EFTA00225672.pdf

(USAFLS) From: 'ent: r..on a a 2U 00 613AF 5ADS4)PM fo: Subject: Epstein Esptei Itr 5 19 08. pdf EFTA00225672 sure I do everything within my power to obviate a need for trial through a reasonable alternative resolution. Although it is clear that CEOS is not directing a prosecution here, and has stated only that you have the authority to commence such a prosecution, I am well aware that the decision whether to proceed, subject to any further process in Washington, is now within your discretion. I think the new facts should greatly influence your decision and accordingly, I hope you will agree to meet with me, both to discuss the new evidence and to discuss a resolution to this matter once and for all. I am available to meet with you at your earliest convenience subject to our mutual availability. Respectfully, Jay The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Kirkland 6 Ellis LLP or Kirkland 6 Ellis International LLP. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. 3 EFTA00225673 following the initiation of multiple civil lawsuits, Mr. Epstein's counsel was able to take limited discovery of certain women in this matter. The sworn statements provided by these women all confirm that federal prosecution is not appropriate in this case. isten of witnesses such as , and , and the civil complainan an eir a rneys, confirm the following key points: First, there was no telephonic communication that met the requirements of § 2422(b). For example, as many other witnesses have stated, Ms. testified in no unclear terms that there was never any discussion over the phone abou er coming over to Mr. Epstein's home to e ual activity: "The only thing that ever occurred on any of these phone calls [with or another assistan , 'Are you willing to come over,' or, 'Would you like to come over an give a massage.'" Tr. A at 15. Second, the underage women who visited Mr. Epstein have testified t a ey lied about their age in order to gain admittance into his home and women who brought t nderage friends to Mr. Epstein counseled them to lie ab ages as well. Ms. stated the following: "I would tell my girlfriends just like approached me. a e sure you tell him you're 18. Well, these girls that I brought, I nowt at they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't know don't know if they were lying or not, I would say make sure that you tell him you're 18." Tr. at 22. Third, there was no routine or h gesting an intent to transform a massage into an illegal sexual act. For instance, Ms. stated that Mr. Epstein "never touched [her] physically" at all she did was "massage ] his back, his chest and his thighs and that was it." Tr. at 12-13. Finally, as you are well aware, there was no force, coercion, fraud, vio ence, drugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with these women. The civil suits confirm that the plaintiffs did not discuss engaging in sexually-related activities with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's residence. This reinforces the fact that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of any kind occurred. Furthermore, Mr. Herman, the attorney for most of the civil complainants, was quoted in the Palm Beach Post as saying that "it doesn't matter" that his clients lied about their ages and told Mr. Epstein that they were 18 or 19. In short, the new evidence establishing that the women deliberately lied about their age because they knew Mr. Epstein did not want anyone under 18 in his house directly undercuts the claim that Mr. Epstein willfully blinded himself as to their ages. Willful blindness is not a substitute for evidence of knowledge nor is it a negligence standard. It requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of deliberate intent and specific action to hide one's knowledge. There is absolutely no such evidence of that here, so it is not even a jury issue. Furthermore, willful ignorance cannot constitute the required mens rea for a crime of conspiracy or aiding and abetting. Through the recent witness statements, we have also discovered another serious issue that implicates the integrity of the federal investigation. We have learned that FBI Special Agent Kurkendayl attempted to convince these adult women, now in their twenties, that they were in fact "victims" even though the women themselves strongly disagreed with this characterization. This conduct, once agailles to the heart of the integrity of the investigation. In a sworn statement, Ms. was highly critical of the overreaching by federal law enforcement officers in this case. She testified—in no uncertain terms—that she does not, and never did, feel like a "victim," despite the fact that the FBI repeatedly tried to convince her otherwise. I am mindful of the fact that we have a state court date of July 8 on which either to enter a plea or to commence trial. As I review the trial options with Mr. Epstein, I certainly want to make 2 EFTA00225674 Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) From: Jay Lefkowitz Sent: Monday, May 1 , To: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) Subject: confidential communication Attachments: Letter from CEOS.TIF Dear Alex: I am writing to you because I have just received the attached letter from Drew Oosterbaan. In light of that letter, and given the critical new evidence discussed below, I would like to request a meeting with you, mindful of our July 8 deadline, at your earliest opportunity. Given your personal involvement in this matter to date, and the fact that at this juncture it is clear that CEOS has referred the matter back to you, I respectfully request that you not shunt me off to one of your staff. You and I have both spent a great deal of time on this matter, and I know that we both would like to resolve this matter in a way that bestows integrity both on the Department and the process. In our prior discussions. you expressed that you werebot unsympathetic" to our various federalism concerns, but stated that because you serve within the "unitary Executive," you believed your hands were tied by Main Justit,c You were also extremely gracious in stating that you did not want the United States to b unfair". Although CEOS limited its assessment to the federal statutes your Office had brought forth and to the application of those laws to the facts as presented, it is abundantly clear from Drew's letter that Main Justice is not directing this prosecution. In fact, CEOS plainly acknowledged that a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein would involve a "novel application" of federal statutes and that our arguments against federal involvement are "compelling." Moreover, the language used by Drew in his concluding paragraph, that he cannot conclude that a prosecution by you in this case "would be an abuse of discretion" is hardly an endorsement that you move forward. Moreover, as you know, Drew made clear that the scope of his review did not extend to the other significant issues we have raised with you, such as the undo interest by some members of your staff with the financial and civil aspects of this matter, or with the inappropriate discussion one member of your Office had with a senior reporter at the New York Times. (In fact, I have met with that reporter and have reviewed copious notes of his conversation with Mr. Weinstein). At stage, we have no alternative but to raise our serious concerns regarding the issues Drew refused to address with the Deputy or, if necessary, the Attorney General, because we believe those issues have significantly impacted the investigation and any recommendation by your staff to proceed with an indictmenDThat being said, it would obviously be much more constructive and efficient if we could resolve this matter directly with you in the advance of further proceedings in Washington. Because it is clear that national policy, as determined by Main Justice, is not driving this case, the resolution of this matter is squarely, and solely, your responsibility. I know you want to do the right thing. and it is because you have made clear to me on several occasions that you will p ew always look at all of the relevant and material facts that I call the following to your attention. possibly has light information of suggests strongly come cannot case facts to the that this implicate a federal prosecutorial priority. Due to established state procedures and EXHIBIT B-35 EFTA00225675  (USAFLS) From: Vil!Mena, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:45 PM To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Call Hi Karen -- Not today. I am going to meet with Bob about the indictment. Original Message From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Sent* ' 2:23 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Ca Are you coming back home? Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Call Hi karen. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called jeff to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). Jeff told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls? 956 EFTA00225676 Villafana, Ann C.(USAFLS) From: (USAFLS) Sent: 1,91111,112:52PM To: AffiMson,Kamn(USAFLS) Subject: RE: Call One week. We told the DAG that we need his decision by end of next week so we can indict on July 1st before the July 7th state trial. Original Message From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Sent* 2:51 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: How long after the final decision--if there is such a thing--does he have before we indict? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Fr ay, June 1 , :45 PM To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Call Hi Karen -- Not today. I am going to meet with Bob about the indictment. Original Message From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:23 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Call Are you coming back home? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Frly, a June 13, 1:56 AM To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Call Hi karen. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called jeff to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). Jeff told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls? 955 EFTA00225677  (USAFLS) From: (USAFLS) Sent: Fn 4, une PM To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Call Hi Karen -- Not today. I am going to meet with Bob about the indictment. Original Message From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:23 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Call Are you coming back home? Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Call Hi karen. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called jeff to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). Jeff told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls? 956 EFTA00225678  (USAFLS) From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: — 6:15 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject: : peen) Sorry, forgot to cc you. From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 6:09 PM To: Roth, John (ODAG) (SMO) Cc: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject Epstein John, Epstein is facing trial on a felony charge of solicitation of prostitution. This does not resemble the charges that Epstein agreed to plead guilty to in the September 24th Agreement nor what he would face federally. That case is set for trial on Monday July 7. If we are given the go ahead from the DAG's office, we would give Epstein one final chance to comply with the September 24th Agreement. In that regard, it would be most preferable to have a decision by next week. That would give us the opportunity to seek an indictment on Tuesday July if Epstein fails to comply with the September 24th Agreement by Monday June 30th. The reason this timetable is important is to address our concern that Epstein may continue to keep us in a holding pattern if he pleads to the pending state solicitation of prostitution charge before a federal indictment is returned. In that scenario, I anticipate wrench in Epstein's counsel raising petit policy issues, thus throwing another possible monkey imagine the process. Although I don't believe that the petit policy would be affected, I can to someone calling a timeout until the issue is vetted. That's why I would prefer being able repudiated seek an indictment before Epstein pleads to the pending charge and after he has the September 24th Agreement. Thanks, Jeff 951 EFTA00225679  (USAFLS) From: (USAFLS) Sent: 8 10:43 AM To: (USAFLS) Cc: Senior, Ro erl SAFLS) Subject: Draft Indictment Hi Cyndec — Bob called and said that Jeff needed a copy of this. The first copy has a "draft" watermark on it, and the second is exactly the same except that the watermark is removed. 080429 revised ndictment with... Thanks! 080429 revised ndictment with... A. VillafaHa Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 982 EFTA00225680  (USAFLS) From: Senior, Robert(USAFLS) Sent: 8 3:25 PM To: (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff(USAFLS) Cc: t inson, aren LS) Subject: RE: Epstein Marie, are you back ? We need to spend some time together on the indictment. I was planning on Monday because I thought you were back that day but if you're already back let me know. By the way, Jeff and Alex have been very clear that we are not negotiating with this guy any more in any way. Thx. Bob Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:54 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Hi jeff. Karen sent me an email about epstein wanting to do less time. I hope that his request will be denied. The original deal was supposed to be 2 years so he has already gotten a big break. Plus we have identified more victims since we agreed to the 18 months. Please keep me posted. Thanks. 1014 EXHIBIT B-34 EFTA00225681  EMAGIVE OFFICE Quiz g9N-15in IIVJIUD OT 013/013 -Lri. ID 'OS WIN 13:20 FAX I 21a 0a0 $500 KIRK, AND&10 L I S et 00U Honorable Mark Filip May 19. 2008 Page 8 prosecution is fair and appropriate has been placed, once again, in U.S hands. . Attorney Acosta's in light of the foregoing, we respectf all federal involvement so that ully ask that you review this mat the State cam appropriately brin ter and discontinue would greatly appreciate the g this matter to closure. We opp Such it meeting would provide ortunity to meet With you to discuss these important issues. the Department with an opportu issues of federalism and the nity to review the paramotun appearance of selectivity that are gen attempts to broaden the amb erated by the unprecedented it of federal statutes to places that they We sincerely appreciate you have never before reached. r attention to this matter. ttespeetililly submitted, Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis LLP Joc D. Whitley Alston & Bird LIP EFTA00225682 tAVULfUO WAN £O:VL CAA OU0 0001 OGSV nam .....vul ... lro urrimx, well otp. in • n8 WIN 13:211 PAX 1 213 080 8500 1®012/01a I KLANUSLE1.1.1 S I.LJ WOOS Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 7 Government's confidential "lis t of victims." Most of these lawsuits see million in money damages" k S50 • Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein spoke about the Landon Thomas, a reporter wit case in great detail to h the New York nines, and