EFTA00208923

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, AUSAalaimed 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 purported "minors" in the proceedings. See Tab 24, September 19, 2007 Email 
from M 
to J. Letkowitz. 
18. 
When challenged as to whether there was a genuine need for a guardian, given that Ms. 
ntinued to refuse to disclose the names or any other information about her 
putative list of "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 M. 
a 
J. Lefkowitz (emphasis added). 
19. 
The next day, AUSa 
retreated from the number "40," stating that she had now 
"compiled a list of 34 confirmed minor victhns 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 M. a 
to J. 
Lelkowitz (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 Tbat 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 Ms. 
to "please do whatever you can to keep this from 
becoming public." See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Lefkowitz to M. 
22. 
Ms. 
red at 
had "forwarded your message only to Alex I/tension 
. I don't anticipate it going any further than that " Id 
23. 
Ms. a 
stated that the agreement would be "placed in the case file, which will be 
kept confidential since it also contains identifying information about thegirls." Id. 
The Prosecution Immediately Notifies Three Plaintiffs That Mr. Epstein Has Executed A 
Non Prosecution Agreement 
24. 
In direct violation of these representations, "shortly alter the signing," the government 
notified "three victims" of the "general terms" of the Non Prosecution Agreement. See 
RFP MIA 000482 
EFTA00208963

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Tab 18, December 13, 2007 Letter from M. 
(admitting that the notification 
occurred "shortly after the signing"). 
AUSA 
Misleads Mr. Epstein In An Attempt To Refer Plaintiffs to Her 
Boyfriend's Close Friend 
25. 
On September 25, Ms. 
recommended a local products-liability defense 
attorney, Humberto "Bert" Ocariz, Esq., for the highly lucrative post of attorney 
representative for the government's list of as-yet-undisclosed "victims."4
(a) 
Mss 
wrote to the defense, "1 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. Lelkowitz (bottom email) (emphasis added). 
(b) 
Ms. wiled 
to disclose that this "good friend in our appellate section" 
was her live-in boyfriend. See Tab 18, December 13, 2007 Letter from M. 
n 
(conceding the "relationship" with "my boyfriend"). 
(c) 
Beyond her clear conflict-of-interest and affirmative effort to conceal it, it is 
unimaginable that AUSA 
would have engaged in an a -pane 
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 Ms. 
also had at least one other ex-pane 
communication with that same United States District Judge about the grand jury's 
investigation. 
See Tab 29, October 5, 2007 Email &SIMNEL 
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, AUSA IMO.. 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, 
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. 3 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. 
§ 2535.502. 
6 
RFP MIA 000483 
EFTA00208964

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
"[t]here is too great a chance of an appearance of impropriety." See Tab 28, September 
26, 2007 Email from M. 
to J. Lefkowitz. 
27. 
The following day, Ms. 
relayed that, and asked us to respond to, the very first 
conceit 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 [Epstein] will pay in the civil 
case." See Tab 30, September 27, 2007 Email from M. NS 
J. Lefkowitz. 
28. 
Ms. `1=1 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 Ms. 
s undisclosed conflict-of-interest in 
selecting her boyfriend's friend to prosecute civil claims against Mr. Epstein on behalf of 
her undisclosed list of purported "victims," Ms. a 
later argued that Mr. Epstein 
had no right to complain because "the Non-Prosecution Agreement vested the Office with 
the exclusive right to select the attorney representative." See Tab 18, December 13, 2007 
Letter from M. 
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 Ms. 
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 
government would not interfere in the administration of any state sentence, FAUSA 
Sri 
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. MOM 
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 =lill.tertiots to Thwart Discovery 
32. 
On October 31, Mr. 
mailed 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 ao 
J. Lefkowitz (emphasis added). 
33. 
On November 5, despite Mr. 
having sent that email just one week before, after 
learning that the defense had begun to question women on their "list," Mr Silimmwrote 
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 .1.
1 
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. Id. As the women were all adults, there could be no lawful justification for Mr. 
7 
RFP MIA 000484 
EFTA00208965

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
d
emand, other than to protect prospective plaintiffs from being interviewed 
prior to their retaining an attorney (including, as it turned out, Mr. 
s former law 
partner) to bring civil lawsuits against Epstein. 
35. 
Mr.
lso demanded that Epstein "begin his term 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 sentence of 18 months of continuous 
confinement in the county jail." Id. (This followed Mr. 'osition 
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. MIS 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, Mr. 
former law partner 
Jeffrey Herman, had met with the father of one of the prospective plaintiffs, 
At the same time (and until as recently as March of 2008), the O 
Official 
Florida Bar website continued to identify Mr. Sloman as a named partner in Mr. 
I ferman's firm. See Tab 31, Florida Bar Website page. 
39. 
Mr. Herman, who is the named partner in the former firm of Herman, 
Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for S50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each 
lawsuit is entitled "Jane Doc # vs. Jeffrey 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 Epstein'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 he disqualified for two years from participating in any particular matter 
In which a former employer is a party or represents a party if he received an extraordinary 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 
RFP MIA 000465 
EFTA00208966

KlItKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Epstein. 
All of these plaintiffs are apparently on the above-described government 
"victim" list. 
FA USA 
Atteintits to Encoarate Civil Snits and the airing 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 J. Sloman to J. Lelkowitz. 
42. 
The morning of November 28, attorneys for Mr. Epstein faxed a letter to Assistant 
Attorney General Alice Fisher, 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 of the Non Prosecution Agreement. See Tab 35, November 28, 2007 Letter from 
K. Starr to A. Fisher. 
43. 
Late in the day on November 28, Epstein's attorneys received from AUSA 
a 
copy of the USAO's proposed victim-notification letter that "Jinxed 
that I 
forward." See Tab 36, November 28, 2007 Email from M. So 
J. Lelkowitz. 
(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) 
FAUSASso 
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 Infortnadom 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 initially 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 
traveled in 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 
RFP MIA 000486 
EFTA00208967

KIRKLAND IL ELLIS LLP 
stringent conditions—which Mr. 
ould only have learned from FAUSA 
, I 
 
 or United States Attorney Acosta himself. 
46. 
AUSA 
hen 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 when 
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 ONIMON 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 their prior conversation to the 
defense, and strongly "reminded" Mr. Thomas that AUSA 
prior comments 
about Mr. Epstein 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 J. 
Again, that claim was utterly false; 
Mr. Thomas's contemporaneous hand-written notes, reviewed by Jay Lefkowitz, 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 arc 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 soiling out of poisonous fruits. 
10 
RFP MIA 000487 
EFTA00208968

KIRKI.AND & ELLIS LLP 
Most important, however, is that the extraordinary nature of this misconduct, so unusual 
in ordinary federal prosecutions, raises the gravest of concerns about why prosecutors would go 
to such lengths in a case already being prosecuted by the State and with so little, if any, federal 
concern. Accordingly, we ask you to conduct your own investigation of these matters, because 
we believe that what we have provided you may constitute only the tip of a very deep iceberg. 
Without the power of subpoena, which we currently lack, we are unable to dig deeper. We 
strongly believe that there is far more exculpatory evidence that has not been disclosed, more 
leaks that we have not yet uncovered and more questionable behavior. This is a case that cries 
out for a deeper investigation than we are capable of conducting, before any decision to 
prosecute is permitted. 
11 
RFP MIA 000488 
EFTA00208969