(USAFLS) From: Roy Black < Sent: Wednesda , Februa 11, 2015 8:50 AM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Your phone call Great. Speak to you then. Original Message From: (USAFLS) Imailt Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:49 AM To: Roy Black Subject: Re: Your phone call Hi Roy. Thanks for your message. Dexter wants to participate in the call so it is helpful to have a roadmap of the discussion points. We will call your office at 2:00. If there is a better number to call, just shoot me an email. Talk to you soon. Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 On Feb 10, 2015, at 7:35 PM, "Roy Black" < mailto: wrote: Marie I was not calling you about the correspondence so don't worry about that. I called you to discuss the plaintiff's replies filed as dockets 310 and 311. We think there are serious misstatements by them in these pleadings. So I just wanted to let you know what our suggested responses are. I have decided to summarize them here because it is easier than going through it on the phone and I assume you need to discuss this with dexter. JD 3 is willing to sign any affidavit put before her and it is hard to stomach. Whenever they have a problem they just have her file a new affidavit. I admit I am steamed and biased about this because of the trashing of alan's reputation. This makes me sick. I don't mind defending almost any accusation but gratuitously destroying a man like alan is going beyond any ethical boundaries. How about if I call you at 2 tomorrow? 1. The CVRA case is a Complaint about whether certain statutory rights were violated by the Govt. The Govt not JE is the defendant. Whether JD 3 or JD 4 are or are not victims is not the test of whether they are proper petitioners: they also must allege a basis for the allegations that their rights to consultation and notification were violated. JD 4 was not even known to the Govt: by definition how could she have been notified or consulted? JD 3 informed the Govt in 2007 that she did not want to be contacted or "bothered" again, DKT 304.1. The FBI case agent participated in the conversation. The FBI provided JD 3 with their contact information. She did not contact the FBI or L./SAO again seeking to assert her rights as a crime victim until 4 years later. Again, by definition, she rejected rights to consultation and notification in this conversation with the Government and in her subsequent decision to avoid any involvement with the FBI until she was again interviewed in 2011; EFTA00188608

EFTA00188609

2. JD 3 was not a minor during the critical time periods. She was 23 when interviewed by the FBI in 2007. She was 25 when she received a specific notification in September of 2008 (Dkt 290-1) that the federal investigation of JE had concluded with a state plea and sentence (this was only 2 months after the sentence and the beginning of state incarceration). Rather than contesting the resolution that the USAO reached with JE in a timely manner, she exploited it by suing JE as Jane Doe 102 and reaching a favorable financial settlement by taking advantage of the attorney representative and the waiver of liability provisions of the NPA. By the time of her lawsuit in early 2009, the NPA had been unsealed, was in the possession of her counsel, was mentioned in her lawsuit, and yet she did nothing for 5 years (other than receiving a monetary settlement) to pursue her alleged grievances in court; 3. The Complaint by JD 3 (then Jane Doe 102 as stipulated to by her counsel in Dkt 311 at 4) made all of the same factual allegations as she makes in 2014 and, importantly, in par 32, states that following an investigation by the FBI and USAO JE pled guilty to state offenses. . She had all the information available to her in early 2009 that she needed to contest the NPA and pleas of guilty if she so chose; 4. Judge Marra himself said "there is no logical reason to treat anon-prosecution agreement' which the government employs to dispose of contemplated federal charges any different from a 'plea agreement' employed to dispose of charged offenses in interpreting remedies available under the CVRA. Where the statute expressly contemplates that a 'plea' may be set aside if entered in violation of CVRA conferral rights, it necessary contemplates that a 'non• prosecution' agreement may be set aside if entered in violation of the government's conferral obligations", Dkt 189 at 9. In short, the law of the case dictates that the test for whether the Motion to Join is timely is the test that would apply to efforts to rescind a plea and sentence. 5. The proper test of the timing of the Motion to Join (or any later Complaint) is found within 18 USC 3771(d)(5) styled "Limitation of Relief" where a crime victim may make a motion to re-open a plea or sentence only if "the victim has asserted the right to be heard before or during the proceeding at issue ..". This provision is enacted to prevent delay and its concomitant prejudice to a defendant who is serving a sentence that the "victim" wishes to re-open or challenge. By delaying her attempt to re-open the NPA (which is not only analogous to a "plea and sentence" but expressly incorporates the imperative of JE pleading guilty in state court) JD 3 waived her right to contest the NPA; 6. JD 3 seeks to rescind the NPA (See Dkt 311 at 7). She therefore seeks to rescind the plea and state sentence. These were fully served during the very time she sought monetary benefits by delaying joining the ongoing CVRA case. Judge Marra found that the delay in proceeding on an expedited basis as to JD 1 and 2 was attributable to their prioritizing their monetary lawsuit, DKT 189 at 5 (finding that for 18 months the CVRA stalled as the petitioners pursued their collateral lawsuits against JE). These delays also contradicted a second statutory mandate - that district courts "decide any motion asserting a victim's rights forthwith" with a limit on continuances of 5 days and a short period to appeal adverse decisions, 18 USC 3771(d)(3). The entire statutory scheme is to avoid delay in part to vindicate claimed rights, in part to prevent a rescission or re-opening after the defendant has suffered the full prejudice of serving his sentence as JE has here. (See DKT 290 at 2-4) 7. The SOL is not the test for whether the Govt and JE has been prejudiced by delay. SOL are procedural which is why they can be extended after the date when the alleged offense occurred (if they were substantive, such an extension would constitute an ex post facto violation of a defendant's rights). If civil procedure is being used for purposes of broadening discovery (See Dkt 310 at 5), then the civil SOL should apply. The criminal SOL has nothing to do with the CVRA. Under the Petitioners theory, Jane Doe 3 could wait until she is 60 or 70 years old to bring the CVRA complaint (Dkt 311 at 9). 2 EFTA00188610

EFTA00188611

8. Jane Doe 3's residing in did not prevent her from joining the CVRA case. The case was widely reported in the media as was the NPA (DKT 290 at 7 fn 7 where Govt identifies an internet search that would have disclosed the CVRA as of July of 2008). She herself gave media interviews as early as 2011. She was not too frightened to go on the offensive with . She was never threatened. She could easily have asked to join the CVRA complaint as a "victim" living' ' but chose not to. (Dkt 311 at 11) 9. Jane Doe 3 claims she did not learn the specifics of the CVRA until 2014 (Dkt 311 at 11) but she knew about the NPA - which was made public and discussed by the media and was the basis of her 2009 lawsuit, she knew by her receipt of a letter from the USAO dated 9-3-08 that JE had pled guilty and was sentenced and that the USAO had "agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence", Dkt 290 at 4, Dkt 290-1, she knew as of 9.3.08 that there was ongoing litigation involving two other victims (Dkt 290.1, Dkt 311 at 12), and she was making herself publicly available by giving interviews to the and to Edwards and Scarola in 2011. She was an adult in 2008 (25) and 2011 (28). She has a responsibility to join the lawsuit prior to the completion of JE sentence. Principles of !aches should estop this long delayed effort to rescind the very agreement that she benefited from via her earlier 2255 lawsuit. From: . (USAFIS) (mailto Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 3:37 PM To: Roy Black Subject: Your phone call Hi Roy - I have been trying again to get an answer to your question from weeks ago about the correspondence before I called you back. I still do not have an answer. Why don't we set up a time tomorrow to talk, and hopefully I will have an answer by then. I am free any time before 4:30. Thanks. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 3 EFTA00188612

EFTA00188613

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 UNITED STATES JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2'S PROTECTIVE MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 15 TO AMEND THEIR PETITION TO CONFORM TO EXISTING EVIDENCE AND TO ADD JANE DOE NO. 3 AND JANE DOE NO. 4 AS PETITIONERS COME NOW Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 (the "current victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to file this protective motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure I 5(aX2) to amend the petition that they have filed in this case. The amendment would (I) conform their petition to the evidence in the case and (2) add Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 (the "new victims") as petitioners. This motion is a "protective" motion because it may be unnecessary. With regard to amending to conform to the evidence, the current victims believe that their existing petition is broad enough to cover the developing evidence in this case. But the petition was filed on July 7. 2008, before the Government had even disclosed the existence of the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) in this case. The petition, accordingly, does not specifically discuss the Government's concealment of the NPA. To conform to that important fact in this case, it appears desirable to amend the petition to address the NPA. With regard to amending to add new victims, the Government has argued that Rule 15 (addressing amending pleadings) rather than Rule 21 (addressing joinder of parties) is the applicable rule. While the victims have contested that view in their concurrently-filed Rule 21 EFTA00188614

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 2 of 21 reply brief, out of an abundance of caution, they explain here why a Rule IS motion to amend should be granted. In addition. Rule 15(c)(I) allows an amended pleading to "relate back" to the date of an initial pleading, provided that the amendment asserts a claim "that arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set out . . . in the original pleading." Because the original petition in this case alleged that the Government violated the rights of all the girls who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the proposed amendment in this case would relate back to the date the petition was filed: July 7, 2008. This relation back eliminates any statute of limitations or other timelessness concerns. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On July 7. 2008, Jane Doe No. I filed a petition under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. See DE I. She sought to enforce both her CVRA rights — and the rights of other victims. As the Court is aware, when Jane Doe No. I filed her initial petition in this action, it was unclear whether the Government had even reached a plea arrangement with Jeffrey Epstein and, if so, what crimes were covered. Accordingly, the petition generally alleged that. "[u]pon infomiation and belief, [Epstein] is engaged in plea negotiations with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida concerning federal crimes he is alleged to have committed against minor children, including Petitioner." DE I at 1-2 (emphasis added).' Jane Doe No. l's petition went on to quite specifically allege that the Government was violating not only her rights but the rights of other similarly-situated victims: "On information and belief, roughly the same crimes were committed [by Epstein] against several other young females. These victims, too, are in danger of losing their right to colter under the CVRA." DE I at 7 n.2 (emphasis added). I Obviously, at that point Jane Doe No. 1 did not know that the Government and Epstein had secretly concluded a non-prosecution deal some nine months earlier, in about October 2007. 2 EFTA00188615

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 3 of 21 The Government filed a response to the petition, and then Jane Doc No. I filed a reply in support of her petition. By this time, counsel for Jane Doe No. I had heard about the NPA, but had not seen the agreement. Once again. Jane Doe No. 1's pleading very directly mentioned other victims, alleging: "This deferred prosecution agreement was reached without conferral with [Jane Doe No. 1] — or, indeed, with the many other young victims of [Epstein's] crimes." DE 9 at I (emphasis added). The reply went on to explain that the agreement "remarkably allowed the defendant — a billionaire with extraordinary political connections — to escape all federal prosecutions for dozens of serious federal sex offenses against minors." Id. at 1-2. The reply explained the relief sought, specifically that "[t]he Court should therefore declare the proposed non-prosecution agreement an illegal one, since it was reached in violation of the CVRA, and order the Government to confer with Petitioner and the other victims in this matter before reaching any disposition in this case." Id. at 2 (emphasis added). The reply asked the Court to "hold that [Jane Doe No. 1] and the other victims in this case had the right to confer with the Government before it reached its non-prosecution agreement." Id. at 8 (emphasis added); see also id. (the Government kept Jane Doe No. I "and the many other victims of [Epstein's] federal sex offenses . . . in the dark about the fact that the Government was planning to reach a deal ... ."); id. at 10 (the Government did not use "its `best efforts' to protect the rights of [Jane Doe No. I] (and the other victims) in this case when it failed to confer with her about the non-prosecution agreement"). Jane Doe No. I asked for the "obvious remedy" that would involve all the victims — i.e., that the court "declare the non-prosecution agreement illegal and direct that the Government proceed to negotiate a new agreement . . . in a process that respects [Jane Doc No. I's] (and the other victims) rights." Id. at 12 (emphasis added). EFTA00188616

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 4 of 21 The Court rapidly held a hearing. During that hearing, the Government agreed to add Jane Doe No. 2 into the case as a second petitioner. Counsel for Jane Doe No. I and No. 2 also began learning about broad outlines of the NPA the hearing. See DE 15 (tr. July 11, 2008) at 24 (court notes that victims' counsel "learned today . . . that the agreement was signed . . . in October"). As the case proceeded in the following months, the Court ordered the Government to produce the NPA to the victims (DE 26) and to attempt to reach a stipulated set of facts. Over the next several years, the Government took conflicting positions on whether it would stipulate to facts, ultimately refusing to stipulate to anything. See generally DE 225-I at 2-4. Unable to obtain any stipulations. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 filed a detailed summary judgment motion (DE 48). This motion relied in large measure on the Government's and Epstein's joint decision to conceal the NPA from the victims. See, e.g., DE 48 at 10 (noting that "the U.S. Attorney's Office put itself in a position that conferring with the crime victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement would violate the terms of the agreement"). In addition to discussing the situation of the two petitioners, the motion also raised very specific allegations about Jane Doe No. 3, i.e., that "Jeffrey Epstein flew at least one underage girl on his private jet for the purpose of forcing her to have sex with him and others. Epstein forced this underage girl to be sexually exploited by his adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, businessmen, and professional and personal acquaintances." DE 48 at 4 (citing complaint filed on behalf of Jane Doe No. 3, identified as "Jane Doe No. 102"). The Court ultimately denied the victims' motion for judgment on the pleadings, but allowed the case to move forward. DE 99. The victims then filed discovery requests. As the 4 EFTA00188617

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 5 of 21 Court is aware, discovery issues arc currently pending before the Court. The Government has not yet fully answered the victims' discovery requests. On December 30, 2014, two new victims filed a motion to join this case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. DE 280. The Government objected to this motion. DE 290. One of the arguments that the Government made in its response was that the proper vehicle for adding new parties into this case is not a motion for joinder, but rather a motion to amend pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. IS. DE 290 at 2.2 The Government then argued that the Court should deny the current victims leave to amend. Id. In a concurrently-filed reply brief regarding the Rule 21 motion, the victims have replied to Government, arguing that Rule 21 is the proper vehicle for adding new panics to this case. But because of the Government's assertion that Rule 15 is the proper vehicle for adding parties, the current victims have filed this protective motion to amend under Rule 15.3 I. JANE DOE NO. I AND JANE DOE NO. 2 SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO AMEND THEIR CVRA ENFORCEMENT PETITION TO CONFORM TO THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. Given the way this case has proceeded, the current petition before the Court does not conform to the evidence that has developed. Indeed, the current petition does not even mention the NPA — which is central to this case — for the simple reason that the Government (and Epstein) had concealed the existence of the NPA at the time the petition was drafted. 2 Although he has not yet been allowed to intervene, putative intervenor Alan Dershowitz also has argued that Rule 15 is appropriate vehicle for the new victims to seek to join the CVRA case. See DE 282 at 2. 3 To be clear, in conformance with Rule I5(a)(2), this motion to amend is technically filed by the two current victims — Jane Doe No. I and No. 2. However, Jane Doe No. 3 and No. 4 have requested the filing of this motion. In that sense, this motion is brought on behalf of all four victims. As indicated in their motion for joinder, all four victims (represented by the same legal counsel) intend to coordinate efforts and avoid duplicative pleadings. 5 EFTA00188618

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 6 of 21 In such circumstances, it is entirely appropriate for Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 now seek to amend their petition to conform to the current state of the case. Of course "th I lin. in:ktantariTZ MUM iTarMiff, tiTi • fir I mital kt.atvi I 11 m' um • WWI ItI77WeffiratalatMeiMillfl741WIANINIMMIOnasirmiturromma I5(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically allows an amendment, providin that a party may amend its pleading "with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." (emphasis added). For reasons that remain unclear to the current victims, the Government has declined to give its consent even to a basic amendment of the petition. Accordingly, the current victims seek leave of court to make such an amendment. The text of Rule 15 itself reflects a liberal attitude towards amendment, starting with the clear direction that the court "should freely give leave when justice so requires." The Supreme Court has admonished that "[i]f the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, [she] ought to be afforded an opportunity to test [her] claim on the merits." Fomani. M, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The policy in favor of amendment "is to be applied with extreme liberality." C.F. ex rel. Farnanl. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir.20I1) (emphasis added). The Government can have no good reason for opposing a basic amendment. If we understand the Government's objection correctly, it does not deny that the proposed amendment conforms to the evidence that the victims have developed in this case. Instead, the Government apparently believes that the current victims should have filed a motion sooner. But "delay, by itself. is insufficient to justify denial of leave to amend." DCD Programs. Ltd.l. Leighton, 833 6 EFTA00188619

