EFTA00192754

547/4 SrfraSsiissioN To met" EFTA00192754 06/02/08 ICON 14:58 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Q001 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 99 NE 474 STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132-2111 Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant U.S. Attorney 305 961 9299 Cyndee Campos Staff Assistant 305 961 9461 305 530-6444 fax FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE: June 2, 2008 TO: Marie Villafana FAX NUMBER: (561) 820 8777 SUBJECT: Epstein NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 9 Message/Comments: This facsimile contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Addressee(s) INFORMATION intended only for the use of the named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this facsimile, or the employee or agent responsible strictly for delivering prohibited. it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or coping of this facsimile is original If you have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the facsimile to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. EFTA00192755 06/02/08 .. M0N 14. 58 FAX 305 530 8440 'run tucOLuteaY 48/27/2(ina 12 19 Sf.5‘ EXECUTIVE OFFICE VOJ/ODAG QD002 r&oalli ? IS:eat/will W. Starr kirk-land 141.11 j:. %malt iirsh•nia Ninyi 9:1e17 .58M A.:I. I late. 1 4c.serHir.: trl : MIL irklinIJA ur:. jot: I). Windt-% ANina Cc Hint I.LP .inc:a. ik.i.lnacani. :N.: i 171. ..4:4:::444.1181, F44 4‘ rivtristdrYfrJa..II:Igai May 27, 2008 fn rACS1M(.11:: <2021 514-0467 CONNOKA177.4/. I lottomhle Mark Filip ( /like blthe l)epiity adarnincy General I initial States Department °rho:lice Q50 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.V.'. WaShi !Wien. D.C. 7.0531) Dear Judge This ytrer briefly supplements our prior submission ut you dated May IQ. 2001. In that communication. we urgently requested that your orrice • Itita an independent reviv%. of the PrnPosed federal pro...win:on of our Client, Jell-icy The dual reasons nil' vu!' request that you review tins mailer are (1) the bedrock need ror integrity in the eitrinecment o;' federal criminal laws. and fill the prOrmind oucstionS raised by Mc unpreecilemed e•aensiiiii (*WIC:rill ;:4W by the lathed Slates Attorney's Office in hlirnti Jibe "liSACY1 who to a pan/mi.-1,m public ligure lots cliKe to thriller President Climuo. The need lix review is nnw all the mon: exigent. Ost Monday. May 19. 200K. Assistant Azirrey Rloinan of the (iSAC) responded rn an email fruen Ja; it,. informing which Attorney Alex Aecixtu that we would he seeking your Offices review. Mr. Straw:ifs letter. Prosecution intprisvtl Agreement a ti,:adline of June 2. 2U0S toe mply with all (Itu lerme of the ‘ur; on Non- (the - Agreement.). plus new unilateral modifieations, on pain of heing an deemed adequate in brutieb a)pontinity af that Agreement. appears to have been deliberately designed it: deprive us or ti• seek your Office's review in this enruter. Child The I.ISAn's desire to fl recluse a complete revien is undersiand,tble. given ibm the I:solidi:Moo und Obseonity Section ("CliON-1 has already determined dim our sultstanube arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. h.pinein is not nu:timed were "compelling.- I Inwever. in euniradielion In Mr. Sloman's assertion that CliQS had provided an uNteiiiille independent. seven! de unto review. CMS; made clear that it did nol. du sit. indeed. C1'.O5 declined In of the more troubling inspects of the investigation Or Mr. U.pslem. delibenne balk the in the New Fork Times of numerous highly criniidemial aspects O1. Ilis invesiigatitm and Tit:god:diem: between the panie$ as well us die I Ceelll aril'. ni coil Ian Snits !lied apinil Mr. Fpstein by Mr. Slumnot's forme: law partner. resport The and arbitrarily imposed deadline set by the I/SAt / win; done without any Mr. 141:acin's for (he nurmill rutted eeee i ll g ;mid scheduling or stale judicial nmitcrs. It retildres that counsel persuade the Slide All4tney of Palm Death to issue u criminal inliimiation EFTA00192756 semit, MON. %tue s% 530 6440 Vine:1200R 1? te Ho, EXECUTIVE OFFICE UW/UVAU 2003 4g004/013 lej tg I Intime& Mark Ma> 27. ;MM rage ta, a a.:harge Mat the State A itorney hus not. despite a tv.O year ito•estLatigio. tlavttisitIZU in hl; appropriait.% :th. I ipstein's counNel must also successailly expedite a pied or _,vil: !