(USAFLS) From: Sent To: Subject KATHERNE W EZELL Leger hO larUSAFLS) ying any Fees and hearing tornarow Hi. I l e t you a phone message. We recannad a while ago a loner from Bob Otto ‘stio is see nkngty incregiOus Nat we believe we ate alined to any foss. If you are near a fax. I could send it to you. I viSI bring It to the hearing tomorrow. Kathy EFTA00183751

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AMLIATED PAKINERSHIPS Jay P. Lefkoaitz, To *Jo WA FEDERAL EXPRESS CIllgroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4611 Ms. Esq. United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. www.kirklend.com June 12, 2009 Facsimile: I am in possession of your June 12, 2009 letter giving notice of breach. I respectfully submit that the Motion to Dismiss that is referenced therein did not constitute a willful breach of Mr. Epstein's obligations under the non-prosecution agreement. Mr. Epstein's counsel unanimously determined that the filing of this Motion to Dismiss was not a breach of the non- prosecution agreement, and the Motion to Dismiss was filed by counsel without Mr. Epstein's final approval. I want to inform you that immediately upon receipt of your letter, Mr. Epstein directed his counsel to file the attached Notice withdrawing all but issue number VIII of the previously filed Motion to Dismiss. The same issue also is described briefly in subparagraph D on page 3 of the Motion, which likewise was not withdrawn. Please note that this issue relates exclusively to the damages available under § 2255. The Notice has already been filed. If your continued review of the civil dockets causes you to have additional concerns about any other filing, consistent with the notice provisions of the non-prosecution agreement and consistent with our prior practice regarding such matters, please provide me with notice and the opportunity to address the same with you. I believe that with today's filing withdrawing these issues Mr. Epstein, through counsel, has fully remedied any perceived breach. Please advise if you for any reason disagree. Respectfully submitted, Jay P. Le owifr, Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, EFTA00183752

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP . N.sq. Esq. EFTA00183753

Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80591 - KAM a DOE NO. 101, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S NOTICE OF WITHDRAW!. OF ARGUMENTS I THROUGH VII OF THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DE29) Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby withdraws arguments I through VII as set forth in the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (FAC) [DE 29], dated May 26, 2009. Defendant withdraws his arguments contained subparagraphs A, B,, and Sections I (The Complaint Must Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Is Not A Minor), II (The FAC Must Be Dismissed Because The Defendant Has Not Been Convicted Of A Predicate Offense), III (Count One Of The FAC Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Please A Violation Of 18 Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Plead A Violation Of 18 . § 2422(h)), IV (Count Two §2423(b)), I (Count Three Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Plead A Violation Of 18 § 2251, VI (Counts Four and Five Must Be Dismissed Because They Do Not Plead Violation of 18 §§ 2252(a)(1) Or 2252(a)(1), and VII (Count Six Must Be Dismissed Because 18 2252A(g) Was Not Enacted Until 2006). Defendant will rely only on those arguments set forth in subparagraph D, on page 3, and Paragraph VIII (Any Surviving Count Should Be Merged Into A Single Count) of the EFTA00183754

Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 2 of 2 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint Or, In The Alternative, For A More Definite Statement [DE 29] dated May 26, 2009. Counsel for De ndant EPS FEIN Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECP. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel , record i entified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this/ day of 2009 Roberti. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted By: ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida B o. 224162 rcrit@bc claw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUITIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00183755

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AMLIATED PARTNERSHIPS Jay P. Lefkow To Call Writer Dire.: letkWoom VIA FACSIMILE Clligtoup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4611 Facsimile: Ms. Esq. United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 voswidrkland.com June 15, 2009 Re: Jay Epstein Dear a I am attaching a letter authored by my co-counsel, Robert Critton, on today's date. It represents our agreement with a proposal that Kathy Ezell indicated in a letter dated June 8, 2009 would be fully acceptable to her and Bob Josefsberg as a means to resolve expeditiously all outstanding fee issues regarding the attorney representative. Mr. Epstein has directed his counsel to take immediate steps to address and resolve the attorney representative's outstanding fee- related issues and we are doing so without delay. The suggestion of a Special Master, agreed to by both parties, to resolve the issues in the immediate future, will assure all parties that there will be no delay and no need for adversarial litigation regarding fees. More generally, I want to assure you that Mr. Epstein has directed all counsel to make sure that there is no filing that could constitute a breach of the NPA. Accordingly, a new internal screening process has been established to provide focused decision-making on each filing. To the extent we believe any filing may be perceived as implicating any of the issues generically addressed in the NPA (a document including sentences within paragraph 8 that even Mr. Acosta agreed were "far from simple"), we intend to address such issues with you prior to any filing and hope that you will agree to review the draft filing and inform us whether or not from your perspective it would, if filed, constitute a "breach". This will be especially important regarding issues that we believe fall at the intersection of Section 2255 and the civil litigation. We reserve our right, if you believe a proposed filing to conflict with the NPA or if you wish not to address these issues with us, thereafter to address such substantive issues with the Court. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington,■ EFTA00183756

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Ms. June 15, 2009 Page 2 Esq. We hope that these proposals—in combination with our immediate withdrawal of the previously filed Motion to Dismiss—resolve all outstanding issues at the intersection of the NPA and 2255. Please advise if any remain. Sincerely, Enclosure cc: EFTA00183757

J. MICHAEL BURMAN, PA" GREGORY W. COLEMAN, PA. ROBERT D. CRITTON. JR., PA.' BERNARD LEBEDEK ER MARK T. LUTHER, P.A. JEPFRE4. PEPIN MICHAEL J. PIKE HEATHER McNAMARA RUDA FLORIDA BOARD CERTIFIED CiviLTRIALLAWyeR BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP Sent by E-mail and U.S. Mail Robert Josefsberg, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagier Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Re: Epstein Matter Dear Bob: June 15, 2009 ADELQUI J. BENAVENTE PARALEOAL / INYMTIOXTOR BARBARA M. McKBNNA ASHUE STOKEN.BARINO BETTY STOKES PARALBJALS RIM H. BUDNYK OP COUNSEL On June 8, 2009, Kathy Ezell wrote a letter to me regarding outstanding fee payment issues. At page 3, she stated that she was not adverse to an earlier proposal that had been discussed amongst the parties to rely on a Special Master to resolve outstanding fee-related issues. We agree with Kathy's "proposal" that we rely on a Special Master to resolve all outstanding fee issues. Let's work during our Wednesday meeting to select an appropriate Special Master and let's agree to see whether, in the interim, we can resolve these issues even before they are submitted to the S.M. Cordially yo Roberyif Critton, Jr. RDC/clz cc: Jack Goldberger, Esq. L 'A•W•Y•E'R'S 515 N. FLAGLER DRIVE / SUITE 400 / WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 TELEPHONE (561) 842-2820 FAX (561) 844-6929 mailebelclaw.com EFTA00183758

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Facsimile: (561)820-8777 June 17, 2009 Thank you for your letter of June 15, 2009. I did not receive your letter until late yesterday afternoon because I am shuttling back and forth between the Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach offices. The best way to reach me is via e-mail. With respect to the substance of your letter, the Office has not completed its review of Mr. Epstein's civil filings and correspondence related to the payment of the attorney representative's fees, so I cannot confirm that all outstanding issues have been resolved. If and when additional breaches are identified, timely notice will be provided in accordance with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. As to your proposal, our Office cannot and will not become involved in the civil suits filed against Mr. Epstein; as counsel for Mr. Epstein has expressed on several occasions, it is inappropriate for the government to involve itself in civil litigation. We likewise do not think it is appropriate to review civil pleadings in order to provide advisory opinions, even at your request. The duty to stay within the bounds of the Non-Prosecution Agreement lies with Mr. Epstein and he alone has the power to remain in compliance. Mr. Epstein has a highly skilled team to assist him, and compliance with the Agreement is not difficult, as you suggest. For example, it is not complicated to understand that, when a named victim files a claim EFTA00183759

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ., ESQ. JUNE 17, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 2 exclusively under Section 2255, Mr. Epstein cannot assert that there is no liability, just as providing the state plea agreement to our Office in advance of entering the state guilty plea was not complicated. I remain hopeful that Mr. Epstein will take all of his obligations seriously and elect to err on the side of caution in making decisions that relate to the performance of his duties. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney Bye.. Assistant United States Attorney cc: Chief, Northern Division Jack Goldberger, Esq. Roy Black, Esq. EFTA00183760

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND Al HUARD PARTNUSHIPS Jay P. Lelkowitz, To Call Writer Dire y: lelkoWm VIA FACSIMILE Citigroup Center 153 East 53.0 Street Now York, Now York 10022-4611 Facsimile: Ms. Esq. United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 www.kirkland.corn June 15,2009 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear I am attaching a letter authored by my co-counsel, Robert Critton, on today's date. It represents our agreement with a proposal that Kathy Ezell indicated in a letter dated June 8, 2009 would be fully acceptable to her and Bob Josefsberg as a means to resolve expeditiously all outstanding fee issues regarding the attorney representative. Mr. Epstein has directed his counsel to take immediate steps to address and resolve the attorney representative's outstanding fee- related issues and we are doing so without delay. The suggestion of a Special Master, agreed to by both parties, to resolve the issues in the immediate future, will assure all parties that there will be no delay and no need for adversarial litigation regarding fees. More generally, I want to assure you that Mr. Epstein has directed all counsel to make sure that there is no filing that could constitute a breach of the NPA. Accordingly, a new internal screening process has been established to provide focused decision-making on each filing. To the extent we believe any filing may be perceived as implicating any of the issues generically addressed in the NPA (a document including sentences within paragraph 8 that even Mr. Acosta agreed were "far from simple"), we intend to address such issues with you prior to any filing and hope that you will agree to review the draft filing and inform us whether or not from your perspective it would, if filed, constitute a "breach". This will be especially important regarding issues that we believe fall at the intersection of Section 2255 and the civil litigation. We reserve our right, if you believe a proposed filing to conflict with the NPA or if you wish not to address these issues with us, thereafter to address such substantive issues with the Court. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco washington,■. EFTA00183761

