Memorandum Subject Jane Does Nos. 1 and 2. v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-C1V-MARRA (S.D.Fla.) Dam April 26, 2011 To From Assistant Counsel Office of Professional Responsibility U.S. Department of Justice VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS ,AUSA 99 N.E. 4 Street Miami, Florida 33132 Attached please fmd a CD-ROM containing the victims' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (unredacted), and a complete set of exhibits, including the e-mails in Exhibit A. The e-mails in Exhibit A are between Epstein's defense attorney and AUSA Villafalta. They were produced in civil litigation between Epstein and some of his victims. Epstein's attorneys redacted their side of the e-mail transmission. I will attempt to obtain a complete set, which includes the transmission from Epstein's attorneys. If you have any questions, please call me Thank you. al= Enclosure EFTA00229916

Case 9:08-cv-8073§-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CW-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES COME NOW Jane Doe HI and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for a finding from this Court that the victims' rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, have been violated by the U.S. Attorney's Office, and to request a hearing on the appropriate remedies for these violations. The victims have proffered a series of facts to the Government, which they have ailed to contest. Proceeding on the basis of these facts,' it is clear that the U.S. Attorney's Office has repeatedly violated the victims' protected CVRA rights, including their right to confer with prosecutors generally about the case and specifically about a non-prosecution agreement the Office signed with the defendant, as well as their right to fair treatment. See 18 U.S.C. 3771(8)(5) & (8). It is now beyond dispute, for example, that in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his I The victims are contemporaneously filing a motion to have their facts accepted by the Court EFTA00229917

JSMiGi:T - ----- --------- twwwer n-7 ----- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 42 prosecution for numerous federal sex offenses he committed against the victims (as well as against many other minor girls). Rather than confer with the victims about this non-prosecution agreement, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein agreed to a "confidentiality" provision in the agreement barring its disclosure to anyone — including the victims. For the next nine months, as Epstein was well aware, the U.S. Attorney's Office assiduously concealed from the victims the existence of this signed non-prosecution agreement. Indeed, the Office went so far as to send (in January 2008) a false victim notification letter to the victims informing them • that the "case is currently under investigation." In fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office had already resolved the case three months earlier by signing the non-prosecution agreement. Again on May 30, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent yet another victim notification letter to a recognized victim informing her that the "case is currently under investigation" and that it "can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Then in June 2008, on the eve of consummating Epstein's state guilty plea that was pait of the non-prosecution agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office asked legal counsel for the victims to send a letter expressing the victims' views on why federal charges should be filed — not disclosing to the victims' legal counsel that this was a pointless exercise because the non- prosecution agreement had already been signed some nine months earlier. These actions and many more like them constitute clear violations of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act, including the right to confer with prosecutors and the right to fair treament The only argument that the U.S. Attorney's Office advances is that the CVRA does not apply because no indictment was formally filed in this case. But this position is inconsistent with both the CVRA's plain language, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2 EFTA00229918

I ' -• ,,,,,,, - ,,,, , . Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 42 3771(c)(I) (Justice Department agencies involved in the "detection" and "investigation" of federal crimes covered by CVRA), and with persuasive case law, see, e.g.( ht re Dean, 5 7 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008) (victims should have been notified before pre-indicts-Cali ea reached). Moreover, the U.S. Attorney's Office itself was fully aware of its obligations to notify the victims in this case, as e-mails from the Office and other evidence make perfectly clear. The only reason that the Office concealed the existence of the non-prosecution agreement from the victims was not to comply with some legal restriction, but rather to avoid a firestorm of public controversy that would have erupted if the sweetheart plea deal with a politically-connected billionaire had been revealed. The Court phould accordingly find that the U.S. Attorney's Office — in coordination with Jeffrey Epstein — has violated the Act and set a briefing schedule and hearing on the proper remedy for those violations. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 offer the following statement of undisputed material facts. if the Government disputes any of these facts, the victims request an evidentiary hearing to prove each and every one of them:2 1. Between about 2001 and 2007, defendant Jeffrey Epstein (a billionaire with significant political connections) sexually abused more than 30 minor girls at his mansion in West Palm 2 The Court should accept ell these facts as true for reasons the victims explain in their contemporaneously-filed Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of The Facts. The Court should also direct the Government to produce all evidence that it possesses supporting these facts, for reasons the victims explain in their contemporaneously-filed Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence. 3 O EFTA00229919

Case 9:O8-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 42 Beach, Florida, and elsewhere. Among the girls he sexually abused were Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. Epstein performed repeated lewd, lascivious, and sexual acts on them, including (but not limited to) masturbation, touching of their sexual organs, using vibrators or sexual toys on them, coercing them into sexual acts, and digitally penetrating them. Because Epstein used a means of interstate commerce and knowingly traveled in interstate commerce to engage in abuse of Jane Doc #1 and Jane Doe #2 (and the other victims), he committed violations of federal law, including repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. See. e.g., Complaint, E.W. v. Epstein, Case No. 50 2008 CA 028058 XXXXMB AB (15th Cir. Palm Beach County, Florida); Complaint, L.M. v. Epstein, Case No 50 2008 CA 028051 MOCK1v1B AB (15th Cir. Palm Beach Count, Florida). 2. Jeffrey Epstein flew at least one underage girl on his private jet for the purpose of forcing her to have sex with him and others. Epstein forced this underage girl to be sexually exploited by his adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, businessmen, and professional and personal acquaintances. Complaint, Jane Doe No. 102 v. Epstein, No. 9:09-CV-80656- KAM (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2009). 3. In 2006, at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation opened an investigation into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein and his personal assistants had used facilities of interstate commerce to induce young girls between the ages of thirteen and seventeen to engage in prostitution, among other offenses. The case was presented to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which accepted the case for investigation. The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office was also investigating 4 EFTA00229920

rann97,""-^ Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 5 of 42 the case. See generally U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "A" to this filing (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates page number stamp). 4. The F131 soon determined that both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were victims of sexual assaults by Epstein while they were minors beginning when they were approximately fourteen years of age and approximately thirteen years of age respectively. Jane Doe #1, for example, provided detailed information about her abuse (and the abuse of Jane Doe #2) to the FBI on August 7, 2007. Exhibit "B." 5. More generally, the FBI through diligent investigation established that Epstein operated a large criminal enterprise that used paid employees and underlings to repeatedly find and bring minor girls to him. Epstein worked in concert as part of the enterprise with others, including Obislane Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel, to obtain minor girls not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others. The FBI determined that Epstein had committed dozens and dozens of federal sex crimes against dozens of minor girls between 2001 and 2007. They presented information to the U.S. Attorney's Office for criminal prosecution, See Exhibit "B"; U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 47-55. 6. On about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe #1 a standard CVRA victim notification letter. The notification promised that the Justice Department would makes its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe #1's rights, including "(t)he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving . . . plea ." The notification further explained that "(a)t this lime, your case is under investigation." That notification meant that the FBI had identified Jane Doe #1 as a victim of a federal offense and as someone protected by the CVRA. Jane Doe #1 5 EFTA00229921

Case 9:08-cw8O736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 42 relied on these representations and believed that the Justice Department would protect these rights and keep her informed about the progress of her case. See Exhibit "C." 7. On about August 11, 2007, Jane Doe #2 received a standard CVRA victim notification letter. The notification promised that the Justice Department would makes its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe #2's rights, including "Mlle reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving .. . plea ... ." The notification further explained that "[alt this time, your case is under investigation." That notification meant that the FBI had identified Jane Doe #2 as a victim of a federal offense and as someone protected by the CVRA. Jane Doe #2 relied on these representations and believed that the Justice Department would protect these rights and keep her informed about the progress of her case. See Exhibit "D." 8. Early in the investigation, the FBI agents and an Assistant U.S. Attorney had several meetings with Jane Doe #1. Jane Doe #2 was represented by counsel that was paid for by the criminal target Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. 9. In and around September 2007. plea discussions took place between Jeffrey Epstein, represented by numerous attorneys (including lead criminal defense counsel Jay Leflcowitz), and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneyed others. The plea discussions generally began from the premise that Epstein would plead guilty to at least one federal felony offense surrounding his sexual assaults of more than 30 minor girls. From there, the numerous defense attorneys progressively negotiated more favorable terms so that Epstein would ultimately plead to only two state court 6 EFTA00229922

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 7 of 42 felony offenses and would serve only county jail time. Many of the negotiations are reflected in e-mails between Leflcowitz and the U.S. Attorney's Office. See generally Exhibit "A." 10. The evidence supporting these charges was overwhelming, including the interlocking consistent testimony of several dozen minor girls, all made automatically admissible in a federal criminal sexual assault prosecution by operation of Fed. R. Evid. 414. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 4. 12. The correspondence also shows that the U.S. Attorney's Office was interested in finding a place to conclude a plea bargain that would effectively keep the victims from learning what was happening through the press. The Office wrote in an e-mail to defense counsel: am The 7 EFTA00229923

• Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 8 of 42 U.S. Attorney's Office was aware that most of the victims of Epstein, including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe 412, resided well outside the Miami area in the West Palm Beach area. The Office was also aware that the chances of press coverage of a case filed in Miami would be significantly less likely to reach th&Palm Beach area. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 29. 13. On about September 24, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, regarding the agreement. The e-mail stated that the Government and Epstein's counsel U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 153 (emphases added). 14. On about September 25, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an email to Lefkowitz stain . SIMIMMISIO U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 156. 15. On about September 26, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz in which she stated• arnale EFTA00229924

Case 9:O8-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 9 of 42 Apparently the ' greed to between the Government and Epstein's defense counsel was that no mention would be made of the non-prosecution agreement between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein, as no subsequent mention was made to the victims of the non-prosecution agreement and a confidentiality provision was made part of that agreement (as discussed below). U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 359. 16. On about September 25, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a letter to Jay Jeflcowitt in which it suggested that the victims should be represented in civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 157. The U.S. Attorney's Office continued to push a different attorney in part because it would reduce publicity, explaining that Id. 17. On about September 24, 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office formally reached an agreement whereby the United States would defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office accordingly entered into a "Non-Prosecution Agreement" (NPA) reflecting their agreement. Most significantly, the NPA gave Epstein a promise that he would not be prosecuted for a series of federal felony offenses involving his sexual abuse of more than 30 minor girls. The NPA instead allowed Epstein to plead guilty to two state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and 9 EFTA00229925

1 ,:fritCel Case 9:O8-cv-807364CAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 10 of 42 procurement of minors for prostitution. The NPA also set up a procedure whereby a victim of Epstein's sexual abuse could obtain an attorney to proceed with a civil claim against Epstein, provided that the victim agreed to limit damages sought from Epstein. To obtain an attorney paid for by Epstein, the victim would have to agree to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (i.e., under a law that provided presumed damages of $150,000 against Epstein — an amount that Epstein argued later was limited to $50,000). The agreement was signed by Epstein and his legal counsel, as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office, on about September 24, 2007. Non- Prosecution Agreement, Exhibit "E" IS. Epstein insisted on, and the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to, a provision in the non- prosecution agreement that made the agreement secret. In particular, the agreement stated: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making the disclosure." By entering into such a confidentiality agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office put itself in a position that conferring with the crime victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement would violate terms of the agreement — specifically the confidentiality provision. Indeed, even notifying the victims about the agreement would presumably have violated the provision. Accordingly, from September 24, 2007 through at least June 2008 — a period of more than nine months the U.S Attorney's Office did not notify any of the victims of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. Epstein was well aware of this failure to notify the victims and, indeed, arranged for this failure to notify the victims. Id.; U.S. 10 EFTA00229926

