Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 (USAFLS) From: Lilly Ann Sanchez ([email protected] Sent: Friday .lanuary M 7007 4:05 PM To: (USAFLS) Cc: Gerald Letcourl Subject: Jeffrey Epstein Illt hope you had a great holiday season. Gerald Lefcourt and I would like to speak with you early next week on the Epstein matter. if you provide me with some convenient dates and times for us to call you, I will coordinate with Gerry and confirm same. regards Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq, FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. Espirito Santo Plaza, 14th Floor 1395 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131.3302 Telephone: (305) 789-9200 Direct Dial: (305) 789-9279 Facsimile: (305) 789.9201 Isanchez(Ofowler-white.00m **TAX MATTERS- IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. If you would like such advice, please contact us.*** ***Attention: The information contained in this E-mail message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender by reply E-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. 240 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB-001744 EFTA00184602

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 26 EXHIBIT 43 EFTA00184603

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 26 Dear Ms. Villafafia and Mr. Lourie: LAW OFFICES Of GERALD B. LuttatiRT, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 148 EAST 70'" STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021 GERALD B. LERCOURT Www1Glefeowfiew.com SHERYL E. REICH tolthalertauellaw.com RENATO C. STABILE slebReelorcourUaW.00m FAITH A. FRIEDMAN Illedomaxvilaw.cam TELEPHONE (212) 737.0400 FACSIMILE (212) 9/30-0192 February 1, 2007 BY HAND An, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lourie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Jeffrey Epstein The following outlines the talking points we intend to cover in today's meeting. The events at issue occurred in 2004 and 2005. The matter was investigated during the course of nearly a year beginning in March 2005 by the Palm Beach County Police Department (PBPD). As will be discussed in detail below, it appears that a PBPD detective formed a view early on as to the criminality of the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (Epstein). That view tainted both the determination of what to include in the Police Report' and led the PBPD to ignore evidence that did not support the initial conclusion of the investigating officers, including ignoring material evidence supplied to the State Attorney by defense counsel. We understand that the PBPD has sought your intervention in this matter; we also believe that the misleading and inaccurate reports of the PBPD may well have affected how you view the A copy of the unredacted Police Report, to which we make reference throughout the letter, is provided at Tab I. Note, pages 81 - 87 are taken from the redacted Police Report because we do not have an unredacted copy of these pages. Other documents cited herein, all of which were provided to you previously, are annexed in successive Tabs. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000730 EFTA00184604

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 26 LIW1 OFFICES OF GERALD B. I .11:FGOTTRT, P.C. A. Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lourie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February I, 2007 Page 2 matter and whether you believe it warrants federal intervention. We respectfully submit that there is no basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction here. The conduct at issue is entirely local and subject to State prosecution tinder the State's standards and policies. And indeed, as you know, Epstein has been indicted for felony charges relating to this matter. That indictment is still pending. Moreover, key elements that are necessary to support the invocation of federal jurisdiction in this area are wholly lacking. As we detail below, the evidence will not support a determination that Epstein knew or believed that any of the women was under the age of 18. Indeed, the witness statements-2 demonstrate that the opposite is true. As herself told the PBPD: ' _ told me to say I was 18 because said . . . if you're not then he [Epstein] won't really let you in his house. So I said I was 18". Nor is there any evidence whatever that any of the women traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in prohibited sexual activity or that Epstein ever traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in prohibited sexual activity — the clear predicates for any federal violation. Neither is there any reason to breach the Petite Policy in favor of the discretionary exercise of federal jurisdiction: there has been a full investigation that has resulted in a prosecution by State authorities on charges deemed appropriate and that the facts will support. And, even if a case could be made, and the exercise of federal jurisdiction were warranted, the extraordinary forensic barriers to a successful prosecution, including the need to use witnesses who themselves have provided sworn statements that contradict key elements of any prosecution, compel that no case be brought. In fact, we believe the State's choice in which charges to pursue was informed by the significant credibility problems of the potential witnesses. 1. The Facts Will Not Support a Charge Under Federal Statutes Governing Sexual Conduct Although to date the federal statutes Epstein may have violated have not been identified, nevertheless, there are certain key elements common to the statutes governing sexual conduct that we believe present insurmountable hurdles to any federal prosecution. We are, of course, prepared to provide further explication of why particular statutes are inapplicable to the conduct alleged here once the statutes you believe may apply have been specified. 2 We are prepared to provide copies of all recordings if requested them. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000731 EFTA00184605

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 26 LAW OFF ICES OF GF21A.1.13 B. Isrciotrarr, Y.G. A. ME Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lourie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 3 1. Epstein Did Not Know or Believe Any Women Were Under 18 Years of Affe. Each of the potential statutes requires that the government prove that Epstein knew or believed a particular woman was under 18 (or in some instances, under 16), at the time of the events at issue. Epstein did not. There is substantial evidence, found in the sworn statements of the women themselves, that to the extent any were in fact under the age of 18, each affirmatively lied about her age because she knew that Epstein would not "let [her] into his house" if she were under 18. Evidence also supports that Epstein took affirmative steps to ensure that every woman was at least 18 years of age. In fact, many were indisputably over the age of 18.3 • Q: At any time, did he speak to you and does lie know how old you are? Did he know how old you were? A: . . .As a mater of fact, told me to say I was 18 because said tell him you're 18 because if you're not, then he won't really let you in his house. So I said I was 18. As I was giving him a massage, he's like, how old are you? And then I was like 18. But I kind of said it really fast because I didn't want to make it sound like I was lying or anything. (Statement of 3/15/05). • Q: Did he ask you your age? A: Yeah, I told him I was 18. (Sworn Statement of 10/05/05). • Q: Did he know your age? A: I don't think -- I think he did. Downstairs was like oh, well if they ask you how old are you just say you're 18 but 3 In addition to the women referenced herein, the evidence reflects that witnesses were all over the age of 18 at the time each VISIICO epslwn s nowt. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000732 EFTA00184606

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 26 LAW OFFICES OF GRIRAI.D B. LTCPCOURT, P.O. A. Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lourie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 4 he never asked me how old I was. 1 thought you had to be 18 to give a massage (inaudible). (Sworn Statement of 12/13/05 ) • A: We were supposed to say we wore 18. Q: Who told you that, to say that? A: (Sworn Statement of 11/8/05). • He likes the girls who are between the ages of 18 and 20. (Sworn Statement of 10/3/05). • Well with I don't know how old she is because she lied about ner age. sne lied to me when I first met her. When 1 was 18 she told me she was 18. (Inaudible.) Well she left her purse at my house and she told me to make sure that I didn't look in her purse. When 1 went through her purse I found her state license that said she was 16 so she lied to me about her age. (Statement of 10/03/05).4 • Q: Now, how old were you when you first started going there? A: Eighteen. I'm 19 now this last March." (Sworn Statement of 10/12/05). 4 In addition to giving a sworn statement at the PBPD Station, conversations with Detective Recarey while being transported to and from the station were also recorded, This excerpt is taken from the recording of ;raveling from the station. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000733 EFTA00184607

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 6 of 26 UAW nr ICFS or Orarzew 13. C4 • • urc, P.C. A.-, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lourie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 5 Q: And all this occurred when you were 18 though? A: Uh-huh. 1 had been 18 for like 8 months, nine months already. My birthday is in June so I had been 18 for a while. (Sworn Statement of 2/3/05). Q: Okay. How old arc you now? You're - A: I'm 20 Q: You're 20. So a couple months ago you would have been what, 19? A: Uh-huh. Q: Alright. So July, August you would have been 19, 20. On the verge of 20? A: Uh-huh. (Sworn Statement of 11/4/05). • Q: Okay. Did they appear young to you? A: Yes. They were young, You know, that I never seen anybody older than 28 or something like that. Q: Anybody younger than 18? A: It's hard to say that, sir. You know there were a lot of girls that were very, very young, but you know for me to say they were minors, you know, you know, I never see their driver's license.5 (Sworn Statement of 1/4/06). ja ' ' comments about the age of the women in context, referring to Epstein's girlfriend, Rodriguez stated she was "very, very young". Sworn Statement of 1/4/06. Since r dato of birth is she was in fact twenty at the relevant time. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000734 EFTA00184608

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 7 of 26 LAW OF NOES OF GERALD a 113:10001:fRT, P.C. Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lourie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February I, 2007 Page 6 Even as to those women with respect to whom there is no explicit evidence of their being at least 18 at the time or having made affirmative misrepresentations of being so, each was introduced to Epstein through either or others,6 who instructed the women to say they were 18 even if they were not. Thus, proof of this critical element would be lacking. 2. No Travel Was For the Purpose of Engaging in Prohibited Sexual Activity. Federal law erhninalizes travel for the purpose of knowingly engaging in unlawful sexual activity with minors. United States Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004); United Stales v Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 471 (3d Cir. 2006). This is the highest level of culpability in the four tier hierarchy of culpability that the Model Penal Codc uses. "The different levels in this hierarchy are commonly identified, in descending order of culpability, as purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. . . [AI person who causes a particular result is said to act purposefully if 'he consciously desires that result, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct.' United States !Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 404 (1980), quoting United Slates u United Slates Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 22, 445 (1978).7 The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted this language to require that the illegal activity be the dominant motive for the travel. See, e.g., Mortensen 'United States, 322 U.S. 369, 373 (1944) (". . .an intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be found to exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey and must be the dominant motive of such interstate movement") (emphasis supplied); Hawkins United Slates, 358 U.S. 74, 79 (1958) ("[T]he only factual issue in the case was whether paitioners dominant purpose in making the trip was to facilitate her practice of prostitution. . .); Cleveland I United States, 329 U.S. 14, 20 (1946) ("There was evidence .. . that the unlawful purpose was the dominant motive."). There is no basis for concluding that Epstein's paramount or dominant purpose in going to Palm Beach on any occasion was to engage in proscribed sexual activity, even if we assume that some such conduct occurred while he was there. Epstein's interstate travel was motivated As mid, "Like I said, some bring friends who bring friends". Statement of 10/3/03. Indeed, a 2003 change in the law, redefining the mens rea necessary for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423 with respect to international travel, left untouched the,standard for domestic travel, and thus underscores the strict standard needed for a prosecution in this area. See United States I Clark, 435 F.3d 1100, 1104- 05 (9°' Cir. 2006). 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000735 EFTA00184609

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 8 of 26 LAW OFF ICES or Gitlitat B. 14.132COU HT, P.G. Esq., Assistant United States Attorney n rew oune, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 7 by his need to be outside of New York for tax reasons. Thai was the principal purpose of his travel: to be certain not to be present in New York in excess of half of each year. That he chose Florida as his destination was a function of his decision made long ago to maintain a home there, which also was not motivated by any desire to or intention to engage in prohibited sexual activity. Epstein has maintained a connection to Florida for nearly 30 years, the last seventeen as a homeowner. Prior to that Epstein rented homes in the area. Epstein's parents also lived there for years and, before his mother's death in 2004, especially during the four years of illness that led to her death (his father died earlier), Epstein frequently traveled to see her. Since their deaths, lie has traveled to Florida specifically to visit their graves. Epstein's brother, too, maintains a home in Palm Beach County. Indeed, Epstein has been traveling there regularly, integrating into the Palm Beach community. He was a member of The Breakers Club from 1993 to 2006. He maintains bank accounts in Florida, including accounts at the First Bank of the Palm Beaches, in which bank he had an ownership interest, as well. He holds a concealed weapons permit from the State of Florida; maintains the corporate records of his two airplanes in Florida, which airplanes receive virtually all of their scheduled maintenance work in Florida; has titled and registered twelve automobiles in Florida, as well as his boat; the majority of all demonstrations and inspections of new aircraft and boats have been done in Florida; until recently has maintained a driver's license in Florida; and he employs pilots who reside in Florida. So ensconced in Florida is he that his regular physician is based in Florida arid most medical procedures he has had performed over the years have been done in Florida. Foundations he controls have donated generously and regularly to Ballet Florida during the period from 2000 to 2007. Epstein also uses his home in Florida for meeting regularly with important business contacts, many of whom either live or maintain residences in the Palm Beach area. Beginning in 2003 and continuing through most of 2004, Epstein also traveled frequently to Florida to negotiate the purchase of the Abraham Gosman Estate, which was finally sold at auction in November 2004. Although, Epstein was ultimately outbid, nearly a dozen trips to Florida were made in direct pursuit of his offer. In furtherance of these activities — being out of New York for in excess of half of each year, visiting his mother and brother, meeting with business associates, and negotiating the purchase of the Gosman Estate — Epstein made 65 separate trips to Florida in 2004 and 20058. There trips are reflected on the flight records previously provided to you. We are not reproducing them here because of their bulk. If you would like an additional copy wo will provide it. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000736 EFTA00184610

