Case 9 08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 10 of 13 Jane Doe #3's and Jane Doe #4's participation is also directly relevant to the discovery disputes currently pending in this case. The Government has raised various relevancy objections to the documents that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are attempting to obtain. The current victims have responded by explaining how these documents are relevant, including explaining how these documents might bear on the way in which Epstein used his powerful political and social connections to secure a favorable plea deal, as well as provide proof of the Government's motive to deliberately fail to investigate certain aspects of the victims' claims in an effort to maintain the secrecy of the facts and resolve the case without the victims' knowledge. See, e.g., DE 266 at 6-10. Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's participation will help prove the relevancy of these requests, as well as the need for those requests. One clear example is Request for Production No. 8, which seeks documents regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, including efforts on his behalf by Prince Andrew and former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have alleged these materials are needed to prove their allegations that, after Epstein signed the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he used his significant social and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a more favorable plea deal. See, e.g., DE 225 at 7-8 (discussing DE 48 at 16-18). Jane Doe #3 has directly person knowledge of Epstein's connection with some of these powerful people and thus how Epstein might have used them to secure favorable treatment. Adding two new victims to this case will not delay any of the proceedings. They will simply join in motions that the current victims were going to file in any event. For example, the 10 EFTA00188708

EFTA00188709

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 11 of 13 new victims will simply join in a single summary judgment motion that the current victims anticipate filing after discovery has been completed. Nor will adding the new victims prejudice the United States. As the court is aware, this Court is still in its initial discovery stage. The Court is currently considering whether to reject the Government's assertion of privilege over documents regarding the case. See DE 265 (victims' reassertion of objections to the Government privilege claims). The new victims do not seek any additional discovery beyond that previously sought by the current victims.' Accordingly, the United States will not be prejudiced or burdened by adding them to this case. The CVRA does not contain any statute of limitations for filing an action to enforce rights under the statute. Accordingly, were the Court to deny this motion, the result might be that the new victims would then be forced to file a separate suit raising their claims, which would then possibly proceed on a separate litigation track. Rather than require duplicative litigation, the Court should simply grant their motion to join. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 support the joinder motion. Counsel for the victims have discussed this motion with the Government at length in an effort to avoid any need to file a substantive pleading on the issue. Counsel for the victims asked the Government during the summer for its position on joinder. The Government, however, took the matter under advisement for months. Ultimately, after several inquiries from victims counsel, the Government indicated without explanation that it opposes this motion. Counsel for the victims has requested a meeting with the Government on this issue, which will hopefully occur in 2 Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 have asked the Government to provide them with the record of their statements that they provided to the FBI. These FBI 302's should be only a few pages long. II EFTA00188710

EFTA00188711

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 12 of 13 January. In the meantime, however, counsel for the victims believe that it is no longer appropriate to delay filing this motion and accordingly file it at this time. Because the Government is apparently opposing this motion, Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 have described the circumstances surrounding their claims so that the Court has appropriate information to rule on the motion. CONCLUSION Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe 04 should be allowed to join this action, pursuant to Rule 2! of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their joinder should be conditioned on the requirement that they not re-litigate any issues previously litigated by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. A proposed order to that effect is attached to this pleading. DATED: December 30, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bradley J. Edwardk Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS FISTOS & LE RMA , P.L. And Paul G. Cassell Pro Hoc Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the 12 EFTA00188712

EFTA00188713

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 13 of 13 Attorneys for Jane Doe HI and Jane Doe 11,2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on December 30, 2014, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Mlm 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Attorneys for the Government /s/ Bradley J. Edwards 13 EFTA00188714

. EFTA00188715

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 I UNITED STATES ORDER GRANTING JANE DOE #3 AND JANE DOE #4's MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 21 FOR JOINDER IN ACTION This matter is before the Court on JANE DOE #3 AND JANE DOE #4 MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 21 FOR JOINDER IN ACTION. Having carefully considered the same and finding good cause show, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 are allowed to join this action, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They are ordered not to re- litigate any issues previously litigated by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in this action. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this day of ,201 KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: All counsel EFTA00188716

EFTA00188717

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-C1V-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs. vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ Alan M. Dershowitz (herein, "Prof. Dershowitz"), a nonparty to this litigation, is the victim of scurrilous allegations made in Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in the Action (the "Joinder Motion"), filed as of record at DE 279. Having no remedy in this proceeding for the harm to his reputational interest, Prof. Dershowitz hereby seeks to intervene in this action, both as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) and permissively under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(6), for the limited purposes of moving to strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and requesting a show cause order to the attorneys that have made them. With respect to the legal framework for intervention, Prof. Dershowitz agrees with the general principles stated by this Court in its earlier Order on intervention dated September 26, 2011 (DE 99), including the broad discretion afforded district courts concerning intervention. However, as is summarized in the paragraphs that follow, this motion for intervention stands upon dramatically different circumstances than the prior motion, which was denied. The proposed Plaintiffs' and their counsel's defamatory falsehoods about Prof. Dershowitz are of an EFTA00188718

EFTA00188719

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 2 of 10 entirely different order of magnitude. and they have spread around the world. What makes them doubly troubling is their irrelevancy: although categorically false, the allegations against Prof Dershowitz have absolutely nothing to do with whether the United States government violated its duty to confer with the Plaintiffs prior to entering into the non- prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, and, if so, what remedies might apply. Because those are the issues to be adjudicated by the Court in the underlying lawsuit, it is apparent that the broadside against Prof. Dershowitz was ginned up for reasons having nothing to do with the merits of this case. Prof Dershowitz must be given the opportunity to defend himself through intervention in this action. The Joinder Motion is nothing more than a vehicle to impugn the reputation of Prof. Dershowitz, filed with the certain result of stirring up media interest. The Joinder Motion purports to seek to add two new plaintiffs as parties to this litigation, but does not even attach a proposed amended complaint in violation of the local rules. See S.D. Ha. L.R. 15.1 (requiring a party who moves to amend a pleading to attach the original of the amendment to the motion). Instead, the paper simply proffers various salacious allegations as quotable tabloid fodder. Specifically naming Prof. Dershowitz, and identifying him as Mr. Epstein's counsel, Plaintiffs' counsel allege that Jane Doe #3 was "required" to have sexual relations with Prof. Dershowitz "on numerous occasions while she was a minor," and, in addition, that Prof. Dershowitz was "an eyewitness to the sexual abuse of many other minors." (DE 279 at 4.) The Motion goes on to state that Prof. Dershowitz was involved in the negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement for Jeffrey Epstein which "provided protection for [Prof. Dershowitz] against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3." (Id.) 2 EFTA00188720

EFTA00188721

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 3 of 10 To the great detriment of Prof. Dcrshowitz, and as Plaintiffs' counsel surely anticipated, the contemptible allegations against Prof. Dershowitz and others have created a media firestorm. Over the weekend of January 3 and 4, 2015, major media outlets—including the Miami Herald, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Jerusalem Post— picked up the story and highlighted the most libelous allegations against Prof. Dcrshowitz. Yet, as stated above, the allegations against Prof. Dershowitz are completely irrelevant to this case. The issue to be determined on the Plaintiffs' Petition is whether, in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, the United States Attorney's Office breached its obligations to meet and confer with the Plaintiffs—including proposed plaintiff Jane Doe # 3, who has made the accusations against Prof. Dershowitz—prior to entering into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein on September 24, 2007. That issue turns on the government's knowledge of Jane Doe # 3's allegation at the time of the agreement, including, for example, whether she was designated as a witness by the government. What has been levelled against Prof. Dershowitz simply has nothing to do with any relevant issues in this case. In short, there was no legitimate purpose for including these extremely harmful allegations in the Joinder Motion. II. The allegations made against Prof. Dershowitz are outrageously false. Besides being wholly irrelevant, the allegations made in the Joinder Motion with respect to Prof. Dershowitz are categorically false. See Declaration of Alan Dershowitz, attached hereto as Exhibit A. In fact, they are absolutely outrageous. Prof. Dershowitz is married and has three children and two grandchildren. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School. Prof. Dershowitz, a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School, joined the Harvard Law School faculty at age 25 after clerking for Judge David Banton and Justice Arthur 3 EFTA00188722

EFTA00188723

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 4 of 10 Goldberg. Prof. Dershowitz is, among other things, a civil liberties attorney. During his long and distinguished career, he has published more than one thousand articles in newspapers. journals and magazines on a variety of topics. He has published fiction and non-fiction works and law review articles about criminal and constitutional law. He has received awards from many institutions and organizations for his work, including the Anti-Defamation League. In his private legal practice he represents individuals and corporations, and even provides counsel to various world leaders. Prof. Dershowitz's reputation, which is sterling, is at the core of his remarkable career. Ill. Prof. Dershowitz should be allowed to intervene under these circumstances. It is to protect his reputation for which Prof. Dershowitz seeks to intervene in this action. He is entitled to do so under these circumstances, both as of right and with the permission of the Court. Intervention as of right is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). Rule 24(a)(2) requires the Court to allow anyone to intervene who claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest. Among the interests that satisfy these criteria are injury to reputation. Sackniani. Liggett Grp., Inc., 167 F.R.D. 6, 20-21 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing Penthouse Intl. W.I. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.. 663 F.2d 371, 373, 392 (2d Cir. 1981)). The burden of demonstrating an interest relating to the subject of the action that cannot be adequately represented by others is minimal. Georgia'. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 302 F.3d 1242, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002). Clearly, Plaintiffs' and Plaintiffs' counsel's accusations of sex with minors and 4 EFTA00188724

EFTA00188725

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 5 of 10 conspiracy to violate the law arc injurious to Prof. Dershowitz's reputation—indeed, they constitute libel per se--such that he has an interest relating to the subject matter of this action. It is far from certain, however, that the defendant in this action, United States of America, has the same interest as Prof. Dershowitz in disproving the preposterous allegations that have been made against him. For example, in defending the suit that Plaintiffs have brought, the United States of America will not necessarily need to defend against or seek to disprove the allegations that Prof. Dershowitz had sex with minors in concert with Mr. Epstein. Only Prof. Dershowitz is situated to protect his reputational interest here. This Court's recently-published and fully-considered reasoning in Krauser I. Evolution Holdings, Inc., 975 F.Supp. 2d 1247 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (finding inventor had standing to challenge a patent application which denied his contribution, based on inventor's reputational interest) supports this notion: "The common law recognized that a man's reputation was possibly his most valuable asset, that vindicating that reputation in the face of one who sought to defame it was of paramount importance, and that such vindication need not unnecessarily punish the defamer because a judgment in favor of the plaintiff that simply established the falsity of the defamation—and nothing more—was vindication enough." ld. at 1260. That is essentially what Prof. Dershowitz seeks here. Furthermore, permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) is also appropriate. See Walker. Jim Dandy Co., 747 F.2d 1360, 1365 (11th Cir. 1984). IV. These facts are distinguishable from those presented by the earlier intervenor motion filed by Bruce Reinhart. Prof. Dershowitz acknowledges that this Court earlier denied a motion to intervene by former Assistant United States Attorney Bruce E. Reinhart in 2011. (See DE 99 at 12-13.) Back 5 EFTA00188726

EFTA00188727

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 6 of 10 then. Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Reinhart gave "at least the improper appearance" of having made a decision in Mr. Eptsein's favor in his own self-interest, specifically to obtain "favorable employment" from Mr. Epstein in the future as an attorney in private practice. Mr. Reinhart moved to intervene for purposes of seeking sanctions against Plaintiff for this accusation. (See DE 79.) This Court held that intervention for purposes of filing a motion for sanctions was denied, finding that it "cannot permit anyone slighted by allegations in court pleadings to intervene and conduct mini-trials to vindicate their reputation. Absent some other concrete interest in these proceedings, the Court does not believe that the allegations here are sufficiently harmful to justify permissive intervention." (DE 99 at 13 (emphasis added).) Apparently. counsel for Plaintiffs have taken this Court's order denying intervention as to Mr. Reinhart to mean that defamatory and unsupportable allegations can be made in court papers in this action with complete impunity. Counsel for Plaintiffs have scandalously and improperly published falsehoods, abusing the litigation privilege, as well as this Court's rulings. But the docket sheets and courtrooms of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida should not be used as a bulletin board to which irrelevant, baseless, and ill-willed reputational attacks can be tacked up without consequence. Moreover, contrary to what Plaintiffs and their counsel appear to think, this situation is fundamentally distinguishable from that presented by the Reinhart motion, simply by virtue of the harmfulness of the allegations made. Few accusations, if any, can launch such an immediate sensation as well as an enduring taint, notwithstanding their utter falsity and the impeccable reputation of the accused. And, in contrast to the Reinhart motion, which presented a potential intervenor who had previously had the opportunity to defend his reputation "in this docket" and before this Court, no such opportunity has yet been afforded Prof. Dershowitz. 6 EFTA00188728

EFTA00188729

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 7 of 10 Additionally, unlike Mr. Reinhart, who sought to add the fact-driven dynamics of Rule II to this case, Prof. Dershowitz seeks simply to end the potential license for character assassination created by the continued dwelling of those allegations in this Court's filings. If allowed to intervene, Prof. Dershowitz would seek to strike the outrageous allegations based on this Court's authority to strike material that is "scandalous, immaterial or redundant." Asay I Hallmark Cards, Inc., 594 F.2d 692, 697 n.2 (8th Cir. 1978) (citing Skolnick' Hallett, 350 F.2d 861 (7th Cir. 1975). In fact, the Court has the authority to strike such material on its own. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(l). Alternatively, if intervention were granted, he would request that the Court grant intervention for purposes of submitting a request for a show cause order to Plaintiffs' counsel with respect to their investigation of and justification for including the allegations against Prof. Dershowitz in the Joinder Motion. In sum, Prof. Dershowitz submits that the remedy to be afforded a leading public figure deeply maligned by the under-handed techniques employed by Plaintiffs' counsel in this case should not be limited to wounded resignation and public denials. Intervention is due here. WHEREFORE Alan M. Dershowitz respectfully requests that the Court enter an order granting his limited motion to intervene for such purposes as may be appropriate including submitting a motion to strike the allegations made against him and requesting the issuance of a show cause order against Plaintiffs' counsel, and awarding such other relief that the Court deems just and proper under these unfortunate circumstances. 7 EFTA00188730

