EFTA00310814

FOWLERWHITE 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
BURNETT 
MIAMI • FORT LAUDERDALE • WEST PALM BEACH • ST. PETERSBURG 
August 2, 2007 
Mr. Matthew Menchel 
Chief, Criminal Division 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NE 4 Street 
Miami, Florida 33132 
Re: Jeffrey Epstein 
FLoAtook 3313 I 
TELEPHONE
-
FACSIMILE 
why. IrOvAER-WHilt.COM 
LILLY ANN SANCHEZ 
Dna PHONE No.: 
DIRECT FACSIMILE No.: 
Dear Matt: 
As we discussed at Tuesday's meeting, and consistent with our view that no 
federal prosecution should lie in this matter, Mr. Epstein is prepared to resolve this 
matter via a state forum. We are in receipt of your memo regarding same and as the 
dynamics of the meeting did not allow for us to fully detail our proposal, we do so 
now. We believe that our respective positions are not very far apart and that a 
mutually agreeable resolution can be reached that will accomplish the interests of the 
United States Attorney's Office as well as those of the community. 
We welcomed your recognition that a state prison sentence is neither 
appropriate for, nor acceptable to, Mr. Epstein, as the dangers of the state prison 
system pose risks that are clearly untenable. We acknowledge that your suggestion 
of a plea to two federal misdemeanors was an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Our 
proposal is significantly punitive, and if implemented, would, we believe, leave little 
doubt that the federal interest was demonstrably vindicated. 
The Florida state judicial system, unlike the federal system, provides for 
numerous types of onerous sanctions after a defendant is remanded to the custody of 
the state. The sentence is tailored to the needs of the local community and the risk 
posed by a specific defendant. After a great deal of thought, our proposal consists 
of both a severe supervised custody, with an assurance that any violation would result 
in the immediate implementation of the two year period of incarceration. We must 
keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein is a 54-year old man who has never been arrested 
before. He has lived an otherwise exemplary life, characterized by both many 
charitable contributions and philanthropic acts. His reputation has suffered 
significantly as a result of his poor judgment in these matters. He is well aware of the 
ramifications of his past behavior and, accordingly, there is no concem, whatsoever, 
that he will re-offend. 
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. 
EFTA00310834

Page 2 
The following proposal is offered as an assurance to the community that the 
goals of appropriate punishment and rehabilitation are attained. 
We will agree to a sentence of two years in state prison pursuant to Florida 
Statute 948.012(2) which permits a split sentence whereby Mr. Epstein will be 
sentenced to a term of supervised custody, followed by a period of incarceration. 
Supervised custody in the state system includes potential daily surveillance, 
administered by officers with restricted case loads. Supervised custody is an 
individualized program in which the freedom of Mr. Epstein is limited to the 
confines of his residence with specific sanctions imposed and enforced. See Florida 
Statute 948.001(2). Should Mr. Epstein successfully complete the terms and 
conditions of his custody, the Judge will eliminate the incarcerative portion of the 
sentence. If Mr. Epstein, however, fails to comply with the conditions of his 
supervised custody. The period of incarceration will be immediately implemented. 
We, therefore, propose the following: 
Two years supervised custody with the following mandatory and special 
conditions: 
o Confinement to home 
o Report to a community control officer at least once a week or more 
often as directed by the officer 
o Permit a community control officer to visit him unannounced at home 
at any time, day or night 
o Obtain psychological counseling 
o No unsupervised contact with all the victims in the instant case 
o Perform community service 
o Payment of Restitution 
o Application of 18 U.S.C. § 2255' 
o Payment of a contribution of a defined amount to a charitable 
organization benefitting victims of sexual assault 
o Payment of Court and probationary costs 
o Payment of law enforcement investigative costs 
o Submit to random drug testing 
o Refrain from associating with persons engaged in criminal activities 
o Refrain from committing any new law offenses 
o Any other specific conditions that the Office may deem necessary 
Two additional years of reporting probation: 
1 18 U.S.C. 2255 provides that any minor who suffers injury as a result of the commission of certain offenses 
shall recover actual damages and the cost of any suit. It is important to note that Mr. Epstein is prepared to fully 
fund the identified group of victims which are the focus of the Office — that is, the 12 individuals noted at the 
meeting on July 31, 2007. This 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 of Mr. Epstein's proposal, 
in my extensive-experience in these types of easmi -the victims prefer a quick resolution-with enmpensatinntor 
damages and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. 
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. 
EFTA00310835

Page 3 
o Mandatory conditions as provided in Florida Statute § 948.03 
o Special conditions as stated above 
Ifthe terms of supervised custody and probation are successfully completed, 
then the two years of state prison is eliminated. 
This proposal provides for the two year imposition of the state prison sentence 
if any violation of the supervised custody or probation occurs. Accordingly, the 
Office's position that Mr. Epstein agree to a resolution that includes jail time is 
satisfied by this proposal. It would immediately bring closure to a matter that has 
been pending for over two years, allows Mr. Epstein to commence with his sentence, 
and, most significantly, allow the victims to move forward with their lives. We are 
in process of scheduling a meeting with R. Alexander Acosta, United States 
Attorney, to further discuss this matter. 
Sincerely. 
Lilly Ann Sanchez 
cc. 
R. Alexander Acosta 
Gerald Lefcourt 
Roy Black 
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. 
EFTA00310836

