federal prosecutors had never intervened in a matter such as this one. And because them was no deficiency in the state criminal process that would otherwise require federal intervention, the express terms of the Petite Policy precluded federal prosecution regardless of the outcome at the state case. Since the slate investigation was thorough and in no way inadequate and the concerns implicated by the matter all involved local issues and areas of traditionally local concern. we urged your Office to contemplate whether a federal prosecution was appropriate. However, on August 3, 2007. Matthew Menehel rejected a proposed state plea which included that Mr. Epstein serve two years of supervised custody followed by two years of incarceration in a state prison, with the option of eliminating incarceration upon suctx=ful completion of the term of supervised custody. among other terms. Mr. Manche! stated that - the federal interest will not he vindicated in the absence of a two year term in state prison." Sea August 3.2007 letter. Such an articulation of the federal interest, we believe. misunderstands the Palle Policy on two grounds. First, the Office's position that the federal interest would not be vindicated in the absence of a jail term for Mr. Epstein. runs contrary to Section 9-2.03ID of the United States Attorney's Manual, because this section requires the federal prosecutor to focus exclusively on the quality or process of the prior prosecution. not the sentencing outcome. Second, the state plea agreement offered was not "manifestly inadequate" tinder U.S.A.M. § 9- 2.03ID. indeed, the only real difference hews= the state and federal plea proposals was whether Mr. Epstein served his sentence in jail or community quarantine. We formerly believed that our Petite Policy concerns were being addressed or, at least. preserved. hut we learned that only after reaching a final compromise with your Office as to the terms of the Agreement, and at the very last minute. that language regarding the Petite Policy was removed from the final version. The two following references to the Petite Policy had been included in the draft prosecution Agreements up until September 24. 2007. the day the Agreement was executed, at which point they were eliminated by your Office: IT APPEARING, alter an Met-mitigation of the offenses and Epstein 's background, that the interest orthe United Elates pursuant to the Mite policy will be served by the following procedure ... Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the state Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. lipsicin understands that it is his EFTA01718654 12/11/2007 11:42 FAX 0018/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December I I. 2007 Page 15 obligation to undertake discussion with the $tate Attorney's Office In ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest. pursuant to the Perire policy. We reiterate that this case was at heart a local matter that was being fully addressed by the state criminal justice system. The state process resulted in an appropriate resolution of this matter and would have vindicated any conceivable federal Interest. Thus, there was no. substantial federal interest that justified a federal prosecution. It has recently come to our attention that that the CROS chief stutements may be relevant to this mutter. While we welcome the opportunity to consider these statements. our extensive research had found only one federal action that was remotely sitnilar to the federal investigation for the prosecution of this matter. and that ease has since been distinguished as well. B. Ms. Prompted An Unduh• Invasive lInvestiention Of Mr. Epstein. Ms. s investigation of Mr. Lipstein raises serious questions. Despite the fact that she was mac aware of the inaccuracies in the P131'lis Probable Cause Affidavit, she chose to include t via in a document Ma) with the court knowing that the public could access it. Then. Ms. issued letters requesting documents whose subject matter have no relation to the allegations against Mr. ISpstein. Notably. affix we objected to these overt broad and intrusive requests. Deputy Chief Andrew Laurie denied knowledge of Ms. s actions and Mr Laurie commendably so t igni tiara ly narrow the list of documen requested. In a subsequent court filing, Ms. referred to our agreement to remove these items from her demand list as evidence of r. .pstein's -non-cooperation". 'Ibis was only the beginning. Ms. also subpoenaed an agent of Roy Black (without following the guidelines provided in tc nited States Attorney's Manual that require prior notification to Washington necessary to seek a I• t 'cords). We once more requested Mr. Louric to intervene. Despite these efforts. Ms. followed up with a subpoena fur Mr. linetein's confidential medical records served direct y on his chiropractor (with no notice to Mr. Epstein). Ms. also made the unusual request of asking the State Attorney's Office for some of the grand jury materials. She threatened to subpoena the State when she was informed that it was a violation of Florida law to reltxtse this information. After compiling this "evidence-. Ms. stated she would he initiating no investigation into per n violations of IS U.S. . § (again without the required prior DUI notification). Ms. then broadened the scope of the investigation without any foundation for doing so y adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money transmitting business to the investigation. Mr. F.pgein's counsel explained that there could be no basis for these charges since Mr. Epstein did not commit any prerequisite act for a money laundering charge and has never even been engaged in a money transmitting business. Ms. responded that Mr. Epstein could he charged under these statutes because he funded EFTA01718655 12/11/2007 11'42 FAX Z019/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 11,2007 Page 16 illegal activities. To suggest that Mr. Epstein could violate these statutes simply by spending his legally carnal money on prostitutes is manifestly an erroneous interpretation of the how. 'lb our relief, tiller briefing Matthew Menchel at a meeting regarding the spurious application of these statutes, we were told to ignore the laundry list and that defense counsels' locus should he turned to IS U.S.C. §2422(b). Once Mr. Epstein's counsel submitted and presented the reasons why a federal case would require stretching the relevant federal statutes beyond recognition, and that federal involvement in this matter should be precluded based on federalism concerns. the Petite Policy, and general principles or prosecutorial discretion. the parties commenced discussions an possible pica agreement. Around this time, we received an IIIIIII e-mail NM, Ms. SuggeStillg that she wanted to discuss the possibility of a concurrent federal and state reso talon. We were immediately informed by your Office that Ms. did not have the authority to make any such pica proposals and w u d not he invuly in any further negotiations of n plea. Despite this commitment. Ms. was the principle negotiator of the Agreement. At our meeting on September 7. sic made reference to an allegation against Mr. Epstein involving a 12 year old individual. This allegation is without merit and without Ibundation. Though your last letter suggests there was "no contact" between individuals in your Office and the press, we we • revi vtold by Mr. Londe that the FRI was receiving "information" specifically from . u . and not vice. versa. C. Mallneluded I Infair Terms in the Agreement, . Ms. took positi ' egotiating this matter that stmy from both stated policy and established law. First, Ms. insisted that as part of the federal plea agreement. the State Attorney's (Mica without 'mg s town new evidence, should be convinced to charge Mr. Epstein with violations of law and recommend a sentence that are significantly harsher than what the State deemed appropriate. In fact, the State Attorney viewed this matter as a straightforward prostitution case and believed that a term of probation was - and is - the appropriate senumee. At Ms. 