To “Jay Letowitz" <i ” cc * “ . \USAFLS\)" gov> bec 09/24/2007 Subject RE: Epstein agreement as reviewed by the U.S. Attorney PM Hi Jay — Sorry for the delay. The U.S. Attorney had a last-minute concern, that I think I fixed (it is in the first “It Appearing” clause following the list of statutes potentially violated). After you get the green light, let’s discuss the potential representative. The person | am thinking of has run a preliminary conflicts check and it looks alright. Also, to address Mr. Epstein’s concern regarding the list of names, I wanted to tell you that I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors. There are six others, whose names we already have, who need to be interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time of their activity with Mr. Epstein. Once those interviews are completed, I can finalize the list of identified victims, which I will put in a formal document that I will maintain until the time of Mr. Epstein’s sentencing. Assuming that this agreement is fine, please execute at least three copies, and send one to me by fax and the rest by FedEx. I will execute and send the copies back. Thank you. EFTA00289808

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

© “Vay Lefkowitz” <i cc j.gov> bee 09/24/2007 04:34 PM Subject RE: Do you have a signed copy? Thank you, Jay. | hav tded your message only to Alex, Andy, and Rolando. ‘| anticipate it going any further than that. When | receive the originals, | will sign and return one copy to you. The other will be placed in the case file, which will be kept confidential since it also contains identifying information about the girls. When we reach an agreement about the attorney representative for the girls, we can discuss what | can tell him and the girls about the agreement. | know that Andy promised Chi iter an update when a resolution was achieved. (Something | have promised in light of what happened last year.) Rolando is calling, but Rolando knows not to tell Chief Reiter about the money issue, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and the amount of time that has been agreed to. Rolando also is telling Chief Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone. From: Jay Lefkowitz [mailto] Sen 24, 2007 4:06 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Do you have a signed copy? > cc 09/24/2007 04:04 PM SubjectDo you have a signed copy? Hi Jay — Sorry to be a bother, but do you have a copy that at least contains Mr. Epstein’s signature? I need to pass it along to the powers that be. Thanks. EFTA00289809

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

To “Jey Letowitz" <a ce bec Subject RE: Other attorneys Hi Jay — Can you give me a call at a: moming? I am meeting with the agents and want to give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls. Also, please remove Babbitt and Searcy from the list. There is too great a chance of an appearance of impropriety with Babbitt and I received a bad report about Searcy last night. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone Aaa Fox i From: (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:37 PM To: ‘Jay Lefkowitz’ Subject: Other attorneys Hi Jay — These four people were recommended. I have not contacted them to find out what their rates are. All are very active in the plaintiffs’ bar in the West Palm area. Ted Babbitt would be my first choice of these four but I think he is conflicted out because one of his partners is married to an AUSA here. Stuart Grossman is probably my second choice. Ted Babbitt -- http://www.babbitt-johnson.com/tbabbitt.html EFTA00289810

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Stuart Grossman -- http://www.grossmanandroth.com/sgrossman.htm Chris Searcy -- http:// 8 law.com/CHRIST CY/tabid/935/de ault.aspx Lake Lytal, Jr. — http://www.lytalreiter.com/index.php?page_id=37 Talk to Jack Goldberger about this group. They are all very good personal injury lawyers, but I have concerns about whether there would be an inherent tension because they may feel that THEY might make more money (and get a lot more press coverage) if they proceed outside the terms of the plea agreement. (Sorry —I just have a bias against plaintiffs’ attorneys.) One nice thing about Bert is that he is in Miami where there has been almost no coverage of this case. Just so you know, I have never met Bert, but a good friend in our appellate section and one of the district judges in Miami are good friends with him and recommended him. Can you let me know tomorrow? I am going to be out for a while starting on Friday, and I would like to get this underway before I leave. Thank you. Assistant U.S, Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 | «a EFTA00289811

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

_ To “Jay Lefkowitz" <i ce j.gov> bee 09/27/2007 10:52 AM Subject Hi Jay ~ Bert’s firm has raised a number of good questions about how they are going to get paid and setting up a procedure that avoids any conflict of interest with their clients. Are you around today to do a conference call? Let me know what times work for you because Bert wants to get their conflicts counsel on the call with us. These are some of the questions he sent to me. I told Bert that as part of our agreement we (the federal government) are not going to indict Mr. Epstein, but gave him an idea of the charges that we had planned to bring as related to 18 USC 2255. With respect to question 2, do I have your permission to send Bert just that section of the plea agreement that applies to the damages claims (I would recommend sending paragraphs 7 through 10, or at least 7 and 8)? Can you talk with your client about items 3 and 4? | envisioned Shook Hardy sending regular bills to you, with any privileged information redacted, and being paid like every other client pays the bills. 1, Can we get a copy of the indictment (or can you tell me the nature of the crimes against the girls)? 2. When will it be possible to see the plea agreement so that we understand exactly what Epstein concedes to in the civil case? 3. Is there any cap or other limitation on attorney's fees that the defendant will pay in the civil case? 4, What is the contemplated procedure for; and timing of, the payment of attorney's fees and costs? EFTA00289812

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone EFTA00289813

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

To "Jay Letkowt:" aa, “Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" {iD Jay, Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner but I was a little under the weather yesterday. I hope that you enjoyed your Thanksgiving. Regarding the issue of due diligence concerning Judge Davis” selection, I’d like to make a few observations. First, Guy Lewis has known for some time that Judge Davis was making reasonable efforts to secure Aaron Podhurst and Bob Josephsberg for this assignment. In fact, when I told you of Judge Davis’s selection during our meeting last Wednesday, November 21", you and Professor Dershowitz seemed very comfortable, and certainly not surprised, with the selection. Podhurst and Josephsberg are no strangers to nearly the entire Epstein defense team including Guy Lewis, Lili Ann Sanchez, Roy Black, and, apparently, Professor Dershowitz who said he knew Mr. Josephsberg from law school. Second, Podhurst and Josephsberg have long-standing stellar reputations for their legal acumen and ethics. It’s hard for me to imagine how much more vetting needs to be done. The United States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will make one full week since you were formally notified of the selection. I must insist that the vetting process come to an end. Therefore, unless you provide me with a good faith objection to Judge Davis’s selection by COB tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification of the victims. Should you give me the go-ahead on Podhurst and Josephsberg selection by COB tomorrow, I will simultaneously send you a draft of the letter. I intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29”, Thanks, EFTA00289814

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12/04/07 TUB 16:46 PAX 305 $30 6440 BYECUTIVE OFFICE Booz U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 NE. 4 Sireer Afionnt. FL 33132 1305) 961-9100 « Telaphooe BOS) 530-6604 ~ Pocainite Kenneth W, Starr, Esq Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Tos Angeles, CA 90017 Re; Jefirey Epstein Dear Mr. Sturn: 1 write in. response to your November 28° letter, in which you raiso concems regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement between this Office and your client, Mr. Epsteim. | take these concems seriously. As your letter focused on the Section 2255 portion of the Agreement, my response will focus primurily on that issue as well. Ido wish to make some more general observations, however. Section 2255 provides that “[a]ny person who, while a minor, was a victim ofa violation of [enumerated sections of Title 18} and who suffers persona injury as a result of such violation . . . may suc in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the costof the suit, including areasonable attorney's fee.” Thus, bad this Office proceeded to trial, and had Mr. Epstein been convicted, the victims of his actions would have been able to seek to relief under this Section. The Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Bpsteln’s desire to reach a ylobal resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enurnerated sections of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided thut the Mr. Epstein satisfies three gencrel federal interests: (1) that Mr. Bpstein plead guilty to a “registerable” offense; (2) that this plea inchide a binding recommendation fora sufficient term of imprisonment, and (3) that the Agreement pot harm the interests of his victims. ‘This third point deserves claboration. The intent is to place the victims in the same position as they would bave been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. ‘No more; no less. With this in sind, I tum to the language of the Agreement. Paragraph 8 of the Agreement provides: Ifeny of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C, § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States EFTA00289815

