EFTA00185206

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. EFTA00185206 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 17 JANE DOE NO. 6, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. C.M.A., Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-808 I I -MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON -2- EFTA00185207 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 17 DOE II, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. CASE NO.: 09-C V-80469-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 102 CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER REOUESTING POSITION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY [DE 991 Comes now the United States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, and files this response to the Court's Order requesting the position of the United States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99]. For the reasons set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay of the proceedings is not necessary and was not contemplated by the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. -3- EFTA00185208 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 17 ISSUE PRESENTED The United States is not a party to these lawsuits and, accordingly, is not fully aware of the scope of the proceedings, the range of arguments presented by counsel, and any correspondence or oral communications between the parties in these civil suits. Based on the information presented by the Court and a review of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action for Time Certain Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Court File No. 08-CV-80811- MARRA/JOHNSON DE SI-I), and responses thereto filed by various plaintiffs in their suits, the undersigned understands that the Court has requested the position of the United States on the following issue: Are there "special circumstances" that require the imposition of a stay of the civil proceedings in the "interests of justice" until the "expiration" of the Non￾Prosecution Agreement ["NPA"] between the United States and Epstein? By filing this response, the United States does not make itself a party to this litigation and takes no position with respect to the outcome of any of the civil suits; nor does the United States take any position regarding Defendant Epstein's performance of hi s obligations pursuant to the NPA. The United States also declines to comment on Defendant Epstein's representations regarding past allegations of violations of the NPA by Epstein. The United States files this response solely as amicus curiae at the Court's request and does not waive any procedural or statutory bars to suit. -4- EFTA00185209 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 17 I. STANDARD FOR IMPOSING A DISCRETIONARY STAY A. The Defendant Must Show that the Assertion of His Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Would Automatically Result in the Entry of Summary Judgment Against Him. "The decision whether or not to stay civil litigation in deference to parallel criminal proceedings is discretionary.... A movant must carry a heavy burden to succeed in such an endeavor." Microfinancial, Inc.. Premier Holidays Internal?, Inc., 385 F.3d 72, 77 (1st Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). When a defendant facing possible criminal liability invokes his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination in connection with civil litigation, a court can stay discovery or the entire civil case. Diaz'. Jenne, 2007 WL 624286 al (S.D. Fl. Feb. 23, 2007) (Cooke, J.). "However, 'the Constitution does not require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings. Forcing an individual to risk non-criminal disadvantage by remaining silent for fear of self incrimination in a parallel criminal proceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional infringement.'" Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co.'. Alan° Assocs., Inc., 866 F. Supp. 536, 540 (M.D. Fl. 1994)). As this Court has previously explained: The law regardii stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. In United States Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Fla, 23 F.3d 359, 363- 65 (11th Cir. 1994) ("Lot 5"), the Court articulated the following principles of law with respect to a stay of a civil action pending resolution of a related criminal action: [A] blanket assertion of the privilege is an inadequate basis for the issuance of a stay. Rather, a court must stay a civil -5- EFTA00185210 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 6 of 17 proceeding pending resolution of a related criminal prosecution only when "special circumstances" so require in the "interests ofjustice." The court may deny a stay so long as the privilege's invocation does not compel an adverse judgment against the claimant. • • • Mhe standard set by the Eleventh Circuit as to when a stay should be granted to prevent unconstitutional infringement is more narrow. The law in the Eleventh Circuit requires consideration of whether, as a result of invoking the privilege, the defendant faces certain loss of the civil proceeding on summary judgment if the civil proceeding were to continue. Lot 5, 23 F.3d at 364; Pervis I. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 901 F.2d 944 (1 I th Cir. 1990). Under this standard, Movants must show that invocation of the privilege in the instant matter will result in certain loss by automatic summary judgment. United States'. Two Parcels of Real Property, 92 F.3d 1123, 1129 (11th Cir. 1996); Pervis, 901 F.2d at 946-47. This must be an actual adverse judgment, and not "merely the loss of the defendant's most `effective defense."' Securities & Exchange Comm.'. Incendy, 936 F. Supp. at 955 (S.D. Fl. 1996); Shell Oil Co., 866 F. Supp. at 540-41. Court-Appointed Receiver of Lancer Mgt. Group LLCI. Lauer, 2009 WL 800144 (S.D. Fl. Mar. 25, 2009) (Marra, J.). Thus, before reaching the relative benefit and prejudice to each of the parties caused by staying the cases, the Court must determine whether, if defendant Epstein were to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination' and the Court were to allow an adverse inference to be drawn therefrom, an adverse judgment against Epstein would be automatically compelled. The United States respectfully submits that it would not. 'It appears from a brief review of some of' Epstein's discovery responses that Epstein has made a blanket assertion of the privilege. For example, Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to a plaintiff's request to produce the NPA and the United States' list of identified victims although these documents were provided to Epstein by the United States. -6- EFTA00185211 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 7 of 17 From a review of the Complaints filed by the plaintiffs in these cases, it appears that some have filed claims based upon Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, some have filed claims based upon common law torts, and some have filed a combination of the two. Under general principles of tort law, a plaintiff is required to prove: (1) that the defendant committed a bad act; (2) that the plaintiff suffered damages; and (3) that the damages were caused by the defendant's bad act. To succeed on a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff is a person who, while a minor, was a victim of an enumerated offense committed by the defendant; (2) that the person suffered personal injury as a result of that violation; and (3) the amount of damages she sustained. Epstein's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege could result in the drawing of a negative inference only as to the first element under both of these claims. Therefore, to succeed on summary judgment (or at trial), the plaintiffs would still have to prove that they suffered personal injury/damages as a result of the defendant's bad act. CI In re Financial Federated Title & Trust, Inc., 252 B.R. 834, 838 (S.D. Fl. Bank. Ct. 2000) (Stay not warranted in bankruptcy proceeding where criminal indictment was pending because negative inference related only to defendant's receipt of allegedly fraudulent transfers, but "Trustee must still cant' the burden of proving all of the elements of his complaint for fraudulent transfers ... includ[ing] fraudulent intent, insolvency, and financial condition at the time of the transfers to the Defendants."). While Epstein may believe that his arguments and proof as to the first element are his "most effective defense," that alone is insufficient to warrant the imposition of a stay of the -7- EFTA00185212 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 8 of 17 litigation. There are two other items for the Court to consider in deciding this issue. First, pursuant to the terms of the NPA, as to those victims identified by the United States, Epstein has already made a concession that they are victims of an enumerated offense committed by Epstein. Thus, this inference is drawn not due to his invocation of the right against self￾incrimination but due to his entry into a contractual agreement with the United States for which the identified victims are third-party beneficiaries? Second, in Lot 5, the Eleventh Circuit pointed out the wealth of evidence other than the defendant's testimony that could be used to defeat a liability claim. See Lot 5, 23 F.3d at 364 ("Thus, Claimant's assertion that only her own testimony could vindicate her is groundless; other participants to the illegal acts that gave rise to the forfeiture were available to testify at trial. Claimant's failure to indicate with precision why she did not use other parties' testimony to substantiate her defense was fatal."). For example, Epstein could mount a defense using effective cross-examination, telephone records, travel records, documents within the possession of the plaintiffs or third parties, and/or the testimony of third parties to rebut the plaintiffs' proof. 2The United States notes that it is not aware of the identities of all of the plaintiffs in the civil suits. To the extent that any are not "identified victims" under the NPA, this contractual provision would not apply. -8- EFTA00185213 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 9 of 17 B. Additional Factors to Consider in Balancing the Prejudice to the Parties If the Court is persuaded that the negative inference drawn from Epstein's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege would result in an automatic grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, then the Court must engage in a balancing of equities in determining whether there are "special circumstances" warranting the imposition of a stay "'to prevent a party from suffering substantial and irreparable prejudice."' Securites and Exchange Comm in t. Incendy, 936 F. Supp. 952, 956 (S.D. Fl. 1996) (quoting S.E.C.I. First Financial Group of Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 668 (5th Cir. 1981) (add'I citations omitted). Examples of "special circumstances" provided by the Supreme Court in [United States'. Kordel] are: (I) if the Government brought the civil action solely to obtain evidence for its criminal prosecution, (2) if the Government failed to advise the defendant in the civil proceeding that it contemplates his criminal prosecution; (3) if the defendant is without counsel or reasonably fears prejudice from adverse pretrial publicity or other unfair injury; or (4) any other special circumstances indicating unconstitutionality or even impropriety. Incendy at 956 (citing United States' Kordel, 397 U.S. I, 11 (1970)). See also Securities and Exchange Comm'nl. Wright, 261 Fed. Appx. 259, 263 (11th Cir. 2008) ("[N]o 'special circumstances' existed in this case warranting a stay, as there is no record evidence suggesting the Government had brought the civil case solely to obtain evidence for the criminal prosecution or that the criminal case against [defendant] was unconstitutional or inappropriately instituted."). No "special circumstances" exist here. First, unlike Wright and Incendy, the United States Government is not a party to the civil litigation. Each suit is brought on behalf of an -9- EFTA00185214 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 10 of 17 individual plaintiff represented by private counsel. Some of those plaintiffs are adverse to the United States and have filed suit against the Government based upon its handling of the criminal case against Epstein. (See In re Jane Doe Litigation, Court File No. 08-80736-Cil￾Marra.) There has been no allegation, and certainly no showing, that the civil litigation is a ruse to obtain discovery on behalf of the criminal investigation. As some of the plaintiffs have mentioned, one purpose of the NPA was to place the identified victims in the same position where they would have been if Epstein had been convicted after trial of an offense enumerated in .18 U.S.C. § 2255. (See, e.g., Court File No. 08-CV-80119 DE 49-2.) If Epstein had proceeded to trial and been convicted, those victims would have been entitled to restitution and to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and would have been entitled to the same sorts of discovery that they now seek. None of the plaintiffs has contacted the United States about passing on materials gathered through discovery to any criminal investigators or about seeking discovery that would be relevant only to the criminal proceedings, rather than to their individual cases. If Epstein has legitimate concerns that the civil discovery process is being abused in some way, he can ask the Court for a protective order limiting the scope of discovery or its distribution. Furthermore, if at some time in the future, Epstein were the subject of a criminal indictment and he alleged that the evidence to be used against him was gathered improperly, he could file a motion to suppress or to dismiss the indictment in that criminal action. See, e.g., United States, ex. rel. Westrickl. Second Chance, 2007 WL 1020808 '4 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2007) (Defendant in civil False Claims Act suit moved to stay civil action pending criminal -10- EFTA00185215 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 11 of 17 investigation where no indictment had been returned. The district court denied the motion, noting that while "allowing civil discovery to proceed may afford the government [who was the real party in interest in the civil case] the opportunity to gain evidence that it may not be entitled to under the more restrictive criminal discovery rules, if and when discovery becomes necessary, protective orders and other remedial measures may be taken.") (citations omitted). By entering into the NPA, with its explicit discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein acknowledged that the United States was trying to protect the victims' rights to restitution and that civil claims would likely follow. Epstein did not bargain for a stay of those proceedings. Instead, both parties received benefits and gave consideration for the bargain that was struck —while Epstein is faced with answering discovery requests that he would not face during criminal proceedings, he also is entitled to the identification of and extensive discovery from the victims, which he would not have received in the criminal case. Based upon a review of the discovery requests he has promulgated thus far, it appears that Epstein is taking full advantage of this benefit and if a criminal case were ever filed, he would, no doubt, seek to use that information in his defense.3 3With respect to the other "special circumstances" mentioned in Incendy, the government obviously advised Epstein of the potential for criminal charges, and that knowledge led to the negotiation of the NPA. Epstein also has a number of attorneys listed on the Service List for the civil cases and has retained a similarly large number of attomeys to handle the criminal investigation and negotiation of the NPA. Epstein alleges a fear of adverse publicity, but as the plaintiffs have pointed out, during the course of the state and federal criminal investigations, Epstein's personal publicist distributed stories to the press impugning the credibility of the victims and other witnesses and averring that the victims' allegations of abuse were made solely to extract money from the defendant. In the context of some of the civil suits currently pending, Epstein has asked the Court -11- EFTA00185216 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 12 of 17 Unlike Wright and Incendy, Epstein also has not been criminally indicted. In some districts, this alone is virtually dispositive. See, e.g., Sterling Nall Bank'. A-I Hotels Internal 7, 175 F. Supp. 2d 573, 576-77 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("district courts in this Circuit 'generally grant the extraordinary remedy of a stay only after the defendant seeking a stay has been indicted.'" (quoting Citibank, N.A. Hakim, 1993 WL 481335 *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 1993) (add'I citations omitted). As one court explained: the consensus that a party seeking a stay bears a heavier burden when he has not yet been indicted derives logically from the balancing test set out by the courts of appeals that have considered the question. When a defendant has been indicted, his situation is particularly dangerous, and takes a certain priority, for the risk to his liberty, the importance of safeguarding his constitutional rights, and even the strain on his resources and attention that makes defending satellite civil litigation particularly difficult, all weigh in favor of his interest. Moreover, if the potential prejudice to the defendant is particularly high post-indictment, the prejudice to the plaintiff of staying proceedings is somewhat reduced, since the criminal litigation has reached a crisis that will lead to a reasonably speedy resolution. Furthermore, at that stage in the criminal proceeding, the contours of the indictment will provide the Court with a reasonable basis for determining the extent of the threat to the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, and the likely extent and timing of the criminal litigation. Pre-indictment, these factors must be balanced significantly differently. Though many of the same risks to the civil defendant are present, the dangers are at least somewhat more remote, and it is inherently unclear to the Court just how much the unindicted defendant really has to fear. Conversely, the delay imposed on the plaintiff is potentially indefinite. There is no telling how complicated the government's investigation may be, whether the allegations of the particular civil plaintiff are merely the tip of an iceberg that will result in a lengthy and open-ended investigation, what priority the government assigns to the investigation, whether it will result in charges that will have to to unseal the victims' names so that he may make use similar press efforts to impugn their credibility. -12- EFTA00185217 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 13 of 17 be litigated, or how time-consuming the resulting criminal case will be. Under these circumstances, the likelihood that a civil party can make the necessary showing to obtain the "extraordinary" remedy of a stay is inevitably much reduced. Sterling Nat'l Bank, 175 F. Supp. 2d at 577 (internal citations omitted). The First Circuit has noted that the decision whether to grant a stay "is highly nuanced ... [and] involves competing interests. Balancing these interests is a situation-specific task, and an inquiring court must take a careful look at the idiosyncratic circumstances of the case before it." Microfinancial, supra, 385 F.3d at 78. Epstein's case is more idiosyncratic than most. As the Court aptly noted in its Order denying Epstein's first motion to stay the civil proceedings, Epstein has not been indicted and there are no criminal proceedings pending against him.' The resurrection of criminal proceedings against Epstein lies entirely within Epstein's own hands, by performing or not performing under the terms of the NPA. This tips the balance of equities even further in favor of the plaintiffs. Epstein makes allegations that the U.S. Attorney's Office has unfettered discretion in determining breaches of the NPA, but this is no different than in any contractual setting. If one party believes that there has been a breach, it may seek the remedy set forth in the contract. If the other party believes that 'Epstein points to provisions requiring him to maintain certain evidence "inviolate" as proof that the grand jury investigation is still active. These provisions are meant only to insure that easily destroyed evidence identified through the investigation, such as computer equipment, that is still in Epstein's control, will still be available to investigators if Epstein does, in fact, breach the NPA. Epstein is well aware that litigation concerning those matters have been removed from the Court's docket, at the insistence of the United States, because it fully halted its investigation in accordance with the terms of the NPA. -13- EFTA00185218 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 14 of 17 there has been no breach, it has a remedy at law or equity. In this situation, Epstein would be entitled to seek dismissal of the indictment. See United States. Beeks, 167 Fed. Appx 777 (1 I th Cir. 2006); United States. Diaz, 138 Fed. Appx. 965 (9th Cir. 2005); United States'. Davis, 393 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2004). Epstein argues that because he is seeking a finite period of delay - until the time that he asserts that the NPA "expires" — and that, thereafter, he will promptly provide full and complete responses to all discovery, the harm to the plaintiffs is de minimis. With all respect, this overlooks a number of obvious issues. First, if a stay is imposed until Epstein's proposed "expiration date," it affords Epstein one of two incentives: (a) to delay any intended breach until a time when he believes that the United States has no remedy and then to breach the agreement with impunity (Le, to use the NPA as a shield and a sword); or (b) to delay the civil litigation as long as possible (until shortly before the "expiration" of the NPA), and then, after criminal charges have been filed, to seek a mandatory stay of the civil cases until the criminal case is resolved. Thus, contrary to the assertions of Epstein, the delay is not limited but, instead, is "potentially indefinite," as Sterling Bank warns. If the U.S. Attorney's Office were to proceed criminally, the litigation would likely be very lengthy, and would result in an even greater delay to the plaintiffs? 'The United States also notes that this finite termination to Epstein's exposure to potential criminal consequences is illusory. The NPA addresses only certain victims identified during the course of the government's investigation. To the extent that any of the plaintiffs who have already filed suit against Epstein do not fall within that group, the NPA does not address potential charges based upon crimes committed against them. The NPA also does not bind any other state or federal prosecutor from pursuing charges for criminal acts committed within their jurisdiction(s). The federal statute of limitations for offenses against children is ten years or the life of the child, -14- EFTA00185219 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 15 of 17 The factors to consider include: "(i) the interests of the civil plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation, including the avoidance of any prejudice to the plaintiff should a delay transpire; (ii) the hardship to the defendant, including the burden placed upon him should the cases go forward in tandem; (iii) the convenience of both the civil and criminal courts; (iv) the interests of third parties; ... (I) the public interest[;] (vi) the good faith of the litigants (or the absence of it) and (vii) the status of the cases." Microfinancial, 385 F.3d at 78 (citations omitted). In considering those factors, the United States respectfully recommends to the Court that all of the factors weigh against a stay. In making its decision, the Court should consider that, unlike all of the cases cited herein, Epstein seeks to stay not one suit involving a single plaintiff, but more than a dozen suits filed by individual plaintiffs. Each of those plaintiffs, in turn, impliedly asserts that she is a "crime victim" with the "right to full and timely restitution" and the "right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX6) & (7). As noted above, one of the purposes of the NPA was to provide these rights to victims identified in the Government's investigation. Thus, this factor weighs more heavily for the plaintiffs than in the average civil dispute as it embodies both the plaintiffs' and the public's interests. The victims who were identified in the government investigation, by and large, were without financial assets and had significant counseling needs that could whichever is longer. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Thus, for Epstein (or any other person accused of sexually abusing children) to "wait out" any chance of criminal liability, the court would have to stay civil litigation until all of the plaintiffs have died. -I5- EFTA00185220 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 16 of 17 be remedied through obtaining restitution from Epstein. In addition to those needs, they have legitimate concerns about memories fading, witnesses becoming unavailable, and dissipation of Epstein's assets while the matter is stayed. On the other hand, while the potential harm to the defendant normally weighs in the defendant's favor, in this case, Epstein has significant control over whether the criminal investigation remains in abeyance and whether criminal charges are ever filed. CONCLUSION In accordance with the Court's Order, the United States hereby submits that it is not aware of any "special circumstances" that warrant staying all of the civil cases pending the "expiration" of the NPA. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: ssistant United States Attorne 500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: Facsimile: -16- EFTA00185221 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 17 of 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 28, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. ssistant United States Attorney _17_ EFTA00185222 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 W t 1 ch, FL 33401 Facsimile: January 24, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 Re: Federal Grand Jury Subpoena Dear Jim: A new grand jury has been emaLlsed and I have enclosed a new subpoena for= As I mentioned earlier, Ms.M is not a target of this investigation and the United States seeks her testimony solely as a victim/witness. During our last conversation regarding Ms. =, you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us pursuant to a Kastigar letter and that she also was unwilling to speak with the grand jury and intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned. Please confer with her to confirm whether this remains her position. If it is, please advise in writing. Even if Ms. is inclined to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, she must still appear pursuant to the subpoena so that I may ask her questions that would not require the invocation of the Fifth Amendment. If she still invokes, I intend to move to compel her answers. If you or your client is unavailable on February 6, 2007, please let me know of another Tuesday when you are available. I also am concerned about a potential conflict of interest in your representation of Ms. . In case of future litigation regarding this issue, please provide me with I *All tion regarding who is paying (directly or indirectly) for your services on behalf of Ms. , the scope of your representation and whether you are taking direction on this matter from anyone other than Ms. =. If any formal or informal joint defense agreements exist, whether in writing or otherwise, please provide a copy of such agreements. If the agreement is purely oral, please provide a written summary of its terms. GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT EFTA00185223 JAMES EISENBERG, ESQ. JANUARY 24, 2007 PAGE 2 I look forward to your response. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta By: Assistant United States Attorney EFTA00185224 United States District Court TO: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY SUBPOENA FOR: PERSON ri DOCUMENTS OR OBJECT[S] X X YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testifybefore theMof the United States District Court at the place, date and time specified'below. PLACE: United States District Courthouse 701 Clematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 ROOM: DATE AND TIME: February 6, 2007 I:00pm* YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following documcnt(s) or object(s): ANY AND ALL NOTES, LE HS YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM JEFFREY EPSTEIN, THER PRINTED OR DIGITAL, OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ANY AND AIL II-MAILS, INSTANT MESSAGES, CHATS, TEXT MESSAGES, VOICBMAILS; OR TELEPHONE MESSAGES THAT YOU HAVE SENT TO AND/OR RECEIVED FROM JEFFREY EPSTEIN, *Please coordinate your compliance u d confirm the date and time, and location of our a earance with Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone: This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf of the court. CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERIC This subpoena is issued upon application of the United States of America DATE: January 23, 2007 Name Address and Ph ne thimber of Assistant U.S. Attorney Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 So. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401-6235 Tel: Fax: *If not applicable, enter "nom." TOM ampw litoorA0110 FORM ORD-227 JAN.86 EFTA00185225 EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A. Attorneys At Law JAMES L. EISENBERG Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer National Board Of Trial Advocacy Certified Criminal Trial Advocate KAI LI ALOE FOUTS One Clearlake Centre, Suite 704,250 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax: February 1, 2007 Asst. U.S. Attorney 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Grand Jury Subpoena for Dear M, I received your letter dated January 24, 2007 with regard to I must admit I forced myself to wait several days to respond in order to "cool off' and not say anything I would regret later. Now that time has passed, allow me to respond appropriately. 1. If you want to force Ms. =, a single mother, to come to the grand jury room to personally invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, she will be there. That does remain her position. My only request is that sro ttirovide a babysitter service for her child. I will be there, but I am not paid to babysit and Ms. should not have someone. It is this type of attitude, that your office refuses to accept the fact that it is Ms. decision not to cooperate with the government that upsets her. Your office fails to recognize that merely coming to court is a problem for a single mother like Ms. and, under these circumstances, appears to be a waste of time at best and, in her mind, personal harassment. 2. Rest assured that there is no conflict of interest in my representation of Ms. =. In this case I have always been asked and always will exercise independent judgment to follow my client's independent will. The remainder of your questions as to this matter are really none of the Government's business. 3. I will share with you that one of the reasons for our firm position that Ms. will invoke her Fifth Amendment right and choose not to voluntarily cooperate with the Government is our concern that the Government is not exercising independent judgment in this case. The history of this case has been in the newspapers. The case is being prosecuted in State court. Despite the state court prosecution, the Town of Palm Beach Police Chief went on what can only be ti • zr, GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 2 • • EFTA00185226 , Asst. U.S. Attorney February 1, 2007 Page Two described as a public rampage in the newspaper when the case was not prosecuted to his liking that reminded me of a small child having a public temper tantrum. In my thirty years of experience, I have never seen a law enforcement officer like this publicly make what appeared to be a political case in the newspaper for a prosecution and publicly criticize anyone who got in his way, including the elected State Attorney. This resulted in a federal investigation on a topic no one remembers the Federal Government ever being interested in prosecuting before. Although 1 am certain that you personally have not had your decision-making process compromised, the appearance that your office is being influenced by the Town of Palm Beach Police Chief's agenda is very real. Under these circumstanceri don't see how any lawyer could advise any client to voluntarily cooperate. Of special concern is that the Town of Palm Beach Police have promoted prosecuting at least one of the girls who allegedly gave massages. One final thought. My client and my fear that Ms. could be prosecuted is enhanced by the demand for the personal appearance made in your letter. Your initial Kastiger letter fell far short of granting the functional equivalent of DOJ immunity. Several months ago I was given the distinct impression through our conversations that you were going to obtain DOJ immunity for Ms. Now the government is changing course for no apparent reason. This leads to speculation that the only reason for the turnabout is that prosecution in either state or federal court is being considered by someone. None of the above directed at you personally. I want to repeat that you have always treated us with respect. aybe office should advise the Town Police Chief to act in a similar fashion. Since ERG ILE cc: EFTA00185227 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 h, Florida 33401 Facsimi FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: JIM EISENBERG, ESQ. DATE: FAX NO. # OF PAGES: PHONE NO. RE: February 5, 2007 FROM: A. PHONE NO. VILLAFARA, ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY COMMENTS: al 37rVi-- th at_ Catut jala .bint 14/131A,Vt a att °t(6 - I I hake, apul h4s -Gr chger u wahocteitz. EFTA00185228 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DELIVERY BY HAND Ms. a do James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 February 5, 2007 Re: Grand Jury Testimony of IMIIM Dear Ms. This letter confirms the understanding between yourself and the United States Attorneys Office for the Southern District of Florida. You have represented that you will truthfully answer questions of the federal government in its investigation of the procurement of prostitutes, amongst others. You will supply complete and truthful information to the attorneys and law enforcement officers of the federal government and to any Federal Grand Jury which may conduct an investigation, as well as in any other proceeding related to or growing out of this investigation. The obligation of truthful disclosure includes your obligation to provide the attorneys and law enforcement officers of the federal government with any documents, records or other tangible evidence within your custody or control relating to the matters about which you are questioned. You will neither attempt to protect any person or entity through false information or omission, nor falsely implicate any person or entity. No statements provided by you on this date in this matter pursuant to this agreement will be offered into evidence in any criminal case against you, except during a prosecution for perjury and/or giving a false statement. However, if it is determined that you have materially violated any provision of this agreement, all statements made by you shall be admissible in evidence against you in any proceeding. The federal government remains free to use information derived from the grand jury testimony directly or indirectly for the purpose of obtaining leads to other evidence, which may be used against you. You expressly waive any right to claim that such evidence should not be introduced because it was obtained as a result of the grand jury testimony. Furthermore, the federal government may use statements made in the grand jury testimony and all evidence derived directly or indirectly therefrom for the purpose of cross-examination, if you testify at any trial or if you EFTA00185229 MS. FEBRUARY 5, 2007 PAGE 2 suborn testimony that contradicts your prior statements and testimony. No additional promises, agreements and conditions have been entered into other than those set forth in this letter and none will be entered into unless in writing and signed by all parties. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney I have read this agreement and discussed it with my attorney, and I hereby acknowledge that it fully sets forth my agreement with the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. I state that there have been no additional promises, agreements or representations made to me by any officials of the United States in connection with this matter. Dated: February , 2007 West Palm Beach, Florida Witnessed by: James L. Eiser,ra i Attorney for EFTA00185230 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY HAND James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 Re: Dear Mr. Eisenberg: 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile: February 5, 2007 I am writing to clarify the ground rules for the interview with your client, ("your client"), to occur February 2007. As I mentioned earlier, Ms. is not a target or subject of this investigation, but instead is being interviewed solely as a victim/witness. However, to address your concern about criminal exposure, if your client complies with every provision of this agreement, then the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("this Office") will treat all statements made by your client during the interview as statements made pursuant to Rule 11(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is not a grant of immunity, which can be given only with approval of the Justice Department, but protects your client from having the statements made by her during the interview from being used against her directly. To guard against any misunderstandings concerning the interview of your client, this letter sets forth the terms of this agreement. Your client agrees to be fully interviewed, that is, to provide information concerning your client's knowledge of, and participation in criminal activity, including but not limited to the procurement of prostitutes. The protection of this letter applies to an interview that will be conducted by this Office, Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and any other federal law enforcement agency this Office may require. Under this agreement, no information disclosed by your client during the interview will be offered in evidence against her in any criminal or civil proceeding, provided that your client complies with this agreement and that the information your client furnishes is truthful, complete, and accurate. If, however, your client gives materially false, incomplete, or misleading information, EFTA00185231 JAMES L. EISENBERG, ESQ. EB: FEBRUARY 2, 2007 PAGE 2 then this Office may use such information in any matter or proceeding and your client is subject to prosecution for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to government agencies. Any such prosecution may be based upon information provided by your client during the course of the interview, and such information, including your client's statements, will be admissible against your client in any grand jury or other proceeding. The government also may use statements made by your client in the interview and all evidence derived directly or indirectly therefrom for the purpose of impeachment or cross-examination if she testifies at any trial or hearing, and/or in any rebuttal case against your client in a criminal trial in which she is a defendant or a witness. These provisions are necessary to ensure that your client does not make or offer any false representation or statement in any proceeding or to a government agency or commit perjury during any testimony. Your client further agrees that attorneys for the United States may be present at the interview, and agrees not to seek disqualification of any such government attorney from any proceeding or trial because of their participation at the interview. The entire agreement between the United States and your client is set forth in this letter. No additional promises, agreements, or conditions have been entered into and none will be entered into unless in writing and signed by all parties. If the foregoing accurately reflects the understanding and agreement between this Office and your client, it is requested that you and your client execute this letter as provided below. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney I have received this letter from my attorney, James L. Eisenberg, Esquire, have read it and discussed it with my attorney, and I hereby acknowledge that it fully sets forth my understanding and agreement with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern EFTA00185232 JAMES L. EISENBERG, ESQ. RE: FEBRUARY 2, 2007 PAGE 3 District of Florida. T state that there have been no additional promises or representations ' made to me by any official of the United States Government or by my attorney in connection with this matter. Dated: Witnessed by: James L. Eisenberg, Esquire EFTA00185233 U.S. Department of Justice Authorization for Reimbursement of Unusual Expenses of Fact Witnesses Request for Unusual Expense(s) of Fact Witness (For United States Attorney's Office Use Only) Control # 1. Case Name ..., 2. Court Docket Number 4. Location of Court P ng 5. Contact Person Wes!-Palm 7. Witness Name & Address, Phone #, SSN 8. Vendor Name & Address, Phone #, TIN/SSN 9. Payment to be made to: 10. Receipt/Invoice is: 11. 12tDependent Illi Type of Unusual Expense: Medically Necessary Item (Attached Supporting Statement) Care _ Excess Lodging/Per Diem Travel & Transportation Pretrial Conference Waiver Other 12. Explanation: Wm, miniM ht4 a. sniodi cilad to 614/161;b:64"t tl- kaa np Ong “1/1;) C. vah the cALta GokAle ski. kAit)Y5.1,6k. . • 13. Start Date of Service (MO/DA/YR) ando 7 14. End Date of Service (MO/DA/YR) 2-4 /0 7 15. Amount 16. Justification: 17. I hereby certify that the expenses and services listed on this document are appropriate and are within the Federal laws and regulations. I fully understand that I can be held personally liable or be subject to disciplinary action for improperly using government funds or services that exceed delegated authority or that violate Federal laws or regulations. Signature of Requesting AUSA Date 18. Name & Title of Approving Official 19. Date (MO/DA/YR) 20. Signature of Approving Official 4 8 • ! GOVERNMENT I EXHIBIT 1 44 • 111 I -0 11 EFTA00185234 EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A. Attorneys At Law JAMES L. EISENBERG Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer National Board Of Trial Advocacy Certified Criminal Trial Advocate KAI LI AWE FOUTS One Cies rim ke Centre, Suite 704,250 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 a Fax: February 12, 2007 Asst. U.S. Attorney 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Grand Jury Subpoena for Dear As always, it was a pleasure speaking to you the other da Pursuant to our telephone conference I am writing this letter to proffer my concerns for should she testify without immunity before a federal grand jury. Therefore, allow me to reiterate that Ms. will refuse to voluntarily cooperate with the federal government. She has a good faith basis for her position under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We, of course, do not live or work in a vacuum. We have read many inflammatory remarks the Town of Palm Beach Police Chief has made to the media about the state court's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. The police chiefs remarks frighten both myself and my client. I am aware that the town police have prepared documents to charge at least one of Mr. Epstein's lady friends in state court. If they can push to have one lady charged I remain unconvinced that they do not have the ability or political clout to push to have other ladies such as Ms. charged. The proffered facts that raise my concerns are being provided via this proffer letter. Pursuant to our telephone conference agreement, this letter and its contents cannot be used against Mr. M. Ms. is not at all certain of dates. She does remember meeting Mr. Epstein about three years ago. She is not certain of her age, it could have been when she was sixteen. A girlfriend asked her if she wanted a job giving massages. Ms. agreed because she had knowledge of massages through her mother, who was a masseuse. if asked, she had to tell Mr. Epstein that she was eighteen years old. The fr, was Ms. went to Mr. Epstein's house via taxi. M girlfriend instructed Ms. that, nineteen years old and looked old for her age, so passing for eighteen was not a problem. At GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT .5 EFTA00185235 the home Ms. met Mr. Epstein and later ave him a massage. The friend had told Ms. to give the message topless. Mr. Epstein told that if she were at all uncomfortable being topless, not to do it and it was not a requirement of employment as a masseuse. Ms. never touched Mr. Epstein in a sexual way and Mr. Et.stein never touched Ms. at all. At one point, Mr. Epstein did ask Ms. her age. Ms. insisted that she was eighteen years old. Ms. continued to see Mr. Epstein over time and massages were given in a similar fashion. She was later asked if her friends wanted to work in a similar way and she asked some girls who did give Mr. Epstein massages. Ms. was never asked to bring girls of any age to Mr. Epstein's home. When she did have her friends come over, she instructed all of them that if asked, they insist that they were eighteen years old. She is not certain at all of any of these girls' real ages. In summary, our concern is that if the government believes that Mr. Epstein committed some federal offense, then Ms. could he considered a co-conspirator. We believe no crime was committed. The Fifth Amendment was not intended to protect the guilty, however. It was enacted to protect citizens who fear prosecution notwithstanding their innocence. Our fear of any prosecution, especially • 11 f the Town police chiefs public remarks, is clearly in good faith. EFTA00185236 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT r...) 0 . . 1": rl SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NORTHERN (WEST PALM BEACH) DIVISION be t • : 7 0 ..-.1 :.•-,. - a :.2 CLI --; 7-*A2 i c. .-- I FGJ 07-103(WPB) CN I •- •O i IN RE: GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS ...- . Cr; HP SEALED ORDER On Application of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court: 1. That has been called to testify and to provide other information before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, including a Grand Jury impanelled therein; and 2. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney,n has refused to testify and provide other information on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination; and 3. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney, the testimony and other information from =: may be necessary to the public interest; and 4. That the aforesaid Application has been made with the approval of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice or a duly designated Acting Assistant Attorney General, pursuant to the authority vested in him by Title 18, United States Code, Section 6003, and Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 0.175 and 0.132(e). NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 6002, that give testimony and provide other information which she refuses to give or to GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 6 EFTA00185237 provide on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination, as to all matters about which she may be interrogated before said United States District Court, including a Grand Jury impaneled therein, as well as any subsequent proceeding or trial. However, no testimony or other information compelled under this Order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with this Order. I'I' IS FURTHER ORDERED the this Order shall be SEALED in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(6), except that a copy of this Order shall be provided to counsel for the United States, who may disclose the existence of the Order to members of the Grand Jury, to the witness, to counsel for the witness, and to law enforcement officers engaged in the investigation pending before the Grand Jury. Those persons may review the Order, but may not retain a copy of the Order, nor may they disclose the existence of the Order to any others. cc: DONE and ORDERED this AUSA day of April, 2007 Palm Beach, Florida. 2 DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE EFTA00185238 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: 500 S Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 3340! Facsimile.• December 13, 2007 I am writing not to respond to your asserted "policy concerns" regarding Mr. Epstein's Non￾Prosecution Agreement, which will be addressed by the United States Attorney, but the time has come for me to respond to the ever-increasing attacks on my role in the investigation and negotiations. It is an understatement to say that I am surprised by your allegations regarding my role because I thought that we had worked very well together in resolving this dispute. I also am surprised because I feel that I bent over backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement would have on Mr. Epstein and to make sure that you (and he) understood the repercussions of the agreement. For example, I brought to your attention that one potential plea could result in no gain time for your client; I corrected one of your calculations of the Sentencing Guidelines that would have resulted in Mr. Epstein spending far more time in prison than you projected; I contacted the Bureau of Prisons to see whether Mr. Epstein would be eligible for the prison camp that you desired; and I told you my suspicions about the source of the press "leak" and suggested ways to avoid the press. Importantly, I continued to work with you in a professional manner even after I learned that you had been proceeding in bad faith for several weeks — thinking that I had incorrectly concluded that solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution was a registrable offense and that you would "fool" our Office into letting Mr. Epstein plead to a non-registrable offense. Even now, when it is clear that neither you nor your client ever intended to abide by the terms of the agreement that he signed, I have never alleged misconduct on your part. The first allegation that you raise is that I "assiduously" hid from you the fact that Bert Ocariz is a friend of my boyfriend and that I have a "longstanding relationship" with Mr. Ocariz. EFTA00185239 JAY P. LEFICOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 5 I informed you that I selected Mr. Ocariz because he was a friend and classmate of two people whom I respected, and that I had never met or spoken with Mr. Ocariz prior to contacting him about this case. All of those facts are true. I still have never met Mr. Ocariz, and, at the time that he and I spoke about this case, he did not know about my relationship with his friend. You suggest that I should have explicitly informed you that one of the referrals came from my "boyfriend" rather than simply a "friend," which is the term I used, but it is not my nature to discuss my personal relationships with opposing counsel. Your attacks on me and on the victims establish why I wanted to find someone whom I could trust with safeguarding the victims' best interests in the face of intense pressure from an unlimited number of highly skilled and well paid attorneys. Mr. Ocariz was that person. One of your letters suggests a business relationship between Mr. Ocariz and my boyfriend. This is patently untrue and neither my boyfriend nor I would have received any financial benefit from Mr. Ocariz's appointment. Furthermore, after Mr. Ocariz learned more about Mr. Epstein's actions (as described below), he expressed a willingness to handle the case pro bono, with no financial benefit even to himself. Furthermore, you were given several other options to choose from, including the Podhurst firm, which was later selected by Judge Davis. You rejected those other options. You also allege that I improperly disclosed information about the case to Mr. Ocariz. I provided Mr. Ocariz with a bare bones summary of the agreement's terms related to his appointment to help him decide whether the case was something he and his firm would be willing to undertake. I did not provide Mr. Ocariz with facts related to the investigation because they were confidential and instead recommended that he "Google" Mr. Epstein's name for background information. When Mr. Ocariz asked for additional information to assist his firm in addressing conflicts issues, I forwarded those questions to you, and you raised objections for the first time. I did not share any further information about Mr. Epstein or the case. Since Mr. Ocariz had been told that you concurred in his selection, out of professional courtesy, I informed Mr. Ocariz of the Office's decision to use a Special Master to make the selection and told him that the Office had made contact with Judge Davis. We have had no further contact since then and I have never had contact with Judge Davis. I understand from you that Mr. Ocariz contacted Judge Davis. You criticize his decision to do so, yet you feel that you and your co-counsel were entitled to contact Judge Davis to try to "lobby" him to select someone to your liking, despite the fact that the Non-Prosecution Agreement vested the Office with the exclusive right to select the attorney representative. Another reason for my surprise about your allegations regarding misconduct related to the Section 2255 litigation is your earlier desire to have me perform the role of "facilitator" to convince the victims that the lawyer representative was selected by the Office to represent their interests alone and that the out-of-court settlement of their claims was in their best interests. You now state that doing the same things that you had asked me to do earlier is improper meddling in civil litigation. Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective Recarey's investigation that have EFTA00185240 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 5 already been submitted to the Office on several occasions and you suggest that I have kept that information from those who reviewed the proposed indictment package. Contrary to your suggestion, those submissions were attached to and incorporated in the proposed indictment package, so your suggestion that I tried to hide something from the reviewers is false. I also take issue with the duplicity of stating that we must accept as true those parts of the Recarey reports and witness statements that you like and we must accept as false those parts that you do not like. You and your co-counsel also impressed upon me from the beginning the need to undertake an independent investigation. It seems inappropriate now to complain because our independent investigation uncovered facts that are unfavorable to your client. You complain that I "forced" your client and the State Attorney's Office to proceed on charges that they do not believe in, yet you do not want our Office to inform the State Attorney's Office of facts osthat u rt the additional char e nor do you want any of the victims of that charge to contact Ms. or the Court. Ms. s opinion may change if she knows the full scope of your client's actions. You and I spent several weeks trying to identify and put together a plea to federal charges that your client was willing to accept. Yet your letter now accuses me of "manufacturing" charges of obstruction of justice, making obscene phone calls, and violating child privacy laws. When Mr. told you that those charges would "embarrass the Office," he meant that the Office was unwilling to bend the facts to satisfy Mr. Epstein's desired prison sentence — a statement with which I agree. I hope that you understand how your accusations that I imposed "ultimatums" and "forced" you and your client to agree to unconscionable contract terms cannot square with the true facts of this case. As explained in letters from Messrs. Acosta and Sloman, the indictment was postponed for more than five months to allow you and Mr. Epstein's other attorneys to make presentations to the Office to convince the Office not to prosecute. Those presentations were unsuccessful. As you mention in your letter, I —a simple line AUSA — handled the primary negotiations for the Office, and conducted those negotiations with you, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Lewis, and a host of other highly skilled and experienced practitioners. As you put it, your group has a "combined 250 years experience" to my fourteen. The agreement itself was signed by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. Lefcourt, whose experience speaks for itself. You and I spent hours negotiating the terms, including when to use "a" versus "the" and other minutiae. When ou and I could not reach agreement, you repeatedly went over my head, involving Messrs. , Sloman, and Acosta in the negotiations at various times. In any and all plea negotiations the defendant understands that his options are to plead or to continue with the investigation and proceed to trial. Those were the same options that were proposed to Mr. Epstein, and they are not "persecution or intimidation tactics." Mr. Epstein chose to sign the agreement with the advice of a multitude of extremely noteworthy counsel. You also make much of the fact that the names of the victims were not released to Mr. Epstein prior to signing the Agreement. You never asked for such a term. During an earlier meeting, where Mr. Black was present, he raised the concern that you now voice. Mr. Black and I did not have a chance to discuss the issue, but I had already conceived of a way to resolve that EFTA00185241 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 4 OF 5 issue if it were raised during negotiations. As I stated, it was not, leading me to believe that it was not a matter of concern to the defense. Since the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the agents and I have vetted the list of victims more than once. In one instance, we decided to remove a name because, although the minor victim was touched inappropriately by Mr. Epstein, we decided that the link to a payment was insufficient to call it "prostitution." I have always remained open to a challenge to the list, so your suggestion that Mr. Epstein was forced to write a blank check is simply unfounded. Your last set of allegations relates to the investigation of the matter. For instance, you claim that some of the victims were informed of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of their allegations against Mr. Epstein. This also is false. None of the victims was informed of the right to sue under Section 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement of the general terms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done. Throughout this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as though it would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility of damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case. If my reassurances are insufficient, the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein should assure you of the integrity of the investigation.' 'There are numerous other unfounded allegations in your letter about document demands, the money laundering investigation, contacting potential witnesses, speaking with the press, and the like. For the most part, these allegations have been raised and disproven earlier and need not be readdressed. However, with respect to the subpoena served upon the private investigator, contrary to your assertion, and as your co-counsel has already been told, I &I consult with the Justice Department prior to issuing the subpoena and I was told that because I was not subpoenaing an attorney's office or an office physically located within an attorney's office, and because the business did private investigation work for individuals (rather than working exclusively for Mr. Black), I could issue a grand jury subpoena in the normal course, which is what I did. I also did not "threaten" the State Attorney's Office with a grand jury subpoena, as the correspondence with their grand jury coordinator makes perfectly clear. With regard to your allegation of my filing the Palm Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit "with the court knowing that the public could access it," I do not know to what you are referring. All documents related to the grand jury investigation have been filed under seal, and the Palm Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit has never been filed with the Court. If, in fact, you are referring to the Ex Parte Declaration of Joseph Recarey that was filed in response to the motion to quash the grand jury subpoena, it was filed both under seal and ex parte, so no one should have access to it except the Court and myself. Those documents are still in the Court file only because you have violated one of the terms of the Agreement by failing to "withdraw [Epstein's] pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas." EFTA00185242 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13,2007 PAGE 5 OF 5 With respect to Ms. =, I contacted her attorney — who was paid for by Mr. Epstein and was directed by counsel for Mr. Epstein to demand immunity — and asked only whether he still represented Ms. and if he wanted me to send the victim notification letter to him. He asked what the letter would say and I told him that the letter would be forthcoming in about a week and that I could not provide him with the terms. With respect to Ms. status as a victim, you again want us to accept as true oniyt cts that are beneficial to your client and to reject as false anything detrimental to him. Ms. made a number of statements that are contradicted by documentary evidence and a review of her recorded statement shows her lack of credibility with respect to a number of statements. Based upon all of the evidence collected Ms. is classified as a victim as defined by statute. Of course, that does not mean that Ms. considers herself a victim or that she would seek damages from Mr. Epstein. I believe that a number of the identified victims will not seek damages, but that does not negate their legal status as victims. I hope that you now understand that your accusations against myself and the agents are unfounded. In the future, I recommend that you address your accusations to me so that I can correct any misunderstandings before you make false allegations to others in the Department. I hope that we can move forward with a professional resolution of this matter, whether that be by your client's adherence to the contract that he signed, or by virtue of a trial. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney You also accuse me of "broaden[ing] the scope of the investigation without any foundation for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money transmitting business to the investigation." Again, I consulted with the Justice Department's Money Laundering Section about my analysis before expanding that scope. The duty attorney agreed with my analysis. EFTA00185243 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 304-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2015 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. DECLARATION OF FBI SPECIAL AGENT TIMOTHY R. TIMOTHY R. declares as follows: 1. I am a Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), currently assigned as a Section Chief at FBI Headquarters, Washington. D.C. I was appointed a Special Agent in May 1999. Upon graduation from the FBI Academy at Quantico, Virginia, in September 1999, I was assigned to the Detroit Field Office. I was subsequently transferred to the FBI Miami Field Office in May 2006. 2. In 2006. I was assigned to work on an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of sexually abusing many young girls under the age of 18. In the course of our investigation, the FBI identified many potential victims of sexual abuse by Epstein. We obtained names by speaking to other victims, who frequently knew of friends who had also been paid money by Epstein to provide sexual services to him. 3. One of the victims identified was In January — February 2007, I used various computer indices to try and locate Ms. By using these indices and other means, I found two international phone numbers which I believed were being used by Ms. Case r •; • GOVERNMENT EXF HIBIT • EFTA00185244 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 304-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2015 Page 2 of 3 =Ir 4. Sometime during January — February 2007. I called the one of the numbers, in an attempt to speak to Ms. Also in my office was FBI Special Agent the lead agent for the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. I was not using a speakerphone when I spoke with Ms. I asked S/A to be present because she, as the lead agent, was thoroughly versed in the details of the entire investigation, and I might need her assistance to respond to a question posed by Ms. that I was unable to answer. 5. When I dialed the number, a young woman answered the phone. I told her my name. identified myself as a Special Agent with the FBI. and asked if she was-She said yes. I used a technique which I employ when speaking to people on the phone, who might question whether I am truly an FBI agent. I provided her with the phone number of the FBI Field Office in Miami, Florida, and told her she could hang up and verify the number. She could then call me back at the number, and her call would be routed to me. Ms. said that would not be necessary. 6. I told Ms. about our investigation ofJeffrey Epstein, and the allegations that Epstein had sexually abused many underage young girls. I told her we believed she might be a victim of sexual abuse by Epstein. 7. Ms. answered basic questions, telling me that she did know Jeffrey Epstein. She quickly became uncomfortable, telling me she moved away to distance herself from this situation, and expressing her desire to "let this be in my past." She asked that I not bother her with this again. 8. I thanked Ms. and told her I appreciated her time. I provided my name and encouraged her to call the FBI Miami Field Office, if she had any questions or needed assistance. 2 Govt Exhibit 0 Case No. 08-80736-CN-MARFtA EFTA00185245 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 304-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2015 Page 3 of 3 The entire phone conversation only last several minutes. 9. 1 did not hear from Ms. again. In mid-March 2007, I reported for my new assignment at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. 10. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 26. 2015. Section Chief Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington. U.C. 3 Govt Exhibit Case No. 08-80736-CIV.N1ARRA EFTA00185246 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 , Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 2 of 35 lfralsor.,&Ass2ciates I sor & Associates I O IN MS CIACUST COURT Or WE rirrtASH IM MO 1 PAU. WW1 COMITY. MORICA CAW PO. 2006 CF0454100( STAW Ot flaIDA. EASTAIM, orderAent. OCtOSITION Or modsdAy, (404.4.cy 20. 