EFTA00225378

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
See Tab I, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 4, 1 1. 
The Truth: 
• 
The defense engaged in days of negotiation and made 14 separate substantive objections 
to the unprecedented notification letter that Mr. Sloman threatened to send to an 
undisclosed list of "victims." The eventual transmission of this highly misleading letter 
was only halted by an appeal to AAG Fisher. Among those substantive objections 
(which related to far more than the "time and place" of the state's sentencing hearing) 
were: 
o Sending the letter would contravene the government's commitment to take no 
position regarding potential claims of government witnesses. 
See Tab 39, 
November 28, 2008 Email from J. Lefkowitz to J. Sloman. 
o The letter cited to an inapplicable statute (the Justice for All Act of 2004) as its 
justification for being sent. Id. AUSA Acosta later conceded that the citation to 
this statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. 
o The letter wrongly advised all recipients that Mr. Epstein would be required to 
register as "a sexual predator for the remainder of this life." 
o The letter amounted to an invitation to civil litigation against Mr. Epstein, 
advising recipients that they had the right to seek civil damages from Mr. Epstein, 
and in an underlined instruction, stated that if they chose an attorney other than 
the one chosen by the government they would be required to pay his fees, but if 
they chose the government's choice, Mr. Epstein would be required to pay the 
fees. 
3. 
MISCIIARACEERIZATION OF OUR ARGUMENTS. 
Mr. Sloman's Letter: 
• 
Mr. Sloman's letter misleadingly characterizes our substantive defense of the 
government's investigation as, "the investigation merely produced evidence of relatively 
innocuous sexual conduct with some minors who, unbeknownst to Mr. Epstein, 
misrepresented their ages." 
See Tab I, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 2. 
The Truth: 
• We never made such a claim. To the contrary, we argued that sworn statements we have 
taken of the alleged victims demonstrate that law enforcement has presented versions of 
their testimony that are necessarily sensationalized and fictionalized. 
We presented 
3 
RFP MIA 000433 
EFTA00225658

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
■ 
The defense immediately raised concerns regarding the non-independence 
of the review when told that it would be Mr. Oosterbaan tasked with 
providing the review, but was told that when Mr. Oosterbaan rendered his 
prior opinion, "he was not really up to speed on the facts" 
o CEOS' review was not de novo: 
• By letter dated May 15, 2008 (four days before Mr. Sloman's letter), Mr. 
Oosterbaan advised Mr. Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the matter only 
for abuse of discretion: 
alhe question we sought to answer was whether U.S. 
Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he 
authorized prosecution in this case. 
See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from D. Oosterbaan, p. I (emphasis 
added). 
See also, id., p. 2 ("Mr. Acosta would not be abusing his 
discretion if he decided to pursue such a course of action.'); and p. 5 
("Mr. Acosta would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he 
authorized federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein."). 
• For the factual record of its "abuse of discretion" review, CEOS relied on 
the very same prosecution memo that it had already reviewed in rendering 
its prior opinion, stating: 
As you know, our review of this case is limited, both factually and 
legally. We have not looked at the entire universe of facts in this 
case. 
See Id., p. 1 (emphasis added). 
• Nor did CEOS review any facts related to the irregular provisions in the 
Deferred Prosecution Agreement or the numerous complaints of 
prosecutorial misconduct, both of which are inextricably intertwined with 
the impropriety of the investigation. Id. at 1. 
2. 
NOTIFICATION OF WITNESSES. 
Mr. Sloman's Letter: 
• Mr. Sloman dismissed the totality of the defense's objections to the inappropriate 
notification the SDFL proposed to send to its witnesses, stating merely that: 
"[Y]ou objected to victims['] being notified of time and place of Epstein's 
stateNcourt sentencing hearing." 
2 
RFP MIA 000432 
EFTA00225659

