EFTA00225044

that he had violated the Ashcroft memo, the USAM and other policies were not well taken because, 
as "Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise 
appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with the 
Ashcroft memo and the USAM — not you." (Id.) Mr. 
also told me that I could not dictate 
I meeting. (Id.) 
On July 6, 2007, Gerald Lefcourt sent another letter further explaining why Epstein should 
not be charged with violations of § 2422(b) (Exhibit 33). Most of the letter raised policy arguments 
and the letter ended by expounding on Mr. Epstein's good works (id.). 
On July 13, 2007, after I finished my trial, I responded to Mr. 
reprimand, noting 
my frustration over the Office's failure to provide me with any guidance on its position on the 
matter." I pointed out that I had handled this case the same as I had handled all of my other cases, 
by working with the agents to gather evidence and preparing an indictment package that 
established not just probable cause but proof beyond I reasonable doubt. I re-iterated that I was 
"asking to have the same courtesy that was extended to the defense attorneys extended to the FBI 
and an Assistant in the Office. . 
[And,] my first and only concern in this case .. . is the victims. 
If our personality differences threaten their access to justice, then please put someone on the case 
whom you trust more, and who will also protect their rights." (Id.) Mr. 
never responded; 
nor did he allow me to make my r ,iet sted presentation to USA Acosta. I do not know whether 
he shared my request with FAUSA 
or USA Acosta. 
Also on July 13, 2007, I received Fetter from Roy Black complaining about the grand jury 
subpoena seeking Epstein's computer equipment (Exhibit 34). I shared the letter with MAUSA 
(his handwritten notes appear on the Exhibit) and together we drafted 
letter in response 
(Exhibit 32 at 4). On July 16, 2007, Lilly 
sent my letter to Mr. 
writing that 
"Gerald Lefcourt and I would like to speak to you further regarding [my letter] since we do not 
believe that 
letter was responsive to the issues raised by Roy Black." (Exhibit 32 at 1). 
Mr. 
and I had I conference call with Ms. 
and Mr. Lefcourt and informed them that 
they would have to file I motion to quash the subpoena. We then advised Mr. 
of the 
history (Exhibit 62). 
On July 19, 2007, I sent an email to MAUSA 
and Chief 
asking for 
permission to serve target letters on three of Epstein's personal assistants and for guidance on 
language to be used in the target letters (Exhibit 63). Mr. 
responded that he was out of 
the District "but let's hold off on these until we decide what course of action we are going to take 
on epstein which should happen next week" (id.). 
After these exchanges and being reprimanded by Criminal Chief 
for raising those 
objections, I was not consulted again about I pre-indictment plea. On July 26, 2007,i,ts and 
supervisory personnel from the FBI and I traveled to I scheduled meeting with Chief 
in 
19 For example, on May 21, 2007, I wrote to Chief 
and FAUSA 
: "I have 
time set aside with the grand jury tomorrow, and I am wondering if you have 
sense of the 
direction where we are headed — i.e., approval of an indictment something like the current draft,
complaint to allow for pre-indictment negotiations, an indictment drastically different from the 
current draft? I am concerned about confusing the grand jury, which is never I good thing. Any 
guidance?" (Exhibit 54). I did not receive I response. 
Page 21 of 58 
EFTA00225064

Miami. That morning, before departing for Miami, I sent an email to Mr. 
and MAUSA 
that read, "in advance of our meeting this afternoon, I wanted to let you know my thoughts 
about some of the recommended changes [to the indictment] that we had discussed the last time I 
was in Miami . . ." (Exhibit 64). The FBI agents, their supervisor, their ASAIC, and I met with 
Mr. 
. Criminal Chief 
entered the meeting and announced to us that "Alex 
[Acosta] has decided to offer I two-year state plea." We were not asked our opinions and the 
meeting ended soon thereafter (see Exhibit 5). I remember feeling stunned. I don't remember 
saying anything at the meeting. 
In an attempt to provide some benefits to the victims and protections to the public, I asked 
that two terms be added to this two-year deal: (1) that the victims be provided compensation via 
18 U.S.C. § 2255 as I substitute for restitution because Epstein was pleading to state charges; and 
(2) that Epstein be required to plead guilty to an offense requiring sex offender registration. The 
Office agreed to add these two terms. On July 31, 2007, I finalized I term sheet, entitled 
"CONFIDENTIAL PLEA NEGOTIATIONS: TERMS OF EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION 
AGREEMENT." (Exhibit 4.) On the same date, it was rovided to counsel for E stein. Present 
at the meta 11! for the government were FAUSA Jeff 
Criminal Chief 
MAUSA 
M, 
Jason 
and myself, and for Epstein 
were Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly 
. (See Exhibit 5.) At the meeting, counsel 
for Epstein stated that their client would not consider 
plea that required state jail time. During 
the meeting, 
suggested I plea to I federal charge that would allow Epstein the 
opportunity to serve his sentence in I federal facility. 
I was told that USA Acosta did not want to do I federal plea that bound the court to I two-
year prison term, so I would have to find charge or charges that resulted in I two-year statutory 
maximum. On August I, 2007, Mr. 
advised that the counter-offer that Epstein's attorneys 
had promised did not arrive, and I told him that I had found I federal charge that could result in
2-1/2 year statutory maximum (Exhibit 65). 
On August 2, 2007, Lilly 
sent I counter-proposal directly to Criminal Chief 
and, in her email, stated that 
copy would also be hand-delivered to USA Acosta 
(Exhibit 8.) The counter-proposal essentially called for home confinement, no sex offender 
registration, and an agreement to pay damages via 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (Exhibit 40). Ms. 
also asked for I meeting with the U.S. Attorney (id.). 
On August 3, 2007, Mr. 
sent I letter rejecting the counter-proposal, advising that 
I minimum of two years' imprisonment was needed to vindicate the federal interest, and that USA 
Acosta was not inclined to have I meeting (Exhibit 41). Mr. 
provided I deadline for 
August 17, 2007 to accept the plea offer (id.). That was Mr. 
last day of employment 
with the USAO before he entered private practice in New York. 
Mr. Epstein's attorneys were incensed that USA Acosta had set I deadline of August 17, 
2007 and would not meet with them, so they demanded I meeting with CEOS Chief Drew 
(Exhibit 43). Mr. 
agreed to travel to Florida to meet with USA Acosta and 
Epstein's attorneys (id.). Mr. 
also traveled to West Palm Beach to meet with the agents 
and myself to go through the evidence and our analysis of the statutes (Exhibit 5). Before he came 
to West Palm Beach, I advised Mr. 
that I had worked with CEOS Trial Attorney 
on some of the legal issues and that, if there were I trial, I was hoping she might 
be able to assist (Exhibit 43). 
Page 22 of 58 
EFTA00225065

