Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA

Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-0 I 1789 EFTA00192835 Memorandum Subjeci Operation Leap Year: Notification of Breach USAO No. 2006R0 181 June 9, 2009 To Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney Robert K. Senior First Assistant U.S. Attorney Rolando Garcia Deputy Chief, Criminal Division, West Palm Beach Karen Atkinson, Chief Chief, Criminal Section I, Northern Division, WPB From A. Marie Villafan AUSA, Ft Laude INTRODUCTION. This memorandum seeks approval to serve the attached letter providing notice of a breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement on attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein. On Friday, June 12, 2009, Judge Marra will be presiding ova a hearing on Jeffrey Epstein's motions to stay all of the civil lawsuits filed against him by victims identified through our investigation. In his Order setting the matter for a hearing, Judge Marra stated: This hearing shall be limited to the issue of whether Defendant Epstein's defense of the civil actions filed against him violates the non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the United States. The United States' position in this matter would be very helpful to the Court and, accordingly, the Court requests that the United States appear at the hearing. Based upon a review of pleadings filed by Epstein in connection with the civil suits, Epstein has taken positions directly in contravention of the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Epstein PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-01 1790 EFTA00192836 and the United States. Accordingly, I recommend that we provide Epstein's counsel with Notice of the Breach at the hearing on June 12th, and proceed to indictment promptly thereafter. BACKGROUND In the summer of 2006, the FBI approached the U.S. Attorney's Office about an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") into allegations of enticing minors to engage in prostitution. The Town of Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") had approached the FBI after it became convinced that Epstein's attorneys had placed undue pressure on the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office ("SAO"), causing them to forego prosecution of Epstein. When the SAO presented the case to a state grand jury rather than proceeding by information, and when the state grand jury returned an indictment charging only solicitation of adult prostitution, PBPD asked the FBI to begin a federal investigation. FBI, in turn, approached the USAO about possible federal prosecution. The federal grand jury investigation began in the summer of 2006, and the first grand jury subpoenas were issued in August 2006. Towards the end of 2006, Epstein's attorneys began making contact with the U.S. Attorney's Office to seek resolution of the case. A meeting in West Palm Beach was held with Epstein's attorneys in February 2007. Aftcr that meeting, the investigation continued, and an indictment package was prepared in May 2007 with the intent to present to the grand jury in mid-May. At the requests of Epstein's counsel, the indictment was delayed to allow Epstein's attorneys to meet with additional members of the U.S. Attorney's Office. A meeting was held on Junc 26,2007, when Epstein's attorneys presented their arguments why federal prosecution was inappropriate. On July 31, 2007, another meeting occurred between Epstein's attorneys and the U.S. PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 2 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-01 1791 EFTA00192837 Attorney's Office. At that meeting, the United States presented a list of terms of a possible non- prosecution agreement. One of those terms was: Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest thc jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject matter. Epstein will not contest that identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section(s) 2422 and/or 2423. At that time, Epstein's attorneys advised that an agreement involving jail time would not be acceptable. On August 31, 2007, the FBI agents and I met with Drew Oosterbaan, Chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, to discuss the evidence and theory of the prosecution. Ile had previously been provided with a copy of the prosecution memo related to the indictment. On September 7, 2007, Epstein's attorneys met with the U.S. Attorney, Drew Oosterbaan, Jeff Sloman, John McMillan, and I. Ken Starr presented federalism arguments, urging deferral to state prosecution. When those arguments failed, Epstein's attorneys slated that he wanted to engage in plea negotiations. Epstein's attorneys wavered back and forth between a Non-Prosecution Agreement, involving pleading to state charges, or a plea to federal charges. Finally, on September 24, 2007, the Non-Prosecution Agreement was signed.' The Agreement contains the following provisions: 'An amended indictment package had been prepared and was scheduled for presentation to the grand jury on September 25, 2007. Judge Marra also had scheduled a hearing on Epstein's motion to quash grand jury subpoenas for the computer equipment removed from Epstein's home by Roy Black's investigator when they learned of the stale investigation. This was postponed to allow plea negotiations and eventually was withdrawn pursuant to the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 3 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011792 EFTA00192838 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7),2 supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein arc to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdiction or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. The Agreement also called upon Epstein to use his "best efforts" to enter a guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. (1 I 1.) Citing conflicts with attorney schedules, Epstein's attorneys asked the USAO to extend the deadline for his plea and sentencing. After a series of delays, Epstein's attorneys sought review by members of the Justice Department. When it appeared that the Non-Prosecution Agreement would be undone, the indictment package was prepared again, and was reviewed in anticipation of presentation to the grand jury. On June 23, 2008, Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General John Roth denied the various appeals of Epstein's attorneys and wrote, "Even if we were to substitute our judgment for that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe that federal prosecution of this case is appropriate. Moreover, having 2The"indiv iduals referred to in paragraph (7)" are"individuals whom (the United States) has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255." PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 4 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011793 EFTA00192839 reviewed your allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and the facts underlying them, we see nothing in the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's Office that gives us any reason to alter our opinion." After several more skirmishes regarding the wording of the plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, Epstein entered his guilty plea and was sentenced on June 30, 2008. In accordance with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, later that day, Special Agent Kuyrkcndall and I met with Attorneys Jack Goldberger and Michael Tein and provided them with a written list of the 32 identified victims. Since the entry of the plea and sentencing, a number of concerns have been raised with Epstein's attorneys, including: (I) their objections to our efforts to notify victims of the resolution of the case; (2) their refusal to abide by and pay for the victims' representative, Bob Josefsberg, who had been selected by Judge Michael acting pro bono as a Special Master; (3) their representations to the Court about the continued pendency of the motion related to the subpoena for the computer equipment removed by a private investigator; (4) inappropriate contact between people working for Epstein and the identified victims; and (5) Epstein's application for and participation in the work release program. Some written notifications of potential breaches have been provided to Epstein's counsel. Those have all been resolved without a determination of breach by the U.S. Attorney's Office and a resultant indictment. THE CIVIL SUITS AGAINST EPSTEIN Not surprisingly, since the entry of the guilty plea, a number of victims have filed suit against Epstein. In federal court, fourteen suits have been filed against Epstein. All of those casts have been assigned to Judge Marra who also was assigned the lawsuit filed against the United States by two of Epstein's victims. In the Victims' Rights suit, Judge Marra ordered the United States to make PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 5 AITORNEY WORK PRODUCT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011794 EFTA00192840 the Non-Prosecution Agreement available to each of the victims and/or her attorney, so long as they agreed to be bound by a Protective Order. Each victim (or her attorney) was provided with notice of the Court's ruling, and several executed the Protective Order and were provided with copies of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. From the beginning, Epstein has "vigorously defended" the suits, and has filed several motions to dismiss. In all of the early suits, the plaintiffs raised only common law tort claims or a combination of common law claims and a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. A number of plaintiffs' attorneys have argued that Epstein's defenses violate the NPA. Reviewing the language of the NPA and resolving any ambiguities in favor of Epstcin, those defenses do not breach thc NPA. However, some of the later plaintiffs, especially those represented by Bob Josefsberg, filed claims exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Epstein has filed answers and Motions to Dismiss those Complaints as well, asserting defenses to liability, including that there can be no liability because Epstein was not convicted of an offense enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255. By doing so, Epstein has breached the NPA. The following is a brief synopsis of the suits filed in federal court.' I. Doe I. Epstein, 08-CV-80804-KAM: This suit was filed in state court, but was removed to federal court on July 18, 2008 by Epstein. The suit was filed by IM G., the first victim identified in PBPD's investigation. Plaintiff filed motion to remand to state court, which was granted by Judge Marra. 