5l27/0% Sraee Suamission To He DAG EFTA00175949 4 | TILLED AG CS SOB EN IB I EM i

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

06/02/08 MON 14:58 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 99 NE 4™ 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 INFORMATION intended only for the use of the strictly prohibited. Ifyou have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original facsimile to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. EFTA00175950 @oo1

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

. EXECUTIVE OFFICE Mooz 98/02/08 MON 14:58 FAX, 305 530, 6440 DOJ70DAG 002/013 ;ROG2 12°48 sae | Wmuucruve Jon 1, Vpivtes Aiston & Died LL Hi aihdies UNR este Mavane, Abt Me ff27, 2008 ViA FACSIMLLE (202) 514-0467 CONFIDENTIAL Hlonewanle Mark Pili Olfice Of the fe; Linited States yeni at Justices 930 Ponasvlvania Avenue, NW. Washington. 2.0. 2830 Attorney General Dear JIudee Filip: ‘This Jeticr briefly supplenients our prieg submission to you dsted May 19, 2008. In tha: comimimnicatinn, we urgently rcauested that your Offiee comiuet an independent review of the proposed Federal prosecution of aur client, Jemfies Epstein. The dual reasons sor our request that you review this matter are (ip the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, and #7) the profimind questions raised by the unprecedented! esignsainn of federal iow by the (inded Siates Attorney’s Office in Miani (the “USAOQ™) to a Preminent public figure whe hes close lies te dormer Presidem Clinton, The need for review is QR sth ue more exigent. On Monday. May 19. 2008, Past stint Jeffrey Storman of the GSAO cespended to an emai! from Jay Lelhowiiz inforoi Atlorney Alex Acosta that we would be seckine | it Ollice’s review. Mr. Slee lekker, which imposed a deadline of June 2. 2008 to somply with all the terms of uke Curent Nan- Prosceution Agreement (the “Agreement”, plus new unilaters! mouificzuens, on pain af being deeined in breach of that Agreement. appears to have heen deliberately destined w deprive us of an idequate upportunity to sech your Office's review in this matter, \ The AQO’s desire to lorcelose a complete review is unciersiandable. given that the Child Fyploiation and Obscenity Section (*COS") has already deternuned that our substint ‘gumenis regarding why a federal prosecation af Mr. Epstein is aot warranted “compelling.” However, in contrudiction t¢ Mr, Sloman’s assertion that CEOS had provided an independent. de neve review. CLOS made clear that it did: not de sp, indeed. CHOS declined tn eXwmuine several of the more troubling aspcets of the investigation of Mr. Epstein. inchuciny the deliberate teak to the New York Times of sumerous highly conride “is of thie Investigation and neyotiations heuecen the parties as weil ws the recent crop ot coal bawsuits Hlvd aginst Mr. Epstein by Mr, Sloman’s former haw partner. The unnecessary and arbitrarily imposed deadline set by the USAQ was dong without any respect fur dhe eermal funetioning and scheduling of state judicial matters, I requires thin Mr. Epatein’s counsel persuade the State Atigeney of Palm Beach to issue a criminal intorniion EFTA00175951

