EFTA00230208

KENNETH STARR, ESQ. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2007 
PAGE 6 OF 6 
expenditure of excessive management resources, and the Office is unwilling to invest any more of 
those resources. The prosecution of the case also has been delayed almost eight months to allow you 
to raise any and all issues; we will not tolerate any further delay. 
Accordingly, please provide us with a definitive statement, signed by your client, of his 
intention to abide by each and every term of the Agreement by close of business on Tuesday, 
December 4, 2007. By that time, you must also provide us with the agreement(s) with the State 
Attorney's Office and a date and time certain for the plea and sentencing, which must occur no later 
than December 14, 2007. If we do not receive these items by that time, we will deem the agreement 
to be rescinded and will proceed with the prosecution. There must be closure in this matter. 
Sincerely, 
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
cc: 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
AUSA A. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013343 
EFTA00230248

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE 
Jay P. Leficowitz, Esq. 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
Citigroup Center 
153 East 53rd Street 
New York, New York 10022-4675 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Jay: 
99 N.E. 4th Street 
Miami, FL 33132-2111 
(305) 961-9299 
Facsimile: (305) 530-6444 
Nevettiber50720771
I write in response to your recent e-mails and letters regarding victim notification and other 
issues. Some of these issues also are addressed in the U.S. Attorney's letter to Mr. Starr, but in light 
of our discussions, I believe a separate response is needed. 
In a recent e-mail, you write that you were surprised at the tone of my e-mail of November 
27, 2007. That tone was engendered by the roadblocks that you continue to erect as we try to 
perform our contractual obligations coupled with Mr. Epstein's nonperformance. This letter end. 
IthST-Attemeyasosta=raettes setforth the last opportunity for your client and his entire defense team 
to conform unwaveringly to all of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. -Antazd-hrthe 
--
41TrATINfierittthiecletter: 
POteeerdingly121ease provide us with a definitive statement, signed by your client, of 
his intentionTo abide by each and every term of the Agreement by close of business 
on Tuesday, December 4, 2007. By that time, you must also provide us with the 
agreement(s) with the State Attorney's Office and a date and time certain for the plea 
and sentencing, which must occur no later than December 14, 2007. If we do not 
receive these items by that time, we will deem the agreement to be rescinded and will 
proceed with the prosecution. There must be closure in this matter. 
Before I address your continued allegations of some sort of misconduct on the part of the 
Office for trying to abide by both its legal and contractual obligations, I must address your client's 
failures to comply with the Agreement. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013344 
EFTA00230249

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
aihNNIEFFSPRe1001003.. 
PAGE 2 OF 7 
Three weeks ago we spoke about the failure to set a timely plea and sentencing date. At that 
time, you assured me that the scheduling delay was caused by the unavailability of Judge McSorley. 
You promised that a date would be set promptly. On November 15th, Rolando Garcia met with 
Barry Krisher on another matter, and was told by Mr. Krisher that he had just spoken with Jack 
Goldberger, and that Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing were set to occur on December 14, 2007. 
Since that time, we have tried to confirm the date and time of the hearing in order to include that 
information in the victim notification letters. You continue to refer to the plea and sentencing as 
thou 
it 
• 
• 
anuary; Mr. Krisher's office has not confirmed any date; and Mr. Goldberger 
told 
that "there is no date." 
I have repeatedly told you that a delayed guilty plea and sentencing — now more than two 
months beyond the original deadline — is unacceptable to the Office. Contrary to your past 
assertions, the Non-Prosecution Agreement does not contemplate a staggered plea and sentencing. 
Instead, the Agreement contemplates a combined plea and sentencing followed by a later surrender 
date for Mr. Epstein to begin serving his jail sentence. As you will recall, the plea and sentencing 
hearing originally was to occur in early October 2007, but was delayed until October 26th to allow 
Mr. Goldberger to attend. It was delayed again until November to allow you to attend. You have 
provided no showing of how you and your client have used your best efforts to insure that the plea 
and sentencing occur in November. In fact, we recently learned that a plea conference had been 
scheduled with Judge McSorley for NoVember 20, 2007, but was canceled at the request of the 
parties, not the judge. Judge McSorley has not been away for any extended period, and there is no 
basis for your assertion that the judge is the cause of any past or future delay. Mr. Epstein currently 
has four Florida Bar members on his defense team, so attorney scheduling is rat an adequate basis 
for delay. 
Three weeks ago I also asked you to provide our Office with the terms of the Plea Agreement 
with the State Attorney's Office. It is now more than two months since the signing of the Non-
Prosecution Agreement and we have yet to see any formal agreement, or even a list of essential terms 
of such an agreement. The only conclusion that we can draw is that you are trying to avoid providing 
the Office with adequate time to review your agreement prior to the change of plea and sentencing 
to determine whether Mr. Epstein is complying with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 
Your letters make reference to a failure by the United States to abide by the "spirit" of the 
Agreement, but recent correspondence shows that Mr. Epstein hopes to serve his sentence on "work 
release." This is plainly contrary to both the terms and spirit of the Agreement. The Agreement 
clearly indicates that Mr. Epstein is to be incarcerated, and during your joint meeting with 
representatives of our office and the State Attorney's Office, the parties specifically discussed that 
Mr. Epstein would serve his time in solitary confinement at the Palm Beach County Jail to obviate 
your safety concerns. In addition to the terms of the Agreement, the Florida Department of 
Corrections does not allow persons who are registered sex offenders to participate in "community 
release" (which includes "work release"). Since Mr. Epstein will have to register as a sex offender 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013345 
EFTA00230250

