EFTA00214291

12/11/2007 11:44 FAX 
a 
022/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I. 2007 
Page 19 
Epstein is pleading guilty to. and being sentenced Dix. state offenses. not the federal offenses 
tinder which the government has unilaterally recognized these identified individuals as - victims". 
The notion that individuals whose names are not event known to the charging prosecutor in a 
state action should somehow be allowed to speak at a proceeding is unjustifiable. 
Furthermore. only after obtaining the executed Agreement did 
begin 
insisting that the selected re re.• • - 
•'sduties go beyond settlement and include litigating 
claims for individuals. In 
Victims Notification lever, she states that Mr. 
limilturst and Mr. Josefsberg. the selected attorney representatives. may "represent" the identified 
individuals. This tango a 
•a 
• • 
at the selected representatives will agree to serve in the 
capacity envisioned by 
which is patently incorrect. Vet, neglecting the spirit of 
the negotiations: neglecting the terms of the Agreement: and neglecting commonly-held 
principles of ethics with respect to confliels,
ontinues m improperly emphasize 
that the chosen attorney representative should he able to litigate the claims of individuals. 
In a similar fashion. 
has overstated the scope of Mr. Epstein's waiver of 
liability pursuant to the Agreement. 
began asserting that Mr. Epstein has waived 
liability even when claims with the identified individuals arc not settled just after the execution 
of the Agreement. Despite the fact that at that time. we obtained an agreement from you that Mr. 
Epstein's waiver would not stretch past ;with:mem. 
continues to espouse this 
erroneous interpretation. 
F.. 
an The Settlement PrsSess. 
We are concerned that 
has repeatedly attempted to manipulate the process 
under which Mr. Epstein has a 
to sett e civil claims. First. she inappropriately attempted to 
nominate !lambert "Hen" Oeariz for attorney representative. despite the fact that Mr. Oeariz has 
a longstanding relationship with 
friend and law school classmate of 
from counsel. We also learned from 
Mr. Ocariz turns out to he a very good personal 
boyfriend. a fact she assiduously kepi hidden 
that she shared with Ocariz the summary• of 
charges the government was considenng against 
r. Epstein. Even after your O 
that it was inappmpriatc for its attorneys to select the attorney representative. 
continued to lobby for Mr. Ocariz's appointment. On October 19.2007, retired Ju ge 
wan. 
Davis. who was appointed by the parties to select the attorney representative. informed Mr. 
Epstein's counsel that he received a telephone call from Mr. Ganz directly requesting that 
Judge Davis appoint him as the attorney representative in this matter. 
Furthenunre. federal interference continues to plague the integrity of the implementation 
of the Agreement. We recently learned that despite the fact that there was no communication 
hctwecn state and federal authorities as m the investigation of Mr. Epstein. the FBI visited the 
State Attorney's Office two weeks ago to request that Mr. Epstein he disqualified to participate 
in work release even though the Agreement mandates that Mr. Epstein be treated as any other 
inmate. 
EFTA00214311

12/11/2007 11.44 FAX 
a 
023/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS Lit 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 11. 2007 
Page 20 
III. 
CONCLUSION 
In sum, we request that you review the evidence supporting the prosecution of Mr. 
Epstein. Such a review would serve to address similar concerns as those raised in Heady v. 
Maryland. which mandate the disclosure of evidence material to guilt or innocence even after the 
execution of an Agreement to enter a plea of guilty. See 373 U.S. 83 (1963). We 
"prosecution team" was informed by its witnesses (including persons other the 
and 
who arc discussed at length above) that Mr. Epstein's practice was to see 
women older than 18 rather than targeting those under 18. We wmtld expect, for instance, that 
a key witness whose interview with the FBI was recorded, would have provided 
sue exonerating intimation us well as many others. We would also expect the review to 
uncover clear evidence that demonstrates that Mr. Epstein did not travel to Florida for the 
purpose of having illegal underage sex nor that he induced underage women by using the 
Internet or the phones. 
Furthermore. we ask you to consider whether there is reliable evidence nut just that Mr. 
Epstein had sexual contact with witnesses who were in fact underage hut whether the allegations 
arc based on trustworthy (and corroborated) evidence that (i) Mr. Epstein knew that the fetnale(s) 
in question was under I8 at the time of the sexual contact. (ii) Mr. Epstein traveled to his home 
in Palm Beach kir the purpose of having such sexual contact to the extent the allegation charges 
a violation of IX U.S.C. § 2423(h) and (c) Mr. Fpstein induced such sexual contact by using an 
instrumentality of interstate commerce to the extent the allegations charge a violation of IS 
U.S.C. § 2422(b) (there is no evidence of Internet solicitation which is the norm upon which 
'Wend jurisdiction is usually modeled under this statute). We believe that the information we 
provide to you in this submission will be informative and spark a motivation to gain more 
information with respect to the investigation of this matter. 
Again, we are not seeking to unwind the Agreement: we arc only seeking for you to 
exercise your discretion in directing that an impartial and respected member of your Office test 
the evidence upon which the droll federal indictment was based against the "hest evidence." 
including the transcripts of the tape recorded pre-federal involvement interviews. 
Finally. I would like to reiterate our appreciation for the opportunity you have provided 
to review *nine of our issues and concerns. I look forward to speaking with you shortly. 
Sincerely. 
i'M i  ,/` 
4/4 
' ay4). Lefkoyit7 
EFTA00214312

