EFTA00157655

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Response to Letter by FAUSA 
Dated May 19, 2008 
In a Ma 19 2008 letter to Jay Lefkowitz (See Tab 1), SDFL First Assistant U.S. 
Attorney 
provided what purported to be a summary of the events that have 
occurred during the investigation of Mr. Epstein. 
letter is fraught with 
inconsistencies, false and misleading characterizations and outright falsehoods. The comparison 
below between the false assertions in 
letter and what actually transpired is only the 
tip of the iceberg. We respectfully submit that 
letter alone demonstrates the 
degree to which the record of facts have been distorted and these distortions have permeated this 
unprecedented investigation. 
1. 
"INDEPENDENT" AND "DE NOVO" REVIEW. 
Letter: 
• "[Me obliged your request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and 
facilitated such review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. " Tab 1, May 
19, 2008 Letter from 
p. 5, 1 3. 
The Truth: 
• CEOS' review, concluded in May 2008, was neither independent nor de novo. 
o CEOS' review was not "independent:" 
• 
who conducted the review on behalf of CEOS, had 
already reviewed the prosecution memo on this matter eight months 
earlier. During a meeting with defense counsel at the United States 
Attorney's Office in Miami (the "USAO") in September of 2007, he 
opined that he so believed in the prosecution that he "would try the case 
myself" 
• Indeed, Mr. 
acknowledges that Mr. 
opined on this matter, stating: 
had previously 
This particular attack on this statute [18 U.S.C. § 2242(b)] 
had been previously raised and thoroughly considered and 
rejected by . . . CEOS prior to the execution of the 
[Deferred Prosecution] Agreement [in September 2007]. 
Id., p. 5 (emphasis added). 
• The statute Mr. 
referred to (§ 2422(b)is the 
Epstein investigation. Thus, according to Mr. 
, Mr. 
was tasked with reviewing his own prior decision regarding applying the 
key statute under which the SDFL proposed prosecuting Mr. Epstein. 
3505-019 
Page 21 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003293 
EFTA00157675

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
• The defense immediately raised concerns regarding the non-independence
of the review when told that it would be Mr. 
tasked with 
providing the review, but was told that when Mr. 
rendered his 
prior opinion, "he was not really up to speed on the facts" 
o CEOS' review was not de novo: 
• B letter dated May 15, 2008 (four days before 
letter), Mr. 
advised Mr. Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the matter only 
for abuse of discretion: 
ITJhe question we sought to answer was whether U.S. 
Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he 
authorized prosecution in this case. 
See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from 
p. 1 (emphasis 
added). 
See also, id., p. 2 ("Mr. Acosta would not be abusing his 
discretion if he decided to pursue such a course of action."); and p. 5 
("Mr. Acosta would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he 
authorized federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein:). 
• For the factual record of its "abuse of discretion" review, CEOS relied on 
the very same prosecution memo that it had already reviewed in rendering 
its prior opinion, stating: 
As you know, our review of this case is limited, both factually and 
legally. We have not looked at the entire universe of facts in this 
case. 
See Id., p. 1 (emphasis added). 
• Nor did CEOS review any facts related to the irregular provisions in the 
Deferred Prosecution Agreement or the numerous complaints of 
prosecutorial misconduct, both of which are inextricably intertwined with 
the impropriety of the investigation. Id. at 1. 
2. 
NOTIFICATION OF WITNESSES. 
Letter: 
• Mr. 
dismissed the totality of the defense's objections to the inappropriate 
notification the SDFL proposed to send to its witnesses, stating merely that: 
"(Y]ou objected to victims['] being notified of time and place of Epstein's 
state[-]court sentencing hearing." 
2 
3505-019 
Page 22 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003294 
EFTA00157676

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from 
, p. 4, U I. 
The Truth: 
• 
The defense engaged in days of negotiation and made 14 sevaratc substantive objections 
to the unprecedented notification letter that Mr. 
threatened to send to an 
undisclosed list of "victims." The eventual transmission of this highly misleading letter 
was only halted by an appeal to AAG 
Among those substantive objections 
(which related to far more than the "time and place" of the state's sentencing hearing) 
were: 
o Sending the letter would contravene the government's commitment to take no 
position regarding potential claims of goveniiiivitncsses. 
See Tab 39, 
November 28, 2008 Email from J. Lelkowitz tom
. 
o The letter cited to an inapplicable statute (the Justice for All Act of 2004) as its 
justification for being sent. Id. AUSA Acosta later conceded that the citation to 
this statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. 
o The letter wrongly advised all recipients that Mr. Epstein would be required to 
register as "a sexual predator for the remainder of this life." 
o The letter amounted to an invitation to civil litigation against Mr. Epstein, 
advising recipients that they had the right to seek civil damages from Mr. Epstein, 
and in an underlined instruction, stated that if they chose an attorney other than 
the one chosen by the government thcy would be required to pay his fees, but if 
they chose the government's choice, Mr. Epstein would be required to pay the 
fees. 
3. 
MISCHARACTERIZATION OF OUR ARGUMENTS. 
Letter: 
• 
letter misleadingly characterizes our substantive defense of the 
government's investigation as, "the investigation merely produced evidence of relatively 
innocuous sexual conduct with some minors who, unbeknownst to Mr. Epstein, 
misrepresented their ages." 
See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from 
p. 2. 
The Truth: 
• 
We never made such a claim. To the contrary, we argued that sworn statements we have 
taken of the alleged victims demonstrate that law enforcement has presented versions of 
their testimony that are necessarily sensationalized and fictionalized. 
We presented 
3 
3505-019 
Page 23 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003295 
EFTA00157677

