Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 74 of 100 nsor & Associates Reponing aid Tram ripurm, Inc 1 2 Page 48 Florida Bar? A. I did not select him. 3 Q. Who did? 4 A. My father. 5 Q. Did you ever meet Mr. Herman? 6 A. Once. 7 Q. Don't -- don't tell me what you discussed 8 with him. Where did you meet him? 9 A. I was shopping in my -- he showed up at my 10 friend's house. 11 Q. Whose house? 12 A. My friend 13 Q. Is that =from the Quarterdeck 14 Tavern? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And did you have a meeting with him at 17 house? 18 A. Yes. I guess you could say that. 19 Q. And who else was there? 20 A. My Aunt fia 21 Q. And what was that meeting about? 22 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. That calls for 23 attorney/client privilege. 24 BY MR. TEIN: 25 Q. What discussions did you have with Ph. Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 74 a 316 EFTA00231086

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 75 of 100 nsor & Associates °porting nail Transcriptuon, Inc. Page 49 1 Mr. Herman in the presence of 2 A. None. 3 Q. What discussions did you have in the 4 presence of her aunt? 5 A. Of my aunt? 6 MR. GOLDBERGER: It's the witness's aunt. 7 BY MR. TEIN: 8 Q. Oh, of your aunt. 9 A. The only one that we've ever discussed or 10 ever had. 11 Q. And so you were in a conversation with 12 Mr. Herman and your aunt? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 Q. And you discussed privileged matters during 15 that conversation? 16 MR. LEOPOLD: Object to the form. I think 17 you might have to educate her on that question. 18 BY MR. TEIN: 1.9 Q. You discussed the lawsuit? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did toll you about any 22 conversations that she had with Mr. Herman? 23 A. As far as I'm concerned, she's never spoken 24 or she's never had a conversation. She only opened the 25 door and then left. She's the one who answered the door. Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 7$ of 316 EFTA00231087

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 76 of 100 nsor & Associates Reponinp and Transcription, Inc. Page 50 1 Q. Why did the meeting take place at 2 Mouse? 3 A. I spent the night that night at her house 4 Q. And when was this? 5 A. A while ago. 6 Q. How long ago? 7 A. A month and a half ago. I'm guessing. 8 Q. A month and a half ago? 9 A. Uh-huh. 10 Q. So was it before of after Mr. Herman filed 11 the fifty-million-dollar lawsuit against Epstein? 12 A. After. 13 Q. Did you meet with an FBI agent named 14 , a woman? 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. Did Ms. speak to you about 17 getting reimbursed from Mr. Epstein? 18 A. I've never had a discussion with anyone 19 about getting reimbursed from Mr. Epstein. 20 Q. Have you met with an agent named 21 22 A. Not to my knowledge. 23 Q. How about an agent named 24 A. No, sir. 25 Q. How about an agent named Ph. Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 lief 311 EFTA00231088

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Do ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 77 of 100 4 n5or & Associates Remitting and Trinariptiom, Inc. Page 51 A. No. 2 Q. And we've learned that many of the girls, 3 some of whom are as old as 23, were told by the 4 government that they would get money at the end of the 5 criminal prosecution. Does that sound familiar to you?' 6 A. No, sir. 7 Q. Other than Mr. Leopold here -- I'm not 8 asking about Mr. Herman either -- 9 A. Uh-huh. 10 Q. -- did anyone ever discuss with you that 11 yot could get reimbursement for your damages? 12 A. No, sir. 13 Q. Did you or any member -- 14 MR. LEOPOLD: Are you referring to a 15 criminal matter or a civil matter? 16 BY MR. TEIN: 17 Q. Did you or any member -- 18 MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. Let me object to 19 the form of the question. 20 BY MR. TEIN: 21 Q. Did you or any member of your family ever 22 get a victim notification letter from anyone? 23 A. I no longer live at that residence and I 24 wouldn't know. 25 Q. So your testimony is that you have never Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 77 of 316 EFTA00231089

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 78 of 100 sor & Associates Roponctip, ad Tnnuripwn,dnc. • . Page 52 1 regftytd a victim notification letter, correct? 2 rect. 3 Q. And your testimony is that you don't know 4 if your parents have ever received a victim notification 5 letter, correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Have you given any evidence to prosecutors 8 or law enforcement in this case? 9 A. What do you mean by evidence? 10 Q. Well. Anything that you can touch or feel. 11 A. No. 12 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form of the 13 question. 14 BY MR. TEIN: 15 Q. So you haven't given anything physical -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. -- any item to any prosecutor, police 18 officer or law enforcement agent, correct? 19 A. My cell phone four years ago or three years 20 ago, but that's it. 21 O. You gave your cell phone to whom? 22 A. 23 Q. Did she keep it? 24 A. Ask her. 25 Q. You gave it to her and then you didn't get na4b .1•••••••• ••••• Yd.* ••••• 71 e1311 Ph. Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00231090

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KANA Document 1 7)M 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 79 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transc option. Inc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 Page 53 it back at the end of the meeting? A. No. They -- yeah. No. They have it. I'm guessing. I don't have it. Q. How much money are you hoping to get out of Mr. Epstein? MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form of the question. Attorney/client privilege. BY MR. TEIN: Q. How much money are you hoping to yourself, hoping to get out of Epstein? MR. LEOPOLD: Same. Same objection, attorney/client privilege. Don't answer the question. BY MR. TEIN: you. get, you, Q. I'm not asking about what your lawyer told MR. LEOPOLD: I'm instructing her not to answer the question, because any of those conversations involve her counsel. MR. TEIN: Certify that. MR. LEOPOLD: Please. CERTIFIED QUESTION 23 BY MR. TEIN: 24 Q. Now, you lied to get out of this 25 deposition, didn't you? •••••••••• Ph. Fax. . 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 I EFTA00231091

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 80 of 318 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 80 of 100 sor & Associates Ropnnung and Tranticription. Inc 1 A. No, sir. 2 Q. Page 54 You didn't want to come to court today and 3 tell the story that you had told to the police under 4 oath, did you? 5 MR. LEOPOLD: Object to the form of the 6 question. Lack of foundation, predicate. 7 THE WITNESS: No. I have no problem coming 8 here and talking to you. 9 BY MR. TEIN: 10 Q. And to avoid getting served with a lawful 11 subpoena, you lied about your name, didn't you? 12 A. No. 13 Q. And in fact, just lying yourself wasn't 14 enough, was it? 15 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form of the 16 question. 17 Don't answer it. It's not a question. 18 19 of foundation. 20 MR. TEIN: Are you instructing her not to 21 answer? 22 MR. LEOPOLD: I am. 23 MR. TEIN: Certify it. 24 MR. LEOPOLD: Please. 25 object to the form of the question. Lack Ph. Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00231092

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 81 of 100 sor & Associates SnRoporunE end Traasciipcion, Inc. Page 55 1 CERTIFIED QUESTION 2 BY MR. TEIN: 3 Q. You asked your co-workers -- 4 MR. LEOPOLD: It's vague and ambiguous. 5 BY MR. TEIN: 6 Q. You asked your co-workers at the 7 Quarterdeck Tavern to lie for you, didn't you? 8 A. No. I informed my boss about what was 9 going on and he told me that he would help in any way 10 that he can. 11 Q. Okay. You got your friend to lie 12 by switching name tags with you, correct? 13 A. Incorrect. It was a coincidence that same 14 night she was not wearing her name tag; she was wearing 15 mine. But I was also not wearing -- I was wearing my 16 name tag. Everyone switches name tags. It just so 17 happens it was a coincidence that same night the people 18 came with the papers. 19 MR. TEIN: Will you put up Exhibit 18-001? 20 MR. GOLDBERGER: And mark 18-001 for 21 identification purposes to this deposition. 22 MR. LEOPOLD: None of them have been marked 23 yet. Can we mark them and put them as attachment 24 to the depositions? Because I think you've shown 25 three photos now. And this is the only one that Ph. Fax. 1655 Paim Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 II of 316 EFTA00231093

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM I D ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 82 of 100 sor 8,z Associates Rowans and Tranunpoce. lat. Page 56 1 has been marked for identification yet. 2 BY MR. TEIN: 3 Q. all -- 4 MR. LEOPOLD: Hold on just a second. Just 5 so the record is clear -- 6 MR. TEIN: I'm not speaking to you. 7 MR. LEOPOLD: Okay. Then don't speak to me 8 then. But I'll speak to Mr. Goldberger, perhaps. 9 But at least for the record, can we put on 10 the record what the previous two photographs were 11 marked for identification? 12 MR. GOLDBERGER: We will make sure that the 3 record is clear at the end of the deposition so 14 that there's no ambiguity. 15 MR. LEOPOLD: Thank you. 16 BY MR. TEIN: 17 Q. ea I've put a photograph marked 18-001 18 up on the screen. Do you see that? 19 A. Yup. 20 Q. Who is that in the photo? 21 A. the left and me on the right. 22 Q. a right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. a/ your friend at the 25 Quarterdeck Tavern, right? Ph. Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Ili WM EFTA00231094

53 04 316 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 83 of 100 4 nsor & Associates Repertins and Transcorm. bc 1 A. Yes. Page 57 2 Q. your friend, who you say the day 3 that the process servers went to serve you with a 4 subpoena for this deposition, just happened -- just by 5 coincidence, was wearing your name tag? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. And just by coincidence, you were wearing 8 her name tag, correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Your testimony under oath is that's just a 11 coincidence, right? 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A. Total honesty. Q. It just happens to be the day that you were going to be served with a subpoena, correct? A. That wasn't the first day that -- MR. LEOPOLD: just answer the question. It calls for a yes or no. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. TEIN: Q. You said that wasn't the first day you were going to be -- you thought you were being served with a 22 subpoena, correct? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. You knew before the day that you switched 25 name tags with that the process servers were Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00231095

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 84 of 100 sor & Associates Rapornna and Transtriptial. Inc. Page 58 1 looking for you, didn't you? 2 A. No. I knew -- 3 MR. LEOPOLD: Just answer it. It calls for 4 a yes or no. 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. No. 6 BY MR. TEIN: 7 Q. Now you can explain the answer that your 8 counsel stopped you from explaining. 9 A. Okay. I work at Quarterdeck and people 10 were telling me that people were looking for me. So yes, 11 I was aware that people were searching for me. But I had 12 no :dee who they were or what their intentions were. But 13 1 thought they were just people I didn't want to talk to. 14 So 1 just didn't want to talk to them. And every time 15 they'd come to work I wasn't there. And so happens the 16 night that they came in me and my friend switched name 17 tags. No big deal. 18 Q. That's a lie, isn't it? 19 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Don't answer that 20 question. That's harassment and I will not allow 21 it. He could ask the questions and we'll allow a 22 jury to make that determination, but not counsel. 23 I will not allow her to answer that' 24 question. 25 MR. TEIN: Certify it. 84 04 31$ Ph. Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00231096

