Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 17

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. EFTA00185206 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 17 JANE DOE NO. 6, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. C.M.A., Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-808 I I -MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON -2- EFTA00185207 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 17 DOE II, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. CASE NO.: 09-C V-80469-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 102 CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER REOUESTING POSITION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY [DE 991 Comes now the United States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, and files this response to the Court's Order requesting the position of the United States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99]. For the reasons set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay of the proceedings is not necessary and was not contemplated by the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. -3- EFTA00185208 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 17 ISSUE PRESENTED The United States is not a party to these lawsuits and, accordingly, is not fully aware of the scope of the proceedings, the range of arguments presented by counsel, and any correspondence or oral communications between the parties in these civil suits. Based on the information presented by the Court and a review of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action for Time Certain Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Court File No. 08-CV-80811- MARRA/JOHNSON DE SI-I), and responses thereto filed by various plaintiffs in their suits, the undersigned understands that the Court has requested the position of the United States on the following issue: Are there "special circumstances" that require the imposition of a stay of the civil proceedings in the "interests of justice" until the "expiration" of the Non- Prosecution Agreement ["NPA"] between the United States and Epstein? By filing this response, the United States does not make itself a party to this litigation and takes no position with respect to the outcome of any of the civil suits; nor does the United States take any position regarding Defendant Epstein's performance of hi s obligations pursuant to the NPA. The United States also declines to comment on Defendant Epstein's representations regarding past allegations of violations of the NPA by Epstein. The United States files this response solely as amicus curiae at the Court's request and does not waive any procedural or statutory bars to suit. -4- EFTA00185209 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 17 I. STANDARD FOR IMPOSING A DISCRETIONARY STAY A. The Defendant Must Show that the Assertion of His Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Would Automatically Result in the Entry of Summary Judgment Against Him. "The decision whether or not to stay civil litigation in deference to parallel criminal proceedings is discretionary.... A movant must carry a heavy burden to succeed in such an endeavor." Microfinancial, Inc.. Premier Holidays Internal?, Inc., 385 F.3d 72, 77 (1st Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). When a defendant facing possible criminal liability invokes his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination in connection with civil litigation, a court can stay discovery or the entire civil case. Diaz'. Jenne, 2007 WL 624286 al (S.D. Fl. Feb. 23, 2007) (Cooke, J.). "However, 'the Constitution does not require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings. Forcing an individual to risk non-criminal disadvantage by remaining silent for fear of self incrimination in a parallel criminal proceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional infringement.'" Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co.'. Alan° Assocs., Inc., 866 F. Supp. 536, 540 (M.D. Fl. 1994)). As this Court has previously explained: The law regardii stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. In United States Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Fla, 23 F.3d 359, 363- 65 (11th Cir. 1994) ("Lot 5"), the Court articulated the following principles of law with respect to a stay of a civil action pending resolution of a related criminal action: [A] blanket assertion of the privilege is an inadequate basis for the issuance of a stay. Rather, a court must stay a civil -5- EFTA00185210 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 6 of 17 proceeding pending resolution of a related criminal prosecution only when "special circumstances" so require in the "interests ofjustice." The court may deny a stay so long as the privilege's invocation does not compel an adverse judgment against the claimant. • • • Mhe standard set by the Eleventh Circuit as to when a stay should be granted to prevent unconstitutional infringement is more narrow. The law in the Eleventh Circuit requires consideration of whether, as a result of invoking the privilege, the defendant faces certain loss of the civil proceeding on summary judgment if the civil proceeding were to continue. Lot 5, 23 F.3d at 364; Pervis I. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 901 F.2d 944 (1 I th Cir. 1990). Under this standard, Movants must show that invocation of the privilege in the instant matter will result in certain loss by automatic summary judgment. United States'. Two Parcels of Real Property, 92 F.3d 1123, 1129 (11th Cir. 1996); Pervis, 901 F.2d at 946-47. This must be an actual adverse judgment, and not "merely the loss of the defendant's most `effective defense."' Securities & Exchange Comm.'. Incendy, 936 F. Supp. at 955 (S.D. Fl. 1996); Shell Oil Co., 866 F. Supp. at 540-41. Court-Appointed Receiver of Lancer Mgt. Group LLCI. Lauer, 2009 WL 800144 (S.D. Fl. Mar. 25, 2009) (Marra, J.). Thus, before reaching the relative benefit and prejudice to each of the parties caused by staying the cases, the Court must determine whether, if defendant Epstein were to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination' and the Court were to allow an adverse inference to be drawn therefrom, an adverse judgment against Epstein would be automatically compelled. The United States respectfully submits that it would not. 'It appears from a brief review of some of' Epstein's discovery responses that Epstein has made a blanket assertion of the privilege. For example, Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to a plaintiff's request to produce the NPA and the United States' list of identified victims although these documents were provided to Epstein by the United States. -6- EFTA00185211 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 7 of 17 From a review of the Complaints filed by the plaintiffs in these cases, it appears that some have filed claims based upon Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, some have filed claims based upon common law torts, and some have filed a combination of the two. Under general principles of tort law, a plaintiff is required to prove: (1) that the defendant committed a bad act; (2) that the plaintiff suffered damages; and (3) that the damages were caused by the defendant's bad act. To succeed on a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff is a person who, while a minor, was a victim of an enumerated offense committed by the defendant; (2) that the person suffered personal injury as a result of that violation; and (3) the amount of damages she sustained. Epstein's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege could result in the drawing of a negative inference only as to the first element under both of these claims. Therefore, to succeed on summary judgment (or at trial), the plaintiffs would still have to prove that they suffered personal injury/damages as a result of the defendant's bad act. CI In re Financial Federated Title & Trust, Inc., 252 B.R. 834, 838 (S.D. Fl. Bank. Ct. 2000) (Stay not warranted in bankruptcy proceeding where criminal indictment was pending because negative inference related only to defendant's receipt of allegedly fraudulent transfers, but "Trustee must still cant' the burden of proving all of the elements of his complaint for fraudulent transfers ... includ[ing] fraudulent intent, insolvency, and financial condition at the time of the transfers to the Defendants."). While Epstein may believe that his arguments and proof as to the first element are his "most effective defense," that alone is insufficient to warrant the imposition of a stay of the -7- EFTA00185212 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 8 of 17 litigation. There are two other items for the Court to consider in deciding this issue. First, pursuant to the terms of the NPA, as to those victims identified by the United States, Epstein has already made a concession that they are victims of an enumerated offense committed by Epstein. Thus, this inference is drawn not due to his invocation of the right against self- incrimination but due to his entry into a contractual agreement with the United States for which the identified victims are third-party beneficiaries? Second, in Lot 5, the Eleventh Circuit pointed out the wealth of evidence other than the defendant's testimony that could be used to defeat a liability claim. See Lot 5, 23 F.3d at 364 ("Thus, Claimant's assertion that only her own testimony could vindicate her is groundless; other participants to the illegal acts that gave rise to the forfeiture were available to testify at trial. Claimant's failure to indicate with precision why she did not use other parties' testimony to substantiate her defense was fatal."). For example, Epstein could mount a defense using effective cross-examination, telephone records, travel records, documents within the possession of the plaintiffs or third parties, and/or the testimony of third parties to rebut the plaintiffs' proof. 2The United States notes that it is not aware of the identities of all of the plaintiffs in the civil suits. To the extent that any are not "identified victims" under the NPA, this contractual provision would not apply. -8- EFTA00185213 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 9 of 17 B. Additional Factors to Consider in Balancing the Prejudice to the Parties If the Court is persuaded that the negative inference drawn from Epstein's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege would result in an automatic grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, then the Court must engage in a balancing of equities in determining whether there are "special circumstances" warranting the imposition of a stay "'to prevent a party from suffering substantial and irreparable prejudice."' Securites and Exchange Comm in t. Incendy, 936 F. Supp. 952, 956 (S.D. Fl. 1996) (quoting S.E.C.I. First Financial Group of Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 668 (5th Cir. 1981) (add'I citations omitted). Examples of "special circumstances" provided by the Supreme Court in [United States'. Kordel] are: (I) if the Government brought the civil action solely to obtain evidence for its criminal prosecution, (2) if the Government failed to advise the defendant in the civil proceeding that it contemplates his criminal prosecution; (3) if the defendant is without counsel or reasonably fears prejudice from adverse pretrial publicity or other unfair injury; or (4) any other special circumstances indicating unconstitutionality or even impropriety. Incendy at 956 (citing United States' Kordel, 397 U.S. I, 11 (1970)). See also Securities and Exchange Comm'nl. Wright, 261 Fed. Appx. 259, 263 (11th Cir. 2008) ("[N]o 'special circumstances' existed in this case