EFTA00192754

547/4 SrfraSsiissioN 
To met" 
EFTA00192754

06/02/08 ICON 14:58 FAX 305 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
Q001 
U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
99 NE 474 STREET 
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132-2111 
Jeffrey H. Sloman 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
305 961 9299 
Cyndee Campos 
Staff Assistant 
305 961 9461 
305 530-6444 fax 
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 
COVER SHEET 
DATE: 
June 2, 2008 
TO: 
Marie Villafana 
FAX NUMBER: 
(561) 820 8777 
SUBJECT: 
Epstein 
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 9 
Message/Comments: 
This facsimile contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use of the 
Addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this facsimile, or the employee or agent responsible 
for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or coping of this facsimile is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the 
original facsimile to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. 
EFTA00192755

06/02/08 
M0N 14. 58 FAX 305 530 8440 
.. 
'run tucOLuteaY 
48/27/2(ina 12 19 Sf.5‘ 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
VOJ/ODAG 
QD002 
r&oalli ?
IS:eat/will W. Starr 
kirk-land 
141.11
j:. %malt iirsh•nia Ninyi 
9:1e17 .58M 
A.:I. I late. 1 4c.serHir.: 
trl : MIL irklinIJA ur:. 
jot: I). Windt-% 
ANina Cc Hint I.LP 
.inc:a. 
ik.i.lnacani. :N.: 
i 
171. ..4:4:::444.1181, 
F44 4‘ 
rivtristdrYfrJa..II:Igai 
May 27, 2008 
fn rACS1M(.11:: <2021 514-0467 
CONNOKA177.4/. 
I lottomhle Mark Filip 
( /like blthe l)epiity adarnincy General 
I initial States Department °rho:lice 
Q50 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.V.'. 
WaShi !Wien. D.C. 7.0531) 
Dear Judge 
This ytrer briefly supplements our prior submission ut you dated May IQ. 2001. In that 
communication. we urgently requested that your orrice • 
Itita an independent reviv%. of the 
PrnPosed federal pro...win:on of our Client, Jell-icy 
The dual reasons nil' vu!' request that 
you review tins mailer are (1) the bedrock need ror integrity in the eitrinecment o;' federal 
criminal laws. and fill the prOrmind oucstionS raised by Mc unpreecilemed e•aensiiiii 
(*WIC:rill 
;:4W by the lathed Slates Attorney's Office in hlirnti Jibe "liSACY1 to a pan/mi.-1,m public ligure 
who lots cliKe 
to thriller President Climuo. 
The need lix review is nnw all the mon: exigent. Ost Monday. May 19. 200K. 
Assistant Azirrey Rloinan of the (iSAC) responded rn an email fruen Ja; 
it,. informing 
Attorney Alex Aecixtu that we would he seeking your Offices review. Mr. Straw:ifs letter. 
which intprisvtl a ti,:adline of June 2. 2U0S toe mply with all (Itu lerme of the ‘ur; on Non-
Prosecution Agreement (the - Agreement.). plus new unilateral modifieations, on pain of heing 
deemed in brutieb af that Agreement. appears to have been deliberately designed it: deprive us or 
an adequate a)pontinity ti• seek your Office's review in this enruter. 
The I.ISAn's desire to fl recluse a complete revien is undersiand,tble. given ibm the 
Child I:solidi:Moo und Obseonity Section ("CliON-1 has already determined dim our sultstanube 
arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. h.pinein is not nu:timed were 
"compelling.-  I Inwever. in euniradielion In Mr. Sloman's assertion that CliQS had provided an 
independent. de unto review. CMS; made clear that it did nol. du sit. indeed. C1'.O5 declined In 
uNteiiiille seven! of the more troubling inspects of the investigation Or Mr. U.pslem. 
the 
delibenne balk in the New Fork Times of numerous highly criniidemial aspects O1. Ilis 
invesiigatitm and Tit:god:diem: between the panie$ as well us die I Ceelll aril'. ni coil Ian Snits 
!lied apinil Mr. Fpstein by Mr. Slumnot's forme: law partner. 
The 
and arbitrarily imposed deadline set by the I/SAt / win; done without any 
resport for (he nurmill rutted eeee i ll g ;mid scheduling or stale judicial nmitcrs. It retildres that 
Mr. 141:acin's counsel persuade the Slide All4tney of Palm Death to issue u criminal inliimiation 
EFTA00192756