In preparation for the planned meeting on September 7, 2007, FAUSA 
emailed me 
to ask what the status of the plea negotiations were. I wrote: 
Here is the term sheet and guidelines calculation that we provided at the last 
meeting.
Information charging 
371 conspiracy, with I Rule 11 plea with I two-year cap, 
but I think 
M
 
must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed. Just to be prepared 
for tomorrow, I was just starting to draft I Rule 11 Plea agreement in case Alex 
changes his mind and I formal non-prosecution agreement containing the state plea 
terms. . . . There are three concerns that I hope we can address tomorrow. . . . 
[including] that the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their 
approval, which as Drew politely reminded me, is required under the law. 
(Exhibit 44). 
On September 7, 2007, USA Acosta, FAUSA 
, CEOS Chief 
and I met with Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, and Lilly Ell 
(Exhibit 5). At 
the meeting, Mr. Starr focused primarily on federalism/policy arguments, and Mr. Epstein's 
background. I remember Mr. Starr thanking me for bringing § 2255 to their attention and that it 
would allow I state resolution that still provided the equivalent of federal restitution. 
Following the meeting, there were communications between Gerald Lefcourt, USA 
Acosta, and MAUSA 
that I was not privy to. The fact of the conversations was mentioned 
in later emails. Based upon those communications, on September 10, 2007, I was asked to send 
Mr. Lefcourt an office response to Lefcourt's counterproposal (see Exhibit 47 ("Gerry: As per 
your discussion with U.S. Attorney Acosta, I have attached the Office's written 
counterproposal.")). I sent Mr. Lefcourt I Non-Prosecution Agreement that required Epstein, inter 
alia, to: 
(1) plead guilty to three state felony offenses, including lewd and lascivious battery on
child; solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution; and engaging in sexual activity 
with minors at least sixteen years of age; 
(2) make I binding recommendation (with the State Attorney's Office) for the Court to 
impose I thirty-month sentence consisting of 20 months in prison followed by 10 
months of community control; 
(3) waive his right to appeal his conviction and sentence; 
(4) concede that victims identified by the United States were victims for purposes of 18 
U.S.C. § 2255; and 
(5) plead guilty by September 28, 2007 and be sentenced by October 15, 2007. 
(Exhibit 66). 
The following day, FAUSA 
forwarded to me USA Acosta's email with USA 
Acosta's revisions to the NPA (Exhibit 46). At FAUSA 
request, I incorporated the 
changes and sent the new version to Mr. Lefcourt (Exhibits 47 and 67). On September 12, 2007, 
MAUSA 
, 
= 
and I met at the State Attorney's Office with State Attorney 
, ASA Belohlavek, Jay Lefkowitz, Gerry Lefcourt, and Jack Goldberger (Exhibit 5). The 
purpose of the meeting was to finalize and coordinate the terms of the state and federal agreements. 
Mr. Lefkowitz still expressed some interest in having Epstein serve his time in I federal facility, 
Page 23 of 58 
EFTA00225066

rather than I state one, and I remember Mr. Goldberger saying that because Mr. Epstein's home 
was on Palm Beach Island and touching the Intracoastal Waterway, it was somehow in 
"international waters" and federal jurisdiction. Other items that were discussed were: (1) that the 
state crime that Epstein agreed to plead guilty to was one requiring sex offender registration; and 
(2) that Epstein would be incarcerated 24-7 during the 20-month period of imprisonment. We left 
the meeting with an understanding that Epstein's counsel would contact us about whether Epstein 
wanted to plead to federal charges pursuant to I plea agreement or proceed with the Non-
Prosecutifltement. With that in mind, oSmber 
13, 2007, I sent an email to USA Acosta, 
FAUSA 
MAUSA 
and 
advising them that I had 
researched three potential federal charges that could be used for Epstein, but they would all result 
in I 24-month maximum. If Epstein's counsel rejected those charges because of the 24-month 
exposure, I recommended reconsidering I binding Rule 11 plea "rather than try to create violations 
out of whole cloth" (Exhibit 46 at 19). I provided I proposed plea agreement and information 
containing two counts of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 403. 
Mr. 
wrote to me later on September 13, 2007, "He is going to give us an assault on 
the plane or we can do conspiracy"2° (Exhibit 46 at 21). I responded, "It would still have to be
conspiracy to commit an assault on I plane. I just want to make sure that we have something that 
is factually accurate. Just trying to plan ahead" (id.). At Jay Lefkowitz's request, MAUSA 
and I scheduled conference call with him for early on the morning of September 14, 2007 (id. at 
25). Mr. 
did not attend the conference call, and on the call, Jay Lefkowitz asked me to 
consider allowing Epstein to plead to charges that required only 12 months' imprisonment. I 
recommended 24 months' imprisonment. Lefkowitz said his client 
I 
would
 to obstruction of 
witness and one count of assault on an airplane (id. at 29). Despite Mr. 
earlier agreement 
to the assault on an airplane charge, he then decided that the "assault sounds like I stretch and 
factually sort of silly" (id. at 31). 
I then went back to Mr. Lefkowitz with four options: (1) I plea only to state charges with 
18 months' imprisonment; (2) federal and state pleas with I recommendation for concurrent time 
so that Epstein could serve his time in I federal facility; (3) I § 371 plea with I binding 
recommendation of 20 months' imprisonment (if USA Acosta approved it); or (4) an agreement 
that had I plea to one federal charge followed by one state charge (id. at 33). We continued to 
negotiate issues about how to provide restitution to the victims, and each iteration of the 
agreements seemed to move us further apart. As shown in Exhibit 46, each time Mr. Lefkowitz 
tried to reduce the period of incarceration; he tried to replace the state charge with one that did not 
require sex offender registration; and he kept changing the damages/restitution provisions to make 
it more difficult for the victims to obtain compensation; he removed the appeal waiver; he included 
an agreement that we would recommend an incorrect calculation of the guidelines. It was simply 
bad faith negotiations. I would point out how terms that were specifically rejected were re-
inserted, and the Office would just send me back to the table. 
The agreement was finally completed and signed on September 24, 2007. 
4. Explain fully the process and circumstances leading to the development of the 
following terms of the non-prosecution agreement: 
20 This somehow resulted in 18 months' imprisonment. I do not recall how the prison term 
was decreased from 20 months on September 11, 2007 to 18 months on September 13, 2007. 
Page 24 of 58 
EFTA00225067

an 18-month period of incarceration in I state facility, including the 
basis for the determination that it sufficiently satisfied the federal 
interest in the case; 
As noted above, the only information that I received was from Mr. 
announcement that USA Acosta had decided to offer I two-year state deal. I do not know how 
Messrs. 
and Acosta determined that two years' incarceration sufficiently satisfied the 
federal interest in the case. During one meeting, Epstein's attorneys raised the possibility of I 
state-court plea with home confinement. USA Acosta specifically rejected the suggestion, noting 
that confinement in Mr. Epstein's home was not equivalent to incarceration. As discussed above, 
the 24-month term was reduced to 20 months and then, finally, to 18 months. 
b. victim restitution, including why and how to address victims' rights 
through 18 U.S.C. § 2255; 
The federal crimes that were under investigation all called for mandatory or discretionary 
restitution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663 and 3663A.2I Alexandra 
and Drew 
from 
CEOS are experts in this area, but as PSC Coordinator, I knew that restitution in child exploitation 
cases was I hot-button issue at the time. 
The District of Alaska USAO had multi-victim child exploitation case with I wealthy 
% 
defendant (Boehm) where they had set u 
trust fund with I bank and I trustee. With Drew 
help, I ex lored setting up I similar situation in the Epstein case (Exhibit 48), in 
connection with using I guardian ad litem ("GAL") for the victims,22 if there had been I plea to 
federal charges. In cases like the Epstein cases, using I GAL seemed the most prudent course 
because, to the extent that the victims' interests ever diverged from the government's, the GAL 
could advocate on behalf of the victims. Thus, there are several emails between myself and Jay 
Lefkowitz about the appointment of I GAL and the possibility of I restitution trust fund similar to 
the Boehm case out of Alaska. I obtained the trust fund agreement and spoke with the 
in 
Alaska. The trust fund a reement was very complex and required I bank to agree to serve as the 
holder of the corpus and I trustee to oversee the administration of the trust, as well as the Court to 
21 Mandatory restitution under § 3663A requires I conviction for I "crime of violence, as 
defined in [18 U.S.C. §] 16." At the time, these cases would have been considered crimes of 
violence because sex trafficking, even via fraud or coercion, would likely be considered to 
"involve[] I substantial risk that physical force against the person . . . or another may be used in 
the course of committing the offense." 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). Post-Johnsonl United States, 
U.S. 
135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), I court might decide differently. See, e.g., Menendez,. Whitaker, 
908 F.3d 467 (9th Cir. 2018). Even if not I crime of violence, I Court has the authority to impose 
an order of restitution when sentencing 
I
 