warranting a stay, as there is no record evidence suggesting the Government had brought the civil case solely to obtain evidence for the criminal prosecution or that the criminal case against [defendant] was unconstitutional or inappropriately instituted."). No "special circumstances" exist here. First, unlike Wright and Incendy, the United States Government is not a party to the civil litigation. Each suit is brought on behalf of an -9- EFTA00185214 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 10 of 17 individual plaintiff represented by private counsel. Some of those plaintiffs are adverse to the United States and have filed suit against the Government based upon its handling of the criminal case against Epstein. (See In re Jane Doe Litigation, Court File No. 08-80736-Cil- Marra.) There has been no allegation, and certainly no showing, that the civil litigation is a ruse to obtain discovery on behalf of the criminal investigation. As some of the plaintiffs have mentioned, one purpose of the NPA was to place the identified victims in the same position where they would have been if Epstein had been convicted after trial of an offense enumerated in .18 U.S.C. § 2255. (See, e.g., Court File No. 08-CV-80119 DE 49-2.) If Epstein had proceeded to trial and been convicted, those victims would have been entitled to restitution and to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and would have been entitled to the same sorts of discovery that they now seek. None of the plaintiffs has contacted the United States about passing on materials gathered through discovery to any criminal investigators or about seeking discovery that would be relevant only to the criminal proceedings, rather than to their individual cases. If Epstein has legitimate concerns that the civil discovery process is being abused in some way, he can ask the Court for a protective order limiting the scope of discovery or its distribution. Furthermore, if at some time in the future, Epstein were the subject of a criminal indictment and he alleged that the evidence to be used against him was gathered improperly, he could file a motion to suppress or to dismiss the indictment in that criminal action. See, e.g., United States, ex. rel. Westrickl. Second Chance, 2007 WL 1020808 '4 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2007) (Defendant in civil False Claims Act suit moved to stay civil action pending criminal -10- EFTA00185215 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 11 of 17 investigation where no indictment had been returned. The district court denied the motion, noting that while "allowing civil discovery to proceed may afford the government [who was the real party in interest in the civil case] the opportunity to gain evidence that it may not be entitled to under the more restrictive criminal discovery rules, if and when discovery becomes necessary, protective orders and other remedial measures may be taken.") (citations omitted). By entering into the NPA, with its explicit discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein acknowledged that the United States was trying to protect the victims' rights to restitution and that civil claims would likely follow. Epstein did not bargain for a stay of those proceedings. Instead, both parties received benefits and gave consideration for the bargain that was struck —while Epstein is faced with answering discovery requests that he would not face during criminal proceedings, he also is entitled to the identification of and extensive discovery from the victims, which he would not have received in the criminal case. Based upon a review of the discovery requests he has promulgated thus far, it appears that Epstein is taking full advantage of this benefit and if a criminal case were ever filed, he would, no doubt, seek to use that information in his defense.3 3With respect to the other "special circumstances" mentioned in Incendy, the government obviously advised Epstein of the potential for criminal charges, and that knowledge led to the negotiation of the NPA. Epstein also has a number of attorneys listed on the Service List for the civil cases and has retained a similarly large number of attomeys to handle the criminal investigation and negotiation of the NPA. Epstein alleges a fear of adverse publicity, but as the plaintiffs have pointed out, during the course of the state and federal criminal investigations, Epstein's personal publicist distributed stories to the press impugning the credibility of the victims and other witnesses and averring that the victims' allegations of abuse were made solely to extract money from the defendant. In the context of some of the civil suits currently pending, Epstein has asked the Court -11- EFTA00185216 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 12 of 17 Unlike Wright and Incendy, Epstein also has not been criminally indicted. In some districts, this alone is virtually dispositive. See, e.g., Sterling Nall Bank'. A-I Hotels Internal 7, 175 F. Supp. 2d 573, 576-77 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("district courts in this Circuit 'generally grant the extraordinary remedy of a stay only after the defendant seeking a stay has been indicted.'" (quoting Citibank, N.A. Hakim, 1993 WL 481335 *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 1993) (add'I citations omitted). As one court explained: the consensus that a party seeking a stay bears a heavier burden when he has not yet been indicted derives logically from the balancing test set out by the courts of appeals that have considered the question. When a defendant has been indicted, his situation is particularly dangerous, and takes a certain priority, for the risk to his liberty, the importance of safeguarding his constitutional rights, and even the strain on his resources and attention that makes defending satellite civil litigation particularly difficult, all weigh in favor of his interest. Moreover, if the potential prejudice to the defendant is particularly high post-indictment, the prejudice to the plaintiff of staying proceedings is somewhat reduced, since the criminal litigation has reached a crisis that will lead to a reasonably speedy resolution. Furthermore, at that stage in the criminal proceeding, the contours of the indictment will provide the Court with a reasonable basis for determining the extent of the threat to the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, and the likely extent and timing of the criminal litigation. Pre-indictment, these factors must be balanced significantly differently. Though many of the same risks to the civil defendant are present, the dangers are at least somewhat more remote, and it is inherently unclear to the Court just how much the unindicted defendant really has to fear. Conversely, the delay imposed on the plaintiff is potentially indefinite. There is no telling how complicated the government's investigation may be, whether the allegations of the particular civil plaintiff are merely the tip of an iceberg that will result in a lengthy and open-ended investigation, what priority the government assigns to the investigation, whether it will result in charges that will have to to unseal the victims' names so that he may make use similar press efforts to impugn their credibility. -12- EFTA00185217 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 13 of 17 be litigated, or how time-consuming the resulting criminal case will be. Under these circumstances, the likelihood that a civil party can make the necessary showing to obtain the "extraordinary" remedy of a stay is inevitably much reduced. Sterling Nat'l Bank, 175 F. Supp. 2d at 577 (internal citations omitted). The First Circuit has noted that the decision whether to grant a stay "is highly nuanced ... [and] involves competing interests. Balancing these interests is a situation-specific task, and an inquiring court must take a careful look at the idiosyncratic circumstances of the case before it." Microfinancial, supra, 385 F.3d at 78. Epstein's case is more idiosyncratic than most. As the Court aptly noted in its Order denying Epstein's first motion to stay the civil proceedings, Epstein has not been indicted and there are no criminal proceedings pending against him.' The resurrection of criminal proceedings against Epstein lies entirely within Epstein's own hands, by performing or not performing under the terms of the NPA. This tips the balance of equities even further in favor of the plaintiffs. Epstein makes allegations that the U.S. Attorney's Office has unfettered discretion in determining breaches of the NPA, but this is no different than in any contractual setting. If one party believes that there has been a breach, it may seek the remedy set forth in the contract. If the other party believes that 'Epstein points to provisions requiring him to maintain certain evidence "inviolate" as proof that the grand jury investigation is still active. These provisions are meant only to insure that easily destroyed evidence identified through the investigation, such as computer equipment, that is still in Epstein's control, will still be available to investigators if Epstein does, in fact, breach the NPA. Epstein is well aware that litigation concerning those matters have been removed from the Court's docket, at the insistence of the United States, because it fully halted its investigation in accordance with the terms of the NPA. -13- EFTA00185218 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 14 of 17 there has been no breach, it has a remedy at law or equity. In this situation, Epstein would be entitled to seek dismissal of the indictment. See United States. Beeks, 167 Fed. Appx 777 (1 I th Cir. 2006); United States. Diaz, 138 Fed. Appx. 965 (9th Cir. 2005); United States'. Davis, 393 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2004). Epstein argues that because he is seeking a finite period of delay - until the time that he asserts that the NPA "expires" — and that, thereafter, he will promptly provide full and complete responses to all discovery, the harm to the plaintiffs is de minimis. With all respect, this overlooks a number of obvious issues. First, if a stay is imposed until Epstein's proposed "expiration date," it affords Epstein one of two incentives: (a) to delay any intended breach until a time when he believes that the United States has no remedy and then to breach the agreement with impunity (Le, to use the NPA as a shield and a sword); or (b) to delay the civil litigation as long as possible (until shortly before the "expiration" of the NPA), and then, after criminal charges have been filed, to seek a mandatory stay of the civil cases until the criminal case is resolved. Thus, contrary to the assertions of Epstein, the delay is not limited but, instead, is "potentially indefinite," as Sterling Bank warns. If the U.S. Attorney's Office were to proceed criminally, the litigation would likely be very lengthy, and would result in an even greater delay to the plaintiffs? 