12/11/2007 11:44 FAX 
/11024/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LL(' 
Jo. V Letkowk2, P C 
In C.II WI' lief Directly, 
lelkowitzekoklinx1.cern 
VIA FAC:SI M 11,N: (305) 530-6444 
Ilonorable K. Alexander 
United States Attorney 
United Stab Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 Nli 4th Street 
Miami, EL 33132 
Dear Alex. 
*10) MOILIATED pAsitionnin 
Ca"YOUP Cowie. 
153 Cast 53n1 Sweet 
Now York. Now York 10022-4611 
(212).440.1500 
www.lorkland corn 
December I I. 2007 
Re: 
Gµgrin 
FOcoonllo 
I thank you lbr the opportunity to express my concerns with the Section 2255 component 
of the Non-Prosmution Agreement (1he "Agreement"). I pmvidc this submission as a good faith 
enbrt to communicate nll or our concerns on this matter. I respectfully request that you consider 
the issues I discuss below in conjunction with the ethics opinion of Mr. Joe D. Whitley that 1 
fared to your Office on December 7. 
Background of Negotiations 
I believe it is important fix you to he aware of the full scope and substance of our 
communications with your Office with respect to first, the negotiations regarding the inclusion of 
the Section 2255 component and second. the process of implementation of its terms. Contrary to 
your Office's view, we do not raise our concerns about the Section 2233 component of the 
Agreement at the "eleventh hour." Since the very first negotiation of the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement between the USAO and Mr. Epstein. we have verbalized our objections to the 
inclusion of and specific language relating to Section 2255. 
Also. when negotiating the 
settlement portion of the federal plea aµreement. we immediately sought an alternative to the 
2255 language. In fact. for the sake of expediting any monetary settlements that were to he made 
and to allow for a quick resolution of the matter. 'se repeatedly Mimed that Mr. Epstein establish 
a restitution fund specifically for the settlement of the identified individuals' civil claims and that 
an impartial, independent representative be appointed to administer that fund. This option. 
however. was rejected by your Office. Notably, while in our December 4 letter to me. you 
indicate that the reason for the rejection of a fund was because it would place an upper limit on 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
LonOun 
Us Amain 
Wroth 
San Francs= 
Washington. D.C. 
EFTA00214313

12/11/2007 11. 05 FAX 
a 025/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December I I. 2007 
Page 2 
the victims' recovery, we placed no such limit on the amount that the alleged victims could 
recover. 
Our objections regarding the Section 2235 component of the Agreement began as early as 
August 2 when. after receiving the LISAO's proposed Non-Prosecution Agreement. we 
suggested that the 2255 component of the Agreement could be satisfied by the creation of 
restitution fund: 
. . .Mr. Epstein is prepared to hilly fund the identified Emit of victims which arc die focus of the 
Office — that is. the 12 individuals noted ai the meeting on July it, 2007. This would idlow the 
victims to be able to promptly put this behind them and go ftwwards with their lives. Ilsgivcii the 
opportunity to opine as to the appropriateness of Mr. Fostein's proposal, in my extensive 
experience in these types or caws. tbe victims prefer a quick resolution with compensation for 
damages and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need fur trial. 
See letter from Lily Ann Sanchez to 
dated August 2. 2007.1 For the 
duration of the negotiations, we then continued to encourage the use of a restitution fund in place 
of civil liability under Section 2255. For example. in our draft plea agreement sent to your 
Office on September 16. 2007. we included the following paragraph: 
Epstein agrees to fund 3trust set up in concert with the Government and under the supervision of 
the IS' Judicial Circuit in and for Palm 'leach County. F.pswin agrees dial a Trioace will be 
appointed by die Circuit Conn and that lunch from the Trust will be available to he disbursed at 
the -looter's discretion to un agreed list of persons who seek reimbursement and make a good 
faith showing to the Tomei: that they suffered injury as a result of the conduct of Epstein. 
Lipstein waives his right to contest liability ur damages up to an amount agreed to by Ilse panics 
for any settlements entered into by the Trustee. Eivaenrs waiver is not to he construed as an 
acluu.eiawl of civil or criminal battiky in regards to any of those who seek emispensalion from the 
Trust. 
See draft proposal sent from Jay Lclkowitz to Andrew I.oude dated September 15. 2007. In 
response, 
demanded that the Agreement contain language considering the 
inclusion of a guardian ad litem in the proceedings. despite the fact that, we an: now led to 
believe that all but one of the women in question are in fact not minors. Interestingly. Ms. 
not only raises the same concerns that now have become issues with respect to the 
implementation of the Section 2255 cum mem, she also believes that the creation of a trust 
would be in the victims' best interests. 
writes: 
It was not until abide receipt of this letter that 
indicated to us that the scope of liability would 
encompass mu just die 12 individuals minted in the indictment, but "all or the minor girls identified during the 
federal investigation." Sc,
e-mail to Sanchez dated August 3, 2007. 
EFTA00214314

