UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-MarrahIohnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 UNITED STATES JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the following facts are not in dispute and may be accepted as true: I. [1[In 2006, at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") opened an investigation into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and his personal assistants had used facilities of interstate commerce to induce young girls between the ages of thirteen and seventeen to engage in prostitution, among other offenses. The case was presented to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which accepted the case for investigation. The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office was also investigating the-ease Epstein. See Declaration of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. at && 1-2 (hereinafter "Edwards Declaration"). 2. [21 The allegations investigated by the FBI included claims that, Ibletween about 2001 and 2006, defendant Jeffrey Epstein (a-bi4iienaiee-svith-aigedfteant-pelitieal-eenneetiens)-sexually abuseel4nese-than-40 enticed into prostitution minor girls at his mansion in West Palm Beach, Florida, and elsewhere. Among the girls he senually-alstised was suspected of enticing were Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. Because Epstein, through others, used a means of interstate commerce and knowingly traveled in interstate commerce to engage in this conduct, to-abuse EFTA00206943 Jane Doc ill and Jane Doe 112 (and the other victims), he was investigated for committing committed-violations of federal law, specifically repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. The-FBI-determined-that-beth-Jane-Dee-#4-ana--Jane-Dee42-wereatietints-ef--semal-iissaults by-Epstein-while-they-weremtiners-beginning-when-they-were-appreximately-fearteen-years-ec age-and-appreximately-thineeniems-ef-age-resp ards-Deelaratien-at-s-1 4. On about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe #1 a standard-c-V-RA-victim notification letter. See Edwards Declaration, Exhibit "A." The notification promises that the Justice Department would makes its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe #1's rights, including "[t]he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving . . . plea . . . ." The notification further explained that "[a]t this time, your case is under investigation." That notification meant that the FBI had identified Jane Doe #1 as a potential victim of a federal offense. and-as-semeene-preteeted-by-the 5. On about August 11, 2007, Jane Doe #2 received a standard CVRA victim notification letter. See Edwards Declaration, Exhibit "B." The notification promised that the Justice Department would makes its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe #2's rights, including "Mlle reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving ... plea ...." The notification further explained that "[a]t this time, your case is under investigation." That notification meant that the FBI had identified Jane Doe #2 as a potential victim of a federal offense. and-as-semeene-preteeted-by the CVRA. 6. Early-in During the investigation, the FBI agents and the Assistant U.S. Attorney had-several meetings met with Jane Doe #1. Jane Doe #2 was represented by counsel that was paid for by EFTA00206944 the criminal target Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. Jane Doe #2 was openly hostile to the investigation, and told investigators that she was not a victim of any offense, that Epstein was an "awesome man," and that she would consider marrying Epstein. Jane Doe #2 actively avoided law enforcement's attempts to secure her cooperation with the investigation and contacted other potential witnesses and victims to advise them against cooperating ‘sitli the authorities. Edwards Declaration at & 5. 7. In and around September 2007, plea discussions took place between Jeffrey Epstein, represented by numerous attorneys (including lead criminal defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz), and the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of Florida.I,] ferffeSetited—pfiffittrily-by Assistant-LITS,Attecney-Ar MapiarThe-plea-disoussiens-gener-ally-began-fr-ern-the promise-that-Epstein-would-plead-guilty-at-leam-ene-f-edeFol-feleny-offense-surceunding-his-sex-oal assaults-of-FAAfe-than-40-ininer-girls. Frolii-therer the-numecess-defease-attemeys-pFegressiseely negetiated—Inere—faverable—plea—teffiltrse—thet—Epstein—woultl—okimatelr plead These plea negotiations eventually resulted in Epstein pleading guilty to only two state court felony offenses with a recommendation of 18 months' imprisonment. and-weaki-sepve-enly-eounty jail time. Isilany-of-the-negetiatiens-are-refleeted-in-e-wtails-between-Lefkowitz-ance