EFTA00188731

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 8 of 10 Respectfully submitted, Thomas Scott Fla. Bar No. 149100 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. -and- /s/ Kendall Coffey Kendall Coffey, Fla. Bar No. 259681 Benjamin H. Brodsky, Fla. Bar No. 73748 Counsel for Prof Alan Al. Dershowiiz 8 EFTA00188732

EFTA00188733

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 9 of 10 CERTIFICATE OF REASONABLE CONFERRAL WITH COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES I hereby certify that counsel for the movant has made reasonable efforts to confer with all parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion—including phone calls and emails on today's date. Counsel for Plaintiffs have indicated that they do not oppose movant's intervention in the case, but that their non-opposition is "limited" and "does not extend to the merits of any arguments on procedural or substantive issues in the case." Counsel for Defendant have not responded to movant's request for consent to his proposed intervention. /s/ Kendall Coffey 9 EFTA00188734

EFTA00188735

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 10 of 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by Notice of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF, on this 5th day of January, 2015, on all counsel or parties of record on the Service List below. /s/ Kendall Coffey SERVICE LIST Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, HSTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Attorneys for Jane Doe #I, 2, 3, and 4 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Attorneys for the Government I0 EFTA00188736

EFTA00188737

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 1 of 5 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 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ I. My name is Alan M. Dershowitz. I make this declaration on personal knowledge and pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, and in response to a pleading in which the lawyers for Jane Doe #3, without benefit of an affidavit, leveled totally false and outrageous charges against me that have been reported around the world and threaten to damage my reputation irrevocably. 2. Never under any circumstance have I ever had any sexual contact of any kind, which includes massages or any physical contact whatsoever, with Jane Doe #3, whose identity has been referenced by the BBC. (Her identity was disclosed because she "waived her anonymity in an interview with The Mail on Sunday in 2011.") 3. Specifically, Jane Doe #3 has alleged that she had sex with me on Mr. Epstein's Carribean island. That is a deliberate lie. I was on that island only once in my life, for approximately one day. I was with my wife and daughter during the entire day. My wife, daughter and I slept overnight in the same room. We had dinner with Mr. Epstein and a distinguished professor from the Harvard Business School, his wife, her sister, brother-in-law, EFTA00188738

EFTA00188739

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 2 of 5 their kids, and an older woman. During our entire stay on the island, we never saw any young woman that fit the description of Jane Doe #3. Indeed we do not recall seeing any young women during our entire visit to the island. The older woman showed us around the island. There is no conceivable possibility that I could have had any sexual encounter with Jane Doe #3 during that period. Her lawyers could have easily learned this by simply calling and asking me for the specifics. I would have then provided them with the names of unimpeachable witnesses who would have contradicted Jane Doe #3's false account. 4. Second, Jane Doe #3 has alleged that she had sex with me in Mr. Epstein's house in New Mexico. That is a deliberate lie. I was in that house only once while it was under construction. My wife, daughter and I were driven there by a New Mexico businessman and his wife, whom we were visiting. Mr. Epstein was not there. Nor were there any young girls visible at any time. We were shown around the house for about an hour and then drove back with our friends. Jane Doe #3's lawyers could have easily learned this by simply calling and asking me for the specifics. I would have then provided them with the names of unimpeachable witnesses who would have contradicted Jane Doe #3's false account. 5. Third, Jane Doe #3 has accused me of having sex with her on Jeffrey Epstein's plane. That is a deliberate lie. I was on that plane on several occassions as the manifests will show, but never tinder circumstances where it would have been possible to have sex with Jane Doe #3. On a couple of occassions I was on his plane with my wife and daughter. On another occasion, I was on the plane with my nephew and several older people going to see a launch at Cape Kennedy. On several other occassions, after the alleged events at issue, I was on the plane with members of Mr. Epstein's legal team flying down to perform legal services. Had his 2 EFTA00188740

EFTA00188741

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 3 of 5 lawyers called me, I would have provided them this information and told them to check the manifests. There were never any young girls on the plane during any of my trips. 6. As to Mr. Epstein's homes in New York City and Palm Beach, I categorically state that I never had any sexual contact with Jane Doe #3. 7. In a statement issued to the press, Jane Doe #3's lawyers, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, have falsely stated that "they tried to depose Mr. Dershowitz on these subjects. although he has avoided those deposition requests." By using the term "these subjects" in a statement about the sexual abuse charges recently made against me, these lawyers have falsely implied that they sought to depose me on allegations regarding my own conduct. That is a total and categorical lie. Several years ago they wrote, asking to depose me on Jeffrey Epstein's activities and whether I ever witnessed any of his alleged crimes. I recall responding that I could not testify as to any privileged information and that I was not a witness to any alleged crimes. They did not follow tip with a subpoena. Any suggestion that I refused to respond to questions about any allegations regarding my own alleged sexual conduct is totally and categorically false. The lawyers know this and yet continue to perpetuate the false impression that I was somehow given an opportunity to respond to these false and salacious charges against me and refused to do so. The written record will bear out the truth of what I am declaring and demonstrate the deliberate falsity of what they have suggested. 8. Jane Doe #3 knows that the charges she has leveled against me are totally false and she has alleged them with complete knowledge of their falsity. I believe and allege that her lawyers, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, also knew or could have easily learned, that I could not have done and did not do any of the heinous things they allege I did in the pleading. If they had done any reasonable investigation of their client's false allegations, they would have found 3 EFTA00188742

EFTA00188743

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 4 of 5 absolute proof that I did not. They claim in a written statement that they "investigate" before filing. But they did not specifically state that they investigated this claim against me before filing this false and scurrilous charge. They could not have, because even the most minimal of investigation would have proven conclusively that I could not have had sex with their client on Mr. Epstein's island, in New Mexico or on the airplanes; and that I did not have sex with her in his New York or Palm Beach homes. They would also have learned, if they did not already know, that Jane Doe #3 is a serial liar, whose uncorrobrated word should never be credited. She has claimed to have been with former President Clinton on Mr. Epstein's island. She has provided specific and detailed information about Mr. Clinton's activities on the island. Yet, on information and belief. I have been advised that Secret Service records would confirm that President Clinton has never set foot on that island. It has also been reported that she told her father that she met Queen Elizabeth. On information and belief, a check of the records of Buckingham Palace would disclose that Jane Doe #3 lied to her father about such a visit. On information and belief, she has also told lies about many world leaders. Finally, on information and belief, the State Attorney in Palm Beach County dropped a case that she sought to bring based on an assessment by the investigating detective regarding the "victim's lack of credibility." A copy of the letter reflecting this decision was forwarded to central records. Her lawyers knew or should have known about her history of lying and her utter lack of credibility before filing an allegedly privileged legal statement that asserts false and defamatory information about a fellow lawyer based on her word alone. 9. I believe and allege that Jane Doe #3's lawyers deliberately inserted this false and defamatory charge. which they knew or should have known to be false and defamatory, in a legal pleading that does not seek an evidentiary hearing or provide for any other opportunity for me to 4 EFTA00188744

. EFTA00188745

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 5 of 5 respond to, rebut or disprove their knowingly false charge. They placed it in a legal proceeding, in a public filing, in bad faith in an efthrt to have the media report it, while they attempt to hide behind claims of litigation and journalistic privilege. I believe and allege that their bad faith purpose was to have this false charge made public, while attempting to deny me any legal recourse. There is no realistic possibility that this pre-New Year's filing would have been picked up by the media had they or someone on their behalf not deliberately alerted the media to its existence. 10. These lawyers have now repeatedly spoken to the media about their false allegations against me, asserting that what they alleged against me had a "factual" basis and providing the BBC with a list of questions they should ask me. I answered all of their questions. These lawyers have studiously tried to avoid repeating the specific false charges publically, in an attempt to shield themselves from a defamation claim. I. Again, let me assert categorically, without reservation and with full awareness of the risks of perjury, that I did not ever, under any circumstances, have any sexual contact of any kind with Jane Doe #3. 12. I declare tinder penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 5th day of January. 2015, in Miami Beach, Florida. Alan M. Dershowitz 5 EFTA00188746

EFTA00188747

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291 Entered on FLSD 01/21/2015 Page 1 of 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Respondent. / PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ COME NOW petitioners Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe 2, as well as rnavants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 ("the victims" I), to respond in opposition to Mr. Dershowitz's motion for limited intervention (DE 282). Dershowitz moves to intervene to strike a proffer made by Jane Doe No. 3 of facts that support her pending motion to join this action. The Court should deny the motion. Dershowitz has not established any direct interest in this Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) action that would entitle him to intervene as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Nor has he met Rule 24(b)'s standards for discretionary intervention for four reasons: First Dershowitz has another forum in which to litigate and defend his reputational interests — a pending defamation action regarding this very case: second, Dershowitz (and other persons Jane Doe No. 3 specifically alleged abused her) have not availed themselves of other opportunities to defend their reputational interests: third. Dershowitz lacks any basis to strike allegations that are directly relevant to pending issues in this case; and fourth and finally, Jane Doe No. 3 attests in a As promised in their motion to join (DE 280). Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 do not seek to expand the number of pleadings filed in this case. If albwed to join this action, they would simply support the pleadings already being filed by Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 — including this opposition. EFTA00188748

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM uocument 291 Entered on FLSD 01/21/2015 Page 2 of 40 sworn affidavit (attached as Exhibit I) that all her allegations are true — an affidavit consistent with compelling corroborating evidence. BACKGROUND AND COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS Because this case has been proceeding for more than six-and-a-half years, it is useful to summarize some of the events pertinent to Dershowitz's intervention motion and Jane Doe No. 3's related and pending motion for joinder. As the Court is aware, on July 7, 2008, a young woman identified as Jane Doe No. I filed an emergency petition to enforce her rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, alleging that the Government had failed to provide her rights with regard to a plea arrangement it was pursuing with Jeffrey Epstein. Tlx Court rapidly held a hearing. During that hearing, victim's counsel (having previously made a proffer of the relevant circumstances to Government counsel) orally moved to have Jane Doe No. 2 added into the case as another "victim" under the CVRA. Government counsel had no objection to adding her to the case, apparently believing that, in light of the sexual abuse perpetrated against her, she met the "victim" definition in the statute. DE 15 (Tr. July 11, 2008) at 14. The Court then instructed the parties 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 provided by Jane Doc No. I and Jane Do. 2, ultimately refusing to stipulate to any facts. See generally DE 225-I at 2-4. Unable to obtain stipulations by the Government, in 2011 the victims filed a summary judgment motion alleging 53 proposed undisputed facts (DE 48), along with a motion to have the Court accept those facts because of the Government's failure to contest them (DE 49). On September 26, 2011, the Court allowed the case to move forward. DE 99. The Court, however, declined to accept victims' argument that it should simply accept their facts 2 EFTA00188749

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM uocument 291 Entered on FLSD DOi..,,A 01/21/2015 Page 3 of 40 because of the Government's failure to contest their facts, directing instead that discovery should proceed. Id. at 11. In light of the Court's direction, on October 11, 2011, the victims filed discovery requests with the Government, including requests specifically seeking information about Dershowitz, Prince Andrew. and others. Further efforts from the Government to avoid any discovery followed (see generally DE 225-I at 4-5),2 ultimately leading to a further Court ruling in June 2013 that the Government should produce documents. DE 189. The Government then produced about 1.500 pages of irrelevant materials to the victims (DE 225-I at 5), while simultaneously submitting 14,825 pages of relevant materials under seal to the Court. The Government claimed that these pages were "privileged" for various reasons, attaching an abbreviated privilege log. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane No. 2 objected to those claims of privilege, see generally DE 225 and DE 265, and also to the Government's failure to specify in its privilege log the names of all the persons involved in the materials (DE 265 at 1-2). These issues remain pending today.' In the summer of 2014, undersigned counsel for Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 contacted Government counsel to request their agreement to add an additional victim to this case.: a young woman Jeffrey Epstein sexual abused when she was under age. On August 20, 2014. counsel sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Wilfredo Ferrer requesting the Government's consent to a stipulated motion to simply add her into the case (as had been done earlier with Jane Doe No. 2). Counsel attached a draft proposed motion that would have blandly recounted that she was similarly situated to Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2. See Exhibit 2. The proposed motion 2 JelTrey Epstein also attempted to block discovery of materials in this case, leading to an Eleventh Circuit ruling that the victims' discovery efforts were proper. Dori Epstein, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014). 3 Remarkably, even though the Court directed the Government to begin producing discovery in June 2013. the Government has yet to finish that production some 19 months later. 3 EFTA00188750

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM uocument 291 Entered on FLSD 01/21/2015 Page 4 of 40 did not include any of the facts surrounding her abuse, relying instead on a stipulation to secure the Court's anticipated approval. Three months later, having received no response from the Government, victims' counsel sent an additional letter to Mr. Ferrer. requesting agreement to add an additional victim to the case — a young woman identified in current pleadings as Jane Doe No. 34: Dear Mr. Ferrer: I sent you a letter in August requesting your office's stipulation to our adding Jane Doe #[4] in this case. Unfortunately. we did not receive a response from your office. We are hopeful that your lack of a response was simple oversight. In addition to following up on the August letter, we are now requesting your Stipulation to the adding of Jane Doe #[3] as well. Her true name is [redacted].... As we expressed in our personal meetings a couple years ago. we don't understand the tactical decision to be adversarial to victims of known sexual abuse on every point in this litigation. Now that many of those issues we discussed have been resolved in our favor, it seems to make even more sense to avoid engaging in unnecessary battles that could only serve the purpose of delaying the victims' rights to have this case resolved on its merits. As I indicated in my August letter requesting your stipulation to the adding of Jane Doe #[4], adding Jane Doe #131 will also not delay matters, so long as we can stipulate to her being added. Without a stipulation, we foresee litigation over this point, which will produce nothing but additional delay — and further question about your Office's commitment to full protection of victims' rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act. Your office is very familiar with [redacted] and her circumstance. She was sexually trafficked and abused by Mr. Epstein (and others at the direction of Mr. Epstein) not only in this jurisdiction but throughout the United States and beyond. . . . . . . [E]ven if you were to object and prevail on the motion to add her to the current litigation, the only consequence would be that Ms. [name redacted] would then file a separate CVRA lawsuit, something she is entitled to do because the CVRA contains no time limit. . . .We have, throughout this case, consciously avoided filing anything that would unnecessarily cast your office in a bad light, and it is again with that in mind that we request your stipulation here. We need this stipulation by December 10, 2014 to avoid delaying any other aspects of this case. We will not file any pleadings on this subject before that date. 4 In the letter to Mr. Ferrer. the woman identified in current court pleadings as Jane No. 3 is referred to as "Jane Doe No. 4." For consistency with the court pleadings, the designations in correspondence have been modified here - as indicated by brackets - to track the current designation in the pleadings. 4 EFTA00188751

