The Kirkland & Ellis response treats the May 19, 2008 letter from the Southern District of Florida’s First Assistant U.S. Attorney not as a good-faith summary, but as a document that actively distorts the historical record of the Epstein investigation. The firm argues that the letter is riddled with contradictions, misleading framing, and outright falsehoods that cannot be chalked up to sloppy drafting or innocent error. Rather than accurately recounting investigative decisions, the letter is portrayed as a post-hoc justification designed to sanitize prosecutorial conduct after the fact. Kirkland & Ellis makes clear that the document attempts to reshape reality—presenting disputed actions as settled facts and glossing over decisions that directly benefited Epstein.
Critically, the response emphasizes that the letter’s defects are not marginal or technical, but foundational, calling into question the integrity of the government’s entire narrative. By systematically comparing the letter’s assertions with what actually occurred, Kirkland & Ellis suggests that the misrepresentations were deliberate and strategic, intended to create a paper trail that could withstand scrutiny rather than reflect truth. The firm characterizes the letter as emblematic of how the Epstein case was managed from start to finish: facts were selectively presented, inconvenient details were omitted or reframed, and the official record was bent to support an outcome already decided. In this view, the May 19 letter is not merely inaccurate—it is itself evidence of how the Epstein investigation was manipulated and why accountability was avoided.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
EFTA00013801.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Critically, the response emphasizes that the letter’s defects are not marginal or technical, but foundational, calling into question the integrity of the government’s entire narrative. By systematically comparing the letter’s assertions with what actually occurred, Kirkland & Ellis suggests that the misrepresentations were deliberate and strategic, intended to create a paper trail that could withstand scrutiny rather than reflect truth. The firm characterizes the letter as emblematic of how the Epstein case was managed from start to finish: facts were selectively presented, inconvenient details were omitted or reframed, and the official record was bent to support an outcome already decided. In this view, the May 19 letter is not merely inaccurate—it is itself evidence of how the Epstein investigation was manipulated and why accountability was avoided.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
EFTA00013801.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
where we left off with a letter from Epstein's legal
team slamming the DOJ Number six, the SDFL did not
defer to the state Redacted's letter, the SDFL indicated a
willingness to defer to the state the length of incarceration.
(00:24):
The truth the SDFL neither deferred to the state nor
even discussed with the state the length of mister Epstein's incarceration,
and a letter to the Defense Criminal Division Chief redacted
rejected the sentence contemplated by the state's plea agreement, writing
that the federal interest will not be vindicated in the
absence of a two year term of state imprisonment see
(00:45):
Tab forty, August third, two thousand and seven email from redacted.
Of course, this position is contrary to section nine two
three to one D of the US Attorney's Manual, indicating
that the result of the state prosecution is presumed boomed
that have vindicated the federal interest. It is understandable, therefore,
that mister adacted might want to retreat from it now. Indeed,
(01:08):
the final deferred prosecution agreement restricts the state court judge
from exercising any of his rightful discretion, and to specifically
prohibit the judge from offering probation, community control, or any
other alternative in lieu of incarceration. Seven suggestion of additional
state plea Mister Redacted's letter the parties considered, as suggested
(01:31):
by the defense, a plea to state charges encompassing Epstein's conduct.
See tab Ie May nineteenth, two thousand and eight. Letter
from redacted, page two. The truth it was the government
and not the defense, that suggested a plea to state
charges to resolve the federal investigation. Rected proposed declining prosecution
in favor of the state. Although mister Epstein in the
(01:53):
State Attorney's office had already reached the plea agreement in
August of two thousand and seven, Mister redacted and aa
USA redacted warned that they intended to prosecute Epstein federally
unless his counsel ie, not the U. S. Attorney's Office,
sought more stringent conditions to the state's proposed plea agreement.
These stringent conditions included, among other things, the two year
(02:16):
prison term demanded by mister adacted and the charge requiring
him to register as a sex offender Number eight. All
identified victims will be put in the same position as
if Epstein had been tried mister Adacted's letter. The agreement
provides for a method of compensation for the victims such
that they would be placed in the same position as
(02:37):
if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated
offenses set forth in Title eighteen US Code, Section twenty
two to fifty five. The truth Mister Adacted continues to
mischaracterize the highly irregular provision of the deferred prosecution Agreement.
