EFTA00230786

U
,, 
S.J.QUINNEY 
COLLEGE OF LAW 
THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAI I 
'Wifredo A. Ferrer 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
99 N.E.4th Street 
Miami, FL 33132 
PAUL G. CASSELL 
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law 
Telephone: 
December 10, 2010 
Re: 
Request for Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Prosecution 
Dear Mr. Ferrer: 
I am writing as someone with extensive experience in the federal criminal justice system 
— as a former Associate Deputy Attorney General, Assistant United States Attorney, federal 
judge, and currently criminal law professor — to alert you to what seems to be the most 
suspicious criminal case I have ever encountered. I ask that you investigate whether there were 
improper influences and actions during your office's criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, 
particularly regarding the decision to enter into a binding non-prosecution agreement blocking 
his prosecution for numerous federal sex offenses he committed over many years against more 
than thirty minor girls. 
As I am sure you are well aware, in 2006 your office opened a criminal investigation with 
the FBI into allegations that for years Jeffrey Epstein sexual abused dozens of minor girls in his 
West Palm Beach mansion. The FBI soon developed compelling evidence that Epstein had in 
fact committed numerous federal sex offenses with more than 30 minor girls. And yet, your 
office ultimately entered into a plea arrangement which allowed Epstein escape with a non-
prosecution agreement that ensured he would have no federal criminal liability and would 
spend no more than 18 months in state jail. For sexual offenses of this magnitude — in a case 
with more than 30 witnesses providing interlocking testimony, all made automatically 
admissible by virtue of Fed. R. Evid. 414 —this is an extraordinary outcome. 
Why did your office enter into this highly unusual non-prosecution arrangement with 
Epstein? Suspicion begins with the point that Epstein is a politically-connected billionaire. But 
that wouldn't be troubling without considerable other evidence that something went terribly 
wrong with the prosecution for other, improper reasons. Consider the following highly unusual 
facts: 
First, it appears that Epstein was tipped off before th
xecution ofTfCaritiwsrrefrar------
his home. We know that lead state police officers -- Detective 
and Police Chief 
- complained that the house was "sanitized" by the time they arrived to serve a search 
warrant for child pornography. This sanitation was evident by the various computer wires 
hanging with no computers attached. Housekeeper Janusz Banasiak later testified hi a civil 
unvynlaw.utalt.eclu • Main Office 
• Facsimile 
332 South 1400 East, Room 101 • Salt Lake City, Utah 134112-0730 
EFTA00231606

deposition that Epstein's assistant, 
(E) and another man (unknown) were 
instructed to remove, and did in fact remove, multiple computers from Epstein's home shortly 
before the search warrant was served. The fact that there could well have been a tip off is 
apparently suspected by federal authorities. 
Second, there is evidence that one of the senior prosecutors in your office joined 
Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability 
— and improperly represented people close to Epstein. During the federal investigation of 
Epstein, Bruce Reinhart was a senior Assistant U.S. Attorney in your office. As we understand 
things, he was a direct supervisor of the line prosecutor handling the case and thus was well 
aware of details of the Epstein investigation and plea negotiations. We further believe that he 
was consulted on issues related to the prosecution of Epstein and Epstein's co-conspirators, 
including specifically issues related to whether Epstein employees and pilots should be 
prosecuted for their involvement in Epstein's sexual offense. We further believe that he 
personally and substantially participated in making such decisions about the course of the 
criminal investigation. 
Within months after the non-prosecution agreement was signed by your office, Reinhart 
left your office and immediately went into private practice as a white collar criminal defense 
attorney. His office coincidentally happened to be not only in the same building (and on same 
floor) as Epstein's lead criminal defense counsel, lack Goldberger, but it was actually located 
right next door to the Florida Science Foundation -- an Epstein-owned and -run company where 
Epstein spent his "work release." 
While Working in this office adjacent to Epstein's, Reinhart undertook the representation 
of numerous Epstein employees and pilots during the civil cases filed against Epstein by the 
victims — cases that involved the exact same crimes and exact same evidence being reviewed by 
the U.S. Attorney's office when he was employed there. Specifically, he represented 
(Epst4in's number one co-conspirator who was actually named as such in the NPA), his 
housekeeper (Louella Ruboyo), his pilots Larry Morrison, Larry Visoski, David Rogers, William 
Hammond and Robert Roxburgh. (Hammond and Roxburgh were not deposed but the others 
were.) Our understanding is that his representation of these individuals was paid for, directly 
or indirectly, by Epstein. 
Reinhart was well aware of what evidence your office and federal investigator had 
collected against Epstein and about the minor girls who were his victims. As a consequence, he 
knew what evidence the attorneys for the victims were using. He also knew what each of those 
witnesses had said, it anytfiirign, 
federafarrd statc ;Irvestigators-duriag-thettiminal 
investigation. 
We have been unable to place our fingers on the federal regulations governing such later 
representation. We do know, however, that such actions appear to be in direct contravention 
of the Florida ethical rules regarding attorneys who leave government employment. For 
2 
EFTA00231607

example, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(a) provides "[a) lawyer shall not represent a private 
client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially 
as a public officer or employee unless the appropriate government agency consents after 
consultation." Similarly, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(b) provides that "[a) lawyer having 
information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person 
acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee may not represent a private client 
whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used 
to the material disadvantage of that person." Both these rules appear to have been violated. 
But entirely apart from the details of ethical rules, the fact that one of your prosecutors was 
involved in making important decisions aboUt the scope of criminal liability for Epstein and his 
associates and then — after criminal liability was significantly limited — representing numerous 
people at Epstein's behalf raises serious questions. At the very least, there is the strong 
appearance that Reinhard may have attempted to curry favor with Epstein and then reap his 
reward through favorable employment. At the very worst, there may have been advance 
discussions — we simply don't know at this point. 
Third, Epstein appears to have deliberately kept from victims in the case correspondence 
with your office and the Justice Department that might have shed light on improper influences. 
Along with other capable attorneys, I was involved in representing one of Epstein's victims 
(..) who filed a federal civil case against Epstein. Suspecting that Epstein may have 
improperly influenced your office, we immediately served discovery requests on Epstein for all 
the correspondence with yoUr office regarding the plea negotiations. Eleven months of hard 
litigation ensued, in which Epstein made every conceivable argument against production. 
Finally, late in June of this year, his appeals exhausted, Epstein produced the correspondence to 
us. However, in violation of the court order, he redacted the correspondence so that he 
provided only emails and other statements from your office — not his emails and statements to 
your office. More significantly, even though he was under court order to produce all 
correspondence between his attorneys and your office, Epstein secretly withheld 
correspondence by several of his most ht h-powered attorneys — namely Ken Starr and Lilly Ann 
Sanchez. Epstein settled the case with M. within days after this limited production, and we did 
not realize the absence of what must have been critical discussions between your office and 
Starr and Snachez (among others). Epstein's refusal to allow us to see that information raises 
the suspicion in our minds that there must have been unusual pressures being brought to bear 
during the plea discussions that would have been revealed had Epstein complied with his 
production obligations. 
Fourth, there appears to have been an unprecedented level of secrecy between your 
office and the Fed&II-Bureau of hivestiKativii during-this-ease. The Ffll-wacre-spcuisible—alon 
with state and local police agencies, for building the case against Epstein. They appear to have 
developed an overwhelming criminal against him. And Yet, when your office signed the non-
prosecution agreement with him, it is not clear to us that the FBI was consulted about this 
decision. Indeed, we have suspicions that the FBI was not informed of this decision until, 
perhaps, months later. 
3 
EFTA00231608

Supporting this suspicion is our on-going litigation regarding the treatment of the victims 
in this case. As you know from our draft pleadings that we have discussed with your office, we 
believe there is compelling evidence that the victims and their attorneys were deceived about 
the existence of a non-prosecution agreement for months in order to avoid what certainly 
would have been a firestorm of controversy about such lenient treatment of a repeat sex 
offender. Our impression from the evidence we have been able to obtain so far is that the FBI 
was similarly kept in the dark — not consulted about or even told about the NPA. While a 
certain amount of tension has always existed between federal prosecuting and investigating 
agencies, not even informing the FBI about the Epstein NPA seems highly unusual. 
All of these strange facts -- as well as the facts that we are alleging in our crime victims' 
litigation — lead us to think that there was something rotten with the way this case was 
handled. Epstein could have faced years and years in prison for numerous federal sex offenses. 
And yet he managed to contrive to walk away with no federal time at all (and only minimal 
state time). We respectfully ask you to investigate through appropriate and independent 
channels the handling of the Epstein (non)prosecution. 
Thank you in advance for considering this request. I would be happy to provide any 
other additional information that would be useful to you. 
Sincerely,a 
Paul 
Cassel 
4 
EFTA00231609