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 85 of 100 sor & Associates RminniumWTrammorwm3m Page 59 1 MR. LEOPOLD: I'll certify it. 2 CERTIFIED QUESTION 3 She's answered that question. She's explained it five 4 tines already. The fact that Counsel doesn't like the 5 answer, that's a different query. 6 MR. TEIN: Stop making speaking objections. 7 MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not. I'm not going to 8 put up with it, because it's in appropriate, Jack, 9 and you know it. I will not allow Counsel to 10 berate a witness, whether it's in a criminal case 11 or a civil case, whether my client or -- 12 MR. TEIN: Calm down. 13 MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. 14 No, I'm not going to allow it. That is not 15 proper. 16 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. 17 MR. LEOPOLD: If he wants to say that she's 18 lying after asking it five times and her 19 explaining in great detail, he can do that. But 20 I'm not going to allow her to answer, nor be 21 harassed by him. It's improper. 22 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. But your response 23 that Counsel doesn't like the question -- or 24 doesn't like the answer -- just let me finish. 25 MR. LEOPOLD: Absolutely. I wasn't going 115t4311 Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00231097

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 86 of 100 nsor & Associates Roportins and 'Franc ripen, ine Page 60 8 al 314 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to interrupt you. MR. GOLDBERGER: Just requires us to say we like the answer to that question. And it's not you and I or you and Mr. Tein who are testifying here. It's the witness. MR. LEOPOLD: Fine. But after the sixth time of asking the same question and then coming back and pointing a finger at her and saying, "You're a liar" -- MR. TEIN: That didn't happen. MR. LEOPOLD: That's fine. But I'm not going to allow her to answer that question, because she's answered that same question and has explained it. Now Counsel might be sitting there rubbing his head with a migraine. That's his problem. But if he can't ask a question appropriately in a professional manner, we will leave. I will not allow her to be berated like that. MR. GOLDBERGER: Actually, we're very happy with the answer. MR. LEOPOLD: That's great. MR. GOLDBERGER: Do you want us to get into that? MR. TEIN: Ted -- Ph. Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00231098

$7 of 316 Case9:08-cv-80804-KAM 4 iument1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page87of100 bsor & Associates Repot:ins and Mimic ripm. Inc. Page 61 1 MR. LEOPOLD: This is really big stuff that 2 you're going through. But that's fine; just ask 3 your question and move on. But do it one time. 4 If you don't understand it, I'll let you follow 5 up, but I'm not going to allow you to ask the same 6 question time and again and then call her a liar. 7 Just ask the question, get the answer and move to 8 the next subject matter. 9 MR. TEIN: Ted, I'm sitting right across 10 the table from you. 11 MR. LEOPOLD: Yes, sir. 12 MR. TEIN: Please be quiet. Don't yell. 13 MR. LEOPOLD: I will not be quiet. 14 MR. TEIN: Stop yelling. 15 MR. LEOPOLD: Lewis, when I'm yelling 16 you'll know it. I will not -- 17 MR. TEIN: My name is not Lewis. 18 MR. LEOPOLD: I thought your first name was 19 Lewis, Mr. Tein. 20 MR. TEIN: You watched me for three days at 21 the evidentiary hearing where you sat in the back 22 23 MR. LEOPOLD: Well, that's the impressio 24 you must have made in the courtroom. 25 1 will not be quiet. of the courtroom. You should know who I am. Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes B'vd., Su.te 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00231099

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 88 of 100 sor & Associates Rs:parting and Transcription. Inc Page 62 1 MR. TEIN: That's obnoxious. Stop being 2 obnoxious. It's stupid. Let's go ahead with the 3 questions. 4 MR. LEOPOLD: I will make the record. 5 MR. TEIN: Let's get on with the questions. 6 MR. LEOPOLD: Do you need a break? 7 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 8 BY MR. TEIN: 9 Q. Okay. after you told your manager 10 at the Quarterdeck Tavern everything that was going on 11 and he told you he would help you any way he could, he 12 hid you in the kitchen from the process servers, correct? 13 A. Incorrect. 14 Q. Isn't it true that lying to avoid service 15 is a meaningless lie to 16 A. Incorrect. 17 Q. What is your manager's name? 18 A. I have three. Would you like to know 19 all -- 20 Q. Who's the one who lied for you? 21 A. IIIIIIIIr 22 Q. And what did do to lie for you? 23 A. Said I wasn't there. 24 Q. And who did he tell wasn't there? 25 A. Ask him. Illet311 Ph. Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00231100

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 89 of 100 S nsor & Associates Ronornns and ltanxripsion. Inc Page 63 1 Q. Where were you when IIIIIIrtold this 2 soreone that you were not at the Quarterdeck Tavern? 3 A. Eating nachos. 4 Q. At the Quarterdeck Tavern? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. What did you do so that -would lie to 7 the process servers for you? B A. Nothing. 9 Q. You just got him to lie for you, didn't 10 you? 11 A. No. I had no influence on him saying I 12 wasn't there. 13 Q. He took that upon himself? 14 Isn't it true that Mr. Epstein's process 15 servers had to ask the police to get you out of the 16 restaurant so that they could serve you? 17 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Lack of 18 foundation, predicate. 19 BY MR. TEIN: 20 Q. You can answer the question. 21 MR. LEOPOLD: If you know. Don't guess. 22 THE WITNESS: No. Can you repeat the 23 question? 24 MR. TEIN: Don't coach. 25 MR. LEOPOLD: Don't guess. se\ I90316 Ph. Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00231101

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Doc ment 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 90 of 100 sor & Associates fteponing And Tranicription, ]roc Page 64 1 MR. TEIN: That's a coaching. 2 MR. LEOPOLD: No. That's an instruction to 3 the client. 4 MR. TEIN: No. You don't do that. 5 THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question? 6 MR. LEOPOLD: Let me just state for the 7 record -- 8 BY MR. TEIN: 9 Q. Once the police -- isn't it true that 10 Mr. Epstein's process servers had to ask the police to 11 get you out of the restaurant so that they could serve 12 you? 13 A. Incorrect. My boss called the police. 14 Q. And once the police showed up, to stop you 15 from lying to avoid service, you made up another lie that 16 the process servers had harassed you. Isn't that 17 correct? 18 A. Incorrect. 19 Q. You lie all the time, don't you? 20 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. 21 THE WITNESS: Incorrect. 22 BY MR. TEIN: 23 Q. You have a MySpace page, don't you? 24 A. No longer do I have a MySpace page. 25 deleted it. Ph. Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DO of 314 EFTA00231102

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dcyment1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 91 of 100 sor & Associates Raporsins and Trauctiptian, Page 65 1 Q. When did you delete your MySpace page? 2 A. A couple days ago. 3 Q. Who told you to take your MySpace page down 4 a couple of days ago? 5 A. Nobody. I'm sick and tired of MySpace. 6 Q. You all of a sudden got sick and tired of 7 MySpace and just a few days before this deposition you 8 decided to delete your MySpace page, correct? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. Is that your testimony under oath? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did you take your MySpace page down because 13 you thought the government might subpoena it? 14 A. Incorrect. 15 Q. Hadn't your MySpace page been up for over 16 three months before you took it down? 17 A. Correct. But I also had made tons of 18 MySpaces over the last years. I just get tired of them 19 and delete them because -- drama -- and make new ones. 20 Q. We're going to talk about that. 21 So you deleted your MySpace page after you 22 were already under subpoena for this deposition, correct? 23 24 25 A. Correct. Q. What about the MySpace page didn't you want us to see, lilt Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 91 of 314 EFTA00231103

1x0716 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 92 of 100 sor & Associates Rapanistand Tramscripmen. lac. Page 66 1 A. Nothing. 2 Q. Well, we're going to come back to MySpace 3 in a second. 4 A. You do that. 5 0. going to ask you some questions 6 abo-it why you lie about your age so often, okay? 7 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form. 8 Argumentative. 9 BY MR. TEIN: 10 Q. You lie about your age all the time, don't 11 you? 12 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection, argumentative. 13 THE WITNESS: Incorrect. 14 BY MR. TEIN: 15 Q. You lie about your age to get body 16 piercings, don't you? 17 A. Incorrect. 18 Q. You have body piercings, don't you? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. You have four body piercings; isn't that 21 right? 22 A. Five. 23 Q. Other than the piercings on your ears 24 I'm not talking about that -- 25 A. Oh, then no; just one. Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00231104

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM DQc ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 93 of 100 sor & Associates Reportin and Tremscriptiaman. Page 67 1 Q. And where is the one body piercing? 2 A. Belly. 3 Q. When did you get that? 4 A. For my birthday, with my stepmother and my 5 father. 6 Q. And when was that? 7 A. When I was 14. 8 Q. Okay. So you had that body piercing when 9 you met Epstein, correct? 10 A. It might have been, or maybe that yeah, 11 either my 14th birthday or my 15th. I honestly don't 12 remember. 13 Q. Now you've lied about your age to get into 14 bars by using driver's licenses that aren't yours, 15 correct? 16 A. Incorrect. 17 Q. Are you swearing under oath that you've 18 never done that? 19 A. Yes, I swear under oath. 20 O. And you've lied about your age to buy beer, 21 correct? 22 A. Incorrect. 23 Q. You're swearing under oath that you've 24 never lied to stores about your age? 25 A. I've never lied to a store about my age or Ph. Fax. 1655 Pam Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 93.13111 EFTA00231105

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ment 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 94 of 100 nsor & Associates Ropnruifi and Itamictspan. Inc. Page 68 1 anything. 2 Q. You try to look much older than you are, 3 don't you? 4 A. Incorrect. 5 Q. And you've lied about your age on your 6 MySpace pages, don't you? 7 A. Incorrect. 8 Q. All right. Let's look at Exhibit 26-01 9 one. 10 MS. BELOHLAVEK: 26-001? 11 MR. TEIN: Yes. 12 BY MR. TEIN: 13 Q. On this page you lied to everyone that you 14 were 18, didn't you? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Let's go to Exhibit 33. 17 MS. BELOHLAVEK: That's 33-001? 18 TEIN: Correct. 19 BY MR. TEIN: 20 Q. On this page you lied to everyone that you 21 were 19, didn't you? 22 A. Incorrect. 23 MR. LEOPOLD: Just answer the question. 24 THE WITNESS: Oh, incorrect. 25 BY MR. TEIN: Ph. Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 94 x1016 EFTA00231106

