I tf I r . kirCa140736 KAM Document 362-24 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 POOD6nr8 c;) KIKK1 AND & ELLIS LLP Ikeember 21, 2007 Page 5 § 2255. Given your Offices informing us that I remained on a reduced list of federal - victims" and given our understanding that Ms. as well was one of those who is also on the list of persons the Utivernment contends were Mc MIN of Mr. Epstein's alleged violation of federal law, we have a principled concern about adopting your recommended language which would leave Mr. Epstein without a basis to challenge the good faith premise elan application to recover SI50.000. Tird, the Agreement. even if modified in accord with your December 19 letter. would put the witnesses in a better position than if Mr. Epstein had been federally prosecuted rather than in an equal position and, in fact encourages the witnesses to make unfounded claims with impunity. Had there been a conviction, these women would have been thoroughly cross- examined. Ibr the veracity of their statements. their, credibility and the foundations. if any. fir claiming personal injury. Also. Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks. material in tlx: form of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be available to them—evidence that should he considered in determining the credibility of their application for a substantial civil recovery. Furthermore. Mr. Epstein would be without the means to challenge whether the claimant could make out a prima facie ease that she was a victim of a violation by Mr. Epstein of § 2422(b) or any other federal statute—a denial of his rights that would insulate potential claimants such as Ms. and Ms. from any challenge on this clement even if tinder other circumstances a challenge wind rest t m a summary judgment in Mr. Epstein's favor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Lastly. the modified language recommended by you presupposes that Mr. Epstein would have been charged and convicted of substantive violations rather than charged and convicted of a conspiracy allegation. Conspiracy convictions are itht amongst the predicates enumerated by § 2255 and do not. without more, result in the basis fl r a determination of "personal injury". Since our request to view the draft indictment was rejected on December 14. we have no means to know what it contained by way of allegations. Fourth, I want to respond to several statements in your letter that we believe require immediate correction. With regard to your first tholnote. I want to he absolutely clear. We do not believe for one moment that you had prior knowledge of the AUSA's attempt to require us to hire the friend of her live-iii boyfriend, and pay his lees on a contingency basis to sue Mr. Epstein. We realize you corrected that irregular situation as soon as you discovered it. We thought this was precipitated by our complaint, but have no real knowledge as to the timing of events. Furthermore, your letter also suggests that our objection to your Olfiee's proposed victims notification letter was that the women identified as victims of federal crimes should not be notified of the state proceedings. Ilan is nut true, as our previous letter clearly states. Putting aside our threshold contention that many of those to whom 3771 notification letters arc intended are in fact not victims us defined in the Attorney General's 2000 Victim Witness Guidelines—u status requiring physical. emotional or pecuniary injury of the defendant—it was and remains our position that these women may be notified of such proceedings but since they arc neither witnesses nor victims to the state prosecution of this matter, they should not he inlimned of RFP MIA 000045 EFTA00184928

12/21/200/ Al-;57-.EM vase w:uo-ev-ou736-KAM Document 362-24 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 PW /Mi fe •• r t • • ' 0 • K1RKt AND & ELLIS LLP It. Alexander= December 21. 2007 Page 6 fictitious "rights" or invited to make sworn written or in-court testimonial statements against Mr. Epstein at such pmceedings. as Ms.. Villalana repeatedly maintained they had the right to do. Additionally, it was and remains our position that any notification should he by mail and that all proactive efforts by the FRI to have communications with the witressi.s after the exceutiun of the Agreement should finally come to an end. We agree, however. with your December 19 modification of the previously drafted federal notification teller and agree that the decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is. amongst many other issues, properly within the aegis of state decision making. Your December 19 Mier references Professor Dershowitz's position on the inapplicability of Florida Statute § 796.03. Professor Dershowitz made such ary.uments in the context at' saying that he had been unable to discern, tiller great °Min. and supported by years of experience, any basis for the application of § 2422(b) or other federal sex statutes to Mr. Epstein's conduct and that the federal statutes required more of a stretch to lit the facts than the proposed stile statute to which Ms. Villafana wanted Mr. Epstein to plead. Pmkssor Dershowitz also slated that Ms. Villafnna hod represented that it was she who had the facts to support. both the threatened federal charges of § 2422 and/or § 2423 and the proposed state charge of *7.96.03 (which the panics understood to he the state charge of soliciting a minor. as Ms. Yalta-ma's last letter clearly states). Only last week we learned for the first time that Ms. did not realize that the charge was actually lbr "procuring" nut "soliciting". The charge (a pimp statute) of procuring a prostitute for a third party for financial gain is one for which Ms. Villatana now states she does not have the them to support. Furthermore. you suggest that we have purposefully delayed the date of Mr.. Epstein's plea and sentencing in breach of the Agreement and now seek an "11111 hour appeal" in Washington. I believe we have already responded to this objection satisfactorily, both in our discussion earlier this week and in the email I sent to you two days ago in which I specifically addressed this issue. Indeed. any impediment to the resolution at issue is a direct cause of the disagreements between the parties as to a common interpretation of the Agreement. and we have at all times made and will continue to make sincere efforts to resolve and finalize issues as expeditiously as possible. In fact, since the initiation of negotiations between Mr.. Epstein's counsel and your Office, we have always proceeded in a timely manner and made several efforts to meet with the attorneys in your Office in person when we believed that a face-to-face meeting would facilitate a resolution. Finally, the suggestion by your stall' that you hold Mr. Epstein in breach of the Agreement by his failure to pica and he sentenced on October 26, 2007 is directly contradicted by Mr.. Simian's e-mail to me dated October $1 in which he states. "Your understanding from Jack Goldberger con:hems tomy understanding that Mr.. Epstein's plea and sentence will take place un the same day. I understand that the plea and sentence will occur on or before the January 4th date." 'this has been our common understanding for sonic time. which we have now REP MIA 000046 EFTA00184929

