Response to R4P #7

Response to R4P #7 Correspondence between BJE and US Government Regarding Epstein In BJE Possession EFTA01099834 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Sument 30-?Aw Egneiticoi FLSD Diet 10/16/2008 Page 1 of 2 AND ASSOCIATES - October 9, 2008 AUSA United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Re: Jane Doe # and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America Case No.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Dear MI I am writing to call to your attention two potentially false statements that the Government made, albeit inadvertently, in a sworn declaration submitted to the Court in connection with the above-captioned case. I request that your office file a corrected declaration and accompanying explanation. mil e first statement is found at page 3 to 4 of the July 9111, 2008 declaration of There a provision in a plea agreement with Mr. Jeffrey Epstein is recounted. As we understand the Government's current position in this case, it is that this provision is not in fact part of the plea agreement in this case. If our understanding is correct, then has filed a false affidavit with the court, albeit inadvertently. We respectfully request that she file a new affidavit that corrects this false information, along with all other information relevant to understanding how the false information came to be provided to the court — and to the victims in this case. This correction should, in my view, include more details about how Epstein and his attorneys approved a submission of false information to the victims as you stated on Page 5, n.2 in your October 8, 2008 filing "Respondent's Opposition to Victims' Motion to Unseal Non- Prosecution Agreement" — presumably knowing that litigation surrounding the victims' rights issues was on-going and that such false information might be ultimately presented to the court. Such information is highly relevant to what remedy the victims might ultimately choose to seek for violations of their rights in this case. The second statement may or may not be false, but may need some clarification. At page 4 of declaration, she states that "pin October 2007, shortly after the agreement was signed, four victims [including= were contacted and these provisions were discussed' (emphasis added). Similarly at page 5, the declaration states: "After had been notified of the terms of the agreement ....." (emphasis added). I write to inquire whether, in view of the fact that the provision noted above is not in fact (according to the Government's current view) part of the plea agreement, whether this was the provision that the government (inaccurately) discussed with the victims. Put another way, I am wondering whether the Government will now stipulate that it, at most, discussed with the victims a provision in the plea agreement that never was actually part of the plea agreement. EFTA01099835 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Sument 30-2 Entered on FLSD et 10/16/2008 Page 2 of 2 United States Attorney's Office October 9, 2008 Page Two I continue to be interested in working out a joint stipulation of proposed facts in this case with the Government. If you would like to proceed in that direction, please give me a call. If, hovvever, the Government is not willing to work out a joint stipulation of facts, then I need to have the record be as clear as possible, and at a minimum would request that the Government correct the inaccurate information it has provided to the court and clarify precisely how such inaccurate information came to be made a part of the record and the extent to which Mr. Epstein, through his attorneys, was culpable. Sincerely, BEJsg Brad Edwards EFTA01099836 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM ilkument 3o-p A w ES ic FLSD Dirt 10/16/2008 Page 1 of 2 ( -4?ezelegtiaell AND ASSOCIATES October 15, 2008 AUSA United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Re: Jane Doe # and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America Case No.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Da I am writing to inquire about whether Mr. Epstein has violated his Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Government. As you know, the Government has repeatedly described the Non-Prosecution Agreement as guaranteeing to the victims of Epstein's sexual abuse at least $150,000 in civil damages. The Government has made these representations in reliance on a current provision in the U.S. Code —. 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a) — which provides for an automatic amount of damages of at least $150,000. At the time that the Non-Prosecution Agreement was drafted and signed, that was the law that was in effect. In Epstein's latest filing in federal court, however, he takes the position that the pre-2006 Amendments version of the law applies. See Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss, for More Definite Statement and To Strike Directed to Plaintiff Jane Doe's Complaint at 9, Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 08-CIV-80893-Marra/Johnson (discussing § 2255 and stating that the "applicable version of the statute" is "pre-2006 Amendments"). The 2006 Amendments altered § 2255(a), by increasing the presumed minimum damages from $50,000 to $150,000. See Pub. L. 109-248, Title VII, § 707(b), (c), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 650. In light of Epstein's latest filing, I write to ask several questions: (1) Would you stipulate that you told me several times that Epstein had agreed to pay at least $150,000 to the identified victims of his abuse? (2) Did Epstein in fact agree to pay damages to the identified victims of his abuse at least $150,000? (3) Did the Government tell victims, either directly or through counsel, that Epstein had agreed to pay his victims at least $150,000? EFTA01099837 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM •ument 30-3 Entered on FLSD DSet 10/16/2008 Page 2 of 2 \USA United States Attorney's Office October 15, 2008 Page Two (4) Is Epstein in compliance with his Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Government when he is now taking the legal position, through his attorneys, that he only has to pay the victims $50,000 damages under § 2255? Thank you for any clarification you can provide on these questions. Sincere BE/sg Brad Edwards cc: AUSA United States Attorney's Office 500 South Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 EFTA01099838 AND ASSOCIATES July 17, 2008 AUSA e tates ttorney s Office 500 South Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Proposed Stipulated Facts for In Re Jane Doe Dear l Thank you for your recent proposed stipulation of facts in this case. I believe that we have considerable common ground. At the same time, however, it appears to me that a few areas of potential disagreement are arising. In view of that, and to avoid any misunderstandings, I thought it might be useful to send a short letter outlining several requests and issues for resolution before I send you back my proposed stipulated facts. I. I am working with two other attorneys on this case — Jay Howell in Jacksonville, Florida, and Professor Paul Cassell in Salt Lake City, Utah. Because they were not in court for the hearing last Friday, they will need to review a transcript of the hearing before our legal team can agree to any stipulated facts. I have requested a transcript, but the preparation of it will apparently take several weeks. Do you have any way of expediting the preparation of the transcript by requesting it yourself? Also, as you know, my clients are indigent. As part of the Government's responsibility to use its "best efforts to see that crime victims are . . . accorded[] the rights" in the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), I was wondering whether the Government would'be willing to pay for the transcript. 2. Your proposed stipulation indicates that in September 2007 the U.S. Attorney's Office reached an agreement with Epstein to resolve the case, which was then modified in October and December of that year. While this seems plausible, to stipulate to the facts, 1 would obviously need to see copies of those three agreements. Moreover, because the circumstances surrounding the initial agreement and its later modification are now the subject of litigation, my client is entitled to see them. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8) (victim's right to "be fairness"). In addition, your proposed stipulation states that: "On July 9, 2008, AUSA sent a victim notific to Jane Doe #1 via her attorney, Bradley Edwards, which is attached as Exhibit 6 to the Declaration. That notification contains a written explanation of the full terms of the agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office." I am puzzled by this proposed stipulation, as your July 9 letter explicitly noted that it was covering only some of the provisions in the agreement. Perhaps the fact that I have not yet received the agreement is all just an oversight on your part, and you had intended to give me the "full terms" of the plea agreement that was ultimately reached. In any event, the simplest way to proceed at this point is for the plea agreement — and the earlier versions -- to be provided to me so that I can review EFTA01099839 AUSA United States Attorney's Office Page 2 them with my clients. Of course, no possible harm to the Government can come from the release of the documents, as this criminal matter is now concluded — at least from the Government's perspective. 3. I am wondering about your position on the confidentiality provision in the agreement. As I understand things from your proposed stipulation, in September 2007 you "reached" an agreement with Epstein's attorneys that "contained an express confidentiality provision." Are you taking the position that this "express" provision barred disclosure of the substance of the agreement to my clients? And, if so, would you stipulate that the FBI agents and your office complied with the provision up through June 30 when, I assume, the confidential provision expired as Epstein entered his guilty plea in open court? 4. Your proposed stipulation indicates: On October 26, 2007, met in person with ane oe . Z e pecia Agents explained that the investigation had been resolved, that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges, he would be required to register as a sex offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims, including Jane Doe #1. During this meeting, Jane Doe #1 did not raise any objections to the resolution of the matter. From the drafting of this proposed stipulation, it appears that you may be working from a Report of Interview with my client (i.e., an FBI 302). My client has a differing recollection of some aspects of that meeting. Of course, she did not take notes of the meeting. Therefore, I ask that you provide me (the relevant parts of) any report of this meeting as well as reports of any other meetings relevant to the matters at hand. I believe that my client is entitled to a copy of (the relevant parts of) the reports of interviews with her. Of course, a criminal defendant would be entitled to such documents. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A) & (B). As an innocent victim in this matter, my client should be treated with at least the same consideration. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8) (victim's right to "be treated with fairness"). 5. I am hoping that the Special Agents' and my client's recollections about one point of the October 26th meeting coincides: that she was never told that the agreement blocked all federal prosecution for the crimes at hand. Is a stipulation on that point agreeable? EFTA01099840 • AUSA United States Attorney's Office Page 3 6. You mention your assistance in securing pro bono counsel for Jane Doe RI to help prevent harassment. I trust that you would be willing to stipulate that you did not mention the federal non-prosecution agreement to this counsel and that you did not mention that a plea agreement had already been reached. Professor Cassell has spoken to Meg Garvin, Esq., at the National Crime Victims' Law Institute, and that is her recollection of the events. 7. I think that your proposed stipulation regarding my contact with the office is somewhat abbreviated. I wonder what you would think about the following: In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted to inform her that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. Mr. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. AUSA and Mr. Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being e . t the end of the call, asked Mr. Edwards to send any information that he wanted considered by the U.S. Attorney's Office in determining whether to file federal charges. Because of the confidentiality provision that existed in the plea agreement, Mr. Edwards was not informed that, in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had reached an agreement not to file federal charges. Mr. Edwards was also not informed that any resolution of the criminal matter was imminent. On July 3, 2008, Mr. Edwards sent to -a letter, a true and correct copy of which is attached. In the letter, Mr. Edwards indicated his desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his clients: "We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this very dangerous sexual predator." When Mr. Edwards wrote this letter, he was still unaware that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached with Epstein. Mr. Edwards first learned of this fact on or after July 9, 2008, when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition. That pleading was the first public mention of the non-prosecution agreement and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards and his clients. 8. I trust that you will agree that the Government had probable cause to file a multiple count federal indictment against Epstein, including an indictment chargin• crimes EFTA01099841 • AUSA United States Attorney's Office Page 4 against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. In asking for this stipulation, I realize that you have taken the position that you would not have filed an indictment involving Jane Doe #2, presumably because you thought that you could not carry the Government's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. At the same time, though, I trust you will concede that the evidence in that case was strong enough to pass the probable cause standard. 