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 95 of 100 * nsor & Associates Reparunp an, Transctipturi, Inc. Page 69 1 Q. Now you can explain your answer. 2 A. I know that I have seen all of these and I 3 know that this one is mine. 4 Can you go down? 5 MR. LEOPOLD: Just for the record, you're 6 pointing to the photo. 7 THE WITNESS: I'm pointing to -- 8 BY MR. TEIN: 9 Q. You're pointing to the one where it says 10 your age is 18? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. That's yours, right? 13 A. Correct. That's mine from a couple years 14 ago that I have not been on, because I don't use that. 15 Please keep going down, please. And I think that's it, 16 because there's no one -- just that one is mine. 17 Q. So the one you pointed to where it says 18 your age is 18, that's yours, correct? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. And when you wrote 18 as your age on your 21 MySpace page, that was a lie, wasn't it? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Did you lie about your MySpace page back 24 then because you couldn't post on MySpace unless you were 25 18? Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 9501311 EFTA00231107

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Doc rnent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 96 of 100 nsor & Associates Rertnni kg and Transcti pm. Inc Page 70 1 A. Correct. There was a rule many years ago 2 that you had to be 18 to have a MySpace. 3 Q. So you lied about your age so you could 4 post on MySpace, right? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Let's go back to the top one on this page, 7 33-01. 8 Are you testifying now under oath that this 9 MySpace page where the headline says, "Twins do have more 10 fun," and the location is given as Lox, abbreviation for 11 Loxahatchee, and the age is 19, and it says 12 it your testimony that you did not post 13 that? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Now let's go back to the one that you were 16 pointing to before on this page, where it says your age 17 is 18 and you lied about your age to post MySpace, okay? 18 A. Uh-huh, yes. 19 Q. All right. Why did you finally put your 20 true age on your MySpace profile four days before you 21 were scheduled to testify before the Grand Jury? 22 A. I don't know what you're talking about. 23 MR. LEOPOLD: If you don't understand, ask 24 him to ask the question again. 25 MR. TEIN: Don't coach. Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 911.1311 EFTA00231108

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ment 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 97 of 100 sor & Associates koporunp, and Transcription, Jet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 71 THE WITNESS: I don't know which MySpace you're talking about. BY MR. TEIN: Q. The MySpace page that you're just pointing to, where it says you were 18. A. Yes. Q. And you were lying about your age, right? A. Uh-huh. Q. Why did you finally post your true age on your MySpace profile -- A. Uh 4. -- four days before you were scheduled to testify before the Grand Jury? A. I honestly don't know which MySpace, because I've had like a bazillion MySpaces, and in that year, I had two, that one and another one, and that one's been deleted. So I don't know which one you're referring to. Q. You remember that you changed your age on your MySpace page from 18 to your true age just four days before you went and testified in the Grand Jury? A. No. 23 Q. You don't remember that. 24 A. No. 25 Q. Do you remember Detective Did you Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Sr el 316 EFTA00231109

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D . ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 98 of 100 sor & Associates Rerynrtilil and Tranactiptioc. lac. Page 72 1 ever meet a Detective 2 A. I don't know the names. Q. How many different detectives have you met 4 with on this case from Palm Beach? 5 A. Probably a good six or seven, maybe. 6 Q. Did one of the detectives tell you before 7 you testified in the Grand Jury that you should take your 8 MySpace age and put your true age? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Didn't Detective have to come to 11 your house to pick you up to get you to testify in front 12 of the Grand Jury? 13 A. Possibly; maybe because I didn't have a 14 ride; I was only 14 or 15 at the time. 15 Q. Your mom didn't drive you? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Stepmom didn't drive you? 18 A. I think my dad. Oh, my dad; my dad drove 19 me. 20 Q. Your dad drove you? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 Q. So your testimony is Detective did 23 not drive you, correct? 24 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. /asked and 25 answered. 4..AP •••• t• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • al • • • Is •••• IMO. 61 • • •••••••• Ph. Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakts Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 1 MOHO EFTA00231110

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 99 of 100 sor & Associates Ramming and Transcription. inc. • Page 73 1 THE WITNESS: No. I'm pretty sure my dad 2 drove me, because he was there with me. 3 BY MR. TEIN: 4 Q. Did any detective tell you to change your 5 age on your MySpace page, to put your true age? 6 A. No, sir. 7 Q. Now you also lied on your MySpace page 8 about your income, didn't you? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And you lied, saying that you made a 11 quarter million dollars a year and higher, correct? 12 A. As a joke, yes. 13 Q. That was a lie, wasn't it? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And you also lied on your MySpace page, 16 saying that you were married, didn't you? 17 A. Possibly. And that might have been an 18 error on my part. 19 Q. Now you also lie to the police, don't you? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Well, you lied to the police in your 22 tape-recorded statement that you gave to Detective 23 three years ago, didn't you? 24 A. To my knowledge, no, I did not. 25 Q. Well, you lied to the police when you A. l•-•.•140, Ph. Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Ili el 314 EFTA00231111

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 100 of 100 ii i liii • sor & Associates Ronarnnp and Transcription .1nc Page 74 1 accused Mr. Epstein of attempting to murder your father, 2 didn't you? 3 A. No. I never heard a statement saying that 4 Mr. Epstein tried to murder my father. 5 Q. You made that statement, didn't you? 6 MR. LEOPOLD: Do you have a statement to 7 show her? That's been asked and answered. 8 MR. TEIN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the 9 witness' answer, Mr. Leopold. 10 BY MR. TEIN: 11 Q. a you told the police, didn't you, 12 that Mr. Epstein almost killed your father, didn't you? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Three years ago, before Mr. Epstein even 15 knew about this investigation, you told the police that 16 Epstein had "already come to my dad's house and did 17 something to my dad's tires and my dad almost died. I 18 didn't want my dad to get hurt, because Jeff already 19 almost killed him." 20 Didn't you say that? 21 A. Not to my knowledge or recollection. I 22 have never said anything like that. 23 Q. That would have been a complete lie, 24 wouLdn't it have been? 25 A. Yeah. Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 100 of 31$ EFTA00231112

-11%19d SUi--NoN n'd9S Q1 N10111 S,Nalcdg EFTA00231113

JUN-26-2009 FRI 02:28 P11 FAX NO. 5618358691 P. 01 Date: 6/26/09 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 1400 250 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE SOUTH WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401-5086 TELEPHONE FAX FAX COVER SHEET To: R. Alexander Acosta, Esq. USAO Barbara Burns, Esq. ASAO Bradley J. Edwards, Fsq. William J. Berger, Esq. Robert D. Critton, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Subject: State of Florida v. Epstein Pages: 3 , including this cover sheet. See attached letter. ORIGINAL WILL BE SENT: YES X NO IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CONTACT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. The information contained In this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone. Thank you. EFTA00231114

FAX NO. 661E95?691 JOSEPH R.ATTERBURY JACK &GOLDBERGER JASON S.WEISS Boani Conine Cflotooltial A, torney flembor of Now Jeray R Fleyala Bars June 26, 2009 TELECOPIED THIS DATE The Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 N. Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re; State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein Dear Judge Colbath: On behalf of Mr. Epstein, we strongly object to the proposed order submitted by Deanna Shullman on behalf of the Palm Beach Post. The court has already entered an order dated June 25, 2009 on: a) Non-party, M.'s Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records b) Palm Beach Post's Motions to Intervene and petition for Access c) Motions to Intervene and for an order to Unseal Records d) Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential. The only matter before the court today was Defendant Epstein's Motion for a Stay which the court denied. Contrary to the assertions in the proposed order submitted to you by the Palm Beach Post, the court made a specific finding-that the Defendant -Epstein-has met his burden of Irreparable harm. Additionally, all of the other matters contained in the proposed order were addressed in the court's Order of June 25, 2009. It is the position of Defendant Epstein that the order on today's Motion to Stay should simply state that the Defendant's Motion to Stay is denied. In this way, the court's order of June 25, 2009 on the merits of the issue and the order of the court One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400 250 Australian Avenue South WaSt Palm Reach. FL. 33401 P f www.agwpa.com EFTA00231115

P. 03 JUN-26-2009 FRI 02:28 Ptt The Honorable Jeffrey Colbath June 26, 2009 Page 2 FAX NO. 5618358691 denying the stay motion can properly be reviewed by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Very truly yqurs, ACK A. GOLDBERGER JAG:cg cc: U.S. Attorney's Office (via facsimile) State Attorney's Office(via facsimile) Deanna K. Shullman, Esquire (via facsimile) Bradley J. Edwards, Esquire (via facsimile) Spencer t. Kuvin, Esquire (via facsimile) EFTA00231116

day of June, 2009. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" CASE NO. 502008CF009381AXXMB 502006CF009454AXXMB STATE OF FLORIDA, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT THIS MATTER came before the Court at a hearing on June 26, 2009, on Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay the Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and the Addendum thereto. The Court notes the parties were present and represented by counsel. Based upon argument, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 1. The Motion to Stay is denied. 2. The Clerk of Court shall make the documents available for disclosure at noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009. It is the intent of the Court to give the Defendant, Mr. Epstein, and his attorney an opportunity to have this Court's orders reviewed by the 4th DCA. If the Clerk gets no direction from the Appellate Court, she shall disclose the documents on the date referred to above. DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this ::a3TJCDA74 D OArED JUN 2 6 2009 JEFFREY J. a/BAWL COLBATH Circuit Court Judge EFTA00231117

Page Two Case No. 502008CF009381A)0(MB/502006CF009454AXXMB Order Denying Motion to Stay Disclosure Agreement Copies furnished: R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorneys Office - Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Barbara Burns, Esq., State Attorney's Office 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 William J. Berger, Esq. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard., Suite 1650 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Robert D. Critton, Esq. Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman 515 North Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. P. O. Box 2602 Tampa, FL 33602 EFTA00231118

Judge Jeffrey J. Colbath 205 North Dixie Highway VVestRalm Beach, FL 33401 WESTPALMBEACWRAWDA330H MSS . $ 00.44L: R. A LEAA tett A coSTA CSCI U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District 500 S. Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 33401+623S EFTA00231119

0-4 fikr-elt: P Cji tv EFTA00231120

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE Ir IEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 2008CF009381A DIVISION W STATE OF FLORIDA v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO STAY DISCLOSURE OF THE NON- PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM PENDING REVIEW Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 9.310, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, moves to stay disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum (collectively, the "NPA") pending review, and states: 1. In the event the Court grants Nonparty M.'s Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records, grants Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access and/or denies EPSTEIN's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential, EPSTEIN moves to stay the disclosure of the NPA pending review by the Fourth District Court of Appeals. 2. Rule 9.310(a), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, provides in pertinent part, "...a party seeking to stay a final or non-final order pending review shall file a motion in the lower tribunal, which shall have continuing jurisdiction, in its discretion , to grant, modify or deny such relief." EFTA00231121

