EFTA00193954

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Monday, June 18, 2007 5:04 PM 
To: 
Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS); Atkinson, 
Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Epstein 
I just received a call from the FBI telling me that Vanity Fair is sniffing around again. The reporter is a former 
detective. He told the FBI agent that his sources tell him "the State has been bought off," and asked if our 
investigation had been sent to "the circular file." Nesbitt responded, "All I can tell you is that we have an open 
investigation." 
On another note, I am going to see the grand jury tomorrow and I anticipate a number of questions regarding the 
status of the indictment. I'm not sure what, if anything, I can tell them. 
And I did not hear back regarding making changes to the indictment. Can I get some feedback on that? 
Thank you. 
A. Marie Villafana 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
Tracking: 
128 
EFTA00193954

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Thursday, June 21, 2007 3:24 PM 
To: 
Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Meeting Next Week 
Sounds good. I will stop by on Monday afternoon. Could you just let you assistant know that I may be 
stopping by to get a copy of whatever the defense sends over? 
Thanks. 
A. Marie Valeria 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:58 PM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Cc: Lourle, Andrew (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Meeting Next Week 
Meeting on Monday is fine. I have meetings with Alex and Jeff till around 11 but after that I'm free. As for who is going 
to be at the meeting from our side, I thought you, me, Andy, and Jeff. I thought it best to leave Alex out of it at this 
venture. As for the Epstein camp, I'm not entirely sure because I don't think Lily was sure last time we spoke. Probably 
her, Lefcourt, Black and maybe Lewis. 
Lily told me that they wanted to present something in writing before the meeting which was why she was pushing us for 
the statutes. I view the-meeting more as-us-listening and them-presenting their-position so-twould say that-you don't—
need to prepare anything (you are quite knowledgeable on the law in any event) but if you disagree we can discuss on 
Monday. As for the documents that they have yet to produce, I'll mention it to Lily if you like or we can raise it with 
them at the Tuesday meeting. 
From: Vlllafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 1:37 PM 
To: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS) 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); McMillan, John (USAFLS); Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS); Slornan, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Subject: Meeting Next Week 
Importance: High 
Hi Matt: I would like to prepare for next week's meeting, and I am wondering if you can tell me who will 
attend, both from our side and for Mr. Epstein. I am hoping that we can meet on Monday to discuss any issues 
and/or strategy before the meeting on Tuesday, so please let me know when you will be available on Monday. 
114 
EFTA00193955

EFTA00193956

"Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)" <[email protected]> 
11/27/2007 01:55 PM 
To 
"Jay Lefkowitz" <[email protected]> cc 
"Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" <[email protected]> Subject 
Epstein 
Jay, 
Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner but I was a little under the 
weather yesterday. I hope that you enjoyed your Thanksgiving. 
Regarding the issue of due diligence concerning Judge 
' selection, I'd like to make a 
few observations. First, Guy Lewis has known for some 
that Judge
 was making 
reasonable efforts to secure Aaron.Podhurst and Bob Josephsberg for this assignment. In fact, 
when I told you of Judge 
selection during our meeting last Wednesday, November 21st, 
you and Professor Dershoilli!!!med very comfortable, and certainly not surprised, with the 
selection. Podhurst and Josephsberg are no strangers to nearly the entire Epstein defense 
team including Guy Lewis, Lili Ann Sanchez, Roy Black, and, apparently, Professor Dershowitz 
who said he knew Mr. Josephsberg from law school. Second, Podhurst and Josephsberg have long-
standing stellar reputations for their legal acumen and ethics. It's hard for me to imagine 
how much more vetting needs to be done. 
The United States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the 
victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement 
entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will make one 
full week since you were formally notified of the selection. I must insist that the vetting 
process come to an end. Therefore, unless you provide me with a good faith objection to 
Judge 
selection by COB tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification 
of the victims. Should you give me the go-ahead on Podhurst and Josephsberg selection by COB 
tomorrow, I will simultaneously send you a draft of the letter. I intend to notify the 
victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29th. Thanks, 
Jeff 
*********************************************************** 
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. It is the property of 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
**************** 
******* 
************************iii********* 
3 
EFTA00193957