2000 2t00 p.m. - 6 ' )0 P' ° ' tel. Mock COUnty Courth0Oso 20$ With Wato 14116may Veal Palm Ana, Florida 33401 'COPY paper-led AV Judith F. Coftsot. PPR 'rotary Public, Elite of floc1W Cower 6 Awesi6w it•pottlaq and TrasscrIp1 Loa Ph. P.mt. 1655 Pan Beach Win 1St SUM 900 -HAMS PS Deady FL 39101 & Associates 1 2 3 BMW Otatt IIXAMINATION 4 By S. 22.111, 5 6 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 I? IA 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PO Paw 3 - • - WaTlf7L0 OUSSTION• Una 22 14 2 IS PS 94.90tIM IS250) It 33401 O O Arita/WC/Ai 2 cm behalf of the 3 LAMA 1J.SISTAIrf MIS tillIMMICY 4 401 With Dials Highway *est ref.Own. ?tondo 13401 5 6 oe. /Wolf of th• NICRAW A. Ulm. M. KATtUtYll A. 14113CI, 600. /SKIS WIM. Pl. 3056 CRAMP WI I I. WITt 340 COCONUT GAOVA, 31133 9 10 11 12 On Weill of the Cmfoodlint; JACK A. 001.01MAGES. COO. Art/AWAY. COLORICACW 6 Sin 250 AUSTRALIA:1 Awn WWI 00179 1400 WEST tAU4 OCACm, PLORIDA 33401 13 14 ALSO MUCSAKT: CM WALL Ot 1111 MITSCSA: TAWDOW J. LEOPOLD. ISO. 15 Kelt, J. ARCM. OIRWTOR or WITIKAWA DtVisiOtt. 1/91M-Tot 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ph. Ebt...611L1771 1655 Pahl 01101 takes 01.41. At 500 • west PS 0each, FL 33.101 . . & Associates rage 4 1 Dope befogs Judith I. Comics. 2 Smut 'apart.. and Moto°, hallo in as Per th. Stet, of 3 fpwisla at !atom In the ahem coon • - 5 Wirimmoo, 6 7 Sala. bee first duly soon or affimwd. was lathed A and tostlftod os fol1mmo: 9 Te wtridliSo 1 do. 10 PIACCTumnintas 11 09 M. WIN: 12 O. Good ofterimmo. 'Ine tell ma ryas full 13 14 A. 15 O. WI cam vote .1•••• spell it. 16 A. 11 IS O. Thank you. 19 my I ea:1 ye. app 20 A. 21 0- en i's going to tot YOU • Ls 22 Oolstions. msso, gaisttoes ted.y. If at any alma you 23 ..44.4 to talc. • break. W. rut lot.. •••••• Mai? 24 A. 25 0. If you at cay tine don't understood on. of Ph fax. 1655 PS Beach lace, Ohl.. Sute 913 • Wen GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT I EFTA00185247 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 .Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 3 of 35 Ssor &Associates nsOr & ~Lates 0 Pair 3. ny ..Suene. will yos jest Orr lot ea roof 3 AM if at ry Ur your* rt tally well 4 Or rostra lib* aw, yoo'll tell us. riot? S A. be. 6 0. la re rni stay tray? 7 A. Tra￾e 0. six. Utley ay Alcohol r Ora or raking 9 ire abr. rail 10 11 0. r you feel [NOY to bar your deportion 12 tern/ 13 A. rm. 14 0. ION rat a par ~tar 15 b. V. Dietary liar at a atun.• house amt 16 I drat row It off the tap of ny her. 17 0. Pare La it) 12 A. ... Janet 12 0. re I. your vent? 20 A. 21 0. the ere is living rail 22 A. 33 0. Aura sloe lira roe, 24 2 The contort notion that year rase (lied 1655 Pail ~ Fla 52a a 33401 sor & Associates ligireartharrara Pari 1 0. bor 15 that? 2 A. Salo boor trio. 1 0. Nar yoo rant ar flirt err taro? A. b. re. 5 0. CO ye. know Ito adder* earl A., 3 de rt. 7 0. IM't your aitr• Ill planning on lrins rib yr. anal Or 10 0. =yes raw tat this art cm In • 11 carrel prosecution. Count? 12 A. Correct. 13 0. And you bra that /Vs • triraa? 14 Peoration roar • er re baa es realri Ixte1.9exed. 15 ye you taw tat? 16 17 0. You sirs that (cat is • my nitre 16 19 A. Yes. 20 0. AM your* her. with your Ira/ 21 Mr. ~Id. right? 22 2) 0. And you know that Mr. torpor recently 24 filed • liars in trend court against Jelf•ey [petal,. 25 refry fifty alllise Y. 1655 Pike DeleePh.„,.. .ML lt Fst!ii!lefleach, IR. »CI 1 0 C) Par 1 sprat your tether rear*, taw fifty sullierdoller 2 leoseit arrest Jeffrey ipater says that pH, lir with 3 your aunt and tale ad bar bra liar trots le that I Cerrees7 S Us. 6 0. Iles ray have you bra lira with Pat 7 aunt red role? A. Sur ay ran kicked or out. 9 That VIM ThAttnalellt Of %Ale per pre] 10 Yea. rt. 11 43 Car. Rider for lirofighter boreiry 12 et eh ~Vial fee LIIS two of yout 13 A. NY. •ir- the has en irpartart, but by 11 Wo.,•11. 15 0. Did he pat en ~rtes.* as the two of you 16 run in? 17 A. b. rr. An yr planar to roe In with ban? 19 A. Maybe or Rey IA Ur rear* 30 0. Do aka awe • plea to nor la with kin 21 preaerlyt 22 A. 33 0. Mr•• 3 berm to the spartant that you ad 24 dranrad err In tartan? 25 A. 1 her bun 55 Palm teeth ake. Sete 500 ~al% 33.33 Phi, W682.0905 . Fee 16 riser & Associates harer arrros ha NA. Csattiat Let b 3001 react. 2 ~la r barer It*. Myatt that 2 you bare leaned ammo arrtanta biltorn you 4 er •• see se•tectod. Ss it you rem any of that 5 isionestioe aria Of then dianalerra. you say 6 rare. at if the cry why you knew r la • Wear ar dirrisaranS. So sot war that artier. • IN 1411- tank • 10 0. -Pa buts tut It.. torpor treaty, 31 flied • ~Wit 1R gruel rart a your bra If or rat 12 enemy peneig. rear fifty ~ton taller? 13 113. 3.40201.0. 6s abjection. 14 If you kart re to that outride of 15 oar cliscasiona. yea say mown. If it is Ur 16 only way that yr know the rawer is Groul. our 17 4I•cua•lonli, do rat war that cast lea. 111 INS PROM Okay. 19 1.4001.4 ieterser/e11•et Omlita, 20 IV M. tar: 21 0. tee can lute« the Witten unless 22 Mr. LIX*OLD: far objection. 23 Wt. Triv. 4i OS (leir. 24 M. 140POCO. Naas me. ••••• -- 25 M. ItiN b. 1St MS lien*. 3655 ran iseadt~ 500.74 13 33401 EFTA00185248 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on F LSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 4 of 35 nsor & Associates dJ ( ) 2 3 4 5 6 7 g 9 10 11 12 13 14 If 16 11 le 19 70 21 22 23 24 25 rage 9 M. IMPOIM Lavt., ve . we set going to do that. M. Mgt aka le not Leas. re going to (lash ny Paella. 04441 M. LCOPOLO: Or net answer you hear teal so. PT M. RIN: O. Caen than teteerealona that yeshate had qu M. Leopold -- 35. not •sitia about that — am you are tat Mr. Mal* he. Wed a lawsuit in dora/ toot maws fifty easion dollar, from JaIroy Moan es mar Wulf? M. L4COOLIN fops objection. Anything That you learn through careteatiW lava at and a, de not antra,. ass. an protected. If yea know thtooh any other soda of tencedoda. you may answer. Ter Plllaatl M. bT M. 1.11/0 O. You Mn no Woe an Ns. Leopold tiled • gat, allicad011at lawsuit on pa behalf zzzzzzz ]allhy M. MPOLO, Sae* ableCtIon. to not moat tat capstan II It's through dascattoo that yes and I hod. Outside of that, Pla ems 1655 ha ilaM laws WC, Suae SOO • West Palm 50" it DIM * nsor & Associates awasalemegaa nitoe 11 1 alactiona. Cock pur cola. 2 M. 1.4040tIo rasa a. ror tee record. 3 Causal aNied sea • geostla. ***** the 4 ~mu se la mad. It• .sted ea the question an fang to be canting that ~I threaleat the 6 deposition. 59 lag am tare's ammo 7 fralation and peedlcato uta by the atteray. I will prawn ay client ad 1 mkt the record taro 9 allionpaato. It canal wisla to ask is 10 appropriate worded manta with the proper 11 Mani« and padiata. I all certainly allow 13 the client re agar the quota. 1) M. Calialtat glo Opat yea lust ***** 14 attasna/aloat Waage we toot be dem ultb If it, )6 M. laget0, I rat the record to be 17 <Mo. 141 NA. WIN. la want to agate awe Is what 19 you at to de. 20 You ern magnsd te be here %/:a sonIng 21 and ei totally broke Medea, as /meant that 22 you hud with es If par hearing get resealed. 23 eat lees ma on end nyte mall stop 24 obatmeam this apaition. 25 M. larOLDI I think the memo As eery fix. 1655 Pan NW , Wes OW. Suite 500 Wat Pla Ow" FL 33401 tJ fl 2 3 5 6 4 1(€nsor & Associates Page 10 Too say antes. Se do net atom that oath» It tat I. Ube only boas to aid yes aclet•tad that sewer. TM WOOLS Or M. TAM 0. vow dide.t era that) M. IMIONIN Don't auto tat asst ion. Nairn SVS ay/agat grata's. My 9 intonation >ease learta ChM* eeevasattans 10 banns yes and I an protected. Tr you nov It 11 through coy other nil.. you nay answer. M. 'IN: ea yre gam te goy that fot 13 every Nation le the dopealla. Ng. Weald/ 14 M. ~Ma Men won uk laptop'. 15 Wantons Ia. tat altheat the Prams -- 16 M. TINN Team pan ta oleo your 11 raking ablallorm right new. May, 14 M. MOMM Withal the peeper -- 19 M. nut: You need to Stepyr. mating 20 *Patine. 21 tat •. anima. 22 M. 1,40401.0, Counsel. fa past load no a 23 quatIon and is going to ***** It on the 24 25 M. Tria You ::had to step your arting Ana 1655 PSI Bea Labs Mwto 5~ 500 Vest Pan Neck W. 33401 sot' & Associates May se ,Mena- n Page 12 1 clou wart w stand Ma far. 2 Is tam a rewording aha of thin 3 ~patios, 4 at Coal atone: Tee. 5' M. LINIOtOt Pest Wm our, tatt 6 gasamed. 7 AT M. lain: 4 O. Co to ettdont 20-01 wilt, before you do 9 that. et. you into tat • LOSTOr Iola Jeffrey 10 Mogan (tied • Ishinta your behalf. yes or no7 Il SP. 140101.11: halation. 12 Pay coarations that you end I ham ad 13 ragardleo. thst, If that Is the only ray by *tee 14 you wearatad bow to sat that gootlen. do at 15 moat. hot ay/erica privilege. wal 16 an soy ~Manta as no hen had with the 17 •Tteray fan gas. net Is *Ma ottonatatent 16 alwilago. pa I's Mato. 19 M. Mitt Tear* actually acne seat ta 20 ettema/mimt ptiallea. 21 M. UMOM l'ø manta Counsel l• not 22 nay you to timely* attwaryfatent -- 23 M. tap, Of Lana net. 24 a M. tam 25 Q. 4r0 yep at Jellny sateen. Rtifis582.0905•Fax. 16SS Patm BeW• lam etO., Stae 500 Went hen BeiCh. FL 33%1 1 EFTA00185249 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 5 of 35 *mer & Associates a sor & Associates reva tram 1.4 10 Il 12 31 14 35 16 37 1 2 3 7•00 lit ney. (bled • filte-stillonverilar leonu a reg belfelf »ale» ieff Tay tealrfa• Yes ef sol Y. /41014012" Las• ob)eCtlog. 7Lna tete Nard tes serti» IO 5 1 Nia alstedY• LIMOL0: Cor». Meuse a*. 7 14R. Teno: agit sep attorney/crac 4 perle». St. Mer Ly tenstlene. HA. 103,010: Va snitt lad te re an abjection ter Os record. rire Verne. and 1•11 oas Me sr objection. And le It CCCCC /or ettegney/clieet Lel.11pe. sal cossersotion• reg end 1 Mn Nd, do eet 'sr( the seemlen. and i the,» the{ At steit M a.g.Priat•• for the (500(4. te •at. istMealien• »agir ellile n *an*" Inir I Minh MN lina/! Soie eneetWist• for »na Olpelltten. le leT M. MI» 19 Go Me» PI se we 20 Tot. 21 0. Thant yee. 22 ln (en. mie ina that Lt. Pensée hold • 23 Press esefenhafe ha fil» the fiftralllien-dellauf 24 »rit On mir ruile. dm» poe7 25 lifter ft happer. Pa - Pa 1655 PM Beiclt talus Mt. Sun 500 -19.24 FM.IMIN. 933401 sor & Associates mer edImuya»te Papa 15 1 M. »Ore* se». Mise to 1•••• 01 se» 2 9016$ te tais • break. bers, 0•••••••• In net 3 NOMS . rte» ne sers to Mn th» rd 4 of d'usage(' If peu uni te base te» und of danar ut» M •- 6 Se. non Tou ara Mamelle. Sis OtiNtItion. e n. reIVISCIP My don» pre eu» e. 9 outre sed lati ulk rut -- 10 M. 1/070504 Me -- Nr job la »se I 1 Olferl< and ON» Sot 901.9M be able te tek. 12 4.4 NU intre at tag osso tr. 13 IIR. OOLMOCCI," Off thé »con. 14 LOMOLO, sets Set lotte Off les 15 (eend, Jack. tare net. Mes. Na lob la vegy 16 malt. Va »IN td sets the record. 17 I dont thiet it is *perte« trier IO In tie sali Ceefine• of Mla rem, to be 44g4 le mesaln rtth tata vous) lady. 20 10. MW: Mer Nt hainntee• 4106, 21 stop actuelly -- 22 m. UMM: If peer »rie CCCCCCCCC 23 se. »Ore golm te »ace/ this deponntos -- 24 N. ICiel: Stop Mers eeeee ing. 25 na OMIT niai!: I sesd au at • Ir -Fit 1655 Pr ose tees ebe... set 500- 1Vell PMI Sud% FL 3)031 li 2 3 5 6 7 Page 14 0. V» to Met N Nd • pissa conter•nor• don» pesa yes er se, A. Yta. O. la (set. lm» le ta »Ma» 46-61. M. GOINCIMOU Leek WNt yee met: let te ISIS: nase yoe nec sr »et Orme birr» t Tel. 10 i• Vu.< • pictur• et Teur grogs »sr If mainates: and f4r. Kerr st 04 press ease•••••• 12 Natal» roc Ira» I) 14 0. am you ru Jet tais f • a eery »car 1$ nattet. cleet Paf 16 el. 150001/1 »kid aad arr. 17 Objection. le A. 001411tre: A11 Ta con 19 tfts)Nt. 4••M 44.4••••tine • violon. Mn. 20 et. Leopold. Tous tee *Oust en 5nva.M veau. 21 Teu 001101 aska rat objectasse. 7N have ne 22 oundiao 14 de os' 23 p. LMVOLet mine to MM tMw aube 24 ton 25 1655 Poelm 9401 tatas Med. Suie 500 Vie Pdm Beectl, R 3340, ASSCIelpt.e.5 teis les r aas are» b• 1 2 3 S Page 14 rus natter tes tt Ib. At. Leemelet a !Sent mer. teint te talfe break. far» ya sir vent V) tale te yetis 75114: t met nad to tolk te Itia. 6 let rra: Set N . » ter te takt • 7 teett. N. 75IO: erre Mt {SUS. lb break tao aires »ode brait. 10 (44.44 strate tale £yesltlo. ted. 11 M. IMOOM: Ir ma ingli 12 Ta ail »St te remua in Mis 15 darnes -- 14 m1. TM: loere ebstpectige 35 depesillen. Step Nha" spore,. vers set 16 ai•ou•se4 this with rya. TM quaerse Sa to 17 »et »te». 00 tete fl et fiss -stouts Pink. IO KR. LISPOLIS rob. •• sire. 10 mate ann 19 Os »or» claie ad clou, 20 Md I vat te auto sen. in V» slresv 21 *rd yre i kir that mer cm of the kast ta 22 te» that tala aidl• •• tins fer to b• 2/ ocanew44. Ota77 24 m. 76141; Ge tai» your fob-oksets tient, 23 °U. 1409014. va. Ml. - Fax 3655 Palen Se» taies Fm. 5alle 9:0 • Mut Pet headk /1 3340/ EFTA00185250 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 6 of 35 Aftinsora& Associates f2 e sor_a& Associates 2 C) 1.1 2 3 6 a 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 11 IS 19 20 11 12 23 24 25 Page 17 feu sore supposed to be here •• Wes Ma it's re after tee. take yrs reek end car back. a. 4604,140, Ceey. If the dearer trop r Pill at he bare beyond those five Yore a. MIN: Take peer brat re case beck. MR. 1404010. Okay. SO r errat that you Me. MO: 1 biggest that you take yr. break. SO. CoLtenCtli, Le t then tan that !Pithiest* Dreak. S. LWOW: Sat I Weld eedioet that You tabs der births. het• flint artist wherry itio went tat a brae, lThentecce. a rear vas talen.I et me. :TIN: 0. _190 hen that glelsq testlary 60 trey at your orealtlen is reething eery eetlead. des't yr? A. O. h. 0. Tom. Pal yee repel the court. root yes! Yea. let se shoo you death 11-04i. Ca. you Pro. 612.0935- 1653 Pen beech 8th.. Site 5P0- 113301 .. sor & Associates 0. Page 19 Did you send teat sassed* to • friend et 2 years en hydrae? 3 A. fuze. wen. 4 0. tire yr referring to this eepealtleat 5 A. Yes. s O. Da you fie the term offeasieet That'• not arret• lb there. 0 0. Ilhet web] did yr use le there? 9 1.1:0Pour urea are you retorting to. ID Ommeoll There 20 plus ride In than. 11 a. RIM Cat an a speaking objection. 12 That •LTICSS± Ate Tel referring to 13 anthlail 11 IS. morotir: IS let hot at feu the "rat ton. 16 et M. nu: 17 I. What question sere yr asking. IIII1 IS M. 12044.0: She dossn•t .ask 'retire. 19 You ask the questlets. What Is the question 20 perelteel 21 tf S. TIM 22 0. Mort is the lest sere on then In 23 to test of your before the closing/ 24 A. Niger. 15 0. don't you rind that ter 0/graben H45FUftbuich Beta igifflaCli, F111401 ------- — — 0 sor & Associates C) 0 Pape II toe that out lost, pleas*. 2 e. okay. That do you woad 3 0. Will you read that at loud. pins.. 5 Thant o tel bah .1 baddd...lel yell I got ma 7 staple cant 0511 ee the 201A...bUlarit....rad dean you ▪ have can alit with hal tike atter - long vow • le 'OM... well yes welly will definitely beet, ate 10 plane for an. Arcane I 0100 0 tone tire a elation and 11 he M t let yo. as* p... a lea or default plc 12 Apnea. Ned. as. 13 0. Old you wind that -sere lest trek to a 11 tries Of years a wince/ If A. f reola.t Irau. Thor's no date. and I've 16 deleted that HySpace. SO — II 0. Ifirre rang to tall alert that Ye 000001h IS Okay. 19 Did yes and that songs leaf lark -- 20 eight. 21 0. Let eo Ithlah my question. 22 OW yr red that,wide last seek to • 21 Sties or 'vote a my9Preel 24 A. I rraldn't knOw the date, hat obviously, 25 kind be e herd. 63S Pala MO Pitle SOOR Meach. Pt 33401 Pa 1 er Pogo 20 1 he. 2 lot. Line. Can IOC .9011 It ter the 3 • please. 4 era wimps: 9-1-0-9 -- 5 we term: b. ee, on. Teo ate sot your 6 4., be caking restion. 110POLO. Pm sot astir goe•tioes. O , kung hoz the record the vote to be opened. 9 &scour W don•t hate • giro hero today. 10 HA. Mhz Then exhibit* ere Pert eel the 1r record. Too - 12 IS. 140101.41: WU. It's not Darted as an 13 exhibit. 14 IS. MOO Stay InterrePting me. 1$ Mr. Leopold. 1 lien Marked and teenier fret as an 16 inhibit end Yr hill at 11 K. 12OtOLO: Mere Ma bees no 10 IdeatlIscetlea et thle document In the tecord. 19 M. MIL Kr. LtageltIr atop rooting 20 this deposition. Pt LIMOLO: Whet le the echtbit Parer 21 nailed fel LIMO fffff land 23 IS. RiL 31.001. 24 M. 1I0/010: a toe bre trial Is It on 25 the micord earstiefel ph. 0905-FAY.. 1655 MP 500:11 lakes OW, Stec SOORMack 14.33401 EFTA00185251 Case 9:08-cv-9 119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Do et 06/30/2008 Page 7 of 35 seer & Associates C) SelomywaftwoIsleLlm. Page 21, 1 SY 111. 2 0. fat r eat pet, _did you in fact year friend trio sorer art Yla depOrticel 2 3 1 0. So yet mote your friend that this 5 6 deprittee is 'tepid coast s-h-1-t. COrreatl 6 7 B. 7 8 Q. MOW.. you think thin embattles le atield 0 9 don.l yeti 9 10 10 11 0. You wrote that to year freed, MAC% yr? ll 12 12 13 You think that exert is .1 1t. dOe't yOu? 0 13 14 h. In see eases. 11 15 0. Am/ yew Wet that wt la bell s-h-1-t. 15 16 don't meal 16 Mid dersitLen 17 la 0. yes trek this Is boll 10 19 e -h-1-t. dee't you? 19 20 20 21 0. You wrote that to your friend. eildn't yost 21 22 NA. IM3P0163 Objettir. Aare and 22 23 anewerod. 23 21 SM. TIM that's net a Ohlection• 24 25 IT IS. :tr. 25 Ph MEM; roc 1655 PrIlebbil MIMS e 500 IMEeloll. FL 33491 _ — & Associates 1 2 3 4 Pre 23 *this: O. _you lurk that giving teatledny tOdaY. soda. Oath. S. Wu don't yey? 5 G. MSS you meet, that to year friend on 6 HY/Pme last week, didn't yea? 7 M. UM004.0. Oesectlea need and amaroted. 9 t9B WITIMOS. M. 1 dad at. eV N. Rif You dletel write this eahlblt? 12 A. 1 WrOte that, but 1 elr't tt you. 13 sale. 14 0. you net. in this exhibit. "2 at es 15 staple tort agtst-t an the 20th. 8011 mrint." Meat 1.6 WO writs that? 17 A. 18 O. 04htrles to th/O d eeitta, alders year )9 A. Perrin to the Mort. I war later 20 inform' that it we a derettioa. 21 0. V. 'oleo to ash re ear goestions new 22 root what lappet»d urn yea went to Jeff ttttt In.• here 23 teas years 490 Gun' 24 25 0. Kea too police la..... You one mooch • Fag. MS PahlMO L✓ Site 500 i Mas01. e FL 33401 & Associates Page 22 0. Yew wrote that l0 Yawl friend, Orel swet NA. MM.* ttjictict. laSod Old easwerd, for the feint time. 05. Yea ate laproperly Mr. rep:MA Yee Yee no mars to Object. end that.* met an objettlet. O.. ItOVOLO; It to a• objecLI.M. a. HIM: nun %menet* the dopesitloo it yos Ude! It's beelt ashea and answered. Mt. WOOL& Counsel. I am mat precluded trot Joet maitre en trforlon to the form of the seestles. As the carte nil know. and If yea here I. rat Ms Beach. soy es the i.e... molt* you se net the objection with snolfloity. Marvin do that. And If you don't wet se Le, yet can wake the ern. Out I will de that. O. Teen sews tout we'll do. Ted. Yet will allow yrs to room as *poetics to fro foe wry almsle es. of •Y re•trae• Otherlr, all ro're drag is oletroOtIng. M, t/DPOLD. I or'S do that. IS. WO. Of reran because ter went to ratan. Iv. LIZPOLO. All right. MS. Fox. los Pale Peach scciaLaChr ft 3)401 4024•6C4bw..* & Associates Page 24 1 alter re mem to hetes. you wore on your 2 Where ....t that yeu and roster re not ,09540 a sox 3 of any kind/ 4 5 0. Olda't are tell that to Ow polio'? 6 A. Yes. end 3 wilt eoettrog. 1 ha. never 7 bad ate with him. B 0. bId toot oapporea upetele• •I Jett 9 Epstein here take you cespinely by eillpere... 10 A. 11 Q. Soo the cloth smiplaInt that you (nod 12 spikes sr. gnosis fer fifty dollar. •11.0ed 13 that yea rote totally Shocked by west hoppemed when yea get there. 15 16 0. Were yea totally Years by rat happened 11 whoa yoo got to Lpstrn•• basset Yes 19 Q. You didn't erect It at all, did you/ 20 21 Q. Tee ma ahoolotely se leas shy year Salem/ 22 le" 44. 144 Per to Pal ttttt le hews. TWA, 23 A. I mei lefoased It we. • •••••••• 24 0- • All yet thought that It was golle to he toes 25 • oaseapo °errors? IJIn2 yA850D 0.3961 EFTA00185252 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 8 of 35 sor & Associates tikrisor & Associates 1 Page 2/ Yea. ) Pam 26 0. Yoo•re sem that -. let as mi. the ...sit 2 'Mem — get to cumin Muse MEI 2 ramp. 3 Amer mid oiryllitm to yee M tie telorme ablat erobal 3 barn outs that before you got to 4 activity with tlittelo, OM shoe 4 155 mesa no am t. t.d to panne* you to .:gags In S S Mount eettnty nett Conon for co sy. An you? 6 0. AM hetam yea got to vpst•In•• hoes. 6 M. 140101.411 Obleetion. Mtn and 7 INSGent goat you • Paean, nor the InteRest about nomad. 8 micael aCtielty with Epstein. did she? TUC M. MO lise ahoy 9 9 amtioree Out a hot Min Ono. /0 old rest try to tatnht° you to I0 SY M. 11 engem Io any trawl ectitIty Mtn Ziteitelel 11 0. Nell Onchlne yes sou. SO /km 00100 CO aft 12 12 the motion - 13 Did stem say to ceowlace 13 M. 1.404060: Cramasle rye made an 11 Yew to 0, 9.n la lay seal activity vin 8004•017 14 objection ter UN record. IS I emit Um dbe i. 15 Is. Tali 'top spiaitee• /6 De you met • 'rioted al 16 M. LI.Ohotei Pe Mt going to sLap 17 w. 17 wp ahine. tee conic rept me sena Pa sating 18 Okay. Safer* yeti mat so zpstiololii hone IS the MOM. lag MA ammo cal ••• yes Memo you a einem 9 M. Penh theca madly the Valetta. 20 maul activity Mtn lips 44444 20 M. lineter tenni -- 21 21 M. fi ts Step warn.; the Innen. 22 0. SO you lit moo that Osten you got to to la 22 IT M. MIN, 21 tpstelo'• no... men tiled to peanut you nun. 23 0- MI let o esl yea 24 menial activity with Jenny spet•le? 24 M. LiO•OLD: It mw continue to -- 25 25 IS. Ms. step 1•4• 4nerIno qesst Lora. elt .562.0905. Pm. MEM 1633 Pal M LYS 01 W. SteStiO•Wet PM 034th M. DPI & Associates sto 2..54 bwopia Page 27 iMPOtigi it yes do it ogle sort tin, 2 nen letribl• 3 SY M. TOIL 0. SOP 5 M. IDIOM: I'S mine to hen the redeye 4 You casein later apt ••• Msn l'o saline the • nentl. Cut Of pre aaaaa coal none. no rapt ▪ de that. I's mOtled to mt. Os paean. 1 moo 9 to objection. as/o4 vied onuored. nor Oismanor 10 Is Impeceptiato. to.eis ttttt ng and me a.. ebb 11 vied youir• tapon•lble to an a questim In • 12 poste* tttttt meet. W Mt the co-motion and once 13 me eat the tomer. to .i th.r follow up as It Or 11 ems as. but not temintously Otomaat and an the IS saes mettle. Ong one mot neon. flu eeet lied 16 the manly. 17 M. RN: cola deer. Olt. 19 M. Volta: Must M. Pa wen can bate. 19 lama I. not od4 nag/ nes It. tory no. 20 N piess• continuo en. Mt f viii not 21 •liew yes to mistime to Lit la the 22 mamma Mat you're dolt". Mt Ma a MHO.. 23 sad more oil. 24 M. nip: ems you Marl 25 M. Intte.D3 nub no. I n. -FM 1655 Pain Belch Wel BSC &RI SOD -We0P8M/Meilt, Pi 33401 •- () at MIMS Fat MIMI 165$ Path NC a MC Solt $00 • ffi st Polo Bo* 21. 33401 - • — - --• • — — •--.- - & Associates 1 2 and oath dam. r. 90.y to elk oy neottn. Pa90 28 Ie. Tent Stop slateptsantle9 the retold 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 to cent the pestles, in not 12 M. 10000W, to. AM Ills net san. that 13 enettitm: *sly oa sttorseyreilmt pirmilege. 14 M. Milli 8111 you atop meeting nes so I 15 to wt ay qualities' Ms yes damn 16 Mar. l's lob" to caw as onatice. 17 sr M. ten. IS 0. tastes, M.. 19 M. LOSPOLO: Sale eh. Step. 20 re. ben doing ton be MMus yeen see 21 ben sot a lot et attemeys, bet I've awn' tbel 22 emmleecis ltd thi• test. Poo -- 23 M. Mut Step not apeemes• 21 M. 1.601men II yes osMissis to do this. 25 teeth., It's oath a* es with by Clint, I 0.11 net Stop it. IT In fl it : 0. M. ISSPOW: 1 %hint the wood I. very elan. M. 00408040: tot he ant elatIfy *honker. tea MU aj.ot Le the rem of • outdo. you're en IntruStan the ottoeie not • ralliallie 165$ Mn each •Yl▪ laa 01404 Sure 500 • Vint Pas Sealy FL 33401 EFTA00185253 Case 9:08-cv-801-19-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 9 of 35 sor & Associates resor & Associates ~pe er 2 $ 6 7 2•09 29 put tot with It ad I chen't acid to pot up with It MM It's not appro. . And re auto nt. doldherry knows *Is this, bruin* I know that he Wrildn• t de tide. Se I will est pet ep with it. had 1 think it'. highly larrnooriate to do this with tars child satire use, 0.0 way you're oiling. pileattly tennis 94, Mid I will net put ep with It. 2 3 4 4 7 9 te. ¥111 you traps nob Mr reiteth 9 10 se I an ut qweetiona 10 Il M. LION01.0, ho IBM 00 you act 11 12 prof kkkkk sally. I will de e0. Nit IS Tn. Cretin» 12 13 to de u this way. I VW Irate. 13 14 e. tt1tII Suit yetirtelf. 14 1$ el MD. Tills: 16 0. earn• you note that before you got to brat tried to tO 16 11 eindel••• he et pethiads you tern. 11 It eameadl actielty with betan for money/ 19 19 Wt. 1•0101.0" naiad and aeiraree. 19 20 Object loth 20 21 MD. Kill: Did you get het susar? 21 22 Ni Mid Rtit*TEAr so, I did set. 22 23 1'n bite. 23 24 vs M. trill: 24 25 0. tot es ask you • few questions abort yew 25 Far. 16SS Pt» DNA take Mel. Sit 600 -WM Pat Deed...IX 33401 0 & Associates tote 31 A. 2 Q. All right. Lot ea oak you two final eras 3 of .st/ol., *beet this end we'll rove onto oca•thIng 4 else. Okay? 5 4 0. Wets you mot lo ;patters', did anyone 7 bodared vitt *Ran ever call yen an the phone and • tt, .to patsrad.p. iodide, metier or coerce you CO mirage 9 In any >Opal aalwity7 10 u. 11 uteri. you tot to lesaltra did anybody 12 e•lbetitted with tintelte rut 000tat you se the Internet 13 end try CO peraddide. Induce, entita or cent@ you to 14 engage an anal beltway? 15 16 11 ID 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0. -who told Ire Out elan ye. 0 9 te .35ft fotarla'a house you 'Mold it. to left sheet year sal A. 0 Mat it or was åt Ur other girl In the gar rho you rode over with to lbstan's hereof 0 . that day? IMO we tet «Mr girl to the oar with too I honestly don't knew. • Not %SSNM ffekb ▪tees SJte400- Wett P4101 leach R 33101 ..... ..... . context with Jollity !vault. Okay? Diana.* ~La head ep end down., Jeff furor a:nailed yee. did he? Me. Jeff sayer Vast easurettdpu. did he? 0. Pay. 0. bat newer chatted In • Chat tan with did A. M. 0. radon you get to epthelars boa to lad neat &poke to Jeff, »a pert A. 0. badattar~ Jeff/ A. Cornet. 0. Mien yew got te gpatola't house you hod meter told Jeff that you were undo( II. right) A. M. 0. Peron you lot to Cortan't leMer, had you over told Jeff... that you wet* that? Tel I error spate te tat han before that. 0. and yet only wont to Jeff [patois.", beast. that me tine three years M. correct? And Peter. you got to Cretottee hour. you O. You newer rent there 'agate. correct/ Ph.~. 0905 ' Fit 146S PS Betth Skis 0141. 4! 500 • 1~ Pan Beach, Ft 33931 * sac & Associates 5~1••ni toodepa, no 32 1 0. Mad toe *tor mien ser wore? 2 A. W. air. 3 0. You told the police that when yea rods owe 4 to Meetan's you had no Idea mho oho was, $ A. Coerce. 6 0. You coli the police teat pa ~ilk knew • her ammer out she wee b e really deck. kind Of like • *with girl? 9 A. 10 Q. Thou were your words. right? 11 A. It 0. Du you nos lewd who NW la? 13 A. de. sir. 14 0. 50 it wie told you to la anon 15 your op to Jeff butaa 14 17 0. And all told you that If yea weren't 19, It gPot•In wooldp't let you lat. use here*. fight, 19 20 0. All tight. Lot. ' bah for a mina* shorn 21 when yet fint tet Jett. Oa)? 22 23 0. Khoo era first met Jeff he tried to tied 24 out hew old yea were, tight. 25 A. Kara se? 1665Pen ouch ▪ Lakes Dd. Site 500 -Welt Pen Do" it 33931 — — EFTA00185254 (l) O Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 1 4nsor & Associates trowsual HOS 11 0. She 100 Cant mat 2.41 he tiled to ds 2 out taw old eve weer. mishit 3 A. Sot shoe we tint lialgOdueed000 Others 4 Won we get esestalre, two, reg. 5 O. holm. the smear deft asked yes WSW old 6 you were, correct? 7 A. las. yes. 8 0. On Man't nu alien/ told deft. 0 assistat. the coo who walked you spun.. that yoe went 10 to coupe and bad just eased 40 hare fro Ohio? 11 A. S Lover sµas to the lady. I? O. DO jot sent to rethink that Weer? 13 NA. tratttlai Is that a dentist 14 SYNC. Tait. 15 0. Ise yea eat to ttttttt that .sear? 16 No t didn't realty speak vita her that 17 10 0. Ceacb vent to try to ninon Yon Amory 19 on that? 20 At. 1201101.0, rd yew have Hatititing to 21 zeiresh her refry with) 22 N. TOIL Dorsi want to ItC Necktie.) spoiltinq ajnt54 .? 24 PO. 12.0001.0, Mt to retreehlairliOnaril 25 maaory. Wu show Oda a 000larret. Ph. 16552.16SM* FL MCI sor & Associates Pp. 3$ 1 to can inner no ...lOatIOa. 2 3 0. Is theme ...thine that would retreat nor t watery that a tact yea told It. hpotOlni s ttttttt nt. the ass wbe welted you upatairs. that yew went Co celled& and 6 you hod jest moved down Pots Ina Otto? 7 A. I do's roamdser saying that: Out IC Ado -- 0 1 dn't itniner saying Wt Opel!, SO -- 9 Cr. that would be • lie. right? 10 A. $0. I dart reireider. 11 O. 50 yOU told Jell that you were IA year* 12 old. corsvati 13 A. Yes. Id 0. 00 pas einicestan Detective atideelle Pagan of 15 the NLo Oopartnent. pets Desch Police Opparteent? 16 17 to you tswswhor you spot* to Mn 10 Yes. 19 0. Do you runeatoir that yin told Detective 20 Nips that whoa you lied stout your age to Jeff you sold 21 it meetly tact because you dirt west te as It sordid 22 lilt you wets lying, 13 A. I don't newt. the wOrds bat I 24 de ressober tolls*. her I told hi. I an 18. 25 0. And do yew tamed. telling Detections Noon • 1669 palsOath LiarIL993. 500. KIL FL 33401 Fa Fri. . - O ! 0 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS Page 10 of 35 tiOnsor..& Associates • nits 34 M. ram thaw bOULOdO (hi.. MA. LideOVAI Thee ahoy hat a dacarat. NO. Stop opeakled. LOSPOSO: 1 .o lot lelog to Stop spotting. I. molly to continue to orbs Use MR. //Oh You're diettuetIng Please step. 1. s. net obstrisettas Dot If yea went to to ha: taco, lest ion, yin, need to show het seeethisp. That . . not • proper 9,44ton. I object to the foundetton ad the predicate of that question. NA. TWO An you dun? MN. 40:901.0 I an row. 16 In SO TOM 11 0. tio you went to sly te refresh year meaty 18 a to wh.thet yo had any adVdt•MOOM with the Wad who 19 welted on up. is ['stein horn in Mach yew told 20 het that you went to collage sod hod jest moved dews Cron 21 Chle7 22 a:. 120•011). Objectled. ObJeet to the 21 fere of toe question. lock of Coundetteo sad 24 pcnicatw. 25 hi t. /COO Ft air Fa 1455 Par estagotralkoRlb 500)001 0 10 %. FL 33401 0 110n5Or & Associates •••••••••saraila‘laa Nile 36 3 that uteri yo IOW to restele about your eV that you 2 sald le realty Dist So [puler wooldn't realise yam were 19100/ A. M. I tn't seamier saying thee, words ovally teems. t fl oater tolling her that I told 6 totter I we. 10. 0. Doss It sauna right to SW that no told 0 Detective ?Adam that you said your age ieelly last to 9 Dpstolai -- 10 w. 00)eetion. haled lad 11 12 IT l MO 13 -- so he wouldn't thlla that you more 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 4 25 SR. maws: Cbjeot100. Raked and anowered, %dell of teenteelen, alloClobroht et her aa ttttt tOetimoso. She's already aii•Vered that west in. et IS. 0. Ta ion mower It. M. MOVOLD 1st eti2octloa. tee been asked and 'levered. Thu rag. answer. I ...es mad. !TO objection. TmC tillIKSO 1 locust the Ountioa. now. J • i65SPilakesZallil-S06;500441Nlitch,R.33•31 EFTA00185255 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Il sor Si Associates Pal* 21 lit' M. /SIM 2 Q. • Let a* put it aaaaa . Does it 9.314b4 tight to yoo that you told folottleo felon that unto you Hod about year age to Jeffrey [Donna. you fold it telly feat bawl. YOu 6 didn't wont to make It IRMO 10u/ pow cent :41n00 Ma. LL0P0L0, CISlettlort. Wok of e foundation. asked anti snoozed. 9 TIM DITII451: I Could have postillay said 10 that. yes. 11 /IT M. ytlin 12 Q. TOY dlide••1 welt Me. Lp to 4.30- that 13 you tote lytag about yeti .0, right? 11 A. Ce aaaaa IS 0. Ts didn't .rot Wt. *Stela to know that 16 you revs not It yet. right? 11 A. Conant. 16 0. You noted Kr. fnef•In to holl•ot that you 19 really roll 19. eight? Correct. Do you totoOtt when N. %potato coked whoa you rant to «heel? 20 21 22 23 0. 0. hed ni told N. Cpstsln you ~et to 11•111~, tf9bal 41 - 1465 Feb DINKA ~ 70 50 ~40,1% »CI ----•-------.--- tiftrnsor & Associates ............~... 2 4 S 6 • 10 Il It 13 11 15 16 17 It I! 20 21 12 23 24 25 eM1. taardnO: elect Ion. foindatios. Dar 39 that would do that to • witnesses or to a pun.% that's sitting In this Chair to ton •Cting orally. You can't ask a ~ties like that. Two an do it. bet it'a cot proper. hod I'M auto no imor•e'lttlitnef that way. atuiely not oudeoliy. M. Toni: tali you stop? M. 1401,040: V. not going to stop. MNwt th• toy roOa •akIng that tiplestlet Is inproper W yo loaf It. M. nIN: Yoe're Ieetne your sal. SY M. TOP: mg toSI.D. Trait Y. Va vary cola. Men 1 lose toy CFO. you'll See it . app. Thit I do Imo lt. ST M. Mtn 0. M. Mil Mr. Setoin never eats) you to do anything otter than oasts.* hie. olstanett A. Incorsott, kw000 In eased a to tote Otf *rho. or that sold b• two things Is'. sated to ado. Q 01M« than Siting You a tat. your bra oft, Of. Insteelo sent sated you to do anything olio Lin other than sent.. snot" Men fer..1642.1771 1655 ht. badl Lain Ilt 500. Will NM 1,110L n 33401 ; Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 11 of 35 nsor & Associates 3 5 6 B 9 10 ll 12 11 II 15 16 IJ 19 19 20 21 22 23 21 2 O. 0. Pane 34 no. Na that the troth/ feet. no net to Petal Dole. tight? Toe. fio you US to ttr. [patois *gain Correct? 0 14 lllll ngta tee allege that you told Jolt's molernet that yea wen •ttoestinif A. I 0.1.'t user heels the. coassation with her. Ito I t•011itti.t low a that's. oho. 1 told. Q. That yes a lit. Chown, won't It> Na. LI:0•0121: as j•Ctlen to the font of the cocotte.. lack of f~tIon. 'We're making an asomption. She Foot dianneed yon oho oos"t toll no that. lat. TM. direalog objection. Amt haw eau 00 that. Ht. InOtold• M. ~CI0; il, Cast awns that gp,ratla. The way you phCall.14 that gel you're putpcsly neltng hot net be hen»; in hoe t eettliOny. lb* Can't snorer • quontion lino that. She doesn•t zealot. le then maw soy, .1* 'Co note lyino• /lot'. lePeltor and you avow that. That'. net a groins pestla. 44.4 any attorney me es Fax. Mt nn 1665 NM NIS V"ahe SCOWS001a r1.32401 2 S 6 1 B e 13 11 36 11 IB If 20 21 22 2 24 25 & Associates ~not Toowtes. predicate. Tye •1M65: correct. of S. SW' O. Inge 10 You %old the petite. in your Oectin. that yea did not whack his off. right? Conti. Sat doe. that son? Sect. lit. Saks> off? Yes tent Sat don that sea? ItittuzlotIng. in. Anoint never tried at sy LIM te grab 0. 0. A. O. Tout hand. did >47 setsb soar tried to put your Pond attodont. did ha? M. At no clue did has ton* Itt ?Stele' a pall. Old Tot 0. And h• did not tooth you. Correct? focorteat. NO. roe told thi police. 'At 00 tine did h• leech ton' tine you lying Ze the police than? A. N. Volt. I won't help fully troStal, at I wan'. lying. - rot Ilt42.1771 —nessereaseuSila 7§e soor-Weitee" PL— 334°1 EFTA00185256 U Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 12 of 35 *Isar& Ascor;ates twohmiwww a 0. 2 Wholle Yew that 'at 00 tim did is tooth pt.' Didn't 9 you my that to the palter? A. Yeah. 5 0. And Wye saying that wt we net Pally 6 etechbil. 24 that Mit wit ,/ mime neat 7 A. correct. 0. AM teeth sables if were net fully 9 intlitol. Mars net • W. CerrectT 10 Ae You took that out or contact like imilY 11 Md. I didn't eta like that. /amigo. ay Pact .td -- 12 M sow lept his him. to Mamie the maim too. 13 Itat•• Mot V. LOW to say. 14 0. Too told the police. 'At too time citil 15 much ne.• TM oyes with that. coteKt7 16 h. M. I dOn't pep with that. hettm ho did 11 10 0. Old you toll Um pellet that ha dad not 10 touch W. yea or nol 20 h. It's • peosteitlity. Mt I do net entralmt. 21 0. Muni. AM yeti did ma ham any typo of Ma 22 with Atte. tereatti Pete 41 too told the polity mica when you epok• to O. And you did net ham osy type or oral pc wire AM, tettette En Memos • Roc MM. .17/1 — — iiislig7/00nakastar9.**400AWSSalkiltVL 3). 31 4Onsor & Associates .....,.......,—... 1 2 • 7 to 11 12 19 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 didn't you? 21 IA WPM., ObJettion. 22 fit WOWS, I gums se COMA my that. t 1 M. 1.600010: ObWiMet. Lack of Medicate 24 Nd tombwis. 011awthatootertiettion Of tattler 25 teitisony• Page 43 things, but it wasn't Joking Wit It at MI. 0. You 501.0 OW It. didn't you, ho. You Mkt toISthat le Too did this stay monied wed ha rich, didn't yea M. ve t's Met fold M. Ion didn't 1•11 that to MIP p. tewrei Objection. Asked and Mewed. iQ W71007; do. SY Id. 12110 0. After yaw lett 40etalls'• noun you took the adnay ad yea mitt Mopping with -tied the ether girl la the Cat. cermet/ A. inearemt. t dIclet mend any of the 0. A. 0. 704 vent to Wing roil vent WM, yes. Oat I didn't -- You weet sMWIM with ama at O . Ph. 0107:5010 560 .was _ O 0 sor & Asseriates PIM 42 2 Q. Al type e nuns .011 Jell, metottl. Ceec•cl. 4 All tier. Nit 'a tale &ban that hmikeied aft.. the witaim miaow. 6 A. Okay. 0. After 1M swam pm told liptteM that g you mated to bring mer bile Matra hatli se aM could 9 tat. Mel eoney. <mutat? 10 A. Intormet • 11 0. Tend tom Motor to es right/ 12 A. detrital. 13 0. And you loo. Virmty nutle dent you? 14 Yes 15 And Men you left to bow yea wait MAIM 16 wan red other 91.1*, rootlet you? I) A. Intettmt• 0. Well. Awn amp,m4 Ma *thin girl in the 19 tar that day male [bait stetowt• to tho poli te they 20 told the poll o that piu +ere 3ohM9 atonwtdii• Are you 11 toying that they won tying to the pollee Wet that, 22 A. M. OM • Watson or -- mottinnt Iron 23 Ilk* one Asked m oneetlem, hot It wasn't 24 losing. fbe MD kW of We in a happy ear. law, e did yen OM that did yew del' alle Mom kind o/ 1655 Pik; 81311.7artet30---Weat PilintlePalat 3340L___ _ & Associates Napa 44 III PM WW1 2 O. And Illiborpht • pow, right? 3 Yea. • O. And you wall vigil Mr the wholit tiro at 5 Patadelr.t, cornett 6 A. 7 0. It... toll -. about Mon the rational ▪ prOittegtora told you about getting miabeemd. We no Ida. Wt M•'10 talking Witt. 10 foil •• about Mos the ['dotal prosocutots 11 wed to you .bolt mitten, easy you feel yore Witted 22 to fete itt. tbat•In• 11 A. I don't Wm Mat voters talking About. 14 M you tom WIEN ,.? IS no. Mt. 16 0. 910 you ve t neat with any Potbeal 11 prone. 16 A. t thick -- yeah. I thin% they wore I 19 OWL they ow LW 20 Old you mot with WW1 21 Piesittutots> 27 A. they disc to my Mom she two. yet. 23 9. whom did trey we to met heum7 24 h. wry loon no. 21 Q. Mu it thla year, /0001 5f1.68.72/903- Fo.IINI1771 1653 Mw Ikea Labs 874.7.14.6%300t Wat •Pet. aseM4.33401--. EFTA00185257 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 13 of 35 nsor & Associates O 2 A. 0. A. Nutt ...weweNu Y. Page IS it woo not dolt year, N. Yu It 20011 I'd hare to toy åt heat tee per* No 0« a 4 Not or. yo'. So It ~Id Se 2001. 2004, hot It woo • soils 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 14 19 20 21 22 19 21 25 O. MN any taks•l preueuter• or NI Newts GS to yams Model A. Ill ozyleq to tatabor. I erot te toy fair people cue. • O. Old Nei glvo yet then butilieso eardil A. II they ad, I don't caster. and they earoe't toward Po. maybe n wren. an this. poreal 0. Did they tin ye. [holy cola phone naubeCt/ Y. O. Old TN ~I Wok to tbs. tel theft cell A. Yip. sir. 0. Did they pink te 70». patents? A. fl at'. ~Nips ?wtd Mw to ask ay 0. yoi yea Nee weather they ma* to yen portet•ill O. se. sir. Yo. berg no 10087 Ph. Fit 1(155 1~1416316 164, 500— sor & Associates 1 2 3 6 7 e 9 10 12 13 le 15 16 11 16 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 art M. Inals. 7N eel •4•N‘' 116. 1.1111414 Okay. I wouldn't keno. 0. You *art beet PIN* 11 M. LNION: Objection. Attorney/client prI•11•9•• ST Ilk. NM: Q. tad yoo goy yea ~Pt know as Port Slaran Lot 0. Deoo It ruff!~ pet tocelleCtton that he's So ember two Nowerater at the U.S. Atcornoy'• 0.1fIcet A. Y. O. That ho•• ca••• bons/ A. Y. 0. Net It tyfon your weary that bti•• the eo-pitomo of NH arve, the Ilrat looter No sad You send 11t• atom ari your Opel( for fifty ordlis dellån/ A. 1to. air. I don't Moe who le 1s. 0. sltheet telling se any ceautrenteho that pure* had with your lawyers. hoe Is It that you selected Kt• Nets • 5 your INV« Iron the 51.000 When of the Nina IN OIL:24M 1655•411 46646144.544C O CJ ) * se- & Associates -,....,..1~,STIN INg• 46 A. Mo. sir. M. 1.00060: Objection. Ailed and 2 onneted. 4 OM. MIN S 0. SO 11 I ny the nee to N u am 6 Yilbibies. you Nutt Niaw who that al Now sMY ANN and len' my eon one to 9 T o Men 10 Il s 13 11 15 14 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 25 I went a isny two bidlee and two ptyo. Did Neon* Need Jeffrey Skean NOS to yell. Nona A. I thei't NW ass. sir. O. 00 yea know who Doff fey Slow NI A. N. Pie. 0. Clo yet hew who J'effroy Mnia 14/ A. 0. That.. the layer who flest and Spytein os ynr nYlf. tleht7 500•11 au In. Noun •Pmetted piet hally any M. LIN101.0i hey coriertetlere that ~et had with At. Soso 'Nordin.; Not Issue. yea are net to doubt.. II ?<sure leaned in wee «Par nss "ARPIN; ., 7" sor & Associates 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 FIN/do lerl A. O. A. O. A. O. with bla. INN did you spit els/ A. is. ANDIN In sy -• he showed up all Islord. • Noah nag* 46 I did net select Nu. 10.0 did? py fothot. Did yell *wet Not Mr. »men/ Deo•t don't tolls Net yin discussed 0. Non boon/ 12 O. . 12y. titoaelleillison.he omt e. ast toset 13 L4 15 16 It 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ?stern, 0. enOeie you hove a rein. with Ida at A. Yea. I /Nut phi could say that. 0. 0. AM No Si.. won UN*, her le“ Mod Nat woo that riot», about? M. ~tarn Ole»ctlei ottozety/clIont Polol sen. by 0. Put tlistuostonti did you That tells for leve //IN - HU yen • 1 09,1111:ast4 EFTA00185258 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 14 of 35 0 0 iC) * sor & Associates .........ii.-4.—... hoe 42 1 Mt. lean in the prest* el eaEt 2 A. 3 0. at ~Mims did you base la the 4 )valnes of Mr aunt? 5 A. Oa ny aant2 6 S. Oittedadia: IV» the martens*. amt. 7 at M. nit Oh, el flat aunt. 9 A. the slaty one that warn toes dlecoaaed or 10 ant bad. 11 O. And M. yea wed; In a comaysatIon ulte 12 Ac. Mate and year mat/ 13 A. yea, alt. le 0. lad you discussed privaled•al natter. dotlag 15 that tarmnorm? 16 M. LCCIPOLY ta lent V> the rent. I QOM 11 you .lat Mn 10 aducrat• bar m that gulitlen. III t M. Ulan If tea filmold the lawralta 20 Yea. 21 co Ott INNS I•11 yea Meat any 22 conmantiona that mho had rus M. mama? I) h. ha fun Pa cenfdyned. she' a name spun 24 or •b••• never had a COM•ttli lea. Noe Daly opened to 2$ door and then Ian. Wert the Om who minetrad the Cool. _ a Pl 9 .5%2V5t0~-1~32 ,201___ 1655 vatn erb% sor & Associates 2 0. Mel to amoral that any Of that Page 51 • sea et rhea era at old IC Z>, wen 4010 by the t etteraret that they mule get many at the end at the • criminal pzearreution. Cans Oat sees, tamalltar to ?tar' 6 A. We, str. • 0. Othsa than alt. ~peke het. -- rut set I makihe Yon Yr. at tain ~an -- 9 A. Cea-hda. 10 O. tb yea that 11 you veal. at ranetraraerat for your ~es? 12 A. to , oar. II 0. Old yes ow any ~Sr -- It SR. LEOICCO. Are you (*tarried to • 15 Catalan tatter ea • *rail «toast 14 Of NIL titan 17 O. Did yea •r any ~rr •• 16 3•4 4.1010301 MACS» we. Let we mint to 19 the Corn of the 'nation. 20 WO OL. Itin' 21 O. 010 yea or my ~sr of your tasty goer 22 at • vista «it I natl.; le te. fa« 441/0.47 23 A. 1 no »mat fl oat at that resift«. and 1 24 sosidar a t knew. 25 0. go yen. teattardry la that yen have saner -1655~ 500ffloWL21,22401 4rtinsor & Associates Page 50 0. -y a did tam watts. tat. pleas at a a—, 3 A. 1 flat tin night that nlold et Mr house. 4 0. AM ear* we tagal 5 A. A dui* Mo. 6 p. Sc.. long NO? e A mina and a half ago. is oweining. p. A øenrIt. Ye • halt ago? 10 A. 06-ton. g. >e +is It helot* of elet gr. »risen film 11 the y￾al 1 ten-del tar levant against idwateinf 12 A. Alta.. C) 13 O. Old you rat with an I>1 Want mead 31 IMO kurk•ndiaL • Metal 15 A. 16 O. Old M. gualcandall *yam, to you about 17 atria! xabibutaed (Cm M. *stein? 16 A. I'n never had • alarmdon with anyone 19 *taut getting reimbursed tots Mt. testate. 20 0. Mn geo eat with an agent mood ein 21 22 A. Mt to ay nnerlofta. 23 0. Plows« ...Tat lab" tre tttttttt~? 21 Yea, air. 25 Iles about an agent natal denies OttS•? C) " trelitte- F". ...------._ .12:jfirtfarrses. & Associates 1•99 $2 I and a rictus notilitatIen feat«. correct? 2 3 0. M4 year test bow/ IS teat you don't know if year pruta have .t e ramind a •Intin netitaMtio• lettet. enamel? 6 7 0. Ilan yea gin any *nano. to e or law bolercesoat I< the. <an? ghat 0i agg sou by evidence? 10 O. hall. ~kind that you Can teach or feel. 11 A. M. l2 ID. 10010W: to the tom of the 13 ~AIM. 14 WC Ttill; 15 0. 10 you italPori.t 91••• 103.0469 PhYnal 16 A. M. 1? 0. -- any it- to any peatectat or. police IS *friar Of lay inlorts...e NMI, cornett 19 A. Sy all pl.« ilt years age or than arra 20 age, bat mars it. 21 0. Tow gava your tail pbett• to ohm? 22 A. IlleissIl• /nab 23 0. Ind one lag It 14 A. Mt Mr. 25 0. You ion it te Mr ad then yre didn't get 391: SW:0505 7 M -- 1655PS Bomb LYS MIL Sat 500 • West Po5n Obi^ Pl.. 3)401 EFTA00185259 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 15 of 35 0 & Agates Page 5) It back at the end of the Dentine, 2 PO. They ham it. P. 3 wowing. I Mat he, tt. Noe such co y ••• yea MI MS to get out Ot 5 w. lintels, 6 M. LLOPOLD: OoloCtlon to the term 01 the quest100. AttorneyMIMat B IrT M. TIM 9 0. Am ouch way an you hoping to get. pa. 10 yearanq hoping to hat out of chateloi 10710102 pre. fw objectIchi 12 attorney/el Met LLLLLlase. O 13 ke't Man the question. 14 AY M. UM: 15 0. VS MX balm Moot Mitt yaw lawyer told le too. I? M. IMPOLS iltlite•Ctie9 her not to IT mane the question. bombe My Cr those 19 Oinverset lens insole, her causal. 20 M. in, Cattily that. 21 M. MOMS 22 CZMITICO COCCTIOn 23 n M. MIT, 24 0. Now. sir Tel lied to Ott out of this C) 25 Orpesitle4. tildn'a Teel CMS -06C- 950nal, 11. & Associates 1 CUSISICO ngfITION Page 55 2 87 M. Milli 3 0. Yoe sand rest tieeet '- 4 M. IMPOLO. Irs Taste and mblemems. SY M. 1811: 4 0. You sated your co-sorters at the Cnrtertleck Tavern to i.e ler you. ditin•t no? B A. M. I salons. sy Isis abut what was 9 gels on es4 he told en that Is would blip in any way 10 that he um II 0. nay You got yes friend-to IM 12 by mitts, name tan with Pee. torrecII 13 h. Incorrect. It was a atinCideste that sant 14 sight AM sea not mach her we tas she yarn inning 15 aloe. But I use else an marine -- I was waving my 16 Mee tag. Mersa anatebes an. tags. It ant Pe tioppono it was a faintness that on. night the people Ifi es with the pawns. 19 M. KM rill yea put up Yachnit 18-0017 TO M. osuenitinw An mart 16-001 for 23 idnitlfItatiew purpoon to this deposition. 22 M. LCOPOLOI Item •f the he.,. boon auk*/ 23 Yet. Mn n• hark the and pat than as attaciatet 21 to the depositions? began* i thins you're shown 25 thin photos now. And this in the only me that --- ThresiiirceingiRAPPLorsr - O TJ Cl itrisor& Associates .........-.0,-,,. 0. Pegg 54 Isch sir. sou dint waist to con to court today end 3 toll tle story that you had told to the police under 1 oath, did you, M. LCOPOLD: tO3Mt to led for. of the 6 potation. nth of foundation. preOlten. 7 7th M. 1 nee no pcinIth Mein B Mr* and talate/ to you. BY M. 74.111: 10 0. And to steld getting seised with a lawful 11 sat9Cona, yell lied about your Oat daunt met 12 13 0. An in fact. yin lying yoatmlf vals•t 16 o:wng4 see IS M. LL0108.0: tin•Hion to the fen of the 16 aptation. 17 (was t amen' it. It's net a quettlee. IT Mien to TM fern of the meet's*. Melt IP et tOalOatlan. 20 M. Kip: Are you instructing MI hot to 21 mime) 22 M. ut0/00: 23 Cattily U. 21 M. SMICCOt Pleas 25 sor & Associates Steen ISTateeffea. %AI been meted for identificatios yst. 2 IT 52 find 3 O. $ 6 10 11 12 O 13 II Is 16 es M. fill: I7 18 top s the mtesn. be you see Mal If A. bp. 20 0. ISO 19 that le the now 21 A. on the Mtt end no tot the MSS. xx 0. rinn 23 21 0. a Toms friend at the 25 Setterditek Tense, Eight, 111.-- Mee 56 M. Loosen.: Wald oe Jan a second. Just so the locoed la clear •- XS TAM I'n not spurting to yin. M. LCOPOUlt Okay. Than Ster t MSS to se then. Pas Met to Nr. Coletereer. PitthaPa• but at least for the record. ten se pat on the Stand Mat the preview two photomap/to ism noted for ibnt111ation M. 6014Intiant we wilt oats hire nut t naiad ih cites at tats sod of the Clepteltle• so that One's no anibigelty. M. LIA•Cga. Must pit. O. VIII put a penostsn mend 11-001 EFTA00185260 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 16 of 35 sor & Associates poosiellosomtoolo (7) AssE)ciates Page 57 Page 51 Jakla for you. didn't yew/ 2 Yar friend, Mw you ay the day 0. S 2 e. 1 that the process servers ant to Cna y** with • 3 M. =POLO: ast amebae At. It Call, for 4 eapeen• tale atahltia. lust happened -• past by 4 • fee or no. 5 teintideoce. eta wearing your nasa tag? 5 TIC NITICAIN 6 6 CT M. Tela 0. /ad past by coanclasnoe. you om waking 7 0. Naw you can explain the lbard*r that your I har an. tag. banal stepped pa (ta ealeinlet 9 A. iss. 9 A. Okay. t work at (Matterack end people ID O. Yew Lestioay under oath Is tawt•• lat. • 10 were telling M that people weta looking Tor be. Se yea, 11 celesitlewa, Tight? 11 I as hare that people nsa aearchieg for es. out t tad 12 A. Total beaty. 12 no Plea who they wry er whet tale intentlas were. out 13 0. ;t lat agata Lea w ay that you weta O 1 tacqbt they were past paple I didn't want to tai. to. 14 going to be ‚erred with a eubpasks. cornet? 14 De t Just didn't went ta talk le ara. Pad every tam 15 that aseal•t the day that IS thorn ass to work I wa t t there, had to happens the 19 M. ISOPOLOI =plea aman the 16 night that they Cate la we eta ay friend .witched as 17 goation• a calla fot • yes or no. 1/ tak lie big 4•46. Je at Wiana twe. Is o. time' • • sae. Isn't Itl 19 a M. tyla: M. L004040: Oblatice. Port'" answer that 20 0. Too sald that wasn't the firet day you sac" 20 µetion. tuta haratania and I will not selw 21 rag te be -- pn taught you wat bela arat with 21 it. as sald sak the gastaIns end we'll allow a 22 inapoone, anten/ 22 Posy ta aka that determination. Nut not counsel. 23 A. Correct. 2) will not Alo. har te sandr that 24 O. Toss Mak abate Ins nay that you altana 24 µat/a. CJ 25 naw tags alliinatket Um prała asan went 25 M. nit Certify --- 14/355IIBTBITIC17;...MR.t 1 rs. ,4, Wieacli VR- 3340I----- O O & Associates Pepe S9 1 M. LCOTOLCu I'll entity It. 2 CARTIPIAD CARATION 3 lhes otwared Sat question. "hare maga•lee4 it flue 4 tads •Ireagy. the fast that Counsel deess. t Me the 5 manor. tata • gony. 6 M. nit Stop nalane ‚Palla obJettiono 1 M. LSOPOUN l'e Mt. Ike not alt to up with It. because ire in appropriate. Jatko 9 sad you Loom It. I „sil sol allow geseasel te 10 banta • witness. tama< IVA In • aplanat cek* Il or • ci•il osa, watka wy et/at ł -- 12 M. thu s Calu awn. 13 • M. Mata kucam m. 14 No, 1St not yang to alley it that le net 15 Payer. le M. COIDOMOCR: Okay. 17 M. lialath If M to gay that sara le tylni .(tar akta it awe tad. ad he. 19 *salwinia‚ In greet detail, Pw nam de that. But 20 sot gang to al/w ar to man, our be 21 harassed by kto. It•• Leproper. 22 S. OOLOOINNIOD Okay. Net your teams. 23 tost canal aleees't lita the gratatles -• or 24 dessert like the akson -- Just In na fiala. 2$ M. LWOWI Abso I won't tang O O O Pau ffi n t•e90. M682.177I 655 Pahr ESN 500 4447 6.0.1 - 33401--- • sor & Associates Page BD to kutia -OK you. 2 M. wanta wt rewir/t o• to say we like tan enact to that µat/on. And lc's net 4 yr. and I er you and Nr. Tein oba ara testifyia 5 bero. Lt's the winien. 4 M. 1.104.050: fine. at alter tan natl. • tins of asking Ow sea µeaten and thalo Kolny O bak sad pitta a finger at bee and saying. 9 • toirre a Her' 10 M. /tal That alert tama. 11 M. LZOPOCIN That's fine. But l'e not 12 going to allow het W maro( that Watta, 13 barana area avotretwt that an. amnion aad has 14 explairied it. 15 doe Covoma eight be sitting there rubbing 16 kie heed wits • again. Mara his prob 1••• 17 Nut if lm fart sak • µat/e *pian aaaaaa y In a 16 professional anna, ve will lean. ( will net 19 wow har to be berated like that. 20 M. GOLO•Cala atoally, arm nety DOPY 21 with ta Year. 22 M. LITNOLIN Mt'. gitar. 1) M. GOLDIN:ROAR: a you wen os to get Into 24 that? S M. nu: -6.46 — 163514161132474124as B44.. 44:630WedriC14141 ----- ' — i EFTA00185261 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 17 of 35 if & Associates ibee Cireifeerie. Page 43 1MØ: This It really ble stuff that rent gain, annul, let Inuit flaw jut at 3 rug gestic. cia sou on. Wit do lt sae gas. s It yo• tout understand It, Ill let you tallow UP. but I•• not enini to ales you to malt ter ea 6 quells its and again sad than all her a Jut ut the question. eel the unite all you te e the nut subject atar. 9 M. ?W11: Tod. Ver sitt fisi steet actin* 10 the able feu yee. 11 Na. Lt01914>, Tea, att. 12 M. Tenn alma be gitt. Melt ill. 13 M. l.31Ø I sell net be sott. 11 M. Ira, Step millet. 11 M. Me/Le Lavin, Wen re ally 16 yOU'll law it. I will not -- 17 M. TIM it how is tea Nets. 10 la. LIDICie t enamel yea Clem new> no 19 Sala. Mf. Telt. 20 le. nee You watched gm toe who ay. al 21 Uwe uncle:elan Nana SIN yew eat In the bean 22 el the cenetena. toe should bow who I ea. 19 ea. Carole tell. that'. ta {sodafan 11 tea at era sos In tee ~true, 15 I "lie at be gal« .-- T4350iffireieFlit1"500~ F.L - FL- 3340 sor& Associates P898 43 1 0. Mene ton you when _told this 2 ~ors that you an net at at Pert•rdock Tana? Lacag sedate. 4 0. At UM Oranowwk Tavern! Yea. 6 0. eibat did yea de et that eft IMa , the maw amen tor lya? e A. 9 0. be lest got hia te it. for you. cildn•t 10 Yea 11 A. M. I bad se attua a hei sayscg I 12 isn't then. 13 0. aci toot that tae haegi1 14 lan't it ten that Ia. Cpateln•• puree 15 aerate had to uk the pol ICI to froi you out or the It Clettoreat .0 that they could worn you? 17 la. ILOPOlIn Obyntion. Lack of 10 («Matt«, present*. 19 at M. 20 G• Yee an soot tae cimatles• 21 M. LIIOSOIA, It you knee Oset 91•841. 22 net WITelLIS: W. Con yaw repeat the 23 met ime 24 at. bela: Den't coach 25 M. LIUPCNO. Con't gun. O O 0 Sisson & Associates 3 6 7 ▪ M. 1115, Met 62 is. Stilly fleet Obeseleei. step Meat OblUalne. It, stupid. Ian Si Mehl eltli O. gust Lou. Me ~MO" I wilt all the record. S. Mtn let's get On ultlf 124 <rotenone. M. ~Let ø ym ems • brak> 12 33 lalStratt. 14 smit it true that lying to nevoid aisle 15 la • ramelpitte cio to yeee 16 A. incotna• 17 0. ism li Mc Nesetert ttea 14 A. 1 Mn Mee. Weld you Ills to boa,. 19 20 0. mo•• the Ode "tie lied for you! 21 A. 22 0. 21 A. 24 Q. iraererapos. 0. °W. Ulu you told your allsti i 10 et Ilee ~aim& tmera ~rifling lhal. us• going al il W bt tad yew be would help you my son he mild, 18 Idd mei Is the hstaa lira the man semen, cement ion whet did Moo tei Il• for yea geld I hasn't there. AM MA did ha tee, ...WI there? 25 A. Ask h,a, . lit.r • fu. 1 Snsor & Associates ag.,....—ki..... lam 44 1 is. III., 250.•• a ~hit • 2 M. ataleteh Po. thit•• as !Attraction to 3 the allele. 4 M. ?CM Ne. Wm don't do that. S ill VIIMUS: Can you rapa* the question/ M. =Cad, Get 0. jthei state fee the .7 Iff M. 1296. 9 0. Once the solbo. -. Isn't It that that 10 W. esebela•• prongs tern. hod to hok the sale* to 13 at lys at of the dial so that teat cued urn 12 nut 13 lacorreet. Ity eon called the police. 14 0. Ma 0,14e the pence meow op no 15 ere lying to avoid enact. yes Ma at touter Ile that 19 the proo•ie Penn, had Inanard you. Isn't that 17 carnet? 10 A. Ireconnot. 19 0. Tow II* W OM tire den't you> 20 M. li(401.0: hopale. 21 TM OPITIOtel: helma. 22 ST He Tenn 23 0. You hen • Nylest. MIL dart /91, 21 n. NO Hein do t Mn • teepee gees. I 25 deleted St. %Lift ex. fa. M r7,1 IC ØI — -- 1655191nelleady Isla 503 9M2901.-32101— EFTA00185262 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 18 of 35 0 0 U tiOnsor & Associates Money r.0e 65 Mendel yes delola ye. Mende pre42 2 A couple days 492' 3 0. we. told you to tate your leySpece pope to... 4 • couplo of days mo? 5 A. Mobady• I's *Mk dad tired at elyMoco. 6 0. roe all of • eir00.4 pot sick dad tired of • OvIlme• and lust a ter clays berme this deposition you 0 MardeS to delete your rfrap•Ce Page. totter-0, 9 A. correct. 10 0- l• that pout today mem oath? 11 A. TO. 12 0. Did you take /MI IVIIII•se page gown because 13 7°U 7506.15i the goneramt sight satpoesa it? It A. IMetrect. 15 0. Meet yew Nylvace pap bean up lot over 16 three menthe bolo. you took it Or.? 17 A. Correct. Out I also bad We tons of 19 nydporos over the lost yens. 1 jest get timid of that 19 and delete then because -- &ass -- sod sake sew ems. 20 0. More going Le talk about that. 21 Mr yea deleted your reflood page allot you 22 eon ninety under subpoena far this deposition. correct? 23 •. Cornea. 24 0. out Moot the teepee pope didn't you watt 25 us to Willa fit • fa. - 16551.1.5.1011-Ahel En= Sure 500 " elch, - irhnso t s.- r & Associates Page 6/ 1 0. And .4re Is tb• one body ...... n92 2 A. Molly. 3 lases did yarns get that? 4 rot birthday. elth s0 saelambot aId try • lathe. 6 0. Pad Mon wer that? 7 A. Mos 1 mos /4. O. Okay. M yea had that body placaty tenon • you ant Cpstont. cermet, 20 A. it eight have been, or oaito that yeah. 11 either ay 14th birthday Or ay 15th. 1 honestly don't 12 [member. 13 0. Now you've lied about your age to at Into 14 bats by using dilvere limns. that enn't pmts. 15 correct? 16 A. Incorrect. 17 0. Are yet sworlog reader oath that per'•• le never eaSe that? )9 Tee, I swear leder oath. 20 0. And you've Ilea about year age to buy beer. 21 corm° 22 Incorrect. 23 Teem inserts. water oath that mew 24 never Iled to stereo about peer HO) 25 6. l •re tont lied to • *Oat ery age Of Ph 5, iaME;Far. 0 0 2 3 nsor & Associates rage 66 A. NotkIng. 0. Well. vent "Oleg MI Lone Mt Nyleme In • second You do that. 5 0. I C doing to en you us question 6 about My you In about YOU An so often, *Amyl 1 led. LVOIOLln Cbjectlea to the foto. Amamntatier. AY Wt. MIN: 10 0. Yoe Its about your age all CM time. 0Ort•t you, 12 Ia. LLOPOLD: *bleating.. efgeneetatIve. 13 tag alt11642: Incorrect. 14 ey M. 11111, I5 0. You Ile *Oat year me to gat body 16 plowings. don't you) 11 A. tneetreti. 111 0. rue ham body Mezelnee. don't you? 19 20 0. Tea ham four body pleittloms Isn't that 21 Mint? 22 A. rive. 23 0. Other that. the per/clogs m your ma -• 24 l'• net telling about that 25 A. CC Lee* An just one. Fit Fax. - Pan Inn Lett 6051 11te 500.1.034154L-33401 - -- .._ OrierentaseTeal.. lit sor & Associates Page fdl 1 2 0. You my to leek ouch older than you are, 3 dos •L you? 4 Incorrect. • 0. And ryen lied about your ago cc your 6 lothlor• Pages. don't you? 7 A. I.eorrect. • O. A11 ti ght. (AV. look at Lithiblt 26-01 One 10 118. 04.1MILAIMM 26-4011 11 le. Igo. 12 It S. Tint 19 0. On ,1111 One Yes lin to Annus., that you 14 von 14. didn't yen? 1$ A. 16 O. Late 90 to Exhibit 51. 17 Nt. ACLONLRYtIM that's 11-00I? IS TM, Correct. 19 BY NIL TRIM 20 P. On 00. page you lied to every.ns that you 21 mote 19. MAWS your 22 A. inceareet. 23 rel. 1.4•01.050: Just answer the ...atlas. 24 int NIter.S.S: On. incomect. 29 it PM Mel 0 P1 FAT. ' 2- '1655 Pliffilleeth lag 5001 1M01.•46.5.140/— •-• EFTA00185263 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 19 of 35 4nsor & Associates *nsorl ii Associates 2 6 B 9 10 doge 0 en you C••• captain your «swag. I know that t ken seen 01 et than and I now that Ibis one to area. Can yoa go done $(1. LODPOLO: Joel for 'dui record. you're pelattog to the photo. mc t's pointing to .. er MR. terin O. In'po gelning to the 00., whore tt soya. your en If 114 ) 2 3 4 5 6 • 9 10 Pon 70 A. correct. mot. ••• • 046 *gay yoon. ago that you had to be la to am • Itydp•co. 0. Se YOU lied neut your age so you weld rost Onnnoce. right? Q. let'. 90 bock le Us %op ca. on thlo pen. 041. An you tintlfying no. under nth that tala ilynoc• page nor. IY Indilm ans. "Nino 00 hava eon fn. • and the location u 911.5 so bet. obbrestatice for • 11 Corrott. 11 Lotakatchoo. and ti e doe la It. ad it sona C) 12 mot's yours. right, Correct. That's aloe from • conks noes 32 13 is it yew' teat's:eyelet yoo•La not pan than 14 age that I han on ken on. booms* I teat en that. 14 Correct. 15 Plot» nod ring en. paean. odd I think 000 It. 15 0. no let's 98 badk to the ono that you mere 16 betton than', no au-- put that one lp nat. 16 pining to boron cm 00' pow non it days your en 11 0. lo the ein yen pointed to nerd it way. 11 It If and yea lied ten your no to pet diddleatfb 070 7 10 nor ego It le. that's nett. torrni 10 Ch-hob. 19 A. Cornet. 19 All right. My did doe finally put your 20 O. AndWhenyeawrote It n you no On your 20 true an on your tippan four don before no 21 Wynn* page. that raka Ile. wasn't it? 21 ono scheduled to testify before eM droed Jury? 22 A. • 22 A. I don't know nut yos'in talkin about. 23 0. Old too Ile shoot your »Armco pogo bock 23 MR. =POLO: If no dn . { onderotond. an 24 Uwe benur you coulda't poet on Itydpne nits. you nn 24 AP te est the nestle. 25 147 25 MR. 1110 004. 1 Ind. NI. 5- flo33401-- * nsor & Associates ••••.••••14«ankals 1 2 3 6 7 B Page 71 fhi 91Tatill" knee 51.10. Nylon» ne'l• talhy sheet. At MR. Mtn 0. TM nylon doge that you're put pellitlag re. short it say. you one It. A. O. And no nee lying about p0. He. right? A. O. My did yrt finally pest fl ow Lna• 9. OR 10 your itynno profile -- 11 A. 12 0. -- feet din before yea son senednod to 13 bolero the Crud Jury? 14 A. f boodstly dent knee Intch tillton. 15 Oceans I've big in. • barndon ~on. toe in that 16 year. I had toe, that 01:4 oed nether one. And that ono'. 17 been Oelfted. to I don't an lain cot you're roterrist 10 19 Q. you returner that you tiogod your an On 20 your inn% Ann fun 16 to your tn. &go Jost four day. 21 hofere yea ant and t•stifin in aho none Airy/ 22 23 You don't roment that. 21 25 0. Do you rount0 Doteetloo noareyd Did you -Fat .042.1771 ---- 1655401mgeOttaket Ewa., »e 500 • West40~1.-33401-- — 0 -- 36$510flach Pitil erle $00~01010 n '3011 & Associates /494.12 1 over net • Oet•etive Onneyt 2 A. 1 ne s t Mn the nets. 3 G. Nov pony different detectives bin 200 met 4 vita on this ono fled Pal. inn/ A. Probably • good six es seven, Amyl*. 6 O. Old one of no dotocalve& toll you before, 7 too testtfied In the Grand Jury that you should take ytor B Menno an and put your tree IMO 9 A. no. 10 Q. didn't detective Annoy Mn to con to 11 your honn to Not yoo op to get you to testify In front 12 of the Grand 000 13 A. rossiblyi nano boonn 1 didn't lino 14 tin; 1 no only 14 or IS at ta t1. a. 15 0. 'four~ didn't nth yoof 16 a. Stefan didn't Oily* Ina IB 1 think ay dn. Db. Ivy dud, ny dad drove 19 po t 20 O. Wier On drove yrel 21 A. Yen. oh. 22 O. so your [ninny is Osteetive A4000 did 23 not drive no. fOrIelt, 24 M. LCOMLO" Objection. /asked and 25 ansmatod — 1655 dåll'Ilenh 11M5 Sute 50] ~w ancth-R-93•01---6-- EFTA00185264 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 20 of 35 O *nsor & Associates Papa 13 Teen willing: No I'm pretty auto .7 dad 2 drove ea, beraems he ca n there with no. et M. TOM 4 0. Did any detective tell you to change Teta 5 ego co year /Fleet, Pate to put mime true oval 6 M. do, all. O. Mw you also lied re your ilygpeo• page I about yam i.e.... d'in't you/ A. Ms. 10 O. And lea lied, saying that yen made a IL *water null.. dollars • Year and Kagan. Correct/ 12 A. As a joie, yen. 13 Q. That wee 0 lie. 'Feet it' 14 Yee. 15 0. AS you also lied ea your Myth/KO Page. 16 mayleg that yea mete noised, didn't yowl Il A. POSICIbly. end that night have been an 18 on ay pert. 19 0. Yea slim Its to tIts talk*. 'isn't yowl 20 A. 21 0. Well, you Feed to the polite is roar 22 tape-recorded statement that en gem to retentive 23 Michelle, town three year. ego. awe., yo.y 24 A. To ay knowledge. no, I did net. 23 0. Weil. yea lied to the pollee saes pis Ph. OMNI __16551999 Mach Ma LIM9 Sulk 990: Wet Palm 11mch, R. 33401 O 10 11 12 13 11 nsor & As.sociates Page 72 1 0. Batavia Mr. twain Rover cans to your 2 dad's POUF', correct/ 3 Correct. O. And ne4MO who verged for Mr. tiettain seat 5 did aedethitg to your ded'e tires, did they/ 6 MA. LtOOOLIF Obbection. Lack of 7 foundation. Predicate. 8 can't guess. 9 BY Rh. 71IM: 0. It's at MN that Mc. Epstein Gloat killed your father, le it, MR. LIOPOLIN Objection. Asked and answered, lath of foundation, predicate. 117 IS. TEIM: 15 O. Tea as ender. 16 A. Ire. 11 O. Na you told the police that you didn't 10 knew who was in the car with you audillion the day 19 yeaweal to lepst•in's bona, didn't you/ 20 2I 22 23 O. And that. woe • lie, wasn't itt It's the truth. O. 1 Id p01 h he sameeme 24 in the car sect to you and you specifically acid you. 25 didn't thew her an, feint? JI aFIX 1655 Odin Bath lam 6h0., Soto 500 • West Palm Sea FL 33101 J 10 11 12 13 14 Is 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nsor & Associates Page /4 1 crowned mt. 'patois or attesting to seeder your father. dieket. yea 3 A. be. I sewer hoard a statement saying that 4 Mr. tpatelu trio. to carder ay father. 5 0. Too nide that ststement, didn't prat 6 ea. WPM>: to you have • statement to 7 shoo her/ that's been imbed and answered. 6 PO. /VIM, l'a Potty. I didn't hoar the unease' answer, NS. Leopold. VI M. Tilde 0 MI you told the police, didn't you, that at. Epstein alma/ killed year tacker, didn't you? Q. Three yeasa ogo. bider* Mc. [patsies even anew about this investigation, you told the police that ttatelo had 'already come to my dad's hoes. end did something to .y dad'. tine and ny dad shoot% died. I' didn't want ny dad to get hurt, because :eft already almost killed Alit° Didn't you say that/ h. Ilea to ay tages1•494 or reoelleetion. t have never said astride; Ilia that. O. That would have bum a eemplote Ito, wouldn't it have Wesel F,,. In= — — 1656 NM Oath Me had, sae - West Palm OsC3JUH11--.- tOnsor & Associates Pagel 74 Corneal. I do at know her now. 2 0. Yea *aid. 'I don't knot. Mr fume, but she 3 was dark like • Spanish girl.• These were year word.. • right? 5 A. run 6 IS. UP/POLO obloction hated and 7 answered. • BY M. TIFF 9 0. Imo qt in the ter that day with you and 11 A. Again, I do sot know. 12 0. It was your mom Maw 13 %siert It? 14 A. Me. 1 don': knew • 15 0. You lied to the police about who was in the 16 car with yes "d didn't yea? 17 16 0. Let as sok you seas question shout who you 19 may have spites to about this case. All right/ 20 A. Go ahead. 21 0. Old you speak to your mita slater= 22 hot in detail, but of count she knows: 23 sheep fleetly. And Melt 24 O. What's at e.ee117 25 — A. : don't think she hoe an trail. Mt 561.692.0905 • Fat. 56141323771 US-9--Pairtalaei -B1.91:54.0M500:WlsrPalm Bath ssaor— - EFTA00185265 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 21 of 35 2 iilkn.5°r newrmatanws~ . & Associates Page 77 0 • Mat ie her phon• ~bon A cm. poeh. 1 gran'[ Lno., erf the top of my 3 mag. 1 0. And Mat Is her 1.104 eddroael k. SP' Ilse, with my mem. 6 0. In Ce* tttt ? A. Vet. eit. 0 Q. Ilhat &bout ~telend lati bid you 9 *Peak te hin .bout tisetein's case? 10 A. tetet sy Ø'a honriend. My sister Il dasn't han e ponerend. My ~eo leiabancra nam, Ss 12 mi se Aan» you qat the eonfused. 13 th 00 you tnow hts shotte maten 14 a. b. Is 0. Mere ens ha Ilwal 16 A. illth eg nos. 1/ 0. In th* sa* house VIS Mr? LO A. vet. ?harte ~trimt • 19 0. ao not hoyirleedi issoodo 20 A. Vnls, køband. 21 0. Man you spoken a aireot 22 Mat hafganad in Mr. Fiuseinsá heuse? 23 mot ie detail, hut be moor* th* basic'. 24 yen. 25 0. abel lo hts «roeit/ 0 . Plsor & Ageinciates twwwe anstemna Sr • 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 Pag* 70 A. 1 don't know. 0. Met is hb pPone naast? mom ia eet maisvant? 0. Mist Is his poos neet( A. SEM. Q. 'bat Is hl* ham addreas. A. I dont kaag. e 0. Sera does ha lied? 9 A. Ta Palm Batch Lekt* somewit•*•. 10 0. toer boen to his house? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Tat don't know "Dat his aldr•ss Ss? 13 S. tr.OPOLD. ChnetiOn. Asrad and 14 anzwettd. ahe just oald Ma doesn't knor. 15 ma. reen Doolt coach. 16 M. 1664010: ObJett100. Anita and 17 Mawszad. lb BV M. 19 0. Toe oan amer the guttticti. 20 A. I do...0 ItilOW the exact addr•alt. 21 0. Met *trest Is It ent 22 strut. A. Ina aa arartment roepie*. itt rat 24 0. Mata the oase or the apart .ent Cargille? I 25 A. Soest/tint Con, (:) PIL~ Ph. a682.0505 Fax. 655 PaeleeetakeS 01adr5Mbe SCO.ONtatioalm Beach;e1- 3)401--- - — . — - 1655-Palm bath lakei led750.4.500-.-Wahrimexad0R.-33401— --.— • . *• ..,...... nscw ~...», & Associates 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Q. Meet apertmat mater is iir Page /9 A. I «Oldn't teil you. 0. Mia was th* laat time ra. oen( Latte' A. Joel •Isteed thia post ~kond. that's the first 1.1111 laat tlaa. 1 vent tere. 0. New taut i save re spoken te Ida ohaat peer can? A. Ob. It• OD longer spook. 9 0. lehat's his gnome ntstmun Attually, we 10 alteady havo his praam ~et and en11. 11 1~ ""t Na.. you ever 12 noten to hee ~et your case? 11 A. 1 don't knar all 14 Q. Mare yap *oor mat IS A. M. tiet 'eet to Let 'we bed. t Mart 16 rally kaar sans. IC yes hare pIttureS ot Uien racet I 17 COeld teil ral. ii 0. All naak. let ea. *eo ir i hau 19 20 21 0. oe* at reten,. year mesan. that 22 Ia te «hee girl "to inde allteetieas aan RgottIla. Dat 23 magma co abcr te the Grand Jury Wheel 'he bad to tttttt y 24 1:01t thee nodes oeth? 25 A. No, arr f have no kwaad,* or gay ether • 1 0 sor & A eanciatC5 aestaimi•Wastime.b. Pan 00 0117.11 Sa this .501e aitsation 'te net illioved to karn. 2 lach othor. 3 0. I dICM't qat th* lapt reut morde. ihrte nat ./torad to koen eeCh ether. 5 0. And Mat abort Man you 6 or met her? 1 A. M. air. e 0. lat'a ne ie I con terra.