EFTA00178938.pdf

DUZ uI.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida A ALEXAXDER ACOSTA MITE. OATES .4ITORNel atIV.WL.Y.BY Lilly Ann Sanchez Fowler White Burnett, PA 1395 Brickell Ave, 14th Floor - Miaani.1-'1. 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein . Dear Ms. Sanchez: Yto t: a.w Cali Mmwit. Oar1961'.91rq.firkpispar 104310 Inessairie DiXember 19, 2007 1 write to follow up on the Decemberl4th meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors. as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' I write to you because I am not certain who among the defense leant is the appropriate recipient of this letter. I address issues raised by several members of the defense team, and would thus ask Butt you please provide a copy of this letter to all appropriate defense team members. First, I would like to address the Section 2255 issue.: As I stated in my December 4th letter, my understanding is Hun the Noriffrosectition Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. F.pstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and lederateriminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections - - - - - - - - I Ova the past two weeks. we have received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits from defense COUI1WI. This is not the fumm to respond to the several items raised, and our silence should not be interpret as agreement. I would, however, like to address one Lssue. Your December IIe letter slates dial as a result of tkfense counsel objections to the appointment proem; die USA() proposed an addendum to the Agreement to provide for the OSI: of an independent third Irony selector. As I recall this matter. before I had any knowledge of defense cownµl objections. I sun sponse proposed the Addenditin to Mr. t.CIROWin at an October meeting in Paho Beath, I did rhos in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process. It was only after I pioposed this change dial Mr. LeOcowitr. raised with me his enumerated concerns. r Section 2255 provides iliac "(airy person who. while a minor, was a victim of a violation of len ttttt crated sections of Tide I RI arid who suffers personal injury as a tomato( such violation . may suc iet :my appooptime (toned States Disirkt Court and shall recover the actual damages sochupersou sustains and the cost of the init. Inc hohm-2. a reasonable anewney's fee." EFTA00178938 •• • (La. •.• •.• UV , / VVVV / • E. torr UUJ of Title IX in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mt. Epstein sang-its three general federal interests: ( I ) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable state offense. (2) that this suite pica include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonn tei it: and i it that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims With this in mind. I have considered defense counsel arguments regarding the Sect tttt 21>5 portions of the Agreement. As I previously observed, our intent has beet. to place the Vieliffis 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 cl the course of negotiations that intent was reduced to writing in Paragraphs 7 and 8, which as I 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, in a simple fashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 and II with the following language: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title IX, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had. if Mr. Epstein beets 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 m an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary hoidens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the panics to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Second, I would like readdress the issue of victim's rights pursuant to Section 3771 I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of lime and place of Mr Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. I have 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. In addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that Section 1771 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 stale proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes. Third, I would like to address the issue raised regarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At our meeting, ProfessorDershowitz took tbe position that Mr. Epstein believes that Isis conduct does not satisfy the elements of t his offense. His assertion raises for me substantial concerns. 'Ibis 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. EFTA00178939 ...f• •.• •.Y•••••• • • • Ss VI.4 ta. . Finally. I would like t() address a more general point. Our AgfCCITICIII was first signed on September :•'.4*. 2007. Pursuant to paragraph I I, Mr. Epstein was to use bus best effims to enter his guilty pica and be sentenced no later than October 26.2007. As outlined in correspondence between our prosecutors and defense counsel. this deadline came and went. Our prosecutors reiterated to defense counsel several times their concerns regarding delays, and in fact. asked me several weeks ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. I resisted that invitation. I share this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an 1 Is hour appeal, weeks before the now scheduled January 4* plea dale. This said, the issues raised arc important and must he fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns. We hope to preserve the January 4* date. I understand that defense counsel shares our desire not to move that appearance and will work with our office to expedite this process over the next 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 put Monday with the Assistant Attorney General Fisher, to inform her o f a possible appeal, to ask her to grant the potential request for review, and to in fact review this case in an expedited mariner to attempt to preserve the January 46 pica date. wan to again reiterate that it is, not the intention of this Office ever to knee the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. 