rev information about she Gover ealed confidential nment's allegations against Mr U.S. Attorney also revealed . Epstein. The Assistant the substance of confidential plea negotiations. • When counsel for Mr. Epstein complained about the me Stomata responded by ass dia leaks, First Assistant ening that "Mr. l'homas was request, non-case specific given, pursuant to his information concerning specific fed on Mr. Thomas' contem eral statutes." Based poraneous notes. that assert example, Mr. Weinstein ion appears to be false. For told Mr Mr. Epstein had hired girls ove . Thomas that federal authorities believed that r the telephone and traveled for the purpose of eng in interstate corn incite aging in underage sex. lie rec USAO's theory of prosec oun ted to Mr. Themes the ution against Mr. F Lein, replete key statutes being considere with an analysis of the d. Furtherm after Mr. Epstein's defrost complained about the leak team to the USAO, . Weinstein, in Mr. Thomas' ow description, then admonishe n d him for talking to the def trouble, Mr. Weinstein fur ense, and getting him in ther told him not to believ "high-priced attorneys,' e the "spin" of Mr, Epsteites and then, according to Mr forcefully "reminded" . Thomas. Mr. Weinstein Mr. Thomas - that all prior hypothetical. con versations were merely We are constrained to the heart of one of the vitally conclude that the actions of federal officials in this cas important, enduring values in e strike at of federal law, free of this country: the honest political considerations and enforcement motivations on the part of free of the taint of person federal prosecutors that, al financial impropriety. at a minimum, raise the appear ance of serious We were told by U.S regarding this matter, inc conclusion, based on its lim . Department had the authority Attorney Acosta that as part of the retie he req , and his consent, to make any luding a decision to decline det erm ina tio n federal prosecution. Ye it te uested, the tried appropriate ited review of the invest t, CEOS's only not abuse his discre igation, is that U.S. Attorn tion by proceeding aga ey Acosta would inst Mr. Epstein. Thus, the decision of Ithother As recently as two months ago assume this was an oversight,. Mr. Women Was still lined publicly os t pan of his form Mr. Stoma identificatio er impropriety. n as pan or the firm raises law firm. While wv the appearance of EFTA00225683  06/02/08 MON 15:02 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE 1d1010 ol3/28/201:18 00:10 FAX202 b0.1/00AC gtolvols KIRKIANDMILLTS 4g u87 • ps, LION IA:Z5 FAA 1 =13 ONO 8500 Honorable Mark Hip May 19, 2008 Page 6 • Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Mr. Epstein pay u minimum of 5150,000 per person to an unnamed list of women they referred to as minors and whom they insisted required representation by a guardian ad them. Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these individuals were actuully adults, not minors. Even then, though demanding payment to the women, the USAO eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of any of the . claims that these women might make. • Federal prosecutors made the highly unusual demand that Mr. Epstein pay the fees of a civil t gamey chosen by the prosecutors to represent these alleged "victims" should the choose to bring any civil litigation against him. They also proposed sending a ties to the alleged "victims," stating, in an underlined sentence, that should they choose their own attorney, Mr. Epstein would not be required to pay their tees. The prosecutors fitrther demanded that Mr. Epstein Waive his right to challenge any of the allegations made by these "victhns." • The Assistant U.S. Attorney involved in this matter recommended for the civil attorney, a highly lucrative position, an individual that we later discovered was closely and personally connected to the Assistant U.S. Attorney's Own boyfriend. • Federal prosecutors represented to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they had identified (and later rechecked and re-identitied) several alleged - victims" of federal crimes that qualified for payment under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a civil remedy designed to provide financial benefits to victims. Daly through state discovery previsions did we later learn that many of the women on the rechecked "victim list" could not possibly qualify under § 2255. The reason is that they, themselves, testified that they did not suffer any type of harm whatsoever, a prerequisite for ti civil recovery under § 2255. Moreover, these women stated that they did not, no or in the past, consider themselves to-be victims. • During the last few months, Mr. Mennen, First Assistant Sloroan's former law partner, has tiled several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged "victims." ft is our understanding that each of Mr. Herman's clients arc on the EFTA00225684  UO/V4IV9 sun CAA OVO 00V O1%V LSGVUAAVD UrrAteta Wt" , O 05/28/2008 00:09 FAX 2026161230 DOJ/ODAC 490Oi/013 • DA VON 13:24 KAX 1 :13 660 6500 K I RKI.AND&ELI-1 S 1.1-P Ciijurni Honorable Mark Filip May 19. 