EFTA01718506.pdf

• 12/If/2001 If: IV FAX le I / IIU KIRKLAND A. ELLIS LLP I lononthle R. Alexander Acosta December 17. 2007 Page 10 testimony establishes: that the conduct was consensual: that she lied to Mr. Epstein about her age: that she instructed others to lie to Mr. Epstein about their ages: that there was no sexual contact at any time: and that there was no inducement over the telephone or any other form of communication. Excerpts of. testimony establishing each of these pivotal points are set forth below: • Consent Q: Okay. When did you meet him moot who itfroduced you to Jeffrey? A: My girlfriend, introduced me to JelTrey.s Sworn Statement at 3- (l= 6) Q: Now you said that told you that he likes mumps. Did she elaborate on what types of massage:1W A: She said sometimes he likes topless massages, but you don't have to do anything you don't want to do. lie just likes massages. Sworn Statement at 7) A: I said. I told Jeffrey. I heard you like massages topless. And he's like. yeah. he said. but you don't have to do anything that you don't feel enmlbrtahle with. And I said okay. but I willingly took it off. • Sworn Statement at 10). • Lied About Her Age Sot asked her. I said :mil. what about my age? And she said well, just make sure that you tell him that you're IS. And I had a fake II) al the time and we went there. Sworn Statement at 6) Atttwugll we *re unaware as to whether nn the government's list otallegcd "victims—. it hears mentionin • that has a criminal record and other damaging credibility issues. including a himory o EFTA01718506 ' 12/17/2007 17:19 FAX 012/110 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP lonorahle It. Alexander Acosta 1.tectanber 17,2007 Page 11 A:.. . I had a fake ID anywuys, saying that I was 18. And she just said make sure you're IS because Jeffrey doesn't want any underage girls. 1= Sworn Statement at 81 A:. . . of course. he thought I was I&. . Sworn Statement at 13) • Instructed Others to tic About Their Ages A: . . . I bring a lot.. like maybe -- I don't know, maybe 30. maybe 30 (girls to Epsteinj. It was all about the money to me at that time. (=Sworn Statement at 2/1) A:. . . I would tell my girlfriends just like approached rne. Make sure you tell him you're 18. Well, these girls that I brought, I know that They were IS 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. Sworn Statement al 22) • Nu Sexual Contact A' So I willingly the first time took of/ my top when I gave him u massage and nothing more than that. It was just a back massage and neck massage and I was out of there. Sworn Statement at 9) * * * Q: Did he at any point kiss you. touch you, show any kind of affection towards you? A: Never, never. IM Sworn Statement at 21) A: lle didn't want me to much hint and he didn't touch Inc at all. M .Sworn Statement at 17) A: I would wear panties. Willingly one time hr- • re making jokes and everything and willingly one time I. had. yes. 1 was but I was tine with it. EFTA01718507 • 12/11/200f lf:1A FAX KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP I !pourable It...Alexander Acosta Deeemher 17. 2007 • Page 12 Q: Okay. A: Totally fine with it. Q: And how did that massage go? A: Actually. it was a foot manage and he was sitting on the couch. We didn't even have the massage table out and I gave him a (hot rub and I Was In Sworn Statement at 20-2I ) Q: lie never pulled you closer to him in a sexual way? A: I wish. No. no. never, over, ever, no. never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. Sworn Statement at 21) Q: Okay. And with the other girls, was it the same as what you did or different? A: Yeah. yeah. I mean. well, I was more willingly to do more. you know. Like said, I went for him one time. Bin the other girls. (hey practically stn topless and that's all that they were willing to do. Some girls didn't want to go topless and Jeffrey didn't mind. (=Sworn Statement at 23) • No Inducement A: . . . JelTrey, he was a very awesome guy and I just — I don't know. I ended up giving him my number so I could -- I didn't want or to drive ine. anymore. I would rather go to him on my own. Sworn Statement at 15) A A * * * A: No, I gave Jeffrey my number. And 1 mid. you know, any lime you want me to give you a massage again. I'll more than welcome to. Sworn Statement at II) A: Me and Jeffrey hardly ever talked on the phone. Ile was always busy. It was mostly We'd talk when I would get them, you know. So it was like hey. do you want to come in? Yes. cool. you know. Come there, no. cool, bye.' Sworn Statement at 32-33) EFTA01718508 • -• - i2/1 f/200f 1 r: 18 tax W 014/110 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Ilonorable R. Alexander Acosta December 17. 