From: Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:26 AM To: (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Where are we at in the plea negotiations? Tracking: 268 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013329 EFTA00230234

LIM° 7 1Xiskat,olh /2) SiaoCu'l Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013330 EFTA00230235

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AIFILIAIE0 PARTNERSHIPS rtraete vokm Jay P. Letkowitz, P.C. To ca Writer Directly: VIA E-MAIL Jeffrey H. Sloman United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132-2111 Dear Jeff: Citigroup Center 169 East 63rd Street New York, New York 10022.4611 www.kkkiand.com November 8, 2007 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Facsimile: I write in response to your recent letter, dated November 5, 2007. I want to make clear at the outset that Mr. Epstein is complying fully with the Non Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement") and that he has every intention of continuing to honor its terms in good faith. Any disagreement the parties have regarding the terms of the Agreement should be resolved through open dialogue and should not be construed as a repudiation of the Agreement. I do, however, want to address each of the points you raise in your letter. First, we do not believe Mr. Epstein's agents are precluded from speaking to any individuals at this point in time. We carefully reviewed the Agreement and the laws governing contact with witnesses and proceeded under the belief that Mr. Epstein's agents could properly contact potential witnesses in this matter. We believe that nothing in the Agreement precludes contact by Mr. Epstein's agents with any individuals. Paragraph 7 of the Agreement states that "Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through [the attorney representative]," but it in no way restricts any other contacts that are both lawful and appropriate. Furthermore, your Office has not yet identified the alleged victims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 nor has an attorney representative been selected. Indeed, it is quite common for a party's agents, and even his attorneys, to speak with potential claimants prior to their retaining formal representation. And in this situation — where Mr. Epstein faces significant potential civil exposure, and he has a right to veraci —Jp i these claims — it is appropriate that his agents would seek to obtain as much information about potential -dims as possible. Nevertheless, because we want to cooperate with your Office and since you object to such communications, we will cease all contact with these individuals until the date of Mr. Epstein's plea. We request, however, that your Office provide a basis for precluding Mr. Epstein or his agents from speaking to any individuals at this time. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Frandsco Washington, D.C. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013331 EFTA00230236

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP November Page 2 Second, I am a little surprised by your insistence that we request that the state court conduct the plea and sentence in November. You may recall that we previously discussed, and txil.. you agreed, that because the state judge will not stagger the plea and sentencing as we ...clot contemplated in the Agreement, Mr. Epstein could plea and be sentenced at any point before CP -1*hr Nts‘01‘ January 4, 2008. As you know, the judge's refusal to stagger the plea and sentencing actually "" Y-Op ittl° harms Mr. Epstein because this delays the timing under which he can receive the names of the 4,2&41,44A individuals identified by the United States as "victims" under § 2255. But we believe we must defer to the judge's decision in this matter. To clear up any misunderstanding, however, the judge has set this case "for trial" on January 7 only as a formal matter. The judge has invited the parties to appear for the plea and sentencing on January 4, and we do not anticipate any delay beyond that date. Third, I want to clear up any confusion regarding the many inaccurate media reports about Mr. Epstein. With the hope of maintaining some semblance of privacy for Mr. Epstein, we have avoided interacting with the media regarding this matter. Indeed, the only recent comment was Howard Rubenstein's confirmation to the Palm Beach Daily News that this matter had been resolved and would not proceed to a trial. That comment was authorized only out of concern that you might read an inaccurate story and believe, mistakenly, that Mr. Epstein had decided not to proceed under the Agreement. Fourth, regarding the sentence to be imposed by the court, the Agreement, and all of the discussions we have had about it, are very clear: Mr. Epstein is to be sentenced to ap 18-month term in accordance with the same rules and regulations (and the same rights and privileges) that apply to everyone in the state of Florida. That Mr. Epstein would be treated no better and no worse than anyone else was a material term of the Agreement. u Office now believes is not entitled to equal treatment, I would ve e an ex lanation o t re asis of such view. am su icient y concerned about comments in your letter to seek clarification on this point, especially because the lawyers in your Office have made clear on numerous occasions to me that as long as Mr. Epstein received an 18-month sentence, your Office would not seek to interfere with the implementation of the state sentence. /‘ Fifth, pursuant to the Agreement, Mr. Epstein, through his counsel, agrees to provide the c‘ ,5146::e n (-Le (4/.. 14: 212/4/4/ . agreements made with the State Attorney's Office. 1174-re<t i, Finally, I must tell you that I am troubled by the manner in which your Office has dealt with the § 2255 issues that are encompassed in the Agreement. As you already know, one of the 't ea s Thhil lawyers initially recommended by your Office contacted Judge Davis to lobby for the assignment /VC >lb elefik of attorney representative even before Judge Davis was formally selected to appoint an attorney representative. Moreover, I find it highly unusual that your Office has continued to insist that a Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013332 EFTA00230237

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP November 8, 2007 Page 3 primary criteria for the appointment of the attorney representative should be the ability to take on contingency fee cases directed at Mr. Epstein. I trust you understand that I raise these concerns with you out of respect your Office. However, despite Mr. Epstein's full intention to abide by all of the terms of the Agreement, we must reserve our right to object to certain aspects of the e_22O Yet --- a nSr ee 2255_12mvisions of the Agreement. I look forward to continuing to work with your Office to resolve any outstanding issues, and I sincerely anticipate a conclusion of this matter in the very near future. Sincerely, X Ja . Le owitz cvlat ic a t (co2fc (21d11:41.4,QL. a- •iF i sc et,h4Lot 6410 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013333 EFTA00230238

" /13/0 I S(60--)-104; Le:4w 1.3 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013334 EFTA00230239

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: 99 N.E. 44 Street Miami. FL 33132-2111 Facsimile: (305) 330-6444 November 13, 2007 I write in response to your letter of November 8, 2007. Most importantly, I want to reiterate that a guilty plea and sentencing more than two months beyond the original deadline is unacceptable to the Office. Contrary to your assertion, the Non- Prosecution Agreement does not contemplate a staggered plea and sentencing (that was contemplated only in a federal plea, where the federal rules provide for such staggering). Instead, the Agreement contemplates a combined plea and sentencing followed by a later surrender date for Mr. Epstein to begin serving his jail sentence. As you will recall, the plea and sentencing hearing originally was to occur in early October 2007, but was delayed until October 26th to allow Mr. Goldberger to attend. It was delayed again until November to allow you to attend. You have provided no showing of how you and your client have used your best efforts to insure that the plea and sentencing occur in November. A prompt hearing would end speculation by the press and others about Mr. Epstein's intentions and, more importantly, would show the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI that Mr. Epstein intends to comply with all of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Accordingly, I again advise you that the Office requires Mr. Epstein to make his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and to be sentenced forthwith. Please advise me of the new date and time so that someone from our Office can be present. Your letter asserts that Mr. Epstein and the State Attorney's Office have reached an agreement as to the terms of Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing, but no such agreements have yet been provided to us. As you know, the Non-Prosecution Agreement requires Mr. Epstein to provide copies of all proposed agreements prior to entering into any agreement — not just prior to signing an agreement. Please immediately provide us with the terms of any agreements that have been Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013335 EFTA00230240

JAY P. LEPKOWIT2, ESQ. NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 3 negotiated with the State Attorney's Office on Mr. Epstein's behalf, whether or not they have yet been reduced to writing, so that we have adequate time to review them prior to the change of plea and sentencing to determine that Mr. Epstein is complying with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. As to the type of sentence that Mr. Epstein hopes to receive, the Agreement clearly indicates that Mr. Epstein is to be incarcerated. In addition to the terms of the Agreement, the Florida Department of Corrections does not allow persons who are registered sex offenders to participate in "community release" (which includes "work release"). Since Mr. Epstein will have to register as a sex offender promptly after his guilty plea and sentencing, he will not be eligible for such a program. Thus, the U.S. Attorney's Office is simply putting you on notice that it intends to make certain that Mr. Epstein is "treated no better and no worse than anyone else" convicted of the same offense. If Mr. Epstein is somehow allowed to participate in a work release program despite the Department of Corrections' rules and practices, the Office intends to investigate the reasons why an exception was granted in Mr. Epstein's case. Finally, as to the matters related to contacting the victims and the civil litigation, let me address your issues in turn. First, one of the material terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement was Mr. Epstein's agreement to waive the right to contest the "veracity" of the victims' claims. Second, the questions put to the victims who have already been contacted did not address the "veracity" of their claims. Instead, the investigators' questions were limited to whether they had been contacted by any law enforcement officers and told that there would be a civil settlement. Third, the Non- Prosecution Agreement did not anticipate such a lengthy delay in the selection of an attorney representative, and the victims would have been "represented parties" without such delay; thus, the use of the phrase "may contact" meant "has permission to contact." Hopefully, that issue will soon be moot. I anticipate that Judge Davis will announce the selection of a lawyer/firm in the near future. Upon the lawyer/firm's formal acceptance, I will contact the lawyer/firm and request that he/she contact you after conferring with the victims. In the meantime, please treat all of the victims as represented parties who must be contacted only through their counsel. Your concerns regarding the § 2255 litigation are unfounded. As you know, Mr. Ocariz had been told that he would be the attorney representative for the victims. As a matter of professional courtesy, he was informed that the Office decided to use a Special Master in the selection of the attorney representative. His decision to contact Judge Davis to express his interest in continuing to work on the case was no more "lobbying" than contacts made by your colleagues to Judge Davis to persuade him to select your choice of an attorney and to persuade him that the non-prosecution agreement's terms did not contemplate litigation. You state that you are concerned that the Office has continued to insist that a primary criteria for the appointment of counsel is the ability to handle litigation against Mr. Epstein, yet your continued reference to challenging the "veracity" of the victims' claims, your contacting of victims whom you knew were soon to be represented, your attempts to muzzle the Office's and the FBI's abilities to comply with victim notification rules, and Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013336 EFTA00230241

JAY P. LEFKOW1TZ, ESQ. NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 3 your client's consistent attacks upon the victims in the press all confirm the need for appointed counsel to be prepared for such litigation. Lastly, the statement at the end of your letter that you "reserve [the] right to object to certain aspects of the §2255 provisions of the Agreement" needs explanation. The provisions regarding §2255 appeared in the first statement of terms and every draft of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. By signing the Agreement, your client gave up the right to "object" to its provisions. Mr. Epstein entered into a binding contract, and the breach of any of its terms is a breach of the entire Agreement, as summarized at the top of page 6 of the Agreement. Please clarify your position on this point. Please provide me with the terms of the agreement(s) with the State Attorney's Office and the new date for the change of plea and sentencing by Friday, November 16, 2007. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney cc: By: R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney AUS A A. First Assistant United States Attorney Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013337 EFTA00230242

stNei Slorron i'D Lekktuitv, Case No, 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013338 EFTA00230243

12/05/01 WED 15:23 FAX 1 213 680 8500 KIRKLANDAELLIS LIP Ligon! KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone: (213) 880-8400 Fax: (213)660-8500 Please notify us Immediately if any pages are not received. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL, MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION, AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. UNAUTHORIZED USE, DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: (213) 680-8400. To: Company: Fax Direct It United States Attorney's Office Hon. R. Alexander Acosta (305) 530-6444 Southern District of Florida Pages From: Date; Fax It: Direct Si: arintir Kenneth W. Starr December 5, 2007 3 (213) 680-8500 Message: Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013339 EFTA00230244

12/05/07 WED 15:24 FAX 1 213 880 8500 KIRKLAND&ELLIS LLP la1003 Honorable It Alexander Acosta December 5, 2007 Page 2 Finally, you state that you intend to issue the victim notification letters o rda December 7. However, in a discussion late last week between Jeff Sloman and Mr. Sloman indicated that your Office would send us a revised version o e non on letter, which we have not received to date. ,While we believe that it is wholly inappropriate for your Office to send this letter under any circumstances, it is certainly inappropriate to issue this letter without affording us the right to review it. We strongly urge that you withhold the notification letter until after we are able to discuss this matter with Assistant Attorney General Fisher. Yours S Ciely, Kenneth W. Starr Jg witz ic cc: Honorable Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney I . 1 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013340 EFTA00230245

12/05iti7 WED 15:24 FAX 1 213 680 8500 KIRKMAN:ELLIS LLP ZOO 2 1400•6 Vi. Stan TorlaWriter : kstanakirkland.com KIRKLAND & ELUS LLP VIA FACSIMILE (305) 530-6444 Honorable IL Alexander Acosta United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 Dear Alex: tam ullWw PAILTNEASIOPS 777 South Figueroa Steel Los Annie, Callfornia 90017 Re: Jeffrey Epstein (213) 0800400 wmos.kirkland.com December 5, 2007 Facatm115: (213) 6804500 We are in receipt of your letter faxed to Jay on December 4 and faxed to Ken today in Los Angeles, and write to inform you that we will respond in full to that letter no later than Friday, December 7. We take this opportunity to address a few of the initial issues. First and foremost, we reaffirm the Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement"). Mr. Epstein has no intention of unwinding the Agreement. Indeed, he has already performed under the Agreement by directing his lawyers to urge the State of Florida to allow him to plead guilty to crimes more egregious than the State believes he committed, and to sentence bim more harshly than the State still believes is appropriate. However, as you know, we take serious issue with your staff's interpretation and implementation of the Agreement, in particular the use of Section 2255, but also other aspects of your office's investigation and prosecution of this matter. As we have expressed to you on prior occasions — where you have made clear you have no objection — we hope to address these issues with Assistant Attorney General Fisher in Washington. Second, your letter makes reference to "certain filings" that you state are due to your Office by December 7 and to "certain events" that must occur before December 14. We have no knowledge of any such deadlines and in fact do not bow what filings and events to which you are referring. Please let us know what the December 7 and December 14 deadlines are, if any, so that we can make sure to comply with them. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013341 EFTA00230246

Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013342 EFTA00230247

KENNETH STARR, ESQ. NOVEMBER 30, 2007 PAGE 6 OF 6 expenditure of excessive management resources, and the Office is unwilling to invest any more of those resources. The prosecution of the case also has been delayed almost eight months to allow you to raise any and all issues; we will not tolerate any further delay. Accordingly, please provide us with a definitive statement, signed by your client, of his intention to abide by each and every term of the Agreement by close of business on Tuesday, December 4, 2007. By that time, you must also provide us with the agreement(s) with the State Attorney's Office and a date and time certain for the plea and sentencing, which must occur no later than December 14, 2007. If we do not receive these items by that time, we will deem the agreement to be rescinded and will proceed with the prosecution. There must be closure in this matter. Sincerely, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY cc: First Assistant U.S. Attorney AUSA A. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013343 EFTA00230248

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Leficowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132-2111 (305) 961-9299 Facsimile: (305) 530-6444 Nevettiber50720771 I write in response to your recent e-mails and letters regarding victim notification and other issues. Some of these issues also are addressed in the U.S. Attorney's letter to Mr. Starr, but in light of our discussions, I believe a separate response is needed. In a recent e-mail, you write that you were surprised at the tone of my e-mail of November 27, 2007. That tone was engendered by the roadblocks that you continue to erect as we try to perform our contractual obligations coupled with Mr. Epstein's nonperformance. This letter end. IthST-Attemeyasosta=raettes setforth the last opportunity for your client and his entire defense team to conform unwaveringly to all of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. -Antazd-hrthe -- 41TrATINfierittthiecletter: POteeerdingly121ease provide us with a definitive statement, signed by your client, of his intentionTo abide by each and every term of the Agreement by close of business on Tuesday, December 4, 2007. By that time, you must also provide us with the agreement(s) with the State Attorney's Office and a date and time certain for the plea and sentencing, which must occur no later than December 14, 2007. If we do not receive these items by that time, we will deem the agreement to be rescinded and will proceed with the prosecution. There must be closure in this matter. Before I address your continued allegations of some sort of misconduct on the part of the Office for trying to abide by both its legal and contractual obligations, I must address your client's failures to comply with the Agreement. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013344 EFTA00230249

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. aihNNIEFFSPRe1001003.. PAGE 2 OF 7 Three weeks ago we spoke about the failure to set a timely plea and sentencing date. At that time, you assured me that the scheduling delay was caused by the unavailability of Judge McSorley. You promised that a date would be set promptly. On November 15th, Rolando Garcia met with Barry Krisher on another matter, and was told by Mr. Krisher that he had just spoken with Jack Goldberger, and that Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing were set to occur on December 14, 2007. Since that time, we have tried to confirm the date and time of the hearing in order to include that information in the victim notification letters. You continue to refer to the plea and sentencing as thou it • • anuary; Mr. Krisher's office has not confirmed any date; and Mr. Goldberger told that "there is no date." I have repeatedly told you that a delayed guilty plea and sentencing — now more than two months beyond the original deadline — is unacceptable to the Office. Contrary to your past assertions, the Non-Prosecution Agreement does not contemplate a staggered plea and sentencing. Instead, the Agreement contemplates a combined plea and sentencing followed by a later surrender date for Mr. Epstein to begin serving his jail sentence. As you will recall, the plea and sentencing hearing originally was to occur in early October 2007, but was delayed until October 26th to allow Mr. Goldberger to attend. It was delayed again until November to allow you to attend. You have provided no showing of how you and your client have used your best efforts to insure that the plea and sentencing occur in November. In fact, we recently learned that a plea conference had been scheduled with Judge McSorley for NoVember 20, 2007, but was canceled at the request of the parties, not the judge. Judge McSorley has not been away for any extended period, and there is no basis for your assertion that the judge is the cause of any past or future delay. Mr. Epstein currently has four Florida Bar members on his defense team, so attorney scheduling is rat an adequate basis for delay. Three weeks ago I also asked you to provide our Office with the terms of the Plea Agreement with the State Attorney's Office. It is now more than two months since the signing of the Non- Prosecution Agreement and we have yet to see any formal agreement, or even a list of essential terms of such an agreement. The only conclusion that we can draw is that you are trying to avoid providing the Office with adequate time to review your agreement prior to the change of plea and sentencing to determine whether Mr. Epstein is complying with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Your letters make reference to a failure by the United States to abide by the "spirit" of the Agreement, but recent correspondence shows that Mr. Epstein hopes to serve his sentence on "work release." This is plainly contrary to both the terms and spirit of the Agreement. The Agreement clearly indicates that Mr. Epstein is to be incarcerated, and during your joint meeting with representatives of our office and the State Attorney's Office, the parties specifically discussed that Mr. Epstein would serve his time in solitary confinement at the Palm Beach County Jail to obviate your safety concerns. In addition to the terms of the Agreement, the Florida Department of Corrections does not allow persons who are registered sex offenders to participate in "community release" (which includes "work release"). Since Mr. Epstein will have to register as a sex offender Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013345 EFTA00230250