semit, MON. 
%tue s% 530 6440 
Vine:1200R 1? te Ho, 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
UW/UVAU 
2003 
4g004/013 
lej tg 
I Intime& Mark 
Ma> 27. ;MM 
rage 
ta, a a.:harge Mat the State A itorney hus not. despite a tv.O year ito•estLatigio. tlavttisitIZU in hl; 
appropriait.% :th. I ipstein's counNel must also successailly expedite a pied or _,vil: !• to dus eltarve 
on :a date prior In inly S, 2005. which k 
chue presently set hy tic Nunc court indg.. 
i:urther. the tomccessary deadline is even more problematit heeause Mr. hpsteiti"s &on 
tr«, feCORCile the suite charge tuul sentence with the terms or the Aereemenc requitea an noueux' 
und unpreca:clonted threatened application ni retlend lav. nus. n places Mr lipstein in the 
Intdily apaisai:d position or flavine in demand that the Statu aCquiesix to a mon: se‘eic 
punishment titan it.had alresuly determinecl WaS appropriait. 
We have attempted to resolve these and other iNstic.s amatie the t:S:\( l and CF.OS, 
including raisin; our coteverns about the USAt.l's inappropriate etanduct with respect to (lais 
matte. But thoNe avenues have now heen shut d 
. Mr. Sloman's lette• t'atriums to proldhit 
any limiter comma betwetn Mr. Epstein:1e dentnsc tealt and t:.\. Attorney Aeosta. anal ansieati 
rcquires us to communia:lite with the USA() only though Mr. Slornan's subtirdinatea. 
White it pains us ta say this, this mistsided proseention nom the mise: Id vus the 
appearantc Mat it niny have been I ralitically inotivanel Mr. lipstein as a hienly sut:ces:am, selj• 
made businessman and philanthropist %sahib entered the publie arena 
t. loue of hic dom: 
persenal assecieliun with fumier President Bill elintun. 
tionln ua u::r minds thai 
the 1!S.\() nevet %muid have contemplated a pmseuution in this 
Mr. Epstein wet,e jus; 
another "John.-
U.S. AitorneY .koeau previnusly has st»wd thai lu; is -sympailunic- to our lederalisin• 
rektied contents, but lac has takcn the position thai his authoriiy is limited 
cnroreement 
',n'ides set Rink in Washington. U.C. As expressed in our prior communication ro >ion. we 
hellave that a complets; and independeni :mortaisai and restitution or Ibis case motu appropriatel) 
would he undertaken by your Orliee btginning with the rottassion or the arbitntry. unrair. and 
Ilnpnnetionicei Jcadtinc thot Mr. S'ornait clentnnds to have impcsed in this case. At 0:6: mcv 
leaSt. %“: WOUld 
tif dit:arbitra! thnelinc hnposed on our client by the t :SAO 
in enfer 
allow titnit Ior gour Office Io tai:eider sein rennes: lhal vat: undurrake u retieu omhis 
env. 
Thauk yuu for ycur time and attention. 
zspect rully etibmiited. 
Kenneth W. Siam 
' jvilaV ie-Lani te
f
_.
.10/5 I) Whitley 
K irkland &I d1k I.11' 
Bird 
EFTA00192757

06/02/08 
MON 14:59 FAX 305 530 8440 
os/zer/svus et): oft FAX 
2uetifal239 
03 III at; 
NON l3:21 VAS 1 213 680 h500 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
DOJ/00AC 
KTRKLAND&ELLIS 
I.I.I
la 004 
@op:S/013 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Fax Transmittal 
777 South Figueroa Street 
Los Angeles, California 90017 
Phone. (213) 680-8400 
Fax: (213) 680-8500 
SP? euiti*e:c. 
Please notify us 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 US IMMEDIATELY AT: 
(213) 680-8400. 
To: 
Honorable Mark Filip 
From: 
Company: 
Office of the Deputy Attorney General 
United States Department offusticc 
Date: 
Pagersinetovel 
Fax #: 
Direct #: 
(202) 514-0467 
(202) 514-2101 
Fax #: 
Direct it: 
Kenneth W. Starr 
May 19, 2008 
9 
(2/3) 680.8500 
(213) 680-8440 
Message' 
EFTA00192758

