Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: (USAFLS) 1 , Jeff (USAFLS) . lay, October 18, 2007 4:40 PM (USAFLS) ollow up The change of plea will take place on November 20. Agreed. Original Message From: Jay Lefkowitz (mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:35 PM To: , (USAFLS) Cc: , Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Follow up - Thanks. Jeff, are we all set? Jay Original Message From: " , (USAFLS)" Sent: 10/18/2007 12:15 PM AST To: Jay Lefkowitz Cc: " , Jeff (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Follow up Jeff -- Can you see any issues with this? If not, please confirm with Jay. Original Message From: Jay Lefkowitz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:12 AM To: ) (USAFLS) Subject: Follow up - I wanted to thank you for making the time for breakfast Friday. It was great to catch up. Following up on our conversation about the date for Mr. Epstein's plea, where you said that you didn't want to dictate a schedule to the state, as we discussed I have a case where I represent an individual who is now the lead witness for the government, and openings are set 2724 08-80736-CV-MARRA REP WPB-002020 EFTA00184828

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 3 for next week. 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. Please confirm that this is ok. Thanks, Jay t****************************************************###*## 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. It is the property of Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. #************************######******####****************** ******************************************************44##* 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. It is the property of Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited' and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. *****************####44g***********************#######****** 2725 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB-002021 EFTA00184829

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 8 EXHIBIT 78 EFTA00184830

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 8 "Siomnn, Jeff (USAFLS)" To "Jay Lefkowitz" <[email protected] cc i'kfiliainnn Ann r: el 'CAN Sr 10/24/2007 03:45 PM bcc Subject Epstein - Addendum and Letter to Judge g erbloo-datil Otik,"txtit: <<Addendum.wpd>> <<071015 Special Master Letter4.wpd>> Jay, Pursuant to our conversation, here is the revised letter and a new addendum. Theonly changeto the addendumisthat I renumbered the new paragraphs from A,B, aic.o 7A, 7B, and 7C.Once you approve,I will contact Judge and send him the letter. Please execute the addendum,PDFthe executedoriginalto me as soon as possible and Fed Ex the original to me thereafter. Jeff sat 'Addendum.wpd' has been archived by user 'CommonStore/IT/Kirkland-Ellis' on '12/25/2007 00:26:41'. >» «< gnachment '071015 Special Master Letter4.wpd' has been archived by user 'CommonStore/IT/Kirkland-Olls' on '12/25/2007 00:26:42'. >> US_Atty_Cor_00220 EFTA00184831

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 8 IN FIE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN 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 follows: 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-patty, 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. 7B. 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 fees 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 costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in s 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall cease. 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 US_Atty_Cor_00221 EFTA00184832

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 8 Non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: Dated: Dated: A. VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN US_Atty_Cor_00222 EFTA00184833

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 8 S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 NE ek Street Alla* FL 33132-2111 October 2007 LIVE l i r The Hon. B. (Ret.) Akerman Senterfitt One Southeast Third Avenue, 25th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Re: Service as a Special Master Dear Judge M. Thank you for agreeing to serve as a Special Master and for assisting the United States Attorney's Office in the selection of an attorney representative to represent a group of identified victims. This letter is meant to assist you in performing your duties by providing you with background information regarding the agreement between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein and the duties that the attorney representative will have to perform. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office conducted an investigation of Mr. Epstein. As a result of that investigation, the U.S. Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement and an Addendum that contains, inter alia, the following terms: 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 US_Atty_Cor_00223 EFTA00184834

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 6 of 8 The Iion. B. (Ret.) October 2007 Page 2 of 4 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. 7B. 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 7C, 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 fees 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. § 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in § 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall cease. 8.If any of the individuals referred to [in the paragraphs above] 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 agreed to between Epstein and the identified individual, 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, with respect 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 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. US_Atty_Cor_00224 EFTA00184835

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 7 of 8 The Hon. B. (Ret.) October 2007 Page 3 of 4 10.Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in [the above paragraphs], 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. The most recent version of the statute referenced above, 18 U.S.C. § 2255, provides that: My person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section . . . 2422 or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $150,000 in value.' Section 2422 prohibits the use of a facility of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in sexual activity and prostitution, and section 2423 prohibits interstate travel for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity or prostitution with minors. The United States has identified 34 victims as defined by this statute. Pursuant to this letter, the United States assigns to you the responsibility for consulting with and selecting the attorney representative for the individuals. The United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative you select prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. In that regard, after you have reached a decision regarding the attorney representative, please provide me with his or her name and contact information. An earlier version of this statute deems that any person described in the preceding sentence shall have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value. US_Atty_Cor_00225 EFTA00184836

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 8 of 8 The Hon. B. (Rot) October 2007 Page 4 of 4 If I can provide you with any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you again for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, United States Attorney By: Jeffrey First Assistant United States Attorney cc: AUSA US_Atty_Cor_00226 EFTA00184837

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT 79 EFTA00184838

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-9 Entered on F LSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 5 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida The Hon. B. (Ret.) Akerman Senterfitt One Southeast Third Avenue, 25th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Re: Service as a Special Master Dear Judge 991V.E. 44 Street Miami. Fl 33132 Telephone: (305) 961-9299 Facsimile: (305) 5304444 October 25, 2007 Thank you for agreeing to serve as a Special Master and for assisting the United States Attorney's Office in the selection of an attorney representative to represent a group of identified victims. This letter is meant to assist you in performing your duties by providing you with background information regarding the agreement between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein and the duties that the attorney representative will have to perform. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office conducted an investigation of Mr. Epstein. As a result of that investigation, the U.S. Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement and an Addendum that contains, inter alia, the following terms: 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. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000551 EFTA00184839

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 5 TUB HON. B. =Rat) OCTOBER 25, 2001 PAGE 2 OF 4 7B, 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 7C, 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 fees 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. § 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in § 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall cease. 8.If any of the individuals referred to [in the paragraphs above] 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 agreed to between Epstein and the identified individual, 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, with respect 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 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 [the above paragraphs], neither Epstein's Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000552 EFTA00184840

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 5 Tile HONG B. DAVIS (REr.) Ocionit 25.2007 PAGE 3 OF 4 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. The most recent version of the statute referenced above, 18 U.S.C. § 2255, provides that: Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section ... 2422 or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $150,000 in value.' Section 2422 prohibits the use of a facility of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in sexual activity and prostitution, and section 2423 prohibits interstate travel for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity or prostitution with minors. The United States has identified 34 victims as defined by this statute. The United States takes no position as to the validity of any such claim under this statute. Due to the circumstances of the case and the number and caliber of the attorneys who represent Mr. Epstein, in selecting the victims' attorney representative, the United States suggests that you consider the following criteria: 1. Experience doing both plaintiffs' and defense litigation. 2. Experience with state and federal statutory and common law tort claims. 3. The ability to communicate effectively with young women. 4. Experience litigating against large law firms and high profile attorneys who ' An earlier version of this statute deems that any person described in the preceding sentence shall have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000553 EFTA00184841

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 5 THE HON. B. (Rm.) OCTOBER 25, 2007 PAGE 4 OF 4 may test the veracity of the victims' claims. 5. • Sensitivity to the nature of the suit and the victims' interest in maintaining their privacy. 6. Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida. 7. The resources to hire experts and others, while working on a contingency fee basis, in order to prepare for trial, if a settlement cannot be reached (defense counsel has reserved the right to challenge such litigation). 8. The ability to negotiate effectively. Pursuant to this letter, the United States assigns to you the responsibility for consulting with and selecting the attorney representative for the individuals. The United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative you select prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. In that regard, after you have reached a decision regarding the attorney representative, please provide me with his or her name and contact information. If! can provide you with any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me and/or the U.S. Attorney an or Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. on behalf of Epstein. Mr. Leflcowitz can be reached at - Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Citigroup Center, 153 East 53rd Street, Thank you again for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, cc: AUSA A. By: United States Jeffrey First Assistant United States Attorney ttomey Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000554 EFTA00184842

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 16 EXHIBIT 80 EFTA00184843

Case 203-aavag7/36-1041 Mown:writ 51/2-110ntEgatitheal EWE/ Sedk etINKM.0100116a4012161 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO JANE DOES #1 AND #2'S MOTION TO HAVE THEIR FACTS ACCEPTED BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO CONTEST ANY OF THE FACTS IDE49l The United States, by and through the undersigned, hereby opposes Petitioners' Motion to have their "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" accepted as true [DE49]. Petitioners argue that the Court should accept their Statement as true, despite its conclusory allegations and internal inconsistencies, solely because of the United States' failure to stipulate to the Statement. The Court should deny the motion because: (1) Petitioners have misstated that United States' efforts at reaching agreement on the Statement; (2) the "Undisputed Material Facts" are irrelevant, as Petitioners have previously acknowledged; (3) agreeing to the "Undisputed Material Facts" demanded by Petitioners would have required the United States to violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) and/or constitutional and ethical mandates; and (4) the United States is not obligated to agree to any "facts," especially those that are incomplete or false. EFTA00184844

Case 9.0B-ovalf7354KAIM Onaumtemlf 3112-310ntEakteal EIBBISOdketDMIT2420110118a0get316f 16 BACKGROUND In DE 49, Petitioners ask the Court to accept as true their proposed "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" contained in DE48 because they claim that the United States has failed "to advise the victims of what facts they are contesting." Petitioners then spend several pages making unsupported assertions and reciting from letters and email correspondence in an attempt to persuade the Court to adopt as true the Petitioners' averments even when the falsity of some of those "facts" is apparent from the text itself. Contrary to their assertions, the Petitioners have not been attempting to negotiate with the government for more than 30 months. As set forth in the Procedural I Iistory Section of the United States' Opposition to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victim Rights Act ("CVRA"), at the last hearing on the Petitioners' Emergency Petition, on August 14, 2008, counsel for Petitioners stated to the Court, "I believe that you do have a sufficient record, in that I don't think that — I think that we're in agreement that additional evidence does not need to be taken in the case for Your Honor to make a ruling." (DE27 at 4 (emphasis added).) Thereafter, there was no contact regarding the CVRA petitioner for years — until the Court issued its administrative order closing the case. A flurry of activity ensued. Efforts were made to resolve the matter amicably, without success, including allowing the Petitioners, that is Jane Does #1 and #2, and their counsel, the opportunity to meet with the U.S. Attorney, as Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys did.' Despite the Petitioners' earlier statement to the Court that no additional facts were needed, many hours were spent trying to revise the Petitioners' proposed statement of facts so that it would 'Only Jane Doe #1 and her counsel elected to attend a meeting with the U.S. Attorney. 2 EFTA00184845

Case 9.416-O1741O/35-1O11M1 nutsminernif 3€2 -21Driteatthrsal Eta@ Sedket kletif/J0281201R3a 01416f 16 contain only facts, not argument, not inferences, not incorrect innuendos.' Even after the U.S. Attorney's Office advised Petitioners that the Justice Department's position was that the CVRA's rights only attached upon the filing of federal criminal charges and, hence, that none of the Petitioners' proposed facts were relevant, further attempts were made. Petitioners' counsel, however, demonstrated no interest in proposed compromises. Specific factual corrections also were suggested and rejected' Thus, counsel for Petitioners know that some of the proposed "undisputed material facts" are in fact disputed and, in many cases, wrong. 'The U.S. Attorney's Office also repeatedly reminded Mr. Cassell of the Justice Department's policy not to comment on the guilt or innocence of an unconvicted person. The ABA's Model Rule of Professional Conduct on the Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor contains similar guidance. For example, there has been no civil or criminal finding by any judge or jury that: defendant Jeffrey Epstein (a billionaire with significant with significant political connections) sexually abused more than 30 minor girls at his mansion in West Palm Beach (sic), Florida, and elsewhere. Epstein performed repeated lewd, lascivious, and sexual acts on them, including (but not limited to) masturbation, touching of their sexual organs, using vibrators or sexual toys on them, coercing them into sexual acts, and digitally penetrating them. Because Epstein used a means of interstate commerce and knowingly traveled in interstate commerce to engage in abuse of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (and the other victims), he committed violations of federal law, including repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. (DE48 at 3-4 1 1.) Jane Does No. 1 and No. 2 had the opportunity to prove these allegations at trial but elected to sign confidential settlement agreements where, presumably, there was no acknowledgement of criminal or civil liability. Respectfully, the U.S. Attorney's Office cannot express a factual position, immaterial to the present litigation, on whether Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") committed crimes (other than those to which he pled guilty in Palm Beach County Circuit Court). 'For example, Petitioners were repeatedly advised the Epstein lived in Palm Beach, not West Palm Beach. Even this simple correction was ignored. (See DE48 at 3-4.) 3 EFTA00184846

Case Stifeckvall7364MI Olanuument 3€2-119nteathaal EbSTILSOclaet 04var2/2.011201feag jef5leof 16 ARGUMENT I. ALL OF THE "UNDISPUTED FACTS" ARE IRRELEVANT. In their motion asking the Court to accept as true all of their purported "undisputed material facts," Petitioners rely on only two citations, the CVRA's "right to confer with the attorney in the case and Local Rule 88.10(0), which governs discovery in criminal cases. Local Rule 88.10(0) reads: "The parties shall make every possible effort in good faith to stipulate to all facts or points of law the truth and existence of which is not contested and the early resolution of which will expedite the trial." (Emphasis added.) Contrary to Petitioners' suggestion, reaching agreement on Petitioners' "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" would not expedite the resolution of this matter. As the United States has explained since August 1, 2008, at the very start of the litigation, (see DE19,) — and as admitted by Petitioners during the hearing on August 14, 2008, (see DE27 at 3) — no additional facts are needed for the Court to resolve the Emergency Petition and Petitioners' Motion seeking a finding that the CVRA was violated. The only material fact is that the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida never filed federal 'Whether or not the CVRA applies is the central question in dispute in this matter because no federal criminal case was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein and one is certainly not pending now. The undersigned knows of no case where the "right to confer with the attorney in the case" has been interpreted to allow victims to demand that the Government confer repeatedly— even after good faith efforts at reaching compromise have failed — in a case filed by victims against the Government pursuant to the CVRA. Nonetheless, Petitioners' argument seems to be that, because they aver that the CVRA applies, the Government's failure to accord them their very expansive reading of the CVRA's "right to confer" is a further violation of the CVRA. At least one court has noted and rejected this Catch-22: "the Court refuses to adopt an interpretation of [the CVRAJ that prohibits the government from raising legitimate arguments in support of its opposition to a motion simply because the arguments in support of its opposition to a motion may hurt a victim's feeling or reputation. More pointedly, such a dispute is precisely the kind of dispute a court should not involve itself in since it cannot do so without potentially compromising its ability to be impartial to the government and defendant, the only true parties to the trial of the indictment." United Stalest Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 428 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). 4 EFTA00184847