JAY P. LEFKOW117, ESQ. NOVEMBER 30, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 7 promptly after his guilty plea and sentencing, he will not be eligible for such a program. Thus, the U.S. Attorney's Office is simply putting you on notice that it intends to make certain that Mr. Epstein is "treated no better and no worse than anyone else" convicted of the same offense. If Mr. Epstein is somehow allowed to participate in a work release program despite the Department of Corrections' rules and practices, the Office intendstainvestiga4e the reasons why an exception was granted in Mr. Epstein's case. IS c4aJ.i. lets Ft) lecu- rt. Next, let me address various accusations that you and Mr. Starr, amongst others, have raised. You have repeatedly alleged that attorneys in our office and agents of the FBI have leaked information to the press in an effort to affect possible civil litigation with Mr. Epstein. This is untrue. There has been no contact between any member of the press and any employee of our office or the FBI since you incorrectly accused investigators of telling "Vanity Fair" about Mr. Starr's employment by Mr. Epstein several months ago. As you have been told before, prior to that, the press had provided information to the FBI, but no comment was ever made about the ongoing investigation, it was simply referred to as an "open investigation." V-euf-fteetzsattansen-thisfeint... urate ana wmcn t as. We intend to continue to refrain from commenting or providing information to the press. We would ask that your client and all of his representatives do the same. Mr. Starr's letter to Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher contains several false statements and accusations. First, Mr. Epstein was never forced to enter into any agreement and all terms of the agreement were fully negotiated, including the terms regarding the payment ofmonetary damages to the victims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. In fact, some of those terms were re-negotiated as part of the Addendum. Second, if Mr. Epstein's cadre of attorneys was concerned about a way to test the validity of the victims' claims prior to placing the names of those victims on the list prepared by our office, that term could have been negotiated. In fact, at one of our early meetings, Roy Black raised that concern, and possible solutions were contemplated by our office prior to the negotiations. However, since none of Mr. Epstein's team of attorneys requested the inclusion of such a term, it was omitted from the Agreement. To the extent that you now object to the Agreement that you negotiated, this is akin to "buyer's remorse." However, you and Mr. Starr have, instead, made claims to the Justice Department that these thoroughly negotiated terms "leave[) wide open the opportunity for misconduct by federal investigators." You then misinterpret several statements that were included in correspondence — at your insistence — as proof that the designated victims have invalid claims. Let me make clear that each of the listed individuals are persons whom the Office identified as victims as defined in Section 2255, that is, as persons "who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section . . . 2422 or 2423 of this title." In other words, the Office is prepared to indict Mr. Epstein based upon what Mr. Starr refers to as Mr. Epstein's "interactions" with these individuals. This conclusion is based upon a thorough and proper investigation — one in which none Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013346 EFTA00230251

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. NOVEMBER 30, 2007 PAGE 4 OF 7 of the victims was informed of any right to receive damages of any amount prior to the investigation of her claim. co r _afa.potentielriuil claim-for damagoo. In fact, after the Agreement was signed, the FBI only had the opportunity to inform three victims of the resolution of the matter before you raised complaints and, in deference to your request, the Office asked that they defer further notifications. The Office agrees that it is not a party to, and will not take a role in, any civil litigation, but the Office can say, without hesitation, thatweach person on the list was a victim f Mr. Epstein's criminal behavior. eva-ute thuen 44nout- Mr. Starr's letter also suggests that the number of victims to whom Mr. Epstein is exposed by the Agreement is limitless. As you know, early drafts of the Agreement contained a numerical limit of 40 victims. At your request, that number was removed. The Office repeatedly confirmed that the number would not exceed 40; after conducting additional investigation, it was reduced to 34, and we recently removed another name because, despite the fact that Mr. Epstein offensively touched the victim, in our opinion, the touching was not "sexual" enough to properly include her as a victim as defined in Section 2255. Once the list is provided to you, if you have a good faith basis for asserting that a victim never met Mr. Epstein, we remain willing to listen and to modify the list if you convince us of your position. Mr. Starr also asserts that the Office has "improperly insisted that the chosen attorney representative should be able to litigate the claims of individuals, which violates the terms of the Agreement and deeply infringes upon the spirit and nature of the Agreement." Again, this was a term that could have been discussed and negotiated prior to entering into the Agreement. At least five extremely experienced attorneys reviewed the Agreement prior to its execution. Your failure to consider what would happen if a victim refused to accept the minimum settlement you offered to her does not render the Agreement void, unconscionable, or violative of Due Process. Whether counsel for the victims decides that there is a conflict is something to be addressed by him, but the Agreement speaks for itself. Finally, let me address your objections to the draft Victim Notification Letter. You write that you don't understand the basis for the Office's belief that it is appropriate to notify the victims. The "Justice for All Act of 2004" amended Title 18 by adding Section 3771, entitled "Crime victims' rights." Those rights include: "The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public th court proceeding . .. involving the crime" and the "ri t not to be excluded from any such public 1 ..aira_li&meeding ..." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) & (3). trouropinicrn7the-broltd-tanguageref-Sestion ., n proseetlia&ISection 3771 also commands that "employees of the Department of Justice ... engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a)." 18 U.S.C. §3771(c)(1). Additionally, the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 enacted Title 42, United States Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013347 EFTA00230252

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. NOVEMBER 30, 2007 PAGE 5 OF 7 Code, Section 10607, entitled "Services to victims." Pursuant to that statute, our Office is obligated to "inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other law and [the] manner in which such relief may be obtained." 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)(1)(B).' With respect to notification of the other information that we propose to disclose, the statute requires that: (3) During the investigation and prosecution of a crime, a responsible official shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice of — (A) the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation; ... (C) the filing of charges against a suspected offender; . . . 0) the acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the rendering of a verdict after trial. 42 U.S.C. § 10607(cX3). Again, these sections are not limited to proceedings in a district court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not and cannot require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego its legal obligations. As noted, Section 10607 commands our office to make these notifications at "the earliest possible opportunity." The unnecessary delays engendered by your continued objections to the Office's performance of its contractual and legal obligations will uu longer be -efriak . Your claim that, by notifying victims of their legal rights, we are seeking to "federalize" the state plea is incorrect. Our office is simply informing the victims of their rights. It does not command them to appear at the hearing or to file a victim impact statement. In fact, the letter recommends the sending of any statement to the State Attorney's Office so that ASA Belohlavek can determine which, if any, statements are appropriate to file with the Court. Next, you assert that our letter mischaracterizes Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay damages to the victims. It does not. The Agreement provides: If any of the [identified victims] elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, 'Based upon the language of this statute, your statement that our notification must be limited only to the right to restitution is incorrect. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013348 EFTA00230253

Jay P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. NOVEMBER 30, 2007 PAGE 6 OF 7 Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Contrary to your assertion, this Agreement specifically contemplates possible litigation — it would be nonsensical to include a waiver of personal jurisdiction in the District Court if the Agreement was supposed to bar any victim from filing suit. A violation of this provision, by contesting jurisdiction or otherwise, will be considered a material breach. It had been my suggestion to AUSA Villafafia that we simply quote the terms of the Agreement directly into the Notification Letter or include a photocopy of the relevant sections. If you would prefer that we proceed in that manner, that is acceptable. We also have no objection to referring to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual offender" rather than a "predator." Your objection to the use of the term "minor victim" is unfounded. The letter states that the United States has identified the person as a "minor victim," and Section 2255 requires that the victim be a minor at the time of the commission of the offense. As I stated above, each and every person contained in our list was a "minor victim" as defined in Section 2255. The federal investigation found that Mr. Epstein's illegal conduct occurred at least as early as 2001, so all of the victims were minors at the time of the criminal conduct. Our "imprimatur" is neither incendiary nor unwarranted. We have no objection to using the conjunction "and/or" in referring to the particular offense(s) of which the recipient was a victim. We will not include the language that we take no position as to the validity of any claims. While the Office has no intention to take any position in any civil litigation arising between Mr. Epstein and any individual victim, as stated above, the Office believes that it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each listed individual was a victim of Mr. Epstein's criminal conduct while the victim was a minor. The law requires us to treat all victims "with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity privacy." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX8). We will not include any language that demeans the harm theWaib suffered. Our Office's obligation to remain uninvolved in the civil litigation cannot be used by your client as both a shield and a sword? Thus, while we will not involve ourselves in the civil litigation, we will not allow you to use that neutrality to create a false impression that we do not believe in the validity of the victims' claims. 2You may want to review United States'. Crompton Corp., 399 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (ND. Cal. 2005), where the district court would not allow an unindicted co-conspirator to have his name redacted from a plea agreement in order to assist him in defending or avoiding civil claims. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013349 EFTA00230254

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. NOVEMBER 30, 2007 PAGE 7 OF 7 The letter's assertions regarding representation by the Podhurst firm and Mr. Josefsberg are accurate and will not be changed. Judge Davis conferred with Messrs. Podhurst and Josefsberg to insure their willingness to undertake this assignment prior to finalizing his selection. As I stated in my earlier correspondence, there is no legitimate basis for you to object to the firm or the individual attorney. Also, contrary to your assertion, the Podhurst firm was recommended to you as early as October 5th, as one of the firms that should be included on a list of firms for Judge Davis to consider in making his selection. No further investigation is required and attempts to convince Messrs. Podhurst and Josefsberg to rescind their agreement to undertake this assignment would be yet another example of your attempts to stop the United States from effectuating the terms of the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Lastly, you object to personal communication between the victims and federal attorneys or agents. We have no objection to sending the letters through the mail' but we will not remove the language about contacting AUSA Villafafia or Special Agent Kuyrkendall with questions or concerns. Again, federal law requires that victims have the "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in this case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). We will not undermine that right. The three victims who were notified prior to your objection had questions directed to Mr. Epstein's punishment, not the civil litigation. Those questions are appropriately directed to law enforcement. If questions arise related to the civil litigation, AUSA Villafafla and Special Agent Kuyrkendall will recommend that the victims direct those questions to Mr. Josefsberg. I have attached a revised letter incorporating the changes on which we can agree. Please provide any further comments by the close of business on Tuesday. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: cc: R. Alexander Acos U.S. Attorney AUSA A. First Assistant United States Attorney 'This is contingent, however, on being able to provide adequate notice of the change of plea and sentencing. The sooner that you schedule that hearing with Judge McSorley, the sooner we can dispatch these letters. If you delay further, we will have to rely on telephone or personal notification. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013350 EFTA00230255

\ctsriv EAfrvigyja-7 c_0/1-2-1-6! Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013351 EFTA00230256

s cd- ilAuL1,- Th a CAL ilAWY‘ LUgiA'rb PAIALY AKACAp( -- Care No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-012352 EFTA00230257

7C- Case No, 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013353 EFTA00230258

12/21/2007 11 - 55 FAX id:002/008 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LL(' Jay P. LeNowa& P C. To Call Wale, niendly• VIA FACSIMILE (305) 530-6444 honorable It. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney United States Autmacy's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Street Miami. Pl. 33132 Dear Alex: AAUP AMA IAIM talalleAUMA: Citiomion Contra 103 Cull 53rd Shout Now York. Now York ton22.4cii vnvw.kohland coat December 21, 1007 Re: Jeffrey Epsiein racsrmdo. We again extend our appreciation 11w meeting with us on December 14 and for cordially considering the issues we have raised both at that meeting and in our submissions to your Office. I laving received your letter of December 19. we can see that you have made a significant cflint to address our concerns regarding the § 2255 portion of the non-prosecution agreement (the "Agreement"). and we recognize that you haw proposed some substantial and important modifications. Respectfully, however. I would suggest that your proposal raises several troubling questions that require careful consideration. We arc authoring this letter to respond to your mimes' that we set forth our position regarding §§ 2255 and 3771 us quickly as possible. As we have all discovered. the problem of integrating in an unprecedented manner what is at its core a $150.000 minimum lump sum damage federal civil statute (§ 2255 in its current farm) into a federal deferranon-prosecution agreement that requires pleas of guilty to state criminal offenses that arc correlated to suite criminal restitution statutes but not to a disparate federal civil non-restitution smite has proved very challenging. The concomitant problem of how fairly to implement the § 2255 portions of the Agreement so that real victims, if any. who in filet sutkred "personal injury as a result of Ethel violation"' if any of specified federal criminal statutes such as I X U.S.C. § 2422(h) arc placed in the same position as if there had been a trial and conviction also requires serious and careful consideration. In this letter. 1 want to highlight some specific concerns. Sec also Whitley Opinion. First, your proposal regarding the § 2255 remedy provisions continues to ask us to assume that each and every woman not only was a victim under § 2255. hut that the facts alleged could have been proven to satisfy each element of either § 2422(b) (the Internet luring statute) or § 2423 (the st.110,101165111 statute), within § 2255 of Title IR. Although we have been denied the Chicago Hong Kong London Los Nispolos M001011 San Francinco Worthngton, D.C. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MAR RA P-011154 EFTA00230259

12/21/2007 11:55 FAX II003/003 KIRKLAND K. ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 21.2007 Page 2 list of alleged "victims" (and lack definitive information as to which federal statutes would serve as a predicate for each particular alleged victim), or even a firm number as to how many you suggest there arc, we strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 USC § 2422(b) (which we understand from prior discussions to be the principal predicate offense upon which the § 2255 provisions My) or 18 USC § 2423(b) (another predicate of § 2255 that has been the subject of discussions between the parties). Sec Stem Opinion. We believe that the problem arises from the incongruity that exists when attempting to lit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal plea agreement this problem could ave been avoided had the government opted instead for a restitution fund us we suggeste. Our knowledge ()I' the "list" of alleged victims is limited However a prototypical example of a witness whom the government has requested we compensate and we believe is inaccurately labeled as a "victim" via federal crime is Saige Gonntlez.(whoin we have been told remains on the government's "list"). The transcript of her interview with the Palm Beach Police over a year before the FRI became involved in any investigation shows that Ms. Gonzalez admitted to lying about her age. that she did not engage in sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein, and that she was never induced over the telephone. computer or any other means of communication required by § 2422(b). In fact. Ms. Gonzalez came in Mr. Epstein's home on only one occasion. She testified that she was informed about the opportunity to give a massage to Mr. Epstein not on a telephone. computer or any other facility of interstate commerce, hut rather in a nate-to-face discussion with a third party who was her friend (Ms. Robson) and who told her to lie to Mr. Epstein about her age. As such, it is simply impassible to shoehorn this conduct into any of the above-discussed federal statutes. In addition. Mr. Epstein did not know of Ms. Gonzalez before she actually came to his home. did not induce or persuade her to come by phone, did not speak to her at all by phone prior to her visit, did not induce or persuade Ms. Robson to bring an underage girl to his residence, and did not otherwise violate either the federal statute § 2422(b) nor the travel Ihr the purpose statute § 2423(b). Indeed. in her statement. Ms. Gonzalez testified: "1 Inky told me to say I was IR because I Paley said ... if you're not then he [Epstein.' won't really let you in his house. So I said I was 18." (Gonzalez Sworn Statement at 38-39). In fact. there is no evidence that Mr. Epstein expected an underage girl to visit him prior to his regular travel to Florida. his home of Eileen years. 'Thus the travel could not have been for the purpose of having illegal sexual contact and § 2423(b) is no more available as a predicate for § 2255 recovery than is § 2422(b), Never having reached the threshold violations enumerated under of § 2255. Ms. Gonzalez would still have to prove that she suffered a personal injury. Further, unknown to Mr. Epstein at the time, Ms. Gonzalez represented herself to be 18 not only to him but also to the public on her web page where she posted a nude photo clearly looking at least IX years old. At the December 14 meeting. we also discussed Tatum Miller as emblematic of our concerns surrounding the government's selection of "victims." As you are mare, Ms. Miller Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013355 EFTA00230260