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

t, e * 4 /02/08 _ MON 14:59 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE woah SVSULGLEOY VUSISUDAG zoos 12 12 WMus uve Honorable Mark Filip Mies 27, 2008 Page 2 t dotoummed ter be uly to this charge Wee charge thai the Siste Attorrey fas oot. despite a (we your iieesti appropriaic, Mi, Epstein’s counsel must also sugcessfully expedite & pl ona date prior tis Juiy S. 2008, which is tie date presently set by the state cour Judes. Further. the wanecessary deadline is even more prablematiz because Mr, fy sstein’s effart ly reconcile the slate charge and sentenes with the terms of the Agreement requires an unusual und unprecedented threatened application of federal law. Thus. 1 places Mr io the lughly vausual pesition af having te demand what the Side acquiesce tn a giere severe pinishment than i hast already determined was appropriaie. We have atempled ie resolve these and other issues through the USAQ and CEOS, including taising our concerns about the USACMS inappropriate conduct with respect to this matter. But thase avenues have now been shut down, Mr, Sloman’s letier purports te prehibit any further comaet between Mr, Epstcin’s defense and US. Attorney Acosts, and instead requires us lo communicaie with the USAQO only though Mr, Sloman’s subordinates. to say this, this misguided proscention fiom the outset vives the “c heen potitically morivared Mir While it pains us mee That may made businessman sad philanthrop personal assecistion with former President Bill Clinten. There fy lite doubt 1 the USAO never would have contemplated a prosecution in this case if Mr. gnother “Joba” {PSlein is a bighiy suecesstul. sell si who entered the public argna oniy by viriae of bis clase minds thet tein Were just LS. Attorney Acosit previousty has stated that he is “svaipathatic™ ig our tederalisn rektted concerns. but he has taken the position that his authority is limited by eafircement policies set forih in ¥ shington. D.C. As expressed! in vei prior communication im von. we believe that a complete and independent appraisal and resolution er this ease Must spPpropriaigls would be undertaken by your Oflice beginning with the reseission of the arbitrary. uni‘air, and unprecedented deadtine that Mr, Sloman demands 10 have Imposed in this cause. At the vere least. we would appreciate a tolling of the arbit sf Uimeiine imposed on our elie ithe ESAQ in order Le allow time for your office io consider ou request That ve undertake a review of this cuse, “Vheeth you for your time and atteation. Respectfully submitted. ri . 7 4 Kenneth W , do D Whithey 7 Kirkland! & Ebis LLP ““Alstun & Bird LL EFTA00175952

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

@oo4 : 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE POLE ios OR oti Fabaerele39 DOI/ODAG ; 008/013 , OF in GA MON L422) FAN 1 215 680 &500 KIRKLANDARIIAS 04 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone. (213) 680-8400 Fax: (213) 680-8500 oy SN cee saneneeestensoni — SSO NY 1 eae: = peeeme Please notify us immediately If any pages are not reccived. SV? Copy fo eS, THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL, MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION, AND 1S INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE UNAUTHORIZED USE, DISCLOSURE OR COPYING 1S STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL, IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: (213) 680-8400, ey re To: Company: Fax #: Direct #: Honorable Mark Filip ns nnd States Dope harap heey (202) 314-0467 (203) 514-2101 From: Date: Pages wicover: Fax #: ~ , Direct #: Kenneth W, Starr May 19, 2008 9 (213) 680-8500 (213) 680-8440 "Message Message EFTA00175953

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

@ 005 5 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 0067013 98292208, MON 14:59 FAX 305 530 DOIZODAG ‘iia a qwuve OS. in-use MON PAs22 FAN | 215 680 &500 KIRKLANDEELIAS bt. Kenneth W. Starr Joe D. Whitley Kirkland & Ellis LLP Alston & Bird LLP 777 South Figueroa Street The Atlantic Building Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800 950 F Street, NW sa 213-680-8440 Washoe, be posee-tany "aX: 214-680-8500 2 202-756-3189 kstarr@kirkland.com Fax: 202-654-4886 joc.whitley@aiston.com May 19, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE ( 202) 514-0467 CONFIDENTIAL Honorable Mark Fi lip OfGce of the Depury Attomey General United States Department of Justice 930 Pennsylvania Avenue. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Judge Filip: In his confirmation hearings last Lull, Judge Mukasey 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 henor and inlegrity, especially in the enforcement of federal criminal jaw. We come to vou in that Spirit and respectfully ask for a review of the federal involvement in a quintessemially state mater involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we are wel! aware of the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we are coniident that the circumstances at issue warrant such an examination. Based on our collective experiences, as well as those of other former senior Justice Department officials whose advice We have sought, we have never before seen a case more apprepriate 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 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 ui the request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review dejiberately 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 sel {-imnosed limitation was CEOS’s abstention from addressing our “allegations of professional misconduct by federal prosecutors’-—even though such miscunduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the accusations being made against Mr, Epstein by the United States Attomey's Office in Miami (“USAO"), Moreover, CEOS did noi assess the terms of tie Deterred Prosecution Agreement now in effect, nor did CEOS revieff the federal prosecutors’ inuppropriate efforts to implement those terms. We detail this point below. EFTA00175954