08/02/08 
MON 14
 FAX 305 530 6440 
golativo 
t8& 
ZUVIII3I.Z39 
OILIO:ON 
MON IA:22 
IPAX I 213 880 8500 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
no.r/OuAu 
K I RKI.Atilukiiii.15 
1.1.1* 
0(15 
Winne/0u 
MI MIX 
Kenneth W. Starr 
Kirkland & Elkis LLP 
777 South Riney)! Street 
Los Angeles; C.A 90017-5800 
Phone: 213-6am-844o 
Fax: 31348o-830o 
1:starrdlirldand.eom 
V1A FACSIMILE (202) 514.4467 
Honorable Mark Filip 
office of the Deputy Attorney General 
United States Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
May 19.2008 
Joe D. Whitley 
Alston & Bird LI.P 
The Atlantic Building 
950 F Si reet,KW 
waslaington, DC souo4-1404 
Ph: 202-7.56-3189 
Fag: 202.654.4889 
joc.whitleytitiaistencom 
CONFIDENTIAL 
Dear Judge Fillip: 
In his confirmation hearings last WI, Judge Mukascy admirably lifted up the finest 
traditions of the Department of Justice in assuring the United States Senate, and the American 
people, of his solemn intent to ensure fairness and integrity in the administration of justice. Your 
own confirmation hearings echoed that bedrock determination to assure that the Department 
conduct itself with honor and integrity, especially in the enforcement of federal criminal law. 
We come to you in that spirit and respectfully ask for a review of the federal involvement 
in a quintessentially state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we are well aware 
of the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we are confident that the 
circumstances at issue warrant such tut examination. Based on our collective experiences, as 
well as those of other former senior Justice Department officials whose advice we have sought, 
we have never before seen a case more appropriate for oversight and review. Thus, while neither 
of us has previously made such a request. we do so now in the recognition that both the 
Department's reputation. as well as the due process rights of our client, arc at issue. 
Recently, the Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter at the 
request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review deliberately excluded 
many important aspects of this case. Just this past Friday, on May 16, 2008, we received a letter 
from the head of CEOS informing us that CEOS had conducted a review of this case. By its own 
admission, the CEOS review was "limited, both factually and legally." Part of the self-imposed 
limitation was CEOS's abstention from addressing our "allegations of professional misconduct 
by federal prosccutors".—even though such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably 
intertwined with the credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United 
States Attorney's Office in Miami ("USAO"). Moreover, CEOS did not assess the terms of the 
Deferred Prosecution Agreement now in effect, nor did CEOS review the federal prosecutors' 
inappropriate effbrrs to implement those terms. We detail this point below. 
EFTA00192759

