EFTA00175949.pdf

54748 Srat Sy...41554N To ME AAA EFTA00175949 Q001 08/02/08 MON 14:58 FAX 305 530 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE U.S. Department of Justice United Stoics Attorney Southern District of Florida UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 99 NE 4TH STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132-2111 Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant U.S. Attorney 305 961 9299 Cyndee Campos Staff Assistant 305 961 9461 305 530-6444 fax FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE: June 2, 2008 TO: Marie Villafana FAX NUMBER: (561) 820 8777 SUBJECT: Epstein NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 9 Message/Comments: This facsimile contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this facsimile, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or coping of this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original facsimile to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. EFTA00175950 00/02/08 19/..1.1 :,81, FAX 22A. pip, 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE DOJ/ODAG la 002 )003/0la 05.177,2002 12 19 I- A:: kg, line • UV.) Kenneth \.V. Siarr Kirkland St. tattle 1.1.1' •vrevi .Alt. F.1%• I i (;SC LM:IfriLkift: in:, Maill27, 2008 u1,\ FACSIMILE (1(I2 514.0367 I honorable Mark Filip (Melee O1 the Deputy Attorney General I jailed Staes Department ice t)5() reansybmnia Avenue. N.W. Washingten. 7.053() l). %little% A team Bird I.LP .-maa, NW ‘c..,•hiacson. t ....V-7;n•I i low ..14. COM.' I IMAtti F. Dear lady.: This later briefly supplements our prior submission to you dated May I 9. 2008. In That co0 munication. we ine0lly requested that your (Mice c loci an independent review of the ProPosed federal presemItinn of our client. Jefficy Nistein. The dual reasons (Mr request that yau review this mailer arc III the bedrock need kir integrity in the enli.rceinem of criminal laws. and in) the profound questions raked by the unprecedented a:sit:mann ..r tederai taw by the lathed States Attorney's Ofticc in Miumi ;he "I ESAO- 1 to a premment public lititurc %Au, leis close ties thriller President Clinton. 'the need for review is III all the more exigent. On Mominy. MT: 10. 2008. lost Assistant Jeffrey Sloinan or the litiAO responded to an email from la; f.cllamiht. iulitrming Attorney Alex Acosta that we would be secking lair Offices review. Mr. Sloinan.:: letter. which imposed a deadline of June 2. 2008 to comply with all the terms of the ‘uncut Non- PrOgceinion Agreement (the - Agreement.). plc% new unilateral modi0crunls, on pain O1' being deemed in breach of ghat Agreement. appears to have been deliberately designed to deprive as or an adequate opportunity II, seek your Offices review iu this minter. lice LISAO's desire to etveclose :t Complete review is tmclersiamtible. yivew than the Child Fsploitation and Obscenity Section ("CLOS- ) has already determined dun our !:tilistain:ve arguments regarding why a lederal prosecution of Mr. bpsicin is not warranted were - compelling.- I however. in contoidiclion to Mr. 51nm:in's acsertion that CLOS had provided an independent. Jr 1111111 reVICW. CEOS made clear that it did not do so. indeed. est.:C.)5 declined to es:Amine several of the more troubling aspects ne dic investigation of Mr. Lipstein. in,:ladiar the deliberate kick to the 1V,',r York Times of numennts highly contidemial aspects u' Ilse inn:Sligatitin Iler.011:111011:: heitcec,, Ihe panics as well as ane leceni crap il l end lzwisolh: fl ied Frettein by Mr. SIornan' s limner law partner. The •cessary and arbitrarily imposed deadline set by the I )SAO was done without any respect tor (he ourinnl • J and scheduling of suite judicial limiters. It require: that Mr. Epstria's counsel persuade the State Attorney of Palm f3each to issue a criminal Main-tit:awn EFTA00175951 96,cortt YON FAaX 530 6440 6.4,-S.:2606 1? It.: Alt • . EXECUTIVE OFFICE LIVJ/UVAG 0003 141004/01.3 W.1:≥ Ifiv.i I lonorable Mark Filip Vitt 27. 200s I age to a charge that the State Attorney has not. despite a tam, year invesiiewiam. del:rimmed to be. llinwuPriale. Elk:kiln counsel must also successfully expedite a plea of to this charge on a date prior in July S. 200N. which is the dim: presently set hy the state court Judge. Further. the unnecessary deadline is even more problematic hccause Mr. I:r5feill•5 effort ta reconcile the state charge auul sentence with the terms of the Agreement re:guiles an unusual and unprecedented threatened application of federal law. Thus. it places Mr Epstein m the einumal position of baying to deinand that the tutu acquiesce to a more se% e punishment than it kid already determined war appropriate. \Ve have attempted to resolve these and other issues throtigh the t'ti:\( and CEOS, Me(edMg raising our wise:erns about the IfSAC's inappropriate conduct will: respect to this matter. nut thew aVellUCti have now been shut down. tvIr. Sheinan'c linter pUrrinITS to prohibit any further contact between