EFTA00184224

,se 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 8 
d 
4 
District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject 
matter,' and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to 
contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified victim and 
Epstein, so long as the identified victim elects to proceed exclusively under 18 
U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant 
to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those 
individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's 
signature on this agreement is not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or 
civil liability other than that contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2255. 
Although these two sentences are far from simple, they appear to incorporate our intent to narrowly 
tailor the Agreement to place the identified victims in the same position as they would have been had 
Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. I would note that I have conferred with our prosecutors and have 
been told that Paragraph 8 was vigorously negotiated and that the final language was suggested 
largely by defense counsel. 
The concerns raised in your letter with respect to Paragraph 8 fall within several general 
categories. First, you raise concerns regarding the nature of Section 2255. As you note, 
Section 2255 is a civil statute implanted in the criminal code; in contrast to other 
criminal statutes, Section 2255 fails to correlate payments to specific injuries or 
losses. Instead the statute presumes that victims have sustained damages of at least 
a minimum lump sum without regard to whether the complainants suffered actual 
medical, physiological or other forms of individualized harm. 
These concerns were, I would expect, aired when Congress adopted this statute. Even if they were 
not, this provision is now law. Rule of law requires now requires this District to consider the 
victims' rights under this statute in negotiating this Agreement. 
Second, you raise concerns regarding the identity-of-the-victims issue. Your concerns appear 
based on the belief that Paragraph 8 is a blanket waiver of liability with respect to any number of 
unnamed and undisclosed victims. I would invite you to confer with your co-counsel regarding this 
matter. Although the language of Paragraph 8 could be so construed, our First Assistant informed 
Mr. Lefkowitz some weeks ago that this was not our position. As Mr. Lefkowitz has noted, were 
Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims in a subsequent Section 2255 suit would still have 
had some burden to prove that they were "victims." It is also the case, however, that were Mr. 
Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims would not have to show that a violation of an 
enumerated section of Title 18 took place. Accordingly, our First Assistant informed Mr. Lefkowitz 
some weeks ago that we understood that if a victim-plaintiff elects to proceed to trial, Mr. Epstein's 
Although not identified as an issue by defense counsel, having reviewed this language, 1 note that 
Paragraph 8 raises the question of what is meant by "subject matter." 1 have conferred with the AUSA who 
negotiated this language, and have been informed that parties intended this to address issues of venue. This 
Office will not interpret this paragraph as any waiver of subject matter jurisdiction. Please inform me if 
defense counsel disagrees. 
-2-
RFP MIA 000502 
EFTA00184884

, 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 8 
• 
• 
legal team might conduct due diligence to confirm the that victim-plaintiff in fact had inappropriate 
contact with Mr. Epstein. Once again, our interpretive principle is our intent to place the victim in 
the same position she would have been had Mr. Epstein proceeded to trial. 
Third, you raise concerns regarding our decision not to create a restitution fund. Throughout 
the negotiations, defense counsel suggested several similar arrangements, including a Trust fund. 
Again, our decision not to create a hand flows from our belief that the Agreement should provide the 
same relief to the victims as they would have been entitled had we proceeded to trial. A restitution 
fund or trust fund would place an upper limit on the victims' recovery. It is not for this Office to 
make that decision for the victims. They may choose to walk away, they may choose to settle, or 
they may choose to sue. The choice should remain with each individual victim? 
Fourth, you raise concerns regarding the selection process for the attorney representative. 
As you may be aware, the suggestion that we appoint an attorney representative originated with 
defense counsel. Defense counsel, I believe, found it advantageous to attempt to negotiate a 
settlement of the many victims' claims with one attorney representative. My Office agreed to 
appoint such a representative, in part, because we too thought it valuable for the victims to have the 
advice of an attorney who could advise them of their choices: whether to walk away, to settle or to 
sue. 
Since the signing of the Agreement, several issues have arisen with respect to this provision. 
First, l elected to assign this trace's right to appoint the representative to an independent third-party, 
former federal Judge 
. I did this to avoid any suggestion that this Office's choice of 
representative was intended to influence the outcome of civil litigation. Second, your co-counsel 
expressed concerns similar to those raised in your letter regarding the criteria used to select the 
representative. These criteria were: 
(1) Experience doing both plaintiffs' and defense litigation; 
(2) Experience with state and federal statutory and common law tort claims; 
(3) Ability to communicate effectively with young women; 
(4) Experience litigating against large law firms and high profile attorneys who may 
test the veracity of the victims' claims; 
(5) Sensitivity to the nature of the suit and the victims' interest in maintaining their 
privacy; 
(6) Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida; 
2 Your letter references U.S I Boehm, No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Ala 2004) as a model for a restitution fund 
settlement. I asked our prosecutor to contact the AUSA in that case. In that matter, the District of Alaska 
sought out and obtained the consent of all the victims before entering into that settlement. In addition, they 
developed an elaborate procedure for deciding which victim would receive what. My view, in this case, is 
that those types of negotiations are better handled between Mr. Epstein and the victims' representatives, and 
that this Office should not act as intermediary. Finally, I would note that in Boehm as well, the victims' 
identities were not initially disclosed. As the AUSA wrote in that case: "This filing is made ex pane 
because Boehm, in his plea agreement, waived any rights he had pertaining to the selection of beneficiaries 
and the disbursement of funds to such beneficiaries." 
-3-
RFP MIA 000503 
EFTA00184885

