EFTA00227071

USAFLS)
From: 
Sent: 
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 1:20 PM 
To: 
Jack Goldberger 
Subject: 
RE: Letter concerning Epstein and the Palm Beach Daily News 
Thank you, Jack. 
ssis 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: Jack Goldberger 
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 12:59 PM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Cc: Jay Lefkowitz; [email protected]; Barry Krischer; Sloman, Jeff 
Subject: Re: Letter concerning Epstein and the Palm Beach Daily News 
We will deal with the state. To answer your? The addendum has been filed 
Jack Goldberger 
Sent from my iPhone 
On Sep 17, 2008, at 12:15 PM, 
wrote: 
Gentlemen: Please review the attached letter. Thank you. 
«Lefkowitz 080917.pdf» 
Assistant VS. Attorney 
<Lefkowitz 080917.pdfl 
49 
EFTA00227151

From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: 
USAFLS) 
Jack Goldberger gimplumpimegm. 
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 12:59 PM 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sloman, 
Re: Letter concerning Epstein and the Palm Beach Daily News 
We will deal with the state. To answer your? The addendum has been filed 
Jack Goldberger 
Sent from my iPhone 
On Sep 17, 2008, at 12:15 PM, 
wrote: 
Gentlemen: Please review the attached letter. Thank you. 
«Lefkowitz 080917 pdf» 
• 
Assistant V.S. Attorney 
<Lefkowitz 080917.pdf> 
EFTA00227152

(ILSAFLS)
From: 
Sent: 
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 12:04 PM 
To: 
Jay Lefkowitz; Jack Alan Goldberger (jgoldberger@agwpa com), [email protected] 
Cc: 
Barry Krischer: Sloman. Jeff (USAFLS), Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Letter concerning Epstein and the Palm Beach Daily News 
Gentlemen: Please review the attached letter. Thank you. 
Leflsowi z 
08091/.pdf 
Assistant 
. Attorney 
561209-1047 
51 
EFTA00227153

(USAFLS) 
From: 
Sent: 
Wednesday, September 17. 2008 12:00 PM 
To: 
Barry Krischer 
Cc: 
Lanna Belohlavek (lbelohla@sa15 state fl us), 
Subject: 
Your inquiry regarding the Epstein case 
Hi Barry — The Non-Prosecution Agreement contains a confidentiality provision that requires us to inform Mr. 
Epstein's counsel before making any disclosure — even a compulsory disclosure. I am cc'ing you on a letter to 
Jay Leflcowitz, Roy Black, and Jack Goldberger informing them of the request and asking them, as parties to the 
criminal case, to contact you regarding a possible suit by the Shiny Sheet. 
On another note, I also will be informing them that I believe that they still have not filed the complete 
agreement with the Court, as required by the Judge at the hearing. 
Thank you very much for reaching out to us when you received this request, and if you need any help from us, 
please let us know. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
52 
EFTA00227154

(USAFLS) 
From: 
Sent: 
_Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:38 AM 
To: 
Subject: 
Fw confidential communication 
 
 Original Message  
From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Mon May 19 15:37:30 2008 
Subject: RE: confidential communication 
 
Original Message 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 3:37 PM 
To: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Subject: Re: confidential communication 
 
 Original Message  
From: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) 
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Campos, Cyndee (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Mon May 19 12:40:32 2008 
Subject: FW: confidential communication 
For your records. 
From: Jay Lefkowitz [mailto: 
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 
1026 
EFTA00227155

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 those 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 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 alSenior 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 facts 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 repr 
'
witnesses such as 
and 
and the civil complainants and their 
attorneys, confirm t e o owing key points: First, there was no telephonic 
1027 
EFTA00227156

communication that met the requirements of § 2422(b). For example, as many other 
witnesses have stated, Ms. Beale 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 occurred on any of these 
phone calls [with 
r another assistant] was, 'Are you willing to 
come over,' or, 'Wou 
you I' e to come over and give a massage.'" Beale Tr. A 
at 15. Second, the underage women who visited Mr. Epstein have testified that 
they lied about their age in order to gain admittance into his home and women who 
brought their underage friends to Mr. Epstein counseled them to lie about their 
ages as well. Ms. 
stated the following: "I would tell my girlfriends just 
like 
approached 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 know and 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] physically" 
and that all she did was "massage[ ] his back, his chest and his thighs and that 
was it." Laduke Tr. at 12-13. Finally, as you are well aware, there was no 
force, coercion, fraud, violence, drugs, 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 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 
attempted to convince these adult 
women, now in their twenties, t 
re 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. In a sworn 
statement, Ms. Beale 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 
1028 
EFTA00227157

