HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012134.jpg

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP John Roth, Esq. June 19, 2008 Page 5 Finally, as you know, Mr. Epstein and the USAO entered into an agreement that deferred prosecution to the State. In this regard, I simply note that the manner in which this agreement was negotiated contrasts sharply with Mr. Sloman’s current representation that “/T]he SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of incarceration... ” See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 2. This statement is simply not true. Contrary to Mr. Sloman’s assertion, federal prosecutors refused to accept what the State believed to be appropriate as to Mr. Epstein’s sentence and instead, insisted that Mr. Epstein be required serve a two-year term of imprisonment (which they later decreased to 18 months plus one year of house arrest). Federal prosecutors have not only involved themselves in what is quintessentially a state matter, but their actions have caused a critical appearance of impropriety that raises doubt as to their motivation for investigating and prosecuting Mr. Epstein in the first place. At bottom, we appreciate your willingness to review this matter with a fresh—and independent—set of eyes. To facilitate your review, I once again request the opportunity to make an oral presentation to supplement our written submissions, and we will promptly respond to any inquiries you may have. Kenneth W. Starr cc: Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012134