EFTA00209832

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. 
IO 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001653 
EFTA00209832

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 are 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 step of releasing his Department's 
raw police reports of the investigation (including Detective Recarey's 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. 
Jeffrey 
Becomes Involved in Mr. Epstein's Case at the Earliest Stage 
4. 
In early November of 2006, Epstein's law ers had 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 Jeffrey 
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, AUSA MIN 
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 
M. 
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 17-
ear-old male. Mr.
claimed that the individual had attempted to enter Mr. 
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 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001654 
EFTA00209833

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'. Johnathan Jeffrey Zirulnikoff, 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 investigation revealed that the defendant and both the neighbor's 17-
year-old daughter and Mr. 
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 Mr. 
conduct during the proceedings as 
"outrageous." The defendant'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, AUSA 
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, Ms. 
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 physical) located 
within an attorney's office." See Tab 18, December 13 2007 Letter from M. 
at 
4 n.1. This answer clearly suggests that Ms. 
had intentionally misled the 
Department officials about the items that her subpoena sought.? 
The subpoena sought, among other things: "All documents and information related to the nature of the 
relationship between [the investigator and/or his firm] 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 on Mr. Epstein's behalf) . See Tab 
17, June IS, 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 
Joseph Recarey," attaching the state detective's affidavit in support of a search warrant for Epstein's house. Sec 
In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum OLY-63 and OLY.64,Nu. F(31 07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla. July 31, 
2007). 
At the time she tiled Detective Recarey's affidavit, she knew it contained numerous material 
misrepresentations, including gross misstatements of witness statements and other evidence. Second, we 
(Continued...) 
2 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001655 
EFTA00209834

KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP 
Mr. Epstein is Required to Agree to Civil Liability In Order to Avoid a Federal Indictment 
10. 
On
 31, 2007, during ne otiations over a possible federal plea agreement, FAUSA 
and AUSA 
demanded that Mr. Epstein agree to the imposition of civil 
liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 as a pre-condition 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? 
Specifically, Ms. 
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. 
11. 
FAUSA 
and AUSA 
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 fmal 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 Ms. 
brief 
contact with Mr. Epstein. The witness also admitted lying to Mr. Epstein, 
testifying that she told him that she wag an Mph and wanted him to believe that 
she was an adult. See Tab 13, 
1 r. (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 de
 the defense was able to obtain statements from other 
women on Mr. 
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. 
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, Stephanie Thacker, a former deputy to CEOS Chief Drew Oosterbaan, has stated that she knew of no 
other case like this being prosecuted by CEOS. 
3 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001656 
EFTA00209835

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
12. 
In August 2007, in a clear attempt to coerce a state settlement, Ms. 
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), though tin 
never 
had such a business. See Tab 22, August 31, 2007 Letter from M. 
to Ross 
(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 lo ees of Epstein's businesses for all financial transactions from 2003 forward, Ms. 
(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 M. 
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 
negotiations and Mr. Epstein's counsel sought a meeting with the United States Attorney, 
AUSA 
then classified all of Mr. Epstein's assistants as targets (sending a target 
letter to one of them and promising the attorney 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 M. 
to A. Ross. 
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. 
and Ms. 
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 that limited Epstein's 
sentencing exposure . . . " See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. 
. In fact, by a 
email dated August 3, 2007, Criminal Division Chief Matthew Menchel advised the 
defense that the federal government required a minimum term of two years of 
incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from M. Menchel. Subsequently, Ms. 
4 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001657 
EFTA00209836