9. Finally, in light of the fact that you have been sending letters to Jane Doe #2, which was obviously done because you believed her to be a "victim" in this case, and since she has been added in this matter as a victim, we would like some assurances that she will be protected, as the other victims have been, in your agreement with Mr. Epstein. Thank you very much for considering these issues and concerns. I look forward to working with you to reach a stipulation that covers as much common ground as possible in this case. If you think that further discussions might be helpful, I would like to try and set up a conference call with you and my co-counsel to discuss these issues further. Sincerel BE/sg Enclosure cc: AUSA mt tales Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 EFTA01099842 LAW OFFICE -- (13' .7 a (I e. 'et • AND ASSOCIATES July 3, 2008 AUSA VIA CERTIFIED MAIL m e a es ttorney s Office RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 500 South Australian Avenue 7007 2680 0002 5519 8503 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Dear As you are aware, we represent several of the young girls that were victimized and abused by Jeffrey Epstein. While we are aware of his recent guilty plea and conviction in his State Court case, the sentence imposed in that case is grossly inadequate for a sexual predator of this magnitude. The information and evidence that has come to our attention in this matter leads to a grave concern that justice will not be served in this cause if Mr. Epstein is not aggressively prosecuted and appropriately punished. Based on our investigation and knowledge of this case, it is apparent that he has sexually abused more than 100 underage girls, and the evidence against him is overwhelmingly strong. As former Assistant State Attorneys with seven years' prosecution experience, we believe that the evidence against Mr. Epstein is both credible and deep and that he may be the most dangerous sexual predator of children that our country has ever seen. The evidence suggests, that for at least 4 years he was sexually abusing as many as three to four girls a day. It is inevitable that if he is not confined to prison, he will continue to manipulate and sexually abuse children and destroy more lives. He is a sexual addict that focused all of his free lime on sexually abusing children, and he uses his extraordinary wealth and power to lure in poor, underprivileged little girls and then also uses his wealth to shield himself from prosecution and liability. We are very concerned for the health and welfare of the girls he has already victimized, and concerned that if justice is not properly served now and he is not imprisoned for a very long time, he will get a free pass to sexually abuse children in the future. Future abuse and victimization is obvious to anyone who really reviews the evidence in this case, and future sexual abuse of minors is inevitable unless he is prosecuted, tried and appropriately sentenced. Money and power should not allow a man to make his own laws, and he has clearly received preferential treatment at every step up to this point. If he were a man of average wealth or the abused girls were from middle or upper class families, then this man would spend the rest of his life in prison. In a country of true, blind justice, those distinctions are irrelevant, and we really hope he does not prove the point that a man can commit heinous crimes against children and buy his way out of it. If the Department of Justice's recent commitment to the protection of our children from child molesters is to be more than rhetoric, then this is the time and the case where the Department must step forward. We urge the Attorney General and our EFTA01099843 • • AUSA United States Attorney's Office Page Two Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr, Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect Qur children from this very dangerous sexual perpetrator. We will help you to do this in any way possible to ensure that true Justice is served in this case. Sincerely, Brad Edwards, Esquire Jay Howell, Esquire EFTA01099844 LAW • (./ (c/e/tgai • AND ASSOCIATES July 3, 2008 AUSA VIA CERTIFIED MAIL United States Attorney's Office RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 500 South Australian Avenue 7007 2680 0002 5519 8503 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Dear As you are aware, we represent several of the young girls that were victimized and abused by Jeffrey Epstein. While we are aware of his recent guilty plea and conviction in his State Court case, the sentence imposed in that case is grossly inadequate for a sexual predator of this magnitude. The information and evidence that has come to our attention in this matter leads to a grave concern that justice will not be served in this cause if Mr. Epstein is not aggressively prosecuted and appropriately punished. Based on our investigation and knowledge of this case, it is apparent that he has sexually abused more than 100 underage girls, and the evidence against him is overwhelmingly strong. As former Assistant State Attorneys with seven years' prosecution experience, we believe that the evidence against Mr. Epstein is both credible and deep and that he may be the most dangerous sexual predator of children that our country has ever seen. The evidence suggests that for at least 4 years he was sexually abusing as many as three to four girls a day. It is inevitable that if he is not confined to prison, he will continue to manipulate and sexually abuse children and destroy more lives. He is a sexual addict that focused all of his free time on sexually abusing children, and he uses his extraordinary wealth and power to lure in poor, underprivileged little girls and then also uses his wealth to shield himself from prosecution and liability. We are very concerned for the health and welfare of the girls he has already victimized, and concerned that if justice is not properly served now and he is not imprisoned for a very long time, he will get a free pass to sexually abuse children in the future. Future abuse and victimization is obvious to anyone who really reviews the evidence in this case, and future sexual abuse of minors is inevitable unless he is prosecuted, tried and appropriately sentenced. Money and power should not allow a man to make his own laws, and he has clearly received preferential treatment at every step up to this point. If he were a man of average wealth or the abused girls were from middle or upper class families, then this man would spend the rest of his life in prison. In a country of true, blind justice, those distinctions are irrelevant, and we really hope he does not prove the point that a man can commit heinous crimes against children and buy his way out of it. If the Department of Justice's recent commitment to the protection of our children from child molesters is to be more than rhetoric, then this is the time and the case where the Department must step forward. We es EFTA01099845 AUSA United States Attorney's Office Page Two Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr, Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect pur children from this very dangerous sexual perpetrator. We will help you to do this in any way possible to ensure that true Justice is served in this case. Sincerely, Brad Edwards, Esquire Jay Howell, Esquire EFTA01099846 07/09/2008 15:13 FAX USAO WPB CONFRM 2102:2 • U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Austral= Ave.. Suite 400 Ittest Palm Beach. FL 33401 June 7, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights Dear Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, ypu have a number of rights. Those rights are: (I) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused: (3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court deterrnincs that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for othei portions of a proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The righi to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. (8) The tight to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and ti Members of the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these n is are rotected. If you have any concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at 9 om•the Federal Bureau of Investigation at You also• can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in hat Office has a website at www.ove.gov. privacy. Washington, D.C. at You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the right's listed above and: if you believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for relief. EFTA01099847 07/09/2008 15:14 FAX USAO WPB CONFRM S JUNE 7. 2007 PAGE 2 In addition to these rights, you are entitled to counseling and medical services, and protection from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you arc a victim, you also may be entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service providers can be provided to you, if you d amity is subjected to any intimidation or harassment, please contact or myself immediately. It is possible that someone working on behalf of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such contact does not violalektise law?. However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to that person or refusin ted nd feel that you are being threatened or harassed, then please ' 'contact or myself. You alscr are entitled to notification of upcoming case events. At this time, your case is under investigation) If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be notified. By: cc: Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney Assistant United States Attorney ff EFTA01099848 07/09/2008 15:14 FAX Dear USAO WPB CONFRM • U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida SOO South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights August l I, 2006 Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, you have a number of rights. Those rights are: (I) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The right to. reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the 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. (.( Members of the U.S. Departtent of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these rights are rotected. If ou have an concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me a r firom the Federal Bureau of Investigation a • ou a so can contac e ustice epaerhnent's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C. at That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights:listed above and, if you believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for relief. @024 EFTA01099849 07/09/2008 15:14 FAX USAO WPB CONFRM Q025 • AUGUST II, 2006 PAGE 2 In addition to these rights, you arc entitled to counseling and medical services, and pi from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you are a victim, you Ain entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service pro% hit be provided to you, if you so desire. If you or your family is subjected to any intimit • • harassment, please contac ir myself immediately. It is po:.s,l,;,• r, someone working on behalf of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such con! not violate the law. However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to duo p or refusin to do so. If ou refuse and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, dlr..; id contact or myself. You also are entitled to notification of upcoming case events. At this time, your CT: . investigation. If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be noii: By: cc: Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney Assistant United States Attorney f f EFTA01099850 07/09/2008 1S:14 FAX • USAO WPB CONFITM • Z026 ,OA 0J4 r.oc , wi U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beach Suite 500 505 South Reeler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401 January 10, 2008 Re: Case Number: Deal. This case is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough Investigation. As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code §37/1: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused: (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and tirnety notice of any pubilo court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clew and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered If the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court Involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceectrig; (5) The, reasonable right to confer with the attorney (or the Government In the case; (8) The right to full and timely restitution as provided In taw: (7) The right to proceedrngs free frarn unreasonable delay; (a) The right to be treated with fairness end with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. We will make our best efforts to ensure you art accorded the rights described. Most of these rights portaIn to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and It wilt become the responsibility of the prosecuting United Slates Attorney's Ottlee to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the edvice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. The Victim Notification System (VNS) is designed to provide you wt area informafion regarding the case as it proceeds through the criminal Justice system. You may obtain current information a on the beemot al WWW.Notty.LISDOJ.GOV or from the VNS Call Center at 1 Ill In addle° e o e your lendiu change your decision about participation In the notification program. If you update your informatbn to Include a current email address VNS w ' • a following Vain) Identification Number and anytime you contact the Call Center and rs me you log on to your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VMS. The name you should enter I on en me n a nion, the first time you acorn:a VNS Internet site, you will be proms. enter EFTA01099851 07/09/2008 15:14 PAX USAO WPM CONFRM 2027 -• • . 