EFTA00224786

5/obb Sow See issioN To ME 1* EXHIBIT 8-33 EFTA00224786 06/02/08 1ION 14:58 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE cool U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of*Florida UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 99 NE 41" STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132-211 1 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: Addressee(s) This facsimile contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 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. EFTA00224787 06/02/08 :skla FAX 305° ,521 6440 :15/27/2006, 12 19 !TA!! , • . EXECUTIVE OFFICE DO.I/OOAC ra 002 1g1 0034013 *I'me • too.> liZenttrth SA'. Starr Kirkland & E1Iie i.1.1' soca: Flit:gene, It twi ttttt triV17.:IC:cr :!1-6:44.1 •Stb.% “ I'•rDerplfil : ray :1; 6%0 SSL's Lmarrnlarldaihkt sue VIA F&CSIMILI:: (2021 514-(14(10 I lonor.tole Mark Filip H 40: 01 the Udtul y Attorney General t inilcrt Sties l)epartntent or) ma ice ti50 PelifegyiVania Avenue. N.W. 1(153t/ May 27, 2008 Jne A Winn C.:. Bird Thr net ) l .9:ett . NW ; .%)..•14 •:04 ii.. —......7•7;11.11.V.• ::?Z•hi.i.irti rw %Otis lin.viFtl .I.ol :seise CO.N7•7OAN77.4/. Vear wipe Fi ip: This letter briefly supplements our prior submission to you dated May I'7.20(18. In Mat communication. we urgently requested that your °like conduct an independent review of the proposed federal proceeution or our Okla Jefficy fipsiein. The dual reallons fur our request that you review this mailer are 0; Ow bedrock need fur inlewity in the enlcireement of Raba al criminal laws. and lift tlw profinind questions raised by the unpreetalenh,d k:•:lcusinn ier (*edema by the t :idled States Attortwy*> Orrice in Minmi (the "t ISAO- i to a premment Min figure liks ehme ties le Winner President annum Assistant The need for review is III all the more exigent. On Monday. May It 200K. first Jefliey Shogun of the litiAO responded tn an email from Jay l.ellow.im inuirming1 Attorney I.S Alex AtoNla (11.3t would be. Seekirc your oirme sS revicil air. SIOnleicS Prosecution which imposed a deadline or June 2. 2008 to ;timid), with all the termh of the cur; cot Non. deemed Agreement (the 'Agreement.). plus new unilateral modifications, on pain of heing an adequine in breach opportunity of that Agreement. uppear:4 to have been deli herately designed to deprive tut or RP Neck your Offices review in this mot ter. Child The USW!: desire to 'brut:lose a complete revieu is understandablc. given that the i'vpinitation and Obscenity Section ("Cl S") has already determined arguments that our Substantive - compelling. regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. 149nein is not unrranied were - I Inwever. in contradiction to Mr. Sloinairs acsenion that CLOS had provided an independent. examine several dr ;uwn of review. CFOS made clear that it did not tin so. indeed. rlift5t declined u. deliberate balk the more troubling aspects of the hwestigation or Mr. ...I:psi...In. indutlinr the investigation anti in the rod Times of numerous highly confidential aspects or the filed againit Mr. riettraialitms between the parties as well us the icon crop of coil lawsuits Epstein by Mr. Sloman's roam: law partner. The untweesgary and arbitrarily respeo tor (he normal imposed deadline set by the I /SAC) ustaz done without any Mr. ' and sehedurny or shoe judicial matters. II require:. that filutitin . b counsel persuade the Sute Attorney nt Palm beach to issue a criminal inthrmation EFTA00224788 06/02/08 MON 14:59 FAX 305 530 6440 . 04./2.:12006 1? IS fAX uuJIWA EXECUTIVE OFFICE U 0003 ktitiovot.3 tel1:3“».04 linnet:Mk: Mark »lin 27.200a Page 2 to a chage that the State Attorney hus not. despite a (v.o year invest's: [[ 44 da ...3 I »Wed Ill be approprimu. Mr. Hp:titbits counsel must also successfully espedite a plea of guilty to this charge on a date prior to July S. 200X. which is the date presently set hy the sink coon Judge. Further, tbc unnecessary deadline is even more problematic beeausc Mr. Ipsteiifs etton tu reconcile the state charge turd sCIlIC/ICC with the terms or the Agreement requites an unusual and unprecedented threatened application of federal law. Thus. it places Mr Epstein In dn• untested oosith in of having to demand that the $talc acquiesce to a own; >net.: pnnisltntenl Iltan it had already determined g•as appropriate. We have attempted to resolve these and other issues through the h:SA<1 and CF.ON, um:twilit, raising our uomurn.4 about the tismrs inappropriate condttet with rotpool to Orb manes. run those avenues have now been shut donna. Mr. Shuman's letter purports to prohibit any further cantata between Mr. lipskirrk defense learn and U.S. Attorney