EFTA00185206

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 26 of 51 26 
1 
THE COURT: That's not my concern. So, again, I just 
2 want to make sure that if the cases go forward and if 
3 Mr. Epstein defends the case as someone ordinarily would defend 
4 a case that's being prosecuted against him or her, that that in 
5 and of itself is not going to cause him to be subject to 
6 criminal prosecution. 
7 
MR. JOSEFSBERG: I agree, Your Honor. 
8 
THE COURT: Any other plaintiff's counsel want to 
9 chime in? 
10 
MR. WILLITS: Richard Willits on behalf of C.M.A.. I 
11 would join, to weigh in on what Mr. Josefsberg said. 
12 
MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, I could not hear. 
13 
THE COURT: We'll get him to a microphone. 
14 Mr. Willits is speaking. 
15 
MR. WILLITS: On behalf of my client, C.M.A., we join 
16 in what Mr. Josefsberg said, and we also want to point out 
17 something to the Court. 
18 
First, we want to make a representation to the Court, 
19 we have no intention of complaining to the U.S. Attorney's 
20 Office, never had that intention, don't have that intention in 
21 the future, but, of course, subject to what occurs in the 
22 future. 
23 
I want to point out to the Court that Mr. Epstein went 
24 into this situation with his eyes wide open, represented by 
25 counsel, knowing that civil suits had to be coming. If he 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185306

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 27 of 51 27 
1 
2 
3 
4 
S 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
didn't know it, his lawyers knew it. 
He appears to be having second thoughts now about he 
could have negotiated this way or he could have negotiated that 
way with the U.S. Attorney's Office. And they want to impose 
their second thoughts on the innocent plaintiffs. We don't 
think that's fair. We think it's in the nature of invited 
error, if there was any error whatsoever. 
Thank you. 
THE COURT: You agree he should be able to take the 
ordinary steps that a defendant in a civil action can take and 
not be concerned about having to be prosecuted? 
MR. WILLITS: Of course. And we say the same thing 
Mr. Josefsberg said. It's all subject to your rulings and the 
direction of this Court as to what is proper and what is not 
proper. And we're prepared to abide by the rulings of this 
Court, and we have no intention of running to the State's 
Attorney. 
THE COURT: The U.S. Attorney? 
MR. WILLITS: I'm sorry. The U.S. Attorney. 
THE COURT: Mr. 
MR. 
: Thank you, Your Honor. 
If I may briefly, I think perhaps defense counsel 
forgot about this, but on pages 17 and 19 of my memorandum of 
law in opposition to the motion to dismiss, I did make 
reference to the non-prosecution agreement, and I did say that 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185307

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 28 of 51 28 
1 the contesting of the jurisdiction of this Court was a 
2 potential breach of the non-prosecution agreement. 
3 
So my client happens to have, and they have filed with 
4 the Court a copy of her state court complaint, given the fact 
5 that the non-prosecution agreement limits the non-contesting of 
6 jurisdiction to claims exclusively brought under the federal 
7 statute. 
8 
I'm going to go ahead and withdraw those contentions 
9 on pages 17 and 19 of my memo of law because it doesn't apply 
10 to my case. So to the extent that I raised this issue with 
11 defense counsel and the Court, I'm going to withdraw that 
12 aspect of it. 
13 
THE COURT: Can you file something in writing on that 
14 point with the Court? 
1511 
MR. 
: Yes. 
1611 
THE COURT: What do you say about this issue that 
17H we're here on today? 
181 
MR. 
: I think that the problem that I have with 
191 it is that this non-prosecution agreement is being used by 
20 defense counsel for the exact opposite purpose that it was 
21 intended. My perception of this thing, and I wasn't around, is 
22 that Mr. Epstein essentially bought his way out of a criminal 
23 prosecution, which is wonderful for the victims in a way, and 
24 wonderful for him, too. 
25 
Now he's trying to use the non-prosecution agreement 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185308