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
emailed the defense stating that United States Attorney Acosta would accept no 
ess 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, AUSA 
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 purported "minors" in the proceedings. See Tab 24, September 19, 2007 Email 
from M. 
to J. Lefkowitz. 
18. 
When challenged as to whether there was a genuine need for a guardian, given that Ms. 
continued to refuse to disclose the names or any other information about her 
putative list of "minors," she eventually conceded that only "I is definitely under 18 still, 
and I think there is another minor." See Tab 25, September 23, 2007 Email from M. 
to 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 victims 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. 
to J. 
Lefkowitz (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 Ms. 
to "please do whatever you can to keep this from 
beci
 ninr public." See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Lefkowitz to M. 
22. 
Ms. 
replied that she had "forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], Andy 
[Lourie], and Rolando [Garcia]. I don't anticipate it going any further than that." Id. 
23. 
Ms. 
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 Agreement 
24. 
In direct violation of these representations, "shortly after the signing," the government 
notified "three victim?' of the "general terms" of the Non Prosecution Agreement. See 
5 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001658 
EFTA00209837

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Tab 18, December 13, 2007 Letter from M. 
occurred "shortly after the signing"). 
(admitting that the notification 
AUSA 
Misleads Mr. Epstein In Au 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) 
Ms. 
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 
M. 
to J. Lefkowitz (bottom email) (emphasis added). 
(b) 
Ms. 
failed to disclose that this "good friend in our appellate section" 
was her live-in boyfriend. See Tab 18, December 13, 2007 Letter from M. 
(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 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 Ms. 
also had at least one other ex-parte 
communication with that same United States District Judge about the grand jury's 
investigation. 
See Tab 29, October 5, 2007 Email from M. 
to J. 
Leflcowitz (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 
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." S 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.P.R. § 2635.702; see also 5. C.F.R. § 2535.502. 
6 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001659 
EFTA00209838

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 
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 E stein] will pay in the civil 
case." See Tab 30, September 27, 2007 Email from M. 
to J. Lefkowitz. 
28. 
Ms. 
clearly contemplated that Mr. Epstein would he 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. 
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," Ms. 
later argued that Mr. Epstein 
had no right to complain because "the Non-Prosecution Agreement vested the Office with 
the exclusive ri ht 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 Matthew Menchel 
characterized her as "unsupervisable." 
31. 
Contrary to the express agreement of United States Attorney Acosta that the federal 
overnment would not interfere in the administration of any state sentence, FAUSA 
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.. before the January 4th [2008] date." See Tab 
41, October 31, 2007 Email from J. 
to 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. 
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 J. 
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 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001660 
EFTA00209839

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
demand, other than to protect prospective plaintiffs from bein interviewed 
prior to ►heir retaining an attorney (including, as it turned out, Mr. 
former law 
partner) to bring civil lawsuits against Epstein. 
35. 
Mr. 
also 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. 
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, Mr. 
former law partner, 
Jeffrey Herman, had met with the father of one of the prospective plaintiffs, Saige 
Gonzalez.5 At the same time (and until as recent] as March of 2008), the Official 
Florida Bar websitc continued to identify Mr. 
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 former firm of Herman, 
, & 
Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for $50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each 
lawsuit is entitled "Jane Doe # 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 be disqualified for two years from partkipating 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 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
REP WPB 001661 
EFTA00209840

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Epstein. 
All of these plaintiffs are apparently on the above-described government 
"victim" list. 
FAUSA 
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 J. 
to J. Lefkowitz. 
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 "Je 
asked that I 
forward." See Tab 36, November 28, 2007 Email from M. 
to J. 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 Thnes. 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 David Weinstein. 
AUSA Weinstein 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 
Weinstein 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 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001662 
EFTA00209841

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
strip ent conditions—which Mr. Weinstein could only have learned from FAUSA 
AUSA 
or United States Attorney Acosta himself. 
46. 
AUSA Weinstein 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 Weinstein 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. Weinstein 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 Weinstein 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 Weinstein "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 Weinstein's prior comments 
about Mr. Epstein had only been "hypothetical" in nature. That claim is sheer nonsense: 
AUSA Weinstein 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 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 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001663 
EFTA00209842

KIRKLAND & 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 prosccuted 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 cast that cries 
out for a deeper investigation than we are capable of conducting, before any decision to 
prosecute is permitted. 
I1 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001664 
EFTA00209843