'The United States also notes that this finite termination to Epstein's exposure to potential criminal consequences is illusory. The NPA addresses only certain victims identified during the course of the government's investigation. To the extent that any of the plaintiffs who have already filed suit against Epstein do not fall within that group, the NPA does not address potential charges based upon crimes committed against them. The NPA also does not bind any other state or federal prosecutor from pursuing charges for criminal acts committed within their jurisdiction(s). The federal statute of limitations for offenses against children is ten years or the life of the child, -14- EFTA00185219 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 15 of 17 The factors to consider include: "(i) the interests of the civil plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation, including the avoidance of any prejudice to the plaintiff should a delay transpire; (ii) the hardship to the defendant, including the burden placed upon him should the cases go forward in tandem; (iii) the convenience of both the civil and criminal courts; (iv) the interests of third parties; .. . (I) the public interest[;] (vi) the good faith of the litigants (or the absence of it) and (vii) the status of the cases." Microfinancial, 385 F.3d at 78 (citations omitted). In considering those factors, the United States respectfully recommends to the Court that all of the factors weigh against a stay. In making its decision, the Court should consider that, unlike all of the cases cited herein, Epstein seeks to stay not one suit involving a single plaintiff, but more than a dozen suits filed by individual plaintiffs. Each of those plaintiffs, in turn, impliedly asserts that she is a "crime victim" with the "right to full and timely restitution" and the "right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX6) & (7). As noted above, one of the purposes of the NPA was to provide these rights to victims identified in the Government's investigation. Thus, this factor weighs more heavily for the plaintiffs than in the average civil dispute as it embodies both the plaintiffs' and the public's interests. The victims who were identified in the government investigation, by and large, were without financial assets and had significant counseling needs that could whichever is longer. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Thus, for Epstein (or any other person accused of sexually abusing children) to "wait out" any chance of criminal liability, the court would have to stay civil litigation until all of the plaintiffs have died. -I5- EFTA00185220 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 16 of 17 be remedied through obtaining restitution from Epstein. In addition to those needs, they have legitimate concerns about memories fading, witnesses becoming unavailable, and dissipation of Epstein's assets while the matter is stayed. On the other hand, while the potential harm to the defendant normally weighs in the defendant's favor, in this case, Epstein has significant control over whether the criminal investigation remains in abeyance and whether criminal charges are ever filed. CONCLUSION In accordance with the Court's Order, the United States hereby submits that it is not aware of any "special circumstances" that warrant staying all of the civil cases pending the "expiration" of the NPA. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: ssistant United States Attorne 500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: Facsimile: -16- EFTA00185221 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 17 of 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 28, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. ssistant United States Attorney _17_ EFTA00185222 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 W t 1 ch, FL 33401 Facsimile: January 24, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 Re: Federal Grand Jury Subpoena Dear Jim: A new grand jury has been emaLlsed and I have enclosed a new subpoena for= As I mentioned earlier, Ms.M is not a target of this investigation and the United States seeks her testimony solely as a victim/witness. During our last conversation regarding Ms. =, you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us pursuant to a Kastigar letter and that she also was unwilling to speak with the grand jury and intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned. Please confer with her to confirm whether this remains her position. If it is, please advise in writing. Even if Ms. is inclined to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, she must still appear pursuant to the subpoena so that I may ask her questions that would not require the invocation of the Fifth Amendment. If she still invokes, I intend to move to compel her answers. If you or your client is unavailable on February 6, 2007, please let me know of another Tuesday when you are available. I also am concerned about a potential conflict of interest in your representation of Ms. . In case of future litigation regarding this issue, please provide me with I *All tion regarding who is paying (directly or indirectly) for your services on behalf of Ms. , the scope of your representation and whether you are taking direction on this matter from anyone other than Ms. =. If any formal or informal joint defense agreements exist, whether in writing or otherwise, please provide a copy of such agreements. If the agreement is purely oral, please provide a written summary of its terms. GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT EFTA00185223 JAMES EISENBERG, ESQ. JANUARY 24, 2007 PAGE 2 I look forward to your response. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta By: Assistant United States Attorney EFTA00185224 United States District Court TO: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY SUBPOENA FOR: PERSON ri DOCUMENTS OR OBJECT[S] X X YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testifybefore theMof the United States District Court at the place, date and time specified'below. PLACE: United States District Courthouse 701 Clematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 ROOM: DATE AND TIME: February 6, 2007 I:00pm* YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following documcnt(s) or object(s): ANY AND ALL NOTES, LE HS YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM JEFFREY EPSTEIN, THER PRINTED OR DIGITAL, OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ANY AND AIL II-MAILS, INSTANT MESSAGES, CHATS, TEXT MESSAGES, VOICBMAILS; OR TELEPHONE MESSAGES THAT YOU HAVE SENT TO AND/OR RECEIVED FROM JEFFREY EPSTEIN, *Please coordinate your compliance u d confirm the date and time, and location of our a earance with Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone: This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf of the court. CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERIC This subpoena is issued upon application of the United States of America DATE: January 23, 2007 Name Address and Ph ne thimber of Assistant U.S. Attorney Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 So. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401-6235 Tel: Fax: *If not applicable, enter "nom." TOM ampw litoorA0110 FORM ORD-227 JAN.86 EFTA00185225 EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A. Attorneys At Law JAMES L. EISENBERG Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer National Board Of Trial Advocacy Certified Criminal Trial Advocate KAI LI ALOE FOUTS One Clearlake Centre, Suite 704,250 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax: February 1, 2007 Asst. U.S. Attorney 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Grand Jury Subpoena for Dear M, I received your letter dated January 24, 2007 with regard to I must admit I forced myself to wait several days to respond in order to "cool off' and not say anything I would regret later. Now that time has passed, allow me to respond appropriately. 1. If you want to force Ms. =, a single mother, to come to the grand jury room to personally invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, she will be there. That does remain her position. My only request is that sro ttirovide a babysitter service for her child. I will be there, but I am not paid to babysit and Ms. should not have someone. It is this type of attitude, that your office refuses to accept the fact that it is Ms. decision not to cooperate with the government that upsets her. Your office fails to recognize that merely coming to court is a problem for a single mother like Ms. and, under these circumstances, appears to be a waste of time at best and, in her mind, personal harassment. 2. Rest assured that there is no conflict of interest in my representation of Ms. =. In this case I have always been asked and always will exercise independent judgment to follow my client's independent will. The remainder of your questions as to this matter are really none of the Government's business. 3. I will share with you that one of the reasons for our firm position that Ms. will invoke her Fifth Amendment right and choose not to voluntarily cooperate with the Government is our concern that the Government is not exercising independent judgment in this case. The history of this case has been in the newspapers. The case is being prosecuted in State court. Despite the state court prosecution, the Town of Palm Beach Police Chief went on what can only be ti • zr, GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 2 • • EFTA00185226 , Asst. U.S. Attorney February 1, 2007 Page Two described as a public rampage in the newspaper when the case was not prosecuted to his liking that reminded me of a small child having a public temper tantrum. In my thirty years of experience, I have never seen a law enforcement officer like this publicly make what appeared to be a political case in the newspaper for a prosecution and publicly criticize anyone who got in his way, including the elected State Attorney. This resulted in a federal investigation on a topic no one remembers the Federal Government ever being interested in prosecuting before. Although 1 am certain that you personally have not had your decision-making process compromised, the appearance that your office is being influenced by the Town of Palm Beach Police Chief's agenda is very real. Under these circumstanceri don't see how any lawyer could advise any client to voluntarily cooperate. Of special concern is that the Town of Palm Beach Police have promoted prosecuting at least one of the girls who allegedly gave massages. One final thought. My client and my fear that Ms. could be prosecuted is enhanced by the demand for the personal appearance made in your letter. Your initial Kastiger letter fell far short of granting the functional equivalent of DOJ immunity. Several months ago I was given the distinct impression through our conversations that you were going to obtain DOJ immunity for Ms. Now the government is changing course for no apparent reason. This leads to speculation that the only reason for the turnabout is that prosecution in either state or federal court is being considered by someone. None of the above directed at you personally. I want to repeat that you have always treated us with respect. aybe office should advise the Town Police Chief to act in a similar fashion. Since ERG ILE cc: EFTA00185227 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 h, Florida 33401 Facsimi FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: JIM EISENBERG, ESQ. DATE: FAX NO. # OF PAGES: PHONE NO. RE: February 5, 2007 FROM: A. PHONE NO. VILLAFARA, ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY COMMENTS: al 37rVi-- th at_ jala Catut .bint 1/4131A,Vt a att °t(6 - I I hake, apul h4s -Gr chger u wahocteitz. EFTA00185228 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DELIVERY BY HAND Ms. a do James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 February 5, 2007 Re: Grand Jury Testimony of IMIIM Dear Ms. This letter confirms the understanding between yourself and the United States Attorneys Office for the Southern District of Florida. You have represented that you will truthfully answer questions of the federal government in its investigation of the procurement of prostitutes, amongst others. You will supply complete and truthful information to the attorneys and law enforcement officers of the federal government and to any Federal Grand Jury which may conduct an investigation, as well as in any other proceeding related to or growing out of this investigation. The obligation of truthful disclosure includes your obligation to provide the attorneys and law enforcement officers of the federal government with any documents, records or other tangible evidence within your custody or control relating to the matters about which you are questioned. You will neither attempt to protect any person or entity through false information or omission, nor falsely implicate any person or entity. No statements provided by you on this date in this matter pursuant to this agreement will be offered into evidence in any criminal case against you, except during a prosecution for perjury and/or giving a false statement. However, if it is determined that you have materially violated any provision of this agreement, all statements made by you shall be admissible in evidence against you in any proceeding. The federal government remains free to use information derived from the grand jury testimony directly or indirectly for the purpose of obtaining leads to other evidence, which may be used against you. You expressly waive any right to claim that such evidence should not be introduced because it was obtained as a result of the grand jury testimony. Furthermore, the federal government may use statements made in the grand jury testimony and all evidence derived directly or indirectly therefrom for the purpose of cross-examination, if you testify at any trial or if you EFTA00185229 MS. FEBRUARY 5, 2007 PAGE 2 suborn testimony that contradicts your prior statements and testimony. No additional promises, agreements and conditions have been entered into other than those set forth in this letter and none will be entered into unless in writing and signed by all parties. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney I have read this agreement and discussed it with my attorney, and I hereby acknowledge that it fully sets forth my agreement with the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. I state that there have been no additional promises, agreements or representations made to me by any officials of the United States in connection with this matter. Dated: February , 2007 West Palm Beach, Florida Witnessed by: James L. Eiser,ra i Attorney for EFTA00185230 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY HAND James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 Re: Dear Mr. Eisenberg: 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile: February 5, 2007 I am writing to clarify the ground rules for the interview with your client, ("your client"), to occur February 2007. As I mentioned earlier, Ms. is not a target or subject of this investigation, but instead is being interviewed solely as a victim/witness. However, to address your concern about criminal exposure, if your client complies with every provision of this agreement, then the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("this Office") will treat all statements made by your client during the interview as statements made pursuant to Rule 11(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is not a grant of immunity, which can be given only with approval of the Justice Department, but protects your client from having the statements made by her during the interview from being used against her directly. To guard against any misunderstandings concerning the interview of your client, this letter sets forth the terms of this agreement. Your client agrees to be fully interviewed, that is, to provide information concerning your client's knowledge of, and participation in criminal activity, including but not limited to the procurement of prostitutes. The protection of this letter applies to an interview that will be conducted by this Office, Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and any other federal law enforcement agency this Office may require. Under this agreement, no information disclosed by your client during the interview will be offered in evidence against her in any criminal or civil proceeding, provided that your client complies with this agreement and that the information your client furnishes is truthful, complete, and accurate. If, however, your client gives materially false, incomplete, or misleading information, EFTA00185231 JAMES L. EISENBERG, ESQ. EB: FEBRUARY 2, 2007 PAGE 2 then this Office may use such information in any matter or proceeding and your client is subject to prosecution for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to government agencies. Any such prosecution may be based upon information provided by your client during the course of the interview, and such information, including your client's statements, will be admissible against your client in any grand jury or other proceeding. The government also may use statements made by your client in the interview and all evidence derived directly or indirectly therefrom for the purpose of impeachment or cross-examination if she testifies at any trial or hearing, and/or in any rebuttal case against your client in a criminal trial in which she is a defendant or a witness. These provisions are necessary to ensure that your client does not make or offer any false representation or statement in any proceeding or to a government agency or commit perjury during any testimony. Your client further agrees that attorneys for the United States may be present at the interview, and agrees not to seek disqualification of any such government attorney from any proceeding or trial because of their participation at the interview. The entire agreement between the United States and your client is set forth in this letter. No additional promises, agreements, or conditions have been entered into and none will be entered into unless in writing and signed by all parties. If the foregoing accurately reflects the understanding and agreement between this Office and your client, it is requested that you and your client execute this letter as provided below. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney I have received this letter from my attorney, James L. Eisenberg, Esquire, have read it and discussed it with my attorney, and I hereby acknowledge that it fully sets forth my understanding and agreement with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern EFTA00185232 JAMES L. EISENBERG, ESQ. RE: FEBRUARY 2, 2007 PAGE 3 District of Florida. T state that there have been no additional promises or representations ' made to me by any official of the United States Government or by my attorney in connection with this matter. Dated: Witnessed by: James L. Eisenberg, Esquire EFTA00185233 U.S. Department of Justice Authorization for Reimbursement of Unusual Expenses of Fact Witnesses Request for Unusual Expense(s) of Fact Witness (For United States Attorney's Office Use Only) Control # 1. Case Name ..., 2. Court Docket Number 4. Location of Court P ng 5. Contact Person Wes!- Palm 7. Witness Name & Address, Phone #, SSN 8. Vendor Name & Address, Phone #, TIN/SSN 9. Payment to be made to: 10. Receipt/Invoice is: 11. 12tDependent Illi Type of Unusual Expense: Medically Necessary Item (Attached Supporting Statement) Care _ Excess Lodging/Per Diem Travel & Transportation Pretrial Conference Waiver Other 12. Explanation: Wm, miniM ht4 a. sniodi cilad to 61/4161;b:64"t tl - kaa np Ong “1/1;) C. vah the cALta GokAle ski. kAit)Y5.1,6k. . • 13. Start Date of Service (MO/DA/YR) ando 7 14. End Date of Service (MO/DA/YR) 2-4 /0 7 15. Amount 16. Justification: 17. I hereby certify that the expenses and services listed on this document are appropriate and are within the Federal laws and regulations. I fully understand that I can be held personally liable or be subject to disciplinary action for improperly using government funds or services that exceed delegated authority or that violate Federal laws or regulations. Signature of Requesting AUSA Date 18. Name & Title of Approving Official 19. Date (MO/DA/YR) 20. Signature of Approving Official 4 8 • ! GOVERNMENT I EXHIBIT 1 44 • 111 I-0 11 EFTA00185234 EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A. Attorneys At Law JAMES L. EISENBERG Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer National Board Of Trial Advocacy Certified Criminal Trial Advocate KAI LI AWE FOUTS One Cies rim ke Centre, Suite 704,250 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 a Fax: February 12, 2007 Asst. U.S. Attorney 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Grand Jury Subpoena for Dear As always, it was a pleasure speaking to you the other da Pursuant to our telephone conference I am writing this letter to proffer my concerns for should she testify without immunity before a federal grand jury. Therefore, allow me to reiterate that Ms. will refuse to voluntarily cooperate with the federal government. She has a good faith basis for her position under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We, of course, do not live or work in a vacuum. We have read many inflammatory remarks the Town of Palm Beach Police Chief has made to the media about the state court's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. The police chiefs remarks frighten both myself and my client. I am aware that the town police have prepared documents to charge at least one of Mr. Epstein's lady friends in state court. If they can push to have one lady charged I remain unconvinced that they do not have the ability or political clout to push to have other ladies such as Ms. charged. The proffered facts that raise my concerns are being provided via this proffer letter. Pursuant to our telephone conference agreement, this letter and its contents cannot be used against Mr. M. Ms. is not at all certain of dates. She does remember meeting Mr. Epstein about three years ago. She is not certain of her age, it could have been when she was sixteen. A girlfriend asked her if she wanted a job giving massages. Ms. agreed because she had knowledge of massages through her mother, who was a masseuse. if asked, she had to tell Mr. Epstein that she was eighteen years old. The fr, was Ms. went to Mr. Epstein's house via taxi. M girlfriend instructed Ms. that, nineteen years old and looked old for her age, so passing for eighteen was not a problem. At GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT .5 EFTA00185235 the home Ms. met Mr. Epstein and later ave him a massage. The friend had told Ms. to give the message topless. Mr. Epstein told that if she were at all uncomfortable being topless, not to do it and it was not a requirement of employment as a masseuse. Ms. never touched Mr. Epstein in a sexual way and Mr. Et.stein never touched Ms. at all. At one point, Mr. Epstein did ask Ms. her age. Ms. insisted that she was eighteen years old. Ms. continued to see Mr. Epstein over time and massages were given in a similar fashion. She was later asked if her friends wanted to work in a similar way and she asked some girls who did give Mr. Epstein massages. Ms. was never asked to bring girls of any age to Mr. Epstein's home. When she did have her friends come over, she instructed all of them that if asked, they insist that they were eighteen years old. She is not certain at all of any of these girls' real ages. In summary, our concern is that if the government believes that Mr. Epstein committed some federal offense, then Ms. could he considered a co-conspirator. We believe no crime was committed. The Fifth Amendment was not intended to protect the guilty, however. It was enacted to protect citizens who fear prosecution notwithstanding their innocence. Our fear of any prosecution, especially • 11 f the Town police chiefs public remarks, is clearly in good faith. EFTA00185236 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT r...) 0 . . 1": rl SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NORTHERN (WEST PALM BEACH) DIVISION be t • : 7 0 ..-.1 :.•-,. - a :.2 CLI --; 7-*A2 i c. .-- I FGJ 07-103(WPB) CN I •- •O i IN RE: GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS ...- . Cr; HP SEALED ORDER On Application of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court: 1. That has been called to testify and to provide other information before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, including a Grand Jury impanelled therein; and 2. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney,n has refused to testify and provide other information on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination; and 3. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney, the testimony and other information from =: may be necessary to the public interest; and 4. That the aforesaid Application has been made with the approval of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice or a duly designated Acting Assistant Attorney General, pursuant to the authority vested in him by Title 18, United States Code, Section 6003, and Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 0.175 and 0.132(e). NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 6002, that give testimony and provide other information which she refuses to give or to GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 6 EFTA00185237 provide on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination, as to all matters about which she may be interrogated before said United States District Court, including a Grand Jury impaneled therein, as well as any subsequent proceeding or trial. However, no testimony or other information compelled under this Order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with this Order. I'I' IS FURTHER ORDERED the this Order shall be SEALED in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(6), except that a copy of this Order shall be provided to counsel for the United States, who may disclose the existence of the Order to members of the Grand Jury, to the witness, to counsel for the witness, and to law enforcement officers engaged in the investigation pending before the Grand Jury. Those persons may review the Order, but may not retain a copy of the Order, nor may they disclose the existence of the Order to any others. cc: DONE and ORDERED this AUSA day of April, 2007 Palm Beach, Florida. 2 DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE EFTA00185238 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: 500 S Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 3340! Facsimile.• December 13, 2007 I am writing not to respond to your asserted "policy concerns" regarding Mr. Epstein's Non- Prosecution Agreement, which will be addressed by the United States Attorney, but the time has come for me to respond to the ever-increasing attacks on my role in the investigation and negotiations. It is an understatement to say that I am surprised by your allegations regarding my role because I thought that we had worked very well together in resolving this dispute. I also am surprised because I feel that I bent over backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement would have on Mr. Epstein and to make sure that you (and he) understood the repercussions of the agreement. For example, I brought to your attention that one potential plea could result in no gain time for your client; I corrected one of your calculations of the Sentencing Guidelines that would have resulted in Mr. Epstein spending far more time in prison than you projected; I contacted the Bureau of Prisons to see whether Mr. Epstein would be eligible for the prison camp that you desired; and I told you my suspicions about the source of the press "leak" and suggested ways to avoid the press. Importantly, I continued to work with you in a professional manner even after I learned that you had been proceeding in bad faith for several weeks — thinking that I had incorrectly concluded that solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution was a registrable offense and that you would "fool" our Office into letting Mr. Epstein plead to a non-registrable offense. Even now, when it is clear that neither you nor your client ever intended to abide by the terms of the agreement that he signed, I have never alleged misconduct on your part. The first allegation that you raise is that I "assiduously" hid from you the fact that Bert Ocariz is a friend of my boyfriend and that I have a "longstanding relationship" with Mr. Ocariz. EFTA00185239 JAY P. LEFICOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 5 I informed you that I selected Mr. Ocariz because he was a friend and classmate of two people whom I respected, and that I had never met or spoken with Mr. Ocariz prior to contacting him about this case. All of those facts are true. I still have never met Mr. Ocariz, and, at the time that he and I spoke about this case, he did not know about my relationship with his friend. You suggest that I should have explicitly informed you that one of the referrals came from my "boyfriend" rather than simply a "friend," which is the term I used, but it is not my nature to discuss my personal relationships with opposing counsel. Your attacks on me and on the victims establish why I wanted to find someone whom I could trust with safeguarding the victims' best interests in the face of intense pressure from an unlimited number of highly skilled and well paid attorneys. Mr. Ocariz was that person. One of your letters suggests a business relationship between Mr. Ocariz and my boyfriend. This is patently untrue and neither my boyfriend nor I would have received any financial benefit from Mr. Ocariz's appointment. Furthermore, after Mr. Ocariz learned more about Mr. Epstein's actions (as described below), he expressed a willingness to handle the case pro bono, with no financial benefit even to himself. Furthermore, you were given several other options to choose from, including the Podhurst firm, which was later selected by Judge Davis. You rejected those other options. You also allege that I improperly disclosed information about the case to Mr. Ocariz. I provided Mr. Ocariz with a bare bones summary of the agreement's terms related to his appointment to help him decide whether the case was something he and his firm would be willing to undertake. I did not provide Mr. Ocariz with facts related to the investigation because they were confidential and instead recommended that he "Google" Mr. Epstein's name for background information. When Mr. Ocariz asked for additional information to assist his firm in addressing conflicts issues, I forwarded those questions to you, and you raised objections for the first time. I did not share any further information about Mr. Epstein or the case. Since Mr. Ocariz had been told that you concurred in his selection, out of professional courtesy, I informed Mr. Ocariz of the Office's decision to use a Special Master to make the selection and told him that the Office had made contact with Judge Davis. We have had no further contact since then and I have never had contact with Judge Davis. I understand from you that Mr. Ocariz contacted Judge Davis. You criticize his decision to do so, yet you feel that you and your co-counsel were entitled to contact Judge Davis to try to "lobby" him to select someone to your liking, despite the fact that the Non-Prosecution Agreement vested the Office with the exclusive right to select the attorney representative. Another reason for my surprise about your allegations regarding misconduct related to the Section 2255 litigation is your earlier desire to have me perform the role of "facilitator" to convince the victims that the lawyer representative was selected by the Office to represent their interests alone and that the out-of-court settlement of their claims was in their best interests. You now state that doing the same things that you had asked me to do earlier is improper meddling in civil litigation. Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective Recarey's investigation that have EFTA00185240 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 5 already been submitted to the Office on several occasions and you suggest that I have kept that information from those who reviewed the proposed indictment package. Contrary to your suggestion, those submissions were attached to and incorporated in the proposed indictment package, so your suggestion that I tried to hide something from the reviewers is false. I also take issue with the duplicity of stating that we must accept as true those parts of the Recarey reports and witness statements that you like and we must accept as false those parts that you do not like. You and your co-counsel also impressed upon me from the beginning the need to undertake an independent investigation. It seems inappropriate now to complain because our independent investigation uncovered facts that are unfavorable to your client. You complain that I "forced" your client and the State Attorney's Office to proceed on charges that they do not believe in, yet you do not want our Office to inform the State Attorney's Office of facts that os u rt the additional char e nor do you want any of the victims of that charge to contact Ms. or the Court. Ms. s opinion may change if she knows the full scope of your client's actions. You and I spent several weeks trying to identify and put together a plea to federal charges that your client was willing to accept. Yet your letter now accuses me of "manufacturing" charges of obstruction of justice, making obscene phone calls, and violating child privacy laws. When Mr. told you that those charges would "embarrass the Office," he meant that the Office was unwilling to bend the facts to satisfy Mr. Epstein's desired prison sentence — a statement with which I agree. I hope that you understand how your accusations that I imposed "ultimatums" and "forced" you and your client to agree to unconscionable contract terms cannot square with the true facts of this case. As explained in letters from Messrs. Acosta and Sloman, the indictment was postponed for more than five months to allow you and Mr. Epstein's other attorneys to make presentations to the Office to convince the Office not to prosecute. Those presentations were unsuccessful. As you mention in your letter, I —a simple line AUSA — handled the primary negotiations for the Office, and conducted those negotiations with you, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Lewis, and a host of other highly skilled and experienced practitioners. As you put it, your group has a "combined 250 years experience" to my fourteen. The agreement itself was signed by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. Lefcourt, whose experience speaks for itself. You and I spent hours negotiating the terms, including when to use "a" versus "the" and other minutiae. When ou and I could not reach agreement, you repeatedly went over my head, involving Messrs. , Sloman, and Acosta in the negotiations at various times. In any and all plea negotiations the defendant understands that his options are to plead or to continue with the investigation and proceed to trial. Those were the same options that were proposed to Mr. Epstein, and they are not "persecution or intimidation tactics." Mr. Epstein chose to sign the agreement with the advice of a multitude of extremely noteworthy counsel. You also make much of the fact that the names of the victims were not released to Mr. Epstein prior to signing the Agreement. You never asked for such a term. During an earlier meeting, where Mr. Black was present, he raised the concern that you now voice. Mr. Black and I did not have a chance to discuss the issue, but I had already conceived of a way to resolve that EFTA00185241 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 4 OF 5 issue if it were raised during negotiations. As I stated, it was not, leading me to believe that it was not a matter of concern to the defense. Since the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the agents and I have vetted the list of victims more than once. In one instance, we decided to remove a name because, although the minor victim was touched inappropriately by Mr. Epstein, we decided that the link to a payment was insufficient to call it "prostitution." I have always remained open to a challenge to the list, so your suggestion that Mr. Epstein was forced to write a blank check is simply unfounded. Your last set of allegations relates to the investigation of the matter. For instance, you claim that some of the victims were informed of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of their allegations against Mr. Epstein. This also is false. None of the victims was informed of the right to sue under Section 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement of the general terms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done. Throughout this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as though it would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility of damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case. If my reassurances are insufficient, the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein should assure you of the integrity of the investigation.' 