case .1118-owe-Ilfabi Illineummtml382-1EntEnalensalErtalifiladlitetlaelM/1O10011Badi!ate1616f 16 criminal charges against Jeffrey Epstein. That fact is undisputed. Accordingly, all of the "facts" contained in Petitioners' statement are not "material" and the resolution of those "facts" will not "expedite the trial." Quite simply, all of the allegations, inferences, and innuendos contained in Petitioners' statement serve no purpose relevant to this litigation. II. AGREEING WITH MANY OF PETITIONERS' "FACTS" WOULD HAVE VIOLATED FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES. Several of the "facts" that Petitioners include allege that Epstein and others have committed crimes for which they were never charged or convicted. Others refer to matters that were occurring before the grand jury. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, constitutional mandates, and the ABA Model Rules on the Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor address several of the items to which the Petitioners asked the Government to agree. The Government correctly refused to agree to those "facts," and the Petitioners cannot now use that refusal to ask the Court to adopt those "facts" as true. A. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) Rule 6(e) states that "an attorney for the government" "must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B).5 Courts have construed "a matter occurring before the grand jury" to include "events which have already occurred before the grand jury, such as a witness's testimony, [and] matters which will occur, such as statements which reveal the identity of persons who will be called to testify or which report when the grand jury will return an 'Petitioners have no similar obligation. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(A). 5 EFTA00184848

case 21118-evaltraSIKANI Catuunmantt 512-118nteatirtaxd EirBalgOolleadiarMID1203B414ef716f 16 indictment."' In re Grand Jury Investigation, 610 F.2d 202, 216-17 (5th Cir. 1980). While Petitioners were merely asking the Government to agree with their assertions of "fact" based upon materials Petitioners had received from counsel for Epstein, rather than asking the Government to make affirmative disclosures of grand jury material, "Rule 6(e) does not create a type of secrecy which is waived once public disclosure occurs." In re Motions of Dow Jones & Co., 142 F.3d 496, 505 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting In re North, 16 F.3d 1234, 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). "[Elven if material concerning the grand jury investigation had been disclosed to the public, the Government attorney ... had a duty to maintain grand jury secrecy. This attorney could neither confirm nor deny the information presented by the 'external party.' Senate of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico'. United States Dep't of Justice, 1992 WL 119127 at *3 (D.D.C. May 13, 1992) (citing Barry'. United States, 740 F. Supp. 888, 891 (D.D.C. 1990) ("Rule 6(e) does not create a type of secrecy 'It is worth noting that, within the same case, a court can take differing positions on this. Compare: [T]he disclosure of information obtained from a source independent of the grand jury proceedings, such as a prior government investigation, does not violate Rule 6(e). A discussion of actions taken by government attorneys or officials, e.g., a recommendation by the Justice Department attorneys to department officials that an indictment be sought against an individual does not reveal any information about matters occurring before the grand jury. Nor does a statement of opinion as to an individual's potential criminal liability violate the dictates of Rule 6(e). With: Disclosures which expressly identify when an indictment would be presented to the grand jury, the nature of the crimes which would be charged, and the number of persons who would be charged run afoul of the secrecy requirements codified in Rule 6(e). In re Grand Jury Investigation, 610 F.2d at 217, 218. In light of such conflicting directives, the government must err, if at all, on the side of treating all information related to grand jury proceedings as "matters occurring before the grand jury." 6 EFTA00184849

Case 9.1111B-orar3S-M1111 Oxfam rrit 3%17-liententanatol EttgaaddRet DMEIT02D13011Bagi!Qef816f 16 which is waived once public disclosure occurs. The Government is obligated to stand silent regardless of what is reported, accurate or not, by the press.").) The reasons for Rule 6(e) are multiple: In addition to preventing adverse pretrial publicity about a person who may be indicted and subsequently tried, secrecy protects the reputation of a person under investigation who is not indicted. The secrecy requirement also encourages reluctant witnesses to testify without fear of reprisals from those against whom testimony is given, prevents tampering with grand jury witnesses in an effort to alter their trial testimony, and permits the grand jury to deliberate free from the influence of publicity. Finally, secrecy prevents disclosures to persons who may be interested in the investigation if the facts are known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States'. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States'. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). Several of the "facts" contained in Petitioners' submission contain allegations related to matters occurring before the grand jury. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e), the Government cannot confirm or deny the accuracy of those allegations. B. Due Process and the ABA Rule for Prosecutors As noted above, one of the reasons behind 6(e) is to protect the reputations of persons who are under investigation but not indicted. This is a corollary to what the Court of Appeals found to be a due process protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution — namely, "that the liberty and property concepts of the Fifth Amendment protect an individual from being publicly and officially accused of having committed a serious crime, particularly where the accusations gain wide notoriety." See In re Smith, 656 F.2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir. 1981) (citation 7 EFTA00184850

fl ew- gle-coala7/364%141 Dnzunniefitt 362 -110n tffs tad Elia@ EDdRet B0€117320120118a Oat ef916f 16 omitted)! In Smith, the petitioner filed a motion seeking to have his name stricken from the factual proffers of two criminal defendants. Smith had not been criminally charged or convicted. The Court of Appeals agreed with Smith, castigating the Government: no legitimate governmental interest is served by an official public smear of an individual when that individual has not been provided a forum in which to vindicate his rights.... [W]e completely fail to perceive how the interests of criminal justice were advanced at the time of the plea hearings by such an attack on the Petitioner's character. The presumption of innocence, to which every criminal defendant is entitled, was forgotten by the Assistant United States Attorney in drafting and reading aloud in open court the factual resumes which implicated the Petitioner in criminal conduct without affording him a forum for vindication. Id. at 1106, 1107. The Court of Appeals ordered the District Court Clerk's Office to "completely and permanently obliterate and strike from the records of the pleas of guilty . . . any and all identifying reference to or name of Mr. Smith, the Petitioner, so that such references may not be used as a public record to impugn the reputation of Petitioner." Id. at 1107. The Court further ordered that all of the pleadings in the case be sealed. Id. Courts have interpreted Smith to apply not only to references to unindicted co-conspirators in indictments and factual proffers, but also to motion papers. See, e.g., United States. Anderson, 55 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1168 (D. Kan. 1999) ("After carefully reviewing the government's moving papers on the conflict of interest issue, the court can fmd no reason why the government might have `forgotten' the presumption of innocence in such a public pleading ...") (citing Smith, 656 F.2d at 1107); United States.. Holy Land Foundation, 624 F.3d 685 (5th Cir. 2010) (Fifth Amendment rights of organization were violated when its name was listed among 246 unindicted coconspirators 'This opinion of the Fifth Circuit was made binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit pursuant to Bonner'. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane). 8 EFTA00184851

CAsse€0338cov8EBB5614AW Obnaarrea0M-1EnEnteted frIkaaralcatt14:04,O7/1O,2O16a@gisof 16 in pre-trial brief). The Model Rules further advise prosecutors not to engage in comments that "have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused." (ABA Model Rule 3.8.) In Petitioners' "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts," they included allegations related to crimes for which Epstein and several other individuals were neither charged nor convicted. Pursuant to Smith and its progeny, and as previously explained to Petitioners' counsel, the Government denies all such allegations, including but not limited to the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, 37, 52, and 53.8 III. THERE IS NO LEGAL OBLIGATION THAT THE UNITED STATES ADMIT OR DENY THE PETITIONERS' "FACTS," MANY OF WHICH ARE FALSE. Although docketed as a Civil Case, the CVRA does not provide for a civil cause of action. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). Rather, the CVRA creates rights for victims in federal criminal cases where criminal charges have already been filed. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1) ("In any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a)."); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 60 (incorporating CVRA into Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure). Thus, there is no obligation in this case, as there might be in a case governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where sovereign immunity was waived, that requires the United States to make any evidentiary disclosures. Petitioners next rely on Local Rule 88.10(O), which governs discovery in criminal cases. First, no standing discovery order has been entered because no criminal proceedings are pending. 81t should be noted that Petitioners preface many of these allegations with afalse imprimatur of FBI findings. Compare, for example, paragraph 5 with the pages cited in support thereof. 9 ' EFTA00184852

Case 201B-csar36-IIIMII Oletwaffere 362-1lOntealemsd tbSTIL Mast INVOMBIOON6ageatlit df116f 16 Second, victims are not "parties" to criminal proceedings. See, e.g., In re Amy Unknown, F.3d 2011 WL 988882 at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 22, 2011). ("Crime victims have not been recognized as parties, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not allow them to intervene as parties to a prosecution.); United States'. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, 53 (1st Cir. 2010) ("Notwithstanding the rights reflected in the restitution statutes, crime victims are not parties to a criminal sentencing proceeding.). Third, many of Petitioners' asserted "facts" are not facts at all, but instead are inferences, legal conclusions, or innuendos. And, most importantly, many are plainly false. As stated above, the United States does not believe that any of these issues are material to the resolution of the Emergency Petition or Jane Does #1 and #2's Motion for Finding of Violation of the CVRA [DE1 and DE48]. Nonetheless, to correct misstatements in the record, the United States points out the following examples of areas where Petitioners have included "undisputed facts" that are known to them to be in dispute. Prior to Epstein's state court plea, Jane Doe #2 was represented by counsel for Epstein, was adverse to any investigation of Epstein, and contacted other potential victim-witnesses and advised them not to speak to investigators. When interviewed by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, Jane Doe #2 denied any sexual abuse by Epstein and said that Epstein was an "awesome man" and that she would many him. Jane Doe #2 further expressed a belief to the government that Epstein should not be prosecuted. Jane Doe #2 not only made the government's investigative efforts more difficult, she also made the victim notification process more difficult. A great deal of the complaints made by the Petitioners come from the delay between the time that Epstein signed the NPA on September 24, 10 EFTA00184853

Case 9IIIIE-ozialliffialll Ilbritanni SB2 -31Bn teak teal bbSaSedRet B41102/2010011Bageatt df216f 16 2007, and when he actually entered his guilty plea on June 30, 2008. (See DE 48 at 1125, 32, et seq.) As set forth in their "Statement of Undisputed Facts," this was the period when Epstein "sought higher level review within the Department of Justice." (Id. at 1 32.) As is known to Petitioners, but as they neglected to mention in their "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts," one oldie unfounded allegations made against AUSA Villafafla by Epstein's counsel during the "higher level review" was that she "wrongfully" tried to include Jane Doe #2 among the list of Epstein's victims. Ironically, these same attempts to protect Jane Doe #2's rights are now being used by Jane Doe #2 to allege violations of the CVRA. Petitioners also allege that the letters sent to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 during the period when Epstein was pursuing Justice Department review, which stated that their cases were still under investigation, were false. Yet Petitioners know that the investigation was ongoing because, as stated in their own "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts," on "January 31, 2008, Jane Doe #1 met with FBI Agents and AUSA's from the U.S. Attorney's Office." (DE48 at 17.) And another individual represented by Petitioners' counsel was interviewed on May 28, 2008. These and other interviews were conducted so that, if Epstein did not follow through with the NPA, the Office would be ready to address that situation as appropriate. Thus, the investigation was, in fact, continuing. The Petitioners also know that the terms of the NPA were disclosed to Jane Doe #1 shortly after the NPA was signed. Jane Doe #1 avers that she believed that Epstein agreed to pay damages to her, but agreed that he would still be federally prosecuted for criminal charges based on crimes allegedly committed against her. Petitioners aver that it is a "fact" that this was a "quite reasonable understanding." (DE48 at 12.) The Government denies that this is what Jane Doe #1 was told (see DE14), although there could have been an honest misunderstanding. The Government denies, 11 EFTA00184854

Case fltelktwantlFIKAM Ilktetumnantt 362-11BnteatemBal FtSa Mast lik1037801D1301Ba gte* df316f 16 however, that it was "quite reasonable" to believe that a criminal defendant would agree to pay damages to Jane Doe #1 as part of his resolution of a criminal case involving another victim while still agreeing that he could be criminally charged for acts involving Jane Doe #1. Furthermore, Petitioners know well that one of the reasons why the terms of the NPA were not disclosed to additional victims when Epstein began appealing to the Justice Department was because of concerns that, if Epstein did not follow through with the NPA and federal criminal charges were thereafter filed against him, Epstein's counsel would argue at trial that the victims had been told, by the prosecution team, that they would receive money if they claimed that they had been victimized by Epstein. This was not a frivolous concern; such allegations actually were raised by Epstein's counsel in depositions of some of the identified victims that were filed before this Court. Petitioners also suggest that efforts were made to move proceedings to Miami to keep these Petitioners from learning of court proceedings. Yet, it is undisputed that Petitioners were notified, through counsel, of the only public court proceeding — Epstein's state court plea and sentencing — and were specifically invited to attend. The Petitioners also know that some of the victims in the case were terrified that their family members might learn of their connection to the investigation and that other victims had privacy concerns that were very different than those of Petitioners. Having the proceedings outside the glare of the victims' hometown press would have allowed those other victims to participate while maintaining some semblance of privacy. Petitioners also reiterate baseless allegations made against AUSA Villafafia regarding the choice of the attorney-representative for the victims, despite knowing that: (1) the issue of the attorney-representative arose after the NPA was already negotiated; (2) the Justice Department investigated these allegations and found them to be meritless; and (3) the U.S. Attorney's Office 12 EFTA00184855

Case Qa6-mye4RID7art-MANI Damnmat -1@nt€itStsal EingaSOdReakINT/2.O1A0116adilatb df416f 16 elected to use a Special Master (retired U.S. District Court Judge MO) to make the final selection. The Petitioners also know that the AUSA, the agents, and the FBI's victim-witness coordinator obtained counseling services for some of the identified victims. And Petitioners are well aware that the AUSA even provided notifications of Epstein's work release status. Paragraph 17 of Petitioners' filing also misstates a provision of the NPA. Petitioners stated that "[t]o obtain an attorney paid for by Epstein, the victim would have to agree to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (i.e., under a law that provided presumed damages of $150,000 against Epstein[.]" Section 2255 actually provides minimum presumed damages of $150,000, not a "cap" of $150,000. There are a number of additional inferences and legal conclusions interspersed in the "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts," which the Government denies. For example, contrary to Petitioners' contentions, the Government denies that notifying the victims about the NPA would have violated the NPA (DE48 at 10, 918); and that the U.S. Attorney's Office wanted the NPA to be kept confidential to avoid public criticism or to avoid victims from convincing "the judge reviewing the agreement not to accept it" (DE48 at 11, 919). The Government denies these and all other unsupported innuendos advanced by Petitioners. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein and in the United States' Response to Jane Does #1 and #2's Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies, the Petitioners' "Statement of Undisputed Facts" is completely irrelevant to the Court's determination of the merits of this case. As both of the parties agreed shortly after the 13 EFTA00184856

Case 91118-aari-allM6-1O1.1tYll Danimiantt 5122- lantana& tatil 16 6133111 IM &tat INV0ITP/2.011201ifiagi!eyt d15161 filing of the Emergency Petition, the Court had all of the relevant facts back in August 2008 and the matter was ready to be decided. Petitioners cannot demand that the Government agree to their allegations, innuendos, and legal conclusions, especially when many of them would run afoul of Rule 6(e) and the Fifth Amendment and others are clearly false. Accordingly, Petitioners' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted should be denied. Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: s/ Dexter A. Lee DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney Fla. Bar No. 0936693 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 (305) 961-9320 Fax: (305) 530-7139 E-mail: dexter.leeausdoi.gov Attorney for Respondent CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 7, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. s/ Dexter A. Lee DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney 14 EFTA00184857

Case 983-¢:xv4101736-10484 Thacuanmemtt 3e2 - 1E n t aff tehetil EtallEedltetlaclfalf/2/2.O120116adeabie CLEW 16 SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2'. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Fax: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: [email protected] Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-6833 E-mail: casselp(alaw.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 15 EFTA00184858

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-11 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 81 EFTA00184859