• to dus eltarve on :a date prior In inly S, 2005. which k chue presently set hy tic Nunc court indg.. i:urther. the tomccessary deadline is even more problematit heeause Mr. hpsteiti"s &on tr«, feCORCile the suite charge tuul sentence with the terms or the Aereemenc requitea an noueux' und unpreca:clonted threatened application ni retlend lav. nus. n places Mr lipstein in the Intdily apaisai:d position or flavine in demand that the Statu aCquiesix to a mon: se‘eic punishment titan it.had alresuly determinecl WaS appropriait. We have attempted to resolve these and other iNstic.s amatie the t:S:\( l and CF.OS, including raisin; our coteverns about the USAt.l's inappropriate etanduct with respect to (lais matte. But thoNe avenues have now heen shut d . Mr. Sloman's lette• t'atriums to proldhit any limiter comma betwetn Mr. Epstein:1e dentnsc tealt and t:.\. Attorney Aeosta. anal ansieati rcquires us to communia:lite with the USA() only though Mr. Slornan's subtirdinatea. White it pains us ta say this, this mistsided proseention nom the mise: Id vus the appearantc Mat it niny have been I ralitically inotivanel Mr. lipstein as a hienly sut:ces:am, selj• made businessman and philanthropist %sahib entered the publie arena t. loue of hic dom: persenal assecieliun with fumier President Bill elintun. tionln ua u::r minds thai the 1!S.\() nevet %muid have contemplated a pmseuution in this Mr. Epstein wet,e jus; another "John.- U.S. AitorneY .koeau previnusly has st»wd thai lu; is -sympailunic- to our lederalisin• rektied contents, but lac has takcn the position thai his authoriiy is limited cnroreement ',n'ides set Rink in Washington. U.C. As expressed in our prior communication ro >ion. we hellave that a complets; and independeni :mortaisai and restitution or Ibis case motu appropriatel) would he undertaken by your Orliee btginning with the rottassion or the arbitntry. unrair. and Ilnpnnetionicei Jcadtinc thot Mr. S'ornait clentnnds to have impcsed in this case. At 0:6: mcv leaSt. %“: WOUld tif dit:arbitra! thnelinc hnposed on our client by the t :SAO in enfer allow titnit Ior gour Office Io tai:eider sein rennes: lhal vat: undurrake u retieu omhis env. Thauk yuu for ycur time and attention. zspect rully etibmiited. Kenneth W. Siam ' jvilaV ie-Lani te f .10/5 _. I) Whitley K irkland &I d1k I.11' Bird EFTA00192757 06/02/08 MON 14:59 FAX 305 530 8440 os/zer/svus et): oft FAX 2uetifal239 03 III at; NON l3:21 VAS 1 213 680 h500 EXECUTIVE OFFICE DOJ/00AC KTRKLAND&ELLIS I.I.I la 004 @op:S/013 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone. (213) 680-8400 Fax: (213) 680-8500 SP? euiti*e:c. Please notify us immediately If any pages are not received. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION BE ATTORNEY IS CONFIDENTIAL• MAY -CLIENT PRIVILEGED. MAY CONSTITUTE IS INTENDED ONLY INSIDE INFORMATION. AND DISCLOSURE OR FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE UNAUTHORIZED USE. COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: (213) 680-8400. To: Honorable Mark Filip From: Company: Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department offusticc Date: Pagersinetovel Fax #: Direct #: (202) 514-0467 (202) 514-2101 Fax #: Direct it: Kenneth W. Starr May 19, 2008 9 (2/3) 680.8500 (213) 680-8440 Message' EFTA00192758 08/02/08 MON 14 FAX 305 530 6440 golativo t8& ZUVIII3I.Z39 OILIO:ON MON IA:22 IPAX I 213 880 8500 EXECUTIVE OFFICE no.r/OuAu K I RKI.Atilukiiii.15 1.1.1* 0(15 Winne/0u MI MIX Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Elkis LLP 777 South Riney)! Street Los Angeles; C.A 90017-5800 Phone: 213-6am-844o Fax: 31348o-830o 1:starrdlirldand.eom V1A FACSIMILE (202) 514.4467 Honorable Mark Filip office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 May 19.2008 Joe D. Whitley Alston & Bird LI.P The Atlantic Building 950 F Si reet,KW waslaington, DC souo4-1404 Ph: 202-7.56-3189 Fag: 202.654.4889 joc.whitleytitiaistencom CONFIDENTIAL Dear Judge Fillip: In his confirmation hearings last WI, Judge Mukascy admirably lifted up the finest traditions of the Department of Justice in assuring the United States Senate, and the American own people, of his solemn intent to ensure fairness and integrity in the administration of justice. Your 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 of in a quintessentially state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we are well aware the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we are confident circumstances at that the well as issue warrant such tut examination. Based on our collective experiences, as we those of other former senior Justice Department officials whose advice we have sought, of us have never before seen a case more appropriate for oversight