Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 25 of 36 (T6) $30,000 in American Express Gift Cards to the attention of Scott Rothstein, obtained from UPS on or about November 12, 2009; (T7) $50,000 in American Express Gift Cards to the attention of Scott Rothstein, obtained from UPS on or about November 13, 2009; (T8) 5 additional watches being voluntarily turned over to the United States; and (r9) Guitar collection of Scott W. Rothstein, located at the residence of Scott and Kimberley Rothstein, valued between $10,000 and $20,000. E. Bank Accounts ("BA") (BA1) Fidelity Investments Stock Account, in the name of Scott W. Rothstein, valued at approximately $1,263,780; (BA2) Gibraltar Bank account 50010085, in the approximate amount of $484,900.68; (BA3) Gibraltar Bank account 50010093, in the approximate amount of $53,448.51; (BA4) Gibraltar Bank account 50012053, in the approximate amount of $71,793.06; (BA5) Gibraltar Bank account 50015214, in the approximate amount of $995,521.42; (BA6) Bank account 178780211819923220000187 at Banque Populaire, Morocco, in the name of Scott Rothstein, in the approximate amount of $12,000,000; (BA7) Bank account at Banque Populaire, Morocco, in the name of Ahnick Khalid, up to the amount of $2,000,000; (BA8) Bank account at Banque Populaire, Morocco, in the name of Steve Caputi, up to the amount of $1,000,000; • 25 EFTA00193875

Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 26 of 36 (BA9) Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6860291266 in the name of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A. which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the approximate amount of $54,021.27; (BA10)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6861011556 in the name of Rothstein Rosenfcldt Adler, P.A. which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the approximate amount of $10,085.00; (BA11)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6860420923 in the name of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A, Attorney Trust Account 3, which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the approximate amount of $720,892.08; (BA12)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6860422200 in the name of DJB Financial Holding, which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the approximate amount of $64,970.00; (BAI3)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6860755757 the name of RRA Sports and Entertainment LLC, which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the approximate amount of $10,490.10; (BA14)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6860755781 in the name of RRA Goal Line Management, LLC, which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the approximate amount of $25,216.27; (BA15)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6861077714 in the name of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A., which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the approximate amount of $20,080.00. 26 EFTA00193876

Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 27 of 36 F, (B11) (B12) (B13) (814) (B15) (B16) (617) (B18) (319) Business Interests ("BP') Stock certificates, if issued, or the beneficial interest in such shares, of 50,000 shares of capital stock, in Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust, a federally chartered stock savings association, purchased in or about September 2009 by GBPT, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, by its manager, Bahia Property Management, LLC, aDelawarc Limited Liability Company, by its co-manager, Scott W. Rothstein; Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in QTask; Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Broward Bank of Commerce; Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Bova Ristorante; Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Bova Cucina; Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Bova Prime; Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Café Iguana, Pembroke Pines, Florida; Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Cart Shield USA, LLC; Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Renato Watches; (BI10) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Edify LLC; (BIl 1) Scott W. jtothstein's equity interest in I Georgio Vodka; (B112) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Sea Club; (BI13) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in North Star Mortgage; (BI14) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Kip Hunter Marketing; (8115) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in RRA Sports and Entertainment, LLC; (BI16) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Versace Mansion/Casa Casuarina, including 10 year Operating Agreement with 2 ten year options;. 27 EFTA00193877

Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12101/2009 Page 28 of 36 (B117) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest, and licensing rights, in Alternative Biofucl Company; (13I18) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in RRA Goal Line Management; (13119) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Iron Street Management, LW; (13120) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in, and loan to, Africat Equity 1G Decide; (8121) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in, and rents derived from 1198 Dixie LW; (8122) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in, and rents derived from 1299 Federal LLC; (13I23) Promissory Note by Uniglobe in favor of Scott W. Rothstein; and (B124) All equity interest held by or on behalf of Scott W. Rothstein, in the following corporations and entities: a, 29 Bahia LLC; b. 235 GC LLC; c. 350 LOP/42840 LLC; d. 353 BR LLC; e. 10630 #110 LLC; 708 Spangler LLC; g. 1012 Broward LLC; h. 1198 Dixie LLC; I. 1299 Federal LLC; j. 2133 IP LLC; k. 15158 LLC; I. AANO LLC; 28 EFTA00193878

Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 29 of 36 m. AAMG1 LLC; n. AAMM Holdings; o. ABT Investments LLC; p. Advanced Solutions; q. Bahia Property Management LLC; r. Boat Management LLC; s. BOSM Holdings LLC; t. BOVA Prime LLC; u. BOVA Restaurant Group LLC; I. The BOVA Group LLC; w. BOVA Smoke LW; x. BOVCU LLC; y. BOVRI LLC; z. Broward Financial Holdings, Inc.; aa. CI07 LW; ab. CI08 LW; ac. CII6 LLC; ad. CI27 LLC; ae. CSU LLC; af. D & D Management & Investment LLC; ag. D & S Management and Investment LLC; alt DM Financial Holdings LLC; 29 EFTA00193879

Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 30 of 36 ai. DYMMU LLC; aj. Full Circle Fort Lauderdale LLC; ak. Fun Circle Trademark Holdings LW; al. GHW1 LLC; am. IDNL GEAR LLC; an. ILK3 LLC; 80. IS Management LLC; ap. JRCL LLC; aq. Judah LLC; ar. Kendall Sports Bar; as. Kip Hunter Marketing LLC; at. NF Servicing LLC; au. NRI II LLC; ay. NRI 15 LLC; aw. NS Holdings LLC; ax. PRCH LLC; ay. PK Adventures LLC; az. PK's Ride Ltd; ba. Rothstein Family Foundation; bb. RRA Consulting Inc.; bc. RRA Goal Line Management LLC; bd. RRA Sports and Entertainment LLC; 30 EFTA00193880

Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 31 of 36 be. RSA 11th Street LLC; bf. RW Collections LLC; bg. S & KEA LLC; bh. Scorh LLC; bi. Tipp LLC; bj. VGS LLC; bk. The Walter Family LLC; bl. Walter Industries LLC; bm. WPBRS LW; bn. WAWW; bo. WAWW 2 LLC; bp. WAWW 3 LLC; bq. WAWW 4 LLC; br. WAWW 5 LLC; bs. WAWW 6 LLC; bt. WAWW 7 LLC; bu. WAWW 8 LLC; by. WAWW 9 LW; bw. WAWW 10 LLC; bx. WAWW 11 LLC; by. WAWW 12 LLC; bz. WAWW 14 LLC; 31 EFTA00193881

Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on F LSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 32 of 36 ca. WAWW 15 LLC; cb. WAWW 16 LLC; cc. WAWW 17 LLC; cd. WAWW 18 LLC; ce. WAWW 19 LLC; cf. WAVY 20 LLC; cg. WAWW 21 LLC; ch. WAWW 22 LLC; ci. JB Boca NI Holdings LLC; and G. Contributions ("C"), hereinafter collectively referred to as "the defendant contributions:" (Cl) $6,000 in campaign contributions made to Alex Sink and voluntarily offered, and turned over, to the United States on behalf of Alex Sink; (C2) $40,000 in campaign contributions to Republican Party of Florida, "Florida" account and voluntarily offered, and turned over, to the United States by the Republican Party of Florida; - (C3) $10,000 in campaign contributions to Republican Party of Florida, "Federal" account and voluntarily offered, and turned over, to the United States by the Republican Party of Florida; (C4) $90,000 in campaign contributions to Republican Party of Florida and voluntarily offered, and turned over, to the United States by the Republican Party of Florida; 32 EFTA00193882

Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 33 of 36 (C5) $5,000 in campaign contributions to Republican Party of Florida by Rothstein business entity known as WAWW and voluntarily offered, and turned over, to the United States by the Republican Party of Florida; (C6) $800,000 Charitable Donation to Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital, which hospital voluntarily advised the United States of the donation from the Rothstein Family Foundation, for the purpose of facilitating forfeiture; (C7) $1,000,000 Charitable Donation to Holy Cross Hospital, which hospital voluntarily advised the United States of the donation from the Rothstein Family Foundation, for the purpose of facilitating forfeiture; (C8) $9,600 in campaign contributions to Governor Charlie Crist, voluntarily offered, and— _. turned over, to the United States by the office of Charlie Crist; and (C9) All funds voluntarily turned over to the United States (IRS/FBI), since in or about October 28, 2009, in response to publicity regarding Scott W. Rothstein. 6. If any of the property described above as being subject to forfeiture, as a result of any act and omission of the defendant - i. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; ii. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; iii. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; iv. has been substantially diminished in value; or I. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(m), and pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), made applicable hereto by Title 18, United 33 EFTA00193883

Case 0:09-a-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 34 of 36 States Code, Section 982(b), and pursuant to Rule 32.2 Fed. R. Crim. P., to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendant up to the value of the forfeitable property described above. All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963, Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(aX1) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(I)(C) made applicable through Tide 28, United States Code, Section 2461; and the procedures outlined at Title 21, United States Code, Section 853. .1 04 , 044 Co' JEFFREY a SLOMAN ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY PAUL F. SCHWARTZ ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY JEFFRE N. KAPLAN ASSIS ANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CE D. ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 34 EFTA00193884

Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FL,_5D Dill et 12/01/2009 Page 35 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT cOuft SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO. vs. SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN Defendant. Superseding Case Information: Court Division: (sow ono) Miami — Key West ar- EEL WPB FTP I do hereby certify that CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL ATTORNEY* New Defendant(a) Yes ....X_ —No Number of New Defendants Total number of counts 1. I have carefully considered the allegations of the indictment, the number of defendants, the number of probable witnesses and the legal complexities of the Indictment/Information attached hereto. 2. I am aware that the information supplied on this statement will be retied urn by the Judges of this Court In setting their calendars and scheduling criminal trials under the mandate of the Speedy TrialAct, Title 28 U.S.C. Section 3161. 3. Interpreter (Yes or No) List language and/or dialect 4. This case will take days for the parties to try. 5. Please check appropriate category and type of offense listed below (Chat; arty Ofill) Whstk Only cons) 0 to 5 days _X_ Petty II 8 to 10 days Minor III 11 to 20 days Misdem. 21 to 60 days Felony 61 days and over 6. Has this case been previously filed in this District Court? (Yes or No) -Igo_ If yes: Judge: Case No. (Attach copy of disposltive order) Has a complaint been filed In this matter? (Yes or No) No_ If yes: Magistrate Case No. Related Miscellaneous numbers: Defendant(s) in federal custody as of Defendant(s) in state custody as of Rule 20 from the District of Is this a potential death penalty case? (Yes or No) No- 7. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the U.S. Attorney's Office prior to April 1, 2003? _ Yes _X_. No 8. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the U. S. Attorney's Office prior to April 1,1999? Yes _X_ No If yes, was it pending in the Central Region? _ Yes — No 9. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the U.S. Attorney's Office prior to October 14, 2003? _ Yes X No 10. 11. Does this case originate from a matter pending In the Narcotics Section (Miami) prior to May 18, 2003? — Yes _X— No Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Central Region of the U.S. Attorney's Office prior to September 1, 2O07? — Yes _X_ No CO lo ASSISTA T UNITED STA ES ATTORNEY Flo Ida Bar No. A005500030 EFTA00193885

Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 36 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENALTY SHEET Defendant's Name: SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN Count 1 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); RICO Conspiracy; Max.Penalty: 20 years imprisonment, $250,000 fine Count ,#: 2 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering; * Max,Penalty: 20 years imprisonment, $500,000 fine or twice the value of the property involved in the transaction. Count W: 3 18 U.S.C. § 1349; Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud; • Max.Penalty: 20 years imprisonment, $250,000 fine Counts ft: 4-5 18 U.S.C. §§ 2; 1343; Wire Fraud * Max.Penalty: 20 years imprisonment, $250,000 fine *Refers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution, special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable. EFTA00193886

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA COMPLEX BUSINESS DIVISION CASE NO. 09 059301 STUART A. ROSENFELDT, individually, and ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, P.A., a Florida Professional Sex-vice Corporation, Plaintiffs, I SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN, individually, Defendant. AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DISSOLUTION AND FOR EMERGENCY TRANSFER OF CORPORATE POWERS TO STUART A. ROSENFELDT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR APPOINTMENT OF A CUSTODIAN OR RECEIVER Plaintiffs, Stuart A. Rosenfeldt, individually, and Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A. (sometimes referred to as the "firm"), file this action against Scott W. Rothstein, and allege as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT It is with surprise and sorrow that the attorneys of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A. have learned that Scott W. Rothstein, the managing partner and CEO of the firm, has, according to assertions of certain investors, allegedly orchestrated a substantial misappropriation of funds from investor trust accounts that made use of the law firm's name. The investment business created and operated by Mr. Rothstein centered around the sale of interests in structured settlements. Immediate judicial action is being sought to facilitate the investigation and EXHIBIT a COFFEY B URLINGTON OFFICE IN THE GROVE, PENTHOUSE 2699 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 T: 305.858.2900 F: 305.858.5261 Email: infoecoffeyburlington•com www.coffeyburlington.com EFTA00193887

accounting of investor funds and to address the ongoing affairs of the firm in an appropriate manner through the transfer of all corporate powers to Stuart A. Rosenfeldt. Mr. Rosenfeldt, as the firm's President and only other equity holder in the firm besides Mr. Rothstein, is uniquely positioned to wind down the affairs of the firm, to account for all funds in the firm's trust accounts, and, most importantly, to protect the interests of the firm's clients. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint Mr. Rosenfeldt as custodian of the firm during its dissolution or appoint a receiver. In the event that the Court appoints a receiver, there is no necessity for the receiver to assume any control of the firm's law practice because the dedicated attorneys and staff are continuing to assure that the interests of the firm's clients will remain paramount and will be fully protected. ..Mr. Rosenfeldt and the firm have filed this action to minimize any further damage caused by Mr. Rothstein, to emphasize that the innocent attorneys and staff of the firm are not implicited in this controversy, and, most importantly, to protect the best interests of their clients. NATURE OF ACTION 1. This is an action for judicial dissolution of the firm and an accounting pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 607.1430(3). Additionally, Plaintiffs seek transfer of all corporate powers to Plaintiff Rosenfeldt, or, in the alternative, the appointment of Plaintiff Rosenfeldt as custodian of the firm or the appointment of a receiver, pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 607.1431 and 607.1432. 2. Plaintiff Rosenfeldt is the firm's president He has the inherent authority to initiitethis emergency litigation. 3. Defendant Rothstein is the.firm's managing partner and CEO. Rothstein, a charismatic and talented lawyer, has controlled firm management, especially financial matters, 2 C OFFEN BURLINGTON OFFICE IN THE. GROVE, PENTHOUSE 2699 SOUTH BATSHORE DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 T: 305.858.2900 ft: 305.858.526 I. Email: infogicoffeyburlingion.com www.cof fey bucli n gton.com EFTA00193888

and has not extended access to core financial matters and records to any other attorney at the firm. 4. Plaintiff Rosenfeldt and Defendant Rothstein are the sole owners of the equity in the firm. 5. The firm's principal office is located at 401 East Las Olas Blvd, Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL. 33301. 6. Venue properly lies with this Court because the firm's principal office is in Broward County. BACKGROUND AND GROUNDS FOR DISSOLUTION The Firm 7. The firm was founded by Plaintiff Rosenfeldt and Defendant Rothstein in 2002. 8. The firm's practice was originally focused on labor and employment law, but the firm grew rapidly and its practice areas expanded to include intellectual property, corporate law, mergers arid acquisitions, real estate, criminal defense, class actions, mass torts and personal injury claims, among others. The firm currently has seven offices, with locations in Florida, New York, and Venezuela, and employs over 70 lawyers. 10. The firm has an outstanding group of attorneys, staff members, including distinguished former judges, many of whom have statewide, even national reputations, for professional excellence. The Settlement Funding Scheme 11. Firm lawyers learned in the past few days about irregularities surrounding a settlement funding business operated by Rothstein. The settlement funding business involved 3 C O FFEY BURLINGTON 012PIOR IN THE O itovn, PENTHOUSE 2699 SOUTH BAYSHORR DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 T: 305.858.2900 P: 305.858.526 L Email: [email protected] www.coffeyburlington.com EFTA00193889

the purchase of structured legal settlements and the sale of these settlements to investors. Various investors have informed the firm that they believe that substantial funds are not properly accounted for and are missing. A review of the firm's records undertaken over this past weekend indicates that various funds unrelated to the direct practice of law cannot be accounted for, circumstances suggesting that investor money may have been misused by Rothstein who controlled all such accounts. Some investors allege that Defendant Rothstein may have been fabricating non-existent structured legal settlements for sale to investors. 12. Defendant Rothstein's allegedly improper activities were done without any knowledge of the other attorneys at the firm, and, in fact, Rothstein actively endeavored to hide the existence of the scheme. It was not until several days ago that Plaintiff Rosenfeldt or any of the other lawyers at the finn discovered some of the circumstances concerning Defendant Rothstem's actions and the alleged improprieties. la. The firm's attorneys still have extremely limited knowledge concerning the allegations, and yet, recognize the importance of proceeding expeditiously to undercover the truth. Thus, the emergency transfer of all corporate powers to Plaintiff Rosenfeldt, or, in the alternative, the emergency appointment of Plaintiff Rosenfeldt as the firm's custodian or the appointment of a receiver, is critical to undertake at least a preliminary inquiry concerning Defendant Rothstein's conduct, and to make appropriate recommendations to the Court concerning any further investigation. Misuse of the Investor Trust Accounts 14. With respect to the settlement funding scenario, Plaintiffs only recently discoVered troubling information concerning Defendant Rothstein's investor trust accounts and details surrounding the transactions axe still emerging. However, it appears that Defendant 4 CoEpey B URL1NGTON OFFICE. In THE OROVE, PENTHOUSE 2699 Sourm BAYSHORB DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 T: 305.858.2900 P: 305.858.5261 Email: 1nfoecoffeyborlington.com www.coffeyburlington.com EFTA00193890