Copies Parts of the correspondence are attached as Exhibit J to the Edwards Declaration accompanying this filing (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates number stamp).1 Because Epstein has moved to keep these documents from the public, they are at this time filed under seal with the Court. I Threegh-diligent-effensre- Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received copies of half of the e- mail correspondence (the half reflecting communications to defense counsel) via discovery requests served upon counsel for Epstein in connection with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's civil suits against Epstein on about June 30,2010. See Edwards Declaration at & &20-22. EFTA00206945 8. At the time of plea discussions, AUSA \SILL.. had drifted the-UnStanerney1/2 -Offtee-had an 82-page prosecution memorandum outlining numerous federal sexual offenses committed by Epstein, and had prepared drafted a 53-page indictment. fer-ftumenaus-federal-efferrses. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 4. 9, In September 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) A. Marie in an effort to aveirl—proseeming—Epmein—fer—his—numemos—semsal—effenses-against-ohildrenr proposed-te Epstein's attorneys that rather than plea to any charges relating to him molesting children, Epsteimshould-instead-plead-te-a-singleassault-eharge-Mwalving-a-telephene-eall-made-by Epmein-while-he-was-on-hio-private-jet,Doring-the-telephene-ealir Epstein-warnmi-his-persenal assistantr hesley-Groffr against4uming-ever-deouments-and-eleetrenie-evidenee-responsi.m-tO-a issued Epstein1/2 -set-effensesr 1,6S,Arremey1/2 -Gerrespendenee-at-4•97-58, 4-0, eenehnle—a—plea—bargain—that—would—effeeMmly—keep—the—vietims-frem-leaming-what-was happening-threugh-the-press,She-wrote-in-ame-mail-te-Elefense-eounsel manavo • irl-the press=neter I-belimm-that-MrEpstein1/2 -airplarte-was-imMiami-en-the-day-of-the-Pds,Greff telephene-eall if--he-was-in-Mimi-Dade-C-ounty-at-the-timer then-l-eamfile-the-eharge-in-the Distriet-Gourt-in-Miamir em-the-press-eoverage-signifieantly Atternmjas-Gerrespendenee-m-29,Msawas-aware-thatesst-ef-the-vionms-of-Epstein, inoluding-Jane-Dee-41-and-Jane-Dee427resided-outside-the-Miami-area, On about September 24, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney 24.-Maria sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, regarding the agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit Due-to-the-eonfideotiality-elaose-io-tbe-Agreemeaty EFTA00206946 the—e-maii—statedc—that—the—Geverament—and—Epstein1/2 —c-euneel—weuld—negetiate—between themseives-abeut-what-itireffnation-weulti-be-diselosed40-theatietims-abeut-the-agreementi Thank-yeur Jayri-have-ferwarded-yeur-message-eftirlo-Alex-fAeestair Andy; aad-Reland i-denit-anticipate-it-geing-any-fupther--than-thatWhen-l-rec-eive-the efiginalsr 1-will-sign-and-retum-ene-eepy-te-yeu -The-other-will-be-plaeed-irk-the ease—filer whieh—wiii—be—kept—eenfidential—sinee—a—aise—eenutiffs—identifying information-about-the-girls, When we reach an agreement about the attorney representative for the girls, we eati-eliseuss-,vhat-I-ean-tell-him-and-the-girk-etheed-theagreemen4rI4Enew-that Andy-premised-Ghief-Reiter-aa-update-when-a-reselatien-was-aehieved, Relando-is-eallingr but-Relande-knews-net-te-tell-Chief-Reiter-abeut-the-meney issuer -just-about-what-efimes-Mrr Epstein-is-pleading-guiltrto-and-the-ameum-ef time-that-h-as-been-agr-eed-te,Rekmale-aise-is-telling-Chief-Reifer-hvi-fe-diseiese the-euteemete-anyene LI7SrAtterney1/2 -Ceffespendenee-at-14-3-femphases-added), 42: On about September 25, 2007, AJJSia sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit . statingAnd-ean-we-have-a-eentecenee-efill-te-dts'euss what-I-may-diseiese-to the-giris-regarding-the-agreement Atterneys-Getrespontienee at 156. 13. On about September 26, 2007, AUSA. sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit in-which-she-stated—Haay—Can-yeu-give-me-a-eall at46-1-209-E3eeeci-this-mernine—i-am-meeting-with-the-agents-and-want-te-give-them-their mar-shing-erders-regarding-what-they-ean-tell-the-gicifi tterney1/2 -Gerrespondenee-at-3-59, The-reasenable4nferenee-is-that-themarching-erdefsagr-eeki-te-between-the-C-owerumeut-and ipstein1/2 -de-fewse-seunsel-was-that-ne-mentierk-would-be-made-of--the-nen-proseeution-agFeement between-the-1.14,6ttlecney1/2 -Offiee-and-Epsteinr as-ne-subsequent-mentien-was-made-te-the vietims-eithe-nen-pr-eseentien-agreement. EFTA00206947 4-4, On about September 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz regarding an attorney who was under discussion to be a representative of victims of Epstein civil litigation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit revealed te-ari-atterney-(-Bert-Gear-ie)r