EFTA00183732

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
AND AMLIATED PAKINERSHIPS 
Jay P. Lefkoaitz, 
To 
*Jo 
WA FEDERAL EXPRESS 
CIllgroup Center 
153 East 53rd Street 
New York, New York 10022-4611 
Ms. 
Esq. 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Ms. 
www.kirklend.com 
June 12, 2009 
Facsimile: 
I am in possession of your June 12, 2009 letter giving notice of breach. I respectfully 
submit that the Motion to Dismiss that is referenced therein did not constitute a willful breach of 
Mr. Epstein's obligations under the non-prosecution agreement. Mr. Epstein's counsel 
unanimously determined that the filing of this Motion to Dismiss was not a breach of the non-
prosecution agreement, and the Motion to Dismiss was filed by counsel without Mr. Epstein's 
final approval. 
I want to inform you that immediately upon receipt of your letter, Mr. Epstein directed his 
counsel to file the attached Notice withdrawing all but issue number VIII of the previously filed 
Motion to Dismiss. The same issue also is described briefly in subparagraph D on page 3 of the 
Motion, which likewise was not withdrawn. Please note that this issue relates exclusively to the 
damages available under § 2255. The Notice has already been filed. If your continued review of 
the civil dockets causes you to have additional concerns about any other filing, consistent with 
the notice provisions of the non-prosecution agreement and consistent with our prior practice 
regarding such matters, please provide me with notice and the opportunity to address the same 
with you. 
I believe that with today's filing withdrawing these issues Mr. Epstein, through counsel, 
has fully remedied any perceived breach. Please advise if you for any reason disagree. 
Respectfully submitted, 
Jay P. Le owifr, 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Los Angeles 
Munich 
San Francisco 
Washington, 
EFTA00183752

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
. 
N.sq. 
Esq. 
EFTA00183753

Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM 
Document 53 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 
Page 1 of 2 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80591 - KAM 
a 
DOE NO. 101, 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S NOTICE OF WITHDRAW!. OF ARGUMENTS I 
THROUGH VII OF THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST 
AMENDED COMPLAINT (DE29) 
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby 
withdraws arguments I through VII as set forth in the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the 
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (FAC) [DE 29], dated May 26, 2009. Defendant withdraws 
his arguments contained subparagraphs A, B,, and Sections I (The Complaint Must Be 
Dismissed Because Plaintiff Is Not A Minor), II (The FAC Must Be Dismissed Because The 
Defendant Has Not Been Convicted Of A Predicate Offense), III (Count One Of The FAC Must 
Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Please A Violation Of 18 
Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Plead A Violation Of 18 
. § 2422(h)), IV (Count Two 
§2423(b)), I (Count 
Three Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Plead A Violation Of 18 
§ 2251, VI 
(Counts Four and Five Must Be Dismissed Because They Do Not Plead Violation of 18 
§§ 2252(a)(1) Or 2252(a)(1), and VII (Count Six Must Be Dismissed Because 18 
2252A(g) Was Not Enacted Until 2006). 
Defendant will rely only on those arguments set forth in subparagraph D, on page 3, and 
Paragraph VIII (Any Surviving Count Should Be Merged Into A Single Count) of the 
EFTA00183754

Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM 
Document 53 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 
Page 2 of 2 
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint Or, In The Alternative, For A 
More Definite Statement [DE 29] dated May 26, 2009. 
Counsel for De ndant EPS FEIN 
Certificate of Service 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the 
Clerk of the Court using CM/ECP. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this 
day on all counsel , record i entified on the following Service List in the manner specified by 
CM/ECF on this/ 
day of 
2009 
Roberti. Josefsberg, Esq. 
Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. 
Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 
Miami, FL 33130 
305 358-2800 
Fax: 305 358-2382 
Counsel for Plaintiff 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 
561-659-8300 
Fax: 561-835-8691 
[email protected] 
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
Respectfully submitted 
By: 
ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. 
Florida B 
o. 224162 
rcrit@bc claw.com 
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. 
Florida Bar #617296 
[email protected] 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUITIER & COLEMAN 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
561/842-2820 Phone 
561/515-3148 Fax 
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 
EFTA00183755

