Epstein Secrets

e R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 Re: Jeffrey Epstein INair Alex: 777 South Finumon Sunni tun Attuuluu, et-tidying, 900'7 (213) 080-8400 www.lorNItuul.com December I I. 2007 HICSul Wu: (213) 600.

at this case is not only extraordinary and unprecedented. it is deeply and uniquely troubling. The constellation of issues. large and small. renders Jeffrey's matter entirely sal genesis. We say this not lightly. Indeed, as you will glean from our two letters. we arc gravely concerned Mat in addition to

Was I S because said .. . if you're not then he [Epsteinl won't wally let you in his house. So I said I wa

ded to review some of the issues and concerns of Mr. Epstein's defense learn. Importantly. I appreciate your a

is area." Probable Cause Affidavit at B. See also Police Report (10/07/05) at 35 (same). Detective Recarey's account is in direct contradiction to Laduke's true statement, speci tient ly: Q: Okay did he ever take off — did he ever touch himself? A: don't think so. Q: No. Did he ever masturbate hims

y 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

ney DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Lefkowitz, U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida May 19, 2008 I am in receipt of your e-mail

53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Lefkowitz, U.S. Department of

lainly acknowledged that a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein would involve a "novel application" of federal s

8." Miller Tr. at 22. Third, there was no routine or habit suggesting an intent to transform a massage into an illegal sexual act. For instance, Ms. Laduke stated that Mr. Epstein "never touched [her] physically" and that all she did was "massage[] his back, his chest and his thighs and that was it." L

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

ainly acknowledged that a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein would involve a "novel application" of federal s

're 18." Tr. at 22. Third, there was no routine or habit suggesting an intent to transform a massage into an illegal sexual act. For instance, Ms. Laduke stated that Mr. Epstein "never touched [her] physically" and that all she did was "massage[ ] his back, his chest and his thighs and that was it."