EFTA00214291

12/11/2007 11.37 FAX 
002/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
ANSI µq 
Iwo 11 nail... rani , . 
777 South Ftepoorno SWAM 
LOn AWS:14.$4. Caldwria 90017 
xnnnum W Stan 
I u Call Miler Direct ty 
171316W-8440 
ktlarrOlutklietti cam 
VIA 17At  IMI1.17 30a 5;i0-6444 
I lonorable R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NE 4111Stnan 
Miami, FL 33132 
Rc 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Alex: 
(TIS) 680.8400 
www luiluse0 corn 
December I I. 2IHY7 
Enct:undo 
(Pin) 880.8500 
As we discussed during our telephone conversations on both Friday and Monday 
(yesterday), we are submitting Iwo separate letters that address our broad areas of deep concern 
in this matter: First. the cluster of fundamental policy issues surrounding the use and 
implementation of 2255. a richly policy-laden but uncharted area of federal law: and second. our 
profound concerns as to the background and conduct of the investigation. Consistent with our 
conversations. we submit these letters with the assurance and understanding Thai our doing w in 
no manner constitutes a breach of the Non-Persecution Agreement or unwinds that Agreement. 
We arc grateful for your courtesy in agreeing to receive and consider these submissions. and then 
to meet to discuss them. 
As you undertake your study and reflection, kindly allow me to make this pivotal point: 
In the combined 250 years experience ofJeffrey's defense team, we have together and 
individually concluded that this ease is not only extraordinary and unprecedented. ii is deeply 
and uniquely troubling. the constellation of issues. large and small, renders Jeffreys mutter 
entirely sal genesis. We say this not lightly. Indeed, as you will glean from our two letters. we 
are gravely concerned that, in addition to its odd conceptualization and genesis. the matter in its 
day-to-day implementation has been handled in a manner that raises deeply troubling questions 
with respect to both federal policy and individual judgment in a system that is, at its hest. 
assiduously devoted to the rule of law. The latest episodes involving 2255 notification to the 
alleged victims put illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice. time and 
aµain. are nut being served. Hy way of illustration. hut ii is only one among a cascading list of 
grave concerns. we now understand that the Assistant United States Arta 
 
•conduct has 
troubled us from day one has quite recently reached out to the attorney fur 
and 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Munich 
Now York 
Sun rtanctoco 
Washington. D.C. 
EFTA00214291

12/11/2007 11 37 FAX 
/003/088 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Honorable K. Alexander Acosta 
December I I. 2007 
Page 2 
provided oral notification of the victim notification letter. This notification, as we have slated 
time and again. is profoundly unthir. Rut guile apari from our substantive concerns, which are 
abiding and which had prompted our appeal to the Assistant Attorney General in the first 
instance. we had thought that the notification process had been held in abeyance until completion 
of our ongoing discussions with respect to that process. That appears not to be so. This latest in 
a baleful line of prosecutorial actions is drip in with irony. We respectfully cull your attention 
to the transcript or she interview with 
and guide you -- as the duly confirmed 
Executive Branch official charged wit a making judgments consistent with our constitutional 
order -- to the telling fact that 
did not in any manner view herself as u victim. Quite to 
the contrary. She is not alone. 
We draw attention to this episode as but a recent indication of the deepening need for 
your thoughtful and independent review. And for your agreeing to pmvide that review, our 
defense team is very grateful. 
RespectIlilly Submitted. 
Kenneth W. Star• 
EFTA00214292

12/11/2007 11:37 FAX 
004/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS L LP 
Jay P I otternWs, P C. 
loP 11Wr r 
ly 
blk 
Orland can 
VIA FACSIMILE (303) SM1-4444 
Honorable R. Alexander Acosta 
united States Attorney 
United Slates Attorney's ()filet 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NE itlh Street 
Miami. Fla 33132 
Dear Alex: 
nap MIn IARD 
'Armen-. 
Cinarmap Conte, 
153 Emit 530 Strout 
New Yolk, New 'An k 10027.4611 
www.►1rkljnd rem 
December I I. 2007 
Re • Jetty Pinkie; 
Feciannle. 
I appreciate the opportunity you have provided to review some of the issues and concerns 
of Mr. Epstein's defense team. Importantly. I appreciate your agreement that this submission 
would neither be understood by you as constituting a breach or the Non-Prosecution Agreement 
(- Agreement- ) nor result in any unwinding of the Agreement by your Mice. Implicit in this 
agreement is the understanding that I can share with you our concerns and request a review on 
the basis fur these concerns. while at the same time assure my client that this submission will not 
in any respect result in Ibrmal or informal repercussions or attempts by any member or the 
prosecution or investigative team to involve themselves to Mr. Epstein's detriment in any matter 
related to the Agreement. particularly in the state prosecution. This letter is intended to support 
our assertion to you that the manner in which both the investigation of allegations against Mr. 
Epstein and the resolution thereof were highly irregular and warrant a full review. We appreciate 
your willingness to consider the evidence. We respectfully request that you review Judge Stern's 
letter to Alan Dershowitz faxed to you on December 7. 2007. in connection with the concerns 
we set forth in this submission. 
1. 
F1CDF.RAL INVESTIGATORS RELIED UPON TAINTED EVIDENCE. 
We have serious concerns that the summaries of the evidence that have been presented to 
you have been materially inaccurate. As you may know. the principal witnesses in this case were 
first interviewed by Detective 
of the Palm Reach Police Department (the "PRPD") and 
other state law enforcement officers. 'these interviews (the -*witness statements") were ollen 
tape-recorded thus providing a verbatim and detailed record of the recollections of the witnesses 
at a point in timeprior to any federal involvement. ttnibrtunately. the police report authored by 
Detective 
and certain affidavits executed by him contained both material misstatements 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
I nnAnn 
LOU Artvelet 
Munch 
San Francesco 
Waggingion. D.C. 
EFTA00214293

