EPSTEIN

EPSTEIN BREACH CORRESPONDENCE EFTA01089193 TABLE OF CONTENTS TAB DATE DESCRIPTION 1. 6/12/09 M. hr to J. Goldberger notifying breach of NPA 2. 6-12-09 J. Lefkowitz Itr. to M. in response to 6-12-09 letter giving notice of breach. 3. 6-15-09 J. Lefkowitz hr to M. attaching R. Critton's letter representing agreement to resolve outstanding fee issues re attorney representation. 4. 6-15-09 M. hr to J. Lefkowitz, R. Black & J. Goldberger con riming the US Attorney's Office takes no position re the civil suits. 5. 6-17-09 M. hr to J. Lefkowitz re compliance with NPA. 6. 6-19-09 J. Lefkowitz ltr to M. re obligations under NPA & ltr in response to 6-15-09 letter. Breach Correspondence Binder TOC.doc EFTA01089194 TAB 1 EFTA01089195 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida June 12, 2009 DELIVERY BY HAND Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterb , Goldber er & Weiss, P.A. Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Goldberger: Pursuant to the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida hereby provides you with notice that the United States Attorney has determined, based on reliable evidence, that Jeffrey Epstein has willfully violated one of the conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Specifically, on May 26, 2009, Jeffrey Epstein, through his counsel, filed a "Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement," in the matter of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Court File No. 09-CV-80591-KAM. "Jane Doe,No. 101" was on the list provided to Mr. Epstein's attorneys of individuals whom the United States had identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and "Jane Doe No. 101" has elected to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. By filing the Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Epstein is contesting liability and, therefore, has violated Term 8 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Based upon Mr. Epstein's breach of that term, the U.S. Attorney's Office will pursue its remedies. The U.S. Attorney's Office also is continuing its review of Mr. Epstein's filings in the civil suits to determine whether additional breaches have occurred. If any are EFTA01089196 JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. JUNE 12, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 2 identified, they will be communicated to you in accordance with the terms of the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney By: cc: Roy Black, Esq. Northern Division EFTA01089197 TAB 2 EFTA01089198 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AN0 AMLIATED PARTNZNIPS CAI r Jay P. LekOat% P.C. To Call Writer DireW yeinviairklane.com June 12, 2009 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS United States Attorney's Office louithemn mit District of Florida Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ian I am in possession of your June 12, 2009 letter giving notice of breach. I respectfully submit that the Motion to Dismiss that is referenced therein did not constitute a willful breach of Mr. Epstein's obligations under the non-prosecution agreement. Mr. Epstein's counsel unanimously determined that the filing of this Motion to Dismiss was not a breach of the non- prosecution agreement, and the Motion to Dismiss was filed by counsel without Mr. Epstein's final approval. I want to inform you that immediately upon receipt of your letter, Mr. Epstein directed his counsel to file the attached Notice withdrawing all but issue number VIII of the previously filed Motion to Dismiss. The same issue also is described briefly in subparagraph Don page 3 of the Motion, which likewise was not withdrawn. Please note that this issue relates exclusively to the damages available under § 2255. The Notice has already been filed. If your continued review of the civil dockets causes you to have additional concerns about any other filing, consistent with the notice provisions of the non-prosecution agreement and consistent with our prior practice regarding such matters, please provide me with notice and the opportunity to address the same with you. I believe that with today's filing withdrawing these issues Mr. Epstein, through counsel, has fully remedied any perceived breach. Please advise if you for any reason disagree. Respectfully submitted, Jay P. Le owitz, P.C. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco wasninoon. D.C. EFTA01089199 KIRKLAND 8,ELLIS LLP CC: Esq. EFTA01089200 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80591- KAM JANE DOE NO. 101, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANTJEFFREY EPSTEIN'S NOTICES)? YVITHDRAWL OF ARGUMENTS I THROUGH VII OF THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DE29) Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby withdraws arguments I through VII as set forth in the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (FAC) [DE 29], dated May 26, 2009. Defendant withdraws his arguments contained subparagraphs A, B, C and Sections I (The Complaint Must Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Is Not A Minor), II (The FAC Must Be Dismissed Because The Defendant Has Not Been Convicted Of A Predicate Offense), DI (Count One Of The FAC Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Please A Violation Of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(1))). IV (Count Two Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Plead A Violation Of 18 U.S.C. §2423(b)), V (Count Three Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Plead A Violation Of 18 U.S.C. § 2251, VI (Counts Four and Five Must Be Dismissed Because They Do Not Plead Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(1) Or 2252(a)(1), and VU (Count Six Must Be Dismissed Because 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g) Was Not Enacted Until 2006). Defendant will rely only on those arguments set forth in subparagraph D. on page 3, and Paragraph VIII (Any Surviving Count Should Be Merged Into A Single Count) of the EFTA01089201 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 2 of 2 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint Or, I The Alternative, For A More Definite Statement [DE 29] dated May 26, 2009. Counsel for De dant EPSTEIN Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CWECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel record . entified on the following Service list in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this;/ ay of t r 2009 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted By: ROBERT D Florida B MICH.AELJ_,. . PIKE ESQ. Florida Bar (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA01089202 Page 1 of I From Ofig1ri 10 ,1RBA (212) 9C9-3257 Jay Lofltuth SHP la E Ship Date 12J12409 AdWst 0.212 CAD: 5560$0h4Ei9011 Otivery Address Bar Code Ref C 22168000 Invoke C PO C Dept U 7966 9083 5419 SH MPBA M0N -15JUN A2 PRIORITY OVERNIGHT 33132 FL-US MIA After printing this label: 1. Use the 'Print button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer. 2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line. 3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned. Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could result in additional billing charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number. Use p this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the cunent FedEx Service Gukte, available on fedeccom.FedEx will not be responsible for any claim in excess 0$1120 per package, whether the result of loss, damage. delay. nondeivery,mIsderrvery.or misinformation unless you declare a higher value. pay an addtional charge, document your actual loss and fie a rimely clairn.Umitations bond h correct FedEx Service Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss. including intrinsic valued the package, loss of sales, income interest, port. attorneys tees. costs, and other forms of damage whether direct. incidennUl,cdnsequon0al, cc special is limited to the greater of $100 or the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual documented tosstikaxirrnim for items of extraordinary value is $500, e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and other items listed In our ServiceGuide. Written claims must be fried within strict rime limits. see current FedEx Service Glide. EFTA01089203 FedEx Ship Manager - Print Your Label(s) Page 1 of 1 Fran: Won V AafA (112) WWS2s1 Jay Lamer Kirkland lapw E ••••••111:113 SHIP BILL SAVER me sauce Slip War 1?4UM) PAINgt 0.203 CAD. 556O04WET9011 Amen*. Sn"—^ Defivery Add ess Bar Code II IIIII 1011111 Ref # 22 68000 Invoice II PO # Dept ri I III III III II M0N - 15JUN m91 7976 7810 4287 PRIORITY OVERNIGI SH PBIA 33401 FL-US FLL After printing this label: 1. Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer. 2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line. 3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix B to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned. Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and ca result in additional bluing charges. along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number. Use of nods system ccnsdlutes your agreement to the service con: Miens in Ise anent FedEx Service Guide. available on fedexcom.FedEx will m responsible (or any claim In excess of S100 per package, whether the result of loss. damage. delay. nondetivery.misdctnitryor misinformation. u you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge. document your actual loss and fee a timely cialm.Unetations found In the current FedEx See Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for arty loss, Including intrinsic value! the package, loss of sales, income Interest. Pier& attorney's costs, and other forms of damage whether amt, inoldentalconsequenUal, or special's limited to the greater of S100 or the authorized declared v Recovery cannot exceed actual documented lossMaxirnunt for hems of exUaordirary yak* is $500. e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable Instruments and other Items listed In ow ServiceGuide. Written claims must be rded within shirt time knits, sect current FedEx Service Guide. Global Home I FedEx Mobile j Service Info I About FedEx I Investor Relations I Careers I fedex.com Terms of Use I Privacy Potty I See Map I This silo is protected by copyright and trademark laws under US and International law. Ali rights reserved.® 1995.- 2009 FedEx • EFTA01089204 Pagel of I Frew Origin et JRBA (21279G}3257 Jay Lew& Fet E Mr SHP TO: (S61)120-8711 Bill. SENDER United States Attorne s Office Slip Dade: 12.0439 ActlAigt 0/ LB can 5564104ANET90I I AceouraSs•••"" very Address Bar Code tf,I11111 212I )1811111111111111 POs Qa lil 11111111111 11111111 RK# 7966 9087 9521 SH PBIA MON -15JUN 42 PRIORITY OVERNIGHT 33401 FL-US FLL 11 After printing this label: 1. Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer. 2. Feld the printed page along the horizontal line. 3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it lo your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned. Warning: Use only the printed original label (or shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could result in additional tiling charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number. Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guido. available on leda.can.FedEx vial not be responsilNe (or any claim in excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage. deAay, non-deSvery,rrisdeetefy.or misinformarbn Wens you declare a NOW, ValUO, pay an addlional charge, document your actual loss and file a Grey clakntimitatIons bund in the Curtin FedEx Service Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss, inducing intrinsic valued the package, loss of sales, income interest, profit, attorney's fees, costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, incidental,consequential, or special is knifed to the greater of $100 or the a uthodzed declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual documented lossflaxlmum for items of extraordinary value is $500. e.g. jewelry, precious metals. negotiable instruments and other items fisted In our ScwiceGuide. Written claims must be Med within strict time lirnits. see current FodEx Service Guide. EFTA01089205 TAB 3 EFTA01089206 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AMLIATIO PAINNIASIIIPS Jay P. Lefkowitz. P.C. TO ca Writer Directly: VIA FACSIMILE Mss Esq. United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida Dear Citi ro Center www.kiridand.com June 15, 2009 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Facsimile: I am attaching a letter authored by my co-counsel, Robert Critton, on today's date. It represents our agreement with a proposal that Kathy Ezell indicated in a letter dated June 8, 2009 would be fully acceptable to her and Bob Josefsberg as a means to resolve expeditiously all outstanding fcc issues regarding the attorney representative. Mr. Epstein has directed his counsel to take immediate steps to address and resolve the attorney representative's outstanding fee- related issues and we are doing so without delay. The suggestion of a Special Master, agreed to by both parties, to resolve the issues in the immediate future, will assure all parties that there will be no delay and no need for adversarial litigation regarding fees. More generally, I want to assure you that Mr. Epstein has directed all counsel to make sure that there is no filing that could constitute a breach of the NM. Accordingly, a new internal screening process has been established to provide focused decision-making on each filing. To the extent we believe any filing may be perceived as implicating any of the issues generically addressed in the NPA (a document including sentences within paragraph 8 that even Mr. Acosta agreed were "far from simple"), we intend to address such issues with you prior to any filing and hope that you will agree to review the draft filing and inform us whether or not from your perspective it would, if filed, constitute a "breach". This will be especially important regarding issues that we believe fall at the intersection of Section 2255 and the civil litigation. We reserve our right, if you believe a proposed filing to conflict with the NPA or if you wish not to address these issues with us, thereafter to address such substantive issues with the Court. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington. D.C. EFTA01089207 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Ms June 15, 2009 Page 2 Esq. We hope that these proposals—in combination with our immediate withdrawal of the previously filed Motion to Dismiss—resolve all outstanding issues at the intersection of the NPA and 2255. Please advise if any remain. Sincerely, a P. Le owitz Enclosure cc: EFTA01089208 J. MICHAEL BURMAN, PA., OREOCRY W.COLEMAN. PA. ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR.. BERNARD L.EBEDEXER MARK T. LUTHER. PA. JEFFREY C. PE IN MICHAEL J. PIKE HEATHER McNAMARA RUDA FLORIDA BOARDCERTIMO CIVIL TRIAL taViYES BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP Sent by E-mail and U.S. Mail Robert Josefsberg, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. Re: Epstein Matter Dear Bob: June 15, 2009 ADELQUI I. BENAYENTE PAIIALZOAL/ 41VBSTI0XI0R BARBARA M. Mc.KENNA ASHLJB STOKENBARING BETTY STOKES MRALICALS RITA H. BUDNYK or coma On June 8, 2009, Kathy Ezell wrote a letter to me regarding outstanding fee payment issues. At page 3, she stated that she was not adverse to an earlier proposal that had been discussed amongst the parties to rely on a Special Master to resolve outstanding fee-related Issues. We agree with Kathy's "proposal" that we rely on a Special Master to resolve all outstanding fee issues. Lets work during our Wednesday meeting to select an appropriate Special Master and let's agree to see whether, in the interim, we can resolve these issues even y are submitted to the S.M. Cordially Robe i, non, Jr. RDCIdz cc: Jack Goldberger, Esq. L•A•W•Y•E •R ' S EFTA01089209 TAB 4 EFTA01089210 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida June 15, 2009 DELIVERY BY_ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf P.A. Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Messrs. Lefkowitz, Goldberger, and Black: I write to confirm my conversation with Mr. Letkowitz of June 12, 2009. As I mentioned during that conversation and during the hearing with Judge Marra, the U.S. Attorney's Office is not a party to any of the civil suits against Mr. Epstein pending in the U.S. District Court or any state court and takes no position regarding those lawsuits. The U.S. Attorney's Office is not advising or requiring that Mr. Epstein take any action regarding those lawsuits, rather, Mr. Epstein should proceed as he sees fit. The U.S. Attorney's Office will continue to exercise its independent judgment and proceed in accordance with its rights under the Non-Prosecution Agreement. My statements during our conversation and during the court proceeding contained no promises and did not alter or modify the Non-Prosecution EFTA01089211 JAY P. LEFKOWFI2, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GOLDBERGEFt, ESQ. JUNE 15, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 4 Agreement. I would like to address what appears to be a continuing pattern in this matter. There have been several instances of breaches by Mr. Epstein of the letter and spirit of the Non- Prosecution Agreement, including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. As soon as Notice is provided by the United States, we are told that Mr. Epstein "was relying on his lawyers" and had not intended to willfully breach the Agreement. Mr. Epstein, through those same lawyers, then undertakes a perfunctory "cure" and continues to enjoy the benefit of his bargain until he decides to breach yet again. Notifications of breach have been provided on several occasions in the past. From the start, and as mentioned in extensive correspondence in October and November 2007, Mr. Epstein did not use his "best efforts" to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced within the time frame set by the Agreement. After several appeals were made throughout the Department of Justice resulting in a nine-month delay, the U.S. Attorney's Office had to remind Mr. Epstein of his obligation to provide a copy of the plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office prior to his entering into that agreement. Despite numerous requests, the proposed state plea agreement and notice of the state change of plea were not provided until I sent our first Notice of Breach letter at 3:15 p.m. on the last business day before the plea. Thereafter, I received a copy of the proposed state agreement, which contained language that directly contradicted the Non-Prosecution Agreement. A second Notice o f B reach had to be prepared and sent to bring the state plea agreement into compliance. After Mr. Epstein entered his guilty plea and was sentenced, another set of problems arose. First, Mr. Epstein's counsel obstructed our ability to abide by our obligations to notify the victims of the outcome of the federal investigation. Second, Mr. Epstein refused to fulfill promptly Mr. Epstein's obligation to secure the services of an attorney representative for the victims. Third, Messrs. Goldberger and Tein approved the dissemination of a victim notification letter that Messrs. Lefkowitz and Epstein contended contained incorrect information. Fourth, Mr. Epstein's counsel informed the Court that a motion to quash subpoenas was still pending, despite the Non-Prosecution Agreement's requirement that Mr. Epstein withdraw that motion. Extensive correspondence and telephone conferences were required to resolve each of these situations. For example, on July 17, 2008, the United States had to issue a third Notice of Breach, instructing Mr. Epstein's counsel: If, in fact, your position is that the federal criminal action is still pending, then EFTA01089212 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. JUNE 15, 2009 PAGE 3 OF 4 the Office proposes that we seek the prompt resolution of the Motion to Quash, so that the computer equipment can be analyzed and the investigation can continue, including the identification of additional victims. If, instead, Mr. Epstein intends to continue performing his obligations under the Non-Prosecution Agreement, then the investigation will remain closed, and no federal criminal action will be pending. Please advise whether you would like to proceed on the Motion to Quash or, if not, please correct the representations to the Court regarding the status of the federal investigation. In November, more issues arose when we learned—not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that Mr. Epstein was spending more than twelve hours each day outside the Palm Beach County Stockade. Mr. Epstein's release prior to the Office's notification of that release, resulted in accusations from victims that the Office had violated its statutory victim notification obligations. Our investigation of Mr. Epstein's application for the work release program demonstrated that Mr. Epstein made several false statements in his application and made threatening statements to the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office about legal repercussions if he was not admitted to the program. I also discovered—again, not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that Judge McSorley had modified Mr. Epstein's judgment nunc pro tunc to an "Order of Community Control I," which directly contradicted the terms of the Non- Prosecution Agreement. This required a fourth Notice of Breach and another claim that there was no "intended breach" followed by a meaningless "cure." During my conversation with Mr. Lefkowitz of June 12th regarding our fifth written Notice of Breach, and during the proceeding before Judge Marra, I heard again that Mr. Epstein had no intent to breach the Non-Prosecution Agreement but was merely relying on his attorneys. In light of the fact that Mr. Epstein is highly intelligent and experienced with the law, and is reportedly spending more than twelve hours a day at his attorney's office working on nothing but the litigation pending against him, this excuse will not be accepted. This letter is being provided to all three of you with the recommendation that you circulate it to any attorney who is acting on Mr. Epstein's behalf. Importantly, while Mr. Epstein has continued to receive the benefit of his bargain by not facing federal prosecution, our Office has not received the benefits of finality, savings of resources, or the punishment and victim restitution terms envisioned by the Non- EFTA01089213 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ EsQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. JUNE 15, 2009 PAGE 4 OF 4 Prosecution Agreement. As I mentioned in our telephone call, I have asked Mr. Josefsberg to provide me with the correspondence that he referenced during the hearing before Judge Marra. That will be reviewed to determine if there has been yet another breach by Mr. Epstein. As I stated, and as mentioned in the Notice Letter served upon Mr. Goldberger, notice of any breaches that we discover will be provided as required by the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Our Office also will review the new pleading in the Jane Doe 101 matter that Mr. Lefkowitz mentioned, prior to deciding what, if any, remedies we will pursue for Mr. Epstein's breach. However, I note that, while the U.S. Attorney's Office is required to provide notice of any breach, there is no requirement that Mr. Epstein be allowed the opportunity to cure any breach. The pattern of behavior described above will be factored into the Office's decision on what remedies it will pursue in connection with this most recent breach and any future violations. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: Northern Division EFTA01089214 TAB 5 EFTA01089215 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: June 17, 2009 Thank you for your letter of June 15, 2009. I did not receive your letter until late yesterday afternoon because I am shuttling back and forth between the Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach offices. The best way to reach me is via e-mail. With respect to the substance of your letter, the Office has not completed its review of Mr. Epstein's civil filings and correspondence related to the payment of the attorney representative's fees, so I cannot confirm that all outstanding issues have been resolved. If and when additional breaches are identified, timely notice will be provided in accordance with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. As to your proposal. our Office cannot and will not become involved in the civil suits filed against Mr. Epstein; as counsel for Mr. Epstein has expressed on several occasions, it is inappropriate for the government to involve itself in civil litigation. We likewise do not think it is appropriate to review civil pleadings in order to provide advisory opinions, even at your request. The duty to stay within the bounds of the Non-Prosecution Agreement lies with Mr. Epstein and he alone has the power to remain in compliance. Mr. Epstein has a highly skilled team to assist him, and compliance with the Agreement is not difficult, as you suggest. For example, it is not complicated to understand that, when a named victim files a claim EFTA01089216 JAY P. LEFKOW1TZ, ESQ. JUNE 17, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 2 exclusively under Section 2255, Mr. Epstein cannot assert that there is no liability, just as providing the state plea agreement to our Office in advance of entering the state guilty plea was not complicated. I remain hopeful that Mr. Epstein will take all of his obligations seriously and elect to err on the side of caution in making decisions that relate to the performance of his duties. Sincerely, Jeffrey If. Sloman Acting United States Attorney cc: Jack Goldberger, Esq. Roy Black, Esq. By: Assistant United States Attorney Northern Division EFTA01089217 TAB 6 EFTA01089218 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AFFILIATED MRTNISSMIES Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. To Call Writer Direct' • VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida Des Citigroup Center WWW.lorkland.com June 19, 2009 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Facsimile: I appreciate your letter of June 17, 2009. I sincerely hope that any and all issues that could generate an adversarial relationship between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office are in our past. Like you, we hope that the ongoing, complex, and at times vigorous litigation will not again require your involvement, nor result in any belief on your part that any legal position taken by Mr. Epstein's counsel conflicts with the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA"). In order to avoid future misunderstandings, however, I would like to have a discussion with you specifically about our ongoing obli ations as you understand them under the NPA. As you know from past experience, and as previously acknowledged in letters to my partner Ken Starr (on December 4, 2007 an r y Ann Sanchez (on December 19, 2007), the language of ¶ 8 is "far from simple," and, in certain respects, subject to significant ambiguity. I believe it is both necessary and appropriate to seek immediate clarification from the government about its understanding of a few provisions in the NPA. It is likely by no fault of our own that these issues will come before a judge or an independent third party, whose job it will be to interpret the intent of the parties. In those circumstances, I think the court would most likely turn to both of us and directly seek our views, as the drafters of the agreement, before rendering its own opinion. Therefore, I believe it would bring about the finality that we both seek in a much reduced time frame if we could discuss several of the more ambiguous provisions contained in the NPA. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, D.C. EFTA01089219 Ms. June 19, 2009 Page 2 One specific example comes to mind. First, we clearly understood during the course of negotiating the NPA, and believe that both the language of the NPA and our prior correspondence with your Office confirm, that the waiver of liability set forth in Paragraph 8 at most was designed to allow an identified individual the right to assert a single violation of a section 2255 predicate. The waiver of liability does not embrace situations where a particular plaintiff asserts multiple violations. Thus, compliance with paragraph 8's waiver of liability would require at most that Mr. Epstein stipulate to the existence of a single enumerated predicate that would entitle an otherwise eligible plaintiff to actual damages (or the applicable statutory minimum damages where actual damages fall short of that floor), leaving aside the issue of whether the waiver is applicable to contested litigation or only the cases where there would be agreed damage resolutions. In addition, if we believe that a predicate act is time-barred, as indeed we understand was the case with respect to all such acts in relation to one plaintiff, a proper construction of the waiver of liability would not preclude the reliance on a statute of limitations defense. Given your Office's prior acknowledgements that the language of the NPA is far from clear, we very much would appreciate an opportunity to discuss Paragraph 8 with you in the very near future in order to clarify a few pivotal questions raised by the NPA. I assure you that Mr. Epstein intends to abide fully by the terms of the NPA. And it is my sincere hope that our discussion can avert future risks that anything we do will cause you to believe that there has been a breach of the NPA. Finally, I enclose a letter in response to your June 15 letter in order to provide you with our perspective on the issues you raised. I hope our differing views on certain events over the past several years as reflected in my letter will not in anyway divert us from a common goal of having Mr. Epstein complete his NPA obligations without further tension with your Office. • ce Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. Enclosures EFTA01089220 EFTA01089221 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AHILINIED PARTNERSHIPS Jay R Lefkovatz, P.C. To Call Writer Directly: VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS United tates Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida June 19, 2009 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Facsimile: We prepared this answer in response to your letter dated June 15, 2009 and before receiving your follow up letter of June 17, 2009. At this point it has been almost three years since the federal government first intervened in what was originally a matter investigated and charged by state prosecutorial authorities. It has been almost a year since Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty in state court and began serving his sentence in county jail, pursuant to the terms and as a direct result of the federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "NPA"). When Mr. Epstein was sentenced, the U.S. Attorney promised me and my co-counsel that the United States Attorney's Office's involvement would cease with Mr. Epstein's execution of the NPA and incarceration in state custody. We were also promised that the federal government would not intervene in discretionary state or county decisions regarding the implementation of Mr. Epstein's sentence. We take this opportunity to address in detail each of the alleged instances you describe to support your position that Mr. Epstein has engaged in a pattern of breaching the NPA. Mr. Epstein's overriding commitment is, and has always been, to complete his jail sentence, fulfill his other obligations under the NPA, and reach final settlements of pending section 2255 cases with plaintiffs who are agreeable to such settlements. We respectfully submit (and support through documentary evidence) that there have been no past breaches of the NPA. There have been no "willful" breaches of the NPA. There has been no pattern of breaches of the NPA. As an initial matter, it is important to consider your letter of June 15 and its contents in context. Mr. Epstein has satisfied, and continues to satisfy, his obligations pursuant to the NPA. Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty to a registerable state offense. He has already registered as a sex Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, D.C. EFTA01089222 Page 2 offender, and has served over 11 months of his sentence in county jail. While such a plea and punishment were not otherwise sought by the State Attorney, Mr. Epstein agreed to the plea, the sentence, and the obligation to register as a sex offender as a direct result of obligations he agreed to undertake pursuant to the NPA. Furthermore, Mr. Epstein has already paid over $300,000 in civil settlements and fees for the attorney representative, and has agreed to submit issues regarding further fees to a Special Master pursuant to a proposal suggested by the attorney representative himself. The claimants whose matters have already been settled were identified by you as victims and, in one case, as a sign of good faith, Mr. Epstein paid a settlement to an individual he had no recollection of ever meeting, solely because she appeared on your July 2008 list. We are prepared to address each of the statements contained in your June 15 letter. First, your statement that Mr. Epstein did not use his "best efforts" to enter his guilty plea and to be sentenced is, respectfully, without merit. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2. The date of entry of the state plea was deferred with the express written consent of United States Attorney Acosta, who recognized and expressly provided us with the opportunity to pursue an independent assessment of this matter by the Justice Department. The subsequent nine-month "delay" was a direct result of the Justice Department's determination that it was appropriate to convene an intense and time-consuming review. Thus, the delay was not dictated at all by Mr. Epstein, but instead, by the review process agreed to and, if you recall, initiated by Mr. Acosta. On June 23, 2008, the Justice Department concluded its final review and only seven days later, Mr. Epstein promptly entered his plea (on June 30, 2008) and immediately began serving his sentence. As the following timeline of events leading up to Mr. Epstein's entry of plea makes clear, the facts do not support your conclusion that Mr. Epstein willfully breached the NPA by delaying his sentence, and, instead, compellingly demonstrates that Mr. Epstein's participation in high-level Department of Justice reviews cannot factually or legally ground a claim that he "willfully" breached the NPA: • The NPA, signed on September 24, 2007, provides that Mr. Epstein "begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008." See Exhibit 2, NPA1111. • On November 28 2007, Mr. Epstein's defense counsel contacted to request a review of certain provisions of the NPA. We informed the USAO of this request the very next day in a letter to Mr. Acosta. See Exhibit 3, November 29, 2007 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta at 4. • In a December 4, 2007 letter, Mr. Acosta stated that he supported the defense's appeal to Washington. See Exhibit 4, December 4, 2007 letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta to K. Starr with a copy to at 5 ("I do not mind this Office's decision being EFTA01089223 June 19, 2009 Page 3 appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decision."). • On December 11, 2007, pursuant to Mr. Acosta's request, the defense team sent him submissions detailing the defense's concerns related to the NPA. See Exhibit 5, December 11, 2007 Letter from K. Stan• to U.S. Attorney Acosta. • On December 14, 2007, Mr. Acosta met with members of the defense team to discuss the serious issues raised about the NPA. • In a December 19, 2007 letter, Mr. Acosta stated that "the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns." See Exhibit 6, December 19, 2007 Letter from U.S. Attorney Aco Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez at 3. He also stated that he had spoken with to ask that she review this matter and to expedite the process. Id. • In the beginning of January, 2008, Mr. Acosta and I discussed the need for further consideration of the issues raised by the defense. He postponed the plea and sentencing until the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) was finished with its review of the case. • In a February 29, 2008 email I sent to Mr. Acosta, I confirmed that that "there were significant irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement" and that he would ask CEOS to evaluate the matter. I also confirmed Mr. Acosta's agreement to st ne the state plea deadline until after the matter was reviewed. On that same day, responded in writing as follows: "Please be assured at it as not, and never has been, this Office's intent to interfere or restrict the 'review process' for either Mr. Epstein or CEOS. I leave it to you and CEOS to figure out how best to proceed and will await the results of that process." See Exhibits 7 and 8 February 29, 2008 Emails to U.S. Attorney Acosta and from • Given that CEOS determined that it would not review many of the defense's objections and that its review would be limited on the rest of the objections, CEOS's decision, rendered on May 15, 2008, left open the need for a more thorough review of critical issues by others at the Justice Department. • In a May 28, 2008 email from to myselt further postponed the deadline to plead until the Deputy Attorney General's Office (DAG) com leted its review. See Exhibit 9, May 28, 2008 Email from to J. Lefkowitz. EFTA01089224 June 19, 2009 Page 4 • A final letter of determination was not issued by the Department of Justice until June 23, 2008. • Just one week after that date, Mr. Epstein promptly entered his plea and immediately began serving his state sentence on June 30, 2008. While you state that a breach occurred because Mr. Epstein and the defense team did not provide you with the state plea documents until the last business day before the plea, neither Mr. Epstein nor his counsel bear sole responsibility for timing of the delivery of these documents. It was the responsibility of the State Attorney's Office to provide the defense with the plea agreement. Defense counsel did not receive the plea agreement from the State until 10:00 A.M. on June 27 2008 the Friday before the plea). See Exhibit 10, June 27, 2008 Email from to J. Goldberger. Once the plea agreement was reviewed by Mr. Epstein's defense team, Mr. Goldberger sent it to you that same afternoon. At 5:55 P.M. on June 27, 2008, following your receipt of the agreement sent to you by Mr. Goldberger, Messrs. Black and Goldberger received a responsive letter from you alleging that the plea agreement violas the NPA. See Exhibit 11, June 27/28, 2008 Email String between Assistant U.S. Attorney and R. Black and J. Goldberger (attaching Notice of Non-Compliance). Second, you state that language contained in the first draft of the plea agreement proposed by the State violated the NPA, because it called for community control in lieu of jail. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2. You now suggest that this "error" evidences Mr. Epstein's alleged efforts to undermine the NPA. I respectfully submit that you are mistaken in both cases. The language in the first draft of the plea agreement was prepared by the State and, as stated above, it was not sent to the defense until the very day that it was sent to you. Moreover, as Mr. Goldberger confirmed to you in a telephone conversation on the same day that he received your June 27 letter, the plea agreement, as originally drafted by the State, would have resulted in the exact same 12-month and 6-month consecutive jail sentences, followed by one year of community control, as was required by the NPA and ultimately imposed on Mr. Epstein. Although defense counsel asked the State to change the language of the plea agreement to alleviate your concerns, the same exact sentence and period of incarceration as required by the NPA would have been imposed on Mr. Epstein had the language of the State's first draft been allowed to a 1 See Exhibit 11, June 27/28, 2008 Email String between Assistant U.S. Attorney and R. Black and J. Goldberger (confirming a telephone conversation between the parties on June 27 that the state plea agree in compliance with the NPA and indicating a request by Assistant U.S. Attorney to modify the language in the state plea agreement); see also Exhibit 12, the initial version and the signed version of the state plea agreements. EFTA01089225 June 19, 2009 Page 5 The bottom line here is that while Florida counsel for Mr. Epstein fully believed that the initial language in the State's draft would result in a sentence identical to the mandates of the NPA, changes were made solely to conform to your requests. Neither the USAO or the administration of federal criminal justice suffered any prejudice: lawyers often make linguistic alterations of form; we did so here. The changes were made in short order, namely, during the Friday and Saturday before Mr. Epstein's state plea; the plea and plea agreement completely complied with the NPA as did Mr. Epstein's sentence; and there was neither a breach, nor harm. Moreover, all communications were through counsel. Mr. Epstein was not a party to these communications and in no way can be considered, factually or legally, to have committed a "willful" breach of the NPA in this regard. Third, you state that defense "counsel obstructed [your] ability to abide by [your] obligations to notify the victims of the outcome of the federal investigation." Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2. We believe that this statement misconstrues the intentions and conduct of the defense team and, does not support any charge of "obstruction" against Mr. Epstein, as would be required to sanction him for a "willful" breach of the NPA. In October 2007, a full nine months before Mr. Epstein was sentenced, we first raised the issue of the notification. On October 10, 2007, I stated in a letter to Mr. Acosta that the defense team did not believe "it was the government's place to be co-counsel to the identified individuals," and reasonably proposed that the alleged victims be contacted by the selected attorney representative. See Exhibit 13, October 10, 2007 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta at 4-5. Then, on November 28, 2007, you sent defense counsel the proposed victim notification letter indicating that the alleged victims had a federal right to be notified of the resolution of this matter pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights under § 3771. Se Ex i 14, November 29, 2007 Draft Victim Notification Letter from Assistant U.S. Attorney . Mr. Epstein's counsel objected to your draft letter and the proposed method and procedure for notifying the alleged victims and challenged whether you were in fact obligated to notify these individuals pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Those objections were made in a timely and appropriate manner and our dialogue regarding notification issues continued. As you know, the notification letter was not finalized for several months. The key point here is that our objections to the letter were made in good faith and were well-founded. After all, on December 6, 2007, Mr. Acosta agreed to many of our objections and adopted several of our modifications to resolve problems raised by the draft notification letter. See Exhibit 15, December 6, 2007 Letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta to J. Lefkowitz. This fact confirms both the good-faith nature of our objections and that neither Mr. Epstein nor his counsel could be considered to have violated the NPA by raising those objections in the first place. Fourth, Mr. Epstein did not, as you stated, refuse "to fulfill promptly Mr. Epstein's obligation to secure the services of an attorney representative for the victims." Exhibit 1, June EFTA01089226 June 19, 2009 Page 6 15, 2009 Letter at 2. It was the United States' obligation to select a suitable attorney representative, subject to the good-faith approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel. See Exhibit 2, NPA ¶ 7. Indeed, due to a concern we had raised, your Office specificall cd the procedure to select an attorney representative and delegated that task to See Exhibit 16, Addendum to NPA ¶ 7A. Again, the fact that your Office accommo ate our concerns validates their legitimacy and undermines any claim that the NPA was breached by raising those concerns with you. To the contrary, Mr. Epstein executed the Addendum in an attempt to resolve outstanding, high) unorthodox and complex issues at the intersection of civil and criminal law. A letter to (authored by then dated October 25, 2007 followed. See Exhibit 17, October 25, 2007 Letter to Once Mr. Podhurst's firm was selected by MIMI Mr. Epstein did not object to the selection. Moreover, as you have acknowledged to the court, the open issues involving the attorney representative portions of the N were not finally resolved until September 3, 2008. See Exhibit 18, December 22, 2008 Supplemental Declaration at 3 ¶ 9. Only five days later, on September 8, 2008, I sent a letter to Robert Josefsberg advising him that Mr. Epstein would pay his fees pursuant to the NPA for his role as an attorney representative. See Exhibit 19, September 8, 2008 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to R. Josefsberg. Furthermore, in an effort to comply with the obligations under the NPA, Mr. Epstein already has paid Mr. Podhurst's firm over $160,000 in legal fees, despite significant concerns over the scope of the work for which he is billing Mr. Epstein, and has agreed with Mr. Josefsberg's proposal that a Special Master be empowered to resolve any fee related issues that the Podhurst firm and Mr. Epstein's civil counsel cannot resolve. See Exhibit 20, June 15, 2009 Letter from Robert Critton to Kathy Ezell. There is nothing about the exchanges between counsel and the USAO regarding the attorney representative that even begins to approach a "willful" breach by Mr. Epstein. Fifth, you suggest that Mr. Epstein willfully breached the NPA because of the actions of Mr. Tein and Mr. Goldberger, whom you state failed to approve the victim notification letter that contained incorrect information. See Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2. The incorrect information in the letter was a proposed unilateral modification to the NPA without prior approval by Mr. Epstein or any member of the defense team. It was only first suggested by your Office in a letter from Mr. Acosta on December 19, 2007. We never agreed to that language. In fact, I personally raised several objections to the suggested modification in my letter to Mr. Acosta, dated December 21, 2007. See Exhibit 21, December 21, 2007 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta. I personally became aware of the inclusion of that language on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 and discussed the matter with you immediate) . See Exhibits 22 and 23, August 13 and 15, 2008 Letters from Assistant U.S. Attorney to J. Lefkowitz (confirming that the "December modification" is not a part of the NP gain, that oversight was not a willful breach or an expression of intent to violate the terms of the Agreement, but instead represented the efforts of counsel, acting in good faith, in an attempt to insure that the letter contained only previously agreed-upon language. EFTA01089227 June 19, 2009 Page 7 Sixth, you raise the issue of a delayed withdrawal of a motion to quash. See Exhibit I, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2-3. There is no motion to quash that still remains pending. The fact that the motion was not withdrawn for some time was merely due to an administrative oversight that has long been remedied, but at no time did it prejudice the Government in any way. Nor did it result from an effort by myself or co-counsel to gain some tactical advantage. Furthermore, no effort was made by any counsel to seek a judicial decision on the pending motion. The motion had no adverse effect on the Government, and the delay in its withdrawal is legally and factually unrelated to the type of material and willful breach that alone could warrant remedies—not least of all because Mr. Epstein has suffered irreversible prejudice by complying with the core provisions of the NPA. Again, he has been imprisoned, he has pled guilty, he is registered, he has paid sums to claimants, all to comply with his obligations under the NPA. Seventh, you state that additional issues arose in November regarding the issuance of work release to Mr. Epstein. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 3. We have previously reviewed this very matter with you and other individuals in your Office in November 2008. At that time, Mr. Roy Black met with you, in Miami to review the work release issue. mong of er sign' want ocuments shown to you, we presented you with your own email in which you had previously acknowledged that the sheriff had discretion in the matter. See Exhibit 24, July 3, 2008 Email from Assistant U.S. Attorney to ("If Mr. Epstein is truly eligible for the [work release] program, we have no objection to him being treated like any other similarly situated prisoner . . ."). Furthermore, Mr. Acosta, as already stated, had previously assured me and other counsel that the USA° would not interfere in the ordinary implementation of discretionary administrative decisions by state or county officials. We believe we were under no obligation (in the NPA or anywhere else) to notify you of such discretionary and ordinary state-made decisions, and the fact that your Office confirmed that Mr. Epstein was entitled to the same discretionary administrative decisions as other similarly situated inmates fundamentally undermines any claim that Mr. Epstein breached the NPA in connection with the state and county officials' decision. In any event, after thoroughly reviewing and evaluating Mr. Epstein's application, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office properly exercised its discretion, in full compliance with its stated requirements, policies and procedures, to grant Mr. Epstein work release. In addition, after the Sheriff's Office received a multi-page letter from you to =ME, which recited the very allegations of errors on Mr. Epstein's work release application to which you refer in your latest letter, each allegation was fully reviewed, and the Sheriff's office found its initial decision appropriate. Eighth, it is both unreasonable and unjustifiable to hold Mr. Epstein responsible—never mind declare him in breach—with regard to nunc pro tunc order. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 3. Neither Mr. Epstein nor defense counsel had anything to do with and certainly no prior knowledge of this order. Defense counsel only learned of it after you brought it to our attention. The facts are as follows: the Department of Corrections requires an order EFTA01089228 June 19, 2009 Page 8 placing someone on community control before the Department of Corrections will supervise that person. a, the retired judge that took Mr. Epstein's plea, inadvertently neglected to enter the order placing Mr. Epstein on Community Control 1. When learned of this, she properly entered the order nunc pro tunc to the date of the plea. See Exhibit 25, Order of Community Control. If you will note on the 3-page court event form, circled at the top of page 2, is "C.C.1" (community control 1). Mr. Epstein was properly placed on community control 1 on the day of his plea to begin only after he completes his jail sentence, and the nunc pro tunc order simply ratifies the oral pronouncement made by the court at the time of the plea. Given that the NPA expressly provides that Mr. Epstein is to serve a sentence of 12 months in "community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail," Exhibit 2, NPA ¶ 2(b), your assertion that the inclusion of community control "directly contradicted the terms of the" NPA is incorrect. Finally, the motion to dismiss that was the topic of discussion on June 12 has been withdrawn. As indicated in the letter I sent you on June 15, we have adopted an internal screening process aimed at eliminating future concerns about anything that reasonably could be considered a breach of the NPA. See Exhibit 26, June 15, 2009 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to Assistant U.S. Attorney Mr. Epstein has directed all counsel to make certain that no filing could be construed h of the NPA. Furthermore, we proposed a supplemental new process, as stated in my June 15 letter to you, that would have provided you, if you chose, the opportunity to review any such filing before it is submitted to the court so that you may determine whether or not it constitutes a breach. That being said, I wish to reiterate our firm belief that the NPA allowed Mr. Epstein the right to contest litigation whenever an express waiver of all other state, federal or common law claims or the right to bring contested litigation in the future was not sufficiently or correctly pleaded. As you know, we spent several weeks negotiating the language of the NPA with you and Mr. Acosta. We firmly believe that the motion to dismiss that was recently filed (and then promptly withdrawn) did not constitute a violation. First, Paragraph 8 of the NPA clearly limits those who may benefit from any waivers by Mr. Epstein to an "identified individual" who "elects to proceed exclusively under 18 USC 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law". Exhibit 2, NPA ¶ 8. More is required of a plaintiff than to simply allege, as did Jane Doe 101, that she "exclusively seeks civil remedies pursuant to 18 USC 2255." Exhibit 27, Amended Complaint ¶ 24. Such an averment satisfies only the exclusivity portion of the twin conditions set forth in the NPA at ¶ 8. The word "and" followed by the requirement of an affirmative waiver of any other claims, federal, state, or common law mandates an additional affirmative act by the plaintiff. No such waiver was filed or even pled. Jane Doe 101 did no more than restate that her complaint in civil action no 9:09-cv-80591-KAM was only for 2255 damages. She never affirmatively waived all future claims in state or federal court, as required by the NPA. EFTA01089229 June 19, 2009 Page 9 Because of this threshold issue, Jane Doe 101 did not, through the attorney representative, satisfy the NPA ¶ 8 requirements.' While Mr. Epstein's counsel still believe for these reasons that the motion did not conflict with Mr. Epstein's obligations under the NPA, the motion was in relevant part withdrawn at Mr. Epstein's insistence—further demonstrating that Mr. Epstein has prioritized his desire to avoid contentious additional litigation with the USAO over this matter. In short, our good-faith efforts to raise litigation issues will be more carefully scrutinized in the future as to limit the possibility of being construed by your Office as supporting a notice that Mr. Epstein is in "willful" breach. Issues regarding the scope of the ¶ 8 waivers are unorthodox and even unprecedented. They result in part from the NPA being executed before you identified the individuals listed, see Exhibit 2, NPA ¶ 7, and, importantly, given the evolution of the civil litigation, before any joint statement as required by the terms of the NPA was provided to Mr. Josefsberg. Nevertheless, as we stated on June 15, we had intended to provide you with future filings in advance so that we could discuss their interaction with the NPA before rather than after any filing, However given your rejection of that procedure, in a good faith attempt to avoid future conflict, we would nevertheless hope to clarify some of the more ambiguous parts of ¶ 8 of the agreement with you as soon as possible. To repeat, it is Mr. Epstein's overriding intent to fulfill his obligations under the NPA -- an intent we as his attorneys will do everything in our power to effectuate. The facts demonstrate that Mr. Epstein has clearly not committed any breach of the NPA, much less a willful breach. As we have reiterated and as has been proven by Mr. Epstein's own actions, Mr. Epstein has no intention of breaching the NPA and has never had any such intention. Although you claim that Mr. Epstein received the benefits of the NPA and the Government only its burdens, I believe the reality is to the contrary. Mr. Epstein has suffered significant and in-eversible prejudice: he has been imprisoned in a county jail for almost a year, he has pleaded guilty to a state felony that required sex registration and has, in fact, registered as a sex offender, he accepted civil burdens in his ongoing litigation that may result in millions of dollars of future payments, he has settled cases that could be won, in deference to the NPA and he is paying and That Jane Doe 101 did not meet the threshold requirements for the imposition of the waiver of liability portion of Paragraph 8 of the NPA is demonstrated by the filings of Jane Doe II in 09-80469-CIV-Marra, a federal lawsuit filed in March, 2009 seeking "exclusively 2255" damages, while Jane Doe 11 already bad a pending state court suit filed in July of 2008 seeking damages against Epstein for sexual assault and conspiracy. Jane Doe II in her federal complaint alleged Epstein could "not contest liability for claims brought exclusively pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255". Exhibit 27, Amended Complaint 1 24. In her response to Epstein's Motion to Dismiss in which Epstein challenged the "exclusivity" claim, she argued at page 7 that "Epstein appeared to be violating the agreement . . (NPA)". However, her attorney withdrew that claim at the June 12, 2009 hearing (and in her subsequent Amended Response) agreeing that the state filing negated the "exclusivity" of the federal 2255 lawsuit. On the current record, nothing prevents Jane Doe 101 from filing a parallel state court claim. EFTA01089230 June 19, 2009 Page 10 will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for his adversaries to pursue him in court. The Government may have endured some delays and administrative costs due to certain of its own its decision — such as to evaluate the Sheriff's exercise of discretionary authority in implementing the Sheriff's own work release program —but neither the Government nor any civil plaintiff has suffered any harm, any prejudice, or any disadvantage as a result of the events you have identified. We signed a contract -- the NPA -- with you in good faith, and in exchange, Mr. Epstein gave consideration that cannot be returned (12 months of his freedom and his reputation). He is legally entitled to its benefits. He committed no "willful breach." As such, we believe it would constitute both a contractual and constitutional error to seek further remedy or to in any way withdraw from the NPA. We will continue to make our best efforts to communicate with you about any potential problems and hope, in the interest of fairness, you will do the same. Jay . Lefkowitz, P.C. Enclosures EFTA01089231 Exhibit 1 EFTA01089232 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida June 15, 2009 DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Korns an & Stumpf P.A. Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Messrs. Lefkowitz, Goldberger, and Black: I write to confirm my conversation with Mr. Lefkowitz of June 12, 2009. As I mentioned during that conversation and during the hearing with a, the U.S. Attorney's Office is not a party to any of the civil suits against Mr. Epstein pending in the U.S. District Court or any state court and takes no position regarding those lawsuits. The U.S. Attorney's Office is not advising or requiring that Mr. Epstein take any action regarding those lawsuits, rather, Mr. Epstein should proceed as he sees fit. The U.S. Attorney's Office will continue to exercise its independent judgment and proceed in accordance with its rights under the Non-Prosecution Agreement. My statements during our conversation and during the court proceeding contained no promises and did not alter or modify the Non-Prosecution EFTA01089233 JAY P. LEFKOIVITZ, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. Jute 15, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 4 Agreement. I would like to address what appears to be a continuing pattern in this matter. There have been several instances of breaches by Mr. Epstein of the letter and spirit of the Non- Prosecution Agreement, including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. As soon as Notice is provided by the United States, we are told that Mr. Epstein "was relying on his lawyers" and had not intended to willfully breach the Agreement. Mr. Epstein, through those same lawyers, then undertakes a perfunctory "cure" and continues to enjoy the benefit of his bargain until he decides to breach yet again. Notifications of breach have been provided on several occasions in the past. From the start, and as mentioned in extensive correspondence in October and November 2007, Mr. Epstein did not use his "best efforts" to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced within the time frame set by the Agreement. After several appeals were made throughout the Department of Justice resulting in a nine-month delay, the U.S. Attorney's Office had to remind Mr. Epstein of his obligation to provide a copy of the plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office prior to his entering into that agreement. Despite numerous requests, the proposed state plea agreement and notice of the state change of plea were not provided until I sent our first Notice of Breach letter at 3:15 p.m. on the last business day before the plea. Thereafter, I received a copy of the proposed state agreement, which contained language that directly contradicted theNon-Prosecution Agreement. A second Notice of Breach had to be prepared and sent to bring the state plea agreement into compliance. After Mr. Epstein entered his guilty plea and was sentenced, another set of problems arose. First, Mr. Epstein's counsel obstructed our ability to abide by our obligations to notify the victims of the outcome of the federal investigation. Second, Mr. Epstein refused to fulfill promptly Mr. Epstein's obligation to secure the services of an attorney representative for the victims. Third, Messrs. Goldberger and Tein approved the dissemination of a victim notification letter that Messrs. Lefkowitz and Epstein contended contained incorrect information. Fourth, Mr. Epstein's counsel informed the Court that a motion to quash subpoenas was still pending, despite the Non-Prosecution Agreement's requirement that Mr. Epstein withdraw that motion. Extensive correspondence and telephone conferences were required to resolve each of these situations. For example, on July 17, 2008, the United States had to issue a third Notice of Breach, instructing Mr. Epstein's counsel: If, in fact, your position is that the federal criminal action is still pending, then EFTA01089234 JAY P. LEFKOWITL, EsQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GoLDBERGER, ESQ. JUNE 15,2009 PAGE 3 OF 4 the Office proposes that we seek the prompt resolution of the Motion to Quash, so that the computer equipment can be analyzed and the investigation can continue, including the identification of additional victims. If, instead, Mr. Epstein intends to continue performing his, obligations under the Non-Prosecution Agreement, then the investigation will remain closed, and no federal criminal action will be pending. Please advise whether you would like to proceed on the Motion to Quash or, if not, please correct the representations to the Court regarding the status of the federal investigation. In November, more issues arose when we learned—not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that Mr. Epstein was spending more than twelve hours each day outside the Palm Beach County Stockade. Mr. Epstein's release prior to the Office's notification of that release, resulted in accusations from victims that the Office had violated its statutory victim notification obligations. Our investigation of Mr. Epstein's application for the work release program demonstrated that Mr. Epstein made several false statements in his application and made threatening statements to the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office about legal repercussions if he was not admitted to the program. I also discovered-again, not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that had modified Mr. Epstein's judgment none pro tune to an "Order of Community Control I," which directly contradicted the terms of the Non- Prosecution Agreement. This required a fourth Notice ofBreach and another claim that there was no "intended breach" followed by a meaningless "cure." During my conversation with Mr. Leflcowitz of June 12th regarding our fifth written Notice of Breach, and during the proceeding before Judge Marra, I heard again that Mr. Epstein had no intent to breach the Non-Prosecution Agreement but was merely relying on his attorneys. In light of the fact that Mr. Epstein is highly intelligent and experienced with the law, and is reportedly spending more than twelve hours a day at his attorney's office working on nothing but the litigation pending against him, this excuse will not be accepted. This letter is being provided to all three of you with the recommendation that you circulate it to any attorney who is acting on Mr. Epstein's behalf. Importantly, while Mr. Epstein has continued to receive the benefit of his bargain by not facing federal prosecution, our Office has not received the benefits of finality, savings of resources, or the punishment and victim restitution terms envisioned by the Non- EFTA01089235 JAY P. LF.FKOWITZ, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. JUNE 15, 2009 PAGE 4 OF 4 Prosecution Agreement. As I mentioned in our telephone call, I have asked Mr. Josefsberg to provide me with the correspondence that he referenced during the hearing before That will be reviewed to determine if there has been yet another breach by Mr. Epstein. As I stated, and as mentioned in the Notice Letter served upon Mr. Goldberger, notice of any breaches that we discover will be provided as required by the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Our Office also will review the new pleading in the Jane Doe 101 matter that Mr. Lefkowitz mentioned, prior to deciding what, if any, remedies we will pursue for Mr. Epstein's breach. However, I note that, while the U.S. Attorney's Office is required to provide notice of any breach, there is no requirement that Mr. Epstein be allowed the opportunity to cure any breach. The pattern of behavior described above will be factored into the Office's decision on what remedies it will pursue in connection with this most recent breach and any future violations. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney cc: By: Assistant United States Attorney orthem Division EFTA01089236 Exhibit 2 EFTA01089237 IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: (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 18, United States Coda, 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 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), 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(O, with minor females; in violation Page of 7 EFTA01089238 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(eX1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and 11 APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney's Office; IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the Defendant will be served by the following procedure; THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this -at, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the tam of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. Page 2 of 7 EFTA01089239 Terms of the Agreement 1. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to the Indictment as currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXX1433) charging one (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stet § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03; 2. Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: (a) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment; and (b) Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Term 2(a), supra. 3. This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this agreement. 4. The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend any additional charge(s) or any additional tenn(s) of probation and/or incarceration. 5. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph (2), supra. 6. Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all Page 3 of 7 EFTA01089240 proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements. 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution ofthis agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Erztein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. 11. Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be Page 4 of 7 EFTA01089241 sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008. 12. Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida At the United Stales' request, Epstein agrees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. 13. The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his best efforts to ensure compliance with these procatunts, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use his best efforts to convince the Judge of tbe 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement. In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any cri•• against any ential co-conspirators of Epstein including but not limited to Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. Page 5 of 7 EFTA01089242 By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all federal offenses. By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the SouthernDistrict ofFloriAia defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the grand jury's investigation. Epstein fluffier asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the subject ofthe grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as to any such offense. Page 6 of 7 EFTA01089243 By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. It. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: 77a, Dated: Dated: RIII TTORNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA01089244 By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: ASSISTANTU.S. ATTORNEY Dated: JEFFREY EPSTEIN Dated: 7 19- tt 0 7 Dated: wire tall! err7Friiri. r OUNSEL TO EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA01089245 By signing this agreement, Epstein assorts and certifies that the above has been read and expiated to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with tin R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Date& Dated: Dated: Dated4—AE02 — BY: ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN GERALD LEECOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA01089246 Exhibit 3 EFTA01089247 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AJPILJATID emaeutpors Jay P. LefkoeSi. P.C. To Call Watt Disectl . VIA E-MAIL November 29, 2007 Facsimile: R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Alex: I am responding to the draft letter sent to me last night, which purports to be a letter that you would sign and send to eac e individuals whom you have not even identified to us, and'about whom the government has made clear it "takes no position" as to the validity of potential claims that these individuals may have against Mr. Epstein. I cannot reconcile your commitment to "take no position" regarding these potential claims with your intention to sign such a letter, which will surely find its way almost immediately into the press, refers to these individuals as "minor victims," refers to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual predator," misstates the terms of our federal non-prosecution agreement (the "Agreement"), and invites federal witnesses to attend Mr. Epstein's state sentencing in order to give victim impact statements, although they are in most respects not state victims at all. More fundamentally, we don't understand the basis for your Office's belief that it is appropriate for any letter to be sent to these individuals at this stage — before Mr. Epstein has either entered a plea or been sentenced. We respectfully disagree with your view that you are required to notify the alleged victims pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. First, 18 U.S.C. § 2255, the relevant statute under the Agreement for the settlement of civil remedies, does not have any connection to the Justice for All Act The Justice for All Act refers to restitution, and § 2255 is a civil remedy, not a restitution statute. We also believe that the draft letter could not diverge more dramatically from your statement last week that your Office would not intervene in the state process from this point forward, and that you would merely monitor it. Indeed, the letter as currently drafted invites federal witnesses to become participants in a state proceeding, thus federalizing the state plea and sentencing in the same manner as would the appearance and statements of a member of your Office or the FBI. Chktago Wog Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, D.C. EFTA01089248 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta November 29, 2007 Page 2 With that said, I respectfully identify below the specific objections we have with the proposed letter. First, it states that "Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will not contest jurisdiction or liability if [the alleged victims] elect to seek damages from him ..." This language implies that Mr. Epstein has agreed to concede jurisdiction and has waived liability whether or not each individual identified by the government as a "victim" of federal crimes ultimately settles her claim pursuant to the Agreement. The letter as drafted invites the witnesses to whom it is sent to believe that they can litigate their claims without Mr. Epstein being able to contest jurisdiction or liability — a construction of the Agreement that is In direct conflict with its terms. The Agreement we entered makes clear that Mr. Epstein's waiver of jurisdiction and liability is limited to those instances where the identified individual settles with him pursuant to Sections 7 through 8 of the Agreement and Addendum. As you are well aware, Mr. Epstein has no obligation or intention to concede jurisdiction or liability in any claim for damages — by an enumerated "victim" or anyone else — where that party fails to settle her claims pursuant to the tetras of the Agreement. Second, there is no basis to refer to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual predator." Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Mr. Epstein will be required to register as a "sexual offender," not a "sexual predator." Those are very different categories under Florida law. Mr. Epstein has agreed to enter a plea of guilty to two counts of violation of Florida Statutes §§ 796.03 and 796.07. Under Florida law, those charges do not classify him as a sexual predator. See Florida Statute § 775.21(4)(a). Rather, he is only a sexual offender as defined by Florida Statute § 943.0435(1Xa). To identify Mr. Epstein as a sexual predator, in this letter or elsewhere, is inaccurate and would irreparably harm him. Third, we find no basis in law that provides the identified individuals with either a right to appear at Mr. Epstein's plea and sentence, or to submit a written statement to be filed by the State Attorney. According to Florida Statutes §§ 960.001(k) and 921.143(1), the sentencing court permits only "the victim of the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced ... to [a]ppear before the sentencing court for the purpose of making a statement under oath for the record; and [s]ubmit a written statement under oath to the office of the state attorney, which statement shall be filed with the sentencing court" Florida Statute § 960.001(k) citing § 921.143(1) (emphasis added). Here, Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to, and being sentenced for, state offenses, not the federal offenses under which the government has recognized these identified individuals as "victims." The state charges for which Mr. Epstein will be sentenced are not coextensive with the federal investigation. Under Florida law, only those persons identified as victims of the state offenses may make a statement at the hearing or submit a written statement EFTA01089249 KIRKLAND &ELLIS LW It. Alexander Acosta November 29, 2007 Page 3 With respect, encouraging these individuals to participate in the state sentencing will have the effect of creating a media frenzy that will surely impact the sentence Mr. Epstein receives — precisely what your Office promised to avoid. Such an intrusion into state affairs, when the identified individuals are not even victims of the crime for which Mr. Epstein is being sentenced is highly inappropriate. The federal investigation of Mr. Epstein has been concluded, and witnesses or civil claimants identified as purported victims of federal offenses have no place in the state proceeding. We also think it will likely promote spurious civil litigation against Mr. Epstein, a result that would be highly irresponsible to encourage. Fourth, we take serious issue with the assertion in the letter that the government has identified each recipient of the letter as a "minor victim." The term "minor victim" is notably absent from the Agreement. Section 7 of the Agreement states only that the government will provide a list of individuals "whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255." Indeed, you have told us that at least one identified individual is currently 24 years old, and thus would appear not to have been a minor at the time of the alleged conduct (and therefore is presumably not eligible to settle her claims under the Agreement). To confer on these women the imprimatur of a government "finding" is both incendiary and unwarranted. Fifth, your letter mischaracterizes the nature of Mr. Epstein's liability under the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 provisions of the Agreement. Your letter states that every individual who receives the letter is a victim of "certain offenses, including travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution." This construction implies that these individuals are all victims of both offenses (travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution.) Clearly that is not the case. Consequently, the language should be revised to reflect that the identified individuals may be victims of certain offenses, but not necessarily both offenses. Additional! for the sake of fairness and candor, we believe the same language contained in your letter to stating that "[t]be United States takes no position as to the validity of any such c arm under this statute," should be included in any proposed letter. Sixth, your letter states that Mr. Podhurst and Mr. Josefsberg may "represent" the identified individuals. Since we have not yet had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Podhurst or Mr. Josefsberg (though we hope to do so this week), we do not know that they will even agree to serve in this capacity. Since I believe the role you are casting for these attorneys creates a significant ethical problem, specifically the conflict between counseling the clients to settle for the statutory amount and rewarding the attorneys for litigating rather than settling their claims, I would not assume that they, or any ethical attorney, would agree to accept this assignment as you define it. Whether that will mean that other attorneys will have to be sought, or you will realize that the role is untenable as described, either result will require modification of the letter. EFTA01089250 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta November 29, 2007 Page 4 Seventh, the identified individuals should not contact lawyers in your Office or agents of the FBL To encourage these individuals to contact federal law enforcement officials is entirely inconsistent with your promise that there will be no hither federal involvement in this case. Moreover, such contact can only invite the possibility for impermissible or partial communications. Recently, you asked the defense not to contact potential witnesses in this matter in part because the Agreement contemplated the selection of an attorney representative. For the same reason there should be no continuing invitation for the witnesses to remain in contact with either your Office or the FBI. Any questions these individuals may have regarding their rights under the Agreement should be answered byalor the attorney representative. Eighth, this letter should be mailed rather than delivered by hand. We see no reason for hand delivery, and moiling will ensure that there are no impemtissible or partial communications made to the identified individuals upon delivery of the letter. If your Office insists on hand delivery of any such letter, however, it should only be made by a third party service, not by law enforcement agents. Final! as you know, Judge Starr has requested a meeting with o address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the § 2255 component of the Agreement We are hopeful that this meeting will take place as early as next week. Accordingly, we respectfully request that we postpone our discussion of sending a letter to the alleged victims until after that meeting. We strongly believe that rushing to send any letter out this week is not the wisest manner in which to proceed. Given that Mr. Epstein will not even enter his plea for another few weeks, time is clearly not of the essence regarding any notification to the identified individuals. Sincerely, PPP EFTA01089251 Exhibit 4 EFTA01089252 12/04/07 TUE 16:4€ FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida R. ALEXANDER ACOVA tomnisrenzA770NNEY DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Kenneth W. Staff, Esq Kirkland & Ellis J-LP Re: Jeffrey Enstein Dear Mr. Starr. 