EFTA00230494

Memorandum 
Subject 
Jane Does Nos. 1 and 2.'. United States, 
Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.) 
Daft 
April 26, 2011 
To 
From 
Assistant Counsel 
Office of Professional Responsibility 
U.S. Department of Justice 
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 
99 N.E. 4th Street 
Miami, Florida 33132 
Attached please fmd a CD-ROM containing the victims' Motion for Finding of 
Violations of the Crime Victims Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies 
(unredacted), and a complete set of exhibits, including the e-mails in Exhibit A. The e-mails in 
Exhibit A are between Epstein's defense attorney and AUSA Villafaba. They were produced in 
civil litigation between Epstein and some of his victims. Epstein's attorneys redacted their side 
of the e-mail transmission. I will attempt to obtain a complete set, which includes the 
transmission from Epstein's attorneys. 
If you have any questions, please call me 
Thank you. 
Enclosure 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000670 
EFTA00230494

Case 9:08-cv-8073§-KAM Document 48 
Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 42 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
Case No. 08-80736-CW-Marra/Johnson 
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 
I. 
UNITED STATES 
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF 
THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON 
APPROPRIATE REMEDIES 
COME NOW Jane Doe HI and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and 
through undersigned counsel, to move for a finding from this Court that the victims' rights under 
the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, have been violated by the U.S. 
Attorney's Office, and to request a hearing on the appropriate remedies for these violations. 
The victims have proffered a series of facts to the Government, which they have ailed to 
contest. Proceeding on the basis of these facts,' it is clear that the U.S. Attorney's Office has 
repeatedly violated the victims' protected CVRA rights, including their right to confer with 
prosecutors generally about the case and specifically about a non-prosecution agreement the 
Office signed with the defendant, as well as their right to fair treatment. 
See 18 U.S.C. 
3771(8)(5) & (8). 
It is now beyond dispute, for example, that in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's 
Office formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his 
I The victims are contemporaneously filing a motion to have their facts accepted by the 
Court 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000671 
EFTA00230495

1 
,••• •Sle7 
- - 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 42 
prosecution for numerous federal sex offenses he committed against the victims (as well as 
against many other minor girls). Rather than confer with the victims about this non-prosecution 
agreement, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein agreed to a "confidentiality" 
provision in the agreement barring its disclosure to anyone — including the victims. For the next 
nine months, as Epstein was well aware, the U.S, Attorney's Office assiduously concealed from 
the victims the existence of this signed non-prosecution agreement indeed, the Office went so 
far as to send (in January 2008) a false victim notification letter to the victims informing them • 
that the "case is currently under investigation." In fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office had already 
resolved the case three months earlier by signing the non-prosecution agreement. Again on May 
30, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent yet another victim notification letter to a recognized 
victim informing her that the "case is currently under investigation" and that it "can be a lengthy 
process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." 
Then in June 2008, on the eve of consummating Epstein's state guilty plea that was part of the 
non-prosecution agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office asked legal counsel for the victims to 
send a letter expressing the victims' views on why federal charges should be filed — not 
disclosing to the victims' legal counsel that this was a pointless exercise because the non-
prosecution agreement had already been signed some nine months earlier. 
These actions and many more like them constitute clear violations of Jane Doe #1 and 
Jane Doe #2's rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act, including the right to confer with 
prosecutors and the right to fair treament. The only argument that the U.S. Attorney's Office 
advances is that the CVRA does not apply because no indictment was formally filed in this case. 
But this position is inconsistent with both the CVRA's plain language, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 
2 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000672 
EFTA00230496