3. A stay pending review is warranted under the circumstances because of the irreparable harm that would be caused by disclosure of the NPA including, but not limited to, substantial injury to a party by disclosing matters protected by common law and privacy rights, substantial injury to a compelling government interest, substantial injury to innocent third parties and a serious imminent threat to the fair, impartial and orderly administration of justice as set forth in the hearing record date June 25, 2009. 4. In Mariner Health Care of Nashville, Inc. v. Baker 739.. 24 608, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), defendant Mariner filed a petition for writ of certiorari after the trial court compelled it to produce certain incident reports. Mariner also moved for a stay pending review pursuant to Fla. R. App. Pro. 9.310. The trial court advised the parties that Mariner would be required to submit the incident reports to the court under seal as a prerequisite to a stay. Mariner refused to produce the documents under seal and the trial court denied the motion for stay and imposed daily fines until the documents were produced. Id. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and noted Mariner has failed to explain how the production of the reports under seal would result in any prejudice. To the contrary, the records will be protected from disclosure during the entire course of the certiorari proceeding before this court. No harm can be done if this court ultimately determines that the reports are protected by the work product privilege. Id. at 610. 5. In the instant case the NPA is already filed under seal. Should the Court grant Nonparty M.'s Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records, grant Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access and/or deny 2 EFTA00231122

EPSTEIN's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential, EPSTEIN requests the Court exercise its discretion under Fla R. App. Pro. 9.310(a) and enter a stay pending review by the 4th DCA. 6. No hann will be done if the NPA remains under seal pending appellate review. To the contrary, EPSTEIN will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not entered and the NPA is disclosed to the public. WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests that if the Court grants Nonparty M.'s Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records, grants Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access and/or denies EPSTEIN's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential, the Court enter a stay pending review and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper. Certificate of Service WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Hand Delivery to ., United States Attorney's Office — Southern District, 500 S. Australian Avenue, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, JUDITH STEVENSON AREO, ESQ., State Attorney's Office — West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQ., and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394, JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400„ weet Palm Beach, FL 33401, SPENCER T. KUVIN, ESQ., Leopold-Kuvin, P.A., 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410, and DEANNA K. SHULLMAN, 3 EFTA00231123

400 North Drive, Suite 1100, P.O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602, this 25th day of June. 2009. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 515 N. Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, FL 401 By: Robert D. Cri n, Jr. Florida Bar 24162 Michael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 Counsel for Defendant J6ffrey Epstein) and Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beac FL 33401-5012 Fax: Counsellor Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 4 EFTA00231124

BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP L•A•W'Y•B•R•S 515 N. FLAMER DRIVE WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 I U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District 500 S. Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 c023 $ 00.44° r PC1A /iP C.:1;0F EFTA00231125

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. CASE NO. PALM BEACH COUNTY L.T. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Petitioner/defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, moves this Court for an order allowing him to file the September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement ("Agreement") and October 29, 2007 Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("Addendum"), which are the subject of his contemporaneously filed emergency petition for certiorari and emergency motion to review denial of stay, under seal. 1. The Agreement and Addendum were executed by petitioner/defendant and the United States Attorney's Office in September 2007. They are attached in the sealed envelope. 2. The Agreement contains a confidentiality clause, precluding it from EFTA00231126

being disclosed to third parties or made part of any public record. Federal District Judge Marra has twice ordered the documents not disclosed to third parties. 3. Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Deborah Pucillo ordered Mr. Epstein's attorney to file the documents under seal during his plea conference on June 30, 2008. 4. On June 25, 2009, Judge Colbath granted non-parties' motions to vacate the order sealing records and ordered them disclosed. 5. On June 26, 2009, Judge. Colbath denied petitioner's motion for stay, and ordered the Clerk of Court to make the documents available for disclosure at noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009, unless this Court granted a stay. 6. It is necessary that this Court review the Agreement and Addendum in conjunction with these proceedings. To protect the purpose of the petition for writ of certiorari pending before this Court, petitioner asks to file the documents under Accordingly, petitioner requests that this Court grant this motion and allow 2 EFTA00231127

him to file the Agreement and Addendum, which are separate from the appendix to his emergency petition and motion for review, under seal. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by email and Federal Express this 30,1a... day of June, 2009, to: U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 WILLIAM J. BERGER ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Counsel for SPENCER T. KUVIN LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counsel for M. JUDITH STEVENSON ARCO State Attorney's Office-West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DEANNA K. SHULLMAN 400 North Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Counsel for The Palm Beach Post HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ROBERT D. CRITTON of BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and 3 EFTA00231128

JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and BARBARA J. COMPIANI of KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 janewalshajltwpa.com Counsel for Petitioner By: Ce i-INTE =WALSH orida Bar No. 272371 4 EFTA00231129

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / CASE NO. PALM BEACH COUNTY L.T. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A MOTION TO USE ONE APPENDIX TO SUPPORT EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND EMERGENCY MOTION TO REVIEW DENIAL OF STAY Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, moves to file one appendix in support of his contemporaneously filed emergency petition for writ of certiorari and emergency motion to review denial of stay. The documents in the appendix support both the petition and motion to review denial of stay. In order to expedite review, avoid duplication of paper and unnecessary expense, Mr. Epstein requests that this Court allow him to use the appendix in support of both the petition and motion to review denial of stay. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by E-Mail and 1 EFTA00231130

Federal Express this 3**4.. day of June, 2009, to: U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 WILLIAM J. BERGER ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale FL 33394 Counsel for SPENCER T. KUVIN LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counsel for M. JUDITH STEVENSON ARCO State Attorney's Office-West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DEANNA K. SHULLMAN 400 North Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Counsel for The Palm Beach Post HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ROBERT D. CRITTON BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and 2 EFTA00231131

JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and BARBARA J. COMPIANI of KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner By: -i•- &A;Eel=2. -WALSH lorida Bar No. 272371 3 EFTA00231132

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. CASE NO. PALM BEACH LT. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A PETITIONER'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO REVIEW ORDER DENYING STAY OF DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(1), requests this Court review the order denying his Motion to Stay Disclosure of Federal Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum pending his contemporaneously filed petition for certiorari and grant the stay.' Mr. Epstein seeks review of the stay denial on emergency basis. The court stayed disclosure until noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009 Mr. Epstein could seek review in this Court. Absent a stay by this Court, the documents will be disclosed and there will be no adequate remedy. Petitioner, Jeffrey Epstein is referred to bxEoaname. Non-party interveners,.., M. and The Post are referred to as M., M. and The Post. All emphasis is supplied unless indicated otherwise. The following symbol is used: A — Petitioner's appendix. 1 EFTA00231133

FACTUAL BACKGROUND In 2006, a Florida state grand jury indicted Jeffrey Epstein for felony solicitation of prostitution. He was also charged by information with procuring persons under 18 for prostitution. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida began a federal grand jury investigation into allegations arising out of the same conduct. In September 2007, the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein negotiated and signed a non-prosecution agreement (A-7:38).2 The non-prosecution agreement contains an express confidentiality provision and makes specific reference to a grand jury investigation of Mr. Epstein (A-7:38). The United States Attorney's Office agreed to defer the federal criminal action on the condition that Mr. Epstein comply with many obligations, beginning with his pleading guilty to certain state charges in the Florida criminal action (A-7:38). A breach of any condition violates the non-prosecution agreement and criminal charges will resume (A-7:39-40). On June 30, 2008, Mr. Epstein pled guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring a minor under 18 for prostitution in the Florida criminal action (A-7; A- 2 The non-prosecution agreement and addendum are separately filed with a motion to seal. 2 EFTA00231134

8). Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo, sitting for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, accepted the plea (A-7). During the plea conference, Judge Pucillo asked Mr. Epstein whether any promises had been made to him besides the terms of the state plea (A-7:37-38). Mr. Epstein's attorney advised the court of the "confidential [non-prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney's Office] that the parties have agreed to." (A-7:38). He informed the court that Mr. Epstein's failure to comply with the terms of the state plea would violate the non-prosecution agreement (A-7:39-40). Judge Pucillo then instructed Mr. Epstein's attorney that she wanted "a sealed copy of that filed in this case." (A-7:40). When Mr. Epstein's attorney tried to comply and file the non-prosecution agreement with the court, the clerk advised him an order was necessary. On July 2, 2008, the court entered an "Agreed Order Sealing Document in Court File" (A-9). An addendum to the non-prosecution agreement was filed under seal on August 25, 2008. On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed an independent action in the federal court to compel production of the non-prosecution agreement (A-1). Mr. Epstein was not a party to the proceeding, but the United States Attorney's Office 3 EFTA00231135

opposed disclosure (A-2). On August 16, 2008, Judge Marra of the Southern District ordered the United States Attorney's Office to produce the non-prosecution agreement to the Does' attorneys and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not disclose the terms to anyone else (A-2). As a result of this order, all victims, including those with civil suits against Mr. Epstein, have access to the non-prosecution agreement and addendum. They just cannot share it with others. In September 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed motions in the federal action to unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-3). The United States Attorney's Office opposed disclosure noting its confidentiality provision, the movant's right to access the agreement, and Judge Marra's protective order to which the movants voiced no objection (A-4). On February 12, 2009,3 Judge Marra denied the motion, stating in pertinent part: Petitioners' mere desire to discuss the Agreement with third parties is insufficient, in and of itself, to warrant the granting of such relief. If and when Petitioners have a specific tangible need to be relieved of the restrictions, they should file an appropriate motion. If a specific tangible need arises in a civil case Petitioners or other alleged victims are pursuing against Epstein, relief should be sought in that case, with notice to the United States, the other party to the Agreement. (A-6). 3 The order is mistakenly dated February 12, 2008 (A-6). 4 EFTA00231136

Rather than seeking relief from Judge Marra in federal court, non-party , a victim of Mr. Epstein, filed a motion in the state criminal action on May 12, 2009, seeking to intervene and unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d)(5) (A-10). E.W. alleged that the proper procedures had not been followed in sealing the documents (A-10). claimed these documents are relevant to her civil action against Mr. Epstein; that she, as a member of the public, has a right to have them unsealed; and that continued sealing violates public policy (A-10). On June 1, 2009, Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post ("The Post") moved in the state criminal action to intervene and access the non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-11). The Post alleged that the procedures for sealing had not been followed and that "good cause exists for unsealing the documents because of their public significance." (A-11:3). Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Jeffrey Colbath heard 's and The Post's motions in the state criminal action on June 10, 2009 (A-13). The court granted both motions to intervene, but deferred ruling on the motions to unseal pending a later hearing (A-13). 5 EFTA00231137