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
AND AMLIATED PARTNERSHIPS 
Jay P. Lefkow 
To Call Writer Dire.: 
letkWoom 
VIA FACSIMILE 
Clligtoup Center 
153 East 53rd Street 
New York, New York 10022-4611 
Facsimile: 
Ms. 
Esq. 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
voswidrkland.com 
June 15, 2009 
Re: Jay Epstein 
Dear a 
I am attaching a letter authored by my co-counsel, Robert Critton, on today's date. It 
represents our agreement with a proposal that Kathy Ezell indicated in a letter dated June 8, 2009 
would be fully acceptable to her and Bob Josefsberg as a means to resolve expeditiously all 
outstanding fee issues regarding the attorney representative. Mr. Epstein has directed his counsel 
to take immediate steps to address and resolve the attorney representative's outstanding fee-
related issues and we are doing so without delay. The suggestion of a Special Master, agreed to 
by both parties, to resolve the issues in the immediate future, will assure all parties that there will 
be no delay and no need for adversarial litigation regarding fees. 
More generally, I want to assure you that Mr. Epstein has directed all counsel to make 
sure that there is no filing that could constitute a breach of the NPA. Accordingly, a new internal 
screening process has been established to provide focused decision-making on each filing. To 
the extent we believe any filing may be perceived as implicating any of the issues generically 
addressed in the NPA (a document including sentences within paragraph 8 that even Mr. Acosta 
agreed were "far from simple"), we intend to address such issues with you prior to any filing and 
hope that you will agree to review the draft filing and inform us whether or not from your 
perspective it would, if filed, constitute a "breach". This will be especially important regarding 
issues that we believe fall at the intersection of Section 2255 and the civil litigation. We reserve 
our right, if you believe a proposed filing to conflict with the NPA or if you wish not to address 
these issues with us, thereafter to address such substantive issues with the Court. 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Los Angeles 
Munich 
San Francisco 
Washington,■ 
EFTA00183756

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Ms. 
June 15, 2009 
Page 2 
Esq. 
We hope that these proposals—in combination with our immediate withdrawal of the 
previously filed Motion to Dismiss—resolve all outstanding issues at the intersection of the NPA 
and 2255. Please advise if any remain. 
Sincerely, 
Enclosure 
cc: 
EFTA00183757

J. MICHAEL BURMAN, PA" 
GREGORY W. COLEMAN, PA. 
ROBERT D. CRITTON. JR., PA.' 
BERNARD LEBEDEK ER 
MARK T. LUTHER, P.A. 
JEPFRE4. PEPIN 
MICHAEL J. PIKE 
HEATHER McNAMARA RUDA 
FLORIDA BOARD CERTIFIED 
CiviLTRIALLAWyeR 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER 
& COLEMAN LLP 
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 
Sent by E-mail and U.S. Mail 
Robert Josefsberg, Esq. 
Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 
25 West Flagier Street, Suite 800 
Miami, FL 33130 
Re: 
Epstein Matter 
Dear Bob: 
June 15, 2009 
ADELQUI J. BENAVENTE 
PARALEOAL / INYMTIOXTOR 
BARBARA M. McKBNNA 
ASHUE STOKEN.BARINO 
BETTY STOKES 
PARALBJALS 
RIM H. BUDNYK 
OP COUNSEL 
On June 8, 2009, Kathy Ezell wrote a letter to me regarding outstanding fee 
payment issues. At page 3, she stated that she was not adverse to an earlier proposal 
that had been discussed amongst the parties to rely on a Special Master to resolve 
outstanding fee-related issues. We agree with Kathy's "proposal" that we rely on a 
Special Master to resolve all outstanding fee issues. Let's work during our Wednesday 
meeting to select an appropriate Special Master and let's agree to see whether, in the 
interim, we can resolve these issues even before they are submitted to the S.M. 
Cordially yo 
Roberyif Critton, Jr. 
RDC/clz 
cc: 
Jack Goldberger, Esq. 
L 'A•W•Y•E'R'S 
515 N. FLAGLER DRIVE / SUITE 400 / WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 
TELEPHONE (561) 842-2820 FAX (561) 844-6929 
mailebelclaw.com 
EFTA00183758