12/21,42 .02 FL • ua°se 91b8-cv-ou Y',736-KAM Document 362-24 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 P .71 ) W8? J) KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP December 21. 2007 Page 7 reiterated several times. With that said. please be advised that we arc working for a quick resolution and do not seek to delay the proceedings. Thank you again for your time and consideration. We look lbrward to your response to the concerns we have raised that have not yet been addressed. wish you a very happy and a healthy new year. Sincerely. v . Lefkojitz cc : Honorable Alice Fisher. Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey II. Sloman. First Assistant U.S. Attorney RFP MIA 000047 EFTA00184930

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-25 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT 95 EFTA00184931

, 1".zberile 4:bi34-pc;-M736-KAM Document 362:gEntered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 6 d KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Jo; P. Lotkowin, P.C. To W y: log *Me nd.00rn VIA FACSIMILE (305) 530-6444 Honorable tInital States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 1.,outhern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Strcct Miami, FL 33132 Dear M. I write to address the questions you posed to me during a conversation we had late last week. Specifically, you requested a clarification of our position on two issues; (1) our view on your latest proposal regarding notification to the alleged victims under 18 U.S.C. § 3771; and (2) our response to your proposed language regarding the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 component of the deferred-prosecution agreement (the "Agreement"). Before 1 turn to these questions, I would like to reiterate that this letter responds to your invitation to discuss proposed modifications to the Agreement and should not be construed in any way as a breach of the Agreement. With that slid, 1 must tell you that the more 1 look into these issues, the more difficulties I see in trying to tic the resolution of a federal criminal matter with a federal civil matter involving minors, and this is even further complicated when the premise of the resolution is a deferred federal prosecution conditioned on a plea to specific state offenses with a specific sentence pre- determined and required to be imposed by the state court, without consideration of the fact that the State view of this case differs dramatically from yours. With that in mind, 1 turn to each of your questions below. First, although we appreciate your willingness to modify your Office's § 3771 notice, which is embodied in your latest proposal, we must still object to aspects of your proposal on the ground that notice under § 3771 is per se inapplicable to this case under the Attorney General's own guidelines, because the alleged victims are not "crime victims" under § 3771. The Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance defines "crime victim" as follows: AND AITILIATLD PAVINIItSHIPS Citigroup Canter 153 Elam 53rd SWIM New York, Now 'font 10022.4811 ass.saoo www.hlrilsnd.00m December 26, 2007 Re: Jefflay Epstein For the purpose of enforcing the rights enumerated in article 1.13, a victim is 'a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia' (18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)) if the offense is cbarged in Federal district cowl. If a victim is under 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or • Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washinglon, D.C. RFP MR 000048 EFTA00184932

YJ u f lb Case 9:brC Vr-80 736- KA M Document 362-25 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 6 December 26, 2007 l'age 2 deceased, a family member or legal guardian of the victim. a representative of the victim's estate, or any other person so appointed by the court may exercise the victim's rights, but in no event shall the accused serve as a guardian or representative for this purpose. (18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)). • • The Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance, at 9 (emphasis added). Here, the women are clearly not "crime victims" under the Attorney General Guidelines definition. To be a "crime victim", a person or entity must be harmed by an offense that has peen charged in Federal district court. See U.S. I. Guevara-Toloso, 2005 WL 1210982 at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2005) (noting that § 3771's reference to "the crime" suggests "a focus only on the crime with which a defendant is charged in the case in which a victim seeks to assert her statutory rights.") (emphasis added) Since there has been no offense charged in Federal district court in this matter, the identified individuals necessarily do not qualify as "crime victims". In addition, the Attorney General Guidelines further defines a "cnme victim" us "a person that has sJffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of the commission of a crime. (42 U.S.C. § 10607(e)(2))— Id. As you know, we believe we have shown that at least some (if not all) of the identified individuals did not suffer any injury at all in connection with Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct,' In addition, under the Attorney General Guidelines, notification must be balanced against a ry action that may impinge on Mr. Epstein's due process rights. The Attorney General Cuidelines clearly call into question the wisdom and practicality of giving notice" to a "possible itness in the case and the effect that relaying any information may have on the defendant's right h. a fair trial." The Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance, at 30. The Attorney General Guidelines caution federal prosecutors from providing notice to potential witnesses in instances where such notice could compromise the defendant's due process rights. This is particularly true, as here, if the notice includes confidential information, including the conditions of a confidential deferred-prosecution agreement or non-prosecution agreement. In li;ht of these concerns, we respectfully request that you reconsider sending notices to the alleged victims pursuant to § 3771. Our objection to § 3771 notwithstanding, we do not object (as we made clear in our letter last week) that some form of notice be given to the alleged victims. To that end, we request an opportunity to review the notification before it is sent in order to avoid any confusion or misunderstandings. We believe, however, that any and all notices with respect to the alleged victims of state offenses should be sent by the State Attorney rather than your Office, and we I See for example, our prior submissiuns regarding rid RIP MIA 000049 EFTA00184933