2. Jane Doe #2I. Epstein, 08-CV-80 I 19-KAM: Complaint filed on February 6, 2008, alleging: sexual assault (Count l), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count II). Epstein moved to stay the litigation, which was denied by Judge Marra. Epstein moved to dismiss Count I, claiming that there was no civil cause of action iAs mentioned above, the NPA provides protection only to victims who proceed exclusively pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. By definition, the lawsuits filed in state court do not contain claims for relief under section 2255. Accordingly, this memo will not address those lawsuits. PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 6 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011795 EFTA00192841 for "sexual assault." Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting: sexual assault and battery (Count I), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count 11), and "coercion and enticement to sexual activity in violation of I8 U.S.C. § 2422 (Count III). Epstein again moved to dismiss, claiming that there was no civil cause ofaction for"sexual assault and battery," and arguing that the plaintiff had not made sufficient factual allegations to support a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2422. Plaintiff then filed a Second Amended Complaint raising the same claims, hut providing additional factual allegations. Epstein filed an Answer, in which he cited his Fifth Amendment privilege from self-incrimination as the response to the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint. Epstein also raised the following affirmative defenses: As to all counts, Plaintiff consented to and was a willing participant in the acts alleged. 2. As to all counts alleged, Plaintiff consented to and participated in conduct similar and/or identical to the acts alleged with other persons which were the sole or contributing cause of Plaintiff's alleged damages. 3. As to all counts, Defendant reasonably believed that the Plaintiff had attained the age of 18 years old at the time of the alleged acts. 4. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Epstein then filed another Motion to Stay all of the civil litigation. Judge Marra ordered theUnited States to file a written response, and the matter is set for hearing on Friday, Junc 12, 2009. Today, Epstein filed an Amended Answer, raising a number of additional affirmative defenses, including that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations and that the pre-2006 version of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 applies, which only creates a cause of action for a person who is still a "minor," as opposed to "any person who, while a minor," was a victim of an offense. 3. Jane Doe #3 I. Epstein, 08-CV-80232-KAM: This suit was filed by the same lawyers as in the Jane Doe #2 suit, and the procedural history is identical. 4. Jane Doe #4'. Epstein, 08-CV-80380-KAM: This suit was filed by the samc lawyers as in the Jane Doe #2 suit, and the procedural history is identical. 5. Jane Doe #51 Epstein, 08-CV-80381-KAM: This suit was filed by the same lawyers as in the Jane Doe #2 suit, and the procedural history is identical. 6. Jane Doe #6l. Epstein, 08-CV-80994-KAM: This suit was filed by the same PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 7 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011796 EFTA00192842 lawyers as in the Jane Doe #2 suit, and the procedural history is identical. 7. Jane Doe #7'. Epstein, 08-CV-80993-KAM: This suit was filed by the same lawyers as in the Jane Doe #2 suit, and the procedural history is identical. 8. C.M.A. I. Epstein, 08-CV-80811-KAM: This suit was filed in state court and removed to federal court. Plaintiff sued Epstein and Sarah Kellen (Epstein's assistant). Kellen is represented by Bruce Reinhart. CMA's initial Complaint alleged sexual abuse and intentional infliction of emotional distress. CMA later filed a First Amended Complaint, which alleged 30 separate claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Epstein filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that a victim can raise only one claim under section 2255, not a separate claim for each occurrence. A few days ago, CMA filed a document entitled "Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2255." In that document, CMA states that, if the statutory floor applies to each of her 30 claims under § 2255, then she will forego her civil claims. If, however, the Court decides that the statutory floor can apply to each victim only once, then she wants to be able to pursue both her statutory and common law claims. 9. Doe'. Epstein, 08-CV-80893-KAM: This suit was filed by one of the victims who brought the victim's rights suit against the United States. She is represented by Brad Edwards. The Complaint raises the following claims: sexual exploitation, sexual abuse and/or sexual assault of a minor (Count 1), "Cause of Action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255" (Count II), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count Ill), and "Civil Remedy for Criminal Practices" (Count IV). Plaintiff also filed a separate "Civil RICO Statement." Epstein filed a motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement, which was granted in part by Judge Marra. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in April, adding a claim for damages under a Florida statute providing compensation forerime victims. Epstcin has filed several motions to extend the time to file his Answer pending the outcome of his motion to stay all the civil litigation. Epstcin must file his Answer to this Amended Complaint by June 12th, the date of thc hearing on the Motion to Stay. 10. Doe iii. Epstein, 09-CV-80469-KAM: This Complaint is based exclusively on 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Plaintiff alleges that she was a victim of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and that Epstein "has made an agreement with the United States Attorney's Office to not contest liability for claims brought exclusively pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, in exchange for avoiding federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(6), which provides a sentence of 10 years for each violation of thc law." On May 6, 2009, Epstein filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff had already filed a state court suit for common law claims arising from the same activity. Epstcin also argued that the version of I8 U.S.C. § 2255 that was in effect at the time of the sexual encounters applies (with its $50,000 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 8 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011797 EFTA00192843 minimum rather than the $ I 50,000 minimum).' I I. Doe No. 1011. Epstein, 09-CV-80591-KAM: This was the first suit filed by Bob losefsberg's firm. On May I, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging six claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 —a separate count for each predicate offense that Epstein committed. Thus, Count I alleges that defendant Epstein "used a facility or means of interstate and/or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce Janc Doe No. 101, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and/or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense .. . in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)." The other counts charge that Epstein violated § 2423(b) (travel with intcnt to engage in illicit sexual conduct); § 2251 (production of child pornography); §2252(a)(I) (transportation of child pornography); § 2252A(a)(1) (distribution of child pornography); and § 2252A(g) (engaging in a child exploitation enterprise). 12. Doe No. 102 I. Epstein, 09-CV-80656-KAM: This suit also was filed by Josefsberg's firm. On May I, 2009, Plaintiff filed suit alleging the same claims raised by Doe No. 101. Epstein has not yet filed his answer to that Complaint. 13. Doe No. 81 Epstein, 09-CV-80802-KAM: This is the most recently filed suit. It was filed on May 28, 2009. This suit was filed by the same lawyers as in the Jane Doe N2 suit, and the procedural history is identical. THE PLEADING THAT VIOLATED THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement speaks of waiving challenges to liability and damages and one could certainly argue that the liability waiver applies to any 2255 claim filed by one of the listed victims. However, construing any ambiguity in favor of Epstein, the most conservative reading of the NPA requires him to waive challenges to liability in those cases where the plaintiff proceeds exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Jane Doe #101 has stated all claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and is not seeking any common law, state, or other federal statutory remedies. In response to those claims, Epstein has made the following arguments in his Motion to Dismiss the 'Although not raised in the Motion to Dismiss Jane Doe 11's Complaint, Epstein has argued in another suit that, under the pre-2006 law, only persons who are still "minors" can file suit under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. In the 2006 version of the law, the language was changed to allow suit by any person who, "while a minor," was a victim of a violation. PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 9 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011798 EFTA00192844 First Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement (which is attached hereto): A. The applicable version of § 2255 only permits "minor" to sue: . .. Yet the FAC [First Amended Complaint] affirmatively admits that Plaintiff is over the age of 18.... Plaintiff is bound by that admission, and the FAC must be dismissed with prcjudicc... . B. Nor is Plaintiff the "victim of a violation" of a predicate criminal statute within the meaning of § 2255. 