Memorandum

Memorandum Subject Jane Does Nos. 1 and 2.'. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.) Daft April 26, 2011 To From Assistant Counsel Office of Professional Responsibility U.S. Department of Justice VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Attached please fmd a CD-ROM containing the victims' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (unredacted), and a complete set of exhibits, including the e-mails in Exhibit A. The e-mails in Exhibit A are between Epstein's defense attorney and AUSA Villafaba. They were produced in civil litigation between Epstein and some of his victims. Epstein's attorneys redacted their side of the e-mail transmission. I will attempt to obtain a complete set, which includes the transmission from Epstein's attorneys. If you have any questions, please call me Thank you. Enclosure 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000670 EFTA00230494 Case 9:08-cv-8073§-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CW-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 I. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES COME NOW Jane Doe HI and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for a finding from this Court that the victims' rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, have been violated by the U.S. Attorney's Office, and to request a hearing on the appropriate remedies for these violations. The victims have proffered a series of facts to the Government, which they have ailed to contest. Proceeding on the basis of these facts,' it is clear that the U.S. Attorney's Office has repeatedly violated the victims' protected CVRA rights, including their right to confer with prosecutors generally about the case and specifically about a non-prosecution agreement the Office signed with the defendant, as well as their right to fair treatment. See 18 U.S.C. 3771(8)(5) & (8). It is now beyond dispute, for example, that in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his I The victims are contemporaneously filing a motion to have their facts accepted by the Court 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000671 EFTA00230495 1 ,••• •Sle7 - - Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 42 prosecution for numerous federal sex offenses he committed against the victims (as well as against many other minor girls). Rather than confer with the victims about this non-prosecution agreement, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein agreed to a "confidentiality" provision in the agreement barring its disclosure to anyone — including the victims. For the next nine months, as Epstein was well aware, the U.S, Attorney's Office assiduously concealed from the victims the existence of this signed non-prosecution agreement indeed, the Office went so far as to send (in January 2008) a false victim notification letter to the victims informing them • that the "case is currently under investigation." In fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office had already resolved the case three months earlier by signing the non-prosecution agreement. Again on May 30, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent yet another victim notification letter to a recognized victim informing her that the "case is currently under investigation" and that it "can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Then in June 2008, on the eve of consummating Epstein's state guilty plea that was part of the non-prosecution agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office asked legal counsel for the victims to send a letter expressing the victims' views on why federal charges should be filed — not disclosing to the victims' legal counsel that this was a pointless exercise because the non- prosecution agreement had already been signed some nine months earlier. These actions and many more like them constitute clear violations of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act, including the right to confer with prosecutors and the right to fair treament. The only argument that the U.S. Attorney's Office advances is that the CVRA does not apply because no indictment was formally filed in this case. But this position is inconsistent with both the CVRA's plain language, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000672 EFTA00230496 1 , . Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 42 3771(e)(I) (Justice Department agencies involved in the "detection" and "investigation" of federal crimes covered by CVRA), and with persuasive case law, see, e.g.i ih ; Dean, 5 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008) (victims should have been notified before pre-indictrnifirrs ea reached). Moreover, the U.S. Attorney's Office itself was fully aware of its obligations to notify the victims in this case, as e-mails from the Office and other evidence make perfectly clear. The only reason that the Office concealed the existence of the non-prosecution agreement ftom the victims was not to comply with some legal restriction, but rather to avoid a firestorm of public controversy that would have erupted if the sweetheart plea deal with a politically-connected billionaire had been revealed. The Court should accordingly find that the U.S. Attorney's Office — in coordination with Jeffrey Epstein — has violated the Act and set a briefing schedule and hearing on the proper remedy for those violations. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 offer the following statement of undisputed material facts. If the Government disputes any of these facts, the victims request an evidentiary hearing to prove each and every one of them:2 1. Between about 2001 and 2007, defendant Jeffrey Epstein (a billionaire with significant political connections) sexually abused more than 30 minor girls at his mansion in West Palm 2 The Court should accept all these facts as true for reasons the victims explain in their contemporaneously-filed Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of The Facts. The Court should also direct the Government to produce all evidence that it possesses supporting these facts, for reasons the victims explain in their contemporaneously-filed Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence. 3 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000673 EFTA00230497 I r• ->":::::;;,:fir - rff-PA5-' Case 9:O8-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 42 Beach, Florida, and elsewhere. Among the girls he sexually abused were Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. Epstein performed repeated lewd, lascivious, and sexual acts on them, including (but not limited to) masturbation, touching of their sexual organs, using vibrators or sexual toys on them, coercing them into sexual acts, and digitally penetrating them. Because Epstein used a means of interstate cotnmerce and knowingly traveled in interstate commerce to engage in abuse of Jane Doc NI and Jane Doe #2 (and the other victims), he committed violations of federal law, including repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. See. e.g., Complaint, E.W.i. Epstein, Case No. 50 2008 CA 028058 XXXXMB AB (l5th Cir. Palm Beach County, Florida); Complaint, L.M.I. Epstein, Case No 50 2008 CA 028051 =ma AB (15th Cir. Palm Beach Count, Florida). 2. Jeffrey Epstein flew at least one underage girl on his private jet for the purpose of forcing her to have sex with him and others. Epstein forced this underage girl to be sexually exploited by his adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, businessmen, and professional and personal acquaintances. Complaint, Jane Doe No. 102 I. Epstein, No. 9:09-CV-80656- KAM (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2009). 3. In 2006, at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation opened an investigation into allegations that Jeffrey 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 4 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000674 EFTA00230498 rannrenr— Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 5 of 42 the case. See generally U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "A" to this filing (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates page number stamp). 4. The FBI soon determined that both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were victims of sexual assaults by Epstein while they were minors beginning when they were approximately fourteen years of age and approximately thirteen years of age respectively. Jane Doe #1, for example, provided detailed information about her abuse (and the abuse of Jane Doe #2) to the FBI on August 7,2007. Exhibit "B." 5. More generally, the FBI through diligent investigation established that Epstein operated a large criminal enterprise that used paid employees and underlings to repeatedly find and bring minor girls to him. Epstein worked in concert as part of the enterprise with others, including Ghislane Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel, to obtain minor girls not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others. The FBI determined that Epstein had committed dozens and dozens of federal sex crimes against dozens of minor girls between 2001 and 2007. They presented information to the U.S. Attorney's Office for criminal prosecution, See Exhibit "B"; U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 47-55. 6. On about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe #1 a standard CVRA victim notification letter. The notification promised that the Justice Department would makes its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe #1's rights, including "(IN, 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 victim of a federal offense and as someone protected by the CVRA. Jane Doe #1 5 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000675 EFTA00230499 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doeurneet 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 42 relied on these representations and believed that the Justice Department would protect these rights and keep her informed about the progress of her case. See Exhibit "C." 7. On about August 11, 2007, Jane Doe #2 received a standard CVRA victim notification letter. 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 "felt this time, your case is under investigation." That notification meant that the FBI had identified Jane Doe #2 as a victim of a federal offense and as someone protected by the CVRA. Jane Doe #2 relied on these representations and believed that the Justice Department would protect these rights and keep her informed about the progress of her case. See Exhibit "D." 8. Early in the investigation, the FBI agents and an Assistant U.S. Attorney had several meetings with Jane Doe #1. Jane Doe #2 was represented by counsel that was paid for by the criminal target Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. 9. 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, represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafana and others. The plea discussions generally began from the premise that Epstein would plead guilty to at least one federal felony offense surrounding his sexual assaults of more than 30 minor girls. From there, the numerous defense attorneys progressively negotiated more favorable terms so that Epstein would ultimately plead to only two state court 6 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000676 EFTA00230500 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 7 of 42 felony offenses and would serve only county jail time. Many of the negotiations are reflected in e-mails between Leflcowitz and the U.S. Attorney's Office. See generally Exhibit "A." 10. The evidence supporting these charges was overwhelming, including the interlocking consistent testimony of several dozen minor girls, all made automatically admissible in a federal criminal sexual assault prosecution by operation of Fed. R. Evid. 414. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 4. 12. The correspondence also shows that the U.S. Attorney's Office was interested in finding a place to conclude a plea bargain that would effectively keep the victims from learning what was happening through the press. The Office wrote in an e-mail to defense counsel: am The 7 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000677 EFTA00230501 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 8 of 42 U.S. Attorney's Office was aware that most of the victims of Epstein, including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe 42, resided well outside the Miami area in the West Palm Beach area. The Office was also aware that the chances of press coverage of a case filed in Miami would be significantly less likely to reach th&Palm Beach area. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 29. 13. On about September 24, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, regarding the agreement. The e-mail stated that the Government and Epstein's counsel U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 153 (emphases added). 14. On about September 25, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Leflcowitz statingSeallISS SS U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 156. 15. On about September 26, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz in which she stated• B 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000678 EFTA00230502 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 9 of 42 RIM Apparently the ' greed to between the Government and Epstein's defense counsel was that no mention would be made of the non-prosecution agreement between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein, as no subsequent mention was made to the victims of the non-prosecution agreement and a confidentiality provision was made part of that agreement (as discussed below). U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 359. 16. On about September 25, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a letter to Jay Jeflcowitt in which it suggested that the victims should be represented in civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 157. The U.S. Attorney's Office continued to push a different attorney in part because it would reduce publicity, explaining that Id. 17. On about September 24, 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office formally 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 significantly, the NPA gave Epstein a promise that he would not be prosecuted for a series of federal felony offenses involving his sexual abuse of more than 30 minor girls. The NPA instead allowed Epstein to plead guilty to two state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and 9 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000679 EFTA00230503 1 ,:.7Y.Cel , re -37.7:7 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 10 of 42 procurement of minors for prostitution. The NPA also set up a procedure whereby a victim of Epstein's sexual abuse could obtain an attorney to proceed with a civil claim against Epstein, provided that the victim agreed to limit damages sought from Epstein. To obtain an attorney paid for by Epstein, the victim would have to agree to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (i.e., under a law that provided presumed damages of $150,000 against Epstein — an amount that Epstein argued later was limited to $50,000). The agreement was signed by Epstein and his legal counsel, as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office, on about September 24, 2007. Non- Prosecution Agreement, Exhibit "E." IS. Epstein insisted on, and the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to, a provision in the non- prosecution agreement that made the agreement secret. 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." By entering into such a confidentiality agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office put itself in a position that conferring with the crime victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement would violate terms of the agreement — specifically the confidentiality provision. Indeed, even notifying the victims about the agreement would presumably have violated the provision. Accordingly, from September 24, 2007 through at least June 2008 — a period of more than nine months the U.S Attorney's Office did not notify any of the victims of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. Epstein was well aware of this failure to notify the victims and, indeed, arranged for this failure to notify the victims. Id.; U.S. 10 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000680 EFTA00230504 ---- %.""•"..9 Case 9:O8-cv-8O736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 11 of 42 Attorney's Correspondence at 270; Transcript of Hearing in this case on July 11, 2008, at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29 (hereinafter cited as wfr, July 11, 2008"). 19. A reasonable inference from the evidence is that the U.S. Attorney's Office — pushed by Epstein — wanted the non-prosecution agreement kept from public view because of the intense public criticism that would have resulted from allowing a politically-connected billionaire who had sexually abused more than 30 minor girls to escape from federal prosecution with only a county court jail sentence. Another reasonable inference is that the Office wanted the agreement concealed at this time because of the possibility that the victims could have objected to the agreement in court and perhaps convinced the judge reviewing the agreement not to accept it. 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. The US. Attorney's Office did not confer with any of the victims about these modifiCations of the agreement (or even notify them of the existence of these modifications) through at least June 2008 — a period of more than six months. See Supplemental Declaration of A. Marie Villafafla (doe. #35, at 1); U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 234-37; Tr. July 11, 2008, 18-19, 22-23, 28- 29.3 21. In October 2007, shortly after the initial plea agreement was signed, FBI agents contacted Jane Doe 01. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents B. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe #1. The Special Agents explained that Epstein would 3 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. 11 O8-8O736-CV-MARRA 000681 EFTA00230505 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Par 12 of 42 plead guilty to state charges involving another victim, 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 Special Agents did not explain that an agreement had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal charges against Jane Doe #1. The agents could not have revealed this part of the non-prosecution agreement without violating the terms of the non-prosecution agreement. Whether the agents themselves had been informed of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement by the U.S. Attorney's Office is not certain. Because the plea agreement had already been reached with Epstein, the agents made no attempt to secure Jane Doe #1's view on the proposed resolution of the case. Exhibit "E," Tr. July 11, 2008 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23. 22. Jane Doe #1's (quite reasonable) understanding of the Special Agent's explanation 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. Jane Doe #1 also understood her own case was move forward towards possible prosecution. Tr. July 11, 2008, at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29. 23. On about November 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein. The e-mail stated that the U.S. Attorney's Office had an obligation to notify the victims 12 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000682 EFTA00230506 7.7 . . ...•" Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 13 of 42 U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 255 (emphasis rearranged). 24. On about November 29, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a draft of a crime victim notification letter to Jay Lefkowirz, defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The notification letter would have explained: The :etter wo..ild have gone un to explain that Epstein would The letter would not have explained that, as part of the agreement with Epstein, the Justice Department had previously agreed not to prosecute Epstein for any of the numerous federal offenses that had been committed. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 256-59. 25. Because of concerns from Epstein's attorneys, 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. At no time before reaching the non-prosecution agreement did the Justice Department notify any victims, including for example Jane Doe NI, about the non-prosecution agreement. The victims were therefore prevented from exercising their CVRA right to confer with prosecutors about the case and about the agreement. Epstein 13 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000683 EFTA00230507 f'"'",%7 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 14 of 42 was aware of these violations of the CVRA and, indeed, pressured the U.S. Attorney's Office to commit those violations. Tr. July 11, 2008, at 9. 26. On about December 6, 2007, Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, noting the U.S. Attorney's Office's legal obligations to keep victims informed of th The letter stated: U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 191-92 (emphasis added). 27. Despite this recognition of its obligation to keep victims about the non-prosecution agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not follow through and inform the victims of the non-prosecution agreement. To the contrary, as discussed below, it continued to tell the victims that the case was "under investigation." Tr. July I I, 2008, at 4.5, 18-19, 22-29. 28. On December 13, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein, rebutting allegations that had apparently been made aguinst the 14 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000684 EFTA00230508 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 15 of 42 AUSA handling the cave by the Epstein defense team. (The Justice Department concluded the allegations were meritless.) The letter stated that a federal indictment against Epstein a t The letter also recounted that U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 269. 29. The December 13, 2007, letter also reveals that the Justice Department stopped making victim notifications because of U.S. Attorney's Conespondence at 270 (emphasis added). It was a deviation from the Justice Department's standard practice to negotiate with defense counsel about the extent of crime victim notifications. 