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 9 of 26 LAW OFFICES Of GERALD 13. LIWCOURT, P.C. Villafalia, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lourie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February I, 2007 Page 8 Having massages were entirely incidental to the purpose of his travel to Florida. And given the other purposes of his travel to Florida, the act of going there cannot itself give rise to any inference of an improper purpose. Indeed, it can be demonstrated that Epstein typically spent between one third and one half his time at his home in Florida. Likewise, there is no evidence that any of the women traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in the conduct alleged. Though the Police Report suggests that one of the witnesses, Alfredo Rodriquez, claimed that one or more of the women in question traveled on Epstein's plane, a careful reading of the interview itself shows that the detective confused Epstein's assistants, his girlfriend, and her friends, all of whom arc indisputably over the age of 18, with the women at issue here. More to the point, even if Rodriquez did so claim, the flight records and the statements of the pilots show conclusively that none of these women ever traveled in interstate commerce on any of Epstein's planes to engage in any of the conduct alleged. 3. There Was No Intent To Engage in the Conduct at the Time of the Travel. Even assuming urguendu that any travel occurred for the purpose of getting massages from women, there is no evidence that at the time he was traveling w Florida Epstein had planned to engage in the conduct with a person he knew or believed was under 18. Thus, even if, once in Florida, Epstein purposefully engaged in a proscribed act (which is denied), that purpose arose long after his travel to Florida was complete, while a particular massage with a particular masseuse was in progress. It is for these reasons that no prosecution would lie for the conduct alleged to have occurred with According to the Police Report (at 13-15) a woman evidently in fact under th at the time of the events, met with Epstein on only one occasion. The evidence is that at the time he traveled to Florida, Epstein had no knowledge that he would see anyone at all, let alone knowledge that he would see Dr any person whom he knew or believed was under 16. Thus, whatever the evidence shows occurred during the time was in Epstein's home, any case would be fatally flawed because there is no evidence Epstein traveled in interstate commerce with any intention of meeting Similarly, there is no evidence that al the time he was traveling to Florida on any particular occasion he intended to engage in prohibited activity with any other person whom he knew or believed was under 18. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000737 EFTA00184611

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on 'LSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 10 of 26 LAW OFFICES OF GERST.T9 B. I .P.MCAITIR'r, P.C. Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lourie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 9 II. Statements in the Police Report that Have No Factual Basis or Are Contradicted by the Record We have reviewed recordings of many of the interviews (conducted in person or by telephone) and controlled calls cited in the Police Report. We have compared them to the statements purporting to summarize them in the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit.9 In instance after instance, we find material statements in the Police Report attributed to these sworn recorded statements that either simply were not said, or in some instances, are flatly contradicted, by the witness who purportedly made the statement. We highlight the most significant ones identified to date: 1. (Sworn Statement of 3/15/05) • Police Report at 15: " stated seemed upset or jealous when she told her that she received three hundred dollars". PBPD Transcript at 26-27:10 like, let me see what he gave you. And then I showed her my $300 and she's like, we're going to Marshalls". 2. (Sworn Statement of 10/04/05) • Police Report at 30: "Sometime during the massage Epstein grabbed her buttocks and pulled her close to him." Sworn Statement: "Q: Did he touch you in any way? k He was like kind of like leaning towards me but 1 was like you could tell I was shy sot think that's why he didn't. Q: He did not touch you inappropriately? A: No". 3. (Telephone Interview of 10/04/05) • Police Report at 34: "As was wearing tight jeans and had a tight belt on Jeff was unable to touch her buttocks". There is no mention in her There were three Probable Cause Affidavits prepared and executed by Detective Recarey on the same date. The affidavits arc in all material respects identical and we here refer to the one concerning Epstein. It is annexed at Tab 2. Because the Probable Cause Affidavit merely parrots the Police Report, for simplicity we refer solely to the Police Report. I" We have not reviewed a recording of the bulk of the interview. Instead we are relying on a transcript with which we were provided. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000738 EFTA00184612

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 11 of 26 LAW OFFICES or %RAW B. TASFGOTTRT, P.G. Ale Vil'aloha, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lourie, Esq., Deputy Chief; Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February I, 2007 Page 10 statement of what she was wearing or Epstein's inability to touch her because of it. • Police Report at 34:' stated she is aware that her friend, was also at the house and had a problem with Jeff." There is no mention in her statement of being at Epstein's house or having a problem with Epstein. 4. (Sworn Statement of 11/14/05) • Police Report at 52:' also stated she was sixteen years old when she first went to Epstein's house". Sworn Statement: "Q: Okay. How old were you when you first went there? A: Seventeen. Q: Seventeen. A: And I was 17 the last time I went there too. 1 turned 18 this past June". 5. (Sworn Statement of 11/8/05) • Police Report: "On occasion, Epstein would use a massage/vibrator, which she described as white in color with a large head, on her." Sworn Statement: "Did he ever, did he ever take out any toys? A: No". 6. (Sworn Statement of 2/3/06) • Police Report at 80: "I asked her if she provided the massage naked. laid she did." Sworn Statement "Well, I was not — I wasn't naked. Like 1 was in boy shorts and like topless and boy shorts". 7. Juan Alessi (Sworn Statement of 11/21/05) • Police Report at 57: "Alessi stated that towards the end of his employment, the masseuses were younger and younger". Sworn Statement at 911: "Did they seem young to you? A. No, sir. Mostly no. We saw one or two young ones in the last year. Before that, it was all adults ...1 remember one girl was young. We never asked how old she was. It was not in my job . . . But I imagine she was 16, 17". • Police Report at 57: Tillie bed would almost always have to be made after the massage". Sworn Statement at 11-12: ". . . At the end, it was a few times that the bed was undone. You know, we make the beds three or four times a I I We have not reviewed a recording of the Alessi interview. However, we were provided with a certified transcript of it. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000739 EFTA00184613

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 12 of 26 lAWOIPPICES Gramm B. Damon Fn., P.C. Mal t, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lourie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February I, 2007 Page I I day. And sometimes we went to clean up the massage to put it back, the massage table, to pick up the towels, but the bed was undone again. So either he took a nap or lw went for a nap, I don't know. Q Or something else occurred? A. Or something else. I cannot [sai]". 8. (Sworn Statement of 10/11/05) 13 • Probable Cause Affidavit at II : " advised that during her frequent visits Epstein asked for her real age, stated she was 16. Epstein advised her not to tell anyone her real age". There is no such statement in her recording. • Police Report at 40: Hall recounted how F " the bedroom, she entered and removed her clothing .. . [Epstein's girlfriend] entered the room from the steam room area already naked." These events are not described in statement. • ' s ause Affidavit at 12 "" dated Epstein would photograph and her naked and having sex and proudly display the photographs within the home". Sworn Statement: ".. . it was me standing in front of a big white marble bathtub . .. it wasn't like, I was, you know, spreading my legs or anything for the camera. I svas like, 1 was standing up. I think I was standing up and I just like, it was me kind of like looking over my shoulder kinda smiling, and that was that". • Police Report at 40: " stated that on one occasion she] continued rubbing his legs, thigh, and feet. . [and then Epstein] turned over onto his back. She continued to rub his legs with the oils. Epstein touched her breasts and began to masturbate". These events appear to be synthesized from account of two separate incidents. However, concerning neither did make mention of rubbing Epstein's legs, thighs, and feet or of Epstein turning over onto his back. 12 This statement is also directly contradicted by other witnesses, who never made any accusation that any activity ever occurred on the bed. was interviewed by Detective Recarey twice, once by telephone, and once in person. The portions of the Police Report to which we refer specifically cite the in-person interview of as the source for the information reported. We have reviewed the recording of that interview and base me comparison on that. We have never heard a recording of the telephone interview. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000740 EFTA00184614

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 13 of 26 LAW orrice. or GERALD B. L.Fax-A2nTRT, P.C.. Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Louric, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United Slates Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 12 • Police Report at 40: "Epstein had purchased from her family in Yugoslavia . . . [and] bragged ho brought her to the United States to be his Yu oslavian sex slave". No such statement is made by who refers to as Epstein's "girlfriend" and refers offhandedly to other women in the home as "slaves", 111. Material Omissions from the Pollee Report In addition to the misstatements in the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit as to the evidentiary record, there were also material omissions, both of facts known to the PBPD and also of facts not known by the PBPD though known by the State's Attorney. In the latter instance, the lack of knowledge was the result of the PBPD's refusal to receive the evidence. Thus, anyone relying on the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit would have a skewed view of the facts material to this matter. Examples follow. 1. The Video Surveillance Equipment Located in Epstein's Office and Garage. Both the Police Report (at 43) and the Probable Cause Affidavit (at 18) make particular mention of the "discovery" of video surveillance equipment (or "covert cameras" as they are called) in Epstein's garage and library/office. Inclusion of this information insinuates a link between the equipment and the events at issue: the Probable Cause Affidavit notes (at 18) that "on the first floor of the [Epstein] residence I [Detective Recarey] found two covert cameras hidden within clocks. One was located in the garage and the other located in the library area on a shelf behind Epstein's desk The computer's hard drive was reviewed which showed several images of and other witnesses that have been interviewed. All of these images appeared to come from the camera positioned behind Epstein's desk". Clearly omitted from both the Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the fact that the PBPD, and specifically Detective Recarey, knew about the cameras since the cameras were installed in 2003, with the help of the PBPD, to address the then of cash from Epstein's home. This fact is detailed in a Palm Beach Police Report prepared in October 2003 detailing the thefts, the installation of video equipment, the video recording capturing Alessi (then Epstein's house manager) "red handed", and the incriminating statements made by Alessi when he was confronted at the time. See Alessi Police Report (annexed at Tab 3) at 5, 8. The contemporaneous police report confirms the fact that the video footage was turned over to Detective Recarey himself. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000741 EFTA00184615

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 14 of 26 LAW OFFICES OF Gitrins, B. DirCOURT, P.C. A. Villafafia, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Louric, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 13 2. Polygraph Examination a rt. On May 2, 2006, Epstein submitted to a polygraph examination by Slattery, a highly respected polygraph examiner who is regularly used by the State Attorney. The examination was done at a time when we were told that the sole focus of the investigation was the conduct with A copy of the Report is annexed at Mb 4. Epstein was asked (a) whether he had "sexual contact with (b) whether he "in anyway threaten[ed] ; (c) whether he was told by "that she was 18 years old"; and (d) whether he "believed vas 18 years old", As set forth in the Report of the examination, the term ••sexual contact" was given an extremely broad meaning in order to capture any inappropriate conduct that could have occurred.14 The results of the examination confirmed that (i) no such conduct occurred; (ii) Epstein never threatened told Epstein she was 18 years old; and (iv) Epstein believed ^ was 18 years old. Though the results of the examination were given to the PBPD and a meeting scheduled for the PBPD to meet with the polygraph examiner to satisfy itself as to the bona fides of the exam, representatives of the PBPD refined to attend the meeting and no information concerning the fact of the exam or the results appeared in the Police Report or the Probable Cause Affidavit. 3. Broken "Sex Toys" in Epstein t Rash. The Police Report details the police finding in Epstein's trash what is described as broken pieces of a "sex toy" and that this "discovery" purportedly corroborated witness statements. Omitted from both the Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the fact that during the course of executing the search warrant in Epstein's home, the police discovered the other piece of that key "sex toy" and realized it was in fact only the broken handle of a salad server. Though "sex toys" play a prominent role in the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit, the Police Report was never amended to reflect the discovery of this new and highly relevant evidence. 4. Meetings with the State Attorney's Office. On multiple occasions, attorneys representing Epstein met with prosecutors and investigators in the State Attorney's Office. Though there is vague reference to one or more meetings with counsel (see, The definition included: "sexual intercourse, oral sex acts (penis in mouth or mouth on vagina), finger penetration of the vagina, finger penetration of the anus, touching of the vagina for sexual gratification purposes, touching of the penis for sexual gratification purposes, masturbation by or to another, touching or rubbing of the breasts, or any other physical contact involving sexual thoughts and/or desires with another person". 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000742 EFTA00184616

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 15 of 26 LAW Orr ICtS OF GR:RA-T.D B. 1-RIPCOTJRT, P.G. A. , Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lourie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 14 e.g., Police Report at 64, 87), virtually no information provided or evidence turned over to them regarding the alleged witnesses is included in the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. Instead, there are misleading or false references to such meetings. For example, the briefest reference is made to a conversation Detective Recarey had on June 1, 2006, with ASA regarding a meeting earlier that day between representatives of the State Attorney's Office and defense attorney Jack Goldberger (Police Report at 87). Omitted are the facts of the meeting (Police Report at 87): In addition to the presence of other defense counsel, there was in attendance both Slattery, who administered the polygraph examination, and a psychiatrist who had performed a rigorous psycho-sexual evaluation of Epstein and who concluded that Epstein not unhealthy and posed no danger. Both experts were made available tor questioning by the State Attorney and the PBPD; unfortunately, the PBPD refused to attend the meeting. Nor is there any mention of the presentation made by defense counsel in which the claims being made With respect to then the sole focus of any potential prosecution) were rebutted. 5. Failure to Consider Exculpatory or Impeaching Evidence. Other exculpatory and impeaching evidence known by the PBPD was omitted from the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit by, in our view, manipulating the date the investigation was allegedly closed. Accordin to the Police Report (at 85), Detective Recarey "explained [to ASA that the PBPD had concluded its case in December of 2005". That assertion, which is false, conveniently resulted in the omission of all information adduced subsequent to that date. Thus, though the Police Report in fact contains information obtained after December 2005, the PBPD purported to justify its refusal to consider, or even to include, in the Police Report, the Probable Cause Affidavit or what it released to the public, all the exculpatory and impeaching evidence presented on behalf of Epstein, most of which was provided after December 2005. That evidence is listed below. 6. Unreported Criminal Histories and Mental Wealth Problems of the Witnesses Relied on in the Police Report and Probable CauseAffidavit. Evidence obtained concerning the witnesses relied upon to support the Probable Cause Affidavit casts significant doubt on whether these witnesses are sufficiently credible to support a finding of probable cause, let alone to sustain what would be the prosecution's burden 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000743 EFTA00184617

