objectivity in its response to hearing the District Attorney disavow the reliability of the Board's recommendation, in receiving the arguments of counsel for Appellant, and in rendering its Order as a whole. First, although the SORA statute clearly contemplates that the District Attorney may depart from the Board's recommendation based upon its own evaluation of the evidence,15 see Correction Law §§ 168- 16 For example, SORA expressly provides, "If the district attorney seeks a determination that differs from the recommendation submitted by the board, at least ten days prior to the determination proceeding the district attorney shall provide to the court and the sex offender a statement setting forth the determinations sought by the district attorney together with the reasons for seeking such determinations." Correction Law §§ 168-k(2), 168-n(2). While the more common application of this provision involves the People seeking a higher risk level than the Board, the provision clearly encompasses any deviation from the Board's recommendation, including the People's discretion to recommend a lower risk level. See, e.g., People v. Ferguson, 53 A.D.3d 571, 572 (2d Dep't 2008) (holding that 10- day notice requirement applies not only to changes in RAI scoring, but to changes in factual predicates for RAI scoring). Incidentally, it bears noting that the People failed to comply with these procedural mandates, constituting a further procedural flaw in these proceedings. See Correction Law §§ 168-k(2), 168-n(2). While the People provided Appellant with a written alternative RAI immediately prior to the SORA hearing -- and not ten days prior to the hearing, as required by SORA -- it appears that the People failed to submit their RAI to the Court at all. See Appendix generally. Before rejecting out of hand the People's stance that a Level 3 determination could not be supported by sufficient evidence, the Court should have adjourned the matter to receive and review a written statement of the People's recommended determination and order where defendant and court did not receive proper 10-day notice of People's revised RAI); cf. People v. Jordan, 31 A.D.3d 1196, 1196 (4th Dep't 2006) (holding People's failure to provide sufficient notice of revised RAI was cured where Court adjourned matter to allow meaningful opportunity to consider revised RAI). The Court's failure to enforce the procedural mandates of the SORA statute was prejudicial to Appellant, in that the Court did not have sufficient opportunity to 39 EFTA00231586

k(2), 168-n(2), here, the Court rejected the investigation and advocacy of the People. Indeed, the Court went so far as to express "shock" that the People would support a lower risk level determination than that recommended by the Board, almost as a matter of principle. See A.86:9 (Tr.). The Court disregarded the detailed evidentiary investigation and careful parsing of allegations that the People undertook in evaluating the Board's recommendation. Ignoring the record at issue concerning Appellant and the evidence pertaining to him, the Court focused instead on the irrelevant facts of some unidentified case completely unrelated to Appellant's: I have to tell you, I am a little overwhelmed because I have never seen the prosecutor's office do anything like this. I have never seen it. I had a case with one instance it was a marine who went to a bar, and I wish I had the case before me, but he went to a bar and a 17 year old, he was an adult obviously, he was a Marine, a 17 year old came up to him and one thing lead [sic] to another and he had sex with her and the People would not agree to a downward modification on that. understand the compelling reasons for the alternative RAI calculation that the People promoted. See id. 40 EFTA00231587

So I am a little overwhelmed here because I see -- I mean I read everything here, I am just a little overwhelmed that the People are making this application. I could cite many many, I have done many SORAs much less troubling than this one where the People would never make a downward departure like this.16 A.84:21-85:10 (Tr.). Later, when Appellant's counsel disputed that there were any credible -- much less prosecuted -- allegations that Appellant ever used force, the Court again began comparing Appellant's case to the same irrelevant case about "a marine" -- a matter completely unknown to Appellant and having no connection whatsoever to Appellant's case -- seemingly to suggest that Appellant should nevertheless be scored as Level 3 under SORA: There was no allegation of force in the marine either, who met a girl in a bar, a young girl 17, there was no force there. 16 Notably, the People were not asking the Court to make a downward departure from the RAI calculation, but were advising the Court that the evidence required a recalculation of Appellant's risk level based on the RAI factors. See Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary (2006) at 4-5, ¶¶ 5, 6. 41 EFTA00231588

A.90:13-15 (Tr.).17 The Court's subjective comparison of Appellant's case to some unidentified, unrelated case was improper and highly irregular, and it clearly interfered with the Court's duty to make an assessment based on the law. Similarly, in response to an argument by counsel regarding the implications that a Level 3 assignment would have on Appellant, who does not actually reside in New York, the Court abandoned any semblance of judicial objectivity by dismissively suggesting that he should "give up his New York home if he does not want to come every 90 days." A.93:18-19 (Pr.). Rather than giving reasoned consideration to whether Appellant's residence outside of New York might be a relevant factor in its overall risk assessment (such as for a downward departure from an RAI calculation), the Court improperly allowed its judgment to be clouded by apparent personal disdain for Appellant. Furthermore, the Court's apparent distaste for Appellant has eliminated any likelihood that Appellant will receive a fair redetermination hearing should this matter be remanded back to the '7 Significantly, the Court in fact scored 10 points against Appellant for forcible compulsion, despite the parties' agreement that there was no legitimate evidentiary basis to score Appellant for the use of force or violence. See A.94:7-8 ('Fr.). 42 EFTA00231589

same Justice. Indeed, this Court has recognized that reassignment of a matter to a different Justice following appeal is warranted and appropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was] compromised by the actions of the Justice to whom defendant's application was assigned"); Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V. v. Eastbrook Caribe, 40 A.D.3d 415, 421 (1st Dep't 2007) (remanding matter to a different Justice where "a reasonable concern about the appearance of impartiality" had been raised on appeal). Accordingly, should this Court deem remand the only appropriate mechanism for recalculating Appellant's risk assessment level, Appellant respectfully asks that the SORA proceeding be reassigned to a different Justice. In sum, a court only has discretion to go beyond the factors outlined in the SORA guidelines in evaluating a person's risk level where justified by clear and convincing evidence. See People v. Sherard, 73 A.D.3d 537, 537 (1st Dep't 2010) (citing People v. Miller, 854 N.Y.2d 43 EFTA00231590

138 (2008), lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 711, 860 N.Y.S.2d 483 (2008)) (holding that where a court exercises discretion to depart from the evidence- based scoring of an RAI, the court must base such departure on "clear and convincing evidence of aggravating factors to a degree not taken into account" in the RAI); see also Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary (2006) at 4-5, ¶¶ 5, 6. Here, the Court's SORA determination, made in the express absence of clear and convincing evidence, 18 constituted an abuse of discretion, warranting reversal of the Court's Level 3 determination and Order. Moreover, given the Court's demonstrated lack of judicial objectivity toward Appellant, should remand be required, Appellant respectfully requests that this matter be reassigned to a different Justice in the Supreme Court. le The Court did not -- and could not -- cite any factors within or outside of the Revnyl's ennsirieratinn, prriven by Clear and convincing evitionen, flint would justify .a Level 3 determination under RAI scoring or constitute lawful grounds for an upward departure. See A.82 (Tr. generally). Instead, the Court fully adopted the Board's calculation, scoring Appellant a presumptive rating of Level 3, without meaningful inquiry into any of the underlying allegations or any consideration of other evidence which could bear upon Appellant's risk level. See A.93:21, 94:6-95:9, 96:11.13 (Tr.). 44 EFTA00231591

III. THE COURTS ORDER DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE MANDATES OF SORA AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS AND MUST BE VACATED. Finally, the Court's Order determining Appellant to be a Level 3 sex offender is itself facially defective in numerous regards and should be vacated as legally invalid. In addition, the Court's failure to set forth any factual basis for its Level 3 determination renders the Order constitutionally infirm, warranting reversal on federal due process grounds as well. SORA provides that it is the "duty of the court" to determine, pursuant to the SORA guidelines, both the "level of notification" required of an offender and whether any designations defined in section 168-a(7) apply. Correction Law §§ 168-k(2), 168-n(2). In addition, SORA mandates that the court "render an order" which sets forth "its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based." Correction Law §§ 168-k, 168-n. Here, the Court's compliance with these requirements fell woefully short. The only order issued by the Court in this matter was a standard boilerplate form where the Court circled a pre-printed number and provided a signature and date. See A.4 (Order Appealed From, 45 EFTA00231592

dated Jan. 18, 2011). Indeed, upon close examination of the only "order" in this matter, it appears that the form Order is actually intended to be a cover sheet to accompany a more formal order, with written findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon submission to the Division. See A.4 (Order Appealed From, dated Jan. 18, 2011) (stating, "A copy of the order setting forth the risk level and designation determinations, and the findings and conclusions of law on which such determinations are based, shall be submitted to the Division of Criminal Justice Services' Sex Offender Registry Unit by the Court. In addition, please complete and attach this form indicating the offender's risk level and designation to the Court's order."). Yet this legally insufficient Order was served on Appellant following the SORA proceeding and was sent to the Division so that the Level 3 determination could be executed and enforced. See A.78 (Letter of Supreme Court, dated Jan. 19, 2011). The appellate courts have consistently held that cursory, non- specific "findings" issued after SORA hearings -- including the wholesale adoption of a Board recommendation or recitation of RAI factors without further explanation, as the Court offered here -- are 46 EFTA00231593

legally insufficient under SORA. See, e.g. People v. Strong, 77 A.D.3d 717, 717-18 (2d Dep't 2010) (reversing SORA order issued without findings of fact and conclusions of law, where court relied on RAI but failed to introduce the RAI in evidence or indicate any evidence relied upon); People v. Gilbert, 78 A.D.3d 1584, 1584 (4th Dep't 2010) (holding that the SORA court's conclusory recitation that it reviewed the parties' submissions and was adopting the Board's case summary and recommendation was insufficient to fulfill SORA's statutory mandate); People v. Miranda, 24 A.D.3d 909, 910-11 (3d Dep't 2005) (holding that the court's adoption of the Board's RAI scores and "generic listing of factors" failed to "fulfill the statutory mandate" of SORA and precluded "meaningful appellate review of the propriety of the court's risk level assessment"). In addition, the Order in this case is constitutionally deficient, in that the Court's failure to set forth any factual or legal bases for its Level 3 determination falls short of the minimum due process rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In the landmark case of Goldberg v. Kelly, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, in relevant part, to demonstrate compliance with the procedural due process requirement 47 EFTA00231594

that the decision maker's conclusion rest solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at hearing, "[the] decision maker should state reasons for his determination and indicate evidence he relied on, though his statement need not amount to a full opinion or even formal fmdings of fact and conclusions of law." Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 271 (1970) (internal citations omitted).19 In short, the minimal due process requirement that the order set forth the basis for the court's determination is designed to provide some assurance that the court's conclusion rested on sufficient reliable evidence--which in Appellant's case, it did not. The utterly deficient Order issued by the Court in this matter itself provides an independent basis for reversal of the Court's Level 3 determination, on both state statutory and federal constitutional grounds. 19 SORA, by specifically requiring the Court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its determination, therefore sets forth a higher standard than is required by federal due process. See Correction Law if 168-k, 168- n (requiring the court to "render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based"). 48 EFTA00231595

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein respectfully submits that the January 18, 2011 Order of the New York Supreme Court determining Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein to be a Level 3 sex offender, without designation, should be vacated, and Appellant's SORA level should be recalculated -- either by this Court based on the present record or upon remand to a different Justice in the lower court -- in accordance with the law, based solely on the evidence that can be proven by clear and convincing evidence, to wit, the undisputed conduct encompassed by Appellant's registerable crime of conviction. February 22, 2011 Respectfully submitted, Sandra nn Musumeci kland.com KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: Facsimile: Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein EFTA00231596

PRINTING SPECIFICATION STATEMENT This computer generated brief was prepared using a proportionally spaced typeface. Name of Typeface: Century Schoolbook Point Size: 14-point type Line Spacing: Double-spaced The total number of words in the brief, inclusive of point headings and footnotes and exclusive of pages containing the table of contents, table of authorities, and printing specification statement is 10,522. 50 EFTA00231597

CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL-SUBMISSION COMPLIANCE The undersigned hereby certifies that: (1) all required privacy redactions have been made and, with the exception of those redactions, every document submitted in Digital Form or scanned PDF format is an exact copy of the written document filed with the Clerk; and (2) the digital submissions have been scanned for viruses with the most recent version of a commercial virus scanning program (McAfee Enterprise 8.5 Virus Scan, updated as of March 9, 2009) and, according to the program, are free of viruses. Jay PJLefkowitz, P.C. Sandra Lynn Musumeci KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: Facsimile: EFTA00231598

SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant. Index No.: 30129-2010 PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT 1. TITLE OF ACTION: As set forth in caption. 2. FULL NAMES OF ORIGINAL PARTIES AND ANY CHANGE IN THE PARTIES: As set forth in caption. There has been no change in the parties. 3. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT OR PETITIONER: Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. Sandra Lynn Musumeci KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, Neirri4611 Telephone: Facsimile: 4. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. NEW YORK DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE One Hogan Place New York, NYilli m Telephone: 5. COURT AND COUNTY, OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, FROM WHICH APPEAL IS TAKEN: New York Supreme Court (Criminal Term), New York County. 6. THENATURE AND OBJECTOF THE CAUSE OF-ACTION OR SPECIAL PROCEEDING: Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) hearing, pursuant to Article 6-C of the Correction Law. 7. RESULT REACHED IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODY BELOW: Supreme Court, New York County, adjudged appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein to be a Level 3 sexual offender, without additional designation. 8. GROUNDS FOR SEEKING REVERSAL, ANNULMENT, OR MODIFICATION: The Court's designation of appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein as a Level 3 sexual offender was an abuse of EFTA00231599

discretion and constituted reversible legal error based, in part, on the following: (1) the Court improperly relied on untrustworthy double and triple hearsay contained in the recommendation of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, even though the District Attorney, as the party appearing on behalf of the State, rejected much of the Board's recommendation as not constituting clear and convincing evidence to support a Level 3 designation where such hearsay allegations were rejected as a basis for state prosecution; (2) the Court failed to provide the parties with an opportunity to present evidence on contested issues, as required by statute, and instead relied wholesale upon the recommendation of the Board, over the objection of the District Attorney, without any inquiry; (3) the Court did not apply the guidelines established by the Board, as required by statute; and (4) the Court failed to set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which its determinations in support of a Level 3 designation were based, as required by statute. 9. THERE IS NO RELATED ACTION OR PROCEEDING NOW PENDING IN ANY COURT OF THIS OR ANY OTHER JURISDICTION. 10. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL APPEAL PENDING IN THIS ACTION. Dated: February 9, 2011 Ja . Lefkowitz, P.C. S dra Lynn Musumeci KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, Nellii4611 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey E. Esptein. -2- EFTA00231600

March 20, 2011 To whom it may concern: I served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida from 2005 through 2009. Over the past weeks, I have read much regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. Some appears true, some appears distorted. I thought it appropriate to provide some background, with two caveats: (i) under Justice Department guidelines, I cannot discuss privileged internal communications among Department attorneys and (ii) I no longer have access to the original documents, and as the matter is now nearly 4 years old, the precision of memory is reduced. The Epstein matter was originally presented to the Palm Beach County State Attorney. Palm Beach Police alleged that Epstein unlawfully hired underage high-school females to provide him sexually lewd and erotic massages. Police sought felony charges that would have resulted in a term of imprisonment. According to press reports, however, in 2006 the State Attorney, in part due to concerns regarding the quality of the evidence, agreed to charge Epstein only with one count of aggravated assault with no intent to commit a felony. That charge would have resulted in no jail time, no requirement to register as a sexual offender and no restitution for the underage victims. Local police were dissatisfied with the State Attorney's conclusions, and requested a federal investigation. Federal authorities received the State's evidence and engaged in additional investigation. Prosecutors weighed the quality of the evidence and the likelihood for success at trial. With a federal case, there were two additional considerations. First, a federal criminal prosecution requires that the crime be more than local; it must have an interstate nexus. Second, as the matter was initially charged by the state, the federal responsibility is, to some extent, to back-stop state authorities to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice, and not to also prosecute federally that which has already been charged at the state level. After considering the quality of the evidence and the additional considerations, prosecutors concluded that the state charge was insufficient. In early summer 2007, the prosecutors and agents in this case met with Mr. Epstein's attorney, Roy Black. Mr. Black is perhaps best known for his successful defense of William Kennedy Smith. The prosecutors presented Epstein a choice: plead to more serious state felony charges (that would result in 2 years' imprisonment, registration as a sexual offender, and restitution for the victims) or else prepare for a federal felony trial. What followed was a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors. I use the word assault intentionally, as the defense in this case was more aggressive than any winch i, or the prosecutors in my office, had previously encountered. Mr. Epstein hired an army of legal superstars: Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, former Judge and then Pepperdine Law Dean Kenneth Starr, former Deputy Assistant to the President and then Kirkland & Ellis Partner Jay Lefkowitz, and several others, including prosecutors who had formally worked in the U.S. EFTA00231601

Attorney's Office and in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department. Defense attorneys next requested a meeting with me to challenge the prosecution and the terms previously presented by the prosecutors in their meeting with Mr. Black. The prosecution team and I met with defense counsel in Fall 2007, and I reaffirmed the office's position: two years, registration and restitution, or trial. Over the next several months, the defense team presented argument after argument claiming that felony criminal proceedings against Epstein were unsupported by the evidence and lacked a basis in law, and that the office's insistence on jail-time was motivated by a zeal to overcharge a man merely because he is wealthy. They bolstered their arguments with legal opinions from well- known legal experts. One member of the defense team warned me that the office's excess zeal in forcing a good man to serve time in jail might be the subject of a book if we continued to proceed with this matter. My office systematically considered and rejected each argument, and when we did, my office's decisions were appealed to Washington. As to the warning, I ignored it. The defense strategy was not limited to legal issues. Defense counsel investigated individual prosecutors and their families, looking for personal peccadilloes that may provide a basis for disqualification. Disqualifying a prosecutor is an effective (though rarely used) strategy, as eliminating the individuals most familiar with the facts and thus most qualified to take a case to trial harms likelihood for success. Defense counsel tried to disqualify at least two prosecutors. I carefully reviewed, and then rejected, these arguments. Despite this army of attorneys, the office held firm to the terms first presented to Mr. Black in the original meeting. On June 30, 2008, after yet another last minute appeal to Washington D.C. was rejected, Epstein pled guilty in state court. He was to serve 18 months imprisonment, register as a sexual offender for life and provide restitution to the victims. Some may feel that the prosecution should have been tougher. Evidence that has come to light since 2007 may encourage that view. Many victims have since spoken out, filing detailed statements in civil cases seeking damages. Physical evidence has since been discovered. Had these additional statements and evidence been known, the outcome may have been different. But they were not known to us at the time. A prosecution decision must be based on admissible facts known at the time. In cases of this type, those arc unusually difficult because victims are frightened and often decline to testify or if they do speak, they give contradictory statements. Our judgment in this case, based on the evidence known at the time, was that it was better to have a billionaire serve time in jail, register as a sex offender and pay his victims restitution than risk a trial with a reduced likelihood of success. I supported that judgment then, and based on the state of the law as it then stood and the evidence known at that time, I would support that judgment again. Epstein's treatment, while in state custody, likewise may encourage the view that the office should have been tougher. Epstein appears to have received highly unusual treatment while in jail. Although the terms of confinement in a state prison are a matter appropriately left to the EFTA00231602

State of Florida, and not federal authorities, without doubt, the treatment that he received while in state custody undermined the purpose of a jail sentence. Some may also believe that the prosecution should have been tougher in retaliation for the defense's tactics. The defense, arguably, often failed to negotiate in good faith. They would obtain concessions as part of a negotiation and agree to proceed, only to change their minds, and appeal the office's position to Washington. The investigations into the family lives of individual prosecutors were, in my opinion, uncalled for, as were the accusations of bias and / or misconduct against individual prosecutors. At times, some prosecutors felt that we should just go to trial, and at times I felt that frustration myself. What was right in the first meeting, however, remained right irrespective of defense tactics. Individuals have a constitutional right to a defense. The aggressive exercise of that right should not be punished, nor should a defense counsel's exercise of their right to appeal a U.S. Attorney to Washington, D.C. Prosecutors must be careful not to allow frustration and anger with defense counsel to influence their judgment. After the plea, I recall receiving several phone calls. One was from the FBI Special Agent-In- Charge. He called to offer congratulations. He had been at many of the meetings regarding this case. He was aware of the tactics of the defense, and he called to praise our prosecutors for holding firm against the likes of Messrs. Black, Dershowitz, Lefkowitz and Starr. It was a proud moment. I also received calls or communications from Messrs. Dershowitz, Le&owitz and Starr. I had known all three individuals previously, from my time in law school and at Kirkland & Ellis in the mid 90s. They all sought to make peace. I agreed to talk and meet with each of them after Epstein pled guilty, as I think it important that prosecutors battle defense attorneys in a case and then move on. I have tried, yet I confess that has been difficult to do fully in this case. The bottom line is this: Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire, served time in jail and is now a registered sex offender. He has been required to pay his victims restitution, though restitution clearly cannot compensate for the crime. And we know much more today about his crimes because the victims have come forward to speak out. Some may disagree with the prosecutorial judgments made in this case, but those individuals are not the ones who at the time reviewed the evidence available for trial and assessed the likelihood of success. Respectfully, R. Alexander Acosta Former U.S. Attorney Sothern District of Florida EFTA00231603

