Deferred Prosecution Agreement Dispute Over Minor Procurement Charge in Epstein Case

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP describes the additional charge to which Mr. Epstein is required to plead guilty under the Deferred Prosecution Agreement as “procurement of minors to engage in prostitution” or “solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution.” The former is an offense for which Mr. Epstein would be required to register, but one for which the state has no evidence to charge Mr. Epstein and the SDFL refuses or is unable to provide evidence that it claims it has. The latter requires no registration, but it is the offense which, over and over again, Ms. Villafana insisted upon including in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, and is one which the State believes is appropriate. The inconsistency between the description of the offense required by the SDFL, the elements of an offense that can be justified on the facts of this case and the SDFL’s requirement that the offense be a registrable one has created substantial confusion. o Asa result of this confusion, in December 2007, both the defense and the state requested that the SDFL provide the factual allegations to enable Mr. Epstein and the State to create a truthful factual recitation of a registrable offense required by the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, but, to date, the SDFL has failed to do so without any explanation. e Mr. Sloman refuses to provide the requested factual allegations, which the State cannot furnish, and now demands a two week deadline to comply. Thus Mr. Sloman has unreasonably imposed a deadline with which he himself has made it impossible for Mr. Epstein to comply. 5, WAIVER OF APPEAL TO ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FISHER. Mr. Sloman’s Letter: « “[T]he SDFL provided you with 30 days to appeal the decision to the Assistant Attorney General of the United States Alice Fisher” and “you chose to forego an appeal to AAG Fisher.” Id., p. 2. The Truth: e Mr. Acosta tolled an August 17 deadline, acknowledging that there were “serious issues” about the case that needed to be discussed, and scheduled a meeting with the defense for September 7, 2007. At the September 7, 2007 meeting, with Drew Oosterbaan in attendance, the government dismissed the defense’s objections and set a September 21, 2007 deadline to finalize a non-prosecution agreement or the defense would face an already-drafted 53-page indictment, purportedly identifying 40 minors, with a guideline range of 188 months. e Facing Ms. Villafana’s threatened draconian indictment, without the claimed offer of the right to raise objections in an appeal to AAG Fisher, the defense chose to negotiate an HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012176