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 16 of 26 LAW OFFICES or Gzavan 13. LErcaomr, P.G. Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Louric, Esq:, Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 15 of proof at a trial's Though such evidence was submitted to the PBPD, none of it was included in the Police Report or the Probable Cause Affidavit. a. Juan Alessi: While the Police Report (at 57) and the Probable Cause Affidavit (at 21) contain assertions by Alessi which allegedly support the bringing of a criminal charge, omitted is the evidence revealing Alessi's evident mental instability; prior criminal conduct against Epstein; and bias towards Epstein. • Juan Alessi Admitted Buralarizine Enstein's Home and Mental Health Issues. As detailed above (at 12-13), in 2003, Alessi was filmed taking money from Epstein's home. After being caught on videotape unlawfully entering Epstein's home and stealing cash from a briefcase, Alessi admitted to the PBPD that he entered the house unlawfully on numerous occasions, stealing cash and attempting to steal Epstein's licensed handgun to commit suicide. Though this information was known by Detective Recarey at the time the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit were preparekand is clearly material to any determination of credibility, it was omitted. b. as the source of the vast majority of the serious allegations made ainst Epstein. While the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit rely on numerous assertions, there are two significant problems with that reliance. irst there is no mention of material admissions made UMduring her interview, as well as on her MySpace webpage (discovered by defense investigators and turned over to the State Attorney). A copy of the webpage is annexed at Tab 5. Second, all but omitted from the Police Report is any reference to the facts known about her by the PBPD, specifically, that at the time as making these assertions she had been arrested by the PBPD and was. prosecuted for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. A copy of the Police Report documenting Hall's arrest is 13 While we have never intended to and do not hem seek gratuitously to cast aspersions on any of the witnesses, in previously asking the State and now asking you to evaluate the strength of any case that might be brought, we have been constrained to point out the fact that the alleged victims chose to present world through MySpace profiles with self-selected monikers such as "Pimp Juice" ab 5) anefab 13) or with nude photos.. a . 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000744 EFTA00184618

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 17 of 26 LAW OFFICCS OF GEnAna B. 1-13PCOURT, P.C. A. , Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew ',mark, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 16 annexed at Tub 6. We take each in turn. • Admits Voluntary Sexual Conduct With Epstein, Refuses to DiscTose the Disposition of the Monies She Earned, and Lies About Being "Given" a Car by Epstein: Detective Recarey failed to include in the Police Report admission that on one occasion she engaged in sexual conduct with Epstein's girlfriend as her birthday "gift" to Epstein. Nor does Detective Recarey include the fact that flatly refused to discuss with him the disposition of the thousands of dollars she said site was given by Epstein, or that she falsely claimed not to use drugs, despite her MySpace entries that scream "I can't wait to buy some weedllfill I". Detective Recarey was aware the car had been rented, not purchased, and only month to month for two months. While fanciful claim that she was given a car appears in the Police Report, it is never corrected. • I Was Arrested for Possession of Marina and Drug Paraphernalia. As noted, on September 11, 2005,=was arrested for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. See Tab 6. In response to this arrest, "came forward" (as the Probable Cause Affidavit implies at 10-11), claiming she had knowledge of "sexual activity taking place" at Epstein's residence and misconduct by Epstein. (This "coming forward" appears no where in the Police Report.) Thus, it becomes clear that assertions of misconduct by Epstein were motivated by a desire to avoid the repercussions of her own criminal conduct, which should have been taken into account whcn assessing her credibility as a witness. • Steals From a Victoria's Secret Store. An investigation S ivate investigators working for the defense revealed that in late 2005 was employed at a Victoria's Secret store in Florida. Three days after her marijuana case was terminatedawas caught by a store manager as =attempted to leave the store with merchandise In her purse, the security tag still attached. See Incident Report annexed at Tab 7. Seeing the manager, claimed "someone is trying to set me up". Following an internal investigation, which disclosed additional thefts from both the store and a customer, she was fired. In a recorded interview, admitted to stealing and asserted that her reason for doing so was that "she was not getting paid enough". This information and supporting documentation 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000745 EFTA00184619

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 18 of 26 LAW OFFICES Cr GRRAT.T3 B. 1.urc.orrin, P.C. A. INN, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Louric, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February I, 2007 Page 17 was presented to the PBPD, but was never included in the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. • - Lies on MvSnace About Victoria's Secret Store Termination. Also uncovered by defense investigators is dissembling version of the Victoria's Secret debacle on her "MySpace" webpage. There% nnounccd that she "... forgot to let everyone know I quit my job at They said they suspected me of 'causing losses to their company' — which by the way is bullshit. I was 'by the book' on EVERYTHING!!! . .. I got so fed up in that office that 1 handed the Loss Prevention lady back my keys and walked out". This information and supporting documentation was provided by the defense to the PBPD, but was not included in the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. • as 18 at the Time She Alleges to Have Engaged in exua on uct with Epstein. Epstein deities he ever had sex with.. However, even if he did, evidence, in the form of a credit card receipt,' was presented to the PBPD and the State Attorneirce which confirms that any such encounter occurred at a time when vas already 18 years of age. (Indeed, it is our understanding that it was this information, combined with a theft report of her employer that highli hted her lack of credibility, that led the State Attorney to conclude tha as neither credible nor a proper complainant.) This information, ough known to the PBPD, was omitted from the Police Report or the Probable Cause Affidavit. • !lies on her Victoria's Secret Job Application. Addition mmtion on Hall's MySpace webpagc casts further doubt on her credibility. For example, she boasts to having engaged in a fraudulent scheme to get hired by Victoria's Secret, explaining, "Oh, it was so funny — I used [my boyfriend] as one of my references for my Victoria's Secret job and the lady called me back and told me that William Tucker gave me such an outstanding reference that she did not need to call anyone else back, . . . he got me the job! Just like that . . . I lied and said he was the old stock manager at Holister — she bought it.. ." This information and 16 A copy is annexed at Tab 8. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000746 EFTA00184620

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 19 of 26 LAW OFFICES OF GER/LED R LEITCOURT, P.C. Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Louric, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February I, 2007 Page 18 • supporting documentation was provided by the defense to the PBPD, but was not included in the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. toasts About Her Marijuana Use. Also on her MySpace webpage can be founaidmissions of purchasing and using marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia. Specifically tates she "can't wait to buy some weed!!! . I can't wait!!! . . . (Hold on: let me say that again) I can't wait to buy some weed!!!. . . I also want to get a vaporizer so I can smoke, in my room because apparently there are 'naives' everywhere...so posted a photograph of a marijuana cigarette and labeled it "what heaven looks like to me". This information and supporting documentation was provided by the defense to the PBPD, was not included in the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit although there is both a fleeting reference in the Police Report to se of marmi, i ma with her boyfriend (at 67) and in the Probable Cause Affidavit to iarijuana arrest (at 10-11)). Lies, Alleging Defense Investigators Impersonated Police Officers. During the course of the investigation, the defense was notified that an unidentified witness claimed that defense investigators had impersonated police officers in an effort to get her statement. The defense subsequently concluded that these accusations were made by (A reference to this accusation was included in the Police Report (at 67) and the Probable Cause Affidavit). Defense counsel immediately questioned the investigators and learned the accusation was baseless; the investigators a business card clearly identifying them as private investigators. initially declined to speak to the investigators because she said she "does not speak to cops", to which the investigators responded they were not "cops". Despite having this information from defense counsel, the PBPD failed to include it in the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit, instead citing only claims. e. While the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit contain numerous assertions intended to negat tdmission she told Epstein she was 18, omitted from these documents is re erence to ySpace webpage, where she affirmatively represented to the world tha she was 18, thereby corroborating her lie to Epstein. A copy of MySpace webpage is annexed at Tab 9. Also omitted is any reference to her long history of run-ins 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000747 EFTA00184621

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 20 of 26 LAW OFF ices or GERALD 13. I.EICOURT, P.C. Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Loudc, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 19 with law enforcement. Among those are multiple runaway complaints by her parents and her assignment to a special high school for drug abusers. • lialVivSinace Webnage States She Drinks, Uses Drugs, Gets into Trouble, Has Beaten Someone Up, Shoplifts, Has Lost her Virginity, Earns $250,000 and Higher, and Contains Naked and Provocative Photographs. The first image seen on MySpace webpage, the photo chose to represent her, rs t rat o a naked woman provocatively lying on the beach. The illuminating webpage also containsMEll assertions that of all her body parts, she "love[s] her ass", she drinks to excess, uses drugs, "gets into trouble", has beaten someone up, has shoplifted "lots", "already lost" her virginity, and earns "$250,000 and higher". As with the other impeaching information, this material, vital to determining credibility, was provided by the defense to the PBPD but was never included in the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit. • Police Contacts — Drugs, Alcohol, Bunning Away From Home. has a history of running away/turning up missing from her parents' various homes; of using drugs and alcohol; and of associating with unsavory individuals. For example, a Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Report (annexed at Tab 10) details how only two days after she returned to Florida to live with her father, on March 31, 2006, police were called to the home in response to her father's report that she and her twin sister were missing. The Police Report describes her as "under the influence of a narcotic as [she] could barely stand up, [her] eyes were bloodshot and [her] pupils were diluted [sic]". It further documents that id her sister had stayed out all nigl d were returned home by a "drug dealer". This event coincided with rt laving been found at an "ina ro riate location" by Georgia police in response to a call abou isappearance. Although this information, material to determining credibility, was provided by the defense and known to the PBPD, it was never included in the Police Report or Probable Cause. Affidavit. (I. Daniel While the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit rely on statements ot Daniell father, omitted is Daniel federal bank fraud conviction (annexed at Tab II), which defense 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000748 EFTA00184622

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 21 of 26 LAW OFFICES OF G FIRAT.D B. LRITC.01 nrr, A , Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lourie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 20 investigators discovered and turned over to the PBPD during the course of the investigation. .ervcd 21 months in federal prison for his offense. e. 'While the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit rely on statements of Itaft Step-mother, omitted is - =State conviction for identity fraud (annexed at Tab 12). This information, uncovered by defense investigators, was also turned over to the PBPD during the course of the investigation. IV. The Facts of This Case Militate Against Bringing a Federal Prosecution A. Declining To Prosecute as an Exercise of Discretion Epstein is being prosecuted by state authorities in Florida. Even if we assume aiguendo that Epslein's conduct constitutes a federal crime that can be proven, nevertheless no "substantial Federal interest" would be served by prosecuting him. On this question, the United States Attorney's Manual (USAM) itself gives specific guidance. Section 9-27.230 provides: In determining whether prosecution should be declined because no substantial Federal interest would be served by prosecution, the attorney for the government should weigh all relevant considerations, including: Federal law enforcement priorities; the nature and seriousness of the offense; the deterrent effect of prosecution; the person's culpability in connection with the offense; the person's history with respect to criminal activity; the person's willingness to cooperate in the investigation or prosecution of others; and the probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted.I7 Each of these factors militates against prosecution. As indicated, federal law enforcement priorities focus on particular phenomena involving the sexual abuse of minors, the use of the 17 Each of these factors is discussed in greater detail in USAM 9-27.230(B). 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000749 EFTA00184623

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 22 of 26 LAW OFFICES or GERALD B. ince -ant, P.C. A , Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lourie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Pitge 21 internet to lure minors to engage in prohibited sexual activity, child pornography, or trafficking. The conduct in which Epstein is alleged to have engaged fits nowhere in these categories. Given its essentially stet generic character, its prosecution would have little or no general deterrent effect. If prosecuted under statutes designed to address far more serious conduct and far more dangerous offenders, lie would be subject to punishment that is grossly disproportionate to his alleged behavior. Even though society has a legitimate interest in preventing and punishing sexual exploitation of minors, under our federal system, that interest is one that is shared between the federal government and the states, and one in which there is a division of responsibility. Under our system of federalism, the states, and only the states, act where the concern is local, and the federal government only where there is a federal interest at stake. This is just as true with respect to sexual activity involving minors as it is with respect to murder, which can be prosecuted, federally, only in special circumstances where there is a genuine federal interest to be served. Most importantly, there is no identifiable federal interest to be served by prosecuting the conduct at issue in this case. The federal interest lies in addressing the problem of internet predators, a problem of uniquely federal interest. As the Director of the Office for Victims of Crime of the DOJ has stated, ". . .the nature of Internet crimes presents complex new challenges for law enforcement agencies and victim service providers with regard to investigating crimes, collecting evidence, identifying and apprehending offenders, and assisting child victims and their families." U.S.D.O.J., Office of Justice Programs, OVC Bulletin, Internet Crimes Against Children, December 2001. Federal lawmakers recognized that while the internet presents wonderfid opportunities for young people, at the same time "criminals are also using modem technology — to prey on innocent victims." Id. That should be sufficient to end the matter, as Epstein's case has nothing whatever to do with internet predation, or the type of predators to which the legislation is addressed. After all, it is a first principle th t the Constitution creates a federal government of enumerated powers. See United Slates'. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 552 (1995) ("Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Fede I Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.") (quoting Gregory'. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1997)). Thus, Congress's power to legislate in this area is constrained by the Commerce Clause. As Lopez demonstrates, the 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000750 EFTA00184624