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Ms. June 15, 2009 Page 2 Esq. We hope that these proposals—in combination with our immediate withdrawal of the previously filed Motion to Dismiss—resolve all outstanding issues at the intersection of the NPA and 2255. Please advise if any remain. Sincerely, P. Letkowitz Enclosure cc: Vktar- en Atkinson, Esq. EFTA00183762

J. WHAM. BURMAN, PA., GREGORY W.CCU:NAN. PA. ROBERT D. CRITTON. IR., PA., BERNARD LEBEDBKER MARK T. I II/STIER, PA. JEFFREY PEPIN MIOIAEL PIKE HEATHER McNAMARA RUDA I R.ORIDA WARD anima CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP Sent by E-mail and U.S. Mall Robert Josefsberg, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagier Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Re: Epstein Matter Dear Bob: June 15, 2009 ADELQUI I. BENAVENTE PARALEOAL I INVISTIOATOR BARBARA M. McKENNA ASHUR STOKEN-BARINO BETTY STOKES PARAUXML3 RITA R. BUDNYK MDOIRRfR On June 8, 2009, Kathy Ezell wrote a letter to me regarding outstanding fee payment Issues. At page 3, she stated that she was not adverse to an earlier proposal that had been discussed amongst the parties to rely on a Special Master to resolve outstanding fee-related issues. We agree with Kathy's "proposal" that we rely on a Special Master to resolve all outstanding fee issues. Let's work during our Wednesday meeting to select an appropriate Special Master and let's agree to see whether, in the interim, we can resolve these issues even before they are submitted to the S.M. Cordially yo Robe . Critton, Jr. RDC/clz cc: Jack Goldberger, Esq. L•A'W•Y•E•R• S 515 N. FLAGLER DRIVE/SUITE 400 / WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33401 TELEPHONE (561) 842-2820 FAX (561) 844-6929 mallebelclaw.com EFTA00183763

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AFFILIATED PAIONLKSIIIPS Jay P. Lefkowitz, To l ri !Direct y: lefkowitz kirkland.com VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Ms. NIIMM, Esq. United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022.4611 Dear www.kirkland.com June 19, 2009 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Facsimile: I appreciate your letter of June 17, 2009. I sincerely hope that any and all issues that could generate an adversarial relationship between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office are in our past. Like you, we hope that the ongoing, complex, and at times vigorous litigation will not again require your involvement, nor result in any belief on your part that any legal position taken by Mr. Epstein's counsel conflicts with the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA"). In order to avoid future misunderstandings, however, I would like to have a discussion with you specifically about our ongoing obligations as you understand them under the NPA. As you know from past experience, and as Mr. Acostuaviously acknowledged in letters to my partner Ken Starr (on December 4, 2007) and Lilly Sanchez (on December 19, 2007), the language of 18 is "far from simple," and, in certain respects, subject to significant ambiguity. I believe it is both necessary and appropriate to seek immediate clarification from the government about its understanding of a few provisions in the NPA. It is likely by no fault of our own that these issues will come before a judge or an independent third party, whose job it will be to interpret the intent of the parties. In those circumstances, I think the court would most likely turn to both of us and directly seek our views, as the drafters of the agreement, before rendering its own opinion. Therefore, I believe it would bring about the finality that we both seek in a much reduced time frame if we could discuss several of the more ambiguous provisions contained in the NPA. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington,.. EFTA00183764

Ms. June 19, 2009 Page 2 Esq. One specific example comes to mind. First, we clearly understood during the course of negotiating the NPA, and believe that both the language of the NPA and our prior correspondence with your Office confirm, that the waiver of liability set forth in Paragraph 8 at most was designed to allow an identified individual the right to assert a single violation of a section 2255 predicate. The waiver of liability does not embrace situations where a particular plaintiff asserts multiple violations. Thus, compliance with paragraph 8's waiver of liability would require at most that Mr. Epstein stipulate to the existence of a single enumerated predicate that would entitle an otherwise eligible plaintiff to actual damages (or the applicable statutory minimum damages where actual damages fall short of that floor), leaving aside the issue of whether the waiver is applicable to contested litigation or only the cases where there would be agreed damage resolutions. In addition, if we believe that a predicate act is time-barred, as indeed we understand was the case with respect to all such acts in relation to one plaintiff, a proper construction of the waiver of liability would not preclude the reliance on a statute of limitations defense. Given your Office's prior acknowledgements that the language of the NPA is far from clear, we very much would appreciate an opportunity to discuss Paragraph 8 with you in the very near future in order to clarify a few pivotal questions raised by the NPA. I assure you that Mr. Epstein intends to abide fully by the terms of the NPA. And it is my sincere hope that our discussion can avert future risks that anything we do will cause you to believe that there has been a breach of the NPA. Finally, I enclose a letter in response to your June 15 letter in order to provide you with our perspective on the issues you raised. I hope our differing views on certain events over the past several years as reflected in my letter will not in anyway divert us from a common goal of having Mr. Epstein complete his NPA obligations without further tension with your Office. Sincerely, P. Jay P. Leflcowitz, Enclosures EFTA00183765

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AO MAR!) rsruNIRCIIII, Jay P. Lefkosvitz, To Call Writer Direc lefkova .com VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street Now York. New York 10022-4611 Ms. Esq. United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Dear www.klrkland.com June 19, 2009 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Facsimile: We prepared this answer in response to your letter dated June 15, 2009 and before receiving your follow up letter of June 17, 2009. At this point it has been almost three years since the federal government first intervened in what was originally a matter investigated and charged by state prosecutorial authorities. It has been almost a year since Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty in state court and began serving his sentence in county jail, pursuant to the terms and as a direct result of the federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "NPA"). When Mr. Epstein was sentenced, the U.S. Attorney promised me and my co-counsel that the United States Attorney's Office's involvement would cease with Mr. Epstein's execution of the NPA and incarceration in state custody. We were also promised that the federal government would not intervene in discretionary state or county decisions regarding the implementation of Mr. Epstein's sentence. We take this opportunity to address in detail each of the alleged instances you describe to support your position that Mr. Epstein has engaged in a pattern of breaching the NPA. Mr. Epstein's overriding commitment is, and has always been, to complete his jail sentence, fulfill his other obligations under the NPA, and reach final settlements of pending section 2255 cases with plaintiffs who are agreeable to such settlements. We respectfully submit (and support through documentary evidence) that there have been no past breaches of the NPA. There have been no "willful" breaches of the NPA. There has been no pattern of breaches of the NPA. As an initial matter, it is important to consider your letter of June 15 and its contents in context. Mr. Epstein has satisfied, and continues to satisfy, his obligations pursuant to the NPA. Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty to a registerable state offense. He has already registered as a sex Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington,■ EFTA00183766

Ms. Esq. June 19, 2009 Page 2 offender, and has served over 11 months of his sentence in county jail. While such a plea and punishment were not otherwise sought by the State Attorney, Mr. Epstein agreed to the plea, the sentence, and the obligation to register as a sex offender as a direct result of obligations he agreed to undertake pursuant to the NPA. Furthermore, Mr. Epstein has already paid over $300,000 in civil settlements and fees for the attorney representative, and has agreed to submit issues regarding further fees to a Special Master pursuant to a proposal suggested by the attorney representative himself. The claimants whose matters have already been settled were identified by you as victims and, in one case, as a sign of good faith, Mr. Epstein paid a settlement to an individual he had no recollection of ever meeting, solely because she appeared on your July 2008 list. We are prepared to address each of the statements contained in your June 15 letter. First, your statement that Mr. Epstein did not use his "best efforts" to enter his guilty plea and to be sentenced is, respectfully, without merit. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2. The date of entry of the state plea was deferred with the express written consent of United States Attorney Acosta, who recognized and expressly provided us with the opportunity to pursue an independent assessment of this matter by the Justice Department. The subsequent nine-month "delay" was a direct result of the Justice Department's determination that it was appropriate to convene an intense and time-consuming review. Thus, the delay was not dictated at all by Mr. Epstein, but instead, by the review process agreed to and, if you recall, initiated by Mr. Acosta. On June 23, 2008, the Justice Department concluded its final review and only seven days later, Mr. Epstein promptly entered his plea (on June 30, 2008) and immediately began serving his sentence. As the following timeline of events leading up to Mr. Epstein's entry of plea makes clear, the facts do not support your conclusion that Mr. Epstein willfully breached the NPA by delaying his sentence, and, instead, compellingly demonstrates that Mr. Epstein's participation in high-level Department of Justice reviews cannot factually or legally ground a claim that he "willfully" breached the NPA: • The NPA, signed on September 24, 2007, provides that Mr. Epstein "begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008." See Exhibit 2, NPA 911. • On November 28, 2007, Mr. Epstein's defense counsel contacted Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher to request a review of certain provisions of the NPA. We informed the USAO of this request the very next day in a letter to Mr. Acosta. See Exhibit 3, November 29, 2007 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta at 4. • In a December 4, 2007 letter, Mr. Acosta stated that he supported the defense's appeal to Washington. See Exhibit 4, December 4, 2007 letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta to K. Starr with a copy to AAG Alice Fisher at 5 ("I do not mind this Office's decision being EFTA00183767

