EFTA00185206

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 49 of 57 
The Government's inability to demonstrate that it afforded victims their right to confer is 
unsurprising. Under the CVRA, identified crime victims are granted "the reasonable right to 
confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). In some 
cases, there might be a debate about how much conferring is "reasonable" for the prosecutor to 
undertake. But here, no such debate is possible for the simple reason that the Government 
simply concealed that it was planning to enter into an agreement blocking the federal prosecution 
of Epstein from more than 30 of Epstein's identified victims. See, e.g., ¶¶ 17, 32-33, 38, 41, 44-
46, 66, 71-72, 87.88, 95, 102, 113, 123, supra. 
Whatever other rights the CVRA extends to crime victims, it surely extends the simple 
right to know when the Government is entering into a deal with a sex offender blocking his 
prosecution for crimes committed against them. See, e.g., ¶ 155, supra. Here, the Government 
violated the victims right to confer during at least three separate time periods: (I) on and before 
September 24, 2007, when the Government was negotiating and signing the NPA; (2) in and 
around January 2008, when it sent letters telling the victims not about the previously signed 
NPA, but rather counseling "patience" while the Government finished its "investigation;" and (3) 
in and around June 30, 2008, when the Government didn't tell the victims that the state plea 
would effectively extinguish their rights to ever see Epstein prosecuted. See ¶¶ 17, 32-33, 38, 
41, 44-46, 66, 71-72, 87-88, 95, 102, 113, 123, supra. 
noting its "carefult] review" of the issues). 
49 
EFTA00185506

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 50 of 57 
Simply put, the NPA barred prosecution of the federal sexual offenses that Epstein had 
committed against Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly-situated victims. Under the 
CVRA, the victims were entitled to confer about this disposition and attempt to persuade 
prosecutors to reach a different result. Recognizing a right to confer about such dispositions is 
"not an infringement ... on the government's independent prosecutorial discretion; instead, it is 
only a requirement that the government confer in some reasonable way with the victims before 
ultimately exercising its broad discretion." In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 395 (5th Cir. 2008) 
(internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). 
The victims fully understand that if they had conferred with the Government, the 
prosecutors could possibly have ultimately reached the same kind of agreement. But there is 
good reason to believe that if the prosecutors had exposed their dealings to scrutiny by Jane Doe 
I, Jane Doe 2, and the other victims, they would not have reached such a sweetheart plea deal. 
See ¶¶ 121-23, supra. For example, despite the fact that this case has been in litigation for more 
than seven years spanning several hundred pleadings, the Government does not write even a 
single sentence explaining why it entered into an NPA with a sex offender who had committed 
hundreds of federal sex offenses against young girls. Perhaps there is some reason for this 
extraordinary leniency. But if so, the Government has yet to offer it. In any event, regardless of 
the ultimate consequences of conferring, Congress promised to all crime victims—including Jane 
Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly-situated victims—that they would be able to confer with 
prosecutors before a disposition was reached in their case. 18 U.S.C. § 377I(a)(5). The victims 
never received that congressionally-mandated opportunity. 
50 
EFTA00185507

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 51 of 57 
In sum, the Government repeatedly violated the victims' CVRA right to confer — and 
did so at the specific request of Jeffrey Epstein. Summary judgment is thus appropriate on this 
basis. 
B. 
The Government Violated the Victims' Right to Be Treated With Fairness. 
The Government also violated the victims' "right to be treated with fairness and with 
respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). Entirely apart from 
whether the victims had any right to confer with prosecutors, at a bare minimum they had a right 
to be treated fairly and not be deceived by the Government. Yet here the Government repeatedly 
and deliberately misled the victims about what was happening in their case, concealing from 
them the NPA's negotiation and all of the terms it ultimately contained. As with the violation of 
the right to confer, these violations occurred at multiple points in the process, including the time 
before the NPA was signed, after the NPA was signed, and when Epstein was entering his State 
court guilty plea. 
A clear-cut example of the Government's violating the victims right to be treated fairly is 
its remarkable decision in 2008, well after the NPA had been signed, to send the victims (and, in 
some cases, their attorneys) deceptive information that the case "is currently under investigation" 
and that "[t]his can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we 
conduct a thorough investigation." See ¶¶ 91-103, supra. When the Government finally did 
inform the victims about what had happened, the notifications were not only incomplete and 
inaccurate, but they also arrived too late for the victims to do anything about the deal. 
Specifically, it was too late to confer with the prosecutor or attend the sentencing hearing. See ¶¶ 
124-48, supra. Most important, the notifications did not inform the victims that a NPA had been 
51 
EFTA00185508