JAY P. LEFKOW117, ESQ. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2007 
PAGE 3 OF 7 
promptly after his guilty plea and sentencing, he will not be eligible for such a program. Thus, the 
U.S. Attorney's Office is simply putting you on notice that it intends to make certain that Mr. Epstein 
is "treated no better and no worse than anyone else" convicted of the same offense. If Mr. Epstein 
is somehow allowed to participate in a work release program despite the Department of Corrections' 
rules and practices, the Office intendstainvestiga4e the reasons why an exception was granted in Mr. 
Epstein's case. 
IS c4aJ.i. lets Ft) lecu- rt. 
Next, let me address various accusations that you and Mr. Starr, amongst others, have raised. 
You have repeatedly alleged that attorneys in our office and agents of the FBI have leaked 
information to the press in an effort to affect possible civil litigation with Mr. Epstein. This is 
untrue. There has been no contact between any member of the press and any employee of our office 
or the FBI since you incorrectly accused investigators of telling "Vanity Fair" about Mr. Starr's 
employment by Mr. Epstein several months ago. As you have been told before, prior to that, the 
press had provided information to the FBI, but no comment was ever made about the ongoing 
investigation, it was simply referred to as an "open investigation." V-euf-fteetzsattansen-thisfeint... 
urate ana wmcn t
as. 
We intend to continue to refrain from commenting or providing information to the press. 
We would ask that your client and all of his representatives do the same. 
Mr. Starr's letter to Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher contains several false statements 
and accusations. First, Mr. Epstein was never forced to enter into any agreement and all terms of 
the agreement were fully negotiated, including the terms regarding the payment ofmonetary damages 
to the victims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. In fact, some of those terms were re-negotiated as part of the 
Addendum. Second, if Mr. Epstein's cadre of attorneys was concerned about a way to test the 
validity of the victims' claims prior to placing the names of those victims on the list prepared by our 
office, that term could have been negotiated. In fact, at one of our early meetings, Roy Black raised 
that concern, and possible solutions were contemplated by our office prior to the negotiations. 
However, since none of Mr. Epstein's team of attorneys requested the inclusion of such a term, it 
was omitted from the Agreement. 
To the extent that you now object to the Agreement that you negotiated, this is akin to 
"buyer's remorse." However, you and Mr. Starr have, instead, made claims to the Justice 
Department that these thoroughly negotiated terms "leave[) wide open the opportunity for 
misconduct by federal investigators." You then misinterpret several statements that were included 
in correspondence — at your insistence — as proof that the designated victims have invalid claims. 
Let me make clear that each of the listed individuals are persons whom the Office identified as 
victims as defined in Section 2255, that is, as persons "who, while a minor, was a victim of a 
violation of section . . . 2422 or 2423 of this title." In other words, the Office is prepared to indict 
Mr. Epstein based upon what Mr. Starr refers to as Mr. Epstein's "interactions" with these 
individuals. This conclusion is based upon a thorough and proper investigation — one in which none 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013346 
EFTA00230251

