Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-59 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 (USAFLS) From: (USAFLS) Sent: on ay, september 1 , 2007 1:09 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Subject: My whereabouts Hi Jay — I am headed home. If a document is ready to be reviewed later today, can you send a copy to me and also to Rolando (who is stepping In for And Please send to my home e-mall address nd give me a call on my cell so I can be ready for some discussions tomorrow, If anything else comes up, please don't hesitate to call. 6 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001709 EFTA00184703

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-60 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 60 EFTA00184704

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-60 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 (USAFLS) rom: (USAFLS) Il ibject: nt: 'A I hursday, September 20, 2007 6:42 PM 'Jay Lefkowitz' RE: Plea Agreement -- EPSTEIN Jay -- The 18 and 12 has already been agreed to by our office, so that is not a problem. On the issue about 18 USC 2255, we seem to be miles apart. Your most recent version not only had me binding the girls to a trust fund administered by the state court, but also promising that they will give up their 2255 rights. I reviewed the e-mail that I sent you on Sunday with the comments on some of your other changes. In the context of a non-prosecution agreement, the office may be more willing to be specific about not pursuing charges against others. However, as I stated on Sunday, the Office cannot and will not bind Immigration. Also, your timetable will need to move up significantly. As Barry said in our meeting last week, his office can put together a plea agreement, information, and get you all before the judge on a change of plea within a day. I am headed out now, but you can get me on my cell or call me tomorrow in the office. Thank you. A. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 all est Palm Beach FL 33401 one Fax From: Jay Lefkowitz [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:12 PM To: . (USAFLS) Subject: Plea Agreement -- EPSTEIN - Still looking it over and I may have some questions in the morning, but I have a few now regarding the state reso ution In your last draft, you put in 20 and 10, and I thought that we had agreed to 18 and 12. I assume this is not a serious Issue, but wanted to call it to your attention. I also wonder if you have any flexibility on the language in the 2255 paragraphs. I don't think we are very far apart on this language. I had also suggested some language, to be included in the agreement on finality, provided that Jeffrey abided by all the terms of the agreement. Please let me know your thoughts on these. I will continue to review the document and speak with you tomorrow. Thanks -- Jay all e information contained in this communication is .onfidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of 1 RFP MIA 000173 EFTA00184705

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-61 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 8 EXHIBIT 61 EFTA00184706

i ( ) EFTA00184707

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-61 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 8 EXHIBIT 61 EFTA00184708

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-61 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 8 aVIllebne, Ann Merle C. XU8APLS1r 09/21/2007 02:12 PM To *Jay Lelkowtz' [email protected]> CC bx Subject Revised Non-Presocudon Agreement Hi lay — Here is my attempt at oombining our thoughts. I need to talk to the office about the immigration language before I put it in here, I know that we have not and don't plan to ask immigration to do that, but let me see if they are okay with including it in writing. I spent about an hour with a former corporate counsel from a hospital who now works hem to go over the 2255 language. I think that the attached addresses the concern about having an unlimited number of claimed victims, without me trying to bind girls whom I do not represent This language basn't been approved by the office yet, so consider it a draft. These are all the same document, just in different formats, <<070921 Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreotnetn.wpi>> <<070921 Epstein Nen-Prosecution Agreementdoc>> <<070921 Epstein Non-ProsecotIon Agreement.pdf>> Thanks. If you have any immediate thoughts before you leave, please let me bow. A.- Vlllajalfa Assistant U.S. Attorney <c< Attachment '070921 Conklin Non•Prose on Agreementwdd' hat been archived by user 'CominonStorenI/OSIond-Ellia' on '11/20/2007 <<< Attectunent'07002,11etein Non•ProsectAlonAgrantM' been archived by user cemmeastarsornarkland-Ellis' on '11/26/2001 01:11:2& >,> US Atty Cor 0081 EFTA00184709

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-61 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 8 0117:20'. >>> «<Atteqhment'070921 Epstein Nm.:Pr0000140A0n76Mttitthej been orabred by user 'CommonStore/Mrklankplle' on '11/2812997 7:29', >>> a US_Atty_Cor_0082 EFTA00184710

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-61 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 8 (5) • FN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office') have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein'); IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein with three counts of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background; IT APPEARING that Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein") has committed offenses against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around October 2005, including: (1) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(O, with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(6); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title IS, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(O, with minor females; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recniiting, enticing, Page 1 of 5 US_Atty_Cor_0083 EFTA00184711

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-61 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 8 and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the ago of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(0)(1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and IT APPEARING that Epstein has accepted responsibility for his behavior by his signature on this Agreement; and IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background, that the interest of' the United States pursuant to the Petite policy will be served by the following procedure; THEREFORE, on the authority of United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. If the United States Attorney should determine that Epstein has violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may at any time initiate prosecution against Epstein for any offense. In this ease, the United States Attorney will furnish Epstein with notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated. After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of tho Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. Terms of the Agreement: I. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nob contendere) to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03; 2. Epstein and the State Attorney's Office shall make a joint, binding recommendation that the Court impose a thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: (a) Epstein shall begin by serving at least eighteen (18) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment; and Page 2 of 5 US Atty Cor_0084 EFTA00184712

Case 9 08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-61 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 6 of 8 (b) following the term of imprisonment, Epstein shall serve twelve (12) months of community control. 3. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. 4. Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements. 5. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States will file a motion with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for the appointment of a guardian ad them for these parsons. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that guardian. 6. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (5), supra, elect to file stilt pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified victim and Epstein. Epstein's signature on this agreement is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. As to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement likewise is not to he construed as an admission of any civil liability other than that contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2255. 7. Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October 19, 2007, and shall self-report to begin serving his sentence not later than December 1, 2007. 8. With credit for gain time, Epstein shall serve at least 450 days in (he county jail. . Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his obligation to undertake discussion with the State Attorney's Office to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be neoessary to satisfy the United States' Interest, pursuant to the Petite policy. Page 3 of 5 US_Atty_Cor_0085 EFTA00184713

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-61 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 7 of 8 In consideration of Epsteln's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation to victims, if Epstein successfully fiilfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges again any potential co- conspirator of Epstein, including Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal will ho held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash . Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have been satisfied. By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all federal offenses. By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the, Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the , filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that ail felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted Page 4 of 5 US_Atty Cor_0086 EFTA00184714

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-61 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 8 of 8 S By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. Dated: JEFFREY EPSTEIN Dated: GERALD LEPCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN Dated: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Page 5 of S US_Atty_Cor 0087 EFTA00184715

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 15 EXHIBIT 62 EFTA00184716

Case 9:08.cv-8Q736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 15 IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; IT APPEARING that the United Slates Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: (I) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(0, with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); (3) using u facility or moans of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title IS, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(0, with minor females; in violation Page I of 7 EFTA00184717

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 15 of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(l); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands and acknowltxlges that, in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement, lie agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney's Office; IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the Defendant will be served by the following procedure; THEREFORE, on the authority o United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below, If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages I and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. Page 2 of 7 EFTA00184718

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 15 Terms of the Agreement: I. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nob contendere) to the Indictment as currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB) charging one (I) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stet. § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03; 2. Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: (a) (b) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment; and Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Term 2(a), supra. 3. This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which arc set forth in this agreement. 4. The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or incarceration. 5. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph (2), supra. 6. Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all Page 3 of 7 EFTA00184719

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 15 proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements. 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstcin's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. I I. Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be Page 4 of 7 EFTA00184720

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 6 of 15 sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008. 12. Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. 13. The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement. In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal char es a ainst aniiitential co-cons irators of E stein, including but not limited to a or Further, upon execution o t is agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. Page 5 of 7 EFTA00184721

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 7 of • 15 By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all federal offenses. By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(h) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as to any such offense. /// /I/ / Page 6 of 7 EFTA00184722

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 8 of 15 By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: 77a, Dated: Dated: VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA00184723

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 9 of 15 By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with thorn. 1.1 1/11.1.114EY Dated: By: Dated: Dated: 7/9-410 Dated: A. VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN RAL EEC° ESQ. OUNSEL TO JEFFR Y EPSTEIN EFTA00184724

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 10 of • 15 By signing this agreement, Epstein mats and certifies that the above has been read and explained to hint Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with On UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: Br A- ASSLSTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Dated: JEFFREY EPSTEIN Dated: Dated: 09-- GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY BPSTETN Page 7 of 7 EFTA00184725

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 11 of 15 IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN ADDENDUM TOTEM NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"), that agreement Is modified as follows: 7A. The (Jolted States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative. 7D. The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the Independent third-party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epsteln's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra. 7C. Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the foes and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in s 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall cease. r EFTA00184726

Case 9:98-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 12 of 15 By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein heretry, slates that he understands the clarifications to the Non- PMSeanthe Agreement and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER...IL UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: Dated. / Ph WI- Dated: Dated: By: AIM VILLAPANA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCIIEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY MR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA00184727

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 13 of 15 By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. TED STATES A I ItaNLY Dated: By: Dated; Dated:ICA? / 07 Dated: A. tipm);ILI.AFARA AS U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN RALD LEFCO ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFF Y EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ. ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA00184728

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 14 of 15 By signing thle Addendum, Epstein mesas and certifies that the above has boon read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Nona Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with than. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: Dated: Dated: ii(Y_Slin -• A. MIFYILLAFAIIA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY A MOM, ES ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA00184729

Case 9:08-cv-807,36-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 15 of 15 Dec-OT-OT 01:66pe From-fowler -White 06rnett Aar.* tem 3061/00201 T-286 P.003/024 F-O71 Joey& Epstein do hereby roar= the NaProsteraisui Agrcana it and Addendum w sem dared October 30, 2007, EFTA00184730

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 34 EXHIBIT 63 EFTA00184731

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of Page 1 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA IN RE: JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Federal Courthouse West Palm Beach, Florida July 11, 2008 10:15 a.m. The above entitled matter came on for Emergency Petitioner for Enforcement of Crime Victim Rights before the Honorable Kenneth A. Marra, pursuant to Notice, taken before Victoria Aiello, Court Reporter, pages 1-32. For the Plaintiff: Bradley Edwards, Esquire For the Defendant: Dexter Lee, AUSA , AUSA OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184732

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of nit 1 (Call to Order of the Court). 2 THE COURT: Good morning. Please be seated. 3 This is the case of In Re: Jane Doe, Case 4 Number 08-80736-Civ-Marra. May I have counsel state 5 their appearances, please? 6 MR. LEE: Good morning, Your Honor. May it 7 please the Court, for the United States of America, 8 we have , Assistant United States 9 Attorney and Dexter Lee, Assistant United States 10 Attorney. And we have seated in the front row FBI 11 Special Agent Becker Kendall and Jason 12 Thank you, Your Honor. 13 MR. EDWARDS: Good morning, Your Honor. Brad 14 Edwards on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioners 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 the victim's reply, which was filed, I guess, this 22 morning. So, You want to proceed, counsel?. 23 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, Your Honor. You prefer me 24 at the podium? 25 THE COURT: It is easier for us to hear you. are also in the courtroom today. This petition is styled on her behalf. THE COURT: Good morning. All right. We're here on the petitioner's motion to enforce her rights as a victim under 18 USC 3771. I have received the petition, the government's response and I Page 2 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184733

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLED Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of ga Page 3 1 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, as a factual 2 background, Mr. Epstein is a billionaire that 3 sexually abused and molested dozens and dozens of 4 girls between the ages of 13 and 17 years old. And 5 through cooperating victims, that evidence can be 6 proven. Because of his deviant appetite for young 7 girls, combined with his extraordinary wealth and 8 power, he may just be the most dangerous sexual 9 predator in U.S. history. This petitioner is one of 10 the victims and she is in attendance today. Another 11 one of Mr. Epstein's victims is also in attendance 12 today. She would be able to provide evidence that 13 she provided-- that Mr. Epstein paid her to provide 14 him over 50 girls for the purposes of him to 15 sexually abuse. Therefore, the undercurrents of the 16 petition are clear. The plea bargain that was 17 worked out for Mr. Epstein in light of the offenses 18 that he committed is clearly unfair to the point 19 that if anybody looks at the information, it is 20 unconscionable. 21 THE COURT: Well, I mean, is that for me? 22 That's not my role. That's the prosecutor's role to 23 apply, would it not? I can't force them to bring 24 criminal charges. What do I have to do with that. 25 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184734

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 'IA 1 THE COURT: That may be your opinion, that 2 may be your client's opinion, but I presume that the 3 government is aware that that's your client's 4 opinion. How does that change anything? 5 MR. EDWARDS: That's my problem. I'm not 6 sure that the government is aware that is 7 petitioner's opinion and that's why we're here 8 today, just to enforce the victim's rights under 18 9 USC 3771, Crime Victims Rights Act, and all we are 10 asking is to order that the plea agreement that has 11 been negotiated in this case-- 12 THE COURT: How do you know there is a plea 13 agreement? The plea agreement is with the State of 14 Florida, wasn't it? 15 MR. EDWARDS: There was a state charge with 16 one victim that I'm aware of. And the plea 17 agreement as to that one victim was 18 months in the 18 county jail. But along with that, the Palm Beach 19 County Sheriff investigating this case was getting 20 no action out of the local authorities and sent this 21 to the FBI. 22 THE COURT: It was actually the Palm Beach-- 23 Town of Palm Beach Police, not the Sheriff's Office. 24 MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry, Judge. And that's 25 why the FBI got involved because Michael Feeter I Page 4 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184735