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12/04/07 TUB 16:46 PAX 305 $30 6440 EXECUTIVE OPFICE Qoos District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject soatter,' and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified victin and Epstein, so long as the identified victim elects to proceed cxclusively under 18 U.S.C, § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear op the list provided by the United States, Epstein’s signature on this agreement is not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability other than that contained in 18 U_S.C, § 2255. Although these two sentences are far from simple, they appear to incorporate our intent to narrowly tailor the Agreement to place the identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial, Twould note thet I have conferred with our prosecutors and have been told that Paragraph 8 was vigorously negotiated and that the final Janguage was suggested largely by defense counsel. The conccms raised in your lelter with respect to Paragraph 8 fall within several gencral categories, First, you raise concerns regarding the nature of Section 2255. As you note, Section 2255 is a civil statute implanted in the criminal code; in contrast to other criminal statutes, Section 2255 fails to correlate payments to specilic injuries or losses. Instead the statute presumes that victims have sustained damages of at least 4 minimura lump sum without regard to whether the complainants suffered actual medical, physiological or other forms of individualized herm. These concems were, | would expect, aired when Congress adopted this statute. Even if they were nol, this provision is now law. Rule of law requires now requires this Distriet to consider the victims’ rights under this statute in nogotiating this Agreement, Second, you raise concems regarding the identity-of-the-victims issue, ‘Your concems appear based on the belief that Paragraph 8 is » blanket walver of liabiJity with respect to any number of unnamed and undisclosed victims. I would invite you to confer with your co-counsel regarding this matter. Although the language of Paragraph 8 could be 80 construed, our First Assistant informed Mr. Lefkowitz some weeks ago that this was not our position, As Mr. Lefkowitz has noted, were Mr. Fpstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims ina subsequent Section 2255 suit would still have had some burden to prove that they were “victims,” It is also the case, however, that were Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims would not have to show that a violation of an enumerated section of Title 18 took place. Accordingly, our First Assistant informed Mr. Lefkowitz some weeks ago that we understood that ifa victim-pleintiff elects to proceed to tral; Mr. Epstein’s oe ' Although not identified as an issue by defense counsel, having rev Unis Ianguage, Inote that Paragraph & raises the question of what is meant by “subject matter.” have conferred with the AUSA who negotiated this language, and have been informed that parties intended this te addrens issues of venue. This Office will not interpret this paragraph as any waiver of subject matter jurisdiction. Please inform me if deftase counsel disagrees. 2 EFTA00289816

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12/04/07 TUE 16:47 PAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OPPICE legal team might conduct due diligence to confirm the that victim-pleintiff in fact had inappropriate contact with Mr. Epstein. Once again, our interpretive principle is our intent to place the victim in the same position she would have been had Mr. Epstein proceeded to trial. ‘Third, you raise concems regarding our decision not to create a restitution fund. ‘Throughout the negotiations, defonse counsel suggested several similar arrangements, including a Trust fund. Again, our decision not to create a fund flows from our belief that the Agreement should provide the same relief to the victims as they would have been entitled had we proceeded to trial. A restitution fund or trust fund would place an upper limit on the victims” recovery. It is not for this Office to make that decision for the victims. They may choose to walk away, they may choose to settle, or they may choose to sue. The choice should remain with each individual victirn? Fourth, you raise concerns regarding the selection process for the attorney representative. As you may be aware, the suggestion that we appoint an attorney representative originated with defens¢ counsel. Defense counsel, I believe, found it advantageous to attempl to negotlate a settlement of the many victims’ claims with one attorney representative. My Office agreed to appoint such a representative, in part, beceuse we too thought it valuable for the victims to have the advice of an attorney who could advise them of their choices: whether to walk away, to settle or to suc. Since the signing of the Agroewent, several issues have arisen with respect to this provision. First, ] elected to assign this Office’ s right to appointthe representative to an independent third-party, former federal Judge Davis. 1 did this to avoid any suggestion that this Office's choice of representative was intended to influence the outcome of civil litigation. Second, your co-counsel expressed concems similar to those raised in your letter regarding the criteria used to select the representative. These criteria were: (1) Experience doing both plaintiffs’ and defense litigation, (2) Experience with state and federal statutory and common law tort claims; (3) Ability to communicate effectively with young women; (4) Experience litigating against large law firms and high profile attorneys who may test the veracity of the victims’ claims; (5) Sensitivity to the nature of the suit and the victims’ interest in maintaining their privacy; (6) Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida; ? Your letter references LS. v Boehm, No, 3:04CR00003 (D. Ala 2004) os a mode! for a restitution fund settlement. 1 asked our prosecutor to contact the ALJSA in that case. In that matter, the District of Alasku sought ovt and obvnined the consent of ail the victims before enterlag into that settlement. In addition, they developed an elaborate procedure for deciding which victim would receive what. My view, in this case, Is that those types of negotiations are better handled between Mr, Epstein and the viotims’ representatives, and that this Office should not act as intermediary. Finally, 1 would note that in Boehm: 3s weil, the victims’ identities were not Initially disclosed. As the AUSA wrote in that case; “This filing is made cx parte because Boehm, is his plea agreement, waived any rights he had pertalning to the selection of beneficiaries and the disbursement of funds to euch beneficiaries.” -3- EFTA00289817

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12/04/07 TUE 16:47 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Boos (7) ‘The resources to hite experts and others, while working on a contingency fee basis, in order to prepare for trial ifa settlement cannot be reached (defense counsel has reserved the right to challenge such litigation); and (8) The ability to negotiate effectively. At my direction, our First Assistant provided our criteria to your co-counsel, Mr. Lefkowitz, in advance, and at co-comsel’s request, he noted in our communication with Judge Davis, defense counsel's objection to criteria 7. I bave now reviewed these criteria and find ther baJanced and reasonable, They appear designed to provide the victims with an attomey who can advise them on all their options, whether itbe to walk away, to settle (as your client prefers), or to litigate. Again, our intent is not to favor any one of these options, but rather to leave the choice to each victim. . Fifth, you assert that this Office “has improperly insisted that the choscn attorney ve should be able to litigate the claims of the individuals,” should a resolution not be possible. This issue, likewise, bas already been raised and addressed in discussions between your co-counse] and our Pirst Assistant. We understand your position that it would be a conflict of pnterest for the attomey representative to subsequently represent vietim-plaintifis ma civil suit, Your interptetation of the ethics rules may be correct, or it may be wrong. Far from insisting that the ailomey representative can represent victim-plaintiffs in subsequent litigation, our First Assistant and] have repeatedly told defense counsel that we take no position on this matter. Indeed, 1 fully expect your defense team to litigate this issue with the attorney representative if a resolution is not reached. Thave responded personally and in some detail to your concerns because I deeply caro about both the Inw and the imegrity of this Office, Shave responded personally and in some detail as well because your letter troubled me on a number of levels. My understanding of the negotiations in this matter informs my concerns. The Section 2255 provision issue was first discussed al a July 31, 2007, mecting between FAUSA Sloman, Criminal Chief Menchel, West Palm Beach Chicf Lourie, AUSA Villefaiia, and two FBI agents who met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly Ann Sanchez, On that date, the proscentors presented a written, four-bullet-point term shect that would satisfy the federal interest in the case and discussed the substance of those terzns. One of these four points was the following provision: Epsiein agrees that, jf any of the victims identified in the foderal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S, District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject matier. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, wore victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s) 2422 and/or 2423. EFTA00289818

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12/04/0T TUE 16:48 PAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Boos Inmid August 2007, your defense team, dissatisfied with my staff's review of the case, asked to mect with me. Mr. Lefkowtiz indicated your busy schedule, and asked me to put off until September 7, 2007, so that you could attend, Mr, Lefkowitz also indicated that he might appeal my decision to Washington 1).C., if my decision was contrary to his clients interest. I agreed to the September 7" meeting, despite the fact that our AUSA had an indictment ready for presentation to the grand jury. An explicit condition of that agreement, however, wasan understanding between Mr. Lefkowitz and myself that any appeal to Washington would be undertaken expeditiously Ou September 7, 2007, I, along with FAUSA [EB, AUSAs and FBI agents, met with you, Mr. Lefkowitz, and Ms, Sanchez. I understood that you wished to present federalisra-based ing our prosecution, To ensure 2 full consideration of your argements, | invited Chief of the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, to travel from Washington to attend our mecting, During the September 7” meeting, your co-counsel, Mr. Lefkowitz, offered aplearesolution. The inclusion of a Section 2255 t ifically raised and discussed at the September 7* meeting. Indeed, according to AUSA) notes, you thanked her for bringing it to your attention, Again, no objection to the Section 2255 issue was raised. After considering the arguments raised at the September 7° meeting, and after confercmg with the FBI and with Chief Oosterbaan, our Office decided to proceed with the indictment. Atthat time, | reminded Mr. Lefkowitz thathe had previously indicated his desire to appeal such a decision to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attomey General, or the Assistant Attorney Gener#l for the Crimina! Division, and J offered to direct our prosecutors to delay the presentation of the indictment to allow you or he to appeal our decision if you so chose. He decided nat to do so. Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiate the Non-Prosecution Agreement. These negotiations were detailed und time-consuming. Mr. Epstein’s defense team, including yourself, Professor Dershowitz, former United States Attorney Guy Lewis, Ms. Lilly Ann Sanchez and Messrs. Roy Black, Jack Goldberger, Gerry Lefcourt and Jay Lefkowitz had the opportunity to review and raise objections to the terms of the Agreement. Again, no one raised objections to the Section 2255 language. Since the signing of the Agreernent, the defense team and our Office have addressed sevoral igoues that have arisen under the Agreement, Although the exchanges were at times a bit litigious, pos that these issues have been resolved by mutual consent, some in favor of your client, some not so. ft is against these many previous foregone opportunities to object that 1 receive with surprise your lelter requesting an 11" hour, after-the-fnot review of our Agreement. Although it bappens rarely, L do not mind this Office’s decision being eppealed to Washington, end have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although I am confident in our prosecutors’ evidence and legal analysis, [ nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in the Criminal 5. EFTA00289819