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-11 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP emailed the defense stating that United States Attorney would accept no less than 18 months of incarceration, following by a one-year term of house arrest. Federal Prosecutors Misrepresented the Number of Alleged "Victims." 17. In September 2007, in order to add additional pressure on Mr. Epstein to execute a deferred prosecution agreement, AUSA claimed that there were "40" minors on the government's list of purported § 2255 victims. To compound that misleading characterization, she continued to insist that a guardian-ad-litem be appointed to represent these orted in the proceedings. See Tab 24, September 19, 2007 Email from M. to J. Lefkowitz. 18. When challenged as to whether there was a genuine need for a guardian, given that Ms. continued to refuse to disclose the names or any other information about her putative list of "minors," she eventually conceded that only "1 is definitely under 18 still, and I think there is another minor." See Tab 25, September 23, 2007 Email from M. to J. Lefkowitz (emphasis added). 19. The next day, AUSA retreated from the number "40," stating that she had now "compiled a list of 34 confirmed minor victims with no definition of how they would be considered as such.. There are six others, whose names we already have, who need to be interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time of their activity with Mr. Epstein." See Tab 26, September 24, 2007 Email from M. to J. Lefkowitz (emphasis added). This statement indicated that, at least the "six others" (and, as it turns out, all those identified except two) had reached the age of majority, and, in fact, no guardian was necessary to represent their interests. Defense Counsel was Falsely Advised That the Non Prosecution Agreement Would Be Kept Confidential. 20. On September 24, Epstein and the USAO executed a Non Prosecution Agreement. 21. His attorneys asked Ms. to "please do whatever you can to keep this from becomingpublic." See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Lefkowitz to M. 22. Ms. replied that she had "forwarded your message only to [=], (Loune], and Rolando [Garcia]. I don't anticipate it going any further than that." Id. 23. Ms. stated that the agreement would be "placed in the case file, which will be kept confidential since it also contains identifying information about the girls." Id. The Prosecution Immediately Notifies Three Plaintiffs That Mr. Epstein Has Executed A Non Prosecution Agreement 24. In direct violation of these representations, "shortly after the signing," the government notified "three victims" of the "general terms" of the Non Prosecution Agreement. See 5 RFP MIA 000408 EFTA00184860

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 9 EXHIBIT 82 EFTA00184861

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 9 j "Slonien, Jeff (USAFLS)" 11/27/2007 01:55 PM To "Jay Lefkowitz"<JLefkowitayldrilantl.coo cc a, (USAPLS) bcc Subject Epstein Jay, Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner but I was a little under the weather yesterday. I hope that you enjoyed your Thanksgiving. Regarding the issue of due diligence concerning Judge selection, I'd like to make a few observations. First, Guy Lewis has known for some time that Judge was making reasonable efforts to secure Aaron Podhurst and Bob Jose hsber for this assignment. In fact, when I told you of Judge selection during our meeting last Wednesday, November 21th, you and Professor Dershowitz seemed very comfortable, and certainly not surprised, with the selection. Podhurst and Josephsberg are no strangers to nearly the entire Epstein defense team including Guy Lewis, Lili Ann Sanchez, Roy Black, and, apparently, Professor Dershowitz who said he knew Mr. Josephsberg from law school. Second, Podhurst and Josephsberg have long-standing stellar reputations for their legal acumen and ethics. It's bard for me to imagine how much more vetting needs to be done. The United States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will make one MI week since you were formally notified of the selection. I must insist that the vetting process come to an end. Therefore unless you provide me with a good faith objection to Judge IME selection by COB tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification of the victims. Should you give me the go-ahead on Podhurst and Josephsberg selection by COB tomorrow, I will simultaneously send you a draft of the letter. I intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29th. Thanks, Jeff US_Atty_Cor_00255 EFTA00184862

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 9 3 "VINigeria, Ann C. (USAFLS1* 11/28/2007 04:46 PM To "Jay Lefkowitz" <JLetkowitz@Nridemicom> CO ai l (USAFLS)" (USAFLS)" bcc Subject Epstein: Victim Notification Letter Dear Jay: Jeff asked that I forward the victim notification letter to you. It is attached. Thank you. cVictim Not{ fi cation Ltr.pdf>> A. Assistant U.S. Attorney «< Attachment 'Victim Notification Ltr.odr has been archived by user tommonStore/IT/Kirkland-Ellie' on '01/30/2008 00:30:07. US_Atty_Cor_00256 EFTA00184863

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 9 ,w, U.S. Department ofTustleer United States Attorney Southern Dtstrkt ofFlorida iz 500 South Aselmilan Ave, SW. 400 ffat helm Beach, Pt, 33401 November 29, 2007 DELIVERY AY HAND Miss Re: crime VictimeL.Righ eitisation Dear Miss Several months ago, I provided you with a letter notifying you of your rights as a victim pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004 and other federal legislation, including: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. (3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other portions of a proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. (5) The reasonable right to confer with Ihe attorney for die United States in the ease. (6) The right to Rill and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. • (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. i am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms. First, Mr. Epstein agrees that he ivill plead guilty to two state offenses, including the offense ofsoliciting minors to engage in prostitution, which will require him to register as a sexual predator for the remainder of his life. US_Atty_Cor_00257 EFTA00184864

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 9 Mths Nova/•tem 29,2007 PAGE 2 Second, Mr. Epstein has agreed to make a binding recommendation of 18 months' imprisonment to the state court judge who sentences him, Mr. Epstein will servo that sentence of imprisonment at the Pakeneach County Jail. Third, Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will not contest jurisdiction or liability if you elect to seek damages from him because the United States has Identified you as a minor victim of certain federal offenses, including travel in interstate commove to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution. To assist you in maldng such a claim, the U.S. Attorney's Office has asked in independent Special Master to select attorneys to represent you. Those attorneys am Aaron Podhurst and Robert ("Bob") Josefsberg with the law firm of Podhurst Ossetic, P.A. They can he reached at (305) 358-2800. 1 anticipate that someone from their law firm will be contacting you shortly. I must also advise/Non That you are not obligated to use these attorneys. In fact. you have the absolute right to select your own attorney. so you can decide not to speak with Mssrs. Podhurst/ Josefsherg at all. or you comp speak with them and decide at a o to use a different attorney If you do decide to seek damages from Mr. Epstein and you decide to use Messxs.Podburst/Josefsberg as your attorneys, Mr. Epstein will be responsible for paying attorney's fees incurred during the time spent trying to negotiate a settlement. If you are unable to reach a settlement with Mr. Epstein, you and Mr. Josefsberg can discuss how best to proceed. As I mentioned above, as part of the resolution of the federal investigation, Mr. Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges. Mr. Epstein's change of plea and sentencing will occur on December 14,2007, at a.m. beforeIudge Sandra K. MoSorley, inCourtroom I1P at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 960.001(1)(k) and 921.143(1), you are entitled to be present and to make a statement under oath. If you choose, you can submit a written statement under oath, which will be filed by the State Attorney's Office on your behalf. If you elect to prepare a written statement, it should address the fbllowing: the acts of the case and the extent of any bum, including social, psychological, or physical harm, financial losses, 1093 of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced, and any matter relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence. FL Stat. 921.143(2). Yon also are entitled to notification wham Mr. Epstein is released from imprisonment at the end of his prison term and/or if ho is allowed to participate in a work release program. To receive such notification, please provide the State Attorney's Office with the following information: I. Your manta 2. Your address 3. Your home, work, and/or cell phone numbers US_Atty_Cor_00258 EFTA00184865

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 6 of 9 MISS NOVEMBER 29,2007 1"non 3 4. Your e-mail address 5. A notation of whether you would like to participate in tho "VINE system," which provides automated notification calls any time an inmate is moved. (To use this system, your calls must go to you directly, not through a switchboard.) Thank you for all of your help during the course of the investigation. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me or Special Agent Knyrkendall at Sincerely, United States Attorney By: A. Villefoga Assistant United States Attorney cc: Special Agent Nesbitt ICuyrkendall, F.D.I. Ms. Clearetha Wright, Victim-Witness Coordinator, U.S. Attorney's Office US_Atty_Cor_00259 EFTA00184866

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 7 of 9 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 3340! November 29, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND Miss Re: Crime Victims' Rights — Notification of Resolution of Epstein _Investigation Dear Miss . Several months ago, 1 provided you with a letter notifying you of your rights as a victim pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004 and other federal legislation, including: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. (3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other portions of a proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms. First, Mr. Epstein agrees that he will plead guilty to two state offenses, including the offense of soliciting minors to engage in prostitution, which will require him to register as a sexual predator for the remainder of his life. US_Atty_Cor_00260 EFTA00184867

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 8 of 9 MISS NOVEMBER 29,2007 PAGE 2 Second, Mr. Epstein has agreed to make a binding recommendation of 18 months' imprisonment to the state court judge who sentences him. Mr. Epstein will serve that sentence of imprisonment at the Palm Beach County Jail. Third, Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will not contest jurisdiction or liability if you elect to seek damages from him because the United States has identified you as a minor victim of certain federal offenses, including travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution. To assist you in making such a claim, the U.S. Attorney's Office has asked an independent Special Master to select attorneys to represent you. Those attorneys are Aaron Podhurst and Robert ("Bob') Josefsberg with the law firm of Podhurst Orseck, P.A. They can be reached at (305) 358-2800. I anticipate that someone from their law firm will be contacting you shortly. I must also advise you that you are not obligated to use iese attome . In fact, you have the absolute h seleetypl own attorney, so you can decide not to speak with MSS/S. Podhurst/ Josefsberg at all, or you can speakwith them and decide at any time to use a different attorney, If you do decide to seek damages from Mr. Epstein and you decide to use Messrs. Podhurst/Josefsberg as your attorneys, Mr. Epstein will be responsible for paying attorney's fees incurred during the time spent trying to negotiate a settlement. If you are unable to reach a settlement with Mr. Epstein, you and Mr. Josefsberg can discuss how best to proceed. As I mentioned above, as part of the resolution of the federal investigation, Mr. Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges. Mr. Epstein's change of plea and sentencing will occur on December 14, 2007, at a.m., before Judge Sandra K. McSorley, in Courtroom 11F at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 960.001(1)(k) and 921.143(1), you are entitled to be present and to make a statement under oath. If you choose, you can submit a written statement under oath, winch will be filed by the State Attorney's Office on your behalf. If you elect to prepare a written statement, it should address the following: the facts of the case and the extent of any harm, including social, psychological, or physical harm, financial losses, loss of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced, and any matter relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence. Fl. Stat 921.143(2). You also are entitled to notification when Mr. Epstein is released from imprisonment at the end of his prison term and/or if he is allowed to participate in a work release program. To receive such notification, please provide the State Attorney's Office with the following information: 1. Your name 2. Your address 3. Your home, work, and/or cell phone numbers US Atty_Cor_00261 EFTA00184868

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 9 of 9 MISS NOVEMBER 29,2007 PAGE 3 4. Your e-mail address 5. A notation of whether you would like to participate in the "VINE system," which provides automated notification calls any time an inmate is moved. (To use this system, your calls must go to you directly, not through a switchboard.) Thank you for all of your help during the course of the investigatlakkou have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me or Special Agen Kuyrkendall Sincerely, R. Alexandea United States Attorney By: A. Assistant United States Attorney cc: Special Agent.. Kuyrkendall, F.B.I. Ms. Clearetha Wright, Victim-Witness Coordinator, U.S. Attorney's Office US_Atty_Cor_00262 EFTA00184869

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 83 EFTA00184870

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 11/29/2007 0630 PM To "Jay Lefltowitt i4JLefkowitztQldrklend.com> cc bcc Subject RE: Epstein: Victim Notification Lotter Hi Jay — The only attachment is my letter, did I miss something? Thanks. Bee < nn. ar o. . an uedo).gova 11/2812007 04:48 PM ToeJay leflovott <[email protected]> &Stamen. JO WSSFLST . SuEpstain: Victim Notification Letter b;e ct Dear Jay: Jeff asked that I forward the victim notification letter to you. It is attached. Thank you. «Victim NotlfloatIon Ltr.pdf» A. Villafaila Assistant U.S. Attorney 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 01)0429 EFTA00184871

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-14 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT 84 EFTA00184872

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-14 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 5 • • U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of -Florida 500 South Australian Ave.. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile.• November 29, 2007 DELIVERY BY UNITED STATES MAIL Miss Re: Crime Victims' Rights — Notification of Resolution of Epstein Investigation Dear Miss Several months ago, I provided you with a letter notifying you of your rights as a victim pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004 and other federal legislation, including: (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other portions of a proceeding. The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and that Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms. First, Mr. Epstein agrees that he will plead guilty to two state offenses, including the offense of soliciting minors to engage in prostitution, which will require him to register as a sexual offender for the remainder of his life. RFP MIA 000011 EFTA00184873

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-14 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 5 4 a MISS NOVEMBER 29,2007 PAGE 2 Second, Mr. Epstein has agreed to make a binding recommendation of 18 months' imprisonment to the state court judge who sentences him. Mr. Epstein will serve that sentence of imprisonment at the Palm Beach County Jail. Third, Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will compensate you for damages you have suffered, under the following circumstances. That portion of the agreement that relates to those claims reads as follows: 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 RFP MIA 000012 EFTA00184874

• Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-14 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 5 • MISS NOVEMBER 29, 2007 PAGE 3 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. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement and an addendum, to assist you in making such a claim, the U.S. Attorney's Office has asked an independent Special Master to select attorneys to represent you. Those attorneys are Aaron Podhurst and Robert ("Bob") Josefsberg with the law firm of Podhurst Orseck, P.A. They can be reached at (305) 358-2800. I anticipate that someone from their law firm will be contacting you shortly. J must also advise you that you arc not obligated to use these attorneys. In fact, you have the absolute right to select your own attorney, so you can decide not to sneak with Messrs. Podhurst/Josefsberg at all, or you can speak with them and decide at any time to use a different attorney. If you do decide to seek damages from Mr. Epstein and you decide to use Messrs. Podhurst/Josefsberg as your attorneys, Mr. Epstein will be responsible for paying attorney's fees incurred during the time spent trying to negotiate a settlement. If you are unable to reach a settlement with Mr. Epstein, you and Mr. Josefsberg can discuss how best to proceed. As I mentioned above, as part of the resolution of the federal investigation, Mr. Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges. Mr. Epstein's change of plea and sentencing will occur on December 14, 2007, at a.m., before Judge Sandra K. McSorley, in Courtroom 1 IF at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 960.001(1)(k) and 921.143(1), you arc entitled to be present and to make a statement under oath. If you choose, you can submit a written statement under oath, which may be filed by the State Attorney's Office on your behalf. If you elect to prepare a written statement, it should address the following: the facts of the case and the extent of any harm, including social, psychological, or physical harm, financial losses, loss of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced, and any matter relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence. Fl. Stat. 921.143(2). You also are entitled to notification when Mr. Epstein is released from imprisonment at the end of his prison term and/or if he is allowed to participate in a work release program. To receive such notification, please provide the State Attorney's Office with the following information: 1. Your name 2. Your address 3. Your home, work, and/or cell phone numbers 4. Your e-mail address 5. A notation of whether you would like to participate in the "VINE system," which RFP MIA 000013 EFTA00184875