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2007 
PAGE 4 OF 7 
of the victims was informed of any right to receive damages of any amount prior to the investigation 
of her claim. 
co 
r
_afa.potentielriuil claim-for damagoo. In fact, after the Agreement was signed, the FBI only had the 
opportunity to inform three victims of the resolution of the matter before you raised complaints and, 
in deference to your request, the Office asked that they defer further notifications. The Office agrees 
that it is not a party to, and will not take a role in, any civil litigation, but the Office can say, without 
hesitation, thatweach person on the list was a victim f Mr. Epstein's criminal behavior. 
eva-ute thuen 
44nout-
Mr. Starr's letter also suggests that the number of victims to whom Mr. Epstein is exposed 
by the Agreement is limitless. As you know, early drafts of the Agreement contained a numerical 
limit of 40 victims. At your request, that number was removed. The Office repeatedly confirmed 
that the number would not exceed 40; after conducting additional investigation, it was reduced to 
34, and we recently removed another name because, despite the fact that Mr. Epstein offensively 
touched the victim, in our opinion, the touching was not "sexual" enough to properly include her as 
a victim as defined in Section 2255. Once the list is provided to you, if you have a good faith basis 
for asserting that a victim never met Mr. Epstein, we remain willing to listen and to modify the list 
if you convince us of your position. 
Mr. Starr also asserts that the Office has "improperly insisted that the chosen attorney 
representative should be able to litigate the claims of individuals, which violates the terms of the 
Agreement and deeply infringes upon the spirit and nature of the Agreement." Again, this was a 
term that could have been discussed and negotiated prior to entering into the Agreement. At least 
five extremely experienced attorneys reviewed the Agreement prior to its execution. Your failure 
to consider what would happen if a victim refused to accept the minimum settlement you offered to 
her does not render the Agreement void, unconscionable, or violative of Due Process. Whether 
counsel for the victims decides that there is a conflict is something to be addressed by him, but the 
Agreement speaks for itself. 
Finally, let me address your objections to the draft Victim Notification Letter. You write that 
you don't understand the basis for the Office's belief that it is appropriate to notify the victims. The 
"Justice for All Act of 2004" amended Title 18 by adding Section 3771, entitled "Crime victims' 
rights." Those rights include: "The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public 
th
court proceeding . .. involving the crime" and the "ri t not to be excluded from any such public 
1
..aira_li&meeding ..." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) & (3). trouropinicrn7the-broltd-tanguageref-Sestion 
., 
n 
proseetlia&ISection 3771 also commands that "employees of the Department of Justice ... engaged 
in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime 
victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a)." 18 U.S.C. §3771(c)(1). 
Additionally, the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 enacted Title 42, United States 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013347 
EFTA00230252

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2007 
PAGE 5 OF 7 
Code, Section 10607, entitled "Services to victims." Pursuant to that statute, our Office is obligated 
to "inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled under this 
or any other law and [the] manner in which such relief may be obtained." 42 U.S.C. § 
10607(c)(1)(B).' With respect to notification of the other information that we propose to disclose, 
the statute requires that: 
(3) 
During the investigation and prosecution of a crime, a responsible official 
shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice of — 
(A) 
the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is 
appropriate to inform the victim and to the extent that it will not 
interfere with the investigation; ... 
(C) 
the filing of charges against a suspected offender; . . . 
0)
the acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the rendering 
of a verdict after trial. 
42 U.S.C. § 10607(cX3). Again, these sections are not limited to proceedings in a 
district 
court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing
to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be 
appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not and cannot require the U.S. 
Attorney's Office to forego its legal obligations. As noted, Section 10607 commands our office to 
make these notifications at "the earliest possible opportunity." The unnecessary delays engendered 
by your continued objections to the Office's performance of its contractual and legal obligations will 
uu longer be 
-efriak . 
Your claim that, by notifying victims of their legal rights, we are seeking to "federalize" the 
state plea is incorrect. Our office is simply informing the victims of their rights. It does not 
command them to appear at the hearing or to file a victim impact statement. In fact, the letter 
recommends the sending of any statement to the State Attorney's Office so that ASA Belohlavek can 
determine which, if any, statements are appropriate to file with the Court. 
Next, you assert that our letter mischaracterizes Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay damages to 
the victims. It does not. The Agreement provides: 
If any of the [identified victims] elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, 
'Based upon the language of this statute, your statement that our notification must be 
limited only to the right to restitution is incorrect. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013348 
EFTA00230253