'and he should do so if he believes that he did not commit the elements of the charged olfensc. I will respond to the pending issues 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. R. ALEXANDER Acosyn UNITED STATES ATTORNEY cc: Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General First Assistant O.S. Attorney AUSA EFTA00178940 4.064••• V • • y. v.ra'.o MN Vile Atf-tePney ACO$TA ILVIcAD.STATLS DELLYI..ija Fn IMILE Lilly Ann Sanchez Fowler Whim Burnett, PA 1395 Brickell Ave, 14th Floor Miami, Ft 33131 11.S. Department ofJustice United SISSIES A IWIlley Southern District of Florida Re: Jeffretfatn Dear Ms. Sanchez: Yu f: Left.. Mail. FL nit' ',Oil 96/ 91124 telephone pen i 1O.6s is Inesmok December 1% 2007 I write to follow up on the December14th meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors. as well as nur First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' I write to you because I am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this letter. I address issues raised 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, I would like to address the Section 2255 issue.' As I stated in niy December 4th letter, my understanding is that the Non.Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epatein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and fedenti criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to daft prosecution for enumerated sections I Over the past two weeks. we have vazeived several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits from defense counsel. This is not the Comm to respond to the several items raised, and our silence should not be interpret as agreeritent. I would, however, like to address one issue. Yow December Il e' letter manes that as a result of defense counsel oblations to the appointment process, the USA() proposed an addendum 10 the Agreement to provide for the ose of an independent third party selector. As I recall this matter. before I had any knowledge of defense counsel objections. I Sun sponse proposed the Addcndtun to Mr. lelkowitZ at air October mating nr Palm Beach. I did rhos in an anempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process. It was only after I proposed this change that Mr. Lebowitz. raised with me his enumerated concerns. 2 Section 2251 provides that "fa thy person who. white a minor, was a victim oi a violation of le -rated sections of Talc I RI and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation . may one in any appropriate tinned Stales DIsukt Court and !Alan recover the *coral damages such person sustains and the cost of the soli. inclwbor, a reasonable anorney's fee." EFTA00178941 ens,' Aweaw ina UM'. GAZA#V&I'L uresi.C. of Title 18 in favor of prnseculion by the State of Florida, provided that the Mt. Epstein satiAes three general federal interests: ( I ) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable- state offense. that this state plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment: and ( ; that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims With this in mind, I have considered defense counsel arguments regarding the Section .?2)5 portions of the Agreement. As I previously observed, our intent has been to place die 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 &dense agrees that this teas the intent burins the course of negotiations that intent was reduced to writing in Paragraphs 7 and 8, which as I 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, in a simple fashion. I would replace Paraeraphs 7 and 8 with the following language: "Any person:who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed tinder 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 awes 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 whichevidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the panics to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Second, I would like to address the issue of victim's rights pursuant to Section 377 I I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place of Mr Epstein's state court sentencinglicit-Mg. I have reviewed the proposed victim stratification letter and the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense as a courtesy. In addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Montan already incorporated in the letter several edits thin had been requested by defense counsel. I agree dial Section 1771 applies to notice .of proceedings antiresults of inVestigations of federal crimes asWici0.4 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 if he wishes. Third, I would like to address the issue raised regarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At our meeting, Professor Dershowitz took the position that Mr. Epstein believes that his conduct does not satisfy the elements of this offense. Ills assertion raises for me substantial concerns. This office will not, and cannot, be a pany to an agreement in which Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to an offense that he believes he did not commit. We arc considering how hest to proceed. 2 EFTA00178942 Sr ass.. •.• • • • •,.. us' • •• Co Finally. I would like to address a more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on September 24*. 2007. Pursuant to paragraph I I, Mr. Epstein was in use his best ellons to enter his guilty plea and he sentenced no later than October 26. 2007. As Outlined in correspondence between our prosecutors and defense counsel. this deadline came and went o m prosecutors reiterated to defense counsel several times their concerns regarding delays, and in fact. asked me several weeks ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. I resisted that invitation. I share this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an Il e hour appeal, was before the now scheduled January 4th plea date. This said, the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns. We hope to preserve the January 4th date. I understand that &Rise counsel shares our desire not to move Mai appearance and will work with our office to expedite this process over the next several days. With this in mind, and in the event that defense counsel new wish to seek review of our determinations in Washington D.CI, 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 casein an expedited manner to attempt to preserve the January 46 plea date. I want to again reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement agaiaSthis wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. he shoukl do so if he believes that he did not commit the elements of the charged offense. I will respond to the pending issues shortly. In the interim, I would ask that you communicate your position with respect to the sections 2255 and 3371 estates as quickly as possible. Sincerely. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATFS ArfoRNEY cc: Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General First Assistant U.S. Attorney A(JSA EFTA00178943 ....aaay.it • a. • aa tat a' a, 11.S. Department of Justice United Sides Atturncy Southern District of Florida It ALEXANDI:It ACO$7.1 MONO Vali Dat/Liig.13Y Lilly Ann Sanchez Fowler White Burnett, PA 1395 Brickcll Ace. 14th Floor Miami. Fl. 33131 Re: Jeffiettat sstin Dear Ms. Sanchez: V f,:b: Lino.. Mani, Irt. I11;: nail 96! 9100 fekigwane O0.4 i 104111 Vocuentle December 19, 2007 I write to follow up on the December 14 a' meeting between defense counsel and the F.pstein prosecutors. as well as nur First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' write to you because I am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient alibis letter. I address issues raised 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, I would like to address the Section 2255 issue! As I slated in my December 4' letter, my understanding is that the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstain's desire to reach a global resolution o f his state and; lidera1 criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for entontrated sections •—• • ' Over the past two weeks. we have received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits from defense counsel. This is not the Comm to respond to the several items raised, and our silence should not be interpret as agreement. I would, however, like to address one issue. Your December letter slates that as a result or dercnst COW/Se' objections to the appointment proems, the USAO proposed an addendum to the Agreement to provide for the use of art independent third party selector. As I recall this mutter, before I had any knowledge of &raise counsel objections. I sun sponse proposed the Addendum 10 Mr. I.elkOwitz at :III October nutting iii Palm Beach I did tors in an anempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection proceSt. It was only after I proposed this change that Mr. Lefkowiir raised with me his enumerated concerns. 'Section 225S provides dot "paltry person who, while a minor, was a victim al a violation of 'enumerated sections of Tale I RI and who others personal injury aS a result of sue,/ violation navy sue in any avvinpriale tinned States fAsorki Cowl turd shall recover the actual damages suctiperson sustains and the cosy of der. Wit 111CIULIIIIr. reasonable annmey's EFTA00178944 by ••• ••••• sia,• • • ..•••• OA dela VW0 VV. V.VIJ MALMAAJA&VC Vrfl4t. Melia •r, 01"fitle IR in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: ( I) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable- state offense.12) that this state pica include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonmei if :anti ( 3) that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims With this in mind, I have considered defense counsel arguments regarding the Sec 12:,5 portions of the Agreement. As I previously observed, our intent has been to place the victims iu the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein beenconvicted al trial No more: on less. F 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 I 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, in a simple fashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 and 8 with the following language: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United Stales 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 panics to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Second, I would like to address the issue 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 Epstein's state coon sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notilication luta and the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense as a courtesy. In addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requi ted by defense counsel. I agree that Section ≥771 applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigations of federal crimes as 0040 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 necessaty to do so if he wishes. Third, I would like to address the issue raised regarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At our meeting, PmfessorDershowitz took the position that Mr. Epstein believes that his conduct does not satisfy the elements of this offense. His assertion raises for me substantial concerns. 'I fix OlYrei will not, and cannot, be a party to an agreement in which Mr. Epstein pleads Lai by to an offense that he believes he did not commit. We are considering how best to proceed. 2 EFTA00178945 a.Y.••V a • • a: %PA' VA in.% Finally. I would like to address a more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on September 24th, 2007. Pursuant to paragraph I I, Mr. Epstein was to use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and he sentenced no later than October 26. 2007. As outlined in correspondence between our prosecutors and defense counsel, this deadline came and went. Our prosecutors reiterated to defense an inset several times their concerns regarding delays, and in fact. asked me several weeks ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. I resisted that invitation. I share this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an 11°' hour appeal, weeks before the now scheduled January 4th plea dale. This slid, the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of titnclittess concerns. We hope to preserve the January 4" date. I understand that defense counsel shares our desire not to move that appearance and wilt work with our office to expedite this process over the next several days. With this in mind, and in the event that defense counsel new 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 January 4th plea date. I want to again reiterate that it is. not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant in enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. • and he should do so if he believes.that he did not commit the elements of die charged offense. I will respond to the pending issues 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. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTOkNEY cc: Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General First Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00178946 • • y.. yr r &MG en Litt a U.S. Department of Justice United Stotts Attorney Southern District of Florida ALEXAVIM11 ACOSTA avtreogrAras .4117MNfl p_Eto v. ti Y.13X FACSIMILE Lilly Ann Sanchez. Fowler White Burnett, PA 1395 Brickell Ave, le Floor • Miami. Fl. 33131 Re: le fficyfrstein Dear Ms. Sanchez: 99 S Sir C41 Mans. FE NIP 001961.9W folipanne 003, i Inetaindt December 19, 2007 I write to follow up on the December le' meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors. as well as Our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' write to you because I am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this letter. I address issues raised 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, I would like to address the Section 2255 issue.: As I slated in my December 411' lenet, my understanding is that the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and fe.deral criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District. has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections ' Over the past two weeks. we have received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits front defense counsel. This is not the foam to respond to the several items raised, and our silence should not be interpret as agreement. I would, however, like to address one issue. Your l)ccember I te letter states that as a result or defense counsel objections to the appointment process, the OSA() proposed an addendum to the Agteement to provide for the use of an independent third party selector. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowledge of defense counsel 0njeclionS. I sue' Vora, proposed the Addendum to Mr. I.clkowitz at an October Meeting in palm Beath. I did dos in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection peoceSs. It was only after I ptoposcd this change that Mr. Lefkowitz raised with nie his enumerated conceals. 2 Seethe' 22M provides that: "rainy person who. while a minor, was a victim of a violation of le:numerated sections of tole i R1 and who suffers personal injury as a iesult dutch violation. may sue in any appropriate (limed States DiSinei Catlin and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cosi of the suit. including a reasonable attorney's fee- EFTA00178947 se..., Av..... on, w...• ovu yrs./ WICArt#AA/IL Uell4C . r" of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (I ) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable" stale offense. (2) that this state plea include a binding recommendation fora sufficient term of imprisomneia: and ( ; that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims With this in mind, I have considered defense counsel arguments regaiding the Section :U:15 portions of the Agreement. As I previously observed, our intent has been m 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, ii 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 I 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, in a simple fashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 and 8 with the following language: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a 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 bad, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph. the United State 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 ponies to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Second, I would like to address the issue 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 Epstein's state court sentencing licit-Mg. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification Iona and the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense as a courtesy. In addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Slontan already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree 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 if he wishes. Third, I would like to address the issue raised regarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At our meeting, Professor Dershowiet took the position that Mr. Epstein believes that his conduct does not satisfy the elements of this offense. 1•lis assertion raises for me substantial concerns. Ibis (Mice 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. 2 EFTA00178948 Issaa , efa Ilia •Jv r aV6 6 0 UV, Finally, I would like to address a more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on September 2l'h. 2007. Pursuant to paragraph I I , Mr. Epstein was to use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and he sentenced no later than October 26.2007. As outlined in correspondence between our prosecutors and defense counsel. this deadline came and went. Our prosecutors reiterated to defense counsel several times their concerns regarding delays, and in fact. asked me several weeks ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. I resisted that invitation. I share this (act because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an I hour appal, weeks before the now scheduled January Lls plea date. This said, the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective. of timeliness COMM& We hope to preserve the January 4". date. I understand that defense counsel shares our desire not to move that appearance and will work with our officc to expedite this process over the next several days. With this in mind, and in the event that defense counsel any wish to seek review of our determinations in Washington U.C., I spoke this past Monday with the Assistant Attorney General Fisher, to inform her ofa 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 January 44 plea date. I want to again 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. and he should do so if he believes that he did not commit the elements of the charged offense. I will respond to the pending issues 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. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY cc: Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General First Assistant U.S. Attorney AUSA EFTA00178949 ii,.41.