EFTA00230208

12/28/07 
FRI 14:27 FAX 305 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
e)001 
Dear Jay, 
On September 24, 2007, your client, Jeffrey Epstein and two of his lawyers, 
Gerald Lefcourt, Esq. and Lily Ann Sanchez, Esq., in consultation with numerous 
other experienced and highly regarded lawyers, entered into a Non-Prosecution 
Agreement ("the Agreement") with the United States Attorney's Office for the 
Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"). The crux of the Agreement was that the 
SDFL would defer federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein for illicit sexual conduct by 
Mr. Epstein involving minor victims in exchange for his guilty plea to solicitation 
of prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.07) and an offense that requires him to 
register as a sex offender, that is, siriettatten o f minors to engage in prostitution 
(Fl. Stat. Section 796.03). The Agremplitilsp_requ 
required him .:iosirervecat3Moatli j —
sentence - 18 months' in county jail - an to cragAnsge'the victims pulstiant to '18 
U.S.C. Section 2255 just as if this matter had been successfully prosecuted 
federally. 
After the Agreement was executed, you and, subsequently, Dean Starr 
began taking issue with the implementation of the 2255 provision. In response, I 
offered, in my opinion, numerous and various reasonable modifications and 
accommodations. These are well documented and do not need to be recounted 
here. Suffice to say, these modifications and accommodations were not 
satisfactory to your client. At our December 15, 2007 meeting, counsel for Mr. 
Epstein announced, inter alio, that it was a "profound injustice" to require Mr. 
Epstein to register as a sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 
18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b), had been committed since the statute is only violated if 
a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading or 
inducing. As you know, this attack on the theory of federal prosecution ha been 
previously raised' and thceusbly considered and rejected by the SDFL andfahild 
Exploitation and ObscenitykCEOS) in Washington, D.C. prior to the execution of 
the Agreement. 
In addition to your continued attack on the contemplated federal statutes, 
your December 17th correspondence claimed, for the first time since the execution 
of the Agreement, that Mr. Epstein's conduct does not meet the requirements of 
solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03). This 
combined with your December 26th correspondence, wherein you state that "we 
have reiterated in previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is 
'See July 6, 2007 letter from Gerald B. Lefcourt, Esq. and Alan Dershowitz. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013363 
EFTA00230268

12/28/07 FRI 14:27 FAX 305 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
1002 
guilty of the federal charges enumerated under section 2255", clearly prevents Mr. 
Epstein from fulfilling the material terms and conditions the Agreement. As you 
know, this is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see North Carolina 
I Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970)). Your reference to requiring "Mr. 
Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not commit the 
requisite offense" is inapplicable here. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013364 
EFTA00230269

12/28/07 FRI 14:27 FAX 305 530 8440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
Dear Jay, 
On September 24, 2007, your client, Jeffrey Epstein and two of his lawyers, 
Gerald Lefcourt, Esq. and Lily Ann Sanchez, Esq., in consultation with numerous 
other experienced and highly regarded lawyers, entered into a Non-Prosecution 
Agreement ("the Agreement") with the United States Attorney's Office for the 
Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"). The crux of the Agreement was that the 
SDFL would defer federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein for illicit sexual conduct by 
Mr. Epstein involving minor victims in exchange for his guilty plea to solicitation 
of prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.07) and an offense that requires him to 
register as a sex offender, that is, solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution 
(Fl. Stat. Section 796.03). The Agreement also required him to serve a :30 month 
sentence - 18 months' in county jail - and to compensate the victims pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. Section 2255 just as if this matter had been successfully prosecuted 
federally. 
After the Agreement was executed, you and, subsequently, Dean Starr 
began taking issue with the implementation of the 2255 provision. In response, I 
offered, in my opinion, numerous and various reasonable modifications; and 
accommodations. These are well documented and do not need to be recounted 
here. Suffice to say, these modifications and accommodations were not 
satisfactory to your client. At our December 15, 2007 meeting, counsel' for Mr. 
Epstein announced, inter alia, that it was a "profound injustice" to require Mr. 
Epstein to register as a sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 
18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b), had been committed since the statute is only violated if 
a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading or 
inducing. As you know, this attack on the theory of federal prosecution had been 
previously raised' and thoroughly considered and rejected by the SDFL, and Child 
Exploitation and Obscenity (CEOS) in Washington, D.C. prior to the execution of 
the Agreement. 
In addition to your continued attack on the contemplated federal statutes, 
your December 17th correspondence claimed, for the first time since the execution 
of the Agreement, that Mr. Epstein's conduct does not meet the requirements of 
solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03). This 
combined with your December 26th correspondence, wherein you states that "we 
have reiterated in previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is 
'See July 6, 2007 letter from Gerald B. Lefcourt, Esq. and Alan Dershowitz. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013365 
EFTA00230270