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM uocument 291 Entered on FLSD Dcx,...at 01/21/2015 Page 5 of 40 See Exhibit 3. Weeks went by and the Government — once again -- did not respond to counsel's request for a stipulation. This prompted a further email from counsel to the AUSA's handling this matter to inquire about the status of request: When we spoke a few months ago, I told you that we represented [Jane Doe No. 3] and were considering adding her to this suit. At the time of our call we asked if you would agree to our adding her, and I understood that you would have to check with others. Consequently, I sent a couple of letters to Mr. Ferrer that I have attached to this email. I was hoping for a response letting me know that the Office would not oppose the amendments adding Doe 3 and 4... . I realize our 11/19 letter asked for a response by the 10th. However, I was hoping you could give me some indication whether we will get an answer before the 10th (and perhaps what that answer will be), because if there will not be an agreement to adding these Plaintiffs then I want to get the Motion prepared. See Exhibit 4; see also Exhibit 5 (short response regarding trying to get an answer). On December 10. 2014, despite having had four months to provide a position, the Government responded by email to counsel that it was seeking more time. indicating that the Government understood that victims' counsel might need to file a motion with the court on the matter immediately: "The U.S. Attorney is on travel and I do not have an answer for you on whether the government will agree to the addition of two new petitioners. I appreciate you not filing your motion until December [15], 2014. If you need to file the motion. we understand. Thanks." See Exhibit 6. Rather than file a motion immediately, victims' counsel waited and continued to press the Government for a stipulation. See Exhibits 7, 8, and 9. Finally, on. December 23, 2014 — more than four months after the initial request for a stipulated joinder into the case — the Government tersely indicated its objection, without indicating any reason: "Our position is that we oppose adding new petitioners at this stage of the litigation." See Exhibit 10. 5 EFTA00188752

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAtvl vocument 291 Entered on FLSD Dot,.. A 01/21/2015 Page 6 of 40 Because the Government now contested the joinder motion, undersigned counsel prepared a more detailed pleading explaining the justification for granting the motion. One week after receiving the Government's objection, on December 30, 2014, Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 filed a motion (and later a corrected motion) seeking to join the case. DE 279 and DE 280.5 Uncertain as to the basis for the Government's objection, the motion briefly proffered the circumstances of Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 that would qualify them as "victims" eligible to assert rights under the CVRA. See 18 U.S.C. 377I(e) ("For the purposes of this chapter, the term 'crime victim' means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of federal offense . . .."). With regard to Jane Doe No. 3, the motion indicated that when she was a minor, Jeffrey Epstein had trafficked her to Dershowitz and Prince Andrew (among others) for sexual purposes. Jane Doe No. 3 stated that she was prepared to prove her proffer. See DE 280 at 3 ("If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe No. 3 would prove the following . ... "). The motion also provided specific reasons why Jane Doe No. 3's participation was relevant to the case, including the pending discovery issues regarding Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. DE 280 at 9-10 (explaining several reasons participation of new victims was relevant to existing issues). After the motion was filed, various news organizations published articles about it. Dershowitz also made numerous media statements about the filing, including calling Jane Doe No. 3 "a serial liar" who "has lied through her teeth about many world leaders." http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/06/usidershowitz-sex-allegation/. Dershowitz also repeatedly Dershowitz argues that Jane Doe No. 3 violated Local Rule 15.1 by failing to attach a proposed amended complaint. DE 282 at 2. But Jane Doe No. 3 was simply following the same approach that Jane Doe No. 2 had taken earlier, by filing a motion to join rather than a proposed amendment to pleadings. 6 EFTA00188753

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM uocument 291 Entered on FLSD Dot,....:t 01/21/2015 Page 7 of 40 called undersigned legal counsel for Jane Doe No. 3 "two sleazy, unprofessional, disbarable lawyers." Id. On January 5. 2015. Dershowitz filed the pending motion to intervene. DE 282. DISCUSSION Dershowitz's motion to intervene relies on Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) (mandatory intervention) and 24(b) (permissive intervention). Neither argument for intervention is well-founded. I. DERSHOWITZ'S ALLEGED "REPUTATIONAL" INTERESTS DO NOT SATISFY RULE 24(A)'S REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT. Dershowitz first claims that he meets Rule 24(a)'s requirements for mandatory intervention. Rule 24(a) requires that the Court allow a person to intervene in a case if that person "claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of that action and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect his interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest." Dershowitz contends he meets Rule 24(a)'s requirements because he has a "reputational" interest in the matter, specifically an interest in contesting Jane Doe No. 3's allegation that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked her to Dershowitz for sexual purposes. Numerous courts have declined to allow a mere "reputational" interest to justify mandatory intervention. For example, Calloway'. Westinghouse Elea Corp., 115 F.R.D. 73 (M.D. Ga. 1987). denied a motion to intervene where the alleged interest was a doctor's "own reputation and academic credibility." Id. at 74. The court denied intervention because "a witness' interest in his reputation alone . . . does not constitute the required 'interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the present action' necessary to allow intervention as a matter of right. To find otherwise would invite intervention every time a court is required to determine the credibility of a witness." Id. Similarly, Flynn'. Hubbard, 82 F.2d 7 EFTA00188754

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM uocument 291 Entered on FLSD 01/21/2015 Page 8 of 40 1084, 1093 (1st Cir. 1986), affirmed the denial of the Church of Scientology's request for intervention in part because "the church "merely claim[ed] a generalized injury to reputation [that] identifies no legal detriment arising from a default judgment against Hubbard." Id. at 1093 (Coffin. J.. concurring). See also Edmondson. Stale of Neb. ex. rel. Meyer. 383 F.2d 123, (8th Cir. 1967) ("The mere fact that Edmondson's reputation is thereby injured is not enough [to support intervention]. Edmondson's representative has pointed to no legal detriment flowing from this possible finding of the trial court, and we can find none."); Forsyth County. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 2:08-CV-0126—RWS, 2009 WL 1312511, at *2 (N.D. Ga. May 8, 2009) (denying intervention because an "interest in protecting its reputation . . . is not direct, substantive, or derived from a legal right").6 The Court has previously considered — and rejected — a similar effort to intervene on a "reputational" claim. That claim was made by Bruce Reinhart who — like Dershowitz — had previously represented Jeffrey Epstein's interests in related litigation. Reinhart moved to intervene in this case to contest the victims' allegations that Reinhart (a former prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office investigating Epstein) received confidential, non-public information about the investigation. The victims specifically alleged that Reinhart had "joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability" and that Reinhart had gone on to improperly represent Epstein-related witnesses in various civil suits. See DE 99 at 12 (discussing DE 48 at 23). Reinhart filed a sworn affidavit admitting that he had represented Epstein-related clients, but claiming that he did not possess any such confidential information. He sought to intervene to challenge the victims' arguments. 6 Dershowitz cites dicta in Sackman Liggett Grp.. Inc.. 167 F.R.D. 6, 20-21 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). that a reputational interest can support intervention. But Sockman did not analyze the issue: rather it simply cited another case, Penthouse Ins?, Lid. P. Playboy Emerprise.v. Inc.. 663 F.2d 371, 373, 392 (2d Cir. 1981), which in turn contains no analysis of the issue or any such holding. 8 EFTA00188755

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM uocurnent 291 Entered on FLSD Dot....4 01/21/2015 Page 9 of 40 After a hearing, the Court denied Reinhart's motion, finding that his interest in litigating the validity of the victims' allegations was too attenuated to support intervention. DE 99 at 13.7 The Court's rationale applies equally here and should lead the Court to deny Dershowitz's motion. Dershowitz claims that his situation is distinguishable in view of how "harmful" (DE 282 at 6) he believes the current allegations are. But the degree of indignation at allegations is not a sound basis for allowing intervention. As the Court previously explained, it "cannot permit anyone slighted by allegations in court pleadings to intervene and conduct mini-trials to vindicate their reputation." DE 99 at 13. Dershowitz does have an alternative ground he could try to advance for intervention. As Jane Doc No. 3 pointed out in her motion to join the case, Dershowitz personally helped to negotiate the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) at issue in this case, which bars his prosecution in the Southern District of Florida as a "potential co-conspirator of Epstein." DE 280 at 4 (quoting NPA at 5). The Court has previously allowed Epstein to prospectively intervene in any proceedings that might involve invalidating the NPA. DE 246. Dershowitz can make a similar motion if he identifies himself as a potential co-conspirator involved in crimes covered by the NPA. But lacking such an allegation, his existing motion does not allege any concrete impairment of his interests supporting mandatory intervention. H. DERSHOWITZ HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE COURT SHOULD ALLOW PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION UNDER RULE 24(B). 7 During the hearing on Reinhart's intervention motion, the Government stood silent about the accuracy of Reinhart's affidavit. Much later, after the Court had denied the motion, the Government admitted that it possessed information contradicting Reinhart's sworn affidavit. See DE 225-I at 9-10, 43-45 ("in answering the victims' Requests for Admissions, the Government has admitted that it possess information that Reinhart learned confidential non-public information about the Epstein case and he discussed the Epstein case with other prosecutors."). 9 EFTA00188756

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM uucument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc. 01/21/2015 Page 10 of 40 Dershowitz also contends that the Court should exercise its discretion to allow permissive intervention in this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). The rule grants discretion to the court to allow intervention by a person who has "a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b); accord Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. Sandy Lake Properties, Inc., 425 F.3d 1308, 1311 (1Ith Cir. 2005) (permissive intervention allowed only where "a claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common and the intervention will not unduly prejudice or delay the adjudication of the rights of the original parties."). A district court's ruling on such intervention is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Stone'. First Union Corp.. 371 F.3d 1305, 1309 (1Ith Cir. 2004); see also AT&T Corp. '. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 561-62 (2nd Cir. 2005) ("[a] denial of permissive intervention has virtually never been reversed" because of the considerable discretion afforded to district courts). In ruling on a motion for permissive intervention, the Court must consider all relevant factors, including "the nature and extent of the intervenor's interest." Percy'. Proposition 8 Wield Proponents. 587 F.3d 947, 955 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, Dershowitz lacks a "claim or defense" in common with the CVRA action. Instead, Dershowitz intends to advance satellite arguments, including raising questions about the credibility of crime victims that the Government apparently does not intend to present." Allowing his intervention would thus create a clear risk of adding undue delay to what is already a long-running case. Cy: id. (affirming district court decision to deny intervention that would "consume additional time and resources of For example, in the media Dershowitz has called Jane Doe No. 3 — an alleged victim of international sex trafficking while she was a minor — "a serial perjurer, serial liar, serial prostitute." Washington Post, Morning Mix. http://www.wash i n gtonpost.com/new s/morn in g-m ix/wp/20 I 5/0 I /06/a lan-de rshow it z- takes- lega l- act ion-a fier-be i n g-nam ed- w ith- prince- andrew- in-sex-ring-case/ . 10 EFTA00188757

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM uocument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc,,..( 01/21/2015 Page 11 of 40 both the Court and the parties that have a direct stake in the outcome of the proceedings"). Moreover, several other important factors weigh against allowing intervention. A. DERSHOWITZ CAN LITIGATE HIS REPUTATIONAL INTERESTS IN A PENDING DEFAMATION ACTION IN BROWARD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. In the opening paragraph of his court pleading, Dershowitz claims he has "no remedy" to defend his reputation. DE 81 at I. And yet, in his statements to the media, Dershowitz has made clear that he intends to defend his reputational interests in a pending defamation action. The Court need not allow duplicative litigation on the same reputational issues. After Jane Doe No. 3 filed her motion to intervene, Dershowitz attacked her in the media as a "serial perjurer." He also repeatedly named and attacked her attorneys — i.e., undersigned legal counsel Edwards and Cassell — branding them, among other disparaging names. "two sleazy. unprofessional. disbarable lawyers." Dershowitz repeated his attacks on numerous worldwide media outlets, saying such things as victims' counsel "are prepared to lie, cheat and steal. These are unethical lawyers" (CNN Program "The World Right Now with Hala Gorani." Jan. 5, 2015) and that counsel "willfully and deliberately made this up in order to gain a litigation advantage, [to] line their pockets with money" (The Last Word with O'Donnell — MSNBC (Jan. 8, 2015). Following these statements, on January 6, 2015, attorneys Edwards and Cassell. represented by Jack Scarola, Esq.. filed a defamation action in Broward County Circuit Court. See Exhibit II at ¶ 17 (alleging Dershowitz has "initiated a massive public media assault on the reputation and character" of undersigned counsel, by "accusing them of intentionally lying in their filings, of having leveled knowingly false accusations against [Dershowitz], without ever conducting any investigation of the credibility of the accusations"). The attorneys also served II EFTA00188758