Jay P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2007 
PAGE 6 OF 7 
Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein 
waives his right to contest liability up to an amount as agreed to between the 
identified individual and Epstein, so long as the individual elects to proceed 
exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, 
whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. 
Contrary to your assertion, this Agreement specifically contemplates possible litigation — it would 
be nonsensical to include a waiver of personal jurisdiction in the District Court if the Agreement was 
supposed to bar any victim from filing suit. A violation of this provision, by contesting jurisdiction 
or otherwise, will be considered a material breach. 
It had been my suggestion to AUSA Villafafia that we simply quote the terms of the 
Agreement directly into the Notification Letter or include a photocopy of the relevant sections. If 
you would prefer that we proceed in that manner, that is acceptable. We also have no objection to 
referring to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual offender" rather than a "predator." 
Your objection to the use of the term "minor victim" is unfounded. The letter states that the 
United States has identified the person as a "minor victim," and Section 2255 requires that the victim 
be a minor at the time of the commission of the offense. As I stated above, each and every person 
contained in our list was a "minor victim" as defined in Section 2255. The federal investigation 
found that Mr. Epstein's illegal conduct occurred at least as early as 2001, so all of the victims were 
minors at the time of the criminal conduct. Our "imprimatur" is neither incendiary nor unwarranted. 
We have no objection to using the conjunction "and/or" in referring to the particular 
offense(s) of which the recipient was a victim. We will not include the language that we take no 
position as to the validity of any claims. While the Office has no intention to take any position in 
any civil litigation arising between Mr. Epstein and any individual victim, as stated above, the Office 
believes that it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each listed individual was a victim of Mr. 
Epstein's criminal conduct while the victim was a minor. The law requires us to treat all victims 
"with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity 
privacy." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX8). We 
will not include any language that demeans the harm theWaib suffered. Our Office's obligation to 
remain uninvolved in the civil litigation cannot be used by your client as both a shield and a sword? 
Thus, while we will not involve ourselves in the civil litigation, we will not allow you to use that 
neutrality to create a false impression that we do not believe in the validity of the victims' claims. 
2You may want to review United States'. Crompton Corp., 399 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (ND. 
Cal. 2005), where the district court would not allow an unindicted co-conspirator to have his 
name redacted from a plea agreement in order to assist him in defending or avoiding civil claims. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013349 
EFTA00230254

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2007 
PAGE 7 OF 7 
The letter's assertions regarding representation by the Podhurst firm and Mr. Josefsberg are 
accurate and will not be changed. Judge Davis conferred with Messrs. Podhurst and Josefsberg to 
insure their willingness to undertake this assignment prior to finalizing his selection. As I stated in 
my earlier correspondence, there is no legitimate basis for you to object to the firm or the individual 
attorney. Also, contrary to your assertion, the Podhurst firm was recommended to you as early as 
October 5th, as one of the firms that should be included on a list of firms for Judge Davis to consider 
in making his selection. No further investigation is required and attempts to convince Messrs. 
Podhurst and Josefsberg to rescind their agreement to undertake this assignment would be yet 
another example of your attempts to stop the United States from effectuating the terms of the Non-
Prosecution Agreement. 
Lastly, you object to personal communication between the victims and federal attorneys or 
agents. We have no objection to sending the letters through the mail' but we will not remove the 
language about contacting AUSA Villafafia or Special Agent Kuyrkendall with questions or 
concerns. Again, federal law requires that victims have the "reasonable right to confer with the 
attorney for the Government in this case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). We will not undermine that 
right. The three victims who were notified prior to your objection had questions directed to Mr. 
Epstein's punishment, not the civil litigation. Those questions are appropriately directed to law 
enforcement. If questions arise related to the civil litigation, AUSA Villafafla and Special Agent 
Kuyrkendall will recommend that the victims direct those questions to Mr. Josefsberg. 
I have attached a revised letter incorporating the changes on which we can agree. Please 
provide any further comments by the close of business on Tuesday. 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
By: 
cc: 
R. Alexander Acos 
U.S. Attorney 
AUSA A. 
First Assistant United States Attorney 
'This is contingent, however, on being able to provide adequate notice of the change of 
plea and sentencing. The sooner that you schedule that hearing with Judge McSorley, the sooner 
we can dispatch these letters. If you delay further, we will have to rely on telephone or personal 
notification. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013350 
EFTA00230255

\ctsriv 
EAfrvigyja-7 c_0/1-2-1-6! 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013351 
EFTA00230256

s 
cd- ilAuL1,-
Th
a 
CAL 
 
ilAWY‘ 
LUgiA'rb PAIALY 
AKACAp( 
--
Care No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-012352 
EFTA00230257

7C-
Case No, 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013353 
EFTA00230258