12/28/07 FRI 14:27 FAX 305 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
1J 002 
guilty of the federal charges enumerated under section 2255", clearly prevents Mr, 
Epstein from fulfilling the material terms and conditions the Agreement. As you 
know, this is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see North Carolina 
I Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970)). Your reference to requiring "Mr. 
Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not commit the 
requisite offense" is inapplicable here. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013366 
EFTA00230271

S 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013367 
EFTA00230272

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE 
Jay P. Leflcowitz, Esq. 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
Citigroup Center 
153 East 53rd Street 
New York, New York 10022-4675 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Mr. Leflcowitz, 
99 N.E. 4 Street 
Miami. Ft 33131 
(305) 961-9100 
April , 2008 
n Sentember 24. 2007, your client, Jeffrey Epstein, in consultation with Gerald Lefcourt, 
Esq. and I 
, Esq., as well as numerous other nationally-renowned lawyers, including 
but not limited to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, former Independent Counsel and 
Solicitor General of the United States Kenneth Starr, just to name a few, entered into a Non-
Prosecution Agreement ("the Agreement") with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern 
District of Florida ("SDFL"). Although you and other members of the defense team have since 
claimed that the Agreement was the product of adhesion, the following facts demonstrate that 
Epstein knowingly and voluntarily entered into the Agreement in order to avoid a federal indictment 
regarding his sexual conduct involving minor victims. Despite the fact that by signing the 
Agreement, Epstein gave up the right to object to its provisions, the SDFL bent over backwards to 
exhaustively consider and re-consider your objections. Since these objections have finally been 
exhausted and Epstein has failed to comply with several conditions of the Agreement as set forth 
below, the SDFL hereby notifies you that unless you comply with all of the terms and conditions of 
the Agreement, including plea, sentence, and incarceration, as modified by the United States 
Attorney's December 19, 2007 letter to Ms. Sanchez by 
the SDFL will elect to terminate the 
Agreement. 
background 
The Agreement was the product of months of negotiations. Specifically, you requested and 
received numerous meetings, at the highest levels of the SDFL and DOD's Child Exploitation and 
Obscenity Section (CEOS) concerning claims that (a) the investigation merely produced evidence 
of relatively innocuous sexual conduct with some minors who, unbeknownst to Epstein, 
misrepresented their ages; (b) the authorities investigating Epstein engaged in misconduct; (c) the 
contemplated federal statutes have no applicability to this matter; and (d) the federal authorities 
disregarded the fundamental policy against federal intervention with state criminal proceedings. 
After careful review, the SDFL ultimately rejected those claims. Subsequent to its decision, however, 
but before proceeding any further, the SDFL provided you with 30 days to appeal the decision to the 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013368 
EFTA00230273

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
, 2008 
PAGE 2 OF S 
Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Alice Fisher. As you recall, you chose to forego an 
appeal to AAG Fisher, and instead pursued a negotiated resolution which, ultimately, resulted in the 
execution of the Agreement. 
The Negotiation Phase 
During negotiations, you tried to avoid a resolution that called for incarceration and 
registration as a sexual offender — both of which would be triggered by a successful federal 
prosecution. The SDFL believed and continues to believe that should this matter proceed to trial, 
your client would be convicted of the federal statutes identified in the Agreement. In order to achieve 
a global resolution, the SDFL indicated a willingness to compromise the length of incarceration; 
however, it remained adamant that Epstein register as a sex offender and that all victims identified 
during the investigation remain eligible for compensation. In order to achieve this result, the parties 
considered two alternatives, a plea to federal charges that limited Epstein's sentencing exposure, or, 
as suggested by you, a plea to state charges encompassing Epstein's conduct. Ultimately, the parties 
agreed to, inter alia, a plea to the state charges outlined in the Agreement, registration and a method 
of compensation. 
The Agreement 
The crux of the Agreement defers federal prosecution of Epstein for his sexual conduct 
involving those minor victims identified as of September 24, 2007, in exchange for a guilty plea to 
a state offense that requires registration as a sex offender; a sufficient term of imprisonment; and a 
method of compensation for the victims such that they would be placed in the same position as if 
Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in Title 18, United States 
Code, Section 2255. Specifically, the Agreement mandates, inter alia, (1) a guilty plea in Palm 
Beach County Circuit Court to solicitation ofprostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.07) and procurement 
of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03) (an offense that requires him to register 
as a sex offender); (2) a 30-month sentence including 18 months' incarceration in county jail; (3) a 
methodology to compensate the victims identified by the United States; (4) entry of the guilty plea 
and sentence no later than October 26, 2007; and (5) the start of the above-mentioned sentence no 
later than January 4, 2008. 
Furthermore, and significantly, Epstein agreed that he had the burden of ensuring compliance 
of the Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office and the Judge of the 151h
Judicial Circuit and "that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement" (emphasis added). 
Post-Execution of the Agreement 
Within weeks of the execution of the Agreement, you sought to delay the entry of Epstein's 
guilty plea and sentence. After the SDFL agreed to accommodate your request, counsel for Epstein 
began taking issue with the methodology of compensation, notification to the victims, and the issues 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013369 
EFTA00230274