U S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW , THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E.4th Street Miami, FL 33132 PAUL G. CASSELL Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Telephone: September 29, 2011 Re: Follow-up on leffre,y Epstein Dear Mr. Ferrer: As you know, Brad Edwards and I represent Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in their efforts to protect their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. You were nice enough to meet with Jane Doe #1 in December 2010 on that case, and we appreciate that. At the conclusion of that meeting I also provided you with a letter presenting my grave concerns about possible improper influences being brought to bear on your Office during its negotiation of the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. (For your convenience, I attach a copy of that letter.) It was my understanding that you deemed my allegations serious enough to forward my letter to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for further investigation, and it was my impression that 0PR was going to look into the allegations raised in my letter. I must say that I was surprised to receive a letter five months later from 0PR indicating that my concerns were not being investigated. On May 6, 2011, OPR stated that it was their policy "to refrain from investigating issues or allegations that were, are being, or could have been addressed in the court of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney ... or there are present other circumstances." 0PR stated that my allegations fell into the category of allegations that were being litigated because Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were raising these issues in their CVRA case. Accordingly, OPR indicated it was not going to review the allegations that I presented. I am writing now to request the opportunity to meet with you further and to pass along additional information in support of my concerns. I wanted to follow up with you to make sure that someone was looking into my allegations about improper influences affecting your Office's decision to accord Jeffrey Epstein an extraordinarily lenient plea. It may well be that 0PR has some policy precluding an investigation. But will your Office then investigate these issues? I am also writing to alert you to additional information that continues to lead me to believe that something was rotten with the way this case was handled. 1 www.law.utah.edu • Main Office • Facsimile 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0730 EFTA00231604

As you may know, was a senior prosecutor and supervisor in your Office when the non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein was approved. It is our impression that he was directly involved in supervising the Epstein investigation as the former Chief of the Criminal Division of your Office. It has been our understanding for quite some time that he frequently corresponded with Epstein's attorneys, especially Lily Ann Sanchez, during the plea discussions, and it is our understanding that he left your Office around the time the non-prosecution agreement was signed. Our private investigator has recently learned that a left your office to work at a New York law firm representing white collar criminals. He also learned that M's quite expensive apartment in New York City is located in close proximity to real estate properties (specifically condos) owned by Jeffrey Epstein. The location of M's apartment, his role during the Epstein negotiations and his departure immediately after the NPA was signed, leads us to believe that and Epstein may have had a business or other relationship either during or after time in the Office. If that is the case, then we would appreciate you providing the information that you have in that regard voluntarily, as opposed to us having to conduct formal discovery to get it. As you also know, Judge Marra has recently ordered discovery to proceed in this case. We obviously would like for that process to go as smoothly as possible and want to avoid becoming involved in true adversary litigation with your Office. On behalf of our clients, we just want to get to the bottom of this, and we feel safe in assuming that you do too at this point For all these reasons, I am writing to request another chance to meet with you about our concerns and about making the discovery process go smoothly. Thank you in advance for considering this request I would be happy to provide any other additional information that would be useful to you. Sincerely, 4 Paul G. Casse I cc: Assistant U.S. Attorney cc: Assistant U.S. Attorney 2 EFTA00231605

U ,, S.J.QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAI I 'Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E.4th Street Miami, FL 33132 PAUL G. CASSELL Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Telephone: December 10, 2010 Re: Request for Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Prosecution Dear Mr. Ferrer: I am writing as someone with extensive experience in the federal criminal justice system — as a former Associate Deputy Attorney General, Assistant United States Attorney, federal judge, and currently criminal law professor — to alert you to what seems to be the most suspicious criminal case I have ever encountered. I ask that you investigate whether there were improper influences and actions during your office's criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, particularly regarding the decision to enter into a binding non-prosecution agreement blocking his prosecution for numerous federal sex offenses he committed over many years against more than thirty minor girls. As I am sure you are well aware, in 2006 your office opened a criminal investigation with the FBI into allegations that for years Jeffrey Epstein sexual abused dozens of minor girls in his West Palm Beach mansion. The FBI soon developed compelling evidence that Epstein had in fact committed numerous federal sex offenses with more than 30 minor girls. And yet, your office ultimately entered into a plea arrangement which allowed Epstein escape with a non- prosecution agreement that ensured he would have no federal criminal liability and would spend no more than 18 months in state jail. For sexual offenses of this magnitude — in a case with more than 30 witnesses providing interlocking testimony, all made automatically admissible by virtue of Fed. R. Evid. 414 —this is an extraordinary outcome. Why did your office enter into this highly unusual non-prosecution arrangement with Epstein? Suspicion begins with the point that Epstein is a politically-connected billionaire.. But that wouldn't be troubling without considerable other evidence that something went terribly wrong with the prosecution for other, improper reasons. Consider the following highly unusual facts: First, it appears that Epstein was tipped off before th xecution ofTfCaritiwsrrefrar------ his home. We know that lead state police officers -- Detective and Police Chief - complained that the house was "sanitized" by the time they arrived to serve a search warrant for child pornography. This sanitation was evident by the various computer wires hanging with no computers attached. Housekeeper Janusz Banasiak later testified hi a civil unvynlaw.utalt.eclu • Main Office • Facsimile 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 • Salt Lake City, Utah 134112-0730 EFTA00231606

deposition that Epstein's assistant, (E) and another man (unknown) were instructed to remove, and did in fact remove, multiple computers from Epstein's home shortly before the search warrant was served. The fact that there could well have been a tip off is apparently suspected by federal authorities. Second, there is evidence that one of the senior prosecutors in your office joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability — and improperly represented people close to Epstein. During the federal investigation of Epstein, Bruce Reinhart was a senior Assistant U.S. Attorney in your office. As we understand things, he was a direct supervisor of the line prosecutor handling the case and thus was well aware of details of the Epstein investigation and plea negotiations. We further believe that he was consulted on issues related to the prosecution of Epstein and Epstein's co-conspirators, including specifically issues related to whether Epstein employees and pilots should be prosecuted for their involvement in Epstein's sexual offense. We further believe that he personally and substantially participated in making such decisions about the course of the criminal investigation. Within months after the non-prosecution agreement was signed by your office, Reinhart left your office and immediately went into private practice as a white collar criminal defense attorney. His office coincidentally happened to be not only in the same building (and on same floor) as Epstein's lead criminal defense counsel, lack Goldberger, but it was actually located right next door to the Florida Science Foundation -- an Epstein-owned and -run company where Epstein spent his "work release." While Working in this office adjacent to Epstein's, Reinhart undertook the representation of numerous Epstein employees and pilots during the civil cases filed against Epstein by the victims — cases that involved the exact same crimes and exact same evidence being reviewed by the U.S. Attorney's office when he was employed there. Specifically, he represented (Epst4in's number one co-conspirator who was actually named as such in the NPA), his housekeeper (Louella Ruboyo), his pilots Larry Morrison, Larry Visoski, David Rogers, William Hammond and Robert Roxburgh. (Hammond and Roxburgh were not deposed but the others were.) Our understanding is that his representation of these individuals was paid for, directly or indirectly, by Epstein. Reinhart was well aware of what evidence your office and federal investigator had collected against Epstein and about the minor girls who were his victims. As a consequence, he knew what evidence the attorneys for the victims were using. He also knew what each of those witnesses had said, it anytfiirign, federafarrd statc ;Irvestigators-duriag-thettiminal investigation. We have been unable to place our fingers on the federal regulations governing such later representation. We do know, however, that such actions appear to be in direct contravention of the Florida ethical rules regarding attorneys who leave government employment. For 2 EFTA00231607

example, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(a) provides "[a) lawyer shall not represent a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee unless the appropriate government agency consents after consultation." Similarly, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(b) provides that "[a) lawyer having information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee may not represent a private client whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used to the material disadvantage of that person." Both these rules appear to have been violated. But entirely apart from the details of ethical rules, the fact that one of your prosecutors was involved in making important decisions aboUt the scope of criminal liability for Epstein and his associates and then — after criminal liability was significantly limited — representing numerous people at Epstein's behalf raises serious questions. At the very least, there is the strong appearance that Reinhard may have attempted to curry favor with Epstein and then reap his reward through favorable employment. At the very worst, there may have been advance discussions — we simply don't know at this point. Third, Epstein appears to have deliberately kept from victims in the case correspondence with your office and the Justice Department that might have shed light on improper influences. Along with other capable attorneys, I was involved in representing one of Epstein's victims (..) who filed a federal civil case against Epstein. Suspecting that Epstein may have improperly influenced your office, we immediately served discovery requests on Epstein for all the correspondence with yoUr office regarding the plea negotiations. Eleven months of hard litigation ensued, in which Epstein made every conceivable argument against production. Finally, late in June of this year, his appeals exhausted, Epstein produced the correspondence to us. However, in violation of the court order, he redacted the correspondence so that he provided only emails and other statements from your office — not his emails and statements to your office. More significantly, even though he was under court order to produce all correspondence between his attorneys and your office, Epstein secretly withheld correspondence by several of his most ht h-powered attorneys — namely Ken Starr and Lilly Ann Sanchez. Epstein settled the case with M. within days after this limited production, and we did not realize the absence of what must have been critical discussions between your office and Starr and Snachez (among others). Epstein's refusal to allow us to see that information raises the suspicion in our minds that there must have been unusual pressures being brought to bear during the plea discussions that would have been revealed had Epstein complied with his production obligations. Fourth, there appears to have been an unprecedented level of secrecy between your office and the Fed&II-Bureau of hivestiKativii during-this-ease. The Ffll-wacre-spcuisible—alon with state and local police agencies, for building the case against Epstein. They appear to have developed an overwhelming criminal against him. And Yet, when your office signed the non- prosecution agreement with him, it is not clear to us that the FBI was consulted about this decision. Indeed, we have suspicions that the FBI was not informed of this decision until, perhaps, months later. 3 EFTA00231608

Supporting this suspicion is our on-going litigation regarding the treatment of the victims in this case. As you know from our draft pleadings that we have discussed with your office, we believe there is compelling evidence that the victims and their attorneys were deceived about the existence of a non-prosecution agreement for months in order to avoid what certainly would have been a firestorm of controversy about such lenient treatment of a repeat sex offender. Our impression from the evidence we have been able to obtain so far is that the FBI was similarly kept in the dark — not consulted about or even told about the NPA. While a certain amount of tension has always existed between federal prosecuting and investigating agencies, not even informing the FBI about the Epstein NPA seems highly unusual. All of these strange facts -- as well as the facts that we are alleging in our crime victims' litigation — lead us to think that there was something rotten with the way this case was handled. Epstein could have faced years and years in prison for numerous federal sex offenses. And yet he managed to contrive to walk away with no federal time at all (and only minimal state time). We respectfully ask you to investigate through appropriate and independent channels the handling of the Epstein (non)prosecution. Thank you in advance for considering this request. I would be happy to provide any other additional information that would be useful to you. Sincerely,a Paul Cassel 4 EFTA00231609

SJ. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH March 1, 2011 Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N. E.4th Street Miami, FL 33132 PAUL G. CASSELL Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Telephone: Re: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States, No. 09-80736 Dear Mr. Ferrer: We are writing to you personally on behalf of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in one last effort to try and narrow our range of difference in the pending Crime Victims Rights Act case regarding Jeffrey Epstein. We make two requests: First, we are requesting that you agree to our proposal for narrowing the range of disputes between your Office and the victims, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. Second, If you are unable to agree to our proposal, we request that you agree not to withhold information in your Office's possession that would support their claims under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA). By way of background, as you know, we have been attempting to work with your Office for more than two-and-a-half years to reach a stipulated set for facts in this CVRA case that would avoid the need for any public battle between your Office and the victims . Indeed, we reached out to you for a personal meeting to try to avoid a fight, and you were kind enough to meet with Jane Doe #1 and her undersigned attorneys. During that meeting, we expressed our intention to go the extra mile to try and avoid any fight with your Office and to see if there was a way to fight only Jeffrey Epstein the sex offender, rather than the prosecutors who work for you. Today we had a telephone conference call with two of your attorneys, and in which they told us that we would not be receiving any cooperation from your Office on our CVRA case and that, in short, we would have to "see you in court." We were also told that your Office was taking the position that it could, and would, withhold from the victims information in your Office's possession that would support their claims under the CVRA. After receiving approval from and , we wanted to write to you personally in one last effort to see if we can narrow our differences on these two Issues and avoid a disappointing battle. Narrowing the Issues in Dispute During today's conference call, it appeared that there was some confusion from and as to precisely what the victims were proposing. Our proposal is simply this: that www.law.utah.edu • Main Office • Facsimile 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0730 EFTA00231610

your Office and Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 would stipulate to a set of facts to provide context for the Court while we litigate the legal issue in dispute, that is whether the CVRA applies even though no federal charges were ultimately filed. If your Office prevails on that Issue, the victims would obviously have no claim under the CVRA. The victims would then pursue their appellate rights in the Eleventh Circuit. If, however, the victims prevail on that issue, then your Office would take "no position" on the remedy sought by the victims for the violation of their rights afforded them under the Act. Your Office would essentially stand aside and agree not to take any position on the victims' request to set aside the NPA as a remedy for that violation of the victims' rights. We understood from our meeting with you in December that you wanted to do what you could to help the victims in this case. Yet as we understood and today, they were taking the position that we would receive no cooperation of any sort from your Office. And we further understood from them that your Office was now going to take the position that even if the victims' congressionally-mandated rights were violated, there is simply no remedy for those violations and thus the victims should have no recourse for the violations. On behalf of our clients, we want to once again reach out and make sure that your Office wants to move to an adversarial litigation posture on these issues. We simply don't understand why your Office is now going to take a litigating position hostile to ours on issues beyond the legal question of when CVRA rights attached in this case. We appreciate that the Department has institutional concerns about the timing of CVRA rights. But we don't understand why your Office is now going to fight against the victims in their efforts seeking to overturn a NPA that by any measure is unfair. This is not simply our view — the unfairness of the NPA has now attracted comment literally throughout the world, including serving as the basis for an unfavorable portrayal in a recent Law and Order: Special Victim Episode and a feature story yesterday in the London-based Sunday Mail. We are not asking your Office to join us in our efforts to throw out this unjust agreement. But can't your Office simply stand on the sidelines and let us make our case against Epstein. Fighting a politically well-connected billionaire is difficult enough, without having the weight of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida thrown against us too. We respectfully make one last request for you to move forward with our proposal for narrowing differences between us. Withholding Favorable Evidence If you feel that your Office must fight us in court on every possible issue, then we are respectfully writing to request that we resolve one issue outside of court: Whether your Office can withhold from the victims evidence in its possession that is favorable to their CVRA case. During our conference call with and , we pointed out that if we were criminal defense attorneys representing criminals, your Office would promptly turn over to us all information in its possession that was helpful to these criminals under the Brady and Giglio decisions. We asked your Office to extend to the victims the same assistance that it would provide to criminals — i.e., we asked and to voluntarily provide to us information 2 EFTA00231611

in your Office's possession that was helpful the victims' CVRA case. We were informed that your Office will be taking the position in Court that it can and will withhold from the victims such information, apparently on the theory that victims lack due process or other "discovery" rights under the CVRA. We believe that the position that your Office can suppress relevant evidence is legally unfounded for four reasons and, in any event, is unsound policy at odds with promises that the Attorney General has made to crime victims and to the public. With regard to the legal problems in this position, first, the CVRA promises victims of crime that they will be "treated with fairness." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). The clear intent of Congress in passing this provision was to provide a substantive "due process" right to crime victims. As one of the CVRA's co-sponsors (Senator Kyl) explained, "The broad rights articulated in this section are meant to be rights themselves and are not intended to just be aspirational. One of these rights is the right to be treated with fairness. Of course, fairness includes the notion of due process. Too often victims of crime experience a secondary victimization at the hands of the criminal Justice system. This provision is Intended to direct Government agencies and employees, whether they are in executive or judiciary branches, to treat victims of crime with the respect they deserve." 150 CONG. REC. 54269 (Apr. 22, 2004) (emphasis added). Because the CVRA extends a "due process" right to crime victims like Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, victims have a right to fair access to evidence to prove their case. The very foundation of the Brady obligation is due process: "[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment." Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). It would similarly violate due process for the prosecution to suppress evidence favorable to a crime victim where the evidence is material either to proving a CVRA violation or to the remedy for a violation. Second, entirely apart from whether the victims have a right to obtain such information, your Office has an affirmative obligation to disclose it to victims. The CVRA directly commands that "[o]fficers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described In [the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) (emphasis added).1 It is simply impossible for As you can see from this language, the CVRA applies not only to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida but also to the relevant office of the FBI. We are "cc'ing" a copy of this letter to the FBI so that they can be informed of our view that they should provide assistance to the victims in this matter as well, rather than Join your Office in any effort to withhold evidence. We understand that your Office represents the FBI on these issues, andTre-hapy to continue our discussions with you regarding the FBI obligations In this area. At the appropriate time, however, if we are unable to reach agreement, we would like to have this discussion with a representative of the FBI to see whether they are in accord with your position. It is our understanding that the appropriate person would be the "special agent-In-charge of the division having primary responsibility for conducting the investigation." ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE 11 (May 2005). 3 EFTA00231612

your Office to make its "best efforts" to accord victims their rights while simultaneously withholding evidence that would help them obtain those rights in court. Third, the attorneys In your Office have duties of candor to the Court that would not permit It to present evidence or testimony that is known to be false. Fla. Bar Rule 4-3.3(a)(4). Allowing the victims access to evidence favorable to their claim will insure compliance with this rule. Similarly, in an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer must inform the court of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the court to make an Informed decision "whether or not the facts are adverse." Fla. Bar. Rule 4-3.3(d). If your Office is correct that we are not entitled to access to favorable evidence, then the proceedings involving that evidence are essentially ex parte — requiring your Office to make disclosure to the Court. Surely the more appropriate way to proceed is to simply disclose those materials in the first instance to the victims. Fourth and finally, your Office has previously taken the position that the CVRA petition filed by the victims is covered by the civil rules. If so, then the victims can serve discovery requests as in any other civil cases. The victims can likewise take depositions of witnesses who possess relevant evidence to their claims. Indeed, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A), your Office would be required to automatically produce such information. For all these reasons, it is our considered opinion that your Office does not have a legally well-founded position to withhold evidence from the victims in this case. Even If the Office did have such a position, however, we are mystified as to why your Office would want to assert such a position. Attorney General Holder has recently publicly discussed the Department's obligations regarding production of exculpatory information to criminals, explaining "We're not here to win cases, but to do justice." Attorney General Holder Discusses Efforts to improve Prosecutor Training, WALL ST. J., Apr. 30, 2010. With all respect, we submit that your Office should seek to do justice not merely for criminals, but also for the victims of those criminals. We therefore respectfully request that you simply provide this information to us as a matter of justice, avoiding the need for us to litigate this question. To avoid burdening your Office, we would be happy to provide a specific list of the information that we believe is material to the victims' CVRA case — a limited amount of information that could be swiftly located by your Office. Conclusion We frankly believe we have been very patient on this case and have gone to the extra mile to avoid an unnecessary fight with your Office. But our clients are asking us what the status of their case is, and we have an obligation to proceed diligently. Our first choice is to work something out with you. But if your Office is for some reason unwilling or unable to do that, we believe we have an overwhelming case of clear cut CVRA violations — a case that we will present to the Court. 4 EFTA00231613

As we told and even though your Office has refused to provide any accommodations to us, we will continue to discuss with them our proposed statement of facts, with the aim of removing Information that they believe is damaging to your Office and that we can leave out as unessential to our case. We hope that you will favorably consider our requests in this letter and try to find an approach that will minimize our need to become embroiled in a court dispute between crime victims and the prosecutors who aim to protect them. If we are unable to do so, our intention is to file our "summary Judgment" pleadings (which we provided in their entirety to your Office as a courtesy six months ago) on March 18, 2011. Sincerely, s it74, Bradley J. dwards ?c' Paul . Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Cc: Special Agent in Charge John V. Gillies Miami FBI Field Office 16320 NW 2nd Avenue North Miami Beach, FL 33169 The views expressed in this letter are solely those of its authors. 5 EFTA00231614

• C. (USAFLS) From: Paul Cassell 1.1....] Sent: Monday,aarc 07, 5: 3 To: IMI, IIIIM (USAFLS); IMI C. (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: Motion to Make Our Pleading Available to the Public - Government Position Dear and We are writing to inquire about the government's position on a motion that we will be filing on March 18 along with our "summary judgment" motion. As you know, the summary judgment motion will contain quotations from e-mails that are under the magistrate judge's order requiring prior notice to the court before they are disclosed. Accordingly, on March 18, we will be filing a full, unredacted summary judgment motion under seal with Judge Marra and, for the public PACER file, a summary judgment motion with quotations from the e-mails redacted. We will be filing simultaneously a motion for with the court for unsealing of the unredacted motion. We will provide (at least) three ground for unsealing. First, the confidentiality order was only based on an agreement to give advance notice to Epstein before using materials. Once advance notice has been given, there is no basis for confidentiality. Second, there is truly world-wide interest in the handling of the Epstein prosecution, and • our pleading should not remain under seal — instead the public should have access to it i that they can assess how this case was handled. Third, keeping the pleading under seal complicates the ability of Jane Does' attorneys to consult with victims' rights specialist about how best to proceed in the case. We are writing to determine the Government's position on our motion to unseal the redacted pleading that we can include that position in our motion. We hope that you will not oppose the motion, which might produce the need for further litigation. As you know, Judge Marra has promptly unsealed other pleadings in this matter when the Government tried to object. Sincerely, Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: htto://www.law.utah eduThrofilesidefault asp2PersonID—=57Rmamp=taccell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message Thank you EFTA00231615