The SDFL did not merely attempt to preserve the compensation
(02:58):
rights of those it identified as victims. It attempted to
create compensation rights for those it identified without imposing on
them the burden of providing or proving that they were
in fact victims. Under section twenty two to fifty five.
In the defertive prosecution Agreement, the SDFL required mister Epstein
to waive the right to contest liability under US Code eighteen,
(03:21):
section twenty two to fifty five as to a list
of individuals that the SDFL would not disclose to mister
Epstein until after he was sentenced and to pay for
an attorney to secure compensation under section twenty two to
fifty five for those undisclosed individuals, or if they decided
to assue mister Epstein. Section twenty two to fifty five
(03:42):
ordinarily provides individuals with a right to recover minimum guaranteed
damages of one hundred and fifty thousand without having to
prove actual damages only if one they were victims of
an enumerated federal offense, including offenses under US Code eighteen,
section twenty four to twenty two and twenty four to
twenty three to two, there were miners at the time
(04:04):
of the offense, and most importantly, three they were personally
injured as a result of the offense. The defense is
confirmed examples of women who testified that they were not
victims of mister Epstein and suffered no personal injury. These
women were nevertheless on the list of victims identified by
the government. In fact, when confronted with testimony of a
(04:25):
woman who denied both being a victim and incurring personal injury,
mister adacted actually acknowledged such testimony to justify inclusion of
that woman on the government's list. However, mister redacted then
challenged her own witnesses credibility. For this reason, it is
false to state that these identified individuals are in the
(04:45):
same position that they would have been had Epstein been
convicted at trial. Had there been a trial, mister Epstein
would have had the right to confront these individuals through
cross examination. Any individual that did not establish that she
was a minor victim of cons duct that satisfied each
element of an enumerated statute under section twenty two to
fifty five, or that she suffered personal injury would not
(05:08):
qualify for any treatment under section twenty two to fifty five. However,
under the deferred Prosecution Agreement, as an identified individual on
the government's list, the same individual would nevertheless be entitled
to engage an attorney paid for by mister Epstein, to
recover one hundred and fifty thousand dollars of damages from
mister Epstein under section twenty two to fifty five, without
(05:32):
ever alleging any injury. In fact, the defense was told
that the only question mister Epstein would be permitted to
ask before paying the girls is have you ever met
mister Epstein. Thus, the deferred prosecution Agreement places identified individuals
in a far better position than they would be if
mister Epstein were convicted at Trial nine. Assignment of right
(05:54):
to select legal representation mister Redacted's letter. Prior to any
issues arising concerning the implementation of the twenty to twenty
five provision, the SDFL unilaterally agreed to assign its responsibility
to select the attorney representative for the alleged victims to
an independent third party. The truth that such an assignment
(06:15):
was sdfl's unilateral decision is false. Before the SDFL decided
to assign selection of the attorney representative to an independent
third party, Ausa Redacted had already proposed an attorney representative.
She had proposed the local products liability lawyer Umberto Oqurees
and claimed that he had been recommended by a good
(06:36):
friend in the Appellate division. Misredacted's account was misleading, as
it omitted that this good friend was her living boyfriend
and that mister Okeriz was his former law school roommate.
When we discovered this independently, we objected. Only then did
the SDFL propose assigning the selection process to an independent
special master and agreed to amend the deferred prosecution agreement. Thus,
(07:01):
while it may be true that the SDFL assigned its
selection responsibly to avoid the appearance of favoritism, it did
not do it unilatterly, but rather only after Epstein uncovered
the office misleading disclosure and apparent conflict of interest. Ten
timetable for moving forward mister Adacted's letter on February twenty eighth,
(07:22):
two thousand and eight, I sent you an email setting
forth a timetable for moving forward in the event that
CEOs disagreed with your position, and that time is now
The truth mister adacted provides only part of the history
of the case. In order to justify his improper actions,
he had stated he would close the investigation if CEOs
(07:43):
told him to. However, CEOs, at our first contact said
that under no circumstances did they see that as their role.