14: Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 6 December 26, 2007 I'age 3 gree that your Office should defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding all matters %Mit regard to those victims and the state proceedings. Second, the more we work to resolve our mutual concerns regarding the § 2255 component of the Agreement, the more our growing fears are realized that the implementation of 2255 in this case is inherently flawed and becoming truly unmanageable. In the first instance, tie implementation of § 2255 in this matter causes manageability concerns because it appears the civil component of this case must be stayed until after all phases of a criminal action have been resolved. I8 U.S.C. § 3509(k), which codifies child victims' and child witnesses' rights, seems on its face to preclude any interference arising from a potential or pending civil action on a nilated criminal proceeding in order to protect a defendant's right to due process. The statute states: If, nt any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is pending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal action and any mention of the civil action during the criminal proceeding is prohibited. As used in this subsection, a criminal action is pending until its final adjudication in the trial court. I S U.S.C. § 3509(k). See also, John Doe 1 Francis, 2005 WL 517847, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 1), 2005) ("the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) is clear that a stay is required in a ease such as this where a parallel criminal action is pending which arises from the same occurrence involving minor victims. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k). Inasmuch as Plaintiffs have offered no authority or evidence to the contrary, the Court finds that the stay in this case must remain in effect until final adjudication of the criminal case by the state court.") It appears that any attempt to resolve the civil component of this case (be it through structured settlements or civil litigation) may be precluded by § 3509(k) insofar as all phases of e criminal action have not yet been resolved, To allow for a civil cause of action while a related criminal action remains pending can unduly bias the witnesses who could be improperly ircentivized by a potential monetary recovery. The prevention of such a result is precisely the reason that § 3509(k) was enacted. Indeed, there can be no such resolution of "all phases of the criminal action" here, until Mr. Epstein's state sentence is concluded and all opportunity for the initiation of a federal prosecution is foreclosed. In addition, we have reiterated in previous subtnissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe hi: is guilty of the federal charges enumerated under § 2255. For this reason, we believe that your proposed language regarding an appropriate § 2255 procedure unfairly asks Mr. Epstein to agree that each and every alleged victim identified by the Government is a victim of an enumerated federal offense under § 2255 and should, therefore, be placed in the same position • RFP MIA 000050 EFTA00184934

141. 1bn 9Vrciri-ng0736-KAM Document 362-25 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 6 December 26, 2007 Page 4 she would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted of such an offense. As we discussed last week, it is this requirement that makes your § 2255 proposal so problematic. As much as we ppreciate your willingness to revisit the § 2255 issues, we cannot accept your language as proposed, because we believe that the conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these alleged ictims fails to satisfy the requisite elements of any of the enumerated offenses, including 18 II.S.C. § 2422(b) or 18 U.S.C. § 2423(6). In light of the information we have presented to you regarding the two alleged victims whom we understand appear on your list, we hope you t nderstand why your language presents us with these concerns. Essentially, you are asking us to help put these women in a position that may not he warranted. In short, your proposed language regarding § 2255 states that Mr. Epstein should be treated "as if he had been convicted" of an enumerated federal crime. This requires Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not commit the requisite offense. The United States Attorney Manual ("USAM") 9-27.440, Principles of Federal Prosecution, sets forth a clear requirement when a defendant tenders a plea of guilty but subsequently denies committing the offense to which he has offered to plead. Specifically, 9-27.440 provides, in part! • • In a case in which the defendant tenders a plea of guilty but denies committing the offense to which he/she offers to plead guilty, the attorney for the government should make an offer of proof of all facts known to the government to support the conclusion that the defendant is in fact guilty. See also USAM 9-16.015. To date, your Office has refused our requests to share such information with us. For the exposes of attempting to resolve the * 2255 issue, we once again request that your Office make this proof available. Specifically, your Office has represented that liability exists under § 2422(b) and § 2423(b), as well as the state offense, Florida Statute § 796.03. We would elcome this previously sought information at your earliest convenience to enable us to resolve tl.is matter in a timely fashion. Finally, I would like to address your request that we provide revised language to your Office regarding the appropriate § 2255 procedure. Given the inherent complexities described above, we have not been able to find language that comports with the Agreement and your stated goals, especially given your insistence that the women be placed in the same position as if Mr. E )8k-in "had been convieted".2 However, if you so choose — and keeping in mind that we 2 In addition, we remind yoµ that wholly and apart from the judicial stay that appears to be required under § 3509(k), we behove that the minimum damages amount referenced in § 2255 (S150,000) is subject to tut ex- post facto motion, as the statutory minimum was $50,000 at the time of the alleged conduct and the statute is being implemented in a deferred-prosecution agreement. • RFP MIA 000051 EFTA00184935

