EFTA00213048

Exhibit 1 EFTA00213048 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 East Broward Boulevard. 7th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 (954) 660-5946 Facsimile. (954) 356-7230 June 15, 2009 DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400 250 Australian Ave S. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5015 Re' Jeffrey Epstein Dear Messrs. Lefkowitz, Goldberger, and Black: I write to confirm my conversation with Mr. Lefkowitz of June 12, 2009. As I mentioned during that conversation and during the hearing with Judge Marra, the U.S. Attorney's Office is not a party to any of the civil suits against Mr. Epstein pending in the U.S. District Court or any state court and takes no position regarding those lawsuits. The U.S. Attorney's Office is not advising or requiring that Mr. Epstein take any action regarding those lawsuits, rather, Mr. Epstein should proceed as he sees fit. The U.S. Attorney's Office will continue to exercise its independent judgment and proceed in accordance with its rights under the Non-Prosecution Agreement. My statements during our conversation and during the court proceeding contained no promises and did not alter or modify the Non-Prosecution EFTA00213049 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. JUNE 15,2009 PAGE 2 OF 4 Agreement. I would like to address what appears to be a continuing pattern in this matter. There have been several instances of breaches by Mr. Epstein of the letter and spirit of the Non￾Prosecution Agreement, including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. As soon as Notice is provided by the United States, we are told that Mr. Epstein "was relying on his lawyers" and had not intended to willfully breach the Agreement. Mr. Epstein, through those same lawyers, then undertakes a perfunctory "cure" and continues to enjoy the benefit of his bargain until he decides to breach yet again. Notifications of breach have been provided on several occasions in the past. From the start, and as mentioned in extensive correspondence in October and November 2007, Mr. Epstein did not use his "best efforts" to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced within the time frame set by the Agreement. After several appeals were made throughout the Department of Justice resulting in a nine-month delay, the U.S. Attorney's Office had to remind Mr. Epstein of his obligation to provide a copy of the plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office prior to his entering into that agreement. Despite numerous requests, the proposed state plea agreement and notice of the state change of plea were not provided until I sent our first Notice of Breach letter at 3:15 p.m. on the last business day before the plea. Thereafter, I received a copy of the proposed state agreement, which contained language that directly contradicted the Non-Prosecution Agreement. A second Notice of Breach had to be prepared and sent to bring the state plea agreement into compliance. After Mr. Epstein entered his guilty plea and was sentenced, another set of problems arose. First, Mr. Epstein's counsel obstructed our ability to abide by our obligations to notify the victims of the outcome of the federal investigation. Second, Mr. Epstein refused to fulfill promptly Mr. Epstein's obligation to secure the services of an attorney representative for the victims. Third, Messrs. Goldberger and Tein approved the dissemination of a victim notification letter that Messrs. Leflcowitz and Epstein contended contained incorrect information. Fourth, Mr. Epstein's counsel informed the Court that a motion to quash subpoenas was still pending, despite the Non-Prosecution Agreement's requirement that Mr. Epstein withdraw that motion. Extensive correspondence and telephone conferences were required to resolve each of these situations. For example, on July 17, 2008, the United States had to issue a third Notice of Breach, instructing Mr. Epstein's counsel: If, in fact, your position is that the federal criminal action is still pending, then EFTA00213050 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. JUNE 15, 2009 PAGE 3 OF 4 the Office proposes that we seek the prompt resolution of the Motion to Quash, so that the computer equipment can be analyzed and the investigation can continue, including the identification of additional victims. If, instead, Mr. Epstein intends to continue performing his obligations under the Non-Prosecution Agreement, then the investigation will remain closed, and no federal criminal action will be pending. Please advise whether you would like to proceed on the Motion to Quash or, if not, please correct the representations to the Court regarding the status of the federal investigation. In November, more issues arose when we learned—not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that Mr. Epstein was spending more than twelve hours each day outside the Palm Beach County Stockade. Mr. Epstein's release prior to the Office's notification of that release, resulted in accusations from victims that the Office had violated its statutory victim notification obligations. Our investigation of Mr. Epstein's application for the work release program demonstrated that Mr. Epstein made several false statements in his application and made threatening statements to the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office about legal repercussions if he was not admitted to the program. I also discovered—again, not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that Judge McSorley had modified Mr. Epstein's judgment motc pro tune to an "Order of Community Control I," which directly contradicted the terms of the Non￾Prosecution Agreement. This required a fourth Notice of Breach and another claim that there was no "intended breach" followed by a meaningless "cure." During my conversation with Mr. Lefkowitz of June 12th regarding our fifth written Notice of Breach, and during the proceeding before Judge Marra, I heard again that Mr. Epstein had no intent to breach the Non-Prosecution Agreement but was merely relying on his attorneys. In light of the fact that Mr. Epstein is highly intelligent and experienced with the law, and is reportedly spending more than twelve hours a day at his attorney's office working on nothing but the litigation pending against him, this excuse will not be accepted. This letter is being provided to all three of you with the recommendation that you circulate it to any attorney who is acting on Mr. Epstein's behalf. Importantly, while Mr. Epstein has continued to receive the benefit of his bargain by not facing federal prosecution, our Office has not received the benefits of finality, savings of resources, or the punishment and victim restitution terms envisioned by the Non￾EFTA00213051 JAY P. LEFKOWD7, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. JUNE IS, 2009 PAGE 4 OF 4 Prosecution Agreement. As I mentioned in our telephone call, I have asked Mr. Josefsberg to provide me with the correspondence that he referenced during the hearing before Judge Marra. That will be reviewed to determine if there has been yet another breach by Mr. Epstein. As I stated, and as mentioned in the Notice Letter served upon Mr. Goldberger, notice of any breaches that we discover will be provided as required by the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Our Office also will review the new pleading in the Jane Doe 101 matter that Mr. Lefkowitz mentioned, prior to deciding what, if any, remedies we will pursue for /vit. Epstein's breach. However, I note that, while the U.S. Attorney's Office is required to provide notice of any breach, there is no requirement that Mr. Epstein be allowed the opportunity to cure any breach. The pattern of behavior described above will be factored into the Office's decision on what remedies it will pursue in connection with this most recent breach and any future violations. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney By: cc: Assistant United tares Attorney EFTA00213052 Exhibit 2 EFTA00213053 IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: (1) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(O, with minor females; in violation Page 1 of 7 EFTA00213054 of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney's Office; IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State Attorneys Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the Defendant will be served by the following procedure; THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph °hall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. Page 2 of 7 EFTA00213055 Terms of the Agreement I. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nob contendere) to the Indictment as currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXX3IMB) charging one (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires hint to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage inprostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03; 2. Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: (a) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment, and (b) Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Term 2(a), supra. 3. This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this agreement. 4. The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or incarceration. 5. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph (2), supra. 6. Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all Page 3 of 7 EFTA00213056 proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements. 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person andtor the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. 11. Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be Page 4 of 7 EFTA00213057 sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008. 12. Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. 13. 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. Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement. 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 ch a • tan tg ors of E e' including but not limited or Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain. grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. Page 5 of 7 EFTA00213058 By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all federal offenses. By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein herebyrequests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District ofFlorida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the subject ofthe grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as to any such offense. /I/ /// /// Page 6 of 7 EFTA00213059 By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non￾Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: va,_ Dated: Dated: ASSIST RNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA00213060 By signing this agreement Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non￾Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: Dated: /Lg. 07 Dated: ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA00213061 By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non￾Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with than. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Date& Dated: Dated: Dated:q—A BY: ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN Z, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA00213062 Exhibit 3 EFTA00213063 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AITILIATLD PAPINININDS Jay P. LottkovAtz. P.C. To y: AXIM VIA E-MAIL CItcroup Center 153 East 63rd Street New York. New York 10022-4811 www.kkidand.com November 29, 2007 R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffley Epstein Dear Alex: Facsimito: I am responding to the draft letter Marie sent to me last night, which purports to be a letter that you would sign and send to each of the individuals whom you have not even identified to us, and'about whom the government has made clear it "takes no position" as to the validity of potential claims that these individuals may have against Mr. Epstein. I cannot reconcile your commitment to "take no position" regarding these potential claims with your intention to sign such a letter, which will surely find its way almost immediately into the press, refers to these individuals as "minor victims," refers to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual predator," misstates the terms of our federal non-prosecution agreement (the "Agreement"), and invites federal witnesses to attend Mr. Epstein's state sentencing in order to give victim impact statements, although they are in most respects not state victims at all. More fundamentally, we don't understand the basis for your Office's belief that it is appropriate for any letter to be sent to these individuals at this stage — before Mr. Epstein has either entered a plea or been sentenced. We respectfully disagree with your view that you are required to notify the alleged victims pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. First, 18 U.S.C. § 2255, the relevant statute under the Agreement for the settlement of civil remedies, does not have any connection to the Justice for All Act The Justice for All Act refers to restitution, and § 2255 is a civil remedy, not a restitution statute. We also believe that the draft letter could not diverge more dramatically from your statement last week that your Office would not intervene in the state process from this point forward, and that you would merely monitor it Indeed, the letter as currently drafted invites federal witnesses to become participants in a state proceeding, thus federalizing the state plea and sentencing in the same manner as would the appearance and statements of a member of your Office or the FBI. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, D.C. EFTA00213064 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta November 29, 2007 Page 2 With that said, I respectfully identify below the specific objections we have with the proposed letter. First, it states that "Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will not contest jurisdiction or liability if [the alleged victims] elect to seek damages from him ..." This language implies that Mr. Epstein has agreed to concede jurisdiction and has waived liability whether or not each individual identified by the government as a "victim" of federal crimes ultimately settles her claim pursuant to the Agreement. The letter as drafted invites the witnesses to whom it is sent to believe that they can litigate their claims without Mr. Epstein being able to contest jurisdiction or liability — a construction of the Agreement that is in direct conflict with its terms. The Agreement we entered makes clear that Mr. Epstein's waiver of jurisdiction and liability is limited to those instances where the identified individual settles with him pursuant to Sections 7 through 8 of the Agreement and Addendum. As you are well aware, Mr. Epstein has no obligation or intention to concede jurisdiction or liability in any claim for damages — by an enumerated "victim" or anyone else — where that party fails to settle her claims pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. Second, there is no basis to refer to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual predator." Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Mr. Epstein will be required to register as a "sexual offender," not a "sexual predator." Those are very different categories under Florida law. Mr. Epstein has agreed to enter a plea of guilty to two counts of violation of Florida Statutes §§ 796.03 and 796.07. Under Florida law, those charges do not classify him as a sexual predator. See Florida Statute § 775.21(4)(a). Rather, he is only a sexual offender as defined by Florida Statute § 943.0435(1)00. To identify Mr. Epstein as a sexual predator, in this letter or elsewhere, is inaccurate and would irreparably harm him. Third, we find no basis in law that provides the identified individuals with either a right to appear at Mr. Epstein's plea and sentence, or to submit a written statement to be filed by the State Attorney. According to Florida Statutes §§ 960.001(k) and 921.143(1), the sentencing court permits only "the victim of the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced ... to [a]ppear before the sentencing court for the purpose of making a statement under oath for the record; and [s]ubmit a written statement under oath to the office of the state attorney, which statement shall be filed with the sentencing court" Florida Smut, § 960.001(k) citing § 921.143(1) (emphasis added). Here, Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to, and being sentenced for, state offenses, not the federal offenses under which the government has recognized these identified individuals as "victims." The state charges for which Mr. Epstein will be sentenced are not coextensive with the federal investigation. Under Florida law, only those persons identified as victims of the state offenses may make a statement at the hearing or submit a written statement EFTA00213065 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta November 29, 2007 Page 3 With respect, encouraging these individuals to participate in the state sentencing will have the effect of creating a media frenzy that will surely impact the sentence Mr. Epstein receives — precisely what your Office promised to avoid. Such an intrusion into state affairs, when the identified individuals are not even victims of the crime for which Mr. Epstein is being sentenced is highly inappropriate. The federal investigation of Mr. Epstein has been concluded, and witnesses or civil claimants identified as purported victims of federal offenses have no place in the state proceeding. We also think it will likely promote spurious civil litigation against Mr. Epstein, a result that would be highly irresponsible to encourage. Fourth, we take serious issue with the assertion in the letter that the government has identified each recipient of the letter as a "minor victim." The term "minor victim" is notably absent from the Agreement. Section 7 of the Agreement states only that the government will provide a list of individuals "whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255." Indeed, you have told us that at least one identified individual is currently 24 years old, and thus would appear not to have been a minor at the time of the alleged conduct (and therefore is presumably not eligible to settle her claims under the Agreement). To confer on these women the imprimatur of a government "finding" is both incendiary and unwarranted. Fifth, your letter mischaracterizes the nature of Mr. Epstein's liability under the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 provisions of the Agreement. Your letter states that every individual who receives the letter is a victim of "certain offenses, including travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution." This construction implies that these individuals are all victims of both offenses (travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution.) Clearly that is not the case. Consequently, the language should be revised to reflect that the identified individuals may be victims of certain offenses, but not necessarily both offenses. Additionally, for the sake of fairness and candor, we believe the same language contained in your letter to Judge Davis, stating that "[t]he United States takes no position as to the validity of any such claim under this statute," should be included in any proposed letter. Sixth, your letter states that Mr. Podhurst and Mr. Josefsberg may "represent" the identified individuals. Since we have not yet had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Podhurst or Mr. Josefsberg (though we hope to do so this week), we do not know that they will even agree to serve in this capacity. Since I believe the role you are casting for these attorneys creates a significant ethical problem, specifically the conflict between counseling the clients to settle for the statutory amount and rewarding the attorneys for litigating rather than settling their claims, I would not assume that they, or any ethical attorney, would agree to accept this assignment as you define it. Whether that will mean that other attorneys will have to be sought, or you will realize that the role is untenable as described, either result will require modification of the letter. EFTA00213066 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta November 29, 2007 Page 4 Seventh, the identified individuals should not contact lawyers in your Office or agents of the FBI. To encourage these individuals to contact federal law enforcement officials is entirely inconsistent with your promise that there will be no further federal involvement in this case. Moreover, such contact can only invite the possibility for impermissible or partial communications. Recently, you asked the defense not to contact potential witnesses in this matter in part because the Agreement contemplated the selection of an attorney representative. For the same reason there should be no continuing invitation for the witnesses to remain in contact with either your Office or the FBI. Any questions these individuals may have regarding their rights under the Agreement should be answered by Judge Davis or the attorney representative. Eighth, this letter should be mailed rather than delivered by hand. We see no reason for hand delivery, and mailing will ensure that there are no impermissible or partial communications made to the identified individuals upon delivery of the letter. If your Office insists on hand delivery of any such letter, however, it should only be made by a third party service, not by law enforcement agents. Finally, as you know, Judge Starr has requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General Fisher to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the § 