EFTA00193958

back to work after the Thanksgiving Holiday, and yet your demands regarding timing suggest 
that I have been sitting on my hands for days. 
You should know that the first time I learned about Judge 
selection of 
Podhurst and Josephsberg, and indeed the first time I ever heard their names, was in our 
meeting with you on Wednesday of last week. Nevertheless, I have now been able to confer 
with my client, and we have determined that the selection of Podhurst and Josephsberg are 
acceptable to us, reserving, of course, our previously stated objections to the manner in 
which you have interpreted the section 2255 portions of the Agreement. 
We do, however, strongly and emphatically object to your sending a letter to the 
alleged victims. Without a fair opportunity to review and the ability to make objections to 
this letter, it is completely unacceptable that you would send it without our consideration. 
Additionally, given that the US Attorney's office has made clear it cannot vouch for the 
claims of the victims, it would be incendiary and inappropriate for your Office to send such 
a letter. Indeed, because it is a certainty that any such letter would immediately be leaked 
to the press, your actions will only have the effect of injuring Mr. Epstein and promoting 
spurious civil litigation directed at him. We believe it is entirely unprecedented, and in 
any event, inappropriate for the Government to be the instigator of such lawsuits. 
Finally, we disagree with your view that you are required to notify the alleged 
victims pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. First, 18 USC section 2255, the 
relevant statute under the Non-Prosecution Agreement for the settlement of civil remedies, 
does not have any connection to the Justice for All Act. Section 2255 was enacted as part of 
a different statute. Second, the Justice for All Act refers to restitution, and section 2255 
is not a restitution statute. It is a civil remedy. As you know, we had offered to provide 
a restitution fund for the alleged victims in this matter; however that option was rejected 
by your Office. Had that option been chosen, we would not object to your notifying the 
alleged victims at this point. At this juncture, however, we do not accept your contention 
that there is a requirement that the government notify the alleged victims of a potential 
civil remedy in this case. 
Accordingly, for all the reasons we have stated above, we respectfully -- and firmly 
-- object to your sending any letter whatsoever to the alleged victims in this matter. 
Furthermore, if a letter is to be sent to these individuals, we believe we should have a 
right to review and make objections to that submission prior to it being sent to any alleged 
victims. We also request that if your Office believes that it must send a letter to go to 
the alleged victims, who still have not been identified to us, it should happen only after 
Mr. Epstein has entered his plea. This letter should then come from the attorney 
representative, and not from the Government, to avoid any bias. 
As you know, Judge Starr has requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General 
Fisher to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the section 2255 component 
of the Agreement. We are hopeful that this meeting will take place as early as next week. 
Accordingly, we respectfully request that we postpone our discussion of sending a letter to 
the alleged victims until after that meeting. We strongly believe that rushing to send any 
letter out this week is not the wisest manner in which to proceed. Given that Mr. Epstein 
will not even enter his plea for another few weeks, time is clearly not of the essence 
regarding any notification to the identified individuals. 
Thanks very much, 
Jay 
2 
EFTA00193959

EFTA00193960

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Lourie, Andrew 
Sent: 
Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:02 PM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Oosterbaan, Andrew 
Cc: 
Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: Epstein 
Ok thx. Would you send me your last proposed nonpros with them with the 2255 language? 
 
 Original Message  
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <[email protected]> 
To: Lourie, Andrew; Oosterbaan, Andrew 
Cc: Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) <RGarciarglusa.doj.gov> 
Sent: Wed Nov 28 16:48:48 2007 
Subject: FW: Epstein 
Hi Andy and Drew -- This is the first that I have heard about another attempt to meet with 
someone in Washington. I thought I would give you a heads up. 
Hope all is well, Andy. 
A. Marie Villafana 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
 
Original Message 
From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:35 PM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Fw: Epstein 
Marie, 
Can u send Jay the proposed letter and redact the names? Thx, Jeff 
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld 
 
 Original Message  
From: Jay Lefkowitz <JLefkowitzekirkland.com> 
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) 
Sent: Wed Nov 28 16:29:09 2007 
Subject: Re: Epstein 
Dear Jeff: 
I received your email yesterday and was a little surprised at the tone of your 
letter, given the fact that we spoke last week and had what I thought was a productive 
meeting. I was especially surprised given that your letter arrived on only the second day 
EFTA00193961