---- tr", '".•49' Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 11 of 42 Attorney's Correspondence at 270; Transcript of Hearing in this case on July 11, 2008, at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29 (hereinafter cited as 'Tr, July 11, 2008"). 19. A reasonable inference from the evidence is that the U.S. Attorney's Office — pushed by Epstein — wanted the non-prosecution agreement kept from public view because of the intense publio criticism that would have resulted from allowing a politically-connected billionaire who had sexually abused more than 30 minor girls to escape from federal prosecution with only a county court jail sentence. Another reasonable inference is that the Office wanted the agreement concealed at this time because of the possibility that the victims could have objected to the agreement in court and perhaps convinced the judge reviewing the agreement not to accept it. 20. The Non-Prosecution Agreement that had been entered into between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein was subsequently modified by an October 2007 Addendum and a December 19, 2007, letter from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez. The US. Attorney's Office did not confer with any of the victims about these modifiCations of the agreement (or even notify them of the existence of these modifications) through at least June 2008 — a period of more than six months. See Supplemental Declaration ofl=== (doe. #35, at 1); U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 234-37; Tr. July 11, 2008, 18-19, 22-23, 28- 29.3 21. In October 2007, shortly after the initial plea agreement was signed, FBI agents contacted Jane Doe 01. On October 26, 2007, Special AgentMIMMI and n et in person with Jane Doe 01. The Special Agents explained that Epstein would 3 On about August 14, 2008, Epstein's defense counsel told the U.S. Attorney's Office that they did not consider the December 19, 2007, letter to be operative. 11 EFTA00229927

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 12 of 42 plead guilty to state charges involving another victim, he would be required to register as a sex offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims, including Jane Doe #1. During this meeting, the Special Agents did not explain that an agreement had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal charges against Jane Doe #1. The agents could not have revealed this part of the non-prosecution agreement without violating the terms of the non-prosecution agreement. Whether the agents themselves had been informed of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement by the U.S. Attorney's Office is not certain. Because the plea agreement had already been reached with Epstein, the agents made no attempt to secure Jane Doe #1's view on the proposed resolution of the case. Exhibit "E," Tr. July 11, 2008 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23. 22. Jane Doe #1's (quite reasonable) understanding of the Special Agent's explanation was that only the State part of the Epstein investigation had been resolved, and that the federal investigation would continue, possibly leading to a federal prosecution. Jane Doe #1 also understood her own case was move forward towards possible prosecution. Tr. July 11, 2008, at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29. 23. On about November 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. AttorneMM sent an e-mail to Jay Leikowitz, defense counsel for Epstein. The e-mail stated that the U.S. Attorney's Office had an obligation to notify the victims S 12 EFTA00229928

7.7 . . ...•" Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 13 of 42 U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 255 (emphasis rearranged). 24. On about November 29, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a draft of a crime victim notification letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The notification letter would have explained: The :etter wo..ild have gone un to explain that Epstein would The letter would not have explained that, as part of the agreement with Epstein, the Justice Department had previously agreed not to prosecute Epstein for any of the numerous federal offenses that had been committed. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 256-59. 25. Because of concerns from Epstein's attorneys, the U.S. Attorney's Office never sent the proposed victim notification letter discussed in the previous paragraph to the victims. Instead, a misleading letter stating that the case was "currently under investigation" (described below) was sent in January 2008 and May 2008. At no time before reaching the non-prosecution agreement did the Justice Department notify any victims, including for example Jane Doe NI, about the non-prosecution agreement. The victims were therefore prevented from exercising their CVRA right to confer with prosecutors about the case and about the agreement. Epstein 13 EFTA00229929

f'"'",%7 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 14 of 42 was aware of these violations of the CVRA and, indeed, pressured the U.S. Attorney's Office to commit those violations. Tr. July 11, 2008, at 9. 26. On about December 6, 2007, First Assistant U.S. Attorney sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, noting the U.S. Attorney's Office's legal obligations to keep victims informed of the lliMin The letter stated: U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 191-92 (emphasis added). 27. Despite this recognition of its obligation to keep victims about the non-prosecution agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not follow through and inform the victims of the non-prosecution agreement. To the contrary, as discussed below, it continued to tell the victims that the case was "under investigation." Tr. July I I, 2008, at 4.5, 18-19, 22-29. 28. On December 13, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein, rebutting allegations that had apparently been made aguinst the 14 EFTA00229930

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 15 of 42 AUSA handling the cave by the Epstein defense team. (The Justice Department concluded the allegations were ineritless.) The letter stated that a federal indictment against Epstein a t The letter also recounted that U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 269. 29. The December 13, 2007, letter also reveals that the Justice Department stopped making victim notifications because of U.S. Attorney's Conespondence at 270 (emphasis added). It was a deviation from the Justice Department's standard practice to negotiate with defense counsel about the extent of crime victim notifications. 30. The December 13, 2007, letter also demonstrates that the Justice Department was well aware of who the victims of Epstein's sexual offenses were. The Justice Department was prepared to make notifications to the victims, but suspended those notifications only because objections from defense counsel. Id 31. The December 13, 2007, letter reveals it would have been possible to confer with the victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The U.S. Attorney's Office was fully able to 15 EFTA00229931

. Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21'2011 Page 16 of 42 confer with Epstein's counsel about the parameters of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, but refused to confer with Epstein's victims about the Agreement. Id 32. Following the signing of the Agreement and the modifications thereto, Epetein's performance was delayed while he sought higher level review within the Department oflustice. See U.S. Attorney's Correspondence passim. A reasonable inference from the evidence is that Epstein used his significant political and social connections to lobby the Justice Department to avoid significant federal prosecution. The Justice Department has in its possession internal documents (i.e., phone logs, ernails, etc.) that would reveal the event of those lobbying efforts. The Justice Department, however, has refused to make these materials available to the victims. 33. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI advising them that "ftlids case is currently under• investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Exhibits "F" & "G." The statement in the notification letter was misleading and, in fact, false. The case was not currently "under investigation." To the contrary, the federal cases involving Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 had been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously. Moreover, the FBI did not notify Jane Doe • #1 or Jane Doe #2 that a plea agreement had been reached previously, and that part of the agreement was a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Exhibit "E." Whether the FBI was aware of this fact at this time is unclear. In any event, the FBI was acting at the direction of the U.S. Attorney's Office, which clearly did not confer with Jane Doe 41 and Jane Doe #2 about the case and, by concealing the true state of affairs, and failed to treat Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 with fairness. Epstein was aware of 16 EFTA00229932

e Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 17 of 42 these actions of the U.S. Attorney's Office and, indeed, solicited these actions of the U.S. Attorney's Office. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 191-92, 270, 34. Jane Doe it and Jane Doe #2 relied on the representations of the U.S. Attorney's Office to their detriment Had they known the true facts of the case — i.e., that Epstein had negotiated a non-prosecution agreement — they would have taken steps to object to that agreement. It. July 11, 2008 at 4-6, 18-19, 28-29. 35. Undersigned counsel believes that the FBI was lead to believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to lead to a federal criminal prosecution and that the FBI was also mislead by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. 36. In early 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe 02 believed that criminal prosecution of Epstein was extremely important. They also desired to be consulted by the FBI and/or other representatives of the federal government about the prosecution of Epstein. In light of the letters that they had received around January 10, they believed that a criminal investigation of Epstein was on-going — including investigation into Epstein's crimes against them and that they would be contacted before the federal government reached any final resolution of that investigation. Tr. July 11, 2008, at 4.6,18-19, 22-23, 28-29. 37. On January 31, 2008, Jane Doe fi I met with FBI Agents and AUSA's from the U.S. Attorney's Office. She provided additional details of Epstein's sexual abuse of her. The AUSA's did not disclose to Jane Doe #1 at this meeting (or any other meeting) that they had already negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Exhibit "H." 38. On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attornei l. sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, Epstein's criminal defense counsel, explaining that the Justice Department's Child 17 EFTA00229933

3 2.7971"..r.w/ • Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 18 of 42 Exploitation Obscenity Section (CEOS) had agreed to review Epstein's objections to the proposed plea agreement that had been reached with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The letter indicated that, should CEOS reject Epstein's objections to the agreement, then U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 39. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that "Mk case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while wo conduct a thorough investigation." Exhibit "1." The statement in the notification letter was misleading and, in fact, false. The case was not currently "under investigation." To the contrary, the case had been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously. Exhibit t." 40. In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted the AUSA handling the case to inform her that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. Mr. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. The AUSA and Mr. Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed. At the end of the call, the AUSA asked Mr. Edwards to send any information that he wanted considered by the U.S. Attorney's Office in determining whether to file federal charges. Because of the confidentiality provision that existed in the plea agreement, Mr. Edwards was not informed that previously, in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had reached an agreement not to file federal charges. Mr. Edwards was 18 EFTA00229934

-7. 74.7: - -------- I Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 19 of 42 also not informed that resolution of the criminal matter was imminent. This concealment prevented Edwards from (among other things) exercising his client's CVRA right to confer with the prosecutors about the case. Epstein was aware of this concealment — and, indeed, sought this concealment Tr. July 11.2008, at 4-6, 13.19, 22-23, 28-29. 41. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., the U.S. Attorney's Office received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., on Monday, June 30, 2008. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the Palm Beach Police Department attempted to provide notification to victims in the short time that Epstein's counsel had provided. The U.S. Attorney's Office called attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. The notice, however, was only that Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving another victim. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not tell Edwards that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to. the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement. Thus, there was no reason for attorney Edwards to believe that the guilty pleas in state court had any bearing on the cases of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. As a result, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 did not attend the plea hearing, as they did not think that it was pertinent to their particular cases. Had they known that the plea agreement made it impossible to prosecute Epstein federally for• his crimes against them, they would have objected to this resolution. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 thus detrimentally relied on the inaccurate representations of the U.S. Attorney's Office that their cases were still under investigation. Tr. July I I, 2008 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23. 42. On June 30, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Jack Goldberger, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, reflecting continuing efforts to keep the NM secret:' 19 EFTA00229935

7: Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 20 of 42 U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 321. 43. On July 3, 2008, as requested, Mr. Edwards sent to the U.S. Attorney's Office a letter. In the letter, Mr. Edwards indicated his client's desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his clients: "We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this very dangerous sexual predator." See Exhibit "J." 44. When Mr. Edwards wrote his July 3, 2008 letter, he was still unaware that a non- prosecution agreement had been reached with Epstein — a fact that continued to be concealed from him (and the victims) by the U.S. Attorney's Office. Mr. Edwards first saw a reference to the NM on or after July 9, 2008, when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition. That pleading was the first public mention of the non-prosecution agreement and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards (and thus to Jane Due #1 and Jane Doe #2) of the possible existence of a non-prosecution agreement. Tr. July 11, 2008 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29. 45. Mr. Edwards detrimentally relied on the misleading representations made by the U.S. Attorney's Office that the case was still under investigation when he was writing this letter. He would not have wasted his time undertaking a pointless exercise had he known that the U.S. 20 EFTA00229936

•. r"vdrArre Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 21 of 42 Attorney's Office had previously negotiated a non-prosecution agreement See Exhibits "E" & 46. On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe #1 filed a petition for enforcement of her rights under the CVRA. At the time, Jane Doe #1 was not aware of the non-prosecution agreement, so she sought a court order directing the Justice Department to confer with her before reaching any such agreement. Epstein quickly became aware of this petition. Doc. #1 at 1-2. 47. On July 9, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a victim notification to Jane Doe #1 via her attorney, Bradley Edwards. That notification contains a written explanation of some of the terms of the agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office. A full copy of the terms was not provided. A notification was not provided to Jane Doe 42 because the agreement limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. As a result, Jane Doe #2 never received a notification letter about the agreement The notification did not mention the non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office. Exhibits "E" & "IC" 48. The notification that the U.S. Attorney's Office sent to Jane Doe #1 and other victims contained false and inaccurate information about the terms of the non-prosecution agreement. 'rho false information was specifically approved by Epstein's attorneys. Supplemental Declaration ofM . Dec. 22, 2008, doc. #35 at 2-3. 49. On July 11, 2008, the Court held a hearing on Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Rights. During the hearing, the Government conceded that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were "victims" within the meaning of the Crime Victim's 21 EFTA00229937

' •• - 77:TC" --------- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 22 of 42 Rights Act. Epstein was aware of these and subsequent proceedings involving the CVRA. Tr. July 11 , 2008, at 14-15. 50. During the July I I, 2008 hearing, the Government conceded that its agreement had been conoluded months before the victims were notified about it. See id et 12 C'. . . the agreement was consummated by the parties in December of 2007."). 51. At all times material to this statement of facts, it would have been practical and feasible for the federal government to inform Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 of the details of the proposed non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, including in particular the fact that the agreement barred any federal criminal prosecution. See U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at I91- 92. 52. One of the senior prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability — and improperly represented people close to Epstein. During the federal investigation of Epstein, was a senior Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. WittCtmontlas_afte,r_thr min-prosecution agreement-was-signed, ft the Office and immediately went into private practice as a "white collar" criminal defense attorney. His office coincidentally happened to be not only in the same building (and on the same floor) as Epstein's lead criminal defense counsel, Jack Goldberger, but it was actually located right next door to the Florida Science Foundation — an Epstein-owned and -run company where Epstein spent his "work release." See http://www.brucereinhartlaw.corn. 53. While working in this Office adjacent to Epstein's, undertook the representation of numerous Epstein employees and pilots during the civil cases filed against 22 EFTA00229938