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 23 of 26 LAW OFFICES OF GERALD B. Th3t0COURT, P.G. A. W oillafiula, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew urie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 22 Clause imposes real limitations on Congress's power to criminalize essentially local behavior. See United States' Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (Violence Against Women Act exceeded Congressional power under the Commerce Clause or § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment). Lopez, of course, recognizes Congress's power to regulate "the use of the channels of interstate commerce" and "to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious uses." Lopez, 514 U.S. at 558. But this confirms that the legitimate federal interest is in the misuse of instrumentalities or channels of interstate commerce. This suggests that, in defining and weighing the federal interest, the focus should be on the use of interstate travel, and not upon the sexual conduct itself. Clearly, Epstein's interstate travel can be of no legitimate or significant federal interest. I•le spent a great deal of his time in Florida because he has owned a home there for seventeen years and has many professional, social and personal interests centered there, none of which has anything to do with sexual conduct. Given the attenuated relationship between sexual conduct with any person under 18 and interstate travel, the federal interest in this matter is negligible. The conduct at issue is not an example of a widespread or growing phenomenon that in general crosses state or international lines (like Internet sexual predators or sex tourism) that is difficult to police or prosecute and that the United States has a special interest in eliminating. It does not involve the special targeting of children. It does not involve organized prostitution, sex trafficking, or organized crime. It does not involve violence or the threat of violence, nor physical harm or threat of harm. It does not involve child pornography. Indeed, the circumstances of this case are so idiosyncratic that its pursuit would not significantly advance the protection of minors. Instead, the conduct at issue here is precisely the conduct that is primary interest to the state. And it is the state that has the authority, and the right, to establish and rely on reasonable criteria for deciding which cases to bring and which to forego. To the extent that the federal statutes in this area are broadly drafted, this is to confer on the authorities sufficient leeway to exercise their discretion and "get the bad guys" who do exploit minors, often on a massive scale or for financial rewards. The very breadth of the statutory language places on federal prosecutors the weighty responsibility of insuring that their discretion is exercised thoughtfully. Certainly, the fact that conduct arguably falls within the broad scope of a broadly worded federal criminal statute cannot itself establish that a substantial federal interest is at stake. Nor does the statutory breadth mean that prosecutors should strive to test the statutes' outer boundaries. This is particularly true here, where private conduct is at issue; where the 08-80736-CV-MARRA RIP WPB 000751 EFTA00184625

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLED Docket 02/10/2016 Page 24 of 26 LAW OFFICCS or GERALD B. Luxecourrr, P.C. Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lourie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 23 federal statutes, broadly read, would criminalize sexual conduct that state law may permit; and where the question of' whether fedgral legislation in this area exceeds Commerce Clause authority, in light of United Stator. Lopez, supra, remains unresolved by the Supreme Court. It is well to remember that hard cases make bad law - for the government as well as for its citizens. Indeed, if the use of a handgun that trayeled in interstate commerce does not allow a federal prosecution by invocation of the Commerce Clause, as the Supreme Court ruled in Lopez, then surely purely local sexual activity would not, either. B. Petite Policy In addition to the factors discussed above, the Petite Policy (regarding dual and successive prosecutions), a limitation on prosecutorial authority, may also stand as a bar to federal prosecution. If it is arguable whether the policy applies, the policy itself may require that Justice Department authorization to proceed be obtained. The Policy, which takes its name from Petite" United Stales, 361 U.S. 529 (1960), is set forth in the USAM at 9-2.031. The Petite Policy "establishes guidelines for the exercise of discretion by appropriate officers of the Department of Justice in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transactions involved in a prior state or federal proceeding." The purpose of the policy "is to vindicate substantial federal interests through appropriate federal prosecutions, to protect persons charged with criminal conduct from the burdens associated with multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same acts or transactions, to promote efficient utilization of Department resources, and to promote coordination and cooperation between federal and state prosecutors." USAM 9-2.031(A). Though the Policysioes not create any substantive or procedural rights enforceable by law, see, e.g., United Stalest Snell, 592 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir. 1979), it nevertheless provides a valid basis for arguing against the institution of charges in this matter. The crux of the Policy is this: This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPI3 000752 EFTA00184626

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 25 of 26 LAW 0IfICC5 or GERALD 13. I-MC.OOAT, P.C. A. W oillafafla, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew urie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 24 involve a substantial federal interest; second, the prior prosecution must have left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and third, applying the same test that is applicable to all federal prosecutions, the government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier bf fact. In addition, there is a procedural prerequisite to be satisfied, that is, the prosecution must be approved by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General. Satisfaction of the three substantive prerequisites does not mean that a proposed prosecution must be approved or brought. The traditional elements of federal prosecutorial discretion continue to apply. Whether the matter involves a substantial federal interest is a determination to be made on a case-by-case basis, applying the considerations applicable to all federal prosecutions. The second prerequisite is that the prior prosecution must have left that substantial federal interest "demonstrably unvindicated." "In general, the Department will presume that a prior torosecution, regardless of result, has vindicated the relevant federal interest." USAM 9-2.031(D). I8 The presumption may be overcome when the prior prosecution resulted in a conviction if the prior sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved or if the choice of charges in the prior prosecution was affected by certain inappropriate or irrelevant factor such as "incompetence, corruption, intimidation, or undue influence." No such factors operated here. The negotiations between the State Attorney were conducted at arms length, and at times in an atmosphere of mutual hostility. At no point was Epstein granted any sort of break in his case due to his wealth, his political affiliations, or the prominence of his lawyers. If anything, those factors worked against him. The state prosecutors devoted enormous resources to a lengthy investigation, refused to reveal the nature of the charges 1K All three substantive pre-requisites for approval of a prosecution governed by the Petite Policy are discussed in greater detail in USAM 9-2.031(D). 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000753 EFTA00184627

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 26 of 26 LAW OFFICES OF GERALD B. LEFGOURT, P.G. A.= Villafana, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lourie, Esq., Deputy Chief, Northern Region Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida February I, 2007 Page 25 they were considering, refused to speak with Epstein's attorney of choice. and tried to strong-arm Epstein to plead guilty to a violent felony by threatening to place witnesses, whom the State knew were not credible, on the stand before a grand jury. In determinin the char es, the State Attorney took into account the fact that both of the principal victims nd — have serious credibility problems, including damaging histories of lies, illegal drug use, and crime. The State Attorney, quite appropriately, took into account the substantial possibility that, with witnesses MIS might not be able to make any case against Epstein at all. In fact, according to the State Attorney for Palm Beach County, his reason to take the case to the grand jury, rather than proceed by information, was to determine whether his witnesses would testify under oath, even without being subjected to cross-examination. Tellingly, though subpoenaed to testify at the grand jury, Ms.=ailed even to appear. The charging decision was not an act of favoritism, but a rather harsh exercise of the Stale Attorney's discretion. The State Attorney had never before prosecuted a case involving erotic touching unless the victim was exceedingly young, vulnerable, or in a trust relationship with the perpetrator. Cases brought by the State Attorney previously involved far more egregious conduct, including the videotaping of sexual activity, multiple rapes, and keeping minors as sex slaves, including tattooing them to indicate ownership and control over them. Any suggestion that Epstein received preferential treatment — or that the State prosecutors were corrupt — would be utterly without merit. For all of these reasons, we submit that no prosecution can or should be brought against Jeffrey Epstein, We would like to reserve the opportunity to make a further submission in which we address more specifically the applicable law once we have had the benefit of narrowing the focus at our meeting. cc: Roy Black, Esq. Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. y y UT Gerald B. L tb urt Qf 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000754 EFTA00184628

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-44 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 44 EFTA00184629

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-44 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 !Y1110Prativin 09/19/200712:14 PM Judge Johnson has duty next week. Jay — I hate to have to be firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by Monday. I will not miss my indictment date when this has dragged on for several weeks already and then, if things fall apart, be left in a less advantageous position than before the negotiations. I have had an 82-page pros memo and 53-page indictment sitting on the shelf since May to engage in these negotiations. There has to be an ending date, and that date is Monday. To °Jay Letkovalz" <JLetkowitzgaiirkiend.coi cc Subject RE: Meeting A. Marie Villcialla Assistant U.S. Attorney — Ori From: \(USAFLS\)" Sent: 09/19/2007 11:51 AM AST To: Jay Leflcowitz Subject: Meeting Barry is available Monday morning. Our most flexible West Palm Beach magistrate is on duty on Monday, so, assuming we have signed documents by 1:30 or so, we should be able to get Mr. Epstein arraigned on Monday. I doubt that we will be able to get everything finished up here, get down to Miami, and try to find a Miami mag by close of business on Monday. A. Villafaffa US_Atty_Cor_004 EFTA00184630

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-45 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT 45 EFTA00184631

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-45 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 3 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave.. Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Facsimile: June 7, 2007 PELIVERY BY HAND Miss Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights Dear Miss Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, you have a number of rights. Those rights are: (1 ) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. (3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other portions of a proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. Members of the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these rights are protected. If you have an concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at, or Special Agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at You also can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C. at That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights listed above and, if you believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for relief. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA 000978 EFTA00184632

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-45 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 3 MISS JUNE 7, 2007 PAGE 2 In addition to these nghts, you are entitled to counseling and medical services, and protection from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you are a victim, you also may be entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service providers can be provided to you, if you so desire. If ou or our family is subjected to any intimidation or harassment, please contact Special Agent or myself immediately. It is possible that someone working on behalf of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such contact does not violate the law. However, if you arc contacted, you have the choice of speaking to that person or refusing to do so. If ou refuse and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, then please contact Special Agent or myself. You also are entitled to notification of upcoming caseevents. At this time, your case is under investigation. If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be notified. Sincerely, United States Attorney cc: Special Agent By: A. VillafaAa Assistant United States Attorney *pr..; - 08-80736-CIMARRA 000979 EFTA00184633

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 24 EXHIBIT 46 EFTA00184634

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 24 GERALD B. LETCOURT • lefeourlialecourEaw.com SHERYL E. REICH relcheNtouriewtom RENATO C. STABILE AMNI•OlitcourOnecan FAITH A. FRIEDMAN Sclulmenalefornallaw.ccor BY FEDERAL EXPRESS LAW °mete or Gnaw B. Lggcouic, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 140 EAST 7STN STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021 July 6, 2007 Jeffrey Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Fsq., Chief, Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Andrew Londe, Deputy Chief, Northern Region Assistant United States Attorney • The United States Attorney's Office District of Florida TELEPHONE CZ lE) 797.0400 FACSIMILE 968419E Jeffrey Epstein Dear Messrs. =, and Lourie and Ms. Villafafia: We write as counsel to Jeffrey Epstein to follow-up on our meeting on June 26, 2007. We thought the meeting was extremely productive and appreciate your giving us the opportunity to engage you on the facts, law and policy that will inform any decision you make on how and whether to proceed. I. 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) Has No Applicability to the Facts Here. Even assuming the facts as you believe them to be, as demonstrated below, a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) would violate the explicit terms of the statute, pose insurmountable constitutional barriers, and be unprecedented, unwise, and utterly inappropriate. This statute, with its mandatory minimum sentences was designed to reach The statute in effect during the events at issue carries a mandatory five-year period of incarceration. The current ten-year mandatory minimum was instituted in 2006. MIA_CEOS_00077 EFTA00184635

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 24 LAW OPPICCO OP GERAIS/ B. LEPCOTJEtt PC. N Jeffrey Esq. Matthew Esq. Andrew Lourie. Esq. Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 2 those who deliberately, knowingly, and intentionally target and exploit children through the intemet. Though the literal language may superficially apply to a wider variety of behaviors, we submit that the statute cannot properly be used to prosecute what have traditionally been viewed as state offenses, even if some facility or means, of interstate commerce can be said to have been used by someone at some point during the course of events. 1. Congress's Purpose Section 2422(b), the so-called "Internet Luring StatutC addresses online enticement of children. The subsection was included in Title I of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, entitled "Obscenity and Violence", after the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing regarding child endangerment via the intemet. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, at 193 (1996), quoted in United States' Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193, 1197 (l Cir. 2005); see also K. Seto, "Note: flow Should Legislation Deal with Children and the Victims and Perpetrators of Cyberstalkingr 9 Cardoso Women's L.J. 67 (2002). In enacting the statute, Congress recognized that young people were using the llama in ever-increasing numbers, and it was proving to be a dangerous place. According to a DQJ study, one in five youths (aged 10 to 17) had received a sexual approach or solicitation over the intemet in the previous year. One in 33 had received an "aggressive sexual solicitation", in which a predator had asked a young person to meet somewhere or called a young person on the phone. U.S.D.O.J., Office of Justice Programs, OVC Bulletin," Internet Crimes Against Children" (12/2001); www.ohtusdoj.gov/ove/publications/bulletons/internet " 2 2001/intemet _2_01_6.html. Congress saw that, with so many children online, the intemet created a new place — cyberspace — where predators could easily target children for criminal acts. Use of the interact, which occurs in private, and the secrecy and deception that acting in cyberspace permits, eliminated many of the risks predators face when making contact in person, and presented special law enforcement problems that are dif₹icult for any local jurisdiction to tackle. Theinandatory minimum sentence for a violation of this section was increased from five years to ten years in 2006, by virtue of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which also eliminated any statute of limitations. See 18 U.S.C. MIA_CEOS_00078 EFTA00184636

cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLED Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 24 LAW OFFICC• OF ‘• GERALD B. LEYCOMZT. P.C. Jeffrey Misq. Matthew Esq. Andrew Lourie Esq. A. =Ma Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 3 §3299.2 The law was named in memory of Adam Walsh who, 25 years earlier, had been abducted from a department store and was later found murdered, and whose parents had become advocates for missing children. In his signing statement, President Bush noted that it increased federal penalties for crimes against children, imposing "tough mandatory minimum penalties for the most serious crimes against our children." 2006 U.S.C.C.A.N. S35, 2006 WL 3064686 (emphasis added). The five-year mandatory minimum it replaced was itself established as part of the PROTECT Act of 2003, another law designed to strengthen the government's ability to deal with certain dangerous sexual predators who exploited children in ways the states had been unable to address fully.3 2. General Overview It must be remembered that §2422(b), by using the phrase "any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense": in some sense incorporates all the sex offense laws of all 50 states, in all their variety and in all their ambiguity. This in itself raises questions of the utmost seriousness, implicating fairness and the due process clause. It also constitutes an extreme example of federal pre-emption, or, more precisely, the wholesale annexation of the enforcement responsibility of each of the 50 states' sex-related crime statutes — whether felony, misdemeanor or violation — wherever there has been use of the ever-present wires. To make every state sex "offense" involving a person under 18 potentially into a mandatory minimum ten-year federal felony without any statute of limitations is certainly not what Congress had in mind when it enacted §2422(b). 2 Other federal crimes with ten-year mandatory minimum involve very serious acts, See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §2113(e) (bank robbery where a person is killed or kidnapped); 18 U.S.C. §924 (involving discharge of firearm). 3 Section 2422(b) has always carried a substantial penalty. en first enacted, the maximum sentence it permitted was ton years. Pub.L. 104-104, Title Sec. 508, 110 Stat. 137. After that, the maximum was increased to 15 years. Pub.L. 105-314, Title I, sec, 102, 112 Stat. 2975 (Oct. 30, 1998 to April 29, 2003). A phrase which, by itself, and in the context of the remainder of the statute, raises mind- numbing questions as to what, exactly, is proscribed. MIA_CE08_00079 EFTA00184637

