HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019224.jpg

Kenneth W. Starr
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
777 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800
[REDACTED]

Joe D. Whitley
Alston & Bird LLP
The Atlantic Building
950 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1404
[REDACTED]

May 19, 2008

VIA FACSIMILE [REDACTED] CONFIDENTIAL

Honorable Mark Filip
Office of the Deputy Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Judge Filip:

In his confirmation hearings last fall, Judge Mukasey admirably lifted up the finest traditions of the Department of Justice in assuring the United States Senate, and the American people, of his solemn intent to ensure fairness and integrity in the administration of justice. Your own confirmation hearings echoed that bedrock determination to assure that the Department conduct itself with honor and integrity, especially in the enforcement of federal criminal law.

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 rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we are confident that the circumstances at issue warrant such an examination. Based on our collective experiences, as well as those of other former senior Justice Department officials whose advice we have sought, we have never before seen a case more 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 at the request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review deliberately excluded many important aspects of this case. Just this past Friday, on May 16, 2008, we received a letter from the head of CEOS informing us that CEOS had conducted a review of this case. By its own admission, the CEOS review was “limited, both factually and legally.” Part of the self-imposed limitation was CEOS’s abstention from addressing our “allegations of professional misconduct by federal prosecutors”—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 review the federal prosecutors’ inappropriate efforts to implement those terms. We detail this point below.

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019224