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 8 
S 
• 
(7) The resources to hire experts and others, while working on a contingency fee 
basis, in order to prepare for trial if a settlement cannot be reached (defense counsel 
has reserved the right to challenge such litigation); and 
(8) The ability to negotiate effectively. 
At my direction, our First Assistant provided our criteria to your co-counsel, Mr. Lefkowitz, in 
advance, and at co-counsel's request, he noted in our communication with Judge 
, defense 
counsel's objection to criteria 7. I have now reviewed these criteria and find them balanced and ' 
reasonable. They appear designed to provide the victims with an attorney who can advise them on 
all their options, whether it be to walk away, to settle (as your client prefers), or to litigate. Again, 
our intent is not to favor any one of these options, but rather to leave the choice to each victim. 
Fifth, you assert that this Office "has improperly insisted that the chosen attorney 
representative should be able to litigate the claims of the individuals," should a resolution not be 
possible. This issue, likewise, has already been raised and addressed in discussions between your 
co-counsel and our First Assistant. We understand your position that it would be a conflict of 
interest for the attorney representative to subsequently represent victim-plaintiffs in a civil suit. Your 
interpretation of the ethics rules may be correct, or it may be wrong. Far from insisting that the 
attorney representative can represent victim-plaintiffs in subsequent litigation, our First Assistant 
and I have repeatedly told defense counsel that we take no position on this matter. Indeed, I fully 
expect your defense team to litigate this issue with the attorney representative if a resolution is not 
reached. 
I have responded personally and in some detail to your concerns because I deeply care about 
both the law and the integrity of this Office. I have responded personally and in some detail as well 
because your letter troubled me on a number of levels. My understanding of the negotiations in this 
matter informs my concerns. 
The Section 2255 provision issue was first discussed at a July 31, 2007, meeting between 
FAU SA 
, Criminal Chief_, 
West Palm Beach Chief Lourie, AUSA Villafafia, and 
two FBI agents who met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. On that date, the 
prosecutors presented a written, four-bullet-point term sheet that would satisfy the federal interest 
in the case and discussed the substance of those terms. One of these four points was the following 
provision: 
Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file 
suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. 
District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject 
matter. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while 
minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s) 2422 
and/or 2423. 
-4-
RFP MIA 000504 
EFTA00184886

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 6 of 8 
• 
• 
In mid August 2007, your defense team, dissatisfied with my staffs review of the case, asked 
to meet with me. Mr. Lefkowtiz indicated your busy schedule, and asked me to put off until 
September 7, 2007, so that you could attend. Mr. Lefkowitz also indicated that he might appeal my 
decision to Washington D.C., if my decision was contrary to his client's interest. I agreed to the 
September 7" meeting, despite the fact that our AUSA had an indictment ready for presentation to 
the grand jury. An explicit condition of that agreement, however, was an understanding between Mr. 
Lefkowitz and myself that any appeal to Washington would be undertaken expeditiously. 
On September 7, 2007,1, along with FAUSA 
AUSA5 McMillan and Villafatia, and 
FBI agents, met with you, Mr. Lefkowitz, and Ms. SancliMunderstood that you wished to present 
federalism-based concerns regarding our prosecution. To ensure a full consideration of your 
arguments, I invited Drew Oosterbaan, Chief of the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and 
Obscenity Section, to travel from Washington to attend our meeting. During the September 7th
meeting, your co-counsel, Mr. Lefkowitz, offered a plea resolution. The inclusion of a Section 2255 
remedy was specifically raised and discussed at the September 7th meeting. Indeed, according to 
AUSA Villafafia's notes, you thanked her for bringing it to your attention. Again, no objection to 
the Section 2255 issue was raised. 
After considering the arguments raised at the September 7th meeting, and after conferring 
with the FBI and with Chief Oosterbaan, our Office decided to proceed with the indictment. At that 
time, I reminded Mr. Lefkowitz that he had previously indicated his desire to appeal such a decision 
to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the 
Criminal Division, and I offered to direct our prosecutors to delay the presentation of the indictment 
to allow you or he to appeal our decision if you so chose. He decided not to do so. 
Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiate the Non-Prosecution Agreement. These negotiations 
were detailed and time-consuming. Mr. Epstein's defense team, including yourself, Professor 
Dershowitz, former United States Attorney Guy Lewis, Ms. Lilly Ann Sanchez and Messrs. Roy 
Black, Jack Goldberger, Gerry Lefcourt and Jay Lefkowitz had the opportunity to review and raise 
objections to the terms of the Agreement. Again, no one raised objections to the Section 2255 
language. 
Since the signing of the Agreement, the defense team and our Office have addressed several 
issues that have arisen under the Agreement. Although the exchanges were at times a bit litigious, 
it appears that these issues have been resolved by mutual consent, some in favor of your client, some 
not so. 
It is against these many previous foregone opportunities to object that I receive with surprise 
your letter requesting an I I d' hour, after-the-fact review of our Agreement. Although it happens 
rarely, I do not mind this Office's decision being 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 decisions. Indeed, although I am confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal 
analysis, I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in the Criminal 
-5-
RFP MIA 000505 
EFTA00184887