2007 Page 13 * * * Q: We have -- I don't know. We have some massages I guess that some girls' names that would call Jeffrey and leave a [message) ... (=Sworn Statement at 25) * A: Livery girl that i brought to Jeffrey. they said they were fine with it. And like. for instance, IM - a lot of girls begged me to bring them back. They wanted to come back for the money. And as fares I know, we all had fun there. Sworn Statement at 45) In sum, testimony clearly shows that she is not a victim. in fact.l. never wanted to cooperate with the investigation she massed in cooperate with the . refused service of a subpoena. hired an attorney. and forted the government to give her immunity begot she would speak to them. It cannot be that she may now seek relief' from Mr. Epstein as a "victim" under § 2255 without proof of injury or inducement. Furthermore, assertion of documentary proof of an interstate plume call by Ms. does not establish the nexus required for inducement under § 2422. When challenged at the December 14 meeting to justify the apparent chasm between the demands of the federal criminal statute and the testimony or. offered onl • an out- of-state toll record. While this document may be inconsistent with snit, I part of testimony as to the issue of the locus of phone calls. it utterly fails to demonStrate 1 t t • Government theory supports what at its essence is a federalization of underage prostitution {see letter to Lelkowitz of December 13. 2007 al lig 4, per I). This is compellingly sx) kir several reasons: • Absent testimony, the evidence does not exclude the possibility that Mr. Epstein neither caused nor knew of the call in question or the possibility that neither. nor Mr. lipstein were even participants on the cull: • Absent the testimony of one of the participants. the documented record of the fact of a call does not negate the possibility that the call did not even involve discussion about scheduling a visit from . to Mr. Upstein's house nor any other material subject matter. • Absent the testimony of one of the participants, there is no evidence of inducement, an essential element of the statute and an element that requires significantly more than scheduling a visit witli someone who like was agreeable to conic to Mr. Epstein's house prior to the cull: EFTA01718509 FZ/Ii/ZUUf 1(:1U FAX kg014/110 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP I lonorable R. Alexander Acosta December 17, 2007 Page 13 * * * * * Q: We have -- I don't know. We have some messages I guess that some girls mimes that would call Jeffrey and leave a (messagel Sworn Statement at 25) A: rivery,ipirl at I brow ht they said they were line with it. And like, for instance, a lot of girls begged me to bring than back. They wanted to come back for the money. And as far as I know. we all had fun there. Sworn Statement at 45) In sum, testimony clearly shows that she is not a victim. in fat: never wanted to cooperate with the investigation she Missed to cooperate with t refused service of a subpoena. hired an attorney. and forced the government to give her immunity before she would speak to them. It cannot he that she may now seek relief from Mr. Epstein us a - victim" under § 2255 without proof of injury or inducement. Furthermore. assertion of documentary proof of an interstate phone call by does not establish the nexus required for inducement under § 2422. When challenged at the December 14 meeting to justify thearent chasm between the demands of the federal criminal statute and the testimony of. offered only an out- of-state toll record. While this document may be inconsistent with a sma 1 part of testimony as to the issue of the locus of phone calls. it utterly fails to detnonstrate t at t • Government theory supports what at its essence is a federalization of underage prostitution (see letter to i.clkowitz of December 13. 2007 at pg 4, par l). This is compellingly so for several masons:. • Absent testimony. the evidence does not exclude the possibility that Mr., neither caused nor knew of the call in question or the possibility that neither. nor Mr. Epstein were even participants on the call: • Absent the testimony of one of the participants. the documented record of the fact of a call does not negate the ssit.y that the call did not even involve discussion about scheduling a visit from to Mr. Epstein's house nor any other material subject matter: • Absent the testimony or one of the participants, there is no evidence of inducement, an essential element of the statute and an element that requires significantly more than scheduling a visit with someone who like was agreeable to come to Mr. Epstein's house prior to the call; EFTA01718510 1Z/v7200( 1r:1s FAX 40015/110 KIRKLAND & ELLIS ILI' I locomble R. Alexander Acosta December 17, 2007 Page Pi • Absent evidence of the content of the call, a telephone record reflecting an out. a Slate call is completely consistent with someone returning a call initiated hy rather than - inducing" a sexual act; • A review of message logs seized drum Mr. Epstein's residence during the state investigation (as well as a review of. =Is testimony) would reflect that it was common Ibr there to be incoming calls by women of all ages asking to he called and seeking to visit Mr. Epstein; and • The alleged conduct is far outside the heartland of conduct that § 2422(b) was clearly designed by Congress to prevent Internet (or arguably. by extension, telephone) luring. • Indeed. denies that she was ever induced to come to Mr. lipstein's house. The nine record cannot sustain a federal prosecution without more. We know, from reviewing. transcript. that there is no more. Even if there were telephone imnununications regarding the scheduling of massages. mere solicitation is not htdocentext. Inducement curries with it a much higher standard than solicitation.