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
evidence that Mr. Epstein routinely and daily receives massages from adults. Only a 
small percentage of the masseuses turned out to be minors. The majority of those minors 
interviewed by law enforcement admitted to lying directly to Epstein about their ages 
(not "unbeknownst to Epstein"), and inventing further false details to substantiate their 
lies. Indeed, the civil attorney for several of these women admitted at his recent press 
conference that they lied to Mr. Epstein about their ages. Numerous witnesses testified 
that Mr. Epstein asked that all masseuses be over the age of 18. Further, the evidence is 
undisputed that Mr. Epstein's assistants scheduled the massages and Mr. Epstein did not 
know which masseuses his assistants had scheduled on a particular day, until the massage 
took place. We admitted that there was sexual conduct, and argued----not that it was 
"innocuous" as Mr. 
alleges—but that it was mostly Mr. Epstein's own self-
pleasuring, which did not satisfy the requisite federal element of criminal sexual conduct 
(which is in turn, defined by state law). These are important distinctions and show that 
Mr. 
has misrepresented the record about the most basic part of our defense. 
4. 
DEMANDS AN UNREALISTIC DEADLINE TO COMPLY WITH AN 
AGREEMENT HE UNILATERALLY MODIFIES. 
Letter: 
• "Unless [Mr. Epstein] complies with all of the terms and conditions of the [Deferred 
Prosecution] Agreement, as modified by the United States Attorney's December 19, 
2007 letter to Ms. Sanchez by close of business on Monday, June 2, 2008, the SDFL will 
elect to terminate the Agreement." Id., p.1 
The Truth: 
• The Deferred Prosecution Agreement was never modified by U.S. Attorney Acosta's 
December 19, 2007 letter. Oddly, Mr. 
acknowledges this on page 4 of his May 
19 letter, where he writes that Mr. Acosta "proposed" this modification and that "[Mr. 
Lefkowitzj rejected these proposals." Thus, Mr. 
is threatening to terminate the 
Deferred Prosecutionaniement, unless Mr. Epstein complies with a unilateral 
modification that Mr. 
concedes was never agreed to by defense counsel. 
• Orchestrating the information, plea and sentencing requirements of the Deferred 
Prosecution Agreement within the extremely limited two-week tirneframe imposed by 
June 2, 2008 deadline would have been difficult enough. 
• More importantly, as explained below, the SDFL has refused to provide the defense with 
information it requires to enable Mr. Epstein to comply with the additional plea and 
sentencing requirements of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (let alone, by the June 2 
deadline arbitrarily imposed by Mr. 
o The Deferred Prosecution Agreement requires Mr. Epstein to plead guilty to and 
be sentenced for an additional offense which requires that he be registeriiiiii 
sex offender. 
In different places in his May 19, 2008 letter, Mr. 
4 
3505-019 
Page 24 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003296 
EFTA00157678

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
describes the additional chargc to which Mr. Epstein is required to plead guilty 
under the Deferred Prosecution Agreement as "procurement of minors to engage 
in prostitution" or "solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution." The former 
is an offense for which Mr. Epstein would be required to register, but one for 
which the state has no evidence to charge Mr. Epstein and the SDFL refuses or is 
unable to provide evidence that it claims it has. 
The latter requires no 
registration, but it is the offense which, over and over again, 
insisted upon including in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, and is one which 
the State believes is appropriate. The inconsistency between the description of 
the offense required by the SDFL, the elements of an offense that can be justified 
on the facts of this case and the SDFL's requirement that the offense be a 
registrable one has created substantial confusion. 
o As a result of this confusion, in December 2007, both the defense and the state 
requested that the SDFL provide the factual allegations to enable Mr. Epstein and 
the State to create a truthful factual recitation of a registrable offense required by 
the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, but, to date, the SDFL has failed to do so 
without any explanation. 
• 
Mr. 
refuses to provide the requested factual allegations, which the State cannot 
furnish, and now demands a two week deadline to comply. Thus Mr. 
has 
unreasonably imposed a deadline with which he himself has made it impossible for Mr. 
Epstein to comply. 
5. 
WAIVER OF APPEAL TO ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
Letter: 
• 
"[T]he SDFL provided you with 30 da 
to appeal the decision to the Assistant Attorney 
General of the United States 
' and "you chose to forego an appeal to AAG 
Id., p. 2. 
The Truth: 
• Mr. Acosta tolled an August 17 deadline, acknowledging that there were "serious issues" 
about the case that needed to be discussed, and scheduled a meetin with the defense for 
September 7, 2007. At the September 7, 2007 meeting, with 
in 
attendance, the government dismissed the defense's objections and set a September 21, 
2007 deadline to finalize a non-prosecution agreement or the defense would face an 
already-drafted 53-page indictment, purportedly identifying 40 minors, with a guideline 
range of 188 months. 
• 
Facing 
threatened draconian indictment, without the claimed offer of the 
right to raise objections in an appeal to AAG =, 
the defense chose to negotiate an 
5 
3505-019 
Page 25 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003297 
EFTA00157679

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Agreement to Defer Prosecution to the State, an agreement without precedent and fraught 
with substantial practical and legal hurdles to its implementation. 
6. 
THE SDFL DID NOT DEFER TO THE STATE. 
Letter: 
• 
"[T]he SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of incarceration." 
Id., p. 2. 
The Truth: 
• The SDFL neither deferred to the State, nor even discussed with the State, the 
Mt.ri
ein's incarceration. In a letter to the defense, Criminal Division Chief, 
rejected the sentence contemplated by the State's plea agreement, writing that 
"thc federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of ili
 ovzear term of state 
imprisonment." See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from B. 
Of course, this 
position is contrary to Section 9-203ID of the U.S. Attorney's Manual (indicating that 
the "result" of a state prosecution is 'presume d ' to have vindicated the federal interest). 
It is understandable, therefore, that Mr. 
might want to retreat from it now. 
Indeed, the final Deferred Prosecution Agrcement (DPA) restricts the state-court judge 
from exercising any of his rightful discretion and to specifically prohibit the judge from 
offering probation, community control or any other alternative in lieu of incarceration. 
DPA, 1 2(a). 
7. 
SUGGESTION OF ADDITIONAL STATE PLEA 
Mr. 
's Letter: 
• 
The parties considered: "as suggested by [the defense], a plea to state charges 
encompassing Epstein's conduct." See Tab I, May 19, 2008 Letter from 
, p.2, 
2. 
The Truth: 
• It was the government, and not the defense that suggested a plea to state charges to 
resolve the federal investigation. 
proposed declining prosecution in favor 
of the state. Although Mr. Epstein and the State Attorney's Office had already reached 
a plea agreement, in August 2007, Mr. 
and AUSA 
warned that 
they intended to prosecute Epstein federally unless his counsel (i.e., not the 
Attorney's Office) sought more stringent conditions to the State's proposed plea 
agreement. These stringaitc,onditions included, among other things, the two-year prison 
term demanded by Mr. 
(discussed above) and a charge requiring him to register 
as a sex offender. 
6 
3505-019 
Page 26 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003298 
EFTA00157680