and review. Thus, while neither Department's has previously made such a request. we do so now in the recognition that both the reputation. as well as the due process rights of our client, arc at issue. Recently, the Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter at the request many of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review deliberately excluded important aspects of this case. Just this past Friday, on May 16, 2008, we received a letter admission, from the head of CEOS informing us that CEOS had conducted a review of this case. By its own the CEOS review was "limited, both factually and legally." Part of the self-imposed by limitation was CEOS's abstention from addressing our "allegations of professional misconduct federal prosccutors".—even though such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably intertwined States Attorney's with the Office credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United Deferred Prosecution in Miami ("USAO"). Moreover, CEOS did not assess the terms of the Agreement now in effect, nor did CEOS review the federal prosecutors' inappropriate effbrrs to implement those terms. We detail this point below. EFTA00192759 08/02/08 tom _1;5 iati FAX 305 6440 i bA.I9.po MON 13:22 FAX 1 213 GIO 8500 DUJ/Q EXECUTIVE OFFICE UAG I atil.A6oart s Qhoos 4Doonots toun3 Honorable Mark Pilip May 19, 2008 Page 2 would fly way of background. we were informed by Mr. Acosta chat, at his request, CEOS be conducting a review to determine whether federal prosecution was both appropriate and, we in his words. That is not what occurred. instead, CEOS has now acknowledged that had raised "many compelling arguments" against the USAO's suggested "novel application" of federal law in this mutter. Even so. CEOS concluded. in minimalist fashion. that "we do not see anything that says to us categorically G.S. Amine) that a federal mite should not be brought" and that the "would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should 1w authorize federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein!' thus delegating back to Mr. Acosta the decision of whether federal pmsecution was warranted (emphasis added). Rather than assessing whether prosecution would he appropriate, CEOS. using a low.baseline 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" precluded issues was mission by CrinUnal Division practice. We hardier respect CROS's view that it understood its whether as significantly limited. Specifically, the contemplated objective was to determine making the USAO would benbusing its discretion by bringing a federal prosecution rather than its own de novo recommendations on the appropriate reach of federal law. However. we Justice respectfully Department. submit that a full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the Mr. Epstein, In an effort to inform you of the nature of the federal investigation against we suntmarize the facts and circumstances of this matter below. warranted The two bast-level concerns we hold are that (1.) federal prosecution of this matter is not based on the purely-local conduct and the unprecedented application of federal statutes questionable to facts such as these and (2) the actions of federal authorities are both highly 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 appearance isolated allegations of professional mistakes or misconduct. These issues, instead, affect the and administration of criminal justice with profound consequences beyond the resolution in the matter at hand. questions In —and a precedent-shattering investigation of Jeffrey Epstein that raises important policy serious issues as to the fair and honorable enforcement of federal law—the lISAO in Miami is considering extending federal law beyond the bounds of precedent and reason. Federal prosecutors stretched the underlying facts in ways that raise fundamental of questions of basic professionalism. Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive proposed federal criminal law with a civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in EFTA00192760 06/02/08 MON 1500 FAX 305 630 8440 05/28/2008 09:05 FAX 2026161239 na ta:os NW( 13:23 FAX I 213 080 8500 . , EXECUTIVE OFFICE DOJ/ODAG Kilthl.AND&Cf.1.1S 1.1.I' 007 0005/013 GO 004 Honorable Mark Filip May :9,2008 Page 3 Federal private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved. Times prosecutors then leaked highly sensitive information about the case to a New York onslaught reporter.' The immediate result of this confluence of extraordinary circumstances is an of civil lawsuits, all save one brought by the First Assistant's former boutique law firm in prostitution? The facts in this case all revolve around the classic state crime of solicitation of The State Attorney's Office in Palm Beach County had conducted a diligent about investigation, convened a Grand Jury that returned an indictment, and made a final determination Mr. Epstein how to proceed. That is where, in our federal republic, this matter should rest. faces a felony conviction in state court by virtue of his conduct, and the only reason the State has not resolved this matter is that the federal prosecutors in Miami have continued to harsher insist that we, Mr. Epstein's counsel, approach and demand from the State Attorney's Office a circumstances. charge and a more severe punishment than that Office believes are appropriate under the Yet despite the USAO's refusal to allow the State to resolve this metier on the coordinate terms the Stare has determined are appropriate, the USA() has not made any attempt to would its efforts with the State. in fact, the USAO mandated that any federal agreement be conditioned on Mr. Epstein persuading the State to seek a criminal punishment unlike conduct. that imposed on other defendants within the jurisdiction of the State Attorney for similar From the inception of the USAO's involvement in this case, which at the end of the day have is a case asked about solicitation of prostitution within the confines of Palm Beach County, Florida, we suggest ourselves why the Department ofJustice is involved. Regrettably, we are unable to any appropriate basis for the Department's history whatsoever. involvement. Mr. Epstein has no criminal a Also, Mr. Epstein has never been the subject of general media interest until President few years Bill ago. Clinton. atter it was widely perceived by the public that he was a close friend of former outside The the heartland conduct at issue is simply not within the purview of federal jurisdiction and lies U.S.C. §§ of the three federal statutes that have been identified by prosecutors-1S 159 l . 2422(b), and 2423(b). One contemporaneous of the other members notes. of Mr. Epstein .3 defense team, Jay Leocowitz, has personally reviewed the reporter's openly Although admitted some of the women alleged to be involved ware 1E and 17 years of age, several of these wrimen to lying to Mr. Epstein ghoul their age in their recent sworn statements. EFTA00192761 06/02/08 MON 15:01 FAX 306 530 8440 0s/26/2008 00:0A FAX 202018123s 03 4n . nit, NON 13:23 rAs 1 213 SR° &SOO EXECUTIVE OFFICE DOVODAG K I RICI-AND&EI.I. I S Woolf envon 4:1°05 Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2003 Page 4 These statures arc intended to target critnes of a truly national and international scope. Specifically, § 1591 was enacted to combat human trafficking, § 2422 is aimed at sexual predation of minors through the Internet. and § 2423 deals with sex tourism. The nature of these 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 ease brought under le §§ 1591, 2422(b), and 2423(b), we found that not a single case involves facts or a scenario 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 force. coercion. or fraud and who was not profiting from commercial sexual trafficking. There have likewise been no cases under § 2422(6)—a crime of communication—where there was no use of the Internet, and where the content of phone communications did not contain way 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 lack of evidence that such a communication ever occurred sets this case apart from every reported case brought under § 2422(b). Lastly, there arc no reported cases of violations of § 2123(b) of a person whose dominant purpose in traveling was merely to go to his OWI1 hortle.3 Although these matters were within the scope of the CEOS review, rather than considering whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOS only determined that U.S. Attornee Acosta "would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution" its 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. Federal prosecution of a man who engaged in consensual conduct in his home that amounted to, at most, the solicitation of prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a state concern. free United Stater v. Evans, 476 F.36 3176, 1 (I lot Cir. 2007) (federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state rogulationy)). and there is no evidence that Palm Beach County authorities and Florid* prosecutors cannot effectively