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a). In our system of justice, those accused of "violating" a criminal statute arc innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court. With due respect to the courts that have concluded otherwise, it defies common sense to think that Congress intended to invert that fundamental legal norm, and the legislative history of § 2255 expressly confirms that Congress intended to condition § 2255 actions on an antecedent criminal conviction. The FAC therefore must be dismissed because it does not—and cannot—allege that Defendant has been convicted of a predicate criminal offense. C. Even if the applicable version of § 2255 were construed to allow adults to sue in the absence of a predicate conviction, the FAC.. .-even taken as true-would not establish a legally "plausible" claim that Plaintiff is a victim of any predicate criminal offense giving rise to a § 2255 cause of action. (Epstein's Mot' n at 2-3.) The motion expands each of these arguments. With respect to his argument that only "minors" can sue for damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein asserts that the 2006 amendment to § 2255 was not meant to apply retroactively and cannot apply retroactively because it would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.' The pre-2006 statute reads: "Any minor who is a victim of [certain federal crimes] and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value." In 2006, the statute was revised to state: "Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of [certain federal crimes] and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 10 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011799 EFTA00192845 As to his second argument, Epstein reiterates that the "FAC still would fail as a matter of law because it does not (and cannot consistent with Rule I 1) allege that Defendant is guilty of 'a violation' of a predicate statute.... As set forth below, the plain text of the statute and its legislative history demonstrate that § 2255 is conditioned on a prior federal conviction. Because Defendant has never been convicted of a predicate federal offense, the FAC must be dismissed." (Epstein's Mot'n at 14-15.) He explains: Given the presumption of innocence that animates our system of criminal justice, Congress's reference to "a victim of a violation" of a criminal statute can only be interpreted to require proof that the defendant has been convicted of a predicate federal offense against the plaintiff. After all, an individual accused of "violating" a criminal statute is deemed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It would turn that principle upside down if plaintiffs could sue in the absence of an antecedent criminal conviction. (Id. at IS.) Epstein notes that the only district courts to have addressed § 2255 have held that an "antecedent conviction" is not required, but argues that those cases were wrongly decided. In her Complaint, Jane Doe #101 asserted that Epstein had been convicted of state law crimes and, taking language directly from Alex Acosta's letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez, wrote that Epstein "is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against Plaintiff and, as such, must admit liability unto Plaintiff." (Id. at 20.) Epstein quotes from the state plea colloquy and the state charging instrument to show that the state charges do not relate to Janc Doc #101. Further, he writes, "even if Defendant's state-law pleas did involve state-law offenses against Plaintiff—which they did not—§ 2255 only authorizes suit based on predicate convictions under certain federal statutes..:' (Id. at 21 (emphasis added).) States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than 5150,000 in value." PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL II ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011800 EFTA00192846 Epstein then addresses each of Jane Doe #101's claims. Taking his arguments directly from the various "position papers" that Epstein submitted to our office to urge declination, he argues: (I) Epstein could not have violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) because he did not use a facility of interstate commerce to persuade Jane Doc #101 to engage in sexual activity — the persuasion always occurred in person. (2) Epstein could not have violated 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) because the "dominant motive" for Epstein's interstate travel was not to engage in unlawful sexual activity. "Instead, as the FAC makes clear, Defendant is a successful businessman who maintains homes and properties around the world. Even if the FAC's fanciful allegations regarding Defendant's conduct while at those homes were true, the FAC does not remotely allege that his dominant motive for travel was to engage in illicit sexual acts ..." (Id. at 28 (emphasis in original).) (3) Plaintiff failed to adequately plead violations of IS U.S.C. § 2251, 2252(a)(1) and 2252A(a)( I ) because she does not allege that Epstein intended to transmit or actually did transmit images of child pornography in interstate commerce, and alleged only that Epstein "may have taken lewd photographs of Plaintiff . ." (4) Epstein could not have violated 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g) because the statute was not enacted until 2006, and Jane Doc # 101 alleges that her interactions with Epstein occurred in 2003. RECOMMENDATION As explained above, the Non-Prosecution Agreement provides, in relevant part, that "If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7),6 supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, 'The "individuals referred to in paragraph (7)" are "individuals whom [the United States) has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255." PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL I2 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011801 EFTA00192847 Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law." The United States has performed its obligations under the NPA, and Jane Doe #101 has proceeded exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, yet Epstein is contesting liability. Moreover, Epstein is not simply contesting whether Jane Doc #101 is owed damages because of the particular circumstances of his interactions with Jane Doe 4101, he is asserting that he can never be forced to pay damages pursuant to I8 U.S.C. § 2255 because—in reliance on the NPA—the United States never prosecuted and convicted him of a predicate offense. The protection of the victims' rights to restitution was one of the most important aspects of the NPA and the failure of that key piece of consideration cannot be tolerated. This is especially true when one considers that Epstein has served virtually no jail time, in contravention of the NPA and representations made to our Office by Epstein's attorneys. The importance of this consideration is reiterated later in the NPA: "In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co- conspirators of Epstein." (NPA at p.5.) The Agreement continues: "By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAl. 13 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011802 EFTA00192848 individual or entity for any and all federal offenses." (NPA at p.6.) Accordingly, I recommend that the Office declare that Epstein has breached the NPA and proceed promptly to indictment. NOTICE REOUIREMENTS OF TILE NPA Pursuant to the NM, the U.S. Attorney's Office is required to provide prompt notice of a breach: If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of this violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. (NPA at p.2.) The pleading that is the subject of the breach was filed with the Court on May 26, 2009. Thus, we must provide notice of the breach not later than Saturday, July 25, 2009. The Office also must indict within 60 days of giving notice. In light of Judge Marra's directive that the Office address the issue of breach at the hearing on Friday, June 12, 2009, I recommend that we provide that Notice at the hearing. PRI VILF.GED AND CONFIDENTIAL 14 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011803 EFTA00192849 DIRE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEBS IS.QPPIROSECITTIOLLAGEEEMENT IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the Slate Attorney's Office for the ISth Judicial Circuit in and foe Palm Beach County Oureinafter, the "Sum Attorney'. Office, have conducted an investigation into the conduct of kffrcy Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"; IT APPEARING that the Sale AtI0OICY$ Office Nu charged Epstein by indktnxre with solicitation of prottltugon, in vildko of Floddy Stamm Sutton 79607; IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office end the Federal Bum. of Inveuimetion have conducted their own investigation into Epstein'. background end any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against de United Stow Bunt in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, Including: (I) (2) (7) knowingly and willfully cornicing with othen known and unknown to commit an offemc againn the United States. that is, lo use. facility ot means of interstate or fievign commerce to knowingly persuade, Induce, or entice talon: famaka to engage in prostitution, in violation of TItle IL United States Cork,Section2d22(b); all in violation oflitIc IS, United Mahn Code, Section knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in Interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sans./ conduct as defined in It U.S.C. § 2423(0. with minor female., in violation of Tide United States Code, Section 2423(b), all In viobation of Title It, United Stases Code, Section 2427(e); wing a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor female. to engage In prostitution; in violation of Title ILI/ailed States Code, Sections 2422(2) and 2; (4) traveling (n Interstate ~one for the purpose of tooting in illicit actual conducts, defined in It U.S.C. § 2427(0, with minor females; in violpion Page I or 