Ms. Esq. June 19, 2009 Page 3 appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decision."). • On December 11, 2007, pursuant to Mr. Acosta's request, the defense team sent him submissions detailing the defense's concerns related to the NPA. See Exhibit 5, December 11, 2007 Letter from K. Stair to U.S. Attorney Acosta. • On December 14, 2007, Mr. Acosta met with members of the defense team to discuss the serious issues raised about the NPA. • In a December 19, 2007 letter, Mr. Acosta stated that "the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns." See Exhibit 6, December 19, 2007 Letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta to Attorney Lilly Sanchez at 3. He also stated that he had spoken with AAG Fisher to ask that she review this matter and to expedite the process. Id. • In the beginning of January, 2008, Mr. Acosta and I discussed the need for further consideration of the issues raised by the defense. He postponed the plea and sentencing until the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) was finished with its review of the case. • In a February 29, 2008 email I sent to Mr. Acosta, I confirmed that that "there were significant irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement" and that he would ask CEOS to evaluate the matter. I also confirmed Mr. Acosta's agreement to postpone the state plea deadline until after the matter was reviewed. On that same day, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman responded in writing as follows: "Please be assured that it has not, and never has been, this Office's intent to interfere or restrict the 'review process' for either Mr. Epstein or CEOS. I leave it to you and CEOS to figure out how best to proceed and will await the results of that process." See Exhibits 7 and 8, February 29, 2008 Emails to U.S. Attorney Acosta and from Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman. • Given that CEOS determined that it would not review many of the defense's objections and that its review would be limited on the rest of the objections, CEOS's decision, rendered on May 15, 2008, left open the need for a more thorough review of critical issues by others at the Justice Department. • In a May 28, 2008 email from Mr. Sloman to myself, Mr. Sloman further postponed the deadline to plead until the Deputy Attorney General's Office (DAG) completed its review. See Exhibit 9, May 28, 2008 Email from Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman to J. Leflcowitz. EFTA00183768

Ms. Esq. June 19, 2009 Page 4 • A final letter of determination was not issued by the Department of Justice until June 23, 2008. • Just one week after that date, Mr. Epstein promptly entered his plea and immediately began serving his state sentence on June 30, 2008. While you state that a breach occurred because Mr. Epstein and the defense team did not provide you with the state plea documents until the last business day before the plea, neither Mr. Epstein nor his counsel bear sole responsibility for timing of the delivery of these documents. It was the responsibility of the State Attorney's Office to provide the defense with the plea agreement. Defense counsel did not receive the plea agreement from the State until 10:00 A.M. on June 27, 2008 (the Friday before the plea). See Exhibit 10, June 27, 2008 Email from State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek to J. Goldberger. Once the plea agreement was reviewed by Mr. Epstein's defense team, Mr. Goldberger sent it to you that same afternoon. At 5:55 P.M. on June 27, 2008, following your receipt of the agreement sent to you by Mr. Goldberger, Messrs. Black and Goldberger received a responsive letter from you alleging that the plea agreement vioiSeNPA. See Exhibit 11, June 27/28, 2008 Email String between Assistant U.S. Attorney and R. Black and J. Goldberger (attaching Notice of Non-Compliance). Second, you state that language contained in the first draft of the plea agreement proposed by the State violated the NPA, because it called for community control in lieu of jail. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2. You now suggest that this "error" evidences Mr. Epstein's alleged efforts to undermine the NPA. I respectfully submit that you are mistaken in both cases. The language in the first draft of the plea agreement was prepared by the State and, as stated above, it was not sent to the defense until the very day that it was sent to you. Moreover, as Mr. Goldberger confirmed to you in a telephone conversation on the same day that he received your June 27 letter, the plea agreement, as originally drafted by the State, would have resulted in the exact same 12-month and 6-month consecutive jail sentences, followed by one year of community control, as was required by the NPA and ultimately imposed on Mr. Epstein. Although defense counsel asked the State to change the language of the plea agreement to alleviate your concerns, the same exact sentence and period of incarceration as required by the NPA would have been imposed on Mr. Epstein had the language of the State's first draft been allowed Ili See Exhibit 11, June 27/28, 2008 Email String between Assistant U.S. Attorney and R. Black and J. Goldberger (confirming a telephone conversation between the parties on June 27 that the state plea agreement was in compliance with the NPA and indicating a request by Assistant U.S. Attorney to modify the language in the state plea agreement); see also Exhibit 12, the initial version and the signed version of the state plea agreements. EFTA00183769

Ms. June 19, 2009 Page 5 Esq. The bottom line here is that while Florida counsel for Mr. Epstein filly believed that the initial language in the State's draft would result in a sentence identical to the mandates of the NPA, changes were made solely to conform to your requests. Neither the USAO or the administration of federal criminal justice suffered any prejudice: lawyers often make linguistic alterations of form; we did so here. The changes were made in short order, namely, during the Friday and Saturday before Mr. Epstein's state plea; the plea and plea agreement completely complied with the NPA as did Mr. Epstein's sentence; and there was neither a breach, nor harm. Moreover, all communications were through counsel. Mr. Epstein was not a party to these communications and in no way can be considered, factually or legally, to have committed a "willful" breach of the NPA in this regard. Third, you state that defense "counsel obstructed [your] ability to abide by [your] obligations to notify the victims of the outcome of the federal investigation." Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2. We believe that this statement misconstrues the intentions and conduct of the defense team and, does not support any charge of "obstruction" against Mr. Epstein, as would be required to sanction him for a "willful" breach of the NPA. In October 2007, a full nine months before Mr. Epstein was sentenced, we first raised the issue of the notification. On October 10, 2007, I stated in a letter to Mr. Acosta that the defense team did not believe "it was the government's place to be co-counsel to the identified individuals," and reasonably proposed that the alleged victims be contacted by the selected attorney representative. See Exhibit 13, October 10, 2007 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta at 4-5. Then, on November 28, 2007, you sent defense counsel the proposed victim notification letter indicating that the alleged victims had a federal right to be notified of the resolution of this matter pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights under § 3771. See Exhibit 14, November 29, 2007 Draft Victim Notification Letter from Assistant U.S. Attorney Mr. Epstein's counsel objected to your draft letter and the proposed method and proWire or notifying the alleged victims and challenged whether you were in fact obligated to notify these individuals pursuant to 18 § 3771. Those objections were made in a timely and appropriate manner and our dialogue regarding notification issues continued. As you know, the notification letter was not finalized for several months. The key point here is that our objections to the letter were made in good faith and were well-founded. After all, on December 6, 2007, Mr. Acosta agreed to many of our objections and adopted several of our modifications to resolve problems raised by the draft notification letter. See Exhibit 15, December 6, 2007 Letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta to J. Lefkowitz. This fact confirms both the good-faith nature of our objections and that neither Mr. Epstein nor his counsel could be considered to have violated the NPA by raising those objections in the first place. Fourth, Mr. Epstein did not, as you stated, refuse "to fulfill promptly Mr. Epstein's obligation to secure the services of an attorney representative for the victims." Exhibit 1, June EFTA00183770

Ms. Esq. June 19, 2009 Page 6 15, 2009 Letter at 2. It was the United States' obligation to select a suitable attorney representative, subject to the good-faith approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel. See Exhibit 2, NPA ¶ 7. Indeed, due to a concern we had raised, your Office specifically modified the procedure to select an attorney representative and delegated that task to Judge . See Exhibit 16, Addendum to NPA ¶ 7A. Again, the fact that your Office accommodated our concerns validates their legitimacy and undermines any claim that the NPA was breached by raising those concerns with you. To the contrary, Mr. Epstein executed the Addendum in an attempt to resolve outstanding, high) unorthodox and complex issues at the intersection of civil and criminal law. A letter to Judge (authored by then FAUSA Sloman) dated October 25, 2007 followed. See Exhibit 17, October 25, 2007 Letter to Judge Once Mr. Podhurst's firm was selected by Judge M, Mr. Epstein did not object to the selection. Moreover, as you have acknowledged to the court, the open issues involving the attorney representative portions of were not finally resolved until September 3, 2008. See Exhibit 18, December 22, 2008 Supplemental Declaration at 3 ¶ 9. Only five days later, on September 8, 2008, I sent a letter to Robert Josefsberg advising him that Mr. Epstein would pay his fees pursuant to the NPA for his role as an attorney representative. See Exhibit 19, September 8, 2008 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to R. Josefsberg. Furthermore, in an effort to comply with the obligations under the NPA, Mr. Epstein already has paid Mr. Podhurst's firm over $160,000 in legal fees, despite significant concerns over the scope of the work for which he is billing Mr. Epstein, and has agreed with Mr. Josefsberg's proposal that a Special Master be empowered to resolve any fee related issues that the Podhurst firm and Mr. Epstein's civil counsel cannot resolve. See Exhibit 20, June 15, 2009 Letter from Robert Critton to Kathy Ezell. There is nothing about the exchanges between counsel and the USAO regarding the attorney representative that even begins to approach a "willful" breach by Mr. Epstein. Fifth, you suggest that Mr. Epstein willfully breached the NPA because of the actions of Mr. Tein and Mr. Goldberger, whom you state failed to approve the victim notification letter that contained incorrect information. See Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2. The incorrect information in the letter was a proposed unilateral modification to the. NPA without prior approval by Mr. Epstein or any member of the defense team. It was only first suggested by your Office in a letter from Mr. Acosta on December 19, 2007. We never agreed to that language. In fact, I personally raised several objections to the suggested modification in my letter to Mr. Acosta, dated December 21, 2007. See Exhibit 21, December 21, 2007 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta. I personally became aware of the inclusion of that language on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 and discussed the matter with you immecili See Exhibits 22 and 23, August 13 and 15, 2008 Letters from Assistant U.S. Attorney to J. Lefkowitz (confirming that the "December modification" is not a part of the NPA). Again, that oversight was not a willful breach or an expression of intent to violate the terms of the Agreement, but instead represented the efforts of counsel, acting in good faith, in an attempt to insure that the letter contained only previously agreed-upon language. EFTA00183771