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 29 of 51 29 
1 as a shield against the plaintiffs that he was supposed to make 
2 restitution for. 
3 
And, certainly, he can take my client's depo. He's 
4 done extensive discovery in the state court case -- very 
5 intrusive, I might add. And we don't care, because we can win 
6 this case with the prosecution agreement or without the 
7 prosecution agreement. We are ready to go forward. 
8 
THE COURT: You're not going to assert to the United 
9 States Government that what he's doing in defending the case is 
10 a violation for which he should be further prosecuted? 
11 
MR. 
: Absolutely not. 
12 
THE COURT: Anyone else for the plaintiffs? 
13 
MR. HOROWITZ: Judge, Adam Horowitz, counsel for 
14 plaintiffs Jane Doe 2 through 7. 
15 
I just wanted to address a point that I think you've 
16 articulated it. I just want to make sure it's crystal clear, 
17 which is that we can't paint a broad brush for all of the 
18 cases. 
19 
The provision relating to Mr. Epstein being unable to 
20 contest liability pertains only to those plaintiffs who have 
21 chosen as their sole remedy the federal statute. My clients, 
22 Jane Doe 2 through 7, have elected to bring additional causes 
23 of action, and it's for that reason we were silent when you 
24 said does anyone here find Mr. Epstein to be in breach of the 
25 non-prosecution agreement. That provision, as we understand 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185309

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 30 of 51 30 
1 it, it doesn't relate to our clients. 
2 
THE COURT: Okay. But, again, you're in agreement 
3 with everyone else so far that's spoken on behalf of a 
4 plaintiff that defending the case in the normal course of 
5 conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? 
6 
MR. HOROWITZ: Subject to your rulings, of course, 
7 yes. 
8 
THE COURT: Thank you. 
9 
Anyone else have anything to say from the plaintiffs? 
101 
Ms. 
if you would be so kind as to maybe 
11 help us out. I appreciate the fact that you're here, and I 
12 know you're not a party to these cases and under no obligation 
13 to respond to my inquiries. But as I indicated, it would be 
14 helpful for me to understand the Government's position. 
15 
MS. 
: Thank you, Your Honor. And we, of 
16 course, are always happy to try to help the Court as much as 
17 possible. But we are not a party to any of these lawsuits, and 
18 in some ways we are at a disadvantage because we don't have 
19 access. My access is limited to what's on Pacer. So I don't 
20 really know what positions Mr. Epstein may have taken either in 
21 correspondence or in discovery responses that aren't filed in 
22 the case file. 
23 
But your first order was really just what do you think 
24 about a stay, and then the second order related to this hearing 
25 and asked a much more specific question, which is whether we 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185310

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 31 of 51 31 
1 believe that Mr. Epstein's defense was a breach of the 
2 agreement. 
3 
And I've tried to review as many of the pleadings as 
4 possible. As you know, they're extremely voluminous. And I 
5 haven't been through all of them. But we do believe that there 
6 has been a breach in the filing that Mr. Josefsberg referred 
7 to, and contrary to Mr. Critton, we do understand that we have 
8 an obligation to provide notice, and we are providing notice to 
9 Mr. Epstein today. 
10 
The pleading that we found to be in breach -- the 
11 non-prosecution agreement, sought to do one thing, which was to 
12 place the victims in the same position they would have been if 
13 Mr. Epstein had been convicted of the federal offenses for 
14 which he was investigated. 
15 
And that if he had been federally prosecuted and 
16 convicted, the victims would have been entitled to restitution, 
17 regardless of how long ago the crimes were committed, 
18 regardless of how old they were at the time, and how old they 
19 are today, or at the time of the conviction. 
20 
And it also would have made them eligible for damages 
21 under 2255. 
22 
And so our idea was, our hope was that we could set up 
23 a system that would allow these victims to get that restitution 
24 without having to go through what civil litigation will expose 
25 them to. 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185311

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 32 of 51 32 
1 
You have a number of girls who were very hesitant 
2 about even speaking to authorities about this because of the 
3 trauma that they have suffered and about the embarrassment that 
4 they were afraid would be brought upon themselves and upon 
5 their families. 
6 
So we did through the non-prosecution agreement tried 
7 to protect their rights while also protecting their privacy. 
8 So, pursuant to the non-prosecution agreement -- on the other 
9 hand, we weren't trying to hand them a jackpot or a key to a 
10 bank. It was solely to sort of put them in that same position. 
11 
So we developed this language that said if -- that 
12 provided for an attorney to represent them. Most of the 
13 victims, as you know from the pleadings, come from not wealthy 
14 circumstances, may not have known any attorneys who would be in 
15 a position to help them. 
16 
So we went through the Special Master procedure that 
17 resulted in the appointment of Mr. Josefsberg, and the goal was 
18 that they would be able to try to negotiate with Mr. Epstein 
19 for a fair amount of restitution/damages. And if Mr. Epstein 
20 took the position, which apparently he has, which is that the 
21 $50,000 or $150,000 floor under 2255 also would be a cap. That 
22 if they were to proceed to file suit in Federal Court to get 
23 fair damages under 2255, Mr. Epstein would admit liability, but 
24 he, of course, could fight the damages portion, which means 
25 that, of course, he would be entitled to depositions; of 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185312

Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 33 of 51 33 
1 course, he would be entitled to take discovery, and we don't 
2 believe that any of that violates the non-prosecution 
3 agreement. 
4 
The issue with the pleading that he filed, the motion 
5 to dismiss the case, I believe it's Jane Doe 101, represented 
6 by Mr. Josefsberg, is that that is a case that was filed 
7 exclusively under 18 U.S.C., Section 2255. She met that 
8 requirement. Mr. Epstein is moving to dismiss it, not on the 
9 basis of damages, he is saying that he cannot be held liable 
10 under 2255 because he was not convicted of an offense. 
11 
The reason why he was not convicted of an offense is 
12 because he entered into the non-prosecution agreement. So that 
13 we do believe is a breach. 
14 
The issue really that was raised in the motion to stay 
15 and that I addressed in our response to the motion to stay is 
16 that Mr. Epstein's -- Mr. Epstein wants to stay the litigation 
17 in order to leave, in order to sort of attack the cases of the 
18 victims whether they are fully within the non-prosecution or 
19 not, non-prosecution agreement or not, and leave the Government 
20 without a remedy if he does, in fact, breach those terms. And 
21 that is why we opposed the stay. 
22 
THE COURT: I'm not sure what you mean by that last 
23 statement. 
24 
MS. 
: Well, because this issue related to 
25 the motion to dismiss on Mr. Josefsberg's client came up after 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185313

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 34 of 51 34 
1 we had filed that response. And what we said in the response 
2 to the motion to stay is that the reason why he wants to stay 
3 the litigation is so that the non-prosecution agreement 
4 terminates based on a period of time, as he puts it. And then 
5 afterwards he would be able to come in here and make all of 
6 these arguments that clearly violate the non-prosecution 
7 agreement but we would be without remedy. 
8 
THE COURT: But you're not taking the position that 
9 other than possibly doing something in litigation which is a 
10 violation of an express provision of the non-prosecution 
11 agreement, any other discovery, motion practice, investigations 
12 that someone would ordinarily do in the course of defending a 
13 civil case would constitute a violation of the agreement? 
14 
MS. 
: No, Your Honor. I mean, civil 
15 litigation is civil litigation, and being able to take 
16 discovery is part of what civil litigation is about. And while 
17 there may be, for example, if someone were to try to subpoena 
18 the Government, we would obviously resist under statutory 
19 reasons, all that sort of stuff. But, no, Mr. Epstein is 
20 entitled to take the deposition of a plaintiff and to subpoena 
21 records, etc. 
22 
THE COURT: And even if he seeks discovery from a 
23 Government agency, you have the right to resist it under the 
24 rules of procedure but that would not constitute a violation, 
25 again unless there's a provision in the prosecution agreement 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185314

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 35 of 51 35 
1p that says I can't do this? 
2 
MS. 
: Correct. 
3p 
THE COURT: That's your position? 
4 
MS. 
: Yes. 
5p 
THE COURT: Thank you. 
6 
MS. 
: Thank you, Your Honor. 
7 
THE COURT: Mr. Critton, did you want to add anything? 
8 
MR. CRITTON: Yes, sir. Just a few responses to some 
9 of the issues that have been raised. 
10 
The most glaring, at least from our perspective, is 
11 both Mr. Josefsberg's comments that he believes that there's a 
12 violation of the NPA as well as Ms. 
with regard to 
13 Jane Doe 101. 
14 
Mr. Josefsberg, while he was the attorney rep who was 
15 selected by Judge Davis to represent a number of individuals, 
16 alleged victims that may have been on the list, he represents 
17 many of them. And the type of response that was filed in 101 
18 would probably be very similar to what we will file if he 
19 files -- and he filed 102 as well. But if he files 103, 104 
20 and 105, or whatever number he files, we may well take that 
21 same legal position in our motions and in our response or in 
22 reply. 
23 
And what we've been, in essence, told today is we 
24 consider that to be a violation of the NPA under the 
25 circumstances. 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185315

