House Oversight — Estate records
- Pages
- 3
- Text
- Searchable
Text as released
Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.
Kenneth W. Starr
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
777 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800
May 27, 2008
Joe D. Whitley
Alston & Bird LLP
The Atlantic Building
950 F Street, NW
Washington. DC 20004-1404
VIA FACSIMILE 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:
This letter briefly supplements our prior submission to you dated May 19, 2008. In that
communication, we urgently requested that your Office conduct an independent review of the
proposed federal prosecution of our client, Jeffrey Epstein. The dual reasons for our request that
you review this matter are (i) the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federal
criminal laws, and (ii) the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federal
law by the United States Attorney's Office in Miami (the "USAO") to a prominent public figure
who has close ties to former President Clinton.
The need for review is now all the more exigent. On Monday, May 19, 2008, First
Assistant 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 being
deemed in breach of that Agreement, appears to have been deliberately designed to deprive us of
an adequate opportunity to seek your Office's review in this matter.
The USAO's desire to foreclose a complete review is understandable, given that the
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section ("CEOS") has already determined that our substantive
arguments 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 an
i
[…]