2008 Page 5. In fact, recent testimony of several alleg ed "victims" contradicts claims made by prosecutors during the negotiations of a fede deterred prosecution agreement. The cons ral representations of key Government istent wimesses (such as Tatum Miller. Brittany Gonzalez. and Jennifer Laduke) Beak, Saige confirm the following critical points: First, communication, telephonic or othe there was no rwise, that meets the requirements of § 2422(b) Ms. Gonzalez confirmed that Mr. Epstein . Par instance. never entailed, text-messaged, or used any interstate commerce whatsoever. befo facility of re or after her one (and. only) visit to his hom Tr. (deposition) at 30. Second, the wom e. Gonzalez en who testified admitted that they lied about their age in order to gain adm to Mr. Epstein ittance into his home. Indeed. the women who underage friends to Mr. Epstein brought their testified that they would counsel their friends ages as well. Ms. Miller stated the to lie about their following: "I would tell my girlfriends approached me. Make sure you tell hint just like Carolyn you're. 18. Well, these girls that I brought, they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls i know that that !didn't !mow and I don't know if they were not, 1 would say make sure that you lying or tell routine or habit of improper cotrununica him you're 18." Miller Tr. at 22. Third, there was no tion expressing an intent to transfomi illegal sexual act. In bet, there a massage into an was often no sexual activity at all daring Miller testified that "(s)ometimes the massage. Ms. [Mr. Epstein) just wanted his feet massag just wanted a back massage." ed. Sometimes he Miller "never touched (her) physically" and Tr. at 19. Jennifer Laduke also stated that Mr. Epstein that all she did was -massage( ) his bac thighs and that was it." Laduke k. his chest and his violence, drugs, or even alco Tr. at 12-13. Finally, there was no forc hol present in e, coercion, fraud: women. Ms. Beak stated that "[Mr. Eps connection with Mr. Epstei 'S encounters with these tein) never tried to force me to A at 12. These accounts are far u anything." Bale Tr. from the usual testimony in sex tourism cases previously brou sla ver Internet stings and sex ght. The women in actuality were the age of consent hi most of not younger than 16, which is the 50 states, and the sex activity was consisted of solo self-pleasuring in'egular and in large parr. . The recent crop of civil suits brou not discuss any sexually-relate ght against Mr. Epstein confirm that d activities with anyone prior the plaintiffs did residence. This reinforces our to arriving at Mr. Epstein's contention that no telephonic or Internet enticement or coercion of a min persuasion, inducement, or, or of any other individual, occu Merman, the former law partner n'ed. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey of one of the 1 most of the civil complainants (as federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the attorney fyq Beach Pe). as saying that "k doe described in derail below), was quoted in sn't matter" that his clients lied about thei the Palm Epstein the''{{ they were 18 or 19. r ages and told Mr. Not only is a federal conduct by prosecutors and prosecution or this matter unwarranted, but the irregularity of the unorthodox terms of the defe beyond any reasonable rred prosecution agreement. interpretation of the scope of a.prose arc improprieties includes, but.is cutor's responsibilities. The list not limited to, the following facts: of EFTA00225685  06/02/08 MON 15:01 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE 10 008 05/28/2008 00:09 FAX 202 1 39 DOVODAC ei009/013 KIRKLANDWILIS 1.11' CO 005 in. na. NOS 1312A VAN : 213 680 A500 Honorable Mark Fi I ip May 19, 2003 l'age 4 These statutes are intended to tuna crimes of a truly national and international scope. Specifically, § 1591 was enacted to combat human trafficking, § 2422 is aimed at sexual predation of minors through the Internet. and § 2473 deals with sex tourism. The nature of these crimes results in multi-jurisdictional problems that state and local authorities cannot effectively confront on their own. However, Mr. Epstein's conduct was purely local in nature and, thus. does not implicate federal involvement. After researching every reported ease brought under I3 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b), and 2423(b), we found that not a single cast involves facts or a scenario similar to the situation at hand. Our review of each precedent reflects that there have been no reported prosecutions un r § 1591 of a 'john' whose conduct with u minor lacked force. coercion_ or fraud and who as not profiling from commercial sexual trafficking. There have likewise been no eases undo • 2422(b)—a crime of communication—where th ric was no use: of the Internet. and where the content of phone communications did not contain sus inducing or enticing of a minor to have illegal sexual activity as expressly required by the statute. l'urtherniore, the Government's contention that "routine and habit" canlanguage of the fill the factual and