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12/04/07 TUE 16:48 PAK 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Boer Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving their indictment package. 1 ain thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department Headquarters that mises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in fact resolved, in your client's favor. Iam troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement. ‘The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to chalJenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus fer has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must be closure on this mutter. Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challonges to provisions of the Agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to upwind. Finally, I am most concemed about any belief on the part of defense counsel that the Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitutional in any way. > In closing, I would ask that you consult with co-counsel. If after consultations within the defense team, you believe that our Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitutional, I would ask that you notify us immedistely so that we can discuss the matter by phone or in person. J have consulted with the chief prosecutor in this case, who has advised me that she is ready to unwind the Agreement and proceed to trial if necessary or if appropriate. I would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although time is of the essence (J understand that certain filings are due to our Office no later than December 7 and that certain events must take place no lator than December 14°), I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options with your client. We are available by phone or ip person, in the interim, to cree * Ieis not clear trom your letter whether you believe thet attomeys in this Office have acted improperly. Your Iciter, for example, alludes to the need to engage in an inquiry (o essure that disclosures to potentlal wimesses did not undermine the reliability of the results of this federal investigation. Ase former Department of Justice in that you recognize that this is a serious allegation. t have raised Meee ean st lll Ss informed me thet the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 relief during the investigation phase of this matter. If you have specific concems, I ask that you raise these with me immediately, so that T cam make appropriate inquiries. 6- EFTA00289820

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12/04/07 TUE 16:48 PAL 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE @oo0s address any matters that might remain unaddressed in this letter. We expect a written decision by this Friday at 5 p.m., indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the Agreoment, Sincerely, R, ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ce: toe Fi igtant Attomey General First Assistant U.S, Attorney 7. EFTA00289821

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12/06/07 THU 16:22 PAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE @oo2 U.S, Department of Justice United States Attornay Southeon District of Florida NE. # Street Micrel, PL 33132-2111 G05) 961-9299 Facsimile: (305) 530-6449 December 6, 2007 ry Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: I write in response to your recent o-mails and letters regarding victim notification and other issves, Our Office is trying to perform our contractual obligations wader the Agreement, which we feel are being frustrated by defonse counsel's objections. ‘The Office also is concerned about Mr, Epstsin’s nonporformance. More than thrée woeks ago we spoke about the fuilure to set a timoly plea and sentencing date. At that time, you assured me that the scheduling delay was caused by the unavailability of Judge MeSorley. You promised that a date would be sct promptly. On November 15th, Rolando Gaia met with Berry Krisher on another matter, and was told by Mr. Krisher that he hed just spoken with Jack Goldberger, and that Mr, Epstein's plea and sentencing were set to occur on December 14, 2007, Since that time, we have tried to confirm the date and time of the hearing in order to include that information in the victim notification letters. ‘You continue to refer to the plea and sentencing as though it w; i January; Mr. Krisher’s office has not confirmed any dute: and Mr. Goldberger recently tol Villafaiia that “there is no date,” beyond the original deadline — is unacceptable to the Office. As you will recall, the plea and Rather than using your best efforts to insure that the plea and sentericing occur in November, we recently learned that a plea conference had been scheduled with Judge McSorley for November 20, : 2007, but was canceled at the request of the parties, not the judge. Judge McSorley has not been i away for any extended period, and there is no basis for your assertion that the judge is the cause of - EFTA00289822

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12/08/07 THU 15:23 PAX 305 $30 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Boos Jay P. Lerxowrrz, Esq. DECEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 4 any past or future delay. Mr. Epstein currently has four Flotida Ber members on his defense tearn, so attomey scheduling is not an adequate basis for delay. ‘Tares weeks ago also asked you to provide our Office with the terms of the Plea Agreoment with the State Attomey's Office. It is now more then two months since the signing of the Non- Prosecution Agreement and we have yet to see any formal agreement, or eveua list of essential terns of such an agreement, do the same, I also want to address your interpretation of several statements that were included in. correspondence ~ at your insistence ~ as proof tht the designated victinas have invalid claims, Let me make clear that cach of the listed individuals are persons whom the Office identified as victims 3s defined in Section 2255, that is, as persons “who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section . , . 2422 or 2423 of this titlo,” In other words, the Office is prepared to indict Mr. Epstein based upon Mr. Epstein’s “interactions” with these individuals.’ This conclusion is based upon a arp uah and proper investigation —one in which none of the Victims was informed of any tight to receive damages of any amount prior to the investigation of her claim, The Office agrees that it is retin arly to, and will not take a role in, any civil litigation, but the Office cau say, without we letmeaddrees your objections to the draft Victim Notification Letter. You write that you understand the basis for the Office’s belief that itis appropriate to notify the victinne Pursuant to the “Justice for All Act of 2004,” crime victims are entitled to: “The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding . . - involving the crime” and the “right ! re ‘Unlike the State”s investigation, the federal investigation shows criminal conduct by Mr. Epstein at last as early as 2001, so all of the victims were minors at the time of the offense. EFTA00289823

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

00. 12/06/07 THU 15:23 PAL 308 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Boos Jay P. LerKowrrz, Ese. DecempBer 6, 2007 Pages or4 not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding...” 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (a2) & (3). Section 3771 also coramands that “employees of the Department af Justice. -- ohgaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their bost efforts to ace that erime victims Additionally, pursuant to the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, our Office is obligated to “inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other law ana [fo] manner in which such relief may be obtained.” 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)(1)(B). With respect to notification Of the other information that we propose to disclose, . Git US.C. § 10607(c)(3). Just as in 18 U.S.C, § 3771, these sections are not limited to procecdings in a federal district court, Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by With respect to your assertion that we are seeking to “federalize” the state plea, our office is simply informing the victims of their rights. Itdoes not command them to appear at the hearing or to file a victim impact statement. In the letter recommends the sending of any statement to the State Atlomey’s Office so that ASA can deteruine which, if any, statements are apptopriate to file with the Court. . We bave no objection to using the conjunction “and/or” in referring to the particular offense(s) of which the recipient was a victin, We will not include the language that we take no position as to the validity of amy claims. While the Office has no intention to take any position in any civillitigation arising between Mr, Epstein and any individual victim, as stated above, the Office The letter’s assertions regarding representation by the Podhurst firm and Mr, Josefiberg are accurate. Judge Davis conferred with Messrs. Podhurst and Josefeberg to insure their willinencss to undextake this assignment prior to finalizing his selection. EFTA00289824

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12/06/07 THU 15:23 PAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE JAY P. Lerkowrrz, Esq, 6, 2007 PAGE4 OF 4 Lastly, you object to personal communication between the victims and federal attorneys or agents. We have no objection to sendin the letters through the mail? but not remove the a. questions or concems. Again, federal law requires that victims have the “reasonable right to confer with the sttomey for the Governinent in this case.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(@a)(5). The thrse victims who were language about contacting AUSA or Special Agent notified prior to your objection had questions directed to Mr, Epstein’s punishment, not the civil litigation. Those questions are riatcly directed to law enforcement Tf questions arise related to the civil litigation, AUSA and Special Agent will recommend that the victims direct those questions to Mr. Tosefsberg. T have attached a revised letter incorporating the changes on which we can agree. Please provide any further comments by the close of business on Friday. In addition, please provide us with adefinitive statement, signod by your client, of his imention to abide by each and every term of the Agrecment by close of business on Friday, December 7, 2007, By that time, you must also provide us with the agreement(s) with the State Attomey’s Office and a date end time certain forthe plea and sentencing, which rust occur no later than December 14, 2007, There must be closure in this matter. Sincerely, R, Alexander Acosta United By: Assistant United States Attorney Enclosere ce: RR, Alexander A. S Attorney Avs ils —_—_— *This is contingent, however, on being able to provide adequate notice of the change of plea and sentenciag, Ths sooner that you schedule that hearing with Judge MeSorley, the sooner we can dispatch these letters, Ifyou delay further, we will have to rely on telephone or personal notification. oes EFTA00289825

