File 019221
Kenneth Starr Letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip Regarding Jeffrey Epstein Prosecution Review (File 019221)
May 2008 letter from defense counsel Kenneth Starr to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip requesting independent review of federal prosecution against Jeffrey Epstein, citing concerns about prosecution motivation and procedural irregularities.
Summary
Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley, representing Jeffrey Epstein, request that the Deputy Attorney General's office conduct an independent review of the federal prosecution. The letter contends that First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman imposed an arbitrary June 2, 2008 deadline for compliance with a Non-Prosecution Agreement to prevent adequate review opportunity. Defense counsel argue the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section found their substantive arguments 'compelling' but failed to conduct full de novo review. The letter criticizes the USAO's handling of confidential leaks to the New York Times and raises concerns that the prosecution appears politically motivated due to Epstein's association with former President Clinton.
Kenneth W. StarrKirkland & Ellis LLP777 South Figueroa StreetLos Angeles, CA 90017-5800May 27, 2008Joe D. WhitleyAlston & Bird LLPThe Atlantic Building950 F Street, NWWashington. DC 20004-1404VIA FACSIMILE CONFIDENTIALHonorable Mark FilipOffice of the Deputy Attorney GeneralUnited States Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20530Dear Judge Filip:This letter briefly supplements our prior submission to you dated May 19, 2008. In thatcommunication, we urgently requested that your Office conduct an independent review of theproposed federal prosecution of our client, Jeffrey Epstein. The dual reasons for our request thatyou review this matter are (i) the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federalcriminal laws, and (ii) the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federallaw by the United States Attorney's Office in Miami (the "USAO") to a prominent public figurewho has close ties to former President Clinton.The need for review is now all the more exigent. On Monday, May 19, 2008, FirstAssistant Jeffrey Sloman of the USAO responded to an email from Jay Lefkowitz informing U.S.Attorney Alex Acosta that we would be seeking your Office's review. Mr. Sloman's letter,which imposed a deadline of June 2, 2008 to comply with all the terms of the current Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement"), plus new unilateral modifications, on pain of beingdeemed in breach of that Agreement, appears to have been deliberately designed to deprive us ofan adequate opportunity to seek your Office's review in this matter.The USAO's desire to foreclose a complete review is understandable, given that theChild Exploitation and Obscenity Section ("CEOS") has already determined that our substantivearguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is not warranted were"compelling." However, in contradiction to Mr. Sloman's assertion that CEOS had provided anindependent, de novo review, CEOS made clear that it did not do so. Indeed, CEOS declined toexamine several of the more troubling aspects of the investigation of Mr. Epstein, including thedeliberate leak to the New York Times of numerous highly confidential aspects of theinvestigation and negotiations between the parties as well as the recent crop of civil lawsuitsfiled against Mr. Epstein by Mr. Sloman's former law partner.The unnecessary and arbitrarily imposed deadline set by the USAO was done without anyrespect for the normal functioning and scheduling of state judicial matters. It requires thatMr. Epstein's counsel persuade the State Attorney of Palm Beach to issue a criminal informationHOUSE OVERSIGHT 019221Honorable Mark FilipMay 27, 2008Page 2to a charge that the State Attorney has not, despite a two year investigation, determined to beappropriate. Mr. Epstein's counsel must also successfully expedite a plea of guilty to this chargeon a date prior to July 8, 2008, which is the date presently set by the state court Judge.Further, the unnecessary deadline is even more problematic because Mr. Epstein's effortto reconcile the state charge and sentence with the terms of the Agreement requires an unusualand unprecedented threatened application of federal law. Thus, it places Mr. Epstein in thehighly unusual position of having to demand that the State acquiesce to a more severepunishment than it had already determined was appropriate.We have attempted to resolve these and other issues through the USA() and CEOS,including raising our concerns about the USAO's inappropriate conduct with respect to thismatter. But those avenues have now been shut down. Mr. Sloman's letter purports to prohibitany further contact between Mr. Epstein's defense team and U.S. Attorney Acosta, and insteadrequires us to communicate with the USA() only though Mr. Sloman's subordinates.While it pains us to say this, this misguided prosecution from the outset gives theappearance that it may have been politically motivated. Mr. Epstein is a highly successful, self-made businessman and philanthropist who entered the public arena only by virtue of his closepersonal association with former President Bill Clinton. There is little doubt in our minds thatthe USA() never would have contemplated a prosecution in this case if Mr. Epstein were justanother "John."U.S. Attorney Acosta previously has stated that he is "sympathetic" to our federalism-related concerns, but he has taken the position that his authority is limited by enforcementpolicies set forth in Washington, D.C. As expressed in our prior communication to you, webelieve that a complete and independent appraisal and resolution of this case most appropriatelywould be undertaken by your Office—beginning with the rescission of the arbitrary, unfair, andunprecedented deadline that Mr. Sloman demands to have imposed in this case. At the veryleast, we would appreciate a tolling of the arbitrary timeline imposed on our client by the USA()in order to allow time for your office to consider our request that you undertake a review of thiscase.Thank you for your time and attention.Respectfully submitted,, Q-1444Kenneth W. StarrD. WhitleyKirkland & Ellis LLP Alston & Bird LLHOUSE OVERSIGHT 01922205/27/2008 12:18 FAXII 001************************ TX REPORT ************************TRANSMISSION OKTX/RX NO 0439RECIPIENT ADDRESS 912025140487DESTINATION IDST. TIME 05/27 12:18TIME USE 0034PAGES SENT 3RESULT OKKIRKLAND & ELLIS LLPFax Transmittal777 South Figueroa StreetLos Angeles, California 90017Phone: (213) 680-8400Fax: (213) 680-8500Please notify us immediately if any pages arc not received.THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL, MAYBE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION, ANDIS 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:Flonorab14.-! Mark FilipCompany: Fax ft: Direct #:Office of the Deputy Attorney Cie/len:IIUnited State$ Department of JusticeFrom: Date: Pages w/cover: Fax #: Direct It:Kenneth W. Starr May 27, 2008 3Message:HOUSE OVERSIGHT 019223