's insistence, however, Mr. Epstein was forced to undertake the highly unusual and unprece wiled action of directing his debnse team to contract the State prosecutors themselves and ask for an upward departure in both his Indictment and sentence. There was no effort by the stare and federal prosecutors to coordinate the prosecutions. a practice which is against the tenets of the Pesky Policy. In our view, it is unprecedented to micro-manage each and every term of Mr. Epstein's State plea. including the exact state charges to which Mr Epstein plead guilty; the time-frame within which Mr. Epstein must enter that state plea and surrender to slate officials: and the amount of time he must spend in county jail. This is particularly true wh.ere the State EFTA01718656 12/11/2007 11:43 FAX it 020/099 KIRKLAND & ELLiS LLF R. Alexander Acosta December II, 2007 Page 17 Attorney's 011iec has a different view of the case and that has been no coordination with state authorities.6 In addition. Ms. wires that Mr. Epstein's sentence include a registerable offense. As you know, requiring sexual offender registration will have a significant impact both immediately and forever idler. This harsh term. which is said to be suggested by the FBi. was added despite the fact that the State believed that Mr. Epstein's conduct did not warrant any such registration. As yin( know, state officials have special expertise in deciding which offenders pose a threat to their community. Moreover, this demand places the state pmsecutors* credibility at issue and diminishes the force of sexual registration when it is applied to offenders who state prosecutors do not believe are dangerous or require registration. Ms. IM's decision not to permit the State Attorney to determine a matter uniquely within its province was unwarranted. What is more. when negotiating the selfitmaza portion of the Ageement. Ms. insisted that a civil settlement provision be included in the Agreement. namely, the inc usion of IS 2255, a negotiating term which is unprecedented in nature" While we were reluctant and cautious about a plea agreement in whit; a criminal defendant gives up certain rights to contest liability for a civil settlement. Ms. s ultimatums required that we acqui e aese unprecedented terms. For instance. w n p ea discussion stalled as a result of Ms. 's demands, Mr. Lipstein's counsel received a letter from her slating as it "now appears you will not settle." Al this point. Ms. expressed her intention to re-launch the government's previously sct aside money laundering investigation. She also issued a rash of subpoenas and sent target letters to Mr. Epstein's employees. adding new ledend charges including obstruction of justice. She then personally called Mr. Epstein's largest and most valued business client without any basis to inform him of the investigation. In an attempt to prevent further persecution and intimidation tactics. we proposed that Mr. Epstein establish a restitution fund specifically far the settlement of the identified individuals' civil claims and that an impartial, independent representative be appointed to administer that fund. There was no dollar amount limit discussed for the fund. hut the idea was still rejected. We then pointed out that the state charges to which' Mr. Epstein was lie plead guilty tuned with it a state restitution provision that would allow "victims" to recover damages. Ms. however, rejected this idea and suggested requiring a guardian ad 'item. implying that '1 When asked whether De amen( (trim:lice polices regarding coordination with state authorities had been followed, Mx. ,cave no response other than Mating, "it is none of your concern.- 7 ht nut, . a former deputy toIMI I, has stated that she knew of no other case like this being prosecute by CEOS. With that in mind, we we come the opportunity to review the extensive research that CEOS has done. ax indicated by your Office. EFTA01718657 12/11/2007 11:43 FAX 021/1199 'KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP It. Alexander Acosta December I I, 2007 Page 18 the alleged "victims" in question were currently minors and needed special representation. We later learned that the government's list of individuals included a woman as old as twenty-four, which flies in the face of prior representations (it should be noted that any person who is currently twenty four years old or older could not have n a "victim" under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. even if the conduct occurred in 2001). At Ms. is insi •trice, the parties ultimately agreed to the appointment of an attorney representative. but M then took the position that Mr. lipstein should pay for the representative's fees, wine effectively meant that Mr. Epstein muss pay to sue himself:8 Ms. also proposed wholly irrelevant charges such as making obscene phone calls and vieviolations of child privacy laws. When Mr. Lourie learned of these proposed charges he asked Mr. Epstein's defense team to ignore them as they would "embarrass the Office." h. Ms. Continually And Purposefully Misinterpreted The Critical Terms of the Agreement. Since the execution of the Agreement. Ms. has repeatedly misconstrued the terms contained therein. As you know. several facets of this matter have been highly contested by the panics. We sometimes have obtained two competing views as to your willingness to compromise on specific issues that we have raised with your Mice. In particular. them are times w m we have received verbal agreement from you or your stalT(and sometimes from Ms. hermit) on a particular issue, only to subsequently receive a contradictory interpretation FM111 Ms. Villafana that negates our prior common understanding. I ler misinterpretations appear to be attempts to effectively change the spirit and the meaning of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. We offer several examples of significant misinterpretations. First. despite the fact that we received several commitments from your (Mice that it would monitor Mr. Epstein' s -ntencing but not interfere with it in any way. Ms. sought to do just that. Ms. s decision to utilize a civil remedy statute in the p ace rt a restitution fund for the allege victims eliminates the notilication requirement under the Justice for All Act of 2004. a federal law that requires federal authorities to notify victims as to any available restitution, not of any potential civil remedies, to which they are entitled. Despite this "S ri fact, Ms. proposed a Victims Notification letter to be sent to the alleged iixlcral victims. s. has gone even further, alleging that the —victims" may snake written statements or testify against Mr. Epstein at the sentencing. We find no basis in law or the Agreement that provides the identified individuals with either a right to appear at Mr. Epstein's plea and sentence or to submit a written statement to he filed by the State Attorney. Here. Mr. 