Peter- Please see duty matter below. Thank you. Lorene From: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 10:38 AM To: USAE0-GC0 Duty Cc: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Jacobus, Wendy (USAFLS) Subject: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation We are seeking guidance and advice from E0USA on whether this Office can continue to represent the government in the defense of a Crime Victims Rights Act lawsuit, Jane Does 1 and 2'. United States, Case No. 08.80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.), in light of a request by Paul Cassell, counsel for the victims, asking for an investigation of this office into what they claim is a "suspicious" criminal case and potential improper influence of this Office. In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein, a multi- millionaire investor living in Palm Beach, was enticing underage girls into prostitution. Epstein was alleged to have paid underage girls to provide him with massages, while the young girls were unclothed. The case was referred to the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office, and the FBI began its own investigation. Epstein hired a number of highly-paid attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, to attempt to stave off criminal charges. Ultimately, in 2007, Epstein was charged in state court with soliciting minors for prostitution. In September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein, in which he agreed to plead guilty to the state criminal charge, and serve a sentence of 18 months. Epstein also agreed that, in any civil action under 18 U.S.C. 2255 by the underage victims, he would not raise the lack of a federal sex offense as a defense. In July 2008, Epstein plead guilty, and was sentenced to serve six months at the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, followed by 12 months in home detention. In July 2008, after the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been executed, two victims, TM and CW, filed an action under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. They claimed that the government was obligated, under 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(5), to speak with the victims prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. An emergency hearing was held on July 11, 2008, before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra. Since Epstein had entered his state court plea and been sentenced already, the court found there was no emergency. He directed the parties to meet and determine if there were any factual disputes and whether an evidentiary hearing would be necessary. Attorney Brad Edwards initially represented the victims. Soon, he was joined by Paul Cassell, a University of Utah law professor, and former federal judge who served in the District of Utah from 2002-2007. Cassell is a victims' rights advocate who has appeared in many cases throughout the United States. The victims' rights suit was inactive for the next two years, with Edwards and Cassell using the civil suit as a means to attempt to gain access to information helpful in their civil actions for damages against Epstein. They were able to obtain a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement through the civil litigation. In August 2010, the district court, noting that the last civil suit had been settled, entered an order closing the case. Edwards and Cassell immediately filed documents with the court, advising that the case should not be closed or dismissed, and they wanted to pursue final action by the court. Since September 2010, AUSA Marie Villafana and I have been dealing with Cassell and Edwards on how to resolve the case. They claim the victims had a right to be consulted prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and that we 2 EFTA00234023

violated the CVRA by not consulting them. The remedy they seek is a set aside by the court of the Non- Prosecution Agreement, and a prosecution of Epstein. On December 10, 2010, United States Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer, First Assistant Ben Greenberg, Marie Villafana, and I, met with Cassell, Edwards, and CW, one of the victims. We discussed the posture of the case, and CW told us her views of what occurred and her desire to see Epstein receive justice for what he did. Cassell presented U.S. Attorney Ferrer a four-page letter, requesting an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. A copy of Cassell's letter is attached. He claims there may have been improper influence exercising by Epstein, noting that Epstein is a "politically-connected billionaire." Cassell cites to an alleged tip off to Epstein that a search warrant on his residence was to be executed; that a former AUSA, Bruce Reinhart, left the West Palm Beach office and soon began appearing on behalf of individuals aligned with Epstein; and an unprecedented level of secrecy between the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, where the FBI was purportedly kept in the dark about the impending Non-Prosecution Agreement. He also claims that the victims were deceived regarding the existence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Cassell's request for an investigation was referred to DOJ OPR on December 16, 2010. We are concerned whether the victims' allegations of potential misconduct by our office, that we were improperly influenced by a wealthy individual into granting an extremely generous agreement sparing him federal prosecution, might be a basis for questioning our office's impartiality in defending the Crime Victims Rights Act lawsuit. While our litigating position is that the CVRA rights do not attach under a formal charge is filing, much of the undercurrent of the litigation, particularly from the victims' viewpoint, is deceptive and improper conduct by officials in the U.S. Attorney's Office. I am at the NAC today. I will be going on my Christmas vacation starting tomorrow, December 17. I can be reached by e-mail at all times, and also can be reached at all times at (786) 564-9114. I will be back at my office on December 29. Thanks for your assistance. Ethics Advisor Southern District of Florida « File: cassell_OPR.pdf » 3 EFTA00234024

U . S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 'Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E.4" Street Miami, FL 33132 PAUL G. CASSELL Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Telephone. 801.585.5202 cassellprglaw.utah.edu 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 -- Detective Recarey and Police Chief Michael Reiter -- 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 www.lsw.utah.edu • Main Office (301) 581-6833 • Facsimile (801) 581-6897 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0730 EFTA00234025

deposition that Epstein's assistant, Adriana Mucinska (Ross) and 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 improperly represented people close to Epstein. During the federal investigation of Epstein, Bruce Reinhart was 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 office, Reinhart 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, lack 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, Reinhart 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 Sarah Kellen (Epstein's number one co-conspirator whoyvas actually named as such in the NPA), his housekeeper (Louella Ruboyo), 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. Reinhart 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 EFTA00234026

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 la] 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 feast, there is the strong appearance that Reinhard may have attempted to curry favor with Epstein and then reap his reward through favorable 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 (S.R.) 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 high-powered attorneys — namely Ken Starr and Lilly Ann Sanchez. Epstein settled the case with S.R. within 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 EFTA00234027

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. Sincerely, Pau Cassel • 4 EFTA00234028