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 52 of 57 
signed with Epstein, preventing federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida (and thus, 
as a practical matter, any prosecution for most of the victims) for the crimes he and his co-
conspirators had committed against them. The notification letters also described this litigation as 
"the disclosure" of the NPA, rather than its true purpose of vindicating the victims' rights and 
securing for the victims a right to confer about prosecuting Epstein free from the backdrop of the 
NPA. See ¶¶ 145-48, supra. 
The foregoing facts provide numerous other examples of the victims not being treated 
fairly. These examples include, but are not limited to: 
• 
Secretly discussing with Epstein's defense counsel contrived charges to avoid making 
victim notifications (fl 17-22, supra); 
• 
Secretly discussing with Epstein's defense counsel arranging a guilty plea in a 
jurisdiction located some distance from the victims to make it hard for them to find out 
what was happening (123, supra); 
• 
Secretly reaching a resolution of the case that would make it hard for a judge to see what 
was going on (¶ 25, supra); 
• Not telling the victims the NPA was under consideration (11 41-47, supra); 
• 
Deviating from standard policy by negotiating with defense counsel about the extent and 
substance of crime victim notifications (149, supra); 
• 
Negotiating with defense counsel about concealing the agreement (11 48-58, supra); 
• 
Working to have agents attend Epstein's sentencing hearing "incognito" without telling 
the victims what was happening (1 58, supra); 
• Making a commitment to Epstein not to contact victims about the NPA (¶ 62, supra); 
• 
Entering into a NPA with a confidentiality provision that precluded compliance with 
CVRA victim notification obligations (1165-69, supra); 
52 
EFTA00185509

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 53 of 57 
• 
Sending FBI agents to meet with three victims, while precluding the agents from being 
able to discuss the NPA (¶¶ 69-73, supra); 
• 
Agreeing with defense counsel to stop victim notifications required under the CVRA (¶¶ 
76-77, supra); 
• 
Agreeing to notify victims only after Epstein had entered his plea (¶¶ 80-81); 
• 
Sending deceptive letters about the case still being "under investigation" (¶¶ 91-94, 98); 
• 
Concealing the NPA from attorneys for the victims (¶¶ 100-02, 116-17); 
• Failing to provide reasonable notice of Epstein's sentencing hearing to the victims (¶¶ 
105-10); and 
• 
Agreeing with Epstein to oppose the release of the NPA to the victims after his plea (¶¶ 
134-36). 
The Government took all of these actions, it should be noted, with the knowledge of — and, 
indeed, at the insistence of— Epstein, the criminal who had sexually abused the victims. See ¶ I, 
supra. 
The overarching point on many of these actions is that victims of crime are not treated 
fairly if prosecutors are deceiving them about what is going on with regard to prosecuting their 
abusers. Whatever else "fairness" might mean, it has to at least mean that the Government keep 
the victims properly informed and otherwise try to insure that their interests are respected in the 
criminal justice process. See 150 CoNG. REC. 7303 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl 
describing right to fairness in broad terms). The foregoing facts amply demonstrate numerous 
situations wherein the Government deliberately kept the victims in the dark about what was 
happening. Accordingly, the Government violated their right to fairness too and summary 
judgment is warranted on this independent basis as well. 
53 
EFTA00185510