SJ. QUINNEY 
COLLEGE OF LAW 
THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 
March 1, 2011 
Wifredo A. Ferrer 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
99 N. E.4th Street 
Miami, FL 33132 
PAUL G. CASSELL 
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law 
Telephone: 
Re: 
Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States, No. 09-80736 
Dear Mr. Ferrer: 
We are writing to you personally on behalf of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in one last 
effort to try and narrow our range of difference in the pending Crime Victims Rights Act case 
regarding Jeffrey Epstein. We make two requests: First, we are requesting that you agree to 
our proposal for narrowing the range of disputes between your Office and the victims, Jane Doe 
#1 and Jane Doe #2. Second, If you are unable to agree to our proposal, we request that you 
agree not to withhold information in your Office's possession that would support their claims 
under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA). 
By way of background, as you know, we have been attempting to work with your Office 
for more than two-and-a-half years to reach a stipulated set for facts in this CVRA case that 
would avoid the need for any public battle between your Office and the victims . Indeed, we 
reached out to you for a personal meeting to try to avoid a fight, and you were kind enough to 
meet with Jane Doe #1 and her undersigned attorneys. During that meeting, we expressed our 
intention to go the extra mile to try and avoid any fight with your Office and to see if there was 
a way to fight only Jeffrey Epstein the sex offender, rather than the prosecutors who work for 
you. 
Today we had a telephone conference call with two of your attorneys, 
and 
in which they told us that we would not be receiving any cooperation from 
your Office on our CVRA case and that, in short, we would have to "see you in court." We were 
also told that your Office was taking the position that it could, and would, withhold from the 
victims information in your Office's possession that would support their claims under the CVRA. 
After receiving approval from 
and 
, we wanted to write to you personally in one 
last effort to see if we can narrow our differences on these two Issues and avoid a disappointing 
battle. 
Narrowing the Issues in Dispute 
During today's conference call, it appeared that there was some confusion from 
and 
as to precisely what the victims were proposing. Our proposal is simply this: that 
www.law.utah.edu • Main Office 
• Facsimile 
332 South 1400 East, Room 101 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0730 
EFTA00231610

your Office and Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 would stipulate to a set of facts to provide 
context for the Court while we litigate the legal issue in dispute, that is whether the CVRA 
applies even though no federal charges were ultimately filed. If your Office prevails on that 
Issue, the victims would obviously have no claim under the CVRA. The victims would then 
pursue their appellate rights in the Eleventh Circuit. If, however, the victims prevail on that 
issue, then your Office would take "no position" on the remedy sought by the victims for the 
violation of their rights afforded them under the Act. Your Office would essentially stand aside 
and agree not to take any position on the victims' request to set aside the NPA as a remedy for 
that violation of the victims' rights. 
We understood from our meeting with you in December that you wanted to do what 
you could to help the victims in this case. Yet as we understood 
and 
today, they 
were taking the position that we would receive no cooperation of any sort from your Office. 
And we further understood from them that your Office was now going to take the position that 
even if the victims' congressionally-mandated rights were violated, there is simply no remedy 
for those violations and thus the victims should have no recourse for the violations. 
On behalf of our clients, we want to once again reach out and make sure that your 
Office wants to move to an adversarial litigation posture on these issues. We simply don't 
understand why your Office is now going to take a litigating position hostile to ours on issues 
beyond the legal question of when CVRA rights attached in this case. We appreciate that the 
Department has institutional concerns about the timing of CVRA rights. But we don't 
understand why your Office is now going to fight against the victims in their efforts seeking to 
overturn a NPA that by any measure is unfair. This is not simply our view — the unfairness of 
the NPA has now attracted comment literally throughout the world, including serving as the 
basis for an unfavorable portrayal in a recent Law and Order: Special Victim Episode and a 
feature story yesterday in the London-based Sunday Mail. We are not asking your Office to join 
us in our efforts to throw out this unjust agreement. But can't your Office simply stand on the 
sidelines and let us make our case against Epstein. Fighting a politically well-connected 
billionaire is difficult enough, without having the weight of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the 
Southern District of Florida thrown against us too. We respectfully make one last request for 
you to move forward with our proposal for narrowing differences between us. 
Withholding Favorable Evidence 
If you feel that your Office must fight us in court on every possible issue, then we are 
respectfully writing to request that we resolve one issue outside of court: Whether your Office 
can withhold from the victims evidence in its possession that is favorable to their CVRA case. 
During our conference call with 
and 
, we pointed out that if we were criminal 
defense attorneys representing criminals, your Office would promptly turn over to us all 
information in its possession that was helpful to these criminals under the Brady and Giglio 
decisions. We asked your Office to extend to the victims the same assistance that it would 
provide to criminals — i.e., we asked 
and 
to voluntarily provide to us information 
2 
EFTA00231611