defendant convicted of any offense under title 18 for any 
losses sustained by I victim as I result of the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 36631(l)U), (B)(i)(I). And 
the court also can order restitution to persons other than the victim of the charged offense if the 
parties so agree. 18 U.S.C. § 36634)(1)4. 
22 I had been the first prosecutor in the S.D. Fla. to apply to the court for guardians ad litem 
for victims in child exploitation cases, so I was familiar with the procedure. 
Page 25 of 58 
EFTA00225068

enter an order setting up the trust and I mechanism for resolving disputes amongst beneficiaries 
or between I beneficiary and the trustee. 
In light of the amount of details and the number of victims involved, and the simple fact 
that, if there was only I state plea, there would be no federal judge to undertake the process, I knew 
that there was no way to accomplish I trust fund like Boehm within the confines of the NPA. In 
the Boehm case, there was I much smaller number of victims and, if I remember correctly, the 
victims were younger. The Alaska 
was able to confer with Boehm's victims and obtain 
their consent to the trust agreement procedure in advance of entering into the plea agreement. The 
Alaska 
also obtained the defendant's agreement to proceed ex pane. Our situation was 
quite different. There were more victims with disparate interests. In my emails, I made it clear 
that I could not bind the victims to such I procedure because I did not represent them. For example, 
how would the USAO decide on the size of the corpus of the trust? Would the USAO hire expert 
sychologists to evaluate the victims and economists to qLtantify their losses? If the USAO picked 
I number, would that preclude I victim from bringing I state tort claim? Would every victim 
receive the same amount? This is not how criminal restitution works — normally after I guilty 
plea, the Court's Probation Office works with victims to calculate losses, and issues are litigated 
at sentencing or within 90 days after sentencing. Lefkowitz was asking the USAO to pick I number 
virtually out of thin air to use as the corpus of the trust for I group of victims who were not clients 
of the USAO. We also would have to locate an independent bank to serve as the hold of the corpus. 
Given how difficult negotiating simple plea terms had been, I believed that creating an agreement 
of this sort was legally and logistically impossible. 
When Epstein's attorneys approached USA Acosta in December 2007 and suggested that 
I rejected the Trust proposal for nefarious reasons, I outlined all of the concerns that I had 
previously expressed to Mr. Lefkowitz (Exhibit 55). 
Once I was instructed that Epstein would be allowed to plead to state charges, I wanted to 
do what I could to place the victims and the community in the same position where they would 
have been in Epstein had pled to I federal offense. If Epstein had led to one of the federal offenses 
under investigation, he would have been required to register as I sex offender and pay restitution 
to all victims of the federal offense. With regard to the restitution piece, I knew that the state 
investigation had not included all of the girls and young women whom we had identified and I was 
concerned that Epstein would avoid his restitution obligations if not forced to pay.23
As part of my duties as PSC Coordinator, on September 26, 2006, I had prepared I memo 
to management summarizing the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (the 
"Adam Walsh Act") (Exhibit 16). One of the provisions of the Adam Walsh Act that I noted was 
an amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 2255: "Section 2255 has been expanded to allow I person who, 
while I minor, was I victim of various child exploitation offenses, to pursue I civil action for 
personal injury damages — regardless of when the personal injury occurred. It also raises the 
presumptive damage amount to $150,000." (Id. at 7.) Although this was an amendment, I was 
unaware of § 2255 prior to preparing this September 2006 memo. The first few times I brought it 
23 In fact, the State Attorney's Office did not seek or obtain restitution for any victims in 
the state case, not even the two victims that were the basis of the state charges. 
Page 26 of 58 
EFTA00225069

to the attention of others, they thought I was mis-citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and I had to explain that 
there actually was an 18 U.S.C. § 2255, which was I civil provision within the criminal code. 
I do not know when I first discussed the possibility of using § 2255 as I replacement for 
the victims' lost restitution benefits, but I know that I conducted research on § 2255 cases on July 
27, 2007 (Exhibit 37). That was the day after the meeting where Criminal Chief 
had 
announced that USA Acosta had decided to offer Epstein I two-year state plea (Exhibit 5). 
Language regarding § 2255 was included in the plea agreement term sheet provided to 
Epstein's counsel on July 31, 2007 (Exhibit 38). The issue must have been raised in advance of 
the meeting, because that was the first meeting attended by Ken Stan, and.ifically 
thanked 
me for bringing§ 2255 to their attention. On August 2, 2007, Lilly 
sent I letter to 
Criminal Chief 
makin 
series of counterproposals including: "Application of 18 U.S.C. 
§ 2255" (Exhibit 40 at 2). Ms. 
went on to explain: 
18 U.S.C. 2255 provides that any minor who suffers injury as I result of the 
commission of certain offenses shall recover actual damages and the cost of any 
suit. It is important to note that Mr. Epstein is prepared to fully fund the identified 
group of victims which are the focus of the Office — that is, the 12 individuals noted 
at the meeting on July 31, 2007. This would allow the victims to be able to 
promptly put this behind them and go forward with their lives. If given the 
opportunity to opine as to the appropriateness of Mr. Epstein's proposal, in my 
extensive experience in these types of cases, the victims prefer I quick resolution 
with compensation for damages and will always support any disposition that 
eliminates the need for trial (id. at n.1). 
Thus, the use of § 2255 as I replacement for restitution was not controversial — it was 
promoted by Epstein's own attorneys, including Mr. Starr. At one point during negotiations, Mr. 
Lefkowitz started advocating for I trust fund like the one used in Boehm, mostly, I believe, to try 
to place I cap on his damages exposure. I offered some potential solutions, including asking the 
federal court to appoint I guardian ad litem who could work with Epstein's counsel to see if the 
victims would be willing to agree to I Trust Fund, and I would facilitate those efforts, but I simply 
would not agree to something that I legally could not promise — I binding resolution for victims 
whom I did not represent. 
Eventually, Mr. Lefkowitz made some changes to the § 2255 language but it remained 
quite close to the original proposal contained in the July 31, 2007 term sheet. 
c. immunity for co-conspirators, including unidentified co-conspirators; 
and 
In looking through the drafts of the agreements, the immunity provision does not appear in 
any of the federal plea agreements that I drafted. Its first appearance is in I version of the NPA 
proposed by Jay Lefkowitz along with I proposed promise that the government would not seek 
immigration sanctions against any of the co-conspirators. It was initially rejected, and then after 
several iterations, Lefkowitz revised it to the language that appeared in the final NPA. 
The final language was: "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 
Page 27 of 58 
EFTA00225070

criminal char es a ainst any potential co-consgtors of E stein, including but not limited to 
M, Lesley Groff, or 
' (Exhibit 52 at 5). To the extent 
that there was "criminal organization," the Office and the investigators considered Epstein to be 
the head of that organization. He was certainly the most culpable individual, and we did not 
foresee any scenario where we would defer prosecution against Epstein but proceed to prosecute 
his subordinates. Also, while the agreement included the language "including but not limited to," 
at the time that the NPA was signed, with the possible exception of Ghislaine Maxwell, the 
investigation had not disclosed any co-conspirators other than those listed. 
I recall that there was extensive discussion of Lefkowitz's proposed immigration language, 
but I do not recall much discussion of this language for the reasons stated above. 
d. the October 2007 addendum, including its purpose. 
During the negotiation of the NPA, I had been admitted to the hospital for surgery. After 
the surgery, I returned to the office almost immediately to try to complete the negotiations. When 
the NPA was signed, I sought permission to take I leave of absence to address my health concerns. 
While I was away, the Addendum was negotiated. While I conducted some of the drafting, I 
believe that FAUSA 
handled the bulk of the negotiations and drafting. 
My understanding was that the USAO wanted to formally assign its right to select the 
attorney representative for the victims to I Special Master. The NPA stated that the USAO would 
select the attorney representative in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of 
Epstein's counsel. I had provided Epstein's counsel with I list of attorneys, none of whom I had 
ever met, that I had culled from consulting with one of the district judges24 and some AUSAs, 
including Mr. 
,
 
