12/26/2007 14:45 FAX KIRKLANDAELLIS 002/006 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Jar P. Lalkoafte, P.C. To e VIA FACSD411.E Honorable R. Alexander Acosta I links.) States Attorney lJnited States Attorney's Office outhern District of Florida S .9 NE 4th Street Miami. FL 33132 Dear Alex: AND Anmann riormiuroos Calgroup Cantor 159 East Said S0441 New York, Now Van 10022.4611 www.kirldend.00m December 26, 2007 Re: Jeffrey Epstein I write to address the questions you posed to me during a conversation we had late last week. Specifically, you requested a clarification of our position on two issues: ( I) our view on your latest proposal regarding notification to the alleged victims under 18 U.S.C. § 3771; and (2) our response to your proposed language regarding thc 18 U.S.C. § 2255 component of the deferred-proseution agreement (the "Agreement"). Before I turn to these questions, I would like to reiterate that this letter responds to your invitation to discuss proposed modifications to the Agreement and should not be construed in any way as a breach of thc Agreement. With that slid, I must tell you that the more I look into these issues, the more difficulties I see in trying to tic the resolution of a federal criminal matter with a federal civil matter involving minors, and this is even further complicated when the premise of the resolution is a deferred federal prosecution conditioned on a plea to specific state offenses with a specific sentence pre- daterrnined and required to be imposed by the state court, without consideration of the fact that the State view of this ease differs dramatically from yours. With that in mind, 1 turn to each of your questions below. First, although we appreciate your willingness to modify your Office's § 3771 notice, 10. hick is embodied in your latest proposal, we must still object to aspects of your proposal on the ground that notice under § 3771 is per se inapplicable to this case under the Attorney General's own guid