EFTA00190318

What limits are placed upon individuals who proceed under 2255 as if "Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted 
of an enumerated offense." In other words, what individuals would have this right? And would these individual only 
have this right if they proceeded exclusively under 2255? Also, to what enumerated offenses do you think would Mr. 
Epstein have to make constructive admissions of conviction? and how many such offenses? And against 
whom? Remember that while you may have investigated various offenses, he only plead guilty to certain state crimes. 
Finally, would paragraphs 8-10 of the September Agreement still be operative? 
I am trying hard to understand what you have intended by the December letter. Alex has says he thinks it benefits Jeffrey, 
and I am open to understanding it that way. But I would like some clarity on these issues. 
Thanks -- Jay 
Wiliam Ann Mario C. (USAFI-51" 
[email protected]> 
08/1412008 12.44 PM 
To <letkow.ligtkiiktand.com> 
cc 'Atkinson. Karen (LISAFLS)' <Karen [email protected]> 
Subject Follow-up point 
Hi Jay — I forgot to mention that I can no longer argue that the Court shouldn't force us to produce the 
agreement because we have already provided the victims with the relevant portion when I now understand from 
you that I have NOT provided them with the relevant portion. 
A. Marie Villain& 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
The information contained in this communication is 
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may 
constitute inside information, and is intended only for 
the use of the addressee. It is the property of 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
328 
EFTA00190638

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <[email protected]> 
Sent: 
Friday, August 15, 2008 11:08 AM 
To: 
Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen 
(USAFLS); Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
FW: Follow-up point 
Just received a response from Jay. I'm not sure what he means about talking "this morning," since I haven't 
spoken to him today. 
I don't believe that we should wait two weeks for them to confer. They have the ability to confer over the 
telephone or to come and visit him (as reported in the Palm Beach Post). 
Here is my proposed response: 
Dear Jay: 
Thank you for your response. It is our position that Mr. Epstein accepted the December modification by his 
performance. If you prefer to return to the language of the October addendum, we have no objection, but, as 
you know, I have been ordered to produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement and I cannot wait two weeks to do 
so. Please advise me by noon on Monday in writing, preferably signed by your client, whether Mr. Epstein 
intends to perform according to the terms of the December modification or whether he elects to return to the 
October addendum. 
If Mr. Epstein elects to perform according to the terms of the October addendum, then please prepare a 
proposed written submission to the Special Master, in accordance with Paragraph 7B, for my review by Monday 
afternoon. The extensive delays of the past will no longer be tolerated, and the Office will insist upon a 
showing of good faith performance in the selection of the attorney representative and all other terms of the 
Agreement. 
Sincerely, 
Marie 
A. Marie Villafaffa 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: Jay Lefkowitz imallto:[email protected] 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 10:53 AM 
To: Villafana, Ann Made C (USAFLS) 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Roy BLACK; Martin Weinberg 
Subject: Re: Follow-up point 
336 
EFTA00190639

