EFTA00231917

PRINTING SPECIFICATION STATEMENT 
This computer generated brief was prepared using a 
proportionally spaced typeface. 
Name of Typeface: 
Century Schoolbook 
Point Size: 
14-point type 
Line Spacing: 
Double-spaced 
The total number of words in the brief, inclusive of point headings 
and footnotes and exclusive of pages containing the table of contents, 
table of authorities, and printing specification statement is 10,522. 
50 
EFTA00232717

CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL-SUBMISSION COMPLIANCE 
The undersigned hereby certifies that: 
(1) all required privacy redactions have been made and, with the 
exception of those redactions, every document submitted in Digital 
Form or scanned PDF format is an exact copy of the written document 
filed with the Clerk; and 
(2) the digital submissions have been scanned for viruses with the 
most recent version of a commercial virus scanning program (McAfee 
Enterprise 8.5 Virus Scan, updated as of March 9, 2009) and, according 
to the program, are free of viruses. 
Jay P. efkowitz, P.C. 
Sandra Lynn Musumeci 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
601 Lexington Avenue 
New York, New York 10022 
Telephone; 
Facsimile: 
EFTA00232718

SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK 
COUNTY OF NEW YORK 
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 
Plaintiff-Respondent, 
- against -
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, 
Defendant-Appellant. 
Index No.: 
30129-2010 
PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT 
1. TITLE OF ACTION: As set forth in caption. 
2. FULL NAMES OF ORIGINAL PARTIES AND ANY CHANGE IN THE PARTIES: 
As set forth in caption. There has been no change in the parties. 
3. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT 
OR PETITIONER: 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, 
Sandra Lynn Musumeci 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
601 Lexington Avenue 
New York, Neiril4611 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
4. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL FOR 
RESPONDENT: 
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. 
NEW YORK DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 
One Hogan Place 
New York, NYili
m
Telephone: 
5. COURT AND COUNTY, OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, FROM WHICH APPEAL 
IS TAKEN: New York Supreme Court (Criminal Term), New York County. 
6. THE NATURE AND OBJECT OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION OR-SPECIAL 
PROCEEDING: Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) hearing, pursuant to Article 6-C of the 
Correction Law. 
7. RESULT REACHED IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODY BELOW: 
Supreme Court, New York County, adjudged appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein to be a Level 3 sexual 
offender, without additional designation. 
8. GROUNDS FOR SEEKING REVERSAL, ANNULMENT, OR MODIFICATION: The 
Court's designation of appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein as a Level 3 sexual offender was an abuse of 
EFTA00232719

discretion and constituted reversible legal error based, in part, on the following: (1) the Court 
improperly relied on untrustworthy double and triple hearsay contained in the recommendation 
of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, even though the District Attorney, as the party 
appearing on behalf of the State, rejected much of the Board's recommendation as not 
constituting clear and convincing evidence to support a Level 3 designation where such hearsay 
allegations were rejected as a basis for state prosecution; (2) the Court failed to provide the 
parties with an opportunity to present evidence on contested issues, as required by statute, and 
instead relied wholesale upon the recommendation of the Board, over the objection of the 
District Attorney, without any inquiry; (3) the Court did not apply the guidelines established by 
the Board, as required by statute; and (4) the Court failed to set forth the findings of fact and 
conclusions of law on which its determinations in support of a Level 3 designation were based, 
as required by statute. 
9. THERE IS NO RELATED ACTION OR PROCEEDING NOW PENDING IN ANY 
COURT OF THIS OR ANY OTHER JURISDICTION. 
10. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL APPEAL PENDING IN THIS ACTION. 
Dated: February 9, 2011 
Ja 
. Lefkowitz, P.C. 
S dra Lynn Musumeci 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
601 Lexington Avenue 
New York, Ne
i -4611 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey E. 
Esptein. 
-2-
EFTA00232720