% your memory om 9 ex. fatwa ne entte person ree mened by your Dient 10 Ni. Me W. de is aula. ',poten for fitlymIllIon 11 dollars. 12 A. l have m knowledge 01 hor. 13 0. Went Met her? 14 A. »me est her. 15 0. MOP 16 A. i donet kwal Me that la nthet. 17 0. A psalm magadtgarwho inwsz~1 30 ra 19 A. 2 deert Mar. air. 20 0. Do you meraber making å statement te 21 Dineetje, para tetse les th* polig* reOettt7 27 A. MO, sir. 23 0. Maya no Dood na polig* aperte la %kie 24 aaien 25 A. Yin. F11.~ - 165510IM Sext] /skarota wee 500 • Wast Perm teek FL-33401- - Ph. ell.582.0905 Fa. EFTA00185266 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 22 of 35 *nsor & Associates 4nsor & Associates 0 Peg° el 1 0. They're on the Internet. right) 2 A. Yoe. I think. O. hop you surprised what the pollee ieggrui spore reigned on the intorist containing your stateowints 5 that you; had rude to the 6 A. Yes. 0. You didn't ant tone that happen. right? e 9 O. to yoe'r. sayaq you don't know ale 10 11 too. MIMOLIN Objection. Puked and 12 answered. 13 ST IS. 7110: 14 O. Doea it refresh your watoty that ha won 15 eatudy oho had gone to jail for drop and car theft? 16 A. Me, *P. 17 Q. Ocean, sto knows.* 11 A. 19 O. Tow don't knee it he net nib Detilotioli 20 Many/ 21 A. No, sir. 22 0. hoc soot a 23 A. Vim, I reaper. I know who that la. 24 0.. Did yes Imp spook to about Mist 25 haprened at ht. gpitriln'n Moue Ph' ~I. F44. SC SW* 97075 1ehn BeK9f9P33401- sor & Associates hsidereeinae.~›... . Page 43 1 0. Did you speak to -abort this 2 cap, 3 A. Mo, sir. 4 0. Nova you Spoken to ~bout this S ran.? i don't knew who ~IF la. 7 O. Did your pivot& spook to B A. Ask ny parents. 9 0. ut'. too if I can peruke your neraOry at 10 le tee he i. . Okay? 11 A. 12 0. ite's the Vanity fair reporter eho aide • 13 financial arrangsni with your father. 14 A. 1 aware of that. And again, I vet Dot If pare ilte that my dad did It oetil otter it was done Id AM I don't knots the details about that. I just thou 11 what you kna about that, like that they talked. 10 0. Tell id what you hem about the financial 19 arrampeant that the vanity Pals reporter. 20 node with yOor lathier. 21 r don't know about the details at all. 22 0 nos adh money did gin to 23 your father? A. I don't even knew he gene may tomydad. 25 O. I'm sorry? 99. -FILL C) 1 2 3 Peg* 62 A. M //nova what happened tour years ago. doesn't iris this la still going on today. 4 *Prep. 5 6 O. 111...».1UMW 7 A. 0. You too., who that lot 9 1 know who that is, ye.. 10 O. Ihr'a the on. you stayed an drinking All /1 night ono night loot year when your dad reported you 12 Alpine 13 A. Ws, alt. 14 0. lidedehor the Meehan ono you were 15 ouppased to go to? 16 A. Mo. sir. 17 O. Did you peek to ~atop this 1.6 COP? 19 MO. air. 20 O. MOw about Nat 21 A. That's ny sister's ax-hOyfrSend. 22 0. Ilo.• the one with the sawed-off shotgun 23 with the giber/ 24 A. Ask hin i would not know that 25 IllOr•Stioa. 0. What's his address? l'a Gorey. I heve his A. 1 dent know. Ph. 1..~1 Fax. ~ffil 1656191dileddrUikeliolk'SUO4500-459St Vaini %Sp FL-33101- - 4 iderei•dhodape.lee. nsor & Associates P40.1 61 A. Z ella•t fl an kro. he gave money to my dad. 2 O. Neat do you know about the deal that ow 3 has with year Cotner] 4 A. 1 wily knov they epoke On the telephone 5 1. don't know anything also. 6 O. when vas that? 7 A. this pm • while age. 1 "Mr Or two ns or a e year ego. I honestly don't know. O. DLO —the enhy fair 10 reporter, offer any money to your father? 11 A. I don't 12 0. Old the Vanity nil 13 reporter, gin you any nanny? 14 A. No. alr. 15 O. Did he offer you any sonny/ 16 A. No, sir. pomp Spoke to hie. 17 O. What nposterii hems you spokes 432 lø A. Zero. 19 0. What Poet yver family mator0 'Chat 20 ransvene have they spoken to? 21 A. the whole pla leach county, obviously. es pre can an in that pielpeptic. 23 O. Toil r•- let's go through sea one that 24 ids remerebar. Other than too Vanity Nair ['porter. 25 ~what other reporters have any smabør of your Ft. ULM.. " - --- oesspaInt Eleadvtakes Blvd,. site 500 -Werst.Pairn beach" 33101- - EFTA00185267 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 sor & Associates bu— Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 23 of 35 or & Associates C) O C.) Page 85 1 lastly sperm tot 2 A. I don't know. MG I law my a Isa spoken 3 to art , MY sister Kea co tem. My taller and 4 stepmother. i wouldn't know. You'd haws le ask that. I 5 don't COMACt tam. 6 O. Sell. I jolt wont to know ^ I don't want 1 you te -- I mat to Mow wt's In your and. All right? M. Lt0fOLDI She just told you. She luet 9 10 M. 78111: se "'Mt. 11 SY M. TIM: 12 0. Mat I want to kne I; Mat you tom Iron 13 your personal knowledge. My Motile to l'00 Is: Mat le knowledge do you hare as family ~bora of year. 15 spooling to reponerer 16 M. /SOP= gh3oction. hilted end 17 *moored. ID And lc you can't talk probaStaally, woo re 19 'elm to lean 20 M. nisi 00 what you went to do. 21 M. LOOPOLO: Am you palm to continuo to 22 tell this way/ 23 M. nnt: re not going to Nutter any 24 gentla that ow al' se. Mr. Leopold. 35 M. UMW,: Okay. I C) O 2 3 6 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page Se 1 M. Tana Out yea ace elotopmsentla tue round end you ale grmatotandino for your Mittel end It's wrong. Se be oboe. edd you anew how to mote an objection. Mate it. Otharrulae stop t atting. ST M. Title * Olt M. LI3:4101.0t Mom ••• IM 'KIM/ If you mat w leave the dmealtlon. . hl you'll ha back here. M. LOMOM Leone M. If I told just psalm the record. Instead of tttttt opting et. Nam. That's what v• do professionally. There's a recorder are. 1.• attelnly not being Obatructleielat. going to make the record. But we 're going to 'let with eta» itaieblaete• of Prorentenailsa, hopefully. by all Parties In the rØ. that goer to et that Was CO your co counsel sitting beard you sad neat to yoni.. the Ø t reporter sed everyone else in the rocs. [verve* Is entitled to that. ~fro ebbed • question. Si• •nmsred Ike (emotion fully cod she'. mat going te b tietneati bause you dow't UM the *wet. If you vent to follow IS ni. ra. Fax. 1106123771 -- 1115Mirn-661f11 500-~~3401— „ SCOW* pall tdehal. 33401 $nsor e& Associates Leese WaaYw.4 Paths 67 M. Min Stop engaging ••• wee your 2 rank and then we'll est the question. 3 M. 150(01.2: Mil. You won't let me 4 making the objection. a It's difficult to do 5 that. but If you not to fella with as 6 aPProprlatil asset ten. feel free to do that. Out 7 we're not going to hems, the to e M. MIN: I disagree with everything 9 rift, said. L•t•a colt the geationa• Okay? 10 M. ØØ: Mk en appropriate goestion. 11 M. Ten: Are you going to at. Lintel 12 M. LEOPOLD, VA ring to Mete -- protect 13 ay client end mate appropriate allgactloas. YO 14 there', not a Menton pending tight new. 15 Sy M. 16 0. aisle seams to say fetters/ 17 A. w. 10 M. 110KK0i Ohlatlas. Mad ohs 19 answered. 20 In M. 1110: 21 0. Sae Whiten Oven money by ea/ 22 23 24 25 reporters/ 0. Ms your ma poten to ry reporters? Objeetlat. Asked ote O C) lønsor& Associates ~YU Mt Instelarsau Page 68 1 answered. 2 THE wITIK3S: 3 lir IS. MIN: 4 O. Ka, your noes husbendlilepoten to any S 6 7 0. we your in•• husbr-rdealred any e —y Ina nyp 9 A. r. 10 O. Are you cure lue don't know OM 11 M. LMIOLD: Oblation. Asked end 12 anenosa. 13 TIM IIIIMISto positive. 14 SYM. 15 O. I'll try mole to refresh your merry. 16 A. 17 0. Das It your steely that she had 11 bees arrested for dads end nee commstIng with 19 lostectlee necarey ~loot ttttttt te get herself a better 20 Open 21 22 23 24 25 A. Me. 1 don't know who ,he Is. Q. More you spoken to anyone *la* been at Kpattiln'o house( O. without brinier a whit was said -- i don't Ph~ . Fa". — —1655-Palm SCO~ nowt-334ot-- —J it 1500 - ad, R. 3340 EFTA00185268 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 24 of 35 nsor & Associates sor & Associates themsmeheamehhim C) C) 0 0 Pape 99 want to know about any conversations with any lawyers, 2 okay" 3 A. 4 0. -- did you or your parents speak to any other law flew besides Kr. Wonsan ad Ms. leapold's law 6 fleas? 7 8 O. Mow without telling Mn Whet anything that 9 us. said, what and ono just owe to &Ind, 10 No. 1 we thinking abut something also. 11 0. Sat ware yaw thinking Whet? 12 A. Does fully court matter? 13 O. Okay. Without telling we whet was esid, 14 who proper& you for today's deposition? 15 A. Whet do We wee Prelweeal 16 0. Old you talk Wight this &position, about 17 whet weld happen. with anybody? 18 A. Yes. 19 O. Don't tall Me what was said. 20 A. pay. 21 O. I'm not sating that. I don't want to know 22 23 A. Okay. 24 O. Who prepared you for today's deposition? 25 A. Mr. Leopold. that • Fax - - 1655 Pan °each Late, OWL, SARA 5014/ez.nn odic 11.33401— sor & Associates 1 A. No. 2 0. Page 91 now you told we -- again. 1 don't want to 3 know, what was said. 4 5 6 7 O. yo* told me that you mot with hr. Leopold this wanly. to prepare for your deposition, right? it 0. Wen did you sat up that meeting with wt. Leopold to take place this soloing? 10 A. Do*, like. lias ries days ago. IOW Gays 11 12 O. So you're aware that W. Leopold told us 13 that he could not start the deposition this donning 14 basun he had a Wirt appearance, correct, 15 M. LWPOLD, Don't answer that question. 16 Celle for attorney/client oweephcatioris. 17 DO is. 761M; 18 O. Nave yes won the letter that Hr. Leopold 19 wrote to us stating that he " on embed' that Rt. Leopold 20 W101.4 to ItY. Goldberger stating that he could not be hero 2) this morning boohoo he had a court appearance? Did you 22 seer that e -mil? 23 KR. ttOPOLDi You can waver that question. 24 TX Ville& 25 i C) 1 0. Anybody else, Page 90 2 A. W. 3 O. When did you meet with NC. Leopold to 4 prepare for today's depoottlee? 5 A. This mowing. 6 O. And how long did that meeting last? 7 A. Ontil it started. $Ow you told we that you PiewlevelY had 9 read the police reports In this ease? 10 A. Yoe. 11 0. Haw you read your stetement that you gave 12 to the polio*? 13 A. Yes, 14 O. And in what (one was that statement, 15 A. What do you mean? 16 O. teas it in the toms of a police report or • 17 transcripts le A. What's the difference? 19 O. A transcript has &mations and answers on 20 it. A police report is just typed out narrative. 21 A. co. it's a pollee report. 22 O. And whim did you reed the police report? 23 A. A few days ago. I cdverread it a few days 24 25 O. Nod you read it before that? RI. Fax. - — 1655 PS, MW: et d 5JINFIRIesChrRi-33401— Srlsor & Associates wwwwwer lwasognb. Page 1.2 NY S. 'film: 2 O. Nave you listened to your tape-recorded 3 straw/et to the Wilco? 4 A. Yes. 0. We& did you listen to that? 6 A. In. I thins, this building. I doa't know. 7 It was hero. O. When did you listen to that statement? 9 A. This anning• 10 0. And who was present when you Luton«, to 11 that otattoonts 12 A. He. Leopold -- end I forget Your new. 11 ire. WLIMAGER: Ns. 14 SRL WUWCIS: Ks. 15 IN Wt. 7CTN: 16 O. Pad you man liataned to yOUC statement 17 before that. correct, p A. No. sir. 19 O. Have you met with lawyers repwwnting 20 &yew as =gips ow? 21 A. No, sir. 22 O. Now sonny &mos have you epoRen to officers 23 with the Pal, Desch Pollee Depactment? 24 A. Sore than I like can count. It's been 25 ongoing for four years, so quite a few lima. Far. Aft 4655 Palm Busch LateeBlyet, Suite 500' vies n eadl, Ft43401--- •- EFTA00185269 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 25 of 35 sor & Associates itznsor & Associates C) 2 Page 93 O. net was the lest tin no spoke with ******** el the Pala birch Police apartment? 3 A. A whin ego. I'd say • year ago. 4 O. A year ego? 5 A. leek. ante a year sad • half. 6 O. Do you reamer Detective mennin A. e O. DO you remember netielle Penn. Detective 9 Pedant 10 11 O. Meet ment <Um Wive you spoken to Detective 12 Anse) 13 A. She was the only on I spoke to neat this 14 stil for soma reason me wasn't di the can anymore. 15 0. When wee that? 16 A. The first meelint I ewer had was with her 17 mil then I think like g not with her like 10 tines or 12 18 tines or sonethIng ilk* that, and thee t didn't get -- 19 another Investigator questioned re after that. 20 O. And rho wee that? 21 A. 1 Mi't sesseber. 22 O. And chat type of question alla they Ilk 23 yen? 24 A. Me tine. 25 0. The ease <notion all over again? ! 0 • C./ a a 655 Ann 56b0) * nsor & Actsoriates ,..,.......,..-...,„, Page 95 1 A. I'd have to say like • year and • heir ago, 2 e year ago. ft wee • long nee mg. 3 (Dinuselon held off the record.) 4 NA. TAM: Toll et the lest amber. pleas.. (Theteopos. • portico of te record was read 6 by the reporter.) BY M. Trill: e 0. And who was present when the IN1 spoke to 9 you at your father's hoes.? 10 A. My stepmother wee thine, hat she wasn't 11 arses. re mede heralf like do ether things. 12 O. An Now any wat iodate were there? 13 t think four. 14 And you don't member any of their nun? 15 16 0. And were there any lemma them? 17 A. Not Mat I Ina Of. 18 0. And nom of than gave you their cell phone 19 amnia? 20 A. 21 O. And the last tin you rye. to the 49) was 22 a yen' and • halt ego' 23 A. It was • while 400. 24 mt. LTAMOLD: cbjectieb. Asked en 25 answered. ran 94 A. AnicallY￾2 0. Now many taped statement, have you glvere to 3 the police? A. One that I Mow of. 5 0. Just the one with Detective Paden? 6 A. Yes. elf. 7 O. Mow about to the PSI? Did you give any e ambience to tam? 9 A. Co. sell, &dutily. I don't really 10 rennet if that was taped or not, to be honest with you. 11 t bad ene seating with this at ay hewn and don't now if 12 it was taped. 13 0. You were interviewed eta 14 houset 15 A. Co. That was by the lawyer. 16 0. Oh. by tim lawyer? 17 A. It O. Ahem did tem min aaaaa oas that you had 19 with the gill take plan? 20 A. At my • residence. 21 0. Welch le Moroi 22 A. On LOaahleenee. 23 0. On wine> 24 A. in nablatchee. 25 0. And when did that tae pled? --------- 1655PnatatrUnf Ph'IMM ILoPIPL 500 —~~ 33402--t• • I CI ifonsor & Associates ammiennastremn Page 96 1 ad NR. TAM: 2 O. And the lest tin yew spoke to the federal 3 prosecutor's office in Meat A. I don't know. O. Old say of the )111 agents tell yaw that 6 Villefna had *Fenn with M. Leopold? 7 A. Mo. 8 O. Did any of the MI agents tell you that 9 Villain. had spinal with M. Minn? 10 A. Co. 31 0. Did any FDI agent, tell you that Jeff 12 Slone spoke with Kr. merman. 13 14 O. Did any MI &gents toll you that Jeff 15 Sloan spoke with hr. Leopold/ 16 17 0. De you know whether any of the federal 39 prontUcne Allowed M. Minn to review a draft 19 incitement, 20 A. I wouldn't knew. 21 O. Do me know if say of the federal 22 preneatora diocesan • draft indictent with It. Man? 23 A. I wouldn't know. 24 O. Nave you ewer e-eelled with any run agent 25 or any federal p ***** utor? Ph. -fat ni. Tax. ---- 9655991/06~31and503 ~630 - 10 grn 117ft33401--- ; EFTA00185270 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 26 of 35 Snsor Associates 2 sor & Associates h ionianeinwiipen.h: 0 • O 0 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 Page 9] 0. Nava yOo spit text wassaged with any PRI agent or any federal. prosecutor? A. MO. O. Nee the POI told you abent other testimony? A. M. O. Ilan the rS1 told you about Mat Other girl& hate sala1 10 0. Rani federal prosecutors told you what 11 other girls Ain said? 12 A. Me. 13 0. 00 you MYe any way of getting in touch with the OBI if you wanted to get in touch with thee? 15 Id 0. Row about your pareste? to they know ham 17 to get in leech with the PSI? 18 A. 1 don't know. 19 O. And by your parsota, l'n referring to both 20 sots. Map .21 A. Well. referring to only ay dad. 22 beCaose ay ma really doesn't care to know any of this 23 stuff. 24 0. So the Mower would be the sane for your --.22.-h-aLi"acr ffrwrr i —ccrtn—c M. .090S - Fax. Orlreiid;O04100WIROMPL -33.101-- ll * sor & Associates mrdwarfisark.o., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 P.9. A. 0. *wawa% with a A. IRS, I would know: end no. she did sot. 0. lot's put a -- let me ash you sake questions Senn the photo that you had posted on yens DYMP•me Page before you erased it last week. Okay? A. Okay. M. TRIP: Do you sand If in Close the door second, please. MR. LOOODAD: exhibit amebae: please. M. TRIM: Put up 21-005. 0014 on a second. IS. LOOPOLO: Don't say itythibit. She was talking to her =easel. Y. MN: Putty 20-006. M. LIDDIPORD: is that 005 right there? M. ?SIMI Yes. O , O 2 Page 90 A. Yeah. 0. Moe you spoken to a lawyer maned Suit 3 Ocarlr about this case? 4 5 O. Do yea knew 'e o Sort OCerli le? 6 Let's one if t can refresh your unary. 7 Does It cccccc h peer :misery that he's a good friend of 0 Village:bee boyfriend? 9 A. I floret know who Yillafon• is. 10 0 Villafoue Is the lead federal 11 ps that's en the federal part of this cane. 12 Okay? 13 14 Q. 00 OHO it refresh your very that Gnarl. 15 IS the 9000 bleed of boyfriend? 16 Ott at at. 17 O. Pest it refresh your memory that Villafon• le tried to get Apetelo to pay for Cheri. to represent you 19 In the federal case? 20 A. 21 O. Do toe know if Detective Recesiby has Moan 22 with your hither? 23 24 9. Do you know if Detective tecerey has spoken 25 to your ategmother7 — MVPS Ouch Pklagra; ., "‘500W20 Ff .1 . " 2 * sor & Associates Snow* ma frouvien. lin 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Page 100 runt off, this Is not • warehouse. nil. fs thSger-- lecond of all, I's mot being gong-raped. tneryone bee their clothing On. t hirdly. If yoed look at All the others plc ccccc in (het &Lbws l'h drinking whet'e when yOu:le sick you drink its $ SY MR. TRIM: 9 0. You Cart an questions of your counsel. 10 A. All right. 3 ,• drinking like Sprite. 1'm 11 not drinking any RIM of alcohol, if you would look at sy 22 Other pictures in that album. 13 You guys pick:NILS pO•Sibly worst pictures 14 wet of there to present. At. it wee just • goofy 15 picture. All of them: kids Ills to be goofy. And that's 16 whet we were doing. 17 O. DNS'S the man on the left of the picture 18 holding his -- holding a bear bottle as if it were a 19 peata tossing your mouth? 20 21 O. Mho's the ran behind you, sight up tows 22 your backside, with you brit over? 23 A. That one? 24 O. The right side, Yining with his mouth. C . ) 25 A. !list's PIA - FDA. Mint rin.MIM- Phi Beach-Lake Ead0-9-fle 500—WeSt SitilaKhra-33401-- -------165591MYSSKh liter Net; Stitt SOAMeack.-R-33401- • 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AY M. /SIX: 0. PhO took this photo of you in • were/Lowe, ainiating being gang-raped by a Loath of -- mA. LEOPOLD: Objection. Niwcharacterlses the photograph, and lack of foundation sod predicate. fully explain if you need to. VITWASS: I wall. 1 EFTA00185271 Case 9:08-ov-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Do et 06/30/2008 Page 27 of 35 nsor & Associates & Associates . ~4. ibSal~1.., e) e Dør 191 0. No', tag one grabba tover* tau rasta 2 ofb or 3 A. Tea 4 0. And eneng ***** atter .••• la UM plane. 5 Set ar* Lloir namar tag on* on tag lett tolith the bal? 6 A. Olmt.. (pbeeellei. 7 0. falllag' e A. Ybi. 9 0. obo'. bo oe• Ubbe -- 10 mk. LE04014.: coe't brunet. lat bor 11 flush the record. pre.'. uatiluad. 12 Ne. Tran t know yve &ofl Ilk, tala 13 pictore, ny Erlend. 11 la. LEOPOLD: tA. olatare le tina. 15 ar NA. VIPA 16 0. the 005 v/th the bot? 17 M. LIOOLD: S. sold ce. Stop. 18 roa bare to lot ti rabb finish Mr 19 ansatt. ane ve. ln tre preurt of oblainial me 20 yoo cut ber off. 21 babb /båt yve veto bylag verd raa 22 Coanial ou. ask >au ~Aina he :debet altir tit. 23 )116 51)XO55: okay. fl. aW" 21 M. 1[3Ø: Jaa bai it CO the record la 25 /lear who yoo•re teaning on att F502 4Xab..993140/ • * ns11~. Må k•••••~1« or & Associates Page 103 1 to Ida at all. 2 0. bot'. klo lab amer 3 A. 4 0. 5 A. 0. And bon yta ebbe to ~aber 41://: 7 bnr 8 A. No, air. 9 Q. bre yoa epoken b ellerbout tveit cm? 10 A. Mot tre detail. Sut pa. 11 ia. a Arør re Morring to 17 ~MP 13 willitaS: ren. 11 M. Min Tb. 15 "' 16 SY Na. Itle: 17 0. don am boken to lielaboat ai. casa? 10 A. 19 G. Oo yde kove a Erlend *rod 20 A. t do net han • Esla/ omed ali 21 0. Erm fnøs» yverl 22 23 0. Mas abs., ar 21 A. 25 0. Man you spolan to. daa: tAk. caser ! o 0 I o Pope 102 Tnt WittaSS: -- on ta. far Ialt la Oil 2 Ola 3 DY MM. Inc; i p. the one boa. bob fa nar lb grein 5 or right? 6 0. And in db »Idd,. tiare'. a »n ~Ing. Who's bit? 9 A. Tet'. 10 0. And who', the on* in ti god hat, .Inlap? 11 10~11". babl. 12 0. Lot ito stop yen lor • ~ond. Are bra 13 bm? 11 A. 15 neo legagi 16 A. Ny ab***** frlond. Voll, ete's • ~coat 17 ribb, Lot son ny slater'a. 10 0. Chat le bor leet nasal 19 a. 11.01 20 0. Spill bot. 21 A. 1 don't knea hov to -- 22 0. Hen yve epoken to ber .Lout blø unna 23 A. b. 21 0. 25 A. Ny Matar'. frid. 1 dont helly bant 1655.bbnita "ta r3a 00 ar & Associates 1 2 3 6 7 B Pege 101 A. b. 0. What'e her last east A. am/ i doo't karm boa to »pall It. 0. la /be the basa/ Moet homo you bal Lo Ot sn Year'. bis yoorl A. 50. 1 aset at bor høen on Nou Teer'». Q. inna* nat. yom Vb, yta 1.40k the pleien of *Can yoo se' labb e . dat** on year abbto1 9 10 A, r wouidn't boa or -- solt. ba ror* ot • birthdoy paily før to« girl'. 11th birtkdsy. 11 0. bre ydu dribla/ ot tagt party' 12 A. No. Thor. illt• no sitata, er anythira 13 men. 14 0. tit db* rolue" Von to pm? SS A. It'ø lika -• lt juat ewe. like stand w. 16 ba ia. ~t i lf yos look et the pietet.. 17 0. Ilbab ap lise druse. :101? IS 19 G. 20 A. A girl I know. Ilke from lite tb knitre 21 22 0. Stri a tid ab yee bre abbed to Is 23 stning etb ~n Toe Voer delnkIn9 with Men 21 25 0. Mit. lent nano, _1655 Riim Broch ta '2" 41e. Fax. SW4 01. F1.315.1_ . .----524411 —16.5 Betelafin~.61.2330-1-- 500 PIL - e EFTA00185272 Case 9:08-cv- 119-KAM Document 15-2 En, tered on FLSD Do et 06/30/2008 Page 28 of 35 C-rnsor & Associates sor& Associates 1 2 3 4 Page 10$ A. O. Oleo does she live? A. 1 don't know. In Royal Pale. O. 5 A. uh-huh. I's gossip. 6 0. Go you Snow her phone mother? 7 A. No, I do sot. B O. Lot's loot at 26-010. 9 A. Soo, I'm drinkeng -- 10 0. l's not asking you about what you're 11 drinking. 12 who ace the nen en chia photo who sr. O 13 Pretending to gang WOO Yw aM slide you with knives? 14 Ilho it. they? 15 A. tad 16 Q. Are these (Immo? 17 A. Ara those? - he aid the 10 two stabbing with knives. That's why I Old that. I 19 don't know. that's tad OEM 20 O. Are these floors? 21 A. Mo. They're all cm neaps UM. 22 they're all on full rights for football. 23 O. Go to 015-013. 24 M. LACIOLIn 025 doh? 25 M. Olin 015. O C.) C.) 2 BY MR. ITIW: 3 4 peels? 5 6 0. 0. Page 104 TOM MOUS Gosh, that's se long ego. Into took the photo of you Itching the Wy litopmether. whoa Idea -- that we your stepoutheo's 7 idea? 8 A. ft yds In legs dl Pippo, where she rocks 9 currently, sad that was befog* the worked there. And en 10 beat thought it would be (any. Il TtIN: 1,-001. Can yea enlarge that? 12 SY M. !GIP 13 0. Oho took this photo of you simulating you 14 having sec with a men? 15 A. Ile'ree not simulating having sire and 16 It's --oh, mid the person who tee. it wed, l'a pretty 17 sormlinetitI know him I don't know hi. 10 last nob. 19 0. Co to 19-006. please. 20 no took this photo of you simulating sex 21 with a man, 22 A. The mar person. And we're not •loolating 23 hewing sex, Kr. -- 24 "sin. 25 Old you post that ce the Internet? .-.....liesssakkeeadt:Za137775aescoRMachM311(11__-__. Ph.eFam. Pa -Fax. 165804111 BOO lOnsor & Associates thooraterntoonwth lob 1 A. Pale 107 Actually, tow. is an old NySpare I never 2 finished and I never like did anything. 1 ?vet MO of 3 lone it sod Oft It. 4 G. 5 ibrenoce? 6 A. 7 O. 50 the await is yes. you potted art. on Cup. Go to /5-014. SAC took this photo of you Moenp sod with • roman? 9 W.. LWOW: Object to the fora of the 10 p000len. Azgoentatio. 11 TO lellOGSM run off, obs's piercing my 12 belly water or repenting it. and I'm pretty mire 13 is was Sot like we pet up a onen somewhere and 14 put • term co it. We didn't ha* anybody coke 15 it. 16 BY OR Ting 17 0. You posted that on your NySpace pate? 10 A. Yoh. 19 O. Go to 21-011. It that • photo of Pool 20 A. rep. 21 O. Who's in owe photo with you? 22 A. 21 G' 24 A. rep. 25 0. in thin you coning out of the ohms? sor & Associates hapoku sod eleanOmmo Pao 100 1 A. Yet. 2 O. Arm you clothed La this picture? 3 A. Yeah. 1 have • halter dress on. 4 O. Mears it that Weber* token? A. In ellitInun o. 6 O. Oid you post that ore the Internet? 7 A. Yes. 0 O. All right. 9 M. 'MS: You can take that down 10 BY RR. 7.10. 11 0. Mow yogr boyfriend is 12 correct? 13 A. yeah. 14 0. You lie about your ape la order to conceal 15 'soothing shout your relationship with 16 isn't that !correct? 17 A. So. 10 O. MI12 years old, /so d% be? 19 A. toe. 20 O. And • firefighter with the rola 21 beach rise Department. right/ 22 A, rum 23 Q. Goes the rain Beach Tare OrPnermenr Anew 24 that your boyfriend Is stay an underage girl? 25 A. Actually, mister, it's .-__16SS.Patta.116•ChPh.aRCiar • 500 1,11,A3421 _ _ —.. Ph.plip t.t Fa. .-1655.PMftsch SINLIMamdleri 3340L EFTA00185273 Case 9:08-cv-8 119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD DoSt 06/30/2008 Page 29 of 35 r & Associates nsor & Associates lbeemateseveLir 0 C) C) C) Perm 109 O. -- 2 M. LEOPOLD: Jun near la Question, 3 atilESS: no. DY M. EOM: 6 0. Did (hey knew two mete ago that you were 7 elating an mange gal Mint a Tea. I set everafaeaY la Mare' 9 0. Did they knew your VW 10 A. Tas. 11 0. Did you lie govt your age so that the tin 12 department wouldn't think teallErn remitting • 13 eria by hang a watel relatteniMp with en underage 11 girl? IS M. Objection. Mange teal. 16 not laevidence. 17 IT M. ale: IS 0. la: can answer the question. 19 20 0. Own the Vela Mach Pollee tegartedat know 21 thatlet • Palm • anal relationship with an 22 enders» girl? 33 M. MM. Don't geese. Mae it you 21 25 TIC Vann: Ca ye repeat the duntint pn ~F tall . sor& Associates .„,........—~- Peg* 111 2101 WITIMSS, Never -- at did yew say/ 2 IT M. TCIM: 3 O. You lied agen you went to the creak Muse 4 in Cagle, didn't you? S NA. LIC4014)! OblectIon. Arounentstlwe. 6 Lac of tom:dance, lack of predicate. OP M. TOM: I O. You an ansar the nestle'. 9 A. I Ian newer been to a crack Mae. 10 0. IMO an't you in tot 11 M. LEOPOLD: Objection. Argumentative. 12 Don't 'newer the ingestion. 13 M. RIM: Certify Lt. 14 crailr140 =MON 15 IT M. MN 16 1? IS 19 20 IT M. TRIM: 21 22 23 24 25 O. You don't Ile to you? M. LCOPOLO: objection. Anted end simered. Don't answer the opinion. 0. me. Yu ran enamor that question. M. LaShOLD; No. 1 just told her not to. You've Med that question Snit tin M. Rien No, I haven't. M. tioPoto: Don't answer the LLLLLL on. 0 - Page 110 DP M. lltIM: 2 0. Dees the Pale leach ?Once Departmont know 3 tat_ a mean of the Pale match rite Department. 4 le baring • brawl /*Licit...ship with en anal' girl? A. l'a ginning no. 6 O. You lie but year twin alaterlffill don't 7 e yea 1 9 DY M. RIP: 10 O. 11 A. 12 0. 13 halt, right/ M. L93,010/ Objection. Aramentente. ain't you/ w. I have never lied for er te_ TOY lie about the fatt that one he. • drug 11 A. No. I would tear awe: ay attar of 15 lain a dreg habit. 16 O. Do you try to conceal the fact that she has 17 • dreg Malt/ ii M. LIOPOLO: 19 bY M. OM: 20 O. Te can anemi the Mallon. M. My slater don not have • tog habit. 22 Toe lied when you went to the crack Ian 23 24 25 0. Objection. Azipentatatiwo. le Carole, didn't yea M. LDIMOLD: Objection. krgementetive. Lack of CenmetIon, lace of predicate. Ph. a Fax. a __165531,5080Ch.lekes~,%ulie 500:Wet Pan hreg14/ 1.6 i3401 Snsor & Associates ~Ma Tuna be Page 111 1 MA. Una 1.11 certify it. 2 wrung, ~grow 3 M. 1101010: Tor the record, you have to 4 atop iaterzepting as because aha can't take awn Loth of us balking åt the ea. tue. 6 BY M. Trig: 7 0. You tell Gellithe truth, don't youl ø Gain eel 9 O. You tell the troth. don't pen/ 10 A. When St's -- as, t Leath* tee. 11 0- who's dreg thane 12 A. My sister don not have a drug dealer. She 13 lino In Georgia with ay lather. 14 O. Okay. WM Is the dt' dealer who deemed IS you andallot, at S/45 NIB.. n 1096, atter being out 16 all night. tn• two or you, 'Ming drug. at Fula Mach 17 Country Estate. murre your tether called the police? 10 A. Ina 19 O. Ile'a the drug dealer/ 20 A. M la a drop dialer. 21 0. Oo you reenherillip wag arrested by the 21 Pala Dosch Police Determent and teen to the Joanne 21 Anateent Center that morning? 24 A. I do paean that. 25 0. 666 before yeumasselnereteln. you were Ph • Fat ~II - —_-1655.Paratachurces Shtl.s.4"54/02(frit,Pattekte, /I 3344_ 4555 eaknheath Lakes tAed., Suite 560 • Wel0 Pahl sell" R. 33401 EFTA00185274 Case 9:08-cv-3119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 30 of 35 nsor & Associates sae& Associates lawns inwkliose• 0 C) 0 C) 0 0 Page 111 1 involuntarily adaittni into a juvenile educational 2 facility; isn't that right? 3 Old you say towel aaaaa ily? 4 O. Yes. 5 A. Mo. I yes willing to go. I -- duly meld 6 7 0. And you weat them beceuee you we re lying 8 so moth. no one could Coattail your isn't that correCt? 9 That's very incorrect. 10 O. New you lie to your pared* all the ciao, 11 don't YOU? 12 A. Incorrect. 13 M. LEOPOLD: Objection. ArgunentatIve. 14 BY KA. 26110: 15 0. Sorry? 16 A. Incorrect. 17 0. The day you went Co tpitteln's haves you 1$ lied to your father ebout where you were going; isn't 19 that correct? 20 A. correct. 21 O. You admitted to the police that you told 22 your father that you were going • O9Piel, didn't you? 23 Yee. 24 0. And that was a lie. wasn't It? 25 A. Yes. C) I Page 114 1 O. And 1•10e it true that peer father has 2 accused roe of lying? 3 A. All the tine. 4 O. Didn't your father throw you out of the 5 hawse Thanksgiving of this pest year braes* you were 6 lying so much to Alai 7 A. Yes. he did kick se out. Mo. that's not s the reasons whit 9 O. Didn't your father throw your rrrrrr 10 out of the hoes.. too? 11 12 led be threwhet out of the house be week 13 site: thrinkegivings, right? 14 r don't 'mow the date. but sure. 15 O. bonds about right? 16 h. 17 0. And the teamon be thrOw ter out Of the 10 19 20 21 22 23 21 25 hoes* was because she vas lying. teal 0. taeteota: Objection. Leek or foundation. Calls for speoviation. Pt NI Tim: O. Shen your counsel coachea you, you gay it's correct, eight/ h. I've never been coached. Kt. 14:0•CCo: Objection. • Fax fa ___16SS Pet Beach Ube Ele0...OW85.00 • WetPokll 8610t- F1-.334°1 . 1 leach lakesad... Site 900,West Patin Bost. 21. 32401 soe&Associates Page 115 MY HA. Tern 2 0. MOO your corneel that It was there 3 vas leek of foundation, you agree with your counsel. 4 right? I Ku like sealed, "Teat, let'. wove On,* 6 because there was no point to asking that question. 7 O. Your father throw-wt of the house 8 became and was lying, cornett 9 KR. LEOPOLD: Objection. lack of 10 foundation. 11 Mold on, ow cat •• just wake the 12 objection. 13 Lack of foundatlOn, predicate, call. for 14 speculation. IS SY Mt TRIM: 16 O. Answer. 17 A. l'n sot ay sister. 1 don't know. 15 O. I rant to sow what you know only. 19 A. I don't tnov. 20 O. You dart know. That's year lisover? 21 A. Yes. 22 0. Nov your parents filed the police report 23 regarding Mr. Castel*, right? 24 A. Yoe. 25 0. Nov pear parents are also lying. aren't e isor&Associates sevoirsetneen•ean. Page 116 they? 2 A. Yes. 9 to. 12OPO1.4): hat as the record is clear, 4 the father -- teens, the *other was um with. 5 M. ICIP: liod't testify, Counsel. 6 MR. tCOPOLO: So the record Is clear, lost 7 the father. The mother was -- 6 IS. SALM: Cavitil. dint coach and testily, please. That's abeelotoly KAProPes: 20 MR. LEOPOLD: You Jett *eked the strong 11 qUOgtiOn. 12 la. IBIS: Yoe can't teach her that way and 13 you well knew Lt. 14 IS. 140201.0: ror the reeend, lira the 15 father. See reisarrie4„ I this:: on his third 16 earrial•• 27 KR. }BIN: You cenaot -- it's absolutely. le totally against the ruler' and yes know It. 19 KB. L84:4O4O: The natural SOUP,' lives in 20 Goorgio. 21 NB. ?SIN: row need to baste Yourself. 22 lawyer. 23 Ma. Lior2LO: the natural pother lives in 94 nacelle. Site father La here locally. es mit. ?ZIP: Stop coaching. Stan talking. ph. ---1655.Panerba Una ad., Site 500.west.Pang Beach..8.3390.1___ . . pft • fix. - • - • • -• - - -1653 Par Bath Latin Base., Suite SOO • West Palm Beaci3,PL 33101... EFTA00185275 Case 9:08-cv-: 119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Doet 06/30/2008 Page 31 of 35 nsor & Associates nopil. or & Associates 0 0 1 Pp* II7 Ton Ob)•Cl. Ya, Pees Ow 110.••. YOU )wt 2 lectured te *hoot the Idles. Cpalliel. Se tay 3 don't you play by tie isles) Or colt %Mtn they 4 fit you? bey don't you gioadatand e mare 5 new. Give eht • five-miner. 'pooch, Mr. Letepeed. 6 MR. LONID: Are you (ARUM'S. for the 7 record? MR. TRIM: I'. not talking to you. ce What 9 10 Ma. 400101.0e Deab say darting yet. 11 IN IN ?LIM. 12 0. SNIP -- 13 kA. LINPCCO: Mold tt. Don't say anything 14 15 DY fl . Ity: 16 O. Tour pa ccccc , it. filed No pollee report 17 ere Mewl Noes. 18 to. LEOPOLD, tweet *flavor the quesaloO. 19 were not going to ewer until I ante the record. 20 vant to pat n the record, now that ColiaNal 21 appears tow finished with lale connont• for the 22 record. that the preview. Nation wa• 23 inaPINOPCiatb mat latentleasliy mialeedieg. 24 lbw You can eel the question. 25 Art NR. YEW PP.~ • fa ---1655 PMS Desch Woes ION., 5~500, ll~Boach-F1.33001. ei & Associates 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 Peg* 119 your lawsuit money away fro, you? Don't look to your lowyor for the &never. HR. UNFOLD: bra can antaor if you hoes the ,soot to it. t have no idea. 1145 WINIESte, yeah. DV IS. ?Cite Q. And your father filed a Iseult. .the float lavnit for fifty Melba d011ate against M. Epatoin without contalting you, correct? )0 A. Correct. 11 0. And year father had a lawyer file the float 12 lemoult on your behalf for fifty million dollere agalut 13 Wt. Patel* %debt,* your knowledge, correct? 14 A. Correct. 15 O. And you don't trust your father, do you? 16 Correct. 17 O. Aha you belie,* he'• trying to nianIpaLata 18 re for hie own gal*, don't you? 19 A. Sent of. 20 0. Hell, you item that your mother filed • 21 .tetenn, en affidavit, saying that you don't trust your 22 father god that you believe ha's trying to manipulate you 29 Ica hie own gain, 'sort that cotioctl 24 A. Correct. 25 0. You agree with that stators«, don't you] Ph. ' ' ' • 1655~0eadt lakes Wet, SAN 500 • West Palm Nada:1 33401__. Papa 118 1 O. Tour verene, oho filed the pollen report 2 in this cage, aro alto Proven alarea aren't they/ 3 M. LE0/010: Same objection. *1 MR. 7400. 5 O. Aron't your parents lien? 6 S. LEOPOLD, Calla for speculation. Lack of predicate. UR. 7115, Stop ceochbeg. You blow what 9 that la, Leopold. 10 M. mono: calla for speculation. Lack . 11 of foundation. 12 VAS INMES: Shoe you say parent., ty mot 13 1. lot, but sure, reedit, ler dad bee been to 1•14 14 for lying. 15 at ult. TtIP: 16 0. Tout dad Net ta federal prieoe for two 17 years for lying, right? le A. Correct. 19 0. Did he tell you it tee for a financial 20 (rood/ 21 A. lbs. 22 O. IQ( *toiling they Cr- emu financial 23 tAttitution, 24 A. Correct. 25 0. And do you think your father lo trying to • Pt"Mit e -et500, w • maacholl..33901--- likne°r & Associates ...........,..1. Peen 120 1 2 O. DO you trust your stepmother, ity ategeOtheir, no. 0. Yon think oho's 4149 trying to Steal your 5 Ebetoin bootie nefuet awe, fret you, don't You? 6 A. I would like to clarify something. You 7 keep saying me Epstein lawsuit ~toy. I don't have ant e monter' and it'. just a lawsuit et the mesant. io I just 9 don't tenet her. 10 You think that your stepmother le 11 try'''. to teve advantage of this lawsuit CO tly co got 12 Dewey true me. totelm that belongs to you, regret? 13 A. Yee. 14 Q. Did your 9[N:bother tell you why she wag 15 arreated? 16 17 Q. Did your atestothor tell you that *he's 18 ever been arrested? 19 A. 20 O. Did she tell you she vem arrested tot 21 fraud? 22 A. Peter. 23 0. Old also toll you that eh* was fired tree 24 Ilauthorree Aviation? 25 • ru-~ • • — — 1655 Per Beach lakes 044.25uRC 500- Wet Pau Eleeck.R. 13401— EFTA00185276 0 0 0 0 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 32 of 35 sor & Assedates litinennesealwendele Pogo 121 1 0. Old she tell you that eke vet fired free 2 Ihiehogne Aviation Ler stealing? 3 A. Bo. 4 Kr. ?ZIP: bet's tote a break. 5 Inwood*, a recess was tarn./ 6 ST MR. VEIN: 0. afore you net Jeffrey Efiet•in, had you ewer had renal intermered/ 9 A. lbs. yeah. 10 O. MOvaany tines? 11 A. Just • few. Twice. 12 0. With how nasty dlfinwt Mn? 13 14 0. ROW old are they) 15 A. OMB being one year older than nor 16 end then the other person was two yearn elder then ea. 17 0. plat was his nem/ 18 A. 19 0. How old were you when you fi rst had meal 20 intescoure7 21 A. N. 22 O. Row sale -- before yon net Epstein, bow 23 nasty different see had you had say type of sexual 24 activity with> 25 A. Just those two. col. Nn. Pokfl MHO likes- 00-0:,-M—Th 500-irett PEW Ileb01.0-.33401_ Snsor & Associates oreseseleueesale, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 123 laser color copied to that we MTh • copy. ad l's assalog he'll get a copy to the wort reporter. Lee, to attach. actually a certified copy to the demi:talon. KR. EOLCIIIMP: tone. XX. IEOPOID: That's If yea agree to that. If not, thee I watt to pull nen ore out and put exhibit labels on the. which w should de before we leave. GCCOMPCM: Ire' r• tot going re do either. I'll have coMes not to the coon reporter end abs Mn attach then to the deposition. MR. LIZIOLIM So you're not going to agree to what we talked about tiering the break then. M. 02/.01101011: I'a ate quit. mii• what your asti r se to 00. tel ea Lintel.. 11010 W: Okay. Sure. That's flee. GoLONIThtel Okay. If you want a* to go over to a. —office and Sake copies end then give these to the cent reporter, fie*. All i•• legieg I. that I would avoid that propel. I veld few *spiel. to the cent reporter. Mt if it vitt use you -- et LEOPOLD: Vn oot> M. ____16S5 01400001a_rt. —_ Fman ANSI. F4• 33402 S nsor & Associates Pepe 122 O. Are you 'eying you never hissed • see other 2 than inns trot 3 HA. LEOPOLD: CdectIon to the fogs of the 4 question. 5 TM! IlingESSI Yee. I had %lead people 6 before. 7 ST IS. Trion before you vat Epstein. had you ever had oral Mx? 10 ll liver in your Ilia, have you exchanged sex 12 for seething Of valve? 13 R. 14 MR. tt lIll 15 VIE Winne: Ob. okay. 16 Th. =MD: need. It In. ISMS 1 don't have any 10 Thestiono. tide you. 19 le. LEOPOLD: before we go off the record, 20 It's ymderstanding -- Kr. Ooldoeder caa 21 effect the Thee -- but n have stipulated that.. 22 color copies of the daunts that were ideatined 23 for lebnibifloatlen certainly will he attached to 24 the deposition end counsel will be tains the © 25 pheogreplia across street so that theycmbe FB • —16551ThIlliebIZJIMPIL 5001 /PIIIIIMehR- 13401— O . afeelitellaweted 5°r & Associates Page 124 I M. Oacsenglir Let we 2 Ka. LEOPOLD: lre sot laterniptbe now. 3 DIR. COLIAMAGan Dug if It will sake you happier if I go nee to No. office 5 and este • copy of those photos be we e pert of 6 this deposition and thee 1'11 give thee to the 7 roust gene fffff P II be Man to de it. KA. 1501012: I trust you InPlicitly. 9 however you with to do it. leaver, the 10 decusints. before they leave this rota. need to 11 MTh as exhibit sticky on than with the 12 elistoPrIst• 13 M. 001.09041Th: dent to go get gee? V* 14 debit MTh any. 15 M. LEOPOLD: I will do that. exeunt me. 16 Let se the (nerd please. goo can't do 17 that to the noun reporter. she's going to stroke IB out. row can't de that. The have to let Se -- 19 KR. TIEN: flesh your eestenCe. Ted. 10a 20 en the =et lOrriveloded levyer I've over ems In 2) sy life. nee year ttttt nee. 22 xii. LOPPOLD: Jack, tell his not to raise 23 his cola, 24 IM. TIM: >Knish your esteem. to then 25 going to be • period et OM and of the teetenca or — - - EFTA00185277 Case 9:08-cv-89119-KAM Document 15-2 *nsor & Associates Entered on FLSD Dicihenst:r6/30/2008 Page 33 of 35 &Acsnriates 0 0 J 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 Il 12 13 le IS 16 17 *mottene. Scorer thea to loprOPer- *Det MI lø ammer. ense yste ra* osetalro In * 19 %boy en to he merket Med you hom aatumall te do 20 ømt *nupor* ler whet over roman. 21 NR. TUM: Tours stoa,. yr.oto6 your 22 mutencre henne yOu're talgisp &bedt seathIng 23 you have nO idem. 24 &&&&& ringt* eae ir marked, red. Mory 25 olmt* ome ia Mmody mirked. OM You amt to Paulo 12f Ir it lust ge‘ng to be Ga atter os memo* CO *hud. lemper. MR. LOOPOLD: All right. ne eatlattg, 1 cent you tro. tatla. [hm. tut 1 +Ml paleet ad 1 Mil be bringing it to the ...ert fot senetless. Tau cannot tale the oxhiblts out ot nr roen vitshut tea 0401 »nået I *ant the. setled. %new» you ~set Idootitt in the revord what wen used. Kad with all deri tirepet te Ne. Goldborgeo, 1 do est -- the way tale asp* LLLLLL to gotog. r M att. samt te selv on Counsol fron glant te mrk the opprOprtat• exhihlts. I MIL net db tat. I tomset promat you tran t•ting thea. est it you ele. I vill te belaging thematter to ~court vip. opproptlat• %e. Fax. fax I6SS Paitneeach t Y %, S03~ R.MADI sor & Associates 3 2 3 5 • e 9 10 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Pope 127 flolob. Tea bohave. NR. UNDOLD: bent geist your timor at MR. /RIR: Listen. le gatt med I mfl hen • ame ta peila It et tea. M. Lt0.060e bent polet your floget ot -- NA. TIM Nr. Leopold - le. 1.60.014; cen't polet your tinger åt ML TRIN: Ni. Leopold, let em flatet'. N*. LIMP0141: Con't your talet eltar. M. TRIM Nr. Leopold -- KR. LKOPOLD: Jon, do ved mint to talte can ot thai ra. TRIN: Lat me i1p/th sy *engtet. PM «Slatt, mo marked. R are velting at of Må* You ar. ~ege who aliereproismås the . renord. IL lo almOlately *tala ubot you do. Ilen ia not be. • Mimer should bebo». fl ira dopcoltion is over. 404 sil get your erhitåt*. Ks. Laapold. M. cottemOnt, t uneeretenclehat >earl* 24 *sying, MtChaeg, and I understand 114's ',snitten. 25 Just 60 °ovre we're going to hån lot* PReflot. --1655 Palm Ø I 14-334°I. 0 2 3 5 6 7 B 9 ID 11 12 13 14 15 16 1.1 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 Prege 126 gren apsot imeeMalm. Mat Mogit om is timsly safted. rart that sillY. god? M. OOLMNIMPRe /hin, ytan ot *due this *rei I hete bod en arameere mor tala. KR. You'vo hed, fl o er* obsitrucztonleit. yen ore • lier. tos håve ILed aad wi•repreeented things, for the (sat& Tote om gerendstemleng. NA. LIWOCUM rov mad te beck Ly. No. Trio: mo. no. l'o geir. to finish. Me. LUDITOLDe you can Slelsåt. byr doe't bent oset 1••• KR. ALM se we Is Nonne, mel you. Stop trylt. to sete å lyte, ~eid. Ist ir My oeratblog *loe. tes't Sn due thratal1 a* ette ...etla». atm( pus LIS in e letter to sy M-00Ienorel *best the Mot - n mist. le mist end let as tfalea. Toe 114.1 in • lotter te Dy oesceonfol. Nr. Gomle. in ela. ka* seld -- it amer • ocapleto ond urter lie -- tat nu vor* un LLLLL Mie Cal* Domini ~agna gou Rod • hertig. That am e Ila. I han noter teen • ImMer deig. to de vanning like that. Le toa vill get the es -- he maiet. Let am --. —1655 Pari 5601. 111‘25'2 34" — Far. *nsor ~...0,....~.... &AgAnciates 2 3 5 6 B 9 10 11 12 13 Pope 124 of i LLLLL ia this gape. tirra gein to hive lete ot suene to dimmere. l'a gote, to tok* It ovn ime med i's geine to sake 00014. ond mave gasse CO five thea to Ni. ~ar. il ytevent te s lied eima thnhIbis Sahel, sed put ta matbit »ble on It, be ny gamet. rat tart', Mot 1'a ettulag to de. signes: Let a• se) tue things. bedosoi i se hepp) to elva," diemMo. and with ya. I hem ne problem ve C0014 alboge de It pntnamtlly. 1 have not problem. i mat co my tue [Muga ia the »Lord le very eierer. 14 Sira tor Nutelar resten L hete not Dean 15 obl* to Look at ***** å ** homo» they hen hom 16 1.1,156 to heve ane »hom to -- I? a. T814I: That'• • Ile. IB NR. 1105020: Jack. it you reprenen 19 Nat ta docummts huve tar spyrala* mihibit 20 nomora or sesse IdeatifyIng marfloa, 25, 30.080. 21 stuten; they my be, thea ytra an tala cha. alke 22 ~to, sand 0.1 • stel, orke Ivre the aen 23 repotter Mua copy end thea *ad se • Mil tor 24 sy ropte». Nåes tene. 1 dteln't know Nat they 25 ere ...kol timt wåy hemma. 1 haroå'r tun obl* to Plia0505 Fax. 105g Beacn LaMe . . EFTA00185278 Case 9:08-cv-i119-KAM n Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Doi n et 06/30/2008 Page 34 of 35 • sor & Associates epe e VI a 40•alk sor & Associates M ID* C) 0 0 0 2 3 4 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 129 toet at ilea. IC. OOLOOSRCita. Tbey sec eteded. sad the seer that we've wide reference to in ton deposition Coincides with the becocling. MR. LIOSOLO: that'. fine. Bight by eleven color lases Cede. are floe. W. SeetWeet The Sete Attorneys Office is not gOIng to aerie ended) for color Copies I print out. MS. tgeed: that's flee. i.eO going to eke the bee to his office. Secondly -- asid I will he nee lean happy to 60 it, because it Mande like yell all know sore *bout it than I -- bet Sony to get affidavits. Ire Ns. Pincus. Pee Stern. overybedy glee *bout wet happened with this Marled today, because I know very little Meet it. Sat ey reel 44444 teens are what they are. MR. 00teede: They stay -- se. tICOCCO: et vs 'bet finish lot the ✓ecord. My repieNseattons or oensente *bout Het happened. eon bet the eerie this e rnes,. 1 knew very little shout It. let. GOLZSCNCIIR: I II take yobs word On —.1655.Fin er0Pharn • i P1;t 5a00 l. FL 33401 liOnsor& Associates Reenetieseetie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Peg* 131 have b ides, but if per co-counsel ideas en affidavit to that effect (coo Pr. PinCull. is sere than bepPY to of it. set I don't knee the Tease why St was canceled. • TiiN: I don't need it. got wbat I do take segue with is regardless of why it wog canceled. you owed oe the courtesy of saying. Ton Mile what/ we can start earlier this geeing. MR. Videle I owe 1.0e nothing. NS. 24.111, I gout care. Wait interrupt illeCaVele Seabee/led hie vacation plena Seen of ye. *4. 001Ailegfal limit's all right, [hat1 0 all right. MM. ruin And 'mire selflah. hod the dope tttttt le over. Coed-by Mr. Leopold. KR. COICSOCCRI You can go off the record. 0 rage 130 that. 2 boll. 4400040. No. no, no. 1 just put It on 3 the record. I will get an affidavit -- 4 •Bettalhe it founds you need it -- from Mr. Pines. I have no clue about hat happened end 6 why It wan exceed. All 1 was told when t was 7 out Of town yestereay was that the hearing this 0 anteing was ceacelled. 9 NR. GOLOKR4411: 1.11 tote your vote for 10 it. 11 NA. L4Ofee if you wont en affidavit, 12 I'll get It (Of you. 13 two. o f It's • personal lees for 14 se beseuselhod to disgust • Vacation sad if it 15 was done let been , it wasn't Conweleet for 16 ye. then offended by that. Out If yen's' 11 me that it we resod end St didn't 18 happen, I'll take your word for it. 19 Mg. 14.0tOLO, I as or. than haPPY to get 20 you an affidavit. because I don't knew the swoon 21 My it ye Ceseled other than the fact she. 22 eyeing •tace my deposition ea taken for four 23 Mame en leenchy for propererloa ter the Mating 24 today, for +Ketone /ease* It wee canceled. 1 an 25 told it Ic beteg te-noticed. Thy it we• canceled. itic ri1a.110305- Fit sor & Associates hihehaelheeSihlee 1 2 3 4 The Si-steed Florida. C tttttt CATS 5 County of ca fe leach. 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 liege 112 I hereby certify that I have road the foregoing dere:titian by be give, end that the assented* eantaised herein are tree end correct to the but of ay knowledge and belief, with the exemption of any correetiono or notations no* on the erred sheet, lf one was executed. coded this day of . 2000. Pi Fr — 1655 POIM Per a Sach sFL 33401. 1695 Palf0 9.99. 411 Ph. Fax. te 5004001ReaCh, Ft 33401 EFTA00185279 Case 9:08-cv4119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Do et 06/30/2008 Page 35 of 35 .risor & Associates r & Associates ~es meted«. hi 0 0 2 TO: Date: robrozo 25. 2004 1 C/o 3 Office of the Stet. Attorney 401 0. Diaio kighoaf 4 West 'obi beach, Florida 23401 5 rig Di: ITO« Of rtOalte -6. Jirlate tfiTSIK CriSt 2006 Crage54ea 6 Paso 132 please teas melee Coat on wodoesday. tel V 20th et rebrimary. 2009. you gave your (141»oltion La the abovo•reforred matter. At that tie., yea did not waive signature. It le now miessoray that you slain your deposit Ion. 9 Please Call our office et the below-1191.W nester to sc.aacNto ån appOloteent between tel hour. of 10 9,00 'MM. and 4:30 p.a., Monday through Friday. 11 If yea do mot read and sign tare delavaltion within a rookonahlt tie*. tel original, welch had airway 12 peen forwarded to the ordering attorney. may he riled with the Clock of the COOrt. If you valt to wain yogi. 13 sigeature Dien your name in tel blank at tel Lotto. of this letter aeS return it to us. 14 Very [rely your., 15 eolith F. Censor, tel 16 censor å asecesatire ftworrin add TraalidllPtleal 1455 Pala Mach Lakes boulevard. Salto 500 17 dolt Pol. beach. Florida 33401 le 1 de hereby waive ag signature: 19 20 cc via ttaidorfOR: 21 22 file easy 23 24 25 alai A. 001.0~, CSO. ego- ~mu 2. Till,. Mi. 1101000R1 J. LEOPOLD. ISO. Pit,":0 )0L~ttothm . 33402 likeznernalumeysiaz sor & Associates Pad* 135 1 Tie Sine OF FIORDS, 1 2 CCOIST OT PAW «Wk. 3 4 5 I. tel geferaltmod authority. cattle,. that 6 Ille9erl°"ellY appeared before mg on the 20th 7 of rebruary, 200* end wee duly sworn. 9 ninth ny hand and official seal Oda 25 day 20 of February. 2001. 11 12 13 14 Pae4 414 40n￾15 16 17 le 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Judith F. Ccezor, PPP rotary Public - State of Florida Page 134 1 0X[51 2 n Az: alaar.f.derrutY 'Pinta DtCOSITZOM pe: TAX0e, February 20th, 3 2000 LO let *Pitt Oa TiVatEtItIFT - EMU atAlftWA SIM 4 YES I snit r CHM« PIPS« 5 a 9 10 11 12 13 Li 15 16 17 l0 29 20 21 new female tel origloal signed errata Sheet to this office so that copies hey be distributed to all 22 coder mashy of perjury. I declare that I hove teed my 23 depataten end that it la true sad correct subject to any chap. in term or substan **toted hare. 24 DOTI: Grann OP OfeatraT: 25 PIB FMc _ _______ÄqUeneold,M;r5a a 33462 C) liOnsor& Associates theatieehaerehhhe C ..... !CATS 2 TM State Of Florida, 1 3 Casty Of Iola aeaca. ) 4 S I. Judith F. Connor. Court Aporter end rotary Public la end for tel state of lionize et lotto, do 6 7 hereby certify that X was authorized to did stenographically report the ClepOoltiOn of that a review of the transcript sag ragmen f end lite foregoing Pages. ricahoired erne I to 131. inclusive, fir* a trim and correct traneeripti« of my scenographic notes of said dOPosltIOn. 9 Pau 136 I farther certify that said dzszoltlen was. 10 taken at the thee and piece herolaabov• sec forth and that the taking of sold depeatelac Wa onemencod and 11 towline:1 en boroltabooe pet out. 12 1 further fortify that i es not an attorney or coos», of any of the parties, nor all I a relative or 13 arpleyee of say interney or counsel of forty coenacted with the action, nor as 1 financially interested in the 14 «ties. 12 Tie foregoing certification Of this transcript doe aot apply to say rePrOdeCtlea et the ea« by any 16 Dew unless under the dictate control and/or direction of the certifying reporter. I? DATtD this 22 day of February, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 scrti Judith P. Orator. court Repo Florida Profgeaional Reporter Ph. 1655 PST 8880 C - y133401 Ph. 16S5 fah Beach ,FI.33401 EFTA00185280 Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 1 of 51 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA 4 I WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA JANE DOE, et al., 5 Plaintiffs, I JUNE 12, 2009 6 vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. 9 10 7 8 11 12 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: 13 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: 14 15 16 ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. Mermelstein & Horowitz 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33160 305.931.2200 For Jane Doe BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. 17 Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard 18 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Jane Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 19 954.522.3456 20 ISIDRO M. , ESQ. Elkins Boehringer 21 224 Datura Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 22 Jane DOE II 23 RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. 2290 10th Avenue North 24 Lake Worth, FL 33461 For C.M.A. 25 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTIO GOVERNMENT 1 EXHIBIT 11° EFTA00185281 Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 2 of 51 2 1 ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG, ESQ. 2 Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 25 West Flagler Street 3 Miami, FL 33130 For Jane Doe 101 305.358.2800 4 (Via telephone) 5 KATHERINE W. EZELL, ESQ. Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 6 25 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 7 For Jane Doe 101 305.358.2800 8 FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL BURMAN, ESQ. 9 Burman Critton, etc. 515 North Flagler Street 10 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 11 JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. ' 12 Atterbury Goldberger Weiss 250 Australian Avenue South 13 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 14 ANN , ESQ. 15 Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 East Broward Boulevard 16 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 For U.S.A. 17 MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. 18 20 Park Plaza Boston MA 02116 19 (Via telephone) 617.227.3700 20 JAY LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. (Via telephone) 21 REPORTED BY: LARRY HERR, RPR-RMR-FCRR-AE 22 Official United States Court Reporter Federally Certified Realtime Reporter 23 400 North Miami Avenue, Room 8N09 Miami, FL 33128 305.523.5290 24 25 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185282 Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 3 of 51 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: We are here in the various Doe vs. Epstein cases. May I have counsel state their appearances? MR. HOROWITZ: Adam Horowitz, counsel for plaintiffs Jane 2 through Jane Doe 7. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, counsel for plaintiff Jane Doe. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. : Good morning, Your Honor. Sid for Jane Doe II. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. WILLITS: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard Willits, here on behalf of the plaintiff C.M.A.. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. EZELL: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Katherine Ezell from Podhurst Orseck, here with Amy Adderly and Susan Bennett, and I believe my partner, Bob Josefsberg, is going to appear by telephone. THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, are you there? MR. JOSEFSBERG: I am, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. JOSEFSBERG: Good morning. THE COURT: All right. Do we have all the plaintiffs stated their appearances? Okay. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185283 Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page4of51 4 1 Defense? 2 MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, Robert Critton on behalf of 3 Mr. Epstein, and my partner, Michael Burman. 4 THE COURT: Good morning. 5 MR. GOLDBERGER: Good morning, Your Honor. Jack 6 Goldberger on behalf of Mr. Epstein. 7 THE COURT: I see we have some representatives from 8 the United States Attorney's Office here. 9 MS. : Good morning, Your Honor. Ann 10 for the U.S. Attorney's office. 11 THE COURT: Good morning. 12 Who else do we have on the phone? 13 MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, we have two members of the 14 defense team are on the phone, also. 15 THE COURT: Who do we have on the phone? 16 MR. WEINBERG: Martin Weinberg. Good morning, Your 17 Honor. 18 MR. LEFKOWITZ: Jay Lefkowitz. Good morning, Your 19 Honor. 20 THE COURT: Good morning. 21 I scheduled this hearing for very limited issues 22 which, as you all know, there's been a motion by Mr. Epstein to 23 stay the civil proceedings against him. The one issue I have 24 concern about is Mr. Epstein's contention or assertion that by 25 defending against the allegations in the civil proceedings, he TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185284 Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 5 of 51 5 1 may expose himself to an allegation by the United States in the 2 non-prosecution agreement that he's violated that agreement and 3 therefore would subject himself to potential federal charges. 4 I had asked for some briefing on this. I asked the S United States to present its position to me. And I received 6 the Government's written response, which I frankly didn't find 7 very helpful. And I still am not sure I understand what the 8 Government's position is on it. 9 So first let me hear from Mr. Epstein's attorneys as 10 to what do you believe the concern is. I don't believe the 11 non-prosecution agreement has ever been filed in this Court; am 12 I correct? 13 MR. CRITTON: To my knowledge, Your Honor, it has not. 14 THE COURT: So I don't believe I've ever seen the 15 entire agreement. I've seen portions of it. 16 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I believe that it was filed 17 under Jane Doe 1 and 2 vs. United States of America, case under 18 seal in your court. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 MR. EDWARDS: In a separate case. 21 THE COURT: In that case, okay. Was it actually filed 22 in that case? 23 MR. EDWARDS: I filed it under seal. 24 THE COURT: In any event, what's Mr. Epstein's concern 25 about if you defend the civil actions, you're going to expose TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185285 Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 6 of 51 6 1 yourself to a claim for a breach by the United States of the 2 non-prosecution agreement? 3 MR. CRITTON: Robert Critton. 4 Your Honor, our position on this case is, I'd say is 5 somewhat different. When this issue originally came before the 6 Court, as you are aware prior to my firm's involvement in the 7 case, there was a motion filed on behalf of Mr. Epstein seeking 8 a stay. And I think it was in Jane Doe 102 and then 9 subsequently Jane Doe 2 through 5 because all of those cases 10 were filed on or about the same time. 11 And at that time the Court looked at the issue and it 12 was based upon a statutory provision at that time. And the 13 Court said I don't find that it's applicable, or for whatever 14 reason I think the Court said I don't consider that to be a 15 pending proceeding or a proceeding at that particular time. 16 In that same order, which was in Jane Doe 2, I 17 believe it's -- not I believe, I know it's docket entry 33, the 18 Court also went on to talk about at that particular point in 19 time dealt with the issue of the discretionary stay. 20 And the Court said at that time, I'm paraphrasing, but 21 the Court also does not believe a discretionary stay is 22 warranted. And what the Court went on to say is that if 23 defendant does not breach the agreement, then he should have no 24 concerns regarding his Fifth Amendment right against 25 self-incrimination. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185286 Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 7 of 51 7 1 The fact that the U.S. Attorney or other law 2 enforcement officials may object to some discovery in these 3 civil cases is not in and of itself a reason to stay the civil 4 litigation, so that any such issue shall be resolved as they 5 arise in the course of the litigation. 6 And I would respectfully submit to the Court that the 7 position that the Government has taken in its most recent 8 filings changes the playing field dramatically. Because what 9 the Government in essence has said as distinct from the U.S. 10 saying is, well, we object to some discovery, or we may object 11 to some discovery in the civil cases. 12 What they have, in essence, said is if you take some 13 action, Mr. Epstein, that we believe unilaterally, and this is 14 on pages 13 and 14 of their pleading or of their response memo 15 to the Court's inquiry, they say if Mr. Epstein breaches the 16 agreement. They said it's basically like a contract, and if 17 one side breaches, the other side can sue. 18 In this instance what the Government will do is if we 19 believe that Mr. Epstein has breached the agreement, we'll 20 indict him. We will indict him. And his remedy under that 21 circumstance, which is an incredible and catastrophic catch 22 22 is, we'll indict him and then he can move to dismiss. That's a 23 great option. 24 In this particular instance my mandate in defending -- 25 and that's a dramatic change in the Government's position, TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185287 Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 8 of 51 8 1 because the Government is not saying, and the Court was pretty 2 specific in what you asked the Government for in its response 3 is, in essence, and it's the same question in a more limited 4 fashion you're posing today is whether Mr. Epstein's defense of 5 the civil action violates the NPA agreement, the 6 non-prosecution agreement, between the U.S. and Mr. Epstein. 7 And the Government refuses to answer that question. 8 They won't come out and say, yes, it will, or no, it won't. 9 What they're doing is they want to sit on the sideline, and as 10 their papers suggest is, they want us to lay in wait and that 11 if, in fact, they believe he violates a provision of the NPA as 12 it relates to the defense of this case or these multitude of 13 cases, then they can come in and indict him -- no notice, no 14 opportunity to cure. 15 We don't think that's what the NPA says, but that's 16 certainly what their papers say. We'll indict him, no notice, 17 no opportunity to cure. We will indict him, and his remedy 18 under that circumstance is that he can move to dismiss the 19 indictment. 20 Well, that's great except Mr. Epstein, his mandate to 21 me and I know his mandate to his criminal lawyers, is: Make 22 certain I don't do anything, in particular in these civil cases 23 that would in any way suggest that I am in willful violation of 24 the NPA. 25 Now, in the Court's prior ruling in the docket entry TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185288 Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket06/24/2009 Page9of51 1 33, certainly some aspects of the NPA are within Mr. Epstein's 2 control. There's no question about that. But aspects that 3 relate to the defense of these cases, either in terms of the 4 civil lawyers who are defending these, I think there's 12 or 13 5 pending cases in front of you, there's another four cases in 6 the state court, is the risk is substantial, it's real, and it 7 presents a chilling effect for the civil lawyers in moving 8 forward to determine whether or not we're taking some action 9 that in some way may be a violation of the NPA. 10 And the Government's, again, refusal or non-position 11 with regard to past acts that have been taken in the civil case 12 with regard to the defense or future acts that we may take with 13 regard to these contested litigation casts an extraordinary 14 cloud of doubt and uncertainty and fear that the defense of 15 these cases could jeopardize Mr. Epstein and put him in the 16 irreparable position of violating the NPA and then subsequently 17 being indicted. 18 In this particular instance, again, Mr. Epstein has no 19 intention of willfully violating the NPA, but it's of great 20 concern to him. And I'd say with the position that the 21 Government has taken, no notice, no cure period, no opportunity 22 to discuss. Again, we think that's not what the NPA provides, 23 it's not what the deal was between the two contracting parties, 24 the United States and Mr. Epstein. But that's clearly what 25 their papers say under the circumstances, and it would create TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185289 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 10 of 51 10 1 this irreparable harm to Mr. Epstein under the circumstances. 2 In essence, we're left with a catch 22 in defending 3 the civil cases. We have a mandate to take no action, to take 4 any action which may be deemed to be a violation of the NPA, 5 either in the past or in the future, which would in any way 6 risk Mr. Epstein being indicted by the United States. 7 He has the clear risk of an indictment based upon the 8 papers that the Government filed. It's real, it's not remote, 9 and it's not speculative. It chills the action of the defense 10 in this instance of both Mr. Epstein and his attorneys in 11 trying to defend these cases and decide under the circumstances 12 can we do this, can we take this position with regard to 13 depositions, can we take this legal position with regard to 14 motions to dismiss, with regard to responses, with regard to 15 replies? 16 And we send out paper discovery. Is this in some way 17 if we contact someone who may be an associate of these 18 individuals as part of our investigation, is that potentially 19 in any way a violation of the NPA? Again, we don't think so. 20 And, obviously, again, my direction has been from my 21 client: Don't take any action that would result in me being 22 indicted under the NPA. Well, that's great. But, generally, 23 civil lawyers or civil lawyers in defending a personal injury 24 case or a tort case, which is exactly what these are, and from 25 a practical standpoint, we use various tools to do discovery. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185290 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 11 of 51 n 1 They're standard. They're specific. They're very temporary. 2 Very typical. 3 But in this instance, as the Court knows, things are 4 not typical with regard to this case in any way, shape or form. 5 We can't even serve subpoenaes, there's objections and there's 6 -- we can't even serve objections to third parties so we can 7 obtain documents unless we have to filter it through the 8 plaintiffs' attorneys. They won't allow us to use their 9 clients' names, even in a subpoena that would never be filed in 10 the court. 11 How do we do a deposition of a third party? We wanted 12 to take the deposition of Jane Doe 4. Well, who is she? Well, 13 we can't tell you that. Well, who's the defendant? Well, we 14 can't tell you that because nobody wants anybody to know 15 anything about the case. They want to present it strictly 16 through rose-colored glasses. 17 And in this particular instance, we simply can't 18 defend this case or take certain action with the spector 19 hanging over us that, in fact, the Government may deem it to be 20 a violation of the NPA, because very clearly in their response 21 papers, they don't say. They say we don't take the position, 22 and then they take a substantial position is we think there's 23 not all that substantial factors that would entitle him to a 24 stay. 25 Except for the one major issue which the Court posed TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185291 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 12 of 51 12 1 in the question is, is can he defend these cases? That's what 2 I really want to know. Can he defend these cases and, in 3 essence, what he has done in the past or what his defense team 4 has done in the past and what they're going to do in the 5 future, can you give him, Epstein, assurances that the 6 Government under this situation, whatever he does, based on 7 advice of counsel, that that cannot be a willful violation of 8 the NPA, which they can -- they, the U.S. -- can then turn 9 around and say that's a violation of the agreement and, 10 therefore, we're going to go proceed to indict you under the 11 circumstances. 12 Our position is, Your Honor, is that the U.S. has now 13 cavalierly suggested that, as they did in picking up on the 14 court's docket entry or prior order, is, look, compliance with 15 the NPA is solely up to Mr. Epstein. In this type of balance 16 of equities, it doesn't speak in favor of a stay. 17 Well, that's great. And maybe that was the position 18 back in '08, on August 5th of '08, when the issue came up in 19 front of the Court with regard to the initial stay. 20 But the Government's papers under these.circumstances 21 suggested a very different set of circumstances. Their own 22 unilateral, which is the issue that we argued in the motion for 23 stay, is that the Government's position is that we can 24 unilaterally indict this man if we think he's breached the NPA. 25 We don't think that's right, but we have no buffer TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185292 Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 13 of 51 13 1 between us and the Government. They'll say, and as the Court 2 knows, the Government has substantial power. The Government 3 does what it wants. Most of the time hopefully they're right. 