MAY 14, 2008 - FROM THE DEFENSE TO THE GOVT 
EFTA00310837

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Kenneth W. Starr 
To Call Writer Directly-. 
VIA FACSIMILE 
AND AMMO PARTNUtSkun 
Los Angeles. California 90017 
www.kirkland.COM 
May 14, 2008 
Honorable 
Assistant Attorney
Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Room 2107 
Washington, DC 20530 
Dear General 
Fe simi 
Dir. Fax 
Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with me yesterday. 'write to you now 
to supplement our discussion. As you know, I feel strongly that the involvement of the federal 
government—culminating in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement—runs afoul of fundamental 
principles of federalism, the well-established Petite Policy, and issues of paramount importance 
with respect to the administration of justice. As 1 further explain below, I am constrained to 
conclude that the prosecution's theory of the case is irreparably infected due to the 
unprecedented stretching of federal law and of the facts, and the prejudicial impact of requiring 
the inclusion of a federal civil remedies statute in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. 
First, I am deeply concerned about the reality that each of the federal statutes at issue-
18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(6), 2423(b) and 1591—would have to be stretched far beyond the precedent 
set in every prior case to bring the facts of this matter within their orbit. § 2422 is aimed at 
sexual predation of minors through the Internet, § 2423 deals with sex tourism and § 1591 was 
enacted to combat human trafficking. Under § 2422(b), the federal crime in question is one of 
communication. 
Frequently, cases under § 2242(b) involve sting operations where illicit 
communication through the Internet is evidenced in emails or chat-room transcripts. In this case, 
however, there is no evidence that Mr. Epstein or anyone at his direction ever used the Internet, 
the phone, or any other facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, entice or coerce 
anyone to engage in illegal sexual activity. Furthermore, the Government's contention that 
"routine and habit" can fill the factual and legal void created by the lack of evidence that such a 
communication ever occurred sets this case apart from every reported case brought under 
§ 2422(b). Also, there are no incidences of interstate travel with a minor or of interstate travel by 
Mr. Epstein except to return to his home of 17 years in Palm Beach for a wide-range of business, 
family, and personal purposes entirely unrelated to any of the activities that would fall within the 
ambit of § 2423(b). Finally, there are no allegations of force, fraud, coercion, or sex trafficking 
that would fit within the purpose or language of § 1591. The facts provided here are supported 
Chicago 
.Hong.Kong 
tondo. n 
Now York 
San Franc:ace 
Washington, D.C. 
EFTA00310838

Honorable 
May 14, 20I M
Page 2 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
by the recent testimony of several of the alleged "victims" whose sworn statements indicate that 
Mr. Epstein's conduct simply does not implicate any articulated federal priority. 
We have reviewed every reported case brought under each of the three statutes and found 
that there is no precedent for any federal involvement that encompasses these facts. There are 
simply no cases where the Department has seen fit to broaden the reach of federal law, ignoring 
mores of the local community, in an attempt to embrace conduct within a federal prosecution that 
is quintessentially local and that involved no for-profit enterprise. Indeed, there are no examples 
of federal intervention in any similar matter that was the subject of a thorough antecedent state 
criminal investigation and a state prosecution that included Grand Jury proceedings, an 
indictment, and an agreement by the defendant to enter a guilty plea. In short, the unprecedented 
decision to continue federal involvement in this matter implicates profoundly important issues 
concerning the Department's Petite Policy, the proper deference to a well-established state-
federal balance, and the appearance of selectivity. 
Second, the inclusion of terms'in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement which relate to 18 
U.S.C. § 2255 have resulted in an unhealthy and damaging blend of criminal and civil law, and 
of state and federal jurisdiction. As you know, § 2255 is a federal civil statute by which victims 
of certain federal crimes may collect a lump-sum money award in the minimum amount of 
$150,000 without any proof of actual damages, though they must show "personal injury." This 
provision is the antithesis of traditional restitution statutes, which expressly condition payment 
on individually proven damages. In Mr. Epstein's case, the demands by federal prosecutors that 
§ 2255 be included in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement and that Mr. Epstein make payments 
under § 2255 to a "list" of unnamed individuals were both conditions precedent to that 
Agreement, which effectively eliminated the requirement to prove any "personal injury." In fact, 
the United States Attorney's Office in Miami rejected the defense team's suggested alternatives, 
namely the use of established state restitution statutes or the creation of a trust fund out of which 
monetary payments could be made. 
The inclusion of § 2255, however, has irreparably 
jeopardized the credibility of testimony because the ability of claimants to recover a lump sum 
payment invites witnesgPs to exaggerate their testimony against the federal target—especially 
when that target is known to be wealthy. Just as the Government could not, in fairness, simply 
offer direct lump sum payments to witnesses in exchange for inculpatory testimony, the 
Government should not indirectly be able to rely on § 2255 to incentivize testimony against Mr. 
Epstein. 
Due to the actions of federal prosecutors, the prejudicial effect of including § 2255 in the 
Deferred Prosecution Agreement has already been actualized. A notification letter for the 
alleged "victims" was leaked to at least three witnesses despite the fact that United States 
Attorney Acosta agreed that the letter was inappropriate to send. This letter, which expressly 
identified the recipient as a "victim," provided that the "victim" could recover monetary damages 
in the minimum amount of S150,000 under § 2255 and that a civil attorney, selected by the 
EFTA00310839