'There are numerous other unfounded allegations in your letter about document demands, the money laundering investigation, contacting potential witnesses, speaking with the press, and the like. For the most part, these allegations have been raised and disproven earlier and need not be readdressed. However, with respect to the subpoena served upon the private investigator, contrary to your assertion, and as your co-counsel has already been told, I &I consult with the Justice Department prior to issuing the subpoena and I was told that because I was not subpoenaing an attorney's office or an office physically located within an attorney's office, and because the business did private investigation work for individuals (rather than working exclusively for Mr. Black), I could issue a grand jury subpoena in the normal course, which is what I did. I also did not "threaten" the State Attorney's Office with a grand jury subpoena, as the correspondence with their grand jury coordinator makes perfectly clear. With regard to your allegation of my filing the Palm Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit "with the court knowing that the public could access it," I do not know to what you are referring. All documents related to the grand jury investigation have been filed under seal, and the Palm Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit has never been filed with the Court. If, in fact, you are referring to the Ex Parte Declaration of Joseph Recarey that was filed in response to the motion to quash the grand jury subpoena, it was filed both under seal and ex parte, so no one should have access to it except the Court and myself. Those documents are still in the Court file only because you have violated one of the terms of the Agreement by failing to "withdraw [Epstein's] pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas." EFTA00185242 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13,2007 PAGE 5 OF 5 With respect to Ms. =, I contacted her attorney — who was paid for by Mr. Epstein and was directed by counsel for Mr. Epstein to demand immunity — and asked only whether he still represented Ms. and if he wanted me to send the victim notification letter to him. He asked what the letter would say and I told him that the letter would be forthcoming in about a week and that I could not provide him with the terms. With respect to Ms. status as a victim, you again want us to accept as true oniyt cts that are beneficial to your client and to reject as false anything detrimental to him. Ms. made a number of statements that are contradicted by documentary evidence and a review of her recorded statement shows her lack of credibility with respect to a number of statements. Based upon all of the evidence collected Ms. is classified as a victim as defined by statute. Of course, that does not mean that Ms. considers herself a victim or that she would seek damages from Mr. Epstein. I believe that a number of the identified victims will not seek damages, but that does not negate their legal status as victims. I hope that you now understand that your accusations against myself and the agents are unfounded. In the future, I recommend that you address your accusations to me so that I can correct any misunderstandings before you make false allegations to others in the Department. I hope that we can move forward with a professional resolution of this matter, whether that be by your client's adherence to the contract that he signed, or by virtue of a trial. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney You also accuse me of "broaden[ing] the scope of the investigation without any foundation for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money transmitting business to the investigation." Again, I consulted with the Justice Department's Money Laundering Section about my analysis before expanding that scope. The duty attorney agreed with my analysis. EFTA00185243 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 304-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2015 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. DECLARATION OF FBI SPECIAL AGENT TIMOTHY R. TIMOTHY R. declares as follows: 1. I am a Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), currently assigned as a Section Chief at FBI Headquarters, Washington. D.C. I was appointed a Special Agent in May 1999. Upon graduation from the FBI Academy at Quantico, Virginia, in September 1999, I was assigned to the Detroit Field Office. I was subsequently transferred to the FBI Miami Field Office in May 2006. 2. In 2006. I was assigned to work on an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of sexually abusing many young girls under the age of 18. In the course of our investigation, the FBI identified many potential victims of sexual abuse by Epstein. We obtained names by speaking to other victims, who frequently knew of friends who had also been paid money by Epstein to provide sexual services to him. 3. One of the victims identified was In January — February 2007, I used various computer indices to try and locate Ms. By using these indices and other means, I found two international phone numbers which I believed were being used by Ms. Case r •; • GOVERNMENT EXF HIBIT • EFTA00185244 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 304-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2015 Page 2 of 3 =Ir 4. Sometime during January — February 2007. I called the one of the numbers, in an attempt to speak to Ms. Also in my office was FBI Special Agent the lead agent for the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. I was not using a speakerphone when I spoke with Ms. I asked S/A to be present because she, as the lead agent, was thoroughly versed in the details of the entire investigation, and I might need her assistance to respond to a question posed by Ms. that I was unable to answer. 5. When I dialed the number, a young woman answered the phone. I told her my name. identified myself as a Special Agent with the FBI. and asked if she was-She said yes. I used a technique which I employ when speaking to people on the phone, who might question whether I am truly an FBI agent. I provided her with the phone number of the FBI Field Office in Miami, Florida, and told her she could hang up and verify the number. She could then call me back at the number, and her call would be routed to me. Ms. said that would not be necessary. 6. I told Ms. about our investigation ofJeffrey Epstein, and the allegations that Epstein had sexually abused many underage young girls. I told her we believed she might be a victim of sexual abuse by Epstein. 7. Ms. answered basic questions, telling me that she did know Jeffrey Epstein. She quickly became uncomfortable, telling me she moved away to distance herself from this situation, and expressing her desire to "let this be in my past." She asked that I not bother her with this again. 8. I thanked Ms. and told her I appreciated her time. I provided my name and encouraged her to call the FBI Miami Field Office, if she had any questions or needed assistance. 2 Govt Exhibit 0 Case No. 08-80736-CN-MARFtA EFTA00185245 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 304-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2015 Page 3 of 3 The entire phone conversation only last several minutes. 9. 1 did not hear from Ms. again. In mid-March 2007, I reported for my new assignment at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. 10. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 26. 2015. Section Chief Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington. U.C. 3 Govt Exhibit Case No. 08-80736-CIV.N1ARRA EFTA00185246 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 , Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 2 of 35 lfralsor.,&Ass2ciates I sor & Associates I O IN MS CIACUST COURT Or WE rirrtASH IM MO 1 PAU. WW1 COMITY. MORICA CAW PO. 2006 CF0454100( STAW Ot flaIDA. EASTAIM, orderAent. OCtOSITION Or modsdAy, (404.4.cy 20. 2000 2t00 p.m. - 6 ' )0 P' ° ' tel. Mock COUnty Courth0Oso 20$ With Wato 14116may Veal Palm Ana, Florida 33401 'COPY paper-led AV Judith F. Coftsot. PPR 'rotary Public, Elite of floc1W Cower 6 Awesi6w it•pottlaq and TrasscrIp1 Loa Ph. P.mt. 1655 Pan Beach Win 1St SUM 900 -HAMS PS Deady FL 39101 & Associates 1 2 3 BMW Otatt IIXAMINATION 4 By S. 22.111, 5 6 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 I? IA 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PO Paw 3 - • - WaTlf7L0 OUSSTION• Una 22 14 2 IS PS 94.90tIM IS250) It 33401 O O Arita/WC/Ai 2 cm behalf of the 3 LAMA 1J.SISTAIrf MIS tillIMMICY 4 401 With Dials Highway *est ref.Own. ?tondo 13401 5 6 oe. /Wolf of th• NICRAW A. Ulm. M. KATtUtYll A. 14113CI, 600. /SKIS WIM. Pl. 3056 CRAMP WI I I. WITt 340 COCONUT GAOVA, 31133 9 10 11 12 On Weill of the Cmfoodlint; JACK A. 001.01MAGES. COO. Art/AWAY. COLORICACW 6 Sin 250 AUSTRALIA:1 Awn WWI 00179 1400 WEST tAU4 OCACm, PLORIDA 33401 13 14 ALSO MUCSAKT: CM WALL Ot 1111 MITSCSA: TAWDOW J. LEOPOLD. ISO. 15 Kelt, J. ARCM. OIRWTOR or WITIKAWA DtVisiOtt. 1/91M-Tot 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ph. Ebt...611L1771 1655 Pahl 01101 takes 01.41. At 500 • west PS 0each, FL 33.101 . . & Associates rage 4 1 Dope befogs Judith I. Comics. 2 Smut 'apart.. and Moto°, hallo in as Per th. Stet, of 3 fpwisla at !atom In the ahem coon • - 5 Wirimmoo, 6 7 Sala. bee first duly soon or affimwd. was lathed A and tostlftod os fol1mmo: 9 Te wtridliSo 1 do. 10 PIACCTumnintas 11 09 M. WIN: 12 O. Good ofterimmo. 'Ine tell ma ryas full 13 14 A. 15 O. WI cam vote .1•••• spell it. 16 A. 11 IS O. Thank you. 19 my I ea:1 ye. app 20 A. 21 0- en i's going to tot YOU • Ls 22 Oolstions. msso, gaisttoes ted.y. If at any alma you 23 ..44.4 to talc. • break. W. rut lot.. •••••• Mai? 24 A. 25 0. If you at cay tine don't understood on. of Ph fax. 1655 PS Beach lace, Ohl.. Sute 913 • Wen GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT I EFTA00185247 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 .Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 3 of 35 Ssor &Associates nsOr & ~Lates 0 Pair 3. ny ..Suene. will yos jest Orr lot ea roof 3 AM if at ry Ur your* rt tally well 4 Or rostra lib* aw, yoo'll tell us. riot? S A. be. 6 0. la re rni stay tray? 7 A. Tra- e 0. six. Utley ay Alcohol r Ora or raking 9 ire abr. rail 10 11 0. r you feel [NOY to bar your deportion 12 tern/ 13 A. rm. 14 0. ION rat a par ~tar 15 b. V. Dietary liar at a atun.