Ms. June 19, 2009 Page 7 Esq. Sixth, you raise the issue of a delayed withdrawal of a motion to quash. See Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 2-3. There is no motion to quash that still remains pending. The fact that the motion was not withdrawn for some time was merely due to an administrative oversight that has long been remedied, but at no time did it prejudice the Government in any way. Nor did it result from an effort by myself or co-counsel to gain some tactical advantage. Furthermore, no effort was made by any counsel to seek a judicial decision on the pending motion. The motion had no adverse effect on the Government, and the delay in its withdrawal is legally and factually unrelated to the type of material and willful breach that alone could warrant remedies—not least of all because Mr. Epstein has suffered irreversible prejudice by complying with the core provisions of the NPA. Again, he has been imprisoned, he has pled guilty, he is registered, he has paid sums to claimants, all to comply with his obligations under the NPA. Seventh, you state that additional issues arose in November regarding the issuance of work release to Mr. Epstein. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 3. We have previously reviewed this very matter with you and other individuals in our Office in November 2008. At that time, Mr. Roy Black met with you, , and in Miami to review the work release issue. Among other significant documents shown to you, we presented you with your own email in which you had previously acknowledged that the sheriff had discretion in the matter. See Exhibit 24, July 3, 2008 Email from Assistant U.S. Attorney to Michael Gauger ("If Mr. Epstein is truly eligible for the [work release] program, we have no objection to him being treated like any other similarly situated prisoner . . ."). Furthermore, Mr. Acosta, as already stated, had previously assured me and other counsel that the USAO would not interfere in the ordinary implementation of discretionary administrative decisions by state or county officials. We believe we were under no obligation (in the NPA or anywhere else) to notify you of such discretionary and ordinary state-made decisions, and the fact that your Office confirmed that Mr. Epstein was entitled to the same discretionary administrative decisions as other similarly situated inmates fundamentally undermines any claim that Mr. Epstein breached the NPA in connection with the state and county officials' decision. In any event, after thoroughly reviewing and evaluating Mr. Epstein's application, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office properly exercised its discretion, in full compliance with its stated requirements, policies and procedures, to grant Mr. Epstein work release. In addition, after the Sheriff's Office received a multi-page letter from you to Captain Sleeth, which recited the very allegations of errors on Mr. Epstein's work release application to which you refer in your latest letter, each allegation was fully reviewed, and the Sheriff's office found its initial decision appropriate. Eighth, it is both unreasonable and unjustifiable to hold Mr. Epstein responsible—never mind declare him in breach—with regard to Judge McSorley's nunc pro tune order. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 3. Neither Mr. Epstein nor defense counsel had anything to do with and certainly no prior knowledge of this order. Defense counsel only learned of it after you brought it to our attention. The facts are as follows: the Department of Corrections requires an order EFTA00183772

Ms. Esq. June 19, 2009 Page 8 placing someone on community control before the Department of Corrections will supervise that person. Judge Pucillo, the retired judge that took Mr. Epstein's plea, inadvertently neglected to enter the order placing Mr. Epstein on Community Control 1. When Judge McSorley learned of this, she properly entered the order nunc pro tune to the date of the plea. See Exhibit 25, Order of ConummaySontrol. If you will note on the 3-page court event form, circled at the top of page 2, is M.1" (community control 1). Mr. Epstein was properly placed on community control 1 on the day of his plea to begin only after he completes his jail sentence, and the nunc pro tunc order simply ratifies the oral pronouncement made by the court at the time of the plea. Given that the NPA expressly provides that Mr. Epstein is to serve a sentence of 12 months in "community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail," Exhibit 2, NPA ¶ 2(b), your assertion that the inclusion of community control "directly contradicted the terms of the" NPA is incorrect. Finally, the motion to dismiss that was the topic of discussion on June 12 has been withdrawn. As indicated in the letter I sent you on June 15, we have adopted an internal screening process aimed at eliminating future concerns about anything that reasonably could be considered a breach of the NPA. See Exhibit 26, June 15, 2009 Letter from J. Lefkowitz to Assistant U.S. Attorney . Mr. Epstein has directed all counsel to make certain that no filing could be construed as a breach of the NPA. Furthermore, we proposed a supplemental new process, as stated in my June 15 letter to you, that would have provided you, if you chose, the opportunity to review any such filing before it is submitted to the court so that you may determine whether or not it constitutes a breach. That being said, I wish to reiterate our firm belief that the NPA allowed Mr. Epstein the right to contest litigation whenever an express waiver of all other state, federal or common law claims or the right to bring contested litigation in the future was not sufficiently or correctly pleaded. As you know, we spent several weeks negotiating the language of the NPA with you and Mr. Acosta. We firmly believe that the motion to dismiss that was recently filed (and then promptly withdrawn) did not constitute a violation. First, Paragraph 8 of the NPA clearly limits those who may benefit from any waivers by Mr. Epstein to an "identified individual" who "elects to proceed exclusively under 18 USC 2255, and aerees to waive any other claim for damages. whether pursuant to state, federal, or moron law". Exhibit 2, NPA ¶ 8. More is required of a plaintiff than to simply allege, as did Doe 101, that she "exclusively seeks civil remedies pursuant to 18 USC 2255." Exhibit 27, Amended Complaint ¶ 24. Such an averment satisfies only the exclusivity portion of the twin conditions set forth in the NPA at ¶ 8. The word "and" followed by the requirement of an affirmative waiver of any other claims, federal, state, or common law mandates an additional affirmative act by the plaintiff. No such waiver was filed or even pled. ■ Doe 101 did no more than restate that her complaint in civil action no 9:09-cv-80591-ICAM was only for 2255 damages. She never affirmatively waived all future claims in state or federal court, as required by the NPA. EFTA00183773

Ms. Esq. June 19, 2009 Page 9 Because of this threshold issue, Doe 101 did not, though the attorney representative, satisfy the NPA 18 requirements.' While Mr. Epstein's counsel still believe for these reasons that the motion did not conflict with Mr. Epstein's obligations under the NPA, the motion was in relevant part withdrawn at Mr. Epstein's insistence—further demonstrating that Mr. Epstein has prioritized his desire to avoid contentious additional litigation with the USAO over this matter. In short, our good-faith efforts to raise litigation issues will be more carefully scrutinized in the future as to limit the possibility of being construed by your Office as supporting a notice that Mr. Epstein is in "willful" breach. Issues regarding the scope of the 1 8 waivers are unorthodox and even unprecedented. They result in part from the NPA being executed before you identified the individuals listed, see Exhibit 2, NPA 1 7, and, importantly, given the evolution of the civil litigation, before any joint statement as required by the terms of the NPA was provided to Mr. Josefsberg. Nevertheless, as we stated on June 15, we had intended to provide you with future filings in advance so that we could discuss their interaction with the NPA before rather than after any filing, However given your rejection of that procedure, in a good faith attempt to avoid future conflict, we would nevertheless hope to clarify some of the more ambiguous parts of 18 of the agreement with you as soon as possible. To repeat, it is Mr. Epstein's overriding intent to fulfill his obligations under the NPA -- an intent we as his attorneys will do everything in our power to effectuate. The facts demonstrate that Mr. Epstein has clearly not committed any breach of the NPA, much less a willful breach. As we have reiterated and as has been proven by Mr. Epstein's own actions, Mr. Epstein has no intention of breaching the NPA and has never had any such intention. Although you claim that Mr. Epstein received the benefits of the NPA and the Government only its burdens, I believe the reality is to the contrary. Mr. Epstein has suffered significant and irreversible prejudice: he has been imprisoned in a county jail for almost a year, he has pleaded guilty to a state felony that required sex registration and has, in fact, registered as a sex offender, he accepted civil burdens in his ongoing litigation that may result in millions of dollars of future payments, he has settled cases that could be won, in deference to the NPA and he is paying and That U Doe 101 did not meet the threshold requirements for ib.pimposition of the waiver of liability portion of Paragraph 8 of the NPA is demonstrated by the filings of Doe II in 09-80469-C1V-Marra, a federal lawsuit filed in March, 2009 seeking "exclusively 2255" damages, while ■ Doe II already had a pendin state court suit filed in July of 2008 seeking damages against Epstein for sexual assault and conspiracy. Doe II in her II complaint alleged Epstein could "not contest liability for claims brought exclusively pursuant to 18 §2255". Exhibit 27, Amended Complaint 1 24. In her response to Epstein's Motion to Dismiss in which Epstein challenged the "exclusivity" claim, she argued at page 7 that "Epstein appeared to be violating the agreement . . . [NPA]". However, her attorney withdrew that claim at the June 12, 2009 hearing (and in her subsequent Amended Response) agreeing Utile state filing negated the "exclusivity" of the federal 2255 lawsuit. On the current record, nothing prevents Doe 101 from filing a parallel state court claim. EFTA00183774