1 rlIVX•VeHlet.,.. • rf•r" • • 1 (W•Tris- - Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 23 of 42 Epstein by the victims — cases the involved the exact same crimes and same evidence being reviewed by the U.S. Attorney's office when he was employed there. Specifically, he represented SEMEpstain's number one co-conspirator who was actually named as such in the NPA), his housekeeper (Louel la Ruboyo), his pilots Larry Morrison, Larry Visoski, David Rogers, William Hammond and Robert Roxburgh, (Hammond and Roxburgh were not deposed, but the others were.) See depositions of these individuals in various Epstein civil cases. On information and belief, Reinhart's representation of these individuals was paid, directly or indirectly, by Epstein. Such representations are in contravention of Justice Department regulations and Florida bar rules. Such representations also give, at least, the improper appearance that Reinhart may have attempted to curry with Epstein and then reap his reward through favorable employment. LEGAL MEMORANDUM The victims have previously briefed the issues of why they are entitled to entry of an order by this Court finding that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated their rights under the CVRA. See doc. #1; doc #9 at 3-11; doc. #19 at 3-9, 14. The victims specifically incorporate those pleadings by reference here. In short, as explained in the victims' earlier pleadings, the Office violated the victims' right to wafer b;fossuesohins die_nanfrosecutionaent and also failed to use its best efforts to comply with the CVRA. The victims now provide additional briefing on two issues: (1) the CVRA applies to Jane Doe #1 end Jane Doe #2 even though no indictment was filed in their case; and (2) the Court should find that the government has clearly violated the CVRA in this case and set up a briefing schedule and hearing on the appropriate remedy. 23 EFTA00229939

• "<".z?<:."'' r''""tr' Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 24 of 42 I. THE CVRA PROTECTS JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2 EVEN THOUGH THIS CASE WAS RESOLVED BY A NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT RATHER TTIAN INDICTMENT. In this litigation, the Government is apparently taking the position that the Crime Victims' Rights Act does not extend tights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 because no indictment was ever filed in federal court and thus no federal court proceedings were ever held. This crabbed litigation position about thehreadth of the CVRA cannot be sustained. Indeed, neither the FBI nor the U.S. Attorney's Office itself took this position during the Epstein investigation — until the victims in this case filed their petition requesting enforcement of their rights. Instead, both the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office recognized that because the U.S. Attorney's Office was negotiating a non-prosecution agreement that affected the rights of specifically identified victims, the CVRA was applicable. The Court should reject the Government's newly-contrived position. A. The Plain Language of the CVRA Makes Clear that Victims Have Rights Before an Indictment is Filed. The CVRA promises crime victims that they will have various rights, including Itlhe reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case," 18 U.S.C. § 377I(aX5) (emphasis added), and "the right to be treated with fairness," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8).. In earlier pleadings filed in this action, the Government has tried to narrowly construe the CVRA so that it applies only to a "court proceeding." See Gov't Response to Victim's Emergency Petition (doe. #13) at 1-2. The Government's position contravenes the plain language of the CVRA. The CVRA guarantees to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 the right to confer with prosecutors "in the case," 24 EFTA00229940

I --- "r"-- Case 0:08-Cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 25 of 42 not in a "court proceeding." And the CVRA broadly extends a right to them "to be treated with fairness" a right that is not circumscribed to just court proceedings. Indeed, the fact that (as the Government notes) the drafters of the CVRA used the term "court proceeding" elsewhere in the statute (i.e., 18 U.S.C. § 377 l(a)(2) (victim's right to notice "of any public court proceeding")) makes it obvious that they intended to give victims a right to confer that extended beyond simple court proceedings — that is, the right to confer about "the case" — as well as a broad right to be treated fairly throughout the process. Moreover, it is patently obvious that a criminal "case" against Epstein had been going on for months before the victims learned about the non-proseoution agreement. As recounted in the statement of facts above, both the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida had opened a "case" involving Epstein's sexual abuse of the victims well before they entered into plea negotiations with Epstein. Indeed, as early as June 7, 2007 — more than three months before they concluded the NM with Epstein — the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a notice to Jane Doe NI stating "your care is under investigation." See Exhibit "C" (emphasis added). •The notice went on to tell Jane Doe #1 that "as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, you have a number of rights." Id. at 1. Among the rights that the U.S. Attorney's Office itself told Jane Doe that she possessed was "[t]he right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case." Of course, she would not have had those rights if she was not covered by the CVRA. Interestingly, the letter also advised Jane Doe #1 that "if you believe that the rights set forth above [e.g.. the right to confer and other CVRA rights] are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for relief." M at 1. 25 EFTA00229941

Case 9:0&cv-80736•KAtvl Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011' Page 26 of 42 The plain language of the CVRA makes clear that crime victims have righeeven before A the filing of any indictment. The CVRA's instnictsthat crime victims who seeks to assert rights in pre-indictment situations should proceed in the court where the crime was committed: wile rights described in subsection (a) [of the CVRA] shall be asserted in the district in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, V no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (emphasis added). The victims have relied on this language through their pleadings, but the Government has not offered any response. The CVRA also directs that "[Officers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, Investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that erime_victimmare notified of, and accorded, the rights described in [the CVRAJ." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(cX1) (emphasis added). Of course, there would be no reason to direct that agencies involved in the "detection" and "investigation" of crime have CVRA obligations if the Government's construction of the Act were correct. Plainly, Congress envisioned the victims' rights law applying during the "detection" and "investigation" phases of criminal cases. For all these reasons, the Court need look no further than the language of the CVRA to conclude that the victims in this case had protected rights under the Act. B. Other Courts Have Recognized That Crime Victims Have Rights Before An Indictment is Filed. In its briefing to date, the Government has yet to cite a single case that has accepted its sweeping position that the CVRA only extends rights to victims after the formal filing of an 26 EFTA00229942

fr?X"',./Z • Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 27 of 42 indictment. This is because the case law all cuts the opposite way and recognizes that the CVRA does protect victims during the investigation of federal criminal cases. In a case remarkably similar to this one, the Fifth Circuit has held that victims have a right to confer with federal prosecutors even before any charges are filed, In In re Dean, 527 P.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008), a wealthy corporate defendant reached a generous plea deal with the Government — a deal that the Government concluded and filed for approval with the district court without conferring with the victims. When challenged on a mandamus petition by the victims, the Fifth Circuit held: The district court acknowledged that "Where are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway." BP Prods., 2008 WL 501321 at '11, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEX1S 12893, at 836. Logically, this includes the CVRA's establishment of victims' "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX5). At least in the posture of this case (and we do not speculate on the applicability to other situations), the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of a plea bargain. Id. As we understand the Government's attempt to distinguish Dean, it asks this Court to decline to follow the Fifth Circuit's holding antiseSELsatsfstkritv o.n_this important issue. See Gov't Response to Emergency Petn. at 2-3. Instead, the Government would have this Court deviate from the Fifth Circuit's well-reasoned opinion because the Circuit's "discussion of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue mandamus relief." Gov't Response at 2 (citing Dean, 527 F.3d at 395). This is simply untrue. The Fifth Circuit faced a petition for mandamus relief from the victims in that case, asking the 27 EFTA00229943

- 7,- 1 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAKI Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 28 of 42 Court to reject a proposed "binding" plea agreement negotiated under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(IXC) (i.e., a plea agreement obligating the judge to impose a specific sentence). The victims asked for that relief because of the Government's failure to confer with them before the charges and accompanying plea agreement were filed. The Fifth Circuit held that the victims' rights had been violated in the passages quoted above. It then went on to remand the matter to district court for further consideration of the effect of the violations of the victims' rights: We are confident, however, that the conscientious district court will tbily consider the victims' objections and concerns in deciding whether the plea agreement should be accepted. The decision whether to giant mandamus is largely prudential. We conclude that the better course is to deny relief, confident that the district court will take heed that the victims have not been accorded their full rights under the CVRA and will carefully consider their objections and briefs as this matter proceeds. In re Dean, 527 F.3d at 396. Obviously, the Fifth Circuit could not have instructed the District Court to "take heed" of the violations of victims' rights unless it has specifically held, as a matter of law, that the victims' rights had been violated. The Government's next effort to deflect the force of the Fifth Circuit's decision is that the Circuit did not directly quote three words found in the CVRA'a right to confer — the words "in the case." See Gov't Response to Emergency Petn. at 2. But the Fifth Circuit had received briefs totaling close to 100 pages in that case and was obviously well aware of the statute at hand. Indeed, in the very paragraph the Government claims is troublesome, the Filth Circuit cited to the district court opinion under review, which had quoted all the words in the statute. See United States v. BP Products, 2008 WL 501321 at '7 (noting victims right to confer "in the case"), cited in In re Dean, 527 F.3d at 394. 28 EFTA00229944

"<",tv • : I i11;;;;;;;:- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 29 of 42 The Government finally notes that the Fifth Circuit stated that its ruling about the Government violating the right to confer applied "in the posture of this case." In re Dean, 527 F.3d at 394. But the posture of the case involving Epstein here — at least in its relevant aspects — is virtually identical to the posture there. The Fifth Circuit held that the Government had an obligation to confer with the victims before charges were filed and before a final plea arrangement was reached. Without giving the victims a chance to confer before hand, the plea agreement might be fatally flawed because it did not consider the concerns of the victims. Thus, the Fifth Circuit emphasized the need to confer with victims before any disposition was finally decided: "The victims do have reason to believe that their impact on the eventual sentence is substantially less where, as here, their input is received after the parties have reached a tentative deal. As we have explained, that is why we conclude that these victims should have been heard at an earlier stage." Id at 395. The posture in this case is exactly the same — the Government should have conferred before the parties "reached a tentative deal." The fact that the deal reached here is slightly different than the deal reached in the Dean case (a non-prosecution agreement versus a plea agreement) is truly a distinction without a difference. If anything, the facts here cry out for conferral even more than in that case. At least the defendant there agreed to plead guilty to a federal felony. Here, the wealthy defendant has escaped all federal punishment— a plea deal that Jane Doe 01 and Jane Doe 02 would have strenuously objected to . if the Government had given them the chance. The Fifth Circuit's decision in Dean has been cited favorably in two recent District Court decisions, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States v. Rubin, 2008 WL 2358591 (BD.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under 29 EFTA00229945

, , , , , , , • Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 30 of 42 the CVRA. After citing Dean, the District Court agreed that the rights were expansive and could apply before indictment, but subject to the outer limit that the Government be at least "contemplating" charges: Quite understandably, movants perceive their victimization as having begun long befott the government got around to filing the superseding Indictment. They also believe their rights under the CVRA ripened at the moment of actual victimization, or at least at the point when they first contacted the government. Movants rely on a decision from the Southern District of Texas for the notion that CVRA rights apply prior to any prosecution. In United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., the district court reasoned that because § 377I(dX3) provided for the assertion of CVRA rights "in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred," the CVRA clearly provided for "rights ... that apply before any prosecution is underway." (United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., Criminal No. H-07434, 2008 WL 501321 at *11 (S.D.Tex. Feb.21, 2008) (emphasis in original), mandamus denied in part, In re Dean, No. 08-20125, 2008 WL 1960245 (5th Cir. May 7, 2008). But, assuming that it was within the contemplation end intendment of the CVRA to guarantee certain victim's rights prior to formal commencement of a criminal proceeding, the universe of such rights clearly has its logical limits. For example, the realm of cases in which the CVRA might apply despite no prosecution being "underway," cannot be read to include the victims of uncharged crimes that the government has not even contemplatechit is impossible to expect the government, much less a court, to notify crime victims of their rights if the government has not verified to at least an elementary degree that a crime has actually taken place, given that a corresponding investigation is at a nascent or theoretical stage. Id. at *6. Here, of course, the criminal investigation went far beyond the "nascent or theoretical stage" — to a point whore the Government determined that crimes had been committed and that the defendant should plead'guilty to either a state or federal offense. Similarly, at least one other district court has reviewed the issue and agreed with the victims' position that crime victims can have rights before charges are filed. In rejecting an argument that the CVRA should be limited to cases in which a defendant has been convicted, United States v. Okun, explained: "Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit has noted that victims acquire 30 EFTA00229946