JAY P. LEPKOW1TZ, ESQ. 
, 2008 
PAGE 3 OF 5 
that had been previously considered and rejected during negotiations, i.e., that the conduct does not 
require registration and the contemplated state and federal statutes have no applicability to the instant 
matter. 
A. 
Delay. 
The Agreement required that "Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and 
be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-
reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008." Agreement, pages 4-5, 
paragraph 11 (emphasis added). After the Agreement was executed, the SDFL accommodated your 
request to extend the October 26th plea deadline to November 20th based upon, what seemed to be, 
reasonable scheduling conflict issues.' By early November, you represented that the presiding state 
court judge would not "stagger the plea and sentencing as contemplated in the Agreement."Although 
the Agreement clearly did not contemplate a staggered "plea and sentencing," the SDFL again agreed 
to accommodate Epstein's request to appear in state court for plea and sentencing on January 4, 
2008.2
B. 
Method of Compensation and Notification. 
During this same time period, you and others, including the former Solicitor General of the 
United States Kenneth Starr, took issue with the implementation of the methodology of 
compensation (hereinafter "the 2255 provision")? and the SDFL's intention to notify the victims 
under 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 (you objected to victims being notified of time and place of Epstein's 
"Accordingly, I have now confirmed with Mr. Epstein's Florida counsel that the state's 
attorney's office and the court will be available to have him enter his plea on November 20. So we will 
plan to proceed on one that date." October 18, 2007 email from Jay Lefkowitz to USA It. Alexander 
Acosta. 
On the same day, Mr. Lefkowitz confirmed with First Assistant Jeffrey H. Sloman that this 
postponement " will not affect when Epstein begins serving his sentence." 
2 Correspondence from Jay Lefkowitz to FAUSA Sloman dated November 8, 2007 ("the judge 
has invited the parties to appear for the plea and sentencing on January 4", we do not anticipate any delay 
beyond that date.') 
3 Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL 
unilaterally agreed to assign its responsibility to select the attorney representative for the alleged victims 
to an independent third-party. This was done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection 
of the attorney representative. As a result, on October 29, 2007, the parties executed an Addendum 
wherein it was mutually agreed that former United States District Court Judge Edward B. Davis would 
serve as the independent third-party. Judge Davis selected the venerable law firm of Podhurst and 
Josefsberg to represent the approximately 34 alleged identified victims. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013370 
EFTA00230275

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
, 2008 
PAGE 4 OF 5 
state court sentencing hearing). In response, the SDFL offered, in my opinion, numerous and various 
reasonable modifications and accommodations which ultimatel resulted in United States Attorney 
R. Alexander Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to 
. In that letter, the United 
States Attorney tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite 
y, e DFL was not obligated to 
address, let alone consider. He proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: 
"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under 
Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an 
enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall 
provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in 
an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority 
interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens 
if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these 
identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been 
convicted at trial. No more; no less." 
Regarding the issue of notice to the victims, USA Acosta proposed to notify them of the 
federal resolution as required by law; however, "[wje will defer to the discretion of the State 
Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, 
although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes." As you know, 
you rejected these proposals as well. See December 26, 2007 correspondence from Jay Leficowitz 
to USA Acosta. 
C. 
"Mr. Epstein Does Not Believe He Is Guilty Of The Federal Charges Enumerated 
Under Section 2255." 
At our December 14, 2007 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, counsel for 
Epstein announced, inter alia, that it was a "profound injustice" to require Epstein to register as a 
sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b), had been 
committed since the statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used 
to do the persuading or inducing. This particular attack on this statute had been previously raised and 
thoroughly considered and rejected by the SDFL and CEOS prior to the execution of the Agreement. 
You also argued that the facts were inapplicable to the contemplated state statutes and that Epstein 
should not have been allowed to have been induced into the Agreement because the facts were not 
what he understood them to be. It should be noted that the SDFL has never provided you with any 
evidence supporting its investigation. This is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see 
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970)). Ultimately, you requested an 
independent review. 
Subsequent to the above-mentioned meeting, the SDFL received three letters from you and/or 
Mr. Stan which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 14th meeting. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013371 
EFTA00230276