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Response to Letter by FAUSA Sloman Dated May 19, 2008 
In a May 19, 2008 letter to Jay Lelkowitz (See Tab I), SDFL First Assistant U.S. 
Attorney Jeffrey Sloman provided what purported to be a summary of the events that have 
occurred during the investigation of Mr. Epstein. 
Mr. Sloman's letter is fraught with 
inconsistencies, false and misleading characterizations and outright falsehoods. The comparison 
below between the false assertions in Mr. Sloman's letter and what actually transpired is only the 
tip of the iceberg. We respectfully submit that Mr. Sloman's letter alone demonstrates the 
degree to which the record of facts have been distorted and these distortions have permeated this 
unprecedented investigation. 
1. 
"INDEPENDENT" AND "DE NOVO" REVIEW. 
Mr. Sloman's Letter: 
• 
"[W]e obliged your request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and 
facilitated such review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. " Tab 1, May 
19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 5, 1 3. 
The Truth: 
• 
CEOS' review, concluded in May 2008, was neither independent nor de novo. 
o CEOS' review was not "independent:" 
• Drew Oosterbaan, who conducted the review on behalf of CEOS, had 
already reviewed the prosecution memo on this matter eight months 
earlier. During a meeting with defense counsel at the United States 
Attorney's Office in Miami (the "USAO") in September of 2007, he 
opined that he so believed in the prosecution that he "would try the case 
myself" 
• Indeed, Mr. Sloman acknowledges that Mr. Oosterbaan had previously 
opined on this matter, stating: 
This particular attack on this statute [18 U.S.C. § 2242(b)) 
had been previously raised and thoroughly considered and 
rejected by . . . CEOS prior to the execution of the 
[Deferred Prosecution] Agreement [in September 2007]. 
Id., p. 5 (emphasis added). 
• The statute Mr. Sloman referred to (§ 2422(b)) lies at the heart of the 
Epstein investigation. Thus, according to Mr. Sloman, Mr. Oosterbaan 
was tasked with reviewing his own prior decision regarding applying the 
key statute under which the SDFL proposed prosecuting Mr. Epstein. 
Exhibit B-37 
RFP MIA 000431 
EFTA00225660

Gmail - Fw: confidential communication 
Page 4 of 4 
Letter from CEOS.TIF 
360K 
EFTA00225661

Gmail - Fw: confidential communication 
Page 3 of 4 
deliberately lied about their age because they knew Mr. Epstein did not want anyone under 18 
in his house directly undercuts the claim that Mr. Epstein willfully blinded himself as to their 
ages. Willful blindness is not a substitute for evidence of knowledge nor is it a negligence 
standard. It requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of deliberate intent and specific action to 
hide one's knowledge. There is absolutely no such evidence of that here, so it is not even a jury 
issue. Furthermore, willful ignorance cannot constitute the required mens rea for a crime of 
conspiracy or aiding and abetting. 
Through the recent witness statements, we have also discovered another serious issue that 
implicates the integrity of the federal investigation. We have learned that FBI Special Agent 
Kurkendayl attempted to convince these adult women, now in their twenties, that they were in 
fact "victims" even though the women themselves strongly disagreed with this characterization. 
This conduct, once again, goes to the heart of the integrity of the investigation. Ina sworn 
statement, Ms. 
was highly critical of the overreaching by federal law enforceMent officers 
in this case. She testified—in no uncertain terms—that she does not, and never did, feel like a 
"victim," despite the fact that the FBI repeatedly tried to convince her otherwise. 
I am mindful of the fact that we have a state court date of July 8 on which either to enter a plea 
or to commence trial. As I review the trial options with Mr. Epstein, I certainly want to make sure 
I do everything within my power to obviate a need for trial through a reasonable alternative 
resolution. Although it is clear that CEOS is not directing a prosecution here, and has stated 
only that you have the authority to commence such a prosecution, I am well aware that the 
decision whether to proceed, subject to any further process in Washington, is now within your 
discretion. I think the new facts should greatly influence your decision and accordingly, I hope 
you will agree to meet with me, both to discuss the new evidence and to discuss .a resolution to 
this matter once and for all: I am available to meet with you at your earliest convenience 
subject to our mutual availability. 
Respectfully, 
Jay._ 
****** 
***** 
************ 
***** 
** **** tr**** ************* 
** ***** 
The information contained in this communication is 
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may 
constitute inside information, and is intended only for 
the use of the addressee. It is the property of 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
• returrie-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
EFTA00225662