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 31 of 42 rights under the CVRA even before prosecution. See In re Dean, 527 F3d 391, 394 (5th Cir.2008). This view is supported by the statutory language, which gives the victims rights before the accepting of plea agreements and, therefore, before adjudication of guilt. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX4)." 2009 WL 790042 at •2 (W.Va. 2009). Accordingly, rather than create a split of authority, this Court should follow the Fifth Circuit's holding in Dean (and the view of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia) and conclude that the CVRA extends rights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 under the facts of this case. C. The U.S. Attorney's OfficeHas Previously Recognized that Jane Doe til and Jane Doe #2 Have Rights tinder the CVRA. A final reason for concluding that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe *2 are protected by the CVRA is that the U.S. Attorney's Office itself reached that conclusion — well before the victims filed this petition. The U.S. Attorney's Office arranged to have the FBI send a notice to, for example, Jane Doe HI informing her that she had lights under the CVRA. Later, in discussions with defendant Epstein, the Office explained to Epstein their obligations to the victims under the CVRA. Indeed, it was only after Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 filed a petition with this Court seeking protection of their rights that the U.S. Attorney's Office reversed its position. The Court should reject this remarkable about-face. As recounted in more detail above, the U.S. Attorney's Office made clear to both the victims and to Epstein that the victims had rights under the CVRA. For example, on about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to June Doe Ul a standard CVRA victim notification letter, promising that the Justice Department would makes its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe #1's 31 EFTA00229947

foyinl::._' --- - Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 32 of 42 rights, including "Nike reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving plea . . . ." Exhibit "C." Similarly, on about November 27, 2007, then First Assistant U.S. Attorney sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein stating: la U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 255 (emphasis rearranged). Apparently, this assertion produced some sort of objection from defendant Epstein. The U.S. Attorney's Office, however, rejected those objections In a letter on about December 6, 2007, First Assistant U.S. Attorney again sent a letter to Jay Leflcowitz, reiterating the U.S. Attorney's Office's legal obligations to keep victims informed of the status of The letter stated: 32 EFTA00229948

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 33 of 42 U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 191-92 (emphasis added). What this correspondence shows is that the U.S. Attorney's Office quite clearly took the position with defendant Epstein that the CVRA extended rights to Epstein's victims. Yet when the victims in this case filed a petition in this Court asking those rights to be respected, the Government simply reversed course. The U.S. Attorney's Office had it right the first time — the CVRA does extend rights to Jane Dot #1 and Jane Doe #2 in this case. D. The U.S. Attorney's Office Is Estopped From Arguing that the CVRA Does Not Apply in this Case. For all the reasons just explained, it is clear that the CVRA applies to this case and the Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 had rights under the Act. In addition, however, the Government is simply stopped from arguing otherwise. The Government told the victims that they had rights under the CVRA and would keep them informed about the progress of the case. Exhibits "Cr "D," "F," & "G." Having made those representations to the victims — and having induced reliance by the victims—the Government is stopped from taking a different position now. As explained by the Eleventh Circuit, to make out a claim of estoppel against the Government, a party must adduce evidence of the following: (I) words, conduct, or acquiescence that induces reliance; (2) willfulness or negligence with regard to the acts, conduct, or acquiescence; (3) detrimental reliance; and (4) affirmative misconduct by the Government. United States v. hicCorkle, 321 F.3d 1292 (111 Cir. 2003). Each of these four factors is easily met here. 33 EFTA00229949

ttlt>1:44./1./.. 7"-- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 34 of 42 First, the Government made statements to the victims that induced reliance. The victims received an official notice on Justice Department letterhead that they were crime victims in the Epstein case and that the Justice Department would use its "best efforts" to protect their rights. Second, these statements were obviously not accidental —to the contrary, the Government specifically and deliberately sent these notices to the victims. Third, the victims detrimentally relied on these statements. As explained at greater length in the victims proposed facts, the victims were lead to believe that their case was "under investigation." As a result, they did not take steps to object to Epstein's plea agreement and, indeed, did not even attend the court hearing where Epstein pled guilty. Similarly, their attorney (Mr. Edwards) was induced to spend an afternoon writing a letter to the U.S Attorney's Office about why Epstein should be federally prosecuted — time that was taken away from other matters at his busy law practice. This was a complete wild goose chase, as the U.S. Attorney's Office was concealing front Mr. Edwards at the time that a federal non-prosecution agreement had already been reached with Epstein. Fourth, the U.S. Attorney's Office engaged in affirmative misconduct We do not make this allegation lightly. But the facts recounted above demonstrate the following chain of events. The U.S. Attorney's Office first reached a non prosecution agreement with Epstein, in which it agreed not to prosecute him for numerous crimes (including, for example, sex offenses committed by Epstein against Jane Doe #1). As part of that agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to a "confidentiality" provision that forbade publicly disclosing the existence of the agreement. As a result, the U.S. Attorney's Office (and FBI agents acting under its 34 EFTA00229950

Of Gratte.•47.tie, Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 35 of 42 direction4) kept the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret from the victims and the public. The reasonable inference from the evidence is that the U.S. Attorney's Office wanted to keep the agreement a secret to avoid intense criticism that would have surely ensued had the victims and the public learned that a billionaire sex offender with political connections had arranged to avoid federal prosecution for numerous felony sex offenses against minor girls. As part of this pattern of deception, the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed victim notification with the defendant sex offender and, after he raised objections, stopped making notifications. Then later in January 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office arranged for letters to be sent to the victims — including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 — that falsely stated that to each that your "case is currently under investigation." This was untrue, as the U.S. Attorney's Office had already resolved the federal case by signing a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Indeed, the pattern of deception continued even after Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were represented by legal counsel. In May 2008, the Office sent a similar letter stating "your case is currently investigation" to another victim (represented by attorney Bradley J. Edwards). As late as the middle of June 2008 — more than eight months after the non-prosecution agreement had been signed — the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the case told Edwards to send information that he wanted the Office to consider in determining whether to file federal charges. The Office concealed from him that it had already made the determination not to file federal charges end that the Office had in fact signed a non•prosecution agreement long ago. The Office also concealed from him the fact that guilty pleas in state court were imminent. The Office disclosed 4 it is unknown whether the U.S. Attorney's Office even made the FBI aware of the NPA in a timely fashion. 35 EFTA00229951

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 36 of 42 the non-prosecution agreement only after Epstein had entered his guilty pleas in state court — in other words, only after the time for the victims to be able to object to the non-prosecution agreement during the plea process had come and gone. Even at that time, the Office did not disclose the provisions in the agreement. In short, the victims never learned about the non- prosecution agreement barring federal prosecution of their oases because of a deliberate decisions by the U.S. Attorney's Office, not mere "negligence or inaction." McCorkle, 321 F.3d at 1297. Accordingly, the Government is stopped from arguing that the Crime Victims' Rights Act does not apply to this case. IL THE COURT SHOULD FIND THAT THE VICTIMS' RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AND TEEN SET TIP A BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING ON THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY. This U.S. Attorney's Office's behavior in this case does not satisfy the Office's obligations under the CVRA to use its "best efforts" to insure that victims receive protection of their rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(cX'). In particular, the undeniable chain of events makes clear that the victims wore not afforded their right "to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX5). Whatever else may be said about the deception, it also starkly violates the victims' right "to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity . ..." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). The pattern also denied the victims of timely notice of court proceedings, 18 U.S.C. §3771(a)(3), including in particular the state court guilty plea. As we understand the position of the Government, it does not truly contest that — if the CVRA applied — it managed to discharge its various obligations under the Act. Instead, the Government relies solely on a technical argument to reach the conclusion that it discharged its obligations — namely, the argument that the CVRA does not apply until a foimal indictment is 36 EFTA00229952

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 37 of 42 filed. As just explained, however, that technical argument must be rejected as inconsistent with the CVRA's plain language and interpretation by other courts. Accordingly, this Court should find that the Government has violated its CVRA obligations. Once the Court finds such a violation, the next issue becomes what remedy should apply. Since the earliest days of our nation, it has been settled law that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . .." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, "[i]f the right is created by a federal statute, the federal courts have the power to fashion an appropriate remedy." Intracoastal Tranrp., Inc. v. Decatur County, Georgia 482 F.2d 361, 371 (5d1 Cir. 1973). As we understand the Government's position in this case, however, they believe that this Scottie_ owerless-to-do-anything to rorrect_ths._. palpable violation of victims' rights documented in this case. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 respectfblly request that the Court set up a briefing schedule and a hearing on this important issue. The victims believe that they can establish that the appropriate remedy for the clear violations of their rights is to invalidate the Non-Prosecution Agreement. While the victims request an opportunity to provide more extensive briefing on this subject, they provide a few citations in support of their position here. When other plea arrangements have been negotiated in violation of federal law, they have been stricken by the courts. For example, United States v. Walker, 98 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 1996), held that where a sentence on a new crime could not run concurrently with a probation revocation the defendant was then serving — contrary to the assumption of the parties to the plea agreement — the defendant was not entitled to specific performance of the plea agreement. The Court explained that the case was one "in which the bargain is vitiated by illegality . ..." /d. at 37 EFTA00229953

• rile. - : ---- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 38 of 42 947. Here, of course, exactly the same is true: the non-prosecution agreement is vitiated by illegality — namely, the fad that it was negotiated in violation of the victims' rights. Other cases reach similar conclusions. See, e.g., United States v. Cooper, 70 F.3d 563, 567 (10°' Cir. 1995) (prosecutor agreed to recommend probation, but it later appeared that would be an illegal sentence in this case, and thus only adequate remedy is to allow defendant to withdraw plea); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60 (Cob. 1999) (because "neither the prosecutor nor the trial court have authority to modify or waive the mandatory parole period," such "is not a permissible subject of plea negotiations," and thus, even if "the trial court erroneously approves of such an illegal bargain" such plea is "invalid" and thus will not be specifically enforced). Nor can the defendant claim some right to specific performance of an illegal non-prosecution agreement. See State v. Garcia, 582 N.W.2d 879, 881-82 (Minn. 1998) (plea agreement for 81 months sentence, but court added 10-year conditional release term because, under facts of case, sentence without such release term "plainly illegal," and thus remedy of specific performance not available); State v. Wail, 348 N.C. 671, 502 8.13.2d 585, 588 (1998) (plea agreement was for sentence to be concurrent with one not yet completed, but state statute mandates consecutive sentence on facts of this case; "defendant is not entitled to specific performance in this case because such action would violate the laws of this state"); Re parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); (where "the plea bargain seemed fair on its face when executed, it has become unenforceable due to circumstances beyond the control of [the parties], namely the fact that one of the enhancement paragraphs was mischaracterized in the indictment, resulting in an illegal sentence far outside the statutory range," proper remedy is plea withdrawal, as "there is no way of knowing whether the State would have offered a plea bargain within the proper range of 38 EFTA00229954