March 20, 2011 
To whom it may concern: 
I served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida from 2005 through 2009. Over the 
past weeks, I have read much regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. Some appears true, some appears 
distorted. I thought it appropriate to provide some background, with two caveats: (i) under 
Justice Department guidelines, I cannot discuss privileged internal communications among 
Department attorneys and (ii) I no longer have access to the original documents, and as the 
matter is now nearly 4 years old, the precision of memory is reduced. 
The Epstein matter was originally presented to the Palm Beach County State Attorney. Palm 
Beach Police alleged that Epstein unlawfully hired underage high-school females to provide him 
sexually lewd and erotic massages. Police sought felony charges that would have resulted in a 
term of imprisonment. According to press reports, however, in 2006 the State Attorney, in part 
due to concerns regarding the quality of the evidence, agreed to charge Epstein only with one 
count of aggravated assault with no intent to commit a felony. That charge would have resulted 
in no jail time, no requirement to register as a sexual offender and no restitution for the underage 
victims. 
Local police were dissatisfied with the State Attorney's conclusions, and requested a federal 
investigation. Federal authorities received the State's evidence and engaged in additional 
investigation. Prosecutors weighed the quality of the evidence and the likelihood for success at 
trial. With a federal case, there were two additional considerations. First, a federal criminal 
prosecution requires that the crime be more than local; it must have an interstate nexus. Second, 
as the matter was initially charged by the state, the federal responsibility is, to some extent, to 
back-stop state authorities to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice, and not to also 
prosecute federally that which has already been charged at the state level. 
After considering the quality of the evidence and the additional considerations, prosecutors 
concluded that the state charge was insufficient. In early summer 2007, the prosecutors and 
agents in this case met with Mr. Epstein's attorney, Roy Black. Mr. Black is perhaps best known 
for his successful defense of William Kennedy Smith. The prosecutors presented Epstein a 
choice: plead to more serious state felony charges (that would result in 2 years' imprisonment, 
registration as a sexual offender, and restitution for the victims) or else prepare for a federal 
felony trial. 
What followed was a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors. I use the word 
assault intentionally, as the defense in this case was more aggressive than any winch i, or the 
prosecutors in my office, had previously encountered. Mr. Epstein hired an army of legal 
superstars: Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, former Judge and then Pepperdine Law Dean 
Kenneth Starr, former Deputy Assistant to the President and then Kirkland & Ellis Partner Jay 
Lefkowitz, and several others, including prosecutors who had formally worked in the U.S. 
EFTA00232721

Attorney's Office and in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department. 
Defense attorneys next requested a meeting with me to challenge the prosecution and the terms 
previously presented by the prosecutors in their meeting with Mr. Black. The prosecution team 
and I met with defense counsel in Fall 2007, and I reaffirmed the office's position: two years, 
registration and restitution, or trial. 
Over the next several months, the defense team presented argument after argument claiming that 
felony criminal proceedings against Epstein were unsupported by the evidence and lacked a basis 
in law, and that the office's insistence on jail-time was motivated by a zeal to overcharge a man 
merely because he is wealthy. They bolstered their arguments with legal opinions from well-
known legal experts. One member of the defense team warned me that the office's excess zeal in 
forcing a good man to serve time in jail might be the subject of a book if we continued to 
proceed with this matter. My office systematically considered and rejected each argument, and 
when we did, my office's decisions were appealed to Washington. As to the warning, I ignored 
it. 
The defense strategy was not limited to legal issues. Defense counsel investigated individual 
prosecutors and their families, looking for personal peccadilloes that may provide a basis for 
disqualification. Disqualifying a prosecutor is an effective (though rarely used) strategy, as 
eliminating the individuals most familiar with the facts and thus most qualified to take a case to 
trial harms likelihood for success. Defense counsel tried to disqualify at least two prosecutors. I 
carefully reviewed, and then rejected, these arguments. 
Despite this army of attorneys, the office held firm to the terms first presented to Mr. Black in 
the original meeting. On June 30, 2008, after yet another last minute appeal to Washington D.C. 
was rejected, Epstein pled guilty in state court. He was to serve 18 months imprisonment, 
register as a sexual offender for life and provide restitution to the victims. 
Some may feel that the prosecution should have been tougher. Evidence that has come to light 
since 2007 may encourage that view. Many victims have since spoken out, filing detailed 
statements in civil cases seeking damages. Physical evidence has since been discovered. Had 
these additional statements and evidence been known, the outcome may have been different. But 
they were not known to us at the time. 
A prosecution decision must be based on admissible facts known at the time. In cases of this 
type, those arc unusually difficult because victims are frightened and often decline to testify or if 
they do speak, they give contradictory statements. Our judgment in this case, based on the 
evidence known at the time, was that it was better to have a billionaire serve time in jail, register 
as a sex offender and pay his victims restitution than risk a trial with a reduced likelihood of 
success. I supported that judgment then, and based on the state of the law as it then stood and the 
evidence known at that time, I would support that judgment again. 
Epstein's treatment, while in state custody, likewise may encourage the view that the office 
should have been tougher. Epstein appears to have received highly unusual treatment while in 
jail. Although the terms of confinement in a state prison are a matter appropriately left to the 
EFTA00232722