EFTA00193962

Thelinited States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the 
victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement 
entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will make one 
full week since you were formally notified of the selection. I must insist that the vetting 
process come to an end. Therefore, unless you provide me with a good faith objection to 
Judge 
selection by COB tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification 
of the victims. Should you give me the go-ahead on Podhurst and Josephsberg selection by COB 
tomorrow, I will simultaneously send you a draft of the letter. I intend to notify the 
victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29th. Thanks, 
Jeff 
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. It is the property of 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to postmastentkirkland.com, and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
3 
EFTA00193963

EFTA00193964

that there'is a'requirement that the government notify the alleged victims of a potential 
civil remedy in this case. 
.Accordingly, for all the reasons we have stated above, we respectfully -- and firmly 
-- object to your sending any letter whatsoever to the alleged victims in this matter. 
Furthermore, if a letter is to be sent to these individuals, we believe we should have a 
right to review and make objections to that submission prior to it being sent to any alleged 
victims. We also request that if your Office believes that it must send a letter to go to 
the alleged victims, who still have not been identified to us, it should happen only after 
Mr. Epstein has entered his plea. This letter should then come from the attorney 
representative, and not from the Government, to avoid any bias. 
As you know, Judge Starr has requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General 
Fisher to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the section 2255 component 
of the Agreement. We are hopeful that this meeting will take place as early as next week. 
Accordingly, we respectfully request that we postpone our discussion of sending a letter to 
the alleged victims until after that meeting. We strongly believe that rushing to send any 
letter out this week is not the wisest manner in which to proceed. Given that Mr. Epstein 
will not even enter his plea for another few weeks, time is clearly not of the essence 
regarding any notification to the identified individuals. 
Thanks very much, 
Jay 
"Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)" <[email protected]> 
11/27/2007 01:55 PM 
To 
"Jay Lefkowitz" ([email protected]> cc 
"Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" ([email protected]> Subject 
Epstein 
Jay, 
Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner but I was a little under the 
weather yesterday. I hope that you enjoyed your Thanksgiving. 
Regarding the issue of due diligence concerning Judge 
selection, I'd like to make a 
few observations. First, Guy Lewis has known for some What 
Judge IIIII was making 
reasonable efforts to secure Aaron Podhurst and Bob Josephsberg for this assignment. In fact, 
when I told you of Judge 
selection during our meeting last Wednesday, November 21st, 
you and Professor Dershowitz seemed very comfortable, and certainly not surprised, with the 
selection. Podhurst and Josephsberg are no strangers to nearly the entire Epstein defense 
team including Guy Lewis, Lili Ann Sanchez, Roy Black, and, apparently, Professor Dershowitz 
who said he knew Mr. Josephsberg from law school. Second, Podhurst and Josephsberg have long-
standing stellar reputations for their legal acumen and ethics. It's hard for me to imagine 
how much more vetting needs to be done. 
2 
EFTA00193965

EFTA00193966

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:35 PM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Fw: Epstein 
Marie, 
Can u send Jay the proposed letter and redact the names? Thx, Jeff 
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld 
 