0J , V f it you have additional questions which involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When you call, please provide the file number located at the top of this letter. Please remember, your participaton in the notification pan of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications, it is your responsibility to keep your contact information current. Sincerely, m Specfalie EFTA01099852 07/08/2008 15:15 F USA° WPB CONFAB qh 028 • JCL coo OJDA r.04 , Of January 10,200B James Eisenberg One Cleerlake Center Ste 704 Australian South West Palm Beach. Fl 33401 Dear James Eisenberg: U-S. Department of Justice Federal. Bureau of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beath Suite 500 505 South Raider Drive West a ch Ft. 334 1 You have requested to receive notifications for This case is currenUy under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. Asa crime victim, you have the following rights under te United States Code § 3771: (I) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, Involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (1) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding. unless the court, after • receiving clear and convinesig evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be ma0erialy altered if the victim heard other testimony et that proceeding: (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding In the district court invohing release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to hail 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 rasped for the vicIlm's dignify and privacy. We will make our beat efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to evenly occurring after the arrest or Indictment of an individual for the crime, and It will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a privets attorney with respect to these rights. The Victim NotlficallOn System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the case as It proceeds through the criminal justice system. YoU may obtain current on the IM enter at In addition, you may use the Cal e or ntemet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the notification program. If you update your information to Include a current email address, VNS information to that address. You will need the folowing Victkn Identification Number (VIN) anytime you contact the Call Center end the first time you log on to you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is EFTA01099853 07/09/2008 15:15 FAX USAO 5VPB CONFitif U1029 • • DOI OD° ODOI r.OD/Or if you have additional questions which Involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When you call. please provide the fife number bated at the top of this letter. Please remember, your participation in the notification part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications. ft is your responsibility lo keep your contact Information currant. Sincerely, Victim Specialist EFTA01099854 07/09/2008 15:15 FAX USA° ITPB CONFRM 2)030 May 30, 2008 Uer • U.S. DepartmeM of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI • West Palm Beach Suite 500 505 South Fleeter Drive West Palm Beech, FL 33401 Your name was referred to the Fars Victim Assistance Program as being a possible victim of a federal crime. We appreciate your assistance and cooperation while we are Investigating this case. We would like to make you aware of the victim services that may be available fo you and to answer any questions you may have regarding the criminal justice process throughout the investigation. Our program its part of the FBI's effort to ensure the victims are treated with respect and are provided information about their rights under federal law. These rights Include nofification of the status of the case. The enclosed. brochures provide Information about the FBI's Victim Assistance Program, resources and instructions for accessing the Victim Notification System (VNS). VNS Is designed to provide you with information regarding the status of your case. This case Is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused: (2) The right to reasdnable, accurate, and (finely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused: (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public =Hi proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered it the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard et any public proceeding in the district court Involving release, plea. sentencing, or any parole proceoging; (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to full and timely restitution es provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; (8) The right to be treated with faness end with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occuning after the arrest or indicbnent of an individual for the crime. and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Atbmey's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. The Victim Notification System (VNS) Is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the case as ii proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current information about this r on the Internet at VVWW.No nter In add' n, y um y use e en et or n erne up eta your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the notification program. if you update your Information to include a current email address, VNS will send Information to following Victim Identification Number ' end nytime you contact the Can Center an e t t me you log on to . . n. I's e you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prom d er your Last name (or Dueness nome) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter I -se EFTA01099855 07/09/2008 15:15 FAS.. IISAO WPB CONERV V • moo• nav ooa♦ r.nrior II you have additional questions which Involve this matter, please contact the office Ested above. When you call, please provide the flee number located at the top of this letter. Please rernember, your participation in the notification part of this program Is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications. It is your responsibility to keep your contact information current. Sincerely, Victim Specialist TOfl. P.07 EFTA01099856 It 032 Mil 07/09/2008 15:15 FAX USA0 WPB CORERS U.S. Department of Justice • • United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave.. Suite 400 West Palm VIA FACSIMILE Brad Edwards, Esq. The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC July 9, 2008 Re: aTIO OF MENT/rEED VICTIM Dear Mr. Edwards: By victue of this letter, the United States Anomeyts Office for the Southern District of Florida asks that yea provide the following notice to your client, On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstein) entered a plea of guilty to violations afFleriela Statutes Sections 796.07 (felony solicitation of prostitution) and 796.03 (procurement of alifiQrS to engage in Prnsti10 04 ift the 15-th Judicial Circuit in and for Rahn:' literlich • Ootinty Tose Dios, 20Q6-c 0044444XXXIsa and 2002-cf- 0093a IA,TX40)00divat *eaten* tri a ten of tIbigi+iiiiiati$' 4Sp4ositaeat to be foltavved by wit *W1114031 sPtinOttlits' irn t8otiiatt4t, fOstwect by itiEebt Months of Community Control 1, with conditions of community contitalnent irriposed by the Court. In light of the entry of the guilty plea and sentence, the United. States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in €avor of this state plea and sentence, subject to certain conditions. • One such condition to which Epstein has agreed is the following: "Any person; who while a minor, was a victim ot a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Seetion 2215, Vein have the. same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had; if Mr. Epstein EFTA01099857 07/09/2008 15:16 FAX USAO WPB CONFRM QtO33 • BRAD EDWARDS, ESQ. NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VIC JULY 9, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 had 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 his 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." Through this letter, this Office hereby provides Notice that your clien is an individual whom the United States was prepared to name as a victim of an enumerated offense. i -. • Ai %souk! Your client decide to ilk a •claim against Jeffrey Epstein, his attorney, Jack Goldberger, asks that you contact him at Atterbury Goldbert er and Weiss Please understand that neither the U:S: Attorney's Office nor the Federal Bureau of Itrutatigitliou can take part in or othenvise assitt in civil litigation; However, if yonder 5Ie a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and Mi. Speck) denies that your client is a victim Of an enumerated offense, please provide notice of that denial to the undersigned. Please thankyour client for glebes assistance laidtegtratati4thatirtiglt Kyr* *010€0. .410,4# rald virelitbeing SIMON cc: Jack Goldberger, Esq. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY EFTA01099858 USAO WPB CONFAB a 034 07/09/2008 15:16 FA b t U.S. Department of Justice • United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave.. Suite 400 • July 9, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE Brad Edwards, Esq. The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC Re: IDENTIFIER virotyk Dear Mr. Edwards:. By Virtue of this Lena, thegnited.III*AMtorney's Office for e o Tic! of Florida nits thitynn provide the iilhaWingdittiee to your elieht On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred toss "Epstein) entged aplea of guilty to violations of Florida Statutes Sections 796.07 (klony solicitation of prostitution) and 796.03:(procuranent of minerstatinsage in Presthittiort);lin the 15tit Judicial Grafi! in and for Pratt Beath County k(44re Has. 2006-cf-0094,4AXXXIca and 2000ref- ogottiax9emn) aod.was septeMorto-A.Ospt twel*vostigT impoioroitig. to lie 4044tied, by ilkvig0404Fig 314'W traill**tra,k :Oteimi* *tht .***IL et Connhunity:C'ont€ol With contddenti confinement imposed* thi§ourt. In light of the entry of the guilty plea and sentence, the United States ties agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state. plea and sentence, subject to certain .conditions. One such condition to whichtpstehtItanagreed is the lot/owing; "Any person, who while a Minor, was a-victim of a violation_ cif an offense enumerated in Title 18, United-410er Code,* Section 2255, will have thee same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would haye had, if Mr. Epstein EFTA01099859 07/09/2008 15:16 FAX 5618059846 USAO WPB CONFRM Q035 • • BRAD EDWARD$, ESQ. NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM JULY 9, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 had 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 aplaintiff 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 loss." Through this letter, this Office hereby provides Notice that your client, is an individual whom the United States was prepared to name as a victim of an enumerated offense. Should your eftent decide in frig a claim against Jeffrey Epstein, his attorney, lack Goldberger; ash& that you contact idyl at Aiterbury Goldberger and Weiss, Mate underatand that neither the U.S. Attorney's Offite not the Federal Bureau of hvvcstigattiort can take port in or otherwise assist in civil litigation; however, if you do file a claim under it U.S.C. § 2255 and Mr. Epstein denies that your client is a victim of an enumerated offense, please provide notice of that denial to the undersigned. Please thank y.pus client ler *of her assistance durin the course of this examination .antitiMmatistttehaatatirtre.tardstOf, Aid far gut 104, Stt*ittt B cc: Jack Goldberger, Esq. It ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY EFTA01099860 March 20, 2011 To whom it may concern: I served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida from 2005 through 2009. Over the past weeks, I have read much regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. Some appears true, some appears distorted. I thought it appropriate to provide some background, with two caveats. (0 under Justice Department guidelines, I cannot discuss privileged internal communications among Department attorneys and (ii) I no longer have access to the original documents, and as the matter is now nearly 4 years old, the precision of memory is reduced The Epstein matter was originally presented to the Palm Beach County State Attorney. Palm Beach Police alleged that Epstein unlawfully hued underage high-school females to provide him sexually lewd and erotic massages. Police sought felony charges that would have resulted in a term of imprisonment. According to press reports, however, in 2006 the State Attorney, in part due to concerns regarding the quality of the evidence, agreed to charge Epstein only with one count of aggravated assault with no intent to conunit a felony. That charge would have resulted in r.o jail time, no requirement to register as a sexual offender and no restiaMon for the underage victims. Local police were dissatisfied with the State Attorney's conclusions, and requested a federa: investigation Federal authorities received the State's evidence and engaged in addibonal investigation. Prosecutors weighed the quality of the evidence and the likelihood for success at trial. With a federal case, there were two additional considerations. First, a federal criminal prosecution requires that the crime be more than local; it must have an interstate nexus. Second, as the matter was initially charged by the state, the federal responsibility is, to some extent, to back-stop state authorities to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice, and not to also prosecute federally that which has already been charged at the state level. After considering the quality of the evidence and the additional considerations, prosecutors concluded that the state charge was insufficient. In early summer 2007, the prosecutors and agents in this case met with Mr. Epstein's attorney, Roy Black. Mr. Black is perhaps best known for his successful defense of William Kennedy Smith. The prosecutors presented Epstein a choice: plead to more serious state felony charges (that would result m 2 years' imprisonment, registration as a sexual offender, and restitution for the victims) or else prepare for a federal felony trial. What followed was a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors. I use the word assault intentionally, as the defense in this case was more aggressive than any which I, or the prosecutors in my office, bad previously encountered. Mx. Epstein hired an army of legal superstars: Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, former Judge and then Pepperdine Law Dean Kenneth Starr, former Deputy Assistant to the President and then Kirkland & Ellis Partner Jay Letkowitz, and several