From: Sent: To: Subject: (USAFLS) (USAFLS) 9, 2007 12:11 PM .(USAFLS) Here are some of Alex's thoughts. One other and that is that Lefkowitz, Dershowitz, Starr, etc. all had the opportunity to object to the agreement but did not. From: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda November 29, 2007 11:54 AM To: (USAFLS) Subject: This is over the top, but some thoughts ---- In FAUSA, WPB Chief and met with professor dershowitz to consider. They unanimous conclusion from \ha meeting was that the case should proceed. \ Mn deference to dershowitz' expertise, I directed our prosecutors to consult with the criminal division to seek clarification regarding our interpretation of the statutes. They did so, and received the endorsement of CEOS. IN Lefkowitz indcicated that you would like a meeting. The prosecutors were ready to indict at that time. In deference to mutual schedules, including yours and yoru co-counsels', I asked the prosecutors to defer i ictment until we met. In addition, sensitive to the policy concerns, I invited the head of CEOS to the meeting, to once again obtain their expert opinion. At the meeting, you presented several arguments with respect to whether this prosecution was appropriate in ight of federalism concerns. The arguemtns were discussed afterwards. The unanimous opinion of all presents was in support of a prosecution. This included the head of CEOS, who has offered to try the matter himself. At the meeting, your co-counsel also offered a plea resolution. His offer, in essence, was that your client be subject to home confinement at his Palm Beach home, under guard paid for by him if necessary. Your co- opnsel also expressed the belief that such a sentence would be particularly appropriate because as a wealthy w ite man, your client may be the subject of violence while in prison. Finally, both you and your co-counsel expressed the belief that your client's extensive charitable giving should be considered in our prosecution decision. I summarily rejected these proposals, and indicated that the offer presented previously by this office of stood. I should add that there were prosecutors present at the meeting, representing a combined experience of years. Never had any of them heard, or heard of, an attorney making a similar argument. 5. fter the meeting, either you or your co-counsel indicated that you may want to appeal this matter to the tt rney General, the Deputy Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. I in icated no objection, and in fact offered to ask the prosecutors to delay indictment if you wished to appeal the matter. Your client's legal team chose not to do so. . Subsequently, the client's legal team and this office continued negotiations. Extensive time was spent on this matter. In fact, different members of your legal team on several occasions spoke with Mr. , presently chief of staff to Alice Fisher, and Mr. Sloman, our FAUSA, regarding these. The negotiations were, to say the as , extensive. One issue address was restitution for the victims. As expressed in an email sent by your co- co sel, Mr. Lefkowitz, to our FAUSA, Mr. Sloman, the same day we received your letter, your client " offered to provide a restitution fund for the alleged victims in this matter; however that option was rejected by (our] Office." The offer was rejected because of my belief that this Office should not be put in the position of administering a restitution fund. The 2255 language was then adopted, by mutual consent between your legal team and this office, as an alternative to your restitution fund offer. Case No. 08-807J6-CV-MARRA P-013521 EFTA00230426

. Since then, on several occasions, your legal team has objected to several steps take pursuant to the agreement, in ssence presenting collateral challenges to portions of the agreement. Your letter is the latest example. 're the legal team hired by your client is impressive. In addition to yourself, Mr. Epstein has hired None of these individuals raised concerns with our Office with respect to this agreement at the time it was negotiated. 8\ It now appears that several attorneys on your legal team are dissatisfied with the agreement. It is not the intention of this Office to ever force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against their wishes. client has the right to proceed to trial. If your client is dissatisfied with his agreement, or believes that the agreement is unlawful or unfair, we stand ready to unwind the agreement. I would ask for a definitive decision, however. There must be closure in this matter. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013522 EFTA00230427