Gmail - Fw: confidential communication 
Page 2 of 4 
paragraph, that he cannot conclude that a prosecution by you in this case "would be an abuse 
of discretion" is hardly an endorsement that you move forward. 
Moreover, as you know, Drew made clear that the scope of his review did not extend to the 
other significant issues we have raised with you, such as the undo interest by some members of 
your staff with the financial and civil aspects of this matter, or with the inappropriate discussion 
one member of your Office had with a Senior reporter at the New York Times. (In fact, I have 
met with that reporter and have reviewed copious notes of his conversation with Mr. Weinstein). 
At this stage, we have no alternative but to raise our serious concerns regarding the issues 
Drew refused to address with the Deputy or, if necessary, the Attorney General, because we 
believe those issues have significantly impacted the investigation and any recommendation by 
your staff to proceed with an indictment. That being said, it would obviously be much more 
constructive and efficient if we could resolve this matter directly with you in the advance of 
further proceedings in Washington. 
Because it is clear that national policy, as determined by Main Justice, is not driving this case, 
the resolution of this matter is squarely, and solely, your responsibility. I know you want to do 
the right thing, and it is because you have made clear to me on several occasions that you will 
always look at all of the relevant and material fads that I call the following to your attention. 
New information that has come to light strongly suggests that the facts of this case cannot 
possibly implicate a federal prosecutorial priority. Due to established state procedures and 
following the initiation of multiple civil lawsuits, Mr. Epstein's counsel was able to take limited 
discovery of certain women in this matter. The sworn statements provided by these women all 
confirm that federal prosecution is not appropriate in this case. 
The consistent re resentations of witnesses such as lain 
and the civil complainants and their attorneys, con irm e 
ollowing key points: First, t ere was no telephonic communication iliet 
the requirements of 
§ 2422(b). For example, as many other witnesses have stated, Ms. 
testified in no unclear 
terms that there was never any discussion over the phone about her coming over to Mr. 
_.._____Epstein's home to engage in sexual activity: "The only thing that ever.occurredmi any of these_ 
phone calls [with Sarah Kellen or another assistant] as 'Are you willing to come over,' or, 
'Would you like to come over and give a massage." 
Tr. A at 15. Second, the underage 
women who visited Mr. Epstein have testified that they lie about their age in order to gain 
admittance into his home and women who brought t 
nderage friends to Mr. Epstein 
counseled them to lie about their ages as well. Ms. 
stated the following: "I would tell my 
girlfriends just likelailliapproached me. Make sure you tell him you're 18. Well, these girls 
that I brought, I know that they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't knoll" I don't 
know if they were lying or not, I would say' make sure that you tell him you're 18." 
Tr. at 
22. Third, there was no routine or habit suggesting an intent to transform a massage into an 
illegal sexual act. For instance, Ms. 
stated that Mr. Epstein "never touched [her] 
phy 
' and that all she did was "massage[ ] his back, his chest and his thighs and that was 
it." 
Tr. at 12-13. Finally, as you are well aware, there was no force, coercion, fraud, 
violence, rugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with these 
women. 
The civil suits confirm that the plaintiffs did not discuss engaging in sexually-related activities 
with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's residence. This reinforces the fact that no 
telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of any kind occurred. 
Furthermore, Mr. Herman, the attorney for most of the civil complainants, was quoted in the.
Palm Beach Post as saying that "it doesn't matter" that his clients lied about their ages and told 
Mr. Epstein that they were 18 or 19. In short, the new evidence establishing that the women 
EFTA00225663

Gmail - Fw: confidential communication 
Page 1 of 4 
sil 
Ann Marie Villafana< 
Fw: confidential communication 
1 message 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) < [email protected]> 
Thu, May 22, 2008 at 
3:38 AM 
 
Original Message 
From: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) 
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Campos, Cyndee (USAFLS); Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Mon May 19 12:40:32 2008 
Subject: FW: confidential communication 
For your records. 
From: Jay Lefkowitz [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 10:54 AM 
To: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) 
Subject: confidential communication 
Dear Alex: 
I am writing to you because I have just received the attached letter from Drew Oosterbaan. In 
light of that letter, and given the critical new evidence discussed below, I would like to request a 
meeting with you, mindful of our July 8 deadline, at your earliest opportunity. Given your 
personal involvement in this matter to date, and the fact that at this juncture it is clear that 
CEOS has referred the matter back to you, I respectfully request that you not shunt me off to 
one of your staff. You and I have both spent a great deal of time on this matter, and I know that 
we both would like to resolve this matter in a way that bestows integrity both on the Department 
and the process. 
In our prior discussions, you expressed that you were "not unsympathetic" to our various 
federalism concerns, but stated that because you serve within the "unitary Executive," you.
believed your hands were tied by Main Justice. You were also extremely gracious in stating that 
you did not want the United States to be "unfair". Although CEOS limited its assessment to the 
federal statutes your Office had brought forth and to the application of th6se laws to the facts as 
presented, it is abundantly clear from Drew's letter that Main Justice is not directing this 
prosecution. In fact, CEOS plainly acknowledged that a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein 
would involve a "novel application" of federal statutes and that our arguments against federal 
involvement are "compelling." Moreover, the language used by Drew in his concluding 
EXHIBIT 6-36 
EFTA00225664