12/21/2007 11:56 FAX QD004/006 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Aerosol December 2I, 2007 Page 3 was identified in previous correspondence as a person who remained on the Government's list of "victims" even after (at least according to Ms. Villufana's letter) the list was subjected to careful multi-party review. Ms.. Miller's sworn statement clearly reflects the fact that she is not a "victim' under § 2422(b). She plainly admits that she suffered no injury; the conduct was consensual: she lied to Mr.. Epstein about her age; she instructed others to lie about their ages: there was no sexual contact between herself and Mr. Lipstein at any time; and them was never any inducement over the telephone, computer or through any other means of interstate commerce We ask that you consider the most relevant highlights front her testimony offered below: • Consent A: I said. I told Jeffrey, I heard you like massages topless. And he's like. yeah, he said, hut you don't have to do anything that you don't feel comlbrutble with. And I said okay. but I willingly look it all: (Miller Sworn Statement at 10) • lied About Her Age A: . . . I had a lake II) anyways. saying that I was 18. And she just said make sure you're 18 because Jeffrey doesn't want any underage girls. (Miller Sworn Statement tub) A: ... of course. he thought I was 18... (Miller Sworn Statement at 13) • Instructed Others to Lic About Their Ages A: . . . I would tell my girlfriends just like Carolyn approached me. Make sure you tell him you're III. Well, these girls that I brought. f know that they were IR or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't know and I don't know if they were lying or not. I would say make sure that you tell him you're IS. (Miller Sworn Statement at 22) • No Sexual Contact Q: I le never pulled you closer to bin in a sexual way? A: I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no. never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. (Miller Sworn Statement at 21 ) • No Inducement A: No. I gave Jeffrey my number. And I said. you know, any time you want me to give you a massage again, I'll more than welcome to. (Miller Sworn Statement at 8) Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013356 EFTA00230261

12/21/2007 11:56 FAX la005/008 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 21.2007 Page 4 A: Every girl that I brought to Jeffrey. they said they were line with it. And like. for instance a lot of girls begged me to bring them back. 'They wanted to come back for the money. And as fur as I know, we all had fun there. (Miller Sworn Statement at 45) The sworn testimony of contains explicit denials from the alleged "victim" herself that she suffered any phystca . emotional, or personal injury as required by the express language of § 2255. Further, the sworn testimony of Ms. Miller contains a complete disavowal that Mr. Epstein or anyone on his behalf used a facility of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade. coerce, entice, or induce her to engage in sexual offenses as required by § 2422(h). Likewise, the transcript provides no basis ((Jr u § 2423(h) violation in that Mr. Epstein had a residence in Palm Beach for over 10 years at the time of these events, traveled to Palm Beach for a myriad of legitimate reasons ranging from medical appointments to business appointments having nothing to do with a sexual objective, and could not be legally charged with traveling to his own home particularly in the absence of any provable nexus between the travel and a dominant pumas° to engage in illicit sexual conduct. Although Ms. Villafima informed us during the December 14 meeting that she had a telephone toll record showing tea uut-uf-state call to or from Ms. Miller's phone to a phone number associated with Mr. Epstein. such a record fails to prove the content of the call, the identity of the communicators. whether the call discussed or resulted in a plan for Ms. Miller to visit Mr. Epstein's residence, whether any inducement occurred on the nut of state call or, more importantly for purposes of the sex tourism statute. whether any travel was planned to Florida or resulted from the phone call. Ms. Miller's testimony is that she believed that at any time she was called by Mr.. Epstein or anyone on his behalf. Mr. Epstein was already in Florida. She also testified to the absence of any sexual contact other than topless massages (topless massages are lawful in Florida at age 16, unless the definition of prostitution is unnaturally expanded). A complete transcript of the federal interview of Ms. Miller has previously been provided to you. Your wish to put these women in the mime position as they would have been had there been a federal conviction assumes they are each legitimate victims of at least one of the two specific federal crimes enumerated under * 2255. We respectfully have to disagree with that assumption, and even your current formulation of § 2255 would prejudice Mr. Epstein in this regard. Second. your proposal also effectively deprives Mr.. Epstein of his opportunity to test the ilidity of these womens' claims claims that would have been extensively tested at trial. In light of what we have already learned about Snige Uouralez and it is inappropriate to deny Mr.. Epstein and his counsel the right to test the merits of each of these women? cases. in order to verify that they in fact suffered " personal injury' as required bye 7255 and to assess,. whether they are in fact victims of any violations of § 2422(b) or § 24— ) as also required by') Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA EFTA00230262

12/21/2007 11:57 FAX e 006/008 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Aebsta December 2l, 2007 Page 5 j255. Given your Otlice's informing us that Ms. 'mooned on a reduced list of federal "victims" and given our understanding that Ms. gilmilm as well VMS one of those who is also on the list or persons the Government contends were victims of Mr. Epstein's alleged violation of federal law, we have a principled concern about adopting your recommended language which would leave Mr. Epstein without a basis to challenge the good faith premise of an application to recover S 150.000. Thirds the Agreement. even if modified in accord with your December 19 letter. would ' put the witnesses in a better position than if Mr. Epstein had been federally prosecuted rather than in an equal position and, in fact, encourages the witnesses to make unfounded claims with impunity. Ilad there been a conviction, these women would have been thoroughly cross- examined. for the veracity of their statements, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for claiming person! injury. Also. Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks, material in the tbnn of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be available to them—evidence that should be considered in determining the credibility of their application for a substantial civil recovery. Furthermore, Mr. Epstein would be without the means to challenge whether the claimant could make out a prima facie ease that she was a victim of a violation by Mr. Epstein of § 2422(h) or any other federal statute—a denial of his rights that would insulate potential claimants such as Ms. Miller and Ms. Gonzalez from any challenge on this clement even if under other circumstances challenge would result in a summary judgment in Mr. Epstein's favor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Lastly. the modified language recommended by you presupposes that Mr. Epstein would have been charged and convicted of substantive violations rather than charged and convicted of a conspiracy allegation. Conspiracy convictions are not amongst the predicates enumerated by § 2255 and do not, without more, result in the basis fir a determination of "personal injury". Since our request to view the draft indictment was rejected on December 14. we have no means to know what it contained by way of allegations. Fourth, I want to respond to several statements in your letter that we believe require immediate correction. With regard to your first footnote. I want to be absolutely clear. We do not believe for one moment that you had prior knowledge of the AUSA's attempt to require us to hire the friend of her live-in boyfriend, and pay his lees on a contingency basis to sue Mr. Epstein. We realize you corrected that irregular situation as soon as you discovered it. We thought this was precipitated by our complaint. but have no real knowledge as to the timing of events. Furthermore, your letter also suggests that our objection to your OlLee's proposed victims notification letter was that the women identified as victims of federal crimes should not be notified of the state proceedings. That is not tnie. as our previous letter clearly states. Putting aside our threshold contention that many of those to whom 3771 notification letters arc intended arc in fact not victims as defined in the Attorney General's 2000 Victim Witness Guidelines--u status rtmuiring physical. emotional or pecuniary injury of the delimdant—it was and remains our position that these women may he notified of such proceedings but since they ore neither witnesses nor victims to the suite prosecution of this matter, they should not he informed of Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013358 EFTA00230263

12/21/2007 11:57 FAX a 007/008 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLI' It. Alexander Acosta December 21. 2007 Page 6 fictitious "rights" or invited to make sworn written or in-court testimonial statements against Mr. Epstein at such proceedings. as Ms.. Villafana repeatedly maintained they had the right to do. Additionally, it was and remains our position that any notification should he by mail and that all proactive efforts by the FBI to have communications with the witnesses alter the execution of the Agreement should finally come to an end. We agree, however, with your December 19 modification of the previously drafted federal notification letter and agree that the decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is. amongst many other issues. properly within the aegis of state decision making. Your December 19 letter references Professor Dershowitz's position on the inapplicability of Florida Statute § 796.03. Professor Dershowitz made such arguments in the context of saying that he had been unable to discern, alter great ellbri. and supported by years of experience, any basis for the application of § 2422(b) or other federal sex statutes to Mr. Epstein's conduct and that the federal statutes required more oral stretch to lit the facts thun the proposed state statute to which Ms. Villafana wanted Mr. Epstein to plead. Professor Dershowitz also stated that Ms. Villafana had represented that it was she who had the facts to support. both the threatened federal charges of § 2422 and/or § 2423 and the proposed state charge of § 796.03 (which the parties understood to he the stoic charge of soliciting a minor, as Ms. Villalima's last letter clearly states). Only last week we learned for the find time that Ms. Villafana did not realize that the charge was actually for "procuring" nut "soliciting". The charge (a pimp statute) of procuring a prostitute for a third party for financial gain is one for which Ms. Villafana now states she does not have the filets to support. Furthermore. you suggest that we have purposefully delayed the date of Mr.. Epstein's plea and sentencing in breach of the Agreement and now seek an "11th hour appeal" in Washington. I believe we have already responded to this objection satisfactorily, both in our discussion earlier this week and in the entail I sent to you two days ago in which I specifically addressed this issue. Indeed, any impediment to the resolution at issue iatlizta au•e of lie disagreements between tlx: parties as to a common inlernrCtnlinn of the Agreement. and we have ode and will continue to make sincere elions to res ve and finalize issues as expeditiously as possible. In fact, since t e initial ono negotiations between Mr.. bpste n s counsel and your Unice. we have always proceeded iu a timely manner and made several efforts to meet with the attorneys in your Office in person when we believed that a face-to-face meeting would theilitate a resolution. Finally, the suggestion by your staff that you hold Mr. Epstein in breach of the Agreement by his failure to plea and be sentenced on October 26. 2007 is directly contradicted by Mr.. Sloman's e-mail to me dated October 31 In which he states. "Your understanding from Jack Goldberger conforms to my understanding that Mr.. Epstein's plea and sentence will take place on the same day. 1 understand that the plea and sentence will occur on or belbn: the January 4th date." This has been our common understanding for some time. which we have now Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013359 EFTA00230264

12/21/2007 11:57 FAX @008/008 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 21, 2007 Page 7 reiterated several times. With that said. please be advised that we am workinµ for a quick resolution and do not seek to delay the proceedings. Thank you again for your time and consideration. We look lbrward to your rc.xponse to the concerns we have raised that have not yet been addressed. 1 wish you a very happy and a healthy new year. Sincerely. . Lefkoilitz ce: Honorable Alice Fisher. Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey II. Slornan. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013360 EFTA00230265

12/21/2007 11:55 FAX J oovociq KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal Ciligroup Center 153 Cast 53rd Street Now York. N w -4611 Phon Fax: Plano notify us Immediately If any pages are not received. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL, MAY BE ATTORNEY•CLIENT PRIVILEGED, MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION, AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. UNAUTHORIZED USE. DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: To: Company: Fax #: Direct #: R. Alexander Acosta US Attorney's Office 305-530-6444 305-961-9100 CC: Company: Fax #: Direct Jeffrey II. Slornan US Attorney's Office 305-530-6444 30596192/9 Alice S. Fisher Department of .1 usriee 202-5114-9412 202-514-2601 From: .1:3y P.T.elkowitz Date: Parpswitowy: Fox #: December 2 I • 2007 S IM -446-6460 Direct #: Message: Please see attached. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013361 EFTA00230266

14124/0 7 1.e-f- t2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013362 EFTA00230267

12/28/07 FRI 14:27 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE e)001 Dear Jay, On September 24, 2007, your client, Jeffrey Epstein and two of his lawyers, Gerald Lefcourt, Esq. and Lily Ann Sanchez, Esq., in consultation with numerous other experienced and highly regarded lawyers, entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("the Agreement") with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"). The crux of the Agreement was that the SDFL would defer federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein for illicit sexual conduct by Mr. Epstein involving minor victims in exchange for his guilty plea to solicitation of prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.07) and an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, siriettatten o f minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03). The Agremplitilsp_requ required him .:iosirervecat3Moatli j — sentence - 18 months' in county jail - an to cragAnsge'the victims pulstiant to '18 U.S.C. Section 2255 just as if this matter had been successfully prosecuted federally. After the Agreement was executed, you and, subsequently, Dean Starr began taking issue with the implementation of the 2255 provision. In response, I offered, in my opinion, numerous and various reasonable modifications and accommodations. These are well documented and do not need to be recounted here. Suffice to say, these modifications and accommodations were not satisfactory to your client. At our December 15, 2007 meeting, counsel for Mr. Epstein announced, inter alio, that it was a "profound injustice" to require Mr. Epstein to register as a sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b), had been committed since the statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading or inducing. As you know, this attack on the theory of federal prosecution ha been previously raised' and thceusbly considered and rejected by the SDFL andfahild Exploitation and ObscenitykCEOS) in Washington, D.C. prior to the execution of the Agreement. In addition to your continued attack on the contemplated federal statutes, your December 17th correspondence claimed, for the first time since the execution of the Agreement, that Mr. Epstein's conduct does not meet the requirements of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03). This combined with your December 26th correspondence, wherein you state that "we have reiterated in previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is 'See July 6, 2007 letter from Gerald B. Lefcourt, Esq. and Alan Dershowitz. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013363 EFTA00230268

12/28/07 FRI 14:27 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 1002 guilty of the federal charges enumerated under section 2255", clearly prevents Mr. Epstein from fulfilling the material terms and conditions the Agreement. As you know, this is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see North Carolina I Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970)). Your reference to requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not commit the requisite offense" is inapplicable here. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013364 EFTA00230269

12/28/07 FRI 14:27 FAX 305 530 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Dear Jay, On September 24, 2007, your client, Jeffrey Epstein and two of his lawyers, Gerald Lefcourt, Esq. and Lily Ann Sanchez, Esq., in consultation with numerous other experienced and highly regarded lawyers, entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("the Agreement") with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"). The crux of the Agreement was that the SDFL would defer federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein for illicit sexual conduct by Mr. Epstein involving minor victims in exchange for his guilty plea to solicitation of prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.07) and an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03). The Agreement also required him to serve a :30 month sentence - 18 months' in county jail - and to compensate the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 just as if this matter had been successfully prosecuted federally. After the Agreement was executed, you and, subsequently, Dean Starr began taking issue with the implementation of the 2255 provision. In response, I offered, in my opinion, numerous and various reasonable modifications; and accommodations. These are well documented and do not need to be recounted here. Suffice to say, these modifications and accommodations were not satisfactory to your client. At our December 15, 2007 meeting, counsel' for Mr. Epstein announced, inter alia, that it was a "profound injustice" to require Mr. Epstein to register as a sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b), had been committed since the statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading or inducing. As you know, this attack on the theory of federal prosecution had been previously raised' and thoroughly considered and rejected by the SDFL, and Child Exploitation and Obscenity (CEOS) in Washington, D.C. prior to the execution of the Agreement. In addition to your continued attack on the contemplated federal statutes, your December 17th correspondence claimed, for the first time since the execution of the Agreement, that Mr. Epstein's conduct does not meet the requirements of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03). This combined with your December 26th correspondence, wherein you states that "we have reiterated in previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is 'See July 6, 2007 letter from Gerald B. Lefcourt, Esq. and Alan Dershowitz. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013365 EFTA00230270

12/28/07 FRI 14:27 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 1J 002 guilty of the federal charges enumerated under section 2255", clearly prevents Mr, Epstein from fulfilling the material terms and conditions the Agreement. As you know, this is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see North Carolina I Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970)). Your reference to requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not commit the requisite offense" is inapplicable here. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013366 EFTA00230271

S Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013367 EFTA00230272

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida First Assistant U.S. Attorney DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Leflcowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Leflcowitz, 99 N.E. 4 Street Miami. Ft 33131 (305) 961-9100 April , 2008 n Sentember 24. 2007, your client, Jeffrey Epstein, in consultation with Gerald Lefcourt, Esq. and I , Esq., as well as numerous other nationally-renowned lawyers, including but not limited to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, former Independent Counsel and Solicitor General of the United States Kenneth Starr, just to name a few, entered into a Non- Prosecution Agreement ("the Agreement") with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"). Although you and other members of the defense team have since claimed that the Agreement was the product of adhesion, the following facts demonstrate that Epstein knowingly and voluntarily entered into the Agreement in order to avoid a federal indictment regarding his sexual conduct involving minor victims. Despite the fact that by signing the Agreement, Epstein gave up the right to object to its provisions, the SDFL bent over backwards to exhaustively consider and re-consider your objections. Since these objections have finally been exhausted and Epstein has failed to comply with several conditions of the Agreement as set forth below, the SDFL hereby notifies you that unless you comply with all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, including plea, sentence, and incarceration, as modified by the United States Attorney's December 19, 2007 letter to Ms. Sanchez by the SDFL will elect to terminate the Agreement. background The Agreement was the product of months of negotiations. Specifically, you requested and received numerous meetings, at the highest levels of the SDFL and DOD's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) concerning claims that (a) the investigation merely produced evidence of relatively innocuous sexual conduct with some minors who, unbeknownst to Epstein, misrepresented their ages; (b) the authorities investigating Epstein engaged in misconduct; (c) the contemplated federal statutes have no applicability to this matter; and (d) the federal authorities disregarded the fundamental policy against federal intervention with state criminal proceedings. After careful review, the SDFL ultimately rejected those claims. Subsequent to its decision, however, but before proceeding any further, the SDFL provided you with 30 days to appeal the decision to the Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013368 EFTA00230273