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 36 of 51 36 
1 
102 is a perfect example that he filed is, we have 
2 e-mails going back and forth between the Government and my 
3 clients' attorneys at the time that suggested that 102 probably 
4 doesn't even fit within the statute of limitations. 
5 
So under Mr. Josefsberg's argument is as well, we've 
6 only brought a 2255 claim. We don't care whether she's within 
7 or is outside the statute of limitations. Because she was on 
8 the list and under the circumstances, he has to admit 
9 liability, which we contest is under that set of circumstances 
10 you're stuck with it. You can fight damages if you can, but 
11 she's a real person and you can't raise statute of limitations. 
12 
The other point that kind of strikes out is there's 
13 probably a difference. And I'm happy to provide a copy of the 
14 NPA or a redacted portion of the NPA which deals with the civil 
15 issues, which are paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10, and the entire 
16 addenda in camera for the Court to look at, if plaintiff's 
17 counsel and the Government, I guess, really, because they're 
18 not a party, is if they have no objection because they all have 
19 access based on a prior court order to the non-prosecution 
20 agreement. 
21 
So I'm happy to provide that to the Court today and 
22 show it to counsel so that the Court can review that. 
23 
But our position with regard to the 2255 claims is 
24 that -- there were two types of claims that could be filed, one 
25 was consensual litigation, the second was contested litigation. 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185316

Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 37 of 51 37 
1 And under the consensual, in essence, which Mr. Epstein did, is 
2 he's offered $50,000 of the statutory minimum for that time 
3 period to all of those individuals. 
4 
THE COURT: Can I interrupt you a second? 
5 
MR. CRITTON: Yes, sir. 
6 
THE COURT: I'm not here, and I don't believe it's my 
7 role to decide whether or not there is or is not a breach of 
8 the agreement. I'm just trying to understand what the 
9 Government's position is regarding your defending these cases. 
10 
Now, I'm just saying this as an example. If, for 
11 example, in the non-prosecution agreement there was a provision 
12 that said explicitly: Jeffrey Epstein shall not move to 
13 dismiss any claim brought under 2255 by any victim no matter 
14 how long ago the allegations or the acts took place, period. 
15 
If that was in the agreement and you filed a motion to 
16 dismiss by someone who brought a claim, it might sound like it 
17 might be a violation. 
18 
MR. CRITTON: I agree. 
19 
THE COURT: So you would know that when you filed your 
20 motion because it was right there for you to read. 
21 
And so to stay the case because I want to do something 
22 that the contract expressly prohibits me from doing, so stay 
23 the case until the agreement expires so then I can do something 
24 that the agreement said I couldn't do so you won't be in fear 
25 of prosecuting, I'm not sure that that is what I'm concerned 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185317

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 38 of 51 38 
1 about. 
2 
I'm concerned about discovery, investigation, motion 
3 practice, that's not prohibited by a provision of the 
4 agreement. If there's something that's prohibited by the 
5 agreement that you, knowing what the agreement says, go ahead 
6 and do, anyway, I guess that's a risk you're going to have to 
7 take. If there's a legitimate dispute about it, I guess some 
8 arbiter is going to decide whether it's a breach or not. 
9 
But, again, that's something you and Mr. Burman, 
10 Mr. Goldberger, and you are all very good lawyers, and he's got 
11 a whole list of lawyers representing him, and you've got the 
12 agreement and you're going to make legal decisions on how to 
13 proceed, and you're going to have to go and make your own 
14 decisions. 
15 
I'm concerned about things that aren't in the 
16 agreement, that aren't covered, that you're going to be accused 
17 of violating because, again, you take depositions, you send out 
18 subpoenas, you file motions that are not prohibited by the 
19 agreement. And that's what I'm concerned about. 
20 
MR. CRITTON: And I understand that, Your Honor. 
21 
But at the same time, it's as if the lawyers and the 
22 clients, based upon our interpretation of the agreement, and, 
23 believe me, we would not have filed 101, the motion to dismiss, 
24 but for believing that there was a good faith basis to do that 
25 under the circumstances. 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185318