12/11/2007 11:45 FAX 
it 026/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page 3 
As I menliimed over the telephone. I cannot bind the girls to the Trust Agreement, and I don't 
think it Is ammtriate that a state court would administer 11 mist that seeks to pay for ledend civil 
claims. IFe Mob mum to (mad unscrupulous attorneys diktat liiigaius Fans consIngivneant and 
buns that your client wants to Leer there matters outside of public coort.lilings. hot I ilea don't 
have the power to do what you ask. Here is my recommendation. During die period between Mr. 
Epstein's plea and sentencing. I make a motion for appoitanwnt of the Guardian Ad 1.itcm. 'the 
three of us sit clown and discuss things, and / will fac)iinny in ninth as I can getting the itiris' 
approved of this primedger !Penrose. as I Ittemitmed I thinA It is prahahly in their hest aileron. 
In terms of plea agreement language, let me suggest the following: 
Tlw 1 hilted Stales agrees to make a motion seeking the appointment of a Guardian ml I.item to 
represent the identified victims. Following the App oiniment of such Guardian. the parties agree to 
work together in good faith to develop a Trust Agreement. subject to the Cnurt's approval. that 
would provide liw any rk   ages owed to the Windiest victims PIII:41131111 III IS ILS.C. Section 
2255. Then include die last Iwo sentences of your paragraph It 
See email froir
to letkowitz dated Sc tenther lb. .2007 (emphasis added). I lowever. 
notably. in the drat) agreement that follows. 
keeps the same objectionable 
language and only adds a portion of what was suggested in her communication to us: 
Epstein agrees that. if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant 
to IS U.S.C. 9 2255,, Epstein will not contest die jurisdiction of the U.S. ISistriet Court for the 
Southern District at Florida over his person amkor the subject mailer, and Epstein will not contest 
that the identified victims arc penes who. while minors. were victims of violations urn*: Ill, 
United Slates Code. Sections(s) 2422 and:or 2123. 
The United States shall provide Errocin's anome,4 with a IS of the identified victims, which 
will not exceed luny. after Epstein has signed this agreement and has been sentenced. The 
I Mated States shall make a motion with the Linked Stales Uiarict Court tor die Southern ISistrict 
of Florida for the appointment of a guardian ad them for the identified victims and Epstein's 
counsel may contact Ow identified victims through that counsel. 
See draft non-pmsecution agreement e-mailed fro 
to Lelkowitz dated September I?. 
2007. the inclusion of a guardian ad 'them, however. on y served to complicate matters. We 
continued to reiterate our objections to the inclusion of § 2255 in the Agreement repeatedly. as 
evidenced in an email from 
to myself on September 23. 2005 where she writes: 
"we have been over paragraph 6 'the then relevant 2255 paragraphl an infinite number of times." 
During negotiations. it was decided that an attorney representative be appointed in the place of a 
guardian ad Mem -- not for the sake of litigating claims. but based on the belief that a µuardian 
ad litem would not be appropriate for adults that arc capable of making their own decisions. 
I lowever. the IISA 
• 
• 
•tl into the Agreement that we pay for the attorney representative —
when originally 
stated that the n:presrmative could he paid for by us or the federal 
court. Sec c-mail frona 
Lelkowitz dated September 23. 2007. 
EFTA00214315

