Ilafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, February 14, 20081:35 PM To: Richards, Jason R.; Kuyrkendall, E N. Subject: RE: DOBs Hi guys - sorry to bother you. On some of the new girls I don't have dobs. (the 302 says her dob is (and do we have a phone number?) Have you guys ever talked to or F Should I include them? A. Marie Villafaiia Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 1679 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014607 EFTA00225102 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villatrine, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:21 PM To: Richards, Jason R. Subject: RE: Epstein Indictment Ili Jason — I didn't send the indictment yet. I was just asking for input on who to include and who to exclude. How old was when she went with 4. Mark Vilkflitaa Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209- I 047 From: Richards, Jason R. Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:00 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Indictment Hey Marie, n There was no indictment attached to your email. Can you send it again. In addition to the two calls from phone 4/23/04 at 1:35 pm and 5/2/04 at 10:32 am, we have two telephone calls from to (Andrlano's boyfriend) telephone on 03/04/2004 at 9:46 am and 2:30 pm. Message pads reflect 10 messages from beginning 03/11/2003 ending 03/01/2006. Individuals Identified as taking the messages are Evelyne, Michajligla, and Alfredo Rodriguez. From: Villafana, Ann Mane C. (USAFLS) [Ann.Marle.C.Villafana@usdoj.gov) Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:41 AM To: Kuyrkendall, E N.; Richards, Jason R. Subject: RE: Epstein Indictment FYI — Tell me what you think. Also, can you pull the messages from what the dates are and who took the messages? Thanks. And am I correct that we have only two phone calls with a 4/23/04 and 5/2/04 .4. Marie Vilhiliiiia Assistant U.S. Attorney 56I 209-1047 From: VIllatana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:22 AM To: Braden, Myesha Subject: Epstein Indictment 1678 and see if you can tell 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014608 EFTA00225103 Hi Myesha — Our server was down for a few hours this morning, so I am very behind on my revisions. I wanted to talk about which girls we should drop. M With to t I e other girls brought by M, here are my thoughts. We c and S. and L. are the girls who have filed lawsuits. I have excluded them. very easily. Both only gave I or 2 massages and did not disclose their ages. S. is a good witness because she shows that, if you aren't willing to do more sexual activity, Epstein stops the massage and doesn't want to see you anymore. She seems like someone whom we could get in as 404(b) because the probative nature outweighs its presudice. I think we should drop P. because 1 don't believe she will ever be completely truthful about the amount of sexual activity that occurre . (She is the girl that one of the witnesses described as "a virgin on graduation day.") That only leaves , the soccer player who cried for the entire interview. I think that she may be worth kcepin ,. We have suc 'good documentary evidence related to her — message bads, car ren rs, 156 calls with , and 2 calls with (we have very few phone calls with , so this is key). What do you think? A. Marie Villafaila Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 1679 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014609 EFTA00225104 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Richards, Jason R. Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:00 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Indictment Hey Marie, There was no indictment attached to your email. Can you send it again. In addition to the two calls from phone 4/23/04 at 1:35 pm and 5/2/04 at 10:32 am, we have two telephone calls from to (Andriano's boyfriend) telephone on 03/04/2004 at 9:46 am and 2:30 pm. Message pads reflect 10 messages from beginning 03/11/2003 ending 03/01/2006. Individuals Identified as taking the messages are Evelyne, Michae , Louella, and Alfredo Rodriguez. From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) [Ann.Marle.C.VIllafana@usdoi.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:41 AM To: Kuyrkendall, E N.; Richards, Jason R. Subject: RE: Epstein Indictment FYI - Tell me what you think. Also. can you pull the messages from what the dates arc and who took the messages? Thanks. And am I correct that we have only two phone calls with 4/23/04 and 5/2/04 A. Marie Villafitha Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 and see if you can tell From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:22 AM To: Braden, Myesha Subject: Epstein Indictment Hi Myesha — Our server was down for a few hours this morning, so I am very behind on my revisions. I wanted to talk about which girls we should drop. and arc the girls who have filed lawsuits. I have excluded them. With respect to the other girls brought by , here are my thoughts. We can and S. very easily. Both only gave I or 2 massages and did not disclose their ages. S. is a good witness because she shows that, if you aren't willing to do more sexual activity, Epstein stops the massage and doesn't want to see you anymore. She seems like someone whom we could get in as 404(b) because the probative nature outweighs its pr "e. I think we should drop P. because I don't believe she will ever be completely truthful about the amount of sexual activity that occurre . (She is the girl that one of the witnesses described as "a virgin on graduation day.") That only leaves , the soccer player who cried for the entire interview. I think that she may be worth keeping. We have sue good documentary evidence related to her — message pads, car rental records, 156 calls 1686 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014610 EFTA00225105 with , and 2 calls with key). What do you think? A. Mark Villajaffa Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 (we have very few phone calls with , so this is 1687 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014611 EFTA00225106 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sent: To: Subject: Braden, Myesha Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:37 PM Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) RE: Epstein Indictment I'm not supposed to be involved in tantive decisions until I get word from 'on high'. However, my general thoughts are that you are correct. e of th vidence and will be a good witness, although a reluctant one. Am I correct to assume a A. and A. are still in? Their past history of commitment will have to be dealt with and it won't be easy, bu agree that 1 ey s ould be left in. The fact that their commitments were post-Epstein is good but his attorne s are going to try to destroy them. Is Felecia in as well? I thought that she was truthful. What about Marie C. (USAFLS) (mailto:Arin.Marie.C.Villafana@usdoj.gov1 et.Pluary14, 2008 11:22 AM To: Braden, Myesha Subject: Epstein Indictment Hi Mycsha — Our server was down for a few hours this morning, so I am very behind on my revisions. I wanted to talk about which girls we should drop. and Michelle L. are the girls who have filed lawsuits. I have excluded them. With respect to the other girls brought by here are my thoughts. We can dro and S. very easily. Both only gave I or 2 massages and did not disclose their ages. ood because she shows that, if you aren't willing to do more sexual activity, Epst the massage and doesn't want to see you anymore. She seems like someone whom we could get in as 404(6) because the probative nature outweighs its prejudice. I think we should drop P. because I don't believe she will ever be compjetely truthful about the amount of sexual activity that occurre . (She is the girl that one of the witnesses described as "a virgin on graduation day.") with , and 2 calls with st ood docu (we have very few phone calls with lated to her — message pads, car rental records, 156 calls , so this is That only leaves R the soccer player who cried for the entire interview. I think that she may be worth keepi key). What do you think? A. Marie Villafafta Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 1690 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014612 EFTA00225107 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: ViHelena, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:41 AM To: Kuyrkendall, E N.; Richards, Jason R. Subject: RE: Epstein Indictment FYI — Tell me what you think. Also, can you pull the messages from Andriano and see if you can tell what the dates are and who took the messages? Thanks. And am I correct that we have only two phone calls with ? 4/23/04 and 5/2/04 A. Mune Villufinia Assistant Ul.S. Attorney 561 209- I 047 From: VIllafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:22 AM To: Braden, Myesha Subject: Epstein Indictment Hi Myesha — Our server was down for a few hours this morning, so I am very behind on my revisions. I wanted to talk about which girls we should drop. and L. are the girls who have filed lawsuits. I have excluded them. With respect to the other girls brought by here are my th e can drop and S. very easily. Both only gave I or 2 massages and did not disclose their ages. S. is a good witness because s e shows that, if you aren't willing to do more sexual activity, Epstein stops the massage and doesn't want to see you anymore. She seems like someone whom we could get in as 404(b) because the probative nature outweighs its prejudice. I think we should drop P. because I don't believe she will ever be completely truthful about the amount of sexual activity that occurred. (She is the girl that one of the witnesses described as "a virgin on graduation day.") That only leaves Me the soccer player who cried for the entire interview. I think that she may be worth kee in . We have such go documentary evidence related to her — message pads car rental records, 156 calls with and 2 calls with (we have very few phone calls with , so this is key). What do you think? A. Marie Maio& Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 1702 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014613 EFTA00225108 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 4:33 PM To: Kuyrkendall, E N. Subject: Telephone numbers Can you e-mail me your summary chart, too? The Excel spreadsheet. Thanks. A. Marie Viflair:nu Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 1713 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014616 EFTA00225109 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sent: To: Subject: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:19 PM Kuyrkendall, E N. Telephone charts and phone records Hi Nesbitt — get tf ment package finalized. C - ' to me the final telephone charts for all of the girls and and Also, do you have all of records electronically? Maybe we can search for phone numbers for some of the new girls, even though we don't ave t eir phone records yet. Also, can you check on the lead to New York? Ideally, I would like to turn the package in on Thursday, so I need to know if we can include any of those girls. When you have a chance, please give me a call. I am in the U.S. Attorney's Office — 561-209-1021. A. Marie Male& Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 1717 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014618 EFTA00225110 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Oosterbaan, Andrew Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:26 AM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Mandelker, Sigel; Braden, Myesha Subject: RE: Epstein update I just got off the phone with Jay Leficowitz. It was a positive conversation centered mostly on what role they expect CEOS to be playing when they meet with us. I told him that all I want to do is help the process move forward, and if they think we best help the process by taking a fresh and objective look at the case and their arguments than that is what I want to do. I told him that if that's what they want - if that is what will help the process to move forward - then I don't think it's advisable for CEOS to partner with the USA° on the case. He wants to think about that (and probably talk to gjAgocounsel about whether it is better to have us partnered in the case or just serve a review function) and he said get back to me later today. He said he's ready to set the meeting quickly. I'll let you know. Marie — I don't think we need the FBI either way. If someone disagrees, please let me know. I can ask for Jay's position on that as well if you like. From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) [mallto:Ann.Marle.C.VIllafana@usdoj.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:42 AM To: Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: RE: Epstein update Hi Drew - Thank you for the update. Do you want an FBI presence at any meeting you set up? I can ask the SAC if he wants to attend (or if he wants someone higher tip to attend). Please just let me know. Thank you. A. Marie Viiialana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Oosterbaan, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:50 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha Subject: RE: Epstein update Just to update — I have a call into Lefkowitz. but I haven't heard back from him. I'll try him again tomorrow If he hasn't called back by then. From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) [mailto:Robert.Sentor@usdpl.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:42 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha; Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: RE: Epstein update 1saa EXHIBIT B-111 08-80736-C V-MARRA P-014574 EFTA00225111 I thought the pros memo and indictment that I read were good. We talked about rearranging and thinning out the overt acts in order to clarify the particular conduct. There were a few other smaller changes as well, but unless there are major changes to the pros memo or indictment that I reviewed, I will wait for Karen and Rolando to have a crack at it. From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:19 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha; Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: Epstein update Bob and Rolando — Just wanted to let you know that I gave the indictment package to Karen yesterday. If you want a preview before her edits, or if you just want to start reading the pros memo, please let me know. Thank you. A. Marie Villafalla Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 1589 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014575 EFTA00225112 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana. Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:21 AM To: Braden, Myesha Subject: FW: Epstein update Iii Mycsha -- Do you think we have a chance? I have fora• hours reserved with the grand jury on March I wanted to try to do it sooner, but I think this is going to take a while. Can you come on the I In'? I have been super-depressed about this — my poor secretary thinks I have turned into a I just can't help feeling that I am doing all of this work kw nothing. 4. Marie Villeflaila Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach. Fl. 33401 Phone 561 209.1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Oosterbaan, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:50 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Villafana, Am Marie C. (USAFLS); Garda, Rolando (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha Subject: RE: Epstein update Just to update — I have a call into Lefkowitz, but I haven't heard back from him. I'll try him again tomorrow if he hasn't called back by then. From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) [maIlto:Robert.Senior@usdoj.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:42 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Garda, Rolando (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha; Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: RE: Epstein update I thought the pros memo and indictment that I read were goad. We talked about rearranging and thinning out the overt acts in order to clarify the particular conduct. There were a few other smaller changes as well, but unless there are major changes to the pros memo or indictment that I reviewed, I will wait for Karen and Rolando to have a crack at it. From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:19 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Garda, Rolando (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha; Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: Epstein update Bob and Rolando — Just wanted to let you know that I gave the indictment package to Karen yesterday. If you want a preview before her edits, or if you just want to start reading the pros memo, please let me know. 1592 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014576 EFTA00225113 Thank you. A. Marie Vil!aloft Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 1593 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014577 EFTA00225114 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:42 AM To: Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: RE: Epstein update fli Drew — Thank you for the update. Do you want an FBI presence at any meeting you set up? I can ask the SAC if he wants to attend (or if he wants someone higher up to attend). Please just let me know. Thank you. A. Ala& Viiigfinla Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Oosterbaan, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:50 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Villafana, Ann Mane C. (USAFIS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha Subject: RE: Epstein update Just to update — I have a call into Lefkowitz, but I haven't heard back from him. I'll try him again tomorrow if he hasn't called back by then. From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) (mallto:Robert.Senlor@usdoj.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:42 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha; Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: RE: Epstein update I thought the pros memo and indictment that I read were good. We talked about rearranging and thinning out the overt acts in order to clarify the particular conduct. There were a few other smaller changes as well, but unless there are major changes to the pros memo or indictment that I reviewed, I will wait for Karen and Rolando to have a crack at it. From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:19 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Subject: Cc: Acosta, Epstein Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha; Oosterbaan, Andrew update Bob and Rolando — Just wanted to let you know that I gave the indictment package to Karen yesterday. If you want a preview before her edits, or if you just want to start reading the pros memo, please let me know. Thank you. 1596 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014578 EFTA00225115 A. Marie Villafafta Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 • 1597 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014579 EFTA00225116 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday. February 21, 2008 10:35 AM To: Kuyrkendall, E N.; Richards, Jason R.; Santiago. Alan (LEO) Subject: FW: Epstein update FYI - Still don't kno‘‘ what is going to happen. but at least there finally is movement. A. Marie riikViala Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Oosterbaan, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:50 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, )eff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha Subject: RE: Epstein update Just to update — I have a call into Lefkowitz, but I haven't heard back from him. I'll try him again tomorrow if he hasn't caned back by then. From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) [mallto:Robert.Senior@usdoj.govj Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:42 PM To: VIllafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha; Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: RE: Epstein update I thought the pros memo and indictment that I read were good. We talked about rearranging and thinning out the overt acts in order to clarify the particular conduct. There were a few other smaller changes as well, but unless there are major changes to the pros memo or indictment that I reviewed, I will wait for Karen and Rolando to have a crack at it. From: VIllafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:19 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha; Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: Epstein update Bob and Rolando — Just wanted to let you know that I gave the indictment package to Karen yesterday. If you want a preview before her edits, or if you just want to start reading the pros memo, please let me know. Thank you. A. Marie Villafana 1600 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014580 EFTA00225117 Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 1601 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014581 EFTA00225118 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Oosterbaan, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:50 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha Subject: RE: Epstein update Just to update — I have a call into Lefkowitz, but I haven't heard back from him. I'll try him again tomorrow If he hasn't called back by then. From: Senior, Robert (USAFIS) [mallto:Robert.Senlor@usdoj.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:42 PM To: VIHelena, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFIS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha; Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: RE: Epstein update I thought the pros memo and indictment that I read were good. We talked about rearranging and thinning out the overt acts in order to clarify the particular conduct. There were a few other smaller changes as well, but unless there are major changes to the pros memo or indictment that I reviewed, I will wait for Karen and Rolando to have a crack at it. From: VIHelena, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:19 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha; Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: Epstein update Bob and Rolando — Just wanted to let you know that I gave the indictment package to Karen yesterday. If you want a preview before her edits, or if you just want to start reading the pros memo, please let me know. Thank you. A. Marie Villafafla Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 1612 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014582 EFTA00225119 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:19 PM To: Senior, Robed (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha; Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: Epstein update Bob and Rolando — Just wanted to let you know that I gave the indictment package to Karen yesterday. If you want a preview before her edits, or if you just want to start reading the pros memo, please let me know. Thank you. A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 Tracking: 1619 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014583 EFTA00225120 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: ay, February 25, 2008 11:24 AM To: , Caroline (USAFLS) Subject: : uestion regarding use of Grand Jury Thank you. Caroline. It is most appreciated. A. Marie rillalitna Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Caroline (USAFLS) Sent: Mon ay, February 25, 2008 11:23 AM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Question regarding use of Grand Jury Marie: I see no need to change grand juries. Indeed, changing grand juries might suggest that something untoward occurred, which is not the case. Nor do I see a requirement to give a 404(6) type instruction. Let's not forget that the role of the grand is to investigate, and it is wholly appropriate that a grand jury in good faith pursued a line of investigathin that does not lead to indictment. That is a very different matter from presenting information pursuant to 404(b), to prove motive, lack of accident, etc. I share your instinct that just dropping six victims, and the draft proposed indictment, might call for some explanation, or at least acknowledgement, to the grand jury. It's always dicey, and not really desirable, to explain and share legal strategies with the grand jury. Perhaps you can simply tell them that the old draft proposed indictment is being withdrawn, and a different set of facts is being pursued, and ask them if they can set aside what they heard previously, and base a determination of probable cause solely on the new evidence. If any of them indicate inability to do so, perhaps they should be excused from consideration of this case; if that leaves you without a quorum, then you have a basis to go to a new grand jury.' I hope this helps; I'm available by phone as well. Carcrlime., EXHIBIT B-112 1546 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014623 EFTA00225121 From: Vlllafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 9:59 AM To: Miller, Caroline (USAFLS) Subject: Question regarding use of Grand Jury Hi Caroline — I have received two conflicting points of view regarding this question, so I thought 1 should ask the expert. Here is my situation: I have been involved in a long-term investigation of a child exploitation case. Throughout the investigation, I have presented evidence and testimony to Grand Jury A. Some of that evidence and testimony related to six victims (of a total of 19 victims), including the live testimony of one of those victims. I also began presenting evidence related to what I called a "draft proposed indictment." For various reasons, the indictment has been delayed about 9 months. And, for other strategic reasons, we have decided to drop the six victims referenced above, and replaced them with a different six victims. The question is now raised as to whether I should continue presenting to Grand Jury A, with a 404(b)-type instruction related to the evidence of the six dropped victims and some sort of instruction regarding the initial "draft proposed indictment", or whether I should present to Grand Jury B, excluding any testimony regarding those six victims. One other consideration — Grand Jury A is due to expire in August, and I anticipate that the investigation will continue for quite some time after indictment. It is possible that the 6 dropped victims will be re-added in a superseding indictment. Thank you. A. Marie Villafaila Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 1547 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014624 EFTA00225122 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:00 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robed (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Cc: Braden, Myesha ,. Subject: Epstein all - I wanted to raise an issue with you regarding the presentation of the Epstein indictment. I have been A the West Palm Beach Tuesday grand jury in the past, which has included presentation of testimony from R. and agent testimony regarding girls who will no longer be referenced in the indictment. I have conferred with Karen Atkinson and Caroline Heck regarding whether to stay with the same grand jury or present to a different grand jury. They agree that I should present to the same grand jury with some sort of instruction regarding not relying on evidence/testimony regarding those girls. That is my intention. I would like to present on March I I Lb. Epstein will be in town on March 10th for his state court hearing and hopefully we will be able to keep track of his whereabouts until the following day. Karen is reviewing the package now, so it should be in Miami by Monday, March 31 Also, I invited Myesha to be present for the grand jury proceedings, but she is waiting to hear from Alice and Drew about her level of involvement in the case. She is available on that dater so, if Alice and Drew decide about this, she will be able to attend. Thank you. A. Mark Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820.8777 EXHIBIT B-113 Tracking: 1542 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014628 EFTA00225123 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:05 AM To: Braden, Myesha Subject: Epstein Hi Myesha — I won't even tell you about how today is starting off badly on this case (politics, of course, not facts). But, in any event, the word is that CEOS is going to undertake an "independent review" of the case and meet with Epstein's attorneys some time next week. My supervisor is finishing the review of the indictment package and I know she caught some typos. When I finish those revisions, I will e-mail to you the entire indictment package, and you can find out what Drew wants to look at. I have one real concern, however. As you know, there are several girls that are still unknown to the defense. I want to avoid any possibility that those names might be disclosed. Should I redact the names of all of the girls from the pros memos that I send to you? Thank you, Myesha. A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 1520 EXHIBIT I3-114 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014629 EFTA00225124 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2008 8:41 AM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Senior, Robed (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Confidential Why would we possibly let him keep the same deal after all he has put us through? And after we have discovered 6 new girls, plus another 3 probable victims in New York? A. Mole VillafaAa Assistant 11.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL. 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820.8777 From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 9:34 AM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); VIllafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Confidential FYI From: Stoman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 7:43 PM To: JLetkowitz@kirkland.com Cc: Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: Epstein Jay, The Section Chief of DOJ's Child Exploitation Obscenity Section (CEOS) notified me today that he will review the matter involving your client Jeffrey Epstein. The Section Chief has indicated that he is ready to proceed immediately, and I understand you are in the process of providing him this week with a summary of issues to be reviewed, and expect to meet with him next week. The Section Chief also indicated that you would be calling this Office regarding the upcoming March 3, 2008 court date in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County. As you know, the Agreement entered into by your client originally provided that the United States 1522 08-80736-CV-MARRA EXHIBIT B-11S P-014630 EFTA00225125 Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (this Office) would defer prosecution if your client pled guilty to enumerated state charges by October 26, 2007. Since then, that date has been postponed for a number of reasons. At this juncture, it would not be reasonable to keep the current March 3I date as a deadline for compliance with the Agreement. That said, this Office is very concerned about additional delays. Despite this concern, I want to assure you that if counsel for Mr. Epstein meets with CEOS next week (the week of March 31, this Office will extend the time for compliance with the Agreement to provide CEOS time to engage in a thorough review. It goes without saying that in the event that CEOS decides that a federal prosecution should not be undertaken against Mr. Epstein, this Office will close its investigation. However, should CEOS disagree with Mr. Epstein's position, Mr. Epstein shall have one week to abide by the terms and conditions of the September 24, 2007 Agreement as amended by letter from United States Attorney Acosta to Jay Lefkowitz. Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida • • Tracking: 1523 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-01463I EFTA00225126 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:28 PM To: Weinstein, David (USAFLS) Cc: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject: RE: To the Civil Rights Chief That is fine. Just please send a copy to me for my file. A. Marie Villafaha Assistant U,S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Original Message From: Weinstein, David (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:22 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Cc: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject: Re: To the Civil Rights Chief Bob, Jeff, Alex and I discussed this yesterday. Jeff made some edits to your proposed letter and wants to send it out under Bob's signature. Bob have you had a chance to review Jeff's email? Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) To: Weinstein, David (USAFLS) Cc: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Sent: Wed Feb 27 16:16:36 2008 Subject: RE: To the Civil Rights Chief Hi David -- Have you had a chance to talk to Bob about this? I think my window is close to "opening" and I don't want the bad guys to come up with another reason for delay. Thank you. A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 EXHIBIT B-116 1499 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014632 EFTA00225127 Original Message From: Weinstein, David (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 5:03 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Cc: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Subject: Re: To the Civil Rights Chief Timing is everything. Right now I am at the NAC attending the Criminal Civil Rights Seminar. Your letter seems to cover everything, but I want to chat with Bob about it before we send it out. It should probably be addressed to Stephan Curran, who is the Deputy assigned to cover our District. Bob and I can talk Monday when I get back and we can send out the letter. Since Drew's shop is involved and has been for a while, they will hopefully agree with our/your conclusion. DSW Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) To: Weinstein, David (USAFLS) Cc: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Sent: Thu Feb 21 15:56:01 2008 Subject: To the Civil Rights Chief Hi David - I was just perusing the U.S. Attorney's Manual looking for an answer on another case and I noticed that Section 9-75.030 (regarding Coordination of Child Sex Abuse cases) says that cases involving violations of 18 USC 1591 (related to child sex trafficking) are supposed to be coordinated with CEOS and the Civil Rights Division. According to Section 8-3.120, prior to presentation to the grand jury, the U.S. Attorney is supposed to advise the Civil Rights Division in writing of the following: (a) Identity of the targets of the investigation; (b) The factual allegations to be investigated; (c) The statutes which may have been violated; (I) The United States Attorney's assessment of the significance of the case and whether the case is one of "national interest," and (e) The U.S. Attorney's proposed staffing of the matter (including whether a Civil Rights Division attorney should be assigned to work directly on the matter). Here is my proposal for such a written notification: Dear : Pursuant to USAM Section 8-3.120, I write to inform you of an ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter that may result in charges of violet' targe. estigat '— pstein, and a/k/a The inves'iga on as revea ed a effrey pstein would use hiss 1500 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014633 EFTA00225128 assistants (Kellen, Marcinkova, and to arrange appointments with minors to engage in commercial sexual activity. ommunications were made via telephones. Once appointments were made, Epstein would travel to the Southern District of Florida, where he maintained a residence, and the minors would travel to his home in Palm Beach where the sexual activity would occur. The Office anticipates charges of violations of Title 18, united States Code, Sections 371, 2422, 2423, and 1591. The investigation of the case by the City of Palm Beach Police Department has resulted in press coverage because of the titillating nature of the facts, but we see this case as similar to other "sex tourism" cases charged by our office, and not a matter of "national interest" as' defined by the U.S. Attorney's Manual. With respect to staffing, the Office has consulted with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, and we anticipate that the case will be staffed by at least one Assistant United States Attorney from our West Palm Beach office and at least one CEOS Attorney. If we determine that the case should be presented for an indictment, a copy will be provided to you. David - If you need any more info, please let me know. Also, the indictment is currently being reviewed by my supervisor. If you want to send the draft to Civil Rights now, please let me know. Thank you. A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 1501 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014634 EFTA00225129 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Kuyrkendall, E N. Sent: Thursday, February 28.2008 4:34 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: A fun task We made contact w ny girl. Ny agent to set up interview for next week. Sorry haven't made it over there yet, I'm hoping to finish up qp the GJSs soon. Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <Ann.Marie.C.Villafana@usdoj.gov> To: Kuyrkendall, E N.; Richards, Jason R. Sent: Thu Feb 28 16:07:12 2008 Subject: A fun task Hi guys - I am still wading through these FedEx records. There are a lot of shipments from "The Art of Women" in Haleiwa, Hawaii. I was able to access their MySpace page and he claims to be a photographer for "aspiring models." He invites aspiring models to visit his website, www.artofwomen.com <http://www.artofwomen.com> , but I cannot access it because DO) blocks me. Can you try? Also, someone from JE's office sent a package to Chiko Hoge, U.S. Secret Service, in Honolulu. It looks like it was around thetime that JE took Clinton to Africa. Dave Rogers also sent a package to "Inspector Lewis, U.S. Customs Service, 1210 Corbin Street, Elizabeth, NJ 07201" There were a lot of packages to Karin Models/MC-squared. name appears as the pers e packages a lot, do we know if sesz works for JE? What about Any word from FBI New York? Thanks. A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 1484 EXHIBIT 13.117 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014650 EFTA00225130 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 4:09 PM To: Senior, Robed (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Weinstein, David (USAFLS) Subject: More good evidence Hi guys — Another New York girl has been identified and will be interviewed next week. We also have FedEx records corroborating a girl who saw Epstein (and received a gift from him) when she was 15. I have e-mailed CEOS about additional information in preparation for their meeting but have received no response. 1.don't know whether I should send them info about the additional girls (to show how this case continues to grow, and has become multi-state) or not send the info to avoid an unintentional leak to Epstein's lawyers. I also wasn't sure whether you guys heard that parents have voluntarily dismissed their case against Epstein. According to the papers here no money changed hands, but it seems unlikely. I will be issuing a subpoena for her deposition transcript. Can someone give me an update? Thank you. A. Marie Vil Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 EXHIBIT B.-118 Tracking: 1474 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014655 EFTA00225131 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Kuyrkendall, E N. Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:50 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Affidavit Attachments: AttachmentA; flashcardsw.aff Marie, Hey, here Is a rough and do I mean rough copy of the affidavit for the memory cards. Let me know what you think, it seems pretty thin. I did not know If you wanted all of the '4" and "A" passages but I Included it. I did not include A.H. at the bath tub because we are unsure of her age at the time the photo was taken (I am going to recheck to make sure). Paragraphs we need to add and I was hoping you might have - the characteristics of someone who is a collector of Child Pornography and any more technical verbiage regarding the forensic examination. I also did not do an Attachment B(typIcally the items we will be searching for ???). Text me on a time you would like me at your office and I will be there. I will be spending the day in our conference rooming prepping for GI Think about this SW - I guess I. think It Is pretty bad but I am to tired tonight to try and start over.(not sure if there is enough PC) p.s. Jason Is also concerned because he believes he reviewed the flash cards some time ago and now It appears we may not have had legal means. EXHIBIT 13-119 1370 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014717 EFTA00225132 AO 93 IRev. 5185) Search Warrant United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA In the Matter of the Search of (Name, address or brief description of property or premises to be searched) One Ritz Big Print Digital Film 128 Megabyte CompactFlash memory card, marked 3608128AW4801CF53 in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation SEARCH WARRANT CASE NUMBER 08-8067-LRJ TO: E. NESBITT KUYRKENDALL, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION , and any Authorized Officer of the United States: Affidavit(s) having been made before me by E. Nesbitt Kuvrkendall who has reason to Alliant believe that E] on the person of or Ed on the premises known as (name, description andfor location) One Ritz Big Print Digital Film 128 Megabyte CompactFlash memory card, marked 3608128AW4801CF53 in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 505 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, Florida in the SOUTHERN lit of FLORIDA there is now concealed a certain person or property, namely Me parson or Priseer49 the electronic information contained in that CompactFlash memory card, which is property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offense, instrumentalities of such violations; and any fruits of those crimes, that is, violations of 18 U.S.C. 44 371, 1591, 2252, 2252A, 2422, and 2423. I am satisfied that the affidavit(s) and any recorded testimony establish probable cause to believe that the person or property so described is now concealed on the person or premises above-described and establish grounds for the issuance of this warrant. YOU ARE HE OMMANDED to search on or before he person or making the search (' ale cause has been estaS (Date) e person or property specified, serving this warrant Hat any time in the day or night as I find operty be found there to seize same, leaving a copy of this warrant and receipt for the person or property taken, and prepare a written inventory of the person or property seized and promptly return this warrant to the duty Magistrate Judge as required by law. WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA City and State LINNEA R. JOHNSON United States Ma, 'strata Name and Title of Judicial Of EXHIBIT 13-120 EFTA00225133 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-8067-LRJ IN RE: SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES' MOTION TO SEAL This matter comes before the Court upon the United States' Motion to Seal the documents related to its Search Warrant Application. The Court being fully apprised in the premises, orders that the motion is hereby GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers, in West Palm Beach, Florida, this / 7 day of March, 2008. cc: A. Marie Villafana, AUSA LINNEA R. JOHNS() UNITED STATES.JvfAGISTRATE JUDGE '.0 EFTA00225134 (Rm. 06/2005)Seakd Document Du king Form UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Southern District of Florida Number: 08-8067-LRJ In Re SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION SEALED DOCUMENT TRACKING FORM Party Filing Matter Under Seal On behalf of (select one): Name: A. Marie Villalana. U.S. Attorneys Oleos Address: 500 S. Australian Ave, Siete 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: 561 820-8711 Date sealed document filed: 3/1712008 1:1 Plaintiff 0 Defendant If sealed pursuant to statute, cite statute: Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) (Grand Jury Material) If sealed pursuant to previously entered protective order, date of order and docket entry number: The matter should remain sealed until: ❑ Conclusion of Trial 0 Arrest of First Defendant 1:1 Case Closing 0 Conclusion of Direct Appeal ❑ Other: 0 Permanently. Specify the authorizing law, rule, court order: The moving party requests that when the sealing period expires, the filed matter should be (select one): El Unsealed and placed in the public portion of the court file Destroyed ❑ Returned to the party or counsel for the party, as identified above Attorney for. Movani l nited Stales o rice EFTA00225135 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-8067-LRJ IN RE: SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby moves to seal its Application for Search Warrant for the following reasons: 1. The attached documents contain information relating to an ongoing grand jury investigation; thus, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(6), all records and orders related to the grandjury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before the grand jury. 2. Public disclosure of this matter would jeopardize the criminal investigation, notify potential subjects and/or targets and undermine the public interest and the function of the grand jury. WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the aforementioned documents be sealed. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: A. • E VILLAFAM irt Assistant United States Attorney ann.marie.c.villafana®usdoj.gov Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: 561 820-8711 Facsimile: 561 820-8777 EFTA00225136 A0106 (Rev. 5/85) Affidavit for Search Warrant United States District Court SOITTHERN In the Matter of the Search of (Name, lektreu or brkf thrurigeSoe of prnoo le be nankin DISTRICT OF FLORIDA One Ritz Big Print Digital Film 128 Megabyte CompactFlash memory card marked 3608128AW4801CF53 in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANT CASE NUMBER: 013-8067-LRJ I, E. Nesbitt Kuvrkendall , being duly sworn, depose and say: I am a Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation , have reason to believe that on the person of or X on the premises known as (name, description and/or location): One Ritz Big Print Digital Film 128 Megabyte CompactFlash memory card, marked 3608128AW4801CF53, in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 505 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, Florida in the Southern District of Florida there is now concealed a certain person or property, namely (describe the person or property): the electronic information contained in that CompactFlash memory card, which is (give alleged grounds for search and seizure under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) evidence, instrumentalities, and fruits of a crime, concerning violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1591, 2252, 2252A, 2422, and 2423. The facts to support the issuance of a Search Warrant are as follows: see Attached Affidavit of E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall Continued on the attached sheet and made a part hereof. X Yes _N Sworn to before me, and subrbetl in mi..Eresence: 3 (7-6-C Date LINNEA R. JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE( Name and Title of Judicial Officer at 3 77 t (Lc E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation Signature of J cial Officer EFTA00225137 AFFIDAVIT I, E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall (the "Affiant"), being duly sworn, depose and state: 1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and have been so employed for the past ten (10) years. I am currently assigned to PB-2, the Violent Crimes and Major Offenses Squad of the Palm Beach County Resident Agency, Miami Division. Among my responsibilities as a Special Agent are investigating crimes against children, particularly offenses involving child pornography and the exploitation of children. 2. I make this affidavit in support of an application by the United States of America for issuance of a warrant to search and seize evidence of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1591, 2252, 2252A, 2422, and 2423; instrumentalities of such violations; and any fruits of those crimes located within electronic media, specifically two 128MB CompactFlash memory cards, seized in October 2005 by The Town of Palm Beach Police Department("PBPD") during the execution of a State of Florida search warrant at the premises located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, owned by Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter, "Epstein's residence"). Those CompactFlash memory cards are more fully described as follows: (a) one Ritz Big Print Digital Film 128 Megabyte CompactFlash memory card, marked 3608128AW4801CF53, and (b) one PNY Technologies 128 Megabyte CompactFlash memory card, marked THNCF128MMA(T00CB) 999223 TAIWAN 0247 (hereinafter jointly referred to as "CompactFlash memory cards"). 3. The facts set forth in this affidavit arc based on my personal knowledge, information obtained in this investigation from others, including other law enforcement officers, my review of documents and records related to this investigation, and information gained through my training and EFTA00225138 experience. Since this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of securing a search warrant, I have not included each and every fact known to me concerning this investigation, but have set forth only those facts necessary to establish probable cause to believe that evidence, instrumentalities, and fruits of crimes, that is violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1591, 2252, 2252A, 2422, and 2423 will be found within the CompactFlash memory cards, specifically the electronic information contained therein. The Statutes involved 4. The investigation involves possible violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1591, 2252, 2252A, 2422, and 2423, which provide as follows: a. 18 U.S.C. § 371 makes it an offense for two or more persons to conspire to commit an offense against the United States; b. 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) makes it an offense for anyone to knowingly, in or affecting interstate commerce, recruit, entice, provide, or obtain by any means a person , knowing that the person has not attained the age of eighteen and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act; c. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252 and 2252A prohibit the manufacture, possession, distribution, and receipt of child pornography; 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) prohibits the use of a facility of interstate commerce, including the telephone, to persuade, induce, or entice a minor to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense; and e. 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) makes it an offense for anyone to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person. "Illicit -2- EFTA00225139 sexual conduct" includes a commercial sex act with a person under eighteen or other sexual conduct with a person under the age of sixteen. 5. Section 2422(b) refers to activity "for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense." Pursuant to: a. Florida Statutes Section 794.05, a "person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree;" b. Florida Statutes Section 794.021, "ignorance of the age [of the victim] is no defense," and that neither "misrepresentation of age by [the victim] nor a bona fide belief that such person is over the specified age [shall] be a defense;" c. Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(5)(a) and 800.04(5)(c)(2), an adult "who intentionally touches in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or entices a person under 16 years of age to so touch the perpetrator, commits lewd or lascivious molestation," which is a felony of the second degree if the victim is 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age; Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(6)(a) and 800.04(6)(b), an adult "who [i]ntentionally touches a person under 16 years of age in a lewd or lascivious manner or [s]olicits a person under 16 years of age to commit a lewd or lascivious act commits lewd or lascivious conduct," which is a felony of the second degree; -3- EFTA00225140 e. Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(7)(a) and 800.04(7)(c), an adult "who: (1) [i]ntentionally masturbates; (2) [i]ntentionally exposes the genitals in a lewd or lascivious manner; or (3) [i]ntentionally commits any other sexual act that does not involve actual physical or sexual contact with the victim, including, but not limited to . . . the simulation of any act involving sexual activity in the presence of a victim who is less than 16 years of age, commits lewd or lascivious exhibition," which is a felony of the second degree. f. Florida Statutes Section 800.04(2), "[n]either the victim's lack of chastity nor the victim's consent is a defense to the crimes proscribed by [Section 800.04]." g. Florida Statutes Section 800.04(3), "[t]he perpetrator's ignorance of the victim's age, the victim's misrepresentation of his or her age, or the perpetrator's bona fide belief of the victim's age cannot be raised as a defense in a prosecution under [Section 800.04]." h. Florida Statutes Section 800.02, a "person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree." The Epstein Investigation 6. In the Spring of 2006, Detective Joseph Recarey with the Town of Palm Beach Police Department contacted me about the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein's solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution and his lewd and lascivious conduct with minors. The FBI opened a case file in July 2006, and your Affiant is the case agent assigned to the investigation. 7. At around the same time that the FBI opened its investigation, the U.S. Attorney's Office began a grand jury investigation. Your Affiant is one of the agents on the Federal Rule of -4- EFTA00225141 Criminal Procedure 6(e) list, that is, someone who is authorized to have access to the facts of the investigation and the materials related thereto. 8. As part of the Federal Grand Jury investigation, a subpoena was issued for all of the physical evidence obtained by PBPD during the course of its investigation, including the evidence seized when PBPD executed the search warrant at Epstein's residence in October 2005. Included in the evidence seized during the search of the Premises were the two CompactFlash memory cards. I have reviewed that evidence, which included a number of photographs of topless and nude young women taken at Epstein's residence. The evidence, including the two CompactFlash memory cards that are the subject of this application, have been in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation since August 2006 and have not been tampered with or altered. Prior to that, they were in the custody of the Evidence Custodian of the Palm Beach Police Department, and I understand that the evidence was not tampered with or altered while in PBPD's custody. 9. I note that I am aware that Epstein's attorneys have alleged that Detective Recarey made misstatements in his application for the state search warrant, but they have not moved to suppress any of that evidence in connection with the prosecution of Epstein by the State Attorney's Office for felony solicitation of prostitution. No federal agency was involved in the application for or execution of the search warrant, and this application is based upon evidence obtained through the FBI's independent investigation. 10. During the course of the federal investigation, federal agents have interviewed more than two dozen young women who have reported engaging in sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein while they were under eighteen. All of those girls have reported essentially the same information. While they were under the age of eighteen (between the ages of fourteen and seventeen), they were -5- EFTA00225142 approached by a colleague — either an acquaintance at school, a co-worker, a "friend of a friend," or the like — who told them that they could make a lot of money performing a "massage" for a wealthy older man who lived on Palm Beach island. In some cases the girls were told that they would have to remove some clothing during the massage, other girls were not told about this. The girls traveled to Epstein's residence and entered through a side door into the kitchen of the residence. There they were met by Epstein and/or one of his personal assistants, usually The girls would be led up to the master bathroom area of Epstein's bedroom. The bathroom had a separate room similar to a dressing area where a massage table would be set up. The girls described the presence of nude and topless photographs of young women throughout the house. Epstein would lie face down on the massage table and the girl would begin by massaging his back and legs. Epstein would then turn over and begin to masturbate while instructing the girl to pinch his nipples or to straddle him. In some cases, Epstein would place a large back massager/vibrator on the victim's vagina. With some girls, he would digitally penetrate her vagina while he masturbated. The sexual activity with some minors progressed to oral sex, sexual intercourse, and the introduction of an adult female into the activity. With some girls, the sexual activity began with the first massage; with others, there was no sexual activity at first but sexual activity occurred in later massages; and in many cases, Epstein pushed the girls to engage in more and more sexual activity with each visit. II. Almost all of the sexual massages ended the same way, when Epstein ejaculated. Epstein or one of his assistants would pay the girl $200 or more, depending on how much sexual activity occurred. A fee of $200 also would be paid to the "recruiter" who brought the girl for the visit. If Epstein liked the girl, he or his assistant would ask for the girl's telephone number. Later, one of Epstein's assistants would call the girl directly to arrange for the girl to return. In some -6- EFTA00225143 instances of scheduling a girl for "work," which was a euphemism for performing a sexual massage, Epstein's assistants would make the arrangement for the next time that Epstein was in Florida. During those calls, the assistant would invite the girl to return to Epstein's home to "work." None of the girls ever spontaneously went to Epstein's home to provide a sexual massage. The appointments were set up over the telephone. 12. The victims interviewed by the federal agents were asked about Epstein's knowledge that they were minors. Many of the victims specifically discussed their ages with Epstein, and he provided them with birthday gifts, made statements about trips that he wanted to take them on when they were eighteen, and discussed high school events and college plans with them. For other victims, the subject o f age was never discussed, and for others, their "recruiter" instructed them to lie and say they were eighteen. 13. One of the young women interviewed during the course of the FBI's investigation was "C" who stated that she first met Epstein at the age of fourteen. Epstein paid 15200 - $400 to provide him with massages. According to C, during the three years that she saw Epstein, all but three of the over one hundred massages she provided were sexual in nature. The sexual activity ranged from self masturbation on Epstein's part to Epstein touching is vagina. On a separate occasion, Epstein introduce an unidentified female during a massage, who performed oral sex on C while Epstein had sexual intercourse with the unidentified female. 14. When' was approximately sixteen years old, ■ e, Epstein's assistant, contacted, and told her that Epstein wanted to take some photographs of her. utilizing a digital camera, took nude photographs of C in several different locations in and around Epstein's Palm Beach residence. paid C $500 for posing for the nude photographs. Other -7- EFTA00225144 victims interviewed have repeatedly pointed to the existence of the pictures of nude and semi-nude women throughout the residence. IS. Efforts have been made to corroborate the statements of C and the other young women who have described their sexual relationships with Epstein. With respect to C, there are telephone records showing phone calls to C during the time period that she was seeing Epstein.11also described receiving gifts from Epstein via Federal Express. A grand jury subpoena issued to Federal Express contained records of a number o f packages sent by Epstein or his assistants to C. Likewise, the statements of other victims have been corroborated through telephone records, Western Union records, travel records, credit card receipts, sales records of theaters, and rental car records. 16. Also, during the FBI's investigation, I interviewed a young woman, 4I" who had known Epstein several years ago, when she was in her late teens/early twenties. The woman was a struggling artist in New York who was specializing in painting nude portraits. Prior to preparing a portraits would take several photographic studies. Epstein was very interested in her work and her photographs, and also expressed an interest in the artist's younger sister, "A," who was sixteen years old at the time. 17. Epstein and an associate/companion, Ghislaine Maxwell, made arrangements and paid for A to travel to one of his homes, located in New Mexico. One morning during that visit, Epstein got into bed with A. Mr. Epstein told A that he felt like "cuddling." A described Epstein's actions as "spooning" and constantly hugging her. 18. Epstein and Maxwell also made arrangements and paid for M to fly home to Arizona for the primary purpose of taking artistic photographs of her family members in the nude. This -8- EFTA00225145 included the artist's younger siblings, two sisters, A and a younger sister, age 9 or 10, and two brothers. Due to the sensitive nature of the photographs, M created a photo log to document each image and the order it was taken. Later, M learned that seven photographs, two of A and five of the 9 or 10 year old, were missing. M, who was very upset, contacted Epstein's office and asked for one of Epstein's assistants to look for the missing photographs. M also confronted Epstein and Maxwell about the missing photographs which they claimed they did not possess. A few weeks later M received a telephone call from an unidentified caller who stated that the missing photographs were in Epstein's briefcase. The missing photographs were not recovered and M believes that Epstein is in possession of them. Although those photographs were artistic, rather than pornographic in nature, this further shows Epstein's interest in taking and maintaining nude and semi-nude photographs of minors. 19. I have interviewed M and A about their experiences with Epstein. Both M and A are reluctant to divulge their experiences publically. During the interview with A, she was visibly disturbed when recalling an incident with Epstein at his ranch in New Mexico when she was sixteen years old. A stated that one evening Epstein had come into her bedroom and sat on the bed. Epstein stroked her hair and told her she was beautiful. A was unable to recall the remainder of any events that evening. M has also expressed her concern of speaking publicly against Epstein for fear of reprisals against her or her family. The Items to Be Searched and the Information Sought 20. This application seeks perrnission to forensically examine two CompactFlash memory cards. Your Affiant knows that electronic media, i.e., CompactFlash memory cards, may be important to a criminal investigation because the objects may be used as storage devices that contain -9- EFTA00225146 contraband, evidence, instrumentalities, or fruits of a crime in the form of electronic data. Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permit the government to search for and seize computer hardware, software, and electronic files that are evidence of crime, contraband, instrumentalities of crime and/or fruits of crime. I know that CompactFlash memory cards are most often used in digital cameras to store photographs taken with the cameras. However, memory cards can be used to store any type of digital data, including computer files. 21. The nature of electronic media, i.e., CompactFlash memory cards, requires forensic analysis to employ a variety of different search techniques. These techniques include, but are not limited to, opening files, reviewing directories of files, and searching for and analyzing deleted and/or hidden information. While conducting the analysis, data will be continuously evaluated as to whether or not it is within the scope of the issued search warrant. Only information within the scope of the search warrant will be acknowledged, shared with, or provided to, the investigators involved in this matter. All other information will be closed and maintained within the analytical unit. Forensic analysis will be conducted in close consultation with the United States Attorney's office for specific legal guidance throughout the analytical and reporting process. 22. I understand that reviewing the contents of the CompactFlash memory cards was within the scope of the State search warrant that gave rise to the seizure of the cards from Epstein's residence, and that PBPD reviewed the contents of the cards. I also understand that an FBI agent conducted a similar review when all of the items were taken into federal custody pursuant to the federal grand jury subpoena. Those reviews did not involve a forensic examination to determine if there were any deleted or corrupted files, which could be recovered only via such a forensic analysis. I understand that the cursory reviews performed by the other law enforcement officers did not delete -10- EFTA00225147 or add any files to the CompactFlash memory cards and, therefore, they contain the same information that they had at the time they were removed from the Epstein residence. While the cursory review performed by the FBI agent did not exceed the scope of the PBPD's review, and therefore did not require the issuance of a warrant, the forensic review that is requested by this application would expand that review and, accordingly, your Affiant requests the issuance of a search warrant in accordance with United Stalest Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 115-21 (1984). 23. As explained above, Epstein instructed one of his assistants to photograph C using a digital camera; M reported Epstein's unusual interest in, and probable theft of, nude photographs of the minor members of her family; and Epstein engaged in inappropriate sexual activity with numerous minor females. In light of Epstein's display of photographs of nude and semi-nude young women throughout his residence, your Affiant avers that there is probable cause to believe that photographs or other evidence of the victims' visits to Epstein's residence may be found on the CompactFlash memory cards. Accordingly, your Affiant seeks permission to forensically examine the CompactFlash memory cards for evidence, instrumentalities, and fruits of the crimes listed above, that is, the electronic information contained within the memory cards, including electronic files containing photographs, owner identification information, date and time information, names, addresses, and information regarding the source of any photographs or the persons depicted in any photographs. 24. Although the cursory reviews did not reveal any of the items sought, your Affiant avers that there is probable cause to believe that a thorough forensic examination, which would include the recovery of any deleted or corrupted files, would result in the discovery of the data listed above, which is evidence, instrumentalities, and fruits of the crimes under investigation. -11- EFTA00225148 WHEREFORE, your Affiant requests that this court issue a search warrant for the CompactFlash memory cards described in the Application for Search Warrant and for the seizure of the items listed above. FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. E. Nesbitt uyrkendall, Specia Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation Subscribed and sworn to before me this / 7 day of March, 2008 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -12- EFTA00225149 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA No. 08-8067-LRJ IN RE APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT FOR ONE RITZ BIG PRINT DIGITAL FILM 128 MEGABYTE COMPACT FLASH MEMORY CARD MARKED 3608128AW4801CF53 IN THE CUSTODY OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CRIMINAL COVER SHEET I. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the United States Attorney's Office prior to April 1, 1999? Yes X No If yes, was it pending in the Central Region? Yes No 2. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the United States Attorney's Office prior to April 1, 2003? Yes X No 3. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the Narcotics Section (Miami) of the United States Attorney's Office prior to May 18, 2003? Yes X No 4. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the United States Attorney's Office prior to October 14, 2003? Yes X No 5. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the Central Region of the United States Attorney's Office prior to September 1, 2007? Yes X No Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES A ORNEY BY: APP .MARIE VILLAFARA ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 TEL (561) 820-8711 FAX (561) 802-1787 EFTA00225150 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-8067-LRJ IN RE: SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES' MOTION TO SEAL This matter comes before the Court upon the United States' Motion to Seal the documents related to its Search Warrant Application. The Court being fully apprised in the premises, orders that the motion is hereby GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers, in West Palm Beach, Florida, this / 7 day of March, 2008. cc: A. Marie Villafana, AUSA LINNEA R. JOHNSO UNITED STATES AGISTRATE JUDGE . • mut ctri A 'Llt•Qt:0 1 .• :•!,1 cr, the .8iintre k. EFTA00225151 (Rev. 06/2005)Scalcd Document Tracking Form UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Southern District of Florida Number: 08430614-RJ In Re SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION SEALED DOCUMENT TRACKING FORM Party Filing Mailer Under Seal On behalf of (select one): Name: A. Made Villafalfs. U.S. Attorney's Office Address: 500 S. Australian Me, Suite 400. West Palm Beath, FL 33401 Telephone: 561 820-8711 Date sealed document filed: 3/17/2008 CI Plaintiff ❑ Defendant If sealed pursuant to statute, cite statute: Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(e) (Grand Jury Material) If sealed pursuant to previously entered protective order, date of order and docket entry number: The matter should remain sealed until: ❑ Conclusion of Trial ❑ Arrest of First Defendant 0 Case Closing ❑ Conclusion of Direct Appeal ❑ Other: ❑ Permanently. Specify the authorizing law, rule, court order: The moving party requests that when the sealing period expires, the filed matter should be (select one): ❑ Unsealed and placed in the public portion of the court file I Destroyed ❑ Returned to the party or counsel for the party, as identified above Attorney for: Movant united States oMmerica EFTA00225152 AO 93 (Rev. 5/85) Search Warrant Date and Time Issued United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF In the Matter of the Search of (Name, address or brief description of property or premises to be searched) One PNY Technologies 128 Megabyte CompactFlash memory card, marked THNCF128MMA(TOOCB) 999223 TAIWAN 0247 in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation FLORIDA SEARCH WARRANT CASE NUMBER 08-8068-LRJ TO: E. NESBITT KUYRKENDALL, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION , and any Authorized Officer of the United States: Affidavit(s) having been made before me by E. Nesbitt Kuvrkendall Alf iant who has reason to believe that Don the person of or Ed on the premises known as (name, description and/or location) One PNY Technologies 128 Megabyte CompactFlash memory card, marked THNCF128MMA(TOOCB) 999223 TAIWAN 0247 in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 505 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, Florida in the concealed a certain person or property, namely (describe the person or property) SOUTHERN District of FLORIDA there is now the electronic information contained in that CompactFlash memory card, which is property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offense, instrumentalities of such violations; and any fruits of those crimes, that is, violations of 18 U.S.C. 45 371, 1591, 2252, 2252A, 2422, and 2423. I am satisfied that the affidavit(s) and any recorded testimony establish probable cause to believe that the person or property so described is now concealed on the person or premises above-described and establish grounds for the issuance of this warrant. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to search on or before c.---4113raexcescl-te-thYsTihe person or place earn and making the search r n• -2- lc - Mate) roperty specified, serving this warrant A.M. to 10:00 P.M.)(at any ime in the day or night as I find reasonable cause has been established)) and if the perliin or property be found there to seize same, leaving a copy of this warrant and receipt for the person or property taken, and prepare a written inventory of the person or property seized and promptly return this warrant to the duty Magistrate Judge as required by law. WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA; (.1 City and State 7 ok LINNEA R. JOHNSON United States Magistrate Judge Name and Title of Judicial Officer EFTA00225153 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-8068-LRJ IN RE: SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES' MOTION TO SEAL This matter comes before the Court upon the United States' Motion to Seal the documents related to its Search Warrant Application. The Court being fully apprised in the premises, orders that the motion is hereby GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers, in West Palm Beach, Florida, this 7 7 day of March, 2008. cc: A. Marie Villafana, AUSA A R. JOI SON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3 EFTA00225154 ' (Rev. 062005)Sealed Document Tracking Teem UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Southern District of Florida Number: 08-atna-IRJ In Re SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION SEALED DOCUMENT TRACKING FORM Party Filing Matter Under Seal Name: R. Made Walsh& U.S. Attorney's Office Address: S00 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400. West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: 661 820-6711 On behalf of (select one): Date sealed document filed: 3/1712006 0 Plaintiff 0 Defendant If sealed pursuant to statute, cite statute: Fed. R. CrIni. P. 6(e) (Grand Jury Material) If sealed pursuant to previously entered protective order, date of order and docket entry number: The matter should remain sealed until: CI Conclusion of Trial O Arrest of First Defendant ID Case Closing O Conclusion of Direct Appeal CI Other: O Permanently. Specify the authorizing law, rule, court order: The moving party requests that when the sealing period expires, the filed matter should be (select one): O Unsealed and placed in the public portion of the court file O Destroyed O Returned to the party or counsel for the party, as identified above ti &ys :: Attorney Ion Movard Unked Sts of America EFTA00225155 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-8068-LRJ IN RE: SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL The United States of America, by and through the undersignel Assistant United States Attorney, hereby moves to seal its Application for Search Warrant for the following reasons: 1. The attached documents contain information relating to an ongoing grand jury investigation; thus, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(6), all records and orders related to the grandjury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before the grand jury. 2. Public disclosure of this matter would jeopardize the criminal investigation, notify potential subjects and/or targets and undermine the public interest and the function of the grand jury. WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the aforementioned documents be sealed. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: A. MARIE VILLAFANA Assistant United States Attorney ann.marie.c.villafana®usdoj.gov Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: 561 820-8711 Facsimile: 561 820-8777 EFTA00225156 AO 106 (Rev. 5/85) Affidavit for Search µ'arrant United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF In the Matter of the Search of Name, address or brief destripdoe of person to be starched) One PNY Technologies 128 Megabyte CompactFlash memory card marked THNCF128MMA(TOOCB) 999223 TAIWAN 0247 in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation FLORIDA APPLICATION AND Alt FOR SEARCH WARRANT CASE NUMBER: 08.8068-LRJ I, E. Nesbitt Kuvrkendall , being duly sworn, depose and say: I am a Special Agent. Federal Bureau of Investigation , and have reason to believe that on the person of or X on the premises known as (name, description and/or location): in the One PNY Technologies 128 Megabyte CompactFlash memory card, marked THNCF128MMA(TOOCB) 999223 TA/WAN 0247 in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 505 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, Florida Southern District of Florida there is now concealed a certain person or property, namely (describe the person or property): the electronic information contained in that CompactFlash memory card, which is (give alleged grounds for search and seizure under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) evidence, instrumentalities, and fruits of a crime, concerning violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1591, 2252, 2252A, 2422, and 2423. The facts to support the issuance of a Search Warrant are as follows: see Attached Affidavit of E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall Continued on the attached sheet and made a part hereof. X Yes N Sworn to before me, an -3 - ( 7 -. 0 2 (--- 1 E. Nesbitt Kuyrken , Special Agent ra rlTh. ! ta: ederal Bureau of Investigation subscribed InyltieS' at Date LINNEA R. JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGI Name and Title of Judicial O 1 ,/ ttde niuDGE x, EFTA00225157 AFFIDAVIT I, E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall (the "Af£iant"), being duly sworn, depose and state: 1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI') and have been so employed for the past ten (10) years. I am currently assigned to PB-2, the Violent Crimes and Major Offenses Squad of the Palm Beach County Resident Agency, Miami Division. Among my responsibilities as a Special Agent are investigating crimes against children, particularly offenses involving child pornography and the exploitation of children. 2. I make this affidavit in support of an application by the United States of America for issuance of a warrant to search and seize evidence of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1591, 2252, 2252A, 2422, and 2423; instrumentalities of such violations; and any fruits of those crimes located within electronic media, specifically two 128MB CompactFlash memory cards, seized in October 2005 by The Town of Palm Beach Police Department("PBPD") during the execution of a State of Florida search warrant at the premises located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, owned by Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter, "Epstein's residence"). Those CompactFlash memory cards are more fully described as follows: (a) one Ritz Big Print Digital Film 128 Megabyte CompactFlash memory card, marked 3608128AW4801CF53, and (b) one PNY Technologies 128 Megabyte CompactFlash memory card, marked THNCF128MMA(T00CB) 999223 TAIWAN 0247 (hereinafter jointly referred to as "CompactFlash memory cards"). 3. The facts set forth in this affidavit are based on my personal knowledge, information obtained in this investigation from others, including other law enforcement officers, my review of documents and records related to this investigation, and information gained through my training and -1- EFTA00225158 experience. Since this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of securing a search warrant, I have not included each and every fact known to me concerning this investigation, but have set forth only those facts necessary to establish probable cause to believe that evidence, instrumentalities, and fruits of crimes, that is violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1591, 2252, 2252A, 2422, and 2423 will be found within the CompactFlash memory cards, specifically the electronic information contained therein. The Statutes Involved 4. The investigation involves possible violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1591, 2252, 2252A, 2422, and 2423, which provide as follows: a. 18 U.S.C. § 371 makes it an offense for two or more persons to conspire to commit an offense against the United States; b. 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) makes it an offense for anyone to knowingly, in or affecting interstate commerce, recruit, entice, provide, or obtain by any means a person , knowing that the person has not attained the age of eighteen and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act; c. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252 and 2252A prohibit the manufacture, possession, distribution, and receipt of child pornography; 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) prohibits the use of a facility of interstate commerce, including the telephone, to persuade, induce, or entice a minor to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense; and e. 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) makes it an offense for anyone to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person. "Illicit -2- EFTA00225159 sexual conduct" includes a commercial sex act with a person under eighteen or other sexual conduct with a person under the age of sixteen. 5. Section 2422(b) refers to activity "for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense." Pursuant to: a. Florida Statutes Section 794.05, a "person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree;" b. Florida Statutes Section 794.021, "ignorance of the age [of the victim] is no defense," and that neither "misrepresentation of age by [the victim] nor a bona fide belief that such person is over the specified age [shall] be a defense;" c. Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(5)(a) and 800.04(5)(c)(2), an adult "who intentionally touches in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or entices a person under 16 years of age to so touch the perpetrator, commits lewd or lascivious molestation," which is a felony of the second degree if the victim is 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age; I Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(6)(a) and 800.04(6)(b), an adult "who [i]ntentionally touches a person under 16 years of age in a lewd or lascivious manner or [s]olicits a person under 16 years of age to commit a lewd or lascivious act commits lewd or lascivious conduct," which is a felony of the second degree; -3- EFTA00225160 e. Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(7)(a) and 800.04(7)(c), an adult "who: (1) [i]ntentionally masturbates; (2) [i]ntentionally exposes the genitals in a lewd or lascivious manner; or (3) [i]ntentionally commits any other sexual act that does not involve actual physical or sexual contact with the victim, including, but not limited to .. . the simulation of any act involving sexual activity in the presence of a victim who is less than 16 years of age, commits lewd or lascivious exhibition," which is a felony of the second degree. f. Florida Statutes Section 800.04(2), "[n]either the victim's lack of chastity nor the victim's consent is a defense to the crimes proscribed by [Section 800.04]." g. Florida Statutes Section 800.04(3), "[t]he perpetrator's ignorance of the victim's age, the victim's misrepresentation of his or her age, or the perpetrator's bona fide belief of the victim's age cannot be raised as a defense in a prosecution under [Section 800.04]." h. Florida Statutes Section 800.02, a "person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree." The Enstein Investigation 6. In the Spring of 2006, Detective Joseph Recarey with the Town of Palm Beach Police Department contacted me about the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein's solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution and his lewd and lascivious conduct with minors. The FBI opened a case file in July 2006, and your Affiant is the case agent assigned to the investigation. 7. At around the same time that the FBI opened its investigation, the U.S. Attorney's Office began a grand jury investigation. Your Affiant is one of the agents on the Federal Rule of -4- EFTA00225161 Criminal Procedure 6(e) list, that is, someone who is authorized to have access to the facts of the investigation and the materials related thereto. 8. As part of the Federal Grand Jury investigation, a subpoena was issued for all of the physical evidence obtained by PBPD during the course of its investigation, including the evidence seized when PBPD executed the search warrant at Epstein's residence in October 2005. Included in the evidence seized during the search of the Premises were the two CompactFlash memory cards. I have reviewed that evidence, which included a number of photographs of topless and nude young women taken at Epstein's residence. The evidence, including the two CompactFlash memory cards that are the subject of this application, have been in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation since August 2006 and have not been tampered with or altered. Prior to that, they were in the custody of the Evidence Custodian of the Palm Beach Police Department, and I understand that the evidence was not tampered with or altered while in PBPD's custody. 9. I note that I am aware that Epstein's attorneys have alleged that Detective Recarey made misstatements in his application for the state search warrant, but they have not moved to suppress any of that evidence in connection with the prosecution of Epstein by the State Attorney's Office for felony solicitation of prostitution. No federal agency was involved in the application for or execution of the search warrant, and this application is based upon evidence obtained through the FBI's independent investigation. 10. During the course of the federal investigation, federal agents have interviewed more than two dozen young women who have reported engaging in sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein while they were under eighteen. All of those girls have reported essentially the same information. While they were under the age of eighteen (between the ages of fourteen and seventeen), they were -5- EFTA00225162 approached by a colleague — either an acquaintance at school, a co-worker, a "friend of a friend," or the like — who told them that they could make a lot of money performing a "massage" for a wealthy older man who lived on Palm Beach island. In some cases the girls were told that they would have to remove some clothing during the massage, other girls were not told about this. The girls traveled to Epstein's residence and entered through a side door into the kitchen of the residence. There they were met by Epstein and/or one of his personal assistants, usually MM. The girls would be led up to the master bathroom area of Epstein's bedroom. The bathroom had a separate room similar to a dressing area where a massage table would be set up. The girls described the presence of nude and topless photographs of young women throughout the house. Epstein would lie face down on the massage table and the girl would begin by massaging his back and legs. Epstein would then turn over and begin to masturbate while instructing the girl to pinch his nipples or to straddle him. In some cases, Epstein would place a large back massager/vibrator on the victim's vagina. With some girls, he would digitally penetrate her vagina while he masturbated. The sexual activity with some minors progressed to oral sex, sexual intercourse, and the introduction of an adult female into the activity. With some girls, the sexual activity began with the first massage; with others, there was no sexual activity at first but sexual activity occurred in later massages; and in many cases, Epstein pushed the girls to engage in more and more sexual activity with each visit. 11. Almost all of the sexual massages ended the same way, when Epstein ejaculated. Epstein or one of his assistants would pay the girl $200 or more, depending on how much sexual activity occurred. A fee of $200 also would be paid to the "recruiter" who brought the girl for the visit. If Epstein liked the girl, he or his assistant would ask for the girl's telephone number. Later, one of Epstein's assistants would call the girl directly to arrange for the girl to return. In some -6- EFTA00225163 instances of scheduling a girl for "work," which was a euphemism for performing a sexual massage, Epstein's assistants would make the arrangement for the next time that Epstein was in Florida. During those calls, the assistant would invite the girl to return to Epstein's home to "work." None of the girls ever spontaneously went to Epstein's home to provide a sexual massage. The appointments were set up over the telephone. 12. The victims interviewed by the federal agents were asked about Epstein's knowledge that they were minors. Many of the victims specifically discussed their ages with Epstein, and he provided them with birthday gifts, made statements about trips that he wanted to take them on when they were eighteen, and discussed high school events and college plans with them. For other victims, the subject of age was never discussed, and for others, their "recruiter" instructed them to lie and say they were eighteen. 13. One of the young women interviewed during the course of the FBI's investigation was "C" who stated that she first met Epstein at the age of fourteen. Epstein paid C 5200 - $400 to provide him with massages. According to C, during the three years that she saw Epstein, all but three of the over one hundred massages she provided were sexual in nature. The sexual activity ranged from self masturbation on Epstein's part to Epstein touching C's vagina. On a separate occasion, Epstein introduce an unidentified female during a massage, who performed oral sex on C while Epstein had sexual intercourse with the unidentified female. 14. When C was approximately sixteen years old, ■ M, Epstein's assistant, contacted C and told her that Epstein wanted to take some photographs of her. utilizing a digital camera, took nude photographs of C in several different locations in and around Epstein's Palm Beach residence. paid C $500 for posing for the nude photographs. Other -7- EFTA00225164 victims interviewed have repeatedly pointed to the existence of the pictures of nude and semi-nude women throughout the residence. 15. Efforts have been made to corroborate the statements of C and the other young women who have described their sexual relationships with Epstein. With respect to C, there are telephone records showing phone calls to C during the time period that she was seeing Epstein. C also described receiving gifts from Epstein via Federal Express. A grand jury subpoena issued to Federal Express contained records of a number of packages sent by Epstein or his assistants to C. Likewise, the statements of other victims have been corroborated through telephone records, Western Union records, travel records, credit card receipts, sales records of theaters, and rental car records. 16. Also, during the FBI's investigation, I interviewed a young woman, "M," who had known Epstein several years ago, when she was in her late teens/early twenties. The woman was a struggling artist in New York who was specializing in painting nude portraits. Prior to preparing a portrait, M would take several photographic studies. Epstein was very interested in her work and her photographs, and also expressed an interest in the artist's younger sister, "A," who was sixteen years old at the time. 17. Epstein and an associate/companion, Ghislaine Maxwell, made arrangements and paid for A to travel to one of his homes, located in New Mexico. One morning during that visit, Epstein got into bed with A. Mr. Epstein told A that he felt like "cuddling." A described Epstein's actions as "spooning" and constantly hugging her. 18. Epstein and Maxwell also made arrangements and paid for M to fly home to Arizona for the primary purpose of taking artistic photographs of her family members in the nude. This -8- EFTA00225165 included the artist's younger siblings, two sisters, A and a younger sister, age 9 or 10, and two brothers. Due to the sensitive nature of the photographs, M created a photo log to document each image and the order it was taken. Later, M learned that seven photographs, two of A and five of the 9 or 10 year old, were missing. M, who was very upset, contacted Epstein's office and asked for one of Epstein's assistants to look for the missing photographs. M also confronted Epstein and Maxwell about the missing photographs which they claimed they did not possess. A few weeks later M received a telephone call from an unidentified caller who stated that the missing photographs were in Epstein's briefcase. The missing photographs were not recovered and M believes that Epstein is in possession of them. Although those photographs were artistic, rather than pornographic in nature, this further shows Epstein's interest in taking and maintaining nude and semi-nude photographs of minors. 19. I have interviewed M and A about their experiences with Epstein. Both M and A are reluctant to divulge their experiences publically. During the interview with A, she was visibly disturbed when recalling an incident with Epstein at his ranch in New Mexico when she was sixteen years old. A stated that one evening Epstein had come into her bedroom and sat on the bed. Epstein stroked her hair and told her she was beautiful. A was unable to recall the remainder of any events that evening. M has also expressed her concern of speaking publicly against Epstein for fear of reprisals against her or her family. The Items to Be Searched and the Information Sought 20. This application seeks permission to forensically examine two CompactFlash memory cards. Your Affiant knows that electronic media, i.e., CompactFlash memory cards, may be important to a criminal investigation because the objects may be used as storage devices that contain -9- EFTA00225166 contraband, evidence, instrumentalities, or fruits of a crime in the form of electronic data. Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permit the government to search for and seize computer hardware, software, and electronic files that are evidence of crime, contraband, instrumentalities of crime and/or fruits of crime. I know that CompactFlash memory cards are most often used in digital cameras to store photographs taken with the cameras. However, memory cards can be used to store any type of digital data, including computer files. 21. The nature of electronic media, i.e., CompactFlash memory cards, requires forensic analysis to employ a variety of different starch techniques. These techniques include, but are not limited to, opening files, reviewing directories of files, and searching for and analyzing deleted and/or hidden information. While conducting the analysis, data will be continuously evaluated as to whether or not it is within the scope of the issued search warrant. Only information within the scope of the search warrant will be acknowledged, shared with, or provided to, the investigators involved in this matter. All other information will be closed and maintained within the analytical unit. Forensic analysis will be conducted in close consultation with the United States Attorney's office for specific legal guidance throughout the analytical and reporting process. 22. I understand that reviewing the contents of the CompactFlash memory cards was within the scope of the State search warrant that gave rise to the seizure of the cards from Epstein's residence, and that PBPD reviewed the contents of the cards. I also understand that an FBI agent conducted a similar review when all of the items were taken into federal custody pursuant to the federal grand jury subpoena. Those reviews did not involve a forensic examination to determine if there were any deleted or corrupted files, which could be recovered only via such a forensic analysis. I understand that the cursory reviews performed by the other law enforcement officers did not delete -10- EFTA00225167 or add any files to the CompactFlash memory cards and, therefore, they contain the same information that they had at the time they were removed from the Epstein residence. While the cursory review performed by the FBI agent did not exceed the scope of the PBPD's review, and therefore did not require the issuance of a warrant, the forensic review that is requested by this application would expand that review and, accordingly, your Affiant requests the issuance of a search warrant in accordance with United Stalest Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 115-21 (1984). 23. As explained above, Epstein instructed one of his assistants to photograph C using a digital camera; M reported Epstein's unusual interest in, and probable theft of, nude photographs of the minor members of her family; and Epstein engaged in inappropriate sexual activity with numerous minor females. In light of Epstein's display of photographs of nude and semi-nude young women throughout his residence, your Affiant avers that there is probable cause to believe that photographs or other evidence of the victims' visits to Epstein's residence may be found on the CompactFlash memory cards. Accordingly, your Affiant seeks permission to forensically examine the CompactFlash memory cards for evidence, instrumentalities, and fruits of the crimes listed above, that is, the electronic information contained within the memory cards, including electronic files containing photographs, owner identification information, date and time information, names, addresses, and information regarding the source of any photographs or the persons depicted in any photographs. 24. Although the cursory reviews did not reveal any of the items sought, your Affiant avers that there is probable cause to believe that a thorough forensic examination, which would include the recovery of any deleted or corrupted files, would result in the discovery of the data listed above, which is evidence, instrumentalities, and fruits of the crimes under investigation. -11- EFTA00225168 WHEREFORE, your Affiant requests that this court issue a search warrant for the CompactFlash memory cards described in the Application for Search Warrant and for the seizure of the items listed above. FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7 day of March, 2008 A R. JOHN UNITED STATES STRATE JUDGE C E. Nesbi t Kuyrkendall, S cial Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation -12- EFTA00225169 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA No. 08-8068-LIU IN RE APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT FOR ONE PNY TECHNOLOGIES 128 MEGABYTE COMPACTFLASH MEMORY CARD, MARKED THNCF128MMA(T00CB) 999223 TAIWAN 0247 IN THE CUSTODY OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CRIMINAL COVER SHEET 1. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the United States Attorney's Office prior to April 1, 1999? Yes X No If yes, was it pending in the Central Region? Yes No 2. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the United States Attorney's Office prior to April 1, 2003? Yes _X_ No 3. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the Narcotics Section (Miami) of the United States Attorney's Office prior to May 18, 2003? Yes X No 4. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the United States Attorney's Office prior to October 14, 2003? Yes X No 5. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the Central Region of the United States Attorney's Office prior to September 1, 2007? Yes X No Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY BY: ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 TEL (561) 820-8711 FAX (561) 802-1787 EFTA00225170 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-8068-LRJ IN RE: SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES' MOTION TO SEAL This matter comes before the Court upon the United States' Motion to Seal the documents related to its Search Warrant Application. The Court being fully apprised in the premises, orders that the motion is hereby GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers, in West Palm Beach, Florida, this / 7 day of March, 2008. cc: A. Marie Villafana, AUSA A R. JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE EFTA00225171 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:58 PM To: Kuyrkendall, E N. Subject: RE: Epstein update I don't think we have an issue with staleness because the memory cards are fixed (they haven't changed since the original search warrant). A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Original Message From: Kuyrkendall, E N. Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:55 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Epstein update I like your style! Unsure what communication btw Jeff and Jay is about?? Also do we have staleness issues with SW? Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <Ann.Marie.C.Villafana@usdoj.gov> To: Acosta, Alex (USA); Sloman, Jeff (USA); Oosterbaan, Andrew (CRM); Senior, Robert (USA) Cc: Garcia lando (USA); Atkinson, Karen (USA) Sent: Wed 05 16:54:35 2008 Subject: Epstein update Hi all - I wanted to update you on a couple of new developments in the Epstein case. First, Jeff Herman is supposed to give a press conference today announcing the filing of a third lawsuit against Epstein. That case also involves a victim whom we are no longer referring to in the indictment [Drew - tell that to the defense.] Herman seems to have latched onto the group which, as discussed in my third addendum to the pros memo, we ave a rea y decided to forego for the most part. Drew - Since I am not certain of the scope of your meeting, I do not know how critical it is for you to see the new facts developed in the supplemental pros memos (you reviewed the initial pros memo from May of last year). If you would like the supplements, please let me know. The legal theories have remained the same. 1455 EXHIBIT B-121 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014656 EFTA00225172 I also wanted to call to everyone's attention the three-year statute of limitations in Florida for the state solicitation offenses. The statute will run for all the victims this summer. Once it runs we cannot insist on a state court plea to a new charge. It al§o means that the state cannot charge the crimes related to the victims discovered after the initial investigation. We have asked the Palm Beach Police Department to forego presenting thdse charges for state prosecution in deference to our prosecution. If we do not intend to go forward, it is imperative that we communicate that to the Police Department as soon as possible so they can present those victims for state prosecution. I have reserved time with the grand jury on the 18th. I had hoped to present the indictment at that time, but in light of Jeff's communication with Jay, I will push it off until the 25th. I would still like to start the presentation on the 18th so we aren't accused of rushing the grand jury. So; I hope that the final indictment packet will be approved by that date. Thank you. A. Marie Villafaha Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 1456 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014657 EFTA00225173 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:18 AM To: Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Penalty sheets, bond recommendations, and all other forms for the indictment of J.E. el al. Hi Rolando -- Shawn e-mail everything down, but I think you should fax the cover sheet with your signature so Bob's signature can be on there with everyone else's. thanks. A. Marie Villafaha Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Original Message From: Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:43 AM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Penalty sheets, bond recommendations, and all other forms for the indictment of J.E. et al. I emailed him everything you sent me and told him that I have the hard copy of the indictment package. Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) To: Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Sent: Fri Mar 14 09:30:23 2008 Subject: FW: Penalty sheets, bond recommendations, and all other forms for the indictment of J.E. et al. Rolando - Didn't you send the entire packet to Bob? Everything was in the packet? A. Marie Villafaha Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 1348 08-80736-CV-MARRA EXHIBIT 13-122 P-014712 EFTA00225174 From: Devlin, Frederica (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:05 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Penalty sheets, bond recommendations, and all other forms for the indictment of J.E. et al. Marie: Bob wants me to put the entire indictment together along with all the forms that goes with the indictment. I've printed the indictment and pros memos. I do not have any information for the concurrence sheet but I can get that later. Thanks. Tracking: 1349 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-0147B EFTA00225175 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Ball, Shawn (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:00 AM To: Devlin, Frederica (USAFLS) Cc: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Operation Leap Year Ind Package F3 Indictment Blue Sheet--.wpd One more, thanks. From: Ball, Shawn (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, March 14, 7008 9:59 AM To: Devlin, Frederica (USAFLS) Cc: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Operation Leap Year Ind Package « File:07 103 conc-.wpd » « File: ArrestWarranKellen.pdf » « File: ArrestWarranMarcinkova.pdf » « File: ArrestWarranRoss.pdf » « File: ArrestWarrantE stein.pdf » « File: Bond Rec Form E s ein.w d » « File: Bond Rec Form =wed » cc File: Bond Rec Form Mwpd » « File: Bond Rec Form .wpd » « File: CertificateOfTrialAttorne .w d » « File: Epstein penalty sheet dated Feb 1 0 .wpd » « File: indictment cover 06 version.wpd » « File: penalty sheet date Feb 19 08.wpd » « File: enalt sheet page 2 dated Feb 19 08.wpd » « File: penalty sheet dated Feb 19 08.wpd » « File: penalty sheet page 2 dated Feb 19 08.wpd » « File: penalty sheet dated Feb 19 08.wpd » « Flle: penalty sheet page 2 dated Feb 19 08 .wpd » 1351 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014714 EFTA00225176 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Ball, Shawn (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:59 AM To: Devlin, Frederica (USAFLS) Cc: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Operation Leap Year Ind Package /3 07 103 conc-.wpd if El FL ArrestWarranKel ArrestWarranMa ArrestWar anRo ArrestWarrantEpBond Rec Form len.pdf rcinkova.pdf ss.pd steln.pdf Epsteln.wpd El El El El El Bon orm Certificate0fTria Epstein penalty ndictment cover penalty penalty pd lAttorney.wpd... sheet dated Fe...06 version.wp...The to Feb .. ge 2 da.. a4Palty penalty na ty s eet a ema see pageiee ted Feb 1a ge 2 date. 1353 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014715 EFTA00225177 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida First Assistani U.S. Marne), 99 N.& 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 (305) 961-9100 DELIVERY BY FEDERAL EXPRESS June 3, 2008 Honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney Genera; United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, El 20530 Re: Jeffrey Bigwig Dear Judge Fi lip, Jeffrey Epstein was a part-time resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.' In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that, over a two-year period, Epstein paid approximately 28 minor females from Royal Palm Beach High School to come to his house for sexual favors.2 In July 2006, the matter was presented to AUSA A. Marie V illafaiia of our West Palm Beach branch office to pursue a krrnal criminal investigation. That investigation resulted in the discovery of approximately one do ''n additional minor victims. Over the last several months, approximately six more minor victims ve been identified. AUSA V i Ilafafla has been ready to present an indictment to a West Palm Beach federal grand jury since May 2007. The prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment have been extensively reviewed and re-reviewed by Southern District of Florida (SDFL) Deputy Chief of the Criminal Epstein has not resided in Palm Beach since he learned of the instant investigation. 2 Epstein's sexual conduct with the V tints included: instructing them to massage and pinch his nipples, masturbating in their presence, di ly penetrating them, using a vibrator on their vaginas, engaging in oral sex with them, having the atims perform oral sex on Epstein's adult girlfriend, and engaging in sexual intercourse, all in exchange for money, ranging from $200 to $1,000 per session. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product EXHIBIT B-123 EFTA00225178 Division Andrew Lourie, Chief of the Criminal Division Matthew Menchel', First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman', United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various members of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) at the Department of Justice including, but not limited to its Chief, Andrew G. Oosterbahn. Many of these legal and factual issues have been discussed and approved by Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (DAAG) Sigal Mandelker and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (AAG) Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the petit policy. By May 2007, AUSA Villafafia began seeking approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was Andrew Lourie. Mr. Lourie had served as the Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ as well as in several supervisory positions in the SDFL. By mid2006, he had returned to his position as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division in West Palm Beach (head of the West Palm Beach branch office), after serving as the interim Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ at the request of AAG Fisher. By October 2007, Mr. Lourie would leave the SDFL to become AAG Fisher's Chief of Staff.' Above Mr. Lourie in the SDFL's chain of command were Matthew Menchel, Criminal Division Chief, First Assistant USA Sloman and finally, U.S. Attorney Acosta. Prior to seeking approval to return an indictment, Epstein's legal team had been actively working to convince this Office that such action was not warranted. For example, at the end of 2006, former SDFL U.S. Attorney and EOUSA Executive Director Guy Lewis contacted former colleagues AUSA Villafalla and, later Deputy Criminal Chief Lourie, when he learned that they were handling or involved in supervising the federal investigation of Epstein. In December, former SDFL AUSA Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt also contacted AUSA Villafafia to set a meeting. In advance of that meeting, AUSA Villafaita requested documents but that request was refused. Ms. Sanchez then contacted AUSA Lourie, who agreed to meet with Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Lefcourt. On February 1,2007, Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Lefcourt met with AUSAs Lourie and Villafalta, as well as a member of the FBI, and presented defense counsel's view of the case and promised a willingness to assist in the investigation. The SDFL was unpersuaded by their presentation and the investigation continued. By the late Spring and early Summer, the focus of the investigation shifted from investigating the facts of the victims' claims to Epstein's background, his asserted defenses, co-conspirators, and possible witnesses who could corroborate the victims' statements. The investigation also began to look into financial aspects of the case, requiring the issuance of several subpoenas. At the time, Mr. Lefcourt began leveling accusations of improprieties with the investigation and sought a meeting 'Mr. Menchel resigned for private practice on August 3, 2007 and was replaced by Robert Senior. 'Although I, Jeffrey H. Sloman, am writing this letter, I will continue to refer to myself as "First Assistant USA Sloman" or "FAUSA Sloman" to help reduce any confusion. Rolando Garcia replaced Mr. Lourie as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -2- EFTA00225179 with Criminal Division Chief Matthew Menchel. By that time, the proposed initial indictment package had been reviewed and approved by Mr. Lourie in West Palm Beach and by attorneys with CEOS; however, it awaited review by Mr. Menchel and FAUSA Sloman. The SDFL deferred presenting the indictment to the grand jury to accommodate the Epstein legal team's request for a meeting. We also agreed to wait several weeks for that meeting to occur to allow four of Epstein's attorneys to be present and also provided counsel with a list of the statutes that were the subject of the investigation. On June 26, 2007, Mr. Menchel, Mr. Lourie, AUSA Viliafafia, and FAUSA Sloman, and two FBI agents met with Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. During that meeting, Professor Dershowitz and other members of the defense team presented legal and factual arguments against a federal indictment. Counsel for the defense also requested the opportunity to present written arguments, which was granted. The arguments and written materials provided by the defense were examined by the SDFL and rejected. On July 31, 2007, Mr. Menchel, Mr. Lourie, AUSA Villafafia, and FAUSA Sloman, and two FBI agents met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. On that date, the SDFL presented a written sheet of terms that would satisfy the SDFL's federal interest in the case and discussed the substance of those terms. See Tab A. One of those terms was: 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, §§ 2422 and/or 2423. During that meeting, the focus was on Mr. Epstein's unwillingness to spend time in prison, and various suggestions were raised by defense counsel, including the proposal that he could serve a sentence of home confinement or probation. This was repeatedly mentioned by counsel for Epstein as being equivalent to a term of imprisonment in a state or federal prison. Epstein's counsel mentioned their concerns about his safety in prison, and the SDFL offered to explore a plea to a federal charge to allow Epstein to serve his time in a federal facility. Counsel were also presented with a conservative estimate of the sentence that Epstein would face if he were convicted: an advisory guideline range of 188 - 235 months' incarceration with a five-year mandatory minimum prison term, to be followed by lifetime supervised release. Counsel was told that Epstein had two weeks to accept or reject the proposal. It is critical to note that Ms. Sanchez, one of Epstein's local lawyers, seized upon this method of restitution as a condition of deferring federal prosecution. In referring to the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 method of compensation, Ms. Sanchez stated: (OW would allow the victims to be able to promptly put this behind them and go forward with their lives. If given the opportunity to opine as to the appropriateness Confidential and Privileged —Attorney Work Product -3- EFTA00225180 of Mr. Epstein's proposal, in my extensive experience in these types of cases, the victims prefer a quick resolution with compensation for damages and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. See attached Tab B, August 2, 2007 letter from Lilly Ann Sanchez to SDFL Criminal Division Chief Menchel, p.2, fn I. Ironically, it is Epstein's "national" attorneys who are now representing to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States in their May 19, 2008 letter that: Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition of deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved. Not only did Epstein's lawyers like the idea of using 18 U.S.C. § 2255 to compensate the victims but, they also sought to make their non-incarcerative state proposal even more attractive by offering payments to "a charitable organization benefitting victims of sexual assault," "law enforcement investigative costs" and "Court and probationary costs." Id. at p. 2. Epstein's counsel, still dissatisfied with the Office's review of the case, demanded to meet with U.S. Attorney Acosta and to have the opportunity to meet with someone in Washington, II. To accommodate Roy Black, the meeting was put off until September 7, 2007, despite the fac t the indictment was ready for presentation to the grand jury. In the interim, AUSA V illafafta and the investigators met with CEOS Chief Oosterbalm, to review, yet again, the evidence and legal theories of prosecution. Chief Oosterbahn strongly supported the proposed indictment and even offered to join the trial team and provide additional support from CEOS. On September 7, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta met with Kirkland & Ellis partners Jay Lefkowitz and former Solicitor General Ken Starr and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief Oosterbahn and AUSAs Villafana, John McMillan, and FAUSA Sloman, Messrs. Starr and Leflcowitz presented arguments regarding the sufficiency of the federal interest in the case and other legal and factual issues. We discussed those legal arguments and the unanimous opinion of all of the attorneys present was in favor of prosecution. During that meeting, Mr. Lefkowitz also offered a plea resolution. His offer, in essence, was that Epstein be subjected to home confinement at his Palm Beach home, using private security officers who would serve as his "wardens," if necessary. Mr. Lefkowitz expressed the belief that such a sentence would be particularly appropriate because, as a wealthy white man, he may be the subject of violence or extortion in prison. Finally, Messrs. Starr and Lefkowitz expressed the belief that Epstein's extensive philanthropy should be considered in our prosecution decision. U.S. Attorney Acosta summarily rejected these proposals, and indicated that the 24-month offer presented previously by the SDFL stood. 'Roy Black did not attend. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -4- EFTA00225181 The issue of the inclusion of a restitution-type remedy for the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 was specifically raised and discussed at the September t meeting, and MT. Starr thanked AUSA Villafafta for bringing it to his attention as a novel approach to allowing the victims to receive essentially federal restitution while allowing a plea to a state charge. After considering everything said and written by Epstein's legal team, and after conferring with Chief Oosterbahn, U.S. Attorney Acosta informed Epstein's counsel that the SDFL still intended to proceed to indictment. Since counsel indicated a desire to appeal the matter to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Acosta agreed to delay the presentation of the indictment for two weeks to allow them to speak with someone in Washington, E., if they so chose. Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiate the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and on September 12, 2007, counsel for the SDFL (AUSAs Lourie, Garcia, and Villafafia) and counsel for Epstein (Messrs. Lefcourt, Lefkowitz, and Goldberger) met with Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krisher and Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek to discuss a plea to an Information in the state court that would satisfy the federal interest in the case. As noted on the term sheet of July 31" (Tab A), one of those essential terms was a guilty plea to a charge requiring sex offender registration. During that meeting, the issue of sex offender registration was raised, and Mr. Goldberger told the federal prosecutors that there was no problem, Mr. Epstein would plead guilty to the charge of procurement of minors for prostitution (Fl. Stat 796.03), which was one of the statutes listed on the original term sheet. Although the SDFL had wanted Epstein to plead guilty to three different offenses, we agreed to this compromise' Of course, the SDFL later learned that, at the time Mr. Goldberger made that statement, he incorrectly believed, based upon a statement from ASA Belohlavek, that Fl. Stat. § 796.03 did not require sex offender registration. The parties then began working first on a plea agreement to a federal charge and, when it was clear that there was no guarantee that Epstein would serve his sentence in a minimum security prison camp, the discussion turned to a Non-Prosecution Agreement. Both the federal plea agreement and the Non-Prosecution Agreement included references to § 2255 because neither the contemplated federal charges nor the proposed state charges encompassed all of the identified victims. If Epstein had been prosecuted under the planned indictment, the identified victims would have been eligible for restitution and damages under § 2255. As explained above, one of our interests, which had to be satisfied by the Non-Prosecution Agreement, was providing appropriate compensation to the victims. This provision of the Agreement was heavily negotiated. As Mr. Lefkowitz wrote in his November 29" e-mail to FAUSA Sloman, Epstein "offered to provide a restitution fund for the alleged victims in this matter; however, that option was rejected by [our] Office." That option was rejected for several reasons. First, the SDFL does not serve as legal representatives to the victims and has no authority to bind victims, nor could it provide a monetary figure that would represent a "loss" amount for restitution purposes. Second, there would be no legal basis for federal restitution without 7 Another significant compromise reached at the meeting was a reduction in the amount of jail time - from 24 months down to 18 months, which would be served at the Palm Beach County Jail rather than a state prison facility. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -5- EFTA00225182 4* I a conviction for a federal offense. And, third, it was the U.S. Attorney's belief that the SDFL should not be put in the position of administering a restitution fund. Our § 2255 proposal put the victims in the same position that they would have been in if we had proceeded to trial and convicted Epstein of his crimes, with the exception that the victims were provided with counsel. The appointment of counsel was not such a benefit to the victims but, rather, was done, in part, to benefit Epstein by allowing him to try to privately negotiate a group resolution of all claims with one attorney. Epstein and his lawyers agreed with this alternative. The negotiation of the Agreement was lengthy and difficult. Mr. Lefkowitz and AUSA Villafafia went through several drafts of both a federal plea agreement and a Non-Prosecution Agreement. Throughout these negotiations, when a member of the defense team was dissatisfied with the SDFL's position, it was repeatedly appealed throughout the Office. So several members of the defense team spoke with the chain of command regarding the terms of the Agreement, including the § 2255 provisions. At the eleventh hour, when Epstein's legal team realized that Fl. Stat 796.03 would require him to register as a sex offender, they sought to change the most essential term of the agreement - a term that Messrs. Goldberger, Lefkowitz, and Lefcourt had specifically agreed to at the September 12th meeting with the State Attorney's Office - asking to allow Epstein to plead to a charge that would not require registration. When this was rejected, several members of the defense team appealed directly to U.S. Attorney Acosta which also failed. When that failed, according to press reports, apparently Mr. Lefcourt "leaked" a letter intended for the U.S. Attorney to the press containing the reasons why he/Lefcourt did not believe Epstein should have to register. See October 9, 2007 New York Post article attached at Tab C. Prior to signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein's defense team included Ken Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Guy Lewis, Martin Weinberg, Jack Goldberger, Stephanie Thacker", and the associates at Kirkland & Ellis who conducted research on discrete issues. This impressive legal team reviewed the Agreement and counseled Epstein. Based upon that counsel, Epstein decided that it was in his best interest to execute the Non-Prosecution Agreement which was signed on September 24 2007 by Mr. Lefcourt, Ms. Sanchez and Epstein. A copy of which is attached hereto as Tab g The core principles of the Agreement are incarceration, registration as a sex offender and a method of compensation? Furthermore, and significantly, Epstein agreed that he had the burden of ensuring compliance of the 'Ms. Thacker had recently resigned from CEOS as a Trial Attorney and entered private practice. 9 Specifically, the Agreement mandates, inter alia, (1) a guilty plea in Palm Beach County Circuit Court to solicitation of prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.07) and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.03) (an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender); (2) a 30- month sentence including 18 months' incarceration in county jail; (3) a methodology to compensate the victims identified by the United States utilizing 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 such that they would be placed in the same position as if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in Title 18, United States Code, § 2255; (4) entry of the guilty plea and sentence no later than October 26, 2007; and (5) the start of the above-mentioned sentence no later than January 4, 2008. Confidential and Privileged —Attorney Work Product -6- EFTA00225183 Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office and the Judge of the 15' Judicial Circuit and "that the failure toclo so will be a breach of the agreement" (emphasis added). To this day, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to Epstein's lawyers. Within a week of the execution of the Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved," it was done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection of the attorney representative. As a result, the parties executed an addendum which documented the SDFL's right to assign the selection of an attorney representative to an independent third-party. A copy of the October 29,2007 Addendum is attached hereto as Tab E. The parties subsequently agreed that retired Federal District Court Jude Edward B. should be that independent third-party/special master. Ultimately, Judge selected Ro rt . Josefsberg of the law finn of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, et a l° During is same time frame, Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz sought to delay the entry of his guilty plea and sentence. After the SDFL accommodated his request (from October 26" to November 20th), Mr. Starr began taking issue with the methodology of compensation, notification to the victims, and the issues that had been previously considered and rejected during negotiations, i.e., that the conduct does not require registration and the contemplated state and federal statutes have no applicability to the instant matter. In response to Mr. Starr's protests, the SDFL offered numerous and various reasonable modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in U.S. Attorney Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez. See attached Tab F. In that letter, U.S. Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, § 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under § 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." 10 Duc to the subsequent objections raised by Epstein's counsel, Mr. Josofsberg was never given the opportunity to become the attorney representative. Confidential and Privileged Attorney Work Product -7- EFTA00225184 Mr. Starr also objected to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal: "[wie will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he 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." These proposals were immediately rejected by Epstein in Mr. Letkowitz's December 26, 2007 correspondence to USA Acosta. At our December 14, 2007 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, counsel for Epstein articulated that it was a "profound injustice" to require Epstein to register as a sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. § 2422(6), had been committed since the statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading or inducing. This particular attack on this statute had been previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by the SDFL and CEOS prior to the execution of the Agreement. Epstein's lawyers also argued that the facts were inapplicable to the contemplated state statutes and that he should not have been allowed to have been induced into the Agreement because the facts were not what he understood them to be. To reiterate, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to anyone on the Epstein legal team. Once counsel for Epstein failed to persuade us that federal involvement was inappropriate, they mounted an aggressive campaign to defer federal prosecution. When we refused to compromise on anything except the length of incarceration, they finally executed the NonProsecution Agreement. Subsequent to the December 14, 2007 meeting, the SDFL received three letters from Mr. Lefkowitz and/or Mr. Starr which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 14th meeting. Essentially, trying to portray the SDFL as trying to coerce a plea to unknown allegations and incoherent theories. In his December 17, 2007 correspondence, Mr. Lefkowitz decreed that Epstein's conduct did not meet the requirements of one of the state statutes Epstein agreed to plead guilty to - procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.03); that Epstein's conduct does not require registration under Florida law in contravention of the September 241h Agreement; and the State Attorney's Office does not believe the conduct is registrable. On December 21, 2007, Mr. Lefkowitz rejected the U.S. Attorney's proposed resolution of the 2255 provision because they "strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 U.S.C. Section[s] 2422(b) ... or ... 2423(b)." In his December 26, 2007 correspondence, he stated that "we have reiterated in previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is guilty of the federal charges enumerated under section 2255" and requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not commit the requisite offense." The SDFL reiterated time and time again that it had never wanted nor expected Epstein to plead guilty to a charge he did not believe he committed and repeatedly offered to dissolve the agreement to allow Epstein to contest the charges in the court system. As a result, the SDFL obliged his request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such a review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. As you know, on May 15, 2008, after months of considering the matter, the Criminal Division considered whether there is a legitimate basis for the Confidential and Privileged —Attorney Work Product -8- EFTA00225185 SDFI. to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn concluded that "federal prosecution would not be improper or inappropriate." See attached May 15, 2008 letter from CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn to Jay Lefkowitz. On May 19, 2008, I notified Mr. Letkowitz that the SDFL would give Epstein a full two weeks (close of business on Monday, June 2, 2008) to comply with the terms and conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 19thletter to Ms. Sanchez." Therefore, despite the fact that the investigation has identified several more victims, the SDFL is still offering Epstein the opportunity to comply with the terms and conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The SDFL was recently notified that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General has agreed to consider additional allegations not considered by CEOS which were recently raised in correspondence by two former high-ranking members of the Department of Justice - Ken Stan.and Joe Whitley. On May 28,2008,1 notified Mr. Lefkowitz by e-mail that the SDFL has postponed the June 2, 2008 deadline until the DAG's Office has completed its review of this matter. Their correspondence to the DAG alleges that the SDFL's investigation lacks integrity because it has leaked "highly confidential aspects" of the investigation and negotiations to the New York Times and that FAUSA Sloman directed some of the victims to my former law firm. They also claim that the "unprecedented extension of federal law" by the SDFL suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from seeking your Office's review and that "the unnecessary deadline is even more problematic because Mr. Epstein's effort to reconcile the state charge and sentence with the terms of the Agreement requires an unusual and unprecedented threatened application of federal law." 1. The Alleged "Leak" to the New York Times. AUSA David Weinstein became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the District's Public Information Officer (PIO). While the District's PIO was on annual leave, he was the acting PIO during the first week of January 2008. The entirety of his conduct in connection with the Epstein matter began on January 2, 2008 and ended on January 7, 2008.'2 Specifically, his contact involved five telephone conversation with Landon Thomas, a reporter for the New York Times. These conversations occurred on I) the morning of January 2, 2008, 2) the afternoon of January 2, 2008, 3) the afternoon of January 3, 2008, 4) the afternoon of January 4, 2008, and 5) the afternoon of January 7, 2008. " Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on notice on February 25, 2008, that in the event that CEOS disagreed with Epstein's position, Epstein would have one week to comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez. 12AUSA Weinstein has self-reported to the Office of Professional Responsibility. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -9- EFTA00225186 A. The Morning of January 2, 2008. AUSA Weinstein began his conversation with Mr. Thomas by explaining that he was the acting PIO for the week and that he had received Mr.Thomas's December 31, 2007 e-mail requesting an interview and asking for comments on the following five statements." First, "that in the summer of 2005 the palm beach police department referred the Epstein case to you." Second, "that the case is being overseen by Jeffrey Sloman, and above him, R. Alexander Acosta." Third, "that Mr. Acosta has made child pornography a focus are [sic] for your office." Fourth, "that this summer your office gave Mr. Epstein an ultimatum: plead guilty to a charge that would require him to register as a sex offender, or the government would release a 52 page indictment, charging him with crimes that could include procuring sex for a third party or engaging in sexual tourism. Both of these charges carry jail sentences of as much as 15 years." Fifth, "that your office told Mr. Epstein and his lawyers: we are ready to pull the trigger." Sixth, "I also wanted to ask Mr. Sloman about his role in a case involving Jonathan Zirulnikoff and his daughter earlier this year." At the outset, Weinstein said that he could not comment on any specific pending matters and that he would do his best to answer some of his questions. Thomas said that his questions were based, in part, upon conversations that he had already had with members of Mr. Epstein's defense team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information available through the State Court system. Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told him that any matter arising out of conduct in Palm Beach County, was prosecuted by our West Palm Beach branch office. He also told him that as First Assistant, the FAUSA had supervisory authority over all AUSAs throughout the District. In turn, the FAUSA answered directly to the U.S. Attorney. In response to the third question, Weinstein discussed the difference between child exploitation and child pornography. Weinstein said that federal crimes involving child exploitation were one of several focus points of our Office. He further explained that in addition to traditional federal areas of prosecution the other focus points included health care fraud and gang prosecutions. Weinstein refused to answer the fourth and fifth topics but did discuss the general nature of pre-trial proceedings in federal court. He said that the SDFL does not offer ultimatums, nor are we in the business of issuing ultimatums. He explained that in cases where a party wants to plead guilty prior to indictment, we will discuss the parameters of guilty pleas and that people always have the right to proceed to trial if they choose to do so and that we do not favor one resolution over the other. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that he would not discuss his specific question about Mr. Epstein's lawyer's statement that someone from our Office told them that "we are ready to pull the trigger." 13After reviewing his e-mail, AUSA Weinstein discussed the matter with U.S. Attorney Acosta. Pursuant to USAM 1-7330 and the Media Relations Guide, Section III D2, after consultation with and prior approval from the US Attorney, he called Mr. Thomas on the morning of January 2nd. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -10- EFTA00225187 Nor would he discuss anything about who might or might not be representing Mr. Epstein. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that he should not allow himself to be spun one way or the other in response to statements Mr. Thomas said he had received from attorneys who said that they represented Mr. Epstein. Weinstein ended the conversation by telling Mr. Thomas that he would check further into his sixth and final topic and get back to him later in the day. B. Afternoon of January 2, 2008. Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that in regard to his sixth topic, the SDFL had no reason to question FAUSA Sloman's judgment or integrity. He also said that this particular subject matter was a private matter that FAUSA Sloman did not want to discuss with him.1e Mr. Thomas told him that if he had any further questions, he would call back. C. Afternoon of January 3, 2008. This call was in response to a voice mail message that Mr. Thomas had left regarding legal issues involving specific state and federal statutes. Specifically, Mr. Thomas had some questions about the burden of proof and strict liability in some state and federal statutes that governed illegal sexual activity. Again, Weinstein told him that he would not discuss any specific cases, but that he would assist him in understanding the statutes about which he had some questions. Weinstein explained that some statutes contained defenses that must be proven by a defendant, while there were other statutes that did not require a defendant to affirmatively prove a defense. The discussion centered around Title 18, United States Code, § 2423(g). Once again, Mr. Thomas told Weinstein that if he had any further questions, he would call back. I Afternoon ofJanuary 4, 2008. This was another call in response to a voice mail message that Mr. Thomas had left regarding some additional questions. Weinstein prefaced the conversation by saying that he would not discuss any specific cases. The conversation centered around three specific statutes, 18 United States Code, § 2422(b), 18 United States Code, § 1591, and 18 United States Code, § 2423(b) as well as the 14 The case involving "Jonathan Zirulnikoff " involved a March 7, 2007 early morning attempted break-in of my/Sloman's house. Zirulnikoff, age 19 at the time, confessed and said that he wanted to "talk" to my daughter who was then 16. He also confessed to a prior unrelated break in which Zirulnikoff caressed the inner thigh of a 15 year old female. Zirulnikoff who had graduated from my daughter's high school in June 2006, dated my daughter's friend and had little if any contact with my daughter for over one year. Zirulnikoff negotiated a plea deal, over my objection, with the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office to a misdemeanor trespass. That conviction resulted in a sentence of two years probation and a withhold of adjudication upon successful completion of his probationary period. Since this information was completely irrelevant to the facts and issues in the instant Epstein matter, I refused to allow Mr. Weinstein to comment about this matter to Mr. Thomas. Furthermore, none of this information had been publicized and, upon information and belief, only one member of Epstein's legal team knew anything about this matter, my former colleague, Lilly Ann Sanchez. Confidential and Privileged—Attorney Work Product -I IEFTA00225188 • burden of proof and the applicability of affirmative defenses. They discussed the difference between an attempt and a substantive charge pursuant to § 2422(b) and how that affected the government's burden of proof vis-a-vis the age of a child. They also discussed the fact that a charge pursuant to § 1591 required the government to prove that the defendant had actual knowledge of the age of the victim. Finally, they discussed the fact that if the government was charging a defendant with traveling to engage in prostitution, pursuant to § 2423(b), there was an affirmative defense available to the defendant regarding the reasonable belief of the defendant about the age of the victim. E. Afternoon ofJanuary 7, 2008. This final call was made after the U.S. Attorney and FAUSA Sloman had received a call from a member of Mr. Epstein's defense team alleging that the SDFL had provided case specific information to the media. Weinstein called Mr. Thomas who acknowledged that both before and after each of the above-mentioned conversations, he had also called attorneys who were representing Mr. Epstein on his pending State charges. Mr. Thomas also acknowledged that all of our prior conversations had been about general legal issues and that Weinstein never spoke about any specific case. Since the January 7, 2008 conversation, Weinstein has not had any further contact with Mr. Thomas. 2. Herman Sloman & Mermelstein (May 5, 2001 - October 1, 2001). Seven years ago, I resigned from the SDFL for private practice. Less than five months later, I resigned from the law firm and returned to the SDFL. Public records reflect the following: on May 8, 2001, articles of amendment were filed with the Florida Division of Corporations to reflect that the firm name of "Herman & Mermelstein" was changed to "Herman Sloman & Mermelstein" on May 7, 2001. 1 joined the firm at that time and remained a non-equity partner until on or about October 1, 2001. At that time, I resigned from the firm and returned to the SDFL. Since I never had an equity interest in the firm, I never retained an interest in the firm. That was over six and one half years ago. Unbeknownst to FAUSA Sloman, on July 2, 2002, articles of amendment were filed with the Florida Division of Corporations to reflect that the firm name of "Herman Sloman & Mermelstein" was changed back to "Herman & Mermelstein." The article of amendment indicates the amendment was adopted on July 1, 2002, without shareholder action. Although the filing was not immediate upon my departure from the law firm, it pre-dated for years any dealings with the subject case now under consideration by the SDFL. Recently, I learned that there is a reference to the law firm of "Herman Sluman & Mermelstein" on the Florida Bar websitc, under a section called "Find A Lawyer." This reference appears when Stuart Mermelstein's name and information is accessed. To reiterate, since October 2001, I have had no relationship with that law firm, financial or otherwise, and no input or control over the firm's filings with the Florida Division of Corporations and/or the Florida Bar. On Friday, January 18, 2008, at approximately 1:15 pm, I received a call from Jeffrey Herman of Herman & Mermelstein. Herman said that he was planning to file a civil lawsuit the next Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -12- EFTA00225189 r • week against Jeffrey Epstein. He said that his clients were frustrated with the lack of progress of the state's investigation and wanted to know whether the SDFL could file criminal charges even though the state was looking into the matter. I told Herman that I would not answer any question related to Epstein — hypothetical or otherwise. I asked him how his clients retained him and he said that it was through another lawyer. I then specifically asked him whether the referral was the result of anyone in law enforcement contacting him and/or the other lawyer. He said "no." At the conclusion of the conversation,1 reiterated and confirmed with him that I had refused to answer any questions he asked of me. I immediately documented this conversation and informed the U.S. Attorney who informed Senior Litigation Counsel and Ethics Advisor Dexter Lee. AUSA Lee opined that he did not see a conflict. As soon as I -became aware of these allegations, 1 reported myself to the Office of Professional Regulation on or about April 21, 2008. 3. The Alleged Unprecedented Extension of Federal Law and the Allegations of Political Motivation for the Prosecution. It is my hope that this letter has sufficiently explained how thoroughly this matter has been reviewed, how seriously the issues have been considered, and how additional delays may adversely affect the case going forward and, more importantly, the victims. I have attached the proposed draft indictment for you to consider the nature and gravity of the crimes. See Tab G. You are invited to evaluate whether I, along with U.S. Attorney Acosta, Criminal Division Chiefs Menchel and, later Robert Senior, Deputy Criminal Division Chiefs Laurie, followed by Rolando Garcia, and AUSA Villafafia have somehow steered this investigation toward "an unprecedented extension of federal law"despite being simultaneously and/or subsequently reviewed by CEOS, DAAG Mandelker, and AAG Fisher. I also hope that the reputations of the above-mentioned professional prosecutors combined with the documented layers of methodical and thorough review of all issues raised by Epstein are enough to summarily dismiss the idea that this matter is politically motivated. It seems incomprehensible how Messrs. Starr and Whitley could expect further review when the due process rights of their client have been considered and reconsidered to the point of absurdity. With respect to the other allegations of misconduct leveled against investigators and prosecutors, similarly false allegations were made against the local police detective who first investigated the case. Those false allegations apparently were accepted as true and were not investigated or challenged by the State Attorney's Office and, when coupled with the immense pressure brought to bear upon the State Attorney by some of these same lawyers who represent Epstein today, resulted in a single felony charge related to only two of the more than 20 victims identified in the state investigation. Contrary to the claims of Epstein's attorneys, the SDFL is not tying to prosecute Epstein more harshly because of his political friends or his financial status; rather, the SDFL is attempting to follow Department policy by treating Epstein like all other criminal defendants — charging him with the most serious readily provable offenses. The SDFL has even continued to allow Epstein the opportunity to perform his obligations under the Non-Prosecution Agreement despite his numerous breaches of and attacks on the terms to which he already agreed. Without attempting to address each and every allegation, I would like to highlight some of the misstatements contained in counsels' letter, to provide some sense of counsels' conduct Confidential and Privileged —Attorney Work Product -13- EFTA00225190 throughout this case, particularly after their attempts at legal persuasion failed. Throughout the case, counsel have misrepresented the facts of the case to our Office, CEOS, and the press. For example, Epstein's counsel reference to this case as "precedent-shattering," suggests that all of the victims were at least 16 years old, and that the conduct "was purely local in nature." The SDFL has prosecuted several "sex tourism" cases where the "john" communicated via telephone with an undercover "pimp" in the SDFL to meet minor females to engage in prostitution. All were charged and convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1591. The SDFL has charged and convicted a 21-year-old man of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423 when he traveled to Florida to meet his 14-year-old girlfriend and later digitally penetrated her. The SDFL has prosecuted numerous violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 where the "facility of interstate commerce" — generally the Internet and telephones — are used by a defendant and an undercover pretending to be the parent of a minor, to arrange for a meeting that the defendant hopes will result in sexual activity. There is nothing extraordinary about Epstein's case except the large number of victims involved. Epstein's counsel neglected to inform you that the age range of the victims includes girls as young as 14, and glosses over the fact that Epstein did not simply engage in "solo self-pleasuring" in front of the victims. Instead, with each visit, he pressured the victims to allow him to engage in more and more sexual activity fondling breasts and vaginas, digital penetration, use of a vibrator on their vaginas, performing oral sex on them, having them perform oral sex on his adult girlfriend, and engaging in sexual intercourse. Counsel also neglected to inform you that many girls did affirmatively tell Epstein their true ages and he told several that he "did not care about age." Epstein's conduct was not "purely local." lie and his assistants called and sent text messages to victims in Palm Beach County from other states to arrange "appointments" for his upcoming visits to Palm Beach. And, while in Palm Beach, Epstein and his assistants called victims in New York to arrange "appointments" for his return to New York. Epstein wired money to some victims and sent gifts through the mails. This case falls squarely within federal jurisdiction. Epstein also falsely claims that certain facts related to the resolution of the case were hidden and later discovered by his lawyers. For example, they complain about the proposed use of a guardian ad litem, stating that "Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these individuals were adults, not minors." It was AUSA Villafafla who told Epstein's counsel that all of the victims but one had already reached the age of majority, which was one reason why the guardian ad litem procedure proposed by Epstein's counsel would not work. Likewise, AUSA V Manta disclosed to Epstein's counsel that one of the five attorney-representatives that she recommended for consideration by Epstein's counsel was a "good friend" of a "good friend." Despite the disclosure of this relationship, Epstein's counsel selected that person, before the SDFL, on its own, decided to use an independent Special Master to make the selection. Epstein's counsel states that the "USAO eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of any of the claims that these women might make," but neglects to disclose that the SDFL made that statement at Epstein's request to avoid the suggestion that the SDFL was involving itself in the outcome of civil litigation. Confidential and Privileged —Attorney Work Product -14- EFTA00225191 Epstein's counsel have repeatedly attacked the SDFL and the FBI for classifying the victims as " victims." As you know, all Justice Department employees have the obligation to identify victims and to notify them of their rights. "Victims" are defined by law, not by self-selection. The girls whom have been identified by the FBI and the SDFL fall within the legal definition — they were all minors who engaged in illicit sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein, at his request, in exchange for money. From interviewing them, the FBI Special Agents, the FBI Victim-Witness Coordinator, and AUSA Villafafla all feel confident that they suffered harm, in a multitude of ways, by their interaction with Epstein. Finally, in contrast to Epstein's counsel allegation that my June 2, 2008 deadline was "arbitrary, unfair, and unprecedented," please consider that Mr. Lefkowitz has known since February that in the event that CEOS disagreed with his position, Epstein would be given one-week to comply with the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Subsequent to the receipt of CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn's May 15,2008 letter, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz that Epstein would have a full two-weeks to comply with the Non-Prosecution Agreement as modified by the December 19i6 letter to Ms. Sanchez. We believe it is finally time to shift the focus from Epstein's due process rights to treating him like all other similarly situated criminal defendants and perhaps, most importantly, to consider the rights of his victims. Continued delays adversely effect the case and the victims in the following ways: (1) at the time of the offenses, the victims ranged in age from 14 to 17 years old. The change in physical appearance of many of the victims since then has been dramatic. Epstein has been claiming that he did not know they were minors. Obviously, the older they look when the case is at issue, the harder it will be to overcome that defense; (2) it allows Epstein's lawyers to conduct depositions of the victims in the pending state criminal case and allows his private investigators to further harass and intimidate the victims; (3) more victims will seek the services of civil lawyers to file lawsuits thus allowing Epstein to make more powerful arguments demeaning the credibility of the victims; (4) the prosecutors and agents may retire, transfer and/or leave the Department for other opportunities thus affecting the potential outcome and prosecutorial resources. Additionally, several of the victims have relocated thus increasing the likelihood that crucial witnesses will be lost; (5) the SDFL has afforded more consideration to Epstein's arguments than any other defendant in my years of being the FAUSA and, before that, the Chief of the Criminal Division (January 1, 2004 to the present). I believe that we have been disproportionally fair to Epstein at the expense of other matters; and (6) prolonged delay may adversely affect the statute of limitations for some of the victims. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -15- EFTA00225192 On behalf of the SDFL and the victims in this case, please expedite the review and decision of the issues under consideration. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Jeffrey H. Slonian First Assistant United States Attorney Ends. cc: Robert Senior, Chief Criminal Division A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Atkinson Assistant U.S. Attorney Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -16- EFTA00225193 CONFIDENTIAL PLEA NEGOTIATIONS TERMS OF EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT ■ Epstein pleads guilty (not nolo contendere) to an Information filed by the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office charging him with: (a) lewd and lascivious battery on a child, in violation of Fl. Stat. 800.04(4); (b) solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. 796.03; and (c) engaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of age, in violation of Fl. Stat. 794.05. ■ Epstein and the State Attorney's Office make a joint, binding recommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing; and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment. ■ Epstein agrees to waive all challenges to the information filed by the State and the right to appeal. ■ 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. ■ After Epstein enters his state court plea and is sentenced, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office will close their investigations. EFTA00225194 FOWLERWHITE AIII)kiaLv5 BURNETT MIAMI • FORT LAUDERDALE • WEST PALM BEACH • ST. PETERSBURG August 2, 2007 Mr. Matthew Menchel Chief, Criminal Division United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4 Street Miami, Florida 33132 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Matt: Esimiro Stwro PLAZA FOUTTC0410 FLOOR I 305 BRiotZtl AVItaut MIAMI, FLORIOA 33131 TDIPITOAL(3O5) 789 .9200 FACsimiLI (30517899201 WAWSITTLERAVIIIILCOM LILL. ANN SANCHEZ Motor Roe No.: 1305) 780.9279 DIRECT &CUNHA No.: (305) 728-7579 Lsaftema@rowuriwn.C43.4 As we discussed at Tuesday's meeting, and consistent with our view that no federal prosecution should lie in this matter, Mr. Epstein is prepared to resolve this matter via a state forum. We are in receipt of your memo regarding same and as the dynamics of the meeting did not allow for us to fully detail our proposal, we do so now. We believe that our respective positions are not very far apart and that a mutually agreeable resolution can be reached that will accomplish the interests of the United States Attorney's Office as well as those of the community. We welcomed your recognition that a state prison sentence is neither appropriate for, nor acceptable to, Mr. Epstein, as the dangers of the state prison system pose risks that are clearly untenable. We acknowledge that your suggestion of a plea to two federal misdemeanors was an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Our proposal is significantly punitive, and i f implemented, would, we believe, leave little doubt that the federal interest was demonstrably vindicated. The Florida state judicial system, unlike the federal system, provides for numerous types of onerous sanctions after a defendant is remanded to the custody of the state. The sentence is tailored to the needs of the local community and the risk posed by a specific defendant. After a great deal of thought, our proposal consists of both a severe supervised custody, with an assurance that any violation would result in the immediate implementation of the two year period of incarceration. We must keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein is a 54-year old man who has never been arrested before. He has lived an otherwise exemplary life, characterized by both many charitable contributions and philanthropic acts. His reputation has suffered significantly as a result of his poor judgment in these matters. He is well aware of the ramifications of his past behavior and, accordingly, there is no concern, whatsoever, that he will re-offend. FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. EFTA00225195 Page 2 The following proposal is offered as an assurance to the community that the goals of appropriate punishment and rehabilitation are attained. We will agree to a sentence of two years in state prison pursuant to Florida Statute 948.012(2) which permits a split sentence whereby Mr. Epstein will be sentenced to a term of supervised custody, followed by a period of incarceration. Supervised custody in the state system includes potential daily surveillance, administered by officers with restricted case loads. Supervised custody is an individualized program in which the freedom of Mr. Epstein is limited to the confines of his residence with specific sanctions imposed and enforced. See Florida Statute 948.001(2). Should Mr. Epstein successfully complete the terms and conditions of his custody, the Judge will eliminate the incarcerative portion of the sentence. If Mr. Epstein, however, fails to comply with the conditions of his supervised custody. The period of incarceration will be immediately implemented. We, therefore, propose the following: Two years supervised custody with the following mandatory and special conditions: o Confinement to home o Report to a community control officer at least once a week or more often as directed by the officer o Permit a community control officer to visit him unannounced at home at any time, day or night o Obtain psychological counseling o No unsupervised contact with all the victims in the instant case o Perform community service o Payment of Restitution o Application of 18 U.S.C. § 2255' o Payment of a contribution of a defined amount to a charitable organization benefitting victims of sexual assault o Payment of Court and probationary costs o Payment of law enforcement investigative costs o Submit to random drug testing o Refrain from associating with persons engaged in criminal activities o Refrain from committing any new law offenses o Any other specific conditions that the Office may deem necessary Two additional years of reporting probation: 18 U.S.C. 2255 provides that any minor who suffers injury as a result of the commission of certain offenses shall recover actual damages and the cost ofany suit, is important to note that Mr. Epstein is prepared to fully fund the identified group of victims which are the focus of the Office - that is, the 12 individuals noted at the meeting on July 31, 2007. This would allow the victims to be able to promptly put this behind them and go forward with their lives. If given the opportunity to opine as to the appropriateness of Mr. Epstein's proposal, in my extensive experience in these types of cases, the victims prefer a quick resolution with compensation for damages and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. FOWLER WHITE BURNETT PA. EFTA00225196 Page 3 o Mandatory conditions as provided in Florida Statute § 948.03 o Special conditions as stated above If the terms of supervised custody and probation are successfully completed, then the two years of state prison is eliminated. This proposal provides for the two year imposition of the state prison sentence if any violation of the supervised custody or probation occurs. Accordingly, the Office's position that Mr. Epstein agree to a resolution that includes jail time is satisfied by this proposal. It would immediately bring closure to a matter that has been pending for over two years, allows Mr. Epstein to commence with his sentence, and, most significantly, allow the victims to move forward with their lives. We are in process of scheduling a meeting with R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney, to further discuss this matter. Sincerely, Lilly Ann Sanchez cc. R. Alexander Acosta Gerald Lefcourt Roy Black FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. EFTA00225197 Pagc I of EPSTEIN EYES SEX-RAP RELIEF saPtES BusinessBundle-A-Day, GI VEAWAI October 9, 2007 -- LAWYERS for Jeffrey Epstein - the billionaire Manhattan investment manager who's agreed to plead guilty to soliciting underage prostitutes at his Palm Beach mansion in exchange for just 18 months in the stammer - are mulling asking federal prosecutors to drop their demand that he register as a sex offender. In a letter drafted, but not sent, to U.S. Attorney Alexander Costa and obtained by Page Six, Epstein's lawyer, Gerald Lefcourt, writes, "Doing so will have a profound impact (on Epstein) both immediately and forever after. Not only will he be restricted to a wholly inappropriate ma! facility, but he will be required for the rest of his We to account for his whereabouts." Epstein, a former business partner of Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman, pleaded guilty to a state charge in exchange for the feds' dropping their probe into possible federal criminal violations. Lefcourt argues that only the feds have demanded that Epstein register, "despite the fact that the state was of the view that Mr. Epstein's conduct did not warrant registration." A rep for Epstein had no comment. NEW YORK POST Isa registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM. and NEWYORKPOST.COM are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc. Copyright 2008 NW Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?uri=http://www.nypost.com/seven/ 1009200... 6/3/2008 EFTA00225198 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: (I) 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(O, 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(0, with minor females; in violation Page 1 of 7 EFTA00225199 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(cXl); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 159 l(aX1) 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 Attorney's 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 shall 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. Alter 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 EFTA00225200 Terms of the Agreement: I. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to the Indictment as currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB) charging one (I) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Ft. 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 him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, 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 conununity control in lieu of imprisotunent; and (b) Epstein shall be sentenced to a tarn 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 arc set forth in this agreement. 4. The terms contained in paragraphs I 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 EFTA00225201 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 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 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 arc 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 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. 11. Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be Page 4 of 7 EFTA00225202 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 charges • - hat • • 'rig but not limited to , or Further, upon execution o 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 withdrew 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 EFTA00225203 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, tiling an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the datc 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 ofCriminal 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 hint is instituted for any offense that was the subject of the 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. III /1/ 111 Page 6 of 7 EFTA00225204 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 NonProsecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. IL ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: Dated: Dated: A. MARIE VILLAPARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY °BRAID LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Pogo 7 of 7 !A' EFTA00225205 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. IL ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: A. MARIE VILLAPARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Dated: Dated: ? 12-9107 Dated: JEFFREY EPSTEIN RA OUNSEL TO C°Q6 JEFF t Y 4ta91- EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA00225206 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 NonProsecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNTTED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: Dated: Datiedg—Aid—o A. MARIE VILLAPARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN GERALD LEPCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA00225207 IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN 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. 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 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 IS 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 in 3 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall cease. EFTA00225208 By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the abovo has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby. states that he understands the clarifications to the NonProsecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: (0/3 b /07 Dated: I7 i' 'IIDated: Dated: By: 41-LISHa4A-- MI41/3- 7€ A. MARIE VILLAPANA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA00225209 By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the NonProsecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: ID h 1947 Dated: Dated: By: vit._ tin t( s'A pi A. MARIE V LAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN ERALD LEFCO RT ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFR Y EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA00225210 By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the NonProsecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. Dated: /0 /3 DA '7 Date': Dated: Dated: R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: 11‘ e finiet.-- /54141 4 A. MARIE VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY BPSTER4 GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY A ANCHEZ, ES ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA00225211 U.S. Department nfitist ire United States Attorney Southern District of Florida R ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITEDSTATES ATTORNEY DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Lilly Ann Sanchez Fowler White Burnett, PA 1395 Brickell Ave, 14th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. Sanchez: 99 N F. 4 Sinter Mont A. DM 0031 961-9100 • rettphone (J03) .110-044 • Foonnik 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.' I write to you because I 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.2 As I stated in my December 4" 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 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 I I d' letter states that as a result of defense counsel objections to the appointment process, die USAO proposed an addendum to the Agreement to provide for the use of an independent third party selector. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowledge of defense counsel objections, I sua sponge proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lctkowitz 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. Lefkowitz raised with me his enumerated concerns. 2 Section 2255 provides that: "haply person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of (enumerated sections of Title IC 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." EFTA00225212 I • of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (I) 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, I 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 court 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 proceedings 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 he 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 segarding 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 party 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 EFTA00225213 Finally, 1 would like to address a more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on September 241h, 2007. Pursuant to paragraph II , 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. I resisted that invitation. 1 share this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an I d' hour appeal, weeks before the now scheduled January 461 plea date. This said, the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns. We hope to preserve the January 44 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, a r in the event that defense counsel may wish to seek review of our determinations in Washington , 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 shout 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. Sincerely, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY cc: Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney AUSA A. Marie Villafatla 3 EFTA00225214 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No: 18 U.S.C. § 371 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) 18 U.S.C. § 1591(aX2) 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) 18 U.S.C. § 242 18 U.S.C. § 2423k 18 U.S.C. § 2423 ) UNITED STATES &AMERICA a. vs. FFREY EPSTEIN, and Defendants. INDICTMENT The Grand Jury charges that: BACKGROUND At all times relevant to this Indictment: I. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN employed defendants " and among other things, services as personal assistants. to perform, EFTA00225215 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No: 18 U.S.C. § 371 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) 18 U.S.C. § 1591(aX2) 18 U.S.C. § 2422(6) 18 U.S.C. § 2423( 18 U.S.C. § 2423( 18 U.S.C. § 2423( UNITED STATES RAMERICA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, anM " 'ana Mucinska," 9 Defendants. INDICTMENT The Grand Jury charges that: BACKGROUND At all times relevant to this Indictment: I. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN employed defendants "and among other things, services as personal assistants. to perform, EFTA00225216 2. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN. employed L.G. to perform, among other things, services as a personal assistant. 31 Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and _FL? paid I., I. and to perform, among other things, recruiting services. 4. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN owned a propetty located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "358 El Brillo Way"). 5. De fen thintlEFFREY EPSTEIN owned a property located at 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York (hereinafter referred to as "the New York residence"). 6. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN was the principal owner of WOE, INC., a Delaware corporation. JEGE, INC.'s sole business activities related to the operation and ownership of a Boeing 727-31 aircrjeft,bearing tail number N908JE. 7. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN served as president, sole director, and sole shareholder of JEGE, INC., and had the power to direct all of its operations. 8. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN was the principal owner of Hyperion Air, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Hyperion Air, Inc.'s sole business activities related to the operation and ownership of a Gulfstream G-1159B aircraft bearing tail number N909JE. 9. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN served as president, sole director, and sole shareholder of Ilyperion Air, Inc., and had the power to direct all of its operations. 2 EFTA00225217 10. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 794.05, a "person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degtee." For purposes of "this section, `sexual activity' means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose." Florida Statutes Section 794.021 states that "ignorance of the age [of the victim] is no defense," and that neither "misrepresentation of age by [the victim] no( a bona tide belief that such person is over the specified age [shall] t4: be a defense." 11. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(5)(a) and 800.04(5)(c)(2), an adult "who intentionally touches in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or entices a person under 16 years of agetil so touch the perpetrator, commits lewd or lascivious molestation," which is a felony of the second degree i f the victim is 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age. 12. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(6)(a) and 800.04(6Xb), an adult "who [i]ntentionally touches a person under 16 y rA of age in a lewd or lascivious manner or [s]olicits a person under 16 years of age to commit a lewd or lascivious act commits lewd or lascivious conduct," which is a felony of the second degree. 3 EFTA00225218 13. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(7)(a) and 800.04(7)(c), an adult "who: (I) [i]ntentionally masturbates; (2) [i]ntentionally exposes the genitals in a lewd or lascivious manner; or (3) [i]ntentionally commits any other sexual act that does not involve actual physical or sexual contact with the victim, including, but not limited to . . . the simulation of any act involving sexual activity in the presence of a victim who is less than 16 years of age, commits lewd or lascivious exhibition," which is a felony of the second degree. 14. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 800.04(2), "[n]either the victim's lack of chastity nor the victim's consent is a defense to the crimes proscribed by [Section 800.04]." 15. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 800.04(3), "[t]tle perpetrator's ignorance of the victim's age, the victim's misrepresentation of his or her age, or the perpetrator's bona fide belief of the victim's age cannot/be raised as a defense in a prosecution under [Section 800.04]." 16. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 800.02, a "person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree." 17. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN was-over the age of 24 and did not have any medical license. 4 EFTA00225219 18. During the period of her involvement with the Defendants, Jane Doe #4 attended Wellington High School and Palm Beach Central High School in Palm Beach County. L._ 19. During the period of her involvement with the Defendants, Jane Doe #5 attended Wellington High School in Palm Beach County. 20. During the period of their involvement with the Defendants, Jane Does # 6, 8 and 12 attended Palm )3each Central High School in Palm Beach County. 21. During the period of her involvement with the Defendants, Jane Doe #7 attended William T. Dwyer High School in Palm Beach County. 22. During the periods of their involvement with the Defendants, Jane Does # 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 attended Royal Palm Beach High School in Palm Beach County. 23. During the period °fret involvement with the Defendants, Jane Doe #10 attended Lake Worth High School in Palm Beach County. 24. During the period of her involvement with the Defendants, Jane Doe #11 attended the Professional Performing Arts School, a public high school, located in New York, New York. 25. During the period of her involverftent with the Defendants, Jane Doe #13 attended John I. Leonard High School in Palm Beach County. 5 EFTA00225220 COUNT 1, (Conspiracy: 18 U.S.C. § 371) 26... Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference its though fully set forth herein. 27. From at least as early as 2001, the exact date being unknown to the Grand Jury, through in or around October 2005, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the Defendants, did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other and with others known and unknown to cpmmit an offense against the United States, that is, to t use a facility or means of interstate Or faireign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, and entice individuals who had not attained the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b). Purpose and Object of the Conspiracy 28. It was the purpose and object of thcbnspiracy to procure females under the age of 18 to travel to 358 El Brillo Way and the New York residence so that JEFFREY EPSTEIN could, in exchange for money, engage in lewd conduct with those minor females in order to satisfy JEFFREY EPSTEIN's prurient interests. 6 EFTA00225221 Manner and Means 29. The manner and means by which the Defendants and other participants sought to acco414 the purpose and object of the conspiracy included the following: (a) It was part of the conspiracy that Defendants 11 and other participants would contact minor females via the use of cellular and other telephones to arrange appointments„fotr minor females to travel to 358 El Brillo Way and the New York ete: residence to allow Deibridant JEFFREY EPSTEIN to engage in lewd conduct with them. (b) It was further, a part of the conspiracy that Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, , and 11 , and other participants would make payments to, or cause payments to be made to, minor females in exchanglibr engaging in lewd conduct. (c) It was further a part of the conspiracy that Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, MM , aikia "= " and other participants would ask females to recruit other minor females to engage in lewd conduct with Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN. EPSTEIN, 01 It was further a part of threonspiracy that Defendants JEFFREY ' and other participants would make payments to, or cause payments to be made.to, the recruiters for 7 EFTA00225222 bringing additional minor females to 358 El Brillo Way and the New York residence to engage in lewd conduct with Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN. I . , . (e) It was further a part of the conspiracy that Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN would pay minor females to engage in lewd conduct with Defendant to satisfy Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's prurient interests. Overt Acts 30. In furtherance of this conspiracy and to effect the objects thereof, there was It; committed by at leasetnie of the co-conspirators herein, at least one of the following overt acts, among others, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere: Jane Does #1 and #2 (1) In or around the beginning of 2001, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN engaged in sexual activity wt ane Doe #1, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, in the presence of Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen-year-old girl. (2) In or around 2001, Defendant led Jane Doe #2 from the kitchen of 358 El Brillo Way upstairs to Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's bedroom at 358 El Brillo Way. (3) In or around 2001, DefendanfiEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen-year-old girl. (4) In or around 2001, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #2, who was then fourteen years' old, to pinch his nipples while he masturbated. 8 11 EFTA00225223 (5) In or around 2001, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $300 to Jane Doe #2. (6) In or around 2001, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #2 to make an appointment for Jane Doe #2 to travel to 358 El Brillo Way. (7) In or around 2001, JEFFREY EPSTEIN engaged in sexual intercourse with an unidentified female in the presence of Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen- .; ;. year-old girl. (8) In or around 2001, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $300 to Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen-year-old girl, for allowing an unidentified female to perform oral sex on Jane Doe #2 in EPSTEIN's presence. (9) On or about IviAtth 11, 2003, an employee of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN prepared a written telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review regarding a telephone call received from Jane Doe #2. (10) In or around 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #2 if she had any younger friends who would be interested in engaging in similar activities with him. (11) In or around 2003, Defendant took nude photographs of Jane Doe #2, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. 9 EFTA00225224 (12) In or around 2003, Defendant KELLEN made a payment of $500 to Jane Doe #2 in exchange for posing for nude photographs. . i. (13) In or around 2003, Defendant told Jane Doe #2 that Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN had asked KELLEN to take nude photographs of Jane Doe #2. (14) In or arounI2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jatie.Doe #2, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. (15) In or around 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #2, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. (16) In or around 2003, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #2 to make an appointment for Jane Doe #2 to travel to 358 El Brillo Way. • 4.• (17) On or about April 23, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #2. (18) On or about May 2, 2004, Defendant SARAH placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane pcie #2. Jane Doe -43 (19) In or around 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #3, who was then a fifteen-year-old girl. 10 EFTA00225225 (20) In or around 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made. a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #3. (21) On or about October 26, 2004, Defendant SARAH placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #3. (22) On or about October 30, 2004, Defendant IMI= placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #3. (23) ItLcir around 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed Jane Doe #3, who was then a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old girl, to straddle an adult female and to touch the adult female's breasts. (24) In or around 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN placed a massaging device on the vagina of an adult female in the presence of Jane Doe #3, who was then a sixteen- or seventeen-year-,girl. (25) In or around 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #3. (26) In or arounI2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructed Jane Doe #3 to rub his nipples. (27) In or around 2004, Defendant4JEFFREY EPSTEIN placed a massaging device on the vagina of Jane Doe #3, who was then a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old girl11 EFTA00225226 (28) In or aroun12004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #3 to recruit additional females to come to 358 El Brillo Way. (29) On or about November 8, 2004, one of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's employees prepared a written telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review regarding a telephone call received from Jane Doe #3 that read: "I have a female for him." (30) qn„or about January 14, 2005, Defendant ME placed a rney telephone call to 'telephone used by Jane Doe #3. (31) On or about January 29, 2005, one of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's employees prepared a written telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review regarding a telephone call received from Jane Doe #3 that read: "I have a female for him." L\ Jane Does #4. O. and #6 (32) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant led Jane Doe #4 and Jane Doe #5 to Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's bedroom at 358 El Brillo Way. (33) In or around the first half df 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #4 about her age, and Jane Doe #4 responded with her true age. 12 EFTA00225227 (34) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #4, who was then a seventeen-year-old-girl, +Clime Doe #5, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (35) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructed Jane Doe #4, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, to play with his nipples. (36) In‘or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructed Jand Doe #4, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, to remove her clothing. (37) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stroked the vagina of Jane Doe #4, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (38) In or around the4lkst half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $200 to Jane Doe #4. (39) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $200 to Jane Doe #5. (40) In or around the first half or004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #6 what high school she attended. (41) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructed Jane Doe #4 to leave so that Jane Doe #6 could massage him alone. 13 2 EFTA00225228 (42) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #6, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. (43) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN digitally penetrated Jane'Doe #6, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. (44) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN placed a large vibrating massager on the vagina of Jane Doe #6, who was then a sixteen-year-odd girl. (45) Irit around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN caused a payment of $200 to be paid to Jane Doe #6. Jane Does #7 and #8 (46) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN led.., who was then a fifteen-year-old gAkand Jane Doe #7, who was then a sixteen-years-old girl, from the kitchen of 358 El Brill° Way upstairs to Defendant JEFFREY 4 -- EPSTEIN's bedroom at 358 El Brillo Way. (47) On or about July 4, 2004, Defendant made one pr more telephone calls to a telephone used blr Jane Doe #7. (48) On or about July 5, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by 14 rr EFTA00225229 (49) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #8, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (50) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stroked the vagina of Jane Doe #8, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (51) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid approximately $200 to Jane Doe #8. (52) In-or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $200 to M. for recruiting Jane Doe #8 to travel to 358 El Brillo Way. (53) In or around July 2004, Defendant told Jane Doe #8 that Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN would pay Jane Doe #8 if she returned with a friend. (54) On or about Jul); 15, 2004, Defendant more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe ii7. (55) On or about July 15, 2004, Defendant telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #8. (56) On or about July IS, 2004„Defendant KELLEN placed one or placed a placed a telephone call to a telephone used by T.M. • (57) On or about July 16, 2004, Defendant MI=I placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #7. 15 EFTA00225230 (58) On or about July 16, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by ■. 11:23 (59) On or about July 17, 2004, one of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's employees prepared a written telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review regarding a telephone call received from that read: "Me & [Jane Doe #7] can come tomorrow any time or [■.] alone". (60) 19 or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence oflane Doe #7, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. (61) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructed Jane Doe #7, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl, to rub his nipples. (62) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stroked the vagina of Jane Doe #7, who Wa then a sixteen-year-old girl. (63) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #7. (64) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN told Jane Doe #7 that if she reported to anyone what•lad occurred at Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's home, bad things could happeti to her. (65) On or about July 24, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #8. 16 EFTA00225231 Jane Does #9 and #10 (66) On or about July 15, 2004, Defendant KELLEN placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #9. (67) On or about July 16, 2004, Defendant caused Jane Doe #9 to make one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #10. (68) On or about July 17, 2004, Defendant telephone call to.a telephone used by Jane Doe #9. (69) On or about July 18, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #9. (70) On or about July 22, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #9. (71) In or around JuiY2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN fondled the breasts of Jane Doe #9, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (72) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #9, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (73) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #9. (74) On or about July 22, 2004, Defendant telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe 410. At 17 placed a placed a EFTA00225232 (75) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and engaged in oral sex and sexual intercourse in the presence 4 fitne Doe #9, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (76) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN forcibly inserted his penis into the vagina of Jane Doe #9, who was then a seventeenyear-old girl. (77) around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $3040* to Jane Doe #9. (78) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN rubbed the vagina of Jane Doe #10, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (79) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane D it10. (80) On or about November 28, 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN arranged for one of his employees to provide an envelope filled with cash to Jane Doe #9. (81) On or about December 4, 200refendant provided -4 a written message to Defendant JEFFREY STEIN regarding Jane Does # 9 and 10, stating: "[Jane Doe #10] would like to work @ 4:00 pm if possible. [[Jane Doe #9] is scheduled for 5:00 today.] the movie is @ 7:30". (82) On or about December 29, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #9. 18 EFTA00225233 (83) On or about December 30, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and caused the purchase of Broadway tickets as an eighteenth birthday gift for Jane Doe #9. (84) In or around the last half o f 2004 or January 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #10, who was then a seventeenyear-old girl. (85) In oy around the last half of 2004 or January 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN fondled the breasts of Jane Doe it I0, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (86) On or about January 14, 2005, Defendant MEI placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #10. (87) On or about JAary 27, 2005, Defendant I. a/k/a "placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #10. (88) On or about January 28, 2005, Defendant MEM placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used-by Jane Doe #10. (89) On or about February 1, 2005, Defendant placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #10. (90) In or around February 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN caused a payment of $200 to be made to Jane Doe IN for recruiting Jane Doe #16 to travel to 358 El Grillo Way. 19 EFTA00225234 Jane Doe #11 (91) In or around 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN told Jane Doe #11 that he would pay her to find and bring him more girls. (92) In or around 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $200 to Jane Doe # 11 for recruiting a minor female to travel to his New York home. (93) In or around 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #11 when she wou e getting more girls. (94) For about April 5, 2005, one of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's employees prepared a written message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review regarding a telephone call received from Jane Doe #11 that read: "Re does she have any new friends you can meet — I was away over the weekend so I have not spoken to anyone new. But, [unidentified Jane Doe] will be around later today and I know )2‘ she really wants to work. The others should be back around Thursday. Let me know about [unidentified Jane Doe]." (95) On or about June 22, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #11. Jane Does #12 and #13 (96) On or about August 2, 2004, an employee of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN prepared a written telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review regarding a telephone call received from R. and Jane Doe #12 that stated: "They are available all weekend and maybe [Jane Doe #I ] too". 20 EFTA00225235 (97) On or about August 21, 2004, Defendant KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #13. ;; (98) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #12, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (99) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN digitally penetrated Jane Doe #12, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (100) In,or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN attempted to plied a massaging device on the vagina of Jane Doe #12, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (101) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #12. (102) In or around th e~tzgt hal f of 2004, DefendantJEFFREYEPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #12, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, about her age. (103) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN told Jane Doe #12 that he would take her to Los Angeles when she turned eighteen. (104) In or around the last half of 2Q041, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and caused Jane Doe #12 to Jane Doe #13 to travel to 358 El Brillo Way. (105) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #13, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. 1• A. 21 EFTA00225236 (106) In or around the end of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN placed a massaging device on the vagina of Jane Doe #13, who was then a seventeen-year- (107) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #13. (108) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN digitally penetrated Jane Doe #13, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (109)'el-around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #13, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, about her age. (110) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN told Jane Doe #13 that he wanted to take her to Paris but he could not because Jane Doe #13 was not yet eighteen yearsNld. (111) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #13 to bring her friends to his home, especially "girls who looked like [Jane Doe #13]." Jane Doe 04 eig• (112) In or around the last half or2004, Defendant led Jane Doe #14 from the kitchen of 358 El Brillo Way upstairs to Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's bedroom at 358 El Brillo Way. (113) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #14 to provide her telephone number. 22 EFTA00225237 (114) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructed Jane Doe #14, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, to pinch his nipples. (115) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #14, who was then a seventeen-year old girl. (116) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $300 to Jane Doe #I4. (117) In ..pr around the end of 2004 and the beginning of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN digitally penetrated Jane Doe #14, who was then a seventeenyear-old girl. (118) In or around the end of 2004 and the beginning of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #14, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, whether she had any plans for,* eighteenth birthday and acknowledged that she had not yet turned eighteen. (119) On or about December 23, 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN caused a Western Union wire transfer order to be sent to Jane Doe #I4. (120) In or around the first quarter 42005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN placed a massaging device on the vagina of Jane Doe #14, who was then a seventeenyear-old girl. (121) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN engaged in sexual intercourse with Jane Doe #14, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. 23 EFTA00225238 (122) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN performed oral sex on Jane Doe #14, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. 1 -"4. (123) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $600 to Jane Doe #14. (124) On or about January 8, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #14. (125) On or about January 9, 2005, Defendant ADRIANA a/k/a *IT MII Muctiaka," placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #I4. (126) On or about January 26, 2005, one of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's employees prepared a written telephone message for Defendant review regarding a call received from Jane Doe #14 that read: "She is confirming for 5:30". 'J. (127) On or about January 26, 2005, Defendant a/k/a " placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #14. (128) On or about February 1, 2005, Defendant telephone call to a telephone used by Jane. e #14. (129) On or about March 1, 200 r , Defendant 'Ma placed a a/k/a " placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe 414. (130) On or about March 21, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #14. tf A, 24 EFTA00225239 (131) On or about March 29, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe 414. Jane Doe #15 (132) On or about December 6, 2004, Defendant KEI,LEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (133) On or about December 14, 2004, Defendant KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #I5. (134) In or around the first half of 2005, Defendant led Jane Doe #15 from the kitchen of 358 El Brillo Way upstairs to Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's bedroom at 358 El Brillo Way. (135) In or around the first half of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructed Jane Doe #15, who Was then a seventeen-year-old girl, to pinch his nipples while he masturbated. (136) In or around the first half of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN fondled the breasts of Jane Doe #15. (137) In or around the first half of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN ' made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #15.-v (138) On or about January 7, 2005, Defendant anda 'S.," placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. 25 EFTA00225240 (139) On or about February 4, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (140) On or about February 10, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (141) On or about February 21, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (142) On or about February 24, 2005, Defendant a telephone calf tea telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (143) On or about March 17, 2005, Defendant telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (144) On or about March 30, 2005, Defendant telephone call to a telephone/ by Jane Doe #15. (145) On or about March 31, 2005, Defendant telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (146) On or about March 31, 2005, Defendant placed placed a placed a placed a a/k/a placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (147) On or about April 1, 2005, one of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's employees prepared a note for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review that read: "10:30 [Jane Doe #15]/[Jane Doe #10] on Fri around 2'Oclock". (148) In or around June 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN provided Jane Doe #15 with a gift of Secret lingerie for her eighteenth birthday. is 26 EFTA00225241 Jane Does #16 & #17 (149) In or around February 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN tifisturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #16, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. I (150) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and caused Jane Doe #I6 to place a telephone call to Jane Doe #17 to ask her to travel to 358 El Brillo Way. (151) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN caused a paymine-to be made to Jane Doe #I6 for recruiting Jane Doe #17 to travel to 358 El Brillo Way. (152) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #I7, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. (153) In or around theihrst quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructed Jane Doe #17, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl, to remove all of her clothing. (154) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN placed a massaging device on the vagina of Jane Doe #17, who was then a sixteen- . year-old girl. (155) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #17, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. 27 EFTA00225242 (156) In or around the first nine months of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN placed a massaging device on the vagina of Jane Doe #16, who was then aAseventeen-year-old girl. J 01 (157) In or around the first nine months of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #16, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, how old she was, and she responded that she was seventeen years old. (158) In or around the first nine months of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN engatad in sexual activity with Defendant NADIA Ma in the presence of Jane Doe #16, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (159) In or around the first nine months of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #16, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, to touch the breast of Defendant la. (160) On or about April 11, 2005, Defendant a/k/a MIME" placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (161) On or about April 11, 2005, Defendant telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (162) On or about April 11, 2001, Defendant placed a left a message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stating: "[Jane Doe #16] can work tomorrow at 4pm." (163) On or about May 19, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. 28 EFTA00225243 Jane Does #18 and #19 (182) In or around the last half of 2003, Jane Doe #18 was approached by M. Arid was asked whether she would be willing to provide a massage to Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN in exchange for $200. (183) In or around the last half of 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #18 to provide her telephone number. (184) On or around August 27, 2003, Defendant placed a telephone call to-a telephone used by Jane Doc #18. (185) In or around the last half of 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #18, who was then a seventeen-year-old-girl. (186) On or around November 16, 2003, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephonensed by Jane Doe #18. .11 (187) In or around the last half of 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN digitally penetrated Jane Doe 1118, who was then a seventeen-year-old-girl. (188) In or around the last hal fo f 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #I8 to recruit other females to travel to 358 El Brillo Way. (189) On or about March 5, 2004, defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #19, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, to leave when she refused to remove her shirt. 