who I was dating at the time. After getting that list of names, I did my own 
research to determine who would be good fits for the type of litigation that I expected they would 
face — both in terms of the tactics of Epstein's lawyers and the special challenges of dealing with 
emotionally fragile victims. I provided that culled list to Jay Lefkowitz and disclosed that, 
although I had no financial interest, the list included I friend of I good friend of mine (I did not 
describe Mr. 
as my "boyfriend"). Even with that disclosure, Mr. Lefkowitz selected Mr. 
friend. Before the matter went any further, FAUSA 
decided that the Office should 
use Special Master to make the selection, rather than pick anyone — even I panel of attorneys 
leaving the final selection to Epstein's counsel. Despite that, Mr. Lefkowitz and Guy Lewis — who 
knew both Mr. 
and his friend — claimed that there was I financial interest and that I had tried 
to create the procedure for financial gain.25
24 Epstein's lawyers suggested that I had ex parte communications with I judge. I simply 
asked for recommendations from 'judge that I was friendly with; I did not disclose anything about 
the background of the case. 
25 Mr. Lewis knew that Mr. 
also was an 
and, therefore, was not partners with 
another lawyer. When that was patently obvious, Epstein's lawyers falsely claimed that they were 
"law school roommates." Both had graduated from law school more than fifteen years before, and 
had not been roommates. Ironically, one of the reasons why Epstein's legal team approved the 
selection of Robert Josefsberg was that Josefsberg and Alan Dershowitz were law school 
classmates - somehow there was no "financial interest" attributed to them. 
Page 28 of 58 
EFTA00225071

Rather than simply elect to use I Special Master to exercise its right to make the attorney 
representative selection, the USAO believed that it should formalize the assignment in writing. 
5. To the extent not evidenced in e-mails or other correspondence, identify and 
describe all interactions with defense counsel — such as phone conversations, 
meetings, or communications by private e-mail — that you or any other 
member of the government had regarding the investigation, potential 
prosecution, or negotiation of I resolution of this case. If at any point you 
became concerned about the nature of any member of the government's 
interaction with defense counsel, describe the interaction and explain when 
and why you became concerned. 
My communications with opposing counsel occurred primarily via email. Most of those 
communications were via office email, and some were from my home email. All of my home 
emails were collected and produced as part of the Jane Doe litigation. Negotiations were occurring 
at nights, on weekend, and while I was recuperating from surgery, and this occurred during I time 
when out of office access to email was very limited. I believe that only supervisors had Blackberry 
devices at that time. 
The meetings that I attended are catalogued on the meeting timeline (Exhibit 5). I believe 
there was one other meeting soon after Epstein entered his guilty plea, when I went to Jack 
Goldberger's office and met with him and Mike Tein (Guy Lewis' law partner) about the victim 
list. Other than that, I do not recall any in-person meetings. 
I had I couple of telephone conversations 
and Guy Lewis at the 
start of the investigation that were very brief. Jeff 
and/or 
was on some of 
these. I had telephone conversations later during the investigation with Lill 
• 
Lefcourt, Roy Black, and Nate Dershowitz about subpoena responses. 
and 
were on some of those calls. I had tele,m conversations with Jay Lefkowitz about plea 
negotiations and scheduling meetings. 
M, 
and Jeff 
were on 
some of those calls. I had numerous calls with Roy Black and Jack Goldberger about breaches of 
the NPA. 
was on most of those telephone calls. 
From emails and conversations, I know that Messrs. Acosta, 
, and 
had numerous emails and conversations (mostly via telephone and possibly some in person) with 
members of the defense team. USA Acosta had contact with Ken Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, Gerry 
Lefcourt, and Alan Dershowitz. FAUSA 
had contact with Alan Dershowitzi • 
Lefcourt, and Lilly 
. Criminal Chief 
had contact with Lilly 
and Gerry Lefcourt. There may have been other meetings that I was unaware of. I was concerned 
about the level of contact and the lack of consideration of the sanctity of the investigation. It was 
imperative to keep the investigation confidential to protect not just the victims' privacy rights, but 
to keep them from the harassment of overly aggressive lawyers. I felt that there were leaks of 
case-related facts and strategy, as well as personal matters that undermined my ability to deal with 
the defense and that ultimately was used by the defense to defame me and Mr. 
with 
members of the Department of Justice. 
Page 29 of 58 
EFTA00225072

6. Provide I detailed description of all settlement negotiations conducted in this 
matter in which you took part or of which you were otherwise aware, including 
all terms of settlement that were discussed, considered, and rejected during 
the negotiations. 
Identify all individuals who participated in those 
negotiations, including government personnel and defense counsel. In each 
case, identify all participants and describe the discussions that occurred. 
Please see my response to Question .3. 
7. Describe the interactions by you, or anyone else within the USAO, with any 
employees of the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office concerning the 
federal or state investigation of Mr. Epstein, the terms of I proposed resolution 
of the case, and the terms of the federal non-prosecution agreement, including 
the terms of Mr. Epstein's incarceration. 
As noted above, my first interaction with anyone from the Palm Beach County State 
Attorney's Office about the Epstein case was at the Project Safe Childhood Conference in 
Washington, DC, when State Attorney Barry 
introduced himself to USA Acosta and me 
and started railing against the victims and the case. 
My next interaction was with ASA 
Belohlavek at some later date. I was in her 
office, I believe on another matter, and I mentioned the case. She said that she "hated" the case 
and that she "hated" prostitution cases. She stated that some of the girls were not really victims 
because they had been paid "thousands of dollars." I was I bit taken aback because Ms. Belohlavek 
was the supervisor of the division charged with prosecuting child sex offenses, including child 
prostitution cases and, by definition, child prostitutes receive money. 
Although not personal interactions, I also had collected and reviewed the state grand jury 
transcript, indictment, and the state investigative materials. I had conferred with former ASAs 
about the use of the grand jury in the case, which was very unusual. In Florida, only capital cases 
need to be presented to I grand jury — all other cases can proceed by Information — and one ASA 
in Palm Beach County handles the presentation of all of the cases to the grand jury. This case was 
unusual because it was presented to I grand jury unnecessarily and it was not presented by the 
regular grand jury ASA. The State Attorney also had told the press that I variety of charges had 
been presented to the grand jury and the jurors had selected the lowest charge of solicitation of 
prostitution (with no designation of age). The transcript gave no indication that multiple charging 
options were presented, and the jurors were only provided with evidence about one victim, not all 
of the victims who had been the subjects of the investigation. 
I believe that the next interaction was on September 12, 2007, when I attended I meeting 
at the State Attorney's Office with 
and 
. Jay Lefkowitz, Gerald 
Lefcourt, and Jack Goldberger attended on behalf of Mr. Epstein, and State Attorney 
and 
ASA 
were resent. At some point in the past, one of Epstein's attorneys had 
falsely told State Attorney 
that I person from the USAO had referred to the SAO as "I 
joke." Messrs. 
and 
and I had to spend the first several minutes of the meeting 
convincing State Attorney 
that no one had ever said such I thing. After crossing that 
hurdle, we got to the core of the meeting, which was whether the SAO was in agreement with 
filing charges and seeking I sentence consisting with the terms of the NPA — that is, I plea to an 
Page 30 of 58 
EFTA00225073