Case 9:08-cv 1 2 3 4 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered UNITED STATES SOUTHERN DISTRICT WEST PALM CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 1 of 51 DISTRICT COURT OF FLORIDA BEACH DIVISION WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 5 JANE DOE, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, JUNE 12, 2009 7 VS. 8 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 9 Defendant. 10 11 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: 13 14 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. Mermelstein & Horowitz 15 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33160 305.931.2200 16 For Jane Doe 17 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 18 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 19 Jane Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 20 ISIDRO M. GARCIA, ESQ. 21 Garcia Elkins Boehringer 224 Datura Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 22 Jane DOE II 561.832.8033 23 RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. 24 2290 10th Avenue North Lake Worth, FL 33461 25 For C.M.A. 561.582.7600 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231616

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 2 of 51 1 ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG, ESQ. 2 Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 25 West Flagler Street 3 Miami, FL 33130 For Jane Doe 101 305.358.2800 4 (Via telephone) 5 KATHERINE W. EZELL, ESQ. Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 6 25 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 7 For Jane Doe 101 305.358.2800 8 FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL BURMAN, ESQ. 9 Burman Critton, etc. 515 North Flagler Street 10 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 11 JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. 12 Atterbury Goldberger Weiss 250 Australian Avenue South 13 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 14 As Amicas cuicmie: , ESQ. 15 Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 East Broward Boulevard 16 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 For U.S.A. 954.356.7255 17 MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. 18 20 Park Plaza Boston MA 02116 19 (Via telephone) 20 JAY LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. (Via telephone) 21 REPORTED BY: LARRY HERR, RPR-RMR-FCRR-AE 22 Official United States Court Reporter Federally Certified Realtime Reporter 23 400 North Miami Avenue, Room 8N09 Miami, FL 33128 305.523.5290 24 25 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231617

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 3 of 51 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 THE COURT: We are here in the various Doe vs. Epstein cases. May I have counsel state their appearances? MR. HOROWITZ: Adam Horowitz, counsel for plaintiffs Jane 2 through Jane Doe 7. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, counsel for plaintiff Jane Doe. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. GARCIA: Good morning, Your Honor. Sid Garcia for Jane Doe II. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. WILLITS: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard Willits, here on behalf of the plaintiff C.M.A.. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. EZELL: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Katherine Ezell from Podhurst Orseck, here with Amy Adderly and Susan Bennett, and I believe my partner, Bob Josefsberg, is going to appear by telephone. THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, are you there? MR. JOSEFSBERG: I am, Your Honor. Int Lu RI: -Good morning-. MR. JOSEFSBERG: Good morning. THE COURT: All right. Do we have all the plaintiffs stated their appearances? Okay. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231618

Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 4 of 51 4 1 Defense? 2 MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, Robert Critton on behalf of 3 Mr. Epstein, and my partner, Michael Burman. 4 THE COURT: Good morning. 5 MR. GOLDBERGER: Good morning, Your Honor. Jack 6 Goldberger on behalf of Mr. Epstein. 7 THE COURT: I see we have some representatives from 8 the United States Attorney's Office here. 9 MS. : Good morning, Your Honor. • 10 for the U.S. Attorney's office. 11 THE COURT: Good morning. 12 Who else do we have on the phone? 13 MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, we have two members of the 14 defense team are on the phone, also. 15 THE COURT: Who do we have on the phone? 16 MR. WEINBERG: Martin Weinberg. Good morning, Your 17 Honor. 18 MR. LEFKOWITZ: Jay Lefkowitz. Good morning, Your 19 Honor. 20 THE COURT: Good morning. 21 I scheduled this hearing for very limited issues 22- VITich, as you all know, -t1 n a o DITTspstei 23 stay the civil proceedings against him. The one issue I have 24 concern about is Mr. Epstein's contention or assertion that by 25 defending against the allegations in the civil proceedings, he TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231619

Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 5 of 51 5 1 may expose himself to an allegation by the United States in the 2 non-prosecution agreement that he's violated that agreement and 3 therefore would subject himself to potential federal charges. 4 I had asked for some briefing on this. I asked the 5 United States to present its position to me. And I received 6 the Government's written response, which I frankly didn't find 7 very helpful. And I still am not sure I understand what the 8 Government's position is on it. 9 first let me hear from Mr. Epstein's attorneys as 10 to what do you believe the concern is. I don't believe the 11 non-prosecution agreement has ever been filed in this Court; am 12 I correct? 13 MR. CRITTON: To my knowledge, Your Honor, it has not. 14 THE COURT: II I don't believe I've ever seen the 15 entire agreement. I've seen portions of it. 16 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I believe that it was filed 17 under Jane Doe 1 and 2 vs. United States of America, case under 18 seal in your court. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 MR. EDWARDS: In a separate case. 21 THE COURT: In that case, okay. Was it actually filed 22- -in- that case( 23 MR. EDWARDS: I filed it under seal. 24 THE COURT: In any event, what's Mr. Epstein's concern 25 about if you defend the civil actions, you're going to expose TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231620

Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 6 of 51 6 1 yourself to a claim for a breach by the United States of the 2 non-prosecution agreement? 3 MR. CRITTON: Robert Critton. 4 Your Honor, our position on this case is, I'd say is 5 somewhat different. When this issue originally came before the 6 Court, as you are aware prior to my firm's involvement in the 7 case, there was a motion filed on behalf of Mr. Epstein seeking 8 a stay. And I think it was in Jane Doe 102 and then 9 subsequently Jane Doe 2 through 5 because all of those cases 10 were filed on or about the same time. 11 And at that time the Court looked at the issue and it 12 was based upon a statutory provision at that time. And the 13 Court said I don't find that it's applicable, or for whatever 14 L reason I think the Court said I don't consider that to be a 15 pending proceeding or a proceeding at that particular time. 16 In that same order, which was in Jane Doe 2, I 17 believe it's -- not I believe, I know it's docket entry 33, the 18 Court also went on to talk about at that particular point in 19 time dealt with the issue of the discretionary stay. 20 And the Court said at that time, I'm paraphrasing, but 21 the Court also does not believe a discretionary stay is 22 at the Court went on to sap is that if 23 defendant does not breach the agreement, then he should have no 24 concerns regarding his Fifth Amendment right against 25 self-incrimination. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231621

Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 7 of 51 1 The fact that the U.S. Attorney or other law 2 enforcement officials may object to some discovery in these 3 civil cases is not in and of itself a reason to stay the civil 4 litigation, II that any such issue shall be resolved as they 5 arise in the course of the litigation. 6 And I would respectfully submit to the Court that the 7 position that the Government has taken in its most recent 8 filings changes the playing field dramatically. Because what 9 the Government in essence has said as distinct from the U.S. 10 saying is, well, we object to some discovery, or we may object 11 to some discovery in the civil cases. 12 what they have, in essence, said is if you take some 13 action, Mr. Epstein, that we believe unilaterally, and this is 14 on pages 13 and 14 of their pleading or of their response memo 15 to the Court's inquiry, they say if Mr. Epstein breaches the 16 agreement. They said it's basically like a contract, and if 17 one side breaches, the other side can sue. 18 In this instance what the Government will do is if we 19 believe that Mr. Epstein has breached the agreement, we'll 20 indict him. We will indict him. And his remedy under that 21 circumstance, which is an incredible and catastrophic catch 22 22 s, Andict him and- than he can -move to dismiss-. Tharys- a 23 great option. 24 In this particular instance my mandate in defending -- 25 and that's a dramatic change in the Government's position, TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231622

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page8of51 1 because the Government is not saying, and the Court was pretty 2 specific in what you asked the Government for in its response 3 is, in essence, and it's the same question in a more limited 4 fashion you're posing today is whether Mr. Epstein's defense of 5 the civil action violates the NPA agreement, the 6 non-prosecution agreement, between the U.S. and Mr. Epstein. 7 And the Government refuses to answer that question. 8 They won't come out and say, yes, it will, or no, it won't. 9 What they're doing is they want to sit on the sideline, and as 10 their papers suggest is, they want us to lay in wait and that 11 if, in fact, they believe he violates a provision of the NPA as 12 it relates to the defense of this case or these multitude of 13 cases, then they can come in and indict him -- no notice, no 14 opportunity to cure. 15 We don't think that's what the NPA says, but that's 16 certainly what their papers say. We'll indict him, no notice, 17 I no opportunity to cure. We will indict him, and his remedy 18 under that circumstance is that he can move to dismiss the 19 indictment. 20 Well, that's great except Mr. Epstein, his mandate to 21 me and I know his mandate to his criminal lawyers, is: Make 22 o anything, in particular in these civil cases 23 that would in any way suggest that I am in willful violation of 24 the NPA. 25 Now, in the Court's prior ruling in the docket entry TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231623

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 9 of 51 9 1 33, certainly some aspects of the NPA are within Mr. Epstein's 2 control. There's no question about that. But aspects that 3 relate to the defense of these cases, either in terms of the 4 civil lawyers who are defending these, I think there's 12 or 13 5 pending cases in front of you, there's another four cases in 6 the state court, is the risk is substantial, it's real, and it 7 presents a chilling effect for the civil lawyers in moving 8 forward to determine whether or not we're taking some action 9 that in some way may be a violation of the NPA. 10 And the Government's, again, refusal or non-position 11 with regard to past acts that have been taken in the civil case 12 with regard to the defense or future acts that we may take with 13 regard to these contested litigation casts an extraordinary 14 cloud of doubt and uncertainty and fear that the defense of 15 these cases could jeopardize Mr. Epstein and put him in the 16 irreparable position of violating the NPA and then subsequently 17 being indicted. 18 In this particular instance, again, Mr. Epstein has no 19 intention of willfully violating the NPA, but it's of great 20 concern to him. And I'd say with the position that the 21 Government has taken, no notice, no cure period, no opportunity 22 -to discuss. .Again, we think that's not what the NPA provides, 23 it's not what the deal was between the two contracting parties, 24 the United States and Mr. Epstein. But that's clearly what 25 their papers say under the circumstances, and it would create TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231624

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 10 of 51 jo 1 this irreparable harm to Mr. Epstein under the circumstances. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In essence, we're left with a catch 22 in defending the civil cases. We have a mandate to take no action, to take any action which may be deemed to be a violation of the NPA, either in the past or in the future, which would in any way risk Mr. Epstein being indicted by the United States. He has the clear risk of an indictment based upon the papers that the Government filed. It's real, it's not remote, and it's not speculative. It chills the action of the defense in this instance of both Mr. Epstein and his attorneys in trying to defend these cases and decide under the circumstances can we do this, can we take this position with regard to depositions, can we take this legal position with regard to motions to dismiss, with regard to responses, with regard to replies? And we send out paper discovery. Is this in some way if we contact someone who may be an associate of these individuals as part of our investigation, is that potentially in any way a violation of the NPA? Again, we don't think II. And, obviously, again, my direction has been from my client: Don't take any action that would result in me being indicted un ex Lhe NPA. Well, LiaLts- great. But; generally, civil lawyers or civil lawyers in defending a personal injury case or a tort case, which is exactly what these are, and from a practical standpoint, we use various tools to do discovery. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231625

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAUA Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 11 of 51 1 1 They're standard. They're specific. They're very temporary. 2 Very typical. 3 But in this instance, as the Court knows, things are 4 not typical with regard to this case in any way, shape or form. 5 We can't even serve subpoenaes, there's objections and there's 6 we can't even serve objections to third parties II we can 7 obtain documents unless we have to filter it through the B I plaintiffs' attorneys. They won't allow us to use their 9 clients' names, even in a subpoena that would never be filed in 10 the court. 11 How do we do a deposition of a third party? We wanted 12 to take the deposition of Jane Doe 4. Well, who is she? Well, 13 we can't tell you that. Well, who's the defendant? Well, we 14 can't tell you that because nobody wants anybody to know 15 anything about the case. They want to present it strictly 16 through rose-colored glasses. 17 And in this particular instance, we simply can't 18 defend this case or take certain action with the spector 19 hanging over us that, in fact, the Government may deem it to be 20 a violation of the NPA, because very clearly in their response 21 papers, they don't say. They say we don't take the position, 22- e-a substantial position is -wErthink-there's----- 23 not all that substantial factors that would entitle him to a 24 stay. 25 Except for the one major issue which the Court posed TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231626

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 12 of 51 12 in the question is, is can he defend these cases? That's what I really want to know. Can he defend these cases and, in 1 2 3 essence, what he has done in the past or what his defense team 4 has done in the past and what they're going to do in the 5 future, can you give him, Epstein, assurances that the 6 Government under this situation, whatever he does, based on 7 advice of counsel, that that cannot be a willful violation of 8 the NPA, which they can -- they, the U.S. -- can then turn 9 around and say that's a violation of the agreement and, 10 therefore, we're going to go proceed to indict you under the 11 circumstances. 12 Our position is, Your Honor, is that the U.S. has now 13 cavalierly suggested that, as they did in picking up on the 14 court's docket entry or prior order, is, look, compliance with 15 the NPA is solely up to Mr. Epstein. In this type of balance 16 of equities, it doesn't speak in favor of a stay. 17 Well, that's great. And maybe that was the position 18 back in '08, on August 5th of '08, when the issue came up in 19 front of the Court with regard to the initial stay. 20 But the Government's papers under these circumstances 21 suggested a very different set of circumstances. Their own 22 -tmi-latera-1, wliiclris -the-issue Lhat -we argued -in the-motion fur 23 stay, is that the Government's position is that we can 24 unilaterally indict this man if we think he's breached the NPA. 25 We don't think that's right, but we have no buffer TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231627

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page13O151 13 1 between us and the Government. They'll say, and as the Court 2 knows, the Government has substantial power. The Government 3 does what it wants. Most of the time hopefully they're right. 4 Sometimes they make mistakes. 5 But in this particular instance, my client has rights. 6 we think that there's notice provisions, we think there's cure 7 provisions under the NPA. That's not what their paper says 8 under the circumstances. 9 And what we'd like to know from the Government, and 10 maybe the answer is basically what the Court asks is, let the 11 Government come forward today and say, based on the knowledge 12 that we have, or as of today's date, June 12th, 2009, we, the 13 Government, agree that there is no set of circumstances, not 14 that we're not aware of, but as of today's date, there is 15 nothing that exists that would be a violation of the NPA. 16 THE COURT: Well, that's way beyond what I'm 17 interested in. I don't know what Mr. Epstein may have done 18 outside the context of defending this case that may constitute 19 a violation. And if he has done something outside the context 20 of defending this case that's a violation, I don't care. 21 That's between the United States and Mr. Epstein. 22 —fl onty-concerned-about-wherher-anything he dows- lu 23 defending these civil actions is going to be a violation of the 24 non-prosecution agreement. If he has done something else, it's 25 none of my business, and I don't care, and I'm not going to TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231628

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 1 2 3 Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 14 of 51 even ask the Government to give you an assurance that he hasn't done anything that might have violated the agreement up till today. I'm only interested in defending these civil actions. MR. CRITTON: Then I would respectfully submit to the 5 Court that the Government be asked in that limited context, are 6 they as of today, whether there were or not, but as of today is 7 there anything that has been done or will you take the 8 position, the United States, that any position that Mr. Epstein 9 has taken with regard to defending these civil cases is in any 10 way a violation of the NPA? 11 THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure what they're going to 12 say, but that might -- that cures the problem up to this point. 13 But then we have to deal with what's going to happen from here 14 on in. And that's another issue that we have to deal with. 15 II I understand your position. 16 But has anyone suggested to you on behalf of the 17 United States that there is something that you've done in 18 defending this case that they believe may or could be construed 19 as a violation of the non-prosecution agreement? Has anyone 20 pointed to anything that you've done? For example, the fact 21 that you've wanted to take their -- I don't know if you've -22 s --or-not- in- thircase7--but--tf- you've- sent- -- 23 notice of taking deposition, if you sent requests for 24 production of documents, if you sent interrogatories, if you 25 issued third party subpoenas? Is anything you've done thus far 14 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231629

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 15 of 51 is 1 in the context of this case been brought to your attention as a 2 potential violation? 3 MR. CRITTON: I have received no notification nor am I 4 aware that we've received any notification of any action that 5 we have taken today. As I suggested to the Court, I don't know 6 when they've done or not. And in their papers they suggested, 7 well, we don't know everything that's gone on in the civil 8 litigation. 9 But from a practical standpoint, it was a number of 10 comments that were made in their papers is, we can indict, we 11 can see if there's a breach. 12 Judge, I may have some -- 13 THE COURT: Before you go on. 14 MR. CRITTON: I'm sorry. 15 THE COURT: You've focused a great deal on the 16 Government's response to my inquiry as supporting your position 17 that you're in jeopardy. But you've made the suggestion, even 18 before this brief was filed, that defending the case was going 19 to potentially result in an assertion or allegation that you 20 breached the non-prosecution agreement. 21 II what was it that caused you to make that initial 22- -assertion? Because-that' s- what caught Try attention, -was not 23 this brief that the Government has filed was in response to 24 something that you filed initially in your most recent motion 25 for a stay which raised the issue. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231630

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 16of51 16 1 II what was it that gave you some concern to even 2 raise the issue that defending this case is going to constitute 3 a breach? 4 MR. CRITTON: Because there are other instances where 5 counsel other than myself, not in the civil aspects, where 6 allegations have been made and letters have been sent by the 7 United States suggesting that there's been a violation of the 8 NPA. And under those circumstances, some notification was 9 provided. 10 THE COURT: Did it have anything to do with defending 11 the civil actions? 12 MR. CRITTON: It did not. 13 THE COURT: then why was that issue raised by you 14 in the first instance? 15 MR. CRITTON: Because of the prospect that the 16 defendant could take, that the U.S. would take the position 17 under the circumstances that a position that we took with 18 regard to the contested litigation may well impact, that the 19 Government may have a very different view of what the 20 interpretation of the agreement is. 21 And as an example is a number of the parties, and I 22 ••esn•t want-to—get into a -discusston, the issuer-- 23 is, is under 2255 is that from the defendant's perspective the 24 deal that was cut on that, it was a very specific deal. It 25 dealt with both consensual and contested litigation. It dealt TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231631

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 17 of 51 17 1 with a secret list of individuals who we had no idea who was on 2 the list, and a commitment that he would under certain 3 circumstances be required to pay a minimum amount of damages, 4 which our position is under 2255 based upon the statute that 5 was in effect at the time, a $50,000 as to anyone who wanted -- 6 who came forward who was on the list and met certain criteria. 7 The position that now has been asserted by a number of B the plaintiffs under the circumstances, and it's been pled, and 9 actually a number of the complainants is, is Epstein agreed, 10 and they cite to a letter that was sent by ms. from 11 the Government, that says he has to plead guilty or he can't 12 contest liability. That may be true under very, very limited 13 or specific circumstances. 14 But what the plaintiffs have done in a number of the 15 cases, and these are pending motions, is they've said is, well, 16 we think C.M.A. cases is a good example, they've pled 30 17 separate counts of 2255 alleged violations. And they're saying 18 under the circumstances is, therefore, we have 2255 violations, 19 there's 30 of them, II 30 times 150, or should be, or whether 20 it's 150, that's the amount of money that we want, II maybe $15 21 million, or whatever the number is. • he- other p -laintl -ffs • lawyers have been -even- 23 more creative. They've said is, well, we'll agree that it's 24 only one cause of action but that each number of violations; 25 that is, if 20 alleged incidents occurred, that we would TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231632

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 1 2 3 Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 18 of 51 consider to be, or that we will argue are violations, then we can take 20 times the 50, or the 150, depending on which statute is applicable. 4 II the Government under that set of circumstance could 5 say, and, again, this is one of the reasons that we raised it, 6 they could say, look, our deal with you was that you couldn't 7 contest liability, that you were waiving liability, or your 8 ability to contest an enumerated offense under 2255. 9 Again, part of the deal was as to an enumerated 10 offense. Okay. Well, what's that mean? What did he plead to? 11 Well, he really didn't plead to anything, which is another 12 issue associated with the 2255. But if the Government comes in 13 and says, no, wait a minute, our position was, is that you're 14 stuck with 2255 and the language within the NPA. And, 15 therefore, whether it's an offense or whether it's multiple 16 offenses or violations or each one represents an individual 17 cause of action, if the Government takes the position that's 18 adverse to what we think the clear reading of the agreement was 19 under those circumstances, they could claim a violation. 20 And as a result -- and that's one of the reasons we 21 put -- that was the most glaring one to us, II we raised that 22- issue. And Lien when- the GuveLLmIe,1t•s response came with 23 regard to, is we can just proceed to indict if we think that 24 there's been a breach of the agreement. 25 That puts us at substantial risk and chills our 18 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231633

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 19 of 51 19 3 5 ability to move forward. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Who wants to be heard from the plaintiffs first? Is there any plaintiff's attorney who is contending that the defense of these civil actions by Mr. Epstein is going 6 to constitute a breach of the non-prosecution agreement? MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, this is Bob Josefsberg. 8 May I speak? THE COURT: Yes, sir. 10 MR. JOSEFSBERG: We're not quite confident that any 11 breaches of any agreement, which were third-party 12 beneficiaries, should be resolved by you. We're not saying it 13 shouldn't. But we have not raised any breach of agreement. we 14 think that is between the United States and Mr. Epstein. 15 What I find incredulous and disingenuous is that 16 Mr. Epstein is saying that he wants a stay because he may be 17 forced into taking actions in the defense of this case that 18 would violate the agreement. 19 And let me make our position clear on that. If he 20 wants to move to take depositions, interrogatories, production, 21 and they are according to your rulings appropriate, not -22 rivacy of- someone, and they are relevant, ,MI. 23 I don't know how those could in any way be violations of the 24 agreement. 25 What I find hypocritical is that there are two parts TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231634