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-14 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 5 J) MISS NOVEMBER 29, 2007 PAGE 4 provides automated notification calls any time an inmate is moved. (To use this system, your calls must go to you directly, not through a switchboard.) Thank you for all of your help during the course of the investigatiosiou have an questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me or Special Agent at By: Sincerely, United States Attorney Assistant United States Attorney cc: Special Agent F.B.I. Ms. Clearetha Wright, Victim-Witness Coordinator, U.S. Attorney's Office RFP MIA 000014 EFTA00184876

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT 85 EFTA00184877

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 5 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Jay P. Lefkowitc, P.C. To all Miler Directly: r .com VIA E-MAIL 1 United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida Dear AND AITIIJATED PARDO/SHIPS Gahm* Center Now Yor ., 1.1M4.11 oninv.kirldand.com November 29,2007 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Facsimile: I am responding to the draft letter sent to me last night, which purports to be a letter that you would sign and send to eachIlle individuals whom you have not even identified to us, and'about whom the government has made clear it "takes no position" as to the validity of potential claims that these individuals may have against Mr. Epstein. I cannot reconcile your commitment to "take no position" regarding these potential claims with your intention to sign such a letter, which will surely fmd its way almost immediately into the press, refers to these individuals as "minor victims," refers to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual predator," misstates the terms of our federal non-prosecution agreement (the "Agreement"), and invites federal witnesses to attend Mr. Epstein's state sentencing in order to give victim impact statements, although they are in most respects not state victims at all. More fundamentally, we don't understand the basis for your Office's belief that it is appropriate for any letter to be sent to these individuals at this stage — before Mr. Epstein has either entered a plea or been sentenced. We respectfully disagree with your view that you are required to notify the alleged victims pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. First, 18 U.S.C. § 2255, the relevant statute under the Agreement for the settlement of civil remedies, does not have any connection to the Justice for All Act. The Justice for All Act refers to restitution, and § 2255 is a civil remedy, not a restitution statute. We also believe that the draft letter could not diverge more dramatically from your statement last week that your Office would not intervene in the state process from this point forward, and that you would merely monitor it. Indeed, the letter as currently drafted invites federal witnesses to become participants in a state proceeding, thus federalizing the state plea and sentencing in the same manner as would the appearance and statements of a member of your Office or the FBI. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington. D.C. RFP MIA 000007 EFTA00184878

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 5 . , • KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP November 29, 2007 Page 2 With that said, I respectfully identify below the specific objections we have with the proposed letter. First, it states that "Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will not contest jurisdiction or liability if [the alleged victims] elect to seek damages from him ..." This language implies that Mr. Epstein has agreed to concede jurisdiction and has waived liability whether or not each individual identified by the government as a "victim" of federal crimes ultimately settles her claim pursuant to the Agreement. The letter as drafted invites the witnesses to whom it is sent to believe that they can litigate their claims without Mr. Epstein being able to contest jurisdiction or liability — a construction of the Agreement that is in direct conflict with its terms. The Agreement we entered makes clear that Mr. Epstein's waiver of jurisdiction and liability is limited to those instances where the identified individual settles with him pursuant to Sections 7 through 8 of the Agreement and Addendum. As you are well aware, Mr. Epstein has no obligation or intention to concede jurisdiction or liability in any claim for damages — by an enumerated "victim" or anyone else — where that party fails to settle her claims pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. Second, there is no basis to refer to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual predator." Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Mr. Epstein will be required to register as a "sexual offender," not a "sexual predator." Those are very different categories under Florida law. Mr. Epstein has agreed to enter a plea of guilty to two counts of violation of Florida Statutes §§ 796.03 and 796.07. Under Florida law, those charges do not classify him as a sexual predator. See Florida Statute § 775.21(4Xa). Rather, he is only a sexual offender as defined by Florida Statute § 943.0435(1Xa). To identify Mr. Epstein as a sexual predator, in this letter or elsewhere,is inaccurate and would irreparably harm him. Third, we find no basis in law that provides the identified individuals with either a right to appear at Mr. Epstein's plea and sentence, or to submit a written statement to be filed by the State Attorney. According to Florida Statutes §§ 960.001(k) and 921.143(1), the sentencing court permits only "the victim of the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced ... to [a]ppcar before the sentencing court for the purpose of making a statement under oath for the record; and [s]ubmit a written statement under oath to the office of the state attorney, which statement shall be filed with the sentencing court." Florida Statute § 960.001(k) citing § 921.143(1) (emphasis added). Here, Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to, and being sentenced for, state offenses, not the federal offenses under which the government has recognized these identified individuals as "victims." The state charges for which Mr. Epstein will be sentenced are not coextensive with the federal investigation. Under Florida law, only those persons identified as victims of the state offenses may make a statement at the hearing or submit a written statement. RFP MIA 000008 EFTA00184879

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 5 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP November 29, 2007 Page 3 With respect, encouraging these individuals to participate in the state sentencing will have the effect of creating a media frenzy that will surely impact the sentence Mr. Epstein receives — precisely what your Office promised to avoid. Such an intrusion into state affairs, when the identified individuals are not even victims of the crime for which Mr. Epstein is being sentenced is highly inappropriate. The federal investigation of Mr. Epstein has been concluded, and witnesses or civil claimants identified as purported victims of federal offenses have no place in the state proceeding. We also think it will likely promote spurious civil litigation against Mr. Epstein, a result that would be highly irresponsible to encourage. Fourth, we take serious issue with the assertion in the letter that the government has identified each recipient of the letter as a "minor victim." The term "minor victim" is notably absent from the Agreement. Section 7 of the Agreement states only that the government will provide a list of individuals "whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255." Indeed, you have told us that at least one identified individual is currently 24 years old, and thus would appear not to have been a minor at the time of the alleged conduct (and therefore is presumably not eligible to settle her claims under the Agreement). To confer on these women the imprimatur of a government "finding" is both incendiary and unwarranted. Fifth, your letter mischaracterizes the nature of Mr. Epstein's liability under the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 provisions of the Agreement. Your letter states that every individual who receives the letter is a victim of "certain offenses, including travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution." This construction implies that these individuals are all victims of both offenses (travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution.) Clearly that is not the case. Consequently, the language should be revised to reflect that the identified individuals may be victims of certain offenses, but not necessarily both offenses. Additionally, fo e of fairness and candor, we believe the same language contained in your letter to Judgelliak stating that "fflhe United States takes no position as to the validity of any such claim under this statute," should be included in any proposed letter. Sixth, your letter states that Mr. Podhurst and Mr. Josefsberg may "represent" the identified individuals. Since we have not yet had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Podhurst or Mr. Josefsberg (though we hope to do so this week), we do not know that they will even agree to serve in this capacity. Since I believe the role you are casting for these attorneys creates a significant ethical problem, specifically the conflict between counseling the clients to settle for the statutory amount and rewarding the attorneys for litigating rather than settling their claims, I would not assume that they, or any ethical attorney, would agree to accept this assignment as you define it. Whether that will mean that other attorneys will have to be sought, or you will realize that the role is untenable as described, either result will require modification of the letter. RFP MIA 000009 EFTA00184880

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-15 Entered on PLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 5 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP November 29, 2007 Page 4 Seventh, the identified individuals should not contact lawyers in your Office or agents of the FBI. To encourage these individuals to contact federal law enforcement officials is entirely inconsistent with your promise that there will be no further federal involvement in this case. Moreover, such contact can only invite the possibility for impermissible or partial communications. Recently, you asked the defense not to contact potential witnesses in this matter in part because the Agreement contemplated the selection of an attorney representative. For the same reason there should be no continuing invitation for the witnesses to remain in contact with either your Office or the FBI. Any questions these individuals may have regarding their rights under the Agreement should be answered by Judge =or the attorney representative. Eighth, this letter should be mailed rather than delivered by hand. We see no reason for hand delivery, and mailing will ensure that there are no impermissible or partial communications made to the identified individuals upon delivery of the letter. If your Office insists on hand delivery of any such letter, however, it should only be made by a third party service, not by law enforcement agents. Finally, as you know, Judge Stan has requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General Fisher to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the § 2255 component of the Agreement. We are hopeful that this meeting will take place as early as next week. Accordingly, we respectfully request that we postpone our discussion of sending a letter to the alleged victims until after that meeting. We strongly believe that rushing to send any letter out this week is not the wisest manner in which to proceed. Given that Mr. Epstein will not even enter his plea for another few weeks, time is clearly not of the essence regarding any notification to the identified individuals. Sincerely, 2; . Ldko tz RFP MIA 000010 EFTA00184881

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 8 EXHIBIT 86 EFTA00184882

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 8 • • U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida UNITE1,11,WEY DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Kenneth W. Starr, Esq Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Start: 99 N.E I Sates Mast FL 33132 OW 961-9100 - Tekpitone (303) 530-6414 - Facsimile I write in response to your November 28th letter, in which you raise concerns regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement between this Office and your client, Mr. Epstein. I take these concerns seriously. As your letter focused on the Section 2255 portion of the Agreement, my response will focus primarily on that issue as well. 1 do wish to make some more general observations, however. Section 2255 provides that "[a)ny person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of [enumerated sections of Title 18) 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 suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." Thus, had this Office proceeded to trial, and had Mr. Epstein been convicted, the victims of his actions would have been able to seek to relief under this Section. 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 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" offense; (2) that this plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. This third point deserves elaboration. The intent is to place the victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. With this in mind, I turn to the language of the Agreement. Paragraph 8 of the Agreement provides: 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 Slaws RFP MIA 000501 EFTA00184883

,se 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 8 d 4 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 victim and Epstein, so long as the identified victim 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 is not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability other than that contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Although these two sentences are far from simple, they appear to incorporate our intent to narrowly tailor the Agreement to place the identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. I would note that I have conferred with our prosecutors and have been told that Paragraph 8 was vigorously negotiated and that the final language was suggested largely by defense counsel. The concerns raised in your letter with respect to Paragraph 8 fall within several general categories. First, you raise concerns regarding the nature of Section 2255. As you note, Section 2255 is a civil statute implanted in the criminal code; in contrast to other criminal statutes, Section 2255 fails to correlate payments to specific injuries or losses. Instead the statute presumes that victims have sustained damages of at least a minimum lump sum without regard to whether the complainants suffered actual medical, physiological or other forms of individualized harm. These concerns were, I would expect, aired when Congress adopted this statute. Even if they were not, this provision is now law. Rule of law requires now requires this District to consider the victims' rights under this statute in negotiating this Agreement. Second, you raise concerns regarding the identity-of-the-victims issue. Your concerns appear based on the belief that Paragraph 8 is a blanket waiver of liability with respect to any number of unnamed and undisclosed victims. I would invite you to confer with your co-counsel regarding this matter. Although the language of Paragraph 8 could be so construed, our First Assistant informed Mr. Lefkowitz some weeks ago that this was not our position. As Mr. Lefkowitz has noted, were Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims in a subsequent Section 2255 suit would still have had some burden to prove that they were "victims." It is also the case, however, that were Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims would not have to show that a violation of an enumerated section of Title 18 took place. Accordingly, our First Assistant informed Mr. Lefkowitz some weeks ago that we understood that if a victim-plaintiff elects to proceed to trial, Mr. Epstein's Although not identified as an issue by defense counsel, having reviewed this language, 1 note that Paragraph 8 raises the question of what is meant by "subject matter." 1 have conferred with the AUSA who negotiated this language, and have been informed that parties intended this to address issues of venue. This Office will not interpret this paragraph as any waiver of subject matter jurisdiction. Please inform me if defense counsel disagrees. -2- RFP MIA 000502 EFTA00184884

, Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 8 • • legal team might conduct due diligence to confirm the that victim-plaintiff in fact had inappropriate contact with Mr. Epstein. Once again, our interpretive principle is our intent to place the victim in the same position she would have been had Mr. Epstein proceeded to trial. Third, you raise concerns regarding our decision not to create a restitution fund. Throughout the negotiations, defense counsel suggested several similar arrangements, including a Trust fund. Again, our decision not to create a hand flows from our belief that the Agreement should provide the same relief to the victims as they would have been entitled had we proceeded to trial. A restitution fund or trust fund would place an upper limit on the victims' recovery. It is not for this Office to make that decision for the victims. They may choose to walk away, they may choose to settle, or they may choose to sue. The choice should remain with each individual victim? Fourth, you raise concerns regarding the selection process for the attorney representative. As you may be aware, the suggestion that we appoint an attorney representative originated with defense counsel. Defense counsel, I believe, found it advantageous to attempt to negotiate a settlement of the many victims' claims with one attorney representative. My Office agreed to appoint such a representative, in part, because we too thought it valuable for the victims to have the advice of an attorney who could advise them of their choices: whether to walk away, to settle or to sue. Since the signing of the Agreement, several issues have arisen with respect to this provision. First, l elected to assign this trace's right to appoint the representative to an independent third-party, former federal Judge . I did this to avoid any suggestion that this Office's choice of representative was intended to influence the outcome of civil litigation. Second, your co-counsel expressed concerns similar to those raised in your letter regarding the criteria used to select the representative. These criteria were: (1) Experience doing both plaintiffs' and defense litigation; (2) Experience with state and federal statutory and common law tort claims; (3) Ability to communicate effectively with young women; (4) Experience litigating against large law firms and high profile attorneys who may test the veracity of the victims' claims; (5) Sensitivity to the nature of the suit and the victims' interest in maintaining their privacy; (6) Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida; 2 Your letter references U.S I Boehm, No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Ala 2004) as a model for a restitution fund settlement. I asked our prosecutor to contact the AUSA in that case. In that matter, the District of Alaska sought out and obtained the consent of all the victims before entering into that settlement. In addition, they developed an elaborate procedure for deciding which victim would receive what. My view, in this case, is that those types of negotiations are better handled between Mr. Epstein and the victims' representatives, and that this Office should not act as intermediary. Finally, I would note that in Boehm as well, the victims' identities were not initially disclosed. As the AUSA wrote in that case: "This filing is made ex pane because Boehm, in his plea agreement, waived any rights he had pertaining to the selection of beneficiaries and the disbursement of funds to such beneficiaries." -3- RFP MIA 000503 EFTA00184885

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 8 S • (7) The resources to hire experts and others, while working on a contingency fee basis, in order to prepare for trial if a settlement cannot be reached (defense counsel has reserved the right to challenge such litigation); and (8) The ability to negotiate effectively. At my direction, our First Assistant provided our criteria to your co-counsel, Mr. Lefkowitz, in advance, and at co-counsel's request, he noted in our communication with Judge , defense counsel's objection to criteria 7. I have now reviewed these criteria and find them balanced and ' reasonable. They appear designed to provide the victims with an attorney who can advise them on all their options, whether it be to walk away, to settle (as your client prefers), or to litigate. Again, our intent is not to favor any one of these options, but rather to leave the choice to each victim. Fifth, you assert that this Office "has improperly insisted that the chosen attorney representative should be able to litigate the claims of the individuals," should a resolution not be possible. This issue, likewise, has already been raised and addressed in discussions between your co-counsel and our First Assistant. We understand your position that it would be a conflict of interest for the attorney representative to subsequently represent victim-plaintiffs in a civil suit. Your interpretation of the ethics rules may be correct, or it may be wrong. Far from insisting that the attorney representative can represent victim-plaintiffs in subsequent litigation, our First Assistant and I have repeatedly told defense counsel that we take no position on this matter. Indeed, I fully expect your defense team to litigate this issue with the attorney representative if a resolution is not reached. I have responded personally and in some detail to your concerns because I deeply care about both the law and the integrity of this Office. I have responded personally and in some detail as well because your letter troubled me on a number of levels. My understanding of the negotiations in this matter informs my concerns. The Section 2255 provision issue was first discussed at a July 31, 2007, meeting between FAU SA , Criminal Chief_, West Palm Beach Chief Lourie, AUSA Villafafia, and two FBI agents who met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. On that date, the prosecutors presented a written, four-bullet-point term sheet that would satisfy the federal interest in the case and discussed the substance of those terms. One of these four points was the following provision: 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. -4- RFP MIA 000504 EFTA00184886

