Skip to main content
Search
< All Topics
Print

EFTA00013785: Stephanie D. Thacker Letter Opposing Federal Prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein

Posted
Updated
ByEpsteinWiki
EFTA00013785Download

Snapshot

Document: EFTA00013785 through EFTA00013798

Direct evidence link: EFTA00013785, 14 page letter in Epstein Data

Date created: June 19, 2008, as dated in the letter

Date sent or filed: Addressed to the Deputy Attorney General’s office. The letter says it responds to earlier Justice Department correspondence. The original transmittal record is not included in this file.

Date released: Released as part of the Department of Justice Epstein Library materials. The individual release date is not stated on the PDF.

Author or creator: Stephanie D. Thacker, attorney at Allen Guthrie McHugh & Thomas, PLLC, as shown by the letterhead and signature

Sender: Stephanie D. Thacker

Recipient: John Roth, Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice

Custodian or producing source: United States Department of Justice Epstein Library

Evidence type: Defense counsel letter and legal advocacy memorandum

Length and format: 14 page PDF scan, Bates range EFTA00013785 through EFTA00013798

Case or investigation: Federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida, alongside the state investigation and proposed state resolution in Palm Beach County

People named: The letter names individuals in its text and lists attorneys on its letterhead. Some witness names are redacted and are not reconstructed here. The full name list appears below.

Organizations named: United States Department of Justice, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of West Virginia, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Palm Beach Police Department, and Allen Guthrie McHugh & Thomas, PLLC

Locations named: Palm Beach County and West Palm Beach, Florida; Charleston, West Virginia; and Washington, D.C.

Content warning: The letter discusses allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation of minors. Details are summarized without reproducing unnecessary descriptions or redacted survivor information.

Key takeaway: Thacker’s June 19, 2008 letter urged the Deputy Attorney General’s office not to permit a federal prosecution of Epstein, arguing that the matter belonged in Florida state court and challenging the federal statutes and evidence. It is a defense submission, not an independent investigation, judicial ruling, or finding that its factual assertions were true.

What Is This Record?

EFTA00013785 is the first Bates page of a 14 page letter dated June 19, 2008. It is addressed to John Roth, then Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General. The letter is on the letterhead of Allen Guthrie McHugh & Thomas, PLLC, and is signed by Thacker on the final page.

Thacker wrote after the Justice Department’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, known as CEOS, reviewed the proposed federal case and sent a letter dated May 15, 2008. Her June letter argued that the federal case should not proceed and that the matter should be resolved through Florida state proceedings. The document presents the defense position and cites other material, including witness statements, deposition and trial transcripts, a search warrant affidavit, correspondence, and legal cases. Those cited materials are not all reproduced in this 14 page letter.

The file’s final Bates page is EFTA00013798. It ends with the letter’s conclusion, Thacker’s signature, and the word “Enclosures.” The enclosure materials are not included in the Bates range reviewed here.

Source and Provenance

The primary record is a Department of Justice PDF in Data Set 8. The EFTA page identifies the file as 14 pages and gives the Bates range EFTA00013785 through EFTA00013798. The opening page identifies the date, recipient, and subject. The closing page bears Thacker’s signature.

The letter’s own source history is incomplete. It does not include a receipt stamp, email transmission, or cover sheet confirming when Roth’s office received it. It refers to earlier letters and supporting materials that are not attached to this Bates range. Its claims therefore need to be read as counsel’s arguments and checked against the underlying records when relevant.

Primary source: EFTA00013785 PDF in DOJ Data Set 8

Epstein Data record: EFTA00013785, including the full Bates range

Official release context: United States Department of Justice Epstein Library

What the Record Contains

The letter has four main parts. It describes Thacker’s background as a prosecutor, disputes the factual and legal basis for federal charges, challenges how the federal review and investigation were handled, and urges the Deputy Attorney General to leave the matter to Florida authorities.

Thacker begins by identifying her experience in federal prosecution and victim related work. She says she served as an Assistant United States Attorney in West Virginia and later worked at CEOS, where she rose to Principal Deputy Chief. She cites prior prosecutions and DOJ initiatives to establish her familiarity with child exploitation investigations and victim witness issues.