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
AND ATTILJAIRU PARTNERSHIPS 
Kenneth W. Starr 
To Cell Writer Madly 
(213) 680-8440 
[email protected] 
777 South Figueroa Street 
Los Angeles, California 90017 
(213)680'8400 
www.kirkland.com 
June 19,2008 
John Roth, Esq. 
Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General 
Office of the Deputy Attorney General 
United States Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 4115 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
Dear Mr. Roth: 
Facsimile: 
(213) 6804500 
Dir. Fax: (213) 6804500 
I again want to thank you for this opportunity to explain why we believe that a federal 
prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein is unwarranted. I appreciate your having informed us that you 
already have our May 19 and May 27 communications to the Deputy Attorney General, as well 
as our prior written submissions to CEOS and to the Southern District of Florida. 
In light of the significant volume of our prior submissions and to facilitate your review, 
we have drafted four supplemental submissions that will provide a roadmap for your 
investigation of this matter. Given the bulk of these documents and their appended supporting 
attachments, you will receive this packet by messenger tomorrow. A brief description of each of 
the four submissions follows. First, I have included a succinct summary of the facts, law and 
policy issues at hand. This document sets forth a basic overview of the issues and summarizes 
our principal contentions as to why federal prosecution of this matter is neither appropriate nor 
warranted. 
The three other submissions include: a summary of the irregularities and misconduct that 
occurred during the federal investigation; a letter from former CEOS attorney Stephanie Thacker 
that responds to CEOS's assessment of its limited review of Mils 
case; and a point-by-
point rebuttal to First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey 
recent letter which we 
believe contains factual inaccuracies typical of our correspondence from the United States 
Attorney's Office in Miami (the "USAO"). Also, for your reference, the package you receive 
tomorrow will contain a binder including all documentation to which we refer in our 
submissions. Finally, we will be providing a detailed checklist of each submission or substantive 
communication to the USAO. Our intention is that you have copies of each such document to 
enhance your review. If there are any that you have not received from the USAO or CEOS, 
please advise and we will fedex them to you without delay. 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Munich 
Now York 
San Francisco 
Washington, D.C. 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001665 
EFTA00209844

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
John Roth, Esq. 
June 19, 2008 
Page 2 
As you are likely aware, the Department's prior review of this matter was incomplete 
and, by its own admission, not "de novo." See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from A. Oosterbaan. 
Without considering the Non Prosecution Agreement that left this matter to be resolved in the 
State or any of the misconduct, CEOS reviewers, tasked with reviewing some of their own 
previously expressed opinions, assessed only whether the United States Attorney would "abuse 
[his] discretion" if he pursued this case. While we appreciate CEOS's willingness to examine 
these limited issues, its conclusion that a prosecution would not be an "abuse of discretion" rings 
particularly hollow in light of CEOS's admirably candid concessions that we have raised 
"compelling" objections and that a prosecution on these facts would require "novel" applications 
of federal law. Indeed, even a brief review of CEOS's own mission statement reveals how 
inapposite a federal prosecution is to the facts in this case. 
Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's 
very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the 
Court's interpretive methodology when it comes to federal criminal law—powerfully 
demonstrate the substantive vulnerability of the USAO's unprecedented employment of three 
federal laws. That Office's interpretation would never pass muster under the Supreme Court's 
recent pronouncements and should not be countenanced. 'that is all the more true under the 
circumstances where the duly appointed U.S. Attorney opined that, in effect, the "unitary" 
Executive Branch was driving this prosecution. We now know that is not so. 
What I respectfully request, and what I hope you will provide, is a truly "de novo" 
review—that is, an independent assessment of whether federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is both 
necessary and warranted in view of the legal and evidentiary hurdles that have been identified, 
the existence of a State felony plea and sentence that have been advocated by the State Attorney 
for Palm Reach County, and the many issues of prosecutorial misconduct and overzealousness 
that have permeated the investigation. I also request that you provide us with the opportunity 
during your review to meet with you in person to answer any questions you may have and to 
elucidate some of the issues in our submission. 
We believe that an independent review will confum our strong belief that federal 
prosecutors would be required to stretch the plain meaning of each element of the enumerated 
statutes, and then to combine these distorted elements in a tenuous chain, in order to convict Mr. 
Epstein. Indeed, just this week 
War
two years of federal involvement in this matter), 
Assistant United States Attorney 
re-initiated the federal grand jury investigation—in 
direct contravention of the parties' Non Prosecution Agreement—and iss 
another 
subpoena seeking
 in this case. arraido 19, Subpoena to Marina 
. In the 
subpoena, AUSA 
directs Marina 
to appear on July 1, 2008 to give testimony 
and produce documents to FO.1 07-103 West Palm Beach. The attachment to the subpoena seeks 
documents such as photographs, emails, telephone billing information, and contact information 
that relate to Mr. Epstein as well as specific other people who received protection from federal 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001666 
EFTA00209845