° In entrapment cases for instance, the Government has argued, and the courts have agreed. that inducement requires "conduct sufficiently excessive to implant a criminal design in the mind of an otherwise innocent party". U.S. v. Daniel, 3 F.3d 775, 778 (4th Cir. 1993): t Shuns. 2007 WT. 4287666 at *3 (S.D.Ela. Dec. 5.21x17). "Neither mere solicitation nor the creation of opportunities to commit an ollimse comprises inducement." because "filndueement entails some semblance of 'um-twisting; pleading, or coercive tactics'. :Warred v. Sane. 841 So.2d 600, 603 (Fta.App. 4th Dist. 2003) (finding no government inducement because "appellant had already demonstrated his predisposition to commit the offense"). Here. Mr. Epstein at the very worst is guilty of solicitation because he only provided women with an opportunity to commit the act of prostitution by arranging for appointments to he scheduled. Scheduling by telephone, by itself. does nut rise to the level of inducement because there is neither a "semblance of arm-twisting. pleading. or coercive tactics" nor im attempt to "implant a.eriminal design in the mind" of any party. The designation of as a "victim" in the face of her own testimony is emblematic of the greater pi lem with the sweeping federal investigation of this matter. That she remains on a shortened list of § 2255-eligible "victims" in the face of sworn testimony relleeting no inducement, no injury is required for § 2255 recovery, and nu violation of the most applicable federal predicatm § 2422(b). should, we contend, trigger deep concern that those who 0 This is particularly title when there is lick to nu evidence that the defendant even mule the calls EFTA01718511 VG/I f/ZIA/I IAA tat 0 1 It /110 KIRKLAND & ELLiS LLP Honorable R. Alexander Acosta December 17, 2007 Page 15 were drafting and/or reviewing the federal indictment that was the catalyst for the Agreement were themselves misinformed about the scope and demands of proof required by § 24274111 With underage sexual contact a matter of state criminal prohibition, the additional requisites of federal law unproven by more than a toll record, and the consequences flowing hum the current Agreement as serious as the inevitability of unwarranted civil recoveries of an amount that could be SI 50.000 to requiring a state sentence of 18 months in jail and a lifetime of registration as the conditions for Mr. Epstein to avoid a charge of violating § 2422(b) — a charge for which we strongly believe him to he innocent — we believe the overall risk of a miscarriage of justice to compel a reconsideration of the federal charging decision that catalyzed the execution of the Agreement. This is particularly true in light of the unprecedented application of § 2422 in this manner. We have previously provided charts of every reported precedent demonstrating that the reach of §2422(b) being advanced by your °nice in this matter is unprecedented. Attempts by CIOS to match the facts of Mr. Epstein's conduct with any prior case — reported or otherwise — generated a single distinguishable precedent that had no relationship to the facts under consideration in this matter.") Indeed, upon a careful review of the evidence, your Office will undoubtedly conclude that federal law is being taken where it has never gone before, and this is the last clear chance for this District through your independent judgment on its own volition — to do the right thing. Therefore,. we urge that you direct that a full and fair and complete examination of the most trustworthy evidence be ordered. III. Finality With Wined to & 2255 For several weeks, we have articulated our flindamenlal — and growing — concerns with respect to the profound policy issues raised by your Office's invocation of § 2255. It is common ground among us that § 2255 has not been the subject of policy guidance from Main Jusfice. over the long life of this unusual statute. It is therefore undisputed that we an: sailing in uncharted jurisprudential and policy waters. This should not be a matter entrusted to the judgment of those who have not run the separation-of-powers gauntlet of Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. As we discussed at our Dcettoberl4 meeting. and you quite courteously listened. we believe that, as implemented in this extraordinary situation. § 2255 abounds with basic issues founding in the Due Process Clause of the Fillh Amendment. In In US. v. Ltochm, the defendant bought and distributed crack cocaine and cocaine to underage girls; admitted