31 EFTA00225244 (164) On or about June 30, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. , (165) On or about July 2, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (166) On or about July 22, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (167) On or about August 18, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call foe telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (168) On or about August 19, 2005, Defendant a/k/a "MIEM" placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (169) On or about August 21, 2005, Defendant NADIA placed a telephone call to a b4hone used by Jane Doe #16. (170) On or about September 3, 2005, Defendant aAc/a " placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (171) On or about September 18, 2005, Defendant SARAH10ELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (172) On or about September 19, 2005, Defendant sent a text message to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (173) On or about September 29, 2005, Defendant KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. 29 EFTA00225245 (174) On or about September 30, 2005, Defendant a/Icla " placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (175) On or about October 1, 2005, Defendant left a telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stating: "[Jane Doe #15] confirmed at 11 AM and [Jane Doe #16] — 4PM". (176) On or about October 2, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (177) ari or about October 3, 2005, Defendant telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (178) On or about October 3, 2005, Defendant placed a left a telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stating: "[Jane Doe #16] will be /2 hour late". (179) In or around the first week of October, 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN engaged in sexual intercourse with Jane Doe #16, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (180) In or around the first week of October, 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $350.00 to Rine Doe #16, who was then a seventeenyear-old girl. (181) In or around the first week of October, 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN provided a gift of Secret lingerie to Jane Doe #16 for her eighteenth birthday. 30 EFTA00225246 (190) On or about March 5, 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN verbally reprimanded Jane Doe #18 for bringing Jane Doe #19 to 358 El Brillo Way when she vialdot willing to undress for him. The Defendants' Travel (191) On or about March 11, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey, to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, "r3 t • Inc. .2% (192) On or about May 1, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ,and traveled from New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (193) On or about M . 4, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, NM and traveled from Canada to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (194) On or about June 11, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and traveled from Chicago, Illinois to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by erion Air, Inc. (195) On or about June 20, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. 32 EFTA00225247 (196) On or about July 4, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, KELLEN, and traveled from Aspen, Colorado to Palm gab', County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. A c (197) On or about July 16, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (198) Otibr about July 22, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (199) On or about August 19, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and NADIA MARCINKOVA tra ed from Van Nuys, California to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, MC. (200) On or about August 25, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, =a , and traveled from Ecuador to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (201) On or about October 2, 2004,1efendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN,• ME, and traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. 33. EFTA00225248 (202) On or about October 29, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach oulx.ty, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (203) On or about November 10, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (204) On or about November 18, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, "andMIMItraveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (205) On or about December 3, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, , and SIM, a/k/a "M=.," traveled from New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (206) On or about December 13, 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Ai, Inc. (207) On or about December 17, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. S 34 EFTA00225249 (208) On or about January 1, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a, and traveled from Anguilla, British West Indies tt item Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (209) On or about January 6, 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (210) Otie4or about January 14, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, "and_ traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (211) On or about Jahpary 19, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a/k/a " and traveled from New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. On or about February 3, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH KELLEN, and NADIA MARCINICOVA traveled from Columbus, Ohio, to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, MC. (213) On or about February 10, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ADRIANA anda " and 35 EFTA00225250 MEEtraveled from New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. • „ 9' (214) On or about February 21, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, la and traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (215) On or about February 24, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ICELgN, and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (216) On or about March 4, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ADRIANA ROSS, a/k/a "Adriina Mucinska," and traveled "J.N. from New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, (217) On or about March 18, 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN traveled from New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 a.} aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (218) On or about March 31, 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN traveled from New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. CL ." 36 EFTA00225251 (219) On or about May 19, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and traveled from reetegboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (220) On or about June 30, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (221) On -or about July 22, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (222) On or about August 18, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, MSROSS, a/k/a "Adtittna Mucinska," and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (223) On or about September 3, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Mucinska," traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands j • to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard th Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (224) On or about September 18, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, , and ," traveled from 37 EFTA00225252 Westchester County, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. . (225) On or about September 29, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ROSS, alkla"Adriana Mucinska," and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. • COUNTS 2 THROUGH 10 (Sex Trafficking: 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1)) 31. Paragraphs I through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 32. On or about the dates enumerated as to each count listed below, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, ini()IIn Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the Defendants listed below did knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruit, entice, provide, and obtain by any means a person, that is, the person in each count listed below, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a comnieYeial r sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(0)(1): Count Date(s) Minor Involved Defendant(s) 2 2001 - 2004 Jane Doe #2 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 38 EFTA00225253 Count Date(s) Minor Involved Defendant(s) 3 '.4 s January 2004 through July 2004 Jane Doe #4 J FFREY EPSTEIN 4 ,i July 2004 through December 29, 2004 Jane Doe #9 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 5 July 2004 through January 1, 2005 Jane Doe #10 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 6 Mi 4 through April 22, 2005 Jane Doe #12 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 7 August 2004 through May 27, 2005 Jane Doe #13 • JEFFREY EPSTEIN 8 November 2004 through March 2005 Jane Doe #14 it / -1 JEFFREY EPSTEIN a/k/a " 9 December 2004 through June 5, 2005 Jane Doe #15 JEFFREY EPSTEIN , 10 February 2005 through first week of October 2005 Jane Doe #16 , . 1 r JEFFREY EPSTEIN J • All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2. 39 EFTA00225254 COUNT 11, (Sex Trafficking: 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(2)) 33. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by referende4 though fully set forth herein. 34. From at least as early as in or about 2001 through in or about October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, a n mai , did knowingly benefit, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(cX3), which had engaged in an act described in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), thin is, the recruiting, enticing, providing, and obtaining by any means a person, in or affecting interstate commerce, knowing that the person or persons 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)(2), 1591(b)(2), and 2. COUNT 1 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 35. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment arc re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 40 EFTA00225255 36. From in or around the spring of 2003 through on or about October 2, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florirnd elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility, or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #3, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in itiostitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is violations of Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(5)(a), 800.04(6)(a), and 800.04(7)(a); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. ks COUNT 13 (Enticement of eMinor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 37. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 38. In or around July 2004, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Ftilda, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #7, who was a person who had not attained the age of 41 EFTA00225256 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 14 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(6)) 39. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 40. From in or around July 2004 through in or around October 2004, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Die 18, - who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(6) and 2. COUNT 15 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 § 2422(6)) 17i 41. Paragraphs I through 25 of this Inditkment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 42. From in or around July 2004 through on or around December 29, 2004, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, 42 EFTA00225257 JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #9, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is a violation of Florida Statutes Section 794.05; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 16 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 43. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 44. From in or around July 2004 through on or about January 31, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand fury; in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and . did use a facility or means of interstate comme 4., that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe # 10, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. 43 EFTA00225258 COUNT 17 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 45. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by referencle.a§ though fully set forth herein. 46. From in or around the middle of 2004 through on or about April 22, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #12, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(13) and 2. A COUNT 18 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 47. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. In? 48. From in or around August 2004 thitlugh on or about May 27, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and 44 EFTA00225259 did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #I3, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 yelfrstto engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 19 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 49. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though set forth herein. 50. From in or around November 2004 through in or around March 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and ADRIANAlk. SS, a/1%Na St did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #14, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is a violatif of j Florida Statutes Section 794.05; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. 4. 45 EFTA00225260 COUNT 20 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 51. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by I 's•-• „t referetufe.gi though fully set forth herein. 52. From in or around December 2004 through on or about June 5, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #15, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitutio . violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections st;, 2422(6) and 2. COUNT 21 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 53. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 1-2 54. From in or around February 2005 through in or around the first week of October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, 46 EFTA00225261 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, •?, did uses-facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce or entice Jane Doe #16, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is a violation of Florida Statutes Section 794.05; in violation of Title 18, United State Oode, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 22 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(6)) 55. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 56. From in or around Fe 2005 through in or around April 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and ROSS, a/k/a "Adrian Mucinska," did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #17, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(6) and 2. rt 47 EFTA00225262 COUNT 23 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 57. Paragraphs I through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference ai though fully set forth herein. 58. From in or around August 2003 through in or around February 2004, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #18, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 24 (Conspiracy to Travel: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e)) 59. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as fully set for the herein. 60. From at least as early as 2001 through in or around October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, the Defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a/k/a it t, 48 EFTA00225263 did knowingly and willfully conspire with each other and with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined °n 1.8 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with another person, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e). COUNT 25 (Facilitation of Unlawful Travel of Another: 18 U.S.C. § 24231) 61. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though Kitil set forth herein. 62. From at least as early as in or about 2001 through in or around October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the Defendant, KELLEN, did, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, arrange and facilitate the travel of a person, that is Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, knowing that such person was traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 24231. COUNTS 26 THITOGH 29 (Travel to Engage in Illicit Sexual C nduct: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)) 63. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 64. On or about the dates enumerated as to each count listed below, from a place outside the Southern District of Florida to a place inside the Southern District of Florida, the 49 EFTA00225264 Defendant(s) listed below traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(t), with a person under 18 years of age, that is, Fperson(s) listed in each count below: Count Date(s) Minor(s) Involved Defendant(s) 26 7/16/2004 Jane Doe #7 Jane Doe #8 Jane Doe #9 Jane Doe #10 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 27 3/3I/200, Jane Doe #14 Jane Doe #15 Jane Doe #16 JEFFREY EPSTEIN i , 28 9/18/2005 Jane Doe #I6 JEFFREY EPSTEIN I 29 9/29/05 J e Doe #16 . ' FREY EPSTEIN a/k/a " All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(b) and 2. FORFEITURE 1 Upon conviction of the violation alleged in ount I of this indictment, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH IME, a ROSS, a/k/a "Adrian Mucinska," and shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the violation. 50 EFTA00225265 Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461; Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C); and Title 21, United States Code, Section 853. . . If alb property described above as being subject to forfeiture, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a/k/a ". ," and (1) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (2) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with a third person; ) (3) has beet Placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; (4) has been substantially diminished in value; or (5) has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, p uant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendants up to the value of the above forfeitable property. All pursuant to Title 28 United States Code, Section 2461; Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C); and Title 21 United et..actees Code, Section 853. FORFEITURE 2 Upon conviction of any of the violations alleged in Counts 12-29 of this indictment, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, , a ROSS, aAda shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, constituting or traceable to gross profits or other proceeds obtained from such 51 EFTA00225266 offense; and any property, real or personal, used or intended to be used to commit or to promote the commission of such offense, including but not limited to the following: ti a. A parcel of land located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, including all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments, and easements found therein or thereon, and more particularly described as: Being all of Lot 40 and the West 24.3 feet of Lot 39, El Bravo Park, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 9, in the records of Palm Beach County, Florida and -1:11 BEING that Alton lying West of Lot 40, El Bravo Park, in Section 27, Township 43 South, Range 43 East, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 9, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, being bounded on the West by the West side of an existing concrete seawall and the northerly extension thereof as shown on the Adair & Brady, Inc., drawing IS-1298, dated March 25, 1981, and bounded on the East by the shoreline as shown on the plat of El Bravo Park, and bounded on the North and South by the Westerly extensions of the North and South lines respectively of Lot 40, containing 0.07 acres, more or less. 114/ > Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253. If any of the forfeitable property described in the forfeiture section of this indictment, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH ADRIANA a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and NADIA (a) cannot be located upon the exercisezof due diligence; (b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person; (c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; has been substantially diminished in value; or 52 EFTA00225267 (e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the tittle of the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253(o), to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendant up to the value of the above forfeitable property. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253. r Upon convictitalf any of the violations alleged in Counts 2-11 of this indictment, FORFEITURE 3 the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and , shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of such violation; and any propert)frreal or personal, constituting or derived from any proceeds that such person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation, including but not limited to the following: a. A parcel of land located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, including all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments, and easements found therein or thereon, and more particularly describeb as: Being all of Lot 40 and the West 24.3 feet of Lot 39, El Bravo Park, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 9, in the records of Palm Beach County, Florida and BEING that portion lying West of Lot 40, El Bravo Park, in Section 27, Township 43 South, Range 43 East, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 9, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, being bounded"?' the West by the 53 EFTA00225268 West side of an existing concrete seawall and the northerly extension thereof as shown on the Adair & Brady, Inc., drawing IS-1298, dated March 25,1981, and bounded on the East by the shoreline as shown on the plat of El Bravo Park, and bounded on the North and South by the Westerly extensions of the North and South lines respectively of Lot 40, containing 0.07 acres, more or less. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1594(b). A TRUE BILL. FOREPERSON R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY A. MARIE VILLAFARA ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 54 EFTA00225269 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Viirafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:28 AM To: Senior. Robert (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Hi Bob and Jeff —I did not hear from you last week, which probably means that you did not hear from DOJ. We have to get an answer today or I may not be able to indict Epstein before I leave on my 3-week vacation in May, and we cannot put this off that long. On the issue of assigning another AUSA, I know that Karen and Rolando talked with you about assigning someone from Miami, but Rinku Talwar in Fort Pierce is my first choice. In Miami, my first choice is Aurora Fagan. I am just worried about the travel for Aurora. Thank you! I am off to Mag Court but should be back around noon. A. Marie Villajafia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 EXHIBIT B-124 Tracking: 1131 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014866 EFTA00225270 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Senior. Robert (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 1:14 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Called Drew. He was late for a meeting but will call me back. This is too long. From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:28 AM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Hi Bob and Jeff— I did not hear from you last week, which probably means that you did not hear from DOJ. We have to get an answer today or I may not be able to indict Epstein before I leave on my 3-week vacation in May, and we cannot put this off that long. On the issue of assigning another AUSA, I know that Karen and Rolando talked with you about assigning someone from Miami, but Rinku Talwar in Fort Pierce is my first choice. In Miami, my first choice is Aurora Fagan. I am just worried about the travel for Aurora. Thank you! I am off to Mag Court but should be back around noon. A. Marie Villafaha Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 1130 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014867 EFTA00225271 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 2:12 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); 'Kuyrkendall, E N.'; Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Out this afternoon I am off to what I hope will be my last doctor's visit. Please feel free to call on my cell if you have any news, especially any good news. 561 601-2301. A. Marie Valeria& Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 1123 08-80736-CV-MA12RA P-014868 EFTA00225272 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, April 22.2008 12:19 PM To: 'Kuyrkendall. E N.': Kirkpatrick. Lynn (USAFLS) Subject: So So, I was sitting at the doctor's office yesterday waiting for my appointment and I started reading Oprah's magazine. There was an article about quitting and it said that, contrary to popular belief, the people who are happier and more financially and socially successful are those who know when to quit rather than those who fight on until the bitter end. We are 9 days shy of the dne year anniversary of my indictment battle, which followed several months of preliminary skirmishes. As I write page 6 of my "self-report to OPR," I can't help but question my sanity. A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 1121 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014869 EFTA00225273 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana. Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2.01 PM To: 'Kuyrkendall, E N.' Subject: Meeting tomorrow Ili Nesbitt — How about 10:30 tomorrow? I can pick up coffee if you would like. A. Marie Villafaha Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 1108 08-80736-C V-MARRA P-014870 EFTA00225274 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, April 24,2008 12:44 PM To: Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: Epstein status? Hi Drew — I am sorry to bother you, but I just got an earful from the FBI agent about how much the delay is hurting our case while Epstein's lawyers continue to depose victims in our case under the guise of "trial prep" for the state case. Those victims are not part of the state case (which is why there is no Petite policy problem), yet he is able to use the liberal discovery rules in the state to get information about our case. We really need an answer. The grand jurors are losing their patience and, quite frankly, so are the agents and the victims. What can I do to help move this process along? A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 1107 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014871 EFTA00225275 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana. Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:01 PM To: Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: RE: Epstein status? Hi Drew — Thank you. I appreciate all of the work you have put into this. May In is the one-year anniversary of the submission of the indictment package for review (with a may 15th indictment date), and my frustration level is peaking again. A. Marie Villafidia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Oosterbaan, Andrew Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:58 PM To: Villafana, Ann Mane C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein status? Marie. I had a long conversation with Jeff and Bob about the status of the review Tuesday. CEOS' review, research and draft response were completed a while ago. We went over everything with the DRAG last week and then again with the MG Monday. As far as I know, we've resolved all the issues she raised. but she did indicate that she intended to read some of the defense submissions. Nevertheless, she should be ready to sign-off on the letter we drafted very soon. Jeff and Bob indicated that Alex was going to call the AAG. If he has done this, he will have better information than I have. Believe me when I say that I truly appreciate how the delay is impacting the case. At CEOS we did everything we could to move the review along as quickly as possible, including denying the defense's request for a delay in our meeting with them and completing our review very quickly thereafter. However. when engaging the front office on the review of any such matter one can expect the pace to slow substantially. Once the MG is told she is to review a matter, she's going to review carefully and until she is satisfied with the conclusions. That's just the way she is. Still, I am very sorry that the case is suffering from this delay. But, of course. delay is exactly what the defense counsel knew they would get when they secured the review. Drew From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) (mailto:Ann.Marie.C.Villafana@usdoj.govi Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:44 PM To: Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: Epstein status? Iii Drew — I am sorry to bother you, but I just got an earful from the FBI agent about how much the delay is hurting our case while Epstein's lawyers continue to depose victims in our case under the guise of "trial prep" for the state case. Those ! ictims are not part of the state case (which is why there is no Petite policy problem), yet he is able to use the li eral discovery rules in the state to get information about our case. 1102 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014872 EFTA00225276 We really need an answer. The grand jurors are losing their patience and, quite frankly. so are the agents and the victims. What can I do to help move this process along? A. Marie VilInfant? Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209- I 047 Fax 561 820-8777 1103 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014873 EFTA00225277 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Oosterbaan. Andrew Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:58 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein status? Marie, I had a long conversation with Jeff and Bob about the status of the review Tuesday. CEOS' review, research and draft response were completed a while ago. We went over everything with the DRAG last week and then again with the MG Monday As far as I know, we've resolved all the issues she raised, but she did indicate that she intended to read some of the defense submissions. Nevertheless, she should be ready to sign-off on the letter we drafted very soon. Jeff and Bob indicated that Alex was going to call the MG. If he has done this, he will have better information than I have. Believe me when I say that I truly appreciate how the delay is impacting the case. At CEOS we did everything we could to move the review along as quickly as possible, including denying the defense's request for a delay in our meeting with them and completing our review very quickly thereafter. However, when engaging the front office on the review of any such matter one can expect the pace to slow substantially. Once the AAG is told she is to review a matter, she's going to review carefully and until she is satisfied with the conclusions. That's just the way she is. Still. I am very sorry that the case is suffering from this delay. But, of course, delay is exactly what the defense counsel knew they would get when they secured the review. Drew From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) [mailto:Ann.Marie.C.Villafana@usdoj.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:44 PM To: Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: Epstein status? Hi Drew — I am sorry to bother you, but I just got an earful from the FBI agent about how much the delay is hurting our case while Epstein's lawyers continue to depose victims in our case under the guise of "trial prep" for the state case. Those victims are not part of the state case (which is why there is no Petite policy problem), yet he is able to use the liberal discovery rules in the state to get information about our case. We really need an answer. The grand jurors are losing their patience and, quite frankly, so are the agents and the victims. What can I do to help move this process along? A. Marie Villafaha Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm I3each, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 1104 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014874 EFTA00225278 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villatana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:55 PM To: Slornan, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Dear Jeff and Bob: I want to thank you for continuing to try to get an answer from Washington about the Epstein case, but I need to ask you to try again. I just finished a meeting with the FBI and was reminded, again, of how our case is suffering because of the delay. It isn't suffering just because the girls are getting older, moving away, and their memories are fading. It also is suffering because, while we wait with our hands tied, Epstein's attorneys are free to continue building their defense case. In particular, Epstein is continuing to use the state litigation as a means to obtain evidence in our case, as he continues to depose victims uninvolved in the state indictment to get information about the federal case. As you know. I turned in the indictment package on May 1, 2007, almost one year ago. After the delays and delays until January of this year. when Epstein's lawyers told Alex that the reason why they no longer wanted the Non-Prosecution Agreement was because the "facts had gotten better for Epstein," I promised to make a better case against him, and the agents and I did that. We found more victims, found more documentary evidence, and wrote a stronger indictment. Now four more months have passed and Epstein's lawyers have caught up to us again. Delay continues to be the best tactic for Epstein, and the Department is allowing him to win. My fear is that by the time we receive the green light, the case will be so damaged that it cannot be won, and I will be left defending a Hyde Amendment suit by myself. I leave on vacation on May 10th. In order to indict Epstein before I leave, while abiding by Jeffs one-week promise, we must have an answer by Monday. If we do not have that answer, and if we do not indict before I leave, then we all need to meet with the victims, the agents, and the police officers to decide how the case will be resolved and to provide them with an explanation for the delay. For now. I have reserved time with the grand jury on the 29th and on the 6th to finish the presentation of testimony and legal instructions in order for the grand jury to vote on the indictment on May 6th. If the Office intends to proceed, I ask again that you assign the AUSA who will be working on the case with me so that he or she can attend those sessions with me. We also will need to discuss the handling of the case while I am away. Thank you. A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 1105 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014875 EFTA00225279 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday. April 25, 2008 2:51 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS): Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Oosterbaan, Andrew: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein update Just received a call from Nesbitt. One of Epstein's private investigators, Robert Myers, has been trying to track down one of our victims for several days and finally caught up with her today. She told him that she did not want to talk to him and he then told her that, if she wouldn't talk to him, her name would somehow appear in the press and she should think about how that will affect her. Nesbitt put the victim in touch with one of our pro bono lawyers, and also informed her of her right to contact the police if she feels she is being threatened or harassed. In the meantime, this is the latest New York press coverage of Mr. Epstein: Just Visiting JEFFREY Epstein - who's facing jail time for soliciting prostitutes, some of whom were under the age of 18 - isn't feeling the love stateside, so he's skipped the country (temporarily, we're assured) to feel the love in Israel. A rep said Epstein. who was spotted at the Tel Aviv Hilton over the weekend, "is in Israel for Passover. He's meeting with Israeli scientists about medical research he's funding and taking a tour of military bases with [Friends of Israel chairman) Benny Shabtal." As for his ongoing legal troubles, the rep added, "It should be noted that the alleged victims have all acknowledged they tied about their age.' A. Marie Villafaha Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 1100 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014876 EFTA00225280 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana. Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:55 AM To: Kuyrkendall. E N. Nesbitt — This is what my pros memo says about', which comes from the 302's. Jane Doe #15 never told Epstein her age, but she also never told him that she was 18. They discussed her hig of soccer games and her plans to attend college in the future. In addition, as discussed below, P. was a close friend of JD#15 and they often went to Epstein's house together. told Epstein that she and JD#15 went to the same school and were in the same class, and Epstein that she was a junior in high school. A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 1098 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014877 EFTA00225281 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana. Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:00 AM To: Senior. Robert (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Is there any word from DC? Hi Bob I am leaving for the grand jury in I5 minute!, ■ word from Ban)? A. :Wade Vilhdana Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209.1047 From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:27 PM To: Villafana, Ann Made C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Is there any word from DC? I learned that Barry Sabin is the acting chief of staff for the AAG. I called and left a message for him to see if we could get an answer one way or another. I'm sorry but I don't know what else to do. From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:06 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Is there any word from DC? I have grand jury time tomorrow morning, and I need to know what I should do and say. Thank you. A. Marie Villaiatla Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 Tracking: 1089 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014878 EFTA00225282 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:37 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Is there any word from DC? Thank you! You are the hest! A. Marie l'ithOana Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:27 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Is there any word from DC? I learned that Barry Sabin is the acting chief of staff for the AAS. I called and left a message for him to see if we could get an answer one way or another. I'm sorry but I don't know what else to do. From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFIS) Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:06 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFIS) Subject: Is there any word from DC? I have grand jury time tomorrow morning, and I need to know what I should do and say. Thank you. A. Marie Vil!aloha Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 Tracking: 1093 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014879 EFTA00225283 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:27 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: RE. Is there any word from DC? I learned that Barry Sabin is the acting chief of staff for the AAG. I called and left a message for him to see if we could get an answer one way or another. I'm sorry but I don't know what else to do. From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:06 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Is there any word from DC? I have grand jury time tomorrow morning. and I need to know what I should do and say. Thank you. A. Marie VillaPha Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 1095 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014880 EFTA00225284 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana. Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1.06 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS): Senior. Robert (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Is there any word from DC? I have grand jury time tomorrow morning, and I need to know what I should do and say. Thank you. A. Marie IliIlatafia Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 Tracking: 10% 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014881 EFTA00225285 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday. May 01, 20O8 10:38 AM To: Kuyrkendall, E N. Subject: Re. 10:30? I am on the way. Waiting for train Original Message From: Kuyrkendall, E N. To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thu May 01 09:48:29 2008 Subject: Re: 10:30? Take your time we will see u when u get here. Come to the 6th floor. Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <Ann.Marie.C.Villafana@usdoj.gov> To: Kuyrkendall, E N. Sent: Thu May 01 09:47:56 2008 Subject: 10:30? Hi Nesbitt - I am trying to get my boxes in order before I come. I have 5 down and 3 to go. Can I come over at 10:30? A. Marie Villafaha Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 1079 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014882 EFTA00225286 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana. Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, May 01 2008 9 48 AM To: Kuyrkendall, E N Subject: 10:307 Hi Nesbitt —1 am trying to get my boxes in order before I come. I have 5 down and 3 to go. Can I come over at 10:30? A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 1000 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014883 EFTA00225287 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Senior, Robed (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 4:44 PM To: Villafana. Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Bad News and Good News re Epstein Yes although I would have enjoyed seeing you. Have a good vacation and I apologize for the delay. Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 02 14:23:48 2008 Subject: Bad News and Good News re Epstein Bob and Karen - I will tell you the bad news first. The New York girl who is referred to in the indictment is now going south on us (as I mentioned a few days ago, she has been contacted by Epstein's people). The good news is that there are two other New York girls who have been fully identified and one who has been partially identified. I would really like to keep the New York allegations in the indictment, so I have asked Nesbitt and Jason to work with FBI New York to get those girls identified and interviewed with the hopes of including at least one of them in the indictment. So, more good news for Bob, I will not plan to meet with you in the midst of the EARS onslaught. I will ask Nesbitt and Jason to figure this out while I am away and make the changes as soon as I get back. Is this alright with everyone? A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 1070 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014884 EFTA00225288 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana. Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, May 02, 20083:16 PM To: Kuyrkendall, E N. Cc: Richards, Jason R. Subject: We are not going to go on Tuesday I don't want to do it until we get New York finalized. A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 1071 08-80736-CVMARRA P-014885 EFTA00225289 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, May 02.2008 2:24 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS): Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Bad News and Good News re Epstein Bob and Karen — I will tell you the bad news first. The New York girl who is referred to in the indictment is now going south on us (as I mentioned a few days ago, she has been contacted by Epstein's people). The good news is that there are two other New York girls who have been fully identified and one who has been partially identified. I would really like to keep the New York allegations in the indictment, so I have asked Nesbitt and Jason to work with FBI New York to get those girls identified and interviewed with the hopes of including at least one of them in the indictment. So, more good news for Bob, I will not plan to meet with you in the midst of the EARS onslaught. I will ask Nesbitt and Jason to figure this out while I am away and make the changes as soon as I get back. Is this alright with everyone? A. Marie Villalana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 1072 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014886 EFTA00225290 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, May 02, 200811:41 AM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: RE: One other thing Thanks. Jeff. Except for the fact that it is now, sigh. May. the letter looks perfect. Is Alice's departure going to slow things down even more, do you think? I spent the past few days completely organizing the file and saw that Lilly's first request for a meeting (which I denied. of course). was in November 2006. and Andy's first meeting with them was in February 2007. I wonder how much JE has paid for his extra 15 months of freedom. ..f. .4 lark l'illafidkr Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 11:02 AM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: One other thing Thanks. Here's the revised final. Let me know if you spot anything else. EtTW, I preserved your grammatical honor.« File: EpsteinNoticeltr0408.wpd » From: Villafana, Ann Marle C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:24 AM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: RE: One other thing Hi Jeff — I like it, especially all of the quotes of their language. I just changed a few spacing issues, but I wanted to leave the substantive edits up to you. I. In your listing of attorneys, I didn't know if you wanted to add Mr. Starr's name up there (I know it is mentioned later), as well as adding "former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis, and noted criminal defense attorneys Roy Black and Marty Weinberg (I need to check on his name)" 2. Under "The Negotiation Phase," you say that one of the options Epstein was presented with was a Rule I I plea to a federal charge, but that isn't correct. At that time, Alex was unwilling to do a Rule I I plea, so we were left with trying to find federal charges that he could plead to that resulted in the agreed imprisonment term. Maybe write: "In order to achieve this result, the parties considered two alternatives, a plea to federal charges that limited Epstein's sentencing exposure, or, as suggested by you. a plea to state charges encompassing Epstein's conduct." [Much later, Alex changed his mind, but by that time, Epstein's crew was on the "he didn't do anything wrong" bandwagon.] 3. Under "Delay," you may want to quote the language of the agreement. which clearly DID NOT contemplate a staggered plea and sentencing. [The true reason why they didn't plead on the November date was because the judge would have remanded him on that date, rather than let him stay out until January. Quite simply, this was not our problem, we have always maintained that the state court judge 1074 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014887 EFTA00225291 should do her own thing, so it wasn't a legitimate reason for further delay, but it essentially would have eliminated Epstein's plan to never spend a day in jail.] 4. In your conclusion, you may want to make one specific term explicit: "Therefore, as I proposed in my email to you on February 25, 2008, you shall have until , to comply with all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, including plea, sentence, and incarceration, as modified by the USA's December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez." 5. Not substantive, but I feel the need to defend my "grammar honor" so -- I know that you, Andy, and Alex (as well as defense counsel) all think that I have made up the word "registrable," but, according to The Oxford American Dictionary, the adjective form of "register" is "registrable." Thank you! A. Marie Yillafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:19 PM To: Viliafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: One other thing c< File: EpsteinNoticeLtr0408.wpd >> From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:52 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: One other thing One of our New York girls was contacted by someone claiming to represent Epstein. None of us (here in Florida) have ever disclosed to Epstein's group that we were even LOOKING at New York, so I am concerned that someone in DC may have leaked it, possibly involuntarily. Jeff — I haven't told the FBI about your one-week to take the deal thing, because they will not be happy. Can I take a look at your letter before you send it? Thank you. A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 1075 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014888 EFTA00225292 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 11:02 AM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: One other thing Thanks. Here's the revised final. Let me know if you spot anything else. BTW, I preserved your grammatical honor. EpsteinNoticeLtr 0408.wpd From: Villafana, Ann Mahe C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:24 AM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: RE: One other thing Hi Jeff — I like it, especially all of the quotes of their language. I just changed a few spacing issues, but I wanted to leave the substantive edits up to you. I In your listing of attorneys. I didn't know if you wanted to add Mr. Starr's name up there (I know it is mentioned later), as well as adding "former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis. and noted criminal defense attorneys Roy Black and Marty Weinberg (I need to check on his name)" 2. Under "The Negotiation Phase.- you say that one of the options Epstein was presented with was a Rule I I plea to a federal charge, but that isn't correct. At that time, Alex was unwilling to do a Rule I I plea, so we were left with trying to find federal charges that he could plead to that resulted in the agreed imprisonment term. Maybe write: "In order to achieve this result, the parties considered two alternatives, a plea to federal charges that limited Epstein's sentencing exposure. or, as suggested by you, a plea to state charges encompassing Epstein's conduct." [Much later, Alex changed his mind, but by that time. Epstein's crew was on the "he didn't do anything wrong" bandwagon.] 3. Under "Delay." you may want to quote the language of the agreement, which clearly DID NOT contemplate a staggered plea and sentencing. [The true reason why they didn't plead on the November date was because the judge would have remanded him on that date, rather than let him stay out until January. Quite simply, this was not our problem. we have always maintained that the state court judge should do her own thing, so it wasn't a legitimate reason for further delay, but it essentially would have eliminated Epstein's plan to never spend a day in jail.] 4. In your conclusion, you may want to make one specific term explicit: "Therefore, as I proposed in my email to you on February 25, 2008, you shall have until , to comply with all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, including plea, sentence, and incarceration, as modified by the USA's December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez." 5. Not substantive, but I feel the need to defend my "grammar honor" so -- I know that you, Andy. and Alex (as well as defense counsel) all think that I have made up the word "registrable." but, according to The Oxford American Dictionary, the adjective form of "register" is "registrable: Thank you! A. Marie Villajaiia 1077 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014889 EFTA00225293 Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Sbman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:19 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: One other thing << File: EpsteinNoticeLtr0408.wpd >> From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAF1S) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:52 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) subject: One other thing One of our New York girls was contacted by someone claiming to represent Epstein. None of us (here in Florida) have ever disclosed to Epstein's group that we were even LOOKING at New York, so I am concerned that someone in DC may have leaked it, possibly involuntarily. Jeff — I haven't told the FBI about your one-week to take the deal thing, because they will not be happy. Can I take a look at your letter before you send it? Thank you. A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 1078 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014890 EFTA00225294 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Mane C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday. April 30, 2008 11:24 AM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: RE: One other thing Ili Jeff— I like it, especially all of the quotes of their language. I just changed a few spacing issues, but I wanted to leave the substantive edits up to you. I. In your listing of attorneys, I didn't know if you wanted to add Mr. Staff's name up there (I know it is mentioned later), as well as adding "former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis, and noted criminal defense attorneys Roy Black and Marty Weinberg (I need to check on his name)" 2. Under "The Negotiation Phase," you say that one of the options Epstein was presented with was a Rule 11 plea to a federal charge, but that isn't correct. At that time, Alex was unwilling to do a Rule I I plea, so we were left with trying to find federal charges that he could plead to that resulted in the agreed imprisonment term. Maybe write: "In order to achieve this result, the parties considered two alternatives, a plea to federal charges that limited Epstein's sentencing exposure, or, as suggested by you, a plea to state charges encompassing Epstein's conduct." [Much later, Alex changed his mind, but by that time, Epstein's crew was on the "he didn't do anything wrong" bandwagon.] 3. Under -Delay," you may want to quote the language of the agreement, which clearly DID NOT contemplate a staggered plea and sentencing. (The true reason why they didn't plead on the November date was because the judge would have remanded him on that date, rather than let him stay out until January. Quite simply, this was not our problem, we have always maintained that the state court judge should do her own thing, so it wasn't a legitimate reason for further delay, but it essentially would have eliminated Epstein's plan to never spend a day in jail.] 4. In your conclusion, you may want to make one specific term explicit: "Therefore, as I proposed in my email to you on February 25, 2008, you shall have until , to comply with all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, including plea, sentence, and incarceration, as modified by the USA's December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez." 5. Not substantive, but I feel the need to defend my "grammar honor" so -- I know that you, Andy, and Alex (as well as defense counsel) all think that I have made up the word "registrable," but, according to The Oxford American Dictionary, the adjective form of "register" is "registrable." Thank you! A. Marie Vilitsfafia Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:19 PM To: VIllafana, Ann Mane C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: One other thing << File: EpsteinNoticeLtr0408.wpd >> 1081 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014891 EFTA00225295 From: Villafana, Ann Mane C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:52 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: One other thing One of our New York girls was contacted by someone claiming to represent Epstein. None of us (here in Florida) have ever disclosed to Epstein's group that we were even LOOKING at New York, so I am concerned that someone in DC may have leaked it, possibly involuntarily. Jeff— I haven't told the FBI about your one-week to take the deal thing, because they will not be happy. Can I take a look at your letter before you send it? Thank you. A. Marie Villafafla Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 1082 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014892 EFTA00225296 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sent: To: Subject: EpsteinNoticeltr 0408.wpd Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:19 PM Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) RE: One other thing From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFIS) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:52 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Semen, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: One other thing One of our New York girls was contacted by someone claiming to represent Epstein. None of us (here in Florida) have ever disclosed to Epstein's group that we were even LOOKING at New York, so I am concerned that someone in DC may have leaked it. possibly involuntarily. Jeff — I haven't told the FBI about your one-week to take the deal thing, because they will not be happy. Can I take a look at your letter before you send it? Thank you. A. Marie Villajana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 1089 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014893 EFTA00225297 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:52 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS): Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: One other thing One of our New York girls was contacted by someone claiming to represent Epstein. None of us (here in Florida) have ever disclosed to Epstein's group that we were even LOOKING at New York. so I am concerned that someone in DC may have leaked it, possibly involuntarily. Jeff— I haven't told the FBI about your one-week to take the deal thing, because they will not be happy. Can I take a look at your letter before you send it? Thank you. A. Marie Villutafia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 1085 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014894 EFTA00225298 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villatana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, May 09. 2008 4:53 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Another deeeeppppp sigh. Have a beer for me. Thank you. A. Mark Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 4:18 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Nothing. Not a damned thing. From: Villafana, Ann Mane C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 1:21 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Hi Bob — Before you go out carousing over the end of EARS week, any news? I leave on vacation tomorrow but I went and got myself a Blackberry so you can get me via e-mail. Karen Atkinson has been suffering through this with me. so you can also contact her with news/questions/etc. A. Marie ViligliMa Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 6:26 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Cc: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject; FW: Epstein Update following my call today to Drew. I'm thinking of calling sigal tomorrow Jeff just to get it from her directly. Again, whatever the outcome is we need to have some decision. 1059 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014895 EFTA00225299 From: Oosterbaan, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 6:23 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Bob, I got your message. According to DAAG Sigel Mandelker, Alice promised to get our letter on the Epstein matter out the door this week. Apparently she's reviewing all the material presented by the defense as well as what we've given her. I regret the delay. Drew Tracking: 1060 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014896 EFTA00225300 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday. May 09, 2008 1:21 PM To: Senior. Robert (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Hi Bob - Before you go out carousing over the end of EARS week, any news? I leave on vacation tomorrow hut I went and got myself a Blackberry so you can get me via e-mail. Karen Atkinson has been suffering through this with me, so you can also contact her with news/questions/etc. A. Marie Villafaila Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Me. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Fl. 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 6:26 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Cc: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Epstein Update following my call today to Drew. I'm thinking of calling Sigel tomorrow Jeff just to get it from her directly. Again, whatever the outcome is we need to have some decision. From: Oosterbaan, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 6:23 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Bob. I got your message. According to DAAG Sigel Mandelker, Alice promised to get our letter on the Epstein matter out the door this week. Apparently she's reviewing all the material presented by the defense as well as what we've given her. I regret the delay. Drew Tracking: 1062 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014897 EFTA00225301 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 5:09 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein How are things going down there? Our group just left today. A. Marie Villafatla Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 5:06 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Sorry, had yet another session with the EARS folks. I have heard nothing. From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 3:14 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Hi Bob - Since we didn't get to talk in person, I am bothering you via e-mail. We have a new development that I want to talk to you about. I am just about to start a conference call, but 1 will give you a ring around 3:45 or so. Hopefully by then you will have heard from DC??? Thank you. A. Marie Villafafta Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 1064 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014898 EFTA00225302 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 3:14 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Hi Bob - Since we didn't get to talk in person. I am bothering you via e-mail. We have a new development that I want to talk to you about. I am just about to start a conference call. but I will give you a ring around 3:45 or so. Hopefully by then you will have heard from DC??? Thank you. A. Marie Villafatia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 1067 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014899 EFTA00225303 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 1:07 PM To: Kurkendall, E N. (FBI); Richards, Jason R. (FBI) Subject: Your meeting Hi guys — I plan to call Bob Senior at around 2:00. Did anything interesting happen today that I can fill him in on? Thanks. A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 1069 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014900 EFTA00225304 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 6:44 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Did u hear? Okay. Have a good weekend Original Message From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 16 18:40:44 2008 Subject: Re: Did u hear? No. I'm out of the office. Alex called to tell me. He said the ltr needs to be tweaked which we'll do on Monday. I wouldn't call the FBI yet. Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 16 18:35:39 2008 Subject: Re: Did u hear? Thank you! Did your letter go out? I am wondering what to tell fbi Original Message From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 16 18:33:53 2008 Subject: Re: Did u hear? We got approved Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 16 18:20:48 2008 Subject: Re: Did u hear? Did I hear what? Original Message From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 16 17:50:55 2008 Subject: Did u hear? EXHIBIT B-I25 1053 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014901 EFTA00225305 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 6:41 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Did u hear? No. I'm out of the office. Alex called to tell me. He said the ltr needs to be tweaked which we'll do on Monday. I wouldn't call the FBI yet. Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 16 18:35:39 2008 Subject: Re: Did u hear? Thank you! Did your letter go out? I am wondering what to tell fbi Original Message From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 16 18:33:53 2008 Subject: Re: Did u hear? We got approved Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 16 18:20:48 2008 Subject: Re: Did u hear? Did I hear what? Original Message From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 16 17:50:55 2008 Subject: Did u hear? 1054 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014902 EFTA00225306 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 6:36 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Did u hear? Thank you! Did your letter go out? I am wondering what to tell fbi Original Message From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 16 18:33:53 2008 Subject: Re: Did u hear? We got approved Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 16 18:20:48 2008 Subject: Re: Did u hear? IIIII hear what? Original Message From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 16 17:50:55 2008 Subject: Did u hear? 1055 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014903 EFTA00225307 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 6:34 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Did u hear? We got approved Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 16 18:20:48 2008 Subject: Re: Did u hear? Did I hear what? Original Message From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 16 17:50:55 2008 Subject: Did u hear? 1056 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014904 EFTA00225308 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 6:21 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Did u hear? Did I hear what? Original Message From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Fri May 16 17:50:55 2008 Subject: Did u hear? 1057 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014905 EFTA00225309 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:11 AM To: Senior. Robert (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson. Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein? Any word? Alice's last day is a week away. Thanks 1058 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014906 EFTA00225310 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 4:19 PM To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Hi karen. Lucky you. You get to be the contact person re epstein while I am gone. I just talked to jeff and bob. They are getting ready to send out the letter to lefkowitz regarding the plea deal. The letter tells epstein's people to communicate only with you and me. I asked Jeff to call nesbitt and tell her what is going on. So she can lose her mind with him. I am sure that you enjoyed reading lefkowitz's email where he refers to our last call with him and starr as alex shunting them off to members of alex's staff. Lovely 1043 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014907 EFTA00225311 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:03 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS): Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject: Any word? Hi all. Any response to Jeff's letter yet? And Jeff have you spoken with nesbitt yet? I would like to ask her to get a bunch of stuff ready for june 3rd. Thank you. P.s. I just heard from the ausa in seattle and the copperfield investigation is continuing. 1042 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014908 EFTA00225312 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:10 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Any word? How did she take it? Original Message From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wed May 21 17:04:16 2008 Subject: RE: Any word? No response to the letter yet. I spoke to Nesbitt and explained everything. Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:03 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject: Any word? Hi all. Any response to jeff's letter yet? And jeff have you spoken with nesbitt yet? I would like to ask her to get a bunch of stuff ready for june 3rd. Thank you. P.s. I just heard from the ausa in seattle and the copperfield investigation is continuing. 1041 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014909 EFTA00225313 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:13 PM To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Any word? Hi karen. I am waiting for the demand to meet with the ag. The 3rd is perfect. Thank you! Original Message From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wed May 21 17:11:12 2008 Subject: RE: Any word? Haven't heard a word but I am so unworthy they won't call me. Jeff said he talked to Nesbitt. The subpoenas we are doing, do you want the girls from New York to come down on the 3rd? Hope you are having a great time. Have a glass of wine for me!!!! Karen Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:03 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject: Any word? Hi all. Any response to jeff's letter yet? And jeff have you spoken with nesbitt yet? I would like to ask her to get a bunch of stuff ready for june 3rd. Thank you. P.s. I just heard from the ausa in seattle and the copperfield investigation is continuing. 1040 08-80736-CV-MARRA 1)-014910 EFTA00225314 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:22 AM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Any word? Excellent. Thank you. Original Message From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wed May 21 17:15:06 2008 Subject: RE: Any word? Very well. She understood that some view the Agreement as still in play since we've allowed them to contest various issues. As a result, we decided to give them a reasonable period of time (two weeks) to comply. I explained that I would keep her apprised of any further developments and in the meantime she should plan for June 3rd. Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:10 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Any word? How did she take it? Original Message From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wed May 21 17:04:16 2008 Subject: RE: Any word? No response to the letter yet. I spoke to Nesbitt and explained everything. Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:03 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Subject: Any word? Hi all. Any response to jeff's letter yet? And jeff have you spoken with nesbitt yet? I would like to ask her to get a bunch of stuff ready for June 3rd. Thank you. P.s. I just heard from the aura in seattle and the copperfield investigation is continuing. 1039 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014911 EFTA00225315 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday. May 27, 2008 3:56 PM To: Senior. Robed (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Epstein Hi bob. I get back on saturday. I will spend sunday with nesbitt and monday with you. I will be there by 10:00 unless you need me there earlier. Original Message From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Sent: Tue May 27 15:24:50 2008 Subject: RE: Epstein Marie, are you back ? We need to spend some time together on the indictment. I was planning on Monday because I thought you were back that day but if you're already back let me know. By the way, Jeff and Alex have been very clear that we are not negotiating with this guy any more in any way. Thx. Bob Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:54 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Hi Jeff. Karen sent me an email about epstein wanting to do less time. I hope that his request will be denied. The original deal was supposed to be 2 years so he has already gotten a big break. Plus we have identified more victims since we agreed to the 18 months. Please keep me posted. Thanks. 1013 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014912 EFTA00225316 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:25 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Marie, are you back ? We need to spend some time together on the indictment. I was planning on Monday because I thought you were back that day but if you're already back let me know. By the way, Jeff and Alex have been very clear that we are not negotiating with this guy any more in any way. Thx. Bob Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:54 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Hi jeff. Karen sent me an email about epstein wanting to do less time. I hope that his request will be denied. The original deal was supposed to be 2 years so he has already gotten a big break. Plus we have identified more victims since we agreed to the 18 months. Please keep me posted. Thanks. 1014 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014913 EFTA00225317 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:09 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Marie/Karen, No one has contacted anyone in Miami. Please copy me and Bob on all communications. Thanks, Jeff Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:54 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Hi Jeff. Karen sent me an email about epstein wanting to do less time. I hope that his request will be denied. The original deal was supposed to be 2 years so he has already gotten a big break. Plus we have identified more victims since we agreed to the 18 months. Please keep me posted. Thanks. 1015 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014914 EFTA00225318 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: ViDeana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday. May 27. 2008 2:54 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS): Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Hi jeff. Karen sent me an email about epstein wanting to do less time. I hope that his request will be denied. The original deal was supposed to be 2 years so he has already gotten a big break. Plus we have identified more victims since we agreed to the 18 months. Please keep me posted. Thanks. 1016 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014915 EFTA00225319 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 1:20 PM To: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Epstein Please tell me you that you are joking. Maybe we should throw him a party and tell him we are sorry to have bothered him. Original Message From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tue May 27 10:27:10 2008 Subject: Epstein Don't know what is up but Barry talked to Rolando and according to Rolando said something about 90 days in jail. Rolando is talking to Jeff-he said. K 1017 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014916 EFTA00225320 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:27 AM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Don't know what is up but Barry talked to Rolando and according to Rolando said something about 90 days in jail. Rolando is talking to Jeff-he said. K 1019 08-80736-CV-MARRA PM 14917 EFTA00225321 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Kuyrkendali, E N. (FBI) Sent: Tuesday. May 27. 2008 12:24 PM To: Villafana. Ann Mane C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Mtg Marie, Hope you are having a Great time and resting up. I'm afraid our days will be busy when u get back:) Jason is out on Sunday, but I think u and I should be able to handle it. Let me know what time, I will keep the day open. New York is not going well. The Agents are still trying to locate (we now know here me) Lacerda but no luck thus far. When we ran the n TECS, a Marina dob 07/09/1990 departe on Jan 28, 2008 for Brazil and has not returne . We can not connect this with New Yo the age matches this may not be our gal. There is no record of a in Choicepoint or Accurint matching her description. We'll k We have spoken to the parents and a family attorney for Leanne but she does not want to speak with us. The Agents will keep at it this week in hopes that they will be able to locate and interview her. I'll email you as soon as I have more to report. It appears Joanne S. is residing in North Carolina now. Her house here is up for sale. We spoke with her mother and asked her to have Joanne contact us. The subpoenas u left have all been served. We had to redo Verizon's at their request but they said they could get us the info this week. Negative results at the storage unit. Unfortunately not much to report but we will stay at it. Email a time for Sunday and I let u know if we have any further developments. Nesbitt From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) (Ann.Marie.C.Villafana@usdoj.gov] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 9:37 AM To: Kuyrkendall, E N.; Richards, Jason R. Subject: Mtg Hi guys. Hope all is well. I understand that Jeff has explained the status. Can we meet on sunday june 1st to finalize everything so I can meet with bob on monday and we can present on tuesday? And what is the status of new york? Thanks 1018 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014918 EFTA00225322 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 9:37 AM To: Kuyrkendall, E N. (FBI); Richards, Jason R. (FBI) Subject: Mtg Hi guys. Hope all is well. I understand that jeff has explained the status. Can we meet on sunday june 1st to finalize everything so I can meet with bob on monday and we can present on tuesday? And what is the status of new york? Thanks 1020 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014919 EFTA00225323 • FD-302 (Rcv. 104-95) approximate 16 or 17. Miller. -1 - FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Pursuant to a federal sexual exploitation of minors, interviewed by the Federal Bure being advised of the ident' purpose of the interview, following information: Diatammmrocion 05/30/2008 rding the was (FBI). After the interviewing agents and voluntarily provided the met Jeffrey Epstein when she was 14 or 15 years old. ated eighth grade several times and was attend n• ga Middle School during the time period she met Epstein. She estimated that she went to Epstein's residence Imes from the age of 14 or 15 until the f wa duced to Epstein by her friend et at a middle school in Jupiter, Florida, But cney di n ecome friends until later when they lived near each other in West Palm Beach, Florida. while talking to each other at the Sti Victory Billiards, Miller asked guy a massage and make easy mone initial invitation but later went to residence with Miller. Miller told to get naked during the massage and her. Pill first there by t i with Epstein idence dur led by Last Name Unknown bedroom 'nto an area that had t pictures throughout the residence. faces shown on the nude pictures at walked into the room a began removing her clo undress." Miller Epstein toget her $200.00. seemed planned. because she brought to Eps ein. When Rivera was alone with Epstein, he requ her to rub his chest and squeeze his ' s he masturbated to ejaculation. Epstein touched chest and stomach area as he masturbated. Epstein got Stones Bar, now known as he wanted a declined nos Palm that she would have stein would touch s residence by traveling II. believed the to s . Rivera and were , upstairs, throw rs. There were nude noticed there were no idence. Epstei short time later wear owel. d Epstein told "You c were both naked gan massaging and Epstein gave left the room it given the money er left ed that ieved DIVOliptIOA 013 05/28/2008 at West Palm Beach, FL Filet 31E-MM-108062 SA E. Nesbitt Xuyrkendall by SA Jason R. Richards Date dictated 05/30/2008 FAIHBFFII-126 This &rument contains neither reicanmendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It Is the property of the FBI and is loaned m your agency. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA . P-003643 EFTA00225324 1O-302.4O4.v.10-6-95) 31E-MM-108062 COCIISMIIMItt of FD-302 of I czA- --F- .0o c5/213L2008 .Pagc 2 in the shower after he ejaculated. was paid $200.00 by Epstein and he told her he had fun. n asked for her telephone number and she wrote it down on a notepad that had his name printed on it. During their conversation, Epstein asked lived with, if she had a boyfriend and he asked he silently mouthed to Rivera, "don't lie," when Epstein aske Rivera's age. Rivera told Epstein her true age which she believed was 14 or 15. At a later contact, Epstein asked ■ about her birthday. Rivera told Epstein she was 16, which about a year older than her true age. Epstein replied by telling her it was ok and he did not care how old she was. Epstein told Rivera that he did not like girls that were older than 18 years old. Epstein told that when he really liked her and t 'fucked her." that he no longer iller to come to she was pregnant. including Rivera's cous n, Epstein's residence once wh' old. Epstein did not like her and did not again. Rivera also intr Epstein. Epstein's nee and was light first saw Epstein t his residence • ls to Eps went to ely 20 years want her brou Marsh was a heavy drug user. Last Name Unkno ), aka Je s younger than and visit e one time. Virginia a Spanish last described as 'th long brown hair, freckles yes. LNU attended Okeeheelee Middle LNU we tein's residence prior to act with him. During one of their conveys ions, Epstein asked Rivera, "Do you know that girl Jenny that Tatum brought?" At the conclusi Rivera directed the interviewing agents to residence, 2319 Avenue Barcelona Este, loca Cove trailer park. sessions reason. LNU to ma LNU would Palm Beach. each LNU, e interview, LNU's he Tavares was usually paid $200.00 to $300.00 for the 'stein. She was given $100.00 one time f was usually contacted telephonically by gements to go to Epstein's residence. call a day or two ahea eir scheduled arm in Epstein also called occasionally from his residence. Another fe , amed Natasha, Natalia or who was described as tall with straight brown hair Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-003644 EFTA00225325 VV. VVV V /V. A • ro-3021 (Rau. 10-6-95) 31E-MM-10S062 Continuation of 170.302 of ,01105/28/2008 ,Page 3 and having an unknown accent, also set appointments for to be with Epstein. S -s Epstein's massage equipme already in place when arrived at Epstein's residence and other times she hri to e massage table out of a closet and lotions out of a esser drawer. During one of E stein offered to pay p r sexual intercourse, clined a later request stein masturbated all but was with him. with Epstein. breasts and leg also used a white one of her vis touched her. it as bigger a Epstein has a hairy chest. vibrating device stein asked has touched E op than at the bottom. visits to Epstein's residence, 0 for oral sex 0 to $600 declined both. also tein to have se er one or two of the occasions of engage in oral sex or sexual intercourse advised that Epstein had fondled her igitally penetrated her vagina. Epstein ly on her vagina during if she liked it when he s penis and described also stated traveled to Epstein's residence by herself after her first mee ng with Epstei e primarily traveled to the residence by taxi. Epstein, he aforementioned girl with the unknown accent taxi cab fares. was aware that her friend, been to Ep ein s residence. wild -1 at Rivera's grandmo use. residence prior to also friends with private investigat pis) Tor pstein's attorneys and that the stigators had contacted Wild. The PIS inquired about age when she was with Epstein an uch money she was pal by Epstein. Th lso asked use. The PIS re a few moth nd she asked them to leave. h observed the PIS driving by her residence in a s ility vehicle. had ivera e went to El.'s with him. was advised that she m h was a marijuana user but during her v s s to Epstein's residence. Panax and cocaine until later. At age 17, grandmother's car and her grandmother press was ordered to a drug program at Milton Girls she about her drug did not use drugs id not use ges. crashelIIIII Juvenile Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P4M3645 EFTA00225326 WOW Mew. 10495) 31E-MM-108062 COrUinuatiOA of FD-302 of .0n 05/28/2008 .r.se Residential Facility in Milton, Florida. stated she was in the drug program for 5 months, one week an 3 days. Epstein offered to pay an extra $100.00 to if she brought additiona ' ls to him. Epstein asked I'll' o provide a massage to LNU but the massage neve lace. Illillibelieves Epstein should be prosecuted for his actions. 4 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 404.?Vq6 EFTA00225327 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) <JSloman@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:25 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: draft letter to DAG EXHIBIT B-I27 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014941 57 EFTA00225328 U.S. Department of Justice IOW AssWant U.S. Attorney 99 N.E 4th Street United States Attorney Southern District of Miami. FL 3.3132 O05)961-9100 DELIVERY BY FEDERAL EXPRESS June 2, 2008 Honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 PermsylvilAvenue, N.W. Washington, 20530 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Judge Filip, Jeffrey Epstein is a part-time resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that, over a two-year period, Epstein paid approximately 28 minor females from Royal Palm Beach High School to come to his house for sexual favors. In July 2006, the matter was presented to AUSA A. Marie Villafana of our West Palm Beach branch office to pursue a formal criminal investigation. That investigation resulted in the discovery of approximately one dozen additional minor victims. Over the last several months, approximately six more minor victims have been identified. AUSA Villafana has been ready to present an indictment to a West Palm Beach federal grand jury since May 2007. The prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment have been extensively reviewed and re-reviewed by Southern District of Florida (SDFL) Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division Andrew Lourie, Chief of the Criminal Division Matthew Menchel I, First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman, United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various members of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) at the Department of Justice including, but not limited to its Chief, Andrew G. Oosterbahn. Many of these legal and factual issues have been discussed and approved by Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (DAAG) Sigal Mandelker and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (AAG) Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the petit policy. Mr. Menchel resigned for private_practice on August 3 2007 and was replaced by Robert Senior_ 08;80736-CV-MARRA P-014942 EFTA00225329 By May 2007, AUSA Villafana began seeking approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was Andrew Lourie. Mr. Lourie had served as the Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ as well as in several supervisory positions in the SDFL. By mid-2006, he had returned to his position as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division in West Palm Beach (head of the West Palm Beach branch office), after serving as the interim Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ at the request of AAG Fisher. By October 2007, Mr. Lourie would leave the SDFL to become AAG Fisher's Chief of Staff.2 Above Mr. Lourie in the SDFL's chain of command were Matthew Menchel, Criminal Division Chief, First Assistant USA Sloman and finally, U.S. Attorney Acosta. Prior to seeking approval to return an indictment, Epstein's legal team had been actively working to convince this Office that such action was not warranted. The legal team has consisted of many different local and national lawyers and law firms. It appears as though each lawyer and/or firm became actively involved depending upon which person from the SDFL and/or DOJ component was involved in the process. For example, at the end of 2006, former SDFL U.S. Attorney and EOUSA Executive Director Guy Lewis contacted AUSA Villafana when he learned that she was handling the federal investigation of Epstein. He asked to meet with her but she said that she believed such a meeting would be premature. In December, Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt again contacted AUSA Villafana to set a meeting. In advance of such a meeting, AUSA Villafana requested documents but that request was refused. Ms. Sanchez then contacted Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division, Andrew Lourie, who agreed to meet with Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Lefcourt. On February 1, 2007, Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Lefcourt met with AUSAs Lourie and Villafana, as well as a member of the FBI, and presented defense counsel's view of the case, and promised a willingness to assist in the investigation. The SDFL was unpersuaded by their presentation and the investigation continued. By the late Spring and early Summer, the focus of the investigation left investigating the facts of the victims' claims and turned more to Epstein's background, his asserted defenses, co-conspirators, and possible witnesses who could corroborate the victims' statements. The investigation also began to look into financial aspects of the case, requiring the issuance of several subpoenas. At the time, Mr. Lefcourt began leveling accusations of improprieties with the investigation and sought a meeting with Criminal Division Chief Matthew Menchel. By that time, the proposed initial indictment package had been reviewed and approved by Mr. Lourie in West Palm Beach and by attorneys with CEOS; however, it awaited review by Mr. Menchel and me/FAUSA Sloman. The SDFL deferred presenting the indictment to the grand jury to accommodate the Epstein legal team's request for a meeting. We also agreed to wait several weeks for that meeting to occur to allow four of Epstein's attorneys to be present, and also provided counsel with a list of the statutes that were the subject of the investigation. On June 26, 2007, Mr. Menchel, Mr. Lourie, AUSA Villafana, and FAUSA Sloman, and two FBI agents met with Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. During that meeting Professor Dershowitz and other members of the defense team presented 2Rolando Garcia replaced Mr. Lourie as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division. 08-80736-qV-MARRA P-014943 EFTA00225330 legal and factual arguments against a federal indictment. Counsel for the defense also requested the opportunity to present written arguments, which was granted. The arguments and written materials provided by the defense were examined by the SDFL and rejected. On July 31, 2007, Mr. Menchel, Mr. Lourie, AUSA Villafana, and FAUSA Simian, and two FBI agents met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. On that date, the SDFL presented a written sheet of terms that would satisfy the SDFL's federal interest in the case and discussed the substance of those terms. One of those terms was: Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 2422 and/or 2423. During that meeting, the focus was on Mr. Epstein's unwillingness to spend time in prison, and various suggestions were raised by defense counsel, including the proposal that he could serve a sentence of home confinement or probation. This was repeatedly mentioned by counsel for Epstein as being equivalent to a term of imprisonment in a state or federal prison. Epstein's counsel mentioned their concerns about his safety in prison, and the SDFL offered to explore a plea to a federal charge to allow Epstein to serve his time in a federal facility. Counsel were also presented with a conservative estimate of the sentence that Epstein would face if he were convicted: an advisory guideline range of 188 - 235 months' incarceration with a five-year mandatory minimum prison term, to be followed by lifetime supervised release. Counsel was told that Epstein had two weeks to accept or reject the proposal. It is critical to note that Ms. Sanchez, one of Epstein's local lawyers, seized upon this method of restitution as a condition of deferring federal prosecution. In referring to the 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 method of compensation, Ms. Sanchez stated: [t]his would allow the victims to be able to promptly put this behind them and go forward with their lives. If given the opportunity to opine as to the appropriateness of Mr. Epstein's proposal, in my extensive experience in these types of cases, the victims prefer a quick resolution with compensation for damages and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. See attached August 2, 2007 letter from Lilly Ann Sanchez to SDFL Criminal Division Chief Menchel, p.2, fn 1. Ironically, it is Epstein's gnationar attorneys who are now representing to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States in their May 19, 2008 letter that: Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition of deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with personal relationships 08-80736-q-MARFtA P-014944 EFTA00225331 to some of the prosecutors involved. Not only did Epstein's lawyers like the idea of using 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 to compensate the victims but, they also sought to make their non-incarcerative state proposal even more attractive by offering payments to "a charitable organization benefitting victims of sexual assault," "law enforcement investigative costs" and "Court and probationary costs." Id. at p. 2. Epstein's counsel, still dissatisfied with the Office's review of the case, demanded to meet with U.S. Attorney Acosta and to have the opportunity to meet with someone in Washington, • To accommodate Mr. Black, the meeting was put off until September 7, 2007, despite the •actthat the indictment was ready for presentation to the grand jury. In the interim, AUSA Villafana and the investigators met with CEOS Chief Oosterbahn, to review, yet again, the evidence and legal theories of prosecution. Chief Oosterbahn strongly supported the indictment and even offered to join the trial team and provide additional support from CEOS. On September 7, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta met with Kirkland & Ellis partners Jay Lefkowitz and former Solicitor General Ken Starr and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief Oosterbahn and AUSAs Villafana, John McMillan, and FAUSA Sloman. Messrs. Star and Lefkowitz presented arguments regarding the sufficiency of the federal interest in the case and other legal and factual issues. We discussed those legal arguments and the unanimous opinion of all of the attorneys present was in favor of prosecution. During that meeting, Mr. Lefkowitz also offered a plea resolution. His offer, in essence, was that Epstein be subjected to home confinement at his Palm Beach home, using private security officers who would serve as his "wardens," if necessary. Mr. Lefkowitz expressed the belief that such a sentence would be particularly appropriate because, as a wealthy white man, he may be the subject of violence or extortion in prison. Finally, Messrs. Star and Lefkowitz expressed the belief that Epstein's extensive philanthropy should be considered in our prosecution decision. U.S. Attorney Acosta summarily rejected these proposals, and indicated that the 24-month offer presented previously by the SDFL stood. The issue of the inclusion of a restitution-type remedy for the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 was specifically raised and discussed at the September 7th meeting, and Mr. Starr thanked AUSA Villafana for bringing it to his attention as a novel approach to allowing the victims to receive essentially federal restitution while allowing a plea to a state charge. After considering everything said and written by Epstein's legal team, and after conferring with Chief Oosterbahn, U.S. Attorney Acosta informed Epstein's counsel that the SDFL still intended to proceed to indictment. Since counsel indicated a desire to appeal the matter to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Acosta agreed to delay the presentation of the indictment for two weeks to allow them to speak with someone in Washington, M., if they so chose. Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiate the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and on September 12, 2007, counsel for the SDFL (AUSAs Lourie, Garcia, and Villafana) and counsel for Epstein (Messrs. Lefcourt, Lefkowitz, and Goldberger) met with Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krisher and Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek to discuss a plea to an 08-80736-7-MARRA P-014945 EFTA00225332 Information in the state court that would satisfy the federal interest in the case. As noted on the term sheet of July 3191, one of those essential terms was a guilty plea to a charge requiring sex offender registration. During that meeting, the issue of sex offender registration was raised, and Mr. Goldberger told the federal prosecutors that there was no problem, Mr. Epstein would plead guilty to the charge of solicitation of minors for prostitution (Fl. Stat. 796.03), which was one of the statutes listed on the original term sheet. Although the SDFL had wanted Epstein to plead guilty to three different offenses, we agreed to this compromise.3 Of course, the SDFL later learned that, at the time Mr. Goldberger made that statement, he incorrectly believed, based upon a statement from ASA Belohlavek, that Fl. Stat. Section 796.03 did no: require sex offender registration. The parties then began working first on a plea agreement to a federal charge and, when it was clear that there was no guarantee that Epstein would serve his sentence in a minimum security prison camp, the discussion turned to a Non-Prosecution Agreement. Both the federal plea agreement and the Non-Prosecution Agreement included references to Section 2255 because neither the contemplated federal charges nor the proposed state charges encompassed all of the identified victims. If Epstein had been prosecuted under the planned indictment, the identified victims would have been eligible for restitution and damages under Section 2255. As explained above, one of our interests, which had to be satisfied by the Non-Prosecution Agreement, was providing appropriate compensation to the victims. This provision of the Agreement was heavily negotiated. As Mr. Lefkowitz wrote in his November 29th e-mail to FAUSA Sloman, Epstein "offered to provide a restitution fund for the alleged victims in this matter; however, that option was rejected by [our] Office." That option was rejected for several reasons. First, the SDFL does not serve as legal representatives to the victims and has no authority to bind victims, nor could it provide a monetary figure that would represent a "loss° amount for restitution purposes. Second, there would be no legal basis for federal restitution without a conviction for a federal offense. And, third, it was the U.S. Attorney's belief that the SDFL should not be put in the position of administering a restitution fund. Our Section 2255 proposal put the victims in the same position that they would have been in if we had proceeded to trial and convicted Epstein of his crimes, with the exception that the victims were provided with counsel. The appointment of counsel was not such a benefit to the victims but, rather, was done, in part, to benefit Epstein by allowing him to try to privately negotiate a group resolution of all claims with one attorney. Epstein and his lawyers agreed with this alternative. The negotiation of the Agreement was lengthy and difficult. Mr. Lefkowitz and AUSA Villafana went through several drafts of both a federal plea agreement and a Non-Prosecution Agreement. Throughout these negotiations, when a member of the defense team was dissatisfied with the SDFL's position, it was repeatedly appealed throughout the Office. So several members of the defense team spoke with the chain of command regarding the terms of the Agreement, including the Section 2255 provisions. At the eleventh hour, when Epstein's legal team realized 1 Another significant compromise reached at the meeting was a reduction in the amount of jail time - from 24 months down to 18 months, which would be served at the Palm Beach County Jail rather than a state prison facility. 