EFTA00289808.pdf

t To 'Jay Lefkowitz" cc ' lk(USAFLSV)- gov> bcc 09/24/2007 Subject RE: Epstein agreement as reviewed by the U.S. Attorney 01:27 PM Hi Jay — Sorry for the delay. The U.S. Attorney had a last-minute concern, that I think I fixed (it is in the first "It Appearing" clause following the list of statutes potentially violated). After you get the green light, let's discuss the potential representative. The person I am thinking of has run a preliminary conflicts check and it looks alright. Also, to address Mr. Epstein's concern regarding the list of names, I wanted to tell you that I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors. There are six others, whose names we already have, who need to be interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time of their activity with Mr. Epstein. Once those interviews are completed, I can finalize the list of identified victims, which I will put in a formal document that I will maintain until the time of Mr. Epstein's sentencing. Assuming that this agreement is fine, please execute at least three copies, and send one to me by fax and the rest by FedEx. I will execute and send the copies back. Thank you. EFTA00289808  To "Jay Lefkowitz" cc J.gov> bcc 09/24/2007 04:34 PM Subject RE: Do you have a signed copy? Thank you, Jay. I hay rded your message only to Alex, Andy, and Rolando. I anticipate it going any further than that. When I receive the originals, I will sign and return one copy to you. The other will be placed in the case file, which will be kept confidential since it also contains identifying information about the girls. When we reach an agreement about the attorney representative for the girls, we can discuss what I can tell him and the girls about the agreement. I know that Andy promised Ch an update when a resolution was achieved. (Something I have promised in light of what happened last year.) Rolando is calling, but Rolando knows not to tell Chief Reiter about the money issue, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and the amount of time that has been agreed to. Rolando also is telling Chief Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone. From: Jay Lefkowitz [mallto Sen • 24, 2007 4:06 PM To: (USAF S) Subject Re: Do you have a signed copy? To"Jay Lefkowitz" cc 09/24/2007 04:04 PM SubjectDo you have a signed copy? Hi Jay — Sorry to be a bother, but do you have a copy that at least contains Mr. Epstein's signature? I need to pass it along to the powers that be. Thanks. EFTA00289809  To "Jay Lefkowitz" cc boc Subject RE Other attorneys 09/26/200711:01 AM Hi Jay — Can you give me a call at this morning? I am meeting with the agents and want to give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls. Also, please remove Babbitt and Searcy from the list. There is too great a chance of an appearance of impropriety with Babbitt and I received a bad report about Searcy last night. Thank you. SSE ,•- Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone Fax III From: (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:37 PM To: 'Jay Lefkowite Subject: Other attorneys Hi Jay — These four people were recommended. I have not contacted them to find out what their rates are. All are very active in the plaintiffs' bar in the West Palm area. Ted Babbitt would be my first choice of these four but I think he is conflicted out het:line one of his partners is married to an AUSA here. Stuart Grossman is probably my second choice. Ted Babbitt — http://www.babbitt-iohnson.com/tbabbitt.html EFTA00289810 Stuart Grossman — http://wwwsuossmanandrotlx.comtsgrossman.htan Chris Searcy — http://www.searcvlaw.corn/CHRISTIANDSEARCY/tabid/935/def aultaspx Lake Lytal, Jr. — lattp://www.lvtalreiter.comtindex.pleoase id=37 Talk to Jack Goldberger about this group. They are all very good personal injury lawyers, but I have concerns about whether there would be an inherent tension because they may feel that THEY might make more money (and get a lot more press coverage) if they proceed outside the terms of the plea agreement (Sony I just have a bias against plaintiffs' attorneys.) One nice thing about Bert is that he is in Miami where there has been almost no coverage of this case. Just so you know, I have never met Bert, but a good friend in our appellate section and one of the district judges in Miami are good friends with him and recommended him. Can you let me know tomorrow? I am going to be out for a while starting on Friday, and I would like to get this underway before I leave. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone Fax EFTA00289811  To "Jay Lelkowite < cc j.gov> bee 09/27/2007 10:52 AM Subject Conference Call with Bert Ocariz Hi Jay — Bert's firm has raised a number of good questions about how they are going to get paid and setting up a procedure that avoids any conflict of interest with their clients. Me you around today to do a conference call? Let me know what times work for you because Bert wants to get their conflicts counsel on the call with us. These are some of the questions he sent to me. I told Bert that as part of our agreement we (the federal government) are not going to indict Mr. Epstein, but gave him an idea of the charges that we had planned to bring as related to 18 USC 2255. With respect to question 2, do I have your permission to send Bert just that section of the plea agreement that applies to the damages claims (I would recommend sending paragraphs 7 through 10, or at least 7 and 8)? Can you talk with your client about items 3 and 4? I envisioned Shook Hardy sending regular bills to you, with any privileged information redacted, and being paid like every other client pays the bills. 