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 6 of 14 1 wrote a scathing letter to the State Attorney about 2 Mr. Epstein receiving preferencial treatment by 3 local authorities. 4 Before the FBI took the case, they went 5 behind the victim's back, and this is our motion, 6 without the victim's input and allowing her the 7 right to meaningfully confer with the government, 8 which is a right that she can assert at this time. 9 They worked out a plea deal where if Mr. Epstein 10 would plead to this other charge regarding another 11 victim in the state court case, they would agree to 12 not prosecute him for all of the federal charges of 13 what they were aware of in federal court.. 14 THE COURT: So that's already apparently 15 taken place, correct? 16 MR. EDWARDS: I don't know if it has taken 17 place. I'm not sure exactly what stage it is in. I 18 know it is supposed to be attached at some point in 19 time to a state court plea. 20 THE COURT: Hasn't he already plead guilty, 21 though? 22 MR. EDWARDS: If he did plead guilty, it is 23 my understanding and belief that the agreement with 24 the federal government and with the U.S. Attorney's 25 Office wasn't signed on that day. So it is still my 1 Page 5 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184736

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 7 of 34 Page 6 1 belief, I could be wrong, but that that agreement 2 hasn't been completed as of this time. 3 THE COURT: So let's assume it hasn't been 4 completed. 5 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Then petitioner would 6 like the right to confer with-- 7 THE COURT: You can go in the conference 8 room. We've got the FBI agents, you've got the 9 assigned prosecuting attorney. You have got a 10 conference room. You've got your client. Go and 11 talk. Confer. And then it is up government to 12 decide what to do, correct? 13 MR. EDWARDS: In a way, Your Honor, that's 14 very similar to what happened in In Re: Dean and PB 15 case where there is a plea agreement negotiated and 16 then the victim gets the right to confer. 17 THE COURT: It's already negotiated. What 18 am I supposed to do? 19 MR. EDWARDS: Order that the agreement that 20 was negotiated is invalid and it is illegal as it 21 did not pertain to the rights of the victim. 22 THE COURT: I can order you into the 23 conference room. Then the government can do what it 24 chooses. It can agree to prosecute or it can agree 25 to going forward with the agreement it had already OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184737

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 8 of 34 1 reached and after consulting your client and in 2 taking into consideration your client's views, 3 decide to go forward anyway. I can't make them 4 prosecute him. I can't-- All I can do is, at best, 5 say confer with the victim, consider the victim's 6 input before you make a decision or reconsider the 7 decision you already made in view of the victim's 8 input, if it is possible for you to do that. So if 9 I invalidate the agreement, what's the best you can 10 get? The right to confer? 11 MR. EDWARDS: Exactly. That is all we can. 12 THE COURT: So why can't you go into the 13 conference room now, take as much time as you feel 14 you need and confer? 15 MR. EDWARDS: Judge, at this time I'd like to 16 move ore tenus to add the victim that's in the 17 courtroom to this conference with the U.S. 18 Attorney's Office. 19 THE COURT: So is that Jane Doe 2 for 20 purposes of this? 21 MR. EDWARDS: Exactly, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: All right. Let me hear from the 23 government then. 24 MR. LEE:. Good morning, Your Honor. May it 25 please the Court. OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184738

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 9 of 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Let me update the Court on the status of various matters. The agreement to defer prosecution to the State of Florida was signed and completed by December of 2007. Mr. Epstein's attorneys saught a higher review within the Department of Justice and it took a number of months for that to come to fruition. When it came to fruition, he ended up pleading guilty on June 30, 2008 to two charges in state court, and he was sentenced to a term of incarceration of 18 months, with another 12 months of community control after the completion of his sentence, and he is currently incarcerated as we speak. We have two arguments, Your Honor. First, insofar as the right that they claim under 3771(a)(5), their right to confer in the case, we respectfully submit that there was no case in federal court and, indeed, none was contemplated if the plea agreement was to be successfully completed, since it contemplated the State on the criminal charges. So as conditions were met and certain of Florida sentence long as certain federal interests were vindicated, the federal government was satisfied that this was an appropriate disposition. Insofar as the best effort, Your Honor, we 1 Page 8 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184739

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 10 of Page 9 1 have cited the Attorney General's guidelines. The 2 guidelines do say that you should normally advise 3 victims of plea negotiations and the terms of the 4 plea, but they recognize that there are times when 5 they may not be appropriate or could cause some harm 6 or prejudice, and they set out six factors which are 7 to be considered, non-exhaustive factors. 8 We have advised, in the declaration of AUSA 9 that when the subject of having Mr. 10 Epstein concede that he would be convicted of an 11 enumerated offense for purposes of a cause of action 12 under 18 USC 2255, there was a rather strenuous 13 objection from Mr. Epstein's counsel that the 14 federal government was inducing some effort to 15 either fabricate claims, enhance claims or embellish 16 claims and if this agreement ultimately could not be 17 consumated, then we'd have a federal prosecution on 18 our hands, and we did not want to be in a positin of 19 creating additional impeachment material. 20 I can't say that the stand by Mr. Edwards 21 that the arguments of inducement in a subsequent 22 civil action can be made by any criminal victim, 23 that is true. It is another thing for that 24 inducement to have come before the prosecution 25 arguing about the credibility and veracity of the OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184740

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 11 of 34 1 individual. That was a considerably strong point, in 2 essence, in not discussing those terms with the 3 victims as might ordinarily be done if those 4 considerations did not exist. S So, first, Your Honor, we believe that 6 3771(a)(5) does not apply. 7 THE COURT: Well, what about the language in 8 the statute that suggests that a victim can bring a 9 claim or seek enforcement of his or her rights under 10 the statute before a case is filed? What does that 11 refer to? 12 MR. LEE: Your Honor, we believe that's a 13 venue provision essentially telling an individual if 14 there is no exigent case, there is no case of United 15 States versus So And So, then you seek to enforce 16 your rights, then you can go in and do so in the did 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 court where the offense occurred. This is not saying, necessarily, that rights exist, but if you believe they exist, here is the place where you're going to have to lodge it, and the Court will have to decide. Now, there are certain of the eight rights accorded in 3771(a) that could come up before any charge is filed. For instance, let's say somebody believes that the perpetrator of the crime is going I Page 10 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184741

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 12 of 34 1 to try to harm them or threatened them or 2 intimidated them into not testifying or cooperating 3 with the government and, of course, no indictment 4 has been returned. If an individual went to the 5 government and believed that the individual had not 6 acted appropriately, they can go to the district 7 court and say I need to have my rights under 8 3771(a)(1) enforced because those people are 9 threatening me, and the government hasn't done 10 enough. That would be a situation. 11 But we're talking really here about (a)(5), 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Dean case and the instant case, Your Honor, is 20 this. In Dean, they had negotiated with BP 21 Petroleum for a plea and it was always contemplated 22 that there was going to be a federal prosecution. 23 The distinction in this case was that there was 24 already a pending state prosecution and the 25 objective for both sides was to keep it in state which is the right to consult in the case and we respectfully submit that there is not case until a charge has been filed. THE COURT: So, what about the circuit case that was actually pending case had to do with a plea agreement in a pending case? MR. LEE: Yes. The distinction between the Page 11 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184742

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 13 of Rd 1 court and the federal government's objective was to 2 ensure that there were sufficient safeguards in the 3 state court proceedings and concessions made by Mr. 4 Epstein so that federal interests, particularly a 5 cause of action for damages for the victims of the 6 sexual exploitation could be preserved. So that's 7 the key distinction because there was no federal 8 case, there was no federal criminal charge 9 contemplate so long as the agreement could be 10 reached. 11 THE COURT: All right. So they want me to 12 invalidate your non-prosecution agreement. 13 MR. LEE: Your Honor, we respectfully submit 14 that 3771 does not grant authority of this Court to 15 do so. In the Dean case, for instance, Your Honor, 16 there was a plea agreement that was entered into and 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 district court take that into account. There is no 24 plea agreement before this Court. There will be no 25 plea proceedings in this court. That was all done district court, of course, entertained a plea agreement and exercised its judicial discretion in terms of whether to accept it or not. The victims were encouraged to go to district court and say, you know, we didn't hear about this. We should have, and we object to it for the following reasons. The 1 Page 12 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184743

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 14 of l Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 in state court several weeks ago. So that's another basis for distinguishing Dean. THE COURT: All right. So is there any point in conferring with these victims? MR. LEE: Your Honor, I will always confer, 6 sit down with Jane Doe 1 and 2, with the two agents 7 and Ms. We'll be happy to sit down with 8 them. 9 THE COURT: But it wouldn't make any 10 difference in terms of the outcome. Would maybe 11 give them the benefit of your explanation of why you 12 did what you did and why you came to the conclusion 13 you did, but it is not going to change your decision 14 in any way. 15 MR. LEE: If it is going to change, it would 16 have to be done at a level higher than mine, Your 17 Honor. 18 THE COURT: What was-- I didn't understand 19 your statement earlier that Mr. Epstein wanted some 20 kind of review of higher authority within the 21 Department in terms of whether or not the federal 22 government was going to insist on preserving any 23 civil claims. 24 MR. LEE: Your Honor, of the agreement was 25 consumated by the parties in December of 2007. Mr. OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184744

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 15 of git 1 Epstein's attorneys wanted a further review of the 2 agreement higher up within the Department of Justice 3 and they exercised their ability to do that. 4 THE COURT: Meaning? Again, I'm trying to 5 understand. He wasn't happy with the agreement that 6 he had signed? 7 MR. LEE: Basically, yes. And was trying to 8 maintain that the agreement should be set aside or 9 more favorable terms. 10 THE COURT: Now, in terms of -- You don't 11 dispute that Jane Doe 1 and 2-- First of all, do you 12 have an objection to Jane Doe 2 being added as a 13 petitioner in this case? 14 MR. LEE: No, I don't. 15 THE COURT: I'll grant that request. 16 You don't dispute that they're victims 17 within the meaning of the Act. 18 MR. LEE: It depends to which -- There is one 19 Jane Doe-- Well, there is one individual who is one 20 of Mr. Edwards' clients who we do not believe to 21 been a victim. If these are SN and CW, then we have 22 no objection and I can discuss-- If I may have a 23 moment, Your Honor. 24 Your Honor, thank you. I have been 25 corrected. We have no objection. I Page 14 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184745

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 16 of la Page 15 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 MR. LEE: We agree they're victims. 3 THE COURT: Now, what is your position, 4 then, regarding the right of a victim of a crime 5 that is potentially subject to federal prosecution 6 to be, to have input with the prosecutor, your 7 office, before a resolution or decision not to 8 prosecute is made? Do you say that there is no 9 right to confer under those circumstances because 10 there is no "case pending" so any decision not to 11 prosecute, there is no right to confer but that 12 right to confer only is triggered once there is an 13 indictment or an information filed? 14 MR. LEE: That is correct, Your Honor. The 15 Attorney General guidelines which were published in 16 May of 2005 provide that the rights in 3771(a)(1 17 through 8) accrue when a charge is filed in federal AC) 18 court. Now, that my change after the Dean -4 19 decision. It is under consideration. But that's 20 the government's position. 21 THE COURT: All right. And so -- Are you 22 saying all of the rights-- 23 MR. LEE: Your Honor, some of the rights 24 clearly will only pertain after a charge has been 25 filed. The one that pertains to notice of public OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184746

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 17 of qatt 1 hearing, public proceedings, though, can't apply 2 until there are public proceedings to be had. 3 Of course, these guidelines are a floor and 4 not a ceiling. They're to be applied with common 5 6 7 8 9 10 going to do something bad to me and try to take care 11 of me before I can testify in the grand jury, this 12 person would not be turned away because a charge 13 hasn't been filed yet. Those guidelines would be 14 applied with common sense. 15 But specifically insofar as a (a)(5), which 16 is the right to consult with the attorney for the 17 government in the case, that would not accrue until 18 there is aca And, in our view, a case doesn't 19 come into being until charges are filed. 20 THE COURT: And are there any reported 21 decisions that you are aware of where any court has 22 found a right to confer before charges are filed? 23 MR. LEE: I'm not aware of any, Your Honor. 24 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 25 MR. LEE: Thank you, Your Honor. sense. If somebody-- If charges of assault were being investigated and somebody would come in and say the perpetrator whom you're investigating is getting ready to indict has been threatening me, following me, and I need help because he or she is Page 16 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184747

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 18 of 'Id Page 17 1 THE COURT: Counsel? 2 MR. EDWARDS: I would just like to address 3 that Dean decision. They're asking you that you 4 just simply ignore it because the decision clearly 5 was a decision made because as it is a direct result 6 of a plea deal being worked out prior to the victims 7 being able to speak. 8 THE COURT: But there was a pending case, 9 though, correct? 10 MR. EDWARDS: As I understand the decision-- 11 THE COURT: As I understand the plea deal, it 12 was negotiated prior to charges being filed. Then 13 there was a filed case and then the court had the 14 ability to accept the plea or not. And at that 15 point, you would have the ability to entertain or 16 assert an objection because you weren't consulted 17 about the plea. 18 So there was a proceeding or case in which 19 you can assert a right to confer. How do you do 20 that before a case is filed? How do you enforce the 21 government or force the government to consult about 22 not filing a case? Every case they have to consult 23 with the victim before they decide not to prosecute? 24 MR. EDWARDS: No, there are limitations. I 25 think in my reply I refer to the case of U.S. I. OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184748

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 19 of 1/1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rubin where they discussed that very scenario stating there at least has to be criminal charges contemplate by the government before these rights kick in. The rights under (d)(3) and (a)(5), the right to confer and the Dean case clearly states clearly rights under the CBRA apply before prosecution is under way. Logically, this includes the CBRA establishments of a victim's reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the government. And, that's read in the plain reading of the statutes as well. This first case in interpreting it, I think it's pretty clear the distinction they're making between BP and this case. Is it a distinction withoug a real difference in that the court is saying you have this right before the case is filed which is exactly what we are saying. And the result in that case was they filed the case, later let him plea out to some sweet deal. And in this case, what we have is they avoid that by deciding not to file. Either way, you deprive the victim of their right before making that decision. And the main problem that the court had in Dean, as it states, the victims do have rights when there is an impact and the eventual sent is Page 18 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184749