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
John Roth, Esq. 
June 19, 2008 
Page 3 
prosecution as a result of Mr. Epstein's having entered into the September 24, 2007 Non 
Prosecution Agreement with the USAO. 
Notably, the Non Prosecution Agreement contains the following agreed condition: 
Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, 
the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended and all pending federal Grand Jury 
subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this 
agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to 
quash certain grand jury subpoenas. 
See Tab 21, September 24, 2007 Non Prosecution A reernenThiso_auarantees that persons 
identified in the Grand Jury subpoena such as Sarah 
 
, and Leslie Groff 
and others will not be prosecuted. The new Grand Jury subpoena clearly violates the Non-
Prosecution Agreement. 
Although Mr. Epstein has exercised his rights to appeal to the 
Department of Justice with the MI consent and knowledge of the USAO, he has not breached the 
Agreement. The re-commencing of the Grand Jury is in violation of the Agreement. 
But further, the new investigation, which features a wide-ranging, fishing-expedition type 
to search in New York does nothing to satisfy the very essential elements of federal statutes that 
are lacking despite the intensity of an over two-year investigation in the Palm Beach area. 
Absent evidence of Internet luring, inducements while using the phone, travel for the purpose, 
fraud or coercion, the subject of the New York investigation is as lacking in the essential basis 
for converting a state case into a federal case as is the remainder of the Florida investigation. 
The reaching out to New York to fill the void emanating from the failures of the Florida 
investigation compellingly demonstrates the misuse of federal resources in an overzealous, over-
personalized, selective and extraordi
mpt to expand federal law to where it is has never 
gone. This last-ditch attempt by Ms. 
reinforces our belief that the USAO does not have 
facts that, without distortion, would justify a prosecution of Mr. Epstein. 
In view of the prosecution's often-verbalized desire to punish Mr. Epstein, we believe 
that the prosecution summary suffers from critical inaccuracies and aggregates the expected 
testimony of witnesses so as to reach a conclusion of guilt. Our contention is reinforced by the 
fact that key prosecution witnesses have provided evidence and testimony that directly 
undermines the prosecution's misleading and inaccurate summar of its case. Indeed, we now 
have received stateme is from three  of the principal accusers— 
(through a state 
criminal deposi ' 
(through a federal FBI- 
sworn and transcribed 
interview), and  
 (through a defense—generated sworn transcribed interview). 
Each of these witnesses categorically denies each essential element that the prosecution will have 
to prove in order to convert this quintessential state-law case into a federal matter. 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001667 
EFTA00209846