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 39 of 51 39 
1 
And now, in essence, we're being accused not only by 
2 -- not accused, but it's been suggested that there's a breach 
3 of the NPA, not only by Mr. Josefsberg on behalf of 101, but as 
4 well Ms. 
on behalf of the United States. 
5 
That's the perfect example. They're basically saying 
6 we think you violated. We may send you notice under the 
7 circumstances. So does that mean that on 101 we have to back 
8 off of it because we think in good faith that it's a motion and 
9 is that something that this Court ultimately will rule? 
10 
THE COURT: I don't know that I'm the one who is going 
11 to make that decision. Again, that's not the kind of thing 
12 that I was concerned about. I was more concerned about the 
13 normal, ordinary course of conducting and defending a case that 
14 would not otherwise expressly be covered under the agreement, 
15 that you're going to then have someone say, ah, he's sent a 
16 notice of deposition, he's harassing the plaintiffs. I don't 
17 know if there's a no contact provision in the agreement or no 
18 harassment type of provision in the agreement. Ah, this is a 
19 breach because you sent discovery, or he's issuing subpoenas to 
20 third parties trying to find out about these victims' 
21 backgrounds, he's breaching the agreement. 
22 
Those are the kind of things that I was worried about. 
23 
MR. CRITTON: The concern that we have is as part of 
24 doing this general civil litigation, it's not just the 
25 discovery process. And I understand the issues that the Court 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185319

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 40 of 51 40
1 has raised. 
2 
But part of it is that often cases are disposed of 
3 either on a summary basis or certainly legal issues that come 
4 before the Court during the course of the case, just like in a 
5 criminal case. That's clearly part of the, I'd say the defense 
6 of the case under the circumstances; and if, in fact, an 
7 individual can't legally bring a cause of action for certain 
8 reasons, such as has been suggested in 101, and may be 
9 suggested in 102 when that pleading is filed, that certainly is 
10 a position that puts my client at risk. 
11 
As another example that I use with C.M.A., that they 
12 filed this 30-count complaint. Now, they have the state court 
13 claims as well. But they, in essence, have said they filed 
14 another pleading with the Court that says depending on what the 
15 Court rules, in essence, on whether we can file multiple claims 
16 or one cause of action with multiple violations, we may dump 
17 the state court claims and, therefore, we'll just ride along on 
18 that. That's a very different --
19 
Mr. Epstein would never have entered into, nor would 
20 his attorneys have allowed him to enter into that agreement 
21 under those circumstances where he had this unlimited 
22 liability. That clearly was never envisioned by any of the 
23 defendants -- by the defendant or any of his lawyers under the 
24 circumstances. 
25 
And if that's claimed to be a violation, either by the 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185320

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 41 of 51 4 
1 attorneys; i.e., he's not recapitulating on liability under the 
2 2255, and that's all we have now. That's our exclusive remedy. 
3 
And the Government says, yeah, that's right, that's a 
4 violation of the NPA. It again chills us from moving forward, 
5 filing the necessary motion papers and taking legal positions 
6 that may put my client at risk for violating the NPA and then 
7 creating the irreparable harm of, after having been in jail, 
8 after having pled guilty to the state court counts, after 
9 registering on release as a sex offender, he's complied and 
10 done everything, taken extraordinary efforts to comply with the 
11 NPA, puts him at substantial risk. And that's what our worry 
12 is moving forward. 
13 
MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, may I be heard. May I 
14 make three comments? It will take less than a minute. 
15 
THE COURT: Yes, sir. 
16 
MR. JOSEFSBERG: Mr. Critton refers to the alleged 
17 victims. I want you to know that our position is that pursuant 
18 to the NPA they're not alleged victims. They are actual, real 
19 victims, admitted victims. 
20 
Secondly, he argues about the statute of limitations 
21 on 102. I know that you don't want to hear about that, and I'm 
22 not going to comment about it. But please don't take our lack 
23 of argument about this as being we agree with anything. 
24 
Last and most important, we totally agree with 
25 Mr. Critton in his suggestion that he hand you a copy of the 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185321