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. , 2008 PAGE 2 OF S Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Alice Fisher. As you recall, you chose to forego an appeal to AAG Fisher, and instead pursued a negotiated resolution which, ultimately, resulted in the execution of the Agreement. The Negotiation Phase During negotiations, you tried to avoid a resolution that called for incarceration and registration as a sexual offender — both of which would be triggered by a successful federal prosecution. The SDFL believed and continues to believe that should this matter proceed to trial, your client would be convicted of the federal statutes identified in the Agreement. In order to achieve a global resolution, the SDFL indicated a willingness to compromise the length of incarceration; however, it remained adamant that Epstein register as a sex offender and that all victims identified during the investigation remain eligible for compensation. In order to achieve this result, the parties considered two alternatives, a plea to federal charges that limited Epstein's sentencing exposure, or, as suggested by you, a plea to state charges encompassing Epstein's conduct. Ultimately, the parties agreed to, inter alia, a plea to the state charges outlined in the Agreement, registration and a method of compensation. The Agreement The crux of the Agreement defers federal prosecution of Epstein for his sexual conduct involving those minor victims identified as of September 24, 2007, in exchange for a guilty plea to a state offense that requires registration as a sex offender; a sufficient term of imprisonment; and a method of compensation for the victims such that they would be placed in the same position as if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255. Specifically, the Agreement mandates, inter alia, (1) a guilty plea in Palm Beach County Circuit Court to solicitation ofprostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.07) and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03) (an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender); (2) a 30-month sentence including 18 months' incarceration in county jail; (3) a methodology to compensate the victims identified by the United States; (4) entry of the guilty plea and sentence no later than October 26, 2007; and (5) the start of the above-mentioned sentence no later than January 4, 2008. Furthermore, and significantly, Epstein agreed that he had the burden of ensuring compliance of the Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office and the Judge of the 151h Judicial Circuit and "that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement" (emphasis added). Post-Execution of the Agreement Within weeks of the execution of the Agreement, you sought to delay the entry of Epstein's guilty plea and sentence. After the SDFL agreed to accommodate your request, counsel for Epstein began taking issue with the methodology of compensation, notification to the victims, and the issues Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013369 EFTA00230274

JAY P. LEPKOW1TZ, ESQ. , 2008 PAGE 3 OF 5 that had been previously considered and rejected during negotiations, i.e., that the conduct does not require registration and the contemplated state and federal statutes have no applicability to the instant matter. A. Delay. The Agreement required that "Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self- reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008." Agreement, pages 4-5, paragraph 11 (emphasis added). After the Agreement was executed, the SDFL accommodated your request to extend the October 26th plea deadline to November 20th based upon, what seemed to be, reasonable scheduling conflict issues.' By early November, you represented that the presiding state court judge would not "stagger the plea and sentencing as contemplated in the Agreement."Although the Agreement clearly did not contemplate a staggered "plea and sentencing," the SDFL again agreed to accommodate Epstein's request to appear in state court for plea and sentencing on January 4, 2008.2 B. Method of Compensation and Notification. During this same time period, you and others, including the former Solicitor General of the United States Kenneth Starr, took issue with the implementation of the methodology of compensation (hereinafter "the 2255 provision")? and the SDFL's intention to notify the victims under 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 (you objected to victims being notified of time and place of Epstein's "Accordingly, I have now confirmed with Mr. Epstein's Florida counsel that the state's attorney's office and the court will be available to have him enter his plea on November 20. So we will plan to proceed on one that date." October 18, 2007 email from Jay Lefkowitz to USA It. Alexander Acosta. On the same day, Mr. Lefkowitz confirmed with First Assistant Jeffrey H. Sloman that this postponement " will not affect when Epstein begins serving his sentence." 2 Correspondence from Jay Lefkowitz to FAUSA Sloman dated November 8, 2007 ("the judge has invited the parties to appear for the plea and sentencing on January 4", we do not anticipate any delay beyond that date.') 3 Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL unilaterally agreed to assign its responsibility to select the attorney representative for the alleged victims to an independent third-party. This was done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection of the attorney representative. As a result, on October 29, 2007, the parties executed an Addendum wherein it was mutually agreed that former United States District Court Judge Edward B. Davis would serve as the independent third-party. Judge Davis selected the venerable law firm of Podhurst and Josefsberg to represent the approximately 34 alleged identified victims. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013370 EFTA00230275

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. , 2008 PAGE 4 OF 5 state court sentencing hearing). In response, the SDFL offered, in my opinion, numerous and various reasonable modifications and accommodations which ultimatel resulted in United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to . In that letter, the United States Attorney tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite y, e DFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. He proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Regarding the issue of notice to the victims, USA Acosta proposed to notify them of the federal resolution as required by law; however, "[wje will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes." As you know, you rejected these proposals as well. See December 26, 2007 correspondence from Jay Leficowitz to USA Acosta. C. "Mr. Epstein Does Not Believe He Is Guilty Of The Federal Charges Enumerated Under Section 2255." At our December 14, 2007 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, counsel for Epstein announced, inter alia, that it was a "profound injustice" to require Epstein to register as a sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b), had been committed since the statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading or inducing. This particular attack on this statute had been previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by the SDFL and CEOS prior to the execution of the Agreement. You also argued that the facts were inapplicable to the contemplated state statutes and that Epstein should not have been allowed to have been induced into the Agreement because the facts were not what he understood them to be. It should be noted that the SDFL has never provided you with any evidence supporting its investigation. This is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970)). Ultimately, you requested an independent review. Subsequent to the above-mentioned meeting, the SDFL received three letters from you and/or Mr. Stan which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 14th meeting. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013371 EFTA00230276

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. , 2008 PAGE 5 OF 5 Essentially, you portrayed the SDFL as trying to coerce a plea to unknown allegations and incoherent theories. On December 17, 2007, you decreed that Epstein's conduct did not meet the requirements of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution (FL Stat. Section 796.03) one of the enumerated crimes Epstein had previously agreed to plead guilty to; that Epstein's conduct does not require registration under Florida law; and the State Attorney's Office does not believe the conduct is registrable. On December 21, 2007, you rejected the USA's proposed resolution of the 2255 provision because you "strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 U.S.C. Section[s] 2422(b) ... or 2423(b)." In your December 26, 2007 correspondence you stated that "we have reiterated in previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is guilty of the federal charges enumerated under section 2255" and requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not commit the requisite offense." As the SDFL has reiterated time and time again, it does not want nor does it expect Epstein to plead guilty to a charge he does not believe he committed. As a result, we obliged your request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such a review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. It is our understanding that that independent review is now complete and a determination has been made that there are no impediments to a federal prosecution by the SDFL. Conclusion Therefore, as I proposed in my email to you on February 25, 2008, you shall have until to comply with all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, including plea, sentence, and incarceration, as modified by the USA's December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant United States Attorney cc: R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney A. Assistant U.S. Attorney Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013372 EFTA00230277

4/,/ce. .510414 54vemissiom 70 VIC blet Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013373 EFTA00230278

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida First Assistant U.S. Attorney 991V.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 (303) 961-9100 DELIVERY BY FEDERAL_ EXPRESS June 3, 2008 honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Judge Filip, Jeffrey Epstein was a part-time resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.' In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that, over a two-year period, Epstein paid approximately 28 minor females from Royal Palm Beach High School to come to his house for sexual favors.' In July 2006, the matter was presented to AUSA A. . of our West Palm Beach branch office to pursue a forrnal criminal investigation. 1 n resulted in the discovery of approximately one dozen additional minor victims. Over the last several months, approximately six more minor victims have been identified. AUSA Villafaila has been ready to present an indictment to a West Palm Beach federal grand jury since May 2007. The prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment have been extensively reviewed and re-reviewed by Southern District of Florida (SDFL) Deputy Chief of the Criminal Epstein has not resided in Palm Beach since he learned of the instant investigation. 2 Epstein's sexual conduct with the victims included: instructing them to massage and pinch his nipples, masturbating in their presence, digitally penetrating them, using a vibrator on their vaginas, engaging in oral sex with them, having the victims perform oral sex on Epstein's adult girlfriend, and engaging in sexual intercourse, all in exchange for money, ranging from $200 to $1,000 per session. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013374 EFTA00230279

Division MEM Chief of the Criminal Division Matthew MencheP, First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman', United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various members of the Child Exploitation and Eenity Section (CEOS) at the Department of Justice including, but not limited to its Chief, a. Oosterbahn. Many of these legal and factual issues have been discussed and approved by Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (DAAG) Sigel Mandelker and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (AAG) Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the petit policy. By May 2007, AUSA Villafaitalitea appr om her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was Mr. had served as the Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ as well as in several supervisory positions in the SDFL. By mid- 2006, he had returned to his position as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division in West Palm Beach (head of the West Palm Beach branch office), after serving as the interim iallifiLof the Public Integrity Section at DOJ at the request of AAG Fisher. By October 2007. Mr. UM would leave the SDFL to become AAG Fisher's Chief of Staff.' Above Mr. in the SDFL's chain of command were 1 Criminal Division Chief, First Assistant USA Sloman and finally, U.S. Attorney Acosta. Prior to seeking approval to return an indictment, Epstein's legal team had been actively working to convince this Office that such action was not warranted. For example, at the end of 2006, former SDFL U.S. Attorney and EOUSA Executivelir Guy Lewis contacted former colleagues AUSA and, later Deputy Criminal Chief when he learned that they were handling or involved in supervising the federal investigation of EpsteirSecember, former SDFL AUSA land Gerald Lefcourt also contacted AUSA to set a meeting. In advance of that meeting, AUSA llafalla requested documents but that request was refused. Ms. Sanchez then contacted AUSA who agreed to meet with Mit an as well as a member fcourt. On February 1, 2007, Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Lefcourt met with AUSAs of the FBI, and presented defense counsel's view of the case and proms a willingness to assist in the investigation. The SDFL was unpetsuaded by their presentation and the investigation continued. By the late Spring and early Summer, the focus of the investigation shifted from investigating the facts of the victims' claims to Epstein's background, his asserted defenses, co-conspirators, and possible witnesses who could corroborate the victims' statements. The investigation also began to look into financial aspects of the case, requiring the issuance of several subpoenas. At the time, Mr. Lefcourt began leveling accusations of improprieties with the investigation and sought a meeting 3Mr. Menchel resigned for private practice on August 3, 2007 and was replaced by Robert Senior. 'Although I, Jeffrey H. Sloman, am writing this letter, I will continue to refer to myself as "First Assistant USA Sloman" or "FAUSA Sloman" to help reduce any confusion. 'Rolando Garcia replaced Mr. as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013375 EFTA00230280

with Criminal Division Chief B that time, the proposed initial indictment package had been reviewed and approved by Mr. in West Palm Beach and by attorneys with CEOS; however, it awaited review by Mr. Menchel and FAUSA Sloman. The SDFL deferred presenting the indictment to the grand jury to accommodate the Epstein legal team's request for a meeting. We also agreed to wait several weeks for that meeting to occur to allow four of Epstein's attorneys to be present and also provided counsel with a list of the statutes that were the subject of the investigation. On June 26, 2007, Mr. Menchel, Mr. M, AUSA a, and FAUSA Sloman and two FBI agents met with Alan l)ershowitz, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and I. During that meeting, Professor Dershowitz and other members of the defense team presented legal and factual arguments against a federal indictment. Counsel for the defense also requested the opportunity to present written arguments, which was granted. The arguments and written materials provided by the defense were examined by the SDFL and rejected. On July 31, 2007, Mr. Menchel, Mr. AUSA and FAUSA Sloman, and two FBI agents met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and . On that date, the SDFL presented a written sheet of terms that would satisfy the SDFL's federal interest in the case and discussed the substance of those terms. See Tab A. One of those terms was: Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject matter. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, §§ 2422 and/or 2423. During that meeting, the focus was on Mr. Epstein's unwillingness to spend time in prison, and various suggestions were raised by defense counsel, including the proposal that he could serve a sentence of home confinement or probation. This was repeatedly mentioned by counsel for Epstein as being equivalent to a term of imprisonment in a state or federal prison. Epstein's counsel mentioned their concerns about his safety in prison, and the SDFL offered to explore a plea to a federal charge to allow Epstein to serve his time in a federal facility. Counsel were also presented with a conservative estimate of the sentence that Epstein would face if he were convicted: an advisory guideline range of 188 - 235 months' incarceration with a five-year mandatory minimum prison term, to be followed by lifetime supervised release. Counsel was told that Epstein had two weeks to accept or reject the proposal. It is critical to note that Ms. Sanchez, one of Epstein's local lawyers, seized upon this method of restitution as a condition of deferring federal prosecution. In referring to the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 method of compensation, Ms. Sanchez stated: [t]his 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 Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -3- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013376 EFTA00230281

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. See attached Tab B, August 2, 2007 letter from to SDFL Criminal Division Chief Menchel, p.2, fit 1. Ironically, it is Epstein's "national" attorneys who are now representing to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States in their May 19, 2008 letter that: Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition of deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved. Not only did Epstein's lawyers like the idea of using 18 U.S.C. § 2255 to compensate the victims but, they also sought to make their non-incarcerative state proposal even more attractive by offering payments to "a charitable organization benefitting victims of sexual assault," "law enforcement investigative costs" and "Court and probationary costs." Id. at p. 2. Epstein's counsel, still dissatisfied with the Office's review of the case, demanded to meet with U.S. Attorney Acosta and to have the opportunity to meet with someone in Washington, D.C. To accommodate Roy Black, the meeting was put off until September 7, 2007, deirite i te fact that the indictment was ready for presentation to the grand jury. In the interim, AUSA and the investigators met with CEOS Chief Oosterbahn, to review, yet again, the evidence and legal theories of prosecution. Chief Oosterbahn strongly supported the proposed indictment and even offered to join the trial team and provide additional support from CEOS. On September 7, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta met with Kirkland & Ellis partners Jay Lefkowitz and former Solicitor General Ken Starr and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief Oosterbahn and AUSAs» John McMillan, and FAUSA Sloman, Messrs. Starr and Lefkowitz presented arguments regarding the sufficiency of the federal interest in the case and other legal and factual issues. We discussed those legal arguments and the unanimous opinion of all of the attorneys present was in favor of prosecution. During that meeting, Mr. Lefkowitz also offered a plea resolution. His offer, in essence, was that Epstein be subjected to home confinement at his Palm Beach home, using private security officers who would serve as his "wardens," if necessary. Mr. Lefkowitz expressed the belief that such a sentence would be particularly appropriate because, as a wealthy white man, he may be the subject of violence or extortion in prison. Finally, Messrs. Starr and Lefkowitz expressed the belief that Epstein's extensive philanthropy should be considered in our prosecution decision. U.S. Attorney Acosta summarily rejected these proposals, and indicated that the 24-month offer presented previously by the SDFL stood. 'Roy Black did not attend. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -4- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013377 EFTA00230282

The issue of the inclusion of a restitution-type remedy for the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 'litany raised and discussed at the and Mt. Stan thanked AUSA for bringing it to his attention as a novel approach to allowing the victims to receive essentially federal restitution while allowing a plea to a state charge. After considering everything said and written by Epstein's legal team, and after conferring with Chief Oosterbahn, U.S. Attorney Acosta informed Epstein's counsel that the SDFL still intended to proceed to indictment. Since counsel indicated a desire to appeal the matter to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Acosta agreed to delay the presentation of the indictment for two weeks to allow them to speak with someone in Washington, D.C., if they so chose. Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiate the Non-Prosesiiareement, and on September 12, 2007, counsel for the SDFL (AUSAs Garcia, and ) and counsel for Epstein (Messrs. Lefcourt, Lefkowitz, and Goldberger) met with Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krisher and Assistant State Attorney Larma Belohlavek to discuss a plea to an Information in the state court that would satisfy the federal interest in the case. As noted on the term sheet o fJuly 31m (Tab A), one of those essential terms was a guilty plea to a charge requiring sex offender registration. During that meeting, the issue of sex offender registration was raised, and Mr. Goldberger told the federal prosecutors that there was no problem, Mr. Epstein would plead guilty to the charge of procurement of minors for prostitution (Fl. Stat. 796.03), which was one of the statutes listed on the original term sheet. Although the SDFL had wanted Epstein to plead guilty to three different offenses, we agreed to this compromise.' Of course, the SDFL later learned that, at the time Mr. Goldberger made that statement, he incorrectly believed, based upon a statement from ASA Belohlavek, that Fl. Stat. § 796.03 did not require sex offender registration. The parties then began working first on a plea agreement to a federal charge and, when it was clear that there was no guarantee that Epstein would serve his sentence in a minimum security prison camp, the discussion turned to a Non-Prosecution Agreement. Both the federal plea agreement and the Non-Prosecution Agreement included references to § 2255 because neither the contemplated federal charges nor the proposed state charges encompassed all of the identified victims. If Epstein had been prosecuted under the planned indictment, the identified victims would have been eligible for restitution and damages under § 2255. As explained above, one of our interests, which had to be satisfied by the Non-Prosecution Agreement, was providing appropriate compensation to the victims. This provision of the Agreement was heavily negotiated. As Mr. Lefkowitz wrote in his November 29th e-mail to FAUSA Sloman, Epstein "offered to provide a restitution fund for the alleged victims in this matter; however, that option was rejected by [our] Office." That option was rejected for several reasons. First, the SDFL does not serve as legal representatives to the victims and has no authority to bind victims, nor could it provide a monetary figure that would represent a "loss" amount for restitution purposes. Second, there would be no legal basis for federal restitution without 7 Another significant compromise reached at the meeting was a reduction in the amount of jail time - from 24 months down to 18 months, which would be served at the Palm Beach County Jail rather than a state prison facility. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -5- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013378 EFTA00230283