offense that required sex offender registration — namely, procuring I minor for prostitution in 
violation of Fl. Stat. 796.03; and I sentence totaling 18 or 20 months' imprisonment.26 I recall that 
either Mr. 
or I asked Ms. 
to confirm that § 796.03 required sex offender 
registration, and she said that it did. Epstein's attorneys also said that it did. We also specificall 
discussed that Epstein would be confined for the term of imprisonment. State Attorney 
said that I term of imprisonment of longer than one year usually required placement in 
state 
penitentiary, but there was I way to structure the sentence as I split sentence so that Epstein would 
be housed at the Palm Beach County Jail. And we again confirmed that Epstein would remain in 
custody at the jail, not home confinement or any other type of release and we were told that he 
would be in jail. We also discussed wrapping the matter up quickly because of the extensive 
delays. 
On September 23, 2007, Jay Lefkowitz sent an email to Alex Acosta essential) admitting 
that, during the meeting on September 12, 2007, Epstein's attorneys and Ms. 
all 
believed that I conviction for Fl. Stat. 796.03, procurement of minors for prostitution, did not 
require sex offender registration — despite our specific inquiries (see Exhibit 51 ("I write to follow 
up on our conversation on Friday and to ask you to reconsider your decision to require that Mr. 
Epstein plead guilty to I registerable state char e. It appears that there was I misunderstanding at 
the meeting I had with Messrs. M, 
Goldberger, Lefcourt, Ms. 
and Ms. 
Belohlavek. . . Before the meeting, Mr. 
, and Ms. Belohlavek, I sex prosecutor for 13 
years, told us that solicitation of I minor, under 796.03, is not I registerable offense. However, as 
it turned out, 796.03 is I registerable offense and our discussion at the meeting was based on I 
mistaken assumption." (emphasis added)). 
On December 6, 2007, ASA 
contacted me to draft I factual proffer and advised 
that Epstein would be entering 
guilty plea on December 21, 2007 (Exhibit 73). I did some 
research on 796.03 and prepared draft that I shared with FAUSA ME 
but he decided not to 
share the information with Ms. 
(see id.). 
While drafting this response, I searched my electronic files for Mr. 
name and 
discovered I document entitled "071214 Acosta Ltr to 
(Exhibit 69). I do not recall 
drafting this letter, although I located I cover email stating that I drafted this and two other letters 
for USA Acosta's signature that were directed to the State Attorney's Office (Exhibit 75). I do 
not know if any of the letters were ever sent to Mr. 
In May 2008, 
had I discussion with State Attorney 
and 
advised that he and Jack Goldberger had reached I new agreement for Epstein of 90 days in jail 
(Exhibit B-39). 
On June 17, 2008, 
and I spoke with State Attorney 
He 
complained that we had not been communicating with him, and we told him that Epstein's counsel 
had blocked the channels of communication (Exhibit 78). 
said that he and Jack 
Goldberger had reached I new agreement where Epstein would plead guilty to "attempted lewd 
conduct" and be sentenced to 60 days in the County Jail followed by two years of community 
confinement (id.). 
26 As noted above, I do not recall the exact date when USA Acosta agreed that 18 months' 
imprisonment was sufficient. 
Page 31 of 58 
EFTA00225074

On June 19, 2008, I sent an email to State Attorney 
advising him that we had 
spoken with Ro
c about wrapping up both the state and federal cases (Exhibit 68). I reminded 
State Attorney 
that the signed NPA required I plea to the current state indictment and to 
an information charging an offense that requires sex offender registration, namely procuring 
minors to engage in prostitution, with I sentence of at least 18 months' imprisonment (id.). 
I attended the change of plea on June 30, 2008 but did not have any contact with any 
member of the SAO that day. Later, when the issue arose regarding whether or not Epstein was 
taking the osition that the NPA included USA Acosta's December 2007 letter, I contacted Ms. 
and SA 
to obtain I copy of what Epstein's counsel had filed in state court. 
In September 2008, I had communications with Mr. 
about I suit filed in state court 
to unseal the NPA (Exhibit 70). 
At some point, Mr. 
sent me an email about wanting to buy me I cup of coffee. I 
was not able to find the email while preparing this res
ut with additional time, I can 
probably locate it. I don't believe I ever answered Mr. IME. 
I know I never met him for 
coffee. 
I recall that in many of Epstein's letters to the Justice Department, there were complaints 
of I lack of coordination between the USAO and the SAO. That lack of coordination was not 
caused by the government agencies, but, rather, by the tactics of Epstein's counsel. For example, 
Epstein's counsel insisted that I should conduct I completely independent review of the evidence 
so that I would not be tainted by bias from the PBPD or the SAO. When I did so and reached
conclusion that they did not like, Epstein's attorneys insisted that Criminal Chief 
and that 
CEOS conduct similarly sterile reviews free from the "taint" of me and the federal agents. If Ms. 
and I or the agents and I reached out to the SAO to discuss how the NPA should be 
worded to insure that we were getting correct information from Epstein's attorneys, we were 
accused of "infringing on the SAO's discretion." Yet, that "lack of coordination" that Epstein's 
attorneys caused, was later held up to the DAAG, the AAG, and DAG, as violations of the Petite 
policy's state-federal coordination requirement. 
8. Describe any research conducted by you, or anyone else within the USAO, into 
law or policy regarding any of the following issues: 
The propriety of permitting I person to plead guilty to state court 
charges in exchange for an agreement by the USAO to refrain from 
federal prosecution. In your response, you should identify any USAO 
or Department policies that were considered by the USAO, and any 
effort by the USAO to obtain guidance or approval from the 
Department to use l non-prosecution agreement to resolve this case. 
I did not do any research on this point. I do not know whether USA Acosta or Criminal 
Chief 
conducted any research or obtained any guidance or approval from the Department. 
Page 32 of 58 
EFTA00225075

b. The propriety of including in I non-prosecution agreement with Mr. 
Epstein I 
provision that the federal government would forgo 
prosecution of any potential co-conspirators of Mr. Epstein, including 
unidentified co-conspirators. 
I do not recall doing any research on this particular point, other than discussing with 
MAUSA 
that we would not pursue an investigation into Epstein's subordinates after closing 
the investigation of Epstein. 
c. The propriety of including in the non-prosecution agreement I 
provision incorporating 18 U.S.C. § 2255. 
As noted above, I became familiar with § 2255 through my work as the PSC Coordinator. 
I also was aware, as set forth in the victim notification letters that I prepared, that, under the CVRA, 
I was obligated to use my "best efforts" to protect the victims' rights to "full and timely restitution 
as provided in law." 18 U.S.C. § 37711(6). As I discussed above, restitution in child exploitation 
cases was an issue of growing concern, so I was mindful that this plea mechanism that Criminal 
Chief 
had devised with Lilly 
would extinguish the victims' right to 
restitution. That was one of the reasons why, on July 4, 2007, I wrote to Mr. 
that I 
believed the plea proposal violated the victims' rights legislation. 
When Mr. 
announced in late July that USA Acosta was going forward with the 
two-year state plea offer despite those concerns, I undertook my best efforts to still afford those 
restitution rights to the victims identified through the federal investigation. Immediately after the 
meeting where Mr. 
announced to me and the investigative team that USA Acosta 
intended to offer 1 state plea, I delved further into the re uirements for claims under § 2255 
(Exhibit 37). While § 2255 is 1 civil damages statute, not 1 criminal restitution provision, the 
criminal restitution statutory scheme recognizes that there is some overlap. See 18 U.S.C. § 
3664(j)(2).), (1). Section 2255 also provides for attorneys' fees, just as courts can use court funds 
to appoint guardians ad litem for minor victims in criminal cases who can advocate for restitution 
for the victims. My review of the legislative history led me to conclude that the inclusion of 1 
provision under § 2255 would be the best way to protect the victims' right to restitution. CEOS 
Chief 
described the agreement as "1 very significant result that will serve the victims 
well" (Exhibit 71). 
I should note that 1 plea to one of the federal crimes under investigation — with 1 24-month 
binding sentencing recommendation — would have achieved USA Acosta's desired outcomes (24 
months' imprisonment27 and sex offender registration); would have provided federally mandated 
restitution for the victims; and would have provided victims with court-funded representation via 
the guardian ad litem program for those who needed it. All of these contortions were brought 
about by the decision to use 1 state plea to resolve 1 federal investigation. 
27 As noted above, I was never told the source of the 24-month figure. In my opinion,
straight § 371 plea, with 1 five-year statutory maximum, was 1 significant concession. 
Page 33 of 58 
EFTA00225076