1 write in response to your November 281° letter, in which you raise concerns regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement between this Office and your client, Mr. Epstein. l take these concerns seriously. As your letter focused on the Section 2255 portion of the Agreement, my response will focus primarily on that issue as well. I do wish to make some more general observations, however. Section 2255 provides that "[a]ny person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of [enumerated sections of Title 18] and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation . may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." Thus, had this Office proceeded to trial, and had Mr. Epstein been convicted, the victims of his actions would have been able to seek to relief under this Section. The Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (1) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable" offense; (2) that this plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. This third point deserves elaboration. The intent is to place the victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. With this in mind, I turn to the language of the Agreement. Paragraph 8 of the Agreement provides: Ifany ofthe individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supna, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States cio EFTA01089253 12/04/07 TUB 18:48 FAX mamas OFFICE District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter,' and Epstein waives his light to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified victim and Epstein, so long as the identified victim elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement is not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability other than that contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Although these two sentences are far from simple, they appear to incorporate our intent to narrowly tailor the Agreement to place the identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. i would note that lhave conferred with our prosecutors and have been told that Paragraph 8 was vigorously negotiated and that the final language was suggested largely by defense counsel. The concerns raised in your letter with respect to Paragraph 8 fall within several general categories. First, you raise concerns regarding the nature of Section 2255. As you note, Section 2255 is a civil statute implanted in the criminal code; in contrast to other criminal statutes, Section 2255 fails to correlate payments to specific injuries or losses. Instead the statute presumes that victims have sustained damages of at least a minimum lump sum without regard to whether the complainants suffered actual medical, physiological or other forms of individualized harm. These concerns were, I would expect, aired when Congress adopted this statute. Even if they were not, this provision is now law. Rule of law requires now requires this District to consider the victims' rights under this statute in negotiating this Agreement. Second, you raise COnCernS regarding the identity-of-the-victims issue. Your concerns appear based on the belief that Paragraph 8 is a blanket waiver of liability with respect to any number of unnamed and undisclosed victims. I would invite you to confer with your co-counsel regarding this matter. Although the language of Paragraph 8 could be so construed, our First Assistant informed Mr. Lefkowitz some weeks ago that this was not our position. As Mr. Lefkowitz has noted, were Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims in a subsequent Section 2255 suit would still have had some burden to prove that they were `victims." it is also the case, however, that were Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims would not have to show that a violation of an enumerated section of Title 18 took place. Accordingly, our First Assistant informed Mr. Lefknwitz some weeks ago that we understood that if a victim-plaintiff elects to proceed to trial, Mr. Epstein's Although not identified as an issue by defense °sunset, having reviewed this language, !note that Paragraph S raises the question of what is mem by "subject matter." I have conferred with the AUSA who negotiated this language, and have been informed that parties intended this to address issues of venue. This Office will not interpret this paragraph as any waiver of subject matterjuriscliction. Please inform me if defense counsel disagrees. la003 EFTA01089254 12/04/07 TUE 16:47 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE e004 legal team might conduct due diligence to confirm the that victim-plaintiff in fact had inappropriate contact with Mr. Epstein. Once again, our interpretive principle is our intent to place the victim in the same position she would have beat had Mr. Epstein proceeded to trial. Third, you raise concerns regarding our decision not to create a restitution Rind. Throughout the negotiations, defense counsel suggested several similar arrangements, including a Trust fund. Again, our decision not to create a fund flows from our belief that the Agreement should provide the same relief to the victims as they would have been entitled had we proceeded to trial A restitution fund or trust fund would place an upper limit on the victims' recovery. It is not for this Office to make that decision for the victims. They may choose to walk away, they may choose to settle., or they may choose to sue. The choice should remain with each individual victim? Fourth, you raise concerns regarding the selection process for the attorney representative. As you may be aware, the suggestion that we appoint an attorney representative originated with defense counsel. Defense counsel, I believe, found it advantageous to attempt to negotiate a settlement of the many victims' claims with one attorney representative. My Office agreed to appoint such a representative, in part, because we too thought it valuable for the victims to have the advice of an attorney wbo could advise them of their choices: whether to walk away, to settle or to sue. Since the signing of the Agreement, several issues have arisen with respect to this provision. First, I elected to assi cc's right to appoint the representative to an independent third-party, former federal 1 did this to avoid any suggestion that this Office's choice of representative was intended to influence the outcome of civil litigation. Second, your co-counsel expressed concerns similar to those raised in your letter regarding the criteria used to select the representative. These criteria were: (1) Experience doing both plaintiffs' and defense litigation; (2) Experience with state and federal statutory and common law tort claims; (3) Ability to communicate effectively with young women; (4) Experience litigating against large law firms and high profile attorneys who may test the veracity of the victims' claims; (5) Sensitivity to the nature of the suit and the victims' interest in maintaining their privacy; (6) Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida; 'Your letter references U.S. v Boehm, No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Ala 2004) as a model for a restitution fund settlement I asked our prosecutor to contact the AUSA in that case. In that matter, the District of Alaska sought out and obtained the consent of all the victims before entering into that settlement. In addition, they developed an elaborate procedure for deciding which victim would receive what My view, in this case, is that those types of negotiations am better handled between Mr. Epstebi and thc victims' represcomtivcs, and that this Office should not act as intermediary. Einally,1 would note that in Boehm a well, the victims' identities were not Initially disclosed. As the AUSA wrote in that case: 'This filing is made cxaim because Boehm, in his plea agmonent, waived any rights he had penaining to the stkction of beneficiaries and the disbursement of funds to such beneficiaries?' EFTA01089255 12/6.4107 TUE 16:47 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE (7) The resources to hire experts and others, while working on a contingency fee basis. in order to prepare for trial if a settlement cannot be reached (defense counsel has reserved the right to challenge such litigation); and (8) The ability to negotiate effectively. At my direction, our First Assistant provided our criteria to your co-cotmset, Mr. Leficowitz, in advance, and at co-counsel's request, he noted in our communication with defense counsel's objection to criteria 7. I have now reviewed these criteria and find them a anced and reasonable. They appear designed to provide the victims with an attorney who can advise them on all their options, whether it be to walk away, to settle (as your client prefers), or to litigate. Again, our intent is not to favor any one of these options, but rather to leave the choice to each victim. Fifth, you assert that this Office "has improperly insisted that the chosen attorney representative should be able to litigate the claims of the individuals," should a resolution not be possible. This issue, likewise, has already been raised and addressed in discussions between your co-counsel and our First Assistant We understand your position that it would be a conflict of interest for the attorney representative to subsequently represent victim-plaintiffs in a civil suit. Your interpretation of the ethics rules may be correct, or it may be wrong. Far from insisting that the attorney representative can represent victim-plaintiffs in subsequent litigation, our First Assistant and I have repeatedly told defense counsel that we take no position on this matter. Indeed, I fully expect your defense team to litigate this issue with the attorney representative if a resolution is not reached. I have responded personally and in some detail to your concerns because I deeply care about both the law and the integrity of this Office. I have responded personally and in some detail as well because your letter troubled me on a number of levels. My understanding of the negotiations in this matter informs my concerns. The Section 2255 provision issue was fast discussed at a Jul 31, 2007, meeting between West Palm Beach and two FBI agents met with Roy ac , Le:court, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. On that date, the prosecutors presented a written, four-bullet-point term sheet that would satisfy the federal interest in the case and discussed the substance of those terms. One of these four points was the following provision: Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject matter. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s) 2422 and/or 2423. -4- toes EFTA01089256 12/04/07 TIE 18:48 PAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE In mid August 2007, your defense team, dissatisfied with my staff's review ofthe case, asked to meet with me. Mr. Lefkowtiz indicated your busy schedule, and asked me to put off until September 7,2007, so that you could attend. Mr. Lefkowitz also indicated that he might appeal my decision to Washington D.C„ if my decision was contrary to his client's interest. I agreed to the September Ts meeting, despite the fact that our AUSA had an indictment ready for presentation to the grandjury. An explicit condition ofthat agreement, however, was anunderstanding between Mr. Lelkowitz and myself that any appeal to Washington would be undertaken expeditiously. Ou September 7, 2007, I, along with and FBI agents, met with you, Mr. Lefkosvitz, and Ms. Sanchez. I understood that you wished to present federalism-based concerns regarding our prosecution. To ensure a full consideration of your arguments, l invited Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, to travel from Washington to attend our meeting. During the September it meeting, your co-counsel, Mr. Lcfkowitz, offered a plca resolution. The inclusion of a Section 2255 remedy was specifically raised and discussed at the September it meeting. Indeed, according to the gM notes, you thanked her for bringing it to your attention. Again, no objection to n 55 issue Secti was raised. After consideri the ar is raised at the September 7* meeting, and after conferring with the FBI and wit) our Office decided to proceed with the indictment. At that time, I reminded Mr. owitz t e previously indicated his desire to appeal such a decision to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, and I offered to direct our prosecutorsto delay the presentation of the indictment to allow you or he to appeal our decision if you so chose. lie decided not to do so. Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiatetheNon-Prosecution Agreement These negotiations were detailed and time-consuming. Mr. Epstein's defense team, including yourself, Professor Dershowitz, former United States Attorney Guy Lewis, Ms. Lilly Ann Sanchez and Messrs. Roy Black, Jack Goldberger, Gerry Leicourt and Jay Lcfkowitz had the opportunity to review and raise objections to the terms of the Agreement Again, no one raised objections to the Section 2255 language. Since the signing of the Agreement, the defense team and our Office have addressed several issues that have arisen under the Agreement. Although the exchanges were at times a bit litigious, it appears that these issues have been resolved by mutual consent, some in favor of your client, some not so. It is against these many previous foregone opportunities to object that I receive with surprise your letter requesting an II * hour, after-the-fact review of our Agreement. Although it happens rarely, I do not mind this Office's decision being appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although I am confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal analysis, I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in the Criminal EFTA01089257 12/04/07 TUE 18:48 FAX EZECUFIVE OFFICE Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving their indictment package. Ism thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in fact resolved, in your client's favor. I am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement. The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must be closure on this matter. Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind. Finally, I am most concerned about any belief on the part of defense counsel that the Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitutional in any way.' In closing, I would ask that you consult with co-counsel. If after consultations within the defense team, you believe that our Agreement is unethical, unlawful or unconstitutional, I would ask that you notify us immediately so that we can discuss the matter by phone or in person. I have consulted with the chief prosecutor in this case, who has advised me that she is ready to unwind the Agreement and proceed to trial if necessary or if appropriate. I would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although time is of the essence ft understand that certain filings are due to our Office no later than December 7'1 and that certain events must take place no later than December 1411), lam directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options with your client. We are available by phone or in person, in the interim, to 3 It is not clear from your Vetter whether you believe that attorneys in this mike have acted improperly. Your idler, for example, alludes to the need to engage in an inquiry to assure that disclosures to potential wimesses did not undermine the reliability of the results of this frAent investigation. As a former Decimate of Justice attorney, I am certain that you recognize that this is a serious allegation. l have raised this matter with -who informed me that the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 relief during the investigation phase of this matter. If you have specific concerns, I ask that you raise these with me immediately, so that I can make appropriate inquiries. %007 EFTA01089258 12/04/07 TUB 18:48 PAZ EXECUTIVE OFFICE a008 address any matters that might remain unaddressed in this letter. We expect a written decision by this Friday at 5 p.m., indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the Agreement. Sincerely, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY cc: a Assistant Attorney General INIMISFyst.... Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA01089259 Exhibit 5 EFTA01089260 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND ATILMItt. PASIMISMIPS Kenneth W. Slam To Call Mat Directly: Facsimile' December 11, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE - Honorable R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Alex: As we discussed during our telephone conversations on both Friday and Monday (yesterday), we are submitting two separate letters that address our broad areas of deep concern in this matter: First, the cluster of fundamental policy issues surrounding the use and implementation of 2255, a richly policy-laden but uncharted area of federal law; and second, our profound concerns as to the background and conduct of the investigation. Consistent with our conversations, we submit these letters with the assurance and understanding that our doing so in no manner constitutes a breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement or unwinds that Agreement. We are grateful for your courtesy in agreeing to receive and consider these submissions, and then to meet to discuss them. As you undertake your study and reflection, kindly allow me to make this pivotal point In the combined 250 years experience of Jeffrey's defense team, we have together and individually concluded that this case is not only extraordinary and unprecedented, it is deeply and uniquely troubling. The constellation of issues, large and small, renders Jeffreys matter entirely sui genesis. We say this not lightly. Indeed, as you will glean from our two letters, we are gravely concerned that, in addition to its odd conceptualization and genesis, the matter in its day-to-day implementation has been handled in a manna that raises deeply troubling questions with respect to both federal policy and individual judgment in a system that is, at its best, assiduously devoted to the rule of law. The latest episodes involving 2255 notification to the alleged victims put illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice, time and again, are not being served. By way of illustration, but it is only one among a cascading list of grave concerns, we now understand that the Assistant United States Atto whose has troubled us from day one has quite recently reached out to the attorney for and Chicago Hong Kong London Munich New York San Francisco Washington. D.C. EFTA01089261 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Honorable R. Alexander Acosta December II, 2007 Page 2 provided oral notification of the victim notification letter. This notification, as we have stated time and again, is profoundly unfair. But quite apart from our substantive concerns, which are abiding and which bad prompted our appeal to the Assistant Attorney General in the first instance, we had thought that the notification process had been held in abeyance until completion of our ongoing discussions with respect to that process. That appears not to be so. This latest in a baleful line of prosecutorial actions is dri with irony. We respectfully call your attention to the transcript of the interview with and guide you — as the duly confirmed Executive Branch official charged with making judgments consistent with our constitutional order — to the telling fact that Ms. Miler did not in any manner view herself as a victim. Quite to the contrary. She is not alone. We draw attention to this episode as but a recent indication of the deepening need for your thoughtful and independent review. And for your agreeing to provide that review, our defense team is very grateful. Respectfully Submitted, EFTA01089262 Exhibit 6 EFTA01089263 12/19/07 WED 17:03 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida A Al.EXANDER ACOSTA UNFEJ) STATES ATTORNRY December 19, 2007 DELIVERY BY FACSIMJLZ Lilly Ann Sanchez Fowler White Burnett, PA Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. Sanchez: I write to follow up on the December 14'" meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors, as welt as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' write to you because I am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this letter. I address issues raised by several members of the defense team, and would thus ask that you please provide a copy of this letter to all appropriate defense team members. First, I would like to address the Section 2255 issue.2 As I stated in my December 44 letter, my understanding is that the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections 'Over the past two weeks, we have received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits from defense counsel. This is not the forum to respond to the several items raised, and our silence should not be interpret as agreement; I would, however, likc to address one issue. Your December 11th letter states that as a result of defense counsel objections to the appointment process, the USA() proposed an addendum to the Agreement to provide fur the use of an independent third party selector. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowledge of defense counsel objections, I nio sponte proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowit% at an October meeting in Palm Beach. I did this in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process. It was only after I proposed this change that Mr. lzfkowitz raised with me his enumerated concerns. 2 Section 2255 provides that "laity person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of (enumerated sections of Title ISj and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation . . . may sue in any appropriate United States District court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, Including a reasonable attorney's fee." EFTA01089264 ... 12/19/07 WED 17:03 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE rib 003 of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (1) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerabie" state offense; (2) that this state plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. With this in mind, I have considered defense counsel arguments regarding the Section 2255 portions of the Agreement. As i previously observed, our intent has been to place the victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. From our meeting, it appears that the defense agrees that this was the intent. During the course of negotiations that intent was reduced to writing in Paragraphs 7 and 8, which as i wrote previously, appear far from simple to understand. I would thus propose that we solve our disagreements over interpretations by saying precisely what we mean, in a simple fashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 and 8 with the following language: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation o fan offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Second, I would like to address the issue of victim's rights pursuant to Section 3771. I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense as a courtesy. in addition, lready incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether be wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes. Third, I would like to address the issue raised regarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At our meeting, Professor Dershowitz took the position that Mr. Epstein believes that his conduct does not satisfy the elements of this offense. His assertion raises for me substantial concerns. This Office will not, and cannot, be a party to an agreement in which Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to an offense that he believes he did not commit. We are considering how best to proceed. 2 EFTA01089265 12/19/07 WED 17:04 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE (4004 Finally, I would like to address a more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on September 24th, 2007. Pursuant to paragraph I1, Mr. Epstein was to use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced no later than October 26,2007. As outlined in correspondence between our prosecutors and defense counsel, this deadline came and went. Our prosecutors reiterated to defense counsel several times their concerns regarding delays, and in fact, asked me several weeks ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. I resisted that invitation. I share this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an 1 lth hour appeal, weeks before the now scheduled January 4th plea date. This said, the issues raised am important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns. We hope to preserve the January 4th date. I understand that defense counsel shares our desire not to move that appearance and will work with our office to expedite this process over the next several days. With this in mind, and in the event that defense counsel may wish to seek review r determinations in Washington D.C., I spoke this past Monday with the Assistant Attorney to inform her of a possible appeal, to ask her to grant the potential request for review, and to in fact review this case in an expedited manner to attempt to preserve the January 4* plea date. I want to again reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial, and he should do so if he believes that he did not commit the elements of the charged offense. I will respond to the pending issues shortly. In the interim, I would ask that you communicate your position with respect to the sections 2255 and 3371 issues as quickly as possible. Sincerely, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY cc: Assistant Attorney General First Assistant U.S. Attorney 3 EFTA01089266 Exhibit 7 EFTA01089267 Jay Letkowitz/New York/Kirkland-Ellis 02129200803:11 PM Dear Alex, To cc bcc Subject Fw: Epstein I received the attached email from his week and to put it mildly, I was shocked. As you will recall, back at the beginning of January, w n we both agreed that there were significant Irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement, you called a time-out. You had decided to ask Drew's Office to take a look at the matter and suggested that we would be hearing him within days. At that time, we welcomed the development -- especially given that we had reason to be concerned that some of the individuals in your Office were not acting appropriately in relation to this matter. In particular, we were very concerned that one of your prosecutors had given a substantial amount of information to a New York Times reporter -- telling him not only about specific aspects of our plea negotiations, but also sharing with him details a ' ry concerning what laws you believe Mr. Epstein has violated. In broad strokes, told Mr. Thomas that the Office was contemplating charging Mr. Epstein under Sections 2422(b) (with a full discussion of principal liability), 2423, and 1591. He also complained about Mr. Epstein's I ers and told Mr. Thomas not to "believe the spin from Mr. Epstein's high priced attorneys: even informed Mr. Thomas that we had "asked for privately paid aimed guards" as pa o a ouse arrest proposal we had made. Even more surprising, he subsequently told Mr. Thomas that we had learned of the conversation, complained about it and suggested an explanation. Needless to say, we were very troubled by these conversations. At this same time, we agreed that in order to providelpla sufficient amount of time to evaluate the matter, it made sense to move the deadline for state o March, which we did. I was therefore quite surprised to receive, in rapid succession, a call from asking to begin the review process and then only two days later, an email from =informing me o new and extremely short and arbitrary deadlines. The one thing I had become certain about in this case was that you were sincere in your desire to ensure that the DOJ took a proper and principled position with respect to this matter, and that you fully accepted our desire, and our right, to appeal any adverse decision by your Office to the DOI In fact, on several occasions — including our meeting before Thanksgiving in your Office — you stated precisely as much to me. That is why I am so surprised by _latest email. We are very interested in having the meetings you suggested with It would be very unfortunate to begin the review process that you have asked conduct an a e same time artificially constrict it As you know, the timing of a thorough review would cause no p thare to the government's prosecution of Mr. Epstein. To the contrary, we hope that our dialogue wi will allow for the government to make a more informed decision concerning this matter. We have been waiting eageLyl for a call fromMfor nearly two months. Now that he is prepared to meet with us, it is unfair for= to seek tcaose artificial deadlines. Since I will be in trial next week, we are planning to begin our meetings with during the second week in March. I sincerely hope we can resolve this matter in the near future. To be dear -- at this stage -- we are not asking for anything but the same due process that you promised to afford to us when we last spoke in early January. Best, Jay cc: ■ EFTA01089268 Exhibit 8 EFTA01089269 Jay, "<al i iSAR-S" To < cc 02/29/2008 07:17 PM bcc Subject Epstein I know you emailed the U.S. Attorney but I feel compelled to respond. In my Monday, February 2? email, I tried to express my concern, on behalf of the SDFL, about additional delays concerning this matter and the desire to expedite review without interfering or restricting the process. When you replied on Wednesday , February 27th, it seemed to me that nothing had much changed. Your email stated "because I ant currently scheduled to be on trial all next week in Delaware, I don't think we will actually be able to begin meeting with until the following week, at the earliest." I felt that no effort was being made towards scheduling, and that, at the very least, one of Mr. Epstein's other lawyers could have attempted to schedule a meeting with CEOS. To put it another way, it appeared to me that this matter was going to drag unnecessarily. Obviously you sensed my frustration in my responding email which, in turn, generated your email to the USA. Late this afternoon, I was informed that you have scheduled a meeting with CEOS for March 12th. Obviously, I am heartened to hear of this development. Please be assured that it is not, and never has been, this Office's intent to interfere with or restrict the review process for either Mr. Epstein or CEOS. I leave it to you and CEOS to figure out how best to proceed and will await the results of that process. EFTA01089270 Exhibit 9 EFTA01089271 USAFLST `I MM . 05/28/2008 04:51 PM Mr. Leflcowitz, To cc bcc Subject Jeffrey Epstein The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was recently notified that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, at your request, intends to review certain aspects of the investigation involving Mr. Epstein's sexual conduct involving minor victims. Naturally, until the DAG's Office has completed its review, this Office has postponed the current June 2, 2008 deadline requiring compliance by your client with the terms and conditions of the September 24, 2007 global resolution of state and federal liabilities, as modified by the United States Attorney's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Sincerely, First Assistant US Attorney Southern District of Florida EFTA01089272 Exhibit 10 EFTA01089273 Jack Goldberger From: Jack Goldberger Sent: Friday, June 27, 200810:22 AM To: Jack Goldberger Subject: FW: Have a great weekend! Attachments: PLEA.Epsteln.doc From: Lanna 8elobtavek (mato Sent Friday, June 27, 200810:00 AM To: Jadc Goldberger Subject Have a great weekend! 