a conviction for a federal offense. And, third, it was the U.S. Attorney's belief that the SDFL should not be put in the position of administering a restitution fund. Our § 2255 proposal put the victims in the same position that they would have been in if we had proceeded to trial and convicted Epstein of his crimes, with the exception that the victims were provided with counsel. The appointment of counsel was not such a benefit to the victims but, rather, was done, in part, to benefit Epstein by allowing him to try to privately negotiate a group resolution of all claims with one attorney. Epstein and his lawyers agreed with this alternative. The negotiation of the Agreement was lengthy and difficult. Mr. Lefkowitz and AUSA went through several drafts of both a federal plea agreement and a Non-Prosecution Agreement. Throughout these negotiations, when a member of the defense team was dissatisfied with the SDFL's position, it was repeatedly appealed throughout the Office. So several members of the defense team spoke with the chain of command regarding the terms of the Agreement, including the § 2255 provisions. At the eleventh hour, when Epstein's legal team realized that El. Stat. 796.03 would require him to register as a sex offender, they sought to change the most essential term of the agreement - a term that Messrs. Goldberger, Lefkowitz, and Lefcourt had specifically agreed to at the September 121h meeting with the State Attorney's Office - asking to allow Epstein to plead to a charge that would not require registration. When this was rejected, several members of the defense team appealed directly to U.S. Attorney Acosta which also failed. When that failed, according to press reports, apparently Mr. Lefcourt "leaked" a letter intended for the U.S. Attorney to the press containing the reasons why he/Lefcourt did not believe Epstein should have to register. See October 9, 2007 New York Post article attached at Tab C. Prior to signir the Non-Prosec tion Agreement, Mr. Epstein's defense team included Ken Start, Jay Lefkowitz, , Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Guy Lewis, Martin Weinberg, Jack Goldberger, Stephanie Thacker', and the associates at Kirkland & Ellis who conducted research on discrete issues. This impressive legal team reviewed the Agreement and counseled Epstein. Based upon that counsel, Epstein decided that it was in his best interest to execute the Non-Prosecution Agreement which was signed on September 24, 2007 by Mr. Lefcourt, Ms. Sanchez and Epstein. A copy of which is attached hereto as Tab D. The core principles of the Agreement are incarceration, registration as a sex offender and a method of compensation' Furthermore, and significantly, Epstein agreed that he had the burden of ensuring compliance of the 'Ms. Thacker had recently resigned from CEOS as a Trial Attorney and entered private practice. 9 Specifically, the Agreement mandates, inter alia, (1) a guilty plea in Palm Beach County Circuit Court to solicitation of prostitution (El. Stat. § 796.07) and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.03) (an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender); (2) a 30- month sentence including 18 months' incarceration in county jail; (3) a methodology to compensate the victims identified by the United States utilizing 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 such that they would be placed in the same position as if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in Title IS, United States Code, § 2255; (4) entry of the guilty plea and sentence no later than October 26, 2007; and (5) the start of the above-mentioned sentence no later than January 4, 2008. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -6- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013379 EFTA00230284

Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office and the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit and "that the failure to'do so will be a breach of the agreement' (emphasis added). To this day, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to Epstein's lawyers. Within a week of the execution of the Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved," it was done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection of the attorney representative. As a result, the parties executed an addendum which documented the SDFL's right to assign the selection of an attorney representative to an independent third-party. A copy of the October 29,2007 Addendum is attached hereto as Tab E. The parties subsequently agreed that retired Federal District Court Judge Edward B. Davis should be that independent third-party/special master. Ultimately, Judge Davis selected Robert C. Josefsberg of the law firm of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, et at 10 During this same time frame, Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz sought to delay the entry of his guilty plea and sentence. After the SDFL accommodated his request (from October 26th to November 20th), Mr. Stan• began taking issue with the methodology of compensation, notification to the victims, and the issues that had been previously considered and rejected during negotiations, i.e., that the conduct does not require registration and the contemplated state and federal statutes have no applicability to the instant matter. In response to Mr. Stan's protests, the SDFL offered numerous and various reasonable modifications and amturunndatinna which ultimately resulted in U.S. Attorney Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to I I. See attached Tab F. In that letter, U.S. Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, § 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under § 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 10 Due to the subsequent objections raised by Epstein's counsel, Mr. Josefsberg was never given the opportunity to become the attorney representative. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -7- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013380 EFTA00230285

Mr. Starr also objected to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal: "[w]e will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes." These proposals were immediately rejected by Epstein in Mr. Lefkowitz's December 26, 2007 correspondence to USA Acosta. At our December 14, 2007 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, counsel for Epstein articulated that it was a "profound injustice" to require Epstein to register as a sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), had been committed since the statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading or inducing. This particular attack on this statute had been previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by the SDFL and CEOS prior to the execution of the Agreement. Epstein's lawyers also argued that the facts were inapplicable to the contemplated state statutes and that he should not have been allowed to have been induced into the Agreement because the facts were not what he understood them to be. To reiterate, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to anyone on the Epstein legal team. Once counsel for Epstein failed to persuade us that federal involvement was inappropriate, they mounted an aggressive campaign to defer federal prosecution. When we refused to compromise on anything except the length of incarceration, they finally executed the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Subsequent to the December 14, 2007 meeting, the SDFL received three letters from Mr. Lefkowitz and/or Mr. Starr which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 14°' meeting. Essentially, trying to portray the SDFL as trying to coerce a plea to unknown allegations and incoherent theories. In his December 17, 2007 correspondence, Mr. Lefkowitz decreed that Epstein's conduct did not meet the requirements of one of the state statutes Epstein agreed to plead guilty to - procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.03); that Epstein's conduct does not require registration under Florida law in contravention of the September 24th Agreement; and the State Attorney's Office does not believe the conduct is registrable. On December 21, 2007, Mr. Lefkowitz rejected the U.S. Attorney's proposed resolution of the 2255 provision because they "strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 U.S.C. Section[s] 2422(b) ... or ... 2423(b)." In his December 26, 2007 correspondence, he stated that "we have reiterated in previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is guilty of the federal charges enumerated under section 2255" and requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not commit the requisite offense." The SDFL reiterated time and time again that it had never wanted nor expected Epstein to plead guilty to a charge he did not believe he committed and repeatedly offered to dissolve the agreement to allow Epstein to contest the charges in the court system. As a result, the SDFL obliged his request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such a review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. As you know, on May 15, 2008, after months of considering the matter, the Criminal Division considered whether there is a legitimate basis for the Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -8- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013381 EFTA00230286

SDFL to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn concluded that "federal prosecution would not be improper or inappropriate."See attached May IS, 2008 letter from CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn to Jay Lefkowitz. On May 19, 2008,1 notified Mr. Lefkowitz that the SDFL would give Epstein a MI two weeks (close of business on Monday, June 2, 2008) to comply with the terms and conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez." Therefore, despite the fact that the investigation has identified several more victims, the SDFL is still offering Epstein the opportunity to comply with the terms and conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The SDFL was recently notified that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General has agreed to consider additional allegations not considered by CEOS which were recently raised in correspondence by two former high-ranking members of the Department of Justice - Ken Stan and Joe Whitley. On May 28,2008, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz by e-mail that the SDFL has postponed the June 2, 2008 deadline until the DAG's Office has completed its review of this matter. Their correspondence to the DAG alleges that the SDFL's investigation lacks integrity because it has leaked "highly confidential aspects" of the investigation and negotiations to the New York Times and that FAUSA Sloman directed some of the victims to my former law firm. They also claim that the "unprecedented extension of federal law" by the SDFL suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from seeking your Office's review and that "the unnecessary deadline is even more problematic because Mr. Epstein's effort to reconcile the state charge and sentence with the terms of the Agreement requires an unusual and unprecedented threatened application of federal law." I . The Alleged "Leak" to the New York Times. AUS became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the District's Public Information Officer (NO). While the District's PIO was on annual leave, he was the acting PIO during the first week of January 2008. The entirety of his conduct in connection with the Epstein matter began on January 2, 2008 and ended on January 7, 2008." Specifically, his contact involved five telephone conversation with Landon Thomas, a reporter for the New York Times. These conversations occurred on 1) the morning of January 2, 2008, 2) the afternoon of January 2, 2008, 3) the afternoon of January 3, 2008, 4) the afternoon of January 4, 2008, and 5) the afternoon of January 7, 2008. II Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on notice on February 25, 2008, that in the event that CEOS disagreed with Epstein's position, Epstein would have one week to comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the USA's December I9th letter to Ms. Sanchez. '2AUSA Weinstein has self-reported to the Office of Professional Responsibility. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -9- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013382 EFTA00230287

A. The Morning ofJanuary 2, 2008. AUSA Weinstein began his conversation with Mr. Thomas by explaining that he was the acting PIO for the week and that he had received Mr.Thomas's December 31, 2007 e-mail requesting an interview and asking for comments on the following five statements." First, "that in the summer of 2005 the palm beach lice de artment referred the Epstein case to you." Second, "that the case is being overseen by and above him, R. Alexander Acosta." Third, "that Mr. Acosta has made child pornography a focus are [sic] for your office." Fourth, "that this summer your office gave Mr. Epstein an ultimatum: plead guilty to a charge that would require him to register as a sex offender, or the government would release a 52 page indictment, charging him with crimes that could include procuring sex for a third party or engaging in sexual tourism. Both of these charges carry jail sentences of as much as 15 years." Fifth, "that your office told Mr. Epstein and his lawyers: we are ready to pull the trigger." Sixth, "I also wanted to ask Mr. Sloman about his role in a case involving Jonathan Zirulnikoff and his daughter earlier this year." At the outset, Weinstein said that he could not comment on any specific pending matters and that he would do his best to answer some of his questions. Thomas said that his questions were based, in part, upon conversations that he had already had with members of Mr. Epstein's defense team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information available through the State Court system. Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told him that any matter arising out of conduct in Palm Beach County, was prosecuted by our West Palm Beach branch office. He also told him that as First Assistant, the FAUSA had supervisory authority over all AUSAs throughout the District. In turn, the FAUSA answered directly to the U.S. Attorney. In response to the third question, Weinstein discussed the difference between child exploitation and child pornography. Weinstein said that federal crimes involving child exploitation were one of several focus points of our Office. le further explained that in addition to traditional federal areas of prosecution the other focus points included health care fraud and gang prosecutions. Weinstein refused to answer the fourth and fifth topics but did discuss the general nature of pre-trial proceedings in federal court. He said that the SDFL does not offer ultimatums, nor are we in the business of issuing ultimatums. He explained that in cases where a party wants to plead guilty prior to indictment, we will discuss the parameters of guilty pleas and that people always have the right to proceed to trial if they choose to do so and that we do not favor one resolution over the other. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that he would not discuss his specific question about Mr. Epstein's lawyer's statement that someone from our Office told them that "we are ready to pull the trigger." 13After reviewing his e-mail, AUSA Weinstein discussed the matter with U.S. Attorney Acosta. Pursuant to USAM 1-7.530 and the Media Relations Guide, Section 111 D2, after consultation with and prior approval from the US Attorney, he called Mr. Thomas on the morning of January 2nd. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -10- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013383 EFTA00230288

Nor would he discuss anything about who might or might not be representing Mr. Epstein. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that he should not allow himself to be spun one way or the other in response to statements Mr. Thomas said he had received from attorneys who said that they represented Mr. Epstein. Weinstein ended the conversation by telling Mr. Thomas that he would check further into his sixth and final topic and get back to him later in the day. B. Afternoon ofJanuary 2, 2008. Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that in regard to his sixth topic, the SDFL had no reason to question FAUSA Sloman's judgment or integrity. He also said that this particular subject matter was a private matter that FAUSA Sloman did not want to discuss with him." Mr. Thomas told him that if he had any further questions, he would call back. C. Afternoon ofJanuary 3, 2008. This call was in response to a voice mail message that Mr. Thomas had left regarding legal issues involving specific state and federal statutes. Specifically, Mr. Thomas had some questions about the burden of proof and strict liability in some state and federal statutes that governed illegal sexual activity. Again, Weinstein told him that he would not discuss any specific cases, but that he would assist him in understanding the statutes about which he had some questions. Weinstein explained that some statutes contained defenses that must be proven by a defendant, while there were other statutes that did not require a defendant to affirmatively prove a defense. The discussion centered around Title 18, United States Code, § 2423(g). Once again, Mr. Thomas told Weinstein that if he had any further questions, he would call back. D. Afternoon ofJanuary 4, 2008. This was another call in response to a voice mail message that Mr. Thomas had left regarding some additional questions. Weinstein prefaced the conversation by saying that he would not discuss any specific cases. The conversation centered around three specific statutes, 18 United States Code, § 2422(b), 18 United States Code, § 1591, and 18 United States Code, § 2423(b) as well as the " The case involving "Jonathan Zirulnikoff" involved a March 7, 2007 early morning attempted break-in of my/Sloman's house. Zirulnikoff, age 19 at the time, confessed and said that he wanted to "talk" to my daughter who was then 16. He also confessed to a prior unrelated break in which Zirulnikoff caressed the inner thigh of a 15 year old female. Zirulnikoff who had graduated from my daughter's high school in June 2006, dated my daughter's friend and had little if any contact with my daughter for over one year. Zirulnikoff negotiated a plea deal, over my objection, with the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office to a misdemeanor trespass. That conviction resulted in a sentence of two years probation and a withhold of adjudication upon successful completion of his probationary period. Since this information was completely irrelevant to the facts and issues in the instant Epstein matter, I refused to allow Mr. Weinstein to comment about this matter to Mr. Thomas. Furthermore, none of this information had been publicized and, upon information and bclief. only one member of Epstein's legal team knew anything about this matter, my former colleague, I Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -11- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013384 EFTA00230289

burden of proof and the applicability of affirmative defenses. They discussed the difference between an attempt and a substantive charge pursuant to § 2422(b) and how that affected the government's burden of proof vis-a-vis the age of a child. They also discussed the fact that a charge pursuant to § 1591 required the government to prove that the defendant had actual knowledge of the age of the victim. Finally, they discussed the fact that if the government was charging a defendant with traveling to engage in prostitution, pursuant to § 2423(6), there was an affirmative defense available to the defendant regarding the reasonable belief of the defendant about the age of the victim. E. Afternoon of January 7, 2008. This final call was made after the U.S. Attorney and FAUSA Sloman had received a call from a member of Mr. Epstein's defense team alleging that the SDFL had provided case specific information to the media. Weinstein called Mr. Thomas who acknowledged that both before and after each of the above-mentioned conversations, he had also called attorneys who were representing Mr. Epstein on his pending State charges. Mr. Thomas also acknowledged that all of our prior conversations had been about general legal issues and that Weinstein never spoke about any specific case. Since the January 7, 2008 conversation, Weinstein has not had any further contact with Mr. Thomas. 2. Herman Sloman & Mermelstein (May 5, 2001- October 1, 2001). Seven years ago, I resigned from the SDFL for private practice. Less than five months later, I resigned from the law firm and returned to the SDFL. Public records reflect the following: on May 8, 2001, articles of amendment were filed with the Florida Division of Corporations to reflect that the firm name of "Herman & Mermelstein" was changed to "Herman Sloman & Mermelstein" on May 7, 2001. 1 joined the firm at that time and remained a non-equity partner until on or about October 1, 2001. At that time, I resigned from the firm and returned to the SDFL. Since I never had an equity interest in the firm, I never retained an interest in the firm. That was over six and one half years ago. Unbeknownst to FAUSA Sloman, on July 2, 2002, articles of amendment were filed with the Florida Division of Corporations to reflect that the firm name of "Herman Sloman & Mermelstein" was changed back to "Herman & Mermelstein." The article of amendment indicates the amendment was adopted on July 1, 2002, without shareholder action. Although the filing was not immediate upon my departure from the law firm, it pre-dated for years any dealings with the subject case now under consideration by the SDFL. Recently, I learned that there is a reference to the law firm of "Herman Sluman & Mermelstein" on the Florida Bar website, under a section called "Find A Lawyer." This reference appears when Stuart Mennelstein's name and information is accessed. To reiterate, since October 2001, I have had no relationship with that law firm, financial or otherwise, and no input or control over the firm's filings with the Florida Division of Corporations and/or the Florida Bar. On Friday, January 18, 2008, at approximately 1:15 pm, I received a call from Jeffrey Herman of Herman & Mermelstein. Herman said that he was planning to file a civil lawsuit the next Confidential end Privileged —Attorney Work Product -12- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013385 EFTA00230290