12/11/2007 11:45 FAX 
t 027/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS Lir 
R. Alexander Acosta 
I)cecmhcr I I. 2007 
l'age 4 
the final agreement was very similar to what was proposed b. 
in her initial 
draft agreement on July 31. 2007: 
the United States shall provide Epstein's attorney's w ilh a list of individuals whom it his 
identified as victims, as delined in III U.S.C. ✓; 2255. alter Epstein has signed this agroment and 
has been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States. in consultation with 
and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel. shall select an attorney representative 
for these persons. who shall be paid for by Epstein. Lpstein's counsel may contact the identified 
individuals through that represcntaiive. 
If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), septa. elects In file suit pursuant to It 
§ 2255. Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court fur the 
Southern District of Florida over this person and'or the subject matter. and Epstein waives his 
right In coolest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as allecil to 
between the identified individual anal Epstein. so king as the identified individual elects to 
poicectl exclusively under IS U.S.C. § 2255. and agrees to waive any other claim for damages. 
whether pursuant to slate. federal. or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those 
individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United Statc.s. Epstein's signature on 
ibis agreement. huts waivers and failures in contest liability and such damages in any suit are Iloilo 
he construed us an admission or any criminal or civil liability. 
See final plea agreement. The Agreement requires Mr. Epstein to waive jurisdiction and liability 
under IR U.S.C. §2255 for the settlement of any monetary claims that might be made by alleged 
victims identified by tlw USAO (the "identified individuals"). Mr. Epstein is precluded from 
contesting liability as to civil lawsuits seeking monetary compensation for damages for those 
identified individuals who elect to stole the civil claims for the statutory minimum of either 
$50.000 (the amount set by Congress as of the date of the occurrences) or $130.000 (the amount 
currently set by statute) or some other agreed upon damage amount. Mr. Epstein must pay for 
the services of the selected attorney representative :as long as they are limited to settling the 
claims of the. identified individuals. 
The implementation of the icons of the Agreement was just as contentious as was the 
dialling and ne 
'• 
s this portion of the Agreement. The first major obstacle was a direct 
result of 
improper attempt to appoint. Mr. Bert Dean?. a close, person friend of 
her boyfriend's for the role of attorney representative. We objected in the strongest terms to 
such an appointment due to our serious concerns regarding the luck of independence of this and 
the appearance of impropriety caused by this choice. As n result. the LISA° drafted tin 
addendum to the Agreement. This addendum provides fur the use of an independent third party 
to select the attorney representative and also specifies that Mr. Epstein is not obligated to pay the 
cost of litigation against him. Upon the decision that we would appoint an independent party to 
choose the attorney representative. we were engaged in consistent and constant dialogue with 
your shift as to the precise: language that would he transmitted to the independent party to explain 
his or role. 
EFTA00214316

12/11/2007 11 46 FAX 
029/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
Decemhcr I I. 2007 
Page 5 
At each juncture. the inclusion of a civil remedy in the Agreement has resulted in 
unending debates and disagreements with respect to the appropriate manner in which to 
implement the terms of the Section 2255 component. The main issues that have arisen since the 
dialling and execution of the final agreement include the process flit the selection of an attorney 
representative: the scope of Mr. Epstein's waiver of liability and jurisdiction: the role of the 
attorney representative: the language contained in various drafts of the Iota to the independent 
third party: the correct amount of minimum damages pursuant to Section 2255: the extent and 
substance of communications between the witnesses and alleged victims and the USA° and the 
FBI, particularly with respect to the settlement process: the language contained in the lends 
proposed to be sent to the alleged victims: and the extent of continued federal involvement in the 
state procedures of Mr. Epstein's state plea and sentence. 
Notably. neither Section 2255. nor any other civil remedy statute, has been used as a pre-
requisite to criminal plea agreement and it is dear that the use of these terms creates 
unanticipated issues. Furthermore. the waiver of rights of which the b 
AO insisted is also not a 
traditional aspect of criminal resolutions. While we were reluctant and cautious about a Non-
Prosecution Agreement in which a criminal defendant gives up certain rights to contest liability 
for a civil settlement, we did not believe them was room ay contention given the USAO's, and 
specifically 
ultimatums that required that we acquiesce to these unprecedented 
terms. 
Concerns Regarding Section 2255 
Mr Epstein unconditionally re-asserts his intention to WWII and not seek to withdraw 
from or unwind the Agreement previously entered. Ile raises important issues regarding the 
implementation of the 2255 provisions not to unwind the provisions or invalidate the Agreement 
but instead to call attention to serious matters of policy and principles that you are requested to 
review. 
As you will see below our main policy-related concerns are ( I ) the inclusion of Section 
2255. a civil remedies statutes in a criminal plea agreement. (2) the blanket waiver of jurisdiction 
and liability as to certain unidentified individuals to whose claims the government has asserted 
they take no position, and (3) any communications between federal authorities, including your 
staff and the Fill, and witnesses and alleged victims and the nature of such communications. 
With respect to the interpretation of the terms of the Agreement. we do not agree with your 
Office's intetpretation of the expansive scope of Mr. Epstein's agreement to waive liability and 
jurisdiction. Nor do we agree with your Office's view of the expansive role of the attorney 
representative. Below. I describe first, the policy implications and the practical problems that 
these terns have created or will create Second. I describe points ol' contention us to the 
interpretation of various terms of the Section 2255 component of the Agreement. 
EFTA00214317