v.44e-was-uader--diseussien—te—he—a—repr-esentative—ef-vietims—ef ipsteinls-sexual-abase-in-eivillitigatienr that-the-gevernment-was-in-the-preeess-ef--reaching-a nen-preseeutien-agreement-with-Epsteinr An-e-mail-eeefielag-these-diselesures-statedi Bertls firm has raised a number of good questions about how they arc going to get paid." Atterne errespendeftee-atA-64=The-e-mail-went-en-te-state teld-Bert-that-as-part-ef--eur agreement-we-fthe-federal-gevemmentyare-net-geing-te-indiet-Mfr Epsteiar but-give-him-an-idea of the charges that we had planned to bring as related to 18 USC 2255." Id. The e mail also asked-permissien-frem-Spsteiels-eeuneel-te-send-te-CieaFie-a-eepy-ef-parts-ef--the-plea-agreementi AWtth-respeet-te-questien-2-fa-questieri-frem-Oeaerz-regar-ding*ro-]hen-svill-it-be-pessible-te-see the-plethagreement-se-thet-we-understand-exaetir what-Epstein-eeneedes-te-in-the-eivil-ease9r de l-have-yeur--perrnissien-te-send-Bert-jest-that-seetleci-ef--the-plea-agr-eement4hat-applies-te-the damages-elaires-(4-weeld-reeemmend-sending-paragraphs--7-threugh-407er-at-least-7-and-8- Id, 15. On about September 25, 2007, ASUA AUSA nent-a-letter--te-Jay-Jefkewite-that stated: in which she suggested that the victims should be represented by someone who was not an-experiensed-persenal-injufy-atteme They-Phe-etheriewyers-under--sensideratien-l-are-all very-geed-persenal-injuFy-lawyerer bu4-1-have-eeneems-abeut-whet.her--there-weuld-be-ae-ieher-ent tension becaue they may feel that they might make more money . . . if they proceed outside the terms of the pcla agreement. (Sorry I just have a bias against plaintiffs' attorneys.)" U.S. EFTA00206948 bec-ause-it-weukl-re€1uee-pubFieity ie-fUee-thing-abeut-BeEt-feeaFiaj-is-that-he-is-iu-MiaFni wher÷teher--has-beealniest-ne-eevecage-ecthe-easert-kb 16. in-a-letter-later-sent-br-lar Lefleowitt-te-the-LITSnactterfter fer-the-Seuthern-Distriet-ef Flerida, Le1kewi stated that ASUA had "assidueusly" hidden frem him the fact that Bert Ocariz was a friend of -beyffienel,1478rAuemeyls-Gefespendenee-at-267, If aeettrate-tembeyffiendue-desenbe-whe-had-reeemmended-Geana—M-at-268-Lefleavvitz • . . . . further-stated-theneyfriend-had-a-business-relatienship-widi-Gearia-and-that-the beyfriend-would-have-finansially-benefated-fres-the-presuniably—luecatiw—refeEval—af--aemial assault cases against Epstein to Ocariz. On December 13, 2007, wrote a letter to Leflea3/44a-te-Eleny-these-aeausations in-the-letterastate arn-surpfised-by-yeur allegatiens-regarding-mrrele-beeause-l-thenght-that-we-had-werked-vety-well-tegether--in reseiving-thi disputer 1-alse-am-surprised-beeause-1-feel-thet-i-bent-ever-baekwards-te-leeep-in miud414e-effeet-that-the-agreement-weald-have-en-MfrEpsteirEand-te-make-sure-thattea-fand-he) uudeissteed-the-r-eper-euasiens-af-4he-a.greeFnent d. 17. On about September 24, 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office reached an agreement whereby the United States would defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office accordingly entered into a "Non- Prosecution Agreement" (NPA) reflecting their agreement. Most-significandyr t The NPA gave Epstein a promise that he would not be prosecuted for a series of federal felony offenses involving the enticement into prostitution of a large number of minor girls. involving-his seitual-abuse-ef--ifiere-than-30-miner--gids: The NPA instead allowed Epstein to plead guilty to two state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for EFTA00206949 prostitution. The NPA also set up a procedure whereby a victim of Epstein's sexual abuse could obtain an attorney representative to proceed with a civil claim against Epstein, provided that the victim agreed to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (1,6,7 which provided that the-each victim would recover agreed-to-seek no more less than $150,000 in damages against Epstein — an amount that Epstein argued later was limited to no more than $50,000). See Edwards Declaration, Exhibit "C" (copy of the non-prosecution agreement). The agreement was signed by Epstein and his legal counsel, as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office, on about September 24, 2007. 