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 20 of 1 Page 19 1 substantially less. Whereas here, their input is 2 received after the parties have reached a tentative 3 deal. Well, the government just stated the deal was 4 reached back in October of 2007. However, attached 5 to their response is a letter to my client 6 petitioner, dated January 10, 2008, after the time 7 then counsel just put on the record that the deal 8 was already finalized and it starts, the opening 9 paragraph talks about whether they wanted the 10 victims to have the right to confer. It says, this 11 case is currently under investigation. This is 12 January 2008. This case has been a lengthy process 13 and we request your continued patience while we 14 conduct a thorough investigation. Sounds like the 15 exact opposite of, we want you to come in and confer 16 and let us know what you really feel about this. 17 That is our biggest problem with what has 18 happened here, is that she just wasn't given a voice 19 and if somebody would have heard her, we believe 20 there would have been a different outcome. To go 21 back into a room right now and talk, after there has 22 already been a plea negotiated without Your Honor 23 ordering that in this case the plea deal needs to be 24 vacated, it is illegal and give her her rights. 25 THE COURT: Well, would you agree or not OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184750

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 21 of 14 Page 20 1 that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to the state charges 2 probably at least, in part, in reliance upon the 3 fact that he had an agreement with the federal 4 government they weren't going to prosecute? Would 5 you concede that or would would present evidence to 6 that effect? 7 MR. EDWARDS: Of course we would. Yes, of 8 course. Sure. 9 THE COURT: So you agree that Mr. Epstein is 10 now sitting in the Palm Beach County Jail a 11 convicted felon serving 18 months of imprisonment, 12 at least in material part, because he relied upon 13 the government's non-prosecution agreement? 14 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. I agree that he is sitting 15 there because he is guilty and maybe he took the 16 plea rather than going to trial and being found 17 guilty later in part because of this non-prosecution 18 agreement that was worked out behind the other 19 victims' backs. I would agree with that. 20 THE COURT: So he accepted the State's deal 21 in part because he knew he had an agreement from the 22 federal government that they weren't going to 23 prosecute. 24 MR. EDWARDS: I presume. I speculate that is 25 true. OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184751

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 22 of 14 1 THE COURT: So you want me now, then, to set 2 aside the government's agreement with him because 3 there was no conferring, yet he has already accepted 4 a plea agreement and is sitting in custody, in part, 5 in reliance on that agreement. I mean, I can undo 6 the agreement in your theory, but how do I-- Mr. 7 Epstein, in a sense, would then be adversely 8 affected by my actions when he acted in reliance 9 upon the agreement. How does that work? 10 MR. EDWARDS: Certainly, we're only asking 11 you to vacate the agreement. I understand and your 12 point is well taken. And I believe that at that 13 point in time his rights may kick in and say, wait, 14 I was relying on this other deal so I wouldn't be 15 prosecuted for these hundreds of other girls that I 16 molested; that I plead guilty over here to the one 17 girl that I will admit to molesting. So maybe I can 18 get to withdraw my plea. But the last thing he wants 19 to do because if he ends up going to trial, I'll be 20 in prison for the rest of his life like any other 21 person who ever did this crime would be. He could 22 have that argument, I guess, but still wouldn't 23 really work well for him. 24 THE COURT: All right. So you still think I 25 should set aside the agreement, require the I._ I. Page 21 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184752

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 23 of 3A Page 22 1 government to confer? 2 MR. EDWARDS: Work out a plea negotiation 3 commensorate with the crimes that he committed and 4 that are favorable after they confer with the 5 victims. And it is within their discretion. Of 6 course, they can decide on their own that, hey, I 7 think that the agreement was fair after they have 8 talked with the victims. That could happen. I 9 don't know if a reasonable person that would do 10 that, but it could happen. 11 THE COURT: Apparently, you are not 12 suggesting that that these person are not 13 reasonable. 14 MR. EDWARDS: I'm suggesting they haven't 15 conferred with the victims and that if they took 16 into consideration what these two in the courtroom 17 have to say, I don't think that we'd be in this same 18 position right now. 19 THE COURT: They have never spoken to your 20 client about what happened to them? 21 MR. EDWARDS: They have spoken to them about 22 what happened. Maybe not about what the girls 23 wanted to happen as a result of this case, which is 24 part of conferring to decide that these girls wanted 25 money on their own, which is basically what this-- OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184753

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 24 of 1 Page 23 1 this non-prosecution agreement entails that has 2 language that he'll agree to liability in a civil 3 case. That's not what these girls-- They want 4 justice. They want him in prison now more than 5 ever. The reason they stated they kept this 6 agreement from the girls and they basically conceded 7 we didn't tell the girls about this agreement, well, 8 the reason is because they would have objected and 9 they wouldn't have been able to sign off on this and 10 the victims would have had a voice, and we'd still 11 been going through litigation. The exact problem 12 they tried to prevent, at least in their terms which 13 was the impeachment of these girls at a later trial, 14 is still available to anybody once the civil suits 15 are filed anyway. 16 They have three arguments. One, we didn't 17 have to talk to them. Two, we did talk to them sort 16 of. And if you don't buy that, the reason we didn't 19 talk to them, we were trying to prevent them from 20 being impeached later. None of them trump the 21 victims' rights to confer prior to plea 22 negotiations. That's why, Your Honor, we would ask 23 this Court to enter an order vacating that previous 24 plea agreement as illegal, ask them to confer with 25 the victims once again or for the first time and OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184754

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 25 of 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 work out a negotiated plea to that accord. THE COURT: Well, all you can ask them to do is confer. I can't ask them to do anything beyond that. I mean, it is up to them to negotiate. MR. EDWARDS: I wouldn't quarrel with that. THE COURT: Now, having learned today, I guess, that the agreement was signed when, in October? MR. EDWARDS: October 2007, I heard. THE COURT: About eight or nine months ago, is there any need to rush to a decision in this matter? The decision has already been made. You filed this, I think, on the presumption that the agreement was about to take place and you wanted to be able to confer beforehand and you weren't sure what was going on. MR. EDWARDS: Precisely, Your Honor. And I'm holding the letters that are exhibits that they were writing to my client her how lengthy of a and be patient. So, during the year of 2008 telling process this was going to be right, I was completely in the dark about when this agreement was signed. THE COURT: In view of the fact that this agreement has already been consumated, and you want me to set it aside, as opposed to something that's I Page 24 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184755

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 26 of 3n 1 about to occur, would you agree that-- and I have 2 done this very quickly because of the petition and 3 your allegation that something was about to happen. 4 I'm not blaming you. 5 MR. EDWARDS: I was mistaken. 6 THE COURT: I'm not blaming you for doing 7 that. In view of what you know now, is there any 8 need to treat this as an emergency that has to be 9 decided by tomorrow? 10 MR. EDWARDS: I can't think of any reason in 11 light of what we just heard. 12 THE COURT: Mr. Lee, do you have anything 13 else you wanted to add? Does either side think I 14 need to take evidence about anything? If I do, 15 since this is not an emergency anymore, I can 16 probably find a more convenient time to do that. I 17 don't have the time today to take evidence. But if 18 you do believe that I should take evidence on this 19 issue. 20 MR. EDWARDS: It may be best if I conferred 21 with the U.S. Attorney's Office on that and we can 22 make a decision whether it is necessary or whether 23 Your Honor deemed it was necessary for you to make a 24 decision. 25 THE COURT: I want to know what your 1 Page 25 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184756

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 27 of 24 Page 26 1 respective positions are because it may be something 2 in terms of having a complete record, and this is 3 going to be an issue that's it going to go to the 4 Eleventh Circuit, may be better to have a complete 5 record as to what your position is and the 6 government's is as to what actions were taken. And 7 I don't know if I have enough information, based on 8 Ms. affidavit or I need additional 9 information. And because it is not an emergency, I 10 don't have to do something quickly, we can play it 11 be ear and make this into a more complete record for 12 the court of appeals. 13 MR. EDWARDS: If there is a time where it is 14 necessary to take evidence, Your Honor is correct in 15 stating that it is not an emergency and it doesn't 16 need to happen today. And, I will confer with the 17 government on this and if evidence needs to be 18 taken, it be taken at a later date. It doesn't seem 19 like there will be any prejudice to any party. 20 THE COURT: Mr. Lee, do you have any 21 thoughts? You want to consult with Mr. Edwards? 22 MR. LEE: There may be a couple of factual 23 matters that I need to chat with petitioner's 24 counsel on. If we can reach agreement on those as 25 to what was communicated to CW and what time, if OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184757

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 28 of 3/1 1 they don't dispute that, then we don't think it will 2 be necessary to have an evidentiary hearing. But if 3 we can agree, fine or maybe we can't. We'll talk 4 about it. 5 THE COURT: All right. So why don't you let 6 me know if you think an evidentiary hearing is 7 necessary. If there are additional stipulations you 8 want to enter into or supplement what has already 9 been presented, you can do that. 10 Now, the other issue I want to take up, 11 though, is the government filed its response to the 12 petition under seal. And so I want to know why. 13 What is in there that at this point needs to be 14 under seal? Is there anything in there that's 15 confidential, privileged, anything that's different 16 from what you hve said here in open court that 17 requires that to be sealed? 18 MR. LEE: Well, Your Honor, on our motion to 19 seal was based on two reasons. One that dealt with 20 individuals or minors at the time that the offense 21 occurred. So we were attempting to protect the 22 privacy of those individuals. And also it dealt 23 with negotiations with Mr. Epstein which were in the 24 nature of plea negotiations, which we treat as 25 confidential. Normally, they're not aired out in I Page 27 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184758

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 29 of as 1 open court. So those were our two reasons. 2 THE COURT: All right. But I guess the 3 letters you attached only related to Mr. Edwards' 4 client. 5 MR. LEE: Three of them, yes, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Are you prepared, Mr. Edwards, 7 to waive any issues regarding the release of those 8 documents that relate to your clients? 9 MR. EDWARDS: Judge, I think it would be 10 appropriate to redact the names of the clients as 11 they have done. 12 THE COURT: I don't think the names are in 13 there. 14 MR. EDWARDS: I think they're redacted. 15 They're blacked out. I have no problem with 16 releasing those documents. I'm not sure that's part 17 of the deal. But if it is-- 18 MR. LEE: It is. 19 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. I'll waive. 20 THE COURT: You really don't have any 21 objection to those letters that were sent to them 22 being released to the public? 23 MR. EDWARDS: Of course not, Judge. 24 THE COURT: Then what is there about the 25 plea agreement or the negotiations that is in the I Page 28 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184759

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 30 of 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 response that we really haven't already kind of-- MR. LEE: Your Honor, there was a confidentiality agreement in the deferral of prosecution to the State of Florida. So we were trying to maintain the confidentiality of the negotiations that occurred since we had discussions during those negotiations as one of the reasons why 8 we decided not to tell all of the individuals what 9 was going on. 10 THE COURT: But is that still necessary, 11 that confidentiality or is that kind of moot at this 12 point? 13 MR. LEE: Well, we would like it sealed. 14 Admittedly, what happened today in open court has 15 probably weakened our argument. I don't dispute 16 that. 17 THE COURT: In your opinion, anything in 18 particular, any paragraph in the response or in Ms. 19 affidavit that you think is particularly 20 troublesome that should remain under seal? 21 MR. LEE: May I have a moment, Your Honor? 22 THE COURT: Yes. 23 MR. LEE: Thank you. Your Honor, one aspect 24 of this in the notification letters that were 25 dispatched to individuals which were attached to Ms. 1 Page 29 I I ! OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184760

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 31 of 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 declaration, there is a citation to a clause in the agreement that was reached regarding the damages remedy under 18 USC 2255 that was subject to the constitutionality agreement, we believe that should still remain confidential. THE COURT: But hasn't the fact that this provision was part of the agreement again been 8 aired? Is there any secret to it anymore? 9 MR. LEE: The actual text of it has not been 10 aired. The existence of it has been heard but the 11 actual text has not and we believe it should still 12 remain confidential. 13 THE COURT: Okay. Any other argument on 14 that issue? 15 MR. LEE: No, Your Honor. Thank you. 16 THE COURT: Ms. wants to speak to 17 you. 18 MR. LEE: Your Honor, one item that I'd like 19 to bring to the Court's attention. We had advised 20 Mr. Epstein and his attorneys that if we were to 21 dislose some of the agreement, we would give them 22 advance notice and ability to lodge an objection. We 23 would like an opportunity to do that. 24 THE COURT: All right. But you're not 25 disclosing. It would be by my order that it would 1 Page 30 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184761

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 32 of RA 1 be disclosed. 2 MR. LEE: Yes, Your Honor. And we just would 3 like to register that we believe it should remain 4 confidential. 5 THE COURT: All right. 6 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I don't see any 7 authority for keeping that under seal. 8 THE COURT: I agree. The fact that there is 9 this preserved right on behalf of the victims to 10 pursue a civil action is already a matter of public 11 record; the exact text of the clause-- I don't see 12 that disclosing the text of the clause when the fact 13 that the clause exists is already a matter of public 14 record. It is not harmful in any way to Mr. Epstein 15 or the government and the letters to the victim that 16 the victim can disclose those letters, they're not 17 under any confidentiality obligation or restriction 18 and they're free to disclose it themselves if they 19 choose to. So I don't see that there is any real 20 public necessity to keep the response sealed in view 21 of what we discussed already on the record and the 22 victim's ability to disclose those provisions of 23 their own choosing, if they wish. So, in view of 24 the public policy that matters filed in court 25 proceedings should be open to the public and sealing I Page 31 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184762

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 33 of 34 1 should only occur in circumstances that justife the 2 need to restrict public access, I'm going to deny 3 the motion to seal the response and allow that to be 4 viewed. 5 All right. So I'll let both of you confer 6 about whether there is a need for any additional 7 evidence to be presented. Let me know one way or 8 the other. If there is, we'll schedule a hearing. 9 If there isn't and you want to submit some 10 additional stipulated information, do that, and then 11 I'll take care of this in due course. 12 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: All right. 14 MR. LEE: Thank you, Your Honor. 15 MS. : Thank you, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: You're welcome. 17 (Proceedings concluded.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I Page 32 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184763