12/11/2007 11.46 FAX 
029/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page 6 
1. 
Policy Considerations 
The inclusion of Section 2255 in a criminal plea agreement is unprecedented and raises 
significant policy-related concerns. Some of these issues can create and have created problems 
us to the ability of this component to (1) maintain the integrity and independence of the USA°. 
(2) serve its purpose. namely to provide fair and appropriate recovery to any victims in a prompt 
fashion, and (3) protect the rights of the defendant. While we appreciate your consideration of 
our concerns described below, we arc also conlickm that your commitment to justice and 
integrity will cause you to consider any additional policy and ethical issues that the Section 2255 
component raises. 
A. 
Government Involvement 
The inclusion of Section 2255. a purely civil remedy. raises the risk of excessive 
government interference in private, civil matters. As Mr. Whitley states in his opinion. 
. 
.tninectmary entanglement of the government in such cases and the use of federal resources 
could improperly influence such cases and create the appearance of impropriety.' It is well 
established that the government should refrain from getting invoked in lawsuits. I lowever, to 
include Section 2255 in a federal agrccmcnl inherently exacerbates the risk of federal 
involvement in civil litigation and thus far, in practice, the inclusion of this statute, as opposed to 
the creation of a restitution fund, has resulted in continued li:deral involvement in this matter. 
Federal criminal investigators and pn)secutnrs should not be in the business of helping 
alleged victims of state crimes secure civil financial settlements us a condition precedent to 
entering non-prosecution nr deferred prosecution agreements. 'Phis is especially true where the 
defendant is pleading to state crimes for which there exists u state stanne allowing victims to 
recover damages. See Florida Statutes Z 796.09. The fact that state law accounts for the ability 
of victims to recover truly eliminates the nerd for a waiver of liability under a federal statute. 
Furthermore, the vehicle for the financial settlement under the Agreement requires 
restitution in a lump sum without requiring proof of actual injury or loss 
federal authorities 
should therefore be particularly sensitive to avoid causing a prejudiced and unfair result. Sect ion 
2255 is a civil statute implanted in the criminal code that in contrast to all other criminal 
restitution statutes fails to correlate payments to specific injuries or losses and instead presumes 
that victims under the statute have sustained damages of at least a minimum lump sum without 
regard to whether the complainants suffered actual medical, psychological or other forms of 
individualized harm. We presume that it is for this reason that Section 2255 has never before 
been employed in this manner in connection with a nnmprosecution or deferred prosecution 
agreement. 
EFTA00214318

12/11/2007 11:47 FAX 
l030/089 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December I 1. 2007 
Page 7 
Mr. Epstein's blanket waiver of liability as to civil claims gives the appearance of 
impropriety. While your Office has, on several occasions, asserted that they take no position as 
to the claims of the individuals it identifies as "victims.- the fact that they continue to promote 
the award of a civil settlement to these individuals is problematic. As you know. government 
coronets and plea agreement must net diminish or undermine the integrity of the criminal justice 
system. See US. v. McGovern. 822 F.2d 739. 743 (8th Cir. 1987) ("A plea agreement. houvver. 
is not simply a contract between two panics. it necessarily implicates the integrity of the criminal 
justice system and requires the courts to exercise judicial authority in considering the plea 
agreement and in accepting or rejecting the plea.- ). The requirement that Mr. Lipstein blindly 
sacrifice his rights. as a civil litigant. to contest allegations made against him seem to contradict 
the principles of justice and fairness that arc embedded in the tenets of the United Slates 
Attorney's Office. 
I also assert that on both a principled and practical level, the mere involvement of your 
O1110: in the matter with respect to civil settlement is inappropriate. Even though we understood 
from you that federal involvement in this matter would cease after the attorney representative 
was selected, your Office continues to assert their obligation to he in contact with the alleged 
victims in this manor. Had we agreed to a restitution fund for the victims instead of the civil 
remedies provision, we would not have objected to your Office's communications with these 
individuals. However, because the alleged victims have the ability to recover damages based on 
a civil claim pursuant to the Agreement, we are concerned with your Office's ongoing efforts to 
stay involved in this matter. Contact with fixleral authorities at this point can only invite the 
possibility for impermissible or partial communications. Most recently, your Ollitx: sent us 
drafts of a letter that your Office proposed to send to the alleged victims (the "victim notification 
letter). While the revised draft of this letter slates that victims should contact the State 
Attorney's Office for assistance with their rights, there is no phone number provided for the 
office and instead the letter provides the telephone number and an invitation to contact Special 
Agent 
of the FBI. Indeed, the letter as currently drafted invites nut only 
contact between your Office and the victims, it also asserts that federal witnesses may become 
participants in a state proceeding. thus federalizing the state plea and sentencing in the same 
manner as would the appearance and statements of a member of your Office or the FB1.2
We arc concerned with the fact that some of the victims were previously notified. a. Mr. Jeffrey Stoma wale* in 
his terser of December 6 Idler In your letter of December 4. you state that )ou would not issue the Victim 
Notification Letter until December 7. 'I lax, it r troubling to learn that some victims Weft notified prior to that 
date. Please confirm when the victims were nod fled, who w a. notified. the method of communication for the 
notification, and tlx: individual who notified them 
EFTA00214319