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
John Roth, Esq. 
June 19, 2008 
Page 4 
It thus is especially troubling that the USAO has not provided us with the transcript of 
Ms. Miller's federal interview, nor the substance of the interviews with Ms. 
or Ms. 
'or any information generated by interviews with any of the approximately 40 alleged 
witnesses that the prosecution claims it has identified. Because the information provided by 
these women goes directly to the question of Mr. Epstein's guilt or innocence, it is classic Brady 
information. We understand that the U.S. Attorney might not want to disclose impeachment 
information about their witnesses prior to a charge or during plea negotiations. But we firmly 
believe that when the Government possesses information that goes directly to a target's factual 
guilt or innocence, the target should be informed about such heartland exculpatory evidence. 
Most importantly, aside from whether the Department believes Brady obligates 
disclosure to a target of a federal investigation prior to the target's formal accusation, no such 
limit should apply to a Department review. Accordingly, we request that you go beneath the face 
of any summary provided to you by the USAO and instead review the actual witness transcripts 
and FBI 302s, which are essential for you to be able to make a truly independent assessment of 
the strength and wisdom of any federal prosecution. 
After careful consideration of the record, and as much as it pains me to say this, I simply 
do not believe federal prosecutors would have been involved at all in this matter if not for Mr. 
Epstein's personal wealth and publicly-reported ties to former President Bill Clinton. A simple 
Internet search on Mr. Epstein reveals myriad articles and news stories about the former 
President's personal relationship with Mr. Epstein, including multi-page stories in New York 
Magazine and Vanity Fair. Mr. Epstein, in fact, only came to the public's attention a few years 
ago when he and the former President traveled for a week to Africa (using Mr. Epstein's 
airplane)—a trip that received a great deal of press coverage. I cannot imagine that the USAO 
ever would have contemplated a prosecution in this case if Mr. Epstein lacked this type of 
notoriety. 
That belief has been reinforced by the significant prosecutorial impropriety and 
misconduct throughout the course of this matter. While we describe the majority of these 
irregularities in another submission, two instances are particularly troubling. First, the USAO 
authorized the public disclosure of specific details of the open investigation to the New York 
Times—including descriptions of the prosecution's then 
of the case and specific terms of a plea 
negotiation between the parties. Second, AUSA 
attempted to enrich friends and close 
acquaintances by bringing them business in connection with this matter. Specifically, she 
attempted to appoint a close personal friend of her live-in boyfriend to serve as an attorney-
representative for the women involved in this case. 
It also bears mentioning that actions taken by FAUSA 
present an appearance of 
impropriety that gives us cause for concern. Mr. 
ormer law partner is currently 
pursuing a handful of $50-million lawsuits against Mr. pstein by some of the masseuses. 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001668 
EFTA00209847

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
John Roth, Esq. 
June 19, 2008 
Page 5 
Finally, as you know, Mr. Epstein and the USA° entered into an agreement that deferred 
prosecution to the State. In this regard, 1 simply note that the manner in which this agreement 
was negotiated contrasts sharply with Mr. 
indicated a willingness to de er to the State t e engt of incarceration . . . " See Tab 1 
2008 Letter from J. 
p. 2. This statement is simply not true. Contrary to Mr. 
assertion, federal prosecutors refused to accept what the State believed to be appropriate as to 
Mr. Epstein's sentence and instead, insisted that Mr. Epstein be required serve a two-year term of 
imprisonment (which they later decreased to 18 months plus one year of house arrest). Federal 
prosecutors have not only involved themselves in what is quintessentially a state matter, but their 
actions have caused a critical appearance of impropriety that raises doubt as to their motivation 
for investigating and prosecuting Mr. Epstein in the first place. 
At bottom, we appreciate your willingness to review this matter with a fresh—and 
independent—set of eyes. To facilitate your review, I once again request the opportunity to 
make an oral presentation to supplement our written submissions, and we will promptly respond 
to any inquiries you may have. 
cc: 
Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip 
current representation that "(Me SDFL 
ur 
Kenneth W. Starr 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001669 
EFTA00209848

