Epstein Data Wiki

EFTA01302111

Properties1
tagsdocument, correspondence, unsigned, usao-sdfl, 2007-2008-npa-negotiation, jeffrey-epstein, alex-acosta

17 min read

EFTA01302111 is a single photograph, in Data Set 10, of three sheets of paper laid on a patterned rug: two typed pages of continuous prose arguing against federal charges, and a third sheet, separate from the other two, carrying handwritten notes and a printed line reading “Jeffrey E. Epstein.”1 The typed text is addressed to “Alex” and never gives him a surname.2 No signature, in ink or otherwise, appears anywhere on the two typed pages; the printed name is on the separate third sheet, discussed below.13 The image itself carries two printed identifiers: a Bates-style stamp reading “EFTA_00190341,” and, running vertically down the left margin, an overlay reading “SDNY_GM_00166736.”1 This page reports what the photograph shows and what the typed text says; it does not identify who wrote it.

What the photograph shows, and in what order

The two typed pages are physically separate sheets, arranged in the photograph with one above the other; the corpus’s automated text extraction reads them in that top-to-bottom physical order, which is not the order the letter reads in.24 The lower sheet in the photograph begins, at the top of its own page with no heading above it, “Alex, I wanted to have a one on one conversation re yesterdays call,” and runs to a sentence that breaks off mid-clause: ”…I have more confidence in Washingtons openess-that the fed statutes don’t apply, we”.2 The upper sheet in the photograph begins “would then be asking for a TOTAL declination,” which completes that broken sentence, and continues to a second break, “…the possibility of getting this, complex matter firmly and totally. behind us,” after which the rest of the sheet is blank.4 Read in that order, lower sheet first and upper sheet second, the two pages form one continuous, apparently complete argument with no other page needed to close the sense. This page quotes and describes the letter in that order, not the order the two sheets sit in the photograph.

The third sheet, photographed to the right of the other two, carries a scrawled mark in the top left that is not legible enough to transcribe, a black redaction box, and beneath that a short column of handwriting.3 The clearest word in it is “FBI,” underlined twice; one further line, in blue ink, appears to set a Tuesday appointment time, but is not legible enough to transcribe with confidence, and neither is the handwriting below it.3 Below all of the handwriting, printed in type rather than written in ink, is the line “Jeffrey E. Epstein.” Nothing on this third sheet connects it, in content, to the argument made in the two typed pages beside it; it is a different kind of document, handwritten notes on a sheet that carries a printed name, photographed together with the letter and not a signature block attached to it.

The letter itself

The letter opens by addressing “Alex” directly and referring to “yesterdays call,” then to what the addressee could “confirm for yourself” that a person named only by a first name “had represented regarding the New York Times.”2 It states, “we have proof positive of what transpired. Proof positive of a breach of the U.S. attorneys manual, proof positive of a breach of the local rules of conduct… I can’t represent to you we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a 6 e violation, but clearly enough facts that would support a charge.”2 It goes on: “Alex, David discussed details of our plea negotiations, (personal security and house arrest), after repeatedly voicing the offices concern with the Palm beach post editorial. He discussed the theory of the case, and talked about the multiple charging statues, even including the 1591 statute, of sex trafficking -.that is patently unfair to Mr. Epstein.”2

The letter describes a second person, named only “Ken,” as “outraged,” “a man of great faith… in his religion and his unwavering belief in the system of justice,” who “has two bibles, the king james version and the us attorneys manual,” and whose fear is “that the Bob Seniors review, is merely designed to be a rubber stamp for the office.”2 It then reconstructs the addressee’s own reasoning back to him: “what would we get if we achieved a conviction. We would have registration, we would have a jail sentence and the victims would be allowed to sue under 2255,” before arguing that this reasoning no longer applies because “the new facts in this case… have dramatically changed that landscape”: the addressee, it says, “were unaware of [a name the image redacts] misrepresentations,” “unaware of [a name the image redacts] disregard for published procedures,” “unaware of the wildly exaggerated list of victims,” “unware of the missing Brady info,” and “unaware of the most troubling breach of prosecutorial conduct -weinsteins interactions with the new York times.”2 Two names in that list are blacked out on the image itself and are not reported here; this page does not guess at them.2