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 6 of 8 • • In mid August 2007, your defense team, dissatisfied with my staffs review of the case, asked to meet with me. Mr. Lefkowtiz indicated your busy schedule, and asked me to put off until September 7, 2007, so that you could attend. Mr. Lefkowitz also indicated that he might appeal my decision to Washington D.C., if my decision was contrary to his client's interest. I agreed to the September 7" meeting, despite the fact that our AUSA had an indictment ready for presentation to the grand jury. An explicit condition of that agreement, however, was an understanding between Mr. Lefkowitz and myself that any appeal to Washington would be undertaken expeditiously. On September 7, 2007,1, along with FAUSA AUSA5 McMillan and Villafatia, and FBI agents, met with you, Mr. Lefkowitz, and Ms. SancliMunderstood that you wished to present federalism-based concerns regarding our prosecution. To ensure a full consideration of your arguments, I invited Drew Oosterbaan, Chief of the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, to travel from Washington to attend our meeting. During the September 7th meeting, your co-counsel, Mr. Lefkowitz, offered a plea resolution. The inclusion of a Section 2255 remedy was specifically raised and discussed at the September 7th meeting. Indeed, according to AUSA Villafafia's notes, you thanked her for bringing it to your attention. Again, no objection to the Section 2255 issue was raised. After considering the arguments raised at the September 7th meeting, and after conferring with the FBI and with Chief Oosterbaan, our Office decided to proceed with the indictment. At that time, I reminded Mr. Lefkowitz that he had previously indicated his desire to appeal such a decision to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, and I offered to direct our prosecutors to delay the presentation of the indictment to allow you or he to appeal our decision if you so chose. He decided not to do so. Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiate the Non-Prosecution Agreement. These negotiations were detailed and time-consuming. Mr. Epstein's defense team, including yourself, Professor Dershowitz, former United States Attorney Guy Lewis, Ms. Lilly Ann Sanchez and Messrs. Roy Black, Jack Goldberger, Gerry Lefcourt and Jay Lefkowitz had the opportunity to review and raise objections to the terms of the Agreement. Again, no one raised objections to the Section 2255 language. Since the signing of the Agreement, the defense team and our Office have addressed several issues that have arisen under the Agreement. Although the exchanges were at times a bit litigious, it appears that these issues have been resolved by mutual consent, some in favor of your client, some not so. It is against these many previous foregone opportunities to object that I receive with surprise your letter requesting an I I d' hour, after-the-fact review of our Agreement. Although it happens rarely, I do not mind this Office's decision being appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although I am confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal analysis, I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in the Criminal -5- RFP MIA 000505 EFTA00184887

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 7 of 8 Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving their indictment package. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in fact resolved, in your client's favor. I am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement. The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must be closure on this matter. Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind. Finally, I am most concerned about any belief on the part of defense counsel that the Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitutional in any way.' In closing, I would ask that you consult with co-counsel. If after consultations within the defense team, you believe that our Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitutional, I would ask that you notify, us immediately so that we can discuss the matter by phone or in person. I have consulted with the chief prosecutor in this case, who has advised me that she is ready to unwind the Agreement and proceed to trial if necessary or if appropriate. I would 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. Although time is of the essence (I understand that certain filings are due to our Office no later than December 7i° and that certain events must take place no later than December 14?'), I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options with your client. We arc available by phone or in person, in the interim, to It is not clear from your letter whether you believe that attorneys in this Office have acted improperly. Your letter, for example, alludes to the need to engage in an inquiry to asswe that disclosures to potential witnesses did not undermine the reliability of the results of this federal investigation. As a former Department of Justice attorney 1 am certain that you recognize that this is a serious allegation. I have raised this matter with ADM lillafana who informed me that the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 relief during the investigation phase of this matter. If you have specific concerns, I ask that you raise these with me immediately, so that I can make appropriate inquiries. -6- RFP MIA 000506 EFTA00184888

r CaSe 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 8 of 8 address any matters that might remain unaddressed in this letter. We expect a written decision by this Friday at 5 p.m., indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the Agreement. Sincerely, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY cc: Alice Fis er ssistant Attorney General leffre ilastant U.S. Attorney AUSA A. • • -7- RFP MA 000507 EFTA00184889

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT 87 EFTA00184890

1" ' udig 9108cvI-nal0736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 14 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP nun Mlil IAlt() 1W4INLMION Jay P. LHIlcowitz. P.0 in CMI Milo/ Dia:Ily: 1 446.4970 lorkowdzeRkirkionel.com VIA FACSIMILE (305) 530-6444 I lonurahle K. Alexander United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Street Minmi, I;L 33132 Deur CilifVOLIP corn 01 153 Cutal 53rd Sweat Now York. Now York 10022-4611 www.kirkland coon Met:miler I I. 2007 Re: Alike), ffpxwln FocoonIlu: In 4404900 I thank you Ihr the opportunity to express my concerns with the Section 2255 component of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement"). I provide this submission as a good faith elfon to communicate all of our concerns on this matter. I respectfully request that you consider the issues I discuss below in conjunction with the ethics opinion of Mr. Joe I). Whitley that I faxed to your Office on December 7. Background of Negotiations believe it is important for you to be aware of the full scope and substance of our eoMmunications with your Office with respect to first, the negotiations regarding the inclusion of the Section 2255 component and second. the process of implementation of its terms. Contrary to your Ofliee's view, we do not raise our COMMIS about the Section 2255 component of the Agreement at the -eleventh hour." Since the very first negotiation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the USAO and Mr. Epstein. we have verbatim(' our objections to the inclusion of and specific language relating to Section 2255. Also. when negotiating the settlement portion or the federal plea agreement, we immediately sought an alternative to the 2255 language. In fact. fur the sake of expediting any monetary settlements that were to he made and to allow for a quick resolution or the matter. we repeatedly offered that Mr. Epstein establish a restitution fund specilicully for the settlement of the identified individuals' civil claims and that an impartial, independent representative be appointed to administer that fund. This option. however, was rejected by your °Ince. Notably, while in our December 4 letter to me. you indicate that the reason for the rejection of a fund was because it would place an upper limit on Chicago Hong Kong London LOA Angeles Munich San Francisco WAShinglon, RFP MIA 000025 EFTA00184891

12111eA)4 d:birc4b736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 P.;ge3 of 14 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP MIS De,cemher II. 2007 rage 2 the victims' recovery, we placed no such limit on the amount that the alleged victims could recover. Our objections regarding the Section 2255 component of the Agreement began as early as August 2 when, after receiving the USA()); proposed Non-Pmsecution Agreement, we suggested that the 2255 component of the Agreement could be satisfied by the creation or a restitution fund: , ..Mr. Epstein is prepared to hilly food the identified group of victims which are the focus of the Office — that is, the 12 individuals noted at the meeting on July 3 I , 2007. This would allow the victims to he able to promptly put this behind them and go foiwurds with their lives. If given the cipportunity to opine as to the appropriateneSs of Mr. Rinwin's proposal. in my extensive experience in these types of ruses. the victims prefer a quick resolution with compensation for damages and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need kw trial. See letter from Lily Ann Sanchez to Chief Matthew a dated August 2, 2007.1 For the duration of the negotiations, we then continued to encourage the use of a restitution fund in place of civil liability tinder Section 2255. For example. in our draft plea agreement seat to your Office on September 16, 2007. we included the following polygraph; Epstein agrees to fund lyust set up in cinuict with the Goventinent und under the supervision of the 151k Judiciul Circuit in und for Palm Beach County. Epstein agrees that n Trutaix will he appointed by the Circuit Conn and that funds from the Trust will be available to he disbursed at the Trustee's discretion to an agreed list of persons who seek reimbursement and make a good Milt showing to the Trustee 'hat they suffered injury as a result of the conduct or Epstein, Epstein waives his right to contest liability ur damages up to an amount agreed to by the parties for any settlements entered into by the Trustee. Epaent's waiver is net m he construed as an admission nfelvil or criminal liahility in regards to any of those who seek compensation from the Trust. See draft proposal sent from Jay Lelliowitz to Andrew I ,nurle dated September 15, 2007. In response, Ms. Villafana demanded that the Agreement contain language considering the inclusion of a guardian ad hum in the proceedings. despite the fact that. we are now led to believe that all but one of the women in question are in fact not minors. Interestingly. Ms. WW1= not only raises the same concerns that now have become issues with respect to the Implementation of the Section 2255 component, she also believes that the creation of is trust would be in the victims' hest interests. Vibrant! writes: I It was rat orall alter receipt of this letter that Mr. Menthol indicated to us that the scope of liability would encompass nut bite the 12 individualt; named in the Indictment. Init of the minor girls identified during the federal investigation." See Meneltel entail to Sanchezdated August 3, 2007. RFP MLA 000026 EFTA00184892

I" I Case 9:08:cvi-r80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 14 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP December I I, 20 7 Page 3 As 1 mentioned over the telephone. I cannot bind the girls to the 'Mist Agreement. and I don't think it is appropriate that a state court would administer a must that seeks to pay for federal civil claims. We /huh wum to (wont nakerapulaur itflOrthyS amPor lan:ants front conangfunrard, and I know awn "'our client wank io Amp Mae 0101149:t NI/Side O/public cuurr,lilingx, but 1 just don't have 11w power to do what you ask. Here is my recommendation. During the period between Mr. Epstein's plea mid sentencing. I make a motion for appointment of the Guardian Ad Linen. three of UN Nil down and discuss things, and I Will ar much as I eon &altµ Ike Seth' approval 'Inas arocedurr &ram; as l ownibunal I dank ft Is prubably In their best nacricas. In terms of pica agreement language. let me suggest tlw following: The (tailed States agrees to make a motion sucking the appointment era Guardian ad Litetn to represent the identified victims, Following the appointment of such Guardian. the parties agree to work together in good faith to develop a Trust Agreement, subject to the Court's approval. that would provide lin any damages owed to the identified victims pursuant In IN I Section 3255. Then include the lust two sentences of your paragraph S. See email from Villafana to 1 fetkowitz dated September 16. 2007 (emphasis added). I lowever, notably, in the dealt agreement that follows, Ms. Villafana keeps the some objectionable language and only adds a portion of what was suggested in her communication to us: Epstein agrees that. if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation lite suit pursuant to IN U.N.C. # 2255. Epstein will not cunttaa the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter. and Epstein will not context that the identified victims are persons who, while minors. were victims of vkilittions of Title I It, United States Code., Sections(s) 2422 trod/or 2422. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of ilw identified victims, which will not exceed forty, utter F,pmein has signed this agreement and has been sentenced. The United States shall make a motion with the United Stales District Conti for the Southern District of Florida for the appointment of a guardian ad them for the identified victims and F.p.stein's counsel may enamel the identified victims through that counsel. See draft non-prosecution agreement c-moiled front to Lethowitz dated September 17. 2007. The inclusion of 0 guardian ad /item. however. on y served to complicate matters. We continued to reiterate our objections to the inclusion of § 2255 in the Agreement repeatedly. as evidenced in an email from Ms. Villafana to myself on September 23, 2005 where she writes: "we have been over paragraph 6 Ithe then relevant 2255 paragraph an infinite number of times." During negotiations, it was decided that an attorney representative be appointed in the place of guardian ad litem -- not for the sake of litigating claims. but based on the belief that a guardian ad litem would not be appropriate lbr adults that are capable of making, their own decisions. liowever. the IISAO included into the Agreement that we pay line the attorney representative -- when originally Ms. stated that tlx: representative could he paid for by us or the federal court. See e-mail from Vt alma to Lelkowitz dated September 23. 2007. RFP MIA 000027 EFTA00184893

ease 9:08r-Cv180736-I<AM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 14 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP December I 1,2007 Page 4 The final agreement was very similar to what was proposed by Ms. ViIlatima in her initial droll agreement on July 31. 2007: The United States shall provide tipstein's fulomey's with u list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, us defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, tiller Epstein has signed this agreement end has been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement. the United States. In consultation with and subject to the good Nth approval of Epstein's counsel. shall stied an attorney representative for these persons. who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel nnty contact the identified individuals through that representative. If any of the individuals retimed to in paragraph (7), xopra. elects to file suit pursuant lo IS § 2255. Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over this 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 in between the identified individual and Epstein. so lung as the Identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under IS 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 ibilures to contest liability, and such damages in any snit are not to ho construed ns an admission of any criminal or civil liability. See final plea agreement. The Agreement requires Mr. Epstein In waive jurisdiction and liability under IS U.S.C. §2255 for the settlement of any monetary claims that might be made by alleged victims identified by the MAO (the -identified individual°. Mr. Epstein is precluded from contesting liability as to civil lawsuits seeking monetary compensation for damages for those identified individuals who elect to settle the civil claims for the statutory minimum of either $50.000 (the amount set by Congress as of the date of the occurrences) or $150.000 (the amount currently set by statute) or some other agreed upon damage amount. Mr. P.pstein must pay for the services of the selected attorney representative as long as they are limited to settling the claims of the identified individuals. The implementation of (he terms of the Agreement was just as contentious as was the drilling and negotiation this portion of the Agreement. The lirst major obstacle was a direct result of Ms. Villufana's improper attempt to appoint, Mr. Bert Ocariz. a close, person friend of her boyfriend's for the role of attorney representative. We of in the strongest terms to such an appointment due to our serious concerns regarding the lack of independence of this and the appearance of impropriety caused by this choice. As a result, the USA° dratted an addendum to the Agreement. This addendum provides for the use of an independent third party to select the attorney representative and also specifies that Mr. Epstein is not obligated to pay the cost of litigation against him. Upon the decision that we would appoint an independent party to choose the attorney representative. we were engaged in consistent and constant dialogue with your stall as to the precise language that would he transmitted to the independent party to explain his or role. RFP MIA 000028 EFTA00184894