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
Citigroup Center 
153 East 53rd Street 
New York, New York 10022-4675 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Jay: 
500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
(561) 820-8711 
Facsimile: (561)820-8777 
June 17, 2009 
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 2009. I did not receive your letter until late 
yesterday afternoon because I am shuttling back and forth between the Fort Lauderdale and 
West Palm Beach offices. The best way to reach me is via e-mail. 
With respect to the substance of your letter, the Office has not completed its review 
of Mr. Epstein's civil filings and correspondence related to the payment of the attorney 
representative's fees, so I cannot confirm that all outstanding issues have been resolved. If 
and when additional breaches are identified, timely notice will be provided in accordance 
with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 
As to your proposal, our Office cannot and will not become involved in the civil suits 
filed against Mr. Epstein; as counsel for Mr. Epstein has expressed on several occasions, it 
is inappropriate for the government to involve itself in civil litigation. We likewise do not 
think it is appropriate to review civil pleadings in order to provide advisory opinions, even 
at your request. 
The duty to stay within the bounds of the Non-Prosecution Agreement lies with Mr. 
Epstein and he alone has the power to remain in compliance. Mr. Epstein has a highly skilled 
team to assist him, and compliance with the Agreement is not difficult, as you suggest. For 
example, it is not complicated to understand that, when a named victim files a claim 
EFTA00183759

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ., ESQ. 
JUNE 17, 2009 
PAGE 2 OF 2 
exclusively under Section 2255, Mr. Epstein cannot assert that there is no liability, just as 
providing the state plea agreement to our Office in advance of entering the state guilty plea 
was not complicated. 
I remain hopeful that Mr. Epstein will take all of his obligations seriously and elect 
to err on the side of caution in making decisions that relate to the performance of his duties. 
Sincerely, 
Jeffrey H. Sloman 
Acting United States Attorney 
Bye.. 
Assistant United States Attorney 
cc: 
Chief, Northern Division 
Jack Goldberger, Esq. 
Roy Black, Esq. 
EFTA00183760

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
AND Al HUARD PARTNUSHIPS 
Jay P. Lelkowitz, 
To Call Writer Dire y: 
lelkoWm 
VIA FACSIMILE 
Citigroup Center 
153 East 53.0 Street 
Now York, Now York 10022-4611 
Facsimile: 
Ms. 
Esq. 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
www.kirkland.corn 
June 15,2009 
Re: Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear 
I am attaching a letter authored by my co-counsel, Robert Critton, on today's date. It 
represents our agreement with a proposal that Kathy Ezell indicated in a letter dated June 8, 2009 
would be fully acceptable to her and Bob Josefsberg as a means to resolve expeditiously all 
outstanding fee issues regarding the attorney representative. Mr. Epstein has directed his counsel 
to take immediate steps to address and resolve the attorney representative's outstanding fee-
related issues and we are doing so without delay. The suggestion of a Special Master, agreed to 
by both parties, to resolve the issues in the immediate future, will assure all parties that there will 
be no delay and no need for adversarial litigation regarding fees. 
More generally, I want to assure you that Mr. Epstein has directed all counsel to make 
sure that there is no filing that could constitute a breach of the NPA. Accordingly, a new internal 
screening process has been established to provide focused decision-making on each filing. To 
the extent we believe any filing may be perceived as implicating any of the issues generically 
addressed in the NPA (a document including sentences within paragraph 8 that even Mr. Acosta 
agreed were "far from simple"), we intend to address such issues with you prior to any filing and 
hope that you will agree to review the draft filing and inform us whether or not from your 
perspective it would, if filed, constitute a "breach". This will be especially important regarding 
issues that we believe fall at the intersection of Section 2255 and the civil litigation. We reserve 
our right, if you believe a proposed filing to conflict with the NPA or if you wish not to address 
these issues with us, thereafter to address such substantive issues with the Court. 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Los Angeles 
Munich 
San Francisco 
washington,■. 
EFTA00183761

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Ms. 
June 15, 2009 
Page 2 
Esq. 
We hope that these proposals—in combination with our immediate withdrawal of the 
previously filed Motion to Dismiss—resolve all outstanding issues at the intersection of the NPA 
and 2255. Please advise if any remain. 
Sincerely, 
P. Letkowitz 
Enclosure 
cc: Vktar- en Atkinson, Esq. 
EFTA00183762