30. The December 13, 2007, letter also demonstrates that the Justice Department was well aware of who the victims of Epstein's sexual offenses were. The Justice Department was prepared to make notifications to the victims, but suspended those notifications only because objections from defense counsel. Id 31. The December 13, 2007, letter reveals it would have been possible to confer with the victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The U.S. Attorney's Office was fully able to 15 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000685 EFTA00230509 . Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21'2011 Page 16 of 42 confer with Epstein's counsel about the parameters of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, but refused to confer with Epstein's victims about the Agreement. Id 32. Following the signing of the Agreement and the modifications thereto, Epetein's performance was delayed while he sought higher level review within the Department oflustice. See U.S. Attorney's Correspondence passim. A reasonable inference from the evidence is that Epstein used his significant political and social connections to lobby the Justice Department to avoid significant federal prosecution. The Justice Department has in its possession internal documents (i.e., phone logs, ernails, etc.) that would reveal the event of those lobbying efforts. The Justice Department, however, has refused to make these materials available to the victims. 33. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI advising them that "ftlids case is currently under• investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Exhibits "F" & "G." The statement in the notification letter was misleading and, in fact, false. The case was not currently "under investigation." To the contrary, the federal cases involving Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 had been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously. Moreover, the FBI did not notify Jane Doe • #1 or Jane Doe #2 that a plea agreement had been reached previously, and that part of the agreement was a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Exhibit "E." Whether the FBI was aware of this fact at this time is unclear. In any event, the FBI was acting at the direction of the U.S. Attorney's Office, which clearly did not confer with Jane Doe 41 and Jane Doe #2 about the case and, by concealing the true state of affairs, and failed to treat Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 with fairness. Epstein was aware of 16 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000686 EFTA00230510 • . .1 •:•••,•/./..".•.•.• • Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 17 of 42 these actions of the U.S. Attorney's Office and, indeed, solicited these actions of the U.S. Attorney's Office. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 191-92, 270. 34. Jane Doe it and Jane Doe #2 relied on the representations of the U.S. Attorney's Office to their detriment Had they known the true facts of the case — i.e., that Epstein had negotiated a non-prosecution agreement — they would have taken steps to object to that agreement. Tr. July 11, 2008 at 4-6, 18-19,28-29. 35. Undersigned counsel believes that the FBI was lead to believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to lead to a federal criminal prosecution and that the FBI was also mislead by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. 36. In early 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 believed that criminal prosecution of Epstein was extremely important. They also desired to be consulted by the FBI and/or other representatives of the federal government about the pt isecution of Epstein. In light of the letters that they had received around January 10, they believed that a criminal investigation of Epstein was on-going — including investigation into Epstein's crimes against them -• and that they would be contacted before the federal government reached any final resolution of that investigation. Tr. July 11,2008, at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29. 37. On January 31, 2008, Jane Doe #1 met with FBI Agents and AUSA's from the U.S. Attorney's Office. She provided additional details of Epstein's sexual abuse of her. The AUSA's did not disclose to Jane Doe #1 at this meeting (or any other meeting) that they had already negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Exhibit "H." 38. On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, Epstein's criminal defense counsel, explaining that the Justice Department's Child 17 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000687 EFTA00230511 3 2.7971"..r.w/ • Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 18 of 42 Exploitation Obscenity Section (CEOS) had agreed to review Epstein's objections to the proposed plea agreement that had been reached with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The letter indicated that, should CEOS reject Epstein's objections to the agreement, then U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 39. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that "Mk case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while wo conduct a thorough investigation." Exhibit "1." The statement in the notification letter was misleading and, in fact, false. The case was not currently "under investigation." To the contrary, the case had been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously. Exhibit t." 40. In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted the AUSA handling the case 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 against these victims, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. The AUSA and Mr. Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed. At the end of the call, the 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. Because of the confidentiality provision that existed in the plea agreement, Mr. Edwards was not informed that previously, in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had reached an agreement not to file federal charges. Mr. Edwards was 18 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000688 EFTA00230512 - - - - - - - - - - - ifiC eisr• • Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 19 of 42 also not informed that resolution of the criminal matter was imminent. This concealment prevented Edwards from (among other things) exercising his client's CVRA right to confer with the prosecutors about the case. Epstein was aware of this concealment — and, indeed, sought this concealment. Tr. July 11.2008, at 4-6, 13.19, 22-23, 28-29. 41. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., the U.S. Attorney's Office received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., on Monday, June 30, 2008. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the Palm Beach Police Department attempted to provide notification to victims in the short time that Epstein's counsel had provided. The U.S. Attorney's Office called attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. The notice, however, was only that Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving another victim. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not tell Edwards that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to. the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement. Thus, there was no reason for attorney Edwards to believe that the guilty pleas in state court had any bearing on the cases of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. As a result, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 did not attend the plea hearing, as they did not think that it was pertinent to their particular cases. Had they known that the plea agreement made it impossible to prosecute Epstein federally for• his crimes against them, they would have objected to this resolution. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 thus detrimentally relied on the inaccurate representations of the U.S. Attorney's Office that their cases were still under investigation. Tr. July 11, 2008 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23. 42. On June 30, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Jack Goldberger, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, reflecting continuing efforts to keep the NM secret 19 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000689 EFTA00230513 7: Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 20 of 42 U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 321. 43. On July 3, 2008, as requested, Mr. Edwards sent to the U.S. Attorney's Office a letter. 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 Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this very dangerous sexual predator." See Exhibit "J." 44. When Mr. Edwards wrote his July 3, 2008 letter, he was still unaware that a non- prosecution agreement had been reached with Epstein — a fact 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 NM on or after July 9, 2008, when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition. That pleading was the first public mention of the non-prosecution agreement and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards (and thus to Jane Due #1 and Jane Doe #2) of the possible existence of a non-prosecution agreement. Tr. July 11, 2008 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29. 45. Mr. Edwards detrimentally relied on the misleading representations made by the U.S. Attorney's Office that the case was still under investigation when he was writing this letter. He would not have wasted his time undertaking a pointless exercise had he known that the U.S. 20 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000690 EFTA00230514 •. r"vdrArre Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 21 of 42 Attorney's Office had previously negotiated a non-prosecution agreement See Exhibits "E" & 46. On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe #1 filed a petition for enforcement of her rights under the CVRA. At the time, Jane Doe #1 was not aware of the non-prosecution agreement, so she sought a court order directing the Justice Department to confer with her before reaching any such agreement. Epstein quickly became aware of this petition. Doc. #1 at 1-2. 47. On July 9, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a victim notification to Jane Doe #1 via her attorney, Bradley Edwards. 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 42 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 letter about the agreement The notification did not mention the non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office. Exhibits "E" & "IC" 48. The notification that the U.S. Attorney's Office sent to Jane Doe #1 and other victims contained false and inaccurate information about the terms of the non-prosecution agreement. 'rho false information was specifically approved by Epstein's attorneys. Supplemental Declaration of A. Marie Villafana, Dec. 22, 2008, doc. #35 at 2-3. 49. 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 #1 and Jane Doe #2 were "victims" within the meaning of the Crime Victim's 21 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000691 EFTA00230515 ' •• - 77:TC" --------- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 22 of 42 Rights Act. Epstein was aware of these and subsequent proceedings involving the CVRA. Tr. July 11 , 2008, at 14-15. 50. During the July I I, 2008 hearing, the Government conceded that its agreement had been conoluded months before the victims were notified about it. See id et 12 C'. . . the agreement was consummated by the parties in December of 2007."). 