EFTA00184224

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GamE931153aw8i0MIEWANII Thaurneilt3/3215615 EEnttereati con FFILSID0Thealkat0:87/110=6 Rum° Mal f 
85 
122. An illustration of this problem comes from page 12 of the first privilege log (DE el), 
with regard to Box #2 P-008616 to P-008686. The entry reads: "File folder entitled `FBI 
Summary Charts' containing chart prepared at direction of AUSA, containing victims names, 
identifying information, summary of activity, and other information relevant to indictment." 
This does not appear to be a document that was ever presented to the grand jury or that directly 
discloses grand jury proceedings. Moreover, to the extent that it involves some kind of limited 
disclosure of grand jury proceedings, that limited disclosure could be redacted and the other 
information provided to the victims. 
123. It does not appear that any of the alleged grand jury materials that the Government is 
asserting privilege involve on-going grand jury issues. Moreover, it does not appear that 
disclosing any of the materials would "tip off' a potential target to a Government investigation. 
Of course, Jeffrey Epstein (and his associates) are well aware of the Government's investigation 
into their crimes against young girls for sexual purposes. 
124. 
The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the 
documents to the victims. If the Government raises any such harm, I respectfully request an 
opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm. 
Privacy Rights of Other Victims 
125. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 do not seek confidential or identifying information 
about any other victims. To clarify that fact, on July 31, 2013, I sent a letter to the Government 
stating, in part, that "to avoid any interference with any privacy rights of victims who are not 
parties to this litigation, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are not seeking any identifying 
information about other victims. In any of the documents that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have 
requested the Government produce, the Government should not produce the names of other 
victims or other identifying information (e.g., address or telephone number) but should instead 
redact that information." 
I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is 
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 
Executed this 16th day of August, 2013. 
/s/ Bradley J. Edwards 
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. 
Attachments: 
1. October 3, 2011, request for production; 
2. June 24, 2013, supplemental request for production; and 
3. Victims' Requests for Admissions and Government Answers 
24 
EFTA00184797

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

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

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

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

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

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-67 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 4 
• 
• 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Honorable R. Alexander 
October 23, 2007 
Page 3 
many of these individuals are in fact over the age of 18, some as old as 24 years old, which 
largely obviates the need to appoint a representative for the identified individuals. 
M, this letter is not intended and is in no way a rescission or withdrawal from the terms 
of the Agreement. We instead request dialogue rather than the imperative of executing the 
addendum to the Agreement by 5:00 PM today. Absent such dialogue, and absent an extension 
of the deadline of 5:00 PM today, we have no choice except to adopt the Addendum as written 
s
will do so. We do not, however, agree with all of the language in your draft letter to Judge 
Since this letter is neither an extension of the Agreement nor of its Addendum, we do 
object to its being sent to Judge 
absent further discussion. 
If there is any way we can promptly resolve the issues I address above, please let me 
know. I know that you have tired of working on this matter, and I certainly share your desire to 
put this Agreement to bill 
simply do not know how to proceed at this point in light of the 
concerns raised by Mr. 
proposal. 
I look forward to resolving this matter as soon as possible. 
Sincerely, 
Jay P. tZtkowitz 
RFP MIA 000491 
EFTA00184803