The next day, June 11, 2009, Mr. Epstein filed a Motion to Make Court Records Confidential (A-13). Mr. Epstein alleged that the documents should remain confidential to prevent a serious imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice; to protect a compelling government interest; to avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties; and to avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law and privacy right, not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed (A-13). Also on June 11, non-party ■. filed motions to intervene and for an order unsealing the records, alleging grounds similar to non-parties . and The Palm Beach Post (A-12). Judge Colbath heard .'s, The Post's, and ■.'s motions to unseal and Mr. Epstein's motion for confidentiality on June 25, 2009 (A-16). The court granted .'s, The Post's, and ■.'s motions and denied Mr. Eptsein's (A-16:2). The court concluded: At the time the State court took these matters under seal, the proper procedure for sealing such documents had not been followed. Neither the State of Florida nor the U.S. Government nor Mr. Epstein have [sic] presented sufficient evidence to warrant the sealing of documents currently held by the Court. (A-16:2; A-18:43). The court ruled that "[t]his Order is in no way to be interpreted as 6 EFTA00231138

permission to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth Marra's previous Orders." (A-16:3). Subsequent to this oral ruling, Mr. Epstein provided the court with a Motion to Stay (A-14). The court stayed disclosure until it could hear Mr. Epstein's motion to stay, scheduled for the next day (A-16:3). The court heard Mr. Epstein's stay motion on June 26, 2009 (A-19). Mr. Epstein alleged that he will be irreparably harmed by disclosure of the non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-14). No harm will be done if the documents remain under seal pending review by this Court (A-14). The court denied the motion, but stayed disclosure until noon on Thursday, July 2, I Mr. Epstein could seek emergency review of the denial in this Court (A-17). ARGUMENT Whether to grant a stay is discretionary with the trial court. See Pabian v. Pabian, 469 M. 2d 189, 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Factors courts consider in deciding whether to grant a stay pending appellate proceedings include the likelihood of success on the merits, the likelihood of harm if not stay is granted, and the remedial quality of any such harm. See Perez v. Perez, 769 M. 2d 389, 391 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see also State ex rel. Price v. McCord, 380 E. 2d 1037, 1038 n.3 (Fla. 1980). The trial court agreed that Mr. Epstein had established irreparable harm (A-17:16), denied a 7 EFTA00231139

stay. The trial court abused its discretion by denying a stay. As set forth in the contemporaneously filed petition for certiorari, Mr. Epstein will likely succeed on the merits. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting the motions to unseal the confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum between the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein. These documents are subject to confidentiality provisions, which the federal court recognized and enforced when it permitted disclosure to the attorneys for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not disclose the terms to anyone else. Disclosure violates a condition of the agreement, thereby vitiating the agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney. Disclosure also violates Judge Main's two orders in the federal district court, denying disclosure to the parties. Judge Colbath paid lip service to this principle in stating that his "Order is in no way to be interpreted as permission to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth Marra's previous Orders." (A-16:3). But there is no way disclosure does not inherently violate Judge Marra's orders. The principle of supremacy required that the state court defer to the federal court 8 EFTA00231140

on this issue. U.S. Const. Art. I § 8. These documents reference federal grand jury proceedings, which are protected under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2)--an attorney for the government "must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury." As a consequence of the confidentiality provisions of the non-prosecution agreement, information that disclosed the existence and the subject matter of a federal grand jury proceeding which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court can, absent findings, order the unsealing of federal grand jury proceedings. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(F), (G). Judge Colbath did not address this principle. Nor did Judge Colbath address the principle of comity, which required that the state court defer to the federal court, which has twice denied disclosure to third parties, on this issue. The court erred in concluding that the non-prosecution and agreement were not properly sealed. The non-parties filed their motions to unseal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d) (A-10, A-11, A-12). They alleged that Judge Pucillo failed to properly seal the documents under the procedure set forth in that rule (Id.). By its terms, however, the procedures for sealing in Rule 2.420(d) (titled, "Request to Make Circuit and County Court Records in Non-Criminal Cases 9 EFTA00231141

Confidential") do not apply to criminal cases. See Ha. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420, 2007 Court Commentary ("New. subdivision (d) applies to motions that seek to make court records in non-criminal cases confidential in accordance with subdivision (cX9)."); see also In re Amendments to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420--Sealing of Court Records & Dockets, 954.. 2d 16, 17 & 23 (Fla. 2007) (declining to adopt specific procedure regarding the sealing of court records in criminal cases and referring the matter to rules committees for further study). Under the version of rule 2.420 in effect when the documents were sealed, there is no procedure for criminal proceedings. Even under the prior version of rule 2.420, Judge Pucillo was not required to give prior notice of her intent to seal documents during the plea hearing. Committee Notes on the 1995 amendments discussing a prior version of Rule 2.420(c)(9)(D), make clear that advance notice is not always required: Unlike the closure of court proceedings, which has been held to require notice and hearing prior to closure, see Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis, 426.. 2d I (Fla. 1982), The closure of court records has not required prior notice. Requiring prior notice of closure of a court record may be impractical and burdensome in emergency circumstances or when closure of a court record requiring confidentiality is requested during a judicial proceeding. The local administrative rule the non-parties cite, 15th Judicial Circuit 10 EFTA00231142

Administrative Order 2.303, is not applicable either. This Administrative Order addresses the procedures for sealing criminal and non-criminal court records, but was not adopted until September 29, 2008--months after Judge Pucillo sua sponte ordered the non-prosecution agreement and its addendum filed and sealed. The Administrative Order in effect when Judge Pucillo sealed these documents was 2.032-10/06. As explained above, the procedures designated therein would not apply since Judge Pucillo filed and sealed the documents sua sponte, not by motion. To the extent that the Administrative Order conflicts with the version of rule 2.420 then in effect, the rule prevails. Judge Pucillo was not required to follow Administrative Order 2.032 when she sealed the documents in June 2008. Assuming compliance with procedures for confidentiality was required, Mr. Epstein met them. At all times, the rules of judicial administration provided that court records "shall be confidential" if a court has determined that confidentiality is required. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(cX9). Rule 2.420(cX9) provides: (c) Exemptions. The following records of the judicial branch shall be confidential: (9) Any court record determined to be confidential in case decision or court rule on the grounds that (A) confidentiality is required to (i) prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice; (ii) protect trade secrets; 11 EFTA00231143

(iii) protect a compelling governmental interest; (iv) obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a case; (v) avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties; (vi) avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed; (vii) comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida or United States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case law; (B) the degree, duration, and manner of confidentiality ordered by the court shall be no broader than necessary to protect the interests set forth in subdivision (A); and (C) no less restrictive measures are available to protect the interests set forth in subdivision (A). Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9). Thus, courts are required to seal court records upon a fmding that closure is need to "prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice," to "avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties" or to "avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed." Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9)(i), (v), (vi). Mr. Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential satisfied these requirements; thus, the court erred in denying it. Mr. Epstein alleged three separate grounds for confidentiality. He first argued that confidentiality is necessary to protect 12 EFTA00231144

a compelling government interest. He satisfied this prong since the United States Attorney's Office has a compelling interest in having the confidentiality provision of its contract with Mr. Epstein honored. Judge Marra already balanced that interest against arguments for disclosure and struck a balance by requiring disclosure to plaintiffs and their lawyers, but not to third parties. Secondly, Mr. Epstein contended that maintaining confidentiality will avoid injury to innocent third parties, i.e., the other persons the United States Attorney's Office agreed not to prosecute who will be harmed if the documents are unsealed. Thirdly, Mr. Epstein demonstrated that confidentiality is necessary to avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed. Disclosure of these documents is not generally inherent in a state court plea hearing and will violate Mr. Epstein's common law right to confidentiality. Granting a stay would vindicate the values and purposes of grand jury secrecy which will be implicated, if a stay is denied, by the public disclosure of a confidential agreement that references matters related to a federal grand jury investigation. There is no prejudice to non-parties/interveners and The Post, if disclosure is stayed pending the outcome of Mr. Epstein's emergency petition for certiorari. Mr. Epstein, on the other hand, will suffer irreparable harm once the documents are produced--a fact 13 EFTA00231145

the trial court recognized (A-19:16). CONCLUSION This Court should grant review and order the trial court to stay the order unsealing the non-prosecution agreement and addendum pending certiorari review. CERTIFICATION OF EXISTENCE OF EMERGENCY Undersigned counsel certifies that the subject of this motion constitutes an emergency. The trial court's order at noon on July 2, 2009, provides that the confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum will be disclosed. Once these documents are disclosed, irreparable harm will result. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by E-Mail and Federal Express this 30:c4. day of June, 2009, to: U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 WILLIAM J. BERGER ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Counsel for JUDITH STEVENSON ARCO State Attorney's Office-West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DEANNA K ST-IT ITIMANT. 400 North Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Counsel for The Palm Beach Post 14 EFTA00231146

SPENCER T. KUVIN LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counsel for E. HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ROBERT D. CRITTON BURMAN, CRITTONLUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and BARBARA J. COMPIANI of KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 MI= Counsel for Petitioner By: NEKREUSLER-WALSH lorida Bar No. 272371 15 EFTA00231147

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. CASE NO. PALM BEACH LT. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, seeks a writ of certiorari pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(cX1), to review an order compelling disclosure of a confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum, pursuant to motions to unseal, filed by non-parties, M. and Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post ("the Pose').1 The confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum between the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein were filed under seal in state court at the express directive of the judge who heard Mr. Epstein's guilty plea--"I wapt a sealed cnpy of that filed in_this_casenand_not—by— I Petitioner, Jeffrey Epstein is referred to by proper name. Non-party interveners, ., M. and The Post are referred to as ., M. and The Post. All emphasis is supplied unless indicated otherwise. The following symbol is used: A — Petitioner's appendix. EFTA00231148

motion of any party (A-7:40). Federal Court Judge Marra has twice denied public access to these documents. Mr. Epstein seeks certiorari review on an emergency basis.2 The court stayed disclosure until noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009. Once the documents are produced, there will be no adequate remedy. I. JURISDICTION Mr. Epstein seeks to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(bX2)(A) and 9.100. Certiorari review is appropriate where, as here, an order unsealing a court record departs from the essential requirements of law and causes material injury that cannot be remedied on appeal after final judgment. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 M. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995). This Court should exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to quash the order unsealing the non-prosecution agreement and addendum. Production of these documents will-cause-irreparable harm ("cat oat of the bag") to Mr. Epstein. The order departs from the essential requirements of law because 2 Mr. Epstein has contemporaneously filed an emergency motion to review denial of stay. 2 EFTA00231149

the court failed to recognize principles of supremacy and comity and failed to apply the correct law as to sealing these records. Alternatively, Mr. Epstein appeals the order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(1XD) as an order entered after a finding of guilt in a criminal case. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c) ("If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought. . .."). II. STATEMENT OF FACTS In 2006, a Florida state grand jury indicted Jeffrey Epstein for felony solicitation of prostitution. He was also charged by information with procuring persons under 18 for prostitution. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida began a federal grand jury investigation into allegations arising out of the same conduct. In September 2007, the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein executed a non-prosecution • (A-7.38) . 3 • 11 prosecution agreement contains an express confidentiality provision (A- 3 The non-prosecution agreement and addendum are separately filed with a motion to seal. 3 EFTA00231150