Rothstein may have transferred substantial sums out of the investor trust accounts, and that the emergency transfer of all corporate powers to Plaintiff Rosenfeldt, or, in the alternative, the emergency appointment of Plaintiff Rosenfeldt as the firm's custodian or the appointment of a receiver, is necessary to account for and, if appropriate, consider taking action to recover the missing investor trust account funds. Shareholder Deadlock 15. Defendant Rothstein has declined to resign despite the asserted and substantial irregularities because he purports to hold a 50% share of the law firm. For this reason, among others; there is a substantial shareholder deadlock, making management of the firm as it currently stands impossible. COUNT I (DISSOLUTION) 16. Plaintiffs adopt, incorporate, and reallege paragraphs 1-15. 17. Under Florida Statute 607.1430, a circuit court may dissolve a corporation in a proceeding by a shareholder if the management of corporate affairs is deadlocked and irreparable injury to the corporation is threatened or being suffered. Additionally, a circuit court may dissolve a corporation having 35 or fewer shareholders if a sufficient showing is made with respect; to improper or irregular conduct that materially injures the corporation. 18. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs have demonstrated these two grounds for dissolving the firm. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment of dissolution and all other such remedies that the Court fords appropriate. 5 COFFEY B URL1NGTON OFFICE IN THE GROVE, PENTHOUSE 2699 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 T: 305.858.2900 F: 305.858.5261 Email: infoecoffeyburlington.com www.coffeyburlingtosLcom EFTA00193891

COUNT II (TRANSFER OF CORPORATE POWER TO PLAINTIFF ROSENFELDT) 19. Plaintiffs adopt, incorporate, and reallege paragraphs 1-18. 20. Florida Statute 607.1431(3) permits a court in dissolution proceedings to take any action required to preserve the corporate assets wherever located, and carry on the business of the corporation. 21. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs submit that the Court's exercise of this discretionary power is appropriate to transfer all corporate power over the firm to Plaintiff Rosenfeldt to effect the dissolution request in Count 1, to perform au accounting of the firm's assets and liabilities, to undertake all actions necessary to uncover the extent of Defendant ••-•r- Rothitein's activities, to wind down the fern's client engagements, to appoint a chief restructuring officer and an inventory attorney pursuant to Florida Bar Rule 1-3.8, to institute fedeMniatilMiptcy proceedings or other related state law proceedings, to file assignments for the benefits of creditors, and to undertake all such other actions as may be necessary and appropriate under law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that the Court transfer all corporate power over the firm to Plaintiff Rosenfeldt. COUNT HI (IN THE ALTERNATIVE, APPOINTMENT OF PLAINTIFF ROSENFELDT AS CUSTODIAN OF THE FIRM1 • 22. Plaintiffs adopt, incorporate, and reallege paragraphs 1-18. 23. Florida Statutes 607.1431(3) and 607.1432 permit a circuit court in a judicial dissolution to appoint a custodian to manage the business and affairs of the dissolving corporation. 6 COFFEY B ORLI NGTON OFFICE IN THE GROVE, PENTHOUSE 2699 SOU7/4 SAYSHORII DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 T: 305.858.2900 P: 305.858.5261 Email: [email protected] www.coffeyburlingtomcom EFTA00193892

24. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs request, in the alternative to Counts II and IV, that the Court appoint Plaintiff Rosenfeldt, the President of the firm and sole shareholder besides Defendant Rothstein, as custodian of the Firm to effect the dissolution requested in Count 1, to perform an accounting of the firm's assets and liabilities, to undertake all actions necessary to uncover the extent of Defendant Rothstein's activities, to wind down the firm's client engagements, to appoint a chief restructuring officer and an inventory attorney pursuant to Florida Bar Rule 1-3.8, to institute federal bankruptcy proceedings or other related state law proceedings, to file assignments for the benefits of creditors, and to undertake all such other actions as may be necessary and appropriate under law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand, in the alternative, that the Court appoint COUNT IV (IN Flit ALTEMNA'TIVE., APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVERI 25. Plaintiffs adopt, incorporate, and reallege paragraphs 1-18. 26. Florida Statutes 607.1431(3) and 607.1432 permit a circuit court in a judicial dissolution to appoint a receiver to wind up and liquidate the business and affairs of the dissolving corporation. „--' 27. ,For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs request, in the alternative to Counts II and III, that the Court appoint a receiver to effect the dissolution requested in Count I, perform an accounting of the firm's assets and liabilities, undertake all actions necessary to uncover the extent of Defendant Rothstein's activities, and to undertake all such other actions as may be necessary and appropriate under law. 7 COFFEY B URUNGTON OFFICE IN THE GROVE, PENTHOUSE 2699 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 T: 305.858.2900 F: 305.858.5261 Email: infoecoffnburlington.com www.coffeyburlington.com EFTA00193893

CONCLUSION 28. Defendant Rothstein's conduct in connection with the settlement funding and the investor trust accounts appears at this point to be extensive. Dissolution and the emergency transfer of all corporate powers to Plaintiff Rosenfeldt, or, in the alternative, the emergency appointment of Plaintiff Rosenfeldt as the firm's custodian or the appointment of receiver, are critical to uncover the full extent of Defendant Rothstein's activities, to consider any appropriate action to recover missing proceeds, to protect the firm's clients, and to preserve, protect and review the firm's accounts and financial records.' Dated this 3rd day of November, 2009. Respectfully submitted, COFFEY BURLINGTON Counsel for Plaintiffs 2699 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse Miami, Florida 33133 (305) 858-2900 ttk KENDALL 4 OFFEY Florida Bar N . 259861 kcoffey(4)coffeyburlington.com Annexed hereto as Exhibit A is an affidavit from Plaintiff Rosenfeldt attesting to the truthfulness of the allegations contained herein. 8 COFFEY BURLINGTON ORRICE. IN THE GROVE, PENTHOUSE 2699 SOLTDI SAVSHORE DRIVE MIAMI. PLORIDA 33133 T: 305.858.2900 P: 305.858.5261 Email: infodeoffeyburlington.com www.coffeyburlington.com EFTA00193894

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 3rd day of November, 2009, with the agreement and consent of Defendant Scott W. Rothstein's counsel, Mark Nurik, Esq., a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served via email on Mr. Nurik, at [email protected]. This 3rd day of November, 2009. 9 COFFEY B UR LINGTON OFFICE IN THE GROVE, PENTIIOUSE 2699 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 T: 305.858.2900 F: 305.858.5241 Email: Infoecoffeyburlington.com www.coffeyburlington.com EFTA00193895

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. UNDER SEAL -CIV-MARRA EDWARD MORSE and CAROL MORSE, Plaintiffs, vs. JAN JONES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Ala ICON BY JAN JONES, DeRodent ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' ORE TENOR MOTION TO SEIZE FURTHER ASSETS AND FOR OTHER RZLJEF This cause came before the Court at hearing on March 17, 18, 19 & 20 2009, upon Plaintiffs', EDWARD MORSE and CAROL MORSE (collectively "MORSE"), ore tows Motion to Seize Further Assets and ore (ems end subsequent written motions for other relief. The Court has carefUlly considered the oral argument of counsel, considered the evidence and witnesses presorted at the hearings and being otherwise fully advised in the premises; The COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: I. Defendant, JAN JONES INTERNATIONAL, INC. a/k/a (CON BY JAN JONES and any and all other companies and/or other entities owned or controlled by JONES ("JONES"), arc liable for compensatory damages to MORSE in an amount in excess of 52.000.000.00; 2 Thal JONES is liable to MORSE for punitive damages for fraud, in. thc amount of 21,000,000.00 modified from prior order of this court finding liability of 53,000,000.00 in Nnitive damages; Page I of 6 EXHIBIT EFTA00193896