18. A provision in the non-prosecution agreement made the agreement confidential excrct. In particular, the agreement stated: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making the disclosure." Br entefing-inte-suth-a-eenfidenitaltir ageemeittrthe - 43,8,44torney1/2 -0ffiee-put-itself--in-a-position-that-netifying-the-erime-vietiras-fineluding-Jane Dee-#4-and-Jane-Dee-$124-ef-the-non-preseeution-agreement-would-vielate-tesms-ef-the agr-eernere--speeiftc-ally-the-eonf4deotiakiy-preN4sien,Aeeer-dinglyr free-September-24r 200-7 threugli-et-leestaine-2008—e-peried-ef-mere-then-nine-rnenths--the-U,Satterrieyls-Offiee4id nor-notify-any-of-4he-vietirns-ef-414e-esistenee-ef-the-nen-proseeutien-agreerneni, 4-9, A-reasenable-iefereftse4rore-tke-evidenee-is-that4he-1,6$,Mterneyls-Offiee-kyanted-the nen-preseeteien-agreefeete-kept-frere-publie-view-beeause-ef--the-i.otense-publie-eritioisto-tital would-have-resulied-frern-aliewing-a-politicallr eenneeted-billienaire-whe-had-sexually-abused mere-then-40-rainer—gith-te-eseape-crem-federal-preseestien-with-enly-a-eounty-eourt-jail EFTA00206950 sentenee-and-beeause-ef-4he-possibility-that-the-vietims-eould-have-ebleeted-to-the-agreement-in ethift-andrevented-iis-eenstimmatien, 20. The Non-Prosecution Agreement that had been entered into between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein was subsequently modified by an October 2007 Addendum and a December 19, 2007, letter from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez. See Supplemental Declaration of A. Marie doc. #35, at 1; U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 234-37. The—LITFrAttemey1/2 —Offiee—did—net—notify—fter of-the—vietiins—ef--the—existenee—ef--these modifteatiens-ef-the-agreetnent-threugh-at-ithast--June-2008—a-peried-of-rnefe-thttn-six-rneitthsr On about August 14, 2008, Epstein's defense counsel told the U.S. Attorney's Office that they did not consider the December 19, 2007, letter to be operative. Id. 21. In October 2007, shortly after the initial plea agreement was signed, Jane Doe #1 was contacted to be advised regarding the resolution of the investigation. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe #1. The Special Agents explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges, he would be required to register as a sex offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims, including Jane Doe #1. During this meeting, the agents explained that this would end the federal investigation of the case and no federal charges would be filed. the-Spesial-Agents-did-net-explain-that-an-agr-eement-had-alceady-beeii-signed-that preektded-any-proseetition-of--Epstein-fev-fedefal-ehar-ges,The-agents-eetild-not-have-Fevealed thispact-44he-non-preseeutien-agreement-without-vielating4he-teHns-of-the-nen-preseeetien agreementrWhether--the-agents-themseives-lia€1-been-infemed-ef-the-existenee-ef-the-nen- pveseeutien-agreement-by-the-U,S,4fterney1/2-Offiee-is-net-eectitin,Beeause-the-plea-agreement EFTA00206951 had-already-heen-reaehed-witli-Epatentr the-agents-ntade-rte-attempt4G-seeure-Jane-Dee-#44-view en-therepesed-reselutien-eitheeeser Edwards-Deeteretien-et-&--7 22. Jane Doe # l's perception of the explanation provided by the Special Agents was that only the State part of the Epstein investigation had been resolved, and that the federal investigation would continue, possibly leading to a federal prosecution. Edwards Declaration at & 8. 23. On about November 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit The e mail stated: that the U.S. Attorney's Office had an obligation to notify the victims about the plea-agreentenn The-limited-Staies-has-a-siaittietrebligation-Ottstieefer-241-24ei-ef 4004)-tene* ihe-vietims-ef-Ihe-Lqntieipeted-upeeming-evets-em4-their-rigkts-asseeiated-witk-ihe agreemenfrentered-iifie-liy-theldniied-States-and-MerEpstein-M-a-timely-fashieth Temerrew-v.411-make-ene-full-week-sinee—yeu—were—ferrnally—netifted—ef-the seleetienr l-inunt-insist-that-the-vetting-preeess-eerne-te-an-end,Taereferer unles4 yett-previde-rfte-with-e-geed-faith-ebjeetien-te4edge-Devis1/2 -seleetien-fes-speeiel master-fer-seleeting4egal-eeunsel-fer-vietint-perssing-eleints-against-Epsteinl-hy GAB-021MEMOVirNevember-28r 209-7r 1-wid-atitherine-the-netifteatien-ef-the vietints,Sheuld-yeu-give-rne-thele-14ead-ert-Pedhurst-and--Jesepliseerg-seleetien by-GOB4OFROFF(Wer i-will-simultaneelisly-send-you-a-dreft-ef-theletterri-intenel-te netiPrthe-Wetims-kty-letter-ecter-GeB-Thersdey7-14evember-29th, 144nektterneyls-Cerrespendenee-et-2-5-5-(emphanis-rettrrengee 24. On about November 29, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie sent a draft of a crime victim notification letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The notification letter explained: "I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms . . ." The letter then went on to explain that Epstein would plead guilty to two state offenses and receive an 18 month sentence. The-letter-did-net explain-their es-ped-ef-thettgreement-with-Epsteinr theatstiee-Department4ted-previeesIr agreed EFTA00206952 am-te-meseeute-Epstein-fm-any-of-Me-numessus-fedeml-effenses-that-had-been-eemmitted,Ua Attemeyas-Gemespendenee-at-2-56-597 25. Apparentirbeeause-ef-eoneems-frem-Epsteinis-attoineyt Because Epstein's attorneys sought higher review of the enforceability of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office