EFTA00234570

Exhibit 4 
EFTA00234590

12/04/07 TUE 16:46 FAX 305 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
R. ALEXANDER ACas-rn 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
DELIVERY EY FACSIMILE 
Kenneth W. Starr, Esq 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
777 South Figueroa Street 
Los Angeles, CA 90017 
Re: 
Jeffrey Eckstein 
Dear Mr. Starr: 
99 N.E. 4 Ewen 
Afloat Ft 33132 
1303) 961-9100 - Telephone 
(305)330-W4 - Vookelle 
I write in response to your November 281° letter, in which you raise concerns regarding the 
Non-Prosecution Agreement between this Office and your client, Mr. Epstein. I take these concerns 
seriously. As your letter focused on the Section 2255 portion of the Agreement, my response will 
focus primarily on that issue as well. I do wish to make some more general observations, however. 
Section 2255 provides that "[alny person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of 
[enumerated sections of Title 18) and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation . . . 
may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such 
person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." Thus, had this Office 
proceeded to trial, and had Mr. Epstein been convicted, the victims of his actions would have been 
able to seek to relief under this Section. 
The Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds 
to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under 
this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections of Title 18 in 
favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general 
federal interests: (1) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable" offense; (2) that this plea 
include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term ofimprisonment and (3) that the Agreement 
not harm the interests of his victims. This third point deserves elaboration. The intent is to place 
the victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. 
No more; no less. 
With this in mind, I turn to the language of the Agreement Paragraph 8 of the Agreement 
provides: 
If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant 
to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States 
0002 
EFTA00234591

12/04/07 
TUE 16:46 FAX 305 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject 
matter,' and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to 
contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified victim and 
Epstein, so long as the identified victim elects to proceed exclusively under 18 
U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant 
to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those 
individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United Slates, Epstein's 
signature on this agreement is not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or 
civil liability other than that contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2255. 
Although these two sentences are far from simple, they appear to incorporate our intent to narrowly 
tailor the Agreement to place the identified victims in the same position as they would have been had 
Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. I would note that I have conferred with our prosecutors and have 
been told that Paragraph 8 was vigorously negotiated and that the final language was suggested 
largely by defense counsel. 
The concerns raised in your letter with respect to Paragraph 8 fall within several general 
categories. First, you raise concerns regarding the nature of Section 2255. As you note, 
Section 2255 is a civil statute implanted in the criminal code; in contrast to other 
criminal statutes, Section 2255 fails to correlate payments to specific injuries or 
losses. Instead the statute presumes that victims have sustained damages of at least 
a minimum lump sum without regard to whether the complainants suffered actual 
medical, physiological or other forms of individualized harm. 
These concerns were, I would expect, aired when Congress adopted this statute. Even if they were 
not, this provision is now law. Rule of law requires now requires this District to consider the 
victims' rights under this statute in negotiating this Agreement. 
Second, you raise concerns regarding the identity-of-the-victims issue. Your concerns appear 
based on the belief that Paragraph 8 is a blanket waiver of liability with respect to any number of 
unnamed and undisclosed victims. I would invite you to confer with your co-counsel regarding this 
matter. Although the language of Paragraph S could be so construed, our First Assistant informed 
Mr. Lefkowitz some weeks ago that this was not our position. As Mr. Lefkowitz has noted, were 
Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims in a subsequent Section 2255 suit would still have 
had some burden to prove that they were "victims." It is also the case, however, that were Mr. 
Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims would not have to show that a violation of an 
enumerated section of Title 18 took place. Accordingly, our First Assistant informed Mr. Lefkowitz 
some weeks ago that we understood that if a victim-plaintiff elects to proceed to trial, Mr. Epstein's 
Although not identified as an issue by defense counsel, having reviewed this language, I note that 
Paragraph 8 raises the question of what is meant by "subject matter." I have conferred with the AUSA who 
negotiated this language, and have been informed that parties Intended this to address issues of venue. This 
Office will not interpret this paragraph as any waiver of subject matter jurisdiction. Please inform int if 
defense counsel disagrees. 
_2-
1
EFTA00234592