Marie - thanks for responding to my email. You have narrowed down some of the implementation issues. 
As I told you this morning, we cannot accept your contention that Mr. Epstein is bound by an agreement he 
didn't sign as opposed to one he did sign, particularly in light of my written communications to your 
office dated December 21, 2007 and December 26, 2007. However, before we can make a determination 
whether to adopt the December language as you have now explained it, we need to confer with our client, which 
we will be able to do within the next two weeks. 
I look forward to speaking with you soon to resolve these issues. 
Jay 
From: "Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)" [[email protected]] 
Sent: 08/14/2008 03:27 PM AST 
To: Jay Lefkowitz 
Cc: "Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS)" <Karen.Atkinson®usdoj.gov>; "Roy BLACK" 
<RBLACK©royblack.com> 
Subject: RE: Follow-up point 
Dear Jay: 
The modification contained in the December letter is clear and simple, that is why we were not surprised by Mr. 
Epstein's and his attorneys' actions affirming acceptance of the modification. Mr. Epstein's acceptance of the 
modification by pleading guilty was equally clear and simple -- it followed written communications from Mr. 
Sloman and myself that read: "Mr. Epstein has until the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply 
with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein (as modified by the 
U.S. Attorney's December 19i6letter to Ms. Sanchez), including entry of a guilty plea, sentencing, and 
surrendering to begin his sentence of imprisonment." 
As clearly stated in the December letter, only those "individuals whom [the United States] was prepared to 
name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense" are the beneficiaries of the agreement. That is the 
list of names that I provided to Messrs. Goldberger and Tein following the change of plea. Under the 
September/October agreement, all "individuals whom [the United States] has identified as victims" are the 
beneficiaries, so I would prepare a supplement to the earlier list to include identified victims whom we were not 
yet prepared to name in an indictment. 
Again, as stated in the letter, the modification replaces paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement, including 
paragraphs 7A through 7C that are included in the October Addendum. This means that Mr. Epstein's waiver 
of "his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein" 
will no longer exist, nor will Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay for the victims' counsel. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are 
still in effect. This includes the statement that there is no admission of civil or criminal liability, and that, 
"[e]xcept as to those individuals who elect to proceed EXCLUSIVELY under 18 USC § 2255, .. . Epstein's 
signature [cannot] be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability." This addresses your 
question regarding exclusivity. 
I don't think that Mr. Epstein has to make any constructive admissions of conviction. He only needs to admit 
that the 32 girls whose names I have provided to Mr. Goldberger are "victims" of an offense listed in 18 U.S.C. 
2255. 
337 
EFTA00190640

Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you. 
A. Marie Vilkfletha 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: Jay Lefkowitz [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 2:39 PM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); [email protected] 
Subject: Re: Follow-up point 
Marie - In reviewing your December proposal, there are a couple of things I don't understand. 
What limits are placed upon individuals who proceed under 2255 as if "Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted 
of an enumerated offense." In other words, what individuals would have this right? And would these individual only 
have this right if they proceeded exclusively under 2255? Also, to what enumerated offenses do you think would Mr. 
Epstein have to make constructive admissions of conviction? and how many such offenses? And against 
whom? Remember that while you may have investigated various offenses, he only plead guilty to certain state crimes. 
Finally, would paragraphs 8-10 of the September Agreement still be operative? 
I am trying hard to understand what you have intended by the December letter. Alex has says he thinks it benefits Jeffrey, 
and I am open to understanding it that way. But I would like some clarity on these issues. 
Thanks — Jay 
"Villalana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)" 
<[email protected] 
oan4nooa 12:44 PM 
To <lerkeeitztgkirkland.ccal> 
cc 'Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS)- <Karen [email protected]> 
Subject Follow-up point 
Iii Jay —1 forgot to mention that I can no longer argue that the Court shouldn't force us to produce the 
agreement because we have already provided the victims with the relevant portion when I now understand from 
you that I have NOT provided them with the relevant portion. 
A. Marie Villafana 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
338 
EFTA00190641

Fax 561 820-8777 
The information contained in this communication is 
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may 
constitute inside information, and is intended only for 
the use of the addressee. It is the property of 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland fi Ellis International LLP. 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to postmasterQkirkland.com, and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
The information contained in this communication is 
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may 
constitute inside information, and is intended only for 
the use of the addressee. It is the property of 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
339 
EFTA00190642