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
May 19, 2008 
PAGE 6 OF 6 
Conclusion 
On February 25, 2008,1 sent you an e-mail setting forth a timetable for moving forward in 
the event that CEOS disagreed with your position. That time is now. As you know, my February 25' 
email stated that I would give you one week to comply with the terms and conditions of the 
Agreement, as modified by the USA's December Irletter to Ms. Sanchez. In light of the upcoming 
Memorial Day weekend, I have decided to extend that timetable to the close of business on Monday, 
June 2, 2008, which is a full two weeks. 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
By: 
Jeffrey H. Sloman 
First Assistant United States Attorney 
cc: 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
A. Marie Villafana 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Karen Atkinson 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
EFTA00225665

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
May 19, 2008 
PAGE 5 OF 6 
C. 
"Mr. Epstein Does Not Believe He Is Guilty Of The Federal Charges Enumerated 
Under Section 2255." 
At our December 14, 2007 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, counsel for 
Epstein announced, inter alia, that it was a "profound injustice" to require Epstein to register as a 
sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(6), had been 
committed since the statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used 
to do the persuading or inducing. This particular attack on this statute had been previously raised and 
thoroughly considered and rejected by the SDFL and CEOS prior to the execution of the Agreement. 
You also argued that the facts were inapplicable to the contemplated state statutes and that Epstein 
should not have been allowed to have been induced into the Agreement because the facts were not 
what he understood them to be, It should be noted that the SDFL has never provided you with any 
evidence supportig its investigation. This is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see 
North Carolina 
Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970)). Ultimately, you requested an 
independent review. 
Subsequent to the above-mentioned meeting, the SDFL received three letters from you and/or 
Mr. Starr which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 14th meeting. 
Essentially, you portrayed the SDFL as trying to coerce a plea to unknown allegations and incoherent 
theories. On December 17, 2007, you decreed that Epstein's conduct did not meet the requirements 
of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03) one of the enumerated 
crimes Epstein had previously agreed to plead guilty to; that Epstein's conduct does not require 
registration under Florida law; and the State Attorney's Office does not believe the conduct is 
registrable. On December 21, 2007, you rejected the USA's proposed resolution of the 2255 
provision because you "strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to 
these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 U.S.C. Section[s] 2422(b) ... or 
2423(b)." In your December 26, 2007 correspondence you stated that "we have reiterated in 
previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is guilty of the federal charges enumerated 
under section 2255" and requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did 
not commit the requisite offense." 
As the SDFL has reiterated time and time again, it does not want, nor does it expect, Epstein 
to plead guilty to a charge he does not believe he committed. As a result, we obliged your request 
for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such a review at the highest 
levels of the Department of Justice. It is our understanding that that independent review is now 
complete and a determination has been made that there are no impediments to a federal prosecution 
by the SDFL. 
EFTA00225666