'Ibis arrangement does not put these aliened "victims" in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial in fact. they are much Ismer alt EFTA01718658 12/11/2007 11:44 FAX 022/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December I I. 2007 Page 19 Epstein is pleading guilty to. and being sentenced rm. state offenses. not the redend offenses under which the government has unilaterally recognized these identified individuals as "victims". The notion that individuals whose names are not even known to the churning prosecutor in a state action should somehow be allowed to speak al a proceeding is unjustifiable. Furthermore. only after obtaining the executed Agreement did MS. I. begin e insisting that the selected mprese lave duties go beyond settlement and inc u elitigating claims for individuals. In Ms. s Victims Notification letter, she slates that Mr. l'odhurst and Mr. Josefsberg, the selected attorney representatives. may "repreatnt" the identified individuals. This language assumes that the selected representatives will agree to serve in the capacity envisioned by Ms. • which is patently incorrect. Yet, neglecting the spirit of the negotiations: neglecting t e terms of the t: and neglecting commonly-held principles of ethics with respect to conflicts, Ms. continues to improperly emphasize that the chosen attorney representative should be able to litigate the claims of individuals. In a similar fashion. Ms. liability pursuant to the Agreement. Ms. liability even when claims with the identified individuals arc not settled just after the execution of the Agreement. Despite the fact that at that time. we obtained an agreement from you that Mr. P.pstein's waiver would not stretch past settlement. Ms. Es continues to espouse this erroneous interpretation. rstated the scope of Mr. lipstein's waiver of began asserting that Mr. Epstein has waived E. aslIS and The Settlement Process. We are concerned that Ms. Villalitna has repeatedly attempted to manipulate the process under which Mr. E astein has a reed to settle civil claims. First. she inappropriately attem ted to nominate . for prose despite the fact that Mr. has a longstanding relationship with Ms. r rns out to be a very got personal friend and law school classmate of i. a fact she assiduously kept hidden mean counsel. We also learned from Ms. that she shared with the summary of charges the government was considering against Mr. Epstein. Even after your Orrice conceded that it was inappmpriatc tor is attorneys to select the attorney representative. Ms. Villafana co • ued to lobby for Mr. appointment. On October 19. 2007, retired who was appoint y t parties to select the attune re resentative. an ormt. r. • stem' •counsel that he received a telephone call from Mr. directly requesting that appoint him as the *attorney representative in this matter. Furthermore. recieral interference continues to plague the integrity or the implementation of the Agreement. We recently learned that despite the fact that there was no communication between state and federal authorities as to the investigation of Mr. Epstein. the FBI visited the State Attorney's (Alice two weeks ago to request that Mr. Epstein he disqualified to participate in work release even though the Agreement mandates that Mr. Epstein he treated as any other inmate. EFTA01718659 12/11/2007 11:44 FAX VI 023/099 KiRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 11. 2007 Page 20 HI. CONCLUSION In sum, we request that you review the evidence supporting the prosecution of Mr. Epstein. Such a review would serve to address similar concerns as those raised in lin* v. Maryland. which mandate the disclosure of evidence material to guilt or innocence even after the execution Oran Agreement to enter a plea of guilty. Sett 373 U.S. 33 0963). We believe that the "prosecution team" was informed by ifs witnesses (including persons other than and who are discussed at length above) that Mr. Epstein's practice was to seek wom rather than targeting those under IS. We would expect, for instance, that a key witness whose interview with the FBI was recorded, would have provided sue exonerating information ar well as many others. We would also expect the review to uncover clear evidence that demonstrates that Mr, Epstein did not travel to Florida for the purpose of having illegal underage sex nor that he induced underage women by using the Internet or the phones. Furthermore. we ask you to consider whether there is reliable evidence not just that mr. Epstein had sexual contact with witnesses who were in fact underage hut whether the allegations arc based on trustworthy (and cormIxmitcd) evidence that (i) Mr. Epstein knew that the fonale(s) in question was under IR at the time of the sexual contact. (ii) Mr. Epstein traveled to his home in Palm Beach for the purpose of having such sexual contact to the extent the allegation charges o violation of IA U.S.C:. § 2423(h) and (c) Mr. P.pstein induced such sexual contact by using an Monumentality of interstate commerce to the extent the allegations charge a violation of IS U.S.C. *2422(b) (there is no evidence of Internet solicitation which is the norm upon which federal jurisdiction is usually modeled under this statute). We believe that the information we provide to you in this submission will lie informative and spark a motivation to gain more . information with respect to the investigation of this matter. Again, we are not seeking to unwind the Agreement: we arc only seeking for you to exercise your discretion in directing that an impartial and respected member of your Office test the evidence upon which the droll federal indictment was based against the "best evidence." including the transcripts of the tape recorded pro-694081 involvement interviews. Finally. I would like to reiterate our appreciation fur the opportunity you have pmvided to review some of our issues and concerns. 1 look forward to speaking with you shortly. Sincerely. 7 apP. Eefkot EFTA01718660 12/11/2007 11:44 FAX Ij024/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Jay P. Lellicwai. P.0 ro Ily: VIA FACSIMILE...I limitable it Alexander Acosta United States Attorney United Sates Attorney's Office Southern Di. trio of Florida iamt, I 1 3132 Dear Alex. ANU All1IJAIth PAA1,1O1A1111, Nuw York, Now Ycnk 10027-4611 WWW.kithillrld.com December I I. 2007 Re: bleilkey &Nth: S C r i u n l l o : I thank you 11w the opportunity to express my concerns with the Section 2255 component of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement-1 I pmvide this submission as a good faith effort to communicate all of our concerns on this matter. I respectfully request that you consider the issues I discuss below in conjunction with the ethics opinion of Mr. Joe D. Whitley that rased to your ()nice on December 7. Backeroond of Negotiations I believe it is important fir you to be aware of the full scope and substance of our communications with your Office with respect to first, the negotiations regarding the inclusion of the Section 2255 component and second. the process of implementation of its terms. Contrary to your Office's view. we do not raise our concerns about the Section 7253 component of the Agreement at the -eleventh hour." Since the very first negotiation of the Non-Pmsecution Agreement between the USA() and Mr. Epstein. we have verbalized our objections to the inclusion of and specific language relating to Section 2255. Also. when negotiating the settlement portion of the federal plea agreement. we immediately sought an alternative to the 2255 language. In thct, for the sake of expediting any monetary settlements that wen: to he made and to allow for a quick resolution of the matter. we repeatedly ollboxl that Mr. Epstein establish a restitution fund specifically for the settlement of tlx: identified individuals' civil claims and that an impartial, independent representative be appointed to administer that Ibid. This option. however, was rejected by your thrice. Notably, while in our December 4 letter to me. you indicate that the reason for the rejection or a fund was because it would place an upper limit on Chiongo Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, D.C. EFTA01718661 12/11/2007 11:45 FAX @j 025/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta l)ecember I I. 2007 Page 2 the victims' recovery. we placed no such limit on the amount that the alleged victims could recover. Our objections regarding the Section 2255 component of the Agreement began as curly as August 2 when, after receiving the USAO's proposed Non-Prosecution Agreement, we suggested that the 2255 component of the Agreement could be satisfied by the creation of a restitution fund: .. .Mr. F.pstein is prepared to hilly fund the identified group of victims which are the focus or the Office — Ong is. the 12 individuals noted at the nnieting on July 31. 