never sent the proposed victim notification letter discussed in the previous paragraph to the victims. Instead, a misleading letter stating that the case was "currently under investigation" (described below) was sent in January 2008 and May 2008. Atme-time-befere rettehing-ften-preseeution-agreement-Md-the-Justiee-Departmem-eenteet-any—tietimsr for-example-Jane-Dee-04r abeut-their-views-en-the-nen-pmseeutien, 26. On about December 6, 2007, Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit noting-the-U,SrAttemeyls Office's legal obligationD to keep victims informed of the otatuo of plea negotiations with EpsteinrThe-lettm-statedt fLinallyr letmle-address-yeur-ebjestiens-te-the-dFafi-Vietim-Netifieatien-Letter, You-wfite-that-you-denit-understand-the-basis-fer-the-Offieels-belief--that-it-is appropriate to notify the victims. Pursuant to the "Justice for All Act of 2001," fanother-name-frent-the-GV-11.41-mime-ktimims-are-entitled-te e-right-to masenabler aeeurater and-timely-netiee-of-any-publie-emmt-pmeeeding inveking-the-erimeLand-theiright-net-te-be-meluded-frem-any-sueh-publie-eeuFt preteeeding e)(2)-&-(3- Seetion-377-1-alse-maninarals that 'employees of the Department of Justice . . . engaged in the detection, investigatienr er-mosemitien-ef-mime-shall-make-theMbest-OffeaS-te-see-that efime-wietims-are-netified-efr and-aeemdedr the-rights-desefibed-iin-subeetien-(4)4 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(I).... GtmNon-Proseeutionagreement-reselves-the-faderal-imestigatien-by-allewing Mfr Epstein-te-plead-te-a-mate-effense,The-Wetiimc-idettified-threugh-thefederal iftVeStigagen—shetild—be—appFepriettely—infonnedrand—OUF—Isien-PFesesutien Agreement does not require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego its legal obligation, t-J,S,ememeyas-Gemespendenee-at-1-9-1-92-(emphasis-addmI), EFTA00206953 27. Despite-this-regegninen-of-its-ebtigation-te-keep-vietimsappfepriately-infemedabout-the isen-prisseention-agreememr the-147Snadterneyzs-effiee-did-net-fellew-threugli-and-infefm-the vietims-oF-the-nen-preseeution-agreement=-Te-the-eontraryt as-diseussed-belontit-eeminued-te tell-the-vietims-that-the-ease-wasunder-investigatien ards-Deelaratien-at-&-4-and442, 28. On December 13, 2007, A. Marie sent a letter to Jay Leficowitz, defense counsel for Epstein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _.rebinting-eharges-that had-apparently been-aade-against-her by the-Epstein defence. The letter stated that a federal indietinent-against-Epsteinwas-postponed-for-mere-then-five-menths-te-allovr you-and-Wif: Epsteinzs-etheattorneys-te-make-presentatieris-te-the-effiee-te-eenvinee-the-Offiee-net-te prnseente e-letter-also-reseunted-thatal-eu-and-i-spent-heuns-negetiating-the-teems-fef-the non-preseeution-agreementjr inelnding-when-te-use=a=vens=thet and-other-minntiae,-When yeu-and-I-neald-net-reach-agfeementr yeu-repeatediy-went-ever-my-headr involving Mu....... Leurier Pdenehelr igiersaft,-and-Aeesta-in-the-negenatiens-at-yafiens-tinies teineyls Gerreependenee-at469T 2-9The-Desember-1-3r 2007r lener-also-reveals-that-the-Justiee-Depanment-stepped-making victim notifications because of objections from Epstein's criminal defense counsel: "Three vietims-viere-netified-sheFtly-afier--the-signing-of--the-Nen-Pnioneentienagreement-ef-the-gener-al tenms-of-the-Agreement You-paised-ebjeenenty-te-any-vietion-nenfiennenr and-ne-fieniter netifieettiotts-were-thmc." U.S. Attorney's Correspondenee at 270 (emphasis added). 30. Following the signing of the Agreement and the modifications thereto, Epstein's performance was delayed while he sought higher level review within the Department of Justice. See U.S. Attorney's Correspondence passim. EFTA00206954 31. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI advising them that Whis case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request you'll continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." See Doc. #14 (attachments 3 and 4 to declaration of A. Marie (emphasis added). The-statement-in the-notifieatien4etter-was-faiserThe-ease-was-net-eaff-en neler—investigation the central:yr the-ease-batil-been-r-eselved-by-the-non-pFeseeatien-agreealeat-eater-ekl-inte-by-Epstein and-the-LITS,Attemey1/2 -Offtee-diseussed-previouslyMoreavecr the-FBI-diel-net-netify-Jane-Dee #4-er-Jane-Doe42-that-a-pleit-agfeement-had-been-reaehed-previousbrantl-that-part-ef--the agreement-was-a-nea-preseeution-agreementaAth-the-614,Attemeyls-Offiee-fer-the-Seuthem Eawards-DeelaFatien-at-&-97 32. la-eaFly-2008r -Jane-Dee-#4-anel-Jane-Dee-#2-eame-te-believe-that-er-itaiaal-pr-oseeution-ef Epstein-was-extr-emely-imper-t-aat They-alse-Elesife€1-te-be-eonaulted-t the-Fgl-an4ter--ether represeatatives-ef-the-federal-govemmeat-abeut-the-preseeution-ef-Epateinr-In4ight-ef•the4etteta