week against Jeffrey Epstein. He said that his clients were frustrated with the lack of progress of the state's investigation and wanted to know whether the SDFL could file criminal charges even though the state was looking into the matter. i told Herman that I would not answer any question related to Epstein — hypothetical or otherwise. i asked him how his clients retained him and he said that it was through another lawyer. I then specifically asked him whether the referral was the result of anyone in law enforcement contacting him and/or the other lawyer. He said "no." At the conclusion of the conversation, I reiterated and confirmed with him that I had refused to answer any questions he asked of me. I immediately documented this conversation and informed the U.S. Attorney who informed Senior Litigation Counsel and Ethics Advisor Dexter Lee. AUSA Lee opined that he did not see a conflict. As soon as I -became aware of these allegations, I reported myself to the Office of Professional Regulation on or about April 21, 2008. 3. The Alleged Unprecedented Extension of Federal Law and the Allegations of Political Motivation for the Prosecution. it is my hope that this letter has sufficiently explained how thoroughly this matter has been reviewed, how seriously the issues have been considered, and how additional delays may adversely affect the case going forward and, more importantly, the victims. I have attached the proposed draft indictment for you to consider the nature and gravity of the crimes. See Tab G. You are invited to evaluate whether i, along with U.S. Attorney Acosta, Criminal Division Chiefs Menchel and, later Robert Senior, Deputy Criminal Division Chiefs followed by Rolando Garcia, and AUSA Villafalla have somehow steered this investigation toward "an unprecedented extension of federal law"despite being simultaneously and/or subsequently reviewed by CEOS, DAAG Mandelker, and AAG Fisher. i also hope that the reputations of the above-mentioned professional prosecutors combined with the documented layers of methodical and thorough review of all issues raised by Epstein are enough to summarily dismiss the idea that this matter is politically motivated. it seems incomprehensible how Messrs. Starr and Whitley could expect further review when the due process rights of their client have been considered and reconsidered to the point of absurdity. With respect to the other allegations of misconduct leveled against investigators and prosecutors, similarly false allegations were made against the local police detective who first investigated the case. Those false allegations apparently were accepted as true and were not investigated or challenged by the State Attorney's Office and, when coupled with the immense pressure brought to bear upon the State Attorney by some of these same lawyers who represent Epstein today, resulted in a single felony charge related to only two of the more than 20 victims identified in the state investigation. Contrary to the claims of Epstein's attorneys, the SDFL is not trying to prosecute Epstein more harshly because of his political friends or his financial status; rather, the SDFL is attempting to follow Department policy by treating Epstein like all other criminal defendants — charging him with the most serious readily provable offenses. The SDFL has even continued to allow Epstein the opportunity to perform his obligations under the Non-Prosecution Agreement despite his numerous breaches of and attacks on the terms to which he already agreed. Without attempting to address each and every allegation, i would like to highlight some of the misstatements contained in counsels' letter, to provide some sense of counsels' conduct Confidential and Privileged - Attorney Work Product -13- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013386 EFTA00230291

throughout this case, particularly after their attempts at legal persuasion failed. Throughout the case, counsel have misrepresented the facts of the case to our Office, CEOS, and the press. For example, Epstein's counsel reference to this case as "precedent-shattering," suggests that all of the victims were at least 16 years old, and that the conduct "was purely local in nature." The SDFL has prosecuted several "sex tourism" cases where the "john" communicated via telephone with an undercover "pimp" in the SDFL to meet minor females to engage in prostitution. All were charged and convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1591. The SDFL has charged and convicted a 21-year-old man of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423 when he traveled to Florida to meet his 14-year-old girlfriend and later digitally penetrated her. The SDFL has prosecuted numerous violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 where the "facility of interstate commerce" — generally the Internet and telephones — are used by a defendant and an undercover pretending to be the parent of a minor, to arrange for a meeting that the defendant hopes will result in sexual activity. There is nothing extraordinary about Epstein's case except the large number of victims involved. Epstein's counsel neglected to inform you that the age range of the victims includes girls as young as 14, and glosses over the fact that Epstein did not simply engage in "solo self-pleasuring" in front of the victims. instead, with each visit, he pressured the victims to allow him to engage in more and more sexual activity — fondling breasts and vaginas, digital penetration, use of a vibrator on their vaginas, performing oral sex on them, having them perform oral sex on his adult girlfriend, and engaging in sexual intercourse. Counsel also neglected to inform you that many girls did affirmatively tell Epstein their true ages and he told several that he "did not care about age." Epstein's conduct was not "purely local." He and his assistants called and sent text messages to victims in Palm Beach County from other states to arrange "appointments" for his upcoming visits to Palm Beach. And, while in Palm Beach, Epstein and his assistants called victims in New York to arrange "appointments" for his return to New York. Epstein wired money to some victims and sent gifts through the mails. This case falls squarely within federal jurisdiction. Epstein also falsely claims that certain facts related to the resolution of the case were hidden and later discovered by his lawyers. For example, they complain about the proposed use of a guardian ad litem, stating that "Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these individuals were adults, not minors." It was AUSA Villafafia who told Epstein's counsel that all of the victims but one had already reached the age of majority, which was one reason why the guardian ad litem procedure proposed by Epstein's counsel would not work. Likewise, AUSA Villafafta disclosed to Epstein's counsel that one of the five attorney-representatives that she recommended for consideration by Epstein's counsel was a "good friend" of a "good friend." Despite the disclosure of this relationship, Epstein's counsel selected that person, before the SDFL, on its own, decided to use an independent Special Master to make the selection. Epstein's counsel states that the "USAO eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of any of the claims that these women might make," but neglects to disclose that the SDFL made that statement at Epstein's request to avoid the suggestion that the SDFL was involving itself in the outcome of civil litigation. Confidential and Privileged —Attorney Work Product -14- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013387 EFTA00230292

Epstein's counsel have repeatedly attacked the SDFL and the FBI for classifying the victims as "victims." As you know, all Justice Department employees have the obligation to identify victims and to notify them of their rights. "Victims" are defined by law, not by self-selection. The girls whom have been identified by the FBI and the SDFL fall within the legal definition — they were all minors who engaged in illicit sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein, at his request, in exchange for money. From interviewing them, the FBI Special Agents, the FBI Victim-Witness Coordinator, and AUSA all feel confident that they suffered harm, in a multitude of ways, by their interaction with Epstein. Finally, in contrast to Epstein's counsel allegation that my June 2, 2008 deadline was "arbitrary, unfair, and unprecedented," please consider that Mr. Lefkowitz has known since February that in the event that CEOS disagreed with his position, Epstein would be given one-week to comply with the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Subsequent to the receipt of CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn's May 15,2008 letter, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz that Epstein would have a full two-weeks to comply with the Non-Prosecution Agreement as modified by the December 10 letter to Ms. Sanchez. We believe it is finally time to shift the focus from Epstein's due process rights to treating him like all other similarly situated criminal defendants and perhaps, most importantly, to consider the rights of his victims. Continued delays adversely effect the case and the victims in the following ways: (1) at the time of the offenses, the victims ranged in age from 14 to 17 years old. The change in physical appearance of many of the victims since then has been dramatic. Epstein has been claiming that he did not know they were minors. Obviously, the older they look when the case is at issue, the harder it will be to overcome that defense; (2) it allows Epstein's lawyers to conduct depositions of the victims in the pending state criminal case and allows his private investigators to further harass and intimidate the victims; (3) more victims will seek the services of civil lawyers to file lawsuits thus allowing Epstein to make more powerful arguments demeaning the credibility of the victims; (4) the prosecutors and agents may retire, transfer and/or leave the Department for other opportunities thus affecting the potential outcome and prosecutorial resources. Additionally, several of the victims have relocated thus increasing the likelihood that crucial witnesses will be lost; (5) the SDFL has afforded more consideration to Epstein's arguments than any other defendant in my years of being the FAUSA and, before that, the Chief of the Criminal Division (January 1, 2004 to the present). I believe that we have been disproportionally fair to Epstein at the expense of other matters; and (6) prolonged delay may adversely affect the statute of limitations for some of the victims. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product "' 1 5- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013388 EFTA00230293

On behalf of the SDFL and the victims in this case, please expedite the review and decision of the issues under consideration. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney Ends. By: Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant United States Attorney cc: Chief Criminal Division A. Assistant U.S. Attorney Assistant U.S. Attorney Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product - 16- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013389 EFTA00230294

CONFIDENTIAL PLEA NEGOTIATIONS TERMS OF EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT ■ Epstein pleads guilty (not nolo contendere) to an Information filed by the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office charging him with: (a) lewd and lascivious battery on a child, in violation of Fl. Stat. 800.04(4); (b) solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. 796.03; and (c) engaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of age, in violation of Ft. Stat. 794.05. ■ Epstein and the State Attorney's Office make a joint, binding recommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing; and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment. ■ Epstein agrees to waive all challenges to the information filed by the State and the right to appeal. ■ Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject matter. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s) 2422 and/or 2423. ■ After Epstein enters his state court plea and is sentenced, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office will close their investigations. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013390 EFTA00230295

FOWLERWHITE BURNETT PAAMI • FORT LAUDERDALE • WEST PALM BEACH • Si. PCIERSBUNG August 2, 2007 Mr. Chief, Criminal Division United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4 Street Miami, Florida 33132 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Matt ESPRIT° SANTO PIAZA FOURTEEMIR FLOOR I 395 BPICSEU.AvENUE Kum. FLOIROA 33 I 31 TELEPHONE 1305) 789-9200 FACSIMILE 1305) 7899201 v"We.F0vitER•voirtE.E.Om DIRECT PHONE No.: 1305) 7699279 DIRECT FACSPAILE No.: 1305) 728-7570 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 arc 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. Ile 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. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013391 EFTA00230296

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 948.00 I (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: IS 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 fully hind the identified poop 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. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013392 EFTA00230297

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 R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney, to further discuss this matter. Sincerely, cc. R. Alexander Acosta Gerald Lefcourt Roy Black FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013393 EFTA00230298

Page I of I EPSTEIN EYES SEX-RAP RELIEF IC= US Business- Bundle-A-Day G I VEAWAY Enter daily 1n win an intretfible prize package f tr your office, ofitatriSvinit Valued at M (......., - , ore than Hgme October 9, 2007 -- LAWYERS for Jeffrey Epstein - the billionaire Manhattan investment manager who's agreed to plead guilty to soliciting underage prostitutes at his Palm Beach mansion in exchange for just 18 months in the stammer - are mulling asking federal prosecutors to drop their demand that he register as a sex offender. In a letter drafted, but not sent, to U.S. Attorney Alexander Costa and obtained by Page Six, Epstein's lawyer. Gerald Lefcourt, writes, "Doing so will have a profound impact [on Epstein] both immediately and forever after. Not only witl he be restricted to a wholly inappropriate penal facility, but he will be required for the rest of his life to account for his whereabouts." Epstein, a former business partner of Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman, pleaded guilty to a state charge in exchange for the feds' dropping their probe into possible federal criminal violations. lefcourt argues that only the feds have demanded that Epstein register, "despite the fact that the state was of the view that Mr. Epstein's conduct did not warrant registration." A rep for Epstein had no comment. NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM. NYPOSTONLINE.COM. and NEWYORKPOST.COM are trademarks of NYP I told figs. Inc Copyright 2008 NYP Hoklings, Inc. All nghts reserved http://www.nypost.com/php/pfrietntStphrfibt“ffixftlimst.com/scvenn 009200... 6/3/7ffl 3394 EFTA00230299

IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN / NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstcin's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: (1) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(1), with minor females; in violation Page 1 of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013395 EFTA00230300

of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(6); and (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(eX1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(I) and 2; and IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney's Office; IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the Defendant will be served by the following procedure; THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages I and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. Page 2 of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013396 EFTA00230301

Terms of the Agreement: I. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to the Indictment as currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB) charging one (I) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Ft. Stat. § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03; 2. Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: (a) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment; and (b) Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Term 2(a), supra. 3. This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which arc set forth in this agreement. 4. The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or incarceration. 5. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph (2), supra. 6. Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all Page 3 of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013397 EFTA00230302

proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements. 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. 11. Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be Page 4 of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013398 EFTA00230303

sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008. 12. Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. 13. The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement. In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal c es against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to or i Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. Page 5 of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013399 EFTA00230304

By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all federal offenses. By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as to any such offense. //I //I //I Page 6 of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013400 EFTA00230305

By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: / Dated: Dated: A. AS U.S. ATTORNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN ESQ. NITORNEYTOR-JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013401 EFTA00230306

By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non. Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: A. ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Dated: Dated: ilL ttl 07 Dated: ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013402 EFTA00230307

By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: Dated: Dated:q-Ay-- 07— Arillille MiliC AS US. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN GERALD LEXCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page lot 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013403 EFTA00230308

IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN I ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"), that agreement is modified as fol lows: 7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. if the United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. 713. The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra. 7C. Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the foes and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the rods of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained ins 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall cease. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013404 EFTA00230309

By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein, hereby, states that he understands the clarifications to the Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. It ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: /O/.30 /O7 Dated: 1i 2 , lei- Dated: Dated: GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN ESQ. Al WILN,bY FOR Jbll, l STEIN eYEP Case No. 0840736-CV-MARRA P-0I3405 EFTA00230310

By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: 40/07 Dated: Dated: By: JEFFREY EPSTEIN RALD LUC° RT ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFR Y EPSTEIN , ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013406 EFTA00230311

••••••••4 By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. Dated: /O /3 0/017 Dated: Dated: Dated: 1,(k_11 -3"" R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY A ANCHEZ, ESQ: ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013407 EFTA00230312

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida R ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DELIVERY IlY FACSIMILE Fowler White Burnett, PA 1395 Brickell Ave, 14th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. Sanchez: 99 Pi E 4 Styli Sham FL HI 12 (105) 961.9100 Telephone 0051 30-6444 • Form,* December 19, 2007 write to follow up on the December I4th meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.I I write to you because I am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this letter. I address issues raised by several members of the defense team, and would thus ask that you please provide a copy of this letter to all appropriate defense team members. First, I would like to address the Section 2255 issue! As I stated in my December 4th letter, my understanding is that the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections I Over the past two weeks, we have received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits from defense counsel. This is not the forum to respond to the several items raised, and our silence should not be interpret as agreement; I would, however, like to address one issue. Your December I I1 letter states.that as a result of defense counsel objections to the appointment process, the USA() proposed an addendum to the Agreement to provide for the use of an independent third party selector. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowledge of defense counsel objections, I suo :porde proposed the Addendum to Mr. Le0cowitz at an October meeting in Palm Beach. I did this in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process. It was only eller I proposed this change that Mr. Lelkowitz raised with me his enumerated concerns. 2 Section 2255 provides that: "(ajny person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of 'enumerated sections of Title I8) and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation . . . may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the sun. including a reasonable attorney's fee." Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013408 EFTA00230313

of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (1 ) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable" state offense; (2) that this state plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. With this in mind, I have considered defense counsel arguments regarding the Section 2255 portions of the Agreement. As I previously observed, our intent has been to place the victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. From our meeting, it appears that the defense agrees that this was the intent. During the course of negotiations that intent was reduced to writing in Paragraphs 7 and 8, which as I wrote previously, appear far from simple to understand. I would thus propose that we solve our disagreements over interpretations by saying precisely what we mean, in a simple fashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 and 8 with the following language: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Second, I would like to address the issue of victim's rights pursuant to Section 3771. 1 understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense as a courtesy. In addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes. Third, I would like to address the issue raisedregarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At our meeting, Professor Dershowitz took the position that Mr. Epstein believes that his conduct does not satisfy the elements of this offense. His assertion raises for me substantial concerns. This Office will not, and cannot, be a party to an agreement in which Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to an offense that he believes he did not commit. We are considering how best to proceed. 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013409 EFTA00230314

Finally, I would like to address a more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on September 24ih, 2007. Pursuant to paragraph I I, Mr. Epstein was to use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced no later than October 26, 2007. As outlined in correspondence between our prosecutors and defense counsel, this deadline came and went. Our prosecutors reiterated to defense counsel several times their concerns regarding delays, and in fact, asked me several weeks ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. 1 resisted that invitation. 1 share this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an I I'" hour appeal, weeks before the now scheduled January 4th plea date. This said, the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns. We hope to preserve the January 4th date. I understand that defense counsel shares our desire not to move that appearance and will work with our office to expedite this process over the next several days. With this in mind, and in the event that defense counsel may wish to seek review of our determinations in Washington D.C., I spoke this past Monday with the Assistant Attorney General Fisher, to inform her of a possible appeal, to ask her to grant the potential request for review, and to in fact review this case in an expedited manner to attempt to preserve the January 4th plea date. I want to again reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial, and he should do so if he believes that he did not commit the elements of the charged offense. I will respond to the pending issues shortly. In the interim, I would ask that you communicate your position with respect to the sections 2255 and 337 I issues as quickly as possible. Sincerely, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY mom cc: Assistant Attorney General First Assistant U.S. Attorney AUSA A. 3 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013410 EFTA00230315

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No: 18 U.S.C. § 371 18 U.S.C. § 1591(aX1) 18 U.S.C. § 1591(aX2) 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e) 18 U.S.C. § 2423(d) 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) UNITED STATES RAMERICA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. JNDICTMENT The Grand Jury charges that: BACKGROUND At all times relevant to this Indictment: 1. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN employed defendants a/lc/a " and o perform, among other things, services as personal assistants. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013411 EFTA00230316

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No: 18 U.S.C. § 371 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(I) 18 U.S.C. § 1591(aX2) 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e) 18 U.S.C. § 2423(d) 18 U.S.C. § 2423(6) UNITED STATES CRAMERICA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a an , Defendants. A INDICTMENT The Grand Jury charges that: BACKGROUND At all times relevant to this Indictment: I. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN employed defendants " and o perform, among other things, services as personal assistants. T Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013412 EFTA00230317