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 7 of 8 
Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to confirm our interpretation of the law before 
approving their indictment package. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department 
Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that 
have been raised, and in fact resolved, in your client's favor. 
I am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement. The AUSAs who 
have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the 
tactics used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one 
issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has 
been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must 
be closure on this matter. Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will 
continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has 
entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind. 
Finally, I am most concerned about any belief on the part of defense counsel that the 
Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitutional in any way.' 
In closing, I would ask that you consult with co-counsel. If after consultations within the 
defense team, you believe that our Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitutional, I would ask 
that you notify, us immediately so that we can discuss the matter by phone or in person. I have 
consulted with the chief prosecutor in this case, who has advised me that she is ready to unwind the 
Agreement and proceed to trial if necessary or if appropriate. 
I would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant 
to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although 
time is of the essence (I understand that certain filings are due to our Office no later than December 
7i° and that certain events must take place no later than December 14?'), I am directing our 
prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time 
to review these options with your client. We arc available by phone or in person, in the interim, to 
It is not clear from your letter whether you believe that attorneys in this Office have acted improperly. 
Your letter, for example, alludes to the need to engage in an inquiry to asswe that disclosures to potential 
witnesses did not undermine the reliability of the results of this federal investigation. As a former 
Department of Justice attorney 1 am certain that you recognize that this is a serious allegation. I have 
raised this matter with ADM lillafana who informed me that the victims were not told of the availability 
of Section 2255 relief during the investigation phase of this matter. If you have specific concerns, I ask that 
you raise these with me immediately, so that I can make appropriate inquiries. 
-6-
RFP MIA 000506 
EFTA00184888

r 
CaSe 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 8 of 8 
address any matters that might remain unaddressed in this letter. We expect a written decision by 
this Friday at 5 p.m., indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the 
Agreement. 
Sincerely, 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
cc: 
Alice Fis er 
ssistant Attorney General 
leffre 
ilastant 
U.S. Attorney 
AUSA A. 
• 
• 
-7-
RFP MA 000507 
EFTA00184889

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 
14 
EXHIBIT 
87 
EFTA00184890

1" ' udig 9108cvI-nal0736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 
14 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
nun Mlil IAlt() 1W4INLMION 
Jay P. LHIlcowitz. P.0 
in CMI Milo/ Dia:Ily: 
1 
446.4970 
lorkowdzeRkirkionel.com 
VIA FACSIMILE (305) 530-6444 
I lonurahle K. Alexander 
United States Attorney 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NE 4th Street 
Minmi, I;L 33132 
Deur 
CilifVOLIP corn 01 
153 Cutal 53rd Sweat 
Now York. Now York 10022-4611 
www.kirkland coon 
Met:miler I I. 2007 
Re: Alike), ffpxwln 
FocoonIlu: 
In 
4404900 
I thank you Ihr the opportunity to express my concerns with the Section 2255 component 
of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement"). I provide this submission as a good faith 
elfon 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 I). Whitley that I 
faxed to your Office on December 7. 
Background of Negotiations 
believe it is important for you to be aware of the full scope and substance of our 
eoMmunications 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 Ofliee's view, we do not raise our COMMIS about the Section 2255 component of the 
Agreement at the -eleventh hour." Since the very first negotiation of the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement between the USAO and Mr. Epstein. we have verbatim(' our objections to the 
inclusion of and specific language relating to Section 2255. 
Also. when negotiating the 
settlement portion or the federal plea agreement, we immediately sought an alternative to the 
2255 language. In fact. fur the sake of expediting any monetary settlements that were to he made 
and to allow for a quick resolution or the matter. we repeatedly offered that Mr. Epstein establish 
a restitution fund specilicully for the settlement of the identified individuals' civil claims and that 
an impartial, independent representative be appointed to administer that fund. This option. 
however, was rejected by your °Ince. Notably, while in our December 4 letter to me. you 
indicate that the reason for the rejection of a fund was because it would place an upper limit on 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
LOA Angeles 
Munich 
San Francisco 
WAShinglon, 
RFP MIA 000025 
EFTA00184891