13/11/2007 11:37 FAX 
e 005/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
Decemher II. 2(N07 
Page 2 
regarding the specifics of what he was told by his witnesses and also contained omissions of 
critical and often exculpatory information that was recorded verbatim during the taped interview 
sessions. The federal investigation involved interview. with many of the same witnesses. We 
are aware that at least one federal interview) 
was recorded. 
We understand that Weenie 
provided his police report and certain a0idavits to 
the federal authorities hut did not provide the actual witness statements of the taped interviews to 
your Office or to the FRI. These witness statements constitute the hest evidence available (they 
arc verbatim and earlier in time to the federal interviews), and they contain statements that are 
highly exculpatory to Mr. Epstein. Because understanding the compromised nature of the 
"evidence" against Mr. Epstein is key to a proper view of this ease. we summarize it in detail 
below. 
A. 
The Witness Statements Establish That Mr. Epstein Ilid Not Tame 
Masseuses Under IS. 
Indeed, the witness slaleincots demonstrate that Mc opposite is 
rw 
hat the many of 
‘• • 
• 
• 
VC% 
and 
visit‘ 
r. Epstein's home. Also, there is su canna cvr case, found in the sworn statements of 
the women themselves, which indicate that, to the extent others were in fact under the age of 
ei hteen, man affirmatively lied about her age. As 
herself told the PRPD: 
told me to say I was IS because 
sat . . . t you're not then he [Epstein' 
won't really let you in his house. So I said I was Ig". Detective !M. 
however. largely 
ignored these critical admissions in his Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
Q: At any time. did he speak to you and does he know how old you are? Did he know 
how old you were? 
A: . . .As a mater of feet. 
told me to say I was IS because 
said 
tell him you're IS because ilyou're nut. then he won't really let you in his house. So 
I said I was IS. As I was giving him a massage. he's like, how old arc you? And 
then I was like IS. But 1 kind of said it really fast because I didn't want to make it 
sound like I was lying or anything. (Sworn Statement of 3/15/05). 
t): Did he ask you your age? 
A: Yeah. I told him I was I S. (Sworn Statement of I0/05/05). 
EFTA00214294

12/11/2007 11'38 FAX 
oos/098 
K. Alexander Acosta 
December 11. 2007 
Page 3 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Q: Did he know your age? 
A: I don't think -- I think he did. Downstairs 
was like oh. well if they ask 
you how old arc you just say you're I R hut he never asked me how old I wax. 1 
thought you had to be IX to give a massage (inaudible). (Sworn Statement of 
12/13/05) 
A: We were supposed m say we were IR. 
0: Who told you that, to nty that? 
A: 
(Sworn Statement of I I /X./05). 
• S 
A: I told him 1 was IS. (Sworn Statement of I0/3/05). 
• 
concerning 
Well with 
I I don't know how old she is because she lied about her 
age. She lied to me when I first met her. When I was IS she told me she was IS. 
(Inaudible.) Well she tell her purse at my house and she told me to make sure that I 
didn't look in her purse. When I went through her purse I found her state license that 
said she was 16 so she lied to me about her age. (Sworn Statement of 10/03/051.' 
• 
• 
Q: Now. how old were you when you lint started going there? 
A: Eighteen. I'm 19 now this last Mareh.n (Sworn Statement of 10/12/05). 
Q: And all this occurred when you were IS though? 
In addition to giving a soorn statement at the PAP() St: tion. 
5 conversations with Detective 
while being transported to mid from the station were also recorded. This excerpt i. taken from the recording of 
raveling from the slat tint. 
EFTA00214295

12/11/2007 11.38 FAX 
gP 007/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
Uceember I I. 2007 
Page 4 
A: I Ih-huh. I had been 18 for like 8 months. nine months already. My birthday is in 
June su I had been 18 for a while. (Sworn Statement of 2/3/05). 
0: Okay. How old are you now? You're. -
A: I'm 20 
Q: You're 20. So a couple months ago you would have been what. 19? 
A: Ith-huh. 
0: Alright. So July, August you would have licen 19, 20. On the verge of 20? 
A: Ulithuh. (Sworn Statement of 11/4/05) 
We believe that other witnesses have similarly told the FBI that Mr. Epstein attempted to 
monitor the ages of the masseuses who came to his home. We further believe that these 
transcripts would show that the federal interest in prosecuting Mr. Epstein fur paradigmatic state 
°Mimes was far less compelling than the inaccurate pollee reports suggest. 
B. 
pcteetive I=
 Made Crucial Misstatements in the Police Report and 
Probable Cause Affidavits. 
We have reviewed the sworn and recorded witness statements of many of the individuals 
who were interviewed (conducted in person or by telephone) as well as a number of the 
controlled calls cited in the Police Report. 'lime Mier time, we found statements in the Police 
Report attributed to statements made in the sworn recordings that either simply were nut said. or 
in sonic instances. are flatly contradicted, by the witness who purportedly mu • 
• 
tement. In 
fact, they often stand in stark contrast to representations made by Detective 
in both the 
official Police Report and in affidavits signed by him under oath . We highlight the most 
significant ones identified to date: 
• aDiel 
Not Report that Epstein Told Her to Lie About her Age 
the Probable Cause Affidavit indicates that during her sworn statement "-advised 
that during her frequent visits Epstein asked for her real age. IM stated she was 
sixteen land that' Epstein advised her not in tell anyone her real age." Arrest 
Probable Cause Affidavit at I I. That statement appears nowhere in Ms sworn 
statement. 
EFTA00214296