 Original Message  
From: Jay Lefkowitz <[email protected]> 
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) 
Sent: Wed Nov 28 16:29:09 2007 
Subject: Re: Epstein 
Dear Jeff: 
I received your email yesterday and was a little surprised at the tone of your 
letter, given the fact that we spoke last week and had what I thought was a productive 
meeting. I was especially surprised given that your letter arrived on only the second day 
back to work after the Thanksgiving Holiday, and yet your demands regarding timing suggest 
that I have been sitting on my hands for days. 
You should know that the first time I learned about Judge 
selection of 
Podhurst and Josephsberg, and indeed the first time I ever heard their names, was in our 
meeting with you on Wednesday of last week. Nevertheless, I have now been able to confer 
with my client, and we have determined that the selection of Podhurst and Josephsberg are 
acceptable to us, reserving, of course, our previously stated objections to the manner in 
which you have interpreted the section 2255 portions of the Agreement. 
We do, however, strongly and emphatically object to your sending a letter to the 
alleged victims. Without a fair opportunity to review and the ability to make objections to 
this letter, it is completely unacceptable that you would send it without our consideration. 
Additionally, given that the US Attorney's office has made clear it cannot vouch for the 
claims of the victims, it would be incendiary and inappropriate for your Office to send such 
a letter. Indeed, because it is a certainty that any such letter would immediately be leaked 
to the press, your actions will only have the effect of injuring Mr. Epstein and promoting 
spurious civil litigation directed at him. We believe it is entirely unprecedented, and in 
any event, inappropriate for the Government to be the instigator of such lawsuits. 
Finally, we disagree with your view that you are required to notify the alleged 
victims pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. First, 18 USC section 2255, the 
relevant statute under the Non-Prosecution Agreement for the settlement of civil remedies, 
does not have any connection to the Justice for All Act. Section 2255 was enacted as part of 
a different statute. Second, the Justice for All Act refers to restitution, and section 2255 
is not a restitution statute. It is a civil remedy. As you know, we had offered to provide 
a restitution fund for the alleged victims in this matter; however that option was rejected 
by your Office. Had that option been chosen, we would not object to your notifying the 
alleged victims at this point. At this juncture, however, we do not accept your contention 
EFTA00193967

Gmail - (no subject) 
Page 1 of 1 
Ann Marie Villafa 
(no subject) 
1 message 
Jay Lefkowitz< JLefkowitz kirkland.co > 
To: "Marie Villafana, An 
Marie - I will call you as soon as the show ends. 
Jay 
********************* ******** ************* ********* ******** 
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. It is the property of 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
************* ******** ******ft*** ********* ************* ***** 
Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:25 PM 
EFTA00193968

Gmail - Re: 
Page 3 of 3 
I had hoped that we were far closer to resolving this than it appears that we are. Can I suggest 
that tomorrow we either meet live or via teleconference, either with your client or having him 
within a quick phone call, to hash out these items? I was hoping to work only a half day 
tomorrow to save my voice for Tuesday's hearing and grand jury, if necessary, but maybe we 
can set a time to meet. If you want to meet "off campus" somewhere, that is fine. I will make 
sure that I have all the necessary decision makers present or "on call," as well. 
If we can resolve some of these issues today, let's try to, and then save only the difficult issues 
for tomorrow. 
Sorry for the long e-mail, and for ruining your date with your daughter. 
************* ******* ***********4************** ******* ****** 
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. It is the property of 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
************* 
***** *********** 
***** ************** 
****** 
***** 
EFTA00193969