Mr. F.restein's defense warn and :.S. Attorney Acosta. and instead requires us to communicate .vith the USA() only though Mr. Muntan's subordinates. While it pains us to say this, this misguided pueseention nionu the outset tals s the appearance tirt b may have been Feline-ally motivated Mr. Epsteio is :e highly stn.:we:ltd. self• made businessman and nhitinthropist who entered the public ar.rnit on inne of hk claw personal asseciation with former President Bill Clinton. There is link doubt m u::r minds that the USA() never would have contemplated a prosecution in this ease it' Mr. Epstein tror: jos; menher "John." I. Attorney Acosta previously has mated that he is - sympathetic- to our federalism. related concerns. but he has taken the position that his authority is lintitial by enforcement pelICICX gel ibrib hi Washington. I ).C'. As expresser! in our prior communicatinn tea you. we believe that a complete and independent appraisal and resolution or this case most appropriately would he undertaken by your Office beginning with the rescission of the arbitrary. unEair, and imprceedented deadline that Mr. Sluman demands to have imposed in this enur. Alt die yery least. klit: would appreciate a Wiling of ihe arbitrary timeline imposed on our client by the I SAO in order In allow time for your office itu consider sitt tvimest that vit: undertake a rna lei of this case. .111211.1k ylal for your time rind attention. It:spanfully submitted. P Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & I.LP --.1trosehlinedg, Joes I) Almon 4: Bird EFTA00175952 06/02/08 MON 14:59 FAX 305 530 6440 tin/VIIZQUIS UU: 06 FAX 202O61239 ;di WIN 13:21 FAN I 21:1 Gthi ts 500 EXECUTIVE OFFICE D0.I/0DAG tit rdiuND&ELLi S litj004 0o5/s13 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 00017 Phone. (213) 680-9400 Fax: (213) 680-8500 Please notify us immediately U any pages are not received. sb? e_ciej 71/4 es THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN Tills COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL. MAY BE. ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION. AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE UNAUTHORIZED USE. DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: (213) 680-8400. To: Company: Fax Direct ft: Office of the Deputy Attorney Gene Honorable Mark Filip United States Department oflusiiccral (202) 514-0467 (302) 514-?10 From: Date: Pages witoylv: Fax Direct #: KcAncch W. Stan- May 19, 2008 9 (213) 680.8500 (213) 680-8440 Message' EFTA00175953 00/02/08 NON 14:59 FAX 305 530 0440 Hamicutan vv:uf nu. zuZamil2a8 of.. I /1 •ilti MD?' 13:22 FAX I 213 RAO 8.51)0 EXECUTIVE OFFICE DO.T/ODAt; 1.1.1* R005 141106/013 LCnnc Kenneth W Starr Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Fisneroa Street Los Angeles: CA _90017-5800 Phone: 2s3-680-8440 Pax: 213-680-8500 kstarnakirkland.com VIA FACSIMILE (2021 _14-0467 Honorable Mait Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NAV. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Judge Finite May 19. 2008 Joe D. Whitley Alston & Bird LI.P The Atlantic Building 950 I" Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1404 Ph: 202-756-3189 Fax: 202-654.4889 joe.Whilleygraiston.com CONFIDENTIAL In his confirmation hearings last fall, Judge Mukasey admirably lifted up the finest uaditions of the Department of Justice in assuring the United States Senate, and the American people, of his solemn intent to ensure fairness and integrity in the administration of justice. Your own confirmation hearings echoed that bedrock determination to assure that the Department conduct itself with honor and integrity. especially in the enforcement of federal criminal iaw. We come to you in that spirit and respectfully ask for a review of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we are well aware of the tare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we are confident that the circumstances at issue %valiant such an examination. Based on our collective experiences, as well n those of other former senior Justice Department officials whose advice we have sought, we have never before seen a case more appropriate for oversight and review. Thus, while neither of us has previously made such a request. we do so now in the recognition that both the Department's reputation. as well as the due process rights of our client, are at issue. Recently, the Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter ai the request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review deiiberately excluded many important aspects of this case. Just this past Friday, on May 16, 2008, we received a letter from the head of CEOS informing us that CF.OS had conducted a review of this case. By its own admission, the CEOS review was "limited, both factually and legally." Part of the self-imposed limitation was CEOS's abstention from addressing our "allegations of professional misconduct by federal prosecutorr•—even though such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office in Miami ("USAO"). Moreover: CEOS did not assess the terms of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement now in effect, nor did CEOS reviet the federal prosecutors' inappropriate efforts to implement those terms. We detail this point be ow. EFTA00175954 ,Avsys itaN,A5A0, FAX 305 530 6440 DUJellU EXECUTIVE OFFICE AG ,05- 19.ph MON 13:22 FAX 1 213 Win 8500 KINELAND&CLL111 LIP . . , VI006 10007/0;3 Honorable Murk Rip May 19. 