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
May 19, 2008 
PAGE 4 OF 6 
B. 
Method of Compensation and Notification. 
During this same time period, you and others, including the former Solicitor General of the 
United States Kenneth Starr, took issue with the implementation of the methodology of 
compensation (hereinafter "the 2255 provision")) and the SDFL's intention to notify the victims 
under 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 (you objected to victims being notified of time and place of Epstein's 
state court sentencing hearing). In response, the SDFL offered, in my opinion, numerous and various 
reasonable modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in United States Attorney 
IL Alexander Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez. In that letter, the United 
States Attorney tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to 
address, let alone consider. He proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: 
C 
"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under 
Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an 
enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall 
provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in 
an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority 
interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens 
if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these 
identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been 
convicted at trial. No more; no less." 
Regarding the issue of notice to the victims, USA Acosta proposed to notify them of the 
federal resolution as required by law; however, "[w]e will defer to the discretion of the State 
Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, 
although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes." As you know, 
you rejected these proposals as well. See December 26, 2007 correspondence from Jay Lefkowitz 
to USA Acosta. 
3 Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL 
unilaterally agreed to assign its responsibility to select the attorney representative for the alleged victims 
to an independent third-party. This was done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection 
of the attorney representative. As a result, on October 29, 2007, the parties executed an Addendum 
wherein it was mutually agreed that former 
States District Court Judge Edward B. 
would 
serve as the independent third-party. Judge 
selected the venerable law firm of Podh r 
nd 
Josefsberg to represent the approximately 34 a eged identified victims. 
EFTA00225667

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
May 19, 2008 
PAGE 3 OF 6 
of the guilty plea and sentence no later than October 26, 2007; and (5) the start of the above-
mentioned sentence no later than January 4, 2008. 
Furthermore, and significantly, Epstein agreed that he had the burden of ensuring compliance 
of the Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office and the Judge of the 15*
Judicial Circuit and "that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement" (emphasis added). 
Post-Execution of the Agreement 
Within weeks of the execution of the Agreement, you sought to delay the entry of Epstein's 
guilty plea and sentence. After the SDFL agreed to accommodate your request, counsel for Epstein 
began taking issue with the methodology of compensation, notification to the victims, and the issues 
that had been previously considered and 'ejected during negotiations, i.e., that the conduct does not 
require registration and the contemplated state and federal statutes have no applicability to the instant 
matter. 
A. 
Delay. 
The Agreement required that "Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and 
be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-
reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008." Agreement, pages 4-5, 
paragraph I 1 (emphasis added). After the Agreement was executed, the SDFL accommodated your 
request to extend the October 26th plea deadline to November 20'° based upon, what seemed to be, 
reasonable scheduling conflict issues.' By early November, you represented that the presiding state 
court judge would not "stagger the plea and sentencing as contemplated in the Agreement."Although 
the Agreement clearly did not contemplate a staggered "plea and sentencing," the SDFL again agreed 
to accommodate Epstein's request to appear in state court for plea and sentencing on January 4, 
2008.2
I "Accordingly, I have now confirmed with Mr. Epstein's Florida counsel that the state's 
attomey's office and the court will be available to have him enter his plea on November 20. So we will 
plan to proceed on one that date." October 18, 2007 email from Jay Lefkowitz to USA R. Alexander 
Acosta. 
On the same day, Mr. Lefkowitz confirmed with First Assistant Jeffrey H. Sloman that this 
postponement " will not affect when Epstein begins serving his sentence." 
2 Correspondence from Jay Lefkowitz to FAUSA Sloman dated November 8, 2007 ("the judge 
has invited the parties to appear for the plea and sentencing on January 4*, we do not anticipate any delay 
beyond that date.") 
EFTA00225668

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
May 19, 2008 
PAGE 2 OF 6 
Background 
The Agreement was the product of months of negotiations. Specifically, you requested and 
received numerous meetings, at the highest levels of the SDFL and DOJ's Child Exploitation and 
Obscenity Section (CEOS) concerning claims that (a) the investigation merely produced evidence 
of relatively innocuous sexual conduct with some minors who, unbeknownst to Epstein, 
misrepresented their ages; (b) the authorities investigating Epstein engaged in misconduct; (c) the 
contemplated federal statutes have no applicability to this matter; and (d) the federal authorities 
disregarded the fundamental policy against federal intervention with state criminal proceedings. 
After careful review, the SDFL ultimately rejected those claims. Subsequent to its decision, however, 
but before proceeding any further, the SDFL provided you with 30 days to appeal the decision to the 
Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Alice Fisher. As you recall, you chose to forego an 
appeal to AAG Fisher, and instead pursued a negotiated resolution which, ultimately, resulted in the 
execution of the Agreement. 
The Negotiation Phase 
During negotiations, you tried to avoid a resolution that called for incarceration and 
registration as a sexual offender — both of which would be triggered by a successful federal 
prosecution. The SDFL believed and continues to believe that should this matter proceed to trial, 
your client would be convicted of the federal statutes identified in the Agreement. In order to achieve 
a global resolution, the SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of incarceration; 
however, it remained adamant that Epstein register as a sex offender and that all victims identified 
during the investigation remain eligible for compensation. In order to achieve this result, the parties 
considered two alternatives, a plea to federal charges that limited Epstein's sentencing exposure, or, 
as suggested by you, a plea to state charges encompassing Epstein's conduct. Ultimately, the parties 
agreed to, inter cilia, a plea to the state charges outlined in the Agreement, registration and a method 
of compensation. 
The Agreement 
The crux of the Agreement defers in favor of the State federal prosecution of Epstein for his 
sexual conduct involving those minor victims identified as of September 24, 2007, in exchange for 
a guilty plea to a state offense that requires registration as a sex offender; a sufficient term of 
imprisonment; and a method of compensation for the victims such that they would be placed in the 
same position as if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in Title 
18, United States Code, Section 2255. Specifically, the Agreement mandates, inter cilia, (1) a guilty 
plea in Palm Beach County Circuit Court to solicitation of prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.07) and 
procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03) (an offense that requires 
him to register as a sex offender); (2) a 30-month sentence including 18 months' incarceration in 
county jail; (3) a methodology to compensate the victims identified by the United States; (4) entry 
EFTA00225669