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

ah U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 December 13, 2007 DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. - Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street ‘New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: 1am writing not to respond to your asserted “policy concerns” regarding Mr. Epstein’s Non- Prosecution Agreement, which will be addressed by the United States Attorney, but the time has come for me to respond to the ever-increasing attacks on my role in the investigation and negotiations. It is an understatement to say that I am surprised by your allegations regarding my role because I thought that we had worked very well together in resolving this dispute. I also am surprised because I feel that I bent over backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement would have on Mr. Epstein and to make sure that you (and he) understood the repercussions of the agreement. For example, I brought to your attention that one potential plea could result in no gain time for your client; I corrected one of your calculations of the Sentencing Guidelines that would have resulted in Mr. Epstein spending far more time in prison than you projected; | contacted the Bureau of Prisons to see whether Mr. Epstein would be eligible for the prison camp that you desired; and I told you my suspicions about the source of the press “leak” and suggested ways to avoid the press. Importantly, I continued to work with you in a professional manner even after I leamed that you had been proceeding in bad faith for several weeks ~ thinking that I had incorrectly concluded that solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution was a registrable offense and that you would “fool” our Office into letting Mr. Epstein plead to a non-registrable offense. Even now, when it is clear that neither you nor your client ever intended to abide by the terms of the agreement that he signed, I have never alleged misconduct on your part. The first allegation that you raise is that I “assiduously” hid from you the fact that Bert Ocariz is a friend of my boyfriend and that I have a “longstanding relationship” with Mr. Ocariz. EFTA00289826

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Jay P, LeFKowitz, Esq. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 5 I informed you that I selected Mr. Ocariz because he was a friend and classmate of two people whom I respected, and that | had never met or spoken with Mr. Ocariz prior to contacting him about this case. All of those facts are true. I still have never met Mr. Ocariz, and, at the time that he and I spoke about this case, he did not know about my relationship with his friend. You suggest that I should have explicitly informed you that one of the referrals came from my “boyfriend” rather than simply a “friend,” which is the term I used, but it is not my nature to discuss my personal relationships with opposing counsel. Your attacks on me and on the victims establish why I wanted to find someone whom I could trust with safeguarding the victims’ best interests in the face of intense pressure from an unlimited number of highly skilled and well paid attorneys. Mr. Ocariz was that person. One of your letters suggests a business relationship between Mr. Ocariz and my boyfriend. This is patently untrue and neither my boyfriend nor I would have received any financial benefit from Mr. Ocariz’s appointment. Furthermore, after Mr. Ocariz learned more about Mr. Epstein’s actions (as described below), he expressed a willingness to handle the case pro bono, with no financial benefit even to himself. Furthermore, you were given several other options to choose from, including the Podhurst firm, which was later selected by Judge Davis. You rejected those other options. You also allege that I improperly disclosed information about the case to Mr. Ocariz. I provided Mr. Ocariz with a bare bones summary of the agreement's terms related to his appointment to help him decide whether the case was something he and his firm would be willing to undertake. I did not provide Mr. Ocariz with facts related to the investigation because they were confidential and instead recommended that he “Google” Mr. Epstein’s name for background information. When Mr. Ocariz asked for additional information to assist his firm in addressing conflicts issues, I forwarded those questions to you, and you raised objections for the first time. I did not share any further information about Mr. Epstein or the case. Since Mr, Ocariz had been told that you concurred in his selection, out of professional courtesy, I informed Mr. Ocariz of the Office’s decision to use a Special Master to make the selection and told him that the Office had made contact with Judge Davis. We have had no further contact since then and I have never had contact with Judge Davis. I understand from you that Mr. Ocariz contacted Judge Davis. You criticize his decision to do so, yet you feel that you and your co-counsel were entitled to contact Judge Davis to try to “lobby” him to select someone to your liking, despite the fact that the Non-Prosecution Agreement vested the Office with the exclusive right to select the attorney representative. Another reason for my surprise about your allegations regarding misconduct related to the Section 2255 litigation is your earlier desire to have me perform the role of “facilitator” to convince the victims that the lawyer representative was selected by the Office to represent their interests alone and that the out-of-court settlement of their claims was in their best interests. You now state that doing the same things that you had asked me to do earlier is improper meddling in civil litigation. Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective Recarey’s investigation that have EFTA00289827

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Jay P. LEFKOWITZ, Esq. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 5 already been submitted to the Office on several occasions and you suggest that I have kept that information from those who reviewed the proposed indictment package. Contrary to your suggestion, those submissions were attached to and incorporated in the proposed indictment package, so your suggestion that I tried to hide something from the reviewers is false. I also take issue with the duplicity of stating that we must accept as true those parts of the Recarey reports and witness statements that you like and we must accept as false those parts that you do not like. You and your co-counsel also impressed upon me from the beginning the need to undertake an independent investigation. It seems inappropriate now to complain because our independent investigation uncovered facts that are unfavorable to your client. You complain that I “forced” your client and the State Attorney’s Office to proceed on charges that they do not believe in, yet you do not want our Office to inform the State Attorney’s Office of facts that support the additional charge nor do you want any of the victims of that charge to contact Ms. Belohlavek or the Court. Ms. Belohlavek’s opinion may change if she knows the full scope of your client’s actions. You and I spent several weeks trying to identify and put together a plea to federal charges that your client was willing to accept. Yet your letter now accuses me of “manufacturing” charges of obstruction of justice, making obscene phone calls, and violating child privacy laws. When Mr. Lourie told you that those charges would “embarrass the Office,” he meant that the Office was unwilling to bend the facts to satisfy Mr. Epstein’s desired prison sentence ~ a statement with which I agree. I hope that you understand how your accusations that I imposed “ultimatums” and “forced” you and your client to agree to unconscionable contract terms cannot square with the true facts of this case. As explained in letters from Messrs. Acosta and Sloman, the indictment was postponed for more than five months to allow you and Mr. Epstein’s other attorneys to make presentations to the Office to convince the Office not to prosecute. Those presentations were unsuccessful. As you mention in your letter, I—a simple line AUSA — handled the primary negotiations for the Office, and conducted those negotiations with you, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Lewis, and a host of other highly skilled and experienced practitioners. As you put it, your group has a “combined 250 years experience” to my fourteen. The agreement itself was signed by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. Lefcourt, whose experience speaks for itself. You and I spent hours negotiating the terms, including when to use “a” versus “the” and other minutiae. When you and I could notreach agreement, you repeatedly went over my head, involving Messrs. Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta in the negotiations at various times. In any and all plea negotiations the defendant understands that his options are to plead or to continue with the investigation and proceed to trial. Those were the same options that were proposed to Mr. Epstein, and they are not “persecution or intimidation tactics.” Mr. Epstein chose to sign the agreement with the advice of a multitude of extremely noteworthy counsel. You also make much of the fact that the names of the victims were not released to Mr. Epstein prior to signing the Agreement. You never asked for such a term. During an earlier meeting, where Mr. Black was present, he raised the concern that you now voice. Mr. Black and I did not have a chance to discuss the issue, but I had already conceived of a way to resolve that EFTA00289828

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Pm Jay P. LEFKOWTIZ, Esq. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 4 OF 5 issue if it were raised during negotiations. As stated, it was not, leading me to believe that it was not a matter of concern to the defense. Since the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the agents and I have vetted the list of victims more than once. In one instance, we decided to remove aname because, although the minor victim was touched inappropriately by Mr. Epstein, we decided that the link to a payment was insufficient to call it“prostitution.” I have always remained open to a challenge to the list, so your suggestion that Mr. Epstein was forced to write a blank check is simply unfounded. Your last set of allegations relates to the investigation of the matter. For instance, you claim that some of the victims were informed of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of their allegations against Mr. Epstein. This also is false. None of the victims was informed of the right to sue under Section 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement of the general terms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done. Throughout this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as though it would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility of damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case. If my reassurances are insufficient, the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein should assure you of the integrity of the investigation.’ 'There are numerous other unfounded allegations in your letter about document demands, the money laundering investigation, contacting potential witnesses, speaking with the press, and the like, For the most part, these allegations have been raised and disproven earlier and need not be readdressed. However, with respect to the subpoena served upon the private investigator, contrary to your assertion, and as your co-counsel has already been told, 1 did consult with the Justice Department prior to issuing the subpoena and I was told that because I was not subpoenaing an attorney’s office or an office physically located within an attorney’s office, and because the business did private investigation work for individuals (rather than working exclusively for Mr. Black), I could issue a grand jury subpoena in the normal course, which is what I did. I also did not “threaten” the State Attorney’s Office with a grand jury subpoena, as the correspondence with their grand jury coordinator makes perfectly clear. With regard to your allegation of my filing the Palm Beach Police Department’s probable cause affidavit “with the court knowing that the public could access it,” I do not know to what you are referring. Alj documents related to the grand jury investigation have been filed under seal, and the Palm Beach Police Department’s probable cause affidavit has never been filed with the Court. If, in fact, you are referring to the Ex Parte Declaration of Joseph Recarey that was filed in response to the motion to quash the grand jury subpoena, it was filed both under seal and ex parte, so no one should have access to it except the Court and myself. Those documents are still in the Court file only because you_have violated one of the terms of the Agreement by failing to “withdraw [Epstein’s] pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas.” EFTA00289829