1 EFTA01089274 Exhibit 11 EFTA01089275 Jack Goldberger Sent aly.. li ewa le , 008(11:31ANI From: USAFLS) To: Jack Goldberger Cc: AlidnsonJCuen (USAFLS); Subject: Re: Notice of Non-Compliance Dear Jack: • I have conferred with a state court practitioner who stated that there is nothing that prohibits you from agreeing to a consecutive six-month sentence of incarceration followed by one year of community control as specified in the non-prosecution agreement. If you elect to proceed with the plea agreement as currently drafted, we ask that you insert the word "imprisoned" following the words "six months" in the second sentencing paragraph. Please confirm that this change is acceptable. Thank you. Original Message From: Jack Goldberger < To: Cc: Jack Goldberger Sent: Sat Jun 28 08:49:55 2008 Subject: RE: Notice of Non-Compliance Dear please allow this e-mail to confirm our telephone conference of 6:38 pm on June 27 wherein we discussed the Epstein plea agreement and we agreed that the Epstein state plea agreement was in compliance with the September 2007 non-prosecution agreement entered into between Mr. Epstein and the USA° for the Souhern District of Florida. Jack Goldberger From: I M=. (USAFLS) [mailto ] Sent: Fri 772008S: PM To: Jack Goldberger; Roy BLACK Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Notice'of Non-Compliance Dear Messrs. Goldberger and Black: Please see the attached Notification Letter. «080627 Goldberger Black notification ltr.pdf» Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA01089276 Exhibit 12 EFTA01089277 PLEA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT THE FOLLOWING IS TO REFLECT ALL TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT Name: Jeffrey E. Epstein Plea GuiltyI Case No. Charge Count Lesser Decree 06CF009454AMB Felony Solicitation of Prostitution 1 No 3 FEL 08CF009381AMB Procuring Person Under 18 for Prostitution 1 No 2 FEL PSI: Waived/Not Required X Required/Requested ADJUDICATION: Adjudicate fx SENTENCE: On 06CF009454AMS, the Defendant is sentenced to 12 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, with credit for 1 (one) day time served. On 08CF009381AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 18 months Community Control 1 (one). As a special condition of this Community Control, the Defendant must serve the first 6 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, with credit for 1 (one) day time served. This sentence is to be served consecutive to the 12 month sentence in 06CF009454AMB. The conditions of community control are attached hereto and incorporated herein. OTHER COMMENTS OR CONDITIONS• Court Costs: $474.00 Cost of Prosecution: $50.00 Drug Trust Fund: $50.00 As a special condition of his community control, the Defendant is to have no unsupervised contact with minors, and the supervising adult must be approved by the Department of Corrections. The Defendant is designated as a Sexual Offender pursuant to Florida Statute 943.0435 and must abide by all the corresponding requirements of the statute, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Defendant must provide a DNA sample in court at the time of this plea. Assistant State Attorney Attorney for the Defendant Date of Plea Defendant EFTA01089278 PLEA IR THE CIRCUIT COURT THE FOLLOWING IS TO REFLECT ALL TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT Name: Jeffrey E. Epstein Plea: Guilty A Case No. Charge Count Lesist DII'M DISCF0094.54AMB Felony Soholtabon of Prostitution 1 No 3 FEL 03CF009381AMES Proetritig Person Under is for Prosthuhon 1 No 2 RM. PSI: Waived/Not Required Requited/Requested ADJUDICATION: Adjudizate Ix j BE.NTENCE: On 06Cf009464AhlEL the Defendant Is sentenced to 12 months in the Palm BeaN:i County Detention FaciSy, lab crede for *I (one) day time served. On OBCFOOSGMAIVIB, the Defendant is sentenced to 6 moral-Min the Paha Beach County Detention Facilay, with credit for i (one) day time served. This 6 month sentence to be served consecutive to the 12 month sentence in trazoa94.54AmB. Following this 6 . ' month sentenm, the Defendant will be placed on 12 months Community Control 1 (one). • The conditions of community ....Abut are attached hereto and incorporated herein. OTHER COailb.NTS OR CORDATIOHS: As a special condition of his community control, the De cant b to have no unsupervised contact With minors, and the stpervteirra adult must he pproved by the Department of Comedians. The Defendant is designateei as a Sexual Offender pursuant to Florida Statute 943.0425 and must abide by all the corresponding requirements of the statute, a copy of which e attached hereto and incorporated herein. of ir The Defendant must provide a DNA sample in court at the time of . Pea EFTA01089279 Exhibit 13 EFTA01089280 KIRKLAND & ELLIS nr Jay P. tincovnlz, P.C. To CalWriter D VIA E-MAIL, Alexamer Acosta United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida Dear Alex: AVD PAntalefillIS Cili rou Contor vrww.kirkland.corn October 10, 2007 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Confidential. For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 408. I write as a follow up to ow conversation yesterday regarding the open issues that remain ( stein matter. As you are aware, we continue to have serious disagreements with IMI regarding the nature of the settlement process for identified individuals' § 2255 claims. Legal representation in a lawsuit was never contemplated by the Federal Plea Agreement (the "Agreement'). Over the course of the negotiations of the Agreement, the parties worked diligently to create an alternative dispute resolution for those identified individuals seeking a civil remedy for the conduct at issue, in an effort to avoid long drawn out disputes over liability in public adversarial litigations. Initially, we proposed that Mr. Epstein create a trust whereby a trustee would be appointed by the Circuit Court to di to the identified individuals ja i. based on a good faith showing of injury. In response, proposed the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the identified indivi s, not an attorney, which suggests that litigation was never contemplated by either party. Ultimately, the parties agreed to Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement, which allow for a single attorney representative to settle the claims of the identified individuals and create a procedural alternative to public adversarial litigation. In keeping with the parties' understandin o P s 7 and 8, you sho w that we are in agreement with your choice of but we believe should act as the attorney representative to settle claims pursuant to the Agreement and the parties' does not contemplate litigation with i‘bia.iet to the attorney representative, work longstanding understanding of the settlement process. Because the process agreed to to negotiate settlements with the identified individuals without further involvement by the government or its agents. Below, I've outlined our main areas of concern with the approach MI Hong Kong Landon Los Angeles 0AuMch San Francisco Washington. EFTA01089281 Confidential. For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 408. R Alexander Acosta October 10, 2007 Page 2 has taken regarding the role of the attorney representative and the settlement process for § 2255 claims pursuant to Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement First Issue: The Settlement Process and the Role of the Attorney Representative. The settlement procedure we propose, and which we believe is made clear by the Agreement, is reasonable and consistent with the intention of the parties: the attorney representative will represent the identified individuals provided they opt to enter into a settlement agreement with Mr. Epstein with respect to their § 2255 claims. The attorney representative will negotiate a total settlement amount with Mr. Epstein. Once the United States has formally declined to prosecute Mr. Epstein in this matter, and each identified individual electing to settle has waived her right to pursue any other claims against Mr. Epstein, the attorney representative will distribute the proceeds in the manner he sees fit. If the identified individuals cannot settle or opt not to settle on a damages amount with Mr. Epstein, then the attorney representative may not continue his representation and is barred from filing lawsuits pursuant to § 2255 and the identified individuals would not be suing under § 2255 as contemplated by Paragraph 8. Based on the specific language in the contract and the intent of both parties, we believe that the Agreement clearly provides that the identified individuals may opt to make use of the attorney representative so long as they can reach a settlement agreement with Mr. Epstein. If the parties cannot settle on a damages amount with Mr. Epstein, then the attorney representative may not continue his representation and is barred from filing lawsuits pursuant to § 2255. The protons of the Agreement make clear that the role of the attorney representative is limited to settling claims brought by identified individuals pursuant to the Agreement While Paragraph 7 defines who may be represented by the attorney representative, Paragraph 8 outlines the scope of that representation. Paragraph 7 states: The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and has been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. Under Paragraph 8 of the Agreement, which provides the terms of the representation, the attorney trio eseutative is only appointed to protect the interests of those identified individuals who elect to waive any claim for damages other than the damages agreed to by the parties. Paragraph 8 states: If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file snit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ova this person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the EFTA01089282 Confidential For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 008. IL Alexander Acosta October 10, 2007 Page 3 identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. Paragraph 8 addresses how Mr. Epstein's waivers are triggered pursuant to a settlement with each identified individual. Paragraph 8 is clear that Mr. Epstein will only waive § 2255 liability "so long as" each identified individual proceeds exclusively under § 2255 and agrees to waive damages other than "an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein." The Agreement's silence with tet.p‘a to what happens if the parties cannot settle on a damages amount indicates that the parties intended for the scopc of the attorney representative's representation to be limited to settling claims with Mr. Epstein, not representing these identified individuals in § 2255 lawsuits. however, insists that the attorney representative's duties include pursuing a lawman,. on behalf of each identified individual in the event that settlement talks arc unsuccessful. This interpretation is incorrect because snores Paragraph 8, which limits the scope of the attorney representative's representation. The longstanding intention of the parties is also consistent with our interpretation of the Agreement based on prior iterations of the Agreement, which only refer to appointing a trustee or a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of the identified individuals. Thus, legal representation in a lawsuit was never contemplated under the Agreement Also, Mr. Epstein's agreement to pay the attorney representative's fees reaffirms that the parties never intended for the attorney representative to bring lawsuits. § 2255 includes a provision for attorne 's fees, bat only if there is a monetary recovery. If the Agreement contemplates, as suggests, that the attorney representative could file suit on behalf of each identified , . Epstein would never have agreed to pay attorneys fees for those that being suit and lose. It is clear that Mr. Epstein agreed to pay the attorney representative's Res because he assumed that each identified individual represented by the attorney representative would recover something by settling on their respective damages claim. interpretation of the Agreement would also trigger profound ethical problemilM il onflicts of interests that would arise. For instance, if Mr. Epstein agrees to pay for the attorney representative's fees and monthly expenses in any potentially litigated matter, then the attorney representative would effectively be incentivized to reject settlement under § 2255 in an effort to draw out the lawsuits and incur more fees. If the lawyer were allowed to represent the identified individuals in a lawsuit, the best interests of each identified individual might not be served, because the attorney representative will always be more interested in pursuing lawsuits in lieu of settling claims against Mr. Epstein efficiently and fairly. This conflict EFTA01089283 Confidential. For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 408. R. Alexander Acosta October 10, 2007 Page 4 could compromise the attorney representative's duty of loyalty. See ABA Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.8(f) ("A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless... there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship"). And Mr. Epstein would essentially be paying the attorney representative to sue himself. Such a result is inappropriate and unconscionable. The attorney representative will face other conflicts as well. As a general matter, multiple representation of a group of individuals that elects to settle on damages as well as one or more individuals who reject settlement carries with it the heightened potential for irreparable conflicts. For example, the ethics rules preclude an attorney from simultaneously representing parties that are likely to end up in conflict See ABA Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7 ("A lawyer shall not represent a client if...there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer."). Here, I can imagine a case where one of the identified individuals is called as a witness by Mr. Epstein to dispute an allegation by another identified individual who is a party to the case. The attorney representative would have to cross examine the witness, who is also his client In another scenario, the attorney representative may receive privileged information from one identified individual, which precludes him from using that information with lcapt.4.t to another identified individual. In each scenario, the attorney representative will be simultaneously representing parties that may be in conflict, in violation of Rule 1.7. connection with the attorney representative'sialM l tement process must be rejected. For these reasons, we believe that interpretation of the Agreement in Second Issue Waiver of Liability. WWI incorrectly alleges that Mr. Epstein has waived liability even when claims are not se . suant to the Agreement, if the identified individuals choose not to settle with Mr. Epstein, he will not waive liability for those individuals whose claims arc not settled by the attorney representative. Paragraph 8 is clear that Mr. Epstein will only waive § 2255 liability so long as each identified individual proceeds exclusively under § 2255 and agrees to waive damages other than "an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein." (Paragraph 8, Agreement) Consequently those identified individuals who choose not to settle with Mr. Epstein are not covered by the terms of the Agreement and will have to prove, among other things, that they are victims under the enumerated statutes. Third Issue: Communication to Identified Individuals, proposes that either she or federal agents will speak with the identified individ re the settlement process. We do not think it is the government's place to be co-counsel to the identified individuals, nor should the FBI be their personal investigators. Neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the EFTA01089284 Confidential. For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 408. R. Alexander Acosta October 10, 2007 Page 5 case, including appointment of the attorney representative and the settlement process. Not only would that violate the confidentiality of the Agreement, but Mr. Epstein also will have no control over what is communicated to the identified individuals at this most critical stage. We believe it is essential that we participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication to the identified individuals. We further believe that communications between your Office or your case agents and the identified individuals might well violate Rule 6(eX2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure- The powers of the federal grand jury should not, even in appearance, be utilized to advance the interests of a party to a civil lawsuit We propose that the following joint communication be made to who will act as the attorney representative and communicate accordingly with the ichsinduals: As counsel for the United States of America and Jeffrey Epstein, we jointly write to you to provide information relevant to your services as the attorney representative to represent certain identified individuals who may have a civil claim against Mr. Epstein. The United States has conducted an investigation of Mr. Epstein regarding his solicitation of females, some of whom the government alleges were underage, to engage in prostitution in his Palm Beach County home. Based on this investigation, the United States has identified certain individuals who may be eligible to seek a civil remedy against Mr. Epstein pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The United States and Mr. Epstein have agreed to a resolution of this investigation. As part of the resolution of this matter, the parties have agreed to a settlement process for these identified individuals. The parties agree that you will contact each identified individual and explain the nature of the resolution of this matter, including the settlement process, in accordance with a joint communication drafted by the United States and Mr. Epstein. The parties further agree that you will interview each identified individual to confirm that they have a viable claim against Mr. Epstein pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to the resolution of this matter, you will represent only those identified individuals who elect to settle their claims with Mr. Epstein, and your duties will be limited to negotiating a settlement on the identified individuals' behalf and dispersing the settlement proceeds. Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will not contest jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida, and he will not contest liability pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 for those identified individuals who elect to settle all potential claims against him regarding this matter. Mr. Epstein has also agreed to pay reasonable attorney's fees and expenses that you incur as a result of settlement negotiations and settlement administration of this matter. EFTA01089285 Confidential. For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 408. R. Alexander Acosta October 10, 2007 Page 6 To settle these claims, the parties agree that you will negotiate a total settlement amount with Mr. Epstein for each identified individual who elects to settle. After the United States formally declines to initiate any prosecution against Mr. Epstein related to this matter and each identified individual you represent executes a waiver of all rights to pursue any litigation regarding this matter, you may then distribute the proceeds from the total settlement amount to the identified individuals in the manner you see fit For those identified individuals who elect not to settle their claims, Mr. Epstein will not waive his right to contest jurisdiction, liability or damages. Furthermore, Mr. Epstein will not pay for their attorney's fees or expenses, and you may not represent these individuals in any capacity. Each of these individuals will be responsible for finding, hiring and paying for her own attorney. The details regarding the United State's investigation of this matter and its resolution with Mr. Epstein is confidential. You may not make public statements regarding this matter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, including the settlement process, you must contact Mr. Epstein's counsel and request a joint clarification from said counsel and the United States. You should not contact the United States directly. The parties will make every effort to answer your questions via a joint communication. Alex, as you know, when Mr. Epstein signed the Agreement, he did so in order to reach finality with your Office and with the express representation that the federal investigation against him would cease. To that end, I would like your assurance that after you and I agree to the issues raised in this letter, that it will be the end of the United States' involvement barring a willful breech of the Agreement Specifically, the government or any of its agents will not make any further communications to the identified individuals and will not make any ex parte communications with I look forward to resolving these open issues with you during our 4:30 call today. Sincere! v/ . e owitz a EFTA01089286 Exhibit 14 EFTA01089287 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave, Sadie 400 West Patin Ileac November 29, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND Miss Re: Cling Victims' Rights — Notification of Resolution of Epstein Investigation Dear Miss Several months ago, I provided you with a letter notifying you of your rights as a victim pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004 and other federal legislation, including: (1) 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 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 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. I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms. First, Mr. Epstein agrees that be will plead guilty to two state offenses, including the offense of soliciting minors to engage in prostitution, which will require him to register as a sexual predator for the remainder of his life. EFTA01089288 Miss NOVEMBER 29,2007 PAGE 2 Second, Mr. Epstein has agreed to make a binding recommendation of 18 months' imprisonment to the state court judge who sentences him. Mr. Epstein will serve that sentence of imprisonment at the Palm Beach County Jail. Third, Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will not contest jurisdiction or liability if you elect to seek damages from him because the United States has identified you as a minor victim of certain federal offenses, including travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution with minors and the use of facilities of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in prostitution. To assist you in making such a claim, the U.S. Attorney's Office has asked an independent Special Master to select attorneys to represent you. Those attorneys are Aaron Podhurst and Robert ("Bob") Josefsberg with the law firm of Podhurst Orseck, P.A. They can be reached at (305) 358-2800. I anticipate that someone from their law firm will be contacting you shortly. I sabnilvjayou that you are not obligated to use these attorneys. In fact. you have the absolute right to select your own attornev, so you can decide not to speak with Mssrs. Podhurst/ Josefsberg at all. or you can speak with them and decide at any time to use a different attorney If you do decide to seek damages from Mr. Epstein and you decide to use Messrs. Podhurst / Josefsberg as your attorneys, Mr. Epstein will be responsible for paying attorney's fees incurred during the time spent trying to negotiate a settlement. If you are unable to reach a settlement with Mr. Epstein, you and Mr. Josefsberg can discuss how best to proceed. As I mentioned above, as part of the resolution of the federal investigation, Mr. Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges. ' and sentencing will occur on December 14,2007, at a.m.,befo , in Courtroom 11F at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 960.001(1)(k) and 921.143(1), you are entitled to be present and to make a statement under oath. If you choose, you can submit a written statement under oath, which will be filed by the State Attorney's Office on your behalf. If you elect to prepare a written statement, it should address the following: the facts of the case and the extent of any harm, including social, psychological, or physical harm, financial losses, loss of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced, and any matter relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence. Fl. Stat. 921.143(2). You also are entitled to notification when Mr. Epstein is released from imprisonment at the end of his prison term and/or if he is allowed to participate in a work release program. To receive such notification, please provide the State Attorney's Office with the following information: 1. Your name 2. Your address 3. Your home, work, and/or cell phone numbers EFTA01089289 MISS NOVE?.ffiER 29,2007 PAGE 3 4. Your c-mail address 5. A notation of whether you would like to participate in the "VINE system," which provides automated notification calls any time an inmate is moved. (To use this system, your calls must go to you directly, not through a switchboard.) Thank you for all of your help during the course of the investigation. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me or Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall at (561) 822-5946. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: U.S. Attorney's Office EFTA01089290 Exhibit 15 EFTA01089291 12/08/07 THU 15:22 PAZ December 6, 2007 DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay?. Lcikowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LIP Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: EaCUTIVE °EPICS U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida I write in response to your recent e-mails and letters regarding victim notification and other issues. Our Office is trying to perform our contractual obligations under the Agreement, which we feel are being frustrated by defense counsel's objections. The Office also is concerned about Mr. Epstein's nonperformance. Mom than three weeks ago we spoke about the failure to set a timely plea and sentencing date. A • e, you assured me that the scheduling delay was mused by the unavailability of You promised that a date would be set promptly. On November 15th, Rolando arms met with on another matter, and was told by that he had just spoken with Jack Goldberger, and that Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing were set to occur on December 14, 2007. Since that time, we have tried to confirm the date and time of the hearing in order to include that information in the victim notificati ers. You continue to refer to the plea and sentencing as though it w' b in Jan office has not confirmed any date; and Mr. Goldberger recently tol ere is no dale." I must reiterate that a delayed guilty plea and sentencing — now more than two months beyond the original deadline — is unacceptable to the Office. As you win recall, the plea and sentencing hearing originally was to occur in earlyOctober 2007, but was delayed until October26th to allow Mr. Goldberger to attend. It was delayed again until November to allow you to attend. Rather than using your best efforts to insure that the plea and in November, we recentlylearned that a plea conference bad been scheduled wi ' for November 20, 2007, but was canceled at the request of the parties, not the judge. S has not been away for any extended period, and there is no basis for your assertion that the judge is the cause of al 002 EFTA01089292 12/06/07 THU 15:23 PAX JAYP.LEFKOVATZ,ESQ. DECEMBER 6, 2007 PACE 2 OF 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICE any past or future delay. Mr. Epstein currently has fan• Florida Bar members on his defense team, so attorney scheduling is not an adequate basis for delay. Three weeks ago lalso asked you to provide our Office with the terms of the Plea Agreement with the State Attorney's Office. It is now more than two months since the signing of the Non- Prosecution Agreement and we havo yet to see any tonna! agreement, or evcna list of essential terms of such an agreement. Next, let me address your allegation that attorneys in our office and agents of tho FBI have leaked information to the press in an effort to affect possible civil litigation with Mr. Epstein. This is untrue. There has been no contact between any member of the press and any employee of our office or the FBI since you incorrectly accused investigators of telling 'Vanity Fair" about Mr. Starts employrbent by Mr. Epstein several months ago. We intend to continue to refrain from commenting or providing information to the press. We would ask that your client and all of his representatives do the same. I also want to address your interpretation of several statements that were included in correspondence — at your insistence— as proof that the designated victims have invalid claims. Let me make clear that each of the listed individuals are persons whom the Office identified as victims as defined in Section 2255, that is, as persons "who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section ... 