1. Can we get a copy of the indictment (or can you tell me the nature of the crimes against the girls)? 2. When will it be possible to see the plea agreement so that we understand exactly what Epstein concedes to in the civil case? 3. Is there any cap or other limitation on attorney's fees that the defendant will pay In the civil case? 4. What is the contemplated procedure for; and timing of, the payment of attorney's fees and costs? EFTA00289812 Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone Fax EFTA00289813  To "Jay Lefkovatz" CC "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" 11/27/2007 01:55 PM bcc Subject Epstein .3c1.7 A:a Jay, Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner but I was a little under the weather yesterday. I hope that you enjoyed your Thanksgiving. Regarding the issue of due diligence concerning Judge Davis' selection, I'd like to make a few observations. First, Guy Lewis has known for some time that Judge Davis was making reasonable efforts to secure Aaron Podhurst and Bob Josephsberg for this assignment In fact, when I told you of Judge Davis's selection during our meeting last Wednesday, November 21", you and Professor Dershowitz seemed very comfortable, and certainly not surprised, with the selection. Podhurst and Josephsberg are no strangers to nearly the entire Epstein defense team including Guy Lewis, Lili Ann Sanchez, Roy Black, and, apparently, Professor Dershowitz who said he knew Mr. Josephsberg from law school. Second, Podhurst and Josephsberg have long-standing stellar reputations for their legal acumen and ethics. It's hard for me to imagine how much more vetting nulls to be done. The United States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will make one MI week since you were formally notified of the selection. I must insist that the vetting process come to an end. Therefore, unless you provide me with a goodfaith objection to Judge Davis's selection by COB tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification of the victims. Should you give me the go-ahead on Podhurst and Josephsberg selection by COB tomorrow, I will simultaneously send you a draft of the letter. I intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 296. Thanks, • EFTA00289814 12/04/07 TUE 10:46 FAA 305 530 0440 BLEattivii or et eel U.S. Department of Justice Untied States Attorney Southern District of F7nrida AUXANDERACOOTA ft Mt Area 0111W) SMITS 47-1(Mo2Y Mont Ft, 33132 0(2)941.9110.7olophoow MMI MILSOM - Amble olitway BY P&(SIM11.9 Kenneth W, Starr, Esq Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Jeffery Epstein Dear Mr. Starr 1 write in response to your November 2r letter, in which you Rise concerns regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement between this Office and your client, Mr. Epstein. !take these concerns seriously. As your letter focused on the Section 2255 portion of the Agreement, my response will however. focus Pittaurily on that issue as well. I do wishto make some more general observations, Section 2255 provides %hal:41%y person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of [enumerated sections of Title 18) and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation ... may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person 'Sustains and the cost of the suit, Including a reasonable attorney's foe." Thus, had this Office proceeded to trial, and had Mr. Epstein been convicted, the victims of his actions would have been able to seek to relief under this Section. TheNon-Prosecution Agreemententered into beneeen this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Ifitder this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enunciated sections of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general (2) that this plea federal interests: (1) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registcrable" offense; include a binding recommencla tionl'ora sufficient term ofimprisonm ent;and (3)tbat the Agreement not hum the interests of his victims. This third point deserves elaboration. The intent is to place at trial. the victims in the same position as they would bare been had Mr. Epstein been convicted No more no lea. With this in mind, ! turn to the language of the Agreement. Paragraph 8 of the Agreement provides: if ant of tilt indIvialalsre524mIto in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file nit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States EFTA00289815 12/04/07 TUE 16:46 pa 306 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE oos District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person andfor the subject matter,' and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives iris right to contest damages up to an amount es agreed to between the identified victim and Epstein, so long as the identified victim 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. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signaturo on this agreement is not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability other than that contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Although these two sentences aro far from simple, they appear to incorporate our intent to narrowly tailor theAgreemeatto place the identified victims lathe samepositionas they wouldhave been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. T would note thin I have conferred with our prosecutors and have been told that Paragraph 8 was vigorously negotiated and that the final language was suggested largely by defense counsel. The conocms raised in your letter with respect to Paragraph 8 fast within several general categories. First, you ralabeencerns regarding the nature of Section 2255. As you note, Section 2255 is a civil statute implanted in the criminal codg in contrast to other criminal statutes, Section 2255 fails to correlate payments to specific injuries or losses. Instead the statute presumes that victims have sustained damages of at least a minimum lump sum without regard to whether the complainants suffered actual medical, physiological or other forms of individualized harm. These concerns were, l would expect, aired when Congress adopted this statute, liven if they were consider the not, this provision is now law. Rule of law requires now requires this District to victims' rights under this statute in negotiating this ‘,.....nant. Second, you raise concerns regarding the idemity-of-the-vietims issue. Your concerns appear based on the belief that Paragraph EC is is blanket waiver of liability with respect to any number of unnamed and undisclosed victims. Iwoukl invite you to confer with your co-counsel regarding this matter. Although the language of Paragraph S could be so conitimed, our First Assistant informed baa noted, were Mr. Lefkowitt some weeks ago that this was not our position. As Mr. Ladkowitz Mr. F.pstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victi ms M a subsequent Section 2255 suit would still have burden to move that they were "victims? it is also the case, however, that were Mr. had some to show that a violation of an Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims would not have enumerated section of Title 18 took place. Accordingly, our First Assistant informed Mr. Lefkowitz some weeks ago that we undaratood that if a victim-plaintiff elects to proceed to trial, Mr. Epstein's Akh0ugh not istcmitied in an issue by deftest awned, having reviewed ibis language, I note that Paragraph 8 rages the gorsti0n of what is meam by 'mbject nutter.' `Dave conferred with the AUSA rite nugotiated this language, and have been informed that parties intended this to address gas of venue. This Orrice wal not interpret this paragraph as my waiver of Subject matter jariselictiOn. Please Inform weir deflates counsel dila/fees EFTA00289816 12/04/07 TUE 18:47 FAX 305 530 5[40 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 004 legal team might conduct dee diligence to confirm the that victim-plaintiff in fact had inappropriate contact with Mr. Epstein. Onec again, our interpretive principle is our intent to place the victim in the same position she would have beat had Mr. Epstein proceeded to trial. Third, you raise concerns regardingour decision not to create a restitution fbnd. Throughout the negotiations, defense counsel suggested several similar arrangements, including a Trust !bad. Again, our decision not to ante a fund flows from our belief that theAgreement sbouldprovicie the same Taken) the victims as they would have been entitled had we proceeded to trial. A restitution land or trust fund would place an upper limit on the victims' recovery. It is not for this Office to make that decision for the victims. They may choose to walk away, they may choose to settle, or they may choose to sue. The choke should remain with each individual victim? Fourth, you raise concerns regarding the selection process for the attorney representative. As you may be aware, the suggestion that we appoint an attorney representative originated with defame counsel. Defame counsel, I believe, found it advantageous to attempt to negotiate a settlement of the many victims' claims with one attorney representative. My Office agreed to appoint such a representative, in part, because we too thought it valuable for the victims to have the advice of an attorney who could advise them of their choices: whether to walk away, to settle or to sue. Since the signing of the Agreement, several issues have arisen with respect to this provision. First,leketed to assi an ibis Office's right to appointthe representative to an independentthird-party, former federal Judge Davis. I did this to avoid any suggestion that this Office's choice of representative was intended to influence the outcome of civil litigation. Second, your oo•eotmsel expressed concerns similar to those raised in your letter regarding the criteria used to select the representative. These criteria were: (1) Experience doing both plaintiffs' and defense litigation; (2) Experience with state and federal statutory and common law tort claims; (3) Ability to communicate effectively with young women; (4) Experience litigating against huge law firms and high profile attorneys who may test the veracity of the victims' claims; (5) Sensitivity to the nature of the suit and the victims' interest in maintaining their Pdvacy: (6) Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida; ' Your later references U.S. v Do lam. No. 2:04CR00003 (D. Ala 2004) at a modal for a restitution fund setgernent. lacked our prosecutor to contact the AUSA in that case. In that matter, the District of Alaska sought out and obtnined the consent of ail the victim, before entering into that sentanenr. In addition, they developed an elaborate procedure for deciding which victim would receive what. My view, in this case, is that those types of negotiations are better handler! between It. apatdit and the victims' representatives, and that this Office should not act as intermediary. Finally, I would note that in Boehm is well, the victims' identities were net Initially disclosed. At the AUSA wrote In dint cam "This filing is made cx ante because Boehm in hit plea agreement, waived any rights he Tad penalning to the material