9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 24 LAW DAVICCII or ALD B. LEFCOURT. PC. Jeffrey Matthew Esq. Andrew Laurie. Esq. Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 4 The bulk importation of complex bodies of state law is highly problematic, and strongly counsels that such matters should be left to the states except in those rare circumstances where both a federal interest is clear and weighty, and the states are for some reason incapable of acting. Like issues of family law, these issues are quintessentially of state concern within our federal system. State laws regarding both sexual activity and the age of consent to engage therein are hugely varied, reflecting different histories, values, politics, and personalities. See Richard A. Posner & Katharine B. Silbaugh, A Guide to America's Sex Laws (1996). The various and shifting societal reasons underlying thoselaws, and the societal pressures operating in the urea, where sexual mores change over time, complicate the matter even further. See generally Richard A. Posner, Sex and Reason (1992). The history of the Mann Act confirms the caution with which the federal government should approach this entire area. For example, historically, the Act was used by some prosecutors in some jurisdictions to prosecute acts— such as a man traveling with his paramour — which, we submit, never implicated a legitimate federal concern. See generally D.J. Langum, Crossing the Lines: Legislating Morality Under the Mann Act (1994). Even where there is broad agreement that certain conduct should be criminalized, the various states treat the very same conduct differently; to apply such laws selectively by different federal prosecutors would undermine further what uniformity does exist. In New York, for example, a 50 year old man who patronizes a 15 year old prostitute is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. New York Penal Law §230.04. If §2422(b) were read expansively, then such person would face a 10-year mandatory minimum if ho used the telephone to set-up his date with the young prostitute, even if the date never happened. And that would be so even if the prostitute were 17'/2 (and despite the fact that in New York the age of consent is 17, since prostitution is a "sexual offense" in New York). Clearly, these are applications and outcomes Congress did not contemplate when it enacted the law. Instead, these are matters best left to state law and state law enforcement. In the state, prosecutors and law enforcement authorities, who have far more experience dealing with sexual crimes, can exercise their discretion as to whom to prosecute and for what charges, taking into account both local attitudes and the wide range of circumstances that may exist when sexual offenses, or possible sexual offenses, involving minors wet; or may have been, committed. That is particularly so since state laws generally permit the exercise of sentencing discretion, allowing the punishment to fit both the crime and the MIA CEOS_00080 EFTA00184638

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 6 of 24 LAW OFFICES Of GERALD B. Lnrcouter. PC Jeffrey Miq. Matthew Esq. Andrew Lourie, Esq. A. Villafafia, Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 5 • perpetrator. Section 2422(b), with its ten-year mandatory minimum is far too blunt a tool to use in any circumstances except the narrow, clear-cut, and egregious circumstances Congress had in mind when it enacted this law.5 Though §2422(b) is susceptible to multiple interpretations, it was designed to address a specific a problem with which Mr. Epstein's case has nothing in common. If stretched to reach beyond the core concern of the statute, a host of problems immediately arise. A simple reading of the words of the statute leaves any reasonable reader with far more questions than answers as to what is illegal. Any attempt to apply the statute to Mr. Epstein's situation highlights the many problems of vagueness, overbreadth, and simple incomprehensibility lurking in or just below the statute's text. 3. The Statute's Text And Its Thrust Section 2422(b) currently provides: Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than ten' years or for life. The statutory language and reported decisions confirm the statute's important, but narrow, focus: the luring of children over the Internet. Unlike 18 U.S.C. §§2241 et seg., Penalties under state statutes criminalizing online enticement also vary widely. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, though the offense can be a felony in all states, 15 states permit misdemeanor sentences in some eases (generally where the victim is 14 or older). Nineteen states classify online enticement as a felony, but grant judges statutory discretion to sentence offenders to less than one year in prison /missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServletThanguageCountry=en... 6/28/2007. MIA_CEOS_00081 EFTA00184639

9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 7 of 24 LAW OIPICto or ERALD B. LEFCOURT, P.C. Jeffrey Mi sq. Matthew Esq. Andrew Lourie, Esq. A. Villafafia, Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 6 §2422(b) does not establish any federal sex crimes with a minor. Section 2422's subject is not sex or sexual activity or face-to-face sexual exploitation of minors. Such behavior remains a matter of state, not federal, concern. The plain language of the statute mandates focus on the communication and demands that the knowing "persuasion", "inducement", "enticement" or "coercion" be done "using the mail or any facility or means of interstate . . .commerce" (emphasis added). Any other reading would violate constitutional principles of fair warning, notice, lenity and due process. Additionally, any broader reading would violate the clearly stated intent of Congress that enacted the law and the President who signed it. It would also exceed the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause by federalizing virtually all state sex offenses involving people under the age of 18. Section 2422(6) defines a crime of communication, not of contact. It makes unlawfid a narrow category of communications, ones not protected by the First Amendment. Both the attempt and the substantive crime defined by §2422 are complete at the time when communication with a minor or purported minor takes place; the essence of the crime occurs before any face-to-flice meeting or any sexual activity with a minor, and regardless of whether any meeting or activity ever occurs. Turning the statute on its head by first looking at the alleged sexual activities and then seeking to find a mailing, a use of the wires, or the involvement of another facility or means of interstate commerce as a pretext for the invocation of federal jurisdiction would be without precedent and make a narrowly-focused statute into virtually a complete federalization of all state sex offenses involving minors. 4. The Statute Is Violated Only If A Facility Or Means Of Interstate Commerce Is Used To Do the Persuading Or Inducing Though the statute raises several difficult issues of construction, on one point it is clear and unambiguous: To be guilty of a crime under §2422(b), the mail or a facility or means of interstate commerce must be used to do the perivading or inducing. As the Court wrote in United States I `165 Aid Appx. 586, 2006 WL 226038 (10th Cir. 2006), to prove a violation, the government must show "(1) the use of a facility of interstate commerce; (2) to knowingly persuade, induce, entice or coerce, as well as the other elements. See also United States' Bolen, 136 Fed. Appx. 325, 2005 WL 1475845 (1 1 di Cir. 2005). MIA_CEOS_00082 EFTA00184640

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 8 of 24 LAW WIC° OF OBRALD B. LEFCOURT. P.C. Jeffrey Matthe , Esq. An 9. A. , Esq. The United States Attorney's Office • Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 7 The statutory language can bear no other construction. The words "whoever, using . . . knowingly persuades . . ." necessarily requires that the "whoever" must "use" the interstate facility to knowingly persuade. That is, the word "using" is in the present, not the past, tense. Thus, the "using" must occur at the same time as the "persuading". If the.statute meant otherwise, it could and would have been drafted differently: "whoever having used the mail and knowingly persuades" or "whoever uses the mail and knowingly persuades". But, as it is written, the actor must use the interstate facility to persuade or to entice, or to attempt to do so; use of the instrumentality cannot be incidental or peripheral. Indeed, assuming, arguendo, that the grammar and structure of the statute would allow another interpretation — which we believe it does not — nevertheless the obvious, straightforward reading controls. Anything else would violate the rule of lenity, requiring strict construction of penal statutes, as well as the requirement of fair notice guaranteed by the due process clause. 6 As Thomas Jefferson put it in 1823: "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding, and should therefore be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties, which may make any thing mean every thing or nothing, at pleasure". According to one of the world's leading experts on grammar and specifically, the syntax and semantics of verbs, these rules of "ordinary understanding" and "common sense" dictate that . . . an English speaker, reading the statute, would naturally understand it as applying only to persuasion (etc.) that is done while "using the mail" (etc.). To understand it as applying to persuasion (etc.) done subsequent to the use of 6 We note that the structure of this statute is radically different from the structure of §134I, the mail fraud statute. There, the statute first describes the fraud and recognizes the federal concern • by requiring, for purposes of executing such scheme or artifice, that the defendant use the mail. Section 2422(b) on the other hand defines the crime as using the mail to knowingly persuade, etc. The difference in the language and structure of the two crimes clearly shows that with §2422(b), using the mail to knowingly persuade is the essence of the crime. L. MIA_CEOS_0O083 EFTA00184641

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 9 of 24 LAW OFPIcES OF GERALD B. LEFCOURT. BC. Jeffrey Matthew Esq. Andrew !Anne Es . Escl• e nite tates Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 8 the mail, phone, etc., would be an unnatural and grammatically inaccurate reading of the language..? That the statute is so limited is also confirmed by the fact that prosecutors have clearly understood this limitation. After conducting extensive research, we find no case of d defendant being prosecuted under §2422(b) where he has used the internet or the telephone, and then, by some other means, such as personal contact, attempted to persuade, induce, or entice. On the contrary, all §2422(b) prosecutions we have reviewed are premised on a defendant's use of the internet (or occasionally the text messaging on a phone) as the vehicle of the inducement. See, e.g., United States! Murrel, 368 Rid 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) (government must ... prove that Murrel , using the intemet, acted with a specific intent to persuade a means to engage in unlawful sex). In fact, we have reviewed every indictment filed in the Southern District of Florida in which there is at least one allegation of a violation of §2422(b). To the extent the facts could be discerned from the indictment, we found no case brought where the use of the means of communication was remote from the persuading, coercion, etc.g Such prosecutorial restraint is in full accord with the legislative intent, which, as set forth above, was to go after intemet predators who use the means of communication to persuade, coerce, etc. That the statute also makes reference to the mails and facilities or means of interstate commerce other than the intemet does not suggest that the statutory purpose was broader: it is a common modus operandi of internet predators to continue to pursue young people whom they first contact on the internet. If the statute were read to make it a crime to induce or persuade where the inducement or persuasion did not occur over the wires, the statute would sweep within it conduct that Congress had no intention of making a federal crime. Given the ubiquity of the telephone in modem life, especially To confirm our view of the "plain meaning" of the words, we asked Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor at Harvard University's Department of Psychology and a noted linguist, to analyze the statute to determine the natural and linguistically logical reading or readings of the section. Specifically, we asked whether the statute contemplates necessarily that the means of communication must be the vehicle through which the persuading or enticing directly occurs. According to Dr. Pinker, that is the sole rational reading in the English language. See Letter annexed at Tab "A" at 3. 8 Annexed at Tab "B" is a chart in which each of the cases and its relevant facts are listed. MIA_CEOS_00084 EFTA00184642

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 10 of 24 LAW OVIICCO or BALD B. LBECOUBT. PC. N Jeffrey Matthew , Esq. Andrew Lourie, Esq. A. Villafafla, Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 9 in the lives of young people, de-coupling the "persuasion/enticement" element from the "use of the interstate facility" would make virtually any sexual activity with a minor, chargeable under state law, a federal offense— with no statute of limitations and a mandatory ten-year minimum sentence. Indeed, given that the interstate highway system is itself an avenue of interstate commerce, United States' Home, 474 F.2d 1004, 1006 (7th Cir. 2007), allowing a prosecution wherever a means or facility of interstate commerce is used and a forbidden inducement later occurs, would mean that anyone who used the interstate highways, and then, at some other time, induced a minor face-to-face to engage in forbidden activity (or attempted to do so), would be subject to the mandatory ten years. The complete federalization of sex crimes involving children would have occurred, though there is no indication whatsoever that such a sea change in the federal/state balance was intended or is even needed. Moreover, such an expansive reading, even if permissible, would very likely exceed the Cogerce Clause power as the Supreme Court presently construes it. In United States Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Supreme Court struck down the Gun- Free School Zones Act, holding that it exceeded Congress's Commerce Clause authority. In so ruling, the Court reaffirmed a set of fundamental principles, including that the powers delegated to the federal government arc few and defined, and that this "constitutionally mandated division of authority was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties." Id at 552, quoting Gregory' Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991). The Lopez majority concluded that the statute before the Court "upsets the federal balance to a degree that renders it an unconstitutional assertion of the commerce power." Id. at 580. In so ruling, the Court expressed its concern that an overly expansive view of the interstate Commerce Clause "would effectively obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government." Id at 557. Making it clear that the Court meant what it said in Lopez, five years later, in United Stalest Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), the Court struck down the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, ruling that it, too, was beyond :Congress's Commerce Clause powers. Once again, the majority expressed concern that ..Congress might use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Constitution's 'distinction between national and local authority." Id. at 615. MIA CEOS_00085 EFTA00184643