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
, 2008 
PAGE 5 OF 5 
Essentially, you portrayed the SDFL as trying to coerce a plea to unknown allegations and incoherent 
theories. On December 17, 2007, you decreed that Epstein's conduct did not meet the requirements 
of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution (FL Stat. Section 796.03) one of the enumerated 
crimes Epstein had previously agreed to plead guilty to; that Epstein's conduct does not require 
registration under Florida law; and the State Attorney's Office does not believe the conduct is 
registrable. On December 21, 2007, you rejected the USA's proposed resolution of the 2255 
provision because you "strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to 
these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 U.S.C. Section[s] 2422(b) ... or 
2423(b)." In your December 26, 2007 correspondence you stated that "we have reiterated in 
previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is guilty of the federal charges enumerated 
under section 2255" and requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did 
not commit the requisite offense." 
As the SDFL has reiterated time and time again, it does not want nor does it expect Epstein 
to plead guilty to a charge he does not believe he committed. As a result, we obliged your request 
for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such a review at the highest 
levels of the Department of Justice. It is our understanding that that independent review is now 
complete and a determination has been made that there are no impediments to a federal prosecution 
by the SDFL. 
Conclusion 
Therefore, as I proposed in my email to you on February 25, 2008, you shall have until 
to comply with all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, including plea, sentence, 
and incarceration, as modified by the USA's December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez. 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
By: 
Jeffrey H. Sloman 
First Assistant United States Attorney 
cc: 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
A. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013372 
EFTA00230277

4/,/ce. .510414 54vemissiom 70 
VIC blet 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013373 
EFTA00230278

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
991V.E. 4th Street 
Miami, FL 33132 
(303) 961-9100 
DELIVERY BY FEDERAL_ EXPRESS 
June 3, 2008 
honorable Mark Filip 
Office of the Deputy Attorney General 
United States Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Judge Filip, 
Jeffrey Epstein was a part-time resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.' In 2006, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that, over a two-year period, Epstein paid 
approximately 28 minor females from Royal Palm Beach High School to come to his house for 
sexual favors.' In July 2006, the matter was presented to AUSA A. 
. 
of our West 
Palm Beach branch office to pursue a forrnal criminal investigation. 
1 
n resulted in 
the discovery of approximately one dozen additional minor victims. Over the last several months, 
approximately six more minor victims have been identified. 
AUSA Villafaila has been ready to present an indictment to a West Palm Beach federal grand 
jury since May 2007. The prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment have been extensively 
reviewed and re-reviewed by Southern District of Florida (SDFL) Deputy Chief of the Criminal 
Epstein has not resided in Palm Beach since he learned of the instant investigation. 
2 Epstein's sexual conduct with the victims included: instructing them to massage and pinch his 
nipples, masturbating in their presence, digitally penetrating them, using a vibrator on their vaginas, 
engaging in oral sex with them, having the victims perform oral sex on Epstein's adult girlfriend, and 
engaging in sexual intercourse, all in exchange for money, ranging from $200 to $1,000 per session. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013374 
EFTA00230279

Division MEM 
Chief of the Criminal Division Matthew MencheP, First Assistant United 
States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman', United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various 
members of the Child Exploitation and 
Eenity Section (CEOS) at the Department of Justice 
including, but not limited to its Chief, a. 
Oosterbahn. Many of these legal and factual issues 
have been discussed and approved by Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division 
(DAAG) Sigel Mandelker and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (AAG) 
Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement 
Operations regarding the petit policy. 
By May 2007, AUSA Villafaitalitea 
appr
om her supervisors to indict 
Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was 
Mr. 
had served as the Chief of the 
Public Integrity Section at DOJ as well as in several supervisory positions in the SDFL. By mid-
2006, he had returned to his position as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division in West Palm 
Beach (head of the West Palm Beach branch office), after serving as the interim iallifiLof the Public 
Integrity Section at DOJ at the request of AAG Fisher. By October 2007. Mr. UM would leave 
the SDFL to become AAG Fisher's Chief of Staff.' Above Mr. 
in the SDFL's chain of 
command were 1
 Criminal Division Chief, First Assistant USA Sloman and finally, 
U.S. Attorney Acosta. 
Prior to seeking approval to return an indictment, Epstein's legal team had been actively 
working to convince this Office that such action was not warranted. For example, at the end of 2006, 
former SDFL U.S. Attorney and EOUSA Executivelir Guy Lewis contacted former colleagues 
AUSA 
and, later Deputy Criminal Chief 
when he learned that they were handling 
or involved in supervising the federal investigation of EpsteirSecember, former SDFL AUSA 
land 
Gerald Lefcourt also contacted AUSA 
to set a meeting. In advance 
of that meeting, AUSA 
llafalla requested documents but that request was refused. Ms. Sanchez 
then contacted AUSA
who agreed to meet with Mit 
an 
as well as a member 
fcourt. On February
1, 2007, Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Lefcourt met with AUSAs 
of the FBI, and presented defense counsel's view of the case and proms 
a willingness to assist in 
the investigation. The SDFL was unpetsuaded by their presentation and the investigation continued. 
By the late Spring and early Summer, the focus of the investigation shifted from investigating 
the facts of the victims' claims to Epstein's background, his asserted defenses, co-conspirators, and 
possible witnesses who could corroborate the victims' statements. The investigation also began to 
look into financial aspects of the case, requiring the issuance of several subpoenas. At the time, Mr. 
Lefcourt began leveling accusations of improprieties with the investigation and sought a meeting 
3Mr. Menchel resigned for private practice on August 3, 2007 and was replaced by Robert 
Senior. 
'Although I, Jeffrey H. Sloman, am writing this letter, I will continue to refer to myself as 
"First Assistant USA Sloman" or "FAUSA Sloman" to help reduce any confusion. 
'Rolando Garcia replaced Mr. 
as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013375 
EFTA00230280