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 39 of 42 punishment that he deemed acceptable"); State v. Mazzone, 212 W.Va. 368, 572 S.E.2d 891, 897 (2002) (where plea agreement was that defendant would plead guilty to 2 felony counts of felon in possession of firearm and prosecutor would dismiss remaining 6 counts re other offenses with prejudice, and all parties erroneously believed these 2 crimes were felonies, lower court "correctly resolved this unfortunate predicament by holding that a plea agreement which cannot be fulfilled based upon legal impossibility must be vacated in its entirety, and the parties must be placed, as nearly as possible, in the positions they occupied prior to the entry of the plea agreement"). The Non-Prosecution Agreement that the Government entered into in this case was simply illegal. The Government did not protect the congressionally-mandated rights of victims before it entered into this Agreement. Perhaps it is for this reason that the Agreement is so shockingly lenient — blocking prosecution for dozens and dozens of federal felony sex offenses against several dozen minor girls. But regardless of the leniency, the only issue for the Court is whether the Agreement was lawfhl. It was not, and so the Court invalidate it.3 The victims respectfully ask for a full briefing schedule and a hearing on this important issue. 3 Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was notified about this case long ago, and was notified on August 26, 2010, that the victims would be filing correspondence in support of their motions.' He has not chosen to intervene in this action, and so he should not be heard to complain about remedy the Court might impose. In any event, there are no double jeopardy barriers to invalidating the plea. As explained in a leading criminal procedure treatise: The review of defendant's sentence is also provided in federal cases upon application of a victim. The Crime Victim's Rights Act allows a victim to seek to reopen a sentence through a writ of mandamus, if the victim has asserted and been denied the right to be heard at sentencing. Like the prosecution's statutory right to appeal, the victim's statutory remedy should pose no double jeopardy 39 EFTA00229955

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 40 of 42 CERTIFICATE OP CONFERENCE As recounted above, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have approached the U.S. Attorney's Office for more than two and a half years in an effort to reach stipulated facts. The U.S. Attorney's Office ultimately terminated those efforts on March 15, 2011, taking the position that the facts of the case are irrelevant and that, on any set of facts, It did not violate the CVRA. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should find the U.S. Attorney's Office violated Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act and then schedule an appropriate hearing on the remedy for these violations. The scope of the remedy that is appropriate may depend in part of the scope of the violations that the Court finds. For this reason, it makes sense for the Court to bifincate the process and determine, first, the extent of the violations and then, second, the remedy appropriate for those violations. If the Court would prefer to see more immediate briefing on remedy issues, the victims stand prepared to provide that briefing at the Court's direction. difficulties if as the plFrancesco] Court explained .. . the defendant is 'charged with knowledge of the statute and its . provisions, and has no expectation of finality in his sentence until the [review by writ] is concluded .. .."' LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL Procedure § 26.7(b) (Nov. 2010) (quoting United States I. Dihancesco, 449 U.S. 117,146 (1980)). 40 EFTA00229956

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 41 of 42 DATED: Much 21.2011 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley I. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. and Paul G. Cassell Pro MX Vice Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Attorneys for Jane Due 01 and Jane Doe 02 41 EFTA00229957

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 42 of 42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on March 21, 2011, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ttomey or the vanment Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. Joseph Ackerman, Jr. Fowler White Burnett PA Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein (courtesy copy of pleading via U.S. mail) 42 EFTA00229958

•i ..,.,,., Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 6 JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES CASE NO: 08.80736-C1v- EXHIBIT B EFTA00229959

• ----------- - Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 6 FD-302 (ar. 10-6.95) -1- rsomu.. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Due of tnmsaiNon 08/14/2007 Florida, rjligIll eral investigation involving the sexual a as interviewed in West Palm Beach, ir exploitation of minors. After being advised of the identity of.the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, t provided the following information: ' In 2003 or 20D4 Warms introduced to JEFFREY EPSTEIN for the purpose of providing im with personal massages. approached at a party by a female she believed was named She described the female as havin r hair and taller. The female was later identified as . IIIIIIINVItold WOMIDand Wellb's friend, mime miss that they could make money by providing massages to EPSTEIN. told WIND that she could provide the massages with her clothes on or off. WS, who was fifteen years old, believed that she was close to turning sixteen when she first met EPSTEIN. However, during Willass first contact with EPSTEIN, she told him that she had just turned eighteen. and Wailltraveled to EPSTEIN's residence in Palm Beach by taxi. way_pregnant at the time. Once at the residence, age took Willi,Upstairs. EPSTEIN entered the room wearin only a ro . Once EPSTEIN had removed the robe, both and Weipprovided EPSTEIN with a massage. Both Ana and Waillhad removed their clothing and remained only in their underwear. EPSTEIN asked ato leave. Once alone with Wilt EPSTEIN began to masturbate. WillIlwas uncomfortable. After EPSTEIN climaxed the massage was over. WOW believed that Sae had mentioned EPSTEIN might masturbate during the massage but she was still very surprised when he masturbated. EPSTEIN paid We $200.00. EPSTEIN did not touch'flduring that massage. WIMP departed EPSTEIN's residence with two men that worked for EPSTEIN. They drove WSEEPto a Shell Gas Station located near Okeechobee Boulevard and the Florida Turnpike. Prior to departing the residence, wileprovided her telephone number to one of EPSTEIN's assistants, SIMMINEMMO. (PHONETIC) . Willildescribed her as a very pretty Hispanic female in her early twenties, with long brown hair, and approximately 5'5" to 5'6" tall. wallostated that ea another of EPSTEIN's assistants, or EPSTEIN would usually contact her. would telephone and ask if she was available or if she had any other ufluiscioeun 08/07/2007 a West Palm Beach, Florida Het 31E-MM-108062 Dludimmo 08/07/2007 iy This document contains neither rmommenditmns tor °menials of the FBI. It is the promny of ,hr FBI and n lobbed ID Now sgency. it and is tomcats IIM not to be distributed (inlaide your agency. EFTA00229960

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 6 , FD-302o (Rn. IC-6.95) 31E-n4-108062 Canon of FD•302 of a 1. .on 08/07/2007 .Ptic 2 x. 1 girls she could bring; When EPSTEIN telephoned, he usually asked for Pato come over. According to WSW EPSTEIN's house telephone number began with the di its 655. She would call sometimes and leave a message. WINIstated that when they telephoned her they would inform her of when they would be coming back to town and if she might have anyone new. WIMMadid not believe that EPSTEIN ever really liked her. Wfl traveled to the EPSTEIN's residence during 2003 and 2004 over twenty five times. WAIllobelieved that she provided EPSTEIN with approximately 10-15 massages. EPSTEIN initially started out touching MEMO breasts but gradually the massages became more sexual. EPSTEIN would instruct WIMMOon how and what to do during the massages. He would request WOMMOto rub his chest and nipples. WOMOOstated that on approximately two occasions, EPSTEIN asked that WOMMOremove her underwear and provide the massage nude. WOMMOcomplied. WOMMIstated that EPSTEIN would make her feel that she had the option to do what she wanted. During one massage. WOMOstated that she had been.givi1.g EPSTEIN a massage for approximately 30-40 minutes when instead of EPSTEIN turning over to masturbate, EPSTEIN brought another female into the massage area. illOWdescribed the female as a beautiful blonde girl, a "Cameron Diaz° type. 19 years of age, bright blue eyes, and speaking with an accent. EPSTEIN had Wile straddle the female on the massage table. EPSTEIN wanted Walito touch the females breast. According to we, EPSTEIN "pleasured" the female while Wailawas straddled on top of the female. Vi stated she could hear what she believed to be a vibrator. WIllasaid for EPSTEIN it was all about pleasuring the female. After the female climaxed, EPSTEIN patted I on the shoulder and she removed herself from the table. The female got up from the table and went into the spa/sauna. EPSTEIN commented to willothat in a few minutes the female would realize what had just happened to her. Wilftreceived $200.00. WOMMIadvised the interviewing agents that EPSTEIN had used a back massager on her vagina. EPSTEIN asked her first if he could use the massager on her. h. stated that she had held her breath when EPSTEIN used the back massager on her. Wiestated that at no time during any of the massages had EPSTEIN caused her to climax. During another massage, samobelieved by this time she was seventeen, EPSTEIN placed his hand on willip vagina, touching EFTA00229961

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 6 DIC2a ()Icy I 6.6-95) 37.E-MM-208062 Cownatation of FD-)02 or .On 08/07/2007 "me 3 Align clitoris. WillOwas uncomfortable and told him to stop. EPSTEIN complied. WOMOstated that the incident freaked her out. , willpstated that EPSTEIN was upset because she was upset. W - never return to the residence. Winistated that she did not deal with EPSTEIN anymore after that incident. EPSTEIN gave both ampand MMOMOMPeach a book entitled "Massage for Dummies". They received the books on the same visit. EPSTEIN also commented how strong Ins hands were when it came to her providing his massages. On another occasion, WOMOOmentioned to EPSTEIN that she was looking at a car, a Toyota Corolla. EPSTEIN provided V - with $600.00 - $700.00. NOMMstated that EPSTEIN gave her the money after the incident with the other female. According to Willi EPSTEIN would ask her to bring him other girls. Imp who started dancing at strip clubs when she was 16, brought girls from the club as well as from other sources. WILD stated she brought girls from fifteen years of age to twenty- five years of age. l stated that EPSTEIN would get frustrated with„her if she did not have new females for him. On one instance, EPSTEIN hung is on her because she could not provide him with anyone new. Willostated that EPSTEIN's preference was short, little, white girls. Willestated that EPSTEIN was upset when one of the other girls brought a black girl. WIMMOstated that EPSTEIN did not want black girls or girls with tatoos. Oilleatated that one of the girls she stayed with on occasion, also started providing EPSTEIN with massages. A telephone number for awas minummomp. Holm said that her family resides in , Florida, possibly WIMMOalso stayed with during this same time period. However, never went to EPSTEIN's house or provided him with massages. isillithas a Yacht Club address. Another girl that Wallehad taken to EPSTEIN's residence was LOMMUNOLast Name Unknown(LNU). According to Sall EPSTEIN liked LOIMMOOLNU a lot. Milesaid that she was never a favorite of EPSTEIN. EPSTEIN offered WIMID$300.00 to brirlsplIMMUMOLNu. LNU was a couple years younger than Pa W believed that she was either 16 or 17 when she first went to EPSTEIN's residence. NINNWsaid that LIIIMMILNU went 2-3 times but that she did not want any part of it after that. Willi believes she could identify la LNU if she saw her photograph. waft also stated that LAIIIIIrLAu at EFTA00229962

• n : Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 5 of 6 , PD.X0210W10-6451 31E-MM-108062 CominuabondRYX0of a all .0006/07/2007 .Par 4 one time attended HIGH SCHOOL. WIMMWalso believed that they had met through a group of friends while attending - a dropout prevention school. WOMIPmentioned another girl by the name of CS imps EPSTEIN distinguished the two warn, by referring to IMINIMPas ONIMEINESINNWS a worked at an ice cream shop. WAMOstated that she did not like a and that Jamminsr was a storyteller and a bad liar. AMMOstated that enever really wanted to go to EPSTEIN's residence but she went anyway. WOOMDsaid that she had not taken a good look at EPSTEIN's penis. MUMexplained that it seemed like he would always try and hide his penis. wile stated that EPSTEIN never asked her for sex. WOMMOstarted dancing when she was sixteen at immOMENM, The owner, lilaS let her dance. Wimpahas also worked at fa located pr - ' `lin Boynton Beach, Florida. MO used illegal drugs during the years she provided EPSTEIN with massages. wigesaid that EPSTEIN tried to provide her with advice regarding controlled substances. —stated that she met with EPSTEIN's attorneys, sow ROMMMOMpand a unidentified female(UF), ALE HOUSE RESTAURANT. Willopmet with them after she contacte who confirmed that they were really working for EPSTEIN. Wile stated that also balked of her twin boys and stated that she was living Manhattan. WOMPfound out that ellegmand the OF are employed by They asked a lot of questions. They specifically asked about Lama and a GlIMILNU. KMONOreiterated her dislike for a WINOPalso informed the interviewing agents that she had spoken to I. she believed before the fourth of July. M told WOMpthet she had met with investigators and that they had videoed her. numbers: we...confirmed her association to the following telephone Old cellular number - (561) Possibly an old cellular number - (561) as telephone number - (561)11111.111.5 EFTA00229963

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 6 PD 302o (Rev 10-6-95) 31E -MM-108062 Continoanon of PD-302 of C • • o • .On 08/ 07 / 2007 . Pvc S if EFTA00229964

4 cmuai Cif/X4441, 4.1-..,% • --- 1 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 3 JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES CASE NO: 08410736-av EXHIBIT C EFTA00229965