12/21/2007 11 - 55 FAX 
id:002/008 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LL(' 
Jay P. LeNowa& P C. 
To Call Wale, niendly• 
VIA FACSIMILE (305) 530-6444 
honorable It. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
United States Autmacy's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
99 NE 4th Street 
Miami. Pl. 33132 
Dear Alex: 
AAUP AMA IAIM talalleAUMA: 
Citiomion Contra 
103 Cull 53rd Shout 
Now York. Now York ton22.4cii 
vnvw.kohland coat 
December 21, 1007 
Re: Jeffrey Epsiein 
racsrmdo.
We again extend our appreciation 11w meeting with us on December 14 and for cordially 
considering the issues we have raised both at that meeting and in our submissions to your Office. 
I laving received your letter of December 19. we can see that you have made a significant cflint 
to address our concerns regarding the § 2255 portion of the non-prosecution agreement (the 
"Agreement"). and we recognize that you haw proposed some substantial and important 
modifications. 
Respectfully, however. I would suggest that your proposal raises several 
troubling questions that require careful consideration. We arc authoring this letter to respond to 
your mimes' that we set forth our position regarding §§ 2255 and 3771 us quickly as possible. 
As we have all discovered. the problem of integrating in an unprecedented manner what 
is at its core a $150.000 minimum lump sum damage federal civil statute (§ 2255 in its current 
farm) into a federal deferranon-prosecution agreement that requires pleas of guilty to state 
criminal offenses that arc correlated to suite criminal restitution statutes but not to a disparate 
federal civil non-restitution smite has proved very challenging. The concomitant problem of 
how fairly to implement the § 2255 portions of the Agreement so that real victims, if any. who in 
filet sutkred "personal injury as a result of Ethel violation"' 
if any of specified federal 
criminal statutes such as I X U.S.C. § 2422(h) arc placed in the same position as if there had been 
a trial and conviction also requires serious and careful consideration. In this letter. 1 want to 
highlight some specific concerns. Sec also Whitley Opinion. 
First, your proposal regarding the § 2255 remedy provisions continues to ask us to 
assume that each and every woman not only was a victim under § 2255. hut that the facts alleged 
could have been proven to satisfy each element of either § 2422(b) (the Internet luring statute) 
or § 2423 (the st.110,101165111 statute), within § 2255 of Title IR. Although we have been denied the 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Los Nispolos 
M001011 
San Francinco 
Worthngton, D.C. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MAR RA 
P-011154 
EFTA00230259

12/21/2007 11:55 FAX 
II003/003 
KIRKLAND K. ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 21.2007 
Page 2 
list of alleged "victims" (and lack definitive information as to which federal statutes would serve 
as a predicate for each particular alleged victim), or even a firm number as to how many you 
suggest there arc, we strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to 
these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 USC § 2422(b) (which we 
understand from prior discussions to be the principal predicate offense upon which the § 2255 
provisions My) or 18 USC § 2423(b) (another predicate of § 2255 that has been the subject of 
discussions between the parties). Sec Stem Opinion. We believe that the problem arises from 
the incongruity that exists when attempting to lit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal 
plea agreement 
this problem could ave been avoided had the government 
opted instead for a restitution fund us we suggeste. 
Our knowledge ()I' the "list" of alleged victims is limited However a prototypical 
example of a witness whom the government has requested we compensate and we believe is 
inaccurately labeled as a "victim" via federal crime is Saige Gonntlez.(whoin we have been told 
remains on the government's "list"). The transcript of her interview with the Palm Beach Police 
over a year before the FRI became involved in any investigation shows that Ms. Gonzalez 
admitted to lying about her age. that she did not engage in sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein, 
and that she was never induced over the telephone. computer or any other means of 
communication required by § 2422(b). In fact. Ms. Gonzalez came in Mr. Epstein's home on 
only one occasion. She testified that she was informed about the opportunity to give a massage 
to Mr. Epstein not on a telephone. computer or any other facility of interstate commerce, hut 
rather in a nate-to-face discussion with a third party who was her friend (Ms. Robson) and who 
told her to lie to Mr. Epstein about her age. As such, it is simply impassible to shoehorn this 
conduct into any of the above-discussed federal statutes. 
In addition. Mr. Epstein did not know of Ms. Gonzalez before she actually came to his 
home. did not induce or persuade her to come by phone, did not speak to her at all by phone prior 
to her visit, did not induce or persuade Ms. Robson to bring an underage girl to his residence, 
and did not otherwise violate either the federal statute § 2422(b) nor the travel Ihr the purpose 
statute § 2423(b). Indeed. in her statement. Ms. Gonzalez testified: "1 Inky told me to say I was 
IR because I Paley said ... if you're not then he [Epstein.' won't really let you in his house. So I 
said I was 18." (Gonzalez Sworn Statement at 38-39). In fact. there is no evidence that Mr. 
Epstein expected an underage girl to visit him prior to his regular travel to Florida. his home of 
Eileen years. 'Thus the travel could not have been for the purpose of having illegal sexual 
contact and § 2423(b) is no more available as a predicate for § 2255 recovery than is § 2422(b), 
Never having reached the threshold violations enumerated under of § 2255. Ms. Gonzalez would 
still have to prove that she suffered a personal injury. Further, unknown to Mr. Epstein at the 
time, Ms. Gonzalez represented herself to be 18 not only to him but also to the public on her web 
page where she posted a nude photo clearly looking at least IX years old. 
At the December 14 meeting. we also discussed Tatum Miller as emblematic of our 
concerns surrounding the government's selection of "victims." As you are mare, Ms. Miller 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013355 
EFTA00230260