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, Esq. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 5 OF 5 With respect to Ms. ZZ. I contacted her attorney — who was paid for by Mr. Epstein and was directed by 1 for Mr. Epstein to demand immunity — and asked only whether he still represented Ms. and if he wanted me to send the victim notification letter to him. He asked what the letter would say and I told him that the letter would be forthcoming in about a week and that I could not provide him with the terms. With respect to Ms. a status as a victim, you again want us to accept as true 0 that are beneficial to your client and to reject as false anything detrimental to him. Ms. made a number of statements that are contradicted by documentary evidence and a review of her recorded statement shows her lack of credibility with respect to anumber of statements. Based upon all of the evidence collected, Ms. is classified as a Victim as defined by statute. Of course, that does not mean that Ms. considers herself a victim or that she would seek damages from Mr. Epstein, I believe that a number of the identified victims will not seek damages, but that does not negate their legal status as victims. I hope that you now understand that your accusations against myself and the agents are unfounded. In the future, I recommend that you address your accusations to me so that I can correct any misunderstandings before you make false allegations to others in the Department. I hope that we can move forward with a professional resolution of this matter, whether that be by your client’s adherence to the contract that he signed, or by virtue of a trial. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney ce: der Acosta, U.S. Attorney First Assistant U.S, Attorney You also accuse me of “broaden[ing] the scope of the investigation without any foundation for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of amoney transmitting business to the investigation.” Again, I consulted with the Justice Department’s Money Laundering Section about my analysis before expanding that scope. The duty attorney agreed with my analysis. EFTA00289830

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12/19/07 WED 17:03 PAX 305 830 6440 BXECUTIVE OFFICE Booz U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida R ALEXANDER ACOSTA 90 WE. 4 Sweet UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Miami, Ft. 33132 DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE, Lilly Ann Sanchez Fowler White Burnett, PA 1395 Brickell Ave, 14" Floor Miami, FL 33131 Dear Ms. Sanchez: J write to follow up on the December 14” meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.’ I writs to you because Lam not certain whe among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this letter. Laddross issues rnised by several members of the defense team, and would thus ask that you please provide a copy of this letter to all appropriate defense team members. . First, would like to address the Section 2255 issue2 As] stated in my December 4" letter, my understanding is that the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Lipstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal Jinbility. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections _ 1 Over the past two weeks, webhave received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibils from defense counsel. ‘This is not the forum to respond to the several ems raised, and our silence should not be interpret as agreement, | would, however, like to addivess one issue. Your December 11° letter states that as a result of defense counsel objections to the appointment process, the USAO proposed an addendum to the Agreement 10 provide tur the use of un independent third party sclector, As} rocal) this matter, before [had any knowledge of defense counsel objections, 7 ‘sua sponte proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowite at an October meeting in Palm Beach, | did this in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process. It was only after ] proposed this change that Me, Lefkowitz raised with me his enumerated concerns. 2 Section 2255 provides that: “{aay person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of [emmerated sections of Title £8] and who suffers personal injury as a sesult of such violation .. . tnay suc in ony appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, Including @ reasonable attorney's fec.” EFTA00289831

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

__12/19/07 WED 17:03 FAX 905 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE a 003 of Title 18 in favor of proscoution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (1) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a “registerable™ state offense; (2) that this stats plea include a binding recommendation fora sufficient term of imprisonment, and (3) that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. With this in mind, Lhave considered defense counsel arguments regarding the Section 2255 portions of the Agreement. As I previously observed, our intent has been to place the victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial, No more; no less. From our meeting, it appears that the defense agrees that this was the intent. During the course of negotiations that intent was reduced to writing in Paragraphs 7 and 8, which as T wrote previously, appear far from simple to understand. I would thus propose that we solve our disagreements over interpretations by saying precisely what we mean, inasimple fashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 and $ with the following language: “Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein’ s attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the seme position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial, No more; no less.” Second, 1 would like to address the issvo of victim's rights pursuant to Section 3771. I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place of Mr. Fpstein’s state court sentencing hearing. Ihave reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense as a courtesy. Tn addition, First Assistant United States Attorncy Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel, Lagree that Section 3771 applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law, We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so ifhe wishes. Third, { would like to address the issue raised regarding Mlorida Statute Section 796,03. At our meeting, Professor Dershowitz took the position that Mr. Epsicin believes that his conduct docs not satisfy the elements of this offense, His assertion raises for me substantial concems. This Office will not, and cannot, be a party to an agreement in which Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to an offense that he believes he did not commit. We are considering how best to proceed. EFTA00289832

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12/19/07 WED 17:04 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE @ 004 Finally, { would like to address a more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on September 24”, 2007, Pursuant to paragraph 11, Mr, Epstein was to use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be seatenccd no Iter than October 26, 2007. As outlined in correspondence between our prosecutors and defense counsel, this deadline came and went. Our prosecutors reiterated to defense counse) several times their concems regarding delays, and in fact, asked me several weeks: ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. | resisted that invitation. I share thig fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an 11" hour appeal, weeks before the now scheduled January 4" sea date, This said, the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concems. We hope to preserve the January 4" date. [understand that defense counsel shares our gesire not to move that appearance and will work with our office to expedite this process over the noxt several days. With this in mind, and in the event that defense counsel may wish to seek review of our determinations in Washington D.C., I spoke this past Monday with the Assistant Attorney General Fisher, to inform her of a possible appeal, to ask her to grant the potential request for review, and to in fact review this case in an expedited manner to attempt to preserve the Ianuury 4" plea date. 1 want to again reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand ofa defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes, Your client has the right to proceed to trial, and he should do so ifhe believes that he did not commit the elements of the charged offense. } will respond to the pending issucs shortly. In the interim, I would ask that you communicate your position with respect to the sections 2255 and 3371 issues as quickly as possible. Sincerely, . Me R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ce: Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General First Assistant U.S. Attorney AUSA EFTA00289833

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

fF ® > ce "Oosterbaan, Andrew" Ftt~—iSY 02/25/2008 07:43 PM bee Subject Epstein Jay, The Section Chief of DOJ’s Child Exploitation Obscenity Section (CEOS) notified me today that he will review the matter involving your client Jeffrey Epstein. The Section Chief has indicated that he is ready to proceed immediately, and I understand you are in the process of providing him this week with a summary of issues to be reviewed, and expect to meet with him next week. The Section Chief also indicated that you would be calling this Office regarding the upcoming March 3, 2008 court date in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County. As you know, the Agreement entered into by your client originally provided that the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (this Office) would defer prosecution if your client pled guilty to enumerated state charges by October 26, 2007. Since then, that date has been postponed for a number of reasons. At this juncture, it would not be reasonable to keep the current March 3" date asa deadline for compliance with the Agreement. That said, this Office is very concerned about additional delays. Despite this concern, I want to assure you that if counsel for Mr. Epstein meets with CEOS next week (the week of March 3), this Office will extend the time for compliance with the Agreement to provide CEOS time to engage in a thorough review. It goes without saying that in the event that CEOS decides that a federal prosecution should not be undertaken against Mr. Epstein, this Office will close its EFTA00289834

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

investigation. However, should CEOS disagree with Mr. Epstein’s position, Mr. Epstein shall have one week to abide by the terms and conditions of the September 24, 2007 Agreement as amended by letter from United States Attorney Acosta to Jay Lefkowitz. First Assistant U.S. Attomey Southern District of Florida EFTA00289835

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

bee Subject Fw: Epstein Slhas beencacionniy Sgr Avan oa, Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld Original Message ~~~~- a (USAFLS) 21:37:02 2008 Sent: We Subject: Epstein Jay, You have renewed your request for certain information which this Office does not generally make available in similar pre-indictment situations. After carefully considering your request, I have decided, in my capacity as the First Assistant U.S. Attorney, not to make an exception here. Regarding the Landon Thomas matter, Mr. Thomas was given, pursuant to his request, non-case specific information concerning specific federal statutes. Regarding the offer to extend the current deadline of March 3, 2008 contained in my February 25th email. That offer was based on counsel for Mr, Epstein meeting with CEOS the week of March 3rd. You indicate that you are unavailable. It is hard to imagine that some or all of the other attorneys representing Mr. Epstein cannot serve this function, After all, Mr. Epstein is also represented by Dean Kenneth Starr, Martin Weinberg, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, Harvard P¥OE£eSS6Er Alah Dershowitz, Lily Ann Sanchez, and Guy Lewis. That being said, the Southern District of Florida will only renew the offer to extend the current deadline if you and the CEOS Section Chief mutually agree on a timetable by close of business on Friday, February 23, 2008 to meet and complete presentations no later than March 19, 2008. Given that CEOS is ready to proceed (usarLsy ‘o sdo}.gov> ce “Oosterbasn, Andrew" <i 02/27/2008 09:45 PM EFTA00289836