J. WHAM. BURMAN, PA.,
GREGORY W.CCU:NAN. PA. 
ROBERT D. CRITTON. IR., PA.,
BERNARD LEBEDBKER 
MARK T. I II/STIER, PA. 
JEFFREY 
PEPIN 
MIOIAEL  PIKE 
HEATHER McNAMARA RUDA 
I R.ORIDA WARD anima 
CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER 
& COLEMAN LLP 
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 
Sent by E-mail and U.S. Mall 
Robert Josefsberg, Esq. 
Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 
25 West Flagier Street, Suite 800 
Miami, FL 33130 
Re: 
Epstein Matter 
Dear Bob: 
June 15, 2009 
ADELQUI I. BENAVENTE 
PARALEOAL I INVISTIOATOR 
BARBARA M. McKENNA 
ASHUR STOKEN-BARINO 
BETTY STOKES 
PARAUXML3 
RITA R. BUDNYK 
MDOIRRfR 
On June 8, 2009, Kathy Ezell wrote a letter to me regarding outstanding fee 
payment Issues. At page 3, she stated that she was not adverse to an earlier proposal 
that had been discussed amongst the parties to rely on a Special Master to resolve 
outstanding fee-related issues. We agree with Kathy's "proposal" that we rely on a 
Special Master to resolve all outstanding fee issues. Let's work during our Wednesday 
meeting to select an appropriate Special Master and let's agree to see whether, in the 
interim, we can resolve these issues even before they are submitted to the S.M. 
Cordially yo 
Robe 
. Critton, Jr. 
RDC/clz 
cc: 
Jack Goldberger, Esq. 
L•A'W•Y•E•R•
S 
515 N. FLAGLER DRIVE/SUITE 400 / WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33401 
TELEPHONE (561) 842-2820 FAX (561) 844-6929 
mallebelclaw.com 
EFTA00183763

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
AND AFFILIATED PAIONLKSIIIPS 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, 
To 
l 
ri !Direct y: 
lefkowitz kirkland.com 
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 
Ms. NIIMM, 
Esq. 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Citigroup Center 
153 East 53rd Street 
New York, New York 10022.4611 
Dear 
www.kirkland.com 
June 19, 2009 
Re: Jeffrey Epstein 
Facsimile: 
I appreciate your letter of June 17, 2009. I sincerely hope that any and all issues that 
could generate an adversarial relationship between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney's 
Office are in our past. Like you, we hope that the ongoing, complex, and at times vigorous 
litigation will not again require your involvement, nor result in any belief on your part that any 
legal position taken by Mr. Epstein's counsel conflicts with the Non-Prosecution Agreement 
("NPA"). 
In order to avoid future misunderstandings, however, I would like to have a discussion 
with you specifically about our ongoing obligations as you understand them under the NPA. As 
you know from past experience, and as Mr. Acostuaviously acknowledged in letters to my 
partner Ken Starr (on December 4, 2007) and Lilly 
Sanchez (on December 19, 2007), the 
language of 18 is "far from simple," and, in certain respects, subject to significant ambiguity. 
I believe it is both necessary and appropriate to seek immediate clarification from the 
government about its understanding of a few provisions in the NPA. It is likely by no fault of our 
own that these issues will come before a judge or an independent third party, whose job it will be 
to interpret the intent of the parties. In those circumstances, I think the court would most likely 
turn to both of us and directly seek our views, as the drafters of the agreement, before rendering 
its own opinion. Therefore, I believe it would bring about the finality that we both seek in a 
much reduced time frame if we could discuss several of the more ambiguous provisions 
contained in the NPA. 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Los Angeles 
Munich 
San Francisco 
Washington,.. 
EFTA00183764