4 Sometimes they make mistakes. 5 But in this particular instance, my client has rights. 6 We think that there's notice provisions, we think there's cure 7 provisions under the NPA. That's not what their paper says 8 under the circumstances. 9 And what we'd like to know from the Government, and 10 maybe the answer is basically what the Court asks is, let the 11 Government come forward today and say, based on the knowledge 12 that we have, or as of today's date, June 12th, 2009, we, the 13 Government, agree that there is no set of circumstances, not 14 that we're not aware of, but as of today's date, there is 15 nothing that exists that would be a violation of the NPA. 16 THE COURT: Well, that's way beyond what I'm 17 interested in. I don't know what Mr. Epstein may have done 18 outside the context of defending this case that may constitute 19 a violation. And if he has done something outside the context 20 of defending this case that's a violation, I don't care. 21 That's between the United States and Mr. Epstein. 22 I'm only concerned about whether anything he does in 23 defending these civil actions is going to be a violation of the 24 non-prosecution agreement. If he has done something else, it's 25 none of my business, and I don't care, and I'm not going to TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185293 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 14of51 14 1 even ask the Government to give you an assurance that he hasn't 2 done anything that might have violated the agreement up till 3 today. I'm only interested in defending these civil actions. 4 MR. CRITTON: Then I would respectfully submit to the 5 Court that the Government be asked in that limited context, are 6 they as of today, whether there were or not, but as of today is 7 there anything that has been done or will you take the 8 position, the United States, that any position that Mr. Epstein 9 has taken with regard to defending these civil cases is in any 10 way a violation of the NPA? 11 THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure what they're going to 12 say, but that might -- that cures the problem up to this point. 13 But then we have to deal with what's going to happen from here 14 on in. And that's another issue that we have to deal with. 15 So I understand your position. 16 But has anyone suggested to you on behalf of the 17 United States that there is something that you've done in 18 defending this case that they believe may or could be construed 19 as a violation of the non-prosecution agreement? Has anyone 20 pointed to anything that you've done? For example, the fact 21 that you've wanted to take their -- I don't know if you've 22 noticed depositions or not in this case, but if you've sent 23 notice of taking deposition, if you sent requests for 24 production of documents, if you sent interrogatories, if you 25 issued third party subpoenas? Is anything you've done thus far TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185294 Case 9.08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 15 of 51 15 in the context of this case been brought to your attention as a ) potential violation? MR. CRITTON: I have received no notification nor am 1. 4 aware that we've received any notification of any action that 5 we have taken today. As I suggested to the Court, I don't know 6 when they've done or not. And in their papers they suggested, 7 well, we don't know everything that's gone on in the civil 8 litigation. 9 But from a practical standpoint, it was a number of 10 comments that were made in their papers is, we can indict, we 11 can see if there's a breach. 12 Judge, I may have some -- 13 THE COURT: Before you go on. 14 MR. CRITTON: I'm sorry. 15 THE COURT: You've focused a great deal on the 16 Government's response to my inquiry as supporting your position 17 that you're in jeopardy. But you've made the suggestion, even 18 before this brief was filed, that defending the case was going 19 to potentially result in an assertion or allegation that you 20 breached the non-prosecution agreement. 21 So what was it that caused you to make that initial 22 assertion? Because that's what caught my attention, was not -- 23 this brief that the Government has filed was in response to 24 something that you filed initially in your most recent motion 25 for a stay which raised the issue. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185295 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 16 of 51 16 1 So what was it that gave you some concern to even 2 raise the issue that defending this case is going to constitute 3 a breach? 4 MR. CRITTON: Because there are other instances where 5 counsel other than myself, not in the civil aspects, where 6 allegations have been made and letters have been sent by the 7 United States suggesting that there's been a violation of the 8 NPA. And under those circumstances, some notification was 9 provided. 10 THE COURT: Did it have anything to do with defending 11 the civil actions? 12 MR. CRITTON: It did not. 13 THE COURT: So then why was that issue raised by you 14 in the first instance? 15 MR. CRITTON: Because of the prospect that the 16 defendant could take, that the U.S. would take the position 17 under the circumstances that a position that we took with 18 regard to the contested litigation may well impact, that the 19 Government may have a very different view of what the 20 interpretation of the agreement is. 21 And as an example is a number of the parties, and I 22 know the Court doesn't want to get into a discussion, the issue 23 is, is under 2255 is that from the defendant's perspective the 24 deal that was cut on that, it was a very specific deal. It 25 dealt with both consensual and contested litigation. It dealt TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185296 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 17 of 51 17 1 with a secret list of individuals who we had no idea who was on 2 the list, and a commitment that he would under certain 3 circumstances be required to pay a minimum amount of damages, 4 which our position is under 2255 based upon the statute that 5 was in effect at the time, a $50,000 as to anyone who wanted -- 6 who came forward who was on the list and met certain criteria. 7 The position that now has been asserted by a number of 8 the plaintiffs under the circumstances, and it's been pled, and 9 actually a number of the complainants is, is Epstein agreed, 10 and they cite to a letter that was sent by Ms. from 11 the Government, that says he has to plead guilty or he can't 12 contest liability. That may be true under very, very limited 13 or specific circumstances. 14 But what the plaintiffs have done in a number of the 15 cases, and these are pending motions, is they've said is, well, 16 we think C.M.A. cases is a good example, they've pled 30 17 separate counts of 2255 alleged violations. And they're saying 18 under the circumstances is, therefore, we have 2255 violations, 19 there's 30 of them, so 30 times 150, or should be, or whether 20 it's 150, that's the amount of money that we want, so maybe $15 21 million, or whatever the number is. 22 Some of the other plaintiffs' lawyers have been even 23 more creative. They've said is, well, we'll agree that it's 24 only one cause of action but that each number of violations; 25 that is, if 20 alleged incidents occurred, that we would TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185297 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 18 of 51 18 1 consider to be, or that we will argue are violations, then we 2 can take 20 times the 50, or the 150, depending on which 3 statute is applicable. 4 So the Government under that set of circumstance could 5 say, and, again, this is one of the reasons that we raised it, 6 they could say, look, our deal with you was that you couldn't 7 contest liability, that you were waiving liability, or your 8 ability to contest an enumerated offense under 2255. 9 Again, part of the deal was as to an enumerated 10 offense. Okay. Well, what's that mean? What did he plead to? 11 Well, he really didn't plead to anything, which is another 12 issue associated with the 2255. But if the Government comes in 13 and says, no, wait a minute, our position was, is that you're 14 stuck with 2255 and the language within the NPA. And, 15 therefore, whether it's an offense or whether it's multiple 16 offenses or violations or each one represents an individual 17 cause of action, if the Government takes the position that's 18 adverse to what we think the clear reading of the agreement was 19 under those circumstances, they could claim a violation. 20 And as a result -- and that's one of the reasons we 21 put -- that was the most glaring one to us, so we raised that 22 issue. And then when the Government's response came with 23 regard to, is we can just proceed to indict if we think that 24 there's been a breach of the agreement. 25 That puts us at substantial risk and chills our TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185298 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 19of51 ig 1 ability to move forward. Thank you, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Thank you. Who wants to be heard from the 3 plaintiffs first? 4 Is there any plaintiff's attorney who is contending 5 that the defense of these civil actions by Mr. Epstein is going 6 to constitute a breach of the non-prosecution agreement? 7 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, this is Bob Josefsberg. 8 May I speak? 9 THE COURT: Yes, sir. 10 MR. JOSEFSBERG: We're not quite confident that any 11 breaches of any agreement, which were third-party 12 beneficiaries, should be resolved by you. We're not saying it 13 shouldn't. But we have not raised any breach of agreement. We 14 think that is between the United States and Mr. Epstein. 15 What I find incredulous and disingenuous is that 16 Mr. Epstein is saying that he wants a stay because he may be 17 forced into taking actions in the defense of this case that 18 would violate the agreement. 19 And let me make our position clear on that. If he 20 wants to move to take depositions, interrogatories, production, 21 and they are according to your rulings appropriate, not 22 invasive of the privacy of someone, and they are relevant, then 23 I don't know how those could in any way be violations of the 24 agreement. 25 What I find hypocritical is that there are two parts TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185299 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 20 of 51 PO 1 to the agreement that I am a beneficiary of. One of them is 2 that he has agreed that on any action brought in the 2255, he 3 will admit to liability. 4 And I received on May 26 a motion to dismiss, which 5 we're prepared to respond to and disagree with, but totally 6 contesting liability, saying that the statute doesn't apply 7 because the girls are no longer minors and saying, and this is 8 the great one, saying that the predicate of the conviction 9 under 2255 has not been satisfied. 10 Now, the understanding that I have is the agreement 11 between the Government and Mr. Epstein was that the Government 12 desired to see these victims made whole, and wanted them to be 13 in the same position as if Mr. Epstein had been prosecuted and 14 pled or convicted. And they would be able to have the 15 predicate of that criminal conviction, which just as a matter 16 of liability would just be introduced as proof that he's done 17 this. 18 They, under the agreement, are supposed to admit to 19 liability on limited something that's under 2255. He has 20 filed, but since there is no conviction, there can be no civil 21 suit under 2255, with which we disagree. But it is totally in 22 opposite of the NPA. 23 The second part is there are many young ladies, and 24 this perhaps he can use this to his great advantage, who are 25 humiliated about this entire situation. Some of them won't TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185300 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 21 of 51 21 1 come forward. 2 We were appointed by Judge Davis as a Special Master 3 to represent these young ladies. And some of them don't even 4 want to file suit. They don't even want to be known as Jane 5 Doe 103. They don't want any of the risks for these motions 6 that are pending. 7 And part of the agreement was that if we represented 8 them and they settle, Mr. Epstein would pay our fees. And he 9 has written us as of yesterday that he is under no obligation 10 to pay our fees on settling cases. 11 Now, those two matters, I believe, may be breaches. 12 But I am not asking this Court at this time to do anything 13 about them. Nor am I telling the Government, I'm not running 14 to the Government and saying indict him because I want you to 15 pressure him to do what he agreed to. 16 I'm a third-party beneficiary for that agreement, and 17 I may move to enforce certain parts of it. But as far as the 18 issue of staying the litigation, that is the exact opposite of 19 the intent and the letter of the NPA. The purpose of the NPA 20 was so that these 34 young ladies, these victims who have been 21 severely traumatized, may move on with their lives. 22 And to stay this action would be the exact opposite of 23 the purpose of that agreement and would be horrible 24 psychologically for all of my clients. 25 THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, I understand your TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185301 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 22 of 51 22 1 position. And I don't want to argue the merits of whether a 2 stay should or should not be granted. 3 I'm just trying to understand what the ground rules 4 are going to be if I grant a stay or if I deny a stay. And 5 I've already denied a stay once. I have to decide this current 6 motion, and I just want to know what is going to happen if I 7 deny the stay in terms of Mr. Epstein's exposure under the 8 non-prosecution agreement. That's my concern. 9 So if you're telling me that you're not going to urge 10 the United States, on behalf of any of your clients, to take 11 the position that he's breached the agreement because he's 12 taking depositions, because he's pursuing discovery, because 13 he's conducting investigations that anyone in any other type of 14 civil litigation might conduct with respect to plaintiffs that 15 are pursuing claims against a defendant, that those typical 16 types of actions, in your judgment, are not breaches of the 17 agreement and that he can go forward and defend the case as any 18 other defendant could defend, and you're not going to run to 19 the United States and say, hey, he's breaching the agreement by 20 taking depositions and he's breaching the agreement by issuing 21 subpoenas to third parties in order to gather information 22 necessary to defend, then I don't have a problem. But if he's 23 going to be accused of breaching the agreement because he sends 24 out a notice of deposition of one of your clients, how is he 25 supposed to defend the case? TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185302 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 23 of 51 23 1 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, you're totally correct. 2 He can depose my client. That's not a problem. But the 3 problem is that these are not typical clients and this is not a 4 typical case. He has written in his pleadings that he wants to 5 publish the names of these girls in the newspapers so that 6 other people may come forward to discuss their sexual 7 activities with these different plaintiffs. That's not your 8 typical case. But are rulings that you'll make in this case, 9 and they're not part of the NPA. 10 As far as my going to the Government is concerned, I 11 find it very uncomfortable for me to use the Government to try 12 to pursue my financial interest in litigation. And I know that 13 Mr. Epstein and his counsel will make much ado about it. So I 14 am not going to be running there. 15 However, if they start taking depositions regarding 16 liability, I will consider that to be a breach because they're 17 supposed to have admitted liability. 18 THE COURT: But, again, I don't have the agreement and 19 I don't remember reading the agreement. But what I'm being 20 told is the part of the agreement that admits liability is only 21 as to a 2255 claim, and there are numerous other personal 22 injury tort claims other than 2255 claims. 23 And there's a limit of damages on the 2255 claim, as I 24 understand it, but I presume that all the plaintiffs are going 25 to seek more than the limited or capped amount of damages in TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185303 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 24 of 51 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the non-prosecution agreement as to the other claims. And so why aren't they entitled to defend and limit the amount of damages that your client is seeking on the non-2255 tort claims? MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, you are correct. On non-2255 tort claims, they are permitted to do the defense, whatever is appropriate. My cases are pure 2255 on which liability under the agreement is supposed to be admitted. Now, as to the amount of damages, there are legal issues that will be before you and under the C.M.A. cases that are getting before you, as to whether it is 50 or 150. That has nothing to do with the NPA. There are legal issues that are before you as to whether it is per statute, per count or per incident or per plaintiff. Those have nothing to do with the NPA. There is no amount in NPA. Those will be resolved. Anyone who has brought a case that is outside of 2255, the defense is permitted to contest liability under the NPA. That's no violation. Under the NPA if someone brought a case under just 2255, Mr. Epstein, if he is to keep his word, cannot contest liability. And there would no need to stay this. Because it is a self-fulfilling agreement. He can contest liability. And as far as the amount of damages, anyone that wants to go over the statutory minimums, of course, he can contest that in any TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185304 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 25 of 51 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way that is proper under the Rules of Evidence and your rulings. The NPA has no limitation on his contesting damages above the minimum statutory amount. The only thing that he has done is in his actions of refusing to pay for settling defendants, and in his saying that he has no liability under 2255, those appear to be contrary to what's in the NPA. But I'm not in any position right now to claim a breach, and I don't know whether I'd be claiming a breach or enforcing it in front of you, suing him for fees, asking you to have him admit liability, or complaining to the Government. And that's why I'm not that helpful in this situation because I think it's the Government's role. But I do not waive the right to be a third-party beneficiary because pursuant to my appointment, which was agreed to by Mr. Epstein, I and my clients have certain rights, and we want to enforce them. But his defending this lawsuit will not in any way be a violation. His getting this lawsuit stayed would be a violation of the spirit of taking care of these girls, and there would be other issues. Like if there is a stay, Your Honor, would he be posting a bond? THE COURT: We don't need to talk about those issues. That's not my concern. MR. JOSEFSBERG: I agree, Your Honor, we don't. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185305 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 26 of 51 26 1 THE COURT: That's not my concern. So, again, I just 2 want to make sure that if the cases go forward and if 3 Mr. Epstein defends the case as someone ordinarily would defend 4 a case that's being prosecuted against him or her, that that in 5 and of itself is not going to cause him to be subject to 6 criminal prosecution. 7 MR. JOSEFSBERG: I agree, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Any other plaintiff's counsel want to 9 chime in? 10 MR. WILLITS: Richard Willits on behalf of C.M.A.. I 11 would join, to weigh in on what Mr. Josefsberg said. 12 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, I could not hear. 13 THE COURT: We'll get him to a microphone. 14 Mr. Willits is speaking. 15 MR. WILLITS: On behalf of my client, C.M.A., we join 16 in what Mr. Josefsberg said, and we also want to point out 17 something to the Court. 18 First, we want to make a representation to the Court, 19 we have no intention of complaining to the U.S. Attorney's 20 Office, never had that intention, don't have that intention in 21 the future, but, of course, subject to what occurs in the 22 future. 23 I want to point out to the Court that Mr. Epstein went 24 into this situation with his eyes wide open, represented by 25 counsel, knowing that civil suits had to be coming. If he TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185306 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 27 of 51 27 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 didn't know it, his lawyers knew it. He appears to be having second thoughts now about he could have negotiated this way or he could have negotiated that way with the U.S. Attorney's Office. And they want to impose their second thoughts on the innocent plaintiffs. We don't think that's fair. We think it's in the nature of invited error, if there was any error whatsoever. Thank you. THE COURT: You agree he should be able to take the ordinary steps that a defendant in a civil action can take and not be concerned about having to be prosecuted? MR. WILLITS: Of course. And we say the same thing Mr. Josefsberg said. It's all subject to your rulings and the direction of this Court as to what is proper and what is not proper. And we're prepared to abide by the rulings of this Court, and we have no intention of running to the State's Attorney. THE COURT: The U.S. Attorney? MR. WILLITS: I'm sorry. The U.S. Attorney. THE COURT: Mr. MR. : Thank you, Your Honor. If I may briefly, I think perhaps defense counsel forgot about this, but on pages 17 and 19 of my memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to dismiss, I did make reference to the non-prosecution agreement, and I did say that TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185307 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 28 of 51 28 1 the contesting of the jurisdiction of this Court was a 2 potential breach of the non-prosecution agreement. 3 So my client happens to have, and they have filed with 4 the Court a copy of her state court complaint, given the fact 5 that the non-prosecution agreement limits the non-contesting of 6 jurisdiction to claims exclusively brought under the federal 7 statute. 8 I'm going to go ahead and withdraw those contentions 9 on pages 17 and 19 of my memo of law because it doesn't apply 10 to my case. So to the extent that I raised this issue with 11 defense counsel and the Court, I'm going to withdraw that 12 aspect of it. 13 THE COURT: Can you file something in writing on that 14 point with the Court? 1511 MR. : Yes. 1611 THE COURT: What do you say about this issue that 17H we're here on today? 181 MR. : I think that the problem that I have with 191 it is that this non-prosecution agreement is being used by 20 defense counsel for the exact opposite purpose that it was 21 intended. My perception of this thing, and I wasn't around, is 22 that Mr. Epstein essentially bought his way out of a criminal 23 prosecution, which is wonderful for the victims in a way, and 24 wonderful for him, too. 25 Now he's trying to use the non-prosecution agreement TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185308 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 29 of 51 29 1 as a shield against the plaintiffs that he was supposed to make 2 restitution for. 3 And, certainly, he can take my client's depo. He's 4 done extensive discovery in the state court case -- very 5 intrusive, I might add. And we don't care, because we can win 6 this case with the prosecution agreement or without the 7 prosecution agreement. We are ready to go forward. 8 THE COURT: You're not going to assert to the United 9 States Government that what he's doing in defending the case is 10 a violation for which he should be further prosecuted? 11 MR. : Absolutely not. 12 THE COURT: Anyone else for the plaintiffs? 13 MR. HOROWITZ: Judge, Adam Horowitz, counsel for 14 plaintiffs Jane Doe 2 through 7. 15 I just wanted to address a point that I think you've 16 articulated it. I just want to make sure it's crystal clear, 17 which is that we can't paint a broad brush for all of the 18 cases. 19 The provision relating to Mr. Epstein being unable to 20 contest liability pertains only to those plaintiffs who have 21 chosen as their sole remedy the federal statute. My clients, 22 Jane Doe 2 through 7, have elected to bring additional causes 23 of action, and it's for that reason we were silent when you 24 said does anyone here find Mr. Epstein to be in breach of the 25 non-prosecution agreement. That provision, as we understand TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185309 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 30 of 51 30 1 it, it doesn't relate to our clients. 2 THE COURT: Okay. But, again, you're in agreement 3 with everyone else so far that's spoken on behalf of a 4 plaintiff that defending the case in the normal course of 5 conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? 6 MR. HOROWITZ: Subject to your rulings, of course, 7 yes. 8 THE COURT: Thank you. 9 Anyone else have anything to say from the plaintiffs? 101 Ms. if you would be so kind as to maybe 11 help us out. I appreciate the fact that you're here, and I 12 know you're not a party to these cases and under no obligation 13 to respond to my inquiries. But as I indicated, it would be 14 helpful for me to understand the Government's position. 15 MS. : Thank you, Your Honor. And we, of 16 course, are always happy to try to help the Court as much as 17 possible. But we are not a party to any of these lawsuits, and 18 in some ways we are at a disadvantage because we don't have 19 access. My access is limited to what's on Pacer. So I don't 20 really know what positions Mr. Epstein may have taken either in 21 correspondence or in discovery responses that aren't filed in 22 the case file. 23 But your first order was really just what do you think 24 about a stay, and then the second order related to this hearing 25 and asked a much more specific question, which is whether we TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185310 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 31 of 51 31 1 believe that Mr. Epstein's defense was a breach of the 2 agreement. 3 And I've tried to review as many of the pleadings as 4 possible. As you know, they're extremely voluminous. And I 5 haven't been through all of them. But we do believe that there 6 has been a breach in the filing that Mr. Josefsberg referred 7 to, and contrary to Mr. Critton, we do understand that we have 8 an obligation to provide notice, and we are providing notice to 9 Mr. Epstein today. 10 The pleading that we found to be in breach -- the 11 non-prosecution agreement, sought to do one thing, which was to 12 place the victims in the same position they would have been if 13 Mr. Epstein had been convicted of the federal offenses for 14 which he was investigated. 15 And that if he had been federally prosecuted and 16 convicted, the victims would have been entitled to restitution, 17 regardless of how long ago the crimes were committed, 18 regardless of how old they were at the time, and how old they 19 are today, or at the time of the conviction. 20 And it also would have made them eligible for damages 21 under 2255. 22 And so our idea was, our hope was that we could set up 23 a system that would allow these victims to get that restitution 24 without having to go through what civil litigation will expose 25 them to. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185311 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 32 of 51 32 1 You have a number of girls who were very hesitant 2 about even speaking to authorities about this because of the 3 trauma that they have suffered and about the embarrassment that 4 they were afraid would be brought upon themselves and upon 5 their families. 6 So we did through the non-prosecution agreement tried 7 to protect their rights while also protecting their privacy. 8 So, pursuant to the non-prosecution agreement -- on the other 9 hand, we weren't trying to hand them a jackpot or a key to a 10 bank. It was solely to sort of put them in that same position. 11 So we developed this language that said if -- that 12 provided for an attorney to represent them. Most of the 13 victims, as you know from the pleadings, come from not wealthy 14 circumstances, may not have known any attorneys who would be in 15 a position to help them. 16 So we went through the Special Master procedure that 17 resulted in the appointment of Mr. Josefsberg, and the goal was 18 that they would be able to try to negotiate with Mr. Epstein 19 for a fair amount of restitution/damages. And if Mr. Epstein 20 took the position, which apparently he has, which is that the 21 $50,000 or $150,000 floor under 2255 also would be a cap. That 22 if they were to proceed to file suit in Federal Court to get 23 fair damages under 2255, Mr. Epstein would admit liability, but 24 he, of course, could fight the damages portion, which means 25 that, of course, he would be entitled to depositions; of TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185312 Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 33 of 51 33 1 course, he would be entitled to take discovery, and we don't 2 believe that any of that violates the non-prosecution 3 agreement. 4 The issue with the pleading that he filed, the motion 5 to dismiss the case, I believe it's Jane Doe 101, represented 6 by Mr. Josefsberg, is that that is a case that was filed 7 exclusively under 18 U.S.C., Section 2255. She met that 8 requirement. Mr. Epstein is moving to dismiss it, not on the 9 basis of damages, he is saying that he cannot be held liable 10 under 2255 because he was not convicted of an offense. 11 The reason why he was not convicted of an offense is 12 because he entered into the non-prosecution agreement. So that 13 we do believe is a breach. 14 The issue really that was raised in the motion to stay 15 and that I addressed in our response to the motion to stay is 16 that Mr. Epstein's -- Mr. Epstein wants to stay the litigation 17 in order to leave, in order to sort of attack the cases of the 18 victims whether they are fully within the non-prosecution or 19 not, non-prosecution agreement or not, and leave the Government 20 without a remedy if he does, in fact, breach those terms. And 21 that is why we opposed the stay. 22 THE COURT: I'm not sure what you mean by that last 23 statement. 24 MS. : Well, because this issue related to 25 the motion to dismiss on Mr. Josefsberg's client came up after TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185313 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 34 of 51 34 1 we had filed that response. And what we said in the response 2 to the motion to stay is that the reason why he wants to stay 3 the litigation is so that the non-prosecution agreement 4 terminates based on a period of time, as he puts it. And then 5 afterwards he would be able to come in here and make all of 6 these arguments that clearly violate the non-prosecution 7 agreement but we would be without remedy. 8 THE COURT: But you're not taking the position that 9 other than possibly doing something in litigation which is a 10 violation of an express provision of the non-prosecution 11 agreement, any other discovery, motion practice, investigations 12 that someone would ordinarily do in the course of defending a 13 civil case would constitute a violation of the agreement? 14 MS. : No, Your Honor. I mean, civil 15 litigation is civil litigation, and being able to take 16 discovery is part of what civil litigation is about. And while 17 there may be, for example, if someone were to try to subpoena 18 the Government, we would obviously resist under statutory 19 reasons, all that sort of stuff. But, no, Mr. Epstein is 20 entitled to take the deposition of a plaintiff and to subpoena 21 records, etc. 22 THE COURT: And even if he seeks discovery from a 23 Government agency, you have the right to resist it under the 24 rules of procedure but that would not constitute a violation, 25 again unless there's a provision in the prosecution agreement TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185314 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 35 of 51 35 1p that says I can't do this? 2 MS. : Correct. 3p THE COURT: That's your position? 4 MS. : Yes. 5p THE COURT: Thank you. 6 MS. : Thank you, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: Mr. Critton, did you want to add anything? 8 MR. CRITTON: Yes, sir. Just a few responses to some 9 of the issues that have been raised. 10 The most glaring, at least from our perspective, is 11 both Mr. Josefsberg's comments that he believes that there's a 12 violation of the NPA as well as Ms. with regard to 13 Jane Doe 101. 14 Mr. Josefsberg, while he was the attorney rep who was 15 selected by Judge Davis to represent a number of individuals, 16 alleged victims that may have been on the list, he represents 17 many of them. And the type of response that was filed in 101 18 would probably be very similar to what we will file if he 19 files -- and he filed 102 as well. But if he files 103, 104 20 and 105, or whatever number he files, we may well take that 21 same legal position in our motions and in our response or in 22 reply. 23 And what we've been, in essence, told today is we 24 consider that to be a violation of the NPA under the 25 circumstances. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185315 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 36 of 51 36 1 102 is a perfect example that he filed is, we have 2 e-mails going back and forth between the Government and my 3 clients' attorneys at the time that suggested that 102 probably 4 doesn't even fit within the statute of limitations. 5 So under Mr. Josefsberg's argument is as well, we've 6 only brought a 2255 claim. We don't care whether she's within 7 or is outside the statute of limitations. Because she was on 8 the list and under the circumstances, he has to admit 9 liability, which we contest is under that set of circumstances 10 you're stuck with it. You can fight damages if you can, but 11 she's a real person and you can't raise statute of limitations. 12 The other point that kind of strikes out is there's 13 probably a difference. And I'm happy to provide a copy of the 14 NPA or a redacted portion of the NPA which deals with the civil 15 issues, which are paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10, and the entire 16 addenda in camera for the Court to look at, if plaintiff's 17 counsel and the Government, I guess, really, because they're 18 not a party, is if they have no objection because they all have 19 access based on a prior court order to the non-prosecution 20 agreement. 21 So I'm happy to provide that to the Court today and 22 show it to counsel so that the Court can review that. 23 But our position with regard to the 2255 claims is 24 that -- there were two types of claims that could be filed, one 25 was consensual litigation, the second was contested litigation. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185316 Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 37 of 51 37 1 And under the consensual, in essence, which Mr. Epstein did, is 2 he's offered $50,000 of the statutory minimum for that time 3 period to all of those individuals. 4 THE COURT: Can I interrupt you a second? 5 MR. CRITTON: Yes, sir. 6 THE COURT: I'm not here, and I don't believe it's my 7 role to decide whether or not there is or is not a breach of 8 the agreement. I'm just trying to understand what the 9 Government's position is regarding your defending these cases. 10 Now, I'm just saying this as an example. If, for 11 example, in the non-prosecution agreement there was a provision 12 that said explicitly: Jeffrey Epstein shall not move to 13 dismiss any claim brought under 2255 by any victim no matter 14 how long ago the allegations or the acts took place, period. 15 If that was in the agreement and you filed a motion to 16 dismiss by someone who brought a claim, it might sound like it 17 might be a violation. 18 MR. CRITTON: I agree. 19 THE COURT: So you would know that when you filed your 20 motion because it was right there for you to read. 21 And so to stay the case because I want to do something 22 that the contract expressly prohibits me from doing, so stay 23 the case until the agreement expires so then I can do something 24 that the agreement said I couldn't do so you won't be in fear 25 of prosecuting, I'm not sure that that is what I'm concerned TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185317 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 38 of 51 38 1 about. 2 I'm concerned about discovery, investigation, motion 3 practice, that's not prohibited by a provision of the 4 agreement. If there's something that's prohibited by the 5 agreement that you, knowing what the agreement says, go ahead 6 and do, anyway, I guess that's a risk you're going to have to 7 take. If there's a legitimate dispute about it, I guess some 8 arbiter is going to decide whether it's a breach or not. 9 But, again, that's something you and Mr. Burman, 10 Mr. Goldberger, and you are all very good lawyers, and he's got 11 a whole list of lawyers representing him, and you've got the 12 agreement and you're going to make legal decisions on how to 13 proceed, and you're going to have to go and make your own 14 decisions. 15 I'm concerned about things that aren't in the 16 agreement, that aren't covered, that you're going to be accused 17 of violating because, again, you take depositions, you send out 18 subpoenas, you file motions that are not prohibited by the 19 agreement. And that's what I'm concerned about. 20 MR. CRITTON: And I understand that, Your Honor. 21 But at the same time, it's as if the lawyers and the 22 clients, based upon our interpretation of the agreement, and, 23 believe me, we would not have filed 101, the motion to dismiss, 24 but for believing that there was a good faith basis to do that 25 under the circumstances. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185318 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 39 of 51 39 1 And now, in essence, we're being accused not only by 2 -- not accused, but it's been suggested that there's a breach 3 of the NPA, not only by Mr. Josefsberg on behalf of 101, but as 4 well Ms. on behalf of the United States. 5 That's the perfect example. They're basically saying 6 we think you violated. We may send you notice under the 7 circumstances. So does that mean that on 101 we have to back 8 off of it because we think in good faith that it's a motion and 9 is that something that this Court ultimately will rule? 10 THE COURT: I don't know that I'm the one who is going 11 to make that decision. Again, that's not the kind of thing 12 that I was concerned about. I was more concerned about the 13 normal, ordinary course of conducting and defending a case that 14 would not otherwise expressly be covered under the agreement, 15 that you're going to then have someone say, ah, he's sent a 16 notice of deposition, he's harassing the plaintiffs. I don't 17 know if there's a no contact provision in the agreement or no 18 harassment type of provision in the agreement. Ah, this is a 19 breach because you sent discovery, or he's issuing subpoenas to 20 third parties trying to find out about these victims' 21 backgrounds, he's breaching the agreement. 22 Those are the kind of things that I was worried about. 23 MR. CRITTON: The concern that we have is as part of 24 doing this general civil litigation, it's not just the 25 discovery process. And I understand the issues that the Court TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185319 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 40 of 51 40 1 has raised. 2 But part of it is that often cases are disposed of 3 either on a summary basis or certainly legal issues that come 4 before the Court during the course of the case, just like in a 5 criminal case. That's clearly part of the, I'd say the defense 6 of the case under the circumstances; and if, in fact, an 7 individual can't legally bring a cause of action for certain 8 reasons, such as has been suggested in 101, and may be 9 suggested in 102 when that pleading is filed, that certainly is 10 a position that puts my client at risk. 11 As another example that I use with C.M.A., that they 12 filed this 30-count complaint. Now, they have the state court 13 claims as well. But they, in essence, have said they filed 14 another pleading with the Court that says depending on what the 15 Court rules, in essence, on whether we can file multiple claims 16 or one cause of action with multiple violations, we may dump 17 the state court claims and, therefore, we'll just ride along on 18 that. That's a very different -- 19 Mr. Epstein would never have entered into, nor would 20 his attorneys have allowed him to enter into that agreement 21 under those circumstances where he had this unlimited 22 liability. That clearly was never envisioned by any of the 23 defendants -- by the defendant or any of his lawyers under the 24 circumstances. 25 And if that's claimed to be a violation, either by the TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185320 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 41 of 51 4 1 attorneys; i.e., he's not recapitulating on liability under the 2 2255, and that's all we have now. That's our exclusive remedy. 3 And the Government says, yeah, that's right, that's a 4 violation of the NPA. It again chills us from moving forward, 5 filing the necessary motion papers and taking legal positions 6 that may put my client at risk for violating the NPA and then 7 creating the irreparable harm of, after having been in jail, 8 after having pled guilty to the state court counts, after 9 registering on release as a sex offender, he's complied and 10 done everything, taken extraordinary efforts to comply with the 11 NPA, puts him at substantial risk. And that's what our worry 12 is moving forward. 13 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, may I be heard. May I 14 make three comments? It will take less than a minute. 15 THE COURT: Yes, sir. 16 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Mr. Critton refers to the alleged 17 victims. I want you to know that our position is that pursuant 18 to the NPA they're not alleged victims. They are actual, real 19 victims, admitted victims. 20 Secondly, he argues about the statute of limitations 21 on 102. I know that you don't want to hear about that, and I'm 22 not going to comment about it. But please don't take our lack 23 of argument about this as being we agree with anything. 24 Last and most important, we totally agree with 25 Mr. Critton in his suggestion that he hand you a copy of the TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185321 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 42 of 51 42 1 NPA. I think that many of the questions you asked will be 2 answered when you read the NPA, and I think it's very unfair of 3 everyone who is sitting in front of you who have the NPA to be 4 discussing with you whether it's being breached, whether there 5 should be a stay when you're not that familiar with it. 6 If we would give you a copy of it, I think it would be 7 much more helpful in making your ruling. 8 THE COURT: Maybe Judge Colvat will resolve this issue 9 for me. 10 MR. JOSEESBERG: Even if he doesn't, Your Honor, I 11 believe we are allowed to show it to you. 12 THE COURT: I'll tell you what: I'll wait for Judge 13 Colvat to rule, and then if he rules that it should remain 14 sealed, then I'll consider whether or not I want to have it 15 submitted to me in camera. 16 Anything else, Mr. Josefsberg? 17 MR. JOSEFSBERG: No. I thank you on behalf of myself 18 and the other counsel on the phone for permitting us to appear 19 by phone. 20 THE COURT: All right. Anyone else have anything they 21 want to add? 22 MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards on behalf of Jane Doe. 23 I only had one issue here, and when I read your motion 24 that you wanted to hear on the narrow issue of just defense in 25 the civil actions filed against him violates the TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185322 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 43 of 51 43 1 non-prosecution agreement, I was expecting that we were going 2 to hear something from the Government similar to the affidavit 3 that was filed by Mr. Epstein's attorneys wherein he indicates 4 as of the day of this affidavit attached to the motion to stay, 5 the U.S. Attorney's Office has taken the position that Epstein 6 has breached the non-prosecution agreement and it names 7 specifically investigation by Epstein of this plaintiff and 8 other plaintiffs, Epstein's contesting damages in this action. 9 Epstein, or his legal representatives, making statements to the 10 press. And we didn't hear any of those things. 11 So that's what I was expecting that the U.S. 12 Attorney's Office was going to expound on and say, yes, we've 13 made some communications to Epstein. He's violating. 14 What we're hearing right now, today, just so that I'm 15 clear, and I think the Court is clear now, is that the 16 non-prosecution agreement is what it is. There have been no 17 violations, but for maybe what Mr. Josefsberg brought up. 18 But there are very few restrictions on Mr. Epstein. 19 He went into this eyes wide open. And whether or not I agree 20 with the agreement, how it came to be in the first place, is 21 neither here nor there. 22 But there have been no violations or breaches up to 23 this point. And his affidavit that was filed, I'm just 24 troubled by where it even came from. I mean, it's making 25 specific allegations that the U.S. Attorney's Office is TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00185323 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 44 of 51 44 1 threatening a breach, and this is part of the motion to stay, 2 which we're all battling here. 3 So I just wanted to indicate to the Court or remind 4 the Court that there have been specific allegations made, the 5 United States Attorney's Office is making these allegations of 6 breach, which we haven't heard any of the evidence of. 7 Thank you. 8 THE COURT: All right. 9 Ms. , did you want to respond to that 10 suggestion that there were other allegations of breach besides 11 the one that you've just mentioned today? 121 MS. : No, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Thank you. I appreciate your giving me 14 the information, which I think has been very helpful today, and 15 I'll try and get an order out as soon as possible. 16 (Court adjourned at 11:10 III.). 17 CERTIFICATE 18 I hereby certify that the foregoing is an accurate 19 transcription of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 20 s/Larry Herr 21 DATE LARRY HERR, RPR-CM-RMR-FCRSC 22 Official United States Court Reporter 400 N. Miami Avenue 23 Miami, FL 33128 - 305/523-5290 (Fax) 305/523-5639 24 email: Lindsay165@aol.com 25 Quality Assurance by Proximity Linguibase Technologies EFTA00185324 EISENBERG & Fours, P.A. Attorneys At Law JAMES L. EISENBERG • Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer National Board Of Trial Advocacy Certified Criminal Trial Advocate KAI LI ALOE Fours • Ono Clearlake Centre,Suile 704,250 Australian Avenue South, WestPalmBeach, FL 33401 FAXES= September 21, 2006 Asst. U.S. Attorney 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Subpoena for'. MI Dear= Please allow me to confirm my latest e-mail to you. I did receive your e-mail of last week with attachments and passed them on to my client. At this time, I can only say that my client does not want to do ei r of your suggestions. She does not want to give a statement under the immunity letter you pro tded with its ICastigar exception and she does not want to testify and e I not 5" Amendment grounds. With this client, I am sorry, but I must have a formal grant f • f re she will say anything. ! GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT A Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-000146 EFTA00185325 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile: January 24, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 Re: Federal Grand Jury Subpoena Dear Jim: A new grand jury has been aneled and I have enclosed a new subpoena for . As I mentioned earlier, Ms. is not a target of this investigation and the United States seeks her testimony solely as, a victim/witness. During our last conversation regarding Ms. , you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us pursuant to a Kastigar letter and that she also was unwilling to speak with.the grand jury and intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned. Please confer with her to confirm whether this remains her position. If it is, please advise in writing. Even if Ms. is inclined to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, she must still appear pursuant to the subpoena so that I may ask her questions that would not require the invocation of the Fifth Amendment. If she still invokes, I intend to move to compel her answers. If you or your client is unavailable on February 6, 2007, please let me know of another Tuesday when you are available. I also am concerned about a potential conflict of interest in your representation of Ms. M . In case of future litigation regarding this issue, please provide me with information regarding who is paying (directly or indirectly) for your services on behalf of Ms. M, the scope of your representation and whether you are taking .direction on this matter from anyone other than Ms. If any formal or informal joint defense agreements exist, whether in writing or otherwise, please provide a copy of such agreements. If the agreement is purely oral, please provide a written summary of its terms. I! GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 1 EFTA00185326 JAMES EISENBERG, ESQ. • JANUARY 24, 2007 PAGE 2 I look forward to your response. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta By: Assistant United States Attorney EFTA00185327 United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TO: SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY SUBPOENA FOR: PERSON X DOCUMENTS OR OBJECT[SJ YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before theMofthe United States DiStrict Court at the place, date'and time Specified below. PLACE: United States District Courthouse 701 Clematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 ROOM: DATE AND TIME:. February 6, 2007 1:00pm* YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s): ANY AND ALL NOTES, LE HS YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM JEFFREY EPSTEIN, • PRINTED OR DIGITAL, OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ANY AND ALL 13-MAILS, INSTANT MESSAGES, CHATS, TEXT MESSAGES, VOICEMAILS; OR TELEPHONE MESSAGES THAT YOU HAVE SENT TO AND/OR RECEIVED FROM JEFFREY EPSTEIN, *Please coordinate your compliance with this subpoena and confirm the date and time , and location of our appearance with Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone: This bpoena su shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf of the court. This subpoena is issued upon application of the United States of 'Ca Name Address and Phone Ndmber of Assistant U.S. Attorney Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 So. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach FL 33401-6235 x3047 Fax: *If not applicable, enter "none" To be wed la Neu arAO110 FORM ORD-2/7 JAN.86 EFTA00185328 EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A. Attorneys At Law JAMES L. EISENBERG Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer National Board Of Trial Advocacy Certified Criminal Trial Advocate KAI LI ALOE FOUTS One Marini°, Centre, Suite 704, 250 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, 171,33401 Fax: February 1, 2007 Asst. U.S. Attorney 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Grand Jury Subpoena for Dear M, I received your letter dated January 24, 2007 with regard to . I must admit I forced myself to wait several days to respond inmtder to "cool. off' and not say anything I would regret later. 116W thatiime has passed; allow ma to respond appropriately. . • . . • d. 1. • If you want to force Ms.• M, a single mother, to come to the grand jury room to personally invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, she will be there: That does remain her position. My only request is that syr it.rovide a babysitter service for her child. I will be there, but I am not paid to babysit and Ms. should not have to someone. It is this type of attitude, that your office refuses to accept the fact that it is Ms. decision not to cooperate with the government that upsets her. Your office fails to recognize that merely coming to court is a problem for a single mother like Ms. and, under these circumstances, appears to be a waste of time at best and, in her mind, personal harassment. 2. Rest assured that there is no conflict of interest in my representation of Ms. . In this case I have always been asked and always will exercise independent judgment to follow my client's independent will. The remainder of your questions as to this matter are really none of the Government's business. 3. I will share with you that one of the reasons for our firm position that Ms. will invoke her Fifth Amendment right and choose not to voluntarily cooperate with the Government is our concern that the Government is not exercising independent judgment in this case. The hiStory of this case his been in the:newspapers., The case is being prosecuted in State court. Despite the state emit pinsecution; the Town of Palm Beach Police Chief went on what can only be • r GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 1 2 EFTA00185329 EMI , Asst. U.S. Attorney February 1, 2007 Page Two described as a public rampage in the newspaper when the case was not prosecuted to his liking that reminded me of a small child having a public temper tantrum. In my thirty years of experience, I have never seen a law enforcement officer like this publicly make what appeared to be a political case in the newspaper for a prosecution and publicly criticize anyone who got in his way, including the elected State Attorney. This resulted in a federal investigation on a topic no one remembers the Federal Government ever being interested in prosecuting before. Although I am certain that you personally have not had your decision-making process compromised, the appearance that your office is being influenced by the Town of Palm Beach Police Chief's agenda is very real. Under these drcumstance4 don't see how any lawyer;could advise• any client to voluntarily cooperate. Of special contact is that the Town of Palm Beach Police have promoted prosecuting at least one of the girls who allegedly gave massages. One final thought. My client and my fear that Ms. could be prosecuted is enhanced by the demand for the personal appearance made in your letter. Your initial Kastiger letter fell far short of granting the functional equivalent of DOJ immunity. Several months ago I was given the distinct impression through our conversations that you were going to obtain DOS immunity for Ms. Now the government is changing course for no apparent reason. This leads to speculation that the only reason for the turnabout is that prosecution in either state or federal court is being considered by someone. None of the above directed at you personally. I want to repeat that you have always treated us with respect. jvlaybe ur, office should advise the Town Police Chief to act in a similar fashion. EFTA00185330 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida A. 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Facsimile FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: JIM EISENBERG, ESQ. DATE: # OF PAGES: PHONE NO. RE: FAX NO. February 5, 2007 FROM: PHONE NO. ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY COMMENTS : 141 Jilt) — So e￾cY)44/ti_ tike bAof -50lArd- a _abet tr have_ Bar's av~S cifignir afrug ocryteLa / GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT EFTA00185331 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY HAND Ms. do James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 Re: Grand Jury Testimony of Dear Ms. 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile: February 5, 2007 This letter confirms the understanding between yourself and the United States Attorneys Office for the Southern District of Florida. You have represented that you will truthfully answer questions of the federal government in its investigation of the procurement of prostitutes, amongst others. You will supply complete and truthful information to the attorneys and law enforcement officers of the federal government and to any Federal Grand Jury which may conduct an investigation, as well as in any other proceeding related to or growing out of this investigation. The obligation of truthful disclosure includes your obligation to provide the attorneys and law enforcement officers of the federal government with any documents, records or other tangible evidence within your custody or control relating to the matters about which you are questioned. You will neither attempt to protect any person or entity through false information or omission, nor falsely implicate any person or enfity. No statements provided by you on this date in this matter pursuant to this agreement will be offered into evidence in any criminal case against you, except during a prosecution for perjury and/or diving a false statement. Hoirever, if it is determined that you have materially violated any provision of this agreement, all statements made by you shall be admissible in evidence against you in any proceeding. The federal government remains free to use information derived from the grand jury testimony directly or indirectly for the purpose of obtaining leads to other evidence, which may be used against you. You expressly waive any right to claim that such evidence should not be introduced because it was obtained as a result of the grand jury testimony. Furthermore, the federal government may use statements made in the grand jury testimony and all evidence derived directly or indirectly therefrom for the purpose of cross-examination, if you testify at any trial or if you EFTA00185332 MS. FEBRUARY 5, 2007 PAGE 2 suborn testimony that contradicts your prior statements and testimony. No additional promises, agreements and conditions have been entered into other than those set forth in this letter and none will be entered into unless in writing and signed by all parties. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney BY Assistant United States Attorney I have read this agreement and discussed it with my attorney, and I hereby acknowledge that it fully sets forth my agreement with the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. I state that there have been no additional promises, agreements or representations made to me by any officials of the United States in connection with this matter. Dated: February 2007 West Palm Beach, Florida Witnessed by: James L. Ms,. Attorney for EFTA00185333 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile: February 5, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 Re: n Dear Mr. Eisenberg: I am writing to clarify the ground rules for the interview with your client ("your client"), to occur February , 2007. As I mentioned earlier, Ms. is not a target or subject of this investigation, but instead is being interviewed solely as a victim/witness. However, to address your concern about criminal exposure, if your client complies with every provision of this agreement, then the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("this Office") will treat all statements made by your client during the interview as statements made pursuant to Rule 11(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is not a grant of immunity, which can be given only with approval of the Justice Department, but protects your client from having the statements made by her during the interview from being used against her directly. To guard against any misunderstandings concerning the interview of your client, this letter sets forth the terms of this agreement. Your client agrees to be fully interviewed, that is, to provide information concerning your client's laniviledge of, and participation in criminal activity, including but not limited to the procurement of prostitutes. The protection of this letter applies to an interview that will be conducted by this Office, Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and any other federal law enforcement agency this Office may require. Under this agreement, no information disclosed by your client during the interview will be offered in evidence against her in any criminal or civil proceeding, provided that your client complies with this agreement and that the information your client furnishes is truthful, complete, and accurate. If, however, your client gives materially false, incomplete, or misleading information, EFTA00185334 JAMES L. EisENBERo, ESQ. RE: FEBRUARY 2, 2007 PAGE 2 then this Office may use such information in any matter or proceeding and your client is subject to prosecution for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to government agencies. Any such prosecution may be based upon information provided by your client during the course of the interview, and such information, including your client's statements, will be admissible against your client in any grand jury or other proceeding. The government also may use statements made by your client in the interview and all evidence derived directly or indirectly therefrom for the purpose of impeachment or cross-examination if she testifies at any trial or hearing, and/or in any rebuttal case against your client in a criminal trial in which she is a defendant or a witness. These provisions are necessary to ensure that your client does not make or offer any false representation or statement in any proceeding or to a government agency or commit perjury during any testimony. Your client further agrees that attorneys for the United States may be present at the interview, and agrees not to seek disqualification of any such government attorney from any proceeding or trial because of their participation at the interview. The entire agreement between the United States and your client is set forth in this letter. No additional promises, agreements, or conditions have been entered into and none will be entered into unless in writing and signed by all parties. If the foregoing accurately reflects the understanding and agreement between this Office and your client, it is requested that you and your client execute this letter as provided below. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney I have received this letter from my attorney, James L. Eisenberg, Esquire, have read it and discussed it with my attorney, and I hereby acknowledge that it fully sets forth my understanding and agreement with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern EFTA00185335 JAMES L. EISENBERG, ESQ. EB: FEBRUARY 2, 2007 PAGE 3 District of Florida. I state that there have been no additional promises or representations made to me by any official of the United States Government or by my attorney in connection with this matter. Dated: Witnessed by: James L. Eisenberg, Esquire EFTA00185336 U.S. Department of Justice Authorization for Reimbursement of Unusual Expenses of Fact. Witnesses Request for Unusual Expense(s) of Fact Witness (For United States Attorney's Office Use Only) Control # 1. Case Name tiDia 2. Court Docket Number 3 i A -4. L Wesi￾ation of Court Floc ding PoIni 5. Contact Person 6. Contact Person Number 7. Witness Name & Address, Phone #, SSN 8. Vendor Name & Address, Phone #, TIN/SSN 9. Pa ment to be made to: 10. Receipt/Invoice Is: 11. Type of Unusual Expense: Medically Necessary Item (Attached Supporting Statement) laDependent Care Excess Lodging/Per Diem Travel & Transportation Pretrial Conference Waiver Other 12. Explanation: VAL (A)190,44 h t4 a n 0.014 hitt "II) OYU. (AA CC CA:tia Go/AA,t.e. ski. tecithicoLetel￾tfta k i l fhe 40Mtd- • 13. Start Date of Service (MO/DANR) ZIG /0 7 14. End Date of Service (MO/DANR) 2-/‘ A) 7 15. Amount 16. Justification: 17. I hereby certify that the expenses and services listed on this document are appropriate and are within the Federal laws and regulations. I fully understand that I can be held personally liable or be subject to disciplinary action for improperly using government funds or services that exceed delegated authority or that violate Federal laws or regulations. Signature of Requesting AUSA Date 18. Name & Title of Approving Official 19. Date (MO/DA/YR) 20. Signature of Approving Official GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT EFTA00185337 EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A. Attorneys At Law JAMES L. EISENBERG Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer National Board Of Trial Advocacy Certified Criminal Trial Advocate KM LI ALOE POUTS One Cleariake Centre,Suite 704,250 Australian Avenue Soutb,WestPalm Beach,FL33401 February 12, 2007 Asst. U.S. Attorney 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Grand Jury Subpoena for Dear MO AsakvayS, it was;a pleasure speaking to you the other day. Pursuant to. our telephone conference I am writing this letter to.proffer my:concerns for should she testify without immunity before a federal grandjurt.:Tberefore, allowme to reiterate at Ms.:Ivallerwill refuse to voluntarily cooperate with the federal government She has a good faith basis for her position under the Fifth Amendment to the United States. Constitution. We, of course, do not live or work in a vacuum. We have read many inflammatory remarks the Town of Palm Beach Police Chief has made to the media about the state court's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. The police chiefs remarks frighten both myself and my client. I am aware that the town police have prepared documents to charge at least one of Mr. Epstein's lady friends in state court. If they can push to have one lady charged I remain unconvinced that they do not have the ability or political clout to push to have other ladies such as Ms. charged. The proffered facts that raise my concerns are being provided via this proffer letter. Pursuant to our telephone conference agreement, this letter and its contents cannot be used against Mr. Ms. is not at all certain of dates. She does remember meeting Mr. Epstein about three years ago. She is not certain of her age, it could have been when she was sixteen. A girlfriend asked her if she wanted a job giving massages. Ms. agreed because she had knowledge of massages through her mother, who was a masseuse. Ms went tolvtrEpstein?s house via taxi. Ms. girlfiiendinstnieted Ms: that, if asked,. she had to tell Mr.Epstein that she - was eighteen. years old. The.II. was nineteen years old and looked old forher age, so passing for eighteen was not a problem. At [ ! GOVERNMENT I EXHIBIT i 5 EFTA00185338 the home Ms. net Mr. Epstein and later gave him a massage. The friend had told Ms. to give the message topless. Mr. Epstein told that if she were at all uncomfortable. topless, not to do it and it was not a requirement o employment as a masseuse. Ms. ever touched Mr. Epstein in a sexual way and Mr. Epstein never touched Ms. t all. one point, Mr. Epstein did ask Ms. =her age. Ms. =insisted that she was et teen years old. Ms. =continuqd to see Mr. Epstein over time and massages were given in a similar fashion. She was later asked if her friends wanted to work in a similar way and she asked some girls who did give Mr. Epstein massages. Ms. was never asked to bring girls of any age to Mr. Epstein's home. When she did have her friends ome over, she instructed all of them that if asked, they insist that they were eighteen years old. She is not certain at all of any of these girls' real ages. In summary, our concern is that if the government believes that Mr. Epstein committed some federal offense, Meals. =could he considered a co-conspirator. We believe no crime was committed. The Fifth Amendment was not intended to protect the guilty, however. It was enacted to protect citiwms who fear prosecution notwithstanding their innocence. Our fear of any prosecution, especially ' f the Town police chiefs public remarks, is clearly in good faith. EFTA00185339 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA n> 0 0 ....