12/11/2007 11:38 FAX 
la 008/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I. 2007 
Page 
Did Not State that Epstein Photographed Her Having Sex 
Detective 
also reports 
as claiming that iipstein would photograph 
and her naked and having sex and proudly dis
 the photographs 
within the home." Id at 12. Again, this statement is not in ='s swam statement. 
To the contrary, the transcript reflects that 
stated: "I was just like, it was me 
standing in front of a big white marble bathtub .. . in the guest bathroom in his master 
suite. And it wasn't like I was you know spreading my legs or anything for the 
camera, I was like. I was standing up. I think I WILS standing up and I just like, it was 
me kind of looking over my shoulder kinds smiling. and that was that." Sworn 
Statement of 10/11/05 at 35. 2
Said Epstein Did Not Touch Her Inappropriately 
Detective 
recounts that 
advised that "Epstein grabbed her 
buttocks and pulled her close to him." Probah e 'new Affidavit at 6. See also, Police 
Report (10/07/05 at 30 (some). 
never made this statinnem. In fact, when 
Detective 
sked. "He did not touch you inappropriately?" 
responded. 
"No." Swum Statement of 10/04/05 at I I. 
• 
if
 Nut Sixteen When She First When to Epstein's llome. 
Detective 
states: ' 
also stated she was sixteen years old when she 
first went to Epstein's house . 
ncident Report at 52. 
However. 
affimustively states that she was seventeen when she first went to Epstein's home: 
- Q: Okay. How old were you when you first went there? A: Seventeen. Q: 
Seventeen. A: And I was 17 the last time I went there ton. I turned I$ this past 
June". Sworn Statement of I I/14/05. 
• 
Told Detective Rccarcy that Epstein Did Nu/Takeout Sex Tays. 
I he Probable Cause Affidavit indicates ilia 
staled, "Epstein would 
use a antasager/vibrator, which she described as white in color and a large head. 
Epstein would rub the vibrator/massager on her vaginal area as he would masturbate." 
Pmbable Cause Affidavit at 14: sot a/sa Police Report f I/10/05) at 49 ("Epstein 
would use a massager/vibrator, which she described as white in color with a large 
head, on her."). This statement appears nowhere in the transcript of 
's swum 
■ 
was interviewed by Detectiva 
twice, once by telephone, and once in 
in
 The portions of the 
Police Report to which we refer specilicalb cite tiw imNrson interview of ads the source for the 
information reported. We have reviewed the retooling of that interview and hese the comparison on that 
review, We have never heard n recording or die telephone interview, 
EFTA00214297

12/11/2007 11:39 FAX 
a 
009/099 
KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP 
December 11. 2007 
l'age 6 
statement. In fact. when Dctectiv'
 asked whether Mr. Epstein had -ever 
take[n] out any toys," 
responded. -No." Sworn Statement of 11/08/05 at 17. 
• 
Did Not Recall Mr. Epstein Masturbating 
Detective 
-counts that 
-advised she was cure [Mr. Epstein] 
was mastur aunt based on his hand movements going up and down on his penis 
area." Probable Cause Affidavit at 8. See oho Police Report (10/07/05 al 33 sante). 
Detectives 
account is in direct contradiction to 
true 
statement. specifically: 
Q: Okay did he ever take off— did he ever touch himself? 
A: !don't think so. 
Q: No. Did he ever masturbate himself in fmnt of you? 
A: I don't remember him doing that. Ile might have hut I really don't 
remember. (Sworn Statement of 1(/05/05 at 7). 
• 
Stated that Only One Girl Looked Young 
Police Report at 57: 
stoical that towards the end of his employment. the 
masseuses were younger an younger. However, he said no such thing: 
Q: Did they seem young to you? 
A. No. sir. Mostly no. We saw one or two young ones in the last year. Hefore that. 
it was all adults . . . I remember one girl was young. We never asked how old she 
was. It was not in my job . . . But I imagine she was 16. IT'. (Sworn Statement of 
I1/21/05) 
C. 
Defective 
Made Material Omissions in the Police Report. 
In addition to the misstatements in the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit as to 
the evidentiary record, there were also material omissions. both of facts known to the PBPD and 
also of facts nut known to the MOD, though known by the State Attorney. In the latter instance. 
the lack of knowledge was the result of the PBPD's refusal to receive the exculpatory evidence. 
In last. they refused to attend a meeting called by the State Attorney specifically to provide the 
relevant evidence. 1 has, the Police RCM* and Probable Cause Affidavit only oiler a skewed 
view of tlx: facts material to this matter. Examples follow. 
I. 
The Video Surveillance Equipment Located in Mr. Epstein!r Office and Garage. 
Ruth the Police Report (at 43) and the Probable Cause Affidavit (at 18) make 
EFTA00214298

12/11/2007 11:39 FAX 
e 010/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December 11. 2007 
['Age 7 
particular mention of the "discovery" of video surveillance equipment (or "covert 
cameras" as they are called) in Epstein's garage and library/office. Inclusion of this 
information insinuates a link bow • • 
• • airman and the events at issue: in the 
Probable Cause Affidavit Detective 
states, "on the first floor of the 'Epstein' 
residence I [Detective 
found two covert cameras hidden within clocks. One 
was kwatal in the garage and the other located in the library area on a shell behind 
Epstein's 
• • 
• 
• computer's hard drive was reviewed which showed several 
images of 
and other witnesses that have been interviewed. All of these 
images appeared to come from the camera positional behind Epstein's desk". See 
Probable Cause Affidavit at IR. 
Clearly omitted from both the Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the 
fact that the MK). and specifically Detective Rccarey. knew about the cameras since 
they way installed in 2003. with the help al the PAPA to address the theft of cash 
from E.pstein's home. This fact is detailed in a PaInt Beach Police Report prepared in 
October 2003 dual • 
Is, the installation of video equipment. the video 
recording capturing 
(Mr. Epstein's then house manager) "red handed". 
and he incriminating statements made by when 
he was confronted at the time. 
See 
tat that the video footage was turned over to IX:waive 
Police Report at 5. R. The annemporanani, report confirms the 
himself. 
2. 
Polygraph £raatiaatian and Report. On May 2. 2006. Mr. Epstein submitted to a 
polygraph examination by George Slattery. a highly respected polygraph examiner 
who is regularly used by thc State Attorney. The examination was done ai". 
l 
- • , were told that the sole locus of the investigation was the conduct wit 
Mr. Epstein was asked (a) whether 
whether he "in anyway threatenledi 
"that she was IR years old"; an ( ) whether he "believed 
. was IR years old". As set forth in the Report of the examination. the term 
"sexual contact" was given an extremely broad meaning in order to capture any 
inappropriate conduct that could have occurred.} 11w results of the examination 
uch conduct occurred: (ii) Mr. Epstein never threatened 
told Mr. Epstein she was IS years old: and (iv) Mr. Epstein 
felievc 
was I R years old. 
ct with 
(h) 
(c) whet t 
• was to d by 
I lw definition inclothal: "sexual intercourse. oral WA acts (penis in mouth ur mouth on vagina). linger ri.monoion 
of the vaging linger penetration or the anus. muching or th4: vagina for sexual grailtiention purposes, touching 
of the penis for scsual t ratiticatiott purpnws. masturbation by or to another. tosichine or rubhins or thy breams. 
or any other physical contact involving sexual thoughts native desires with another person". 
EFTA00214299