3. The Court specifically finds that JONES' flagrant fraudulent activity as demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence by counsel for Morse provides sufficient legal basis for an award of such punitive damages. The record on this matter shall be scaled but the record upon which this Court has relied shall be attached hereto for appellate purposes; 4. That there is currently in excess of Sl0,000,000.0Q of funds clearly belonging to JONES frozen In various banks in South Florida pursuant to prior orders of this and other courts; 5. That these funds are not to be moved under any circumstances absent further order or this Court. That movement of these funds shall be punishable by civil end criminal penalties; 6. That these funds are specifically being held, pursuant to order of this Court, to fund the award of damages to MORSE; 7. That these courts have jurisdiction to order same; 8. That in addition to the funds set forth in paragraph 4 above, based upon clear and convincing evidence presented by counsel for MORSE and counsel's expert witnesses, JONES has Illegally moved funds from the United States to the Cayman Islands in violation of federal law. for the purpose of secreting these assets; 9. That the IRS has provided competent testimony in this regard clearly establishing ownership of these funds by JONES and clearly establishing a partial right of entitlement by the IRS to a portion of these funds. Such liability shall be less than $5,000,000.00; IC. Thal this Court has jurisdiction over said assets as they originated in the United States; II. That the treaties between the United States and the Cayman Islands and related governments clearly establishes the right of the United States to seize such assets. That counsel for MORSE has facilitated the contact between the relative governments and as a Page 2 of 6 EFTA00193897

result.. this Court has received clear and convincing evidence that such funds will be immediately transferred to the United States; 12. That the Clerk of Court is hereby directed to immediately submit the proper documentation to the appropriate bank of the Cayman Islands to facilitate Immediate transfer of these funds, That any issue arising from such transfer shall be immediately reported to this Court; 13. That the evidence presented by counsel for JONES was inadequate to overcome the findings made by this court based upon the evidence presented by counsel for MORSE. That counsel for JONES is 'hereby is found to have acted in contumacious disregard for prior orders of this and other courts and thus, is found to be in contempt thereof Further order regarding same shall follow the evidentiary hearing in this regard to be set by this Conn; 14. That MORSE shall be entitled to one-third of any monies collected front counsel for JONES pursuant to said contempt order, if monies are assessed I S. That this Court has entered an order fieezing said assets and has the authority to do so; 16. That JONES' counsel's arguments that this Court lacks such jurisdiction is without merit and frivolous; 17. That the presentation of such evidence by counsel for JONES demonstrates a lack of a good faith basis to prevent same in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 11: 18. That MORSE has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, ownership of these funds by JONES, that said funds arc hereby frozen and not subject to any activity by JONES or any agent of JONES whether situated here or in the United States: Page ) of 6 EFTA00193898

19. That these lands shall be frozen for the purpose of satisfying the judgment of this Court against JONES and in MORSE's favor; 20. Thal MORSE shall be required to deposit to their attorney's trust account the sum of $15,000,000.00 no later than 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, the 20th day of March, 2009, to secure JONES in the event of an illegal seizure of said funds. If such hinds are not so posted, this order shall be null and void in its entirety and the ease shall proceed- according to further order of this Court; 21. That counsel for MORSE shall appear before this Court and testify, under oath. as to his receipt of these funds, under penalty of perjury and subject to action by the Florida Bar; .. 22. That based upon argument and representations of MORSE's counsel, made under oath; MORSE is suffering from significant financial distress due to the economy and that such a posting could cause scvere and irreparable harm to MORSE; thus, as swiftly as possible, in a manner that does riot interfere with the mission of the federal agencies now herewith involved, however, with the full and unfettered cooperation of the federal agencies now Involved in this matter, following the posting by Morse of $15,000,000.00 associated with the seizure of the funds located in the Caymans. all other bond amounts shall be returned to MORSE as follows. $15,000,000.00 previously posted by MORSE, $4.118,757.00 previously posted by MORSE, and the $18,500,000.00 posted in two - separate postings by MORSE. MORSE's counsel shall act as liason between his clients and Urn federal agencies to expedite return of the funds. Should there be any unnecessary delay in such return of rands, Counsel for MORSE shall appear before this Court on an emergency basis to seek whatever assistance is required, and such assistance shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Clerk of the Courts is ordered to take all steps necessary to Page 4 of 6 EFTA00193899

assist counsel in expediting return of the funds to MORSE in a timely and expedited fashion; 23. Further, within three (3) business days of the Clerk's receipt of said funds herewith being transferred from the Cayman Islands in compliance with this order, said amount being approximately 520,000,000.00, shall notify this Court of same so that this Court can issue an order as to the division of said funds. Within five (5) business days of such order dividing same, that portion belonging to MORSE shall be delivered to them via their counsel; 24. Court Finds that JONES has waived its right to appeal the order of interest and penalties based upon the doctrine of fraud in the inducement. The court finds that JONES is not entitled to equitable relief of any kind based upon the fact the doctrine that he who seek equity must do equity. JONES has unclean hands and thus can not recover anything from MORSE: 25. That this Court has jurisdiction over the Court currently hearing the matter known as MIZNER, referred to in the Court record by number and hereafter referred to as MIZNER; 26. That this Court orders the Court below (MIZNER) to release any and all bond funds held pursuant to prior order of that court within three (3) business days of the entry of this order. Counsel for MORSE shall facilitate same and insure that same occurs. Should there be a delay, counsel for MORSE shall appear before this Court on an emergency basis and seek whatever assistance is needed to achieve the established objectives; M. Counsel for the parties are instructed to insure that all deadlines in this Order are satisfied In a timely fashion, subject to further order of this Court; Page 5 of 6 EFTA00193900

28. That both the Federal Court of the Southern District of Florida and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction over these matters and same may be enforced in either venue; and 29. That pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act as amended on October 21, 2008, The Freedom of Inforrnation Act, The United States Patriot Act II, The Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act of 1970 as amended on November II, 2006, USC 5311.5300, the USA Patriot Act, Title III and the judgment of this Court based upon information received under oath, this Order, the facts of and amounts contained herein, the findings hereof, and any and all other matters surrounding same shall be held in strict confidence so as not to jeopardize any potential investigation by the appropriate governmental agencies. Violation of this portion of this order shall result in civil and criminal penalties. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this 25'h day of March , 2009. der KENNETHk WCARA United States District lodge Copies to; All counsel of record IRS, Plantation Office FBI, Miami Office • Page 6 of 6 EFTA00193901

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. UNDER SEAL -CIY-MARRA EDWARD MORSE and CAROL MORSE, Plaintiffs, vs. JAN JONES INTERNATIONAL, INC. a/k/a ICON BY JAN JONES, Defendant. STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER I. On March 24, 2009, this Court entered a detailed Order with regard to its Final Findings in this matter ("Final Order"). As a direct result of the nature of a significant amount of the evidence presented to this Court prior to the Court entering its Final Order, and as a result of the contents of that Final Order, this Court has made a determination that the Final Order itself as well as the evidence leading to same shell be sealed and shall remain confidential, in perpetuity, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or another court of competent jurisdiction as detailed in this Confidentiality Order. 3. All parties to this matter, including all witnesses thereto, are hereby bound by this Confidentiality Order. 4. Any failure to comply with this Confidentiality Order by any party or witness shall result in severe consequences. including. without limitation, civil and criminal penalties. l'itge I al. I `t EFTA00193902

5 Any breach of this Confidentiality Order must be reported to the Court, immediately by the discovering party. Failure to so report same shall result in severe consequences, including, without limitation, civil and criminal penalties. 6. The Final Order of this court dated March 24, 2009 shall be made a part hereof, and shall be incorporated by reference herein. 7. Any failure to comply with this Confidentiality Order or Final Order, must be reported to this court, under seal, and such non compliance shall result in severe consequences to the breaching patty. 8. All information relating this Court's Final Order to which any party is given access or which is made available to any party is hereinafter referred to as "Confidential Information." Confidential Information shall include, without limitation, all methods and systems used in this case, names and addresses of customers, technical memoranda, research reports, investigative reports, analyses of any part of this case, all data, documents, and technology, contracts, depositions, notes of depositions, clients notes, clients diaries, lawyers notes, court notes, court orders preceding this order, pleading, all discovery, all email or other electronic communications between any and all parties, witnesses, lawyers, and/or other participating in any way in this matter, proprietary information, historical and projected financial information, acts of fraud, information relating to transfer of funds fraudulent or otherwise, posting of bonds, return of bonds, attorneys fees. operating data and organizational structures, now or hereafter existing or previously developed or acquired, regardless of whether any such information, data or documents qualif; as -trade secrets" under applicable link, any and all other information related to this or any other related matter (collectively. the -Confidential information") Page 2 of t i . EFTA00193903