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) <[email protected]> 
Sent: 
Friday, August 15, 2008 11:12 AM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); 
Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Follow-up point 
Are we really proposing the Special Master? Is he still on board? 
I thought we had said that compliance with that was an Impossibility given the passage of time? 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 11:08 AM 
To: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Lee, Dexter 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: FW: Follow-up point 
Just received a response from Jay. I'm not sure what he means about talking "this morning," since I haven't 
spoken to him today. 
I don't believe that we should wait two weeks for them to confer. They have the ability to confer over the 
telephone or to come and visit him (as reported in the Palm Beach Post). 
Here is my proposed response: 
Dear Jay: 
Thank you for your response. It is our position that Mr. Epstein accepted the December modification by his 
performance. If you prefer to return to the language of the October addendum, we have no objection, but, as 
you know, I have been ordered to produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement and I cannot wait two weeks to do 
so. Please advise me by noon on Monday in writing, preferably signed by your client, whether Mr. Epstein 
intends to perform according to the terms of the December modification or whether he elects to return to the 
October addendum. 
If Mr. Epstein elects to perform according to the terms of the October addendum, then please prepare a 
proposed written submission to the Special Master, in accordance with Paragraph 7B, for my review by Monday 
afternoon. The extensive delays of the past will no longer be tolerated, and the Office will insist upon a 
showing of good faith performance in the selection of the attorney representative and all other terms of the 
Agreement. 
Sincerely, 
Marie 
A. Marie Villafana 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
340 
EFTA00190643

From: Jay Lefkowitz [rnailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 10:53 AM 
To: VIHelena, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Roy BLACK; Martin Weinberg 
Subject: Re: Follow-up point 
Marie - thanks for responding to my email. You have narrowed down some of the implementation issues. 
As I told you this morning, we cannot accept your contention that Mr. Epstein is bound by an agreement he 
didn't sign as opposed to one he did sign, particularly in light of my written communications to your 
office dated December 21, 2007 and December 26, 2007. However, before we can make a determination 
whether to adopt the December language as you have now explained it, we need to confer with our client, which 
we will be able to do within the next two weeks. 
I look forward to speaking with you soon to resolve these issues. 
Jay 
From: "Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)" [[email protected]] 
Sent: 08/14/2008 03:27 PM AST 
To: Jay Lefkowitz 
Cc: "Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS)" <[email protected]>; "Roy BLACK" 
<RELACK®royblack.com> 
Subject: RE: Follow-up point 
Dear Jay: 
The modification contained in the December letter is clear and simple, that is why we were not surprised by Mr. 
Epstein's and his attorneys' actions affirming acceptance of the modification. Mr. Epstein's acceptance of the 
modification by pleading guilty was equally clear and simple -- it followed written communications from Mr. 
Sloman and myself that read: "Mr. Epstein has until the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply 
with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein (as modified by the 
U.S. Attorney's December 19thletter to Ms. Sanchez), including entry of a guilty plea, sentencing, and 
surrendering to begin his sentence of imprisonment." 
As clearly stated in the December letter, only those "individuals whom [the United States] was prepared to 
name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense" are the beneficiaries of the agreement. That is the 
list of names that I provided to Messrs. Goldberger and Tein following the change of plea. Under the 
September/October agreement, all "individuals whom [the United States] has identified as victims" are the 
beneficiaries, so I would prepare a supplement to the earlier list to include identified victims whom we were not 
yet prepared to name in an indictment. 
Again, as stated in the letter, the modification replaces paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement, including 
paragraphs 7A through 7C that are included in the October.Addendum. This means that Mr. Epstein's waiver 
of "his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein" 
will no longer exist, nor will Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay for the victims' counsel. Paragraphs 9 and 10 arc 
341 
EFTA00190644