764a.cie 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-25 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 6 of 6 December 26, 2007 Page 5 intend to abide by the Agreement — we would he willing at you earliest convenience to discuss possible alternatives. Thank you for your time and consideration. We remain available to work with you to resolve these difficult issues in a constructive manner, and we look forward to your response to 1he concerns we have raised that have not yet been addressed by your Office. s' Sincerely, Ja P. Lelkowftz cc: Jeffrey H. M, First Assistant U.S. Attorney RFP MIA 000052 EFTA00184936

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-26 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 9 EXHIBIT 96 EFTA00184937

urr.‘ vu Veuatleiu 9t0BuMriVtai *Waif on 4etUUOm44eunt 362-26fillatered on rl--1/4 Docket 02/10/2016 Pag. egg M III. II 'an MON ia: 22 FAS I 2 I a 680 631)9 K I HKI.ANIMPI.1.1 5 I Hs Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Fixi ores Street Loa Angeles, l _90027-580o Phone: ata-aatto-8440 Fax: 223-680450o Icearrekirldand.coin May 19. 2008 VIA FACSIMILE (202) 514.0467 lionorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. w. Washington, D.C. 20530 Joe D. Whitley Alston & Bird LIP the Atlantic Building 950 I' Street, NW washinglun, DC aoun4-1404 Ph: 202.756-3189 Fax: 202.654.4889 joe.whitlengialston.cum CONFIDENTIAL Dear Judge Filip: in his continuation hearings last fall, Judge Mukascy admirably lifted up the finest traditions of the Department of Justice in assuring the United States Senate, and the American people, of his solemn intent to ensure fairness and Integrity in the administration of justice. Your own confirmation hearings echoed that bedrock determination to assure that the Department conduct Itself with honor and integrity, especially in the enforcement of federal criminal law. We come to you in that spirit and respectfully ask for a review of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we arc well aware of the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified; we are confident that the einannstances at issue warrant such an examination. Based on our collective experiences, as well as those of other former senior Justice Depanment officials whose advice we have sought, we have never before seen a case more appropriate for oversight and review. Thus, while neither of us has previously made such a request. we do so now in the recognition that both the Department's reputution, as well as the due process rights of our client, are at issue. Recently, the Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter at the request of U.S. Attorney Critically, however, this review deliberately excluded many important aspects of this case. Just this past Friday, on May 16, 2008, we received a letter from the head of CEOS informing us that CEOS had conducted a review of this case. By its own admission, the CEOS review was "limited, both factually and legally." Part of the self-imposed limitation was CEOS's abstention from addressing our "allegations of professional misconduct by federal prosecutors"—even though such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the accusations being tnade against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office in Miami ("USAO"). Moreover; CEOS did not assess the terms of the f)eferred Prosecution Agreement now in effect, nor did CEOS review the federal prosecutors' inappropriate Wens to implement those terms. We detail this point below. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001616 EFTA00184938