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

@oo06 OFFICE -98292208,, MON 15:00 FAX 308 530 6440 Pt rr ia007/013 bS- 19-08 MON 13:44 FAX 1 225 GsO $500 KIRKLAND&ELIIS Lit Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 2 Ry way of background. we were informed by Mr. Acosta that, at his request, CEOS would be conducting a review to determine whether federal prosccution was both appropriate and, in his words. “fair.” That is not whai occurred, Instead, CEOS has now acknowiedged that we had raised “many compelling arguments” against the USAO's suggested “novel application” of federal law’ in this matter. Even so. CEOS concluded. in rinimalist fashion. that “we do nor see anything that says to us categorically that a federal case should not be brought” and that the U.S. Avomey “would nor be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein” thus delegating back to Mr. Acosta the decision of whether federal prosecution was warranted (emphasis addedj. Rather than assessing whether prosecution would he apprapriate, CEOS, using a low baseline for its evaluation, determined only that “it would not be impossible tw prove...” cenain allegations made against Mr, Epstein. The CEOS review failed to address the significant problems involving the appsarance of impermissible selectivity that would necessarily result from a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstain. We respect CEOS’s conclusion that its authority to review “misconduc:” issues was preciuded by Criminal Division practice. We further respect CEOS's view that it undersivod its mission as significantly limited, Specifically, the contemplated objective was tu determine whether the US.AO would he abusing its discretion by bringing a federal prosecution rather than making its own de novo rcconunendations on the appropriate reach of federal law. However, we respecttully submit that a full review of all the facts is urgently necded at senior levels of the Justice Department. In an effort to inform you of the nature of the federal investigation against Mr. Epstein, we sununarize the tacts and circumstances of this maticr below. The two base-level concerns we hole are thar (1) federal prosecution of this matter is not warranted based on the purely-local conduct and the unprecedented application of federal statutes lo facts such as these and (2) the actions of federal authorities are both highly questionable and give rise to an appearance of substantial impropriety. The issucs that we have raised, but which have not yet been addyessed or resolved by the Department, are more than isolated allegations of professional tnistakes or misconduct. ‘These issues, instead, affect the appearance and administration of criminal justice with profound consequences beyond the resolution in the matter at hand, - 4 ° Ina precedent-shaticring investigation of Jeftrey Epstein that raises important policy questions—and serious issues as to the fair and honorable enforcement of federal law—the USAO 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] questions of basic professionalism. Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition of deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive federal crimina] law with a proposed ciyil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in EFTA00175955

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

007 CE ; :00 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFI cost Abba Coron FAK 2020101239 bOJ/ODAG / iQoos o13 8°08 MON 14:23 FAX | 213 680 8500 KIRALANDEELLIS LIL Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 3 Federal prosecutors then leaked highly sensitive information about the case ty a New York Times reporter,!’ The immediate result of this confluence of extraordinary circumstances is un onslaught of civil iawsuits, all save one brought by the First Assistant's former boutique law firm in Miami. Private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors invelved. 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 indicument, and made a final determination about how to proceed. ‘That is where, in our 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 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 a harsher charge and a more severe Punishment than that Office believes are appropriate under the circumstances. Yet despite the USAO’s refusa! to allow the State to resolve this metter on the ferms Uke State has determined are apptupriate, the USAO has not made any attempl to coordinate its efforts with the State. In fact, the USAO mandated that any federal agreement would be conditioned an Mr. Epstein persuading the State to seck a criminal punishmem unlike that imposed on other defendants within the jurisdiction of the State Attomey for similar cunduct, From the inception of the USAQ'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 of Justice is involved, Regrettably, we are unable to Suggzesl 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 @ few vears ago. after it was widcly perceived by the public that he was a close friend of former President J3ill 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—) § U.S.C. $$ 1590], 2422(b), und 2423(b). . ' One of the other members of Mr. Epstein’s defense team, Jay Lefkowitz, has personally reviewed the reporter's contemporanzeus notes, = Although some of the women alleged to be involved were 16 and 17 years of age, several of these women openly admitted to lying to Mr. Epstein bout their age in their recent sworn staternents. EFTA00175956