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 7 of 21 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). And the Government has clearly long been on notice that issues surrounding the NPA are at the heart of this case. District courts "should freely allow an amendment when doing so will aid in presenting the merits and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the evidence would prejudice that party's action or defense on the merits." Developers Sur. & lndem. Co.'. Bi-Tech Const., Inc., 979 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 1320 (S.D. Fla. 2013); see, e.g., Baker. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 793 F.2d 1196 (11th Cir.1986) (Fed.R.Civ.P. I5(b) instructs district courts to grant leave to conform the pleadings to the evidence freely, provided no prejudice to the defendant is shown). The current victims should be allowed to amend their petition to conform to the way the case has proceeded. The Government cannot credibly claim that it is unaware that its concealment of the NPA is at issue here. For example, as long ago as April 8, 2011, the Government filed a pleading in which it defended its decision to conceal the NPA. See DE 62 at 42 (". . . there also was a possibility that Epstein would not perform the NPA. A determination was made to cease notifications . . . .). And as the Court knows, the parties have briefed at length the issue of whether rescission of the NPA is a possible remedy in this case. See DE 119, 127, and 147. In rejecting the Government's argument, the Court said ItJhe petitioners in this action seek to vacate a 'non-prosecution agreement' ('the agreement') between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida . .. and Jeffrey Epstein . . .." DE 189 at I. ,The Court went on to rule for the victims on the rescission issue. explaining that "in their petition and supplemental pleadings, Jane Doe I and 2 have identified a remedy which is likely to redress the injury complained of— the setting aside of the non-prosecution agreement as a prelude to the full unfettered exercise of their conferral rights at a time that will enable the victims to exercise those 7 EFTA00188620

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 8 of 21 rights meaningfully." Id. at 8. Clearly, the Government is not harmed from an amendment conforming to these rulings. A proposed first amended petition (previously provided to the Government) is attached to this pleading.4 II. JANE DOE NO. I AND JANE DOE NO. 2 SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO AMEND THEIR PETITION TO ADD JANE DOE NO. 3 AND JANE DOE NO. 4 INTO THIS CASE. The current victims — Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 — should also be allowed to amend their petition to include two new parties as petitioners — Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4. The current victims continue to believe that Rule 21 is the proper vehicle for joining new parties into the existing CVRA action. To protect their rights, however. Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 now file this protective motion for leave to amend to add two new parties under Rule I5(a)(2). Leave to amend should be granted because the interests of justice will be served by allowing these parallel claims of two additional victims to be litigated on the merits in a single action. There has been no undue delay, and the amendment "relates back" to the original filing date, obviating any statute of limitations or other timeliness concern. A. Leave to Amend to Include New Plaintiffs Should be Freely Given. As discussed above, courts freely grant leave to amend, because cases should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities of pleadings. See, e.g., Jet, Inc.'. Sewage Aeration Sys., 165 F.3d 419. 425 (6th Cir. 1999). This already-liberal policy is applied even more generously when the proposed amendment simply adds new plaintiffs, because prejudice to the other party is less likely to result from adding additional plaintiffs than from adding new 4 The proposed amended petition contains nine words in it referring to Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4. As argued in the next section of this pleading, Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 believe that the two new victims should be added into this case. If the Court disagrees with this argument, then it should allow the amended pleading without those nine words in it. 8 EFTA00188621

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 9 of 21 defendants or new claims. See King'. Cessna Aircraft Co.. 2010 WL 5253526, at *10 (S.D. Fla. 2010). Courts have frequently allowed plaintiffs to amend their pleading to add new plaintiffs. See. e.g.. Joshlin Gannett River States Pub. Corp., 152 F.R.D. 577 (E.D. Ark. 1993) (amendment to name all purported class members as plaintiffs); Otto'. Milwaukee C'nty., No. 07-C-427, 2007 WL 3228118, at '2 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 30, 2007) (additional plaintiffs allowed); Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania' Peters, 560 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1274 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (Eleventh Circuit Court test satisfied, additional plaintiffs allowed). And the Government appears to concede that a proper procedure vehicle for the victims to pursue is a motion to amend. See DE 290 at 2. B. There Has Been No "Undue Delay" In Seeking to Amend. In their parallel filing under Rule 21, the current victims have provided numerous reasons why participation by the new victims is desirable in this case. The Government does not appear to contest these reasons. Instead of dealing with the substance of the issue, the Government argues the victims have "unduly delayed" filing their motion to amend. Of course, "undue" delay requires some reference to some time when the new victims' claims were, in fact, due. As discussed in the victims' contemporaneously-filed reply regarding Rule 21. the statute of limitations for the crimes against minors at issue here has not yet expired. See 18 U.S.C. § 3283. And Congress has not seen fit to set a more restrictive time limit for victims to file CVRA enforcement actions, either in the CVRA itself or in civil statutes of limitations. Assessed tinder these congressional decisions, the motion to amend has not been unduly delayed. Even more important, this Court has not yet set a time limit for adding new parties to this case. The Court would ordinarily establish such a limit as part of a Rule 16 Scheduling 9 EFTA00188622

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 10 of 21 Conference. See Local Rule 16.1 (a Joint Proposed Scheduling shall contain "[a] limitation of the time to join additional parties and to amend the pleadings"). In this case. Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 have tried to comply with the civil rules by, for example, providing their initial disclosures to the Government pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(aXI). The Government, however, has not even taken that limited step to move the case forward. The Eleventh Circuit has highlighted the importance of scheduling orders in considering motions to amend. It has cautioning against "render[ing] scheduling orders meaningless" by granting leave to amend freely after a scheduling order deadline has passed. See. e.g., Soso Airprini Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (I 1th Cir. 1998). But the converse must be true as well: It would likewise render scheduling orders meaningless if a party was denied a chance to freely add additional parties before a scheduling order deadline has passed — particularly where the Government has not sought entry of such a scheduling order and has refused to make its initial disclosures required by the civil rules. In the absence of any court-imposed time limit to add parties. it is hard to understand how the Government can argue that "undue" delay exists. In assessing whether delay is or is not "undue," the Court should also consider the state to which the case has progressed. Of prime importance is the ability of a party to conduct necessary discovery. See, e.g.. °kohl Vill. of Willowbrook 138 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1046 (N.D. III. 2000) ("The addition of a new party plaintiff can cause undue prejudice . . . where the proposed amendment does not afford defendant adequate time for discovery"). Where there is no evidence of prejudice due to lack of time for discovery, an amendment adding new parties should be freely granted. M. At this juncture. the Government has not yet even produced all of the discovery that the Court has ordered it to produce. Moreover, the Government can clearly 10 EFTA00188623

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 11 of 21 pursue whatever discovery it needs to defend its position. (In its pleading, the Government does not claim that it needs any discovery). The Government suffers no harm from the amendment. In addition. the new victims have not unduly delayed in seeking to join this action. With regard to Jane Doe No. 3, the Government's lead argument is the claim that "petitioners' counsel have been representing [Jane Doe No. 3] since at least as early as March 2011, yet they have waited more than three years to attempt to add her as a party." DE 290 at 8. This unsupported allegation is simply false. See Aff. of Jane Doe No. 3 at 7, Exhibit I to Victims' Reply in Support of Motion for Joinder (hereinafter "Jane Doe No. 3 Aff.") (responding to Government's claim of legal representation and attesting "[t]his is completely untrue, and I think the Government knows it is untrue. I was not represented by legal counsel in March 2011"). Undersigned counsel began representing Jane Doe No. 3 (pro bono) in around April 2014 and then contacted the Government over the summer about possibly adding her into the case. As recounted at greater length in an earlier pleading, counsel moved to add Jane Doe No. 3 into this case within seven days of receiving the Government's objection to her motion for joinder. See DE 291 at 5-6. More important, Jane Doe No. 3 had good reason for not seeking to join this case until this past summer. As discussed in the Rule 21 reply brief, she was specifically in from 2002 to 2013. Critically, Jane Doe No. 3 was hiding from Epstein. See Jane Doe No. 3 Aft. at 3. Her decision to live away from family and friends was not voluntary. Id. And living in kept her from learning about how this CVRA action worked. Id. at 5-7. Jane Doe No. 3 did not learn about the specifics of this action — and thus the ability to enforce her rights — until 2014, see id. at 8, and she acted promptly at that point to obtain legal counsel and join this case. II EFTA00188624

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 12 of 21 With regard to Jane Doe No. 4. she filed her motion to join the case when she felt it was safe and appropriate to do so. Given the fact that sexual assault victims all have different reactions to the crimes committed against them. the Court should not conclude that she has unduly delayed. In crafting its argument about undue delay, the Government relies heavily on a letter sent to Jane Doe No. 3 on September 3, 2008. See DE 290-I. As Jane Doe No. 3 explains in her affidavit, that letter did not directly say that Epstein's crimes against her were not going to be prosecuted. Instead, it said elliptically that "the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence." Jane Doe No. 3 "did not know what that meant." Jane Doe No. 3 Aff. at 5. Significantly with regard to this CVRA litigation, the Government did not tell her (and other victims) that litigation was underway trying to invalidate the NPA. Instead, the Government misleadingly stated that "[t]here has been litigation between the United States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." DE 290-I at 3 (emphasis added). This description of the litigation is, in the victims' view, quite deceptive. Of course, the point of the litigation was not to obtain the NPA's "disclosure" but rather the NPA's invalidation. Jane Doe No. 3 attests in her affidavit that luinderstanding more about that case now, I realize that the letter did not explain that the real purpose of that litigation was not to get 'disclosure of the entire agreement' but instead to get criminal charges filed against Epstein. I wish that the Government had told me that was what was really going on." Jane Doe No. 3 Aff. at 5-6. Compounding the confusion that the Government created through its letter, in 2011 FBI agents traveled to Sydney to interview Jane Doe No. 3. During that interview, they discussed her sexual abuse in Florida, giving the impression that criminal charges could still be brought in 12 EFTA00188625

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 13 of 21 Florida. The Government does not contend that it made clear to Jane Doe No. 3 during that interview that the NPA barred prosecutions in Florida. And Jane Doe No. 3 has flatly declared that "I was not told even at this point [in 2011] that [Epstein] could not be prosecuted for the crimes he committed in Florida." Jane Doe No. 3 Aff. at 7. As a result, she left that meeting with the entirely reasonable impression that prosecuting Epstein in Florida was a real possibility. Id. In light of all these facts, Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 did not unduly delay in seeking to join this case. But finally, the motion to amend is being filed by Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2. It was difficult for them to work with Jane Doe No. 3 until her recent return to the United States. They did not unduly delay in filing their amendment by waiting until Jane Doe No. 3's return to this country. C. The Amended Pleading is Timely Because It "Relates Back" to the Filing of the Initial Pleading in 2008. The Government's main objection to any amended pleading containing new panics appears to be that it would be "futile." The Government argues that such an amendment is barred by the six-year statute of limitations governing tort claims against the Government. See DE 290 at 8 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 240I(a)). In their contemporaneously-filed pleading on joinder. the victims have explained that the Government is simply wrong to assert that the limitation found in § 240I(a) applies to this case — specifically because this is not a "civil action" against the Government and (with regard to Jane Doe No. 3) the tolling provision applies! But even if the limitation did apply, that would hardly make the victims' proposed 3 The victims specifically adopt and incorporate by reference all their arguments against applying § 2401(a) to this case into this pleading as well. 13 EFTA00188626

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 14 of 21 amendment futile. The amendment here would "relate back" to the original petition, filed six- and-a-half years earlier, thereby satisfying any applicable statute of limitations. Relation back is a concept specifically adopted in Fed. R. Civ. P. I 5(c)( I )(B). Under that rule, an amended pleading "relates back to the date of the original pleading when . . . the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out — or attempted to be set out — in the original pleading ...." Relation back typically refers to adding new defendants to a case; nevertheless. the 1966 Amendment to Rule I5(c) confirms that relation back also "extends by analogy to amendments changing plaintiffs." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, Adv. Comm. Notes, 1966 Amend. According to the Advisory Committee, the new version of Rule I5(c) did not include express language about adding plaintiffs because that "problem is generally easier" than adding defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Circuit Courts have applied varying tests for articulating how to determine when an amendment relates back to the filing of the original pleading. In the Eleventh Circuit, the test for relation back has been generally understood as requiring the court to consider "(I) whether the amended claim arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original pleading; (2) whether the amendment will unduly prejudice the defendant; and (3) whether the original (pleading) provided adequate notice of the new plaintiff." See King Cessna Aircrctil Co.. 2010 WL 5253526, at *10 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (magistrate judge recommendation), adopted in relevant part, 2010 WL 5173152 (S.D. Fla. 2010); Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, 560 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1274 (M.D. Fla. 2008). This victims' motion to amend satisfies all three requirements of the Eleventh Circuit's test for relation back. 14 EFTA00188627

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 15 of 21 I. The Proposed Amendment Arises Out of the Same Conduct as the Original Petition. First, the claims of Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 arise out of the same operative facts as the original plaintiffs. In particular, both Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 challenge the same secret agreement — i.e., the NPA that the Government executed with Epstein and then concealed from the victims. This is made clear by the proposed amendment itself, in which all four victims simply allege the same general facts. 2. The Government Is Not Unduly Prejudiced by the Amendment. Second, allowing the addition of two plaintiffs from the originally alleged victim class will not unduly prejudice the Government. Various district courts define prejudice with regards to relation back in terms of lost evidence due to the passage of time or inadequate time for discovery. See Oslo I. Milwaukee Cnty.. 2007 WL 3228118. at *2 (E.D. Wis. 2007) (no evidence of prejudice; additional plaintiffs allowed). In fact, some jurisdictions require the opposing party to bear the burden of proving prejudice. See. e.g., Padilla'. Sears. Roebuck & Co., 2012 WL 5505071, at *I (N.D. Cal. 2012). In other jurisdictions, a defendant fails to prove prejudice unless it provides substantiated proof of harm. See Green'. Wolf Corp., 50 F.R.D. 220, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). These cases proceed from the premise that the concept of relation back would be undermined if defendants were allowed to bar plaintiffs from joining a case simply by proffering an unsupported protest of prejudice. Id. Here, the Government advances such an unsupported claim of prejudice. The Government seems to be treating this case as no-holds-barred, adversary litigation. In its effort to keep the new victims out of this case, the Government remarkably appears to have forgotten its statutory obligations to protect the victims. Congress has directed that federal prosecutors "shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are . . . accorded the rights described in 15 EFTA00188628

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 16 of 21 [the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. § 377I(c)(1). In order for the Government to show "prejudice," it must demonstrate "[d]amage or detriment to one's legal rights or claims." Blacks's Law Dictionary 1218 (8th ed. 2004). Because the Government has a legal obligation to make its "best efforts" to protect the CVRA rights of victims, it does not suffer any undue prejudice from the addition of two new victims seeking to protect their rights — rights that the Government must also protect. Turning to the specifics of the Government's position, the only argument that the Government advances with respect to Jane Doe No. 3 is that her CVRA claim is "specious." DE 290 at 12. This is, of course. an argument not about prejudice to the Government but rather about the merits of Jane Doe No. 3's claims. But in considering a motion for joinder, the Court must assume as true all relevant factual allegations made by the party seeking to join. See Lewis World Boxing Council, 914 F. Supp. 1121, 1123 (D.N.J. 1996). Here, Jane Doe No. 3 has alleged — both in her initial affidavit and in her supplemental affidavit filed along with this pleading — that the Government did not properly confer with her or otherwise afford her rights under the CVRA. See. e.g., DE 291-I at 13 (alleging failure to confer on the NPA); Jane Doe No. 3 Aff. at 5 ("I was never offered a chance to meaningfully confer with the prosecutor for the Government, and 1 was never notified of any hearing that could affect me or my rights as a crime victim to ever bring charges"). And the proposed amendment would allege that the Government did not extend to her the rights promised in the CVRA. See Exhibit I at 1-2. In contending that it will ultimately be able to prevail on such issues, the Government claims that Jane Doe No. 3 told "agents of the Government" not to bother her about the Epstein investigation. DE 290 at 12. The facts surrounding this alleged exchange are highly disputed. To begin with, it appears that the agent did not write any report surrounding this contact, see DE 304-1 at 1-3 (general affidavit that does not reference any specific dates) — a possible deviation 16 EFTA00188629

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 17 of 21 from standard procedure that raises questions about what exactly happened. More important. Jane Doe No. 3 strongly disputes that this brief contact was proper notification of her rights. As she explains at length in her affidavit, she had grave doubts about whether a person calling her out of the blue over the telephone and asking her about sex with Epstein was truly a law enforcement investigator. See Jane Doe No. 3 Aft'. at 4-5. The fact that Epstein and his lawyer called her immediately after this contact only added to her suspicion. Id. at 5. In such circumstances, it is hard to see how a brief telephone call from an FBI agent complies with the CVRA's command that crime victims be reasonably "notified" of their CVRA rights, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (c)(1), as well as actually afforded their rights — such as the right to confer with the prosecutor. Nor would it have been inconsistent with respect for the victims' "dignity and privacy," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8), for the Government to have followed its standard procedure of sending written notification of rights to Jane Doe No. 3.6 To be sure, federal prosecutors have "prosecutorial discretion" about which criminal charges to ultimately file. See 18 U.S.C. § 377I(dX6). But that discretion is not a license for the Government to simply decide not to provide proper notification to a victim of serious federal crimes — particularly when that victim was clearly afraid of a dangerous criminal and hiding to escape his wrath. At the very least, the Government can simply deny Jane Doe No. 3 an opportunity to join this case through mere allegation that it complied with the CVRA. The Court should allow an amendment now and make a final determination on CVRA compliance based on an appropriate record? 6 Much later on September 3, 2008. the Government sent notification to Jane Doe No. 3. at her address in , of a possible civil remedy to be pursued. DE 290-I. But it never sent its standard victim notification letter to Jane Doe No. 3 — in contrast to what it did earlier for other victims. 7 The Court will have to make such determination even if it denies the motion to amend. Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 have already stated that they will call Jane Doe No. 3 as a witness at any trial to prove part of a common plan and scheme to deprive the victims of their 17 EFTA00188630