Ms. IMM Esq. June 19, 2009 Page 10 will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for his adversaries to pursue him in court. The Government may have endured some delays and administrative costs due to certain of its own its decision — such as to evaluate the Sheriff's exercise of discretionary authority in implementing the Sheriff's own work release program —but neither the Government nor any civil plaintiff has suffered any harm, any prejudice, or any disadvantage as a result of the events you have identified. We signed a contract -- the NPA -- with you in good faith, and in exchange, Mr. Epstein gave consideration that cannot be returned (12 months of his freedom and his reputation). He is legally entitled to its benefits. He committed no "willful breach." As such, we believe it would constitute both a contractual and constitutional error to seek further remedy or to in any way withdraw from the NPA. We will continue to make our best efforts to communicate with you about any potential problems and hope, in the interest of fairness, you will do the same. Sincerely, 9 Itilf1 P Jay . Lefkowitz, P.C. Enclosures EFTA00183775

LEOPOLD-KUVIN A CONSUMER JUSTICE ATTORNEYS July 6, 2009 Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 E. Broward Blvd, 7th Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Re: B.B. I. JEFFREY EPSTEIN OUR FILE NO.: 080303 Dear Ms. As you are aware, this firm represents Plaintiff, Jane Doe, a/k/a/ B.B. in the civil litigation against Jeffrey Epstein styled Jeffiey Epstein. case no.: 502008CA037319 MB AB. We are hereby requesting that a copy of the non-prosecution agreement be provided to my office as soon as possible. If there are any questions or concerns regarding the production of this agreement, please contact me at once. V1N STK/mlb 2925 PGA Boulevard Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens Florida 33410 581.615.1400 fax 561.515.1401 leopoldkuvin.com CRASUIWORTIIINESS • MANAGED CARE ABUSE • CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS • PERSONAL INJURY • WRONGFUL DEATH EFTA00183776

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: 500 E. Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor R. Lauderdale, FL 33394 (954) 356-7255 July 7, 2009 Thank you for your letters of June 19th. From your letters, it appears that you have misconstrued the Office's past efforts at alleviating Mr. Epstein's unfounded fears of disparate treatment. You seem to have interpreted those efforts as either: (I) an acknowledgement of the validity of those fears, or (2) an acquiescence to the efforts of Mr. Epstein to avoid the full terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. So, for example, you write that, in an email to Mr. Acosta, you "confirmed that `there were significant irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement,'" and that "Mr. Acosta agreed to many of our objections and adopted several of our modifications . . . [and] [t]his fact confirms both the good-faith nature of our objections and that neither Mr. Epstein nor his counsel could be considered to have violated the NPA by raising those objections in the first place." Neither your e-mails nor Mr. Acosta's consistent attempts to maintain a good working relationship with you act as modifications to the NPA or indications that the Office agreed or acquiesced to your positions. While your letter provides great detail regarding all of the objections that you raised' 'In an effort to terminate the endless "battle of letters" that this case has become, 1 have elected not to detail each and every misstatement in your ten-page letter, but please do not mistake that for an agreement with those misstatements. One of those misstatements, however, begs for ii iiil correction. You write: "Indeed, due to a concern we had raised, your Office specifically modified the procedure to select an attorney representative and delegated that task to Judge. Again, the EFTA00183777

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. JULY 7, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 2 throughout the nine-month delay between the signing of the NPA and Mr. Epstein's commencement of performance, you neglect to mention that all of your objections were soundly rejected at each and every level of review, from West Palm Beach, to Miami, to the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, and, finally, to the highest levels of review at the Department of Justice. As Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General John Roth stated: Even if we were to substitute our judgment for that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe that federal prosecution of this case is appropriate. Moreover, having reviewed your allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and the facts underlying them, we see nothing in the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's Office that gives us any reason to alter our opinion. With regard to your proposal to engage in additional discussions regarding the scope of the NPA, we respectfully decline. A great deal of time and effort went into the negotiation and signing of the NPA, and the Agreement speaks for itself. Contrary to your assertion, both the government and the victims have suffered harm and prejudice due to the willful breaches of the NPA by Mr. Epstein. The Office will continue to evaluate its position and will proceed accordingly. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney By: s/A. A. Villafafia Assistant United States Attorney cc: , Chief, Northern Division Jack Goldberger, Esq. Roy Black, Esq. fact that your Office accommodated our concerns validated their legitimacy ..." As you have been told repeatedly, the decision to delegate that task to a Special Master was made independently and before any of Mr. Epstein's attorneys voiced a concern about that process. Mr. Lefkowitz, you were provided with a list of potential attorney representatives and with information in writing regarding the alleged "conflict of interest," and you made the selection that you later claimed was problematic. Notwithstanding your agreement on the selection of the attorney-representative, our Office, independently, elected to ask an independent third party to make the final decision. EFTA00183778

J. MICHAEL BURMAN. PA! GREGORY W. COLEMAN. PA. ROBERT D. CRITTON. JR.. PA' BERNARD LEBEDEKFit MARK T. LUTTIIM. PA. JEFFREY PEPIN MICHAEL J. PIKE HEATHER MeNAMARA RUDA FLORIDA BOARD ED CIVIL IHIAL LAWYER BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP July 8, 2009 AL EXPRESS , Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Re: Doe No. 8'. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 09-CV-80802-Marra/Johnson Dear Ms. ADELQUI J. BENAVENTE PARALEGAL/ INVESTIGATOR BARBARA M. McKINNA ASHLIE STOKEN-BARING BETTY STOKES PARALEGALS RITA II. BUDNYK OP COUNSEL As you are aware, I am Mr. Epstein's attorney in the civil cases that have been filed against him. While I am certainly familiar with the NPA, it is clear to me that my interpretation of it may differ from yours (USAO) or one of the many plaintiffs' attorneys as it relates to what I can do or assert in defense of Mr. Epstein. As I expressed to Judge Marra, my charge from Mr. Epstein is to take no action that could reasonably be considered to be a violation of the NPA. With that in mind, I am sending our motion to dismiss in Doe #8, along with a copy of her complaint. While I know you expressed to Mr. Lefkowitz that you (USAO) were not inclined to review pleadings and offer advisory opinions, I would ask that you reconsider and review our motion. The Plaintiff Doe No. 8 is not exclusively asserting a claim p ant to 18 8's counsel, Adam Horowitz, who also is counsel for Plaintiffs . §2255, and thus, the terms of the NPA are not implicailln fact, Doe No. Does Nos. 2 through 7 in other civil actions against Mr. Epstein, in the June 12, 2009 hearing before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra (at which you were also present) conceded that — The provision (of the NPA) relating to Mr. Epstein being unable to contest liability pertains only to those plaintiffs who have chosen as their sole remedy L•A•W•Y•E•R•S 515 N. FLAGLER DRIVE / SUITE 400 / WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 TELEPHONE (561) 8424820 FAX (561) 8446929 [email protected] EFTA00183779

July 8, 2009 Page 2 the federal statute. My clients, Doe 2 through 7, have elected to bring additional causes of action, and it's for that reason we were silent when you said does anyone here find Mr. Epstein to be in breach of the non- prosecution agreement. This provision, as we understand it, it does not relate to our clients. June 12, 2009, Transcript of hearing in IF Doe, et al Epstein, Case No. 08- 80119-Civ-Marra, U.S. District Ct., S.D. IF p. 29, line 19-25, p. 30, line 1. A copy of the relevant portions of the hearing transcript is enclosed. I agree with his comments as they relate to all of his clients, including Doe 8. I believe that nothing in this motion involves any aspect of the NPA. If yo.sagree, would you please contact me as soon as possible. I must file this motion by July 14th as per my extension agreement with Mr. Horowitz. However, I stand ready to have a discussion or meeting with you regarding this motion or any other civil related pleadings or matter that may implicate the NPA. I look forward to your response. RDC/clz cc by pdf: Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Martin G. Weinberg, Esq. Roy Black, Esq. Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. Cordially y r , Rob D. Critton, Jr. EFTA00183780

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-MARRA-JOHNSON DOE NO. 8 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), by and through his attorneys, moves to dismiss Counts I and III of Plaintiffs Complaint as the causes of action are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.' Rule 12(b)(6); Local Gen. Rule 7.1 (S.D. Fla. 2009). In support of dismissal, Defendant states: Plaintiff's Complaint attempts to allege three Counts; the first two counts are pursuant to state common law, and the third count is brought pursuant to 18 §2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries. Count I attempts to allege a cause of action for "Sexual Assault and Battery," Count II for "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;" and Count III for "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 §2422," pursuant to 18 §2255. P s Complaint att to assert both state common law claims and a claim pursuant to 18 . §2255. Since Doe 8 did not relinquish her state claims and correspondingly did not file her complaint relying, exclusively, on 18 USC 2255, she is not entitled to the litigation benefits including certain waivers that directly or indirectly accrue to other civil plaintiffs from the defendant's fulfilling obligations resulting from his separate confidential agreement with the United Staes Attorney's Office. Plaintiff's counsel conceded that the provisions of the NPA are not implicated where a plaintiff brings additional causes of acti d does n proceed exclusively under §2255. See June 12, 2009, Hearing Transcript in MI Doe, et all. Epstein, Case No. 08-80119-Civ-Marra, p. 29, line 19-25, p. 30, line 1. EFTA00183781