Acosta. and instead requires us to communicate with the IJSAO only though Mr. Sloman's subordinatcx. While it pains us to say this, this misguided proscouion lion, the ukase! gives (he appearance that il may have been politically motivantd Mr. Epoch] is a biOly suceessaul. self• made iNnsineSsnian and philanthmpist who entered the public arena only 1» % irrur Oi lic elow personal association with former President Bill Clintutt. There is link doubt oar minds that the 1!S:10 nevi!' would have contemplated a prosecution in this case it Mr. Epstein teer: just anodler U.S. Attorney Acosta previously has slued that Ile is -Sympathetic:" 1(1 our rederalisio. Mated contents. but be has taken the position that his authority is finilied bt ciffinvensem policieS Set pooh in Washington. D.C. As expressed in our prior enmenunication to you, We believe that a complete and independent appraisal and resolution of this case most approprisicly would he undertaken by your Office beginning with the rescission nr the arhiirary. unrair• and unprinedemed deadline that Mr, Slaman demands to have imposed in this ease. At the very kW would appreciate a tolling, of the arhitrac timeline imposed on our client by the I:SAO ill (II(IVE U. allow dint: for your office to consider out lUtilleql that yin: ontlerudo: a re'. ten Of this ease. 'not:A yeti ter your time and attention. It zspcei fully submitted. r Kenneth I. Starr Kirldielal 4K: KIHS C), -7 ,471.442, „.".• (...,0 il) 4 Whitley er.1 Alston Bird IL EFTA00224789 06/02/08 MON 14:59 FAX 305 530 8440 on/46/2uoa 69:06 FAX 2026161239 05 10 hn 330N I3:21 VAS 1 233 08(1 hhoo EXECUTIVE OFFICE D0VODAG KTRKLANIAELLIS Lit g1004 56605/013 twit), KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone. (213) 680-8400 Fax: (213) 680-8500 Please notify us immediately If any pages are not recolved. 5117 Cuej e:s• THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN Tills COMMUNICATION SE ATTORNEY IS CONFIDENTIAL. MAY -CLIENT PRIVILEGED. MAY CONSTITUTE IS INTENDED ONLY INSIDE INFORMATION. AND DISCLOSURE FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE UNAUTHORIZEO USE. OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: (213) 680-8400. ro: Company: Fax II: Direct It: Honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General (202) 514-0467 United States Department ofJustiet (202) 514-2101 From: Date: Pages 'stover: Fax U: Direct ft: Kenneth W. Starr May 19, 2008 9 (313) 680.8500 (213) 680-8440 Message. EFTA00224790 na /08 MON 14.; 59 FAX 305 530 644 0 agave utnui tit& Z UZ6 id I.:439 OA. III •Ile AON 13:22 FAX I 213 680 8500 • EXECUTIVE OFFICE DOJiODAU KI RKI,AN0019.13 S lit' 005 lm 006n013 IQI II U Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles: CA _90017-5800 Phone: ats-rglo-844o Pax: 213-680-8300 listarro,kirkland.com VIA FACSDALInallik&LU honorable Murk 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 . -4Jstora & Bird LI.P The Atlantic Building 95o P Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1404 Ph: 2o2-7 6-3189 Fax: 202-654.4889 4'aiston.com CONFIDENTIAL Dear Judge Flap: 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 unsure fairness and integrity in the administration of justice. Your confirmation hearings echoed that bedrock determination to assure that the Department conduct itself with honor aad 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 of a quintessentially state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein: While we arc well aware the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we arc confident that the well circumstances at issue warrant such an examination. Based on our collective experiences, as we as those of other former senior Justice Department officials whose advice we have sought, have never before seen a ease more appropriate for oversight and review. Thus, while neither Department's of us 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, are at issue. Recently. the Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter at the many request 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 * review of this case. By its own the C13OS 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 prosecutorr—even though such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably States intenwined with the credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United Deferred Attorney's Prosecution Office in Miami ("USAO"). Moreover, CEOS did not assess the terms of the Agreement now in effect, nor did CEOS review the federal prosecutors' inappropriate efforts to implement those terms. We detail this point below. EFTA00224791 06/02/08 NON 15:00 FAX 305 530 6440 yleiblOsiWWW WA. W4 CAA ,na. ts.pts MO' 13:22 PAX 