51. At all times material to this statement of facts, it would have been practical and feasible for the federal government to inform Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 of the details of the proposed non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, including in particular the fact that the agreement barred any federal criminal prosecution. See U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at I 91- 92. 52. One of the senior prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability — and improperly represented people close to Epstein. During the federal investigation of Epstein, Bruce Reinhart was a senior Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. WitiCgapthlui_afte,r_to imn-prosecution agreemenc-was-signed, Reinhart left the Office and immediately went into private practice as a "white collar" criminal defense attorney. His office coincidentally happened to be not only in the same building (and on the same floor) as Epstein's lead criminal defense counsel, Jack Goldberger, but it was actually located right next door to the Florida Science Foundation — an Epstein-owned and -run company where Epstein spent his "work release." See http://www.brucereinhartlaw.com. 53. While working in this Office adjacent to Epstein's, Reinhart undertook the representation of numerous Epstein employees and pilots during the civil cases filed against 22 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000692 EFTA00230516 I • -r•r•5:"" • • 1 (W•Tris- - Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 23 of 42 Epstein by the victims — cases the involved the exact same crimes and same evidence being reviewed by the U.S. Attorney's office when he was employed there. Specifically, he represented Sarah Kellen (Epstein's number one co-conspirator who was actually named as such in the WA), his housekeeper (Louel la Ruboyo), his pilots Larry Morrison, Larry Visoski, David Rogers, William Hammond and Robert Roxburgh, (Hammond and Roxburgh were not deposed, but the others were.) See depositions of these individuals in various Epstein civil cases. On information and belief, Reinhart's representation of these individuals was paid, directly cr indirectly, by Epstein. Such representations are in contravention of Justice Department regulations and Florida bar rules. Such representations also give, at least, the improper appearance that Reinhart may have attempted to curry with Epstein and then reap his reward through favorable employment. LEGAL MEMORANDUM The victims have previously briefed the issues of why they are entitled to entry of an order by this Court finding that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated their rights under the CVRA. See doc. #1; doc #9 at 3-11; doc. #19 at 3-9, 14. The victims specifically incorporate those pleadings by reference here. In short, as explained in the victims' earlier pleadings, the Office violated the victims' right to confer beforsueanhing the_mmprosecutionwament and also failed to use its best efforts to comply with the CVRA. The victims now provide additional briefing on two issues: (1) the CVRA applies to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 even though no indictment was filed in their case; and (2) the Court should find that the government has clearly violated the CVRA in this case and set up a briefing schedule and hearing on the appropriate remedy. 23 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000693 EFTA00230517 • "<"..z?<:."'' r''""tr' Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 24 of 42 I. THE CVRA PROTECTS JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2 EVEN THOUGH THIS CASE WAS RESOLVED BY A NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT RATHER TTIAN INDICTMENT. In this litigation, the Government is apparently taking the position that the Crime Victims' Rights Act does not extend tights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 because no indictment was ever filed in federal court and thus no federal court proceedings were ever held. This crabbed litigation position about thehreadth of the CVRA cannot be sustained. Indeed, neither the FBI nor the U.S. Attorney's Office itself took this position during the Epstein investigation — until the victims in this case filed their petition requesting enforcement of their rights. Instead, both the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office recognized that because the U.S. Attorney's Office was negotiating a non-prosecution agreement that affected the rights of specifically identified victims, the CVRA was applicable. The Court should reject the Government's newly-contrived position. A. The Plain Language of the CVRA Makes Clear that Victims Have Rights Before an Indictment is Filed. The CVRA promises crime victims that they will have various rights, including Itlhe reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case," 18 U.S.C. § 377I(aX5) (emphasis added), and "the right to be treated with fairness," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8).. In earlier pleadings filed in this action, the Government has tried to narrowly construe the CVRA so that it applies only to a "court proceeding." See Gov't Response to Victim's Emergency Petition (doe. #13) at 1-2. The Government's position contravenes the plain language of the CVRA. The CVRA guarantees to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 the right to confer with prosecutors "in the case," 24 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000694 EFTA00230518 I --- "r"-- Case 0:08-Cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 25 of 42 not in a "court proceeding." And the CVRA broadly extends a right to them "to be treated with fairness" a right that is not circumscribed to just court proceedings. Indeed, the fact that (as the Government notes) the drafters of the CVRA used the term "court proceeding" elsewhere in the statute (i.e., 18 U.S.C. § 377 l(a)(2) (victim's right to notice "of any public court proceeding")) makes it obvious that they intended to give victims a right to confer that extended beyond simple court proceedings — that is, the right to confer about "the case" — as well as a broad right to be treated fairly throughout the process. Moreover, it is patently obvious that a criminal "case" against Epstein had been going on for months before the victims learned about the non-proseoution agreement. As recounted in the statement of facts above, both the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida had opened a "case" involving Epstein's sexual abuse of the victims well before they entered into plea negotiations with Epstein. Indeed, as early as June 7, 2007 — more than three months before they concluded the NM with Epstein — the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a notice to Jane Doe NI stating "your care is under investigation." See Exhibit "C" (emphasis added). •The notice went on to tell Jane Doe #1 that "as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, you have a number of rights." Id. at 1. Among the rights that the U.S. Attorney's Office itself told Jane Doe that she possessed was "[t]he right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case." Of course, she would not have had those rights if she was not covered by the CVRA. Interestingly, the letter also advised Jane Doe #1 that "if you believe that the rights set forth above [e.g.. the right to confer and other CVRA rights] are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for relief." M at 1. 25 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000695 EFTA00230519 Case 9:08-cv-80736•KAtvl Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011' Page 26 of 42 The plain language of the CVRA makes clear that crime victims have righeeven before A the filing of any indictment. The CVRA's instnictsthat crime victims who seeks to assert rights in pre-indictment situations should proceed in the court where the crime was committed: wile rights described in subsection (a) [of the CVRA] shall be asserted in the district in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, V no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (emphasis added). The victims have relied on this language through their pleadings, but the Government has not offered any response. The CVRA also directs that "[Officers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, Investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that erimastictimmare notified of, and accorded, the rights described in [the CVRAJ." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(cX1) (emphasis added). Of course, there would be no reason to direct that agencies involved in the "detection" and "investigation" of crime have CVRA obligations if the Government's construction of the Act were correct. Plainly, Congress envisioned the victims' rights law applying during the "detection" and "investigation" phases of criminal cases. For all these reasons, the Court need look no further than the language of the CVRA to conclude that the victims in this case had protected rights under the Act. B. Other Courts Have Recognized That Crime Victims Have Rights Before An Indictment is Filed. In its briefing to date, the Government has yet to cite a single case that has accepted its sweeping position that the CVRA only extends rights to victims after the formal filing of an 26 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000696 EFTA00230520 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 27 of 42 indictment. This is because the case law all cuts the opposite way and recognizes that the CVRA does protect victims during the investigation of federal criminal cases. In a case remarkably similar to this one, the Fifth Circuit has held that victims have a right to confer with federal prosecutors even before any charges are filed. In In re Dean, 527 P.