12/04/07 TUE 16:47 FAX 305 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
legal team might conduct due diligence to confirm the that victim-plaintiff in fact had inappropriate 
contact with Mr. Epstein. Once again, our interpretive principle is our intent to place the victim in 
the same position she would have been had Mr. Epstein proceeded to trial. 
Third, you raise concerns regarding our decision not to create a restitution fund. Throughout 
the negotiations, defense counsel suggested several similar arrangements, including a Trust fund. 
Again, our decision not to create a fund flows from our belief that the Agreement should provide the 
same relief to the victims as they would have been entitled had we proceeded to trial. A restitution 
fund or trust fund would place an upper limit on the victims' recovery. It is not for this Office to 
make that decision for the victims. They may choose to walk away, they may choose to settle, or 
they may choose to sue. The choice should remain with each individual victim? 
Fourth, you raise concerns regarding the selection process for the attorney representative. 
As you may be aware, the suggestion that we appoint an attorney representative originated with 
defense counsel. Defense counsel, I believe, found it advantageous to attempt to negotiate a 
settlement of the many victims' claims with one attorney representative. My Office agreed to 
appoint such a representative, in part, because we too thought it valuable for the victims to have the 
advice of an attorney who could advise them of their choices: whether to walk away, to settle or to 
sue. 
Since the signing of the Agreement, several issues have arisen with respect to this provision. 
First, l elected to assign this Office's right to appoint the representative to an independent third-party, 
former federal Judge 
. 1 did this to avoid any suggestion that this Office's choice of 
representative was intended to influence the outcome of civil litigation. Second, your co-counsel 
expressed concerns similar to those raised in your letter regarding the criteria used to select the 
representative. These criteria were: 
(1) Experience doing both plaintiffs' and defense litigation; 
(2) Experience with state and federal statutory and common law tort claims; 
(3) Ability to communicate effectively with young women; 
(4) Experience litigating against large law firms and high profile attorneys who may 
test the veracity of the victims' claims; 
(5) Sensitivity to the nature of the suit and the victims' interest in maintaining their 
privacy; 
(6) Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida; 
Your letter references U.& 'Boehm, No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Ala 2004) as a model for a restitution fund 
statement I asked our prosecutor to contact the AlffiA in that case. In that matter, the District of Alaska 
sought out and obtained the consent of all the victims before entering into that settlement. In addition, they 
developed an elaborate procedure for deciding which victim would receive what. My view, in this case, Is 
that those types of negotiations arc better handled between Mr. Epstein and the victims' representatives, and 
that this Office should not act as intermediary. Finally,1 would note that in Boehm as well, the victims' 
identities were not Initially disclosed. As the AUSA wrote in that cast "This filing is made cx one 
because Boehm, in his plea agreement, waived any rights he had pertaining to the selection of beneficiaries 
and the disbursement of fluids to such beneficiaries." 
-3-
(1004 
EFTA00234593

12/04/07 TUE 16:47 FAX 906 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
(7) The resources to hire experts and others, while working on a contingency fee 
basis, in order to prepare for trial if a settlement cannot be reached (defense counsel 
has reserved the right to challenge such litigation); and 
(8) The ability to negotiate effectively. 
At my direction, our First Assistant provided our criteria to your co-counsel, Mr. Lefltowitz, in 
advance, and at co-counsel's request, he noted in our communication with Judge ir defense 
counsel's objection to criteria 7. I have now reviewed these criteria and find thembalanced and 
reasonable. They appear designed to provide the victims with an attorney who can advise them on 
all their options, whether it be to walk away, to settle (as your client prefers), or to litigate. Again, 
our intent is not to favor any one of these options, but rather to leave the choice to each victim. 
Fifth, you assert that this Office "has improperly insisted that the chosen attorney 
representative should be able to litigate the claims of the individuals," should a resolution not be 
possible. This issue, likewise, bas already been raised and addressed in discussions between your 
co-counsel and our First Assistant We understand your position that it would be a conflict of 
interest for the attorney representative to subsequently represent victim-plaintiffs in a civil suit. Your 
interpretation of the ethics rules may be correct, or it may be wrong. Far from insisting that the 
attorney representative can represent victim-plaintiffs in subsequent litigation, our First Assistant 
and J have repeatedly told defense counsel that we take no position on this matter. Indeed, 1 fully 
expect your defense team to litigate this issue with the attorney representative if a resolution is not 
reached. 
I have responded personally and in some detail to your concerns because I deeply care about 
both the law and the integrity of this Office. have responded personally and in some detail as well 
because your letter troubled me on a number of levels. My understanding of the negotiations in this 
matter informs my concerns. 
The Section 2255 provision issue was first discussed at a July 31, 2007, meeting between 
FAUSA Sloman, Criminal Chief Menchel, West Palm Beach Chief Lourie, AUSA Villafaria, and 
two FBI agents wbo met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefeoust, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. On that date, the 
prosecutors presented a written, four-bullet-point term sheet that would satisfy the federal interest 
in the case and discussed the substance of those terms. One of these four points was the following 
provision: 
Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file 
suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. 
District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject 
matter. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while 
minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s) 2422 
and/or 2423. 
-4-
la005 
EFTA00234594