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
8. 
ALL IDENTIFIED VICTIMS BE PUT IN SAME POSITION AS IF EPSTEIN 
HAD BEEN TRIED. 
Letter: 
• 
"The Agreement provides for 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." 
Id. 
The Truth: 
• Mr. 
continues to mischaracterize the highly irregular provisions of the Deferred 
Prosecution Agreement. The SDFL did not merely attempt to preserve the compensation 
rights of those it identified as victims; it attempted to create compensation rights for those 
it identified, without imposing on them the burden of proving that they were in fact 
victims under § 2255. 
o In the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, the SDFL required Mr. Epstein to waive 
the right to contest liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 as to a list of individuals that 
the SDFL would not disclose to Mr. Epstein until after he was sentenced and to 
pay for an attorney to secure compensation under § 2255 for those undisclosed 
individuals, or if they decided to sue Mr. Epstein. 
o § 2255 ordinarily provides individuals with a right to recover minimum guaranteed 
damages of $150,000, without having to prove actual damages, only if: (1) they 
were victims of an enumerated federal offense, including offenses under 18 U.S.C. 
§§ 2422 and 2423, (2) they were minors at the time of the offense, and most 
importantly (3) they were personally injured as a result of the offense. 
o The defense has confirmed examples of women who testified that they were not 
victims of Mr. Epstein and suffered no personal injury. These women were, 
nevertheless, on the list of "victims" identified by the government.. In fact, when 
confronted with the testimony of a women who denied both being a victim and 
incurring personal injury, 
actually acknowledged such testimon
To .usti 
inclusion of that woman on the government's list, however, El 
then challenged her own witness's credibility. 
• For this reason, it is false to state that these "identified" individuals are in the same 
position that they would have been had Epstein been convicted at trial. Had there been a 
trial, Mr. Epstein would have had a right to confront thcsc individuals through cross-
examination. Any individual that did not establish that she was a minor victim of conduct 
that satisfied each clement of an enumerated statute under § 2255,or that she suffered 
personal injury, would not qualify for any treatment under § 2255. However, under the 
Deferred Prosecution Agreement, as an "identified individual" on the government's list, 
7 
3505-019 
Page 27 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003299 
EFTA00157681

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
this same individual would nevertheless be entitled to engage an attorney paid for by Mr. 
Epstein to recover $150,000 of damages from Mr. Epstein under § 2255 without ever 
alleging any injury. In fact, the defense was told that the only question Mr. Epstein 
would be permitted to ask before paying the girls is " have you ever met Epstein.". Thus, 
the Deferred Prosecution Agreement places identified individuals in a far better position 
than they would be in if Mr. Epstein were convicted at trial. 
9. 
ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO SELECT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. 
Letter: 
• "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." 
See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from 
p. 4, f.3. 
The Truth: 
• 
That such an assignment was the SDFL's "unilaterar' decision is false. Before the 
SDFL decided to assi 
selection of the "attorney representative" to an independent third 
party, AUSA 
had already proposed an "attorney representative." She 
had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz and claimed he had been 
recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." 
account was 
misleading, as it omitted that this "good friend" was ha live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. 
Ocariz was his former law-school roommate. When we discovered this independently, 
we objected. 
Only then did the SDFL propose assigning the selection process to an 
independent special master and agree to amend the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. 
Thus, while it may be true that the SDFL assigned its selection responsibility to avoid the 
appearance of favoritism, it did not do it "unilaterally," but, rather, only after Epstein 
uncovered the Office's misleading disclosure and apparent conflict-of-interest. 
10. 
TIMETABLE FOR MOVING FORWARD. 
Letter: 
• 
"On February 25, 2008, I sent you an e-mail setting forth a timetable for moving forward 
in the event that CEOS disagreed with your position. That time is now." 
Id., p. 6. 
The Truth: 
• Mr. 
provides only part of the history of this case in order to justify his improper 
actions. He had stated he would close the investigation if CEOS told him to. However, 
CEOS at our very first contact said that under no circumstances did they sec that as their 
8 
3505-019 
Page 28 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003300 
EFTA00157682