to knowing that the girls were underage: ananged for underage girls to have sex with other members of the conspiracy in exchange for the drugs: and he was in possession of illegal firearms at the time of the alleged conduct. EFTA01718512 12/17/2007 17:20 FAX 14/ 8017/110 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Honorable K. Alexander Acosta December 17, 2007 .Page 16 For these reasons, we deeply appreciate your contemplation ol' the appropriateness of the § 2255 portion of the Agreement. As we discussed during the December 14 meeting. and es expressed in our December 11 letter. it is improper for Mr. Epstein to he required to pay recovery to individuals who do nothing but simply assert a claim under § 2255. Some of the individuals identified do not consider themselves victims, nor would they be considered victims under any meaning of the law, given the evidence. Furthermore. § 2255 allows for a civil remedy and there is no basis for the government to be involved with the recovery of damages based on civil claims of private individuals. While we appreciate your Office's objective to provide certain individuals with restitution in connection with this matter. we strongly urge you to consider an appropriate process by which such restitution can made. We respectfully reiterate that this process, should not include any further federal interference in any way with respect to the recovery of civil claims. IV, Conclusion. We believe — and know you sham our belief that citizens should he treated alike regardless of wealth or status when it comes to criminal justice. We ask for nothing mom of •your treatment of Mr. Epstein than that he he treated as would any other citizen of Palm Beach under similar circumstances. Mr. Epstein should not he charged with offenses to which his conduct does not apply. in either the state or federal context. Equal treatment would require that Mr. Epstein's prosecution be carried out by the State Attorney's Ollie°. Mr. Epstein's conduct does not appropriately lb within the hartland of federal law. Further, we respectfully submit that the lateral government should not sit as an -appellate court" and permit an unhappy state investigator (in this case one who we contend had little fidelity to the law) to seek review of a • decision made in good faith regarding the charging decisions of an elected stale prosecutor. As we have expressed to you both at our meeting and in this letter. Florida law mandates that the procurement of a minor for the purposes of solicitation requires that the defendant procured the individual for activity with a third party. Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct does not lit this offense. The routine and practice of Florida state authorities and courts is to distinguish between solicitation and procurement of minors. the former being a misdemeanor under state law. the latter a felony (and the commission of multiple misdemeanors dues not create a felony). hqual treatment would mandate that Mr. Epstein be charged for solicitation and thus, not be required to register as a sexual offender. It is improper for the federal government to direct a citizen to seek un enhancement of charges that the state prosecutor has deemed appropriately lit the conduct and that prosecutors conclusions are consistent with practices regarding other citizens of his county for similar offenses. We believe that you should authorize the State Attorney for Palm Beach County to decide — based on all the evidence, which we agree you should provide him if you agree that he should make the charging decision — whether to require EFTA01718513 1Z/1f/ZOO( li:21 FAX little/110 ICIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Honorable R. Alexander Acosta) December 17, 2007 Page 17 a prosecution of Mr. Epstein for solicitation (which the evidence supports) or procurement (which the evidence does not support) and that federal involvement in this case should he narrowly tailored to serve only this goal.II Lastly, we reaffirm our rawest for independent review of the evidence. Previously, we requested but you declined to provide the draft indictmatt. We understand that we have no statutory right to a FRI 302 that inculpates Mr. Epstein (although we believe that Brady principles would encourage the disclosure of P131 302 reports that exonerate him). We are Lammed that there is information that could be rebutted if disclosed but instead, known only to the FRI and your Office, it stands unchallenged. Fur that reason, we urge you or someone you trust to review the evidence on an expedited basis. We will provide without delay all transcripts of state interviews that are not already in your possession. We will answer any questions the "reviewer has. We seek such review not to delay the process. We will do everything that is requested to provide any information the reviewer seek:1 from our.invatigation. We believe that given the unique context of the current case — one without federal precedent — that such a process is