2007. This would allow the victims to be able to promptly put fifis behind them and go fa:tills with their lives. If given the Opportunity to opine as to the appmpriateness or Mr. F.pstein'it proposal. in my extensive experience in these types el' cases. the victims prefer a quick mutation with etimpensation for damages and will always support any disposition lieu eliminates the need Mr trial. See letter from Lily Ann Sanchez to Chief Matthew Menehel dated August 2, 2007.1 For the duration or the negotiations, we then continued to encourage the Me of a restitution fund in place or civil liability under Section 2255. For example. in our draft plea agreement sent to your Office on September 16, 2007. we included the Ibllowine paragraph: Epstein ;Trees to fund a Trot set up in concert with the Otivermimul and under the supervision of the 1511' Judicial Circuit in and for Palm (teach County. Epstein agnms that a Trustee will be appointed by the Circuit Coon and that funds front the Ting will be available to he disbursed at the Trustee's discretion to un agreed list of ruinous who seek reimbursement and make a good Ihilb showing to the Trustee Met they suffered injury as a result of the conduct of Epstein. Epstein waives his right to contest liability ur damages up to an amount agreed to by the punks for any settlements entered into by the Tru.stee. Epstein's waiver is not to he construed as an admission or civil or criminal liability in regards to any of those who seek I. pensalion from the Trust. See draft proposal sent from Jay Lerkowitz to Andrew I.ourie doted September 15. 2007." In response, Ms. Villarana demanded that the Agreement contain language considering the inclusion of a guardian ad limn in the proceedings. despite the Fact that. we arc now led to believe that all but one of the women in question are in fact not minors. Interestingly. Ms. Villalbna not only raises the same concerns that now have become issues with respect to the implementation or the Section 2255 component, she also believes that the creation or a trust would be in the victims hest interests. Villarana writes: It was not mail after nmeipt of this letter that Mr. Menthe' indicated to us that the scope of liability would encompass nut just the 12 individuals named 'tithe indictment, but "all of the minor girls identified during the federal investigation." See Menchel e-mail to Sanchez dated August 3, 2007. EFTA01718662 12/11/2007 11:45 FAX id) 028/09S KIRKLAND 8, ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December II, 2007 Page 3 As I mcnlioncd over the telephone. 1 cannot bind 11w girls to the Trust Agreement. and I don't think it is appropriate that a state court would administer u must that seeks to pay fin lbdemleivil claims. We both want to avoid unrcrupdous attarmv undone lirip,atus from contIngfurward. and 1 know that .wur client wanix to keep these miters /onside cfpublle court filingv, but I just don't have the power m do what you ask. Here is my recommendation. During the period between Mr. Epstein 's pin and sentencing. I make a motion for appointment or the Guardian Ad Litem. Tlw three of us sit down and discuss things, and / x111 fitedthae its much as / can getting the girls' apprmwl of this pmeedure because. as I Maalamit Ihia It At probably in dome best tmerests. In terms of plen agreement language, let me suggest the Ibllowing: The tinned Stales agrees to make a motion seeking the appointment of a Guardian ad Ulm to nmresent the identified victims. Following the oppniniment of such Guardian, the panics agree to work together in good faith to develop a Trust Agreement, subject to the Court's approval. that would provide tier any damages owed to the identifies' victims pursuant in IN U.S.C. Section 2255. Then include the lust two sentences of your paragraph it. See email from Villafana to Letkowith dated September 16. 2007 (emphasis added). I lowever. notably. in the draft agreement that follows. Ms. Villathna keeps the same objectionable language and only adds a portion or what was suggested in her communication to us: Epstein agrees that. if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant m IS U.S.C. § 2255. Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Corm fur the Southern District of Florida over his person andfor the subject matter, and Epstein will not comma that the identified victims are persons who. while minors,. were victims of violations or Title 18, United Stores Code, Sections(s) 2422 and/or 2423. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of the identified victims, which will not exceed forty. alter Epstein has signed this agreement and has been sentenced. The United States shall make a motion with the United States District Court lbr the Southern District of Florida fur the appointment of a guardian ud !item for the identified victims and Epstein 's counsel may contact the 'dignified victims through that counsel. See draft non-prosecution agreement c-mailed from Villafana to Lclkowitz dated September It 2007. The inclusion of a guardian ad liumt. however, only served to complicate matters. We continued to reiterate our objections to the inclusion of 2255 in the Agreement repeatedly. as evidenced in an email from Ms. Villafana to myself on September 23. 2005 where she writes: "we have been over paragraph 6 jthe then relevant 2255 paragraph I an infinite number of times." During negotiatioms, it was decided that an attorney representative be appointed in the place of a guardian ad litem — not for the sake of litigating claims. but based on the belief that a guardian ad litem would not be appropriate ibr adults that are capable of making their own decisions. I lowever. the IlSAD included into the Agreement that we pay for the attorney representative — when originally Ms. Villalana stated that 11w representative could be paid for by us or the federal court. See c-mail from Villafana to Lclkowitz doted September 23. 2007. EFTA01718663 12/11/2007 11:45 FAX ct 027/099 KIRICLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 11, 2007 Page 4 The final agreement was very similar to what was proposed by Ms. V illatima in her initial draft agreement on July 31. 2007: The United States shun provide Epstein's attorney's with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, us defined in 18 U.S.C. r_55. alter Epstein has signed this agreement and has been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement. the United States. In consultation with itml subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons. who shall be 'mid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. If any of the individuals referred to in parapoph 171. SnPra• elects to Ilk suitpaxsaani to IS U.S.C. § 2255. Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction oath United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over this person anchor the subject matter. and Epstein waives his right lo conlesl liability and also waives his right to contest damages tip to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and EgSlnin, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under IS U.S.C. § 2255. and agrees to waive any other claim for damages. whether pursuant ro slate. federal. or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver. as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United SUM, Epstein', signature on Ibis agreement. his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to ho construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. See final plea agreement. The Agreement requires Mr. Epstein to waive jurisdiction and liability tender 18 U.S.C. §2255 for the settlement of any monetary claims that might be made by alleged victims identified by the USAO (the -identified individuals"). Mr. litestein is precluded from contesting liability as to civil lawsuits seeking monetary compensation for damages for those identified individuals who elect to settle the civil claims for the statutory minimum of either $50,000 (the amount set by Congress as of the date of the occurrences) or $150,000 (the amount currently set by stature) or some other agreed upon damage amount. Mr. Epstein must pay for the services of the selected atiorney representative as long as they are limited to settling the claims of the identified individuals. The implementation of the terms of the Agreement was just as contentious as was the drafting and negotiation this portion or the Agreement. The first major obstacle was a direct result of Ms. Villafana's improper attempt to appoint. Mr. a close, person friend of her MI for the role of attorney representative. We o pele in the strongest terms to such an appointment due to our serious concerns regarding the lack of independence of this and the appearance of impropriety caused by this choice. As n result, the LIMO drafted an addendum to the Agreement. This addendum provides for the use of an independent third party to select the attorney representative and also specifies that Mr. Epstein is not obligated to pay the cost of litigation against him. Upon the decision that we would appoint an independent party to choose the attorney representative. we were engaged in consistent and constant dialogue with your staff as in the precise language that would he transmitted In the independent party to explain his or role. EFTA01718664 12/11/2007 11:46 FAX x028/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 11.2007 Page 5 At each juncture. the inclusion of a civil remedy in the Agreement has resulted in unending debates and disagreements with respect to the appropriate manner in which to implement the tents of the Section 2255 component. The main issues that have arisen since the drafting and execution of the final agreement include the process for the selection of an attorney representative: the scope of Mr. Epstein's waiver of liability and jurisdiction; the role of the attorney representative; the language contained in various drafts of the letter to the independent third puny; the correct amount of minimum damages pursuant to Section 2255; the extent and substance of communications between the witnesses and alleged victims and re USA° and the FBI. particularly with respect to the settlemcm process: the language contained In tlx: letters proposed to be sent to the alleged victims; and the extent of continued federal involvement in the state procedures of Mr. Epstein's state plea and sentence. Notably, neither Section 2255. nor any oilier civil remedy statute, has been used as a pre- requisite to criminal plea agreement and it is clear that the use of these terms creates unanticipated issues. Furthermore. the waiver of rights of which the USA() insisted is also not a traditional aspect of criminal resolutions. While we were reluctant and cautious about a Non- Prosecution Agreement in which a 'criminal defendant gives up certain rights to contest liability for a civil settlement, we did not believe there was room ror contention given the USAO's, and specifically, Ms. Villafana's ultimatums that required that we acquiesce to these unprecedented terms. Concerns Retarding Section 2255 Mr Epstein unconditionally re-asserts his intention to fulfill and not seek to withdraw from or unwind the Agreement previously entered. Ile raises important issues regarding the implementation or the 2255 provisions not to unwind the provisions or invalidate the Agreement but instead to cull attention to serious matters of policy and principles that you are requested to review. As you will see below our main policy-related concerns are (I) the Inclusion of Section 2255. a civil remedies statutes in a criminal plea agreement, (2) the blanket waiver of jurisdiction and liability as to certain unidentified individuals to whose claims the government has asserted they take no position, and (3) any communications between federal authorities, including your staff and the Frit and witnesses and alleged victims and the nature of such communications. With respect to the interpretation of the terms of the Agreement, we do not agree with your Oftice's interpretation of the expansive scope of Mr. Epstein's agreement to waive liability and jurisdiction. Nor do we agree with your Office's view or the expansive role of the attorney representative. Below. I describe first, the policy implications and the practical problems that these terms have created or will create. Second. I describe points or contention us to the interpretation of various terms of the Section 2255 component of the Agreement. EFTA01718665 12/11/2007 11:46 FAX ch 0 2 9/ 0 BEI KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December II, 2007 Page 6 1. Policy Considerations The inclusion of Section 2255 in a criminal plea agreement is unprecedented and raises significant policy-related concerns. Some of thew issues can create and have created problems as to the ability of this component to (1) maintain the integrity and independence of the USAO, (2) serve its purpose, namely to provide Mr and appropriate recovery to any victims in a prompt fashion, and (3) protect the rights of the defendant. While we appreciate your consideration of our concerns described below. we are also confident that your commitment to justice and integrity will cause you to consider any additional policy nod ethical issues that the Section 2255 component raises. A. Government Involvement • The inclusion or Section 2255. a purely civil remedy. raises the risk of excessive government interference in private, civil matters. As Mr. Whitley states in his ;minion. . . .unnecessary entanglement of the government in such cases and the use of federal resources could improperly influence such cases and create the appearance of impropriety." it is well established that the government should refrain from getting involved in lawsuits. I lowever, to include Section 2255 in a federal agreement inherently exacerbates the risk of federal involvement in civil litigation and thus fan in practice, the inclusion of this statute. as opposed to the creation of a restitution fund, has resulted in continued federal involvement in this matter. Federal criminal investigators and prosecutors should not be in the business of helping alleged victims of state crimes secure civil financial settlements us a condition precedent to entering non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements. 