2422 or 2423 of this title." In other words, the Office is prepared to indict Mr. Epstein based upon Mr. Epstein's "interactions" with these individuals) This conclusion is based upon a thorough and proper investigation — one in which aom of the victims was informed of any right to receive damages of any amount prior to the investigation of het claim. The Office agrees that it is not a party to, and will not take a role in, any civil litigation, but the Office can say, without hesitation, that the evidence demonstrates that each person on the list was a victim ofMr. Epstein's criminal behavior. Mr. Stair's letter also suggests that the number of victims to whom Mr. Epstein is exposed by the Agreement is limitless. As you know, early drafts of the Agreement contained a numerical limit of40 victims, which was removed at your request. The Office repeatedly confumed that the number would not exceed 40; and the list is significantly shorter than that. Once the list is provided to you, if you have a good faith basis for asserting that a victim never met Mr. Epstein, we remain willing to listen and to modify the list if you convince us of your position. Finally, let me address your objections to the draft Victim Notification Letter. You write that you don't understand the basis for the Office's belief that it is appropriate to notify the victims. Pursuant to the "Justice for All Act of 20047crime victims arc entitled to: "The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding ... involving the crime' and the "right 'Unlike the State's investigation, the federal/ investigation shows criminal conduct by Mr. Epstein at least as early as 2001, so all of the victims were minors at the time of the offense. a003 EFTA01089293 12/06/07 THU 16:23 FAX JAY P. LEP/COMTE, ESQ. DECEMBER 6, 2007 NOSH OP4 EXECUTIVE OFFICE not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding ." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX2) & (3). Section 3771 also commands that "employees of the Department of Justice . engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution ofcrime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a)." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(cXl). Additionally, pursuant to the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, our Office is obligated to "inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other law and [thej manner in which such relief may be obtained " 42 U.S.C. § 10607(cX1)03). With respect to notification of the other information that we propose to disclose, the statute requires that we provide a victim with the earliest possible notice of: the status of the investigation; the filing of charges against a suspected offender; and the acceptance of a plea. 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)(3). Just as in 18 U.S.C. § 3771, these sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego its legal obligation With respect to your assertion that we are seeking to "federalize" the state plea, our office is simply informing the victims of their rights. It does not command than to appear at the hearing or to file a victim impact statement. In t recommends the sending of any statement to the State Attorney's Office so that can determine which, if any, statements are app., up, late to file with the Court Next, you assert that our letter mischatactetizes Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay damages to the victims. To avoid that suggestion, I have asked AUSA Villafaila to simply quote the terms of the Agreement directly into the Notification Letter. We also have no objection to referring to Mr. Epstein as a "sexual offender tether than a "predator." We have no objection to using the conjunction "and/of' in relaxing to the particular offense(s) of which the recipient was a victim. We will not include the language that we take no position as to the validity of any claims. While the Office has no intention to take any position in any civillitigation arising between Mr. Epstein and any individual victim, as stated above, the Office believes that it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each listed individual was a victim of Mr. Epstein's criminal conduct while the victim was a minor. The law requires us to treat all victims "with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." 18 U.S.C. §3771(aXn We will not include any language that demeans the harm they may have suffered. The let ' .ons regarding representation by the Podhurst Sinn and Mr. losefsberg are accurate. conferred with Messrs. Podhurst and losefsberg to insure their willingness to undertake assignment prior to finalizing his selection. @0n EFTA01089294 12/08/07 TEU 15:23 FAX JAY P. LERgowrn, ESQ. DECEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE4 0174 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Lastly. you object to personal communication between the victims and federal attorneys or agents. We have no objection to sendin the letters throw the language about contacting or ma • "II not remove the with questions or concerns. Again, federal quires t vue • sera e n t to confer with the attorney for the Govemtnent in this case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aXS). The three victims who were notified prior to your objection had questions directed to Mr. Epstein's punishment, not the civil litigation. Those questions are appropriately directed to law enforcement. If questions arise related to the civil litigation, md will recommend that the victims direct those questions to Mr. JostlE I have attached a revised letter incorporating the changes on which we can agree. Please provide any further commentsby the closeofbnsiness on Friday. In addition, pleaseprovide us with a definitive statement, signed by ow- client, of his intention to abide by each and every term of the Agreement by close of business on Friday, December 7,2007. By that time, you must also provide us with the agreanent(s) with the State Attorney's Office and a date and time certain for the plea and sentencing, which must occur no later than Decanber 14, 2007. That must he closure in this matter. By: Enclosure cc: R. Alexander Ac Attorney Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta First Assistant United States Attorney This is contingent, however, on being able to provide adequate notice o ge of plea and sentencing. The sooner that you schedule that hearing with the sooner we can dispatch these letters. If you delay further, we will have to re on ep ne or personal notification. ®cos EFTA01089295 12/00/07 THU 15:24 PAZ BIBC1771VE OFFICE U.S. Department ofJustice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida December 6, 2007 DELIVERY BY UNITED STATES MAU Miss Re: ("rime Victims' Rinhts — Notification of Resolution of Epstein Investigation Dear Miss Several months ago, I provided you with a letter notifying you of your rights as a victim pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004 and other federal legislation, including: (1) 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 anyrelease or escape of the accused. (3) The right nom be excluded from anypublic court proceeding, unlessthe court determines that your testimony maybe materiallyaltered ifyou are present for otter 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 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. I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and that Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms. ooe EFTA01089296 12/06/07 THU 16:24 PAZ MISS NOvaiRea 29,2007 PAG62 aracurive 0PPICE First, Mr. Epstein agrees that he will plead guilty to two state offenses, including the offense of soliciting minors to engage in prostitution, which will require him to register as a sexual offender for the remainder of his life. Second, Mr. Epstein has agreed to make a binding recommendation of 18 months' imprisonment to the state court judge who sentences him. Mr. Epstein will serve that sentence of imprisonment at the Palm Beach County Jail. Third, Mr. Epstein has agreed that he will compensate you for damages you have suffered, under the following circumstances. That portion of the agreement that relates to those claims reads as follows: 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution ofthis agreement, theUnited States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, eltcts to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his rig/MG contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional 0007 EFTA01089297 12/06/07 THU 15:26 FAX MISS NOVEMBER 29, 2007 PAGE 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICE or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement and an addendum, to assist you in making such a claim, the U.S. Attorney's Office has asked an independent Special Master to select attorneys to represent you. Those attorneys are Aaron Podhurst and Robert ("Bob") Josefsberg with the law firm of Podhntst °neck, P.A. They can be reached at P.M In 1 anticipate that someone from their law fum will be contacting you shortly. I must also advise you thatyou are not oblismted to use these attorneys. In fact you have the absolute right to select voursovirtattorney—sct you can decide motto speak with Messrs, llorgutrWatatannou can speak with_thern and decide at any time to use a different attorney. If you do decide to seek damages from Mr. Epstein and you decide to use Messrs. Podhurst/Josefsberg as your attorneys, Mr. Epstein will be responsible for paying attorney's fees incurred during the time spent trying to negotiate a settlement. If you are unable to reach a settlement with Mr. Epstein, you and Mr. Josefsberg can discuss how best to proceed. As I mentioned above, as part of the resolution of the federal investigation, Mr. Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges. Mr. Epstein's change of lea and scntencin¢ will occur on December 14, 2007, at a.m., before Judlte Palm Beach County Courthouse, Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections .001(1Xk) , you are entitled to be present and to make a statement under oath. If you choose, you can submit a written statement under oath, which may be filed by the State Attorney's Office on your behalf If you elect to prepare a written statement, it should address the following: the facts of the case and the extent of any harm, including social, psychological, or physical harm, financial losses, loss of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced, ens EFTA01089298 12/08/07 THU 15:28 PAX MISS NOvEMBERZA2007 PAGE4 EXECUTIVE OFFICE and any matter relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence. Fl. Stat. 921.143(2). You also am entitled to notification when Mr. Epstein is released from imprisonment at the end of his prison term and/or if he is allowed to participate in a work release program. To receive such notification, please provide the State Attorney's Office with the following information: 1. Your name 2. Your address 3. Your home, work, and/or cell phone numbers 4. Your e-mail address 5. A notation of whether you would like to participate in the "VINE system," which provides automated notification calls any time an inmate is moved. (To use thi a system, your calls must go to you directly, not through a switchboard.) Thank you for all of your help during the course of the investigation. If you have an questions or not hesitate to contact me or Sincerely, It Alexander Acosta United States Attorney rs t mte States Attorney in U.S. Attorney's Office By: cc: ?loos EFTA01089299 Exhibit 16 EFTA01089300 IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN I ADDENDUM TO TIE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinater "paragraph 7"), that agreement is modified as follows: 7A. The United Slates has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement If the United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. 7B. The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or ha regular customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra. 7C. Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, Wafter consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained ins 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall case. EFTA01089301 By signing 114 Acklenthim, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby. states that he understands the clarifications to the Non- Prosec-odortAgreament and agrees to comply kith them. AttettNtaacca UNWEI? STATES ATTOBSIBI Dated: /OA 0 47 Dated: P4 r i fi Dated: Dated: • US. ATTORNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA01089302 By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Noa- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: iv °An ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Dated: JEFFREY EPSTEIN Dated: c*PALD LEFOO RT ESQ: COUNSEL TO YEPSPEJN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA01089303 By signing this Addendtan, Epstein asserts tad eatifies thd the above has beta read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states dat he andessiands the ~ions to the Non- Preeecation Agreement aid agrees to comply with tisto. • R. ALIOCANDERACOSTA uNrnin STATES ATTORNEY Dined: aihdfl P/• • AS ISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Dated: JEFFREY EPSTEIN Dated: GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. vas:~ ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EMT/UN EFTA01089304 Exhibit 17 EFTA01089305 10/25/07 THU 13:15 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE U.S. Department of Justice United StatesAttorney Southern District of Florida cot DELIV Y A erman Re: Service as a SoccialMaster Dear October 25, 2007 Thank you for agreeing to serve as a Special Master and for assisting the United States Attorney's Office in the selection of an attorney representative to represent a group of identified victims. This letter is meant to assist you in performing your duties by providing you with background information regarding the agreement between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein and the duties that the attorney representative will have to perform. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office conducted an investigation of Mr. Epstein. As a result of that investigation, the U.S. Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Ard. .meat and an Addendum that contains, truer alia, the following terms: 7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party,both Ole United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. EFTA01089306 10/25/07 THU 13:15 FAX BER 25, 2007 PAGE 2 OE 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 7B. The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph 7C, infra. 7C. Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in § 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall cease. Elf any of the individuals referred to [in the paragraphs above] elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount agreed to between Epstein and the identified individual, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, with respect to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 9.Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in [the above paragraphs], neither Epstein's tit 003 EFTA01089307 10/25/07 THU 13:19 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE OCTOBEk25,2007 PAGE30F4 signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. The most recent version of the statute referenced above, 18 U.S.C. § 2255, provides that: Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section... 2422 or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $150,000 in value.' Section 2422 prohibits the use of a facility of interstate commerce to induce minors to engage in sexual activity and prostitution, and section 2423 prohibits interstate travel for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity or prostitution with minors. The United States has identified 34 victims as defined by this statute. The United States takes no position as to the validity of any such claim under this statute. Due to the circumstances of the case and the number and caliber of the attorneys who represent Mr. Epstein, in selecting the victims' attorney representative, the United States suggests that you consider the following criteria: . Experience doing both plaintiffs' and defense litigation. 2. Experience with state and federal statutory and common law tort claims. 3. The ability to communicate effectively with young women. 4. Experience litigating against large Jaw firms and high profile attorneys who An earlier version of this statute deems that any person described in the preceding sentence shall have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value. Z004 EFTA01089308 10/25/07 THU 13:19 FAX Gerona25,2001 PAGE4OF4 EXECUTIVE OFFICE aces may test the veracity of the victims' claims. 5. Sensitivity to the nature of the suit and the victims' interest in maintaining their privacy. 6. Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida. 7. The resources to hire experts and others, while working on a contingency fee basis, in order to prepare for trial, if a settlement cannot be reached (defense counsel has reserved the right to challenge such litigation). 8. The ability to negotiate effectively. Pursuant to this letter, theUnited States assigns to youtheresponsibility forconsulting with and selecting the attorney representative for the individuals. The United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative you select prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. In that regard, after you have reached a decision regarding the attorney representative, please provide me with his or her name and contact information. If] can provide you with any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me and/or the U.S. Attorney and/oriayLe-flcowitz, Esq. on behalf ofE stein. be reached at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Thank you again or your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, IL Alexander Acosta By: nt m States Attorney cc: EFTA01089309 Exhibit 18 EFTA01089310 Case 9:08-cv-80736•KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 0840736-Civ-Marra/Johnson IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF do hereby declare that I am currently employed as an Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") in the Southern District of Florida and was so employed during all of the events described herein, and that 1 was the AUSA assigned to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. 2. This Declaration is meant to supplement the information provided in the Declaration that was filed on July 9, 2008, and to correct some statements in that Declaration based upon events that occurred after the filing of the July 9 Declaration. 3. As explained in the July 9 Declaration and in Court presentations related to this matter, the resolution of the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein included a series of documents: (I) a September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement ("Part 1"); (2) an October 2007 Addendum ("Part 2"); and (3)a letter dated December 19, 2007, from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez, counsel to Jeffrey Epstein ("Part 3"). EFTA01089311 Case 9:08-cv-8O736-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 2 of 4 4. On July 9, 2008, your Affiant sent a victim notification letter to Jane Doe #1, which contained pertinent language from "Part 3" of the Agreement (Ex. 6 to the July 9 Decl.). 5. Prior to preparing and sending that letter, your Affiant sent a draft of the letter to counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. On July 9, 2008, Mr. Epstein's attorney wrote to your Affiant objecting to parts of the draft, but accepting the part of the draft letter that contained the language from "Part 3" of the Agreement. Based upon that communication, your Affiant sent the victim notification letter to Jane Doc 41 and attached it to your Affiant's July 9,2008 Declaration. 6. Although copies of all of the victim notification letters, including the one addressed to Jane Doe #1, were provided to Mr. Epstein's attorney, and despite the fact that counsel for Mr. Epstein filed a copy of your Affiant's July 9, 2008 Declaration in some of the civil suits filed against Mr. Epstein, none of Mr. Epstein's attorneys ever informed your Affiant that they considered the language in the letters and the Declaration to be inaccurate. 7. In August 2008, in anticipation that the Court might order the United States to make the Agreement available to the victims, the United States sought to confirm that counsel for Mr. Epstein had filed the complete Agreement under seal with the State Court at the time of the entry of his guilty plea to the State charges, to insure that an exact copy of that Agreement would be provided in this case, should the Court order its production. EFTA01089312 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/2212008 Page 3 cf 4 8. On August 14, 2008, Mr. Epstein's counsel communicated to your A fli ant that Mr. Epstein did not consider the modification contained in "Part 3" to be operative. This was confirmed on August 18, 2008. 9. Following that date, your A (tient prepared a corrected victim notification letter and worked with Mr. Epstcin's counsel to resolve certain issues related to the implementation of the Agreement comprised only of "Parts I and 2." Those issues were resolved on September 2, 2008, and on September 3, 2008, your Affiant sent the corrected victim notification letter to Jane Doe #1 via her attorney, Brad Edwards, Esq. 10. As explained in the July 9, 2008 Declaration, at the time that the Agreement Was negotiated, Jane Doe #2 was represented by an attorney paid for by Mr. Epstein, and, accordingly, all contact with Jane Doe #2 was made through that attorney. H . At the time that all portions of the Agreement were signed, Jane Dec #2 was openly hostile to the prosecution of Mr. Epstein and had provided a statement denying that she was a victim. Thus, she was not included in the list of victims provided to Mr. Epstein's counsel and did not receive either of the victim notification letters. She is, however, represented by Attorney Edwards who was informed of these developments and who received both the initial and corrected victim notification letters that were sent to Jane Doe # I . 12. In accordance with the Court's instructions at the status conference of August 14, 2008 and the terms of the Protective Order entered by the Court on August 21, 2008, EFTA01089313 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 4 of beginning on September 2, 2008,1 sent corrected Victim Notifications to all victims whom I knew to be represented by counsel. In those letters, I advised counsel of the Court's Protective Order and the procedure for obtaining a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Since that time, I have provided the Non-Prosecution Agreement to several attorneys, who represent twelve identified victims, and have received Protective Orders counter-signed by those attorneys and their clients. Two attorneys for other victims have not requested the opportunity to review the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Victims whom I believe are unrepresented have also received corrected Victim Notification letters that advise them of the existence of the Protective Order. No one has expressed to me any concerns regarding their access to the Non-Prosecution Agreement 13. I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this2Z,144 day of December, 2008. -4- EFTA01089314 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEt I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 22, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing Supplemental Declaration ofi l with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. ssistant ru states Attorney EFTA01089315 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 2 of 2 SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southcm District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorne . ttorney s ice Attorney for United States [Service via CM/ECF] Law O ices o Edwards & Associates, LLC Attorney for Plaintiffs [Service via CM/ECF] Jay C. Howell Jay ilowell & Associates PA PRO HAC VICE [Service via CM/ECF] Paul G. Cassell [Service via CM/ECF] EFTA01089316 Exhibit 19 EFTA01089317 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND A ML MID PAIMERSHIPS Caigroup Center Jay P. Lefkowitt, P.C. www.kirlitand.com September 8, 2O08 VIA FACSIMILE Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Podhurst Orsecl P.A. Dear Mr. Josefsberg, I write to inform you that Jeffrey Epstein has accepted the obligation of the NPA, including paragraph 7A of the Addendum, to pay the attorney representative for fees and expenses associated with consideration of and subsequent settlement of potential Section 2255 claims. Please forward any current and future bills to me that relate to such work and I will arrange for payment We reserve the right, in the future, to submit the bills to a neutral third party for review, but at present there is no need for such a procedure. Ja4 P. Leflcowitz Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco VVashington, D.C. EFTA01089318 Exhibit 20 EFTA01089319 J. SHOHAM BURMAN, PA.' ORBOORY W. COLEMAN. PA. ROBERTO. =TON. 11L. PA.' BERNARD LESEDEXER MARKT. LO ER. PA. JEFFREY C PEPIN MICHAEL J. PIKE HEATHER *NAMARA RUDA FLINUDA WARD OM= CM117JALLant BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP A UNITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP Sent by E-mail and U.S. Mall Robert Josefsberg, Esq. Podhurst Orseck. PA. Re: Epstein Matter Dear Bob: June 15, 2009 ADELQUI J. BENAYENTE MRAUIOAL Ilta6STIOATOlt BARBARA M. MSEMNA ASIMESTOKEN-BARING BETTY STOKES ratALEGALT RTTA H. KUM or on On June 8, 2009, Kathy Ezell wrote a letter to me regarding outstanding fee payment issues. At page 3, she stated that she was not adverse to an earlier proposal that had been discussed amongst the parties to rely on a Special Master to resolve outstanding fee-related issues. We agree with Kathy's 'proposer that we rely on a Special Master to resolve all outstanding fee issues. Let's work during our Wednesday meeting to select an appropriate Special Master and let's agree to see whether, in the interim, we can resolve these issues even before they are submitted to the S.M. RDC/dz cc: Jack Goldberger, Esq. Cordially y Robe S. Clifton, Jr. L'A'W'Y'E'R'S EFTA01089320 Exhibit 21 EFTA01089321 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AVIA= ?WAD:ADIS Jay P. Learowitz. P.C. VIA FACSIMILE Honorable IL Alexander Acosta United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office December 21, 2007 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Alex: Faciliar We again extend our appreciation for meeting with us on December 14 and for carefully considering the issues we have raised both at that meeting and in our submissions to your Office. Having received your letter of December 19, we can see that you have made a significant effort to address our concerns regarding the § 2255 portion of the non-prosecution agreement (the "Agreement"), and we recognize that you have proposed some substantial and important modifications. Respectfully, however, I would suggest that your proposal raises several troubling questions that require careful consideration. We are authoring this letter to respond to your request that we set forth our position regarding §§ 2255 and 3771 as quickly as possible. As we have all discovered, the problem of integrating in an unprecedented manner what is at its core a $150,000 minimum lump sum damage federal civil statute (§ 2255 in its current form) into a federal deferred/non-prosecution agreement that requires pleas of guilty to state criminal offenses that are correlated to state criminal restitution statutes but not to a disparate federal civil non-restitution statute has proved very challenging. The concomitant problem of how fairly to implement the § 2255 portions of the Agreement so that real victims, if any, who in fact suffered "personal injury as a result of [the) violation" —if any—of specified federal criminal statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) are placed in the same position as if there had been a trial and conviction also requires serious and careful consideration. In this letter, I want to highlight some specific concerns. See also Whitley Opinion. First, your proposal regarding the § 2255 remedy provisions continues to ask us to assume that each and every woman not only was a victim under § 2255, but that the facts alleged could have been proven to satisfy each element of either § 2422(b) (the Internet luring statute) or § 2423 (the sex-tourism statute), within § 2255 of Title 18. Although we have been denied the Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington. D.C. EFTA01089322 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 21, 2007 Page 2 list of alleged "victims" (and lack definitive information as to which federal statutes would serve as a predicate for each particular alleged victim), or even a firm number as to how many you suggest there are, we strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 USC § 2422(b) (which we understand from prior