d. How the Florida state judicial system would address issues pertaining 
to the terms of Mr. Epstein's incarceration, including designation of an 
appropriate facility, the availability of work release (or any similar 
release condition), and the availability of other privileges. Identify 
whether such research was conducted before or after the non-
prosecution agreement was signed, and whether it was conducted 
before or after Mr. Epstein entered his state court plea. Describe any 
communications you or other 
USAO 
personnel 
had 
with 
representatives of the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, 
other law enforcement, or local corrections officials regarding these 
matters. 
One of my concerns about using I state forum to resolve this case was that it left our Office 
with no control over the process. We also did not have any members of our team who had 
experience with the Palm Beach County state courts — Criminal Chief 
had been I state 
prosecutor in New York before joining the USAO; I had been in private practice. Similarly, no 
one else involved in the process had been an ASA or even I criminal defense attorney in Palm 
Beach County. The defense team, on the other hand, included Roy Black and Jack Goldberger, 
who had extensive state court criminal experience in Palm Beach County. Any litigator will tell 
you that knowing the Court is I key component of success, so we were placed at I distinct 
disadvantage. It was exacerbated by defense counsel's tactics of prohibiting coordination between 
the USAO and the SAO — which somehow was successful.28 It also required the USAO to place 
an inordinate amount of trust in the SAO, when one of the reasons for opening the federal 
investigation was the concerns that undue influence had been brought to bear on the State 
Attorney.29
The loss of control did not just end with the Court proceedings, it included how the sentence 
would be executed. Federal sentences are executed by the U.S. Marshals and the Bureau of 
Prisons. All are housed within the Department of Justice and have clearly written rules and 
regulations. BOP is used to housing wealthy, politically-connected offenders and would be less 
likely to be unduly influenced by Epstein. 
I attempted to build some certainty back into the agreement through several provisions. 
First, I selected the state statutes that Epstein would have to plead guilty to and conducted my own 
research to confirm that they required sex offender registration. Second, I included language that 
28 Epstein's team was equally successful in DC, where they dictated who could and could 
not participate in the "independent review" at CEOS. For example, 
, who had not 
yet joined ithe -eal) Year team, was excluded from consideration because she had disc reed with 
Lilly IM 
about the handling of an obscenity case while Ms. 
was an 
29 According to PBPD Chief =, 
the State Attorney initially planned to file no charges 
against Epstein. Following complaints, the SAO planned to charge Epstein with I misdemeanor 
solicitation of adult prostitution charge. Then, after the police chief complained further, the State 
Attorney assertedly presented "multiple charges" to the grand jury, and they "elected" to return an 
indictment charging one felony count of soliciting adult prostitution. The State Attorney did not 
intend to charge an offense requiring sex offender registration and was only seeking I sentence of 
probation. 
Page 34 of 58 
EFTA00225077

he would have to plead guilty, not nob contendere. Third, I researched different terms that Florida 
courts would use that appeared to impose I term of incarceration, but really imposed something 
else, and prohibited those sentences ("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 is lieu of 
imprisonment" (Exhibit 52 at 3 (emphasis added)). Fourth, I included I waiver of the right to 
challenge the Information and an a
 waiver. Fifth, I included I requirement that Epstein would 
have to provide the USAO with I copy of his plea agreement with the SAO before he signed it. 
Sixth, I required Epstein to use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea within approximately 30 
days and an agreement that that term (like all others) was material. Seventh, I included an 
agreement that Epstein would not be afforded any gain time benefits different from any other 
inmate, and that he would provide an accounting of gain time if asked. Finally, "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" (id. at 6). 
In addition to the terms of the NPA, the agents and I also did our best to make sure that 
Epstein would be serving jail time like an one else. Prior to the September 12, 2007 meeting at 
the State Attorney's Office, I spoke with 
and emailed Jeff 
about research I 
had conducted on Florida sentencing practices to avoid "trucks up the sleeves of the defense" 
(Exhibit 46 at I.) Normally 
defendant who is sentenced to I term of prison in excess of 12 
months must go to I state prison. The Office did not object to "splitting" Epstein's sentence into 
two pieces — 12 months followed by 6 months - so that he would be eligible to be housed at the 
Palm Beach County Jail. All of us were, however, insistent that Mr. Epstein would actually serve 
out his term at the jail like any other prisoner. At the September 12, 2007 me
g with the State 
Attorney's Office, this issue was specifically addressed, and State Attorney 
assured us 
that Epstein would be at the Palm Beach County Jail (it is referred to as "Gun Club" because it is 
located on Gun Club Road). I remember that they discussed that Epstein would be kept in solitary 
confinement "for his own safety." 
After that meeting, the case agents went to meet with the jail about the issue of work 
release. I do not recall the exact date. On November 14, 2007, I sought FAUSA 
permission to meet with State Attorney 
after ASA 
stood up the agents few 
times. 
The purpose of my meeting was "to clear up the issue regarding sex offender 
registration/work release and also should be able to tell us whether I plea and sententhirin be 
scheduled this month" (Exhibit 72). FAUSA 
and Acting MAUSA 
had 
conversations with the State Attorney and Jay Lefkowitz who both confirmed that Epstein would 
"be I sex offender and he'll be treated like any other sex offender" (Exhibit 76 at 2). On November 
16, 2007, the case agents met with ASA Belohlavek who said that Epstein would be housed at the 
Palm Beach County Jail, so the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office would be in charge of whether Epstein 
would be eligible for work release (id. at 1). Special Agent 
confirmed on November 16, 
2007 that Epstein would not qualify for work release as I sex offender unless the judge specially 
ordered it (id.). 
As noted above, when we learned that Epstein's attorneys were negotiating I new deal with 
the State Attorney's Office, 
and I firmly informed Epstein's attorneys and the 
State Attorney's Office that there was 
signed agreement. While they were free to negotiate 
whatever they wanted, the terms they were discussing violated the NPA. 
Page 35 of 58 
EFTA00225078