2255 component of the Agreement. We are hopeful that this meeting will take place as early as next week. Accordingly, we respectfully request that we postpone our discussion of sending a letter to the alleged victims until after that meeting. We strongly believe that rushing to send any letter out this week is not the wisest manner in which to proceed. Given that Mr. Epstein will not even enter his plea for another few weeks, time is clearly not of the essence regarding any notification to the identified individuals. Sincerely, ilya jti . Lefko 'tz EFTA00213067 Exhibit 4 EFTA00213068 12/04/07 TUE 16:46 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida R. ALEXANDER ACas-rn UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DELIVERY EY FACSIMILE Kenneth W. Starr, Esq Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Jeffrey Eckstein Dear Mr. Starr: 99 N.E. 4 Ewen Afloat Ft 33132 1303) 961-9100 - Telephone (305)330-W4 - Vookelle I write in response to your November 281° letter, in which you raise concerns regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement between this Office and your client, Mr. Epstein. I take these concerns seriously. As your letter focused on the Section 2255 portion of the Agreement, my response will focus primarily on that issue as well. I do wish to make some more general observations, however. Section 2255 provides that "[alny person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of [enumerated sections of Title 18) and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation . . . may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." Thus, had this Office proceeded to trial, and had Mr. Epstein been convicted, the victims of his actions would have been able to seek to relief under this Section. The Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (1) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable" offense; (2) that this plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term ofimprisonment and (3) that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. This third point deserves elaboration. The intent is to place the victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. With this in mind, I turn to the language of the Agreement Paragraph 8 of the Agreement provides: If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States 0002 EFTA00213069 12/04/07 TUE 16:46 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter,' and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified victim and Epstein, so long as the identified victim elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United Slates, Epstein's signature on this agreement is not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability other than that contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Although these two sentences are far from simple, they appear to incorporate our intent to narrowly tailor the Agreement to place the identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. I would note that I have conferred with our prosecutors and have been told that Paragraph 8 was vigorously negotiated and that the final language was suggested largely by defense counsel. The concerns raised in your letter with respect to Paragraph 8 fall within several general categories. First, you raise concerns regarding the nature of Section 2255. As you note, Section 2255 is a civil statute implanted in the criminal code; in contrast to other criminal statutes, Section 2255 fails to correlate payments to specific injuries or losses. Instead the statute presumes that victims have sustained damages of at least a minimum lump sum without regard to whether the complainants suffered actual medical, physiological or other forms of individualized harm. These concerns were, I would expect, aired when Congress adopted this statute. Even if they were not, this provision is now law. Rule of law requires now requires this District to consider the victims' rights under this statute in negotiating this Agreement. Second, you raise concerns regarding the identity-of-the-victims issue. Your concerns appear based on the belief that Paragraph 8 is a blanket waiver of liability with respect to any number of unnamed and undisclosed victims. I would invite you to confer with your co-counsel regarding this matter. Although the language of Paragraph S could be so construed, our First Assistant informed Mr. Lefkowitz some weeks ago that this was not our position. As Mr. Lefkowitz has noted, were Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims in a subsequent Section 2255 suit would still have had some burden to prove that they were "victims." It is also the case, however, that were Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims would not have to show that a violation of an enumerated section of Title 18 took place. Accordingly, our First Assistant informed Mr. Lefkowitz some weeks ago that we understood that if a victim-plaintiff elects to proceed to trial, Mr. Epstein's Although not identified as an issue by defense counsel, having reviewed this language, I note that Paragraph 8 raises the question of what is meant by "subject matter." I have conferred with the AUSA who negotiated this language, and have been informed that parties Intended this to address issues of venue. This Office will not interpret this paragraph as any waiver of subject matter jurisdiction. Please inform int if defense counsel disagrees. _2- 1 EFTA00213070 12/04/07 TUE 16:47 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE legal team might conduct due diligence to confirm the that victim-plaintiff in fact had inappropriate contact with Mr. Epstein. Once again, our interpretive principle is our intent to place the victim in the same position she would have been had Mr. Epstein proceeded to trial. Third, you raise concerns regarding our decision not to create a restitution fund. Throughout the negotiations, defense counsel suggested several similar arrangements, including a Trust fund. Again, our decision not to create a fund flows from our belief that the Agreement should provide the same relief to the victims as they would have been entitled had we proceeded to trial. A restitution fund or trust fund would place an upper limit on the victims' recovery. It is not for this Office to make that decision for the victims. They may choose to walk away, they may choose to settle, or they may choose to sue. The choice should remain with each individual victim? Fourth, you raise concerns regarding the selection process for the attorney representative. As you may be aware, the suggestion that we appoint an attorney representative originated with defense counsel. Defense counsel, I believe, found it advantageous to attempt to negotiate a settlement of the many victims' claims with one attorney representative. My Office agreed to appoint such a representative, in part, because we too thought it valuable for the victims to have the advice of an attorney who could advise them of their choices: whether to walk away, to settle or to sue. Since the signing of the Agreement, several issues have arisen with respect to this provision. First, l elected to assign this Office's right to appoint the representative to an independent third-party, former federal Judge Davis. 1 did this to avoid any suggestion that this Office's choice of representative was intended to influence the outcome of civil litigation. Second, your co-counsel expressed concerns similar to those raised in your letter regarding the criteria used to select the representative. These criteria were: (1) Experience doing both plaintiffs' and defense litigation; (2) Experience with state and federal statutory and common law tort claims; (3) Ability to communicate effectively with young women; (4) Experience litigating against large law firms and high profile attorneys who may test the veracity of the victims' claims; (5) Sensitivity to the nature of the suit and the victims' interest in maintaining their privacy; (6) Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida; Your lent,. references U.S. v Boehm, No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Ala 2004) as a model for a restitution fund statement I asked our prosecutor to contact the AUSA in that case. In that matter, the District of Alaska sought out and obtained the consent of all the victims before entering into that settlement. In addition, they developed an elaborate procedure for deciding which victim would receive what. My view, in this case, Is that those types of negotiations arc better handled between Mr. Epstein and the victims' representatives, and that this Office should not act as intermediary. Finally, I would note that in Boehm as well, the victims' identities were not initially disclosed. As the AUSA wrote in that cast "This filing is made cx parte because Boehm, in his plea agreement, waived any rights he had pertaining to the selection of beneficiaries and the disbursement of fluids to such beneficiaries." -3- (1004 EFTA00213071 12/04/07 TUE 16:47 FAX 906 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE (7) The resources to hire experts and others, while working on a contingency fee basis, in order to prepare for trial if a settlement cannot be reached (defense counsel has reserved the right to challenge such litigation); and (8) The ability to negotiate effectively. At my direction, our First Assistant provided our criteria to your co-counsel, Mr. Lefkowitz, in advance, and at co-counsel's request, he noted in our communication with Judge Davis, defense counsel's objection to criteria 7. I have now reviewed these criteria and find them balanced and reasonable. They appear designed to provide the victims with an attorney who can advise them on all their options, whether it be to walk away, to settle (as your client prefers), or to litigate. Again, our intent is not to favor any one of these options, but rather to leave the choice to each victim. Fifth, you assert that this Office "has improperly insisted that the chosen attorney representative should be able to litigate the claims of the individuals," should a resolution not be possible. This issue, likewise, bas already been raised and addressed in discussions between your co-counsel and our First Assistant We understand your position that it would be a conflict of interest for the attorney representative to subsequently represent victim-plaintiffs in a civil suit. Your interpretation of the ethics rules may be correct, or it may be wrong. Far from insisting that the attorney representative can represent victim-plaintiffs in subsequent litigation, our First Assistant and J have repeatedly told defense counsel that we take no position on this matter. Indeed, 1 fully expect your defense team to litigate this issue with the attorney representative if a resolution is not reached. 1 have responded personally and in some detail to your concerns because I deeply care about both the law and the integrity of this Office. f have responded personally and in some detail as well because your letter troubled me on a number of levels. My understanding of the negotiations in this matter informs my concerns. The Section 2255 provision issue was first discussed at a July 31, 2007, mcetin between F,AUSA IM tea —W.1 4441 • — • fi r . re• A and two FBI agents wbo met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. On t t • te, the prosecutors presented a written, four-bullet-point term sheet that would satisfy the federal interest in the case and discussed the substance of those terms. One of these four points was the following provision: Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject matter. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s) 2422 and/or 2423. -4- la005 EFTA00213072 12/04/07 TUE 16:48 FAX 305 630 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE lane In mid August 2007, your defense team, dissatisfied with my staff's review ofthe case, asked to meet with me. Mr. Letkowtiz indicated your busy schedule, and asked me to put off until September 7, 2007, so that you could attend. Mr. Lefkowitz also indicated that he might appeal my decision to Washington D.C., if my decision was contrary to his client's interest I agreed to the September 7th meeting, despite the fact that our AUSA had an indictment ready for presentation to thegrandjury. An explicit condition ofthat agreement, however, was anunderstanding between Mr. Lefkowitz and myself that any appeal to Washington would be undertaken expeditiously. On September 7, 2007,1, along withFAUSA OM AUSAs FBI agents, met with you, Mr. Lefkowitz, and Ms. Sanchez. I understood that you wished to present federalism-based regarding ur prosecution. To ensure a Ml consideration of your arguments, 1 invite Chief of the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, to travel from Washington to attend our meeting. During the September 7th meeting, your co-counsel, Mr. Lefkowitz, offered a plea resolution. The inclusion of a Section 2255 remedy was specifically raised and discussed at the September 7t° meeting. Indeed, according to AUSA Villafafia's notes, you thanked her for bringing it to your attention. Again, no objection to the Section 2255 issue was raised. After considering the ar ems raised at the September 7h meeting, and after conferring with the FBI and with Chie ur Office decided to proceed with the indictment. At that time, I reminded Mr. Lefkowitz that he had previously indicated his desire to appeal such a decision to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, and I offered to direct our prosecutors to delay the presentation of the indictment to allow you or he to appeal our decision if you so chose. lie decided not to do so. Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiate theNon-Frosecution Agreement These negotiations were detailed and time-consuming. Mr. Epstein's defense team, including yourself, Professor Dershowitz, former United States Attorney Guy Lewis, Ms. Lilly Ann Sanchez and Messrs. Roy Black, Jack Goldberger, Gerry Lefcourt and Jay Lefkowitz had the opportunity to review and raise objections to the terms of the Agreement. Again, no one raised objections to the Section 2255 language. Since the signing of the Agreement, the defense team and our Office have addressed several issues that have arisen under the Agreement Although the exchanges were at times a bit litigious, it appears that these issues have been resolved by mutual consent, some in favor of your client, some not so. It is against these many previous foregone opportunities to object that I receive with surprise your letter requesting an 11th hour, after-the-fact review of our Agreement. Although it happens rarely, 1 do not mind this Office's decision being appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although 1 am confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal analysis, I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in the Criminal -5- EFTA00213073 12/04/07 TUE 18:48 FAX 305 530 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving their indictment package. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in fact resolved, in your client's favor. I am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement. The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must be closure on this matter. Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind. Finally, I am most concerned about any belief on the part of defense counsel that the Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitutional in any way.' In closing, I would ask that you consult with co-counsel. If after consultations within the defense team, you believe that our Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitutional, I would ask that you notify us immediately so that we can discuss the matter by phone or in person. I have consulted with the chief prosecutor in this cast, who has advised me that she is ready to unwind the Agreement and proceed to trial if necessary or if appropriate. I would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although time is of the essence (I understand that certain filings are due to our Office no later than December 7th and that certain events must take place no later than December le), lam 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. We are available by phone or in person, in the interim, to It is not clear from your knot whether you believe that attorneys in this Office have acted improperly. Your letter, for example, alludes to the need to engage in an Inquiry to assure that disclosures to potential wimesses did not undermine the reliability of the results of this fedcnl investigation. M a former Department of Justice attorney. I am certain that you recognize that this is a serious allegation. I have raised this matter with AUSA Villareal% who informed me that the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 miler during the investigation phase of this matter. If you have specific concerns. I ask that you raise these with me immediately, so that I can make appropriate inquiries. -6- 61007 EFTA00213074 12/04/07 TOE 16:45 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Woos address any matters that might remain unaddressed in this letter. We expect a written decision by this Friday at 5 p.m., indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the Agreement. cc: -7- Sincerely, It ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY EFTA00213075 Exhibit 5 EFTA00213076 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND ANILIARD PARINVASNIPS 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Mensal W. Start To Can Writer Directly: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: (213) 6130-8440 (219) 8804503 lostaurekkkland.com www.kladand.com December I I, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE (3051 530-6444 Honorable IL Alexander Acosta United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Alex: As we discussed during our telephone conversations on both Friday and Monday (yesterday), we are submitting two separate letters that address ow broad areas of deep concern in this matter. First, the cluster of fundamental policy issues surrounding the use and implementation of 2255, a richly policy-laden but uncharted area of federal law; and second, our profound concerns as to the background and conduct of the investigation. Consistent with our conversations, we submit these letters with the assurance and understanding that our doing so in no manner constitutes a breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement or unwinds that Agreement We are grateful for your courtesy in agreeing to receive and consider these submissions, and then to meet to discuss them. As you undertake your study and reflection, kindly allow me to make this pivotal point In the combined 250 years experience of Jeffrey's defense team, we have together and individually concluded that this case is not only extraordinary and unprecedented, it is deeply and uniquely troubling. The constellation of issues, large and small, renders Jeffrey's matter entirely sui genesis. We say this not lightly. Indeed, as you will glean from our two letters, we are gravely concerned that, in addition to its odd conceptualization and genesis, the matter in its day-to-day implementation has been handled in a manner that raises deeply troubling questions with respect to both federal policy and individual judgment in a system that is, at its best, assiduously devoted to the rule of law. The latest episodes involving 2255 notification to the alleged victims put illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice, time and again, are not being served. By way of illustration, but it is only one among a eaceading list of grave concerns, we now understand that the Assistant United States Atto duct has troubled us from day one has quite recently reached out to the attorney fox and Chicago Hong Kong London Munich New York San Francisco waseinaton, EFTA00213077 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Honorable R. Alexander Acosta December 11, 2007 Page 2 provided oral notification of the victim notification letter. This notification, as we have stated time and again, is profoundly unfair. But quite apart from our substantive concerns, which are abiding and which had prompted our appeal to the Assistant Attorney General in the first instance, we had thought that the notification process had been held in abeyance until completion of our ongoing discussions with respect to that process. That appears not to be so. This latest in a baleful line of prosecutorial actions is dri in irony. We respectfully call your attention to the transcript of the interview with .nd guide you — as the duly confirmed Executive Branch official charged wi malting judgments consistent with our constitutional order — to the telling fact that Ms. did not in any manner view herself as a victim. Quite to the contrary. She is not alone. We draw attention to this episode as but a recent indication of the deepening need for your thoughtful and independent review. And for your agreeing to provide that review, our defense team is very grateful. Respectfully Submitted, )4)C,-,L Kenneth W. Starr EFTA00213078 Exhibit 6 EFTA00213079 12/19/07 WED 17:03 FAX. .305 630 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 0002 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida AISKANDKI t ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATIORNRY DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Lilly Ann Sanchez Fowler White Burnett, PA 1395 Brickell Ave, 14th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. Sanchez: W N.E. 4 Sweat Maw, Fl. 33132 O05)96i-9100 - Telephony O05)530.4444 - Foaling° December 19, 2007 I write to follow up on the December 14th meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' write to yon because 1 am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this letter. I address issues raised by several members of the defense team, and would thus ask that you please provide a copy of this letter to all appropriate defense team members. First, I would like to address the Section 2255 issue? As I stated in my December 4th letter, my understanding is that the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections l Over the past two weeks, we have received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits from defense counsel. This is not the forum to respond to the several items raised, and our silence should not be interpret as agreement I would, however, like to address one issue. Your December 11e letter states that as a result of defense counsel objections to the appointment process, the USAO proposed an addendum to the Agreement to provide fur die use of an independent third party selector. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowledge of defense counsel objeuions, I suer spomo proposed the Addendum to Mr. Leflcowitx at an October meeting in Palm Beach. I did this in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process. It was only after I proposed this change that Mr.l.cfkowitz raised with me his enumerated concerns. 2 Section 2255 provides that "tally person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of [enumerated sections of Title 18) and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation ... may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, Including a reasonable attorney's fec." EFTA00213080 __42/19/07 WED 17:03 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 0 003 of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (1) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable" state offense; (2) that this state plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. With this in mind, I have considered defense counsel arguments regarding the Section 2255 portions of the Agreement. As I previously observed, our intent has been to place the victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. From our meeting, it appears that the defense agrees that this was the intent. During the course of negotiations that intent was reduced to writing in Paragraphs 7 and 8, which as i wrote previously, appear far from simple to understand. I would thus propose that we solve our disagreements over interpretations by saying precisely what we mean, in a simple fashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 and 8 with the following language: "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 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." Second, 1 would like to address the issue of victim's rights pursuant to Section 3771. I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place of Mr. Epstein's state co art sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense as a courtesy. In addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of proceeding and results of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether be wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes. Third, I would like to address the issue raised regarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At our meeting, Professor Dershowitz took the position that Mr. Epstein believes that his conduct does not satisfy the elements of this offense. His assertion raises for me substantial concerns. This Office will not, and cannot, be a parry to an agreement in which Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to an offense that he believes he did not commit. We are considering how best to proceed. 2 EFTA00213081 12/19/07 WED 17:04 FAX 305 530 0440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE e004 Finally, I would like to address a more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on September 24th, 2007. Pursuant to paragraph 11, Mr. Epstein was to use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced no later than. October 26, 2007. As outlined in correspondence between our prosecutors and defense counsel, this deadline came and went. Our prosecutors reiterated to defense counsel several times their concerns regarding delays, and in fact, asked me several weeks ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. 1 resisted that invitation. I share this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an 1 Ith hour appeal, weeks before the now scheduled January 4th plea date. This said, the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns. We hope to preserve the January 4th date. I understand that defense counsel shares our desire not to move that appearance and will work with our office to expedite this process over the next several days. With this in mind, and in the event that defense counsel may wish to seek review of our determinations in Washington D.C., I spoke this past Monday with the Assistant Attorney General Fisher, to inform her of a possible appeal, to ask her to grant the potential request for review, and to in fact review this case in an expedited manner to attempt to preserve the January 4th plea date. I want to again reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial, and he should do so if he believes that he did not commit the elements of the charged offense. I will respond to the pending issues shortly. In the interim, I would ask that you communicate your position with respect to the sections 2255 and 3371 issues as quickly as possible. cc: 3 Sincerely, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY EFTA00213082 Exhibit 7 EFTA00213083 Jay Lefkowitz/New Yorktlarldand-Ellis 021291200803:11 PM Dear Alex, To bce Subject Fw: Epstein I received the attached email fro this week and to put it mildly, I was shocked. As you will recall, back at the beginning of January, en we both agreed that there were significant irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement, you called a time-out. You had decided to ask Drew's Office to take a look at the matter and suggested that we would be hearing him within days. At that time, we welcomed the development -- especially given that we had reason to be concerned that some of the individuals in your Office were not acting appropriately in relation to this matter. In particular, we were very concerned that one of your prosecutors had given a substantial amount of information to a New York Times reporter -- telling him not only about specific aspects of our plea negotiations, but also sharing with him details about y r ffi theory concerning what laws you believe Mr. Epstein has violated. In broad strokes, Mr. told Mr. Thomas that the Office was contemplating charging Mr. Epstein under Sections 4 (b) (with a full discussion of principal liability), 2423, and 1591. He also complained about Mr. Epstein's la ers and told Mr. Thomas not to "believe the spin from Mr. Epstein's high priced attorneys? Mr. even informed Mr. Thomas that we had "asked for privately paid armed guards" as part of a house arrest proposal we had made. Even more surprising, he subsequently told Mr. Thomas that we had teamed of the conversation, complained about it and suggested an explanation. Needless to say, we were very troubled by these conversations. At this same time, we agreed that in order to provide Drew a sufficient amount of time to evaluate the matter, it made sense to move the deadline for state plea to March, which we did. I was therefore quite surprised to receive, in rapid succession, a call from Drew asking to begin the review process and then only two days later, an email from Jeff informing me of new and extremely short and arbitrary deadlines. The one thing I had become certain about in this case was that you were sincere in your desire to ensure that the DOJ took a proper and principled position with respect to this matter, and that you fully accepted our desire, and our right, to appeal any adverse decision by your Office to the DOJ. In fact, on several occasions — including our meeting before Thanksgiving in your Office -- you stated precisely as much to me. That is why I am so surprised by Jeff's latest email. We are very interested in having the meetings you suggested with Drew. It would be very unfortunate to begin the review process that you have asked Drew to conduct and at the same time artificially constrict it. As you know, the timing of a thorough review would cause no prejudice to the government's prosecution of Mr. Epstein. To the contrary, we hope that our dialogue with Drew will allow for the government to make a more informed decision concerning this matter. We have been waiting eagerly for a call from Drew for nearly two months. Now that he is prepared to meet with us, it is unfair for Jeff to seek to impose artificial deadlines. Since I will be in trial next week, we are planning to begin our meetings with Drew during the second week in March. I sincerely hope we can resolve this matter in the near future. To be dear -- at this stage -- we are not asking for anything but the same due process that you promised to afford to us when we last spoke in early January. Best, Jay cc: Jeff EFTA00213084 Exhibit 8 EFTA00213085 Jay, 02/29/2008 07:17 PM To cc bcc Subject Epstein I know you emailed the U.S. Attorney but I feel compelled to respond. In my Monday, February 25th email, I tried to express my concern, on behalf of the SDFL, about additional delays concerning this matter and the desire to expedite review without interfering or restricting the process. When you replied on Wednesday , February 27', it seemed to me that nothing had much changed. Your email stated "because I am currently scheduled to be on trial all next week in Delaware, I don't think we will actually be able to begin meeting with Drew until the following week, at the earliest" I felt that no effort was being made towards scheduling, and that, at the very least, one of Mr. Epstein's other lawyers could have attempted to schedule a meeting with CEOS. To put it another way, it appeared to me that this matter was going to drag unnecessarily. Obviously you sensed my frustration in my responding email which, in turn, generated your email to the USA. Late this afternoon, I was informed that you have scheduled a meeting with CEOS for March 12th. Obviously, I am heartened to hear of this development. Please be assured that it is not, and never has been, this Office's intent to interfere with or restrict the review process for either Mr. Epstein or CEOS. I leave it to you and CEOS to figure out how best to proceed and will await the results of that process. Jeff Sloman, FAUSA EFTA00213086 Exhibit 9 EFTA00213087 Mr. Lefkowitz, 05/28/2008 04:51 PM To cc bcc Subject Jeffrey Epstein The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was recently notified that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, at your request, intends to review certain aspects of the investigation involving Mr. Epstein's sexual conduct involving minor victims. Naturally, until the DAG's Office has completed its review, this Office has postponed the current June 2, 2008 deadline requiring compliance by your client with the terms and conditions of the September 24, 2007 global resolution of state and federal liabilities, as modified by the United States Attorney's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant US Attorney Southern District of Florida EFTA00213088 Exhibit 10 EFTA00213089 Jack Goldberger From: Jack Goldberger Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 10:22 AM To: Jack Goldberger Subject: FW: Have a great weekend! Attachments: PLEA.Epsteln.doc From: Sent Friday, June 27, 2008 10:00 AM To: Jack Goldberger Subject Have a great weekend! EFTA00213090 Exhibit 11 EFTA00213091 Jack Goldberger Sent: ma s...J11:31 AM From: SAFLS) To: Jack Goldberger Cc: USAFLS); RBlack©RoyBlack.com Subject: Re: Notice of Non-Compliance Dear Jack: I have conferred with a state court practitioner who stated that there is nothing that prohibits you from agreeing to a consecutive six-month sentence of incarceration followed by one year of community control as specified in the non-prosecution agreement. If you elect to proceed with the plea agreement as currently drafted, we ask that you insert the word "imprisoned" following the words "six months" in the second sentencing paragraph. Please confirm that this change is acceptable. Thank you. Original Message From* Goldberger To: Ann Mart..... Cc: Jack Goldberger Sent: Sat Jun 28 08:49:55 2008 Subject: RE: Notice of Non-Compliance Dear Ms please allow this e-mail to confirm our telephone conference of 6:30 pm on June 27 wherein we discussed the Epstein plea agreement and we agreed that the Epstein state plea agreement was in compliance with the September 2007 non-prosecution agreement entered into between Mr. Epstein and the USAO for the Souhern District of Florida. Jack Goldberger From: EMS C. (USAFLS) Sent: Fri 6/27/2008 5:45 PM To: Jack Goldberger; Roy BLACK Cc: Notice o Non-Compliance Dear Messrs. Goldberger and Black: Please see the attached Notification Letter. «080627 Goldberger Black notification ltr.pdf» Assistant U.S. Attorney 1 EFTA00213092 Exhibit 12 EFTA00213093 PLEA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT THE FOLLOWING IS TO REFLECT ALL TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT Name: JeffreyE. Epstein Plea: Guilty Case No. Charge Count Lesser Degree 06CF009454AMB Felony Solicitation of Prostitution 1 No 3 FEL 08CF009381AM8 Procuring Person Under 18 for Prostitution 1 No 2 FEL PSI: Waived/Not Required X Required/Requested ADJUDICATION: Adjudicate [x SENTENCE: On 06CF009454AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 12 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, with credit for 1 (one) day time served. On 08CF009381AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 18 months Community Control 1 (one). As a special condition of this Community Control, the Defendant must serve the first 6 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, with credit for 1 (one) day time served. This sentence is to be served consecutive to the 12 month sentence in 06CF009454AMB. The conditions of community control are attached hereto and incorporated herein. OTHER COMMENTS OR CONDITIONS; Court Costs: $474.00 Cost of Prosecution: $50.00 Drug Trust Fund: $50.00 As a special condition of his community control, the Defendant is to have no unsupervised contact with minors, and the supervising adult must be approved by the Department of Corrections. The Defendant is designated as a Sexual Offender pursuant to Florida Statute 943.0435 and must abide by all the corresponding requirements of the statute, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Defendant must provide a DNA sample in court at the time of this plea. Assistant State Attorney Attorney for the Defendant Date of Plea Defendant EFTA00213094 PLEA Ilk THE CIRCUITCOURT THE FOLLOWING IS TO REFLECT ALL TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT Name: Jeffrey E Epstein Plea: Gusty Dfle No. Charge Count Lester Degree C6CF039454AMB Felony Solicitation of Prostitution 1 No 3 FEL OSCF0D9361AMB Pr curing Person Under 1S for Prostitution 1 No 2 FEE. PSI: tribNedfNot Required X Required/Requested ADJUDICATION: Adjudicate (x SENTENCE: On D6CF03945/4AMB, the Defendant Is sentenced to 12 months in the Palm Beads County Detention FaSty, with credt for 1 (one) day time served. On U8C,F009381AlvlB, the Defendant is sentenced to 6 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, vsti men for 1 (one) day time served. This 6 month sentence Is to b served =nsevartive to the 12 month sentence in OSCF0394-50.AMB. Fotroviiing this 6 • . . • . month sentence, the Defendant will be placed on 12 months Community Control 1 (one). The conditions of community ,..„.inhul are attached hereto and incorporated herein. OTHER CONVENTS OR CONDITIONS: As a special condition of his community control, the De dant is to have no unsupervised contact with minors, and the supervisirrg adult must be pproved by the Department of Conedions. The Defendant is designated as a Sexual Offender pursuant to Florida Statute 943.0435 and must abkle by all the corresponding requirements of the statute, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Defendant must provide a DNA sample in court at the time of t ' V . • !iiah Assitetaittlaie Adorn,* • /c://. O f Defendant EFTA00213095 Exhibit 13 EFTA00213096 KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP AND At TILIATED PAIONIASMItS Jay P. lielcowitt, P.C. To . Cingroup Center 163 East SW Street New York, New York 10022-4811 www.kirklancLeom Octobcr 10, 2007 VIA E-MAIL R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Alex: Facsimile: Dlr. Fax Confidential. For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 408. I write as a follow up to our conversation yesterday regarding the open issues that remain M in mstein matter. As you are aware, we continue to have serious disagreements with Ms. regarding the nature of the settlement process for identified individuals' § 2255 claims. representation in a lawsuit was never contemplated by the Federal Plea Agreement (the "Agreement,. Over the course of the negotiations of the Agreement, the parties worked diligently to create an alternative dispute resolution for those identified individuals seeking a civil remedy for the conduct at issue, in an effort to avoid long drawn out disputes over liability in public adversarial litigations. Initially, we proposed that Mr. Epstein create a trust whereby a trustee would be appointed by the Circuit Court to disperses to the identified individuals based on a good faith showing of injury. In response, t proposed the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the identified individuals, not an attorney, which suggests that litigation was never contemplated by either party. Ultimately, the parties agreed to Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement, which allow for a single attorney representative to settle the claims of the identified individuals and create a procedural alternative to public adversarial litigation. In keeping with the parties' understanding of Paragraphs 7 and 8, you should know that we are in agreement with your choice of Judge Edward Davis, but we believe Judge Davis should act as the attorney representative to settle claims pursuant to the Agreement and the parties' longstanding understanding of the settlement process. Because the process we have agreed to does not contemplate litigation with respect to the attorney representative, Judge Davis can work to negotiate settlements with the identified individuals without further involvement by the government or its agents. Below, I've outlined our main areas of concern with the approach Ms. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, D.C. EFTA00213097 Confidential. For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 008. It Alexander Acosta October 10, 2007 Page 2 a lias taken regarding the role of the attorney representative and the settlement process for § 2255 claims pursuant to Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement. First Issue: The Settlement Process and the Role of the Attorney Representative. The settlement procedure we propose, and which we believe is made clear by the Agreement, is reasonable and consistent with the intention of the parties: the attorney representative will represent the identified individuals provided they opt to enter into a settlement agreement with Mr. Epstein with respect to their § 2255 claims. The attorney representative will negotiate a total settlement amount with Mr. Epstein. Once the United States has formally declined to prosecute Mr. Epstein in this matter, and each identified individual electing to settle has waived her right to pursue any other claims against Mr. Epstein, the attorney representative will distribute the proceeds in the manner he sees fit. If the identified individuals cannot settle or opt not to settle on a damages amount with Mr. Epstein, then the attorney representative may not continue his representation and is barred from filing lawsuits pursuant to § 2255 and the identified individuals would not be suing under § 2255 as contemplated by Paragraph 8. Based on the specific language in the contract and the intent of both parties, we believe that the Agreement clearly provides that the identified individuals may opt to make use of the attorney representative so long as they can reach a settlement agreement with Mr. Friein. If the parties cannot settle on a damages amount with Mr. Epstein, then the attorney representative may not continue his representation and is barred from filing lawsuits pursuant to § 2255. The provisions of the Agreement make clear that the role of the attorney representative is limited to cipnling claims brought by identified individuals pursuant to the Agreement. While Paragraph 7 defines who may be represented by the attorney representative, Paragraph 8 outlines the scope of that representation. Paragraph 7 states: The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in IS U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and has been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. Under Paragraph 8 of the Agreement, which provides the terms of the representation, the attorney representative is only appointed to protect the interests of those identified individuals who elect to waive any claim for damages other than the damages agreed to by the parties. Paragraph 8 states: If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over this person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the EFTA00213098 ConfidentlaL For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 408. R. Alexander Acosta October 10, 2007 Page 3 identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 US.