discussions to be the principal predicate offense upon which the § 2255 provisions rely) or 18 USC § 2423(b) (another predicate of § 2255 that has been the subject of discussions between the parties). See Stern Opinion. We believe that the problem arises from the incongruity that exists when attempting to fit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal plea agreement. Again, I note that this problem could have been avoided had the government opted instead for a restitution fund as we suggested. Our knowledge of the "list" of alleged victims is limited However a prototypical example of a witness whom the government has r nsate and we believe is inaccurately labeled as a "victim" of a federal crime is (whom we have been told remains on the government's "list"). The transcript of her interview with the Palm Beach Police over a year before the FBI became involved in any investigation shows that- admitted to lying about her age, that she did not engage in sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein, and that she was never induced over the tel hone, computer or any other means of communication required by § 2422(b) In fact, came to Mr. Epstein's home on only one occasion. She testified that she was orme a ut e opportunity to give a massage to Mr. Epstein not on a telephone, computer or any other facility of interstate commerce, but rather in a face-to-face discussion with a third party who was her friend and who told her to lie to Mr. Epstein about her age. As such, it is simply impossible to shoehorn this conduct into any of the above-discussed federal statutes. fiNgspeak to her at all by phone prior In addition, Mr. Epstein did not know o before she actually came to his home, did not induce or persuade her to come by to her visit, did not induce or persuade to bring an underage girl to his residence, and did not otherwise violate either the er s 2422(b) nor the travel for the purpose statute § 2423 Indeed, in her statement, testified: "' told me to say I was 18 becaus said . . . if you're not then he [Epstein] won't really et you in his house. So I Epstein expected (aWra Sworn ge girl to visit him prior to his regular travel to Florida, his home of said I was Statement at 38-39). In fact, there is no evidence that Mr. fifteen years. Thus the travel could not have been for the purpose of having illegal sexual contact and § 2423(b) is no more available as a predicate for § 2255 recovery than is 2422(b). Never having reached the threshold violations enumerated under of § 2255, would still have to ove that she suffered a personal injury. Further, unknown to . pstem at the time, represented herself to be 18 not only to him but also to the public on her web page where she posted a nude photo clearly looking at least 18 years old. At the December 14 meeting, we also discussed as emblematic of our concerns surrounding the government's selection of "victims." As you are aware, EFTA01089323 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP IL Alexander Acosta December 21, 2007 Page 3 was identified in previous correspondence as remained on the Government's list of "victims" even after (at least according to letter) the list was subjected to careful .multi-party review. MOM ly reflects the fact that she is not a "victim" under § 2422(b). She plainly admits that she suffered no injury; the conduct was consensual; she lied to Mr.. Epstein about her age; she instructed others to lie about their ages; there was no sexual contact between herself and Mr. Epstein at any time; and there was never any inducement over the telephone, computer or through any other means of interstate commerce We ask that you consider the most relevant highlights from her testimony offered below: • Consent A: I said, I told Jeffrey, I heard you like massages topless. And he's like, yeah, he said, but you don't have to do anything you don't feel comfortable with. And I said okay, but I willingly took it off. Sworn Statement at 10) • Lied About Her Age A: . . . I had a fake ID anyways, saying that I was 18. And she just said make sure you're 18 because Jeffrey doesn't want any underage girls. MSWOM Statement at 8) A:... of course, he thought I was 18. . . (M Sworn Statement at 13) • Instructed Others to Lie About Their Ages A: I would tell my girlfriends just like a approached me. Make sure you tell him you're 18. Well, these girls that 1 kcal hT, rt, know that they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn't know and I don't know if they were lying or not, I would say make sure that you tell him you're 18. t= Sworn Statement at 22) • No Sexual Contact Q: He never pulled you closer to him in a sexual way? A: I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. (=I Sworn Statement at 21) • No Inducement A: No, I gave Jeffrey my number. And I said, you know, any time you want me to give you a massage again, I'll more than welcome to. (Sworn Statement at 8) EFTA01089324 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP IL Alexander Acosta December 21, 2007 Page 4 A: Every girl that I brought to Jeffrey, they said they were fine with it And like, for instance, a lot of girls begged me to bring them back s wat!' o con l iMIPMnoney. And as far as I know, we all had fun there. Sworn Statement at 45) The sworn testimony of contains explicit denials from the alleged "victim" herself that she suffered any p , onal, or personal injury as required by the express language of § 2255. Further, the sworn testimony of contains a complete disavowal that Mr. Epstein or anyone on his behalf used a facility of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, coerce, entice, or induce her to engage in sexual offenses as required by § 2422(b). Likewise, the transcript provides no basis for a § 2423(b) violation in that Mr. Epstein had a residence in Palm Beach for over 10 years at the time of these events, traveled to Palm Beach for a myriad of legitimate reasons ranging from medical appointments to business appointments having nothing to do with a sexual objective, and could not be legally charged with traveling to his own home particularly in the absence of any provable nexus be travel and a dominant purpose to engage in illicit sexual conduct. Although informed us during the December 14 meeting that she had a telephone toll records owing an out-of-state call to or from phone to a phone number associated with Mr. Epstein, such a record fails to prove the content of the call the identity of the communicators, whether the call discussed or resulted in a plan for to visit Mr. Epstein's residence, whether any inducement occurred on the out of state call or, more importantly for purposes of the sex tourism statute whether any travel was planned to Florida or resulted from the phone call. testimony is that she believed that at any time she was called by Mr.. Epstein or anyone on s behalf, Mr. Epstein was already in Florida. She also testified to the absence of any sexual contact other than topless massages (topless massages are lawful in Florida at age 16, unless the definition ofprostitution is unnaturally expanded). A complete transcript of the federal interview of has previously been provided to you. Your wish to put these women in the same position as they would have been had there been a federal conviction assumes they are each legitimate victims of at least one of the two specific federal crimes enumerated under § 2255. We respectfully have to disagree with that assumption, and even your current formulation of § 2255 would prejudice Mr. Epstein in this regard. Second, your proposal also effectively deprives Mr.. Epstein of his opportunity to test the validity of these womens' claims—claims that would have ' tested at trial. In light of what we have already learned about and , it is inappropriate to deny Mr.. Epstein and his counsel the right to test the merits o each o ese womens' cases, in order to verify that they in fact suffered "personal injury" as required by § 2255 and to assess whether they are in fact victims of any violations of § 2422(6) or § 2423(b) as also required by EFTA01089325 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 21, 2007 Page 5 § 2255. Given your Office's informing us remained on a reduced list of federal "victims" and given our understanding that well was one of those who is also on the list of persons the Government contends were victims of Mr. Epstein's alleged violation of federal law, we have a principled concern about adopting your recommended language which would leave Mr. Epstein without a basis to challenge the good faith premise of an application to recover $150,000. Third, the Agreement, even if modified in accord with your December 19 letter, would put the witnesses in a better position than if Mr. Epstein had been federally prosecuted rather than in an equal position and, in fact, encourages the witnesses to make unfounded claims with impunity. Had there been a conviction, these women would have been thoroughly cross- examined, for the veracity of their statements, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for claiming personal injury. Also, Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks, material in the form of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be available to them—evidence that should be considered in determining the credibility of their application for a substantial civil recovery. Furthermore, Mr. Epstein would be without the means to challenge whether the claimant could make out a prima facie case that she was a victim of a violation by Mr. Epstein of § 2422(ar any other federal statute—a denial of his rights that would insulate potential claimants such 0 _and from any challenge on this element even if under other circumstances a challenge wo d t in a summary judgment in Mr. Epstein's favor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Lastly, the modified language recommended by you presupposes that Mr. Epstein would have been charged and convicted of substantive violations rather than charged and convicted of a conspiracy allegation. Conspiracy convictions are not amongst the predicates enumerated by § 2255 and do not, without more, result in the basis for a determination of "personal injury". Since our request to view the draft indictment was rejected on December 14, we have no means to know what it contained by way of allegations. Fourth, I want to respond to several statements in your letter that we believe require immediate correction. With regard to your first footnote, I want to be absolutely clear. We do not believe for one moment that you had prior knowledge of the AUSA's attempt to require us to hire the friend of her live-in boyfriend, and pay his fees on a contingency basis to sue Mr. Epstein. We realize you corrected that irregular situation as soon as you discovered it. We thought this was precipitated by our complaint, but have no real knowledge as to the timing of events. Furthermore, your letter also suggests that our objection to your Office's proposed victims notification letter was that the women identified as victims of federal crimes should not be notified of the state proceedings. That is not true, as our previous letter clearly states. Putting aside our threshold contention that many of those to whom 3771 notification letters are intended are in fact not victims as defined in the Attorney General's 2000 Victim Witness Guidelines—a status requiring physical, emotional or pecuniary injury of the defendant—it was and remains our position that these women may be notified of such proceedings but since they are neither witnesses nor victims to the state prosecution of this matter, they should not be informed of EFTA01089326 KIRKLAND &ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 21, 2007 Page 6 fictitious "rights" or invited to make • or in-court testimonial statements against Mr. Epstein at such proceedings, as repeatedly maintained they had the right to do. Additionally, it was and remains our position that any notification should be by mail and that all proactive efforts by the FBI to have communications with the witnesses after the execution of the Agreement should finally come to an end. We agree, however, with your December 19 modification of the previously drafted federal notification letter and agree that the decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst many other issues, properly within the aegis of state decision malting. Your December 19 letter references Professor Dershowitz's position on the inapplicability of Florida Statute § 796.03. Professor Dershowitz made such arguments in the context of saying that he had been unable to discern, after great effort, and supported by years of experience, any basis for the application of § 2422(6) or other federal sex statutes to Mr. Epstein's conduct and that the federal s recuired more of a stretch to fit the facts than the wanted Mr. Epstein to plead. Professor represented that it was she who had the facts to support, both the eral charges of § 2422 and/or § 2423 and the proposed state charge of b 796.03 (which the parties understood to be the state charge of soliciting a minor, as last letter clearly states). Only last week we learned for the first time that Ms. did not realize that the charge was actually for "procuring" not "soliciting". The charge (amum te) of procuring a prostitute for a third party for financial gain is one for whi now states she does not have the facts to support. Furthermore, you suggest that we have purposefully delayed the date of Mr.. Epstein's plea and sentencing in breach of the Agreement and now seek an "11th hour appeal" in Washington. I believe we have already responded to this objection satisfactorily, both in our discussion earlier this week and in the email I sent to you two days ago in which I specifically addressed this issue. Indeed, any impediment to the resolution at issue is a direct cause of the disagreements between the parties as to a common interpretation of the Agreement, and we have at all times made and will continue to make sincere efforts to resolve and finalize issues as expeditiously as possible. In fact, since the initiation of negotiations between Mr.. Epstein's counsel and your Office, we have always proceeded in a timely manner and made several efforts to meet with the attorneys in your Office in person when we believed that a face-to-face meeting would facilitate a resolution. proposed state statute to whi Dershowitz also stated that Finally, the suggestion by your staff that you hold Mr. Epstein in breach of the Agreement by his failure to plea and be sentenced on October 26, 2007 is directly contradicted by e-mail to me dated October 31 in which he states, "Your understanding from Jack Goldberger conforms to my understanding that Mr.. Epstein's plea and sentence will take place on the same day. I understand that the plea and sentence will occur on or before the January 4th date." This has been our common understanding for some time, which we have now EFTA01089327 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP R. Alexander Acosta December 21, 2007 Page 7 reiterated several times. With that said, please be advised that we are working for a quick resolution and do not seek to delay the proceedings. Thank you again for your time and consideration. We look forward to your response to the concerns we have raised that have not yet been addressed. I wish you a very happy and a healthy new year. Sincerely, cc : Lot Assistant Attorney General First Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA01089328 Exhibit 22 EFTA01089329 08/13/2008 21:36 FAX 0.1'.. FL KIRKLAND & ELLIS I.I,P U.S. Department of Justice Q002/1319 NO.695 P.2 United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY FACSMEI Jay P. Lefkowitr, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Re: jeffrerEnstein Dear Jay: August 13, 2008 As per your request, I am attaching several documents related to Mr. Epstein's performance of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The first document attached hereto is the June 30, 2008 proposed Notification, which was hand-delivered to Jack Goldberger and Michael Tein shortly after Mr. Epstein enteredhis guilty plea. Following that, I have attached the July 9, 2008 response from Mr. Goldberger. I have highlighted two portions. The first Is where Mr. Goldberger (presumably with the approval of Mr. Tcin) approves of the portion of my proposed Notification that quotes directly from the U.S. Attorney's December letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez. The second portion is where Mr. Goldberger provides his interpretation of the Agreement, and nowhere mentions that he does not believe that the December letter is operative. I note that Mr. Goldberger's I encl. contains a notation showing that Mr. Epstein was provided with a copy. The third document I have attached is a copy of one of the notifications that was provided directly to a victim. Copies of all of the notifications have been provided to Mr. Goldberger, and neither he nor any other attorney for Mr. Epstein has ever stated that the letter misrepresents the Agreement between the parties or the benefit that the Agreement bestows upon the victims. The fourth document I have attached is a copy of a Declaration that I have flied in connection with the victims' lawsuit filed against the United States. This Declaration sets forth our understanding of the Agreement and again quotes from the U.S. Attorney's December letter. Messrs. Goldberger and Tein are aware of this Declaration end have filed copies of it in connection with their EFTA01089330 08/13/2008 21:37 FAX KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Q1003/019 PUG.13.2200 6:14PM USA° WPB FL' NO.695 P.3 JAY P. Lasxowra, ESQ. AUGUST 13, 2008 PAGE 2 oP 2 efforts to stay all ofthe civil litigation. Again, neither ofthem ever expressed to ine — or to the Court — that it inaccurately describes the Agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein. Please contact me tomorrow morning so that we can resolve this issue. Sincerely, cc: R. Alexander Acosta a to BY: 111110 111M t ni States Attorney Nottbem Division EFTA01089331 Exhibit 23 EFTA01089332 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida August 15, 2008 DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Komspan & Stumpf P.A. Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay and Roy: Thank you for your response to my earlier e-mail. Our communications with Mr. Black and later with Mr. Leflcowitz were solely to determine what Mr. Epstein considered to be the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. We appreciate your answering our question with finality. You have now made clear that Mr. Epstein did not accept the December modification, and accordingly, the offer to make that modification is a nullity. Pursuant to our Agreement, I will prepare an AmendedNotification that contains the names of additional identified victims. As you know, had selected the Podhurst firm to serve as the attorney representative for the victims. Assuming that Mr. Josefsberg is still amenable to the appointment, we will provide him with the victim list so that he may begin his service. Finally, as you are aware, the United States has been ordered to produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement. In accordance with that Order, we will produce the September Agreement with the October Addendum signed by your client. We understand that Mr. EFTA01089333 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. AUGUST 15, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 Goldberger did not provide the state court with a true copy of the complete Agreement, and he should take steps to correct that error. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: Northern Division EFTA01089334 Exhibit 24 EFTA01089335 pur,CJGC2V1 P:2 r .f.d1cWiltams, Shannon R. From: Sant: To: Cc: Subject Attachments: Dear Epstein Agrmt Portion.pdt Thant you for taking the time to meet with us on Tuesday. As we discussed, I have attached the pertinent portion of Mr. Epsteirt's agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office. «Epstein Agnnt Portion.pdf%. I also wanted to call to your attention a couple of items regarding the issue of Week Release. Dwi thee e of plea, Mr. Epstein stated that he would be working at the Florida Science Foundation, located at , that the Foundation had been /0 existence for a "couple of years," and that he had been working there "every day" prior to the plea. The Division of Corporations' documents show that the Florida Seta:ice Foundation was incorporated inNovember 2007, not a "couple of years ago." The address provided for the "office" of the Florida Scicues Foundation is Jack Goldberger'a office suite, and neither the eace building directory nor the officio suite door reflects that such a business is located there, and neither the security guard nor any building tenant that FBI questioned knows of the existence of such a business. Mr. Epsteinalso could not have boon working thexe "every thy" when be hadn't been in Palm beach County in the past six months. I would apprecfart the opportunity to review the work release regulations. If Mr, Epstein truly is eligible for the program, we have no objection to him being treated like any other similarly situated prisoner, but sitting in his attorney's ofEcesuite making telephone calls, web-surfing, and having food delivered to him is probably not in accordant= with the objectives of imprisonment. Obviously, the decision is left entirely within your discretion, but I warred to make sure that you had a complete picture before you made that decision. Thank you again, and have a wonderful 4th of July. Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA01089336 Exhibit 25 EFTA01089337 0 1. ' • r 2OO8croosAtyin -• immunity PERSON thumitsms•of fib tqapipetelisleklbrunted, BOgleapgites:.:13 Aft 441.04,101,5184..:. c. 4$0146fri Ageiiikedarteeit**-• V6144retelOR,It'. 441. keggteinitesi 11 t e . •••"" . • • •r: litiklattr t.CITC &Sr e s :44 •••;r -`er • . . • witiormr? wv,saixioacist.4ecormi crbt:-1- • . • • 5.1ffergr.,, : . f,r.. ;:•74-1 .... tioa-141e —,- . — .p .•:;>-.;`474.......: • :2 ••-• •:. : ' ' ' . , • . ..:e..:-71 ,.:•.. • ' ... - . .. z.. •;'.c, - - -:- . .4.1,‘• Eav: t •I ty.42zn.-_, ,•:.10 ., -..4 e.....,^ ' f,e,„:..... • ....n.A:pligstnegee . . ., . .• • ' -: it • ...; ....:i. :fr:fA7 .1 .7 1 ....... 0.. i r" ... , c.:: 0 .1.1.4." :..5.4e•.*: , : ": • .. ' M :I,: • • • • "4 • 4%." Ailiclucity,e, • . ••• . • ' • .1.....,),.. . 04A:i4x,c0: ,a*Dongi.entrosia0iiii.lidt;:.T. (aTcourtioop)...eciffriii ielituida'i ...7 7***1: iiilos*_ Pottriench:7::: .,..,??44,;•§telStaNti[S.14e'fitadi,..,C.: ..:': .3.2.04k•ae0,10IC•Viateler" i cisme, teteeiooliceethebieitIoAereeneemsecteelte*Yeeineleinitieramocosrsoneattheisoeskieei 1.- ..1 4:eie 141b ity f 4‘2"(far tlerEigt4= 140:1414111.4. keiteeteeeeitti:lerwelieeeetellWrztencroevOtimeceAutemeecceermouRn!DusgzeftcoN • .9" ; '.. • :., 'NW ' 1133eleTELEPRONECelpeileyeeileltheNGDAYSOFIQUeleelerbelVIStieteeeritbleallaARINeORy6221MPArefeekli1 • • • ' . .. . . .. ... , .. .. . . .: . . . . • • — • - • ' • . • .. EFTA01089338 0 I ; :* —• -. . . No1;4- 60?)CF.9t3/W 1- • Profs/ Sex Off/ Drag Off ' :14 Donate. vet C.C. 1 C.C. IC • • • . Erisribitieritiineferiedlin• . .. • • SPECIAL CONDITIONS:: • • —' 0 .CoMplete,Originaliy Ordered OpnclitionS ... . . C\ ... - • • . .0 Ourfecir • • p.m., with the exception: . . . . - Q • DefUto /sport to 'Prob.. Dept. immerdiatEily, sPOn• release. I ' ... .•' . ' Q. Deft. nit have in care, custody; dr control- any. unlawful OFilldgaltiaterial, subst., device, otiOi44 . • ... . . .0 Deft to i , • actiatekt notify Prob. Officer if place of tesidericebrjer changes. - .., L - ..: ;. • r; 'a : ' CI Restitution CRO filed ' ' •, • • • . _ •• . • • • • CI-Sub ea tgailtall- loonditr • y15,5tryse Evat../5!tycho, 41 .,a1../ 13;sychti. .•xtial:cyal.syithiet by., ...„„,04/4Nr, ..***70490mpetffltoollIgtittEil,'-; Dootjt - :•cIRI4kiiiiistiftweirasorrantiotirig,: ‘.., -,••,a,,a.• q : ., . ft I, •:...016: a No- Consumption/Possession of Alc0hol Or Drugs or. Intoxicants without a Prescription. " : -• ' .•:•,•.: . • .' . .. aAttend • ' .• • AA andior•NA Meetings per. Week: • . .- ' _ _ . - - • • • ...'.3.-fix.44' ... "Q benottb•freguent•any.filace of busjneas whose primary PUrpose is the sale of aloottoh.tte. -• • — • . a •Compl010 1_:1-irecif Cottimuiiity Senate to be done at the rate of .___,_..42. Hrs.. pa' Mr • ,rii!..O .1:109.**E4Yelsie.gegi013.;SAPY._.....:. - _ . ... ,. .. .rnns it • • • • • •-• • -• — WAttdffdiaiiffeuccesstully-completealiticitiii4i.Siadisessiotuaittirsimpact Pitee4.. .. .•7 1....:7 :‘ ,,...1:: • .....0 voco-otct /.No Viole.0 Contact / R ). e Plroct ortndirect.contact w/Victits(s)rotheralistest::ii• - .7•••:- ., NO•Oontagj wipiihor Children wto,Alu$Stipeirv'Sion.aware ofthiimasittihd the diepeeltiont. .. 7' ... :a it t ocu ..;;:iOl;•Doeter Orpervislortrt • - it•I'"". 1 Or•fri K " CI Waived : by Court: • • +" • - • -' ' ----' '11 feileriseraSoccetsfally-Oomplete#0e410n- " ... reBed-iztrogram-andAny.fteeomMeildedaftercakt:: la kolcilk0iratody, release only DOC Non-SeburesBed.prograrn Officer. O :Enter•artd Successful f oomplete SBSO•Long I Shod-Track Drug Farris and'Any Reci.Afteticaret*AtrL4- O Forteit.Weepon /Id0ney'seized at the tine- of attest to: . - . • • • . ..• . .. .••:;*•.— 4 a •Enterandtomplete:. 0 Anger Management ;Program • I) Batterers intenteritittp,ogr•am.::•• ::' . ait Theft Abatement Program: • ' ' '. ' 0 Other ' . , •..• .•4 O Defendant may apply lor.Eady Termination after . ) , provided ail cents, are satisfied. - • '0 Seritse ' . , • days /month irtf, wittrcredit for • -days /*ninths. • . I •-04 'fl'Y ertp0,91 • I Kii i k 0 •ptyr . ieer - — . ., • • -, I o 41) . --.).4 1-1Si bee44€?s- 8 F e i.s. _se... • I O i • • 0 il••••••••• ray ...ash,. . 1 EFTA01089339 I fete feemb ppied 'a With rithout Prejndic •• Warrt61 lOttuittred O Recalled 0 Bo BoodForf OoltbisaiiiRevoke'd/Reibistated Bodd Fore Vacated ••Crik,Mdous fond Reinstated, if Deft _ Jolliet\ 0 PE) Apb 0 Erg only' aluation rem Dvig Fault 0 DOC'Npn-Sea • O Pre*Plea 1ST ordered by/wi Referred to: PT! / SAAPi/P Case plgr ENTERED A afurd-cts • Sat &Test OP 0 NOT GUILTY :WaivedPSI ADIGUILTY.as (lugged as to I UMD as AYMBLD GUiln at: C"Cts 3 !tom ANDADJUDIC.ATED 110LARRIS 947 Pith iCoinitt C.Moot 0 sr 7 Stip/Pound: (Molest .131.GimEt PBCJ ii S PBCP Ntvocroit for .,one / ConseeiCo-Thrm whcosel 771084 Cm: IT P6OSTITM,TIO14 isr drawn ser 3 Execution of Sentence Stayed 0 Sentence Su 3 Youthful Off 0 Habitat& Oft .0 Alin /Mand: . AliftithfEEPNIENCEIOB! POI-.OWED By: 0 Probation a z DRIVERS LICBNSB Td BE SJSPONDED/ RE °KED Set/ &n., Set/ Renck., affey --- . • &Pres. • . • dteserves Rohn 01 'triton Orkr to Poll9w. • O SeeBel‘w VALsoCovels • OtpOond OSOR:DischAlleyoked/Reinstated ' . O, stai fad to inp diarg4s OfbeleasalaR./ &pa' •• • atatthiAppur:. • • 0 NO • *finputfroftiDThiftadfing ks O. psr pre.. trio Lesser clitage' " r•i• Lesser Charge . • C .Daft sign De/ Co 0 'bob 0 Jail 0 DJJ 0 GAL: Notified by by: . -Ifexez tt." :r. t lificeessfolly / rthisti Lys Predator Piv • RID_,___ at __f.'sRI/PS . • • . .. 1 ) • _...t . • - • • County Courthouse - 0 Comb Criminal Justice B . -: II Couriroot _nsn* ustice .Complex. 205 N. Dixie, West Palm Beach 38844 S Road, 80, Belie Glade: '-;: ' 32T8. Gun Club f(07*eat Piddi,Beach OF:100.436 A POISON WIN A OSABUTY IMO NEEOSNNY ACO010.03DAMMI CO* ID PANTS!, IN TILS-PROOLEENCAMMEENTO124 At NO eorrotiiitsti-rerimtastitiOK 74rnatcsotuicti itas!catoccr sutszJAMADA COCTINATON It TtbrISITtAlVI ( Uf TEE OP NTIgEncTLPAI.: iBri ttjaO1.= COURTHOUSE. 20* OCIOE litft'all fa .. . • pro,-. ,,n EFTA01089340 Exhibit 26 EFTA01089341 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND ATUATED IMINUAIIPS Ciagroup Center Jay P. Lelkowitz. P.C. To Call Writer Directly: June 15, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear MEI Facsimile: I am attaching a letter authored by my co-counsel, Robert Critton, on today's date. It represents our agreement with a proposal that Kathy Ezell indicated in a letter dated June 8, 2009 would be fully acceptable to her and Bob Josefsberg as a means to resolve expeditiously all outstanding fee issues regarding the attorney representative. Mr. Epstein has directed his counsel to take immediate steps to address and resolve the attorney representative's outstanding fee- related issues and we are doing so without delay. The suggestion of a Special Master, agreed to by both parties, to resolve the issues in the immediate future, will assure all parties that there will be no delay and no need for adversarial litigation regarding fees. More generally, I want to assure you that Mr. Epstein has directed all counsel to make sure that there is no filing that could constitute a breach of the NPA. Accordingly, anew internal screening process has been established to provide focused decision-making on each filing. To the extent we believe any filing may be perceived as implicating any of the issues generically addressed in the NPA (a document including sentences within paragraph 8 that even Mr. Acosta agreed were "far from simple"), we intend to address such issues with you prior to any filing and hope that you will agree to review the draft filing and inform us whether or not from your perspective it would, if filed, constitute a "breach". This will be especially important regarding issues that we believe fall at the intersection of Section 2255 and the civil litigation. We reserve our right, if you believe a proposed filing to conflict with the NPA or if you wish not to address these issues with us, thereafter to address such substantive issues with the Court. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, D.C. EFTA01089342 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP June 15, 2009 Page 2 We hope that these proposals—in combination with our immediate withdrawal of the previously filed Motion to Dismiss—resolve all outstanding issues at the intersection of the NPA and 2255. Please advise if any remain. Sincerely, a P. Lefkowitz Enclosure cc: EFTA01089343 Exhibit 27 EFTA01089344 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Civil Action No. 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, brings this Complaint against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and states as follows: PARTIES. JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. At all times material to this cause of action, Plaintiff; Jane Doe No. 101, was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. 2. This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101, because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse of a then minor. 3. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, had a residence located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. 4. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is currently a citizen of the State of Florida, as he is currently incarcerated in the Palm Beach County Stockade. 5. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, was an adult male born in 1953. EFTA01089345 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 2 of 22 6. This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. 7. This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. STATENENT OF FACTS 8. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, was an adult male, approximately 50 years old. Epstein is known as a billionaire financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to billionaires. He is a man of tremendous wealth, power, and influence. He owns a fleet of aircraft that includes a Gulfstream IV, a helicopter, and a Boeing 727, as well as a fleet of motor vehicles. Until his incarceration, he maintained his principal place of residence in the largest home in Manhattan, a 51,000-square-foot eight-story mansion on the Upper East Side. Upon information and belief, he also owns a $6.8 million mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, a $30 million 7,500-acre ranch in New Mexico he named "Zorro," and a 70-acre private island known as Little St. James in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, a mansion in London's Westminster neighborhood, and a home in the Avenue Foch area of Paris. The allegations herein concern Defendant's conduct while at his lavish homes and/or numerous other locations both nationally and internationally. 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant has a sexual preference for underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan, scheme, or enterprise in which he gained access in his home to countless relatively economically disadvantaged minor girls, sexually assaulted, molested, and/or exploited these girls, and then gave them money. 10. Beginning in or around 1998 through in or around September 2007, Defendant used his resources and his influence over vulnerable minor children to engage in a systematic pattern of sexually exploitative behavior. 2 EFTA01089346 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 3 of 22 11. Defendant's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Defendant coerced and enticed impressionable, vulnerable, and relatively economically less fortunate minors to participate in various acts of sexual misconduct that he committed upon them. Defendant's scheme involved the use of underage girls as well as other individuals to recruit other underage girls. Upon information and belief, Defendant or an authorized agent would call and alert Defendant's assistants shortly before or after he arrived at his Palm Beach residence. His assistants would seek out economically disadvantaged and underage girls from West Palm Beach and surrounding areas who would be enticed by the money being offered— generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session—and who Defendant and/or his assistants perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility issues if allegations of improper conduct were made. The then minor Plaintiff and other minor girls, some as young as 14 years old, were transported to Defendant's Palm Beach county mansion by Defendant's employees, agents, and/or assistants in order to provide Defendant with "massages." 12. Many of the instances of illegal sexual conduct committed by Defendant were perpetrated with the assistance, support, and facilitation of at least three assistants who helped him orchestrate this child exploitation enterprise. These assistants would often arrange times for underage girls to come to Defendant's residence, transport or cause the transportation of underage girls to Defendant's residence, escort the underage girls to the massage room where Defendant would be waiting or would enter shortly thereafter, urge the underage girls to remove their clothes, deliver cash from Defendant to the underage girls and/or their procurers at the conclusion of each "massage appointment," and, upon information and belief, take sexually explicit photographs and/or videos of the underage girls' for Defendant without their knowledge. Defendant would pay the procurer of each girl's "appointment" hundreds of dollars. 3 EFTA01089347 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 4 of 22 13. Epstein designed the scheme to secure a private place in Defendant's mansion where only persons employed and invited by Epstein would be present, so as to reduce the chance of detection of Defendant's sexual abuse and prostitution as well as to make it more difficult for the minor girls to flee the premises and/or to credibly report his actions to law enforcement or other authorities. The girls were usually transported by his employees, agents, and/or assistants or by a taxicab paid for by Defendant in order to make it difficult for the girls to flee his mansion. 14. Upon arrival at Defendant's mansion, each underage victim would generally be introduced to one of Defendant's assistants, who would gather the girl's personal contact information. The minor girl would then be led up a flight of stairs to a room that contained a massage table and a large shower. The staircase leading to the room was plastered with photographs of nude young girls, including some photographs depicting two or more young girls engaged in lewd acts. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, had such photographs in each of his four homes and on his computer. 15. At times, if it was the girl's first "massage" appointment, another female would be in the room to "lead the way" until Defendant would have her leave. Generally, Defendant would start his massage wearing only a small towel, which eventually would be removed. Defendant and/or the other female would direct the girl to massage him, giving the minor girl specific instructions as to where and how he wanted to be touched, and then direct her to remove her clothing. He would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious, and sexual acts, including masturbation, fondling the minor's breasts and/or sexual organs, touching the minor's vulva, vagina, and/or anus with a vibrator and/or back massager and/or his finger(s) and/or his penis, digitally penetrating her vagina, performing intercourse, oral sex, and/or anal sex, and/or coercing or attempting to coerce the girl to engage in lewd acts and/or prostitution and/or 4 EFTA01089348 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 5 of 22 enticing the then minor girl to engage in sexual acts with another female in Defendant's presence. The exact degree of molestation and frequency with which the sexual crimes took place varied and is not yet completely known; however, at least when Defendant was in Palm Beach, Florida, such acts occurred usually on a daily basis and, in most instances, several times a day. In order to facilitate the daily exchanges of money for sexual assault and abuse, Defendant kept U.S. currency readily available. 16. As previously stated in paragraph 14, Defendant displayed photographs of nude underage girls throughout his homes in New York City, Palm Beach, Santa Fe, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Upon information and belief, some of the photographs Defendant's possession of Defendant were taken with hidden cameras set up in his home in Palm Beach. On the day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of underage girls on a computer in Defendant's home. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, may have taken lewd photographs of Plaintiff; Jane Doe No. 101, with his hidden cameras and may have transported lewd photographs of Plaintiff (among many other victims) to his other residences and elsewhere using a facility or means of interstate and/or foreign commerce. Upon information and belief, one or more nude photographs of Plaintiff that were taken when she was a minor were confiscated by the Palm Beach Police Department during its execution of a search warrant of Defendant's Palm Beach mansion on October 20, 2005. Upon information and belief, those photographs are still in the custody of law enforcement 17. Defendant, Epstein, traveled to his mansion in Palm Beach for the purpose of luring minor girls to his mansion to sexually abuse and/or batter them. He used the telephone to contact these minor girls for the purpose of coercing them into acts of prostitution and to enable himself to commit sexual battery against them and/or acts of lewdness in their presence, and he conspired with others, including assistants and/or his driver(s) and/or pilot(s), and his socialite 5 EFTA01089349 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 6 of 22 friend/partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, to further these acts and to avoid police detection. Defendant's systematic pattern of sexually exploitative behavior referred to in paragraph 10 and described in paragraphs 11 through the present paragraph occurred at all of Defendant's domestic and international residences and/or places of lodging and/or modes of transportation. 18. Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, Defendant used his money, wealth, and power to unduly and improperly manipulate and influence the then minor Plaintiff. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, was recruited by one of Defendant's agents to give Defendant a massage for compensation. Plaintiff was apprehensive, but needed the money and finally agreed to go. Plaintiff was first brought to Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003, when she was merely 17 years old and in high school. Epstein's procurer drove her to Jeffrey Epstein's mansion. Plaintiff was led up a flight of stairs by a blonde woman to a spa room with a shower and a massage table, where she was left alone. A woman with dark hair, an accent, and naked from the waist up entered and tried to coax Plaintiff to remove her shirt, but Plaintiff refused. After the woman showed Plaintiff how to use the lotions that were there, the woman left Defendant walked in wearing only a small towel. Ile lay down on the massage table still wearing the small towel, and Plaintiff began to massage his shoulders and neck. Nervously, she asked him what he did for a living. Defendant responded that he was a scientist. Defendant asked Plaintiff what year she would graduate high school, to which Plaintiff honestly replied that she would graduate in 2004. Plaintiff massaged Defendant's lower back and calves. Defendant told her to remove his towel. Defendant told her that he had just worked out and wanted his buttocks massaged. Although disgusted, she was afraid to refuse and did it. At some point, Defendant ordered Plaintiff to remove her clothes. In shock, fear, and trepidation, Plaintiff partly complied, removing only her shirt and bra. When Defendant turned over, Plaintiff was afraid and embarrassed and she wanted to leave. Defendant repeatedly told her to relax and 6 EFTA01089350 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 7 of 22 complimented her, saying that she had a nice body. Defendant then pulled Plaintiff closer to him. He began masturbating and then began fondling her breasts. He asked her to do more and mentioned more money, which she adamantly declined. Defendant continued masturbating until he ejaculated. Plaintiff next recalls that she received $200 and was transported by the procurer, whom she later learned received $200 for having brought her to Epstein's mansion. 19. Defendant thereafter lured the then minor Plaintiff to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003. The procurer made another appointment for her to return, but Plaintiff didn't want to see Defendant. By having his assistants continue to contact Plaintiff and attempt to lure her to the mansion for other sexual acts, Defendant engaged in a continuous course of conduct that injured Plaintiff upon each instance of contact ancVor abuse. 20. In addition to the direct sexual abuse and molestation of the then minor Plaintiff, Defendant used his money, wealth, and power to unduly and improperly manipulate and influence the then minor Plaintiff to bring him another minor girl in a promised exchange for money. Rather than go herself, Plaintiff and the procurer took another girl there one time. 21. As a result of these encounters with Defendant, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No, 101, has in the past suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's controlling and manipulating her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. 22. Any assertions by Defendant that he was unaware of the age of the then minor Plaintiff are belied by her telling him her high school graduation year, as well as his own actions, and are rendered irrelevant by the provision of applicable federal statutes concerning the sexual 7 EFTA01089351 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 8, of 22 exploitation and abuse of a minor child. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, at all times material to this cause of action, knew and should have known of Plaintiff's age of minority. Defendant's preference for underage girls was well-known to those who regularly procured them for him. 23. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, committed the above-referenced acts upon the then minor Plaintiff in violation of federal statutes condemning the coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in prostitution or sexual activity, travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, sex trafficking of children, sexual exploitation of minor children, transport of visual depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, transport of child pornography, child exploitation enterprises, and other crimes, specifically including, but not limited to, those crimes designated in 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), § 2423(b), § 2423(e), § 2251, § 2252, § 2252A(a)(1), and § 2252A(g)(1). 24. In June 2008, after investigations by the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, entered pleas of "guilty" to various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against Plaintiff and, as such, must admit liability unto Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101. Plaintiff hereby exclusively seeks civil remedies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. COUNT ONE (Cause of Action for Coercion and Enticement of Minor to Engage in Prostitution or Sexual Activity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. @ 2422(b)) 25. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 24 above. 8 EFTA01089352 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 9 of 22 26. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, used a facility or means of interstate and/or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce Jane Doe No. 101, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and/or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempted to do so, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). 27. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, was a victim of one or mom offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future continue to suffix, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. 9 EFTA01089353 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 10 of 22 COUNT TWO iCanse of Action for Travel with Intent to &tease is Illicit Sexual Conduct pursuant to 18 U.S.C. & 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. & 2423(b)1 29. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 30. Upon information and belief; Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, traveled in interstate and/or foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(0, with minor females, including the then minor Plaintiff, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). 31. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Die No. 101, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, 10 EFTA01089354 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 11 of 22 actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT THREE (Cause of Action for Sexual Exploitation of Children pursuant to 18 & 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. & 22511 33. Plaintiff; Jane Doe No. 101, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 34. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced the then minor Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251. As previously stated in paragraphs 14 and 16, Defendant displayed a myriad of photographs of underage girls throughout his homes in New York City, Palm Beach, Santa Fe, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Upon information and belief; many of the photographs in the possession of Defendant were taken with hidden cameras set up in his home in Palm Beach. On the day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of underage girls on a computer in Defendant's home. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, may have taken lewd photographs of Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, with his hidden cameras and may have transported lewd photographs of Plaintiff (among many other victims) to his other residences and elsewhere using a facility or means of interstate and/or foreign commerce. Upon information and beliet one or more sexually explicit photographs of Plaintiff that were taken when she was a minor were confiscated by the Palm Beach Police Department during its execution of a search warrant of Defendant's Palm Beach mansion on October 20, 2005. Upon information and belie; those photographs are still in the custody of law enforcement. 11 EFTA01089355 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 12 of 22 35. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. 12 EFTA01089356 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 13 of 22 COUNT FOUR (Cause of Action for Transport of Visual Depiction of Minor Engaging in Sexually Explicit Conduct pursuant to 18 U.S.C. & 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. 82252(a)(111 37. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 24 above. 38. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, upon information and belief, knowingly mailed, transported, shipped, or sent via computer and/or facsimile in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce at least one visual depiction of the minor Plaintiff engaging in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1). As previously stated in paragraphs 14, 16, and 34, upon information and belief, Defendant displayed a myriad of nude photographs of underage girls throughout his homes in New York City, Palm Beach, Santa Fe, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Upon information and belief, many of the photographs in the possession of Defendant were taken with hidden cameras set up throughout his home in Palm Beach. On the day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of underage girls on a computer in Defendant's home. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, may have taken lewd photographs of Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, with his hidden cameras and may have transported lewd photographs of Plaintiff (among many other victims) to his other residences and elsewhere using a facility or means of interstate and/or foreign commerce. Upon information and belief, one or more sexually explicit photographs of Plaintiff that were taken when she was a minor were confiscated by the Palm Beach Police Department during its execution of a search warrant of Defendant's Palm Beach mansion on October 20, 2005. Upon information and belief, those photographs are still in the custody of law enforcement. 39. As previously stated in paragraph 22, any assertions by Defendant that he was unaware of the age of the then minor Plaintiff are belied by his actions and rendered irrelevant by the provision of applicable federal and state statutes concerning the sexual exploitation and abuse 13 EFTA01089357 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 14 of 22 of a minor child. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, at all times material to this cause of action, knew and should have known of Plaintiff's age of minority. Defendant's preference for underage girls was well-known to those who regularly procured them for him. 40. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. 14 EFTA01089358 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 15 of 22 COUNT FIVE Cause of Action for Transport of Child Pornoaraphv pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4 2255 In Violation of 18 U•S.C. & 2252A(a)(1)) 42. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, hereby adopts, repeats, rcalleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 43. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, knowingly mailed, transported, shipped, or sent via computer or facsimile in or affecting interstate and/or foreign commerce child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1). As previously stated in paragraph 16, Defendant displayed a myriad of nude photographs of underage girls throughout his homes, including his homes in New York City, Palm Beach, Santa Fe, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Upon information and belief, many of the photographs in the possession of Defendant were taken with hidden cameras set up throughout his home in Palm Beach. On the day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and nude photographs of underage girls on a computer in Defendant's home. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, may have taken lewd photographs of Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, with his hidden cameras and may have transported lewd photographs of Plaintiff (among many other victims) to his other residences and elsewhere using a facility or means of interstate and/or foreign commerce. Upon information and belief, one or more nude photographs of Plaintiff that were taken when she was a minor were confiscated by the Palm Beach Police Department during its execution of a search warrant of Defendant's Palm Beach mansion on October 20, 2005. Upon information and belief, those photographs are still in the custody of law enforcement. 44. As previously stated in paragraph 22, any assertions by Defendant that he was unaware of the age of the then minor Plaintiff are belied by his actions and rendered irrelevant by the provision of applicable federal and state statutes concerning the sexual exploitation and abuse of a minor child. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, at all times material to this cause of action, knew 15 EFTA01089359 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05101/2009 Page 16 of 22 and should have known of Plaintiff's age of minority. Defendant's preference for underage girls was well-known to those who regularly procured them for him. 45. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 46. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. 16 EFTA01089360 Case 9:09-cv-80591-I<AM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 17 of 22 COUNT SIX !Cause of Action for &nation in a Child Exploitation Enterprise pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Q 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. ti 2252Aft11, 47. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by mference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 above and Counts One through Five. 48. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, knowingly engaged in a child exploitation enterprise, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g)(2), in violation of 18 USC § 2252A(g)(1). As more fully above, Defendant engaged in actions that constitute countless violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (sex trafficking of children), Chapter 110 (sexual exploitation of children in violation of 18 §§ 2251, 2252(a)(1), and 2252(A)(aX1)), and Chapter 117 (transportation for illegal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, and 2423). As more fully set forth above in paragraphs 9 through 19, Defendant's actions involved countless victims and countless separate incidents of abuse, and he committed those offenses against minors in concert with at least three other persons. 49. Plaintiff, Jane Doc No. 101, was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 50. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses, 17 EFTA01089361 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 18 of 22 and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff; Jane Doe No. 101, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. Date: May 1, 2009 A/Katherine W. Ezell Robert C. Josefsberg, Bar No. 040856 Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 18 EFTA01089362 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 19 of 22 PEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands to have her case tried before a jury. s/Katherine W. Ezell Robert C. Josefsberg, Bar No. 040856 Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771 Podhurst Orsee P.A. 19 Attorneys for Plaintiff EFTA01089363 Case 9:09-cv-60591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 20 of 22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this la day of May, 2009, we electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized mariner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. Respectfully submitted, PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: /Katherine W. Ezell Robert C. Josefsberg Fla. Br No. IMIMMOIMM Katherine W. Ezell Fla. Bar No. City National Bank Building 20 EFTA01089364 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 21 of 22 SERVICE LIST JANE DOE NO. 101 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case No. 08-CV-80591-MARRPJJOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Robed Critton, Esq. Barman Critto Luttier & Coleman LLP Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, Y.A. Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. Brute E. Reinhart, P.A. Co-counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, PA. Counsel for Plaintiff C.MA. Adam Horowitz, Esq. Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. Herman & Mennelstein 21 EFTA01089365 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLED Docket 05/01/2009 Page 22 of 22 Phone: a Fax: Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Casa Nos. 0840069, 08-80119,08-80232, 0840380, 08- 80381. 08-80993. 08-80994 Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. Leopold Kuvin, P.A. OURS in e ase'o 08-08804 Richard Willits, Esq. Richard IL Willits, P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 Brad Edwards, Esq. Law Office of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 Isidro Manuel Garcia, Esq. Garcia Elkins & Boehringer Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 22 EFTA01089366