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 34 of Page 33 1 I hereby certify that the foregoing is true 2 and correct to the best of my ability. 3 4 5 6 7 8 Victoria Aiello, Court Reporter 9 F OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (954) 467-8204 EFTA00184764

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-64 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 8 EXHIBIT 64 EFTA00184765

Calms@ :9 A. koSSEC-112641001M DDetworteettall-6ffntEredrod 51191119111Kketlegt/LeWIDI20118acliA4022Clf 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT. OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. FILED by D.0 JUL 0 9 2008 STEVEN M. tA.RIMORE C LERK U.S. DIST. CT. S O. OF FLA. • MM. DECLARATION OF A. VILLAFASIA IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO yinints EMERGENCY PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CRIME VICTIM RIGHTS ACT. IS U.S.C. § 3771 1. I. A. Villafafta, do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing ul'the Ilar of the State of Florida. 1 graduated from the University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Hoak Hall) in 1993. After serving as a judicial clerk to the Ilon. David F. Levi in Sacramento, California, 1 was admitted to practice in California in 1995. I also am admitted to practice in all courts of the states of Minnesota and Florida, the Eighth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of Florida, the District of Minnesota, and the Northern District of California. My bar admission status in California and Minnesota is currently inactive. lam currently employed as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and was so employed during all of the events described herein. gie EFTA00184766

Caese:9 ,.4 w8030313861XAM DEtwarteatt(14-6lEntlEradred 5b$U1SItfkeCIDal/MO280118agiteNs132flf 8 2. 1 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 Milani and from the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist. Attached hereto arc 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. I ). 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 Doc," 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. Incase 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- EFTA00184767

Ceges0:9£0.0ko011aretKIXIAMD13ournientilill-6tintErcidrod 5hSIDSIbutket1031/M/20211931Eacflet42flf 8 %so 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 Fill 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- EFTA00184768

Calits0:9808AD*360313flICOM DOcurnauenBa31-61EntEradrod 6bSIDIIIDeetl091/02/24/02011E3aTmtef52df 8 had been tried federally and convicted ofan enumerated olTense. 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." 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 FRI 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 alter 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. EFTA00184769

CRaesefialgike8SEISCUKIXI0IM D0catarmenB81-6fintEradred 5h34131110O.tatI0WIREMIE01Bacje*Jetealf 8 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 inlbrming additional victims could compromise the witnesses' credibility at trial if Epstein reneged on the agreement. 9. Atter C.W. had been notified of the terms of the agreement, but before Epstein performed his obligations, C.W. contacted the P131 because Epstein's counsel was attempting to take her deposition and private investigators were harassing her. Your Affiant 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 Milani 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 Sit, 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, i f 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- EFTA00184770

Claiese.908kG86101384XXIMDB0mrteatiVill-antaredred 51:311151100stIONM200211118agt4efalf 8 — I I. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximate 4:15 p.m., your Afliant 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 Afliant 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 A Iliant specifically called attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. Your Milani believes that it was during this conversation that Attorney Edwards notified Inc that he represented T.M., and I assumed that he would pass on the notice to her, as well. Attorney Edwards informed your Afliant that he could not attend but that someone would be present at the hearing. Your Afliant 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 ofJuly 7. 2008, alter your Afliant had -6- EFTA00184771

Calas0.98183o8411COSifeakilM Dt3aimneettell-antEretelred 5b$IIISIbeiet1031/MO212O1I8a*W32cif 8 ••••••• •••••1 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 94_ day of July, 2008. A. Marie ViTlafahaU -7- EFTA00184772

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-65 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 25 EXHIBIT 65 EFTA00184773

GDasiseeO118eov28072614MilA ERtawneortit23161165Eatated3ohoRLIBISOdttlielt02026120aOlEPRfigt CA 614 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE No. 1 and JANE DOE No. 2 I UNITED STATES AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. REGARDING NEED FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. I, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida. Along with co-counsel, I represent Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 (as referred to as "the victims") in the above-listed action to enforce their rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA). I also represented them (and several other victims) in civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. I am also familiar with the criminal justice system, having served as state prosecutor in the Broward County State Attorney's Office. 2. This affidavit covers factual issues regarding the Government's assertions of privilege to more than 13,000 pages of documents it has produced for in camera inspection in this case. This affidavit provides factual information demonstrating that the Government's assertions of privilege are not well founded. It further demonstrates that the victims have a compelling and substantial need for the information requested and have no other way of obtaining the information. Background Regarding Unsuccessful Efforts to Reach Stipulated Facts with the Government 3. On July 7, 2008, I filed a petition to enforce the CVRA rights of Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 with regard to sex offenses committed against them by Jeffrey Epstein while they were minors. The course of the proceedings since then is well-known to the Court. For purposes of this affidavit regarding privileges, it is enough to briefly recount the efforts of the victims to reach a stipulated set of facts with the Government — efforts that the Government has blocked. 4. The Court first held a hearing on victims' petition on July 11, 2008. The Court discussed a need to "hav[e] a complete record, and this is going to be an issue that's ... going to go to the Eleventh Circuit, [so it] may be better to have a complete record as to what your position is and the government's is as to what actions were taken." Tr. at 25-26. The Court concluded the hearing with the following instructions: "So I'll let both of you confer about whether there is a need for any additional evidence to be presented." Tr. at 32. 1 EFTA00184774

Mase99328ow8ECT8E614M11/1 LEDnuinnertb Vaal() thilbEttenethOOLP-ali udgeetteiaiblzwardi ajito, 6f4 25 5. The victims and the U.S. Attorney's Office then attempted to reach a stipulated set of facts underlying the case. The U.S. Attorney's Office offered a very abbreviated set of proposed facts, and the victims responded with a detailed set of proposed facts. Rather than respond to the victims' specific facts, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office suddenly reversed course. On July 29, 2008, it filed a Notice to Court Regarding Absence of Need for Evidentiary Hearing (DE 17). The U.S. Attorney's Office took the following position: "After consideration, the Government believes that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary" (DE 17 at 1). The Office asserted that the Court need only take judicial notice of the fact that no indictment had been filed against Epstein to resolve the case. 6. On August 1, 2008, the victims filed a response to the Government's "Notice," giving a proposed statement of facts surrounding the case. DE 19 at 5. The victims' response also requested that the Court direct the Government to confer with the victims regarding the undisputed facts of the case, and produce the non-prosecution agreement and other information about the case. Id. at 14. On August 14, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the case regarding the confidentiality of the non-prosecution agreement. The Court ultimately ordered production of the agreement to the victims. 7. After the U.S. Attorney's Office made the non-prosecution agreement available to the victims, the victims reviewed it and pursued further discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office. Ultimately, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office declined to reach a stipulated set of facts with the victims and declined to provide further information about the case. 8. With negotiations at an impasse, the victims attempted to learn the facts of the case in other ways. In approximately May 2009, counsel for the victims propounded discovery requests in both state and federal civil cases against Epstein, seeking to obtain correspondence between Epstein and prosecutors regarding his plea agreement — information that the U.S. Attorney's Office was unwilling to provide to the victims and information that was highly relevant both to the victims' civil suit and their CVRA enforcement action. Epstein refused to produce that information, and (as the Court is aware) extended litigation to obtain the materials followed. The Court rejected all of Epstein's objections to producing the materials. 9. On June 30, 2010, counsel for Epstein sent to counsel for the victims approximately 358 pages of e-mail correspondence between criminal defense counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the plea agreement that had been negotiated between them. See DE48-Attachment 1/Exhibit A. These e-mails began to disclose for the first time the extreme steps that had been taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office to avoid prosecuting Epstein and to avoid having the victims in the case learn about the non-prosecution agreement that had been reached between Epstein and the Government. While the Court ordered that all of the correspondence be turned over to the victims, Epstein chose to disobey that order and instead only produced the correspondence authored by the Government and redacted all correspondence authored by him or his attorneys. 10. In mid-July 2010, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 settled their civil lawsuits against Epstein. Then, armed with the new information, they turned to moving forward in the CVRA case. On September 13, 2010, the victims informed the Court that they were preparing new filings in the case. 11. On October 12, 2010, the Court entered an order directing the victims to provide a status report on the case by October 27, 2010. That same day, counsel for the victims again contacted 2 EFTA00184775

I4 MA atterinnenth 2361165E aferteatinhcHISESD dab ek€01261121316P aficjitaif6f4 25 the U.S. Attorney's Office about the possibility of reaching a stipulated set of facts in the case. That same day, the U.S. Attorney's Office responded: "We don't have any problem with agreeing that a factual assertion is correct if we agree that is what occurred" (DE 41 at 2). 12. On October 23, 2010, the victims e-mailed to the U.S. Attorney's Office a detailed proposed statement of facts, with many of the facts now documented by the correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's counsel. The victims requested that the U.S. Attorney's Office identify which facts it would agree to. In a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office, the victims stated: If you believe that any of the facts they propose are incorrect, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 would reiterate their long-standing request that you work with us to arrive at a mutually-agreed statement of facts. As you know, in the summer of 2008 Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 were working with you on a stipulation of facts when you reversed course and took that position that no recitation of the facts was necessary (see doe. No. 19 at 2)... . I hope that your e-mail means that you will at least look at our facts and propose any modifications that you deem appropriate. Having that evidence quickly available to the Court could well help move this case to a conclusion. That same day, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to forward the proposed statement of facts to the appropriate Assistant U.S. Attorney for review (DE 41 at 2-3). 13. On October 26, 2010, rather than stipulate to undisputed facts, the U.S. Attorney's Office contacted the victims' attorneys and asked them to delay the filing of their motion for a two- week period of time so that negotiations could be held between the Office and the victims in an attempt to narrow the range of disputes in the case and to hopefully reach a settlement resolution without the need for further litigation. Negotiations between the victims and the U.S. Attorney's Office then followed over the next two days. However, at 6:11 p.m. on October 27, 2010 — the date on which the victims' pleading was due — the U.S. Attorney's Office informed the victims that it did not believe that it had time to review the victims' proposed statement of facts and advise which were accurate and which were inaccurate. The Office further advised the victims that it believed that the victims did not have a right to confer with their Office under the CVRA in this case because in its view the case is "civil" litigation rather than "criminal" litigation (doc. No. 41 at 3). 14. As a result, purely as an accommodation to the U.S. Attorney's Office, on October 27, 2010, the victims filed a report with the Court in which they agreed to delay filing their motion and accompanying facts for up to two-weeks to see if negotiations can resolve (or narrow) the disputes with the U.S. Attorney's Office (DE 41 at 4). Discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office dragged on, including a personal meeting between Jane Doe No. 1 and the U.S. Attorney in December 2010. In seeming contradiction to this position, on March 17, 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office informed the victims that it would not be making any initial disclosures to the victims as required for civil cases by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). The U.S. Attorney's Office did not explain why they believe that this rule of civil procedure is inapplicable if they think this case is properly viewed as a "civil" case. 3 EFTA00184776

Ceets29203BeavESTM61451 Ditarameret21251165ErffetterlentroRLFSISDcattetOMPAM11316P afiegt61 Mkt 25 15. After further discussions failed to produce any agreement or other visible progress, the victims informed the U.S. Attorney's Office that they would file their "summary judgment" motion with the Court on March 18, 2011 and requested further cooperation from the Office on the facts. 16. Ultimately, after months of discussion, the U.S. Attorney's Office informed counsel for the victims that — contrary to promises made earlier to stipulate to undisputed facts — no such stipulation would be forthcoming. Ins on March 15, 2011, the U.S. Attorney for the th Souern District of Florida, Wifredo A. sent a letter to the victims declining to reach any agreement on the facts: Because, as a matter of law, the CVRA is inapplicable to this matter in which no federal criminal charges were ever filed, your requests for the government's agreement on a set of proposed stipulated facts is unnecessary and premature. That is, because whether the rights in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) attach prior to the filing of a charge in a federal court is a matter of statutory interpretation, resolution of that question is not dependent upon the existence of any certain set of facts, other than whether a charging document was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. And while this Office remains willing to cooperate, cooperation does not mean agreeing to facts that are not relevant to the resolution of the legal dispute at issue .... Letter from Wifredo A. to Paul G. Cassell (March 15, 2011). 17. Accordingly, unable to work with the Government to reach a resolution of the facts, on March 21, 2011, the victims filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging 53 undisputed facts along with some evidentiary support for each of the facts. DE 48. The victims also filed a motion to have their facts accepted because of the Government's failure to contest their facts. DE 49. The victims also filed a motion to have the Court direct the Government to not withhold relevant evidence. DE 50. 18. Following a hearing on the motions, on September 26, 2011, the Court rejected the Government's argument that the CVRA was inapplicable in this case because the Government had never filed charges against Epstein. DE 99. The Court, however, rejected the victims' argument that it should accept their facts because of the Government's failure to contest the facts. DE 99 at 11. Instead, the Court directed that discovery could proceed in the form of requests for admission and document production requests. Id. at 11. The Court reserved ruling on the victims' motion that the Government should be directed not to withhold evidence. 19. In light of the Court's order, on October.3, 2011, the victims filed requests for production with the Government. The requests included 25 specific requests, each of which linked very directly to the facts that the victims were attempting to prove in this case. 20. On November 7, 2011, the day when the Government's responses were due, rather than produce even a single page of discovery, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the victims' petitions. DE 119. On that same day, the Government filed a motion to stay discovery. DE 121. The victims filed a response, arguing that the Government's motion was a stall tactic. DE 129. The victims also filed a motion to compel production of all of their discovery requests. DE 130. The Government filed a reply, arguing that it was not stalling. Indeed, the Government told the Court that "the United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even 4 EFTA00184777