They said they would only advise on an abuse of
discretion standard, making the outcome a foregone conclusion. Furthermore, in
response to the February twenty fifth email, which attempted to
establish a schedule to limit the entire review process, the
(08:05):
defense has repeatedly suggested that the misconduct was intertwined with
the investigation and would therefore seek higher review mister left
Quit's email mister Acosta directly on February twenty ninth, two
thousand and eight. Mister Redacted responded to mister left Quit's
email to mister Acosta, stating that mister Redacted was acting
(08:25):
out of frustration, but please be assured that it has not,
and never has been this office intent to interfere or
restrict the review process for either mister Epstein or CEOs.
I leave it to you and CEOs to figure out
how best to proceed and will await the results of
that process. As stated above, CEOs determined that it would
(08:47):
not review any of the Defense's objections, and as to
the remainder of those objections, its review would be limited,
contrary to mister Acosta's assurances, which left the need supplemented
by the defense subsequent request for a more thorough review
of critical issues by others at the Department of Justice.
Mister adacted reimposition of the all bit modestly extended timetable
(09:12):
was an obvious attempt in violation of his February twenty
ninth agreement to thwart the request made by the Defense
to the Deputy Attorney General to complete the review process
that mister Acosta had promised number eleven delay mister Adacted's letter,
in a section entitled delay, Mister adacted states that the
SDFL again agreed to accommodate Epstein's request to appear in
(09:36):
state court for plea and sentencing on January fourth, two
thousand and eight. The truth. Curiously, mister adacted fails to
mention correspondence from the us attorney, stating that delay of
that date would be inevitable as the defense's raise serious
questions about the propriety of the prosecution. Strikingly, in that
same section, mister adacted claims that the agreement did not
(09:59):
contemplate a state baggared plea deal and sentencing, despite quoting
three sentences earlier from the agreement staggered requirement that Epstein
plead and be sentenced by October twenty six and begin
serving that sentence no later than January fourth, two thousand
and eight. We are, like most attorneys, seeking department review
(10:19):
without access to the USAO prosecution summaries or other submissions
to the Department. Given the substantial issues that have been
raised in this and other submissions, we request that you
conduct a denovo review that goes beneath the face of
any conclusions being advocated by the USAO. Instead, we seek
a review that is based on the transcripts of witness
(10:41):
testimony themselves, so that the reviewer can make an independent
decision not adversely affected by conclusions that over and over
have proven witness by witness allegation by allegation to be
inaccurate and unwarranted and not an appropriate basis for the
exercise of federal prosecutorial authority. And this letter was not
(11:04):
signed by anybody, but it was sent by Kirk lan
Ellis and Jay Lefkowitz. So, as you can see, the
battle for Jeffrey Epstein's plead deal was so contentious that
it's not even funny. And I think that people have
only begun to peel back the layers of just how
nefarious the whole entire thing was. So we're going to
(11:26):
continue looking at these unsealed letters, especially when it comes
to this back and forth between the Department of Justice
and Epstein's legal team, because I think that gives us
quite a window into what was going on in real time,
and it also provides a lot of context for a
lot of the issues that we've talked about. But we
didn't have all the information, but now all those ducks
(11:48):
are getting put in a row, and I think it's
rather obvious that the fix has been in from the
very beginning. All of the information that goes with this
episode can be found in the description box
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
where we left off with a letter from Epstein's legal
team slamming the DOJ Number six, the SDFL did not
defer to the state Redacted's letter, the SDFL indicated a
willingness to defer to the state the length of incarceration.
(00:24):
The truth the SDFL neither deferred to the state nor
even discussed with the state the length of mister Epstein's incarceration,
and a letter to the Defense Criminal Division Chief redacted
rejected the sentence contemplated by the state's plea agreement, writing
that the federal interest will not be vindicated in the
absence of a two year term of state imprisonment see
(00:45):
Tab forty, August third, two thousand and seven email from redacted.
Of course, this position is contrary to section nine two
three to one D of the US Attorney's Manual, indicating
that the result of the state prosecution is presumed boomed
that have vindicated the federal interest. It is understandable, therefore,
that mister adacted might want to retreat from it now. Indeed,
(01:08):
the final deferred prosecution agreement restricts the state court judge
from exercising any of his rightful discretion, and to specifically
prohibit the judge from offering probation, community control, or any
other alternative in lieu of incarceration. Seven suggestion of additional
state plea Mister Redacted's letter the parties considered, as suggested
(01:31):
by the defense, a plea to state charges encompassing Epstein's conduct.