with Criminal Division Chief 
B that time, the proposed initial indictment 
package had been reviewed and approved by Mr. 
in West Palm Beach and by attorneys with 
CEOS; however, it awaited review by Mr. Menchel and FAUSA Sloman. The SDFL deferred 
presenting the indictment to the grand jury to accommodate the Epstein legal team's request for a 
meeting. We also agreed to wait several weeks for that meeting to occur to allow four of Epstein's 
attorneys to be present and also provided counsel with a list of the statutes that were the subject of 
the investigation. 
On June 26, 2007, Mr. Menchel, Mr. M, 
AUSA a, 
and FAUSA Sloman and two 
FBI agents met with Alan l)ershowitz, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and 
I. During 
that meeting, Professor Dershowitz and other members of the defense team presented legal and 
factual arguments against a federal indictment. Counsel for the defense also requested the 
opportunity to present written arguments, which was granted. The arguments and written materials 
provided by the defense were examined by the SDFL and rejected. 
On July 31, 2007, Mr. Menchel, Mr. 
AUSA 
and FAUSA Sloman, and two 
FBI agents met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and 
. On that date, the SDFL 
presented a written sheet of terms that would satisfy the SDFL's federal interest in the case and 
discussed the substance of those terms. See Tab A. One of those terms was: 
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, §§ 2422 and/or 
2423. 
During that meeting, the focus was on Mr. Epstein's unwillingness to spend time in prison, and 
various suggestions were raised by defense counsel, including the proposal that he could serve a 
sentence of home confinement or probation. This was repeatedly mentioned by counsel for Epstein 
as being equivalent to a term of imprisonment in a state or federal prison. Epstein's counsel 
mentioned their concerns about his safety in prison, and the SDFL offered to explore a plea to a 
federal charge to allow Epstein to serve his time in a federal facility. Counsel were also presented 
with a conservative estimate of the sentence that Epstein would face if he were convicted: an 
advisory guideline range of 188 - 235 months' incarceration with a five-year mandatory minimum 
prison term, to be followed by lifetime supervised release. Counsel was told that Epstein had two 
weeks to accept or reject the proposal. 
It is critical to note that Ms. Sanchez, one of Epstein's local lawyers, seized upon this method 
of restitution as a condition of deferring federal prosecution. In referring to the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 
method of compensation, Ms. Sanchez stated: 
[t]his would allow the victims to be able to promptly put this behind them and go 
forward with their lives. If given the opportunity to opine as to the appropriateness 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-3-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013376 
EFTA00230281

of Mr. Epstein's proposal, in my extensive experience in these types of cases, the 
victims prefer a quick resolution with compensation for damages and will always 
support any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. 
See attached Tab B, August 2, 2007 letter from 
to SDFL Criminal Division Chief 
Menchel, p.2, fit 1. Ironically, it is Epstein's "national" attorneys who are now representing to the 
Deputy Attorney General of the United States in their May 19, 2008 letter that: 
Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition of deferring prosecution, 
required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a proposed civil 
remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in 
private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the 
prosecutors involved. 
Not only did Epstein's lawyers like the idea of using 18 U.S.C. § 2255 to compensate the victims 
but, they also sought to make their non-incarcerative state proposal even more attractive by offering 
payments to "a charitable organization benefitting victims of sexual assault," "law enforcement 
investigative costs" and "Court and probationary costs." Id. at p. 2. 
Epstein's counsel, still dissatisfied with the Office's review of the case, demanded to meet 
with U.S. Attorney Acosta and to have the opportunity to meet with someone in Washington, D.C. 
To accommodate Roy Black, the meeting was put off until September 7, 2007, deirite 
i
te fact that 
the indictment was ready for presentation to the grand jury. In the interim, AUSA 
and the 
investigators met with CEOS Chief Oosterbahn, to review, yet again, the evidence and legal theories 
of prosecution. Chief Oosterbahn strongly supported the proposed indictment and even offered to 
join the trial team and provide additional support from CEOS. 
On September 7, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta met with Kirkland & Ellis partners Jay 
Lefkowitz and former Solicitor General Ken Starr and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief Oosterbahn 
and AUSAs» 
John McMillan, and FAUSA Sloman, Messrs. Starr and Lefkowitz presented 
arguments regarding the sufficiency of the federal interest in the case and other legal and factual 
issues. We discussed those legal arguments and the unanimous opinion of all of the attorneys present 
was in favor of prosecution. During that meeting, Mr. Lefkowitz also offered a plea resolution. His 
offer, in essence, was that Epstein be subjected to home confinement at his Palm Beach home, using 
private security officers who would serve as his "wardens," if necessary. Mr. Lefkowitz expressed 
the belief that such a sentence would be particularly appropriate because, as a wealthy white man, 
he may be the subject of violence or extortion in prison. Finally, Messrs. Starr and Lefkowitz 
expressed the belief that Epstein's extensive philanthropy should be considered in our prosecution 
decision. U.S. Attorney Acosta summarily rejected these proposals, and indicated that the 24-month 
offer presented previously by the SDFL stood. 
'Roy Black did not attend. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-4-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013377 
EFTA00230282