12/21/2007 11:56 FAX 
QD004/006 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Aerosol 
December 2I, 2007 
Page 3 
was identified in previous correspondence as a person who remained on the Government's list of 
"victims" even after (at least according to Ms. Villufana's letter) the list was subjected to careful 
multi-party review. Ms.. Miller's sworn statement clearly reflects the fact that she is not a 
"victim' under § 2422(b). She plainly admits that she suffered no injury; the conduct was 
consensual: she lied to Mr.. Epstein about her age; she instructed others to lie about their ages: 
there was no sexual contact between herself and Mr. Lipstein at any time; and them was never 
any inducement over the telephone, computer or through any other means of interstate commerce 
We ask that you consider the most relevant highlights front her testimony offered below: 
• Consent 
A: I said. I told Jeffrey, I heard you like massages topless. And he's like. yeah, he 
said, hut you don't have to do anything that you don't feel comlbrutble with. And I 
said okay. but I willingly look it all: (Miller Sworn Statement at 10) 
• lied About Her Age 
A: . . . I had a lake II) anyways. saying that I was 18. And she just said make sure 
you're 18 because Jeffrey doesn't want any underage girls. (Miller Sworn Statement 
tub) 
A: ... of course. he thought I was 18... (Miller Sworn Statement at 13) 
• Instructed Others to Lic About Their Ages 
A: . . . I would tell my girlfriends just like Carolyn approached me. Make sure you 
tell him you're III. Well, these girls that I brought. f know that they were IR 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 IS. (Miller Sworn Statement at 22) 
• No Sexual Contact 
Q: I le never pulled you closer to bin in a sexual way? 
A: I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no. never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. 
(Miller Sworn Statement at 21 ) 
• No Inducement 
A: No. I gave Jeffrey my number. And I said. you know, any time you want me to 
give you a massage again, I'll more than welcome to. (Miller Sworn Statement at 8) 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013356 
EFTA00230261

12/21/2007 11:56 FAX 
la005/008 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 21.2007 
Page 4 
A: Every girl that I brought to Jeffrey. they said they were line with it. And like. for 
instance 
a lot of girls begged me to bring them back. 
'They wanted to come back for the money. And as fur as I know, we all had fun there. 
(Miller Sworn Statement at 45) 
The sworn testimony of 
contains explicit denials from the alleged "victim" 
herself that she suffered any phystca . emotional, or personal injury as required by the express 
language of § 2255. Further, the sworn testimony of Ms. Miller contains a complete disavowal 
that Mr. Epstein or anyone on his behalf used a facility of interstate commerce to knowingly 
persuade. coerce, entice, or induce her to engage in sexual offenses as required by § 2422(h). 
Likewise, the transcript provides no basis ((Jr u § 2423(h) violation in that Mr. Epstein had a 
residence in Palm Beach for over 10 years at the time of these events, traveled to Palm Beach for 
a myriad of legitimate reasons ranging from medical appointments to business appointments 
having nothing to do with a sexual objective, and could not be legally charged with traveling to 
his own home particularly in the absence of any provable nexus between the travel and a 
dominant pumas° to engage in illicit sexual conduct. Although Ms. Villafima informed us 
during the December 14 meeting that she had a telephone toll record showing tea uut-uf-state call 
to or from Ms. Miller's phone to a phone number associated with Mr. Epstein. such a record fails 
to prove the content of the call, the identity of the communicators. whether the call discussed or 
resulted in a plan for Ms. Miller to visit Mr. Epstein's residence, whether any inducement 
occurred on the nut of state call or, more importantly for purposes of the sex tourism statute. 
whether any travel was planned to Florida or resulted from the phone call. Ms. Miller's 
testimony is that she believed that at any time she was called by Mr.. Epstein or anyone on his 
behalf. Mr. Epstein was already in Florida. She also testified to the absence of any sexual 
contact other than topless massages (topless massages are lawful in Florida at age 16, unless the 
definition of prostitution is unnaturally expanded). A complete transcript of the federal interview 
of Ms. Miller has previously been provided to you. 
Your wish to put these women in the mime position as they would have been had there 
been a federal conviction assumes they are each legitimate victims of at least one of the two 
specific federal crimes enumerated under * 2255. We respectfully have to disagree with that 
assumption, and even your current formulation of § 2255 would prejudice Mr. Epstein in this 
regard. 
Second. your proposal also effectively deprives Mr.. Epstein of his opportunity to test the 
ilidity of these womens' claims claims that would have been extensively tested at trial. In 
light of what we have already learned about Snige Uouralez and 
it is inappropriate 
to deny Mr.. Epstein and his counsel the right to test the merits of each of these women? cases. 
in order to verify that they in fact suffered " personal injury' as required bye 7255 and to assess,. 
whether they are in fact victims of any violations of § 2422(b) or § 24— 
) as also required by') 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
EFTA00230262