1 213 G80 8500 • • • DuJEXECUTIVE OFFICE itioAc x I 8NLAND&EIJ .1s 1.1.P la 006 143007/0t3 to Cilia Honorable Mark Rip May 19, 2008 Page 2 would By way of background. we were informed by Mr. Acosta that, at his request, CEOS be conducting a review to determine whether federal prosecution was both appropriate we and, had in his words. -fair." That is not what occurred. Instead, CEOS has now acknowledged that raised "many compelling arguments" against the IJSAO's suggested "novel application" of federal law in this mutter. Even so. CF.OS concluded. in minimalist fashion. that "we do nor see U.S. anything Anoint) that says to us categorically that a federal cafe should not be brought" and that the prosecution "would nor be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize fedentl of Mr. Epstein!" thus delegating back to Mr. Acosta the decision of whether federal prosecution he was warranted (emphasis added). Rather than assessing whether prosecution would appropriate, CUOS, using a low.baschne for its evaluation, determined only that "it would not be impossible to prove . . ." certain allegations made against Mr. Epstein. The CEC)S 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 Criminal Division practice. We further respect CF.OS's view that it understood its whether as significantly limited. Specifically, the contemplated objective was to determine making the USAO would be Abusing 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 summarize the facts and circumstances of this matter below. warranted The two base-level concerns we hold are that (t) federal prosecution of this matter is not statutes based on the purely-local conduct and the unprecedented application of federal 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. 4 questions In —and a. precedent-shattering investigation of Jeffrey Epstein that raises important policy USA() serious issues as to the fair and honorable enforcement of federal law—the 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, proposed required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in EFTA00224792 06/02/08 MON 15:00 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 05/24/200a 09:08 PAX 20.26161239 DOJ/ODAC (Fog pm( 13:23 FM 1 213 080 8600 Icilth LAMEU1S IJ.I' 0 007 42006/013 Gaoll4 Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 3 private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved. Times Federal prosecutors then leaked highly sensitive information about the case to a New York reporter.' 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 firm in Miami. The facts in this case all revolve around the classic state crime of solicitation of prostitution :I 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 Mr. Epstein how to proceed. Thai is where, in our federal republic, this matter should rest. faces a felony conviction in state court by virtue of his conduct, and the oniy reason the State has not resolved this matter is that the federal prosecutors in Miami have continued to insist that we, Mr. Epstein's counsel, approach and demand from the State Attorney's Office harsher charge and a inure severe punishment than that Office believes are appropriate under the circumstances. Yet despite the USAO's refusal to allow the State to resolve this matter on the coordinate terms the State has determined arc appropriate, the USAO 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 that imposed on other defendants within the 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 have is a case asked about solicitation of prostitution within the confines of Palm Beach County, Florida, we suggest ourselves why the Department of Justice is involved. Regrettably, we are unable to any appropriate basis for the Department's history involvement. Mr. Epstein has no criminal a whatsoever. Also, Mr. Epstein has never been the subject of general media interest until President few years Bill ago, atter it was widely perceived by the public that he was a close friend of former Clinton. outside The conduct at issue is simply not within the purview of federal jurisdiction and lies U.S.C. § the heartland of the three federal statutes that have been identified by prosecutors-18 1591. 