Because the secrecy of the Confidential information is critical to this court and its further proceedings which shall also remain confidential until brought public, the parties and witnesses hereto acknowledge and agree that the Confidential Information shall, at all times, be kept in strict confidence by the party and/or witness and same shall not, directly nr indirectly, during or after the entry of this order and its execution, except as required by law, with the prior written consent of this court, (a) disclose to any person or entity any Confidential Information without the express written consent of this court which may be withheld in its Sole discretion, or (b) use any Confidential information for the parties own benefit or any other purposes, for the benefit or purposes of any other person or entity or in any manner, whatsoever. If the party or witness is required in any civil or criminal legal proceeding, regulatory proceeding or any similar process to disclose any part of the Confidential Information, such party shall give prompt notice of such request to the Court and the Court shall enter an order as it deems appropriate. Nothing shall be disclosed without same. 9. All Confidential Information, including, without limitation, all copies of all documents and other materials which the parties have received or reviewed or otherwise have knowledge of, shall, at all times, be kept in strict confidence by the party. 10. The parties have been advised and fully understand the heightened confidentiality requirements relative to this matter, including, among other things, the legal obligations of lawyers to maintain their confidentiality obligations to clients and the parties legal obligation to maintain the confidentiality set forth in this order. Clients are restricted from discussing this matter with any individual or entity other than their respective counsel of record in this matter. The parties have indicated that they, as a result of this action. ha% e Pane 3 of I EFTA00193904

access to certain Confidential Information as defined herein. By execution of this order, the parties recognize, acknowledge and confirm their understanding of the confidential nature of the Confidential Information and the damage that would result if any of the Confidential Information is disclosed to any Person and the parties understand their obligation to this court and the fact that this court has jurisdiction over them upon execution of this document by their consent thereto. II. Further, because disclosure of any Confidential information as defined herein would result in severe damage as contemplated by this Court, which would be difficult to quantify, the parties agree that liquidated damages would be a reasonable basis to calculate civil damages caused by a breach and that damages of $1,000,000.00 per each incident of disclosure of Confidential Information by the parties and/or their representatives is agreed to under this Confidentiality Order. Such liquidated damages shall not prevent this Court from assessing additional damages and from moving forward in a criminal proceeding against the party so breaching this Confidentiality Order. 12. Each party hereby represents and warrants that they are not bound by the terms of a confidentiality agreement or other agreement with any third party that would conflict with any of the parties' obligations under this Confidentiality Order. 13. The Parties stipulate that this Stipulated Confidentiality Order is intended to strictly limit and prevent disclosure of information and production of documents compromising the Confidential Information set forth herein and in the Final Order dated March 24 2009. 14. It is further acknowledged that each party may be held responsible for any failure on his or her part to comply with the provisions of the Confidentiality Order, and agrees to Page 4 of IS EFTA00193905

subject himself or herself to the jurisdiction of this court for the purpose of enforcing this Confidentiality Order. 15. The restrictions set forth in this Confidentiality Order shall apply to any and all documents or other information, whatsoever, designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" by this Court. All information shall be deemed confidential and the parties agree to exercise extreme discretion in protecting same. The Court hereby warns all parties hereto to err on the side of protecting such data. Violation of this order will be dealt with immediately and subject the violator to severe sanctions and penalties. 16. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective agents, successors and assigns, and inure :to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns. 17. The parties warrant to each other that they each have full power and authority to execute this Agreement for and on behalf of themselves and/or their respective companies. Parties, as used herein, shall include all persons executing this document as well as their representatives, agents and assigns. 18. Each party placing their signature hereon makes the following attestation: I certify and acknowledge, under penalty of perjury, that f have received a copy of the Stipulated Confidentiality Order (the "Confidentiality Order") which governs the production and use of confidential documents and information produced by the Parties (as defined in the Order) or third parties in this case. I have read and understand the Order and I hereby acknowledge that I am bound by it and agree to abide by it. I further understand that intim-illation designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" in this case. and an notes, memoranda or other form of information derived from it. Pitee 5 of Is EFTA00193906

may not be used, copied or disclosed by me to anyone else except in strict accordance with the order and then only for the prosecution and defense of this litigation upon proper court order. (SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES( Page 6 or IS EFTA00193907

/' (Jay-in ;it, tie/ EDWARD J. MORSE STATE COUNTY Olf,..:kintnir ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared EDWARD J. MORSE who, after being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he has read the foregoing document and that it is true and correct under penalty of perjury. SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED before me die? day of.7 -1--"./ 2009. Ognsun of Nam Public) Diednies . . • 7:' 1.12.4J--- • • • • - (P&L Typo- or Sun, Citontslopelpmo ofikr.orytoOl 1 DOLORES PACOSt Koury Palk • Side of Ewa*. .1tritoacisonExpros ma/2mm • oommisaroo t DO 768478 fiZro• fkokfilloacifillionallfittarykast COMMISSION NUMBER)O-CPSPATIONOSEAL • Page 7 of li EFTA00193908

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Under Seal-Civ-Marra. EDWARD MORSE and CAROL MORSE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, r. JAN JONES INTERNATIONAL, INC. afirla ICON BY JAN JONES, Defendant-Appellee. In re EDWARD MORSE and CAROL MORSE, Petitioners. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Under Seal- Civ-Marra), Kenneth A. Marra, Judge. PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR EMERGENCY WRIT OF MANDAMUS Petitioners, EDWARD MORSE and CAROL MORSE, by and through their undersigned counsel, file this, their Motion for Emergency Writ of Mandamus and would state as follows: 1. This matter is before this Honorable Court on an Emergency Writ of Mandamus. 2. This matter and the entire file below have been presented to the court as SEALED pursuant to prior ordbr of the Court below. 3. This matter is pending before the Honorable United States District Court Judge, Kenneth Mires. 4. On March 25, 2009 and on April 23, 2009, Judge Marra entered detailed orders in this matter, copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 5. _ As set forth in the Orders, Judge Marra ordered that certain specific acts take place on certain specific dates. Many of these acts involved return of a large sum of money to the Plaintiffs. 1 RCYITISTEIN Itosvicrettir ADLE•R Lis Ohs City Centre, 401E. Las O4u Boulevard, Suite 1650, Fon busdesdale, Florida 33301 EFTA00193909

6. Upon receipt of the orders, the undersigned began to put into place all actions necessary to timely comply wittysaid orders. 7. In hearings held subsequent to the entry of these orders, it became abundantly clear to the undersigned that Judge Marra was in some way uncomfortable with his orders and was either staying the orders or reversing his prior decisions by vacating the orders. 8. However, despite continuous inquiry by the undersigned, counsel was unable to determine what Judge Marra intended to do and how he intended to proceed. 9. A thorough review of the record below which is available to this Court under seal clearly indicates that the undersigned, as counsel for the plaintiff had significant basis for concern based upon comments and ore tens rulings made by Judge Marra in the court below. 10. Most importantly, as can be seen by the sealed record now before this court, when the undersigned specifically inquired of the Court as to whether he was permitted to move forward with the orders entered on March 25th and April 23th , the courts responses to the undersigned are non•descriptive and completely without guidance at best. I L When the undersigned inquired of the court below further and specifically asked the court whether the orderi were stayed, vacated, reversed or in full force and effect, the court clearly replied that the court believes it had made itself clear. 12. Not wanting to violate a court order of a respected district court judge, the undersigned determined that the only course of conduct remaining in order to protect his clients' • rights was to file an Emergency Writ of Mandamus with this court. 13. It is the position of the Plaintiffs that they have a clear and unwavering legal right to the relief awarded them in the courts orders as set forth herein. 2 ROurritor ROSENFEL1YF ADLEft Las Ohs City Centre, 401F, Las Olas Boulenrd, Sidte 1650, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 3330) EFTA00193910

14. Moreover, it is without doubt that the undersigned had every right to be concerned • • •• • • _• • _ • . • with the ore tenus rulings of the mon below which post dated the orders in question. 15. As an officer of the court, the undersigned has a direct responsibility to zealously protect the rights of his client. And, as an officer of the court, the undersigned has d direct responsibility to (idly and completely obey the orders of court and when, he is given reason to doubt the efficacy of subsequent orders of court that appear to taint the order in question, to attempt to ascertain the validity of said order. That is exactly what the undersigned has done here. 16. Upon determining that the validity of the orders in question were in doubt, and upon determining that he could mot-proceed without further order of a higher court, this Emergency Writ was filed. 17. Plaintiffs have a clear legal right to the relief specifically set forth in the orders in question. 18. The court below bad an indisputable duty to act but failed to do so and failed to given the undersigned any guidance. ...• I9. At this stage in the proceedings, the Plaintiffs have no other remedy at law other than this Writ. 20. If this writ is not entered in Plaintiffs favor, the Plaintiffs will suffer unfair prejudice as a matter of law. Dated this day of 2009. 3 Rani-STEIN R0SENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre, 401E. Las Ohs Etoulessinl, Suite 1650. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 EFTA00193911

Respectfully submitted, ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Counsel for Petitioners Las Olas City Centre 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tel: (954) 522-3456 Fax: , (954) 527-8663 Email: teinalrra, By: . Rothstein, Esq. Florida Bar No.; 765880 FOR THE FIRM 4 ROTHSTEIN ROSENFEI.DT ADLER Las Obs City. Centre. 6018 Las Obs Euukvard, SuiLc Felll 1auderdalc, Florida33301 EFTA00193912

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit Under Seal-Civ-Marra. EDWARD MORSE and CAROL MORSE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, IAN JONES INTERNATIONAL, INC. a/k/a ICON BY JAN JONES, Defendant- Appellee. In re EDWARD MORSE and CAROL MORSE, Petitioners. August 13, 2009. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Under Scal-Civ-Marra), Kenneth A. Marra, Judge. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Before Susan H. Black, Circuit Judge: ORDER ON EMERGENCY WRIT OF MANDAMUS Having reviewed the sealed court file as provided by the Clerk of the Court below (Judge Marra), and having beard argument of counsel in closed proceedings to maintain the integrity of the confidentiality order issued in this matter by the Court below, as well as having hoard directly from Judge Marra and Judge Gerber, we find as follows: Finding! of Fact L. The Court below entered orders on March-25, 2009 and April 23, 2009. specifying that certain specific acts were to take place on certain specific dates. Many of these actions involved return o f funds rightfully belonging to the Plaintiffs. EFTA00193913