2008 Page 2 By way of background. we were informed by Mr. Acosta that, at his request, CEOS would be conducting a review to determine whether federal prosecution was both appropriate and, in his words. "fair$ That is not what occurred. Instead, CEOS has now acknowledged that we had raised "many compelling arguments" against the USAO's suggested "novel application" of federal law in this matter. Even so. CEOS concluded. in minimalist fashion. that "we do not see anything that says to us categorically that a federal case should not be brought" and that the U.S. Anoint) "would not he abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein" thus delegating back to Mr. Acosta the decision of whether federal prosecution was warranted (emphasis added). Rather than assessing whether prosecution would be appropriate, CEOS. using a low baseline for its evaluation, determined only that "it would not be impossible to prove . . ." certain allegations made against Mr. Epstein. The CEOS review failed to address the significant problems involving the appearance of impermissible selectivity that would necessarily result from a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. We respect CEOS's conclusion that its authority to review -misconduct" issues was preluded by Criminal Division practice. We further respect CF.OS's view that it understood its mission as significantly limited. Specifically, the contemplated objective was to determine whether the USAO would he abusing its discretion by bringing a federal prosecution rather than making its own de novo recommendations on the appropriate reach of federal law. However, we respectfully submit that a full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the Justice Department. In an effort to inform you of the nature of the federal investigation against Mr. Epstein, we summarize the aims and circumstances of this matter below. The two bast-level concerns we hold arc that (1) federal prosecution of this matter is not warranted based on the purely-local conduct and the unprecedented application of federal statutes to facts such as these and (2) the actions of federal authorities are both highly questionable and give rise to ern appearance of substantial impropriety. The issues that we have raised, but which have not yet been addressed or resolved by the Department, are more than isolated allegations of professional mistakes or misconduct. These issues, instead, affect the appearance and administration of criminal justice with profound consequences beyond the resolution in the matter at hand. 4 • In a precedenr-shattering investigation of Jeffrey Epstein that raises important policy questions—and serious issues as to the fair and honorable enforcement of federal law—the USAO in Miami is considering extending federal law beyond the bounds of precedent and reason. Federal prosecutors stretched the underlying facts in ways that raise fundamental questions of basic professionalism. Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition of deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in EFTA00175955 06/02/08 MON 16:00 FAX 305 530 6440 05/28/2008 09:08 PAX 2026181239 t0:0$ NO\ 13:23 FAX I 213 One 8890 EXECUTIVE OFFICE DOJ/ODAC Ill Ithl.AND&EIA.15 0007 4n008/013 fuua Honorable Mark Fe ip May 19, 2008 Page 3 private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved. Pederal prosecutors then leaked highly sensitive information about the case. to a New York Times reporter.' The immediate result of this confluence or extraordinary circumstances is an onslaught of (evil lawsuits, all save one brought by the First Assistant's former boutique law firm in Miami. The facts in this case all revolve around the elaseic state crime of solicitation of prostinition.2 The State Attorney's Office in Palm Beach County had conducted a diligent investigation, convened a Grand buy that returned an indictment, and made a final determination about how to proceed. Thai is where, in our federal republic, this matter should rest. Mr. Epstein faces a felony conviction in state court by virtue of his conduct, and the only reason the Stale has not resolved rhis matter is that the federal prosecutors in Miami have continued to insist that we, Mr. Epstein's counsel, approach and demand from the State Attorney's Office a harsher charge and a more severe punishment than that Office believes are appropriate under• the eiectunsumees. Yet despite the USAO's refusal to allow the State to resolve this matter on the terrnS the Stare has determined