eass€99028aMECrall6144MA Clainanneeth 2251165E tirettetiaohoR113126 D cifikeke£0261150316P Rim) alt 614 25 during the pendency of the stay [of discovery] and is undertaking a search for that information." DE 140 at 4. Contrary to that representation, however, over the next seventeen months, the Government did not produce any information to the victims, despite the victims reminding the Government of that statement made to the court. 21. Ultimately, after some additional motions and rulings, on June 19, 2013, the Court denied the Government's motion to dismiss and lifted any stay of discovery. DE 189. That same day, the Court entered an order granting the victims' motion to compel and directing the Government to produce (1) all correspondence between it and Epstein; (2) all communications between the Government and outside entities; and (3) every other document requested by the victims. DE 190 at 2. With respect to the third item, the Court allowed the Government to assert privilege by producing the items in question for in camera inspection and filing a contemporaneous privilege log. Id. The Court required that the privilege log must "clearly identify[] each document[] by author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter ...." DE 190 at 2. 22. On July 19 and July 27, 2013, the Government made its production. With regard to item (1) — correspondence with Epstein, the Government withheld the correspondence pending a ruling from the Eleventh Circuit on Epstein's motion to stay production of these materials. With regard to the other items, the Government produced 14,825 pages of documents to the Court for in camera inspection, but turned over only 1,357 pages to the victims. Thus, the Government asserted privilege to more than 90% of the documents in question. The documents that the Government produced were almost worthless to the victims, as they included such things that the victims' own letters to the Government (Bates 0001-04), court pleadings filed by the victims themselves or other victims, by Epstein, or by news media organizations (e.g., Bates 00142-88, 00229-31, 281-311, 00668-69), public court rulings on Epstein related matters (e.g., Bates 0008- 10, 0012-14. 0036-86, 00190-228), public newspaper articles (e.g., Bates 0011, 0030, 0032-33), and similar materials already available to the victims. It also included roughly four hundred pages of notices sent to the various other victims in this case — notices that were substantively indistinguishable from the notices the victims themselves in this case had already received. Almost without exception, the documents the Government produced do not go to the disputed issues in this case. 23. The Government made one last production of materials in this case on August 6, 2013. This involved roughly 1,500 pages of documents that were largely meaningless in the context of the contested issues in the case. They included public documents in the case such the crime victims' own pleadings, see, e.g., Bates 000671-000711 (copy of the victims' redacted summary judgment motion). Curiously, while the Government has produced these documents that would likely fall into an "irrelevant" category of documents, they have simultaneously refused production of hundreds of other documents that arc responsive to our requests on the basis of relevance. 24. The victims have tried to obtain information on all relevant subjects through requests for admission. The Government, however, has refused to admit many of the victims' central allegations in this case. A copy of the victims' requests for admissions and the Government's responses is attached to this affidavit so that the Court can see that the victims have diligently tried to pursue this avenue for developing the facts in this case. 5 EFTA00184778

al tspe9900843MME6KIMM DItammeelitZ261165ErffiriteriankicKFADSDattielitaBD13311ZialliPajugft a 614 25 25. The victims have also tried to obtain information on subjects related to their suit by voluntary requests for interview with persons who are no longer emilearilie Justice Department. For example, I have sent letters to both Bruce Reinhart and who both have information about the Epstein case, requesting an opportunity to discuss the case with them. Both of them have ignored my letters. The Need for the Materials Requested by the Victims 26. The documents that the victims requested that the Government produce to them on October 3, 2011, are all highly relevant to their CVRA enforcement action. We would not have requested them otherwise. The victims also have no other means of obtaining the requested material. This section of the affidavit explains why the materials are needed by the victims. For the convenience of the Court, the affidavit will proceed on a section-by-section basis concerning the need for the materials. Also for the convenience of the Court, a copy of the October 3, 2011, request for production is attached to this Affidavit. Also attached is the victims' supplemental discovery request of June 24, 2013. As the Court will note from reviewing the requests for production, most of the requests specifically recount the allegations that the requested documents would support, in an effort to eliminate any dispute from the Government that the documents were not relevant to the case. Many of the requests for production link directly to specific paragraphs in the victims' previously-filed summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the victims have a very specific need for these documents to support the allegations in the summary judgment motion found at DE 48 at 3-23. 27. The Court has previously concluded that the victims' proof of their claims is, at this point in the case, inadequate. Instead, the Court has ruled: "Whether the evidentiary proofs will entitle [the victims] to that relief [of setting aside the non-prosecution agreement] is a question properly reserved for determination upon a fully developed evidentiary record." DE 189 at 11-12. The Court has further indicated that it will be considering an "estoppel" argument raised by the Government as a defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has noted that this argument "implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the federal offense victims — including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added). The victims have a compelling need for information about the Government's actions to show what the "entire interface" was and to respond to the Government's estoppel arguments, as well as other defenses that it appears to be preparing to raise. See, e.g., DE 62 (52-page response from the Government to the victim's summary judgment motion, raising numerous factually- based and other arguments against the victim's position). 28. Request for Production ("RFP") No. 1 requests information regarding the Epstein investigation. These documents are needed to support the victims' allegations that the Government had a viable criminal case for many federal sex offenses that it could have pursued against Epstein. See, e.g., DE 48 at 3-7. 29. RFP No. 2 requests information regarding crime victim notifications in this case. These documents are needed to support the victims' allegations that their rights under the CVRA, their 6 EFTA00184779

Glese9;039/m/E8M614sPAM 0NICIIIIITeab O61165E animist-DIALYSES D dattet COMM al (53 RAO M614 25 right to notice and to confer with the Government, were violated in this case. In particular, these documents are needed to demonstrate that the victims were not properly notified about the non- prosecution agreement (NPA) entered into by the Government and Jeffrey Epstein and that the Government did not confer with the victims about the agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 11-17. 30. RFP No. 3 requests information about the NPA, including in particular its confidentiality provision. These documents are needed to demonstrate that the confidentiality provision precluded disclosing the agreement to Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, as well as to other victims. See, e.g., DE 48 at 10-17. These documents are further needed to demonstrate that Jeffrey Epstein specifically orchestrated the secrecy of the agreement, thereby deliberately causing the Government's CVRA violation in this case. See, e.g., DE 48 at 13. 31. RFP No. 4 requests documents relating to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein concerning the court and/or location in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter any guilty plea (including in particular any negotiations concerning concluding the plea in Miami or another location outside of West Palm Beach). These documents are relevant to the victims allegations that the Government was interested in finding a place to conclude any plea agreement that would effectively keep Epstein's victims (most of whom resided in or about West Palm Beach) from learning what was happening through the press. See, e.g., DE 48 at 7-8. 32. RFP No. 5 requests documents pertaining to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein regarding any legal representation of the victims in civil cases against Epstein. These documents are needed to prove the victims' allegation that part of the plea negotiations with Epstein involved Epstein's efforts to make sure that the victims would be represented in civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced personal injury lawyer or by someone familiar to Epstein or his legal team. See, e.g., DE 48 at 9. 33. RFP No. 6 requests documents concerning the Government's and/or Epstein awareness or discussion of possible public criticism and/or victim objections to the non-prosecution agreement that they negotiated. The documents are needed to prove the victims' allegations that the Government wanted the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein concealed from public view because of the intense public criticism that would have resulted had the agreement been disclosed and/or the possibility that victims would have objected in court and convinced the judge not to accept the agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 7-8, II. They are also relevant to bias and motive by the authors or subjects of other documents in this case. 34. RFP No. 7 requests documents regarding the Government's awareness of its potential CVRA obligations in this case and regarding any discussions between the Government and Epstein concerning these CVRA obligations in this case. These documents are needed to prove the victims' allegations that the Government was aware that it potentially had obligations under the CVRA to notify the victims about the non-prosecution agreement and any related state court plea agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 12-13. 35. RFP No. 8 requests documents regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, including efforts on his behalf by former President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. These materials are needed to prove the victims allegation that, after Epstein signed the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he used his significant social and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a 7 EFTA00184780

Gae939201Now8g0'72644sPAM atucemweent2261165ErlistedanivELECEDdatiet€07161202010Dajiga Cif 64 25 more favorable plea deal. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-18. These materials also are needed to establish the course of the proceedings in this case, which is necessary in light of the Government's letters to the victims (discussed in the next paragraph) concerning the status of the case. 36. RFP No. 9 requests documents regarding the letters sent to the victims by the FBI on January 10, 2008, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 advising them that "this case is currently under investigation." These documents are needed to show that these letters were inaccurate or, at the very least, highly misleading, because they conveyed the impression that no plea arrangement (for example, a non-prosecution agreement) had been negotiated between Epstein and the Government. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16. These documents are also needed to respond to the Government's "estoppel" defense, as noted in the Court's order DE 189 at 12 n.6. 37. RFP No. 10 requests documents regarding the victims' allegations that the FBI was led to believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal prosecution and that the FBI was also misled by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. The Government has argued that these documents are not relevant to the case, because the only issue is whether the Government misled the victims. But the Government fails to recognize that the victims received information about the case through the FBI. These documents are therefore needed to demonstrate that the victims received inaccurate information about the status of the case — inaccurate information caused by the U.S. Attorney's Office's negotiations with Epstein. If the FBI agents were not accurately informed about the progress of the cases, then they could not have accurately informed the victims about the progress of the case — a central point in the victims' argument. Moreover, these documents would show a common scheme or plan — something made admissible in a trial by operation of Fed. R. Evid. 404(3). Of course, if the U.S. Attorney's Office was misleading the FBI about the NPA, it would have been part of the same scheme or plan to mislead the victims as well. The documents are also needed to support specific allegations in the victims' summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-17. 38. RFP No. 11 requests documents regarding various meetings that the Government (including FBI agents) had with the victims. These documents are needed to prove that during those meetings the Government did not disclose to the victims (or to their attorneys) that a non- prosecution agreement had been negotiated with Epstein, and even signed with Epstein, that related to their cases, allegations that the victims have advanced in their summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-18. 39. RFP No. 12 requests all documents connected with a request from the U.S. Attorney's Office to me (Bradley J. Edwards) to write a letter concerning the need for filing federal charges against Epstein and follow-up to that letter. These documents are needed to show that this request was made to me without disclosing the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. Thus, just as Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 were deceived about the NPA, I was deceived as well. See, e.g., DE 48 at 18-19. It is also needed to contradict the Government's apparent position that it disclosed the "existence' of the NPA to me and to the victims. See, e..g., Gov't Answers to RFA 1 13(d) ("The government admits that, when Epstein was pleading guilty to the state charges discussed in the non-prosecution agreement, the USAO and Epstein's defense attorneys sought to keep the document memorializing the non-prosecution agreement confidential, but denies that they sought at that time to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement confidential."). 8 EFTA00184781

Case gIECiffi-etESMIE-Iitnill Retureeint Elite:mad icoF ES BuDificloliteMaW21)216 P Rims WM 25 40. RFP No. 13 requests documents regarding how, on or about June 27, 2008, the Government learned that Epstein would be entering his plea to state charges on or about June 30, 2008. The documents are needed to describe the course of proceedings in this case and to prove both the Government's and Epstein's awareness that he would be entering a guilty plea (and thus blocking prosecution of other crimes) without the victims' full knowledge of what was happening. See, e.g., DE 48 at 19-20. 41. RFP No. 14 requests documents relating to the Government and Epstein working together to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including declining comment about the existence of such an agreement when asked about it when his guilty plea in state court became public knowledge. These documents are needed to prove the victims' allegations that the Government concealed the NPA from them, see, e.g., DE 48 at I 4-18,and to contradict what appears to be the Government's position, namely that the victims were aware of the NPA shortly after it was negotiated, see, e.g., Gov't Answers to RFA 1 13(b) (claiming that "the USA() had communicated with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosecution agreement prior to Epstein's June 30, 2008 guilty plea."). These documents are also necessary to contradict the Government's apparent claim that the NPA did not bar discussions with crime victims. See, e.g., Gov't Answers to RFA 1 13(d) (Government denying request that it admit that "Epstein's defense attorneys had negotiated for a confidentiality provision in the non-prosecution agreement that barred conferring with victims about the agreement"). 42. RFP No. 15 requests documents pertaining to the feasibility of notifying the victims about the NPA, along with information concerning how the victims came to receive a "corrected" notification letter on about September 3, 2008 — months after Epstein had pled guilty. These documents are needed to demonstrate that the Government had no valid reason for failing to provide notice to the victims. It is also needed to demonstrate why the victims at first received inaccurate information about the NPA, as well as Jeffrey Epstein's involvement in that inaccurate notice. See, e.g., DE 48 at 15-16. 43. RFP No. 16 requests documents regarding Bruce Reinhart, a senior prosecutor who was present in the U.S. Attorney's Office during the time that the Office negotiated the NPA with Epstein, blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern Districdt of Florida. In RFP No. 16, the victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court, in which he flatly declared that while he was a prosecutor in the Office: "I never learned any confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter." DE 79-1 at 3 (¶ 12). When Reinhart made that statement, it seemed improbable to me, because Reinhart was in close contact with other prosecutors in the Office and would seem likely that he would have discussed the high-profile Epstein case with them. Additionally, I learned through public record that while still a prosecutor at the Office Mr. Reinhart established his criminal defense office at the exact address (and exact Suite number) as Jeffrey Epstein's personal business address. However, I did not have any direct way of contradicting Reinhart's sworn statement. Since then, however, in answering the victims' Requests for Admissions, the Government has admitted that it possesses information that Reinhart learned confidential, non-public information about the Epstein case and that he discussed the Epstein case with other prosecutors. Gov't Answers to RFA's 1 15(a) & (b). Of course, this means that the Government has documents that Reinhart 9 EFTA00184782