Doe No. 8'. Epstein Page 2 Pursuant to the allegations on the face of Plaintiff's complaint, Count I, based on Florida's common law of assault and battery, and Count III, brought pursuant to 18 §2255, are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Although a statute of limitations bar to a claim is an affirmative defense, and a plaintiff is not required to negate an affirmative defense in her complaint, a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is appropriate where, as here, "it is 'apparent from the face of the complaint' that the claim is time-barred." See generally, La Grasta I. First Union Securities, Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 -846 (11th Cir. 2004). Count I Is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. As to Count I, which is plead pursuant to state law, it is well settled that this Court is to apply Florida law. Erie R.Co. I. Tompkins, 58 S.Ct. 817 (1938). Pursuant to Florida law, the statute of limitations for assault and battery is four years, §95.11(3)(o)., Fla. Stat. §95.11(3)(o), Fla. Stat., provides — Actions other than for recovery of real property shall be commenced as follows: (3) Within four years.— * (o) An action for assault, battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution, malicious interference, false imprisonment, or any other intentional tort, except as provided in subsections (4), (5), and (7). In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges in relevant part that — 9. ... In or about 2001, Doe, then approximately 16 years old, fell into Epstein's trap and became one of his victims. According to the allegations of the Complaint, Doe had one encounter with Defendant at his Palm Beach mansion in or about 2001 when was approximately EFTA00183782

Doe No. 8'. Epstein Page 3 16 years old. See Complaint, ¶13, endnote 1 hereto.' Based on the allegations of the Complaint, it has been at least 8 years since the alleged conduct by EPSTEIN, well past the four year statute of limitations, thus requiring dismissal of Count I. Based on the allegations, Plaintiff is now at least 24 years old. Subsections (4) and (5) referenced in §95.11(3)(o) are not applicable. Plaintiff may attempt to argue that subsection (7) of §95.11, Fla. Stat. applies. See endnote 2 hereto for statutory text of subsection (7), including statutes referenced therein.2 However, a review of Plaintiff's allegations in Count I establish that Plaintiff is attempting to assert a cause of action based on the elements of Florida's common law assault and battery to which a four year statute of limitation applies. (Compare Count II, ¶24, wherein Plaintiff tracks the language §39.01(2), Fla. Stat. (2001), pertaining to "abuse."). Pursuant to Florida law, although the term "assault and battery" is most commonly referred to as if it were a legal unit, or a single concept, "assault and battery are separate and distinct legal concepts, assault being the beginning of an act which, if consummated, constitutes battery." 3A FIa.Jur.2d Assault §1. An assault and battery are intentional acts. See generally Spivey I. Battaglia, 258 So.2d 815 (Fla. 1972); and Travelers Indem. PCR, Inc., 889 So.2d 779 (Fla. 2004). On the face of the Complaint, the applicable four year statute of limitations has expired, and accordingly, Count I is barred an required to be dismissed. Count 111 —18 =. 42255 EFTA00183783

Doe No. 8'. Epstein Page 4 As to the applicable statute of limitations for Count III which is brought pursuant to 18 . §2255, §2255(b), (both the 2001 version, which Defendant asserts is the applicable statute, and the amended version, effective July 27, 2006), provides: (b) Statute of limitations.—Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in the case of a person under a legal disability, not later than three years after the disability. As noted above, according to the allegations of the Complaint, Doe had one encounter with Defendant at his Palm Beach mansion in or about 2001 when was approximately 16 years old. See Complaint, ¶13, endnote 1 hereto. Based on the allegations of the Complaint, it has been at least 8 years since the alleged conduct by EPSTEIN, well past the six year statute of limitations, thus requiring dismissal of Count III. Based on the allegations, Plaintiff is now at least 24 years old, well pass the age of majority. (The age of majority under both federal and state law is 18 years old. See 18 . §2256(1), defining a "minor" as "any person under the age of eighteen years;" and §1.01, Definitions, Fla. Stat., defining "minor" to include "any person who has not attained the age of 18 years."). Thus, on the face of the Complaint, Count III is timed barred and required to be dismissed. Conclusion Accordingly, Counts I and III of Plaintiff's Complaint are subject to dismissal. On the face of the Complaint, the causes of action which Plaintiff attempts to allege are barred by the applicable statute of limitations of 4 and 6 years, respectively. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court dismiss Counts I and III of Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. EFTA00183784

Doe No. 8'. Epstein Page 5 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of , 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff = Doe #8 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted, BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 842-2820 By: Robert D. Critton, Jr. Florida Bar #224162 Michael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein rcrit bciclaw.com moikeebciclaw.com ' Complaint, ¶13 alleges in relevant part — Doe was recruited by another girl, who told her that she could make some money, buljiil not tell her what was involved. At all relevant times, the glythbo recruited Doe was acting on behalf of and as an agent for Epstein. was EFTA00183785

Doe No. 8'. Epstein Page 6 contacted by this girl by telephone. was then picked up and brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach. nce there, she was lead up a flight of stairs to the room with the massage table. Epstein came i t the room and directed to remove her clothes and give him massage. was frightened and felt trapped. As directed stein, IN removed her clothes. Epstein then during the massage touched on her breasts and vagina, and he grabbed her hand and placed it on his penis. Zulein masturbated himself during the massage. Epstein then left money for M. 2 §95.11(7), Fla. Stat. — (7) For intentional torts based on abuse.--An action founded on alleged abuse, as defined in s. 39.01, s. 415.102, ors. 984.03, or incest, as defined in s. 826.04, may be commenced at any time within 7 years after the age of majority, or within 4 years after the injured person leaves the dependency of the abuser, or within 4 years from the time of discovery by the injured party of both the injury and the causal relationship between the injury and the abuse, whichever occurs later. §39.01(2), Fla. Stat. (2001) — (2) "Abuse" means any willful act or threatened act that results in any physical, mental, or sexual injury or harm that causes or is likely to cause the child's physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired. Abuse of a child includes acts or omissions. Corporal discipline of a child by a parent or legal custodian for disciplinary purposes does not in itself constitute abuse when it does not result in harm to the child. §415.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2001) - (1) "Abuse" means any willful act or threatened act that causes or is likely to cause significant impairment to a vulnerable adult's physical, mental, or emotional health. Abuse includes acts and omissions. §984.03 (2), Fla. Stat. (2001) — "Abuse" means any willful act that results in any physical, mental, or sexual injury that causes or is likely to cause the child's physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired. Corporal discipline of a child by a parent or guardian for disciplinary purposes does not in itself constitute abuse when it does not result in harm to the child as defined in s. 39.01. EFTA00183786

305-9312200 Herman 8611ermelsteln, P 02:33:18 p.m. 01-06-2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-Marra-Johnson DOE NO. 8, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. FILED by VT ELECTRONIC May 28, 2009 STEVEltpl. tARIMORE CI.ERK US. MT. CT. s. D. or k*.. MIAMI COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 8 ("Jane" or `al Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey Epstein, as follows: Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Jane Doe No. 8 ("Jane Doe") is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, and is sui juris. 2. This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a minor. 3. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York, and presently serving a prison sentence in Palm Beach County, Florida for, inter alio solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution.. 4. This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. 5. This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, delusive of interest and costs; MERMEL.STEIN & HOROWITZ. P. A. loll - I - www.sexabuseattomey.com EFTA00183787

305-9312200 Herman &Mermelsteln, P 02:33:35 p.m. 01-06-2009 5/8 and (ii) is between citizens of different states. 6. Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 §1331 because Plaintiff alleges a claim under the laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28... §1367(a) over all other claims set forth herein which form part of the same case or controversy. 7. This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28a. §§1391(a) and 1391(b) as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. Factual Allegations 8. At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male in his early 50's. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. Thomas and Palm Beach, FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. 9. Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave them money. In or about 2001, Jane Doe, then approximately 16 years old, fell into Epstein's trap and became one of his victims. 10. Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. Thomas. 11. Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. These underage girls were recruited ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P. A. - 2 - www.sexabuseattorney.com EFTA00183788

305-9312200 Herman &Mermelsteln, P 02:34:03 p.m. 01-06-2009 6 /8 in his Palm Beach mansion. Epstein, upon information and belief, generally sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from Palm Beach County who would be enticed by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session - and who were perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if allegations of improper conduct were made. 12. Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. The underage victim would be brought or directed to Epstein's mansion, where she would be led up a flight of stairs to a room that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. The girl would then find herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. He would then remove his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to remove her clothes. Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts. 13. Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, Doe was recruited by another girl, who told her that she could make some money, but did not tell her what was involved. At all relevant times, the girl who recruited. Doe was acting on behalf of and as agent for Epstein. was contacted by this girl by telephone. was then picked up and brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach. Once there, she was led up the flight of stairs to the room with the massage table. Epstein came into the room and directed to remove her clothes and give him a massage, was frightened and felt trapped. As directed by Epstein". removed her clothes. Epstein then during the massage touched- on her breasts and vagina, and he grabbed her hand and placed it on his penis. Epstein masturbated himself during the massage. Epstein then left money for. 14. As a result of this encounter with Epstein, experienced confusion, shame, humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. MERMELSTEIN & HoRown-z, P. A. - 3 - • www.sexabuseattorney.com EFTA00183789