See tab Ie May nineteenth, two thousand and eight. Letter
from redacted, page two. The truth it was the government
and not the defense, that suggested a plea to state
charges to resolve the federal investigation. Rected proposed declining prosecution
in favor of the state. Although mister Epstein in the
(01:53):
State Attorney's office had already reached the plea agreement in
August of two thousand and seven, Mister redacted and aa
USA redacted warned that they intended to prosecute Epstein federally
unless his counsel ie, not the U. S. Attorney's Office,
sought more stringent conditions to the state's proposed plea agreement.
These stringent conditions included, among other things, the two year
(02:16):
prison term demanded by mister adacted and the charge requiring
him to register as a sex offender Number eight. All
identified victims will be put in the same position as
if Epstein had been tried mister Adacted's letter. The agreement
provides for a method of compensation for the victims such
that they would be placed in the same position as
(02:37):
if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated
offenses set forth in Title eighteen US Code, Section twenty
two to fifty five. The truth Mister Adacted continues to
mischaracterize the highly irregular provision of the deferred prosecution Agreement.
The SDFL did not merely attempt to preserve the compensation
(02:58):
rights of those it identified as victims. It attempted to
create compensation rights for those it identified without imposing on
them the burden of providing or proving that they were
in fact victims. Under section twenty two to fifty five.
In the defertive prosecution Agreement, the SDFL required mister Epstein
to waive the right to contest liability under US Code eighteen,
(03:21):
section twenty two to fifty five as to a list
of individuals that the SDFL would not disclose to mister
Epstein until after he was sentenced and to pay for
an attorney to secure compensation under section twenty two to
fifty five for those undisclosed individuals, or if they decided
to assue mister Epstein. Section twenty two to fifty five
(03:42):
ordinarily provides individuals with a right to recover minimum guaranteed
damages of one hundred and fifty thousand without having to
prove actual damages only if one they were victims of
an enumerated federal offense, including offenses under US Code eighteen,
section twenty four to twenty two and twenty four to
twenty three to two, there were miners at the time
(04:04):
of the offense, and most importantly, three they were personally
injured as a result of the offense. The defense is
confirmed examples of women who testified that they were not
victims of mister Epstein and suffered no personal injury. These
women were nevertheless on the list of victims identified by
the government. In fact, when confronted with testimony of a
(04:25):
woman who denied both being a victim and incurring personal injury,
mister adacted actually acknowledged such testimony to justify inclusion of
that woman on the government's list. However, mister redacted then
challenged her own witnesses credibility. For this reason, it is
false to state that these identified individuals are in the
(04:45):
same position that they would have been had Epstein been
convicted at trial. Had there been a trial, mister Epstein
would have had the right to confront these individuals through
cross examination. Any individual that did not establish that she
was a minor victim of cons duct that satisfied each
element of an enumerated statute under section twenty two to
fifty five, or that she suffered personal injury would not
(05:08):
qualify for any treatment under section twenty two to fifty five. However,
under the deferred Prosecution Agreement, as an identified individual on
the government's list, the same individual would nevertheless be entitled
to engage an attorney paid for by mister Epstein, to
recover one hundred and fifty thousand dollars of damages from
mister Epstein under section twenty two to fifty five, without
(05:32):
ever alleging any injury. In fact, the defense was told
that the only question mister Epstein would be permitted to
ask before paying the girls is have you ever met
mister Epstein. Thus, the deferred prosecution Agreement places identified individuals
in a far better position than they would be if
mister Epstein were convicted at Trial nine. Assignment of right
(05:54):
to select legal representation mister Redacted's letter. Prior to any
issues arising concerning the implementation of the twenty to twenty
five provision, the SDFL unilaterally agreed to assign its responsibility
to select the attorney representative for the alleged victims to
an independent third party. The truth that such an assignment
(06:15):
was sdfl's unilateral decision is false. Before the SDFL decided
to assign selection of the attorney representative to an independent
third party, Ausa Redacted had already proposed an attorney representative.
She had proposed the local products liability lawyer Umberto Oqurees
and claimed that he had been recommended by a good
(06:36):
friend in the Appellate division. Misredacted's account was misleading, as
it omitted that this good friend was her living boyfriend
and that mister Okeriz was his former law school roommate.