prosecuic and punish the conduct, there is no reason why this matter should be extracted from die hands of state prosecutors in Florida. EFTA00192762 06/02/08 NON 1501 FAX 305 530 6440 ol/26/20os oa:os FAX 2028161239 Mc 'ICV 13:24 FAX I 213 630 950D EXECUTIVE OFFICE DOJ/ODAC KIHNIANO&ELLIS LLP [2009 tJ 00/013 a4! uur Honorable Mark Filip May 19.2008 Page 5 . In fact, recent prosecutors during testimony of several alleged "victims' contradicts claims made by federal re . resentations of ke the Government negotiations of a deterred prosecution a a reement. The consistent . and in) witnesses (such as Tatum. Brittany Beak, Saige confirm the following critical points: First, communication, totelephonic or there was no otherwise, Ms.IIIIII confirmed that meets the requirements of § 2422(b). For instance. interstate commerce whatsoever. that Mr. Epstein never emailed, text-messaged, or used any facility of before or after her one (and. only) visit to his home. Tr. (deposition) at 30. Second, . about their age in order the women who testified admitted that they lied to r. •pstein underage friends to Mr. to Epstein gain admittance into his home. Indeed, the women who brought their testified that they would counsel their friends to lie about their approached Inc. Malli i re . you tell him you're IFL Well, these girls that I brought, I know tat ages as well. Ms. stated the following: "I would tell my girlfriends just like not, they 1 were would 18 say or 19 make or 20. sure And the girls that I didn't 'MOW and I don't know if they were lying or routine or habit of that you tell him you* 18." le Tr. at 22. Third, there was no improper communication expressing an intent to transform a massage into an ille al testified sexual act. that In "[s]ometimes fact, there was Mr. often no sexual activity at all during the massage. Ms. Epstein] just wanted his feet massaged. Sometimes lit - just never wanted touched a back [her) massage." physically' Tr. at 19. IIIII also suited that Mr. Epstein and that all she di was - massage( ) his back. his chest and his thighs violence, and drugs, that was or even it." Egli Tr. at 12-13. Finally, there was no force, coercion, fraud, women, Ms. Beale stated alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with these A et 12. These accounts are that "[Mr. Epstein) never tried to force me to du anything." Tr. far from the usual testimony in sex slavery, Internet stings an sex tourism cases previously brought. The women in actuality were not younger than 16, which is the age of consent in most of the 50 states, and the sex activity was irregular and in large part. consisted of solo self-pleasuring. not discuss The recent any sexually crop of civil suits brought against Mr. Epstein confirm that the plaintiffs did residence. This reinforces -related our activities with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's contention enticement or coercion that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, of a minor, or of any other individual, occurred. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey Ilcrman, attorney for the most former of law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the the civil complainants Beach Post as saying (as described in detail below), was quoted in the Palm Epstein that they were that I8 or "it doesn't matter" that his clients lied about their ages and told Mr. l9. • Not only is a federal prosecution of this matter unwarranted, but the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the deferred prosecution beyond any reasonable agreement arc interpretation of the scope of a.prosecutor's responsibilities. The list of improprieties includes, but.is not limited to, the following facts: EFTA00192763 06/02/08 NON 15:02 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 06/28/2008 00:10 FAX 2026361230 n0.1/0DAT: ir,,J Os, HON IA: r5 FM I _1i an 8500 KIRKLANDLELITS 1.12 a 010 Q011/013 iduoi Honorable Mark Pilip May 19, 2008 page 6 • minimum Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Mr. Epstein pay a 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 'item. Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these individuals were actually adults, not minors. Even then, though demanding payment to the women, the USA() eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of any of the claims that these women might make. • Federal prosecutors made the highly unusual demand that Mr. Epstein pay the fees of a civil attorney chosen by the prosecutors to represent these alleged "victims" should they choose to bring any civil litigation against him. 