EFTA00013538.pdf

U.S. Department ofJustice
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:
United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
December 11, 2007
I am 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 and because I had
described you to others as a man of integrity. 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 correct one of
your calculations of the Sentencing Guidelines that would have resulted in Mr. Epstein spending far
more time in prison than you projected; I 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 learned 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
EFTA00013538

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ.
DECEMBER 11, 2007
PAGE 2 OF 5

Ocariz is a friend of my boyfriend and that I have a “longstanding relationship” with Mr. Ocariz.
I informed you that I selected Mr. Ocariz because he was a friend and classmate of two people
whom I respected, and that I 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.
EFTA00013539

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ.
DECEMBER 11, 2007
PAGE 3 OF 5

Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective [Redacted] investigation that have
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 [Redacted] 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. [Redacted] or the Court. Ms. [Redacted] opinion may change if she knows the full
scope of your client’s actions. Also, it has always been my intention to have Mr. Epstein plead to
federal, not state, charges. 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. [Redacted] 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 [Redacted] 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. 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 not reach
agreement, you repeatedly went over my head, involving Messrs [Redacted] 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
EFTA00013540

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ.
DECEMBER 11, 2007
PAGE 4 OF 5

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
issue if it were raised during negotiations. As I 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
a name 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.1

With respect to Ms [Redacted] I contacted her attorney – who was paid for by Mr. Epstein and
was directed by counsel for Mr. Epstein to demand immunity – and asked only whether he still
represented Ms. [Redacted] 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. [Redacted] status as a victim, you
again want us to accept as true only facts that are beneficial to your client and to reject as false
anything detrimental to him. Ms. [Redacted] 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 a number of statements. Based upon all of the evidence collected, Ms. [Redacted] is classified
as a victim as defined by statute. Of course, that does not mean that Ms. [Redacted] 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 understand that you and your co-counsel perceive a strategic advantage to removing me
from the case, and that perhaps my willingness to allow others to speak for me emboldened your

___________________
1 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. These allegations have been raised and disproven earlier and need not be readdressed.
EFTA00013541

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ.
DECEMBER 11, 2007
PAGE 5 OF 5

criticisms. I hope that you now understand that your accusations are unfounded, and that you can
no longer continue unchecked your attack on the credibility of myself and the agents. 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.

Sincerely,

R. Alexander Acosta
United States Attorney

By: [Redacted Signature]

cc: R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney
EFTA00013542