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM uocument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc.— t 01/21/2015 Page 12 of 40 discovery requests on Dershowitz, as well as a notice of deposition. Dershowitz has yet to agree to a deposition date. Faced with a defamation action against him, Dershowitz stated that he was "thrilled" by the development because it "gives me a chance to litigate the case. I can expose their corruption. I can show how fraudulent the allegations are. This makes my day?' Wall St. Journal Law Biog. http://blogs.wsj.comnaw/2015/0 I/06/jane-doe-lawyers-sue-dershowitz-for-defamation/ (Jan. 6, 2015); see also UMAR News, (Jan. 4, 2015) ("I just need a legal proceeding... to call witnesses ... to prove my case" (emphasis added)). Given that Dershowitz has the opportunity to litigate his concerns in the other case, this Court need not — and should not — allow permissive intervention in this one. See. e.g., Morgan'. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 124 F.R.D. 231 (1988) (declining intervention in one case where litigation on a similar issue was already underway elsewhere). Permissive intervention in this case would, for example. presumably lead to Dershowitz (and, in turn, undersigned legal counsel) seeking duplicative discovery to that which is already being sought in Broward County Circuit Court. One forum is enough to litigate reputations] issues. B. DERSHOWITZ SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THIS ACTION WHEN HE HAS DECLINED TO DEFEND HIS REPUTATION IN OTHER ACTIONS. Dershowitz also claims that he has not been given an opportunity to address his connection to Epstein's sex trafficking. DE 282-I at 3. This is untrue. Indeed. Dershowitz has been given (at least) three separate opportunities to provide information concerning his involvement in Epstein's offenses. Because Dershowitz has not availed himself of any of those prior opportunities, the Court should deny his motion to intervene now. 2009 12 EFTA00188759

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM ..ocurnent 291 Entered on FLSD Doc. 01/21/2015 Page 13 of 40 On about September 17, 2009, one of undersigned counsel (Brad Edwards) arranged to have Dershowitz served with a subpoena for deposition in connection with a civil case brought by one of the underage females who had sued Epstein (Doe. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80893-KAM (S.D. Fla.)). At that point. Dershowitz understood that counsel for many of Epstein's victims believed that mounting evidence pointed toward his role extending beyond merely being an attorney for Epstein. That deposition ultimately did not occur, and Dershowitz made no effort to provide information about his knowledge of relevant information. 201 1 In 2011. in the state case of Epstein'. Edwards (No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct.)), counsel for Edwards (Jack Scarola, Esq.) contacted Dershowitz to seek his cooperation in answering questions about his knowledge of Epstein's sex trafficking. On August 15, 2011, Dershowitz indicated that he wanted more information before would decide whether to cooperate: "If you would let me know what non-privileged information you would seek from me, I would then be able to decide whether to cooperate." See Exhibit 12 (emphasis added). On August 23, 2011, Scarola sent a letter to Dershowitz, explaining that there was no intent to inquire about attorney-client information, but adding: "[w]e do. however, have reason to believe that you have personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of underage females, and we would like the opportunity to question you under oath about these observations.- See Exhibit 13. Dershowitz declined to cooperate. so on September 7, 2011. Scarola again sent a letter to Dershowitz, noting that while there was "no obligation" to disclose the basis for wanting a deposition, the reason was that "'[m]ultiple individuals have placed you in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein on multiple occasions and in various locations when Jeffrey Epstein was in the 13 EFTA00188760

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM uocument 291 Entered on FLSD Doch,,c 01/21/2015 Page 14 of 40 company of underage females subsequently identified as victims of Mr. Epstein's criminal molestation. This inlbrmation is derived from both sworn testimony and private interviews." Exhibit 14. Despite providing Dershowitz with the basis for wanting his deposition, and the assurance that questions regarding privileged information would not be asked, Dershowitz did not cooperate. 2015 After Jane Doe No. 3 moved to intervene in this case. Dershowitz said "what they [victims' counsel] have done is so under-handed . . . not giv[ing] me an opportunity to disprove it. That's Kafkaesque." UMAR News, Following public statements such as these, on January 3, 2015, attorney Jack Scarola immediately sent an e-mail to Dershowitz, requesting an opportunity to take his deposition: Dear Mr. Dershowitz: Statements attributed to you in the public media express a willingness, indeed a strong desire, to submit to questioning under oath regarding your alleged knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's extensive abuse of underage females as well as your alleged personal participation in those activities. As I am sure you will recall, our efforts to arrange such a deposition previously were unsuccessful, so we welcome your change of heart. Perhaps a convenient time would be in connection with your scheduled appearance in Miami on January 19. I assume a subpoena will not be necessary since the deposition will be taken pursuant to your request, but please let us know promptly if that assumption is inaccurate.... Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Exhibit IS. As of the date of this filing, Dershowitz has completely ignored this request. while simultaneously continuing to publicly protest his inability to challenge the allegations against him inn legal proceeding. 14 EFTA00188761

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM uocument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc, 01/21/2015 Page 15 of 40 In light of these opportunities that have been extended to Dershowitz previously to answer any questions about his knowledge of (and even participation in) Epstein's sex trafficking, his claim that he needs a forum in this Court to defend his reputation rings hollow.9 For the sake of completeness — and to show a sinister pattern — it is also worth noting that each of the other four individuals Jane Doe No. 3 identified by name in her motion (Jeffrey Epstein. Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean Luc Brunel, and Prince Andrew) have also all been afforded opportunities to explain themselves — and all four have declined to take them. Epstein. The Court is familiar with Jeffrey Epstein's repeated invocations of the Fifth Amendment when asked questions about his sexual abuse of young girls. including Jane Doe No. I. Jane Doe No. 2, and Jane Doe No. 3. See generally Exhibit 16 at 1-7. Maxwell. In 2009, undersigned counsel (Brad Edwards) served Ghislaine Maxwell with a subpoena for a deposition in a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein. After extensive discussion and coordinating a convenient time and place, as well as ultimately agreeing to a confidentiality agreement prepared by Maxwell's attorney, at the eleventh hour Maxwell's attorney informed the undersigned that Maxwell's mother was very ill and that consequently Maxwell was leaving the country with no plans to return. The deposition was cancelled. Yet a short time later. Maxwell was photographed at Chelsea Clinton's wedding in Rhinebeck, New York, confirming the suspicion that she was indeed still in the country and willing to say anything to avoid her deposition. 9 The difficulty in scheduling this deposition also fits into a pattern for Dershowitz. In around 2005 to 2006. Dershowitz was Jeffrey Epstein's "primary" lawyer. When the Palm Beach Police Department tried to interview Epstein. Dershowitz pretended that Epstein was willing to answer uestions. Dershowitz set up. then cancelled, Epstein interviews with the police "several times." See. Epstein, No. 502008CA037319XXXX MB AB. Depo. of Police Chief Michael Reiter at 80 (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. Nov. 23. 2009). 15 EFTA00188762

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM b1/4,curnent 291 Entered on FLSD Do° 01/21/2015 Page 16 of 40 Brunel. In 2009. undersigned counsel (Brad Edwards, representing Jane Doe) served Jean Luc Brunel with a subpoena for a deposition before this court in Doe'. Epstein, No. 9:08- cv-80119-KAM (S.D. Fla.). Brunel's attorney asked counsel for Jane Doe to postpone the scheduled deposition date. Jane Doe's counsel agreed, and then Brunel's attorney cancelled the rescheduled deposition date. Brunel's counsel represented that Brunel was outside the country and thus unavailable. But later sworn deposition testimony revealed that Brunel was actually inside the country at this time — indeed, he was hiding at Epstein's Palm Beach home. All this was brought to the Court's attention via a motion for sanctions. Dr. 483. This is just another example of the inner circle of Epstein's friends refusing depositions to answer questions. Prince Andrew. In 2011, Jack Scarola, representing Brad Edwards in the Epstein Edwards case, faced procedural impediments to obtaining a sworn deposition from a member of the British Royal family. Accordingly. he publicly invited the voluntary testimony of' Prince Andrew, explaining: "We would be very keen to speak with Prince Andrew. given his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. . . . We have reason to believe that Prince Andrew has been in the company of Mr. Epstein while Mr. Epstein has been in the company of under-aged children." http://effiefol kerts.blogspoLcom/20 I 1/03/convicted-paedophile-jeffrey-epstei n-is.html. Prince Andrew never responded. Two weeks ago. after Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 moved to join in this action, a spokesperson for Prince Andrew denied Jane Doe No. 3's allegations. without providing any explanation of what the Prince was doing with this minor girl late at night in a private setting. Accordingly, on January 14, 2015, Jack Scarola sent Prince Andrew a certified letter requesting his voluntary cooperation in answering questions about his sexual interactions with Jane Doe No. 16 EFTA00188763

Case 9 08-cv-80736-KAM Locument 291 Entered on FLSD Dock. . 01/21/2015 Page 17 of 40 3. See Exhibit 17. The letter requested an opportunity to take a statement under oath from Prince Andrew. Federal Express has informed us that the letter has been refused by the recipient. In light of these avoided opportunities by Dershowitz — as well as Epstein, Maxwell, Brunel, and Prince Andrew — to answer questions under oath regarding Epstein's trafficking of young girls, there is no good reason that the Court should now allow a special, discretionary opportunity to intervene to respond to the allegations. C. DERSHOWITZ SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE TO STRIKE ALLEGATIONS RELEVANT TO ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT. The Court should also deny Dershowitz's motion for intervention because it would be a pointless exercise. Citing Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dershowitz seeks to intervene to strike "immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." DE 282 at 7. Dershowitz contends that Jane Doe No. 3's allegations regarding sexual contacts with him "have nothing to do with any relevant issues in this case." Id. at 3. Courts generally "disfavor the motion to strike . . ." Moore's Federal Practice § 12.37[1] (3d ed. 2014) (internal citation omitted). "Striking allegations from a pleading 'is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required for the purposes ofjustice.' and only when the allegations to be stricken have 'no possible relation to the controversy." Lutist Atlantis, Inc. Pac. Ins. Co., No. 10-61583-CI V, 2011 WI. 1584359 at •2 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (quoting Augustusl. Bd. of Pub. Instruction. 306 F.2d 862. 868 (5th Cir.1962)). "If there is any doubt as to whether the allegations might be an issue in the action, courts will deny the motion." In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Sec. Litig., 114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 965 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (emphasis in original). Just as with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, in ruling on a motion to strike "the Court must view the pleadings in a light most favorable to the 17 EFTA00188764

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM r.ucument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc. 01/21/2015 Page 18 of 40 pleading party." Id. Any motion to strike by Dershowitz would be meritless, because Jane Doe No. 3's allegations are pertinent to at least eight pending issues. 1. The Pending Motion to Intervene. Of course, the first reason that Jane Doe No. 3 made her allegations was to support her pending motion to join this action. As the Court has seen from the chronology recounted above, victims' counsel engaged in months of efforts to reach a stipulated motion for joinder by Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 that would not have required reciting any specific factual allegations. The U.S. Attorney's Office refused to provide any answer to that request, until finally tersely objecting (without providing any rationale). Once the joinder motion became contested, Jane Doe No. 3 then needed to proffer allegations supporting her entry into the case. To join this CVRA action, Jane Doe No. 3 must first show that she is the "victim" of a federal crime, IS U.S.C. § 377I(e) — and, further, that the crime is one that implicates persons covered by the NPA. Jane Doe No. 3 alleged that she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. But she also focused much of her joinder motion on the fact that she was the victim of a "sex trafficking scheme" organized by Epstein. DE 280 at 3. To prove she is a victim of sex trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, Jane Doe must demonstrate that she was recruited, transported, or harbored while under the age of 18 and "cause[d] to engage in a commercial sex act." Accordingly, she briefly described the trafficking scheme, including identifying several persons to whom she was trafficked (i.e.. Dershowitz and Andrew).10 The fact that Dershowitz 1° In his motion, Dershowitz alleges that Jane Doe No. 3 identified these two names solely to stir up media attention. DE 282 at 2. But Dershowitz does not address the obvious reasons for the identification - i.e., that he was an attorney who helped draft the NPA and that a sex act with Prince Andrew in London affected "foreign commerce" — part of a jurisdictional requirement of the statute. See 18 U.S.C. § I591(aX I). In addition, Jane Doe No. 3 has also alleged that she was trafficked to "many other powerful men, including politicians and powerful business executives." Ex. I at 1 58. The names of these persons could have been included in her pleading and would have created significantly more media attention than 18 EFTA00188765

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 1.ocurrent 291 Entered on FLSD Doc. . 01/21/2015 Page 19 of 40 (and Prince Andrew) engaged in a "sex act" with her is simply a required element of her proof that she is the victim of a sex trafficking crime. Sexual trafficking is not the only crime that could support Jane Doe No. 3's joinder in this case. There are also various federal sex offenses, such as travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). which Jane Doe No. Vs proffer supported. And perhaps most obviously, Jane Doe No. 3 was the victim of a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371. Dershowitz, of course, was a co-conspirator against her — thereby directly implicating the NPA. In her pleading. Jane Doe No. 3 alleged only the foci that a sex act took place, not the nature of the sex act nor any "unnecessary detail." Begay Public Service Co. of New Mexico, 710 F.Supp.2d 1161 (D. N. Mex. 2010).11 2. The Pending Discovery Issues. Another reason Jane Doe No. 3 cited in her pleading for specifically naming Dershowitz (and Prince Andrew) is that the Court has before it a pending discovery dispute involving documents relating to these two people. See DE 280 at 10 (citing DE 225 at 7-8 (discussing DE 48 at 16-18)). As the Court is aware, on December 1,2011, Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 propounded a Request for Admission (RFA) asking the Government to admit that it possesses "documents, correspondence or other information reflecting contacts with the Department the names that she did include. If the Court would like proof of this assertion, counsel would request leave to provide an ex parse, sealed submission of the names of the other immediately recognizable persons who either observed or participated in the trafficking of Jane Doe No. 3. Where sexual issues are relevant to a case, they must not be stricken. See. e.g., Zdenek I. School lad. q• Broward County, No. 07-CV-61110, 2007 WL 4521489, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 19, 2007) ("given the Eleventh Circuit standards on what constitutes actionable sexual harassment, the allegations in question [with one exception] do not rise to the level of what is considered 'redundant, immaterial. impertinent, or scandalous"); Dawe I. Corr. USA, No. CIVS071790LKKEFEI, 2009 WL 2591146 at '3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2009) ("these statements [referring to sexual contact] are made in the . . . larger context of alleging that the defendants' financial misconduct stemmed in part from an intention to cover up sexual misconduct. As such, the court agrees that the allegations are no more scandalous than those that would be asserted in any cause of action relating to sexual harassment."). 19 EFTA00188766