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008), a wealthy corporate defendant reached a generous plea deal with the Government — a deal that the Government concluded and filed for approval with the district court without conferring with the victims. When challenged on a mandamus petition by the victims, the Fifth Circuit held: The district court acknowledged that "Where are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway." BP Prods., 2008 WL 501321 at '11, 2008 U.S. Dist. LOGS 12893, at 836. Logically, this includes die CVRA's establishment of victims' "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX5). At least in the posture of this case (and we do not speculate on the applicability to other situations), the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of a plea bargain. Id. As we understand the Government's attempt to distinguish Dean, it asks this Court to decline to follow the Fifth Circuit's holding ancl... tea split of _ILority on_ibis important issue. See Gov't Response to Emergency Pen. at 2-3. Instead, the Government would have this Court deviate from the Fifth Circuit's well-reasoned opinion because the Circuit's "discussion of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue mandamus relief." Gov't Response at 2 (citing Dean, 527 F.3d at 395). This is simply untrue. The Fifth Circuit faced a petition for mandamus relief from the victims in that case, asking the 27 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000697 EFTA00230521 - 7,- 1 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAKI Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 28 of 42 Court to reject a proposed "binding" plea agreement negotiated under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(IXC) (i.e., a plea agreement obligating the judge to impose a specific sentence). The victims asked for that relief because of the Government's failure to confer with them before the charges and accompanying plea agreement were filed. The Fifth Circuit held that the victims' rights had been violated in the passages quoted above. It then went on to remand the matter to district court for further consideration of the effect of the violations of the victims' rights: We are confident, however, that the conscientious district court will tbily consider the victims' objections and concerns in deciding whether the plea agreement should be accepted. The decision whether to giant mandamus is largely prudential. We conclude that the better course is to deny relief, confident that the district court will take heed that the victims have not been accorded their full rights under the CVRA and will carefully consider their objections and briefs as this matter proceeds. In re Dean, 527 F.3d at 396. Obviously, the Fifth Circuit could not have instructed the District Court to "take heed" of the violations of victims' rights unless it has specifically held, as a matter of law, that the victims' rights had been violated. The Government's next effort to deflect the force of the Fifth Circuit's decision is that the Circuit did not directly quote three words found in the CVRA'a right to confer — the words "in the case." See Gov't Response to Emergency Petn. at 2. But the Fifth Circuit had received briefs totaling close to 100 pages in that case and was obviously well aware of the statute at hand. Indeed, in the very paragraph the Government claims is troublesome, the Filth Circuit cited to the district court opinion under review, which had quoted all the words in the statute. See United States'. BP Products, 2008 WL 501321 at '7 (noting victims right to confer "in the case"), cited in In re Dean, 527 F.3d at 394. 28 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000698 EFTA00230522 "<",tv • : I i11;;;;;;;:- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 29 of 42 The Government finally notes that the Fifth Circuit stated that its ruling about the Government violating the right to confer applied "in the posture of this case." In re Dean, 527 F.3d at 394. But the posture of the case involving Epstein here — at least in its relevant aspects — is virtually identical to the posture there. The Fifth Circuit held that the Government had an obligation to confer with the victims before charges were filed and before a final plea arrangement was reached. Without giving the victims a chance to confer before hand, the plea agreement might be fatally flawed because it did not consider the concerns of the victims. Thus, the Fifth Circuit emphasized the need to confer with victims before any disposition was finally decided: "The victims do have reason to believe that their impact on the eventual sentence is substantially less where, as here, their input is received after the parties have reached a tentative deal. As we have explained, that is why we conclude that these victims should have been heard at an earlier stage." Id at 395. The posture in this case is exactly the same — the Government should have conferred before the parties "reached a tentative deal." The fact that the deal reached here is slightly different than the deal reached in the Dean case (a non-prosecution agreement versus a plea agreement) is truly a distinction without a difference. If anything, the facts here cry out for conferral even more than in that case. At least the defendant there agreed to plead guilty to a federal felony. Here, the wealthy defendant has escaped all federal punishment— a plea deal that Jane Doe 01 and Jane Doe 02 would have strenuously objected to . if the Government had given them the chance. The Fifth Circuit's decision in Dean has been cited favorably in two recent District Court decisions, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States I Rubin, 2008 WL 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under 29 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000699 EFTA00230523 , , , , , , , • Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 30 of 42 the CVRA. After citing Dean, the District Court agreed that the rights were expansive and could apply before indictment, but subject to the outer limit that the Government be at least "contemplating" charges: Quite understandably, movants perceive their victimization as having begun long befott the government got around to filing the superseding indictment. They also believe their rights under the CVRA ripened at the moment of actual victimization, or at least at the point when they first contacted the government. Movants rely on a decision from the Southern District of Texas for the notion that CVRA rights apply prior to any prosecution. In United States" BP Products North America, Inc., the district court reasoned that because § 3771(dX3) provided for the assertion of CVRA rights "in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred," the CVRA clearly provided for "rights ... that apply before any prosecution is underway." (United States I. BP Products North America, Inc., Criminal No. H-07434, 2008 WI. 501321 at *11 (S.D.Tex. Feb.21, 2008) (emphasis in original), mandamus denied in part, In re Dean, No. 08-20125, 2008 WL 1960245 (5th Cir. May 7, 2008). But, assuming that it was within the contemplation end intendment of the CVRA to guarantee certain victim's rights prior to formal commencement of a criminal proceeding, the universe of such rights clearly has its logical limits. For example, the realm of cases in which the CVRA might apply despite no prosecution being "underway," cannot be read to include the victims of uncharged crimes that the government has not even contemplatechit is impossible to expect the government, much less a court, to notify crime victims of their rights if the government has not verified to at least an elementary degree that a crime has actually taken place, given that a corresponding investigation is at a nascent or theoretical stage. Id. at *6. Here, of course, the criminal investigation went far beyond the "nascent or theoretical stage" — to a point whore the Government determined that crimes had been committed and that the defendant should plead'guilty to either a state or federal offense. Similarly, at least one other district court has reviewed the issue and agreed with the victims' position that crime victims can have rights before charges are filed. In rejecting an argument that the CVRA should be limited to cases in which a defendant has been convicted, United States," Ohm, explained: "Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit has noted that victims acquire 30 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000700 EFTA00230524 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 31 of 42 rights under the CVRA even before prosecution. See In re Dean, 527 F3d 391, 394 (5th Cir.2008). This view is supported by the statutory language, which gives the victims rights before the accepting of plea agreements and, therefore, before adjudication of guilt. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX4)." 2009 WL 790042 at •2 (W.Va. 2009). Accordingly, rather than create a split of authority, this Court should follow the Fifth Circuit's holding in Dean (and the view of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia) and conclude that the CVRA extends rights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 under the facts of this case. C. The U.S. Attorney's OfficeHas Previously Recognized that Jane Doe til and Jane Doe #2 Have Rights tinder the CVRA. A final reason for concluding that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe *2 are protected by the CVRA is that the U.S. Attorney's Office itself reached that conclusion — well before the victims filed this petition. The U.S. Attorney's Office arranged to have the FBI send a notice to, for example, Jane Doe #1 informing her that she had lights under the CVRA. Later, in discussions with defendant Epstein, the Office explained to Epstein their obligations to the victims under the CVRA. Indeed, it was only after Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 filed a petition with this Court seeking protection of their rights that the U.S. Attorney's Office reversed its position. The Court should reject this remarkable about-face. As recounted in more detail above, the U.S. Attorney's Office made clear to both the victims and to Epstein that the victims had rights under the CVRA. For example, on about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to June Doe Ul a standard CVRA victim notification letter, promising that the Justice Department would makes its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe #1's 31 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000701 EFTA00230525 foyinl::._' --- - Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 32 of 42 rights, including "Nile 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 . . . ." Exhibit "C." Similarly, on about November 27, 2007, then First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein stating: la U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 255 (emphasis rearranged). Apparently, this assertion produced some sort of objection from defendant Epstein. The U.S. Attorney's Office, however, rejected those objections In a letter on about December 6, 2007, Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney again sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, reiterating the U.S. Attorney's Office's legal obligations to keep victims informed of the status of The letter stated: 32 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000702 EFTA00230526 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 33 of 42 U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 191-92 (emphasis added). What this correspondence shows is that the U.S. Attorney's Office quite clearly took the position with defendant Epstein that the CVRA extended rights to Epstein's victims. Yet when the victims in this case filed a petition in this Court asking those rights to be respected, the Government simply reversed course. The U.S. Attorney's Office had it right the first time — the CVRA does extend rights to Jane Dot #1 and Jane Doe #2 in this case. D. The U.S. Attorney's Office Is Estopped From Arguing that the CVRA Does Not Apply in this Case. For all the reasons just explained, it is clear that the CVRA applies to this case and the Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 had rights under the Act. In addition, however, the Government is simply stopped from arguing otherwise. The Government told the victims that they had rights under the CVRA and would keep them informed about the progress of the case. Exhibits "Cr "D," "F," & "G." Having made those representations to the victims — and having induced reliance by the victims—the Government is stopped from taking a different position now. As explained by the Eleventh Circuit, to make out a claim of estoppel against the Government, a party must adduce evidence of the following: (I) words, conduct, or acquiescence that induces reliance; (2) willfulness or negligence with regard to the acts, conduct, or acquiescence; (3) detrimental reliance; and (4) affirmative misconduct by the Government. United States I. McCorkle, 321 F.3d 1292 (III Cir. 2003). Each of these four factors is easily met here. 33 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000703 EFTA00230527 ttlt>1:44./1./.. 