others, including prosecutors who had formally worked in the U.S. EFTA01099861 Attorney's Office and in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department. Defense attorneys next requested a meeting with me to challenge the prosecution and the terms previously presented by the prosecutors in their meeting with Mr. Black. The prosecution team and i met with defense counsel in Fall 2007, and I reaffirmed the office's position: two years, registration and restitution, or trial. Over the next several months, the defense team presented argument after argument claiming that felony criminal proceedings against Epstein were unsupponed by the evidence and lacked a basis in law, and that the office's insistence on jail-time was motivated by a zeal to overcharge a man merely because he is wealthy. They bolstered their arguments with legal opinions from well- known legal experts. One member of the defense team warned me that the office's excess zeal in Coming a good man to serve time in jail might be the subject of a book if we continued to proceed with this matter. My office systematically considered and rejected each argument, and when we did, my office's decisions were appealed to Washington. As to the warning, I ignored it. The defense strategy was not limited to legal issues. Defense counsel investigated individual prosecutors and their families, looking for personal peccadilloes that may provide a basis for disqualification. Disqualifying a prosecutor is an effective (though rarely used) strategy, as eliminating the individuals most familiar with the facts and thus most qualified to take a case to trial banns likelihood for success. Defense counsel tried to disqualify at least two prosecutors. I carefully reviewed, and then rejected, these arguments. Despite this army of attorneys, the office held arm to the terms first presented to Mr. Black in the original meeting. On June 30, 2008, after yet another last =mite appeal to Washington D.C. was rejected, Epstein pled guilty in state court. He was to serve 18 months imprisonment, register as a sexual offender for life and provide restitution to the victims. Some may feel that the prosecution should have been tougher. Evidence that has come to light since 2007 may encourage that view. Many victims have since spoken out, tiling detailed statements in civil eases seeking damages. Physical evidence has since been discovered. Had these additional statements and evidence been known, the outcome may bave been different But they were not known to us at the time. A prosecution decision must be based on admissible facts known at the time. In cases of this type, those are unusually difficult because victims are frightened and often decline to testify or if they do speak, they give contradictory statements. Our judgment in this case, based on the evidence blown at the time, was that it was better to have a billionaire serve time in jail, register as a sex offender and pay his victims restitution than risk a trial with a reduced likelihood of success. I supported that judgment then, and based on the state of the law as it then stood and the evidence known at that time, I would support that judgment again. Epstein's treatment, while in state custody, likewise may encourage the view that the office should have been tougher. Epstein appears to have received highly unusual treatment while in jail. Although the terms of confinement in a state prison arc a matter appropriately left to the EFTA01099862 State of Florida, and not federal authorities, without doubt, the treatment that he received while in state custody undermined the purpose of a jail sentence Some may also believe that the prosecution should have been tougher in retaliation for the defense's tactics. The defense, arguably, often failed to negotiate in good faith. They would obtain concessions as pan of a negotiation and agree to proceed, only to change their minds, and appeal the office's position to Washington. The investigations into the family lives of individual prosecutors were, in my opinion, uncalled for, as were the accusations of bias and / or misconduct against individual prosecutors. At times, some prosecutors felt that we should just go to trial, and at times i felt that frustration myself. What was right in the first meeting, however, remained right inespective of deft. nse tactics. Individuals have a constitutional right to a defense. The aggressive exercise of that right should not be punished, nor should a defense counsel's exercise of their right to appeal a U.S. Attorney to Washington, D.C. Prosecutors must be careful not to allow frustration and anger with defense counsel to influence their judgment. After the plea, I recall receiving several phone calls. One was from the FBI Special Agent-in- Charge. He called to offer congratulations He had been at many of the meetings regarding this case. He was aware of the tactics of the defense, and he called to praise our prosecutors for holding firm against the tikes of Messrs. Black, Dershowitz, Lefkowitz and Stan. It was a proud moment. I also received calls or communications from Messrs. Dershowitz, Lefkowitz and Starr. I had known all three individuals previously, from my time in law school and at Kirkland & Ellis in the mid 90s. They all sought to make peace. i agreed to talk and meet with each of them after Epstein pled guilty, as I think it important that prosecutors battle defense attorneys in a case and then move on. I have tried, yet i confess that has been difficult to do (tally in this case. The bottom line is this: Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire, served time in jail and is now a registered sex offender. He has been required to pay his victims restitution, though restitution clearly cannot compensate for the crime. And we know much more today about his crimes because the victims have come forward to speak out. Some may disagree with the prosecutorial judgments made in this case, but those individuals arc not the ones who at the time reviewed the evidence available for trial and assessed the likelihood of success. Respectfully, R. Alexander Acosta Former U.S. Attorney Sothern District of Florida EFTA01099863 EFTA01099864 U , THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW -Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida PAUL G. CASSELL Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Tele hone: December 10, 2010 Re: Request for Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Prosecution Dear Mr. Ferrer: I am writing as someone with extensive experience in the federal criminal justice system — as a former Associate Deputy Attorney General, Assistant United States Attorney, federal judge, and currently criminal law professor —to alert you to what seems to be the most suspicious criminal case I have ever encountered. I ask that you investigate whether there were improper influences and actions during your office's criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, particularly regarding the decision to enter into a binding non-prosecution agreement blocking his prosecution for numerous federal sex offenses he committed over many years against more than thirty minor girls. As I am sure you are well aware, in 2006 your office opened a criminal investigation with the FBI into allegations that for years Jeffrey Epstein sexual abused dozens of minor girls in his West Palm Beach mansion. The FBI soon developed compelling evidence that Epstein had in fact committed numerous federal sex offenses with more than 30 minor girls. And yet, your office ultimately entered into a plea arrangement which allowed Epstein escape with a non- prosecution agreement that ensured he would have no federal criminal liability and would spend no more than 18 months in state jail. For sexual offenses of this magnitude — in a case with more than 30 witnesses providing interlocking testimony, all made automatically admissible by virtue of Fed. R. Evid. 414 —this is an extraordinary outcome. Why did your office enter into this highly unusual non-prosecution arrangement with Epstein? Suspicion begins with the point that Epstein is a politically-connected billionaire. But that wouldn't be troubling without considerable other evidence that something went terribly wrong with the prosecution for other, improper reasons. Consider the following highly unusual facts: First, it appears that Epstein was tipped off before the execution of a search warrant at his home. We know that lead state police officers --and Police Chief a al l- complained that the house was "sanitized" by the time they arrived to serve a search warrant for child pornography. This sanitation was evident by the various computer wires hanging with no computers attached. Housekeeper Janusz Banasiak later testified In a civil EFTA01099865 deposition that Epstein's assistant, end another man (unknown) were instructed to remove, and did in fact remove, multiple computers from Epstein's home shortly before the search warrant was served. The fact that there could well have been a tip off is apparently suspected by federal authorities. Second, there is evidence that one of the senior prosecutors in your office joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability — and im ro erl re resented people close to Epstein. During the federal investigation of Epstein, vas a senior Assistant U.S. Attorney in your office. As we understand things, he was a direct supervisor of the line prosecutor handling the case and thus was well aware of details of the Epstein investigation and plea negotiations. We further believe that he was consulted on issues related to the prosecution of Epstein and Epstein's co-conspirators, including specifically issues related to whether Epstein employees and pilots should be prosecuted for their involvement in Epstein's sexual offense. We further believe that he personally and substantially participated in making such decisions about the course of the criminal investigation. Within months after the non-prosecution agreement was signed by your offic' left your office and immediately went into private practice as a white collar criminal defense attorney. His office coincidentally happened to be not only in the same building (and on same floor) as Epstein's lead criminal defense counsel, Jack Goldberger, but it was actually located right next door to the Florida Science Foundation -- an Epstein-owned and -run company where Epstein spent his "work release." While working in this office adjacent to Epstein's undertook the representation of numerous Epstein employees and pilots during the civil cases filed against Epstein by the victims — cases that involved the exact same crimes and exact same evidence being reviewed by the U.S. Attorney's office when he was employed there. Specifically, he represented (Epstein's number one co-conspirator who was actually named as such in the N PA , is ), his pilots Larry Morrison, Larry Visoski, David Rogers, William Hammond and Robert Roxburgh. (Hammond and Roxburgh were not deposed but the others were.) Our understanding is that his representation of these individuals was paid for, directly or indirectly, by Epstein. was well aware of what evidence your office and federal investigator had collected against Epstein and about the minor girls who were his victims. As a consequence, he knew what evidence the attorneys for the victims were using. He also knew what each of those witnesses had said, if anything, to federal and state investigators during the criminal investigation. We have been unable to place our fingers on the federal regulations governing such later representation. We do know, however, that such actions appear to be in direct contravention of the Florida ethical rules regarding attorneys who leave government employment. For 2 EFTA01099866 example, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(a) provides "la] lawyer shall not represent a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee unless the appropriate government agency consents after consultation." Similarly, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(b) provides that "(al lawyer having information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee may not represent a private client whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used to the material disadvantage of that person." Both these rules appear to have been violated. But entirely apart from the details of ethical rules, the fact that one of your prosecutors was involved in making important decisions about the scope of criminal liability for Epstein and his associates and then — after criminal liability was significantly limited— representing numerous people at Epstein's behalf raises serious questions. At the very least, there is the strong appearance that may have attempted to curry favor with Epstein and then reap his reward through favors le employment. At the very worst, there may have been advance discussions — we simply don't know at this point. Third, Epstein appears to have deliberately kept from victims in the case correspondence with your office and the Justice Department that might have shed light on improper influences. Along with other capable attorneys, I was involved in representing one of Epstein's victims a who filed a federal civil case against Epstein. Suspecting that Epstein may have improperly influenced your office, we immediately served discovery requests on Epstein for all the correspondence with your office regarding the plea negotiations. Eleven months of hard litigation ensued, in which Epstein made every conceivable argument against production. Finally, late in June of this year, his appeals exhausted, Epstein produced the correspondence to us. However, in violation of the court order, he redacted the correspondence so that he provided only emails and other statements from your office — not his emails and statements to your office. More significantly, even though he was under court order to produce all correspondence between his attorneys and your office, Epstein secretly withheld • correspondence by several of his most hi h-powered attorneys — namely Ken Starr and Lilly Ann Sanchez. Epstein settled the case withElwithin days after this limited production, and we did not realize the absence of what must have been critical discussions between your office and Starr and Snachez (among others). Epstein's refusal to allow us to see that information raises the suspicion in our minds that there must have been unusual pressures being brought to bear during the plea discussions that would have been revealed had Epstein complied with his production obligations. Fourth, there appears to have been an unprecedented level of secrecy between your office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this case. The FBI was responsible, along with state and local police agencies, for building the case against Epstein. They appear to have developed an overwhelming criminal against him. And yet, when your office signed the non- prosecution agreement with him, it is not clear to us that the FBI was consulted about this decision. Indeed, we have suspicions that the FBI was not informed of this decision until, perhaps, months later. 