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

06/02/08 MON 15:01 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 009/013 05/28/2008 09:09 FAX 2026161239 DOJ/OQDAG va 49 08, MON 13:28 PAX 1 213 680 &500 KIRKLANDRELLIS LET Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 4 These statutes arc intended 10 target crimes of a Iruly national and international scope Specifically, § 1591 was enacted to combat human tralficking, § 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-jurtsdictional problems that state and local authoritics cannot efi iectiveiv confront on their own. However, Mr. Epstein‘s conduct was purely local in nature and, thus. dyes not implicate federal involvement, Afier researching every reported case brought under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b), and 2423(b), we found that not a single casc 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 Torce, coercion. or fraud and who was not profiting from commercia) sexual waffickiny. There have hkewise 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 4 minor to have illegal sexual activity as expressly required by the language of the Statute. Furthermore, the Governinent’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 [rom cvery 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 considering whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOS only determined that U.S. Atlomey Acosta “would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize [ederal prosecution” in 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 particuloy to this situation, namely the “novel application” of federal statutes. The “abuse of discretion” standard in such pure lcgai matters of statutory application risks causing a lack of uniformity. The same federal statutes that would be stretched beyond their bounds in Miami huve been limited to their hearUund 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 sclectivity in its stretching of federal law to fil these facts. Federal prosecution of a man who engaged in consensual conduct in his home thar amounted to, at most, the solicitation of prostitution, is unprecedented, Since Prostitution ts fundarnenially a state concer. (s# Liritest States I Evans, 176 F.3d 1176, 1 (11th Cir, 2007) (federal law “does not criminalize all acts of Prostitution (2 vice traditionally governed by stete regulation)")). and there is no evidence that Palin Beach County authorities and Florids prosecutors cannot effectively prosecute and punish the conduct, there is no reason why this mater should de extracted irom the hands of state prosecutor's in Florida. EFTA00175957 @ 008 Moos

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

@joo9 VE OFFICE odio :01 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTI _ ees Catce Tak avonieieee DOJ/ODAG a = an iu ox WON [4:44 FAX 2 213 680 8500 KIKKLANDEELLIS Ll Honorable Mark fF ilip May 19, 2008 Page § In fact, recent testimony of several alleged “victims” contradicts claims made by federal Prosccutors during the negotiations of a deferred Prosecution agreement. The consistent Tepresentations of key Government witness es (such as Tatum Brittany Hin and Jennifer confirm the following critical points: First, there was no communication, telephonic or otherwise, that meets the requirements of § 2422(b). Jor instance. Ms. confirmed that Mr, Epstein never emailed, 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 ape in order to gain admittance into his home. Indged, the women who brougat their underage friends to Mr, Bic testified that they would counsel their fricnds to lic about their ages as well. Ms, stated the following: “I would tell my girlfriends just iike approached me. Make sure you tell him you’re 18. Well, these girls that I brought, [ know that they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't know and I don't know if they were lying or not, | would say make sure that you tell him you're 18.” | ie at 22. Third. there was no routine or habit of wnproper communication expressing an intent to transform a mussage into an iliegal sexual act, In fact, there was often no sexual activity at all during the massage. Ms BB ose that “[sJometimes [Mr. Epstein] just wanted his feet massaged. Sometimes hz just wanted a back massage.” Tr. at 19. Lie also stated that Mr. Epstein “never touched [her] physically” and that all she did was “massage ] his back. his chest and his | thighs and that was it.” Tr. at 12-13. Finally, there was no force, coercion, fraud. violence, drugs. or even alcoho Present in connection with Mr, Epstein’s encounters with these women, Ms. stated that “[Mr. Epstein) never tried to force me to du anything.” Beale Tr j A et ]2. These accounts 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 js | the age of consent in most of the 50 States, and ihe sex activity was irregular and in large part. consisted of solo self-plcasuring. The recent crop of civil suits brought against Mr. Epstein confirm that the plaintiffs did nol discuss any Sexually-related activitics with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's residence. ‘This reinforecs our contention that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, Bexuch Post as saying that “it doesn’t matter” that his clients lied about their ages and told Mr. Epstein that they were 18 or 19, EFTA00175958