1 
, . 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 
Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 42 
3771(e)(I) (Justice Department agencies involved in the "detection" and "investigation" of 
federal crimes covered by CVRA), and with persuasive case law, see, e.g.i ih ; Dean, 5 
F.3d 
391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008) (victims should have been notified before pre-indictrnifirrs ea reached). 
Moreover, the U.S. Attorney's Office itself was fully aware of its obligations to notify the 
victims in this case, as e-mails from the Office and other evidence make perfectly clear. The 
only reason that the Office concealed the existence of the non-prosecution agreement ftom the 
victims was not to comply with some legal restriction, but rather to avoid a firestorm of public 
controversy that would have erupted if the sweetheart plea deal with a politically-connected 
billionaire had been revealed. 
The Court should accordingly find that the U.S. Attorney's Office — in coordination with 
Jeffrey Epstein — has violated the Act and set a briefing schedule and hearing on the proper 
remedy for those violations. 
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 
Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 offer the following statement of undisputed material facts. 
If the Government disputes any of these facts, the victims request an evidentiary hearing to prove 
each and every one of them:2
1. Between about 2001 and 2007, defendant Jeffrey Epstein (a billionaire with significant 
political connections) sexually abused more than 30 minor girls at his mansion in West Palm 
2 The Court should accept all these facts as true for reasons the victims explain in their 
contemporaneously-filed Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted 
Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of The Facts. The Court should also direct 
the Government to produce all evidence that it possesses supporting these facts, for reasons the 
victims explain in their contemporaneously-filed Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for 
Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence. 
3 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000673 
EFTA00230497

I 
r• ->":::::;;,:fir 
- 
rff-PA5-' 
Case 9:O8-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 42 
Beach, Florida, and elsewhere. Among the girls he sexually abused were Jane Doe #1 and Jane 
Doe #2. Epstein performed repeated lewd, lascivious, and sexual acts on them, including (but 
not limited to) masturbation, touching of their sexual organs, using vibrators or sexual toys on 
them, coercing them into sexual acts, and digitally penetrating them. Because Epstein used a 
means of interstate cotnmerce and knowingly traveled in interstate commerce to engage in abuse 
of Jane Doc NI and Jane Doe #2 (and the other victims), he committed violations of federal law, 
including repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. See. e.g., Complaint, E.W.i. Epstein, Case 
No. 50 2008 CA 028058 XXXXMB AB (l5th Cir. Palm Beach County, Florida); Complaint, 
L.M.I. Epstein, Case No 50 2008 CA 028051 =ma AB (15th Cir. Palm Beach Count, 
Florida). 
2. Jeffrey Epstein flew at least one underage girl on his private jet for the purpose of 
forcing her to have sex with him and others. Epstein forced this underage girl to be sexually 
exploited by his adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, businessmen, and professional 
and personal acquaintances. Complaint, Jane Doe No. 102 I. Epstein, No. 9:09-CV-80656-
KAM (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2009). 
3. In 2006, at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation opened an investigation into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein and his personal 
assistants had used facilities of interstate commerce to induce young girls between the ages of 
thirteen and seventeen to engage in prostitution, among other offenses. The case was presented 
to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which accepted the 
case for investigation. The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office was also investigating 
4 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000674 
EFTA00230498

rannrenr—
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 5 of 42 
the case. See generally U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "A" to this filing (hereinafter 
cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates page number stamp). 
4. The FBI soon determined that both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #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. Jane Doe #1, for 
example, provided detailed information about her abuse (and the abuse of Jane Doe #2) to the 
FBI on August 7,2007. Exhibit "B." 
5. More generally, the FBI through diligent investigation established that Epstein 
operated a large criminal enterprise that used paid employees and underlings to repeatedly find 
and bring minor girls to him. Epstein worked in concert as part of the enterprise with others, 
including Ghislane Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel, to obtain minor girls not only for his own 
sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others. The FBI determined that 
Epstein had committed dozens and dozens of federal sex crimes against dozens of minor girls 
between 2001 and 2007. They presented information to the U.S. Attorney's Office for criminal 
prosecution, See Exhibit "B"; U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 47-55. 
6. On about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe #1 a standard CVRA 
victim notification letter. The notification promised that the Justice Department would makes its 
"best efforts" to protect Jane Doe #1's rights, including "(IN, 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." That notification meant that the FBI had identified Jane 
Doe #1 as a victim of a federal offense and as someone protected by the CVRA. Jane Doe #1 
5 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000675 
EFTA00230499