flremM0I83e3m€101733:61fgell flatiourrrerttif25435 EEntIstrertiarnFRLSIDTheiletteltD31101126 ".. • naafi filed a false affidavit with this Court. This gives rise to the reasonable inference that, if Reinhart was willing to provide false information about this subject, he may have additional information about the case that is being concealed as well. 44. Materials about Reinhart are also needed to support the victims' summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 22-23 (raising allegations about Reinhart). 45. Reinhart's affidavit with the Court also states: "Because I did not have any, I did not share non-public confidential information about the Epstein investigation with any of Epstein's attorneys." DE 79-1 at 4 (¶ 17). Because the Government has information demonstrating that the first part of this statement is false, it may well be that the second part of the statement is false as well. Given that Mr. Reinhart established a business address identical to Epstein's business address, at a time while he was still working at the US Attorney's Office, and that Mr. Reinhart ultimately represented several of Epstein's co-conspirators, jet pilots, and staff, during the civil litigation, any involvement Mr. Reinhart had with the Epstein case while working at the Office is highly relevant. 46. The Government has further admitted that it possesses documents reflecting contacts between Bruce Reinhart and persons/entities affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein before Reinhart left his job at the U.S. Attorney's Office. Gov't Answers to RFA's ¶ 16. As stated above, Reinhart left the U.S. Attorney's Office to start a private firm that was located in the same address as Epstein's personal business where he was daily. This would appear to be a violation of the Florida rules of ethics for attorneys. 47. Information about Reinhart's connections to Epstein is critical to the victims' allegations in this case. If Reinhart was helping Epstein gain insight into the prosecutions efforts, that would provide a motive for Reinhart (and other prosecutors) not to properly notify the victims and not to confer with them. Also, if Epstein was improperly receiving information about the prosecution efforts against him (or lack thereof), that could be highly relevant to the remedies stage of this case, in which the victims will ask (among other things) to have the NPA agreement invalidated. Epstein has already indicated that he will raise a double jeopardy argument against that effort. However, double jeopardy considerations do not apply in situations where the defendant was not truly in jeopardy of prosecution. In addition, the Court may wish to consider, in crafting a remedy, Epstein's culpability for the violations of the NPA. Evidence that Epstein was improperly obtaining information about the prosecution efforts against him would be highly relevant to that culpability assessment. It is also relevant to the estoppel defense that the Government (and perhaps Epstein as well) intend to raise. 48. Evidence concerning Reinhart's connections, including improper connections, to Epstein is also relevant to bias and motive in this case. It would show, for example, the Reinhart had a reason to encourage others in the U.S. Attorney's Office to give Epstein a more lenient deal than the one he was entitled to. 49. RFP No. 16 requested information not only about improper connections between Epstein and Reinhart, but more broadly about such connections with any other prosecutors. Of course, if the Government possesses such information, it would be highly relevant to the victims' allegations for the reasons just discussed. In its answers to the victims' Requests for Admission, the Government admits that it has information about a personal or business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and another prosecutor involved in the Epstein case, Matthew . Answers 10 EFTA00184783

Came 930B3casift1B7MBIOX41 LIDiatimurrtaffSe5 EarttifEetlarn FRISEIDOftmileItaffft1B7IME6 FIrtigje ft OS to Requests for Admission at ¶ 20. The Government should be required to disclose all of those documents so that the victims can determine whether there was anything improper about those relationships. In my experience, it is highly unusual for federal prosecutors to work on a case prosecuting someone (such as Jeffrey Epstein) and then, shortly thereafter, leave the employment of the federal government and enter into a business relationship with the person who was being prosecuted. 50. RFP No. 17 asks for documents concerning an investigation into the Epstein prosecution undertaken by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in Washington, D.C. The investigation was undertaken at the request of the victims, who asked the Justice Department to determine whether "improper influences" were brought to bear during the negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately the non-prosecution) of Jeffrey Epstein. It is apparent from the privilege logs that the Government has produced that OPR generated a great deal of correspondence (at least 46 pages) regarding this request. See Bates P- 013909 to P-013955. Of course, improper influences being brought to bear on the Epstein prosecution would support the victims' allegations that they were not being properly notified. Moreover, OPR may well have investigated the specific allegations that are at issue in this case — or directed others to undertake such an investigation. Here again, this information would be critical to supporting the victims' case. In fact, because OPR has presumably investigated many of the precise actions and actors, about which the victims complain in this litigation, and have already gathered many of the documents needed, the production of the OPR case file could probably short-cut this litigation and discovery process. 51. There is no other way to obtain this information from OPR. On May 6, 2011, nearly half a year after the victims' request of December 10, 2010, for an investigation, OPR sent a letter to my co-counsel, Professor Paul Cassell, in which it stated that it "regret[ted] it could not be of assistance" in providing information about the allegations. 52. RFP No. 18 asks for information about why the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was "conflicted out" of handling various issues related to the Epstein case. This information is needed to show why the victims did not receive proper notifications about the NPA that the Office negotiated with Epstein. It appears that the conflict of interest that has been recognized may have to do with the Office's treatment of the victims. Moreover, in its production of documents, and in follow-up correspondence, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida has indicated that there are no responsive documents being held by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the other district that is handling conflict matters. (It appears that this other office is the Middle District of Florida.) This appears to be improbable, because the conflict matters would presumably generate many documents covered by the victims' discovery requests, including the OPR investigative file. Accordingly, the conflict matter is highly relevant to determining whether the U.S. Attorney's Office has provided complete production to the victims. A conflict of interest would also be highly relevant to the motivations of the Government attorneys throughout the handling of the Epstein case. 53. RFP No. 19 asks for information supporting allegations made in March 2011, by former U.S. Attorney Alexander =. He sent a three-page letter to the news media in which he claimed that when Government attorneys began investigating Epstein, Epstein launched "a yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors." This information is needed to explain 11 EFTA00184784

Ciamwaliffeaw.93307731614MNI OD2onuntartt32325466 EThttemti con PRISED ramilmr3WAX021303 FRitgre1323alf 08 why the U.S. Attorney's Office would have withheld notifications from the victims about the NPA. If the prosecutors were being assaulted, as has said they were, then they would have reason to disregard their obligations to crime victims. In addition, this would show improper behavior by Epstein, which would be relevant at the remedies stage of this case in determining the scope of any remedy. These allegations would also bear strongly on motive and bias. 54. RFP No. 20 requests documents between the Government and state and local prosecutors and police agencies (including The Palm Beach Police Department) regarding the non- prosecution agreement. Because this involves information outside of the Department, it is the victims understanding that the Government has already turned over all of this information to them, as the Court has directed. See DE 190 at 2 (requiring production of information with persons or entities outside the federal government). For the sake of completeness, however, it is worth noting that this information is needed to demonstrate that the victims were not properly informed that Epstein's plea to state charges would trigger the NPA and preclude prosecution for crimes committed against them. 55. RFP No. 21 requests correspondence regarding the NPA. Here again, the victims understand that the Government is prepared to produce all of this information to them (once the stay pending action by the Eleventh Circuit is lifted). Again, for the sake of completeness, it is worth noting that this correspondence is needed to demonstrate the victims' claims that the Government was concealing the existence of the NPA from them and that this was done at Epstein's behest. The Court has specifically noted that the victims have a need for information that will allow them to argue to the Court in support of their "allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as afait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6. 56. RFP No. 22 requests information about any considerations that Epstein provided, or offered to provide, to any individual within the Government. Here again, the victims understand that this information is being provided to them. It is again worth noting, however, that this information is highly relevant to explaining why the U.S. Attorney's Office would not have properly notified the victims about what was happening in their case, an allegation that is at the center of the victims' summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 11 (noting allegation that Epstein pushed the U.S. Attorney's Office to keep the NPA secret from public view to avoid public criticism). 57. RFP No. 23 asks for documents that will assist Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 in protecting their rights under the CVRA. This request links to the Government's obligations under the CVRA to use its "best efforts" to protect victims' rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). The direct connection between this request and the victims' case is self-explanatory. 58. RFP No. 24 request correspondence related to the Epstein prosecution that the Government had with entities outside the federal government. Here again, it is my understanding that these materials have already been ordered produced. See DE 190 at 2 (requiring production of information with persons or entities outside the federal government). For the sake of completeness, this information is again relevant to showing the course of the Epstein 12 EFTA00184785

almieVriBizam8ME-WASI Matuntalta4251315 EfinteertiomFRISODORSIGTOBIDDEHIE6 BIS :';I:' Miaf investigation and why the victims were not properly notified about event during that investigation. 59. RFP No. 25 requests all initial productions that are required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is a protective request to ensure that, should it be determined that the Civil Rules apply, they then receive all materials to which they are entitled. 60. In June 2013, the victims sent a supplemental request for production, asking the Government to provide any information concerning any investigation that the Department undertook concerning the treatment of the victims during the investigation in this case, including any FBI, grand jury, OPR or other investigation in the Southern District of Florida, Middle District of Florida, or elsewhere. Here again, this information is critically needed, as it would go directly to proving the victims' allegations that their rights were violated during the investigation of Epstein. This information would also go directly to defeating the Government's "estoppel" argument. This information would also show motive and bias. Inadequate Privilege Log 61. The Government has produced a privilege log that violates the Court's order in this case. I have been greatly hampered in responding to the Government's assertions of privilege because of that inadequate log. Indeed, in many cases, it is impossible to determine whether the Government's assertions of privilege are even plausible because of the inadequacy of the log. 62. The Court has directed the Government to produce a privilege log that "clearly identifies] each document(] [as to which privilege is asserted] by author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter . . . ." DE 190 at 2. Many of the entries in the privilege log fail to meet this requirement. 63. A good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log comes from the very first entry in the log, covering Box No. 1 (P-000001 through P-000039), some 39 pages of documents. DE M-1. Yet the only description of these 39 pages is: "File folder entitled 'CORR RE GJ SUBPOENAS' containing correspondence related to various grand jury subpoenas and attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes." 64. Another good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log is provided on page 20 of the first privilege log, with regard to Box No. 3 (P-012362 through P-012451). The Government asserts privilege here regarding 90 pages of documents. Yet the only description of these 90 pages is: "File folder entitled 'Key Documents' containing correspondence between AUSA and case agent regarding indictment prep questions, victim identification information, corrections to draft indictment, indictment preparation timeline, key grand jury materials." 65. There are many other illustrations of the inadequacies of the privilege log which the Court will see when it examines it. I have also filed contemporaneously a response to the government's privilege log, which identifies many situations of an inadequate privilege log, as well as other responses that are needed to respond to the Government's privilege log. 66. The Government has never contacted me or co-counsel about any burdens associated with producing a privilege log that complied with the Court's directives. At all times relevant to this case, I would have been willing to work with Government counsel to minimize any excessive burden from producing an adequate privilege log. The requests for production that I sent to the Government specifically invited discussion to avoid any excessive burden. Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim 13 EFTA00184786

Came 930)33aw 83327B161M41 [Emmen taf2555E,103 mil cim FR1311:90Dmiktit0I2/2371glinii Rome116a 25 67. Many of the Government's privilege assertions require factual premises — such as the existence of an attorney-client relationship and the rendition of legal services within that relationship. Yet the Government has not provided the factual underpinnings for any of its privilege assertions. 68. An illustration of this problem is found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regaiapplemelliox No. 3 (P-013284). The entry here reads: "7/10/08 emails between J. and A. Villafafla, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger's letter re victim notification." The log then indicates that the Government is asserting attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, and deliberative process privilege. The Government, however, does not provide any document for any of the factual underpinnings of any of these claims. For example, with regard to the attorney-client claim, the Government does not explain who the attorney is and who the client is. With regard to the work product claim, the Government does not explain what litigation this document contemplated. And with regard to deliberative process, the Government does not explain what deliberative process was involved. 69. There are many other illustrations of the Government's failure to prove the factual underpinnings of privilege assertions, which the Court will see when it examines the privilege log and the victims responsive log. Waiver of Confidentiality 70. Some of the privileges that the Government has asserted have been waived. Of course, a requirement of a privilege is that confidentiality be maintained. Some of the materials have been circulated outside of any confidential circle, thereby waiving privilege. 71. An illustration of waiver found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with Bard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013282 to 83). The entry here reads: "7/08/08 email from to A. =, J. =, Ki. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger's letter re victim notification." The log then indicates that the Government is asserting attorney-client privilege regarding these emails. But the emails were not internal to the U.S. Attorney's Office, but were also sent to the "FBI." (This is another illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log, because who in the FBI the materials were sent to is not disclosed.) But the FBI is a law enforcement investigative agency, not an agency that provides legal advice. Accordingly, any attorney-client privilege would be waived by dissemination of this e-mail outside the U.S. Attorney's Office. 72. Another illustration of waiver is found on page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216- 1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013504 to P-013507). The entry here reads: "File folder labeled `Mtg w/ Ken Starr, RAA, JS, Drew' containing handwritten notes by A. Villafalla." Kenn Starr, of course, is a defense attorney who represented defendant Epstein. Recording information provided by a defense attorney is not part of any governmental attorney- client privilege. 73. Another illustration of waiver is found on page 7 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013644 through P-013653). The entry here "File folder e ' I "Notes Re Plea Negotiations" containing 9/17/07 e-mail from A. Villafana to J. N. it status update; undated and typed handwritten notes by A. Villafafia re items to be completed on case, strength of case, victim interviews, 14 EFTA00184787

aaffsefflOB3mmatIMBIORM 0ltommtentaf2565 EEnnetatIconFRIEDIRaddenOEMBEICE6 B5 "pity DE6aJf summary of evidence, guidelines calculations." The Government is asserting attorne -client privilege regarding this e-mail. I understand the reference to and ' ' to be references to FBI agents — not attorneys in the U.S. Attorney's Office. Accordingly, the attorney-client privilege would not extend to this e-mail. The Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Any Privilege 74. I am familiar with the caselaw recited in our pleadings regarding a "fiduciary exception" (also known as the "Garner exception" in some settings) to privileges. In this case, the Government had a fiduciary obligation to protect the CVRA rights of Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2. Specifically, because they were recognized "victims" under the CVRA, the Government had obligations to provide them rights under the CVRA, including the right to confer, the right to notice, and the right to be treated with fairness. Because of this fiduciary duty, an exception applies to many of the Government privilege claims regarding interactions with the victims. 75. The fiduciary duty of the Government to the victims in this case is clear. In 2007, the FBI determined that both Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 were victims of sexual assaults by Epstein while they were minors beginning when they were approximately fourteen years of age and approximately thirteen years of age respectively. These sexual assaults involved use of means of interstate commerce (i.e., a telephone) and travel in interstate commerce. Both Jane Does were initially identified through the Palm Beach Police Department's investigation of Epstein. 76. Confirming the fact that the Government had identified Jane Doe No. 1 as a victim in this case, on about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe No. 1 a standard CVRA victim notification letter. The notification promises that the Justice Department would make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe No. 1's rights, including "[t]he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving . . . plea . . . ." The notification further explained that "[a]t this time, your case is under investigation." 77. Similarly, on about August 11, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe No. 2 a standard CVRA victim notification letter. The notification promises that the Justice Department would make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe No. I's rights, including "[t]he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving ... plea ... ." The notification further explained that "[a]t this time, your case is under investigation." 78. Early in the investigation, the FBI agents and the Assistant U.S. Attorney had several meetings with Jane Doe No. 1. Jane Doe No. 2 was represented by counsel that was paid for by Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. These meetings occurred because the FBI had obligations to protect the victims' rights under the CVRA. 79. In October 2007, shortly after the initial non-prosecution agreement was signed between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe No. I was contacted to be advised regardiniihkivestigation. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents E. and Jason met in person with Jane Doe No. 1 because she was recognized as a "victim' of Epstein's crime. 15 EFTA00184788