08/02/08 tom _1;5 iati FAX 305
 6440 
i bA.I9.po MON 13:22 FAX 1 213 GIO 8500 
DUJ/Q 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
UAG 
I atil.A6oart 
s 
Qhoos 
4Doonots 
toun3 
Honorable Mark Pilip 
May 19, 2008 
Page 2 
fly way of background. we were informed by Mr. Acosta chat, at his request, CEOS 
would be conducting a review to determine whether federal prosecution was both appropriate 
and, in his words. 
That is not what occurred. instead, CEOS has now acknowledged that 
we had raised "many compelling arguments" against the USAO's suggested "novel application" 
of federal law in this mutter. Even so. CEOS concluded. in minimalist fashion. that "we do not 
see anything that says to us categorically that a federal mite should not be brought" and that the 
G.S. Amine) "would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should 1w authorize federal 
prosecution of Mr. Epstein!' thus delegating back to Mr. Acosta the decision of whether federal 
pmsecution was warranted (emphasis added). Rather than assessing whether prosecution would 
he appropriate, CEOS. using a low.baseline for its evaluation, determined only that "it would not 
be impossible to prove . . ." certain allegations made against Mr. Epstein. The CEOS review 
failed to address the significant problems involving the appearance of impermissible selectivity 
that would necessarily result from a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. 
We respect CEOS's conclusion that its authority to review "misconduct" issues was 
precluded by CrinUnal Division practice. We hardier respect CROS's view that it understood its 
mission as significantly limited. Specifically, the contemplated objective was to determine 
whether the USAO would benbusing its discretion by bringing a federal prosecution rather than 
making its own de novo recommendations on the appropriate reach of federal law. However. we 
respectfully submit that a full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the 
Justice Department. In an effort to inform you of the nature of the federal investigation against 
Mr. Epstein, we suntmarize the facts and circumstances of this matter below. 
The two bast-level concerns we hold are that (1.) federal prosecution of this matter is not 
warranted based on the purely-local conduct and the unprecedented application of federal 
statutes to facts such as these and (2) the actions of federal authorities are both highly 
questionable and give rise to an appearance of substantial impropriety. The issues that we have 
raised, but which have not yet been addressed or resolved by the Department, are more than 
isolated allegations of professional mistakes or misconduct. These issues, instead, affect the 
appearance and administration of criminal justice with profound consequences beyond the 
resolution in the matter at hand. 
In a precedent-shattering investigation of Jeffrey Epstein that raises important policy 
questions—and serious issues as to the fair and honorable enforcement of federal law—the 
lISAO in Miami is considering extending federal law beyond the bounds of precedent and 
reason. 
Federal prosecutors stretched the underlying facts in ways that raise fundamental 
questions of basic professionalism. Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition 
of deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a 
proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in 
EFTA00192760

06/02/08 
MON 1500 FAX 305 630 8440 
05/28/2008 09:05 FAX 2026161239 
na ta:os 
NW( 13:23 FAX 
I 213 080 8500 
. 
, 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
DOJ/ODAG 
Kilthl.AND&Cf.1.1S 
1.1.I' 
007 
0005/013 
GO 004 
Honorable Mark Filip 
May :9,2008 
Page 3 
private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved. 
Federal prosecutors then leaked highly sensitive information about the case to a New York 
Times reporter.' The immediate result of this confluence of extraordinary circumstances is an 
onslaught of civil lawsuits, all save one brought by the First Assistant's former boutique law firm 
in 
The facts in this case all revolve around the classic state crime of solicitation of 
prostitution? The State Attorney's Office in Palm Beach County had conducted a diligent 
investigation, convened a Grand Jury that returned an indictment, and made a final determination 
about how to proceed. 
That is where, in our federal republic, this matter should rest. 
Mr. Epstein faces a felony conviction in state court by virtue of his conduct, and the only reason 
the State has not resolved this matter is that the federal prosecutors in Miami have continued to 
insist that we, Mr. Epstein's counsel, approach and demand from the State Attorney's Office a 
harsher charge and a more severe punishment than that Office believes are appropriate under the 
circumstances. Yet despite the USAO's refusal to allow the State to resolve this metier on the 
terms the Stare has determined are appropriate, the USA() has not made any attempt to 
coordinate its efforts with the State. in fact, the USAO mandated that any federal agreement 
would be conditioned on Mr. Epstein persuading the State to seek a criminal punishment unlike 
that imposed on other defendants within the jurisdiction of the State Attorney for similar 
conduct. 
From the inception of the USAO's involvement in this case, which at the end of the day 
is a case about solicitation of prostitution within the confines of Palm Beach County, Florida, we 
have asked ourselves why the Department ofJustice is involved. Regrettably, we are unable to 
suggest any appropriate basis for the Department's involvement. Mr. Epstein has no criminal 
history whatsoever. Also, Mr. Epstein has never been the subject of general media interest until 
a few years ago. atter it was widely perceived by the public that he was a close friend of former 
President Bill Clinton. 
The conduct at issue is simply not within the purview of federal jurisdiction and lies 
outside the heartland of the three federal statutes that have been identified by prosecutors-1S 
U.S.C. §§ 159 l . 2422(b), and 2423(b). 
One of the other members of Mr. Epstein .3 defense team, Jay Leocowitz, has personally reviewed the reporter's 
contemporaneous notes. 
Although some of the women alleged to be involved ware 1E and 17 years of age, several of these wrimen 
openly admitted to lying to Mr. Epstein ghoul their age in their recent sworn statements. 
EFTA00192761