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM ...,current 291 Entered on FLSD Doc. ., 01/21/2015 Page 20 of 40 between May 2007 and September 2008 on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein by . .. (b) Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/Wa Prince Andrew, Duke of York); (c) Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz." While the Government denied that it had documents reflecting contacts by Prince Andrew, it specifically admitted possessing documents reflecting contacts by Dershowitz Gov't Answer to RFA #6. The two victims further requested the Government admit that it possessed "information (including telephone logs and emails) reflecting contacts between Bruce E. Reinhart and persons/entities affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein (including . . . Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz). The Government admitted this fact. Gov't Answers to RFA #I6. These RFA's tie into a major discovery battle that is currently before the Court. Related to the RFA's, on October 3. 2011. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 propounded Request for Production (RFP) #8, seeking "all correspondence, documents. and other information regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, including efforts by . . . Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/k/a Prince Andrew, Duke of York). [and] Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowit7." The two victims also propounded RFP #21, requesting all documents relating to the NPA, including documents in the Government's possession from "defense attorneys representing Epstein (including . . . Alan Dershowitz)" and from "agents acting in support of Epstein (including .. . Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/Wa Prince Andrew Duke of York))." The Government responded to these (and other RFPs) by asserting privilege over 14,825 pages of documents that it provided to the Court. III But contrary to the Court's specific direction, the Government did not provide a log that "clearly identifies each document]] by author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter . . . ." DE 190 at 2. Accordingly, 11 The Government has also raised relevancy objections to producing the documents, as discussed below. 20 EFTA00188767

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM _ Jcument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc. , 01/21/2015 Page 21 of 40 there is no way to determine which of the documents that the Government has provided to the Court are responsive to which of the victims' discovery requests — including which documents relate to Dershowitz. See DE 265 at 1-2. The Government then asserted a host of privileges, including qualified privileges, such as deliberative process privilege. investigative privilege, and the work product doctrine. Qualified privileges require the Court to engage in a far-ranging inquiry that balances competing interests. As the victims have recounted in their (currently- pending) objections to the Government's assertion of privilege, the Court must weigh such things as "the `seriousness' of the litigation" (DE 265 at 9), "the importance of the information sought to the plaintiff's case" (DE 265-1 at 22). and whether there is a "compelling need" for disclosure (DE 265 at 14). Clearly Jane Doe No. 3's allegations factor into this balancing of interests about production of documents relating to Dershowitz (and others). 3. Motive When the Court ultimately rules on the underlying substantive issue of whether the Government violated the victims' rights, motive will be a central issue. The Government has repeatedly asserted benign motivations for not revealing the NPA to the victims, and the victims have strongly contested those assertions. See. e.g., DE 266 at 10 ("Motive is clearly in dispute in this case ...."). The NPA itself contains several unusual provisions that invite debate over how they Caine into existence — such as the "confidentiality" provision that illegally barred disclosure to the victims and the "blank check" co-conspirator immunity provision discussed immediately below. An important question is whether these strange provisions were crafted accidentally — or as part of a deliberate plan to keep the victims in the dark, as the victims are contending. See, e.g., DE 48 at 11 (alleging that the Government and defense counsel decided that the NM should be "kept from public view because of the intense public criticism that would have 21 EFTA00188768

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Lnicument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc. ...t 01/21/2015 Page 22 of 40 resulted from allowing a politically-connected billionaire who had sexually abused more than 30 identified minor girls to escape from federal prosecution with only a county court jail sentence"). The fact that an important attorney on the defense team had strong personal reasons for resolving the case without a public trial bears directly on this question, by showing motivation to reach a secret deal. Dershowitz's need to keep his abuse secret, and his direct personal knowledge of Epstein's abuse, also goes to issues revolving around whether the defense team engaged in a "yearlong assault on the prosecution and prosecutors," as alleged by former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. See DE 266 at 12." Issues pertaining to motive can always be pursued. particularly when a case is in an early discovery phase. See. e.g.. Gelahert I. Slate. 407 So. 2d 1007, 1010 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). And "motive is always relevant in a criminal case, even if it is not an element of the crime." United States'. Hill, 643 F.3d 807, 843 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation omitted). When speaking not to the Court but rather to the media, Dershowitz has clearly admitted the relevance of Jane Doe No. 3's allegations about him to issues of motive. Speaking on CNN, for example, Dershowitz stated that he was being "targeted" precisely because his involvement in Epstein's sexual trafficking would help "blow up" the plea agreement: 13 In his Supplement to his Motion for Limited Intervention, Dershowitz claims that only information relevant to this case is information known by the Government before September 24, 2007 — the latest date on which, according to Dershowitz, the Government made the decision not to pursue federal criminal charges against Epstein. DE 285 at I. Dershowitz appears to be unaware that the Government told the victims well after that date that the Government was still "investigating" the case. DE 48 at 16. In addition, what knowledge the Government had of Epstein's trafficking crimes before September 24. 2007. is very much a disputed issue. For example, the victims believe that among the 14,825 pages of discovery currently before the Court in camera are many documents proving the Government's had knowledge while it was negotiating the NM that Epstein was trafficking underage girls for sex to Dershowitz and others. Indeed, it is likely that documents pertaining to the trafficking of Jane Doe No. 3 herself are found in those pages. and she would ask the Court to pay particular attention to such documents as part of its in camera review. This evidence provides a further reason the Government wanted to conceal the NPA from the victims - and the public: to avoid the outcry that would have arisen if it was known that prosecutors were giving such a lenient deal to an international sex trafficker. 22 EFTA00188769

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM L,Licurnent 291 Entered on FLSD 01/21/2015 Page 23 of 40 [The victims] want to be able to challenge the plea agreement. I was one of the lawyers who organized the plea ageement. I got the very good deal for Jeffrey Epstein. . . . And if they [i.e.. victims' counsel] could find a lawyer who helped draft the agreement who also was a criminal, having sex — wow — that could help them blow up the agreement. So they sat down together, the three of them— these two sleazy, unprofessional. disbarrable lawyers, Paul Cassell, a former federal judge [and] current professor. and another sleazy lawyer from Florida. Brad Edwards — ... and said who would fit into this description: A lawyer, who knows Epstein, who helped draft ...? Ha, Dershowitzl So they and the woman got together and contrived and made this up.I4 Similarly, on the Meredith Vieira Show, Dershowitz alleged that allegations against him "fit the profile" of what it could take to vacate the plea. m3 Of course, Jane Doe No. 3 (and her attorneys) are prepared to show they did not "contrive" the allegations. Dershowitis name was not drawn from a hat. Rather. he was added to the pleading because Jane Doe No. 3 identified him as one of her abusers. And once she proves the truth of her sworn allegations, then — as Dershowitz himself colorfully puts it — the victims have additional relevant evidence that will help them to "blow up" the plea. 4. The NPA's "Blank Check" Co-Conspirator Immunity Provision and the Scope of the Remedy that the Victims Might Obtain. Jane Doe No. 3 explained in her motion to intervene that Dershowitz helped negotiate a NPA that contained a sweeping provision that provided immunity in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." DE 280 at 4 (quoting NPA at 5).16 This provision is very unusual — a proverbial "blank check" blocking federal criminal prosecution of people who are not specifically identified — raising an inference 14 http://www.cnn.c /1 usidershowitz-sex-allegation/ (Jan. 6, 2015) (emphasis added). IS http://meredithvie adeos/abn-dershowitz-defends-himself/ (Jan. 8, 2015). 16 In his "supplemental" response, Dershowitz asserts that other defense attorneys negotiated that provision. DE 285 at 4. Jane Doe No. 3 disputes this claim and requests discovery on it, as it seems far- fetched to believe that Dershowitz did not see that NPA that his client ultimately signed. 23 EFTA00188770

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM L.ocument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc.,—( 01/21/2015 Page 24 of 40 that the defense team may have had ulterior or unidentified motives for pressing for the provision. More broadly, knowledge of the persons who arc covered by this provision is directly relevant to the scope of the remedy that the victims may be able to obtain from the Court if they prevail on the merits of their claim. The Court has already received briefing from the victims and the Government on the remedy issue — and has prospectively allowed Epstein to intervene on any issue involving rescission of the NPA. DE 246. The victims all intend to seek rescission of the co-conspirator provision as pan of any relief in this case. The fact that several of Jane Doe No. 3's sexual abusers — i.e., Dershowitz. Maxwell, Brunel. and Prince Andrew — are currently covered by the provision will thus be relevant to the scope of the remedy that the victims can obtain and the persons that they can seek to have prosecuted. 5. Interface Issues. The Court has previously ruled that the victims' CVRA claim "implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the factual context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the federal offense victims . . .." DE 189 at 12 n.6. Part of that "entire interface" is Epstein's defense team — which included Dershowitz. And Jane Doe No. 3 is one of the victims — indeed, an international sex trafficking victim. Her important factual allegations about extremely serious international trafficking crimes being swept under the rug in a dubious and secret non-prosecution agreement provide a critical piece of the "factual context" that the Court must consider. 6. The "Crime/Fraud" Exception to the Attorney-Cllent Privilege and Other Privileges. Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doc No. 2 have specifically raised the argument that a crime/fraud/misconduct exception applies to the Government's assertion of attorney-client 24 EFTA00188771

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Liocument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc.—t 01/21/2015 Page 25 of 40 privilege over various documents. DE 265 at 5-6. Based on Jane Doe No. 3's allegations, communications between the Epstein defense team and the Government appear to furthered a crime — i.e.. Dershowitz's conspiracy with Epstein to engage in, and conceal, sex trafficking. And Government prosecutors' internal discussions may have unwittingly furthered that crime. See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 445 F.3d 266, 275-76 (3rd Cir. 2006) (attorney's lack of knowledge of the crime being furthered not relevant to crime-fraud exception). 7. Right to be "Treated with Fairness" Issues. In his "supplemental" pleading, Dershowitz seem to assume that the victims are raising only a claim about their right to "confer" with prosecutors. DE 285 at 1-2. But Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 also have a much broader, over-arching claim of a violation of their right "to be treated with fairness" under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). See DE 48 at 36. Jane Doe No. 3 was known to the United States Attorney's Office at the time of the Epstein investigation, as evidenced by her inclusion in the NPA's attachment identifying known victims. The fact that Jane Doe No. 3 — a victim of international sex trafficking— was kept in the dark about the plea deal will provide further evidence of a violation of the right to be treated with fairness. The scope of her abuse — and the fact that the prosecution of crimes against her in the Southern District of Florida is now blocked by an agreement negotiated by one of her abusers — also all go to violations of the fairness right. 8. Jane Doe No. 3 Will Be a Witness for Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 at Trial. Finally, the record in this case should reflect that Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 intend to call Jane Doe No. 3 as a witness in any hearing or trial that the Court may schedule in this matter. The Government's violation of her rights is clearly evidence of a common scheme 25 EFTA00188772

Case 9 08-cv-80736-KAM —ocument 291 Entered on FLSD 01/21/2015 Page 26 of 40 or plan to keep crime victims in the dark, made admissible in any hearing by virtue of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). For each of these eight reasons, Jane Doe No. 3's allegations against Dershowitz are plainly relevant to this case and therefore his attempt to intervene to strike them is futile.I7 D. DESHOWITZ SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO INTEVENE TO STRIKE JANE DOE NO. 3'S ALLEGATIONS BECAUSE SHE HAS SWORN TO THEIR TRUTH AND THEY ARE ALL SUPPORTED BY STRONG CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. Dershowitz finally claims that he should be allowed to intervene because Jane Doe No. 3's allegations against him are false. In support of this position, he attaches a carefully-crafted, self-serving declaration. But a litigant's mere claim that contrary allegations are false provides no legal basis for striking them. See Moore :s Federal Practice § 12.37[3A] (3d ed. 2014) ("Rule 12 does not provide any authority to strike pleadings on the basis of falsity" because doing so would "effectively [be] a resolution on the merits, which is not appropriate at the pleading stage."). At early stages of litigation, "[t]he court accepts all well-pleaded allegations as true" and views factual allegations "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Johnson'. Nobu Associates South Beach. LP, No. 9:10-cv-21691-KAM, 2011 WL 780028 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2011). In any event, to rebut Dershowitz's false claims directly, Jane Doe No. 3 now provides her own sworn affidavit, attached as Exhibit 1,18 repeating tinder oath the allegations that her " A ninth reason now also exists that the allegations are relevant, given that the Government recently- raised the argument that the Jane Doe No. 3 has failed to meet a six-year statute of limitations specified in 18 U.S.C. § 2401. DE 290. Jane Doe No. 3 will contest whether that statute of limitations even applies. But Jane Doe also to raise an equitable estoppel argument — that the statute was tolled while she was in hiding in due to the danger posed by Epstein and his powerful friends. Her factual allegations — including the specific identities of those powerful persons — are clearly relevant to demonstrating the factual underpinnings for her estoppel argument. 18 In paragraph 52 of Exhibit I, the name of a sexual participant and eye-witness was redacted out of an abundance of caution. because while she was not a minor at the relevant time she is believed to have 26 EFTA00188773

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM ..-ocurnent 291 Entered on FLSD Doct—t 01/21/2015 Page 27 of 40 attorneys proffered in her earlier motion — i.e., that Epstein sexually trafficked Jane Doc No. 3 to numerous persons, including Dcrshowitz. If the Court believes it would be useful. Jane Doe No. 3 requests an evidentiary hearing to prove she is telling the truth 19 and directs the Court's attention the following substantial information supporting her sworn statement)" To be clear, what follows is just part of the compelling information supporting Jane Doe No. 3's allegations. Any assessment of Jane Doe No. 3's sworn statement (and Dershowitz's protestations of innocence) must begin with two incontestable facts: First, Dershowitz is an extremely close personal friend of Epstein's. In fact, in 2005 (before the scandal of the criminal prosecution broke) Dershowitz stated "I'm on my 20th book. . . . The only person outside of my immediate family that I send drafts to is Jeffrey." The Talented Mr. Epstein. by Vicky Ward, in Vanity Fair (Jan. 2005).11 Dershowitz has also been quoted as saying that, even if Epstein went bankrupt, "I would be as interested in him as a friend if we had hamburgers on the boardwalk in Coney Island and talked about his ideas.- Vanity Fair Reminds Us When Jeffrey Epstein Warn 't a Creep. by Ray Gustini, in The Wire (June 21, 2011). Second, Jeffrey Epstein brazenly abused numerous girls in his Florida mansion, his New York mansion, and several other places that Dershowitz apparently admits he visited. See DE 282-I at 1-3 (Dershowitz affidavit discussing visits to Epstein). Proof of the notorious abuse originally been a victim of Epstein's sexual abuse while a minor. She is now a well-known actress whose identity we have unilaterally protected in this context. 19 Jane Doe No. 3 asks that the evidentiary hearing be held after discovery phase in this case is completed, because she believes that the Government possesses significant information that, if disclosed, would fully support her allegations. S the Government acknowledge this fact in any response it files. 2° CI The Last Word with O'Donnell — MSNBC (Jan. 8, 2015), http://www.msnbc.com/the- last-word/watchialan-dershowitz-o n-a I legal ions—tota Ily-fa Ise-38194285 I 573 (Dershow kz: "Right now. they have accused me of these . . . things without a single affidavit, without a single piece of evidence."). More recently, Dershowitz has disclaimed knowing Epstein well, stating that during the relevant time he was a mere "social acquaintance" and that "I was at [Epstein's] home for panics with a large number of most) scientists, most! men, dinner parties, intellectual gatherings." UMAR News, =KXzcxsipv7Q (Jan. 4, 2015). 27 EFTA00188774