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doeurneet 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 42 
relied on these representations and believed that the Justice Department would protect these 
rights and keep her informed about the progress of her case. See Exhibit "C." 
7. On about August 11, 2007, Jane Doe #2 received a standard CVRA victim notification 
letter. The notification promised that the Justice Department would makes its "best efforts" to 
protect Jane Doe #2's rights, including "Mlle 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 "felt this time, your case is 
under investigation." That notification meant that the FBI had identified Jane Doe #2 as a victim 
of a federal offense and as someone protected by the CVRA. Jane Doe #2 relied on these 
representations and believed that the Justice Department would protect these rights and keep her 
informed about the progress of her case. See Exhibit "D." 
8. Early in the investigation, the FBI agents and an Assistant U.S. Attorney had several 
meetings with Jane Doe #1. Jane Doe #2 was represented by counsel that was paid for by the 
criminal target Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. 
9. In and around September 2007, plea discussions took place between Jeffrey Epstein, 
represented by numerous attorneys (including lead criminal defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz), and 
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, represented by Assistant U.S. 
Attorney A. Marie Villafana and others. The plea discussions generally began from the premise 
that Epstein would plead guilty to at least one federal felony offense surrounding his sexual 
assaults of more than 30 minor girls. From there, the numerous defense attorneys progressively 
negotiated more favorable terms so that Epstein would ultimately plead to only two state court 
6 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000676 
EFTA00230500

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 7 of 42 
felony offenses and would serve only county jail time. Many of the negotiations are reflected in 
e-mails between Leflcowitz and the U.S. Attorney's Office. See generally Exhibit "A." 
10. 
The evidence supporting these 
charges was overwhelming, including the interlocking consistent testimony of several dozen 
minor girls, all made automatically admissible in a federal criminal sexual assault prosecution by 
operation of Fed. R. Evid. 414. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 4. 
12. The correspondence also shows that the U.S. Attorney's Office was interested in 
finding a place to conclude a plea bargain that would effectively keep the victims from learning 
what was happening through the press. The Office wrote in an e-mail to defense counsel: am 
The 
7 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000677 
EFTA00230501

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 
Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 8 of 42 
U.S. Attorney's Office was aware that most of the victims of Epstein, including Jane Doe #1 and 
Jane Doe 42, resided well outside the Miami area in the West Palm Beach area. The Office was 
also aware that the chances of press coverage of a case filed in Miami would be significantly less 
likely to reach th&Palm Beach area. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 29. 
13. On about September 24, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Jay 
Lefkowitz, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, regarding the agreement. The e-mail stated that 
the Government and Epstein's counsel 
U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 153 (emphases added). 
14. On about September 25, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Leflcowitz 
statingSeallISS 
SS 
U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 156. 
15. On about September 26, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz 
in which she stated• 
B 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000678 
EFTA00230502

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 9 of 42 
RIM 
Apparently the '
greed to between the Government and Epstein's 
defense counsel was that no mention would be made of the non-prosecution agreement between 
the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein, as no subsequent mention was made to the victims of the 
non-prosecution agreement and a confidentiality provision was made part of that agreement (as 
discussed below). U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 359. 
16. On about September 25, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a letter to Jay Jeflcowitt 
in which it suggested that the victims should be represented in civil cases against Epstein by 
someone who was not an experienced 
U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 157. The U.S. Attorney's Office continued to 
push a different attorney in part because it would reduce publicity, explaining that 
Id. 
17. On about September 24, 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office formally 
reached an agreement whereby the United States would defer federal prosecution in favor of 
prosecution by the State of Florida. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office accordingly entered 
into a "Non-Prosecution Agreement" (NPA) reflecting their agreement. Most significantly, the 
NPA gave Epstein a promise that he would not be prosecuted for a series of federal felony 
offenses involving his sexual abuse of more than 30 minor girls. The NPA instead allowed 
Epstein to plead guilty to two state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and 
9 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000679 
EFTA00230503