consistent with the highest and. most noble goals of the criminal justice system: to team the truth. Kenneth W. Starr cc: First Assistant U.S. Attorney II Ifyou ()nice wishes, it new submit this letter to the Stole Attorney's orrice, but the Slalc Attorney':: Office should then make the sentencing den:milieuinn lanced on the evidence. EFTA01718514 • KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AIDIJATZD PARTNERSHIPS Jay P. Lefkowdz, P.C. New York, New York 10022.4611 ism Facsimile: wervadrIcland.com November 29, 2007 VIA E-MAIL IL Alexander Acosta United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffiey Epstein Dear Alex: I am responding to the draft letter -ent to me last night, letter that you would sign and send to each of the individuals whom you have not even identified to us, and 'about whom the government has made clear it "takes no position" as to the validity of potential claims that these individuals may have against Mr. Epstein. I cannot reconcile your commitment to "take no position" regarding these potential claims with your intention to sign such a letter, which will surely fmd its way almost immediately into the press, refers to these individuals as "minor victims," refers to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual predator," misstates the terms of our federal non-prosecution agreement (the "Agreement"), and invites federal witnesses to attend Mr. Epstein's state sentencing in order to give victim impact statements, although they are in most respects not state victims at all. More fundamentally, we don't understand the basis for your Office's belief that it is appropriate for any letter to be sent to these individuals at this stage — before Mr. Epstein has either entered a plea or been sentenced. We respectfully disagree with your view that you are required to notify the alleged victims pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. First, 18 U.S.C. § 2255, the relevant statute under the Agreement for the settlement of civil remedies, does not have any connection to the Justice for All Act. The Justice for All Act refers to restitution, and § 2255 is a civil remedy, not a restitution statute. We also believe that the draft letter could not diverge more dramatically from your statement last week that your Office would not intervene in the state process from this point forward, and that you would merely monitor it. Indeed, the letter as currently drafted invites federal witnesses to become participants in a state proceeding, thus federalizing the state plea and sentencing in the same manner as would the appearance and statements of a member of your Office or the FBI. Chicago • Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, D.C. EFTA01718515  KIRKLAND & ELLIS LIP R. Alexander Acosta November 29, 2007 Page 2 With that said, I respectfully identify below the specific objections we have with the proposed letter. First, it states that "Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will not contest jurisdiction or liability if [the alleged victims] elect to seek damages from him .. ." This language implies that Mr. Epstein has agreed to concede jurisdiction and has waived liability whether or not each individual identified by the government as a "victim" of federal crimes ultimately settles her claim pursuant to the Agreement. The letter as drafted invites the witnesses to whom it is sent to believe that they can litigate their claims without Mr. Epstein being able to contest jurisdiction or liability — a construction of the Agreement that is in direct conflict with its terms. The Agreement we entered makes clear that Mr. Epstein's waiver of jurisdiction and liability is limited to those instances where the identified individual settles with him pursuant to Sections 7 through 8 of the Agreement and Addendum. As you are well aware, Mr. Epstein has no obligation or intention to concede jurisdiction or liability in any claim for damages — by an enumerated "victim" or anyone else — where that party fails to settle her claims pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. Second, there is no basis to refer to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual predator." Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Mr. Epstein will be.required to register as a "sexual offender," not a "sexual predator." Those are very different categories under Florida law. Mr. Epstein has agreed to enter a plea of guilty to two counts of violation of Florida Statutes §§ 796.03 and 796.07. Under Florida law, those charges do not classify him as a sexual predator. See Florida Statute § 775.21(4)(a). Rather, he is only a sexual offender as defined by Florida Statute § 943.0435(1)(a). To identify Mr. Epstein as a sexual predator, in this letter or elsewhere, is inaccurate and would irreparably harm him. Third, we find no basis in law that provides the identified individuals with either a right to appear at Mr. Epstein's plea and sentence, or to submit a written statement to be filed by the State