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
SUBMISSION TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 
IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E, EPSTEIN 
Jeffrey Epstein, a successful businessman and noted philanthropist with no prior criminal 
record, has been investigated for potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b) and 2423(b). 
Since the limited review conducted by CEOS, two Supreme Court decisions—one authored by 
Justice Scalia and the other by Justice Thomas—have revitalized the bedrock principles that 
federal criminal statutes must be narrowly construed, that they may not be stretched to federalize 
conduct not clearly covered by their prohibitions, and that whenever there are two plausible 
constructions of a criminal statute, the narrower construction (hich safeguards liberty) rather than 
the broader construction (which expands the federal prosecutor's arsenal) controls under the 
venerable rule of lenity. 
Mr. Epstein's conduct—including his misconduct—falls within the heartland of historic 
state police and prosecutorial powers. Absent a significant federal nexus, matters involving 
prostitution have always been treated as state-law crimes even when they involve minors. Mr. 
Epstein's conduct lacks any of the hallmarks that would convert this quintessential state crime 
into a federal one under any of the statutes prosecutors arc considering. 
Mr. Epstein lived in Palm Beach, and his interstate travel was merely to go home. Any 
sexual conduct that occurred after he arrived was incidental to the purposes for his travel. Even 
CEOS admitted that applying § 2423(b) to a citizen traveling home would be "novel." In fact, it 
would be both unprecedented and in conflict with Supreme Court cases that have withstood the 
test of time for over 60 years. 
Moreover, Mr. Epstein did not use the intemet (either via email or chatrooms) to 
communicate with any of the witnesses in this investigation. Indeed, he did not use any other 
facility of interstate commerce, including the phone, to knowingly persuade, entice, or induce 
anyone to visit his home- -the "local" locus of all the incidents under investigation—much less 
to persuade, entice, or induce a known minor to engage in prohibited sex acts, as § 2422(b) 
requires. Nor did anyone on his behalf "persuade" or "induce" or "entice" or "coerce" anyone as 
these words are ordinarily understood and as the new Supreme Court decisions mandate they be 
applied: narrowly, without stretching ordinary usage to conform to a prosecutor's case-specific 
need for a broad (and in this case unprecedented) application. In addition, as will be shown 
below, § 2422(b) requires that the object of the communication be a state law offense that "can 
be charged." Yet because the state of Florida's statute of limitations is one year for the first 
prostitution offense and three years for other targeted offenses, and because all or virtually all of 
the offense conduct at issue in the federal investigation occurred prior to June 20, 2005, those 
acts can not be charged by the State, and thus cannot meet this essential element of federal law. 
Finally, Mr. Epstein neither coerced, nor enslaved, nor trafficked, nor derived any profit 
from his sexual conduct. He was an ordinary "John," not a pimp. But § 1591 is directed only 
against those who engage in force or fraud or coercion or who are in the business of commercial 
1 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001670 
EFTA00209849

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
sexual trafficking. The statute has never been applied to a "John," and only a highly and 
impermissibly selective prosecution could stretch § 1591 to reach conduct like that at issue in 
this case. 
In short, without "novel" interpretive expansions—a description used by CEOS itself -it 
cannot be shown that Mr. Epstein violated any of the three federal statutes identified by 
prosecutors. As the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar make clear, federal 
law may not be stretched in that manner, and the current federal investigation relies, as its 
foundation, on impermissibly elastic stretches of each statute beyond any reported precedent; 
beyond the essential elements of each statute; well outside the ordinary construction of each 
statute's limitations; and on a selective, extraordinary, and unwarranted expansion of federal law 
to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. 
At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this 
opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent 
federal statutes, and respectfully request that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General end 
federal involvement in this matter so that the State of Florida may resolve this case appropriately. 
Summary of the Facts 
Mr. Epstein has maintained a home in Palm Beach, Florida for the past 20 years. While 
there, he routinely conducted business, received medical attention, socialized with friends, and 
helped care for his elderly mother. Mr. Epstein also had various women visit his home to 
perform massages. He did not personally schedule the massage appointments or communicate 
with the women over the phone or the Internet. Rather, Mr. Epstein's personal assistants 
scheduled many types of appointments, personal trainers, chiropractors, business meetings and 
massages. 
The phone message pad taken from his house and in the possession of the 
government confirmed that in many cases, the women themselves contacted Mr. Epstein's 
assistants to inquire about his availability—rather than vice versa. 
The majority of the massages were just that and nothing else. Mr. Epstein often would be 
on the telephone conducting business while he received his massage. At times, the masseuses 
would be topless, and some sexual activity might occur—primarily self-masturbation on the part 
of Mr. Epstein. On other occasions, no sexual activity would occur at all. There was no pattern 
or practice regarding which masseuse would be scheduled on a particular day--if one would be 
scheduled at all—or whether any sexual activity might occur. Indeed, Mr. Epstein almost never 
knew which masseuse his assistants had scheduled until she arrived. See Tab 3, 
Toll 
Records. 
Mr. Epstein specifically requested that each masseuse be at least 18 years old. The vast 
majority of the masseuses were in fact in their twenties, many accompanied to Mr. Epstein's 
home by friends or even other family members. Furthermore, most of the women who have 
testified that they were actually under 1R h• 
ecifically admitted to systematically lying to 
Mr. Epstein about their age. See Tab 4 
r. at 38-39; Tab 5, 
Tr. at 16; Tab 6, 
2 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
REP WPB 001671 
EFTA00209850