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida First Assistant U.S. Attorney 99 N.E. Ith Street Montt FL 33132 (303) 961.9100 DELIVERY BY FEDERAL EXPRESS June 3, 2008 Honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Judge Filip, Jeffrey Epstein was a part-time resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.' In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that, over a two-year period, Epstein paid approximately 28 minor females from Royal Palm Beach High Sc 1 to come to his house for sexual favors.2 In July 2006, the matter was presented to AUSA A. f our West Palm Beach branch office to pursue a formal criminal investigation. That investigation resulted in the discovery of approximately one dozen additional minor victims. Over the last several months, approximately six more minor victims have been identified. AUSA was been ready to present an indictment to a West Palm Beach federal grand jury since May 2007. The prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment have been extensively reviewed and re-reviewed by Southern District of Florida (SDFL) Deputy Chief of the Criminal I Epstein has not resided in Palm Beach since he learned of the instant investigation. 2 Epstein's sexual conduct with the victims included: instructing them to massage and pinch his nipples, masturbating in their presence, digitally penetrating them, using a vibrator on their vaginas, engaging in oral sex with them, having the victims perform oral sex on Epstein's adult girlfriend, and engaging in sexual intercourse, all in exchange for money, ranging from $200 to $1,000 per session. Confidential and Privileged —Attorney Work Product Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013413 EFTA00230318

Division , Chief of the Criminal Division Matthew MencheP, First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman, United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various members of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) at the Department of Justice including, but not limited to its Chief, . Many of these legal and factual issues have been discussed and approved by Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (DAAG) Sigal Mandelker and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (AAG) Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the petit policy. By May 2007, AUSA be an "kin approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was . Mr. M I had served as the Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ as well as in several supervisory positions in the SDFL. By mid- 2006, he had returned to his position as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division in West Palm Beach (head of the West Palm Beach branch office), after serving as the interim Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ at the request of AAG Fisher. By October 2007, Mr... would leave the SDFL to become AAG Fisher's Chief of Staff.' Above Mr. ME in the SDFL's chain of command were-, Criminal Division Chief, First Assistant USA Sloman and finally, U.S. Attorney Acosta. Prior to seeking approval to return an indictment, Epstein's legal team had been actively working to convince this Office that such action was not warranted. For example, at the end of 2006, former SDFL U.S. Attorney and EOUSA Executive Director Guy Lewis contacted former colleagues AUSA and, later Deputy Criminal Chief/IN, when he learned that they were handling or involved in supervising the federal investigation of Epstein. In December, former SDFL AUSA and court also contacted AUSA Villafaita to set a meeting. In advance of that meeting, AUSA requested documents but that request was refused. Ms. Sanchez then contacted AUSA , who agreed to meet with Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Lefcourt. On February 1, 2007, Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Lefcourt met with AUSAs and I= as well as a member of the FBI, and presented defense counsel's view of the case and promised a willingness to assist in the investigation. The SDFL was unpersuaded by their presentation and the investigation continued. By the late Spring and early Summer, the focus of the investigation shifted from investigating the facts of the victims' claims to Epstein's background, his asserted defenses, co-conspirators, and possible witnesses who could corroborate the victims' statements. The investigation also began to look into fmancial aspects of the case, requiring the issuance of several subpoenas. At the time, Mr. Lefcourt began leveling accusations of improprieties with the investigation and sought a meeting 3Mr. Menchel resigned for private practice on August 3, 2007 and was replaced by Robert Senior. 'Although I, Jeffrey H. Sloman, am writing this letter, I will continue to refer to myself as "First Assistant USA Sloman" or "FAUSA Sloman" to help reduce any confusion. 'Rolando Garcia replaced Mr. as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -2- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013414 EFTA00230319

with Criminal Division Chief B that time, the proposed initial indictment package had been reviewed and approv by Mr. in West Palm Beach and by attorneys with CEOS; however, it awaited review by Mr. Menc e and FAUSA Sloman. The SDFL deferred presenting the indictment to the grand jury to accommodate the Epstein legal team's request for a meeting. We also agreed to wait several weeks for that meeting to occur to allow four of Epstein's attorneys to be present and also provided counsel with a list of the statutes that were the subject of the investigation. On June 26, 2007, Mr. Menchel, Mr. AUSA ME, and FAUSA Sloman, and two that meeting, Professor Dershowitz and other members of the defenselleTal l att legal and FBI agents met with Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and . During factual arguments against a federal indictment. Counsel for the defense also requested the opportunity to present written arguments, which was granted. The arguments and written materials provided by the defense were examined by the SDFL and rejected. On July 31, 2007, Mr. Menchel, Mr. AUSA and FAUSA Sloman, and two FBI agents met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and . On that date, the SDFL presented a written sheet of terms that would satisfy the SDFL's federal interest in the case and discussed the substance of those terms. See Tab A. One of those terms was: Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject matter. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, §§ 2422 and/or 2423. During that meeting, the focus was on Mr. Epstein's unwillingness to spend time in prison, and various suggestions were raised by defense counsel, including the proposal that he could serve a sentence of home confinement or probation. This was repeatedly mentioned by counsel for Epstein as being equivalent to a term of imprisonment in a state or federal prison. Epstein's counsel mentioned their concerns about his safety in prison, and the SDFL offered to explore a plea to a federal charge to allow Epstein to serve his time in a federal facility. Counsel were also presented with a conservative estimate of the sentence that Epstein would face if he were convicted: an advisory guideline range of 188 - 235 months' incarceration with a five-year mandatory minimum prison term, to be followed by lifetime supervised release. Counsel was told that Epstein had two weeks to accept or reject the proposal. It is critical to note that Ms. Sanchez, one of Epstein's local lawyers, seized upon this method of restitution as a condition of deferring federal prosecution. In referring to the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 method of compensation, Ms. Sanchez stated: [t]his 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 Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -3- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013415 EFTA00230320

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. See attached Tab B, August 2, 2007 letter frorrIMMat to SDFL Criminal Division Chief Menchel, p.2, fn 1. Ironically, it is Epstein's "national" attorneys who are now representing to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States in their May 19, 2008 letter that: Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition of deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved. Not only did Epstein's lawyers like the idea of using 18 U.S.C. § 2255 to compensate the victims but, they also sought to make their non-incarcerative state proposal even more attractive by offering payments to "a charitable organization benefitting victims of sexual assault," "law enforcement investigative costs" and "Court and probationary costs." Id. at p. 2. Epstein's counsel, still dissatisfied with the Office's review of the case, demanded to meet with U.S. Attorney Acosta and to have the opportunity to meet with someone in Washington, D.C. To accommodate Roy Black, the meeting was put off until September 7, 2007, despite the fact that the indictment was ready for presentation to the grand jury. In the interim, AUSA V illafafla and the investigators met with CEOS Chief Oosterbahn, to review, yet again, the evidence and legal theories of prosecution. Chief Oosterbahn strongly supported the proposed indictment and even offered to join the trial team and provide additional support from CEOS. On September 7, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta met with Kirkland & Ellis partners Jay Lefkowitz and former Solicitor General Ken Starr and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief Oosterbahn and AUSAs Villafafla, John McMillan, and FAUSA S lomat' Messrs. Starr and Lefkowitz presented arguments regarding the sufficiency of the federal interest in the case and other legal and factual issues. We discussed those legal arguments and the unanimous opinion of all of the attorneys present was in favor of prosecution. During that meeting, Mr. Lefkowitz also offered a plea resolution. His offer, in essence, was that Epstein be subjected to home confinement at his Palm Beach home, using private security officers who would serve as his "wardens," if nrrecsary. Mr. Lefkowitz expressed the belief that such a sentence would be particularly appropriate because, as a wealthy white man, he may be the subject of violence or extortion in prison. Finally, Messrs. Starr and Lefkowitz expressed the belief that Epstein's extensive philanthropy should be considered in our prosecution decision. U.S. Attorney Acosta summarily rejected these proposals, and indicated that the 24-month offer presented previously by the SDFL stood. 'Roy Black did not attend. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -4- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013416 EFTA00230321

The issue of the inclusion of a restitution-type remedy for the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 was specifically raised and discussed at the September 7th meeting, and Mr. Starr thanked AUSA Villafafia for bringing it to his attention as a novel approach to allowing the victims to receive essentially federal restitution while allowing a plea to a state charge. After considering everything said and written by Epstein's legal team, and after conferring with Chief Oosterbahn, U.S. Attorney Acosta informed Epstein's counsel that the SDFL still intended to proceed to indictment. Since counsel indicated a desire to appeal the matter to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Acosta agreed to delay the presentation of the indictment for two weeks to allow them to speak with someone in Washington, D.C., if they so chose. Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiate the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and on September 12, 2007, counsel for the SDFL (AUSAs , Garcia, and MEW and counsel for Epstein (Messrs. Lefcourt, Lefkowitz, and Goldberger) met with Palm Beach County State Attorney Bany ICrisher and Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek to discuss a plea to an Information in the state court that would satisfy the federal interest in the case. As noted on the term sheet of July 31 '1 (Tab A), one of those essential terms was a guilty plea to a charge requiring sex offender registration. During that meeting, the issue of sex offender registration was raised, and Mr. Goldberger told the federal prosecutors that there was no problem, Mr. Epstein would plead guilty to the charge of procurement of minors for prostitution (Fl. Stat. 796.03), which was one of the statutes listed on the original term sheet. Although the SDFL had wanted Epstein to plead guilty to three different offenses, we agreed to this compromise.' Of course, the SDFL later learned that, at the time Mr. Goldberger made that statement, he incorrectly believed, based upon a statement from ASA Belohlavek, that Fl. Stat. § 796.03 did not require sex offender registration. The parties then began working first on a plea agreement to a federal charge and, when it was clear that there was no guarantee that Epstein would serve his sentence in a minimum security prison camp, the discussion turned to a Non-Prosecution Agreement. Both the federal plea agreement and the Non-Prosecution Agreement included references to § 2255 because neither the contemplated federal charges nor the proposed state charges encompassed all of the identified victims. If Epstein had been prosecuted under the planned indictment, the identified victims would have been eligible for restitution and damages under § 2255. As explained above, one of our interests, which had to be satisfied by the Non-Prosecution Agreement, was providing appropriate compensation to the victims. This provision of the Agreement was heavily negotiated. As Mr. Lefkowitz wrote in his November 29th e-mail to FAUSA Sloman, Epstein "offered to provide a restitution fund for the alleged victims in this matter; however, that option was rejected by [our] Office." That option was rejected for several reasons. First, the SDFL does not serve as legal representatives to the victims and has no authority to bind victims, nor could it provide a monetary figure that would represent a "loss" amount for restitution purposes. Second, there would be no legal basis for federal restitution without 7 Another significant compromise reached at the meeting was a reduction in the amount of jail time - from 24 months down to 18 months, which would be served at the Palm Beach County Jail rather than a state prison facility. Confidential end Privileged — Attorney Work Product -5- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013417 EFTA00230322

a conviction for a federal offense. And, third, it was the U.S. Attorney's belief that the SDFL should not be put in the position of administering a restitution fund. Our § 2255 proposal put the victims in the same position that they would have been in if we had proceeded to trial and convicted Epstein of his crimes, with the exception that the victims were provided with counsel. The appointment of counsel was not such a benefit to the victims but, rather, was done, in part, to benefit Epstein by allowing him to try to privately negotiate a group resolution of all claims with one attorney. Epstein and his lawyers agreed with this alternative. The negotiation of the Agreement was lengthy and difficult. Mr. Lefkowitz and AUSA went through several drafts of both a federal plea agreement and a Non-Prosecution Agreement. Throughout these negotiations, when a member of the defense team was dissatisfied with the SDFL's position, it was repeatedly appealed throughout the Office. So several members of the defense team spoke with the chain of command regarding the terms of the Agreement, including the § 2255 provisions. At the eleventh hour, when Epstein's legal team realized that Fl. Stat. 796.03 would require him to register as a sex offender, they sought to change the most essential term of the agreement - a term that Messrs. Goldberger, Lefkowitz, and Lefcourt had specifically agreed to at the September 121k meeting with the State Attorney's Office - asking to allow Epstein to plead to a charge that would not require registration. When this was rejected, several members of the defense team appealed directly to U.S. Attorney Acosta which also failed. When that failed, according to press reports, apparently Mr. Lefcourt "leaked" a letter intended for the U.S. Attorney to the press containing the reasons why he/Lefcourt did not believe Epstein should have to register. See October 9, 2007 New York Post article attached at Tab C. Prior to signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein's defense team included Ken Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, , Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Guy Lewis, Martin Weinberg, Jack Goldberger, Stephanie Thacker", and the associates at Kirkland & Ellis who conducted research on discrete issues. This impressive legal team reviewed the Agreement and counseled Epstein. Based upon that counsel, Epstein decided that it was in his best interest to execute the Non-Prosecution Agreement which was signed on September 24, 2007 by Mr. Lefcourt, Ms. Sanchez and Epstein. A copy of which is attached hereto as Tab D. The core principles of the Agreement are incarceration, registration as a sex offender and a method of compensation.' Furthermore, and significantly, Epstein agreed that he had the burden of ensuring compliance of the 'Ms. Thacker had recently resigned from CEOS as a Trial Attorney and entered private practice. 9 Specifically, the Agreement mandates, inter alia, (I) a guilty plea in Palm Beach County Circuit Court to solicitation of prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.07) and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.03) (an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender); (2) a 30- month sentence including 18 months' incarceration in county jail; (3) a methodology to compensate the victims identified by the United States utilizing 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 such that they would be placed in the same position as if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in Title 18, United States Code, § 2255; (4) entry of the guilty plea and sentence no later than October 26, 2007; and (5) the start of the above-mentioned sentence no later than January 4, 2008. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -6- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013418 EFTA00230323

Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office and the Judge of the 15" Judicial Circuit and "that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement' (emphasis added). To this day, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to Epstein's lawyers. Within a week of the execution of the Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved," it was done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection of the attorney representative. As a result, the parties executed an addendum which documented the SDFL's right to assign the selection of an attorney representative to an independent third-party. A copy of the October 29, 2007 Addendum is attached hereto as Tab E. The parties subsequently agreed that retired Federal District Court Judge Edward B. Davis should be that independent third-party/special master. Ultimately, Judge Davis selected Robert C. Josefsberg of the law firm of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, et at 10 During this same time frame, Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz sought to delay the entry of his guilty plea and sentence. After the SDFL accommodated his request (from October 26th to November 20th), Mr. Starr began taking issue with the methodology of compensation, notification to the victims, and the issues that had been previously considered and rejected during negotiations, i. e. , that the conduct does not require registration and the contemplated state and federal statutes have no applicability to the instant matter. In response to Mr. Stares protests, the SDFL offered numerous and various reasonable modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in U.S. Attorney Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to . See attached Tab F. In that letter, U.S. Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, § 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under § 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." I° Due to the subsequent objections raised by Epstein's counsel, Mr. Josefsberg was never given the opportunity to become the attorney representative. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -7- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013419 EFTA00230324

Mr. Starr also objected to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal: "[wie will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes." These proposals were immediately rejected by Epstein in Mr. Lefkowitz's December 26, 2007 correspondence to USA Acosta. At our December 14, 2007 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, counsel for Epstein articulated that it was a "profound injustice" to require Epstein to register as a sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. § 2422(6), had been committed since the statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading or inducing. This particular attack on this statute had been previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by the SDFL and CEOS prior to the execution of the Agreement. Epstein's lawyers also argued that the facts were inapplicable to the contemplated state statutes and that he should not have been allowed to have been induced into the Agreement because the facts were not what he understood them to be. To reiterate, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to anyone on the Epstein legal team. Once counsel for Epstein failed to persuade us that federal involvement was inappropriate, they mounted an aggressive campaign to defer federal prosecution. When we refused to compromise on anything except the length of incarceration, they finally executed the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Subsequent to the December 14, 2007 meeting, the SDFL received three letters from Mr. Lefkowitz and/or Mr. Starr which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 14"' meeting. Essentially, trying to portray the SDFL as trying to coerce a plea to unknown allegations and incoherent theories. In his December 17, 2007 correspondence, Mr. Lefkowitz decreed that Epstein's conduct did not meet the requirements of one of the state statutes Epstein agreed to plead guilty to - procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.03); that Epstein's conduct does not require registration under Florida law in contravention of the September 24" Agreement; and the State Attorney's Office does not believe the conduct is registrable. On December 21, 2007, Mr. Lefkowitz rejected the U.S. Attorney's proposed resolution of the 2255 provision because they "strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 U.S.C. Section[s) 2422(6) ... or ... 2423(6)." In his December 26, 2007 correspondence, he stated that "we have reiterated in previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is guilty of the federal charges enumerated under section 2255" and requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not commit the requisite offense." The SDFL reiterated time and time again that it had never wanted nor expected Epstein to plead guilty to a charge he did not believe he committed and repeatedly offered to dissolve the agreement to allow Epstein to contest the charges in the court system. As a result, the SDFL obliged his request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such a review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. As you know, on May 15, 2008, after months of considering the matter, the Criminal Division considered whether there is a legitimate basis for the Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -8- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013420 EFTA00230325