12/21/2007 11:57 FAX 
e 006/008 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Aebsta 
December 2l, 2007 
Page 5 
j255. Given your Otlice's informing us that Ms. 'mooned on a reduced list of federal 
"victims" and given our understanding that Ms. gilmilm as well VMS one of those who is also 
on the list or persons the Government contends were victims of Mr. Epstein's alleged violation 
of federal law, we have a principled concern about adopting your recommended language which 
would leave Mr. Epstein without a basis to challenge the good faith premise of an application to 
recover S 150.000. 
Thirds the Agreement. even if modified in accord with your December 19 letter. would 
' put the witnesses in a better position than if Mr. Epstein had been federally prosecuted rather 
than in an equal position and, in fact, encourages the witnesses to make unfounded claims with 
impunity. Ilad there been a conviction, these women would have been thoroughly cross-
examined. for the veracity of their statements, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for 
claiming person! injury. Also. Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or 
Jencks, material in the tbnn of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they 
learned of any financial benefit that may be available to them—evidence that should be 
considered in determining the credibility of their application for a substantial civil recovery. 
Furthermore, Mr. Epstein would be without the means to challenge whether the claimant could 
make out a prima facie ease that she was a victim of a violation by Mr. Epstein of § 2422(h) or 
any other federal statute—a denial of his rights that would insulate potential claimants such as Ms. 
Miller and Ms. Gonzalez from any challenge on this clement even if under other circumstances 
challenge would result in a summary judgment in Mr. Epstein's favor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. 
Lastly. the modified language recommended by you presupposes that Mr. Epstein would have 
been charged and convicted of substantive violations rather than charged and convicted of a 
conspiracy allegation. Conspiracy convictions are not amongst the predicates enumerated by 
§ 2255 and do not, without more, result in the basis fir a determination of "personal injury". 
Since our request to view the draft indictment was rejected on December 14. we have no means 
to know what it contained by way of allegations. 
Fourth, I want to respond to several statements in your letter that we believe require 
immediate correction. With regard to your first footnote. I want to be absolutely clear. We do 
not believe for one moment that you had prior knowledge of the AUSA's attempt to require us to 
hire the friend of her live-in boyfriend, and pay his lees on a contingency basis to sue Mr. 
Epstein. We realize you corrected that irregular situation as soon as you discovered it. We 
thought this was precipitated by our complaint. but have no real knowledge as to the timing of 
events. Furthermore, your letter also suggests that our objection to your OlLee's proposed 
victims notification letter was that the women identified as victims of federal crimes should not 
be notified of the state proceedings. That is not tnie. as our previous letter clearly states. Putting 
aside our threshold contention that many of those to whom 3771 notification letters arc intended 
arc in fact not victims as defined in the Attorney General's 2000 Victim Witness Guidelines--u 
status rtmuiring physical. emotional or pecuniary injury of the delimdant—it was and remains our 
position that these women may he notified of such proceedings but since they ore neither 
witnesses nor victims to the suite prosecution of this matter, they should not he informed of 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013358 
EFTA00230263