State of Florida, and not federal authorities, without doubt, the treatment that he received while 
in state custody undermined the purpose of a jail sentence. 
Some may also believe that the prosecution should have been tougher in retaliation for the 
defense's tactics. The defense, arguably, often failed to negotiate in good faith. They would 
obtain concessions as part of a negotiation and agree to proceed, only to change their minds, and 
appeal the office's position to Washington. The investigations into the family lives of individual 
prosecutors were, in my opinion, uncalled for, as were the accusations of bias and / or 
misconduct against individual prosecutors. At times, some prosecutors felt that we should just 
go to trial, and at times I felt that frustration myself. What was right in the first meeting, 
however, remained right irrespective of defense tactics. Individuals have a constitutional right to 
a defense. The aggressive exercise of that right should not be punished, nor should a defense 
counsel's exercise of their right to appeal a U.S. Attorney to Washington, D.C. Prosecutors must 
be careful not to allow frustration and anger with defense counsel to influence their judgment. 
After the plea, I recall receiving several phone calls. One was from the FBI Special Agent-In-
Charge. He called to offer congratulations. He had been at many of the meetings regarding this 
case. He was aware of the tactics of the defense, and he called to praise our prosecutors for 
holding firm against the likes of Messrs. Black, Dershowitz, Lefkowitz and Starr. It was a proud 
moment. I also received calls or communications from Messrs. Dershowitz, Le&owitz and 
Starr. I had known all three individuals previously, from my time in law school and at Kirkland 
& Ellis in the mid 90s. They all sought to make peace. I agreed to talk and meet with each of 
them after Epstein pled guilty, as I think it important that prosecutors battle defense attorneys in 
a case and then move on. I have tried, yet I confess that has been difficult to do fully in this case. 
The bottom line is this: Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire, served time in jail and is now a 
registered sex offender. He has been required to pay his victims restitution, though restitution 
clearly cannot compensate for the crime. And we know much more today about his crimes 
because the victims have come forward to speak out. Some may disagree with the prosecutorial 
judgments made in this case, but those individuals are not the ones who at the time reviewed the 
evidence available for trial and assessed the likelihood of success. 
Respectfully, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
Former U.S. Attorney 
Sothern District of Florida 
EFTA00232723

U
n, 
S.J. QUINNEY 
COLLEGE OF LAW 
THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 
Wifredo A. Ferrer 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
99 N.E.4th Street 
Miami, FL 33132 
G. CASSELL 
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Profes.f Criminal Law 
Telephone: 
[email protected] 
September 29, 2011 
Re: 
Follow-up on Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Mr. Ferrer: 
As you know, Brad Edwards and I represent Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in their 
efforts to protect their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. You were nice enough to 
meet with Jane Doe #1 in December 2010 on that case, and we appreciate that. At the 
conclusion of that meeting, I also provided you with a letter presenting my grave concerns 
about possible improper influences being brought to bear on your Office during its 
negotiation of the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. (For your convenience, I 
attach a copy of that letter.) It was my understanding that you deemed my allegations 
serious enough to forward my letter to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for 
further investigation, and it was my impression that 0PR was going to look into the 
allegations raised in my letter. 
I must say that I was surprised to receive a letter five months later from 0PR 
indicating that my concerns were not being investigated. On May 6, 2011, OPR stated that 
it was their policy "to refrain from investigating issues or allegations that were, are being, 
or could have been addressed in the court of litigation, unless a court has made a specific 
finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney ... or there are present other circumstances." OPR 
stated that my allegations fell into the category of allegations that were being litigated 
because Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were raising these issues in their CVRA case. 
Accordingly, OPR indicated it was not going to review the allegations that I presented. 
I am writing now to request the opportunity to meet with you further and to pass 
along additional information in support of my concerns. I wanted to follow up with you to 
make sure that someone was looking into my allegations about improper influences 
affecting your Office's decision to accord Jeffrey Epstein an extraordinarily lenient plea. It 
may well be that OPR has some policy precluding an investigation. But will your Office then 
investigate these issues? 
I am also writing to alert you to additional information that continues to lead me to 
believe that something was rotten with the way this case was handled. 
1 
www.law.utah.edu • Main Office 
• Facsimile 
332 South 1400 East, Room 111.11.City, Utah 84112-0730 
EFTA00232724