2. Subsequent to the entry of same, Judge Marra, despite his rulings to the contrary, made multiple ore tenus rulings on the record which gave counsel for Plaintiff clear room for pause in following said orders. 3. In multiple subsequent hearings, Plaintiffs counsel clearly attempted to ascertain whether the orders stood as entered or whether they had been reversed or stayed. Based upon our full and complete review of the record it became clear that Judge Marra bad no intention of proceeding as he previously ordered and was either reversing or staying his prior orders as set forth above. Whichever his intention is not for this Court to decide. We simply review this matter as it is presented to us, to wit; lawful orders were entered and then vacated or stayed for no clear and convincing reason_and without a stated basis in law or fact. We make no finding whether Judge Marra was correct in his conclusion, but simply that the record lacked the thoroughness and completeness that is mandated when reversing orders of this magnitude. 4. Thus, we find that counsel for Plaintiff properly and timely filed a sealed Emergency Writ of Mandamus with this Court in an attempt to properly protect his clients rights under the order. Conclusions of Law 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the laws controlling Writs of Mandamus 2. This matter is properly before this court 3. The findings of Judge Mann in the court below, in the orders dated March 25 and Apr:123, 2009, are well based in fact and law. EFTA00193914

I- 4. The subsequent ore teams rulings of Judge Marra are without basis in law or (att. 5. The subsequent ore tenus rulings by Judge Marra fail to provide a sufficient record, as mandated by the mks of court, to allow this court to enter a ruling as to whether Judge Marra had the legal right to stay or reverse his prior order. 6. Plaintiffs writ of mandamus is legally sufficient to allow this court to rule in MI on all matters pending before it. Thus, we as a Court with jurisdiction over this matter find as follows: 7. Judge Marra's prior orders are hereby reinstated and remain in full force and effect. To the extent that the later order conflicts with the earlier order, the later order, shall prevail and control. 8. Judge Marra's concerns regarding protection of the Governments rok in this matter exc.well founded in both law and fact. We specifically defer further comment on this portion of this matter to maintain the integrity of the governments investigation. 9. As a matter of procedure we note that a confidentiality order remains in full force and effect in this matter. We specifically mandate that our rulings herein shall have no effect, whatsoever, on said order and that same shall remain in full force and effect in perpetuity. We again strongly caution all counsel and mandate that they caution and counsel their respective clients that this matter is governed by a strict confidentiality order that this court hereby holds shall remain in full force and effect and which this court so-Gusty cautions, contains severe penalties for any violation of same. EFTA00193915

10. This order and the complete sealed record shall be forwarded to the Department of Treasury, forthwith. The clerk of this court is ordered to expedite same. Scaled instructions shall be provided by this court to the Clerk. 11. The Department of Treasury is ordered to expeditiously review the materials and then, upon completion of same, shall immediately send a letter to this court advising that such review is complete and that they require nothing further from this court. Upon receipt of same, the clerk of this court shall advise Plaintiffs counsel that his Writ has been granted in full and that he is free to comply fully and completely With Judge Marra's orders. A copy of this order shall then be provided to all counsel of record. 12. This order shall not be furnished to any counsel of record until such time as the Department of Treasury has completed its review of the sealed record and has forwarded said letter as mandated above this court. This order is self executing and thus, nothing need he brought back before this court on any of these issues. 13. Plaintiffs have a clear legal right to the remedies they are seeking. 14. The court below had an indisputable duty to act but failed to to do so. 15. The plaintiffs have no other remedy available to them in law or equity. 16. If this court does not act, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable ham and unfair prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Atlanta, Georgia, this /-.3 day of August, 2009. iZa ted States A Ste Court Fudge United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit Copies to: CRS, Plantation Office EFTA00193916

FBI, Miami Offioe U.S. Dept of Treasury, Washington, D.C. Clerk of Court, United States District Court EFTA00193917

Roy BLACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK SCOTT A. KORNSPAN LARRY A. STUMPF MARIA NEYRA JACKIE PERCZEK. MARK A.J. SHAM° JARED 1=I BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN STUMPF P.A. _ October 21, 2009 Maria Villifafia, Esq. U.S. Attorney's Office 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Maria: JESSICA FONSECA-NADER KATHLEEN P. PHILLIPS AARON ANTHON MARCOS BEATON, JR. MATTHEW P. O'BRIEN JEISFER J. SOULIKIAS NOAH Fox E-Mail: [email protected] I am in receipt of your letter dated Sept 18, 2009, and believe it is necessary to correct certain inaccuracies contained in that communication. First, you state that the Non-Prosecution Agreement "called for Mr. Epstein to serve eighteen months in county jail followed by twelve months of community control." In fact, the Non-Prosecution Agreement, at 1 2 (a) and (b) required, instead, that Mr. Epstein "shall be sentenced," as in fact he was, to consecutive sentences of 12 and 6 months followed by a 12- month community control probation sentence. Additionally, T 12 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement specifically states that Epstein is entitled to "eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the state of Florida,", thus clearly contemplating that the 18-month jail sentence would be reduced by standard gain time credit. In short, the Agreement expressly contemplated gain time and in no respect contained a requirement that Epstein "serve" 18 months in county jail. As in the federal system, there is no day-to-day conformity between the length of an imposed sentence and the number of days that such a sentence obligates a defendant to serve. Second, you state that Mr. Epstein's gain time was "based upon Mr. Epstein's `work release."' Mr. Epstein's gain time was not in any way tied to or dependent upon his work release; instead, it was calculated according to the same state law and procedures applicable to each sentenced state prisoner as contemplated by the Non-Prosecution Agreement, 1 12 quoted above. 201 5. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Fbrida 33131. Phone: 305-371-6421 • Fax: 305-358-2006 • mvw.RoyBlack.com EFTA00193918

BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN &STUMPF =PA= 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami. Florida 33131 Maria Villifana, Esq U.S. Attorney's Office 500 S Australian Ave Ste 400 West Palm Beach FL 33401-6235 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII $0.442 US POSTAGE FIRSTC LASS SRt FROM 33131 OCT 23 2009 Mani& EFTA00193919

Maria Villifafia, Esq. October 21, 2009 Page 2 Third, the facts that you recite regarding the single occasion where Mr. Epstein "was found . . . walking to work" are at odds with what actually occurred. Epstein had specific authorization to walk to work, this authorization was verified by the police with Epstein's probation officer, and the street on which Epstein was actually stopped was in a direct route to Epstein's office. Epstein was stopped on the sidewalk at the intersection of South Ocean Boulevard and Clarke Avenue. In order to avoid walking through town, Epstein took a street that was one block east, in what is generally a less populated mute. The matter was fully investigated, and Epstein was found to be in total compliance with his community control probation restrictions. Moreover, the distance to Epstein's office from the location where he was stopped is, according to our calculations, less than three miles, not the eight miles as you allege. Finally, it is important to stress that my letter to you of September 1, 2009, was another example of Epstein (and his counsel's) commitment to conform to the requirements of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Agreements between the government and its citizens "are generally construed according to the principles of contract law, and the goveunent, as drafter, must be held to an agreement's literal terms," United States. Anglin, 215 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir, 2000). We believe Epstein has conformed to the Agreement's requirements and would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to make sure each party has a common view of its obligations and rights. RB/wg cc: Jeff Sloman, Esq., Acting U.S. Attorney Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. EFTA00193920

. EFTA00193921

IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO: 4D09-2554 Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. L.T. No. 20098CF009381A (Palm Beach) RESPONDENT B.B.'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD Respondent B.B. moves to supplement the record before the Court on Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein's petition for writ of certiorari and states as follows: 1. Petitioner Epstein filed an emergency petition for writ of certiorari requesting that this Court quash the order of Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Jeffrey Colbath unsealing a nonprosecution agreement between Petitioner Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office. 2. One of Petitioner Epstein's arguments for quashing the lower court order is that Respondent B.B. is able to obtain the sealed nonprosecution agreement from the United States Attorney's Office pursuant to the terms of a federal order issued by Judge Marra of the Southern District of Florida: As Mr. Epstein's counsel stated at the June 25, 2009 hearing in front of Judge Colbath, B.B., as an alleged victim, is entitled to production of the document subject to the conditions in Judge Marra's orders (A-18:41). EFTA00193922