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 18 of 21 The Government will likewise not be prejudiced if Jane Doe No. 4 is added into the case. The initial petition alleged that the Government had no made adequate efforts to notify "victims" about the non-prosecution agreement. Jane Doe No. 4 was in the victim class. The Government churlishly contends that adding her into this case would require "a separate trial over whether or not Jane Doe #4 is a 'victim' who would have been entitled to any rights." DE 290 at 10. Of course, the Government never denies that Jane Doe No. 4 is a victim in this case, presumably because it now possesses ample evidence that Epstein sexually abused her. Undersigned legal counsel has already provided ample information to the Government supporting this fact. The Government has an obligation to use its "best efforts" to protect the rights of victims. Simply demanding a "trial" when it knows what the real facts are is inconsistent with that obligation. The Government also makes other arguments about the merits of Jane Doe No. 4's claims, but those can be handled in due course in this litigation. 3. The Government Is On Notice About Claims from Other Victims. The third and final requirement of the Eleventh Circuit's relation back test is adequate notice in the original complaint of the potential to add new plaintiffs. The Eleventh Circuit has said "the critical issue [regarding relation back] is whether the original complaint gave notice to the defendant of the claim now being asserted." Bloom'. Alvereze, 498 F. App'x 867, 883 (I 1th Cir. 2012). In Bloom, the Eleventh Circuit found that the motion to amend to add Mrs. Bloom to Mr. Bloom's claim did not satisfy the relation back test because Mrs. Bloom was only mentioned in the original pleading vaguely in one instance as Mr. Bloom's wife. Id. In contrast, as recounted in the Factual Background section above, the original petition and reply in this case clearly alleged that many victims — including Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 — were banned rights. See DE 291 at 25-26 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)). 18 EFTA00188631

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 19 of 21 by the Government. For example, the petition alleged "[o]n information and belief, roughly the same crimes were committed [by Epstein] against several other young females. These victims. too, are in danger of losing their right to confer under the CVRA." DE I at 7 n.2 (emphasis added). And the reply supporting the petition asked the Court to "hold that [Jane Doe No. and the other victims in this case had the right to confer with the Government before it reached its non-prosecution agreement." DE 9 at 8 (emphasis added). The reply went on to explain relief sought, specifically that "[t]he Court should therefore declare the proposed non-prosecution agreement an illegal one, since it was reached in violation of the CVRA, and order the Government to confer with Petitioner and the other victims in this matter before reaching any disposition in this case." Id. at 2 (emphasis added). Building on all these allegations, at the first hearing in this case, the Court allowed an additional victim — Jane Doe No. 2 — to join the action. See DE 115 (tr. July I 1, 2008) at 14. The current motion for an amended pleading simply builds on that elaboration, naming two additional victims who were in the victim class alleged at the outset of this case. The courts have readily allowed relation back in such circumstances. See, e.g., Paskulyl. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 1210, 1211 (7th Cir. 1981) (where "the original complaint alleged that defendant engaged in practices that discriminated against women because of their sex; the defendant was thereby on notice that it might be required to defend its employment practices from charges of class-based discrimination"). Clearly the proposed amendment asserts a claim "that arouse out of the conduct. transaction or occurrence set out — or attempted to be set out — in the original pleading." Fed. R. Civ. P. I 5(c)(1)(8). The adding of new "parties after the applicable statute of limitations may have run is not significant when the change is merely formal and in no way alters the known 19 EFTA00188632

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 20 of 21 facts and issues on which the action is based." Slarenl. Am. Nat. Bank & Trust Co. qf Chicago, 529 F.2d 1257, 1263 (7th Cir. 1976). The Court should accordingly allow an amended pleading. CONCLUSION Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 should be allowed to amend their initial petition. pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to conform to the evidence in this case and to add Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 as petitioners. A proposed first amended petition is attached to this pleading. DATED: February 6. 2015 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE. WEISSING, P.L. DWARDS. FIST0S & LEHRMAN, and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hoc Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 • This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah 20 EFTA00188633

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 21 of 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on February 6, 2015, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Elm 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Attorneys for the Government /s/ Bradley J. Edwards 21 EFTA00188634

EFTA00188635

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT 1 EFTA00188636

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 2 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM JANE DOE NO. I and JANE DOE NO. 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. VICTIMS FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe 2, to file this first amended petition for enforcement of rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. I. Petitioners Jane Doe No. I. Jane Doe No. 2, Jane Doe, No. 3, and Jane Doe No. 4 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the petitioners"), now adults, were as minor girls the victims of federal sex crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Defendant") and by other co-conspirators between about 1998 and 2006. These crimes included sex trafficking of children (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591), use of a means of interstate commerce entice a minor to commit prostitution (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422), travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct (in violation of 18 U.S.0 § 2423), wire fraud (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343), and conspiracy to commit such crimes (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371). The Defendant and others committed these crimes within the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Florida in Palm Beach County, 1 EFTA00188637

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 3 of 6 Florida, as well as in other jurisdictions inside and outside the United States. The Defendant and his co-conspirators committed similar crimes against dozens of other victims. 2. Upon information and belief, in and around 2005 to 2007. the Defendant and others were the subject of a federal criminal investigation conducted by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (hereafter "the U.S. Attorney's Office") for crimes committed against the petitioners and other similarly situated victims. In around September 2007, the Defendant and the U.S. Attorney's Office entered a non- prosecution agreement ("NPA"), under which the Defendant and other potential co- conspirators would not be prosecuted for their federal crimes against petitioners and other similarly-situated victims, in exchange for the Defendant's guilty plea to two state offenses, including solicitation of a minor for prostitution. On June 30, 2008. in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach, the Defendant entered his guilty plea to the State offenses and, pursuant to the previous agreement, was sentenced to 18 months in jail. 3. Upon information and belief, around and after September 2007, the Defendant and the U.S. Attorney's Office conspired together to make the NPA confidential and thereafter conceal its existence from the petitioners and other similarly situated victims for as long as possible. This conspiracy was designed to prevent the outcry that would have resulted from awareness by the petitioners, other victims, and members of the public that a wealthy, politically-connected defendant was receiving only a short county jail sentence for hundreds of federal sex crimes committed against minor girls. Among the means used by the conspiracy to conceal the existence of the non-prosecution agreement were false statements directed by the Office that the case was "still under investigation" 2 EFTA00188638

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 4 of 6 and the Office was considering whether to file charges. when in fact the Office had already entered into the NPA. 4. Under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, when the investigation had focused on the Defendant — and at all times thereafter — the petitioners and other similarly-situated crime victims had the rights (among others) to notice of their rights under the CVRA, to reasonably confer with the prosecutors, to notice of court hearings involving them, and to be treated with fairness. 5. By cooperating together to conceal the NPA's existence until after it has become fully effective — and by taking other improper steps to prevent the investigation and prosecution of the Defendant and his co-conspirators — the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Defendant denied and continues to deny petitioners and other similarly-situated victims their rights (among others) to reasonably confer with prosecutors about the NPA and other aspects of the case, to notice that the June 30, 2008, hearing related to crimes committed against them, to restitution, and to be treated with fairness. WHEREFORE. the petitioners respectfully request this Court grant them appropriate remedies to fully enforce their rights, including (I) a declaration that the NPA is illegal and was entered into in violation of their rights, (2) a declaration that if after consultation with the victims the U.S. Attorney's Office determines that prosecution of Epstein and of others is appropriate then prosecution is permitted, (3) a declaration that the Office shall reasonably confer with the petitioners and other similarly-situated victims about whether to prosecute Epstein and his co-conspirators, (4) a release of all information surrounding the circumstances of the Office's initial decision not to pursue 3 EFTA00188639

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 5 of 6 criminal prosecution, and (5) all other appropriate remedies that the Court deems just and proper. The petitioners request appropriate discovery and an evidentiary hearing to prove their allegations and secure the relief requested above. DATED: February 6 2015 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE. WEISSING, EDWARDS. FISTOS & LEHRMAN. P.L. and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hat Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. Attorneys for Victims • This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah 4 EFTA00188640

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 6 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on February 6, 2015, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: IMM 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Attorneys for the Government /s/ Bradley J. Edwards 5 EFTA00188641

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-1(AM JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 I UNITED STATES JANE DOE NO. 3 AND JANE DOE NO. 4'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 21 FOR JOINDER IN ACTION COME NOW Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 (also referred to as "the new victims"). by and through undersigned counsel, to file this reply in support of their motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to join this action (DE 280). on the condition that they not re- litigate any issues already litigated by Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 (also referred to as "the current victims"). The Government's response (DE 290) fails to contest the new victims' specific argument that good cause exists for allowing them to join. Instead, the Government raises technical arguments about allegedly applicable statutes of limitations found in the CVRA or in 28 U.S.C. § 240I(a). But the CVRA does not contain the time limit that the Government reads into the Act. And § 2401(a) does not bar the action here. The Court should accordingly allow joinder of the new victims.' I. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT CONTESTED THE VICTIMS' POSITION THAT GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR ALLOWING THEM TO JOIN THIS ACTION UNDER RULE 21. To be clear, this motion is brought on behalf of all four victims — Jane Does No. 1, 2.3 and 4. As indicated throughout their pleadings, the victims do not seek to duplicate effort but rather (represented through the same legal counsel) to pursue a single. consolidated approach. EFTA00188642

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 2 of 20 In their motion for joinder, the new victims advanced several specific reasons why joinder was appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, including the facts that their participation would prove a consistent pattern of failing to notify victims. reinforce the relevancy of several document production requests currently pending before the Court. and elucidate the interface between the Government and the victims. DE 280 at 8-10. In a later pleading (responding to arguments from putative intervenor Alan Dershowitz), the new victims also advanced eight specific reasons why their allegations related specifically to current issues in the case, including issues of motive, the scope of any remedy that might be awarded, and the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. DE 291 at 17-26. Tellingly, the Government does not directly contest any of these assertions. Instead, the Government raises several technical objections as to why joinder is not possible. The victims respond to each and every objection in the pages that follow. But to the extent the question before the Court is one calling for an exercise of discretion, the Court should act against a backdrop of uncontested reasons demonstrating that joinder of the new victims would be useful. II. THE CVRA DOES NOT CONTAIN A TIME LIMIT APPLICABLE TO THIS ENFORCMENT ACTION. Rather than contest the reasons for allowing two new crime victims to join this CVRA action, the Government attempts to manufacture a time limit out of the CVRA itself. The Government contends that the new victims' motion for joinder is "barred" by 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (d)(5). which provides: A victim may make a motion to re-open a plea or sentence only if— (A) the victim has asserted the right to be heard before or during the proceeding at issue and such right was denied; 2 EFTA00188643

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 3 of 20 (B) the victim petitions the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus within 14 days; and (C) in the case of a plea, the accused has not pled to the highest offense charged. This paragraph does not affect the victim's right to restitution as provided in title 18, United States Code. The Government's argument fails for the simple reason that the time limit applies only to a motion to "re-open a plea or sentence." The victims are seeking (among other things) rescission of an illegal non-prosecution agreement. not reopening of a "plea or sentence" — two different things. The Court has previously ruled to this effect, specifically discussing § 3771(d)(5). The Court held that lapthough this particular statutory enforcement provision expressly refers to the re-opening of a 'plea' or 'sentence' — events falling in the post-charge stage of criminal proceedings — the court concludes that the statute is properly interpreted impliedly to authorize a 're-opening' or setting aside of pre-charge prosecutorial agreements made in derogations of the government's CRA conferral obligations as well." See DE 189 at 8. Moreover, on the facts of this case, the Government's construction leads to an absurd result. As the Court is aware, the Government arranged for Epstein to execute his NPA on about September 24, 2007 — in secret. At that time, the victims could not "assert(] the right to be heard before or during the proceeding," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(5) (emphasis added), because no "proceeding" was held and the Government concealed what it was doing from the victims. And, of course, the victims could not have then filed for mandamus appellate review "within 14 days" because the Government did not reveal the NPA until almost a year later, and only then after being compelled to do so. Section 3771(d)(5) should not be construed to demand the impossible of crime victims. 3 EFTA00188644

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 4 of 20 The CVRA's legislative history makes clear Congress did not intend for courts to construe § 3771(d)(5) in the perverse fashion advocated by the Government. Senator Kyl, one of the two co-sponsors of the Act, explained that "[t]his provision [§ 3771(d)(5)] is not intended to prevent courts from vacating decisions in non-trial proceedings, such as proceedings involving release, delay, plea, or sentencing, in which victims' rights were not protected, and ordering those proceedings to be redone." ISO CONG. REC. 22954 (Oct. 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphasis added). Ele went on to emphasize that "[i]t is important for victims' rights to be asserted and protected throughout the criminal justice process. and for courts to have the authority to redo proceedings such as release, delay, pleas, and sentencings, where victims' rights are abridged." 151.2 The Government also half-heartedly refers to various time limits in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). See DE 290 at 3. But the only time limits applicable to the victims in that provision concern appellate relief after a district court has denied relief. Of course, proceedings before this Court are still continuing — no denial of relief has occurred to trigger any obligation by the victims.3 Simply put, nothing in the CVRA contains any limit that bars Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane 2 Section 377I(d)(5) also does not bar ail of the new victims' claims. By its plain terms. the provision is inapplicable to a request for restitution. The current victims have sought restitution, among other forms of relief, see DE 127 at 15, and the new victims seek to simply join in that claim. 3 The Government also argues that victims' counsel did not request "forthwith" action at the July I I, 2008, hearing in this case. DE 290 at 2 (citing DE IS (tr. July I I, 2008) at 25-27). Of course, at that time the action had been pending for just four days. The Government had not provided the NM to victims' counsel, and victims' counsel was only learning about broad outlines of the agreement during the hearing. See DE 15 (tr. July I I, 2008) at 24 (court notes that victims' counsel "learned today ... that the agreement was signed ... in October"). In such circumstances, victims' counsel's decision to seek release of the NPA's text instead of precipitously committing his clients to invalidating an agreement he had not even read yet was 4 EFTA00188645

• Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 5 of 20 Doe No. 4's motion for joinder in this case. And reading any such limitation into the Act would clearly contravene the obvious congressional purpose of giving victims the "right to participate in the system." 150 CONG. REC. S4263 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein), III. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOUND IN 28 U.S.C. § 2401(A) DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS CVRA ENFORCEMENT ACTION. The Government next resorts to a civil statute of limitation as a barrier to the new victims protecting their rights. This effort, too, is unavailing. A. A CVRA Enforcement Action is not a "Civil Action" Against the United States. The Government contends that the six-year statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) bars the new victims' entry into this case. The statute covers "civil actions," providing: [E]very civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the ri ht f action first accrues. The action of any person under legal disability or at the time the claim accrues may be commenced within three years after the disability ceases. This provision does not apply to this CVRA enforcement proceeding because it is not a "civil action" against the Government. To be sure, this Court has determined that convenience dictates that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "govern the general course of this proceeding." See DE 257 at 3. But that procedural determination does not alter the substance of this case. Indeed. the Government itself takes the position that this CVRA enforcement action is not a civil action, but rather is an "ancillary criminal proceeding()." DE 290 at 2.4 The victims' all agree. Given entirely reasonable. Indeed, any other course would have been foolhardy. 4 The Government's concession readily distinguishes Center for Biological Diversity v. Hamilton, 453 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2006), which is clearly not an "ancillary criminal proceeding," but rather a civil enforcement action of the Endangered Species Act. 5 EFTA00188646

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 6 of 20 the agreement of both sides that this case is a "criminal" proceeding. it is hard to understand how there can even be any argument that § 240 I fai's limitation for "civil actions" is applicable. Confirming this conclusion is the standard definition of a "civil action," which is commonly defined as "a noncriminal litigation." Black's Law Dictionary 34 (9th ed. 2009) (emphasis added). Indeed, as the case law interpreting § 240 I (a) makes clear, the phrase "'civil action' as used in § 2401(a) is a term of art judicially and statutorily defined as one 'commenced by filing a complaint with (a) court.'" Oppenheon I. Campbell, 571 F.2d 660, 663 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 3). In this case, the victims never filed a "complaint." Instead. they filed a "Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act," DE 1 — as language in the CVRA itself suggests was the proper procedure. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(dX3) (providing that crime victims' rights "shall be asserted in the district court" and referring to a "motion" to protect rights). The federal courts — including the Eleventh Circuit — have been unwilling to stretch the meaning of the phrase "civil action" so far as to cover proceedings ancillary to a criminal case. See, e.g.. In re Grand July Proceedings. 832 F.2d 554, 557 (11th Cir. 1987) ("Just in terms of the plain meaning of words, it seems self-evident that an order denying a motion to quash a subpoena issued by a grand jury investigating possible criminal violations is not part of a 'civil action.'"); Blair-Bey I. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir.) (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("the courts have uniformly concluded that habeas corpus proceedings — and their cousins, section 2255 proceedings — are not 'civil actions"); United States'. Soueiti, 154 F.3d 1018, 1019 (9th Cir.) (finding deportation proceeding conducted as part of a criminal sentencing not a "civil action" because "one definition that is always correct is that civil actions are those that are not 6 EFTA00188647

•Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 7 of 20 criminal"); In re Apr. 1977 Grand Jury Subpoenas, 584 F.2d 1366. 1368 (6th Cir. 1978) ("From a simple reading of the statute itself, it seems self-evident that a grand jury investigation of possible criminal tax violations should not be characterized as a 'civil action"); United States. Wade, 93 F. Supp. 2d 19, 21 (D.D.C. 2000), girds 255 F.3d 833 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (third party intervention in criminal proceeding to oppose abatement order was not a "civil action" because "as the statute's plain language excludes criminal cases, the Court will not parse criminal cases into criminal and 'civil-like' proceedings"); Quinn'. Book Named "Sixty Erode Drawings From Julien." 316 F. Supp. 289, 292 (D. Mass. 1970) (where a proceeding to determine whether book is obscene is ancillary to a criminal prosecution and serves to aid in the enforcement of criminal law, such a proceeding does not come within the term 'civil action"). A crime victim's petition to enforce CVRA rights looks nothing like a conventional civil action against the Government. A CVRA enforcement proceeding does not grant any monetary relief to a victim. The CVRA directly bars a victim from "pursuing a damages action against the government for violation of the [CVRA], and there is no implied private right of action under the [CVRA]." 3B Wright & , Fed. Prac. & Proc. Crim. § 932 (4th ed. 2014); see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6) ("Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize a cause of action for damages or to create, to enlarge, or to imply any duty or obligation to any victim or other person for the breach of which the United States ... could be held liable in damages."); Cunningham. U.S Dept of Justice, 961 F. Supp. 2d. 226 (D.D.C. 2013) ("[The] CVRA expressly disallows a suit for damages against the federal government or its officials . . . and Mr. Cunningham has failed to carry his 'heavy burden' of demonstrating the requisite congressional intent necessary to establish an implied private right of action."); 200.000 Towers Investors Restitution Victims'. 7 EFTA00188648

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 8 of 20 U.S. ex rel. U.S. Prob. Office New York City Slefff Breach of Crime Victims Act, 2013 WL 6673612. at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ("This petition is brought pursuant to the CVRA, which does not provide for a private right of action."). Rather, the CVRA provides crime victims certain rights that are related to the prosecution of the accused and sentencing of the guilty. These rights are not civil, but criminal in nature. See In re McNulty, 597 F.3d 344. 352 n.8 (6th Cir. 2010) ("The CVRA was not enacted to short circuit civil litigation to those with valid civil remedies available."). Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 are seeking to enforce their rights as crime victims under the CVRA — rights that the Government should have provided to them during its criminal investigation. They are not seeking monetary damages from the government for the violation of their CVRA rights, but rather invalidation of an illegal non-prosecution agreement that bars criminal prosecution of Epstein and his potential co-conspirators. The victims' rights are ultimately enforceable in, and inseparable from, a criminal proceeding. Their action is simply not the type of action covered by .§ 2401(a)'s six-year statute of limitations for "civil actions" against the Government. The Government complains that the victims' position means that no statute of limitations applies to CVRA cases. DE 290 at 506. Not true. The applicable statute of limitations in this "ancillary criminal proceeding" is to be found (appropriately enough) in the criminal code — i.e., Title 18 — not in the judicial code — Title 28, as the Government's position would have it. Of course, the CVRA itself is found in Title 18. And for most crimes, the applicable statute of limitations will be the general five-year statute for filing criminal actions, 18 U.S.C. § 3282 — shorter than the six-year civil tort statute the Government points to. This case, however, involves 8 EFTA00188649

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 9 of 20 sexual offenses against children, and the Court should therefore look to the specific statute of limitations covering such crimes. See Edwards' ShaIola, 64 F.3d 601, 605 (11th Cir. 1995) ("[I]t appears contrary to the Supreme Court's directives .. . to apply a statute [of limitations] of general applicability when there are other more relevant statutory provisions."). In 18 U.S.C. § 3283, Congress has decreed that "[fi]o statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution of an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse . . . of a child under the age of 18 shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child. or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer."5 This statute of limitations governs the underlying criminal prosecution and thus this related CVRA case. Because this limitation period has not expired, Jane Doe No. 3 and 4's motion to join is timely. Indeed, the Government's position would create an absurd result — i.e., that even though the statute of limitations for prosecuting crimes against Jane Doe No. 3 and No. 4 has not yet expired, their ability to protect their CVRA rights in the investigative process of those crimes has somehow expired! Surely Congress did not intend such a bizarre result that would limit the CVRA's effectiveness. $ In 1994, this statute allowed prosecution of an offense against a child up until the child reached the age of 25. See 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (1994). In 2003, Congress passed the Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act (the "PROTECT Act"), which further extended the statute of limitations for offenses involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child from when the child reaches the age of 25 years to "during the life of the child." Pub. L. 108-21, Title II, § 202, 117 Stat. 660 (Apr. 30, 2003). See Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, 149 Cong. Rec. 142950-01 (2003) (Conf. Rep.), 2003 WL 1832092 (while the 25-year age limit "is better than a flat five-year rule, it remains inadequate in many cases"). Because the crimes against Jane Doc No. 3 were committed while she was a minor between around 1999 to 2001 (see DE 291-I at 1-12), the statute of limitations had not yet expired as to crimes against her in 2003 and therefore the PROTECT Act's extension of the statute of limitations applies in this case. See United Stalest Vickers, 2014 WL 1838255, at *9 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). EFTA00188650

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 10 of 20 B. Because Jane Doe No. 3 Was Accrued, She Has Timely Filed Her Motion. ' When Her Action First Even if 28 U.S.C. § 240I(a) applies to the new victims' claims, Jane Doe No. 3's claim is still timely. Congress has writtappion into the statute: "The action of any person . . . at th ma be commences within three ears a ter tiedisability ceases. a emp asis a ). In t is case. Jane oe No. 3 was hiding from Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators in from the time her claim accrued until October 2013, when she returned to the United States. See Ex. 1 at 3 ("I was in from late 2002 to October 2013. To be clear, I was never in the United States during these years, not even for a short trip to visit my mother."). The Court can take judicial notice that the distance from West Palm Beach. Florida, to and that travel between the two points would involve passing over the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, Jane Doe 3 was plainly H when the events giving rise to her claim occurred, and the running of the limitations period, if applicable, did not begin until she returned to Florida about 16 months ago, in October 2013. Jane Doe 3 has therefore filed her action within the three-year time period specified by § 2401(a) for persons returning to this country from Confirming the commonsense conclusion that Jane Doe No. 3 was Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) defines ' ' as: "(Of a person) Being absent from a jurisdiction or nation; out of the country, esp. across the ocean."6 Moreover, Congress first crafted the ' ' language in 1911, when it plainly referred to persons living outside the United States. The original tolling provision provided: 6 Black's Dictionary gives the above-quoted definition for the phrase "beyond seas," but 10 EFTA00188651

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 11 of 20 Provided, That the claims of married women, first accrued during marriage, of persons under the age of twenty-one years. first accrued during minority, and of idiots, lunatics, insane persons. and persons at the time the claim accrued, entitled to the claim, shall not be barred if the suit be brought with three years after the disability has ceased... . Act of Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 24, para. 20, 36 Stat. 1093 (emphasis added). The decisive question when construing a statute is what did the words mean "at the time of the statute's enactment." Taniguchi'. Kan Pac. Saipan, Lids. 132 S. Ct. 1997, 2003 (2012). In 1911, the phrase ' ' clearly embraced persons who were outside the United States, as previous court decisions had held. See. e.g., Murray's Lessee'. Baker. 16 U.S. 541, 545 (1818) (concluding that "the words must be held to the equivalent to 'without the limits of the state'). In 1948, Congress saw fit to re-codify this provision into Title 28 of the United States Code and replaced the statutory references to minors and mentally disabled persons with the consolidated term "under a legal disability." See Act of June 25, 1948. Pub. L. No. 80-773, 62 Stat. 971 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.0 § 2401(a)). But Congress chose to leave the words unaltered — with the result that they continue to have the same meaning as they had in 1911. See IA SUTHERLAND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 22:33 (7th ed.) ("Provisions of the original act or section which are repeated in the body of an amendment, either in the same or equivalent words, are a continuation of the original law"). Congress knows how to write statutes of limitations that do not toll the limitations period for persons Cf. 18 U.S.C. 2255(b) (containing a tolling provision for crime victims "under a legal disability," but not containing a tolling provision any other persons). notes that the phrase ' ' is an equivalent. Id. II EFTA00188652

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 12 of 20 Where Congress has deliberately chosen to toll the running of the limitations period while a claimant is 'fl" as in 28 U.S.C. 2401(a), a court lacks the power to narrow the scope of the plain meaning of that phrase. See CBS Inc.'. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, 245 F.3d 1217. 1228 (11th Cir. 2001) (cautioning against allowing "clearly expressed legislative decisions... [to] be subject to the policy predilections of judges."). The Government may try to argue that, in its view. this tolling provision is now somehow outdated, given the arrival of technology permitting less expensive international telephone calls and the like. But the Government's opinion about whether this tolling provision remains sound public policy is beside the point. Courts do not exist to "update" statutes in light of the latest technological developments. See Myers'. Toolay's d4gnu. Corp., 640 F.3d 1278. 1286 (11th Cir. 2011) (courts "are not licensed to practice statutory remodeling"); Wright. Sec 'y for Dept of Corrs., 278 F.3d 1245, 1255 (11th Cir.2002) ("Our function is to apply statutes, to carry out the expression of the legislative will that is embodied in them, not to 'improve' statutes by altering them."); see also Lees 1. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 166 F.3d 1332, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 1999) (Edmonson. J., dissenting) ("it is the qualities of the text when it was written — and not our response to it as modern readers — that must be our guide. . . . [W]hat we personally might like this statute to mean . . . in the light of current circumstances ... has no rightful place in our work Whether to modernize a statute is Congress' decision. See City of Greenwood. Miss.'. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 834 (1966) ("[I]f changes are to be made in the long-settled interpretation of the provisions of this century-old . . . statute, it is for Congress and not for this Court to make them."). Put simply, while Jane Doe No. 3 was living in she was 12 EFTA00188653

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 13 of 20 — i.e., outside of the borders of the United States — and section 2401(a)'s statute of limitations was tolled? C. Because Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 Were Unaware of Their Ability to File a CVRA Action Until Recently, They Timely Filed Their Motions. In arguing that the statute of limitation has lapsed in this case for Jane Doe No. 3, the Government apparently starts the six-year clock running on September 3, 2008, when the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a letter to her in M. See DE 290 at 3 (citing letter attached as DE 290-I ).8 But that letter did not clearly communicate that a CVRA cause of action existed. To the contrary, the letter was quite misleading about what was happening. The Government told Jane Doe No. 3 only that "there has been litigation between the United States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." DE 290-I at 3 (emphasis added). But the litigation did not involve disclosing the agreement; rather the goal was invalidating the agreement. The Government's intentionally deceptive description confused Jane Doe No. 3, who states that "[u]nderstanding more about that [CVRA] case now. I realize that the letter did not explain that the real purpose of that litigation was not to get 'disclosure of the entire agreement' but instead to get criminal charges filed against Epstein and to uphold the rights of Epstein's victims. I wish that the Government had 7 This case does not present any occasion for the Court to consider how § 2401(a)'s statute of limitations applies when a person is voluntarily absent from the United States. As Jane Doe No. 3 attests in her affidavit, she was involuntarily outside of the United States because she was concealing herself from Epstein. See Ex. I at 3 ("my absence from the United States was not voluntary — I was hiding from Epstein out of fear of what he would do to me if I returned to the United States."). The Government also refers briefly to earlier events in the case. See DE 290 at 6-7. But clearly those earlier events did disclose to Jane Doe No. 3 the existence of a secret non- prosecution agreement. She first became aware of the existence of such an agreement through the Government's letter on September 3. 2008. 13 EFTA00188654

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 14 of 20 told me that was what was really going on." Ex. I at 5-6. Given this deception, the Court should not conclude — on the basis of mere pleadings — that Jane Doe No. 3's obligation to file began on September 3, 2008. Finally, the September letter informed Doe 3 to call an attorney in Miami who was assigned her representation by the Government through the NPA. That firm had to work within the confines of that Government assignment and direction and therefore could not, and did not, inform Jane Doe No. 3 of a right to participate in this CVRA case which was aimed at invalidating the very agreement through which this law firm was mandated to operate. The Government's position regarding Jane Doe No. 4 is also mystifying. The Government asserts that she had legal representation "as early as 2012." DE 290 at 9. Of course, that date falls well inside the six-year period of limitations, so her claim would not be time barred in any event. IV. THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES NO PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST RULE 21 JOINDER. For the reasons just explained, neither the CVRA nor 28 U.S.C. § 240I(a) provides any barrier to Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 joining this case. As a result, the path would seem to be clear for the Court to simply grant the current victims' motion for joining the new victims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The Government, however. has several other arguments that it throws out. None of them is persuasive. Perhaps recognizing that Rule 21 broadly allows for the addition of new parties, the Government contends that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not even govern this action. Proceeding from the premise that this case is an "ancillary criminal proceeding" (DE 290 at 2), I4 EFTA00188655

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 15 of 20 the Government points out that the Rules of Criminal Procedure lack a provision for adding new parties. Thus, the Government concludes, that no parties can be added here. Id. The Government's hyper-technical argument suffers from two clear flaws. First, the Court has already ruled that, as to procedural matters in this case, the civil rules govern. See DE 257 at 3 ("As this Court has previously indicated, see DE 190, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the general course of this proceeding."); see also Local Rule 88.9 (motions in criminal cases governed by Local Rule 7.1, which parallels Fed. R. Civ. P. 7). Second and more fundamentally, the Government's crabbed interpretation of the CVRA would mean that a new victim should never be allowed tojoin a previously-filed CVRA action. This position- is belied not only by the clear intent of Congress to create enforceable rights for crime victims, but also by the Government's own action in previously agreeing to Jane Doe No. 2's motion to join the case. See DE I5 (tr. July I 1, 2008) at 14 (Court: "[D]o you have any objection to Jane Doe 2 being added as a petitioner in this case?" Government counsel: "No, I don't."). Clearly, as the Government's own previous agreement demonstrates, some procedural device should allow a new victim to be added to a previously-filed CVRA case, as otherwise the court's docket could be unnecessarily cluttered with separate actions. As a fallback, the Government advances the claim that the rule of civil procedure controlling the pending motion is not Rule 21 (regarding joinder of parties), but rather Rule 15 (regarding amendments to pleadings). See DE 290 at 2. The Government's argument does not square with the plain language of the two provisions. While Rule 15 deals with amending pleadings, Rule 21 specifically indicates that, upon motion, the Court has power to "add . . a party." Of course, since the current motion involves an effort to add new parties, it is 15 EFTA00188656

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 16 of 20 appropriate for the Court to resolve the issue under Rule 21. As one court has explained, "Any conflict or ambiguity which results from a comparison of [Rule 15(a) and Rule 21] ... must be resolved in favor of the specific and against the general. Thus, when a proposed amendment to a complaint seeks to effect a change in the parties to the action, Rule 21 ... controls and, to that extent, limits Rule I5(a)." Intl Broth. of Teamsters'. AFL-CIO, 32 F.R.D. 441, 442 (E.D. Mich. 1963). While the Government cites three cases allowing the addition of new parties through Rule IS (DE 290 at 102). none of these cases address the issue of whether Rule 15 or Rule 21 is the proper vehicle to do so. Most cases that have discussed directly which of the two rules applies have concluded that Rule 21 is the appropriate vehicle for adding a party. See, e.g.. South Dakota ex rel. S. Dakota R.R. Awh.l. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 280 F. Supp. 2d 919, 924 (D.S.D. 2003) ("Pleadings and Motions are dealt with under Part 111 of the Rules [i.e., Rules 8 to 16]. Parties are dealt with under Part IV of the Rules [i.e., Rules 17-25]. If a plaintiff could simply add a party by amending the complaint, there would be no purpose for Rule 19 . . . ."); Joseph'. House, 353 F. Supp. 367. 371 (E.D. Va.), ced sub nom. Joseph. Blair, 482 F.2d 575 (4th Cir. 1973) ("Rule 21 ... provides that parties to an action may be added by order of the Court at any stage of the proceedings. This rule precludes the plaintiffs from being able to file their amended complaint as of right, which they seek to do. The plaintiffs would ordinarily be able to do so under Rule 15(a)."). Because the Government has refused to stipulate to Jane Doe No. 3's and Jane Doe No. 4's entry into the case, the victims are contemporaneously filing with this reply a protective motion for amendment under Rule 15 to add the new victims. But the new victims continue to rely on Rule 21's plain language as their primary argument to join this case. 16 EFTA00188657