7"-- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 34 of 42 First, the Government made statements to the victims that induced reliance. The victims received an official notice on Justice Department letterhead that they were crime victims in the Epstein case and that the Justice Department would use its "best efforts" to protect their rights. Second, these statements were obviously not accidental —to the contrary, the Government specifically and deliberately sent these notices to the victims. Third, the victims detrimentally relied on these statements. As explained at greater length in the victims proposed facts, the victims were lead to believe that their case was "under investigation." As a result, they did not take steps to object to Epstein's plea agreement and, indeed, did not even attend the court hearing where Epstein pled guilty. Similarly, their attorney (Mr. Edwards) was induced to spend an afternoon writing a letter to the U.S Attorney's Office about why Epstein should be federally prosecuted — time that was taken away from other matters at his busy law practice. This was a complete wild goose chase, as the U.S. Attorney's Office was concealing front Mr. Edwards at the time that a federal non-prosecution agreement had already been reached with Epstein. Fourth, the U.S. Attorney's Office engaged in affirmative misconduct We do not make this allegation lightly. But the facts recounted above demonstrate the following chain of events. The U.S. Attorney's Office first reached a non prosecution agreement with Epstein, in which it agreed not to prosecute him for numerous crimes (including, for example, sex offenses committed by Epstein against Jane Doe #1). As part of that agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to a "confidentiality" provision that forbade publicly disclosing the existence of the agreement. As a result, the U.S. Attorney's Office (and FBI agents acting under its 34 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000704 EFTA00230528 Of Gratte.•47.tie, Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 35 of 42 direction4) kept the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret from the victims and the public. The reasonable inference from the evidence is that the U.S. Attorney's Office wanted to keep the agreement a secret to avoid intense criticism that would have surely ensued had the victims and the public learned that a billionaire sex offender with political connections had arranged to avoid federal prosecution for numerous felony sex offenses against minor girls. As part of this pattern of deception, the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed victim notification with the defendant sex offender and, after he raised objections, stopped making notifications. Then later in January 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office arranged for letters to be sent to the victims — including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 — that falsely stated that to each that your "case is currently under investigation." This was untrue, as the U.S. Attorney's Office had already resolved the federal case by signing a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Indeed, the pattern of deception continued even after Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were represented by legal counsel. In May 2008, the Office sent a similar letter stating "your case is currently investigation" to another victim (represented by attorney Bradley J. Edwards). As late as the middle of June 2008 — more than eight months after the non-prosecution agreement had been signed — the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the case told Edwards to send information that he wanted the Office to consider in determining whether to file federal charges. The Office concealed from him that it had already made the determination not to file federal charges end that the Office had in fact signed a non•prosecution agreement long ago. The Office also concealed from him the fact that guilty pleas in state court were imminent. The Office disclosed 4 it is unknown whether the U.S. Attorney's Office even made the FBI aware of the NPA in a timely fashion. 35 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000705 EFTA00230529 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 36 of 42 the non-prosecution agreement only after Epstein had entered his guilty pleas in state court — in other words, only after the time for the victims to be able to object to the non-prosecution agreement during the plea process had come and gone. Even at that time, the Office did not disclose the provisions in the agreement. In short, the victims never learned about the non- prosecution agreement barring federal prosecution of their oases because of a deliberate decisions by the U.S. Attorney's Office, not mere "negligence or inaction." McCorkle, 321 F.3d at 1297. Accordingly, the Government is stopped from arguing that the Crime Victims' Rights Act does not apply to this case. IL THE COURT SHOULD FIND THAT THE VICTIMS' RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AND TEEN SET TIP A BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING ON THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY. This U.S. Attorney's Office's behavior in this case does not satisfy the Office's obligations under the CVRA to use its "best efforts" to insure that victims receive protection of their rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(cX'). In particular, the undeniable chain of events makes clear that the victims wore not afforded their right "to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX5). Whatever else may be said about the deception, it also starkly violates the victims' right "to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity . ..." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). The pattern also denied the victims of timely notice of court proceedings, 18 U.S.C. §3771(a)(3), including in particular the state court guilty plea. As we understand the position of the Government, it does not truly contest that — if the CVRA applied — it managed to discharge its various obligations under the Act. Instead, the Government relies solely on a technical argument to reach the conclusion that it discharged its obligations — namely, the argument that the CVRA does not apply until a foimal indictment is 36 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000706 EFTA00230530 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 37 of 42 filed. As just explained, however, that technical argument must be rejected as inconsistent with the CVRA's plain language and interpretation by other courts. Accordingly, this Court should find that the Government has violated its CVRA obligations. Once the Court finds such a violation, the next issue becomes what remedy should apply. Since the earliest days of our nation, it has been settled law that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . .." Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, "[i]f the right is created by a federal statute, the federal courts have the power to fashion an appropriate remedy." Intracoastal Tranrp., Inc.' Decatur County, Georgia 482 F.2d 361, 371 (5th Cir. 1973). As we understand the Government's position in this case, however, they believe that this Sgprasowedess-to-do-anything to rorrect_tht_. palpable violation of victims' rights documented in this case. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 respectfhlly request that the Court set up a briefing schedule and a hearing on this important issue. The victims believe that they can establish that the appropriate remedy for the clear violations of their rights is to invalidate the Non-Prosecution Agreement. While the victims request an opportunity to provide more extensive briefing on this subject, they provide a few citations in support of their position here. When other plea arrangements have been negotiated in violation of federal law, they have been stricken by the courts. For example, United Stalest Walker, 98 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 1996), held that where a sentence on a new crime could not run concurrently with a probation revocation the defendant was then serving — contrary to the assumption of the parties to the plea agreement — the defendant was not entitled to specific performance of the plea agreement. The Court explained that the case was one "in which the bargain is vitiated by illegality . ..." Id. at 37 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000707 EFTA00230531 • ri le. - : ---- iffe-W•?3,v;:::--: Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 38 of 42 947. Here, of course, exactly the same is true: the non-prosecution agreement is vitiated by illegality — namely, the fad that it was negotiated in violation of the victims' rights. Other cases reach similar conclusions. See, e.g., United States' Cooper, 70 F.3d 563, 567 (10°' Cir. 1995) (prosecutor agreed to recommend probation, but it later appeared that would be an illegal sentence in this case, and thus only adequate remedy is to allow defendant to withdraw plea); Craig'. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60 (Cob. 1999) (because "neither the prosecutor nor the trial court have authority to modify or waive the mandatory parole period," such "is not a permissible subject of plea negotiations," and thus, even if "the trial court erroneously approves of such an illegal bargain" such plea is "invalid" and thus will not be specifically enforced). Nor can the defendant claim some right to specific performance of an illegal non-prosecution agreement. See State'. Garcia, 582 N.W.2d 879, 881-82 (Minn. 1998) (plea agreement for 81 months sentence, but court added 10-year conditional release term because, under facts of case, sentence without such release term "plainly illegal," and thus remedy of specific performance not available); State I Wall, 348 N.C. 671, 502 8.13.2d 585, 588 (1998) (plea agreement was for sentence to be concurrent with one not yet completed, but state statute mandates consecutive sentence on facts of this case; "defendant is not entitled to specific performance in this case because such action would violate the laws of this state"); Rs parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); (where "the plea bargain seemed fair on its face when executed, it has become unenforceable due to circumstances beyond the control of [the parties], namely the fact that one of the enhancement paragraphs was mischaracterized in the indictment, resulting in an illegal sentence far outside the statutory range," proper remedy is plea withdrawal, as "there is no way of knowing whether the State would have offered a plea bargain within the proper range of 38 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000708 EFTA00230532 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 39 of 42 punishment that he deemed acceptable"); State' Mazzone, ■ W.Va. 368, 572 S.E.2d 891, 897 (2002) (where plea agreement was that defendant would plead guilty to 2 felony counts of felon in possession of firearm and prosecutor would dismiss remaining 6 counts re other offenses with prejudice, and all parties erroneously believed these 2 crimes were felonies, lower court "correctly resolved this unfortunate predicament by holding that a plea agreement which cannot be fulfilled based upon legal impossibility must be vacated in its entirety, and the parties must be placed, as nearly as possible, in the positions they occupied prior to the entry of the plea agreement"). The Non-Prosecution Agreement that the Government entered into in this case was simply illegal. The Government did not protect the congressionally-mandated rights of victims before it entered into this Agreement. Perhaps it is for this reason that the Agreement is so shockingly lenient — blocking prosecution for dozens and dozens of federal felony sex offenses against several dozen minor girls. But regardless of the leniency, the only issue for the Court is whether the Agreement was lawftil. It was not, and so the Court invalidate it.3 The victims respectfully ask for a full briefing schedule and a hearing on this important issue. 