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 54 of 57 
C. 
The Government Violated the Victims' Right to Reasonable and Accurate 
Notice. 
The Government also violated the victims' "right to reasonable, accurate and timely 
notice of any public court proceedings...involving the crime." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) (emphasis 
added). The Government may claim that it complied with this right by giving the victims notice 
of the state court proceeding in which Epstein pled guilty to sex offenses involving other girls 
less than one business day before the hearing.176 But the Government violated the victims' right 
to "reasonable" and "accurate" notice about this hearing. The Government concealed from Jane 
Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and all the other victims, that the NPA and the federal investigation were 
implicated in this hearing—and thus their right to see Epstein prosecuted was about to be 
permanently extinguished. As a result of this concealment, they missed their only chance to 
speak to the Court about the crimes committed against them and to see with their own eyes 
Epstein being sent to jail. indeed, even afterwards, the Government continued to hide what was 
happening with regard to the NPA. See ¶¶ I24-148, supra. 
Importantly, one of the motives for this concealment was to avoid scrutiny by the 
victims—and the public—of what the Government was doing. See ¶¶ 121-23, supra. Jane Doe 
I, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly-situated victims of serious federal sex offenses did not attend 
Epstein's plea hearing and sentencing for the obvious reason that they thought it had nothing to 
do with them—which is precisely what the Government and Epstein were trying to accomplish 
176 The Government also seems to argue that the CVRA did not apply to this hearing because it was held in state 
court. But the hearing was one "involving the crime" committed against the victims, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(8)(2), 
because the NPA was directly involved in the proceedings in state court. Because of the way the Government and 
Epstein had constructed the NM, the state pica triggered the applicability of the federal NPA — and thus the CVRA. 
54 
EFTA00185511

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 55 of 57 
together. 
Whatever else might be said about one of the most extraordinarily lenient plea 
arrangements in American history, the Government simply failed to discharge its duty to 
Epstein's victims to provide "reasonable" and "accurate" notice about court hearings connected 
with their abuse. Summary judgment should therefore also be granted on this basis. 
CONCLUSION 
Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, once the Government had identified the victims of 
Epstein's sexual offenses, it had statutory obligations to them that it was legally required to 
respect. Despite those responsibilities to the victims, the Government chose instead to side with 
the man who had victimized them. Rather than properly inform the victims what was happening, 
the Government engaged in months of undisclosed plea negotiations with Epstein. Once the 
negotiations had produced a plea arrangement that was sufficiently lenient to be acceptable to 
Epstein, rather than tell the victims what had been agreed, the Government conspired with 
Epstein to conceal that agreement. The undisputed facts clearly show that, for months, the 
Government deceived the victims about the existence of this arrangement—deception that was 
necessary to permit the agreement to be consummated before the victims could object. 
Perhaps before Congress enacted the CVRA, such outrageous behavior could escape a 
judicial response. But Congress has now spoken. The Government has an obligation to confer 
with crime victims, to treat them fairly, and to provide them reasonable and accurate notice of 
judicial proceedings relevant to their victimization. To the contrary, the undisputed facts in this 
case show that the Government did not make any effort to extend to any of Epstein's dozens of 
victims any of the rights which Congress promised them. This Court is accordingly now 
55 
EFTA00185512

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 56 of 57 
obligated to take all necessary steps to "ensure" that the victims' rights are protected. 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3771(b). 
This is not a close case. This is a summary judgment case. For all the foregoing reasons, 
the Court should find the Government violated the rights of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and other 
similarly situated victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. If the Court grants their motion, 
the victims would then ask the Court to set an appropriate schedule for briefing and a hearing on 
the issue of the remedy for the violations of their rights. 
DATED: February 10, 2016 
Respectfully Submitted, 
IsI Staley 9 5444444 
Bradley J. Edwards 
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, 
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEI IRMAN, P.L. 
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 
Telephone (954) 524-2820 
Facsimile (954) 524-2822 
E-mail: [email protected] 
And 
Paul G. Cassell 
Pro Hac Vice 
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the 
University of Utah' 
332 S. 1400 E. 
Salt Lake City, UT 84112 
Telephone:801-585-5202 
Facsimile:801-585-6833 
'This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not 
intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah. 
56 
EFTA00185513

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 57 of 57 
Attorneys for Jane Does I and 2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I certify that the foregoing document was served on February 10, 2016, on the following 
using the Court's CM/ECF system: 
I.= 
500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Fax: 
E-mail: 
E-mail: 
Attorneys for the Government 
Roy Eric Black 
Jacqueline Perczek 
Black Srebnick Komspan & Stumpf 
201 S Biscayne Boulevard 
Suite 1300 
Miami, FL 33131 
305-371-6421 
Fax: 358-2006 
Email: pleading®royblack.com 
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein 
Is/ Stadieg 9 Edayouto 
57 
EFTA00185514

EFTA00185515