of beneficiaries and the disbursement of Ponds to such beneficiaries." EFTA00289817 12/04/07 711E 16:47 FAX 305 530 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Zoos (7) The resources to hire experts and others, while working on a contingency fee basis, in order to prepare for trial if a settlement cannot be reached (defense counsel has reserved the right to challenge such litigation); and (8) The ability m negotiate effectively. At my dirceticar, our First Assistant provided ow criteria to your co-cormsel, Mr. Lefkowitz, in advance, and at co-counsel's request, he noted in our communication with Judge Davis, defense counsel's objection to criteria 7. I have now reviewed these criteria and find them balanced and reasonable. They appear designed to provide the victims with an attorney who can advise them on all their options, whether it be to walk away, to settle (as your client prefers), or to litigate. Again, our intent Is not to Paver any one of these options, but rather to leave the choice to each victim. Fifth, you assert that this Office "has improperly insisted that the chosen attorney reptesentative should be able to litigate the claims of the individuals." should a resolution nor be possible. This issue, likewise, has already been raised and addressed in discussions between your co-counsel and our First Assistant We understand your position that it would be a conflict of interest for the attorney representative to subsequentlyrepresent victim-plaintiffs inacivil suit. Your imapretafton of the ethics rules may be coned, or it may be wrong. Far from insisting that the attorney representative can represent victim-plaintiffs in subsequent litigation, our First Assistant Indeed, 1 finny and!have repeatedly told defense counsel that we take no position on this matter. expect your defense team to litigate this issue with the attorney representative if a resolution is not reached. I have responded personally and in some detail to your concerns because I deeply care about both the law and the integrity of this Office. I have responded personally and in some detail as well becauseyour leiter troubled me on a number of levels. My understanding of the negotiations in this matter informs my concerns. The Section 2255 provision issue was first discussed at a July 31, 2007, meeting between FAUSA S/0111810. Criminal Chief Menthol, West Paint Brach Chief Lonnie, AUSA Villafaiia, and that date, the two FBI agents who met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefeourt, and Lilly Ann Smeller., On prosecutors presented a written, four-bullet-po int term sheet that would satisfy the federal interest in the case end discussed the substance of chime terms. One of these four points was the following provision: Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified is the federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255, Epsteinwill not contest the jurisdiction of thelJ.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject matter. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims aro persons who, while minors, wore victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code. Section s(s) 2422 andfor 2423. _a_ EFTA00289818 12/04107 TUE 16:48 PAZ 305 530 6440 exewri vs OFFICE Ill Doe in mid August2007,yotadcfenseteam,dissatislied with my stairs review°film case, asked to meet with me. Mr. Lefkowdz indicated your busy schedule, and asked me to put off mull September 7.2007, so that you could attend. Mr. Lefkowitz also Indicated that he might appeal my decision to Washington D.C., if my decision was contrary to his client's intexest I agreed to the September 7" meeting, despite the fact that our AUSA had an indictment ready for presentation to the grandjory. An explicit wuditionoftbst agrtement, however,was an utdemtbading tetweea Mr. Letkowliz and myself that any appeal to Washington would be undertaken expeditiously Ou September 7, 2007,i, along with FAUSAt,AUSAs and FBI agents, met with you, Mr. Lefkowitz, and Ms. Sanchez. I understood that you wished to present Federalism-based con r • our prosecution. To ensure a full consideration of your arguments, l invited Chief of the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, to travel from Washington to attend our meeting. During the September 7th meeting, your co-counsel, Mr. Lefirowitz, offend a pleamsolution. The inclusion of a Section 2255 remedy ally raised and discussed at the September 7° meeting. Indeed, according to AUSA notes, you thanked her for bringing it to your attention, Again, no objection to the Section 2255 issue was raised. After considering the arguments raised at the September 7° meeting, and after contesting with the FBIand with Chief Oortabsan,our Office decided to proceed with the indictment At that time, I reminded Mr. Lefkowitztbat be led previously indicated his desire to appeal such a decision to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the Ctiminal Division, end' offered to direct our prosecutors to delay the presentation of the indictment to allow you or les to appeal our decision if you so chose. He decided not to do so. Instead, Mr. Epsteinelemed tonegotiatetheNon-Prosecution Agreement These negotiations vane detailed and time-consuming. Mr. Epstein's defense teem, including yotaself, Professor Dershowite, former United States Attorney Guy Lewis, Ma Lilly Ann Sanchez and Messrs. Roy Black, Jack Goldberger, Gerry Lefroart and Jay Lcfkowitz had the opportunity to review and raise objections to the terms of the Agreement Again, no one raised objections to the Section 2255 language. Since the signing of theAgreement, the defense team and