Case 9:08<v-80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 PlaWeiji - 14 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP December I I. 2007 Page 5 At each juncture. the inclusion of a civil remedy in the Agreement has resulted in unending debates and disagreements with respect to the appropriate manner in which to implement the terms of the Section 3255 component. The main issues that have arisen since the drafting and execution of the final agreement include the process flit the selection of an attorney representative: the scope of Mr. Epstein's waiver of liability and jurisdiction: the mle of the attorney representative; the language contained in various &tills of the ietter to the independent third party: the correct amount of minimum damages pursuant to Section 2255; the extent and substance of communications between the witnesses and alleged victims and the USA° and the tail. particularly with respect to the settlement process: the language contained in the letters proposed to be sent to the alleged victims; and the extent of continued federal involvement in the state procedures of Mr. Epstein's state plea and sentence. Notably, neither Section 2255. nor any other civil remedy statute, has been used as a pre- requisite to criminal plea agreement and it is clear that the use of' these terms creates unanticipated issues. Furthermore. the waiver of rights of which the i1SAO insisted is also not a traditional aspect of criminal resolutions. While we were reluctant and cautious about a Non- Prosecution Agreement in which a criminal defendant gives up certain rights to contest liability for a chill mettle specifically. Ms. • ' not believe there wits room for contention given the IJSAO's, and ultimatums that required that we acquiesce to these unprecedented terns. Concerns Iteaardinu Section 2253 Mr Epstein unconditionally re-asserts his intention to UM! and not seek to withdraw from or unwind the Agreement previously entered. Ile raises important issues regarding the implementation of the 2255 provisions not to unwind the provisions or invalidate the Agreement but instead to call attention to serious matters of policy and principles that you are requested to review. As you will see below our main policy-related concerns arc ( I ) the inclusion of Section 2255. a civil remedies statutes in a criminal plea agreement, (2) the blanket waiver of jurisdiction and liability as to certain unidentified individuals to whose claims the government has asscncd they take no position, and (3) any communications between federal authorities, including your staff and the PIK and witnesses and alleged victims and the nature of such communications. With respect to the Interpretation of the terms of the Agreement, we do not agree with your Office's interpretation of the expansive scope of Mr. Epstein's agreement to waive liability and jurisdiction. Nor do we agree with your Office's view of the expansive Me of the attorney representative. Below. I describe first, the policy implications and the practical problems that these terms have created or will create. Second. I describe points of contention as to the interpretation of various terms of the Section 2255 component of the Agreement. RFP MIA 000029 EFTA00184895

" ni ne RAW/40736-1<AM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 7 of 14 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP • K. Alexander = December I I, 2007 Page 6 1. Policy Considerations The inclusion of Section 2255 in a criminal plea agreement is unprecedented and raises significant policy-related concerns. Some of these issues can create and have created problems as to the ability of this component to (1) maintain tlx: integrity and independence of the USA°, (2) serve its purpose. namely to provide lidr and appropriate recovery to any victims in a prompt fashion. and (3) protect the rights of the defendant. While we appreciate your consideration of our concerns described below, we are also confident that your commitment to justice and integrity will cause you to consider any additional policy and ethical issues that the Section 2255 component raises. A. Government Involvement The inclusion or Section 2255. a purely civil remedy. raises the risk of excessive government interference in private. civil matters. As Mr. Whitley states in his opinion. " . . .unnecessary entanglement of the government in such cases and the MSC of federal resources could improperly influence such cases and create the appearance of impropriety.- it is well established that the government should refrain from getting involved in lawsuits. However, to include Section 2255 in a federal agreement inherently exacerbates the risk of federal involvement in civil litigation and thus lin; in practice. the inclusion of this statute, as opposed to the creation of a restitution fund, has resulted in continued federal involvement in this matter. Federal criminal investigators and prosecutors should not be in the business of helping alleged victims of slate crimes secure civil financial settlements us a condition precedent to entering non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements. This is especially true where the defendant is pleading to state crimes for which there exists u state statute allowing victims to recover damages. See Florida Statutes § 796.09. The fact that state law accounts for the ability of victims to recover truly eliminates the need for a waiver of liability under a federal statute. Furthermore. the vehicle for the financial settlement under the Agreement requires restitution in a lump sum without requiring proof of actual injury or loss federal authorities should therefore be particularly sensitive to avoid causing a prejudiced and unfair result. Section 2255 is a civil statute implanted in the criminal code that in contrast to all other criminal restitution statutes tails to correlate payments to specific injuries or losses and instead presumes dint victims under the statute have sustained damages of at least u minimum lump sum without regard to whether the complainants stiflimed actual medical, psychological or other forms of individualized harm. We presume that it is for this reason that Section 2255 has never before been employed in this manner in connection with a non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreement. RFP MIA 000030 EFTA00184896

lase 9Y/61:CA5736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 P ggveorian 14 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP December 1 I. 2007 Page 7 Mr, Epstein's blanket waiver of liability as to civil claims gives the appearance of impropriety. While your Office has, on several occasions. asserted that they take no position as to the claims of the individuals it identifies as "victims." the fact that they continue to promote the award of a civil settlement to these individuals is problematic. As you know. government contracts and plc agreement must not diminish or undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system. Sec . McGovern. 822 F.2d 739. 743 (8th Cir. 1987) (—A plea agreement, however, is not simply a contract between two parties. it necessarily implicates the integrity of the criminal justice system and requires the courts to exercise judicial authority in considering the plea agreement and in accepting or rejecting the plea."). The requirement that Mr. Epstein blindly sacrifice his rights. as a civil litigant. to contest allegations made against him seem to contradict the principles of justice and fairness that fire embedded in the tenets of the United Slates Attorney's Office. I also assert that on both a principled and practical level. the mere involvement of your Office in the matter with respect to civil settlement is inappropriate. Even though we understood from you that federal involvement in tltis matter would cease after the attorney representative was selected, your Office continues to assert their obligation to he in contact with the alleged victims in this matter. Hnd we agreed to a restitution fund for the victims instead of the civil remedies provision, we would not have objected to your Office's communications with these individuals. However. because the alleged victims have the ability to recover damages based on a civil claim pursuant to the Agreement. we are concerned with your Office's ongoing efforts to stay involved in this matter. Contact with federal authorities at this point can only invite the pnssibility for impermissible or partial communications. Most recently, your Office sent us /trans or a letter that your Office proposed to send to the alleged victims (the - victim notification letter"). While the revised dote of this letter states that victims should contact the State Attorney's Office for assistance with their rights, there is no phone number provided for the office Agent ' • r provides the telephone number and an invitation to contact Special of the FBI. Indeed, the letter as currently drafted invites nut only contact between your Office and the victims. it also asserts that federal witnesses may become participants in u saute proceeding, thus federalizing the state plea mid sentencing in the same manner as would the appearance and statements via member of your Office or the 1,B1, 2 We are concerned with the fact that some (lithe victims were previously notified, as Mr. Jeffrey swot in his Idler or Deeember 6 letter. In your letter of bcccmbcr 4. you state that you would not issue the Victim Notification Leiter until December 7. Thos, it is wowing to leant that some victims were notified prior to that date. Please confirm whim lite victims were notified, who was notified. the method or conununicatten thr the notification, and the individunl who notified them. RFP MIA 000031 EFTA00184897

_ . e' a" e s 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 9 of Case " n 14 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP December 11. 2007 Page 8 The proposed victim notification letter asserts that the federal 'victims' have the right to appear at Mr. Epstein's plea and sentence or to submit a written statement to be filed by the State Attorney. However, as agreed to in the federal non-prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein will he pleading to stale charges and 1w will be sentenced liar the commission of state reenses. The 'victims' the government identifies relate only to the federal charges for which Mr. Epstein was under investigation. The draft victim notification letter cites Florida Statutes §* 960.001(k) and 921.143(1) as the authority for allowing the alleged victims to appear nr give statements. however these provisions apply only to the victim of the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced . . . ' 'Thus Florida law only affords victims of state crimes to appear or submit statements in criminal proceedings and the state charges for which Mr. Epstein will be sentenced are not coextensive with the federal investigation. Further. any questions al this point involving the charges against Mr. Epstein or the proper state procedures under which he will plead or be sentenced arc appropriately made to the State Attorney's Olliee. Continued federal inv ve e t in this matter its led to an impropriety that was unanticipated us well. Ms. attempted to manipulate the terms of Mr. Epswin's settlement so that persons close to her would personally profit. Ms. inappropriately attempted to nominate Bert Oeariz liar attorney representative. despite t e act that Mr. Ocariz turns out to be a very good personal friend or ms. vmatcanis boyfriend, a fact she assiduously kept hidden from counsel. We requested alternate choices immediately. hut were told that Mr. Ocariz had been informed of the charges the government would bring against Epstein and in response, he aske •-mail whether his lees would be capped. Needless to say. we were alarmed that Ms. would attempt to influence the settlement process on such improper grounds. And even alter e USA° conceded that it was inappropriate for its attorneys to select the attorney representative, Ms. continued to impro rly lobby for Mt Modes appointment. On October 19, 200 , retire Judge 13. who was appointed by the parties to select the attorney representative. informe r. Pp s counsel that he received a telephone call from Mr. Oeariz directly requesting that Judge appoint him as the attorney s entative in this matter. Although it is unclear how Mr. cariz even knows that Judge has been chosen to administer the settlement process. it can only be understood as Ms. Villalimats attempts to compromise the fairness of the settlement process. B. Integrity of the Process and the Legitimacy of the Claims The waiver of liability Mr. Epstein must make in relation to Section 2255 endangers the legitimacy of the claims made by the alleged victims. There is a heightened risk that the alleged victims will make false and exaggerated claims once they are informed of Mr. lipstein's waiver under Section 2255 for the settlement of claims pursuant to the Agreement. Indeed, Mr. Whitley states. " . . .the Department (of.lustice) should consider developing processes and procedures to ensure that the investigative process is insulated from such risks." It is also well settled that witnesses cannot be given any special treatment due to the fact that it may affect the reliability of RFP MIA 000032 EFTA00184898

"eaysve 9I:i58"-Cvr-80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 10 of 14 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Dcectnber 1 . 2007 Page 9 their testimony. Any and all communications between the federal authorities and the allotted - victims" and witnesses in this matter has the ability to influence the reliability of the testimony obtained and the validity Ards: civil settlements that result. Thus. there is still a real concern that some of the statements that federal prosecutors relied upon in its prosecution of this matter may have been tainted. An inquiry is required to confirm that at the time witness statements were given. them were no conummications made by federal agents regarding potential civil remedies. The government should not provide promises of guaranteed monetary settlements to encourage cooperation because they run the risk of seriously tainting the reliability of witness statements. While we by no means are accusing your Office of snaking improper communications at this point the fact that the award of a civil settlement, without any requirement to prove liability. Is available to the identified Individuals, raises cause for concern as to the nature of all conununications that am made to the 'victims.' You previously stated that the USAO's main objective with respect to the Section 2255 component of the Agreement was to "place the victims in the same position us they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial." However. to accomplish this goal, your Office rejected using traditional terms that allow for the restitution of victims. Instead, your Office chose to insert itself into the negotiations. settlement, and potential litigation of a civil suit. With all due respect. we object to your Office's attempt to make the victims whole by requiring that Mr. Epstein deprive himself of rights accorded to him as a potential civil defendant. While we are aware one of the responsibilities of your Office ix to provide for restitution for victims of crimes, this does not give the government the responsibility to enable alleged victims to collect a civil settlement. Despite this concern, it should elm he noted that, the Agreement. bath as written and as interpreted by your Office significantly enlarges the victims' ability to recover from Mr. Epstein. Per instance, it' the individuals attempted to litigate against Mr. Epstein. they would have been determined to be victims only after a lengthy trial, in which they would have been thoroughly deposed, their credibility tes►ed and their statements subject to cross-examination. 'the defendant, under these circumstances, would not have had pay the plaintiffs' legal fees. Moreover, these individuals would face significant evidentiary hurdles. unwanted publicity, and most importantly. no certainty of success on the merits. Therefore. the notion that your Office is merely attempting to restore these " victims" to the same position as they would have been bud Mr. Epstein hem convicted at trial misundostands the Agreement and your Office's implementation of its terms. C. Rights ur a Defendant Requiring Mr. Epstein to snake a blanket waiver of liability and jurisdiction as to unidentified victims whose claims to which the government lakes no position can be construed as RFP MIA 000033 EFTA00184899

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 11 of 14 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP December I I. 2007 Pap I0 violative of his Due Process rights. Furthermore. the fact that the statute at issue in this matter does not connect harm to the minimum amount available to the victim and simply includes a lump sum exacerbates the potential lilt injustice and an abridgement of Mr. lipstehes rights. At the very least. Mr. Epstein should he given the right to know the identity or the victims and the evidence upon which each one was identified as a victim by the government. The USA() has provided no information as to the specific claims that were made by each identified individual, nor were we given the names or ages or the individuals or the time-Prone of the alleged conduct at issue. The USAO's reluctance to provide Mr. Epstein with any information regarding, the allegations against him leaves wide open the opportunity lint misconduct by the federal investigators and eliminates the ability for Mr. Epstein and/or his agents to verily that the allegations at issue arc grounded in factual assertions and real evidence. Indeed, the requirement that a target of federal criminal prosecution agree to waive his right to contest liability as to unnamed civil complainants creates at minimum an appermmee or injustice, both because of the obvious Due Process concerns al waiving rights without notice of even the identity of the complainant and because of the involvement of the federal criminal justice system in civil settlements between private individuals. We reaffirm the II to test the veracity of the victims' eluims as provided to us in the letter from you to Judge dated Oeurbei 25. 2007. It has recently come to our attention that your staff has identified HS a - victim" for purposes of Section 2255 relief: who initially and repeatedly refused to cooperate with federal authorities during the course of the investigation. only submitted to an interview after she was conferred with a grant of immunity. Surely this is not a demand typically made by someone who is a crime - victim". Moreover, :mom testimony does not suggest that she is a victim. • has not only admitted that she lied to Mr. Epstein about her age claiming she was 18 years old. hut that she counseled Others to lie to Mr. Epstein in the same manner. also states that Mr. Epstein was clear with her that he was only interested in "women" who were of ags: and that most of the young women she brought to his home were indeed over 18 years of age. Moreover. while claims to have provided mussages to Mr. Epstein. she does not alleµ; to have engaged in sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein: does not claim she provided him with oral sex: does not purport that Mr. Epstein penetrated her in any manner. denies Mr. Epstein ever used a vibrator, massager. or any type of "sex tor on her: denies he touched her breasts. buttocks, or vagina: and slates that she never touched Mr. F.pstein's sexual organs — nor was she asked to do so by Mr. Epstein. Without a right to contest the liability of claims, will likely receive ear more in civil damages than what would he she would have had Mr. Epstein been convicted. In addition, the Agreement with the MAO only detixs lizderul prosixtition of Mr. Epstein: it does not assert a declination to prosecute. as was first contemplated in the negotiation of the Agreement. Any payments made and/or settlement agreements reached with the alleged RFP MIA 000034 EFTA00184900

Case 9:013-cv-8636-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 12 of 14 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP • • • II December 11, 2007 Page I I victims prior to the foreclosure of any future federal prosecution carries the potential of being used as evidence against Mr. Epstein. 'Huts. to protect his rights as a defendant. Mr. Epstein should nut be required to pay any of the alleged victims until after the threat of prosecution no longer exists. II. Misinterpretations of the Agreement The contentiousness caused by the implementation of the Section 2255 portion of the Agreement has also been caused by what we believe are misinterpretations of the terms by your Office. These problems, which I describe below. are a practical outgrowth of the fact that civil settlement, as opposed to restitution. is considered in the Agreement. A. Role of the Attorney Representative The tJSAO has improperly emphasized that the chosen attorney representative should be able to litigate the claims of individuals. which violates the terms, and deeply infringes upon the spirit and nature of. the Agreement. I lowever. after the parties agreed to the appointment of an independent third party to select the representative, the government announced that the criteria for choosing an appropriate attorney representative would include that they be "a plaintiffs lawyer capable of handling multiple lawsuits against high profile attorneys." This interpretation of the scope of the attorney representative's role is Ihr outside the common understanding that existed when we negotiated Mr. Epstein's settlement with the USA°. Moreover, we have made the USAO aware of the potential ethical problems that would arise should the selected representative be allowed to litigate and settle various claims against Mr. Epstein. The initial draft victim notification letter contained language that confirmed your Office's interpretation and indicated that Mr. Podhurst mid Mr. Josefsberg, the selected attorney representatives. may "represent" the identified individuals. This language assumes that the selected representatives will agree to serve in the capacity envisioned by the USAO, which we believe is patently incorrect. To suggest this notion in a letter to victims who have limited or no knowledge of the ethical principles at issue will only lead to confusion. misunderstanding and disappointment among the identified individuals when they learn that such representation is foreclosed. R. Scope of Mr. Epstein's Waiver Your Office has taken the position that Mr. Epstein waives liability beyond the settlement of claims and that he will waive liability even in lawsuits brought by the identified individuals. However. this overstates the scope of Mr. Epstein's waiver pursuant to the Agreement. Mr. Epstein has only agreed that he will waive the right to contest liability and jurisdiction for the purpose of settling claims with the alleged victims pursuant to Sections 7 through 8 of the Agreement and Addendum. Mr. Epstein has no obligation to waive this right to contest liability RFP MIA 000035 EFTA00184901