still in effect. This includes the statement that there is no admission &civil or criminal liability, and that, 
"[elxcept as to those individuals who elect to proceed EXCLUSIVELY under I8 USC *2255, .. . Epstein's 
signature [cannot] be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability." This addresses your 
question regarding exclusivity. 
I don't think that Mr. Epstein has to make any constructive admissions of conviction. He only needs to admit 
that the 32 girls whose names I have provided to Mr. Goldberger arc "victims" of an offense listed in I8 U.S.C. 
2255. 
- 
" 
Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you. 
A. Marie Vilkfaiia 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: Jay Lefkowitz [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 2:39 PM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); [email protected] 
Subject: Re: Follow-up point 
Marie - In reviewing your December proposal, there are a couple of things I don't understand. 
What limits are placed upon individuals who proceed under 2255 as if "Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted 
of an enumerated offense." In other words, what individuals would have this right? And would these individual only 
have this right if they proceeded exclusively under 2255? Also, to what enumerated offenses do you think would Mr. 
Epstein have to make constructive admissions of conviction? and how many such offenses? And against 
whom? Remember that while you may have investigated various offenses, he only plead guilty to certain state crimes. 
Finally, would paragraphs 8-10 of the September Agreement still be operative? 
I am trying hard to understand what you have intended by the December letter. Alex has says he thinks it benefits Jeffrey, 
and I am open to understanding it that way. But I would like some clarity on these issues. 
Thanks -- Jay 
"Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)-
<[email protected]> 
08114/2008 12:44 PM 
To <letowitz©kirkland.can> 
cc "Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS)" <[email protected]> 
Subject Fc4kny-up point 
Hi Jay — I forgot to mention that I can no longer argue that the Court shouldn't force us to produce the 
agreement because we have already provided the victims with the relevant portion when I now understand from 
you that 1 have NOT provided them with the relevant portion. 
A. Marie Villafana 
342 
EFTA00190645

Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
The information contained in this communication is 
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may 
constitute inside information, and is intended only for 
the use of the addressee. It is the property of 
Kirkland 6 Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
The information contained in this communication is 
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may 
constitute inside information, and is intended only for 
the use of the addressee. It is the property of 
Kirkland 6 Ellis LLP or Kirkland 6 Ellis International LLP. 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
**************** 
*.tie*************************** 
********* 
Ire* 
343 
EFTA00190646

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) <[email protected]> 
Sent: 
Friday, August 15, 2008 11:55 AM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Lee, 
Dexter (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: New proposed response to Jay 
How about a slightly different version: 
Thank you for your response. Our communications with Roy Black and later with you were solely to determine 
what Mr. Epstein considered to be the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. We appreciate your answering 
our question with finality. You have now made clear that Mr. Epstein did not accept the December 
modification, and accordingly, we will now consider that modification to be a nullity. 
Pursuant to our Agreement, I will prepare an Amended Notification that contains the name of additional 
identified victims. In accordance with Paragraph 7B, please provide me with a proposed written submission to 
the Special Master by Monday afternoon. 
Finally, as you are aware, yhe United States has been ordered to produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement. In 
accordance with that Order, we will produce the September Agreement with the October Addendum signed by 
your client. We understand that Mr. Goldberg may not have provided the state court with a true copy of the 
complete Agreement, and he should take steps to correct that error. 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 11:42 AM 
To: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Lee, Dexter (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: New proposed response to Jay 
Dear Jay: 
Thank you for your response. Our communications with Roy Black and later with you were solely to determine 
what Mr. Epstein considered to be the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. You have now made clear that 
Mr. Epstein did not accept the December modification and does not intend to perform the obligations set forth 
therein. The Office is not going to continue negotiating the terms of the Agreement. We only sought finality 
and you have answered our question. Accordingly, the December proposed modification is hereby withdrawn. 
The United States has been ordered to produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement and, in accordance with that 
Order, will produce the September Agreement with the October Addendum signed by your client. Mr. 
Goldberger should be advised that we understand he has not provided the state court with a true copy of the 
complete Agreement, and he should take steps to correct that error. I will prepare an Amended Notification that 
contains the name of additional identified victims and will provide that to you promptly. 
In accordance with Paragraph 7B of the Agreement, please provide me with a proposed written submission to 
the Special Master by Monday afternoon. We will expect a showing of good faith in the selection of the 
attorney representative and all other terms of the Agreement and excessive delays, like those that have occurred 
in the past, will be considered a breach of that duty of good faith. 
344 
EFTA00190647

Sincerely, 
A. Marie Villajaiia 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
395 
EFTA00190648