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit arc not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. Paragraph 8 addresses how Mr. Epstein's waivers are triggered pursuant to a settlement with each identified individual. Paragraph 8 is clear that Mr. Epstein will only waive § 2255 liability "so long as" each identified individual proceeds exclusively under § 2255 and agrees to waive damages other than "an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein." The Agreement's silence with respect to what happens if the parties cannot settle on a damages amount indicates that the parties intended for the scope of the attorney representative's representation to be limited to settling claims with Mr. Epstein, not representing these identified individuals in § 2255 lawsuits. MIMS however, insists that the attorney representative's duties include pursuing a lawsuit un § 2255 on behalf of each identified individual in the event that settlement talks are unsuccessful. This interpretation is incorrect because Ms.IIM ignores Paragraph 8, which limits the scope of the attorney representative's representation. The longstanding intention of the parties is also consistent with our interpretation of the Agreement based on prior iterations of the Agreement, which only refer to appointing a trustee or a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of the identified individuals. Thus, legal representation in a lawsuit was never contemplated under the Agreement. Also, Mr. Epstein's agreement to pay the attorney representative's fees reaffirms that the parties never intended for the attorney representative to bring lawsuits. § 2255 includes a provision for attorne int. 's fees, but only if there is a monetary recovery. If the Agreement contemplates, as Ms. suggests, that the attorney representative could file suit on behalf of each identified • ss , Mr. Epstein would never have agreed to pay attorneys fees for those that being suit and lose. It is clear that Mr. Epstein agreed to pay the attorney representative's fees because he assumed that each identified individual represented by the attorney representative would recover something by settling on their respective damages claim. Ms. interpretation of the Agreement would also trigger profound ethical problems due to the conflicts of interests that would arise. For instance, if Mr. Epstein agrees to pay for the attorney representative's fees and monthly expenses in any potentially litigated matter, then the attorney representative would effectively be incentivized to reject settlement 'under § 2255 in an effort to draw out the lawsuits and incur more fees. If the lawyer were allowed to represent the identified individuals in a lawsuit, the best interests of each identified individual might not be served, because the attorney representative will always be more interested in pursuing lawsuits in lieu of settling claims against Mr. Epstein efficiently and fairly. This conflict EFTA00213099 Confidential. For Settlement Purpose.. Only, Pursuant to Rule 408. R. Alexander Acosta October 10, 2007 Page 4 could compromise the attorney representative's duty of loyalty. See ABA Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.8(O ("A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless... there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship"). And Mr. Epstein would essentially be paying the attorney representative to sue himself. Such a result is inappropriate and unconscionable. The attorney representative will face other conflicts as well. As a general matter, multiple representation of a group of individuals that elects to settle on damages as well as one or more individuals who reject settlement carries with it the heightened potential for irreparable conflicts. For example, the ethics rules preclude an attorney from simultaneously representing parties that are likely to end up in conflict. See ABA Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7 ("A lawyer shall not represent a client if...there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer."). Here, I can imagine a case where one of the identified individuals is called as a witness by Mr. Epstein to dispute an allegation by another identified individual who is a party to the case. The attorney representative would have to cross examine the witness, who is also his client. In another scenario, the attorney representative may receive privileged information from one identified individual, which precludes him from using that information with rospect to another identified individual. In each scenario, the attorney representative will be simultaneously representing parties that may be in conflict, in violation of Rule 1.7. For these reasons, we believe that Ms. Villafana's interpretation of the Agreement in connection with the attorney representative's role in the settlement process must be rejected. Second Issue: Waiver of Liability. Ms. incorrectly alleges that Mr. Epstein has waived liability even when claims are not sett) ant to the Agreement, if the identified individuals choose not to settle with Mr. Epstein, he will not waive liability for those individuals whose claims are not settled by the attorney representative. Paragraph 8 is clear that Mr. Epstein will only waive § 2255 liability so long as each identified individual proceeds exclusively under § 2255 and agrees to waive damages other than "an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein." (Paragraph 8, Agreement) Consequently, those identified individuals who choose not to settle with Mr. Epstein are not covered by the terms of the Agreement and will have to prove, among other things, that they are victims under the enumerated statutes. Third Issue: Communication to Identified Individuals. Ms. proposes that either she or federal agents will speak with the identified individuals regarding the settlement process. We do not think it is the government's place to be co-counsel to the identified individuals, nor should the FBI be their personal investigators. Neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the EFTA00213100 Confidential. For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rile 408. Alexander Acosta October 10, 2007 Page 5 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 a mutually acceptable communication to the identified individuals. We further believe that communications between your Office or your case agents and the identified individuals might well violate Rule 6(eX2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The powers of the federal grand jury should not, even in appearance, be utilized to advance the interests of a party to a civil lawsuit. We propose that the following joint communication be made to Judge Davis, who will act as the attorney representative and communicate accordingly with the identified individuals: As counsel for the United States of America and Jeffrey Epstein, we jointly write to you to provide information relevant to your services as the attorney representative to represent certain identified individuals who may have a civil claim against Mr. Epstein. The United States has conducted an investigation of Mr. Epstein regarding his solicitation of females, some of whom the government alleges were underage, to engage in prostitution in his Palm Beach County home. Based on this investigation, the United States has identified certain individuals who may be eligible to seek a civil remedy against Mr. Epstein pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The United States and Mr. Epstein have agreed to a resolution of this investigation. As part of the resolution of this matter, the parties have agreed to a settlement process for these identified individuals. The parties agree that you will contact each identified individual and explain the nature of the resolution of this matter, including the settlement process, in accordance with a joint communication drafted by the United States and Mr. Epstein. The parties further agree that you will interview each identified individual to confirm that they have a viable claim against Mr. Epstein pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to the resolution of this matter, you will represent only those identified individuals who elect to settle their claims with Mr. Epstein, and your duties will be limited to negotiating a settlement on the identified individuals' behalf and dispersing the settlement proceeds. Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will not contest jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida, and he will not contest liability pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 for those identified individuals who elect to settle all potential claims against him regarding this matter. Mr. Epstein has also agreed to pay reasonable attorney's fees and expenses that you incur as a result of settlement negotiations and settlement administration of this matter. EFTA00213101 Confidential. For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 403. R. Alexander Acosta October 10, 2007 Page 6 To settle these claims, the parties agree that you will negotiate a total settlement amount with Mr. Epstein for each identified individual who elects to settle. After the United States formally declines to initiate any prosecution against Mr. Epstein related to this matter and each identified individual you represent executes a waiver of all rights to pursue any litigation regarding this matter, you may then distribute the proceeds from the total settlement amount to the identified individuals in the manner you see fit. For those identified individuals who elect not to settle their claims, Mr. Epstein will not waive his right to contest jurisdiction, liability or damages. Furthermore, Mr. Epstein will not pay for their attorney's fees or expenses, and you may not represent these individuals in any capacity. Each of these individuals will be responsible for finding, hiring and paying for her own attorney. The details regarding the United State's investigation of this matter and its resolution with Mr. Epstein is confidential. You may not make public statements regarding this matter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, including the settlement process, you must contact Mr. Epstein's counsel and request a joint clarification from said counsel and the United States. You should not contact the United States directly. The parties will make every effort to answer your questions via a joint communication. Alex, as you know, when Mr. Epstein signed the Agreement, he did so in order to reach finality with your Office and with the express representation that the federal investigation against him would cease. To that end, I would like your assurance that after you and I agree to the issues raised in this letter, that it will be the end of the United States' involvement barring a willful breech of the Agreement. Specifically, the government or any of its agents will not make any further communications to the identified individuals and will not make any ex parte communications with Judge Davis. I look forward to resolving these open issues with you during our 4:30 call today. Sincerely, P. Leflcowitz EFTA00213102 Exhibit 14 EFTA00213103 *2 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820.8711 Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 November 29, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND Miss Re: Crime Victims' Rights — Notification of Resolution of Epstein Investigation Dear Miss Several months ago, I provided you with a letter notifying you of your rights as a victim pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004 and other federal legislation, including: (1) 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 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. 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. First, Mr. Epstein agrees that he will plead guilty to two state offenses, including the offense of soliciting minors to engage in prostitution, which will require him to register as a sexual predator for the remainder of his life. EFTA00213104 MISS NOVEMBER 29,2007 PAGE 2 Second, Mr. Epstein has agreed to make a binding recommendation of 18 months' imprisonment to the state court judge who sentences him. Mr. Epstein will serve that sentence of imprisonment at the Palm Beach County Jail. Third, Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will not contest jurisdiction or liability if you elect to seek damages from him because the United States has identified you as a minor victim of certain federal offenses, including travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution. To assist you in making such a claim, the U.S. Attorney's Office has asked an independent Special Master to select attorneys to represent you. Those attorneys are Aaron Podhurst and Robert ("Bob") Josefsberg with the law firm of Podhurst Orseck, P.A. They can be reached at (305) 358-2800. I anticipate that someone from their law firm will be contacting you shortly. J must also advise you that you are not obligated to use these attorneys. In fact. you have the absolute right to select your own attorney. so yon_can decide not to—sneak with Rom. Podhurst/ Josefsberg at all. or you can speak with them and decide at any time to use a different attorney If you do decide to seek damages from Mr. Epstein and you decide to use Messrs. Podhurst / Josefsberg as your attorneys, Mr. Epstein will be responsible for paying attorney's fees incurred during the time spent trying to negotiate a settlement. If you are unable to reach a settlement with Mr. Epstein, you and Mr. Josefsberg can discuss how best to proceed. As I mentioned above, as part of the resolution of the federal investigation, Mr. Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges. Mr. Epstein's change of plea and sentencing will occur on December 14,2007, at a.m., beforeJudge Sandra K. McSorley, in Courtroom 11F atthe Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 960.001(1)(k) and 921.143(1), you are entitled to be present and to make a statement under oath. If you choose, you can submit a written statement under oath, which will be filed by the State Attorney's Office on your behalf. If you elect to prepare a written statement, it should address the following: the facts of the case and the extent of any harm, including social, psychological, or physical harm, financial losses, loss of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced, and any matter relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence. Fl. Stat. 921.143(2). You also are entitled to notification when Mr. Epstein is released from imprisonment at the end of his prison term and/or if he is allowed to participate in a work release program. To receive such notification, please provide the State Attorney's Office with the following information: 1. Your name 2. Your address 3. Your home, work, and/or cell phone numbers EFTA00213105 MISS NOVEMBER 29, 2007 PAGE 3 4. Your e-mail address 5. A notation of whether you would like to participate in the "VINE system," which provides automated notification calls any time an inmate is moved. (To use this system, your calls must go to you directly, not through a switchboard.) Thank you for all of your help during the course of the investigation. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me or Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall at (561) 822-5946. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: fl . I VAY{ Assistant United States Attorney cc: EFTA00213106 Exhibit 15 EFTA00213107 12/08/07 THU 15:22 PAZ 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida la 002 DELIVERY BY PA SIMILE Jay?. Lefton/its, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis .LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: 99 N.H. 4aStreet FL 33132-2111 (305) 961-9299 Facsimile: (30S) 530-6444 December 6, 2007 I write in response to your recent e-mails and letters regarding victim notification and other issues. Our Office is trying to perform our contractual obligations under the Agreement, which we feel are being frustrated by defense counsel's objections. The Office also is concerned about Mr. Epstein's nonperformance. More than three weeks ago we spoke about the failure to set a timely plea and sentencing date. At that time, you assured me that the scheduling delay was refl.:0d by the unavailability of Judge Garcia MeSorley. met You promised that a date would be set promptly. On November 15th, Rolando with Barry Krisher on another matter, and was told by Mr. ICrisher that he had just December spoken with Jack Goldberger, and that Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing were set to occur on 14, 2007. Since that time, we have tried to confirm the date and time of the hearing in order to include that information in the victim notification letters. You continue to refer to the plea Mr. and sentencing Goldberger as though it will be in January; Mr. Krisher's office has not confirmed any date; and recently told Marie Villafafia that "there is no date." I must reiterate that a delayed guilty plea and sentencing — now more than two months beyond the original deadline — is unacceptable to the Office. As you will recall, the plea and sentencing hearing originally was to occur in early October 2007, but was delayed until October 26th Rather to allow Mr. Goldberger to attend. It was delayed again until November to allow you to attend. than using your best efforts to insure that the plea and sentencing occur in November, we recently learned that a plea conference had been scheduled with Judge McSorley for November 20. 2007, but was canceled at the request of the parties, not the judge. Judge McSorley has not been away for any extended period, and there is no basis for your assertion that the judge is the cause of EFTA00213108 12/08/07 ThU 16:23 FAX 305 630 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE JAY P. LEEKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 6, 2007 PACE 2 OF 4 any past or figure delay. Mr. Epstein currently has four Florida Bar members on his defense team, so attorney scheduling is not an adequate basis for delay. Three weeks ago I also asked you to provide our Office with the terms of the Plea Agreement with the State Attorney's Office. It is now more than two months since the signing of the Non￾Prosecution Agreement and we have yet to see any formal agreement, or even a list of essential terms of such an agreement. Next, let me address your allegation that attorneys In our office and agents of the FBI have leaked information to the press In an effort to affect possible civil litigation with Mr. Epstein. This is untrue. There has been no contact between any member of the press and any employee of our office or the FBI since you incorrectly accused investigators of telling "Vanity Fair" about Mr. Starr's employment by Mr. Epstein several months ago. We intend to continue to refrain from commenting or providing information to the press. We would ask that your client and all of his representatives do the same. I also want to address your interpretation of several statements that were included in correspondence — at your insistence — as proof that the designated victims have invalid claims. Let me make clear that each of the listed individuals are persons whom the Office identified as victims as defined in Section 2255, that is, as persons "who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section ... 2422 or 2423 of this title." In other words, the 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 w_. n9 of the victims was informed of any right to receive damages of any amount prior to the investigation of her claim. The Office agrees that it is not a party to, and will not take a role in, any civil litigation, but the Office can say, without hesitation, that the evidence demonstrates that each person on the list was a victim of Mr. Epstein's criminal behavior. Mr. Star's letter also suggests that the number of victims to whom Mr. Epstein numerical is exposed by the Agreement is limitless. As you know, early drafts of the Agreement contained a limit of 40 victims, which was removed at your request. The Office repeatedly confirmed that the number would not exceed 40; and the list is significantly shorter than that. Once the list is provided to you, if you have a good faith basis for asserting that a victim never met Mr. Epstein, we remain willing to listen and to modify the list if you convince us of your position. you don't Finally, let me address your objections to the draft Victim Notification Letter. You write that Pursuant understand the basis for the Office's belief that it is appropriate to notify the victims. to the "Justice for All Act of2004," crime victims are entitled to: "The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding ... involving the crime" and the "right 'Unlike the State's investigation, Epstein the federal investigation shows criminal conduct by Mr. at least as early as 2001, so all of the victims were minors at the time of the offense. la)001 EFTA00213109 12/08/07 THU 15:23 FAX 305 530 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE JAY P. Liuxowriz, EsQ. Decakirmit 6, 2007 Pnos 3 or 4 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, orprosecution of crime shall make theirbest efforts to see that crime victims are notified o4 and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a)." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(cX1). Additionally, pursuant to the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, our Office is obligated to "inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other law and [the) manner in which such relief may be obtained." 42 U.S.C. § 10607(cX1)(13). 