3 EFTA01099867 Supporting this suspicion is our on-going litigation regarding the treatment of the victims in this case. As you know from our draft pleadings that we have discussed with your office, we believe there is compelling evidence that the victims and their attorneys were deceived about the existence of a non-prosecution agreement for months in order to avoid what certainly would have been a firestorm of controversy about such lenient treatment of a repeat sex offender. Our impression from the evidence we have been able to obtain so far is that the FBI was similarly kept in the dark — not consulted about or even told about the NPA. While a certain amount of tension has always existed between federal prosecuting and investigating agencies, not even informing the FBI about the Epstein NPA seems highly unusual. All of these strange facts — as well as the facts that we are alleging in our crime victims' litigation — lead us to think that there was something rotten with the way this case was handled. Epstein could have faced years and years in prison for numerous federal sex offenses. And yet he managed to contrive to walk away with no federal time at all (and only minimal state time). We respectfully ask you to investigate through appropriate and independent channels the handling of the Epstein (non)prosecution. Thank you in advance for considering this request. I would be happy to provide any other additional information that would be useful to you. 4 EFTA01099868 Qui Tam Class Action Personal Injury Wrongful Death Commercial Litigation PATHTOJUSTICE.00M Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L. March 22, 2011 Assistant United States Southern District of Florida Re: Rule 26(a)(I) Disclosures in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States. No. 09-80736 Dear As you know, in the past you have asserted that the federal rules regarding civil cases cover Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's petition for relief under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. If you are correct that the civil rules apply, then both sides of the case are obligated to make voluntary initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1). We are writing to make our initial disclosures and ask you to promptly do the same. INDIVIDUALS LIKELY TO HAVE DISCOVERABLE INFORMATION B e Epstein, Prosecutors in the U.S. Attorne s Office who have handled the Epstein case, including ■ and Alex Acosta. EFTA01099869 Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States—No. 09-80736 FBI agents who have handled this case. All attorneys and investigators involved in the Office of Professional Responsibility investigation related to this case. L. Dennison Reed Ps .D., p Larry Visoski, : • . . C/' • Ti"' Y WILL • s I Alfredo Rodriguez, C/O Federal Public defender or Bureau of Prisons R. t Palm Beach Police eac 'once, r a 'am Records Custodian of Palm Beach Police, • . PODHURST OXISISIAll A, I I do Adam Horowitz, Mermelstein & iiiilin, Antonio I i ueroa do Robert Josefsberg, Esq., PODHURST FLAGLER STREET, STE 800, MIAMI, ORSECK, PA, 25 W FL 33131 do Spencer Kuvin, LEOPOLD KUVIN, PA, 200, PBG FL 33410 2925 PGA BLVD STE do Jack Scarol. SEARCY DENNEY, ET 2 EFTA01099870 Rule 26(0(11 Disclosures in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States. No. 09-80736 Carol Morton Case I Courtne Lan:le Jane Doe #1 (C.W.), do Bradley Edwards, Es ., FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, ET AL., eor: a do Adam Horowitz, Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. I . • SI rt Joscfsber ' I ' ST • ' SECK, • A, t t 1 .mill4-). . 44 -4iNtalka, . PODHURST ORSECK, PA, do Robert Josefsberg, E .., PODHURST ORSECK PA, I I • • • J.sefs. I . 6 0 • • do Adam Horowit Mermelstein & Horowi o •o rt oses g, • ., DHURST ORSECK, PA, 25 W FLAGLER STREET, STE 800, MIAMI, FL 33131 , do Robert Josefsberg, Esq., PODHURST • •f. A, 25 W FLAGLER STREET, STE 800, MIAMI, FL 33131 do Adam Horowitz, Mermelstein & Horowitz, P. • . 1 05 Thsca e Boulevard, Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 do Robert Josefsberg, Esq., PODHURST K, PA, 25 W FLAGLER STREET, STE 800, MIAMI, FL 33131 do Robert Josefsberg, Esq., PODHURST ") :Li al A, 3 EFTA01099871 Rule 26(4(1) Disclosures in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States. No. 09-8073 do Robert Josefsbe , E . PODHURST ORSECK, PA, , c/o Bradley Edwards FARME JAFFE WEISSING , ET AL Jane Doe #2 (T.M.), do Bradley Edwards, FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, ET AL., do Adam Horowitz, Mennelstein & Horowitz, P.A., do Adam Horowitz, Mermelstein & • 9 do Robert Josefsberg, . , PODHURST ORSECK PA, c/o Adam Horowitz, Mermelstein & Horowi P.A., do Isidro M. Garcia, Garcia Law Finn, P.A. Mark Epstein Ghislaine Maxwell, do Brett Jaffe Cohen & Gresser, LLP, Justin Vanove Alfredo Rodriguez, C/O Federal Public defender or Bureau of Prisons Leslie Wexner, Jean Luc Brunel Jennie Saunders 4 EFTA01099872 Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States, No. 09-80736 David C Deerfield David Seth Kokin), H: I Beller Janusz Banasiak, Beata Banasiak, Juan Alessi Lawrence Krauss Mortimer Zuckerman I Vadwon Cotrin Patrick former housekee . - r I former housekee ier I S/A Witness #160 I S/A Witness #152 I I unknown South Africa Ronald Baron Glenn Dubin, S/A Witness /1149 I Sand Ber:er Officer Palm Beach Police, Officer Palm Beach Police, 5 EFTA01099873 Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States. No. 09-80736 r .r.• II ' . i S/A Witness #152 Ivan Robles Lebet Johnson All people on inmate visito . • u• ! tli ii . ...: ; J. e. Pan . Stc han .sslyn - L nne DeRothchild Ro ler Shank i Dejongh u ttola Kent Anderson , lo Anderson Dianne Porteaux Whitne Ta or Redd Vonhool r ZW.T1717. , S/A Witness #105 William "Bill" Rile • • Martin Nowak Howard Rubenstein : . Bill Clinton Prince Andrew William Hammon Robert Roxbur: 6 EFTA01099874 Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States, No. 09-80736 David Rogers, rrison, Alan Dershowit7. a i Reach Police, Amanda Grant 7 EFTA01099875 Rule 26(a)(I) Disclosures in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States. No. 09-80736 Ir f3MCMSIRIttau oe, USAO, 500 South Australian Ave., WPB, FL 33401 • order°, PALM BEACH VICTIM SERVICES, =I I Steven Huffenber: Michael Stroll ' Tonargula, Dou las Shoettle, Records Custodian, Palm Beach Police Department Records Custodian, FBI Documents and Tangible Things that Will Be Used to Establish Claims and Defenses Correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein's Defense Counsel Non-Prosecution Agreement (various copies) Messages taken from message pads found at Defendant's home Documents related to Jeffrey Epstein produced by Alfredo Rodriguez Jeffrey Epstein flight logs Jeffre E stein phone records phone records Jail Visitation Logs Jeffrey Epstein's probation file All probable cause affidavits related to criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein 8 EFTA01099876 Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States. No. 09-80736 All evidence, information and documents taken or possessed by FBI related to criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Plaintiffs and other victims' statements to the FBI related to criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Video of Search Warrant of Jeffrey Epstein's home being executed Application for Search Warrant of Jeffrey Epstein's home All records of homes, properties, bank accounts and any and all records related to Jeffrey Epstein's assets Jeffrey Epstein's passport (or copy) Jeffrey Epstein's driver's license (or copy) List of corporations owned by Jeffrey Epstein All documents evidencing relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Jean Luc Brunel All documents evidencing relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and MC2 or any modeling agencies Affidavit and Application for Search Warrant on Jeffrey Epstein's home Tape recording or transcript of recording of conversation between Jeffrey Epstein and George Rush Notepads found in Jeffrey Epstein's home and/or during trash pulls outside of his home during criminal investigation The Palm Beach State Attorney's Criminal file against Jeffrey Epstein All documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's 6/30/08 conviction Jeffrey Epstein's criminal plea colloquy Public records from the Department of Corrections related to Jeffrey Epstein Records from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement related to Jeffrey Epstein All statements made by Jeffrey Epstein List of properties and vehicles in Larry Visoski's name All of Jeffrey Epstein's Responses to Requests for Production, Requests for Admission, Answers to Interrogatories in this matter, and cases 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 All discovery related responses of Jeffrey Epstein in this matter and cases 08- 80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09- 80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 Jeffrey Epstein's Answers and Affirmative Defenses in all civil cases against him All Complaints in which Jeffrey Epstein was a plaintiff or defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Deposition testimony and discovery responses in this case and cases 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 Jeffrey Epstein's Deposition testimony and discovery responses in State 9 EFTA01099877 Rule 26(0(1) Disclosures in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States, No. 09-80736 Court cases LM v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 502008CA02805IXXXXMB AB and E.W. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 502008CP003626)OOOCMB Jeffrey Epstein Deposition Testimony and discovery responses in State Court case Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, et al. Case No. 502009CA040800)COCKMBAG Probable Cause Affidavits . epared against Jeffrey Epstein and Audio ta.e of Photographs, videos and books taken in the search warrant of Jeffrey Epstein's home Documents related to or evidencing Jeffrey Epstein's donations to law enforcement Victim Notification Letter from US Attorney's Office to Plaintiff Palm Beach Police Department Incident Report dated 4/20/06 All reports and documentation generated by Palm Beach Police Department related to Jeffrey Epstein All Witness Statements generated by Palm Beach Police Department relating to Jeffrey Epstein Passenger Manifests of Jeffrey Epstein's aircraft and private plane flight logs Passenger lists for flights taken by Jeffrey Epstein Letter from Jeffrey Epstein to Alberto Pinto regarding house island project Jeffrey Epstein's bank statements Jeffrey Epstein's tax returns 2 emails involving communications of Jeffrey Epstein, Jeff Fuller, Pappas Suat, Jean Luc Brunel and Amanda Grant DVD of plea and colloquy taken on 6-30-08 Transcript of plea and colloquy taken on 6-30-08 Massage Table Lotions taken from Jeffrey Epstein's home during search warrant Computers taken from Jeffrey Epstein's home during search warrant Vibrators, dildos and other sex toys taken from Jeffrey Epstein's home during search warrant No Contact Orders entered against Jeffrey Epstein Criminal Score Sheet regarding Jeffrey Epstein Documents evidencing Jeffrey Epstein's Community Control and Probation Jeffrey Epstein's Sex Offender Registration Jeffrey Epstein's Booking photograph CAD calls to 358 EL BRILLO WAY, PALM BEACH FL 33480 List of Jeffrey Epstein's House contacts Documents related to Jeffre E•stein's investments Letter from Chief to 10 EFTA01099878 Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States, No. 09-80736 List of planes owned by Jeffrey Epstein Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 1-11-06 Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 1-13-06 Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 2-17-06 Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 4-6-06 Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 4-10-06 Letter from Goldberger dated 6-22-06 All subpoenas issued to State Grand Jury Documents related to the rental of a vehicle for- Documents related toproperty searches of Jeffrey Epstein's properties Arrest Warrant of Police report regarding picking up money dated 11-28-04 Alan Dershowitz Letter dated 4-19-06 and Statute 90.410 Guy Fronstin letter dated 4-17-06 Jeffrey Epstein Account Information Jeffrey Epstein Criminal Closeout Sheet Jeffrey Epstein Polygraph Test and Results JEGE, Inc. Passenger Manifest Hyperion Air Passenger Manifest Fli: information for Passenger List Palm Beach flights 2005 Jeffrey Epstein notepad notes Pleadings of Jane Doe 1 and 2 v. US case Jeffrey Epstein 51° Amendment Speech Reiter letter to dated 5-1-06 Jail recei .ts of Je ffrey Epstein Police Report dated 11-28-04 Victim Notification letter dated 7-9-08 Police report of Juan Alessi theft at Jeffrey Epstein's home All items listed on the Palm Beach Police Property Report Lists All items taken in the execution of the search warrant of Jeffrey Epstein's home: 358 EL BRILLO WAY, PALM BEACH FL 33480 All copies of convictions related to Jeffrey Epstein Jeffrey Epstein criminal records All documents produced b Palm Beach Police Department prior to the deposition of Detectiv. We believe that the Government has copies or, or immediate access to, all of these materials. As you know, we received the great bulk of these items from the Government. If you require assistance in locating any of them, please let us know. 11 EFTA01099879 Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States, No. 09-80736 We look forward to receive your similar disclosures as soon as possible, so that we may incorporate them in our pleadings that we will be filing in this case in reply to your response to our pending motions. Sincerely, A dBradley J. Edwards Fe ORPaul G. j Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 The views expressed in this letter are solely those of its authors. 