-`eat'iit FaCvNio %MAW. eauti;7nt 362-mriCigri iipirgy Docket 02/10/2016 Paij.Q34-3— hn IK.ON NON 13:22 FAX 1 213 8500 KIONI.ANI) :IS I. 003 Honorable Murk Filip May 19. 2008 Page 2 By way of background. we were informed by Mr. that, at his request, CEOS would be conducting; a review to determine whether federal prosecution was both appropriate and, in his words. "fair" That is not what occurred. instead, CEOS has now acknowledged that we had raised "many compelling arguments" against the 1.18AO's suggested "novel application" of federal law in this matter. Even :4O. CEOS concluded. in minimalist fashion. that "wt do not see anything that says to us categorically that a federal cast should not be brought" and that the Anotney "would not he abusing his prosecutorial • ion should he authorize federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein" thus delegating back to Mr, the decision of whether federal prosecution was warranted (emphasis added.). Rather than assessing whether pmsccution would be oppropriate. CEOS, using a lowbaseline for its evaluation, determined only that "it would not be impossible to prove . ." certain allegations made against Mr. Epstein. The CEOS review failed to address the significant problems involving the appearance of impermissible selectivity that would necessarily result from a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. We respect CEOS's conclusion that its authority to review -misconduct" issues was preeiuded by Criminal Division practice. We further respect CEOS's view that it understood its mission as significantly limited. Specifically, the contemplated objective was to determine whether the USAO would he abusing its discretion by bringing a federal prosecution rather than making its own de novo recommendations on the appropriate reach of federal law. However, we respectfully submit that a full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the Justice Department. In an effort to inform you of the nature of the federal investigation against Mr. Epstein, we summarize the facts and circumstances of this matter below. The two bast-level eoneern 5. we. hold use that (1.) federal prosecution of this matter is not warranted based on the purely-local conduct and the unprecedented application of federal statures to facts such as these. and (2) the actions of federal authorities are both highl questionable and give rise to an appearance of substantial impropriety. The issues that we have raised, but which have not yet been addressed or resolved by the Department, are more than isolated allegations of professional mistakes or misconduct. 'these issues, instead, affect the appearance and administration of criminal justice with profound consequences beyond the resolution in the matter at hand. • in a precedent-shattering investigation of Jeffrey Epstrein that raises important policy questions—and serious issues as to the fair and honorable enforcement of federal law—the USA.° in Miami is considering extending federal law beyond the bounds of precedent and reason. Federal prosecutors stretched the underlying facts in ways that raise fundomontal questions of basic professionalism. Perhaps most troubling, the USA() in Miami, as a condition of deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a proposed civil remedy engineered in u way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001617 EFTA00184939

VO/ UL/ U0 MAI LO; VV rAA auel JOU 04.ell Wu:Ann A I la •••L L • La.. 05GASto9f308DeVellif86-MWI-6D0gument 362-Q€l'eStlared on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 PaganiDfd33 19 as 3i0\ : 'a r AA I 213 1t8U ItS0o KI Uhl ANDS,Ittst.15 1.1.1' ii8(10.1 • Honorable Mark Filip May :9, 2008 Page 3 private practice in South Florida with persona) relationships to some of the prosecutors involved. Federal prosecutors then leaked highly sensitive information about the case to a New York Times Tenon& The immediate result of this confluence of extraordinary circumstances is an onslaught of civil lawsuits, all save one brought by the First Assistant's former boutique law lion tn The facts in this case all revolve around the classic state crime of solicitation of prostitution." The State Attorney's Office in Palm Beach County had conducted a diligent investigation, convened a Grand Jury that returned an indictment, and made a final determination about how to proceed. Thai is where, in mu federal republic, this matter should rest. Mr. Epstein faces a felony conviction in state court by virtue of his conduct, and the only reason the Suite has not resolved this matter is that the federal prosecutors in Miami have continued to insist that we, Mr. lipstein's counsel, approach and demand from the State Attorney's Office a harsher charge and a more severe punishment than that Office believes are appropriate under the circtunstanc.es. Yet despite the USAUs refusal to allow the State to resolve this meter ou the terms the Stare has determined are appropriate, the USAO has not made any attempt to coordinate its efforts with the State. in fact, the USA() mandated that any federal agreement would be conditioned on Mr. Epstein persuading the State to seek a criminal punishment unlike that imposed on other defendants within rho jurisdiction of the State Attorney for similar conduct. From the inception of the USAO's involvement in this case. which at the end of the day is a case about solicitation of prostitution within the confines of Palm Beach County, Florida, we have asked ourselves why the Department ofIustice is involved. Regrettably, we are unable to suggest any appropriate basis for the Department's involvement. Mr. Epstein has no criminal history whatsoever. Also. Mr. Epstein has never been the subject of general media interest until a few years ago. after it was widely perceived by the public that he was a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. The conduct at issue is simply not within the purview of federal jurisdiction and lies outside the heartland of the three federal statutes that have been identified by prosecutors-18 U.S.C. ki 1591. 2422(b), and 2423(h). Uric 01 the other members of Mr. Epstein's defense team, Jay Lotkuwitx has personally revloWed the reporter's contemporanuous notes. Although SOinu of Olt •Avinen alleged to be involved were 16 and 17 years of age, several or these womett openly admitted to lying to Mr. Epstein Atm' their age in their recent sworn statements. 08-80736-CV-MARRA REP WPB 001618 EFTA00184940