07/09/2008 15:13 FAX 5818059846 USAO WPB CONFRM Case 9:08-Cv-80736-KAM igument 48-3 Entered on FLSD Diie1 03/21/ U.S. Department of Justice United Slates Attorney Southern District of Florida SOO South Australian Ave.. Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 3.1401 (561)820-8711 Facsimile- (361)820-8777 June 7, 2007 PELIVERY BY_HAND Miss OldiMIPAIN Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' gjghts Dear Miss WIN Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, you have a number of rights. Those rights are: (I) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the cnme or of any release or escape of the accused: (3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other portions of a proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. (5) The reasonable tight to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The riot to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy Members of the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these ri is are rotectcd. If you have an concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at or Special Agent froirrthe Federal Bureau of Investigation at. You a:so- can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C. at That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. You can seek. che advice of an attorney with respect to the sigh& listed above and, if you believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for relief. EFTA00229966

07/09/2008 15:14 FAX 5618059844 USA° WPB COMM 023 Case 9:08-ov-80736-KAM fitment 48-3 Entered on F LSD et 03/21/2011 Page 3 of.3 Miss JUNE PAGE 2 In addition to these rights, you are entitled to counseling and medical services, and protection from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you arc a victim, you also may be entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service providers can be provided to you, if you so desire. If u or ur family is subjected to any intimidation or harassment, please contact Special Agent r myself immediately. It is possible that someone working on behalf of the targets o e inves igation may contact you. Such cdntact does not violantriae law?. However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to that person or refusing tett° to: If u refuse and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, then please . . contact Special Agent r myself. You also are entitled to notification of upcoming case events. At this time, your case is wider investigation) If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be notified. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta By: cc: Special Agent F.B.I. Assistant United States Attorney I • SI EFTA00229967

- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 3 JANE DOE 01 AND JANE DOE NI MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES C4SE NO: 08-80736-Clv. EXHIBIT D EFTA00229968

- - • 07/09/2008 15:14 FAX 5018059848 USAO WPB CONFRN Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Viument 48-4 Entered on FLSD DOet 03/21/ U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Ronda 500 South Australian Are., Suite 000 West Palen Beach. FL 33401 (560 870-871 Facsimile: (561)820-8777 August 11, 2006 DELIVERY BY HAND Miss Tea Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights Dear Miss Mailla Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness Ma federal offense, you have a number of rights. Those rights are: (I) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. (3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you arc present for other portions of a proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, or sentencing. (5) The reasonable tight to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. (6) The right to fell and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. Members of the U.S. Departinent of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these protected. If you have any concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at , or Special Agent frorn the Federal Bureau of Investigation at ■ . You also can contact the Justice Deparfinent's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C. at li 'hat Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rightalisted above and, if you believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for relief. 024 EFTA00229969

1 tct.f4a:76:. • • 07/09/2008 15:14 PAZ 5618059846 USA0 VIPB COWRIE litoas Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM ument 484 Entered on FLSD Diet 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 3 MISS AUGUST II, 2006 PAGE 2 In addition to these rights, you are entitled to counseling and medical services, and pr from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you are ■ victim, you shy-. t entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service pm% ph be provided to you, if you so desire. If u or ur family is subjected to any intim .t.- • harassment, please contact Special Agent or myself immediately. It is pe:qtabli • someone working on behalf o f the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such cow :0; I . not violate the law. However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to dt.ts p • or refusing to do so. If u refuse and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, tyre; I" • ..contact Special Ager r myself. You also are entitled ro notification of upcoming case events. At this time, your ca.:. • • • investigation. If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will bo nal t By: cc: Special Agent -F.B.I Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney Assistant United Stales Attorney 7 7 EFTA00229970

7 :-- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 15 JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE SO'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES CASH NO: 08-80736-Civ- EXHIBIT E EFTA00229971

Case 9:08-cv-80,736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 15 ' IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN I NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (tereinaRer, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Of fice has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: (1) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title IS, United States Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation ofTitle 18, United States Code, Section 371; (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in IS U.S.C. § 2423(0, with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(1), with minor females; in violation Page 1 of 7 EFTA00229972

• . --- ------- -- - . Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 15 , • of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2591(cX1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney's Office; IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the Defendant will be saved by the following procedure; THEREFORE., on the authority of IL Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below, If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United Slates Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States teaming of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. Page 2 of 7 EFTA00229973

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 15 Terms of the Agreement 1. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nob contendere) to the Indictment as currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AJDOCMB) charging one (I) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03; 2. Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: (a) (b) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county Jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment; and Epstein shall be sentenced to a tam of twelve (12) months of conununity control consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Tenn 2(a), supra. 3. This agreement. Is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this agreement 4. The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or incarceration. 5. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph (2), supra. 6. Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all Page 3 of 7 EFTA00229974

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 5 of 15 proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements. 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement end been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement. the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an enemy representative for thesepersons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not conteat the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified Individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also Is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. I O. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. 11. Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be Page 4 of 7 EFTA00229975

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 15 sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008. 12. Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. 13. The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement. In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to MOS or Further, upon ex agreement an a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas. Both patties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the toms of this agreement have been satisfied. Upon the succarfill completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand Jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. Page 5 of 7 EFTA00229976

--- ----' . Case 9:08-ov-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD DoOket 03/21/2011 Page 7 of 15 By signing this agreement, Epstein LUCKS and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all federal offenses. By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to nisi. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern Disniet of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy tria! or to bar the prosecution by reason of the ninning of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that ho understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the subject of (ho grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as to any such offense. //I /II Page 6 of 7 EFTA00229977

1 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FL SD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 8 of 15 By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that be understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and weft to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: Dated: 74/3 — Dated: Dated: By: ASSISTANT U.S. TEO GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA00229978

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSO Docket 03/21/2011 Page 9 or 15 By signing this agreement. Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: Dated: Dated: 712-410 Dated: By: ASSISTANT U.S. Ir TO LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, FSQ. ATTORNEY kOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA00229979

Case 9:08-cv-80736-F<AM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 10 of 15 By signing this agreement, Epstein sun and certifies that the above has been read and explained to hint Epstein hereby slates that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agrecrmaat end agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: Dated: Dated: Datca:q-Attin By: Iffileileeler ASSISTANTU.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN GERALD LEPCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Pap 7 of 7 EFTA00229980

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 11 of 15 (N RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT I7 APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4. paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragreph 7"), that agreement is modified as follows: 7A. The United Sates has the right to assign to an Independent thirdparty the responsibility for consuhing with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the United Suites tin to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the United States and Epstein retain the right to take good faith objections to the atoxnay representative suggested by the Independent third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. 70. The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-pasty regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epsurin's Agreement to pay such attorney representative hls or her regular customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra. 7C. Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, 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, an attorney representative elects to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 1$ U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement 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 s 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall cease. EFTA00229981

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 12 of 15 By signing this Addendum. Epstein mate and certifies that The above has beau tead and explained to him. Epatein hereby, states that he undadtands the clasifications to the Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply nith thorn. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: Dated: i_1" Dated: DOA EY: IkEISIET TNAD A GERALD LEFCOLIRT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA00229982

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 13 of 15 By signing this Addendum, Epstein assats and certifies that the above has been tad and explained to him. Epstein hereby stases that he understands the clarifications to the Not- Prosecution Alyeement and agrees to comply with them. It. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dad; IEFFREY EPSTEIN Dated: #0 Dated: RALD LEFCOtiRT1 ESQ. COUNSEL TO MEP Y En mm LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA00229983

enr -- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 14 of 15 By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and catISes that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby flits that he undersea-4s the cluifications to the Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with than. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UN: TED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: BY: Dated: Dated: Dated: ifrja JEFFREY EPSTEIN GERALD LF,FCOURT, &SQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTELN LILLY ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA00229984

• • ..... . 1 lwm.+77 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 15 of 15 0or-OT-ia 04:61n F rorf orlor-ild to Isroott Atermation 30071tetll ?Olt P. 013/614 F-171 1. let* &Epstein do deny rt, ant the Haaanstaatice Agrcerned anti Addiadum same dead October 30, 2007. EFTA00229985

;•••••FitAti, • OMI Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 3 JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES CASE NO: 08-80736-Ov- EXHIBIT F EFTA00229986

fr7ctiiat T. . 07/09/2008 15:14 FAX 5018059846 05A0 era COMM %021 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Wument 48-6 Entered on FLSD DeeS/3/111i9,11 Rasa?, of 3 U.S. Departritergalrlustfee • Federal Bureau of NWeellgatket January 10, 2008 Re: Case Numberar Deal COMM VIIIP This ease is currently under InvosVgallon. This can be a lengthy process end we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough Investloader.. As a crime victim. You have the folowing rights under 18 United Slams Code 4 3771: (1) The right to be reasonably protected !men the accused: (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and thytely notice of any pubic court proceeding. or any parole proceeding, Involving the crime or of any reioasa or escape of the accused; (3) The nab( not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the vioem would be matertally tittered!! the victim heard caw testimony al that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court Involving relays*, plea. sentencing, or any parole precaredig; (5) The reasonable dget to corder vdth the attorney (or the Government In the case; (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided In law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay: (0) The right to be treated with fairness end with reseed for the victim's Monty and privacy. We v.4I mese our best efforts to auto; you are accorded the rights eesorrbed Most of those rights porain to events occurring after Ma arrest or tract:nem of an ntthrldual for the alma, and k wiK become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Ghee to ensure you are accorded those right'. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to there righz. The Victim Notlecati3n System (VNS) is doegned to provide you with direct infoonafren folornlog the case ea a proceeds through the criminal Slake system. You may obtain current edormalion about this matter on the Internet at WWW.NotletaiSCCJ.Q0V or born the WS Cali Canter at 1-866-1304-4YOU (1466-385- 4968) (71)0/TTY: 1.866.2284619) (Intematicnal: 1•502-213-2767). In addition. you may use toe Cal Center or Internet to Update your contact information andror change your decision about perticipation in the netlicabonprogram. If you update your Infoor.atIon to include a current amaii address, VNS wiU send information to that address. You will need Mt !allowing Vklisn Identification Number (AN) and - Personal ideratiloallen Numcer (P nytme you contact the Cat Center and the final time you log on to VNS on the Interne/ In 4114.110n, no Ent time you access the VN6 Internet era, you w1tDo prompted to enter your last name ;or business name) es currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is a EFTA00229987

... tr5oTrAWn,, 07/09/2006 16:14 FAX 5818059846 OSAO WPB COWRY lii 027 Case 9;08-cv-80736-KAM tument 48-6 Entered on FLSD DapeU33/2,1J2.011 Page..3.O 3 1$ you have additional questions which InvoNe this matter, please contact the office tined above. When you csa. 0164618 provide the file number located at the top of this letter. Please ismembor, your parldpatIon m the notification part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications. it is your responsibility to keep your contact irforrnetor. current Sincerely. Main Specialist EFTA00229988

.1 Pi' Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 3 JANE DOE *I AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES CASE NO: OS-80736CW EXHIBIT G EFTA00229989

07/09/2008 15:15 PAI 6618059846 USAO !PB CONFRX a 028 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM ument 48-7 Entered on FLSD Dilet9,324Ag.j1 Ppapgpf 3 • U.S. Department of Justice Federal, &Urea of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beach • January10.200B James Bsonberg RIES Dear James Eisenberg. You have requested to fateNe nottfiCetione for Tahe This case is currenify under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience whit we conduct a 'locomen Investigation. As a crime victim, you have the following rights tender to Uneed States Coda § 3771: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused: (2) The right to reasonable, accurate. and timely notice of any public coott'proceartIng, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of arty remark or escape of the • accused: (3) The nem not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding. union the coml. after - receiving c*ear and convincing evidence. determines that bseernony by the victim would be materially altered If the VIZ OM heart: tenor testimony et that procaodtnte (4) The right to be ressonatoty heard at any public proceeding In the district court Irrrohrine release, plea, sentendng. Of any parde emending; (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free horn unreasonable delay: (8) The right to be treated with farness and with respect for the victim's digntty and ptvacy. We Ma site our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rots pertain to events occurring after the arrest or Indictment of an indhokinal far the crime, and it will become the i•ezponsibillty of the prosecueng United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded Mose rights. You may ober seek the advice of a privets attorney with respect to these rights. The intim Notifica6)n System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct infommtion regarding the Casa as ft proceeds through the atrninal justice eystem. You may obtain current Information about this matter on the Internet at WWW.Nottly.USDOLGOV or from the VNS Call Center at 1.888.004.4YOU (1-866-365- 4968) (room Y: 1.866-228.4619) priest-national: 1-502-213-7767). In additions you may use the Cal Center or Internet to update your contact Infontallon and/or along* your deoblen about participation in the notification proem.. If you update year irdomsation to Imbeds a current ems' dekko*, VNS will send Information to that *Mmes. You will need the Meowing Victim Identification Number (VIN) Personal Iderilaketton Ntanber (PIN)manytime you confect the Can Center and the lust you log on to VNS on the Internet In addition. the you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The nerne you should enter is Eisenberg. EFTA00229990