• house amt 16 I drat row It off the tap of ny her. 17 0. Pare La it) 12 A. ... Janet 12 0. re I. your vent? 20 A. 21 0. the ere is living rail 22 A. 33 0. Aura sloe lira roe, 24 2 The contort notion that year rase (lied 1655 Pail ~ Fla 52a a 33401 sor & Associates ligireartharrara Pari 1 0. bor 15 that? 2 A. Salo boor trio. 1 0. Nar yoo rant ar flirt err taro? A. b. re. 5 0. CO ye. know Ito adder* earl A., 3 de rt. 7 0. IM't your aitr• Ill planning on lrins rib yr. anal Or 10 0. =yes raw tat this art cm In • 11 carrel prosecution. Count? 12 A. Correct. 13 0. And you bra that /Vs • tr iraa? 14 Peoration roar • er re baa es realri Ixte1.9exed. 15 ye you taw tat? 16 17 0. You sirs that (cat is • my nitre 16 19 A. Yes. 20 0. AM your* her. with your Ira/ 21 Mr. ~Id. right? 22 2) 0. And you know that Mr. torpor recently 24 filed • liars in trend court against Jelf•ey [petal,. 25 refry fifty alllise Y. 1655 Pike DeleePh.„,.. .ML lt Fst!ii!lefleach, IR. »CI 1 0 C) Par 1 sprat your tether rear*, taw fifty sullierdoller 2 leoseit arrest Jeffrey ipater says that pH, lir with 3 your aunt and tale ad bar bra liar trots le that I Cerrees7 S Us. 6 0. Iles ray have you bra lira with Pat 7 aunt red role? A. Sur ay ran kicked or out. 9 That VIM ThAttnalellt Of %Ale per pre] 10 Yea. rt. 11 43 Car. Rider for lirofighter boreiry 12 et eh ~Vial fee LIIS two of yout 13 A. NY. •ir- the has en irpartart, but by 11 Wo.,•11. 15 0. Did he pat en ~rtes.* as the two of you 16 run in? 17 A. b. rr. An yr planar to roe In with ban? 19 A. Maybe or Rey IA Ur rear* 30 0. Do aka awe • plea to nor la with kin 21 preaerlyt 22 A. 33 0. Mr•• 3 berm to the spartant that you ad 24 dranrad err In tartan? 25 A. 1 her bun 55 Palm teeth ake. Sete 500 ~al% 33.33 Phi, W682.0905 . Fee 16 - • - riser & Associates harer arrros • • - ha NA. Csattiat Let b 3001 react. 2 ~la r barer It*. Myatt that 2 you bare leaned ammo arrtanta biltorn you 4 er •• see se•tectod. Ss it you rem any of that 5 isionestioe aria Of then dianalerra. you say 6 rare. at if the cry why you knew r la • Wear ar dirrisaranS. So sot war that artier. • IN 1411- tank • 10 0. -Pa buts tut It.. torpor treaty, 31 flied • ~Wit 1R gruel rart a your bra If or rat 12 enemy peneig. rear fifty ~ton taller? 13 113. 3.40201.0. 6s abjection. 14 If you kart re to that outride of 15 oar cliscasiona. yea say mown. If it is Ur 16 only way that yr know the rawer is Groul. our 17 4I•cua•lonli, do rat war that cast lea. 111 INS PROM Okay. 19 1.4001.4 ieterser/e11•et Omlita, 20 IV M. tar: 21 0. tee can lute« the Witten unless 22 Mr. LIX*OLD: far objection. 23 Wt. Triv. 4i OS (leir. 24 M. 140POCO. Naas me. ••••• -- 25 M. ItiN b. 1St MS lien*. 3655 ran iseadt~ 500.74 13 33401 EFTA00185248 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on F LSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 4 of 35 nsor & Associates dJ ( ) 2 3 4 5 6 7 g 9 10 11 12 13 14 If 16 11 le 19 70 21 22 23 24 25 rage 9 M. IMPOIM Lavt., ve . we set going to do that. M. Mgt aka le not Leas. re going to (lash ny Paella. 04441 M. LCOPOLO: Or net answer you hear teal so. PT M. RIN: O. Caen than teteerealona that yeshate had qu M. Leopold -- 35. not •sitia about that — am you are tat Mr. Mal* he. Wed a lawsuit in dora/ toot maws fifty easion dollar, from JaIroy Moan es mar Wulf? M. L4COOLIN fops objection. Anything That you learn through careteatiW lava at and a, de not antra,. ass. an protected. If yea know thtooh any other soda of tencedoda. you may answer. Ter Plllaatl M. bT M. 1.11/0 O. You Mn no Woe an Ns. Leopold tiled • gat, allicad011at lawsuit on pa behalf zzzzzzz ]allhy M. MPOLO, Sae* ableCtIon. to not moat tat capstan II It's through dascattoo that yes and I hod. Outside of that, Pla ems 1655 ha ilaM laws WC, Suae SOO • West Palm 50" it DIM * nsor & Associates awasalemegaa nitoe 11 1 alactiona. Cock pur cola. 2 M. 1.4040tIo rasa a. ror tee record. 3 Causal aNied sea • geostla. ***** the 4 ~mu se la mad. It• .sted ea the question an fang to be canting that ~I threaleat the 6 deposition. 59 lag am tare's ammo 7 fralation and peedlcato uta by the atteray. I will prawn ay client ad 1 mkt the record taro 9 allionpaato. It canal wisla to ask is 10 appropriate worded manta with the proper 11 Mani« and padiata. I all certainly allow 13 the client re agar the quota. 1) M. Calialtat glo Opat yea lust ***** 14 attasna/aloat Waage we toot be dem ultb If it, )6 M. laget0, I rat the record to be 17 <Mo. 141 NA. WIN. la want to agate awe Is what 19 you at to de. 20 You ern magnsd te be here %/:a sonIng 21 and ei totally broke Medea, as /meant that 22 you hud with es If par hearing get resealed. 23 eat lees ma on end nyte mall stop 24 obatmeam this apaition. 25 M. larOLDI I think the memo As eery fix. 1655 Pan NW , Wes OW. Suite 500 Wat Pla Ow" FL 33401 tJ fl 2 3 5 6 411(€nsor & Associates Page 10 Too say antes. Se do net atom that oath» It tat I. Ube only boas to aid yes aclet•tad that sewer. TM WOOLS Or M. TAM 0. vow dide.t era that) M. IMIONIN Don't auto tat asst ion. Nairn SVS ay/agat grata's. My 9 intonation >ease learta ChM* eeevasattans 10 banns yes and I an protected. Tr you nov It 11 through coy other nil.. you nay answer. M. 'IN: ea yre gam te goy that fot 13 every Nation le the dopealla. Ng. Weald/ 14 M. ~Ma Men won uk laptop'. 15 Wantons Ia. tat altheat the Prams -- 16 M. TINN Team pan ta oleo your 11 raking ablallorm right new. May, 14 M. MOMM Withal the peeper -- 19 M. nut: You need to Stepyr. mating 20 *Patine. 21 tat •. anima. 22 M. 1,40401.0, Counsel. fa past load no a 23 quatIon and is going to ***** It on the 24 25 M. Tria You ::had to step your arting Ana 1655 PSI Bea Labs Mwto 5~ 500 Vest Pan Neck W. 33401 sot' & Associates May se ,Mena- n Page 12 1 clou wart w stand Ma far. 2 Is tam a rewording aha of thin 3 ~patios, 4 at Coal atone: Tee. 5' M. LINIOtOt Pest Wm our, tatt 6 gasamed. 7 AT M. la in: 4 O. Co to ettdont 20-01 wilt, before you do 9 that. et. you into tat • LOSTOr Iola Jeffrey 10 Mogan (tied • Ishinta your behalf. yes or no7 Il SP. 140101.11: halation. 12 Pay coarations that you end I ham ad 13 ragardleo. thst, If that Is the only ray by *tee 14 you wearatad bow to sat that gootlen. do at 15 moat. hot ay/erica privilege. wal 16 an soy ~Manta as no hen had with the 17 •Tteray fan gas. net Is *Ma ottonatatent 16 alwilago. pa I's Mato. 19 M. Mitt Tear* actually acne seat ta 20 ettema/mimt ptiallea. 21 M. UMOM l'ø manta Counsel l• not 22 nay you to timely* attwaryfatent -- 23 M. tap, Of Lana net. 24 a M. tam 25 Q. 4r0 yep at Jellny sateen. Rtifis582.0905•Fax. 16SS Patm BeW• lam etO., Stae 500 Went hen BeiCh. FL 33%1 1 EFTA00185249 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 5 of 35 *mer & Associates a sor & Associates reva tram 1.4 10 Il 12 31 14 35 16 37 1 2 3 7•00 lit ney. (bled • filte-stillonverilar leonu a reg belfelf »ale» ieff Tay tealrfa• Yes ef sol Y. /41014012" Las• ob)eCtlog. 7Lna tete Nard tes serti» IO 5 1 Nia alstedY• LIMOL0: Cor». Meuse a*. 7 14R. Teno: agit sep attorney/crac 4 perle». St. Mer Ly tenstlene. HA. 103,010: Va snitt lad te re an abjection ter Os record. rire Verne. and 1•11 oas Me sr objection. And le It CCCCC /or ettegney/clieet Lel.11pe. sal cossersotion• reg end 1 Mn Nd, do eet 'sr( the seemlen. and i the,» the{ At steit M a.g.Priat•• for the (500(4. te •at. istMealien• »agir ellile n *an*" Inir I Minh MN lina/! Soie eneetWist• for »na Olpelltten. le leT M. MI» 19 Go Me» PI se we 20 Tot. 21 0. Thant yee. 22 ln (en. mie ina that Lt. Pensée hold • 23 Press esefenhafe ha fil» the fiftralllien-dellauf 24 »rit On mir ruile. dm» poe7 25 lifter ft happer. Pa - Pa 1655 PM Beiclt talus Mt. Sun 500 -19.24 FM.IMIN. 933401 sor & Associates mer edImuya»te Papa 15 1 M. »Ore* se». Mise to 1•••• 01 se» 2 9016$ te tais • break. bers, 0•••••••• In net 3 NOMS . rte» ne sers to Mn th» rd 4 of d'usage(' If peu uni te base te» und of danar ut» M •- 6 Se. non Tou ara Mamelle. Sis OtiNtItion. e n. reIVISCIP My don» pre eu» e. 9 outre sed lati ulk rut -- 10 M. 1/070504 Me -- Nr job la »se I 1 Olferl< and ON» Sot 901.9M be able te tek. 12 4.4 NU intre at tag osso tr. 13 IIR. OOLMOCCI," Off thé »con. 14 LOMOLO, sets Set lotte Off les 15 (eend, Jack. tare net. Mes. Na lob la vegy 16 malt. Va »IN td sets the record. 17 I dont thiet it is *perte« trier IO In tie sali Ceefine• of Mla rem, to be 44g4 le mesaln rtth tata vous) lady. 20 10. MW: Mer Nt hainntee• 4106, 21 stop actuelly -- 22 m. UMM: If peer »rie CCCCCCCCC 23 se. »Ore golm te »ace/ this deponntos -- 24 N. ICiel: Stop Mers eeeee ing. 25 na OMIT niai!: I sesd au at • Ir -Fit 1655 Pr ose tees ebe... set 500- 1Vell PMI Sud% FL 3)031 li 2 3 5 6 7 Page 14 0. V» to Met N Nd • pissa conter•nor• don» pesa yes er se, A. Yta. O. la (set. lm» le ta »Ma» 46-61. M. GOINCIMOU Leek WNt yee met: let te ISIS: nase yoe nec sr »et Orme birr» t Tel. 10 i• Vu.< • pictur• et Teur grogs »sr If mainates: and f4r. Kerr st 04 press ease•••••• 12 Natal» roc Ira» I) 14 0. am you ru Jet tais f • a eery »car 1$ nattet. cleet Paf 16 el. 150001/1 »kid aad arr. 17 Objection. le A. 001411tre: A11 Ta con 19 tfts)Nt. 4••M 44.4••••tine • violon. Mn. 20 et. Leopold. Tous tee *Oust en 5nva.M veau. 21 Teu 001101 aska rat objectasse. 7N have ne 22 oundiao 14 de os' 23 p. LMVOLet mine to MM tMw aube 24 ton 25 1655 Poelm 9401 tatas Med. Suie 500 Vie Pdm Beectl, R 3340, ASSCIelpt.e.5 teis les r aas are» b• 1 2 3 S Page 14 rus natter tes tt Ib. At. Leemelet a !Sent mer. teint te talfe break. far» ya sir vent V) tale te yetis 75114: t met nad to tolk te Itia. 6 let rra: Set N . » ter te takt • 7 teett. N. 75IO: erre Mt {SUS. lb break tao aires »ode brait. 10 (44.44 strate tale £yesltlo. ted. 11 M. IMOOM: Ir ma ingli 12 Ta ail »St te remua in Mis 15 darnes -- 14 m1. TM: loere ebstpectige 35 depesillen. Step Nha" spore,. vers set 16 ai•ou•se4 this with rya. TM quaerse Sa to 17 »et »te». 00 tete fl et fiss -stouts Pink. IO KR. LISPOLIS rob. •• sire. 10 mate ann 19 Os »or» claie ad clou, 20 Md I vat te auto sen. in V» slresv 21 *rd yre i kir that mer cm of the kast ta 22 te» that tala aidl• •• tins fer to b• 2/ ocanew44. Ota77 24 m. 76141; Ge tai» your fob -oksets tient, 23 °U. 1409014. va. Ml. - Fax 3655 Palen Se» taies Fm. 5alle 9:0 • Mut Pet headk /1 3340/ EFTA00185250 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 6 of 35 e sor_a& Associates 2 Aftinsora& Associates f2 C) 1.1 2 3 6 a 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 11 IS 19 20 11 12 23 24 25 Page 17 feu sore supposed to be here •• Wes Ma it's re after tee. take yrs reek end car back. a. 4604,140, Ceey. If the dearer trop r Pill at he bare beyond those five Yore a. MIN: Take peer brat re case beck. MR. 1404010. Okay. SO r errat that you Me. MO: 1 biggest that you take yr. break. SO. CoLtenCtli, Let then tan that !Pithiest* Dreak. S. LWOW: Sat I Weld eedioet that You tabs der births. het• flint artist wherry itio went tat a brae, lThentecce. a rear vas talen.I et me. :TIN: 0. _190 hen that glelsq testlary 60 trey at your orealtlen is reething eery eetlead. des't yr? A. O. h. 0. Tom. Pal yee repel the court. root yes! Yea. let se shoo you death 11-04i. Ca. you Pro. 612.0935- 1653 Pen beech 8th.. Site 5P0- 113301 .. sor & Associates 0. Page 19 Did you send teat sassed* to • friend et 2 years en hydrae? 3 A. fuze. wen. 4 0. tire yr referring to this eepealtleat 5 A. Yes. s O. Da you fie the term offeasieet That'• not arret• lb there. 0 0. Ilhet web] did yr use le there? 9 1.1:0Pour urea are you retorting to. ID Ommeoll There 20 plus ride In than. 11 a. RIM Cat an a speaking objection. 12 That •LTICSS± Ate Tel referring to 13 anthlail 11 IS. morotir: IS let hot at feu the "rat ton. 16 et M. nu: 17 I. What question sere yr asking. IIII1 IS M. 12044.0: She dossn•t .ask 'retire. 19 You ask the questlets. What Is the question 20 perelteel 21 tf S. TIM 22 0. Mort is the lest sere on then In 23 to test of your before the closing/ 24 A. Niger. 