The letter then states its request directly: “BASED ON THE NEW FACTS, AND THE LAW We have researched every case previously brought.. there are none that comes close.. this isn’t the case in which attempt such a stretch.- the initial decision needs to be revisited,” and asks the addressee to “seriously reconsider our proposal,” addressing him “not only as an advocate but as a colleague.”2 It adds, “You have my word that, if it is accepted this will bring total closure to all outstanding and extremely problematic ancillary issues,” and then: “I have not sent you a letter as I’d prefer not to begin creating a record, that might lead to months and months of contentious argument.”2 The remainder argues that the underlying conduct is “state conduct,” that “the fed statutes would have to be tortured to fit,” and closes: “IF Alan Dershowitz, and Ken, are able to convince either Bob Senior or Washington… that the fed statutes don’t apply, we would then be asking for a TOTAL declination.”24 The letter ends by proposing to “postpone setting up any firm meeting date until tomorrow.”4

Who the letter names, and on what basis this page identifies them

The letter itself supplies only first names, except for “Alan Dershowitz,” who is named in full and has a page on this wiki. This page identifies the others from the wider record, not from this document, and reports the basis for each:

  • “Alex.” This document does not give a surname. Every other item in this dataset from the same 2007-2008 negotiation over federal charges addresses “Alex” as Alex Acosta, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; see Alex Acosta and the submission to the Deputy Attorney General. This page treats the letter as part of that same channel on that basis, and reports the salutation without characterising what the first-name address does or does not imply about the relationship between the writer and Acosta.
  • “David.” A separate document in the release, an investigation timeline, names “David Weinstein” repeatedly alongside Marie Villafaña, Jeff Sloman and Robert Senior as a participant in the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s handling of the case in this period.5 This page identifies “David” as David Weinstein on that basis; the letter’s own allegation against him, that he discussed plea-negotiation details and charging theory with the press, is reported above as the letter’s allegation only, not as a finding.
  • “Bob Senior” / “the Bob Seniors review.” The same investigation timeline names “Robert Senior” as an official who exchanged emails with Villafaña, Sloman and Weinstein about the case, including what it labels a “CEOS review.”5 This page identifies “Bob Senior” as that Robert Senior on that basis.
  • “Ken.” The letter never gives a surname. This wiki’s page on the submission to the Deputy Attorney General documents Kenneth W. Starr writing to Acosta directly in this same negotiation, in December 2007 and June 2008, alongside Jay Lefkowitz. The letter’s description of “Ken,” outraged, devout, keeping “two bibles,” is consistent with that identification but is not itself proof of it; this page reports the identification as likely, from context outside this document, and not as established by this document alone.
  • The person “Alex” could “confirm for yourself… had represented regarding the New York Times.” This document gives only a first name, “Lily.” A person by that same first and last name, corroborated independently across dozens of other documents in the release in a professional legal capacity for Epstein, is identified below as likely the same person.6

No signature, and a duplicate production

A second production in the release, Data Set 9, contains what reads as the same letter, word for word, scanned as five separate page images under the identifier EFTA00258310: a first page that is the same handwritten-notes sheet with the printed “Jeffrey E. Epstein” line, seen here on a plain background rather than a rug; a second page carrying the letter’s opening half; a third page of pen scribbles; a fourth page carrying the letter’s closing half; and a fifth page of further scribbles.7 Neither scan of either half of the letter carries a signature.7

That second production carries redaction boxes over several names in this same passage, including the two names this page never spells out above, which are blacked out on every copy of this letter this page found and are not reported here.7 This page’s identifications of David Weinstein and Lily Sanchez, above, are supplied from other, independent documents in the release (the investigation timeline and the internal U.S. Attorney’s Office correspondence cited in the footnotes to those identifications), not from any comparison between productions of this letter.7