Qatem9301143433m831:77316WAMI Oalimumunt025615 Ernteettion RISC0 0aceidelt0)31/1102101126 Ficage 1.17 oil 05 80. In all of these dealings between the Government and the victims, as well as other dealings of a similar nature, the Government had a fiduciary obligation to protect the interests of the victims under the Crime Victims Rights Act. Accordingly, the Government is precluded from raising any privilege claim to which a fiduciary exception applies or, at the very least, any privilege assertion would be outweighed by the victims' compelling need for the material. 81. An illustration of a situation where the fiduciary duty exception applies is found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013282 to 83). The entry here reads: "7/08/08 email from I to A. J. K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger's letter re victim notification." In responding to defense attorney Goldberger's letter about victim notification, the U.S. Attorney's Office had a statutory duty under the CVRA to protect the victims' interests. Accordingly, the Office cannot assert privilege when questions about whether it fulfilled its obligations to the victims have arisen in this case or, at the very least, any privilege assertion would be outweighed by the victims' compelling need for the materials. 82. Another illustration of a situation where the fiduciary duty exception applies is found on page 16 of the first privilege log (DEM-I), with regard to Box #2 P-010526 to P-010641. The entry reads: "File folder entitled 'Rsrch re Crime Victims Rights' containing attorney research, handwritten notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz." Here again, the materials at issue go to the heart of this case — what kind of notifications were made to the victims and how did the defense attorneys shape and limit those notifications. Moreover, in evaluating victims' rights issues and determining what kind of letter to send, the Government was fulfilling legal duties that it owed to the victims. Accordingly, the Office cannot now assert privilege when questions about whether it fulfilled its obligations to the victims have arisen in this case. Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered 83. I am familiar with the cases cited in our brief regarding an exception to various privileges when the communications concern crime, fraud, or government misconduct. Many of the important documents about the treatment of the victims to which the Government is asserting privilege would fall within that exception. 84. With regard to fraud and government misconduct, a number of the documents in the Government's privilege log concern concealment from the victims of the existence of a non- prosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. I have reviewed a copy of the non- prosecution agreement signed on about September 24, 2007, by Epstein and his attorneys and a representative of the U.S. Attorney's Office. The text of that agreement bars disclosure of the agreement to the victims. 85. On about January 10, 2008, my clients Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 received letters from the FBI advising them that Wills case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." The statement in the notification letter was deceptive, because it did not reveal that the case had previously been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously. Moreover, the FBI did not notify Jane Doe No. I or Jane Doe No. 2 that a plea agreement had been reached previously, and that part of the agreement was a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the 16 EFTA00184789

i3afaceaRIIBeaalitgeitt OThonurrmint3B5615 EffilierEatlomfRLUDEIDifishalIONS3=11:6 fig "nu y• Southern District of Florida and that the Non-Prosecution Agreement would resolve the federal case completely. (Whether the FBI itself had been properly informed of the non-prosecution agreement is also unclear. We are not alleging misconduct by the FBI, but rather that the FBI was not properly informed about the case or, in any event, was acting at the direction of the U.S. Attorney's Office.) 86. In about April 2008, Jane Doe No. 1 contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was attempting to take her deposition and private investigators were harassing her. Assistant U.S. Attorney secured pro bono counsel to represent Jane Doe No. 1 and several other identified victims in connection with the criminal investigation. Pro bono counsel was able to assist Jane Doe No. I in avoiding the improper deposition. AUSA Villafafla secured pro bono counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the the National Crime Victims' Law Center in Portland, Oregon, which is based in the Lewis & Clark College of Law. During the call, Ms. Garvin was not advised that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached in this matter. 87. On May 30, 2008, another one of my clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received letters from the FBI advising her that Whis case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." The statement in the notification letter was deceptive because it did not reveal that the case had been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in September 2007. 88. In mid-June 2008, I contacted AUSA Villafafla to inform her that I represented Jane Doe No. I and, later, Jane Doe No. 2. I asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. AUSA Villafafla and I discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed. At the end of the call, AUSA Villafafla asked me to send any information that I wanted considered by the U.S. Attorney's Office in determining whether to file federal charges. I was not informed that previously, in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had reached an agreement not to file federal charges. I was also not informed that any resolution of the criminal matter was imminent at that time. Presumably the reason the U.S. Attorney's Office withheld this information from me was because of the confidentiality provision that existed in the non-prosecution agreement. At this point it is clear that AUSA was restricted in what she was being permitted to tell me. 89. On July 3, 2008, 1 sent to AUSA Villafafla a letter. In the letter, I indicated my client's desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, I wrote on behalf of my clients: "We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this very dangerous sexual predator." When I wrote this letter, I was still unaware that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached with Epstein — a fact that continued to be concealed from me (and the victims) by the U.S. Attorney's Office. I only learned of this fact later on. 90. As alleged in the preceding paragraphs, and elsewhere in this affidavit and in this case, deliberate concealment from crime victims and their legal counsel of the existence of a signed 17 EFTA00184790

alzemffaBcavaigial 0Thonunrizeilt3f25615 EEnned extfam 111150D 0DuideNCD31110ODIE6 GB • nt.,:• 1.B3alf non-prosecution agreement would be a fraud and government misconduct. Documents relating to that fraud and misconduct would then fall outside of many of the privileges being asserted. 91. An illustration of a document to which the crime-fraud-misconduct exception applies on this basis is found on page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013342 to P-013350. The entry reads: "File folder entitled `12/05/07 Starr to containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. to K. Starr and from J. Lefkowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A. Villafafta." Again, these materials are central to the dispute in this case, as they involve discussions between the U.S. Attorney's Office and defense attorneys about notifications to crime victims. And given the dates of the communications, in all likelihood they would be related to the deceptive notifications that the Government made to the victims a few weeks later. 92. Another illustration of a document to which the crime-fraud-misconduct exception applies is found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P- 013282 to P-013283. The entry reads: "7/9/08 Email from A. to A. =, J. K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger letter re victim notification." These communications would presumably reflect efforts by the government prosecutors and Epstein's defense attorneys (e.g., Goldberger) to keep the non-prosecution agreement secret. 93. Another illustration of where the crime-fraud-misconduct exception would apply is to information that the Government possesses that Bruce Reinhart learned private, non-public information about the Epstein case. This would show (at the very least) misconduct by Bruce Reinhart in later representing Epstein-related entities. Because the Government's (inadequate) privilege log does not reveal which entries relate to Reinhart, it is not possible to point the Court to the specific documents that demonstrate this misconduct. These documents, however, are covered by the crime-fraud-misconduct exception. 94. Another illustration of where the crime-fraud-misconduct exception could potential) apply is with regard to information that the Government possesses that Matthew has a personal or business relationship with defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Gov't Answers to RFA's 120. This could potentially show misconduct by and also potentially a motive to violate the victims' rights as explained previously. The Government's privilege log has numerous entries showing that Menchal was substantially and personally involved in makingslecisions related to the Epstein prosecution. See, e.g., page 19 of the first privilege log (DE M-1), with regard to Box #3 P-011923 to P-011966. The victims have information su esting that immediately after leaving his employment with the U.S. Attorney's Office, was associated with Epstein- controlled entities or had some business relationship with him. The documents that the Government possesses showing a personal or business relationship between one of its prosecutors and the man he was charged with prosecuting should be produced. 95. The Government has admitted that its internal affairs component — the Office of Professional Responsibility — has collected information about possible improper behavior during the investigation of the Epstein matter. Gov't Answers to RFA ¶22 (government admits that "The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government entities have collected information about ... other government attorney's [apart from Bruce Reinhart's] possible improper behavior in the Epstein matter"). The fact that the Government's own investigating agencies have collected such information demonstrates that there is a prima facie 18 EFTA00184791

flails:89MB eimarRifE4gal ODDRunterit3125FB EffittriettlomFRINDOThenlettOXIMA211126 Intgre129500 fig case of improper behavior, which is enough to trigger the crime-fraud-misconduct exception to various privileges. Factual Materials Not Privileged 96. As noted in the accompanying legal memorandum, factual materials are generally not covered by the privileges at issue in this case. Many of the materials to which the Government is asserting privilege are factual materials. Assertions of Attorney-Client Privilege 97. The Government has asserted attorney client privilege regarding many documents. Yet with regard to most of these assertions, it is impossible to determine who is the attorney, who is the client, whether professional legal services are being rendered, and whether the communications were confidential to those involved in the delivery of legal services. Accordingly, it is very difficult for me to respond to many of the assertions of attorney client privilege and, in any event, the Government has failed to carry its burden of showing that the privilege applies. 98. An illustration of documents at to which attorney-client privilege appears to have been improperly asserted or inadequately described is found at page 7 of the first privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013811 to P-013833. The entry for these twenty-two pages of documents reads: "File folder entitled `Information Packet Drafts' containing several drafts of Informations, and complete draft Information packet." It is impossible from this description to see how the attorney-client privilege applies to these documents. I could provide many other illustrations of the problem. 99. The Government's attorney-client privilege claim directly covers situations where it was in a fiduciary relationship with the victims and therefore is limited in now asserting privilege. For example, page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1) contains an entry concerning Suir.3ox #3 P-013342 through P-013350, which involves "File folder entitled `12/05/07 Starr to containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acost to K. Starr and from J. to J. Lefkowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A. Villafafia." This information goes very directly to the issues involved in this case, as it goes directly to "victim notification." Yet the Government has asserted an attorney-client privilege to prevent the victims from learning what is in these documents. The fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege applies in this situation, and limits the government's ability to invoke a privilege. This also appears to be shared communications between the Government and Epstein's attorneys, and it is unclear how the attorney-client privilege could ethically apply to such documents. 100. As one example of why the victims have established a compelling need for the materials described in the preceding paragraph (and other materials like them) is the fact that the Court has indicated that it will be considering an "estoppel" argument raised by the Government as a defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has noted that this argument "implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the federal offense victims — including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added). The materials to 19 EFTA00184792

Gagaie9301Bo3m8E7711.6Kgell Iltimumernt3f2EXE Bart ti can FREED Ofludlialt0287/102311126 FRojfe211crif 05 which the Government is asserting attorney-client privilege go directly to that "interface" between the victims, the Government, and Epstein. The victims have a compelling need for this information and the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to permit the Court to provide these documents to the victims. 101. The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the documents covered by attorney client privilege to the victims. If the Government raises any such harm, I respectfully request an opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm. Deliberative Process Privilege 102. Some of the correspondence that is being withheld by the Government under the deliberative process privilege concerns an investigation that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) opened with regard to the Epstein case. This investigation was undertaken at the request of the victims in this case. On December 10, 2010, co-counsel, Professor Paul Cassell of the University of Utah College of Law, and I met with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida regarding this case in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, Florida. At on that date, Professor Cassell presented a letter to the U.S. Attorney, Mr. M , asking him to personally investigate what happened during the Epstein prosecution and how the victims were treated during that investigation. Based on the privilege log that has been provided, as well as subsequent correspondence sent to Professor Cassell, that request for investigation was turned over to OPR in Washington, D.C. 103. The ultimate outcome of the OPR investigation is unclear. What is clear is that many documents are being withheld about that investigation — documents that would go to the central issues in this case. Approximately three whole pages of the privilege log — pages 12 through 14 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1) — relate to the OPR investigation of how the Epstein case was handled and how the victims were treated. 104. A deliberative process privilege claim can only be asserted with regard to the process of reaching a decision, not the ultimate decision itself. The Government here has apparently asserted a deliberative process claim over not only the OPR process, but also over the OPR decision. It is not clear which document embodies the final OPR decision (or, given the inadequacies of the Government's privilege log, whether that final decision has been produced). Given the limited descriptions of the documents that have been provided, it appears that the OPR decision may be reflected in a document found on page 13 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-I), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013940 to P-013942. The description there reads: "Draft Letter marked `Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,' Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo A. = with handwritten corrections." No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor is there any indication as to whether the letter was or was not circulated to other persons. It is also noteworthy that this letter is described as a "draft" letter. Nowhere in the privilege log is the final version of the letter indicated, raising questions about what was "draft" and what was "final." If this is the final embodiment of OPR's conclusions, then this letter would not be protected by a "deliberative process" privilege, because the deliberations would have come to an end. (It is also worth noting that because OPR is an agency that investigates misconduct by federal prosecutors, it would not be providing attorney-client advice to prosecutors and its 20 EFTA00184793

