Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 5:02 PM To: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Draft Response Letter to Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter Ili Dexter — We sent out two sets of victim notifications to Jane Doc it I, which were sent to Brad Edwards as counsel for Jane Doe # I (again, we never sent notifications to Jane Doe #2 because of her false exculpatory statements, which kept us from including her in any charged conduct). The first notification was sent on July 9th and contained the "incorrect" info (i.e., the December 2007 info). The second notification was sent on September 3rd, with the correct info. A. Made Villafaila Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL. 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 4:51 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Draft Response Letter to Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter Marie, If the only meeting between the FBI agents and Jane Doe It 1 occurred in October 2007, then she could not have been told about the December 2007 letter, since it had yet to occur. Am I correct in assuming that the December 2007 part of the Agreement was made known to Jane Does # 1 and # 2 in the victim notification letters sent out at the same time we filed our response to the petition, July 9, 2008? Thanks. Dexter From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 4:48 PM To: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Draft Response Letter to Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter 504 EFTA00190727

Hi Dexter — I am following up on my e-mail from Saturday night. The only concern I have is with the third sentence in your second paragraph: "Additionally, the meetings with Jane Does #1 and #2, in which the Non-Prosecution Agreement was discussed, also reflected the government's belief that the December 19, 2007 letter was part of the Agreement." I think that you are referring to the meeting that the agents had with Jane Doe #1 in October 2007. No one ever met with Jane Doe #2 because she was represented by counsel at the time. During the meeting with Jane Doe #1 in October, the December letter was not discussed because it was not in existence at the time. This is what I wrote in footnote 2 of our response to the Motion to Unseal: "Furthermore, petitioners aver that the October 2007 disclosure to Jane Doe #1 contained inaccurate information, but that disclosure was made before the December 2007 letter and, therefore, did not include anything related to the U.S. Attorney's now- defunct proposed amendment to the Agreement." You may just want to refer him to that footnote, or you can edit the language as you see fit. Thank you! A. Marie Villafalla Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 1:29 PM To: Villafana, Ann Made C. (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: Draft Response Letter to Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter Marie, Attached please find a draft response letter to Brad Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter to me. I was tempted to also include a response to his October 15, 2008 letter to me, which he filed with the court, which I have yet to receive in the U.S. Mail. However, which version of 18 U.S.C. 2255 applies ($50,000 vs. $150,000) seems to be a question of retroactivity of the amendment. This is a civil remedy, so there's no ex post facto issue. The question is whether Congress intended the higher damages to apply to acts of sexual abuse occurring before the effective date of the amendment to section 2255. Since this involves a statutory interpretation issue, I am reluctant to start offering opinions on whether a breach of the Agreement occurs when Epstein argues that the current version of section 2255, with its floor of $150,000 in damages, does not apply to him. He may have agreed in negotiations that the $150,000 floor did apply, thereby waiving any retroactivity argument, just as he waived the jurisdictional argument that he was never convicted of a enumerated offense in federal court under 18 U.S.C. 2255. Thanks. sos EFTA00190728

Dexter « File: edwards_resp_ltr_100908.wpd » 506 EFTA00190729