What a public analysis claims, and what this page does not decide

A Substack article by Ellie Leonard, “How Epstein Faked a Plea Deal,” discusses this same document and states that it carries “no signature,” which matches what this page independently found at the image.8 Leonard’s further claim is that the letter’s spelling, spacing and voice resemble Epstein’s own writing rather than an attorney’s, and that Epstein may have written it himself; she also proposes, from context rather than from any date on the document, that it falls between a May 2008 Starr letter and Epstein’s June 30, 2008 state guilty plea.8 This page does not adopt either claim. It notes, without resolving it, that the letter’s own text refers to “Mr. Epstein” and to “Ken” in the third person throughout: phrasing such as “that is patently unfair to Mr. Epstein,” and “Ken… is outraged. He is a man of great faith,” sits uneasily with the idea that either man is the person writing it. This document carries no date, and this page does not assign one.

No reply in the record

This page searched the full-text index of the release (every production, not only this dataset) for seven phrases drawn from the letter’s own wording, distinctive enough that a reply quoting or referencing them would surface: “TOTAL declination,” “postpone setting up any firm meeting date,” “firmly and totally,” “two bibles,” “Bob Seniors review,” “wildly exaggerated list of victims,” and “total closure to all outstanding.” Each search returned only this letter’s own two productions, EFTA01302111 and EFTA00258310, and no other document. A broader search on the single word “declination” alone returned 360 pages across the release and was not usable for this purpose: it matches the routine language of unrelated declination decisions throughout the corpus, not this letter. That is a statement about what this search found, not a finding that no reply exists: a letter with no answer in the record is a letter with no answer, not a letter that went unanswered.

Limits of this page

This page does not identify who wrote the letter. It does not identify the two names the image redacts in both productions. It does not assign the letter a date; the document carries none, and this page reports Leonard’s date range as her inference, not as established fact. It does not repeat what the letter says about “the wildly exaggerated list of victims” beyond that phrase itself, names no complainant, and reports nothing about any redacted individual’s role, gender or employer. It does not determine whether the letter, on its own account never sent as formal correspondence, ever reached Acosta.

Footnotes

  1. EFTA01302111, sole image, read at 400 dpi: a photograph of three sheets of paper on a patterned rug — two typed pages and one page of handwritten notes — with “EFTA_00190341” printed in the lower left and “SDNY_GM_00166736” printed vertically along the left margin. (A further “EFTA01302111” caption appears below the photograph itself, in the surrounding page margin rather than over the photographed scene; this is the corpus’s standard per-page Bates stamp, present the same way on unrelated pages elsewhere in the release, e.g. EFTA00191148 p.18 carries the stamp “EFTA00191165” in the same position — not a mark specific to this document, and not counted among the image’s own identifiers above.) https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01302111 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. EFTA01302111 p.1, lower sheet in the photograph, read at 400 dpi: “Alex, I wanted to have a one on one conversation re yesterdays call. I wanted to give you time to confirm for yourself what Lily had represented regarding the New York Times… that contrary to the characterization of David weinstein’s actions as merely third party hearsay, I wanted you to know that we have proof positive of what transpired. Proof positive of a breach of the U.S. attorneys manual, proof positive of a breach of the local rules of conduct… support a charge. . Alex, David discussed details of our plea negotiations, ( personal security and house arrest), after repeatedly voicing the offices concern with the Palm beach post editorial. He discussed the theory of the case, and talked about the multiple charging statues, even including the 1591 statute, of sex trafficking -.that is patently unfair to Mr. Epstein. . Frankly, as you heard yesterday, Ken, to put it mildly, is outraged. He is a man of great faith- both in his religion and his unwavering belief in the system of justice. He has two bibles, the king james version and the us attorneys manual… His fear is that the Bob Seniors review, is merely designed to be a rubber stamp for the office… what would we get if we achieved a conviction. We would have registration, we would have a jail sentence and the victims would be allowed to sue under 2255… At the time, you were unaware of [redacted on the image] misrepresentations. , you were unaware of [redacted on the image] disregard for published procedures, you were unaware of the wildly exaggerated list of victims. You were unware of the missing Brady info. You were certainly unaware of the most troubling breach of prosecutorial conduct -weinsteins interactions with the new York times. That aside, BASED ON THE NEW FACTS, AND THE LAW We have researched every case previously brought.. there are none that comes close.. this isn’t the case in which attempt such a stretch.- the initial decision needs to be revisited… I would encourage you however to seriously reconsider our proposal. Not only as an advocate but as a colleague, I strongly urge you to accept it. You have my word that, if it is accepted this will bring total closure to all outstanding and extremely problematic ancillary issues—… I have not sent you a letter as I’d prefer not to begin creating a record, that might lead to months and months of contentious argument… I fear that, if this is not resolved quickly, the recent issues re misconduct with the press will draw us into a tornado of trouble… ( I think this is a middle ground. , IF Alan Dershowitz, and Ken, are able to convince either Bob Senior or Washington- I have more confidence in Washingtons openess-that the fed statutes don’t apply, we”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01302111 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12