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
Fern Assistant U.S. Attorney 
DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
Citigroup Center 
153 East 53rd Street 
New York, New York 10022-4675 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Mr. Lefkowitz, 
99 N.E. 4 Street 
Miami. FL 33132 
On 961.9110 
May 19, 2008 
I am in receipt of your e-mail dated May 19, 2008 to the United States Attorney. The U.S. 
Attorney would like me to advise you that all communications and inquiries related to the Epstein 
matter, will be handled by AUSA Marie Villafana and/or her supervisor, Karen Atkinson, so he does 
not intend to respond to your e-mail or calls unless AUSA Villafana and/or her supervisors advise 
him otherwise. Furthermore, you make reference to "our July 8 deadline." Respectfully, the United 
States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL") has never agreed to any such 
deadline. Should you decide to provide the SDFL with any additional information, please do so 
through AUSA Villafana, and, in her absence, AUSA Atkinson. 
On September 24, 2007, your client, Jeffrey Epstein, in consultation with Gerald Lefcoun, 
Esq. and Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq., as well as numerous other nationally-renowned lawyers, including 
but not limited to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, former Independent Counsel and 
Solicitor General of the United States Kenneth Starr, just to name a few, entered into a global 
resolution of state and federal liabilities faced by your client ("the Agreement") with the SDFL. 
Although you and other members of the defense team have since claimed that the Agreement was 
the product of adhesion, the following facts demonstrate that Epstein knowingly and voluntarily 
entered into the Agreement in order to avoid a federal indictment regarding his sexual conduct 
involving minor victims. Despite the fact that by signing the Agreement, Epstein gave up the right 
to object to its provisions, the SDFL bent over backwards to exhaustively consider and re-consider 
your objections. Since these objections have finally been exhausted and Epstein has previously 
expressed his intent to not comply with several of the terms and conditions of the Agreement as set 
forth below, the SDFL hereby notifies you that unless he complies with all of the terms and 
conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the United States Attorney's December 19, 2007 letter 
to Ms. Sanchez by close of business on Monday, June 2, 2008, the SDFL will elect to terminate the 
Agreement. 
EFTA00225670

05/19/08 MON 15:50 FAX 305 530 6440 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 
IiM001 
TRANSMISSION OK 
********smss******* 
*s* 
TX REPORT 
*as 
4444441:4444********** 
TX/RX NO 
3494 
CONNECTION TEL 
912124464900 
SUBADDRESS 
CONNECTION ID 
ST. TIME 
05/19 15:47 
USAGE T 
03'03 
PGS. 
7 
RESULT 
OK 
U.S. Department of Justice 
United Stoles Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
99 NE 4" STREET 
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132-2111 
Jeffrey H. Sloman 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
305 961 9299 
Cyndee Campos 
Staff Assistant 
305 961 9461 
305 530-6444 fax 
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 
COVER SHEET 
DATE: 
May 19, 2008 
TO: 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esquire 
FAX NUMBER: 
SUBJECT: 
Epstein 
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 7 
EFTA00225671