06/02/08 MON 15:01 FAX 306 530 8440 
0s/26/2008 00:0A FAX 202018123s 
03 4n . nit, NON 13:23 rAs 1 213 SR° &SOO 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
DOVODAG 
K I RICI-AND&EI.I. I S 
Woolf 
envon 
4:1°05 
Honorable Mark Filip 
May 19, 2003 
Page 4 
These statures arc intended to target critnes of a truly national and international scope. 
Specifically, § 1591 was enacted to combat human trafficking, § 2422 is aimed at sexual 
predation of minors through the Internet. and § 2423 deals with sex tourism. The nature of these 
crimes results in multi-jurisdictional problems that state and local authorities cannot effectively 
confront on their own. However, Mr. Epstein's conduct was purely local in nature and, thus. 
does not implicate federal involvement, After researching every reported ease brought under le 
§§ 1591, 2422(b), and 2423(b), we found that not a single case involves facts or a 
scenario similar to the situation at hand. Our review of each precedent reflects that there have 
been no reported prosecutions under § 1591 of a 'John' whose conduct with a minor lacked 
force. coercion. or fraud and who was not profiting from commercial sexual trafficking. There 
have likewise been no cases under § 2422(6)—a crime of communication—where there was no 
use of the Internet, and where the content of phone communications did not contain way inducing 
or enticing of a minor to have illegal sexual activity as expressly required by the language of the 
statute. 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). Lastly, there arc no reported cases 
of violations of § 2123(b) of a person whose dominant purpose in traveling was merely to go to 
his OWI1 hortle.3
Although these matters were within the scope of the CEOS review, rather than 
considering whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOS only determined that U.S. 
Attornee Acosta "would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal 
prosecution" its this case. The "abuse of discretion" standard constitutes an :extremely low bar of 
evaluation and while it may be appropriate when the consideration of issues are exclusively 
factual in nature, this standard fails to address concerns particular to this situation, namely the 
"novel application" of federal statutes. The "abuse of discretion" standard in such pure legal 
matters of statutory application risks causing a lack of uniformity. The same federal statutes that 
would be stretched beyond their bounds in Miami have been limited to their heartland in each of . 
the other federal districts. Also, because this case implicates broader issues of the administration 
of equal justice, federal prosecution in this matter risks the appearance of selectivity in its 
stretching of federal law to fit these facts. 
Federal prosecution of a man who engaged in consensual conduct in his home that amounted to, at most, the 
solicitation of prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a state concern. free United 
Stater v. Evans, 476 F.36 3176, 
1 (I lot Cir. 2007) (federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a 
vice traditionally governed by state rogulationy)). and there is no evidence that Palm Beach County authorities 
and Florid* prosecutors cannot effectively prosecuic and punish the conduct, there is no reason why this matter 
should be extracted from die hands of state prosecutors in Florida. 
EFTA00192762