12111eA)4 d:birc4b736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 P.;ge3 of 
14 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
MIS 
De,cemher II. 2007 
rage 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 early as 
August 2 when, after receiving the USA()); proposed Non-Pmsecution Agreement, we 
suggested that the 2255 component of the Agreement could be satisfied by the creation or a 
restitution fund: 
, ..Mr. Epstein is prepared to hilly food the identified group of victims which are the focus of the 
Office — that is, the 12 individuals noted at the meeting on July 3 I , 2007. This would allow the 
victims to he able to promptly put this behind them and go foiwurds with their lives. If given the 
cipportunity to opine as to the appropriateneSs of Mr. Rinwin's proposal. in my extensive 
experience in these types of ruses. the victims prefer a quick resolution with compensation for 
damages and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need kw trial. 
See letter from Lily Ann Sanchez to Chief Matthew a 
dated August 2, 2007.1 For the 
duration of the negotiations, we then continued to encourage the use of a restitution fund in place 
of civil liability tinder Section 2255. For example. in our draft plea agreement seat to your 
Office on September 16, 2007. we included the following polygraph; 
Epstein agrees to fund lyust set up in cinuict with the Goventinent und under the supervision of 
the 151k Judiciul Circuit in und for Palm Beach County. Epstein agrees that n Trutaix will he 
appointed by the Circuit Conn and that funds from the Trust will be available to he disbursed at 
the Trustee's discretion to an agreed list of persons who seek reimbursement and make a good 
Milt showing to the Trustee 'hat they suffered injury as a result of the conduct or Epstein, 
Epstein waives his right to contest liability ur damages up to an amount agreed to by the parties 
for any settlements entered into by the Trustee. Epaent's waiver is net m he construed as an 
admission nfelvil or criminal liahility in regards to any of those who seek compensation from the 
Trust. 
See draft proposal sent from Jay Lelliowitz to Andrew I ,nurle dated September 15, 2007. In 
response, Ms. Villafana demanded that the Agreement contain language considering the 
inclusion of a guardian ad hum in the proceedings. despite the fact that. we are now led to 
believe that all but one of the women in question are in fact not minors. Interestingly. Ms. 
WW1= not only raises the same concerns that now have become issues with respect to the 
Implementation of the Section 2255 component, she also believes that the creation of is trust 
would be in the victims' hest interests. Vibrant! writes: 
I It was rat orall alter receipt of this letter that Mr. Menthol indicated to us that the scope of liability would 
encompass nut bite the 12 individualt; named in the Indictment. Init 
of the minor girls identified during the 
federal investigation." See Meneltel entail to Sanchezdated August 3, 2007. 
RFP MLA 000026 
EFTA00184892