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 
**************###44#*##*######################*#*44******** 
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 return e-mail or by e-
mail to [email protected], and destroy this communication and all copies 
thereof, including all attachments. 
******44####*##*###*####*********************************** 
1029 
EFTA00227158

From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: 
Dear Jay and Roy: 
Thursday, August 14, 2008 4:21 PM 
Roy BLACK' 
We just finished our hearing with Judge Marra. He has ordered us to make the Agreement available to the 
plaintiffs in this case pursuant to a protective order limiting the disclosure to the victims and their counsel only. 
He further has ordered that we have to make the agreement available to any other identified victim and her 
attorney, so long as they also agree to be bound by the protective order. Judge Marra stated that the plaintiffs 
can litigate the issue of further disclosure directly with Mr. Epstein in the context of their civil suits. 
When I receive the Court's order and a signed protective order, I will provide them to you. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Bcach, FL 33401 
Phone 
Fax 561 820-8777 
Tracking: 
234 
EFTA00227159

From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Cc: 
;'Roy BLACK' 
Subject: 
RE: Follow-up point 
Dear Jay: 
The modification contained in the December letter is clear and simple, that is why we were not surprised by Mr. 
Epstein's and his attorneys' actions affirming acceptance of the modification. Mr. Epstein's acceptance of the 
modification by pleading guilty was equally clear and simple -- it followed written communications from Mr. 
Sloman and myself that read: "Mr. Epstein has until the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply 
with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein (as modified by the 
U.S. Attorney's December 19'h letter to Ms. Sanchez), including entry of a guilty plea, sentencing, and 
surrendering to begin his sentence of imprisonment." 
As clearly stated in the December letter, only those "individuals whom [the United States] was prepared to 
name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense" are the beneficiaries of the agreement. That is the 
list of names that I provided to Messrs. Goldberger and Tein following the change of plea. Under the 
September/October agreement, all "individuals whom [the United States] has identified as victims" are the 
beneficiaries, so I would prepare a supplement to the earlier list to include identified victims whom we were not 
yet prepared to name in an indictment. 
Again, as stated in the letter, the modification replaces paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement, including 
paragraphs 7A through 7C that are included in the October Addendum. This means that Mr. Epstein's waiver 
of "his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein" 
will no longer exist, nor will Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay for the victims' counsel. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are 
still in effect. This includes the statement that there is no admission of civil or criminal liability, and that, 
"[e]xcept as to those individuals who elect to proceed EXCLUSIVELY under 18 USC § 2255, ... Epstein's 
signature [cannot] be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability." This addresses your 
question regarding exclusivity. 
I don't think that Mr. Epstein has to make any constructive admissions of conviction. He only needs to admit 
that the 32 girls whose names I have provided to Mr. Goldberger are "victims" of an offense listed in 18 U.S.C. 
2255. 
Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach FL 33401 
Phone 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: 
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 2:39 PM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
236 
EFTA00227160

Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); 
Subject: Re: Follow-up point 
Marie - In reviewing your December proposal, there are a couple of things I don't understand. 
What limits are placed upon individuals who proceed under 2255 as if "Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted 
of an enumerated offense." In other words, what individuals would have this right? And would these individual only 
have this right if they proceeded exclusively under 2255? Also, to what enumerated offenses do you think would Mr. 
Epstein have to make constructive admissions of conviction? and how many such offenses? And against whom? 
Remember that while you may have investigated various offenses, he only plead guilty to certain state crimes. 
Finally, would paragraphs 8-10 of the September Agreement still be operative? 
I am trying hard to understand what you have intended by the December letter. Alex has says he thinks it benefits Jeffrey, 
and I am open to understanding it that way. But I would like some clarity on these issues. 
Thanks — Jay 
08/142008 12'44 PM 
To 
Subject Follow-up pont 
Hi Jay — I forgot to mention that I can no longer argue that the Court shouldn't force us to produce the 
agreement because we have already provided the victims with the relevant portion when I now understand from 
you that I have NOT provided them with the relevant portion. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 
Fax 561 820-8777 
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 
return e-mail or by e-mail to postmasterekirkland.com, and 
237 
EFTA00227161

destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
Tracking: 
238 
EFTA00227162