Gmail - Re: 
Page 2 of 3 
Re your paragraph 3: As to the reservation of Mr. Epstein's right to withdraw his state plea or to 
appeal his state plea or sentence, that is fine, but we need the caveat that, if he were to do so, 
the United States could proceed on our charges. 
Re your paragraph 6: With respect to the waiver of the right to appeal the federal sentence, 
given the way we have drafted the information, it is possible that getting to the 18 month 
sentence will require an upward departure. The version of the agreement that you were 
working from is a federal non-prosecution agreement, the ones I have sent you recently are 
plea agreements that get filed with the court. Please see if the appeal waiver language in those 
versions is alright. 
Re your paragraph 7: As I mentioned, we will not waive the presentence investigation. I know 
that this will delay Mr. Epstein's sentencing by 70 days, but that will allow him to get all of his 
affairs in order. As to.bail, it will be set at the time of arraignment, and we can work out a joint 
recommendation regarding the amount and its limitations. I have no objection to making a joint 
recommendation that Mr. Epstein remain out on bond pending his sentencing, but I'm not sure 
that it belongs in a plea agreement, especially since I can't bind the court on that issue. 
However, I can assure you, and we can put it on the record during the plea collooquy, that I will 
join in your recommendation that he remain out on bond pending sentencing. The same goes 
for the prison camp issue. As I mentioned, I have opposed a designation only once in a very 
particular case. I can assure you, and we can put it on the record at the plea colloquy that I will 
not oppose yoUr recommendation for Mr. Epstein's designation. . 
Re your paragraph 8: As I mentioned over the telephone, I cannot bind the girls to the Trust 
Agreement, and I don't think it is appropriate that a state court would administer a trust that 
seeks to pay for federal civil claims. We both want to avoid unscrupulous attorneys and/or 
• 
litigants from coming forward, and I know that your client wants to keep these matters outside of 
public court filings, but I just don't have the power to do what you ask. Here is my 
recommendation. During the period between Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing, I make a 
motion for appointment of the Guardian _Ad Olen _T_he_tttree.of.us sit_down and .discuss_things,.._..__ 
and I will facilitate as much as I can getting the girls' approval of this procedure because, as I 
mentioned, I think it is probably in their best interests. In terms of plea agreement language, let 
me suggest the following: 
The United States agrees to make a motion seeking the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem 
to represent the identified victims. Following the appointment of such Guardian, the parties 
agree to work together in good faith to develop a Trust Agreement, subject to the Court's 
approval, that would provide for any damages owed to the identified victims pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. Section 2255. Then include the last two sentences of your paragraph 8. 
Re the two paragraphs following your paragraph 8: I will include our standard language 
regarding resolving all criminal liability and I will mention "co-conspirators," but I would prefer 
not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could 
charge. Also, we do not have the power to bind Immigration and we make it a policy not to try 
to, however, I can tell you that, as far as I know, there is no plan to try to proceed on any 
immigration charges against either Ms. Ross or Ms. Marcinkova. 
Also, on the grand jury subpoenas, I can prepare letters withdrawing them as of the signing of 
the plea agreement, but I would prefer to take out that language. In my eyes, once we have a 
plea agreement, the grand jury's investigation has ended and there can be no more use of the 
grand jury's subpoena power. 
EFTA00193970

Gmail - Re: 
Page 1 of 3 
Gm ail
bi cansk 
Ann Marie Villafana 
Re: 
message 
Jay Lefkowitz< JLefkowi z kirkland 
To: "Marie Villafana, Ann 
• 
Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 4:08 PM 
Ok. Hard to respond this second. But I think we are getting there. Will call later. Thx 
 
Original Message 
From: "Ann Marie Villafana 
Sent: 09/16/2007 03:54 PM 
To: Jay Lefkowitz 
Subject: Re: 
Hi Jay -- This can wait until after the show, but my voice is going so I thought I would type it up. 
I talked to Andy and he still doesn't like the factual basis. In his opinion, the plea should only 
address the crimes that we were addressing, and we were not investigating Mr. Epstein abusing 
his girlfriend. 
• 
So, these are the only options that he recommended: 
1. We go back to the original agreement where Mr. Epstein pleads only to state charges and 
serves his time in the state, except that we can agree to only 18 months imprisonment. 
2. Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to the state charges and also pleads to either two obstruction 
counts or to one count of violating 47 USC 223(a)(1)(B), with a joint non-binding 
recommendation of 18 months, so that Mr. Epstein can serve his time federally. 
3. (My suggestion only, not Andy's): I go back to the U.S. Attorney and ask him to agree to an 
ABA-plea to a 371 count (conspiracy to violate 2422(b)) with a binding 20-month 
recommendation so that Mr. Epstein can serve all of his time in a federal facility. 
Or 4. Mr. Epstein pleads to one obstruction count, and serves part of his time federally and part 
state. 
On your other proposed changes, some are fine and some are problematic. 
Re your paragraph 2: As to timing, it is my understanding that Mr. Epstein needs to be 
sentenced in the state after he is sentenced in the federal case, but not that he needs to plead 
guilty and be sentenced after serving his federal time. Andy recommended that some of the 
timing issues be addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that 
we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes. My understanding is that Mr. 
Epstein should sign a state plea agreement, plead guilty to the federal offenses, plead guilty to 
the state offenses, be sentenced on the federal offenses, and then be sentenced on the state 
offenses, and then start serving the federal sentence. 
EFTA00193971