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <[email protected]> 
Sent: 
Friday, August 15, 2008 11:17 AM 
To: 
Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen 
(USAFLS); Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Follow-up point 
We either have to do the October Agreement or the December Agreement, I don't think we can let them get 
away with doing neither. Two-thirds of the victims do not have any representation. 
The language of the agreement gives us the right to select the Special Master, and we should choose someone 
quickly. We then have to create a written submission, and we should give them a very short time frame to do 
so. If we keep their feet to the fire, this can be completed within a week. 
A. Marie VillafaIla 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) 
Sent Friday, August 15, 2008 11:12 AM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Lee, 
Dexter (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Follow-up point 
Are we really proposing the Special Master? Is he still on board? 
I thought we had said that compliance with that was an impossibility given the passage of time? 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 11:08 AM 
To: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Lee, Dexter 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: FW: Follow-up point 
Just received a response from Jay. I'm not sure what he means about talking "this morning," since I haven't 
spoken to him today. 
don't believe that we should wait two weeks for them to confer. They have the ability to confer over the 
telephone or to come and visit him (as reported in the Palm Beach Post). 
Here is my proposed response: 
Dear Jay: 
Thank you for your response. It is our position that Mr. Epstein accepted the December modification by his 
performance. If you prefer to return to the language of the October addendum, we have no objection, but, as 
347 
EFTA00190649

you know, I have been ordered to produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement and I cannot wait two weeks to do 
so. Please advise me by noon on Monday in writing, preferably signed by your client, whether Mr. Epstein 
intends to perform according to the terms of the December modification or whether he elects to return to the 
October addendum. 
If Mr. Epstein elects to perform according to the terms of the October addendum, then please prepare a 
proposed written submission to the Special Master, in accordance with Paragraph 7B, for my review by Monday 
afternoon. The extensive delays of the past will no longer be tolerated, and the Office will insist upon a 
showing of good faith performance in the selection of the attorney representative and all other terms of the 
Agreement. 
Sincerely, 
Marie 
A. Marie Villafafto 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: lay Lefkowitz [[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 10:53 AM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Roy BLACK; Martin Weinberg 
Subject: Re: Follow-up point 
Marie - thanks for responding to my email. You have narrowed down some of the implementation issues. 
As I told you this morning, we cannot accept your contention that Mr. Epstein is bound by an agreement he 
didn't sign as opposed to one he did sign, particularly in light of my written communications to your 
office dated December 21, 2007 and December 26, 2007. However, before we can make a determination 
whether to adopt the December language as you have now explained it, we need to confer with our client, which 
we will be able to do within the next two weeks. 
I look forward to speaking with you soon to resolve these issues. 
Jay 
From: "Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)" [[email protected]] 
Sent: 08/14/2008 03:27 PM AST 
To: Jay Leflcowitz 
Cc: "Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS)" <[email protected]>; "Roy BLACK" 
<RBLACK®royblack.com> 
Subject: RE: Follow-up point 
Dear Jay: 
348 
EFTA00190650