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 11 of 24 LAW OFFICES OF ALP B. LEVCOURT. P.C. Jeffreygisq. Matthe , Esq. Andrew I .nurie F. , Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 10 To the extent that §2422(b) criminalizes the use of the intemet (or telephone) by a sexual predator to target a vulnerable minor and to convince, or to try to convince, her to engage in conduct proscribed by law, the statute may not be unconstitutional on its face. See United States" 23,1carsky, 446 F.3d 458, 470 (3d Cir. 2006) (both §§ 2422(b) and 2423(6) "fall squarely within Congress's power to regulate the first two categories of activities described in Lopez"). The statute would, however, be plainly unconstitutional if it were applied to situations like Mr. Epstein's, where neither the telephone nor the intemet was used in that fashion, and where the use of the telephone was, at most, a tenuous link in a chaiii of events that may, or may not, have preceded or followed sexual contact with a minor.9 In other words, if the instrumentality of commerce is not the vehicle used to facilitate the harm Congress is trying to address, but is simply a 'jurisdictional hook," the hook is too weakly connected to the problem (sexual crimes against minors) to sustain the statute as a proper exercise of Commerce Clause power. Questions about the nature of federalism, and, specifically, just how far the federal government may go into matters of traditionally state concern, will continue to arise and ill be answered case-by-case. As Justice O'Connor said in her dissent in Gonzales. Rakh, 545 U.S. 1, 47 (2005), ".. . the task is to identify a mode of analysis that allows Congress to regulate more thy' nothing ... and less than everything. .." (O'Connor, J. dissenting). United States" Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2005), illustrates the difficulty of the task. In that case, the deeply split en ham: Court considered whether and to what extent the Commerce Clause authority included the power to punish a church arsonist who had traveled in interstate commerce to commit his e arsons. Though clearly not settled, what is clear is that Congress's specification of a jurisdictional element such as the use of an instrumentality or channel of interstate 9 As can be readily noted on the chart at Tab "B", to the extent discernable, every case brought under §2422(b) in this district includes use of the internet. There are only four reported cases in the Eleventh Circuit involving use of the phones only: three of them concern telephone calls to travel agencies advertising overseas underage sex tour and involved explicit talk of sexual activity with known minors. A fourth is United States'. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2007) (11th Cir, 2007). But there, in facts far different from those presented here, the defendant "admitted using both a cellular telephone and a land-line telephone to entice Jane Doe to engage in prostitution" (emphasis added). That admission makes Evans no precedent for a prosecution here, since there is no evidence the phones were used "to entice". MIA__CE0S_00086 EFTA00184644

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 12 of 24 LAW OPIICC• OF BALD B. LEVCOUBT, PC. Jeffrey Sloman, Esq. Matthew Esq. Andrew Lour g it . A. 1=Villafafla, Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 11 commerce does not, in and of itself, end the inquiry. Where the use of such instrumentality is far removed from the conduct being targeted (in the case of §2422(b), . sexual exploitation of children), the lack of any basis for federal jurisdiction presents itself squarely. ' In Mr. Epstein's case, since the crime being considered (as Congress intended) is the use of the Internet by interact predators to target and lure vulnerable children to engage in illicit sex, the law is arguably within Congress' Commerce Clause powers. But Mr. Epstein's conduct would be outside the law's scope. If you were to contend that any use of the telephone which is connected in any fashion to an act of sexual misconduct with a minor is within the statute's scope, Congress would then have reached well into traditional state spheres, and there is a powerful argument that Congress would have been acting in excess of its Commerce Clause authority. Elimination of Constitutional uncertainty regarding §2422(b) depends upon confining it to situations where an instrumentality of interstate commerce has itself been :: used for an immoral or injurious purpose. Statutes must be read to eliminate serious doubts as to Constitutionality, as long as such a reading is not plainly contrary to the .• intent of Con ess. United States X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 78 (1994), citing . DeBartolo Corp. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Thades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988). At c least, to eliminate questions as to its constitutionality, §2422(b)'s reach must be limited to situations where there is a very close connection between the use of an instrumentality of interstate commerce and the persuasion or attempted persuasion that the statute makes a crime. Moreover, even if, arguendo, the expansive reading of the statute would not violate the Commerce Clause — which current case law strongly suggests it would — nevertheless the federal interest in prosecuting sexual offenses involving minors where t the facility or means of interstate commerce was not the vehicle for committing the crime is so attenuated that no such federal prosecution should be brought. .. Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Epstein himself ever persuaded, induced, 60004 or coerced anyone under the age of 18 over the telephone or internet to engage in restitution or other illegal conduct. Any prosecution would therefore have to be redicated on a theory that he was criminally culpable for a telephone call made by a )4 party. Such a theory of vicarious liability requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt person making the telephone call and Mr. Epstein shared the same criminal intent MIA_CEOS_00087 EFTA00184645

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 13 of 24 LAW Orrices or GERALD B. LEFCOURT, P.C. JeffreyMtg. Matthe , Esq. , Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 12 and knowledge and, critically, that the shared intent and knowledge existed at the time of the communication in question. Absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Epstein had actual knowledge that the person making a telephone call would induce or persuade a specific underage person during the telephone call to engage in unlawful sexual activity or to engage in prostitution, there can be no federal crime. If the telephone call in question were simply to schedule a topless massage, then the call lacked the essential element of inducement, persuasion, enticement, or coercion. If the telephone call in question was to schedule a topless massage (or even more) with a woman whose age was not known by Mr. Epstein to be under 18, it also fails to satisfy the requirements of §2422(b). If Mr. Epstein had not formed the intent to engage in unlawful sexual activity as of the time of the communication (even if he did form the intent thereafter), an essential clement of the federal statute is again lacking. If the person making the call had knowledge or a criminal intent or belief not fully shared by Mr. Epstein (for example, Mr. Epstein did not know the telephone call was intended to induce a minor to engage in unlawful activity), the essential element of shared intent and shared knowledge is again lacking.1' Finally, even if there were a call to schedule a second meeting with someone who had previously been to the Epstein residence, this call lacks the necessary element of persuasion, inducement, or enticing even if the person receiving the call hoped or expected remuneration from the return visit. That is so because the statute focuses on the content of the communication, not on any quid pro quo that occurs thereafter at a meeting. The latter conduct is exclusively within the ambit of state prosecution. 5. Other Reasons Why & 2422(3) Does Not Apply As we demonstrate above, this statute is addressed to those who purposely and intentionally target children. Here, there was no such targeting. As the Sixth Circuit said in rejecting a First Amendment challenge to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who 'knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice minors. United States I. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000). See United States'. Pali!, 338 F.3d 10 Indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any calls may claim to have made to solicit persons to massage Mr. Epstein. Though Ms. may lave known the actual ages of the women whom she called at the time she called, and may therefore have known that one or more was in fact under 18, she was clear in speaking to detectives that she never communicated such information to Mr.. Epstein. Rather, she understood Mr. E stein wanted massages from women at least 18 years of age. (Video Interview o on October 3, 2005). MIA CEOS_00088 EFTA00184646

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 14 of 24 LAW OFFICES or GERALD B. LEITCOURT, P.C. Jeffrey MIN. Matthew , Esq. Andrew Lowrie Esq. A. Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 13 1299 (11th Cir. 2003) (scienter requirement discourages "unscrupulous enforcement" and clarifies §2422(b)). Directed towards those who commit "the most serious crimes against children," it cannot properly be used as a trap for the unwary, sweeping within its net all who may — even unwittingly and unintentionally — communicate or otherwise interact improperly with persons who turn out to be minors. A prosecution of Mr. Epstein would violate the teachings of Bailey and Panfil. As we believe we persuaded you at the June 26'h meeting, Mr. Epstein never targeted minors. On the contrary, what he did — at worst — was akin to putting up a sign saying to all, come in if you are interested in giving a massage for $200. A few among those who accepted the general invitation may have in fact been under 18 (though they lied about that age and said they were 18), but that is, at its worst, comparable to "post[ing] messages for all interne users, either adults or children, to seek out and read at their discretion," which the courts have held does not violate §2422(b). Thus, for this reason as well, Mr. Epstein's case is far outside the parameters of the §2422(b) cases that have been prosecuted. A key factor common to cases brought under §2422(b) is not present here: Prosecutions under this statute have focused on a sexual predator who used the intemet to identify and to communicate with a child or purported child (or a person with influence over such child or purported child), and did so with the intent to arrange to engage in sexual activity with the child, with full knowledge that sexual activity with an individual of that age was illegal. In light of this common and well-accepted understanding, the cases decided under §2422(b) take as a given that its proper application lies only where the defendant knows or believes the person with whom he is interacting is a child. Virtually all of the prosecutions brought under §2422(b) resulting in published decisions have involved undercover "sting" operations, involving an essentially standard fact pattern in which over an extended period of time and in the course of multiple conversations on line an undercover agent pretends to be a young teenager. In each of the cases, the prosecution had, from the very words used by the defendant, an all but irrefutable case showing the clear knowledge and intent of the defendant. A prototypical case is United States' Farner, 251 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2001), where the defendant participated, over time, in instant messaging, e-mail, and follow-up telephone calls with a person who identified herself as 14 years old, engaged in explicit intemet conversation, sent her pornographic pictures, persuaded her to meet with him for sexual activity, arranged such a meeting, and traveled to the meeting place. The Fifth Circuit held that MIA CEOS_00089 EFTA00184647

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 15 of 24 LAW OFFICIO, OF ALD B. LEFCOURT, P.C. N Jeffrey I Esq. Matthew Esq. Andrew Lot i q. A. Esq. The toes Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 14 defendant's §2422(b) attempt conviction was valid; it mattered not that the 14 year old was really an adult FBI agent engaged in a sting operation, for the defendant "believed Cindy to be a minor and acted on that belief." 251 F.3d at 512. Our own survey of the cases brought in this district under §2422(b) confirms that prosecutions in this District have also been all but limited to intemet sting cases. See Tab "B". In the context of this standard fact pattern involving the intemet's use by predators, other Circuits, including the Eleventh, have been unanimous in holding that the non-existence of an actual minor was of no moment; defendant's belief that he was F.3d 1222, 1227-32 (11th Cir. 2002); United States1 Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 0th Cir. dealing with a minor was sufficient to make out the crime. See United States Root, 296 2005); United States I Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8Ih Or. 2006); United States I Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (0 Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void or vagueness, overbreadth, and First Amendment challenges to the statute, brought in the context of these prototypical prosecutions where the intemet was the vehicle of communication and enticement, and the defendant demonstrated in writing his belief that he was dealing with (3d Cir. 2OO6); United States Thomas, 41O F.3d 1235, 12 3-44 (1O a child well below the age of ionsent. E.g., United States t Tilkarskli4 Cir. 2005); United 446 F.3d 458, 473 States 1 Panfil, supra, 338 F.3d at 1300-01 (11th Cir. 2003).11 "There are approximately two dozen Eleventh Circuit cases that include a prosecution under §2422(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States Morton, 364 F.3d 1300 (11 th Cir. 2004), judgment vacated for Booker consideration, 125 S. Ct. 338 (2006); United States !Orrega, 363 F.3d 1093 (I I" Cir. 2004); United States "'Miranda, 348 17.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 20 3); United StatesITYllmon, 195 F.3d 640 (11th Cir. 190.9); United States I Panful, supra, 338 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 20 3); United States 1 Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); United States! Burgess, 175 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 1949); United States Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 05); United States I Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11'h Cir. 200 ). United States I Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004), is in the same mold, except that, in that tiling operation, the defendant communicated, not with the purported 13 year old girl, but with an Undercover agent holding himself out to be the imaginary girl's father. The initial contacts Between Murrell and the agent occurred in Internet chatrooms named "family love" and "Rent F ry Yng." Over time, Murrell sought to make arrangements with the girl's father to make his daughter available for sex in exchange for money. After the initial intemet communications Otnicerning renting the girl for sexual purposes, further negotiations between the defendant and 11;0 undercover occurred via the phone, per the defendant's suggestion. The Eleventh Circuit, Aiming the issue to be whether the defendant must communicate directly with the minor or Opposed minor to violate §2422(b), answered the question in the negative, reasoning that "the MIA .CEOS_00090 EFTA00184648