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 17 of 20 The Court should apply Rule 21 and allow Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 to be added to this case at this time. It is well-settled that "(u)nder the Rules, the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged." United Mine Workers of Am.'. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966). As discussed in Part I, above, the Government had not contested the reasons that support joining the new victims into this case. Instead, the Government's only arguments pertain to the timing of the motion. But Rule 21 itself makes clear that new parties can be added "at any time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. And the cases clearly demonstrate the joinder is appropriate, even at very late stages of a proceeding, if justice will be served. See. e.g.. Data General Corp. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 825 F. Supp. 340, 344 (D. Mass. 1993) (where common question of fact existed about plaintiff student suing under the Civil Rights and two other students who were not parties to the suit, it was appropriate for the court to join the two other students at the conclusion of the trial when a portion of the relief request was granted). Of course, this case is not at a late stage, but is still in a discovery phase. The Government's arguments about undue delay and prejudice arc meritless, as the victims discuss in their concurrently-filed motion for amendment under Rule 15.9 But for purposes of this Rule 21 motion, one point is decisive. If the Court does not allow the new victims to join this CVRA enforcement action, then they intend to file their own, separate enforcement actions. Because there is no statute of limitations for doing so. the separate actions would be proper. But the separate actions would produce entirely duplicative litigation over the 9 The victims specifically adopt and incorporate by reference here the arguments against undue delay and prejudice that they make in their Rule IS pleading. 17 EFTA00188658

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 18 of 20 same set of facts. This reality should be the decisive factor in favor of allowing joinder here. See Hawkins'. Fulton C'nty., 95 F.R.D. 88. 91 (N.D. Ga. 1982) (allowing new parties to be added under Rule 21 because denying motion "would only result in the filing of a second. possibly duplicative suit. This Court is duty bound to prevent that sort of duplication of effort which is a waste of judicial resources."). Indeed, allowing joinder will clearly reduce litigation burdens — on both the Court and the Government. The motion seeks to have the new victims added into this action, conditioned on the requirement that they not re-litigate any issues previously litigated. Of course. if Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 were to file new lawsuits, they would not be subject to any such restriction. Allowing joinder in this action is clearly consistent with the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The CVRA — the most specific directive to this Court — commands that the Court "shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described [in the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1) (emphasis added). Congress intended that "the courts of this country . . . will be responsible for enforcing" victims' rights provided in the CVRA. 150 CONG. REC. 22953 (Oct. 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl). The best way the Court can "ensure" that Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4's rights are afforded is by allowing them to join this enforcement action. The Court should accordingly allow them to join. CONCLUSION Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 should be allowed to join Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 in this action, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The joinder should be conditioned on the requirement that Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 not re- litigate any issues previously litigated by Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. 18 EFTA00188659

.ease 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 19 of 20 DATED: February 6. 2015 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER. JAFFE, WEISSING. EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Attorneys, or the victims This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah 19 EFTA00188660

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 20 of 20' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on February 6, 2015, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: 561 820-8777 Attorneys for the Government Thomas Scott ar COLE. SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. -and- Kendall Coffey Gabriel Groisman Benjamin H. Brodsk n om COFFEY BURLINGTON. P.L. Attorneys for Alan Dershowit: /s/ Bradley J. Edwards 20 EFTA00188661

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 1 of 28 EXHIBIT 1 EFTA00188662

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 2 of 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. DECLARATION OF JANE DOE 3 I. The Court is familiar with me from my previous declaration in this case. I am currently 31 years old and want to become a part of the case to enforce my rights and possibly allow criminal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and others who abused underage girls. 2. I have seen a Government filing saying that I waited too long before trying to become a part of this case. I don't think that the Government's position tells the full story about me. In fact, 1 believe the Government is hiding some of the things that it knows about me and about other powerful people involved in this case. 1 am filing this declaration so that the Court will have more facts to make the decision about whether to let me come into the case. 3. In its latest filing, the Government seems to be questioning why I was afraid and did not come forward to speak more quickly. To understand my reasons, it is important that I share at least some additional information about why I was so fearful after my abuse by Epstein and others. 4. The Court can best understand my situation by looking at my previous declaration and then understanding why I was afraid of Epstein, how I eventually escaped from him, and how I was forced to hide from him and others. 5. I first met Epstein when I was 15 years old. I have told the Court about some of my sexual and physical abuse in my earlier declaration. 6. As a result of that abuse and my considerable interactions with Epstein and his friends, I knew that Epstein was connected to some of the most powerful people in the world, including a member of the British Royal family, a former President of the United States, and other very powerful lawyers, politicians and businessmen. I was afraid of what would happen if I tried to escape from Epstein or report him to law enforcement. EFTA00188663

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 3 of 28 7. 1 also knew what Epstein and Maxwell had been doing the years that I was with them. In addition to constantly finding underage girls to satisfy their personal sexual desires, Epstein and Maxwell also got girls for Epstein's powerful friends and acquaintances. Epstein specifically told me that the reason for him doing this was so that they would "owe him," they would "be in his pocket," and he would "have something on them." Epstein used to brag a lot to me about the important people that owed him favors. 8. Epstein said that he knew people that were very powerfid and who were politically involved, and that consequently he was someone you didn't want to mess with. I also knew this to be true from my personal observations with him. 9. Epstein also apparently paid to get protection from authorities. For example, Epstein told me that he paid a substantial "donation" to the Palm Beach police every year to "keep their mouths shut" about his activities. I do not know if his claim is true, but it certainly added to my fear. 10. Epstein arranged for many politically powerful, older men to have sex with underage girls — including me. Because these were crimes — and because some of these men were married — this gave Epstein the ability to blackmail these men and obtain political and other favors. I believe that Epstein's connections and his ability to blackmail these other powerful people could have helped Epstein seek a plea bargain from the authorities that kept him out of prison. T also believe that these connections most likely have prevented him from being arrested in the other locations where he has committed similar offenses. II. I also knew that Epstein maintained videos in some rooms where I had sex with other powerful people, and I believe that those videos could be used as further blackmail. 12. I have listed a few of the powerful people that Epstein forced me to have sex with in my earlier declaration. There were others, though, who I continue to refrain from naming publicly out of fear for physical repercussions. 13. Part of my fear comes from physical abuse that I suffered when Epstein forced me to have sex with other people. Without going into the details of the sexual activities I was forced to endure, there were times when I was physically abused to the point that I remember fearfully thinking that I didn't know whether I was going to survive. 14. Jeffrey Epstein knew about this physical and sexual abuse because I would detail it for him as part of my debriefing. Epstein didn't care. Epstein said things like, "You get that sometimes." I told him how much I hated having to be with some people, but Epstein still sent me back. I had no choice. 15. I give the Court this information so that it can better understand why I was so afraid of Epstein and what he could do to me. I could provide more details to the Court, if the Court needs more details on this issue. I also wanted to provide this information to the Court because I have been accused of being a "serial prostitute." I don't think that is a fair way to describe my situation, given that I was so young and so many powerful people were forcibly abusing rm. 2 EFTA00188664

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 4 of 28 16. Epstein let me know one of his good friends was former President Bill Clinton. While I did not have sex with former President Clinton, Epstein clearly had access to this extremely powerful man. Epstein also made me sexually service other very powerful people, which made me more fearful and feeling like I had nobody to report to without putting myself in more danger. I don't think it is fair for the Government to talk about why I didn't try to join this case sooner without talking about (hese kinds of facts - facts that I believe it has been able to confirm. 17. After years of abuse and being lent out, 1 began to look for a way to escape. I had been first forced into all this because I wanted to be a massage therapist. Epstein had taken me into his clutches through promises and talk. But once he had me under his control, I felt trapped. 18. I kept asking Epstein for my promised training and education. Epstein finally got me a plane ticket to Thailand to go to Chaing Mai to learn Thai massage. This sounded like my chance to escape. In September 2002, I packed my bags for good. I knew this would be my only opportunity to break away from Epstein. 19. On September 27, 2002, I flew from JFK in New York to Chaing Mai, Thailand. I arrived around September 29 for my training, But Epstein was going to get something out of this as well. I was supposed to interview a girl to bring back to the United States for Epstein. 20. Exhibit 1 is a list of room charges in Thailand, with the charges going to Epstein's account This exhibit shows Epstein's telephone numbers and is evidence that he paid for my hotel in Thailand. 21. Exhibit 2 is a set of documents showing my itinerary and flight plans for me going to Thailand, paid for by Epstein. 22. I did the massage training in Chiang Mai. I met a truly great and special guy and told him honestly what I was being forced to do. He told me I should get out of it. I told him that the people I was working for were very powerful and that I could not disobey them without risking my life. He told me he would protect me, and I had confidence in him. I saw my opportunity to escape and to be with someone wILL luriloved me and would protect me. To make a long story short, I married him and flew to 23. I called Epstein and told him I was not coming back. He asked why? I said "I've fallen in love." And Epstein basically just said "good luck and have a good life." I could tell he was not happy. I was very afraid of what he was going to do to me. I thought Epstein or one of his powerful friends might send someone to have me killed. 24. I stayed in from that point on, withisninisband and away from the life I had been forced to live as Epstein's sex slave. I was in from late 2002 to October 2013. To be clear, I was never in the United States during these years, not even for a short trip to visit my mother. And my absence from the United States was not voluntary — I was hiding from Epstein out of fear of what he would do to me if I returned to the United States. 3 EFTA00188665

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 5 of 28 25. In around 2007, after not hearing from anyone for years, out of blue I was contacted by someone who identified himself with a plain sounding name and claimed he was with the FBI. It seemed very odd for someone doing an official criminal investigation to just call up on the phone like that. I hadn't heard Epstein's name for years. I didn't know who this person was and what it was really about. I wasn't sure what was going on. 26. This man said he was looking into Jeffrey Epstein. The man asked if I had been involved with Epstein. My first instinct was to say nothing; because I wasn't sure he was really with the FBI or any authorities. I did answer a few basic questions, telling him that I knew Jeffrey Epstein and met him at a young age. The whole conversation didn't feel like it was right. This man never offered to come and meet with me in person. He instead asked me right off the bat about Epstein's sexual practices. I thought it would be strange for a real law enforcement officer to behave that way. I became increasingly uncomfortable and suspicious about who was actually calling me. 27. The way the conversation was going made me doubt whether I was really talking to an FBI agent. It did not seem very official. I became very uncomfortable, so I told him nothing more about Epstein. The conversation probably didn't even last three minutes. The conversation immediately triggered all of the fears of Epstein and his powerful friends that had caused me to escape the first time. If the call accomplished anything, it only put me back in fear and told me that I could be found quite easily and had nobody official protecting me. 28. I suspected that the man who called me was working for Epstein or one of Epstein's powerful friends. If the man who called me was really an FBI agent and was interested in what I knew about Epstein, I thought he would have made some effort to see me personally. I believed that if this was really an agent who was investigating Epstein, then he knew who I was and how I fit into Epstein's sexual crimes in many different places. Such an agent would send someone to meet me in person (who could provide potential protection from Epstein). He never did. 29. Getting a call from this supposed FBI Agent made me very scared. I had left that old life behind me and started a new life in a new country in hopes that the powerful people whose illegal activities I knew all about would never find me. And now I had been tracked down by someone and was frightened. 30. Shortly after this purported FBI call, I was contacted by someone who was clearly working for Epstein. This person discussed an investigation into Epstein, and said that some of the girls were saying Epstein had sexual contact with them. After they made those allegations, they were being discredited as drug addicts and prostitutes. But, on the other hand, if I were to keep quiet, I would "be looked after." The fact that this call calm in right after the FBI call reinforced my concern that the man I had talked to earlier was not really working for the FBI, but was really working for Epstein. I didn't think that the FBI and Epstein would both be working together and would both get my phone number at almost exactly the same tint. I played along and told this person that I had gotten a call from the "FBI" but that I didn't tell them anything. The person was pleased with that. 4 EFTA00188666

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 6 of 28 31. A short time later, one of Epstein lawyers (not Alan Dershowitz) called me, and then got Epstein on the line at the same time. Epstein and his lawyer basically asked again if I was going to say anything. The clear implication was that I should not say anything, The way they were approaching me, I was afraid of what would happen if I didn't keep quiet. My thought was that if I didn't say the right things, I might get hurt. 32. I promised Epstein and his lawyer that I would keep quiet. They seemed happy with that and that seemed to me the way to most likely keep me and my family safe. And I did what Epstein and his lawyer told me — I kept quiet. 33. I now understand that Epstein reached a non-prosecution agreement with the federal government in 2007 and pled guilty to two state crimes in June 2008. No one told me anything about those events until much later. In fact, nobody called or came to see me to explain what a non-prosecution agreement was, what crimes Epstein could have been charged with, why he was not being charged with the crimes he committed, or anything whatsoever about the case. I was never offered a chance to meaningfully confer with the prosecutor for the Government, and I was never notified of any hearing that could affect me or my rights as a crime victim to ever bring charges. 34. On September 3, 2008, the FBI sent a victim notification letter to me. This was the first written communication I had received from the FBI. The letter was attached as Exhibit 1 to my earlier statement. This kind of written communication, on official FBI stationary, is the way that I thought the FBI really communicated with people that they wanted to talk to. The fact that I got this official letter from them made me wonder even more whether that the call I had received earlier was really from the FBI. The letter that I got did not mention that anyone from the FBI had ever called me before. 35. The letter started off with the sentence: "By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida provides you with the following notice because you are an identified victim of a federal offense." That sentence (among others) made it seem like this was the first time the FBI was officially contacting me. That was tlx: first time I was told about my rights as a crime victim. 36. I did not know what was happening about any criminal prosecution of Epstein at this tint. I wanted him prosecuted. And given his constant illegal sexual behavior, I thought it was obvious that he should be prosecuted. But after reading the letter, I was confused. The letter did not explain what was actually happening or what role, if any, that I could play. In fact, the letter thanked me for my assistance during the investigations, yet it wasn't clear what that was referring to. 37. Also, the letter did not directly say that Epstein's crimes against me were not going to be prosecuted. It just said that "the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence . . .." I did not know what that meant. The letter did not inform me how it applied to me. The letter also said that there was "litigation between the United States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." Understanding more about that case now, I realize that the letter did not 5 EFTA00188667

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 7 of 28 explain that the real purpose of that litigation was not to get "disclosure of the entire agreement" but instead to get criminal charges filed against Epstein and to uphold the rights of Epstein's victims. I wish that the Government had told me that was what was really going on. 38. I saw on the letter that I could call a lawyer. The letter also mentioned Jack Goldberger, who I knew to be Epstein's attorney, which scared me. I first got in touch with the attorneys at the Podhurst Orseck firm My lawyers filed a lawsuit against Epstein for me, which mentioned that I was abused by Epstein and other powerful people. I was hoping that the information I gave as part of my lawsuit might help to put Epstein away in prison -- where he belongs. But the lawsuit ended up just being about money, which Epstein paid to settle. 39. I continued living in and, in 2011, was contacted by a journalist, who told me she was working for a Britis newspaper. She asked me if I had information about Prince Andrew. When I said that I did, she came out to to meet with me. 40. At this point, since nothing else seemed to be working to get Epstein and his associates held accountable, I wanted to try by myself to get a message out to the public about what terrible things Epstein and his friends had done to me and other girls. I was very disturbed about how no one was prosecuting Epstein for these crimes. I was also very scared. It seemed that law enforcement was not doing anything with the information they knew about me, which left me and my family more vulnerable and scared. 41. The journalist printed an article using some of the information I told her. Shortly after the article was published, I talked on the phone to Marie Villafafta, a federal prosecutor from Florida. I had seen her name on the official letter from the FBI, so she seemed legitimate. Villafafta seemed very interested in my case and seemed like she really wanted to do something. 42. Within a few weeks of the newspaper article being published, two FBI agents also called me in and then came to meet me. In around March 2011, they met ITC at the U.S. Consulate in . They seemed to be very professional and hard working. I thought to myself that I had fine y gotten the attention of the people that I wanted to and that these people would do the right things against Epstein and the other criminals. I also thought that they could protect me. 43. When I met with the agents, they mainly focused on Epstein. But while there, I provided them some information about some of the others who were involved in illegal acts as well. I was aware that a false statement to these law enforcement officers was a crime and I told the truth — giving them the information that I could recall at the time about the individuals they inquired about. 44. The agents were clearly prepared to meet me and already knew a lot about Epstein's crimes. The agents appeared to be very good at investigating and seemed like they really knew how to piece together the whole story. But at the same time, they seemed like they were being blocked from doing what they wanted to do — which i thought was to arrest Epstein and his powerful friends for all of their illegal sexual crimes. 6 EFTA00188668