12/11/2007 11:47 FAX 
a 031/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
K. Alexandcr Acosta 
December I I. 2607 
Pnge X 
The proposed victim notification letter asserts that the federal 'victims' have the right to 
appear at Mr. Epstein's plea and sentence or to submit a written statement to be filed by the State 
Attorney. However, as agreed to in the federal non-prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein will be 
pleading to mote churgvx and he will be sentenced tiff the commission of mate offenses. The 
'victims' the govenunent identifies relate only to the federal charges for which Mr. Epstein was 
under investigation. The draft victim notification letter cites Florida Statutes § 960.001(k) and 
921.143(1) as the authority lhr allowing the alleged victims to appor nr give statements. 
however these provisions apply only to the victim of the crime fur which the defendant is being 
sentenced . . . " Thus Florida law only affords victims of state crimes to appear or submit 
statements in criminal proceedings and the state charges for which Mr. Epstein will be sentenced 
are not coextensive with the federal investigation. Further. any questions at this point involving 
the charges against Mr. Epstein or the proper state procedures under which he will plead or be 
sentenced are appropriately made to the State Attorney's Office. 
Continued federal involvement in this mutter has led to an impropriety that was 
unanticipated us well. 
attempted to manipulate the terms of Mr. Epstein's 
settlement so that persons c ose to her would personally profit. 
inappropriately 
attempted to nominate Bert Ocariz for attorney representative, despite the fact that Mr. Minix 
turns out to be a very good personal friend of Ms. Villalana's boyfriend, a fact she assiduously 
kept hidden from counsel. We requested alternate choices immediately, hut were told that Mr. 
Outwit had been inlbnned of the charges the government would bring against Epstein and in 
response, he asked in an e-mail whether his fees would be capped. Needless to say. we were 
alarmed that 
would attempt to influence the settlement process on such improper 
grounds. An even a er t e MAO conceded that it was inappropriate for its attorneys to select 
the attorney representative, 
continued to improperly lobby for Mr. ()eoriz's 
appointment. On October 19, 2007, retired Judge Edward D. Davis, who was appointed by the 
parties to select the attorney representative. informed Mr. Epstein's counsel that he received a 
telephone call from Mr. Ocariz directly requesting that Judge Davis appoint him as the attorney 
representative in this matter. Although it is unclear how Mr. Ocariz even knows that Judge 
Davis has been chosen to administer the settlement. process, it can only he understood as Ms. 
attempts to compromise the lisirnicss of the settlement process. 
R. 
Integrity of the Process and the Legitimacy of the Claims 
The waiver of liability Mr. Epstein must make in relation to Section 2255 endangers the 
legitimacy of the claims made by the alleged victims. There is a heightened risk that the alleged 
victims will make false and exaggerated claims once they are informed of Mr. Epstein's waiver 
under Section 2255 for the settlement of claims pursuant to the Agreement. Indeed. Mr. Whitley 
states. " . . .the Department (of Justice) should consider developing processes and procedures to 
ensure that the investigative procims is insulated from such risks." It is also well settled that 
witnesses cannot be given any special treatment due to the fact that it may :Meet the reliability of 
EFTA00214320

12/11/2007 11:47 FAX 
032/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
It. Alexander Acosta 
Decetnber 11. 2007 
Page 9 
their testimony. Any and all communications between the federal authorities and the aliened 
"victims" and witnesses in this matter has the ability to influence the reliability of the testimony 
obtained and the validity of the civil settlements that result. 
Thus. there is still a real concern that mime of the statements that federal prosecutors 
relied upon in its prosecution of this matter may have been tainted. An inquiry is required to 
confirm that at the time witness statements were given. there were no communications made by 
federal agents regarding potential civil remedies. The government should not provide promises 
of guaranteed monetary settlements to encourage cooperation because they run the risk of 
seriously tainting the reliability of witness statements. While we by no means are accusing your 
Office of making improper communications at this point the fact that the award of a civil 
settlement, without any requirement to prove liability. is available to the identified individuals, 
raises cause Ibr concern as to the nature of all conununications that are made to the 'victims.' 
You previously stated that the IJSAO's main objective with respect to the Section 2255 
component of the Agreement was to -place the victims in the same position as they would have 
been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial." I lowcvcr. to accomplish this goal. your Office 
rejected using traditional terms that allow for the restitution of victims. Instead, your Office 
chose to insert itself into the negotiations. settlement, and potential litigation of a civil suit. With 
all due respect. we object to your Office's attempt to make the victims whole by requiring that 
Mr. Epstein deprive himself of rights accorded to him as a potential civil defendant. While we 
am aware one of the responsibilities of your Office is to provide lire restitution for victims of 
crimes. this does not give the government the responsibility to enable alleged victims to collect a 
civil settlement. 
Despite this concern, it should also he noted that, the Agreement, both as written and as 
interpreted by your Office significantly enlarges the victims' ability to recover from Mr. Epstein. 
For instance. if the individuals attempted to litigate against Mr. Epstein. they would have been 
determined to be victims only after a lengthy trial, in which they would have been thoroughly 
deposed. their credibility tested and their statements subject to cross-examination. 
The 
defendant, under these circumstances, would not have had pay the plaintiffs' legal fees. 
Moreover, these individuals would face significant evidentiary hurdles, unwanted publicity, and 
most importantly, no certainty of success on the merits. Therefore. the notion that your Office is 
merely attempting to restore these - victims" to the same position as they would have been had 
Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial misunderstands the Agreement and your Office's 
implementation or its terms. 
C. 
Rights of a Defendant 
Requiring Mr. Epstein to make a blanket waiver of liability and jurisdiction as to 
unidentified victims whose claims to which the government takes no position can be construed as 
EFTA00214321