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011804 EFTA00192850 of Title IS. United Stain Code, Section 2423(b); and knowingly. l and effecting interstate and foreip commove, recruiting. enticko, std obtaining by any mean a person, knowing th t the person had not attained the age of IS years and Would be caused to engage in a commercial sax eel as defined In IS U.S.C. § I591(eXI); in violation of rifle IS, United Slate, Code, Sections 1391(.Xl)and 2; end IT APPEAR1NO that Epstein seeks to resolve globally hls slate and ftdetst criminal liability and Epstein understands and &knowledge, that, in exchange for the benefit, provided by this agreement, &agrees to comply with its temo,Including andertakkotattath actions with the Stale Anomey's Office; IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Eintcm's background by both Sow and Federal law enforcement 'omelet, and idler due tenni:tenon with do State Ammons Office, that the interests of the United Sines, the State of Florida, and the Defendant soil) be sewed by the following proodum, THEREFORE, on the authority of It. Alexander Acosta, United Slates Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District foe these offenses shall be defined in favor of prosecuticm by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the roquinmatts of this Aapecemnt set forth below. If the United States Attorney should &leonine, bawd on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement. then the United States Attorney any, within ninety (90) days following the expiation of the tear of home confinement dismissed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s)of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate Its prosecution on any offane within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a bans for • determined& of a breach of the ANorment. After timely ft:Inning all the tame end conditions of the Agreement, no proscanton for the offenses set orlon pages I and 2 oft/ItsAgreement, nor any other offenses that have been the ambled of the joint investigation by the federal Hunan of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal (nand July investigation will be instituted in this District. and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. Pau 2 of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011805 EFTA00192851 Terms of the Agreement: IiPtieln shall Plead guilty (not robs contendere) to the kakonent currently pending against him In the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case NO. 2006-cf-00919SAX)O(MB) charging roe (I) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires him to register to a sex offender, that is, the soliductica of minas to engage in restitution. in viotation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03. 2. Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose thirty (J0) month sentence to be divided a follows: (a) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and Mx (6) months in county jail foe all charges, without any opportunity for withholding edJudleadon eras:Mewing, and without probation w community control In lieu of Inspriscninan; and (b) Epstein shall be unlaced toe term of twelve (12) months of community control comocutivc to hie two mina In comityJail as described k Term 2(e), nye°. 3. Ills senescent b continual upon a fudge of the 15th hadkial Circuit accepting and executing ft /4111CIWA tweed upon between the State Attonsey's Office sod Epstein. the details orwhich are set fords In this agreement. 4. The tennis contained in puamsphs I and 2, supra, do not foreclose Epstein and the Slate Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend any additional charge(s) 04 any additional krm(s) of probation ardor Incarcetation. 5. Epstein shall waive all challenges to 0se Information flied by the Suite Attorneys 0111ce and shall waive the right to cusped' his conviction and seetena, except a sentence that exceeds what 13 set forth in paragraph (2), aup'o. 6. Epstein skill provide to the O.S. Attorney's Office copies of all Pssc3of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011806 EFTA00192852 proposed aptemenu with the Suite Attorney's Office prior mastering into those agreements. The United Siam shell provide Epstein's attorneys with a lin of individuals whom it has Identified as victims, a defined in I g U.S.C. 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the netcution of this egreeuwnt the United Sates,in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's cartel, shall seket an anomey representative for these persons, who shall be paid foe by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra. elect. to MC suit pursuant to IS U.S.C. § 2255. Epstein will not contest the junsdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ova his person andror the subject matter, end Ea:kitty/Dives his rialst to contest liability and also waives his fight to contst damages up to an amount as agreed to between the Identified Individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elites to proceed exclusively under IS V.S.C. § 2255. and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pus:tent estate, Meal, or common law. Nowrithsondird; this waiver, as to those Individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States. Epstein's signature on this az:icemen, his waivers and Gam to contest liability and suth damages In nay suit arc not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. Epstein's signature on this agyeanent also is not to be caromed as en admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver °forty jurisdktional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United Stale. 10. Except es to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under IS U.S.0 f 2255, as set (whin penigntph (St manta. neither Epstein's signature on this agreement not Mums, nor any resulting %vulvas or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evitkexe of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any Jurisdictional or other defense as to any person. whether or not her name appun on the list provided by the United States. 11. Epstein shall we his bat efforts to enter his guilty plea end be Page a of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011807 EFTA00192853 sentenced net bier thm October 26, 2007. The United States hr no objection to Epstein self-rtgorting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4. 2006. 12. Epstein agree, Chit he not be afforded any benefits with ~set to pin time,other Menthe rights, opportungies, and benefits as any other inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on ruusdud role, and regulations that apply In the State of Fonda. Al the United Sias' toques«. Epstein *gnu M provide en accounting of the gain time he eamwd during his period of Incer«ration. I3. the ponies anticipate Nat this agreement will not be mede pan of any public record. if the United Slates receive, e Freedom of Information Act request or any compubory worm conunanding the disclosure of the agreement, int will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. Epstein cederstands that the United States Attorney has no authority lo requite the Slate Attorney', Office to abide by any tema of this agreement Ennoln undershuldt that it Is Ma obligation to undertake din-Lesions with the Stale Artorerry's Office ard 10 we his but efforts to ensure compliance with them prwedurts which compliance will be necessary to ardsfy the United States' interest. Epstein alm understands that It is his obligation louse hin blot ,Ron, to convince the lodge of the 12th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein', binding recc nmendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understand, that the failure to do so will be e breach of the agreement In consideration of Epstein, agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation In the rriamwrdeseribed above, if fipseeir.succesfiilly NNW' all of the forma andconditions *IOW agreement, the United Slats also »grow that It will not institute any criminal charges against any potential coconspirator* of Epstein, Including but not limited to Sarah Kellen Adrian& R033, Lesley Groff, r $.dia hiarcinkova Further, upon execution of this op temcrel sod a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Omni Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Cmuul Jury subpoenas will be MN LI abeyance odes, and until the defendant violates any term of Nis agreement. The defendant likewise agree, to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and toquash certain grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, sweifkally evidence requested by or directly related to the wand jury subpoenas that have been issued, end includingoertain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of Nis agreement have been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand jury subpoenas *hell be deemed withdrawn. Pap S of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011808 EFTA00192854 Dy signifia this agreement. Epstein usons and eertilks that mari of dies. Items is mataial Io Nb agreement and If supported by independall eawideration and Ne a lunch °Demy onc of the... condition; alloua the United Steel to edect to terminate the agnement and to invertigke and protocole Epstein and any °the; individuel or entity te dey and ail Coderai offenses sysigningthis agreement, Renias usent and outilles thmhe mare °tee (euh.: Uw Shah Arceiximent to the Coralituion of the United States uovides 141 ln a11 uirninal prosecutions the keuao1stioll enjoy the right to a spzedy and publie trid. Esowin furexr is 'watt dut Ruk Ill(b) of the Redent{ Rulea ofCriminel Procedtae provides dut the Cowt may &kolas an Infonnation, or complaini for traweessuy delay it pteartaing a charge to the Grand Rn, Ming an Informatiog ce ln bringing a Uri:adent to trial. Epstein hereby soumets that the United States Attorney for ne Southem Distrietof Floride de r« sikh proseseution Epstein egree and contenu thal anyckley Dom the due of titis Agnerunt to the date of initiation of prou:notion, 03 provided for th the tenu tantes:cd herein, thall te dan be a neeessary *lapa Alamos mue«, and he hcreby %s'Iwo anydefense b mach proxoution on the t'oued