'Ibis is especially true where tlx: defendant is pleading to state crimes for which there exists a state statute allowing victims to recover damages. See Florida Statutes § 796.09. The fact that state law accounts for the ability of victims to recover truly eliminates the need for a waiver of liability under a federal statute. Furthermore. the vehicle for the linancial settlement under the Agreement requires restitution in a lump sum without requiring proof of actual injury or loss federal authorities should therefore be particularly sensitive to avoid causing a prejudiced and unfair result. Section 2255 is a civil stature implanted in the criminal code that in contrast to all other criminal restitution statutes fails to correlate payments to specific injuries or losses and instead presumes that victims under the statute have sustained damages of at least a minimum lump sum without regard to whether the complainants stiffened actual medical, psychological or other fortns of individualized Kann. We presume that it is liar this reason that Section 2255 has never before been employed in this manner in connection with a non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreement. EFTA01718666 12/11/2007 11:41 FAX O030/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December I I. 2007 Page 7 Mr. Epstein's blanket waiver of liability as to civil claims gives the appearance of impropriety. While your Office has. on several occasions. asserted that they take no position as to the claims of the individuals it identifies as "victims." the fact that thercontinue to promote the award of a civil settlement to these individuals is problematic. As you know. government contracts and plea agreement must not diminish or undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system. See U.S. v. McGovern. 822 F.2d 730. 743 (8th Cir. 1987) ("A plea agreement. however, is not simply a contract between two parties. It necessarily implicates the integrity of the criminal justice system and requires the courts to exercise judicial authority in considering the plea agreement and in accepting or rejecting the plea."). The requirement that Mr. Epstein blindly sacrifice his rights, as a civil litigant. to contest allegations made against him seem to contradict the principles of justice and fairness that arc embedded in the tenets of the Mitts! States Attorney's Office. I also assert that cm both a* principled and practical level, the mere involvement of your Office in the matter with respect to civil settlement is inappropriate. Even though we understood from you that federal involvement in this matter would cease after the attorney representative was selected, your Office continues to assert their obligation to he in contact with the alleged victims in thiS matter. Had we agreed to a restitution fund for the victims instead of the civil remedies provision, we would not have objected to your Office's communications with then individuals. TTnwever. because the alleged victims have the ahi lily to recover damages based on a civil claim pursuant to the Agreement, we are concerned with your Office's ongoing efforts to stay involved in this matter. Contact with federal authorities at this point can only invite the possibility for impermissible or partial communications. Most recently, your Office sent us drafts of a letter that your Office proposed to send to the alleged victims (the "victim notification letter"). While the revised draft of this letter states that victims should contact the State Attorney's Office for assistance with their rights. Rae is no phone number provided for the office and instead. the letter provides the telephone number and an invitation to contact Special Agent Nesbitt Kttyrkendall of the FBI. Indeed, the letter as currently dratted invites not only contact between your Office and the victims. it also asserts that federal witnesses may become participants in a slate proceeding, thus federalizing the state plea and sentencing in the same manner as would the appearance and statements of a member of your Office or the 1131.2 We arc concerned with the fact that seine of the victims were previously notified, as Mr. Jeffrey Montan stales in his letter or December 6 littler. In your letter of Ixecmher 4. you state that you would not issue the Victim Notification 1.i:tier until Deo:tither 7. 'tints. it is troubling to learn that some victims were notified prior to that date. Please mann when the victims were notified, who was notified. the method oleoininunication for the notification, and the individual who notified them. EFTA01718667 12/11/2007 11:47 FAX 0031/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP K. Alexander Acosta December 11,2007 Page 8 The proposed victim notification letter asserts that the federal 'victims' have the right to appear at Mr. Epstein's plea and sentence or to submit a written statement to be filed by the State Attorney. However, as agreed to in the federal non-prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein will be pleading to mile charges and he will be sentenced for the commission of .crate offenses. The 'victims' the govenunestt identities relate only to the federal charges for which Mr. Epstein was under investigation. The draft victim notification letter cites Florida Statutes § 960.001(k) and 921.143(1) as the authority for allowing the alleged victims to appear or give statements. however these provisions apply only in -the victim of the crime lbr which the defendant is being sentenced . . Thus Florida low only aflbrds victims of slate crimes to appear or submit statements in criminal proceedings and the state charges for which Mr. Epstein will be sentenced are not coextensive with the thderal investigation. Further. any questions at this point involving the charges against Mr. Epstein or the proper state procedures under which he will plead or be sentenced are appropriately made to the State Attorney's Office. Continued federal involvement in this matter has led to an impropriety that trots unanticipated u.s well. Ms. Villafana aneinptcd to manipulate the terms of Mr. Epstein's settlement so that persons close to her would personally profit. Ms. Villafana inappropriately attempted to nominate gl= for attorney representative. des me the fact that Mr.d. turns out to be a very go personal friend of Ms. Vitt:Mina's • a fact she asst ous y ffIi tiden from counsel. We requested alternate choices imme late y. hut were told that Mr. had been informed of the charges the government would bring against Epstein and in response. he asked in an e-mail whether his fees would be capped. Needless to say. we were Manned that Ms. Villafana would attempt to influence the settlement process on such improper grounds. And even alter the 1.1SAO conceded that it was inappropriate lbr its attorneys to select the attorney representative. Ms. Villafana continued to im ro rly lobby for Mr. appointment. On October 19, 2007, retinal , who was appoints y t parties to select the attoisipresentative. in orme r. .. stems counsel that he received a telephone call front Mr. directly requesting that a rot him as the attorne representative in this matter. Although it is unclear how Mr. even knows that i i , has been chosen to administer the settlement process. it can only be understood as s. i a :ma's attempts to compromise the fairness of the settlement process. 