06/02/08 
NON 1501 FAX 305 530 6440 
ol/26/20os oa:os FAX 
2028161239 
Mc 'ICV 13:24 FAX I 213 630 950D 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
DOJ/ODAC 
KIHNIANO&ELLIS LLP 
[2009 
tJ 00/013 
a4! uur
Honorable Mark Filip 
May 19.2008 
Page 5 . 
In fact, recent testimony of several alleged "victims' contradicts claims made by federal 
prosecutors during the negotiations of a deterred prosecution a reement. 
The consistent 
a 
re . resentations of ke 
Government witnesses (such as Tatum. 
Brittany Beak, Saige 
. and 
in) confirm the following critical points: First, there was no 
communication, totelephonic or otherwise, that meets the requirements of § 2422(b). For instance. 
Ms.IIIIII 
confirmed that Mr. Epstein never emailed, text-messaged, or used any facility of 
interstate commerce whatsoever. before or after her one (and. only) visit to his home. 
. 
Tr. (deposition) at 30. Second, the women who testified admitted that they lied to 
r. •pstein 
about their age in order to gain admittance into his home. Indeed, the women who brought their 
underage friends to Mr. Epstein testified that they would counsel their friends to lie about their 
approached Inc. Mialli
.re you tell him you're IFL Well, these girls that I brought, I know tat 
ages as well. Ms. 
stated the following: "I would tell my girlfriends just like 
they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't 'MOW and I don't know if they were lying or 
not, 1 would say make sure that you tell him you* 18." le 
Tr. at 22. Third, there was no 
routine or habit of improper communication expressing an intent to transform a massage into an 
ille al sexual act. In fact, there was often no sexual activity at all during the massage. Ms. 
testified that "[s]ometimes Mr. Epstein] just wanted his feet massaged. Sometimes lit 
just wanted a back massage." 
Tr. at 19. 
IIIII 
also suited that Mr. Epstein 
- never touched [her) physically' and that all she di was - massage( ) his back. his chest and his 
thighs and that was it." Egli Tr. at 12-13. Finally, there was no force, coercion, fraud, 
violence, drugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with these 
women, Ms. Beale stated that "[Mr. Epstein) never tried to force me to du anything." 
Tr. 
A et 12. These accounts are far from the usual testimony in sex slavery, Internet stings an sex 
tourism cases previously brought. The women in actuality were not younger than 16, which is 
the age of consent in most of the 50 states, and the sex activity was irregular and in large part. 
consisted of solo self-pleasuring. 
The recent crop of civil suits brought against Mr. Epstein confirm that the plaintiffs did 
not discuss any sexually-related activities with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's 
residence. This reinforces our contention that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, 
enticement or coercion of a minor, or of any other individual, occurred. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey 
Ilcrman, the former law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the 
attorney for most of the civil complainants (as described in detail below), was quoted in the Palm 
Beach Post as saying that "it doesn't matter" that his clients lied about their ages and told Mr. 
Epstein that they were I8 or l9. • 
Not only is a federal prosecution of this matter unwarranted, but the irregularity of 
conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the deferred prosecution agreement arc 
beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a.prosecutor's responsibilities. The list of 
improprieties includes, but.is not limited to, the following facts: 
EFTA00192763

06/02/08 NON 15:02 FAX 305 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
06/28/2008 00:10 FAX 2026361230 
n0.1/0DAT: 
ir,,J 
Os, HON IA: r5 FM I _1i an 8500 
KIRKLANDLELITS 1.12 
a 010 
Q011/013 
iduoi 
Honorable Mark Pilip 
May 19, 2008 
page 6 
• 
Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Mr. Epstein pay a 
minimum of $150,000 per person to an unnamed list of women they referred to as 
minors and whom they insisted required representation by a guardian ad 'item. Mr. 
Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these individuals were actually 
adults, not minors. Even then, though demanding payment to the women, the 
USA() eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of any of the 
claims that these women might make. 
• 
Federal prosecutors made the highly unusual demand that Mr. Epstein pay the fees 
of a civil attorney chosen by the prosecutors to represent these alleged "victims" 
should they choose to bring any civil litigation against him. They also proposed 
sending a notice to the alleged "victims," stating, in an underlined sentence, that 
should they choose their own attorney, Mr. Epstein would not be required to pay 
their fees, The prosecutors fiuther demanded that Mr. Epstein Waive his right to 
challenge any of the allegations made by these "victims." 
• The Assistant U.S. Attorney involved in this matter recommended for the civil 
attorney, a highly lucrative position, an individual that we later discovered was 
closely and personally connected to the Assistant U.S. Attorney's own boyfriend. 
• Federal prosecutors represented to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they had identified 
(and later rechecked and re-identificd) several alleged "victims" of federal crimes 
that qualified for payment under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a civil remedy designed to 
provide financial benefits to Victims. Only through state discovery provisions did 
we later learn that many of the women on the rechecked "victim list" could not 
possibly qualify under § 2255. The reason is that they, themselves, testified that 
they did not suffer any type of harm whatsoever, a prerequisite for the civil recovery 
under § 2255. Moreover, these women stated that they did not, now or in the past, 
consider themselves to•be victims. 
• 
During the last few months, Mr. Hannan, First Assistant Sloman's former law 
partner, has filed several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged 
"victims." It is our understanding that each of Mr. Herman's clients are on the 
EFTA00192764