that-they-had-reeeived-arounclanuaty- Hilrther believed4hat-a-er-imiaal-iavestigatien-ef-Epstein was-on-gaing-anuti-that4he”veulel-be-sentaateiti-before-the-feitiecal-gevernment-reashed-any-fiaal resolatien-ef-that-investigatien,Eilwar-els-Deelaratien-at—&40, 33. On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _.Epsteinis-spiminal-utiefease ceanseir explaining-that-the-lustiee-Depaftmeatls-Ghil€14*plaitatien-Obseenity-Seetien-(C-EQS-) ha<I-agreetl-te-review-Epsteials-ebjeetiens-te-the-prepesed-plea-agreemeat-rnat-hatl-beea-feaehe4 with-the-itirEcAttemey1/2 -Offiee-fer-the-Seuthern-Siatriet-of-Flefitla -The-letter-indieateti-that; ahou4d-GEQS-Fejeet-Epsteinls-objeetiens-te-the-agr-eeeentr thenMf,Epstein-shall-Ilave-eae week-te-abicle-bsfrthe-tafFEIS-ancl-eenelitiens-ef-the-September--24r 2007-Agreement-as-amended-by EFTA00206955 lettef-fremaitetl-Stetea-Atteeey-Aeesta-te-Jay-kefke ttemeys-C-ecrespeadeaee-at 290 91. 34. In about April 2008, Jane Doe #1 contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was attempting to take her deposition and private investigators were harassing her. Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie secured pro bono counsel to represent Jane Doe #1. Pro bono counsel was able to assist Jane Doe #1 in avoiding the improper deposition. AUSA secured pro bono counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the the National Crime Victims' Law Center in Portland, Oregon, which is based in the Lewis & Clark College of Law. During the call, Ms. Garvin was not advised that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached. 35. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as 414 a potential victim of Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that "[t]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." The-statement in-the-netifteatien-letter-was-falee,The-ease-was-aet-eureentlyeader-iavestigatien t-the eentreeyr the-c-ase-had-been-resetved-hHhe-iteit-pFeseetaien-agreement-eatered-iate-by-Epsteia aad-the4/78,44terneyls-Offiee-diseessed-praviettsty,Edwerds-Deelaratiea-at-&-1-2, 36. In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted AUSA to inform her that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. Mr. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. AUSA and Mr. Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed. At the end of the call, AUSA asked Mr. Edwards to send any information that he wanted considered by the U.S. Attorney's Office in determining whether to file federal charges. Beeease—ef—the—eeafideatielitr previsieft—that—eteistetl—ea—the—plea EFTA00206956 agreemen4r Mfr Edwar-Els-Nvas-net-inferfneil-that-previeuslyr in-September-2007r the-U7S: Attemey1/2 -42/ffiee-luml-rettehed-an-agreement-net-te-ffie-feEleral-ehafgesMfrEdwerds-was-aise net-infermed-that-reselutieti-ef-the-erimiftai-ntatter-wes-i.mminentr.Edwards-Beelaratien-at-e-1-37 37. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. AUSA and the Palm Beach Police Department attempted to provide notification to victims in the short time that Epstein's counsel had provided. Attorney Edwards was called to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. AUSA id not-tellatterney-EdwaFds4hat-the-geilty-plects-in-state-eetift-weultal-bring-an-end-te-the-pessibility ef-feilefal-pr-eseetitien-piffsuant-te-the-plea-agreement,fidwar-ds-Deelaration-at-&-1-47 AUSA strongly encouraged Attorney Edwards and his client to attend and address the Court at sentencing if they so desired. 38. On June 30, 2008, AUSA sent an e-mail to Jack Goldberger, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _.that stated: "Jack: The FRI-hes-reeeived-iieveral-ealls-regeslifkg-the-Nen-Preseettien-Agreemenh—i-de-riet-knew whether-the-titie-ef-the-eleettment-was-tliseleseil-when-the-Agreement-was-ffied-untler-settirbet the-Fliti-ancl-euc-effiee-are-deelining-GORIFFIellt-if-aske temey1/2 -Gercespenilenee-atah 39. On July 3, 2008, Mr. Edwards sent to AUSA a letter. See Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., at 15 (attachment 2). In the letter, Mr. Edwards indicated his client's desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his clients: "We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes EFTA00206957 Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this very dangerous sexual predator." When Mr. Edwards wrote this letter, he was still unaware that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached with Epstein's] - a-feet-that continued to be concealed from him (and the victims) by the U.S. Attorney's Office. Mr. Edwards first saw a reference to the NPA on or after July 9, 2008, when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition. Thet—pleading—was—the—ficst—publie mention of the non prosecution agreement and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards (and thus to Jaite—Bee—#.1—aftd--Jafte—Dee—#2)—ef--the—possible—existenee—ef—a—iten-preseeutien—agreement7 Edwards Declaration at & 15. 