. . . _ Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 13 of 14 (4 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP December 11, 2007 Page 12 in any claim for damages • by an enumerated "victim"- or anyone else — where that party Nis to settle her claims pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. The revised draft of the letter avoids this misinterpretation and directly quotes Paragraphs 7. 8, 9 and of the Agreement. While we do not have any objection to including this portion of the Agreement in the proposed letter, we request that Paragraphs 7A, 713. and 7C of the Addendum to the Agreement also be included because the language contained there in most clearly outlines the scope of Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay damages under the Agreement. C. Right of the Alleged Victims to Be Notified As we have expressed to you previously, we do nor agree with your Office's assertion that it is either an obligation and even appmpriate for the MAO to send a victims notification letter to the alleged victims. The Justice fin All Act of 2004 only contemplates notification in relation to available restitution for the victims of crimes. However, since Section 2255 is only one of many civil remedies. there is no requirement that the (JSAO inform alleged victims pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. Notably. if the USAO had agreed to include a restitution fund in the Agreement as opposed to a civil remedy statute, the alleged victims would have the right to be notified pursuant to the relevant Act. Further. we note that the reasons you cite in favor of issuing the pmposed Victims Notification letter in your correspondence of December 4 are also inapplicable to this scenario. For instance. you cite IS U.S.C. § 3771 for the proposition that your Office is obligated to provide certain notices to the alleged victims. However. IS U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) & (3) provide: A crime victim has the Iblkswing rights: (2) The right to rcusnnuhle, nceurate. and timely notice of any public coun proceeding. or say parole proceeding. inreilving the crime nr any rcicmc or escape of the accused. (3) the right not to he esCluded from any such public court proceeding. unless Ilw coo, offer receiving clear and convincing evidence, deo:mines that testimony by 11w victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at the proceeding. (emphasis added), Your interpretation of § 3771 is erroneous because the rights conferred by the statute indicate that these rights are for the notification and appearance at public proceedings involving the crime for which the relevant individual is a victim. As you know, the public proceeding in this matter will be in stale court for the purpose of the entry of a pica on state charges. Therefore, IS U.S.C. § 3771 clearly does not apply to "victims" who arc not stale "victims." You additionally cite your Office's obligations under § 3771(c)( I) of the Justice for All Act of 2004, Ilowever, this subsection relates back to the "rights described in subsection (a)." Thus. since the rights set forth in subsection (a) only apply to the victims of the crimes fur RFP MIA 000036 EFTA00184902

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 14 of 14 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LIP • • It, Alexander December I I. 2007 Page 13 which the public proceeding is being held, the individuals identified by your GIlice have no rights to notification or appearance under this Act. You further cite 42 U.S.C. # I0607(c)(I)(13) and (c)(3) which. you state. obligates your Office to inform victims of "any mannikin or other relief' to which that victim may be entitled and of notice of the status of the investigation: the filing of charges against a suspected offender: and the acceptance of a plea. Although we do not believe this applies here tbr the same reasons stated above. we further assert that your proposed Victims Notification letter seeks to go beyond what is prescribix1 under 42 U.S.C. 10607. indeed, there is nothing in the statute that requires your Office to solicit witness testimony or statements Ibr the purposes of Mr. Epstein's sentencing hewing. Furthermore, we assert that any notification obligation you believe you have under this statute should be addressed by Judge We submit to you based on the policy concerns of including u civil remedies statute in a criminal agreement and requiring the waiver of a defendants' rights under that agreement creates a host of problems that, in this case, have lcd to a sericite: delay in achieving finality to the satisfaction of all parties affected. We appreciate your consideration of these issues and hope that we can find a solution that resolves our concerns. Sincerely. RFP MIA 000037 EFTA00184903

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT 88 EFTA00184904

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 5 12/00/07 11W 15:22 FAX 300 Ss0 5440 Mal-LIVE OFFICE ramo2 U.S. Department of Justice Ildted States Attorney Southent District of Florida P9 N.2.4") &met Altana. IL 33732-211.1 December 6, 2007 alliajWiteAgadag Jay B. Letkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 Bad 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: affimy_lipstein Deat Jay; write in response to your recent o-mells and totters regarding victim notification and other issues. Our Office is hying to perform our contractual obligations under the Agreement, which we fbc) am being frustrated by &Anse counsel's objections. The Office also is concerned about Mt. Bpstoin's nonperformance. Moro than three weeks ego we spoke about the Mare 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 15M, Rotondo Garcia met with Barry Krisher on another Matta, and was told by Mr. ICriabor that he NO ust spoken with Jack Goldberger, and that Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing were set to occur on December H. 2007. Since that time, wo have tried to confirm the date and time of the hearing in order to include thatinformationInMevletimnotificationletters. You continue to refer to tho plea and sentencing es though it will be in January; Mr. Keleher's office has not confirmed any dale; and Mr. Goldberger recently told Marie Vlllafbfia that "there is no date." I must reiterate that a delayed guilty plea and sentencing — now more than two months beyond the original deadline — is unacceptable to the Office. As you will recall, the plea and sentencing hearing orighuttlywas to occur in early October 2007, but was delayed until October26th to allow Mr. Goldberger to attend. IL was delayed again until November to allow you to attend. Rather than using your beat efforts to insure that the plea and sentencing occur in November, we recentlylearned that a plea conitxmice had been scheduled with Judge McSolley for November 20, 2007, but was canceled at the request of the parties, not the judge. Judge IvicSorloy has not been away tbr any extended period, and there is no basis for your assertion that the judge is the cause of US_Atty_Cor_001 90 EFTA00184905

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 5 fr 12/05/07 Tan 15t23 PAX 306 530 0440 fay P. Issgowitz, ESQ. DaCeectiteitt% 2007 Non 2 0P4 MECUMS Olutica glotta any past or Altura delay. Mr. Epstein currently has four Florida Bar members on his defense team, so attorney scheduling is not an adequate basis for delay. Three weeks ago/ sts° asked you to provide our Office wIththe 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 Cud Wobaveyct to see anyibmwl agreement, or (wane list of essentlat terms of such an agreement. Neat, let me address your allegation that attorneys In our office and agents of tho EBIbave 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. Stair's eanployrbent by Mr. Epstein several months ago. 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. I also want to address your interpretation of several statements that were included in. correspondence— at yewinsistence— 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 parsons "who, while a minor, was a victim of a vielation of notion 2422 or 2423 of this title." In other words, the Office is prepared to indict Mr. Epstein based upon Mr. Epstedn's "interactions" with these individuals! This conclusion is based upon a thorough and proper investigation —one in which none of the victims was informed of any right to receive damages of any amount prior to the investigation of her claim. 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 hesItadon, that the evidence demonstrates that each person on the.list was a victim of Mr. Epstein's criminal behavior. Mr. Slarr's letter also suggests that the number olvictims to whom Mr. Epstein is exposed by the Agreement Is limitless. As you know, early drafts of the Agreement contained a numerical limit of40 victims, which was removed at your request. The Office repeatedlyconfirmed that the number would not exceed 40; and the list is significantly shorter than that_ Once the list is provided to you, ifyou have a good faith basis for assentag that a victim never met Mr. Epstein, we remain willing to listen and to modify the fist if you convince to of your position. Finally, letme address your objections to thedraft VictimNotificationLoner. You write that you don't understand the basis for the Office's belief that It is appropriate to notify the victims. Pursuant to the "Justice for All Act of2004," crime victims we:Aided to: "The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding ... involving the crime" and the "right 'Unlike the States investigation, the federal investigation shows criminal conduct by Mr. Epstein at least as early as ZOO I, so all of the victims were minors at the rime of the offense. US_Atty_Cor_00191 EFTA00184906

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 5 12/03/07 THU 16:23 FAX 305 530 0440 EXECUTIVE OPFrICE JAY P.Lancovrret, ESQ. bscataint 6,2007 PACS 3 OP4 not to bo excluded from any such public court proceeding .. ." 18 U.S.C, § 3771(3)(2) & (3). Section 3771 also commands that "employees of the Department efhistico ... engaged In the detection, investigation, orprosecution of otimeshall make their best efforts tosee that crime victims =notified of, and accorded, the rights describedin subsection (a)." 18 U.S.C. § 377I(o)(1). Additionally, pursuant to the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 199O, 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 la W turd [Me) manner in which such relief maybe obtained." 42 U.S.C. § 10607(eX1)(B). With rove* to notification of the other information that wo propose to disclose, the statute requires that we provide a victim with the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation; the filing of charges against a suspected offender; mid the acceptance of a. plea. 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)(3). Just as in 18 U.S.C. § 3771, those sections are not limited to proceedings in a,edam/ district court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the 'Mural investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should bo appropriately informed, and out Neu-Prosecution Agreement dots not require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego its legal obligations. With respect to your assertion that we arc seeking to "jederalrze" the'state plea, our dike is simply Informingthe victims of their rights. It does not command them to appear at the hearing or to file avictIm impact statement. In fact, the letter recommends the sending of any statement to the State Attorney's Office so that ASA Beloblevek cur determine which, if any, statements are appropriate to Me with the Court. Next, you assert that our letter miscbareetcrizes Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay damages to the victims. To avoid that suggestion, Uwe asked AUSA Villafatia to simply quote the terms of the Agreement directly into the Notification Letter. We also have no objection to referring to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual offender" rather than a "predator." We offense(s) of hich the recipient was a victim. We will not bolude the language that we take no hir no objection to USIng the conjunction "and/of' in referring to the particular position as to the validity of ally claims. While theOffice has no Intention to take any position in any ei villitigation arising between Mr. Epstein and anyIndividual victim, as stated above, the Offico believes that it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each listed individual was a victim of Mr. Epstein's criminal Conduct wltilo the victim was a minor. The law requires us fo treat all victims "with thimcss and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(0(8), We will not include any language that demeans the harm Mornay have suffered. The lett anions regarding representation by the Podhurst firm and Mr, fosefsberg are accurate. Judge conferred with Mean Podhurst and iosefeberg to insure their willingness to undertake this assignment prior to finalizing his selection. Roon US_Atty_Cor_00192 EFTA00184907

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 5 12/00/0? 710 2812$ FA/ 301 630 6440 BXECUTIVIOFFIC8 JAY P. Lsfacrwrn, 23Q. Drent4DER6, 2007 PA064 DP4 Lastly. you object to personal communication between the victims and federal attorneys or agents. to have no objection to sending the letters through the male but we will not remove the language about contacting AUSA Vinarelia or Special Agent kllyrkendall with questions or concerns. Again, federal law requires that victims have the "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Govecaincnt in this east" la 3771(aX5). 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 Villatlatis and Special Agent itoyrkendall will recommend that the victims direct those questions to Mr. Josofsberg I have attached a revised letter incorporating the changes on which we can agree. Please provide, anytther comments bytes oloseo(busixtessonEriday. In addition, pleaseprovide us with adefinitive statement, signed by your client, of his intention to abide by each and every term of the Agreementby closes of business on Friday, December '7,20071 By that time, you muss also provide us with the agreement(s)withfito State Attomers Office and a date and tine Certain fbr theplea and sentencing, which must occur no later than DeceMber 14, 2007. That must be closure in this matter. Sincerely, U ted Staten Ajtorney By Jeffrey a Menem First Assistant United States Attorney Enclosure cc: U.S. Attorney AUSA A. Mane Vi a1'aita zlihis is contingent, however, on being able to provide adequate notice of the change of plea and sentencing. The sooner that )ou schedule that hearing with Judge McSorley, the sooner we coo dispatch these tenet's, If you delay Thither, we will have to rely on telephone or petsonal notification. •006 US_Atty_Cor_00193 EFTA00184908

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 89 EFTA00184909

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 12/06/07 TEU 16:24 FAX 306 630 8440 BIECUTIVE OFFICE U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 Palm Reach, PL 334W DELIVERY BY10NITED STATES MAE, Miss December 6, 2007 Re: Crime Victims' Rights — Notification of Resoluticsas4Thistein Investigation Dear Miss Several months ago, I provided you with a letter notifying you of your rights as a victim pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004 and other federal legislation, including; (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. (3) The right not to be excluded from anypublic court proceeding, unless the court determines that your testimony may be materially altered ifyou are present for other portions of a proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. (6) The right to hill and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The right to proceedings flee from unreasonable delay. (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. I ern writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and that Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms. VI 008 ng_grrru_rivAAARR A PPP WPE 000620 EFTA00184910

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-20 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 90 EFTA00184911

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-20 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 Duc-07-07 04:64pm From-Fowler-White Burnett F OWL E RWH I T E All'otiNgTS AT LAW B URNETT MIAMI • F00 LAUDERDALE • WraT PALM UfA01 • 5T. PETER5OLMO 3067800201 December 7, 2007 Jeffrey Sloman First Assisiam United States Attorney United Stales Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jeff: 1-(466 P.002/004 F-016 Callnac) 5810 FIALA FouNi0arni nowt 1300 akat(lal. AvLhur HA", notran 331 3I Tata•floag (306) 760.0200 ri•r-afrOF (305)760.9 t 0 I WNW. FCMLIC/VollITC,C LILLY ANN SANCHEZ DmIlAY Prout No.; (3051 780.9270 paw= FA(c.almrta NO. (3010 125-7b70 LIANc)tIVreml.erevinert.tori Pursuant to your letter dated December 6, 2007, attached is a signed Affirmation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to sumo dated October 30, 2007 (collectively "Agreement") signed by my client Jeill-ey E. Epstein (see attached). Moreover, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, please note that the plea and sentencing hearing have been scheduled for January 4, 2008 at 8:30 am. before Judge Sandra MeSorley (please sea attached notice of hearing). In addition, us expressed in my voicemail message to you earlier, I would request that the Office hold off on sending any victim notification letters until we can further discuss the contents therein. Please call me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, cc. A. Ju ge Kenn. Lilly Ann Sanchez tilubl WaMANL51111712.(tommtita3(17/70-11.51) FOWLER METE BurtNarr P.A. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001557 EFTA00184912

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-21 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 91 EFTA00184913