3 Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was notified about this ease long ago, and was notified on August 26, 2010, that the victims would be filing correspondence in support of their motions.' He has not chosen to intervene in this action, and so he should not be heard to complain about remedy the Court might impose. In any event, there are no double jeopardy barriers to invalidating the plea. As explained in a leading criminal procedure treatise: The review of defendant's sentence is also provided in federal cases upon application of a victim. The Crime Victim's Rights Act allows a victim to seek to reopen a sentence through a writ of mandamus, if the victim has asserted and been denied the right to be heard at sentencing. Like the prosecution's statutory right to appeal, the victim's statutory remedy should pose no double jeopardy 39 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000709 EFTA00230533 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 40 of 42 CERTIFICATE OP CONFERENCE As recounted above, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have approached the U.S. Attorney's Office for more than two and a half years in an effort to reach stipulated facts. The U.S. Attorney's Office ultimately terminated those efforts on March 15, 2011, taking the position that the facts of the case are irrelevant and that, on any set of facts, It did not violate the CVRA. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should find the U.S. Attorney's Office violated Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act and then schedule an appropriate hearing on the remedy for these violations. The scope of the remedy that is appropriate may depend in part of the scope of the violations that the Court finds. For this reason, it makes sense for the Court to bifincate the process and determine, first, the extent of the violations and then, second, the remedy appropriate for those violations. If the Court would prefer to see more immediate briefing on remedy issues, the victims stand prepared to provide that briefing at the Court's direction. difficulties if as the [DIFi&ancescoj Court explained .. . the defendant is 'charged with knowledge of the statute and its . provisions, and has no expectation of finality in his sentence until the [review by writ] is concluded .. .."' LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL Procedure § 26.7(b) (Nov. 2010) (quoting United States Dihancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 146 (1980)). 40 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000710 EFTA00230534 • • . Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/2 1/201 1 Page 41 of 42 DATED: Much 21.2011 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSIN0, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Smite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad®pathtojustice.com and Paul G. Cassell Pro MX Vice S.J. Quinnoy College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellAtaw.tibah.edtt Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe 42 41 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000711 EFTA00230535 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 42 of 42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on March 21, 2011, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: A. Marie Villefafla Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561)820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: gartmarie.c.viltafana(gusdoj.gov Attorney for the Government Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. Joseph Ackerman, Jr. Fowler White Burnett PA 777 S. Flagler Drive, West Tower, Suite 901 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein (courtesy copy of pleading via U.S. mail) 42 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000712 EFTA00230536 1 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 6 JANE DOE NI AND JANE DOE /WS MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AN)) REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES CASE NO: 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson EXHIBIT B 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000713 EFTA00230537 • Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 6 FD-302 (ar. 10-6.95) .1 - math BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Due of trancnPuon 08/14/2007 Florida, rjligIll eral investigation involving the sexual a as interviewed in West Palm Beach, ir exploitation of minors. After being advised of the identity of.the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, t provided the following information: ' In 2003 or 20D4 Warms introduced to JEFFREY EPSTEIN for the purpose of providing im with personal massages. cg, was approached at a party by a female she believed was named ISE. She described the female as havin r hair and taller. The female was later identified as . SS told Weilland la's friend, mils mos, that they could make money by providing massages to EPSTEIN. gellIMSP told lam that she could provide the massages with her clothes on or off. WS, who was fifteen years old, believed that she was close to turning sixteen when she first met EPSTEIN. However, during Wilpis first contact with EPSTEIN, she told him that she had just turned eighteen. and Willi traveled to EPSTEIN's residence in Palm Beach by taxi. way_pregnant at the time. Once at the residence, age took Willi,Upstairs. EPSTEIN entered the room wearin only a ro . Once EPSTEIN had removed the robe, both and WIlleprovided EPSTEIN with a massage. Both ANIMINP and Wiellhad removed their clothing and remained only in their underwear. EPSTEIN asked ato leave. Once alone with Wilik EPSTEIN began to masturbate. WillIlwas uncomfortable. After EPSTEIN climaxed the massage was over. WOW believed that Sib had mentioned EPSTEIN might masturbate during the massage but she was still very surprised when he masturbated. EPSTEIN paid Wall $200.00. EPSTEIN did not touch'flduring that massage. WIMP departed EPSTEIN's residence with two men that worked for EPSTEIN. They drove WIEMPto a Shell Cap Station located near Okeechobee Boulevard and the Florida Turnpike. Prior to departing the residence, wileprovided her telephone number to one of EPSTEIN's assistants, OMMINIMOW (PHONETIC) . Wdedescribed her as a very pretty Hispanic female in her early twenties, with long brown hair, and approximately 5'5" to 5'6" tall. WAIMOstated that SARAH KELLEN, another of EPSTEIN's assistants, or EPSTEIN would usually contact her. KELLEN would telephone and ask if she was available or if she had any other ufluiscioeut, 08/07/2007 a West Palm Beach, Florida Filet 31E-MM-108062 Damaimmo 08/07/2007 SA E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendali by SA Jason R. Richards Ibis document *Wants neither recommendations tor °menials of the FBI. It is the prorgny of ,hr FBI and is loaned to Now sync). it and its IX/Malts OH not to be distributed outside your agency. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000714 EFTA00230538 ettx4fOOOV4.. Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 6 , FD-302. (Rn. IC-6.95) 31E-n4-108062 Canon of FD•302 of a 1. .on 08/07/2007 .Ptic 2 x. 1 girls she could bring; When EPSTEIN telephoned, he usually asked for Pato come over. According to WSW EPSTEIN's house telephone number began with the di its 655. She would call sometimes and leave a message. WINIstated that when they telephoned her they would inform her of when they would be coming back to town and if she might have anyone new. WIMMadid not believe that EPSTEIN ever really liked her. Wfl traveled to the EPSTEIN's residence during 2003 and 2004 over twenty five times. WAIllobelieved that she provided EPSTEIN with approximately 10-15 massages. EPSTEIN initially started out touching MEMO breasts but gradually the massages became more sexual. EPSTEIN would instruct WIMMOon how and what to do during the massages. He would request WOMMOto rub his chest and nipples. WOMOOstated that on approximately two occasions, EPSTEIN asked that WS remove her underwear and provide the massage nude. WOMMOcomplied. WOMMIstated that EPSTEIN would make her feel that she had the option to do what she wanted. During one massage. WOMOstated that she had been.givi1.g EPSTEIN a massage for approximately 30-40 minutes when instead of EPSTEIN turning over to masturbate, EPSTEIN brought another female into the massage area. illOWdescribed the female as a beautiful blonde girl, a "Cameron Diaz° type. 19 years of age, bright blue eyes, and speaking with an accent. EPSTEIN had Wile straddle the female on the massage table. EPSTEIN wanted Walito touch the females breast. According to we, EPSTEIN "pleasured" the female while Wailawas straddled on top of the female. Vi stated she could hear what she believed to be a vibrator. WIllasaid for EPSTEIN it was all about pleasuring the female. After the female climaxed, EPSTEIN patted I on the shoulder and she removed herself from the table. The female got up from the table and went into the spa/sauna. EPSTEIN commented to willothat in a few minutes the female would realize what had just happened to her. Wilftreceived $200.00. WOMMIadvised the interviewing agents that EPSTEIN had used a back massager on her vagina. EPSTEIN asked her first if he could use the massager on her. h. stated that she had held her breath when EPSTEIN used the back massager on her. Wiestated that at no time during any of the massages had EPSTEIN caused her to climax. During another massage, samobelieved by this time she was seventeen, EPSTEIN placed his hand on willip vagina, touching 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000715 EFTA00230539 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 6 DIC2a ()Icy I 6.6-95) 37.E-MM-208062 Cownatation of FD-)02 or .On 08/07/2007 "me 3 Align clitoris. WillOwas uncomfortable and told him to stop. EPSTEIN complied. WOMOstated that the incident freaked her out. , willpstated that EPSTEIN was upset because she was upset. Was never return to the residence. Winistated that she did not deal with EPSTEIN anymore after that incident. EPSTEIN gave both ampand MMOMOMPeach a book entitled "Massage for Dummies". They received the books on the same visit. EPSTEIN also commented how strong Ins hands were when it came to her providing his massages. On another occasion, WOMOOmentioned to EPSTEIN that she was looking at a car, a Toyota Corolla. EPSTEIN provided V - with $600.00 - $700.00. NOMMstated that EPSTEIN gave her the money after the incident with the other female. According to Willi EPSTEIN would ask her to bring him other girls. Imp who started dancing at strip clubs when she was 16, brought girls from the club as well as from other sources. WILD stated she brought girls from fifteen years of age to twenty- five years of age. l stated that EPSTEIN would get frustrated with„her if she did not have new females for him. On one instance, EPSTEIN hung is on her because she could not provide him with anyone new. Willostated that EPSTEIN's preference was short, little, white girls. Willestated that EPSTEIN was upset when one of the other girls brought a black girl. WIMMOstated that EPSTEIN did not want black girls or girls with tatoos. Oilleatated that one of the girls she stayed with on occasion, also started providing EPSTEIN with massages. A telephone number for awas minummomp. Holm said that her family resides in , Florida, possibly WIMMOalso stayed with during this same time period. However, never went to EPSTEIN's house or provided him with massages. isillithas a Yacht Club address. Another girl that Wallehad taken to EPSTEIN's residence was LOMMUNOLast Name Unknown(LNU). According to Sall EPSTEIN liked LOIMMOOLNU a lot. Milesaid that she was never a favorite of EPSTEIN. EPSTEIN offered WIMID$300.00 to brirlsplIMMUMOLNu. LNU was a couple years younger than Pa W believed that she was either 16 or 17 when she first went to EPSTEIN's residence. NINNWsaid that LIIIMMILNU went 2-3 times but that she did not want any part of it after that. Willi believes she could identify la LNU if she saw her photograph. Waft also stated that LAIIIIIrLAu at 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000716 EFTA00230540 . 