••••••• a • As VW I' • ...sC• town U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida R ALEXANDER ACOSTA IMIRtfoRTATUATiflatiel a:LAVERY BY FACSIMILE Lilly Ann Sanchez. Fowler White Burnett, PA 1395 Mickel Ave, 14th Moor Miami. Fl. 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. Sanchez: RR 'Sure. Amu Y1. Il t is 961 RIM telephone (10)ft ‘10-6114 Trecustic December 19, 2007 I write to follow up on the December lel meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors. as well as our First Assistant, tlx: Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' I write to you because lain not certain who antong the defense team is the appmpriate recipient of this letter. I addre.ss issues raised 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, I would like to address the Section 2255 issue! As I stated in my December 4". tenet, my understanding is that the Non•Nrosocutiott Agreement entered into between chit Office and Mr. Epstein reAponds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to deter prosecution lot enumerated sections . " I 0VLI the past Iwo weeks. we have received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits from defense counsel. This is not the forum to respond to the several items raised, and our silence should not be interpret as agreement. I would, however, like to address one issue. Your December I letter states that as a result or defense counsel objections to the amendment "imam, the LISAO proposed an addendum to die Agreement to provide for the use of an independent third pany sekcior. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowledge of defense counsel objections. I saw spout, proposed the Addendum to Mr. telkowitz at all October meeting in Palm Brach. I did this in an anempi to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process. It was only after I proposed this change that Mr. lefkowita raised with me his enumerated concerns. 'Section 2255 provides dial: "rainy person who, while a minor, was a victim el a violation of [enumerated sections. of Tiik IRV and who suffers personal injury as a I eSull of such violation . may sue in asp• appropriate United Suites District Coon and shall recover the actual damages such'persini sustains and the• cost of the suit. sealudury a reasonable anorney's fee.- EFTA00178950 Ana uvy O.. VY,V GAGOoliAATC. UVrAWo of Title IR in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (I) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable" state offense. (2) that this stare plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment; and ≥ that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims With this in mind, I have considered defense counsel arguments retailing the Section 22)5 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 Mt Epstein been convicted at trial No more: no less. From our meeting, it appears that the deeense agrees that this was the intent During the course of negotiations that intent was reduced to writing in Paragraphs 7 and K. which as I 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, in a simple fashion. I would'replace Paragraphs 7 and 8 with the following language: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title IS, 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 c lllll nerated offense by Mr. Epstein Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including arty 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 same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Second, I would like to address the issue 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 Epstein's state court sentencingheaiing. I have 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. In addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorpoi atcd in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree 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 if he wishes. Third, I would like to address the issue raised regarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At OW meeting, ProfessorDerahowitz took the position that Mr. Epstein believes that his conduct does not satisfy the elements of this offense. his assertion raises for me substantial concerns. ThisO'1kt 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 hest to proceed. 2 EFTA00178951 ••• 44.1 Igo 4117 ...•••111 IW to/ Finally, 1 would like tp address a more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on September 24*, 2007. Pursuant to paragraph I I , Mr. Epstein was to use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and he sentenced no later than October 26. 2007. As outlined in corresponclet ice between our prosecutors and defense counsel, this deadline came and went. Our prosecutors reiterated to defense counsel several times their concerns regarding delays, and in fact. asked me several weeks ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. I resisted that invitation. I share this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be au 114 hour appeal, weeks before the now scheduled January 4* plea date. This said, the issues raised arc important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns. We hope to preserve the January 4a' date. I understand that defense counsel shams our desire not to move that appearance and will work with our office to expedite this process over the next 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 in preserve the January 4th plea date. I want to again reiterate that it is. not the. intention of this Office ever to Mrce the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has die right to proceed to trial. !and he should do so if he believes that he did not commit the elements of the charged olfense. I will respond to the pending issues 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. fs ALEXANDER ACOS:IA LINMED STATF.S Anotuct cc: Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General First Assistant U.S. Attorney A USA EFTA00178952 06/30/08 . •. 