She then summarizes the defense view of the allegations. The letter says that Epstein’s lawyers disputed that he knowingly sought minors, that he or his assistants used interstate communications to entice minors, and that the conduct met federal trafficking or travel statutes. It states that Epstein asked for massage providers to be at least 18 and that witnesses misrepresented their ages. These are assertions made by defense counsel. The letter is not independent proof that those assertions were accurate.

The letter argues that the alleged conduct occurred locally in Palm Beach and that any criminal accountability should be handled under Florida law. It discusses 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2423, and 1591, and argues that the facts and governing law did not support federal charges. It characterizes the proposed federal theories as novel and outside the intended reach of those statutes.

Thacker also criticizes the scope of the CEOS review, saying it was limited and did not independently examine all facts, plea negotiations, or allegations of investigative misconduct. The letter challenges statements in a search warrant affidavit and accuses investigators of omitting or mischaracterizing evidence about ages and witness accounts. Those are allegations advanced in the defense letter, not findings made by a court in this document.

The conclusion says federal prosecution “simply should not be countenanced” and requests a complete, independent review. The letter argues that a state resolution was the appropriate outcome.

Key Evidence Points

  • Page 1, EFTA00013785: The letter is dated June 19, 2008, addressed to John Roth, and responds to the May 15 CEOS correspondence about the proposed federal investigation of Epstein.
  • Pages 1 and 2, EFTA00013785 and EFTA00013786: Thacker describes her background as a federal prosecutor, including service at CEOS, and presents that background as relevant to her assessment of the case.
  • Pages 2 through 4, EFTA00013786 through EFTA00013788: The letter argues that the alleged conduct was local and that the federal statutes under consideration did not fit the defense account of the facts.
  • Pages 5 through 7, EFTA00013789 through EFTA00013791: Thacker challenges the scope and independence of the CEOS review and disputes the prosecution’s handling of witness evidence and credibility.
  • Pages 8 through 11, EFTA00013792 through EFTA00013795: The letter discusses witness accounts, alleged age misrepresentations, and omissions from a search warrant affidavit. It presents those points as arguments supporting the defense position.
  • Pages 12 through 14, EFTA00013796 through EFTA00013798: The letter argues against federal jurisdiction under travel and trafficking statutes and concludes by urging that the matter remain with state authorities.
  • Page 14, EFTA00013798: Thacker signs the letter and refers to enclosures that are not included in this Bates range.

What the Record Does and Does Not Prove

What it establishes: On June 19, 2008, Thacker prepared a signed letter addressed to John Roth arguing against federal prosecution of Epstein. The letter records the defense position, identifies legal theories being disputed, describes Thacker’s prior Justice Department work, and refers to a federal review and earlier correspondence.

What it does not establish: The letter does not prove that its descriptions of survivor or witness statements were accurate, that Epstein did not know anyone’s age, that the search warrant affidavit was false, that investigators committed misconduct, that federal statutes were inapplicable, or that the state resolution was legally or factually appropriate. The letter is not a court decision, neutral investigative report, sworn testimony, or finding by the Department of Justice.

Unresolved questions: The letter does not include its enclosures or all source material it cites. The record alone does not show what Roth’s office received alongside it, how the Deputy Attorney General weighed this submission, or whether every factual statement in it matched the underlying evidence. Those questions require comparison with the cited records, the May 15 CEOS letter, the June 23 response, the non prosecution agreement, and later official reviews.

People Named in the File

The following names appear in the letter’s text or on its letterhead. A name appearing here does not by itself establish involvement in the conduct under discussion. Statements about witnesses, investigators, and legal proceedings in the letter are Thacker’s claims and arguments.

  • Jeffrey Epstein: Subject of the proposed federal investigation and the defense arguments in the letter.
  • Stephanie D. Thacker: Author and signatory. The letter describes her prior federal prosecution work and her work at CEOS.
  • John Roth: Recipient, identified as Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General.
  • Alexander Acosta: Named in the letter in connection with the United States Attorney’s Office and the proposed federal prosecution.
  • Lana Belohlavek: Named as the Florida state prosecutor who interviewed witnesses during the state investigation, according to Thacker.
  • Jay Lefkowitz: Named as the recipient of a referenced May 19, 2008 letter. The source scan spells the name Lefkowitz.
  • Sloman: Referenced by surname as the author of the May 19, 2008 letter. The source does not provide a first name in that reference.
  • Dwight York: Named in Thacker’s description of a prior federal prosecution.
  • George G. Guthrie: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • Robert B. Allen: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • Rebecca A. Betts: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • R. Terrance Rodgers: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • David B. Thomas: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • James S. Arnold: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • David J. Hardy: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • Wm. Scott Wickline: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • Pamela L. Campbell: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • Pamela C. Deem: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • Philip J. Combs: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • Bryant J. Spann: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • Teresa K. Thompson: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • Debra C. Price: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • Christopher S. Arnold: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • Christopher D. Pence: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • Peter G. Markham: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • Zackary B. Mazey: Listed on the law firm letterhead.
  • Thomas E. McHugh: Listed as of counsel on the law firm letterhead.