legal void created by the lack of evidence that such a communication ever occurred sets this case apart from every reported case brought under § 2422(6). Lastly, there arc no reported eases of violations of § 2423(b) of a person whose dominant purpose in traveling was merely to go to his own home.3 Although these matters were within the scope of the CEOS review, rather than cunsideting whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOS only determined that U.S. Attorney Acosta "would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize. federal prosecution" iu this case. The "abuse of discretion" standard constitutes an extremely low bar of evaluation and while it may be appropriate when the consideration of issues are exclusively factual in nature, this standard fails to address concerns particular to this situation, namely the - novel application" of federal statutes. The "abuse of discretion" standard in such pure legal matters of statutory application risks causing a lack of uniformity. The same federal statutes that would be stretched beyond their bounds in Miami have been limited to their heartland in each of the other federal districts. Also, because this case implicates broader issues of the administration of equal justice, federal prosecution in this matter risks the appearance of selectivity in its stretching of federal law to fit these facts. federal prosecution of a man who engaged in consensual conduct in. his borne that amounted (0, at most, the *elicitation of prostitution. is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a suite concern. (sek United Slights it Evan; 476 F.3d I 176, r..l (nth Cir. 2001) (federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulations)). and thoro is no evidence that Palm Beach County authorities and Florida prOSocutors cannot cifectively prosecute and punish the conduct, there is no reason why this matter should be extracted from the hands ornate prosecutors in Florida. EFTA00225686  06/02/08 VON 15:00 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE ID 007 05/28/2008 09:05 PAX 202 00J/OD5C fsbo08/0.1.3 ,'05 JO;08 80‘ 13:23 FAN I 213 080 8500 lalthEAND&ELL.15 1.1.P . , 0114 Honorable Mark lip May 19, 2008 Page 3 private practice in South Florida wit sonal relationships to some of the prosecutors Federal prosecutors then leaked hi involved. Times reporter.' The immediate re sensitive information about the case to a New York f this confluence of extraordinary circumst onslaught of civil lawsuits, all save ances is an one brought by the First Assistant's former in Miami. boutique law Jim The facts in this case all revolve prostitution? The State Attorney's around the classic state crime of solicitati Office in Palm Beach County had con on of investigation, convened a Grand Jury ducted a diligent that returned an indictment, and made about how to proceed. That is a final determination where, in our federal republic, this Mr. Epstein faces a felony con matter should rest. viction in state court by virtue of his con the Suite has not resolved this mat duct, and the only reason ter is that the federal prosecutors in Mia insist that wt, Mr. Epstein's counsel, mi have continued to approach and demand from the State Atto harsher charge and a more severe rney's Office a punishment than that Office believes are circumstances. Yet despite the app ropriate under the USAO's refusal to allow the State to reso terms the State has determined are lve this matter on the appropriate, the USAO has not made coordinate its efforts with the Stat any attempt to e. In fact, the USAO mandated that would he conditioned on Mr. any federal agreement Epstein persuading the State to seek a that imposed on other defendants criminal punishment unlike within rho jurisdiction of the State conduct. Attorney for similar From the inception of the USA O's involvement in this case, which is a case about solicitation of pros at the end of the day have asked ourselves why the titut ion within the confines of paten Beech Cou Departm nty, Florida, we of suggest' any appropriate basis for the ent Justice is involved. Regrettably, we are unable to Department's involvement. Mr. Epstein histo whatsoever. Also, Mr. has no criminal Epstein has never been the subject of gen a few ears ago. after it was widely perceive eral media interest until President Bill Clinton. d by the public that he was a close frien d of former The conduct at issue is sim outside the heartland of the thre ply not within the purview of federal e federal statutes that have been jurisdiction and lies U.S.C. 1591.2422(b), and 2423(b). identified by prosecutors-1S (Inv of the other members of Mr. Epst contemporaneous news. ein's defense team, Jay Letkowitz, has pers onally reviewed tho reporter's Although some of the women alleged to openly admitted to lying to Mr. Epst he involved were 16 arid 17 years ein about their age in their recent sworn of age, several of these women statement:. EFTA00225687  VV/ 4/VO nun tO;VV 'MA ran ova coy auceinAcJv AADVLIAATZ UltrAtoG WA LW ••• 14 / 0,0•0 . ,et • •40 4 IMJ , UVAG In007/013 , b3. 19•SIN NOS t3:22 PAX I I.113 can