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
role. They said they would only advise on an abuse of discretion standard. Making the 
outcome a foregone conclusion. Furthermore, in response to the February 25 e-mail, 
which attempted to establish a schedule to limit the entire review process (the defense has 
repeatedly suggested that the misconduct was intertwined with the investigation and 
would therefore seek higher review), Mr. Lefkowitz e-mailed Mr. Acosta directly. On 
February 29, 2008, Mr. 
responded to Mr. Lefkowitz's e-mail to Mr. Acosta, 
stating that Mr. 
was acting out of frustration, but "[p]lease be assured that it has 
not, and never has been, this Office's intent to interfere 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." As stated above, CEOS determined 
that it would not review many of the defense's objections and as to the remainder of those 
objections, its review would be limited (contrary to Mr. Acosta's assurances), which left 
the need, supplemented by the defense's subsequent request for a more thorough review 
of critical issues by others at the Department of Justice. 
re-imposition of 
the (albeit modestly extended) timetable was an obvious attempt, in violation of his 
February 29 agreement, to thwart the request made by the defense to the Deputy Attorney 
general, to complete the review process that Mr. Acosta had promised. 
11. 
"DELAY." 
Letter: 
• In a section entitled "Delay," Mr. 
states that "the SDFL again agreed to 
accommodate Epstein's request to appear in state court for plea and sentencing on 
January 4, 2008." 
Id., p. 3. 
The Truth: 
• 
Curiously, Mr. 
fails to mention correspondence from the U.S. Attorney stating 
that delay of that date would be "inevitable" as the defense has raised "serious questions" 
about the propriety of the prosecution. Strikingly, in that same section, Mr. 
claims that "the Agreement did not contemplate a staggered 'plea and sentencing,"' 
despite quoting, three sentences earlier, from the Agreement's staggered requirement 
that Epstein plead and be sentenced by October 26, and "begin serving his sentence not 
later than January 4, 2008." 
• 
• 
• 
We are, like most attorneys seeking Department review, without access to the USAO 
prosecution summaries or other submissions to the Department. Given the substantial issues that 
have been raised in this and other submissions, we request that you conduct a de novo review 
that goes beneath the face of any conclusions being advocated by the USAO; instead, we seek a 
review that is based on the transcripts of witness testimony themselves so that the reviewer can 
9 
3505-019 
Page 29 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003 30 1 
EFTA00157683

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
make an independent decision not adversely affected by conclusions that over and over have 
proven, witness by witness, allegation by allegation, to be inaccurate and unwarranted and not an 
appropriate basis for the exercise of federal prosecutorial authority. 
10 
3505-019 
Page 30 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003302 
EFTA00157684

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
SUMMARY OF MISCONDUCT ISSUES IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN 
The manner in 
which federal prosecutors have pursued the allegations against Mr. Epstein is highly irregular 
and warrants full review by the Department. While we repeatedly have raised our concerns 
regarding misconduct with the United States Attorney's Office in Miami (the "USAO"), not only 
has it has remained unwilling to address these issues, but Mr. Epstein's defense counsel has been 
instructed to limit its contact to the very prosecutors who arc the subject of this misconduct 
complaint. For your review, this document summarizes the USAO's conduct in this case. 
Background 
1. 
In March 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department opened a criminal investigation of 
Palm Beach resident, Jeffrey E. Epstein. The press has widely reported that Mr. Epstein 
is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. 
2. 
In July 2006, after an intensive probe, including interviews of dozens of witnesses, 
returns of numerous document subpoenas, multiple trash pulls and the execution of a 
search warrant on his residence, Mr. Epstein was indicted by a Florida Grand Jury on one 
count of felony solicitation of prostitution. 
3. 
In a publicly released letter, Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter criticized the Grand 
Jury's decision and the State Attorney's handling of the case. Shortly after the Grand 
Jury's indictment, the Chief took the unprecedented ste of releasin his Department's 
raw police reports of the investigation (including 
unedited written 
reports of witness statements and witness identification information), that were later 
proven to be highly inaccurate transcriptions of witnesses' actual statements. The Chief 
also publicly asked federal authorities to prosecute the case. 
Becomes Involved in Mr. Epstein's Case at the Earliest Stage 
4. 
In early November of 2006, Ep 
their initial contact with the newly 
assigned line federal prosecutor, 
Although it is extremely unusual 
for a First Assistant United States Attorney to participate in such a communication, 
FAUSA 
was present on that very first phone call. 
5. 
On November 16, 2006, despite that the fact that the investigation exclusively concerned 
illegal sexual conduct during massage sessions, 
issued irrelevant official 
document requests seeking Mr. Epstein's 2004 and 2005 personal income-tax returns, 
and later subpoenaed his medical records. See Tab 16, November 16, 2006 Letter from 
It a 
Becomes Personally Involved in a Dispute Over Another State Sex Case 
6. 
In March 2007, FAU 
reported to local police an attempted trespass by a
year-old male. Mr. 
claimed that the individual had attempted to enter 
home without invitation to make contact with his 16-year-old daughter, but he 
spotted the young man before the perpetrator had an opportunity to enter the house. The 
3505-019 
Page 31 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003303 
EFTA00157685