08-80736-qV-MARRA P-014946 EFTA00225333 that Fl. Stat. 796.03 would require him to register as a sex offender, they sought to change the most essential term of the agreement - a term that Messrs. Goldberger, Letkowitz, and Lefcourt had specifically agreed to at the September 12th meeting with the State Attorney's Office - asking to allow Epstein to plead to a charge that would not require registration. When this was rejected, several members of the defense team appealed directly to U.S. Attorney Acosta which also failed. When that failed, according to press reports, apparently Mr. Lefcourt "leaked" a letter intended for the U.S. Attorney to the press containing the reasons why he/L,efcourt did not believe Epstein should have to register. Prior to signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein's defense team included Ken Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Guy Lewis, Martin Weinberg, Jack Goldberger, Stephanie Thacker, and the associates at Kirkland & Ellis who conducted research on discrete issues. This impressive legal team reviewed the Agreement and counseled Epstein. Based upon that counsel, Epstein decided that it was in his best interest to execute the Non-Prosecution Agreement which was signed on September 24, 2007 by Mr. Lefcourt, Ms. Sanchez and Epstein. A copy of which is attached hereto. The core principles of the Agreement are incarceration, registration as a sex offender and a method of compensation.4 Furthermore, and significantly, Epstein agreed that he had the burden of ensuring compliance of the Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office and the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit and 'that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement" (emphasis added). To this day, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to Epstein's lawyers. Within a week of the execution of the Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. This was done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection of the attorney representative. AS a result, the parties executed an addendum which documented the SDFL's right to assign the selection of an attorney representative to an independent third-party. A copy of the October 29, 2007 Addendum is a ereto. The parties subsequently agreed that retired Federal Diajfacourt Judge Edward B. should be that independent third-party. Ultimately, Judge selected Robert C. Jose s rg of the law firm of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, et al. During this same time frame, Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz sought to delay the entry of his guilty plea and sentence. After the SDFL accommodated his request (from October 26th to November 20th), Mr. Starr began taking issue with the methodology of compensation, notification to the victims, and the issues that had been previously considered and rejected during negotiations, i.e., that the conduct does not require 4 Specifically, the Agreement mandates, inter alia, (I) a guilty plea in Palm Beach County Circuit Court to solicitation of prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.07) and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03) (an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender); (2) a 30-month sentence including 18 months' incarceration in county jail; (3) a methodology to compensate the victims identified by the United States utilizing 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 such that they would be placed in the same position as if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in Title I 8, United States Code, Section 2255; (4) entry of the guilty plea and sentence no later than October 26, 2007; and (5) the start of the above-mentioned sentence no later than January 4, 2008. 08-80736-c5V-MARRA P-014947 EFTA00225334 registration and the contemplated state and federal statutes have no applicability to the instant matter. In response to Mr. Starr's protests. the SDFL offered numerous and various reasonable modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in U.S. Attorney Acosta's attached December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez. In that letter, U.S. Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate a//concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "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." Mr. Starr also objected to the SOFLis intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal: Il(w)e will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he 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." These proposals were immediately rejected by Epstein. Sec attached December 26, 2007 correspondence from lay Lefkowitz ICI USA Acosta. At our December 14, 2007 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, counsel for Epstein articulated that it was a "profound injustice" to require Epstein to register as a sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b), had been committed since the statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading or inducing. This particular attack on this statute had been previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by the SDFL and CEOS prior to the execution of the Agreement. Epstein's lawyers also argued that the facts were inapplicable to the contemplated state statutes and that he should not have been allowed to have been induced into the Agreement because the facts were not what he understood them to be. To reiterate, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to anyone on the Epstein legal team. Once counsel for Epstein failed to persuade us that federal involvement was inappropriate, they mounted an aggressive campaign to defer federal prosecution. They did this by offering to restitute victims and make other payments in hopes of avoiding incarceration and registration as a sex offender. When we refused to compromise on anything except the length of incarceration, they finally executed the Agreement realizing the federal alternative exposed Epstein to too much jail time. Subsequent to the December 14, 2007 meeting, the SDFL received three letters from Mr. Lefkowitz and/or Mr. Starr which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 146 meeting. Essentially, trying to portray the SDFL as trying to coerce a plea to unknown allegations and incoherent theories. In his December 17, 2007 correspondence, Mr. Lefkowitz decreed that Epstein's conduct did not meet the requirements of one of the state statutes Epstein agreed to plead guilty to - solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. Section 796.03); that Epstein's conduct does not require registration under Florida law in contravention of the September 246 Agreement; and the State Attorney's Office does not 08-80736-C7V-MARRA P-014948 EFTA00225335 believe the conduct is registrable. On December 21,2007, Mr. Lefkowitz rejected the US. Attorney's proposed resolution of the 2255 provision because they "strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 U.S.C. Section(s) 2422(b) ... or ... 2423(b)." In his December 26. 2007 correspondence, he stated that "we have reiterated in previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is guilty of the federal charges enumerated under section 2255" and requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not commit the requisite offense." The SDFL reiterated time and time again that it had never wanted nor expected Epstein to plead guilty to a charge he does not believe he committed. As a result, the SDFL obliged his request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such a review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. As you know, on May 15, 2008, after months of considering the matter, the Criminal Division considered whether there is a legitimate basis for the U.S. Attorney's Office to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn concluded that "federal prosecution would not be improper or inappropriate." See attached May 15, 2008 letter from CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn to Jay Lefkowitz. On May 19, 2008, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz that the SDFL would give Epstein a full two weeks (close of business on Monday, June 2, 2008) to comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez.5 The SDFL was recently notified that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General has agreed to consider additional allegations not considered by CEOS which were recently raised in correspondence by two former high-ranking members of the Department of Justice - Ken Starr and Joe Whitley. On May 28, 2008, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz by e-mail that the SDFL has postponed the June 2, 2008 deadline until the DAG's Office has completed its review of this matter. Their correspondence to the DAG alleges that the SDFL's investigation lacks integrity because it has leaked "highly confidential aspects" of the investigation and negotiations to the New York Times and that I/FAUSA Sloman directed some of the victims to my former law partner. They also claim that the "unprecedented extension of federal law" by the SDFL suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that 1/FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from seeking your Office's review and that "the unnecessary deadline is even more problematic because Mr. Epstein's effort to reconcile the state charge and sentence with the terms of the Agreement requires an unusual and unprecedented threatened application of federal law." 1. The Alleged 'Leak `to the New York Times. Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on notice on February 25, 2008, that in the event that CEOS disagreed with Epstein's position, I would give Epstein one week to comply with the tenns and conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 10 letter to Ms. Sanchez. 08-80736-C8V-MARRA P-014949 EFTA00225336 AUSA David Weinstein became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the District's Public Information Officer (PIO). While the District's PIO was on annual leave, he was the acting PIO during the first week of January 2008. The entirety of his conduct in connection with the Epstein matter began on January 2, 2008 and ended on January 7, 2008.6 Specifically, his contact involved five telephone conversation with Landon Thomas, a reporter for the New York Times. These conversations occurred on 1) the morning of January 2, 2008, 2) the afternoon of January 2, 2008, 3) the afternoon of January 3, 2008, 4) the afternoon of January 4, 2008, and 5) the afternoon of January 7, 2008. A. The Morning of anuary Z 2008. AUSA Weinstein began his conversation with Mr. Thomas by explaining that he was the acting PIO for the week and that he had received Mr.Thomas's December 31, 2007 e-mail requesting an interview and asking for comments on the following five statements.7 First, "that in the summer of 2005 the palm beach police department referred the Epstein case to you." Second, "that the case is being overseen by Jeffrey Sloman, and above him, R. Alexander Acosta." Third, "that Mr. Acosta has made child pornography a focus are [sic) for your office." Fourth, "that this summer your office gave Mr. Epstein an ultimatum: plead guilty to a charge that would require him to register as a sex offender, or the government would release a 52 page indictment, charging him with crimes that could include procuring sex for a third party or engaging in sexual tourism. Both of these charges carry jail sentences of as much as 15years." Fifth, "that your office told Mr. Epstein and his lawyers: we are ready to pull the trigger." Sixth, "I also wanted to ask Mr. Sloman about his role in a case involving Jonathan Zirulnikoff and his daughter earlier thisyear." At the outset, Weinstein said that he could not comment on any specific pending matters and that he would do his best to answer some of his questions. Thomas said that his questions were based, in part, upon conversations that he had already had with members of Mr. Epstein's defense team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information available through the State Court system. Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told him that any matter arising out of conduct in Palm Beach County, was prosecuted by our West Palm Beach branch office. He also told him that as First Assistant, the FAUSA had supervisory authority over all AUSAs throughout the District. In turn, the FAUSA answered directly to the U.S. Attorney. In response to the third question, Weinstein discussed the difference between child exploitation and child pornography. Weinstein said that federal crimes involving child exploitation were one of several focus points of our Office. He further explained that in addition 6 AUSA Weinstein has self-reported to the Office of Professional Responsibility. 7After reviewing his e-mail, AUSA Weinstein discussed the matter with U.S. Attorney Acosta. Pursuant to USAM 1-7.530 and the Media Relations Guide, Section 111 D2, after consultation with and prior approval from the US Attorney, he called Mr. Thomas on the morning of January 2nd. 08-80736-SV-MARRA P-014950 EFTA00225337 to traditional federal areas of prosecution the other focus points included health care fraud and gang prosecutions. Weinstein refused to answer the fourth and fifth topics but did discuss the general nature of pre-trial proceedings in federal court. He said that the SDFL does not offer ultimatums, nor are we in the business of issuing ultimatums. He explained that in cases where a party wants to plead guilty prior to indictment, we will discuss the parameters of guilty pleas and that people always have the right to proceed to trial if they choose to do so and that we do not favor one resolution over the other. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that he would not discuss his specific question about Mr. Epstein's lawyer's statement that someone from our Office told them that "we are ready to pull the trigger." Nor would he discuss anything about who might or might not be representing Mr. Epstein. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that he should not allow himself to be spun one way or the other in response to statements Mr. Thomas said he had received from attorneys who said that they represented Mr. Epstein. Weinstein ended the conversation by telling Mr. Thomas that he would check further into his sixth and final topic and get back to him later in the day. B. Afternoon of January 2, 2008. Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that in regard to his sixth topic, the SDFL had no reason to question FAUSA Sloman's judgment or integrity. He also said that this particular subject matter was a private matter that FAUSA Sloman did not want to discuss with him.8 Mr. Thomas told him that if he had any further questions, he would call back. C. Afternoon of January 3, 2008. This call was in response to a voice mail message that Mr. Thomas had left regarding legal issues involving specific state and federal statutes. Specifically, Mr. Thomas had some questions about the burden of proof and strict liability in some state and federal statutes that governed illegal sexual activity. Again, Weinstein told him that he would not discuss any specific cases, but that he would assist him in understanding the statutes about which he had some questions. Weinstein explained that some statutes contained defenses that must be proven 8 The case involving "Jonathan Zirulnikoff" involved a March 7, 2007 early morning attempted break-in of my/Sloman's house. Zirulnikoff, age 19 at the time, confessed and said that he wanted to "talk" to my daughter who was then 16. He also confessed to a prior unrelated break in which Zirulnikoff caressed the inner thigh of a 15 year old female. Zirulnikoff who had graduated from my daughter's high school in June 2006, dated my daughter's friend and had little if any contact with my daughter for over one year. Zirulnikoff negotiated a plea deal, over my objection, with the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office to a misdemeanor trespass. That conviction resulted in a sentence of two years probation and a withhold of adjudication upon successful completion of his probationary period. Since this information was completely irrelevant to the facts and issues in the instant Epstein matter, I refused to allow Mr. Weinstein to comment about this matter to Mr. Thomas. Furthermore, none of this information had been publicized and, upon information and belief, only one member of Epstein's legal team knew anything about this matter, my former colleague, Lilly Ann Sanchez. 08-80736-g-MARRA P-014951 EFTA00225338 by a defendant, while there were other statutes that did not require a defendant to affirmatively prove a defense. The discussion centered around Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(g). Once again, Mr. Thomas told Weinstein that if he had any further questions, he would call back. Afternoon ofJanuary 4, 2008. This was another call in response to a voice mail message that Mr. Thomas had left regarding some additional questions. Weinstein prefaced the conversation by saying that he would not discuss any specific cases. The conversation centered around three specific statutes, 18 United States Code, Section 2422(b), 18 United States Code, Section 1591, and 18 United States Code, Section 2423(b) as well as the burden of proof and the applicability of affirmative defenses. They discussed the difference between an attempt and a substantive charge pursuant to Section 2422(b) and how that affected the government's burden of proof vis-a-vis the age of a child. They also discussed the fact that a charge pursuant to Section 1591 required the government to prove that the defendant had actual knowledge of the age of the victim. Finally, they discussed the fact that if the government was charging a defendant with traveling to engage in prostitution, pursuant to Section 2423(b), there was an affirmative defense available to the defendant regarding the reasonable belief of the defendant about the age of the victim. E. Afternoon of January 7, 2008. This final call was made after the U.S. Attorney and FAUSA Sloman had received a call from a member of Mr. Epstein's defense team alleging that the SDFL had provided case specific information to the media. Weinstein called Mr. Thomas who acknowledged that both before and after each of the above-mentioned conversations, he had also called attorneys who were representing Mr. Epstein on his pending State charges. Mr. Thomas also acknowledged that all of our prior conversations had been about general legal issues and that Weinstein never spoke about any specific case. Since the January 7,2008 conversation, Weinstein has not had any further contact with Mr. Thomas. 2. Herman 5/omen & Merme/stein. Seven years ago, I resigned from the SDFL for private practice. Less than five months later, I resigned from the law firm and returned to the SDFL. Public records reflect the following: on May 8, 2001, articles of amendment were filed with the Florida Division of Corporations to reflect that the firm name of "Herman & Mermelstein" was changed to "Herman Sloman & Mermelstein" on May 7, 2001. I joined the firm at that time and remained a non-equity partner until on or about October 1, 2001. At that time, I resigned from the firm and returned to the SDFL. Since I was a partner in name only, I never retained any interest in the firm nor did I ever receive any compensation other than my final paycheck. That was over six and one half years ago. Unbeknownst to me, on July 2, 2002, articles of amendment were filed with the Florida Division of Corporations to reflect that the firm name of °Herman Sloman & Mermelstein" was changed back to "Herman & Mermelstein." The article of amendment indicates the amendment was adopted on July 1, 2002, without shareholder action. Although the filing was not immediate upon my depanure from the law firm, it pre-dated for years any dealings with the subject case now under 08-80736-W-MARRA P-014952 EFTA00225339 consideration by the SDFL. Recently, I learned that there is a reference to the law firm of "Herman S/un,an& Mermelstein" on the Florida Bar website, under a section called "Find A Lawyer." This reference appears when Stuart Mermelstein's name and information is accessed. To reiterate, since October 2001,1 have had no relationship with that law firm, financial or otherwise, and no input or control over the firm's filings with the Florida Division of Corporations and/or the Florida Bar. On Friday, January 18, 2008, at approximately 1:15 pm, I received a call from Jeffrey Herman of Herman & Mermelsteln. Herman said that he was planning to file a civil lawsuit the next week against Jeffrey Epstein. He said that his clients were frustrated with the lack of progress of the state's investigation and wanted to know whether the SDFL could file criminal charges even though the state was looking into the matter. I told Herman that I would nor answer any question related to Epstein — hypothetical or otherwise. I asked him how his clients retained him and he said that it was through another lawyer. I then specifically asked him whether the referral was the result of anyone in law enforcement contacting him and/or the other lawyer. He said no. At the conclusion of the conversation, I reiterated and confirmed with him that I had refused to answer any questions he asked of me. I immediately documented this conversation and informed the U.S. Attorney who informed Senior Litigation Counsel and Ethics Advisor Dexter Lee. AUSA Lee opined that he did not see a conflict. 3. The Alleged Unprecedented Extension of Federal Law. It is my hope that this letter has sufficiently explained how thoroughly this matter has been reviewed, how seriously the issues have been considered, and how additional delays may adversely affect the case going forward and, more importantly, the victims. Attached please find the proposed prosecution memo and indictment. You are invited to evaluate whether I, along with U.S. Attorney Acosta, Criminal Division Chiefs Menchel and, later Robert Senior, Deputy Criminal Division Chiefs Lourie, followed by Rolando Garcia, and AUSA Villafana have somehow steered this investigation toward "an unprecedented extension of federal taw"despite being simultaneously and/or subsequently reviewed by CEOS, DAAG Mandelker, and AAG Fisher. I also hope that the reputations of the above-mentioned professional prosecutors combined with the documented layers of methodical and thorough review of all issues raised by Epstein are enough to summarily dismiss the idea that this matter is politically motivated. It seems incomprehensible how Messrs. Starr and Whitley could expect further review when the due process rights of their client have been considered and reconsidered to the point of absurdity. In contrast to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's allegation that my June 2, 2008 deadline was "arbitrary, unfair, and unprecedented," please consider that Mr. Lefkowitz was advised several months ago (February) that in the event that CEOS disagreed with his position, Epstein would be given one-week to comply with the Agreement. I expanded that from one to two-weeks. Furthermore and more importantly, please consider that all further delays will have the following impact: (1) at the time of the offenses, the victims ranged in age from 14 to 17 years old. The change in physical appearance of many of the victims since then has been dramatic. Epstein has been claiming that he did not know they were minors. Obviously, the older they look when the case is at issue, the 08-80736-W-MARRA P-014953 EFTA00225340 harder it will be to overcome that defense; (2) it allows Epstein's lawyers to conduct depositions of the victims in the pending state criminal case and allows his private investigators to further harass and intimidate the victims; (3) more victims will seek the services of civil lawyers to file lawsuits thus allowing Epstein to make more powerful arguments demeaning the credibility of the victims; (4) the federal grand jury which has dozens of hours invested in this matter will soon expire and re-presenting this matter to a new grand jury will cause a hardship upon the agents and prosecutors; (5) the prosecutors and agents may retire, transfer and/or leave the Department for other opportunities thus affecting the potential outcome and prosecutorial resources. Additionally, several of the victims have relocated thus increasing the likelihood that crucial witnesses will be lost; (6) the SDFL has afforded more consideration to Epstein's arguments than any other defendant in my years of being the FAUSA and, before that, the Chief of the Criminal Division (January 1, 2004 to the present). I believe that we have been disproportionally fair to Epstein at the expense of other matters; and (7) prolonged delay may adversely affect the statute of limitations for some of the victims. On behalf of the SDFL and the victims in this case, I would request an expedited review and decision of the issues raised by the above-mentioned May 27, 2008 letter from Messrs. Starr and Whitley. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant United States Attorney Ends. cc: Robert Senior, Chief Criminal Division A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Atkinson Assistant U.S. Attorney 08-80736-cy-MARRA P-014954 EFTA00225341 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: a Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) <JSloman@usa.doj.gov> Tuesday, June 03, 200810:40 AM Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Campos, Cyndee (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) please review 08-80736-CV-MARRA se EXHIBIT B-128 P-014955 EFTA00225342 U.S. Department of Justice First ..4ssisiani U.S. Attorney 99 N.E. ith Siren Miami. FL 3313.2 O051 961.9100 United States Attorney Southern District of DELIVERY BY FEDERAL EXPRESS June 3, 2008 Honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, 20530 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Judge Filip, Jeffrey Epstein was a part-time resident of Palm Beach County, Florida! In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that, over a two-year period, Epstein paid approximately 28 minor females from Royal Palm Beach High School to come to his house for sexual favors.2 In July 2006, the matter was presented to AUSA A. Marie Villafalta of our West Palm Beach branch office to pursue a formal criminal investigation. That investigation resulted in the discovery of approximately one dozen additional minor victims. Over the last several months, approximately six more minor victims have been identified. Epstein has not resided in Palm Beach since he learned of the instant investigation. 2 Epstein's sexual conduct with the victims included: instructing them to massage and pinch his nipples, masturbating in their presence, digitally penetrating them, using a vibrator on their vaginas, engaging in oral sex with them, having the victims perform oral sex on Epstein's adult girlfriend, and engaging in sexual intercourse, all in exchange for money, ranging from $200 to $1,000 per session. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014956 EFTA00225343 AUSA Villafana has been ready to present an indictment to a West Palm Beach federal grand jury since May 2007. The prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment have been extensively reviewed and re-reviewed by Southern District of Florida (SDFL) Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division Andrew Lourie, Chief of the Criminal Division Matthew Menchel3, First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman4, United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various members of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) at the Department of Justice including, but not limited to its Chief, Andrew G. Oosterbahn. Many of these legal and factual issues have been discussed and approved by Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (DAAG) Sigal Mandelker and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (AAG) Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the petit policy. By May 2007, AUSA Villafaila began seeking approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was Andrew Lourie. Mr. Lourie had served as the Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ as well as in several supervisory positions in the SDFL. By mid-2006, he had returned to his position as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division in West Palm Beach (head of the West Palm Beach branch office), after serving as the interim Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ at the request of AAG Fisher. By October 2007, Mr. Lourie would leave the SDFL to become AAG Fisher's Chief of Staff.5 Above Mr. Lourie in the SDFL's chain of command were Matthew Menchel, Criminal Division Chief, First Assistant USA Sloman and finally, U.S. Attorney Acosta. Prior to seeking approval to return an indictment, Epstein's legal team had been actively working to convince this Office that such action was not warranted. The legal team has consisted of many different local and national lawyers and law firms. It appears as though each lawyer and/or firm became actively involved depending upon which person from the SDFL and/or DOJ component was involved in the process. For example, at the end of 2006, former SDFL U.S. Attorney and EOUSA Executive Director Guy Lewis contacted former colleague AUSA Villafafia and, later Deputy Criminal Chief Lourie, when he learned that AUSA Villafalla was handling the federal investigation of Epstein. He asked to meet with her but she said that she believed such a meeting would be premature. In December, Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt again contacted AUSA Villafafia to set a meeting. In advance of such a meeting, AUSA Villaftula requested documents but that request was refused. Ms. Sanchez then contacted AUSA Lourie, who agreed to meet with Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Lefcourt. On February 1, 2007, Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Lefcourt met with AUSAs Lourie and Villafafia, as well as a member of the FBI, and presented defense counsel's view of the case and promised a willingness to assist in the investigation. The SDFL was unpersuaded by their presentation and the investigation continued. 3Mr. Menchel resigned for private practice on August 3,2007 and was replaced by Robert Senior. 4Although I, Jeffrey H. Sloman, am writing this letter, I will continue to refer to myself as "First Assistant USA Sloman" or "FAUSA Sloman" to help reduce any confusion. Rolando Garcia replaced Mr. Lourie as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division. 08-80736-gV-MARRA P-014957 EFTA00225344 By the late Spring and early Summer, the focus of the investigation shifted from investigating the facts of the victims' claims to Epstein's background, his asserted defenses, co-conspirators, and possible witnesses who could corroborate the victims' statements. The investigation also began to look into financial aspects of the case, requiring the issuance of several subpoenas. At the time, Mr. Lefcourt began leveling accusations of improprieties with the investigation and sought a meeting with Criminal Division Chief Matthew Menchel. By that time, the proposed initial indictment package had been reviewed and approved by Mr. Lourie in West Palm Beach and by attorneys with CEOS; however, it awaited review by Mr. Menchel and FAUSA Sloman. The SDFL deferred presenting the indictment to the grand jury to accommodate the Epstein legal team's request for a meeting. We also agreed to wait several weeks for that meeting to occur to allow four of Epstein's attorneys to be present and also provided counsel with a list of the statutes that were the subject of the investigation. On June 26, 2007, Mr. Menchel, Mr. Lourie, AUSA Villafafia, and FAUSA Sloman, and two FBI agents met with Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. During that meeting Professor Dershowitz and other members of the defense team presented legal and factual arguments against a federal indictment. Counsel for the defense also requested the opportunity to present written arguments, which was granted. The arguments and written materials provided by the defense were examined by the SDFL and rejected. On July 31, 2007, Mr. Menchel, Mr. Lourie, AUSA Villafafia, and FAUSA Sloman, and two FBI agents met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. On that date, the SDFL presented a written sheet of terms that would satisfy the SDFL's federal interest in the case and discussed the substance of those terms. See Tab A. One of those terms was: 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, §§ 2422 and/or 2423. During that meeting, the focus was on Mr. Epstein's unwillingness to spend time in prison, and various suggestions were raised by defense counsel, including the proposal that he could serve a sentence of home confinement or probation. This was repeatedly mentioned by counsel for Epstein as being equivalent to a term of imprisonment in a state or federal prison. Epstein's counsel mentioned their concerns about his safety in prison, and the SDFL offered to explore a plea to a federal charge to allow Epstein to serve his time in a federal facility. Counsel were also presented with a conservative estimate of the sentence that Epstein would face if he were convicted: an advisory guideline range of 188 - 235 months' incarceration with a five-year mandatory minimum prison term, to be followed by lifetime supervised release. Counsel was told that Epstein had two weeks to accept or reject the proposal. It is critical to note that Ms. Sanchez, one of Epstein's local lawyers, seized upon this 08-80736-qv-MARRA P-014958 EFTA00225345 method of restitution as a condition of deferring federal prosecution. In referring to the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 method of compensation, Ms. Sanchez stated: [t)his would allow the victims to be able to promptly put this behind them and go forward with their lives. If given the opportunity to opine as to the appropriateness of Mr. Epstein's proposal, in my extensive experience in these types of cases, the victims prefer a quick resolution with compensation for damages and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. See attached Tab B, August 2, 2007 letter from Lilly Ann Sanchez to SDFL Criminal Division Chief Menchel, p.2, fn 1. Ironically, it is Epstein's "national" attorneys who are now representing to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States in their May 19, 2008 letter that: Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition of' deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved. Not only did Epstein's lawyers like the idea of using 18 U.S.C. § 2255 to compensate the victims but, they also sought to make their non-incarcerative state proposal even more attractive by offering payments to "a charitable organization benefitting victims of sexual assault," law enforcement investigative costs" and "Court and probationary costs." Id. at p. 2. Epstein's counsel, still dissatisfied with the Office's review of the case, demanded to meet with U.S. Attorney Acosta and to have the opportunity to meet with someone in Washington, To accommodate Roy Black, the meeting was put off until September 7, 2007, despite the ac that the indictment was ready for presentation to the grand jury. In the interim, AUSA Villafafia and the investigators met with CEOS Chief Oosterbahn, to review, yet again, the evidence and legal theories of prosecution. Chief Oosterbahn strongly supported the proposed indictment and even offered to join the trial team and provide additional support from CEOS. On September 7, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta met with Kirkland & Ellis partners Jay Lefkowitz and former Solicitor General Ken Starr and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief Oosterbahn and AUSAs Villafana, John McMillan, and FAUSA Sloman.6 Messrs. Starr and Lefkowitz presented arguments regarding the sufficiency of the federal interest in the case and other legal and factual issues. We discussed those legal arguments and the unanimous opinion of all of the attorneys present was in favor of prosecution. During that meeting, Mr. Lefkowitz also offered a plea resolution. His offer, in essence, was that Epstein be subjected to home confinement at his Palm Beach home, using private security officers who would serve as his "wardens," if necessary. Mr. Lefkowitz expressed the belief that such a sentence would be particularly appropriate because, as a wealthy white man, he may be the subject of violence or 6Roy Black did not attend. 08-80736-C4V-MARRA P-014959 EFTA00225346 extortion in prison. Finally, Messrs. Starr and Lefkowitz expressed the belief that Epstein's extensive philanthropy should be considered in our prosecution decision. U.S. Attorney Acosta summarily rejected these proposals, and indicated that the 24-month offer presented previously by the SDFL stood. The issue of the inclusion of a restitution-type remedy for the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 was specifically raised and discussed at the September 7th meeting, and Mr. Starr thanked AUSA Villafafia for bringing it to his attention as a novel approach to allowing the victims to receive essentially federal restitution while allowing a plea to a state charge. After considering everything said and written by Epstein's legal team, and after conferring with Chief Oosterbahn, U.S. Attorney Acosta informed Epstein's counsel that the SDFL still intended to proceed to indictment. Since counsel indicated a desire to appeal the matter to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Acosta agreed to delay the presentation of the indictment for two weeks to allow them to speak with someone in Washington, IC., if they so chose. Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiate the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and on September 12, 2007, counsel for the SDFL (AUSAs Lourie, Garcia, and Villafafta) and counsel for Epstein (Messrs. Lefcourt, Lefkowitz, and Goldberger) met with Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krisher and Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek to discuss a plea to an Information in the state court that would satisfy the federal interest in the case. As noted on the term sheet of July 31" (Tab A), one of those essential terms was a guilty plea to a charge requiring sex offender registration. During that meeting, the issue of sex offender registration was raised, and Mr. Goldberger told the' federal prosecutors that there was no problem, Mr. Epstein would plead guilty to the charge of procurement of minors for prostitution (Fl. Stat. 796.03), which was one of the statutes listed on the original term sheet. Although the SDFL had wanted Epstein to plead guilty to three different offenses, we agreed to this compromise.' Of course, the SDFL later learned that, at the time Mr. Goldberger made that statement, he incorrectly believed, based upon a statement from ASA Belohlavek, that Fl. Stat. § 796.03 did not require sex offender registration. The parties then began working first on a plea agreement to a federal charge and, when it was clear that there was no guarantee that Epstein would serve his sentence in a minimum security prison camp, the discussion turned to a Non-Prosecution Agreement. Both the federal plea agreement and the Non-Prosecution Agreement included references to § 2255 because neither the contemplated federal charges nor the proposed state charges encompassed all of the identified victims. If Epstein had been prosecuted under the planned indictment, the identified victims would have been eligible for restitution and damages under § 2255. As explained above, one of our interests, which had to be satisfied by the Non-Prosecution Agreement, was providing appropriate compensation to the victims. This provision of the Agreement was heavily 7 Another significant compromise reached at the meeting was a reduction in the amount of jail time - from 24 months down to 18 months, which would be served at the Palm Beach County Jail rather than a state prison facility. 08-80736-qv-MARRA P-014960 EFTA00225347 negotiated. As Mr. Lefkowitz wrote in his November 29th e-mail to FAUSA Sloman, Epstein "offered to provide a restitution fund for the alleged victims in this matter; however, that option was rejected by [our] Office." That option was rejected for several reasons. First, the SDFL does not serve as legal representatives to the victims and has no authority to bind victims, nor could it provide a monetary figure that would represent a "loss" amount for restitution purposes. Second, there would be no legal basis for federal restitution without a conviction for a federal offense. And, third, it was the U.S. Attorney's belief that the SDFL should not be put in the position of administering a restitution fluid. Our § 2255 proposal put the victims in the same position that they would have been in if we had proceeded to trial and convicted Epstein of his crimes, with the exception that the victims were provided with counsel. The appointment of counsel was not such a benefit to the victims but, rather, was done, in part, to benefit Epstein by allowing him to try to privately negotiate a group resolution of all claims with one attorney. Epstein and his lawyers agreed with this alternative. The negotiation of the Agreement was lengthy and difficult. Mr. Lefkowitz and AUSA Villafafia went through several drafts of both a federal plea agreement and a Non-Prosecution Agreement. Throughout these negotiations, when a member of the defense team was dissatisfied with the SDFL's position, it was repeatedly appealed throughout the Office. So several members of the defense team spoke with the chain of command regarding the terms of the Agreement, including the § 2255 provisions. At the eleventh hour, when Epstein's legal team realized that Fl. Stat. 796.03 would require him to register as a sex offender, they sought to change the most essential term of the agreement - a term that Messrs. Goldberger, Lefkowitz, and Lefcourt had specifically agreed to at the September 12th meeting with the State Attorney's Office - asking to allow Epstein to plead to a charge that would not require registration. When this was rejected, several members of the defense team appealed directly to U.S. Attorney Acosta which also failed. When that failed, according to press reports, apparently Mr. Lefcourt "leaked" a letter intended for the U.S. Attorney to the press containing the reasons why he/Lefcourt did not believe Epstein should have to register. See October 9, 2007 New York Post article attached at Tab C. Prior to signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein's defense team included Ken Staff, Jay Lefkowitz, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Guy Lewis, Martin Weinberg, Jack Goldberger, Stephanie Thacker*, and the associates at Kirkland & Ellis who conducted research on discrete issues. This impressive legal team reviewed the Agreement and counseled Epstein. Based upon that counsel, Epstein decided that it was in his best interest to execute the Non-Prosecution Agreement which was signed on September 1 , 2007 by Mr. Lefcourt, Ms. Sanchez and Epstein. A copy of which is attached hereto as Tab . The core principles of the Agreement are incarceration, registration as a sex offender and a method of compensation.9 Furthermore, and significantly, Epstein agreed that he had the burden *Ms. Thacker had recently resigned from CEOS as a Trial Attorney and entered private practice. 9 • Specdically, the Agreement mandates, inter alio, (I) a guilty plea in Palm Beach County Circuit Court to solicitation of prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.07) and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (FI. Stat. § 796.03) (an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender); (2) a 30-month sentence 08-80736-C6V-MARRA P-014961 EFTA00225348 of ensuring compliance of the Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office and the Judge of the 15°' Judicial Circuit and 'that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement" (emphasis added). To this day, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to Epstein's lawyers. Within a week of the execution of the Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved", it VMS done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection of the attorney representative. As a result, the parties executed an addendum which documented the SDFL's right to assign the selection of an attorney representative to an independent third-party. A copy of the October 29, 2007 Addendum is attached hereto as Tab arties subsequently agreed that retired Federal District Court Judge E B. should be that independent third-party/special master. Ultimately, Judge selecte o ert C. Josefsberg of the law firm of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, et al. I' During this same time frame, Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz sought to delay the entry of his guilty plea and sentence. After the SDFL accommodated his request (from October 26th to November 20th), Mr. Starr began taking issue with the methodology of compensation, notification to the victims, and the issues that had been previously considered and rejected during negotiations, ie, that the conduct does not require registration and the contemplated state and federal statutes have no applicability to the instant matter. In response to Mr. Stares protests, the SDFL offered numerous and various reasonable modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in U.S. Attorney Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez. See attached Tab F. In that letter, U.S. Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, § 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under § 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 including 18 months' incarceration in county jail; (3) a methodology to compensate the victims identified by the United States utilizing 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 such that they would be placed in the same position as if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in Title 18, United States Code, § 2255; (4) entry of the guilty plea and sentence no later than October 26, 2007; and (5) the start of the above-mentioned sentence no later than January 4, 2008. 10 Due to the subsequent objections raised by Epstein's counsel, Mr. Josefsberg was never given the opportunity to become the attorney representative. 08-80736-Cp-MARRA P-014962 EFTA00225349 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." Mr. Starr also objected to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DRAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal: "(w)e will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he 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." These proposals were immediately rejected by Epstein in Mr. Lefkowitz's December 26, 2007 correspondence to USA Acosta. At our December 14, 2007 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, counsel for Epstein articulated that it was a "profound injustice" to require Epstein to register as a sex offender and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), had been committed since the statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading or inducing. This particular attack on this statute had been previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by the SDFL and CEOS prior to the execution of the Agreement. Epstein's lawyers also argued that the facts were inapplicable to the contemplated state statutes and that he should not have been allowed to have been induced into the Agreement because the facts were not what he understood them to be. To reiterate, the SOIL has never divulged its evidence to anyone on the Epstein legal team. Once counsel for Epstein failed to persuade us that federal involvement was inappropriate, they mounted an aggressive campaign to defer federal prosecution. When we refused to compromise on anything except the length of incarceration, they finally executed the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Subsequent to the December 14, 2007 meeting, the SDFL received three letters from Mr. Lefkowitz and/or Mr. Starr which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 14th meeting. Essentially, trying to portray the SOIL as trying to coerce a plea to unknown allegations and incoherent theories. In his December 17, 2007 correspondence, Mr. Lefkowitz decreed that Epstein's conduct did not meet the requirements of one of the state statutes Epstein agreed to plead guilty to - procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.03); that Epstein's conduct does not require registration under Florida law in contravention of the September 24 Agreement; and the State Attorney's Office does not believe the conduct is registrable. On December 21. 2007, Mr. Lefkowitz rejected the U.S. Attorney's proposed resolution of the 2255 provision because they "strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 U.S.C. Section(s) 2422(b) ... or ... 2423(6)." In his December 26, 2007 correspondence, he stated that "we have reiterated in previous submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is guilty of the federal charges enumerated under section 2255" and requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not commit the requisite offense." The SDFL reiterated time and time again that it had never wanted nor expected Epstein to plead guilty to a charge he did not believe he committed and repeatedly offered to dissolve the agreement to allow Epstein to contest the charges in the court system. As a result, the SDFL obliged his request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such a review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. As you know, on May 15, 2008, after months of considering the matter, the Criminal Division considered whether there is a legitimate basis for the SDFL to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn concluded that "federal prosecution would not be improper or inappropriate." See attached May 15, 2008 letter from CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn to Jay Lefkowitz. On May 08-80736-C8V-MARRA P-0 I 4963 EFTA00225350 19, 2008, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz that the SDFL would give Epstein a MI two weeks (close of business on Monday, June 2, 2008) to comply with the terms and conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 19'" letter to Ms. Sanchez." Therefore, despite the fact that the investigation has identified several more victims, the SDFL is still offering Epstein the opportunity to comply with the terms and conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The SDFL was recently notified that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General has agreed to consider additional allegations not considered by CEOS which were recently raised in correspondence by two former high-ranking members of the Department of Justice - Ken Starr and Joe Whitley. On May 28, 2008, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz by e-mail that the SDFL has postponed the June 2, 2008 deadline until the DAG's Office has completed its review of this matter. Their correspondence to the DAG alleges that the SDFL's investigation lacks integrity because it has leaked "highly confidential aspects" of the investigation and negotiations to the New York Times and that I/FAUSA Sloman directed some of the victims to my former law firm. They also claim that the "unprecedented extension of federal law" by the SDFL suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from seeking your Office's review and that "the unneroqsary deadline is even more problematic because Mr. Epstein's effort to reconcile the state charge and sentence with the terms of the Agreement requires an unusual and unprecedented threatened application of federal law." 1. The Alleged "Leak'to the New York Times. AUSA David Weinstein became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the District's Public Information Officer (PIO). While the District's PIO was on annual leave, he was the acting PIO during the first week of January 2008. The entirety of his conduct in connection with the Epstein matter began on January 2, 2008 and ended on January 7, 2008.12 Specifically, his contact involved five telephone conversation with Landon Thomas, a reporter for the New York Times. These conversations occurred on I) the morning of January 2, 2008, 2) the afternoon of January 2, 2008, 3) the afternoon of January 3, 2008, 4) the afternoon of January 4, 2008, and 5) the afternoon of January 7, 2008. A. The Morning ofJanuary 2, 2008. 11 Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on notice on February 25, 2008, that in the event that CEOS disagreed with Epstein's position, Epstein would have one week to comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 19" letter to Ms. Sanchez. 12AUSA Weinstein has self-reported to the Office of Professional Responsibility. 