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

010 06/02/08 MON 15:02 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE matinee 05/28/2008 00:10 FAX 2026161239 Roeene ; : 7 aa US. 18 OS MON 13:45 FAX 1 214 Gso 6500 RIRKLANDEELITS bt 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 us iminors and whom they insisted required representation by a guardian ad litem, Mr. Epstein’s counsel latcr established that all but one of these individuals were actualy adults, not minors. Even then, though demanding payment to ihe women, the USAO 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 attomey chosen by the prosecutors lo 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 fiwther 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 end personally connected to the Assistant U.S, Attorney's own boyfriend. e Federal prosecutors represented to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they had identified (and later rechecked and re-identiticd) several alleged “victims” of federal crimes that qualified for paymcm under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a civil remedy designed 1 provide financial benefits to victims. Only through state discovery provisions did we 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. e During the last few months, Mr. Herman, l’irst Assistant Sloman's former Jaw partner, has filed several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged “victims.” [tis our understanding that cach of Mr. Herman’s clients are on the EFTA00175959

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

@o11 EXECUTIVE OFFICE go1z70is . 0 ove OTs lacus “MON Iasaa Pat | S13 eee. KURKLANDSELLUS LLP @ous -15. 19°08 MON 14:25 PAN | 213 680 S500 Honorable Mark Fi] ip May 19, 2008 Page 7 Government’s confidential “Jist of victims," Most of these lawsuits seek $50 million in money darmages.* ¢ Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein spoke about the case in @rcat detail w Landon Thomas, a reporter with the New Fork Times, and revealed confidential information about the Government's allegations against Mr, Epstein. The Assistant U.S. Anomey also revealed the substance of confidential plea negotiations, * When counsel for Mr. Epstein complained about the media leaks, First Assistani Sloman responded by assening thi “My, Thomas was given, Pursuant (oa his Tequest, 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 Mv. Thomas that federal authorities believed that Mr. Epstein had lured gitls over the iclephane and traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in underage sex. He recounted to Mr, Thomus the USAO’s theory of Prosecution against Mr, Epstein, replete with an analysis of the key stautes being considered. Furthermore, after Mr. Epstein's defense ream complained about the leak to the USAQ, Mr. Weinstein, in Mr. Thomas’ own description, then admonished hirn for talking to the defense, and getling him i: trouble. Mr. Weinsicin further told him not to believe the “spin® of Mr, Epstein's “high-priced attorneys,” and then, according to Mr, Thomas, Mr. Weinstein forcefully “reminde@” Mr. Thomas that al] Prior conversations were merely 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 that, at a minimum. raise the appearance of serjous impropriety, We were told by U.S. Attorney Acosta that as part 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, CEOS’s only conclusion, based on its limited review of the investigation, is that U.S. Attorney Acosta would not abuse his discretion by proceeding agains! Mr. Epstein. ‘Thus, the decision of whether _—— * As recently a3 two months ago. Mr. Sleiman was still listed publiciy as of his former law firm. While we wssume this wus an Oversight, Mr. Slorman's identification as part I the firm raises the appearance of impropriety EFTA00175960

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Mo12 IVE OFFICE 0137013 06/02/08. MON 15:03 FAX 205 $30 6440, ExECUT = 1 Lh] 726 Ff 215 6 8500 i AND! At . Bong u us La AX 1 223 SO S506 KIRKLANDREDLIS LL an a] NON L3:2 Ad Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page & prosccuuion is fair and @ppropriate has heen placed, once again, in U.S. Attomey 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 *ppropriately bring this matter to closure. We would greatly appreciate the Opportunity to mest with you to discuss these important issues Such a meeting would provide the Department with an Opportunity to revie issues of federalism and the appearance of selectivity that are generated by the unprecedented attempts to broaden the ambit of federal starutes to Places that they have never before reazhed., We sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter. Ww ihe paramount Respecuully submi ted, Kenneth W. Starr Joe D. Whitley Kirkland & Ellis LLp Alston & Bird LLP EFTA00175961