our Office have addressed several ipues that have arisen under the Agreement Although the exchanges were at times a bit litigious, ill appears that these issues have been resolved by mutual consent, some in favor ofyour client some not so. ft is against these many previous foregone oppottunides to object that I receive with surprise your letter requesting an t I a hour, after-the-feet review of our Agreement. Although it happens rarely, I do not mind this Office's decision being appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although I am confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal in the Criminal analysis. I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts EFTA00289819 12/04/07 TUE 16:t8 FAX 30$ 230 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 007 Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to confirm ow interpretation of the law before approving their indictment package. t am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department lieedquraters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in fact resolved, in your client's favor. I am troubled, likewise, by the apparent leek of finality in this Agreement. The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears to theta that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must be closure on this nuttier. Some in ow Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount toilette! challengesto provisions of the Agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his gttilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult if not impossible, to upwind. Finally, I am most concerned about any belief on the part of defense counsel that the Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitutional in any way. ) in closing, f would ask that you consult with co-counsel. If after consultations within the defenseteam, you believe that our Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitttional.I would ask I have that you notify us immediately so that we can discuss the matter by phone or in person. consulted with the chief prosecutor in this case, who has advised me that she is ready to unwind the Agreement and proceed to trial if necessary or if appropriate. would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office over to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agteement against his wishes. Your elicit has the right to proceed to trial. Although time is ofthe essence (I understand that certain filings are due to our Office no later than December 74' and that certain events must take place no later than December 10), 1 am directing our time prosecutors not to issue victim notification left= until this Friday at Spm., to provide you with to review these options with your client. We em available by phone or to person, in the interim, to It is not clear torn your letter "Maher you believe that attorneys in this Office hart acted knecopfdy. Your idler, for examp!c, alludes to the need to engage in an Inquiry to assurethat diSekumires to potential witnesses did not undermine the reliability of OM result of this fecal investlgatioa. Asa former I have Department oflustice Amoley,,I Am wtnis that you recognise that this is a serious allegation.availability raised this mew with AUSA who informed rt e that the victims were not told of the you have specific concernt. I ask that of Stelio° 2255 mikEdurlag the investigation phase of this matter. Ifinquiries these with me immediarety, so that I am make appointee you raise -6- EFTA00289820 12/04/07 111E 16:4$ FAX 306 530 6440 EXpCIIIVIS OFFICE 0004 addrms any matters that might remain unaddressed in this Ietter. We expect a written decision by this Friday at 5 p.m., indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the Agreement. Sincerely, It. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY cc: " Assistant Attorney General First Assistant U.S. Anorney EFTA00289821 12/06/07 111) 15:22 FAX 303 530 0440 SXECU/lVE OFFICE Blear US. Department of Justice Untied Stalesilitornay Southern District ofFkrlda 99N.E. Street Mond. PL 35132-Jill (305)96142O Facsimile: (70S) 004(0 December 6, 2007 DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay?. Leficowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LIP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 100224675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: I write in response to your recent -cmails and letters regarding victim notification and other isms. Our Office is trying to perform out contractual obligat ions under the Agreement, which we feel are being frustrated by defense counsel's objections. The Office also is concerned about Mr. Epstein's nemperfonnance. Mom than three weeks ago we spoke about the Mute 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 McSocloy. You promised that a date would be set promp tly. On November 15th, Rolando Garcia met with Barry Maher 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 notific ationletters. You continue to refer to the plea and sentencing as though it wlll January; Mr. KrIsher's office has not confirmed any date; and Mr. Goldberger recently tel Villafefis that "there is no date." I must reiterate that a delayed guilty plea and sentencing — now mete than two months beyond the original deadline — is unacceptable to the Office. As you will recall, the plea and sentencing bearing originally was to OCCIlf 271 early Octobe r 2007, but was delayed until Caebaber26th to allow Mr. Goldberger to attend. R was delayed again until November to allow you to attend. Rather than using your best efforts to insure that the plea and sentencing occur in November, we recentlylearned that a plea conference had been scheduled with JudgeMeSoday forNovember 20. 