12/04/07 TUE 16:48 FAX 305 630 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
lawns 
In mid August 2007, your defense team, dissatisfied with my staff's review ofthe case, asked 
to meet with me. Mr. Letkowtiz indicated your busy schedule, and asked me to put off until 
September 7, 2007, so that you could attend. Mr. Lefkowitz also indicated that he might appeal my 
decision to Washington D.C., if my decision was contrary to his client's interest I agreed to the 
September 7th meeting, despite the fact that our AUSA had an indictment ready for presentation to 
the grandjury. An explicit condition ofthat agreement, however, was an understanding between Mr. 
Lefkowitz and myself that any appeal to Washington would be undertaken expeditiously. 
On September 7, 2007,1, along withFAUSA Sloman, AUSAs McMillan and Villafafta, and 
FBI agents, met with you, Mr. Lefkowitz, and Ms. Sanchez. I understood that you wished to present 
federalism-based concerns regarding our prosecution. To ensure a full consideration of your 
arguments, I invited Drew Oosterbaan, Chief of the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and 
Obscenity Section, to travel from Washington to attend our meeting. During the September 7th
meeting, your co-counsel, Mr. Lefkowitz, offered a plea resolution. The inclusion of a Section 2255 
remedy was specifically raised and discussed at the September 7t° meeting. Indeed, according to 
AUSA Villafafia's notes, you thanked her for bringing it to your attention. Again, no objection to 
the Section 2255 issue was raised. 
After considering the arguments raised at the September 7h meeting, and after conferring 
with the FBI and with Chief Gosterbaan, our Office decided to proceed with the indictment. At that 
time, I reminded Mr. Lefkowitz that he had previously indicated his desire to appeal such a decision 
to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the 
Criminal Division, and I offered to direct our prosecutors to delay the presentation of the indictment 
to allow you or he to appeal our decision if you so chose. lie decided not to do so. 
Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiate theNon-Frosecution Agreement These negotiations 
were detailed and time-consuming. Mr. Epstein's defense team, including yourself, Professor 
Dershowitz, former United States Attorney Guy Lewis, Ms. Lilly Ann Sanchez and Messrs. Roy 
Black, Jack Goldberger, Gerry Lefeourt and Jay Lefkowitz had the opportunity to review and raise 
objections to the terms of the Agreement. Again, no one raised objections to the Section 2255 
language. 
Since the signing of the Agreement, the defense team and our Office have addressed several 
issues that have arisen under the Agreement Although the exchanges were at times a bit litigious, 
it appears that these issues have been resolved by mutual consent, some in favor of your client, some 
not so. 
It is against these many previous foregone opportunities to object that I receive with surprise 
your letter requesting an 11th hour, after-the-fact review of our Agreement. Although it happens 
rarely, 1 do not mind this Office's decision being appealed to Washington, and have previously 
directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of 
appealing our decisions. Indeed, although 1 am confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal 
analysis, I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in the Criminal 
-5-
EFTA00234595

12/04/07 
TUE 18:48 FAX 305 530 8440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to confirm our interpretation of the law before 
approving their indictment package. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department 
Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that 
have been raised, and in fact resolved, in your client's favor. 
I am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement. The AUSAs who 
have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the 
tactics used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one 
issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has 
been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must 
be closure on this matter. Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will 
continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has 
entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind. 
Finally, I am most concerned about any belief on the part of defense counsel that the 
Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitutional in any way.' 
In closing, I would ask that you consult with co-counsel. If after consultations within the 
defense team, you believe that our Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitutional, I would ask 
that you notify us immediately so that we can discuss the matter by phone or in person. I have 
consulted with the chief prosecutor in this cast, who has advised me that she is ready to unwind the 
Agreement and proceed to trial if necessary or if appropriate. 
I would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant 
to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although 
time is of the essence (I understand that certain filings are due to our Office no later than December 
7th and that certain events must take place no later than December le), lam directing our 
prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time 
to review these options with your client. We are available by phone or in person, in the interim, to 
It is not clear from your knot whether you believe that attorneys in this Office have acted improperly. 
Your letter, for example, alludes to the need to engage in an Inquiry to assure that disclosures to potential 
wimesses did not undermine the reliability of the results of this fedcnl investigation. M a former 
Department of Justice attorney. I am certain that you recognize that this is a serious allegation. I have 
raised this matter with AUSA Villareal% who informed me that the victims were not told of the availability 
of Section 2255 miler during the investigation phase of this matter. If you have specific concerns. I ask that 
you raise these with me immediately, so that I can make appropriate inquiries. 
-6-
61007 
EFTA00234596