12 EFTA01099880 SJ. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH March 1, 2011 Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida PAUL G. CASSELL Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Re: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States, No. 09-80736 Dear Mr. Ferrer: We are writing to you personally on behalf of lane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in one last effort to try and narrow our range of difference in the pending Crime Victims Rights Act case regarding Jeffrey Epstein. We make two requests: First, we are requesting that you agree to . our proposal for narrowing the range of disputes between your Office and the victims, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. Second, if you are unable to agree to our proposal, we request that you agree not to withhold information in your Office's possession that would support their claims under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA). By way of background, as you know, we have been attempting to work with your Office for more than two-and-a-half years to reach a stipulated set for facts in this CVRA case that would avoid the need for any public battle between your Office and the victims . Indeed, we reached out to you for a personal meeting to try to avoid a fight, and you were kind enough to meet with Jane Doe #1 and her undersigned attorneys. During that meeting, we expressed our intention to go the extra mile to try and avoid any fight with your Office and to see if there was a way to fight only Jeffrey Epstein the sex offender, rather than the prosecutors who work for you. Today we had a telephone conference call with two of your attorneys, and in which they told us that we would not be receiving any cooperation rom your ice on our CVRA case and that, in short, we would have to "see you in court." We were also told that your Office was taking the position that it could, and would, withhold from the victims information in your Office's possession that would support their claims under the CVRA. After receiving approval from and. we wanted to write to you personally in one last effort to see if we can narrow our differences on these two issues and avoid a disappointing battle. Narrowing the Issues in Dispute During today's conference call, it appeared that there was some confusion from Dexter and Marie as to precisely what the victims were proposing. Our proposal is simply this: that EFTA01099881 your Office and Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 would stipulate to a set of facts to provide context for the Court while we litigate the legal issue in dispute, that is whether the CVRA applies even though no federal charges were ultimately filed. If your Office prevails on that issue, the victims would obviously have no claim under the CVRA. The victims would then pursue their appellate rights in the Eleventh Circuit. If, however, the victims prevail on that issue, then your Office would take "no position" on the remedy sought by the victims for the violation of their rights afforded them under the Act. Your Office would essentially stand aside and agree not to take any position on the victims' request to set aside the NPA as a remedy for that violation of the victims' rights. We understood from our meeting with you in December that wanted to do what you could to help the victims in this case. Yet as we understood and today, they were taking the position that we would receive no cooperation of any sort from your Office. And we further understood from them that your Office was now going to take the position that even if the victims' congressionally-mandated rights were violated, there is simply no remedy for those violations and thus the victims should have no recourse for the violations. On behalf of our clients, we want to once again reach out and make sure that your Office wants to move to an adversarial litigation posture on these issues. We simply don't understand why your Office is now going to take a litigating position hostile to ours on issues beyond the legal question of when CVRA rights attached in this case. We appreciate that the Department has institutional concerns about the timing of CVRA rights. But we don't understand why your Office is now going to fight against the victims in their efforts seeking to overturn a NPA that by any measure is unfair. This is not simply our view —the unfairness of the NPA has now attracted comment literally throughout the world, Including serving as the basis for an unfavorable portrayal in a recent Law and Order: Special Victim Episode and a feature story yesterday in the London-based Sunday Moil. We are not asking your Office to join us in our efforts to throw out this unjust agreement. But can't your Office simply stand on the sidelines and let us make our case against Epstein. Fighting a politically well-connected billionaire is difficult enough, without having the weight of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida thrown against us too. We respectfully make one last request for you to move forward with our proposal for narrowing differences between us. Withholding Favorable Evidence If you feel that your Office must fight us in court on every possible issue, then we are respectfully writing to request that we resolve one issue outside of court: Whether your Office can withhold from the victims evidence in its ossesslon that is favorable to their CVRA case. During our conference call with and , we pointed out that if we were criminal defense attorneys representing criminals, your Office would promptly turn over to us all information in its possession that was helpful to these criminals under the Brady and Giglio decisions. We asked your Office to to th vi ims the same assistance that it would provide to criminals — i.e., we asked and to voluntarily provide to us information 2 EFTA01099882 in your Office's possession that was helpful the victims' CVRA case. We were informed that your Office will be taking the position in Court that it can and will withhold from the victims such information, apparently on the theory that victims lack due process or other "discovery" rights under the CVRA. We believe that the position that your Office can suppress relevant evidence is legally unfounded for four reasons and, in any event, is unsound policy at odds with promises that the Attorney General has made to crime victims and to the public. With regard to the legal problems in this position, first, the CVRA promises victims of crime that they will be "treated with fairness." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). The clear intent of Congress in passing this provision was to provide a substantive "due process" right to crime victims. As one of the CVRA's co-sponsors (Senator Kyl) explained, "The broad rights articulated in this section are meant to be rights themselves and are not intended to just be aspirational. One of these rights is the right to be treated with fairness. Of course, fairness includes the notion of due process. Too often victims of crime experience a secondary victimization at the hands of the criminal justice system. This provision is intended to direct Government agencies and employees, whether they are in executive or judiciary branches, to treat victims of crime with the respect they deserve." 150 CONG. M. 54269 (Apr. 22, 2004) (emphasis added). Because the CVRA extends a "due process" right to crime victims like Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, victims have a right to fair access to evidence to prove their case. The very foundation of the Brady obligation is due process: "[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused . .. violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment." Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). It would similarly violate due process for the prosecution to suppress evidence favorable to a crime victim where the evidence is material either to proving a CVRA violation or to the remedy for a violation. Second, entirely apart from whether the victims have a right to obtain such information, your Office has an affirmative obligation to disclose it to victims. The CVRA directly commands that "[o]fficers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in [the CVRA)." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) (emphasis added).' It is simply impossible for As you can see from this language, the CVRA applies not only to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida but also to the relevant office of the FBI. We are "cc'ing" a copy of this letter to the FBI so that they can be informed of our view that they should provide assistance to the victims in this matter as well, rather than join your Office in any effort to withhold evidence. We understand that your Office represents the FBI on these issues, and are happy to continue our discussions with you regarding the FBI obligations in this area. At the appropriate time, however, if we are unable to reach agreement, we would like to have this discussion with a representative of the FBI to see whether they are in accord with your position. It is our understanding that the appropriate person would be the "special agent-In-charge of the division having primary responsibility for conducting the investigation." ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE 11 (May 2005). 3 EFTA01099883 your Office to make its "best efforts" to accord victims their rights while simultaneously withholding evidence that would help them obtain those rights in court. Third, the attorneys in your Office have duties of candor to the Court that would not permit it to present evidence or testimony that is known to be false. Fla. Bar Rule 4-3.3(a)(4). Allowing the victims access to evidence favorable to their claim will insure compliance with this rule. Similarly, in an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer must inform the court of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the court to make an informed decision "whether or not the facts are adverse." Fla. Bar. Rule 4-3.3(d). If your Office is correct that we are not entitled to access to favorable evidence, then the proceedings involving that evidence are essentially ex parte — requiring your Office to make disclosure to the Court. Surely the more appropriate way to proceed is to simply disclose those materials in the first instance to the victims. Fourth and finally, your Office has previously taken the position that the CVRA petition filed by the victims is covered by the civil rules. If so, then the victims can serve discovery requests as in any other civil cases. The victims can likewise take depositions of witnesses who possess relevant evidence to their claims. Indeed, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A), your Office would be required to automatically produce such information. For all these reasons, it is our considered opinion that your Office does not have a legally well-founded position to withhold evidence from the victims in this case. Even if the Office did have such a position, however, we are mystified as to why your Office would want to assert such a position. Attorney General Holder has recently publicly discussed the Department's obligations regarding production of exculpatory information to criminals, explaining "We're not here to win cases, but to do justice." Attorney Genera! Holder Discusses Efforts to Improve Prosecutor Training, WALL ST. J., Apr. 30, 2010. With all respect, we submit that your Office should seek to do justice not merely for criminals, but also for the victims of those criminals. We therefore respectfully request that you simply provide this information to us as a matter of justice, avoiding the need for us to litigate this question. To avoid burdening your Office, we would be happy to provide a specific list of the information that we believe is material to the victims' CVRA case — a limited amount of information that could be swiftly located by your Office. Conclusion We frankly believe we have been very patient on this case and have gone to the extra mile to avoid an unnecessary fight with your Office. But our clients are asking us what the status of their case is, and we have an obligation to proceed diligently. Our first choice is to work something out with you. But if your Office is for some reason unwilling or unable to do that, we believe we have an overwhelming case of clear cut CVRA violations — a case that we will present to the Court. 4 EFTA01099884 As we told and even though your Office has refused to provide any accommodations to us, we will continue to discuss with them our proposed statement of facts, with the aim of removing information that they believe is damaging to your Office and that we can leave out as unessential to our case. We hope that you will favorably consider our requests in this letter and try to find an approach that will minimize our need to become embroiled in a court dispute between crime victims and the prosecutors who aim to protect them. If we are unable to do so, our intention is to file our "summary judgment" pleadings (which we provided in their entirety to your Office as a courtesy six months ago) on March 18, 2011. Sincerely, Bradley J. dwards Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Cc: Special Agent in Charge Miami FBI Field Office The views expressed in this letter are solely those of its authors. 