Defense Claims DOJ Official Misrepresented Deferred Prosecution Agreement Modifications in Epstein Case

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP evidence that Mr. Epstein routinely and daily receives massages from adults. Only a small percentage of the masseuses turned out to be minors. The majority of those minors interviewed by law enforcement admitted to lying directly to Epstein about their ages (not “unbeknownst to Epstein”), and inventing further false details to substantiate their lies. Indeed, the civil attorney for several of these women admitted at his recent press conference that they lied to Mr. Epstein about their ages. Numerous witnesses testified that Mr. Epstein asked that all masseuses be over the age of 18. Further, the evidence is undisputed that Mr. Epstein’s assistants scheduled the massages and Mr. Epstein did not know which masseuses his assistants had scheduled on a particular day, until the massage took place. We admitted that there was sexual conduct, and argued—not that it was “innocuous” as Mr. Sloman alleges—but that it was mostly Mr. Epstein’s own self- pleasuring, which did not satisfy the requisite federal element of criminal sexual conduct (which is, in turn, defined by state law). These are important distinctions and show that Mr. Sloman has misrepresented the record about the most basic part of our defense. 4. SLOMAN DEMANDS AN UNREALISTIC DEADLINE TO COMPLY WITH AN AGREEMENT HE UNILATERALLY MODIFIES. Mr. Sloman’s Letter: e “Unless [Mr. Epstein] complies with all of the terms and conditions of the [Deferred Prosecution] Agreement, as modified by the United States Attorney’s December 19, 2007 letter to Ms. Sanchez by close of business on Monday, June 2, 2008, the SDFL will elect to terminate the Agreement.” Zd., p.1 The Truth: e The Deferred Prosecution Agreement was never modified by U.S. Attorney Acosta’s December 19, 2007 letter. Oddly, Mr. Sloman acknowledges this on page 4 of his May 19 letter, where he writes that Mr. Acosta “proposed” this modification and that “[Mr. Lefkowitz] rejected these proposals.” Thus, Mr. Sloman is threatening to terminate the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, unless Mr. Epstein complies with a unilateral modification that Mr. Sloman concedes was never agreed to by defense counsel. e Orchestrating the information, plea and sentencing requirements of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement within the extremely limited two-week timeframe imposed by Mr. Sloman’s June 2, 2008 deadline would have been difficult enough. e More importantly, as explained below, the SDFL has refused to provide the defense with information it requires to enable Mr. Epstein to comply with the additional plea and sentencing requirements of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (let alone, by the June 2 deadline arbitrarily imposed by Mr. Sloman). o The Deferred Prosecution Agreement requires Mr. Epstein to plead guilty to and be sentenced for an additional offense which requires that he be registered as a sex offender. In different places in his May 19, 2008 letter, Mr. Sloman 4 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012175