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 8 of 28 45. During my interview with the real FBI agents, I told them about my contact from the purported FBI agent. They did not tell me that it had been a legitimate call from the FBI. 46. The interview I did with these FBI agents was very stressful for me. My meeting lasted for several hours. It was not easy to talk about all these difficult things, but I went through it. I was crying at points in the interview. The interview also placed stress on my marriage, because my husband had to listen to all the terrible things that happened to me. It was difficult for me to have to discuss being passed around as a sex object among powerful people. It was very hard for both of us. 47. The agents had come from Florida to meet with me in and took my information which gave me reason to believe that Epstein could still be prosecuted for the crimes he committed against me. I was not told even at that point that he could not be prosecuted for the crimes he committed in Florida. I was not told about the CVRA case or that there was any other option for me to enforce my rights. In fact, by the agents meeting with me I believed I was doing exactly what I needed to do to enforce my rights and assist in the prosecution. 48. 1 have seen the Government's recent brief trying to keep me from joining this case. In that brief, the Government says about me "the Government is aware that petitioners' counsel have been representing her [that is, me] since at least as early as March 2011." This is completely untrue, and I think the Government knows it is untrue. I was not represented by legal counsel in March 2011. The Government has to know that I didn't have an attorney then, because I didn't have an attorney when I met the agents in Sydney. I don't understand why the Government is giving false facts to the court. 49. In around 2011, I spoke to attorney Brad Edwards. He told me he hadbcen sued by Jeffrey Epstein and wanted to know what I knew about Epstein and his associates' involvement with sexually abusing underage girls. I told him about my abuse and trafficking by Epstein. I also told him at that time that I had been sexually abused by Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean Luc Brunel, Alan Dershowitz, and other powerful people. 50. In around April 2011, as a follow-up to my earlier call with Brad Edwards, I got a telephone call from him and another attorney, Jack Scarola. They just wanted general information about whether various people had information relevant to the lawsuit. They told me that they were taping the conversation, and I had no problem with that. I cooperated with them and gave them information about which people had information relevant about Epstein's crimes. Because it was over the phone and we did not know each other very well, they were very polite and did not ask me a lot of details about specifically who I had sex with and what sexual activities I was forced to participate in. It was a general, background interview. 51. As the months following the FBI meeting in Sydney passed, I was trying to be patient but I began wondering what was going on about prosecuting Epstein. I continued to be very confused about what was happening, I was hoping that some kind of prosecution would come out of it. But when nothing came of it, I got very upset. I wanted to do something to stop Epstein and the other people he associates with from sexually abusing girls. Law enforcement 7 EFTA00188669

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 9 of 28 had taken my detailed statements, but nothing seemed to be happening. I wasn't sure what to do. While I wanted to do all that I could to get justice for what had happened to me, it was very hard for me to figure out how to get something done in the United States while I was living in a foreign country; especially after I had already gave information to the FBI that 1 believed they were using to investigate and eventually arrest Epstein. 52. In October 2013, I returned to the United States for the first time since I had left for Thailand. 53. In April 2014, I decided to get back in touch with the FBI. In Sydney, the FBI had seemed like they wanted to be helpful to me, and I have great respect for the FBI agents who met me. It appeared to me they wanted to do the right thing in this case. But my feeling was once the agents collected information about crimes committed against me, someone else stepped in and blocked them from getting charges filed. I also thought that Marie Villafa0a really wanted to do the right thing and holc.fiin accountable for the horrible crimes he committed. But, it seemed like the hands of and the FBI were always tied by someone else with more authority. 54. I have never been able to figure out who was (and still is) stopping a prosecution. I also haven't been able to figure out who is trying to stop me from being able to participate in a court case to a have a judge determine whether my rights have been violated. It doesn't seem fair to me that the Government can argue that 1 don't even get the opportunity for a judge review the issue. To me, this is further verification of Epstein's power, which continues to make me very scared. 55. 1 have asked the FBI to show me the video surveillance and other pictures of me that 1 believe they have in their possession. They said that I would have to go to the prosecutors to get them. But the prosecutors will not share anything with me. I believe that the prosecutors have lots of information that will support what I have been saying about Epstein and his associates. 56. Based on my knowledge of Epstein and his organization, as well as discussions with the FBI, it is my belief that federal prosecutors likely possess videotapes and photographic images of me as an underage girl having sex with Epstein and some of his powerful friends. I don't understand why they aren't moving forward with what the FBI has given to them. I also don't understand why these pictures haven't been given to me nor why law enforcement officers from any other jurisdictions have never contacted me. 57. It was not until 2014 that I first understood about the way in which Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 were trying to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement to allow prosecution of Epstein for crimes he committed against and me. I had never really heard anything significant about this case while I was in and it was hard to get information about what was happening in Florida while I was overseas. Once I heard about the case, I quickly wanted to become a part of it. 58. In light of the way everything has played out, I believe that my rights as a crime victim have been violated. It was never my choice to become the victim of crimes by Epstein and the 8 EFTA00188670

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 10 of 28 people he forced me to have sex with. Epstein dragged me into his web when I was very young and, after that, it was hard for me to escape. After I ran away to , it appears that Epstein reached an agreement in 2007 with the federal prosecutors in Florida blocking him from being prosecuted for the crimes he committed against me. 59. When Epstein pled guilty to two low level crimes in 2008 as part of his agreement, no one told me what was happening or that this plea had anything to do with preventing prosecution of crimes against me or the hundreds of other girls he abused. Nobody told me that f could speak to the Judge or that a hearing was even taking place. 60. Based on all the facts I have described here, I believe some kind of major cover-up is going on to protect Epstein. As I look back on what Epstein and his friends have done, I see a lot of powerful people who knew what they were doing to me and other girls was wrong. But they also seemed to think that they were above the law and they had nothing to worry about. From what I can see, that turned out to be true. There are less powerful people -- like the FBI agents and Marie Villafafla — that seem like they are trying to get the right thing done. But nothing happens. 61. Because nothing is being done, it makes me think that Epstein was right when he told me he had so many people in his pocket. Maybe those people are still helping him escape being prosecuted for what he did against me. The justice system doesn't seem to respond to the victitns in this case. It seems to favor those who have the most money and power and influence. 62. I am also worried that this is a very dangerous circuit. By standing up for what is right, I'm worried that Epstein, or others named here, will come after me. I wonder where this is going to go if the United States government is not on my side. I am intent on seeing this through so that Epstein isn't allowed to hurt other young girls. I can't stop abuse everywhere in the world. But if I help one victim then I have made a positive difference. 63. In April 2014, 1 asked two good attorneys — Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell — to see if they could help me bring Epstein and his friends to justice. They agreed to add me to the existing case. They explained to me that the lawsuit was not asking to get money from Epstein or others. I understand and have always understood that the goal of the case is to simply enforce my rights as a crime victim— rights that were wrongly taken from me. 64. I want Epstein and the others who committed crimes against me to be punished fairly — the way other less powerful would be. I also want to be added to the suit filed by the two girls, Jane Doe Number 1 and Jane Doe Number 2, and I want to have rights the way a victim of a less wealthy and powerful criminal would have. 65. Epstein and his friends sexually and physically abused many other girls. They did this in many places around the world. I personally observed this. There are also many people who could confirm what I am saying. I hope that these people will come forward and tell the truth. I hope that they will call my attorney in Fort Lauderdale, Florida L Brad Edwards — so that all &the information can be presented to the court about what has happened to me and others. 9 EFTA00188671

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 11 of 28 66. Because of how often Epstein and others were having sex with young girls, and how much it was a centerpiece of their lives, 1 doubt they have just stopped. It also seems to me that, when I knew them, they believed that they were above the law — too powerful to be prosecuted. That feeling has no doubt been reinforced by the fact Epstein has escaped real punishment with his plea bargain, and the others with whom he traveled have completely escaped. I hope that I can join this case and try to bring them to justice. 67. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this SrI`day of February, 2015. (Location of signature left undisclosed for security reasons) JANE DOE 3 10 EFTA00188672

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 12 of 28 EXHIBIT 1 EFTA00188673

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 13 of I • 0 J.EPSTEIN Royal Princess. Chiang Nei, 15/10/02 1::S1 L88785 • Room No. Arr. Oato : : 923 29/09/02 Page No. : Dept Date : I. 19/10/02 Guest : 1 Cashier : 11 CHFOAGNI03 • Guest Name- : DOE 3 • OSA use DATE DESCRIP-1 :6 to • • • • • • op S 08/10 08/10 08/10 08/10 09/10 09/10 09/10 09/10 09/10 09/10 09/10 09/10 09/10 09/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 11/10 11/10 11/10 11/10 11/10 11/10 11/10 11/10 11/10 11/10 11/10 12/10 12/10 12/10 --- ---- Room Charges Selvice chargv Government Tax Provincial Tax (Rm) Room Charges Service charge 10% Government Tax Provincial lax (Rm) Room Service ag 4923 : CHECK 11:.098 Hinibar 0923 : Long Distance 4923 : Overseas 4923 Overseas 4923 % Overseas 11923 : Room Charges Service charge JO% Government Tax Provincial Tax (Rm) Room Service B/F 4923 Local. Call. R923 Overseas 4923 Overseas 11923 Room Charges Service charge 10% Government Tax Provincial Tax (Rm) Long Distance 4923 : Long Distance 4923 : Long Distance 0923 : Long Distance #923 Overseas 11923 : Overseas 4923 Laundry/Valet 01699 pta Room Charges Service charge 10% Government Tax CHECK 421.06 ROYAL PRINCESS Csum; MAI 1 17 Om.. K0* OuJ. Itbas. Lbw A Moot/. (NMI MN WIN. ma 2753) 2311.013 o: 40532 20.664 lath, isionliunis (Nwitm) nieihnouseeellEutme deslxll 117 slim,/ alumni a ION v.iVnittol 50100 inr. (053) 211.933 bun,: (01)) 261 014 mig2141111binva 60 11 02627 intlit4iiiikattgains 3 101 41170 2 Guest's signature . Dale CHARGE --- • 2700.00 270.00 207.90 21.60 2700.00 270.00 207.90 21.60 376.64 120.00 45.00 384.00 177.00 177.00 2700.00 270.00 207.90 21.60 129.47 10.00 177.00 118.00 2700.00 270.00 207.90 21.60 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 266.00 59.00 1912.70 2700.00 270.00 207.90 • ki III S EFTA00188674

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 14 of 28 0 • t • • • 12/20 12/10 12/10 12/10 13/10 13/10 13/10 13/10 13/10 13/10 13/10 13/10 13/10 13/10 13/10 13/10 40 13/10 13/10 13/10 13/10 14/10 14/10 O 14/10 14/10 24/10 14/10 14/10 14/10 • 14/20 14/10 15/10 15/10 15/10 15/10 • 15/10 O 0 J.EPSTEIN Royal Princess, Chiang Mai, 18/10/02 188785 ' 12:51 ROYAL PRINCESS CAlay xw 50100. Ilitl 00,00 ()MAC Mu III Ching Mr ka.1.10mog ASI•an. id (031201-033 /5010131201.011 1101%/1 101704111311 durs Ino ‘etakot tig cites Ito. (053) 201 033 1111011: (0531 741.015 nstdounn m'ood so 14 01523 Room No. : 923 Page No. : unlittalitiasmiami 3 10 1 2 (11110 2 Arc. Gate : 29/09/02 Dept Date : 19/10/02 Guest % I Cashier 1 11 CHF5A6N103 Guest Name : DOE 3 USA USA DATE DESCRIPTION CHARGE LREDI1 12/10 Provincial Tax (Rm) Long Distance 0923 : Overseas 4923 : Overseas 0923 : Overseas 1023 : Room Charges Service charge 10% Government Tax Provincial Tax (Rm) Room Service B/F 0924 . 117 Long Distance 4921 : Long Distance 4923 : Long Distance 49 Overseas 11923 : Overseas 4923 : Overseas 0923 : Overseas 0923 : Overseas 4923 : Overseas 4923 : Overseas 4923 : Overseas 0923 1 Room Charges. Service charge 102 Government Tax Provincial Tax (Rm) Room Service O/F 0923 : CHM M 129 Minibar 0923 : Overseas 11923 : Overseas 4923 Overseas 4923 Overseas 4923 Room Charges Service charge 10% Government Tax Provincial Tax (1141) Ninibar 4923 : Guest's signature Date . 21.60 30.00 913.00 30.00 89.00 2700.00 270.00 207.90 21.60 153.02 45.00 30.00 15.00 30.00 30.00 660.00 30.00 30.00 59.00 384.00 89.00 2700.00 270.00 207.90 21.60 294.25 290.00 59.00 59.00 59.00 30.00 2700.00 270.00 207.90 21.60 120.00 EFTA00188675

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 15 of 28 • 0 J.EPSTEIN Royal Princess, Chiang Nat. 18/10/02 /2:51 ROYAL PRINCESS 4:0.40 11l Clay Mao 110.1. 1.0404i 1.144, C1410> 1141 50103. !KC.. to (051) 761.071 144- (053) 301 -044 1.11110 laIllif14141 41/r11 (0111014) 111011141411/1111111K1411141 19011.14 114 44.1111•404. ilininu 11.111, 44144401 soma tin (013) 181-013 hula,: (0.3) 701 .044 188785 naiknanlinialf 60 14 03671 Room No. : 923 Page No. : 3 060144064P6A461M1101 00000 Arr. Date : 29/09/02 Dept Date : 19/10/02 Guest : 1 Cashier : 11 CHFORONTO3 • Guest Name : DOE 3 USA • USA • [DATE DESCRIPTION CHARGE CRE011 15/10 Overseas 1923 : 796.00 15/10 Overseas 4923 118.00 15/10 16/10 Overseas 4923 Room Charges 354.00 2700.00 16/10 Service charge 10% 270.00 16/10 Clovernment Tax 207.90 16/10 Provincial Tax (Km) 21.60 16/10 Poolside p.m. 4923 : CHECK 4 621 29.13 16/10 Room Service B/F 11923 : CHECK 0 143 282.43 16/10 Room Service B/F 4923 : CHECK 6 147 918.01. 16/10 Hinibar 4923 : 180.00 16/10 Local Call 2323' 10.00 16/10 Overseas 1923 89.00 16/10 Overseas 0923 1 325.00 0 16/10 16/10 Overseas $923 Overseas 11923 148.00 1113.00 16/10 Overseas 4923 : 295.00 0 26/10 16/10 Overseas 4923 Overseas 11923 30.00 30.00 16/10 Overseas 4923 : 59.00 0 17/10 17//0 Room Charges service charge 10% 2700.00 270.00 17/10 Government Tax 207.90 41 17/10 17/10 Provincial lax (Rm) Room Service 8/F 0923 : CHECK 12160 21.60 306.02 17/10 Room Service 8/F 4923 : CHLC1 0 161 94.16 • 17/10 17/10 Room Service B/F 4923 : CHECK 4 162 Mtnibar 4923 : 94.16 160.00 17/10 Overseas 11923 30.00 • 17/10 17/10 Overseas 11923 Overseas /1923 : 148.00 30.00 17/10 Overseas 4923 59.00 S 17/10 17/10 Overseas 0923 Overseas 0923 471.00 89.00 18/10 Room Charges 2700.00 AO 18/10 Service charge 10% 270.00 Guesrsegneure Dee EFTA00188676

ID Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 I Entered 28 on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 16 of ROYAL PRINCESS CmfaPe. AJ41 112 a., kin inn t Cling lien. AShis i. vont 310 SO ICO. ttiti fel l053) 211-033 10S3) 211-011 migolifunpa tHrp (uulut) IP 3.EPSTEIN Royal Princess. Chiang Nal, J8/10/02 IIIIII/IllOtrOAIITO III041141; lit n.dlmnm ellissui o1Da 0.04:41,40 sotoo 12:51 bit (013) 211 -033 WOW (033) 251.011 188785 ' litial0001121014 SO II GIST? 0 Room No. : 923 Page No. 2 Arr. Date : 29/09/02 Dept Date : LimPinflAponiOton, 3 IC I 51770 2 4 19/10/02 t Guest : Guest Name 1 Cashle: 11 CHFOAGNT03 DOE 3 LISA USA LATE DESCRIPTION CHARGE CREllIl 18/10 18/10 16/10 18/10 Government Tax Provincial Tax (Rm) Room Service B/F 11923 : CHECK I Room Service 0/F 0973 : COCCI. Ii 171 172 207.90 21.60 294.25 180.32 13/10 Overseas 0973 :- 207.00 • J.8/10 Cash KILT 40567.45 • Total 48587.45 48687.45 S Balance 0.00 Baht Total including VAT 48349.85 Baht Total without VAT 237.60 0aht Folio amount net 45424.38 Baht • IIIA 1 7.00% 3163.07 Bahl (40349.85) TAX II) NO. 3 1 0 1 6 1 7 7 0 7 • RD NO. 5 01 4 TAX INVOICE NO. 91 U0 0 2 13489 3 S TAX INVOICE(A88) Guest's signature . Dela EFTA00188677