13. integrity of the Process and the Legitimacy of the Claims The waiver of liability Mr. Epstein must make in relation to Section 2255 endangers the legitimacy of the claims made by the alleged victims. There is a heightened risk that the alleged victims will make false and exaggerated claims once they are intbrmed of Mr. Epstein's waiver under Section 2255 for the settlement of claims pursuant to the Agreement. indeed. Mr. Whitley states. " . . .the Department (of Justice) should consider developing processes and procedures to ensure that the investigative process is insulated from such risks." it is also well settled that witnesses cannot he given any special treatment due to the fact that it may affect the reliability of EFTA01718668 12/11/2007 11:47 FAX el 0 32 / 09 9 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 11. 2007 Page 9 their testimony. Any and ull communications between the federal authorities and the alleged "victims" and witnesses in this matter has the ability to influence the reliability of the testimony obtained and the validity of the civil settlements that result. Thus. there is still a real concern that some of the statements that federal prosecutors relied upon in its prosecution of this mailer may have been tainted. An inquiry is required to confirm that at the time witness statements were given, there were no communications made by federal agents regarding potential civil remedies. The government should not provide promises of guaranteed monetary settlements to encourage cooperation because they run the risk of seriously tainting the reliability of witness statements. While we by no means are accusing your Office of making improper communications at this point the filet that the award of a civil settlement without any requirement to prove liability, is available to the identified individuals, raises cause for concern us to the nature of all communications that are made to the 'victims.' You previously stated that the USAO's main objective with respect to the Section 2255 component of the Agreement was to "placc.the victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial." However, to accomplish this goal, your Office rejected using traditional terms that allow for the restitution of victims. Instead. your Office chose to insert itself into the negotiations. settlement, and potential litigation of a civil suit. With all due respect we object to your Office's attempt to make the victims whole by requiring that Mr. Epstein deprive himself of rights accorded to him as a potential civil defendant. While we arc aware. one of the responsibilities of your Office is to provide for restitution for victims of crimes, this does not give the government the responsibility to enable alleged victims to collect a civil settlement. Despite this concern, it should also be noted that, the Agreement. both as written and as interpreted by your Office significantly enlarges the victims' ability to recover from Mr. Lipstein. For instance, if the individuals attempted to litigate against Mr. Epstein_ they would have been determined to be victims only after a lengthy trial, in which they would have been thoroughly deposed. their credibility tested and their statements subject to cross-examination. The defendant, under these circumstances, would not have had pay the plaintiffs' legal fees. Moreover, these individuals would face significant evidentiary hurdles, unwanted publicity, and most importantly. no certainty of success on the merits. Therefore. the notion that your Office is merely attempting to restore these - victims" to the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial misunderstands the Agreement and your Offices implementation of its terms. C. Rights of a Defendant Requiring Mr. Epstein to make a blanket waiver of liability and jurisdiction as to unidentified victims whose claims to which the government takes no position can be construed as EFTA01718669 12/11/2007 11:48 FAX a 033/099 KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP K. Alexander Acosta December 11.2007 Page 10 violative of his Due Process rights. Funhermore. the thet that the statute at issue in this matter does not connect harm to the minimum amount available to the victim and simply includes a lump sum exacerbates the potential for injustice and an abridgement of Mr. lipstein's rights. At the very least. Mr. Epstein should be given. the right to know the identity of the victims and the evidence upon which each one was identified as a victim by the government. The USAO has provided no information us to the specific claims that were made by each identified individual, nor were we given the names or ages of the individuals or the time frame of the alleged conduct at issue. The USAO's reluctance to provide Mr. Epstein with any information regarding the allegations against him leaves wide open the opportunity Ibr misconduct by the federal investigators and eliminates the ability lbr Mr. Epstein and/or his agents to verily that the allegations at issue are grounded in factual assertions and real evidence. Indeed, the requirement that a target of federal criminal prosecution agree to waive his right to contest liability as to unnamed civil complainants creates at minimum an cite: rums of injustice, both because of the obvious Due Process concerns of waiving rights without notice of even the identity of the complainant and because of the involvement anise federal criminal justice system in civil settlements between private individuals. We reaffirm the right to test the veracity of the victims' claims as provided to us in the letter from you to Judge Davis dated October 25. 2007. II has recently wine to our attention that you staff has identified as a "victim" for purposes of Section 2255 relict Ms. who initially repeate y refused to cooperate with federal authorities during the course of t the investigation, only submitted to an interview after she was conferred with a grunt of immunity. &wet this is not a demand typically ii ri made by someone who is a crime ' e rn". Moreover, Ms. sworn testimony does not suggest that she is a victim. Ms. has not only admitte tat she lied to Mr. Epstein about her age claiming she was 18 years old. but that she counseled others to lie to Mr. Epstein in the same manner. Ms. also states that Mr. Epstein was clear with her that he was only interested in "women w to were of age and that most of the youn . women she brought to his home were indeed over IX years ant. Moreover. while Ms. claims to have provided mita-sages to Mr. Epstein. she does not allege to have engaged in sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein: does not claim she provided him with oral sex: does not purport that Mr. Epstein penetrated her in any manner. denies Mr. Epstein ever used a vibrator, massager. or any type of "sex toy" on her: denies he touched her breasts. buttocks, or vagina; and states that she never touched Mr. Epstein's sexual organs — nor c asked to du so by Mr. Epstein. Without a right to contest the liability of claims. Ms. will likely receive Ihr more in civil damages than what would he she would have had Mr. spstein been convicted. In addition, the Agreement with the MAO only defers federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein: it does not assert a declination to prosecute. as was lirst contemplated in the negotiation of the Agreement. Any payments made and/or settlement agreements reached with the alleged EFTA01718670 12/11/2007' 11:48 FAX 034/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLI' It. Alexander Acosta December 11. 