In June 2008, when Epstein had exhausted his appeals to the DAG, in accordance with the 
NPA, I asked to see the plea agreement that his attorneys had negotiated with the State Attorney's 
Office to insure that it was consistent with the NPA (Exhibit 77). After I number of requests to 
',
Mack and Jack Goldberger, I finally received the document (id.). After conferrinraan 
who had previously worked at the Palm Beach County SAO, and with FAUSA 
informed Messrs. Goldberger and Black that the agreement was insufficient because it did not 
specify that the defendant was supposed to serve his sentence in I custodial setting (id.). After 
providing the written notice, Mr. Goldberger agreed to make the change (id.) Goldberger also 
called me and "'swore' [his word] that Epstein would be in custody 24-hours-I-day during the 
community confinement portion of the sentence" (Exhibit 79). 
The agents also confirmed with local officers that the language in the state plea agreement 
suggested that Epstein would be at the Palm Beach County Detention Center, 
the Palm Beach 
County Jail, and that, during their meeting with PBSO Col. Gauger several months before, he had 
assured them that Epstein would be ineligible for work release 
xhibit 80 . Nonetheless, we 
decided that we would go meet with the Colonel together. 
joined us, and we 
learned that, despite the language in the agreement, Epstein was housed at the stockade rather than 
the jail (I lower security "camp-style" facility) (Exhibit 81). Gauger also told us that Epstein 
would be eligible for work release and will be placed on work release — directly contradicting what 
he had told the agents I few months before (id.).3° We asked Col. Gauger to let us know if Epstein 
did, in fact, apply for work release. 
We never received any notice ofas 
application. Instead, on November 20, 2008, 
when Gauger stopped by to see 
on another matter he told her that Epstein had 
been on work release for the past few weeks (Exhibit 82). Sil 
spoke with the work 
release coordinator who told her that he was led to believe that the USAO and FBI knew that 
Epstein had applied for the program. He also said that he had been threatened with being sued if 
he didn't allow Epstein to participate (id.) I reviewed my emails and notes of conversations with 
Black, Goldberger, and other defense counsel about Epstein being incarcerated for the full 18 
months (except for credit for "gain time"). Criminal Chief 
advised me to determine if there 
was sufficient support to show I breach. After correspondence with Roy Black and I telephone 
conference with Mr. Black and Jay Leflcowitz, we were advised that USA Acosta had informed 
Mr. Lefkowitz31 that Epstein could be considered for any Erogram that was available to other 
prisoners. At that point, I was unable to press forward with I breach, so I conducted an in-depth 
review of Epstein's application and found numerous false statements that, in my opinion, should 
have made the Sheriff's Office reverse its position regarding work release. I drafted I letter 
cataloguing all of the misstatements and conflicts of interest (e.g., Epstein's work release 
supervisor was one of his employees who lived in New Jersey) and submitted it to the Sheriff's 
Office (Exhibits 83 and 84). I never received I response from the Sheriff's Office. 
3° Gauger also said that Jack Goldberger had threatened that "Ken Starr and the whole 
crew" would sue the jail if Epstein received less favorable treatment than others (id.). 
31 I do not recall whether Alan Dershowitz or Ken Starr also was present for this meeting, 
but no one else from the USAO was present. 
Page 36 of 58 
EFTA00225079

9. Describe all efforts made by you, or by anyone else within the USAO, to ensure 
that Mr. Epstein complied with the terms of the non-prosecution agreement 
(including its addendum) that he signed. Include in your response I discussion 
of all breaches of the agreement by Mr. Epstein of which the USAO was aware, 
and explain why the USAO decided not to rescind the agreement as 
I
 
consequence of such non-compliance, who was involved in that decision, and 
how the decision was made. 
Many instances of notices of breach have been catalogued throughout this letter, as well as 
my efforts to force Epstein to abide by the terms of the NPA prior to declaring I breach (e.g., 
resisting efforts to change the state plea to one that did not require sex offender registration; 
requiring Epstein's counsel to provide us with copies of the state plea agreement before the plea; 
requiring the appointment of the attorney-representative who representative the victims; etc.). The 
attempt to declare I breach in connection with Epstein's application for work release is discussed 
above. 
In June 2009, Epstein and his lawyers tried to dismiss I lawsuit filed in the Southern 
District of Florida by the attorney-representative on behalf of one of the identified victims that 
raised I single claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. I prepared I lengthy memorandum analyzing why 
Epstein's actions were I breach and seeking permission to serve I breach letter (Exhibit 85). The 
Office approved the request to serve the breach letter. At the same time, the indictment package 
was re-reviewed and approved (Exhibit 86). The notice of breach letter was served on June 12, 
2009 (Exhibit 87). Epstein promptly "cured" the breach, but I took the opportunity to catalogue 
his past breaches and advised that continuing on that course of conduct would no longer be 
tolerated (Exhibit 88). Perhaps sensing that the Office's patience had waned, perhaps having 
gained I greater understanding (through the civil litigation) of the strength of the potential criminal 
case, Epstein's counsel expressed I greater interest in avoiding problems. While I demurred on 
their request that I essentially offer "advisory opinions," I suggested that Mr. Epstein should "take 
all of his obligations seriously and elect to err on the side of caution in making decisions that relate 
to the performance of his duties" (Exhibit 89). 
In consideration of my warnings, Mr. Black contacted the USAO to advise us in advance 
that Mr. Epstein was seeking to transfer his community control to the Virgin Islands and wanted 
our position (Exhibit 90). Having the experience of all of the false statements on Epstein's 
application for work release, I immediately sought the application from Mr. Goldberger, but it was 
never provided. I became concerned that Epstein's attorneys would use the delay engendered by 
Mr. Goldberger's failure to provide me with the application as I bar to any objection, so I provided 
I letter with preliminary objections (Exhibit 91). I noted that: "Throughout the negotiation of the 
NPA, representations were repeatedly made by you and your colleagues that Mr. Epstein would 
serve his complete sentence, including community control, in Palm Beach County. During his 
change of plea and sentencing, Mr. Epstein told the Court that he intended to remain in Palm Beach 
County during his period of community control — I fact that was important to Judge Pucillo in 
making her decision whether or not to accept the plea agreement. Mr. Epstein's presence in Palm 
Beach County was important to the Court, our Office, and, presumably, the State Attorney's 
Office, because it allowed all of these entities to monitor Mr. Epstein's performance of his 
obligations. Relocating to the Virgin Islands, where Mr. Epstein lives on I private island without 
any independent law enforcement presence, would eliminate that ability" (id.). Following my 
letter, Mr. Epstein did not follow through on his application to transfer to the Virgin Islands. 
Page 37 of 58 
EFTA00225080

10. Identify any cases in which you have been involved as an 
or of which 
you were otherwise aware, that were resolved through 
non-prosecution 
agreement. 
I have not been involved in, nor am I aware of, any other cases that have been resolved via 
I non-prosecution agreement. On one occasion, in m eighteen years with the Justice Department, 
I recommended I Pre-Trial Diversion agreement for I doctor who wrote and filled I small number 
of fraudulent opioid prescriptions that she took herself for her post-cancer pain. 
The 
recommendation was vetted and approved through the chain of command in accordance with 
Department policy (the USAM) and the USAO's Criminal Circular. 
B. CVRA Compliance 
1. Describe your understanding of any USAO, Department, or FBI policy or 
practice regarding victim notification rights, obligations, or procedures that 
were in effect from the time the federal investigation of Mr. Epstein began to 
the time that he entered his state plea, including the applicability of the CVRA 
to cases resolved through non-prosecution agreements, and identify the 
source(s) of such understanding. Explain when and how you became aware of 
such policy or practice. Describe your prior experience notifying victims 
under the CVRA. Explain whether and how victim notifications in the Epstein 
case departed from the USAO's general practice. 
My understanding of USAO/DOJ victim notifications policies that were in effect in 2006-
2007 had come from my own work on PSC cases. I do not recall receiving any training from the 
USAO on the CVRA or the AG's Guidelines on Victims' Rights prior to the Epstein case. I was 
familiar with the CVRA, the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act, and other pieces of victims' 
rights legislation, primarily from two prior cases that I had handled. In United States I. 0 Weil, I 
I
had litigated the Office's first case where 
defendant objected to I victim impact statement. It 
was I case where I 41-year-old man gave lethal overdose of heroin to his 23-year-old girlfriend. 
The victim's mother, other family members, and the owner of the rehab center where the defendant 
had recruited the victim all asked to address the Court. I cited the CVRA and other statutes to 
support the Court's authority to hear from them. The second case was United States.. Oliver, 
which was the Office's first case seeking the appointment of I guardian ad litem (GAL). Through 
these cases, I researched statutes, cases, the USAM, and the AG Guidelines. I recall that the 
Guidelines were often described themselves as I floor, not I ceiling. See, e.g., Attorney General 
Guideline for Victim and Witness Assistance (May 2005) at 8 (". strong presumption exists in 
favor of providing rather than withholding assistance and services to victims and witnesses of 
crime."). Like most PSC prosecutors and investigators, the agents and I treated the AG's 
Guidelines as I floor and tried to provide I higher standard of contact. 
That is why, during the Epstein investigation, victim rights notification letters were 
provided at the first meeting between the agents and victims encouraging victims to contact me 
directly with questions and concerns. Throughout the investigation, I tried to meet in person with 
as many victims as possible and talk through their concerns. Many were afraid of Mr. Epstein; 
many were afraid that their reputations would be ruined; almost all wanted to just put the episode(s) 
behind them. Some had not even told their parents about what had happened and did not want 
Page 38 of 58 
EFTA00225081