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 17 of 28 MI O C • O • O O • • • • DOE 3 Guest's signature Date ROYAL PRINCESS 10 964 1 1n 1134.Er/C M2 3(99 11(14/(3. 1 A.M.ong. (Vu) Ma 50100.114 7.1; (031)11433 In (03111111.011 uldn nendutva lid. (unto nivitvounlaindures 1/9/11111 119 II &Maly sallow odic., • tfbilml igloo (063) 211133 1111.9): (01))781-044 retChunniiing 10 14 025/1 iftidithilliaorrifioial 3 10 1 111110 I EFTA00188678

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 18 of 28 0 C) • • C) 0 • • • • • 0 • • G • • • DOE 3 Guest's signature Date ROYAL PRINCESS Num:Mu 112Oam Klan Au( Lanni kka. A.Nlang. Oran Ay 30100.73. Tel IASI) 211-033 In: (353) 2111.011 1111;11 ligligf1/11111 dirin ()mum) wieill4unaloinditmin li/41111i 112 0# • iiwou WOW 1.111111Ma 1.0106 Inc (013) 111-033 imam: (pea) III -041 Itlaturi1.70111d SO I1 02127 taimIlthillitIllifoli0171 3 10 I 111710 2 EFTA00188679

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 19 of 28 ROYAL PRINCESS 01134 Ho II? Coy Alan Rot T Cltml 13a. AM..01.<14,06 VA 2OIN, TI na Tgl: 033) 311.033 fat. (031) 311.041 Idadiuton 4ur0 (wove) trivihrululasTstlf etre leak& n.dn0nu 9.111IMIlla 0463 111111114d 10100 (063)211-93 Irma: (013) 26 I - Oil rotOrrunwhovit $0 I1 02127 lanhateri+lealllain a to 1 $11702 Guest's signature Dale EFTA00188680

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 20 of 28 11 J.EP.STEIN Royal Princess, Chiang Nal, 19/10/02 13:07 ROYAL PRINCESS O94/4 Alm I U Camir, lJan 114.4. Mon( I)44. A M.A.,. O4.4..44 W1O.4 TA: (0331 201.033 fa (053) All .041 %Ain latleduinn ohltm (innate) nivitynnulaieduita tinglnil 112 alumi. a.thinane :Liam tAlifibni some lin. (011) 2111-933 11.1011: (4112) ran -044 Room No. : 923 Page No. : Att61Aet A SO 14 0232/ inditill/1400/11.90101 3 10 141130 t 1 Air. Vale• : 29/09/02 Dept Date : 1.9/10/02 Guest : 1 Cashier : II CHFGA6NTO3 Guest Name DOE 3 USA [DATE USA DESCRIPTION 18/10 Room Service B/F 4923 : CHECK 4 171 18.00 Room Service B/F 4923 172 18/10 Long Oistance 4923 : 18/10 tong Dictance 4923 : 18/10 Overseas 4923 : 14/10 6v(-1 :•1111(• 4923 16/10 Overseat. 4923 19/10 ROM, Service 6/1 4923 : CHECK N 103 19/1.0 ninibar Total Balance :••••• Total including VAT Folio amount net 1 A 1 7.00% TAX )0 NO. 3 1 0 1 6 1 1(0 110. 5 0 1 4 9 1 0 ItIVOICL(AR8) / 0 CHARGE 294.25 188.32 15.00 60.00 207.00 304.00 833.00 400.18 220.00 • 41 Guest's signature 2651.75 ≥6S1 .75 Mit Dale • _ _ . • . EFTA00188681

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 21 of 28 EXHIBIT 2 EFTA00188682

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 22 of 28 0 0 £ gOCI EFTA00188683

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered 8 on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 23 of 2 • liMmo &OS« ••••:•• Wm me mr• ea u. b• bow tM m•••• mund • ~se yea ~fa mwm MWl a in mum lV b b••••• ibb /a Mom MCMIMII war menu «met; iblea • M tam b avvik M Nbn b ~Mt film is iso ~am aMlallll Wait comet nail ~Mud ~nest IlmaiMbi le ~in 1, Coe Me SS ~See Mt lbw bin MY •• Yrs mo MS et awn Ian M m Wl6 Mme *MU tab. winos MO MOKMMAL MAO • UM paw Imo IMM 0MM ~Ms I asa ~lb frSola 4WMMbrW ntala ~eh; ipM fam 0~ ray a ••• mbar LM fay •••• Me may MI MMMI• • eepwMMaoa ra MPN hnrM'1FVMif oral Sere Sorts « Tr sr as rasla se ~Sr a Sevres , Oro ~US«, Ire ~nimbi l~p~ NIL ~OIL 41~ nl•••• ar• ~Nero eiNe • al ~I «man 1021•CmobbitinnmeMmamamnis•MLMMY~M•M•••••••• MMtlbuaaraSlossbsarMaOaIS. I.DYISMiMrtøMwAtØ • 191•UM tar «Mtml am Mews Marbm• I m arm ~PM øn •••• nab me al 411) PM bail is is ow antim Onbel Mom WM fl y fnire 17 Ibn liMM IM0MMIll OW ~4 nine Ithi amp. Om] Mar•mb ~MK NM VW he Mini eon to airen boo, do SYS Ow cane Maims tom Its err has Mr bib MI • easaMM Sim n• ~maim Vl alsASWOFaM ird ya a ~le M Fis WY lei 0.•• MM. ~Wm rosy Minn • a imprb Cap" or warn • TM le es k sib M ~Way a m ~by V •••kb nab IS V» IMIPM.mm•M• • ~Mg b ••••• •••• "•• ImMT MOM b IS Trot Annei M.a anitaMba MM ~ore re ~Se re le My. På• Ts& eq. Min Mi IS be nee fir be « err is sr Sae ce se ens e NieVea Mrt MCII lee re el In my KM dm•M ww.totnio WS 10•90~1 enw Is& a• bm••••• • ~My MoMilem•Mb germ tiM• ernes ens ar Mal rams is el *See ne See or leer ter ems .4 kle mers of err Sr ••••• rim orma. SI NW Seas VS miltme• •,biz r locum %wag, IaHM IS XS nsyeWl4 a sw Seim.= «I bMMw tie sys4r r eat: Ia Is ses De Pre r FW le. sea eye Wee epee tee en Mee Uri Le ~at ~MS bee ebb( /se fot CILY-SIOCIlle Sera. "SHOPPERS TRAVEL, INC. SH0~64TRAVEL AGENT RS/RS BOOKING REF ZXLL07 303 5TH AVENUE NEW YORK NY10014 J EPSTEIN 457 MADISON AVE 4TH LOOR NEWYORK NY 10027 DATE: SEP 27 2002 (DOE 3 RECORD TERMS: PAYMENT DUE UPON PRESENTATION SINGAPORE AIRLINES 27SEP NEW YORK NY SINGAPORE 945P 635A SQ 25 Q FRI JOHN F KENNEDY CHANGI 2°SEP NON SMOKING TERMINAL I TERMINAL 2 MEAL 1 STOP RESERVATION CONFIRMED 20r50 'DURATION NEW YORK FRANKFURT FRANKFURT SINGAPORE AIRCRAFT, BOEING:74,r400 / - SINGAPORE AIRLINES 29SEP 511liOAPORE ‘'. .BANGKOK 9504 10104 SQ 62 Q SUN 4tANGI BANGKOK INTL NON SMOKING j RMINAL 2 TERMINAL 2 tailEAL i : NON STOP MESERVAT/ON CONFIRMED 2:20 DURATION RIEGERFT:JD0EING 747-400:-- t19 __FL4,---ntri, THAI AIRWAYS INTL lrstafflgoK. -- IANG'MAI 1215P 125P t-- TO 110 Y S -GANGE D< INTL INTERNATIONAL NON SMOKING C.:- YERMiNALK: Dom NON STOP ,REEERMATION>CONFIRMED 1,10 DURATION AutcarirpfAariagsylunusiTRM,ASP0-600/600c HOTEL 29 :1*'RINCESS EFTA00188684

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 24 of 28 1, SHOPPERS TRAVEL, INC. SHOPPERS TRAVEL AGENT RS/RS BOOKING RFF ZXL1 07 303 5TH AVENUE NEW YORK J EPSTEIN 457 MADISON AVE 4TH FLOOR NEWYORK NY 10027 DATE: SEP 27 2002 DOE 3 RECORD TERMS; PAYMENT OUE UPON PRESENTATION SINGAPORE AIRLINES 27SEP NEW YORK NY SINGAPORE 945P 635A SQ 25 Q FRI JOHN F KENNEDY CHANGI 29SEP NON SMOKING TERMINAL 1 TERMINAL 2 MEAL 1 STOP RESERVATION CONFIRMED 20:50 DURATION NEW YORK FRANKFURT FRANKFURT SINGAPORE AIRCRAFT: BOEING 747-400 SINGAPORE AIRLINES 29SEP SINGAPORE BANGKOK 850A 1010A SQ 62 Q SUN CHANG] BANGKOK INTL NON SMOKING TERMINAL 2 TERMINAL 2 MEAL NON STOP RESERVATION CONFIRMED 2:20 DURATION AIRCRAFT: BOEING 747-400 THAI AIRWAYS INTL 29SEP BANGKOK TO 110 Y SUN BANGKOK INTL NON SMOKING TERMINAL DOM HOTEL CHIANG MAI 1215P 125P INTERNATIONAL NON STOP RESERVATION CONFIRMED 1:10 DURATION AIRCRAFT:' AIRBUS INDUSIRIE A300-600/6000 29*EP ROYAL PRINCESS cHIANGCIAI 1900T tilataaso-41-4-1 b742-11104-4- TELEX' NONE CONFIRMATION' 102520345 REFERENCE: AO3A00 SINGLE ROOM TWIN BED RATE: CUR THB 2700.00 PER NIGHT GUARANTEE GIVEN CANCE1ILAWSON POL JAWS 4311 1600 22SEP2002 LOCAL PROPERTY TIME VISIT OUR SITE HTTRYvAsNaha perstraveLcom • E-Mail: Ink@shopparslrayetcom 303 FIFTH A • 1007 • NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016 TEL • FAX 173 THANK YOU FLEASE RECOMIM MOM MD TIMES IN CASE OF SCICKAE CHANCES -24 NOM PRINT FDA DOMES= TRAVEL - 72 HOURS MON FOR NTEANATIONAL TRAVEL EFTA00188685

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 25 of 28 • 'SHOPPERS TRAVEL, INC. SHOPPERS TRAVEL AGENT RS/RS BOOKING REF ZXLL07 303 5TH AVENUE NEW YORK J EPSTEIN 457 MADISON AVE 4TH FLOOR NEWYORK NY 10027 NY100ii, 779 0800 00I : TERMS: PAYMENT DUE UPON PRESENTATION A DATE: SEP 27 2002 RECORD THAI AIRWAYS INTL 190CT CHIANO MAI BANGKOK 315P 425P TO 113 v SAT INTERNATIONAL BANGKOK INTL NON SMOKING TERMINAL DOM i l -' NON STOP • RESERVATION:CONFIRMED 1:10 DURATION AIRCRAFT: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE A300-600/600C SINGAPORE AIRLINES 190CT BANGKOK ' SINGAPORE SQ 67. 0 SAT BANGKOK INTL CHANGI NON SMOKING TERMINAL 2 TERMINAL 2 :MEAL RESERVATION CONFIRMED AIRCRAFT: BOEING 747-400, 630P 955P NON STOP 2:25 DURATION SINGAPORE AIRLINES 190CT SINGAPORE NEW YORK NY 1150P 1040A SO 26 Q SAT CFIANGI JOHN F KENNEDY 200CT NON SMOKING TERMINAL 2 TERMINAL 1 MEAL 1 STOP -RESERVATION CONFIRMED 22:50 DURATION SINGAPORE FRANKFURT FRANKFURT NEW VORK AIRCRAFT: BOEING 747-400 AMERICAN AIRLINES 200CT NEW YORK NY MIAMI FL 250P 604P AA 1701 .N cVN JOHN F KENNEDY MXAt-g INTL. 'NON SMOKING 7ERM/NAL MISCELLANEOUS NON STOP RESERVATION CONFIRMED 3:16 DURATION AIRCRAFT( BOEING 757-200/300 27JUL CHIANG MAI SUN SHOPPERS TRAVEL RESERVATION NUMBER(S) AA/DFNKAZ SQ/JC5MU4 TO/L2QHI4 THIS TICKET IS NONREFUNDABLE/NONCNANGEABLE PENALTY MAY APPLY FOR ANY CHANOE/CVNCELLANAGN CHECKIN 2+1OURS BEFORE SCHECiUWED DEPARTURE RECONFIRM „nob WE SUGGEST YO P 4 d igegworsirovacom INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL YT WO397 6 IT IS i'OUR:RESPONSIBILITY 300 THANK YOU PLEASE RECONFIRM FUGNIS AM) TRIES IN CASE OF SCHEDULE CHANGES - 24 HOUR PRIM FOR DOMESTIC TRAVEL - 72 NOM PRIOR FOR NTEANATIONAL TRAVEL EFTA00188686

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 26 of 28 f 1 SHOPPERS TRAVEL, INC. SHOPPERS TRAVEL AGENT RS/RS BOOKING REF 1XLL07 303 5TH AVENUE NEW YORK J EPSTEIN 457 MADISON AVE 43H FLOOR NEWYORK NY 10027 DATE: SEP 27 2002 DOE 3 RECORD TERMS: PAYMENT DUE UPON PRESENTATION CONSULATE ABOUT YOUR VISA TO THE COUNTRIES YOU ARE TRAVELLING/TRANSITTING SHOPPERS TRAVEL,INC IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TICKETS LOST, OR DELAYED IN THE MAIL ti ***PLEASE CARRY A VALID PHOTO IO**** THANK YOU.WE KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A CHOICE AND WE APPRECIATE YOU CHOOSING SHOPPERS TRAVEL,INC VISIT OUR WEB SITE AT WWW.SHOPPERSTRAVEL.COM HAVE A NICE TRIP • VISIT OUR SITE HTTP.//wwwsho perstravetcom • E-Mail: [email protected] 303 FIFTH A • 007 • Y. 10016 TEL • FAX L.. (732 THANK YOU PLEASE RECONFIRM RENTS MO TIMES IN CASE OF SCIf-DULE CRANGS. - 24 HOUR PROP FOR DOMESRC TRAVEL - 22 R3URS PROR FOR HIERNADONAL TRAVEL EFTA00188687