12/04/07 TOE 16:45 FAX 305 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
Woos 
address any matters that might remain unaddressed in this letter. We expect a written decision by 
this Friday at 5 p.m., indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the 
Agreement. 
Sincerely, 
It ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
cc: 
Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General 
Jeffrey Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
AUSA A. Marie Villafafin 
-7-
EFTA00234597

Exhibit 5 
EFTA00234598

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
AND ANILIARD PARINVASNIPS 
777 South Figueroa Street 
Los Angeles, California 90017 
Mensal W. Start 
To Can Writer Directly: 
(213) 680-8400 
Facsimile: 
(213) 6130-8440 
(219) 8804503 
lostaurekkkland.com 
www.kladand.com 
December I I, 2007 
VIA FACSIMILE (3051 530-6444 
Honorable IL Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NE 4th Street 
Miami, FL 33132 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Alex: 
As we discussed during our telephone conversations on both Friday and Monday 
(yesterday), we are submitting two separate letters that address ow broad areas of deep concern 
in this matter. First, the cluster of fundamental policy issues surrounding the use and 
implementation of 2255, a richly policy-laden but uncharted area of federal law; and second, our 
profound concerns as to the background and conduct of the investigation. Consistent with our 
conversations, we submit these letters with the assurance and understanding that our doing so in 
no manner constitutes a breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement or unwinds that Agreement 
We are grateful for your courtesy in agreeing to receive and consider these submissions, and then 
to meet to discuss them. 
As you undertake your study and reflection, kindly allow me to make this pivotal point 
In the combined 250 years experience of Jeffrey's defense team, we have together and 
individually concluded that this case is not only extraordinary and unprecedented, it is deeply 
and uniquely troubling. The constellation of issues, large and small, renders Jeffrey's matter 
entirely sui genesis. We say this not lightly. Indeed, as you will glean from our two letters, we 
are gravely concerned that, in addition to its odd conceptualization and genesis, the matter in its 
day-to-day implementation has been handled in a manner that raises deeply troubling questions 
with respect to both federal policy and individual judgment in a system that is, at its best, 
assiduously devoted to the rule of law. The latest episodes involving 2255 notification to the 
alleged victims put illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice, time and 
again, are not being served. By way of illustration, but it is only one among a easeading list of 
grave concerns, we now understand that the Assistant United States Attornit 
saduct has 
troubled us from day one has quite recently reached out to the attorney for 
and 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Munich 
New York 
San Francisco 
waseinaten, 
EFTA00234599

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Honorable R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11, 2007 
Page 2 
provided oral notification of the victim notification letter. This notification, as we have stated 
time and again, is profoundly unfair. But quite apart from our substantive concerns, which are 
abiding and which had prompted our appeal to the Assistant Attorney General in the first 
instance, we had thought that the notification process had been held in abeyance until completion 
of our ongoing discussions with respect to that process. That appears not to be so. This latest in 
a baleful line of prosecutorial actions is dri in 
th irony. We respectfully call your attention 
to the transcript of the interview with 
and guide you — as the duly confirmed 
Executive Branch official charged wi malting judgments consistent with our constitutional 
order — to the telling fact that Ms. Miler did not in any manner view herself as a victim. Quite to 
the contrary. She is not alone. 
We draw attention to this episode as but a recent indication of the deepening need for 
your thoughtful and independent review. And for your agreeing to provide that review, our 
defense team is very grateful. 
Respectfully Submitted, 
)4)C,-,L 
Kenneth W. Starr 
EFTA00234600