40. On July 9, 2008, AUSA sent a victim notification to Jane Doe #1 via her attorney, Bradley Edwards. Edwards Declaration, Exhibit "H." That notification contains a written explanation of some of the terms of the agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office. A full copy of the terms was not provided. A notification was not provided to Jane Doe #2 because the agreement limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. As a result, Jane Doe #2 never received a notification a letter about the agreement. The-noticieatien-did-not-cnention-the-aen-presesutien agfeerrientt 13,8,Attemeyls-Offiser Edwards Declaration at & 16. 41. On July 9, 2008, AUSA filed a sworn declaration with the Court in connection with the case (doe. #14). The declaration purported to recount limit parts of the non-prosecution agreement and stated that "these provisions were discussed" with several victims, including Jane Doe #1. Id. at 4. 42. On July 11, 2008, the Court held a hearing on Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Rights. During the hearing, the Government conceded that Jane Doe EFTA00206958 #1 and Jane Doe #2 were "victims" within the meaning of the Crime Victim's Rights Act. Tr. at 14-15. 43. During-the-July-Wheariftgr the-Gaurt-and-the-parties-diseussed-the-faet-that-the-petitien sheuld-net-he-tr-eated-as-anemergeneypetitien-heeause-there-was-net-any-paFtieular--rush-te ruling on it. Tr. at 21 25. The Court further discussed a need to "hav[e] a complete record, and this is going to be an issue that's ... going to go to the Eleventh Circuit, [s] it] may be better to have a complete record as to what your position is and the government's is as to what actions were-taken=And-I-denit-leftevrif-4-have-eneugh-i.nfermationr based-en-Msr V-illttfene1/2 -affidavit or I need additional information. And because it is not an emergency, I don't have to do ftemething-quieklyr we-ean-play-4-1,[1]-ear--and-make4his-inte-a-mere-eamplete-Feeecd-fer-the court of appeals." Tr. at 25 26. Counsel for Jane Doe HI and Jane Doe 112 explained: " . . . Your--Hener--is-eecreet-in-stating-thet-it-is-net-an-emer-geney-and-it-deeselt-need4e4rappen-teday, AntirI will confer with the government on this and if evidence needs to be taken, it-Featifbe taken-at-almer-date 14-deesnit-seem-like-theFe-wi44-be-any-preiudiee-te-any-pafty-[frem-delay-H T-fr at46The-hearing-cenetuded e-141-let-beth-ef-yeu-eenfer-about-whether-thece-is-a-need fer-any-additienal-evidenee-te-be-pr-esentedrket-me-know-ene-way-er--the-ethefr If-4hece-isr we'll sehedule-a-hearingAl-there-isalt-and-yeu-went-te-sehmit-seme-additienal-stipulated-infermatien7 de-thatr and-then4111-take-eaFe-ef4his-in-due-seurse rrat4ar The-GeuFt-then-adjeumedr taking the-N4etimsLpetitien-under-advisement, 44. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the victims then attempted to reach a stipulated set of fact5 under-lying4he-easerThe-UTS,Atterney1/2 -Offiee-set-a-prepesed-set-ef-faetsr and-the-vietims-sent Attemeyls-Offiee-suddenly-rever-sed-eeuFse4Derr#49-at- Onady-2.9720(18rit-filed-a-Notiee EFTA00206959 to-COUFFRegacdingabsenee-ef-Isieed-fer-Evidentialy-Heacing-(deerti-1-73r The-Government-teak the-position-their beeause-no-federal-etiminal-ehartes-Ited-been-ffied-in-the-Southem-Distfiet-ef FIeridar ne-additienal-evideneeawas-requifed-te-cleeide-the-petitien-befere-the-Gourb 45. On—August—tr 2008, Jane—Dee—(i-band4ane—Dee42—ftled—fdee#49)—a—respense—te—the Government's "Notice." In the response, Jane Doc It I and Jane Doe tf2 gave a proposed statement—of—faets-snfmanding-the-easerThe—pr-eposed—statement-of—faet-was-based-en-the infeFmetiefrovailable-m-the-vietims-at-that-timer The-pcopesed-stetement-ef-feetsaighlighted-the fftet-that-the-Gevernmem-had-signed-a-ften-preseeutien-ttgreement-eentaining-ttn-ex-press eenftdentiality-provisienr whieit-pFeveatefl-the-Gevemment-fr-em-diselesing-the-agfeement-te them-and-ether-vietimskiat4r The-Fespense-alse-noted-that-the-CouFt-had-taken-the-etims1 petition-under-advisementr The-respense-fuFther-neted-that-the-Gevernment-had-not-attempted-te work with-the-victims to draft a full set of undisputed facts and had refused the victims' efforts to ebtim-tkleuments-relevent-te-the-easeniei ttt-9 The-vietims-respeftse-also-requested-that-the CeuFt-direet-the-Gevernment-te-eenfer-with-theaAetims-regarding-the-lindisputed-faets-of-the eager produee-the-nen-proseeutien-agreement-at-issue-in-the-easer and-produee-an-F4I-Repeft-of Intefview-with4ane-Dee-#4,The-respense-alse-Fequested-that-the-COEIFE-enter---judgment-fec-the victims' finding a violation of rights and schedule a hearing