Ms. 
June 19, 2009 
Page 2 
Esq. 
One specific example comes to mind. First, we clearly understood during the course of 
negotiating the NPA, and believe that both the language of the NPA and our prior 
correspondence with your Office confirm, that the waiver of liability set forth in Paragraph 8 at 
most was designed to allow an identified individual the right to assert a single violation of a 
section 2255 predicate. The waiver of liability does not embrace situations where a particular 
plaintiff asserts multiple violations. Thus, compliance with paragraph 8's waiver of liability 
would require at most that Mr. Epstein stipulate to the existence of a single enumerated predicate 
that would entitle an otherwise eligible plaintiff to actual damages (or the applicable statutory 
minimum damages where actual damages fall short of that floor), leaving aside the issue of 
whether the waiver is applicable to contested litigation or only the cases where there would be 
agreed damage resolutions. In addition, if we believe that a predicate act is time-barred, as 
indeed we understand was the case with respect to all such acts in relation to one plaintiff, a 
proper construction of the waiver of liability would not preclude the reliance on a statute of 
limitations defense. 
Given your Office's prior acknowledgements that the language of the NPA is far from 
clear, we very much would appreciate an opportunity to discuss Paragraph 8 with you in the very 
near future in order to clarify a few pivotal questions raised by the NPA. I assure you that 
Mr. Epstein intends to abide fully by the terms of the NPA. And it is my sincere hope that our 
discussion can avert future risks that anything we do will cause you to believe that there has been 
a breach of the NPA. 
Finally, I enclose a letter in response to your June 15 letter in order to provide you with 
our perspective on the issues you raised. I hope our differing views on certain events over the 
past several years as reflected in my letter will not in anyway divert us from a common goal of 
having Mr. Epstein complete his NPA obligations without further tension with your Office. 
Sincerely, 
P. 
Jay P. Leflcowitz, 
Enclosures 
EFTA00183765

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
AND AO MAR!) rsruNIRCIIII, 
Jay P. Lefkosvitz, 
To Call Writer Direc
lefkova 
.com 
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 
Citigroup Center 
153 East 53rd Street 
Now York. New York 10022-4611 
Ms. 
Esq. 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Dear 
www.klrkland.com 
June 19, 2009 
Re: Jeffrey Epstein 
Facsimile: 
We prepared this answer in response to your letter dated June 15, 2009 and before 
receiving your follow up letter of June 17, 2009. At this point it has been almost three years 
since the federal government first intervened in what was originally a matter investigated and 
charged by state prosecutorial authorities. It has been almost a year since Mr. Epstein pleaded 
guilty in state court and began serving his sentence in county jail, pursuant to the terms and as a 
direct result of the federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "NPA"). When Mr. Epstein was 
sentenced, the U.S. Attorney promised me and my co-counsel that the United States Attorney's 
Office's involvement would cease with Mr. Epstein's execution of the NPA and incarceration in 
state custody. We were also promised that the federal government would not intervene in 
discretionary state or county decisions regarding the implementation of Mr. Epstein's sentence. 
We take this opportunity to address in detail each of the alleged instances you describe to 
support your position that Mr. Epstein has engaged in a pattern of breaching the NPA. 
Mr. Epstein's overriding commitment is, and has always been, to complete his jail sentence, 
fulfill his other obligations under the NPA, and reach final settlements of pending section 2255 
cases with plaintiffs who are agreeable to such settlements. We respectfully submit (and support 
through documentary evidence) that there have been no past breaches of the NPA. There have 
been no "willful" breaches of the NPA. There has been no pattern of breaches of the NPA. 
As an initial matter, it is important to consider your letter of June 15 and its contents in 
context. Mr. Epstein has satisfied, and continues to satisfy, his obligations pursuant to the NPA. 
Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty to a registerable state offense. He has already registered as a sex 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Los Angeles 
Munich 
San Francisco 
Washington,■ 
EFTA00183766