1 
,:.7Y.Cel 
, re
-37.7:7
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 10 of 42 
procurement of minors for prostitution. The NPA also set up a procedure whereby a victim of 
Epstein's sexual abuse could obtain an attorney to proceed with a civil claim against Epstein, 
provided that the victim agreed to limit damages sought from Epstein. To obtain an attorney 
paid for by Epstein, the victim would have to agree to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 
2255 (i.e., under a law that provided presumed damages of $150,000 against Epstein — an 
amount that Epstein argued later was limited to $50,000). The agreement was signed by Epstein 
and his legal counsel, as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office, on about September 24, 2007. Non-
Prosecution Agreement, Exhibit "E." 
IS. Epstein insisted on, and the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to, a provision in the non-
prosecution agreement that made the agreement secret. In particular, the agreement stated: "The 
parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United 
States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding 
the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making the disclosure." 
By entering into such a confidentiality agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office put itself in a 
position that conferring with the crime victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about 
the non-prosecution agreement would violate terms of the agreement — specifically the 
confidentiality provision. Indeed, even notifying the victims about the agreement would 
presumably have violated the provision. Accordingly, from September 24, 2007 through at least 
June 2008 — a period of more than nine months 
the U.S Attorney's Office did not notify any of 
the victims of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. Epstein was well aware of this 
failure to notify the victims and, indeed, arranged for this failure to notify the victims. Id.; U.S. 
10 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000680 
EFTA00230504

---- 
%.""•"..9 
Case 9:O8-cv-8O736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 11 of 42 
Attorney's Correspondence at 270; Transcript of Hearing in this case on July 11, 2008, at 4-6, 
18-19, 22-23, 28-29 (hereinafter cited as wfr, July 11, 2008"). 
19. A reasonable inference from the evidence is that the U.S. Attorney's Office — pushed 
by Epstein — wanted the non-prosecution agreement kept from public view because of the intense 
public criticism that would have resulted from allowing a politically-connected billionaire who 
had sexually abused more than 30 minor girls to escape from federal prosecution with only a 
county court jail sentence. Another reasonable inference is that the Office wanted the agreement 
concealed at this time because of the possibility that the victims could have objected to the 
agreement in court and perhaps convinced the judge reviewing the agreement not to accept it. 
20. The Non-Prosecution Agreement that had been entered into between the U.S. 
Attorney's Office and Epstein was subsequently modified by an October 2007 Addendum and a 
December 19, 2007, letter from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez. The US. 
Attorney's Office did not confer with any of the victims about these modifiCations of the 
agreement (or even notify them of the existence of these modifications) through at least June 
2008 — a period of more than six months. See Supplemental Declaration of A. Marie Villafafla 
(doe. #35, at 1); U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 234-37; Tr. July 11, 2008, 18-19, 22-23, 28-
29.3
21. In October 2007, shortly after the initial plea agreement was signed, FBI agents 
contacted Jane Doe 01. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents B. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason 
Richards met in person with Jane Doe #1. The Special Agents explained that Epstein would 
3 On about August 14, 2008, Epstein's defense counsel told the U.S. Attorney's Office 
that they did not consider the December 19, 2007, letter to be operative. 
11 
O8-8O736-CV-MARRA 
000681 
EFTA00230505

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Par 12 of 42 
plead guilty to state charges involving another victim, he would be required to register as a sex 
offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages to the 
victims, including Jane Doe #1. During this meeting, the Special Agents did not explain that an 
agreement had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal charges 
against Jane Doe #1. The agents could not have revealed this part of the non-prosecution 
agreement without violating the terms of the non-prosecution agreement. Whether the agents 
themselves had been informed of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement by the U.S. 
Attorney's Office is not certain. Because the plea agreement had already been reached with 
Epstein, the agents made no attempt to secure Jane Doe #1's view on the proposed resolution of 
the case. Exhibit "E," Tr. July 11, 2008 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23. 
22. Jane Doe #1's (quite reasonable) understanding of the Special Agent's explanation 
was that only the State part of the Epstein investigation had been resolved, and that the federal 
investigation would continue, possibly leading to a federal prosecution. Jane Doe #1 also 
understood her own case was move forward towards possible prosecution. Tr. July 11, 2008, at 
4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29. 
23. On about November 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman sent an e-mail to 
Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein. The e-mail stated that the U.S. Attorney's Office 
had an obligation to notify the victims 
12 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000682 
EFTA00230506