5 EFTA01099885 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Paul G. Cassell Professor of Law Quinney College of Law University of Utah RE: Letter of March 1, 2011 Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States Dear Mr. Cassell: 99 N.F.. 4 Street Wong FL 33132 March 15, 2011 As you have recognized in your letter of March 1, 2011, the Department of Justice has a variety of institutional concerns regarding the interpretations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) that you are advocating on behalf of your clients. While we have no desire to be involved in any litigation with your clients or to be in any position adverse to them, the positions that you are advocating on behalf of your clients have far-reaching implications that were never intended by the CVRA and that extend beyond the above-referenced matter and the interests of both your clients and Jeffrey Epstein. In fact, requiring victim consultation and involvement before everyday prosecutorial decisions can be made not to pursue federal investigations, not to file federal criminal charges on specific allegations, or to divert a matter/allegations to state and local authorities would bring federal prosecutorial functions to a virtual halt and would exhaust prosecutorial resources in all sorts of cases all across the country. The pre-charge victim consultation and involvement that you advocate are simply unworkable. Moreover, your positions are contrary to the Department of Justice's interpretation of the CVRA and are unsupported by the pertinent statutory provisions. Nonetheless, as this Office has repeatedly attempted to make clear, we remain willing to cooperate with you, your clients, and other victims of Mr. Epstein's offenses. We have provided such cooperation in the past, and we will continue to do so. As you must surely understand, and as I mentioned to you and your client when we met this past December, the government simply cannot take legal positions in a spirit of cooperation that are contrary to law or that would hamper the government's prosecutorial ability to serve its citizenry, even if such positions would help accommodate certain individual crime victims in a particular matter. Because, as a matter of law, the CVRA is inapplicable to this matter in which no federal criminal charges were ever filed, your requests for the government's agreement on a set of proposed EFTA01099886 Letter to Paul G. Cassell Jane Does / and 2 v. United States March 15, 2011 Page 2 of 2 stipulated facts is unnecessary and premature. That is, because whether the rights in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) attach prior to the filing of a charge in a federal court is a matter of statutory interpretation, resolution of that question is not dependent upon the existence of any certain set of facts, other than whether a charging document was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. And while this Office remains willing to cooperate, cooperation does not mean agreeing to facts that are not relevant to the resolution of the legal dispute at issue, or failing to defend a prerogative that has been entrusted, as a matter of law, solely to the Executive Branch. With respect to your requests concerning information in the government's possession, we are fully aware of our legal and ethical obligations, have complied with those obligations, and will continue to do so in the future. But, contrary to your contentions, the law does not grant either you or your clients any right to discovery or unfettered access to information in the possession of the government, whether under the CVRA, the due process clause, or any other authority. Nonetheless, we remain willing to cooperate with you and your clients with any proper request for information, just as we would with any other person making such a request. Your request that the government not defend the government's non-prosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein is also something to which we simply cannot accede. Although that non- prosecution agreement preceded my tenure as United States Attorney, this Office is legally bound to abide by that agreement and cannot legally or constitutionally engage in any action, direct or indirect, that seeks to undermine or circumvent that agreement and its terms, regardless of those contentions set forth in your March I, 2011 letter that the non-prosecution agreement was unwise or unjust. I recognize that the government's position in this matter is not what you and your clients would have desired. Be assured that this is not because the government and the members of this Office do not sympathize with the victims of Mr. Epstein's offenses or understand their concerns. Nonetheless, as I have tried to explain in a brief, summary fashion, deep-seated prosecutorial concerns and constitutional obligations that we are obliged to satisfy must guide the government's actions in these matters. If you have any questions concerning any of the legiletails regard, overnment's position on these matters, please contact AUSAs and Anne , who continue handling this matter on behalf of the United States and who have my complete confidence. 111 1 11111. WIF O A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY EFTA01099887 LAW OFFICE a -kat/elite alitea • AND ASSOCIATES October 9, 2008 AUSA United States Attorney's Office Re: Jane Doe # and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America Case No.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRADOHNSON Dear Mr. E: I am writing to call to your attention two potentially false statements that the Government made, albeit inadvertently, in a sworn declaration submitted to the Court in connection with the above-captioned case. I request that your office file a corrected declaration and accompanying explanation. The first statement is found at page 3 to 4 of the July 9 th, 2008 declaration of . There a provision in a plea agreement with Mr. Jeffrey Epstein is recounted. As we understand the Government's current position in this case, it is that this provision is not in fact part of the plea agreement in this case. If our understanding is correct, then Ms. Villafaita has filed a false affidavit with the court, albeit inadvertently. We respectfully request that she file a new affidavit that corrects this false information, along with all other information relevant to understanding how the false information came to be provided to the court — and to the victims in this case. This correction should, in my view, include more details about how Epstein and his attorneys approved a submission of false information to the victims as you stated on Page 5, n.2 in your October 8, 2008 filing "Respondent's Opposition to Victims' Motion to Unseal Non- Prosecution Agreement" — presumably knowing that litigation surrounding the victims' rights issues was on-going and that such false information might be ultimately presented to the court. Such information is highly relevant to what remedy the victims might ultimately choose to seek for violations of their rights in this case. The second statement may or may not be false, but may need some clarification. At page 4 of Ms. declaration, she states that "[i]n October 2007, shortly after the agreement was signed, four victims [including C.W.] were contacted and these provisions were discussed' (emphasis added). Similarly at page 5, the declaration states: "After C.W. had been notified of the terms of the agreement ....." (emphasis added). I write to inquire whether, in view of the fact that the provision noted above is not in fact (according to the Government's current view) part of the_ plea agreement, whether this was the provision that the gevemmentLipaccuratelyldiscussed with the victims. Put another way, I am wondering whether the Government will now stipulate that it, at most, discussed with the victims a provision in the plea agreement that never was actually part of the plea agreement. EFTA01099888 AUSA United States Attorney's Office October 9, 2008 Page Two I continue to be interested in working out a joint stipulation of proposed facts in this case with the Government. If you would like to proceed in that direction, please give me a call. If, however, the Government is not willing to work out a joint stipulation of facts, then I need to have the record be as clear as possible, and at a minimum would request that the Government correct the inaccurate information it has provided to the court and clarify precisely how such inaccurate information came to be made a part of the record and the extent to which Mr. Epstein, through his attorneys, was culpable. Sincerely, BE/sg Brad Edwards 2028 HARRISON STRERT,SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 EFTA01099889 Er COLLEG.E Cif- LAW THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida PAUL C. CASSELL Ronald N. Royce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law September 29, 2011 Re: Follow-up on leffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Ferrer: As you know, Brad Edwards and I represent Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in their efforts to protect their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. You were nice enough to meet with Jane Doe #1 in December 2010 on that case, and we appreciate that At the conclusion of that meeting, I also provided you with a letter presenting my grave concerns about possible improper influences being brought to bear on your Office during its negotiation of the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (For your convenience, I attach a copy of that letter.) It was my understanding that you deemed my allegations serious enough to forward my letter to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for further investigation, and it was my impression that OPR was going to look into the allegations raised in my letter. I must say that I was surprised to receive a letter five months later from OPR indicating that my concerns were not being investigated. On May 6, 2011, OPR stated that it was their policy "to refrain from investigating issues or allegations that were, are being, or could have been addressed in the court of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney ... or there are present other circumstances." OPR stated that my allegations fell into the category of allegations that were being litigated because Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were raising these issues in their CVRA case. Accordingly, OPR indicated it was not going to review the allegations that I presented. I am writing now to request the opportunity to meet with you further and to pass along additional information in support of my concerns. I wanted to follow up with you to make sure that someone was looking into my allegations about improper influences affecting your Office's decision to accord Jeffrey Epstein an extraordinarily lenient plea. It may well be that OPR has some policy precluding an investigation. But will your Office then investigate these issues? I am also writing to alert you to additional information that continues to lead me to believe that something was rotten with the way this case was handled. 1 www.law.utah.edu • Main Office (801) 581-6833 • Facsimile (801) 581-6897 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 • Salt Lake City. Utah 84132-0730 EFTA01099890 As you may know, was a senior prosecutor and supervisor in your Office when the non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein was approved. It is our impression that he was directly involved in supervising the Epstein investigation as the former Chief of the Criminal Division of your Office. It has been our understanding for quite some time that he frequently corresponded with Epstein's attorneys, especially Lily Ann Sanchez, during the plea discussions, and it is our understanding that he left your Office around the time the non-prosecution agreement was signed. Our private investigator has recently learned that left your office to work at a New York law firm representing white collar criminals. He also learned that - quite expensive apartment in New York City is located in close proximity to real estate properties (specifically condos) owned by Jeffrey Epstein. The location of Menchel's apartment, his role during the Epstein negotiations and his departure immediately after the NPA was signed, leads us to believe that and Epstein may have had a business or other relationship either during or after time in the Office. If that is the case, then we would appreciate you providing the information that you have in that regard voluntarily, as opposed to us having to conduct formal discovery to get it. As you also know, Judge Marra has recently ordered discovery to proceed in this case. We obviously would like for that process to go as smoothly as possible and want to avoid becoming involved in true adversary litigation with your Office. On behalf of our clients, we just want to get to the bottom of this, and we feel safe in assuming that you do too at this point. For all these reasons, I am writing to request another chance to meet with you about our concerns and about making the discovery process go smoothly. Thank you in advance for considering this request. I would be happy to provide any other additional information that would be useful to you. Sincere) Pau G. asse cc: Assistant U.S. Attorney cc: Assistant U.S. Attorney 2 EFTA01099891 1. A 11' I I C. 1•: • acadedeteaiea(t • AND ASSOCIATES July 17, 2008 MME , AUSA United States Attorney's Office 500 South Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Proposed Stipulated Facts for In Re Jane Doe Dear Ms. Thank you for your recent proposed stipulation of facts in this case. I believe that we have considerable common ground. At the same time, however, it appears to me that a few areas of potential disagreement are arising. In view of that, and to avoid any misunderstandings, I thought it might be useful to send a short letter outlining several requests and issues for resolution before I send you back my proposed stipulated facts. 1. I am working with two other attorneys on this case — Jay Howell in Jacksonville, Florida, and Professor Paul Cassell in Salt Lake City, Utah. Because they were not in court for the hearing last Friday, they will need to review a transcript of the hearing before our legal team can agree to any stipulated facts. I have requested a transcript, but the preparation of it will apparently take several weeks. Do you have any way of expediting the preparation of the transcript by requesting it yourself? Also, as you know, my clients are indigent. As part of the Government's responsibility to use its "best efforts to see that crime victims are . . . accorded[] the rights" in the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(cX1), I was wondering whether the Government would'be willing to pay for the transcript. 2. Your proposed stipulation indicates that in September 2007 the U.S. Attorney's Office reached an agreement with Epstein to resolve the case, which was then modified in October and December of that year. While this seems plausible, to stipulate to the facts, I would obviously need to see copies of those three agreements. Moreover, because the circumstances surrounding the initial agreement and its later modification are now the subject of litigation, my client is entitled to see them. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8) (victim's right to "be treated with fairness"). In addition, your proposed stipulation states that: "On July 9, 2008, AUSA sent a victim notification to Jane Doe 41 via her attorney, Bradley Edwards, which is attached as Exhibit 6 to the Villafafia Declaration. That notification contains a written explanation of the full terms of the agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office." I am puzzled by this proposed stipulation, as your July 9 letter explicitly noted that it was covering only some of the provisions in the agreement. Perhaps the fact that I have not yet received the agreement is all just an oversight on your part, and you had intended to give me the "full terms" of the plea agreement that was ultimately reached. In any event, the simplest way to proceed at this point is for the plea agreement — and the earlier versions -- to be provided to me so that I can review 2028 HARRISON STREET,SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 - - • . . . . - . • EFTA01099892 AUSA United States Attorney's Office Page 2 them with my clients. Of course, no possible harm to the Government can come from the release of the documents, as this criminal matter is now concluded — at least from the Government's perspective. 3. I am wondering about your position on the confidentiality provision in the agreement. As I understand things from your proposed stipulation, in September 2007 you "reached" an agreement with Epstein's attorneys that "contained an express confidentiality provision." Are you taking the position that this "express" provision barred disclosure of the substance of the agreement to my clients? And, if so, would you stipulate that the FBI agents and your office complied with the provision up through June 30 when, I assume, the confidential provision expired as Epstein entered his guilty plea in open court? 4. Your proposed stipulation indicates: On October 26, 2007, Special Agents and met in person with Jane Doe #1. The Special Agents explained t t e investigation had been resolved, that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges, he would be required to register as a sex offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims, including Jane Doe #1. During this meeting, Jane Doe #1 did not raise any objections to the resolution of the matter. From the drafting of this proposed stipulation, it appears that you may be working from a Report of Interview with my client (i.e., an FBI 302). My client has a differing recollection of some aspects of that meeting. Of course, she did not take notes of the meeting. Therefore, I ask that you provide me (the relevant parts of) any report of this meeting as well as reports of any other meetings relevant to the matters at hand. I believe that my client is entitled to a copy of (the relevant parts of) the reports of interviews with her. Of course, a criminal defendant would be entitled to such documents. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A) & (B). As an innocent victim in this matter, my client should be treated with at least the same consideration. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8) (victim's right to "be treated with fairness"). 5. I am hoping that the Special Agents' and my client's recollections about one point of the October 26th meeting coincides: that she was never told that the agreement blocked all federal prosecution for the crimes at hand. Is a stipulation on that point agreeable? 2028 HARRISON STRRET,SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 EFTA01099893 AUSA United States Attorney's Office Page 3 6. You mention your assistance in securing pro bono counsel for Jane Doe #1 to help prevent harassment. I trust that you would be willing to stipulate that you did not mention the federal non-prosecution agreement to this counsel and that you did not mention that a plea agreement had already been reached. Professor Cassell has spoken to Meg Garvin, Esq., at the National Crime Victims' Law Institute, and that is her recollection of the events. 7. I think that your proposed stipulation regarding my contact with the office is somewhat abbreviated. I wonder what you would think about the following: In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted AUSA to inform her that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. Mr. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein, secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. AUSA and Mr. Edwards discussed itfi lsibility of federal charges being filed. At the end of the call, AUSA asked Mr. Edwards to send any information that he wanted considered by the U.S. Attorney's Office in determining whether to file federal charges. Because of the confidentiality provision that existed in the plea agreement, Mr. Edwards was not informed that, in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had reached an agreement not to file federal charges. Mr. Edwards was also not informed that any resolution of the criminal matter was imminent. On July 3, 2008, Mr. Edwards sent to AUSA a letter, a true and correct copy of which is attached. In the letter, Mr. Edwards indicated his desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his clients: "We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this very dangerous sexual predator." When Mr. Edwards wrote this letter, he was still unaware that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached with Epstein. Mr. Edwards first learned of this fact on or after July 9, 2008, when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition. That pleading was the first public mention of the non-prosecution agreement and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards and his clients. 8. I trust that you will agree that the Government had probable cause to file a multiple count federal indictment against Epstein, including an indictment charging crimes 2028 HARRISON STRERT,SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 EFTA01099894 AUSA United States Attorney's Office Page 4 against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. In asking for this stipulation, I realize that you have taken the position that you would not have filed an indictment involving Jane Doe #2, presumably because you thought that you could not carry the Government's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. At the same time, though, I trust you will concede that the evidence in that case was strong enough to pass the probable cause standard. 9. Finally, in light of the fact that you have been sending letters to Jane Doe #2, which was obviously done because you believed her to be a "victim" in this case, and since she has been added in this matter as a victim, we would like some assurances that she will be protected, as the other victims have been, in your agreement with Mr. Epstein. Thank you very much for considering these issues and concerns. I look forward to working with you to reach a stipulation that covers as much common ground as possible in this case. If you think that further discussions might be helpful, I would like to try and set up a conference call with you and my co-counsel to discuss these issues further. BE/sg Enclosure cc: Brad Edwards AUSA United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 EFTA01099895 -•LAW OFFICE - AND ASSOCIATES July 3, 2008 AUSA mte tates ttorney's Office 500 South Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Dear Ms. VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 7007 2680 0002 5519 8503 As you are aware, we represent several of the young girls that were victimized and abused by Jeffrey Epstein. While we are aware of his recent guilty plea and conviction in his State Court case, the sentence imposed in that case is grossly inadequate for a sexual predator of this magnitude. The information and evidence that has come to our attention in this matter leads to a grave concern that justice will not be served in this cause if Mr. Epstein is not aggressively prosecuted and appropriately punished. Based on our investigation and knowledge of this case, it is apparent that he has sexually abused more than 100 underage girls, and the evidence against him is overwhelmingly strong. As former Assistant State Attorneys with seven years' prosecution experience, we believe that the evidence against Mr. Epstein is both credible and deep and that he may be the most dangerous sexual predator of children that our country has ever seen. The evidence suggests that for at least 4 years he was sexually abusing as many as three to four girls a day. It is inevitable that if he is not confined to prison, he will continue to manipulate and sexually abuse children and destroy more lives. He is a sexual addict that fococed all of his free time on sexually abusing children, and he uses his extraordinary wealth and power to lure in poor, underprivileged little girls and then also uses his wealth to shield himself from prosecution and liability. We are very concerned for the health and welfare of the girls he has already victimized, and concerned that if justice is not properly served now and he is not imprisoned for a very long time, he will get a free pass to sexually abuse children in the future. Future abuse and victimization is obvious to anyone who really reviews the evidence in this case, and future sexual abuse of minors is inevitable unless he is prosecuted, tried and appropriately sentenced. Money and power should not allow a man to make his own laws, and he has clearly received preferential treatment at every step up to this point. If he were a man of average wealth or the abused girls were from middle or upper class families, then this man would spend the rest of his life in prison. In a country of true, blind justice, those distinctions are irrelevant, and we really hope he does not prove the point that a man can commit heinous crimes against children and buy his way out of it. If the Department of Justice's recent commitment to the protection of our children from child molesters is to be more than rhetoric, then this is the time and the case where the Department must step forward. We urge the Attorney General and our United States EFTA01099896 AUSA United States Attorney's Office Page Two Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this very dangerous sexual perpetrator. We will help you to do this in any way possible to ensure that true Justice is served in this case. Sincere! Brad Edwards, Esquire Jay Howell, Esquire EFTA01099897 • Complete items 1,2, and 3. Also complete ltent4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. •. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that me can-return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the inailplece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: United States Attorney's Office 500 South Australian Avenue tlAiist Palm Beach, Florida 33401 •-•••• • ' `0 Agent •e-,0O Addressee D. Is delivery address d/fferent from Item Yee If YES, enter detrvery address below: 0 No 3. r ice Type Certified Ma CI Egress Mae 0 Registered 0 Return Remelt for Merchanclie CI Insured Mall :0 C.O.D. Argele Nurnber ' - • - -• • - -- • - - - • .. r.- alreurfeiiemeenrengelo 007 2650 0002 5519' 8503. ..... _ _ ` PS Form 3811. February 2004 Domes& Ream Receipt 102595.02.11.4840 m • CI Im Eel 10„ I ri U, I N O O • co -o O N U.S. Postal Service. CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT '(Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) OFFICIAL USE Pcstage Certified Fee Return ReCeldi Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Iced Peefttgo & Fees PS Form 3000 AUDIS 2006 - WA rime.)7fitire: or PO Box No. Posenerk Hero EFTA01099898 -LAW OFFICE e)/ • (Sea C elittentio AND ASSOCIATES. -- October 15, 2008 AUSA United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Re: Jane Doe # and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America Case No.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Dear Mr.. I am writing to inquire about whether Mr. Epstein has violated his Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Government. As you know, the Government has repeatedly described the Non-Prosecution Agreement as guaranteeing to the victims of Epstein's sexual abuse at least $150,000 in civil damages. The Government has made these representations in reliance on a current provision in the U.S. Code — 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a) — which provides for an automatic amount of damages of at least $150,000. At the time that the Non-Prosecution Agreement was drafted and signed, that was the law that was in effect. In Epstein's latest filing in federal court, however, he takes the position that the pre-2006 Amendments version of the law applies. See Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss, for More Definite Statement and To Strike Directed to Plaintiff Jane Doe's Complaint at 9, Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 08-CIV-80893-Marra/Johnson (discussing § 2255 and stating that the "applicable version of the statute" is "pre-2006 Amendments"). The 2006 Amendments altered § 2255(a), by increasing the presumed minimum damages from $50,000 to $150,000. See Pub. L. 109-248, Title VII, § 707(b), (c), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 650. In light of Epstein's latest filing, I write to ask several questions: (1) Would you stipulate that you told me several times that Epstein had agreed to pay at least $150,000 to the identified victims of his abuse? (2) Did Epstein in fact agree to pay damages to the identified victims of his abuse at least $150,000? (3) Did the Government tell victims, either directly or through counsel, that Epstein had agreed to pay his victims at least $150,000? EFTA01099899 AUSA United States Attorney's Office October 15, 2008 Page Two (4) Is Epstein in compliance with his Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Government when he is now taking the legal position, through his attorneys, that he only has to pay the victims $50,000 damages under § 2255? Thank you for any clarification you can provide on these questions. BE/sg Brad Edwards cc: ,AUSA United States Attorney's Office 500 South Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 EFTA01099900