Reply Brief, p. 21, ¶ 3. 3. Respondent B.B., in fact, is not able to obtain the nonprosecution agreement from the United States Attorney's Office. Late yesterday afternoon, counsel for B.B. received the attached letter from the United States Attorney advising that the he cannot disclose the nonprosecution agreement to B.B. because she was not identified by the USAO as one of Epstein's victims. 4. Although this letter was not before the trial court prior to the issuance of the order unsealing the agreement, it directly bears on the proceedings before this Court. It should also be noted that Petitioner Epstein submitted a supplemental appendix with his reply brief that includes documents created after the order under review here and were not, therefore, considered by Judge Colbath when unsealing the nonprosecution agreement. 5. The undersigned counsel for Respondent B.B. has conferred with Jane Kreusler-Walsh, counsel for Petitioner Epstein, regarding this motion to supplement. Ms. Walsh advised that she is on vacation and would refer the matter to trial counsel. Undersigned counsel has not yet heard from trial counsel regarding Petitioner Epstein's position on this motion to supplement. As briefing in this case has been completed and the Court might rule at any time, Respondent B.B. is filing this motion without knowledge of whether opposing counsel opposes the relief requested. Respondent will file an 2 EFTA00193923

amended motion upon opposing counsel advising of the Petitioner's position on this motion. WHEREFORE, Respondent B.B. respectfully requests the Court supplement the record before the Court on Petitioner Epstein's petition for writ of certiorari with the attached letter to Respondent B.B. from the United States Attorney's Office. Dated: August 5, 2009 By: Diana L. Martin Florida Bar No. 624489 L,EOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: 561-515-1400 Facsimile: 561-515-1401 [email protected] 3 EFTA00193924

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on August 5, 2009, on the following: Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Attorney For: Jeffiey Epstein 250 Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 334101 Phone: (561) 659-8300 Fax: (561) 835-8691 Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike Attorney For: Jeffiey Epstein 515 North Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 842-2820 Fax: (561) 844-6929 Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq. State Attorney's Office-West Palm Beach 401 N. Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Deanna K. Shullman Attornea: Palm Beach Post 400 N.EM Dr., Suite 1100 P.O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Jane Kreusler-Walsh, Esq. Barbara J. Compiani, Esq. Attorneys For: Jcffiey Epstein Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A. 501 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 Phone: (561) 659-5455 Jeffrey H. Sloman, Esq. U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 William Berger, Esq. Attorney For: E. W. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Florida Bar No. 624489 4 EFTA00193925

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida S00 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 August 4, 2009 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold—Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Re: Jeffrey Epstein/B.B. — Requested Disclosure of Non-Prosecution Agreement Dear Mr. Kuvin: Thank you for your letter regarding the disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement signed by Jeffrey Epstein. I understand that you are asking for a copy of that Agreement in connection with your representation of "B.B." As you are aware, the Agreement contains a confidentiality provision. Based upon a lawsuit filed by some of Mr. Epstein's victims, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra has issued a Protective Order requiring the U.S. Attorney's Office to provide copies of the Agreement to certain individuals under certain circumstances. The Order states: If any individuals who have been identified by the USAO [U.S. Attorney's Office] as victims of Epstein and/or any attomey(s) for those individuals request the opportunity to review the Agreement, then the USAO shall produce the Agreement to those individuals, so long as those individuals also agree that they shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for.Epstein's counsel to be heard ... (Court File No. 08-CV-80737-MARRA, DE 26, ¶ (e).) The language "individuals who have been identified by the USAO as victims of Epstein" refers to a specific list of individuals who were the subject of the federal investigation. A list of those individuals was provided to Mr. Epstein's attorney. Your client, B.B., was not identified during that investigation, and, therefore was not on the list. By stating this I am hot, in any way, denigrating any harm that your client may have suffered. I am simply stating that, given time and resource limitations that we faced during the investigation, B.B. was not a person who was positively identified, such that she would have been the subject of charges within a EFTA00193926

SPENCER T. KUM, ESQ. Aucusr 4, 2009 PAGE 2 possible federal indictment. For this reason, your client is not covered by the Court's Protective Order and the Agreement's confidentiality provision remains intact. If you are unable to get a copy of the Agreement via the civil discovery process in the lawsuit that you have filed against Mr. Epstein, please ask his counsel if they will consent to my production of the Agreement to you and I will send a copy to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney By: oia itatie Vita/aria' A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorney cc: Karen Atkinson, Esq. EFTA00193927

MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ PA ATTORNEYS AT LAW September 29, 2009 Via U.S. Mail Hon. Jeffrey Colbath Palm Beach County Circuit Court Criminal Division W 205 North Dixie Highway, Room 11.2213 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Adam D. Horowitz Tel 305.931.2200 Fax 305.931.0877 [email protected] 18205 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 vnmv.sexabuseattomey.com Re: State of Florida'. Jeffrey Epstein Dear Judge Colbath: I am writing to you regarding Jeffrey Epstein as I understand you may be the presiding judge in his criminal case. My client, M, is one of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged victims. She has asked me to report to you that Jeffrey Epstein violated the terms of his probation, including his No-Contact Order, during an incident on September 16, 2009 in which Mr. Epstein came within approximately ten (10) feet of her, stared her down, and intimidated her to tears. This occurred at a time and place where Jeffrey Epstein knew he might come into contact with . An affidavit setting forth the facts is attached hereto. My client can testify to these events as well. If you require additional information from my client, please do not hesitate to ask. Respectfully submitted, EFTA00193928

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related Cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, DECLARATION OF ADAM D. HOROWITZ 1. My name is Adam D. Horowitz. I am an attorney for Jane Doe No. 4. 2. The deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 was scheduled for September 16, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. at 350 Australian Ave. South, Suite 115, West Palm Beach, Florida. On the day before the deposition, the undersigned and counsel for Jeffrey Epstein entered into a written stipulation in which it was agreed that "Jeffrey Epstein will not attend tomorrow's deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 (in the absence of a court order permitting him to attend)." It was further agreed that Jeffrey Epstein may listen in to the deposition by telephone or view a videofeed of the deposition, but under no circumstances would he "be seen by our client." 3. While Jane Doe No. 4 and 1 were in the lobby of 350 Australian Ave South at approximately 1:00 p.m. for her deposition on September 16, 2009, we crossed paths with Jeffrey Epstein and someone who appeared to be his bodyguard. Jeffrey Epstein stopped EFTA00193929

walking and began to stare at and intimidate Jane Doe No. 4. Jane Doe No. 4 was terrified, began crying and ran outside the building. Jeffrey Epstein smirked at her and walked away. 4. As a result of this incident, Jane Doe began crying uncontrollably and was unable to proceed with her deposition. Under penalties of perjury I declare that I have read the foregoing Declaration and the facts stated in it are true. Dated: September /7 2009 C —"kg Adam D. Horowitz EFTA00193930

EFTA00193931

Jeffrey J. Colbath Circuit Court Judge 205 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fr; oni265-eset $00.442 foiesi200.9 MISS Erect 33401 US POSTAGE R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney's Office - Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Ft 33401 334O1$6.c.alb CO23 IIII1111111 I I I 11111) II 111111 kill II 111111)1 I 1 Ill EFTA00193932

EFTA00193933

ROY BLACK HowARD M. SREBNICK Scan A. KORNSPAH LARRY A. STUMPF MARIA NEYRA JACKS PERCZEK MARK A.J. SHAPIRO JARED BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN STUMPF September 1, 2009 Jeffrey Sloman, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jeff: JESSICA FONSECA-NADER KATHLEEN P. PHILLIPS AARON ANTHON MARCOB BEATON, JR. MATMEW P. O'BRIEN JENIPER J. SOUI1K1AS NOAH Fox ffillack@RoyBlack corn Once again I need to send you a note about Jeffrey Epstein, mainly to keep you in the loop so we don't inadvertently violate any provision of his agreement with your office. As I am sure you are aware, Mr. Epstein has finished the incarceration portion of his sentence and is now serving the one year of community control as mandated by both his state plea and the terms of the non- prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Mr. Epstein is in compliance with all terms of his community control and is applying for transfer of his supervision from the State of Florida to his primary residence, the Virgin Islands. This transfer is being requested through the Intrastate Compact for Transfer of Adult Supervision (ICAOS). The ICAOS is the mechanism for which transfers of probation and community control are effectuated. The process requires the offender to seek the approval of the sending state (in this case Florida) and, if they agree, the receiving state (in this case the United States Virgin Islands) and the United States Virgin Islands after investigation has pre-approved the transfer under the same exact conditions of supervision as imposed in Mr. Epstein's community control sentence in the State of Florida. Even though Mr. Epstein is requesting the transfer he is still at the home 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami, Florida 33131 • Phone•. 30S-37i-642i • Fax: 305-358-2006 • wvnv.RoyBlack.com EFTA00193934

r EFTA00193935

Jeffrey Sloman, Esq. September 1, 2009 Page 2 in Palm Beach following the rules of state community control. As Mr. Epstein's lawyers, we believe that his request to administratively transfer his community control is in full compliance with both his state plea agreement and the non- prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney's Office. Nonetheless we have taken to heart your previous suggestion of erring on the side of caution and thus we are advising you of this request. I am happy to discuss this with you at any time. I did not want to set an appointment to see you on this issue since I imagine you have more pressing matters to deal with than a transfer of a state community control matter. RB/wg Very 1 Roy Black Black. Smbnick, Komspan & Stumpf. PA EFTA00193936