12/11/2007 11:39 FAX 
la011/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLi
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I. 2007 
Page 8 
3. 
Broken **Sex Taw" in Mr. Epstein's Trash. The Police Report details the police 
finding in Mr. Epstein's trash what is described as broken pieces of a "sex tor and 
that this "discovery" purportedly corroborated witness statements. Omitted from both 
the Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the fact that during the course 
of' executing the search warrant in Epstein's home, the police discovered the other 
piece of that key "sex tor and realized it was in !het only the broken handle of a 
salad server. Though "sex toys" play a prominent role in the Police Report and 
Probable Cause Affidavit. the Police Report was never amended to reflect the 
discovery of this new and highly relevant evidence. 
4. 
Failure to Consider Erculpatory or Impeaching Evidence. Other exculpatory and 
impeaching evidence known by the PBPD was omitted from the Police Report and 
Probable Cause Affidavit by. in our view, manipulating the date the investigation was 
allegedly closed. 
According W the Police Report (at 85). Detective 
"explained Ito ASA 
that the PBPD had concluded its ease in December 
of 2005". That assertion, which is false. conveniently resulted in the omission of all 
information adduced subsequent to that date. Thus. though the Police Report in fact 
contains information obtained after December 2005. the PBPD purported to justify its 
refusal to consider, or even to include, in the Police Report, the Probable Cause 
Affidavit or what it released to the public, all the exculpatory and evidence 
impeaching the witnesses submitted on behalf of Mr. Epstein. most of which was 
provided alter December 2005. That evidence is listed below. 
5. 
Unreported Criminal Histories and Mental Health Problems of the Witnesses 
Relied an In the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit Evidence obtained 
concerning the witnesses relied upon to support the Probable Cause Affidavit casts 
significant doubt on whether these witnesses ore sufficiently credible to support a 
finding of probable cause, let alone to sustain what would he the prosecution's burden 
of proof at a trial' Though such evidence was submitted to the PLIPD. none of it was 
included in the Police Report or the Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
While the Police Report (at 57) and the Probable Cause Affidavit (at 
21) contain assertions by 
which allegedly support bringing a criminal charge. 
the evidence revealing 
evident mental instability: prior criminal conduct 
against Epstein: and bias tc. ,t.lt
s Epstein is notably omitted. As detailed above. in 
2003nas 
filmed taking money from Epstein's home. After being caught on 
videotape unlawfully entering Epstein's home and stealing cash front a briefcase, 
I Whik We have never intender.110 and do not here seek to 
east aspersions on any of the witnesses. in 
previously asking the State and now asking you to evaluate the strength of this ease. we have been constrained 
to point ow the fact that the alleged v. 'n a C 
se to present themselves to the world through MySpace profiles 
with self-selected monikers such a. 
and 
' or with nude piton-is. 
EFTA00214300

12/11/2007 11:40 FAX 
el 012/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I. 2007 
Page 9 
admitted to the PHPD that he entered the house unlawfiilly on numerous 
occasions, stealing cash and attempting to steal Epstein's licensed handgun to commit 
suicide. Although this information was known by Deteetiveat 
the time the 
Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit were prepared. and is clearly material to 
an • determination of credibility, it was omitted. 
was the source of the vast majority of the serious 
a legations made against Epstein. 
While the Police Report and Probable Cause 
Affidavit rely on 
numerous assertions. there arc two significant problems with 
that reliance. First there is no mention of certain critical admissions made by= 
during her interview. as well as on her MySpace wehpage (discovered by defense 
investigators and turned over to the State Attorney). Setanid.M hut omitted fmn) the 
Police Report is an • reference to the fads known about her by the MD. specifically, 
that at the aim 
was making these assertions she had been arrested by the PAM 
and was hats prosecuted jar "'accession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia We 
lake each in tuna. 
• 
Admits Voluntary Sexual Conduct With Epstein. 
Refuses to Disclose the Disposition of the Monies Site Earn 
and 
Lies About Being "Given' a Car by Epstein: Detective 
failed to include in the Police Report —admission that on one 
occasion she engaged in sexual conduct with Epstein'sgirlfriend us 
her birthday "gill" to Epstein. Nor does Detective 
include the 
fact that 
flatly refused to discuss with him the disposition of the 
thousands of dollars she said she was given by Epstein. or that she 
falsely claimed that she did not use drugs. despite her MySpace entries 
in which she exclaims "I can't wait to buy some weedumn-
Deteetial 
was aware the car had been rented. not purchased. 
and only it was only leased on a monthly basis for two months. While 
fanciful claim that she was given a car appears in the Pollee 
Report, it is never corrected. 
• 
Vas Arrested for Possession of Media na and Drug 
arap terns to. As noted. on September I I. 2005.Mwas arrested 
for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. In response to 
this arrest. I tall - came forward- (as the Probable Cause Affidavit 
implies at I0- l), claiming she had knowledge of - sexual activity 
taking place" at Epstein's residence and misconduct by Epstein. Obis 
-coming forward" a 
ors no where in the Police Report.) Thus. it 
becomes clear that 
assertions of misconduct by Epstein were 
motivated by a desire to avoid the repercussions of her own criminal 
conduct, which should have been taken into account when assessing 
her credibility as a witness. 
EFTA00214301