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 27 of 28 Fiona° check your doeuntui lei when you teentve them Call us S you have any questions CHECK•IN - Muumum check-w time for domestic Molds to 60 nonplus and lot kfietroolonni flights. 2 boo's. 3 fibCONFIFIMA I K)Ni - Russolitnithe use and Innuol nights nl least 24 hours lot dornestim. and 72 hours let eilomational florasoffunabon is mandalur y In Ebtala. Canada. Mexico, Hamill and allinke national dastnatrons Fattenlouse any rusitivalionsmayreault Wautrimatic amnia:aline ul all continuing and rattan tetativaliour. 4 EiXCIIR SION AND imomen 'num. BARES most cksiAnmi hubs involve dett:di (LISP etbons A change in carner(s), Ii,yhllal. fintele)ot roufing(s) could firma in a carrier oamanding a lull late (Hewn agency of altlato,oteltdwitm baled, tiliataXt limy chaotic II your plans change eartwie, apply the sitkat of you.' tickuls toward o inlissued inn It Is not oncrissary to pteettaad a DOW ',Cate II a rotund in duo. obtain a toremi Irani lm auntie those betas, raglan and lams tau batted on coaled Weill, teat are le change without :Hike 7. TICKETS- Concreted or unused Miens musiburolumesi lot proper autill to your account I osi, Morn° Or &alloyed lick015.011/51 WOW., 104 until refund is recervoU from the issuing Career; nubjeCt In An Ladino Imposed sm virtu charge It 110111 S en °surety c onlarnod on a guatanirrod payment basis II you cancel or change plans. phrase nobly your Itelut(&) within thu limo make, spodend by Mai hotel tAllirriACKAGE PRICESaro Subject lo changer without notice Ma tu currency fluctuations. IoM changes or Incroase in operational costa. In addition, greup torrilstertagin am noted nit n Minimum Number of passengers travelling. it Me number of pas:amours fails below the noninnon required. a Sti4Otatga way ho imposed oil all personation 10 1611,03 TAN 1 el If you what at an airline dram or passenger chock in corsair with your corifentral ticket and find Pal the Nano shows no reservation lot you -do no! Wane tho canning Char* your tickul. II rho Matta boy shows 'OK' lot Preflight inspection, lim airline rust accommodate you on Mal MOIL of 111bal is not possible, they rust pallet find you a substitute Mom orpay yuudwirudboarding coition striker. II necessary ask lo spook to a supetvisa. 5 G II We rteedin lee &de in eta- 1.tx:0551110 lees Ill tiw Wont of ream& t incell :lions is teOC:al cot 12 DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY • • ibis Travel Agency Is acting as a mere agunl for suppliers In selling travolaelalad services, or in accepting tozervallons or bookings for services Thal are not di• racily supplied by Ills linvol agency (such as air and ground Iranspoilallon, hololaccommodalluns, meals, loan, crulsesoriCa. This agency, tharefoto, shall not be responsible for breach 01 contract orany intentional arta:elm-, actions or omlisions on part of such oupplion, which bison In any lo s s, damage, delay, or Injury to you or your navel companion or group morel:wit Unless the term 'guaranteed' Is spccifically slated In writing on your &kegs, Invoice. or reservntIon ilisterary, we do not guarantee any of such suppliers' roles, booliings.resatvations,conivielloste, schodulIng. et harnl of personal elIncb. travel spent shall nut be !capon. slide lot shy injuries, damages, or loner, caused to any traveler In connocilon with loner's! a:Dollies. social or labor unreal, rue• blanket or COIntraption Or difficulties, (Osmoses, local laws, Semitic conditions, criminal acts or abnormal conditions or develownonts, or any Whet actions, omissions, or conditions outside the Iravel agora'. control. Traveler assume° complete and full nosponsibliity kit, and hereby releases the agent from any duly Dl, checking and verifying any and all passport, visa, vaccination, or other entry requirements of each destination, and all safely or sonority condillonn at such destinations, during the length of Ian proposed travel. lot Information concerning possible dangers al International destinations, contact the Travel Advisory Section of lho U.S. Stoic Depurimonl. Ent mndleat Inlormallon, coil the Public Health Smote°. By ambarldne upon hls her travel, the traveler voluntarily assume, all risks involved In such travel, Whether *spectral or unexpected. lorveler it. hereby warned of such risks, and is advised to obtain appruptlida Insurance coverage against them. Traveler's retention 01 lick: I., reservations. or bookings rifler issuance shall constitute a consent to the above, and an °ottoman! on his her pad to convey the contents Introit" lo Nadia travel companions or group mondwro. 13 Proof of kkinlity niqu tad a,i inlarnalronal naval Wirhuirl prows litonlilosillonai pm. podium m.‘earwry war you will riot Ito pinion Ind la duped. 111c you, our Any to verity you. nocustory ;WO. Wu. STRONGLY HECOMMI-ND INSUHANCE. WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF AIRLINE BANKRUPTCIES. hopefully there will not bit any nano alikno txtrairuplrios, befit has to dui redounded dial th y might or: us You 1 know how they might alley rya d an stilton. Madams bellow M.y.11 is nut Obligated le carry you or rotund lithels Isperil huhu° Um bardouptcy. 2 MVO/ AVI lit. we red Niemen I In nitwit whals tin wanes wri.Ji nava dera.uoil bulletin:4i. Murray groan to n trawl agooi namedialuly becomes Ilia propertyIsidro airlines and we ern tomiluxl by laws to comply wah the ttidnotte. Onion. 3 II an 4WItilit tamtlain we r, it (night tontine aminco. kftel 'enact:. Or Slog nettepl t y I; r aiilmes might retrefil passengers widest,. utedembinsian. m yiea Wadi DO: 0..VI/ASSIMOO. Lan dt:InUiNd ant. • 4 LAI lanwhilo hoe, lire 0n tr V 'ft UM .01114111 UVatelatt fur putesell gel. to diatna then Ma- . e, so of au at bankruplovs IMPORTANT NOTICE this.gguricy fuel to. norefis hove endeavored to secure Ihu Iowan possiblo Sato, sulude° for your travel roquironvinla.b,e.ed an space evadable nu din ante ul bcokinu. accessible matexte of kdormalion, and knowleduu of agunls orwolved This agency cannot guar anion, L, WSW ul de Clillegul.ttran ideation llama, nail dig hie Inda Mad till idiot via be ate leWlett patentee inn el dopattutedato. Please contact nut amincy before daparlow if you wish to rechnek any newly introducedIwo, dint laity CINTOCIN)1111 With yOutt spaalic have( roquIrommas PLEASE. NOTE dui retention of Pawls, infervallons ur bookings after scums shall consIbute a.tceppen, of plUVLSOMI5 in itIV Milli Iodate, as well as U1050 bailie and renditions set Huth tie annOunttorneinle end cinatirs m thebe Kenai:Ram, Guise el Cuomo EFTA00188688

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 28 of 28 Your Travel Check List General Ust: 0 Tickets 0 Passport Vaccination certificate 0 Wallet 0 Travelers theCks C Itinerary 0 Reservations 0 Phone numbers 0 0 0 0 0 0 C K O 0 0 0 0 Fist Aid supplies 0 Camera and film 0 Clock 0 Clothesline and clips C Comb 0 Deodorant 0 Needles and thread O Plastic bags 0 Prescriptions (duplicates) O Safety pins O Soap, laundry and bath O Spot remover 0 Suntan lotion 0 Tooth brush O Tooth paste 3 Umbrella 0 Calling cards 0 Business literature 0 Pen and paper O Addresses and stamps 0 Glasses 0 Medicines 0 Aspirin 0 Sun glasses His Chock Ust: O Bathing trunks O Beach Jammu, 0 Cuff links, tie clasp K Gloves O Handkerchiefs, scarves C Flat O Pajamas O Raincoat or topcoat O Robe O Scarf O Shriving supplies , 0 Shins 0 Shoes socks 0 Slacks Slippers or thongs C Suits (ono dark for atoning) Ties ▪ Underwear E C Her Cliadc List: 0 Betts 0 Blouses Coat Cosmetic Supplies Li Pier2e1 , GI yes 3 0:ti ntgiag. rheas and travel 0 Hole °jewelry t • oat gild boots • e or beach coat 0 SStid, ha thaw:Fiefs %OM, dress and walking 01 Shower cap 0 Slippers, scuffs, or beach thongs K Sivim suit 0 Sweaters O t C K C EFTA00188689

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #3 AND JANE DOE #4'S MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 21 FOR JOINDER IN ACTION COME NOW Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doc #4 (also referred to as "the new victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to tile this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to join this action, on the condition that they not re-litigate any issues already litigated by Jane Doe ill and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the current victims"). The new victims have suffered the same violations of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) as the current victims. Accordingly, they desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights as well. Because the new victims will not re-litigate any issues previously litigated by the current victims (and because they are represented by the same legal counsel as the current victims), the Government will not be prejudiced if the Court grants the motion. The Court may "at any time" add new parties to the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Accordingly, the Court should grant the 'notion. As minor victims of sexual offenses. Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 desire to proceed by way of pseudonym for the same reasons that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 proceeded in this EFTA00188690

1 EFTA00188691

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 2 of 13 FACTUAL BACKGROUND As the Court is aware, more than six years ago, Jane Doe #1 filed the present action against the Government, alleging a violation of her rights under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. DEI. She alleged that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused her and that the United States had entered into a secret non-prosecution agreement (NPA) regarding those crimes in violation of her rights. At the first court hearing on the case, the Court allowed Jane Doe #2 to also join the action. Both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 specifically argued that the government had failed to protect their CVRA rights (inter alia) to confer, to reasonable notice, and to be treated with fairness. In response, the Government argued that the CVRA rights did not apply to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 because no federal charges had ever been filed against Jeffrey Epstein. The Court has firmly rejected the United States' position. In a detailed ruling, the Court concluded that the CVRA extended rights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 even though federal charges were never filed. DE 189. The Court explained that because the NPA barred prosecution of crimes committed against them by Epstein, they had "standing" to assert violations of the CVRA rights. Id. The Court deferred ruling on whether the two victims would be entitled to relief, pending development of a fuller evidentiary record. Id. Two other victims, who are in many respects similarly situated to the current victims, now wish to join this action. The new victims joining at this stage will not cause any delay and their joinder in this case is the most expeditious manner in which to pursue their rights. Because the background regarding their abuse is relevant to the Court's assessment of whether to allow them to join, their circumstances are recounted here briefly. fashion. Counsel for the new victims have made their true identities known to the Government. 2 EFTA00188692

EFTA00188693

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 3 of 13 Jane Doe #3's Circumstances As with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #3 was repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein. The Government then concealed from Jane Doe #3 the existence of its NPA from Jane Doe #3, in violation of her rights under the CVRA. If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe #3 would prove the following: In 1999, Jane Doe #3 was approached by Ghislaine Maxwell, one of the main women whom Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme. In fact, it became known to the government that Maxwell herself regularly participated in Epstein's sexual exploitation of minors, including Jane Doe #3. Maxwell persuaded Jane Doe #3 (who was then fifteen years old) to come to Epstein's mansion in a fashion very similar to the manner in which Epstein and his other co-conspirators coerced dozens of other children (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2). When Jane Doe #3 began giving Epstein a "massage," Epstein and Maxwell turned it into a sexual encounter, as they had done with many other victims. Epstein then became enamored with Jane Doe #3, and with the assistance of Maxwell converted her into what is commonly referred to as a "sex slave." Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, when she managed to escape to a foreign country and hide out from Epstein and his co-conspirators for years. From 1999 through 2002, Epstein frequently sexually abused Jane Doe #3, not only in West Palm Beach, but also in New York, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, in international airspace on his Epstein's private planes, and elsewhere. Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful people. Epstein's purposes in "lending" Jane Doe 3 EFTA00188694

EFTA00188695

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 4 of 13 (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information. One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's and well-known criminal defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Deshowitz was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's co-conspirators. Dershowitz would later play a significant role in negotiating the NPA on Epstein's behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of' Florida not only to Epstein, but also to "any potential co- conspirators of Epstein." NPA at 5. Thus, Dcrshowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity would have been controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other members of Epstein's defense team) and the Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein's victims and the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Ghislaine Maxwell was another person in Epstein's inner circle and a co-conspirator in Epstein's sexual abuse. She was someone who consequently also appreciated the immunity granted by the NPA for the crimes she committed in Florida. In addition to participating in the 4 EFTA00188696

EFTA00188697

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 5 of 13 sexual abuse of Jane Doe #3 and others, Maxwell also took numerous sexually explicit pictures of underage girls involved in sexual activities, including Jane Doe #3. She shared these photographs (which constituted child pornography under applicable federal laws) with Epstein. The Government is apparently aware of, and in certain instances possesses some of these photographs. Perhaps even more important to her role in Epstein's sexual abuse ring, Maxwell had direct connections to other powerful individuals with whom she could connect Epstein. For instance, one such powerful individual Epstein forced Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was a member of the British Royal Family, Prince Andrew (a/k/a Duke of York). Jane Doe #3 was forced to have sexual relations with this Prince when she was a minor in three separate geographical locations: in London (at Ghislaine Maxwell's apartment), in New York, and on Epstein's private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands (in an orgy with numerous other under-aged girls). Epstein instructed Jane Doe #3 that she was to give the Prince whatever he demanded and required Jane Doe #3 to report back to him on the details of the sexual abuse. Maxwell facilitated Prince Andrew's acts of sexual abuse by acting as a "madame" for Epstein, thereby assisting in internationally trafficking Jane Doe #3 (and numerous other young girls) for sexual purposes. Another person in Epstein's inner circle of friends (who becomes apparent with almost no investigative effort) is Jean Luc Brunel. Epstein sexually trafficked Jane Doe #3 to Jean Luc Brunel many times. Brunel was another of Epstein's closest friends and a regular traveling companion, who had many contacts with young girls throughout the world. Brunel has been a model scout for various modeling agencies for many years and apparently was able to get U.S. 5 EFTA00188698

EFTA00188699

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 6 of 13 passports for young girls to "work" as models. He would bring young girls (ranging to ages as young as twelve) to the United States for sexual purposes and farm them out to his friends, especially Epstein. Brunel would offer the girls "modeling" jobs. Many of the girls came from poor countries or impoverished backgrounds, and he lured them in with a promise of making good money. Epstein forced Jane Doe #3 to observe him, Brunel and Maxwell engage in illegal sexual acts with dozens of underage girls. Epstein also forced Jane Doe #3 to have sex with Brunel on numerous occasions, at places including Epstein's mansion in West Palm Beach, Little St. James Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands (many including orgies that were comprised of other underage girls), New York City, New Mexico, Paris, the south of France, and California. Epstein also trafficked Jane Doe #3 for sexual purposes to many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to describe the events that she had with these men so that he could potentially blackmail them. The Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to the NPA. Moreover, even a rudimentary investigation of Jane Doe #3's relationship to Epstein would have revealed the fact that she had been trafficked throughout the United States and internationally for sexual purposes. Nonetheless, the Government secretly negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein precluding any Federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida of Epstein and his co-conspirators. As with Jane Doe #1, and Jane Doe #2, the Government concealed the non-prosecution agreement from Jane Doe #3 — all in violation of her rights under the CVRA — to avoid Jane Doe #3 from raising powerful objections to the NPA that would have shed tremendous public light on Epstein 6 EFTA00188700

EFTA00188701

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 7 of 13 and other powerful individuals and that would likely have been prevented it from being concluded in the secretive manner in which it was. Jane Doe #4's Circumstances If permitted to join this action, Jane Doe #4 would allege, and could prove at trial, that she has CVRA claims similar to those advanced by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, based on the following: As with the other Jane Does, Jane Doe #4 was repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein. In or around the summer of 2002, Jane Doe #4, an economically poor and vulnerable sixteen-year- old child, was told by another one of Epstein's underage minor sex abuse victims, that she could make $300 cash by giving an old man a massage on Palm Beach. An acquaintance of Jane Doe #4 (also a minor sexual abuse victim of Epstein) telephoned Epstein and scheduled Jane Doe #4 to go to Epstein's house to give him a massage. During that call, Epstein himself got on the phone (a means of interstate communication) with Jane Doe #4, asking her personally to come to his mansion in Palm Beach. Jane Doc #4 then went to Epstein's mansion and was escorted upstairs to Epstein's large bathroom by one of Epstein's assistants. Shortly thereafter Jeffrey Epstein emerged and lay face down on the table and told Jane Doe #4 to start massaging him. Epstein asked Jane Doe #3 her age and she told him she had recently turned sixteen. Epstein subsequently committed illegal sexual acts against Jane Doe #4 on many occasions. Epstein used a means of interstate communication (i.e., a cell phone) to arrange for these sexual encounters. Epstein also frequently travelled in interstate commerce (i.e., on his personal jet) for purposes of illegally sexually abusing Jane Doe #4. 7 EFTA00188702

EFTA00188703

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 8 of 13 The acts Epstein committed against Jane Doe #4, constituted numerous federal sex offenses, some of which do not carry a statute of limitations and thus are not time-barred. See 18 U.S.C. § 3283. And these offenses were the kinds of offenses that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida were pursuing in 2007. So far as Jane Doe #4 is aware, the U.S. Attorney's Office made no serious effort to locate her. Instead, after identifying approximately forty separate underage sexually abused victims, and apparently preparing a 53-page federal indictment and with full awareness of the existence of many victims like Jane Doe #4 — unidentified and not interviewed — it entered into a non-prosecution agreement barring prosecution of Epstein's federal crimes against these victims. This is contrary to the Government's normal approach in prosecuting federal sex offenses. It also violated Jane Doe #4's rights under the CVRA, including the fact that she had a "reasonable" right to confer with the U.S. Attorney's Office before they entered into an agreement with a sex offender barring prosecution of him for the crimes he committed against her. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). MOTION FOR JOINDER Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 now both move to join this action filed by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 21 provides that "[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add . . . a party." Rule 21 "grants the court broad discretion to permit a change in the parties at any stage of a litigation." Ford'. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Intl, 268 F. Supp. 2d 271, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (internal quotation omitted). The new victims should be allowed to join the current victims in this action under Rule 21. 8 EFTA00188704

EFTA00188705

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 9 of 13 The new victims will establish at trial that the Government violated their CVRA rights in the same way as it violated the rights of the other victims. The new victims' participation in this case is important because it appears that the Government intends to raise a factual defense that somehow it did keep Jane Doe ill and Jane Doe #2 properly informed of what was happening in the criminal prosecution. Of course, if four victims all testify consistently that they were not properly informed by the Government (as we believe they will), that provides a stronger case for a CVRA violation. In addition, Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's participation is relevant to a defense the Court has allowed the Government to raise. The Court has previously ruled that the victims' request for rescission of the NPA "implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the federal offense victims — including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as alai, accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added). Jane Doe #3's and Jane Doe #4's participation in this case will help to show what the "entire interface" was between the Government and the victims and thus to respond to the Government's estoppel arguments as well as other defenses that it appears to be preparing to raise. See, e.g., DE 62 (52-page response from the Government to the victim's summary judgment motion, raising numerous factually-based and other arguments against the victim's position). 9 EFTA00188706

EFTA00188707