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 snsperu-si 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. With respect to your assertion that we are seeking to "federalize" the state plea, our office is simply informing the victims of their rights. It does not command them to appear at the hearing or to file a victim impact statement In fact, the letter recommends the sending of any statement to the State Attomey's Office so that ASA 13eIohlavek can determine which, if any, statements are appropriate to file with the Court. Next, you assert that our letter miscb aractetizes Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay damages to the victims. To avoid that suggestion, I have asked AUSA Villafaila to simply quote the terms of the Epstein Agreement directly into the Notification Letter. We also have no objection to referring to Mr. as a "sexual offender" rather than a "predator." We have no objection to using the conjunction "and/or" in referring to the particular offense(s) of which the recipient was a victim. We will not include the language that we take no position as to the validity of any claims. While the Office has no intention to take any position in any civil litigation arising between Mr. Epstein and any individual victim, as stated above, the Office Epstein's believes that it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each listed individual was a victim of Mr. criminal conduct while the victim was a minor. The law requires us to treat all victims "with will fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity andprivaey." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). We not include any language that demeans the harm they may have suffered. accurate. The letter's assertions regarding representation by the Podhurst firm and Mr. Iosefsberg arc Judge Davis conferred with Messrs. Podhurst and Josefsberg to insure their willingness to undertake this assignment prior to finalizing his selection. Q004 EFTA00213110 12/08/07 TEO 15:23 FAX 306 630 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE JAY P. LEFKOWTTA ESQ. DECEMBER 6, 2007 P4O64 OP 4 agents. Lastly, We have you no object objection to personal communication between the victims and federal attorneys or language about contacting AUSANWrilieff to sending the letters through the mail' but we will not remove the concerns. Again, federal Special Agent Sith questions or attorney for the Government law requires that victims have the "reasonable right to confer with the notified prior ba your objection in this case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). The three victims who were litigation. Those questions had questions directed to Mr. Epstein's punishment, not the civil to the civil are appropriately directed to law enforcement. If questions arise related litigation, AUSA Villafatla and Special Agent Icuyrkendall will recommend victims direct that the those questions to Mr. Josefsberg￾I have attached a revised letter incorporating provide any the changes on which we can agree. Please a definitive further comments by the closeofbusittess on Friday. In addition, pleaseprovide us with Agreement by statement, signed by your client, of his intention to abide by each and every tarn of the us with the agnaernent(s) close of business with on Friday, December 7, 2007. By that time, you must also provide sentencing, which must the State Attorney's Office and a date and time certain for the plea and matter. occur no later than December 14, 2007. There must be closure in this By: Enclosure cc: R. Alexander U.S. Attorney AUSA Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Ajtomey First Assistant United States Attorney plea and 'This sentencing. is contingent, The sooner however, on being able to provide adequate notice of the change of we can dispatch these that you schedule that hearing with Judge McSorley, the sooner notification. letters. If you delay further, we will have to rely on telephone or personal a 005 EFTA00213111 12/06/07 TRU 15:24 FAX 305 530 6440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida SOO South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Reach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Facsimile: (S61) 820-8777 December 6, 2007 DELIVERY BY UNITED STATES MAIL Miss Re: Crime Victims' Rights — Notificationsr Resolution of Epstein Investigates Dear Miss . victim Several pursuant months ago, I provided you with a letter notifying you of your rights as a to the Justice for All Act of 2004 and other federal legislation, including: (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. proceeding The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court The involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. determines right not to be excluded from anypublic courtproceeding, unless the court other portions that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for of a proceeding. The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. case. The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. and The privacy. right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity completed, I am and writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been containing that Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement the following terms. litooe EFTA00213112 12/08/07 THU 16:24 FAX 305 630 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE MISS NOvEMBER 29,2007 P.6462 First, Mr. Epstein agrees that he will plead guilty to two state offenses, including the offense of soliciting minors to engage in prostitution, which will require him to register as a sexual offender for the remainder of his life. Second, Mr. Epstein has agreed to make a binding recommendation of 18 months' imprisonment to the state court judge who sentences him. Mr. Epstein will serve that sentence of imprisonment at the Palm Beach County Jail. Third, Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will compensate you for damages you have suffered, under the following circumstances. That portion of the agreement that relates to those claims reads as follows: 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution ofthis agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's cooncel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida overhis person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional a007 EFTA00213113 12/06/07 TRU 15:24 FAX 305 530 6440 Miss NOVEMBER 29, 2007 PAGE 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICE or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. a claim, Pursuant to the terms of the agreement and an addendum, to assist you in making such the U.S. Attorney's Office has asked an independent Special Master to select Josefsberg attorneys to with represent you, Those attorneys are Aaron Podhurst and Robert ("Bob") 2800. 1 the law firm of Podhurst Orseck, P.A. They can be reached at (305) 358- also advise anticipate you that someone from their law firm will be contacting you shortly. I must absejuksightoseleg_yeurgmut=imayoiLenileciLti that you are not obligated to use these attorneys. In fact you have the l e ej,A:imalcmga to different Poclhurst/Josefsbera attorney. If you at all, do or you can sneak with them and_decide at any time to use a Messrs. Podhurst/Josefsberg decide to seek damages from Mr. Epstein and you decide to use. as your atunneys, Mr. Epstein will be responsible attorney's for paying unable fees incurred during the time spent trying to negotiate a settlement. If you are to proceed. to reach a settlement with Mr. Epstein, you and Mr. Josefsberg can discuss how best Epstein As has I mentioned agreed above, as part of the resolution of the federal investigation, Mr. sentencing will occur to plead guilty to state charges. Mr. Epstein's change of plea and MeSorley, on December 14, 2007, at a.m., before Judge Sandra K. Highway, West in Courtroom Palm Beach, 11F at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie and 921.143(1), Florida. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 960.001(1)(k) choose, you can you are entitled to be present and to make a statement under oath. If you Attorney's Office submit a written statement under oath, which may be filed by the State address on your behalf. If you elect to prepare a written statement, it should the following: psychological, the facts of the case and the extent of any harm, including social, or physical harm, financial losses, loss of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced, 'ilia 08 EFTA00213114 12/06/07 THU 15:25 PAX 305 530 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Miss NOVEMBER 294007 PAGE 4 and any matter relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence. Fl. Stat. 921.143(2). You also are entitled to notification when Mr. Epstein is released from imprisonment at the end of his prison term and/or if he is allowed to participate in a work release program. To receive such notification, please provide the State Attorney's Office with the following information: 1. Your name 2. Your address 3. Your home, work, and/or cell phone numbers 4. Your e-mail address 5. A notation of whether you would like to participate in the "VINE system," which provides automated notification calls any time an inmate is moved. (To use this system, your calls must go to you directly, not through a switchboard.) Thank you for all of your help during the course of the investigation. If you have an questions or concerns lease do not hesitate to contact me or Special Agent Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: S cial A cnt F.B.I. Victim-Witness Coordinator, U.S. Attorney's Office la sop EFTA00213115 Exhibit 16 EFTA00213116 IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN 1 ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"), that agreement is modified as follows: 7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. 7B. The parties will jointly prepare a shott written submission to the independent third-party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra. 7C. Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus. If after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained ins 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall cease. EFTA00213117 By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to Kitt. Epstein hereby. states that he understands the clarifications to the Non￾Prosecution-Ave.:anent and agrees to comply with dim R. ALEX/WM. ACOSTA UNTIED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: /04 0 47 Dated: / 14 113- ‘ Dated: Dated: By: V*1 441:St24.-- math ,f.....444R1BMWORARA￾ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY GERALD LEMOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA00213118 By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has ban read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non￾Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with than. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: ID h0/07 Dated: Dated: JEFFREY EPSIEN RALD LEFCO RT ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFF Y EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA00213119 By signing this Addend:on, Epstein asserts and catiSas that the above has been read and ea:Veined to him. Epstein hereby shifts that he understands the clarifications to the Non￾Proseadion Agreement and epees to comply with than. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: /D /3010 '7. • Dated: Dated: Bed: t ts /91W4 BY: 4 ASSIST U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSITaN GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREYEPSTEIN LILLYANNSANCH87, ES ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA00213120 Exhibit 17 EFTA00213121 10/25/07 THU 13:16 FAX 305 530 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 21002 99ME. 4.4 Street Miami, F133132 Telephone: (305) 961-9299 Facsimile: (305) 530-6444 October 25, 2007 DELIVERY i3Y FACSIMILE The Hon. Edward B. Davis (Ret.) Akerman Senterfitt One Southeast Third Avenue, 25th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Re: Service as Masten Dcar Judge Davis: Thank you for agreeing to serve as a Special Master and for assisting the United States Attorney's Office in the selection of an attorney representative to represent a group of identified victims. This letter is meant to assist you in performing your duties by providing you with background information regarding the agreement between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein and the duties that the attorney representative will have to perform. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office conducted an investigation of Mr. Epstein. As a result of that investigation, the U.S. Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement and an Addendum that contains, inter alia, the following terms: 7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. EFTA00213122 10/26/07 THU 13:18 FAX 306 630 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE THE HON. EDWARD B. DAMS (Rzr.) OCTORER25,2007 PAGE 2 OF 4 7B. The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph 7C, infra. 7C. Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in § 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall cease. 8If any of the individuals referred to [in the paragraphs above] elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount agreed to between Epstein and the identified individual, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, with respect to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 9.Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. 10.Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in [the above paragraphs], neither Epstein's 003 EFTA00213123 10/25/07 THU 13:19 FAS 305 530 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE THE HON. EDWARD 13. DAVIS (RET.) OCTOBER 25, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 4 signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein arc to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. The most recent version of the statute referenced above, 18 U.S.C. § 2255, provides that: Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section ... 2422 or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attomey's fee. Any person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $150,000 in value.' Section 2422 prohibits the use of a facility of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in sexual activity and prostitution, and section 2423 prohibits interstate travel for the purpose ofengaging in sexual activity or prostitution with minors. The United States has identified 34 victims as defined by this statute. The United States takes no position as to the validity of any such claim under this statute. Due to the circumstances of the case and the number and caliber of the attorneys who represent Mr. Epstein, in selecting the victims' attorney representative, the United States suggests that you consider the following criteria: 1. Experience doing both plaintiffs' and defense litigation. 2. Experience with state and federal statutory and common law tort claims. 3. The ability to communicate effectively with young women. 4. Experience litigating against large law firms and high profile attorneys who An earlier version of this statute deems that any person described in the preceding sentence shall have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value. Zoos EFTA00213124 10/25/07 THU 13:19 FAX 305 530 5540 EXECUTIVE OFFICE THE HON. EDWARD B. DAVIS (IST.) OCTOBER 25, 2007 PAGE 4 OP 4 may test the veracity of the victims' claims. 5. Sensitivity to the nature of the suit and the victims' interest in maintaining their privacy. 6. Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida. 7. The resources to hire experts and others, while working on a contingency fee basis, in order to prepare for trial, if a settlement cannot be reached (defense counsel has reserved the right to challenge such litigation). 8. The ability to negotiate effectively. Pursuant to this letter, the United States assigns to you thc responsibility for consulting with and selecting the attorney representative for the individuals. The United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative you select prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. In that regard, after you have reached a decision regarding the attorney representative, please provide me with his or her name and contact information. IfI can provide you with any farther information, please do not hesitate to contact me and/or the U.S. Ahem and/or Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. on behalf ofEpstein. Mr. Lefkowitz can be reached at Ncw - Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Citigroup Center, 153 East 534 Street, York, New York 10022-4611. Thank you again for your assistance with this matter. cc: AUS Sincerely, It Alexander Acosta United States Qttomey By: -711 -67 Jeffrey Sloman First Assistant United States Attorney 40005 EFTA00213125 Exhibit 18 EFTA00213126 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-MarraMolmson IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF 1. do hereby declare that I am currently employed as an Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") in the Southern District of Florida and was so employed during all of the events described herein, and that 1 was the AUSA assigned to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. 2. This Declaration is meant to supplement the information provided in the Declaration that was filed on July 9, 2008, and to correct some statements in that Declaration based upon events that occurred after the filing of the July 9 Declaration. 3. As explained in the July 9 Declaration and in Court presentations related to this matter, the resolution of the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein included a series of documents: (1) a September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement ("Part I"); (2) an October 2007 Addendum ("Part 2"); and (3)a letter dated December 19, 2007, from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez, counsel to Jeffrey Epstein ("Part 3"). EFTA00213127 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 2 of 4 4. On July 9, 2008, your Affiant sent a victim notification letter to Jane Doe #1, which contained pertinent language from "Part 3" of the Agreement (Ex. 6 to the July 9 Decl.). 5. Prior to preparing and sending that letter, your Affiant sent a draft of the letter to counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. On July 9, 2008, Mr. Epstein's attorney wrote to your Affiant objecting to parts of the draft, but accepting the part of the draft letter that contained the language from "Part 3" of the Agreement. Based upon that communication, your Affiant sent the victim notification letter to Jane Doe NI and attached it to your Affiant's July 9,2008 Declaration. 6. Although copies of all of the victim notification letters, including the one addressed to Jane Doe #1, were provided to Mr. Epstein's attorney, and despite the fact that counsel for Mr. Epstein filed a copy of your Affiant's July 9, 2008 Declaration in some of the civil suits filed against Mr. Epstein, none of Mr. Epstein's attorneys ever informed your Affiant that they considered the language in the letters and the Declaration to be inaccurate. 7. In August 2008, in anticipation that the Court might order the United States to make the Agreement available to the victims, the United States sought to confirm that counsel for Mr. Epstein had filed the complete Agreement under seal with the State Court at the time of the entry of his guilty plea to the State charges, to insure that an exact copy of that Agreement would be provided in this case, should the Court order its production. EFTA00213128 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 3 of 4 8. On August 14,2008, Mr. Epstein's counsel communicated to your Affiant that Mr. Epstein did not consider the modification contained in "Part 3" to be operative. This was confirmed on August I8, 2008. 9. Following that date, your A ffi ant prepared a corrected victim notification letter and worked with Mr. Epstein's counsel to resolve certain issues related to the implementation of the Agreement comprised only of "Parts 1 and 2." Those issues were resolved on September 2, 2008, and on September 3, 2008, your Affiant sent the corrected victim notification letter to Jane Doe 41 via her attorney, Brad Edwards, Esq. 10. As explained in the July 9, 2008 Declaration, at the time that the Agreement was negotiated, Jane Doe #2 was represented by an attorney paid for by Mr. Epstein, and, accordingly, all contact with Jane Doe #2 was made through that attorney. I I. At the time that all portions of the Agreement were signed, Jane Doe #2 was openly hostile to the prosecution of Mr. Epstein and had provided a statement denying that she was a victim. Thus, she was not included in the list of victims provided to Mr. Epstein's counsel and did not receive either of the victim notification letters. She is, however, represented by Attorney Edwards who was informed of these developments and who received both the initial and corrected victim notification letters that were sent to Jane Doe #1. 12. In accordance with the Court's instructions at the status conference of August 14, 2008 and the terms of the Protective Order entered by the Court on August 21, 2008, EFTA00213129 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 4 of 4 beginning on September 2, 2008, I sent corrected Victim Notifications to all victims whom I knew to be represented by counsel. In those letters, I advised counsel of the Court's Protective Order and the procedure for obtaining a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Since that time, I have provided the Non-Prosecution Agreement to several attorneys, who represent twelve identified victims, and have received Protective Orders counter-signed by those attorneys and their clients. Two attorneys for other victims have not requested the opportunity to review the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Victims whom 1 believe are unrepresented have also received corrected Victim Notification letters that advise them of the existence of the Protective Order. No one has expressed to me any concerns regarding their access to the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 13. I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this2b, j day of December, 2008. -4- EFTA00213130 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 22, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing Supplemental Declarationc . 