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

immediately, this seems like more than ample time. As I indicated-in my previous email, if CEOS subsequently decides that a federal prosecution should not be undertaken against Mr. Epstein, this Office will close its investigation. However, should CEOS disagree with Mr. Epstein’s position, Mr. Epstein shall have one week to abide by the terms and conditions of the September 24, 2007 Agreement as amended by letter from United States Attorney Acosta. First Asst. US Attorney Southern District of Florida EFTA00289837

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

, 1 ce 02/29/2008 07:17 PM bee Subject Epstein Jay, I know you emailed the U.S. Attorney but I feel compelled to respond. In my Monday, February 25” email, I tried to express my concern, on behalf of the SDFL, about additional delays concerning this matter and the desire to expedite review without interfering or restricting the process. When you replied on Wednesday , February 27", it seemed to me that nothing had much changed. Your email stated “ because I am currently scheduled to be on trial all next week in Delaware, I think we will actually be able to begin meeting with Drew until the following week, at_ the earliest.” I felt that no effort was being made towards scheduling, and that, at the very least, one of Mr. Epstein *s other lawyers could have attempted to schedule a meeting with CEOS. To put it another way, it appeared to me that this matter was going to drag unnecessarily. Obviously you sensed my frustration in my responding email which, in turn, generated your email to the USA. Late this afternoon, I was informed that you have scheduled a meeting with CEOS for March 12”. Obviously, I am heartened to hear of this development. Please be assured that it is not, and never has been, this Office’s intent to interfere with or restrict the review process for either Mr. Epstein or CEOS. I leave it to you and CEOS to figure out how best to proceed and will await the results of that process. EFTA00289838

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

EFTA00289839

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Jack Goldberger From: a <:) | alurday, June 26, Sent: 8 11:31 AM To: ee: ae: :: Subject: : Notice of Non-Compliance Dear Jack: I have conferred with a state court practitioner who stated that there is nothing that prohibits you from agreeing to 2 consecutive six-month sentence of incarceration followed by one year of community control as specified in the non-prosecution agreement. If you elect to proceed with the plea agreement as currently drafted, we ask that you insert the word "imprisoned" following the words “six months" in the second sentencing paragraph. Please confirm that this change is acceptable. Thank you. Sent: Fri 6/27/2808 5:45 PM To: Jack Goldberger; Roy BLACK j Ce: (USAFLS) 1 Subject: Notice of Non-Compliance Dear Messrs. Goldberger and Black: Please see the attached Notification Letter. i <<080627 Goldberger Black notification ltr. pdf>> | Hl | | Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00289840

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

: PLEA INTHE CIRCUITCOURT - THE FOLLOWING IS TO REFLECT ALL TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT * Name: Jeffrey’E. Epstein Plea: Gulity X CaseNo, Charge Count Lesser __Degree Q6CFO09454AMB _Felony Solicitation of Prostitution 1 No 3FEL OBCFO09381AMB _-Procuring Person Under 18 for Prostitution 1 “No QFEL PSI: Waived/Not Required _X Required/Requested ADJUDICATION: Adjudicate [x ] SENTENCE: On 08CF008454AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 12 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, with credit for 1 (one) day time served. On 08CF009384AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 18 months Community Control 1 (one). As a spacial condition of this Community Control, the Defendant must serve the first 6 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, with credit for 1 (one) day time served, This sentence is to be served consecutive to the 12 month sentence in OSCFO0S454AMB. The conditions of community control are attached hereto and incorporated herein, . OTHER COMMENTS OR CONDITIONS: Court Costs: $474.00 Cost of Prosecution: $50.00 Drug Trust Fund: $50.00 Asa special condition of his community control, the Defendant is to have no unsupervised contact with minors, and the supervising adult must be approved by the Department of Corrections. The Defendant Is designated as a Sexual Offender pursuant to Florida Statute 943.0435 and must abide by all the corresponding requirements of the statute, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. . The Defendant must provide 2 DNA sample in court at the time of this plea. : — ae ta Assistant State Altomey Attorney for the Defendant ee Date of Plea Defendant EFTA00289841

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

PLEA IN TRE CIRCUIT COURT THE FOLLOWING 1S TO REFLECT ALL TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT Name: Jeffrey £. Epstein Plea: Gully % OSCFODS4S4AMB Felony Solichation of Prostitution 4 No 3FaL OSCPONSsS 1 AMB Procuring Person Under 16 for Prostitution 1 No 2 FEL On OBCFOUOSS4AMB, fio Defendant is penianced to 12 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facity, with cred for { (one) day me served, ; - On G2OF000381 AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 5 months in the Palm Beach Coumty ; Detention Facility, with credit for t {one) tiay time served. This 6 month sentence & to be Wee, served consecufive to the 12 month sentence in OSCFOIS4ECAMB. Following this 6 crt). month sentence, the Defendant wil be placed on 12 months Community Controt t (one). \, The conditions of community control are aliached hereto anc incorporated herein. _ AS @- special condition of his communily control, The is bo have no unsupervised contest by the Denartment of wilh minors, and the supervising adult must 6 Cornections.. The Defendant is designated as 2 Sexual Offender pursuantto Florida Statute 943.0495 and must abkia by all the conesponding require ments of the statite, a copy of which is attached hereio and Incompordied herein. The Defendant must provide 2 DNA sampie in court at the time of iV eae EFTA00289842

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

#2 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Facstmile: (S61) 820-8777 November 29, 2007 Dear Miss Several months ago, I provided you with a letter notifying you of your rights as a victim pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004 and other federal logislation, including: $63) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 7) (8) ‘The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other portions of a proceeding. ‘The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. ‘The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. ‘The right to be treated with faimess and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy. 1 am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S, Attorney’s Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms. First, Mr. Epstein agrees that he will plead guilty to two state offenses, cluding the offense of soliciting minors to engage in prostitution, which will require him to register as a sexual predator for the remainder of his life. EFTA00289843

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Miss NOVEMBER 29, 2007 PAGE2 Second, Mr. Epstein has agreed to make a binding recommendation of 18 months’ imprisonment to the state court judge who sentences him, Mr. Epstein will serve that sentence of imprisonment at the Palm Beach County Jail. . Third, Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will not contest jurisdiction or liability if you elect to sock damages from him because the United States has identified you as a minor victim of certain federal offenses, including travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution. To assist you in making such a claim, the U.S. Attormey’s Office has asked an independent Special Master to select attorneys to represent you. Those attomeys are Aaron Podhurst b”) Josefsberg with the law firm of Podburst Orseck, P_A. They can be reached at . 1 pore sapeinisor tarde pankaay-tareraind yori, | beep fromMr. ce ee ee a miyoccioneys he Epstein will be responsible for paying attorney’s fees incurred during the time spent trying to negotiate a settlement. If you are unable to reach a settlement with Mr. Epstein, you and Mr. Josefsberg can discuss how best to procecd. As I mentioned above, as partof the resolution of the federal investigation, Mr. Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges. Mr. Epstein’s change of plea and sentencing will occur on December 14, 2007, at a.m., before Judge Sandra K. MoSorley, in Courtroom 11F atthe Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 960.001(1)(k) and 921.143(1), you are entitled to be present and to make a statement under oath. If you choose, you can submit a written statement under oath, which will be filed by the State Attomey’s Office on your behalf. If you elect to prepare a written statement, it should address the following: the facts of the case and the extent of any harm, including social, psychological, or physical harm, financial losses, loss of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced, and any matter relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence. Fl, Stat. 921.143(2). You also are cutitled to notification when Mr. Epstein is released from imprisonment at the end of his prison term and/or if he is allowed to participate in a work release program. To receive such notification, please provide the State Attorncy’s Office with the following information: 1. Your name 2. Your address 3. Your home, work, and/or cell phone numbers EFTA00289844

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Miss_— NOVEMBER 29, 2007 PAGE 4. Your e-maij] address 5. A notation of whether you would like to participate in the “VINE system,” which provides automated notification calls any time an inmate is moved. (To use this system, your calls must go to you directly, not through a switchboard.) Thank you for all of your help during the course of the epee H If mI un ny questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me or Special Agen’ a Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: cial Agen’ a. , Victim- Witness Coordinator, U.S. Attorney’s Office EFTA00289845