Ms. 
Esq. 
June 19, 2009 
Page 2 
offender, and has served over 11 months of his sentence in county jail. While such a plea and 
punishment were not otherwise sought by the State Attorney, Mr. Epstein agreed to the plea, the 
sentence, and the obligation to register as a sex offender as a direct result of obligations he 
agreed to undertake pursuant to the NPA. Furthermore, Mr. Epstein has already paid over 
$300,000 in civil settlements and fees for the attorney representative, and has agreed to submit 
issues regarding further fees to a Special Master pursuant to a proposal suggested by the attorney 
representative himself. The claimants whose matters have already been settled were identified 
by you as victims and, in one case, as a sign of good faith, Mr. Epstein paid a settlement to an 
individual he had no recollection of ever meeting, solely because she appeared on your July 2008 
list. 
We are prepared to address each of the statements contained in your June 15 letter. First, 
your statement that Mr. Epstein did not use his "best efforts" to enter his guilty plea and to be 
sentenced is, respectfully, without merit. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2. The date of entry 
of the state plea was deferred with the express written consent of United States Attorney Acosta, 
who recognized and expressly provided us with the opportunity to pursue an independent 
assessment of this matter by the Justice Department. The subsequent nine-month "delay" was a 
direct result of the Justice Department's determination that it was appropriate to convene an 
intense and time-consuming review. Thus, the delay was not dictated at all by Mr. Epstein, but 
instead, by the review process agreed to and, if you recall, initiated by Mr. Acosta. 
On June 23, 2008, the Justice Department concluded its final review and only seven days 
later, Mr. Epstein promptly entered his plea (on June 30, 2008) and immediately began serving 
his sentence. As the following timeline of events leading up to Mr. Epstein's entry of plea 
makes clear, the facts do not support your conclusion that Mr. Epstein willfully breached the 
NPA by delaying his sentence, and, instead, compellingly demonstrates that Mr. Epstein's 
participation in high-level Department of Justice reviews cannot factually or legally ground a 
claim that he "willfully" breached the NPA: 
• 
The NPA, signed on September 24, 2007, provides that Mr. Epstein "begin serving his 
sentence not later than January 4, 2008." See Exhibit 2, NPA 911. 
• 
On November 28, 2007, Mr. Epstein's defense counsel contacted Assistant Attorney 
General Alice Fisher to request a review of certain provisions of the NPA. We informed 
the USAO of this request the very next day in a letter to Mr. Acosta. See Exhibit 3, 
November 29, 2007 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta at 4. 
• 
In a December 4, 2007 letter, Mr. Acosta stated that he supported the defense's appeal to 
Washington. See Exhibit 4, December 4, 2007 letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta to K. 
Starr with a copy to AAG Alice Fisher at 5 ("I do not mind this Office's decision being 
EFTA00183767

Ms. 
Esq. 
June 19, 2009 
Page 3 
appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in 
this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decision."). 
• 
On December 11, 2007, pursuant to Mr. Acosta's request, the defense team sent him 
submissions detailing the defense's concerns related to the NPA. 
See Exhibit 5, 
December 11, 2007 Letter from K. Stair to U.S. Attorney Acosta. 
• 
On December 14, 2007, Mr. Acosta met with members of the defense team to discuss the 
serious issues raised about the NPA. 
• 
In a December 19, 2007 letter, Mr. Acosta stated that "the issues raised are important and 
must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns." See Exhibit 6, December 19, 
2007 Letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta to Attorney Lilly 
Sanchez at 3. He also 
stated that he had spoken with AAG Fisher to ask that she review this matter and to 
expedite the process. Id. 
• 
In the beginning of January, 2008, Mr. Acosta and I discussed the need for further 
consideration of the issues raised by the defense. He postponed the plea and sentencing 
until the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) was finished with its review 
of the case. 
• 
In a February 29, 2008 email I sent to Mr. Acosta, I confirmed that that "there were 
significant irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement" and that he would ask 
CEOS to evaluate the matter. I also confirmed Mr. Acosta's agreement to postpone the 
state plea deadline until after the matter was reviewed. On that same day, First Assistant 
U.S. Attorney Sloman responded in writing as follows: "Please be assured that it has not, 
and never has been, this Office's intent to interfere or restrict the 'review process' for 
either Mr. Epstein or CEOS. I leave it to you and CEOS to figure out how best to 
proceed and will await the results of that process." See Exhibits 7 and 8, February 29, 
2008 Emails to U.S. Attorney Acosta and from Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman. 
• 
Given that CEOS determined that it would not review many of the defense's objections 
and that its review would be limited on the rest of the objections, CEOS's decision, 
rendered on May 15, 2008, left open the need for a more thorough review of critical 
issues by others at the Justice Department. 
• 
In a May 28, 2008 email from Mr. Sloman to myself, Mr. Sloman further postponed the 
deadline to plead until the Deputy Attorney General's Office (DAG) completed its 
review. See Exhibit 9, May 28, 2008 Email from Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman to J. 
Leflcowitz. 
EFTA00183768

