EFTA00176152¶
12/28/07 FRI 14:27 FAX 305 530 6440¶
EXECUTIVE OFFICE¶
☑ 001¶
Dear Jay,¶
On September 24, 2007, your client, Jeffrey Epstein and two of his lawyers, Gerald Lefcourt, Esq. and Lily Ann Sanchez, Esq., in consultation with numerous other experienced and highly regarded lawyers, entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (“the Agreement”) with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“SDFL”). The crux of the Agreement was that the SDFL would defer federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein for illicit sexual conduct by Mr. Epstein involving minor victims in exchange for his guilty plea to solicitation of prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.07) and an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03). The Agreement also required him to serve a 30 month sentence - 18 months’ in county jail - and to compensate the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 just as if this matter had been successfully prosecuted federally.¶
After the Agreement was executed, you and, subsequently, Dean Starr began taking issue with the implementation of the 2255 provision. In response, I offered, in my opinion, numerous and various reasonable modifications and accommodations. These are well documented and do not need to be recounted here. Suffice to say, these modifications and accommodations were not satisfactory to your client. At our December 15, 2007 meeting, counsel for Mr. Epstein announced, inter alia, that it was a “profound injustice” to require Mr. Epstein to register as a sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b), had been committed since the statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading or inducing. As you know, this attack on the theory of federal prosecution had been previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by the SDFL and Child Exploitation and Obscenity (CEOS) in Washington, D.C. prior to the execution of the Agreement.¶
In addition to your continued attack on the contemplated federal statutes, your December 17th correspondence claimed, for the first time since the execution of the Agreement, that Mr. Epstein’s conduct does not meet the requirements of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03). This combined with your December 26th correspondence, wherein you state that “we have reiterated in previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is¶
$^1$See July 6, 2007 letter from Gerald B. Lefcourt, Esq. and Alan Dershowitz.¶
EFTA00176153¶
12/28/07 FRI 14:27 FAX 305 530 6440¶
EXECUTIVE OFFICE¶
☑ 002¶
guilty of the federal charges enumerated under section 2255”, clearly prevents Mr. Epstein from fulfilling the material terms and conditions the Agreement. As you know, this is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970)). Your reference to requiring “Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not commit the requisite offense” is inapplicable here.¶