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Miller Tr. at 6 8, 22, 45; Tab 7, 
13; Tab 8 
Tr. at 8; Tab 9, 
Tr. at 5; and 
Tab 10, 
Tr. at 14-15 (excerpts from these transcripts are included below). Furthermore, 
the women who visited Mr. Epstein's home all visited voluntarily and many willingly returned 
several times. 
The State Attorney's Office (the "SAO") has vast experience prosecuting sex crimos and 
conducted an exhaustive, 15-month investigation of Mr. Epstein. A Grand Jury has concluded 
that Mr. Epstein was merely a local "John," guilty of soliciting prostitution in violation of state 
law. Notably, Florida law distinguishes soliciting from procuring and compelling prostitution if 
minors are involved. Indeed, soliciting is a misdemeanor except for the commission of a third 
subsequent offense, turning it into a felony. The SAO, therefore, sought and obtained an 
indictment charging Mr. Epstein with felony solicitation of prostitution. Mr. Epstein is prepared 
to plead guilty and accept a sentence for that offense—a sentence that, notably, is far more 
severe than that meted out to other "Johns" convicted of violating Florida's solicitation laws for 
cases in which sexual activity was alleged. 
Though CEOS points out its admirable goal of "protecting children," a moniker that 
engenders high emotions, the conduct alleged here involves women over 16, which is the age of 
consent in 38 states and supplies the effective federal age of consent. The young women were by 
no means the target of high-school trolling; they were individuals who, with friends, visited Mr. 
Epstein's house—a home full of friends and staff. The civil complaints filed against Mr. Epstein 
reiterate the fact that the individuals who visited Mr. Epstein would visit with their friends. And 
Mr. Epstein never spoke to or had any contact with these women before they arrived at his 
house. And again, the State is handling this matter appropriately. 
We respectfully submit that that should be the beginning and the end of this matter. As 
you know, the Department's Petite Policy precludes successive federal prosecutions after a State 
has acted: "[A] state judgment of conviction, plea agreement [here held in abeyance solely as a 
result of the federal investigation], or acquittal on the merits shall be a bar to any subsequent 
federal prosecution for the same act or acts." 
U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031A (emphasis added). 
Consistent with that principle, and of particular relevance to this case, the Department itself just 
recently observed the following: 
[P]rostitution-related offenses have historically been prosecuted at the state or 
local level. This allocation between state and Federal enforcement authority does 
not imply that these crimes are less serious, but rather reflects important structural 
allocations of responsibility between state and Federal governments.... [T]he 
Department is not aware of any reasons why state and local authorities are not 
currently able to pursue prostitution-related crimes such that Federal jurisdiction 
is necessary. 
See Tab 11, November 9, 2007 Letter from Justice Department Principal Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General Brian Benczkowski to the House Committee on the Judiciary, p. 8-9. 
3 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB 001672 
EFTA00209851