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 fiuther 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 matter 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-identificd) several alleged "victims" of federal crimes that qualified for payment under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a civil remedy designed to we provide financial benefits to Victims. Only through state discovery provisions did later learn 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 harm 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. Hannan, First Assistant Sloman's former law partner, has filed several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged "victims." It is our understanding that each of Mr. Herman's clients are on the EFTA00192764 08/02/08 &bell 05. 10.11$ MON 15: 02 MON 13:25 FAX FAX 305 I 530 213 6440 080 8500 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Al RKIANDVIELLI S LLP mina/ Di 3 %MIS Honorable Mark Pilip May 19, 200R Page 7 Government's million confidential "list of victims." Most of these lawsuits seek S50 in money damages.' • Landon Assistant Thomas, U.S. Attorney a David Weinstein spoke about the case in great detail to information reporter with the New York Times, and revealed confidential U.S. Attorney about the Government's- allegations against Mr. Epstein. The Assistant also revealed the substance of confidential plea negotiations. • Sluman When counsel for Mr. Epstein complained about the media leaks, First Assistant request, non responded by asserting that "Mr. Thomas was given, pursuant CO his on Mr. Thomas' -case specific information concerning specific federal statutes." Based example, Mr. Weinstein contemporaneous notes. that assertion appears to be false. For told Mr. Thomas that federal authorities believed Mr. Epstein had that for the purpose lured girls over the telephone and traveled in interstate commerce of engaging in underage sex. 1-k recounted USAO's to Mr. Thomas the key statutes theory being of prosecution' against Mr. Epstein. replete with an analysis of the complained about considered. Furthermore, after Mr. Epstein's defense ream the leak to the 1.:SAO, Mr. Weinstein, description, in Mr. Thomas' own trouble. Ms. then Weinstein admonished him for talking to the defense, 'and getting him in "high-priced further told him not to believe the "spin" of Mr. Epstein's forcefully attorneys," and then, according to Mr. Thomas. Mr. Weinstein hypothetical. "reminded" Mr. Thomas • that all prior conversations were merely We are constrained to conclude that the actions of federal officials in this case strike at of the federal heart of law, one of free the of vitally important, enduring values in this country: the honest enforcement political considerations motivations on the pan of and free of the taint of personal financial fedeml prosecutors that, at a minimum, raise the appearance of serious impropriety. We were told by U.S. Attorney Acosta that as part of the review he requested, Department had the authority, and the his consent, to make any determination it deemed appropriate regarding this matter, including a decision conclusion, based on its to decline federal prosecution. Yet, CEUS's only limited review of the investigation, is that U.S. Attorney Acosta would not abuse his discretion by proceeding against Mr. Epstein. Thus, the decision of whether As recently as two months ago. Mr. Slomim was still retell publicly us r. pun of hls former law firm. Whtte NY' assume this was an oversight, Mr. Stoman'S identification as part of the ruin raises the appearance of impropriety. EFTA00192765 olt/02/08_ liglA5:11. ,,,,, 530 6440 -ors.iiruS WIN 13:20 FAX I 213 000 8500 • I • EXECUTIVE OFFICE PUJ,UDACi liKLANI)40 S 012 (2013/o)3 R., Oil ll Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 8 prosecution is fair and appropriate has been placed, once again, in U.S. Attorney Acosta's 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 closure. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these importani issues. Such a meeting would provide the Department with an opportunity to review the paramount issues of federalism and•thc appearance of selectivity attempts to broaden the ambit that are generated by the unprecedented Wc of federal statutes to places that they have never before reached. sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter. Respectfully subrid Red, Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis UP Joe D. Whitley Alston St Bird LL.P EFTA00192766