in your Office's possession that was helpful the victims' CVRA case. We were informed that 
your Office will be taking the position in Court that it can and will withhold from the victims 
such information, apparently on the theory that victims lack due process or other "discovery" 
rights under the CVRA. 
We believe that the position that your Office can suppress relevant evidence is legally 
unfounded for four reasons and, in any event, is unsound policy at odds with promises that the 
Attorney General has made to crime victims and to the public. With regard to the legal 
problems in this position, first, the CVRA promises victims of crime that they will be "treated 
with fairness." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). The clear intent of Congress in passing this provision was 
to provide a substantive "due process" right to crime victims. As one of the CVRA's co-sponsors 
(Senator Kyl) explained, "The broad rights articulated in this section are meant to be rights 
themselves and are not intended to just be aspirational. One of these rights is the right to be 
treated with fairness. Of course, fairness includes the notion of due process. Too often victims 
of crime experience a secondary victimization at the hands of the criminal Justice system. This 
provision is Intended to direct Government agencies and employees, whether they are in 
executive or judiciary branches, to treat victims of crime with the respect they deserve." 150 
CONG. REC. 54269 (Apr. 22, 2004) (emphasis added). 
Because the CVRA extends a "due process" right to crime victims like Jane Doe #1 and 
Jane Doe #2, victims have a right to fair access to evidence to prove their case. The very 
foundation of the Brady obligation is due process: "[T]he suppression by the prosecution of 
evidence favorable to an accused 
violates due process where the evidence is material either 
to guilt or to punishment." Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). It would similarly 
violate due process for the prosecution to suppress evidence favorable to a crime victim where 
the evidence is material either to proving a CVRA violation or to the remedy for a violation. 
Second, entirely apart from whether the victims have a right to obtain such information, 
your Office has an affirmative obligation to disclose it to victims. The CVRA directly commands 
that "[o]fficers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and 
agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime 
shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights 
described In [the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) (emphasis added).1 It is simply impossible for 
As you can see from this language, the CVRA applies not only to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the 
Southern District of Florida but also to the relevant office of the FBI. We are "cc'ing" a copy of this letter 
to the FBI so that they can be informed of our view that they should provide assistance to the victims in 
this matter as well, rather than Join your Office in any effort to withhold evidence. We understand that 
your Office represents the FBI on these issues, andTre-hapy to continue our discussions with you 
regarding the FBI obligations In this area. At the appropriate time, however, if we are unable to reach 
agreement, we would like to have this discussion with a representative of the FBI to see whether they 
are in accord with your position. It is our understanding that the appropriate person would be the 
"special agent-In-charge of the division having primary responsibility for conducting the investigation." 
ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE 11 (May 2005). 
3 
EFTA00231612