Exhibit 6 
EFTA00234601

12/19/07 
WED 17:03 FAX. .305 630 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
0002 
U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
AISKANDKI t ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATIORNRY 
DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE 
Lilly Ann Sanchez 
Fowler White Burnett, PA 
1395 Brickell Ave, 14th Floor 
Miami, FL 33131 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Ms. Sanchez: 
W N.E. 4 Sweat 
Maw, Fl. 33132 
O05)96i-9100 - Telephony 
O05)530.4444 - Foaling° 
December 19, 2007 
I write to follow up on the December 14th meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein 
prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.'
write to yon because 1 am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this 
letter. I address issues raised by several members of the defense team, and would thus ask that you 
please provide a copy of this letter to all appropriate defense team members. 
First, I would like to address the Section 2255 issue? As I stated in my December 4th letter, 
my understanding is that the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. 
Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal 
liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections 
l Over the past two weeks, we have received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits from defense counsel. 
This is not the forum to respond to the several items raised, and our silence should not be interpret as agreement I 
would, however, like to address one issue. Your December 11e letter states that as a result of defense counsel 
objections to the appointment process, the USAO proposed an addendum to the Agreement to provide fur die use of 
an independent third party selector. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowledge of defense counsel 
objeuions, I suer spomo proposed the Addendum to Mr. Leflcowitx at an October meeting in Palm Beach. I did this 
in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process. It was only after I proposed this 
change that Mr.l.cfkowitz raised with me his enumerated concerns. 
2 Section 2255 provides that "tally person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of [enumerated sections 
of Title 18) and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation ... may sue in any appropriate United States 
District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, Including a 
reasonable attorney's fec." 
EFTA00234602

__42/19/07 WED 17:03 FAX 305 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
0 003 
of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies 
three general federal interests: (1) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable" state offense; (2) 
that this state plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) 
that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. 
With this in mind, I have considered defense counsel arguments regarding the Section 2255 
portions of the Agreement. As I previously observed, our intent has been to place the victims in the 
same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. 
From our meeting, it appears that the defense agrees that this was the intent. During the course of 
negotiations that intent was reduced to writing in Paragraphs 7 and 8, which as i wrote previously, 
appear far from simple to understand. I would thus propose that we solve our disagreements over 
interpretations by saying precisely what we mean, in a simple fashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 
and 8 with the following language: 
"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." 
Second, 1 would like to address the issue of victim's rights pursuant to Section 3771. I 
understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place of Mr. 
Epstein's state co art sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and 
the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense as a courtesy. In 
addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several 
edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of 
proceeding and results of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend 
to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the 
discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether be 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. 
Third, I would like to address the issue raised regarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At 
our meeting, Professor Dershowitz took the position that Mr. Epstein believes that his conduct does 
not satisfy the elements of this offense. His assertion raises for me substantial concerns. This Office 
will not, and cannot, be a parry to an agreement in which Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to an offense that 
he believes he did not commit. We are considering how best to proceed. 
2 
EFTA00234603

12/19/07 WED 17:04 FAX 305 530 0440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
e004 
Finally, 1 would like to address a more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on 
September 24th, 2007. Pursuant to paragraph 11, Mr. Epstein was to use his best efforts to enter his 
guilty plea and be sentenced no later than. October 26, 2007. As outlined in correspondence between 
our prosecutors and defense counsel, this deadline came and went. Our prosecutors reiterated to 
defense counsel several times their concerns regarding delays, and in fact, asked me several weeks 
ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. 1 resisted that invitation. I share 
this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an 1 I th hour appeal, 
weeks before the now scheduled January 4th plea date. 
This said, the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness 
concerns. We hope to preserve the January 4th date. I understand that defense counsel shares our 
desire not to move that appearance and will work with our office to expedite this process over the 
next several days. With this in mind, and in the event that defense counsel may wish to seek review 
of our determinations in Washington D.C., I spoke this past Monday with the Assistant Attorney 
General Fisher, to inform her of a possible appeal, to ask her to grant the potential request for review, 
and to in fact review this case in an expedited manner to attempt to preserve the January 4th plea date. 
I want to again reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a 
defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial, 
and he should do so if he believes that he did not commit the elements of the charged offense. 
I will respond to the pending issues shortly. In the interim, I would ask that you 
communicate your position with respect to the sections 2255 and 3371 issues as quickly as possible. 
Sincerely, 
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
cc: 
Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General 
Jeffrey Slotnan, First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
AUSA A. Marie V illafafia 
3 
EFTA00234604