The issue of the inclusion of a restitution-type remedy for the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 2255 
'litany raised and discussed at the
 and Mt. Stan thanked 
AUSA 
for bringing it to his attention as a novel approach to allowing the victims to receive 
essentially federal restitution while allowing a plea to a state charge. After considering everything 
said and written by Epstein's legal team, and after conferring with Chief Oosterbahn, U.S. Attorney 
Acosta informed Epstein's counsel that the SDFL still intended to proceed to indictment. Since 
counsel indicated a desire to appeal the matter to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, 
or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Acosta agreed to delay 
the presentation of the indictment for two weeks to allow them to speak with someone in 
Washington, D.C., if they so chose. 
Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiate the Non-Prosesiiareement, and on September 
12, 2007, counsel for the SDFL (AUSAs 
Garcia, and 
) and counsel for Epstein 
(Messrs. Lefcourt, Lefkowitz, and Goldberger) met with Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry 
Krisher and Assistant State Attorney Larma Belohlavek to discuss a plea to an Information in the 
state court that would satisfy the federal interest in the case. As noted on the term sheet o fJuly 31m 
(Tab A), one of those essential terms was a guilty plea to a charge requiring sex offender registration. 
During that meeting, the issue of sex offender registration was raised, and Mr. Goldberger told the 
federal prosecutors that there was no problem, Mr. Epstein would plead guilty to the charge of 
procurement of minors for prostitution (Fl. Stat. 796.03), which was one of the statutes listed on the 
original term sheet. Although the SDFL had wanted Epstein to plead guilty to three different 
offenses, we agreed to this compromise.' Of course, the SDFL later learned that, at the time Mr. 
Goldberger made that statement, he incorrectly believed, based upon a statement from ASA 
Belohlavek, that Fl. Stat. § 796.03 did not require sex offender registration. 
The parties then began working first on a plea agreement to a federal charge and, when it was 
clear that there was no guarantee that Epstein would serve his sentence in a minimum security prison 
camp, the discussion turned to a Non-Prosecution Agreement. Both the federal plea agreement and 
the Non-Prosecution Agreement included references to § 2255 because neither the contemplated 
federal charges nor the proposed state charges encompassed all of the identified victims. If Epstein 
had been prosecuted under the planned indictment, the identified victims would have been eligible 
for restitution and damages under § 2255. As explained above, one of our interests, which had to 
be satisfied by the Non-Prosecution Agreement, was providing appropriate compensation to the 
victims. This provision of the Agreement was heavily negotiated. As Mr. Lefkowitz wrote in his 
November 29th e-mail to FAUSA Sloman, Epstein "offered to provide a restitution fund for the 
alleged victims in this matter; however, that option was rejected by [our] Office." That option was 
rejected for several reasons. First, the SDFL does not serve as legal representatives to the victims and 
has no authority to bind victims, nor could it provide a monetary figure that would represent a "loss" 
amount for restitution purposes. Second, there would be no legal basis for federal restitution without 
7 Another significant compromise reached at the meeting was a reduction in the amount of jail 
time - from 24 months down to 18 months, which would be served at the Palm Beach County Jail rather 
than a state prison facility. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-5-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013378 
EFTA00230283