your Office to make its "best efforts" to accord victims their rights while simultaneously 
withholding evidence that would help them obtain those rights in court. 
Third, the attorneys In your Office have duties of candor to the Court that would not 
permit It to present evidence or testimony that is known to be false. Fla. Bar Rule 4-3.3(a)(4). 
Allowing the victims access to evidence favorable to their claim will insure compliance with this 
rule. Similarly, in an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer must inform the court of all material facts 
known to the lawyer that will enable the court to make an Informed decision "whether or not 
the facts are adverse." Fla. Bar. Rule 4-3.3(d). If your Office is correct that we are not entitled 
to access to favorable evidence, then the proceedings involving that evidence are essentially ex 
parte — requiring your Office to make disclosure to the Court. Surely the more appropriate way 
to proceed is to simply disclose those materials in the first instance to the victims. 
Fourth and finally, your Office has previously taken the position that the CVRA petition 
filed by the victims is covered by the civil rules. If so, then the victims can serve discovery 
requests as in any other civil cases. The victims can likewise take depositions of witnesses who 
possess relevant evidence to their claims. Indeed, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A), your Office 
would be required to automatically produce such information. 
For all these reasons, it is our considered opinion that your Office does not have a 
legally well-founded position to withhold evidence from the victims in this case. Even If the 
Office did have such a position, however, we are mystified as to why your Office would want to 
assert such a position. Attorney General Holder has recently publicly discussed the 
Department's obligations regarding production of exculpatory information to criminals, 
explaining "We're not here to win cases, but to do justice." Attorney General Holder Discusses 
Efforts to improve Prosecutor Training, WALL ST. J., Apr. 30, 2010. With all respect, we submit 
that your Office should seek to do justice not merely for criminals, but also for the victims of 
those criminals. We therefore respectfully request that you simply provide this information to 
us as a matter of justice, avoiding the need for us to litigate this question. To avoid burdening 
your Office, we would be happy to provide a specific list of the information that we believe is 
material to the victims' CVRA case — a limited amount of information that could be swiftly 
located by your Office. 
Conclusion 
We frankly believe we have been very patient on this case and have gone to the extra 
mile to avoid an unnecessary fight with your Office. But our clients are asking us what the 
status of their case is, and we have an obligation to proceed diligently. Our first choice is to 
work something out with you. But if your Office is for some reason unwilling or unable to do 
that, we believe we have an overwhelming case of clear cut CVRA violations — a case that we 
will present to the Court. 
4 
EFTA00231613

As we told 
and 
even though your Office has refused to provide any 
accommodations to us, we will continue to discuss with them our proposed statement of facts, 
with the aim of removing Information that they believe is damaging to your Office and that we 
can leave out as unessential to our case. We hope that you will favorably consider our requests 
in this letter and try to find an approach that will minimize our need to become embroiled in a 
court dispute between crime victims and the prosecutors who aim to protect them. If we are 
unable to do so, our intention is to file our "summary Judgment" pleadings (which we provided 
in their entirety to your Office as a courtesy six months ago) on March 18, 2011. 
Sincerely, 
s it74, 
Bradley J. dwards 
?c' 
Paul . Cassell 
Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 
Cc: 
Special Agent in Charge John V. Gillies 
Miami FBI Field Office 
16320 NW 2nd Avenue 
North Miami Beach, FL 33169 
The views expressed in this letter are solely those of its authors. 
5 
EFTA00231614

•
C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Paul Cassell 1.1....] 
Sent: 
Monday,aarc 07, 
5: 3 
To: 
IMI, IIIIM (USAFLS); 
IMI 
C. (USAFLS) 
Cc: 
Brad Edwards 
Subject: 
Motion to Make Our Pleading Available to the Public - Government Position 
Dear 
and 
We are writing to inquire about the government's position on a motion that we will be filing on March 18 along with our 
"summary judgment" motion. As you know, the summary judgment motion will contain quotations from e-mails that 
are under the magistrate judge's order requiring prior notice to the court before they are disclosed. Accordingly, on 
March 18, we will be filing a full, unredacted summary judgment motion under seal with Judge Marra and, for the public 
PACER file, a summary judgment motion with quotations from the e-mails redacted. 
We will be filing simultaneously a motion for with the court for unsealing of the unredacted motion. We will provide (at 
least) three ground for unsealing. First, the confidentiality order was only based on an agreement to give advance 
notice to Epstein before using materials. Once advance notice has been given, there is no basis for confidentiality. 
Second, there is truly world-wide interest in the handling of the Epstein prosecution, and • our pleading should not 
remain under seal — instead the public should have access to it i that they can assess how this case was handled. Third, 
keeping the pleading under seal complicates the ability of Jane Does' attorneys to consult with victims' rights specialist 
about how best to proceed in the case. 
We are writing to determine the Government's position on our motion to unseal the redacted pleading 
that we can 
include that position in our motion. We hope that you will not oppose the motion, which might produce the need for 
further litigation. As you know, Judge Marra has promptly unsealed other pleadings in this matter when the 
Government tried to object. 
Sincerely, 
Cassell 
Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 
G. Cassell 
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law 
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 
332 South 1400 East, Room 101 
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 
Voice: 
Fax: 
Email: 
htto://www.law.utah eduThrofilesidefault asp2PersonID—=57Rmamp=taccell,Paul 
 
CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only 
for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended 
recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message Thank you 
EFTA00231615

Case 9:08-cv 
1 
2 
3 
4 
80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered 
UNITED STATES 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT 
WEST PALM 
CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA 
on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 1 of 51 
DISTRICT COURT 
OF FLORIDA 
BEACH DIVISION 
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 
5 
JANE DOE, et al., 
6 
Plaintiffs, 
JUNE 12, 2009 
7 
VS. 
8 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
9 
Defendant. 
10 
11 
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING 
BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, 
12 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
APPEARANCES: 
13 
14 
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: 
ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. 
Mermelstein & Horowitz 
15 
18205 Biscayne Boulevard 
Miami, FL 33160 
305.931.2200 
16 
For Jane Doe 
17 
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. 
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 
18 
401 East Las Olas Boulevard 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 
19 
Jane Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 
20 
ISIDRO M. GARCIA, ESQ. 
21 
Garcia Elkins Boehringer 
224 Datura Avenue 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
22 
Jane DOE II 
561.832.8033 
23 
RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. 
24 
2290 10th Avenue North 
Lake Worth, FL 33461 
25 
For C.M.A. 
561.582.7600 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00231616

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 2 of 51 
1 
ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG, ESQ. 
2 
Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 
25 West Flagler Street 
3 
Miami, FL 33130 
For Jane Doe 101 
305.358.2800 
4 
(Via telephone) 
5 
KATHERINE W. EZELL, ESQ. 
Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 
6 
25 West Flagler Street 
Miami, FL 33130 
7 
For Jane Doe 101 
305.358.2800 
8 FOR THE DEFENDANT: 
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. 
MICHAEL BURMAN, ESQ. 
9 
Burman Critton, etc. 
515 North Flagler Street 
10 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
11 
JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. 
12 
Atterbury Goldberger Weiss 
250 Australian Avenue South 
13 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
14 
As Amicas cuicmie: 
, ESQ. 
15 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 East Broward Boulevard 
16 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 
For U.S.A. 
954.356.7255 
17 
MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. 
18 
20 Park Plaza 
Boston MA 02116 
19 
(Via telephone) 
20 
JAY LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
(Via telephone) 
21 
REPORTED BY: 
LARRY HERR, RPR-RMR-FCRR-AE 
22 
Official United States Court Reporter 
Federally Certified Realtime Reporter 
23 
400 North Miami Avenue, Room 8N09 
Miami, FL 33128 
305.523.5290 
24 
25 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00231617

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 3 of 51 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22-
23 
24 
25 
THE COURT: We are here in the various Doe vs. Epstein 
cases. 
May I have counsel state their appearances? 
MR. HOROWITZ: Adam Horowitz, counsel for plaintiffs 
Jane 2 through Jane Doe 7. 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, counsel for plaintiff Jane 
Doe. 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
MR. GARCIA: Good morning, Your Honor. Sid Garcia for 
Jane Doe II. 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
MR. WILLITS: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard 
Willits, here on behalf of the plaintiff C.M.A.. 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
MS. EZELL: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Katherine 
Ezell from Podhurst Orseck, here with Amy Adderly and Susan 
Bennett, and I believe my partner, Bob Josefsberg, is going to 
appear by telephone. 
THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, are you there? 
MR. JOSEFSBERG: I am, Your Honor. 
Int Lu RI: -Good morning-. 
MR. JOSEFSBERG: Good morning. 
THE COURT: All right. Do we have all the plaintiffs 
stated their appearances? 
Okay. 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00231618

Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 4 
of 51 4 
1 
Defense? 
2 
MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, Robert Critton on behalf of 
3 Mr. Epstein, and my partner, Michael Burman. 
4 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
5 
MR. GOLDBERGER: Good morning, Your Honor. Jack 
6 Goldberger on behalf of Mr. Epstein. 
7 
THE COURT: I see we have some representatives from 
8 the United States Attorney's Office here. 
9 
MS. 
: Good morning, Your Honor. • 
10 
for the U.S. Attorney's office. 
11 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
12 
Who else do we have on the phone? 
13 
MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, we have two members of the 
14 defense team are on the phone, also. 
15 
THE COURT: Who do we have on the phone? 
16 
MR. WEINBERG: Martin Weinberg. Good morning, Your 
17 Honor. 
18 
MR. LEFKOWITZ: Jay Lefkowitz. Good morning, Your 
19 Honor. 
20 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
21 
I scheduled this hearing for very limited issues 
22- VITich, as you all know, -t1 
n a 
o 
DITTspstei 
23 stay the civil proceedings against him. The one issue I have 
24 concern about is Mr. Epstein's contention or assertion that by 
25 defending against the allegations in the civil proceedings, he 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00231619

Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 5 of 51 
5 
1 may expose himself to an allegation by the United States in the 
2 non-prosecution agreement that he's violated that agreement and 
3 therefore would subject himself to potential federal charges. 
4 
I had asked for some briefing on this. I asked the 
5 United States to present its position to me. And I received 
6 the Government's written response, which I frankly didn't find 
7 very helpful. And I still am not sure I understand what the 
8 Government's position is on it. 
9 
first let me hear from Mr. Epstein's attorneys as 
10 to what do you believe the concern is. I don't believe the 
11 non-prosecution agreement has ever been filed in this Court; am 
12 I correct? 
13 
MR. CRITTON: To my knowledge, Your Honor, it has not. 
14 
THE COURT: II I don't believe I've ever seen the 
15 entire agreement. I've seen portions of it. 
16 
MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I believe that it was filed 
17 under Jane Doe 1 and 2 vs. United States of America, case under 
18 seal in your court. 
19 
THE COURT: Okay. 
20 
MR. EDWARDS: In a separate case. 
21 
THE COURT: In that case, okay. Was it actually filed 
22- -in- that case( 
23 
MR. EDWARDS: I filed it under seal. 
24 
THE COURT: In any event, what's Mr. Epstein's concern 
25 about if you defend the civil actions, you're going to expose 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00231620

Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 6 of 51 
6 
1 yourself to a claim for a breach by the United States of the 
2 non-prosecution agreement? 
3 
MR. CRITTON: Robert Critton. 
4 
Your Honor, our position on this case is, I'd say is 
5 somewhat different. When this issue originally came before the 
6 Court, as you are aware prior to my firm's involvement in the 
7 case, there was a motion filed on behalf of Mr. Epstein seeking 
8 a stay. And I think it was in Jane Doe 102 and then 
9 subsequently Jane Doe 2 through 5 because all of those cases 
10 were filed on or about the same time. 
11 
And at that time the Court looked at the issue and it 
12 was based upon a statutory provision at that time. And the 
13 Court said I don't find that it's applicable, or for whatever 
14 L
 reason I think the Court said I don't consider that to be a 
15 pending proceeding or a proceeding at that particular time. 
16 
In that same order, which was in Jane Doe 2, I 
17 believe it's -- not I believe, I know it's docket entry 33, the 
18 Court also went on to talk about at that particular point in 
19 time dealt with the issue of the discretionary stay. 
20 
And the Court said at that time, I'm paraphrasing, but 
21 the Court also does not believe a discretionary stay is 
22 
at the Court went on to sap is that if 
23 defendant does not breach the agreement, then he should have no 
24 concerns regarding his Fifth Amendment right against 
25 self-incrimination. 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00231621

Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 7 of 51 
1 
The fact that the U.S. Attorney or other law 
2 enforcement officials may object to some discovery in these 
3 civil cases is not in and of itself a reason to stay the civil 
4 litigation, II that any such issue shall be resolved as they 
5 arise in the course of the litigation. 
6 
And I would respectfully submit to the Court that the 
7 position that the Government has taken in its most recent 
8 filings changes the playing field dramatically. Because what 
9 the Government in essence has said as distinct from the U.S. 
10 saying is, well, we object to some discovery, or we may object 
11 to some discovery in the civil cases. 
12 
what they have, in essence, said is if you take some 
13 action, Mr. Epstein, that we believe unilaterally, and this is 
14 on pages 13 and 14 of their pleading or of their response memo 
15 to the Court's inquiry, they say if Mr. Epstein breaches the 
16 agreement. They said it's basically like a contract, and if 
17 one side breaches, the other side can sue. 
18 
In this instance what the Government will do is if we 
19 believe that Mr. Epstein has breached the agreement, we'll 
20 indict him. We will indict him. And his remedy under that 
21 circumstance, which is an incredible and catastrophic catch 22 
22 
s, 
Andict him and- than he can -move to dismiss-. Tharys- a 
23 great option. 
24 
In this particular instance my mandate in defending --
25 and that's a dramatic change in the Government's position, 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00231622

