Allegations of Prosecutorial Misconduct and Deferred Prosecution Irregularities in Jeffrey Epstein Case

Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 5 In fact, recent testimony of several alleged “victims” contradicts claims made by federal prosecutors during the negotiations of a deferred prosecution agreement. The consistent representations of key Government witnesses (such as eR confirm the following critical points: First, there was no communication, telephonic or otherwise, that meets the requirements of § 2422(b). For instance, Ms. RRR confirmed that Mr. Epstein never emailed, text-messaged, or used any facility of interstate commerce whatsoever, before or after her one (and only) visit to his home. a Tr. (deposition) at 30. Second, the women who testified admitted that they lied to Mr. Epstein about their age in order to gain admittance into his home. Indeed, the women who brought their underage friends to Mr. Epstein testified that they would counsel their friends to lie about their ages as well. Ms. [BBM stated the following: “I would tell my girlfriends just like approached me. Make sure you tell him you’re 18. Well, these girls that I brought, I know that they were 18 or 19 or 20. And the girls that I didn’t know and I don’t know if they were lying or not, I would say make sure that you tell him you’re 18.” JN Tr. at 22. Third, there was no routine or habit of improper communication expressing an intent to transform a massage into an illegal sexual act. In fact, there was often no sexual activity at all during the massage. Ms. testified that “[s]ometimes [Mr. Epstein] just wanted his feet massaged. Sometimes he just wanted a back massage.” FE Tr. at 19. EE also stated that Mr. Epstein “never touched [her] physically” and that all she did was “massage[ ] his back, his chest and his thighs and that was it.” Tr. at 12-13. Finally, there was no force, coercion, fraud, violence, drugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein’s encounters with these women. Ms. stated that “[Mr. Epstein] never tried to force me to do anything.” [J Tr. A at 12. These accounts are far from the usual testimony in sex slavery, Internet stings and sex tourism cases previously brought. The women in actuality were not younger than 16, which is the age of consent in most of the 50 states, and the sex activity was irregular and in large part, consisted of solo self-pleasuring. The recent crop of civil suits brought against Mr. Epstein confirm that the plaintiffs did not discuss any sexually-related activities with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein’s residence. This reinforces our contention that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a minor, or of any other individual, occurred. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey Herman, the former law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the attorney for most of the civil complainants (as described in detail below), was quoted in the Palm Beach Post as saying that “it doesn’t matter” that his clients lied about their ages and told Mr. Epstein that they were 18 or 19. Not only is a federal prosecution of this matter unwarranted, but the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the deferred prosecution agreement are beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutor’s responsibilities. The list of improprieties includes, but is not limited to, the following facts: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019228