-.1 • :!. Iv, Z., on-: :1•• Ci NORTHERN (WEST PALM BEACH) DIVISION O ; ; - 0 7.0.0 -..: I FGJ 07-103(WPB) r- • • CI I • -O I IN RE: GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS SEALED ORDER On Application of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court: 1. That has been called to testify and to provide other information before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, including a Grand Jury impanelled therein; and 2. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney, has refused to testify and provide other information on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination; and 3. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney, the testimony and other information from may be necessary to the public interest; and 4. That the aforesaid Application has been made with the approval of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice or a duly designated Acting Assistant Attorney General, pursuant to the authority vested in him by Title 18, United States Code, Section 6003, and Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 0.175 and 0.132(e). NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 6002, that give testimony and provide other information which she refuses to give or to GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT EFTA00185340 provide on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination, as to all matters about which she may be interrogated before said United States District Court, including a Grand Jury impaneled therein, as well as any subsequent proceeding or trial. However, no testimony or other information compelled under this Order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the this Order shall be SEALED in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(6), except that a copy of this Order shall be provided to counsel for the United States, who may disclose the existence of the Order to members of the Grand Jury, to the witness, to counsel for the witness, and to law enforcement officers engaged in the investigation pending before the Grand Jury. Those persons may review the Order, but may not retain a copy of the Order, nor may they disclose the existence of the Order to any others. cc: DONE and ORDERED this AUSA day of April, 2007 t Palm Beach, Florida. 2 DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE EFTA00185341 United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TO: SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY FGJ 07-103(WPB)-Tues./No. OLY-13/2 SUBPOENA FOR: PERSON et DOCUMENTS OR OBJECTS] YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Grand Jury of the United States District Court at the place, date'and time Specified below. 'PLACE: United States District Courthouse 701 Clematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 ROOM: Grand Jury Room • DATE AND TIME:, February 6, 2007 1:00pm" YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s): ANY AND ALL NOTES, L RS CARDS GIFTS PAYMENTS AND PHO RAPHS YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM JEFFREY EPSTEIN, PRINTED OR DIOITAL, OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN, • • ANYD/a ntRTHER ANY AND ALL E-MA1LS, INSTANT MESSAGES, CHATS, TEXT MESSAGES, VOICEMAILS .EP MESSAGES THAT YOU HAVE SENT TO t hiliffa RECEIVED FROM JEFFRECY EPSTEIN, AND/OR • *Please coordinate your compliance with this sub oena and confirm the date and time , and location of our a earance with Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone: This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf of the court. This subpoena is issued upon application of the United States of America •If not applicable, enter"none. To Fc us< Name Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. Attorney Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 So. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401-6235 • Tel: Fax: lieu of AO! 30 FORM ORD-227 IAN.86 EFTA00185342 Respondent's Exhibit A Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARFtA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. DECLARATION E. declares as follows: I. I am a Special Agent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and have been so employed since 1997. I am currently assigned to the West Palm Beach office of the FBI Miami Field Division. 2. In 2006, I was assigned as the case agent in an investigation into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had engaged in unlawful sexual contact with girls under the age of 18. The case was called Operation Leap Year. FBI Special Agent and I conducted most of the investigation, and worked with the U.S. Attorney's Office, on Operation Leap Year. 3. Over the course of the investigation, the FBI obtained hundreds of documents through the use of grand jury subpoenas, public records, and law enforcement databases. FBI agents conducted interviews with females believed to have been sexually abused by Mr. Epstein and underage at the time of the assault, as well as other individuals who might have relevant information. The interviews are memorialized and prepared by the interviewing FBI agent. The interview reports of the young women interviewed contain highly personal and intimate details, EFTA00185343 Respondent's Exhibit A Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA which would cause embarrassment to the young women if disclosed to third parties. For those interviewed who did not reveal any intimate details, many will be displeased if their cooperation with the FBI is made public. In my experience, individuals are reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement for fear of being singled out, harassixl, embarrassed, or subjected to retaliation if their cooperation is disclosed to third parties. 4. The case file on Operation Leap Year also contains FBI agents' analysis of information obtained during the course of the investigation. These written analyses of the evidence reveal potential theories of criminal liability based on the evidence uncovered in the case. Information contained within FBI investigative files can also reveal sensitive FBI investigative and operational methods, procedures and techniques. While it is publically known that the FBI conducts investigations into the type of criminal wrongdoing committed by Jeffrey Epstein, disclosing the precise details of the sensitive methods, procedures and techniques employed during an investigation might compromise their future effective use. It is critical that the FBI's investigative tools remain confidential to both retain an element of surprise and to prevent countermeasures to such tools from being employed by targets and suspects. 5. During the course of Operation Leap Ycar, I interviewed and heard the personal account of sexual abuse committed by Mr. Epstein on the young women. They suffered emotionally, and some were referred by the FBI to mental health professionals because of the psychologically harmed caused by Mr. Epstein. In at least one instance, mental health professionals were involved to help prevent one young woman from physically harming herself. 6. The disclosure of personal information, contained in the FBI investigative file, to third parties would not merely cause further embarrassment but could result in additional psychological trauma, disruption of family relationships, disruption of professional careers and 2 EFTA00185344 Respondent's Exhibit A Case No. 08-80736-CN-IAARRA possible public release of personal information. 7. Operation Leap Year remains an open case. 8. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED on September 3, 2013. pedal gent Federal Bureau of Investigation West Palm Beach, Florida 3 EFTA00185345 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beach Suite 500 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm FL 33401 Phon Fax: January 10, 2008 James Eisenberg One Cleariake Center Ste 704 Australian South West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: laaa Dear James Eisenberg: You have requested to receive notifications fo This case is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused: (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, Involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after • receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would bo materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay: (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or Indictment of an individual for the crime, and It will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to those rights. The Victim Notification System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct Information regarding the case as it proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current Information about this matter on the Internet at WWW.Notlfy.USDOJ.GOV or from the VNS Call Center at 1.866-DOJ-4YOU (1.866-365- 4968) (TDDf FTY: 1-866-228-4618) (International: 1-502.213-2767). In addition, you may use the Call Center or Internet to update your contact information and/or change your dectslon about participation in the notification program. If yuu update your information to Include a current email address. VNS will send information to that address. You will need tho following Victim Identification Number (VIN) '1941741' end Personal Identification Number (PIN) '7760' anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you boy on to VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is Eisenberg. ACJI6C GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT CASE NO. 03410736-Cil•MARK, EXHIBIT NO. 4 EFTA00185346 If you have additional questions which involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When you call, please provide the file number located at the top of this letter. Please remember, your participation in the notification part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications, it is your responsibility to keep your contact Information current. Sincerely. Victim Specialist EFTA00185347 May 30.2008 Re: U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beach Suite 500 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm B 33401 Pho • Fax: • GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT CASE NO. 1/111073642V-MARIV EXHIBIT NO. s Deer 5 Your name was referred to the FBI's Victim Assistance Program as being a possible victim of a federal crime. We appreciate your assistance and cooperation while we are Investigating this case. We would like to make you aware of the victim services that may be available to you and to answer any questions you may have regarding the criminal justice process throughout the investigation. Our program is part of the FBI's effort to ensure the victims are treated with respect and are provided information about their tights under federal law. These rights include notification of the status of the case. The enclosed brochures provide information about the FBI's Victim Assistance Program, resources and instructions for accessing the Victim Notification System (VNS). VNS is designed to provide you with information regarding the status of your case. This case Is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused: (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, alter receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; (8) The right to be treated wkh fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorneys Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. The Victim Notification System (VNS) Is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the case as it proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current information about this matter on the Internet at WWW.Notify.USDOJ.GOV or from the VNS Call Center at 1-866-DOJ-4YOU (1-866-365- 4968) (TDD/TTY: 1-866-228-4619) (International: 1-502-213-2767). In addition, you may use the Call Center or Internet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the notification program. if you update your Information to include a current email address, VNS will send Information to that address. You will need the following Victim Identification Number (VIN) '2074381' end Personal Identification Number (PIN) '1816' anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on to VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is lip EFTA00185348 It you have additional questions which Involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When you call, please provide the file number located at the top of this letter. Please remember, your participation in the notification part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications, it is your responsibility to keep your contact information current. Sincerely, Victim Specialist TOTAL P.07 EFTA00185349 U.S. Department of Justice United Slates Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australtan Ave Suite 400 Irest Palm Bench. FL 33401 Facsimile: June 7, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights Dear Miss Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, you have a number of rights. Those rights are: (I) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. (3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court dctern»nes that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other portions of a proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. It Members of tie U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these ri s are protected. If you have an concerns in this regard, please feel ate to contact me at or Special Agent from-the Federal Bureau of Investigation at You al • the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C. at That Office has a website www.ovc.gov. You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights listed above and, if you believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for relief. EFTA00185350 PAGE? JUNE?, In addition to these rights, you are entitled to counseling and medical services, and protection from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you are a victim, you also may be entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service providers can be provided to you, if you so desire. If you or your family is subjected to any intimidation or harassment, please contact Special Agent or myself immediately. It is possible that someone working on behalf of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such contact does not violatlattbe la w However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to that person or refusing Ledo to: If you refuse and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, then please ' 'contact Special Agent'or myself. You also are entitled to notification of upcoming case events. At this time, your case is under investigation! If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be notified. Sincerely, By: cc: Special Agent F.B.I. R. Alexander Acosta s United States Attorney Assistant United Slates Attorney If EFTA00185351 Ns, U.S. Department of Justice United Stales Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm °each, FL 33401 Facsirnek: August I f, 2006 DELIVERY BY HAND Miss Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights Dea Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, you have a number of rights. Those lights are: (I) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. (3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court determines that your testimony may be materially altered i f you are present for other portions of a proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided-in law. (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. • f Members of the U.S. Departrfient of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these ar protected. If you have an concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at or Special Agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at You also can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C. at 202-307-5983. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights, listed above and, if you believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for relief. EFTA00185352 MISS lean AUGUST l 1, 2006 PAGE 2 In addition to these rights, you are entitled to counseling and medical services, and I., . from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you are a victim, you ..1. . entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service p be provided to you, if you so desire. If amity is subjected to any int' harassment, please contact Special Agent or myself immediately. It is p• someone working on behalf of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such c, not violate the law. However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to ii, . or refusing to do so. If you refuse and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, di, • Contact Special Agent or myself. You also are entitled to notification o fupcoming case events. At this time, your investigation. If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be not Sincerely, By: cc: Special Agent F.B.I. R. Alexander Acosta Assistant Uni a es orney EFTA00185353 L)...2. 7...•• V.J I U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beach Suite 500 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax Fax: January 10, 2008 Re: Case Numbed Dear This case is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process end we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. As a alms victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, Involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence. determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered If the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The tight to be reasonably heard at any ()Wilk OrtiCeeding In the district court Involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The reasonable right to confer with me attorney for the Government In the case; (6) The right to full end timely restitution as provided In law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; (8) The right to be treated with fairness end with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an Individual for the crime. and it wil become the responsibility of the prosecuting Untied States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect lo these rights. The Victim Notification System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the case as it proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain cunent Information about this matter on the Internet el WWN.Notify.USDOJ.GOV or from the VNS Call Center at 11366-00J-4YOU (1-866-365- 4968) (T0WT7Y: 1.866.228.4619) (International; 1.502-213-2767). In addition, you may use the Call Center or Internet to update your contact information andfor change your decision about participation in the notification program. If you update your Information to include a Current email address, VNS will send information to that address. You will need the bellowing Victim Identification Number WIN) '1941737' end' Personal iden08cation Number (PIN) '5502' anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on to VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first time you access Itte VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter your last name (or business name) es currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter Is a EFTA00185354 w. IJJIJ VJJs r. uwur If you have additional questions which Involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When you call, please provide the rde number located at the top of this letter. Please remember, your participation in the notification part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications, it is your responsibility to keep your contact information current. Sincerely, victim specialist EFTA00185355 JUL D.A.' O,JI c N./ U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beach Suite 500 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone Fax: January 10, 2008 James Eisenberg One Clear:lake Center Ste 704 Australian South West Palm Beach, Ft. 33401 Re:SP Dear James Eisenberg: You have requested to receive notifications for This case Is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience wNlo we conduct a thorough investigation. As a aims victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate. and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceedIng, Involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding. unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay: (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these nghts pertain to events occurring after the arrest or Indictment of an individual for the crime, and It will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. The Victim Notlicatl0n System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the case as it proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current Information about this matter on the Internet at WWW.Nottfy.USDOJ.GOV or from the VNS Call Center at 1-886-DOJ-4YOU (1-866-365- 4968) (TDD/TTY: 1.866.228.4619) (International: 1.502.213-2767). In addition, you may use the CaN Center or Internet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participabon in the notdicatton program. If you update your Information to Include a current email address. VNS will send information to that address. You will need the folowing Victim Identification Number (VIN) '1941741' end Personal Identification Number (PIN) '7760' anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on to VNS cm the Internet. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter your lest name (or business name) as Currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is Eisenberg. EFTA00185356 DOL 000 ODDl r.tssiier If you have additional questions which Involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When you call, please provide the file number located M the top of this letter. Please remember, your participabon in the nOttficatIon part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications, it is your responsibility to keep your contact Information current. Sincerely. Victim Specialist EFTA00185357 • U.S. Department of Justice United Slates Attorney Southern District of Florida 300 South Australian Ave 400 west Palm Beach. FL 3340! June 7, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND Mis Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights Dear Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, you have a number of rights. Those rights arc: (I) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The tight to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. (3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other portions of a proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. it Members of tie U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these rights are protected. If you have any concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at or Special Agent frowthe Federal Bureau of Investigation at You also• can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C. at 202.307-5983. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights listed above and, it you believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for relief. EFTA00185358 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 9 of 21 MISS COOS sAllib JUNE 7. 2007 P'iGE 2 In addition to these rights, you are entitled to counseling and medical services, and protection from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you arc a victim, you also may be entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service providers can be provided to you, if you so desire. If you or your family is subjected to any intimidation or harassment, please contact Special Agent iumpaielbr myself immediately. It is possible that someone working on behalf of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such contact does not violailitise lam- However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to that person or refusing led° So. If you refine and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, then please . . contact Special Agent or myself. You also are entitled to notification of upcoming case events. At this time, your case is under investigation! If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be notified. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United Stales Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: Special Agent F.B.I. ff EFTA00185359 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 U.S. Department of Justice United Stales Attorney Southern Distract of Florida SOO South eltatahan Arc., Suite 400 West Palm Ocach FL 33401 acsimtle: August I I, 2006 DELIVERY BY HAND Mis Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' RighA Dear Miss I fifirS t r ite￾GOVERNIRENT EXHIBIT s-s0736-CV•filASRA tiXHIMT 7 NO. Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, you have a number of rights. Those rights are: (I) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. (3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court determ nes that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other portions of a proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. rr Members of the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these rights are protected. If you have any concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at, or Special Agent i from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at You also can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime In Washington, D.C. at 202-307.5983. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights, listed above and, if you believe that the rights.set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for relief. EFTA00185360 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 11 of 21 Miss Atkiusrll,2006 Picot. 2 In addition to these rights, you are entitled to counseling and medical services, and in from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you arc a victim, you entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service pi o. be provided to you, if you so desire. If ou or our family is subjected to any intl.] • harassment, please contact Special Agent or myself immediately. It is someone working on behalf of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such cur' not violate the law. However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to th . or refusing to do so. Ifyou refuse and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, olu• Contact Special Agent or myself. You also areentitled to notification of upcoming caseevents. At this time, you: t. • investigation. I r anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will he ii' Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: Special Agent F.B.I. if EFTA00185361 Case 9:Q13:cv:80736-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07.135/29.08JJPage 12,O1.21 Nee January 10, 2008 Re: Case Number Dear Niro U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beach Suite 500 505 South Hagler Drive West Paim Beach. FL 33401 Phone Fax: (1 This case is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough Investigation. As a alma victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3r r1: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, trivolving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, tailless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence. determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered it the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court Involving release, plea, sentencing, of any parole proceeding; (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government In the case; (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided In law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. We wRI make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an Individual for the crime. and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney mei respect to these rights. The Victim Notification System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the case as it proceeds through the criminal Justice system. You may obtain current Information about tins matter on the Internet al WVVW.Nottly.USDOJ.GOV or horn the VNS Call Center at 1-866-DOJ-4YOU (1 -866-365- 4968) (TDD/TTY: 1-866-228-4819) (International: 1-502-213.2767). In addition, you may use the Can Center or Internet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the notification program. If you update your Information to include a current email address. VNS will send information to that address. You wl6 need the following Victim Identification Number WIN) '1941737' and' Personal Identification Number (PIN) '5502 anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on to VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Internet site, you will be promolgito enter your last name (or business name) es currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter Ise leaf --'ilOVERNUENT CASE Na 03-Eo;11-CV-MARRA Exrilarr NO. 3 EFTA00185362 Case 9:08-tv-813736-KAM acicument 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07tTS/21108"Pagel ntni1 \way' If you have additional questions which Involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When you call, please provide the file number located at the top of this letter. Please remember. your participation in the notification part of this program it voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications. it is your responsibility to keep your contact information current. Sincerely, Man Specialist EFTA00185363 Case 9.013.cv:807.36-KAM .Document 14 Entered on F LSD Docket 07/46/240892-Page 14111'21 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beach Suite 500 505 South Flagler Drive West 3401 Phon Fax: January 10.2008 James Eisenberg One Cleedake Center Ste 704 Australian South West Palm Beach, Ft. 33401 Re: anallia l Dear James Etsenborg: You have requested to receive nOtificationt tor Thin case is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. Asa crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from theaccused; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely mince of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, Involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The Right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after reosivktg clear and convinOng evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court Involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided In law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay: (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the vicUm's dignity and privacy. We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or Indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. The Victim Noitficati0n System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct Information regarding the case as It proceeds Uvough the criminal justice system. You may obtain current information about this matter on the Internet at WWW.Nottfy.USDOIGOV or from the VNS Call Center at 1.886-DOJ-4YOU (1-866-365- 4968) (TDD/TTY: 1.866-228.4619) (international: 1.502213.2767). In addition, you may use the Cell Center or Internet to update your contact information end/or change your decision about participation in the notrfication program. If you update your Information to include a current email address. VNS will send information to that address. You will need the following Victim Identification Number (VIN) '1941741' and Personal Identification Number (PIN) '7760' anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on to VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is Eisenberg. EFTA00185364 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/46/2O68,,Page t151ald21 If you have additional quistdionS which Involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When you cell, please provide the file number located et the top of this letter. Please remember, your participation in the notification part of this progrern is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications. 11 is your responsibility to keep your contact InfOrnybon current. Sincerely, Victim Specialist EFTA00185365 Case 9:08-cv:80736-KAM May 30. 2008 Re: Oct Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 0714572 %of U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beach Suite 500 505 South 'Molar Drive West P 33401 Pho • Fax: Your name was referred to the FBI's Victim Assistance Program as being a possible victim of a federal crime. We appreciate your assistance and cooperation while we are Investigating this case. We would like to make you aware of the victim services that may be available to you and to answer any questions you may have regarding the criminal justice process throughout the investigation. Our program is part of the FBI's effort to ensure the victims are treated with respect and are provided information about their rights under federal law. These rights Include notification of the status of the case. The enclosed brochures provide information about the FBI's Victim Assistance Program, resources and instructions for accessing the Victim Notification System (VNS). VMS is designed to provide you with information regarding the status of your case. This case Is currently under Investigation. This can bee lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate. and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court Involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government In the case; (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided to law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. We will make our best efforts to ensure you ere accorded the rights described, Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an indlvklual for the crime, and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are aCtOrded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. The Victim Notification System (VNS) Is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the case as it proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current information about this matter on the Internet at WWW.Notify.USD0J.GOV or from the VNS Cell Center at 1.866-DOJ-4YOU (1-866-365- 4968) (TDD)TTY: 1466-228-4619) (international: 1-502-213.2767). In addition, you may use the Call Center or Internet to update your contact information andfor change your decision about participation in the notification program. if you update your Information to include a current email address, VNS will send information to that address. You will need the following Victim Identification Number (VIN) '2074381' and Personal Identification Number (PIN) '1816' anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log or. to VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first the you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prom nter your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VMS. The name you should enter is EFTA00185366 C-ave-9:O8-cv-80736-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/46/290&,-PagelPeoP21 sa---- II you have additional questions which Involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When you cell, please provide the file number located at the lop of this letter. Please remember, your participation in the notincation part of this program Is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications, It is your responsibility to keep your contact information current. Sincerely, chm peva '51 TOTAL P.07 EFTA00185367 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Pa .e 18 of 21 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida ! GOVERNMENT EXFNBIT 0-80736-O/MARRA EXHIBIT NO. 6 500 South Australian Ave.. Suite 400 Ws, Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile: July 9, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE Brad Edwards, Esq. The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020. Re: Jeffrey Epstein 1 NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM Dear Mr. Edwards: By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your client, On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstein) entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida Statutes Sections 796.07 (felony solicitation of prostitution) and 796.03 (procurement of minors to engage in prostitution), in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case Nos. 2006-cf-009454AXXXMJ3 and 2008-cf￾00938 I AXXXMB) and was sentenced to a term of twelve months' imprisonment to be followed by an additional six months' imprisonment, followed by twelve months of Community Control I, with conditions of community confinement imposed by the Court. In light of the entry of the guilty plea and sentence, the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence, subject to certain conditions. One such condition to which Epstein has agreed is the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein EFTA00185368 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 19 of 21 BRAD EDWARDS, ESQ. NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM ea vaiP JULY 9, 2008 PAGE 2 or 2 had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Through this letter, this Office hereby provides Notice that your client,' is an individual whom the United Slates was prepared to name as a victim of an enumerated offense. et Should your client decide to file a claim against Jeffrey Epstein, his attorney, Jack Goldberger, asks that you contact him at Atterbury Goldberger and Weiss, 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Please understand that neither the U.S. Attorney's Office nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation can take part in or otherwise assist in civil litigation; however, ie you do file a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and Mr. Epstein denies that your client is a victim of an enumerated offense, please provide notice of that denial to the undersigned. Please thank your client for all of her assistance during the course of this examination and express the heartfelt regards of myself and Special Agents' for the health and well-being of Ms. By: cc: Jack Goldberger, Esq. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY • EFTA00185369 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 20 of 21 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida AOMO GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT CASE Naos-71073 -(V-MARRA EXHIBIT Na 7 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach FL 33401 Facsimile: July 9, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE Brad Edwards, Esq. The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020. Re: Jeffrey Epstein1 IDENTIFIED VICTIM Dear Mr. Edwards: NOTIFICATION OF By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your clientl On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstein) entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida Statutes Sections 796.07 (felony solicitation of prostitution) and 796.03 (procurement of minors to engage in prostitution), in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case Nos. 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB and 2008-cf￾00938 I AXXXMB) and was sentenced to a term of twelve months' imprisonment to be followed by an additional six months' imprisonment, followed by twelve months of Community Control I, with conditions of community confinement imposed by the Court. In light of the entry of the guilty plea and sentence, the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence, subject to certain conditions. One such condition to which Epstein has agreed is the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein EFTA00185370 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 21 of 21 •••• •••• iiatv BRAD EDWARDS, ESQ. NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM SEMINIS Jun, 9, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Through this letter, this Office hereby provides Notice that your client, s an individual whom the United States was prepared to name as a victim of an enumerated offense. Should your client decide to file a claim against Jeffrey Epstein, his attorney, Jack Goldberger, asks that you contact him at Atterbury Goldberger and Weiss, 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Please understand that neither the U.S. Attorney's Office nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation can take part in or otherwise assist in civil litigation; however, if you do file a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and Mr. Epstein denies that your client is a victim of an enumerated offense, please provide notice of that denial to the undersigned. Please thank your client for all of her assistance during the course of this examination and express the heartfelt regards of m self and Special Agents for the health and well-being of Ms. It. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: cc: Jack Goldberger, Esq. ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY EFTA00185371 Exhibit Number f?e)7<uort)t ti 3 Lok —IS GOVERNMENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT EXHIBITS Jane Doe 1 and 2 v. United States Item E-mail from Jim Eisenberg to October 24, 2006 N O approval of 18 U.S.C. § 6001 Immunity for TM i NsNAbril i31 24, 2007 TM Interview Transcript cember 21, 2007 letter from Lefkowitz to Acosta N gust 11, 2006 victim letter to TM gust 11, 2006 victim letter to CW Epstein appeal letters to CEOS • May 15, 2008 letter from Oosterbaan to Leflcowtiz • June 23, 2008 letter from John Roth to Lefkowitz \limuary 2008 FBI victim letters ' November 28, 2007 letter, Ken Starr to Alice Fisher Nlilecember 11, 2007 letter, Lefkowitz to Acosta Attorney General Guidelines (2005), Victim and Witness Assistance November 27, 2007 email, Sloman to Lefkowitz • December 26, 2007 letter, Lefkowitz to Acosta Complaint, E.W. v. Epstein (CW) Complaint, L.M. I. Epstein (TM) S/A Kuyrkendall Declaration of 0 I oi I a EFTA00185372 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. SECOND DECLARATION OF E. 1, E. declare as follows: 1. I am a Special Agent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and have been so employed since 1997. I am currently assigned to the West Palm Beach office of the FBI Miami Field Division. 2. In 2006, I was assigned as the case agent on the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, which was referred to as Operation Leap Year. 3. As part of that investigation, I attempted to interview Jane Doe #2 at her residence. Jane Doe #2 was walking to her vehicle, and she refused to speak with me. 4. I returned to my vehicle to get a grand jury subpoena for Jane Doe #2 and handed it to her. Jane Doe #2 threw the grand jury subpoena onto the ground. I then verbally instructed her that it was a court order and she was expected to appear at the grand jury at the location, date, and time that appeared on the subpoena. Jane Doe #2 got into the vehicle and drove away without speaking to me. EFTA00185373 5. Jane Doe #2 later obtained counsel and appeared for a videotaped interview on April 24, 2007. During the videotaped interview, Jane Doe #2 expressed her opinion that Jeffrey Epstein should not be prosecuted. She said, "I hope Jeffrey, nothing happens to Jeffrey because he's an awesome man and it would really be a shame. It's a shame that he has to go through this because he's an awesome guy and he didn't do nothing wrong, nothing." 6. Other than these events, neither I nor any other FBI agent had any contact with Jane Doe #2 during the course of the investigation. Jane Doe #2 never contacted me or my co-case agents asking for information about the investigation or asking to confer with anyone from the government about the resolution of the matter. 7. On August 7, 2007, my co-case agent and I interviewed Jane Doe #1 as part of the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. At no time during that interview did Jane Doe #1 ask to confer with anyone from the government about any potential criminal charging decisions or about any potential resolution of the matter. An FBI report was prepared. Between the time of the interview and the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement in September 2007, Jane Doe #1 never contacted me or my co-case agent asking for information about the investigation or asking to confer with anyone from the government about any potential criminal charging decisions or about the resolution of the matter. 8. In October 2007, my co-case agent and I met with Jane Doe #1 at a Publix grocery store in Palm Beach Gardens. We were meeting with Jane Doe #1 to advise her of the main terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Among other information I provided, I told Jane Doe #1 that an agreement had been reached, Mr. Epstein was going to plead guilty to two state charges, and there would not be a federal prosecution. 2 EFTA00185374 9. After my co-case agent and I met with Jane Doe #1 and two other victims, I became concerned about what would happen if Jeffrey Epstein failed to perform his obligations under the Non-Prosecution Agreement. If Mr. Epstein breached or failed to perform those obligations, then the government would need to be ready to proceed with a prosecution. I was concerned that if the victims were informed of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, which included an option for victims to seek monetary damages in a civil matter, then Epstein's counsel would use the notifications to impeach me and the victims if a prosecution were to proceed in the future. Accordingly, after conferring with the U.S. Attorney's Office, a decision was made that no further notifications would be made at that time. 10. After the Non-Prosecution Agreement was signed, in the last quarter of 2007 and continuing through 2008, the investigative team felt that there was a possibility that Epstein would breach or fail to perform the terms of the Agreement. Accordingly, the investigation continued in case the prosecution of Epstein would later proceed. The continuing investigation included additional witness interviews, service of grand jury subpoenas, and testimony before the grand jurY. 11. On January 31, 2008, as part of the continuing investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, I participated in an interview of Jane Doe #1 with from the U.S. Attorney's Office and from the Justice Department. Jane Doe #1 was re-interviewed in case Epstein breached or failed to perform under the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 12. Throughout the investigation, we interviewed many victims that fell within the scope of Mr. Epstein's criminal activity. A majority of the victims expressed concern about the possible disclosure of their identities to the public. A number of the victims raised concerns about having to testify and/or their parents finding out about their involvement with Mr. Epstein. 3 EFTA00185375 Additionally, for some victims, learning of the Epstein investigation and possible exposure of their identities caused them emotional distress. Overall, many of the victims were troubled about the existence of the investigation. They displayed feelings of embarrassment and humiliation and were reluctant to talk to investigators. Some victims who were identified through the investigation refused even to speak to us. Our concerns about the victims' well-being and getting to the truth were always at the forefront of our handling of the investigation. 13. During interviews conducted from 2006 to 2008, no victims expressed a strong opinion that Epstein be prosecuted. As noted above, Jane Doe #2 expressed her opinion that nothing should happen to Epstein. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED on May , 2017. E. Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation West Palm Beach, Florida 4 EFTA00185376 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 6 JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES CASE NO: 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson EXHIBIT B EFTA00185377 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 6 FO.302 (Rev. 10-64$) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 08/14/2007 interviewed in West Palm Beach, Florida, re ing a e era investigation involving the sexual exploitation of minors. After being advised of the identity of.the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview,arovided the following information: In 2003 or 2004 -was introduced to JEFFREY EPSTEIN for the purpose of providing him with personal massages. W was approached at a party by a female she believed was named C ISE. She described the female as havin ro hair and taller. The female was later identified as . ellap told Wealland WS's friend,-, that they could make money by providing massages to EPSTEIN. told WS that she could provide the massages with her clothes on or off. me, who was fifteen years old, believed that she was close to turning sixteen when she first met EPSTEIN. However, during es first contact with EPSTEIN, she told him that she had just turned eighteen. Beach by taxi. and WP traveled to EPSTEIN's residence in Palm wiimi ti regnant at the time. Once at the residence, Sair took W pstairs. EPSTEIN entered the room wearin only a ro e. Once EPSTEIN had removed the robe, both and WOOMOprovided EPSTEIN with a massage. Both and wellhad removed their clothing and remained only in their underwear. EPSTEIN asked UMMEMOI to leave. Once alone with Willa EPSTEIN began to masturbate. WOMMrwas uncomfortable. After EPSTEIN climaxed the massage was over. win believed that IMIIMINIIS had mentioned EPSTEIN might masturbate during the massage but she was st,ill very surprised when he masturbated. EPSTEIN paid NMI $200.00. EPSTEIN did not touch'eduring that massage. NNW departed EPSTEIN's residence with two men that worked for EPSTEIN. They drove WIMMito a Shell Gas Station located near Okeechobee Boulevard and the Florida Turnpike. Prior to departing the residence, Wile provided her telephone number to one of EPSTEIN's assistants, IMMINIMMO (PHONETIC). WANNIdescribed her as a very pretty Hispanic female in her early twenties, with lon b own hair and approximately 5'5" to 5'6" tall. wiftstated that another o PSTEIN's assistants, or EPSTEIN would usually contact her. would telephone and ask if she was available or if she had any other Investigation on 08/07/2007 at West Palm Beach, Florida Filed 31E-MM-108062 SA E by SA Date dictated 08/07/2007 This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. h it the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. EFTA00185378 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 6 FD-302e (Rev. 10-6-95) 31E-MM-108062 CmMustiondFD-M2d WOMEN ,on 08/07/2007 .Page 2 , 4 girls she could bring: When EPSTEIN telephoned, he usually asked for wffillbto come over. According to WS EPSTEIN's house telephone number began with the digs 655. She would call sometimes and leave a message. W stated that when they telephoned her they would inform her of when they would be coming back to town and if she might have anyone new. W-did not believe that EPSTEIN ever really liked her. WOMMitraveled to the EPSTEIN's residence during 2003 and 2004 over twenty five times. Willetelieved that she provided EPSTEIN with approximately 10-15 massages. EPSTEIN initially started out touching WOMB breasts but gradually the massages became more sexual. EPSTEIN would instruct VIMIon how and what to do during the massages. He would request Seto rub his chest and nipples. WIMMOstated that on approximately two occasions, EPSTEIN asked that Wfl remove her underwear and provide the massage nude. Taistated that EPSTEIN would make her feel that she had the option to do what she wanted. During one massage, WOW stated that she had been.givipg EPSTEIN a massage for approximately 30-40 minutes when instead of EPSTEIN turning over to masturbate, EPSTEIN brought another female into the massage area. VIIMPdescribed the female as a beautiful blonde girl, a "Cameron Diaz" type, 19 years of age, bright blue eyes, and speaking with an accent. EPSTEIN had W mow straddle the female on the massage table. EPSTEIN wanted WS to touch the females breast. According to WOW EPSTEIN "pleasured" the female while welliwas straddled on top of the female. WM:stated she could hear what she believed to be a vibrator: W said for EPSTEIN it was all about pleasuring the female. After the female climaxed, EPSTEIN patted Neon the shoulder and she removed herself from the table. The female got up from the table and went into the spa/sauna. EPSTEIN commented to Willipthat in a few minutes the female would realize what had just happened to her. Willftreceived $200.00. wIleadvised the interviewing agents that EPSTEIN had used a back massager on her vagina. EPSTEIN asked her first if he could use the massager on her. WOMMOstated that she had held her breath when EPSTEIN used the back massager on her. WSstated that at no time during any of the massages had EPSTEIN caused her to climax. During another massage, WINMpbelieved by this time she was seventeen, EPSTEIN placed his hand on vagina, touching EFTA00185379 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 6 , • FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95) 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of 9O-302 of .O1) 08/07/2007 .Page 3 clitoiis. Wilftwas uncomfortable and told him to stop. EPSTEIN complied. WIMMIstated that the incident freaked her out. NIIMPstated that EPSTEIN was upset because she was upset. WOMMO never return to the residence. Welestated that she did not deal with EPSTEIN anymore after that incident. EPSTEIN gave both WOMMIand MUMMINEleach a book entitled "Massage for Dummies". They rece' ed the books on the same visit. EPSTEIN also commented how strong hands were when it came to her providing his massages. On another occasion, weementioned to EPSTEIN that she was looking at a car, a Toyota Corolla. EPSTEIN provided qpiewith $600.00 - $700.00. 'L stated that EPSTEIN gave her the money after the incident with the other female. According to wiIII EPSTEIN would ask her to bring him other girls. visid, who started dancing at strip clubs when she was 16 brought girls from the club as well as from other sources. stated she brought girls from fifteen years of age to twenty￾five years of age. Illiostated that EPSTEIN would get frustrated with.her if she did not have new females for him. On one instance, EPSTEIN hung up on her because she could not provide him with anyone new. NMIMostated that EPSTEIN's preference was short, little, white girls. Ibullostated that EPSTEIN was upset when one of the other girls brought a black girl. Wiestated that EPSTEIN did not want black girls or girls with tatoos. illestated that one of the girls she stayed with on occasion, OINIMMINS also started providing EPSTEIN with massages. A telephone number for awes ( W_ said that her family resides in , Florida, possibly WOOMPalso stayed with during this same time period. However, never went to EPSTEIN's house or provided him with massages. has a Yacht Club address. Another girl that Wilehad taken to EPSTEIN's residence was LMOMMipLast Name Unknown(LNU). According to r EPSTEIN liked IMMOMMOLNU a lot. ilesaid that she was never a favorite of EPSTEIN. EPSTEIN offered wiglo$300.00 to briarLNU. LNU was a couple years younger than ale W believed that she was either 16 or 17 when she first went to EPSTEIN's residence. WOMMOsaid that Lela LNU went 2-3 times but that she did not want any part of it after that. wiebelieves she could identify T. LNU if she saw her photograph. WOW also stated that LaillitLNU at EFTA00185380 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 5 of 6 FD-302a (Boo. 10-6-95) 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of a a ,On 08/07/2007 .Psse 4 one time attended HIGH SCHOOL. WOMMOalso believed that they had met through a group of friends while attending - a dropout prevention school. Willementioned another girl by the name of Ce EPSTEIN distinguished the two HINIMINNOW by referring to as fla ISOM worked at an ice cream shop. WIMMOstated that she did not like IMMO, and that UMMEMOW was a storyteller and a bad liar. WOMMOstated that I- never really wanted to go to EPSTEIN's residence but she went anyway. HOOMWsaid that she had not taken a good look at EPSTEIN's penis. WOMPexplained that it seemed like he would always try and hide his penis. memstated that EPSTEIN never asked her for sex. WOMMOstarted dancing when she was sixteen at INOMMMOMMOMI The owner, 1 let her dance. W inahas also worked at f/MISS located in Boynton Beach, Florida. Sib used illegal drugs during the years she provided EPSTEIN with massages. willesaid that EPSTFfIN tried to provide her with advice regarding controlled substances. WOMMIstated that she met with EPSTEIN's attorneys, =PM e and a unidentified female(UF), E HOUSE RESTAURANT. Walpmet with them after she contacted who cord' at they were really working for EPSTEIN. WOMOkstated that also balked of her twin boys and stated that she was living in Manhattan. WOMMPfound out that —and the OF are employed by — They asked a lot of questions. They specifically asked about Linn and a Gila LNU. HOMOOreiterated her dislike for wealso informed the interviewing agents that she had spoken to Moshe believed before the fourth of July. M told wiethat she had met with investigators and that they had videoed her. numbers: WOOMpconfirmed her association to the following telephone Old cellular number - (III) Possibly an old cellular nuMr(ll) telephone number - (...)0,111.111mm EFTA00185381 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 6 , FD-302a (Roc 10-6-95) 318-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of a • .On 08/07/2007 .hp 5 t EFTA00185382 • Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 3 JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES CASE NO: 08-80736-Civ-MarraJohnson EXHIBIT H EFTA00185383 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 3 4 FD-302 (Rev. 106.95) -1- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transmiptioo 02/0812008 On Thursday, January 31, 2008, calidiftemet with Assistant United States Attorney UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (USAO) and Attorney K. RADEN, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE(DOJ), CRIMINAL DIVISION. Also present at the meeting were Special Agents E. and FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTI . e was trar il.rrursuant to a federal investigation regarding the sexual exploitation of minors. During the course of the meeting, WOW' provided the following additional or clarifying information not previously documented in earlier FD-302s: JEFFREY EPSTEIN and his assistants, SARAH and -(identified as and would contact ma to set up intments appo for EPS EIN's massages. According to was would call and say that EPSTEIN was on a flight and inquire about scheduling work for PS Life was not going well for WM/during the time she was providing EPSTEIN with massages. Willawas buying and taking drugs, i.e. Xanax, Lorcets, and Percosets. WURS said that she stayed on pills. WOOexplained that she wanted to feel numb. WOO stopped attending school at age fifteen. Her parents were addicted to crack and cocaine. Prior to her parent's drug use, me was in the band, a cheerleader, and a straight "A" student. We played the trumpet for the school band. When her parent's drug habits got bad, things went downhill, they lost everything. WOOD became a dancer the day before her sixteenth birthday atf - l She worked there for six months, up"until the employer found out she was underage. Later, I worked for which she did for 6 months. 14111 stopped seeing EPSTEIN during that time. NeOstated that she brought up to twenty, twenty-five, or thirty different girls. WSOMIsaid all of the irls but maybe ten of them were underage. Some of the females I brought for EPSTEIN were dancers. WINNisaid that EPSTEIN did not care for all of the girls she brought to him. WENOlexplained that EPSTEIN did not care for some of the dancers, the older females, and the females with tattoos. Investigation on 01/31/2008 at West Palm Beach, Florida RIelf 31E-MM-108062 Date dictated 01/31/2008 This document contains neither recommendations now conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency. it and its contents arc not to be distributed outside your agency. EFTA00185384 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 3 FD-302a (Rev. 10.6-95) 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of 01/31/2008 .Page 2 . said that during the massages EPSTEIN would push further and further regarding the sexual activity. According to el EPSTEIN never asked, "is this okay," he would just see how far one would let him go. Walrecalled seeing sculptures of naked women and lots of pictures of kids in the library. WillIstated that everybody thought Epstein was a neurologist. WIllIalso stated that twin boys. IJn a EFTA00185385 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document ■ Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto. The documents referenced in the Privilege Log are being delivered today to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex parse in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: slA. Villa aft Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: EFTA00185386 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document ■ Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 19, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. Assistant United States Attorney SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2'. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., Fanner Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 425 N Andrews Ave Ste 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268 brad@pathtojustice.com 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-6833 E-mail: casselp®law.