2422(b), and 2423(h). contemporaneous One of the other members notes. of Mr. Epstein's defense team, lay Leficowitz, has personally reviewed the reporter's openly Although admitted some of the women alleged to be involved were 16 and 17 years of age, several or Mese women to lying to Mr. Epstein about their age in their recent sworn statements. EFTA00224793 06/02/08 YON 15:01 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 05/28/2008 00:09 FAX 2029161239 DOJ/ODAG 1'1O ph. MOM 13:::3 rAs 1 213 SRO 8500 KIRKLANT&FLLis 1.1.1` 10005 Honorable Mark Fi lip May 19, 2003 Page 4 These statutes arc intended to target crimes 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 IR U.S.C. §§ 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(b)—a crime of communication—where there was no use of 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. Punhormore, the Government's contention that "routine and habit" can fill the factual and legal void crested 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 § 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 considering whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOS only determined that U.S. Attomes Acosta "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. Federal prosecution of a man who engaged in consensual conduct in hls home that amounted to, at most, the solicitation or prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a state concern. cone United Sal. Evan; 476 F.3d I I 76, e.1 (11th Cir. 2007)(1-Waal law "does not aimlnalize all acts ot prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)")). and there is nu evidence tbat Palm Beach County authorities and Florida prosecutors cannot cobetively prosecute and punish the conduct, there is no reason why this matter should he extracted front the bands ofstate prosecutors in Florida. EFTA00224794 06/02/08 IION 1501 FAX 305 530 6440 os/28/20os uv:08 FAX 2u26161239 .11.: IU as MOV I 3 : FAX I 213 680 8500 DOJ/ODAC EXECUTIVE OFFICE AK LANDAELLI 5 I LP 1009 0010/0) ;a000 Honorable Mark Filip May 19.2008 Page'S. in fact, recent prosecutors during testimony of several alleged "victims' contradicts claims made by federal representations of the negotiations of a detbrred prosecution agreement. The consistent Gonzalez, and Jennifer key Government Laduke) witnesses (such as Tatum Miller. Brittany Beale, Saige confirm the following critical points: rips!, communication, telephonic or there was no Ms. Gonzalez confirmed othcnvisc, that meets the requirements of § 2422(b). For instance. interstate commerce whatsoever. that Mr. Epstein never entailed, text-messaged, or used any facility of Tr. (deposition) at 30. before or after her one (and. only) visit to his home. Gonzalez about their age in order Second, the women who testified admitted that they lied to Mr. Epstein to gain admittance underage friends into his home. Indeed, the women who brought their ages as well. Ms. to Miller Mr. Epstein testified that they would counsel their friends to lie shout their stated the following: "I would tell my girlfriends approached me. Make just like Carolyn sure you tall hiin you're IR. Well, these girls that I brought, I know that not, they I were would IS say or 19 make or 20. And the girls that I didn't know and I don't know if they were lying or routine or habit of improper sure that you tell him you're 18." Miller Tr. at 22. Third, there was no communication expressing an intent to transfonn a massage into an Miller illegal testified sexual act. that In "Is]ometimes fact, there was often no sexual activity et all during the massage. Ms. (Mr. Epstein] just wanted his feet massaged. Sometimes he "never just warned touched a back Liter] massage." physically" Miller Tr. at 19. Jennifer Laduke also stated that Mr. Epstein and that all she did was "massage( ) his back, his chest and his thighs violence, and drugs, that was or even it." Laduke 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 at 12. These accounts that "[Mr. Epstein] never tried to force me to do anything." Beale Tr. are far from the usual testimony in sex slavery, Internet stings and sex tourism cases previously brought. The women in actuality were not younger than 16, which is consisted the age of of consent solo self in -pleasuring. most of the 50 states, and the sex activity was irregular and in large part. not discuss The recent any sexually crop of -related civil suits brought against Mr. Epstein confirm that the plaintiffs did activities with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's residence. This reinforces our contention that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, enticement or coercion inducement, of a minor, or of any other individual, occurred. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey llerrnan, the former law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the attorney Beach Post for as most saying of the civil complainants (as described in detail below), was quoted in the Palm Epstein that "it doesn't matter" that his clients lied about their ages and told Mr. that they were 18 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 deferred prosecution agreement arc beyond arty reasonable interpretation of the scope of a.prosecutor's responsibilities. 