As you may know, 
was a senior prosecutor and supervisor in your 
Office when the non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein was approved. It is our 
impression that he was directly involved in supervising the Epstein investigation as the 
former Chief of the Criminal Division of your Office. 
It has been our understanding for 
quite some time that he frequently corresponded with Epstein's attorneys, especially Lily 
WM, 
during the plea discussions, and it is our understanding that he left your 
Office around the time the non-prosecution agreement was signed. 
Our private investigator has recently learned that 
left your office to work at 
a New York law firm representing white collar criminals. He also learned thai 
quite expensive apartment in New York City is located in close proximity to real estate 
properties (specifically condos) owned by Jeffrey Epstein. The location of =Is 
apartment, his role during the Epstein negotiations and his departure immediately after 
the NPA was signed, leads us to believe 
 
that
 and Epstein may have had a business 
l 
or other relationship either during or after 
time in the Office. If that is the case, 
then we would appreciate you providing the information that you have in that regard 
voluntarily, as opposed to us having to conduct formal discovery to get it 
As you also know, Judge Marra has recently ordered discovery to proceed in this 
case. We obviously would like for that process to go as smoothly as possible and want to 
avoid becoming involved in true adversary litigation with your Office. On behalf of our 
clients, we just want to get to the bottom of this, and we feel safe in assuming that you do 
too at this point 
For all these reasons, I am writing to request another chance to meet with you about 
our concerns and about making the discovery process go smoothly. 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, 
Paul G. Casse 
cc: 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
cc: 
Assistant U.S. AttorneyM • 
I 
2 
EFTA00232725

SJ.QUINNEY 
COLLEGE OF LAW 
THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 
'Wifredo A. Ferrer 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida.
99 N.E.4th Street 
Miami, FL 33132 
G. CASSELL 
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Prol,t 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 20O6 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 the execution of a search warrant at 
his home. We know that lead state police officers -- Detective Recarey and Police Chief Michael 
Reiter -- 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 In a civil 
orww.law.utah.eclu • Maio Office 1.11111 • Facsimile 
332 South 1400 East, Room 1 1• At .a 
City, Utah 411.. 
EFTA00232726

deposition that Epstein's assistant, 
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 im ro erl re resented people close to Epstein. During the federal investigation of 
Epstein, 
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 pn 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, 
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, Jack 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, 
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 
(Epstein'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. 
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, if anything, to fetterat anJ slateirtvestigater-s-sturing-the_crirninat 
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 
EFTA00232727

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 
involvedin making important decisions abotit 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 
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 Epsteln's victims 
(E) 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 yobr 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 mostii ral
owered attorneys — namely Ken Starr and Lilly. 
Sanchez. Epstein settled the case wit 
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 an t e e era 
ur 
a FBI wa.s_ratp,onsihic. along 
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 clearto us that thin' was consulted about this 
decision. Indeed, we have suspicions that the FBI was not informed of this decision until, 
perhaps, months later. 
3 
. 
EFTA00232728

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 NM. 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, 
Pau 
Cassel 
• 
4 
EFTA00232729

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 
I. CASSELL 
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Prof.f Criminal Law 
Telephone: 
Re: 
Jane Doe O. 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. 
Toda we had a telephone conference call with two of your attorneys,
in 
. 
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 ossession 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 
EFTA00232730

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
 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. 
WithholdinR 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 
EFTA00232731

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 "Coif-ricers 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 CVRAJ." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) (emphasis added).1 It is simply impossible for 
I 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 fO fice represents the FBI on these issues, and are happyTo 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 
EFTA00232732

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 
EFTA00232733

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. 
dwards 
Sincerely, 
Paul Ci. 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 
EFTA00232734

SEE
(USAFLS) 
From: 
IIMI Cassell 
Sent: 
aindia rtc 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
, I. 
W 
I. (USAFLS) 
Cc: 
rdirrvards 
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 so our pleading should not 
remain under seal — instead the public should have access to it so 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 so 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, 
IM 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.edu/orofiles/defaulLaso?Person1O=57&namp=cassell,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 
EFTA00232735

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
1 
2 
3 
4 
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, 
vs. 
JUNE 12, 2009 
7 
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 
16 
For Jane Doe 
17 
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. 
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 
18 
401 East Las Olas Boulevard 
Port 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 
23 
RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. 
24 
2290 10th Avenue North 
Lake Worth, FL 33461 
25 
For 
1
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00232736