305-9312200 Herman &MermelsteIn, P 02:35:06 p.m. 01-06-2009 7 /8 24. Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Woe. These acts resulted in mental or sexual injury that caused or were likely to cause IlDoe's mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired. 25. Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to .Doe. Epstein knew or had reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and damage to. Doe, or Epstein acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing severe emotional distress to. Doe. 26. As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, .Doe has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain, psychological and emotional injuries and los of enjoyment of life. . WHEREFORE, Plaintiff. Doe No. 6 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT III Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 IMI. &2422 27. Plaintiff. Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. 28. Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce or entice In Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. 29. On June 30, 2008, Epstein entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida H 796.07 and 796.03, in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case nos. 2008-cf- 009381AXXXMI3 and 2006-cf-009454AMMB), for conduct involving the same plan and scheme as alleged herein. MERMELSTEIN & MoRoWITZ, P. A. - 5 - www.sexabuseattorney.com EFTA00183790

305-9312200 Herman &Mermelsteln, P 02:35:42 p.m. 01-06-2009 818 30. As to Plaintiff Woe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of Florida Statute §796.07(2) (including subsections (f (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) thereof), and other criminal offenses including violations of Florida Statutes §§798.02 and 800.04 (including subsections (5), (6) and (7) thereof). 31. Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 18 MI §2422. 32. As a result of Epstein's violation of 18 §2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. 33. Plaintiff hired Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. (ffIda Herman & Mermelstein, P.A.), in this matter and agreed to pay them a reasonable attorneys' fee. • WHEREFORE, Plaintiff.. Doe No. 6 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for all damages available under 18 §2255(a), including without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action on all claims so triable. Dated: May Z-7, 2009 Respectfully submitted, By: Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL ssm(4sexabuseattorney.co Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) [email protected] MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 No. 947245) MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P. A. www.sexabuseattorney.com - 6 - EFTA00183791

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 2009 9 10 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING 11 BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 APPEARANCES: FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. Mermelstein & Horowitz 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33160 305.931.2200 For Doe BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. 17 Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard 18 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 19 954.522.3456 20 ISIDRO M. GARCIA, ESQ. Garcia Elkins Boehringer 21 224 Datura Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 22 DOE II 561.832.8033 23 RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. 2290 10th Avenue North 24 Lake Worth, FL 33461 For 561.582.7600 25 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00183792

2 1 ROBERT I'. JOSEFSBERG, ESQ. 2 Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 25 West Flagler Street 3 Miami, FL 33130 Fore Doe 101 305.358.2800 4 (Via telephone) 5 KATHERINE W. EZELL, ESQ. Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 6 25 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 7 For S Doe 101 305.358.2800 8 FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL BURMAN, ESQ. 9 Burman Critton, etc. 515 North Flagler Street 10 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561.842.2820 11 JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. 12 Atterbury Goldberger Weiss 250 Australian Avenue South 13 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561.659.8300 14 , ESQ. 15 Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 East Broward Boulevard 16 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 For U.S.A. 954.356.7255 17 MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. 18 20 Park Plaza Boston MA 02116 19 (Via telephone) 617.227.3700 20 JAY LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. (Via telephone) 21 REPORTED BY: LARRY HERR, RPR-RMR-FCRR-AE 22 Official United States Court Reporter Federally Certified Realtime Reporter 23 400 North Miami Avenue, Room 8N09 Miami, FL 33128 305.523.5290 24 25 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00183793

1 THE COURT: We are here in the various Doe vs. Epstein 2 cases. 3 May I have counsel state their appearances? 4 MR. HOROWITZ: Adam Horowitz, counsel for plaintiffs 5 2 through IIIIIDoe 7. 6 THE COURT: Good morning. 7 MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, counsel for plaintiff Mil 8 Doe. 9 THE COURT: Good morning. 10 MR. GARCIA: Good morning, Your Honor. Sid Garcia for 11 =Doe II. 12 THE COURT: Good morning. 13 MR. WILLITS: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard 14 Willits, here on behalf of the plaintiff _. . 15 THE COURT: Good morning. 16 MS. EZELL: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Katherine 17 Ezell from Podhurst orseck, here with Amy Adderly and Susan 18 Bennett, and I believe my partner, Bob Josefsberg, is going to 19 appear by telephone. 20 THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, are you there? 21 MR. JOSEFSBERG: I am, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: Good morning. 23 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Good morning. 24 THE COURT: All right. Do we have all the plaintiffs 25 stated their appearances? Okay. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00183794

29 1 as a shield against the plaintiffs that he was supposed to make 2 restitution for. 3 And, certainly, he can take my client's depo. He's 4 done extensive discovery in the state court case -- very 5 intrusive, I might add. And we don't care, because we can win 6 this case with the prosecution agreement or without the 7 prosecution agreement. We are ready to go forward. 8 THE COURT: You're not going to assert to the United 9 States Government that what he's doing in defending the case is 10 a violation for which he should be further prosecuted? 11 MR. GARCIA: Absolutely not. 12 THE COURT: Anyone else for the plaintiffs? 13 MR. HOROWITZ: Judge, Adam Horowitz, counsel for 14 plaintiffs Doe 2 through 7. 15 I just wanted to address a point that I think you've 16 articulated it. I just want to make sure it's crystal clear, 17 which is that we can't paint a broad brush for all of the 18 cases. 19 The provision relating to Mr. Epstein being unable to 20 contest liability pertains only to those plaintiffs who have 21 chosen as their sole remedy the federal statute. My clients, 22 Doe 2 through 7, have elected to bring additional causes 23 of action, and it's for that reason we were silent when you 24 said does anyone here find Mr. Epstein to be in breach of the 25 non-prosecution agreement. That provision, as we understand TOTAL AO:E.915iMATROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00183795

30 1 it, it doesn't relate to our clients. 2 THE COURT: Okay. But, again, you're in agreement 3 with everyone else so far that's spoken on behalf of a 4 plaintiff that defending the case in the normal course of 5 conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? 6 MR. HOROWITZ: Subject to your rulings, of course, 7 yes. 8 THE COURT: Thank you. 9 Anyone else have anything to say from the plaintiffs? 10 Ms. if you would be so kind as to maybe 11 help us out. I appreciate the fact that you're here, and I 12 know you're not a party to these cases and under no obligation 13 to respond to my inquiries. But as I indicated, it would be 14 helpful for me to understand the Government's position. 15 MS. : Thank you, Vour'Honor. And we, of 16 course, are always happy to try to help the Court as much as 17 possible. But we are not a party to any of these lawsuits, and 18 in some ways we are at a disadvantage because we don't have 19 access. My access is limited to what's on Pacer. So I don't 20 really know what positions Mr. Epstein may have taken either in 21 correspondence or in discovery responses that aren't filed in 22 the case file. 23 But your first order was really just what do you think 24 about a stay, and then the second order related to this hearing 25 and asked a much more specific question, which is whether we TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00183796

STK/mlb Kiwi LEOPOID-KUVIN, CONSUMER JUSTICE ATTORNEYS July 31, 2009 Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 E. Broward Blvd, 7th Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Re: B.B. JEFFREY EPSTEIN OUR FILE NO.: 080303 Dear Ms. MEI I am following up on my letter of July 6, 2009, regarding the non-prosecution agreement between the U.S. Attorneys office and Jeffrey Epstein. Please advise whether or not this document will be produced. I KUVIN 2926 PGA Boulevard :ate 200 Palm Beath Gardena n Florida 33410 I. 681.616.1400 lax 681.515.1401 leopoldiaMn.corn CRASHWORTHINESS • MANAGED CARE ABUSE • CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS • PERSONAL INJURY • WRONGFUL DEATH EFTA00183797

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 3340! (561) 820-8711 Facsimile: (561) 820.8777 August 4, 2009 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold—Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Re: Jeffrey Epstein/B.B. — Requested Disclosure of Non-Prosecution Agreement Dear Mr. Kuvin: Thank you for your letter regarding the disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement signed by Jeffrey Epstein. I understand that you are asking for a copy of that Agreement in connection with your representation of "B.B." As you are aware, the Agreement contains a confidentiality provision. Based upon a lawsuit filed by some of Mr. Epstein's victims, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra has issued a Protective Order requiring the U.S. Attorney's Office to provide copies of the Agreement to certain individuals under certain circumstances. The Order states: If any individuals who have been identified by the USAO [U.S. Attorney's Office] as victims of Epstein and/or any attorney(s) for those individuals request the opportunity to review the Agreement, then the USAO shall produce the Agreement to those individuals, so long as those individuals also agree that they shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard. . . (Court File No. 08-CV-80737-MARRA, DE 26, 1 (e).) The language "individuals who have been identified by the USAO as victims of Epstein" refers to a specific list of individuals who were the subject of the federal investigation. A list of those individuals was provided to Mr. Epstein's attorney. Your client, B.B., was not identified during that investigation, and, therefore was not on the list. By stating this I am not, in any way, denigrating any harm that your client may have suffered. I am simply stating that, given time and resource limitations that we faced during the investigation, B.B. was not a person who was positively identified, such that she would have been the subject of charges within a EFTA00183798

SPENCER T. Kuvrri, ESQ. Auour 4,2009 PAOE 2 possible federal indictment. For this reason, your client is not covered by the Court's Protective Order and the Agreement's confidentiality provision remains intact. If you are unable to get a copy of the Agreement via the civil discovery process in the lawsuit that you have filed against Mr. Epstein, please ask his counsel if they will consent to my production of the Agreement to you and I will send a copy to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney By: A e/a ..ifarkaa . Assistant U.S. Attorney cc: Esq. EFTA00183799