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

F 002 12/06/07 THU 15:22 FAX 305 530 6440 BXECUTIVE OFFICE a U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern Distriet of Florida 99 NE. 4" Street Mant, FL 33132-2113 (305) 961-9299 Facsimile: (305) 330.6444 December 6, 2007 JayP., Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 Enst $314 Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: 1 write in response to your recent e-mails and letters regerding victim notification and other issues. Our Office is trying to perform our contractual obligations under the Agreement, which we fee] are being frustrated by defense counsel’s objections. ‘The Office also is concerned shout Mt. Epstein’s nonperformance, More than thrés weeks ago we spoke about the failure to set 2 timely plea and sentencing date. At that time, you assured me that the scheduling delay was caused by the unavailability of Judge McSorley, You promised that a date would be sct promptly, On November 15th, Rolando Garcia met with Berry Krisher on another matter, and was told by Mr. Krisher that he had just spoken with Jack Goldberger, and that Mr. Epstein’s plea and sentencing were set to occur on December 14, 2007, Since that time, we have tried to confium the date and time of the hearing in order to include that information in the victim notification letters. You continue to refer to the plea and sentencing as though it w; j ; Mr. Krishor’s office has uot confirmed any date; and Mr. Goldberger recently that “there is no date.” I must reiterate that a delayed guilty plea and sentencing — now more than two montbs beyond the original deadline — is unacceptable to the Office. As you will recall, the plea and 2007, but was canceled at the request of the parties, not the judge. Judge McSorley has act been EFTA00289846

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

00: 12/06/07 THU 15:23 FAX 303 530 6440 BXECUTIVE OFFICE Qoos Jay P. LerKowtrz, Eso, DECEMBER, 6, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 4 any past or future delay, Mr. Epstein currently has four Florida Ber members on his defense tean, so attomey scheduling is not an adequate basis for delay. Three weeks ago Lalso asked you to provide our Office with the terms of the Plea Agreement with the State Atfomey’s Office. Tt is now more than (wo months since the signing of the Non- Prosecution Agreement and we have yet to see any formal agreement, or even alist of essential tems of such an agreement, Next, let me address your allegation that attorneys In our office and agents of the FBI have . leaked information to the press in an effort to affect possible civil litigation with Mr. Epstein. This office or the FBI since you incorrectly accused investigators of telling “Vanity Fair’ about Mr. Star’s employment by Mr, Epstein several months ago. We intend to continue to reftain from commenting or providing information to the press. We would ask that your client and all of his representatives do the same. as defined in Section 2255, that is, as persons “who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section .. , 2422 or 2423 of this title.” th other words, the Office is prepared to indict Mr. Epstein based upon Mr, Epstein’s “interactions” with these individuals,! This conclusion is based upon a thorongh and proper investigation —one in which none of the victims was informed of any right to receive damages of any amount prior to the investigation of her claim, The Office agrees that it is not a party to, and will not take a role in, any civil Htigation, but the Office can say, without hesitation, that the evidence demonstrates that each person on the list was a victim of Mi. Bpstein’s criminal behavior. Mr, Starr's letteralso Suggests that the number of victims to whom Mr. Epstein is exposed by the Agreement is limitless. As you know, early drafts of the Agreement contained a numerical limit of 40 victims, which was removed at your request. The Office repeatedly confirmed that the number would not oxceed 40; and the list is significantly shorter than that. Once the list is provided to you, if you have a good faith basis for asserting that a victim nevor met Mr. Epstein, we remain willing to listen and to modify the list if you convince us of your position. Finally, letme address your objections to thedraft Victim Notification Letter. You write that you don’t understand the basis for the Office’s belief that it is appropriate to notify the victims, Pursuant to the “Justice for All Act of2004,” crime victims are entitled to: “The right to reasonable, Scowrnte, anil timely notice of any public court proceeding ... involving the crime” and the “right er "Unlike the State’s investigation, the federal investigation shows criminal conduct by Mr. Epstein at least as carly as 2001, so all of the victims were miuors at the time of the offense. EFTA00289847

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12/06/07 THU 15:23 FAX 305 530 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Hoos Jay P. Lerxowrrz, Esq, Decempar 6, 2007 PaGe3 oF 4 not to bo excluded from any such public court proceeding...” 18 U.S.C, § 3771(a)(2) & (3). Section 3771 also coramands that “employoes of the Department of Justice . .. engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subscction (a).” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(0\(1). Additionally, pursuant to the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, our Office is obligated to “informa a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the vietim may be entitled under this or any other Jaw and [the] manner in which such relief may be obtained.” 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)(1)(B). With respect to notification of the other information that we propose to disclose, the statnte requires that we provide a victim with the earliest possible notice of: the status of the investigation; the filing of charges against a suspected offender; and the acceptance of 2 plea. 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)(3). Just oa in 18 U.S.C. § 3771, these sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense, The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed, and our Non-Proseoution Agreement does not require the U.S. Attomey’s Office to forego its legal obli ions. Next, you assert that our letter mischaracterizes Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay damages to the victims, To avoid that suggestion, [have asked AUSA Villafafia to simply quote the terms of the Agreement directly into the Notification Letter. We also have no objection to referring to Mr. Epstein as a “sexual offender” rather than a “predator,” We have no objection to using the conjanction “and/or” in referring to the particular offense(s) of which the recipiont was a victim. We will not incinde the language that we take no believes that if has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each listed individual was a victim of Mr, Epstein’s criminal conduct while the victim was a minor. The law requires us to treat all victims “with faimess and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(2\(8). We will not include any language that demeans the harm they may have suffered ‘The letter’s assertions regi ing representation by the Podhurst firm and Mr, Josefsberg are accurate. Judge Davis conferred with Messrs. Podhuret and Josefsberg to insure their willingness to undertake this assignment prior to finalizing his selection. EFTA00289848

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12/06/07 THU 15:23 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Boos JAY P. LEPkowr1z, Esq, DECEMBER 6, 2007 PaGe 407 4 Lastly, you object to personal communication between the victims and federal attorneys of agents. We have no objection to seggj letters through the mi]? will not remove the Janguage about contacting nos. ll or Special Agent with questions or concerns. Again, federal law requires that victims have the “reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Govemninent in this case” 18 US.C. § 3771(@)(5). The three victims who were notified prior to your objection had questions directed to Mr. Epstein’s punishment, not the civil litigation. Those questions are appropriately directed to law enforcement, If questions arise related to the civil litigation, AUSA Villafafia and Special Agent Kuyrkendall will recommend that the victims direct those questions to Mr. Tosefiberg. T have attached a revised Jetter incorporating tire changes on which we can agree. Please provide any further comments by the close of business on Friday. In addition, please provide us with a.definitive statement, signed by your client, of his intention to abide by each and every term of the Agreement by close of business ou Friday, December 7, 2007, By that time, you must also provide Us with the agreement(s) with the State Attorney's Office and a date and time certain forthe plea and sentencing, which reust ocour no later than December 14, 2007, There must be closure in this matter, Sincerely, R, Alexander Acosta By: inst Assistant United States Attomey Enclosure c: R AUSA *This is contingent, however, on being able to provide adequate notice of the change of plea and sentencing. The sooner that you schedule that hearing with Judge McSorley, the sooner we can dispatch these letters, Ifyou delay further, we will have to rely on telephone or personal notification, EFTA00289849

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12/06/07 THU 15:24 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE U.S. Department of Justice United States At 500 South Australian Ave, Suited00. West Pabn Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 December 6, 2007 Several months ago, I provided you with a letter notifying you of your rights as a victim pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004 and other federal legislation, including: () (2) (3) (4) (S) (6) (7) (8) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public comt proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused, The right notto be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court determines that yourtestimony may be materially altered if you are present for other portions of a proceeding. ‘The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. The reasonable right to confer with the atiomey for the United States in the case, The right to fall and timely restitution as provided in law, The zight to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy, Tam writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and that Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office have reached an agreement Booe EFTA00289850

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Boor 12/06/07 THU 15:24 PAX 305 530 0440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Miss NOVEMBER 29, 2007 PAGE2 Fixst, Mr. Epstein agrees that he Will plead guilty to two state offenses, including the offense of soliciting minors to engage in prostitution, which will require him to register as a sexnal offender for the remainder of his life. Second, Mr, Epstein bas agreed to make a binding recommendation of 18 mouths’ imprisonment to the state court judge who sentences him. Mr. Epstein will serve that sentence of imprisonment at the Palm Beach County Jail, Third, Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will compensate you for damages you have suffered, under the following circumstances, That portion of the agreement that relates to those claims reads as follows: 7. The United States shall provide Epstein’s attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C, § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein’s counsel, shall select anattomeyrepresentative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein’s counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. 8. if any of the individuals refesred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up fo an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identificd individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether Pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, a3 to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 9. Epstein’s signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional EFTA00289851

