EFTA00208767

U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 2053U 
June 23, 2008 
Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. 
Kenneth Starr, Esq. 
Kirkland and Ellis LLP 
Gentlemen: 
This Office has completed a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's handling of the matter 
involving your client, Jeffrey Epstein. We have received and reviewed your letters of May 19, 
June 3 and June 19, 2008, the attachments to the June 19 letter, as well as your submissions to 
the Criminal Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office. Additionally, we have reviewed an 
extensive set of materials provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office and conferred with a number of 
highly experienced Department attorneys about this matter. The Deputy Attorney General has 
also been briefed. 
As you know, the Department of Justice vests considerable discretion in its U.S. Attorneys, and 
the Deputy Attorney General will intervene in only the most unusual of circumstances. We do 
not believe such intervention is warranted here. Even if we were to substitute our judgment for 
that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe that federal prosecution of this case is appropriate. 
Moreover, having reviewed your allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and the facts 
underlying them, we see nothing in the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's Office that gives us any 
reason to alter our opinion. 
Sincerely, 
John Roth 
Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General 
cc: 
Alex Acosta 
EFTA00208767

LAW OFFICES 
ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC 
MALL EN 
REBECCA& 
OETS 
R TgOnSe
 RODGERS 
OAVIO 
El THOMAS 
JAMES 
S. ARNOLD 
DAVID 
J. HARDY 
WM. SCOTT 
WICHLINE 
PAMELA 
CJJAPSELL 
PAMELA 
C. DEEM 
PHILIP 
J. COMBS 
STEPHANIE 
0. THACKER 
BRYANT 
J. SPANN 
TERESA 
K. 1HOMPSCN 
DEBRA 
C. PRJCE 
CIIRISTOPHER 
S ARNOLD 
CHRISTOPHER 
D. PENCE 
PETER 
G MARKHAM 
ZACBARY 
MAZEY 
OP COUVSEL 
THOMAS 
E. MeHLOGH 
June 19, 2008 
Mr. John Roth 
Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General 
Office of the Deputy Attorney General 
United States Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
Dear Mr. Roth: 
I write to offer my reaction to the May 15, 2008 correspondence from the United States 
Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section ("CEOS") regarding the federal 
investigation of Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of 
Florida (`USAO").1 I will refrain from recounting Mr. Epstein's arguments in detail here, but, 
rather, will highlight salient points responsive to the CEOS letter. 
In particular, I write from a background well familiar with child exploitation cases and 
victim/witness issues. As the CEOS letter points out (CEOS letter at p. 3), I was a member of 
CEOS. In fact, I served as a federal prosecutor for twelve years; five years as an Assistant United 
States Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia, and seven years at CEOS. I began 
working as a trial attorney for CEOS in 1999, and was promoted to Deputy Chief for Litigation in 
2002, and ultimately to Principal Deputy Chief for the Section in 2004. 
As those who have worked with me know, I have a history of working diligently on behalfof 
victims of crime. While at the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of West 
Virginia, I was a part of the prosecution team that prosecuted the first case in the country under the 
federal Violence Against Women Act. United States v. Bailey, 112 F.3d 758 (4th Cir.), cert denied, 
522 U.S. 896 (1997). The case went to trial and the defendant was sentenced to life in prison. l also 
spearheaded the domestic violence and federal criminal child support prosecution efforts for that 
office, prosecuting some of the first cases in the country under the federal Child Support Recovery 
1 Citations to the May IS, 2008 correspondence will be referenced herein as "CEOS letter at p. 
WES 
EFTA00208768

•••• • 
• 
•••• 
US. Department of Justice 
Office of the Deputy Attorney General 
4J 
IkPUIY
InEPPY Generni 
Mr. Kenneth Stan 
Kirkland & Ellis 
777 South Figueroa Street 
Los Angeles. CA 900017 
NI r. Joe D. Whitley 
Alston & lurch 
950 1: Street. NW 
Washingtun IX' 20004 
Gentlemen: 
%Wart D.C. 205.10 
June 3. 2008 
I ant in receipt of your letters to the Deputy Attorney General dated Mav 19 and May 27. 
The Deputy has asked me to take a look at these issues. We will get hack to you in the near 
future. I can he reached at 202-307-2090 should you need to get in touch with me. 
cc: 
•'1/4 lex Acosta 
Attorney. SDFL. 
Sincerely. 
John Roth 
Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General 
EFTA00208769