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
same individual had previously fled the home of another neighbor after entering that 
house uninvited, when, looking for the bedroom of their 17-year-old daughter, he 
mistakenly entered the bedroom of their 14-year-old daughter, touched her on the leg and 
startled her awake. State of Florida v. Johnathan Jeffrey Ziruinilcoff, Case No. F078646 
(June 28, 2007). 
7. 
After a thorough review by the Miami State Attorney's Office, and sex-crimes prosecutor 
Laura Adams, the investi ation revealed that the defendant and both the neighbor's 17-
year-old daughter and 
daughter were previously acquainted. 
The 
defendant was charged with simple trespass in connection with his unauthorized entry 
into the neighbor's house. Id. 
8. 
FAUSA 
, however, demanded that the young man be registered as a sex offender 
and objected to any sentence short of incarceration. The Assistant State Attorney in 
charge of the sex-crimes unit reported 
conduct during the proceedings as 
"outrageous." Theiii
ant's attorney described Mr. 
as being "out of control." 
Shortly after, Mr. 
began publicly deriding the elected State Attorney, his office 
and the state process for prosecuting sex offenses, as "a joke." 
Unauthorized Tactics in Disregard of the United States Attorney's Manual are Used 
9. 
In June 2007, 
subpoenaed the investigating agent of Epstein's attorney, 
Roy Black, in a clear effort to invade the defense camp. The subpoena was specifically 
drafted to discover the investigator's contacts with all prospective witnesses, Mr. Epstein 
and his attorneys.' Not surprisingly, 
issued this subpoena without the 
requisite prior approval by the DOJ's Office of Enforcement Operations. See United 
States Attorneys' Manual, § 9-13.410. When confronted, she misleadingly responded 
that she had consulted with the Department of Justice and was not required to obtain 
0E0 approval because her subpoena was not directed to "an office ph
cif located 
an
within 
attorney's office." See Tab 18, December 13 2007 Letter from. 
at 
4 n.1. This answer clearly suggests that 
had intentionally misled the 
Department officials about the items that her subpoena sought.2
The subpoena sought, among other things: "All documents and information related to the nature of the 
relationship between [the investigator and/or his farm) and Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, including but not limited to ... 
records of the dates when services were performed . . . telephone logs or records of dates of communications 
with Mr. Epstein (or with a third party on Mr. Epstein's behalf); appointment calendars/datebooks and the like 
(whether in hard copy or electronic form) for any period when work was performed on behalf of Mr. Epstein or 
when any communication was had with Mr. Epstein (or with a third party oo Mr. Epstein's behalf) . See Tab 
17, June 18, 2007 Subpoena to William Riley/ Riley Kiraly,1 3. 
2 
Indeed, we are aware of two other recent instances in which 
placed serious misrepresentations before 
a court. On July 31, 2007, in the grand-jury litigation arising out of this case, she filed the "Declaration of 
/Mt'
attaching the state detective's affidavit in support of a search warrant for Epstein's house. See 
: hay Subpoenas Awes Tatum OLY-63 and OLY.64, No. Fat 07.103(WPB) (S.D. Fla. July 31, 
2007). At the time she filed 
affidavit, she knew it contained numerous material 
misrepresentations, including gross misstatements of witness statements and other evidence. Second, we 
(Continued...) 
2 
3505-019 
Page 32 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003304 
EFTA00157686

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Mr. Epstein is Required to Atrree to Civil Liability In Order to Avoid a Federal Indictment 
10. 
(.
1111 31, 2007 during ne otiations over a possible federal plea agreement, FAUSA 
and 
demanded that Mr. Epstein agree to the imposition of civil 
liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 as a precondition to deferral of federal prosecution. To 
the best of our knowledge, the inclusion of such a term in a deferred prosecution 
agreement of this kind is absolutely unprecedented.3 
Specifically, 
demanded that Mr. Epstein waive the right to contest civil liability to a list of individuals 
she said were "victims" of § 2255, whose names, however, she refused to disclose, and 
agree to pay damages of a minimum of $150,000 to each and every one of such 
undisclosed individuals, and hire an attorney to represent them if they decided to sue 
him. See Tab 20, July 31, 2007 Draft of Deferred Prosecution Agreement. 
and 
insisted that the identities of the individuals on the 
list not be disclosed to Mr. Epstein or his counsel until after Mr. Epstein was already 
sentenced in the state case 
(a) 
Over the next two months, Mr. 
refused to negotiate these terms. They 
ultimately became incorporated into the final deferred prosecution agreement. 
See Tab 21, September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement, 11 7-11. 
(b) 
It was not until seven months later, in February 2008, that Epstein's lawyers were 
able to take their first official statement from one of the women FAUSA 
alleged were minor victims of federal offenses. 
(c) 
This statement, a deposition of 
the initial complainant in the state 
case, taken in the presence of her lawyer, proved that none of the necessary 
elements for any federal charge could be satisfied based on 
brief 
contact with Mr. Epstein. The witness also admitted lying to Mr. Epstein, 
testifying that she told him that she was an adult and wanted him to believe that 
she was an adult. See Tab 13, 
. (deposition), p. 35 ("Q. So you 
told Jeff that you were 18 years old, correct? A. Yes."), 37 ("Q. You wanted Mr. 
Epstein to believe that you really were 18, right? A. Correct."). 
(d) 
Shortly after this dc osition, the defense was able to obtain statements from other 
women on 
so called "list of § 2255 victims" and so far, all such 
statements also continue to demonstrate that Mr. 
repeated 
representations to the defense about the existence of federal jurisdiction were 
false. 
3 
understand that 
was recently reprimanded at a special hearing convened by a United States District 
Judge in the West Palm Beach Division of the Southern District of Florida, for making misrepresentations 
during a prior sentencing proceeding. 
In fact, S 
a former deputy to CEOS Chief 
other case like this being prosecuted by CEOS. 
3 
has stated that she knew of no 
3505-019 
Page 33 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003305 
EFTA00157687

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLI' 
12. 
In August 2007, in a clear attempt to coerce a state settlement, 
threatened 
to broaden the investigation to include a money laundering violation (18 U.S.C. § 1956), 
though all the funds expended were simply Mr. Epstein's, and a violation for operating an 
unlicensed money-transmitting business (18 U.S.C. § 1960), thong Mr.
 never 
had such a business. See Tab 22, August 31, 2007 Letter from 
to 
(reciting, in a target letter to one of Epstein's employees, that the investigation concerns 
"suspected violations of federal law, including but not limited to, possible violations of 
Title 18, United States Code, Sections . 
• 1591, . . . 1956, 1960 . . .') (emphasis 
added). 
13. 
On the very same day that the grand jury issued subpoenas to the records-custodian and 
em to
 of Epstein's businesses for all financial transactions from 2003 forward, ■ 
(who we were told was not authorized to act in this regard without supervisory 
approval) promised to close the money-laundering investigation "if the sex offense case 
is resolved." See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter from I. 
to G. Lefcourt ("In 
other words, if the sex offense case is resolved, the Office would close its investigation 
into other areas as well. The matter has not been, and it does not appear that it will be, 
resolved so the money laundering investigation continues, and Request Number 6 
[seeking records of every financial transaction conducted by Epstein and his six 
businesses from "January 1, 2003 to the present"] will not be withdrawn."). 
14. 
Two weeks later, when Mr. Epstein continued to oppose federal prosecution during 
. . 
Mr. Epstcin's counsel sought a meeting with the United States Attorney, 
then classified all of Mr. Epstein's assistants as targets (sending a target 
ne ona 
letter to one of them and promising the attomcy of the other two that additional target 
letters would be served on them as well), dispatched FBI agents to the homes of two of 
his secretaries, and personally telephoned Mr. Epstein's largest business client to advise 
him of the nature of the investigation. See Tab 22, August 31, 2007 Letter from I. 
tots 
FAUSA 
Forces Mr. Epstein's Lawyers to Convince the State Prosecutors To 
Impose a More Severe Sentence Than They Believe Is Appropriate 
15. 
Throughout the plea negotiations with the USAO, Mr. s 
and 
continually insisted that the only way they would agree not to bring a federal indictment 
was if Epstein's lawyers, not the state prosecutors as required under the Petite Policy, 
convinced the state prosecutors to impose a more severe punishment than the state 
believed was appropriate under the circumstances. 
16. 
FAUSA 
version of the history with respect to the sentence he required Mr. 
Epstein's lawyers to seek from the State contradicts his later assertion, which is patently 
false—that "the SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of 
incarceration" and "considered a plea to federal charges
limited Epstein's 
sentencing exposure . . . " See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from 
. In fact, by a 
email dated August 3, 2007, Criminal Division Chief 
advised the 
defense that the federal government required a minimum term of two years of 
incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from I. 
Subsequently, 
4 
3505-019 
Page 34 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003306 
EFTA00157688