Ms. 
Esq. 
June 19, 2009 
Page 4 
• 
A final letter of determination was not issued by the Department of Justice until June 23, 
2008. 
• Just one week after that date, Mr. Epstein promptly entered his plea and immediately 
began serving his state sentence on June 30, 2008. 
While you state that a breach occurred because Mr. Epstein and the defense team did not 
provide you with the state plea documents until the last business day before the plea, neither 
Mr. Epstein nor his counsel bear sole responsibility for timing of the delivery of these 
documents. It was the responsibility of the State Attorney's Office to provide the defense with 
the plea agreement. Defense counsel did not receive the plea agreement from the State until 
10:00 A.M. on June 27, 2008 (the Friday before the plea). See Exhibit 10, June 27, 2008 Email 
from State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek to J. Goldberger. Once the plea agreement was reviewed 
by Mr. Epstein's defense team, Mr. Goldberger sent it to you that same afternoon. At 5:55 P.M. 
on June 27, 2008, following your receipt of the agreement sent to you by Mr. Goldberger, 
Messrs. Black and Goldberger received a responsive letter from you alleging that the plea 
agreement vioiSeNPA. See Exhibit 11, June 27/28, 2008 Email String between Assistant 
U.S. Attorney 
and R. Black and J. Goldberger (attaching Notice of Non-Compliance). 
Second, you state that language contained in the first draft of the plea agreement 
proposed by the State violated the NPA, because it called for community control in lieu of jail. 
Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2. You now suggest that this "error" evidences Mr. Epstein's 
alleged efforts to undermine the NPA. I respectfully submit that you are mistaken in both cases. 
The language in the first draft of the plea agreement was prepared by the State and, as stated 
above, it was not sent to the defense until the very day that it was sent to you. 
Moreover, as Mr. Goldberger confirmed to you in a telephone conversation on the same 
day that he received your June 27 letter, the plea agreement, as originally drafted by the State, 
would have resulted in the exact same 12-month and 6-month consecutive jail sentences, 
followed by one year of community control, as was required by the NPA and ultimately imposed 
on Mr. Epstein. Although defense counsel asked the State to change the language of the plea 
agreement to alleviate your concerns, the same exact sentence and period of incarceration as 
required by the NPA would have been imposed on Mr. Epstein had the language of the State's 
first draft been allowed Ili 
See Exhibit 11, June 27/28, 2008 Email String between 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
and R. Black and J. Goldberger (confirming a telephone 
conversation between the parties on June 27 that the state plea agreement was in compliance 
with the NPA and indicating a request by Assistant U.S. Attorney 
to modify the 
language in the state plea agreement); see also Exhibit 12, the initial version and the signed 
version of the state plea agreements. 
EFTA00183769

Ms. 
June 19, 2009 
Page 5 
Esq. 
The bottom line here is that while Florida counsel for Mr. Epstein filly believed that the 
initial language in the State's draft would result in a sentence identical to the mandates of the 
NPA, changes were made solely to conform to your requests. Neither the USAO or the 
administration of federal criminal justice suffered any prejudice: lawyers often make linguistic 
alterations of form; we did so here. The changes were made in short order, namely, during the 
Friday and Saturday before Mr. Epstein's state plea; the plea and plea agreement completely 
complied with the NPA as did Mr. Epstein's sentence; and there was neither a breach, nor harm. 
Moreover, all communications were through counsel. Mr. Epstein was not a party to these 
communications and in no way can be considered, factually or legally, to have committed a 
"willful" breach of the NPA in this regard. 
Third, you state that defense "counsel obstructed [your] ability to abide by [your] 
obligations to notify the victims of the outcome of the federal investigation." Exhibit 1, June 15, 
2009 Letter at 2. We believe that this statement misconstrues the intentions and conduct of the 
defense team and, does not support any charge of "obstruction" against Mr. Epstein, as would be 
required to sanction him for a "willful" breach of the NPA. In October 2007, a full nine months 
before Mr. Epstein was sentenced, we first raised the issue of the notification. On October 10, 
2007, I stated in a letter to Mr. Acosta that the defense team did not believe "it was the 
government's place to be co-counsel to the identified individuals," and reasonably proposed that 
the alleged victims be contacted by the selected attorney representative. See Exhibit 13, October 
10, 2007 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta at 4-5. 
Then, on November 28, 2007, you sent defense counsel the proposed victim notification 
letter indicating that the alleged victims had a federal right to be notified of the resolution of this 
matter pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights under § 3771. See Exhibit 14, November 29, 2007 
Draft Victim Notification Letter from Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Mr. Epstein's counsel 
objected to your draft letter and the proposed method and proWire or notifying the alleged 
victims and challenged whether you were in fact obligated to notify these individuals pursuant to 
18 
§ 3771. Those objections were made in a timely and appropriate manner and our 
dialogue regarding notification issues continued. As you know, the notification letter was not 
finalized for several months. 
The key point here is that our objections to the letter were made in good faith and were 
well-founded. After all, on December 6, 2007, Mr. Acosta agreed to many of our objections and 
adopted several of our modifications to resolve problems raised by the draft notification letter. 
See Exhibit 15, December 6, 2007 Letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta to J. Lefkowitz. This fact 
confirms both the good-faith nature of our objections and that neither Mr. Epstein nor his counsel 
could be considered to have violated the NPA by raising those objections in the first place. 
Fourth, Mr. Epstein did not, as you stated, refuse "to fulfill promptly Mr. Epstein's 
obligation to secure the services of an attorney representative for the victims." Exhibit 1, June 
EFTA00183770