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 42 of 51 42 
1 NPA. I think that many of the questions you asked will be 
2 answered when you read the NPA, and I think it's very unfair of 
3 everyone who is sitting in front of you who have the NPA to be 
4 discussing with you whether it's being breached, whether there 
5 should be a stay when you're not that familiar with it. 
6 
If we would give you a copy of it, I think it would be 
7 much more helpful in making your ruling. 
8 
THE COURT: Maybe Judge Colvat will resolve this issue 
9 for me. 
10 
MR. JOSEESBERG: Even if he doesn't, Your Honor, I 
11 believe we are allowed to show it to you. 
12 
THE COURT: I'll tell you what: I'll wait for Judge 
13 Colvat to rule, and then if he rules that it should remain 
14 sealed, then I'll consider whether or not I want to have it 
15 submitted to me in camera. 
16 
Anything else, Mr. Josefsberg? 
17 
MR. JOSEFSBERG: No. I thank you on behalf of myself 
18 and the other counsel on the phone for permitting us to appear 
19 by phone. 
20 
THE COURT: All right. Anyone else have anything they 
21 want to add? 
22 
MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards on behalf of Jane Doe. 
23 
I only had one issue here, and when I read your motion 
24 that you wanted to hear on the narrow issue of just defense in 
25 the civil actions filed against him violates the 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185322

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 43 of 51 43 
1 non-prosecution agreement, I was expecting that we were going 
2 to hear something from the Government similar to the affidavit 
3 that was filed by Mr. Epstein's attorneys wherein he indicates 
4 as of the day of this affidavit attached to the motion to stay, 
5 the U.S. Attorney's Office has taken the position that Epstein 
6 has breached the non-prosecution agreement and it names 
7 specifically investigation by Epstein of this plaintiff and 
8 other plaintiffs, Epstein's contesting damages in this action. 
9 Epstein, or his legal representatives, making statements to the 
10 press. And we didn't hear any of those things. 
11 
So that's what I was expecting that the U.S. 
12 Attorney's Office was going to expound on and say, yes, we've 
13 made some communications to Epstein. He's violating. 
14 
What we're hearing right now, today, just so that I'm 
15 clear, and I think the Court is clear now, is that the 
16 non-prosecution agreement is what it is. There have been no 
17 violations, but for maybe what Mr. Josefsberg brought up. 
18 
But there are very few restrictions on Mr. Epstein. 
19 He went into this eyes wide open. And whether or not I agree 
20 with the agreement, how it came to be in the first place, is 
21 neither here nor there. 
22 
But there have been no violations or breaches up to 
23 this point. And his affidavit that was filed, I'm just 
24 troubled by where it even came from. I mean, it's making 
25 specific allegations that the U.S. Attorney's Office is 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185323

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 44 of 51 44 
1 threatening a breach, and this is part of the motion to stay, 
2 which we're all battling here. 
3 
So I just wanted to indicate to the Court or remind 
4 the Court that there have been specific allegations made, the 
5 United States Attorney's Office is making these allegations of 
6 breach, which we haven't heard any of the evidence of. 
7 
Thank you. 
8 
THE COURT: All right. 
9 
Ms. 
, did you want to respond to that 
10 suggestion that there were other allegations of breach besides 
11 the one that you've just mentioned today? 
121 
MS. 
: No, Your Honor. 
13 
THE COURT: Thank you. I appreciate your giving me 
14 the information, which I think has been very helpful today, and 
15 I'll try and get an order out as soon as possible. 
16 
(Court adjourned at 11:10 III.). 
17 
CERTIFICATE 
18 
I hereby certify that the foregoing is an accurate 
19 transcription of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 
20 
s/Larry Herr 
21 
DATE 
LARRY HERR, RPR-CM-RMR-FCRSC 
22 
Official United States Court Reporter 
400 N. Miami Avenue 
23 
Miami, FL 33128 - 305/523-5290 
(Fax) 305/523-5639 
24 
email: [email protected] 
25 
Quality Assurance by Proximity Linguibase Technologies 
EFTA00185324

EISENBERG & Fours, P.A. 
Attorneys At Law 
JAMES L. EISENBERG 
• Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer 
National Board Of Trial Advocacy Certified Criminal Trial Advocate 
KAI LI ALOE Fours 
• 
Ono Clearlake Centre,Suile 704,250 Australian Avenue South, WestPalmBeach, FL 33401 
FAXES= 
September 21, 2006 
Asst. U.S. Attorney 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Re: 
Subpoena for'. 
MI 
Dear= 
Please allow me to confirm my latest e-mail to you. I did receive your e-mail of last week with 
attachments and passed them on to my client. At this time, I can only say that my client does not 
want to do ei 
r of your suggestions. She does not want to give a statement under the immunity 
letter you pro tded with its ICastigar exception and she does not want to testify 
and e I not 
5" Amendment grounds. With this client, I am sorry, but I must have a formal grant 
f • 
f re she will say anything. 
! GOVERNMENT 
EXHIBIT 
A
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-000146 
EFTA00185325