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
emailed the defense stating that United States Attorney Acosta would accept no 
less than 18 months of incarceration, following by a one-year term of house arrest. 
Federal Prosecutors Misrepresented the Number of Alleged "Victims." 
17. 
In September 2007, in order to add additional pressure on Mr. Epstein to execute a 
deferred prosecution agreement, 
claimed that there were "40" minors on 
the government's list of purported § 2255 victims. To compound that misleading 
characterization, she continued to insist that a guardian-ad-litem be appointed to represent 
these 
°fled "minors" in the proceedings. See Tab 24, September 19, 2007 Email 
from M. 
to J. Leflcowitz. 
18. 
When challenged as to whether there was a genuine need for a guardian, given that III 
continued to refuse to disclose the names or any other information about her 
putative list o f "minors," she eventually conceded that only "1 is definitely under 18 still, 
and I think there is another minor." See Tab 25, September 23, 2007 Email from,. 
to J. Lefkowitz (emphasis added). 
19. 
The next day, 
retreated from the number "40," stating that she had now 
"compiled a list of 34 confirmed minor victbns with no definition of how they would be 
considered as such.. There are six others, whose names we already have, who need to be 
interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time of their activity 
with Mr. Epstein." See Tab 26, September 24, 2007 Email from I. 
to J. 
(emphasis added). This statement indicated that, at least the "six others" (and, 
as it turns out, all those identified except two) had reached the age of majority, and, in 
fact, no guardian was necessary to represent their interests. 
Defense Counsel was Falsely Advised That the Non Prosecution Agreement Would Be Kept 
Confidential. 
20. 
On September 24, Epstein and the USAO executed a Non Prosecution Agreement. 
21. 
His attorneys asked 
to "please do whatever you can to keep this from 
limit
public." See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Leficowitz to,. 
22. 
-replied 
that she had "forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], 
[ 
, and 
I don't anticipate it going any further than that." Id. 
23. 
stated that the agreement would be "placed in the case file, which will be 
kept confidential since it also contains identifying information about the girls." Id. 
The Prosecution Immediately Notifies Three Plaintiffs That Mr. Epstein Has Executed A 
Non Prosecution Aareernent 
24. 
In direct violation of these representations, "shortly after the signing," the government 
notified "three victims" of the "general terms" of the Non Prosecution Agreement. See 
5 
3505-019 
Page 35 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003307 
EFTA00157689

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Tab IS, December 13, 2007 Letter from 
occurred "shortly after the signing"). 
Misleads Mr. Epstein In An Attempt To Refer Plaintiffs to Her 
Boyfriend's Close Friend 
25. 
On September 25, 
recommended a local products-liability defense 
attorney, Humberto "Bert" Ocariz, Esq., for the highly lucrative post of attorney 
representative for the govcmment's list of as-yet-undisclosed "victims."4
(a) 
wrote to the defense, "I have never met Bert, but a good friend In 
our appellate section and one of the district judges in Miami are good friends 
with him and recommended him." See Tab 28, September 25, 2007 Email from 
to J. Leflcowitz (bottom email) (emphasis added). 
(b) 
failed to disclose that this "good friend in our appellate section" 
was her live-in boyfriend. See Tab 18, December 13, 2007 Letter from E. 
(conceding the "relationship" with "my boyfriend"). 
Beyond her clear conflict-of-interest and affirmative effort to conceal it, it is 
unimaginable that 
would have engaged in an ex-parte 
communication with a United States District Judge in the same district about the 
details of a pending grand-jury investigation without prior disclosure and 
supervisory approval. 
(d) 
Later, it became clear that 
also had at least one other ex-parte 
communication with that same United States District Judge about theSjury's 
investigation. 
See Tab 29, October 5, 2007 Email from I. =II 
to J. 
Lefkowitz (stating that "one of the District Judges in Miami mentioned [retired 
Judge Joseph Hatchett] as a good choice" to decide any fee disputes concerning 
Epstein's paying for a lawyer to represent the unnamed women in claims against 
Epstein). 
26. 
The next day, 
advised the defense that she was removing one of the 
alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that "one of his partners is 
married to an AUSA here," and explained that, because of that personal relationship, 
(c) 
(admitting that the notification 
4 
These actions were improper. As you know, the Department prohibits employees from using any nonpublic 
information to secure private benefits of any kind: "An employee shall not ... allow the improper use of 
nonpublic information to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through advice or 
recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure." 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703 (emphasis added). Among 
the examples of prohibited disclosure specifically illustrated by this regulation is the disclosure of nonpublic 
information to "friends" to further their financial interests, id., at Example 1, and the disclosure of nonpublic 
information to a newspaper reporter, id., at Example 5 (see allegations below regarding the leak to the New York 
Times). Furthermore, the Justice Department prohibits its employees from using their position to benefit friends 
or relatives. See 5. C.F.R. § 2635.702; see also 5. C.F.R. § 2535.502. 
6 
3505-019 
Page 36 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003308 
EFTA00157690