SA FLS) 
From: 
Jay Lefkowitz 
Sent: 
Th rsda 
Au ust 14 2 
2. 
PM 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: 
Re: Follow-up point 
In reviewing your December proposal, there are a couple of things I don't understand. 
What limits are placed upon individuals who proceed under 2255 as if "Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted 
of an enumerated offense." In other words, what individuals would have this right? And would these individual only 
have this right if they proceeded exclusively under 2255? Also, to what enumerated offenses do you think would Mr. 
Epstein have to make constructive admissions of conviction? and how many such offenses? And against whom? 
Remember that while you may have investigated various offenses, he only plead guilty to certain state crimes. 
Finally, would paragraphs 8-10 of the September Agreement still be operative? 
I am trying hard to understand what you have intended by the December letter. Alex has says he thinks it benefits Jeffrey, 
and I am open to understanding it that way. But I would like some clarity on these issues. 
Thanks -- Jay 
TCEMIIMIIM 
08/14/2008 12.44 PM 
Subject Fe:on-up pcci 
Hi Jay — I forgot to mention that I can no longer argue that the Court shouldn't force us to produce the 
agreement because we have already provided the victims with the relevant portion when I now understand from 
you that I have NOT provided them with the relevant portion. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FI, 33401 
Phon 
Fax 561 820-8777 
The information contained in this communication is 
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may 
246 
EFTA00227163

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 
return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
247 
EFTA00227164

(USAFLS) 
From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: 
Thursday, August 14, 2008 12.43 PM 
Follow-up point 
Ili Jay — I forgot to mention that I can no longer argue that the Court shouldn't force us to produce the 
agreement because we have already provided the victims with the relevant portion when I now understand from 
you that I have NOT provided them with the relevant portion. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone SIMS 
Fax 561 820-8777 
250 
EFTA00227165

USAFLS)
From: 
Sent: 
liursday, ugL
IM
.•11R2
12•M 
To: 
Jay Lefkowitz 
Subject: 
RE: Telephone Call 
Fine. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: Jay Lefkowltz 
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:26 PM 
To 
Cc 
Subject: Re: Telephone Call 
How about 10 minutes? 
From: "Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)" [Ann.Marie.C.Villafana@usdojjgosl 
Sent: 08/14/2008 12:19 PM AST 
To: Jay Letkowitz 
Cc: "Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS)" <Karen.Atkinson@usdolgov> 
Subject: Telephone Call 
Hi Jay — Can you give me a specific time for the call so that 1 can conference call you and Karen? 
Thank you. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 
Fax 561 820-8777 
251 
EFTA00227166

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 
return e-mail or by e-mail to oostmasterekirkland.com, and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
252 
EFTA00227167

USAFLS) 
From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: 
Ina 
Telephone Call 
III Jay —Can you give me a specific time for the call so that I can conference call you and Karen? 
Thank you. 
A. Marie Villafaila 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach. FL 33401 
Phone 
Fax 561 820-8777 
253 
EFTA00227168

From: 
Sent: 
hursday, August 14, 2008 11:33 AM 
To: 
Roy BLACK 
Subject: 
Call with Jay Lefkowitz 
Hi Roy — Sony to bother you early in the morning. Jay Lefkowitz is supposed to call soon to discuss the 
agreement. We would prefer to have you on the call as well. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach FL 33401 
Phone 
Fax 561 820-8777 
254 
EFTA00227169

From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: 
Jay Lefkowitz 
Wednesday. August 13. 2008 10 00 PM 
Roy BLACK 
Re: Electronic Copy of my Fax 
Thx Marie - speak tomorrow. I will call you around 1130-1200. 
Jay 
From: 
Sent: 0 
To: Jay Leflcowitz 
Cc: "Roy BLACK" <RBLACK®royblack.com> 
Subject: Electronic Copy of my Fax 
Jay — Here is a scanned version of the fax, in case you have already left. 
«Lefkowitz 080813008.pcff>> 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phones 
Fax 561 820-8777 
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 
return e-mail or by e-mail to postmasterakirkland.com, and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. 
258 
EFTA00227170