Ms. 
Esq. 
June 19, 2009 
Page 6 
15, 2009 Letter at 2. 
It was the United States' obligation to select a suitable attorney 
representative, subject to the good-faith approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel. See Exhibit 2, NPA 
¶ 7. Indeed, due to a concern we had raised, your Office specifically modified the procedure to 
select an attorney representative and delegated that task to Judge 
. See Exhibit 16, 
Addendum to NPA ¶ 7A. Again, the fact that your Office accommodated our concerns validates 
their legitimacy and undermines any claim that the NPA was breached by raising those concerns 
with you. To the contrary, Mr. Epstein executed the Addendum in an attempt to resolve 
outstanding, high) unorthodox and complex issues at the intersection of civil and criminal law. 
A letter to Judge 
(authored by then FAUSA Sloman) dated October 25, 2007 followed. 
See Exhibit 17, October 25, 2007 Letter to Judge 
Once Mr. Podhurst's firm was selected by Judge M, Mr. Epstein did not object to the 
selection. Moreover, as you have acknowledged to the court, the open issues involving the 
attorney representative portions of 
were not finally resolved until September 3, 2008. 
See Exhibit 18, December 22, 2008 
Supplemental Declaration at 3 ¶ 9. Only five days 
later, on September 8, 2008, I sent a letter to Robert Josefsberg advising him that Mr. Epstein 
would pay his fees pursuant to the NPA for his role as an attorney representative. See Exhibit 
19, September 8, 2008 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to R. Josefsberg. Furthermore, in an effort to 
comply with the obligations under the NPA, Mr. Epstein already has paid Mr. Podhurst's firm 
over $160,000 in legal fees, despite significant concerns over the scope of the work for which he 
is billing Mr. Epstein, and has agreed with Mr. Josefsberg's proposal that a Special Master be 
empowered to resolve any fee related issues that the Podhurst firm and Mr. Epstein's civil 
counsel cannot resolve. See Exhibit 20, June 15, 2009 Letter from Robert Critton to Kathy Ezell. 
There is nothing about the exchanges between counsel and the USAO regarding the attorney 
representative that even begins to approach a "willful" breach by Mr. Epstein. 
Fifth, you suggest that Mr. Epstein willfully breached the NPA because of the actions of 
Mr. Tein and Mr. Goldberger, whom you state failed to approve the victim notification letter that 
contained incorrect information. See Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2. The incorrect 
information in the letter was a proposed unilateral modification to the. NPA without prior 
approval by Mr. Epstein or any member of the defense team. It was only first suggested by your 
Office in a letter from Mr. Acosta on December 19, 2007. We never agreed to that language. In 
fact, I personally raised several objections to the suggested modification in my letter to Mr. 
Acosta, dated December 21, 2007. See Exhibit 21, December 21, 2007 Letter from J. Lefkowitz 
to U.S. Attorney Acosta. I personally became aware of the inclusion of that language on 
Wednesday, August 13, 2008 and discussed the matter with you immecili See Exhibits 22 
and 23, August 13 and 15, 2008 Letters from Assistant U.S. Attorney 
to J. Lefkowitz 
(confirming that the "December modification" is not a part of the NPA). Again, that oversight 
was not a willful breach or an expression of intent to violate the terms of the Agreement, but 
instead represented the efforts of counsel, acting in good faith, in an attempt to insure that the 
letter contained only previously agreed-upon language. 
EFTA00183771