Epstein Secrets

States Attorney's Office Hon. R. Alexander Acosta (305) 530-6444 Southern District of Florida Pages From: Date; Fax It: Direct Si: arintir Kenneth W. Starr December 5, 2007 3 (213) 680-8500 Message: Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013339 EFTA00230244 12/05/07 WED 15:24 FAX 1 213 880 8500 KIRKLAND&

ent e-mails and letters regarding victim notification and other issues. Some of these issues also are addressed in the U.S. Attorney's letter to Mr. Starr, but in light of our discussions, I believe a separate response is needed. In a recent e-mail, you write that you were surprised at the tone of my

r. See October 9, 2007 New York Post article attached at Tab C. Prior to signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein's defense team included Ken Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, , Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Guy Lewis, Martin Weinberg, Jack Goldberger, Stephanie Thacker", and the associates

er. See October 9, 2007 New York Post article attached at Tab C. Prior to signir the Non-Prosec tion Agreement, Mr. Epstein's defense team included Ken Start, Jay Lefkowitz, , Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Guy Lewis, Martin Weinberg, Jack Goldberger, Stephanie Thacker', and the associates

torney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

itional support from CEOS. On September 7, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta met with Kirkland & Ellis partners Jay Lefkowitz and former Solicitor General Ken Starr and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief Oosterbahn and AUSAs Villafana, John McMillan, and FAUSA Sloman. Messrs. Star and Lefkowitz presented arguments r

titution-type remedy for the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 was specifically raised and discussed at the September 7th meeting, and Mr. Starr thanked AUSA Villafana for bringing it to his attention as a novel approach to allowing the victims to receive essentially federal restitution while

Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate a//concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

itional support from CEOS. On September 7, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta met with Kirkland & Ellis partners Jay Lefkowitz and former Solicitor General Ken Starr and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief Oosterbahn and AUSAs Villafana, John McMillan, and FAUSA Sloman. Messrs. Star and Lefkowitz presented arguments r

titution-type remedy for the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 was specifically raised and discussed at the September t h meeting, and Mr. Starr thanked AUSA Villafana for bringing it to his attention as a novel approach to allowing the victims to receive essentially federal restitution while

Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate a//concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

itional support from CEOS. On September 7, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta met with Kirkland & Ellis partners Jay Letkowitz and former Solicitor General Ken Starr and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief Oosterbahn and AUSAs Villafana, John McMillan, and FAUSA Sloman.6 Messrs. Starr and Letkowitz presented arguments

z and former Solicitor General Ken Starr and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief Oosterbahn and AUSAs Villafana, John McMillan, and FAUSA Sloman.6 Messrs. Starr and Letkowitz presented arguments regarding the sufficiency of the federal interest in the case and other legal and factual issues. We discussed th

ted to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal: "bode will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide vict

r. See October 9, 2007 New York Post article attached at Tab C. Prior to signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein's defense team included Ken Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Guy Lewis, Martin Weinberg, Jack Goldberger, Stephanie Thacker", and

tz and former Solicitor General Ken Starr and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief Oosterbahn and AUSAs Villafana, John McMillan, and FAUSA Sloman, Messrs. Starr and Leflcowitz presented arguments regarding the sufficiency of the federal interest in the case and other legal and factual issues. We discussed t

torney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

itional support from CEOS. On September 7, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta met with Kirkland & Ellis partners Jay Lefkowitz and former Solicitor General Ken Starr and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief Oosterbahn and AUSAs Villafana, John McMillan, and FAUSA Sloman. Messrs. Star and Lefkowitz presented arguments r

titution-type remedy for the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 was specifically raised and discussed at the September 7th meeting, and Mr. Starr thanked AUSA Villafana for bringing it to his attention as a novel approach to allowing the victims to receive essentially federal restitution while

Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate a//concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

itional support from CEOS. On September 7, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta met with Kirkland & Ellis partners Jay Lefkowitz and former Solicitor General Ken Starr and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief Oosterbahn and AUSAs Villafana, John McMillan, and FAUSA Sloman.6 Messrs. Starr and Lefkowitz presented arguments

z and former Solicitor General Ken Starr and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief Oosterbahn and AUSAs Villafana, John McMillan, and FAUSA Sloman.6 Messrs. Starr and Lefkowitz presented arguments regarding the sufficiency of the federal interest in the case and other legal and factual issues. We discussed th

ttorney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

was dissatisfied with the NPA, “we stand ready to unwind the Agreement” and proceed to trial. Shortly thereafter, Acosta informed defense counsel Starr by letter that he had directed prosecutors “not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday [December 7] at 5 p.m., to provide you with t

323 In his June 3, 2008 letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, Sloman wrote, “Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal [to defer notification to the State Attorney’s Office].” OPR found no other documentation relating t