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 16 of 24 LAW CWIICCS Or Jeffrey Mi si q. Matthew Esq. Andrew Lourie, Esq. Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 15 In light of this common and well-accepted understanding, the cases decided under §2422(b) take as a given that its proper application lies only where the facts demonstrate beyond dispute that the defendant knows or believes the person with whom he is interacting is a minor. The Ninth Circuit has so held. United States' Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 718 (9th Cir. 2004), held that the term "knowingly" refers both to the verbs — "persuades", "induces", "entices", or "coerces" — as well as tope object —"a person who has not achieved the age of 11. years," citing United States I X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994), and Staples, United States, 511 U.S. 606 (1994). The Meek Court wrote: The statute requires mens rea, that is, a guilty mind. The guilt arises from the defendant's knowledge of what he intends to do. In this case, knowledge is subjective — it is what is in the mind of the defendant. it The very lengthy sentence under §2422(b) speaks against strict liability, especially since it applies in eases whcre there is no sexual contact at all with any person, let alone with a real minor. The Eleventh Circuit's decision in United States Murrell, supra, reflects this same understanding of the statute. The Murrell court wrote that, under the "plain language" of §2422(b), "to prove an attempt the government must efficacy of §2422(b) would be eviscerated if a defendant could circumvent the statute simply by employing an intermediary to cant out his intended objective. Id. at 1287. Fact patterns slat to Murrell's exist in Chatted States Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2004); United States Houston, 177 Fed. Agpx. 57 (11* Cir. 2006); United States Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193 (Da Cir. 2005); United States' Scott, 426 F. 3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2005); and United States' Bolen, 136 Fed. Appx. 325 (11111Cir. 2002). 12 Several Courts of Appeal have held that, in a prosecution under §2422(a), the defendant need not know that the individual that a defendant has persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced to travel in interstate commerce is under the age of 18. United States' Jones, 471 F.3d 535 (46 Cir. 2006), is ono of these cases, though its facts are very different, and much more egregious than Mr. Epstein's. Assuming Jones was correctly decided and that the government need not prove defendant's knowledge under §2422(a), that still does not answer the question under §2422(b). The two are very different statutes, with different histories and different purposes. And §2422(a), unlike subsection (b), carries no mandatory minimum sentence, let alone ten years. MIA_CE0S_00091 EFTA00184649

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 17 of 24 I. AV! orrocc• or Jeffrey Esq. Matthew Esq. Andrew Loune, Esq. A. iliVillafahe, Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 16 first prove that Murrell, using the intemet, acted with a specific intent to persuade a minor to engage in unlawful sex." 368 F.3d at 1286 (emphasis added).13 United States Root, supra, 296 F.3d at 1227, follows this pattern, and confirms that, at the time the defendant induces or entices the minor, he must intend to have sexual conduct with a minor or one he believes to be a minor and know that such conduct is proscribed. ("Root's statement to task force agents upon his arrest confirmed that he believed he would meet a 13-year-old girl for sex, which he said he knew was wrong but 'exciting"). See also United States i Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 2005) (unpublished). This mens rea requirement applies equally where the completed crime occurs.14 Finally, actus non facit ream, nisi mens sit rea — the act alone does not amount to guilt; it must be accompanied by a guilty mind. This principle of concurrence mandates that the actus reus and the mens reus concur in time. See Paull-I. Robinson, Criminal Law §4.1 at 217 (1997) (concurrence requirement "means that the required culpability as to the element must exist at the time of the conduct constituting the offense"); LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law §3.I1(a) (West 1986) (noting that Concurrence is a basic principle of criminal law and "the better view is that there is concurrence when the defendant's mental state actuates the physical conduct"). See also United States, Bailey, supra, 444 U.S. at 402. In this case, the requisite actus reus is absent; likewise the required mental state. Even if those two fatal defects could be set aside, nevertheless, there was no concurrence of guilty mind and evil act, providing an additional reason why a successful prosecution under §2422(b) could not be brought. 6. Conclusion In Mr. Epstein's case, there was no use of the intemet to induce, etc., and, given the legislative history and purpose, that is itself dispositive. Nor does the case present any of the dangers associated with intemet predators and cyberspace. Not surprisingly 13 Otherwise, the police could, for example, conduct a sting operation with a 17 year-old pretending to be an 18 year-old. Such an absurd operation is surely not intended by the statute. 14 Even the completed crime does not require any sexual activity. Arguably, one commits the attempt offense when the actor, on the interact, asks a known or believed-to-be minor to have sex, "riven if she says no. The completed offense occurs when he takes an additional step, even before imy sexual activity and regardless of whether one ever takes place. MIA_CEOS_00092 EFTA00184650

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 18 of 24 LAW orricce or ALD B. LEFC017RT, 'PC. Jeffrey Esq. Matthew Esq. Andrew Louric, Esq. Esq. the United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2.007 Page 17 then, the statutory language does not fit: Mr. Epstein did not use any facility of interstate commerce to do the forbidden act — to persuade, entice, induce, or coerce — nor did he attempt to do so. Others did use the telephone to make a variety of arrangements for Mr. Epstein's residence in Palm Beach, including getting the house ready for his arrival, checking movie schedules, and making telephone calls to schedule doctor's appbintments, personal training, physical therapy and massages. Even if Mr. Epstein could be held responsible for the use of the telephone on his behalf, nevertheless, calls made by others regarding massages were not the statutorily proscribed persuasions or enticements of a known minor to do acts known to be illegal. Within his home, even if Mr. Epstein may arguably have persuaded or induced individuals to engage in forbidden conduct with him, he did not violate §2422(b). If he engaged in such persuasion or inducement, it occurred only face to face and spontaneously. If such conduct constituted a crime, it would be a classic state offense. The state is the appropriate forum for addressing these issues. Though in our meeting it was asserted that cases under §2422(b) are often brought where there was simply use of a telephone, and casual use at that, it would not from our survey appear to be so on either count — that is, use of a telephone rather than the interact, and use of the means of communication remote from the enticing, etc. This is neither the defendant, nor the factual context, to break new ground. II. Mr. Epstein Warrants Declination to Prosecute as Exercise of Discretion. We believe strongly that no federal case would lie under the facts here. Moreover, as we discussed, there is a pending state case against Mr. Epstein which can be resolved in a way that vindicates the state's rights and obligations in this matter. In considering an appropriate disposition in a case such as this, where the applicability of the statute, both legally and as a matter of policy, raise serious questions, and both the reliability and admissibility of much of the evidence is in doubt, it is useful to consider how best to use the broad discretion you enjoy in choosing whether to prosecute. In this regard, we suggest that having a greater understanding of who Jeffrey Epstein is as a person may help inform how best to proceed. Jeffrey Epstein was raised in a middle class neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York, by hardworking parents. His father was a laborer and his mother a secretary. They lived comfortably, but were by no means well off. Mr. Epstein's parents instilled a strong work ethic in him, and growing up he held a variety of jobs to support himself, from MIPLCEOt00093 EFTA00184651

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 19 of 24 LAW OFFICE. Of finALD B. LEPCOURT. PC. Jeffrey asq. Matthew Esq. Andrew Lotir!q. A. 1=Villafafta, Esq. The rated States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 18 driving a taxi cab to working as a mechanic. Any notion that he was born with a "silver spoon in his mouth" should be dismissed. Although Mr. Epstein is self-made and worked long and hard, he could not have achieved his successes without the personal guidance and support of others. These key people first identified the promise in Mr. Epstein and brought him to Bear Steams and Company, Inc. There, starting in 1976 at the age of 23 as a floor trader's junior assistant, he became in 1980 a limited partner. Among the very many benefits that his experience there provided was an introduction to the people who ultimately became his clients. • Early in his professional career, Mr. Epstein realized the profound impact that even one person can have on the life of another. His gratitude for the assistance he personally received, and his sense of obligation to provide similar assistance and guidance to others, is in large part, the motive for the primacy of philanthropy in his life or his particular philanthropic interests. Mr. Epstein has devoted a substantial portion of his time, efforts and financial resources to helping others, both on an individual basis and on a more far reaching scope. Mr. Epstein gives generously, of both his time and his financial resources equally to individuals whom he knows personally and well and to those with whom he has had little or no personal contact. Just a few examples: Some time ago, the two year old son of an employee was diagnosed with retinal blastoma. When told, Mr. Epstein not only gave the employee unlimited time off to attend to his son and promised whatever financial support was needed, but Mr. Epstein made the MI list of his medical and research contacts available. The employee was put in contact with a former colleague who was then conducting eye research at Washington University. Mr. Epstein organized several meetings to determine how the colleague could be of assistance, including by arranging for further meetings with experts at Washington University. Though the employee's son lost one eye, he is now an otherwise normal twelve year old who attends private school along with his five siblings, the expenses of which arc borne by Mr. Epstein. Several years ago, a new employee with whom Mr. Epstein had little or no prior contact approached Mr. Epstein to request a change in his medical insurance. It was soon revealed that the employee and his wife were experiencing fertility problems and they were seeking treatments that cost nearly $15,000 per month. Mr. Epstein insisted on paying'directly for the treatments, and did so month after month. After each unsuccessful cycle, Mr. Epstein sat with the employee, exploring available alternatives, including adoption, and encouraging the employee to continue additional cycles at Mr. Epstein's. Mr. Epstein referred the employee to medical experts with whom Mr. Epstein MIA_CE0S_00094 EFTA00184652

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 20 of 24 LAW orrice* or LE,- B. LEFCOUBT, PC. N. Jeffrey Misq. Matthew , Esq. Andrew Lourie, Esq. A. Villafafia, Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 19 was acquainted and assigned personnel to assist the employee with administrative and secretarial needs that arose in seeking a solution to the problem. Mr. Epstein is now the godfather of the employee's seven-year old twins. Recently, both a second employee and a consultant of Mr. Epstein each confided that they and their respective spouses were experiencing similar fertility problems. Again, Mr. Epstein offered to pay the uncovered medical costs. The consultant and his wife are now expecting their first child. The second employee continues with infertility treatments. Two years ago, a building workman approached Mr. Epstein with news that the workman's wife needed a kidney transplant and that the workman's sister-in-law in Colombia was a willing donor. The non English speaking workman had neither the financial resources nor the know-how to get the sister-in-law to the United States. Mr. Epstein arranged for immigration counsel to expedite a visa for the sister-in-law and purchased the plane tickets for the sister-in-law's visit to the United States. The surgery was a success and both patients recovered completely. The sister-in-law flew back to Colombia at Mr. Epstein's expense. Mr. Epstein is a devoted advocate of personal improvement through education. As a former board member of Rockefeller University, Mr. Epstein has made available academic scholarships to worthy students, most of whom he has had no prior connection to whatsoever. In addition, Mr. Epstein covers the tuition required to send the family members of his employees to nursery, private elementary, middle and secondary schools and colleges. He has funded and personally encouraged continuing education programs for his adult employees and professional consultants. Among his other acts: • On a trip to Rwanda to inspect the genocide camps, Mr. Eittein approached the President of Rwanda and offered to help identify and then to fund two worthy Rwandan students to earn undergraduate degrees in the United States. The student, whom Mr. Epstein did not meet until after their second year of studies, both are expected to graduate with honors from the City University of New York in 2008. Notes from each of them are annexed at Tab "C". • Even to those with less lofty goals, seeking only to advance in their chosen paths, Mr.. Epstein freely gives of his time to provide guidance and, when appropriate, financial support. For example, Mr. Epstein has been meeting MIA CEOS_00095 EFTA00184653

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 21 of 24 LAM °MCC., or ERALD B. LEFCOURT. PC Jeffrey Sizajailsq. Matthea, Esq. Andrew Laurie F Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 20 monthly with a teenage building workman whose expenses of vocational school are being paid by Mr. Epstein. Each month, Mr. Epstein reviews the workman's school progress and discusses career opportunities. One of the monthly reports is annexed at Tab "D". • In addition, Mr. Epstein blocks out time each week to meet with young professionals to discuss their career prospects and counsel them regarding appropriate next steps. Although Mr. Epstein is deeply committed to helping others in very personal and meaningful ways, he has also sought to use his good fortune to help others on a broader basis. Mr. Epstein has sponsored more than 70 athlete wellness programs, building projects, scholarship funds and community interest programs in the United States Virgin Islands alone. Moreover, Mr. Epstein has given generously to support philanthropic organizations across the United States and around the world, including America's Agenda; Robin Hood; Alliance for Lupus Research; Ovarian Cancer Research Fund; Friends of Israel Defense Forces; Seeds of Peace; the Jewish National Fund; the Hillel Foundation; the National Council of Jewish Women; and the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund — to name only a few. In a feature article about Mr. Epstein in New York Magazine, former President Clinton aptly described Mr. Epstein as "a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science." President Clinton reached this conclusion during'a month-long trip to Africa with Mr. Epstein, which Mr. Epstein hosted. The purpose of that trip was to increase AIDS awareness; to work towards a solution to the AIDS crisis; and to provide funding to reduce the costs of delivering medications to those inflicted with the disease. Both before and after that trip to Africa, Mr. Epstein worked hard to achieve improvements in people's lives on a global basis. He actively sought advancement of his philanthropic goals through his participation and generous support of both the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. As you may know, the Trilateral Commission was formed to foster closer cooperation among core democratic industrialized areas of the world in the pursuit of goals beneficial to the global population. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, national membership organization and a nonpartisan center for scholars dedicated to increase international understanding of world issues and the foreign policy decisions that affect those issues. MIA_CEO8_00096 EFTA00184654