UO/11 a/ WI o laaNtil "•••• dila ad a. Jinn 05 1C 94 Opc 40/Z6:K41164 tithe t 362-raes,ritwda 8,7; en —D Docket 02/10/2016 Pagba5Vfor or, in on mos ia!;:a f:tx I 213 6/i0 Kann KII110.AS:11kEl.1.11: I.I.1` WOW; Honorable Murk Filip May 19, 2008 Par 4 These statures arc intended to target crimes of a truly national and international scope. Specifically, § 1591. was enacted to combat human trafficking, § 24122 is aimed at sexual predation of minors through the Internet. and § 2423 deals with sex tourism. The nature of !hese crimes results in multi-jurisdictional problems that state and local authorities cannot effectively confront on their own, However, Mr. Epstein's conduct was purely local in nature and, thus. does not implicate federal involvement. After researching every reported case brought under 18 §§ I591, 2422(b), and 2423(b), we found that not a single case involves facts or a scenarto similar to the situation at hand. Our review of each precedent reflects that there have been no reported prosecutions under § 1591 of a 'John' whose conduct with a minor lacked three, coercion. or fraud and who was not profiting from commercial sexual trafficking. There have likewise been no cases under § 2422(b)—a crime of communication—where there was no use or the Internet, and where the content of phone communications did not contain any inducing or enticing of a minor to have illegal sexual activity as expressly required by the language of the statute. Furthermore, the Government's contention that "routine and habit" can fill the factual and legal void created by the luck of evidence that such a communication ever occurred sets this case apart front every reported case brought under § 2422(b). Lastly, there are no reported cases of violations of § 2423(b) of a person whose dominant purpose in traveling was merely to go to his own home? Although these matters were within the scope of the CEOS review, rather than considcrinn whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOS only determined that U.S. Attorney MEM "would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution" iu this case. The "abuse of discretion" standard constitutes an extremely low bar of evaluation and while it may be appropriate when the consideration of issues are exclusively factual in nature, this standard fails to address concerns particular to this situation, namely the "novel application" of federal statutes. The "abuse. of discretion" standard in such pure legal matters of statutory application risks causing a lack of uniformity. The same federal statutes that would be stretched beyond their bounds in Miami have been limited to their heartland in each of the other federal districts. Also, because this case implicates broader issues of the administration of equal justice, federal prosecution in this matter risks the appearance of selectivity in its stretching of federal law to fit these facts. Itedcral prosecution ore man who engaged In consensual conduct in his home that amounted to, ut most, the aulieitation of prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a state concern. (see United Sigler v. Evans, '176 17.3d 1176, C.1 ( i I al Cir, 2007) (federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally govumad by state regulation)")). and thaw is no evidence that Palm Beach County authorities and fl orid: prosecutors cannot effectively prosecute and punish the conduct, there is no reason why this emitter should be extracted front the bands of state prosecutors in Florida. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001619 EFTA00184941

UCLUZ/114_,ALIAN_Altiftatiet/D 1.41.1 044t1 bADUULAry urrs‘4 oWitgentO4WleVRIO !fur. R4Rettument 3624)6InWnterecl on FL SD Docket 02/10/2016 Page tf.i W93 .0; on MUM 13 :24 FAX 1 213 6110 8500 it 1 kal4tN11t/E1-1.1 1.12 Ed4 OS Honorable Mark Ville May 19.2008 Page In fact, recent testimony of several alleged "victims" contradicts claims made by federal prosecutors during the negotiations of a deterred prosecution agreement. re )resumat. ent witnesses (such as Tatum Miller. confirm the following critical points: WI, there was no T O CJWISC, that meets the requirements of § 2422(4 For instance. Ms confirmed that Mr. Epstein never mailed, text-messaged, or used any facility of interstate commerce whatsoever. before or after her one (and only) visit to his home. Gonzalez Tr. (deposition) at 30. Second, the women who testified admitted that they lied to Mr. Epstein about their age in order to gain admittance into his home. Indeed, the women who brought their underage friends to Mr. Epstein testified that they would counsel their friends to lie about their ages as well. Ms. Miller stated the following: "I would tell my girlfriends Just like approached me. Make sure you tell him you're IR. Well, these girls that I brought, I know t at they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't know and 1 don't know if they were lying in not, 1 would say make sure that you tell him you're 18." Miller Tr. at 22. Third, there was no routine or habit of improper communication expressing an intent to transfomt a massage into an illegal sexual act, Iii fact, there was often no sexual activity at all during the massage. Ms. Miller testified that Isjornetimes (Mr. Epstein] j t massaged. Sometimes he just wanted a back massage." Miller Tr. at 19. "never touched [her] physical " d that all she nassage his back. his chest and his thighs and that was it." Tr. at 12-B. Finally, there was no force, coercion, fraud, violence, dru s or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters will t ese women. Ms. stated Mtn "[Mr. Epstein) never trled to force me to do anything." Tr. A at 12. These accounts are far from the usual testimony in sex slavery, Internet stings an sex tourism eases previously brought. The women in actuality were not younger than 16, which is the age of consent in most of the SO states, and the sex activity was irregular and in large part. consisted of solo self-pleasuring. The recent crop of civil suits brought against Mr. Epstein confirm that the plaintiffs did not discuss any sexually-related activities with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's residence. This reinforces our contention that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a minor, or of any other individual, occurred. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey Harmful. the former law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and die attorney for most of the civil complainants (as described in detail below), was quoted in the Palm Beach Post as saying that "it doesn't matter" that his clients lied about their ages and told Mr. Epstein that they were I8 or 19. Not only is a federal prosecution of this matter unwarranted, but the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the defencd prosecution agreement arc beyond arty reasonable interpretation of the scope of a.proseeuror's responsibilities. The list of improprieties includes; hut is not limited to, the following facts: also stated thut Mr. Epstein 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001620 EFTA00184942