7.7 
. 
. 
...•" 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 13 of 42 
U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 255 (emphasis rearranged). 
24. On about November 29, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a draft of a crime victim 
notification letter to Jay Lefkowirz, defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The notification letter 
would have explained: 
The :etter 
wo..ild have gone un to explain 
that Epstein would 
The 
letter would not have explained that, as part of the agreement with Epstein, the Justice 
Department had previously agreed not to prosecute Epstein for any of the numerous federal 
offenses that had been committed. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 256-59. 
25. Because of concerns from Epstein's attorneys, the U.S. Attorney's Office never sent 
the proposed victim notification letter discussed in the previous paragraph to the victims. 
Instead, a misleading letter stating that the case was "currently under investigation" (described 
below) was sent in January 2008 and May 2008. At no time before reaching the non-prosecution 
agreement did the Justice Department notify any victims, including for example Jane Doe NI, 
about the non-prosecution agreement. The victims were therefore prevented from exercising 
their CVRA right to confer with prosecutors about the case and about the agreement. Epstein 
13 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000683 
EFTA00230507

f'"'",%7 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 14 of 42 
was aware of these violations of the CVRA and, indeed, pressured the U.S. Attorney's Office to 
commit those violations. Tr. July 11, 2008, at 9. 
26. On about December 6, 2007, Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney sent a 
letter to Jay Lefkowitz, noting the U.S. Attorney's Office's legal obligations to keep victims 
informed of th 
The letter stated: 
U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 191-92 (emphasis added). 
27. Despite this recognition of its obligation to keep victims 
about the non-prosecution agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not follow through and 
inform the victims of the non-prosecution agreement. To the contrary, as discussed below, it 
continued to tell the victims that the case was "under investigation." Tr. July I I, 2008, at 4.5, 
18-19, 22-29. 
28. On December 13, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, 
defense counsel for Epstein, rebutting allegations that had apparently been made aguinst the 
14 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000684 
EFTA00230508

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 15 of 42 
AUSA handling the cave by the Epstein defense team. (The Justice Department concluded the 
allegations were meritless.) The letter stated that a federal indictment against Epstein a t
The letter also recounted 
that 
U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 269. 
29. The December 13, 2007, letter also reveals that the Justice Department stopped 
making victim notifications because of 
U.S. Attorney's Conespondence at 270 (emphasis added). It was a 
deviation from the Justice Department's standard practice to negotiate with defense counsel 
about the extent of crime victim notifications. 
30. The December 13, 2007, letter also demonstrates that the Justice Department was well 
aware of who the victims of Epstein's sexual offenses were. The Justice Department was 
prepared to make notifications to the victims, but suspended those notifications only because 
objections from defense counsel. Id 
31. The December 13, 2007, letter reveals it would have been possible to confer with the 
victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The U.S. Attorney's Office was fully able to 
15 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000685 
EFTA00230509

. Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21'2011 Page 16 of 42 
confer with Epstein's counsel about the parameters of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, but 
refused to confer with Epstein's victims about the Agreement. Id 
32. Following the signing of the Agreement and the modifications thereto, Epetein's 
performance was delayed while he sought higher level review within the Department oflustice. 
See U.S. Attorney's Correspondence passim. A reasonable inference from the evidence is that 
Epstein used his significant political and social connections to lobby the Justice Department to 
avoid significant federal prosecution. The Justice Department has in its possession internal 
documents (i.e., phone logs, ernails, etc.) that would reveal the event of those lobbying efforts. 
The Justice Department, however, has refused to make these materials available to the victims. 
33. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI 
advising them that "ftlids case is currently under• investigation. This can be a lengthy process 
and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Exhibits 
"F" & "G." The statement in the notification letter was misleading and, in fact, false. The case 
was not currently "under investigation." To the contrary, the federal cases involving Jane Doe 
#1 and Jane Doe #2 had 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 
• #1 or Jane Doe #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 Southern 
District of Florida. Exhibit "E." Whether the FBI was aware of this fact at this time is unclear. 
In any event, the FBI was acting at the direction of the U.S. Attorney's Office, which clearly did 
not confer with Jane Doe 41 and Jane Doe #2 about the case and, by concealing the true state of 
affairs, and failed to treat Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 with fairness. Epstein was aware of 
16 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000686 
EFTA00230510