are appropriate, the USAO has not made any at to coordinate its etTorts with the State. in fact, the USAO mandated that any federal agreement would he conditioned on Mr. Epstein persuading the State to seek a criminal punishment unlike that imposed on other defendants within rho jurisdiction of the State Attorney for similar cunduct. Frnm the inception of the USAO's involvement in this case, which at the end of the day is a case about solicitation of prostitution within the confines of Palm Beach County, Florida, we have asked ourselves why the Department of Justice is involved. Regrettably, we are unable to suggest any appropriate basis for the Department's involvement. Mr. Epstein has no criminal history whatsoever. Also. Mr. Epstein has never been the subject of general media interest until a few years ago, after it was widely perceived by the public that he was a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. The conduct at issue is simply not within the purview of federal jurisdiction and lies outside the heartland of the three federal statutes that have been identified by prosecurors-18 U.S.C. e 1591. 2422(b), and 2423(h). Onu of the other members of Mr. Epstein's defense team, lay Letkowitz, has personally reviewed the reporter's contemporaneoua notes. Although some of the women alleged to be involved were 16 and 17 years of age, several of these women openly admitted to lying to Mr. Epstein about their 328 in their recent swan statements. EFTA00175956 06/02/08 WON 15:01 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 05/28/2008 00:0A FAX 2020161239 DOJ/ODAG U. 111 . 11h . M0N 13:23 FAN 1 213 630 8600 Kl itt(1_,O316F1.1.15 I.1.1` elm iii009/013 40005 Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 4 These statutes arc intended to target crimes of a truly national and international scope. Specifically, * 1591 was enacted to combat human trafficking, § 2422 is aimed at sexual predation of minors through the Internet, and § 2423 deals with sex tourism. The nature of these crimes results in multi-jurisdictional problems that state and local authorities cannot effectively confront on their own. However, Mr. Epstein's conduct was purely local in nature and, thus. does not implicate federal involvement, After researching every reported case brought under I R U.S.C. jt; 1591, 2422(b), and 2423(b), we found that not a single case involves facts or a scenario similar to the situation at hand. Our review of each precedent reflects that there have been no reported prosecutions under § 1391 of a 'john' whose conduct with a minor lacked force, coercion. or fraud and who was not profiting from commercial sexual trafficking. There have likewise been no cases under § 2422(b)-a crime of communication—where there was no use of the Internet, and where the content of phone communications did not contain any inducing or enticing of a minor to have illegal sexual activity as expressly required by the language of the statute. Purtherrnore, the Government's contention that "routine and habit" can fill the factual and legal void created by the lack of evidence that Such a communication ever occurred sets this case apart from every reported case brought under § 2422(6). Lastly, there arc no reported cases of violations of § 2423(b) of a person whose dominant purpose in traveling was merely to go to his own home.' Although these matters were within the scope of the CEOS review, rather than considering whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOS only determined that Attorney Acosta "would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution" iu this case. The "abuse of discretion" standard constitutes an extremely low bar of evaluation and while it may be appropriate when the consideration of issues are exclusively factual in nature, this standard fails to address concerns particular to ihis situation, namely the "novel application" of federal statutes. The "abuse of discretion" standard in such pure legal matters of statutory application risks causing a lack of unifortnity. The same federal statutes that would be stretched beyond their bounds in Miami have been limited to their heartland in each of the other federal districts. Also, because this case implicates broader issues of the administration of equal justice, federal prosecution in this matter risks the appearance of selectivity in its stretching of federal law to fit these facts. rcderal prosecution of a man who engaged In centennial conduct in his home that amounted to. at moss, the ,elicitation of prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a state concern. (rye Unita Shawl. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, c.1 (11th Cir. 2007) (federal law -does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)")). and them is ito evidence that Palm Beach County authorities and Florida prosecutors cannot effectively prosecute and punish the conduct. there is no reason why this manes should be extracted from the hands of slate prosecutors in Florida. EFTA00175957 06/02/08 MON 15:01 FAX 305 530 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE elm/zoos 011:09 VAX 202616L230 DOVOLIAC .n5 ;11 UK MON 13:24 FAX I 213 680 8300 K I ITELANDSEELLIS I.LI' 118 009 16010/013 Zo um; Honorable Mark Filip May 19.2008 Page 5 in fact, recent testimony of several alleged "victims" contradicts claims made by federal prosecutors during the negotiations of a deterred prosecution a reement. The consistent re resentations of key Government witnesses (such as Tatum Brittany i- and Jennifer is confirm the following critical points: First, there was no communication, telephonic or otherwise, that meets the requirements of § 2422(b). For instance. Nis.ilialconfirmed that Mr. Epstein never availed, text-messaged, or used any facility of interstate commerce whatsoever. before or after her one (and only) visit to his home. Gonzalez Tr. (deposition) at 30. Second, the women who testified admitted that they lied to Mr. Epstein about their age in order to gain admittance into his home. Indeed, the women who brought their underage friends to Mr. E stein testified that they would counsel their friends to lie about their ages as well. Ms. stated the following: 1 would tell my girlfriends just like approached inc. NO sure you tell him you're. 18. Well, these girls that I brought, I know t at they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that i didn't know and I don't know if they were lying or not, 1 would say make sure that you tell him you're 18." al Tr. at 22. Third, there was no routine or habit of improper communication expressing an intent to transforin a massage into an ille al sexual act. In fact, there was often no sexual activity at all during the massage. Ms. testified that "IsJometimes Mr. Epstein) just wanted his feet massaged. Sometimes he just wanted a back massage." Tr. at 19. also stated that Mr. Epstein "nevertouched ,her) physically" and t t all she di was "massage J his back. his chest and his thighs and that was it." Tr. at 12-13. Finally, there was no force, coercion, fraud, violence, dru• s or even alco to present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with these women. Ms. stated that "(Mr. Epstein) never tried to force me to do anything." Beak Tr. A at 12. These accounts arc far from the usual testimony in sex slavery, Internet slings and sex tourism cases previously brought. The women in actuality were not younger than 16, which is the age of consent in most of the 50 states, and the sex activity was irregular and in large part. consisted of solo self-pleasuring. The recent crop of civil suits brought against Mr. Epstein confirm that the plaintiffs did not discuss any sexually-related activities with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's residence. Tis reinforces ow contention that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a minor, or of any other individual, occurred. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey Herman. the former law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the attorney for most of the civil complainants (as described in detail below), was quoted in the Palm Beach Post as saying that "it doesn't matter" that his clients lied about their ages and told Mr. Epstein that they were 18 or 19. Not only is a federal prosecution of this matter unwarranted, but the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the deferred prosecution agreement are beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a.prosecutor's responsibilities. The list of improprieties includes, but is not limited to, the following facts: EFTA00175958 06/02/08 NON 15:02 FAX 305 330 6440 05/25/2008 00:10 FAX 2026361230 its: 151* OS MON I it: t5 FAX I 1:12 000 6500 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 003/00A; K1RKLANDAELLTS ILP X010 Z011/013 16007 Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 6 • Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Mr. Epstein pay al minimum of $150,000 per person to an unnamed list of women they referred to as minors and whom they insisted required representation by a guardian ad them. Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these individuals were actually adults, not minors. Even then, though demanding payment to the women, Ow USAO eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of an} of the claims that these women might make. • Federal prosecutors made the highly unusual demand that Mr. Epstein pay the fees of a civil attorney chosen by the prosecutors to represent these alleged 'victims" should they choose to bring any civil litigation against him. They also proposed sending a notice to the alleged "victims," stating, in an underlined sentence, tha: should they choose their own attorney, Mr. Epstein would nor be required to pay their fees. The prosecutors further demanded that Mr. Epstein waive his right to challenge any of the allegations made by these "victims." • The Assistant U.S. Attorney involved