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 2 EFTA00185387 Care 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document .1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 1 of 23 PRIVILEGE LOG Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #1 P-000001 thru P-000039 File folder entitled "CORR RE GJ SUBPOENAS" containing correspondence related to various d jury subpoenas and attorney handwritten notes 6(e) Work Product Box #1 P-000040 thru P-000549 Operation Leap Year Grand Jury Log containing subpoenas OLY-01 through OLY-81, correspondence and research related to enforcement of same, documents produced in response to some subpoenas; and attorney handwritten notes 6(e) Work Product Contains documents subject to investigative privilege Also contains documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-000550 thru P-000621 File folder entitled "Ritz Compact Flash SW" containing copies of a sealed search warrant application, warrant, and supporting documents 6(e) Contains information subject to investigative privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-000622 thru P-000693 File folder entitled "PNY Technologies Compact Flash SW" containing copies of a sealed search warrant application, warrant, and supporting documents 6(e) Contains information subject to investigative privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-000694 thru P-000781 File folder entitled "JE Corporations" containing attorney research on Epstein-owned corporations and prior litigation Work Product Contains information subject to investigative privilege Box #1 P-000782 thru P-000803 File folder entitled "Capital One" containing subpoena and correspondence 6(e) Box #1 P-000804 thru P-000854 File folder entitled "DTG Operations/Dollar Rent-a-Car" containing subpoena and responsive documents 6(e) Contains documents and information subject to investigative privilege Also contains documents and information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Page 1 of 23 EFTA00185388 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 2 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #1 P-000855 thru P-000937 File folder entitled "JP Morgan Chase" containing subpoena, correspondence, and responsive documents 6(e) Contains documents and information subject to investigative privilege Box #1 P-000938 thru P-000947 File folder entitled "Washington Mutual" containing subpoena, correspondence, and responsive documents 6(e) Contains documents and information subject to investigative privilege Box #1 P-000948 thru P-000982 File folder entitled "Computer Search &" containing legal research on computer search and handwritten notes on indictment preparation Work Product Attorney-Client Contains information subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-000983 thru P-001007 File folder entitled "Attorney Notes from Document Review" containing typed and handwritten attorney notes, target letters, correspondence re grand jury subpoena Work product 6(e) Contains information subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-001008 thru P-001056 File folder entitled "Notes from Fed Ex Records" an handwritten and typed attorney notes and screen shots of FedEx subpoena response electronic Ede Work Product 6(e) Contains information subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-001057 thru P-001959 File folder entitled "Colonial Bank Records" containing records received in response to grand jury subpoena 6(e) Contains information subject to investigative privilege Box #1 P-001960 Thru P-002089 File folder entitled "OLY Grand Jury Log Vol 2: OLY-51 THROUGH" containing subpoenas numbered OLY-51 through OLY-81 with related correspondence 6(e) Contains information subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Page 2 of 23 EFTA00185389 Care 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 3 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #1 P-002090 Thru P-002169 File folder entitled "Epstein Corporate Records: OLY-51, OLY-52, OLY-53, OLY-54" containing subpoenas, records received in response to subpoenas, and related correspondence 6(e) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege Box #1 P-002170 Thru P-002246 File folder entitled "Colonial Bank" containing subpoenas, correspondence related to subpoenas, records received in response to subpoenas 6(e) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege Box #1 P-002247 Thru P-002265 File folder entitled "JEGE & Hyperion from Goldberger OLY-46 & OLY-47" containing documents received in response to subpoenas 6(e) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege Box #1 P-002266 Thru P-002386 Indictment preparation binder containing: Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity summary chart witness/victim names and contact list, attorney handwritten notes, 302s, a s of state investigative file, attorney typed notes, of individuals listed as "Additional victims" Work product 6(e) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-002387 Thru P-002769 Indictment preparation binder containing: Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity summary chart witness/victim names and contact list, attorney _ handwritten notes, 302s, onions of state investigative file, attorney typed notes, relevant pieces of grand jury materials, telephone records/flight records analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, DAVID records, NCICs, and related materials for persons identified as Jane Does #15, 16, 17, 18, 19, Past Employees, Misc. Witnesses Work product 6(e) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-002770 Thru P-003211 Indictment preparation binder containing: witness/victim list with identifying information, sexual activity sut telephone i call summary chart, attorney handwritten notes, lia tions of state investigative file, attorney ( typed notes, relevant pieces of grand jury materials, telephone records/flight records analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, DAVID records, NCICs, and related materials for persons identified as Jane Does #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Work product 6(e) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Page 3 of 23 EFTA00185390 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 4 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #1 P-003212 Thru P-003545 Indictment preparation binder containing meta￾analysis charts of telephone/flight/grand jury information for a number of victim/witnesses, Work product 6(e) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation and Box #1 P-003546 Thru P-003552 FBI Reports of March 2008 interviews of additional witness/victim located in New York Work product 6(e) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-003553 Thru P-003555B Printout of filenames from Federal Express subpoena response with Attorney notations Work product 6(e) Box #1 P-003556 Thru P-003562 Document entitled "Identified Numbers" with accompanying handwritten attorney list compiled from grand jury materials and attorney analysis of records Work product 6(e) Contains information subject to investigative privilege Box #1 P-003563 Thru P-003629 Folder entitled "Flight Manifests" containing manifests received pursuant to grand jury subpoena 6(e) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege Box #1 P-003630 Thru P-003633 File folder entitled "Recent Attont.lotes" containing handwritten attorney notes regarding document review and case strategy Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Deliberative process Box #1 P-003634 Thru P-003646 File folder bearing victim name containing FBI interview report from May 2008. tele . hone activity report with attorney handwritten notes, related grand jury material Work product Attorney-client privilege 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Page 4 of 23 EFTA00185391 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 5 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #1 P-003647 Thru P-003651 File folder entitled "Summary of Sexual Activity" containing chart bearing handwritten title "Sexual Activity — Summary" with meta-analysis of information, sorted by name of each victim/witness, including name and identifying information of each victim/witness Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Deliberative process Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-003652 Thru P-003663 File folder entitled "Victim Civil Suits" Not privileged. Produced to counsel for Petitioners Box #1 P-003664 Thru P-003678 File folder entitled "Research re JE Websites" containing attorney research Work product Box #1 P-003679 Thru P-003680 File folder entitled (N.Y. AUSA)" containing attorney 1 I handwritten notes Work product Box #1 P-003681 Thru P-003687 File folder entitled "Dr. Anna Salter" containing attorney ( ) memo to expert witness and handwritten attorney notes Work product Investigative privilege Box #1 P-003688 Thru P-003693 File folder entitled "I[] G[] Interview" containing attorney handwritten notes of interview, and attorney handwritten notes regarding potential charges Work product Investigative privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-003694 Thru P-003711 File folder entitled "Research re Travel for Prostitution" containing attorney ( ) handwritten notes regarding grand jury presentation, chart entitled "Brought to Epstein's House" with handwritten notes, Message Pad meta-analysis chart, summary of evidence related to one victim/witness, and relevant grand jury information Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box I/ I P-003712 Empty file folder bearing name of victim/witness Investigative privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victim who is not a party to this litigation Page 5 of 23 EFTA00185392 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document al Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 6 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #1 P-003713 Thru P-003746 File folder entitled "Tfl Mfl" containing grand jury subpoenas, motion and order to compel testimony, and correspondence regarding same 6(e) Documents under seal pursuant to court order Box #1 P-003747 Thm P-003751 File folder entitled ' ' containing 6(e) subpoena and correspondence regarding same Box #1 P-003752 Thru P-004295 File folder entitled "PBPD Investigative File" obtained via subpoena 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-004296 Thru P-004350 File folder bearing name of victim/witness containing meta-analysis chart showing telephone calls, travel, and grand jury materials relevant to possible charges Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not arties to this liti ation Box #1 P-004351 Thru P-004381 File folder entitled ' Documents Work product 53909-004" containing attorney research related to bias issue Box #1 P-004382 Thru P-004478 File Folder entitled "FEDEX" containing documents obtained via subpoena 6(e) Investigative privilege Box #1 P-004479 Thru P-004551 File Folder entitled "State of Delaware Records" containing documents obtained in preparation for indictment 6(e) Investigative privilege Work product Box #1 P-004552 Thru P-004555 File folder entitled "Jet Blue Records" containing documents obtained via subpoena 6(e) Work product Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-004556 Thru P-004560 File folder entitled "FL EMPLOYMENT RECORDS" containing FDLE records on targets and witnesses obtained at attorney request Investigative privilege Work product Page 6 of 23 EFTA00185393 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document N1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 7 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #1 P-004561 Thru P-004565 Filed folder entitled "JANUSZ BANASIAK" containing attorney (MI handwritten notes of interview Work product Investigative privilege Box #1 P-004566 Thru P-004716 File folder entitled "JANUSZ BANASIAK RECORDS 23-0001 THROUGH 23-" containing documents obtained via subpoena 6(e) Work product Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-004717 Thru P-004722 File folder entitled "IGOR ZINOVIEV" containing attorney research regarding witness Work product Investigative privilege Box #1 P-004723 Thru P-004725 File folder entitled "BEAR STEARNS RESEARCH" containing attorney research regarding potential witness and subpoena recipient Work Product Investigative privilege Box #1 P-004726 Thru P-004819 File folder entitled "LAWSUITS INVOLVING EPSTEIN CORP'S" containing attorney research regarding Epstein's past personal and business litigative practices Work Product Investigative privilege Box #1 P-004820 Thru P-004959 Filed folder entitled "SEC RECORDS" containing attorney research regarding Epstein financial relationships Work Product Investigative privilege Box #1 P-004960 Thru P-005059 File folder entitled "Message Pads" containing selected items from evidence obtained via subpoena Work Product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-005060 Thru P-005081 File folder bearing name of victim/witness containing correspondence with counsel for victim/witness, attorney witness outline with attorney handwritten notes, attorney handwritten notes regarding witness reports and case preparation Work Product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-005082 Thru P-005083 File folder entitled "New York Trip" containing attorney notes re witness interview Work product Investigative privilege Page 7 of 23 EFTA00185394 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document .1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 8 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-005084 thru P-005107 are non responsive documents and have been removed Box #1 P-005108 Thru P-005193 File folder entitled "ANNA SALTER" containing attorney research on select expert, use of experts at trials in child exploitation cases, and additional research materials on offenders and victims Work product Investigative privilege Box #1 P-005194 Thru P-005300 File folder entitled "Extra Copies" containing meta-analysis chart and 302's of victim/witnesses used in preparing indictment package Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-005301 Thru P-005331 File folder entitled "JUAN ALESSI STATEMENT" containing transcript obtained via subpoena 6(e) Investigative privilege Box #1 P-005332 Thru P-005341 File folder entitled "KEN LANN1NG" containing attorney research on select expert, including attorney handwritten notes Work product Investigative privilege Box #1 P-005342 Thru P-005387 File folder entitled "Info re Planes" containing correspondence regarding subpoenas and documents received in response to subpoenas 6(e) Investigative privilege Box #1 P-005388 Thru P-005442 File folder entitled "Police Reports & PC Affidavit" containing portions of police reports with attorney notes, related phone records, a list entitled "Victims" with identifying information and attorney handwritten notes, photographs and DAVID information, and additional attorney research regarding Epstein sexual activity Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-005443 Thru P-005496 File folder entitled "[Victim name] Transcript of Interview & GJ Transcript" 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-005497 Thru P-005556 File folder entitled "Bear Steams Subpoena Resp." containing material received in response to subpoena 6(e) Investigative privilege Page 8 of 23 EFTA00185395 , Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 9 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #1 P-005557 Thru P-005576 U.S. Attorney's Office Criminal Case File Jacket containing file opening documents, expert witness payment documents Work product Deliberative process Box #1 P-005578 Thru P-005583 U.S. Attorney's Office Asset Forfeiture Case File Jacket containing file opening and file closing documents Work product Deliberative process Box #1 P-005584 Thru P-005606 File folder entitled "6001 Immunity Request" containing internal memoranda seeking witness immunity and correspondence with counsel for witness regarding same 6(e) Work product and deliberative process (as to internal memoranda) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #2 P-005607 Thru P-005914 File folder entitled "MASTER PHONE RECORDS" containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data for all victim/witnesses for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #2 P-005915 Thru P-005977 File folder bearing name of victim/witness containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #2 P-005978 Thru P-006050 File folder bearing name of victim/witness containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #2 P-006051 Thru P-006065 File folder bearing name of victim/witness containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Page 9 of 23 EFTA00185396 Case 9 08-cv-80736-KAM Document mi Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 10 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #2 P-006066 Thm P-006220 File folder entitled "JANE DOE #4" containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #2 P-006221 Thru P-006222 File folder entitled ""JANE DOE #12" containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #2 P-006223 Thru P-006522 File folder entitled "CORRECTED PHONE RECORDS 5/31/07" containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to all victims/witnesses for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #2 P-006523 Thru P-006802 File folder entitled "[Victim Name] Phone Records" containing telephone records received in response to subpoena Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #2 P-006803 Thru P-006860 File folder entitled "Lists of Identified Phone Numbers" containing charts of information culled from grand jury materials, interviews, and other investigation, with attorney handwritten notes, and information to issue follow-up grand jury subpoena Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #2 P-006861 Thru P-007785 File folder entitled "EPSTEIN CELL Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation PHONE RECORDS" containing documents received via subpoena with attorney handwritten notes and highlighting Page 10 of 23 EFTA00185397 . Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document .1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 11 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #2 P-007786 Thru P-008120 Folder entitled "OLY GRAND JURY LOG: OLY-01 THROUGH OLY-50" containing subpoenas, correspondence regarding same, 6(e) letters, attorney handwritten notes regarding records received in response to subpoenas Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #2 P-008121 Thru P-008139 Handwritten flight logs received in response to subpoena 6(e) Investigative privilege Box #2 P-008140 Thru P-008298 Grand jury presentation folder containing attorney handwritten notes, typed outline with additional handwritten notes, complete indictment package dated 2/19/2008, victim list with identifying information, photographs, and summary of activity Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #2 P-008299 Thru P-008363 File folder entitled "FINAL AGREEMENTS" containing subfolder entitled "Agrmts Filed in State Court" (P-008300-P-008327 [not being withheld as privileged — have been produced to opposing counsel]); signed Non-Prosecution Agreement, Addendum, and operative portion of 12/19/2007 Sanchez-Acosta letter (P-008328-P￾008343 [not being withheld as privileged — have been produced to opposing counsel]); subfolder entitled "12/19/07 Acosta-Sanchez Ltr" containing unredacted copies of that letter (P￾008344-P-008363 [pursuant to Court's Order, not being withheld as privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 1 1 th Circuit Box #2 P-008364 Thru P-008382 File folder entitled' Immunity Request" l i containing internal memoranda, Justice Department documentation, and subpoena regarding immunity request 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative privilege Box #2 P-008383 Thru P-008516 File folder containing March 18, 2008 grand jury presentation materials, including "Operation Leap Year Revised Indictment Summary Chart (by victim)," grand jury materials, draft indictments, victim reference list, grand jury subpoena log Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Deliberative process Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Page 11 of 23 EFTA00185398 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 12 of 23 Bates Range Description Privikge(s) Asserted Box #2 P-008517 Thru P-008535 6/25/2007 Letter from Gerald Lefcourt to Jeffrey Sloman and [pursuant to Court's Order, not being withheld as privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11'h Circuit] Box #2 P-008536 Thru P-008542 Handwritten attorney notes to prepare for interview of Jane Doe #2 Work product Investigative Privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Box #2 P-008543 Thru P-008549 Handwritten attorney notes regarding May 8, 2007 grand jury presentation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Box #2 P-008550 Thru P-008615 File folder entitled "Most Recent Indictment & Good Cases" containing draft indictment and legal research Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Deliberative process Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Box #2 P-008616 Thru P-008686 File folder entitled "FBI Summary Charts" containing chart prepared at direction of AUSA, containing victim names, identifying information, summary of activity, and other information relevant to indictment Work product Attorney-Client Privilege 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Box #2 P-008687 Thru P-008776 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #4" containing phone records and meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Box #2 P-008777 Thru P-008808 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #5" containing handwritten notes and meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Page 12 of 23 EFTA00185399 . Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document IMI-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 13 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #2 P-008809 Thru P-008847 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #6" containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Box #2 P-008848 Thru P-008862 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #7" containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Box #2 P-008863 Thru P-008890 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #8" containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Box #2 P-008891 Thru P-009103 File folder entitled "Certified Copy of State Case" containing certified copy of Epstein state criminal cases and change of plea transcript [not being withheld as privileged — copy provided to opposing counsel] Box #2 P-009104 Thru P-009111 File folder entitled "Meeting Timeline" containing typed notes summarizing meetings with opposing counsel prepared at request of R. Alexander Acosta, with handwritten correction and typed guideline estimate Work product Deliberative process Box #2 P-009112 Thru P-009113 11/26/2008 Email from Ro Black to A. and re Jeffrey Epstein (work release) [pursuant to Court's Order, not being withheld as privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel u n lift of stab 11`h Circuit Box #2 P-009114 Thru P-009115 7/3/2008 Email from to Col. M. Gauger at PBSO re Epstein work release with attachment [not being withheld as privileged — produced to opposing counsel] Box #2 P-009116 Thru P-009125 12/6/2007 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman to Jay P. Lefkowitz re Jeffrey Epstein (victim notification) [pursuant to Court's Order, not being withheld as privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11" Circuit]) Page 13 of 23 EFTA00185400 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 14 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #2 P-009126 Thru P-009134 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #9" containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Box #2 P-009135 Thru P-009141 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #13" containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Box #2 P-009141A Thru P-009141 C File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #12" containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not arties to this suit Box #2 P-009142 Thru P-009152 File folder entitled ' ' Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not ies to this suit containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that individual for indictment preparation Box #2 P-009153 Thru P-009156 File folder entitled' ' Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that individual for indictment preparation Box #2 P-009157 Thru P-009208 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #1" containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Box #2 P-009209 Thru P-009213 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #2" containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Page 14 of 23 EFTA00185401 Case 9 08-cv-80736-KAM Document IM-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 15 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #2 P-009214 Thru P-009271 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #3" containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Box #2 P-009272 Thru P-009354 File folder entitled "Purpose of Travel Cases" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work product Box #2 P-009355 Thru P-009403 File folder entitled "Interstate Commerce Cases" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work product Box #2 P-009404 Thru P-009536 File folder entitled "Attorney Conflict Research" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work product Box #2 P-009537 Thru P-009574 File folder entitled "Mann Act/Travel to Have Sex w/Minor" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work product Box #2 P-009575 Thru P-009603 File folder entitled "Travel Act" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #2 P-009604 Thru P-009711 File folder entitled "Florida Prostitution/Lewdness Statutes" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #2 P-009712 Thru P-009819 Booklet entitled "Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance" [not being withheld as privileged — produced to opposing counsel] Box #2 P-009820 Thru P-009965 File folder entitled "Corporate Liability Rsrch" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #2 P-009966 Thru P-010096 File folder entitled "Research re Knowledge of Age Unnecessary" containing attorney research and handwritten notes and copy of grand jury subpoena Work Product 6(e) Pagc 15 of 23 EFTA00185402 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document •1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 16 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #2 P-010097 Thru P-010276 File folder entitled "Money Laundering" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #2 P-010277 Thru P-010394 File folder entitled "1960 & Aiding/Abetting" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #2 P-010395 Thru P410488 File folder entitled "18 USC § 2255 Cages" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #2 P410489 Thru P-010509 File folder entitled "Research re Overt Acts & Witness Testimony" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #2 P-010510 Thru P-010525 File folder entitled "Extradition" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #2 P-010526 Thru P-010641 File folder entitled "Rsrch re Crime Victims Rights" containing attorney research, handwritten notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz (Also contains a November 28, 2007 letter from Kenneth Starr to Alice S. Fisher; and a November 29, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz to R. Alexander Acosta (P-010528 thru P-010530 and P-010556 thru P-010559). Pursuant to the Court's Order, these will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11th Circuit) Work Product Deliberative Process Box #2 P-010642 Thru P41650 File folder entitled "Immunity" containing attorney research on granting immunity to witnesses Work Product Box #2 P-010651 Thru P-010659 File folder entitled "Research re G.J. Transcript" containing attorney research and draft pleadings re compelling production of grand jury transcript with subpoena Work Product 6(e) Deliberative process Box #2 P-010660 Thru P-010757 File folder entitled "Research re GJ Transcript" containing grand jury subpoena, 6(e) letters, attorney research and correspondence related to subpoena Work Product 6(e) Page 16 of 23 EFTA00185403 . Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 17 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #2 P-010758 Thru P-010793 File folder entitled "Original Proposed Ind." containing draft indictment Work Product 6(e) Deliberative process Box #2 P-010794 Thru P-010829 File folder entitled "Epstein" containing sample indictments and attorney research re potential charges with attorney notes Work Product Box #2 P-010830 Thru P-010853 File folder entitled "1591 & Money Laundering" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #2 P-010854 Thru P-010876 File folder entitled "18 USC 2425" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #2 P-010877 Thru P-010920 File folder entitled "Knowledge of Age" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #2 P-010921 Thru P-011049 File folder entitled "2423(b) Constitutionality and Purpose of Travel" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #2 P-011050 Thru P-011212 File folder entitled "Mistake not a Defense" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #2 P-011213 Thru P-011237 File folder entitled "Research re `Pandering' containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #2 P-011238 Thru P-011319 File folder entitled "Research re Grand Jury Instructions" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product 6(e) Box #2 P-011320 Thru P-011361 File folder entitled "Telephone = Facility of Commerce" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Vs ork Product Box #2 P-011362 Thru P-011374 File folder entitled "Def of Prostitution" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Page 17 of 23 EFTA00185404 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 18 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(%) Asserted Box #2 P-011375 Thru P-011456 File folder entitled "Relevant Florida Statutes" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #2 P-011457 Thru P-011626 File folder entitled "Unit of Prosecution Research" containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Box #3 P-011627 Thru P-011662 File folder entitled "Attorney Notes" containing attorney handwritten and typed notes Work Product Box #3 P-011663 Thru P-011698 and P-012189 thru P-012361 (gap was scanning error) File folder entitled "Drafts" containing draft indictments with attorney handwritten notes, draft internal memoranda, relevant witness interview reports and grand jury material and attorney handwritten notes 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this Box #3 P-011699 Thu P-011777 File folder entitled "6/9/09 Signed Indictment" containing signed indictment package dated 6/9/2009 with corrections 6(e) Work product Deliberative process Box #3 P-011778 Thru P-011788 File folder entitled "6/12/09 Victim Notif. Log" containing chart with victim contact information and attorney notes regarding dates and type of contacts Work product Box #3 P-011789 Thru P-011879 File folder entitled "Breach Memo" containing memorandum analyzing breach of Non￾Prosecution Agreement with attachments Work product Deliberative process Box #3 P-011880 Thru P-011922 File folder entitled "Overt Act Lists" containing handwritten notes cross-checking all overt acts alleged in draft indictment by victim and typed overt act summary charts for indictment preparation Work product Attorney-client privilege Deliberative process 6(e) Page 18 of 23 EFTA00185405 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 19 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #3 P-011923 Thru P-011966 Folder entitled "Responses to Arguments from JE Counsel" containing: II 7/13/2007 letter from Lilly Ann Sanchez to with handwritten attorney notes; • 6/25/2007 letter from Gerald Lefcourt to a Sloman, Menchal , and with handwritten attorney I I notes ml 6/25/2007 email from to and entitled "Thoughts on Lefcourt's letter" Handwritten and typed attorney ( ) notes regarding main themes raised by Epstein counsel Work product Deliberative process 6(e) Attorney-Client Privilege Box #3 P-011967 Thru P-012016 Composition book entitled "Operation Leap Year" containing attorney handwritten notes regarding investigation and case strategy Work product Investigative privilege 6(e) Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #3 P-012017 Thru P-012055 Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Incorporated Memorandum of Law 6(e) Box #3 P-012056 Thru P-012088 Affidavit of Roy Black, Esq. in Support of Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas 6(e) Box #3 P-012089 Thru P-012129 United States' Response to Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Cross-Motion to Compel 6(e) Box #3 P-012130 Thru P-012150 Declaration of Joseph Recarey 6(e) Box #3 P-012151 Thru PM 12167 Ex Parte Declaration Number One in Support of United States' Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas 6(e) Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Page 19 of 23 EFTA00185406 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 20 of 23 Bates Ran e Description Privil e s Asserted Box #3 P-012168 Thru P-012170 Ex Parte Declaration Number Two in Support of United States' Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas 6(e) Investigative Privilege Box #3 P-012171 Thru P-012173 Supplement to Ex Parte Declaration Number One in Support of United States' Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas 6(e) Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #3 P-012174 Thru P-012176 Draft of September 2009 letter from Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process to Roy Black regarding breach of Non Prosecution Agreement with handwritten attorney notes Box #3 P-012177 Thru P-012178 Undated handwritten attorney notes regarding negotiations and allegations Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process Box #3 P-012179 Thru P-012188 File Folder entitled "FBI G.J. Log" containing copy of FBI jury subpoena log with attorney handwritten notes 6(e) Work Product Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #3 P-012362 Thru P-012451 File folder entitled "Key Documents" containing correspondence between AUSA and case agent regarding indictment prep questions, victim identification information, corrections to draft indictment, indictment preparation timeline, key grand jury material 6(e) Work Product Attorney-Client privilege Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #3 P-012451 Thru P-012452 File folder entitled "Victim List" containing list of victims with dates of birth and age information Work Product Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Page 20 of 23 EFTA00185407 Case 9 08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 21 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #3 P-012453 Thru P-012623 Complete indictment package marked "Originals 12/12/07" Work-product Deliberative process 6(e) Also contains documents subject to investigative privilege Also contains documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #3 P-012624 Thru P-012653 Folder entitled "(Victims) Additional 302's" containing reports of interviews conducted in June 2007, October 2007, and March 2008. Investigative Privilege Also contains documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #3 P-012654 Thru P-012864 3-ring binder entitled "Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis" with attorney (; ) handwritten notes Work-product Box #3 P-012865 Thru P-013226 Indictment preparation binder containing: witness/victim list with identifying information, sexual activity suragephone call summary chart, attorney handwritten notes, 3aktions of state investigative file, attorney typed notes, relevant pieces of grand jury materials, telephone records/flight records analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, DAVID records, NCICs, and related materials for persons identified as Jane Does #9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Also contains documents subject to investigative privilege Also contains documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #3 P-013227 April 23, 2008 Memo from Jeffrey Sloman to Office of Professional Responsibility re Self Reporting, Corrected Version of the previously submitted April 21, 2008 Letter to OPR Privacy Act Box #3 P-013226 Thru P-013230 April 21, 2008 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman to Office of Professional Responsibility re Self Reporting Privacy Act Box #3 P-013231 Thru P-013239 April 22, 2008 Letter from A. to Privacy Act Office of Professional Responsibility re Self￾Report of Allegation of Conflict of Interest Page 21 of 23 EFTA00185408 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document •1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 22 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #3 P-013240 Thru P-013247 April 21, 2008 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman to Office of Professional Responsibility re Self Reporting with attachments Privacy Act Box #3 P-013248 Thru P-013251 Emails between Assistant Attorney-Client Privilege General Counsel, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated August 24 and Au l011 Box #3 P-013252 Thru P-013253 Emails between Assistant Attorney-Client Privilege General Counsel, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and , First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding Recusal matter, dated July 28, Au ust 3 and Au ust 24 2011 Box #3 P-013254 Thru P-013257 Emails between Assistant Attorney-Client Privilege General Counsel, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and , First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated August 24 and August 29 2011 Box #3 P-013258 Thru P-013259 Emails between Ma Assistant General Counsel, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and , First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated July 28 and August 3 2011 Attorney-Client Privilege Box #3 P-013260 Thru P-013262 Email from Assistant General Attorney-Client Privilege Counsel, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, to N.S. Attorney, SDFL Robert O'Neill (U.S. Attorney, MDFL (FAUSA, SDFL), and (FAUSA, MDFL) regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated Au st 24 2011. CC's ODAG), USAEO SAEO), USAEO (USAEO) Page 22 of 23 EFTA00185409 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 23 of 23 Bates Range Deal lion Privilege(s) Asserted Box #3 Emails between _, Assistant Attorney-Client Privilege P-013263 General Counsel, Executive Office for United Deliberative Process Thru States Attorneys, and First Work Product P-013271 Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding recusal of Southern District of Florida, dated July 29 2011 with attached memorandum from to summarizing Jeffrey Epstein Invest". ation Box #3 Emails between Executive Office Attorney-Client Privilege P-013272 Thru for United States Attorneys, and , Southern District of Florida, seeking advice P-013278 regarding office-wide recusal, dated December 16 and 17, 2010 with attached letter from to dated December 10, 2010 Page 23 of 23 EFTA00185410 EFTA00185411 , Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-MarraMatthewman JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto. The documents referenced in the Privilege Log are being delivered today to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex parte in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: EFTA00185412 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 26, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. Assistant United States Attorney SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2'. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 425 N Andrews Ave Ste 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268 brad@pathtojustice.com 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-6833 E-mail: casselp®law.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 2 EFTA00185413 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 14 SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box #3 P-013279 Tluu P-013280 8/15/08 Emails between A. Acosta and and re proposed correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013281 Handwritten note re Epstein investigation Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Investigative privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not rties to this liti ation Suppl. Box #3 P-013282 Thru P-013283 7/9/08 Email from to A. Acosta, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger letter re victim notification Attorney-Client Privilege Work product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-013284 7/10/08 Emails between and A. and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger's letter re victim notification Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-013285 Thru P-013289 File folder entitled "8/5/08 AMCV e-mail re correct a t" containing 8/5/08 email from A. to A. Acosta, a re "Jeffrey Epstein Agreement" discussing 6/24/08 email from to R. Black and J. Goldberger concerning the binding nature of the Agreement Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-013290 Thru P-013292 File folder entitled "8/14/08 E-mail from Lefk to AMCV" containing undated entails from A. to A. Acosta, re draft response to 8/14/08 email from J. Leflcowitz regarding "the December 2007 proposal" Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Page 1 of 14 EFTA00185414 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 2 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box #3 P-013293 Mil P-013299 File folder entitled "8/15/08 AMCV e-mail re A t" containing 8/15/08 e-mails from A. to A. Acosta, , re follow s oailment and from A. Acosta to Ann = on issue of Special Master with attached 8/15/08 emails from to A. Acosta, re A f ei terit• i 8/15/08 email from J. Lefkowitz to R. Black, M. Weinber 1 re lisnent; 8/14/08 emails from to J. Lefkowitz, R. Black re interpretation of A ment• email from J. Lefkowitz to re itSms re Agreement; email from to J. Lefkowitz, re production of Agreement to victims Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-013300 Thru P-0133303 File folder entitled "8/18/08 Lefkowitz Ltr to AMCV" containing handwritten draft notes for proposed letter to J. Lefkowitz; 5/22/07 e-mail from to M. re meeting with G. Lefcourt with attached email from G. Lefcourt re solicitation for meetings Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013304 Thru P-013325 File folder entitled "6/25/07 Lefcourt to Sloman & containin 6/25/07 letter (with handwritten notes b from G. Lefcourt to M. addressing reasons for not prosecuting E stein; handwritten outline by of possible response to letter Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013326 Thru P-013329 File folder entitled "9/17/07 to Attorney-Client Privilege Lefkowitz contai ' 9/17/07 e-mail from Work Product to and from to A. concerning status of plea negotiations Suppl. Box #3 P-013330 Thru P-013333 File folder entitled "11/8/07 Lefkowitz to Sloman" containing 11/8/07 letter from J. Lefkowitz re issues arising during pendency of matter with attorney handwritten notes Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013334 Thru P-013337 File folder entitled "11/13/07 Sloman to Lefkowitz (was this sent?" containing draft 11/13/07 letter from responding to J. Lefkowitz's letter Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Page 2 of 14 EFTA00185415 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 3 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box #3 P-013338 Thru 013341 File folder entitled "12/6/07 Sloman to Lefkowitz" containing 12/5/07 faxed letter w/ cover sheet from K. Starr and J. Leflcowitz to A. Acosta (Not considered privileged. Will be produced to opposing counsel upon lifting of stay] Suppl. Box #3 P-013342 Thru P-013350 File folder entitled "12/05/07 Starr to Acosta" containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acosta to K. Starr and from to J. Leflcowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A. Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-13351 Thru P-013361 File folder entitled "12/21/07 Lefkowitz to Acosta" containing handwritten notes by 12/21/07 letter from J. Lefkowitz to A. Acosta re performance of NPA and appeal to Washington with attorney handwritten notes Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013362 Thru P-013366 File folder labeled "12/26/07 Lefkowitz to Acosta" containing 2 copies of draft letter from A. Acosta to J. Lefkowitz (with 12/28/07 fax header) Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-013367 Thru P-013372 File folder labeled "Draft Itr from Sloman to Lefkowitz re termination" containin: draft letter dated "April , 2008" from to J. Lefkowitz concerning the compliance with the Agreement Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 PM 13373 Thru P-013503 File folder labeled "6/3/08 Sloman Submission to the DAG" containing 6/3/08 letter from to Office of the DAG cc'd to re Jeffrey Epstein, detailing events concerning the Agreement and thereafter and with relevant attachments Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process Work Product Investigative privilege Suppl. Box #3 P-013504 Thru P-013507 File folder labeled "Mtg w/ Ken Starr, RAA_I_LS a Drew" containing handwritten notes by A. = Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013508 Thru P-013514 File folder labeled "Internal Corr." cont niii 11/28/07 e-mails from to re respondin: to 11/28/07 e-mail from J. Lefkowitz to regarding victim notification with attachments Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Page 3 of 14 EFTA00185416 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 4 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box #3 P-013515 Thru P-013525 Draft 11/30/07 letter from A. Acosta to K. Starr cc'd to and A. re compliance with Agreement and internal emails from A. Acosta, and re items to address in letter Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-013526 Thru P-013527 5/23/07 e-mail from A. to Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process re draft proposed internal e-mail about handling of case and attached email correspondence between and G. Lefcourt Suppl. Box #3 P-013528 Thru P-013530 P-013532 Thru P-013537 Handwritten notes by dated Work Product 9/21 re telephone conference with possible victim representative, conflict check with names and email listed, list of names of potential victim representatives, payment discussion, and guideline calculation, email containing contact info for potential victim representative, draft Non Prosecution Agreement dated 9/10/07 4:17 pm Suppl. Box #3 P-013531 Typed note addressed to "Dear David" re response to grand jury subpoena 6(e) Investigative privilege Suppl. Box #3 P-013538 Thru P-013553 File folder labeled "Notes Re Post-Agreement Communications" containing handwritten notes by A. Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-013554 Thru File folder labeled "E-mails Re Plea Negotiations" containing: ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from to A. re non-prosecution agreement, wi attached correspondence• ■ 9/19/07 e-mail from A. to re negotiating strategy, with attached correspondence; ■ 9/18/07 e-mail from A. to A. Acosta, re negotiating strategy; ■ 9/17/07 e-mail from A. to A. Acosta re negotiation• ■ 9/17/07 e-mail from A. to A. Acosta, re ne otiations• ■ 9/17/07 e-mail from A. to Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege Page 4 of 14 EFTA00185417 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 5 of 14 Bates Ranee Description strategy; • 9/14/07 e-mail from A. A. Acosta plea agreement and • 9/14/07 e-mail from A. A. Acosta re plea negotiations; • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Privilege(s) Asserted re negotiation re proposed ormation. indictment package; • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. to re trust agreement with attached correspondencea_. • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. =I to re trust aanent• • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. to re conference call with J. Lefkowitz; • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. to re plea negotiations with attached correspondence• • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. to re charging strategy with attached correspondence. • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. to to re indictment package; • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. to A. Acosta re plea ne otiations; • 9/11/07 e-mail from A. to re meeting w/ G. Le court with attached correspondence. • 9/11/07 e-mail from to re revised Agreement with attached correspondencs_ • 9/11/07 e-mail from A. to re non-prosecution agreement edits with attached correspondence. • 9/11/07 e-mail from A. to re status of negotiations with attached correspondence; Page 5 of 14 EFTA00185418 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 6 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted • 9/10/07 e-mail from to re ne ofiations; 9 10 07 e-mail from to I re state gran, jury proceedin s• • 9/17/07 e-mail from A. Acosta to re draft Agreement wi attache correspondence. • 9/14/07 e-mail from A. Acos re nalizing documents; IN 9/14/07 e-mail from to A. re charging strategy with attached correspondence. IN 9/13/07 e-mail from to A. re settin u trust fund; l• 9/13/07 e-mail from to re final negotiations with attached correspondence. • 9/11/07 e-mail from to re scheduling a meeting regarding finalizing the agreement with attached correspondence. • 9/11/07 e-mail from to re non-prosecution agreement edits with attached correspondence; M 9/11/07 e-mail from to re non-prosecution agreement edits with attached correspondence; II 9/11/07 e-mail from to re negotiations with attached correspondence. • 9/17/07 e-mail from A. to re negotiation strategy Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "[] Target Letter" containing 6(e) P-013609 copy of signed letter and contact info for counsel Investigative Privilege Thru for target P-013615 Page 6 of 14 EFTA00185419 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 7 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box #3 P-013616 Thru P-013621 File folder entitled "Atty Notes re Revised Indictment" containing handwritten notes by A. Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process Work Product Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Suppl. Box #3 P-013622 Thru P-013643 File folder entitled "Research Re Possible Misdemeanors" containing attorney research Work product Suppl. Box #3 P-013644 Thru P-013653 File folder entitled "Notes Re Plea Negotiations" tinin 9/17/07 e-mail from A. to re status update• undated and typed handwritten notes by A. re items to be completed on case, strength of case, victim interviews, summary of evidence, guidelines calculations Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Suppl. Box #3 P-013654 Thm P-013745 File folder entitled "Plea Agreement Drafts" containing several draft plea asents some with handwritten notes by A. copies of draft non-prosecution iiiement some with handwritten notes by A. copy of a draft Information Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-0013747 Thru P-013810 File folder entitled "Draft Non-Prosecution Agreements" containing several draft non￾prosecution a reements some with handwritten notes by plea sheet State Circuit Court; copies of draft Information; draft plea proffer; draft motion and order to seal; draft penalty sheet; draft plea agreement Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box 3 P-013811 Thru P-013833 File folder entitled "Information Packet Drafts" containing several drafts of Informations, and complete draft Information packet Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box 3 P-013834 Through P-013835 Two pages of filed document, D.E. 62, page 2 of 54 and page 6 of 54, containing handwritten attorney notes atty work-product Page 7 of 14 EFTA00185420 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 8 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box 3 P-013836 Thru P-013837 Palm Beach Daily News Article, "Attorneys want Jeffrey Epstein Agreement Thrown Out," with attorney's notes written on margin Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013838 Thru P-013841 Letter from to Atty work-product December 10, 2010, Subject: Request for Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Prosecution, with underlines, written notes, and comments by DOJ Worm Suppl. Box 3 P-013842 Email from to Any work-product (OPR), February 25, 2011, 4:31 p.m., Re: Atty-client privilege Request for OPR Investigation — Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Alreement Suppl. Box 3 P-013843 Thru P-013844 E-mail to and September 19, 2007, 4:33 p.m., RE: Plea Agreement Atty work-product atty-client privilege Suppl. Box 3 P-013845 Thru P-013846 E-mail, to Atty work-product September 19, 2007, 4:21 p.m., RE: Epstein, with internal U.S. Attorney's Office e-mails attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013847 Thru P-013849 E-mail to and September 18, 2007, 11:43 , RE: Draft Agreements?, with e-mail from Jay Leflcowitz (September 18, 2007, 11:09 M. attached Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013850 E-mail, to Alex Acosta and September 18, 2007, 9:31 RE: Epstein Ne otiations Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013851 Thru P-013853 E-mail to and September 17, 2007, 10:35 , Atty work-product RE: Epstein [providing update re plea negotiations Suppl. Box 3 P-013854 E-mail, to Atty work-product September 13, 2007 8:10 .m. RE: Epstein, with e-mail from (September ;1 rat .nilached Suppl. Box 3 P-013855 E-mail to and Atty work-product September 10, 2007, 5:24 p.m., Atty-client privilege RE: FBI Suppl. Box 3 P-013856 Thru P-013857 E-mail, to Any work-product September 6, 2007 5:47 .m., RE: Epstein, with Atty-client privilege e-mail from (September 6, 2007, 5:35 p.m.), attached Page 8 of 14 EFTA00185421 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 9 of 14 Bates Range Descri tion Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box 3 P-013858 Email, to atty work-product September 6, 2007, Friday 9:29 , Re: Meeting on Suppl. Box 3 P-013859 Through P-013860 Email, Gerald Lefcourt Ann Sanchez, Roy to Lilly [Not considered privileged. Will be produced to opposing counsel upon lifting of stay] Black, re: Jeffrey Epstein Suppl. Box 3 P-013861 Thru P-013865 E-mail, to Matthew Any work-product July 13, 2007 3:14 p.m., RE: Epstein, with e- atty-client privilege mail from (July 5, 2007, 3:30 p.m.), to Jul 4, 2007, 5:16 p.m.), and Sloman to (July 3, 2007, 1:47 p.m.), attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013866 E-mail to Matthew and Jul 3 2007 6:26 ., RE: E stein Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013867 Thru P-013868 E-mail, to Matthew Any work-product June 21, 2007, 3:24 p.m., RE: Meetin Next Week, with e-mails from to June 21, 2007, 2:58 p.m.), and to June 21 2007 1:37 p.m.), attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013869 E-mail June 18 to Matthew and 2007, 5:(14_2O.RIS,stein Any work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013870 Thru P-013871 E-mail, to = May 24, 2007, 9:25 ., FW: Jeffrey Epstein with e￾mail from Gerald Lefcourt to (May 23, 2007, 5:00 p.m.), to Gerald Lefcourt (May 22 2007 6:32 p.m.), Gerald Lefcourt to and Lilly Ann Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m. attached Any work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013872 E-mailil and p.m., FW: Lefcourt to Sanchez a 22, to Matthew ■ Any work-product a May 22, 2007, 3:11 Mi l with e-mail from , and Lilly Ann 2007 2:05 p.m. attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013873 E-mail 2007, 10:52 . e-mail from (May 14 2007 10:38 to and May 14, Any work-product RE: Operation Leap Year with to and .), attached Page 9 of 14 EFTA00185422 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 10 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box 3 P-013874 Through P413875 Inadvertently marked as privileged, will be produced Suppl. Box 3 P413876 Thru P413877 E-mail to = and Any work-product , September 19, 2007, 4:33 p.m., RE: Draft Plea J11 a- nent, with e-mail from Lefkowitz to (Se .tember 19, 2007, 3:44 p.m.), and Lefkowitz to (September 19, 2007, 3:35 m.) attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013878 Thru P-013879 E-mail, to September 19, 2007, Atty work-product 4:21 ..m., RE: Epstein with e-mails from to and Se tember 19 2007, 4:13 p.m.), to and Se tember 19 2007, 4:05 p.m.), and to and Se tember 19, 2007, 3:50 p.m.), to Se tember 19 2007, 2:36 p.m.), to (September 19, 2007 2:33 p.m.), and to and (Se• ?tember 19, 2007 2:31 p.m. attached Suppl. Box 3 E P-013880 Thru P-013882 -mail to and Any work-product September 18, 2007, 11:43 ., RE: DraltSreements?, with e-mails from to =I, and (September 18 2007, 11:18 ), Lefkowitz to (September 18, 2007, 11:09 .), and to Lefkowitz (September 18 2007, 9:14 .), ande Lefkowitz to (September 18, 2007, 8:59 attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013883 E-mail to Acosta, , Any work-product and McMillan, September 18, 2007, 9:31 ., RE: tein Ne otiations Suppl. Box 3 P-013884 Thru P413886 E-mail, to and l=, September 17, 2007 10:35 ., RE: Epstein, with e-mail from (September 17, 2007, 10:26 attached Any work-product Suppl. Box 3 P413887 E-mail, to Atty work-product September 13, 2007 8:10 ..m. RE: Epstein, with e-mail from (September 13, 2007, 7:54 p.m. attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013888 E-mail to and Atty work-product September 10, 2007, 5:24 p.m., Atty-client privilege RE: FBI Page 10 of 14 EFTA00185423 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 11 of 14 Bates Range Besets' i tion Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box 3 P-013889 Thru P-013890 E-mail, to Atty work-product September 6, 2007 5:47 .m., RE: Epstein, with Atty-client privilege e-mail from (September 6, 2007, 5:35 p.m. attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013891 Email, to atty work-product September 6, 2007, 9:29 ., Re: Meeting on Friday Suppl. Box 3 P-013892 Through P-013893 Email, Gerald Lefcourt to Lilly [Not considered privileged. Will be produced to opposing counsel upon lifting of stay) Ann Sanchez, Roy Black, re: Jeffrey Epstein Suppl. Box 3 P-013894 Thru P-013898 E-mail, to Matthew Atty work-product July 13, 2007 3:14 p.m., RE: Epstein, with e- atty-client privilege mail from (July 5, 2007, 3:30 p.m.), to Jul 4, 2007, 5:16 p.m.), and Sloman to (July 3, 2007, 1:47 p.m.) attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013899 E-mail Matthew , and Jul 3 2007 6:26 ., RE: E .stein Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013900 Thru P-013901 E-mail, to Matthew Atty work-product June 21, 2007, 3:24 p.m., RE: Meetin 1 Next Week, with e-mails from to June 21, 2007, 2:58 p.m.), and to June 21 2007 1:37 p.m.), attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013902 E-mail to Matthew and June 18 2007, 5:04.2±a.RSistein Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013903 Thru P-013904 E-mail, to = May 24, 2007, 9:25 ., FW: Jeffrey Epstein with e￾mail from Gerald Lefcourt to (May 23, 2007, 5:00 p.m.), to Gerald Lefcourt (May 22 2007 6:32 .m.i.nd Gerald Lefcourt to and Lilly Ann Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m. attached Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013905 E-mail, to Matthew Atty work-product , and May 22, 2007, 3:11 p.m., FW: ae , E.,Hi with e-mail from Lefcourt to and Lilly Ann Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m.), attached Page 11 of 14 EFTA00185424 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLED Docket 07/27/2013 Page 12 of 14 Bates Range Descri . tion I Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box 3 P-013906 E-mail to and May 14, Atty work-product 2007, 10:52 RE: Operation Leap Year with e-mail from to and (May 14, 2007, 10:38 ), attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013907 Through P-013908 Inadvertently marked as privileged, will be produced Suppl. Box 3 P-013909 Thru P-013911 Memorandum, Assistant Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), to Acting Associate Counsel, OPR, undated, Suliect: Recommendation Deliberative Process Privilege; atty work￾product Suppl. Box 3 P-013912 Thru P-013914 Memorandum , Assistant Counsel, OPR, to Acting Associate Counsel, OPR, Subject: Recommendation, with handwritten note dated 5/4/11 Deliberative Process Privilege, atty work￾product Suppl. Box 3 P-013915 Thru P-013918 Memorand Assistant Counsel, OPR, to Acting Associate Counsel, OPR, Subject: Recommendation, with two post-it notes attached with handwritten attorney notations, and handwritten notations, underlines, and circled text throughout the body of the two page memorandum Deliberative Process Privilege; atty work￾product Suppl. Box 3 P-013919 Thru P-013921 Draft letter marked "Confidential", from Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product , Counsel Office of Professional Responsibility to United States Attorney, with handwritten corrections, strikethrou hs and added text Suppl. Box 3 P-013922 Thru P-013924 Draft Letter marked "Confidential" from Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product to , with handwritten corrections Suppl. Box 3 P-013925 Thru P-013927 Draft Letter, from to Professor Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Paul G. Cassell, with handwritten correction Suppl. Box 3 P-013928 Thru P-013930 Draft Letter, from to Professor Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Paul G. Cassell, with handwritten corrections Suppl. Box 3 P-013931 Thru P-013933 Draft Letter, from to Professor Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Paul G. Cassell, with handwritten corrections, circled text, strikethroughs, and additional text Page 12 of 14 EFTA00185425 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 13 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box 3 P413934 Thru P-013936 Draft Letter, marked "Confidential," to corrections from Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product with handwritten Suppl. Box 3 P-013937 Thru P-013939 Draft Letter, to Professor Paul Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product G. Cassell, with handwritten corrections Suppl. Box 3 P413940 Thru P-013942 Draft Letter, marked "Confidential: To O ned b Addressee Only," , with handwritten corrections Be to Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Suppl. Box 3 P-013943 E-mail, 2011, 11:19 ., RE: for our review with e-mail a to and to ) attached to May 5, to Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Re-write of Epstein letters from 5, 2011, 11:08 . and Ma 5, 2011, 11:10 M.), (May 5, 2011, 10:41 Suppl. Box 3 P-013944 E-mail to 11:17 , RE: Re-write our review, with e-mail a 5, to and to attached May 5, 2011, for to .), .), Deliberative Process of Epstein letters Privilege from 2011, 11:08 ay 5, 2011, 11:01 (May 5, 2011, 10:41), Suppl. Box 3 P-013945 E-mail, to . May 4, 2011, 5:01 e￾Deliberative Process p.m., RE: draft letters Privilege mail from to 4:57 p.m. attached in Epstein matter, with (May 4, 2011, Suppl. Box 3 P-013946 E-mail, to May 4, Law Enforcement investigatory record, atty work product; deliberative process privilege 2011, 4:08 p.m., RE: FYI on the Florida matter Suppl. Box 3 P-013947 E-mail, to May 3, 2011, for atty work product; law enforcement investigatiory record 12:23 p.m., RE: OPR Inquiry — request information, with post-it note attached with handwritten attorney notes on tele 'hone call between and with and Suppl. Box 3 P-013948 Thru P-013951 E-mail to and atty work-product May 3, 2011, 12:30 p.m., FW: OPR Inquiry — request for information, with attached e-mails. Handwritten attorney notes on margin Page 13 of 14 EFTA00185426 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 14 of 14 Bates Range Description Prig ilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box 3 P-013952 Thru P-013953 E-mail, to March atty work-product; any￾16, 2011, 10:52 ., RE: Referral of Cassell client privilege Wiest for Investi 1 ation, with e-mail from to and (March 15 2011 7:21 p.m. attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013954 Thru P-013955 E-mail, to OPR, December 16, 2010, 10:59 ., FW: OPR Referral — Allegation of Misconduct — U.S. Attome 's Office S.D.Fla., with e-mail from to (December 16, 2010, 10:22 .), attached. Handwritten attorney any work-product, any￾client privilege notations. Suppl. Box 3 P-013956 Thru P-013846 Fourteen (14) pages of handwritten attorney notes on case, telephone interviews with DOJ attorneys atty work-product Page 14 of 14 EFTA00185427 , Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Second Supplemental Privilege Log. The index has been marked with Bates Numbers P-013970' thru P-014923. The documents referenced in the Second Supplemental Privilege Log will be delivered today to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex parse in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: Please note that, while preparing the Second Supplemental Privilege Log, the undersigned discovered an error on the Supplemental Privilege Log, that is, the last entry states that the last document bears Bates Numbers P-013956 thru P-013846. The correct Bates range for that document is P-013956 thru P-013969 [14 pages]. 1 EFTA00185428 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 23, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. Assistant United States Attorney SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., Fanner Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 425 N Andrews Ave Ste 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268 brad@pathtojustice.com 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-6833 E-mail: casselp®law.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 2 EFTA00185429 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 1 of 18 JANE DOE'. UNITED STATES COURT FILE NO. 08-80736-CV-MARRA SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG - BOX #4 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-013970 thru P-013971 11/29/2006-12/1/2006 emails between and prison Work Product Investigative Privilege Privacy Act employee regarding attempted contact with potential witness P-013972 5/18/2007 email from to informing him Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege of intent to subpoena Roy Black's private investigator and steps taken to obtain DOJ authorization P-013973 thru P-013976 5/18/2007 emails between and expert witness regarding Work Product 6(e) Investigative Privilege securing pre-indictment consultation contract P-013977 thru P-013979 5/21/2007 email from to (CEOS) re Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege 2423(b) charging question P-013980 5/21/2007 email from to and Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process regarding guidance on grand jury presentation P-013981 5/22/2007 email from Andy to and Work Product Deliberative Process (cc: ) re letter received from Gerald Lefcourt discussing a meetin to discuss E in invest' ation P-013982 5/23/2007 email from to re extradition Work Product A/C privilege Investigative Privilege research P-013983 thru P-013984 5/23/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding decision to meet with counsel for Epstein Page 1 of 18 EFTA00185430 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 2 of 18 Bates Range Descri t lion Privilege(s) Asserted P-013985 thru P-013989 6/14/2007-6/21/2007 emails between 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and regarding addendum to Pros Memo, grand jury presentation and changes to indictment, and meetin with counsel for E stein P-013990 thru P-013991 6/26/2007 email from to , Work Product Deliberative Process and addressing arguments regarding interstate nexus for 2422 char es P-013992 thru P-013994 7/3/2007-7/4/2007 emails between and 6(e) Work Product Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process regarding extension of time to respond to subpoenas requested by Lilly Ann Sanchez and possible resolution of case P-013995 thru P-014010 6/12/2007-7/6/2007 series of emails between and Work Product Investigative Privilege Privacy Act AUSAs and re an earlier unrelated investigation of Epstein P-014011 thru P-014025 7/3/2007-7/13/2007 email chain between and 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege regarding disagreement on plea negotiations and written request for meeting between USAO management and victims P414026 thru P-014027 7/16/2007 email from to and 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege regarding correspondence from Roy Black and Motion to Quash P-014028 thru P-014030 7/18/2007 emails from to and 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege regarding Motion to Quash grand jury subpoena and supporting affidavit filed by Roy Black P-014031 thru P414032 7/19/2007 email chain between 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege Attorney-Client Privilege S/A and S/A regarding potential service of target letters Page 2 of 18 EFTA00185431 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 3 of 18 Bates Range Desert • tion Privilege(s) Asserted P-014033 7/19/2007 email from to and Work Product 6(e) Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process regarding planned service of target letters P-014034 7/26/2007 email from to and 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege regarding proposed changes to the indictment P-014035 7/31'2007 email from to Work Product Deliberative Process and summarizing proposed plea terms as per recommendation P-014036 7/31/2007-8/2/2007 email chain between Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and regarding plea negotiations P-014037 8/2/2007 email drom to Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and with draft response to Epstein counsel regarding ement P-014038 thru P-014041 8/2/2007 emails between , Andy and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding letter received from Lilly Ann Sanchez P-014042 8/3/2007 Email from I to Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and regarding draft response to correspondence from Epstein counsel and planned investigative steps if a ment cannot be reached. P-014043 thru P-014044 Emails dated 8/6/2007 from to and regarding correspondencea to his arture. Work Product Deliberative Process P-014045 thru P-014046 8/7/2007 email chain between= , and Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege Alex Acosta regarding meeting to discuss Epstein matter Page 3 of 18 EFTA00185432 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 4 of 18 Bates Range Desert . tion Privilege(s) Asserted P-014047 8/7/2007 email from to Andy regarding deadline Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege set for Epstein plea and Epstein's plan to demand a meeting with CEOS. P-014048 8/7/2007 email from to regarding Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege Epstein meeting P-014049 thru P-014050 8/7/2007 email chain from to Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and Alex Acosta regarding Epstein meeting P-014051 8/8/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process Investi ative Privilege (CEOS) regarding case staffing and plea negotiations P-014052 8/8/2007 email chain between Alex Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and regarding "The meeting on Epstein" P-014053 8/8/2007 email from to regarding Work Product Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process plea negotiations, guideline calculations, and assistance in preparing case for trial P-014054 8/8/2007 email from I to Alex Acosta, Work Product 6(e) Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process and regarding planning meeting with Epstein counsel and service of target letters P-014055 8/10/2007 Electronic correspondence from to expert witness regarc_ljgn: to . ics for expert testimon Work Product P-014056 8/10/2007 email from = to regarding Work Product target letters and sta in motion to com . 