• 
. 
.1 
•:•••,•/./..".•.•.• • 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 17 of 42 
these actions of the U.S. Attorney's Office and, indeed, solicited these actions of the U.S. 
Attorney's Office. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 191-92, 270. 
34. Jane Doe it and Jane Doe #2 relied on the representations of the U.S. Attorney's 
Office to their detriment Had they known the true facts of the case — i.e., that Epstein had 
negotiated a non-prosecution agreement — they would have taken steps to object to that 
agreement. Tr. July 11, 2008 at 4-6, 18-19,28-29. 
35. Undersigned counsel believes that the FBI was lead to believe that their investigation 
of Epstein was going to lead to a federal criminal prosecution and that the FBI was also mislead 
by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. 
36. In early 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 believed that criminal prosecution of 
Epstein was extremely important. They also desired to be consulted by the FBI and/or other 
representatives of the federal government about the pt isecution of Epstein. In light of the letters 
that they had received around January 10, they believed that a criminal investigation of Epstein 
was on-going — including investigation into Epstein's crimes against them -• and that they would 
be contacted before the federal government reached any final resolution of that investigation. Tr. 
July 11,2008, at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29. 
37. On January 31, 2008, Jane Doe #1 met with FBI Agents and AUSA's from the U.S. 
Attorney's Office. She provided additional details of Epstein's sexual abuse of her. The 
AUSA's did not disclose to Jane Doe #1 at this meeting (or any other meeting) that they had 
already negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Exhibit "H." 
38. On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay 
Lefkowitz, Epstein's criminal defense counsel, explaining that the Justice Department's Child 
17 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000687 
EFTA00230511

3 
2.7971"..r.w/ 
• 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 18 of 42 
Exploitation Obscenity Section (CEOS) had agreed to review Epstein's objections to the 
proposed plea agreement that had been reached with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern 
District of Florida. The letter indicated that, should CEOS reject Epstein's objections to the 
agreement, then 
U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 
39. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an Epstein 
victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that "Mk case 
is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued 
patience while wo conduct a thorough investigation." Exhibit "1." The statement in the 
notification letter was misleading and, in fact, false. 
The case was not currently "under 
investigation." To the contrary, the case had been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement 
entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously. Exhibit t." 
40. In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted the AUSA handling the case to inform her 
that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. Mr. Edwards asked to meet to provide 
information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims, hoping to 
secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. The AUSA and Mr. Edwards discussed 
the possibility of federal charges being filed. At the end of the call, the AUSA asked Mr. 
Edwards to send any information that he wanted considered by the U.S. Attorney's Office in 
determining whether to file federal charges. Because of the confidentiality provision that existed 
in the plea agreement, Mr. Edwards was not informed that previously, in September 2007, the 
U.S. Attorney's Office had reached an agreement not to file federal charges. Mr. Edwards was 
18 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000688 
EFTA00230512

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ifiC
eisr• • 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 19 of 42 
also not informed that resolution of the criminal matter was imminent. This concealment 
prevented Edwards from (among other things) exercising his client's CVRA right to confer with 
the prosecutors about the case. Epstein was aware of this concealment — and, indeed, sought this 
concealment. Tr. July 11.2008, at 4-6, 13.19, 22-23, 28-29. 
41. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., the U.S. Attorney's Office 
received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was 
scheduled for 8:30 a.m., on Monday, June 30, 2008. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the Palm 
Beach Police Department attempted to provide notification to victims in the short time that 
Epstein's counsel had provided. The U.S. Attorney's Office called attorney Edwards to provide 
notice to his clients regarding the hearing. The notice, however, was only that Epstein was 
pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving another victim. The U.S. 
Attorney's Office did not tell Edwards that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to.
the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement. Thus, there was no reason 
for attorney Edwards to believe that the guilty pleas in state court had any bearing on the cases of 
Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. As a result, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 did not attend the plea 
hearing, as they did not think that it was pertinent to their particular cases. Had they known that 
the plea agreement made it impossible to prosecute Epstein federally for• his crimes against them, 
they would have objected to this resolution. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 thus detrimentally 
relied on the inaccurate representations of the U.S. Attorney's Office that their cases were still 
under investigation. Tr. July 11, 2008 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23. 
42. On June 30, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Jack Goldberger, 
criminal defense counsel for Epstein, reflecting continuing efforts to keep the NM secret 
19 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000689 
EFTA00230513