Nat nich delay operatcd w deny him nets Linder Rule 48(b) of the Roderai Rides of enterrai Procedwe and the Sbilh Arnendmentto the Constitution of the UnitedStaffatom speedy trial or to bu lie proseeutionby tesson of the moins of the 'talle of limitations for a pulod of monte <quai la Na period banco the signIng of Une 0g:cernent and the kaaeh of US OgIVellall 03 us th'« offensa that vere the subito of the grand jury's Investigation. Epstein further muta and ratifia tint he undenumda Mat the Flfth Amenament and Rule 7(a) of the Roderai Rule. of Crimiral Wou:dure Koulak daall Mordes mut lys charged in en {cillement praentod to a grand Jury. Epstein hereby aigres and (CeSetw the if • prosecution apaisai him h irntinned for any offense that usis the 'objecter0e grandjuria inwangation, il may be by way of anInfonnwion sIgned and filai by the United States Anone); end hereby nives Ma rie to be Indktcd by e gnnd jury as ha any aie offense, lit tyy lff hie 6of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011809 EFTA00192855 By signing Ibis agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that be understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: 77P/4" Dated: Dated: A. MARIE VTLLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY OERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-01 1810 EFTA00192856 By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: Dated: HD 7 Dated: A. MARIE VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFCOL ES Q. OUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Pogo 7 of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011811 EFTA00192857 By Arniog :Ms Lirknamt, PosWai steers end catnips NY the above Ina bran IS ad explained whim. Epsiola hereby macs the he uodastsais the coodEloca of Mt Non. Erossorrtion Aryirsmeat sod wets to comply with them R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA %MIMED SIAM ATTORNEY Mud: Deb!: Oast HY: A. MARIE YILLAPA9A ASSISTANT US ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN ATTORNEY FOR EIFTIO3Y EPSOM hp /of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-01 1 8 12 EFTA00192858 IN RE: IMIESTIGA11074 OP JEMMY IIPSTIPN 612jamiamm twor IT APPEARING that W pullet seek to elerity cenaln peosisloas «page 4, puma 7 of Oa Non,hosccutIon Agnarnan Nation': 'pongees* 7), Wu agreement Is neodiflod ot %Porn: 7A The United States tat the right to au@ to an Indopendmt ettedftaity the responsibility ftr consulting with ted, subject to the good YON apron; of Epsteires counsel. relict* Wt money reftatiftetive for els ladiviehmis Wonted ur/.<: to Agyeemenl. IS No lirfted %us elects 4> assign this rospottititey to at. iftetepenteM thitatarty, boa the Undid States end P.pstelsa robin the right to make µok ION objemloas to We eummey npiesenusftvo rvapasied by the Intl:widen, third-pray ?dot to the Mn ckalpariees of the anomey represeabilve. 70. lbc panics will jointly moans a short veekan nsbmIssicm to No Indowklent thInSparty :exalting the solo piths atterney roprescntatins and regaiding Epocein's Agromert on pay wok attorney rtmeoentethe hit te her stouter ontoussey hearty rate tot tronstating toch *Cm subject to i7e pfterisken of prograph C. Infra. 7C Piesewit to additional paragraph 7A,E➢srin/as,Ereedlo py We fees or the ottomey nyernaftstive telakd by the ladepenclud ihtd patty.11t pcooision, hosnwr, stall ea obligate Pastel» to pay the fee and cot of oftneolod inolun nw «Silts* b;',, ;tin« comblerelce of ',medal fettleincm. en °nano teprestrgatIn elects to flit e corium.: lovesoit penman. to I8 V.S.C. t 2235 or cleat to pate Sty mho: waited ,7medY. the Pun rif h 7 obitgatilin of Ne Atnemeet to pay the togs of the eteftecy repitscralive,M opposed to any netstory et oft* obligilkot to pay reat:neifie attorneys foes sad costs mots el those Oallehlig k t 2253 to boe: doe cons of Ne annrey repextmelve. shall caw. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011813 EFTA00192859 Ey t;p:ng Mb Addentkm, Efmcb Isme end meien GA1 iba above km boer iod ani espisIned b Mm. !nuk henby. sist Pat te vederrards OM GhlifiCatiord CO We Non- Pr oucuton Agraimen1 and *pm to tomply wkihztote. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA VinTED STATER ATTOMEY A. MARE VII1APA A ASSISTANT VS. ATTORNEY Dáie.1 ril - Os& Dw.* GERALD LEPCOURT,ESO. COUNSEL TO MPFREY MIEN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ. ESQ. ATTORNEY POR WEM ETSTEN Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011814 EFTA00192860 By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: Dated: Dated: A. MARIE VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN RALD LEFCO r RT ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFR Y EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011815 EFTA00192861 By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with than. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: Dated: Dated: ) 219"" A. MARIE VILIAFAFIA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN OBRALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANPPSANCHEZ, ES . ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011816 EFTA00192862 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida R ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Lilly Ann Sanchez Fowler White Burnett, PA 1395 Stickel! Ave, le Floor Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. Sanchez: 99N£ !Street USK FL 13112 003)961.9100 - Tetteatle O03)3366444 - FaesteSk December 19, 2007 I write to follow up on the December le meeting between defense counsel and the Eps prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special A ent in Charge and mysel . 'Section 2255 provides that: Imlay person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of (enumerated SCCII0115 of Title IS] and who suffen personal Injury as a result of such violation ... may sue in any appropriate United States DiStliet Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, Including a reasonable attorney's fee." Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011817 EFTA00192863 With this in mind, I have considescd defamecount' nouns, rep/ding the Section 2255 prtions of the Agreement. As I previously absent:Iour Intral has been to place the victims in the woe position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted al trial. No more; no less. From our muting. It appears Mu the defense wets that ibis was the Weed. Uwing the comae of nesoliMions that intent was reduced 10 tithing in Pang aph3 7 and 8, which all wrote previnsfr. was fa: from simple to undersuod. I meld thus propose that we solve our eksagitements over ink:veterans by saying precisely whet we mean in a simple fashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 sod S with the following language: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title IS. United States Code. Section 2255, will have the same riche to proceed undo Secdon nss 14 ale would have had. if Mt.Epsteinbeen tried federally and convicted of an enumerated °Menu- For ImPose Of imPlenwnling this awagraph, the United Saks shall provide Mr. Epstein's atkencys with a list of individuals *horn it was petpued toriame in an 44kt:oral as victims of an exonerated offense by Mr. P.pskin Any judicial authority ink:pitting thin provision, including any euthorityiklennining which evidentiary burdens if any e plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the panics In place these identified 1114111113 in the 1411% position ILI they would have been had Mt. Epstein been convicted al vial. No mac; no kis." 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011818 EFTA00192864 Srstrely. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 3 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011819 EFTA00192865 U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 June 23, 2008 Jay Lefkowitz„ Esq. Kenneth Starr, Esq. Kirkland and Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Gentlemen: This Office has completed a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's handling of the matter involving your client, Jeffrey Epstein. We have received and reviewed your letters of May 19, June 3 and June 19, 2008, the attachments to the June 19 letter, as well as your submissions to the Criminal Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office. Additionally, we have reviewed en extensive set of materials provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office and conferred with a number of highly experienced Department attorneys about this matter. The Deputy Attorney General has also been briefed. As you know, the Department of Justice vests considerable discretion in its U.S. Attorneys, and the Deputy Attorney General will intervene in only the most unusual of circumstances. We do not believe such intervention is warranted here. Even if we were to substitute our judgment for that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe that federal prosecution of this case is appropriate. Moreover, having reviewed your allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and the facts underlying them, we see nothing in the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's Office that gives us any reason to alter our opinion. cc: Alex Acosta Sincerely, John Roth Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011820 EFTA00192866 FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATION (Using November 1.2004 Guidelines Manual} Each count of §§ 1591, 2422(b) and 2423(6): Base Offense Level under 2G1.3: Offense involved sexual contact: 24 +2 26 Counts do not group, so add 5 levels for more than 5 units, pursuant to 3D1.4 Offense Level 31 Apply Repeat and Dangerous Sex Offender against Minors enhancement at 4B1.5 Total Offense Level 36 Assuming Criminal History Category!, advisory guideline range is 188 - 235 months with lifetime supervised release. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011821 EFTA00192867 CONFIDENTIAL PLEA NEGOTIATIONS TERMS OF EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT ■ Epstein pleads guilty (not nolo contendere) to an Information filed by the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office charging him with: (a) lewd and lascivious battery on a child, in violation of Fl. Stat. 800.04(4); (b) solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. 