  3. EFTA01302111 p.1, right-hand sheet in the photograph, read at 400 dpi: a scrawled mark not legible enough to transcribe; a black redaction box; the word “FBI,” underlined twice; a line of cursive this page could not read with confidence; a line in blue ink resembling a Tuesday appointment time; two further lines not legible enough to transcribe; and, printed in type, “Jeffrey E. Epstein.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01302111 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. EFTA01302111 p.1, upper sheet in the photograph, read at 400 dpi: “would then be asking for a TOTAL declination. ( if he talks about appeal.. waivers, I think that is a non-starter but does he want to send you a proposed set of facts, to which we would have to stipulate. ). I realize that emotions are running high on both of our sides… I suggest we postpone setting up any firm meeting date until tomorrow, after you have had ample time to review the current situation and circumstances and reconsider, the possibility of getting this, complex matter firmly and totally. behind us.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01302111 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  5. A table headed “EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION TIMELINE,” read at 300 dpi: “2/27/2008… Email chain between Marie Villafaña, David Weinstein, and Bob Senior re email to the Civil Rights Chief,” and “2/29/2008… Emails between Jeff Sloman, Marie Villafaña, Robert Senior, and David Weinstein regarding continuing investigation and status of CEOS review.” Page footer: “Page 31 of 51,” “Privileged Confidential,” “Contains 6(e) Material.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00224943 p.31. ↩ ↩2

  6. An internal U.S. Attorney’s Office email, Matthew Menchel to A. Marie Villafaña, July 5, 2007: “Lily Sanchez called me before, not after, the June 26th meeting. It was an informal discussion and not in the nature of an official plea offer but rather a feeling out by both sides as to what it might take to resolve the matter.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00191148 p.18. And a later, unrelated email, Lesley Groff to Christopher E. Knight, Lily Sanchez, Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. and Darren Indyke, April 11, 2012, “JE Conf Call-late afternoon tomorrow?”: “Jeffrey would like to have his conference call with you all tomorrow but is requesting to move it to late afternoon.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00415962 p.2. ↩

  7. EFTA00258310, pp. 1-5, read at 300 dpi. P.1: the same handwritten-notes sheet and printed “Jeffrey E. Epstein” line as EFTA01302111’s third sheet, photographed alone against a plain background. P.2: the letter’s opening half, textually identical in substance to EFTA01302111’s lower sheet, but carrying six black redaction boxes this copy does not carry (rendered at 400 dpi and counted by connected-component measurement, six separated bounding boxes), over names including the two this page never spells out and describes above only as redacted. P.3: pen scribbles, no legible text. P.4: the letter’s closing half, textually identical to EFTA01302111’s upper sheet. P.5: further pen scribbles, no legible text. No page carries a signature. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00258310 pp.1-5. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. Ellie Leonard, “How Epstein Faked a Plea Deal,” Substack (ellieleonard.substack.com), read 2026-09-07: states the document “leaves no signature,” identifies the addressee as Alex Acosta, argues the writing style resembles Epstein’s own rather than an attorney’s, and places the letter, by inference from surrounding events rather than from any date on the document, between a May 2008 Starr letter and the June 30, 2008 state guilty plea. https://ellieleonard.substack.com/p/how-epstein-faked-a-plea-deal ↩ ↩2

Backlinks