oaau ousts/age% NcYlogai3g4tiie4: Mc ument 362426,4%41-Vie ten 01-14-FrtD Docket 02/10/2016 Pa /airless ILI, lit (IN 'ION I.': s5 i...1/4x 1 ?I. asn ante N I kai s unit? Honorable Mark Pilip May 19, 2008 Page 6 • Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Mr. Epstein pay a minimum of $150,000 per person to an unnamed list of women they referred to as minors and whom they insisted required representation by a guardian ad them. Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that. all but one of these incliiiduals were actuully adults, not minors. Even then, though demanding payment to the women, the USAO eventually asserted that k could not vouch for the veracity of tut} of the claims that these women might make. • Federal prosecutors made the highly unusual demand that Mr. Epstein pay the fors of a civil attorney chosen by the prosecutors to represent these alleged "victims" should they choose to bring any civil litigation against hint. They also proposed sending a notice to the alleged "victims," stating, In an underlined sentence, that should they choose their own attorney, Mr. Epstein would not be required to pay their fees. The prosecutors further demanded that Mr. Epstein Waive his right to challenge any of the allegations made by these "victims.- • The Assistant U.S. Attorney involved in this manor recommended for the civil attorney, a highly lucrative position, an individual that we later discovered was closely and personally connected to the Assistant. U.S. Attorney's own boyfriend. • Federal prosecutors represented to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they had identified (and later rechecked and re-identified) several alleged "victims" of federal crimes that qualified for payment under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a civil remedy desigueci to provide financial benefits to victims. Only through state discovery provisions did we later loam that many of the women on the rechecked "victim list" could not possibly qualify under § 2255. The reason is that they, themselves, testified that they did not suffer any type of harni whatsoever, a prerequisite for the civil recovery under § 2255. Moreover, these women stated that they did not, now or in the past. consider themselves to be victims. • During the last few months, Mr. Herman, First Assistant Sloman's thriller law partner, has tiled several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged "victims." It is our understanding char each of Mr. Herman's clients arc on du: 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001621 EFTA00184943

A' udgloggtv1454:417'.4"41-49b62-2611i61,46g181:Ir40Q1Pocket 02/10/2016 PaglglYeetts Honorable Mark HUI) May 19, ZOOS Page 7 Government's confidential "list or victims." Most of these lawsuits seek S50 million in money darnages.4 a Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein spoke about the case in great detail to Landon Thomas, a reporter with the Mew York Times, and revealed confidential information about the Government's allegations against Mr. Epstein. The Assistant U.S. Attorney also revealed the substance of confidential plea negotiations. When counsel for Mr. Epstein complained about die media leaks, first A.tsistaii; Stamen responded by asserting that "Mr. Thomas was given, pursuant to his request, non-case specific information concerning specific federal statutes " Based on Mr. Thomas' contemporaneous notes, that assertion appears to be false. For example, Mr. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that federal authorities believed that Mr. Epstein had hired girls over the telephone and traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in underage sex. He recounted to Mi. Thomas the USAO's theory of prosecution against Mr. Epstein. replete with an analysis of the key statutes being considered. Fun:hermore, after Mr. Epstein's defense ream complained about the leak to the USAO, Mr. Weinstein, in Mr Thomas' own description, then admonished him for talking to the defense, and getting hint in trouble. Mr. Weinstein further told him not to believe the "spin" of Mr. F.psteints "high-priced attorneys," and then, according to Mr. Thomas. Mr. Weinstein forcefully "reminded" Mr. Thomas • that all prior conversations were merct) hypothetical. We are constrained to conclude that the actions of federal officials in this case strike at the heart of one of the vitally important, enduring values in this country: the honest enforcement of federal law, free of political considerations and free of the taint of personal financial motivations on the part of federal prosecutors thin, at a minimum, raise the appearance of serious impropriety. We were told by U.S. Attorney that as parr of the review he requested, the Department had the authority, and his consent, to make any determination it deemed appropriate regarding this matter, including a decision to decline federal prosecution. Yet, C •OS's only conclusion, based on its limited review of the investigation, is that U.S. Attorney would not abuse his discretion by proceeding against Mr. Epstein. Thus, the decision of whether A) recently as two months ago. Mr. Slornan Was still listed publicly us r. pun of his former law firm. While we assume this was an on:night, Mr. Stoinan's identifirAilon As pan of the firm plus the appearance of Impropriety. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RIP WPB 001622 EFTA00184944