The modification contained in the December letter is clear and simple, that is why we were not surprised by Mr. 
Epstein's and his attorneys' actions affirming acceptance of the modification. Mr. Epstein's acceptance of the 
modification by pleading guilty was equally clear and simple -- it followed written communications from Mr. 
Sloman and myself that read: "Mr. Epstein has until the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply 
with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein (as modified by the 
U.S. Attorney's December I9thletter to Ms. Sanchez), including entry of a guilty plea, sentencing, and 
surrendering to begin his sentence of imprisonment." 
As clearly stated in the December letter, only those "individuals whom [the United States] was prepared to 
name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense" are the beneficiaries of the agreement. That is the 
list of names that I provided to Messrs. Goldberger and Tein following the change of plea. Under the 
September/October agreement, all "individuals whom [the United States] has identified as victims" are the 
beneficiaries, so I would prepare a supplement to the earlier list to include identified victims whom we were not 
yet prepared to name in an indictment. 
Again, as stated in the letter, the modification replaces paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement, including 
paragraphs 7A through 7C that are included in the October Addendum. This means that Mr. Epstein's waiver 
of "his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein" 
will no longer exist, nor will Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay for the victims' counsel. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are 
still in effect. This includes the statement that there is no admission of civil or criminal liability, and that, 
"[e]xcept as to those individuals who elect to proceed EXCLUSIVELY under 18 USC § 2255, . . . Epstein's 
signature [cannot] be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability." This addresses your 
question regarding exclusivity. 
I don't think that Mr. Epstein has to make any constructive admissions of conviction. He only needs to admit 
that the 32 girls whose names I have provided to Mr. Goldberger are "victims" of an offense listed in 18 U.S.C. 
2255. 
Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you. 
A. Marie Villafafia 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: Jay Lefkowitz [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 2:39 PM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); leflcowitz(Dkirkland.com 
Subject: Re: Follow-up point 
Marie - In reviewing your December proposal, there are a couple of things I don't understand. 
What limits are placed upon individuals who proceed under 2255 as if "Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted 
of an enumerated offense." In other words, what individuals would have this right? And would these individual only 
have this right if they proceeded exclusively under 2255? Also, to what enumerated offenses do you think would Mr. 
Epstein have to make constructive admissions of conviction? and how many such offenses? And against 
whom? Remember that while you may have investigated various offenses, he only plead guilty to certain state crimes. 
349 
EFTA00190651

Finally, would paragraphs 8-10 of the September Agreement still be operative? 
I am trying hard to understand what you have intended by the December letter. Alex has says he thinks it benefits Jeffrey, 
and I am open to understanding it that way. But I would like some clarity on these issues. 
Thanks -- Jay 
"Villafana, Ann Made C. (USAFLS)" 
<AnitMarle.C.VInalanaigusdoj.gov> 
08/14/2008 12:44 PM 
To clelkowitz©kirkland.com> 
cc "Atkinson. Karen (USAFIS)" <Karen.AllunsonauSdei.gbv" 
Subject Follow-up point 
Ili Jay — I forgot to mention that I can no longer argue that the Court shouldn't force us to produce the 
agreement because we have already provided the victims with the relevant portion when I now understand from 
you that I have NOT provided them with the relevant portion. 
A. Marie Villafatla 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820.8777 
The information contained in this communication is 
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may 
constitute inside information, and is intended only for 
the use of the addressee. It is the property of 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
ti******************** 
************************************* 
The information contained in this communication is 
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may 
constitute inside information, and is intended only for 
the use of the addressee. It is the property of 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
350 
EFTA00190652

and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
******************** 
**************************** 
***** ***** 
351 
EFTA00190653

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Senior, Robert (USAFLS) <[email protected]> 
Sent: 
Friday, August 15, 2008 1:34 PM 
To: 
Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Lee, 
Dexter (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: New proposed response to Jay 
Shouldn't we formally withdraw the offer as opposed to considering it a nullity ? 
— Original Message --
From: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Let, Dexter (USAFLS); Atkinson, 
Karen (USAFLS) 
Sent: Fri Aug 15 11:55:13 2008 
Subject: RE: New proposed response to Jay 
How about a slightly different version: 
Thank you for your response. Our communications with Roy Black and later with you were solely to determine what Mr. Epstein 
considered to be the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. We appreciate your answering our question with finality. You have 
now made clear that Mr. Epstein did not accept the December modification, and accordingly, we will now consider that modification 
to be a nullity. 
Pursuant to our Agreement, I will prepare an Amended Notification that contains the name of additional identified victims. In 
accordance with Paragraph 7B, please provide me with a proposed written submission to the Special Master by Monday afternoon. 
Finally, as you are aware, yhe United States has been ordered to produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement. In accordance with that 
Order, we will produce the September Agreement with the October Addendum signed by your client. We understand that Mr. 
Goldberg may not have provided the state court with a true copy of the complete Agreement, and he should take steps to correct that 
error. 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 11:42 AM 
To: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Lee, Dexter (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: New proposed response to Jay 
Dear Jay: 
Thank you for your response. Our communications with Roy Black and later with you were solely to determine what Mr. Epstein 
considered to be the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. You have now made clear that Mr. Epstein did not accept the 
December modification and does not intend to perform the obligations set forth therein. The Office is not going to continue 
negotiating the terms of the Agreement. We only sought finality and you have answered our question. Accordingly, the December 
proposed modification is hereby withdrawn. 
353 
EFTA00190654