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Boos 12/08/07 THU 15:24 PAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFPICE Miss NOVEMBER 29, 2007 PAGE3 ot other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. 10. Except as to those individuals who clect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein’s i ture on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal Hiebility or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defeuse as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. Pursuantto the terms of the agreement and an addendum, to assist you in making such a claim, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has asked an independent Special Master to select attorneys to represent you. Those attorneys are Aeron Podhurst and ” berg with the law firm of Podhurst Orseck, P.A. They can be reached at OBE onic tt vomocne fore ec toe Ber i ae sé af 3. A BD SPA Wilh Oe Cede at a MINE £0. USC 4 different.attomey, If you do decide to seck damages from Mr. Epstein and you decide to use Messrs, Podhurst/Josefsberg 2s your attorneys, Mt. Epstein will be responsible for paying attomey’s fees incurred during the time spent trying to negotiate a settlement. If you are unable to reach a settlement with Mr. Bpstein, you and Mr. Josefsberg can discuss haw best to proceed, As I mentioned above, as part of the resolution of the federal investigation, Mr. Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges. Mr. Epstein’s Change of plea and sentencing will occur on December 14, 2007, at a.m., before Judge Sandra K_ MoSorley, in Courtroom 11F at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 960.002(1)(k) and 921,143(1), you are eatitled to be present and to make 2 statement under oath, Ifyou choose, you can submit a written statement under oath, which may be filed by the State Attomey’s Office on your behalf. If you elect to prepare a written statement, it should address the following: the facts of the case and the extent of any harm, including social, psychological, or physical harm, financial losses, loss of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced, EFTA00289852

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Boos 12/06/07 THU 15:25 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Miss. NOVEMBER 29, 2007 PAGES and any matter relevent to an appropriate disposition and sentence. Fl. Stat. 921,143(2). You also are entitled to notification when Mr. Epstein is released from imprisonment at the end of his prison term and/or if he is allowed to participate in a work release program. To receive such notification, please provide the State Attorney’s Office with the following information: le Your name 2 Your address 3. Your home, work, and/or cell phone numbers 4, ‘Your e-mail address 5. A notation of whether you would like to Participate in the “VINE system,” Which provides automated notification oalls any time an inmate is moved, (To use this system, your calls must go to you directly, not through a switchboard.) Thank you for all of your help during the course of the investigation. If you have an uestions or concerns, pleasc do not hesitate to contact me or Special Agent a - Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney a cc: Special Agent F.BI. » Victim-Witness Coordinator, U.S. Attomey’s Office By: EFTA00289853

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

10/25/07 THU 13:18 PAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Am i} U.S. Department of Justice United States Southern District of Florida ; Booz DINK. F Siraet Miami, FL 33152 Telephone: (305) 961-9299 Facsimile: (305) 530-6444 October 25, 2007 DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE The Hon. Edward B, Davis (Ret.) Akerman Senterfitt One Southeast Third Avenue, 25th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Re: Service as a Special Master Dear Judge Davis: Thank you for agrecing to serveas a Special Master and for assisting the United States Attoroey’s Office in the sclection of an attorney representative to represent a group of identified victims. ‘This letter is meant to assist you in performing your duties by providing you with background information regarding the agreement between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein and the duties that the attomey representative will have to perform. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attomey’s Office conducted an investigation of Mr, Epstein. As a result of that investigation, the U.S, Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement and an Addendum that contains, inter alia, the following terms: 7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the tesponsibility for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the atlomecy representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the United States and Epstein tetain the right to make good faith objections to the attomey representative Suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. EFTA00289854

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

10/25/07 THU 13:18 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE THE HON. EDWARD B. DAViS (Rer.) OcroBeR 25, 2007 PAGE2 OF 4 78. The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party regarding the role of the attomey representative and regarding Epstein’s Agreement to pay such attomey representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph 7C, infra. 7C. Pursuant io additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attomey representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, if after consideration of potential Settlements, an altomey representative elects to file a contesied lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in § 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney represcutative, shall cease, 8.If any of the individuals referred to [in the paragraphs above] elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount agreed to between Epstein and the identified individual, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C, § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law, Notwithstanding this waiver, with respect to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein’s signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and Such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any’ criminal or civil iability. 9.Epstein’s signature on this agrecment also is not to be construed admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. 10.Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in [the above paragraphs], neither Epstein’s EFTA00289855

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

10/25/07 THU 13:19 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Bove ‘THE Hon. EDWARD B, DAVIS (REY.) OcTOBER 25, 2007 PAGE 3 OF4 signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. The most recent version of the statute referenced above, [8 U.S.C. § 2255, provides that: Any person who, while 4 minor, was a victim of a violation of section . ..2422 or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a ininor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Conrt and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any person as described in the . preceding sentence shall be decmed to have sustained damages of no less than $150,000 in value,' Section 2422 prohibits the usc of a facility of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in sexual activity and prostitution, and section 2423 prohibits interstate travel for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity or prostitution with minors. The United States has identified 34 victims as defined by this statute, The United States takes no position as to the validity of any such claim under this statute. Due to the circumstances of the case and the mumber and caliber of the attomeys who represent Mr. Epstein, in selecting the victims’ attorney representative, the United States suggests that you consider the following criteria: 1, Experience doing both plaintiffs’ and defense litigation. 2, Experience with state and federal statutory and common law tort claims. 3. The ability to communicate effectively with young women. 4, Experience litigating against large law firms and high profile attorneys who * An earlier version of this statute deems that any person described in the preceding sentence shall have sustained datnages of no less than $50,000 in value. EFTA00289856

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

10/25/07 THU 13:19 PAX 305 530 6440 EARCUTIVE OFFICE Moos Te HON. EpwArn B, Davis (RET.) Ocroper 25, 2007 Page4or4 may test the veracity of the victims” claims, 3. Sensitivity to the nature of the suit and the victirns’ interest in maintaining their privacy. 6. Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida. 7. The resources to hire experts and others, while working on a contingency fee basis, in order to prepare for trial, if a settlement carmot be reached (defense counsel has reserved the right to challenge such litigation). &. The ability to negotiate effectively. Pursuant to this letter, the United States assigns to you the responsibility for consulting with and selecting the attomey representative for the individuals, The United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative you select prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. In that regard, after you have reached a decision regarding the attorney representative, please provide me with his or her name and contact information. If] can provide you with any further information, please donot hesitate to contact me and/or the U.S. A) and/or Jay Lefkowitz, Bsq. on behalf of Epstein. Mr. Lefkowitzcan be reached at ~ Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Citigroup Center, 153 Best 53" Street, New York, New York 10022-4611, Thank you again for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Atiom tant Umited States Attomey EFTA00289857

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Sb eg ge A eer oe Sirs ld - ED DIES . a TOUIC IESG EFTA00289858

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

eet tie Ra i pate: GIGS Rm aS ot age2 O ro hp de. *. Of Prok./ Sex: i Got rob C0. I; se f Y ys-as t6.Cts. , GPs v2) oonsec. wh ; He Gey = | Campi, Canal Orlored, Conditions =o ea ~ : ‘p.m, with thefollewing exception: se “ to Prob, Dept. immediately, upon release. — . gto have in care, custedy; or contre! any.uniawful oF Weg to inamas notify Prob. Officer tf Poe of residence CRO filed > Ha RaRGSHT DHAQIN CoHOM Testing: ee Sepa ‘a j ~ 71a hs eahacabear re Gf Alcohol or Drugs of Into ants without 2 Prosetipion. a es foci per Week. 7 . ; nigh Dt superddion. aware 7 ofthis soda the ispeaton. es D:pet of 0 *" set myth — G) Waived by Court. ~ AGH eriter at 3 Sore ar Jeuro-Bed Programand Ary Recommended ARereare: | Q- Hold:lit ‘Custody, rélease only jo DOC Non-Se cure’Bed Program Officer. Q Enter.and Successfully Complete PBSO:Long / Short Track Drug Fann, arickAny Reo. ftoroarss ’ | Forfeit Weapon / Money'ssized atthedime of arrestto: | Enter. and‘Complete:. ©) Anger Management Program a paterers iterventian Roger) 1: _ fk Theft Abatement Program: “10 Bafphdast mad reply for Early” Tenner ter provided a “Giloonds, are catislied. are cai. */Oi Saive days / months in’PB a for - -days Mm De - must wai ee I 2K AL, oO ode a]. UY hours BD: a : _ [Ss We 8 EFTA00289859

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

am <7 Hela te i} GJ County Courthouse || [20518 Dixie, West Palm Beach Cid VOU.AREA PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS! -QDERTEIN ASSISTANCE, CONTACT IARY a oy gt) HOSTPAUI EACH, FL S805; TELEPHONE (04) i " 41) ENP Pew 190 EFTA00289860