EFTA00193937

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent CASE NO. 4D09-2.554 PALM BEACH COUNTY L.T. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, files this response to the Motion to Supplement the Record filed by Respondent, B.B. on August 5, 2009. Mr. Epstein has no objection to the motion. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by mail this 90 %ay of August, 2009, to: JEFFREY H. SLOMAN U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District . 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 WILLIAM J. BERGER ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT 'ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Counsel for E.W. JUDITH STEVENSON ARCO State Attorney's Office-West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DEANN LMAN 400 North.= Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Counsel for The Palm Beach Post 1 EFTA00193938

SPENCER T. ICUVIN DIANA L. MARTIN LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counsel for B.B. HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH 15th Judicial Circuit Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ROBERT D. CRITTON of BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 842-2820 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER of ATTEltBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 659-8300 and JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and REBECCA MEERCIER VARGAS of KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 (561) 659-5455 janewalshOjkvvpa.com Counsel for Petitioner By: CCU 015CO3 1146(c.;, 66( .R,A, JANE KREUSLER-W. Florida Bar No. 272371 2 EFTA00193939

.7.:3flJI~f23.G~~ lull. 11,11.1111 IIIIIU111111IIItl11I,I11VII ILI Irs.R.EUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. SUITE 503. FLAGLER CENTER SOI SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401-5913 JEFFREY H. SLOMAN U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 g 65"74 9c, e-7r rr-Pirra* comes 02 1P $ OOO.440 0004162054 AUG 20 2009 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 33401 EFTA00193940

EFTA00193941

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561)820-8711 Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 June 12, 2009 DELIVERY BY HAND Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400 250 Australian Ave S. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5015 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Goldberger: Pursuant to the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida hereby provides you with notice that the United States Attorney has determined, based on reliable evidence, that Jeffrey Epstein has willfully violated one of the conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Specifically, on May 26, 2009, Jeffrey Epstein, through his counsel, filed a "Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement," in the matter of Jane Doe No. 1011 Jeffrey Epstein, Court File No. 09-CV-80591-KAM. "Jane Doe No. 101" was on the list provided to Mr. Epstein's attorneys of individuals whom the United States had identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and "Jane Doe No. 101" has elected to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. By filing the Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Epstein is contesting liability and, therefore, has violated Term 8 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Based upon Mr. Epstein's breach of that term, the U.S. Attorney's Office will pursue its remedies. The U.S. Attorney's Office also is continuing its review of Mr. Epstein's filings in the civil suits to determine whether additional breaches have occurred. If any are EFTA00193942

EFTA00193943

JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. JUNE 12, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 2 identified, they will be communicated to you in accordance with the terms of the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney A. Marie Villafafia Assistant United States Attorney cc: Karen Atkinson, Chief, Northern Division Roy Black, Esq. EFTA00193944

EFTA00193945

07/29/2011 13:11 FAX ' . 4 a 001/004 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60654 Phone: (312) 862-2000 Fax: (312) 862-2200 Plana notify ua Immediately if any pawn; are not received. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL, MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION, AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. UNAUTHORIZED USE, DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: (312) 862-2000, To: A. Marie Villafalta CC: Martin G. Weinberg, Esq. Company: United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida Company: Fax #: (561) 820-8777 Fax #: Direct #: (561) 820-8711 Direct #: From: Sandra Musurneci for Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. Message: Date: July 29, 2011 Pages w/cover: 4 Fax tk Direct II: Please see the attached letter, in response to your letter to Martin Weinberg of July 27, 2011, concerning Jeffrey Epstein. Thank you. Documcn2 EFTA00193946

EFTA00193947

.07/29/2011 13:12 FAX e002/004 Jay P. Lefkowitz. P.C. To Call Writer Directly! jay.latkovM.ldancLegen KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND WILLA= rARTNERSHIPS 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 vnee.kindand.com July 29, 2011 FacSineks: (212) 4464900 Delivery by Facsimile CONFIDENTIAL A. Marie Villafaila Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Avenue Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. Villafafia: Thank you for your letter of July 27, 2011 to my co-counsel Martin Weinberg concerning the request by the New York District Attorney for copies of the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") and the "victim list" in regards to Mr. Epstein. We continue for the reasons slated herein to believe that any such disclosure would violate the confidentiality agreement between your Office and Mr. Epstein as well as the provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). As to the NPA, you have repeatedly asserted in Doe' United States No. 9:08-cv-80736- KAM, that the NPA was a confidential document. For instance, in paragraph 6 of Document 14, your own Declaration, you stated that the NPA contained "an express confidentiality provision." In opposing the Motion to Unseal the NPA that was filed by Jane Doe, you stated that you had informed Judge Marra of the confidentiality provision during an earlier telephonic status conference occurring on August 14, 2008 which "the United States was obligated to honor," Document 29 at 1, and that "the parties who negotiated the Agreement, the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein, determined that the Agreement should remain confidential," Document 29 at 2. Further, you deemed the NPA "confidential," for understandable purposes, in your September 3, 2008 letter to Robert Josefsberg in which you informed him that Judge Marra had set forth procedures for providing the NPA only to those counsel and "victims" who executed a Protective Order preventing its subsequent disclosure. The New York Assistant District Attorney, Ms. Morse, is representing the prosecution in an appeal regarding a sex offender registration determination, and any disclosure of the NPA to her has the potential to result in its use in that appeal and the real risk that the appellate court will unseal it. We believe it to violate both the spirit and the most logical interpretation of the NPA, Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich Palo Alto San Francisco Shanghai Washington D.C. K&E 19439748.2 EFTA00193948

EFTA00193949

07/29/2011 13: 12 FAX V1003/004 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP A. Marie Vitiate% July 29, 2011 Page 2 paragraph 13, for you to disclose it absent a subpoena -- which we could oppose in the jurisdiction from which it emanated. We further believe that when parol evidence supplements the text of paragraph 13 of the NPA, it is perfectly apparent from your prior submissions that you as well as we believed the NPA to contain "an express confidentiality provision" that your current willingness to disclose absent court process violates. As to the "victim list," again, not only is it confidential given its nexus to the NPA, but your own prior letters tie the list to the Federal Grand Jury investigation and thus to the non- disclosure provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). On July 8, 2008, you wrote to Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., and informed him that on June 30, 2008, "the United States Attorney's Office provided [him] with a list of thirty-one individuals 'whom it was prepared to name In an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein." (emphasis added). On July 9, 2008, you wrote in a follow-up letter to Mr. Goldberger that "the U.S. Attorney's modification of the 2255 portion of the Agreement now limits our victim list to those persons whom the United States was prepared to include in an indictment. This means that, pursuant to Justice Department policy, these are individuals for whom the United States believes it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each of them was a victim of an enumerated offense." (emphasis added). First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Sloman used similar language in tying the names of the "victims" to the basis for a potential indictment, a December 6, 2007 letter from Mr. Sloman to Mr. Lefkowitz at 2, 3; see atm your email to Mr. Lefkowitz and Mr. Black on August 14, 2008 at 3:27 p.m., where you state that the list contains "only those 'individuals whom [the United States] was prepared to name in an Indictment...," thus clearly providing the nexus between the list and the Grand Jury investigation and its corollary, the protections from non- disclosure enumerated in Fed. R. Crirn. P. 6(e). In terms of case law, the names of witnesses that either testified or were identified during Grand Jury proceedings are subjec secrecy provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). See, tg„ In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith 438 F.3d 1138, 1140 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ("Consistent with these purposes, we have recognized that grand jury secrecy covers 'the identities of witnesses or jurors, the substance of testimony as well as actual transcripts, the strategy or I direction of the investigation, the deliberations or questions of jurors, and t like.", (citing Ili it )".:low Jones & Co., Ines, 142 F.3d 496, 500 (D.C. Cir. 1998)); see also SEC Dresser Indust. Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1382 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Fund for Constitutional Gov't Nat'l Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856, 869 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Indeed, it is generally recognized that the scope of protection accorded to Grand Jury proceedings under Rule 6(e) is broad and encompasses, among other things, information such as the "victim list" at issue here: KdeF. 19439748.2 EFTA00193950

EFTA00193951

07/28/2011 13:12 FAX a 004/004 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP A. Marie Villafafla July 29, 2011 Page 3 We construe the secrecy provisions of Rule 6(e) to apply not only to disclosures of events which have already occurred before the grand jury, such as a witness's testimony, but also to disclosures of matters which will occur, such as statemenis which reveal the identity of persons who will be called to testify or which report when the grand jury will return an indictment. Irtne Grand Jur/investigation, 610 F.2d 202, 216-17 (5th Cir. 1980),I We believe that confidentiality applies to the requested information. We believe that any non-compulsory handover of the list or NPA is inconsistent with the positions you have previously taken in related litigation. Accordingly, we request that you reconsider and decline the request of the New York District Attorney. Sincerely, P. Le owitz, P.C. Cc: Martin G. Weinberg JPL/slm I Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down prior to September 30, 1981, are binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, Sag Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981). K&E 19439748.2 EFTA00193952

EFTA00193953