Letter alleges political motivation behind prosecution of businessman linked to Bill Clinton, citing US Attorney Acosta and USAO misconduct

Honorable Mark Filip May 27, 2008 Page 2 to a charge that the State Attorney has not, despite a two year investigation, determined to be appropriate. Mr. Epstein’s counsel must also successfully expedite a plea of guilty to this charge on a date prior to July 8, 2008, which is the date presently set by the state court Judge. Further, the unnecessary deadline is even more problematic because Mr. Epstein’s effort to reconcile the state charge and sentence with the terms of the Agreement requires an unusual and unprecedented threatened application of federal law. Thus, it places Mr. Epstein in the highly unusual position of having to demand that the State acquiesce to a more severe punishment than it had already determined was appropriate. We have attempted to resolve these and other issues through the USAO and CEOS, including raising our concerns about the USAO’s inappropriate conduct with respect to this matter. But those avenues have now been shut down. Mr. Sloman’s letter purports to prohibit any further contact between Mr. Epstein’s defense team and U.S. Attorney Acosta, and instead requires us to communicate with the USAO only though Mr. Sloman’s subordinates. While it pains us to say this, this misguided prosecution from the outset gives the appearance that it may have been politically motivated. Mr. Epstein is a highly successful, self- made businessman and philanthropist who entered the public arena only by virtue of his close personal association with former President Bill Clinton. There is little doubt in our minds that the USAO never would have contemplated a prosecution in this case if Mr. Epstein were just another “John.” U.S. Attorney Acosta previously has stated that he is “sympathetic” to our federalism- related concerns, but he has taken the position that his authority is limited by enforcement policies set forth in Washington, D.C. As expressed in our prior communication to you, we believe that a complete and independent appraisal and resolution of this case most appropriately would be undertaken by your Office—beginning with the rescission of the arbitrary, unfair, and unprecedented deadline that Mr. Sloman demands to have imposed in this case. At the very least, we would appreciate a tolling of the arbitrary timeline imposed on our client by the USAO in order to allow time for your office to consider our request that you undertake a review of this case. Thank you for your time and attention. Respectfully submitted, MD WD. Sh Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis LLP Alston & Bird LL HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019222