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM —ucument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc.. ,t 01/21/2015 Page 28 of 40 starts with the NPA, under which Epstein agreed to register as a sex offender and provide compensation to approximately forty girls who he had sexually abused. Additional girls who he abused (such as movant Jane Doe No. 4) were not included in the NPA. Combined with the sworn testimony in the underlying civil cases, the NPA demonstrates persuasively that Epstein committed hundreds and hundreds of acts of sexual abuse against young girls — ostensibly "massage therapists" — during the relevant time period. See Exhibit 16 at 2 (collecting testimony). A small sample of the girls that Epstein sexually abused includes Jane Does Nos. I, 2, and 4. as well a all girls between the ages of 13 and 17. Id at 7-8. Given the astonishing number of victims, and the detailed descriptions from many of them. Epstein's abuse of young girls clearly occurred on a "daily basis. See Ex. I at 1 17. Indeed, according to his scheduled appointments, evidenced by the message pads retrieved by the Palm Beach Police Department, on some days Epstein engaged in sex with multiple girls.22 In 2009, one of Epstein's household employees, Juan Alessi, was deposed about the parade of young "massage therapists" entering Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. He started working for Epstein in about January 1999. He testified that Jane Doe No. 3 33 was one of the girls who came to Epstein's mansion regularly when she was in the age range of 15 to 19. Juan Alessi Depo. at 46:21- 47;4, 48:18-25, Jane Doe No. 21 Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-801 19-cv-KAM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2009) (excerpts attached as Exhibit 18). Alessi also saw many celebrities came to the Florida mansion, including not only Prince Andrew and his wife Sarah but also "a very famous lawyer that I'm sure you know, Alan 22 Upon request, victims counsel could provide the Court with these materials for review. The materials contain the names of minor victims of sexual assault, so sealed transmission would be necessary. 22 In the deposition, Jane Doe No. 3 is identified by initials. 28 EFTA00188775

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM —ocunient 291 Entered on FLSD 01/21/2015 Page 29 of 40 Dershowitz" Id. at 709-25. Alessi testified that Dershowitz came to the mansion "pretty often . . . at least four or five times a year" and would stay "two [or] three days." Id. at 7322-25. Jane Doe No. 3 came to the house when Dershowitz was there. Id. at 73:18-20. And — importantly — Dershowitz got massages while he was visiting Epstein's home. Alessi answered "yes" when asked whether Dershowitz "had massages sometimes when he was there," and explained that "[a] massage was like a treat for everybody." Id. at 74:14. The private, upstairs room where Dershowitz got his "massages" was one that contained a lot of vibrators — Maxwell had "a laundry basket . . . full of those toys" in that room. Id. at 76:11-15. In 2009, one of Epstein's most trusted employees was also deposed: Alfredo Rodriguez, the butler at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Rodriguez testified under oath that Dershowitz was, at Epstein's mansion when underage girls were there to give massages. Alfredo Rodriguez Depo. at 278:13-25, 279:9-280:2, Jane Doe No. 21 Epstein (excerpts attached as Exhibit 19).24 Rodriguez also testified that Dershowitz stayed at the house in his role as Epstein's friend, as opposed to being his lawyer (id. at 279:5-8; 385:1-6) and that Dershowitz was present alone at the home ofJeffery Epstein. without his family, in the presence of young girls. Id. at 199:12-13. 279:9-12, 426:16-25, 427:1. In fact, Rodriguez described that when the underage girls would come over, Dershowitz would drink wine and read books on the couch. Id. at 426:16-25; 427:1. As is familiar to this Court, after Rodriguez's deposition, he attempted to sell a 97-page document that he appropriated from Epstein's computer. The document contained Epstein's telephone directory — as well as a list of apparent young girls in various locations, including 24 According to press reports, Rodriguez recently passed away. See "Houseman who cleaned pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's sex toys and feared he would make him 'disappear' takes billionaire's secrets to the grave after he died just law week," http://www.dailyma il.co.ukinews/anick-2897939/Housetnan-cleaned. pedoph i le-Jeffrey- Epstein-s-sex-toys-feared-billiona ire-make-d isa ppear-takes-secrets-gra ve.htm I (Jan. 6. 2015). 29 EFTA00188776

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM ...ucument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc. A 01/21/2015 Page 30 of 40 Florida. New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. An FBI undercover employee (UCE) set up a meeting with Rodriguez to exchange $50,000 in "buy money" for the document. Following the exchange, the FBI arrested Rodriguez for obstruction of justice related to the attempted sale of this document (which Rodriguez called "the Holy Grail"). According to an FBI agent's ensuing report. Rodriguez "discussed in detail the information contained within the book. and identified important information to the UCE." See United States'. Rodriguez, No. 9:1 0-cr- 800I5-KAM. DE 3 at 5 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2009). While all of the details of the verbal information explained by Rodriguez to that agent have not been disclosed the documents have been. While there are hundreds of names, addresses, and phone numbers in the document, Rodriguez apparently circled only a select few entries. For instance, he circled each of the sections listing the girls that provided "massages" for Epstein in various locations. This includes the various confirmed under-age Florida victims. Additionally, a few other individuals in the book were circled. The logical presumption is that Rodriguez circled specific individuals. identifying them as persons who were involved in the illicit activities. One of the few people Rodriguez circled was Alan Dershowitz. See Exhibit 20. Moving up from household help to the next echelon in Epstein's criminal conspiracy, three individuals the NPA lists by name as Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirators are IMM, and . Extensive investigation demonstrated that participated in several of the sex acts with underage girls (including Jane Doe I) and that and were heavily involved in procuring underage girls for Epstein to sexually abuse. See, e.g., Exhibit 16 at 12. 20. Of particular relevance here, all three 25 It has been disclosed that Rodriguez said that "he had witnessed nude girls whom he believed were underage at the pool area of (Epstein's) home, knew that (Epstein) was engaging in sexual contact with underage girls, and had viewed pornographic images of underage girls on computers in Itpstein'sl home." DE 3 at 7. 30 EFTA00188777

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM ocument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc. . 01/21/2015 Page 31 of 40 implicated Dershowitz by invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 26 when asked questions about Dershowitz's connection to Epstein's abuse — including a specific question about whether Dershowitz had been involved with massages by young girls. =took the Fifth when asked: Have you seen a gentleman by the name of Alan Dershowitz at the home of Jeffrey Epstein before? Do you know Alan Dershowitz? Are you aware of friendship between [Alan] Dershowitz and Jeffrey Epstein? When [Alan] Dershowitz comes to Palm Beach, he stays at the El Brillo mansion, doesn't he? [H]as [Alan] Dershowitz ever been there when young ladies came to give massages? Has (Alan) Dershowitz ever been the beneficiary of those massages [given by young ladies at Epstein's mansion??? =IM Depo. at 211:16-18, 317:5, 436-37:25-1, 437:9-10; 437:18-19, 437-38: 25-1, Jane Doe No. 2' Epstein, No. 8:09-cv-801 I 9-KAM (Mar. 24, 2010) (emphasis added) (excerpts attached as Exhibit 21). pled the Fifth when asked: Do you know what Jeffrey Epstein's relationship is with Alan Dershowitz? That's somebody [i.e., Dershowitz] who you know to have stayed at Jeffery Epstein's house on many occasions, correct? And also somebody who you know to have been at the house when was in Jeffrey Epstein's bedroom getting sexually abused, correct? 26 Of course, in a proceeding such as this one. the victims are entitled to an inference in their favor when a witness takes the Fifth Amendment rather than answer a relevant question where that witness is associated with the other side of the case or otherwise in an adverse position to the victims. See. e.g.. Wiwi I United Stairs, 107 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 1997). 27 Interestingly, defending the deposition of was Bruce Reinhart, a former prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office when the Epstein NPA was negotiated. Reinhart had confidential, non-public information about the prosecution's case against Epstein. See note 7, supra. 31 EFTA00188778

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM ,,current 291 Entered on FLSD Doc. 01/21/2015 Page 32 of 40 Alan De howitz is also somebody that you also know to have been at the house when M. was being sexually abused in Jeffrey Epstein's bedroom. correct? Generally, Alan Dershowitz is familiar with Jeffrey Epstein's habit of engaging in sexual acts with minors on a daily basis, correct? When Alan Dershowitz was in town, Jeffrey Epstein did not break his schedule for Alan Dershowitz, meaning he continued to sexually abuse minors despite Alan Dershowirz being a guest in the house? Depo. at 56:22-25; 57:1-25, 58: 1-10, Jane Doe Epstein. No. 9:08-cv- 80893-KAM (April 13, 2010) (excerpts attached as Exhibit 22). And the Fifth when asked: Have you ever met Alan Dershowitz? When Alan Dershowitz stays at Jeffrey Epstein's house, isn't it true that he has been at the house when underage minor females have been in the bedroom with Jeffrey Epstein? took Have you ever flown on the airplane [privately owned by Jeffrey Epstein] with Alan Dershowitz before? Depo. at 37:6, 37:8, 81:25, Jane Doe Epstein. No. 9:08-cv-80893-KAM (Mar. 15, 2010) (excerpts attached as Exhibit 23).28 Finally, moving to the top of the conspiracy, Epstein himself has been questioned repeatedly, taking the Fifth when asked about Dershowitz's awareness of underage girls. For example. when Epstein took the Fifth when asked during his deposition "[h]ave you ever socialized with Alan Dershowitz in the presence of females under the age of Isr• Jeffrey Epstein Depo. at 90, Epstein' Edwards. No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB (Palm. Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. Mar. 17, 2010) (excerpts attached as Exhibit 24). Indeed, going a step further, on October 8, 2009, Epstein took the Fifth when asked whether he even knew Dershowitz was a 28 Mucinska also took the Fifth when asked about the involvement of Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell. and Jcan Luc Brunel. Id. at 37:3, 85:12, 85:13. 32 EFTA00188779

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM ....Lament 291 Entered on FLSD Doc. 01/21/2015 Page 33 of 40 professor at Harvard. Epstein, No. 502008CA03731XXXXMB, Epstein Depo. Tr. at 122 (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. Oct. 8, 2009). In short, all the key conspirators in Epstein's sexual trafficking ring who could be asked about Derhowitz's involvement took the Fifth." This "[sJilence is . . . evidence of the most persuasive character." United States ex rd. Bilokumsky 'Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923) (Brandeis, J.). quoted in Baxter 1 Palmigiano, 425 U.S 308, 319 (1976). And that silence takes on an even more sinister cast when combined with the fact that Epstein's sexual interest in young girls would have been obvious to someone like Dershowitz, Epstein's close personal friend who was present at the very locations when abuse was taking place. See Ex. 1 at 1 17. Additional credibility to Jane Doe No. 3's sworn statement is provided by clear evidence of a common scheme or plan, admissible wider Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). As is clear from the evidence recounted above, Jane Doe No. 3's allegations against Jeffrey Epstein are overwhelmingly corroborated by numerous other girls and Epstein's private flight logs demonstrating Jane Doe No. 3's travel with him while under 18 years old. In addition, her allegations against Prince Andrew are strongly corroborated. For example, while Buckingham Palace has recently denied that Prince Andrew had sexual contact with Jane Doe No. 3, it has not attempted to explain what led to the Prince having his picture taken with his arm around a 17- year-old American girl at night in London in an intimate setting in a private residence. Nor has the Palace explained what Ghislaine Maxwell is doing there and who took that picture — while Jane Doe No. 3 has provided a sworn affidavit that the photographer was Prince Andrew's close friend (as well as sex trafficker and now-registered sex offender): Jeffrey Epstein. Jane Doe No. 29 As noted earlier, two other key conspirators - Ghislaine Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel - evaded depositions to avoid answering any questions under oath. 33 EFTA00188780

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM —ucument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc.— 01/21/2015 Page 34 of 40 3 has also made strong, credible claims against Jean Luc Brunel — corroborated allegations that parallel those made by others. See Exhibit 16 at 22. In contrast to this interlocking web of corroborating evidence, the Court should examine what Dershowitz says in his affidavit — and, more important, fails to say. The Court will notice that Dcrshowitz devotes only a single sentence in his affidavit to his activities at Epstein's Palm Beach and New York mansions. See DE 282-I at 3 ("As to Mr. Epstein's homes in New York City and Palm Beach, I categorically state that I never had any sexual contact with Jane Doe #3."). The Court nay immediately wonder about the following questions: How long did Dershowitz spend at these homes? Was he with his wife and family, as he has suggested in television interviews? Flow many times was he there overnight? Did Dershowitz ever see any of the dozens and dozens of young girls whom Epstein was sexually abusing? Did Dershowitz ever get a "massage" from one of these young girls? The Court may also wish to contrast Dershowitz's very narrow affidavit with his more sweeping statements to the media. On popular television programs, Dershowitz has emphatically denounced Jane Doe No. 3 as a liar and said he can prove "conclusively" that he has never even met her.10 Yet in his sworn affidavit, Dcrshowitz does not repeat that broad claim.3I Nor does Dershowitz ever address his knowledge of other young girls, in addition to Jane Doe No. 3, abused by Epstein in those houses. 14 See. e.g.. http://www.cnn.com/2015/0 I /05/eu rope/prince-and rew-sex-abuse-alkgat ions/ index.htm I ("Q: "Have you ever met this woman named pane Doe No. 3]?" A: "No. Absolutely not, I don't know who she is."); CNN News Day http://www.cn ideos/tv/2015/01/05/bts-newday-alan-ders how itz-pr ince-a nd rew-sex-sean dal- alkgat ions.cnn (Jan. 5, 2015) ("I never met this woman. I never touched her. I was never massaged by her. There was no contact, no contact whatsoever — and I will prove it conclusively."). 31 In the media, Dershowitz has also offered to execute a waiver of the statute of limitations to enable Jane Doe No. 3 to file charges against him. Shortly after Dershowitz first made that offer, Jack Scarola. Esq., provided Dershowitz with a waiver form for him to sign. Dershowitz declined to sign the fonn and later advised. through his counsel, that he was "considering" whether to waive the statute of limitations. 34 EFTA00188781