%029 Paw 3 of 3 r, /tar 07/09/2006 15:15 FAX 8618059846 UMW WPB COEWIRII case 9;08-cy: 80736-KAM ailment 48-7 Entered on FLSD Deet2,3/21/2011 If you have additional questions which involve INs matter, please oolitaCt the office Rated above. When you caa. please provide the fto nurnar bated at the top of this setter. Please remember, your parficiPadon in the notification pan of Oils program iS voluntary, In order to continue to receive nottootEns. it is your iesponstIlity to keep your contact Intrmetion current. S:ncercay, Vict:in Spacakvt EFTA00229991

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 3 JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CAME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES CASE NO: 0840736-Clv EXHIBIT H EFTA00229992

I Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 3 • n>x,2( mw.10-6-M) 4 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION De dtronaceilkoo 02/38/2008 On Thursday, January 3 B C WillOrmet with Assistant United States Attorne UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (USAO) and Attorney UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE(D0C), Also present 4 g were Special Agents .d FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. mee ng was arranged pursuant to a federal investigation regarding the sexual exploitation of minors. During the course of the meeting, WIMMD0 provided the following additional or clarifying information not previously documented in earlier RD-302s: JEFFREY EPSTEIN and his assistants, and laidentified as and would contact Wela to set u for EPSTEIN's massages. According to wow, would call and say that EPSTEIN was on a flight and inquire about scheduling work for IS Life was not going well for Wile during the time she was providing EPSTEIN with massages. NOMMIwas buying and taking drugs, i.e. Xanax, Lorcets, and Percosets. We said that she stayed on pills. Willpexplained that she wanted to feel numb. Wiestopped attending school at age fifteen. Her parents were addicted to crack and cocaine. Prior to her parent's drug use, Willp was in the band, a cheerleader, and a straight "A" student. AM played the trumpet for the school band. When her parent's drug habits got bad, things went downhill, they lost everything. WIND became a dancer the day before her sixteenth birthday at She worked there for six months, up suntil the employer found out she was underage. Later, la worked for which she did for 6 months. WIllestoPped seeing EPSTEIN during that time. williostated that she brought up to twenty, twenty-five, or thirty different girls. WOMOIsaid all of the girls but maybe ten of them were underage. Some of the females tabrought for EPSTEIN were dancers. WIIMMIsaid that EPSTEIN did not care for all of the girls she brought to him. WiNglexplained that EPSTEIN did not care for some of the dancers, the older females, and the females with tattoos. tonatiption on 01/31/2006 e West Palm Beach, Florida F." Datedinand 01/31/2008 e. rats documea contains neithe ccoonuneneations nor tont:anions of the FBL Ii it the proprity of the FBI and la loaned to your agency. it and in coronas an not to be distributed outside your agency EFTA00229993

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 0 3/21/2011 Page 3 of 3 PD402s(Rn 10495) Continuation of FD-)02 of ' Cm a 1 41/2008 jacc 2 S said that during the massages EPSTEIN4 would push further and further regarding the sexual activity. According to WAIF EPSTEIN never asked, "is this okay," he would just see how far one would let him go. Wall recalled seeing sculptures of naked women and lots of pictures of kids in the library. stated that everybody thought Bpsteirk neurologist. WIllIalso stated that alas twin, boys . SI rir was a EFTA00229994

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 3 JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A REARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES CASE NO: 08-80736-CN EXHIBIT I EFTA00229995

07/09/2008 18: 15 FAX 5818059848 USAO WPB CORFU Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Sument 48-9 Entered on FLSD Dirt 03/21/ a=••.•• ••• 30, 2003 Re: ISIS Deer. U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation. FBI - West Palm Beach I Your name was referred to the FBI's Victim Aseletarca Pro rem as being a possible victim of a federal crime. We appreciate your assrStance and cooperation while we ere Investigating this case. We would like to make you aware of the victim services that may be 'wallahs to you and to answer any questa% you may have regarding the criminal justice process throughout the investigation. Our program is part of the Fars effort to ensure the victims are treated with respect and are provided information about their rights under federal law. These rights include notification of the status of the use. The enacted brochures provide Information about the Fars Victim Assistance Program, resources and inaeuctions for accessing the Victim Notification System (VNS). VNS Is designed to provide you with information iegardeig the status of your case. Th4 case Is currently under invesegation. This can be a lengthy process and we request yaw continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The rght to be reasonably protected from ens accused: (2) The right to reasonable. accurate. end timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the =used; (3) The right net to be excluded from any such public creel proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convvcIng evidence, determine; that testimony by the victim would be materially alined If the victim heard Other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding In She district court Involving release, plea. sentencing. or any parole proceeding" (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to full end timely restitution is provided In law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonab:e delay. (e) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim*. chanty and privacy. We will make our best efforts to ensure you we accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the nit or indicenent of an Individual for the crime, and it will become the responsIbiity of Inc prosecuting United States Attorney's Ofilee to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. The Victim Notification System (VNSI Is designed to provide you with deed information regarding the case as ii proceeds through the criminal )taboo system. You may obtain current information about this menet on doe Internet at VYWW.Notify.USOOJ WV or from the VNS Cell Center at 1-8156-D0J-4YOU (1.686.365- 4988) (TDINTTY: 1.8613-228-4619) (International: 1.502,213.2767). In addition, you may use the Cal Center or Internet to update your contact information anew change your decision about participation in the notification program. if you update your Information to include a current email address, VNS will send information to that address. You coilnatio following Victim Identification Number (VIM) Iled Personal Identification Number (PIN) anytime you contact the Call Center and the Ant time you log on to VNS on the Internet. In addition, the firstling you access the VNS Internet site, you vrill be prompted to enter your test name (or business name) as current& contained in VNS. The name you should enter is RINI Q030 P ik Sirs EFTA00229996

07/09/2008 15:15 FAI 5618059846 U560 Will CONFRM 0031 Ckse,:1:18-qv-110736-KAM Viument 48-9 Entered on FLSD DeeL0,3/41/?,911 Ppatlpf It you have additional questions kwaive this matter, please contact the Ace feted above. When you cab please provide uie Rio number located al the top of this latter. Please remember, your participation in the notate/bon pan of this program is vciuntany. in order lo continue to receive notifications. it is your responsibility to keep your contact information current Sincerely, Victim Seel:414st • TOTAL P.07 EFTA00229997

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79 Entered on ['LSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-Civ JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MOTION TO INTERVENE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A SUA SPONTE RULE I I ORDER Comes now, Movant Bruce E. Reinhart, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), and seeks leave to intervene as a party-in-interest in this matter. Movant seeks to intervene to file a Motion for Sanctions based on unfounded factual and legal accusations made about Movant in Plaintiff's Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (the "Motion") [DE 48].i In the context of a motion alleging that the U.S. Department of Justice violated Plaintiff's rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act, Plaintiffs make irrelevant and gratuitous accusations that Movant violated unspecified Florida Bar rules and Department of Justice regulations. Movant should be granted leave to intervene to rebut these false allegations, and to seek sanctions. Alternatively, the Court on its own initiative should require Plaintiffs and their counsel to show their compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Without any attempt to tie the allegations to the asserted violation of the CVRA, Paragraphs 52 and 53 of the Motion falsely allege that Movant, a non-party to this matter, t Movant was not served with a copy of the pleading. Movant first saw the pleading on April 20, 2011. EFTA00229998

- ------- - 77777%. Case 9:08•cv-80736-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 2 of 4 violated Florida Bar rules and Department of Justice regulations by representing employees of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") in civil litigation after the undersigned retired from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "Office"). They also falsely allege that Moven; while still employed by the Office engaged in improper conduct relating to Epstein. The Motion does not make any effort to connect these allegations to the relief it seeks. It does not explain how the accusations against Movant are relevant to its claims under the CVRA, nor does it explain how Movant's alleged conduct can be imputed to any party in the action. Because there is no proper purpose for these allegations, they are made in bad faith, unreasonably, vexatiously, and for the improper purpose of harassing Movant. Plaintiff has injected into this action questions of law and fact relating to Movant's alleged conduct. Movant now seeks to assert a claim under Fed. Rule Civ. P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927 arising from the same questions of law and fact that Plaintiff raised. Movant's claim shares with the main action common questions of law and fact. See New York News, Inc. v. Newspaper and Mail Deliverer's Union, 139 F.R.D. 291, 293 (S.D.N.Y. 1991Xfor purposes of Rule 24(b), claim that falsities in pleading impugned movant's reputation created a question of fact in common with underlying cause of action). Therefore, the Court has discretion to permit intervention. CI Id (permissive intervention denied because it would unduly delay and prejudice imminent settlement of the original claims), aff'd sub nom New York News v. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 487 (2d Cir. 1992). Here, the proposed intervention does not create a risk of undue delay or prejudice to the adjudication of the underlying claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). Movant should be permitted to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). Unless Movant is permitted to intervene, he cannot remedy the false accusations in Paragraphs 52 and 53. The Department of Justice has responded to the Motion. It declined to respond on the merits to the allegations in Paragraphs 52 and 53 because they are so obviously 2 EFTA00229999

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 3 of 4 irrelevant to the Government's alleged violation of the CVRA. As such, Movant's interest is not adequately protected by the existing parties. Alternatively, Movant asks the Court sua sponse to issue an Order to Show Cause under Rule 11(c)(3)("On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b)"). This Court should not countenance a party making irrelevant, slanderous accusations against a non-party. On the face of Plaintiffs' Motion, it is clear that the allegations in Paragraphs 52 and 53 are irrelevant to whether the CVRA was violated, and therefore are not being presented for a proper purpose. The Court should require Plaintiffs and their counsel to show what legal and factual inquiry they undertook to comply with Rule 1 I (b) before making the allegations in Paragraphs 52 and 53, and to articulate the proper purpose for which these allegations were included in their Motion. As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c), attached to this motion is a proposed Motion for Sanctions. If leave to intervene is granted, the Motion for Sanctions which will be served on Plaintiffs' counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, but not filed for 21 days thereafter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(cX2). Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), undersigned counsel contacted counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for the United States. Assistant United States Attorney Dexter Lee reported that the United States does not oppose the Motion to Intervene. Bradley Edwards, Esq., counsel for Plaintiffs reported that they oppose the Motion to Intervene. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Bruce E. Reinhart BRUCE E. REINHART,P.A. Florida Bar # 10762 EFTA00230000

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of die foregoing Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order was served on all counsel of record by CM/ECF on May 3, 2011. /s/Bruce Reinhart BRUCE REINHART 4 EFTA00230001

Case 9:08-ov-807313-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 1 of 31 ATTACHMENT TO MOTION TO INTERVENE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A SUA SPONTE RULE 11 ORDER EFTA00230002

4 :F6nore• • • Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 2 of 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. OS-80736-Ov JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. BRUCE E. REINHART, Intervenor INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Comes now, Bruce E. Reinhart, intervenor and party in interest (hereinafter "Movant"), and moves this Honorable Court to impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) and 28 U.S.C. 1927 based on intentional or reckless false, bad faith, vexatious factual and legal assertions made about Movart in Paragraphs 52 and 53 of Plaintiff's Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (the "Motion") [DE 481. BACKGROUND • The instant cause of action involves claims by Plaintiffk that Defendant violated the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. §3771, in its handling of a criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and others. The investigation ultimately resulted in a non-prosecution agreement between the United States and Epstein. On EFTA00230003