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 1 2 3 Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 20 of 51 20 to the agreement that I am a beneficiary of. One of them is that he has agreed that on any action brought in the 2255, he will admit to liability. 4 And I received on May 26 a motion to dismiss, which 5 we're prepared to respond to and disagree with, but totally 6 contesting liability, saying that the statute doesn't apply 7 because the girls are no longer minors and saying, and this is 8 the great one, saying that the predicate of the conviction 9 under 2255 has not been satisfied. 10 Now, the understanding that I have is the agreement 11 between the Government and Mr. Epstein was that the Government 12 desired to see these victims made whole, and wanted them to be 13 in the same position as if Mr. Epstein had been prosecuted and 14 pled or convicted. And they would be able to have the 15 predicate of that criminal conviction, which just as a matter 16 of liability would just be introduced as proof that he's done 17 this. 18 They, under the agreement, are supposed to admit to 19 liability on limited something that's under 2255. He has 20 filed, but since there is no conviction, there can be no civil 21 suit under 2255, with which we disagree. But it is totally in -22- laik; 23 The second part is there are many young ladies, and 24 this perhaps he can use this to his great advantage, who are 25 humiliated about this entire situation. Some of them won't TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231635

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 21 of 51 2 1 come forward. 2 We were appointed by Judge as a Special Master 3 I to represent these young ladies. And some of them don't even 4 want to file suit. They don't even want to be known as Jane 5 Doe 103. They don't want any of the risks for these motions 6 that are pending. 7 And part of the agreement was that if we represented it 8 them and they settle, Mr. Epstein would pay our fees. And he 9 has written us as of yesterday that he is under no obligation 10 to pay our fees on settling cases. 11 Now, those two matters, I believe, may be breaches. 12 But I am not asking this Court at this time to do anything 13 about them. Nor am I telling the Government, I'm not running 14 to the Government and saying indict him because I want you to 15 pressure him to do what he agreed to. 16 I'm a third-party beneficiary for that agreement, and 17 I may move to enforce certain parts of it. But as far as the 18 issue of staying the litigation, that is the exact opposite of 19 the intent and the letter of the NPA. The purpose of the NPA 20 was II that these 34 young ladies, these victims who have been 21 severely traumatized, may move on with their lives. 22 tay-this-actton-woult -be-the- exact opposite- of 23 the purpose of that agreement and would be horrible 24 psychologically for all of my clients. 25 THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, I understand your TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231636

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 1 2 3 Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 22 of 51 position. And I don't want to argue the merits of whether a stay should or should not be granted. I'm just trying to understand what the ground rules 4 are going to be if I grant a stay or if I deny a stay. And 5 I've already denied a stay once. I have to decide this current 6 motion, and I just want to know what is going to happen if I 7 deny the stay in terms of Mr. Epstein's exposure under the 8 non-prosecution agreement. That's my concern. 9 II if you're telling me that you're not going to urge 10 the United States, on behalf of any of your clients, to take 11 the position that he's breached the agreement because he's 12 taking depositions, because he's pursuing discovery, because 13 he's conducting investigations that anyone in any other type of 14 civil litigation might conduct with respect to plaintiffs that 15 are pursuing claims against a defendant, that those typical 16 types of actions, in your judgment, are not breaches of the 17 agreement and that he can go forward and defend the case as any 18 other defendant could defend, and you're not going to run to 19 the United States and say, hey, he's breaching the agreement by 20 taking depositions and he's breaching the agreement by issuing 21 subpoenas to third parties in order to gather information 22- necessary- to defend, then -I don-4t have a -problem-. -But tf he's 23 going to be accused of breaching the agreement because he sends 24 out a notice of deposition of one of your clients, how is he 25 supposed to defend the case? 22 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231637

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 23 of 51 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, you're totally correct. He can depose my client. That's not a problem. But the problem is that these are not typical clients and this is not a typical case. He has written in his pleadings that he wants to publish the names of these girls in the newspapers II that other people may come forward to discuss their sexual activities with these different plaintiffs. That's not your typical case. But are rulings that you'll make in this case, and they're not part of the TPA. As far as my going to the Government is concerned, I find it very uncomfortable for me to use the Government to try to pursue my financial interest in litigation. And I know that Mr. Epstein and his counsel will make much ado about it. I am not going to be running there. However, if they start taking depositions regarding liability, I will consider that to be a breach because they're supposed to have admitted liability. THE COURT: But, again, I don't have the agreement and I don't remember reading the agreement. But what I'm being told is the part of the agreement that admits liability is only as to a 2255 claim, and there are numerous other personal injusytort c ms- other than 225- cl im . And there's a limit of damages on the 2255 claim, as I understand it, but I presume that all the plaintiffs are going to seek more than the limited or capped amount of damages in TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231638

Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 24 of 51 24 1 the non-prosecution agreement as to the other claims. 2 And II why aren't they entitled to defend and limit 3 the amount of damages that your client is seeking on the 4 non-2255 tort claims? 5 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, you are correct. On 6 non-2255 tort claims, they are permitted to do the defense, 7 whatever is appropriate. 8 My cases are pure 2255 on which liability under the 9 agreement is supposed to be admitted. Now, as to the amount of 10 damages, there are legal issues that will be before you and 11 under the C.M.A. cases that are getting before you, as to 12 whether it is 50 or 150. That has nothing to do with the NPA. 13 There are legal issues that are before you as to 14 whether it is per statute, per count. or per incident or per 15 plaintiff. Those have nothing to do with the NPA. There is no 16 amount in NPA. Those will be resolved. 17 Anyone who has brought a case that is outside of 2255, 18 the defense is permitted to contest liability under the NPA. 19 That's no violation. 20 Under the NPA if someone brought a case under just 21 2255, Mr. Epstein, if he is to keep his word, cannot contest 2 ltty. And here-wou₹d-no need—to—stay this. Because it 23 is a self-fulfilling agreement. He can contest liability. And 24 as far as the amount of damages, anyone that wants to go over 25 the statutory minimums, of course, he can contest that in any TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231639

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 1 2 3 Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page25of51 25 way that is proper under the Rules of Evidence and your rulings. The NPA has no limitation on his contesting damages above the minimum statutory amount. 4 The only thing that he has done is in his actions of 5 refusing to pay for settling defendants, and in his saying that 6 he has no liability under 2255, those appear to be contrary to 7 what's in the NPA. 8 But I'm not in any position right now to claim a 9 breach, and I don't know whether I'd be claiming a breach or 10 enforcing it in front of you, suing him for fees, asking you to 11 have him admit liability, or complaining to the Government. 12 And that's why I'm not that helpful in this situation because I 13 think it's the Government's role. 14 But I do not waive the right to be a third-party 15 beneficiary because pursuant to my appointment, which was 16 agreed to by Mr. Epstein, I and my clients have certain rights, 17 and we want to enforce them. 18 But his defending this lawsuit will not in any way be 19 a violation. His getting this lawsuit stayed would be a 20 violation of the spirit of taking care of these girls, and 21 there would be other issues. Like if there is a stay, Your -22 Honor, -would-he be—posting a bond? 23 THE COURT: We don't need to talk about those issues. 24 That's not my concern. 25 MR. JOSEFSBERG: I agree, Your Honor, we don't. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231640

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 26 of 51 26 1 THE COURT: That's not my concern. II, again, I just 2 want to make sure that if the cases go forward and if 3 Mr. Epstein defends the case as someone ordinarily would defend 4 a case that's being prosecuted against him or her, that that in 5 and of itself is not going to cause him to be subject to 6 criminal prosecution. 7 MR. JOSEFSBERG: I agree, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Any other plaintiff's counsel want to 9 chime in? 10 MR. WILLITS: Richard Willits on behalf of C.M.A.. I 11 would join, to weigh in on what Mr. Josefsberg said. 12 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, I could not hear. 13 THE COURT: We'll get him to a microphone. 14 Mr. Willits is speaking. 15 MR. WILLITS: On behalf of my client, C.M.A., we join 16 in what Mr. Josefsberg said, and we also want to point out 17 something to the Court. 18 First, we want to make a representation to the Court, 19 we have no intention of complaining to the U.S. Attorney's 20 Office, never had that intention, don't have that intention in 21 the future, but, of course, subject to what occurs in the 22 23 I want to point out to the Court that Mr. Epstein went 24'x, into this situation with his eyes wide open, represented by 25 counsel, knowing that civil suits had to be coming. If he TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231641

Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 27 of 51 27 1 didn't know it, his lawyers knew it. 2 He appears to be having second thoughts now about he 3 could have negotiated this way or he could have negotiated that 4 way with the U.S. Attorney's Office. And they want to impose 5 their second thoughts on the innocent plaintiffs. We don't 6 think that's fair. We think it's in the nature of invited 7 error, if there was any error whatsoever. 8 Thank you. 9 THE COURT: You agree he should be able to take the 10 ordinary steps that a defendant in a civil action can take and 11 not be concerned about having to be prosecuted? 12 MR. WILLITS: Of course. And we say the same thing 13 Mr. Josefsberg said. It's all subject to your rulings and the 14 direction of this Court as to what is proper and what is not 15 proper. And we're prepared to abide by the rulings of this 16 Court, and we have no intention of running to the State's 17 Attorney. 18 THE COURT: The U.S. Attorney? 19 MR. WILLITS: I'm sorry. The U.S. Attorney. 20i THE COURT: Mr. Garcia. 21 MR. GARCIA: Thank you, Your Honor. briefly7- 1--ttrindt- perhaps -defense counsel - 23 forgot about this, but on pages 17 and 19 of my memorandum of 24 law in opposition to the motion to dismiss, I did make 25 reference to the non-prosecution agreement, and I did say that TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231642

Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 28 of 51 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 the contesting of the jurisdiction of this Court was a potential breach of the non-prosecution agreement. my client happens to have, and they have filed with the Court a copy of her state court complaint, given the fact that the non-prosecution agreement limits the non-contesting of jurisdiction to claims exclusively brought under the federal statute. I'm going to go ahead and withdraw those contentions on pages 17 and 19 of my memo of law because it doesn't apply to my case. II to the extent that I raised this issue with defense counsel and the Court, I'm going to withdraw that aspect of it. 13 THE COURT: Can you file something in writing on that 14 point with the Court? 15; MR. GARCIA: Yes. 16 THE COURT: What do you say about this issue that 17 we're here on today? 18 MR. GARCIA: I think that the problem that I have with 19 it is that this non-prosecution agreement is being used by 20 defense counsel for the exact opposite purpose that it was 21 intended. My perception of this thing, and I wasn't around, is 22 Eusenzially bought ?MT -way out of a criminal 23 prosecution, which is wonderful for the victims in a way, and 24 wonderful for him, too. 25I Now he's trying to use the non-prosecution agreement TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231643

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 1 2 3 4 5 Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 29 of 51 as a shield against the plaintiffs that he was supposed to make restitution for. And, certainly, he can take my client's depo. He's done extensive discovery in the state court case -- very intrusive, I might add. And we don't care, because we can win 6 this case with the prosecution agreement or without the 7 prosecution agreement. We are ready to go forward. 8 THE COURT: You're not going to assert to the United 9 States Government that what he's doing in defending the case is 10 a violation for which he should be further prosecuted? 11 MR. GARCIA: Absolutely not. 12 THE COURT: Anyone else for the plaintiffs? 13 MR. HOROWITZ: Judge, Adam Horowitz, counsel for 14 plaintiffs Jane Doe 2 through 7. 15 I just wanted to address a point that I think you've 16 articulated it. I just want to make sure it's crystal clear, 17 which is that we can't paint a broad brush for all of the 18 cases. 19 The provision relating to Mr. Epstein being unable to 20 contest liability pertains only to those plaintiffs who have 21 chosen as their sole remedy the federal statute. My clients, 22- tr--7 -,--have -elected- to-- bring additions₹ cause-s---- 23 of action, and it's for that reason we were silent when you 24 said does anyone here find Mr. Epstein to be in breach of the 25 non-prosecution agreement. That provision, as we understand 29 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231644

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 1 2 3 Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 30 of 51 it, it doesn't relate to our clients. THE COURT: Okay. But, again, you're in agreement with everyone else II far that's spoken on behalf of a 4 plaintiff that defending the case in the normal course of 5 conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? 6 MR. HOROWITZ: Subject to your rulings, of course, 7 yes. 8 THE COURT: Thank you. 9 Anyone else have anything to say from the plaintiffs? 10 Ms. , if you would be II kind as to maybe 11 help us out. I appreciate the fact that you're here, and I 12 know you're not a party to these cases and under no obligation 13 to respond to my inquiries. But as I indicated, it would be 14 helpful for me to understand the Government's position. 15 MS. . Thank you, Your Honor. And we, of 16 course, are always happy to try to help the Court as much as 17 possible. But we are not a party to any of these lawsuits, and 18 in some ways we are at a disadvantage because we don't have 19 access. My access is limited to what's on Pacer. I don't 20 really know what positions Mr. Epstein may have taken either in 21 correspondence or in discovery responses that aren't filed in 2- -the case file. 23 But your first order was really just what do you think 24 about a stay, and then the second order related to this hearing 25 and asked a much more specific question, which is whether we 30 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231645

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 31 of 51 31 1 believe that Mr. Epstein's defense was a breach of the 2 agreement. 3 And I've tried to review as many of the pleadings as 4 possible. As you know, they're extremely voluminous. And I 5 haven't been through all of them. But we do believe that there 6 has been a breach in the filing that Mr. Josefsberg referred 7 to, and contrary to Mr. Critton, we do understand that we have 8 an obligation to provide notice, and we are providing notice to 9 Mr. Epstein today. 10 The pleading that we found to be in breach -- the 11 non-prosecution agreement, sought to do one thing, which was to 12 place the victims in the same position they would have been if 13 Mr. Epstein had been convicted of the federal offenses for 14 which he was investigated. 15 And that if he had been federally prosecuted and 16 convicted, the victims would have been entitled to restitution, 17 regardless of how long ago the crimes were committed, 18 regardless of how old they were at the time, and how old they 19 are today, or at the time of the conviction. 20 And it also would have made them eligible for damages 21 under 2255. 22 idea was, our hope was -that -we -could-set- 23 a system that would allow these victims to get that restitution 24 without having to go through what civil litigation will expose 25 them to. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231646

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 32 of 51 32 1 You have a number of girls who were very hesitant 2 about even speaking to authorities about this because of the 3 trauma that they have suffered and about the embarrassment that 4 they were afraid would be brought upon themselves and upon 5 their families. 6 we did through the non-prosecution agreement tried 7 to protect their rights while also protecting their privacy. 8 ■, pursuant to the non-prosecution agreement -- on the other 9 hand, we weren't trying to hand them a jackpot or a key to a 10 bank. It was solely to sort of put them in that same position. 11 II we developed this language that said if -- that 12 provided for an attorney to represent them. Most of the 13 victims, as you know from the pleadings, come from not wealthy 14 circumstances, may not have known any attorneys who would be in 15 a position to help them. 16 we went through the Special Master procedure that 17 resulted in the appointment of Mr. Josefsberg, and the goal was 18 that they would be able to try to negotiate with Mr. Epstein 19 for a fair amount of restitution/damages. And if Mr. Epstein 20 took the position, which apparently he has, which is that the 21 $50,000 or $150,000 floor under 2255 also would be a cap. That 22 if they were to proceed to file suit in Federal Court to get 23 fair damages under 2255, Mr. Epstein would admit liability, but 24 he, of course, could fight the damages portion, which means 25 that, of course, he would be entitled to depositions; of TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231647

Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 33 of 51 33 1 course, he would be entitled to take discovery, and we don't 2 believe that any of that violates the non-prosecution 3 agreement. 4 The issue with the pleading that he filed, the motion 5 to dismiss the case, I believe it's Jane Doe 101, represented 6 by Mr. Josefsberg, is that that is a case that was filed 7 exclusively under 18 U.S.C., Section 2255. She met that 8 requirement. Mr. Epstein is moving to dismiss it, not on the 9 basis of damages, he is saying that he cannot be held liable 10 under 2255 because he was not convicted of an offense. 11 The reason why he was not convicted of an offense is 12 because he entered into the non-prosecution agreement. II that 13 we do believe is a breach. 14 The issue really that was raised in the motion to stay 15 and that I addressed in our response to the motion to stay is 16 that Mr. Epstein's -- Mr. Epstein wants to stay the litigation 17 in order to leave, in order to sort of attack the cases of the 18 victims whether they are fully within the non-prosecution or 19 not, non-prosecution agreement or not, and leave the Government 20 without a remedy if he does, in fact, breach those terms. And 21 that is why we opposed the stay. -THE COURT:- I'm not sure what you mean by that last 23 statement. 24 MS. : Well, because this issue related to 25 the motion to dismiss on Mr. Josefsberg's client came up after TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231648

Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page34of51 34 1 we had filed that response. And what we said in the response 2 to the motion to stay is that the reason why he wants to stay 3 the litigation is II that the non-prosecution agreement 4 terminates based on a period of time, as he puts it. And then 5 afterwards he would be able to come in here and make all of 6 these arguments that clearly violate the non-prosecution 7 agreement but we would be without remedy. 8 THE COURT: But you're not taking the position that 9 other than possibly doing something in litigation which is a 10 violation of an express provision of the non-prosecution 11 agreement, any other discovery, motion practice, investigations 12 that someone would ordinarily do in the course of defending a 13 civil case would constitute a violation of the agreement? 14 MS. No, Your Honor. I mean, civil 15 litigation is civil litigation, and being able to take 16 discovery is part of what civil litigation is about. And while 17 there may be, for example, if someone were to try to subpoena 18 the Government, we would obviously resist under statutory 19 reasons, all that sort of stuff. But, no, Mr. Epstein is 20 entitled to take the deposition of a plaintiff and to subpoena 21 1 records, etc. T: And even if he seeks-discovery -a ------ 23 Government agency, you have the right to resist it under the 24 rules of procedure but that would not constitute a violation, 25 again unless there's a provision in the prosecution agreement TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231649

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 35 of 51 35 1 that says I can't do this? 2 MS. : Correct. 3 THE COURT: That's your position? 4 MS. : Yes. 5 THE COURT: Thank you. 6 MS. : Thank you, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: Mr. Critton, did you want to add anything? 8 MR. CRITTON: Yes, sir. Just a few responses to some 9 of the issues that have been raised. 10 The most glaring, at least from our perspective, is 11 both Mr. Josefsberg's comments that he believes that there's a 12 violation of the NPA as well as Ms. with regard to 13 Jane Doe 101. 14 Mr. Josefsberg, while he was the attorney rep who was 15 selected by Judge to represent a number of individuals, 16 alleged victims that may have been on the list, he represents 17 many of them. And the type of response that was filed in 101 18 would probably be very similar to what we will file if he 19 files -- and he filed 102 as well. But if he files 103, 104 20 and 105, or whatever number he files, we may well take that 21 same legal position in our motions and in our response or in 22-I rep y. 23 And what we've been, in essence, told today is we 24 consider that to be a violation of the NPA under the 25 circumstances. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231650

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 36 of 51 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 is a perfect example that he filed is, we have e-mails going back and forth between the Government and my clients' attorneys at the time that suggested that 102 probably doesn't even fit within the statute of limitations. II under Mr. Josefsberg's argument is as well, we've only brought a 2255 claim. We don't care whether she's within or is outside the statute of limitations. Because she was on the list and under the circumstances, he has to admit liability, which we contest is under that set of circumstances you're stuck with it. You can fight damages if you can, but she's a real person and you can't raise statute of limitations. The other point that kind of strikes out is there's probably a difference. And I'm happy to provide a copy of the NPA or a redacted portion of the NPA which deals with the civil issues, which are paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10, and the entire addenda in camera for the Court to look at, if plaintiff's counsel and the Government, I guess, really, because they're not a party, is if they have no objection because they all have access based on a prior court order to the non-prosecution agreement. II I'm happy to provide that to the Court today and show it to counsel so Ehat the Court can review that-. But our position with regard to the 2255 claims is that -- there were two types of claims that could be filed, one was consensual litigation, the second was contested litigation. TOTALACCESSCOURTROOMNEnNORKRENJIMETRANSCRIFTION EFTA00231651

Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 37 of 51 37 1 And under the consensual, in essence, which Mr. Epstein did, is 2 he's offered $50,000 of the statutory minimum for that time 3 period to all of those individuals. 4 THE COURT: Can I interrupt you a second? 5 MR. CRITTON: Yes, sir. 6 THE COURT: I'm not here, and I don't believe it's my 7 role to decide whether or not there is or is not a breach of 8 the agreement. I'm just trying to understand what the 9 Government's position is regarding your defending these cases. 10 Now, I'm just saying this as an example. If, for 11 example, in the non-prosecution agreement there was a provision 12 that said explicitly: Jeffrey Epstein shall not move to 13 dismiss any claim brought under 2255 by any victim no matter 14 how long ago the allegations or the acts took place, period. 15 If that was in the agreement and you filed a motion to 16 dismiss by someone who brought a claim, it might sound like it 17 'i might be a violation. 18 MR. CRITTON: I agree. 19 THE COURT: II you would know that when you filed your 20 motion because it was right there for you to read. 21 And II to stay the case because I want to do something 22 t at t e contract expressly prohibits me from doing, II it-AYr 23 the case until the agreement expires II then I can do something 24 that the agreement said I couldn't do II you won't be in fear 25 of prosecuting, I'm not sure that that is what I'm concerned TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231652

Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 38of51 38 1 about. 2 I'm concerned about discovery, investigation, motion 3 practice, that's not prohibited by a provision of the 4 agreement. If there's something that's prohibited by the 5 agreement that you, knowing what the agreement says, go ahead 6 and do, anyway, I guess that's a risk you're going to have to 7 take. If there's a legitimate dispute about it, I guess some 8 I arbiter is going to decide whether it's a breach or not. 9 But, again, that's something you and Mr. Burman, 10 Mr. Goldberger, and you are all very good lawyers, and he's got 11 a whole list of lawyers representing him, and you've got the 12 i agreement and you're going to make legal decisions on how to 13 proceed, and you're going to have to go and make your own 14 decisions. 15 I'm concerned about things that aren't in the 16 agreement, that aren't covered, that you're going to be accused 17 of violating because, again, you take depositions, you send out 18 subpoenas, you file motions that are not prohibited by the 19 agreement. And that's what I'm concerned about. 20 MR. CRITTON: And I understand that, Your Honor. 21 But at the same time, it's as if the lawyers and the c ien s, •ase• upon our interpretation of the agreement, and, 23 believe me, we would not have filed 101, the motion to dismiss, 24 but for believing that there was a good basis to do that 25 under the circumstances. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231653

Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 39 of 51 39 1 And now, in essence, we're being accused not only by 2 -- not accused, but it's been suggested that there's a breach 3 of the NPA, not only by Mr. Josefsberg on behalf of 101, but as 4 well Ms. on behalf of the United States. 5 That's the perfect example. They're basically saying 6 we think you violated. We may send you notice under the 7 circumstances. II does that mean that on 101 we have to back 8 off of it because we think in good that it's a motion and 9 is that something that this Court ultimately will rule? 10 THE COURT: I don't know that I'm the one who is going 11 to make that decision. Again, that's not the kind of thing 12 that I was concerned about. I was more concerned about the 13 normal, ordinary course of conducting and defending a case that 14 would not otherwise expressly be covered under the agreement, 15 that you're going to then have someone say, II, he's sent a 16 notice of deposition, he's harassing the plaintiffs. I don't 17 know if there's a no contact provision in the agreement or no 18 harassment type of provision in the agreement. II, this is a 19 breach because you sent discovery, or he's issuing subpoenas to 20 third parties trying to find out about these victims' 21 backgrounds, he's breaching the agreement. 22 T ose are e kind of things that I was worries a•ou 23 MR. CRITTON: The concern that we have is as part of 24 doing this general civil litigation, it's not just the 25 discovery process. And I understand the issues that the Court TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORKREALTIMETRANSCRIPT1ON EFTA00231654

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 1 2 3 Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page40of5140 has raised. But part of it is that often cases are disposed of either on a summary basis or certainly legal issues that come 4 before the Court during the course of the case, just like in a 5 criminal case. That's clearly part of the, I'd say the defense 6 of the case under the circumstances; and if, in fact, an 7 individual can't legally bring a cause of action for certain 8 reasons, such as has been suggested in 101, and may be 9 suggested in 102 when that pleading is filed, that certainly is 10 a position that puts my client at risk. 11 As another example that I use with C.M.A., that they 12 filed this 30-count complaint. Now, they have the state court 13 claims as well. But they, in essence, have said they filed 14 another pleading with the Court that says depending on what the 15 Court rules, in essence, on whether we can file multiple claims 16 or one cause of action with multiple violations, we may dump 17 the state court claims and, therefore, we'll just ride along on 18 that. That's a very different -- 19 Mr. Epstein would never have entered into, nor would 20 his attorneys have allowed him to enter into that agreement 21 under those circumstances where he had this unlimited -22 ia•1 1 y. a clear-Iywas never envisioned by any o£ the 23 defendants -- by the defendant or any of his lawyers under the 24 circumstances. 25 And if that's claimed to be a violation, either by the TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231655

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 41 of 51 41 1 attorneys; i.e., he's not recapitulating on liability under the 2 2255, and that's all we have now. That's our exclusive remedy. 3 I And the Government says, yeah, that's right, that's a 4 violation of the NPA. It again chills us from moving forward, 5 filing the necessary motion papers and taking legal positions 6 that may put my client at risk for violating the NPA and then 7 creating the irreparable harm of, after having been in jail, 8 after having pled guilty to the state court counts, after 9 registering on release as a sex offender, he's complied and 10 done everything, taken extraordinary efforts to comply with the 11 NPA, puts him at substantial risk. And that's what our worry 12 is moving forward. 13 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, may I be heard. May I 14 make three comments? It will take less than a minute. 15 THE COURT: Yes, sir. 16 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Mr. Critton refers to the alleged 17 victims. I want you to know that our position is that pursuant 18 to the NPA they're not alleged victims. They are actual, real 19 victims, admitted victims. 20 Secondly, he argues about the statute of limitations 21 on 102. I know that you don't want to hear about that, and I'm 22 no going o commen about it. Milt please don't take our lack 23 of argument about this as being we agree with anything. 24 Last and most important, we totally agree with 25 Mr. Critton in his suggestion that he hand you a copy of the TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231656

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 42 of 51 42 1 NPA. I think that many of the questions you asked will be 2 answered when you read the NPA, and I think it's very unfair of 3 everyone who is sitting in front of you who have the NPA to be 4 discussing with you whether it's being breached, whether there 5 should be a stay when you're not that familiar with it. 6 If we would give you a copy of it, I think it would be 7 much more helpful in making your ruling. 8 THE COURT: Maybe Judge Colvat will resolve this issue 9 for me. 10 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Even if he doesn't, Your Honor, I 11 believe we are allowed to show it to you. 12 THE COURT: I'll tell you what: I'll wait for Judge 13 Colvat to rule, and then if he rules that it should remain 14 sealed, then I'll consider whether or not I want to have it 15 submitted to me in camera. 16 Anything else, Mr. Josefsberg? 17 MR. JOSEFSBERG: No. I thank you on behalf of myself 18 and the other counsel on the phone for permitting us to appear 19 by phone. 20 THE COURT: All right. Anyone else have anything they 21 want to add? 22 MR. isUNARDST--Bi-ad Edwards on beElliM Jane Doe. 23 I only had one issue here, and when I read your motion 24 that you wanted to hear on the narrow issue of just defense in 25 the civil actions filed against him violates the TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00231657

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 43 of 51 43 1 non-prosecution agreement, I was expecting that we were going 2 to hear something from the Government similar to the affidavit 3 that was filed by Mr. Epstein's attorneys wherein he indicates 4 as of the day of this affidavit attached to the motion to stay, 5 the U.S. Attorney's Office has taken the position that Epstein 6 has breached the non-prosecution agreement and it names 7 specifically investigation by Epstein of this plaintiff and 8 other plaintiffs, Epstein's contesting damages in this action. 9 Epstein, or his legal representatives, making statements to the 10 press. And we didn't hear any of those things. 11 So that's what I was expecting that the U.S. 12 Attorney's Office was going to expound on and say, yes, we've 13 made some communications to Epstein. He's violating. 14 1 What we're hearing right now, today, just so that I'm 15 clear, and I think the Court is clear now, is that the 16 non-prosecution agreement is what it is. There have been no 17 violations, but for maybe what Mr. Josefsberg brought up. 18 But there are very few restrictions on Mr. Epstein. 19 He went into this eyes wide open. And whether or not I agree 20 with the agreement, how it came to be in the first place, is 21 neither here nor there. 2-2 ere—have been no violations or -breaches up to 23 this point. And his affidavit that was filed, I'm just 24 troubled by where it even came from. I mean, it's making 25 j specific allegations that the U.S. Attorney's Office is TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION _we EFTA00231658

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 44 of 51 44 1 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 threatening a breach, and this is part of the motion to stay, which we're all battling here. So I just wanted to indicate to the Court or remind the Court that there have been specific allegations made, the United States Attorney's Office is making these allegations of breach, which we haven't heard any of the evidence of. Thank you. THE COURT: All right Ms. , did you want to respond to that suggestion that there were other allegations of breach besides the one that you've just mentioned today? MS. : No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. I appreciate your giving me the information, which I think has been very helpful today, and I'll try and get an order out as soon as possible. (Court adjourned at 11:10 a.m.]. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the foregoing is an accurate transcription of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. DATE s/Larry Herr LARRY HERR, RPR-CM-RMR-FCRSC Official United States Court Reporter 400 N. Miami Avenue Miami, FL 33128 - 305/523-5290 (Fax) 305/523-5639 email: Lindsay165eaol.com Quality Assurance by Proximity Lingulbase Technologies EFTA00231659

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 45 ota, against 4:23,25 6:24 22:15 26:4 29:1 42:25 16:10 18:11 21:12 301 35:7 4123 42:16,20 43:6 bindle 7:15.17 19:11 21:11 22:16 A B abide 27:15 ability 18:8 19:1 back 12:18 36:2 39:7 backgrounds 39:21 able 20:14 27:9 agency 34:23 anyway 38:6 balance 12:15 4322 32:18 34:5,15 ago 31:17 37:14 apparently 32:20 bank 32:10 breaching 22:19,20 about 4:24 5:25 6:10 agree 13:13 17:23 appear 3:1925:6 based 6:12 10:7 12:6 22:23 39:21 6:18 9:2 11:15 25:25 26:7 27:9 42:18 13:11 17:4 34A brief 15:18,23 13:22 20:25 21:13 37:18 41:23,24 appearance 1:12 36:19 38:22 briefing 5:4 23:13 25:23 27:2 43:19 3:3,25 basically 7:16 13:10 briefly 27:22 27:11,23 28:16 agreed 179 202 appears 27:2 39:5 bring 29:2240:7 30:24 32:2,2,3 21:15 25:16 applicable 6:13 18:3 basis 33:9 38:24 broad 29:17 34:16 38:1,2,7,15 agreement 5:2,2,11 apply 20:6 28:9 40:3 brought 15:1 20:2 38:19 39:12,12,20 5:15 6:2,23 7:16 appointed 212 battling 44:2 24:17,20 28:6 32:4 392241:20,21,22 7:19 8:5,6 12:9 appointment 25:15 Beach 1:2,4,212:10 36:637:13,16 41:23 13:24 14:2,19 32:17 2:13 43:17 above 25:3 15:20 16:20 18:18 appreciate 30:11 before 1:11 6:5 Broward 2:15 above-entitled 44:19 1824 19:6,11,13 44:13 13:13,1g 26:10,11 brush 29:17 Absolutely 29:11 19:18,24 20:1,10 appropriate 19:21 24:13 40:4 buffer 12:25 access 30:19,19 20:18 21:7,16,23 24:7 behalf 3:14 4:2,6 6:7 Burman 2:8,9 4:3 36:19 22:8,11,17,19,20 arbiter 38:8 14:16 22:10 26:10 389 according 1921 22:23 23:18,19,20 argue 18:1 22:1 26:15 30:3 39:3,4 business 13:25 accurate 44:18 24:1,9,23 27:25 argued 12:22 42:17,22 accused 22:23 38:16 28:2,5,19,25 29:6 argues 41:20 being 9:17 10:6,21 C C 2:1 44:17,17 39:1,2 29:7,25 30:2 31:2 argument 36:5 2319 26:4 28:19 action 7:13 8:5 9:8 31:11 32:6,8 33:3 41:23 29:19 34:15 39:1 came 6:512:18 17:6 10:3,4,9,21 11:18 33:12,19 34:3,7,11 arguments 34:6 41:23 42:4 1822 33:25 4320 15:4 17:24 18:17 34:13,25 36:20 arise 7:5 believe 3:18 5:10,10 43:24 20:2 21:22 27:10 37:8,11,15,23,24 around 12:9 28:21 5:14,16 6:17,17,21 camera 36:16 42:15 29:23 40:7,16 43:8 38:4,5,5,12,16,19 articulated 29:16 7:13,19 8:11 14:18 cap 32:21 actions 52513:23 38:2239:14,17,18 asked 5:4,4 8:214:5 21:11 31:1,5 33:2 capped 23:25 14:3 16:11 19:5,17 39:2140:20 43:1,6 30:25 42:1 33:5,13 37:6 3823 care 13:20,25 25:20 22:16 25:4 4225 43:16,20 asking 21:1225:10 42:11 29:536:6 activities 23:7 ab 39:15,18 asks 13:10 believes 35:11 case 1:3 5:17,20,21 acts 9:11,1237:14 ahead 28:8 38:5 aspect 28:12 believing 38:24 5:22 6:4,7 8:12 actual 41:18 al 1:4 aspects 9:1,216:5 beneficiaries 19:12 9:11 10:24,24 11:4 actually 5:21 17:9 allegation 5:1 15:19 assert 29:8 beneficiary 20:1 11:15,18 13:18,20 Adam 1:13 3:4 allegations 4:25 16:6 asserted 17:7 21:16 25:15 14:18,22 15:1,18 29:13 37:14 43:25 44:4,5 assertion 4:24 15:19 Bennett 3:18 16:219:17 22:17 add 29:5 35:7 42:21 44:10 15:22 besides 44:10 22:25 23:4,8,8 addenda 36:16 alleged 17:17,25 Assistant 2:15 between 8:6 923 24:17,20 26:3,4 Adderly 3:17 35:1641:16,18 associate 10:17 13:1,21 19:14 28:1029:4,69 additional 29:22 allow 11:8 3123 associated 18:12 20:11 36:2 30:4,22 33:5,6 address 29:15 allowed 40:2042:11 assurance 14:1 beyond 13:16 34:13 3721,23 addressed 33:15 along 40:17 assurances 12:5 Biscayne 1:14 39:1340:4,5,6 adjourned 44:16 already 22:5 attached 43:4 Bob 3:1819:7 cases 3:2 6:97:3,11 Adler 1:17 always 30:16 attack 33:17 Boehringer 1:20 8:13,22 9:3,5,5,15 admit 20:3,18 25:11 Amendment 6:24 attention 15:1,22 bond 25:22 10:3,11 12:1,2 32:23 36:8 America 5:17 Atterbury 2:12 Boston 2:18 141 17:15,16 admits 23:20 amount 17:3,20 attorney 2:157:1 both 10:10 16:25 21:10 24:8,11 26:2 admitted 23.1724:9 23:25 24:3,9,16,24 19:4 27:17,18,19 35:11 29:18 30:12 33:17 41:19 25:332:19 32:1235:14 bought 28:22 37940:2 ado 23:13 Amy 3:17 attorneys 5910:10 Boulevard 1:14,17 casts 9:13 advantage 20:24 Ann 2:14 4:9 11:8 32:14 36:3 2:15 catastrophic 7:21 adverse 18.18 another 9:514:14 40:2041:143:3 Blvd 3/ 4222 catch 7:21 10:2 advice 12:7 18:1140:11,14 Attorney's 4:8,10 BRADLEY 1:16 caught 15:22 affidavit 43:2,4,23 answer 8:713:10 26:19 27:4 43:5,12 breach 6:1,23 15:11 cause 17:24 18:17 afraid 32:4 answered 422 432544:5 16:3 18:24 19:6,13 26:5 40:7,16 after 33:25 41:7,8,8 anybody 11:14 August 12:18 23:16 25:9,9 28:2 caused 1521 afterwards 34:5 anyone 14:16,19 Australian 2:12 29:24 30:5 31:1,6 causes 29:22 again 9:10.1822 17:5 22:13 24:17 authorities 322 31:10 33:13,20 cavalierly 12:13 10:19,20 18:5,9 24:24 29:12,24 Avenue 1:21,23 2:12 37:7 38:8 39:2,19 certain 822 11:18 23:18 26:1302 30:9 42:20 2:23 44:22 44:1,6,10 17:2,6 21:17 25:16 34:25 38:9,17 anything 8= 11:15 aware 6:6 13:14 15:4 breathed 7:191224 40:7 39:11 41:4 13:22 14:2,7,20,25 a.m 44:16 15:20 22:11 42:4 certainly 8:16 9:1 -••••.•,..••••• EFTA00231660

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 46 o 46 29:3 40:3,9 committed 31:17 course 7:5 24:25 21:2 35:15 39:19,25 Certified 2:22 communications 2621 27:12 30:4,6 day 43:4 discretionary 6:19 certify 44:18 43:13 30:1632:24,25 deal 9:23 14:13,14 6:21 change 7:25 complainants 17:9 33:1 34:1239:13 15:15 16:24,24 discuss 9:2223:6 changes 7:8 complaining 25:11 40:4 18:6,9 discussing 42:4 charges 5:3 26:19 court 1:1 2:22 3:1,6 deab 36:14 discussion 16:22 chilling 9:7 complaint 28:4 3:9,12,15,20,22,24 dealt 6:19 16:25,25 disingenuous 19:15 chills 10:9 18:25 40:12 4:4,7,11,15,20 decide 10:11 22:5 dismiss 7:22 8:18 41:4 compliance 12:14 5:11,14,18,19,21 37:7 38:8 10:14 20:4 27:24 chime 26:9 complied 41:9 5246:6,11,13,14 decision 39:11 33:5,8,2537:13,16 chosen 29:21 comply 41:10 6:18,20,21,22 7:6 decbioas 38:12,14 38:23 circumstance 7:21 concern 4:24 5:10,24 8:1 9:6 11:3,10,25 deem 11:19 disposed 40:2 8:18 18:4 9:20 16:1 22:8 12:1913:1,10,16 deemed 10:4 dispute 38:7 circumstances 9:25 25:24 26:1 39:23 14:5,1115:5,13,15 defend 5:25 10:11 distinct 7:9 10:1,11 12:11,20 concerned 13:22 16:10,13,2219:2,9 11:18 12:1,2 22:17 DISTRICT 1:1,1,11 12:21 13:8,13 16:8 23:10 27:1137:25 21:12,25 23:18 22:18,22,25 24:2 DIVISION 1:2 16:17 17:3,8,13,18 38:2,15,19 39:12 252326:1,8,13,17 26:3 docket 6:17 8:25 18:19 32:14 35:25 39:12 26:18,23 27:9,14 defendant 1:8 2:8 12:14 36:8,9 38:25 39:7 concerns 6:24 27:16,18,20 28:1,4 6:23 11:13 16:16 documents 11:7 40:6,21,24 conduct 22:14 28:4,11,13,14,16 22:15,18 27:10 14:24 cite 17:10 conducting 22:13 29:4,8,12 30:2,8 40:23 Doe 1:4,15,18,222:3 &DI 4:23,25 5:25 7:3 30:5 39:13 30:16 32:22 33:22 defendants 25:5 2:7 3:1,5,8,11 5:17 7:3,11 8:5,22 9:4,7 confident 19:10 34:8,22 35:3,5,7 40:23 6:8,9,16 11:12 9:11 10:3,23,23 consensual 16:25 36:16,19,21,22 defendant's 16:23 21:5 29:14,22 33:5 13:23 14:3,9 15:7 36:25 37:1 37:4,6,19 39:9,10 defending 4:25 7:24 35:13 42:22 16:5,11 19:5 2020 consider 6:1418:1 3925 40:4,12,14 9:4 102,23 13:18 doing 8:9 29:9 34:9 22:14 2625 27:10 23:16 35:24 42:14 40:15,17 41:8,15 13:20,23 14:3,9,18 3722 3924 31:2434:13,14,15 constitute 13:18 42:8,12,2043:15 15:18162,10 done 12:3,4 13:17,19 34:16 36:14 3924 16:2 19:6 34:13,24 44:3,4,8,13,16,22 25:18 299 30:4 13:24 14:2,7,17,20 42:25 construed 14:18 court's 7:15 8:25 34:12 37:9 39:13 142$ 15:6 17:14 claim 6:1 18:19 contact 10:17 39:17 12:14 defends 26:3 20:16 25:4 29:4 23.21,23 25:8 36:6 contending 19:4 covered 38:16 39:14 defense 4:1,14 8:4,12 41:10 37:13,16 contention 4:24 create 9:25 9:3,12,14 10:9 doubt 9:14 daimed 4025 contendons 28:8 creating 41:7 12:3 19:5,17 24:6 dramatic 7:25 claiming 25:9 contest 17:1218:7,8 creative 17:23 24:18 2722 28:11 dramatically 7:8 claims 22:15 23:22 24:18,21,23,25 crimes 31:17 28:20 31:140:5 dump 40:16 23:2224:1,4,6 29:2036:9 criminal 8:21 20:15 42:24 during 40:4 28:6 36:23,24 contested 9:13 16:18 26:6 2822 40:5 denied 22:5 40:13,15,17 16:2536:25 criteria 17:6 deny 22:4,7 E dear 10:7 18:18 contesting 20:6 25:2 Critton 2:8,94:2,2 depending 18:2 E 44:17,17 19:19 29:16 43:15 28:1 43:8 4:13 5:13 6:3,3 40:14 each 17:24 18:16 43:15 context 13:18,19 14:4 15:3,14 16:4 depo 29:3 East 1:17 2:15 clearly 9:24 11:20 14:5 15:1 16:12,15 31:7 35:7 depose 23:2 Edwards 1:16 3:7,7 34:6 40:5,22 contract 7:16 37:22 35:8 37:5,18 3820 deposition 11:11,12 5:16,20,23 4222 client 10:21 13:5 contracting 9:23 39:23 41:16,25 14:23 22:24 34:20 42:22 23:2 24:3 26:15 contrary 25:631:7 crystal 29:16 39:16 effect 9:7 17:5 28:3 33:25 40:10 control 9:2 cure 8:14,17 9:21 depositions 10:13 efforts 41:10 41:6 convicted 20:14 13:6 14:22 19:20 22:12 either 9:3 10:5 30:20 clients 1112124 31:13,16 33:10,11 cures 14:12 22:20 23:15 32:25 40:3,25 22:10,24 23:3 conviction 20:8,15 current 22:5 38:17 elected 2922 25:16 29:21 30:1 20:20 31:19 cut 16:24 desired 20:12 eligible 31:20 36:3 38:22 copy 28:4 36:13 C.M.A 1:24 3:14 determine 9:8 Elkins 1:20 client's 29:3 41:25 42:6 17:16 24:1126:10 developed 32:11 email 44:24 cloud 9:14 correct 5:12 23:1 26:15 40:11 difference 36:13 embarrassment 32:3 Colvat 42:8,13 24:5 35:2 different 6:5 12:21 enforce 21:17 25:17 D come 8:8,13 13:11 correspondence 16:19 23:7 40:18 enforcement 7:2 21:1 23:6 32:13 30:21 D 1:13 2:8 direction 10:20 enforcing 25:10 34:5 40:3 counsel 3:3,4,7 12:7 damages 17:3 23:23 27:14 enter 40:20 comes 18:12 16:5 23:13 26:8,25 23:25 24:3,10,24 disadvantage 30:18 entered 33:12 40:19 coming 26:25 27:22 28:11,20 25:2 31:20 32:23 disagree 20:5,21 entire 5:15 20:25 comment 41:22 29:13 36:17,22 32:24 33:9 36:10 discovery 7:2,10,11 36:15 comments 15:10 42:18 43:8 10:16,2522:12 entitle 11:23 35:11 41:14 count 24:14 date 13:12,14 44:21 29:4 30:5,21 33:1 entitled 242 31:16 commitment 17:2 counts 17:17 41:8 Dann 1:21 34:11,16,22 38:2 32:25 33:1 34:20 _ ____ EFTA00231661