7:38). The United States Attorney's Office agreed to defer the federal criminal action on the condition that Mr. Epstein comply with many obligations, beginning with his pleading guilty to certain state charges in the Florida criminal action (A-7:38). A breach of any condition violates the non-prosecution agreement and criminal charges will resume (A-7:39-40). On June 30, 2008, Mr. Epstein pled guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring a minor under 18 for prostitution in the Florida criminal action (A-7; A-8). Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo, sitting for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, accepted the plea (A-7). During the plea conference, Judge Pucillo asked Mr. Epstein whether any promises had been made to him besides the terms of the state plea (A- 7:37-38). Mr. Epstein's attorney advised the court of the "confidential [non- prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney's Office] that the parties have agreed to." (A-7:38). He informed the court that Mr. Epstein's failure to comply with the terms of the state plea would violate the non- -proseeution agreement (A-7:39-40). Judge Pucillo then instructed Mr. Epstein's attorney that she wanted 4 EFTA00231151

"a sealed copy of that filed in this case." (A-7:40). When Mr. Epstein's attorney tried to comply, and file the non-prosecution agreement with the court, the clerk advised him an order was necessary. On July 2, 2008, the court entered an "Agreed Order Sealing Document in Court File' (A-9). An addendum to the non-prosecution agreement was filed under seal on August 25, 2008. On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed an independent action in federal court to compel production of the non-prosecution agreement (A-1). Mr. Epstein was not a party to the proceeding, but the United States Attorney's Office opposed disclosure (A-2). On August 16, 2008, Judge Marra of the Southern District ordered the United States Attorney's Office to produce the non-prosecution agreement to the Does' attorneys and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not disclose the terms to anyone else (A-2). As a result of this order, all victims, including those with civil suits against Mr. Epstein, have access to the non- prosecution agreement and addendum. They just cannot share it with others. In September 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed motions in the federal criminal action to unseal the non-prosecution agreement (A-3). The 5 EFTA00231152

United States Attorney's Office opposed disclosure noting its confidentiality provision, the movant's right to access the agreement, and Judge Marra's protective order to which the movants voiced no objection (A-4). On February 12, 2009,4 Judge Marra denied the motion, finding in pertinent part: Petitioners' mere desire to discuss the Agreement with third parties is insufficient, in and of itself, to warrant the granting of such relief. If and when Petitioners have a specific tangible need to be relieved of the restrictions, they should file an appropriate motion. If a specific tangible need arises in a civil case Petitioners or other alleged victims are pursuing against Epstein, relief should be sought in that case, with notice to the United States, the other party to the Agreement. (A-6). • Rather than seeking relief from Judge Marra in federal court, non- party E.W., a victim of Mr. Epstein, filed a motion in the state criminal action on May 12, 2009, seeking to intervene and unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(dX5) (A-10)... alleged that the proper procedures had not been followed in sealing the documents (A-10). claimed these documents are relevant to her civil action against Mr. Epstein and that she, " The order is mistakenly dated February 12, 2008 (A-6). 6 EFTA00231153

as a member of the public, has a right to have them unsealed; and that continued sealing violates public policy (A-10). On June 1, 2009, Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post ("The Post") also moved in the state criminal action to intervene and access the agreement and addendum (A-11). The Post alleged the procedures for sealing had not been followed and that "good cause exists for unsealing the documents because of their public significance." (A-11:3). Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Jeffrey Colbath heard M.'s and The Post's motions in the state criminal action on June 10, 2009 (A-13). The court granted both motions to intervene, but deferred ruling on the motions to unseal pending a later hearing (A-13). The next day, Mr. Epstein filed a Motion to Make Court Records Confidential (A-13). Mr. Epstein alleged that the documents should remain confidential to prevent a serious imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly—administration of justiet—to—proteet—a—compelling -government interest; to avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties; and to avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common 7 EFTA00231154

law and privacy right, not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed (A-13). Also on June I I, non-party M. filed motions to intervene and for an order unsealing the records, alleging grounds similar to non-parties.. and The Palm Beach Post (A-12). Judge Colbath heard M.'s, The Post's, and M.'s motions to unseal, and Mr. Epstein's motion for confidentiality, on June 25, 2009 (A- 16). The court granted ■.'s, The Post's, and M.'s motions and denied Mr. Eptsein's (A-16:2). The court concluded: At the time the state court took these matters under seal, the proper procedure for sealing such documents had not been followed . . . [and that] [n]either the State of Florida nor the U.S. Government nor Mr. Epstein have [sic] presented sufficient evidence to warrant the sealing of documents currently held by the court. (A-16:2; A-18:43). The court ruled that "[t]his Order is in no way to be interpreted as pennission to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth --?vlarrais-previonsHardersfl-Subsequent-to-this-oral-ruling, Mr. Epstein provided the court with a Motion for Stay (A-14). The court stayed disclosure until it could hear Mr. Epstein's motion to stay, scheduled for the EFTA00231155

next day (A-16:3). The court heard Mr. Epstein's stay motion on June 26, 2009 (A-19). Mr. Epstein alleged that he will be irreparably harmed by disclosure of the non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-14). No harm will be done if the documents remain under seal pending review by this Court (A-14). The court denied the motion, but stayed disclosure until noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009, Mr. Epstein could seek review of the denial in this Court (A-17). Mr. Epstein has filed an emergency motion to review denial of stay in this Court, contemporaneously with this motion. HI. NATURE OF RELIEF SOUGHT Mr. Epstein seeks to quash the June 25, 2009 order granting non- parties' motions to unseal the confidential non-prosecution agreement and addendum between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office. IV. ARGUMENT Thc trial court departed from the essential- requiivineiits of law granting the motions to unseal the confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum between the United States Attorney's Office and EFTA00231156

Mr. Epstein. These documents are subject to confidentiality provisions, which the federal court recognized and enforced when it permitted disclosure to the attorneys for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not disclose the terms to anyone else. Disclosure violates a condition of the agreement, thereby vitiating the agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney. Disclosure also violates Judge Marra's two orders in the federal district court, denying disclosure to the parties. Judge Colbath paid lip service to this principle in stating that his "Order is in no way to be interpreted as permission to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth Marra's previous Orders." (A- 16:3). But there is no way disclosure does not inherently violate Judge Marra's orders. The principle of supremacy required that the state court defer to the federal court on this issue. U.S. Const. Art. I § 8. These documents reference federal grand jury proceedings, which are protected under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2)—an attorney for the government "must not disclosc a matter-occurring-before-the-grand-it onsequence of the confidentiality provisions of the non-prosecution agreement, information that disclosed the existence and the subject matter of a federal grand jury 10 EFTA00231157

proceeding which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g, Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court can, absent findings, order the unsealing of federal grand jury proceedings. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(F), (G). Judge Colbath did not address this principle. Nor did Judge Colbath address the principle of comity, which required that the state court defer to the federal court, which has twice denied disclosure to third parties, on this issue. The court erred in concluding that the non-prosecution and agreement were not properly sealed. The non-parties filed their motions to unseal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d) (A-10, A-11, A-12). They alleged that Judge Pucillo failed to properly seal the documents under the procedure set forth in that rule asL). By its terms, however, the procedures for sealing in Rule 2.420(d) (titled, "Request to Make Circuit and County Court Records-in-Nott-C- rimitral-C-asereonftdentiej-do-myt to criminal cases. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420, 2007 Court Commentary ("New subdivision (d) applies to motions that seek to make court records in 11 EFTA00231158

non-criminal cases confidential in accordance with subdivision (cX9)."); see also In re Amendments to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420--Sealing of Court Records & Dockets, 954 . 2d 16, 17 & 23 (Fla. 2007) (declining to adopt specific procedure regarding the sealing of court records in criminal cases and referring the matter to rules committees for finther study). Under the version of rule 2.420 in effect when the documents were sealed, there is no procedure for criminal proceedings. Even under the prior version of rule 2.420, Judge Pucillo was not required to give prior notice of her intent to seal documents during the plea hearing. Committee Notes on the 1995 amendments discussing a prior version of Rule 2.420(cX9)(D), make clear that advance notice is not always required: Unlike the closure of court proceedings, which has been held to require notice and hearing prior to closucki see Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis, 426 M. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982), the closure of court records has not required prior notice. Requiring prior notice of closure of a court record may be impractical and burdensome in emergency circumstances or when closure of a coin t ins. J requiring confidentiality—is requested during a judicial proceeding. The local administrative rule the non-parties cite, 15th Judicial Circuit 12 EFTA00231159

Administrative Order 2.303, is not applicable either. This Administrative Order addresses the procedures for sealing criminal and non-criminal court records, but was not adopted until September 29, 2008--months after Judge Pucillo sua sponte ordered the non-prosecution agreement and its addendum filed and sealed. The Administrative Order in effect when Judge Pucillo sealed these documents was 2.032-10/06. As explained above, the procedures designated therein would not apply since Judge Pucillo filed and sealed the documents sua sponte, not by motion. To the extent that the Administrative Order conflicts with the version of rule 2.420 then in effect, the rule prevails. Judge Pucillo was not required to follow Administrative Order 2.032 when she sealed the documents in June 2008. Assuming compliance with procedures for confidentiality was required, Mr. Epstein met them. At all times, the rules of judicial administration provided that court records "shall be confidential" if a court has determined that confidentiality is required. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9). Rule 2.420(cX9) provides: (IL ExemptionsrThe-folluwieg ►ecords of the judicial branch shall be confidential: (9) Any court record determined to be confidential in case decision or court rule on the grounds that 13 EFTA00231160