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page8of51 
1 because the Government is not saying, and the Court was pretty 
2 specific in what you asked the Government for in its response 
3 is, in essence, and it's the same question in a more limited 
4 fashion you're posing today is whether Mr. Epstein's defense of 
5 the civil action violates the NPA agreement, the 
6 non-prosecution agreement, between the U.S. and Mr. Epstein. 
7 
And the Government refuses to answer that question. 
8 They won't come out and say, yes, it will, or no, it won't. 
9 What they're doing is they want to sit on the sideline, and as 
10 their papers suggest is, they want us to lay in wait and that 
11 if, in fact, they believe he violates a provision of the NPA as 
12 it relates to the defense of this case or these multitude of 
13 cases, then they can come in and indict him -- no notice, no 
14 opportunity to cure. 
15 
We don't think that's what the NPA says, but that's 
16 certainly what their papers say. We'll indict him, no notice, 
17 I no opportunity to cure. We will indict him, and his remedy 
18 under that circumstance is that he can move to dismiss the 
19 indictment. 
20 
Well, that's great except Mr. Epstein, his mandate to 
21 me and I know his mandate to his criminal lawyers, is: Make 
22 
o anything, in particular in these civil cases 
23 that would in any way suggest that I am in willful violation of 
24 the NPA. 
25 
Now, in the Court's prior ruling in the docket entry 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00231623

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 9 of 51 9 
1 33, certainly some aspects of the NPA are within Mr. Epstein's 
2 control. There's no question about that. But aspects that 
3 relate to the defense of these cases, either in terms of the 
4 civil lawyers who are defending these, I think there's 12 or 13 
5 pending cases in front of you, there's another four cases in 
6 the state court, is the risk is substantial, it's real, and it 
7 presents a chilling effect for the civil lawyers in moving 
8 forward to determine whether or not we're taking some action 
9 that in some way may be a violation of the NPA. 
10 
And the Government's, again, refusal or non-position 
11 with regard to past acts that have been taken in the civil case 
12 with regard to the defense or future acts that we may take with 
13 regard to these contested litigation casts an extraordinary 
14 cloud of doubt and uncertainty and fear that the defense of 
15 these cases could jeopardize Mr. Epstein and put him in the 
16 irreparable position of violating the NPA and then subsequently 
17 being indicted. 
18 
In this particular instance, again, Mr. Epstein has no 
19 intention of willfully violating the NPA, but it's of great 
20 concern to him. And I'd say with the position that the 
21 Government has taken, no notice, no cure period, no opportunity 
 
 22 -to discuss. .Again, we think that's not what the NPA provides, 
23 it's not what the deal was between the two contracting parties, 
24 the United States and Mr. Epstein. But that's clearly what 
25 their papers say under the circumstances, and it would create 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00231624

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 10 of 51 jo 
1 this irreparable harm to Mr. Epstein under the circumstances. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
In essence, we're left with a catch 22 in defending 
the civil cases. We have a mandate to take no action, to take 
any action which may be deemed to be a violation of the NPA, 
either in the past or in the future, which would in any way 
risk Mr. Epstein being indicted by the United States. 
He has the clear risk of an indictment based upon the 
papers that the Government filed. It's real, it's not remote, 
and it's not speculative. It chills the action of the defense 
in this instance of both Mr. Epstein and his attorneys in 
trying to defend these cases and decide under the circumstances 
can we do this, can we take this position with regard to 
depositions, can we take this legal position with regard to 
motions to dismiss, with regard to responses, with regard to 
replies? 
And we send out paper discovery. Is this in some way 
if we contact someone who may be an associate of these 
individuals as part of our investigation, is that potentially 
in any way a violation of the NPA? Again, we don't think II. 
And, obviously, again, my direction has been from my 
client: Don't take any action that would result in me being 
indicted un ex Lhe NPA. Well, LiaLts- great. But; generally, 
civil lawyers or civil lawyers in defending a personal injury 
case or a tort case, which is exactly what these are, and from 
a practical standpoint, we use various tools to do discovery. 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00231625