7 -ire,: Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 5 of 6 . PD•Xr2a (Rev. 10-6-951 31E-MM-108062 CaminuabondRYX0of a all .0n08/07/2007 .Par 4 one time attended HIGH SCHOOL. WIMMWalso believed that they had met through a group of friends while attending - a dropout prevention school. WOMIPmentioned another girl by the name of c_ imps EPSTEIN distinguished the two warn, by referring to IMINIMPas alla worked at an ice cream shop. WAMOstated that she did not like I.110111 and that Jamminsr was a storyteller and a bad liar. WIMMOstated that enever really wanted to go to EPSTEIN's residence but she went anyway. WOOMPsaid that she had not taken a good look at EPSTEIN'S penis. wOOM0explained that it seemed like he would always try and hide his penis. Wis stated that EPSTEIN never asked her for sex. WOMMOstarted dancing when she was sixteen at immOMMOM, The owner, OS let her dance. WISMOhas also worked at fa located pr - Nin Boynton Beach, Florida. WOMOlused illegal drugs during the years she provided EPSTEIN with massages. wegolosiAid that EPSTEIN tried to provide her with advice regarding controlled substances. —stated that she met with EPSTEIN's attorneys, sow ROMMMOMpand a unidentified female(UF), at the ALE HOUSE RESTAURANT. willopmet with them after she contacted KELLEN, who confirmed that they were really working for EPSTEIN. Willipstaced that KELLEN also balked of her twin boys and stated that she was living in Manhattan. WMOMPfound out that Sand the OF are employed by They asked a lot of questions. They specifically asked about LIMO and a GlIMILNU. KMONereiterated her dislike for a WIIIMPalso informed the interviewing agents that she had spoken to Moshe believed before the fourth of July. M told wilimpthat she had met with investigators and that they had videoed her. numbers: Welleconfirmed her association to the following telephone Old cellular number - (561) Possibly an old cellular number - (561) as telephone number - (561)11111.111.5 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000717 EFTA00230541 twerr --- 7 ' • Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 6 FT). 302. (Rev 10-6-95) 31E-MM-108062 Con0nnanon of PD-302 of C le-- .On 08/07/2007 .flw S • • I • ' • 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000718 EFTA00230542 4 cmuai Cif/X4441, 4.1-..,% • --- 1 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 3 JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES CASE NO: 08-80736-av-Marra/Johtuon EXHIBIT C 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000719 EFTA00230543 07/09/2008 15:13 FAX 5818059848 115110 WPB CONFRM Case 8:08-Cv-80736-KAM •ument 48-3 Entered on FLSD Diie1 03/21/ U.S. Department of Justice United Slates Attorney Southern District of Florida SOO South Australian Ave.. Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 3)401 (561)820-8711 Facsimile- (361)820-8777 June 7, 2007 PELIVERI 8Y,$AND Miss eateal Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' jghts Dear Miss WIN Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, you have a number of rights. Those rights are: (I) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the cnme or of any release or escape of the accused: (3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other portions of a proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The righi to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy li • Members of the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these rights are protected. If you have any concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at 561 209-1047, or Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall from•the Federal Bureau of Investigation at 561 822-5946. You a:so- can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C. at 202-307-5983. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. You can seek.che advice of an attorney with respect to the right's listed above and, if you believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for relief. ii)022 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000720 EFTA00230544 07/09/2008 15:14 FAX 5618059846 US40 WPB COMPRI Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM fitment 48-3 Entered on F LSD Dart 03/21/2011 Page 3 of.3 Mess Stab _limn 7. 2007 PAGE 2 In addition to these rights, you are entitled to counseling and medical services, and protection from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you arc a victim, you also may be entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service providers can be provided to you, if you so desire. If. you or your family is subjected to any intimidation or harassment, please contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or myself immediately. It is possible that someone working on behalf of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such cdntact does not violas4e law?. However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to that person or refusing tett° do: If you refuse and feel that you arc being threatened or harassed, then please . . contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or myself. You also are entitled to notification of upcoming ease events. At this time, your case is under investigation) If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be notified. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: cc: Special Agent Nesbitt ICuydrendall, A. Marie Villafana Assistant United States Attorney 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000721 EFTA00230545 - Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 3 JANE DOE 01 AND JANE DOE NI MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES C4SE NO: 08-80736-Clv-Marra/Johnson EXHIBIT D 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000722 EFTA00230546 - - • 07/09/2008 15:14 FAX 5018059848 USAO WPB CONFRN Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Viument 48-4 Entered on FLSD DOet 03/21/ U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Ronda 500 South Australian Are., Suite 000 West Palen Beach. FL 33401 (560 870-871 Facsimile: (561)820-8777 August 11, 2006 DELIVERY BY HAND Miss TOMS Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights Dear Miss Mats Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness Ma federal offense, you have a number of rights. Those rights are: (I) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. (3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you arc present for other portions of a proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. (6) The right to fell and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. Members of the U.S. DepartMent of Justice and other fedond investigative agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these rights are protected. If you have any concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at 561 209-1047, or Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkcndall from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at 561 822-5946. You also can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C. at 202-307-5983. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rightalisted above and, if you believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for relief. 024 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000723 EFTA00230547 • 07/09/2008 15:14 FAX 5618059846 119A0 WPB CONFRM 025 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM fitment 484 Entered on FLSD Duet 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 3 MISS Men AUGUST 11, 2006 PAGE 2 In addition to these nghts, you are entitled to counseling arid medical services, and pr of • from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you arc a victim, you afiro t # entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service pm% ilk be provided to you, if you so desire. If you or your family is subjected to any Ultimo: • harassment, please contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or myself immediately. It is rier,•ri someone working on behalf of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such cuill . not violate the law. However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to dui tj or refusing to do so. If you refuse and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, the:; ri • iontact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or myself. You also are entitled to notification of upcoming case events. At this time, your c. .- investigation. If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will he no', By: cc: Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, F.B.I. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney A. Marie Villafafia Assistant United States Attorney f f 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000724 EFTA00230548 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 15 JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE n'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES CASE NO: 0840736CIv-Marra/Jobaien EXHIBIT E 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000725 EFTA00230549 Case 9:08-cv-80,736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 15 ' IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN I NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (tereinaRer, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Of fice has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: (1) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title IS, United States Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation ofTitle 18, United States Code, Section 371; (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in IS U.S.C. § 2423(0, with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(1), with minor females; in violation Page 1 of 7 0S-80736-CV-MARRA 000726 EFTA00230550 • . 0;04 7 --- 7 --- ----- . Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 15 of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(cXl); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits provided