05/28/2008 09:05 FAX 
2026161239 
DOJ/ODAC 
06/27/2008 12' 18 FAX 
e003/013 
UUe 'UV° 
Kenneth W. Starr 
May 27, 2008 
VI A FACSIMILE (2021 513-11467 
Ittotorahle Mark filip 
t)I!se,. 
thc 
:norney 
I •Illit.tti Sc:acs nglarittltalt tl: ittl4Ite? 
"fin PCIII:NYIValttat A‘ tattle. N.V... 
WaShIlVititt. ;Lc. 70510 
Inc I). Whilltn 
COMIDENTIA L 
Item iiitlye Fihlr 
'Ibis letter briellk supplements our pi im submission to you dated May 19. 21)(1S. In dial 
coMmunication. we urgently requeNied that your Unice conduct an independent review of the 
proposed ledcral prey .:Minn of our clion. .lei(rey Epstein. The dual reasons for our request that 
you review this mailer arc (i) the bedrock: need For integrity in the enloreement of IcLicral 
c: 
!aws. and in) the pnifinind questions raised in the unprecctli•sited cstension ilf federal 
iaw by lure t *lined States Attorticy's °Ilia in Miami tthe "liSAO- I to a girl:mown: publie 
at ho Ic•s close tics ii former President Clinton. 
-Hie need for review is now all the more exigent. On Monday. May 19. 2008. lost 
Ass:stan; Jen', ey Slosnan of the 1.;SAO responded in an email from Jay I cfloo.ii, mformin I ' S 
:Won't!. Alex Acosta that VW %timid he seekint vow thrice's review 
Mr SItimait's 
ovhielt imposed a deadline of June 2, 2008 to comply with all the terms ill the e uncut Non-
Pracectoinn k tntement (the "Attreement- ). plus new unilateral modifications. tin pain of heiw2 
deemed in l'Ireach of :hat Agreement. appears 10 have been deliberately designed to deprite us of 
an adequate opportunity to Sal. yam- Offices ;c'. icy in this matter. 
the 1:SA(Is desire to loCceltiSc a complete revte!% is iiiii leistandablc. 
:he 
Child I.Npini:atit+n alai Obscenity Section ("CLOS- ) has already d Iea:mimed that ow ..O,,nian't
inguments I.: archon; why a kdvral prosecution 
\1r. Ipstein IN 2114 
%%on-anti:11 vn:-
lowever. iii contradiction to Mr. Slinnan s assertion that C.D.'S hail provickd an 
independent. Sc' now/ review. CEOS made clear that it did not tin so. indeed. ( .1-USde.:littert to 
examine several of the more troublint" aspect". of the investi.4"ition of Mr Epstein. inclutlain• the 
deliberate leak to the New York Tune! of mine 
s highly talltrielettti.il apt:CtS ill' the 
investigation and licLsiiialiiins het to een the p:mies as %veil as tile recei): coin tit eit it I.w. sun. 
tiled 
Mr. 1-pstein by Mr Shiites liarmer law partner. 
The unnecessary and arbitrarily imposed deadline set by site I )NA( %%;:s ChM': withrull any 
vespeet fur the minim, funetionitit" and scheduling of state judicial matters. It require: ihn! 
Mr. Ereaein's counsel persuade the Suitt: Attorney of Patin Reach to issue a ennii11:11 inhumation 
PAG'Ec 
EFTA00208770