1 . roduction of com . uters P-014057 8/30/2007 email from to and regarding press covers • e of meetin with Ken Starr Work Product P-014058 9/4/2007-9/6/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding planned participation of FBI ASAIC at 9/7/2007 meeting with Epstein defense team Page 4 of 18 EFTA00185433 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 5 of 18 Bates Ran e Description Privil e s Asserted P-014059 thru P-014061 9/6/2007 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process and regarding status of plea negotiations, draft agreements, and need to confer with victims P-014062 thru P-014068 9/10/2007-9/14/2007 emails between I and Alex Acosta regarding final plea negotiations, finalizing details with State Attorney's Office and final revisions to indictment pack: a Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Investigative Privilege P-014069 9/10/2007 email from to and = Work Product 6(e) Investigative Privilege regarding Acosta inquiry about FBI investigation into State grand ' roceedin P-014070 thru P-014074 9/11/2007 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege Attorney-Client Privilege , and regarding changes to the draft indictment and status of plea negotiations P-014075 thru P-014089 9/10/2007-9/11/2007 emails between Alex Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding modifications to the proposed Non-Prosecution A eement P-014090 thru P-014102 9/13/2007 emails from I to Alex Acosta, and regarding plea to federal charges recommending 18 USC 403 or 1512(d), or 47 USC 223(aX1)(3); response that Epstein was only willing to plead to assault on the plane; and rejection of facts supporting assault on the plane charge Work Product Deliberative Process P-014103 thru P-014107 9/13/2007-9/14/2007 emails regarding research Work Product regarding victim trust fund set up in Alaska child exploitation case P-014108 thru P-014134 9/17/2007-9/19/2007 emails between I Alex Acosta, and regarding negotiations of a federal plea and a non-prosecution agreement Work Product Deliberative Process Page 5 of 18 EFTA00185434 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 6 of 18 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-014135 thru P-014149 9/19/2007-9/20/2007 emails between , Work Product Deliberative Process and regarding plea negotiations with counsel for E stein P-014150 thru P-014156 9/20/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding plea agreement to federal charges and factual proffer P-014157 thru P-014160 9/21/2007 emails between I and Work Product Deliberative Process = and regarding revisions to the non- • rosecution agreement P-014161 9/21/2007 email from I to Alex Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process and regarding review of Epstein indictment c e P-014162 thru P-014170 9/24/2007 series of emails between Alex Acosta, and Work Production Deliberative Process regarding plea negotiations and revisions to non￾prosecution agreement P-014171 thru P-014174 9/23/2007-9/24/2007 series of emails between Alex Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process . and regarding proposed revisions to non-prosecution a reement P-014175 thru P-014203 9/20/2007-9/24/2007 emails between Alex Acosta, nd Work Product Deliberative Process regarding revisions to the non-prosecution agreement P-014204 thru P-014205 9/24/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding notifying Palm Beach Police Chief and victims about agreement P-014206 thru P-014216 9/24/2007-9/25/2007 emails between Alex Acosta, n --- and Rolando regarding Lefkowitz email about keeping agreement from becoming public and confidentiality provision in agreement Work Product Deliberative Process P-014217 thru P-014238 10/5/2007-10/16/2007 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process and Alex Acosta re selection of Special Master and negotiation of revision/addendum to Non-Prosecution Agreement Page 6 of 18 EFTA00185435 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 7 of 18 Bates Range Descriris Privilege(s) Asserted P-014239 thru P-014242 10/18/2007 emails between and regarding Work Product Deliberative Process Epstein's request to delay his change of plea P-014243 thru P-014251 10/19/2007 emails between and regarding Work Product Deliberative Process Special Master's Selection of Attorney Representative P-014252 thru P-014275 10/22/2007-10/31/2007 emails between Alex Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding negotiation of Addendum to Non-Prosecution Agreement and drafting of correspondence regarding scope of Special Master's duties and selection criteria P-014276 10/31/2007 email from to Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege 6(e) Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation regarding attempts to interview additional witnesses/victims P-014277 thru P-014282 11/2/2007-11/5/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding drafting 11/5/2007 letter from Siouan to Lefkowitz P-014283 thru P-014284 11/5/2007-11/7/2007 emails from to Work Product Deliberative Process inquiring about status of matter and contact by Epstein investigators with victims P-014285 thru P-014298 11/8/2007-11/14/2007 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege and regarding response to objections raised by Epstein counsel and efforts to charigt date ea P-014299 thru P-014307 11/14/2007-11/19/2007 emails between MI Alex Acosta, and regarding communications with State Attorney's Office and Sheriff's Office in an attempt to insure that Epstein was ineligible for work release Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege Page 7 of 18 EFTA00185436 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 8 of 18 Bates Range Desui ,it Privilege(s) Asserted P-014308 thru P-014310 11/19/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process about efforts by Epstein's counsel to change date for change of plea P-014311 thru P-014329 11/19/2007-11/28/2007 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege 6(e) Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation and regarding drafting victim notification letter of upcoming plea P-014330 thru P-014337 11/28/2007 correspondence between and regarding Lefkowitz 11/27/2007 email discussing presentation to DAAG Work Product Deliberative Process P414338 thru P414354 11/29/2007-12/1/2007 emails between Alex Acosta, and regarding draft response to Jay Leflcowitz and victim notification letters Work Product Deliberative Process P414355 thru P-014361 12/3/2007 emails between Villafafia, Alex Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding history of plea negotiations and drafting response to correspondence from Jay Lekowitz and Ken Starr P-014362 thru P414402 12/3/2007-12/5/2007 cones • • ndence between Alex Acosta, , and about drafting and sending the 12/4/2007 Acosta letter to Ken Starr Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Attorney-Client Privilege P-014403 thru P-014414 12/6/2007 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process , Alex Acosta, and regarding correspondence from Ken Starr, request for a meeting from Epstein counsel, and need to notify victims of upcoming plea P-014415 thru P-014420 12/6/2007-12/7/2007 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process and Alex Acosta regarding draft victim notification letter Page 8 of 18 EFTA00185437 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 9 of 18 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-014421 thru P-014428 12/6/2007-12/7/2007 emails between and regarding request from State Attorney's Office for draft plea proffer Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege P-014429 thru P-014439 12/9/2007-12/12/2007 emails between 4 and regarding drafting response to personal attacks and Work Product Deliberative Process upcoming meet.irt with Ken Starr P-014440 12/11/2007 email from to and Alex Acosta Work Product Deliberative Process regarding call with lawyer for Jane Doe #2 (T.M.) P-014441 12/12/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) regarding planning indictment review P-014442 12/14/2007 email from to Alex Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process and regarding state cases mentioned by Epstein's counsel P-014443 12/14/2007 email from Villafafia to Alex Acosta, , and with draft letters to State Attome 's Office and victims Work Product Deliberative Process P-014444 12/17/2007 email from to inquiring about Work Product Deliberative Process case status and informing Sloman regarding agent concern about victim notifications P-014445 thru P-014447 12/19/2007 email from to Alex Acosta and Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) summarizing research into other cases where individuals were charged with violating 2422(b) based u m iShe use of a telephone P-014448 thru P-014454 12/19/2007 emails between Alex Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding drafting response to concerns raised durin: December 14, 2007 meeting between Epstein counsel Alex Acosta, , the FBI SAIC, and Page 9 of 18 EFTA00185438 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 10 of 18 Bates Range Desert don Privilege(s) Asserted P-014455 thru P-014456 12/19/2007 email from to Alex Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation and regarding challenge to state charge raised by Epstein counsel during 12/14/2007 meeting P-014457 thru P-014464 12/20/2007 emails between and regarding Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation inquiries from State Attorney's Office regarding Epstein plea to state charge and facts supporting state plea P-014465 thru P-014485 12/18/2007-12/21/2007 emails between and other Work Product 6(e) AUSAs regarding other instances of charging 2422(b) based on the use of a telephone as a "fa.ilf interstate commerce" P-014486 12/21/2007 email from to with thoughts on Work Product Deliberative Process recent correspondence from Jay Lefkowitz raising concerns about interpretation of the .1 folrosecution Agreement P-014487 12/27/2007 email from to Alex Acosta and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding proposed approach to providing potential notice of breach of non- rosecution agreement P-014488 thru P-014499 12/27/2007 emails between Alex Acos regarding Jay Lefkowitz letter of 12/26/2007 Work Product Deliberative Process P-014500 1/2/2008 email from to Alex Acosta and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding telephone conversation with State Attorney's Office about delay in Epstein state plea. P-014501 thru P-014506 1/2/2008 emails between Alex Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding requests from Alex Acosta to for information related to the handling of the investigation by the State Attorney's Office Page 10 of 18 EFTA00185439 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 11 of 18 Bates Range lion Privilege(s) Asserted P-014507 thru P-014508 1/2/2008 emails from to Alex Acosta and roil Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) regarding renewed plea negotiations for federal plea agreement P-014509 thru P-014519 1/3/2008 emails between Alex Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding Alex Acosta telephone conference with Jay Lefkowitz where Lefkowitz admitted that he never intended to have Epstein plead guilty to an offense that required sex offender re istration. P-014520 1/ from to and ME Attorney client privilege Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege (Small regarding renewed plea negotiations and press coverage o E stein matter. P414521 thru P-014522 to Alex Acosta, , Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Privacy Act and regarding proposed additional investigative steps in Epstein case. P-014523 1/9/ to Alex Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding informing Jay Lefkowitz that a CEOS attorney would join the SDFL team regarding the Epstein case and would review the rosecution and defense materials. P-014524 thru P-014550 1/ /2 8-1/14/2008 emails between , and regarding assigning a CEOS attorney to the investigation, meeting with the CEOS attorney and victims in Florida, the results of the meetings and planned additional meetings, and revisions to the indictment in light of the meetin s. Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-client privilege Investigative Privilege 6(e) P-014551 1/17/2008 email from to regarding Attorney-client privilege Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation 6(e) updated summary charts for indictment preparation, meetings with victims, and victim notification letters from FBI P-014552 1/23/2008 email from to and Alex Acosta Work Product Deliberative Process regarding FBI involvement in meeting in DC Page 11 of 18 EFTA00185440 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 12 of 18 Bates Range Descri Lion Privilege(s) Asserted P-014553 thru P-014556 1/25/2008 emails between d Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Inveitigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this)litigation regarding press coverage of case and strategic decism i .sigegar g revisions to initial indictment P-014557 1/25/2008 email from to and 6(e Attorney-client privilege Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation regarding research for purposes oli lluin.l iJury subpoenas. P-014558 1/29/2008 email from to and regarding status o meeting in DC and concerns regarding la Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Investigative Privilege P-014559 thru P414562 1/28/2008-1/29/2008 emails between 1 a MillRlird IF Work Product 6(e) Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation regarding scheduling victim interviews on 1 31/2008- 1 8 P-014563 thru P-014565 1/30/2008 emails between MI Alex Acosta, and . Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation regarding Lefkowitz email about lawsuit filed against Epstem by one of the victims identified during the state investigation. Page 12 of 18 EFTA00185441 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 13 of 18 Bates Range Desert, Privilege(s) Asserted P-014566 thru P-014568 1/31/2008 emails between and Work Product Investigative Privilege Attorney-client privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not es to this litigation regarding interviews with victims. P-014569 thru P-014573 1/31/2008-2/1/2008 emails between Alex Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Attorney-Client Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Investigative Privilege Acosta, and Alan Santiago regarding results of additional victim-witness interviews and requesting intervention with CEOS to move review process along P-014574 thru 2/20/2008-2/21/2008 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Si al Mandelker P-014583 Alex Acosta, and regarding status of CEOS plans to meet with counsel for Epstein and status of indictment review P-014584 that P-014622 2/12/2008-2/22/2008 emails between Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege 6(e) Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation , and analyzing facts gathered from grand jury investigation and discussing strategy for drafting revised indictment P-014623 thru P-014627 2/25/2008 emails between and Caroline Heck Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) regarding ethical issue about whether or not to present proposed revised indictment to new grand 'u P-014628 2/25/2008 email from Villafafta to Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) and regarding result lc .msult, with Caroline Heck about grand jury question Page 13 of 18 EFTA00185442 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 14 of 18 Bates Range Descri • tion Privilege(s) Asserted P-014629 2/26/2008 email from to regarding Work Product Deliberative Process CEOS review and draft indictment package P-014630 thru P-014631 2/26/2008 email from to regarding Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege 6(e) 2/25/2008 correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz further extending the plea deadline for Epstein P-014632 thru P-014646 2/21/2008-2/27/2008 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Investigative Privilege and regarding notifying DOJ's Civil Rights Division regarding the status of the case and the planned indictmen and the draft written notification P-014647 thru P-014649 2/28/2008 emails between and Susan Roe regarding Work Product Investigative Privilege 6(e) related investigation, potential investigatory leads, and CEOS review P-014650 thru P-014653 2/27/2008-2/28/2008 emails between Work Product Investigative Privilege Attorney-client privilege 6(e) Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation and regarding review of evidence received pursuant to subpoenas and planned interviews of additional potential victim-witnesses P-014654 thru P-014655 2/29/2008 emails between , a , Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege 6e and regarding continuing investigation and status of CEOS review P-014656 thru P-014665 3/4/2008-3/5/2008 emails between and Work Product Attorney-client privilege 6(e) Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation regarding search warrant and victim contact with attorneys Page 14 of 18 EFTA00185443 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 15 of 18 Bates Range - Descri ti Privilege(s) Asserted P-014666 thru P-014693 3/5/2 Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Investigative Privilege an regarding meeting in DC, additional information to prepare for meeting, and new information from ongoing investi • P-014694 thru P-014706 3/10/2 - / 008 emails be Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-client privilege , Krishna Patel, , E.J. Yera, and about Epstein attempts to contact victims and finding c m... sel f P-014707 thru P-014711 3/12/2 8 emails betwee o and n= il , regarding CEOS meeting with Epstein counsel Work Product P414712 thru P-014716 3/14/2008 emails between regarding complete indictment package for e Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) P-014717 thru P-014721 1St an-3/d17E1210.0Y8ereamreaigsarbedintwg search ent t application and execution of search warrant Work Product Attorney client privilege Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation P-014722 thru P-014727 I cli tilialiails , and regarding corrections Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Attorney-Client Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation to indictment package and proposed grand jury presentation Page 15 of 18 EFTA00185444 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 16 of 18 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-014728 thru P-014742 3/14/2008-3/19/2008 emails between Nesibtt S.mkendall , and about Epstein attempts to contact victims and finding counsel for victims Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-client privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation P-014743 thru P-014780 3/19/2008-3/21/2008 emails between (CEOS), Alexandra Gelber (CEOS), and about meeting between Esptein counsel and CEOS and follow-up uestions Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Investi alive Privilege P-014781 thru P-014800 3/111- // 00 n , ails between and regarding waiting for DC's decision regarding Epstein's challenges to NPA; status of ongoing investigation; problems with Epstein's counsel contacting victims in the guise of deposing them for the state criminal action; and securing pro bono counsel for those victims to represent them in connection with the depositions Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege 6(e) P-014801 thru P-014810 3/28/2008 emails between , Work Product 6(e) Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process and regarding status of DC review of case and preparing for grand jury presentation P-014811 thru P-014829 3/31/2008 emails between 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and regarding status of ongoing investigation, planned presentation to grand jury, continued delay in awaiting decision from Washington, DC, and • roblems with victims bein harassed P-014830 thru P-014837 4/2/2008 emails between Alex Acosta, and regarding efforts by Jay Lefkowitz and Ken Stan.. with Alex Acosta and instructions to direct • uestion to and Deliberative Process Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Page 16 of 18 EFTA00185445 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 17 of 18 Bates Range Descri tion Privilege(s) Asserted P-014838 thru P-014843 4/4/2008-4/7/2008 emails between Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process and regarding status of CEOS review of Epstein matter P-014844 thru P-014851 4/10/2008-4/18/2008 emails between 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and about continued delay in presenting case to grand jury due to failure to receive decision from a DC, status of grand jury presentation and on muesli tion P-014852 thru P-014864 4/11/20084/23/2008 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process Privacy Act regarding self-reporting to OPR false allegations of ethics violations P-014865 4/29/2008 email from I to , Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Investi alive Privilege on re grand jury presentation P-014866 thru P-014883 4/21/2008-5/1/2008 emails between and about continued delay in presenting case to grand jury due to failure to receive decision from DC, status of grand jury presentation and ongoing investigation, staffing of case for purposes of trial, and meeting to prepare for 9 . • d • resentation 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege P-014884 thru PM 14886 5/2/2008 emails between 6(e) Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process and regarding developments in Epstein investigation and impact on grand jury presentation P-014887 thru P-014894 4/29/2008-5/2/2008 emails between and 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege regarding contact by Epstein counsel and victims and draft letter to counsel for Epstein Page 17 of 18 EFTA00185446 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 18 of 18 Bates Ran e Description Privil s Asserted P-014895 thru P-014900 5/7/2008-5/9/2008 emails between Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege , and regarding awaiting approval from DC and status of ongoing investigation P-014901 thru P-014906 5115/2008-5/16/2008 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding receiving final approval from DC P-014907 thru P414911 5/19/2008-5/22/2008 emails between 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and regarding preparation for grand jury presentation; communication with S/A Kuyrkendall regarding plea negotiations; and status of on oin investigation P414912 thru P-014919 5/23/2008-5/27/2008 emails between Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege (FBI), and Jason Richards (FBI) re status of investigation, indictment review, grand jury preparation, and E . stein's attem •t to revisit plea negotiations P-014920 thru P-014923 8/15/2008 email from to Alex Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process and containing draft response to 8/15/2008 email from Jay Lefkowitz regarding implementation of the NPA. (Redacted version produced to opposing counsel) Page 18 of 18 EFTA00185447 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Third Supplemental Privilege Log. The index has been marked with Bates Numbers P-014924 thru P-015267. The documents referenced in the Third Supplemental Privilege Log will be delivered tomorrow to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex parte in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: 1 EFTA00185448 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 3, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. Assistant United States Attorney SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2'. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 425 N Andrews Ave Ste 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268 brad®pathtojustice.com 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-6833 E-mail: casselp®law.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 2 EFTA00185449 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 1 of 7 JANE DOE'. UNITED STATES COURT FILE NO. 08-80736-CV-MARRA THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG - BOX #5 Bates Range Deseir.ion Privilege(s) Asserted P-014924 5/27/2008 emails between IM. and regarding Work Product Deliberative Process report of new state. lea deal for J. Epstein P-014925 thru P-014927 5/27/2008 emails between and .-- Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege 6e regarding potential renewed plea negotiations for J. Epstein and plans to review and revise updated indictment package P-014928 5/23/2008-5/27/2008 emails between , Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege 6(e) Privacy Act/TVPA/CVRA and regarding plans to meet to prepare for indictment presentation, service of grand jury subpoenas, interviews of additional witnesses, and plea negotiation issue P-014929 thru P-014933 5/27/2008-5/28/2008 emails between E. Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege 6(e) Privacy Act/TVPA/CVRA and regarding request for legal analysis of statute of limitations issues under state and federal law P-014934 thru P-014935 5/27/2008-5/28/2008 emails between all Work Product Deliberative Process = and regarding report of new state plea deal for J. Epstein P-014936 thru P-014940 5/29/2008-5/30/2008 emails between = E. and regarding planned grand jury presentation, status of investigation, possible grant of immunity to victim/witness for grand jury testimony Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege 6(e) Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process Privacy Act/IVPA/CVRA Page 1 of 7 EFTA00185450 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 2 of 7 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-014941 thru P-014954 6/2/2008 draft letter to Deputy Attorney General regarding Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege reasons to approve continued prosecution of J. Epstein (NB: The Court has already determined that final version of this letter is protected by Work Product/Deliberative Process/Attorney-Client Privileges) P-014955 thru P-014971 6/3/2008 draft letter to Deputy Attorney General regarding Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege reasons to approve continued prosecution of J. Epstein (NB: The Court has already determined that final version of this letter is protected by Work Product/Deliberative Process/Attorney-Client Pria P-014972 thru P-014975 6/6/2008 emails between . li and E. Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege 6(e) Privacy Act/TVPA/CVRA regarding victim/witness subpoenaed to the grand jury and need for additional grand jury subpoenas P-014976 6/18/2008 emails between A. Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process M and regarding telephone conference with R. Black about allowing J. Epstein to accept state plea to 60 days' imprisonment. P-014977 thru P-014978 6/19/2008 email forwardin: 6/19/2008 email from to E. and (NB: Asserting privilege only for email. Attorney Edwards presumably has cop of his email to Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege P-014979 thru P-014980 6/23/2008 emails between . and (USAO staff) regarding scheduling of grand jury time for indictment presentation and witness testimony (Information regardin unrelated d ' case redacted Work Product Investigative Privilege 6(e) P-014981 6/23/2008 emails between . E. , Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product 6(e) Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process Privacy Act/TVPA/CVRA and regarding grand jury subpoena to victim/witness, revisions to indictment, planned grand jury presentation, and plans to supersede indictment Page 2 of 7 EFTA00185451 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 3 of 7 Bates Range Resell Privilege(s) Asserted P-014982 thru P-014990 .) Work Product Deliberative Process 6/25/2008 emails between . , and A. Acosta regarding draft of notification of victim list for J. Epstein counsel with attached drafts (NB: Final list, with victim names redacted, has been produced to counsel for Petitioners P-014991 thru P-015004 6/23/2008-6/26/2008 emails between-. and counsel for 6(e) Investigative privilege Privacy Act/TVPA/CVRA grand jury witness/victim regarding immunity and travel for grand jury ap ear e, P-015005 thru P-015006 6/28/2008 emails between . A. Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege regarding correspondence with J. Goldberger and proposed chang agreement P-015007 7/3/2008 emails between_and A. Acosta Work Product Deliberative Process regarding telephone cod. nd regarding meeting with Sheriff's Office about work release program P-015008 thru P-015024 7/8/2008 emails between A Attorney Advisory, Victim Witness Staff, EOUSA), and regarding filing of Petitioners' suit, with attached Draft of Declaration and initial Petition (DE1) (NB: Privilege is not being asserted for second attachment (DEI). Attachment was prepared by petitioners and is not being produced because it is within their custodiiii,control.) Work Product Deliberative Process P-015025 thru P-015028 7/8/2008 email from . to A. Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding victim notification letter provided to counsel for J. Epstein on 11/28/2007 with attachment (NB: The 11/28/2007 email to J. Leflcowitz with attachment will be produced to petitioners' counsel contemporaneously with the filing of this lo P-015029 thru P-015034 7/7/2008-7/8/2008 emails between and regarding Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege background of J. Epstein investigation, negotiations, and victim notifications, and forwarding earlier emails related to Lee questions Page 3 of 7 EFTA00185452 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 4 of 7 Bates Ran e Description Privile e s Asserted P-015035 thru P-015062 7/8/2008-7/9/2008 emails between , A. Acosta, , , and regarding response to Jane Doe suit, procedure for filing, and internal office policies Work Product Deliberative Process P-015063 thru P-015069 7/11/2008-7/14/2008 emails between • nr A. Acosta, and re outcome of hearing in Jane Doe I. U.S. suit and contact from counsel for J. E stein Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process P-015070 thru P-015071 7/14/2008-7/15/2008 emails between E. Attorney-Client Privilege and T. Smith regarding FBI victim notifications and guidance regarding language to use and information to rovide P-015072 thru P-015074 7/17/2008 email from to A. Acosta, . Work Product Deliberative Process and with attached draft of letter to M. Tein regarding misrepresentations in filings on behalf of J. Epstein in civil suits P-015075 thru P-015081 7/18/2008-7/21/2008 emails between U E. , and regarding preparation of victim notification letters, victim contact list, filigg.of victim notification letter in a civil proceeding, and contact by . with one victim o uun that sentence im sed was insufficient Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Investigative Privilege P4115082 thru P-015084 7/21/2008 emails between I , Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process 6(e) E. and regarding ongoing victim notification process and Epstein filings in state court litigation related to federal grand * investigation P-015085 thru P-015090 7/22/2008 emails between A. AS , E. , and regarding 7/21/2008 letter from M. Tein announcing plan to stay the civil suits against J. Epstein and notification that B. Reinhart is counsel of record for S. in civil suits (NB: Tein letter is being produced to petitioners' counsel concurrently with production of this privilege log) Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process Page 4 of 7 EFTA00185453 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 5 of 7 Bates Range Desii Privilege(s) Asserted P-015091 thru .ion 7/22/2008 emails between . r and E. Attorney-Client Privilege 6(e) regarding ongoing victim notification process P-015092 Investigative Privilege Privacy Act/TVPA/CVRA P-015093 7/22/2008 emails between , E. Attorney-Client Privilege thru , and regarding correspondence M inn Work Product P-015097 J. Epstein counsel with attached draft response 6(e) : A final version of the letter has been .roduced.) Deliberative Process P-015098 . 7/23/2008 ernails between and regarding Work Product correspondence with counsel for J. Epstein and notice of breach Deliberative Process 6(e) P-015099 7/25/2008 emails between and regarding 6(e) extension of grand jury to allow for continued presentation of J. Epstein Work Product case Deliberative Process P-015100 8/2/2008 email from to A. Acosta, and Work Product thru P-015116 Mg summarizing status of Jane Doe United States litigation and requesting views on making certain disclosures to counsel for petitioners with attached pleading filed by petitioners (DE19) 6(e) Deliberative Process (NB: Privilege is not being asserted for attachment. Attachment was prepared by petitioners and is not being produced because it is within theirsiSoyd and control.) P-015117 8/5/2008 email from . IM to A. Acosta, . Work Product thru and regarding analysis of JeffiSstem agreement, with Deliberative Process P-015135 attached 6/24/2008 email from . I II to R. Black and J. Goldberger and attached Epstein agreement. (NB: Privilege is not being asserted for the two attachments. The 6/24/2008 email will be produced to petitioners' counsel contemporaneously with the filing of this log, and the Agreement has previously been produced to petitioners pursuant to an earlier Court order.) Page 5 of 7 EFTA00185454 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338-1 Entered on PLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 6 of 7 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-015136 thru P-015172 8/13/2008-8/15/2008 emails between A. Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege and . regarding scope of Epstein agreement and correspondence and telephone conference with J. Lefkowitz (NB: Emails to and from J. Lefkowitz and R. Black have been produced to Petitioners' counsel) P-015173 thru P-015186 8/25/2008 emails between A A. Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege = and regarding letter received from J. Lefkowitz (NB: Lefkowitz letter has been produced to Petitioners' counsel P-015187 thru P-015194 O8-8/26/2008 emails between . A. Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process S and re draft response to J. Lefkowitz and draft amended victim notification letter (NB: Final version of letter to Lefkotiz and Black has been produced to Petitioners' counsels P-015195 thru P-015198 9/2/2008 emails between . , and Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege regarding revised victim notification P-015199 thru P-015206 9/17/2008 emails between . A. Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege I= , and regarding efforts by Palm Beach Daily News to unseal NonProsecution Agreement that had been filed in state court (NB: Emails from Counsel for Daily News and from State Attorney's Office have been 'roduced to Petitioners' counsel P-015207 thru P415213 9/17/2008 email from I to A. Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process Privacy Act/TVPA/CVRA = and regarding attached letters from J. Herman alleging that victim notifications violated Bar ethics rules (NB: Redacted versions of the letters have been produced to Petitioners' counsel) P-015214 thru P-015226 9/29/2008 correspondence to Florida Bar Ethics Counsel regarding victim notification letters and allegation of ethics violation for distribution of letters with attached proposed victim notification letters Work Product Relevance Florida Bar Privacy Rules Page 6 of 7 EFTA00185455 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 7 of 7 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-015227 thru P-015233 10/18/2008-10/20/2008 emails between A. A Work Product Deliberative Process and.. regarding correspondence with discussing changes to understanding of portions of Non-Prosecution agreement and victim notifications P-015234 thru P-015238 11/4/2008 correspondence from Florida Bar Ethics Counsel regarding Florida Ethics Rules involved in distributing victim notification letters. Work Product Relevance Florida Bar Privacy Rules P-015239 thru P-015263 11/26/2008 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding email from R Black about work release (NB: Email from R. Black has been roduced to Petitioners' cou e P-015264 thru P-015267 12/4/2008 emails between E. and Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Investigative Privilege Privacy Act/TVPAJCVRA regarding attempts to send victim notification letters overseas via Legal Attaches and unrelated Epstein financial issue Page 7 of 7 EFTA00185456 L EFTA00185457 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES, Respondent. JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Rule 56.1, move for summary judgment on the issue of the United States Government's violation of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), where no genuine issue of material fact exists.' In support, they state: INTRODUCTION In 2004, Congress enacted the CVRA because it found that in case after case "victims, and their families, were ignored, cast aside, and treated as non-participants in a critical event in their lives. They were kept in the dark by prosecutors too busy to care enough ... and by a court system that simply did not have place for them." 150 CONG. REC. 7296 (2004) (statement of The Court previously granted the victims leave to file a 60-page motion for partial summary judgment. DE 327. EFTA00185458 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 57 Sen. Feinstein). In passing the CVRA, Congress mandated a series of rights for crime victims. Sadly, several years later, when the Government began handling this case, it did precisely what Congress thought it had forbidden. The Government deliberately kept crime victims "in the dark" so that it could enter into a plea arrangement designed to prevent the victims from raising any objection. In doing so, the Government refused to afford victims the rights they had been promised by Congress—particularly "the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding," "the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case," and "the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy."2 The undisputed evidence begins in 2005, when the Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") had identified numerous girls as victims of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual crimes. In 2006, the PBPD turned the case over to federal authorities for further investigation. As early as March 15, 2007 and throughout the rest of the investigation, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("the Office") specifically identified several dozen girls whom it classified as "victims" under the CVRA. Once that identification was made, the Government was obligated to afford these victims certain rights under the CVRA—a fact of which the Government itself was well aware? Indeed, the Government provided notification to the girls that they were classified as "victims" under the CVRA. But what the Government did not tell the victims lies at the heart of the case. It is undisputed that the Government did not tell the victims that, by May 2007, the Office had 2 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX2), (4)-(5), (8); RFP MIA 000001-000006 (Exhibit 1). 3 000966-000967 (Exhibit 2); 000589-000591 (Exhibit 3); US_Atty_Cor 00135 (Exhibit 4); RFP MIA 000222 (Exhibit 5). 2 EFTA00185459 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 57 prepared an 82-page prosecution memorandum and a 53-page indictment against Epstein and his co-conspirators! At that time, rather than confer with the victims about how to proceed, the Government began conferring about this issue exclusively with Epstein's counsel. Epstein's counsel contended that, despite abundant connection to interstate commerce, Epstein's sex trafficking was purely of local concern. By August 2007, federal prosecutors had disproven or rejected these defense arguments and notified the defense that all of the identified victims retained federal rights. For example, during August 2007, Jane Doe I, and other similarly situated victims, provided details to federal agents of the abuse that they endured at the hands of Epstein and his co-conspirators. In September 2007, without conferring with any of the victims, the Government and Epstein shifted gears and began working together to concoct a criminal charge for Epstein to plea to other than his sexual abuse of minors. As alternative charges, they discussed charging Epstein with: (I) various misdemeanors, (2) assaulting his co-conspirators and girlfriend, (3) using private investigators to chase and harass victims' families, (4) obstructions of grand jury subpoenas, or (5) his obstruction of the federal investigation when he instructed another co￾conspirator to lie to federal agents.5 Ultimately, however, none of those would work. Assistant U.S. Attorney ("AUSA") (the "line prosecutor") informed Epstein's counsel that she was getting pushback for creating a charge using one of the main co-conspirators as the RFP WPB 000286 (Exhibit 6). 5 US_Atty_Cor 00030-00032 (Exhibit 7); RFP MIA 000129 (Exhibit 8); RFP MIA 000133 (Exhibit 9); RFP MIA 000095 (Exhibit 10); RFP MIA 000075-000076 (Exhibit 11); RFP WPB 000220 (Exhibit 12); RFP MIA 000077- 000087 (Exhibit 13); RFP MIA 000088 (Exhibit 14); RFP WPB 000235.000244 (Exhibit 15); RFP WPB 000107- 000112 (Exhibit 16); RFP WPB 002188 (Exhibit 17); RFP WPB 000266-000277 (Exhibit 18); RFP MIA 000113 (Exhibit 19); RFP MIA 000151-000160 (Exhibit 20); RFP MIA 000098-000105 (Exhibit 21). 3 EFTA00185460 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 57 victim .° Consequently, the Government and Epstein searched for another crime for Epstein to plead to, which could accompany a federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Incredibly, the offense to which Epstein and the Government ultimately agreed, labeled the minor victims "prostitutes." The undisputed evidence clearly shows that by September 21, 2007, the line prosecutor had informed Palm Beach State Attorney that a federal resolution had been reached by way of a NPA, yet the victims remained uninformed? On September 24, 2007, the NPA was signed, preventing prosecution of all federal crimes committed by Epstein and his co￾conspirators against the victims. After the signing of the NPA, the Government and Epstein's attorneys worked together to choose a lawyer to be paid by Epstein to represent Epstein's victims for the purpose of settling civil restitution claims. This too was all being done without the victims having any knowledge whatsoever. The correspondence between the Government and a candidate for that representative position as well as between the Government and Epstein's counsel reflects that the Government still had not yet disclosed the NPA to the victims, and was following the guidance of Epstein's counsel in making decisions with respect to the timing and substance of any communication to the victims.8 For the next nine months, from the time the NPA was signed through the date of Epstein's state court plea in June of 2008, the Office—doing Epstein's bidding—assiduously concealed the NPA's existence from the victims. While this indulgent deal was incredible in its own right, even more extraordinary was how the victims were treated during the process. Rather 6 Exhibit 15. RFP WPB 002125 (Exhibit 22). 3 See e.g., USAttyCor 00166 (Exhibit 23). 4 EFTA00185461 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 57 than confer with the victims about the fact that resolution by NPA was ever being considered— or even tell them that it was already a signed deal—the Office and Epstein inserted a "confidentiality" provision into the agreement barring its disclosure to anyone, including the victims. There is no dispute that the Government did not inform the victims of the NPA or of the possibility of any such type of resolution. Consequently, there is no dispute that the Government did not afford the victims any rights before the signing of the NPA. In October 2007, after the NPA was signed, federal agents spoke with three of the more than 30 identified victims, including Jane Doe 19 The Government does not dispute that this contact only occurred after the signing of the NPA. Even more important, it is not disputed that this contact was: 1) made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and not a "prosecutor for the Government," 2) that the FBI did not inform the victims of the NPA and certainly did not confer with the victims about the details of the NPA, and 3) that this contact only occurred with three of the more than 30 victims. Lastly, while the content of that conversation is contested, any stretched argument that the conversation satisfied CVRA requirements for Jane Doe 1 are belied by the timing of the conversation as well as the uncontested documentary evidence of the communications with the victims (including with Jane Doe 1) that followed that conversation. Subsequent to the FBI's contact with three of Epstein's victims, the Government informed Epstein's attorneys that victim notification letters needed to be sent to all the victims pursuant to the CVRA. Rather than comply with this acknowledged requirement, Epstein's counsel convinced the Government that (contrary to standard Government practice) Epstein 9 RIP MIA 000464-000468 (Exhibit 24). 5 EFTA00185462 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 6 of 57 should be permitted to provide input into any message being delivered, and ultimately that the victims should not be told anything "until after Epstein pleas."10 In January 2008, FBI agents again met with Jane Doe I and gathered additional details about Epstein's abuse as well as the direct sexual abuse by one of his co-conspirators, who participated in the abuse of other victims as well. The Government then sent a victim notification letter to Jane Doe 1 informing her of her rights under the CVRA, that "this will be a long investigation," and to "be patient."" Jane Doe I was sent a similar letter on June 7, 2008.12 Other victims were also sent these letters communicating that the Epstein case was an on-going active criminal investigation—not that the Government had already immunized Epstein for all federal crimes committed against each of the victims, through a NPA. These misleading letters were sent almost up until the date of Epstein's state court plea in late June 2008.13 On June 30, 2008, Epstein pled guilty to state court charges. It is uncontested that the victims were not reasonably and accurately informed about that hearing—specifically, they were never told the hearing was part of a process that would extinguish any possibility of Epstein being prosecuted for the crimes he had committed against them in Florida. Even after the plea, the Government once again conferred with Epstein's attorneys to decide what to tell the victims. As the Court is aware, this CVRA action was filed in July 2008 at a time when the victims mistakenly believed that the federal case remained open, and wanted to ensure that their rights under the CVRA were afforded before any possible federal disposition. At the emergency RFP WPB 001978-001979 (Exhibit 25). H Declaration of Jane Doe I (Exhibit 26); Declaration of Jane Doe 2 (Exhibit 27). 12 000978-000989 (Exhibit 28). o [DE 48) Exhibit I (Exhibit 29). 6 EFTA00185463 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 7 of 57 hearing on the Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights Act, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 were in the courtroom to learn for the first time that the federal case had been resolved. The undisputed facts show that for nine months, the Government and Epstein conspired to conceal the NPA from the victims to prevent them from voicing any objection, and to avoid the firestorm of controversy that would have arisen if it had become known that the Government was immunizing a politically-connected billionaire and all of his co-conspirators from prosecution of hundreds of federal sex crimes against minor girls. Such facts demonstrate clear violations of the CVRA's requirements that the Government afford victims the reasonable right to confer, the right to be treated with fairness, and the right to reasonable and accurate notice about court hearings. No genuine issue of material fact or law can exist on these points. The Court should accordingly grant summary judgment for the victims on the issue of the CVRA violations and then, in subsequent proceedings, turn to the issue of the proper remedy for those violations. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, the victims submit this statement of undisputed material facts in support of their motion for partial summary judgment:14 I' In an effort to streamline their case and bring it to a more rapid resolution, in this summary judgment motion the victims present only some of the evidence that they are prepared to produce at any evidentiary hearing in this matter. For instance, the victims have concentrated on the emails and other documents establishing violations of their rights, largely avoiding issues of the Government's "motive" for the violations and other related issues. Because of the possibility that the Court may not grant summary judgment on this narrower approach, the victims are continuing to pursue discovery with regard to motive and several other important issues that would come into play at a broader evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., [DE 344] (victims' motion for deposition of government witnesses). The victims reserve the right to supplement this motion if additional discovery is received through these discovery efforts and to present these broader issues at any evidentiary hearing or remedy phase of these proceedings. 7 EFTA00185464 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 8 of 57 EPSTEIN'S CRIMES I. Between about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls, including Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2, at his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, located in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere in the United States and overseas.15 2. Because Epstein and his co-conspirators knowingly traveled in interstate and international commerce to sexually abuse Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly situated victims, they committed violations of not only Florida law (see, e,g., Fla. Stat. §§ 794.05, 796.04, 796.045, 39.201 & 777.04), but also federal law, including repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2421, 2422, 2423, & 371).16 EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS 3. In addition to personally abusing his victims, Epstein also directed other persons to sexually abuse the girls. For example, sexually abused Jane Doe 1 and other victims at the direction of Epstein.I7 IS See, e.g., Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Jane Doe 102 Epstein Complaint (Exhibit 30); Response to Request for Admission #1 (Exhibit 31) (admitting federal investigation); FBI 302 of Interview with Jane Doe 1 on August 14, 2007 (Exhibit 32); FBI 302 of Interview with Jane Doe 1 on January 31, 2008 (Exhibit 33); Palm Beach Police Report (Exhibit 34) (discussing investigation of numerous Epstein victims); Exhibit 6 (nagt 82-page prosecution memo and 52-page prepared indictment); [DE 304] Declaration of FBI Special Agent NM (Exhibit 35) (notin that the FBI identified many potential victims of sexual abuse by Epstein); The People of the State of New York I. Jeffrey Epstein (Exhibit 36); RFP WPB 000550.000554 (Exhibit 37) (listing 31 victims the that U.S. Attorney's Office was prepared to name as a victim of an enumerated federal offense); Sora Hearing Transcript (Exhibit 38); RFP MIA 000361-000365 (Exhibit 39) (Chief of Child Exploitation Section of the Justice Department concluding after review of the facts that U.S. Attorney's would not abuse its discretion in prosecuting; noting "multiple mutually-corroborating witnesses," the Epstein case "consistent in principle with other federal prosecutions nationwide"). 16 See note 14, supra. " See Exhibit 32; Exhibit 33; Exhibit 34. 8 EFTA00185465 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 9 of 57 THE INVESTIGATION OF EPSTEIN'S CRIMES 4. In 2005, the Town of Palm Beach Police Department received a complaint from the parents of a 14-year-old girl about her sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. The PBPD then capably conducted a thorough investigation and ultimately identified approximately 20 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 who were sexually abused by Epstein." 5. In 2006, at the request of the PBPD, the FBI opened a federal investigation into allegations that Epstein and his personal assistants had used facilities of interstate commerce to induce girls between the ages of 14 and 17 to engage in illegal sexual activities. 6. The FBI ultimately determined that both Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were victims of sexual abuse by Epstein while they were minors. Jane Doe 1, for example, provided detailed information about her abuse—and the abuse of Jane Doe 2—to the FBI on August 7, 2007.19 7. On about August II, 2006, Jane Doe 2 received a standard CVRA victim notification letter. The notification promised that the Justice Department would make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe 2's rights, including "[t]he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving ... plea." The notification further explained that "[a]t this time, your case is under investigation." 20 That notification meant that Jane Doe 2 had been identified as a victim of a federal offense and as someone protected by the CVRA. 1s Exhibit 34; see also RFP WPB 001940.001941 (Exhibit 40) (later description of investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office). 19 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 32. 10 August II, 2006 Victim Notification Letter to Jane Doe 2 (Exhibit 41). 9 EFTA00185466 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 10 of 57 8. More generally, the FBI established that Epstein used paid employees to repeatedly find and bring minor girls to him. Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain minor girls not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others?' EPSTEIN'S FEDERAL PLEA NEGOTIATIONS 9. From January 5, 2007 through September 2007, plea discussions took place between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida and Jeffrey Epstein, who was represented by numerous attorneys?? 10. On February I, 2007, the Epstein defense team sent a 24-page letter to the Office going over what they intended to present during a meeting at the Office the same day. The letter falsely stated: "Epstein did not know or believe any women were under 18 years of age." It also contained other deceptive factual and legal arguments about Epstein's culpability.23 1. By March 15, 2007, the Office was sending letters to victims informing them of their rights pursuant to the CVRA.24 12. By May 2007, the Office had drafted an 82-page prosecution memorandum and 53- page indictment outlining numerous federal sexual offenses committed by Epstein 25 13. On about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand delivered to Jane Doe I a standard CVRA victim notification letter. The notification promised that the Justice Department would make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe I's rights, including "[t]he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding 21 See note 14, supra. 22 RFP WPB 001744 (Exhibit 42). 23 RFP WPB 000730.000754 (Exhibit 43) (asserting Epstein thought the girls were 18 or older). 24 Exhibit I. 22 US_Atty_Cor. 00004 (Exhibit 44); Exhibit 6. I 0 EFTA00185467 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 11 of 57 in the district court involving [a]...plea." The notification further stated that, "[a]t this time, your case is under investigation."26 14. The notification described in the previous paragraph meant that Jane Doe 1 had been identified as a victim of a federal offense and as someone protected by the CVRA. Jane Doe I relied on these representations and believed that the Government would protect these rights and keep her informed about the progress of her case 29 15. On July 6, 2007, Epstein's lawyers sent a 23-page letter lodging numerous, technical legal arguments to persuade the Office that no federal crimes had been committed by Epstein, and that consequently there were no federal crime victims. The letter also falsely claimed that "Mr. Epstein never targeted minors," and urged the Government against a federal prosecution on the basis that Epstein was an upstanding citizen who had made tremendous philanthropic and personal contributions that warranted a declination to prosecutes 16. On August 2, 2007, another attorney for Epstein sent a similar letter expressing the same sentiments.29 17. However, by August 3, 2007, the Government had disproven or rejected Epstein's various arguments against federal charges, as AUSA sent a letter to Epstein's counsel stating, tie would reiterate that the agreement to Section 2255 liability applies to all of the minor girls identified during the federal investigation, not just the 12 that form the basis of an 26 June 7, 2007 Victim Notification Letter to Jane Doe I (Exhibit 45). 17 Exhibit 26. 2$ MIA_CEOS_00077-00099 (Exhibit 46); RFP MIA 000189 (Exhibit 47). 29 RFP MIA 000053.000055 (Exhibit 48). II EFTA00185468 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 12 of 57 initial planned charging instrument."30 This was a clear indication from the federal prosecutors that all of the minor girls identified through the investigation were classified as victims with federal rights pursuant to the CVFtA. 18. By September 10, 2007, multiple drafts of the NPA had been exchanged between Epstein's counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office; however, no one from the Office and no Government representative had notified a single victim about the existence of the plea negotiations, much less conferred with them about their views on those negotiations 3t 19. On September 12, 2007, while attempting to create alternative charges against Epstein, the U.S. Attorney's Office expressed concern about 'e effect of taking the position that Mr. Epstein's house is in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" because the Government had "no evidence of any assaults occurring either on Mr. Epstein's plane or offshore from his residence."32 20. On September 13, 2007, the line prosecutor emailed Epstein's counsel indicating that in an effort to come up with a solution to the September 12 concern, she had been "spending some quality time with Title 18 looking for misdemeanors." The line prosecutor further indicated, "I know that someone mentioned there being activity on an airplane, I just want to make sure that there is factual basis for the plea that the agents can confirm." Epstein's counsel responded, lailready thinking about the same statutes."33 70 RFP WPB 001479-001480 (Exhibit 49); Exhibit 48 (earlier correspondence attached for reference). 31 RFP MIA 000058-000063 (Exhibit 50). 32 Exhibit 12; RFP MM 000072-000073 (Exhibit 51). " Exhibit 11 (emphasis added). 12 EFTA00185469 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 13 of 57 21. On September 14, 2007, after having spoken on the telephone about the subject matter of the September 13 emails, Epstein's counsel and the line prosecutor exchanged emails including a proposed plea agreement for Epstein to plea to assaulting one of his co￾conspirators?' 22. On September 15, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an email to the Epstein defense team raising concerns about a resolution that would not involve one of Epstein's minor victims and stating: I have gotten some negative reaction to the assault charge with [a co-conspirator] as the victim, since she is considered one of the main perpetrators of the offenses that we planned to charge in the indictment. Can you talk to Mr. Epstein about a young woman named [Jane Doe]? We have hearsay evidence that she traveled on Mr. Epstein's airplane when she was under 18, in around the 2000 or 2001 time frame." 23. On September 16, 2007, the line prosecutor corresponded with Epstein's counsel about having Epstein plead to obstruction of justice for pressuring one of his co-conspirators to prevent her from turning over evidence or complying with a previously-served grand jury subpoena.36 24. In the same correspondence, the Office discussed with defense counsel how they could contrive to establish jurisdiction away from the location where the crimes actually occurred— and away from where the victims actually lived—so as to avoid the public finding out about anything: "On an `avoid the press' note, I believe that Mr. Epstein's airplane was in Miami on the day of the [co-conspirator] telephone call. If he was in Miami-Dade County at the time, then 34 Exhibit 13. 33 Exhibit 15; RFP WPB 000066-000074 (Exhibit 52). 36 RFP WPB 000124.000I26 (Exhibit 53). 13 EFTA00185470 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 14 of 57 I cart file the charge in the District Court in Miami, which will hopefully cut the press coverage significantly." They also discussed having Epstein plea to a second charge of assaulting a different co-conspirator." 25. On September 16, 2007, the line prosecutor wrote to Epstein's counsel indicating that the Office did not like the factual basis for the proposed charges as the Office was "not investigating Mr. Epstein abusing his girlfriend."38 26. The correspondence further discussed a possible plea disposition that would make it hard for a judge to see what was happening: Andy [i.e., AUSA Andrew Laurie] recommended that some of the timing issues be addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes. I will include our standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability and I will mention 'co-conspirators,' but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge. Also, we do not have the power to bind Immigration . . . there is no plan to try to proceed on any immigration charges against either Ms. [co-conspirator] or Ms. [co￾conspirator]." 27. In the same email, the line prosecutor wrote to defense counsel about a meeting outside the U.S. Attorney's Office: "Maybe we can set a time to meet. If you want to meet 'off campus' somewhere, that is fine.s10 28. On about September 16, 2007, Epstein's counsel provided a proposed NPA to the Government that extended immunity from federal prosecution not only for Epstein, but also to 77 US_Atty_Cor. at 29 (Exhibit 54); RD urn 000122 (Exhibit 55); RFP WPB 000125.000126 (Exhibit 56); RFP MIA 000281 (Exhibit 57). 37 Exhibit 7. 39 i d. 10 Exhibit 7; US_Atty_Cor. 00196 (Exhibit 58) (indicating that at least one additional meeting was held off campus between the Government and counsel for Epstein). 14 EFTA00185471 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 15 of 57 certain co-conspirators: "Epstein's fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement also precludes the initiation of any and all criminal charges which might otherwise in the future be brought against Lesley Groff, and or any employee of N.E.S. for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation as described above."41 29. On September 17, 2007, the line prosecutor wrote to defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz: "Please send [a document] to my home e-mail address — [redacted] and give me a call on my cell [redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions tomorrow."°Z In discovery in this case, the U.S. Attorney's Office has not produced any emails sent to or from any home e-mail addresses of its prosecutors. 30. On September 17, 2007, defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz responded: "[D]o you have another obstruction proffer I can review that you have drafted? Also, if we go that route, would you intend to make the deferred prosecution agreement public?"4J 31. On September 18, 2007, the Office responded: "A non-prosecution agreement would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part of our case file. It probably would be subject to a FOIA request, but it is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process.'" 32. On September 20, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office wrote: "On the issue about 18 USC 2255 [a civil restitution provision], we seem to be miles apart. Your most recent version 41 Exhibit 16. 42 RFP WPB 001709 (Exhibit 59). 43 Exhibit 17. 44 Exhibit 10. 15 EFTA00185472 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 16 of 57 not only had me binding the girls to a trust fund administered by the state court, but also promising that they will give up their 2255 rights.... In the context of a non-prosecution agreement, the office may be more willing to be specific about not pursuing charges against others.i15 33. On September 21, 2007, state prosecutor wrote the line prosecutor about the proposed deal and added: "Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in writing. After this is resolved I would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a conversation:" 6 Such statement is further evidence of the fact that Epstein's counsel, the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the State of Florida were conferring daily in an effort to resolve the case in a way that would compensate the victims through restitution, yet no one made any effort to notify the victims of the true status of the case. 34. On September 21, 2007, the line prosecutor emailed Epstein's counsel stating, "I think that the attached addresses the concerns about having an unlimited number of claimed victims, without me trying to bind girls whom I do not represent.i47 Despite knowledge that such agreement would be binding on the victims, the Office never attempted to notify or confer with the victims about the existence of the NPA. 35. On September 23, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an email to Lefkowitz stating: "It is factually accurate that the list we are going to give you are persons we have identified as victims. If we did not think they were victims, they would have no right to bring suit."48 45 RFP AIM 000173 (Exhibit 60). 46 Exhibit 21. 47 US_Atty_Cor 0081-0087 (Exhibit 61) (emphasis added). a Exhibit 4. 16 EFTA00185473 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 17 of 57 36. On September 24, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an e-mail to a prospective representative for the Epstein victims named Humberto "Bert" Ocariz, entitled "Conflict Check" confirming the girls' status as victims, stating: "Please keep this confidential because these are minor victims. This is a preliminary list." 49 Later on September 24, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an email to Lefkowitz stating, "I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors."50 37. As correspondence continued on September 24, 2007, and the NPA was being executed, Lefkowitz sent an email to line prosecutor stating: 'M — Please do whatever you can to keep this [i.e., the NPA] from becoming public.sS1 SIGNING THE SECRET NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT 38. On September 24, 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office formally reached an agreement whereby the United States would defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida. Epstein and the Office accordingly entered into a NPA reflecting such agreement. Most significantly, the NPA gave Epstein a promise that he would not be prosecuted in the Southern District of Florida for a series of federal felony offenses involving his sexual abuse of more than 30 known minor girls and countless other unknown minors. The NPA instead allowed Epstein to plead guilty to state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution.52 39. The NPA also set up a procedure whereby a victim of Epstein's sexual abuse could obtain an attorney to proceed with a civil settlement with Epstein, provided that the victim 49 Exhibit 2. S0 Exhibit 4. st Exhibit 57. 32 Executed Non-Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit 62). 17 EFTA00185474 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 18 of 57 agreed to limit damages sought from Epstein.53 Such provision was devised by Epstein's counsel and the Office without the knowledge or consent of the victims, and without any opportunity for them to reasonably confer on the provision. 40. Among other provisions, the NPA expanded immunity to any "potential co￾conspirator" of Epstein's: "In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Lesley Groff, or "54 41. The NPA also provided that it was confidential: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure."55 LACK OF VICTIM NOTIFICATION BEFORE THE NPA WAS SIGNED 42. From the time the FBI began investigating Epstein until September 24, 2007—when the NPA was concluded—the U.S. Attorney's Office never conferred with the victims about a NPA.56 43. From the time the FBI began investigating Epstein until September 24, 2007—when the NPA was concluded—the U.S. Attorney's Office never even told the victims that such an $3 Exhibit 62. Mats. 55 a See Tr. of July 11, 2008 Hearing (Exhibit 63) at 9-12; [DE 141 at 4 (Exhibit 64). 18 EFTA00185475 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 19 of 57 agreement was under consideration.57 FAILURE TO NOTIFY OTHER SIMILARLY-SITUATED VICTIMS ABOUT THE NPA 44. Many, if not all, other similarly-situated victims received standard CVRA victim notification letters substantively identical to those sent to Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 and the Government reasonably expected them to rely on those representations.° 45. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not consult or confer with any of the victims about the NPA before it was signed." 46. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not tell any of the victims about the NPA before it was signed.° 47. Because none of the victims knew about the NPA or any other possible resolution of the case, they could not have conferred with prosecutors about the NPA before it was signed.° 48. Epstein's counsel was aware that the Office was deliberately keeping the NPA secret from the victims and, indeed, had sought assurances to that effect.62 NEGOTIATIONS ABOUT CONCEALING THE NPA FROM THE VICTIMS 49. After the NPA was signed, Epstein's counsel and the Office began negotiations about whether the victims would be told about the NPA.63 " See Exhibit 63 at 9-12; Exhibit 64 at 4; [DE 225-1] at 51 (Exhibit 65). " Id. " Id. 60 Id 61 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27. 