VO/UffVO. lo:uo !AA Olio 00U OmqV flaimOrussvu urrs.v‘ AR 9: Ogigoirgter: Recepato362-ren red on Docket 02/10/2016 Page Vag 3 AND4HLLIS LLP Q0011 Honorable Mark Hip May 19, 2008 Page 8 prosecution is fair and appropriate has been placed, once again, in U.S. Attorney hands. in light of the foregoing, we respectfully ask that you review this matter and discontinue all federal involvement so that the State can appropriately bring this matter to tlosure. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to inect with you to discuss these important issues. Such a meeting would provide the Department with an opportunity to review the paramount issues of federalism and. the appearance al" selectivity that are generated by the unprecedented attempts to broaden the ambit of federal stattitc.s to places that they have never before reached. We sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, ) Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis la Joe D. Whitley Alston & Bird fa 0840736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001623 EFTA00184945

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-27 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 3 ( ( EXHIBIT 97 EFTA00184946

Case 9:9"-cv116T3e:IZANA AllrMent 362-27 Entered on FLSD iiiIT,L02/10221.6 po t2 of 3 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI - Weed Palm Beach Suite 500 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach. Ft. 33401 January 10, 2008 Re: Case Number:' Dear This case la currently under Investigation. This can bee lengthy process end we request your continued patience while wo conduct a thorough Investigation. As a crime victim. you have the following tights under 18 United States Code § 3711: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any publics court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, invoiving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving dear and convincing evidence, determines that testsnony by the victim would be maternally altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any pupils proceeding in the district court Involving release, plea, sentencing. or any parole proceeding; (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government In the case; (0) The right to full and timely restitution as provided In law: (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; (a) The right to bo treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. we will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most at these rights portatn to events occurring after the arrest or indicunem of an Individual for the alma, and it will become the responsibbity of the proeocuting Untied States Attorney's Orrice to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with roepect to these rights. The Victim Notification System (VNS) is destined to provide you with direct informeffon regarding the case as It proceeds Through the criminal Justice system. You may obtain current Information about this metier on the Internet et VYWW.Notify,USDOJ.0OV or from The VNS Call Center at 1-866-D0J-4Y0U (1-868-385- 4968) (TD0MY: 1.866-2284616) (International: 1-502-213-2767). In addition, you may use the Can Center or Internet to update your contact irdormation end/or change your decision about parkipation In Ole notification program. If you update your Information to Include a currenterrnell address, VNS will Send infotnieton to that address. You will need the following Viodm Identification Number (VIN)' Personal Identification Number (PIN) anytime you contact the Cell Center and the erst time you log PI to VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Internet site, you wilt be prompted to enter your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is EFTA00184947

--- Calse 9:-O8-cv-80736-KAM lirment 362-27 Entered on FLSD liket02/1912016 Preggaof 3 It you have additional questions which involve this matter, please contact the Oka listed above. When you cell, please provide the Ole number located at the top of this letter. Please remember, your pardcipellon in the notification part of this pogrom is voluntary. In circlet to continue to meths notifications. it Is your responsibility to keep your contact information current. Sincerely,. ciao; bia, TwIler Smith Victim Specialist EFTA00184948

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT 98 EFTA00184949

app 9:011-cv-p0136-KAM Ellument 362-28 Entered on FLSD kgov,toggle ri.Rciptg of 3 January ig. 2008 U.S. Department of Justice Federal.Bureau of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beach Suite 500 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach. FL 33401 James Eisenberg Ono Cleadako Center Ste 704 Australian South West Palm Beach. Ft. 33401 Re: Dear James Eisenberg: You have requested to receive notifications for This case is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. Asa crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Coda § 3771: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public 0:m41race/ding, or any parole proceeding, Involving the alma or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any ouch public court proceeding. unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim wduld be materially altered If the victim heard other testimony at that proctiedincr, (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court Involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The reasonable right to cunfer with the attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to full and timely restitution os provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonabledelay: (a) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. We MU make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded tie rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an Individual for the crime, and It will become the responelbeity of the prosecuting tinned Slates Attorneys Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the odvlue of is pdveta attorney with respect to these rights. The Victim Motlficatlon System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct Information regarding the case as It proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current Information about this matter on the Internet at WWW.Notify.I1800J-GOV or from the VNS Call Center at 1-866-D0J-4YOU (1.866.365- 4958) (TDD/TTY: 1-050-228-4619) (lritemational: 1-502-213-2767). In addition, you may use One CaN Center or Internet to update your contact infomuslion end/or change your decision about participation in the notification program. If you update your information to include a current email address, VNS will send information to that address. You will need the following Victim Identification Number ' and Personal identification Number anytime, you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on to VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first lima you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter your lest name (or business name) es currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is Eisenberg. EFTA00184950

atse.9:613:cv:£30736-KAM ment 362-28 Entered on FLSD *ket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 3 DOI ODU 0,31 M.U3/0e “ ; If you MVO additional questions which Involve this matter, please contact the office dated above. When you can. please provide the flue number located at the top of this letter. Please remember, your participabon in the notification part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive noldicattons, rt is your reeponsIblitty lo keep your contact Information current. Sincerely. cg i i iR,, -3,:rftP Twikg Smith Victim Specialist EFTA00184951

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 E XHIBIT 99 EFTA00184952