08-80736-QF-MARRA P-014964 EFTA00225351 AUSA Weinstein began his conversation with Mr. Thomas by explaining that he was the acting PIO for the week and that he had received Mr.Thomas's December 31, 2007 e-mail requesting an interview and asking for comments on the following five statements.13 First, "that in the summer of 2005 the palm beach police department referred the Epstein case to you." Second, "that the case is being overseen by Jeffrey Sloman, and above him, It Alexander Acosta." Third, "that Mr. Acosta has made child pornography a focus are [sic] for your office." Fourth, "that this summer your office gave Mr. Epstein an ultimatum: plead guilty to a charge that would require him to register as a sex offender, or the government would release a 52 page indictment, charging him with crimes that could include procuring sex for a third party or engaging in sexual tourism. Both of these charges carry jail sentences of as much as 15 years." Fifth, "that your office told Mr. Epstein and his lawyers: we are ready to pull the trigger." Sixth, "I also wanted to ask Mr. Sloman about his role in a case involving Jonathan Zirulnikoff and his daughter earlier this year." At the outset, Weinstein said that he could not comment on any specific pending matters and that he would do his best to answer some of his questions. Thomas said that his questions were based, in part, upon conversations that he had already had with members of Mr. Epstein's defense team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information available through the State Court system. Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told him that any matter arising out of conduct in Palm Beach County, was prosecuted by our West Palm Beach branch office. He also told him that as First Assistant, the FAUSA had supervisory authority over all AUSAs throughout the District. In turn, the FAUSA answered directly to the U.S. Attorney. In response to the third question, Weinstein discussed the difference between child exploitation and child pornography. Weinstein said that federal crimes involving child exploitation were one of several focus points of our Office. He further explained that in addition to traditional federal areas of prosecution the other focus points included health care fraud and gang prosecutions. Weinstein refused to answer the fourth and fifth topics but did discuss the general nature of pre-trial proceedings in federal court. He said that the SDFL does not offer ultimatums, nor are we in the business of issuing ultimatums. He explained that in cases where a party wants to plead guilty prior to indictment, we will discuss the parameters of guilty pleas and that people always have the right to proceed to trial if they choose to do so and that we do not favor one resolution over the other. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that he would not discuss his specific question about Mr. Epstein's lawyer's statement that someone from our Office told them that "we are ready to pull the trigger." Nor would he discuss anything about who might or might not be representing Mr. Epstein. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that he should not allow himself to be spun 13After reviewing his e-mail, AUSA Weinstein discussed the matter with U.S. Attorney Acosta. Pursuant to USAM 1-7.530 and the Media Relations Guide, Section Ill D2, after consultation with and prior approval from the US Attorney, he called Mr. Thomas on the morning ofJanuary 2nd. 08-80736-cf-MARRA P-014965 EFTA00225352 one way or the other in response to statements Mr. Thomas said he had received from attorneys who said that they represented Mr. Epstein. Weinstein ended the conversation by telling Mr. Thomas that he would check further into his sixth and final topic and get back to him later in the day. B. Afternoon of January 2, 2008. Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that in regard to his sixth topic, the SDFL had no reason to question FAUSA Sloman's judgment or integrity. He also said that this particular subject matter was a private matter that FAUSA Sloman did not want to discuss with him.1° Mr. Thomas told him that if he had any further questions, he would call back. C. Afternoon of January 3, 2008. This call was in response to a voice mail message that Mr. Thomas had left regarding legal issues involving specific state and federal statutes. Specifically, Mr. Thomas had some questions about the burden of proof and strict liability in some state and federal statutes that governed illegal sexual activity. Again, Weinstein told him that he would not discuss any specific cases, but that he would assist him in understanding the statutes about which he had some questions. Weinstein explained that some statutes contained defenses that must be proven by a defendant, while there were other statutes that did not require a defendant to affirmatively prove a defense. The discussion centered around Title 18, United States Code, § 2423(g). Once again, Mr. Thomas told Weinstein that if he had any further questions, he would call back. I Afternoon ofJanuary 4, 2008. This was another call in response to a voice mail message that Mr. Thomas had left regarding some additional questions. Weinstein prefaced the conversation by saying that he would not discuss any specific cases. The conversation centered around three specific statutes, 18 United States Code, § 2422(b), 18 United States Code, § 1591, and 18 United States Code, § 2423(b) as well as the burden of proof and the applicability of affirmative defenses. They discussed the difference between an attempt and a substantive charge pursuant to § 242203) and how that affected the government's burden of proof vis-a-vis the age of a child. They also 14 The case involving "Jonathan Zirulnikoff • involved a March 7, 2007 early morning attempted break-in of my/Sloman's house. Zirulnikoff, age 19 at the time, confessed and said that he wanted to "talk" to my daughter who was then 16. He also confessed to a prior unrelated break in which Zirulnikoff caressed the inner thigh of a 15 year old female. Zirulnikoff who had graduated from my daughter's high school in June 2006, dated my daughter's friend and had little if any contact with my daughter for over one year. Zirulnikoff negotiated a plea deal, over my objection, with the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office to a misdemeanor trespass. That conviction resulted in a sentence of two years probation and a withhold of adjudication upon successful completion of his probationary period. Since this information was completely irrelevant to the facts and issues in the instant Epstein matter, I refused to allow Mr. Weinstein to comment about this matter to Mr. Thomas. Furthermore, none of this information had been publicized and, upon information and belief, only one member of Epstein's legal team knew anything about this matter, my former colleague, Lilly Ann Sanchez. 08-8073641/-MARRA P-014966 EFTA00225353 discussed the fact that a charge pursuant to § 1591 required the government to prove that the defendant had actual knowledge of the age of the victim. Finally, they discussed the fact that if the government was charging a defendant with traveling to engage in prostitution, pursuant to § 2423(3), there was an affirmative defense available to the defendant regarding the reasonable belief of the defendant about the age of the victim. E. Afternoon ofJanuary 7, 2008. This final call was made after the U.S. Attorney and FAUSA Sloman had received a call from a member of Mr. Epstein's defense team alleging that the SDFL had provided case specific information to the media. Weinstein called Mr. Thomas who acknowledged that both before and after each of the above-mentioned conversations, he had also called attorneys who were representing Mr. Epstein on his pending State charges. Mr. Thomas also acknowledged that all of our prior conversations had been about general legal issues and that Weinstein never spoke about any specific case. Since the January 7,2008 conversation, Weinstein has not had any further contact with Mr. Thomas. 2. Herman S/oman &Mermehrein. Seven years ago. I resigned from the SOH. for private practice. less than five months later, I resigned from the law firm and returned to the SDFL. Public records reflect the following: on May 8, 2001, articles of amendment were filed with the Florida Division of Corporations to reflect that the firm name of "Herman & Mermelstein" was changed to "Herman Sloman & Mermelstein" on May 7, 2001. I joined the firm at that time and remained a non-equity partner until on or about October 1, 2001. At that time, I resigned from the firm and returned to the SDFL. Since I never had an equity interest in the firm, I never retained an interest in the firm. That was over six and one half years ago. Unbeknownst to FAUSA Slornan, on July 2, 2002, articles of amendment were filed with the Florida Division of Corporations to reflect that the firm name of "Herman Sloman & Mermelstein" was changed back to "Herman & Mermelstein." The article of amendment indicates the amendment was adopted on July 1, 2002, without shareholder action. Although the filing was not immediate upon my departure from the law firm, it pre-dated for years any dealings with the subject case now under consideration by the SOFL. Recently, I learned that there is a reference to the law firm of "Herman Annan& Mermelstein" on the Florida Bar website, under a section called "Find A Lawyer." This reference appears when Stuart Mermelstein's name and information is accessed. To reiterate, since October 2001. I have had no relationship with that law firm, financial or otherwise, and no input or control over the firm's filings with the Florida Division of Corporations and/or the Florida Bar. On Friday, January 18, 2008, at approximately 1:15 pm, I received a call from Jeffrey Herman of Herman & Mermelstein. Herman said that he was planning to file a civil lawsuit the next week against Jeffrey Epstein. He said that his clients were frustrated with the lack of progress of the state's investigation and wanted to know whether the SDFL could file criminal charges even though the state was looking into the matter. I told Herman that I would not answer any question related to Epstein — hypothetical or otherwise. I asked him how his clients retained him and he said that it was through another lawyer. I then specifically asked him whether the referral was the result of anyone in law enforcement contacting him and/or the other lawyer. He said "no." At the conclusion of the conversation, I reiterated and confirmed with him that I had refused to answer any questions he asked of me. I immediately documented this conversation and informed the U.S. Attorney who 08-80736-W-MARRA P-014967 EFTA00225354 informed Senior Litigation Counsel and Ethics Advisor Dexter Lee. AUSA Lee opined that he did not see a conflict. As soon as became aware of these allegations, reported myself to the Office of Professional Regulation on or about April 21, 2008. 3. The Alleged Unprecedented Extension of Federal Law and the Allegations of Political Motivation for the Prosecution. It is my hope that this letter has sufficiently explained how thoroughly this matter has been reviewed, how seriously the issues have been considered, and how additional delays may adversely affect the case going forward and, more importantly, the victims. I have attached the proposed indictment for you to consider the nature and gravity of the crimes. See Tab G. You are invited to evaluate whether I, along with U.S. Attorney Acosta, Criminal Division Chiefs Menchel and, later Robert Senior, Deputy Criminal Division Chiefs Lourie, followed by Rolando Garcia, and AUSA Villafafla have somehow steered this investigation toward "an unprecedented extension of federal law"despite being simultaneously and/or subsequently reviewed by CEOS, DAAG Mandelker, and AAG Fisher. I also hope that the reputations of the above-mentioned professional prosecutors combined with the documented layers of methodical and thorough review of all issues raised by Epstein are enough to summarily dismiss the idea that this matter is politically motivated. It seems incomprehensible how Messrs. Starr and Whitley could expect further review when the due process rights of their client have been considered and reconsidered to the point of absurdity. With respect to the other allegations of misconduct leveled against investigators and prosecutors, similarly false allegations were made against the local police detective who first investigated the case. Those false allegations apparently were accepted as true and were not investigated or challenged by the State Attorney's Office and, when coupled with the immense pressure brought to bear upon the State Attorney by some of these same lawyers who represent Epstein today, resulted in a single felony charge related to only two of the more than 20 victims identified in the state investigation. Contrary to the claims of Epstein's attorneys, the SDFL is not trying to prosecute Epstein more harshly because of his political friends or his financial status; rather, the SDFL is attempting to follow Department policy by treating Epstein like all other criminal defendants - charging him with the most serious readily provable offenses. The SDFL has even continued to allow Epstein the opportunity to perform his obligations under the Non-Prosecution Agreement despite his numerous breaches of and attacks on the terms to which he already agreed. Without attempting to address each and every allegation, I would like to highlight some of the misstatements contained in counsels' letter, to provide some sense of counsels' conduct throughout this case, particularly after their attempts at legal persuasion failed. Throughout the case, counsel have misrepresented the facts of the case to our Office, CEOS, and the press. For example, Epstein's counsel reference to this case as "precedent-shattering," suggests that all of the victims were at least 16 years old, and that the conduct "was purely local in nature." The SDFL has prosecuted several "sex tourism" cases where the "john" communicated via telephone with an undercover "pimp" in the SDFL to meet minor females to engage in prostitution. All were charged and convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1591. The SDFL has charged and convicted a 21-year-old man of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423 when he traveled to Florida to meet 08-80736-cy-MARRA P-014968 EFTA00225355 his 14-year-old girlfriend and later digitally penetrated her. The SDFL has prosecuted numerous violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 where the "facility of interstate commerce" - generally the intemet and telephones - are used by a defendant and an undercover pretending to be the parent of a minor, to arrange for a meeting that the defendant hopes will result in sexual activity. There is nothing extraordinary about Epstein's case except the large number of victims involved. Epstein's counsel neglected to inform you that the age range of the victims includes girls as young as 14, and glosses over the fact that Epstein did not simply engage in "solo self-pleasuring" in front of the victims. Instead, with each visit, he pressured the victims to allow him to engage in more and more sexual activity - fondling breasts and vaginas, digital penetration, use of a vibrator on their vaginas, performing oral sex on them, having them perform oral sex on his adult girlfriend, and engaging in sexual intercourse. Counsel also neglected to inform you that many girls did affirmatively tell Epstein their true ages and he told several that he "did not care about age." Epstein's conduct was not "purely local? He and his assistants called and sent text messages to victims in Palm Beach County from other states to arrange "appointments" for his upcoming visits to Palm Beach. And, while in Palm Beach, Epstein and his assistants called victims in New York to arrange "appointments" for his return to New York. Epstein wired money to some victims and sent gifts through the mails. This case falls squarely within federal jurisdiction. Epstein also falsely claims that certain facts related to the resolution of the case were hidden and later discovered by his lawyers. For example, they complain about the proposed use of a guardian ad litem, stating that "Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these individuals were adults, not minors." It was AUSA Villafafia who told Epstein's counsel that all of the victims but one had already reached the age of majority, which was one reason why the guardian ad litem procedure proposed by Epstein's counsel would not work. Likewise, AUSA Villafafla disclosed to Epstein's counsel that one of the five attorney-representatives that she recommended for consideration by Epstein's counsel was a "good friend" of a "good friend." Despite the disclosure of this relationship, Epstein's counsel selected that person, before the SDFL, on its own, decided to use an independent Special Master to make the selection. Epstein's counsel states that the "USAO eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of any of the claims that these women might make," but neglects to disclose that the SDFL made that statement at Epstein s request to avoid the suggestion that the SDFL was involving itself in the outcome of civil litigation. Epstein's counsel have repeatedly attacked the SDFL and the FBI for classifying the victims as "victims." As you know, all Justice Department employees have the obligation to identify victims and to notify them of their rights. "Victims" are defined by law, not by self-selection. The girls whom have been identified by the FBI and the SDFL fall within the legal definition - they were all minors who engaged in illicit sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein, at his request, in exchange for money. From interviewing them, the FBI Special Agents, the FBI Victim-Witness Coordinator, and AUSA Villafafla all feel confident that they suffered harm, in a 08-80736-W-MARRA P-014969 EFTA00225356 multitude of ways, by their interaction with Epstein. Finally, in contrast to Epstein's counsel allegation that my June 2, 2008 deadline was "arbitrary, unfair, and unprecedented," please consider that Mr. Lefkowitz has known since February that in the event that CEOS disagreed with his position, Epstein would be given one-week to comply with the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Subsequent to the receipt of CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn's May 15, 2008 letter, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz that Epstein would have a full two-weeks to comply with the Non-Prosecution Agreement as modified by the December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez. We believe it is finally time to shift the focus from Epstein's due process rights to treating him like all other similarly situated criminal defendants and perhaps, most importantly, to consider the rights of his victims. Continued delays adversely effect the case and the victims in the following ways: (1) at the time of the offenses, the victims ranged in age from 14 to 17 years old. The change in physical appearance of many of the victims since then has been dramatic. Epstein has been claiming that he did not know they were minors. Obviously, the older they look when the case is at issue, the harder it will be to overcome that defense; (2) it allows Epstein's lawyers to conduct depositions of the victims in the pending state criminal case and allows his private investigators to further harass and intimidate the victims; (3) more victims will seek the services of civil lawyers to file lawsuits thus allowing Epstein to make more powerful arguments demeaning the credibility of the victims; (4) the prosecutors and agents may retire, transfer and/or leave the Department for other opportunities thus affecting the potential outcome and prosecutorial resources. Additionally, several of the victims have relocated thus increasing the likelihood that crucial witnesses will be lost; (5) the SDFL has afforded more consideration to Epstein's arguments than any other defendant in my years of being the FAUSA and, before that, the Chief of the Criminal Division (January 1, 2004 to the present). I believe that we have been disproportionally fair to Epstein at the expense of other matters; and (6) prolonged delay may adversely affect the statute of limitations for some of the victims. 08-80736-W-MARRA P-014970 EFTA00225357 On behalf of the SDFL and the victims in this case, please expedite the review and decision of the issues under consideration. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant United States Attorney Ends. cc: Robert Senior, Chief Criminal Division A. Marie Villafafla Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Atkinson Assistant U.S. Attorney 08-80736-g-MARRA P-014971 EFTA00225358 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <AVillafana@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 3:04 PM To: Kuyrkendall, E N. (MM) (FBI) Subject: RE: Call from M's attorney Does she have any criminal history? And can you subpoena her driver's license and autotrack? Thanks. A. Marie Villafaila Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209.1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Original Message----- From: Kuyrkendall, E N. (FBI) Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 2:50 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Call from M's attorney I can do a more extensive phone interview with and cont to try and locat=ildont know of anyone else that would have info o a. check on A file on Monday. Pre ' phone numbers and/or bills from 04-05. Plus standard lang about gifts, cards and such pertaining to Epstein, Original Message ---- From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)<Ann.Marie.C.Villafana@usdoj.gov> To: Kuyrkendall, E N.; Richards, Jason R. Sent: Fri Jun 06 14:40:06 2008 Subject: Call from M's attorney attorney called and she would really like full immunity. I said no, so she will have to come and testify in front of the grand jury and assert the fifth as to each question. I will start putting together a list of questions for her and send it to you. I also am wondering whether we should subpoena any records from her to bring with her to the grand jury. 1 told him that we will need to see her on a Tuesday in June, he is going to call me back with a date. I also told him that we would pay for her plane ticket but not his. Can you try to find out if she has an A-file and, if so, get a copy before then? And do you want to try to interview some other New York people before she comes to testify? Thank you. A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 08-80736-CV-MARRA 60 EXHIBIT B-129 P-014972 EFTA00225359 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014973 61 EFTA00225360 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Kuyrkendall, E N. (FBI) <E.Kuyrkendall@ic.fbi.gov> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 3:39 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Call from ■attorney I will provide info to u on Monday. Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <Ann.Marie.eillafana@usdoj.gov> To: Kuyrkendall, E N. Sent: Fri Jun 06 15:04:04 2008 Subject: RE: Call from It attorney Does she have any criminal history? And can you subpoena her driver's license and autotrack? Thanks. A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 56I 820.8777 Original Message From: Kuyrkcndall, E N. (FBI) Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 2:50 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Call from M's attorney I can do a more extensive phone interview with and cont to try and locate Leanne. Idont know of anyone else that would have info on IM other Leslie G. c eck on A file on Monday. Preliphone numbers and/or bills from 04-05. Plus standard lang about gifts, cards and such pertaining to Epstein, Leslie, Ciceila and ---- Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)<Ann.Marie.C.Villafana@usdoj.gov> To: Kuyrkendall, E N.; Richards, Jason R. Sent: Fri Jun 06 14:40:06 2008 Subject: Call from M's attorney a attorney called and she would really like full immunity. I said no, so she will have to come and testify in front of the grand assert the fifth as to each question. I will start putting together a list of questions for her and send it to you. I also am wondering whether we should subpoena any records from her to bring with her to the grand jury. I told him that we will need to see her on a Tuesday in June, he is going to call me back with a date. I also told him that we would pay for her plane ticket but not his. Can you try to find out if she has an A-file and, if so, get a copy before then? And do you want to try to interview some other New York people before she comes to testify? Thank you. A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorney 08-80736= P-014974 EFTA00225361 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phonc 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014975 63 EFTA00225362 ...so Ann JUIUU4004U 'Jam) ntli lAVOKR Memorandum Date [1002 Subject Prosecution Memorandum In re Operation Leap Year To R. Alexander Acosta U.S. Attorney Rolando Garcia Deputy Chief, Criminal Division Karen Atkinson, Chief4,(W. Northern Division June 17, 2008 From A. Marie Villafan Assistant U.S. Atto I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum seeks approval for the attached Request for Authorization to Apply for a Com ulsion Order seeking Immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 6001-6003 for witness in connection with the ongoing investigation named "Operation Leap Year." II. BACKGROUND kra0 ration Lea Year involves the investigation offeffre E stein and five of his assistants (née Mucinska), , and e targets'would arrange "sexual massages" for Epstein when he would travel to Palm Beach or New York, and many of those "sexual massages" were performed by minor females. Witness ti. began her relationship with Epstein as a i se" when she was under the age of 18. er performing massages firiiiod of time, began recruiting other girls to perform massages. It is believed that received $200 for each girl she brought to Epstein's home. The investigation originally focused on the first three assistants who traveled with Epstein to Florida. Upon interviewing two identified New York victims, we determined that the last two assistants, Groff and Steen, arranged most of Epstein's New York massages. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA EXHIBIT B-130 P-008365 EFTA00225363 has been approached by the FBI to provide information via an informal proffer with a "Kastigar letter" or testifying before t djury with a "pocket immunity" letter. is represented by counsel in New York. has never spoken to any law enforcement o leer about what happened between her and Epstein. We believe that counsel is independent isin (unlike some attorneys who have represented other witnesses , but he has stated that will not meet with agents or the Office or testify before the grand jury without full immunity. Counsel has told me that, if immunized, is ready and willing to provide complete information regarding her dealings with Epstein. On the one hand, I am reluctant to provide with immunity because I do not believe that she needs it. It appears that the majority of her dealings with Epstein occurred before she was 18, our Office is not interested in prosecuting her, FBI New York is assisting FBI West Palm Beach in connection with the investigation, so a federal prosecution in New York is not forthcoming, and it is unlikely that the State of New York will open an investigation and charge However, it has been widely reported that the Palm Beach Police De artrnent prepared a ro able cause • ' " to charge a similar victim/recruiter in Florida, ,with a second-degree felony. name also appears in a number of Complaints in c vt awsuits filed a ainst Epstein. In the most recent draft of the Indictment, we have listed and as unindicted coconspirators which will make it easier to introduce their statemen o Epstein an the assistants. Depending on testimony, we may need to treat her similarly. III THE NEED FOR THE WITNESSES' TESTIMONY AND THE REQUESTED IMMUNITY. The most difficult part of this prosecution will be proving the knowledge and intent of the targets. For example, could assert that she knew that she was setting up massages for Epstein, but she believed that they were regular massages. All of the targets arc likely to aver that they did nut know that the girls were under the age of 18. helps us with this proof in several ways. First, she was victim whom we believe became invo v with Epstein when she was only fourteen years' old, and her you n help disprove lack of knowledge by Epstein and his assistants. Second, we believe that was a significant recruiter for Epstein, so she will be able to tell us what instructions she received from him and the assistants regarding the types of girls to recruit, what was expected of them, etc. Third, she provides us with a strong entrée into the New York situation, which strengthens the "interstate commerce" nexus of the case. Fourth, is likely to have dealt most closely with Epstein's New York assistants, Groff and Steen. e es way to strengthen our case at this point is to "flip" one of the assistants, and Groff is the most likely to flip if we have sufficient evidence to charge her. Steen is another potential cooperator, but we have heard from another witness that Steen had done something to upset Epstein and he "shipped her off' to the Middle East to work for one of his companies there. The U.S. Attorney's Manual recommends prosecuting witnesses in a situation such as this and getting their cooperation as part of a plea bargain. Our evidence against at this time is -2- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-008366 EFTA00225364 tyj U lig weak. We have statements from two victims who at they went to Epstein's house with We have two telephone messages from that were recovered in t . h of ps ein s home. At this time we do not have any recor s of telephone calls between and the assistants (we have not identified IL= cell phone number during the relevant period). Thus, the likelihood of succeeding on sue a prosecution is very small. Furthermore, a decision to prosecute Lacerda could result in a refusal by many more girls to come forward because the majority of the identified girls brought other girls to Epstein, so all of them would feel at risk. IV. RECOMMENDATION For these reasons, 1 recommend that the attached Request for Authorization to Apply for Compulsion Order on behalf of be submitted to the Witness Immunity Unit. a °"-"jjenQL 6/fin -3- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-008367 EFTA00225365 •• SO VW.. MIN U.S. Department of Justice Request for Authorization to Apply for Compulsion Order (18 U.S.C. 6001-6003; 28 CFR 0.175-0.178) INSTRUCTIONS: Prepare and Submit Original and One Copy. Answer Each Question as Accurately and Completely as Possible. TO: Witness Immunity Unit Criminal Division, Rm. 1056 1001 G StreeLN.W. Washington, 20530 PHONE NO: (202) 514-5541 TELEFAX NO: (202) 514-1468 FROM: AUSA A. Marie Villafafia United States Attorneys Office 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 PHONE NO: (561) 209-1047 TELEFAX NO: (561) 820-8777 (I) Name of Witness: Marina (3) Nature of Proceeding: ( ) Trial (X) Grand Jury 0 Other (2) District: Southern District of Florida (4) Name of Suliect s or Defendants : Jefir (5) Date of Testimony (two weeks lead time required): July 1, 2008 (6) Proffer of Anticipated Testimony: (7) (8) (X) None Obtained ( ) Proffer by Counsel ( ) Proffer by Witness ( ) Debriefing of Witness ( ) Pursuant to Plea Agreement ( ) Statement in other proceeding Summary of Case or Proceeding: The grand jury investigation is related to interstate travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, use of a means of interstate commerce to induce or entice a minor to engage in prostittlit anal a ' ' rafficking, and related offenses. In short, Epstein used his assistants— II., and to arrange "dates" with underage girls to come to his home to perform sexual acts. gigBackground and Role in Case or Matter and Summary of Anticipated Testimony or Information: was a victim (she was paid to perform sexual acts when she was under 18) and also was paid LIMITED OFFICIAL USE Previous editions and Form OBD- I 11A are obsolete FORM OBD-11I JAN. 93 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-008368 EFTA00225366 00/15/2001 15:10 FAX 5611050541 itO NPR COWRN Cit 006 to bring girls to Epstein, thus Lacerda could be classified both as • victim and as a co-conspirator. Her testimony will relate to how she was first introduced to Epstein; the type of sexual activity that be engaged in with the girls; the co-conspi rata re knowledge of the ages of the victims and the sexual activity that was occurring with Epstein; and the method for arranging the "appointments" with the girls and the recruitment of additional girls. (9) Witness' Family Relationship, if any, to the Subjects) or Defendant(s): None (10) Assurances or Promises, if any, to Witness in Return for this Testimony: None. (11) Acts of Witness Considered as a Waiver of Fifth Amendment Privilege. None. (12) Means Other than Immunity to Obtain thisTestimony Mi has been appear before a grand jury or to attend a proffer session. Lacerda's attorney has stated that will not appear unless compelled to do so and will assert her Fifth Amendment privilege in response to questions. (13) Basis Other than Proffer for Summary ofAnticipatedTestimony: Statements of other !vitamin, telephone records, and items seized during search of Epstein's home. (14) Relative Culpability of Witness Compared to Subject(s) or Dercodant(s): could be charged as a coconspirator or aider/abettor during the period when she was recruiting other girls; however, she also qualifies as a victim du nn the period when she was engaging insexual activity and while she was a minor. We believe that was a minor d ajority of the time she was Involved with is less culpable than the targets of the or their sexual activity and arranged his Epstein. In terms of her re alive culpability, investigation. Epstein and his assistants paid the g schedule of appointments. (15) Why Immunity is Necessary to the Public Interest State Facts. Epstein is believed to have engaged In sexual activity with at least 36 girls ranging In age from 14 to 18 years old. This activity occurred over a two-year period and some girls were contacted as many as 60 times. To prosecute successfully Epstein and his assistants, we man prove that Epstein and the assistants intended that Epitein engage in this sexual activity before he traveled to the Southern District of Florida or returned to New York, certain charges, that he knew or reasonably should have known that the girls were under 18. , who was both a victim and a "recruiter," is in the best position to testify regarding those in en ions. LOWED OFFICIAL USE Previous editions and Form ODD-I11 A arc obsolete Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA FORM OBD-1 II JAN. 93 P-008369 EFTA00225367 w.... •• ... '.a..r nn le; U1.1! (16) Basis for Belief that Witness Will Assert Fifth Amendment Privilege: As explained above, the witness's attorney has informed the undersigned that she will assert her Fifth Amendment Privilege. (17) Likelihood that Witness Will Testify if Immunity is Granted: High. The witness's attorney has stated that the witness will appear and answer questions if immunity is granted. (18) Prosecution of Witness in this Case or Matter: ( ) Yes (X) No () Acquitted ( ) Convicted ( ) Plea If not indicted, why not? If convicted, has the witness been sentenced? Witness has not been indicted because she is more properly classified as a victim. As explained above, she could be charged as a coconspirator during the period that she recruited girls, but it is believed that her testimony is more important than charging her with those offenses because she also is a victim of the offense. (19) Witness' Privilege Survives Because: Witness' testimony will relate in part to her recruitment of underage girls to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. (20) Witness is Presently Incarcerated: ( ) Yes (X) No If yes, give details: (21) Pending Federal or Local Charges against Witness: ( ) Yes (X) No if yes, give details: (22) Federal and State Offenses by Witness that Her Testimony Could Disclose: Conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct; conspiracy to use a means of interstate commerce to induce a minor to engage in sexual activity. (23) Opposition, if any, to Granting Immunity by State or Local Prosecuting Officials: None (24) Effect, if any, of Granting Immunity to the Witness Upon Any Other Federal District: None (25) Conviction of Witness Possible on Evidence Other than His Own Testimony? LIMITED OFFICIAL USE Previous editions and Form OBD-111A are obsolete FORM OBD- Ill JAN. 93 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-008370 EFTA00225368 Lanu nrb tAMPHM &as () Yes () No If yes, give details: Not applicable. (26) Violations (Statutes & Descriptions) by Subject(s) or Defendant(s): For all targets: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) (travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct); 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy); 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (use of a means of interstate commerce to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity); 18 L'.S.C. § 1591(a) (sex trafficking). (27) Witness Previously Immunized? ( ) Yes (X) No If yes, give details: (28) Witnesses for whom Immunity has been Authorized in this Proceeding: and (two other girls who were both victims and recruiters). (29) Date Investigation Began: July 2006 (30) Witness Subject to Electronic Surveillance? ( ) Yes (X) No If yes, give details: (31) Birth Date of Witness: 6/29/88 (32) FBI I. No.: (33) Birthplace: (35) Alias: • (36) Address of Witness: Brazil 34 Social Security No.: None (37) If Requestor is Department Attorney, Has United States Attorney Been Notified? ( ) Yes ( ) No Not applicable. Sign LIMITED OFFICIAL USE tun of United States A Previous editions and Form OBD-111A are obsolete FORM OBO-111 JAN. 93 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-008371 EFTA00225369 Memorandum Subject Prosecution Memorandum In re Operation Lean Year Date June 17, 2008 To R. Alexander Acosta U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman First Assistant U.S. Attorney Rolando Garcia Deputy Chief, Criminal Division Karen Atkinson, Chief _ Northern Division From A. Marie Villafatia Assistant U.S. Attoa t) I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum seeks approval for the attached Request for Authorization to Apply for Order seeking Immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 6001-6003 for witness in connection with the ongoing investigation named "Operation Leap Year." II. BACKGROUND Operation Lea Year involves the investi ation of Jeff E stein and five of his assistants, Kellen, , and The targets would arrange "sexual massages" for Epstein when he wou travel to a m eac or Mirk, and many of those "sexual massages" were performed by minor females. Witness began her relationship with Epstein as a "masseuse" when she was under the age of 18. After performing massages friliod of time, began recruiting other girls to perform massages. It is believed that received $2 or each girl she brought to Epstein's home. 'The investigation originally focused on the first three assistants who traveled with Epstein to Florida. Upon interviewing two identified New York victims, we determined that the last two assistants, Groff and Steen, arranged most of Epstein's New York massages. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-008372 EFTA00225370 has been approached by the FBI to provide information via an informal pmm th a -Kasugar e er" or testifying before represented by counsel in New York. has never spoke to w enforcement officer about what happened between her and pstein. We believe that counsel is independent i y. Counsel has told me that, if immun i ze:101 is ready and willing to provide complete • in (unlike some attorneys who have represented other witnesses), but he has stated that will not meet with agents or the Offi testify before the grand jury without MI immuni information regarding her dealings with Epstein. On the one hand, I am reluctant to provide = with immunity because I do not believe that she needs it. It appears that the majority of her dealings with Epstein occurred before she was 18, our Office is not interested in prosecuting her, FBI New York is assisting FBI West Palm Beach in connection with the investigation, so a federal prosecution in New York is n ming, and it is unlikely that the State of New York will open an investigation and charge I lowever, it has been widely reported that the Palm Beach Poli t prepared a "probable cause affidavit" to charge a similar victim/recruiter in Florida, ,with a second-degree felony. name also appears in a number of Complaints in the suits ainst Epstein. n t e most recent draft of the Indictment, we have listed and as unindicted coconspirators, which will make it easier to introduce their statements to Epstein and the assistants. Depending on testimony, we may need to treat her similarly. jury with a "pocket immunity" letter. is III THE NEED FOR THE WITNESSES' TESTIMONY AND THE REQUESTED IMMUNITY. The most difficult of this prosecution will be proving the knowledge and intent of the targets. For example, could assert that she knew that she was setting up massages for Epstein, but she believed that t ey were regular massages. the targets are likely to aver that they did not know that the girls were under the age of 18. helps us with this proof in several ways. First, she was victim whom we believe became involved with Epstein when she was only fourteen years' old, and her youn a e can help disprove lack of knowledge by Epstein and his assistants. Second, we believe that was a significant recruiter for Epstein, so she will be able to tell us what instructions she receive from him and the assistants regarding the types ofgirls to recruit, what was expected of them, etc. Third, she provides us with a strong entrée into lil York situation, which strengthens the "interstate commerce" nexus of the case. Fourth, is likely to have dealt most closely with Epstein's New York assistants, Groff and Steen. The best way to strengthen our case at this point is to "flip" one of the assistants, and Groff is the most likely to flip if we have sufficient evidence to charge her. Steen is another potential cooperator, but we have heard from another witness that Steen had done something to upset Epstein and he "shipped her off" to the Middle East to work for one of his companies there. The U.S. Attorney's Manual recommends prosecuting witnesses in aajsystpn such as this and getting their cooperation as part of a plea bargain. Our evidence against at this time is -2- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-008373 EFTA00225371 ihee have statements from two victims wh at they went to Epstein's house with We have two telephone messages from that were recovered in the search of Epstein's home. At this time we do not have any records of telephone calls between R and the assistants (we have not identified cell phone number during the relevant peIrt ). us, the likelihood of succeeding on such a prosecution is very small. Furthermore, a decision to prosecute could result in a refusal by many more girls to come forward because the majority of the identified girls brought other girls to Epstein, so all of them would feel at risk. IV. RECOMMENDATION For these reasons, I recommend that the attached Request for Authorization to Apply for Compulsion Order on behalf of be submitted to the Witness Immunity Unit. -3- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-008374 EFTA00225372 US. Department of Justice Request for Authorization to Apply for Compulsion Order (18 U.S.C. 6001-6003; 28 CFR 0.175-0.178) INSTRUCTIONS: Prepare and Submit Original and One Copy. Answer Each Question as Accurately and Completely as Possible. TO: Witness Immunity Unit Criminal Division, Rm. 1056 1001 G Street N.W. Washington, 20530 PHONE NO: (202) 514-5541 TELEFAX NO: (202) 514-1468 FROM: AUSA A. Marie Villafafia United States Attorney's Office 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 PHONE NO: (561) 209-1047 TELEFAX NO: (561) 820-8777 (1) Name of Witness: (3) Nature of Proceeding: ( ) Trial (X) Grand Jury ( ) Other (2) District: Southern District of Florida (4) Name of Sub-ect(s) or Defendants : Jeff Epstein, Kellen, (5) Date of Testimony (two weeks lead time required): July 1, 2008 (6) Proffer of Anticipated Testimony: (7) (8) (X) None Obtained ( ) Proffer by Counsel ( ) Proffer by Witness ( ) Debriefing of Witness ( ) Pursuant to Plea Agreement ( ) Statement in other proceeding Summary of Case or Proceeding: The grand jury investigation is related to interstate travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, use of a means of interstate commerce to induce or entice a minor to engage in prostit sexual activity, afficking, and related offenses. In short, Epstein used his assistants— , and — to arrange "dates" with underage girls to come to his home to perform sexua acts. is Background and Role in Case or Matter and Summary of Anticipated Testimony or Information: was a victim (she was paid to perform sexual acts when she was under 18) and also was paid LIMITED OFFICIAL USE Previous editions and Form OBD-111A are obsolete Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA FORM OBD- I I 1 JAN. 93 P-008375 EFTA00225373 to bring girls to Epstein, thus could be classified both as a victim and as a co-conspirator. Her testimony will relate to how she was first introduced to Epstein; the type of sexual activity that he engaged in with the girls; the co-conspirators' knowledge of the ages of the victims and the sexual activity that was occurring with Epstein; and the method for arranging the "appointments" with the girls and the recruitment of additional girls. (9) Witness' Family Relationship, if any, to the Subject(s) or Defendant(s): None (10) Assurances or Promises, if any, to Witness in Return for this Testimony: None. (11) Acts of Witness Considered as a Waiver of Fifth Amendment Privilege: None. ( I 2) Means Other than Immunity to Obtai ony: has been > appear before a grand jury or to attend a proffer session. attorney has stated that will not appear unless compelled to do so and will assert her Fifth Amendment privilege in response to questions. (13) Basis Other than Proffer for Summary of Anticipated Testimony: Statements of other witnesses, telephone records, and items seized during search of Epstein's home. (14) Relative Culpability of Witness Compared to Subject(s) or Defendant(s): could be charged as a coconspirator or aider/abettor during the period when she was recruiting of er girls; however, she also qualifies as a victim d e period when she was engaging in sexual activity and while she was a minor. We believe that was a minor d ' ajority of the time she was involved with Epstein. In terms of her relative culpability, is less culpable than the targets of the investigation. Epstein and his assistants paid the gir s or their sexual activity and arranged his schedule of appointments. (15) Why Immunity is Necessary to the Public Interest: State Facts. Epstein is believed to have engaged in sexual activity with at least 36 girls ranging in age from 14 to 18 years old. This activity occurred over a two-year period and some girls were contacted as many as 60 times. To prosecute successfully Epstein and his assistants, we must prove that Epstein and the assistants intended that Epstein engage in this sexual activity before he traveled to the Southern District of Florida or returned to New York, certain charges, that he knew or reasonably should have known that the girls were under 18. , who was both a victim and a "recruiter," is in the best position to testify regarding those intentions. LIMITED OFFICIAL USE Previous editions and Form OBD-111A are obsolete FORM OBD-111 JAN. 93 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-008376 EFTA00225374 (16) Basis for Belief that Witness Will Assert Fifth Amendment Privilege: As explained above, the witness's attorney has informed the undersigned that she will assert her Fifth Amendment Privilege. (17) Likelihood that Witness Will Testify if Immunity is Granted: High. The witness's attorney has stated that the witness will appear and answer questions if immunity is granted. (18) Prosecution of Witness in this Case or Matter: () Yes (X) No ( ) Acquitted ( ) Convicted ( ) Plea If not indicted, why not? If convicted, has the witness been sentenced? Witness has not been indicted because she is more properly classified as a victim. As explained above, she could be charged as a coconspirator during the period that she recruited girls, but it is believed that her testimony is more important than charging her with those offenses because she also is a victim of the offense. (19) Witness' Privilege Survives Because: Witness' testimony will relate in part to her recruitment of underage girls to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. (20) Witness is Presently Incarcerated: ( ) Ycs (X) No If yes, give details: (21) Pending Federal or Local Charges against Witness: ( ) Yes (X) No If yes, give details: (22) Federal and State Offenses by Witness that Her Testimony Could Disclose: Conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct; conspiracy to use a means of interstate commerce to induce a minor to engage in sexual activity. (23) Opposition, if any, to Granting Immunity by State or Local Prosecuting Officials: None (24) Effect, if any, of Granting Immunity to the Witness Upon Any Other Federal District: None (25) Conviction of Witness Possible on Evidence Other than His Own Testimony? LIMITED OFFICIAL USE Previous editions and Form OBD-111A are obsolete FORM OBD-111 JAN. 93 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-008377 EFTA00225375 () Yes ( ) No If yes, give details: Not applicable. (26) Violations (Statutes & Descriptions) by Subject(s) or Defendant(s): For all targets: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) (travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct); 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy); 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (use of a means of interstate commerce to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity); 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) (sex trafficking). (27) Witness Previously Immunized? ( ) Yes (X) No If yes, give details: (28) Witnesses for whom Immunity has been Authorized in this Proceeding: and (two other girls who were both victims and recruiters). (29) Date Investigation Began: July 2006 (30) Witness Subject to Electronic Surveillance? ( ) Yes (X) No (31) Birth Date of Witness: (33) Birthplace: (35) Alias: (36) 6/29/88 Brazil Married name is Address of Witness: 4103 31st Avenue, Astoria, NY 11103 (32) FBI I. No.: 34) Social Security No.: None If yes, give details: (37) If Requestor is Department Attorney, Has United States Attorney Been Notified? ( ) Yes ( ) No Not applicable. at ifi de Signature of Requestor Signature of United States Attorney LIMITED OFFICIAL USE Previous editions and Form OBD-111A are obsolete FORM OBD-111 JAN. 93 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-008378 EFTA00225376 U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20530-0001 JUN 24 2008 The Honorable R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney Southern District of Florida West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Attention: A. Marie Villafana Assistant United States Attorney Re: Grand Jury Investigation, Jeffrey Epstein, et al. Dear Mr. Acosta: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 18 U.S.C. § 6003(b) and 28 C.F.R. § 0.175(a), l hereby approve your request for authority to apply to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for an order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003 requiting to give testimony or provide other information in the above matter and in any er proceedings resulting therefrom or ancillary thereto. Sincerely, Matthew W. Friedrich Acting Assistant Attorney General Sigal P. Mandetker Deputy Assistant Attorney General 7itv;cino. EXHIBIT B-131 EFTA00225377