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 22 of 24 LAW armee OF LD B. LEPCOTJEtt PC. Jeffrelicl• Matth Esq. , Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 21 Mr. Epstein was part of the original group that conceived the.Clinton Global Initiative, which is described as a project "bringing together a community of global leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world's most pressing challenges." Focuses of this initiative include poverty, climate change, global health, and religious and ethnic conflicts. Mr. Epstein has sought to improve people's lives through active participation in • worthy scientific and academic research projects, as well. He spent hundreds of hours researching the world's best scientists, and he himself studied as a Harvard Fellow in order to increase his own knowledge in fields that he believed could provide solutions to the world's most difficult problems. He is committed to helping the right researchers find those solutions, especially in the fields of medical science, human behavior and the environment. In the past four years alone, Mr. Epstein has made grants to research programs at major institutions under the supervision of some of the most highly regarded research professionals and scholars in their fields, including Martin Nowak, a mathematical biologist who studies, among other things, the dynamics of infectious diseases and cancer genetics; Martin Seligman, known for his work on Positive Psychology — that is to say the psychology of personal fulfillment; Roger Schank, a leading researcher in the application of cogniti theory to the curricula of formal education; the renown physicist/cosmologist Krauss, and many others. Institutions funded include Harvard University; Penn State University; Lenox Hill Hospital (New York); the Biomedical Research and Education Foundation; the Santa Fe Institute; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Case Western Reserve University; and Harvard Medical School's Institute for Music and Brain Science. Moreover, Mr. Epstein has sponsored and chaired, symposia that have provided a rare opportunity for the world's leading scholars and research professionals to share ideas across interdisciplinary lines. These leaders gather to discuss important and complex topics, including the origin of life, systems for understanding human behavior, and personal genomics. In order to expand the pool of qualified research professionals actively engaged in addressing the world's numerous problems, Mr. Epstein co-founded, and served as a trustee and actively participated in the selection committee of, the Scholar Rescue Fund. The Scholar Rescue Fund (SRF) is a program of the Institute of International Education, the group that, inter alia, administers the Fulbright Scholarship program. The SRF provides support and safe haven to scholars at risk from around the world. Over the past MIA_CEOS_00097 EFTA00184655

Case 9:O8-cv-8O736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket O2/1O/2O16 Page 23 of 24 LAW OFIIICCS OI LD B. LEIrCOURT. PC. JefTreyMisq. Matthew , Esq. Andrew Laurie R q, , Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 22 five years, SRF has made 155 grants to scholars from more than 37 countries. Scholars are placed at host universities in a safe country. More than 87 institutions around the world have hosted SRF scholars to date, including eight of the top ten universities in the United States. Most recently, SRF launched the Iraq Scholar Rescue Project to save scholars in Iraq, many of whom have been particularly targeted for kidnapping and death since the conflict there began. Mr. Epstein is a highly valued member of the selection committee. Just a few articles mentioning these and other projects are annexed at Tab Even a casual review of the good works large and small in which he has involved himself leads one to conclude that he has a powerful instinct to help others. He does this not simply because he can, but because he has a deeply ingrained desire to do so. In fact, he believes that, as a result of his good fortune, he is obligated to do so. Since 2000, Mr. Epstein has funded educational assistance, science and research and community and civic activities. As you can see, his philanthropy is not limited to financial support. To the contrary, it has involved the dedication of a remarkable amount of his time and effort and has yielded admirable results. It is noteworthy that a majority of the people he has helped over the years have been those with whom he has had little or no contact, which further confirms that he derives no personal benefit from his good works, other than the personal satisfaction derived from using his good fortune to help others. The sincere devotion to others evidenced by Mr. Epstein's philanthropic activities is no less apparent in his interpersonal relationships. Mr. Epstein has maintained both long term significant, intimate as well as professional relationships. He remains close personal friends with people with whom he went to high school and, to this day, maintains close business contacts with his former colleagues at Dear Stearns.. Those who know Mr. Epstein well describe him admittedly as quirky but certainly not immoral; and overall as kind, generous and warm-hearted. They have remained staunch supporters despite the Iwid media attention during this two-year investigation. Mr. Epstein acknowledges that the activities under investigation, as well as the investigation itself, have had and continue to have an unfortunate impact on many people. With a profound sense of regret, Mr. Epstein hopes to end any further embarrassment to all who are and who may become involved in this serious matter. Resolution of the outstanding charges in the state would put an appropriate end to the matter for everyone. MIA_CEOS_00098 EFTA00184656

C e 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLED Docket 02/10/2016 Page 24 of 24 LAW OIFICL• or :',Gmastin B. LEFcouirr. P.C. Jeffreasq. Matth , Esq. Andrew Lourie, Esq. A. Villafatia, Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 23 Again, we and our colleagues thank you for your attention at the June 26 meeting. I welcome any questions or comments you may have and am available to discuss this and any other issues at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, Gerald 13. Lefcourt a idt Alan Dershowitz cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Roy Black, Esq. MIA CEOS._00099 EFTA00184657

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-47 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 47 EFTA00184658

.Case,9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-47 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 F • 1 From: nt: ttumber 23, 2007 11:58 AM Lourie, Andrew; , Jeff (USAFLS); Subject: Jeffrey Epstein - con I ential (USAFLS) Dear Mr. Jay Lefkowitz [[email protected]] (USAFLS) I write to follow up on our conversation on Friday and to ask you to reconsider your decision to require that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a registerable state charge. It appears that there was a misunderstanding at the meeting I had with Messrs. Lourie, Krischer, Goldberger, Lefcourt, Ms. and Ms. Please confirm this with IIII Lourie. Before the meeting, Mr. Krischer, and Ms. a sex prosecutor for 13 years, told us that solicitation of a minor, under 796.03, is not a registerable offense. However, as it turned out, 796.03 is a registerable offense and our discussion at the meeting was based on a mistaken assumption. We suggest that Mr. Epstein enter two pleas -- one to the Indictment and a second to a non-registerable charge. This charge could still allow for restitution under chapter 796. Indeed, because the conduct at issue here involves woman under the age of majority, I would suggest that Mr. Epstein plead either to a 11 arge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, child abuse, and/or agree to a 3 tement of facts that he should have known that women under the age of majority were volved. Such a statement combined with a plea should address any concerns you have regarding Mr. Epstein's accepting responsibility for his conduct. To require registration based on the facts alleged in this case, however, simply does not make sense. Registration is a life sentence and the FBI's involvement in this case and their interest in vindication for their efforts cannot justify a punishment harsher than what Mr. Epstein deserves. I ask you to look at the manner in which the state settled the Kutun case last week. As you know, Mr. Kutun was a public figure who had videotaped sexual intercourse with a 16 year old. Consider the following factors, which we believe, indicate that registration is not justified in Mr. Epstein's case: • Mr. Epstein has no prior criminal record and no previous history of sexual offenses; • The vast majority of the girls alleged to be involved were over the age of 16, and many were months away from reaching the age of majority; • There are no allegations of substance or alcohol abuse or that Mr. Epstein provided drugs or alcohol to anyone; IIII) There is no suggestion that Mr. Epstein is a pedophile; 1 RFP MLA 000189 EFTA00184659

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-48 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT 48 ( EFTA00184660

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-48 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of .4 • FOVVLERWHITE W BURNETT MIAMI • FORT LAUDERDALE • WEST PALI/ BEACH • ST. PETERSBURG August 2, 2007 Mr. Matthew Chief, Criminal Division United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4 Street Miami, Florida 33132 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Matt: ESPIRRO SANTO PLAZA FOURTEENTH FLOOR 1395 BRICKELL AVENUE MIAML FLORIDA 3313 TELEPHONE (3051 789-9200 FACSIMILE (3051 789-9201 WWW.TOWURYMITE.COM LILLY ANN SANCHEZ DIRECT PHONE No.: 1305) 789.9279 DIRECT FACSIMILE No.: (305/ 728-7579 LSANCTIZZOPOWLCIPMITIE.COM As we discussed at Tuesday's meeting, and consistent with our view that no federal prosecution should lie in this matter, Mr. Epstein is prepared to resolve this matter via a state forum. We are in receipt of your memo regarding same and as the dynamics of the meeting did not allow for us to fully detail our proposal, we do so now. We believe that our respective positions are not very far apart and that a mutually agreeable resolution can be reached that will accomplish the interests of the United States Attorney's Office as well as those of the community. We welcomed your recognition that a state prison sentence is neither appropriate for, nor acceptable to, Mr. Epstein, as the dangers of the state prison system pose risks that are clearly untenable. We acknowledge that your suggestion of a plea to two federal misdemeanors was an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Our proposal is significantly punitive, and if implemented, would, we believe, leave little doubt that the federal interest was demonstrably vindicated. The Florida state judicial system, unlike the federal system, provides for numerous types of onerous sanctions after a defendant is remanded to the custody of the state. The sentence is tailored to the needs of the local community and the risk posed by a specific defendant. After a great deal of thought, our proposal consists of both a severe supervised custody, with an assurance that any violation would result in the immediate implementation of the two year period of incarceration. We must keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein is a 54-year old man who has never been arrested before. He has lived an otherwise exemplary life, characterized by both many charitable contributions and philanthropic acts. His reputation has suffered significantly as a result of his poor judgment in these matters. He is well aware of the ramifications of his past behavior and, accordingly, there is no concern, whatsoever, that he will re-offend. FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. RFP MIA 000053 EFTA00184661

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-48 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 4 • Page 2 The following proposal is offered as an assurance to the community that the goals of appropriate punishment and rehabilitation are attained. We will agree to a sentence of two years in state prison pursuant to Florida Statute 948.012(2) which permits a split sentence whereby Mr. Epstein will be sentenced to a term of supervised custody, followed by a period of incarceration. Supervised custody in the state system includes potential daily surveillance, administered by officers with restricted case loads. Supervised custody is an individualized program in which the freedom of Mr. Epstein is limited to the confines of his residence with specific sanctions imposed and enforced. See Florida Statute 948.001(2). Should Mr. Epstein successfully complete the terms and conditions of his custody, the Judge will eliminate the incarcerative portion of the sentence. If Mr. Epstein, however, fails to comply with the conditions of his supervised custody. The period of incarceration will be immediately implemented. We, therefore, propose the following: Two years supervised custody with the following mandatory and special conditions: o Confinement to home o Report to a community control officer at least once a week or more often as directed by the officer o Permit a community control officer to visit him unannounced at home at any time, day or night o Obtain psychological counseling o No unsupervised contact with all the victims in the instant case o Perform community service o Payment of Restitution o Application of 18 U.S.C. § 2255' o Payment of a contribution of a defined amount to a charitable organization benefitting victims of sexual assault o Payment of Court and probationary costs o Payment of law enforcement investigative costs o Submit to random drug testing o Refrain from associating with persons engaged in criminal activities o Refrain from committing any new law offenses o Any other specific conditions that the Office may deem necessary Two additional years of reporting probation: 18 U.S.C. 2255 provides that any minor who suffers injury as a result of the commission of certain offenses shall recover actual damages and the cost of any suit. It is important to note that Mr. Epstein is prepared to hilly fund the identified group of victims which are the focus of the Office — that is, the 12 individuals noted at the meeting on July 31, 2007. This would allow the victims to be able to promptly put this behind them and go forward with their lives. If given the opportunity to opine as to the appropriateness of Mr. Epstein's proposal, in my extensive experience in these types of cases, the victims prefer a quick resolution with compensation for damages and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. RFP MIA 000054 EFTA00184662

• 'Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-48 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 4 Page 3 o Mandatory conditions as provided in Florida Statute § 948.03 o Special conditions as stated above If the terms of supervised custody and probation are successfully completed, then the two years of state prison is eliminated. This proposal provides for the two year imposition of the state prison sentence if any violation of the supervised custody or probation occurs. Accordingly, the Office's position that Mr. Epstein agree to a resolution that includes jail time is satisfied by this proposal. It would immediately bring closure to a matter that has been pending for over two years, allows Mr. Epstein to commence with his sentence, and, most significantly, allow the victims to move forward with their lives. We are in process of scheduling a meeting with United States Attorney, to further discuss this matter. Sincerely, cc. Lilly Ann Sanchez Gerald Lefcourt Roy Black FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. RFP MIA 000055 EFTA00184663

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-49 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 3 r k i EXHIBIT 49 EFTA00184664

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-49 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 3 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida t ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNIIVISTATESATIORNEY VIA FACSIMILE Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Fowler White Burnett 1395 Brickell Ave Fl 14 Miami Florida 33131-3300 Re: Jeffrey Epstein 99 ME. Slheti Miens& FL 33132 August 3, 2007 Dear Lilly: Thank you for your letter of August r° regarding your proposal on how to resolve the Epstein matter. As we explained at our meeting on July 31, 2007, the Office believes that the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two-year term of state imprisonment for Mr. Epstein. That offer was not meant as a starting point for negotiations, it is the minimum term of imprisonment that will obviate the need for federal prosecution. The Office has never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate for Mr. Epstcin. Rather we simply stated that if Mr. Epstein preferred to serve his sentence in a federal penetentiary, we would be willing to explore a federal conviction that may allow that in lieu of any state resolution. Further, as I made clear in our follow up telephone conversation after the meeting, a plea to two federal misdemeanors was never extended or meant as an offer. We also would reiterate that the agreement to Section 2.255 liability applies to all of the minor girls identified during the federal investigation, not just the 12 that form the basis of an initial planned charging instrument. As you know, the ability to engage in flexible plea negotiations is dramatically changed up6n the return of an indictmeht. Once an indictment is returned, the Office does not intend to file a Superseding Information containing a lesser charge or to dismiss the case in favor of state prosecution. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001479 EFTA00184665

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-49 Entered on PLED Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 3 LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. AUGUST 3,2007 PAGE 2 Please let us know our client's decision by no later than August 17. I have conferred with U.S. Attorney who has asked me to communicate that the two-year term of incarceration is a non-negotiable minimum to vindicate a federal interest, and, at this time, he is not inclined to meet with counsel for Mr. Epstein. Sincerely, United States Attorney cc: Roy Black Gerald B. Lefcourt Jeffrey Andrew Lourie B)N-c)N- \\--O Matthew Chief, Criminal Division 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001480 EFTA00184666

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-50 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT 50 EFTA00184667