in this matter recommended for the civil attorney, a highly lucrative position, an individual that we later discovered was closely and personally connected to the Assistant. U.S. Attorney's own boyfriend. • Federal prosecutors represented to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they had identified (and later rechecked and re-identified) several alleged "victims" of federal crimes that qualified for payment under I S U.S.G. § 2255, a civil remedy designed to provide financial benefits TO victims. Only through state discovery provisions did we later learn that many of the women on the rechecked "victim list" could not possibly qualify under § 2255. The reason is that they, themselves, testified that they did not suffer any type of harm whatsoever, a prerequisite for the civil recovery under § 2255. Moreover, these women stated that they did not, now or in the past, consider themselves to be victims. • During the last few months, Mr. Herman, First Assistant Slornan's former Jaw partner, has filed several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged "victims." It 'is our understanding that each of Mr. Herman's clients are on the EFTA00175959 06/02/08 NON 15:02 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE ...... . as. tit •n8 vim 13:25 PAX I 213 080 85110 1.12 lit 011 igatziat 3 to uS Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 7 Government's confidential "list of victims." Most of these lawsuits seek S50 million in money damages.' • Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein spoke about the ease in great detail to Landon Thomas, a reporter with the New York Times, and revealed confidential information about the Government's allegations against Mr. Epstein. The Assistant U.S. Attorney also revealed the substance of confidential plea negotiations. • When counsel for Mr. Epstein complained about the media leaks, First Assistant Stamen responded by asserting that "Mr. Thomas was given, pursuant to his request, non-ease specific information concerning specific federal statutes." Based on Mr. Thomas' contemporaneous notes, that assertion appears to be false. For example. Mr. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that federal authorities believed that Mr. Epstein had lured girls over the telephone and traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in underage sex. He recounted to Mr. Thomas the USAO's theory of prosecution against Mr. Epstein. replete with an analysis of the key statutes being considered. Furthermore, after Mr. Epstein's defense ream complained about the leak ro the 1.:SAO, Mr. Weinstein, in Mr. Thuma.s. own description, then admonished him for talking to the defense, and getting him in trouble. Mr. Weinstein further told him not to believe the "spin" of Mr. Epstein's "high-priced attorneys," and then, according to Mr. Thomas. Mr. Weinstein forcefully "reminded" Mr. Thomas' that all prior conversations were mend) hypothetical. We are constrained to conclude that the actions of federal officials in this case strike at the heart of one of the vitally important, enduring values in this country: the honest enforcement of federal law, free of political considerations and free of the taint of personal financial motivations on the part of federal prosecutors that, at a minimum, raise the appearance of serious impropriety. We were told by U.S. Attorney Acosta that as part of the review he requested, the Department had the authority, and his consent, to make any determination it deemed appropriate regarding this matter, including a decision to decline federal prosecution. Yet, CEOS's only conclusion, based on its limited review of the investigation, is that U.S. Attorney Acosta would not abuse his discretion by proceeding against Mr. Epstein. Thus, the decision of whether 4 As recently as two months ago, Mr. Sicilian was still listed publicly us van of his former law Sinn. While we aflame this was an oversight, Mr. steman's identification as part I f the firm mists the um:taro:Ice of impropriety EFTA00175960 Ae/opqs.. YON_15;0J FR_Qois529, 6440 •til • IN 'US ALIN L3:26 FAX I 213 IlSO H500 EXECUTIVE OFFICE oo.ifoonG K IRK IAND&I,I.LIS 41012 0o13/0I3 _10(19 Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 8 prosecution is fair and appropriate has been placed, once again, in U.S. Attorney Acosta's hands, In light of the foregoing, we respectfully ask that you review this matter and discontinue all federal involvement so that the State can appropriately bring this matter to closure. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these important issues. Such a meeting would provide the Department with an opportunity to review the paramount issues of federalism and the appearance of selectivity that are generated by the unprecedented attempts to broaden the ambit of federal statutes to places that they have never before reached. we sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis LLP c; Joe D. Whitley Alston & Bird LI, EFTA00175961