The source refers to other people as witnesses, alleged victims, investigators, or family members without disclosing their names. Those names remain redacted. This list does not infer identities from surrounding details. The letter also cites court cases using party names and surnames; those citations identify legal authorities, not additional participants in the 2008 investigation.

Timeline Significance

  • May 15, 2008: CEOS sent a letter reviewing whether the United States Attorney’s Office could authorize federal prosecution. The 2008 letter by Thacker summarizes and responds to this review.
  • June 19, 2008: Thacker dated the letter addressed to John Roth, arguing against federal prosecution and requesting an independent review.
  • June 23, 2008: The DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility later reported that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General informed Epstein’s defense counsel that the Deputy Attorney General would not intervene. That outcome followed review of submissions from the defense and the USAO.
  • June 30, 2008: Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida state court to state prostitution related offenses and was sentenced to 18 months in county jail, according to the Eleventh Circuit’s later account.
  • July 2019: Federal prosecutors in New York brought a new federal sex trafficking case against Epstein. That later case was separate from the 2008 Florida decision and ended after Epstein’s death in custody.
  • November 2020: DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility reported that it found no professional misconduct by Department attorneys, but concluded that Acosta exercised poor judgment in resolving the federal investigation through the non prosecution agreement and in failing to ensure victims were notified about the state plea hearing.
  • April 2021: The Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the Crime Victims’ Rights Act did not create a freestanding private right of action for victims to seek judicial enforcement outside an existing proceeding. The majority’s decision addressed the legal remedy available in that case. It did not convert Thacker’s defense arguments into findings of fact.

Related Evidence

Reliability and Limitations

The primary record is a signed legal advocacy letter preserved in a DOJ release. Its date, author, recipient, arguments, and conclusion are visible in the document itself.

The letter’s factual assertions are those of defense counsel. They are not independent findings. It characterizes witness accounts, age knowledge, investigative conduct, and statutory coverage from the defense perspective. Any account of survivor testimony or investigative evidence should be compared with the underlying records and later court proceedings.

The letter cites supporting exhibits and correspondence, but the enclosures are not included in this EFTA Bates range. The source also uses redactions for some witnesses. This article does not identify those people from indirect clues.

Later official records provide important context. DOJ OPR concluded that Acosta acted within his authority and did not commit professional misconduct, while also finding he exercised poor judgment and that victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the Department. The Eleventh Circuit later rejected a freestanding private right of action under the CVRA in the victims’ separate litigation. Neither later determination validates the factual assertions in Thacker’s letter.

Survivor Safety and Privacy Review

The source discusses sexual exploitation allegations involving minors and includes redacted witness references. This article does not reproduce unnecessary details, name protected witnesses, or attempt to reverse engineer redactions. Names in the source are treated as roles or redacted references where identification is unnecessary to understand the letter.

Why This Record Matters

EFTA00013785 documents one part of the effort by Epstein’s defense team to persuade senior Justice Department officials not to proceed with federal prosecution after a federal investigation had developed proposed charges. It gives researchers a first hand record of Thacker’s arguments about federal jurisdiction, witness credibility, investigative conduct, and the proper role of state prosecution.

Its importance also comes from what it is not. It is an advocacy document written for a decision maker, not a neutral account of the evidence. It must be compared with the CEOS response, the federal investigation record, the agreement and its implementation, later DOJ review, and the courts’ decisions. Read that way, the letter helps document the defense’s position during a consequential period in the 2008 resolution of the Epstein investigation.

Related EpsteinWiki Pages

Source List

Tags:
Previous EFTA-00580264: Email Promoting “United Covenant of Racial Survival” Group
Next EFTA00067066: Extortion Email Referencing Alleged Epstein Video Evidence
Table of Contents