SDFL to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn concluded that "federal prosecution would not be improper or inappropriate." See attached May 15, 2008 letter from CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn to Jay Lefkowitz. On May 19, 2008,1 notified Mr. Lefkowitz that the SDFL would give Epstein a full two weeks (close of business on Monday, June 2, 2008) to comply with the terms and conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez." Therefore, despite the fact that the investigation has identified several more victims, the SDFL is still offering Epstein the opportunity to comply with the terms and conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The SDFL was recently notified that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General has agreed to consider additional allegations not considered by CEOS which were recently raised in correspondence by two former high-ranking members of the Department of Justice - Ken Starr and Joe Whitley. On May 28, 2008, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz by e-mail that the SDFL has postponed the June 2, 2008 deadline until the DAG's Office has completed its review of this matter. Their correspondence to the DAG alleges that the SDFL's investigation lacks integrity because it has leaked "highly confidential aspects" of the investigation and negotiations to the New York Times and that FAUSA Sloman directed some of the victims to my former law firm. They also claim that the "unprecedented extension of federal law" by the SDFL suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from seeking your Office's review and that "the unnecessary deadline is even more problematic because Mr. Epstein's effort to reconcile the state charge and sentence with the terms of the Agreement requires an unusual and unprecedented threatened application of federal law." I. The Alleged "Leak" to the New York Times. AUSA David Weinstein became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the District's Public Information Officer (NO). While the District's PIO was on annual leave, he was the acting PIO during the first week of January 2008. The entirety of his conduct in connection with the Epstein matter began on January 2, 2008 and ended on January 7, 2008." Specifically, his contact involved five telephone conversation with Landon Thomas, a reporter for the New York Times. These conversations occurred on 1) the morning of January 2, 2008, 2) the afternoon of January 2, 2008, 3) the afternoon of January 3, 2008, 4) the afternoon of January 4, 2008, and 5) the afternoon of January 7, 2008. " Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on notice on February 25, 2008, that in the event that CEOS disagreed with Epstein's position, Epstein would have one week to comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 19° letter to Ms. Sanchez. I2AUSA Weinstein has self-reported to the Office of Professional Responsibility. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -9- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013421 EFTA00230326

A. The Morning of.lanuary 2, 2008. AUSA Weinstein began his conversation with Mr. Thomas by explaining that he was the acting PIO for the week and that he had received Mr.Thomas's December 31, 2007 e-mail requesting an interview and asking for comments on the following five statements.13 First, "that in the summer of 2005 the palm beach police department referred the Epstein case to you." Second, "that the case is being overseen by j, and above him, R. Alexander Acosta." Third, "that Mr. Acosta has made child pornography a focus are [sic] for your office." Fourth, "that this summer your office gave Mr. Epstein an ultimatum: plead guilty to a charge that would require him to register as a sex offender, or the government would release a 52 page indictment, charging him with crimes that could include procuring sex for a third party or engaging in sexual tourism. Both of these charges carry jail sentences of as much as 15 years." Fifth, "that your office told Mr. Epstein and his lawyers: we are ready to pull the trigger." Sixth, "I also wanted to ask Mr. Sloman about his role in a case involving Jonathan Zirulnikoff and his daughter earlier this year." At the outset, Weinstein said that he could not comment on any specific pending matters and that he would do his best to answer some of his questions. Thomas said that his questions were based, in part, upon conversations that he had already had with members of Mr. Epstein's defense team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information available through the State Court system. Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told him that any matter arising out of conduct in Palm Beach County, was prosecuted by our West Palm Beach branch office. He also told him that as First Assistant, the FAUSA had supervisory authority over all AUSAs throughout the District. In turn, the FAUSA answered directly to the U.S. Attorney. In response to the third question, Weinstein discussed the difference between child exploitation and child pornography. Weinstein said that federal crimes involving child exploitation were one of several focus points of our Office. He further explained that in addition to traditional federal areas of prosecution the other focus points included health care fraud and gang prosecutions. Weinstein refused to answer the fourth and fifth topics but did discuss the general nature of pre-trial proceedings in federal court. He said that the SDFL does not offer ultimatums, nor are we in the business of issuing ultimatums. He explained that in cases where a party wants to plead guilty prior to indictment, we will discuss the parameters of guilty pleas and that people always have the right to proceed to trial if they choose to do so and that we do not favor one resolution over the other. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that he would not discuss his specific question about Mr. Epstein's lawyer's statement that someone from our Office told them that "we are ready to pull the trigger.;' 'After reviewing his e-mail, AUSA Weinstein discussed the matter with U.S. Attorney Acosta. Pursuant to USAM 1-7.530 and the Media Relations Guide, Section III D2, after consultation with and prior approval from the US Attorney, he called Mr. Thomas on the morning of January 2nd. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -10- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P413422 EFTA00230327

Nor would he discuss anything about who might or might not be representing Mr. Epstein. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that he should not allow himself to be spun one way or the other in response to statements Mr. Thomas said he had received from attorneys who said that they represented Mr. Epstein. Weinstein ended the conversation by telling Mr. Thomas that he would check further into his sixth and final topic and get back to him later in the day. B. Afternoon ofJanuary 2, 2008. Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that in regard to his sixth topic, the SDFL had no reason to question FAUSA Sloman's judgment or integrity. He also said that this particular subject matter was a private matter that FAUSA Sloman did not want to discuss with him." Mr. Thomas told him that if he had any further questions, he would call back. C. Afternoon of January 3, 2008. This call was in response to a voice mail message that Mr. Thomas had left regarding legal issues involving specific state and federal statutes. Specifically, Mr. Thomas had some questions about the burden of proof and strict liability in some state and federal statutes that governed illegal sexual activity. Again, Weinstein told him that he would not discuss any specific cases, but that he would assist him in understanding the statutes about which he had some questions. Weinstein explained that some statutes contained defenses that must be proven by a defendant, while there were other statutes that did not require a defendant to affirmatively prove a defense. The discussion centered around Title 18, United States Code, § 2423(g). Once again, Mr. Thomas told Weinstein that if he had any further questions, he would call back. D. Afternoon of January 4, 2008. This was another call in response to a voice mail message that Mr. Thomas had left regarding some additional questions. Weinstein prefaced the conversation by saying that he would not discuss any specific cases. The conversation centered around three specific statutes, 18 United States Code, § 2422(b), 18 United States Code, § 1591, and 18 United States Code, § 2423(6) as well as the 14 The case involving "Jonathan Zirulnikoff" involved a March 7, 2007 early morning attempted break-in of my/Sloman's house. Zirulnikoff, age 19 at the time, confessed and said that he wanted to "talk" to my daughter who was then 16. He also confessed to a prior unrelated break in which Zirulnikoff caressed the inner thigh of a 15 year old female. Zirulnikoff who had graduated from my daughter's high school in June 2006, dated my daughter's friend and had little if any contact with my daughter for over one year. Zirulnikoff negotiated a plea deal, over my objection, with the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office to a misdemeanor trespass. That conviction resulted in a sentence of two years probation and a withhold of adjudication upon successful completion of his probationary period. Since this information was completely irrelevant to the facts and issues in the instant Epstein matter, I refused to allow Mr. Weinstein to comment about this matter to Mr. Thomas. Furthermore, none of this information had been publicized and, upon information and belief, only one member of Epstein's legal team knew anything about this matter, my former colleague, Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -11- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013423 EFTA00230328

burden of proof and the applicability of affirmative defenses. They discussed the difference between an attempt and a substantive charge pursuant to § 2422(b) and how that affected the government's burden of proof vis-a-vis the age of a child. They also discussed the fact that a charge pursuant to § 1591 required the government to prove that the defendant had actual knowledge of the age of the victim. Finally, they discussed the fact that if the government was charging a defendant with traveling to engage in prostitution, pursuant to § 2423(b), there was an affirmative defense available to the defendant regarding the reasonable belief of the defendant about the age of the victim. E. Afternoon of January 7, 2008. This final call was made after the U.S. Attorney and FAUSA Sloman had received a call from a member of Mr. Epstein's defense team alleging that the SDFL had provided case specific information to the media. Weinstein called Mr. Thomas who acknowledged that both before and after each of the above-mentioned conversations, he had also called attorneys who were representing Mr. Epstein on his pending State charges. Mr. Thomas also acknowledged that all of our prior conversations had been about general legal issues and that Weinstein never spoke about any specific case. Since the January 7, 2008 conversation, Weinstein has not had any further contact with Mr. Thomas. 2. Herman Sloman & Mermelstein (May 5, 2001 - October 1, 2001). Seven years ago, I resigned from the SDFL for private practice. Less than five months later, I resigned from the law firm and returned to the SDFL. Public records reflect the following: on May 8, 2001, articles of amendment were filed with the Florida Division of Corporations to reflect that the firm name of "Herman & Mermelstein" was changed to "Herman Sloman & Mermelstein" on May 7, 2001. I joined the firm at that time and remained a non-equity partner until on or about October 1, 2001. At that time, I resigned from the firm and returned to the SDFL. Since I never had an equity interest in the firm, I never retained an interest in the firm. That was over six and one half years ago. Unbeknownst to FAUSA Sloman, on July 2, 2002, articles of amendment were filed with the Florida Division of Corporations to reflect that the firm name of "Herman Sloman & Mermelstein" was changed back to "Herman & Mermelstein." The article of amendment indicates the amendment was adopted on July 1, 2002, without shareholder action. Although the filing was not immediate upon my departure from the law firm, it pre-dated for years any dealings with the subject case now under consideration by the SDFL. Recently, I learned that there is a reference to the law firm of "Herman Sluman & Mermelstein" on the Florida Bar website, under a section called "Find A Lawyer." This reference appears when Stuart Mermelstein's name and information is accessed. To reiterate, since October 2001, I have had no relationship with that law firm, financial or otherwise, and no input or control over the firm's filings with the Florida Division of Corporations and/or the Florida Bar. On Friday, January 18, 2008, at approximately 1:15 pm, I received a call from Jeffrey Herman of Herman & Mermelstein. Herman said that he was planning to file a civil lawsuit the next Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -12- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013424 EFTA00230329

week against Jeffrey Epstein. He said that his clients were frustrated with the lack of progress of the state's investigation and wanted to know whether the SDFL could file criminal charges even though the state was looking into the matter. I told I lerman that I would not answer any question related to Epstein — hypothetical or otherwise. I asked him how his clients retained him and he said that it was through another lawyer. I then specifically asked him whether the referral was the result of anyone in law enforcement contacting him and/or the other lawyer. He said "no." At the conclusion of the conversation, I reiterated and confirmed with him that 1 had refused to answer any questions he asked of me. I immediately documented this conversation and informed the U.S. Attorney who informed Senior Litigation Counsel and Ethics Advisor Dexter Lee. AUSA Lee opined that he did not see a conflict. As soon as I became aware of these allegations, I reported myself to the Office of Professional Regulation on or about April 21, 2008. 3. The Alleged Unprecedented Extension of Federal Law and the Allegations of Political Motivation for the Prosecution It is my hope that this letter has sufficiently explained how thoroughly this matter has been reviewed, how seriously the issues have been considered, and how additional delays may adversely affect the case going forward and, more importantly, the victims. I have attached the proposed draft indictment for you to consider the nature and gravity of the crimes. See Tab G. invited to evaluate whether I, along with U.S. Attorney Acolliminal Division Chiefs d, later Deputy Criminal Division Chiefs, followed byl laill and AUSA somehow steered this investigation toward "an unprecedented extension of federal law"despite being simultaneously and/or subsequently reviewed by CEOS, DAAG Mandelker, and AAG Fisher. I also hope that the reputations of the above-mentioned professional prosecutors combined with the documented layers of methodical and thorough review of all issues raised by Epstein are enough to summarily dismiss the idea that this matter is politically motivated. It seems incomprehensible how Messrs. Starr and Whitley could expect further review when the due process rights of their client have been considered and reconsidered to the point of absurdity. With respect to the other allegations of misconduct leveled against investigators and prosecutors, similarly false allegations were made against the local police detective who first investigated the case. Those false allegations apparently were accepted as true and were not investigated or challenged by the State Attorney's Office and, when coupled with the immense pressure brought to bear upon the State Attorney by some of these same lawyers who represent Epstein today, resulted in a single felony charge related to only two of the more than 20 victims identified in the state investigation. Contrary to the claims of Epstein's attorneys, the SDFL is not trying to prosecute Epstein more harshly because of his political friends or his financial status; rather, the SDFL is attempting to follow Department policy by treating Epstein like all other criminal defendants — charging him with the most serious readily provable offenses. The SDFL has even continued to allow Epstein the opportunity to perform his obligations under the Non-Prosecution Agreement despite his numerous breaches of and attacks on the terms to which he already agreed. Without attempting to address each and every allegation, I would like to highlight some of the misstatements contained in counsels' letter, to provide some sense of counsels' conduct Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -13- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013425 EFTA00230330

throughout this case, particularly after their attempts at legal persuasion failed. Throughout the case, counsel have misrepresented the facts of the case to our Office, CEOS, and the press. For example, Epstein's counsel reference to this case as "precedent-shattering," suggests that all of the victims were at least 16 years old, and that the conduct "was purely local in nature." The SDFL has prosecuted several "sex tourism" cases where the "john" communicated via telephone with an undercover "pimp" in the SDFL to meet minor females to engage in prostitution. All were charged and convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1591. The SDFL has charged and convicted a 21-year-old man of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423 when he traveled to Florida to meet his 14-year-old girlfriend and later digitally penetrated her. The SDFL has prosecuted numerous violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 where the "facility of interstate commerce" — generally the Internet and telephones — are used by a defendant and an undercover pretending to be the parent of a minor, to arrange for a meeting that the defendant hopes will result in sexual activity. There is nothing extraordinary about Epstein's case except the large number of victims involved. Epstein's counsel neglected to inform you that the age range of the victims includes girls as young as 14, and glosses over the fact that Epstein did not simply engage in "solo self-pleasuring" in front of the victims. Instead, with each visit, he pressured the victims to allow him to engage in more and more sexual activity — fondling breasts and vaginas, digital penetration, use of a vibrator on their vaginas, performing oral sex on them, having them perform oral sex on his adult girlfriend, and engaging in sexual intercourse. Counsel also neglected to inform you that many girls did affirmatively tell Epstein their true ages and he told several that he "did not care about age." Epstein's conduct was not "purely local." He and his assistants called and sent text messages to victims in Palm Beach County from other states to arrange "appointments" for his upcoming visits to Palm Beach. And, while in Palm Beach, Epstein and his assistants called victims in New York to arrange "appointments" for his return to New York. Epstein wired money to some victims and sent gifts through the mails. This case falls squarely within federal jurisdiction. Epstein also falsely claims that certain facts related to the resolution of the case were hidden and later discovered by his lawyers. For example, they complain about the proposed use of a guardian ad litem, stating that "Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these individuals were adults, not minors." It was AUSA who told Epstein's counsel that all of the victims but one had already reached the age of majority, which was one reason why the guardian ad litem procedure proposed by Epstein's counsel would not work. Likewise, AUSA Villafafta disclosed to Epstein's counsel that one of the five attorney-representatives that she recommended for consideration by Epstein's counsel was a "good friend" of a "good friend." Despite the disclosure of this relationship, Epstein's counsel selected that person, before the SDFL, on its own, decided to use an independent Special Master to make the selection. Epstein's counsel states that the "USA() eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of any of the claims that these women might make," but neglects to disclose that the SDFL made that statement at Epstein's request to avoid the suggestion that the SDFL was involving itself in the outcome of civil litigation. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -14- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013426 EFTA00230331

Epstein's counsel have repeatedly attacked the SDFL and the FBI for classifying the victims as "victims." As you know, all Justice Department employees have the obligation to identify victims and to notify them of their rights. "Victims" are defined by law, not by self-selection. The girls whom have been identified by the FBI and the SDFL fall within the legal definition — they were all minors who engaged in illicit sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein, at his request, in exchange for money. From interviewing them, the FBI Special Agents, the FBI Victim-Witness Coordinator, and AUSA Villafafta all feel confident that they suffered harm, in a multitude of ways, by their interaction with Epstein. Finally, in contrast to Epstein's counsel allegation that my June 2, 2008 deadline was "arbitrary, unfair, and unprecedented," please consider that Mr. Lefkowitz has known since February that in the event that CEOS disagreed with his position, Epstein would be given one-week to comply with the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Subsequent to the receipt of CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn's May 15,2008 letter, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz that Epstein would have a full two-weeks to comply with the Non-Prosecution Agreement as modified by the December 19"' letter to Ms. Sanchez. We believe it is finally time to shift the focus from Epstein's due process rights to treating him like all other similarly situated criminal defendants and perhaps, most importantly, to consider the rights of his victims. Continued delays adversely effect the case and the victims in the following ways: (I) at the time of the offenses, the victims ranged in age from 14 to 17 years old. The change in physical appearance of many of the victims since then has been dramatic. Epstein has been claiming that he did not know they were minors. Obviously, the older they look when the case is at issue, the harder it will be to overcome that defense; (2) it allows Epstein's lawyers to conduct depositions of the victims in the pending state criminal case and allows his private investigators to further harass and intimidate the victims; (3) more victims will seek the services of civil lawyers to file lawsuits thus allowing Epstein to make more powerful arguments demeaning the credibility of the victims; (4) the prosecutors and agents may retire, transfer and/or leave the Department for other opportunities thus affecting the potential outcome and prosecutorial resources. Additionally, several of the victims have relocated thus increasing the likelihood that crucial witnesses will be lost; (5) the SDFL has afforded more consideration to Epstein's arguments than any other defendant in my years of being the FAUSA and, before that, the Chief of the Criminal Division (January 1, 2004 to the present). I believe that we have been disproportionally fair to Epstein at the expense of other matters; and (6) prolonged delay may adversely affect the statute of limitations for some of the victims. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -15- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013427 EFTA00230332

On behalf of the SDFL and the victims in this case, please expedite the review and decision of the issues under consideration. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney Ends. By: Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant United States Attorney cc: Chief Cr* ' I Division A. Assistant U.S. Attorney Assistant U.S. Attorney Confidential and Privileged - Attorney Work Product -16- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013428 EFTA00230333