Gmail - Re: 
Page 3 of 3 
Also, on the grand jury subpoenas, I can prepare letters withdrawing them as of the signing of 
the plea agreement, but I would prefer to take out that language. In my eyes, once we have a 
plea agreement, the grand jury's investigation has ended and there can be no more use of the 
grand jury's subpoena power. 
I had hoped that we were far closer to resolving this than it appears that we are. Can I suggest 
that tomorrow we either meet live or via teleconference, either with your client or having him 
within a quick phone call, to hash out these items? I Was hoping to work only a half day 
tomorrow to save my voice for Tuesday's hearing and grand jury, if necessary, but maybe we 
can set a time to meet If you want to meet "off campus" somewhere, that is fine. I will make 
sure that I have all the necessary decision makers present or "on call," as well. 
If we can resolve some of these issues today, let's try to, and then save only the difficult issues 
for tomorrow. 
Sorry for the long e-mail, and for ruining your date with your daughter. 
***************************** 
********* 
********** 
***** 
****** 
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. It is the property of 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
...*******.****** ***** **************************.***********_..._ 
EFTA00193972

Gmail - Re: 
Page 2 of 3 
we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes. My understanding is that Mr. 
Epstein should sign a state plea agreement, plead guilty to the federal offenses, plead guilty to 
the state offenses, be sentenced on the federal offenses, and then be sentenced on the state 
offenses, and then start serving the federal sentence. 
Re your paragraph 3: As to the reservation of Mr. Epstein's right to withdraw his state plea or to 
appeal his state plea or sentence, that is fine, but we need the caveat that, if he were to do so, 
the United States could proceed on our charges. 
Re your paragraph 6: With respect to the waiver of the right to appeal the federal sentence, 
given the way we have drafted the information, it is possible that getting to the 18 month 
sentence will require an upward departure. The version of the agreement that you were 
working from is a federal non-prosecution agreement, the ones I have sent you recently are 
plea agreements that get filed with the court. Please see if the appeal waiver language in those 
versions is alright. 
Re your paragraph 7: As I mentioned, we will not waive the presentence investigation. I know 
that this will delay Mr. Epstein's sentencing by 70 days, but that will allow him to get all of his 
affairs in order. As to bail, it will be set at the time of arraignment, and we can work out a joint 
recommendation regarding the amount and its limitations. I have no objection to making a joint 
recommendation that Mr. Epstein remain out on bond pending his sentencing, but I'm not sure 
that it belongs in a plea agreement, especially since I can't bind the court on that issue. 
However, I can assure you, and we can put it on the record during the plea collooquy, that I will 
join in your recommendation that he remain out on bond pending sentencing. The same goes 
for the prison camp issue. As I mentioned, I have opposed a designation only once in a very 
particular case. I can assure you, and we can put it on the record at the plea colloquy that I will 
not oppose your recommendation for Mr. Epstein's designation. 
Re your paragraph 8: As I mentioned over the telephone, I cannot bind the girls to the Trust 
Agreement, and I don't think it is appropriate that a state court would administer a trust that 
seeks to pay for federal-civil claims:- We both want to-avoid unscrupulous attorneys-and/or 
— - 
litigants from coming forward, and I know that your client wants to keep these matters outside of 
public court filings, but I just don't have the power to do what you ask. Here is my 
recommendation. During the period between Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing, I make a 
motion for appointment of the Guardian Ad Litem. The three of us sit down and discuss things, 
and I will facilitate as much as I can getting the girls' approval of this procedure because, as I 
mentioned, I think it is probably in their best interests. In terms of plea agreement language, let 
me suggest the following: 
The United States agrees to make a motion seeking the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem 
to represent the identified victims. Following the appointment of such Guardian, the parties 
agree to work together in good faith to develop a Trust Agreement, subject to the Court's 
approval, that would provide for any damages owed to the identified victims pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. Section 2255. Then include the last two sentences of your paragraph 8. 
Re the two paragraphs following your paragraph 8: I will include our standard language 
regarding resolving all criminal liability and I will mention "co-conspirators," but I would prefer 
not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could 
charge. Also, we do not have the power to bind Immigration and we make it a policy not to try 
to, however, I can tell you that, as far as I know, there is no plan to try to proceed on any 
immigration charges against either Ms. Ross or Ms. Marcinkova. 
EFTA00193973