their arents to know. Several girls needed counselin
d at least one attempted suicide. S/As 
and 
, Victim-Witness Specialist, and I all worked to find counseling 
for those who wanted it throu 
Palm Beach County Victim Services, and I reported the issues to 
(when he was still in West Palm Beach), and Jeff 
. I also 
recall sending and receiving emails regarding the emotional toll on the victims when agents and I 
enquired into the status of the indictment review. 
With regard to specific office procedures at the time of the Epstein investigation, there was 
no victim-witness coordinator in West Palm Beach and no standardized way to do any victim 
notifications prior to indictment. Our Office's procedure — which was still being developed at the 
time of the Epstein investigation — required I victim list to be submitted along with the indictment 
package. That victim list would be used to notify victims of upcoming court proceedings — to the 
extent that those upcoming court dates appeared in the case tracking system used at the time. 
Conferring with victims regarding plea negotiations could not happen through that victim 
notification system, so my practice, when possible, was to ask agents to work with me to contact 
victims about I potential plea. I also asked agents to work with me to notify victims of court dates 
because I knew there was I delay with the victim notification system. For example, often 
defendant will decide the day before or the day of calendar call or trial to plead guilty. If it is 
case with victims, like I bank robbery case, the agents and I will do our best to contact the victims 
to advise and confer, and to invite the victims to appear at the change of plea if they wish. The 
victims also are informed that they will have the opportunity to give victim impact statement for 
purposes of sentencing. 
In child exploitations cases where there has been I lot of contact with the victims, these 
last-minute interactions are less likely. 
I usually discuss potential plea scenarios with the 
parents/victims/GALs in advance and the judges aren't as rushed. The exception is child 
pornography possession/distribution cases, where the victims often are not identified prior to the 
plea.32 Especially during the time of the Epstein investigation, the procedures for identifying 
victims in child pornography cases were in their infancy. Now, victims from many child 
pornography "series" have been identified and have attorney contact information for purposes of 
restitution. CEOS' 
s the national expert in this area. 
To summarize, my understanding of my obligation was: to do my best to notify victims of 
upcoming court proceedings and to make them feel welcome to — but not obligated to — participate 
(unless subpoenaed, of course); to guard their privacy and help them navigate the process to come 
out as unscathed as possible; to insure their safety from interference from the defendant; to listen 
to their desires in terms of prosecution, plea, and sentencing and balance that with the other factors 
that go into prosecutorial discretion33 in making decisions about the case; and to be mindful that 
decisions that I and the Office made would impact them. I understood that conferring with the 
victims did not mean that I had to agree with them or that they could override an Office decision. 
For example, in the Oliver case, we had I plea offer for I lengthy sentence. The victim's father 
believed that we should take the case to trial. The GAL and I did not believe that, given the age 
32 These are cases where the defendant is not believed to be involved in the production of 
the child pornography. 
33 Those other factors include the need to do justice, to deter the defendant and others, and 
to consider the impact of the prosecution on the local and national community. 
Page 39 of 58 
EFTA00225082

of the defendant, it made sense to put the victim, who was, I believe, 9 years' old at the time, 
through the stress of I trial. After conferring with my supervisor, we decided to go forward with 
the change of plea. The victim's father and the GAL made victim-impact statements and, in the 
end, the judge imposed I sentence of 140 years' imprisonment followed by lifetime supervised 
release. 
With regard to the Epstein investigation in particular, the handling of victim notifications 
varied from my understanding and my practice in two significant ways. First, it never occurred to 
me that this was not I situation where conferring with the victims was required. I specifically 
informed the Office in writing on two occasions and orally on other occasions, that I thought the 
victims should be consulted before entering into the Non-Prosecution Agreement.34 The first of 
these written reminders was in Jul 2007 when I learned that Criminal Chief 
had engaged 
in plea discussions with Lilly 
(Exhibit 3.) The second was in early September 2007 
after my discussion with CEOS Chief Drew 
re arding this subject. (Exhibit 44.) Later, 
I believe after the NPA was already signed, Jeff 
told me that the Office had taken the 
position in other cases that there is no obligation to confer in the absence of the filing of I federal 
case, but I don't recall discussing that at the time. 35 I had never before used I non-prosecution 
34 As I noted in my filings in the Jane Doe. United States litigation, I had concerns about 
informing the victims that part of the negotiations involved securing for them the right to obtain 
damages from Epstein until we knew that Epstein would, in fact, enter into and perform his 
obligations under the NPA. As stated above, during the State investigation, Epstein's counsel had 
frequently accused the victims of faking or exaggerating their statements for purposes of civil 
damages claims. In I deposition for one of the civil suits, one of Epstein's lawyers later falsely 
accused Jeff 
and me of telling I victim that she could get damages from Epstein if she told 
the FBI that Epstein had assaulted her. (I can locate and redact this transcript.) I nevertheless 
believed that we could and should have discussed other aspects of the NPA with them — that is, 
the state guilty plea, sex offender registration, and the sentence. The AG Guidelines specifically 
take into account situations like this, so I could have discussed jail time, sex offender registration, 
avoiding trial, the right to address the court at sentencing, but, applying my discretion, decided not 
to tell them about the monetary portion of the agreement. See 2005 AG Guidelines at 30 ("In 
determining what is reasonable [in notifying identified victims about prospective plea 
negotiations] the responsible official should consider factors relevant to the wisdom and 
practicality of giving notice and considering views in the context of the particular case, including, 
but not limited to, . . . [w]hether the victim is I possible witness in the case and the effect that 
relating any information may have on the defendant's right to I fair trial."). 
35 Regardless of that position, as noted earlier, the decision to resolve the case through I 
non-prosecution agreement was made by Chief 
and his email of July 5, 2007 informed 
me that he was the person vested with the discretion to vary from any Department policy and that 
he had undertaken his actions with USA Acosta's knowledge. I relied upon their knowledge of 
the CVRA and exercise of discretion on this issue. (See Exhibit 3; see also 2005 AG Guidelines 
at 10-11 ("Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 106074, the Attorney General is request to designate persons 
in the Department of Justice who will be responsible for identifying the victims of crime and 
performing the services described in that section. These persons are referred to as `responsible 
officials' in the statute and throughout these AG Guidelines. ... Responsible officials may delegate 
their responsibilities under these AG Guidelines to subordinates in appropriate circumstances, but 
Page 40 of 58 
EFTA00225083