a conviction for a federal offense. And, third, it was the U.S. Attorney's belief that the SDFL should 
not be put in the position of administering a restitution fund. Our § 2255 proposal put the victims 
in the same position that they would have been in if we had proceeded to trial and convicted Epstein 
of his crimes, with the exception that the victims were provided with counsel. The appointment of 
counsel was not such a benefit to the victims but, rather, was done, in part, to benefit Epstein by 
allowing him to try to privately negotiate a group resolution of all claims with one attorney. Epstein 
and his lawyers agreed with this alternative. 
The negotiation of the Agreement was lengthy and difficult. Mr. Lefkowitz and AUSA 
went through several drafts of both a federal plea agreement and a Non-Prosecution 
Agreement. Throughout these negotiations, when a member of the defense team was dissatisfied 
with the SDFL's position, it was repeatedly appealed throughout the Office. So several members of 
the defense team spoke with the chain of command regarding the terms of the Agreement, including 
the § 2255 provisions. At the eleventh hour, when Epstein's legal team realized that El. Stat. 796.03 
would require him to register as a sex offender, they sought to change the most essential term of the 
agreement - a term that Messrs. Goldberger, Lefkowitz, and Lefcourt had specifically agreed to at 
the September 121h meeting with the State Attorney's Office - asking to allow Epstein to plead to a 
charge that would not require registration. When this was rejected, several members of the defense 
team appealed directly to U.S. Attorney Acosta which also failed. When that failed, according to 
press reports, apparently Mr. Lefcourt "leaked" a letter intended for the U.S. Attorney to the press 
containing the reasons why he/Lefcourt did not believe Epstein should have to register. See October 
9, 2007 New York Post article attached at Tab C. 
Prior to signir the Non-Prosec tion Agreement, Mr. Epstein's defense team included Ken 
Start, Jay Lefkowitz, 
, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Guy Lewis, 
Martin Weinberg, Jack Goldberger, Stephanie Thacker', and the associates at Kirkland & Ellis who 
conducted research on discrete issues. This impressive legal team reviewed the Agreement and 
counseled Epstein. Based upon that counsel, Epstein decided that it was in his best interest to execute 
the Non-Prosecution Agreement which was signed on September 24, 2007 by Mr. Lefcourt, Ms. 
Sanchez and Epstein. A copy of which is attached hereto as Tab D. The core principles of the 
Agreement are incarceration, registration as a sex offender and a method of compensation' 
Furthermore, and significantly, Epstein agreed that he had the burden of ensuring compliance of the 
'Ms. Thacker had recently resigned from CEOS as a Trial Attorney and entered private practice. 
9 Specifically, the Agreement mandates, inter alia, (1) a guilty plea in Palm Beach County 
Circuit Court to solicitation of prostitution (El. Stat. § 796.07) and procurement of minors to engage in 
prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.03) (an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender); (2) a 30-
month sentence including 18 months' incarceration in county jail; (3) a methodology to compensate the 
victims identified by the United States utilizing 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 such that they would be placed in 
the same position as if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in Title 
IS, United States Code, § 2255; (4) entry of the guilty plea and sentence no later than October 26, 2007; 
and (5) the start of the above-mentioned sentence no later than January 4, 2008. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-6-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013379 
EFTA00230284

Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office and the Judge of the 15th Judicial 
Circuit and "that the failure to'do so will be a breach of the agreement' (emphasis added). To this 
day, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to Epstein's lawyers. 
Within a week of the execution of the Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest 
its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's 
recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers 
in private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved," 
it was done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection of the attorney representative. 
As a result, the parties executed an addendum which documented the SDFL's right to assign the 
selection of an attorney representative to an independent third-party. A copy of the October 29,2007 
Addendum is attached hereto as Tab E. The parties subsequently agreed that retired Federal District 
Court Judge Edward B. Davis should be that independent third-party/special master. Ultimately, 
Judge Davis selected Robert C. Josefsberg of the law firm of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, et at 10
During this same time frame, Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz sought to delay the entry of his guilty 
plea and sentence. After the SDFL accommodated his request (from October 26th to November 20th), 
Mr. Stan• began taking issue with the methodology of compensation, notification to the victims, and 
the issues that had been previously considered and rejected during negotiations, i.e., that the conduct 
does not require registration and the contemplated state and federal statutes have no applicability to 
the instant matter. 
In response to Mr. Stan's protests, the SDFL offered numerous and various reasonable 
modifications and amturunndatinna which ultimately resulted in U.S. Attorney Acosta's December 
19, 2007 letter to I 
I. See attached Tab F. In that letter, U.S. Attorney Acosta tried 
to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone 
consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language 
regarding the 2255 provision: 
"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense 
enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, § 2255, will have the same rights to 
proceed under § 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and 
convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, 
the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals 
whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense 
by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any 
authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall 
consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same 
position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; 
no less." 
10 Due to the subsequent objections raised by Epstein's counsel, Mr. Josefsberg was never given 
the opportunity to become the attorney representative. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-7-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013380 
EFTA00230285