I" I Case 9:08:cvi-r80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 
14 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December I I, 20 7 
Page 3 
As 1 mentioned over the telephone. I cannot bind the girls to the 'Mist Agreement. and I don't 
think it is appropriate that a state court would administer a must that seeks to pay for federal civil 
claims. We /huh wum to (wont nakerapulaur itflOrthyS amPor lan:ants front conangfunrard, and 
I know awn "'our client wank io Amp Mae 0101149:t NI/Side O/public cuurr,lilingx, but 1 just don't 
have 11w power to do what you ask. Here is my recommendation. During the period between Mr. 
Epstein's plea mid sentencing. I make a motion for appointment of the Guardian Ad Linen. 
three of UN Nil down and discuss things, and I Will
 ar much as I eon &altµ Ike Seth' 
approval 'Inas arocedurr &ram; as l ownibunal I dank ft Is prubably In their best nacricas. 
In terms of pica agreement language. let me suggest tlw following: 
The (tailed States agrees to make a motion sucking the appointment era Guardian ad Litetn to 
represent the identified victims, Following the appointment of such Guardian. the parties agree to 
work together in good faith to develop a Trust Agreement, subject to the Court's approval. that 
would provide lin any damages owed to the identified victims pursuant In IN I 
Section 
3255. Then include the lust two sentences of your paragraph S. 
See email from Villafana to 1 fetkowitz dated September 16. 2007 (emphasis added). I lowever, 
notably, in the dealt agreement that follows, Ms. Villafana keeps the some objectionable 
language and only adds a portion of what was suggested in her communication to us: 
Epstein agrees that. if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation lite suit pursuant 
to IN U.N.C. # 2255. Epstein will not cunttaa the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the 
Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter. and Epstein will not context 
that the identified victims are persons who, while minors. were victims of vkilittions of Title I It, 
United States Code., Sections(s) 2422 trod/or 2422. 
The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of ilw identified victims, which 
will not exceed forty, utter F,pmein has signed this agreement and has been sentenced. The 
United States shall make a motion with the United Stales District Conti for the Southern District 
of Florida for the appointment of a guardian ad them for the identified victims and F.p.stein's 
counsel may enamel the identified victims through that counsel. 
See draft non-prosecution agreement c-moiled front 
to Lethowitz dated September 17. 
2007. The inclusion of 0 guardian ad /item. however. on y 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 Ithe then relevant 2255 paragraph an infinite number of times." 
During negotiations, it was decided that an attorney representative be appointed in the place of 
guardian ad litem -- not for the sake of litigating claims. but based on the belief that a guardian 
ad litem would not be appropriate lbr adults that are capable of making, their own decisions. 
liowever. the IISAO included into the Agreement that we pay line the attorney representative --
when originally Ms. 
stated that tlx: representative could he paid for by us or the federal 
court. See e-mail from Vt alma to Lelkowitz dated September 23. 2007. 
RFP MIA 000027 
EFTA00184893

ease 9:08r-Cv180736-I<AM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 
14 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December I 1,2007 
Page 4 
The final agreement was very similar to what was proposed by Ms. ViIlatima in her initial 
droll agreement on July 31. 2007: 
The United States shall provide tipstein's fulomey's with u list of individuals whom it has 
identified as victims, us defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, tiller Epstein has signed this agreement end 
has been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement. the United States. In consultation with 
and subject to the good Nth approval of Epstein's counsel. shall stied an attorney representative 
for these persons. who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel nnty contact the identified 
individuals through that representative. 
If any of the individuals retimed to in paragraph (7), xopra. elects to file suit pursuant lo IS 
§ 2255. Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of Florida over this person and/or the subject matter. and Epstein waives his 
right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed in 
between the identified individual and Epstein. so lung 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 to state. federal. or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver. as to those 
individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on 
this agreement. his waivers and ibilures to contest liability, and such damages in any snit are not to 
ho construed ns an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 
See final plea agreement. The Agreement requires Mr. Epstein In waive jurisdiction and liability 
under IS U.S.C. §2255 for the settlement of any monetary claims that might be made by alleged 
victims identified by the MAO (the -identified individual°. Mr. Epstein 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 statute) or some other agreed upon damage amount. Mr. P.pstein must pay for 
the services of the selected attorney representative as long as they are limited to settling the 
claims of the identified individuals. 
The implementation of (he terms of the Agreement was just as contentious as was the 
drilling and negotiation this portion of the Agreement. The lirst major obstacle was a direct 
result of Ms. Villufana's improper attempt to appoint, Mr. Bert Ocariz. a close, person friend of 
her boyfriend's for the role of attorney representative. We of
 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 a result, the USA° dratted 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 stall as to the precise language that would he transmitted to the independent party to explain 
his or role. 
RFP MIA 000028 
EFTA00184894

Case 9:08<v-80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 PlaWeiji -
14 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December I I. 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 terms of the Section 3255 component. The main issues that have arisen since the 
drafting and execution of the final agreement include the process flit the selection of an attorney 
representative: the scope of Mr. Epstein's waiver of liability and jurisdiction: the mle of the 
attorney representative; the language contained in various &tills of the ietter to the independent 
third party: the correct amount of minimum damages pursuant to Section 2255; the extent and 
substance of communications between the witnesses and alleged victims and the USA° and the 
tail. particularly with respect to the settlement process: the language contained in the 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 other 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 i1SAO 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 chill mettle 
specifically. Ms. 
• ' not believe there wits room for contention given the IJSAO's, and 
ultimatums that required that we acquiesce to these unprecedented 
terns. 
Concerns Iteaardinu Section 2253 
Mr Epstein unconditionally re-asserts his intention to UM! and not seek to withdraw 
from or unwind the Agreement previously entered. Ile raises important issues regarding the 
implementation of the 2255 provisions not to unwind the provisions or invalidate the Agreement 
but instead to call attention to serious matters of policy and principles that you are requested to 
review. 
As you will see below our main policy-related concerns arc ( 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 asscncd 
they take no position, and (3) any communications between federal authorities, including your 
staff and the PIK 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 
Office'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 of the expansive Me 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 of contention as to the 
interpretation of various terms of the Section 2255 component of the Agreement. 
RFP MIA 000029 
EFTA00184895

" ni ne RAW/40736-1<AM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 7 of 
14 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
• 
K. Alexander = 
December I I, 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 these issues can create and have created problems 
as to the ability of this component to (1) maintain tlx: integrity and independence of the USA°, 
(2) serve its purpose. namely to provide lidr 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 and 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 opinion. " . . 
.unnecessary entanglement of the government in such cases and the MSC 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. However, to 
include Section 2255 in a federal agreement inherently exacerbates the risk of federal 
involvement in civil litigation and thus lin; 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 slate crimes secure civil financial settlements us a condition precedent to 
entering non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements. This is especially true where the 
defendant is pleading to state crimes for which there exists u 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 financial 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 statute implanted in the criminal code that in contrast to all other criminal 
restitution statutes tails to correlate payments to specific injuries or losses and instead presumes 
dint victims under the statute have sustained damages of at least u minimum lump sum without 
regard to whether the complainants stiflimed actual medical, psychological or other forms of 
individualized harm. We presume that it is for this reason that Section 2255 has never before 
been employed in this manner in connection with a non-prosecution or deferred prosecution 
agreement. 
RFP MIA 000030 
EFTA00184896

lase 9Y/61:CA5736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 P ggveorian
14 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December 1 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 they continue to promote 
the award of a civil settlement to these individuals is problematic. As you know. government 
contracts and plc agreement must not diminish or undermine the integrity of the criminal justice 
system. Sec 
. McGovern. 822 F.2d 739. 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 fire embedded in the tenets of the United Slates 
Attorney's Office. 
I also assert that on 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 tltis 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. Hnd 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 these 
individuals. However. because the alleged victims have the ability 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 
pnssibility for impermissible or partial communications. Most recently, your Office sent us 
/trans or a letter that your Office proposed to send to the alleged victims (the - victim notification 
letter"). While the revised dote of this letter states that victims should contact the State 
Attorney's Office for assistance with their rights, there is no phone number provided for the 
office 
Agent 
' • 
r provides the telephone number and an invitation to contact Special 
of the FBI. Indeed, the letter as currently drafted invites nut only 
contact between your Office and the victims. it also asserts that federal witnesses may become 
participants in u saute proceeding, thus federalizing the state plea mid sentencing in the same 
manner as would the appearance and statements via member of your Office or the 1,B1, 
2 We are concerned with the fact that some (lithe victims were previously notified, as Mr. Jeffrey 
swot in 
his Idler or Deeember 6 letter. In your letter of bcccmbcr 4. you state that you would not issue the Victim 
Notification Leiter until December 7. Thos, it is wowing to leant that some victims were notified prior to that 
date. Please confirm whim lite victims were notified, who was notified. the method or conununicatten thr the 
notification, and the individunl who notified them. 
RFP MIA 000031 
EFTA00184897

_ 
. 
e' a" e
s 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 9 of 
Case 
" n
 
14 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
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 he 
pleading to stale charges and 1w will be sentenced liar the commission of state reenses. The 
'victims' the government identifies 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 nr give statements. 
however these provisions apply only to the victim of the crime for which the defendant is being 
sentenced . . . ' 
'Thus Florida law only affords victims of state 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 federal investigation. Further. any questions al this point involving 
the charges against Mr. Epstein or the proper state procedures under which he will plead or be 
sentenced arc appropriately made to the State Attorney's Olliee. 
Continued federal inv ve e t in this matter its led to an impropriety that was 
unanticipated us well. Ms. 
attempted to manipulate the terms of Mr. Epswin's 
settlement so that persons close to her would personally profit. Ms. 
inappropriately 
attempted to nominate Bert Oeariz liar attorney representative. despite t e act that Mr. Ocariz 
turns out to be a very good personal friend or ms. vmatcanis boyfriend, a fact she assiduously 
kept hidden from counsel. We requested alternate choices immediately. hut were told that Mr. 
Ocariz had been informed of the charges the government would bring against Epstein and in 
response, he aske 
•-mail whether his lees would be capped. Needless to say. we were 
alarmed that Ms. 
would attempt to influence the settlement process on such improper 
grounds. And even alter 
e USA° conceded that it was inappropriate for its attorneys to select 
the attorney representative, Ms. 
continued to impro rly lobby for Mt Modes 
appointment. On October 19, 200 , retire Judge 
13. 
who was appointed by the 
parties to select the attorney representative. informe 
r. Pp 
s counsel that he received a 
telephone call from Mr. Oeariz directly requesting that Judge 
appoint him as the attorney 
s
entative in this matter. Although it is unclear how Mr. 
cariz even knows that Judge 
has been chosen to administer the settlement process. it can only be understood as Ms. 
Villalimats attempts to compromise the fairness of the settlement process. 
B. 
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 informed of Mr. lipstein's waiver 
under Section 2255 for the settlement of claims pursuant to the Agreement. Indeed, Mr. Whitley 
states. " . . .the Department (of.lustice) 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 be given any special treatment due to the fact that it may affect the reliability of 
RFP MIA 000032 
EFTA00184898

"eaysve 9I:i58"-Cvr-80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 10 of 
14 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Dcectnber 1 . 2007 
Page 9 
their testimony. Any and all communications between the federal authorities and the allotted 
- victims" and witnesses in this matter has the ability to influence the reliability of the testimony 
obtained and the validity Ards: 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 matter may have been tainted. An inquiry is required to 
confirm that at the time witness statements were given. them were no conummications 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 snaking improper communications at this point the fact that the award of a civil 
settlement, without any requirement to prove liability. Is available to the identified Individuals, 
raises cause for concern as to the nature of all conununications that am 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 "place the victims in the same position us 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 
are aware one of the responsibilities of your Office ix 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 elm he noted that, the Agreement. bath as written and as 
interpreted by your Office significantly enlarges the victims' ability to recover from Mr. Epstein. 
Per instance, it' 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 tes►ed 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 bud 
Mr. Epstein hem convicted at trial misundostands the Agreement and your Office's 
implementation of its terms. 
C. 
Rights ur a Defendant 
Requiring Mr. Epstein to snake a blanket waiver of liability and jurisdiction as to 
unidentified victims whose claims to which the government lakes no position can be construed as 
RFP MIA 000033 
EFTA00184899

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 11 of 
14 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December I I. 2007 
Pap I0 
violative of his Due Process rights. Furthermore. the fact 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 lilt injustice and an abridgement of Mr. lipstehes rights. At 
the very least. Mr. Epstein should he given the right to know the identity or the victims and the 
evidence upon which each one was identified as a victim by the government. 
The USA() has provided no information as to the specific claims that were made by each 
identified individual, nor were we given the names or ages or the individuals or the time-Prone 
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 lint 
misconduct by the federal investigators and eliminates the ability for Mr. Epstein and/or his 
agents to verily that the allegations at issue arc 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 appermmee or injustice, 
both because of the obvious Due Process concerns al waiving rights without notice of even the 
identity of the complainant and because of the involvement of the federal criminal justice system 
in civil settlements between private individuals. We reaffirm the II 
to test the veracity of the 
victims' eluims as provided to us in the letter from you to Judge 
dated Oeurbei 25. 2007. 
It has recently come to our attention that your staff has identified 
HS a 
- victim" for purposes of Section 2255 relief: 
who initially and repeatedly refused to 
cooperate with federal authorities during the course of the investigation. only submitted to an 
interview after she was conferred with a grant of immunity. Surely this is not a demand typically 
made by someone who is a crime - victim". Moreover, 
:mom testimony does not 
suggest that she is a victim. 
• has not only admitted that she lied to Mr. Epstein about 
her age claiming she was 18 years old. hut that she counseled Others to lie to Mr. Epstein in the 
same manner. 
also states that Mr. Epstein was clear with her that he was only 
interested in "women" who were of ags: and that most of the young women she brought to his 
home were indeed over 18 years of age. Moreover. while 
claims to have provided 
mussages to Mr. Epstein. she does not alleµ; 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 tor on her: denies he touched her breasts. buttocks, or vagina: and slates that she never 
touched Mr. F.pstein's sexual organs — nor was she asked to do so by Mr. Epstein. Without a 
right to contest the liability of claims, 
will likely receive ear more in civil damages 
than what would he she would have had Mr. Epstein been convicted. 
In addition, the Agreement with the MAO only detixs lizderul prosixtition of Mr. 
Epstein: it does not assert a declination to prosecute. as was first contemplated in the negotiation 
of the Agreement. Any payments made and/or settlement agreements reached with the alleged 
RFP MIA 000034 
EFTA00184900