The United States has been ordered to produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement and, in accordance with that Order, will produce the 
September Agreement with the October Addendum signed by your client. Mr. Goldberger should be advised that we understand he 
has not provided the state court with a true copy of the complete Agreement, and he should take steps to correct that error. I will 
prepare an Amended Notification that contains the name of additional identified victims and will provide that to you promptly. 
In accordance with Paragraph 78 of the Agreement, please provide me with a proposed written submission to the Special Master by 
Monday afternoon. We will expect a showing of good faith in the selection of the attorney representative and all other terms of the 
Agreement and excessive delays, like those that have occurred in the past, will be considered a breach of that duly of good faith. 
Sincerely, 
A. Marie Villafana 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
354 
EFTA00190655

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <AVillafana usa.doj.gov> 
Sent: 
Friday, August 15, 20081:44 PM 
To: 
Senior, Robert (USAFIS) 
Subject: 
RE: New proposed response to Jay 
Yes, Bob. Finn language. These guys only respond to decisive action, not civilities. 
A. Marie Villafafta 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
----Original Message---
From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 1:34 PM 
To: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Lee, Dexter (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Re: New proposed response to Jay 
Shouldn't we formally withdraw the offer as opposed to considering it a nullity ? 
Original Message ----
From: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Lee, Dexter (USAFLS); Atkinson, 
Karen (USAFLS) 
Sent: Fri Aug 15 11:55:13 2008 
Subject: RE: New proposed response to Jay 
How about a slightly different version: 
Thank you for your response. Our communications with Roy Black and later with you were solely to determine what Mr. Epstein 
considered to be the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. We appreciate your answering our question with finality. You have 
now made clear that Mr. Epstein did not accept the December modification, and accordingly, we will now consider that modification 
to be a nullity. 
Pursuant to our Agreement, I will prepare an Amended Notification that contains the name of additional identified victims. In 
accordance with Paragraph 7B, please provide me with a proposed written submission to the Special Master by Monday afternoon. 
Finally, as you are aware, yhe United States has been ordered to produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement. In accordance with that 
Order, we will produce the September Agreement with the October Addendum signed by your client. We understand that Mr. 
Goldberg may not have provided the state court with a true copy of the complete Agreement, and he should take steps to correct that 
error. 
355 
EFTA00190656

From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Friday, August IS, 2008 11:42 AM 
To: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Lee, Dexter (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: New proposed response to Jay 
Dear Jay: 
Thank you for your response. Our communications with Roy Black and later with you were solely to determine what Mr. Epstein 
considered to be the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. You have now made clear that Mr. Epstein did not accept the 
December modification and does not intend to perform the obligations set forth therein. The Office is not going to continue 
negotiating the terms of the Agreement. We only sought finality and you have answered our question. Accordingly, the December 
proposed modification is hereby withdrawn. 
The United States has been ordered to produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement and, in accordance with that Order, will produce the 
September Agreement with the October Addendum signed by your client. Mr. Goldberger should be advised that we understand he 
has not provided the state court with a true copy of the complete Agreement, and he should lake steps to correct that error. I will 
prepare an Amended Notification that contains the name of additional identified victims and will provide that to you promptly. 
In accordance with Paragraph 7B of the Agreement, please provide me with a proposed written submission to the Special Master by 
Monday afternoon. We will expect a showing of good faith in the selection of the attorney representative and all other tenns of the 
Agreement and excessive delays, like those that have occurred in the past, will be considered a breach of that duty of good faith. 
Sincerely, 
A. Marie Villafa0a 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209.1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
356 
EFTA00190657