05/38/2000 09:07 FAA 2025161239 
DOJ/ODAG 
05. 10/0A 
NON 13:22 FAA 1 213 680 8500 
KIRKLAN08XLLTS I.LP 
N9000/013 
10092 
Kenneth W. Starr 
so
• 
May 19. 2008 
VIA FACSIMILE (2021 514-0467 
CONFIDENTIAL 
in
Joe D. Whitley 
Iionorable Mark Filip 
Office of the Deputy Attorney General 
United States Department ofJustice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
Dear Judge Film: 
In his confirmation hearings last fail, Judge Mukasey admirably lifted up the finest 
traditions of the Department of Justice in assuring the United States Senate, and the American 
people, of his solemn intent to ensure fairness and integrity in the administration of justice. Your 
own confirmation hearings echoed that bedrock determination to assure that the Department 
conduct itself with honor and integrity, especially in the enforcement of federal criminal law. 
We come to you in that spirit and respectfully ask for a review of the federal involvement 
in a quintessentially state matter involving ow client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we are well aware 
of the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we arc confident that the 
circumstances at issue warrant such an examination. Based on our collective experiences, as 
well as those of other former senior Justice Department officials whose advice we have sought, 
we have never before seen a case more appropriate for oversight and review. Thus, while neither 
of us has previously made such a request. we do so now in the recognition that both the 
Department's reputation, as well as the due process rights of our client, are at issue. 
Recently, the Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter at the 
request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review deliberately excluded 
many important aspects of this case. Just this past Friday,. on May 16. 2008, we received a letter 
from the head of CEOS informing us that CEOS had conducted a review of this case. By its own 
admission. the CEOS review was "limited, both factually and legally." Part of the self-imposed 
limitation was CEOS's abstention from addressing our `allegations of professional misconduct 
by federal prosecutors"—even though such misconduct was. as we contend it is, inextricably 
intertwined with the credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United 
States Attorney's Office in Miami C'USAO"). Moreover. CEOS did not assess the terms of the 
Defened Prosecution Agreement now in effect, nor did CEOS review the federal prosecutors' 
inappropriate efforts to implement those tenns. We detail this point below. 
EFTA00208771

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
SUBMISSION TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 
IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN 
Jeffrey Epstein, a successful businessman and noted philanthropist with no prior criminal 
record, has been investigated for potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b) and 2423(b). 
Since the limited review conducted by CEOS, two Supreme Court decisions—one authored by 
Justice Scalia and the other by Justice Thomas—have revitalized the bedrock principles that 
federal criminal statutes must be narrowly construed, that they may not be stretched to federalize 
conduct not clearly covered by their prohibitions, and that whenever there are two plausible 
constructions of a criminal statute, the narrower construction (hich safeguards liberty) rather than 
the broader construction (which expands the federal prosecutor's arsenal) controls under the 
venerable rule of lenity. 
Mr. Epstein's conduct—including his misconduct—falls within the heartland of historic 
state police and prosecutorial powers. Absent a significant federal nexus, matters involving 
prostitution have always been treated as state-law crimes even when they involve minors. Mr. 
Epstein's conduct lacks any of the hallmarks that would convert this quintessential state crime 
into a federal one under any of the statutes prosecutors arc considering. 
Mr. Epstein lived in Palm Beach, and his interstate travel was merely to go home. Any 
sexual conduct that occurred after he arrived was incidental to the purposes for his travel. Even 
CEOS admitted that applying § 2423(b) to a citizen traveling home would be "novel." In fact, it 
would be both unprecedented and in conflict with Supreme Court cases that have withstood the 
test of time for over 60 years. 
Moreover, Mr. Epstein did not use the intemet (either via email or chatrooms) to 
communicate with any of the witnesses in this investigation. Indeed, he did not use any other 
facility of interstate commerce, including the phone, to knowingly persuade, entice, or induce 
anyone to visit his home—the "local" locus of all the incidents under investigation—much less 
to persuade, entice, or induce a known minor to engage in prohibited sex acts, as § 2422(b) 
requires. Nor did anyone on his behalf "persuade" or "induce" or "entice" or "coerce" anyone as 
these words are ordinarily understood and as the new Supreme Court decisions mandate they be 
applied: narrowly, without stretching ordinary usage to conform to a prosecutor's case-specific 
need for a broad (and in this case unprecedented) application. In addition, as will be shown 
below, § 2422(h) requires that the object of the communication be a state law offense that "can 
be charged." Yet because the state of Florida's statute of limitations is one year for the first 
prostitution offense and three years for other targeted offenses, and because all or virtually all of 
the offense conduct at issue in the federal investigation occurred prior to June 20, 2005, those 
acts can not be charged by the State, and thus cannot meet this essential clement of federal law. 
Finally, Mr. Epstein neither coerced, nor enslaved, nor trafficked, nor derived any profit 
from his sexual conduct. He was an ordinary "John," not a pimp. But § 1591 is directed only 
against those who engage in force or fraud or coercion or who are in the business of commercial 
1 
PACES
17 
EFTA00208772