Attorney. According to Florida Statutes §§ 960.001(k) and 921.143(1), the sentencing court permits only "the victim of the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced ... to [a]ppear before the sentencing court for the purpose of making a statement under oath for the record; and [s]ubmit a written statement under oath to the office of the state attorney, which statement shall be filed with the sentencing court." Florida Statute § 960.001(k) citing § 921.143(1) (emphasis added). Here, Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to, and being sentenced for, state offenses, not the federal offenses under which the government has recognized these identified individuals as "victims." The state charges for which Mr. Epstein will be sentenced are not coextensive with the federal investigation. Under Florida law, only those persons identified as victims of the state offenses may make a statement at the hearing or submit a written statement. EFTA01718516  KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta November 29, 2007 Page 3 With respect, encouraging these individuals to participate in the state sentencing will have the effect of creating a media frenzy that will surely impact the sentence Mr. Epstein receives — precisely what your Office promised to avoid. Such an intrusion into state affairs, when the identified individuals are not even victims of the crime for which Mr. Epstein is being sentenced is highly inappropriate. The federal investigation of Mr. Epstein has been concluded, and witnesses or civil claimants identified as purported victims of federal offenses have no place in the state proceeding. We also think it will likely promote spurious civil litigation against Mr. Epstein, a result that would be highly irresponsible to encourage. Fourth, we take serious issue with the assertion in the letter that the government has identified each recipient of the letter as a "minor victim." The term "minor victim" is notably absent from the Agreement. Section 7 of the Agreement states only that the government will provide a list of individuals "whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255." Indeed, you have told us that at least one identified individual is currently 24 years old, and thus would appear not to have been a minor at the time of the alleged conduct (and therefore is presumably not eligible to settle her claims under the Agreement). To confer on these women the imprimatur of a government "finding" is both incendiary and unwarranted. Fifth, your letter mischaracterizes the nature of Mr. Epstein's liability under the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 provisions of the Agreement. Your letter states that every individual who receives the letter is a victim of "certain offenses, including travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution." This construction implies that these individuals are all victims of both offenses (travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution.) Clearly that is not the case. Consequently, the language should be revised to reflect that the identified individuals may be victims of certain offenses, but not necessarily both offenses. Additional) , for the sake of fairness and candor, we believe the same language contained in your letter to stating that "ft]he United States takes no position as to the validity of any such claim under this statute," should be included in any proposed letter. Sixth, your letter states that land Say "represent" the identified individuals. Since we have not yet had the opportunity to speak wither (though we hope to do so this week), we do not know that they will even agree to serve in this capacity. Since I believe the role you are casting for these attorneys creates a significant ethical problem, specifically the conflict between counseling the clients to settle for the statutory amount and rewarding the attorneys for litigating rather than settling their claims, I would not assume that they, or any ethical attorney, would agree to accept this assignment as you define it. Whether that will mean that other attorneys will have to be sought, or you will realize that the role is untenable as described, either result will require modification of the letter. EFTA01718517  KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R.. Alexander Acosta November 29, 2007 Page 4 Seventh, the identified individuals should not contact lawyers in your Office or agents of the FBI. To encourage these individuals to contact federal law enforcement officials is entirely inconsistent with your promise that there will be no further federal involvement in this case. Moreover, such contact can only invite the possibility for impermissible or partial communications. Recently, you asked the defense not to contact potential witnesses in this matter in part because the Agreement contemplated the selection of an attorney representative. For the same reason there should be no continuing invitation for the witnesses to remain in contact with