12/11/2007 11.40 FAX 
0013/099 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11.2007 
Page 10 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
• 
Steals Front a Victoria's Secret Store. 
An 
investigation y private investigators working for the defense revealed 
that in lute 2005 
was employed at a Victoria's Secret store in 
Florida. Three days afier her ;liana ease was terminated. IIMIwas 
caught by a stop: manager as 
attempted to leave the store with 
merchandise in her purse, the security tag Mill attached. Seeing the 
manager.M:laimcd "someone is trying to set me up". Following an 
internal investigation. which disclosed additional thefts from both the 
store and a customer. she was fired. In a recorded interview. 
admitted to stealing and asserted that her reason liw doing so was that 
"she was not getting paid enough". "Ibis information and supporting 
documentation was presented to the PBPL). but was never included in 
the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
Lies on *Space About Victoria's Secret Store 
Ternanallon. 
Also uncovered by defense investigators is 
dissembling version of the Victoria's Secret debacle on 
r 
"MySpace" wchpage. There. 
announced that she ". . . forgot to 
let everyone know I quit my job at V.S. They said they suspected me 
of 'causing losses to their company' 
which by tlx: way is bullshit. 
was 'hy the honk' on EVERYTHING!!! . . . I got so fed up in that 
office that I handed the Loss Prevention lady back my keys and 
walked out". This information and supporting documentation was 
provided by the defense to the PUPD. but was not included in the 
Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
Lies en her Victoria's Secret Job Applicatian. 
Additional information on 
MySpace wehpage casts further 
doubt on her credibility. For example. she boasts to having engaged in 
a fraudulent scheme to get hired by Victoria's Secret. explaining. "Oh, 
it was s' funny 
I used [my boyfriend' as one of my references for 
• 
' • • rd job and the lady called me back and told me that 
gave me such an outstanding reference that she did 
not need to call anyone else back.. . . he got me the job! Just like that . 
.. I lied and said he was the old stock manager at Holister she bought 
it. . ." This inthrmation and supporting documentation was provided 
by the defense to the PRPD, hut was not included in the Police Report 
or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
Boasts About Her Marijuana Use. 
Also on her 
y pace we page can he Mum 
admissions of purchasing and 
using marijuana and marijuana Ixtraphentalia. 
Stales 
she "can't wait to buy some weed!!! . . . I can't wait!!! . . . (I MId on: 
EFTA00214302

12/11/2007 11:40 FAX 
0014/099 
R. Alexander Acosta 
Decemher 11.2007 
Page 11 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
let me say that again) I can't wait to buy some weed!!!. . . I also want 
to get a vaporizer so I can smoke in my room because apparently there 
are 'narcs' everywhere-.=also posted a photograph of a marijuana 
cigarette and labeled it
 at heaven looks like to me". 
This 
information and supporting documentation was provided by the 
defense to the Pall), was not included in the Police Report or 
Probable Cause Affidavit (although there is both a fleeting reference in 
the Police Report to 
use of marijuana with her boyfriend lat 671 
and in the Probable Cause Affidavit to 
marijuana arrest (at lo-
ll)). 
• 
While the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit contain 
numerous assertions intended to negate 
taped admission that she clear! • 
told Epstein she was IR, omitted from these documents is reference to 
MySpace webpage. presented to the State Attorney's Office. where . in no connection 
to this case, she qffirtnatively represented to the world that she was IS, thereby 
corroborating her lie to Epstein. Also omitted is any reference to her long history of 
run-ins with law enforcement. Among those arc multiple runaway complaints by her 
parents and her assignment to a special high school for drug abusers. 
• 
'I/Apace Webpage States She Drinks, Uses Drugs, Gets 
into Trouble, Has Deafen Someone Up, Shoplifts. Has Lost her 
Virginity, Earns 5250,000 and Higher, and Contains Naked and 
Provocative Photographs. 
The first image seen on 
MySpace webpage, the photo echo 
se to represent her. Is ih4t 
of a naked woman provocatively king on the beach. The illuminating 
webpage also contains-assertions 
that of all her body pans. 
she "lovelsi her ass". she drinks to excess. uses drugs, "gets into 
trouble, has beaten someone up. has shoplifted "lots", "already lost" 
her virginity, and cams "$250,000 and higher". As with tlx: other 
impeaching infbnnation. this material, vital to determining credibility, 
was provided by the defense to the PRPD but was never included in 
the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
• 
Prior Recurs! — Drugs, Alcohol, Running Away From 
Home. 
has a history of running away/turning up missing 
from her parents various homes; of using drugs and alcohol; and of 
associating with individuals of questionable judgment. For example, a 
Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Report details how only two days 
after she returned to Florida to live with her father, on March 31, 2006. 
police were called to the home in response to her father's report that 
she and her twin sister were missing. The Police Report describes her 
as "under the influence of a narcotic us Ishel could barely stand up, 
EFTA00214303