Mr. Starr also objected to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker 
who advised him to make the following proposal: "[w]e will defer to the discretion of the State 
Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, 
although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes." These proposals 
were immediately rejected by Epstein in Mr. Lefkowitz's December 26, 2007 correspondence to 
USA Acosta. 
At our December 14, 2007 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, counsel for 
Epstein articulated that it was a "profound injustice" to require Epstein to register as a sex offender 
and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), had been committed since the 
statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading 
or inducing. This particular attack on this statute had been previously raised and thoroughly 
considered and rejected by the SDFL and CEOS prior to the execution of the Agreement. Epstein's 
lawyers also argued that the facts were inapplicable to the contemplated state statutes and that he 
should not have been allowed to have been induced into the Agreement because the facts were not 
what he understood them to be. To reiterate, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to anyone on 
the Epstein legal team. Once counsel for Epstein failed to persuade us that federal involvement was 
inappropriate, they mounted an aggressive campaign to defer federal prosecution. When we refused 
to compromise on anything except the length of incarceration, they finally executed the Non-
Prosecution Agreement. 
Subsequent to the December 14, 2007 meeting, the SDFL received three letters from Mr. 
Lefkowitz and/or Mr. Starr which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 14°' 
meeting. Essentially, trying to portray the SDFL as trying to coerce a plea to unknown allegations 
and incoherent theories. In his December 17, 2007 correspondence, Mr. Lefkowitz decreed that 
Epstein's conduct did not meet the requirements of one of the state statutes Epstein agreed to plead 
guilty to - procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.03); that Epstein's 
conduct does not require registration under Florida law in contravention of the September 24th
Agreement; and the State Attorney's Office does not believe the conduct is registrable. On December 
21, 2007, Mr. Lefkowitz rejected the U.S. Attorney's proposed resolution of the 2255 provision 
because they "strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these 
individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 U.S.C. Section[s] 2422(b) ... or ... 
2423(b)." In his December 26, 2007 correspondence, he stated that "we have reiterated in previous 
submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is guilty of the federal charges enumerated under 
section 2255" and requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not 
commit the requisite offense." 
The SDFL reiterated time and time again that it had never wanted nor expected Epstein to 
plead guilty to a charge he did not believe he committed and repeatedly offered to dissolve the 
agreement to allow Epstein to contest the charges in the court system. As a result, the SDFL obliged 
his request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such a review at 
the highest levels of the Department of Justice. As you know, on May 15, 2008, after months of 
considering the matter, the Criminal Division considered whether there is a legitimate basis for the 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-8-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013381 
EFTA00230286

SDFL to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn 
concluded that "federal prosecution would not be improper or inappropriate."See attached May IS, 
2008 letter from CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn to Jay Lefkowitz. On May 19, 2008,1 notified Mr. 
Lefkowitz that the SDFL would give Epstein a MI two weeks (close of business on Monday, June 
2, 2008) to comply with the terms and conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, as modified 
by the USA's December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez." Therefore, despite the fact that the investigation 
has identified several more victims, the SDFL is still offering Epstein the opportunity to comply with 
the terms and conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 
The SDFL was recently notified that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General has agreed 
to consider additional allegations not considered by CEOS which were recently raised in 
correspondence by two former high-ranking members of the Department of Justice - Ken Stan and 
Joe Whitley. On May 28,2008, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz by e-mail that the SDFL has postponed the 
June 2, 2008 deadline until the DAG's Office has completed its review of this matter. Their 
correspondence to the DAG alleges that the SDFL's investigation lacks integrity because it has 
leaked "highly confidential aspects" of the investigation and negotiations to the New York Times 
and that FAUSA Sloman directed some of the victims to my former law firm. They also claim that 
the "unprecedented extension of federal law" by the SDFL suggests that this is politically motivated 
because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr 
and Whitley go on to claim that FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed 
a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from seeking your Office's review and that "the 
unnecessary deadline is even more problematic because Mr. Epstein's effort to reconcile the state 
charge and sentence with the terms of the Agreement requires an unusual and unprecedented 
threatened application of federal law." 
I . 
The Alleged "Leak" to the New York Times. 
AUS 
became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the 
District's Public Information Officer (NO). While the District's PIO was on annual leave, he was 
the acting PIO during the first week of January 2008. The entirety of his conduct in connection with 
the Epstein matter began on January 2, 2008 and ended on January 7, 2008." Specifically, his 
contact involved five telephone conversation with Landon Thomas, a reporter for the New York 
Times. These conversations occurred on 1) the morning of January 2, 2008, 2) the afternoon of 
January 2, 2008, 3) the afternoon of January 3, 2008, 4) the afternoon of January 4, 2008, and 5) the 
afternoon of January 7, 2008. 
II Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on notice on February 25, 2008, that in the event that CEOS 
disagreed with Epstein's position, Epstein would have one week to comply with the terms and conditions 
of the Agreement, as modified by the USA's December I9th letter to Ms. Sanchez. 
'2AUSA Weinstein has self-reported to the Office of Professional Responsibility. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-9-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013382 
EFTA00230287