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. EFTA00213131 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 2 of 2 SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Assistant U.S. Attome U.S. Attorney's Office 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 820-8711 Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 Attorney for United States [Service via CM/ECF] -2- Brad Edwards, Esq. be@bradedwardslaw.com The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 (954) 414-8033 Fax: (954) 924-1530 Attorney for Plaintiffs [Service via CM/ECF] Jay C. Howell Jay Howell & Associates PA 644 Cesery Boulevard Suite 250 Jacksonville , FL 32211 Email: jay@jayhowell.com PRO HAC VICE [Service via CM/ECF] Paul G. Cassell Email: cassellp@law.utakedu [Service via CM/ECF] EFTA00213132 Exhibit 19 EFTA00213133 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AMLIATED PARTNIASHIM Jay P. lefkowitz, P.C. To ly: lefk .corn VIA FACSIMILE Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. City National Bank Building 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Dear Mr. Josefsberg, Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4811 wwwidrktand.00m September 8, 2008 I write to inform you that Jeffrey Epstein has accepted the obligation of the NPA, including paragraph 7A of the Addendum, to pay the attorney representative for fees and expenses associated with consideration of and subsequent settlement of potential Section 2255 claims. Please forward any current and future bills to me that relate to such work and I will arrange for payment. We reserve the right, in the future, to submit the bills to a neutral third party for review, but at present there is no need for such a procedure. Very truly yours, Chicago Kong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, D.C. EFTA00213134 Exhibit 20 EFTA00213135 I. MICHAEL BURMAN. PA! GREGORY W. COLEMAN. PA. ROBERT D. CRITION. JRu BERNARD LIMEDEICER MARK T. LUTTIER. PA. JEPPRBY C. PEPIN MICHAEL J. PIKE HEATHER McNAMARA RUDA FLORIDA MAID MIMED CIVR.TRIAL LAWYER BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP Sent by E-mail and U.S. Mail Robert Josefsberg, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, PA. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Re: Epstein Matter Dear Bob: June 15, 2009 ADELQUI J. BENAVENTE PARALIOAL/M55113.700. BARBARA M. McYJNNA ASHUB SIDKEN•BARMO BETTY STOKES PAPALZO&L1 RITA H. BUDNTIC Or COUPRIA On June 8, 2009, Kathy Ezell wrote a letter to me regarding outstanding fee payment issues. At page 3, she stated that she was not adverse to an earlier proposal that had been discussed amongst the parties to rely on a Special Master to resolve outstanding fee-related Issues. We agree with Kathy's "proposal" that we rely on a Special Master to resolve all outstanding fee issues. Lets work during our Wednesday meeting to select an appropriate Special Master and let's agree to see whether, in the interim, we can resolve these issues even before they are submitted to the S.M. Cordially yo Robe . Callon, Jr. RDC/dz cc: Jack Goldberger, Esq. L •A•W•Y•E• R'S 515 N. FLAMER DRIVE / SUM3 400 / WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 TELEPHONE (561) 842-2820 FAX (561) 844-6929 maiIebelclaw.com EFTA00213136 Exhibit 21 EFTA00213137 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AMLIARD PAIMWSMIPS Jay P. Lefkowit2 P.C. To • : I tz kirkland.com VIA FACSIMILE (305) 530-6444 Honorable R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 Dear Alex: Ciegroup Center 153 East 69rd Street New York, New York 10022-4611 wwwldrldandtrom December 21, 2007 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Facsimile: We again extend our appreciation for meeting with us on December 14 and for carefully considering the issues we have raised both at that meeting and in our submissions to your Office. Having received your letter of December 19, we can see that you have made a significant effort to address our concerns regarding the § 2255 portion of the non-prosecution agreement (the "Agreement"), and we recognize that you have proposed some substantial and important modifications. Respectfully, however, I would suggest that your proposal raises several troubling questions that require careful consideration. We are authoring this letter to respond to your request that we set forth our position regarding §§ 2255 and 3771 as quickly as possible. As we have all discovered, the problem of integrating in an unprecedented manner what is at its core a $150,000 minimum lump sum damage federal civil statute (§ 2255 in its current form) into a federal deferred/non-prosecution agreement that requires pleas of guilty to state criminal offenses that are correlated to state criminal restitution statutes but not to a disparate federal civil non-restitution statute has proved very challenging. The concomitant problem of how fairly to implement the § 2255 portions of the Agreement so that real victims, if any, who in fact suffered "personal injury as a result of [the] violation" —if any—of specified federal criminal statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) are placed in the same position as if there had been a trial and conviction also requires serious and careful consideration. In this letter, I want to highlight some specific concerns. See also Whitley Opinion. First, your proposal regarding the § 2255 remedy provisions continues to ask us to assume that each and every woman not only was a victim under 6 2255, but that the facts alleged could have been proven to satisfy each element of either § 2422(b) (the Internet luring statute) or § 2423 (the sex-tourism statute), within § 2255 of Title 18. Although we have been denied the Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, D.C. EFTA00213138 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP It Alexander Acosta December 21, 2007 Page 2 list of alleged "victims" (and lack definitive information as to which federal statutes would serve as a predicate for each particular alleged victim), or even a firm number as to how many you suggest there are, we strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 USC § 2422(b) (which we understand from prior discussions to be the principal predicate offense upon which the § 2255 provisions rely) or 18 USC § 2423(b) (another predicate of § 2255 that has been the subject of discussions between the parties). See Stem Opinion. We believe that the problem arises from the incongruity that exists when attempting to fit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal plea agreement. Again, I note that this problem could have been avoided had the government opted instead for a restitution fund as we suggested. Our knowledge of the "list" of alleged victims is limited However a prototypical example of a witness whom the government has requested we co nsate and we believe is inarrurately labeled as a "victim" of a federal crime is • hom we have been told remains on the government's "list"). The transcript of her interview with the Palm Belaiiii over a year before the FBI became involved in any investigation shows that Ms. admitted to lying about her age, that she did not engage in sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein, and that she was never induced over the telephone computer or any other means of communication required by § 2422(b). In fact, Ms. came to Mr. Epstein's home on only one occasion. She testified that she was informed about the opportunity to give a massage to Mr. Epstein not on a telephone, computer or any other facility of interstate commerce, but rather in a face-to-face discussion with a third party who was her friend (Ms. Robson) and who told her to lie to Mr. Epstein about her age. As such, it is simply impossible to shoehorn this conduct into any of the above-discussed federal statutes. In addition, Mr. Epstein did not know of 1' before she actually came to his home, did not induce or persuade her to come b hone, did not speak to her at a an hone, all by phone prior to her visit, did not induce or persuade Ms to bring underage girl to his residence, and did not otherwise violate either the federi 2422(b) novel for the purpose statute § 2 Indeed, in her statement, Ms. testified: "' told me to say I was 18 beca if you're not then he [Epstein] won't really let you in his house. So I said I w . In fact, there is no evidence that Mr. Epstein expected an un erage girl to visit him prior to his regular travel to Florida, his home of fifteen years. Thus the travel could not have been for the purpose of having illegal sexual contact and § 2423(b) is no more available as a predicate for § 2255 recovery 1.122(b). Never having reached the threshold violations enumerated under of § 2255, Ms. would still have to ve that she suffered a personal injury. Further, unknown to Mr. Epstein at the time, Ms. represented herself to be 18 not only to him but also to the public on her web page where s e posted a nude photo clearly looking at least 18 years old. At the December 14 meeting, we also discussed as emblematic of our concerns surrounding the government's selection of "victims." As you are aware, Ms EFTA00213139 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 21, 2007 Page 3 was identified in previous correspondence as a rson who remained on the Government's list of "victims" even after (at least according to Ms. letter) the list was subjected to careful .multi-party review. Ms.. sworn statement clearly reflects the fact that she is not a "victim" under § 2422(b). She plainly admits that she suffered no injury; the conduct was consensual; she lied to Mr.. Epstein about her age; she instructed others to lie about their ages; there was no sexual contact between herself and Mr. Epstein at any time; and there was never any inducement over the telephone, computer or through any other means of interstate commerce We ask that you consider the most relevant highlights from her testimony offered below: • Consent A: I said, I told Jeffrey, I heard you like massages topless. And he's like, yeah, he said, but you don't have to do anythin that ou d r ' ble with. And I said okay, but I willingly took it off. • Lied About Her Age A: . . . I had a fake ID anyways, saying that I was 18. And she just said make sure you're 18 because Jeffrey doesn't want any underage girls. * * * * * A: ... of course, he thought I was 18. . . ( j ■ Instructed Others to Lie About Their Ages A: . . . I would tell my girlfriends just like proached me. Make sure you tell him you're 18. Well, these girls that I brought, I know that they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't know and I don't know if the were 1 in or not, I would say make sure that you tell him you're 18. • No Sexual Contact Q: He never pulled you closer to him in a sexual way? A: I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. ■ No Inducement A: No, I gave Jeffrey my number. And I said, you know, an time ou want me to give you a massage again, I'll more than welcome to. EFTA00213140 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP it Alexander Acosta December 21, 2007 Page 4 A: Every irl that I brow ht to Jeffre they said they were fine with it. And like, for instance lot of girls begged me to bring them back. They wanted to come back for the money. And as far as I know, we all had fun there. The sworn testimony ofatains explicit denials from the alleged "victim" herself that she suffered any physical, emotional, or personal injury as required by the express that Mr. Epstein or anyone on his behalf used a facility.)interstate commerce to knowingly language of § 2255. Further, the sworn testimony of Ms contains a complete disavowal persuade, coerce, entice, or induce her to engage in sexual offenses as required by § 2422(b). Likewise, the transcript provides no basis for a § 2423(b) violation in that Mr. Epstein had a residence in Palm Beach for over 10 years at the time of these events, traveled to Palm Beach for a myriad of legitimate reasons ranging from medical appointments to business appointments having nothing to do with a sexual objective, and could not be legally charged with traveling to his own home particularly in the absence of any provable nexus betty gUla travel and a dominant purpose to engage in illicit sexual conduct. Although Ms. informed us during the December 14 meeting that she had a telephone toll record showing an out-of-state call to or from Ms. phone to a phone number associated with Mr. Epstein, such a record fails to prove the content of the dentity of the communicators, whether the call discussed or resulted in a plan for Ms. o visit Mr. Epstein's residence, whether any inducement occurred on the out of state call or, more importantly for purposes of the sex tourism whether any travel was planned to Florida or resulted from the phone call. Ms. testimony is that she believed that at any time she was called by Mr.. Epstein or anyone on his behalf, Mr. Epstein was already in Florida. She also testified to the absence of any sexual contact other than topless massages (topless massages are lawful in Florida at age 16, unless the definit,tostitution is unnaturally expanded). A complete transcript of the federal interview of Ms has previously been provided to you. Your wish to put these women in the same position as they would have been had there been a federal conviction assumes they are each legitimate victims of at least one of the two specific federal crimes enumerated under § 2255. We respectfully have to disagree with that assumption, and even your current formulation of § 2255 would prejudice Mr. Epstein in this regard. Second, your proposal also effectively deprives Mr.. Epstein of his opportunity to test the validity of these womens' claims—claims that would have ben tested at trial. In light of what we have already learned abo it is inappropriate to deny Mr.. Epstein and his counsel the ri t to test the merits of each of these womens' cases, in order to verify that they in fact suffered "personal injury" as required by § 2255 and to assess whether they are in fact victims of any violations of § 2422(b) or § 2423(b) as also required by EFTA00213141 KIRKLAND &ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 21, 2007 Page 5 § 2255. Given your Office's informing us that Ms arced on a reduced list of federal "victims" and given our understanding that Ms. as well was one of those who is also on the list of persons the Government contends were victims of Mr. Epstein's alleged violation of federal law, we have a principled concern about adopting your recommended language which would leave Mr. Epstein without a basis to challenge the good faith premise of an application to recover $150,000. Third, the Agreement, even if modified in accord with your December 19 letter, would put the witnesses in a better position than if Mr. Epstein had been federally prosecuted rather than in an equal position and, in fact, encourages the witnesses to make unfounded claims with impunity. Had there been a conviction, these women would have been thoroughly cross￾examined, for the veracity of their statements, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for claiming personal injury. Also, Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks, material in the form of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be available to them—evidence that should be considered in determining the credibility of their application for a substantial civil recovery. Furthermore, Mr. Epstein would be without the means to challenge whether the claimant could make out a prima facie case that she was a victim of a violation by Mr. Epstein of § 2422(b) or any other federal statute—a denial of his rights that would insulate potential claimants such as Ms. ad Ms. Milli from any challenge on this element even if under other circumstances a challenge would result in a summary judgment in Mr. Epstein's favor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Lastly, the modified language recommended by you presupposes that Mr. Epstein would have been charged and convicted of substantive violations rather than charged and convicted of a conspiracy allegation. Conspiracy convictions are not amongst the predicates enumerated by § 2255 and do not, without more, result in the basis for a determination of "personal injury". Since our request to view the draft indictment was rejected on December 14, we have no means to know what it contained by way of allegations. Fourth, I want to respond to several statements in your letter that we believe require immediate correction. With regard to your first footnote, I want to be absolutely clear. We do not believe for one moment that you had prior knowledge of the AUSA's attempt to require us to hire the friend of her live-in boyfriend, and pay his fees on a contingency basis to sue Mr. Epstein. We realize you corrected that irregular situation as soon as you discovered it. We thought this was precipitated by our complaint, but have no real knowledge as to the timing of events. Furthermore, your letter also suggests that our objection to your Office's proposed victims notification letter was that the women identified as victims of federal crimes should not be notified of the state proceedings. That is not true, as our previous letter clearly states. Putting aside our threshold contention that many of those to whom 3771 notification letters are intended are in fact not victims as defined in the Attorney General's 2000 Victim Witness Guidelines—a status requiring physical, emotional or pecuniary injury of the defendant—it was and remains our position that these women may be notified of such proceedings but since they are neither witnesses nor victims to the state prosecution of this matter, they should not be informed of EFTA00213142 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 21, 2007 Page 6 fictitious "rights" or invited to make swo N nen or in-court testimonial statements against Mr. Epstein at such proceedings, as Ms.. repeatedly maintained they had the right to do. Additionally, it was and remains our position t any notification should be by mail and that all proactive efforts by the FBI to have communications with the witnesses after the execution of the Agreement should finally come to an end. We agree, however, with your December 19 modification of the previously drafted federal notification letter and agree that the decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst many other issues, properly within the aegis of state decision making. Your December 19 letter references Professor Dcrshowitz's position on the inapplicability of Florida Statute § 796.03. Professor Dershowitz made such arguments in the context of saying that he had been unable to discern, after great effort, and supported by years of experience, any basis for the application of § 2422(b) or other federal sex statutes to Mr. Epstein's conduct and that the federal statues re nixed more of a stretch to fit the facts than the proposed state statute to which M Dershowitz also stated that Ms. wanted Mr. Epstein to plead. Professor had represented that it was she who had the facts to support, both the threatened federal raarges of § 2422 and/or § 2423 and the proposed state char e of 796.03 (which the parties understood to be the state charge of soliciting a minor, as Ms. last letter clearly states). Only last week we learned for the first time that Ms. not realize that the charge was actually for "procuring" not "soliciting". The c ge a tte) in of procuring a prostitute for a third party for financial gain is one for which Ms. now states she does not have the facts to support. Furthermore, you suggest that we have purposefully delayed the date of Mr.. Epstein's plea and sentencing in breach of the Agreement and now seek an " 1 1 th hour appeal" in Washington. I believe we have already responded to this objection satisfactorily, both in our discussion earlier this week and in the email I sent to you two days ago in which I specifically addressed this issue. Indeed, any impediment to the resolution at issue is a direct cause of the disagreements between the parties as to a common interpretation of the Agreement, and we have at all times made and will continue to make sincere efforts to resolve and finalize issues as expeditiously as possible. In fact, since the initiation of negotiations between Mr.. Epstein's counsel and your Office, we have always proceeded in a timely manner and made several efforts to meet with the attorneys in your Office in person when we believed that a face-to-face meeting would facilitate a resolution. Finally, the suggestion by your staff that you hold Mr. Epstein in breach of the Agreement b hi failure to plea and be sentenced on October 26, 2007 is directly contradicted by Mr.. e-mail to me dated October 31 in which he states, "Your understanding from Jack Go er conforms to my understanding that Mr.. Epstein's plea and sentence will take place on the same day. I understand that the plea and sentence will occur on or before the January 4th date." This has been our common understanding for some time, which we have now EFTA00213143 KIRKLAND &ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 21, 2007 Page 7 reiterated several times. With that said, please be advised that we are working for a quick resolution and do not seek to delay the proceedings. Thank you again for your time and consideration. We look forward to your response to the concerns we have raised that have not yet been addressed. I wish you a very happy and a healthy new year. Sincerely, y .Lel lffco tz cc : Honorable er, Assistant Attorney General First Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00213144 Exhibit 22 EFTA00213145 08/13/2008 21:36 FAX 1MM= u.s»err----omporipes FL KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP N0.695 e002/019 P.2 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY DY FACSIMILE Jay F. Lefitowitz, 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 Wart Palm Beach. FL 39401 (561) 820-8711 Paccar:Bei (561) 820-8777 August 13, 2008 As per your request, I am attaching several documents related to Mr. Epstein's performance of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The first document attached hereto is the June 30, 2008 proposed Notification, which was hand-delivered to Jack Goldberger and Michael Tein shortly after Mt. Epstein entered hi s guilty plea. Following that, I have attached the July 9, 2008 response from Mr. Goldberger. I have highlighted two portions. The first is where Mr. Goldberger (presumably with the approval of Mr. Tein) approves of the portion of my proposed Notification that quotes directly from the U.S. Attorney's December letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez. The second portion is where Mr. Goldberger provides his interpretation of the Agreement, and nowhere mentions that he does not believe that the December letter is operative. I note that Mr. Goldberger's letter contains a notation showing that Mr. Epstein was provided with a copy. The third document I have attached is a copy of one of the notifications that was provided directly neither to a victim. Copies of all of the notifications have been provided to Mr. Goldberger, and Agreement he nor any other attorney for Mr. Epstein has ever stated that the letter misrepresents the between the parties or the benefit that the Agreement bestows upon the victims. with The fourth document I have attached is a copy of a Declaration that I have filed in connection understanding the victims' lawsuit filed against the United States. This Declaration sets forth our Goldberger of the Agreement and again quotes from the U.S. Attorney's December letter. Messrs. and Tein arc aware of this Declaration and have filed copies of it in connection with their EFTA00213146 08/13/2008 21.37 FAX KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Z003/0I9 AUG.13.2008 6:14PM USA() WPB FL. NO.695 P.3 JAY P. LEFKOWITL, ESQ. AuOust 13, 2008 PAGe 2 or 2 efforts to stay all of the civil litigation. Again, neither of them ever expressed to me — or to the Court — that it inaccurately describes the Agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein. Please contact me tomorrow morning so that we can resolve this issue. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attome cc: Assistant United States Attorney EFTA00213147 Exhibit 23 EFTA00213148 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave. Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561)8204711 Facsimile: (561)8204777 August 15, 2008 DELIVERY BY EL -CTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay and Roy: Thank you for your response to my earlier e-mail. Our communications with Mr. Black and later with Mr. Lefkowitz were solely to determine what Mr. Epstein considered to be the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. We appreciate your answering our question with finality. You have now made clear that Mr. Epstein did not accept the December modification, and accordingly, the offer to make that modification is a nullity. Pursuant to our Agreement, I will prepare an Amended Notification that contains the names of additional identified victims. As you know, Judge Davis had selected the Podhurst firm to serve as the attorney representative for the victims. Assuming that Mr. Josefsberg is still amenable to the appointment, we will provide him with the victim list so that he may begin his service. Finally, as you are aware, the United States has been ordered to produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement. In accordance with that Order, we will produce the September Agreement with the October Addendum signed by your client. We understand that Mr. EFTA00213149 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. AUGUST IS, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 Goldberger did not provide the state court with a true copy of the complete Agreement, and he should take steps to correct that error. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney cc: EFTA00213150 Exhibit 24 EFTA00213151 u; , i2.3.."01271 P:2 ZWItilams, Shannon R. From: sent To; Cc: Subject attachments: Dear Colonel Gauger: • (1JSAF1-8) Immillariereottaferiesdargat— urs July 03, 200811:58 AM Epstein Agent Portion.pdi Thank you for taking the time to meet with us on Thesday. As we discussed, ! have attached the pertinent portion of Mr. Epstein's agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office. «Epstein Afirmt Pattiz:m.OPa. I also wanted to call to your attention a couple of items regarding the issue of Work Release. During the change of plea, Mr. Epstein stated that he would be working at the Florida Science Foundation, located at 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, that the Foundation had been in existence for a "couple of years," and that he had been working there "every day" prior to the plea. The Division of Corporations' documents show that the Florida Science Foundation was incorporated in November 2007, not a "couple of years ago." The address provided for the "office" of the Florida Science Foundation is Jack Goldberger's office suite, and neither the office building directory nor the office suite door reflects that such a business is located there, and neither the security guard nor any building tenant that FM questioned knows of the existence of such a business. Mr. Epstein also could not have been working there "every day" when he hadn't been in Palm Beach County in the past six months. I would appreciate the opportunity to review the work release regulations. If Mr. Epstein truly is eligible for the program, we have no objection to him being treated like any other similarly situated prisoner, but sitting in his attorney's oifice•suite making telephone calls, web-surfing, and having food delivered to him is probably not in accordance with the objectives of imprisonment. Obviously, the decision is left entirely within your discretion, but I warned to make sum that you had a complete picture before you made that decision. Thank you again, and have a wonderful 4ie of July. Marie Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, F1, 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 EFTA00213152 Exhibit 25 EFTA00213153 •••.- 30.- -••• 2008C2009.361a • Alt PERSON tINDINI•OOSIOP *iii ). • j' •"--"•••••-•••••-.' •-• • ' • ...mtPS:-•-• — ' 0'; - ' ' ., : , . : ;AA ..4.41g ; /.... ✓ - 1 12 I, ,,Iiric—., T"' ilidge ,.b ' !-•:<! s • ...51etr toii: ;.•3: t.:...e .a7 ',-. -r• 4 - c . iyktl.p.i., . ar'r..- • iiii • .,44.f::. : • .. ` y. p • Gllpg.. rte-/ ... . 4. • , - , ..• .J, /....! :cia.. Lc • _.4.4 WO& ' • • w.. be' : , ../ . .. • r M•114 10 '• `1 0!IttatiOan • •' ;'''.- ' , _ ... 4.1r4 . SA tRei6vicri, '' : elitguipriiii/jOitio, +SG?If ilt,evpItetiskRitipitAted • • - :' f.. .", :gtte,TroviolikoSiitOisitibid, if B6iidOiiiipliitie;::..a.Siiiii Skt0401 *•:(14410;Widttattek :- •• 2 :r. r:/:, ;. 4" itcobe 11C:737HtttoirrfOrbir 1 . .. , , ptorn--t , . .. . i .. 0244(4. •••ci. PCig:N9A,IecioN940;tt: ',. • • ' pt:;:a.::•5:`:;:-4 • ••.: •-, -• , - - .• , .. • ./., . '..Atob .07 ..• . A , ,:sr. r. e.i: . AtiviEsios IF - 'ynthakitantoittakketC.•4*i,t. ...:::::i. .,.i Pr, ::c;fri...;/..4,:.• ',I....)....:•,-,/,..,- Pe: rai P4a. :...,- -. - .?s. agat.Vngt.gr n.l. •,1.0 ,.. • • iiii• ...4. .• • • ••• ' • . i .....i... ... }• • . .. ' • ':;: • • ... ;P.'. • 4 a. . .. • . , Y:44 ?? JIV: •) a : I- :0.: :::. '•: 444442.411•5,Ce7INgltiVir"---7-'V.:' ratlitr-R6 •7‘ • . ....• ; • *Ste ed.i.fri • ti • e 4; X 1•L - \" .1. A"--:• ••• • •:‘ - m •Ir' •7iir ....e ' ' • , k •''' "-- latEti-imoigaistoirtort tr=:En±it .Y ---[l :tiallpiceirtiePelltdd t vcititkifekrarri Sxill .tots.. '' - -.k.:-.. , - -...* ' -'''''":28,_qopt:pip.s.th t .... 4. ..# ......V: . • •,-•;i2ta • 7,;.,•: ... .-.. .. • f % tcar. 4 'avow. ' sotto -wi!'"•P F•7*-*/ ••^L'il".$104,104o*oompNo • • rhilleanuntini. erlii(it••••-• • 400Nt..t. z.. • - • • :•-•: A . .. . • • eftVt0"ne 1" 1"181• 1t . et't Aas rani " .fip:odingsba., • • 7.:1-4,1 Coiftr.tt .5,--' :: 4,44x1011014500:46SNyed 0140aSiaprfledde0006004!" . "' • 4: • - -, • • " "r• • 1 ; .r• .F...: •,-... *iatiriip.0#24ailailt0,49ft • ?ttimakieilit • .) h ' :: '•:i.: 4514: . • • Jsb _ , •. , _ alimatisowiamenykariakastibn•rnttifigigpfolo . . - • • • • • • r r.- . '.• W@1115 AtiNi—w' Pr- :474Y. 111‘44,4126,f ..,,dt • • • - • • • .• • • 7 n • t • • • • r • ;:.',•&> z.Va: 417:1* • •• •••14,: • alitniiteilibt4teeet ' • t ...a . • - re': • . • • • t: •• • . ::r • C.'S 44; T . . 54.1..;; :et; • rt:: " Erso n'th4 in a s: • . *tins* • • •'••'• • / . ( OnhiloPII"••-•<A)4 eroonOillurN0444. LAT: a CoproonvOnthinat TOMO* ComIN'ex- _ • A.-qt‘sit ie Parra WEgantlipl4e :Grade 122 Vie Wisttalnyli001) ••••t .. „- . , " ‘.4 cf.:orloon:EaRtioNyouLopegriy.rtig*Se=g isoebiaTorArrneirmeNrmorflocarman• arnit uttritirmota Nacos'.maim me moral --tutor *: sr. ralks_otoctrThr? ArmissownvE COOCEOF:4000URT, PDaaeEAcKcolmneouamoue lom coz assixv • AskirfrE.(dAqtkriarOgyakspAaatimpo4NrivenoiriONoimptoroNsincion onto NCMCE:W YOUARE HEARIPK1011 VOICE 11.1PAMEIVCALI: 1 • - • , . . EFTA00213154 ; 4 f'—• Air • • • • t. • • a, • 0 DATE. NAME. 4Th crEll _, Prob / Sex / 43 bonSec. CfriPru9 wt On I/rot/1c.°) C.C. II' / woldi sa-as . IT Probed:66 tifiniferaid to: SPECIAL CONDITIONS:: 0 Complete.Original!y, .0 OurfOr p m Ordered. , with Dept. custody; notify ••• CondltionS the following exception: • • Deft, to Sport tofrob.. ,a. Deft. n have in care, '0 Deft to it • mediately CI Restitution CF3,0 flied immediately .upon release or control any. Unlawful Orill6gal mat_erial, subst., device, or object. Prob. Officer if place of residence-CO.0lb changes. , • • • •• .. , . • . . . 0 Subtprtirsildifr .. gligniitions a4Pretngt • . . . .. ....-A-- —.---- - 4 .ScUliatancpause Eva!: / poychotwibel .44.410(646irc‘iithily-CAplelelieeddithiii:i" tPaithkiaiivtite$081181/estifid.::*.,•'A-tabileitipiiiiiid::: 0 NoCondumption/Possession a Attend • ' ,AA - ..et Eyet.:/ PAydc, _ xual Eval. within.! by: , —• ••• • ' Iii: 4.-:" . . - • • • : - .- •!::: • :.:.. --.; f:itsillociatOvai ' :...-,t7.,e44.!(:d54 of Alcohol OrDrugs or intokicants without a PiescriptiOn. • ' ' .''''' a',..: ' ' and/or NA Meetings per. Week: of business whose primary purpose. Is the sale of alcohol, .‘• 7'''..a ' 4 'CI Deftsnot.to frequent wriy..eilace Ca • Complete _.•:. HW'of CoMmunity . cl IIPS_Oleatelteliittatts.0.0c10ater Q-AgiiiiiiitIsuccessfully.complete.QUE.schbaliaadleessiodiatMittim Service to be done at the rate of ,dHrs..per Wy o.(40Ikal rpe_q /±e . • . . • • ::. ".: .1::j ..._ . .. . .. ._. , . Impact Paital4.. • -.:. **T- .9 •NoPriihtapt 2. No MOOS Contact / No pirect orinclirect contact wNictim(shorothers listest: ...... • • - • t• • 4 ,NIC: t : .•:.2.4,,- ;•'.••*:' ". i . • • • • • :Nib Contact wititilnor 'Cost of Opervlsionyt •-,EriOr-OaSucceSsfully:OompleteDbC••NOwtecure-Bed O• koidib.40iietody, release O .Enter and Successfully I:1 Forfeit Weapon /Mbney . . , Chili:lion wtokiti Supetv)elonaware of this octet411d the dippeaftldny .. ' r . . . . 4.'"tOr iambi 0 Waived by Court. • ‘• •• e. Program-and Any Recomniended,Aftercare . only to DOC Non-Sfebure•Bed Program Officer. ...,, Complete PBSO Long/. Short_Track Drug Faun and-Any ReciAftertare% .:i:4?::;=: seized at the time of arrest to: • `Ifi. 0. Enter and:Complete: 0 ' IA. Theft Abatement Program. . 0 Defendant may apply for. Early '0 Serve , -• • days Anger Management Program 0 Batterers InterveMioryprogram ::. 0 Other: Tennination after ) , provided all conds. are satisfied. . / month in.P ivittrpredit for . -days /months.' . ,.. . e_ frit ii*i ceto • . . ... fr n Kvii. •••• . .• . . .. 14 e , • v . . " . . . . . • • • • • . . . • . • . . . . • • . . , - •• . • . . • .. . . - • . • • : O . • " . . • ... • . • ream. .r w. •M EFTA00213155 .1 sre ••• •r. •• $1120004EF0 • rEf-OitY Oft at TO /4- HMO* I ' • 'In .. 1 EF n. CPS. 'f R8TS3N ;AI • • .. Ler PkGSTITIV(264 • , 738 VG. • • sti••• ••,,i.` . r Pres titles.. • / /O . cf. • elate the ly burt f0r951C 115544. *anted anied 0 With .(Without Prejtadi • Warant la Ordered 0 itecalled 0 Bo BondPorf OQR:DistathRevolied/Reastated Botid Porf Vacated •0 1 kre;tious pond Reinstated, if Deft Indigoln‘, 0 Ap aluation fat 15kug Parr • • 1. 0 PreePlea 0 Referred to: PTI / SAAPi/P EFT ENTEREg) A OP 0 PD Pros ' Bed PIM drawn 0 CauSteseates Ruling IT Written Ord!! to Rogow 0 See Stay/ • : th erlsa Covent 0Sp Gond OSOR:Disch/dievaged/Reinstared • • to file chargla OgReJeual0E. / MB; C hfIrg ed-Cts SW &Test v of Rtsi PSI •• AnJ•GUILTY,as Charged is to LL CMs UM) wiry as Chargegl as Os WIELD as to Qs • I • i POUNDANDADJUDI & JN t 0 Mg only' • DOCNou.S SI ordered by/wi 0 Case p NOT GUILTY ser • 0.:C.duitiAprttk the absentee doc 0 NO days Q, vi/inpat.frornDJkz/ Staffing 4 • . 1. al. 0m e ti. /Comfit Central: 0 Stip/Pound: (violent) CB: PBCT, PBC.T: ;W/Credit for / Consec idcases a Cts• Less& Les Les BEST EgTEBRIF O1/O1,3t, Cliarge • • ' • - charge Lesser Cits a SENT WtELD as to Cts I. 0 • NIAle Prossb ed aik;s3i. AcCessfully / iUnsu Predator 1 G$ daft to.remain OM same Execution of Sentence Sts ed youthful Off 0 Habi Off• ABOMil $BICTENCETOBE PO DRIVERS LICENSE TO BB 4 CS 1) 1 i43 Sentence 0 Min/Mend: WED By: 0 SP$NDBD/RE Mine serve; adtiftsets . .• base 0 Drag 'Sex 11614b 0 Coma, P cilditi (MED • R . InARS AS-A RIF: . . • • ..'" 1 2 Set hRomains Se Reset Set / Remains Reset C „Deft sip Cf Def Co . 0 A 1 C !Ptah 0. Jail 0 DJJ . 0 G • Notified by by: . . on .. 0 County Courthouse • 0 Courtro i criminii Justice Barg. :.•• 0 CourtromnrCri 205 N. Dixie, West Palm Beach 38844 S t!Roadi SO, Belle Mae. .. 3228•Giun ChM at T. O Bimdsman Asti; Complex . est Pike Beach tftellaREAPERSON MINA INFABILITY WHO NEEDd1VIT ACCOMDATION N OMER TO PARTiCIPAISE INTHISPRCaiEDINEkOlkAREEMMED AT NO COST TO:YOU,1614REKAAstita CO. • .0ERCSII ASSISTANCE- PLEASE CONTACT MARY JAM, ADA COORCOIATOR DI RICODMINSIRATVE ORME OF THE (COURT, PAW BEACH COWRY COURTHOUSE. tOZIE NE SESCO. VIC-STRAW BEACH, Ft. 334CR; 'TELEPHONE (561) mom weals womattotuas OF,YOUR RECEIPT OF TICS NOME,' IRYOU ARE HESOING ON VOCE mon CR1114C0,9568771. • t' • , • GIG; All LIID DGG.G• I, ITIA EFTA00213156 Exhibit 26 EFTA00213157 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP ANC MASA= IALTNISSMITS Jay P. telkovelz, P.C. To • . Cidgroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New 'fink 10022-4611 www.kirkland.com June 15, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Esq. United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffiey Epstein Dear Marie: Facsimile: I am attaching a letter authored by my co-counsel, Robert Critton, on today's date. It represents our agreement with a proposal that Kathy Ezell indicated in a letter dated June 8, 2009 would be fully acceptable to her and Bob Josefsberg as a means to resolve expeditiously all outstanding fee issues regarding the attorney representative. Mr. Epstein has directed his counsel to take immediate steps to address and resolve the attorney representative's outstanding fee￾related issues and we are doing so without delay. The suggestion of a Special Master, agreed to by both parties, to resolve the issues in the immediate future, will assure all parties that there will be no delay and no need for adversarial litigation regarding fees. More generally, I want to assure you that Mr. Epstein has directed all counsel to make sure that there is no filing that could constitute a breach of the NPA. Accordingly, a new internal screening process has been established to provide focused decision-making on each filing. To the extent we believe any filing may be perceived as implicating any of the issues generically addressed in the NPA (a document including sentences within paragraph 8 that even Mr. Acosta agreed were "far from simple"), we intend to address such issues with you prior to any filing and hope that you will agree to review the draft filing and inform us whether or not from your perspective it would, if filed, constitute a "breach". This will be especially important regarding issues that we believe fall at the intersection of Section 2255 and the civil litigation. We reserve our right, if you believe a proposed filing to conflict with the NPA or if you wish not to address these issues with us, thereafter to address such substantive issues with the Court. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, O.C. EFTA00213158 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP ISIMINiallia 9• June 15, 2009 Page 2 We hope that these proposals—in combination with our immediate withdrawal of the previously filed Motion to Dismiss—resolve all outstanding issues at the intersection of the NPA and 2255. Please advise if any remain. Sincerely, P. Leflcowitz Enclosure cc: Karen Atkinson, Esq. EFTA00213159 Exhibit 27 EFTA00213160 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Civil Action No. 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND Defendant. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, brings this Complaint against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and states as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE I. At all times material to this cause of action, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. 2. This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse of a then minor, 3. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, had a residence located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. 4. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is currently a citizen of the State of Florida, as he is currently incarcerated in the Palm Beach County Stockade. 5. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, was an adult male born in 1953. EFTA00213161 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 2 of 22 6. This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. 7. This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District STATEMENT OF FACTS 8. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, was an adult male, approximately 50 years old. Epstein is known as a billionaire financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to billionaires. He is a man of tremendous wealth, power, and influence. He owns a fleet of aircraft that includes a Gulfstream W, a helicopter, and a Boeing 727, as well as a fleet of motor vehicles. Until his incarceration, he maintained his principal place of residence in the largest home in Manhattan, a 51,000-square-foot eight-story mansion on the Upper East Side. Upon information and belief, he also owns a $6.8 million mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, a $30 million 7,500-acre ranch in New Mexico he named "Zorro," and a 70-acre private island known as Little St James in St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, a mansion in London's Westminster neighborhood, and a home in the Avenue Foch area of Paris. The allegations herein concern Defendant's conduct while at his lavish homes and/or numerous other locations both nationally and internationally. 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant has a sexual preference for underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan, scheme, or enterprise in which he gained access in his home to countless relatively economically disadvantaged minor girls, sexually assaulted, molested, and/or exploited these girls, and then gave them money. 10. Beginning in or around 1998 through in or around September 2007, Defendant used his resources and his influence over vulnerable minor children to engage in a systematic pattern of sexually exploitative behavior. 2 EFTA00213162 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 3 of 22 11. Defendant's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Defendant coerced and enticed impressionable, vulnerable, and relatively economically less fortunate minors to participate in various acts of sexual misconduct that he committed upon them. Defendant's scheme involved the use of underage girls as well as other individuals to recruit other underage girls. Upon information and belief, Defendant or an authorized agent would call and alert Defendant's assistants shortly before or after he arrived at his Palm Beach residence. His assistants would seek out economically disadvantaged and underage girls from West Palm Beach and surrounding areas who would be enticed by the money being offered— generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session—and who Defendant and/or his assistants perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility issues if allegations of improper conduct were made. The then minor Plaintiff and other minor girls, some as young as 14 years old, were transported to Defendant's Palm Beach county mansion by Defendant's employees, agents, and/or assistants in order to provide Defendant with "massages." 12. Many of the instances of illegal sexual conduct committed by Defendant were perpetrated with the assistance, support, and facilitation of at least three assistants who helped him orchestrate this child exploitation enterprise. These assistants would often arrange times for underage girls to come to Defendant's residence, transport or cause the transportation of underage girls to Defendant's residence, escort the underage girls to the massage room where Defendant would be waiting or would enter shortly thereafter, urge the underage girls to remove their clothes, deliver cash from Defendant to the underage girls and/or their procurers at the conclusion of each "massage appointment," and, upon information and belief, take sexually explicit photographs and/or videos of the underage girls' for Defendant without their knowledge. Defendant would pay the procurer of each girl's "appointment" hundreds of dollars. 