(A) confidentiality is required to (i) prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice; (ii) protect trade secrets; (iii) protect a compelling governmental interest; (iv) obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a case; (v) avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties; (vi) avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed; (vii) comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida or United States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case law; (B) the degree, duration, and manner of confidentiality ordered by the court shall be no broader than necessary to protect the interests set forth in subdivision (A); and (C) no less restrictive measures are available to protect the interests set forth in subdivision (A). Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9). Thus, courts are required to seal court records upon a finding that closure is need to "prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justieee-teaveitl-substantittlAnjury-te-inneeent-third-partics" or to "avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding 14 EFTA00231161

sought to be closed." Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9Xi), (v), (vi). Mr. Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential satisfied these requirements; thus, the court erred in denying it. Mr. Epstein alleged three separate grounds for confidentiality. He first argued that confidentiality is necessary to protect a compelling government interest. He satisfied this prong since the United States Attorney's Office has a compelling interest in having the confidentiality provision of its contract with Mr. Epstein honored. Judge Marra already balanced that interest against arguments for disclosure and struck a balance by requiring disclosure to plaintiffs and their lawyers, but not to third parties. Secondly, Mr. Epstein contended that maintaining confidentiality will avoid injury to innocent third parties, a, the other persons the United States Attorney's Office agreed not to prosecute who will be harmed if the documents are unsealed. Thirdly, Mr. Epstein demonstrated that confidentiality is necessary to avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closcd. Disclosure-cif these-documents-is-not-generally-inli in a state court plea hearing and will violate Mr. Epstein's common law right to confidentiality. 15 EFTA00231162

There is no prejudice to non-parties/interveners ., M. and The Post, if disclosure is stayed pending the outcome of Mr. Epstein's emergency petition for certiorari. Mr. Epstein, on the other hand, will suffer irreparable harm once the documents are produced—a fact the trial court recognized (A-19:16). CONCLUSION This Court should grant certiorari and quash the June 25, 2009 order granting non-parties' motions to unseal the confidential non-prosecution agreement and addendum between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office. CERTIFICATION OF EXISTENCE OF EMERGENCY Undersigned counsel certifies that the subject of this petition constitutes an emergency. The trial court's order at noon on July 2, 2009, provides that the confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum will be disclosed. Once these documents are disclosed, irreparable harm will-result. 16 EFTA00231163

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by E-Mail and Federal Express this 3ati.day of June, 2009, to: U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 WILLIAM J. BERGER ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale. FL 33394 Counsel for SPENCER T. KUVIN LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counsel for M. JUDITH STEVENSON ARCO State Attorney's Office-West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DEANNA K. SHULLMAN 400 North Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Counsel for The Palm Beach Post HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room I IF West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ROBERT D. CRITTON BURMAN, CRITTONLUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and 17 EFTA00231164

JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and BARBARA J. COMPIANI of KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 Counsel for Petitioner B It a-4-4-16 SANE USLER-WALSH iFlorida Bar No. 272371 18 EFTA00231165

06-26-'09 13:39 FROMM & LOCICERO T-059 F001/005 F-889 THOMAS LOCICERO BRALOW 400 N. DriveeSuite 1100•Tam a FL 33602 (Phone) (Fax) Toll Free: 866.395-7100 L facsimile transmittal To: Marilyn, Judicial Assistant to Judge FAX 561-355-1616 Colbath R. Alexander Acosta, Esq., USAO Barbara Burns, Esq., ASAO Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. William J. Berger, Esq. Robert D. Critton, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. From: Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. Re: State v. J. Epstein Date: 06/04/2009 Pages: 5 urgent K For review D Please see attached proposed Order. Please comment D Please reply ta Please recycle 0 --CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This electronic message transmission contains intermarket from the law turn of =. LoCicem B Bralow PL and is confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure. copying. distribution or use of the contents of this information Is prohibited. If you have received this clean:silt transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (813) 984-3060 immediately. Thank you for your cooperation IRS Circular 230 Disclosure. To the extent this corresponderce com ma federal tax edvict, such advice was not intended to be used, and cannot be used by any uncptyer, for the purpose of (I) avoidtg penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (i) promoting. marketing, or recommending to another party any uansaction or matter addressed herein. !frau would like us to prepare written tax advice designed to provide penalty prorectim, please contact us and we will be happy to discuss the mesa with you bi more detail confidential EFTA00231166

06-26-'09 13:39 FROM & LOCICERO T-059 P002/005 F-889 Tamp 400 N Dr., SW. 1100, Tampa, FL 33602 THOMAS I ()CICERO P.O. x Tampa ph, fax 1-2602 toll Ft. Lauderdale BRALOW 101 N.E. INS Ave,, SW. 1500 oFht..ISSIL 101111fee New York City 220 E 42nd St.. 10th Flom New York. NY 10017 ee tax WAN/ slo1eveirm rem Dee Direct Deanna.shu„manottoiawfirm.com Reply To Tampa June 26, 2009 VIA FASCIMILE The Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Fifteenth Judicial Circuit-Palm Beach Palm Beach County Courthouse Main Judicial Complex 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein Dear Judge Colbath: This law firm represents the Palm Beach Post in the above matter. I have prepared a proposed Order, which I believe accurately reflects your ruling at the hearing on June 26, 2009 on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum Pending Review. By copy of this letter, I am providing all counsel of record a copy of the proposed Order. If the attached Order meets with Your Honor's approval, please enter the same. If you would like to have an electronic copy of this proposed order, please have your Judicial Assistant call my office to make arrangements for us to send you the order via email. Sincerely, THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL ,atlena.0-0 K Deanna K. Shullman EFTA00231167

06-26-'09 13:40 FROM-THOMAS & L0CICER0 T-059 P003/005 F-889 Hon. J. Colbath 06/26/09 Page 2 of 2 DKS/kb Enclosures cc: U.S. Attorney's Office (via facsimile) State Attorney's Office (via facsimile) Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. (via facsimile) Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. (via facsimile) Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. (via facsimile) Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. (via facsimile) EFTA00231168

06-26-'09 13:41 FROM-THOMAS & L0CICER0 T-059 P004/005 F-889 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF FLORIDA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case Nos.: 2006-CF9454-AXX & 2008-9381CF-AXX ORDER This matter came before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum Pending Review and upon further consideration of this Court's June 26, 2009 Order unsealing certain records in this case. A hearing was conducted on these matters on June 26, 2009. On June 26, 2009, this Court entered an order unsealing the non-prosecution agreement and an addendum on file in this case. Having inspected the documents, this Court finds that they do not name any victims and do not contain any material subject to confidentiality pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6. Thus, the Court declines to make any redactions to the records before releasing them to the public. The Court further finds that Defendant has not demonstrated that a stay pending appeal is warranted. Defendant has not shown any irreparable harm or likelihood of success on the merits on appeal. These documents were not properly closed in the first instance, no present basis for closure exists, and good cause supports disclosure given the public interest in these proceedings and the lack of compelling interest in closure. Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged as follows: 1. Effective at noon on July 2, 2009, the non-prosecution agreement (docketed July 2, 2008) and addendum (docketed August 25, 2008) are unsealed; EFTA00231169

06-26-'09 13:42 FROM-THOMAS & L0CICER0 T-059 P005/005 F-889 2. Defendant's Motion for Stay pending appellate review is DENIED; 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to release the documents to the public at noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009. Done and ordered this day of June, 2009 in Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach, Florida. Hon. Jeffrey Colbath CIRCUIT JUDGE cc: U.S. Attorney's Office State Attorney's Office Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Bradley 1. Edwards, Esq. Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. 2 EFTA00231170

KnEusixn-WALsit, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. SUITE 5O3. FLAGLER CENTER 501 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401-5913 JANE KREUSLER-WALSH BARBARA J. COMPIANI REBECCA MERCIER VARGAS BOARD CERTIFIED APPELLATE LAWYERS By Hand Delivery Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Palm Beach County Courthouse Fifteenth Judicial Circuit 205 North Dixie Highway, Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 June 30, 2009 Re: Epstein v. State of Florida 15th Circuit Court Case No. 2008CF009381A Dear Judge Colbath: 'ELEPHONE FACSIMILE Enclosed is a copy of Epstein's Emergency Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Emergency Motion to Review Denial of Stay, Motion to Use One Appendix and Motion to Seal, as filed with the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Due to the volume of the appendix, we have only enclosed the table of contents. Please let us know if you wish to receive a copy of the appendix. Thank you. JKW/bl Enclosure seleno. Robert D. Critton Very truly yours, p 1CREUSLER-WALSH Jack A. Goldber er Judith Stevenson Arco William J. Berger Deanna K. Shullman Spencer T. Kuvin EFTA00231171

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO. PALM BEACH COUNTY Petitioner, L.T. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. APPENDIX TO EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND EMERGENCY MOTION TO REVIEW DENIAL OF STAY ROBERT D. CRITTON BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JANE ICREUSLER-WALSH and BARBARA J. COMPIANI of KREUSTRB-WAT COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 Counsel for Petitioner EFTA00231172

e EFTA00231173

Document Tab Proceedings in Southern District Court Victim's (Doe) Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Right Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 Judge Marra's Order to Compel Production and Protective Order (8/21/08) Victims' (Doe #1 and Doe #2) Motion to Unseal Non- Prosecution Agreement (9/25/08) A-1 A-2 A-3 Respondent's (U.S. Attorney's Office) Opposition to Victims' Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement (10/8/08) A-4 Victims' (Doe #1 and Doe #2) Reply to Respondent's A-5 Opposition to Victims' Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement (10/16/08) Judge Marra's Order Denying Petitioners' (Doe #1 and Doe #2). Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement (2/12/08 [sic should be 2/12/09]) Proceedings in 15th Judicial Circuit Transcript of Epstein's Plea Conference (6/30/08) Epstein's Plea (6/30/08) Agreed Order Sealing Document in Court File (7/2/08) NonParty M.'s Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records And Unseal Records (5/12/09) A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-l0 Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and Petition for A-11 Access (6/1/09) Applicant, ■.'s Motion to Intervene and Supporting A-12 Memorandum of Law (6/11/09) EFTA00231174

Document Tab Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential (6/11/09) A-13 Epstein's Motion to Stay Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution A-14 Agreement and Addendum Pending Review (6/25/09) Intervener's [..] Response to Motion to Stay and Supporting Memorandum of Law (6/26/09) A-15 Order of Judge Jeffrey J. Colbath granting motions to unseal (6/25/09) A-16 Order of Judge Jeffrey J. Colbath denying motion to stay (6/26/09) A-17 Transcript on non-parties' motions to unseal and Epstein's motion for confidentiality (6/25/09) A-18 Transcript on Epstein's motion to stay (6/26/09) A-19 EFTA00231175