12/11/200? 11:41 FAX 
11015/009 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page 12 
u teri eyes were bloodshot. and 'her 
uails were diluted [Niel'. It 
flintier documents that 
had stayed out all night 
and were returned home by a -drug dealer. This event coincided with 
having been found at an "ina ro riate location" by Georgia 
police in response to a call taboo 
disappearance. Although 
this information. material to determining credibility. was provided by 
the defense and known to the PBPD. it was never included in the 
Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. 
While the Police Re port and Probable Cause 
va rely on statements of
his federal hank 
mu 
convic on. w is 
c mix 
investigators discovered and influd over to the PBPD during the 
course al' the investigation. was omitted. 
served 21 months 
in federal prison for his offense. 
• 
While the Police Report and Probable Cause 
AI ie ova re y on statements 
stepmother. omitted is 
sta a comae ion Ur 1 
identity 
fraud. This information. uncovered by defense investigators, was also 
turned over to the PBPD during the course of the investigation. 
D. 
In Unlit Of The Compromised Nature Of The Evidence —A Fulsome Review 
Should Re Conducts. 
These tainted and inaccurate reports compromised the ledend inv.:Nagai ion.4 As you may 
know, the PBPD took the unprecedented and highly unethical step of releasing these reports to 
the media as well. These reports spread across the Internet, and were undoubtedly read by the 
other individuals who were later interviewed by the FBI for giving Mr. Epstein massages. As we 
have shown, these reports contain multiple fabrications, omissions. and outright misstatements of 
fact. Moreover. the evidence and the allegations were undeniably misrepresented to the MI. 
with no inclusion of the evidence exposing the deficiencies of the "proor and the exculpatory 
evidence upon which the State relied. Furthermore. it should he noted that many of these same 
individuals were also interviewed by the FBI after their state interviews but prior to Mr. 
Epstein's counsel providing the government with the transcripts of the recorded interviews. The 
4 Although we have been informal that the FBI identified and then inicrsiessi:d addit. 
- I riflemenl witnesses, many 
of their discoveries arc hclieved to have emanated from message pad% roniaininit contain in forma ion that were 
scion! mini Mr hpuyin% home pursuant to a state search warrant thai was deeply and constillii tonally flawed by 
Iniiisstateinents and omissions as well as other facial deliskinks 
EFTA00214304

12/11/2007 11:41 FAX 
ON018/089 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I. 2007 
Page 13 
transcripts and tapes, which we hope to share with you in person, will likely present a very 
different view of those interviews taken afterwards. 
Therefore. in the interest of truth. we ask you to review the transcripts. compare them to 
the FBI reports upon which the indictment was predicated. and then determine whether the FBI 
summaries and the prosecution memorandum upon which the charging decisions were made 
overstate Mr. Epstein's federal culpability. Concomitant to these requests. we would ask that 
you determine whether the investigative team ever provided these trustworthy tapes and 
transcripts to those in your Office who were being asked to authorize the prosecution so that they 
could themselves assess the reliability of the FBI interview repons against a verbatim record of 
the same witness's prior statements. We believe that this request is fair and would not be unduly 
burdensome. 
II. 
THE IMPROPER IN VOI EM ENT AND CONDUCT OF FEDERAL 
AUTHORITIES. 
As established above, the Slate's charging decision. of one count of the solicitation of 
prostitution, was hardly irrational or irregular. 
Indeed, I ana Belohlavek. a Florida sex 
prosecutor for 13 years, concluded that the women in question were prostitutes and that "there 
arc no victims here." There was no evidence of violence. force, drugs. alcohol, coercion ur seen 
abuse or a position of authority. Each and every one of the alleged "victims" knew what to 
expect when they arrived at Mr. Epstein's house and each was paid for her services. In filet, Mr. 
Lpstein's message book establishes that many of these women routinely scheduled massage 
sessions with Mr. Epstein themselves, without any prompting. Ms. I3elohlavek also noted that 
many ()I' these individuals worked either as exotic dancers or in one of the ma
masse 
parlors 
dotted across West Palm Beach. Ms. Belohlavek also specifically stated that could 
not 
be trusted and was "only interested in money." She further found that it was inappropriate for 
Mr. Epstein to register as a sex offender because she did not believe that he constituted a threat 
to young girls and because registration had not been required in similar or even more serious 
eases. Ms. Belohlavak thought. and still believes, that the appmpriate punishment is a term of 
probation. 
Yet. the government has devoted an extraordinary amount of its time and resources to 
prosecute Mr. Epstein for conduct the State believes amounts to a "sex for money" case. While 
we are loathe to single-out for criticism the conduct of any particular professional, we cannot 
escape the conclusion that the cumulative effect of the conduct of Assistant United States 
Anima 
led your Office to take positions during the investigation and 
negotiation of this matter that has led to anon:cab:mai federal overreaching. In tact. Judge 
Ilcrben Stem's states " . . .the federal authorities inappropriately involved themselves in the 
investigation by the slate authorities and employed highly irregular and coercive tactics to 
override the judgment of state law enforcement authorities as to the appropriate disposition of 
their case against your client." See Judge Stern's letter faxed to you on December 7, 2007. 
EFTA00214305

12/11/2007 11.42 FAX 
Ill 017/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December 11, 2007 
Page 14 
A. 
The Petite PolietShould Have Precluded Federal involvement. 
As you know, prior to negotiating the terms of the Agreement. we requested that the 
government consider the Petite Policy and the problems associated with conducting a dual and 
successive prosecution. We stressed to your Office, on a number of occasions, that we had 
reached a final negotiated resolution with the State and were only being forced to postpone the 
execution of that agreement for the sake of the federal investigation. We made submissions and 
met with your Office to present analyses or the fact that federal prosecution in this matter was in 
direct conflict with the requirements of the Petite Policy. It was our contention, and remains our 
contention, that federal prosecutors had never intervened in a matter such us this one. And 
because there was no deficiency in the state criminal process that would otherwise require 
federal intervention. the express terms of the Petite Policy precluded federal prosecution 
regardless qf the outcome of the stale cave. Since the state investigation was thorough and in no 
way inadequate and the concerns implicated by the matter all involved local issues and areas of 
traditionally local concern, we urged your Office to contemplate whether a federal prosecution 
was appropriate. 
However, on August 3. 2007. 
rejected a proposed state plea which 
included that Mr. Epstein serve two years of supervised custody followed by two years of 
incarceration in a state prison, with the option of eliminating incarceration upon successful 
completion of the term of supervised custody. among other terms. 
stated that "the 
federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a Iwo year term in state prison." See 
August 3. 2007 letter. Such an articulation of the federal interest, we believe. misunderstands the 
Petite Policy on two grounds. First. the Olliec's position that the federal interest would not be 
vindicated in the absence of a jail term for Mr. Epstein. runs contrary to Section 9-2.031D of the 
United States Attorney's Manual, because this section requires the federal prosecutor to focus 
exclusively on the quality or process of the prior prosecution. not the sentencing outcome. 
Second, the slate plea agreement offered was not "manifestly inadequate" under 11.S.A.M. § 9-
2.03ID. indeed, the only real difference between the state and federal plea proposals was 
whether Mr. Epstein served his sentence in jail or community quarantine. 
We formerly believed that our Petite Policy concerns were being addressed or. at least. 
preserved, hut we learned that only after reaching a final compromise with your Office us to the 
terms of the Agreement, and at the very last minute, that language regarding the Petite Policy 
was removed from the final version. The two following references to the &lite Policy had been 
included in the drafi prosecution Agreements up until September 24. 2007. the day the 
Agreement was executed, at which point they were eliminated by your Office: 
IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background. that the interest 
of the United Stales pursuant to the Petite policy will be served by the following procedure ... 
Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State 
Attorney's °nice to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his 
EFTA00214306