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
SUMMARY OF MISCONDUCT ISSUES IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN 
The manner in 
which federal prosecutors have pursued the allegations against Mr. Epstein is highly irregular 
and warrants full review by the Department. While we repeatedly have raised our concerns 
regarding misconduct with the United States Attorney's Office in Miami (the "USAO"), not only 
has it has remained unwilling to address these issues, but Mr. Epstein's defense counsel has been 
instructed to limit its contact to the very prosecutors who are the subject of this misconduct 
complaint. For your review, this document summarizes the USAO's conduct in this case. 
Background 
I. 
In March 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department opened a criminal investigation of 
Palm Beach resident, Jeffrey E. Epstein. The press has widely reported that Mr. Epstein 
is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. 
2. 
In July 2006, after an intensive probe, including interviews of dozens of witnesses, 
returns of numerous document subpoenas, multiple trash pulls and the execution of a 
search warrant on his residence, Mr. Epstein was indicted by a Florida Grand Jury on one 
count of felony solicitation of prostitution. 
3. 
In a publicly released letter, Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter criticized the Grand 
Jury's decision and the State Attorney's handling of the case. Shortly after the Grand 
Jury's indictment, the Chief took the unprecedented step of releasing his Department's 
raw police reports of the investigation (including Detective Recarey's unedited written 
reports of witness statements and witness identification information), that were later 
proven to be highly inaccurate transcriptions of witnesses' actual statements. The Chief 
also publicly asked federal authorities to prosecute the case. 
Becomes Involved in Mr. Epstein's Case at the Earliest Stage 
4. 
In early November of 2006, Epstei 
heir initial contact with the newly 
assigned line federal prosecutor 
Although it is extremely unusual 
for a 
to participate in such a communication, 
was present on that very first phone call. 
5. 
On November 16, 2006, despite that the fact that the investi ation exclusively concerned 
illegal sexual conduct during massage sessions, AUSA 
issued irrelevant official 
document requests seeking Mr. Epstein's 2004 and 2005 personal income-tax returns, 
and later subpoenaed his medical records. See Tab 16, November 16, 2006 Letter from 
Becomes 
Personally Involved in a Dispute Over Another State Sex Case 
6. 
In March 2007, 
cported to local police an attempted trespass by a 17- 
ear- 
ale. 
claimed that the individual had attempted to enter 
home without invitation to make contact with his 16-year-old daughter, but he 
spotted the young man before the perpetrator had an opportunity to enter the house. The 
11 ?AGES 
EFTA00208773

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Response to 1..ettffl
(1Ma 19, 2008 
In a Ma 19 2008 letter to Jay Lefkowitz (See Tab 1), SDFL 
provided what purported to be a summ 
of the events that have 
occurred during the investigation of Mr. Epstein. 
letter is naught with 
inconsistencies, false and misleading characterizations an outright falsehoods. The comparison 
below between the false assertions in 
letter and what actually transpired is only the 
tip of the iceberg. We respectfully submit that 
letter alone demonstrates the 
degree to which the record of facts have been distorted and these distortions have permeated this 
unprecedented investigation. 
1. 
"INDEPENDENT" AND "DE NOVO" REVIEW. 
Letter: 
• 
"[W]e obliged your request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and 
facilitated such review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. " Tab 1, May 
19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 5,1 3. 
The Truth: 
• 
CEOS' review, concluded in May 2008, was neither independent nor de nova 
o CEOS' review was not "independent:" 
• 
who conducted the review on behalf of CEOS, had 
already reviewed the prosecution memo on this matter eight months 
earlier. During a meeting with defense counsel at the United States 
Attorney's Office in Miami (the "USAO") in September of 2007, he 
opined that he so believed in the prosecution that he "would try the case 
myself" 
• 
Indeed, 
acknowledges that 
opined on t is matter, stating: 
had previously 
This particular attack on this statute [18 U.S.C. § 2242(b)) 
had been previously raised and thoroughly considered and 
rejected by . . 
CEOS prior to the execution of the 
[Deferred Prosecution] Agreement [in September 2007]. 
Id., p. 5 (emphasis added). 
• The statute 
eferred to (§ 2422(h)) lies at the heart of the 
Epstein investigation. Thus, according to 
was tasked with reviewing his own prior decision regarding applying the 
key statute under which the SDFL proposed prosecuting Mr. Epstein. 
/0 ti7AGES 
EFTA00208774