12/11/2007 11:48 FAX 
ei 033/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
K. Alexander Acosta 
December I 1.2007 
Page 10 
violative of his Due Process rights. Furthermore. the fact that the statute at issue in this matter 
does not connect harm to the minimum amount available to the victim and simply includes a 
lump sum exacerbates the potential for injustice and an abridgement of Mr. Epstein
 
's rights. At 
the very least. Mr. Epstein should be given the right to know the identity of the victims and the 
evidence upon which each one was identified as a victim by the government. 
The USAO has proyidiai no information us to the specific claims that were made by each 
identified individual, nor were we given the names or ages of tlx: individuals or the time-trame 
of the alleged conduct at issue. 
the t!SAO's reluctance to provide Mr. Epstein with any 
information regarding the allegations against him leaves wide open the opportunity IS 
misconduct by the federal investigators and eliminates the ability for Mr. Epstein and/or his 
agents to verily that the allegations at issue are grounded in factual assertions and real evidence. 
Indeed, the requirement that a target of ledend criminal prosecution agree to waive his right to 
contest liability as to unnamed civil complainants mates at minimum an appearance of injustice, 
both because of the obvious Due Process concerns of waiving rights without notice of even the 
identity of the complainant and because of the involvement of the federal criminal justice system 
in civil settlements between private individuals. We reaffirm the right to test the veracity of the 
victims' claims as provided to us in the letter from you to Judge Davis dated October 25. 2007. 
"victim" Mr purposes of Section 2255 relict: 
II has recently come to our attention that our staffhas identifi 
as a 
•ho initially 
fused to 
cooperate with federal authorities during the course of the investigation. only submitted to an 
interview after she was conferred with a grunt of immunity. Surd this is not a demand typically 
made by someone who is a crime - vie iii". Moreover 
sworn testimony does not 
suggest that she is a victim. 
has not only admitted that she lied to Mr. Lipstein about 
her age claimi 
• • 
X years old, but that she counseled others to lie to Mr. Epstein in the 
same manner.
also states that Mr. Epstein was clear with her that he was only 
interested in "women" who were ol'age and that most of the stun g women she brought to his 
home were in
 over IS years of age. Moreover. whilt 
claims to have provided 
massages to Mr. Epstein. she does not allege to have engaged in sexual intercourse with Mr. 
Epstein: does not claim she provided him with oral sex: does not purport that Mr. Epstein 
penetrated her in any manner, denies Mr. Epstein ever used a vibrator, massager. or any type of 
"sex toy" on her: denies he touched her breasts. buttocks, or vagina: and states that she never 
touched Mr. Epstein's sexual organs -- no w s s e asked to du so by Mr. I tpsicin. Without a 
right to contest the liability of claims 
•ill likely receive fur more in civil damages 
than what would he she would have had Mr. Epstein been convicted. 
In addition, the Agreement with the MAO only defers federal prosecution of Mr. 
Epstein: it does not assert a declination to prosecute. as was first contemplated in the negotiation 
of the Agreement. Any payments made and/or settlement agreements reached with the alleged 
EFTA00214322

12/11/2007 11:48 FAX 
1034/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLI' 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December I I, 2007 
Page I I 
victims prior to the foreclosure of any future federal prosecution carries the potential of being 
used as evidence against Mr. Epstein. 'thus. to protect his rights as a defendant. Mr. Epstein 
should not be required to pay any of the alleged victims until after the threat of prosecution no 
longer exists. 
II. 
Misinterpretations of the Agreement 
The contentiousness caused by the implementation of the Section 2255 portion of the 
Agreement has also been caused by what we believe are misinterpretations of the terms by your 
Office. These problems, which I describe below. are a practical outgrowth of the fact that civil 
settlement, as opposed to restitution. is considered in the Agreement. 
A. 
Rule of the Attorney Representative 
The USA() has improperly emphasized that ihe chosen attorney representative should he 
able to litigate the claims of individuals, which violates the terms, and deeply infringes upon the 
spirit and nature of. the Agreement. However. after the panics agreed to the appointment of an 
independent third party to select the representative, the government announced that the criteria 
for choosing an appropriate attorney representative would include that they be "a plaintiff's 
lawyer capable of handling multiple lawsuits against high profile attorneys." This interpretation 
of the scope or the attorney representative's role is 11w outside the common understanding that 
existed when we negotiated Mr. Epstein's settlement with the USAO. Moreover. we have made 
the LISA° aware of the potential ethical problems that would arise should the selected 
representative be allowed to litigate and settle various claims against Mr. Epstein. The initial 
draft victim notification law contained language that confirmed your Office's interpretation and 
indicated that Mr. Podhurst and Mr. Josershrog, the selected attorney representatives. may 
"represent" the identified individuals. This language assumes that the selected representatives 
will agree to serve in the capacity envisioned by the liSAO. which we believe is patently 
incorrect. To suggest this notion in a letter to victims who have limited or no knowledge of the 
ethical principles at issue will only lead to confusion, misunderstanding and disappointment 
among the identified individuals when they learn that such representation is foreclosed. 
R. 
Scope of Mr. Epstein's Waiver 
Your Office has taken the position that Mr. Epstein waives liability beyond the settlement 
of claims and that he will waive liability even in lawsuits brought by the identified individuals. 
However. this overstates the scope of Mr. Epstein's waiver pursuant to the Agreement. Mr. 
Epstein has only agreed that he will waive the right to contest liability and jurisdiction for the 
purpose of settling claims with the alleged victims pursuant to Sections 7 through 8 of the 
Agreement and Addendum. Mr. Epstein has no obligation to waive this right to contest liability 
EFTA00214323