12/21/2007 11:57 FAX 
a 
007/008 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLI' 
It. Alexander Acosta 
December 21. 2007 
Page 6 
fictitious "rights" or invited to make sworn written or in-court testimonial statements against Mr. 
Epstein at such proceedings. as Ms.. Villafana repeatedly maintained they had the right to do. 
Additionally, it was and remains our position that any notification should he by mail and that all 
proactive efforts by the FBI to have communications with the witnesses alter the execution of the 
Agreement should finally come to an end. 
We agree, however, with your December 19 
modification of the previously drafted federal notification letter and agree that the decision as to 
who can be heard at a state sentencing is. amongst many other issues. properly within the aegis 
of state decision making. 
Your December 19 letter references Professor Dershowitz's position on the 
inapplicability of Florida Statute § 796.03. Professor Dershowitz made such arguments in the 
context of saying that he had been unable to discern, alter great ellbri. and supported by years of 
experience, any basis for the application of § 2422(b) or other federal sex statutes to Mr. 
Epstein's conduct and that the federal statutes required more oral stretch to lit the facts thun the 
proposed state statute to which Ms. Villafana wanted Mr. Epstein to plead. 
Professor 
Dershowitz also stated that Ms. Villafana had represented that it was she who had the facts to 
support. both the threatened federal charges of § 2422 and/or § 2423 and the proposed state 
charge of § 796.03 (which the parties understood to he the stoic charge of soliciting a minor, as 
Ms. Villalima's last letter clearly states). Only last week we learned for the find time that Ms. 
Villafana did not realize that the charge was actually for "procuring" nut "soliciting". The 
charge (a pimp statute) of procuring a prostitute for a third party for financial gain is one for
which Ms. Villafana now states she does not have the filets to support. 
Furthermore. you suggest that we have purposefully delayed the date of Mr.. Epstein's 
plea and sentencing in breach of the Agreement and now seek an "11th hour appeal" in 
Washington. I believe we have already responded to this objection satisfactorily, both in our 
discussion earlier this week and in the entail I sent to you two days ago in which I specifically 
addressed this issue. Indeed, any impediment to the resolution at issue iatlizta 
au•e of lie 
disagreements between tlx: parties as to a common inlernrCtnlinn of the Agreement. and we have 
ode and will continue to make sincere elions to res ve and finalize issues as 
expeditiously as possible. In fact, since t e initial ono negotiations between Mr.. bpste n s 
counsel and your Unice. we have always proceeded iu a timely manner and made several efforts 
to meet with the attorneys in your Office in person when we believed that a face-to-face meeting 
would theilitate a resolution. 
Finally, the suggestion by your staff that you hold Mr. Epstein in breach of the 
Agreement by his failure to plea and be sentenced on October 26. 2007 is directly contradicted 
by Mr.. Sloman's e-mail to me dated October 31 In which he states. "Your understanding from 
Jack Goldberger conforms to my understanding that Mr.. Epstein's plea and sentence will take 
place on the same day. 1 understand that the plea and sentence will occur on or belbn: the 
January 4th date." This has been our common understanding for some time. which we have now 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013359 
EFTA00230264

12/21/2007 11:57 FAX 
®008/008 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
R. Alexander Acosta 
December 21, 2007 
Page 7 
reiterated several times. With that said. please be advised that we am workinµ for a quick 
resolution and do not seek to delay the proceedings. 
Thank you again for your time and consideration. We look lbrward to your rc.xponse to 
the concerns we have raised that have not yet been addressed. 
1 wish you a very happy and a healthy new year. 
Sincerely. 
. Lefkoilitz 
ce: 
Honorable Alice Fisher. Assistant Attorney General 
Jeffrey II. Slornan. First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013360 
EFTA00230265

12/21/2007 11:55 FAX 
J oovociq 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Fax Transmittal 
Ciligroup Center 
153 Cast 53rd Street 
Now York. N w 
-4611 
Phon 
Fax: 
Plano notify us Immediately If any pages are not received. 
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. UNAUTHORIZED USE. 
DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. 
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, 
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: 
To: 
Company: 
Fax #: 
Direct #: 
R. Alexander Acosta 
US Attorney's Office 
305-530-6444 
305-961-9100 
CC: 
Company: 
Fax #: 
Direct 
Jeffrey II. Slornan 
US Attorney's Office 
305-530-6444 
30596192/9 
Alice S. Fisher 
Department of .1 usriee 
202-5114-9412 
202-514-2601 
From: 
.1:3y P.T.elkowitz 
Date: 
Parpswitowy: 
Fox #: 
December 2 I • 2007 
S 
IM -446-6460 
Direct #: 
Message: 
Please see attached. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013361 
EFTA00230266

14124/0 7 1.e-f- 
t2 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013362 
EFTA00230267