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-21 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 Jay Lefkowlz/New York/Kirkland-Ellis 02/29/2008 03:11 PM To ec bec Subject Fw: Epstein Dear., I received the attached email from Jeff this week and to put it mildly, I was shocked. As you will recall, back at the beginning of January, w n we both agreed that there were significant irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement, you called a time-out. You had decided to ask Drew's Office to take a look at the matter and suggested that we would be hearing him within days. At that time, we welcomed the development — especially given that we had reason to be concerned that some of the individuats in your Office were not acting appropriately in relation to thus matter. In particular, we were very concerned that one of your prosecutors had given a substantial amount of Information to a New Yak Times reporter — telling him not only about specific aspects of our plea negotiations, but also sharing with him details about your Office's theory concerning what laws you believe Mr. Epstein has violated. In broad strokes, Mr. David Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that the Office was contemplating charging Mr. Epstein under Sections 2422(b) (with a full discussion of principal liability), 2423. and 1591. He also complained about Mr. Epstein's lawyers and told Mr. Thomas not to "believe the spin from Mr. Epstein's high priced attorneys." Mr. Weinstein even Informed Mr. Thomas that we had "asked for privately paid armed guards* as part of a house arrest proposal we had made. Even more surprising, he subsequently told Mr. Thomas that we had teamed of the conversation, complained about it and suggested an explanation. Needless to say, we were very troubled by these conversations. At this same time, we agreed that in order to provide Drew a sufficient amount of time to evaluate the matter, it made sense to move the deadline for state plea to March, which we did. I was therefore quite surprised to receive, in rapid succession, a call from Drew asking to begin the review process and then only two days later, an email from Jeff informing me of new and extremely short and arbitrary deadlines. The one thing I had become certain about in this case was that you were sincere in your desire to ensure that the DOJ took a proper and principled position with respect to this matter, and that you fully accepted our desire, and our right, to appeal any adverse decision by your Office to the DOJ. In fact, on several occasions -- including our meeting before Thanksgiving In your Office -- you stated precisely as much to me. That Is why I am so surprised by Jeff's latest email. We are very interested in having the meetings you suggested with Drew. It would be very unfortunate to begin the review process that you have asked Drew to conduct and at the same time artificially constrict it As you know, the timing of a thorough review would cause no prejudice to the government's prosecution of Mr. Epstein. To the contrary, we hope that our dialogue with Drew will allow for the government to make a more informed decision concerning this matter. We have been waiting eagerly for a call from Drew for nearly two months. Now that he is prepared to meet with us, it is unfair for Jeff to seek to impose artificial deadlines. Since I will be in trial next week, we are planning to begin our meetings with Drew during the second week in March. I sincerely hope we can resolve this matter in the near future. To be dear -- at this stage -- we are not asking for anything but the same due process that you promised to afford to us when we last spoke In early January. Best, Jay cc: Jeff RFP MIA 000469 EFTA00184914

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-22 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT 92 EFTA00184915

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-22 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 4 12/10/07 Imp 17:03 FAX. 305 530 5440 FIXECVTIV13 OFFICE U.S. Department of Justice United Slates Attorney Southern District of Florida ALUMDIelt ACOSTA 9r N.E 4 SInvr WINO rt4163.4710RNRY Mato. Ml. 33131 Def./ember 19, 2007 DELIVERY BY Lilly Ann Sanchez Fowler White Burnett, PA 1395 Briekell 14th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. Sanchez.: I write to follow up on the December le' meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors, as welt es our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' write to you because lain not certain who among the defense team Is the appropriate recipient of this letter. L 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,2 As I stated in my December 4th letter, my understanding is thot thaTion-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 hes agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections ) 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 ow silence should not be interpret as agreaticni; I would, however, like to address ono Issue. Your December Irletter stain that as a fault of defense counsel objections to the appointment process, the USA() imposed an addendum to the Agreanent to provide fur the mac of at) independent third potty selector. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowledge of defense counsel objections, I sue spots's proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowiot nt an October mooting in Palm Beach. t did this in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious lelettlen process. It was only attar 1 propoied Ihis change that Mr. LI:Nowlin raised with me his enumerated concerns. 2 Section V55 provides that: lalny person who, while a minor, was o victim of a violation of lenumemtod $04)(1011x of Title l8) and who suffers personal injury as a m utt of such violation ...may sue In any oppropioto United Stales 011trint Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, includingii reasonable attorney's fee." toot US_Atty_Cor_00272 EFTA00184916

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-22 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 4 12/19/07 QED 17:03 FAX 305 530 6140 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 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 "registemble" state offense; (2) that this state plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) that the Agretmtent not hann the interests of his victims. With this in mind, I have considered defense counsel arguments regarding the Section 2255 portions oldie Agreement. As I previously observed, our Intent has been to place the victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epsteinbeen 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 T wrote previously, appear far from simple to understand. I would thus propose that wo solve our disagreements over interpretations by saying precisely what we mean, in a simple ilashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 and 8 with the hollowing language: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation or 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 en enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it wasprepared to mune in an indictment as victims of an entmicmted 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 mote; no less." Second, I would like to address the issue of victim's rights pursuant to Section 3771. I 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 ns 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 trims as opposed to the state crime. We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will de& 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 Deuces/ay to do so if he wishes. Third, I would like to address the issue raised regarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At our meeting, Professor Dcrsliowttz took theposition that Mr. Epstein believes that his conduct does Pot satisfy the elements of this offense. His assertion raises for me substantial concerns. This Mee will not, and cannot, be a parry to an nweement in which Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to an offense that ho believes ho did not commit We are considering how best to proceed. 2 0006 US_Atty_Cor_00273 EFTA00184917

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-22 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 4 12/10/07 VID PAZ 305 830 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Finally, I would like to address a more general point Our Agreement was first signed on September 24th, 2007. Pursuant to paragraph II, Mr. Epsteinwas to use his best efforts to enter his guilty pies raid be sentenced no later than October 26,2007. As outlined in correspondence between our prosecutors and defense counsel, this deadline came and weal. 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. I resisted that levitation. I share this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an 1 tth hour appeal, weeks before the now scheduled January 4th plea data 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 A.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 tequest for review, and to In fattreview 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 fotvo the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreemeetagainst his wishes. Your Menthes the right to proceed to trial, and he should do so if he believes that he did not oommit the elements of the charged offense. 1 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 3371 issues as quickly as possible. Sincerely, R. ALEXANDER UNITED STATES7CCCOKI4EY cc: Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Stoma% First Assistant U.S. Attorney AIJSA A. Mark Villefatia 3 0004 US_Atty_Cor_00274 EFTA00184918

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-23 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT 93 EFTA00184919

Cap 9:08.-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-23 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 4 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Lilly Ann Sanchez Fowler White Burnett, PA 1395 Brickell Ave, 14th Floor Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. Sanchez: 99 N.E. 4 Street Miami. FL 33132 (305) 961-9100 - Telephone (303) 530-6444 - Facsimile December 19, 2007 I write to follow up on the December 146 meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' 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.2 As I stated in my December 4'h 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 a 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 I d' letter states that as a result of defense counsel objections to the appointment process, the USAO 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 sua sponte proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowitz 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 after I proposed this change that Mr. Letkowitz 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 IS) 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 suit. including a reasonable attorney's fee." RFP MIA 000038 EFTA00184920

Cate 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-23 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 4 of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (I) 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 1 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: "My 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 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 raised.regarding 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 RFP MIA 000039 EFTA00184921

• Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-23 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 4 Finally, I would like to address a more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on September 24th, 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. I resisted that invitation. I share this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an I 1 th 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 3371 issues as quickly as possible. Sincerely, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY cc: Alice Fi er Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey First Assistant U.S. Attorney AUSA AA. Villafafia 3 RFP MR 000040 EFTA00184922

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-24 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 8 EXHIBIT 94 EFTA00184923

It/ /liege 968 -c030736- v Document 362-24 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Fggjes uoufa8 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Jay P. LefAcrwilz. P.0 To Call Wnter Dimay. (212) 446-4920 iolkowdzOkoktoni CUM VIA FACSIMILE (30$) 530-6444 Honorable United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Street Miami. Pl. 33132 pear Alex: AND AltIllAltft Ci90rmrp Confer 153 Cold 53n1 Shutt NOV York. NOw Ymk 10022.4611 vnwrcluikland.com December 21. 2007 Re: Jeffrey Epstein lacturiuto. (212) 446.4900 We again extend our appreciation for meeting with us on December 14 and for morally considering the issues we have raised both at that meeting and in our submissions to your Office. I laving received your letter ol' December 19. we can see that you have made a significant effort to address our concerns regarding the * 2255 portion of the non-prosecution agreement (the "Agreement"). and we recognize that you have proposed some subsituttiad 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 request that we set forth our position regarding §§ 2255 and 3771 as quickly u.s possible. As we have all discovered. the problem of integrating in an unprecedented manner what is at its core a $1511.000 minimum lump sum damage federal civil statute (§ 2255 in its current torn) info a federal deferredrnomprosecution agreement that requires pleas of guilty to state criminal offenses (lint are correlated to state criminal restitution statutes but not to a disparate federal civil non-restitution statute has proved very challenging. The concomitant problem of how birly to implement the § 2255 portions of the iNgretanent so that real victims, if any. who in bet suffered -personal injury as a result of Ethel violation- if any of specified federal criminal statutes such as 1X U.S.C. § 2422(h) are placed in the same position as if there had been a trial and conviction also requires serious and carelid consideration. In this letter. I want to highlight some specific concerns. Sec rasa Whitley Opinion. First, your proposal regarding the § 2233 remedy provisions continues to ask us to !amine that each and every woman not only was a victim tinder § 2255. hut that the facts alleged could have been proven to satisfy each element of-either § !422(b) (the Internet luring statute) ( or § 2423 (the sex-tourism statute). within § 2255 of Title IR. Although we have been denied the ;r Chicago Hong Komi London Los Angeius Munich San Francisco Washington, D C RFP MIA 000041 EFTA00184924

in 'egg 4:bromb736_KAm Document 362-24 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Pggiej Z4 • • • KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP It. Alexander December 21.2007 Page 2 list of alleged "victims" (and lack definitive inlbrmation as to which federal statutes would serve as a predicate for each particular alleged victim). or even a lino number as to how many you suggest there are, we strongly believe that the proroble conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either I8 USC § 2422(b) (which we understand ft prior discussions to be the principal predicate offense upon which the § 2255 provisions rely) or 18 USC § 2423(b) (another predicate of § 2255 that has been the subject of discussions between the parties). See Stern Opinion. We believe that the problem arises from the incongruity that exists when attempting in lit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal plea agreement. Again. I note that this problem could have been avoided had the government opted instead fora restitution hind as we suggested. Our knowledge of the "list" of alleged victims is limited However a prototypical example or a witness whom the government has requested we compensate and we believe is inaccurately labeled as a "victim" or a federal crime is whom we have been told remains on the government's "list"). The transcript or •r interview with the Palm Beach Police over a year before the EMI became involved in any investigation shows that Ms. admitted to lying about. her age, that she did not engage in sexual intercourse with Mr. .pssetn. and that she was never induced over the telephone. comp uter i or any other means of etumuunication required by 2422(b). In fact. M. me to Mr. Epstein's home on only one occasion. She testified that she was inliirme a nu opportunity to give a massage to Mr. Epstein not on a telephone. computer or any other facility of interstate commerce. hut rather in a face-to-face discussion with a third party who was her friend (Ms. and who told her to lie to Mr. Epstein about her age. As such. it is simply impossible t ii ehom this conduct into any of the above-discussed federal statutes. In addition. Mr. Epstein did not know of Ms. did not induce or persuade her to come • hoe, before illipeak to her at all by phone prior she actually came to his to her visit, did not induce or persuade Ms. to bring an underage girl to his residence, and did not otherwise violate either the Cede . e § 2422(b) nor the travel for the purpose statute § 2423(b). Indeed. in her statement. Ms. twilled: laley told me to say I was lit because IlaMy said . . . if you're not then he :Ram won't really let you in his house. So I said I was 18." Epstein expected an us e erage girl to visit him prior to his regular travel to Florida. his home of filleen years. Thus the travel could not have been Ibr the purpose of having illegal sexual contact and § 2423(b) is no snore available as a predicate for § 2255 recovery than is 2422(h). Never having reached the threshold violations enumerated under of § 2255. Ms. would still have to rove that she suffered a personal injury. Further, unknown to Ite r. .pstem at the time. Ms. •presented herself to be 18 not only to him but also to the public on her web page where site pinieel a nude photo clearly hooking at least IS years old. 'worn Statement at 38-39). In fact. there is no evidence that Mr. At the December 14 meeting. we also discussed Tatum Miller as emblematic of our concerns surrounding 11w government's selection or "victims," As you are aware. Ms. Miller RFP MIA 000042 EFTA00184925

12/2142041114AB Lase a:uo-cv-au736-KAM Document 362-24 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Platen a KII2KLAND & ELLIS LLP K. Alexander December 21, 2007 Page 3 was identified in previous correspondence as a person who remained on the Covenunent's list of "victims- even after (at least according to Ms. Villafana'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 comnsual; 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 lime; and there was never any inducement over the telephone, computer or through any other means of interstate commerce We ask that you consider the must relevant highlights front her testimony offered below: • Consent A: I said. I told Jeffrey. 1 heard you like massages topless. And he's like, yeah, he said. Inn you don't have to do anything that you don't feel comlintable with. And said okay. hut I willingly took it oft (Miller Sworn Statement at II)) • Lied About tier Age A: . . . I had a fake II) anyways. saying that I was 1/2. And she just said make sure you're 18 because Jeffrey doesn't want any underage girls. (Miller Sworn Statement at 8) ki*kk A:. .. of course. he thought I was 18... (Miller Sworn Statement ac I 1) • Instructed Others to Lie About Their Ages A: . .. I would tell my girlfriends just like pproached me. Make sum you tell him you're It Well, these girls that I 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 I R. (Miller Sworn Statement at 22) • No Sexual Contact O: I Ic never pulled you closer to him 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 re than welcome to. (Miller Sworn Statement at 8) RFP MIA 000043 EFTA00184926

1.2/2 1uase wu L2 007 A .b s.5-cv F sx, -au736-KAM Document 362-24 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 PrPrOn KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP • • • December ?I . 1007 Page 4 A: Every girl that I brought to Jeffrey. they said they were line with it. And like. for instance. Courtney — Courtney Wild. a lot of girls begged me to bring them back. They wanted to come back for the money. And as far as I know, we all had him there. (Miller Sworn Statement at 45) The sworn testimony of Tatum Miller contains explicit denials from the alleged "victim" herself that she suffered any physical. emotional, or personal injury as required by she 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 for a § 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 lin 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 impose m engage illicit sexual conduct. Although Ms. infilmed us during the December 14 meeting that she had a telephone toll record showing an out-of-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 fur Ms. Miller to visit Mr. Epstein's residence, whether any inducement occurred on the nut of stale 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 expandtx1). A complete transcript orate federal interview of Ms. Miller has previously been provided to you. Your wish to put these women in the same position as they would have been had them been a federal conviction assumes they arc 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 § 7255 would prejudice Mr. Epstein in this regard. Second. your proposal also effectively deprives Mr.. Epstein of his opportunity to lest the validity of these woolens' claims claims that would have been extensively tested at trial. In light of what we have already learned about and Tatum Miller. it is inappropriate to deny Mr.. Epstein and his counsel the right to test the merits of each of these womens cases. in order to verify that they in fact suffered "personal injury" as required by § 2255 and to assess whether they are in Fun victims of any violations of § 2422(b) or § 2423(b) as also required by RFP MIA 000044 EFTA00184927