Roy BLACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK Score A. KORNSPAN LARRY A. STUMPF MARIA NEYRA JACKIE PERCZEK Manx A.J. SHAPIRO JARED BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN STUMPF September 1, 2009 , Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jeff: JESSICA FONSECA-NADER *Gammen P. PHILLIPS AARON AMON MARCOS BEATON, JR. MArniew P. O'BRIEN JENIPER J. SOULIKIAS NOAH Fox E-Mail: Once again I need to send you a note about Jeffrey Epstein, mainly to keep you in the loop so we don't inadvertently violate any provision of his agreement with your office. As I am sure you are aware, Mr. Epstein has finished the incarceration portion of his sentence and is now serving the one year of community control as mandated by both his state plea and the terms of the non- prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Mr. Epstein is in compliance with all terms of his community control and is applying for transfer of his supervision from the State of Florida to his primary residence, the Virgin Islands. This transfer is being requested through the Intrastate Compact for Transfer of Adult Supervision (ICAOS). The ICAOS is the mechanism for which transfers of probation and community control are effectuated. The process requires the offender to seek the approval of the sending state (in this case Florida) and, if they agree, the receiving state (in this case the United States Virgin Islands) and the United States Virgin Islands after investigation has pre-approved the transfer under the same exact conditions of supervision as imposed in Mr. Epstein's community control sentence in the State of Florida. Even though Mr. Epstein is requesting the transfer he is still at the home 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami, Florida 33131 • Phone•. 305-371-642I • Fax: 305-358-2006 • swiw.RoyBiack.com EFTA00183800

Esq. September 1, 2009 Page 2 in Palm Beach following the rules of state community control. As Mr. Epstein's lawyers, we believe that his request to administratively transfer his community control is in full compliance with both his state plea agreement and the non- prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney's Office. Nonetheless we have taken to heart your previous suggestion of erring on the side of caution and thus we are advising you of this request. I am happy to discuss this with you at any time. I did not want to set an appointment to see you on this issue since I imagine you have more pressing matters to deal with than a transfer of a state community control matter. RB/wg Very Roy Black Black. Smbnick. Komspan & Stumpf. PA EFTA00183801

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Komspan & Stumpf P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Roy: 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 September 18, 2009 I write in response to your letter to Mr. Sloman regarding the transfer of supervision of Mr. Epstein's community control to the Virgin Islands. I requested from Mr. Goldberger a copy of the documentation that Mr. Epstein submitted in support of his request and a copy of the interstate compact that you had mentioned. I have not received these documents. Rather than wait any longer, I am advising you of our Office's preliminary concerns. The Office may have additional concerns upon receipt of the requested items. The Non-Prosecution Agreement called for Mr. Epstein to serve eighteen months in county jail followed by twelve months of community control. Mr. Epstein's eighteen-month jail term was reduced to slightly more than twelve months based upon Mr. Epstein's "work release" of more than twelve hours per day, seven days per week. Mr. Epstein has been on community control for less than two months and he is already asking that he be allowed to transfer his supervision. The request comes on the heels of an instance where Mr. Epstein was found by the Palm Beach Police Department walking on the beach. I understand that he told the police that he was "walking to work," despite the fact that his "office" was more than eight miles away, and the beach where he was found was not en route from his residence to his workplace. Throughout the negotiation of the NPA, representations were repeatedly made by you and your colleagues that Mr. Epstein would serve his complete sentence, including community control, in Palm Beach County. During his change of plea and sentencing, Mr. EFTA00183802

ROY BLACK, ESQ. SEPTEMBER 18, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 2 Epstein told the Court that he intended to remain in Palm Beach County during his period of community control — a fact that was important to Judge Pucillo in making her decision whether or not to accept the plea agreement. Mr. Epstein's presence in Palm Beach County was important to the Court, our Office, and, presumably, the State Attorney's Office, because it allowed all of these entities to monitor Mr. Epstein's performance of his obligations. Relocating to the Virgin Islands, where Mr. Epstein lives on a private island without any independent law enforcement presence, would eliminate that ability. The Office's ability to determine whether Mr. Epstein has breached the NPA and to file charges against him when/if he breaches that Agreement was a key piece of consideration for the decision to enter that Agreement. Another key piece was the ability of victims to pursue claims against Mr. Epstein under 18 § 2255. Your September 1, 2009 letter to Mr. Sloman, in essence, asked whether it would be the Office's position that Mr. Epstein's move to his private island would violate the terms of the NPA. For the reasons stated above, even upon our preliminary review, it is the position of the Office that the transfer of community control would frustrate the purpose of the agreement and thereby violate its terms. No final decision has been made, of course, because Mr. Epstein has not yet moved. However, if Mr. Epstein elects to go forward with the transfer of community control with the knowledge of the Office's objection, that will be considered, along with all of the previous violations by Mr. Epstein, as set forth in my letters of June 15 and July 7, 2009, in determining the Office's final course of action. I look forward to receiving the materials requested from Mr. Goldberger. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney By: A. no A. Assistant United States Attorney cc: IS, Chief, Northern Division EFTA00183803

STK:mlb oiCAT T. I) T O' ) 11“:1'C't -sz S'A't f Y LEOPOLD-KUVINn CONSUMER JUSTICE ATTORNEV$ January 4, 2010 Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 E. Broward Blvd, 7th Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Re: B.B. I. JEFFREY EPSTEIN OUR FILE NO.: 080303 Dear Ms. After taking the deposition of Police Chief, Michael Reiter, it came to our attention that apparently a computer which was initially seized during the search warrant conducted on Mr. Epstein's home was returned by the FBI to a private investigator employed by Mr. Epstein. We would like to determine who this computer was returned to, and when it was returned. It would assist us greatly if you could check your records to determine when, and if, this was ever done. Additionally, according to the sworn testimony of Chief Reiter, his department was provided with a letter containing a list of potential victims of Mr. Epstein. This letter contained language pursuant to a previously unknown Federal Statute which apparently directed him to destroy the letter after reading it. We hereby request that your office advise what Statute or Code that letter was referring to. Finally, we would like to schedule the depositions of FBI Special Agents Nesbitt Kirkendall, Junior Ortiz and Mr. Solomon. Please let me know who we need to direct our subpoenas to in order to schedule these depositions. I appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. Should you have any additional questions about these issues, please do not hesitate to contact me at once. VIN 2925 PGA 6outevane Suite 200 Palm Beach Gamlen* Florida 33410 561.515.1400 . lax 661.516.1401 ieopoidituvin.com CRASIIWORTH IN ESS • MANAGED CARE AAUSL • CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS • PERSONAL INJURY • WRONGFUL DEATH EFTA00183804

ROY BLACK HOWARD M. SREBMCK SCOTT A. KORNSPAN LARRY A. STUMPF MAMA NEYRA JACKIE PERCZEK MARK A.J. SHAPIRO JARED BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN STUMPF PA. January 20, 2010 , Esq. Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear JESSICA FONSECA-NADER KATHLEEN P. PHILUPS AARON ANTHON MARCOS BEATON, JR. MATTHEW P. OBRIEN JENIPER J. SOULIKIAS NOAH Fox E-Mail: RelaciSityBlack.com We are now facing a difficult issue about the attorney's fees in the civil cases brought against Mr. Epstein related to your prior criminal investigation. I broached this subject with you on the phone a couple of weeks ago, but I could see our discussion was not fruitful at that time. Since we could not come to any agreement on how to handle this, we must proceed ahead based on our understanding of the non-prosecution agreement. Mr. Epstein has paid the attorney representative $526,000 and accepts his obligation under the NPA to pay additional reasonable legal fees that precede litigation claims under 17C of the Addendum. However we believe that the request by the attorney representative for over $1.5M additional fees is both unreasonable and outside the Addendum's criteria for payment. Litigation may ensue since we have been unable to resolve these matters through an agreement. We never contemplated that the legal fee agreement would result in a bill for $2.1M when the Addendum was entered. We understand you and Jay had different views on whether an attorney representative could both sue Epstein for some clients and remain as counsel to settle other cases. We believe that the attorney representative could either settle the cases and be paid hourly or litigate and be paid out of the judgment, but not both. The language of the NPA is in need of legal construction regarding whether Epstein's obligations end when 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 305-371-6421 Fax: 305-358-2006 • www.RoyBluck.com EFTA00183805

A. , Esq. January 20, 2010 Page 2 the attorney representative brings a lawsuit for any of his clients - a matter that a court should settle free from any consideration that initiating litigation to resolve this outstanding issue would be perceived as a breach. Just to be sure, Mr. Epstein will pay whatever fees a court determines are owed and we only want assurance that litigating the legal and factual issues over such liability will be consistent with and not violate the NPA. We don't think it is the government's position that Epstein must simply pay any bill he receives, regardless of the amount and type of work done, particularly one for $2.1M. So we have no alternative but to go to court to resolve this issue. We are sending you this letter because the attorney representative is using the threat of a breach as leverage to get his fees. I don't believe the government's power to indict and incarcerate should be used to assist a private lawyer in collecting an exorbitant legal fee. Thus we are putting you on notice, and asking that if you disagree with our legal opinion that a suit is not in conflict with the NPA, to tell us without delay. Cordially yours, MW:RC:RB/wg Martin G. Weinberg, Esq. Robert D. Critton, Jr. Roy Black By: Roy Blac Black. SrebnIck, Kornspan & Stumpf, PA EFTA00183806