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM ..,current 291 Entered on FLSD 01/21/2015 Page 35 of 40 In his affidavit, Dershowitz also cagily states that he sent a letter to an attorney who was seeking a deposition. recounting that in that letter he (Dershowitz) said he was "not a witness to any alleged crimes." DE 282-I at 3. But Dershowitz does not repeat under oath the broad claim that he never witnessed any alleged crimes — presumably because he is aware of certain child abuse reporting obligations that might be at issue if he did so. Against this mounting evidence of guilt, Dershowitz suggests in his affidavit that aircraft flight manifests will exonerate him. DE 282-1 ("I was on that plane on several occasion as the manifests will show, but never under circumstances where it would have been possible to have sex with Jane Doe #3."). In media statements. Dershowitz has repeatedly brought up the manifests as proof of innocence.32 Coincidentally and remarkably, it was Dershowitz himself. acting as Epstein's attorney, who personally collected and then provided flight manifests to the Palm Beach Police Department. See. e.g., Police Detective Joe Recarey Depo. at 281, Jane Doe No. 2. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM (Mar. 19, 2010). (excerpts attached as Exhibit 29) Dershowitz provided manifests covering just the 10 months: January I. 2005, through October 17, 2005, During civil litigation, believing that these flight manifests were grossly incomplete. counsel subpoenaed Epstein for complete flight logs. Epstein failed to provide any information at all. Counsel were then forced to request flight logs from Epstein's various private pilots. One of Epstci n's pilots. David Rogers, provided certain flight logs covering some flights from a much broader time frame: 1997-2005. This production confirmed that the flight 12 See, e.g., The Today Show, Jan. 5, 2015 ("She claims I had sex with her in the airplanes, manifests of the flights will show I was never on the airplanes with her."); Hula Gorani —CNN Live, Jan. 5, 2015 ("As far as the planes are concerned, there are flight manifests. They will prove I was never on any private airplane with any young women."). 35 EFTA00188782

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM ucument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc. 01/21/2015 Page 36 of 40 information Dershowitz provided to police was incomplete. A comparison of the flight manifests and logs confirms that the flight logs provided by Rogers were also incomplete. A cursory review of both logs reveals that together the logs produced cover only a small fraction of the flights taken and the passengers on board. While this is obvious for multiple reasons, a few examples may help to make this point. For instance, the flight records provided by Dershowitz for a February 3, 2005, flight from CMH (Columbus, Ohio) to PBI (Palm Beach, Florida), indicate that in addition to Jeffrey Epstein, and Jean Luc Brunel, on board were three "females." The existence of these three "females" is conspicuously absent from the Rogers' logs. Compare Composite Exhibit 25 with Composite Exhibit 26 (Rodgers Logs). Other flights, such as the March 18, 2005 flight from New York to Florida, taken by Maxwell, Epstein and are missing altogether from the Rogers logs. Likewise, flights that appear on the Rogers logs are missing from the logs produced by Dershowitz. Multiple examples lead to the clear conclusion that all produced logs are incomplete and may well have been heavily sanitized. For example, on February 9, 1998, Dershowitz flew on Epstein's private plane from Palm Beach, Florida, to Teterboro, New Jersey. One of the passengers is listed as "1 female." Exhibit 27. Who is that "female" — and what is her age? Similarly, Jane Doe No. 3 appears on a July 16. 2001, flight from Santa Fe, New Mexico to Teterboro, New Jersey. along with Epstein, Maxwell and Yet there is no earlier flight that would have landed Jane Doe No. 3 in New Mexico. According to the logs, the next flight is from Palm Beach to the U.S. Virgin Islands on July 23, 2001, although Jane Doe No. 3 does not appear. The impression is that she remained in the New Jersey area. However, on July 28, 2001, Jane Doe No. 3 is on a flight with Epstein from the Virgin Islands back to Palm Beach. See Exhibit 26. How did she get to the Virgin Islands? 36 EFTA00188783

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM ._,,current 291 Entered on FLSD Doc..., 01/21/2015 Page 37 of 40 The flight logs provide evidence of some of the individuals who were on some of the flights - nothing more. Accordingly. it would not be surprising to find that some of these flight logs do not mention Dershowitz, because they were likely designed to hide evidence of criminal activity — or perhaps later cleansed of such evidence. With that said. some interesting things do appear in the flight logs. Unlike any other of Epstein's numerous criminal defense attorneys. Dershowitz appears in the flight logs for flights on Epstein's private planes produced by pilot Rogers on numerous occasions. Dershowitz also appears on flights with various females, including Epstein's known procurer of underage girls,. And, in contrast to recent media suggestions by Dershowitz, his family does not appear on any of the flights with him. Jane Doe No. 3 is listed on the logs as a passenger at a time when she is under age 18. While the logs do not show Dershowitz on the same flight with her. it is abundantly clear that the logs do not contain evidence of all of the flights that she was on and that they are grossly incomplete. The flight logs do confirm that she was transported by Epstein to Florida, New York. London, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands — locations where she states under oath that Epstein forced her to have sex with various individuals, including Dershowitz. Finally. in Dershowitz's vociferous attacks on Jane Doe No. 3. the Court will see an eerie parallel to the Jeffrey Epstein criminal investigation. Back in 2005, when the Palm Beach Police Department was first investigating Epstein's sexual abuse, it interviewed more than a dozen minor girls. These girls all provided information about abuse similar to the abuse that Jane Doe No. 3 says she suffered in Florida. The Department accumulated overwhelming evidence placing underage girls at Epstein's residence with no obvious legal purpose. The logical explanation was that these young girls were being truthful when they told law enforcement that Epstein (and others) were sexually abusing them. 37 EFTA00188784

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM .. ..,cument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc. , 01/21/2015 Page 38 Of 40 Rather than acknowledge sexual abuse of these girls, Dershowitz blustered down to Florida to meet with the State Attorney and to viciously attack the credibility of these victims — to call them liars, defame them as prostitutes, and convince the State Attorney that these girls could not even believably establish that they had ever even gone to Epstein's mansion. See, e.g., Depo. of Police Chief Michael Reiter at 53-55, 102-06, 8.4. Epstein, No. 502008CA037319 XXXX-MB-AB (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. CL Nov. 23, 2009) (excerpts attached as Exhibit 28); see also Depo. of Police Detective Joe Recarey at 301-302 and 309-10, Jane Doe No. 21. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2010) (excerpts attached as Exhibit 29) Later, Dershowitz would write to tell the Justice Department that " Letter from Gerald Lefcourt & Alan Dershowitz, July 6, 2007 to U.S. Atty.'s Office for the S.D. Fla (attached as Exhibit 30). Now, nearly a decade later, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the minor girls who cooperated with the authorities told the truth about their sexual abuse inside Epstein's home -- and that Dershowitz's attack on their credibility was duplicitous. In fact, according to credible eyewitness testimony recounted above, Dershowitz was clearly present in the home while some of these girls were being abused. The Court should not allow Dcrshowitz's similar bullying tactics to succeed in this case?' CONCLUSION Dershowitz's motion for intervention (DE 282) should be denied. 33 In the media, Dershowitz has said that he will prove that ISNo. 3 is lying "beyond any doubt by physical and documentary evidence." The Last Word with O'Donnell — MSNBC (Jan. 8, 2015) http://www.msnbc.com/the- last-worcl/watch/alan-deishow itz.-on-a Begat ions--totally-false- 381942851573. The Court should compare this media assertion with the materials that Dershowitz files along with his reply brief. 38 EFTA00188785

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM ocument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc. 01/21/2015 Page 39 of 40 DATED: January 21, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEiSS1NO, EDWARDS, F1STOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac 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 39 EFTA00188786

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Jcument 291 Entered on FLSD Doc. 01/21/2015 Page 40 of 40 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on January 21, 2015, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 sis s West Palm Reach, FL 33401 Attorneys for the Government Thomas Scott [email protected] ar COLE. SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. -and- Kendall Coffe Gabriel Groisman Benjamin H. Brodsk COFFEY BURLINGTON. P.L. Attorneys for Alan Dershowitz /s/ Bradley J. Edwards 40 EFTA00188787

I EFTA00188788

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD 01/21/2015 Page 1 of 20 EXHIBIT 1 EFTA00188789

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Dot...et 01/21/2015 Page 2 of 20 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 1. My name is and I was born in 2. I am currently 31 years old. 3. I grew up in Palm Beach, Florida. When I was little, I loved animals and wanted to be a veterinarian. But my life took a very different turn when adults began to be interested in having sex with me. 4. In approximately 1999, when I was 15 years old, I met Ghislaine Maxwell. Shc is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, who had been a wealthy publisher in Britain. Maxwell asked that I come with her to Jeffrey Epstein's mansion for the purposes of teaching me how to perform "massages" and to train me professionally in that area. Soon after that I went to Epstein's home in Palm Beach on El Brillo Way. 5. From the first time I was taken to Epstein's mansion that day, his motivations and actions were sexual, as were Maxwell's. My father was not allowed inside. I was brought up some stairs. There was a naked guy, Epstein, on the table in the room. Epstein and Maxwell forced me into sexual activity with Epstein. I was 15 years old at the time. Ile seemed to be in his 40s or 50s. I was paid $200. I was driven home by one of Epstein's employees. I EFTA00188790

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Do.. 01/21/2015 Page 3 of 20 6. I came back for several days following and did the same sorts of sexual things for Epstein. 7. After I did those things for Epstein, he and Maxwell said they were going to have me travel and were going to get an education for me. They were promising me the world, that I would travel with Epstein on his private jet and have a well-paid profession. Epstein said he would eventually match me up with a wealthy person so that I would be "set up" for life. 8. So I started `'working" exclusively for Epstein. He took me to New York on his big, private jet. We went to his mansion in New York City. I was shown to my room, a very luxurious room. The mansion was huge. I got scared because it was so big. Epstein brought me to a room with a massage parlor. To me, it looked like an S&M parlor. Epstein made me engage in sexual activities with him there. 9. You can see how young I looked in the photograph below. 2 EFTA00188791

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD DoL.,et 01/21/2015 Page 4 of 20 10. Epstein took me on a ferry boat on one of the trips to New York City and there he took the picture above. I was approximately 15 or 16 years old at the time. 11. Over the next few weeks, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell trained me to do what they wanted, including sexual activities and the use of sexual toys. The training was in New York and Florida, at Epstein's mansions. It was basically every day and was like going to school. I also had to have sex with Epstein many times. 12. I was trained to be "everything a man wanted me to be." It wasn't just sexual training - they wanted me to be able to cater to all the needs of the men they were going to send me to. They said that they loved that I was very compliant and knew how to keep my mouth shut. 13. Epstein and Maxwell also told me that they wanted me to produce things for them in addition to performing sex on the men. They told to me to pay attention to the details about what the men wanted, so I could report back to them. 14. From very early on I was fearful of Epstein. Epstein told me he was a billionaire. I told my mother that I was working for this rich guy, and she said "go, go far away." Epstein had promised me a lot, and I knew if I left I would be in big trouble. I also knew that I was a witness to a lot of illegal and very bad behavior by Epstein and his friends. If I left Epstein, he knew all kinds of powerful people. He could have had me killed or abducted, and I always knew he was capable of that if I did not obey him. He let me know that he knew many people in high places. Speaking about himself, he said "I can get away" with things. I was very scared, particularly since I was a teenager. 3 EFTA00188792

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD 01/21/2015 Page 5 of 20 15. I visited and traveled with Jeffrey Epstein from 1999 through the summer of 2002, and during that time I stayed with him, as his sex slave, at each of his houses (really more like mansions) in locations including New York City, New York; the area of Santa Fe, New Mexico; Palm Beach, Florida; an island in the U.S. Virgin Islands; and Paris, France. I had sex with him often in these places and also with the various people he demanded that I have sex with. Epstein paid me for many of these sexual encounters. In fact, my only purpose for Epstein, Maxwell and their friends was to be used for sex. 16. To illustrate my connection to these places, I include four photographs taken of me in New Mexico (shown below). The first one is a museum in Santa Fe, New Mexico. We had gone sightseeing for the day. Epstein took this picture of me. I was approximately 17 at the time, judging from the looks of it. At the end of the day we returned to Epstein's Zorro Ranch. The second picture is me on one of Epstein's horses on the ranch in New Mexico. The following two arc from wintertime in New Mexico. 4 EFTA00188793

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Do. A 01/21/2015 Page 6 of 20 17. When I was with him, Epstein had sex with underage girls on a daily basis. His interest in this kind of sex was obvious to the people around him. The activities were so obvious 5 EFTA00188794