12/11/2007 11.42 FAX 
it 018/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS Lo 
December 11. 2007 
Page 15 
Angelina% to undertake discussion with the Slate Attorney's 011ie,: to ensure compliance with 
these procedures. which compliance will he necessary to satisfy the United Status' interest. 
pursuant In the Poise policy. 
We reiterate that this ease was at heart a local matter that was being fully addressed by 
the state criminal justice system. The state process resulted in an appropriate resolution of this 
matter and would have vindicated any conceivable federal interest. 
Thus. there was no 
substantial federal interest that justified a federal prosecution. It has recently come to our 
attention that that the CE.OS chief statements may be relevant to this matter. While we welcome 
the opportunity to consider these statements. our extensive research had found only one federal 
action that was remotely similar to the federal investigation for the prosecution of this matter. 
and that ease has since hccn distinguished as well. 
N. 
.
Promnted An Undulv Invasive Investieation Of Mr. Enstein. 
investigation of Mr. Epstein raises serious questions. Despite the filet 
that she was made aware of the inaccuracies in the PBPD's Probable Cause Affidavit. she chose 
to include the affidavit in a document filed with the court knowing that the public could sceess it. 
Then, 
issued letters requesting documents whose subject matter have no relation to 
the allegations against Mr. Epstein. Notabl . alter we objected to these overly broad and 
intrusive rt. nests. Deputy Chief 
denied knowledge of 
actions 
and 
commendably sought to significantly narrow the list of documents requested. In 
a subsequent court filing, 
referred to our agreement to remove these items from 
her demand list as evidence of 
r. .pstem's -non-cooperation". 
'Ibis was only the beginning. 
also subpoenaed an agent of Roy Black 
(without following the guidelines provided in the United States Attorney's Manual that require 
prior notification to Washington necessary to seek a lawyer's records). We once more requested 
to intervene. Despite these efforts. 
followed up with a subpoena fur 
Mr. Epstein's etmlidenthal medical records served directly on his chiropractor (with no notice to 
Mr. Epstein). 
also made the unusual request of asking the State Attorney's Office 
for sonic or the grand jury materials. She threatened to subpoena the State when she was 
informed that it was a violation of Florida law to release this information. 
After compiling this "evidence-. 
stated she would he initiating an 
investigation into n 
it 
violations of IS U.S.C. *1591 (again without the required prior DOJ 
notification). 
then broadened the scope of the investigation without any 
foundation for oing so •v adding charges of money laundering and violations or a money 
transmitting business to the investigation. Mr. Epstein's counsel explained that there could be no 
basis for these charges since Mr. Epstein did not commit any prerequisite act for a ma 
laundering charge and has never even been engaged in a money transmitting business. 
responded that Mr. Epstein could be charged under these statutes because he funded 
EFTA00214307

12/11/2007 11 42 FAX 
a 
019/099 
KIRKLAND & ELL I5 LLP 
Dccenthcr II, 2007 
Page 16 
illegal activities. To suggest that Mr. Epstein could violate these statutes simply by spending his 
legally earned money on prostitutes is manifestly an erroneous interpretation of the hew. 
To our relief. alter briefing 
at a meeting regarding the spurious 
application of these statutes, we were told to ignore the laundry list and that defense counsels' 
focus should be turned to 18 U.S.C. §2422(h). Once Mr. Epstein's counsel submitted and 
presented the reasons why a federal case would require stretching the relevant federal statutes 
beyond recognition, and that federal involvement in this matter should he precluded basest on 
federalism concerns, the Petite Policy, and general principles of prosecutorial discretion. the 
parties commenced discussions of a possible plea agreement. Around this time. we received an 
e-mail from 
suggesiin4 that she wanks] in discuss the possibility o ' • • 
federal and state resolution. We were immediately Maimed by your Office that 
did not have the authority to make any such plea proposals 
• 
he involvt.x1 in any 
further negotiations of a plea. 
Despite this commitment. 
was the principle 
negotiator of the Agreement. At our meeting on September 7. she made reference to an 
allegation against Mr. Epstein involving a 12 year old individual. This allegation is without 
merit and without found:Mon. Though your last liter suggests there was "no contact" between 
individuals in your Office and the press. we were previously told by 
hat the Flit was 
receiving "intimation" specifically from Connolly. a Vanity Fair reporter, and not vice versa. 
C. 
Included I Infair Terms in the Am-cement, 
took 
scions in negotiating this matter that stray Imm both stated policy 
and established law. First. 
insisted that as part of du federal plea agreement. the 
State Attorney's Office, without being drown new evidence, should be convinced to charge Mr. 
Epstein with violations of law and recommend a sentence that are significantly harsher than what 
the State deemed appropriate. In fact. the State Attorney viewed this matter as a straightforward 
prostitution case and believed that a term of probation was • and is - the appropriate sentence. At 
insistence, however. Mr. Epstein was forced to undertake the highly unusual and 
unprecedented action of directing his defense team to contract the State prosecutors themselves 
and ask for an upward departure in both his indictment and sentence. There was no ellbrt by the 
state and federal prosecutors to coordinate the prosecutions. a practice which is against the tends 
of the Petite Policy. In our view, it is unprecedented to micro-manage each and every term of 
Mr. Epstein's State plea. including the exact state charges to which Mr. Epstein plead guilty; the 
lime-frame within which Mr. Epstein must enter that state plea and surrender to state officials: 
and the amount of time he must spend in county jail. This is particularly true where the State 
EFTA00214308