QiEssze9)01Ba3m8LEI73164£(.488 Pilaw mwrital325€15 EEntteeztl con RILSIDEEfteMeitff13/ThIM116 aff 85 documents would not be attorney-client privileged with regard to, for example, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.) 105. The fact that OPR has investigated many of the exact claims raised by Jane Does I and 2, and were able to gather documents unobstructed by the Government in order to reach its conclusion likely means that production of the OPR file to the victims in this case could significantly shortcut this discovery process and the litigation. Additionally, if OPR "needed" the documents to investigate and make findings regarding the victims' claims, then logically the victims share that "need" and have no other means through which to obtain the documents. The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the documents covered by deliberative process privilege to the victims. If the Government raises any such harm, I respectfully request an opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm. Investigative Privilege 106. The investigative privilege is a qualified privilege, which balances the need of particular litigate for access to information against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser I. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (I) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens from giving the government information; (2) the impact upon persons who have given information of having their identities disclosed; (3) the degree to which governmental self-evaluation and consequent program improvement will be chilled by disclosure; (4) whether the information sought is factual data or evaluative summary; (5) whether the party seeking the discovery is an actual or potential defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to follow from the incident in question; (6) whether the police investigation has been completed; (7) whether any intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have arisen or may arise from the investigation; (8) whether the plaintiffs suit is non-frivolous and brought in good faith; (9) whether the information sought is available through other discovery or from other sources; and (10) the importance of the information sought to the plaintiffs case. On the facts of this case, these factors weigh in favor of disclosing the information the victims have requested. 107. With regard to factor (I) (the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens from giving the government information), I represented four victims of Epstein's sex offenses in Federal Court — Jane Doe No. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, and a victim I will refer to as "S.R." and "M.J.", and other victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse as well. If further information is disclosed about this case, that will not discourage them from providing information, but rather will encourage them. I have also talked personally to attorneys for a number of other victims in this case. I have been told that many of these other victims hope that Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 are successful in their case. 108. With regard to factor (2) (the impact upon persons who have given information of having their identities disclosed), Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are not asking for information that would identify any particular victim. Accordingly, there will be no effect on other victims. Additionally, I am aware of the true names of many of Epstein's victims and that information has 21 EFTA00184794

C2eale8M83mAiffEEVM61(MI OThmunteritaf25615 EE 11We:di am PRIM Lamili31O2113)2319E6 85 2223 oil not been disseminated to the public where those individual victims did not wish for their identities to be disseminated. 109. With regard to factor (3) (the degree to which governmental self-evaluation and consequent program improvement will be chilled by disclosure), this is a lawsuit to force the compliance by the Government with its CVFtA obligations. Accordingly, the Government's "program" of providing victims' rights will be directly improved if the victims are able to enforce their rights in this lawsuit. 110. With regard to factor (4) (whether the information sought is factual data or evaluative summary), many of the items that the victims seeks are factual summaries. An example of this is found at page 18 of the first privilege log (DE .1), with regard to Box #3 P-011778 to P- 011788. The entry reads: "File folder entitled '6/12/09 Victim Notif. Log' containing chart with victim contact information and attorney notes regarding dates and type of contacts." This would include, for example, dates of contacts with Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, which would be purely factual information. 111. With regard to factor (5) (whether the party seeking the discovery is an actual or potential defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to follow from the incident in question), Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 are plainly victims of a crime, not criminal defendants. Indeed, as the Court is aware, it is the criminal defendant (Jeffrey Epstein) who has undertaken several "limited" intervention efforts to try and block disclosure of information to the victims. 112. With regard to factor (6) (whether the police investigation has been completed), the investigation of Epstein was completed years ago and the Government has not produced in its privilege log any information indicating recent investigative activity. 113. With regard to factor (7) (whether any intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have arisen or may arise from the investigation), it appears than OPR investigation has arisen as a direct result of the victims' efforts in this case. However, it does not appear that release of any information to the victims would hamper any disciplinary proceedings. Indeed, to the extent that the victims are able to obtain information about this case and find information about misconduct, then they can provide that information to Government and other disciplinary entities as appropriate. 114. With regard to factor (8) (whether the plaintiff's suit is non-frivolous and brought in good faith), it should be clear at this juncture of a five-year long case that the victims have a substantial claim that is brought in good faith. 115. With regard to factor (9) (whether the information sought is available through other discovery or from other sources), as recounted throughout this affidavit, the victims have no other way to obtain the information at issue in this privilege debate, as it involves information internal to the Justice Department. 116. With regard to factor (10) (the importance of the information sought to the plaintiffs case), the information that the victims are seeking is highly important to their case. Indeed, without adequate proof, the Court has indicated that it may have to deny the victims' petition. DE 99 at 11. Throughout this affidavit, I have provided numerous examples and explanations of why the victims need the information that they are requesting. The documents to which the Government 22 EFTA00184795

'Mate CftBow 83D733E6 WAVY1 EDnaun-eirft3125O5 fErrttetati FILLSID 1.1Thot4eItftEMI3JEHIEG 811 2231orif is asserting investigative privilege, for example, bear directly on the Government's alleged "estoppel" defense, which the victims need a complete evidentiary record to dispute. Work-Product Doctrine 117. A work product claim can be defeated by a showing of substantial need and undue hardship to obtain the materials in other ways. In this affidavit, I have tried to articulate the specific and compelling need for all of the materials that victims are seeking. I will not repeat all of those assertions here, but simply note that I stand ready to provide any additional information that the Court may require to determine the compelling need that the victims have for the materials they have requested as well as the undue hardship (if not actual impossibility) of obtaining the materials in other ways. Any balancing of considerations tips decisively in the victims favor. 118. As one example, the victims have a compelling need for the materials that OPR collected as part of its investigation. Because Justice Department attorneys are generally required to talk to OPR investigators, OPR was apparently able to investigate the claims of misconduct related to the Epstein case by getting statements from the attorney's involved. These interviews appear to be recorded in materials found at page 14 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013956 to P-013846 [sic — apparently should be P-013970, a total of 14 pages]. Judging from the entry, these notes would be factual statements from Justice Department prosecutors about how the Epstein case was handled and whether any misconduct occurred during the handling of the case. Those are central issues in this case. There is no other way for the victims to obtain information about these subjects, because the Justice Department has declined to provide information on this subject. 119. The victims have established a substantial need for the materials they are requesting in the previous paragraphs of this affidavit that review, request-by-request, their document production requests numbers I through 25 and supplemental request number 1. 120. As another example of why the victims have established a compelling need for the materials is the fact that the Court has indicated that it will be considering an "estoppel" argument raised by the Government as a defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has noted that this argument "implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the federal offense victims — including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added). The materials to which the Government is asserting work product protection go directly to that "interface" between the victims, the Government, and Epstein. The victims have no other way of showing what that interface is. The Government will not be harmed if the materials are provided to the victims. Grand Jun Information 121. The victims' legal pleading has explained why the Government has not properly asserted any grand jury secrecy to the documents at issue. In addition, many of the Government's grand jury privilege assertions appear to broadly cover both grand jury and non-grand jury information. Even if the Court allows the Government to assert some form of grand jury privilege, it should require the Government to sever grand jury materials from non-grand jury materials. 23 EFTA00184796

GamE931153aw8i0MIEWANII Thaurneilt3/3215615 EEnttereati con FFILSID0Thealkat0:87/110=6 Rum° Mal f 85 122. An illustration of this problem comes from page 12 of the first privilege log (DE el), with regard to Box #2 P-008616 to P-008686. The entry reads: "File folder entitled `FBI Summary Charts' containing chart prepared at direction of AUSA, containing victims names, identifying information, summary of activity, and other information relevant to indictment." This does not appear to be a document that was ever presented to the grand jury or that directly discloses grand jury proceedings. Moreover, to the extent that it involves some kind of limited disclosure of grand jury proceedings, that limited disclosure could be redacted and the other information provided to the victims. 123. It does not appear that any of the alleged grand jury materials that the Government is asserting privilege involve on-going grand jury issues. Moreover, it does not appear that disclosing any of the materials would "tip off' a potential target to a Government investigation. Of course, Jeffrey Epstein (and his associates) are well aware of the Government's investigation into their crimes against young girls for sexual purposes. 124. The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the documents to the victims. If the Government raises any such harm, I respectfully request an opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm. Privacy Rights of Other Victims 125. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 do not seek confidential or identifying information about any other victims. To clarify that fact, on July 31, 2013, I sent a letter to the Government stating, in part, that "to avoid any interference with any privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are not seeking any identifying information about other victims. In any of the documents that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have requested the Government produce, the Government should not produce the names of other victims or other identifying information (e.g., address or telephone number) but should instead redact that information." 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 16th day of August, 2013. /s/ Bradley J. Edwards BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. Attachments: 1. October 3, 2011, request for production; 2. June 24, 2013, supplemental request for production; and 3. Victims' Requests for Admissions and Government Answers 24 EFTA00184797

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-66 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 66 EFTA00184798

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-66 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 'Wigan% Ann Marie C. 09/24/2007 04:34 PM To "Jay Lefkowite <[email protected] cc hoc Subject RE Do you have a signed copy? , lik you, Jay. I have forwarded your message only to i and Rolando. I don't anticipate it going any further an . When I receive the originals, I will sign and return one copy to you. The other wIll be placed in the case file, which will be kept confidential since It also contains identifying information about the girls. When we reach an agreement about the attorney reprosontative for the girls, we can discuss I can tell him an. ... !iris about the agreement. I know that promised Chief an update when a resolution was achiev (Something I wou n ave promised in light of what happened ar.) Rolando is calling, but Rolando knows not to tell Chief about the money issue, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is p eading guilty to and the amouillime that has been agreed to. Rolando also is telling Chief not to disclose the outcome to anyone. 111111.r. MUSAELS‘)" 09/24/2007 04:04 PM To"Jay LofkoyMe <Jtafkovotz/j2pkirkland.com> cc SubJectDo you havo a cloned copy? Hi Jay — Sorry to be a bother, hut do you have a copy that at least contains Mr. Epstein's signature? I need to pass it along to the powers that be. Thanks. US Atty Cor .00153 EFTA00184799

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-67 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT 67 EFTA00184800

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-67 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 4 • • KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Jay P. Lefkowft2, P.C. To [email protected] VIA E-MAIL Honorable United States Attorney's Office Dear I write in response to Mr. email of October 22, 2007. First, I want to remind you that Mr. Epstein and your Office have agreed to the terms of the Federal Non Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement"), which is a binding agreement between the parties. Mr. Epstein has every intention of honoring the terms of that Agreement in good faith, and pursuant to the Agreement, as modified recently, Mr. Epstein and his counsel will appear to enter his plea in state court on November 20, 2007. I also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me during our October 12 meeting in which you promised genuine finality with regard to this matter, and assured me that your Office would not intervene with the State Attorney's Office regarding this matter; or contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter; and that neither your Office nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation would intervene regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as that sentence does not violate state law. Indeed, so long as Mr. Epstein's sentence does not explicitly violate the terms of the Agreement, he is entitled to any type of sentence available to him, including but not limitecabin time and work release. With that salinust tell you that I am very troubled by Mr. latest proposed draft letter to Judge AND ATUATt0 PAATNUSIIITS Clti ot er Now York. New Yolk 10022-4011 www.kirklanci.com October 23, 2007 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Facsimile* First, Mr. proposal suggests that the attorney representative may also litigate claims on behalf of the identified individuals in the event those individuals elect not to settle with Mr. Epstein pursuant to the Agreement. That seems to be directly at odds with the purpose of the Agreement, which is to facilitate out of court settlements in lieu of initiating adversarial proceedings. Indeed, it was our understanding at our October 12 meeting that those identified individuals who elect to sue Mr. Epstein are free to select their own lawyer, but the attorney representative would be restricted in this capacity due to the conflicts of interests that it would cause. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, D.C. RFP MIA 000489 EFTA00184801

' Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-67 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 4 • • • KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Honorable I October 23, 2007 Page 2 Second, Mr. proposes language in our joint letter to Judge referencing the $150,000 statutory limit under § 2255 while only referencing the pre-existing $50,000 limit in a footnote. To be sure, any of the women are free to seek whatever settlement they want, but given the question that exists about the proper statutory amount, the letter should state more clearly that the amount under the statute is either $50,000 or $150,000. Third, Mr. proposal now includes 24-year-old women to the government's list of identified individuals who it believes are eligible to settle 18 U.S.C. § 2255 claims pursuant to the Agreement. Such an inclusion goes beyond both the four corners of the statute as well as the intention of the parties. I simply do not understand why these women have been included on the government's list since these women's § 2255 claims are time barred. According to § 2255, "[s]ily action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues." Moreover, the statute contemplates a right of action only for those who are victims of the related statutes "while a minor." That being the case, the women who are currently 24 years old cannot bring claims under § 2255 because these women were minors seven years ago, which is beyond the statute of limitations period. And the PROTECT Act does not apply here. According to the Act, which was enacted in 2003, Inlo statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnapping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child." See PROTECT Act, Pub. Law 108-21, §3283 (2003). The purpose of this provision, however, was to ease the barriers to criminal prosecution of sex offenders, which is precisely why the provision limits tolling to "prosecution" rather than simply all claims. This conclusion is supported by Smith'. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005), which contemplated the statute of limitations period for 2255 claims and was decided after the PROTECT Act was enacted. In Smith, the Court did not even refer to the Act when noting that "only if Plaintiff can show that Defendant violated any of the listed statutes within six years of the filing of this this matter within the statute of limitations." Id at 615. Accordingly, Mr. proposal should be revised and these women should be removed from the government's list as they are not "victims" under § 2255 and therefore are not eligible for settlement relief pursuant to the Agreement. Given your Office's negotiating posture prior to the signing of the Agreement, it is a little surprising to see the inclusion of individuals who are 24 years old. Over the course of negotiations over the Agreement, initially proposed appointing a guardian ad litem to represent the identified individuals, which gave the impression that these identified individuals were minors. Based on her insistence that a guardian be appointed to represent these individuals, we agreed to the appointment of an attorney representative. Now it appears that RFP MIA 000490 EFTA00184802