Exhibit 7 
EFTA00234605

Jay LefkowituNew 
York/Kirldand-Ellts 
02/291200803:11 PM 
Dear Alex, 
To alexecosta©usdoj.gov 
cc [email protected] 
bce 
Subject Fw: Epstein 
I received the attached email from Jeff Sloman this week and to put it mildly, I was shocked. As you will 
recall, back at the beginning of January, when we both agreed that there were significant irregularities 
with the deferred prosecution agreement, you called a time-out. You had decided to ask Drew's Office to 
take a look at the matter and suggested that we would be hearing him within days. 
At that time, we welcomed the development -- especially given that we had reason to be concerned that 
some of the individuals in your Office were not acting appropriately in relation to this matter. In particular, 
we were very concerned that one of your prosecutors had given a substantial amount of information to a 
New York Times reporter -- telling him not only about specific aspects of our plea negotiations, but also 
sharing with him details about your Office's theory concerning what laws you believe Mr. Epstein has 
violated. In broad strokes, Mr. David Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that the Office was contemplating 
charging Mr. Epstein under Sections 2422(b) (with a full discussion of principal liability), 2423, and 1591. 
He also complained about Mr. Epstein's lawyers and told Mr. Thomas not to "believe the spin from Mr. 
Epstein's high priced attorneys? Mr. Weinstein even informed Mr. Thomas that we had "asked for 
privately paid armed guards" as part of a house arrest proposal we had made. Even more surprising, he 
subsequently told Mr. Thomas that we had learned of the conversation, complained about it and 
suggested an explanation. Needless to say, we were very troubled by these conversations. 
At this same time, we agreed that in order to provide Drew a sufficient amount of time to evaluate the 
matter, it made sense to move the deadline for state plea to March, which we did. I was therefore quite 
surprised to receive, in rapid succession, a call from Drew asking to begin the review process and then 
only two days later, an email from Jeff informing me of new and extremely short and arbitrary deadlines. 
The one thing I had become certain about in this case was that you were sincere in your desire to ensure 
that the DOJ took a proper and principled position with respect to this matter, and that you fully accepted 
our desire, and our right, to appeal any adverse decision by your Office to the DOJ. In fact, on several 
occasions — including our meeting before Thanksgiving in your Office -- you stated precisely as much to 
me. That is why I am so surprised by Jeff's latest email. We are very interested in having the meetings 
you suggested with Drew. It would be very unfortunate to begin the review process that you have asked 
Drew to conduct and at the same time artificially constrict it. As you know, the timing of a thorough review 
would cause no prejudice to the government's prosecution of Mr. Epstein. To the contrary, we hope that 
our dialogue with Drew will allow for the government to make a more informed decision concerning this 
matter. 
We have been waiting eagerly for a call from Drew for nearly two months. Now that he is prepared to 
meet with us, it is unfair for Jeff to seek to impose artificial deadlines. Since I will be in trial next week, we 
are planning to begin our meetings with Drew during the second week in March. 
I sincerely hope we can resolve this matter in the near future. To be dear -- at this stage -- we are not 
asking for anything but the same due process that you promised to afford to us when we last spoke in 
early January. 
Best, Jay 
cc: Jeff 
EFTA00234606

Exhibit 8 
EFTA00234607

Jay, 
'Simian, Jeff (USAFLST 
<[email protected]> 
02/29/2008 07:17 PM 
To <[email protected]> 
cc 
bcc 
Subject Epstein 
I know you emailed the U.S. Attorney but I feel compelled to respond. 
In my Monday, February 25th email, I tried to express my concern, on behalf of the 
SDFL, about additional delays concerning this matter and the desire to expedite 
review without interfering or restricting the process. When you replied on 
Wednesday , February 27', it seemed to me that nothing had much changed. Your 
email stated "because I am currently scheduled to be on trial all next week in 
Delaware, I don't think we will actually be able to begin meeting with Drew until 
the following week, at the earliest" I felt that no effort was being made towards 
scheduling, and that, at the very least, one of Mr. Epstein's other lawyers could 
have attempted to schedule a meeting with CEOS. To put it another way, it 
appeared to me that this matter was going to drag unnecessarily. Obviously you 
sensed my frustration in my responding email which, in turn, generated your email 
to the USA. 
Late this afternoon, I was informed that you have scheduled a meeting with CEOS 
for March 12th. Obviously, I am heartened to hear of this development. Please be 
assured that it is not, and never has been, this Office's intent to interfere with or 
restrict the review process for either Mr. Epstein or CEOS. I leave it to you and 
CEOS to figure out how best to proceed and will await the results of that process. 
Jeff Sloman, FAUSA 
EFTA00234608

Exhibit 9 
EFTA00234609