15 0. don't you rind that ter 0/graben H45FUftbuich 1401 Beta F11 igifflaCli, ------- — — 0 sor & Associates C) 0 Pape II toe that out lost, pleas*. 2 e. okay. That do you woad 3 0. Will you read that at loud. pins.. 5 Thant o tel bah .1 baddd...lel yell I got ma 7 staple cant 0511 ee the 201A...bUlarit....rad dean you ▪ have can alit with hal tike atter - long vow • le 'OM... well yes welly will definitely beet, ate 10 plane for an. Arcane I 0100 0 tone tire a elation and 11 he M t let yo. as* p... a lea or default plc 12 Apnea. Ned. as. 13 0. Old you wind that -sere lest trek to a 11 tries Of years a wince/ If A. f reola.t Irau. Thor's no date. and I've 16 deleted that HySpace. SO — II 0. Ifirre rang to tall alert that Ye 000001h IS Okay. 19 Did yes and that songs leaf lark -- 20 eight. 21 0. Let eo Ithlah my question. 22 OW yr red that,wide last seek to • 21 Sties or 'vote a my9Preel 24 A. I rraldn't knOw the date, hat obviously, 25 kind be e herd. 63S Pala MO SOOR Pt 33401 Meach. Pitle Pa er 1 Pogo 20 1 he. 2 lot. Line. Can IOC .9011 It ter the 3 • please. 4 era wimps: 9-1-0-9 -- 5 we term: b. ee, on. Teo ate sot your 6 4., be caking restion. 110POLO. Pm sot astir goe•tioes. O , kung hoz the record the vote to be opened. 9 &scour W don•t hate • giro hero today. 10 HA. Mhz Then exhibit* ere Pert eel the 1r record. Too - 12 IS. 140101.41: WU. It's not Darted as an 13 exhibit. 14 IS. MOO Stay InterrePting me. 1$ Mr. Leopold. 1 lien Marked and teenier fret as an 16 inhibit end Yr hill at 11 K. 12OtOLO: Mere Ma bees no 10 IdeatlIscetlea et thle document In the tecord. 19 M. MIL Kr. LtageltIr atop rooting 20 this deposition. Pt LIMOLO: Whet le the echtbit Parer 21 nailed fel LIMO fffff land 23 IS. RiL 31.001. 24 M. 1I0/010: a toe bre trial Is It on 25 the micord earstiefel ph. 0905-FAY.. 1655 MP 500:11 lakes OW, Stec SOORMack 14.33401 EFTA00185251 Case 9:08-cv-9 119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Do et 06/30/2008 Page 7 of 35 seer & Associates C) SelomywaftwoIsleLlm. Page 21, 1 SY 111. 2 0. fat r eat pet, _did you in fact year friend trio sorer art Yla depOrticel 2 3 1 0. So yet mote your friend that this 5 6 deprittee is 'tepid coast s-h-1-t. COrreatl 6 7 B. 7 8 Q. MOW.. you think thin embattles le atield 0 9 don.l yeti 9 10 10 11 0. You wrote that to year freed, MAC% yr? ll 12 12 13 You think that exert is .1 1t. dOe't yOu? 0 13 14 h. In see eases. 11 15 0. Am/ yew Wet that wt la bell s-h-1-t. 15 16 don't meal 16 Mid dersitLen 17 la 0. yes trek this Is boll 10 19 e-h-1-t. dee't you? 19 20 20 21 0. You wrote that to your friend. eildn't yost 21 22 NA. IM3P0163 Objettir. Aare and 22 23 anewerod. 23 21 SM. TIM that's net a Ohlection• 24 25 IT IS. :tr. 25 Ph roc MEM; 1655 PrIlebbil MIMS e 500 IMEeloll. FL 33491 _ — & Associates 1 2 3 4 Pre 23 *this: _you O. lurk that giving teatledny tOdaY. soda. Oath. S. Wu don't yey? 5 G. MSS you meet, that to year friend on 6 HY/Pme last week, didn't yea? 7 M. UM004.0. Oesectlea need and amaroted. 9 t9B WITIMOS. M. 1 dad at. eV N. Rif You dletel write this eahlblt? 12 A. 1 WrOte that, but 1 elr't tt you. 13 sale. 14 0. you net. in this exhibit. "2 at es 15 staple tort agtst-t an the 20th. 8011 mrint." Meat 1.6 WO writs that? 17 A. 18 O. 04htrles to th/O d eeitta, alders year )9 A. Perrin to the Mort. I war later 20 inform' that it we a derettioa. 21 0. V. 'oleo to ash re ear goestions new 22 root what lappet»d urn yea went to Jeff ttttt In.• here 23 teas years 490 Gun' 24 25 0. Kea too police la..... You one mooch • Fag. MS PahlMO L✓ Site 500 e i Mas01. FL 33401 & Associates Page 22 0. Yew wrote that l0 Yawl friend, Orel swet NA. MM.* ttjictict. laSod Old easwerd, for the feint time. 05. Yea ate laproperly Mr. rep:MA Yee Yee no mars to Object. end that.* met an objettlet. O.. ItOVOLO; It to a• objecLI.M. a. HIM: nun %menet* the dopesitloo it yos Ude! It's beelt ashea and answered. Mt. WOOL& Counsel. I am mat precluded trot Joet maitre en trforlon to the form of the seestles. As the carte nil know. and If yea here I. rat Ms Beach. soy es the i.e... molt* you se net the objection with snolfloity. Marvin do that. And If you don't wet se Le, yet can wake the ern. Out I will de that. O. Teen sews tout we'll do. Ted. Yet will allow yrs to room as *poetics to fro foe wry almsle es. of •Y re•trae• Otherlr, all ro're drag is oletroOtIng. M, t/DPOLD. I or'S do that. IS. WO. Of reran because ter went to ratan. Iv. LIZPOLO. All right. MS. Fox. los Pale Peach scciaLaChr ft 3)401 4024•6C4bw ..* & Associates Page 24 1 alter re mem to hetes. you wore on your 2 Where ....t that yeu and roster re not ,09540 a sox 3 of any kind/ 4 5 0. Olda't are tell that to Ow polio'? 6 A. Yes. end 3 wilt eoettrog. 1 ha. never 7 bad ate with him. B 0. bId toot oapporea upetele• •I Jett 9 Epstein here take you cespinely by eillpere... 10 A. 11 Q. Soo the cloth smiplaInt that you (nod 12 spikes sr. gnosis fer fifty dollar. •11.0ed 13 that yea rote totally Shocked by west hoppemed when yea get there. 15 16 0. Were yea totally Years by rat happened 11 whoa yoo got to Lpstrn•• basset Yes 19 Q. You didn't erect It at all, did you/ 20 21 Q. Tee ma ahoolotely se leas shy year Salem/ 22 le" 44. 144 Per to Pal ttttt le hews. TWA, 23 A. I mei lefoased It we. • •••••••• 24 0- • All yet thought that It was golle to he toes 25 • oaseapo °errors? IJIn2 yA850D 0.3961 EFTA00185252 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 8 of 35 sor & Associates tikrisor & Associates 1 Page 2/ Yea. ) Pam 26 0. Yoo•re sem that -. let as mi. the ...sit 2 'Mem — get to cumin Muse MEI 2 ramp. 3 Amer mid oiryllitm to yee M tie telorme ablat erobal 3 barn outs that before you got to 4 activity with tlittelo, OM shoe 4 155 mesa no am t. t.d to panne* you to .:gags In S S Mount eettnty nett Conon for co sy. An you? 6 0. AM hetam yea got to vpst•In•• hoes. 6 M. 140101.411 Obleetion. Mtn and 7 INS Gent goat you • Paean, nor the InteRest about nomad. 8 micael aCtielty with Epstein. did she? TUC M. MO lise ahoy 9 9 amtioree Out a hot Min Ono. /0 old rest try to tatnht° you to I0 SY M. 11 engem Io any tr awl ectitIty Mtn Ziteitelel 11 0. Nell Onchlne yes sou. SO /km 00100 CO aft 12 12 the motion - 13 Did stem say to ceowlace 13 M. 1.404060: Cramasle rye made an 11 Yew to 0, 9.n la lay seal activity vin 8004•017 14 objection ter UN record. IS I emit Um dbe i. 15 Is. Tali 'top spiaitee• /6 De you met • 'rioted al 16 M. LI.Ohotei Pe Mt going to sLap 17 w. 17 wp ahine. tee conic rept me sena Pa sating 18 Okay. Safer* yeti mat so zpstiololii hone IS the MOM. lag MA ammo cal ••• yes Memo you a einem 9 M. Penh theca madly the Valetta. 20 maul activity Mtn lips 44444 20 M. lineter tenni -- 21 21 M. fi ts Step warn.; the Innen. 22 0. SO you lit moo that Osten you got to to la 22 IT M. MIN, 21 tpstelo'• no... men tiled to peanut you nun. 23 0- MI let o esl yea 24 menial activity with Jenny spet•le? 24 M. LiO•OLD: It mw continue to -- 25 25 IS. Ms. step 1•4• 4nerIno qesst Lora. elt .562.0905. Pm. MEM 1633 Pal M LYS 01 W. SteStiO•Wet PM 034th M. DPI & Associates sto 2..54 bwopia Page 27 iMPOtigi it yes do it ogle sort tin, 2 nen letribl• 3 SY M. TOIL 0. SOP 5 M. IDIOM: I'S mine to hen the redeye 4 You casein later apt ••• Msn l'o saline the • nentl. Cut Of pre aaaaa coal none. no rapt ▪ de that. I's mOtled to mt. Os paean. 1 moo 9 to objection. as/o4 vied onuored. nor Oismanor 10 Is Impeceptiato. to.eis ttttt ng and me a.. ebb 11 vied youir• tapon•lble to an a questim In • 12 poste* tttttt meet. W Mt the co-motion and once 13 me eat the tomer. to .i th.r follow up as It Or 11 ems as. but not temintously Otomaat and an the IS saes mettle. Ong one mot neon. flu eeet lied 16 the manly. 17 M. RN: cola deer. Olt. 19 M. Volta: Must M. Pa wen can bate. 19 lama I. not od4 nag/ nes It. tory no. 20 N piess• continuo en. Mt f viii not 21 •liew yes to mistime to Lit la the 22 mamma Mat you're dolt". Mt Ma a MHO.. 23 sad more oil. 24 M. nip: ems you Marl 25 M. Intte.D3 nub no. I n. -FM 1655 Pain Belch Wel BSC &RI SOD -We0P8M/Meilt, Pi 33401 •- () at MIMS Fat MIMI 165$ Path NC a MC Solt $00 • ffi st Polo Bo* 21. 33401 - • — - --• • — — •--.- - & Associates 1 2 and oath dam. r. 90.y to elk oy neottn. Pa90 28 Ie. Tent Stop slateptsantle9 the retold 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 to cent the pestles, in not 12 M. 10000W, to. AM Ills net san. that 13 enettitm: *sly oa sttorseyreilmt pirmilege. 14 M. Milli 8111 you atop meeting nes so I 15 to wt ay qualities' Ms yes damn 16 Mar. l's lob" to caw as onatice. 17 sr M. ten. IS 0. tastes, M.. 19 M. LOSPOLO: Sale eh. Step. 20 re. ben doing ton be MMus yeen see 21 ben sot a lot et attemeys, bet I've awn' tbel 22 emmleecis ltd thi• test. Poo -- 23 M. Mut Step not apeemes• 21 M. 1.601men II yes osMissis to do this. 25 teeth., It's oath a* es with by Clint, I 0.11 net Stop it. IT In fl it : 0. M. ISSPOW: 1 %hint the wood I. very elan. M. 00408040: tot he ant elatIfy *honker. tea MU aj.ot Le the rem of • outdo. you're en IntruStan the ottoeie not • ralliallie 165$ Mn each l▪ •Y laa 01404 Sure 500 • Vint Pas Sealy FL 33401 • _ - • _ • - - • - • _ - • - EFTA00185253 Case 9:08-cv-801-19-KAM Document 15-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 9 of 35 sor & Associates resor & Associates ~pe er 2 $ 6 7 2•09 29 put tot with It ad I chen't acid to pot up with It MM It's not appro. . And re auto nt. doldherry knows *Is this, bruin* I know that he Wrildn• t de tide. Se I will est pet ep with it. had 1 think it'. highly larrnooriate to do this with tars child satire use, 0.0 way you're oiling. pileattly tennis 94, Mid I will net put ep with It. 2 3 4 4 7 9 te. ¥111 you traps nob Mr reiteth 9 10 se I an ut qweetiona 10 Il M. LION01.0, ho IBM 00 you act 11 12 prof kkkkk sally. I will de e0. Nit IS Tn. Cretin» 12 13 to de u this way. I VW Irate. 13 14 e. tt1tII Suit yetirtelf. 14 1$ el MD. Tills: 16 0. earn• you note that before you got to brat tried to tO 16 11 eindel••• he et pethiads you tern. 11 It eameadl actielty with betan for money/ 19 19 Wt. 1•0101.0" naiad and aeiraree. 19 20 Object loth 20 21 MD. Kill: Did you get het susar? 21 22 Ni Mid Rtit*TEAr so, I did set. 22 23 1'n bite. 23 24 vs M. trill: 24 25 0. tot es ask you • few questions abort yew 25 Far. 16SS Pt» DNA take Mel. Sit 600 -WM Pat Deed...IX 33401 0 & Associates tote 31 A. 2 Q. All right. Lot ea oak you two final eras 3 of .st/ol., *beet this end we'll rove onto oca•thIng 4 else. Okay? 5 4 0. Wets you mot lo ;patters', did anyone 7 bodared vitt *Ran ever call yen an the phone and • tt, .to patsrad.p. iodide, metier or coerce you CO mirage 9 In any >Opal aalwity7 10 u. 11 uteri. you tot to lesaltra did anybody 12 e•lbetitted with tintelte rut 000tat you se the Internet 13 end try CO peraddide. Induce, entita or cent@ you to 14 engage an anal beltway? 15 16 11 ID 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0. -who told Ire Out elan ye. 0 9 te .35ft fotarla'a house you 'Mold it. to left sheet year sal A. 0 Mat it or was åt Ur other girl In the gar rho you rode over with to lbstan's hereof 0 . that day? IMO we tet «Mr girl to the oar with too I honestly don't knew. • Not %SS NM ffekb ▪tees SJte400- Wett P4101 leach R 33101 ..... ..... . context with Jollity !vault. Okay? Diana.* ~La head ep end down., Jeff furor a:nailed yee. did he? Me. Jeff sayer Vast easurettdpu. did he? 0. Pay. 0. bat newer chatted In • Chat tan with did A. M. 0. radon you get to epthelars boa to lad neat &poke to Jeff, »a pert A. 0. badattar~ Jeff/ A. Cornet. 0. Mien yew got te gpatola't house you hod meter told Jeff that you were undo( II. right) A. M. 0. Peron you lot to Cortan't leMer, had you over told Jeff... that you wet* that? Tel I error spate te tat han before that. 0. and yet only wont to Jeff [patois.", beast. that me tine three years M. correct? And Peter. you got to Cretottee hour. you O. You newer rent there 'a