Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-35081House OversightOther

Deferred Prosecution Agreement Dispute Over Minor Procurement Charge in Epstein Case

The passage reveals internal conflicts between the defense, state prosecutors, and the State Department of Florida (SDFL) regarding the specific charge to be included in Epstein's Deferred Prosecution Disagreement over whether Epstein should be charged with 'procurement of minors' (registrable) or 's SDFL allegedly failed to provide factual allegations needed for a registrable offense despite mult

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #012176
Pages
1
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage reveals internal conflicts between the defense, state prosecutors, and the State Department of Florida (SDFL) regarding the specific charge to be included in Epstein's Deferred Prosecution Disagreement over whether Epstein should be charged with 'procurement of minors' (registrable) or 's SDFL allegedly failed to provide factual allegations needed for a registrable offense despite mult

Tags

jeffrey-epsteinsex-traffickingprocedural-obstructionlegal-proceduredeferred-prosecutionprosecutorial-conductlegal-exposurepotential-prosecutorial-misconhouse-oversight

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP describes the additional charge to which Mr. Epstein is required to plead guilty under the Deferred Prosecution Agreement as “procurement of minors to engage in prostitution” or “solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution.” The former is an offense for which Mr. Epstein would be required to register, but one for which the state has no evidence to charge Mr. Epstein and the SDFL refuses or is unable to provide evidence that it claims it has. The latter requires no registration, but it is the offense which, over and over again, Ms. Villafana insisted upon including in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, and is one which the State believes is appropriate. The inconsistency between the description of the offense required by the SDFL, the elements of an offense that can be justified on the facts of this case and the SDFL’s requirement that the offense be a registrable one has created substantial confusion. o Asa result of this confusion, in December 2007, both the defense and the state requested that the SDFL provide the factual allegations to enable Mr. Epstein and the State to create a truthful factual recitation of a registrable offense required by the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, but, to date, the SDFL has failed to do so without any explanation. e Mr. Sloman refuses to provide the requested factual allegations, which the State cannot furnish, and now demands a two week deadline to comply. Thus Mr. Sloman has unreasonably imposed a deadline with which he himself has made it impossible for Mr. Epstein to comply. 5, WAIVER OF APPEAL TO ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FISHER. Mr. Sloman’s Letter: « “[T]he SDFL provided you with 30 days to appeal the decision to the Assistant Attorney General of the United States Alice Fisher” and “you chose to forego an appeal to AAG Fisher.” Id., p. 2. The Truth: e Mr. Acosta tolled an August 17 deadline, acknowledging that there were “serious issues” about the case that needed to be discussed, and scheduled a meeting with the defense for September 7, 2007. At the September 7, 2007 meeting, with Drew Oosterbaan in attendance, the government dismissed the defense’s objections and set a September 21, 2007 deadline to finalize a non-prosecution agreement or the defense would face an already-drafted 53-page indictment, purportedly identifying 40 minors, with a guideline range of 188 months. e Facing Ms. Villafana’s threatened draconian indictment, without the claimed offer of the right to raise objections in an appeal to AAG Fisher, the defense chose to negotiate an

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Alleged USAO Leaks and Victim Notification Scheme in Epstein Non‑Prosecution Agreement

The passage describes internal communications showing a U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) allegedly coordinating victim‑notification letters, encouraging civil suits, and leaking confidential case details Nov 27‑28 2007 emails/letters show USAO staff (Sloman, Villafana) preparing victim‑notification lett Letter cites the “Justice for All Act of 2004,” later deemed inapplicable, and mischaracterizes Ep

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 1 of 5

5p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Rol Slack lir „kite'

Rol Slack lir „kite' 2/949 Arcrwite a." 2434 7 Antai, Liu) 3 cut, , 4,/e EFTA00183732 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AfilL/ArtO PART/H.3We; ' Cntercup Cantor 163 East 53'd Street New York, New York 10022-4611 WNW rwerA.COM September 2, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE (56D 820-8777 United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re:Jeffrey Bpstein Dear • Facsimile: In response to your letter dated August 26, 2008, I am confirming that Mr. Goldberger should continue to be listed as the contact pawn in the' mended victim notification letters and should receive the carbon copies of thoso letters as they are sent. • Also, we plan on speaking to Mr. Josofsberg this week to discuss a procedure for paying his fees. We intend to comply fully with the agreement and Mr. Epstein will pay Mr. Josfsberg's usual and customary hourly rates for his work pursuant to the agreement facilitating settlements unde

136p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Jay P. Lelkoveltz, P.C.

8p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

IthibiSlornam

IthibiSlornam taco L•fhwitit EFTA00176182 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: 99 M.E. 41' Street Miami, FL 33132-211! (305) 961-9299 Facsimile: (305) 530-6444 December 6, 2007 I write in response to your recent e-mails and letters regarding victim notification and other issues. Our Office is trying to perform our contractual obligations under the Agreement, which we feel are being frustrated by defense counsel's objections. The Office also is concerned about Mr. Epstein's nonperformance. More than three weeks ago we spoke about the failure to set a timely plea and sentencing date. At that time, you assured me that the scheduling delay was caused by the unavailability of Judge McSorley. You promised that a date would be set promptly. On November 15th, Roland

18p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N. E. 4 gh Street Miami, FL 33132-2111 (305) 961-9299 Facsimile: (305) 530-6444 December 3, 2007 DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: I write in response to your recent e-mails and letters regarding victim notification and other issues. Some of these issues also are addressed in the U.S. Attorney's letter to Mr. Starr, but in light of our discussions, I believe a separate response is needed. In a recent e-mail, you write that you were surprised at the tone of my e-mail of November 27, 2007. That tone was engendered by the roadblocks that you continue to erect as we try to perform our contractual obligations coupled with Mr. Epstein's nonperformance. This letter sets forth the last opportunity for your client and his entire defense team to conform unwaveringly

5p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.