Epstein Secrets

orrespondence from the United States Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section ("CEOS") regarding the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO"),I I will refrain from recounting Mr. Epstein's arguments in det

igation of Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO"),I I will refrain from recounting Mr. Epstein's arguments in detail here, but, rather, will highlight salient points responsive to the CEOS letter. In particular, I write from a background well

Florida ("USAO"),I I will refrain from recounting Mr. Epstein's arguments in detail here, but, rather, will hi

25333-3394 500 LEE STREET. EAST. SMITE 800 CHARLESTON. WEST VIRGINIA 25301 June 19, 2008 Mr. John Roth Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Mr. Roth: TELEPHONE I304) 345-7250 FACSiMILE 004

by Ms. , testified in her federal sworn interview that Ms. told her to lie to Epstein. agc Tr. at 8 ("she just said make sure you're 18 because Jeffrey doesn't want an underage girls') (emphasis added). Ms. testimon strongly suggests that Ms. lied to Mr. Epstein about her own age as well. Ms. als

nt of Justice Dear Mr. Facsimile: Dir. Fax I again want to thank you for this opportunity to explain why we believe that a federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein is unwarranted. I appreciate your having informed us that you already have our May 19 and May 27 communications to the Deputy Attorney General, as w

ain why we believe that a federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein is unwarranted. I appreciate your having

eth W. Starr To II • r i ly: Los Angeles, California 90017 vAwcicirkland.com June 19, 2008 Esq. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States De . artment of Justice Dear Mr. Facsimile: Dir. Fax I again want to thank you for this opportunity to explain why we believe that

ully request, and what I hope you will provide, is a truly "de novo" review that is, an independent assessment of whether federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is both necessary and warranted in view of the legal and evidentiary hurdles that have been identified, the existence of a State felony plea and se

dent assessment of whether federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is both necessary and warranted in view of the l

We come to you in that spirit and respectfully ask for a review of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we are well aware of the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we are confident that the circumstances at issue warrant

utors”—-even though such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (“USAO”). Moreover, CEOS did not assess the terms of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement now in effect

credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (

c Building Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800 950 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1404 May 19, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE Po CONFIDENTIAL Honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Judge Filip: In his confirmation hearings last fall,

2008. In that communication, we urgently requested that your Office conduct an independent review of the proposed federal prosecution of our client, Jeffrey Epstein. The dual reasons for our request that you review this matter are (i) the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, and

he Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (“CEOS”) has already determined that our substantive arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is not warranted were “compelling.” However, in contradiction to Mr. Sloman’s assertion that CEOS had provided an independent, de novo review, CEOS m

arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is not warranted were “compelling.” However, in c

ueroa Street The Atlantic Building Angeles, CA 90017-5800 950 F Street, NW , DC _ May 27, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE I CONFIDENTIAL Honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Judge Filip: This letter briefly supplements our prio

m 4115 Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Mr. Roth: I again want to thank you for this opportunity to explain why we believe that a federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein is unwarranted. I appreciate your having informed us that you already have our May 19 and May 27 communications to the Deputy Attorney General, as we

uring the federal investigation; a letter from former CEOS attorney Stephanie Thacker that responds to CEOS’s assessment of its limited review of Mr. Epstein’s case; and a point-by- point rebuttal to First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Sloman’s recent letter which we believe contains factual ina

nds to CEOS’s assessment of its limited review of Mr. Epstein’s case; and a point-by- point rebuttal to First A

7 Kenneth W. Starr ; To Call Writer Directiy: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: June 19, 2008 John Roth, Esq. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 4115 Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Mr. Roth: I again want to thank you for t

2008. In that communication, we urgently requested that your Office conduct an independent review of the proposed federal prosecution of our client, Jeffrey Epstein. The dual reasons for our request that you review this matter are (i) the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, and

he Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (“CEOS”) has already determined that our substantive arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is not warranted were “compelling.” However, in contradiction to Mr. Sloman’s assertion that CEOS had provided an independent, de novo review, CEOS m

arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is not warranted were “compelling.” However, in c

uth Figueroa Street The Atlantic Building Angeles, CA 90017-5800 950 F Street, NW , May 27, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE CONFIDENTIAL Honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Judge Filip: This letter briefly supplements our prio

We come to you in that spirit and respectfully ask for a review of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we are well aware of the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we are confident that the circumstances at issue warrant

utors”—-even though such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (“USAO”). Moreover, CEOS did not assess the terms of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement now in effect

credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (

oa Street The Atlantic Building Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800 950 F Street, NW a = DC _ May 19, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE CONFIDENTIAL Honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Judge Filip: In his confirmation hearings last fall,

We come to you in that spirit and respectfully ask for a review of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we are well aware of the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we are confident that the circumstances at issue warrant

cutors’—even though such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (““USAO”). Moreover, CEOS did not assess the terms of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement now in effec

credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (

756-3189 [email protected] Fax: 202-654-4889 [email protected] May 19, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE (202) 514-0467 CONFIDENTIAL Honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C, 20530 Dear Judge Filip: | In his confirmation hearings last fall

2008. In that communication, we urgently requested that your Office conduct an independent review of the proposed federal prosecution of our client, Jeffrey Epstein. The dual reasons for our request that you review this matter are (i) the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, and

he Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (“CEOS”) has already determined that our substantive arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is not warranted were “compelling.” However, in contradiction to Mr. Sloman’s assertion that CEOS had provided an independent, de novo review, CEOS m

arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is not warranted were “compelling.” However, in c

13-680-8500 Fax: 202-654-4889 [email protected] [email protected] May 27, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE (202) 514-0467 CONFIDENTIAL Honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Judge Filip: This letter briefly supplements our prio

uring the federal investigation; a letter from former CEOS attorney Stephanie Thacker that responds to CEOS’s assessment of its limited review of Mr. Epstein’s case; and a point-by- point rebuttal to First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Sloman’s recent letter which we believe contains factual ina

nds to CEOS’s assessment of its limited review of Mr. Epstein’s case; and a point-by- point rebuttal to First A

BMISSION HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012141 --- PAGE BREAK --- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP SUBMISSION TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Jeffrey Epstein, a successful businessman and noted philanthropist with no prior criminal record, has been investigated for potential violations of

OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Jeffrey Epstein, a successful businessm

OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Jeffrey Epstein, a successful businessma

e this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal statutes, and respectfully request that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General end federal involvement in this matter so that the State of Florida may resolve this case appropriately. Summary of the Facts Mr. Epstein has maint