796.03; and (c) engaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of age, in violation of Fl. Stat. 794.05. ■ Epstein and the State Attorney's Office make a joint, binding recommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing; and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment. ■ Epstein agrees to waive all challenges to the information filed by the State and the right to appeal. ■ Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject matter. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims arc persons who, while minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s) 2422 and/or 2423. ■ After Epstein enters his state court plea and is sentenced, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office will close their investigations. Case No. 08-R0736-CV-MARRA P-011822 EFTA00192868 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 09 - 8059 1 Civil Action No. CIV-MARRP MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHNSON Etrpy ,fir DC INTAKE APR 1 7 2009 STEVEN M. LARIMORE CLERK U.S. OIST. CT. S.O. OF FLA. MIAMI COMPLAINT AND Defendant. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101 ("Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Defendant. Jeffrey Epstein, and states as follows: PARTIES• JURISDICTION. AND VENUE I. At all times material to this cause of action, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. 2. This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of Plaintiff, Jane Doe, because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse of a then minor. 3. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, had a residence located at 358 El Bulb Way, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. 4. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is currently a citizen of the State of Florida, as he is currently incarcerated in the Palm Beach County Stockade. 5. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, was an adult male born in 1953. Podhunt Orseck, P.A. 25 West Hagler Street Suite 800, MWµ FL 33130, MINA 3053582800 Fax 305358.238I • For Lauder:10e 051.4624346 www.podhuyst corn CILSC No. 08.80736-CV-MARRA P-011823 EFTA00192869 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 2 of 19 6. This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. 7. This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, was an adult male, approximately 50 years old. Epstein is known as a billionaire financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to billionaires. He is a man of tremendous wealth, power, and influence. He owns a fleet of aircraft that includes a Gulfstream IV, a helicopter, and a Boeing 727. Until his incarceration, he maintained his principal place of residence in the largest home in Manhattan, a 51,000-square-foot eight-story mansion on the Upper East Side. Upon information and belief, he also owns a S6.8 million mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, a $30 million 7,500-acre ranch in New Mexico he named "Zorro," and a 70-acre private island known as Little St. James in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. The allegations herein concern Defendant's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant has a sexual preference for underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan, scheme, or enterprise in which he gained access in his home to countless relatively economically disadvantaged minor girls, sexually assaulted or molested these girls, and then gave them money. 10. Beginning in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, Defendant used his resources and his influence over vulnerable minor children to engage in a systematic pattern of sexually exploitative behavior. 11. Defendant's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Defendant coerced and enticed impressionable, vulnerable, and relatively economically less Podhurat Orseck, P.A. 2 2s West Flagler Street Sae 800, Mkerd, FL 33134 WKS 3053582000 Pax 301.158.2382 • Pert Lauderdale 954.463.°46 I www.podhwitaom Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011824 EFTA00192870 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 3 o(19 fortunate minors to participate in various acts of sexual misconduct that he committed upon them. Defendant's scheme involved the use of underage girls as well as other individuals to recruit other underage girls. Upon information and belief, Defendant or an authorized agent would call and alert Defendant's assistants shortly before or after he arrived at his Palm Beach residence. His assistants would seek out economically disadvantaged and underage girls from West Palm Beach and surrounding areas who would be enticed by the money being offered— generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session—and who Defendant and/or his assistants perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility issues if allegations of improper conduct were made. The then minor Plaintiff and other minor girls, some as young as 14 years old, were transported to Defendant's Palm Beach county mansion by Defendant's employees, agents, and/or assistants in order to provide Defendant with "massages." 12. Defendant would pay the procurer of each girl's "appointment" approximately $200. Many of the instances of illegal sexual conduct committed by Defendant were perpetrated with the assistance, support, and facilitation of at least three assistants who helped him orchestrate this child exploitation enterprise. These assistants would often arrange times for underage girls to come to Defendant's residence, transport or cause the transportation of underage girls to Defendant's residence, escort the underage girls to the massage room where Defendant would be waiting or would enter shortly thereafter, urge the underage girls to remove their clothes, deliver cash from Defendant to the underage girls and/or their procurers at the conclusion of each "massage appointment," and, upon information and belief, take nude photographs and/or videos of the underage girls' for Defendant without their knowledge. 13. Epstein designed the scheme to secure a private place in Defendant's mansion where only persons employed and invited by Epstein would be present, so as to reduce the chance of detection of Defendant's sexual abuse and prostitution as well as to make it more Podhurst Orscck, P.A. 3 25 West Flaglier Strait, Suite 500, Miami, FL 33130, Mimi 3C635&2200 PM 3053582382 • loon Isuderdele %tate* Case No. 08.80736-CV-MARRA R-011825 EFTA00192871 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 4 of 19 difficult for the minor girls to flee the premises and/or to credibly report his actions to law enforcement or other authorities. The girls were usually transported by his employees, agents, and/or assistants or by a taxicab paid for by Defendant in order to make it difficult for the girls to flee his mansion. 14. Upun arrival at Defendant's mansion, each underage victim would generally be introduced to one of Defendant's assistants, who would gather the girl's personal contact information. The minor girl would then be led up a flight of stairs to a room that contained a massage table and a large shower. The staircase leading to the room was plastered with nude photographs of young girls, including some photographs depicting two or more young girls engaged in lewd acts. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstcin, had such photographs in each of his four homes and on his computer. 15. At times, if it was the girl's first "massage" appointment, another female would be in the room to "lead the way" until Defendant would have her leave. Generally, Defendant would start his massage wearing only a small towel, which eventually would be removed. Defendant would direct the girl to massage him, giving her specific instructions as to where and how he wanted to be touched, and then direct her to remove her clothing. He would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious, and sexual acts, including masturbation, fondling the minor's breasts and/or sexual organs, touching the minor's vagina with a vibrator and/or back massager, digitally penetrating her vagina, performing intercourse, oral sex, and/or anal sex, and/or coercing or attempting to coerce the girl to engage in lewd acts and/or prostitution. The exact degree of molestation and frequency with which the sexual crimes took place varied and is not yet completely known; however, at least when Defendant was in Palm Beach, Florida, such acts occurred usually on a daily basis and, in most instances, several times a day. Podhurst Orsecic P.A. 4 23 West Flagler Sate, Suite 800, Miami. FL 33130, Mad X6.35511300 Pax 3(59582342 • Port Lauderdale 954.461.4346 veww.podlturattom Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011826 EFTA00192872 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 5 of 19 16. As previously stated in paragraph 14, Defendant displayed nude photographs of underage girls throughout his homes in New York, Palm Beach, Ncw Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Upon information and belief, some of the photographs in the possession of Defendant were taken with hidden cameras set up throughout his home in Palm Beach. On the day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of underage girls on a computer in Defendant's home. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, may have taken lewd photographs of Plaintiff, Jane Doe, with his hidden cameras and may have transported lewd photographs of Plaintiff (among many other victims) to his other residences and elsewhere using a facility or means of interstate commerce. 17. Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, Defendant used his money, wealth, and power to unduly and improperly manipulate and influence the then minor Plaintiff Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was recruited by one of Defendant's agents to give Defendant a massage for compensation. Plaintiff was apprehensive, but needed the money and finally agreed to go. Plaintiff was first thought to Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003, when she was merely 17 years old and in high school. Epstein's procurer drove her to Jeffrey Epstcin's mansion. Plaintiff was led up a flight of stairs by a blonde woman to a spa room with a shower and a massage table, where she was left alone. A woman with dark hair, an accent, and naked from the waist up entered and tried to coax Plaintiff to remove her shirt, but Plaintiff refused. After the woman showed Plaintiff how to use the lotions that were there, the woman left. Defendant walked in wearing only a small towel. He lay down on the massage table still wearing the small towel, and Plaintiff began to massage his shoulders and neck. Nervously, she asked him what he did for a living. Defendant responded that he was a scientist. Defendant asked Plaintiff what year she would graduate high school, to which Plaintiff honestly replied that she would graduate in 2004. Plaintiff massaged Defendant's lower back and calves. Defendant Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 5 25 Was Mar Street Suite 800. Miami. Fl. 33130, Miam1305358.2800 Fax 305356238 • Port Louden:W.9544634346 www.podhuntscom Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011827 EFTA00192873 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 6 of 19 told her to remove his towel. Defendant told her that he had just worked out and wanted his buttocks massaged. Although disgusted, she was afraid to refuse and did it. At some point, Defendant ordered Plaintiff to remove her clothes. In shock, fear, and trepidation, Plaintiff partly complied, removing only her shirt and bra. When Defendant turned over, Plaintiff was afraid and embarrassed and she wanted to leave. Defendant repeatedly told her to relax and complimented her, saying that she had a nice body. Defendant then pulled Plaintiff closer to him. He began masturbating and then began fondling her breasts. He asked her to do more and mentioned more money, which she adamantly declined. Defendant continued masturbating until he ejaculated. Plaintiff next recalls that she received $200 and was transported by the procurer, whom she later learned received $200 for having brought her to Epstein's mansion. 18. Defendant thereafter lured the then minor Plaintiff to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003. The procurer made another appointment for her to return, but Plaintiff didn't want to see Defendant. By having his assistants continue to contact Plaintiff and attempt to lure her to the mansion for other sexual acts, Defendant engaged in a continuous course of conduct that injured Plaintiff upon each instance of contact and/or abuse. 19. In addition to the direct sexual abuse and molestation of the then minor Plaintiff, Defendant used his money, wealth, and power to unduly and improperly manipulate and influence the then minor Plaintiff to bring him another minor girl in a promised exchange for money. Rather than go herself, Plaintiff and the procurer took another girl there one time. 20. As a result of these encounters with Defendant, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 6 25 Wed Hasler Street, Suite KO, Wail, FL 33130, Mond 3053532800 Pax 305358.2382 • Port Lauderdale 954.4614346 1 www.podtauslcom Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011828 EFTA00192874 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 7 of 19 other damages associated with Defendant's controlling and manipulating her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. 21. Any assertions by Defendant that he was unaware of the age of the then minor Plaintiff are belied by her telling him her high school graduation year, as well as his own actions, and are rendered irrelevant by the provision of applicable federal statutes concerning the sexual exploitation and abuse of a minor child. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, at all times material to this cause of action, knew and should have known of Plaintiff's age of minority. In fact, his preference for underage girls was well-known to those who regularly procured them for him. 22. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, committed the above-referenced acts upon the then minor Plaintiff in violation of federal statutes condemning the coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in prostitution or sexual activity, travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, sex trafficking of children, sexual exploitation of minor children, transport of visual depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, transport of child pornography, child exploitation enterprises, and other crimes, specifically including, but not limited to, those crimes designated in 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), § 2423(b), § 2423(e), § 2251, § 2252, § 2252A(a)(I), § 2252A(g)(I), and * 1591. 23. After investigations by the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, entered picas of "guilty" to various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution in June 2008 in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against Plaintiff and, as such, Podhurat °neck, P.A. 7 23 Wen Phew Sind, Sults 800, MCI, Pt 33130, Miami 3053581BM Pax 305336.2W • Port Isuderdolo 9544614316 I Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011829 EFTA00192875 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 8 of 19 must admit liability unto Plaintiff, Jane Doe. Plaintiff hereby exclusively seeks civil remedies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. COUNT ONE fCause of Action for Coercion and Enticement of Minor to Engage in Prostitution or Sexual Activity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ti 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(bfl 24. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 23 above. 25. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and/or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(h). 26. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a toss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 8 25 wet Malec Sent, suite eao, MbaJ, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.21C0 Fax 303358.2162 • Pert Lauderdale 934.463.4346 www.podhuroloaat Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011830 EFTA00192876 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 9 of 19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT TWO (Cause of Action for Travel with Intent to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct pursuant to 18 U.S.C. & 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. & 2423(bi) 28. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 29. ijpon information and belief, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). 30. Plaintiff. Jane Doe, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the Poclhurst Orseck, R A. 9 25 west Meer Street Suite SOO, Miami, PI. 33130. Mead 3053362800 Fax 346358.2M • Poet Lauderdale 954463046 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-0[1831 EFTA00192877 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 10 of 19 capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT THREE (Cause of Action for Sex Traffickine of Children pursuant to 18 U.S.C. b 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. ti 1591(a)) 32. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 23 above. 33. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, knowingly, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, recruited, enticed, and obtained Plaintiff, Jane Doe, knowing that she had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(0)(1), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1). 34. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and Podhurst Once& P.A. 10 25 West Plagler Stet. Suite KO, Nand. FL 33130, Kuril 305.3932800 Fax 3053582382 • Fort Lauderede 951.163.4346 I inewpodhurstroot Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011832 EFTA00192878 Case 9:09-Oi-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 11 of 19 unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT FOUR (Cause of Action for Sexual Exploitation of Children pursuant to 18 U.S.C. & 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. & 22511 36. Plaintiff, Jane Doc, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 37. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, knowingly induced, enticed, or coerced then minor Plaintiff Jane Doe to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251. As previously stated in paragraphs 14 and 16, Defendant displayed a myriad of photographs of underage girls throughout his homes in New York, Palm Beach, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Upon information and belief, many of the photographs in the possession of Defendant were taken with hidden cameras set up throughout his home in Palm Beach. On the day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of underage girls on a computer in Defendant's home. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, may have taken lewd photographs of Plaintiff, Jane Doc, with his hidden cameras and may have transported lewd photographs of Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 11 13 West Hagler Steen Suite 800. Miami. FL33130, Miami 305358.21X* Fax 301.3582382 • Port Lauderdale 954.463.4346 .podhuntcozn Case No. 08.80736-CV-MARRA P-011833 EFTA00192879 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 12 of 19 Plaintiff (among many other victims) to his other residences and elsewhere using a facility or means of interstate commerce. 38. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. I2 25 West Rasher Street, SUMP SOO, Maud, FT. 33130, MIanL 3053582880 Fax 3053582382 • Fort Lauderdale 554.463A346 www.podlutroterom Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011834 EFTA00192880 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 13 of 19 COUNT FIVE (Cause of Action for Transport of Visual Depiction of Minor Eneanine in Sexually Explicit Conduct pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. & 2252(a)(1)1 40. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby adopts, repeats, =lieges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 23 above. 41. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, knowingly mailed, transported, or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(1). As previously stated in paragraphs 14, 16, and 37, upon information and belief, Defendant displayed a myriad of photographs of underage girls throughout his homes in New York, Palm Beach, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Upon information and belief, many of the photographs in the possession of Defendant were taken with hidden cameras set up throughout his home in Palm Beach. On the day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of underage girls on a computer in Defendant's home. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, may have taken lewd photographs of Plaintiff, Jane Doe, with his hidden cameras and may have transported lewd photographs of Plaintiff (among many other victims) to his other residences and elsewhere using a facility or means of interstate commerce. 42. As previously stated in paragraph 21, any assertions by Defendant that he was unaware of the age of the then minor Plaintiff are belied by his actions and rendered irrelevant by the provision of applicable federal and state statutes concerning the sexual exploitation and abuse of a minor child. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, at all times material to this cause of action, knew and should have known of Plaintiff's age of minority. In fact, his preference for underage girls was well-known to those who regularly procured them for him. 43. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 13 25 Wed Meer Sued. Suite 800. Mlwt FL03130. Mang 3(5.158.2800 Fax 305358.2382 • Foci Lauderdale 954.461.4346 I www.podlwtteasn Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA PA11835 EFTA00192881 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 14 of 19 44. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT SIX (Cause of Action for Transport of Child Pornography pursuant to 18 U.S.C. & 2255 in Violation of 18 U,S.C. ti 2252A(a)(1)1 45. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 23 above. 46. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, knowingly mailed, transported, or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1). Podhurst Orsecic, P.A. 14 ZS West Meer Street. Suite 800, MWµ P1.13130. Ittlen0 305.1582800 Pax 305358.2382 • Port Lauderdale 951.463.8346 .podhuntcom Case No. 08.80736-CV-MARRA P-011836 EFTA00192882 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 15 of 19 47. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 48. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against Plaintiff and, as such, must admit liability unto Plaintiff, Jane Doe. 49. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 Wag FlalJer Street Suite SOO, Wan* FL 33130. Miura 305358.2800 Fax 305358.2382 • Rift Lauderdale 958463.4346 I www.podhuntaxm 15 Case No. 08.80736-CV-MARRA P-011837 EFTA00192883 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 16 of 19 COUNT SEVEN (Cause of Action for Envie.Ina in a Child Exploitation Enterprise pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. 6 2252Alafi 50. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 23 above. 51. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, knowingly engaged in a child exploitation enterprise, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g)(2), in violation of 18 USC § 2252A(g)(1). As more fully set forth above in paragraphs 9 through 19, Defendant's actions involved countless victims and countless incidents of abuse, and he committed those offenses against minors in concert with at least three other persons. 52. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 53. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries arc permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 16 23 West Hagler Week Suite 800, Ma, FL 33130, Miami 3053582900 Fax 3053581242 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 twatcom Case No. 08.80736-CV-MARRA P-011838 EFTA00192884 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 17 of 19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. Date: April 17, 2009 C. 6-1 Robert C. Jose s re gt1tIo. 040856 Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33130 (305) 358-2800 (305)358-2382 (fax) riosefsberg@podhurst.com kezell@podhurst.com Attorneys for Plaintiff REMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands to have her case tried before a jury. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 17 Robert C. Josefstrreei r No. 04\0-;. -6 Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33130 (305) 358-2800 (305) 358-2382 (fax) riosefsbenaoodhurst.com kezell@podhurst.com Attorneys for Plaintiff C • i•Ln 25 Wat Hagler Stmt.Sat SOO, 1,41sent FI, 33130. Pallid 3053%2903 Fax 305.3567382 • Fort Lauderdale 954463.4346 www.padhurst coen Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-0 I I 819 EFTA00192885 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 18 of 19 J544 (Rev. I103) CIVIL COVER SHEET • lbelS MI civil covet shod end lhelnfOnnelionceetainedhereinneihrvcohet NNSupg6pmenllho filing and strike of pleadings of other papers as required by law, except as provided •by local rules °rowel This form approved by lbelldicial COnkrence of Die United Slate% in SoNanbm 1974. is scomed forthe use of the flak of Court foe Ilse purpose of milialing the civil dada shed. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE RE VERSE OF THE FOAM I NOTICE: Attoroeys MUST ladkate All Re-filed Cones Below. I. (R) PLAINTIFFS Jane Doe No. 101 (b) COunly Of Reddest* of Eitel Lime, Plaintiff Weal Palm Beach (EXCEPT NUS. PLAINTS'S CASES) (C) Anomeys Sinn Nana. Addrem, endTelephone Asti Robert C. losefsberg, EsqACatherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 W. Magic: St., Suite 800 mini"; Pt O9_ O41 sosq, ... Morro, Id) Check County When Anion Atom 0 MIAM6 DAVE 0 SICHROB 0 BROWARD j1 PAW BEACH 0 MARTIN 0 ST. (ACE 0 INDIAN RIVER CI OKEECHOBEE HIGHLANDS II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Slam WI' FOR Ordy) 0 I 11S. Geninlicild V) 3 Want ()union PNiniR (U.S. Gnawer. Ha a Perry) DEFENDANTS Jeffrey Epstein County of Residence of Final Lilted Defendant Fli*P0 Pa w_SL IM Exc. (IN US. PLAINTIFF CA pgpgikE, NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASE USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED. APR 1 Attorneys DtKrown) Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury Ausuallan Ave., PICA West Palm STEVEN M. old id „taw et B O 2 U.S. Government 0 4 Diven6y Ds knew* In Cittuntan, of Panics In Item III) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIESirace uric...on aim Re ?Mart V. NATURE Ot' SUIT irkedoolc...no.oaco. (For Dinnby Cams Only) PTV DEF and One Boa for De &Seal PIS DEP Ciliate a TN, Stale • ' I I bcorpsisted ne PrincipalPlaca of Business In Tah Stan 0 4 04 Chiles of Manta Sale 0 2 0 2 Irecepomio1 and ',inns/ Phu of Buttress In Amite Stec 0 II 5 Mune( Stied as CI 3 0 3 Fortin, Notion 0 6 n 6 Faris Omar/ I COYIRACT TOMS TOMEMARVPLYALTY aMtaarrcv OCHER S(ATUIES I 0 Ile Insurance CI 12004 0 130 Am 140, PERSONAL INJURY 0 310Mmbre 0 3 If Aimbre PnxIset Liability 0 MAssault.Litel & Shade, 0 130 'Semi Emplom' Liable), 0 240Madre 0 245 Madre Pirdtxt Liability 0330 Mae* Veliek 0 333 Max Veliek PERSONAL INJURY 0 362 Persons, Injury • Ma ItOnake C2 MS Personal le+sry • PICCluel Liability 0 364 Aetna. Pence& Inpuy Praban Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 0 3/0 GeetInnd 0 371 Twat in Lading 0 MO Other Personal Eneeely Dung. 0 313 Property Donne Pro3,61 Vanity 0 6I0Aerkace 0 620 0/6tr Tec4 & Drug 0 623 Dap Related Seines of horny 21 USCUI 0 00 Liver lies 0 640 RR. & Intl 0 630 Metre Rep. 0 660 Ocomatentl Sarnyellealth 0 (AO Otter 0 422 *Wee 28 WC III 0 423 Withiravral 21IUSC 13? 0 440 Sue Itaceeniarmen O 410 Ardlinva 0 4)0 Banks andBanLien 0 450 forwent 0 460 Deponition 0 4)0 Redeem Influence.' rod Comes OrpnInsinne Cl 440 Cemurnm Clew 0 490(62.4/Sal TV 0 IIIISdectire Senior 0 tS0 Semeidarteem:ditiest Deem n sis orate Chat Re 12 US(' 3410 0 WO Odes Slavery Mikan gr 0 891 AIcedneal Am 0 192 Eetoomk Stabilization Am 0 193 EnvInmenesal Mown 0 694 Emery AlszatIon An 019$ Freedom of ledmitthon Mt 1 90Mical of la Detection:n:1 Urdu Egos, Mass to Mike 0 950 Costinabrollty of SW. Sumas 0 esonalskInunasea 0 ISO Ktecnery of Ovespement & EnIoneners of halmemis O MI Medicine Ad O 132 Recoetsy of Defailice &Wen Loud (Fd. Velatfts) O HI Recovery of Overpayment of VeieNa's Nooks 0 I60 Siockholden' Wm 0 190 Cste. Conant: O 193 hada L Miley MB J All a 4 A a CI Kt s 0 820Copyneo 0 830 Petri+, 0540 Tn4onark TABOR COCIAL SECURITY 0 762 ler Libor Steam& An 0 720 LetonTAgn. Rtimkni 0 710 Lsborrelenteponing & Disekeust Aa 0 2431bsittny Lobe An 0 7900der laboaireasen 0 791 Ertel Act Mc Security An 0 161 HIA 039311) 0 Ma Block Lang 1923) CI 141 DIWC/DIWW (403101 O ICA SSW Title XVI 0 MS RSI (01)% Melon Liability B )400041Penonal lanwi roterN O I% Frwettise I REAL Pawl arz a PRISONER PETMONS TS 0 210 Lard Cortkertnen 0 220 retteloutsw 0 230 Ere Lease & Uecomea 0 240 Tons to Lard 0 2.437on Eredoes Llabiliry 0 MAIM/Real recoaly 0441 Veen 0 442 Drobylnert 0 443 HoutItt AectunerodatIor 0 444 Welfare 0 443 Ant ,nDisabilitliii • EnplaYma4 O 446 Am. eMitabileics • Other 0 440 Other Civil Met C/ 51014Mosio Wee. Sesame Hans Coma, CI 510 Cent& 0 115 Dualnimbly O 540 Msnanus A OtIee 0 350 Civil RIM* O 353 Prison Corraine 06'70 Taw (US Plaintiff a Detmemi} 0 271 IRS—Tlid hew 26 USC74O9 I. ORIGIN (Placa an "X" la Ore Ike OLIO rom A31 Ocilla) fl 2 Remove:dill/in Cl 3 ReAlod 4 Eel/malodor Cl 5 Trans another rred f district 6 MISIthISSSncl Proceeding Sure Coon (set VI below) Reopened (sPeeitY) Litigaciess 0 7 Apr-el lo ()Writ( Judge from Magistrate Judgment VI. RELATED/RE-FILED (50C IsSINMONIO • CASE(S). word perk a) Re-filed Case OYES 9) NO JUDGE Kenneth A. Marra b) Related Cases OYES ONO DOCK MBETER See Attached NU VII. CAUSE OF ACTION CI e Ilse U.S. Civil Statute under Mikis you ere filing and Wnie a Brie( Slalom,/ of Cause (Do ea ate Jurttelklioant Haunt sinks, di realty): IS U.S.C. 2255 (Predicale Stabiles I SI U.S 2422(b), 2423(b), 2423(e), 2251. 2252. 2252A(a)( I ), 2252A(g)(I) and 15911 LENGTH OPTRIAL via 4 days estimated (for bosh sides lo Try entire case) O CHIOCIC IP THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMANDS CHECK YES oaly Ildemanded in coreob