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Dot. 4 01/21/2015 Page 7 of 20 and bold that anyone spending any significant time at one of Epstein's residences would have clearly been aware of what was going on. 18. Epstein's code word for sexual encounters was that it was a "massage". At times the interaction between Epstein and the girls would start in a massage room setting, it was always a sexual encounter and never just a massage. 19. In addition to constantly finding underage girls to satisfy their personal desires, Epstein and Maxwell also got girls for Epstein's 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." I understood him to mean that when someone was in his pocket, they owed him favors. I also understood that Epstein thought he could get leniency if he was ever caught doing anything illegal, or more so that he could escape trouble altogether. 20. Ghislaine Maxwell was heavily involved in the illegal sex. I understood her to be a very powerful person. She used Epstein's money and he used her name and connections to gain power and prestige. 21. One way to describe Maxwell's role was as the "madame." She assumed a position of trust for all the girls, including me. She got me to trust her and Epstein. It turned out that Maxwell was all about sex all the time. She had sex with underage girls virtually every day when I was around her, and she was very forceful. 22. I first had sexual activities with her when I was approximately 15 at the Palm Beach mansion. I had many sexual activities with her over the next several years in Epstein's various residences plus other exotic locations. I had sex with Maxwell in the Virgin Islands, 6 EFTA00188795

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Doc,. t 01/21/2015 Page 8 of 20 New Mexico, New York, as well as France and many other locations. I also observed Maxwell have sex with dozens of underage girls. 23. Maxwell took pictures of many of the underage girls. These pictures were sexually explicit. Maxwell kept the pictures on the computers in the various houses. She also made hard copies of these images and displayed them in the various houses. Maxwell had large amounts of child pornography that she personally made. Many times she made me sleep with other girls, some of whom were very young, for purposes of taking sexual pictures. 24. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz was around Epstein frequently. Dershowitz was so comfortable with the sex that was going on that he would even come and chat with Epstein while I was giving oral sex to Epstein. 25. I had sexual intercourse with Dershowitz at least six times. The first time was when I was about 16, early on in my servitude to Epstein, and it continued until I was 19. 26. The first time we had sex took place in New York in Epstein's home. It was in Epstein's room (not the massage room). I was approximately 16 years old at the time. I called Dershowitz "Alan." I knew he was a famous professor. 27. The second time that I had sex with Dershowitz was at Epstein's house in Palm Beach. During this encounter, Dershowitz instructed me to both perform oral sex and have sexual intercourse. 28. I also had sex with Dershowitz at Epstein's Zorro Ranch in New Mexico in the massage room off of the indoor pool area, which was still being painted. 29. We also had sex at Little Saint James Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. I was asked to give Dershowitz a massage on the beach. Dershowitz then asked me to take him somewhere more private, where we proceeded to have intercourse. 7 EFTA00188796

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Doc..st 01/21/2015 Page 9 of 20 30. Another sexual encounter between me and Dershowitz happened on Epstein's airplane. Another girl was present on the plane with us. 31. I have recently seen a former Harvard law professor identified as Alan Dershowitz on television calling me a "liar." He is lying by denying that he had sex with me. That man is the same man that I had sex with at least six times. 32. Epstein made me have sex with Prince Andrew several times. Prince Andrew, Maxwell, and I are shown in the photograph below. I had sex with him three times, including one orgy. I knew he was a member of the British Royal Family, but I just called him "Andy." 33. One day when I was in London (specifically in a townhouse that is under Maxwell's name), I got news from Maxwell that I would be meeting a prince. Later that day, Epstein told me I was meeting a "major prince." Epstein told me "to exceed" everything I had been taught. He emphasized that whatever Prince Andrew wanted, I was to make sure he got. 34. Eventually Prince Andrew arrived, along with his security guards. The guards then went out of the house and stayed out front in their car. It was just Epstein, Maxwell, and me inside alone with Andy. I was introduced to the Prince, and we kissed formally, cheek to cheek. 8 EFTA00188797

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Do...,et 01/21/2015 Page 10 of 20 There was a lot of legal discussion about Andy and his ex-wife ("Fergie"). Then the discussion turned to me. Maxwell said "guess how old she is." Prince Andrew guessed 17. 35. Then we all went to a Chinese restaurant for dinner and then to Club Tramp, a fancy "members only" night club in central London. Andy arranged for alcohol to be provided to me at the club. Eventually we left. I rode with Epstein and Maxwell back to the townhouse. On the way there, Epstein and Maxwell informed me that the Prince wanted to see "more of me" that night. Andy traveled in a separate car with his guards. 36. We all arrived back at the townhome and went upstairs. Epstein took a picture of me and Andy with my own camera. The picture above is that picture, which has been widely circulated on the intemet. Andy has his left arm around my waist and is smiling. The picture was developed on March 13, 2001, and was taken sometime shortly before I had it developed. I was 17 years old at the time. 37. I wanted a picture with the prince because I was keeping in contact with my family. I had told my mom and my grandma that I was meeting Prince Andrew and that I'd take a picture for them. They told me to "be careful." 38. After the picture, Epstein and Maxwell kissed me and said to "have fun." They left Andy and me alone upstairs. We went to the bathroom and bedroom, which were just steps away from where the picture was taken. We engaged in sexual activities there. Afterwards, Andy left quickly with his security. 39. I chatted with Epstein about this the next day. I told him, "it went great." Epstein said something to the effect of, "You did well. The Prince had fun." I felt like I was being graded. It was horrible to have to recount all these events and have to try to meet all these needs 9 EFTA00188798

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Dc .....et 01/21/2015 Page 11 of 20 and wants. I told Epstein about Andy's sexual interests in feet. Epstein thought it was very funny. Epstein appeared to be collecting private information about Andy. 40. When I got back from my trip, Epstein paid me more than he had paid me to be with anyone else — approximately $15,000. That money was for what I had done and to keep my mouth shut about "working" with the Prince. 41. The second time I had sex with Prince Andrew was in Epstein's New York mansion in spring 2001. I was 17 at time. Epstein called me down to his office. When I got there, Epstein was there, along with Maxwell, , and Andy. I was very surprised to sec him again. Epstein and Maxwell were making lewd jokes about "Randy Andy". 42. I had the impression that Andy had come there to sec Epstein and to have sex me with. There was no other apparent purpose for Andy to be there. 43. I was told to go upstairs with Andy and to go to the room I thought of as the "dungeon" (the massage room, but it is really scary looking). I had sex with Andy there. I was only paid $400 from Epstein for servicing Andy that time. 44. The third time I had sex with Andy was in an orgy on Epstein's private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. I was around 18 at the time. Epstein, Andy, approximately eight other young girls, and I had sex together. The other girls all seemed and appeared to be under the age of 18 and didn't really speak English. Epstein laughed about the fact they couldn't really communicate, saying that they are the "easiest" girls to get along with. My assumption was that Jean Luc Brunel got the girls from Eastern Europe (as he procured many young foreign girls for Epstein). They were young and European looking and sounding. 45. Afterwards we all had dinner by the cabanas. The other girls were chatting away among themselves, and Epstein and the Prince chatted together. I felt disgusted, and went 10 EFTA00188799

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Dobnet 01/21/2015 Page 12 of 20 quickly to my own cabana that night and went to sleep. Prince Andrew must have flown out early the next morning, as I did not see him when I got up. 46. I have seen Buckingham Palace's recent "emphatic" denial that Prince Andrew had sexual contact with me. That denial is false and hurtful to me. I did have sexual contact with him as I have described here — under oath. Given what he knows and has seen, I was hoping that he would simply voluntarily tell the truth about everything. I hope my attorneys can interview Prince Andrew under oath about the contacts and that he will tell the truth. 47. I also had sexual intercourse with Jean Luc Brunel many times when I was 16 through 19 years old. He was another of Epstein's powerful friends who had many contacts with young girls throughout the world. In fact, his only similarity with Epstein and the only link to their friendship appeared to be that Brunel could get dozens of underage girls and feed Epstein's (and Maxwell's) strong appetite for sex with minors. 48. Brunel ran some kind of modeling agency and appeared to have an arrangement with the U.S. Government where he could get passports or other travel documents for young girls. He would then bring these young girls (girls ranging in age from 12 to 24) to the United States for sexual purposes and farm them out to his friends, including Epstein. 49. Brunel would offer the girls "modeling" jobs. A lot of the girls came from poor countries or poor backgrounds, and he lured them in with a promise of making good money. 50. I had to have sex with Brunel at Little St. James (orgies), Palm Beach, New York City, New Mexico, Paris, the south of France, and California. He did not care about conversation, just sex. 51. Jeffrey Epstein has told me that he has slept with over 1,000 of Brunel's girls, and everything that I have seen confirms this claim. Epstein, Brunel, and Maxwell loved orgies with 11 EFTA00188800

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD pc- .al 01/21/2015 Page 13 of 20 kids — that is, having sexual interactions with many young teenagers at the same time. Sometimes as many as ten underage girls would participate in a single orgy with them. I personally observed dozens of these orgies. The orgies happened on Epstein's island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, in New Mexico, Palm Beach, and many other places. Most of the girls did not speak English. It was my understanding that the girls had been persuaded to come by Brunel offering them illegal drugs or a career in modeling. Brunel was one of the main procurers of girls. 52. In addition .to Ghislaine Maxwell, la and were also involved in the orgies. At this stage, I am hopeful that these other women will come forward and tell the truth about everything because that will help prevent future similar abuse. 53. I have seen reports saying or implying that I had sex with former President Bill Clinton on Little Saint James Island. Former President Bill Clinton was present on the Island at a time when I was also present on the Island, but I have never had sexual relations with Clinton, nor have I ever claimed to have had such relations. I have never seen him have sexual relations with anyone. 54. 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. I now know that I was identified by the federal government as one of Epstein's and his co-conspirator's sexually abused victims. However, no one told me about those events until after they happened. 55. 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 is attached as Exhibit 1. The letter describes an agreement in which compensation would be made victims of Epstein's 12 EFTA00188801

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Du_..et 01/21/2015 Page 14 of 20 sexual abuse. The letter also said that the federal government was going to "defer federal prosecution." No one had told me about deferring federal prosecution before this. 56. In 2011, two FBI agents, called me in and then came to meet me. They met me at the U.S. Consulate in They seemed to be very professional and hard working. I thought to myself, "Wow, hese people will do the right thing against the bad guys and protect me." 57. The agents were mainly focused on Epstein but while there I provided them some information about 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 about the individuals they inquired about. 58. Epstein also trafficked me for sexual purposes to many other powerful men, including politicians and powerful business executives. Epstein required me to describe the sexual events that I had with these men presumably so that he could potentially blackmail them. I am still very fearful of these men today. 59. I will continue to cooperate fully in the investigation and prosecution of Epstein, Maxwell, or any of their friends who participated in the sexual abuse of minors. I also hope that this information is treated in a way that will keep me safe from Epstein and others criminals identified here so as to encourage more victims of similar crimes to come forward. If these crimes are not prosecuted, despite my volunteering this information and cooperation, then it may deter other similar victims from coming forward. 60. In this affidavit, I have tried to focus on how I was trafficked for sexual purposes. I have not described all of the details of the sexual activities Epstein forced me to have. Also, I have not described all of the details of the other events discussed here. If a judge wants me to 13 EFTA00188802

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Do,..et 01/21/2015 Page 15 of 20 present my information in more detail, including more specific descriptions of the sexual activities with the men Epstein sent me to, I could do so. 61. I have directed my attorneys, Bradley J. Edwards and Paul a Cassell, to pursue all reasonable and legitimate means to have criminal charges brought against these powerful people for the crimes they have committed against me and other girls. They are representing me in this case pro bono. 62. Since I filed my motion in this case, my credibility has been attacked. I am telling the truth and will not let these attacks prevent me from exposing the truth of how I was trafficked for sex to many powerful. people. These powerful people seem to think that they don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else. That is wrong. I hope that by coming forward, I can help expose the problem of sex trafficking and prevent the same sort of abuse and degradation that happened to me from happening to other girls. 63. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this ig t;iday of January, 2015. (Location of signature left undisclosed for security reasons) 14 EFTA00188803

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD DoLmet 01/21/2015 Page 16 of 20 EXHIBIT 1 EFTA00188804

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Do,...et 01/21/2015 Page 17 of 20 U.S, Dcpstninent of justice United Stales Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Reach, FL 33401 (56!) 82047/! rocssmile: (561)820-8777 September 3, 2008 NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM NOTICE: IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 3509(d) AND FLORIDA LAW, THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED EXCEPT IN CONNECTION WITH A LEGAL PROCEEDING. EFTA00188805

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD 01/21/2015 Page 18 of 20 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 3340/ (561) 820.8711 Facsimile.• (361) 820-8777 September 3, 2008 VIA COURIER Re: Jeffrey Epstein/ NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM Dear 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. On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstein) entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida Statutes Sections 796.07 (felony solicitation of prostitution) and 796.03 (procurement of minors to engage in prostitution). in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case Nos. 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB and 2008-cf- 009381AX:7O(MB) and was sentenced to a term of twelve months' imprisonment to be followed by an additional six months' imprisonment, followed by twelve months of Community Control 1, with conditions of community confinement imposed by the Court. In light of the entry of the guilty plea and sentence, the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence, subject to certain conditions, including the following: 1. An independent Special Master was assigned the task of selecting an attorney representative to represent the victims, including you, in connection with civil actions between the victims and Mr. Epstein. The EFTA00188806

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on F LSD Do.. .et 01/21/2015 Page 19 of 20 • NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 3 Special Master selected Robert Josefsberg, Esq. of the firm Podhurst Orseck, P.A., a highly-respected and experienced attorney. You are not obligated to use Mr. Josefsberg as your civil attorney, but, as explained in greater detail below, Mr. Josefsberg's services will be provided at no cost to you because Mr. Epstein is obligated to pay the costs and fees of the attorney-representative. Also, Mr. Epstein and his attorneys can only contact you via Mr. Josefsberg, assuming that you would like Mr. Josefsberg to serve as your attorney. 2. If you elect to file suit against Mr. Epstein pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, Mr. Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Mr. Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between you and Mr. Epstein, so long as you elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and you waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, Epstein's agreement with the United States, his waivers and failure to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 3. As stated above, Mr. Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, if after consideration of potential settlements, you and Mr. Josefsberg elect to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 or you elect to pursue any other contested remedy, the obligation to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in Section 2255, shall cease. Please contact either myself at or Justice Department Victim-Witness Specialist Twi ler Smith at with a good telephone number and/or e-mail address, so that we may provide Mr. Josefsberg with a timely means of communicating with you. If you would like to contact Mr. Josefsberg EFTA00188807