on the appropriate remedy. at-147 46. en-August-I-4r 2008r the-Goact-held-a-hearing-on-the-ease ing-that-IleaFingr the-U7S, bound seuld-not-veluntarity-diselese-this-nen-preseentien-agreement-witheut-eem44-erder-eempel4ing-us te-ele-SC -T-Frat4r The-Offtee-vient-on-te-fucther-eeneeile-that-it-eould-net--justify-depliving-the victims of the opportunity to see the agreement. Id. at 11. The hearing concluded without any sehedule-Of-deadlines-heing-put-in-plaeth EFTA00206960 47. Oci-Geteher-9r 20418r Br-adley- Edwarelsr eetinsel-fer-Jane-Dee-#4-and-Jane-Dee-#2r sent-a letter-te-eeuesel-fer-the-1478,44temey2s-Giffiee-in-this-ease-advising-that-twe-pessibly-false statements-had-been-made-te-the-Geurt-in-the-Jult 9th-swetu-eleelaratien-eF-A-14Sa. Sce Oct. 9, 2008, Letter from Bradley J. Edwards to Marie at—I r Edwar-els—DeelacatienT Attachment "I." First, while Ms. had described a term as being part of the plea agreement with Epstein, that term later became defunct, at least in the view of Epstein's attecneys-(end-apparently-tteeededay-the-U7SrAttetrneyls-Offtee),Seeendaad sttid-thet feur-vietims-Fineluding-Jane-Bee-#4]-were-eenteeted-and-these-previsions-were diseusseel it-waPrnet-elear-what-pFevisiens-had-in-faet-heen4iseussech 48. On December 22, 2008, AUSA Marie aled-a-supplemental-affielavit • eerfeeting2 the-statement-made-in-her-July-8r 2008r Eleelaratien-aheut-the-tenus-ef-the-plea-agreement-(4Get #3-5)r The-supplemental-affidavit-stated-thetpert- ef--the-agreement-willt-defendent-Epstein wasr in—the—view—Epstein=legul—eaunuelr fte—lenger—operativer The—supplemental—affidavit7 heweverr did 49. On April 9, 2009, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 sent to the Court in this case (via the PACER system) a notice of a change of law firm affiliation. Doc. #37. 50. In-appr-eitimetely-May-20097- eounsel-fer--Jane-Dee-#4-and-Jatte-Dee-#2-prepeuncled dissevety-requests-in-beth-state-ancl-feelepal-simil-eases-against-Epsteinr seeking-te-ebtain sercespentlenee-hetween-Epstein-andreseuuters-Fegar-ding-his-plea-agfeement—infecmatien4hat the-LITS,Attesteyls-gffiee-was-unwilling-te-previele-te-Jane-Doe-#4-ancl-Jane-Dee-#2r Epstein r-ecused-te-pr4xluee-tkiat-infefmatienr and-emended-htigation-te-ehtain-the-matefials-follewed, Edwerds-Deeleratiefrat-&-207 EFTA00206961 51. lieeause-ef-this-extended-litigatienr Jane-Dee-tt-l-and-Jane-Dee42-diil-fiet-haye-aeeess-te impeftam-eerespendenee-demenstmting-a—tielatien-ef-theic-Fights-antilame-3072040,0n-that daytethmsel-far-Epstein-sertEte-Bracileyqr Edwardsr EstHegal-eaunsel-fer-kine-Dee-#4-antl-Jane Dee42r appraximately-3-58-pages-ef-e-maibeemespenclenee-hetween-his-legal-eeunsel-and-the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida regarding the plea agreement that had boon negotiated between them. See Edwards Declaration, Attachment "J." These c mails diselesed-for-the-fir-st-time-the-eureme-and-unusual-steps-that-had-been-faken-by-the-U7ST Atteme tee-te-aveid-preseeuting-Epetein-and-te-avoid-having-theatietims-in-the-ease-learn about the eutien ent that had been ached between Epstein and ♦1.e eavernmentrhitigatien-eantinues-te-this-iitay-te-elatain-the-eefrespendenee-regar-ding-the-stem peaseeatien—and—regarding—what—Epstein1/2 —attemeys—said—in—ihe—eeffespendenee-with-the preseeuteffir Edwards-Deelaratien-at-&-22 52. In-mid-July-20-1-Or Jene-Dee-t04-and4ane-Dee-#2-settled-their-eimil-ltworsaits-against-Mf. EftsteinNetiee-ef-this-faet-was-prompfly-provided-terthe-Gauft Edwaroils-Deelacation-atieett 53. On-September-8r 201Ar the-GOUFt-enteced-an-eifter-stating-that4aln-examinatien-ef-the cleekei-reveals-that-na-astivily-has-taken-plaee-in-ihis-ease-sinee-Api41-4-2009,1n4ight-ef-the undeflying-settlements-hetween-the-vietims-and-Mfr Epsteinr it-is-hereby-erdefed-and-adjudged that this ease is closed." Doc. 838. 54. Premptir en4he-heels-ef-this-aflministfativetrder-Ten-September-1-3720-1* Jane-Dee-OM-and lane-Dee-42-filed-a-netiee-thet-they intend-te-make-subsequent-filing-in-the-ease-she4lyr They aeceEdingly-request-administrative-Feepening-ef-the-ease-andr if4he-CeuFt-deems-it-advisabler a scheduling conference with the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the case." Doc. tt39 at 1. They further-advised-the-Geact-that-their-settlements-with-Jeffiey-Epstein-in-ne ar affeeted—theic EFTA00206962 eading-fuFtheF #1 and Jane Doe #2 have no objection to the Court setting up an expedited schedule for filed for summary judgment in the case was that they had been attempting to secure ument correspondence two months earlier. Id. at 2. The victim asked that, "if the Court deems it 55. preseeutien-agreement-with-Epsteinrineluding-in-partieular-the-feet-that-the-agfeemem-barred SO AGREED AND STIPULATED TO, THIS DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: EFTA00206963