'the list of improprieties includes, but.is not limited to, the following facts: EFTA00224795 06/02/08 EON 15:02 FAX 305 530 6440 05/28/2008 00:10 FAX 2o26i61239 • 1.C.,.icr. us, MON 11: FAX 1 211 nen MO EXECUTIVE OFFICE b0.1,0DAG KIRKI.ANOTini.1.15 al)10 QP111/011 kin07 Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 6 • Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Mr. Epstein pay minimum of $150,000 per person to an unnamed list of women they referred to ss minors and whom they insisted required representation by a guardian ad Mem. Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these indiitiduals 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 tiny 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 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 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 oisit 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 quilified for paymc,nt under IS U.S.C. § 2255, a civil remedy designed to provide we financial benefits TO victims. Dilly 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. Herman, First Assistant Slornan's former kw partner, has tiled several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged "victims." It is our understanding that each of Mr. Herman's clients arc on the EFTA00224796 08/02/08 MON 18:02 FAX 305 530 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE .02. 10.0N MON 13:25 FAX 1 213 6811 S500 KIRKLANDEELLIS LLP • • 14011 46012/O3 Fans Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 7 Government's confidential "list of victims." Most of these million in money lawsuits seek S50 damages.• • Landon Assistant Thomas, U.S. Attorney a David Weinstein spoke about the case in great detail to inforination about reporter with the New York Times, and revealed confidential U.S. Attorney also the Government's allegations against Mr. Epstein. The Assistant revealed the substance of confidential plea negotiations. • When counsel for Mr. Epstein complained about the media Shaman responded leeks, First Assistant request, non-cast by asserting that "Mr. Thomas was given, pursuant w his specific on Mr. Thomas' information concerning specific federal statutes." Based contemporaneous example, Mr. Weinstein notes. that assertion appears to be false. For told Mr. Thomas that federal authorities believed Mr. Epstein had that for the purpose of lured girls over the telephone and traveled in interstate commerce engaging in underage sex. He recounted USAO's theory of prosecution to Mr. Thames the key statutes being against Mr. Epstein. replete with an analysis of the complained about considered. Furthermore, after Mr. Epstein's defense ream the leak to the CSAO, Mr. Weinstein, description, in Mr. Thomas' own trouble. Mr. then Weinstein admonished him for talking to the defense, and gettine hint in "high-priced attorneys," further told him not to believe the "spin" of Mr. Epstein's and then, according forcefully to Mr. Thomas. Mr. Weinstein "reminded" Mr. Thomas hypothetical. • that all prior conversations were meter) We are constrained to conclude that the actions of {Mere) officials in this case strike at of the federal heart of law, one of free the of vitally political important, enduring values in this country: the honest enforcement motivations on the part of considerations and free of the taint of personal financial federal 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 his the consent, to make any determination it deemed appropriate regarding this matter, including a decision to decline federal prosecution. Yet, CEOS.% only conclusion, based on its 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 sl As recently as two months ago. Mr. Sicilian was still limit publicly aril pan of his format law fine. While we assume this was an oversight, Mr. Stoman'S ideatifieatIon as part of the flan mists the appearance of impropriety. EFTA00224797 08/02/08 MON...15:03. FAX 305 530 8440 -US N US MIN 13:26 FAN I 213 52LI 8500 • ' EXECUTIVE OFFICE UUJ,UDAG X RK Nll&lf.I.L I S I_LI' la012 0013/013 21008 Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 8 prosecution hands. is fair and appropriate has been placed, once again, in U.S. Attorney Acosta's 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 mein 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•tho appearance of selectivity that are generated by the unprecedented attempts to broaden We the ambit of federal statutes to places that they have never before readied. sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis LLP Joe D. Whitley Alston & Bird LLP EFTA00224798