18. MON 10 FAX . . . EXECUTIVE OFFICE mo02 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney _Southern District of Florida R Al.E.U.YDER ACO$TA ISVIrED SrATES ATTORNEY muyule' Dui\ (:slmitzu Lilly Ann Sanchez. Fowler White Burnett, PA 1395 Brickell Ave. I4'" Floor H. 33131 Re: Jeffreap. . Ast n Dear Ms. Sanchez: YV ti E tine. 341,11. U. WI.' O051961:9W rettpanne 11 fin d 10.6111 Penman& December 19, 2007 I write to follow up on the December le meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors. as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' I write to you because lain not certain who among the defense leant is the appmpriate recipient of this letter. I address issues raised 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, I would like to address the Section 2255 issue.: As I stated in my December 4IN letter, my understanding is that the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections - • I Over the past two weeks, we have received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits from defense counsel. This is not the forum to respond to the several items raised, and our silence should not be intmorm as agreement. I would, however, like to address one issue. Your Decennia. I It' letter states that n a result of defense counsel objections to the appointment process, the USA() proposed an addendum to the Agreement to provide for the use of an independent third party selector. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowkdge of defellSe counsel objections. I svra spoilt? proposed the Addendum w Mr. lelkowitz at an October meeting in Pain, Beach. I did dies in an anenupt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process. It was only after I proposed this change that Mr. Lc lkowitz. raised with nte his truant:rated etuicerns. 1Section 2255 provides that: "lalny person who. while a minor, was a victim ol a violation of [enumerated sections of Title lilt and who suffers personal injury as a tesuli of such violation . may sue in any appuopriare tinned States fiistrici Conn and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit. Including, a reasonable annmey's fee." EFTA00178953 06/30/08 MON 10:19 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE 1a1003 of Title IS in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (I) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable state offense. 12) that this stare plea include a binding recomnendation fora sufficient term Unoorisonntent; and f ; ► that the Agreement not harm the interests or his victims With this in mind, I have considered defense counsel arguments rerouting the Section .12>5 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 delsense agrees that dos was the intent During the course of negotiations that intent was reduced to writing in Paragraphs 7 and 8, which us I 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, in a simple fashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 and 8 with the following language: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in tile IS, 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 m 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 same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Second, I would like to address the issue or victim's rights pursuant to Section ml understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place of Mr Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. I have 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. In addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Montan already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree 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 stale proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes. Third, I would like to address the issue raised regarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At our meeting, Professor Dershowiix took the position that Mr. Epstein believes that his conduct does not satisfy the elements of this offense. His assertion raises for me substantial concerns. 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 arc considering how best to proceed. 2 EFTA00178954 06/30/08 MON 10:19 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE e 004 Finally, I would like to address a more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on September 24th. 2007. Pursuant to paragraph I I , Mr. Epstein was to use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced no later than October 26. 2007. As outlined in correspondence between our prosecutors and defense counsel, tins deadline came and went. Our proscenia's reiterated to defense counsel several times their concerns regarding delays, and in fact. asked me several weeks ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. I resisted that invitation. I share this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an I t' ' hour appeal, weeks before the now scheduled January 4th plea date. This mid, the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns. We hope to preserve the January 491 date. I understand that defense counsel shares our desire not to move that appearance and will work with our office to expedite this process over the next 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 lad review this case in an expedited manner to attempt to preserve the January 4th plea date. I want to again 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. and he should do so if he believes that he did not commit the elements of the charged offense. I will respond to the pending issues shortly. In the interim. t would ask that you communicate your position with respect w the sections 2255 and 3371 issues as quickly as possible. Sincerely. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY cc: Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General , First Assistant U.S. Attorney AUSA EFTA00178955 08/30/08 MON 10:18 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE [loot U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 99 NE 4' STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132-2111 Jeffrey It Sloman First Assistant U.S. Attorney Cyndee Campos Staff Assistant fax FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE: June 30, 2008 TO: FAX NUMBER: SUBJECT: Epstein NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 4 Message/Comments: This facsimile contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named above. If you arc 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. EFTA00178956