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 47 o 47 entry 6:17 8:25 12:14 enumerated 18:8,9 envisioned 40:22 Epstein 1:7 3:143,6 4:22 6:7 7:13,15 7:19 8:6,20 9:15 9:18,24 10:1,6,10 12:5,1513:17,21 14:8 17:9 19:5,14 19:16 20:11,13 21:8 23:13 24:21 25:16 26:3,23 28:22 29:19,24 30:20 31:9,13 32:18,19,23 33:8 33:16 34:19 37:1 37:12 40:19 43:5,7 43:9,13,18 Epstein's 4:24 5:9,24 8:4 9:1 22:7 31:1 33:16 43:3,8 equities 12:16 error 27:7,7 ESQ 1:13,16,20,23 2:1,5,8,8,11,14,17 2:20 essence 7:9,12 8:3 10:212:3 35:23 37:1 39:1 40:13,15 essentially 28:22 et 1:4 etc 2:9 34:21 even 11:5,6,914:1 15:17 16:1 17:22 21:3,4 32:2 34:22 36:4 42:10 43:24 event 5:24 ever 5:11,14 everyone 30:3 42:3 everything 15:7 41:10 evidence 25:1 44:6 exact 21:18,2228:20 exactly 10:24 example 14:201621 17:16 34:17 36:1 37:10,1139:5 40:11 except 8:2011:25 exclusive 41:2 exclusively 28:6 33:7 exists 13:15 expecting 43:1,11 extraordinary 9:13 41:10 extremely 31:4 eyes 26:24 43:19 Ezell 2:5 3:16,17 e-maik 36:2 form 11:4 Fort 1:18 2:16 forth 36:2 forward 9:813:11 17:6 19:1 21:1 22:17 23:6 26:2 29:741:4,12 found 31:10 four 9:5 frankly 5:6 from 3:17 4:7 5:9 7:9 10:20,24 13:9 14:13 15:916:23 17:1019:2 30:9 32:13,13 34:22 35:10 3722 41:4 43:2,24 front 9:5 12:19 25:10 42:3 fully 33:18 further 29:10 Nine* 9:12 10:5 12:5 2621,22 7:18 8:1,2,7 9:21 10:8 11:19 12:6 13:1,2,2,9,11,13 14:1,5 15:23 16:19 17:11 18:4,12,17 20:11,1121:13,14 23:10,11 25:11 29:9 33:19 34:18 34:23 36:2,17 41:3 43:2 Government's 5:6,8 7:25 9:10 12:20,23 15:1618:22 25:13 30:14 37:9 grant 22:4 granted 222 great 7:23 8:20 9:19 10:22 12:17 15:15 20:8,24 ground 22:3 guess 36:17 38:6,7 guilty 17:1141:8 _ II H 1:23 hand 32:9,9 41:25 hanging 11:19 happen 14:13 22:6 happens 28:3 happy 30:16 36:13 36:21 harassing 39:16 harassment 39:18 harm 10:1 41:7 having 27:2,11 31:24 41:7,8 bear 5:9 26:12 41:21 42:24 43:2,10 heard 19:2 41:13 44:6 hearing 1:10421 30:24 43:14 held 33:9 help 30:11,16 32:15 helpful 5:7 25:12 30:14 42:7 44:14 her 26:4 28:4 Herr 2:214420,21 hesitant 32:1 hey 22:19 him 4:23 720,20,22 8:13,16,17 9:15,20 11:23 12:5 21:14 21:15 25:10,11 35:6 38:20 41:13 42:10 44:12 HONORABLE 1:11 hope 31:22 hopefully 13:3 HorovAtz 1:13,14 3:4,429:13,13 30:6 horrible 21:23 humiliated 20:25 hypocritical 19:25 F F44:17 fact 7:1 8:11 11:19 . 14:2028:4 30:11 33:2040:6 factors 11:23 fair 27:6 32:19,23 faith 38:24 39:8 familiar 42:5 families 32:5 far 14:25 21:17 23:10 24:24 30:3 fashion 8:4 favor 12:16 Fax 44:23 fear 9:14 37:24 federal 5:3 28:6 29:21 31:13 32:22 federally 22231:15 fees 21:8,1025:10 few 35:8 43:18 field 7:8 Fifth 6:24 fight 32:24 36:10 file 21:4 28:13 30:22 32:22 35:18 38:18 40:15 filed 5:11,16,21,23 6:7,1010:8 11:9 15:18,23,24 zoao 28:3 30:21 33:4,6 34:1 35:17,19 36:1 36:24 37:15,19 38:23 40:9,12,13 42:25 43:3,23 files 35:19,19,20 ffiing 30:5 31:6 41:5 filings 7:8 Biter 11:7 financia123:12 find 5:6 6:13 19:15 19:25 23:112924 39:20 firm's 6:6 first 5:916:14 19:3 26:18 30:23 43:20 lit 36:4 I idea 17:1 31:22 11 1:22 3:11 impact 16:18 important 41:24 impose 27:4 incident 24:14 incidents 17:25 in c i edible 721 incredulous 19:15 indicate 443 indicated 30:13 indicates 43:3 indict 7:20,20,22 8:13,16,17 12:10 12:2415:10 18:23 21:14 indicted 9:17 10:6 10:22 indictment 8:1910:7 individual 18:16 40:7 individuals 10:18 17:1 35:15 37:3 information 22:21 44:14 initial 12:19 1511 initially 15:24 injury 10:232322 innocent 27:5 inquiries 30:13 inquiry 7:15 15:16 instance 7:18,24 9:18 10:10 11:3,17 13:5 16:14 instances 16:4 intended 28:21 intent 21:19 intention 9:19 26:19 26:20,20 27:16 interest 23:12 interested 13:17 G G2:17 Garcia 1:20,20 3:10 3:10 27:20,21 28:15,18 29:11 gather 22:21 gave 16:1 general 39:24 generally 10:22 getting 24:1125:19 girls 20:7 23:5 25:20 32:1 give 12:5 14:1 42:6 given 28:4 giving 44:13 glaring 18:21 35:10 glasses 11:16 go 12:1015:13 22:17 24:24 26:2 28:8 29:7 3114 38:5,13 goal 32:17 going 3:18 525 12:4 12:1013:23,25 14:11,13 15:18 162 19:5 22:4,6,9 22:18,23 23:10,14 2324 26:5 28:8,11 29:8 36:2 38:6,8 38:12,13,16 39:10 39:15 41:22 43:1 expires 37:23 FL 1:15,18,21,242:3 43:12 26:4,5,13 28:24 14:3 explicitly 37:12 2:6,10,13,16,23 Goldberger 2:11,12 38:11 4010 41:11 interpretation 16:20 expose 5:1,25 31:24 44:23 4:5,6 38:10 42:25 38:22 exposure 22:7 Flagkr 2:2,6,9 gone 15:7 himself 5:1,3 interrogatories expound 43:12 floor 32:21 good 3:6,9,10,12,13 Honor 3:10,13,16,21 14:24 19:20 express 34:10 FLORIDA 1:1,4 3:15,16,22,23 4:4 4:2,5,9,13,17,19 interrupt 37:4 expressly 37:22 focused 15:15 4:5,9,11,16,18,20 5:13,16 6:4 12:12 introduced 20:16 39:14 forced 19:17 17:16 38:10,24 19:1,7 23:124:5 intrusive 29:5 extensive 29:4 foregoing 44:18 39:8 25:22,25 26:7,12 invasive 19:22 extent 28:10 forgot 27:23 Government 7:7,9 27:21 30:15 34:14 investigated 31:14 EFTA00231662

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 48 ofd 48 investigation 10:18 38:2 43:7 investigations 22:13 34:11 invited 27:6 involvement 6:6 irreparable 9:16 10:1 41:7 ISIDRO 1:20 issue 4:23 6:5,11,19 7:4 11:25 12:18,22 14:14 15:25 16:2 16:13,22 18:12,22 21:18 28:10,16 33:4,14,24 42:8,23 42:24 issued 14:25 issues 4:21 24:10,13 25:21,23 35:9 36:15 39:25 40:3 issuing 22:20 39:19 Le41:1 J J 1:16 Jack 2:11 4:5 jackpot 32:9 ja0 41.7 Jane 1:4,15,18,22 2:3,7 3:5,5,7,11 5:17 6:8,9,16 11:1221:4 29:14 29:22 33:5 35:13 42:22 Jay 2:20 4:18 Jeffrey 1:7 37:12 jeopardize 9:15 jeopardy 15:17 join 26:11,15 Josefsberg 2:1,2,5 3:18,20,21,23 19:7 19:7,10 21:25 23:1 24:5 25:25 26:7,11 26:12,16 27:13 31:6 32:17 33:6 35:14 39:3 41:13 41:16 42:10,16,17 43:17 Josefsberg's 33:25 35:11 36:5 JR 2:8 Judge 1:11 15:12 21:2 29:13 35:15 42:8,12 judgment 22:16 June 1:5 13:12 jurisdiction 28:1,6 just 18:23 20:15,16 22:3,6 24:20 26:1 29:15,16 30/3 35:8 37:8,10 39:24 40:4,17 42:24 43:14,23 44:3,11 K Katherine 2:5 3:16 keep 24:21 KENNETH 1:11 key 32:9 kind 30:10 36:12 39:11,22 knew 27:1 know 4:22 6:17 8:21 11:14 12213:9,17 14:21 15:5,7 16:22 19:23 22:6 23:12 25:9 27:130:12,20 31:4 32:13 37:19 39:10,17 41:17,21 knowing 26:25 38:5 knowledge 5:13 13:11 known 21:4 32:14 knows 11:3 13:2 L lack 41:22 ladies 20:23 21:3,20 Lake 124 language 18:14 32:11 LARRY 2:21 44:21 Las 1:17 last 33:22 41:24 Lauderdale 1:18 2:16 law 7:1 27:24 28:9 lawsuit 25:18,19 lawsuits 30:17 lawyers 821 9:4,7 10:23,23 17:22 27:138:10,11,21 40:23 lay 8:10 least 35:10 leave 33:17,19 Lefkowitz 2:20 4:18 4:18 left 10:2 legal 10:13 24:10,13 35:21 38:1240:3 41:5 439 kftallY legitimate 38:7 less 41:14 let 5:9 13:10 19:19 letter 17:10 21:19 letters 16:6 liability 17:12 18:7,7 20:3,6,16,19 23:16 23:17,20 24:8,18 24/2,23 25.6 11 29:20 3223 36:9 40:22 41:1 liable 339 like 7:1613:9 25:21 37:16 40:4 limit 2323 241 limitation 252 limitations 36:4,7,11 41:20 limited 4:21 8:3 14:5 17:1220:1923:25 30:19 limits 28:5 Lindsay165@aoLe... 44:24 list 17:1,2,6 35:16 36:8 38:11 litigation 7:4,5 9:13 15:8 16:18,25 21:18 22:14 23:12 31:24 33:16 34:3,9 34:15,15,16 36:25 3615 39:24 lives 21:21 long 31:17 37:14 longer 20:7 look 12:14 18:6 36:16 looked 6:11 M M 1:20 MA 2:18 made 15:10,17 16:6 20:12 31:2043:13 44:4 major 11:25 make 8:21 13:4 15:21 19:1923:8 23:13 26:2,18 27:24 29:1,16 34:5 38:12,13 39:11 41:14 making 42:7 43:9,24 44:5 man 12:24 mandate 7:24 8:20 8:21 103 many 2023 31:3 35:17 42:1 Marie 2:14 4:9 MARRA 1:11 Martin 2:17 4:16 Master 21:2 32:16 matter 20:15 37:13 44:19 matters 21:11 may 3:3 5:1 7:2,10 9:9,12 10:4,17 11:19 13:17,18 14:18 15:12 16:18 16:19 17:12 19:8 19:16 20:4 21:11 21:17,2123:6 2722 30/0 32:14 34:1735:16,20 39:6 40:8,16 41:6 41:13,13 maybe 12:17 13:10 17:20 30:10 42:8 43:17 mean 18:1033:22 34:14 39:7 4314 means 32:24 members 4:13 memo 7:14 28:9 memorandum 27:23 mentioned 44:11 merits 22:1 Mermelstein 1:14 met 17:633:7 Miami 1:15 2:3,6,23 2:23 44:22,23 Michael 2:8 43 microphone 26:13 might 14:2,12 22:14 29:5 37:16,17 million 17:21 minimum 17:3 25:3 37:2 minimums 24:25 minors 20:7 minute 18:13 41:14 mistakes 13:4 money 17:20 more 8:3 17:23 23:25 3025 39:12 42:7 morning 3:6,9,10,12 3:13,15,16,22,23 4:4,5,9,11,16,18 4:20 most 7:7 13:3 15:24 18:21 32:12 35:10 41:24 motion 1:10 4:22 6:7 12:22 15:24 20:4 22:6 27:24 33:4,14 33:15,25 34:2,11 37:15,20 38:2,23 39:8 41:5 4223 43:4 44:1 motions 10:14 17:15 21:5 30:5 35:21 38:18 move 7:22 8:18 19:1 1910 21:17,21 37:12 moving 9:7 33:8 41:4,12 much 23:13 30:16 30:25 42:7 multiple 18:15 40:15 40:16 multitude 8:12 myself 16:5 42:17 need 24:222513 negotiate 32:18 negotiated 27:3,3 neither 43/1 never 11:9 26:20 40:19,22 newspapers 23:5 nobody 11:14 none 13:25 non-contesting 28:5 non-position 9:10 non-prosecution 52 5:116:2 8:6 13:24 14:19 15:20 19:6 22:8 24:1 2725 28:2,5,19,25 2925 31:11 32:6,8 33:2 33:12,18,19 34:3,6 34:10 36:19 37:11 43:1,6,16 non-2255 24:4,6 normal 30:4 39:13 North 1:23 2:9,23 nothing 13:15 24:12 24:15 notice 8:13,16 921 13:6 14:23 22:24 31:8,8 39:6,16 noticed 1422 notification 15:3,4 16:8 NPA 8:5,11,15,24 9:1,9,16,19,22 10:4,19,22 1110 12:8,15,24 13:7,15 14:10 16:8 18:14 2012 21:19,19 239 24:12,15,16 24:18,20 25:2,7 35:12,24 36:14,14 39:3 41:4,6,11,18 42:1,2,3 number 15:9 16:21 17:7,9,14,21,24 32:1 35:15,20 numerous 23:21 O object 7:2,10,10 objection 36:18 objections 11:5,6 obligation 21:9 30:12 31:8 obtain 11:7 obviously 10:20 34:18 occurred 17:25 occurs 26:21 off 39:8 offender 419 offense 18:8,10,15 33:10,11 offenses 18:1631:13 offered 37:2 N N 44:22 names 11:9 23:5 43:6 narrow 42:24 nature 27:6 necessary 22:22 41:5 ....if A..- EFTA00231663

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 49 ob§ci e 49 o0ice 4:8,10 26:20 27:4 43:5,12,25 44:5 Official 2:22 44:22 officials 7:2 often 40:2 okay 325 5:19,21 18:10 30:2 Olas 1:17 old 31:18,18 once 22:5 one 4:23 7:17 11:25 17:24 18:5,16,20 18:21 20:1,8 2224 31:11 36:24 39:10 40:16 42:23 44:11 only 13:22 14:3 17:24 23:20 25:4 29:20 36:6 39:1,3 42:23 open 26:24 43:19 opportunity 8:14,17 9:21 opposed 3321 opposite 20:22 21:18 21:22 28:20 opposition 27:24 option 7:23 order 6:1612:14 22:21 30:23,24 33:17,17 36:19 44:15 ordinarily 26:3 34:12 ordinary 27:10 39:13 originally 6:5 Orseck 2:2,5 3:17 other 7:1,17 16:4,5 17:22 22:13,18 23:6,21,2224:1 25:21 26:8 32:8 34:9,11 36:12 42:18 43:8 44:10 otherwise 39:14 out 8:8 10:16 22:24 26:16,23 28:22 30:11 36:12 38:17 39:20 44:15 outside 13:18,19 24:17 36:7 over 11:19 24:24 own 12:21 38:13 Pacer 30:19 pages 7:14 27:23 28:9 paint 29:17 Palm 1:2,4,21 2:10 2:13 paper 10:16 13:7 papers 8:10,16 925 10:8 11:21 12:20 15:6,10 41:5 paragraphs 36:15 paraphrasing 6:20 Park 2:18 part 10:18 18:9 20:23 21:7 23:9,20 34:16 3923 402,5 44:1 particular 6:15,18 7:24 8:22 9:18 11:17 13:5 parties 9:23 11:6 16:21 2221 3920 partner 3:18 4:3 parts 19:25 21:17 party 11:11 1425 30:12,17 36:18 past 9:11 10:5 12:3,4 pay 17:3 21:8,10 25:5 pending 6:15 9:5 17:15 21:6 people 23:6 per 24:14,14,14,14 perception 2821 perfect 36:1 39:5 perhaps 20:24 27:22 period 9:21 34:4 37:3,14 permitted 24:6,18 permitting 42:18 person 36:11 personal 10:23 23:21 perspective 1623 35:10 pertains 29:20 phone 4:12,14,15 42:18,19 picking 12:13 place 31:12 37:14 43:20 plaintiff 3:7,14 24:15 30:4 34:20 43:7 plaintiffs 1:5,13 3:4 3:24 11:8 17:8,14 17:2219:3 22:14 23:7,24 27:5 29:1 29:12,14,20 30:9 39:16 43:8 plaintiffs 19:4 26:8 36:16 playing 7.8 Plaza 2:18 plead 17:11 18:10,11 pleading 7:14 31:10 33:4 40:9,14 pleadings 23:4 31:3 32:13 please 41:22 pled 17:8,16 20:14 41:8 Podhurst 2:2,5 3:17 point 6:18 14:12 26:16,23 28:14 29:15 36:12 43:23 pointed 1420 portion 32:24 36:14 portions 5:15 posed 11:25 posing 8:4 position 5:5,8 6:4 7:7 7:25 9:16,2010:12 10:13 11:21,22 12:12,17,23 14:8,8 14:15 15:16 16:16 16:17 17:4,7 18:13 18:17 19:19 20:13 22:1,1125:8 30:14 31:1232:10,15,20 34:8 35:3,21 36:23 37:940:1041:17 43:5 positions 30:20 41:5 possible 30:17 31:4 44:15 possibly 34:9 posting 25:22 potential 5:3 152 28:2 potentially 10:18 15:19 power 13:2 practical 10:25 15:9 practice 34:11 38:3 predicate 20:8,15 prepared 20:5 27:15 present 5:5 11:15 presents 9:7 press 43:10 pressure 21:15 presume 2324 pretty 8:1 prior 6:6 8:25 12:14 36:19 privacy 19:22 32:7 probably 35:18 36:3 36:13 problem 14:12 22:22 23:2,3 28:18 procedure 32:16 3424 proceed 12:10 18:23 32:22 38:13 proceeding 6:15,15 proceedings 423,25 44.19 process 39:25 production 14:24 1920 prohibited 38:3,4,18 prohibits 37:22 proof 20:16 proper 25:1 27:14 27:15 prosecuted 20:13 26:4 27:11 29:10 31:15 prosecuting 37:25 prosecution 26:6 28:23 29:6,7 34:25 prospect 16:15 protect 32:7 protecting 32:7 provide 31:8 36:13 36:21 provided 16:9 32:12 provides 9:22 providing 31:8 provision 6:12 8:11 29:19,25 34:10,25 37:11 38:3 39:17 39:18 provisions 13:6,7 psychologically 21:24 publish 23:5 pure 24:8 purpose 21:19,23 28:20 pursuant 25:15 32:8 41:17 pursue 23:12 pursuing 22:12,15 put 9:15 182132:10 41:6 pets 1825 34:4 40:10 41:11 question 8:3,7 9:2 12:1 30:25 questions 42:1 quite 19:10 R R44:I7 raise 16:2 36:11 raised 15:25 16:13 18:5,21 19:13 28:10 33:14 35:9 40:1 read 37:20 422,23 reading 18:18 23:19 ready 29:7 real 9:6 10:8 36:11 41:18 really 12218:11 3020,23 33:14 36:17 Realtime 2:22 reason 6:14 7:3 29:23 33:11 34:2 reasons 18:5,20 34:19 40:8 recapitulating 41:1 received 5:5 15:3,4 20:4 recent 7:715:24 records 3421 redacted 36:14 reference 2725 referred 31:6 refers 41:16 refusal 9:10 refuses 8:7 refusing 25:5 regard 9:11,12,13 10:12,13,14,14 11:4 12:19 14:9 16:18 1823 35:12 36:23 regarding 624 23:15 37:9 regardless 31:17,18 registering 41:9 relate 9:3 30:1 related 30:24 33:24 relates 8:12 relating 29:19 release 41:9 relevant 19:22 remain 42:13 remedy 7:20 8:17 29:21 3320 34:7 41:2 remember 23:19 remind 44:3 remote 10:8 rep 35:14 replies 10:15 reply 35:22 REPORTED 2:21 Reporter 2:22,22 44:22 represent 21:3 32:12 35:15 representation 26:18 representatives 4:7 43:9 represented 21:7 26:24 33:5 representing 38:11 represents 18:16 35:16 requests 14:23 required 17:3 requirement 33:8 resist 34:18,23 resolve 42:8 resolved 7:4 19:12 24:16 respect 22:14 tespectJty 7:6 14:4 respond 20:5 30:13 44:9 response 5:6 7:14 8:2 11:20 15:16,23 1822 33:15 34:1,1 35:17,21 responses 10:14 30:21 35:8 restitution 29:2 31:16,23 EFTA00231664