12/11/2007 11:49 FAX 
5095/099 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
K. Alexander Acosta 
December 11, 2007 
Page 12 
in any claim For damages • • by an enumerated "victim- or anyone else - where that puny fails to 
settle her claims pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. The revised dealt of the letter avoids 
this misinterpretation and directly quotes Paragraphs 7, & 9 and 10 of the Agreement. While we 
do not have any objection to including this portion of the Agreement in the proposed letter, we 
request that Paragraphs 7A. 7T). and 7C of the Addendum to the Agreement also be included 
because the language contained there in most clearly outlines the scope of Mr. limtein's 
obligation to pay damages under the Agreement. 
C. 
Right of the Alleged Victims to Be Notified 
As woe have expressed to you previously, we do not agree with your (Mice's assertion 
that it is either an obligation and even appropriate fin the LISA° to send a victims notification 
letter to the alleged victims. The Justice lin All Act of 2004 only contemplates notification in 
relation to available restitution for the victims of crimes. However, since Section 2255 is only 
one of many civil remedies, there is no requirement that the LISA° inform alleged victims 
pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. Notably, if the USA() had agreed to include a 
restitution fund in the Agreement as opposed to a civil remedy statute, the alleged victims would 
have tlx: right to be notified pursuant to the relevant Act. 
Further. we note that the reasons you cite in favor of issuing the proposed Victims 
Notification letter in your correspondence of December 4 arc also inapplicable to this scenario. 
For instance, you cite IS U.S.C. § 3771 for the proposition that your Office is obligated to 
provide certain notices to the alleged victims. However. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(02) & (3) provide: 
A crime victim has the hallowing rights: 
Ct) The right u, reasotsuble, accurate. and timely notice of any public coon proceeding. or say 
parole proceeding, involving die crime or any release or escape of the accused. 
131 the right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding. utiles% the court, after 
Ix-toying clear and convincing evidence. determines that testimony by the victim would he 
materially altered lithe victim heard other testimony at abc proceeding. 
(emphasis added). Your interpretation of § 3771 is erroneous because the rights conferred by the 
statute indicate that these rights are for the notification and appearance at public proceedings 
involving the crime tor which the relevant individual is a victim. As you know, the public 
proceeding in this matter will be in stale court for the purpose of the entry of a plea on state 
charges. Therefore, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 clearly does not apply to - victims-  who are not state 
"victims." You additionally cite your Office's obligations under § 3771(c)( I) of the Justice for 
All Act of 2004. Irowdier, this subsection relates bad: to the "rights described in subsection 
(a)." Thus, since the rights set forth in subsection (a) only apply to the victims of the crimes fur 
EFTA00214324

12/11/2007 11.49 FAX 
ci 089/098 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
fkeember I I.2007 
Page 13 
which the public proceeding is being held. the individuals identified by your Office have no 
rights to notification or appearance wider this Act. 
You further cite 42 U.S.C. 
10607(cX1)O3) and (cX3) which. you state. obligates your 
Office to inform victims of -arty restitution or other relief' to which that victim may be entitled 
and of notice of the status of the investigation: the filing of charges against a suspected offender. 
and the acceptance of a plea. Although we do not believe this applies here tier the same reasons 
stated above. we further assert that your pmposed Victims Notification letter seeks to go beyond 
what is prescribed under 42 U.S.C'. 
10607. Indeed, there is nothing in the statute that requires 
your Office to solicit witness testimony or statements Ibr the purposes of Mr. Epstein's 
sentencing hearing. Furthermore, we assert that any notification obligation you believe you have 
under this statute should be addressed by Judge Davis. 
We submit to you based on the policy concerns of including a civil remedies statute in a 
criminal agreement and requiring the waiver of a defendants' rights under that agreement creates 
a host of pmhlems that. in this case. have led to a serious delay in achieving finality to the 
satisthetion of all parties :Mewed. We appreciate your consideration of these issues and hope 
that we can find a solution that resolves our concerns. 
Sincerely. 
EFTA00214325