Case 9:013-cv-8636-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 12 of 
14 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
• 
• 
• 
II 
December 11, 2007 
Page I I 
victims prior to the foreclosure of any future federal prosecution carries the potential of being 
used as evidence against Mr. Epstein. 'Huts. 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 of the terms by your 
Office. 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. 
Role of the Attorney Representative 
The tJSAO has improperly emphasized that the chosen attorney 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 lowever. after the parties agreed to the appointment of an 
independent third party to select the representative, the government announced that the criteria 
for choosing an appropriate attorney representative would include that they be "a plaintiffs 
lawyer capable of handling multiple lawsuits against high profile attorneys." This interpretation 
of the scope of the attorney representative's role is Ihr outside the common understanding that 
existed when we negotiated Mr. Epstein's settlement with the USA°. Moreover, we have made 
the USAO 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 language that confirmed your Office's interpretation and 
indicated that Mr. Podhurst mid Mr. Josefsberg, 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 USAO, 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 confusion. misunderstanding and disappointment 
among the identified individuals when they learn that such representation is foreclosed. 
R. 
Scope of Mr. Epstein'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 the 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 
Agreement and Addendum. Mr. Epstein has no obligation to waive this right to contest liability 
RFP MIA 000035 
EFTA00184901

. . 
. _ 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 13 of 
14 
(4
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December 11, 2007 
Page 12 
in any claim for damages • by an enumerated "victim"- or anyone else — where that party Nis 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 
of the Agreement. While we 
do not have any objection to including this portion of the Agreement in the proposed letter, we 
request that Paragraphs 7A, 713. and 7C of the Addendum to the Agreement also be included 
because the language contained there 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 nor agree with your Office's assertion 
that it is either an obligation and even appmpriate for the MAO to send a victims notification 
letter to the alleged victims. The Justice fin 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 (JSAO inform alleged victims 
pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. Notably. if the USAO 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 pmposed Victims 
Notification letter in your correspondence of December 4 are also inapplicable to this scenario. 
For instance. you cite IS U.S.C. § 3771 for the proposition that your Office is obligated to 
provide certain notices to the alleged victims. However. IS U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) & (3) provide: 
A crime victim has the Iblkswing rights: 
(2) The right to rcusnnuhle, nceurate. and timely notice of any public coun proceeding. or say 
parole proceeding. inreilving the crime nr any rcicmc or escape of the accused. 
(3) the right not to he esCluded from any such public court proceeding. unless Ilw coo, offer 
receiving clear and convincing evidence, deo:mines that testimony by 11w victim would be 
materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at the proceeding. 
(emphasis added), Your interpretation of § 3771 is erroneous because the rights conferred by the 
statute indicate that these rights are 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 stale court for the purpose of the entry of a pica on state 
charges. Therefore, IS U.S.C. § 3771 clearly does not apply to "victims" who arc not stale 
"victims." You additionally cite your Office's obligations under § 3771(c)( I) of the Justice for 
All Act of 2004, Ilowever, 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 fur 
RFP MIA 000036 
EFTA00184902

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 14 of
14 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LIP 
• 
• 
It, Alexander 
December I I. 2007 
Page 13 
which the public proceeding is being held, the individuals identified by your GIlice have no 
rights to notification or appearance under this Act. 
You further cite 42 U.S.C. # I0607(c)(I)(13) and (c)(3) which. you state. obligates your 
Office to inform victims of "any mannikin or other relief' to which that victim may be entitled 
and of notice of the status of the investigation: the filing of charges against a suspected offender: 
and the acceptance of a plea. Although we do not believe this applies here tbr the same reasons 
stated above. we further assert that your proposed Victims Notification letter seeks to go beyond 
what is prescribix1 under 42 U.S.C. 
10607. indeed, there is nothing in the statute that requires 
your Office to solicit witness testimony or statements Ibr the purposes of Mr. Epstein's 
sentencing hewing. Furthermore, we assert that any notification obligation you believe you have 
under this statute should be addressed by Judge 
We submit to you based on the policy concerns of including u civil remedies statute in a 
criminal agreement and requiring the waiver of a defendants' rights under that agreement creates 
a host of problems that, in this case, have lcd to a sericite: delay in achieving finality to the 
satisfaction of all parties affected. We appreciate your consideration of these issues and hope 
that we can find a solution that resolves our concerns. 
Sincerely. 
RFP MIA 000037 
EFTA00184903