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
"[t]here is too great a chance of an appearance of impropriety." See Tab 28, September 
26, 2007 Email from,. 
to J. Lefkowitz. 
27. 
The following day, 
relayed that, and asked us to respond to, the very first 
concern raised Mr. Ocariz, which was "how are they going to get paid" and whether 
"there is any cap or other limitation on attorney's fees that lein] 
will pay in the civil 
case." See Tab 30, September 27, 2007 Email from,. 
to J. Lefkowitz. 
28. 
clearly contemplated that Mr. Epstein would be paying for Mr. Ocariz at 
his "hourly rate" to represent the alleged "victims" against Epstein even "if all [the] girls 
decide they want to sue." Id. 
29. 
When the defense complained of 
undisclosed conflict-of-interest in 
selecting her boyfriend's friend to prosecute civil claims a ainst Mr. Epstein on behalf of 
her undisclosed list of purported "victims," 
later argued that Mr. Epstein 
had no right to complain because "the Non-Prosecution Agreement vested the Office with 
the exclusive rift to select the attorney representative." See Tab 18, December 13, 2007 
Letter from 
. Shortly after being notified, however, United States Attorney 
Acosta removed Mr. Ocariz from consideration, and requested an amendment to the Non 
Prosecution Agreement. 
30. 
In response to the many complaints about 
misconduct and violations of 
the United States Attorney's Manual, Criminal Division Chief 
characterized her as "unsupervisable." 
31. 
Contrary to the express agreement of United States Attorney Acosta that the federal 
'a
nent would not interfere in the administration of any state sentence, 
continued to try to deny the right of the State to issue work release and/or gain 
time by stating that Mr. Epstein must "make a binding recommendation that the Court 
impose" a sentence of 18 months of continuous confinement in the county jail. See Tab 
21, September 24, 2007 Non Prosecution Agreement. Shortly thereafter; Mr. 
sent the FBI to meet with the state sex-crimes prosecutor in an attempt to secure her 
commitment to oppose a work release option. 
FAUSA 
Attempts to Thwart Discovery 
32. 
On October 31, Mr. 
emailed Mr. Epstein's counsel, confirming that "I understand 
that the plea and sentence will occur on or before the January, 4th [2008] date." See Tab 
41, October 31, 2007 Email from 
to J. Lefkowitz (emphasis added). 
33. 
On November 5, despite 
having sent that email just one week before, after 
learning that the defense had begun to question women on their "list," Mr. 
wrote 
Mr. Epstein's attorneys demanding that his plea and sentencing in the State case now be 
moved up to November 2007. See Tab 2, November 5, 2007 Letter from 
34. 
Mr. 
further demanded in the letter that Mr. Epstein's attorneys "confirm that 
there will be no further efforts to contact any victims" until the victims are represented by 
counsel. /d As the women were all adults, there could be no lawful justification for Mr. 
7 
3505-019 
Page 37 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003309 
EFTA00157691

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
demand, other than to protect prospective plaintiffs from bein interviewed 
prior to their retaining an attorney (including, as it turned out, 
former law 
partner) to bring civil lawsuits against Epstein. 
35. 
Mr. 
also demanded that Epstein "begin his tom of incarceration not later than 
January 4, 2008," id.. which turned out to be just three weeks before the first civil lawsuit 
would be filed against Epstein. 
36. 
Contrary to the express agreement of United States Attorney Acosta that the federal 
government would not interfere in the administration of any state sentence, Mr. 
tried to limit gain time and or work release by stating that Mr. Epstein must "make a 
binding recommendation that the Court impose a s n 
months of continuous 
confinement in the county jail." Id. (This followed 
position that the Office 
would consider a state sentence ordering probation in lieu of incarceration to be a breach 
of the deferred-prosecution agreement.) Shortly thereafter, Mr. 
sent the FBI to 
meet with the state sex-crimes prosecutor in an attempt to secure her commitment to 
oppose work release. 
37. 
Mr. 
insisted that Mr. Epstein not learn the identities of the government's list of 
alleged "victims" until after Epstein was sentenced and incarcerated. 
38. 
We have reason to believe that, around this same time, 
former law partner 
Jefai
lerman, had met with the father of one of the prospective plaintiffs, 
.5 At the same time (and until as recently as March of 2008), the Official 
Florida Bar website continued to identify Mr. SIM as a named partner in Mr. 
Herman's firm. See Tab 31, Florida Bar Website page. 
39. 
Mr. Herman, who is the named partner in the formcr firm of Herman, Sloman, & 
Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for $50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each 
lawsuit is entitled "Jane Doe # vs. 'effigy Epstein" despite the fact that each of the 
plaintiffs is an adult and not entitled to plead anonymously. See Tab 32, Examples of 
Federal Complaints. 
40. 
Mr. Herman convened press conferences contemporaneously with filing three of the 
suits. In the most recent press conference, he admitted that all of the plaintiffs lied to 
Epstein about their ages. See Tab 33, Herman Public Statement. One of the supposedly 
traumatized "victims" actually pled in her complaint that she returned to Epstcin's house 
"on many occasions for approximately three years." Another of these supposedly 
traumatized "victims" herself acted to introduce her friends and acquaintances to Mr. 
5 
The Justice Department rules disqualify employees from working on matters in which their former employers 
have an interest: "an employee shall be disqualified for two years from participating in any particular matter 
in which a former employer Ls a party or represents a party if he received an caraordinary payment from 
that person prior to entering Government service. The two-year period of disqualification begins to run on the 
date that the extraordinary payment is received." 5 C.F.R. § 2635.503(a) (emphasis added). 
8 
3505-019 
Page 38 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00003310 
EFTA00157692