2007, but was canceled at the request of the patties , not the judge. Judge IvIeSorley has not been away fbr any eXtended period, and them is no basis for your assertion that the judge is the cause of EFTA00289822 12/08/07 TEU 18:23 PAX 305 530 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE glen JAY P. 1111KOWT7Z,Esq. Damen6, 2007 PACE 2 OP 4 any past or future delay. Mr. Epstein eunently has four Florida Bar members on his defense team, 30 attorney scheduling is not an adequate basis for delay. Three weeks agoI also asked you toprovide our Office withthe with the State Attorney's Office. It is now more than two month terms ofthe Plea Agreement s since the again of the Non- Prosecution Agreement and we have yet to see wry fbrmal agreement, or evou a list °remade terms of such an agreement, Next, let me address your allegation that attorneys ha our office and agents of leaked information to thepress in an effort to affect possible the FBIhave 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. We Intend to continua to refrain from commenting or providing information to the press. We would ask that your client and all of his representatives do the same. I also want to address your interpretation of several statements conospondence at your insistence— as proofthat the designated that were included in- victimshave 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 vielation of section . 2422 or 2423 of this title." in other words, the Office is prepared to indict Mr. Epstein based upon Mr. Epstein's "interactions" with these individuals.' This conclusion is based upon a thorough and proper investigation — onein which new of the victims was informed ofany right to receive damages ofany amount prior to the investigation other not a party to, and wilt not take a role in, any civil claim. The Office agrees that it is litigation, but the Office an say, without hesitation, that the evidence demonstrates that each person on the list cnrninal behavior. Mr. Starr's letter also suggests that the numbe was a victim ofMr.Epstein's r ofvictims to wham Mr. Epstein is exposed byMe Agreement is limitless. As you know, early drafts of the Agreement contained a numerical limit of40 victims, which was removed at your reques t. The Office repearedlyconfinned that the number would not exceed*, and the list is significantly shorter than that Once the list is provided to you, ifyou have a good faitlibasis for asserdng that remain willing to listen and to modify the lid if you convin a victim never met Mr. Bpsteie, we ce as of your position. _Dully,letmeaddress raurobjections to thedraft Victim youEn understand the basis for the Office NotificationLelia. You write that 's belief that it is appropriate to notify the victims Pursuant to the "Justice for All Act of2004," crime victims . accurate, and timely notice of any public cowl procee are entitled to: "The right to reasonable, ding ... involving the crime and the "right `Unlike the States investigation, the federal investigation Epstein at least as early asMI, so all of the victims shows criminal conduct by Mr. were minors at the time of the offense EFTA00289823 12/00/07 THU 16:23 FAX 306 630 6440 EXECUTIVE 0PPICE 111004 LW P. LEPEOWM., ESQ. DECEMBER 6, 2007 PA063 0P4 not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding ." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX2) & (3). Section 3771 also commands that "employees of the Department of Justice . engaged in the detection, iuvesugation,ormosecution of alma shall make their boatel:1 *one to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a)." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(oX1). Additionally, parstumt to the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, our Office is obligated to "inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to winch the victim may be entitled under this or any other law and Ding man= in which such relief maybe obtained." 42 U.S.C. § 10607(cX1XB). With respect to notification of the other information that we propose to disclose, the statute requires that we provide a victim with the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation; the filing of charges against a suspected offender; and the accept ance of a plea. 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)(3). Just as in 18 U.S.C. § 3771, these sections an not (linked to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a stato offense. The victims identif ied through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecu tion Agreement does not require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego its legal obligations. With respect to your assertion that we are seeking to "federalize" the state plea, ow office is simply informing the victims of their rights. It does not command than o to file a victim impact statement. to appear at the hearing In Lac the letter recommends the sending of any statement to the Slate Attorney's Office so that ASA a can determine which, if any, statements are appropriate to file with the Court. Next, you assert that ow letter misebaractaiz' es Mr. the victims. To avoid that suggestion, I have asked AlJSA MM obligation to pay damages to Ilto simply quote the tarns of the Agreement directly into the Notification Latter. We also have no objection to referring to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual offender" rather than a "predator." We have no objection to using the conjunction "and/o r" 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 theOffice has no intention to t