62 Exhibit 63 at 9; US_ Atty_Cor. 0153 (Exhibit 66) (emphases added); RFP MIA 000489-000491 (Exhibit 67). 44 Exhibit 66 (emphases added). 19 EFTA00185476 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 20 of 57 50. It was a deviation from the Government's standard practice to negotiate with defense counsel about the extent of crime victim notifications." 51. To pressure the Office to agree to positions they wanted, Epstein's counsel began "a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors." This assault was more aggressive than any U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, or any of his prosecutors, had ever seen in their extensive experience e5 52. On about September 24, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Leflcowitz, stating that the Government and Epstein's counsel would negotiate privately about what information would be disclosed to the victims about the agreement: Thank you, Jay. I have forwarded your message only to [United States Attorney] Alex [Acosta], Andy, and Roland. 1 don't anticipate it going any further than that. When I receive the originals, I will sign and return one copy to you. The other will be placed in the case file, which will be kept confidential since it also contains identifying information about the girls. When we reach an agreement about the attorney representative for the girls, we can discuss what I can tell him and the girls about the agreement. I know that Andy promised Chief Reiter an update when a resolution was achieved.... Rolando is calling, but Rolando knows not to tell Chief Reiter about the money issue, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and the amount of time that has been agreed to. Rolando also is telling Chief Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone.66 53. On September 25, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz stating: "And can we have a conference call to discuss what I may disclose to . . . the girls regarding the agreement."67 64 Exhibit 65 at 50. " 001795-001797 (Exhibit 68); see, e.g., Exhibit 24. b6 Exhibit 66 (emphases added). US_Atty_Cor. at 156 (Exhibit 69). 20 EFTA00185477 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 21 of 57 54. On September 25, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an email to Lefkowitz, (I) expressing what she called "bias" against plaintiffs' attorneys, (2) trying to set up an arrangement whereby Epstein's victims would not be represented by various private attorneys, and (3) arguing instead for an attorney in Miami who could help keep things concealed: "They [Ted Babbitt, Stuart Grossman, Chris Searcy, Jake Lytal] are all very good personal injury lawyers, but I have concerns about whether there would be an inherent tension because they may feel that THEY might make more money (and get a lot more press coverage) if they proceed outside the Terms of the plea agreement. (Sorry — I just have a bias against plaintiffs' attorneys.) One nice thing about Bert is that he is in Miami where there has been almost no coverage of this case."68 55. On September 26, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz in which she stated: "Hi Jay — Can you give me a call at ■-Ixxx-xxxx] this morning? I am meeting with the agents and want to give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls.s69 56. On September 27, 2007, the attorney appointed by the Office to represent the victims—without the knowledge of the victims—emailed the Office asking questions about the assignment, including whether he could see a copy the indictment or plea agreement "so that we understand exactly what Epstein concedes to in the civil case.i70 57. On September 27, 2007, upon inquiry from the Office, Lefkowitz responded by stating that the attorney representative "certainly [] should not get a copy of any indictment.s71 68 RFP WPB 000384 (Exhibit 70). 69 Exhibit 26; US_Atly_Cor. at 359 (Exhibit 71). J° 000574-000575 (Exhibit 72). RFP WPB 001687 (Exhibit 73). 21 EFTA00185478 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 22 of 57 58. On September 27, 2007, the line prosecutor informed Epstein's counsel of concerns raised by the attorney representative for the girls selected by the Government and paid for by Epstein. Specifically, "[t]he concern is, if all 40 girls decide they want to sue, they don't want to be in a situation where Mr. Epstein says this is getting too expensive, we won't pay anymore attorneys' fees. "72 59. On September 27, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an email to state prosecutors and : "Can you let me know when Mr. Epstein is going to enter his guilty plea and what judge that will be in front of? I know the agents and I would really like to be there, `incognito."' The fact that they intended to be at the plea proceeding "incognito" is evidence that they did not intend to notify the victims of the proceeding.73 60. On October 3, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a proposed letter that would have gone to a special master for selecting an attorney representative for the victims under NPA's compensation procedure. The letter described the facts of the Epstein case as follows: "Mr. Epstein, through his assistants, would recruit underage females to travel to his home in Palm Beach to engage in lewd conduct in exchange for money. Based upon the investigation, the United States has identified 40 young women who can be characterized as victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Some of those women went to Mr. Epstein's home only once, some went there as many as 100 times or more. Some of the women's conduct was limited to performing a 72 Exhibit 23. RFP WPB 002046 (Exhibit 74). 22 EFTA00185479 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 23 of 57 topless or nude massage while Mr. Epstein masturbated himself. For other women, the conduct escalated to full sexual intercourse."' 61. On October 10, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Acosta stating, in pertinent part: "Neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case, including appointment of the attorney representative and the settlement process. Not only would that violate the confidentiality of the agreement, but Mr. Epstein also will have no control over what is communicated to the identified individuals at this most critical stage. We believe it is essential that we participate in crafting mutually acceptable communication to the identified individuals." The letter further proposed that the attorney representative for the victims be instructed that "[Otte details regarding the United States's investigation of this matter and its resolution with Mr. Epstein is confidential. You may not make public statements regarding this matter."" 62. On October 18, 2007, the U.S. Attorney met with Lefkowitz in person for breakfast. Meanwhile, the victims had still not been notified of the NPA.76 63. On October 23, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Acosta, which stated: "I also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me during our October 12 meeting in which you . . . assured me that your Office would not . . . contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matten RIP WPB 000411-000412 (Exhibit 75). RFP MIA 000015.000016 (Exhibit 76). 76 RFP WPB 002020402021 (Exhibit 77). 77 Exhibit 67 (emphasis added). 23 EFTA00185480 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 24 of 57 64. On October 24, 2007, AUSA sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, proposing an Addendum to the NPA clarifying the procedures for the third-party representative for the victims under the NPA's compensation procedures.78 65. On October 25, 2007, AUSA sent a letter to Ret. Judge Davis about selecting an attorney to represent the victims under the NPA's compensation procedure.79 LACK OF VICTIM NOTIFICATION AFTER THE NPA WAS SIGNED 66. After the NPA was signed, the Office regarded the agreement as having "an express confidentiality provision.s80 67. By entering into the confidentiality provision, the Office put itself in a position that conferring with the crime victims—including Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly￾situated victims—about the co-conspirator immunity provision and the NPA's non-prosecution provisions would have violated the confidentiality provision of the agreement.81 68. The confidentiality provision was a contractual prohibition, binding on the U.S. Attorney's Office, against disclosing the terms of the NPA 82 69. Epstein was well aware of this failure to notify the victims and, indeed, arranged for this failure to notify the victims?" 70. On about October 26 or 27, 2007, after the initial plea agreement was signed, FBI agents contacted Jane Doe I. Special Agents E. US_Atty_Cor. 00220-00226 (Exhibit 78). " 000551-000554 (Exhibit 79). " Exhibit 64 at 4. 61 Exhibit 62. 82 Id " Id.; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 64 at 4-5; Exhibit 69. 24 and met in EFTA00185481 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 25 of 57 person with Jane Doe I. During this litigation, the Special Agents have said that they explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges involving another victim, he would be required to register as a sex offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages? 71. During this meeting, the Special Agents did not explain that an agreement had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal charges for crimes committed against Jane Doe I or the many other victims cooperating with the federal investigation.BS 72. The Special Agents also did not explain that an agreement had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein's co-conspirators, including Marcinkova who had personally sexually abused Jane Doe I at the direction of Epstein. Because the plea arrangement had already been reached with Epstein, the agents made no attempt to secure Jane Doe I 's view on the proposed resolution of the case or to confer with her about it.86 73. Jane Doe I did not get the opportunity to meet or confer with the attorney for the Government in the case about any potential federal deal that related to her or the crimes Epstein committed against her.87 74. The agents could not have revealed the immunity features of the NPA without violating its terms, which required that the Government "provide notice to Epstein before making ... disclosure" of the NPA.88 84 Exhibit 26. " Exhibit 62; Exhibit 26; Exhibit 63 at 4.6, 18.19, 22-23. u Id. 87 Id. u Id. 25 EFTA00185482 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 26 of 57 75. Jane Doe l's understanding of the Special Agent's explanation was that only the state portion of the Epstein investigation was being resolved, and that the federal investigation in which she was participating would continue. This understanding is consistent with the future communication she received." 76. In addition to Jane Doe 1, FBI agents talked to only two other victims out of the 34 identified victims about the "general terms" of the NPA, including the provision providing a federal civil remedy to the victims." 77. After these meetings with three victims, Epstein's defense team complained. At that point, the U.S. Attorney's Office decided not to make any notifications about the NM to any victim 91 78. Other than the three victims mentioned above, the United States did not inform any of the victims of anything about the status of the case or any plea discussions with Epstein, including even the existence of the NPA.92 79. On about November 27, 2007, AUSA sent an e-mail to Leflcowitz, (with a cc to U.S. Attorney Acosta) stating that the Office had a statutory obligation to notify the victims about Epstein's plea to state charges that was part of the NPA: The United States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to notes the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will make one full week since you were formally notified of the selection. I must insist that the vetting process come to an end. Therefore, unless you provide me with a good faith objection to Judge Davis's selection [as special 89 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; [DE 58] (Exhibit 80) at I I. " RFP MM 000408 (Exhibit 81); Exhibit 64 at 4. 91 Exhibit 64 at 5. 92 Exhibit 62; Exhibit 65 at 57; Exhibit 64 at 4-5. 26 EFTA00185483 Case 9:08•cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 27 of 57 master for selecting legal counsel for victims pursuing claims against Epstein] by COB tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification of the victims. Should you give me the go-head on [victim representative] . selection by COB tomorrow, I will simultaneously send you a draft of the letter. I intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 20.93 80. On November 28, 2007, the Government sent an email to Lefkowitz attaching a letter dated November 29, 2007 (the apparent date upon which it was intended to be mailed) and explained that "I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms." The proposed letter then spelled out a number of the provisions in the NM, including that because Epstein's plea to state charges was "part of the resolution of the federal investigation," the victims were "entitled to be present and to make a statement under oath at the state sentencing.s44 81. On November 28, 2007, Lefkowitz sent an email to U.S. Attorney Acosta (with a copy to AUSA Sloman) objecting to victim notifications: We do, however, strongly and emphatically object to your sending a letter to the alleged victims. Finally, we disagree with your view that you are required to notify the alleged victims pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004.... Furthermore, if a letter is to be sent to these individuals, we believe we should have a right to review and make objections to that submission prior to it being sent to any alleged victims.... fljt it should happen only after Mr. Epstein has entered his plea." 82. The Government complied with such direction and failed to inform the victims of the NPA until after Epstein entered his plea. On November 29, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Acosta objecting to the proposed victim notification letter, stating that it is 93 US_Atty_Cor. at 00255-00262 (Exhibit 82) (emphasis rearranged). " RFP WPB 000429 (Exhibit 83); RFP MIA 000011-000014 (Exhibit 84). " Exhibit 26 (emphasis added). 27 EFTA00185484 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 28 of 57 inappropriate for any letter to be sent to the victims before Epstein entered his plea or had been sentenced. Lefkowitz also told the Government that the victims should not be invited to the state sentencing, that they should not be encouraged to contact law enforcement officials, and that encouraging the attorney representative to do anything other than get paid by Epstein to settle the cases was to encourage an ethical conflict.96 83. On about November 30, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta sent a letter to one of Epstein's defense attorneys, Ken Starr, stating: "I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options with your client." The letter also explained that the line prosecutor had informed Acosta "that the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 relief during the investigation phase of this matter" despite the fact that the tittle of law . . . now requires this District to consider the victims' rights under this statute in negotiating this Agreement."97 84. Because of concerns from Epstein's attorneys, the U.S. Attorney's Office never sent the proposed victim notification letters discussed in previous paragraphs to the victims or anything discussing any of the NPA provisions.98 85. On December 5, 2007, Starr sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Acosta (with copy to AUSA Sloman) asking about issuance of victim notification letters and stating: "While we believe that it is wholly inappropriate for your Office to send this letter under any circumstances, it is certainly inappropriate to issue this letter without affording us the right to review it."99 96 REP MIA 000007-000010 (Exhibit 85). " RFP MIA 000501-507 (Exhibit 86). " Exhibit 26; RFP MIA 000025.000037 (Exhibit 87). 99 Exhibit 76. 28 EFTA00185485 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 29 of 57 86. On about December 6, 2007, Sloman sent a letter to Lefkowitz again recognizing the rights of the victims, and also recognizing that the victims had not yet been afforded any rights, despite the fact that the NPA was signed months earlier. The letter stated: [E]ach of the listed individuals are persons whom the Office identified as victims. [T]he Office is prepared to indict Mr. Epstein based upon Mr. Epstein's 'interactions' with these individuals. This conclusion is based upon a thorough and proper investigation - one in which none of the victims was informed of any right to receive damages of any amount prior to the investigation of her claim. [T]he Office can say, without hesitation, that the evidence demonstrates that each person on the list was a victim of Mr. Epstein's criminal behavior. Finally, let me address your objections to the draft Victim Notification Letter. You write that you don't understand the basis for the Office's belief that it is appropriate to notify the victims. Pursuant to the 'Justice for All Act of 2004,' crime victims are entitled to: 'The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding ... involving the crime' and the 'right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding....' 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) & (3). Section 3771 also commands that 'employees of the Department of Justice .. . engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a).' 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1).... With respect to notification of the other information that we propose to disclose, the statute requires that we provide a victim with the earliest possible notice of: the status of the investigation, the filing of charges against a suspected offender, and the acceptance of a plea. 42 U.S.C. 10607(c)(3). Just as in 18 U.S.C. 3771, these sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non￾Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego its legal obligations. [T]he Office believes that it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each listed individual was a victim of Mr. Epstein's criminal conduct while the victim was a minor. The law requires us to treat all victims "with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(8).1° 10° US_Atty_Cor. 190-193 (Exhibit 88) (emphasis added). 29 EFTA00185486 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 30 of 57 The letter included a footnote stating: "Unlike the State's investigation, the federal investigation shows criminal conduct by Mr. Epstein at least as early as 2001, so all of the victims were minors at the time of the offense."1°I 87. On December 7, 2007, defense attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez sent a letter to AUSA Sloman, requesting "that the Office hold off on sending any victim notification letters." The Government complied.102 88. While discussing with defense counsel changes in the October 2007 Addendum and in a December 19, 2007 letter from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not confer with any of the victims about these modifications to the NPA. 89. On December 13, 2007, the line prosecutor sent a letter to Lefkowitz confirming that the Government had earlier stopped making victim notifications because of objections from Epstein's criminal defense counsel: "You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done."103 The December 13, 2007 letter reveals it would have been possible to confer with victims about the NPA. The U.S. Attorney's Office was able to confer constantly with Epstein's counsel about the parameters of the NPA, but intentionally declined to confer with Epstein's victims about the Agreement.101 90. On December 19, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta sent a letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez stating, "I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. We intend to provide victims with notice of the 01 RFP WPB 000620 (Exhibit 89). 102 RFP WPB 001557 (Exhibit 90). 100 Exhibit 24; Exhibit 69; RFP MM 00469 (Exhibit 91). KA Id. 30 EFTA00185487 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 31 of 57 federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notices of the state proceedings.105 91. In about early January 2008, as the result of pressure from Epstein's attorneys, Acosta agreed with Epstein's attorneys "that there were significant irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement" and "called a time-out." At that time, Acosta asked the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, located in Washington, D.C., to look at the case.l°6 CONCEALING THE NPA WHILE EPSTEIN SOUGHT REVIEW 92. Following the entry of the "time out," any requirement that Epstein carry out his obligations under the NPA was delayed while he sought higher level review within the Justice Department. During this review, the victims were not told about the existence of the NPA.107 93. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 received victim notification letters from the FBI advising them that `Tiflis case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation.' 94. The January 10, 2008, notification letter did not disclose that the federal cases in the Southern District of Florida involving Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 were the subject of the NPA US_Atty_Cor. 00272-00273 (Exhibit 92); RFP MIA 000038.000040 (Exhibit 93); RFP MIA 00041-00047 (Exhibit 94); RFP MIA 000048-000052 (Exhibit 95). 106 Exhibit 91 (email from Lefkowitz to Acosta, dated February 29, 2008, and noting that it had been nearly two months since the "time out" agreement). 107 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; RFP WPB 001616-001623 (Exhibit 96); Exhibit 63 at 4-5, 18-19, 22-29. 108 January 10, 2008 Victim Notification Letter to Jane Doe I (Exhibit 97) (emphasis added); January 10, 2008 Victim Notification Letter to Jane Doe 2 (Exhibit 98). 31 EFTA00185488 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 32 of 57 entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously, or that there had been any potentially binding resolution.109 95. On about January 10, 2008, other victims similarly-situated to Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 received letters identical in substance to those described in the immediately preceding paragraphs.' 10 96. In early 2008, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 believed that criminal prosecution of Epstein was extremely important. They also desired to be consulted by the FBI or other representatives of the Federal Government about the prosecution of Epstein. In light of the letters that they had received around January 10, 2008, they reasonably believed, as was obviously intended by the letters, that a federal criminal investigation of Epstein was on-going— including investigation into Epstein's crimes against them. They also reasonably believed that they would be contacted by and have an opportunity to confer with federal prosecutors before the Federal Government reached any final resolution of that investigation." 97. On January 31, 2008, Jane Doe I met with FBI Agents and AUSA's from the U.S. Attorney's Office. She provided additional details of Epstein's sexual abuse of her. The AUSA's did not disclose to Jane Doe I at this meeting that they had already negotiated a NPA with Epstein.' 12 98. On March 19, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a lengthy email to a prospective pro bono attorney for one of Epstein's victims who had been subpoenaed to appear at a deposition. The 109 Id. II° Exhibit 63 at 4.5, 18.19, 22-29. III Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18.19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27. " 2 Exhibit 33. 32 EFTA00185489 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 33 of 57 email listed the attorneys representing Epstein, the targets of the investigation, and recounted in detail the investigation that had been conducted to that point. The email did not reveal the fact that Epstein had signed the NPA in September 2007.113 99. On May 30, 2008, Jane Doe 5 (another client of the undersigned), who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that "[Ibis case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation."11" The statement in the notification letter was misleading. The letter did not disclose the NPA already entered into by Epstein and the Office, and instead implied that the Office was still investigating Epstein and had not decided how to proceed with the case, neither of which was accurate.115 100. The May 30, 2008, victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged the victims' rights under the CVRA at the same time as the Office was not disclosing the NPA's existence to Jane Doe 5 and the other victiim."6 101. In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted the line AUSA handling the case to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Mr. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein, consistent with his clients' desires. The line prosecutor and Mr. Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed in the I" Exhibit 40. " 4 Exhibit 29. 1" Id. 116 Exhibit 28; Exhibit 62. 33 EFTA00185490 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 34 of 57 future. Mr. Edwards was lead to believe federal charges could still be filed, with no mention whatsoever of the existence of the NPA or any other possible resolution to the case. 117 102. At the end of the call, the line prosecutor asked Mr. Edwards to send any information that he wanted considered by the Office in determining whether to file federal charges. Because of the confidentiality provision that existed in the plea agreement, the line prosecutor did not inform Mr. Edwards that months earlier, in September 2007, the Office had reached an agreement not to file federal charges. The line prosecutor also did not inform Mr. Edwards that resolution of the criminal matter was imminent."8 103. On June 19, 2008, Mr. Edwards sent an email to the line prosecutor requesting to meet in person to confer with the Government regarding the status of his clients' case.119 104. Because the line prosecutor did not tell Mr. Edwards about the NPA, Mr. Edwards was not able to confer with the prosecutor about the NM on behalf of his clients. Mr. Edwards, however, made it perfectly clear that his clients wanted to confer with the prosecutor before any resolution was reached. Epstein was aware of this continued concealment of the NPA from the victims and, indeed, sought this concealment.120 105. On June 23, 2008, the line prosecutor sent an email to Leflcowitz stating that the Deputy Attorney General had completed his review of the Epstein matter and "determined that federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein's case twais appropriate. Accordingly, Mr. Epstein ha[d] until Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 64 at 5-6. u° Id; US_Atty_Cor. 0321 (Exhibit 99). 119 RFP WPB 001894 (Exhibit 100). 110 Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 64 at 5-6; Exhibit 99. 34 EFTA00185491 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 35 of 57 the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein."I21 EPSTEIN'S ENTRY OF HIS GUILTY PLEA 106. On and before June 30, 2008, the Government and Epstein's attorneys corresponded extensively (often multiple times on any given day) regarding Epstein's entry of his guilty plea. Throughout the course of these communications, the Government and Epstein operated on the agreement that the victims would not be told about the NPA, much less about the fact that Epstein's plea was a triggering event for the federal case being resolved.'22 107. On about June 27, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office called Mr. Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the impending Monday morning hearing. The notice, however, was only that Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims—not Mr. Edwards' clients nor any of the federally-identified victims. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not tell Mr. Edwards that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement.123 108. In fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not disclose to Edwards the fact that the guilty pleas in state court had any bearing on the cases of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. As a result, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 did not attend the plea hearing.124 121 Exhibit 40. In Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; RFP WPB 000512-000513 (Exhibit 101). 123 Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 44, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101. 124 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4.6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101; Declaration of Brad Edwards (Exhibit 102). 35 EFTA00185492 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 36 of 57 109. Had they known that the plea agreement in state court made it impossible to prosecute Epstein federally for his crimes against them, they would have objected to this resolution and would have certainly attended the hearing.'" 110. On or before June 30, 2008, the Office prepared a draft victim notification to be sent to the victims—a letter that it intended to show to both Epstein and Jack Goldberger, as reflected by a place for the initials of both Epstein and Goldberger on the document. The notification was designed to inform the victims of the provisions of deferral of federal prosecution in favor of state charges. The notification letter began by describing Epstein's guilty plea in the past tense: "On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein ... entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida statutes forbidding the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution and felony solicitation of prostitution." Later, a substantively identical letter was prepared for Epstein's and Guy Lewis' review. 126 111. On June 30, 2008, the Office sent an e-mail to Goldberger reflecting continuing efforts to keep the NPA secret: "Jack: The FBI has received several calls regarding the Non￾Prosecution Agreement. I do not know whether the title of the document was disclosed when the Agreement was filed under seal, but the FBI and our office are declining comment if asked."1" 112. On June 30, 2008, Epstein plead guilty to state law solicitation of prostitution charges. Because the Federal Government failed to notify the victims about the NPA or its arrangements with Epstein, neither Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, nor any of the identified victims in the in Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101; Exhibit 102. 136 us_Atty_cor. 00323 (Exhibit 103); RFP WPB 000515.000520 (Exhibit 104). 127 Exhibit 99. 36 EFTA00185493 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 37 of 57 federal case were aware of the ramifications of the state proceeding (either in person or through counsel)."8 113. Immediately following the June 30, 2008 hearing, the line prosecutor told one of the victims' attorneys that Epstein had "plead guilty today in state coutt."129 114. On June 30, 2008, based on what she had been told by the Government, Jane Doe I thought that the Office was still investigating and pursuing her case. She did not receive notice that Epstein's state guilty plea affected her rights in any way. If she had been told that the state plea had some connection to blocking the prosecution of her case, she would have attended and tried to object to the judge to prevent that plea from going forward.'" 115. On June 30, 2008, based on what she and her attorneys had been told by the Government, Jane Doe 2 thought that the Government was still investigating her case. If she had been told that the state plea had some connection to blocking the prosecution of her case, she would have tried to confer with the prosecutors about it and tried to get charges filed. She wanted to be treated fairly in the process."' 116. From September 24, 2007, the date that the NPA was signed, through at least the state court plea on June 30, 2008—a period of more than nine months—the Office did not notify any of Epstein's victims about the existence of the NPA.132 In Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 64 at 6; 000001-000002 (Exhibit 105). 19 Ft.FP WPB 001861 (Exhibit 106). 170 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23. lal Exhibit 27; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 105. 173 Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28.29; Exhibit 64 at 4; USAtty_Cor. 00267-00271 (Exhibit 107). 37 EFTA00185494 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 38 of 57 117. On July 1, 2008, the day following Epstein's plea, the line prosecutor emailed the Assistant State Attorney a copy of the NPA for "filing with the Court under seal" demonstrating that the agreement continued to be withheld from the victims.133 118. On July 3, 2008, as specifically directed by the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Edwards sent a letter to the Office communicating the wishes of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 5 that federal charges be filed against Epstein: "We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this very dangerous sexual predator."134 119. When Mr. Edwards wrote his July 3, 2008 letter, he was still unaware that a NPA had been reached with Epstein and that there was any federal resolution of the case-facts that the Office continued to conceal, at the request of Epstein, not only from Edwards but also as his clients and other victims.133 120. On July 7, 2008, the line prosecutor again conferred with Epstein's counsel seeking permission to begin distributing the notification letters to the victims, acknowledging her failure to include one victim who was still a minor in 2008.136 121. Mr. Edwards first saw a reference to the NPA on or after July 9, 2008, when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition. That pleading was 13 RFP WPB 001857 (Exhibit 108). " 4 Exhibit 105. "5 Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 99; RFP WPB 001855 (Exhibit 109); [DE 48] (Exhibit 110) at 18-19. 136 RFP WPB 001854 (Exhibit III). 38 EFTA00185495 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 39 of 57 the first public mention of the NPA and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards—and thus to Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doc 5—of the possible existence of a NPA.137 122. Mr. Edwards detrimentally relied on the misleading representations made by the Office that the case was still under investigation when he was writing his July 3, 2008 letter. He would not have wasted his time undertaking a pointless exercise had he known that the U.S. Attorney's Office had previously negotiated a NPA, and he would have informed his clients about the agreement.' 38 A MOTIVE TO CONCEAL THE NPA FROM THE VICTIMS 123. e U.S. Attorney's Office—pushed by Epstein—wanted the NPA kept from public view because of the strong objection it would have faced from victims of Epstein's abuse, and because of the public criticism that would have resulted from allowing a politically-connected billionaire who had sexually abused more than 30 minor girls to escape from federal prosecution wi a county court jail sentence.139 hen deciding whether to notify the victims before Epstein entered his guilty plea, the Office was aware that a state court judge would have to review the plea and determine whether it was in the public interest, and accordingly chose not to "highlight" certain potentially objectionable features.'4° 11 Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4.6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 110 at 18.19. 138 See Exhibit 28; Exhibit 102; Exhibit 105. I" Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101; Exhibit 102; Exhibit 57 (urging Government to try and keep agreement from becoming public); Exhibit 7 (explaining Government's desire not to "highlight" possible charges or defendants bcing immunized). 39 EFTA00185496 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 40 of 57 oncealing the NPA from the victims prevented them from using their right to confer with the Government about why the NPA was not desirable or appearing at Epstein's plea and sentencing hearing to raise their concerns with the Court.14 ' THE VICTIMS' UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO ENFORCE THEIR RIGHTS 126. On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe I filed an emergency petition for enforcement of her rights under the CVRA. At the time, Jane Doe I was not aware of the NPA, so she sought a court order directing the Government to confer with her before reaching any such agreement. Epstein quickly became aware of this petition.142 127. On July 8, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a letter to Epstein's counsel. stating that victims would be informed about the civil compensation provision of the NPA the next day: In accordance with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, on June 30, 2008, the United States Attorney's Office provided you with a list of thirty-one individuals "whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein." . . In deference to your vacation, we allowed you a week to provide us with any objections or requested modifications of the list and/or the Notification language. Yesterday, I contacted you via telephone and e-mail, but received no response. Accordingly, the United States hereby notifies you that it will distribute the victim notifications tomorrow, July 9, 2008, to each of the thirty-two identified victims, either directly or via their counsel.143 128. On July 9, 2008, Jack Goldberger sent a letter to the line prosecutor raising concerns about the notifications, and suggesting modifications to the notification letter. Epstein's counsel also objected to the victim notification letters containing certain information about the NPA.144 141 18 U.S.C. § 3771; Exhibit 26; see also Exhibit 62. 1°2 [DE I] (Exhibit 112) at 1-2. 1d3 Exhibit 101. 144 RFP WPB 000524-000525 (Exhibit 113). 40 EFTA00185497 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 41 of 57 129. Later on July 9, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a response back to Goldberger, explaining how she intended to keep the victims from having access to the terms of the NPA: Without such an express Acknowledgment by Mr. Epstein that the notice contains the substance of that Agreement, I believe that the victims will have justification to petition for the entire agreement, which is contrary to the confidentiality clause that the parties have signed."4s 130. On July 9, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent victim notification letters to Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 5, via their attorney, Mr. Edwards, and to other identified victims of Epstein. That notification contained a written explanation of some of the civil compensation provisions of the NPA. The notification did not provide the full terms of the NPA. For example, the notification did not disclose the NPA or the immunity for "other potential co-conspirators" of Epstein.'46 131. On July 10, 2008, Epstein's counsel continued to protest victim notification as evidenced by Goldberger's email to the line prosecutor stating, "we respectfully request a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on a draft of the modified notification letter you intend to mail before you send it.s147 132. On July I 1, 2008, the Court held a hearing on Jane Doe I's petition and, with the stipulation of the Government, added Jane Doe 2 as a petitioner because she was a recognized crime "victim." The Court unsealed a declaration that the line prosecutor had filed in response to the petition, and because the declaration contained one paragraph of the NPA, that paragraph RFP WPB 000526-000527 (Exhibit 114). 1" 000777-000779 (Exhibit 115); 000774-000776 (Exhibit 116). RFP WPB 000535-000537 (Exhibit 117). 41 EFTA00185498 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 42 of 57 became unsealed. The line prosecutor sent an email to Goldberger informing him of the unsealing of that one paragraph.'" 133. During the July 11, 2008 hearing, the Government conceded that the NPA had been concluded months before the victims were notified about it.149 134. Throughout July 2008, Epstein's attorneys and the Government continued to correspond about issues such as subpoenas related to his computers and returning of his property.' 5o 135. On August 7, 2008, the line prosecutor emailed one of Epstein's defense attorneys, Roy Black, notice of the motion to disclose the NPA to the victims and assured him that the Government intended "to oppose the motion based upon the confidentiality provision."151 136. On August 10, 2008, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 filed a motion seeking release of the NPA.' 52 137. linmediately after the motion was filed, the Office coordinated with another Epstein attorney about how to best object to the motion.153 138. On August II, 2008, Roy Black wrote back to the line prosecutor, thanking the Government for "agreeing to oppose any disclosure of the 9/24/07 agreement."1M RFP WPB 001845 (Exhibit 118). 19 See Exhibit 63 at 12 (". . . the agreement was consummated by the parties in December of 2007."); see also Exhibit 62. 150 RFP WPB 000470-000471 (Exhibit 119); REP WPB 000481-000489 (Exhibit 120); RFP WPB 000547 (Exhibit 121). Is' [DE 19] (Exhibit 122); RFP WPB 001825 (Exhibit 123). 152 Exhibit 122. 153 RFP WPB 001820-001838 (Exhibit 124). 1$4 RFP WPB 001819 (Exhibit 125). 42 EFTA00185499 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 43 of 57 139. Between August 11 and 14, 2008, the line prosecutor attempted to obtain a copy of the NPA that Epstein's counsel had filed in state court.155 After receiving a copy, on August 14, 2008, the line prosecutor wrote to Lefkowitz: "I can no longer argue that the Court shouldn't force us to produce the agreement because we have already provided the victims with the relevant portion when I now understand from you that I have NOT provided them with the relevant portion."' 56 140. Further communications ensued between the line prosecutor and Epstein's counsel about what exactly was contained in the NPA—specifically, whether a December modification to the agreement was part of the NPA. The notification to the victims about the civil restitution provisions had quoted from the December language.157 141. On August 14, 2008, the line prosecutor emailed Epstein's counsel stating that the court has "ordered us to make the Agreement available to the plaintiffs."' 142. On August 15, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a letter to Epstein's counsel confirming that recent correspondence was intended "solely to determine what Mr. Epstein considered to be the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement" so that the Government would know exactly what needed to be produced to the victims in this CVRA case.'59 143. On August 18, 2008, Lefkowitz wrote the line prosecutor that Epstein objected to disclosure of the terms of the NPA, but that Epstein would "cooperate with the government to reach an agreement as to substance of the notification to be sent to the government's list of ISS RFP WPB 001809-001818 (Exhibit 126). 156 RFP WPB 001804 (Exhibit 127). 131 RFP WPB 001805.001808 (Exhibit 128). 158 RFP WPB 001798 (Exhibit 129). Exhibit 68; RFP WPB 000575-000576 (Exhibit 130). 43 EFTA00185500 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 44 of 57 individuals. Based on the Agreement, the information contained in the notification should be limited to (1) the language provided in the Agreement dealing with civil restitution (paragraphs 7-10) and (2) the contact information of the selected attorney representative. We object to the inclusion of additional information about the investigation of Mr. Epstein, the terms of the Agreement other than paragraphs 7-10 and the identity of other identified individuals." 160 144. On August 21, 2008, the Government sent a letter to Epstein's counsel stating that, "[c]opies of the victim notifications will continue to be provided to counsel for Mr. Epstein." The letter further requested substantive objections to the draft notification letters, which were being re-sent "[b]ecause I previously provided the victims with incorrect information—albeit with the approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel—it is imperative that I correct the error promptly."'" 145. On August 26, 2008, the Government sent another letter to Epstein's counsel stating, "Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Tein explicitly approved the language in my earlier victim notification letter, even though they apparently were taking the position that the December 19, 2007 letter was not part of the Agreement, so that misinformation was provided to the victims with the approval of Mr. Epstein's attorneys."162 ( 146. Jane Doe I and Jane Doc 2 were not informed of the contents of the NPA until August 28, 2008, when the line prosecutor provided a copy to Mr. Edwards.163 147. On September 2, 2008, nearly a year after the NPA was signed, the line prosecutor sent an email to Epstein's counsel stating, "I will start sending out the victim notifications today. 160 RFP W113 000581-000583 (Exhibit 131). RFP WPB 000587-000588 (Exhibit 132). 162 RFP WPB 000603.000604 (Exhibit 133) (emphasis in original). 16) RFP WPB 001776 (Exhibit 134). 44 EFTA00185501 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 45 of 57 In accordance with your request, I have changed the language regarding the victims' right to receive a copy of the Agreement.' 148. On September 2 and 3, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent to Jane Doe I and other identified victims amended notification letters correcting the earlier inaccurate information about the civil compensation provisions contained in the earlier notifications.165 149. The victim notification letters that the victims received were confusing. They did not directly state that Epstein's crimes against them were not going to be prosecuted, but instead said that "the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state prosecution." The letter did not inform the victims of how this applied to them. '66 150. The victim notification letters also state that there was "litigation between the United States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." The letters did not explain that the remedy being sought in the litigation was not just to get "disclosure" of the agreement, but instead to uphold the rights of Epstein's v ictims.I67 151. On September 16, 2008, the Palm Beach Daily News wrote the State Attorney's Office that it had "recently discovered" the NPA and wanted to know what was in it. The State Attorney's Office wrote the line prosecutor inquiring how to respond.'68 152. On September 16, 2008, attorney Jeffrey Herman, who represented several Epstein victims, wrote to the line prosecutor to strenuously object to the restitution procedures 161 REP WPB 001775 (Exhibit 135). 165 September 3, 2008 Victim Notification Letter to Jane Doe I (Exhibit 136); Exhibit 2; Exhibit 94 at 2-3. Iba Id.; Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27. 167 ki 168 002343.002344 (Exhibit 137). 45 EFTA00185502 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 46 of 57 established in the NPA after learning that another attorney established through the NPA would be making unsolicited contacts to the victims. Mr. Herman explained that the notification letters were "misleading" because they referred generally to a waiver of "any other claim for damages" without informing them that this waiver might include a valuable punitive damages claim against an alleged billionaire.169 153. On September 17, 2008, the line prosecutor sent an email to State Attorney , explaining that the NPA "contain[ed] a confidentiality provision that require[ed] us to inform Mr. Epstein's counsel before making any disclosure.s170 154. On September 18, 2008, attorney Katherine Ezell representing some of Epstein's victims emailed the line prosecutor, asking whether the NPA was "blessed" by Judge Marra. The line prosecutor emailed back: "As far as I know, Judge Man has not ever seen the agreement or these notification letters.... 1 don't know if the sentencing judge ever reviewed it. The letters were reviewed by my office and Jay Lefkowitz and Roy Black before they went out."" 155. In 2010, Jane Doe I met with the new U.S. Attorney, Wilfredo Ferrer. She explained to him how the NPA had been concealed from her. Nothing ever came of the meeting, and Mr. Ferrer has continued to fight efforts by Jane Doe I and other victims to have the court declare that their rights were violated while the NPA was drafted and implemented.' 169 id Im REP WPB 001773 (Exhibit 138). In RFP WPB 001763 (Exhibit 139). In Exhibit 26; Tr. Nov. 23, 2015 (Exhibit 140) at 3-5 (U.S. Attorney's Office argues that the victims are "complicit" in their own sexual abuse and therefore cannot receive any remedy under the CVRA). 46 EFTA00185503 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 47 of 57 ( 156. At all times material to this statement of facts, it would have been practical and feasible for the federal government to inform Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Ms. , Jane Doc 5, and all other similarly-situated victims of the details of the proposed NPA with Epstein, including in particular the fact that the agreement barred any federal criminal prosecution of crimes that Epstein committed against thcm.'" 157. At no time while it negotiated and executed the NPA did the Government notify the victims that Epstein's guilty plea would prevent his prosecutions for crimes against them. Nor did the Government ever allow the identified victims to "confer with the prosecutor on the case," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5), or "treat them with fairness, respect and dignity" by making them aware of the NPA, § 3771(a)(8). In fact, to the contrary, the Government went to great lengths to conceal the fact that there was a federal resolution at all and mislead the victims into believing that the federal case was proceeding so that the NPA could be secretly put in place before the victims knew what was going on.170 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW In light of the foregoing undisputed material facts, summary judgment for the victims on the issue of whether their CVRA rights were violated is appropriate. The Court is well aware of the applicable summary judgment standard, which requires that there be no disputed issues that are genuine or material for the moving party to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Joseph'. Napolilano, 839 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1333 (S.D. Fla. 2012). The undisputed facts "3 See Exhibit 88. "4 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18.19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101; Exhibit 102; Exhibit 57; Exhibit 7. 47 EFTA00185504 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 48 of 57 here plainly establish that the Government—with the knowledge of, and at the urging of Epstein—violated the CVRA rights of Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly-situated victims, by deliberately concealing from them the NPA barring the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators for the federal offenses they committed against them. In particular, the Government violated the victims' right to confer with prosecutors, right to accurate notice of court hearings, and right to be treated with fairness. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5), (2), & (8). A. The Government Violated the Victims' Right to Confer. There can be no real debate that the Government violated the victims' right to confer. Indeed, it is worth recalling that in earlier proceedings, the victims filed a similar (although less detailed) motion for summary judgment. DE 48. The Government responded not by claiming that it had in fact conferred with the victims, but rather by advancing the legal argument that the CVRA does not extend any rights to victims before the filing of an indictment. DE 62. This argument was flatly contradicted by the Government's own earlier decision to provide notification to victims after the NPA was signed — and even during the investigation treating them as victims. See, e.g., ¶¶ 10-16, 34-35, 69-73, 91-94, 98, 125, supra. In any event, this Court has now firmly rejected the Government's contrived legal position. DE 99 (the court has determined "that as a matter of law the CVRA can apply before formal charges are filed").175 I 73 Not only has this Court rejected the Government's position, but Congress and the President have specifically decided to end any debate and to codify this Court's ruling into federal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX9) (victims have the "right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement") (added as part of Pub. L. 114-22, Title I, § I13(a), (eX1) (May 29, 2015)). This codification builds on the fact that Senator Kyl, the Senate co-sponsor of the CVRA, took to the Senate floor to directly express his approval of this Court's ruling. 157 Cong. Rec. S7060.0I (statement of Senator Kyl) (Nov. 2, 201 I) (applauding this Court's decision and 48 EFTA00185505 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 49 of 57 The Government's inability to demonstrate that it afforded victims their right to confer is unsurprising. Under the CVRA, identified crime victims are granted "the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). In some cases, there might be a debate about how much conferring is "reasonable" for the prosecutor to undertake. But here, no such debate is possible for the simple reason that the Government simply concealed that it was planning to enter into an agreement blocking the federal prosecution of Epstein from more than 30 of Epstein's identified victims. See, e.g., ¶¶ 17, 32-33, 38, 41, 44- 46, 66, 71-72, 87.88, 95, 102, 113, 123, supra. Whatever other rights the CVRA extends to crime victims, it surely extends the simple right to know when the Government is entering into a deal with a sex offender blocking his prosecution for crimes committed against them. See, e.g., ¶ 155, supra. Here, the Government violated the victims right to confer during at least three separate time periods: (I) on and before September 24, 2007, when the Government was negotiating and signing the NPA; (2) in and around January 2008, when it sent letters telling the victims not about the previously signed NPA, but rather counseling "patience" while the Government finished its "investigation;" and (3) in and around June 30, 2008, when the Government didn't tell the victims that the state plea would effectively extinguish their rights to ever see Epstein prosecuted. See ¶¶ 17, 32-33, 38, 41, 44-46, 66, 71-72, 87-88, 95, 102, 113, 123, supra. noting its "carefult] review" of the issues). 49 EFTA00185506 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 50 of 57 Simply put, the NPA barred prosecution of the federal sexual offenses that Epstein had committed against Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly-situated victims. Under the CVRA, the victims were entitled to confer about this disposition and attempt to persuade prosecutors to reach a different result. Recognizing a right to confer about such dispositions is "not an infringement ... on the government's independent prosecutorial discretion; instead, it is only a requirement that the government confer in some reasonable way with the victims before ultimately exercising its broad discretion." In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 395 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). The victims fully understand that if they had conferred with the Government, the prosecutors could possibly have ultimately reached the same kind of agreement. But there is good reason to believe that if the prosecutors had exposed their dealings to scrutiny by Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and the other victims, they would not have reached such a sweetheart plea deal. See ¶¶ 121-23, supra. For example, despite the fact that this case has been in litigation for more than seven years spanning several hundred pleadings, the Government does not write even a single sentence explaining why it entered into an NPA with a sex offender who had committed hundreds of federal sex offenses against young girls. Perhaps there is some reason for this extraordinary leniency. But if so, the Government has yet to offer it. In any event, regardless of the ultimate consequences of conferring, Congress promised to all crime victims—including Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly-situated victims—that they would be able to confer with prosecutors before a disposition was reached in their case. 18 U.S.C. § 377I(a)(5). The victims never received that congressionally-mandated opportunity. 50 EFTA00185507 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 51 of 57 In sum, the Government repeatedly violated the victims' CVRA right to confer — and did so at the specific request of Jeffrey Epstein. Summary judgment is thus appropriate on this basis. B. The Government Violated the Victims' Right to Be Treated With Fairness. The Government also violated the victims' "right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). Entirely apart from whether the victims had any right to confer with prosecutors, at a bare minimum they had a right to be treated fairly and not be deceived by the Government. Yet here the Government repeatedly and deliberately misled the victims about what was happening in their case, concealing from them the NPA's negotiation and all of the terms it ultimately contained. As with the violation of the right to confer, these violations occurred at multiple points in the process, including the time before the NPA was signed, after the NPA was signed, and when Epstein was entering his State court guilty plea. A clear-cut example of the Government's violating the victims right to be treated fairly is its remarkable decision in 2008, well after the NPA had been signed, to send the victims (and, in some cases, their attorneys) deceptive information that the case "is currently under investigation" and that "[t]his can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." See ¶¶ 91-103, supra. When the Government finally did inform the victims about what had happened, the notifications were not only incomplete and inaccurate, but they also arrived too late for the victims to do anything about the deal. Specifically, it was too late to confer with the prosecutor or attend the sentencing hearing. See ¶¶ 124-48, supra. Most important, the notifications did not inform the victims that a NPA had been 51 EFTA00185508 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 52 of 57 signed with Epstein, preventing federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida (and thus, as a practical matter, any prosecution for most of the victims) for the crimes he and his co￾conspirators had committed against them. The notification letters also described this litigation as "the disclosure" of the NPA, rather than its true purpose of vindicating the victims' rights and securing for the victims a right to confer about prosecuting Epstein free from the backdrop of the NPA. See ¶¶ 145-48, supra. The foregoing facts provide numerous other examples of the victims not being treated fairly. These examples include, but are not limited to: • Secretly discussing with Epstein's defense counsel contrived charges to avoid making victim notifications (fl 17-22, supra); • Secretly discussing with Epstein's defense counsel arranging a guilty plea in a jurisdiction located some distance from the victims to make it hard for them to find out what was happening (123, supra); • Secretly reaching a resolution of the case that would make it hard for a judge to see what was going on (¶ 25, supra); • Not telling the victims the NPA was under consideration (11 41-47, supra); • Deviating from standard policy by negotiating with defense counsel about the extent and substance of crime victim notifications (149, supra); • Negotiating with defense counsel about concealing the agreement (11 48-58, supra); • Working to have agents attend Epstein's sentencing hearing "incognito" without telling the victims what was happening (1 58, supra); • Making a commitment to Epstein not to contact victims about the NPA (¶ 62, supra); • Entering into a NPA with a confidentiality provision that precluded compliance with CVRA victim notification obligations (1165-69, supra); 52 EFTA00185509 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 53 of 57 • Sending FBI agents to meet with three victims, while precluding the agents from being able to discuss the NPA (¶¶ 69-73, supra); • Agreeing with defense counsel to stop victim notifications required under the CVRA (¶¶ 76-77, supra); • Agreeing to notify victims only after Epstein had entered his plea (¶¶ 80-81); • Sending deceptive letters about the case still being "under investigation" (¶¶ 91-94, 98); • Concealing the NPA from attorneys for the victims (¶¶ 100-02, 116-17); • Failing to provide reasonable notice of Epstein's sentencing hearing to the victims (¶¶ 105-10); and • Agreeing with Epstein to oppose the release of the NPA to the victims after his plea (¶¶ 134-36). The Government took all of these actions, it should be noted, with the knowledge of — and, indeed, at the insistence of— Epstein, the criminal who had sexually abused the victims. See ¶ I, supra. The overarching point on many of these actions is that victims of crime are not treated fairly if prosecutors are deceiving them about what is going on with regard to prosecuting their abusers. Whatever else "fairness" might mean, it has to at least mean that the Government keep the victims properly informed and otherwise try to insure that their interests are respected in the criminal justice process. See 150 CoNG. REC. 7303 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl describing right to fairness in broad terms). The foregoing facts amply demonstrate numerous situations wherein the Government deliberately kept the victims in the dark about what was happening. Accordingly, the Government violated their right to fairness too and summary judgment is warranted on this independent basis as well. 53 EFTA00185510 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 54 of 57 C. The Government Violated the Victims' Right to Reasonable and Accurate Notice. The Government also violated the victims' "right to reasonable, accurate and timely notice of any public court proceedings...involving the crime." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) (emphasis added). The Government may claim that it complied with this right by giving the victims notice of the state court proceeding in which Epstein pled guilty to sex offenses involving other girls less than one business day before the hearing.176 But the Government violated the victims' right to "reasonable" and "accurate" notice about this hearing. The Government concealed from Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and all the other victims, that the NPA and the federal investigation were implicated in this hearing—and thus their right to see Epstein prosecuted was about to be permanently extinguished. As a result of this concealment, they missed their only chance to speak to the Court about the crimes committed against them and to see with their own eyes Epstein being sent to jail. indeed, even afterwards, the Government continued to hide what was happening with regard to the NPA. See ¶¶ I24-148, supra. Importantly, one of the motives for this concealment was to avoid scrutiny by the victims—and the public—of what the Government was doing. See ¶¶ 121-23, supra. Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly-situated victims of serious federal sex offenses did not attend Epstein's plea hearing and sentencing for the obvious reason that they thought it had nothing to do with them—which is precisely what the Government and Epstein were trying to accomplish 176 The Government also seems to argue that the CVRA did not apply to this hearing because it was held in state court. But the hearing was one "involving the crime" committed against the victims, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(8)(2), because the NPA was directly involved in the proceedings in state court. Because of the way the Government and Epstein had constructed the NM, the state pica triggered the applicability of the federal NPA — and thus the CVRA. 54 EFTA00185511 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 55 of 57 together. Whatever else might be said about one of the most extraordinarily lenient plea arrangements in American history, the Government simply failed to discharge its duty to Epstein's victims to provide "reasonable" and "accurate" notice about court hearings connected with their abuse. Summary judgment should therefore also be granted on this basis. CONCLUSION Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, once the Government had identified the victims of Epstein's sexual offenses, it had statutory obligations to them that it was legally required to respect. Despite those responsibilities to the victims, the Government chose instead to side with the man who had victimized them. Rather than properly inform the victims what was happening, the Government engaged in months of undisclosed plea negotiations with Epstein. Once the negotiations had produced a plea arrangement that was sufficiently lenient to be acceptable to Epstein, rather than tell the victims what had been agreed, the Government conspired with Epstein to conceal that agreement. The undisputed facts clearly show that, for months, the Government deceived the victims about the existence of this arrangement—deception that was necessary to permit the agreement to be consummated before the victims could object. Perhaps before Congress enacted the CVRA, such outrageous behavior could escape a judicial response. But Congress has now spoken. The Government has an obligation to confer with crime victims, to treat them fairly, and to provide them reasonable and accurate notice of judicial proceedings relevant to their victimization. To the contrary, the undisputed facts in this case show that the Government did not make any effort to extend to any of Epstein's dozens of victims any of the rights which Congress promised them. This Court is accordingly now 55 EFTA00185512 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 56 of 57 obligated to take all necessary steps to "ensure" that the victims' rights are protected. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b). This is not a close case. This is a summary judgment case. For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should find the Government violated the rights of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly situated victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. If the Court grants their motion, the victims would then ask the Court to set an appropriate schedule for briefing and a hearing on the issue of the remedy for the violations of their rights. DATED: February 10, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, IsI Staley 9 5444444 Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEI IRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com And Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah' 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone:801-585-5202 Facsimile:801-585-6833 'This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah. 56 EFTA00185513 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 57 of 57 Attorneys for Jane Does I and 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on February 10, 2016, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: I.= 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax: E-mail: E-mail: Attorneys for the Government Roy Eric Black Jacqueline Perczek Black Srebnick Komspan & Stumpf 201 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 305-371-6421 Fax: 358-2006 Email: pleading®royblack.com Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Is/ Stadieg 9 Edayouto 57 EFTA00185514 EFTA00185515