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 50 oWe restitution/damages 32:19 restrictions 43:18 result 10:21 15:19 18:20 resulted 32:17 review 31:3 36:22 Richard 1:23 3:13 26:10 ride 40:17 right 3:24 6:24 12:25 13:3 25:8,14 34:23 37:20 41:3 42:20 43:14 44:8 rights 13:5 25:16 32:7 risk 9:610:6,7 18:25 38:6 40:10 41:6,11 risks 21:5 Robert 2:1,8 4:2 6:3 role 25:13 37:7 Room 2:23 Rosenfeldt 1:17 rose-colored 11:16 Rothstein 1:17 FtPR-CM-RMR-F... 44:21 RPR-R111R-PCRFt... 2:21 rule 39:9 42:13 rules 22:3 25:1 34:24 40:15 42:13 ruling 8:25 42:7 runup 1931 23:8 25:2 27:13,15 30:6 run 22:18 running 21:13 23:14 27:16 S same 6:10,16 8:3 20:13 27:12 31:12 32:10 35:21 38:21 satisfied 20:9 saying 7:10 8:1 17:17 19:12,16 20:6,7,8 21:14 25:5 33:9 37:10 39:5 says 8:15 13:7 17:11 18:13 35:1 38:5 40:14 41:3 scheduled 4:21 seal 5:18.23 sealed 42:14 second 20:23 27:2,5 30:24 36:25 37:4 Secondly 41:20 secret 17:1 Section 33:7 see 4:7 15:11 20:12 seek 23:25 seeking 6:7 24:3 seeks 34:22 seen 5:14,15 selected 35:15 self-fulfilling 24:23 self-incrimination 6:25 send 10:16 38:17 39:6 sends 2223 sent 14:22,23,24 16:617:10 39:15 39:19 separate 520 17:17 serve 11:5,6 set 12:21 13:13 18:4 31:22 36:9 settle 21:8 settling 21:10 25:5 severely 21:21 sex 41:9 sexual 23:6 shape 11:4 shield 29:1 show 36:22 42:11 Sid 3:10 side 7:17,17 sideline 8:9 silent 29:23 similar 35:18 43:2 simply 11:17 since 20:20 sir 19:9 35:8 37:5 41:15 sit 8:9 sitting 42:3 situation 12:62035 25:12 2624 sole 29:21 solely 12:15 32:10 some 4:7 5:4 7:2,10 7:11,12 9:1,8,9 10:16 15:12 16:1,8 17:22 20:25 21:3 30:18 35:8 38:7 43:13 someone 10:17 19:22 24:20 26:3 34:12 34:17 37:16 39:15 something 13:19,24 14:17 15:24 20:19 26:17 28:13 34:9 37:21,23 38:4,9 39:9 43:2 Sometimes 13:4 somewhat 6:5 soon 44:15 sorry 15:14 27:19 sort 32:10 33:17 34:19 sought 31:11 sound 37:16 South 2:12 SOUTHERN 1:1 speak 12:16 19:8 speaking 26:14 32:2 Special 21:2 32:16 specific 8:211:1 16:2417:13 3023 43:25 44:4 specifically 43:7 spector 11:18 speculative 10:9 spirit 25:20 spoken 30:3 standard 11:1 standpoint 10:25 15:9 start 23:15 state 3:3 9:6 28:4 29:4 40:12,17 41:8 stated 3:25 statement 33:23 statements 43:9 States 1:1,11 222 4:8 5:1,5,17 6:1 9:24 10:6 13:21 14:8,17 16:7 19:14 22:10,19 29:9 39:4 44:5,22 State's 27:16 statute 17:4 18:3 20:6 24:14 28:7 29:21 36:4,7,11 4120 statutory 6:12 24:25 25:3 34:18 37:2 May 4:23 6:8,19,21 7 3 11:24 12:16,19 12:23 15:25 19:16 2122 222,4,4,5,7 2422 25.2130.'24 33:14,15,16,21 34:2,2 37:21,22 42:5 43:4 44:1 stayed 25:19 staying 21:18 steps 27:10 still 5:7 Street 2:2,6,9 strictly 11:15 strikes 36:12 stuck 18:14 36:10 stuff 34:19 subject 5:3 26:5,21 27:13 30:6 submit 7:6 14:4 submitted 42:15 subpoena 11:934:17 34:20 subpoenaes 1 1 :5 subpoenas 14:25 22:21 38:18 39:19 subsequently 6:9 9:16 substantial 9:6 11:22,23 13:2 18:25 41:11 sue 7:17 suffered 32:3 suggest 8:10,23 suggested 12:13,21 14:16 15:5,6 36:3 39:2 40:8,9 suggesting 16:7 suggestion 15:17 41:25 44:10 suing 25:10 suit 203121:4 32:22 suits 26:25 summary 40:3 supporting 15:16 supposed 20:18 22:25 23:17 24:9 29:1 sure 5:7 14:11 26:2 29:16 33:22 37:25 Susan 3:17 system 31:23 starry 44:20 T T44:17,17 take 7:12 9:12 10:3,3 10:12,13,21 11:12 11:18,21,22 14:7 14:21 16:16,16 18:219:20 22:10 27:9,10 29:3 33:1 34:15,20 35:20 38:7,17 41:14,22 taken 7:7 9:11,21 14:9 15:5 3020 41:10 43:5 takes 18:17 taking 9:8 1423 19:17 22:12,20 23:15 25:20 34:8 41:5 talk 6:18 25:23 team 4:14 12:3 telephone 2:4,19,20 3:19 tell 11:13,14 42:12 telling 21:13 22:9 temporary 11:1 terminates 34:4 terms 9:3 22:7 33:20 thank 19:1,227:8,21 30:8,15 35:5,6 42:17 44:7,13 their 3:3,25 7:14,14 8:10,16 9:25 11:8 11:20 12:21 13:7 1421 15:6,10 21:21 23:6 27:5 29:21 32:5,7,7 themselves 32:4 thing 25:4 27:12 28:21 31:11 39:11 things 11:3 38:15 39:22 43:10 think 6:8,14 8:15 9:4 9:22 10:19 11:22 12:24,25 13:6,6 17:16 18:18,23 19:14 25:13 27:6,6 2722 28:18 29:15 30:23 39:6,8 42:1 42:2,6 43:15 44:14 third 11:6,11 14:25 22:21 3920 third-party 19:11 21:16 25:14 thoughts 27:2,5 threatening 44:1 three 41:14 through 3:5 6:9 11:7 11:16 29:14,22 31:5,24 32:6,16 till 14:2 time 6:10,11,12,15 6:19,2013:3 17:5 21:12 31:18,19 34:4 36:3 37:2 38:21 times 17:19183 today 8:4 13:11 14:3 14:6,6 15:5 28:17 319,1935:23 36:21 43:14 44:11 44:14 today's 13:12,14 told 23:20 35:23 tools 10:25 tort 10:242332 24:4,6 totally 20:5,21 23:1 41:24 TRANSCRIPT 1:10 transcription 44:19 trauma 32:3 traumatized 21:21 tried 31:3 32:6 troubled 43:24 true 17:12 try 23:11 30:16 32:18 34:17 44:15 trying 10:1122:3 28:25 32:9 37:8 39:20 turn 12:8 two 4:13 9:23 19:25 21:11 36:24 type 12:15 22:13 35:17 39:18 types 22:16 36:24 typical 112.4 22:15 23:3,4,8 ultimately 39:9 rumble 29:19 uncertainty 9:14 uncomfortable 23:11 Ender 5:17,17,23 7:20 8:18 9:25 EFTA00231665

Care 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 51 of* 51 10:1,11,22 12:6,10 12:20 13:7,8 16:8 16:17,23 17:2,4,8 17:12,18 18:4,8,19 209,18,19,2121:9 22:7 24:8,11,18,20 241.0 25:1,6 28:6 30:12 31:213221 32:23 33:7,10 34:18,23 35:24 36:5,8,9 37:1,13 38:25 39:6,14 40:6 40:21,23 41:1 understand 5:7 14:15 21:25 22:3 23:24 29:25 30:14 31:7 37:8 38:20 39:25 understanding 20:10 unfair 42:2 unilateral 12:22 unilaterally 7:13 12:24 United 1:1,11 2:22 4:8 5:1,5,17 6:1 9:24 10:6 13:21 14:8,17 16:7 19:14 22:10,19 29:8 39:4 44:5,22 unless 11:7 34:25 unlimited 40:21 until 37:23 urge 22:9 use 1015 11:8 2014 23:11 28:25 40:11 used 28:19 US 2:15 4:10 7:1,9 8:6 12:8,12 16:16 26:19 27:4,18,19 43:5,11,25 U.S.A 2:16 U.S.0 33:7 various 3:1 10:25 very 4:21 5:711:1,2 11:20 12:21 16:19 16:24 17:12,12 23:1129:4 32:1 35:18 38:10 40:18 42:2 43:18 44:14 Via 2:4,19,20 victim 37:13 victims 20:12 21:20 28:23 31:12,16,23 32:13 33:18 35:16 39:20 41:17,18,19 41:19 view 16:19 2:14 4:9 4:10 17:10 30:10 30:15 33:24 34:14 35:2,4,6,12 39:4 44:9,12 violate 19:18 344 violated 5:2 14:2 39:6 violates 8:5,11 33:2 42:25 violating 9:16,19 38:17 41:6 43:13 violation 8:23 9:9 10:4,19 11:20 12:7 12:9 13:15,19,20 13:23 14:10,19 15:2 16:7 18:19 24:19 25:19,20 29:10 34:10,13,24 35:12,24 37:17 40:25 41:4 violations 17:17,18 17:24 18:1,16 19:23 40:1643:17 43:22 voluminous 31:4 vs 1:6 3:1 5:17 W 2:5 wait 8:10 18:13 42:12 waive 25:14 waiving 18:7 want 8:9,10 11:15 12:2 16:22 17:20 21:4,4,5,14 22:1,6 25:17 26:2,8,16,18 26:23 27:4 29:16 35:7 37:21 41:17 41:2142:14,21 44:9 wanted 11:11 14:21 17:5 20:12 29:15 42:24 44:3 wants 11:14 13:3 19:2,16,20 23:4 24:24 33:16 34:2 warranted 6:22 wasn't 28:21 way 8:23 9910:5,16 10:19 11:4 13:16 14:10 19:23 25:1 25:18 27:3,4 28:22 28:23 ways 30:18 wealthy 32:13 Weigh 26:11 Weinberg 2:17 4:16 4:16 Weiss 2:12 well 7:10 8:20 10:22 11:12,12,13,13 12:17 13:16 14:11 15:7 16:18 17:15 1713 18:10,11 33:24 35:12,19,20 36:5 39:4 40:13 went 6:18,22 2623 32:16 43:19 were 6:10 14:6 15:10 18:7 19:11 211 29:23 31:17,18 32:1,4,22 34:17 3614 43:1 44:10 weren't 32:9 West 12,4,212:2,6 2:10,13 we'll 7:19,22 8:16 17:23 26:13 40:17 we're 9:8 10:2 12:10 13:14 19:10,12 20:5 27:15 28:17 39:1 43:14 44:2 we've 15:4 35:23 36:5 43:12 whatsoever 27:7 while 32:7 34:16 35:14 whole 20:12 38:11 wide 26:24 43:19 willful 8:23 12:7 willfully 9:19 Willits 1:23 3:13,14 26:10,10,14,15 27:12,19 win 29:5 withdraw 28:8,11 wonderful 28:23,24 word 24:21 worried 39:22 worry 41:11 Worth 1:24 writing 28:13 written 5:6 219 23:4 X x 1:9 yeah 41:3 yesterday 21:9 young 20:23 21:3,20 $15 17:20 8150,000 32:21 850,000 17:5 32:21 37:2 0 021162:18 0812:18,18 08-80119-CIV-M 1:3 1 15:17 10 36:15 10th 1:23 101 2:3,7 33:5 35:13 35:17 38:23 39:3,7 40:8 102 6:8 35:19 36:1,3 409 41:21 103 21:5 35:19 104 35:19 105 35:20 11:1044:16 121:5 9:4 12th 13:12 13 7:14 9:4 14 7:14 150 17:19,20 18:2 24:12 1727:23 289 1833:7 18205 1:14 192713 28:9 2 2 3:5 5:17 6:9,16 29:14,22 202:18 1725 182 2009 1:5 13:12 22 711 101 224121 2255 1613 17:4,17 17:18 18:8,12,14 20:2,9,19,21 2311 23:22,23 24:8,17 24:2125:6 31:21 32:21,23 33:7,10 36:6,23 37:13 41:2 2290123 25 2-1,6 250 2:12 26 20:4 3 3 1:18 3017:16,19,19 3,7 anIS :23 :23 33128 2:23 44:23 33130 2:3,6 33160 1:15 33301 1:18 33394 2:16 33401 1 O:l0,13 33461 1.74 34 21:20 4 41:18 11:12 400 2:23 44:22 401 1:17 5 51:18 6:9 5th 12:18 5018:2 24:12 5002:15 6 6 1:18 2:19 7 7 1:18 3:5 29:14,22 36:15 8 8 36:15 8N09 2:23 9 36: 9 EFTA00231666

U , SJ. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E.4th Street Miami, FL 33132 G. CASSELL Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Telephone: December 10, 2010 Re: Request for Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Prosecution Dear Mr. Ferrer: I am writing as someone with extensive experience in the federal criminal justice system — as a former Associate Deputy Attorney General, Assistant United States Attorney, federal judge, and currently criminal law professor — to alert you to what seems to be the most suspicious criminal case I have ever encountered. I ask that you investigate whether there were improper influences and actions during your office's criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, particularly regarding the decision to enter into a binding non-prosecution agreement blocking his prosecution for numerous federal sex offenses he committed over many years against more than thirty minor girls. As I am sure you are well aware, in 2006 your office opened a criminal investigation with the FBI into allegations that for years Jeffrey Epstein sexual abused dozens of minor girls in his West Palm Beach mansion. The FBI soon developed compelling evidence that Epstein had in fact committed numerous federal sex offenses with more than 30 minor girls. And yet, your office ultimately entered into a plea arrangement which allowed Epstein escape with a non- prosecution agreement that ensured he would have no federal criminal liability and would spend no more than 18 months in state jail. For sexual offenses of this magnitude — in a case with more than 30 witnesses providing interlocking testimony, all made automatically admissible by virtue of Fed. R. Evid. 414 — this is an extraordinary outcome. Why did your office enter into this highly unusual non-prosecution arrangement with Epstein? Suspicion begins with the point that Epstein is a politically-connected billionaire. But that wouldn't be troubling without considerable other evidence that something went terribly wrong with the prosecution for other, improper reasons. Consider the following highly unusual facts: First, it appears that Epstein was tipped off before the execution of a search warrant at his home. We know that lead state police officers -- Detective and Police Chief Michael -- complained that the house was "sanitized" by the time they arrived to serve a search warrant for child pornography. This sanitation was evident by the various computer wires hanging with no computers attached. Housekeeper Janusz Banasiak later testified In a civil www.law.utah.edu • Main Office • Facsimile 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0730 EFTA00231667

deposition that Epstein's assistant, (M) and another man (unknown) were instructed to remove, and did in fact remove, multiple computers from Epstein's home shortly before the search warrant was served. The fact that there could well have been a tip off is apparently suspected by federal authorities. Second, there is evidence that one of the senior prosecutors in your office joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability — and improperly represented people close to Epstein. During the federal investigation of Epstein, Bruce Reinhart was a senior Assistant U.S. Attorney in your office. As we understand things, he was a direct supervisor of the line prosecutor handling the case and thus was well aware of details of the Epstein investigation and plea negotiations. We further believe that he was consulted on issues related to the prosecution of Epstein and Epstein's co-conspirators, including specifically issues related to whether Epstein employees and pilots should be prosecuted for their involvement in Epstein's sexual offense. We further believe that he personally and substantially participated in making such decisions about the course of the criminal investigation. Within months after the non-prosecution agreement was signed by your office, Reinhart left your office and immediately went into private practice as a white collar criminal defense attorney. His office coincidentally happened to be not only in the same building (and on same floor) as Epstein's lead criminal defense counsel, Jack Goldberger, but it was actually located right next door to the Florida Science Foundation -- an Epstein-owned and -run company where Epstein spent his "work release." While working in this office adjacent to Epstein's, Reinhart undertook the representation of numerous Epstein employees and pilots during the civil cases filed against Epstein by the victims — cases that involved the exact same crimes and exact same evidence being reviewed by the U.S. Attorney's office when he was employed there. Specifically, he represented Kellen (Epstein's number one co-conspirator who was actually named as such in the NPA), his housekeeper (Louella Ruboyo), his pilots Larry Morrison, Larry Visoski, David Rogers, William Hammond and Robert Roxburgh. (Hammond and Roxburgh were not deposed but the others were.) Our understanding is that his representation of these individuals was paid for, directly or indirectly, by Epstein. Reinhart was well aware of what evidence your office and federal investigator had collected against Epstein and about the minor girls who were his victims. As a consequence, he knew what evilience-the-atter-neys-forthe-victiras.-wete I Sine _FlealsoinesKwhat each of those witnesses had said, if anything, to federal and state investigators during the criminal investigation. We have been unable to place our fingers on the federal regulations governing such later representation. We do know, however, that such actions appear to be in direct contravention of the Florida ethical rules regarding attorneys who leave government employment. For 2 EFTA00231668

example, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(a) provides "[a) lawyer shall not represent a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee unless the appropriate government agency consents after consultation." Similarly, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(6) provides that "[a] lawyer having information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee may not represent a private client whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used to the material disadvantage of that person." Both these rules appear to have been violated. But entirely apart from the details of ethical rules, the fact that one of your prosecutors was involved in making important decisions about the scope of criminal liability for Epstein and his associates and then — after criminal liability was significantly limited — representing numerous people at Epstein's behalf raises serious questions. At the very least, there is the strong appearance that Reinhard may have attempted to curry favor with Epstein and then reap his reward through favorable employment. At the very worst, there may have been advance discussions — we simply don't know at this point. Third, Epstein appears to have deliberately kept from victims in the case correspondence with your office and the Justice Department that might have shed light on improper influences. Along with other capable attorneys, I was involved in representing one of Epstein's victims (..) who filed a federal civil case against Epstein. Suspecting that Epstein may have improperly influenced your office, we immediately served discovery requests on Epstein for all the correspondence with your office regarding the plea negotiations. Eleven months of hard litigation ensued, in which Epstein made every conceivable argument against production. Finally, late in June of this year, his appeals exhausted, Epstein produced the correspondence to us. However, in violation of the court order, he redacted the correspondence so that he provided only emails and other statements from your office — not his emails and statements to your office. More significantly, even though he was under court order to produce all correspondence between his attorneys and your office, Epstein secretly withheld correspondence by several of his most high-powered attorneys — namely Ken Starr and Lilly Ann Sanchez. Epstein settled the case with M. within days after this limited production, and we did not realize the absence of what must have been critical discussions between your office and Starr and Snachez (among others). Epstein's refusal to allow us to see that information raises the suspicion in our minds that there must have been unusual pressures being brought to bear during the plea discussions that would have been revealed had Epstein complied with his production obligations. mirth, t vre-appears le-have-been-an-imprecefientpti level of secrecy between your office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this case. The FBI was responsible, along with state and local police agencies, for building the case against Epstein. They appear to have developed an overwhelming criminal against him. And yet, when your office signed the non- prosecution agreement with him, it is not clear to us that the FBI was consulted about this decision. Indeed, we have suspicions that the FBI was not informed of this decision until, perhaps, months later. 3 EFTA00231669