LEGAL RECYCLED PAPER TO REORDER CALL 954446-9399 EFTA00231176

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80736-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. FI cilio ELaT JULY 7, 2008 STEVEN IA. LARIUORE CLERK M.S. GIST. CS. 5.0. Or ILA. • MIAMI s,., ers end y VICTIM'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS ACT. 18 U.S.0 . SECTION 3771 COMES NOW the Petitioner, JANE DOE (hereinafter "Petitioner"), by and through her undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 (''CVR_A"), and files this Petition for Enforcement in the above styled action as follows: I. Petitioner, an adult, as a minor child was a victim of federal crimes committed by JEFFREY EPSTEIN (hereinafter "Defendant"). These crimes included sex trafficking of children by fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, use of a means of interstate commerce to entice a minor to commit prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422, as well as wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The Defendant committed these crimes within the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Florida in Palm Beach County, Florida. 2. Upon information and belief, the Defendant is the subject of a federal criminal investigation conducted by the United States of America in the Southern District of Florida. The Defendant has recently been prosecuted and pleaded guilty, on June 30, 2008, in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County to various similar slate offenses including solicitation of minors for prostitution. 3. Upon information and beliefs the Defendant is engaged in plea negotiations-with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida concerning federal 0110 EFTA00231177

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 2 of 10 crimes which he is alleged to have committed against minor children, including the Petitioner. Such negotiations may likely result in a disposition of the charges in the next several days. 4. Under the CVRA, before any charges are filed against the Defendant, the Petitioner has the rights (among others) to notice of her rights under the CVRA, to confer with the prosecutors, and to be treated with fairness. As soon as charges are filed, the Petitioner has the rights (among others) to timely notice of court proceedings, the right not to be excluded from such proceedings, the right to be heard at such public proceedings regarding conditions of release, any plea, and any sentence, the right to confer with the attorney for the government, the right to restitution, and the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for her dignity and privacy. 5. The Petitioner has been denied her rights in that she has received no consultation with the attorney for the government regarding the possible disposition of the charges, no notice of any public court proceedings, no information regarding her right to restitution, and no notice of rights under the CVRA, as required under law. 6. The Petitioner is in jeopardy of losing her rights, as described above, if the government is able to negotiate a plea or agreement with the Defendant without her participation and knowledge. WHEREFORE, for the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner respectfully requests this Court to grant her Petition, and to order the United States Attorney to comply with the provisions of the CVRA prior to and including any plea or other agreement with the Defendant and any attendant proceedings. 2 2.110 EFTA00231178

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07107/2008 Page 3 of 10 MEMORANDUM I. THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT MAKES CRIME VICTIMS INDEPENDENT PARTICIPANTS THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS. In October 2004, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Crime Victims' Rights Act, Pub. L. No. 108-405, 118 Stat. 2251 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3771). Because this appears to be the first case involving the Act to come before this Court, a bit of background may be in order. A. The CVRA Gives Crime Victims Rights to Participate in the Criminal Justice Process. Congress passed the CVRA "to give crime victims enforceable rights to participate in federal criminal proceedings." Opinion at 14. Congress was concerned that in the federal system crime victims were "treated as non-participants in a critical event in their lives. They were kept in the dark by prosecutors too busy to care enough ... and by a court system that simply did not have a place for them." 150 CONG. REC. S4262 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein). To remedy this problem, Congress gave victims "the simple right to know what is going on, to participate in the process where the information that victims and their families can provide may be material and relevant ... ." Id. The CVRA gives victims of federal crimes a series of rights, including the right to notice of court proceedings, to be heard at plea and sentencing hearings, and to reasonably "confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). Victims also have a "right of access to the terms of a plea agreement ... ." In re Interested Parry 1, 530 F.Supp. 2d 136, 2008 WL 134233 at •7 (D.D.C. 2008). The CVRA also assures victims broadly that they will "be treated with fairness." 18 U.S.C. § 377I(a)(8). 3 1010 EFTA00231179

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 4 of 10 *a/ Of course, these rights would be of little use to most crime victims unless they were told about them. To ensure that victims are notified of their rights, the CVRA directs employees of the Justice Department "and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime" to use their "best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of the rights described (in the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) (emphasis added).1 B. The CVRA Gives Victims Rights During the Investigation of a Crime. The CVRA gives victims rights during the investigation of a crime. The Fifth Circuit recently reached this conclusion, holding: The district court acknowledged that "(t]here are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway." BP Prods., 2008 WL 501321 at '11, 200811.S. Dist. LEXIS 12893, at *36. Logically, this includes the CVRA's establishment of victims' "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government." 18 U.S.C. & 3771(a)(5). At least in the posture of this case (and we do not speculate on the applicability to other situations), the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of a plea bargain. ha re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008). The position that CVRA rights apply before charges have been filed is consistent with the Justice Department regulations under the CVRA, which explain that government officials "must advise a victim (about their rights under the CVRA) ... at the earliest opportunity at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation." A.G. GUIDELINES FOR VICTIM AND WrThrESS I Further supporting this requirement is another statute, 42 U.S.C. § I0607(c)(3), which directs government officials to provide victims with "the earliest possible notice of," among other things, "the filing of charges against a suspected offender." 4 loll@ EFTA00231180

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 5 of 10 yostr Nvor ASSISTANCE 23 (May 2005). And the plain language of the CVRA undergirds this conclusion, as it applies not simply to prosecutors but to government agencies "engaged in the detection [and) investigation ... of crime ... ." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). Indeed, if there were any doubt, the plain language of the CVRA extends victims' right to situations "in which no prosecution is underway." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(dX3). H. PETITIONER IS A "VICTIM PROTECTED BY THE CVRA. Under the CVRA the crime victim is defined as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense ... ." 18 U.S.C. Section 3771(e). In particular, Defendant called Petitioner when she was a minor over a telephone (a means of interstate communication) requesting that she perform a massage in exchange for payment. As Defendant well knew, that request was fraudulent, as he not only intended to receive a massage, but also intended to have her perform sexual acts in exchange for a cash payment to Petitioner. Only when Petitioner arrived at a Defendant's mansion as directed by Defendant, did Defendant reveal his true purpose of obtaining sexual favors in exchange for payment This conduct violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422, which forbids using a means of interstate commerce to knowingly "induce" or "entice" a minor "to engage in prostitution." In addition, this conduct was both a use of "fraud" to obtain a commercial sex act, in violation of 18 U.S.0 § 1591, and use of wire communications to perpetrate a "scheme and artifice to defraud," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. It appears obvious that Petitioner was "directly and proximately" harmed by these crimes, thereby making her a victim under the CVRA. It should be emphasized that_the CVRA "was designed to be a 'broad and encompassing' statutory victims' bill of rights." United States' 5 lot 00 EFTA00231181

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 6 of 10 v Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d 1341, 1342 (D. Utah 2005) (quoting 150 Cong. Rec. S4261 (daily ed. Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein)). Congress intended the CVRA to dramatically rework the federal criminal justice system. In the course of construing the CVRA generously, the Ninth Circuit observed: "The criminal justice system has long flinctioned on the assumption that crime victims should behave like good Victorian children — seen but not heard. The Crime Victims' Rights Act sought to change this by making victims independent participants in the criminal justice process." Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for C.D. Cat, 435 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, because the CVRA is remedial legislation, courts should interpret it "liberally to facilitate and accomplish its purposes and intent." Elliott Industries Ltd. Partnership v. BP America Production Co., 407 F.3d 1091, 1118 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting remedial legislation should be "interpreted liberally to facilitate and accomplish its purposes and intent"). The CVRA itself suggests this conclusion by requiring that courts must treat crime victims with "fairness." United States v. Patkar, 2008 WL 233062 at •3 (D. Haw. 2008) (citing United States v. Turner, 367 F.Supp.2d 319, 335 (ED.N.Y. 2005)). Not only must the CVRA as a whole be interpreted liberally, but its definition of "crime victim" requires a generous construction. After reciting the direct-and-proximate-harm language at issue here, one of the Act's two co-sponsors -- Senator Kyl -- explained that "Mills is an intentionally broad definition because all victims of crime deserve to have their rights protected ." 150 Cong. Rec. S10912 (Oct. 9, 2004) (emphasis added). The description of the victim definition as "intentionally broad" was in the course of floor colloquy with the other primary sponsor of the CVRA and therefore deserves significant weight. See Kenna, 435 F.3d at 1015T6 (discussing significance of CVRA sponsors.. floor statements). 6 EFTA00231182

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 7 of 10 4.•• The definition of "crime victims" must thus be construed broadly in favor of Petitioner. She obviously qualifies as a "victim" under the CVRA. III. PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO NOTICE OF HER RIGHTS, AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITH THE PROSECUTORS AND TO BE TREATED WITH FAIRNESS. Because Petitioner is a "victim" under the CVRA, she has certain protected rights under the Act. Most important, the Act promises that she will have an opportunity to "confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." To date, Petitioner has not been given that right. This raises that very real possibility that the Government may negotiate and conclude a plea agreement with the Defendant without giving Petitioner her protected rights.2 Petitioner is entitled to have this conference with prosecutors before any final plea agreement is reached. The Fifth Circuit reached exactly this conclusion in a very recent case. In In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008), the Government negotiated a plea agreement with the well-heeled corporate defendant without conferring with the victims. When the Government's failure was challenged in the Fifth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Government had indeed violated the CVRA. The Fifth Circuit observed: "in passing the [CVRAJ, Congress made the policy decision-which we are bound to enforce-that the victims have a right to inform the plea negotiation process by conferring with prosecutors before a plea agreement is reached." Id. at 394. This Court is obligated to protect the lights of Petitioner. The CVRA directs that "[i]n any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the 2 On information and belief, roughly the same crimes werc committed against several other young females. These victims, too, arc in danger of losing their right to confer under the CVRA. 7 7 of 10 EFTA00231183

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 8 of 10 crime victim is afforded the rights described in [the CVRA)." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(bX1). The CVRA also confers on crime victims the right to "assert the rights described in [the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(I). Therefore, this Court has its own independent obligation to intercede and ensure that the Government respects the rights of Petitioner under the CVRA. CONCLUSION The Petitioner requests the intervention of this Court to ensure that her rights are respected and accorded, as promised in the Crime Victims' Rights Act. DATED this 7th day oil& 2008. Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & ASSOCIATES, LLC Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bar #542075 2028 Harrison Street Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 Telephone: Facsimile: 8 emu, EFTA00231184

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 9 of 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been provided by United States mail and via facsimile to: United States Attorney's Office, 500 South Australian Avenue, Florida 33401, this ah day of July, 2008. c410 , AUSA, West Palm Beach, Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bar No. 542075 9 EFTA00231185