When we discovered this independently, we objected. Only then did
the SDFL propose assigning the selection process to an independent
special master and agreed to amend the deferred prosecution agreement. Thus,
(07:01):
while it may be true that the SDFL assigned its
selection responsibly to avoid the appearance of favoritism, it did
not do it unilatterly, but rather only after Epstein uncovered
the office misleading disclosure and apparent conflict of interest. Ten
timetable for moving forward mister Adacted's letter on February twenty eighth,
(07:22):
two thousand and eight, I sent you an email setting
forth a timetable for moving forward in the event that
CEOs disagreed with your position, and that time is now
The truth mister adacted provides only part of the history
of the case. In order to justify his improper actions,
he had stated he would close the investigation if CEOs
(07:43):
told him to. However, CEOs, at our first contact said
that under no circumstances did they see that as their role.
They said they would only advise on an abuse of
discretion standard, making the outcome a foregone conclusion. Furthermore, in
response to the February twenty fifth email, which attempted to
establish a schedule to limit the entire review process, the
(08:05):
defense has repeatedly suggested that the misconduct was intertwined with
the investigation and would therefore seek higher review mister left
Quit's email mister Acosta directly on February twenty ninth, two
thousand and eight. Mister Redacted responded to mister left Quit's
email to mister Acosta, stating that mister Redacted was acting
(08:25):
out of frustration, but please be assured that it has not,
and never has been this office intent to interfere or
restrict the review process for either mister Epstein or CEOs.
I leave it to you and CEOs to figure out
how best to proceed and will await the results of
that process. As stated above, CEOs determined that it would
(08:47):
not review any of the Defense's objections, and as to
the remainder of those objections, its review would be limited,
contrary to mister Acosta's assurances, which left the need supplemented
by the defense subsequent request for a more thorough review
of critical issues by others at the Department of Justice.
Mister adacted reimposition of the all bit modestly extended timetable
(09:12):
was an obvious attempt in violation of his February twenty
ninth agreement to thwart the request made by the Defense
to the Deputy Attorney General to complete the review process
that mister Acosta had promised number eleven delay mister Adacted's letter,
in a section entitled delay, Mister adacted states that the
SDFL again agreed to accommodate Epstein's request to appear in
(09:36):
state court for plea and sentencing on January fourth, two
thousand and eight. The truth. Curiously, mister adacted fails to
mention correspondence from the us attorney, stating that delay of
that date would be inevitable as the defense's raise serious
questions about the propriety of the prosecution. Strikingly, in that
same section, mister adacted claims that the agreement did not
(09:59):
contemplate a state baggared plea deal and sentencing, despite quoting
three sentences earlier from the agreement staggered requirement that Epstein
plead and be sentenced by October twenty six and begin
serving that sentence no later than January fourth, two thousand
and eight. We are, like most attorneys, seeking department review
(10:19):
without access to the USAO prosecution summaries or other submissions
to the Department. Given the substantial issues that have been
raised in this and other submissions, we request that you
conduct a denovo review that goes beneath the face of
any conclusions being advocated by the USAO. Instead, we seek
a review that is based on the transcripts of witness
(10:41):
testimony themselves, so that the reviewer can make an independent
decision not adversely affected by conclusions that over and over
have proven witness by witness allegation by allegation to be
inaccurate and unwarranted and not an appropriate basis for the
exercise of federal prosecutorial authority. And this letter was not
(11:04):
signed by anybody, but it was sent by Kirk lan
Ellis and Jay Lefkowitz. So, as you can see, the
battle for Jeffrey Epstein's plead deal was so contentious that
it's not even funny. And I think that people have
only begun to peel back the layers of just how
nefarious the whole entire thing was. So we're going to
(11:26):
continue looking at these unsealed letters, especially when it comes
to this back and forth between the Department of Justice
and Epstein's legal team, because I think that gives us
quite a window into what was going on in real time,
and it also provides a lot of context for a
lot of the issues that we've talked about. But we
didn't have all the information, but now all those ducks
(11:48):
are getting put in a row, and I think it's
rather obvious that the fix has been in from the
very beginning. All of the information that goes with this
episode can be found in the description box
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.