3 EFTA00213163 4 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 4 of 22 13. Epstein designed the scheme to secure a private place in Defendant's mansion where only persons employed and invited by Epstein would be present, so as to reduce the chance of detection of Defendant's sexual abuse and prostitution as well as to make it more difficult for the minor girls to flee the premises and/or to credibly report his actions to law enforcement or other authorities. The girls were usually transported by his employees, agents, and/or assistants or by a taxicab paid for by Defendant in order to make it difficult for the girls to flee his mansion. 14. Upon arrival at Defendant's mansion, each underage victim would generally be introduced to one of Defendant's assistants, who would gather the girl's personal contact information. The minor girl would then be led up a flight of stairs to a room that contained a massage table and a large shower. The staircase leading to the room was plastered with photographs of nude young girls, including some photographs depicting two or more young girls engaged in lewd acts. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, had such photographs in each of his four homes and on his computer. 15. At times, if it was the girl's first "massage" appointment, another female would be in the room to "lead the way" until Defendant would have her leave. Generally, Defendant would start his massage wearing only a small towel, which eventually would be removed. Defendant and/or the other female would direct the girl to massage him, giving the minor girl ew an he wanted to be touched, and then direct her to remove EFTA00213164 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 5 of 22 presence. The exact degree of molestation and frequency with which the sexual crimes took place varied and is not yet completely known; however, at least when Defendant was in Palm Beach, Florida, such acts occurred usually on a daily basis and, in most instances, several times a day, In order to facilitate the daily exchanges of money for sexual assault and abuse, Defendant kept U.S. currency readily available. 16. As previously stated in paragraph 14, Defendant displayed photographs of nude underage girls throughout his homes in New York City, Palm Beach, Santa Fe, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Upon information and belief, some of the photographs Defendant's possession of Defendant were taken with hidden cameras set up in his home in Palm Beach. On the day of his arrest, police found two bidden cameras and photographs of underage girls on a computer in Defendant's home. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, may have taken lewd photographs of Plaintiff; Jane Doe No. 101, with his hidden cameras and may have transported lewd photographs of Plaintiff (among many other victims) to his other residences and elsewhere using a facility or means of interstate and/or foreign commerce. Upon information and belief, one or more nude photographs of Plaintiff that were taken when she was a minor were confiscated by the Palm Beach Police Department during its execution of a search warrant of Defendant's Palm Beach mansion on October 20, 2005. Upon information and belief, those photographs are still in the custody of law enforcement 17. Defendant, Epstein, traveled to his mansion in Palm Beach for the purpose of luring minor girls to his mansion to sexually abuse and/or batter them. He used the telephone to contact these minor girls for the purpose of coercing them into acts of prostitution and to enable himself to commit sexual battery against them and/or acts of lewdness in their presence, and he conspired with others, including assistants and/or his driver(s) and/or pilot(s), and his socialite 5 EFTA00213165 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 6 of 22 friend/partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, to further these acts and to avoid police detection. Defendant's systematic pattern of sexually exploitative behavior referred to in paragraph 10 and described in paragraphs 11 through the present paragraph occurred at all of Defendant's domestic and international residences and/or places of lodging and/or modes of transportation. 18. Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, Defendant used his money, wealth, and power to unduly and improperly manipulate and influence the then minor Plaintiff. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, was recruited by one of Defendant's agents to give Defendant a massage for compensation. Plaintiff was apprehensive, but needed the money and finally agreed to go. Plaintiff was first brought to Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003, when she was merely 17 years old and in high school. Epstein's procurer drove her to Jeffrey Epstein's mansion. Plaintiff was led up a flight of stairs by a blonde woman to a spa room with a shower and a massage table, where she was left alone. A woman with dark hair, an accent, and naked from the waist up entered and tried to coax Plaintiff to remove her shirt, but Plaintiff refused. After the woman showed Plaintiff how to use the lotions that were there, the woman left. Defendant walked in wearing only a small towel. He lay down on the massage table still wearing the small towel, and Plaintiff began to massage his shoulders and neck Nervously, she asked him what he did for a living. Defendant responded that he was a scientist. Defendant asked Plaintiff what year she would graduate high school, to which Plaintiff honestly replied that she would graduate in 2004. Plaintiff massaged Defendant's lower back and calves. Defendant told her to remove his towel. Defendant told her that he had just worked out and wanted his buttocks massaged. Although disgusted, she was afraid to refuse and did it. At some point, Defendant ordered Plaintiff to remove her clothes. In shock, fear, and trepidation, Plaintiff partly 6 EFTA00213166 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 7 of 22 OSCT to 19. Defendant thereafter lured the then minor Plaintiff to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003. The procurer made another appointment for her to return, but Plaintiff didn't want to see Defendant. By having his assistants continue to contact Plaintiff and attempt to lure her to the mansion for other sexual acts, Defendant engaged in a continuous course of conduct that injured Plaintiff upon each instance of contact and/or abuse. 20. In addition to the direct sexual abuse and molestation of the then minor Plaintiff, Defendant used his money, wealth, and power to unduly and improperly manipulate and influence the then minor Plaintiff to bring him another minor girl in a promised exchange for money. Rather than go herself, Plaintiff and the procurer took another girl there one time. 21. As a result of these encounters with Defendant, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, has in the past suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's controlling and manipulating her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. 22. Any assertions by Defendant that he was unaware of the age of the then minor Plaintiff are belied by her telling him her high school graduation year, as well as his own actions, and are rendered irrelevant by the provision of applicable federal statutes concerning the sexual 7 EFTA00213167 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on F LSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 8 of 22 exploitation and abuse of a minor child. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, at all times material to this cause of action, knew and should have known of Plaintiff's age of minority. Defendant's preference for underage girls was well-known to those who regularly procured them for him. 23. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, committed the above-referenced acts upon the then minor Plaintiff in violation of federal statutes condemning the coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in prostitution or sexual activity, travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, sex trafficking of children, sexual exploitation of minor children, transport of visual depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, transport of child pornography, child exploitation enterprises, and other crimes, specifically including, but not limited to, those crimes designated in 18 U.S.C. § 2422(6), § 2423(6), § 2423(e), § 2251, § 2252, § 2252A(a)(1), and § 2252A(g)(1). 24. In June 2008, after investigations by the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, entered pleas of "guilty" to various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against Plaintiff and, as such, must admit liability unto Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101. Plaintiff hereby exclusively seeks civil remedies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. COUNT ONE (Cause of Action for Coercion and Enticement of Minor to Enea2e in Prostitution or Sexual Activity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. & 2255 In Violation of 18 U.S.C. & 24220311 25. Plaintiff; Jane Doe No. 101, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 8 EFTA00213168 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 9 of 22 26. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, used a facility or means of interstate and/or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce Jane Doe No. 101, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and/or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempted to do so, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). 27. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 28. Asa direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. 9 EFTA00213169 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 10 of 22 COUNT TWO (Cause of Action for Travel with Intent to Etienne in Illicit Sexual Conduct pursuant to 18 U.S.C. & 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. & 2423flin 29. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 24 above. 30. Upon information and belief. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, traveled in interstate and/or foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, including the then minor Plaintiff, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). 31. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, 10 EFTA00213170 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 11 of 22 actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT THREE (Cause of Action for Sexual Exploitation of Children pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 6 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. 6 22511 33. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 34. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced the then minor Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251. As previously stated in paragraphs 14 and 16, Defendant displayed a myriad of photographs of underage girls throughout his homes in New York City, Palm Beach, Santa Fe, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Upon information and belief, many of the photographs in the possession of Defendant were taken with hidden cameras set up in his home in Palm Beach. On the day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of underage girls on a computer in Defendant's home. Upon information and belief; Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, may have taken lewd photographs of Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, with his hidden cameras and may have transported lewd photographs of Plaintiff (among many other victims) to his other residences and elsewhere using a facility or means of interstate and/or foreign commerce. Upon information and belief, one or more sexually explicit photographs of Plaintiff that were taken when she was a minor were confiscated by the Palm Beach Police Department during its execution of a search warrant of Defendant's Palm Beach mansion on October 20, 2005. Upon information and belief, those photographs are still in the custody of law enforcement 11 EFTA00213171 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 12 of 22 35. Plaintiff; Jane Doe No. 101, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer those losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. 12 EFTA00213172 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 13 of 22 COUNT FOUR (Cause of Action for Transport of Visual Depiction of Minor Engaging in Sexually Explicit Conduct pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4 2255 in Violation of 18 1:.S.C. 2252(a)(1)) 37. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 38. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, upon information and belief, knowingly mailed, transported, shipped, or sent via computer and/or facsimile in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce at least one visual depiction of the minor Plaintiff engaging in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1). As previously stated in paragraphs 14, 16, and 34, upon information and belief, Defendant displayed a myriad of nude photographs of underage girls throughout his homes in New York City, Palm Beach, Santa Fe, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Upon information and belief, many of the photographs in the possession of Defendant were taken with hidden cameras set up throughout his home in Palm Beach. On the day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of underage girls on a computer in Defendant's home. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, may have taken lewd photographs of Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, with his hidden cameras and may have transported lewd photographs of Plaintiff (among many other victims) to his other residences and elsewhere using a facility or means of interstate and/or foreign commerce. Upon information and belief, one or more sexually explicit photographs of Plaintiff that were taken when she was a minor were confiscated by the Palm Beach Police Department during its execution of a search warrant of Defendant's Palm Beach mansion on October 20, 2005. Upon information and belief, those photographs are still in the custody of law enforcement. 39. As previously stated in paragraph 22, any assertions by Defendant that he was unaware of the age of the then minor Plaintiff are belied by his actions and rendered irrelevant by the provision of applicable federal and state statutes concerning the sexual exploitation and abuse 13 EFTA00213173 Case 9:09-cv-00591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 14 of 22 of a minor child. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, at all times material to this cause of action, knew and should have known of Plaintiffs age of minority. Defendant's preference for underage girls was well-known to those who regularly procured them for him. 40. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. 14 EFTA00213174 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 15 of 22 COUNT FIVE fCause of Action for Transport of Child Pornography pursuant to 18 U.S.C. & 2255 In Violation of 18 U.S.C. & 2252AI:0(111 42. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 43. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, knowingly mailed, transported, shipped, or sent via computer or facsimile in or affecting interstate and/or foreign commerce child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1). As previously stated in paragraph 16, Defendant displayed a myriad of nude photographs of underage girls throughout his homes, including his homes in New York City, Palm Beach, Santa Fe, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Upon information and belief, many of the photographs in the possession of Defendant were taken with hidden cameras set up throughout his home in Palm Beach. On the day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and nude photographs of underage girls on a computer in Defendant's home. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, may have taken lewd photographs of Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, with his hidden cameras and may have transported lewd photographs of Plaintiff (among many other victims) to his other residences and elsewhere using a facility or means of interstate and/or foreign commerce. Upon information and belief, one or more nude photographs of Plaintiff that were taken when she was a minor were confiscated by the Palm Beach Police Department during its execution of a search warrant of Defendant's Palm Beach mansion on October 20, 2005. Upon information and belief, those photographs are still in the custody of law enforcement. 44. As previously stated in paragraph 22, any assertions by Defendant that he was unaware of the age of the then minor Plaintiff are belied by his actions and rendered irrelevant by the provision of applicable federal and state statutes concerning the sexual exploitation and abuse of a minor child. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, at all times material to this cause of action, knew 15 EFTA00213175 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 16 of 22 and should have known of Plaintiffs age of minority. Defendant's preference for underage girls was well-known to those who regularly procured them for him. 45. Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 46. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. 16 EFTA00213176 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 17 of 22 COUNT SIX (Cause of Action for Entwine in a Child Exploitation Enterprise pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Zi 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. & 2252A(O 47. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 above and Counts One through Five. 48. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, knowingly engaged in a child exploitation enterprise, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g)(2), in violation of 18 USC § 2252A(gX1). As more fully above, Defendant engaged in actions that constitute countless violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (sex trafficking of children), Chapter 110 (sexual exploitation of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252(a)(1), and 2252(A)(a)(1)), and Chapter 117 (transportation for illegal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, and 2423). As more fully set forth above in paragraphs 9 through 19, Defendant's actions involved countless victims and countless separate incidents of abuse, and he committed those offenses against minors in concert with at least three other persons. 49. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 50. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the finure continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, 17 EFTA00213177 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 18 of 22 and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. Date: May 1, 2009 s/Katherine W. Ezell Robert C. Josefsberg, Bar No. 040856 Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 18 Attorneys for Plaintiff EFTA00213178 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 19 of 22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands to have her case tried before a jury. s/Katherine W. Ezell Robert C. Josefsberg, Bar No. 040856 Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami. Florida 33130 Attorneys for Plaintiff 19 EFTA00213179 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 20 of 22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this et day of May, 2009, we electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. Respectfully submitted, PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: 20 8/Katherine W. Ezell Robert C. Josefsberg Fla. Br No. 040856 riosefsbenzenodhurst.cont Katherine W. Ezell Fla. Bar No. 114771 Impainglbiggssan City National Bank Building 25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 EFTA00213180 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 21 of 22 SERVICE LIST JANE DOE NO. 101 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case No. 08-CV-80591-MARRIWOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Robert Critton, Esq. Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman LLP 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 rcritebcldlaw.com Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 jagesq@bellsouth.net Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm 401 Phone: Fax: (5 ecfAbrucerm awcom Co-counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Phone: Fax: ( iph@earcvlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. Adam Horowitz Esq. Smart Mermelstein, Esq. Herman & Mermelstein 18205 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 21 EFTA00213181 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 22 of 22 mermelstein@sexabuseattomev.com Counsel for Plaintiffi in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08- 80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. Leopold Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens.FL 33410 Phone: Fax: (5 skuvinOle000ldkuvin.corn tleonold@leopoldkuvin.com Counsel for Plaintiff In Related Case No. 08-08804 Richard Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. 2290 10th Ave North, Suite 404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 Phone: Fax: (5 jawverwillits@,aoLcom reelrbw@hotmail-corn Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 Brad Edwards, Esq. Law Office of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202 Boll Phone Fax: ( bedwardsQrra-law.corn bo@bradedwardslaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 Isidro Manuel Garcia, Esq. Garcia Elkins & Boehringer 224 Datum Avenue, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone Fax: ( Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 22 EFTA00213182