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Epstein. 
Ali of these plaintiffs are apparently on the abovc-described government 
"victim" list. 
FAUSAM Attempts to Encourage Civil Suits and the Hiring of the Government's 
Choice of Attorney 
41. 
On November 27, Mr. 
sent an email to Mr. Epstein's attorneys stating that "I 
intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday [two days later]." See Tab 34, 
November 27, 2007 Email from 
to J. Lefkowitz. 
42. 
The morning of November 28, attorneys for Mr. Epstein faxed a letter to Assistant 
Attorney General 
, requesting a meeting with her to discuss the impropriety 
of the USAO's encouraging civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein under the guise of the 
terms
 the Non Prosecution Agreement. See Tab 35, November 28, 2007 Letter from 
to A. 
43. 
Late in the day on November 28, Epstein's attorneys received from 
a 
copy of the USAO's proposed victim-notification letter that ' 
asked that I 
forward." See Tab 36, November 28, 2007 Email from M. 
o . Lefkowitz. 
(a) 
The proposed victim-notification letter cited as authority the "Justice for All Act 
of 2004" (which U.S. Attorney Acosta later agreed had no application to these 
circumstances). It referred to the addressees as minor "victims," suggested they 
make statements in state court, that they were not entitled to make, and referred 
incorrectly to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual predator." Id. 
(b) 
FAUSA 
also proposed advising recipients, in an underlined sentence that, 
"You have the absolute right to select your own attorney" to "assist you in making 
. . . a claim" for "damages from [Epstein]." But that "[i]f you do decide to use 
[two attorneys selected by the U.S. Attorney's "special master"] as your attorneys, 
Mr. Epstein will be responsible for paying attorney's fees incurred during the time 
spent trying to negotiate a settlement." Id. 
The USAO Leaks Confidential Information to the New York Times 
44. 
Perhaps most troubling of all, the USAO has repeatedly leaked information about this 
case to the media—including to Landon Thomas, the senior business correspondent for 
the New York Times. We have personally reviewed Mr. Thomas's own notes, and they 
are remarkably detailed about highly confidential aspects of the prosecution's theory of 
the case and the plea negotiations. 
45. 
Mr. Thomas's calls to the USAO initial) were referred to Assistant United States 
Attorney 
. 
AUSA 
informed Mr. Thomas that federal 
authorities were considering charging Mr. Epstein under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422 and 
2423, and told the reporter that Mr. Epstein had both lured girls over the telephone and 
interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in sex with minors. AUSA 
also divulged the terms and conditions of the USAO's negotiations with Mr. 
Epstein—including the fact that Mr. Epstein had proposed "house arrest" with extra 
9 
3505-019 
Page 39 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_000033 1 1 
EFTA00157693

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
strip
 conditions—which Mr. 
could only have learned from 
or United States Attorney Acosta himself. 
46. 
AUSA 
then asked why Mr. Epstein should ... be treated differently than 
anyone else. Mr. Thomas apparently stated that he understood that there was evidence 
that the women had lied about their ages. AUSA 
replied that this was not a 
defense and that Mr. Thomas should not believe "the spin" of Mr. Epstein's "high-priced 
attorneys." indeed, Mr. 
told Mr. Thomas that the USAO was very concerned 
about a Palm Beach editorial that questioned whether Mr. Epstein would receive a rich 
man's justice. AUSA 
then stated that, in fact, Mr. Epstein "doesn't have a 
defense." 
47. 
Mr. Epstein's attorneys learned of the call and complained to the USAO. Counsel for 
Mr. Epstein then had an in-person meeting with FAUSA 
and United States 
Attorney Acosta describing these leaks to the New York Times. During Mr. Thomas' next 
call to the USAO, made two weeks later, AUSA 
"admonished" him (in the 
words of Mr. Thomas) for disclosing the contents of theirprior conversation to the 
defense, and strongly "reminded" Mr. Thomas that AUSA 
prior comments 
about Mil, 
had only been "hypothetical" in nature. That claim is sheer nonsense: 
AUSA 
had disclosed specific details of Mr. Epstein's case, including plea 
terms proposed by the defense, as revealed based on Mr. Thomas's own 
contemporaneous hand-written notes. 
48. 
Shortly thereafter, Mr. 
wrote to the defense that Mr. Thomas was given, pursuant 
to his request, non-case specific information concerning specific federal statutes." See 
Tab 37, February 27, 2008 Email from 
. Again, that claim was utterly false; 
Mr. Thomas's contemporaneous hand-written notes, reviewed by Jay Leflcowitz, confirm 
that the USAO had violated settled Department policy and ethical rules by providing 
case-specific information about the Department's legal theories and plea negotiations. 
Conclusion 
We bring these difficult and delicate matters of misconduct to your attention not to 
require any disciplinary action or review by the Office of Professional Responsibility. Although 
we have been told that some of this misconduct has been self-reported (only after we raised these 
complaints in writing), we feel confident that not all the facts were adequately presented. Rather, 
we believe that they are highly relevant to your decision whether to authorize a federal 
prosecution in this case. This pattern of overzealous prosecutorial activity strongly suggests 
improper motives in targeting Jeffrey Epstein, not because of his actions (which are more 
appropriately the subject of state prosecution), but, rather, because of who he is and who he 
knows. We also bring this pervasive pattern of misconduct to your attention because we believe 
it taints any ongoing federal prosecution. The misconduct pervades the evidence in this case. 
The offers of financial inducement to witnesses, improperly encouraged by the government, 
make their potential testimony suspect. The reliance on tainted evidence gathered by the state 
will require a careful sorting out of poisonous fruits. 
10 
3505-019 
Page 40 of 63 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_0000 3 3 1 2 
EFTA00157694