&bell 
08/02/08 
05. 10.11$ 
MON 15: 02
MON 13:25 
FAX 
FAX 305
I 
530
213 6440
080 8500 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
Al RKIANDVIELLI S LLP 
mina/ Di 3 
%MIS 
Honorable Mark Pilip 
May 19, 200R 
Page 7 
Government's confidential "list of victims." Most of these lawsuits seek S50 
million in money damages.' 
• 
Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein spoke about the case in great detail to 
Landon Thomas, a reporter with the New York Times, and revealed confidential 
information about the Government's- allegations against Mr. Epstein. The Assistant 
U.S. Attorney also revealed the substance of confidential plea negotiations. 
• 
When counsel for Mr. Epstein complained about the media leaks, First Assistant 
Sluman responded by asserting that "Mr. Thomas was given, pursuant CO his 
request, non-case specific information concerning specific federal statutes." Based 
on Mr. Thomas' contemporaneous notes. that assertion appears to be false. For 
example, Mr. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that federal authorities believed that 
Mr. Epstein had lured girls over the telephone and traveled in interstate commerce 
for the purpose of engaging in underage sex. 1-k recounted to Mr. Thomas the 
USAO's theory of prosecution' against Mr. Epstein. replete with an analysis of the 
key statutes being considered. 
Furthermore, after Mr. Epstein's defense ream 
complained about the leak to the 1.:SAO, Mr. Weinstein, in Mr. Thomas' own 
description, then admonished him for talking to the defense, 'and getting him in 
trouble. Ms. Weinstein further told him not to believe the "spin" of Mr. Epstein's 
"high-priced attorneys," and then, according to Mr. Thomas. Mr. Weinstein 
forcefully "reminded" Mr. Thomas • that all prior conversations were merely 
hypothetical. 
We are constrained to conclude that the actions of federal officials in this case strike at 
the heart of one of the vitally important, enduring values in this country: the honest enforcement 
of federal law, free of political considerations and free of the taint of personal financial 
motivations on the pan of fedeml prosecutors that, at a minimum, raise the appearance of serious 
impropriety. 
We were told by U.S. Attorney Acosta that as part of the review he requested, the 
Department had the authority, and his consent, to make any determination it deemed appropriate 
regarding this matter, including a decision to decline federal prosecution. Yet, CEUS's only 
conclusion, based on its limited review of the investigation, is that U.S. Attorney Acosta would 
not abuse his discretion by proceeding against Mr. Epstein. Thus, the decision of whether 
As recently as two months ago. Mr. Slomim was still retell publicly us r. pun of hls former law firm. Whtte NY' 
assume this was an oversight, Mr. Stoman'S identification as part of the ruin raises the appearance of 
impropriety. 
EFTA00192765

olt/02/08_ liglA5:11. 
,,,,, 530 6440 
-ors.iiruS WIN 13:20 FAX I 213 000 8500 
• 
I 
• 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
PUJ,UDACi 
liKLANI)40 
S 
•
 
012 
(2013/o)3 
R., Oil ll
Honorable Mark Filip 
May 19, 2008 
Page 8 
prosecution is fair and appropriate has been placed, once again, in U.S. Attorney Acosta's 
hands. 
In light of the foregoing, we respectfully ask that you review this matter and discontinue 
all federal involvement so that the State can appropriately bring this matter to closure. We 
would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these importani issues. 
Such a meeting would provide the Department with an opportunity to review the paramount 
issues of federalism and•thc appearance of selectivity that are generated by the unprecedented 
attempts to broaden the ambit of federal statutes to places that they have never before reached. 
Wc sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter. 
Respectfully subrid Red, 
Kenneth W. Starr 
Kirkland & Ellis UP 
Joe D. Whitley 
Alston St Bird LL.P 
EFTA00192766