12/11/2007 11:43 FAX 
020/098 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLi' 
December I I, 2007 
Page 17 
Attorney's Office has a different view of the case and there has been no coordination with state 
authoritics.6
In addition 
required that Mr. F.pstein's sentence include a registerahle 
offense. As you know, requiring sexual offender registration will have a significant impact both 
immediately and forever alter. This harsh term. which is said to be suggested by the FBi. was 
added despite the fact that the Mate believed that Mr. Epstein's conduct did not warrant any such 
registration. As you know, slate officials have special expertise in deciding which offenders 
pose a threat to their community. Moreover, this demand places the state pmseeutors' credibility 
at issue and diminishes the force of sexual registration when ° is applied to °Minters who state 
pmsecutors do not believe are dangerous or require registration. 
decision not to 
permit the Slate Attorney to determine a matter uniquely within its province was unwarranted. 
What is more. when negotiating the settlement portion of the Agreement. 
insisted that a civil settlement provision be included in the Agreement namely, the inclusion of 
18 iLS,C. 
2255. a negotiating term which is unprecedented in nature.,  
While %ve were 
reluctant and cautious about a plea agreement in which a criminal defendant gives up certain 
rights to contest liability for a clvi! settlement, 
ultimatums required that we 
acquiesce to these unprecedented terms. For instance, when plea discussion stalled as a result of 
MIN= 
demands. Mr. Epstein's counsel received a letter from her slating as it Thaw 
appears you will not settle." Al this point. 
expressed her intention to re-launch the 
government's previously set aside money laundering investigation. She also issued a mesh of 
subpoenas and sent target letters to Mr. Epstein's employees. adding new federal charges 
including obstruction of justice. She then personally called Mr. Epstein's largest and most 
valued business client without any basis to inform him of the investigation. 
In an attempt to prevent further persecution and intimidation tactics. we proposed that 
Mr. Epstein establish a restitution fund specifically for the settlement of the identilied 
individuals' civil claims and that an impartial, independent representative be appointed to 
administer that fund. There was no dollar amount limit discussed Ibr the fund, hut the idea was 
still rejected. We then pointed out that the state charges to which Mr. Epstein was to plaid guilty 
• 
h it a state restitution provision that would allow "victims" to recover damages. 
owever, rejected this idea and suggested requiring a guardian ad !item. implying that 
" When asked whether De 
(Moil of Justice polices reganling coordination with stow imihorliies had been 
followed 
• ve no response other than Mating. - it is none of your concern.-
; In fact 
a former deputy to 
hu% muted dial she knew of no other caw like this 
being prosecub. 
y l. :OS. With that in mind. we welcome the opportunity t0 review the extensive research 
that CEOS has clone, as indicated by your Office. 
EFTA00214309

12/11/2007 11 43 FAX 
Ri021/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
December 11.2007 
Page 18 
the alleged "victims" in question were currently minors and waled special representation. We 
later learned that the government's list of individuals included a woman as old as twenty-four. 
which flies in the face of prior representations (it should be noted that any person who is 
currently twenty four years old or older could not have been a - victim- under 18 U.S.C. t 2255. 
even if the conduct occurred in 2001). A 
insistence, the parties ultimately 
agreed to the appointment of an attorney representative. hut 
then took the position 
that Mr. lipstein should pay for the representative's fees. which effectively meant that Mr. 
Epstein must pay to sue himsell.3
also proposed wholly irrelevant charges such as making obscene phone 
calls and violations of child privacy laws. When Mr. Lunde learned of these proposed charges 
he asked Mr. Epstein's defense team to ignore them as they would "embarrass the Office.-
D. 
Continually And Purposefully Misinterpreted The Critical 
Terms u 1 lc Aareentent. 
Since the execution of the Agreement 
has repeatedly misconstrued the 
terms contained therein. As you know. several facets of this mailer have been highly contested 
by the panics. We sometimes have obtained two competing views as to your willingness to 
compromise on specific issues that we have raised with your Office. In particular, there arc 
t• 
• 
• we have received verbal agreement hum you or your stall (and sometimes from Ms. 
herselt) on a particular issue. only to subsequently receive a contradictory 
interpretation from 
that negates our prior common understanding. 
tier 
misinterpretations appear to be attempts to effectively change the spirit and the meaning of the 
Non-Prosecution Agreement. We offer several examples of significant misinterpretations. 
First. despite the fact that we received several commitments from your Office that it 
would monitor Mr. Epstein's state sentencing but not interfere with it in any way. 
sought to do just that. 
decision to utilize a civil remedy statute in the pin of a 
restitution fund for the a es 
vie ems eliminates the notification requirement under the Justice 
for All Act of 2004. a federal law that requires federal authorities to notify victims as to any 
available restitution. not of any potential civil remedies to which they are entitled. Despite this 
fact, 
ced a Victims Notification letter to he sent to the alleged federal 
victims. 
has gone even further. alleging that the "victims" may make written 
statements or testily against Mr. Epstein at the sentencing. We bind no basis in law or the 
Agreement that pmvides the identified individuals with either a right to appear at Mr. E.pstein's 
plea and sentence or to submit a written statement to he filed by the State Attorney. Here. Mr. 
" this an.intentena does not put dose alieged "victims' in the mine position ;is they would hens heen had Mr. 
Epstein been convicted at trial - in fact, they hire Much WWI' Olt 
EFTA00214310