Supporting this suspicion is our on-going litigation regarding the treatment of the victims in this case. As you know from our draft pleadings that we have discussed with your office, we believe there is compelling evidence that the victims and their attorneys were deceived about the existence of a non-prosecution agreement for months in order to avoid what certainly would have been a firestorm of controversy about such lenient treatment of a repeat sex offender. Our impression from the evidence we have been able to obtain so far is that the FBI was similarly kept in the dark — not consulted about or even told about the NPA. While a certain amount of tension has always existed between federal prosecuting and investigating agencies, not even informing the FBI about the Epstein NPA seems highly unusual. All of these strange facts -- as well as the facts that we are alleging in our crime victims' litigation — lead us to think that there was something rotten with the way this case was handled. Epstein could have faced years and years in prison for numerous federal sex offenses. And yet he managed to contrive to walk away with no federal time at all (and only minimal state time). We respectfully ask you to investigate through appropriate and independent channels the handling of the Epstein (non)prosecution. Thank you in advance for considering this request. I would be happy to provide any other additional information that would be useful to you. 4 EFTA00231670

3- EFTA00231671

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile: December 5, 2008 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Brad Edwards Esq. 2028 Street, Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 Re: Jeffrey Epstein,. Shawna Rivera. and Notification of Work Release Dear Mr. Edwards: By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your clients, , Shawna Rivera, and . The U.S. Attorney's Office has learned that Jeffrey Epstein has applied to participate in the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office's ("PBSO") work release program, and PBSO has granted that application. Mr. Epstein is reportedly working for The Florida Science Foundation at 250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1404, West Palm Beach, FL 33401. After work each day, Mr. Epstein returns to the Palm Beach County Stockade. While outside the Stockade, Mr. Epstein is electronically monitored via a GPS system and an ankle bracelet. Pursuant to the work release rules, Mr. Epstein is to go directly from the Stockade to his office, remain at the office throughout the work day, and then return directly to the Stockade. We regret that we were unable to inform your client of these developments prior to Mr. Epstein's release, but our Office was never notified of Mr. Epstein's application, and we only learned of his release more than six weeks after he began participating in the program. Should you or your client haveiniquestions regarding the work release program, please direct your inquiries to Captain David , Palm Bcach Sheriff's Office, 561-688-3595. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: oarliSaa Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00231672

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile: December 11, 2008 VIA HAND DELIVERY Captain David Palm Beach Sheriffs Office Corrections Division 3228 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Re: Work Release Application of Jeffrey Epstein Dear Captain The U.S. Attorney's Office recently learned that Inmate Jeffrey Epstein applied for and was approved for participation in the Palm Beach Sheriffs Office's ("PBSO") work release program. Through a request for public records, I have received a copy of Mr. Epstein's work release file. After doing some Internet research of public records and making a few telephone calls, I discovered some inaccuracies and omissions in Mr. Epstein's file that I wanted to bring to your attention. During a recent meeting, Roy Black, one of Mr. Epstein's attorneys, invited us to share our concerns with PBSO. Eligibility for Participation I understand that Mr. Epstein would be ineligible for participation in the work release program if he committed three violations of F.S.S. 796 within the past five years. Mr. Epstein has been charged with and convicted of a felony violation of F.S.S. 796.07. In order to be convicted of a felony violation of that statute, one must commit "a third or subsequent violation." In other words, Mr. Epstein has committed at least three violations of Section 796.07, and in his "Alternative Custody Program Placement Synopsis," Mr. Epstein's charges are described as "Recommit: Prostitution." In addition to those three violations, Mr. Epstein also has been convicted of violating F.S.S. 796.03, procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution. Throughout his EFTA00231673

CAPTAIN DAVID DECEMBER I I, 2008 PAGE 2 paperwork, this violation is referred to simply as "prostitution." The charge is not a solicitation of prostitution charge, it is a procurement of a minor to engage in prostitution. Florida courts have defined the offense as "inducing a victim to engage in sexual activity" for money and "persuading, inducing, or prevailing upon a person to do something sexual" for financial gain. In other words, the statute addresses the recruiting of minors who have not previously been involved in prostitution to engage in sexual activity for commercial gain to a recruiter or "pimp"/"madame." The Florida Legislature has acknowledged the significant difference between solicitation under F.S.S. 796.07 and procurement of minors under F.S.S. 796.03 by requiring persons convicted of violating F.S.S. 796.03 to register as sex offenders. The distinction may be meaningful to the victims of Mr. Epstein's offenses, who could feel that they are being stigmatized as "prostitutes." Inaccuracies and Omission in Work Release Application and Related Documents Throughout the records related to Mr. Epstein's work release placement, he is alternatively referred to as working for "The Florida Science Foundation" or "self- employed," and Mr. Epstein lists his salary as $250,000. Mr. Epstein describes himself as "returning to work" and "eligible for re-employment" at The Florida Science Foundation. Please be advised that the only W-2 that Mr. Epstein provided is from Financial Trust Company, Inc., which shows that Mr. Epstein was employed in the U.S. Virgin Islands at a salary of $180,785.62, not $250,000. Mr. Epstein provided to you no documentation regarding his pre-incarceration employment with "The Florida Science Foundation" or its corporate alter-ego, "The C.O.U.Q. Foundation, Inc." As you will see, the Foundation, its offices, and Mr. Epstein's purported job schedule were all created on the eve of Mr. Epstein's incarceration in order to provide him with a basis for seeking work release. The Florida Science Foundation was not registered with the State of Florida and had no office space or telephone number until after Mr. Epstein was already incarcerated. The application filed with the State of Florida and signed under penal of r'u b Richard Kahn lists Mr. Kahn's and the Foundation's telephone number as ." That is the telephone number of Atterbury, Goldberger and Weiss-one of the law firms representing Mr. Epstein. Richard Kahn is a partner at the law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell in New York and has no association with the Atterbury firm. Checking public records available on the Internet, I located the IRS returns of "The C.O.U.Q. Foundation, Inc." for fiscal years 1999 through 2006 (which covers the period EFTA00231674

CAPTAIN DAVID DECEMBER II, 2008 PAGE 3 through 2/28/07).' These sworn filings show that Mr. Epstein worked for the Foundation for only one hour per week and earned no compensation. (Sag page 6 of each return.) All of these returns were signed under penalty of perjury by either Mr. Epstein or Darren Indyke, who is listed in Mr. Epstein's work release file as Mr. Epstein's "supervisor." Mr. Epstein's representations concerning his prior work duties and salary may violate the salary and employment verification requirements of C.O.P. #926.01(V)(CX7) and (8). In response to your requirement of "a detailed work schedule," Mr. Indyke has provided the following two sentences: [Mr. Epstein's] duties will require him to work six days a week, Monday through Saturday, at the Foundation's office located at 250 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 1404, West Palm Beach, Florida from the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. As President of the Foundation, Mr. Epstein will be responsible for the general oversight and management of the Foundation, and particularly, to seek out, evaluate and determine worthy charitable causes to which the Foundation may make contributions. Mr. Indyke did not disclose that Mr. Epstein only worked one hour per week prior to his incarceration and has provided no explanation of why Mr. Epstein could perform these duties in one hour per week before he was incarcerated but now needs to spend 72 hours each week to do the same job. Again, this appears to be inconsistent with C.O.P. #926.011)(CX7). Mr. Indyke has signed the "Alternative Custody Unit Program Agreement" as Mr. Epstein's "employer." In that Agreement, Mr. Indyke promises to "notify the Alternative 'The returns are available online at the following public websites: FY2006: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2007/133/996/2007-133996471-0391c8db-F.pdf FY2005: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/133/996/2006-133996471-02c9625e-F.pdf FY2004: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/133/996/2005-133996471-02056acf-F.pdf . up. .guidestar.org/Fmnocumentsi2u04/ 33/996/ZUU4-1339964 /1-1 -k.pdt FY 2002: http://www.guidestatorg/FinDocuments/2003/133/996/2003-133996471-1-F.pdf FY2001: http://www.guidestar.orgifinDocuments/2002/133/996/2002-133996471-1-F.pdf FY2000: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2001/133/996/2001-133996471-1-F.pdf FY1999: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2000/133/996/2000-133996471-1-F.pdf FYI998: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/1999/133/996/1999-133996471-1-F.pdf EFTA00231675

CAPTAIN DAVID DECEMBER I I, 2008 PAGE 4 Custody Unit immediately if the Participant: (1) Fails to appear for work at the scheduled time; and (2) Leaves the place of employment prior to the scheduled time." Both in this form and in Mr. Indyke's letter in support of Mr. Epstein's application, Mr. Indyke neglects to inform the Sheriff's Office of two significant facts. First, Mr. Indyke lives and works in the New York metropolitan area. He likely will not be present at Mr. Epstein's workplace, so he may not know if Mr. Epstein "fails to appear for work" or "leaves the place of employment." In that event, Mr. Indyke also will not be able to supervise Mr. Epstein's actual work to determine whether he is truly doing the work of The Florida Science Foundation.2 Second, Mr. Indyke does not "employ" Mr. Epstein. Instead, Mr. Epstein "employs" Mr. Indyke. Mr. Epstein is the President and founder of The Florida Science Foundation and Mr. Indyke is its Vice President. More importantly, Mr. Epstein is also the founder and President of the Financial Trust Company, his for-profit corporation. Mr. Indyke is Mr. Epstein's subordinate at that entity as well. One of Mr. Epstein's attorneys has suggested that Mr. Epstein is using his time on work release to manage investments resulting in investment income of millions of dollars. If that is true, then Mr. Epstein is acting outside of the scope of his employment with The Florida Science Foundation. Instead, that would be in keeping with Mr. Epstein's work for his for-profit corporation, which would inure to the benefit of Mr. Indyke. Because that work would result in a financial benefit to him, and because he is Mr. Epstein's subordinate at that corporation, Mr. Indyke may be reluctant to inform the Sheriffs Office of this violation of the terms of Mr. Epstein's Work Release contract. The "references" listed by Mr. Epstein all appear to have the same conflict of interest. Mr. Epstein did not list any past or present co-workers, supervisors, or clients. Instead, he has listed four attorneys who are currently retained—and paid—by Mr. Epstein. Their attorney- client privilege obligations might further restrain them from notifying the Sheriffs Office if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is completely within the discretion of the Sheriff's Office. The purpose of this letter is simply to provide you with information concerning Mr. Epstein's offenses and his work situation. Judge Pucillo, who conducted the change of plea and sentencing, heard the factual proffer and imposed Mr. Epstein's sentence. She has not been consulted regarding Mr. Epstein's 20n the application for registration of the Florida Science Foundation with Florida's Department of State, Mr. Indyke lists his true address in Livingston, New Jersey. EFTA00231676

CAPTAIN DAVID DECEMBER II, 2008 PAGE 5 application for work release. I understand that Judge McSorley's standing order states that she "takes no position with respect to the eligibility of any inmate sentenced in this Division unless specifically stated at time of sentencing." Because of her absence, Judge McSorley did not conduct the sentencing and, therefore, did not have the opportunity to weigh any objections to work release at that hearing. It is unclear whether Judge Pucillo was aware of Judge McSorley's standing order when she imposed sentence. In utilizing your discretion, you may or may not choose to consult with the appropriate judge on this matter. Request for Notification As I had previously asked of Colonel Gauger, I would appreciate if you would keep me informed of any changes to Mr. Epstein's release status so that I may fulfill my obligations to keep the victims identified through the federal investigation informed of Mr. Epstein's status. I have informed all of the known victims of Mr. Epstein of the change in his incarceration status and that you are the contact person if they have any questions. Some may ask that their locations be amongst the "Exclusionary Zones" programmed into Mr. Epstein's GPS unit. If you need their addresses, please let me know. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: Colonel I EFTA00231677

EFTA00231678

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile: December 11, 2008 VIA HAND DELIVERY Captain David Palm Beach Sheriff's Office Corrections Division 3228 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Re: Work Release Application of Jeffrey Epstein Dear Captain The U.S. Attorney's Office recently learned that Inmate Jeffrey Epstein applied for and was approved for participation in the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office's ("PBSO") work release program. Through a request for public records, I have received a copy of Mr. Epstein's work release file. After doing some intemet research of public records and making a few telephone calls, I discovered some inaccuracies and omissions in Mr. Epstein's file that I wanted to bring to your attention. During a recent meeting, Roy Black, one of Mr. Epstein's attorneys, invited us to share our concerns with PIM. Eligibility for Participation I understand that Mr. Epstein would be ineligible for participation in the work release program if he committed three violations of F.S.S. 796 within the past five years. Mr. Epstein has been charged with and convicted of a felony violation of F.S.S. 796.07. In order to be convicted of a felony violation of that statute, one must commit "a third or subsequent violation." In other words, Mr. Epstein has committed at least three violations of Section /90.0 1, andin his "Alternative Custody Program Placement Synopsis," Mr. bpstem's charges are described as "Recommit: Prostitution." In addition to those three violations, Mr. Epstein also has been convicted of violating F.S.S. 796.03, procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution. Throughout his EFTA00231679

CAPTAIN DAVID DECEMBER I I, 2008 PAGE 2 paperwork, this violation is referred to simply as "prostitution." The charge is not a solicitation of prostitution charge, it is a procurement of a minor to engage in prostitution. Florida courts have defined the offense as "inducing a victim to engage in sexual activity" for money and "persuading, inducing, or prevailing upon a person to do something sexual" for financial gain. In other words, the statute addresses the recruiting of minors who have not previously been involved in prostitution to engage in sexual activity for commercial gain to a recruiter or "pimp"/"madame." The Florida Legislature has acknowledged the significant difference between solicitation under F.S.S. 796.07 and procurement of minors under F.S.S. 796.03 by requiring persons convicted of violating F.S.S. 796.03 to register as sex offenders. The distinction may be meaningful to the victims of Mr. Epstein's offenses, who could feel that they are being stigmatized as "prostitutes." Inaccuracies and Omission in Work Release Application and Related Documents Throughout the records related to Mr. Epstein's work release placement, he is alternatively referred to as working for "The Florida Science Foundation" or "self- employed," and Mr. Epstein lists his salary as $250,000. Mr. Epstein describes himself as "returning to work" and "eligible for re-employment" at The Florida Science Foundation. Please be advised that the only W-2 that Mr. Epstein provided is from Financial Trust Company, Inc., which shows that Mr. Epstein was employed in the U.S. Virgin Islands at a salary of $180,785.62, not $250,000. Mr. Epstein provided to you no documentation regarding his pre-incarceration employment with "The Florida Science Foundation" or its corporate alter-ego, "The C.O.U.Q. Foundation, Inc." As you will see, the Foundation, its offices, and Mr. Epstein's purported job schedule were all created on the eve of Mr. Epstein's incarceration in order to provide him with a basis for seeking work release. The Florida Science Foundation was not registered with the State of Florida and had no office space or telephone number until after Mr. Epstein was already incarcerated. The application filed with the State of Florida and signed under penal of e .11 b Richard Kahn lists Mr. Kahn's and the Foundation's telephone number as ' ." That is the telephone number of Atterbury, Goldberger and Weiss—one of the law firms representing Mr. Epstein. Richard Kahn is a partner at the law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell in New York and has no association with the Atterbury firm. Checking public records available on the internet, I located the IRS returns of "The C.O.U.Q. Foundation, Inc." for fiscal years 1999 through 2006 (which covers the period EFTA00231680

CAPTAIN DAVID DECEMBER 11, 2008 PAGE 3 through 2/28/07).' These sworn filings show that Mr. Epstein worked for the Foundation for only one hour per week and earned no compensation. (See page 6 of each return.) All of these returns were signed under penalty of perjury by either Mr. Epstein or Darren Indyke, who is listed in Mr. Epstein's work release file as Mr. Epstein's "supervisor." Mr. Epstein's representations concerning his prior work duties and salary may violate the salary and employment verification requirements of C.O.P. #926.01(V)(C)(7) and (8). In response to your requirement of "a detailed work schedule," Mr. Indyke has provided the following two sentences: [Mr. Epstein's] duties will require him to work six days a week, Monday through Saturday, at the Foundation's office located at 250 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 1404, West Palm Beach, Florida from the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. As President of the Foundation, Mr. Epstein will be responsible for the general oversight and management of the Foundation, and particularly, to seek out, evaluate and determine worthy charitable causes to which the Foundation may make contributions. Mr. Indyke did not disclose that Mr. Epstein only worked one hour per week prior to his incarceration and has provided no explanation of why Mr. Epstein could perform these duties in one hour per week before he was incarcerated but now needs to spend 72 hours each week to do the same job. Again, this appears to be inconsistent with C.O.P. #926.01(V)(C)(7). Mr. Indyke has signed the "Alternative Custody Unit Program Agreement" as Mr. Epstein's "employer." In that Agreement, Mr. Indyke promises to "notify the Alternative 'The returns are available online at the following public websites: FY2006: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2007/133/996/2007-133996471-0391c8db-F.pdf FY2005: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/133/996/2006-133996471-02c9625e-F.pdf FY2004: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/133/996/2005- 13399647 l -02056acf-F.pdf u3. http.//www.guidestar.org/PinVocumentsf2UU4/133/996/2004-133996471-1-F.pdf FY 2002: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/133/996/2003-133996471-1-F.pdf FY2001: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/133/996/2002-133996471-1-F.pdf FY2000: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2001/133/996/2001-133996471-1-F.pdf FY1999: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2000/133/996/2000-133996471-1-F.pdf FY1998: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/1999/133/996/1999-133996471-1-F.pdf EFTA00231681

CAPTAIN DAVID DECEMBER 11, 2008 PAGE 4 Custody Unit immediately if the Participant: (1) Fails to appear for work at the scheduled time; and (2) Leaves the place of employment prior to the scheduled time." Both in this form and in Mr. Indyke's letter in support of Mr. Epstein's application, Mr. Indyke neglects to inform the Sheriff's Office of two significant facts. First, Mr. Indyke lives and works in the New York metropolitan area. He likely will not be present at Mr. Epstein's workplace, so he may not know if Mr. Epstein "fails to appear for work" or "leaves the place of employment." In that event, Mr. Indyke also will not be able to supervise Mr. Epstein's actual work to determine whether he is truly doing the work of The Florida Science Foundation.2 Second, Mr. lndyke does not "employ" Mr. Epstein. Instead, Mr. Epstein "employs" Mr. Indyke. Mr. Epstein is the President and founder of The Florida Science Foundation and Mr. Indyke is its Vice President. More importantly, Mr. Epstein is also the founder and President of the Financial Trust Company, his for-profit corporation. Mr. Indyke is Mr. Epstein's subordinate at that entity as well. One of Mr. Epstein's attorneys has suggested that Mr. Epstein is using his time on work release to manage investments resulting in investment income of millions of dollars. If that is true, then Mr. Epstein is acting outside of the scope of his employment with The Florida Science Foundation. Instead, that would be in keeping with Mr. Epstein's work for his for-profit corporation, which would inure to the benefit of Mr. Indyke. Because that work would result in a financial benefit to him, and because he is Mr. Epstein's subordinate at that corporation, Mr. Indyke may be reluctant to inform the Sheriff's Office of this violation of the terms of Mr. Epstein's Work Release contract. The "references" listed by Mr. Epstein all appear to have the same conflict of interest. Mr. Epstein did not list any past or present co-workers, supervisors, or clients. Instead, he has listed four attorneys who are currently retained—and paid—by Mr. Epstein. Their attorney- client privilege obligations might further restrain them from notifying the Sheriff's Office if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is completely within the discretion of the Sheriff's Office. The purpose of this letter is simply to provide you with information concerning Mr. Epstein's offenses and his work situation. Judge Pucillo, who conducted the change of plea and sentencing, heard the factual proffer and imposed Mr. Epstein's sentence. She has not been consulted regarding Mr. Epstein's 'On the application for registration of the Florida Science Foundation with Florida's Department of State, Mr. Indyke lists his true address in Livingston, New Jersey. EFTA00231682

CAPTAIN DAVID DECEMBER I I, 2008 PAGE 5 application for work release. I understand that Judge McSorley's standing order states that she "takes no position with respect to the eligibility of any inmate sentenced in this Division unless specifically stated at time of sentencing." Because of her absence, Judge McSorley did not conduct the sentencing and, therefore, did not have the opportunity to weigh any objections to work release at that hearing. It is unclear whether Judge Pucillo was aware of Judge McSorley's standing order when she imposed sentence. In utilizing your discretion, you may or may not choose to consult with the appropriate judge on this matter. Request forNotification As I had previously asked of Colonel Gauger, I would appreciate if you would keep me informed of any changes to Mr. Epstein's release status so that I may fulfill my obligations to keep the victims identified through the federal investigation informed of Mr. Epstein's status. I have informed all of the known victims of Mr. Epstein of the change in his incarceration status and that you are the contact person if they have any questions. Some may ask that their locations be amongst the "Exclusionary Zones" programmed into Mr. Epstein's GPS unit. If you need their addresses, please let me know. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: cc: Colonel I Assistant United States Attorney EFTA00231683

FBI PALM BEACH COUNTY RA JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN 31E-MM EFTA00231684

EFTA00231685