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 3 of 31 March 21, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Motion.' Numbered paragraphs 1-50 of the Motion are a chronological review of the background of the Epstein investigation, including the interactions among the victims' counsel, counsel for Epstein, the Government and the FBI. Paragraph 51 asserts that at all relevant times it was feasible for the Government to provide certain notifications to Plaintiffs. Without attempting to make any connection to the asserted violation of the CVRA, Paragraphs 52 and 53 falsely allege that Movant violated Florida Bar rules and Department of Justice regulations by representing Epstein's employees in civil litigation after Movant retired from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("Office"). They also falsely allege that Movant, while still employed by the Office engaged in improper conduct relating to Epstein. These allegations are made in bad faith, unreasonably, without reasonable inquiry into the law and facts, vexatiously, and for the improper purpose of gratuitously harassing Movant. LEGAL STANDARDS Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 states that a lawyer signing any pleading in federal court is certifying that: Mt° the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cos: of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; Movant was not served with a copy of the pleading. Movant first saw the pleading on April 20, 2011. 2 EFTA00230004

• ocret“, • . Case 9:08-cv-80736-RAM Document 79-1 Entered on P150 Docket 05/03/2011 Page 4 of 31 (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. I1(b). Rule 1 1 uses an objective standard. Kaplan v. DaimlerChrysler, A.G., 331 F.3d I251, 1255 (11th ar. 2003). The analysis is whether "a reasonable attorney in like circumstances could believe that his actions were factually and legally justified." Id (citing Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1294 (I 1th Cir. 2002)). Violations of Rule 11 are punishable by monetary and non-monetary sanctions against both the lawyer filing the pleading and the lawyer's client. Fed: R. Civ. P. 11(c). 28 U.S.C. 61927 Title 28, United States Cod; Section 1927 states: Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expense, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct. To impose sanctions under § 1927, the Court must find that the attorney's conduct is ' "'tantamount to bad faith.'" Arniong & Amiong, 500 F.3d 1230, 1239 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Avirgan v. Hull, 932 F2d 1572, 1582 (11th Cir. 1991)). "[Tjhe attorney must knowingly or recklessly pursue a frivolous claim." Id at 1242. The finding of bad faith does not turn on "the attorney's subjective intent, but on the attorney's objective conduct." Id. at 1239. The standard is "whether, regardless of the attorney's subjective intentions, the conduct was unreasonable and vexatious when measured against an objective standard." Hudson v. Int 1 Comp. Negotiations, Inc., 499 F.3d 1252, 1262 (111h Cir. 2007). EFTA00230005

• • • Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79.1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 5 of 31 DISCUSSION Paragraphs 52 and 53 contain inflammatory claims that are false, misleading, and irrelevant to the relief sought in the Motion. See generally Declaration of Bruce E. Reinhart (attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference). They ultimately allege, "[Movant's) representations [of Epstein's employees) are in contravention of Justice Department regulations and Florida bar rules. Such representations also give, at least, the improper appearance that Reinhart may have attempted to curry [sic] with Epstein and then reap his reward through favorable representation." Plaintiff's Motion at 153. They do not cite to any particular bar rule or regulation that they believe was violated. They do not explain how the alleged conduct contributed to the Department of Justice's alleged violation of the CVRA. Nor do they explain how the alleged conduct is imputable to the Department of Justice. These otherwise slanderous accusations against a non-party are false. They were made in bad faith, without a factual inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, or elementary research into the legal basis for the allegations. Paragraphs 52 and 53 omit the following true facts, which Plaintiffs should have investigated before making their allegations: (1) Movant did not participate in any way in the Office's investigation of Epstein, (2) after leaving government employment, Movant did not represent Epstein before the Department of Justice, nor did Movant communicate with the Department of Justice about Epstein, and (3) Movant did not use confidential information obtained during his Government employment to the detriment of the United States. See Declaration of Bruce E. Reinhart at 1111-12, 17. Rather than conducting the required inquiry, Plaintiffs simply make two irresponsible and unsupported leaps. First, they incorrectly conclude that merely because EFTA00230006

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 6 of 31 Movant worked in the Office at the time of the Epstein case, Movant must have been involved in the internal decisionmaking at the Office about Epstein. Second, they incorrectly conclude that because Nlovant later represented Epstein's employees in private civil litigation, Movant must have used confidential Government information improperly in his representation of Epstein's employees, and for his own financial gain. It is apparent that Plaintiffs conducted no factual inquiry to substantiate their accusations before making them. They never contacted Movant. On information and belief, they did not speak to any current or former personnel from the Office or the FBI who were familiar with the structure of the West Palm Beach Office or with Movant's role (or lack thereof) in the Epstein investigation. Had they done so, they would have learned that there were approximately 20 Assistant United States Attorneys in the West Palm Beach Office during the relevant time period. See Declaration of Bruce E. Reinhart at ¶10. They would have learned that Movant was not assigned to the same section as the prosecutor handling the Epstein matter. Id. They would have learned that Movant had a different chain of supervision from the prosecutor assigned to the Epstein matter. Id. They would have learned that Movant had no involvement in the Epstein investigation. See Declaration of Bruce E. Reinhart at Tit 1-12. Further, Plaintiffs did not conduct an adequate inquiry into the applicable Department of Justice regulations. As discussed below, to violate the relevant regulations, a former employee must appear before, or communicate with, the Department of Justice, about a particular matter in which the former employee participated personally and substantially while employed at the Department of Justice. See 5 C.F.R. §2641.201(a). The Motion contains approximately 50 paragraphs of a 5 EFTA00230007

--- ..... 7 . 1" . Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 7 of 31 detailed historical litany of the interactions among the parties to the Epstein matter. The Motion does not allege that Movant participated at all, let alone personally and substantially, as a government employee in the Epstein investigation. The Motion does not allege that that Movant subsequently appeared before, or communicated with, the Department of Justice about Epstein. To the contrary, the Motion alleges only that, after leaving the Office, Movant represented Epstein's employees in litigation with non- Governmental third parties. Had Plaintiffs conducted rudimentary research into the applicable regulations, they would have known that any allegation that Movant violated these regulations was frivolous. Movam Did Not Violate Any Florida Bar Ride Relevant Florida Bar Rulea The potentially applicable Florida Bar rules are Rule 4-1.6(a) (Confidentiality of Information), Rule 4-1.9 (Conflict of Interest; Former Clients), and Rule 4-1.11 (Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers and Employees). For purposes of these rules, the U.S. Department of Justice was Movant's client during his employment in the Office. Movant did not violate any of the bar rules. Rule 4-1.6(a) states: A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client except as stated in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), unless the client gives informed consent. Rule 4-1.6 was not violated because Movant did not know any confidential information about the Epstein matter, so none could be revealed. Rule 4.1.9 states: A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter 6 EFTA00230008

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 8 of 31 (a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests, of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent; or (b) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these rules would permit or require with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known; or, (c) reveal information relating to the representation except as these rules would permit or require with respect to a client. Rule 4-1.9 was not violated because Movant never represented the United States in the Epstein matter. Rule 4-1.11 states in pertinent parts: (a) A lawyer who has formerly served as a public officer or employee of the government: (I) is subject to rule 4-1.9(b); and (2) shall not otherwise represent a client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee, unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the representation. (c) A lawyer having information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee may not represent a private client whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used to the material disadvantage of that person. As used in this rule, the term "confidential government information" means information that has been obtained under governmental authority and which, at the time this rule is applied, the government is prohibited by law from disclosing to the public or has a legal privilege not to disclose and which is not otherwise available to the public. (d) A lawyer currently serving as a public officer or employee: (1) is subject to rules 4-1.7 and 4-1.9; and 7 EFTA00230009

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 9 of'31 (2) shall not: (A) participate in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially while in private practice or nongovernmental employment, unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent; or (B) negotiate for private employment with any person who is involved as a party or as attorney for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and substantially. Rule 4-1.11(a) was not violated because Movant did not participate personally and substantially in the Epstein matter. Rule 4-1.11(c) was not violated because Movant did not have any confidential Government information within the meaning of the rule, so he did he use any confidential Government information about a third party to the detriment of that third party. Rule 4-1.11(d) was not violated because Movant did not participate personally and substantially in the Epstein matter. Movant Did Not Violate Department of Justice Regulations Department of Justice Regulations The Department of Justice regulation containing post-employment restrictions, 5 C.F.R. §2641.201, states in most pertinent part: (a) Basic prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1). No former employee shall knowingly, with the intent to influence, make any communication to or appearance before an employee of the United States on behalf of any other person in connection with a particular matter involving a specific party or parties, in which he participated personally and substantially as an employee, and in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. (i) Participate: To "participate" means to take an action as an employee through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or other such action, or to purposefully forbear in order to affect the outcome of a matter ... An employee does not participate in a matter EFTA00230010

/Mr Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 10 of 31 merely because he had knowledge of its existence or because it was pending under his official responsibility. Movant did not violate 5 C.F.R. §2641.201 because he did not participate personally and substantially in the Epstein matter as a Government employee. He did not appear before the United States on behalf of Epstein after leaving Government employment. He did not communicate with the United States on behalf of Epstein after leaving Government employment. He represented Epstein's employees in civil cases in which the Government was not a party. It is clear from the face of the regulations that Movant's representing Epstein's employees in civil matters not involving the Government did not violate §2641(a). In fact, had Plaintiffs and their counsel properly investigated the facts and law, they would have seen that §2641(a) would have permitted Movant to represent Epstein, himself, openly against the Department of Justice. Movant did not. The allegation that Movant violated Department of Justice mule/ions is frivolous. 2 A comp:ete copy of this regulation is attached to this Motion as Exhibit 2. 9 EFTA00230011

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 11 of 31 CONCLUSION The allegations in Paragraph 52 and 53 of the Motion are false, made in bad faith, and made without sufficient inquiry into the law and facts. They are irrelevant to whether the United States Attorney complied with the CVRA. Notably, the Motion does not attempt to tie the allegations against Movant to the alleged violation of the CVRA. The allegations arc included gratuitously in the Motion solely to harass Movant in a forum where the accusations are not legally slanderous. The allegations are made without reasonable pre-filing inquiry into the facts or law. This Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule I I or 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Bruce E. Reinbari BRUCE E. REINHART,P.A. Florida Bar ft 10762 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Intervenor's Motion For Sanctions was served on all counsel of record by CIVI/ECF on 2011. /s/Bruce BRUCE REINHART 10 EFTA00230012

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 12 of 31 EXHIBIT 1 EFTA00230013

1 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 13 of 31 DECLARATION OF BRUCE E. REINHART 1, Bruce E. Reinhart, make the following declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746. I. I am a licensed attorney in solo practice as Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. My office is located at 2. I am a member in good standing of the bars of the states of Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. I am also admitted to the practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court, and several other federal courts. 3. I graduated from Princeton University in 1984 with a B.S.E. in civil engineering cum laude. I graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1987, cum laude. I also served as an Editor of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. 4. After graduating from law school, I served as judicial law clerk to the Honorable Norma L. Shapiro, Uniteed States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 5. In 1988, I began working at the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., through the Attorney General's Honors Program. From 1988-1994, I worked in the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division. While working there, I received two Special Achievement Awards for Meritorious Acts and Service from the Department of Justice. EFTA00230014

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 14 of 31 Page 2 of 4 6. While at the Public Integrity Section, I was involved in investigating and prosecuting people who violated federal conflict of interest and post- employment statutes. I attended multiple training conferences where federal conflicts of interest laws and regulations were diccAssed. 7. From in or about July 1994 to on or about May 1, 1996, I served as Senior Policy Advisor to the Undersecretary of the Treasury for Enforcement at the United States Department of the Treasury. In that position, I helped the Undersecretary, the Deputy Secretary, and the Secretary of the Treasury to develop law enforcement policies for U.S. Customs, ATF, Secret Service, and IRS Criminal Investigations. I also acted as principal staff liaison to the Deputy Attorney General, the FBI and the other Department of Justice law enforcement agencies. For my service, I was awarded the Undersecretary for Enforcement's Award for Exceptional Service. 8. I am the former Vice Chair of the Palm Beach County Bar's Professionalism Committee. I am the former President of the Palm Beach County Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. I currently serve as an Ethics Commissioner on the Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics. 9. From May 1, 1996 to January 1, 2008, I served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida, assigned to the West Palm Beach office. From in or about July 1998 to in or about October 2002, I was a Supervisory Assistant United States Attorney. From October 2002 to January 2008, I was a non-supervisory Assistant United States Attorney handling my own docket of cases. EFTA00230015