either your Office or the FBI. Any questions these individuals may have regarding their rights under the Agreement should be answered by or the attorney representative. Eighth, this letter should be mailed rather than delivered by hand. We see no reason for hand delivery, and mailing will ensure that there are no impermissible or partial communications made to the identified individuals upon delivery of the letter. If your Office insists on hand delivery of any such letter, however, it should only be made by a third party service, not by law enforcement agents. Finally, as you know, Judge Starr has requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General Fisher to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the § 2255 component of the Agreement. We are hopeful that this meeting will take place as early as next week. Accordingly, we respectfully request that we postpone our discussion of sending a letter to the alleged victims until after that meeting. We strongly believe that rushing to send any letter out this week is not the wisest manner in which to proceed. Given that Mr. Epstein will not even enter his plea for another few weeks, time is clearly not of the essence regarding any notification to the identified individuals. Sincerely, EFTA01718518  T-1186 p °MAO F-STS Dec-07-6T 04:Om Fr am-Fail er-Whi te Burnett ei LAW OFFICES FOWLER WHITE 13URNETT IAMI, • LAMM 3 3 - 2 FAX TriANSMITICAL DATE: December 7, 2007 NUMBER OF PAGES: 3 (Excluding itansmitial page) Name Faxeshe ex costa FROM: Lilly Ann Sanchez FAX NUMBER: - TELEPHONE NUMBER: MATTER NO: 71200 REMARKS: please see attached. Original documents will ❑ will not ❑ follow by mail. TIME OF TRANSMITTAL: a.m./pan. TRANSMITTED BY: Photocopy shouldhr token ofthis transmission VIIIs to be calcinedlinerfacsimile paper hay &Pied storage aft THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMEDABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION. DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE (IF LONG DISTANCE, PLEASE CALL COLLECT) AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY CALLING IF THERE IS ANY PROBLEM. EFTA01718519  T-866 F.002/004 F-6T6 Dac-07-07 04:54pm Froo-Fowler-White Burnett FOWLERWHITE a ATTORNEYS AT LAW Hian. Fi.clf On 331 a I M'AN'. BURNETT BEACH • ST. PETERSBURG FORT LAUDBROALLE • WEST PALM rAccurcru venw,rovntretrirrc.Cort LILLY ANN SANCHEZ DIMECT Phone No.: 03aCcr FACSIMILE NO.! December 7, 2007 First Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida West Palm Beach,' Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear. Pursuant to your letter dated December 6, 2007, attached is a signed Affirmation of the Non -Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to same dated October 30, 2007 (collectively "Agreement") signed by my client Jeffrey E. Epstein (see attached). Moreover, pursuant to the tenns of the Agreement, please note that the plea and sentencing hearing have been scheduled for January 4, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. before Judge Sandra McSorIcy (please see attached notice of hearing). In addition, as expressed in my voicemail message to you earlier, I would request that the Office bold off on sending any victim notification letters until we can further discuss the contents therein. Please call inc at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Lilly Anu Sanchez cc. Alex A. Acosta Judge Kenneth Star FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. EFTA01718520  T-263 P 003/004 F-276 Doe-07-07 04:55en F ran-Fowl er-Whi te Burnett Affirmation I.ME-ayE. Epstein do hereby ro-effirm theNon-Prosno atinzi Agreement and Adcltmthmt to Far= damd October 30, 2007. EFTA01718521  7-066 P.004/004 F-076 Dec-07-07 04:06px Frox-Fowler-Ahite Burnett • IN THE cntcurr COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA CASE NO.: 2006CF009454ArX STATE OP FLORIDA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. NOTICE or}SAIUNG PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned has called up for hearing the following: JUDGE: Sandra McSorley DATE: January 4, 2008 TIME: 8:30 am, PLACE: Room UR, Palm Beach County Courthouse MATTER: Plea Conference HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the fore of has been furnished by mail to Lanni Belohlavelt, Esquire, State Attorney's Office, , West Palm Beath, Florida 33401 this 7th day of December, 2007. Beech, AITEREDRY, GOLDBERGER eb WEISS, P.A. Flori 33401 JA A LDBERGBR, ESQUMB Flo Si a Bar No. cc: The Honorable Sandra McSorley EFTA01718522 12/05/07 WED 15:23 FAX 1 XIRKLAND&ELLIS LLP 1 001 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal LosM s ialiI..on .17 Phone: Fax: Please notify ue 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* United States Attorney's Office Hon. R. Alexander Acosta Southern District of Florida From: Pages Fax a: Direct Date: M aw Kenneth W. Starr December 5, 2007 3. Message: EFTA01718523 12/05/07 WED 15:24 FAX 1 RIRKLAND&ELLIS LLP fQ 002 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP