Case 9:08-cv-f -KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 )8 Page 2 of 21 2. I am the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). The federal investigation was initiated in 2006 at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") 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, amongst other offenses. 3. Throughout the investigation, when a victim was identified, victim notification letters were provided to her both from your Affiant and from the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist. Attached hereto are copies of the letters provided to Bradley Edwards' three clients, T.M., C.W., and S.R.' Your Affiant's letter to C.W. was provided by the FBI. (Ex. 1). Your Affiant's letter to T.M. was hand-delivered by myself to T.M. at the time that she was interviewed (Ex. 2).? Both C.W. and T.M. also received letters from the FBI's Victim- Witness Specialist, which were sent on January 10, 2008 (Exs. 3 & 4). S.R. was identified via the FBI's investigation in 2007, but she initially refused to speak with investigators. S.R.'s status as a victim of a federal offense was confirmed when she was interviewed by 'Attorney Edwards filed his Motion on behalf of "Jane Doe," without identifying which of his clients is the purported victim. Accordingly, I will address facts related to C.W., T.M., and S.R. All three of those clients were victims of Jeffrey Epstein's while they were minors beginning when they were fifteen years old. 'Please note that the dates on the U.S. Attorney's Office letters to C.W. and T.M. are not the dates that the letters were actually delivered. Letters to all known victims were prepared early in the investigation and delivered as each victim was contacted. -2- EFTA00177301

Case 9:08-cv-8 •KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 8 Page 3 of 21 federal agents on May 28, 2008. The FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist sent a letter to S.R. on May 30, 2008 (Ex. 5). 4. Throughout the investigation, the FBI agents, the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist, and your A ffiant had contact with C.W. and S.R. Attorney Edwards' other client, T.M., was represented by counsel and, accordingly, all contact with T.M. was made through that attorney. That attorney was James Eisenberg, and his fees were paid by Jeffrey Epstein, the target of the investigation.' 5. In the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("the Office") entered into negotiations to resolve the investigation. At that time, Mr. Epstein had been charged by the State of Florida with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes § 796.07. Mr. Epstein's attorneys sought a global resolution of the matter. The United States subsequently agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, so long as certain basic preconditions were met. One of the key objectives for the Government was to preserve a federal remedy for the young girls whom Epstein had sexually exploited. Thus, one condition of that agreement, notice of which was provided to the victims on July 9, 2008. is the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein 'The undersigned does not know when Mr. Edwards began representing T.M. or whether T.M. ever formally terminated Mr. Eisenberg's representation. -3- EFTA00177302

Case 9:08-cv-; i-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/. )8 Page 4 of 21 had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the tJnited States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 6. An agreement was reached in September 2007. The Agreement contained an express confidentiality provision. 7. Although individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement, several had expressed concerns regarding the exposure of their identities at trial and they desired a prompt resolution of the matter. At the time the agreement was signed in September 2007, .T.M. was openly hostile to the prosecution of Epstein. The FBI attempted to interview S.R. in October 2007, at which time she refused to provide any information regarding Jeffrey Epstein. None of Attorney Edwards' clients had expressed a desire to be consulted prior to the resolution of the federal investigation. 8. As explained above, one of the terms of the agreement deferring prosecution to the State of Florida was securing a federal remedy for the victims. In October 2007, shortly after the agreement was signed, four victims were contacted and these provisions were discussed. One of those victims was C.W. who at the time was not represented, and she was given notice of the agreement. Notice was also provided of an expected change of plea in October 2007. When Epstein's attorneys learned that some of' the victims had been -4- EFTA00177303

Case 9:08-cv-f -KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 03 Page 5 of 21 notified, they complained that the victims were receiving an incentive to overstate their involvement with Mr. Epstein in order to increase their damages claims. While your Affiant knew that the victims' statements had been taken and corroborated with independent evidence well before they were informed of the potential for damages, the agents and I concluded that informing additional victims could compromise the witnesses' credibility at trial if Epstein reneged on the agreement. 9. After C.W. had been notified of the terms of the agreement, but before Epstein performed his obligations, C.W. contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was attempting to take her deposition and private investigators were harassing her. Your A ffiant secured pro bono counsel to represent C.W. and several other identified victims. Pro bono counsel was able to assist C.W. in avoiding the improper deposition. That pro bono counsel did not express to your Affiant that C.W. was dissatisfied with the resolution of the matter. 10. In mid-June 2008, Attorney Edwards contacted your Affiant to inform me that he represented C.W. and S.R. and asked to meet to provide me with information regarding Epstein. I invited Attorney Edwards to send to me any information that he wanted me to consider. Nothing was provided. I also advised Attorney Edwards that he should consider contacting the State Attorney's Office, if he so wished. I understand that no contact with that office was made. Attorney Edwards had alluded to T.M., so I advised him that, to my knowledge, T.M. was still represented by Attorney James Eisenberg. -5- EFTA00177304

Case 9:08-cv-£ -KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 )8 Page 6 of 21 11. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximate 4:15 p.m., your Affiant received a copy of the proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. Your Affiant and the Palm Beach Police Department attempted to provide notification to victims in the short time that Epstein's counsel had given us. Although all known victims were not notified, your Affiant specifically called attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. Your Affiant believes that it was during this conversation that Attorney Edwards notified me that he represented T.M., and I assumed that he would pass on the notice to her, as well. Attorney Edwards informed your Affiant that he could not attend but that someone would be present at the hearing. Your Affiant attended the hearing, but none of Attorney Edwards' clients was present. 12. On today's date, your Affiant provided the attached victim notifications to C.W. and S.R. via their attorney, Bradley Edwards (Exs. 6 & 7). A notification was not provided to T.M. because the U.S. Attorney's modification limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. In light of T.M.'s prior statements to law enforcement, your Affiant could not in good faith include T.M. as a victim in an indictment and, accordingly, could not include her in the list provided to Epstein's counsel. 13. Furthermore, with respect to the Certification of Emergency, Attorney Edwards did not ever contact me prior to the filing of that Certification to demand the relief that he requests in his Emergency Petition. On the afternoon of July 7, 2008, after your Affiant had -6- EFTA00177305

Case 9:08-cv-£ -KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 43 Page 7 of 21 already received the Certification of Emergency and Emergency Petition, I received a letter from Attorney Edwards that had been sent, via Certified Mail, on July 3, 2008. While that letter urges the Attorney General and the United States Attorney to consider "vigorous enforcement" of federal laws with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, it contains no demand for the relief requested in the Emergency Petition. 14. I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this day of July, 2008. A. Marie ViTlafana,t€sq. -7- EFTA00177306

Case 9:08-cv-8 .KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 %et U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 300 South Australian Ave . Suite 400 West Palm Bench. FL 3340! (361)820-871 I Facsimile (36I) 820.8777 June 7, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND Miss 04111110 Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights Dear Miss We Pursuant to the Justice for All Act or 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, you have a number of rights. Those rights arc: (I) The tight 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 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 right 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 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 tie 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 rights are protected. If you have any concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at 561 209-1047, or Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyticendall frowthe Federal Bureau of Investigation al 561 822.5946. You also. can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C. at 202-307-5983. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. .„ You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights 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. EFTA00177307

Case 9:08-cv-8 -KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 8 Page 9 of 21 Miss cellMali JUNE 7,2007 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 you or your family is subjected to any intimidation or harassment, please contact Special Agent Kuyrkcndall or myself immediately. It is possible that someone working on behalf of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such contact does not violaltithe law?, However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to that person or refusing tondo so. If you refuse and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, then please contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or myself. You also are entitled to notification of upcoming caseevents. At this time, your ease is under investigation! If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be notified. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: cc: Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, A. Marie Villafana Assistant United States Attorney EFTA00177308

Case 9:08-cv-8t KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1; U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South etustrahan Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Coach. FL 3340! ($61) 820471F Facsimile: (56!) 820.8777 August I I, 2006 DELIVERY BY HAN2 Miss Teal Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Righn Dear Miss MIS Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, you have a number of nghts. 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 deterrnnes 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 right 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 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. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these rights are protected. If you have any concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me al 561 209- t 047, or Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at 561 822.5946. You also can contact the Justice Depariment's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C. at 202.307.5983. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights listed above and, if you believe that the rights ;et forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for relief. EFTA00177309

Case 9:08-cv-8( KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1: 3 Page 11 of 21 Miss TeMElla AUGUST I I, 2006 PAGE 2 In addition to these rights, you are entitled to counseling and medical services, and from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you area victim, you ..I.. entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service pi i•. be provided to you, if you so desire. If you or your family is subjected to any intia • harassment, please contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or myself immediately. It is someone working on behalf of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such cow' ' not violate the law. However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to .h or refusing to do so. If you refuse and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, 11w Contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or myself. You also are entitled to notification of upcoming case events. At this time, your a.• investigation. If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be Mil Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: A. Marie Villafana Assistant United States Attorney cc: Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, F.B.I. EFTA00177310

Case 9:08-cv-8 January 10, nos KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 d,. Page.120of 21 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beach Suite 500 505 South Plaster Drive West Perm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (581) 833.7517 Fax: (561) 833-7970 Re: Case Number Gear This case is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process end we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough Investigation. As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3(71: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, tellers the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered It the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard al any public proceeding In the district court InvolAng release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The reasonable tight to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to full end 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. We wit make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an Individual for the crime. and It will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. The Victim Nollecation System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the case as it proceeds through the criminal Justice system. You may obtain current Information about this matter on the Internet el WWW,Nodty.USDOJ.OOV or from the VNS Call Center at 1-866-DOJ-4Y0U (1-866-365- 4968) (TDO/TTY: 1-866-228-4619) (International: 1.502.213-2767). In addition, you may use the Can Center or Internet to update your contact information ancllor change your decision about participation in the notification program. If you update your infonnaban to Include a current email address, VNS will send information to that address. You will need the following Victim Identification Number WIN) '1941737' and Personal Identification Number (PIN) '5502' anytime you contact the Cell Center and the first time you log on to \MS on the Internet In ackuon, the first time you access the VNS Internet site, you will be promgled to enter your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is EFTA00177311

Case 9:08-cv-£ -KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 0711 )13"sPadell by 21 It you have additional questions which Involve this matter, please contact the °Mee listed above. When you call, please provide the rile number located et the top of thls letter. Please remember, your participation in the notification pan of this program is voluntary. In order to, continue to receive notlficationS, it is your responsibility to keep your contact Information current Sincerely. TwIler Smith Victim Specialist EFTA00177312

Case 9:08:cv-8 KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 074 87-,± Page44tf 21 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beech Suite 500 505 South Fleeter Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone' (561) 833.7517 Fax: (561)1333-7970 January 10. 2008 James Eisenberg Ono Cleanake Center Ste 704 Australian South West Reim Beach, Fl. 33401 Re. Dear Dear James Eisenberg: You have requested to receive nOtifiCations for TINtel. This case Is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 16 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused: (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, Involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding. unless the court, after • receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the 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 and timely restitution as provided In law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay: (8) The nght to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. We wig make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights desutbed. Most of these nghts pertain to events occurring after the arrest or Indictment of an Individual for the crime, and It will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a prMate attorney with respect to these rights. The Victim Nettle:alien System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct Information regarding the case as It proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current Information about this matter on the Internet at WWW.Nolify.USDOJ.GOV or from the VNS Call Center at 1-886-DOJ-4YOU (1.866-365- 4968) (TDD/TTY: 1.866.228-4619) (International: 1-502-213-2767), In addition, you may use the Cal Center or Internet to update your contact information antler change your decision about participation in the notification program. If you update your information to Include a current emelt address, VNS will send information to that address. You will need the following Victim Identification Number (VIN) '1941741' and Personal Identification Number (PIN) '7760' anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on to VNS on the Internet. In addition, the drat time you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter your last name (or business name) as currently contained In VNS. The name you should enter is Eisenberg. EFTA00177313

Case 9:08-ov-8t KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 0714t PD1 Page ti t ,f 21 \or If you have additional questions which involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When you call. please provide the file number located at the top of this letter. Please remember, your participation in the notification part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications. It is your reeponsibelly to keep your contact Information current. Sincerely. Twitar Smith Victim Specialist EFTA00177314

Case 9:08-cv-E -KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 0.719 %at U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beach Suite 500 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beech, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 833-7517 Fax: (561) 833-7970 May 30. 2008 Re: Deer Mai Your name was referred to the FBI's Victim Assistance Program as being a possible victim of a federal crime. We appreciate your assistance and cooperation while we ere Investigating this case. We would eke to make you aware of the victim services that may be available to you and to answer any questions you may have regarding the criminal justice process throughout the investigation. Our program is part of the FBI's effort to ensure the victims are treated with respect end are provided information about their rights under federal law. These tights include notification of the status of the case. The enclosed brochures provide information about the FBI's Victim Assistance Program, resources and instructions for accessing the Victim Notification System (VHS). VNS is designed to provide you with information regarding the status of your case. This case Is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your 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 right to be reasonably protected from the accused: (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, end timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the alma or of any release or escape of the accused: (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receMng clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the 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 and timely restitution as provided In law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; (8) The right to be treated with fairness end with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. We will make our best efforts to ensure you ere accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office 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 (VNS) Is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the case es it proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current inforrnadon about this matter on the Internet at VVVYW.Notify.USDOJ.GOV or from the VNS Cell Center at 1-866-DOJ-4YOU (1-866-365- 4968) (TDDrITY. 1.866-228.4619) (International; 1-502-213.2767). In addition, you may use the Call Center or Internet to update your contact Informatkin and/or 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 will need the following Victim Identification Number (VIM) '2074381' end Personal Identification Number (PIN) '1816' anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you tog or. to VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter your lest name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is lit EFTA00177315

Casei pt08-ev-8t KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07444. 3, -,, Page el(7.of 21 v %..... 1."- "'- '.. \NO II you have additional questions which Involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When you call, please provide the file number located at the top of this letter. Please remember, your participation in the notification pert of this program la voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications, his your responsibility to keep your contact Information current. Sincerely, c•-• -ti(> Twiler Smith Victim Specialist TOTAL P.O? EFTA00177316

Case 9:08-cv-t -KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 38 Page 18 of 21 U.S. Department of Justice %sr United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 (361)8204711 Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 July 9, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE Brad Edwards, Esq. The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020. Re: Jeffrey Epstein/Claaba: NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM Dear Mr. Edwards: By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your client, QS Vat On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstein) entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida Statutes Sections 796.07 (felony solicitation of prostitution) and 796.03 (procurement of minors to engage in prostitution), in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case Nos. 2006-cf-009454MOCXMB and 2008-cf- 00938 I AXXXMB) and was sentenced to a term of twelve months' imprisonment to be followed by an additional six months' imprisonment, followed by twelve months of Community Control I, with conditions of community confinement imposed by the Court. In light of the entry of the guilty plea and sentence, the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence, subject to certain conditions. One such condition to which Epstein has agreed is the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein EFTA00177317

Case 9:08-cv-E -KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 8 Page 19 of 21 %NO BRAD EDWARDS. ESQ. NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM clans vs JULY 9, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less" Through this letter, this Office hereby provides Notice that your client, QampWal is an individual whom the United States was prepared to name as a victim of an enumerated offense. • d t Should your client decide to file a claim against Jeffrey Epstein, his attorney, Jack Goldberger, asks that you contact him at Atterbury Goldberger and Weiss, 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, (561) 659-8300. Please understand that neither the U.S. Attorney's Office not the Federal Bureau of Investigation can take part in or otherwise assist in civil litigation; however, ifiyou do file a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and Mr. Epstein denies that your client is a victim of an enumerated offense, please provide notice of that denial to the undersigned. Please thank your client for all of her assistance during the course of this examination and express the heartfelt regards of mysel f and Special Agents Kuyrkendall and Richards for the health and well-being of Ms. via cc: Jack Goldberger, Esq. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: A. MARIE VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY EFTA00177318

Case 9:08-ev-F -KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 aga)„, tic) U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida )8 Page 20 of 21 GOVERNMENT .0,.‘v;( ; ,..m \RIO CASE EXHIBri" EXHIBIT No. No 500 South Australian Ave.. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (560 8204711 Facsimile: (560820-8777 July 9, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE Brad Edwards, Esq. The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020. Re: Jeffrey Epsteinie lea NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM Dear Mr. Edwards: By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your client, saws Res On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstein) entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida Statutes Sections 796.07 (felony solicitation ofprostitution) and 796.03 (procurement of minors to engage in prostitution), in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case Nos. 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB and 2008-cf- 009381AXXXMB) and was sentenced to a term of twelve months' imprisonment to be followed by an additional six months' imprisonment, followed by twelve months of Community Control I, with conditions of community confinement imposed by the Court. In light of the entry of the guilty plea and sentence, the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence, subject to certain conditions. One such condition to which Epstein has agreed is the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein EFTA00177319

Case 9:08-cv-8 .KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 8 Page 21 of 21 N./ BRAD EDWARDS, ESQ. NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM SUMPS JUI.Y 9.2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Through this letter, this Office hereby provides Notice that your client, S P is an individual whom the United States was prepared to name as a victim of an enumerated offense. Should your client decide to file a claim against Jeffrey Epstein, his attorney, Jack Goldberger, asks that you contact him at Atterbury Goldberger and Weiss, 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, (561) 659-8300. Please understand that neither the U.S. Attorney's Office nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation can take part in or otherwise assist in civil litigation; however, if you do file a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and Mr. Epstein denies that your client is a victim of an enumerated offense, please provide notice of that denial to the undersigned. Please thank your client for all of her assistance during the course of this examination and express the heartfelt regards of myself and Special Agents Kuyrkendall and Richards for the health and well-being of Ms. lap R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: A. MARIE VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY cc: Jack Goldberger, Esq. EFTA00177320

Case 9:08-c 36-KAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07, 108 Page 1 of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. ORDER TAKE NOTICE that the above-styled cause has been set for a hearing on Petitioner's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act on Friday, July 11, 2008 at 10:15 A.M. before United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra, 701 Clematis Street, Courtroom 4, West Palm Beach, Florida. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this /0 day of July, 2008. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge copies to: all counsel of record EFTA00177321

80000 SERIES RECYCLED@ act% tk c w EFTA00177322

Case 9:08-cv- 3-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/ /08 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. FILED py D.C. JUL 0 9 2008 STEVEN M. LARIMORE CLERK U.S. OISE CE S.D. OF FLA. • W. AB. GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO VICTIM'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CRIME VICTIM RIGHTS ACT, 18 U.S.C. & 3771 The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Response to Victim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Victim Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and states: I. THERE IS NO "COURT PROCEEDING" UNDER 18 U.S.C. 6 3771(b) Petitioner complains that she has been denied her rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. In the emergency petition filed by the victim, she alleges the Government has denied her rights since she has received no consultation with the attorney for the government regarding possible disposition of the charges (18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX5)); no notice of any public court proceedings (18 U.S.C. § 377I(aX2)); no information regarding her right to restitution (18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX6)); and no notice of rights under the Crime Victim Rights Act (CVRA). Emergency Petition, 1 5. The instant case is unique in several respects. First, in 2006, Jeffrey Epstein was charged with felony solicitation of prostitution in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida. This charge was based upon the offenses alleged in paragraph I of the petition. Second, while Epstein has been under federal investigation, he has not been charged in EFTA00177323

Case 9:08-cv- 8-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07, /08 Page 2 of 8 'a- 'a - the Southern District of Florida. Title 18, U.S.C., Section 3771(b)(1) provides in pertinent pan that, "[i)n any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a)." There is no "court proceeding" in the instant case since Epstein has not been charged with violation of any federal statute. No federal grand jury indictment has been returned, nor has any criminal information been filed. There can thus be no failure of a right to notice of a public court proceeding or the right to restitution. In her memorandum, petitioner relics upon In Re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008), where the Fifth Circuit held that the CVRA required the government to "confer in some reasonable way with the victims before ultimately exercising its broad discretion." Id. at 395. In Dean, the government sought and obtained an gh pane order permitting it to negotiate a plea agreement with BP Products North America, without first consulting with the victims, individuals injured and survivors of those killed in a refinery explosion. A plea agreement was ultimately negotiated and the victims objected. The appellate court found that the CVRA granted a right to confer. However, the court declined to grant mandamus relief for prudential reasons, finding that the district court had the benefit of the views of the victims who chose to participate at the hearing held on whcther the plea agreement should be accepted. Id. at 396. Dean is legally distinguishable in several respects. For one thing, the court's discussion of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue mandamus relief. Dean 527 F.3d at 395. Also, in offering its view that this right applies pre- charge, it is noteworthy that the court, in purporting to quote the statute, omitted the last three words of section 3771(a)(5)("in the case"), words that arguably point in the opposite direction by - 2 - EFTA00177324

Case 9:08-cv 6-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07. )08 Page 3 of 8 suggesting that the right applies post-charge. Further, the court went to great lengths to emphasize that its holding was limited to the particular circumstances presented in that case (i.e., the simultaneous filing of a plea agreement and formal charges), which of course, is not the case here. No federal charges have been filed in the instant case, and this case, unlike Dean, involves an agreement to defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida and not a guilty plea. Id. at 394. Finally, the Dean court expressly declined to "speculate on the [right to confer's] applicability to other situations." Nothing in § 377I(a)(5) supports the petitioner's claim that she had a right to be consulted before the Government could enter into a non- prosecution agreement which defers federal prosecution in exchange for state court resolution of criminal liability, and a significant concession on an element of a claim for compensation under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. II. THE GOVERNMENT IIAS USED ITS BEST EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH 18 U.S.C. & 3771(a) The Epstein case was investigated initially by the Palm Beach Police Department in 2006. Exhibit A, Declaration of Assistant United States Attorney A. Marie Villafafial 2. Subsequently, the Palm Beach Police Department sought the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Id. Throughout the investigation, when a victim was identified, victim notification letters were provided to the victim by both the FBI Victim-Witness Specialist and AUSA Villafafia. Id., 3. Petitioner's counsel, Brad Edwards, Esq., currently represents C.W., T.M., and S.R. The U.S. Attorney's Office victim notification letter to C.W. was provided by the FBI. and the letter to T.M. was hand-delivered by AUSA Villafafia to her when she was interviewed in April 2007. FBI victim notification letters were mailed to C.W. and T.M. on - 3 - EFTA00177325

Case 9:08-cv 6-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07. )08 Page 4 of 8 ...• January 10, 2008, and to S.R. on May 30, 2008. Villafafla Decl., 1 3. Throughout the investigation, AUSA Villafafia and the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist had contact with C.W. Villafafta Decl.,1 4. Earlier in the investigation, T.M. was represented by James Eisenberg, Esq. Consequently, all contact with T.M. was made through Mr. Eisenberg. In mid-2007, Epstein's attorneys approached the U.S. Attorney's Office in an effort to resolve the federal investigation. Id., ¶ 5. At that time, Mr. Epstein had been charged by the State of Florida with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes § 796.07. Mr. Epstein's attorneys sought a global resolution of this matter. The United States subsequently agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, so long as certain basic preconditions were met. One of the key objectives for the Government was to preserve a federal remedy for the young girls whom Epstein had sexually exploited. Thus, one condition of that agreement, notice of which was provided to the victims on July 9, 2008, is the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more: no less." The Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance (May 2005), Article - 4 - EFTA00177326

Case 9:08-cv ;6-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07 308 Page 5 of 8 Nes, IV, Services to Victims and Witnesses, provides the following guidance for proposed plea agreements: (3) Proposed Plea Agreements. Responsible officials should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims' views about, prospective plea negotiations. In determining what is reasonable, the responsible official should consider factors relevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving notice and considering views in the context of the particular case, including, but not limited to, the following factors: (a) The impact on public safety and risks to personal safety. (b) The number of victims. (c) Whether time is of the essence in negotiating or entering a proposed plea. (d) Whether the proposed plea involves confidential information or conditions. (e) Whether there is another need for confidentiality. (f) Whether the victim is a possible witness in the case and the effect that relaying any information may have on the defendant's right to a fair trial. Throughout negotiations, Epstein's attorneys claimed that one reason victims came fonvard and pressed their claims was their desire for money. They argued that victims might have an inducement to fabricate or enhance their testimony, in order to maximize their opportunities to obtain financial recompense. Villafana Decl., ¶ 8. The Government was extremely concerned that disclosure of the proposed terms would compromise the investigation by providing Epstein the means of impeaching the victim witnesses, should the parties fail to reach an agreement. In light of the fact (i) that the United States agreed to defer prosecution to a previously filed state criminal case; (ii) that as a result sentencing would take place in state court before a state judge; (iii) that if the state resolution failed to meet minimum standards such that a federal prosecution was warranted, the victims would be witnesses and thus potential - 5 - EFTA00177327

Case 9:08-c‘, 16-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07 008 Page 6 of 8 impeachment issues were of concern; and (iv) the United States was already making efforts to secure for victims the right to proceed federally under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 even if prosecution took place in state court, the Government determined that its actions in proceeding with this agreement best balanced the dual position of the Jane Does as both victims and potential witnesses in a criminal proceeding. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA Villafafia received a copy of the proposed state plea agreement, and learned that Epstein's state plea hearing was scheduled for Monday, June 30, 2008, at 8:30 a.m. Villafafia Decl., 10. AUSA Villafafia and the Palm Beach Police Department attempted to provide notification to victims in the short time that they had. a Although all known victims were not notified, AUSA Villafaha did call attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. AUSA Villafaha did this, even though she had no obligation to provide notice of a state court hearing. Mr. Edwards advised that he could not attend but that someone would be present at the hearing. Id. The Government has complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(1) by using its best efforts to "see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a)." Specifically, petitioner was afforded the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). Disclosure of the specific terms of the negotiation were not disclosed prior to a final agreement being reached because the Government believed doing so would jeopardize and prejudice the prosecution in the event an agreement could not be made. Further, although 18 U.S.C. § 377I(a)(2) does not apply to state court proceedings, the government nonetheless notified petitioner's counsel on June 27, 2008, of the plea hearing in state court on June 30, 2008. - 6 - EFTA00177328

Case 9:08-cv-£ 1-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/' )8 Page 7 of 8 Section 3771(d)(6) provides, in relevant pan, that "[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." The Government exercised its judgment and discretion in determining that there was a need for confidentiality in the negotiations with Epstein. The significant benefit of obtaining Epstein's concession that victims suing him under 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a) were "victims" of the enumerated offenses, despite the fact he has not been convicted in federal court, was of sufficient importance to justify confidentiality of the negotiations. III. THE GOVERNMENT'S DISCUSSIONS WITH T.M., C.W., AND S.R. Attorney Brad Edwards has advised the Government that he represents T.M., C.W., and S.R. Victim letters were provided to all three individuals. The letters to C.W. and T.M. were forwarded on January 10, 2008. Villafafia Decl., ¶ 3. On May 28, 2008, S.R.'s status as a victim was confirmed when she was interviewed by federal agents. Id. The FBI Victim Witness specialist sent her a letter on May 30, 2008. Id. When the agreement was signed in September 2007, T.M. was openly hostile to a prosecution of Epstein, and S.R. had refused to speak with federal investigators. Id., ¶ 7. While individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement, none of Mr. Edwards' clients had expressed a desire to be consulted prior to the resolution of the federal investigation. a In October 2007, C.W. was not represented by counsel. Id., ¶ 8. She was given telephonic notice of the agreement, as were three other victims. Id. These four individuals were also given notice of an expected change of plea, in state court, in October 2007. In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted AUSA Villafana to advise that he represented C.W. and S.R., and requested a meeting. Id., ¶ 9. AUSA Villafana asked Mr. Edwards to send - 7 - EFTA00177329

Case 9:08-cv-£ i-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/' )8 Page 8 of 8 to her any information that he wished her to consider. Nothing was provided. Id. AUSA Villafafia also told Mr. Edwards he could contact the State Attorney's Office, if he wished. To her knowledge, Mr. Edwards did not make the contact. The Government has acted reasonably in keeping T.M, C.W., and S.R. informed. Petitioner's rights under the CVRA have not been violated. Therefore, her emergency petition should be denied. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney Fla. Bar No. 0936693 99 N.E. 4' Street Miami, Florida 33132 (305) 961-9320 Fax: (305) 530-7139 E-mail: [email protected] Attorney for Respondent CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via fitcsimilc transmission and U.S. Mail, this? day of July, 2008, to: Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC, (954) 924-1530, 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202, Hollywood, Florida 33020. la k DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney - 8 - EFTA00177330

80000 SERIES RECICife 30% ROW EFTA00177331

Case 9:08-cv 6-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07, 308 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. FILED by DC JUI. 0 9 2008 STEVEN M. LARISIORE CLERK U.S. 0 St CT. S.O. OF FLA • W.REL UNITED STATES' MOTION TO ALE RESPONSE TO VICTIM'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VICTIM RIGHTS ACI' AND DECLARATION OF A. MARIE VILLAFAS1A UNDER SEAL The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Motion to File Response to Victim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Victim Rights Act and Declaration of A. Marie VillafaAa Under Seal, pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4 and 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d)(2), and states: On July 7, 2008, petitioner filed her Emergency Victim's Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Petitioner did not disclose her name, and alleges that she was a minor child when she was the victim of federal crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein. Petition,' I. On July 7, 2008, the Court directed the Government to file a response to the Petition by July 9, 2008, at 5:00 p.m. The Government has prepared its Response, which is attached as Exhibit A, and the Declaration of Assistant United States Attorney A. Marie Villafana, as well as correspondence with several individuals who were minors when the relevant events occurred. Additionally, the Government's Response also refers to actions taken by the United States Attorney's Office with an interested party which was done in confidence. The Government believes that its Response should EFTA00177332

Case 9:08-cv- 3-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/ 08 Page 2 of 3 •••••• be tiled under seal, in order to protect the minor victims' privacy, as well as to maintain the confidentiality of the agreement reached with an interested party. The Government requests that its Response and the Declaration be scaled until the termination of the instant litigation, or five years from the date of filing, whichever occurs first. Upon the expiration of the lime period for sealing, the Government requests the documents be returned to the United States Attorney's Office. WHEREFORE, the government respectfully requests that its Response to Victim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and the Declaration of A. Marie Villafana be filed under seal. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATIORNEY By: DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney Fla. Bar No. 0936693 99 N.E. Street Miami, Florida 33132 (305) 961-9320 Fax: (305) 530-7139 E-mail: dexter.leeTh.usdoj.gov Attorney for Respondent 2 EFTA00177333

Case 9:08-cv. 6-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07, 108 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via facsimile transmission and U.S. Mail, this day of July, 2008, to: Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC, (954) 924-1530, 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202, Hollywood, Florida 33020. Assistant U.S. Attorney 3 EFTA00177334

8000 SERZ S FRY CUD e 30', P C iv EFTA00177335

Case 9:08-cv-; IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. i-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 08-80736-C1V-MARRA/JOHNSON 38 Page 1 of 1 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the United States of America's Motion to Seal its Response to Victim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim Rights Act, filed July 9, 2008. The Court has carefully considered the motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. For the reasons explained at the hearing held on July 11, 2008, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Seal is DENIED. The Clerk shall make available for public viewing all documents placed under seal on July 9, 2008. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this/ day of July, 2008. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge Copies furnished to: all counsel of record EFTA00177336

Case 9:08-cv-8C Voq08-0e8:07e3fEhl 1/1,Qof: Ceteileee6CtthitS/DiDefilefr07 1158 Page 1 of 2 LRJ U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Internal Use Only Dol.. United States of America Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Cause: no cause specified Petitioner Jane Doe Ropondent United States of America Date Filed: 07/07/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant represented by Bradley James Edwards 2028 Harrison Street Suite 202 Hollywood, FL 33020 954-414-8033 Fax: 924-1530 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Ann Marie C. Villafana United States Attorney's Office 500 South Australian Avenue Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561—820-8711 Fax: 820-8777 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Dexter Lee United States Attorney's Office 99 NE 4 Street Miami, FL 33132 305-961-9320 Fax: 530-7139 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed II Docket Text 07/07/2008 1 EMERGENCY PETITION for Victim's Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act 18 USC 3771 against United States of America Filing fee $ 350. Receipt#: 724403, filed by Jane Doe.(rb) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/07/2008 2 CERTIFICATE OF EMERGENCY by Janc Doc red Complaint (rb) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/07/2008 1 ORDER requiring U.S. Attorney to respond to_l. Complaint filed by Jane Doc by 5:00 p.m. on 7/9/08. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/7/08. (ir) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/09/2008 4 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Dcxtcr Lee on behalf of United States of America (Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 07/09/2008) EFTA00177337

Case 9:08-cv-8( giao8-aaestowseit 1AQof: Clintift200t611LS0DPaildirEttf07 ,37.)8 Page 2 of 2 07/09/2008 6 Scaled Document. (rb) (Entered: 07/10/2008) 07/09/2008 7 Sealed Document. (rb) (Entered: 07/10/2008) 07/09/2008 8 Sealed Document. (rb) (Entered: 07/10/2008) 07/10/2008 £ ORDER SETTING HEARING: Petitioner's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act set for 7/11/2008 10:15 AM in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Kenneth A. Marra. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/10/08. (ir) (Entered: 07/10/2008) 07/11/2008 2 REPLY to Response (under seal) ref Complaint/Emergency Petition, and Objection to Government's Motion for Sealing of Pleadings filed by Jane Doe. (Is) (Entered: 07/11/2008) 07/11/2008 10 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kenneth A. Marra: Miscellaneous Hearing held on 7/11/2008. Court will issue order to unseal pleadings. Court Reporter: Official Reporting Service— phone number 305-523-5635 (ir) (Entered: 07/11/2008) 07/11/2008 li ORDER Denying Motion to Seal re 7 Sealed Document, 6 Sealed Document, 8 Sealed Document. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Main on 7/11/2008. (Is) (Entered: 07/14/2008) EFTA00177338

EFTA00177339

Case 9:08-cv 6-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 )8 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. FILED by_ - D.C. JUL 1 1 20/8 STEVEN M. LARDS )RE CLERK U.S. 01ST. CT. S.D. Of ;IR W LB. VICTIM'S REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 AND OBJECTION TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SEALING OF PLEADINGS COMES NOW the Petitioner, JANE DOE, by and through her undersigned attorney, pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 ("CVRA"), and files this Reply to the Government's Response to her Emergency Petition for Enforcement and Objection to the Sealing of the Pleadings in this matter as follows: INTRODUCTION Four days ago (July 7th), Petitioner filed in this Court a motion seeking enforcement of (among other rights) her right to "confer" with the prosecution before a plea arrangement is reached disposing of the criminal charges involving her — a right promised to her in the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(5) (victims of crime have the "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case"). Two days later (July 91h), the Government sent her a notice that, in light of defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to various state charges and 18-month jail sentence, the Government had agreed to defer all federal prosecution - including any federal prosecution for the federal crimes committed against ter. 'This deferred prosecution agreement was reached without conferral with Petitioner — or, indeed, with the many other young victims of the defendant's crimes. And the agreement remarkably 1 EFTA00177340

Case 9:08-cv .6-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 0711 )8 Page 2 of 17 slowed the defendant - a billionaire with extraordinary political connections -- to escape all federal prosecution for dozens of serious federal sex offenses against minors. On July 9m, the Government also filed with this Court a response to the Petitioner's petition for enforcement of her CVRA rights. In its response, the Government argues that it did not need to confer with Petitioner because there was no formal "court proceeding" pending at the tune the Government negotiated this non-prosecution agreement. This position ignores the plain language of the CVRA — which extends the right to confer to any "case," not any "co int proceeding" — and flies in the face of the Fifth Circuit's recent decision that is squarely on point - In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008). Perhaps in recognition of the weakness of its position, the Government goes on to argue that it used its "best efforts" to comply the CVRA. But the Government never conferred with Petitioner about the agreement — so the Government's efforts fall well short of affording Petitioner her right to confer. Finally, the Government claims that it disclosed some of its activities to Petitioner in this case (identified as "C.W." in the Government's pipers). But neither Petitioner nor undersigned counsel were ever notified of the proposed non- prosecution agreement. To the contrary, undersigned counsel was advised that a federal indictment was in the works. For all these reasons, the Government's response lacks merit. The Court should therefore declare the proposed non-prosecution agreement an illegal one. since it was reached in violation of the CVRA, and order the Government to confer with Petitioner and the other victims in this matter before reaching any disposition in this case. The Government also apparently proposes to keep its activities in this case secret, by filing documents under seal. It bears emphasizing that none of the pleadings in this matter discloses, either directly or indirectly, the identity of a minor victim. In light of this fact, the Government 2 EFTA00177341

Case 9:08-cv 6-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 '8 Page 3 of 17 bears a heavy burden in deviating from the ordinary rules, a burden it has not carried. There is no sound basis for keeping the pleadings in this matter sealed. Moreover, the matter is one of exceptional public interest — involving what appears to Petitioner to be a "sweetheart" non- prosecution agreement for multiple sex crimes against children committed by a well connected billionaire. Accordingly, the papers in this case should be lodged in the Court's public file. I. THE GOVERNMENT HAS VIOLATED PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO "CONFER" BEFORE REACHING THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT. The Crime Victims' Rights Act promises Petitioner that she will have "[t]he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(5) (emphasis added). To justify its failure to confer here, the Government's lead argument in its response is that there was no "court proceeding" in this case that triggered Petitioner's right to confer. Gov't Response at 1-2. The Government's position flouts the plain language of the C'/RA. The CVRA guarantees to Petitioner the right to confer with prosecutors "in the case — not in a "court proceeding." Indeed, the fact that (as the Government notes) the drafters of the CVRA used the term "court proceeding" elsewhere in the statute 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." Obviously there was "a case" going on in this matter for some time. Indeed, the Government sent notice to Petitioner more than a year ago that "your case is under investigation." See Letter from A. Marie Villafafia to C.W. at 2 (June 7, 2007) (attached to Governmeni's Response) (emphasis added). The notice went on to tell Petitioner that "as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, you have a number of rights," Id. at I. Of course, she would not have had those rights if she was not covered by the CVRA. Interestingly, the letter also advised 3 EFTA00177342

Case 9:08-cv ;6-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/'. )8 Page 4 of 17 Petitioner 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." Id. at I. If there were any doubt that the drafters of the CVRA intended for its rights to extend to pre-indictment situations, they disappear in light of the CVRA's instruction that a crime victim wrio seeks to assert rights in pre-indictment situations should proceed in the court where the crime was committed: 'The 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, if no prosecution is taidernuy, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (emphasis added). Petitioner noted the importance of this language in her opening Petition, see Emergency Victim's 5, but the Government chose not to discuss it in its reply. In a case remarkably similar to this one, the Fifth Circuit has recently held that victims have a right to confer with federal prosecutors even before any charges are filed. In In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (51h Cir. 2008), a wealthy corporate defendant reached a generous plea thal 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 "[t]here are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway." RP Pmds., 2008 WL 501321 at *11, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12893, at *36. Logically, this includes the CVRA's establishment of victims' "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). At least in the posture of this case (and we do not speculate on the applicability to other situations), the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of a plea bargain. la. at 394. 4 EFTA00177343

Case 9:08-cv- 3-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 8 Page 5 of 17 As we understand the Government's response, it asks this Court to decline to follow the Fifth Circuit's holding and create a split of authority on this important issue. See Gov't Response at 2-3. Notably, the Government does not cite any cases supporting its position. 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 3')5). 'This is simply untrue. The Fifth Circuit faced a petition for mandamus relief from the victims in that case, asking that a proposed 'binding" plea agreement negotiated under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(I)(C) (i.e., a plea agreement obligating the judge to impose a specific sentence) be rejected. 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 fiat the victims' rights had been violated in the passages quoted above. It then went on to remand :he matter to the district court for further consideration of the effect of the violations of the victims' ri hts: We are confident, however, that the conscientious district court will fully consider the victims' objections and concerns in deciding whether the plea agreement should be accepted. The decision whether to grant 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. 527 F.3d at 396. Obviously, the Fifth Circuit could not have instructed the District Court to "take h•sed" of the violations of victims' rights unless it has specifically held, as a matter of law, that he victims' rights had been violated. The Government's next effort to deflect the force of the Fifth Circuit's decision is that the 5 EFTA00177344

Case 9:08-cv 6-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLED Docket 07/1 )8 Page 6 of 17 Circuit did not directly quote three words found in the CVRA's right to confer — the words "in the case." See Gov't Response 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 Fifth Circuit cited to the district coirt opinion under review, which had quoted all the words in the statute. See United States'. SP Peoducts, 2008 WL 501321 at *7 (noting victims right to confer "in the case"), cited in In re Dean, 527 F.3d at 394. The Government finally notes that the Fifth Circuit properly stated that its ruling about the Government violating the right to confer applied "in the posture of this case." 527 F.3c1 at 394. Bit the posture of this case — 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 •,ve 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 "leached 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 6 EFTA00177345

Case 9:08-cv 6-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 /8 Page 7 of 17 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 Petitioner would have strenuously objected to . . if the Government had given her the chance. The Fifth Circuit's decision in Dean has been cited in one very recent District Court decision, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States' Rubin, 20(8 WI. 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under 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 lean "contemplating" charges: Quite understandably, movants perceive their victimization as having begun long before 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'. BP Products North America. Inc., the district court reasoned that because § 3771(d)(3) 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 provid for "rights ... that apply before any prosecution is underway." (United States . BP Products North America, Inc., Criminal No. 11-07-434, 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 and 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 contemplated. It 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 7 EFTA00177346

Case 9:08-cv 6-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 )8 Page 8 of 17 sta3c" - to a point where the Government determined that crimes had been committed and that the defendant should plead guilty to either a state or federal offense. For all these reasons, the Court should follow the Fifth Circuit and hold that Petitioner and the other victims in this case had the right to confer with the Government before it reached its non-prosecution agreement. II. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT USED ITS "BEST EFFORTS" TO COMPLY WITH THE CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS ACT. The Government next argues that it has somehow used its "best efforts" to comply with the CVRA in this case. Gov't Response at 3. The bulk of the Government's arguments concern varous notices that it sent to victims. Buried in the middle of these arguments is the Government's stark concession that proves Petitioner's claim: "[T]he specific terms of the negotiation were not disclosed prior to a final agreement being reached because the Government believed doing so nvuld jeopardize and prejudice the prosecution in the event an agreement could not be made." Gov't Response at 6 (emphasis added). In other words, Petitioner — and the many other victims of the defendant's federal sex offenses — was deliberately kept in the dark about the fact that the Government was planning to reach a deal that would permit the defendant to escape all federal punishment in favor of an 18-month county jail sentence. This bald decision to conceal from the victims what was happening violated the basic premise of the Crime Victim's Rights Act: that victims deserve to know what is happening in their cases. Congress was concemal that in the federal system crime victims were "treated as non-participants in a critical event in their lives. They were kept in the dark by prosecutors too busy to care enough ... and by a court system that simply did not have a place for them." 150 CONG. REc. 54262 (Apr. 22. 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein). To remedy this problem, Congress gave victims "the simple 8 EFTA00177347

Case 9:08-cv 6-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 IS Page 9 of 17 right to know what is going on, to participate in the process where the information that victims and their families can provide may be material and relevant ... ." Id. The CVRA required the Government to confer with Petitioner and consider her views about the proposed arrangement in this case. Indeed, the Government's own regulations require prosecutors to "consider victims' views about prospective plea negotiations." U.S.DEP'T OF JUSTICE OFFICE FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME, ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR VICTIMS AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE 30 (2005). Congress obviously intended for victims to have a meaninghl role in the criminal justice process. The Fifth Circuit recently confronted — and rejected — a very similar claim from the Government that it did not need to meaningfully confer with crime victims. There, the Government's purported justification for failing to confer was the risk of pre-trial publicity to the det:ndant. The Fifth Circuit summarily dismissed that argument, holding: "Congress made the policy decision -- which we are bound to enforce -- that the victims have a right to inform the plea negotiation process by conferring with prosecutors before a plea agreement is reached." Id. a 395. In this case, too, this Court is "bound to enforce" Congress' decision that prosecutors confer with victims before reaching a plea agreement. The Government is not entitled to pick and choose which particular cases it will give victims the right to confer. In support of its remarkable position, the Government cites a provision in the CVRA that provides that "(n)othing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C. § 377 l(d)(6). But the Government made the same argument in the Dean case — and lost. The Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court decision that enforcing the right to confer might impair 9 EFTA00177348

Case 9:08-cv- 3-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 8 Page 10 of 17 prosecutorial discretion with the following statement: "[Giving the right to confer to victims] is not an infringement, as the district court believed, on the government's independent prosecutor al discretion, . . . instead, it is only a requirement that the government confer in some reasonable wLy with the victims before ultimately exercising its broad discretion." 574 Moreover, the Government's asserted justification for failing to confer is transparently flimsy. It asserts that, if the victims had been told that the plea agreement gave them advantages in civil litigation against the defendant, then that would have "provid[ed] Epstein the means Df impeaching the victim witnesses . . . ." Gov't Response at 5. But obviously the victims were already subject to impeachment on that ground — even if no plea agreement was ever reached. The defense attorneys presumably would have asked all of the victims at any criminal trial about the possibility that they could pursue civil litigation against the defendant if he was convicted. The plea agreement did not change the obvious fact that a criminal conviction — whether by plea agreement or by jury trial — would facilitate civil claims by the victims of the defendant's crimes. In light of all this, this Court should reach the obvious conclusion: The Government did nos use its "best efforts" to protect the rights of Petitioner (and the other victims) in this case when it failed to confer with her about the non-prosecution agreement. III. THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT CONFER WITH PETITIONER. The Government finally makes a factual argument about the state of negotiations in this case. The brief discussion (see Gov'ts Response at 7-8) is somewhat vague. One short passage in the response, however, seems to assert that Petitioner was given some sort of notice about the plea agreement about nine months ago. Gov't Response at 7 ("In October 2007, C.W. was not represented by counsel. . . . She was given telephonic notice of the agreement, as were three other 10 EFTA00177349

Case 9:08-cv-1 -KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/11 3 Page 11 of 17 victims."). If the Government is asserting that Petitioner was told that a non-prosecution agreement hail been reached with the defendant as early as October 2007, Petitioner strongly disputes this alleged "fact." To the contrary, undersigned counsel was told by federal prosecutors within the last 60 days that a federal "indictment" was under consideration. Petitioner does not believe that the Government is truly asserting that she was told about a non-prosecution agreement because, elsewhere in its brief, the Government makes the opposi:e assertion: "[T]he specific terms of the negotiation %ere not disclosed prior to a final agreement being reached because the Government believed doing so would jeopardize and prejudice the prosecution in the event an agreement could not he made." Gov't Response at 6 (emphasis added). Because of the confusion about what the Government is truly asserting, Petitioner requests an opportunity to address the facts directly with the Court at the hearing. If necessary, Petitioner also requests leave of Court after the hearing to provide whatever supplemental infbrmation (by way of affidavit or otherwise) that would be needed to prove that she was never told that the Government was considering a federal non-prosecution agreement with the defendant, much less given a chance to confer with the Government on this extraordinarily lenient disposition. IV. THE COURT SHOULD ENTER AN ORDER DIRECTING THE GOVERNMENT TO CONFER WITH THE PETITIONER BEFORE ANY NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT BECOMES FINALIZED. For all these reasons, it is obvious that Petitioner's right to confer was violated in this case. The question then arises as to the appropriate remedy. The obvious remedy is to declare 11 EFTA00177350

Case 9:08-cv- 3-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1 8 Page 12 of 17 the non-prosecution agreement illegal and direct that the Government proceed to negotiate a new agreement — in a process that respects Petitioner's (and the other victims') rights. The non-prosecution agreement here violates federal law. As described by tie Government (the victims have not been even given the courtesy of a copy of the agreement), tie agreement prevents federal prosecution of the defendant for numerous sex offenses. Yet the agreement was reached without giving Petitioner her right to confer — a violation of IS U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). When other plea arrangements have been negotiated in violation of federal law, they have been stricken by the courts. For example, United States I Walker, 98 F.3d 944 (7th Cr. 1990, 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 . . . ." Here, of course, exactly the same is true: the non-prosecution agreement is vitiated by illegally — namely, the fact that it was negotiated in violation of the victims' rights. Other cases reach similar conclusions. See. e.g.. United States' Cooper, 70 F.3d 563 (10th Cr. 1995) (prosecutor agreed to recommend probation, but it now appears that would be an illegal sentence in this case, and thus the only adequate remedy is to allow defendant to withdraw the plea); Craig' People, 986 P.2d 951 (Cob. 1999) (because "neither the prosecutor nor the trial court have authority to modi& 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 12 EFTA00177351

Case 9:08-cv-; i-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/1' 3 Page 13 of 17 some right to specific performance of an illegal non-prosecution agreement. See Saner. Garcia, 582 N.W.2d 879 (Minn. 1998) (plea agreement for 81 months sentence, but court added 10-year conditional release term because, under facts of case, a sentence without such release term was "plainly illegal," and thus the remedy of specific performance not available); Stater. Weill, 348 N.C. 671, 502 S.E.2d 585 (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"); Kr pane Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (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 wes 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 offited a plea bargain within the proper range of punishment that he deemed acceptable"); Staler Marzone. W.Va. 368, 572 S.E.2d 891 (2002) (where plea agreement was that defendart would plead guilty to 2 felony counts of felon in possession of firearm and prosecutor would dismiss the 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"). This Court is obligated to take steps to protect Petitioner's rights. Under the CVRA, "[i]n any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the 13 EFTA00177352

Case 9:08-cv-£ -KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/11 ; Page 14 of 17 crime victim is afforded the rights described in [the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)( I). The CVRA also confers on crime victims the right to "assert the rights described in [the CVRA)." 18 U.S.C. § 377I(d)(1). Obviously there is now a court proceeding before this Court in which Petitioner is asserting rights under the CVRA. This Court must therefore protect her rights py declaring the non-prosecution agreement invalid. THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO SEE THE GOVERNMENT'S EXPLANATIONS FOR ITS EXTRAORDINARILY LENIENT NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT. The Government has also filed its pleadings in this matter under seal. There is no sound reason fin concealing from the public the Government's explanations in this matter. Accordingly, the Government's pleadings should be unsealed. The Government offers two explanations for sealing its pleadings. First, the Government claims that the pleading would reveal correspondence with minors. Gov't Motion at 1. But the Government has redacted the names of the minors involved (including Petitioner's name), so there is no good basis for sealing. (Counsel does respectfully request that the Government double- check its redactions to make sure that no name has been overlooked.) Indeed, the very statute that the Government cites (18 U.S.C. § 3509(d)(2)) envisions that minors' names will be redacted and then the remaining pleadings made available to the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d)(2) ("The pen on who makes a filing (involving a minor] shall submit to the clerk of the court . . . the paper with the portions of it that disclose the name of or other information concerning a child redacted, to be placed in the public record") (emphasis added). Second, the Government asserts that its pleading should be kept under seal "to maintain the confidentiality of the agreement reached with an interested party." Gov't Motion at 2. 14 EFTA00177353

Case 9:08-cv-E -KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/11 1 Page 15 of 17 Petitioner believes exactly the opposite is true — confidentiality will undermine public confidence in the federal criminal justice system. This case involves a non-prosecution agreement with a politically-connected billionaire that has drawn considerable public attention. See, e.g., Palm Beach Post.Com, Banker Epstein Pleads in Prostitution Case, Gets 18 Months (June 30, 2008) ("He lives in a Palm Bea,:h waterfront mansion and has kept company with the likes of President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and Donald Trump, but investment banker Jeffrey Epstein will call the Palm Beach County jail hone for the next 18 months"). The public is entitled to know all of the circumstances surrounding this federal (non) prosecution. The public may well wonder — as Petitioner does in this case — why a defendant who committed multiple sex crimes over an extended period of time against numerous minor victims is receiving only an 18-month jail sentence and a "free pass" fro n the federal government. If the Government had conferred with Petitioner, she would have explained why this proposed disposition did not begin to reflect "the seriousness of the offense" 18 U.S.C. § 3553(aX2)(A). The Eleventh Circuit has instructed that the district courts must make substantial findings before sealing records in cases before it. For instance, in United States I Ochoa-Vasque, 428 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir. 2005), it reversed an order from this Court that had sealed pleadings in a criminal case, emphasizing the importance of the public's historic First Amendment right of accen to the courts. To justify sealing, "a court must articulate the overriding interest along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered." Id. at 1030. The Government has not discussed the controlling court authority on sealing orders, much less attempted to prove that there is an 'overriding interest' IS EFTA00177354

Case 9:08-cv-6 -KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/11 Page 16 of 17 justifying sealing. For this reason, the Government's attempts to keep secret what has been done in this case should be rejected and its motion for sealing of its response denied. CONCLUSION The Petitioner requests the intervention of this Court to ensure that her rights are respected and accorded, as promised in the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The Court should enter an order finding the non-prosecution agreement in this case was negotiated in violation of the C\'RA and therefore is illegal and invalid. The Court should also deny the Government's motion to seal its pleadings in this case. DATED this I I th day ofjulv, 2008. Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & ASSOCIATES, LLC Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bar #542075 2028 Harrison Street Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 Telephone: 954-414-8033 Facsimile: 954-924-1530 16 EFTA00177355

Case 9:08-cv-£ -KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/11 ; Page 17 of 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has born provided by hand delivery in open court to the Attorney appearing on behalf of the United States At tome's Office, this 1 I h day of July, 2008. Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bar No. 542075 17 EFTA00177356

EFTA00177357

Case 9:08-cv :6-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/i 08 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Assistant United States Attorney Dexter A. Lee enters his appearance on behalf of the respondent, United States of America. The undersigned respectfully requests that notices, orders, and other documents be sent to the undersigned at: United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33132 (305) 961-9320 Fax: (305) 530-7139 E-mail: dexter.lecpusdoi.uov Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: s/ Dexter A. Lee DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney Fla. Bar No. 0936693 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 (305) 961-9320 Fax: (305) 530-7139 E-mail: dexter.lee(usdoi.uov Attorney for Respondent EFTA00177358

Case 9:08-cv ;6-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/( )8 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 9, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CWECF. s/ Dexter A. Lee DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney SERVICE LIST In Re Jane Doe Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq. The Law Office of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 (954) 414-8033 Fax: (954) 924-1530 Attorney for Jane Doe 2 EFTA00177359

EFTA00177360

Case 9:08-cv 6-KAM Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/( )8 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner / ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act (DE 1), filed July 7, 2008. It is hereby ORDERED that the United States' Attorney shall file a response to this petition by 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday, July 9, 2008. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 7th day of July, 2008. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge Copies furnished to: R. Alexander Acosta, United States' Attorney all counsel of record EFTA00177361

X EFTA00177362

Case 9:08-cv ;6-KAM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/( )8 D.C. ELECTRONIC re; i c„Ic P06 v. frn. teed stitcreS of Aren.rat Plamlilr DefencIoni UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CERTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY JULY 7, 2008 STEVEN NI. LARIMORE CLERK U.S. 01ST. CT. S.O. Of FLA. • MIAMI I hereby certify that, as a member of the Bar of this Court, I have carefully examined this matter and it is a true emergency. I further certify that the necessity for this emergency hearing has not been caused by a lack of due diligence on my part, but has been brought about only by the circumstances of this case. The issues presented by this matter have not ken submitted to the Judge assigned to this case or any other Judge or Magistrate Judge of the Southern District of Florida prior hereto. 1 further certify that I have made a bona fide effort to resolve this matter without the necessity of emergency action. Dated this 7 day of it./ Signature: Print Name: .15retd Florida Bar Number: Telephone Number: 597 079 95y-r/y-Y033 I hereby certify that the Judge assigned to this case is unavailable for this emergency (a copy of his/her notification to the Clerk is on file). In accordance with Local Rule 3.7, the Honorable was randomly drawn from the Emergency Wheel. Dated: STEVEN M. LARIMORE Court Administrator • Clerk of Court By: Deputy Clerk 1 oft EFTA00177363

EFTA00177364

Case 9:08-cv-£ -KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 0710-, 3 F1 -dts*le,i. 1 WO D.C. ELECTRONC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80736-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. JULY 7, 2008 STEVEN M. lARIMORE CLERK U.S. GIST. CT. S.O. OF FLA. • MIAMI enc y VICTIM'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS ACT, 18 U.S.0 . SECTION 3771 COMES NOW the Petitioner, JANE DOE (hereinafter "Petitioner"), by and through her undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 ("CVRA"), and files this Petition for Enforcement in the above styled action as follows: I. Petitioner, an adult, as a minor child was a victim of federal crimes committed by JEFFREY EPSTEIN (hereinafter "Defendant"). These crimes included sex trafficking of children by fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, use of a means of interstate commerce to entice a minor to commit prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422, as well as wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The Defendant committed these crimes within the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Florida in Palm Beach County, Florida. 2. Upon information and belief, the Defendant is the subject of a federal criminal investigation conducted by the United States of America in the Southern District of Florida. The Defendant has recently been prosecuted and pleaded guilty, on June 30, 2008, in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County to various similar state offenses including solicitation of minors for prostitution. 3. Upon information and belief, the Defendant is engaged in plea negotiations with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida concerning federal l0110 EFTA00177365

Case 9:08-cv-: 3-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/0 6 Page 2 of 10 crimes which he is alleged to have committed against minor children, including the Petitioner. Such negotiations may likely result in a disposition of the charges in the next several days. 4. Under the CVRA, before any charges are filed against the Defendant, the Petitioner has the rights (among others) to notice of her rights under the CVRA, to confer with the prosecutors, and to be treated with fairness. As soon as charges are filed, the Petitioner has the rights (among others) to timely notice of court proceedings, the right not to be excluded from such proceedings, the right to be heard at such public proceedings regarding conditions of release, any plea, and any sentence, the right to confer with the attorney for the government, the right to restitution, and the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for her dignity and privacy. 5. The Petitioner has been denied her rights in that she has received no consultation with the attorney for the government regarding the possible disposition of the charges, no notice of any public court proceedings, no information regarding her right to restitution, and no notice of rights under the CVRA, as required under law. 6. The Petitioner is in jeopardy of losing her rights, as described above, if the government is able to negotiate a plea or agreement with the Defendant without her participation and knowledge. WHEREFORE, for the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner respectfully requests this Court to grant her Petition, and to order the United States Attorney to comply with the provisions of the CVRA prior to and including any plea or other agreement with the Defendant and any attendant proceedings. 2 or 10 EFTA00177366

Case 9:08-cv-i ,-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/0; 3 Page 3 of 10 vet MEMORANDUM I. THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT MAKES CRIME VICTIMS INDEPENDENT PARTICIPANTS THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS. In October 2004, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Crime Victims' Rights Act, Pub. L. No. 108-405, 118 Stat. 2251 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3771). Because this appears to be the first case involving the Act to come before this Court, a bit of background may be in order. A. The CVRA Gives Crime Victims Rights to Participate in the Criminal Justice Process. Congress passed the CVRA "to give crime victims enforceable rights to participate in federal criminal proceedings." Opinion at 14. Congress was concerned that in the federal system crime victims were "treated as non-participants in a critical event in their lives. They were kept in the dark by prosecutors too busy to care enough ... and by a court system that simply did not have a place for them." 150 CONG. REC. S4262 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein). To remedy this problem, Congress gave victims "the simple right to know what is going on, to participate in the process where the information that victims and their families can provide may be material and relevant ... ." Id. The CVRA gives victims of federal crimes a series of rights, including the right to notice of court proceedings, to be heard at plea and sentencing hearings, and to reasonably "confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). Victims also have a "right of access to the terms of a plea agreement ... ." In re Interested Party 1, 530 F.Supp. 2d 136, 2008 WL 134233 at *7 (D.D.C. 2008). The CVRA also assures victims broadly that they will "be treated with fairness." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX8). 3 3 of 10 EFTA00177367

Case 9108-cv-; ≥-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/0' 3 Page 4 of 10 Nee Of course, these rights would be of little use to most crime victims unless they were told about them. To ensure that victims are notified of their rights, the CVRA directs employees of the Justice Department "and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime" to use their "best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of... the rights described [in the CVRA)." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(I) (emphasis added).1 B. The CVRA Gives Victims Rights During the Investigation of a Crime. The CVRA gives victims rights during the investigation of a crime. The Fifth Circuit recently reached this conclusion, holding: The district court acknowledged that "[tjhere are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway." BP Prods., 2008 WL 501321 at *11,2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12893, at *36. Logically, this includes the CVRA's establishment of victims' "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government." 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(5). At least in the posture of this case (and we do not speculate on the applicability to other situations), the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of a plea bargain. In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (51" Cir. 2008). The position that CVRA rights apply before charges have been filed is consistent with the Justice Department regulations under the CVRA, which explain that government officials "must advise a victim [about their rights under the CVRA) ... at the earliest opportunity at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation." A.G. GUIDELINES FOR VICTIM AND WITNESS I Further supporting this requirement is another statute, 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)(3), which directs government officials to provide victims with "the earliest possible notice of," among other things. "the filing of charges against a suspected offender." 4 4 o410 EFTA00177368

Case 9:08-cv-1 i-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/0 3 Page 5 of 10 ASSISTANCE 23 (May 2005). And the plain language of the CVRA undergirds this conclusion, as it applies not simply to prosecutors but to government agencies "engaged in the detection [and) investigation ... of crime ... ." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). Indeed, if there were any doubt, the plain language of the CVRA extends victims' right to situations "in which no prosecution is underway." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). H. PETITIONER IS A "VICTIM PROTECTED BY THE CVRA. Under the CVRA the crime victim is defined as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense ... ." 18 U.S.C. Section 3771(e). In particular, Defendant called Petitioner when she was a minor over a telephone (a means of interstate communication) requesting that she perform a massage in exchange for payment. As Defendant well knew, that request was fraudulent, as he not only intended to receive a massage, but also intended to have her perform sexual acts in exchange for a cash payment to Petitioner. Only when Petitioner arrived at a Defendant's mansion as directed by Defendant, did Defendant reveal his true purpose of obtaining sexual favors in exchange for payment. This conduct violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422, which forbids using a means of interstate commerce to knowingly "induce" or "entice" a minor "to engage in prostitution." In addition, this conduct was both a use of "fraud" to obtain a commercial sex act, in violation of 18 U.S.0 § 1591, and use of wire communications to perpetrate a "scheme and artifice to defraud," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. It appears obvious that Petitioner was "directly and proximately" harmed by these crimes, thereby making her a victim under the CVRA. It should be emphasized that the CVRA "was designed to be a 'broad and encompassing' statutory victims' bill of rights." United States 5 sa 10 EFTA00177369

Case 9:08-cv- 3-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/0' 8 Page 6 of 10 ••••0 NOV Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d 1341, 1342 (D. Utah 2005) (quoting 150 Cong. Rec. S426I (daily ed. Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein)). Congress intended the CVRA to dramatically rework the federal criminal justice system. In the course of construing the CVRA generously, the Ninth Circuit observed: "The criminal justice system has long functioned on the assumption that crime victims should behave like good Victorian children -- seen but not heard. The Crime Victims' Rights Act sought to change this by making victims independent participants in the criminal justice process." Kenna'. U.S. Dist. Court for C.D. Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, because the CVRA is remedial legislation, courts should interpret it "liberally to facilitate and accomplish its purposes and intent." Elliott Industries Ltd. Partnership BP America Production Co., 407 F.3d 1091, 1118 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting remedial legislation should be "interpreted liberally to facilitate and accomplish its purposes and intent"). The CVRA itself suggests this conclusion by requiring that courts must treat crime victims with "fairness." United States!. Patkar, 2008 WL 233062 at *3 (D. Haw. 2008) (citing United States" Turner, 367 F.Supp.2d 319, 335 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)). Not only must the CVRA as a whole be interpreted liberally, but its definition of "crime victim" requires a generous construction. After reciting the direct-and-proximate-harm language at issue here, one of the Act's two co-sponsors -- Senator Kyl -- explained that "[tjhis is an intentionally broad definition because all victims of crime deserve to have their rights protected ." 150 Cong. Rec. S10912 (Oct. 9, 2004) (emphasis added). The description of the victim definition as "intentionally broad" was in the course of floor colloquy with the other primary sponsor of the CVRA and therefore deserves significant weight. See Kenna, 435 F.3d at 1015-16 (discussing significance of CVRA sponsors= floor statements). 6 0 of 10 EFTA00177370

Case 9:08-cv- 3-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/0 8 Page 7 of 10 The definition of "crime victims" must thus be construed broadly in favor of Petitioner. She obviously qualifies as a "victim" under the CVRA. III. PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO NOTICE OF HER RIGHTS, AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITH THE PROSECUTORS AND TO BE TREATED WITH FAIRNESS. Because Petitioner is a "victim" under the CVRA, she has certain protected rights under the Act. Most important, the Act promises that she will have an opportunity to "confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." To date, Petitioner has not been given that right. This taises that very real possibility that the Government may negotiate and conclude a plea agreement with the Defendant without giving Petitioner her protected rights.2 Petitioner is entitled to have this conference with prosecutors before any final plea agreement is reached. The Fifth Circuit reached exactly this conclusion in a very recent case. In In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008), the Government negotiated a plea agreement with the well-heeled corporate defendant without conferring with the victims. When the Government's failure was challenged in the Fifth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Government had indeed violated the CVRA. The Fifth Circuit observed: "In passing the [CVRA[, Congress made the policy decision-which we are bound to enforce-that the victims have a right to inform the plea negotiation process by conferring with prosecutors before a plea agreement is reached." Id. at 394. This Court is obligated to protect the rights of Petitioner. The CVRA directs that "[i)n any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the 2 On information and belief, roughly the same crimes were committed against several other young females. These victims, too, are in danger of losing their right to confer under the CVRA. 7 70110 EFTA00177371

Case 9:08-cv- 6-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/0 )8 Page 8 of 10 crime victim is afforded the rights described in [the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(bX1). The CVRA also confers on crime victims the right to "assert the rights described in [the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(I ). Therefore, this Court has its own independent obligation to intercede and ensure that the Government respects the rights of Petitioner under the CVRA. CONCLUSION The Petitioner requests the intervention of this Court to ensure that her rights are respected and accorded, as promised in the Crime Victims' Rights Act. DATED this 7th day of July, 2008. Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & ASSOCIATES, LLC Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bar #542075 2028 Harrison Street Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 Telephone: 954-414-8033 Facsimile: 954-924-1530 8 $ of 10 EFTA00177372

Case 9:08-ov. 6-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/C )8 Page 9 of 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been provided by United States mail and via facsimile to: ANN MARIE C. VILLAFANA, AUSA, United States Attorney's Office, 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, this 7th day of July, 2008. Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bar No. 542075 9 9 al to EFTA00177373

08-8GoatgaPir >13RrAiegal-J,WNntered on FLSD Docket 07/0'. •.3544 IN, 2nnl CIVIL COVER SHEET JS 44 cio I cover dimt and the information comained be/einnebba naplace nor supplement the Mint and seivin ofplcadings C< aber papers a hy kcal niks of con. -Ibis (omn. approeed by tbc ludtrial Conference of the United Smie, in September 1974. is requned for the ose of ibeClak meavd cocker thea. ISET INSTRUT TILINS ON rur. RET ERST OF THE PORM., NOTICE: Attorneys MUST Indkate All Ratved I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEPENDANTS Un, 7. 6d 54 feS - 8 f [ekg:1M 0 DIA () D.C. ELECTRON)C -1; re: Jane loe • (b) Ibunt) of Residencc of First Listed Flamtiff /In 6 )C. , it X1 [PV IN LIS PRAIrelIFF ( ASES> le) AII0111eff 11.• Varm. tradent. sud !eintom %aber' CI ti e .:( 4 dpi ji 6,04.4G1 4. 1.c #/~sscl,a *5 zein hilre.rson . Ad" 702. Afa &Ant Fe g3OZO t fl ak Couniy Mime Anion Arm 7 MIAMI. DAK 7 MONROE 7 BROW ARD X•ALM 11EACN 7 MARTIN 7 ST. RULTE 7 INDIAN RIVER 7 OKECCIIUP(E JULY 7, 2008 STEVEN M. RARIMORE CLERK U.S. ITIST, CT. S. 0. Of FLA. • MIAMI County of Ri:siden« of Fus; Listed Dclendam TIN 1.* 5 PLA INT VASES ONETI NOTE: IN LANOI ONDEMNAIION CASU. ISE INC LOCATION OP In TI %ET LAND 'HVORVED. Momp ti(Kmar 9) in n r• k c. k /44:4 / gS, anys i ttei t- e II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION raa Set Osp' 2. 1 5. L lar erensini 3 3 :anal Omrit« Pirinnbff IU5UnumwYnuPUD1 lf ..2 U S LtLeinenem 3 4 OreteSey 1/4 Evt: Nr 11.4waie rricemlup of Pens Ni has HO ()%cl Ss073 MAR-ER °finis° _ - E CONTRACT TORTS -POIERITUREIPENALTY IAN KILIPECY °TIER STAT C1F5 • 110 lirn.rame : 120 Meis : III Miler arr : III Nepeerabk litansuem • 150 Res ne, er 0, eguritesi åt Ei feetemem ur hdpimm ' DI }teatre Ar i ' 157 Rispet> of NON lied Siudai I rnin. lem V/10.n.i 2 MR« ..... ca Osara)meol of Veier rir • Deneb. 2. 169 Sinn »ekler •• Sau :1 VM EnT C "gi :i 193 Comme ?tyrk« I iribdrip C. 106 'mehe.* PERSONAL IN.111111• 3 310 A «plane 3 115 A rekne Fredete Lotohly 3 120 A RRRRR I. Lati& Slunclet D 3143 Tide& tenpl • Lmbil, 7 )40 Meiene 7 )45 Menn. Prud«. Lialmhis 2 311 Nome Vike». 3 313 aloene Telna Pi•illua Snibelen, 3 MP Iner Pmenal Inne/ PERSONAL INJURY 3 )62 Perboml lyge, • Med Melp.beiree 3 363 bowl lajury • Frei«. trebarty 3 36K AlbeSSO. Personal Iniory Predst I Liaberily PERSONAL FIM/SITT 3 nei Ilibei Fond 3 331 Ten ine LeiMing 3 3.00iiir Pit»*41 hopen> Onnet• I 101 homer, Imam Predati LiatiMy 3 sle Aprec•Inie. 3 620 Villet Irood li UNN 3 623 Dirs I e Vred Stinne of Psoperty 2' L/SC ni 3 610 Lys« Luv n 2 640 R.R. å Tnrck ) 430 An« Rep. 2 660 Oetmnalioniel SårtlyiltOldi 3 MO Uker 3 432 Annal PI USC nil 3 423 Wribdrernal 20 VIL I57 3 499 Sta e It.apporriambear 3 MO Anilsrbsi 5 430 Il.rkr and Inne./ 3 450 Cern...cg 3 460 Depeirvren 1 4/0 Rer tom Inni/med .n4 Coonpi Oisaeirairts 3 450 ConnerneiCe.4.1 3 4310 C.1.1e Sei Ty 3 PIII Selron e kv cx 3 1150 Stemnen Cormirotrop C/Thnt, 3 011C•Horrite C lislit•Se 131.SC 3410 3 VIO 0114« Stemme. Amen. 1 1•11 Agn...14H Ans 3 02 ter sørnre Suit.lizetron Ao 3 a) t n.irenanmal bl ario. 3 094 Eni ras rIllocoien• AN a 093 Freir/om ../f Inforearewn To 3 900 AtF•al off« ~embeta. USer I tral A ..... re /ni« 910 ComMertiomMy of Stare D Sunn / EICMTS 1 120C9•301tH I /110 Paleet 2 HO TimItimit r LASOR SOCIALSICURITT 3 Ila Firer teler Srerlarth Att 3 220 Letronil gnu. Re161rom 3 /3111..144•Mimi.Repeittrim • Delfi/aule Av 3 740 Perh.ay Leter Au 3 MOOileir Lase lårgainnn 3 Ir/I tema. tel. bnr. Seewril Tel 3 Dl 111A (1195f1) 3 002 lbel. Lai 19231 2 1163 DIMT. DUPP 14931511 2 064 SEID Tele XVI N 043 RS11401(111 C REAL PNOPRIT V CIVIL RIGHTS P I ISPNER TET ITIUNS FEDERAL E AN SVIES : 310 Emil Ci *demma i 320 feettki..te i 230 Rem Lene 11 Est remel i 240 Irr. in L•n.1 i 34314r ret. Lnbilitli fl 291140 /Mo Ire' Peoprevy 3 441 V-rung 3 442 traploylININ 3 443 Hannen: Alleamodlidnos 3 444 "Jolen« 443 Amt . Dls•aeleises • 3 1 Emplaymeni 3 446 Ane« . Desoadeues • O.M« X440 Oaser t all n.gb:. T /ru Måpe% is Neon Svene«. tliben C ..... : 1 330 linne& 3 330 b • 3 340 Membran/ a 0 eiet l Slo < Khi I phi/ , 5115 IrlitHremlneon 7 x /0 Tamil: S. Plermiff ot Difterhail 3 I1,1 IRS Thir4 Pilely 26 US( 1605 I 7 - annrr.e ' 462 Nmersismren 3 APPINIINe 3 463 Hemn C .n iren 0•11• 11 3 461 Uflitt triumptetron Ar 0/11 III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIESI.:~ -x- tå om no. Inf Ifsi Divenity Caen 04151 vid Ose Kn. f. Dekedmil Pif ote PTF OFF edllere TI, SUM 3 I 3 1 1•••••nraned Princep.1 Piece 3 4 3 4 ul Ileamens In lb. S etc 12 ilu<n e/ Aneible SIsle Centen or Subj., ca a Furer° COalo) 7 1 I 7 I Imorpermed ar•IPrercipeIPInr 7 5 3 5 of 9 inree nt I..Anubee Si... 3 I Solet.. Nei.» 6 ORIGIN [Plate arn - X' Om Ile. Onlyl I mins med from I Original ] 2 Rernoved from 3 3 Rc-filed. O 4 Reinumed or O s &norner diunci D 6 Muludisirim Procest ing State Court (set VI klov) Re gened Ispecifyl Lifiginion VI. RELATED/RE-FILED CASE(S). a) Rc- filed Case n YES l3 NO b) Related Cases 7 YES 3 NO ISee Hurr:rom% i ecue4 ..... JUDGE DOCKET HUMRER Appeal to OHIO« 3 7 Judge from Magistrale Aids:men! PIL LAUSE OP ACTION ci r ile U.S. Civil Storme ender which you are filing and Wrile a Brief Statement of tause (Do not elte urisdk0onnl stalutro turkis dlveolty): Cre)He kib b 2.1:f (e/9 Alt eger CASC .r 57 7) Pet :f el"b/ rehm/l e od 144*; 41 o$ Sex offerists to 6C ACC:»tb/e41 her r.yh't vndee 1Z e C Vdtk g LENOTH Of TRIAL via days artmatcd (for bodi sides to lry «nite case) REQUESTED IN 13CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT: ONDER F.R.C.P. 23 DEMANDS CHECK YES enly ifdemanded in complaing JURY DEMAND: 7 Yta 3 No ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE CORRECT TO skmAni NEY RECURD DATE 1 HE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE •-• 7- QF FOR Of Ela ESC ONLY AMOUR, 350 r• RE( RIPE • Ve/ l '03137 10 0l10 EFTA00177374

1 EFTA00177375

I EFTA00177376

k i EFTA00177377

EFTA00177378

r EFTA00177379

I i I EFTA00177380

EFTA00177381

EFTA00177382

EFTA00177383

EFTA00177384

. EFTA00177385

I I EFTA00177386

I EFTA00177387

EFTA00177388

EFTA00177389

I I EFTA00177390

. EFTA00177391

i EFTA00177392

I EFTA00177393

r EFTA00177394

I EFTA00177395

EFTA00177396

EFTA00177397

EFTA00177398

i EFTA00177399

EFTA00177400