3007 Page II victims prior to the foreclosure or any future federal prosecution carries the potential of being used as evidence against Mr. Epstein. Thus. to protect his rights as a defendant. Mr. Epstein should nut be required to pay any of the alleged victims until after the threat of prosecution no longer exists. II. Misinterpretations of the Agreement The contentiousness caused by the implementation of the Section 2255 portion of the Agreement has also been caused by what we believe are misinterpretations oflhe terms by your alike. These problems, which I describe below. are a practical outgrowth of the fact that civil settlement. as opposed to restitution. is considered in the Agreement, A. Rule of the Attorney Representative The IJSAO has improperly emphasised that the chosen Bonney representative should be able to litigate the claims of individuals, which violates the terms, and deeply infringes upon the spirit and nature of. the Agreement. I owever. after the panics agreed to the appointment of an independent third puny to select the representative, the government announced that the criteria for choosing an appropriate attorney representative would include that they be "a plaintiff's lawyer capable of handling multiple lawsuits against high profile attorneys." 'This interpretation of the scope of the attorney representative's role is liar outside the common understanding (hat existed when we negotiated Mr. Epstein's settlement with the IJSAO. Moreover, we have made the USA() aware of the potential ethical problems that would arise should the selected representative be allowed to litigate and settle various claims against Mr. Epstein. The initial draft victim notification letter contained Ian un e that confirmed your Office's interpretation and indicates! that Mr. and Mr. , the selected attorney representatives. may "represent- the identified individuals. This language assumes that the selected representatives will agree to serve in the capacity envisioned by the IJSAO. which we believe is patently incorrect. To suggest this notion in a letter to victims who have limited or no knowledge of the ethical principles at issue will only lead to confiesion, misunderstanding and disappointment among the identified individuals when they learn that such representation is foreclosed. B. SWIM of Mr. lrpstein•s Waiver Your Office has taken the position that Mr. Epstein waives liability beyond the settlement of claims and that he will waive liability even in lawsuits brought by thc identified individuals. however, this overstates the scope of Mr. Epstein's waiver pursuant to the Agreement. Mr. Epstein has only agreed that he will waive the right to contest liability and jurisdiction for the purpose of settling claims with the alleged victims pursuant to Sections 7 through 8 of the AgreementAnd Addendum. Mr. Epstein has no obligation to waive this right to contest liability EFTA01718671 12/11/2007 11:49 FAX 035/09,9 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 11, 2007 Page 12 in any claim for damages • • by an etannerated "victim" or anyone else — where that puny fails to settle her claims pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. The revised draft of the letter avoids this misinterpretation and directly quotes Paragraphs 7. 8. 9 and 1() of the Agreement. While we do not have any objection to including this portion or the Agreement in the proposed letter, we request that Paragraphs 7A, 711, and 7C of the Addendum to the Agreement also be included because the language contained them in most clearly outlines the scope of Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay damages under the Agreement. C. Right of the Alleged Victims to Be Notified As we have expressed to you previously, we do not agree with your Office's Insertion that it is either an obligation and even appropriate for the (JSAO to send a victims notification letter to the alleged victims. The Justice for All Act of 2004 only contemplates notification in relation to available restitution for the victims of crimes. However. since Section 2255 is only one of many civil remedies, there is no requirement that the MAO inform alleged victims pursuant to the Justice tar All Act of 2004. Notably. if the USA() had agreed to include a restitution fund in the Agreement as opposed to a civil remedy statute, the alleged victims would have the right to be notified pursuant to the relevant Act. Further. we note that the reasons you cite in favor of issuing the proposed Victims Notification letter in your correspondence of December 4 are also inapplicable to this scenario. For instance, you cite 18 U.S.C. § 3771 for the proposition that your Office is obligated to provide certain notices to the alleged victims. however. 18 § 3771(a)(2) & (3) provide: A crime victim has the lidlowing rights: (2) The right to reasnnuble, accurate, and timely notice of any public corm proceeding_ or any parole proceeding, invoking the crime nr any release or escape of the accused. (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding. unites 11w court, oiler receiving clear and convincing evidence, detemiiiws that testimony by the victim would he materially altered lithe victim bean] other testimony at the proceeding. (emphasis added). Your interpretation of § 3771 is erroneous because the rights conferred by the statute indicate that these rights arc for the notification and appearance at public proceedings involving the crime for which the relevant individual is a victim. As you know, the public proceeding in this matter will be in state court for the purpose of the entry of a plea on state charges. Therefore, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 clearly does not apply to "victims" who are not state "victims." You additionally cite your Office's obligations under § 3771(0(1) of the Justice for All Act of 2004. however, this subsection relates back to the "rights described in subsection (a)." Thus, since the rights set forth in subsection (a) only apply to the victims of the crimes for EFTA01718672 12/11/2007 11:49 FAX W038/091 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP It, Alexander Acosta December i i. 2007 - Page 13 which the public proceeding is being held, the individuals identified by your. Office have no rights to notification or appearance under this Act. You further cite 42 U.S.C. 10607(O(1)(13) and (O(3) which. you state. obligates your office to inform victims of "any restitution or other relief' to which that victim may he entitled and or notice of the status of the investigation: the filing or charges against a suspected offender. and the acceptance of a plea. Although we do not believe this applies here Ibr the same masons stated above. we further assert that your proposed Victims Notification letter seeks to go beyond what is prescribed under 42 U.S.C. 10607. Indeed, there is nothing in the statute that requires your Office to solicit witness testimony or statements for the purposes of Mr. i.pstein's sentencing hearing. Furthermore, wc assert that any notification obligation you believe you have under this statute should be addressed by Judge Davis. We submit to you bused on the policy concerns of including a civil remedies statute in a criminal agreement and requiring the waiver of a defendants' rights under that agreement creates a host or problems that. in this case, have led to a serious delay in achieving finality to the satislbetion of all parties affected. We appreciate your consideration or these issues and hope that we can find a solution that resolves our concerns. Sincerely. • , () IV :1yd Whiz/ EFTA01718673