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Honorable 
May 14, 2008 
Page 3 
prosecutor and paid for by Mr. Epstein, could represent them. The letter also explicitly stated, in 
an underlined sentence, that the women could elect to hire their own attorneys to pursue 
litigation against Mr. Epstein, but that if they did so, Mr. Epstein would not be obligated to pay 
their fees. Recently, several civil lawsuits, seeking $50 million each, have been brow t a ainst 
Mr. Epstein. Remarkably, 
the former law partner of 
filed all save one of these complaints. 
the individual 
who 
ised the federal investigation of Mr. Epstein, was listleict
partner of Mr. 
firm on the Florida Bar Website as recently as two months ago. Finally, our 
investigation has uncovered repeated examples of FBI agents emphasizing to witnesses that they 
are "victims." Recently, as a result of established state procedures, we were able to take the 
statements of several women on the Government's "list" of alleged "victims" who, by the terms 
of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein would be obligated to pay. In sworn 
statements, the women testified that they did not consider themselves to be "victims" and that 
they did not believe they suffered any injury whatsoever from their meetings with Mr. Epstein, a 
condition precedent to recovery under § 2255. 
In conclusion, I believe that any potential federal involvement has already been poisoned 
by: (1) the stretching of federal law to fit the facts of this matter, and (2) the prejudicial impact of 
the unprecedented inclusion of § 2255 in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. The plea 
negotiations between Mr. Epstein's counsel and the United States Attorney's Office in Miami, 
which eventually led to the execution of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, were unfairly 
based on an inaccurate view of the facts, as demonstrated by the recent sworn statements of 
many of the alleged "victims." And the quick and easy attempt to remedy these problems by 
excising the § 2255 portions of the Agreement will not adequately address the harm caused by 
prosecutors' misguided efforts to implement these terms.' 
As a slight departure from the aforementioned issues, you should be aware that the 
mandated inclusion of § 2255 provisions is one of many highly unusual circumstances that have 
characterized this federal criminal investigation. For instance, there has been a verifiable, 
unauthorized disclosure of confidential (and perhaps Grand Jury) materials by the United States 
Attorney's Office to a senior reporter of the New York Times.2 You should also be aware of the 
fact that United States Attorney Acosta now refuses to take my calls. 
While we take this opportunity to express our concerns with the negotiations and implementation of the 
Deferred Prosecution Agreement, it is still operative and binding on both parties. However, we were told by 
United States Attorney Acosta that as part of the review he requested, the Department had the authority, and his 
consent, to make any determination it deems appropriate regarding this matter, including to decline federal 
prosecution. 
2 
Jay Lefkowitz has personally reviewed the reporter's contemporaneous notes. 
EFTA00310840

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Honorable ■ 
May 14, 2008 
Page 4 
As you know, I strongly believe justice is best served by the Department's declining to 
authorize any continued federal involvement in what had been a state investigation and 
prosecution of Mr. Epstein. I, along with Joe Whitley and Jay Lefkowitz, would greatly 
appreciate you taking the time to meet with us. Thank you for your consideration. 
Respectfully submitted, 
nip.a4 
ata 
Kenneth W. Starr 
EFTA00310841

vol I4/4UVU 
4U FAA 
0001 
zscpsprr****spssts*** 
sr* 
TX REPORT 
*** 
******FiSft********** 
TRANSMISSION OK 
TX/RX NO 
0438 
RECIPIENT ADDRESS 
DESTINATION ID 
ST. TIME 
05/14 11:38 
TIME USE 
00'49 
PAGES SENT 
5 
RESULT 
OK 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Fax Transmittal 
Los Angeles, California 90017 
Phone 
Fax: 
Please notify up immediately if any pages are not received. 
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL. MAY 
BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION. AND 
IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. UNAUTHORIZED USE, 
DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. 
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, 
PLEASE NOTIFY 
S 
IATELY AT: 
To: 
Company: 
Fax #: 
Direct #: 
lion.- 
Department or Justice 
From: 
Date: 
Parjostekover 
Fax #: 
Direct #: 
Kenneth W. Starr 
May 14,2008 
5 
Message: 
EFTA00310842