EFTA00799605

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 41 of 
176 
Exhibit 5 
EFTA00799645

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 42 of 
176 
EISENBERG & Fotrrs, P.A. 
Attorneys At Law 
JAMES L. EISENBERG 
Pieties Bar Board Certified CrindnaltrIel LIMO.
Yettienel BORN OtTrittl Advocacy Coinled Candled TrW Advocate 
EAI LI ALOE ItsIns 
Oneacirlalto Centre, Suitt) 704,250Australlan Avenue South+ WestPalm Boath,FL33401 361/654-200Fax1561/6594380 
February 12, 2007 
A. Marie Villefanp Asst. U.S. Attorney 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 40.0 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Re:. 
Dear Marie, 
for 1 
As always, it was a pleasure speaking to you the other day, Pursuant to our telephone conference 
am writing this letter to proffer iny concerns (erg.= 
hashould she testify without inununity 
before.alliMMI„ Therefore, allow meth reiterate that Ms. mitowill refuse to voluntarily 
cooperate with the federal government, She has a good faith basis for er position wider the Fifth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution, 
We, of course, do not live or work in a vacuum. We have read many infiruntriatory remarks the 
Town of Palm Bewail Police Chief has made to the media about the state court's handling of the 
Jeffrey. Epstein investigation. The polkachief s remarks frighten both myself and my client. Tam 
aware that the town police have prepared dc•cuments to charge at least one of Mr. l3pstein's lady 
friends.in state court. If theyoan push to have one lady ehargedl remain unconvinced that they do 
not have• the ability or political clout to push to have other ladies such as Ms. ME charged. 
The Proffered filets that rathe my concerns are being provided via thisprofThr letter. Pursuant to our 
telephonaconference agreement, this letter and its contents cannot be used against Mr. MIN 
Ms. Minlis not at all eefitain of dates. She does remember meeting Mr. Bpstoinabout three years 
ago. She is not certain of her ago, it could have been when she was sixteen, A girlfriend asked her 
if she wanted a job giving massages. Ms. iviMagreed beetnise she bad knowledge of massages 
through her mother, who was a. masseuse. 
MS. Mewerit t0 Mr. Epstein's house via trod. Ms. 
girlfriend instructed Ms. Ivillthrit, 
if asked, she had to tell Mr. Epstein that she (M. was eighteen years old. The friend was 
nineteen years old and Millooked old for her age, so passing for eighttenwas nota problem. At 
, GOVERNMENT 
EXHIBIT 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-003730 
EFTA00799646

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 43 of 
176 
the home Ms' Milinet Mr. Epstein and later gave him a massage. The friend had teildMs. 
to give the message toplests; Mr. Epstein told lvalthal if she were at all uncomfortable being 
topless, not to do it and It Was not a requirement of employment as a masseuse. Ms. laneyer 
touehed.Mr. Epstein in a sexual way and Mr. Epstein never touched Ms. Mild all. At one point, 
Mr. Epstein, did ask Ms. Milherage. Ms. Milinsisted that she was eighteen years old. 
Ms. mar.ontinued to see Mr. Epstein over time and massages were given in a similar fashion, 
She was later asked if her friends wanted to work in a similar way and she asked scime girls who did 
give Mr. Epstein massages. Ma. Ivilliwas never asked to bring girls of any age to Mr. Epstein's 
home, When She didhave bet friends some over, she instructed all Of them.that askedeibeY insist 
that they were eighteen years old. She is not certain at all of any of these girls' real ages. 
In stunmary, otrr concern is that if the govermnent believes that Mr. Epsteincomunitted some federal 
offense, thetafs.11licould beconsiderecia co-conspirator, We believes no Crimewas committed.. 
The Fifth Aniendment was not intended to protect the guilty, he/fever, It was enacted to proteot 
citizens who fear prosecution notwithstanding their innocence, Our fear of `any prosecution, 
especially j. ' 
the :MIND police chiefs public retrofits, is clearly in good faith.
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-003731 
EFTA00799647

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 44 of 
176 
Exhibit 6 
EFTA00799648

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 45 of 
176 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOTJTIIERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
NORTHERN (WEST PALM BEACH) DIVISION 
IN RE: 
 
/ 
SEALED ORDER 
On Application of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and it 
appearing to the satisfaction of the Court: 
1. 
That TINMIIIIIhas been called to testify and to provide other information before 
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 
and 
2. 
That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney, 1 
MN has refused 
to testify and provide other information on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination; and 
3. 
That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney, the testimony and other 
infonnatiim from' J
 ME may be necessary to the public interest; and 
4. 
That the aforesaid Application has been made with the approval of the Assistant 
Attorney General in. charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice or a duly 
designated Acting Assistant Attorney General, pursuant to the authority vested in hint by Title 18, 
United States Code, Section 6003, and Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 0.175 and 
0.132(e). 
NOW, IHEREFORE, it is orderedpursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 6002, 
that TOgive 
testimony and provide other information which she refus 
• 
EFTA00799649

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 46 of 
176 
provide on the basis of herprivilege against self-incrimination, as to all matters aboutwhich she may 
be interrogated before said United States District Court, 
as well as any subsequent proceeding or trial. 
However, no testimony or other information compelled under this Order (orsny information 
directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or otheiinfomiation) may be used against TM 
.MIllin any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise 
failing to comply with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the this Order shall be SEALED in accordance with Fed. 
Crim. P. 6(e)(6), except that a copy of this Order shall bo provided to counsel for the United 
States, who may disclose the existence of the Order 
to the witness, 
to counsel for the witness, and to law enforcement officers engaged in the investigation 
Those persons may review the Order, but may not retain a copy of the Order, 
nor may they disclose the existence of the Order to any others. 
DONE and ORDERED this 
day of April, 200 ie
 t Palm Beach, Florida. 
cc: 
A Marie Villafaila, AUSA 
DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
2 
ti
EFTA00799650

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 47 of 
176 
Exhibit 7 
EFTA00799651

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLED Docket 06/02/2017 Page 48 of 
176 
U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
Citigroup Center 
153 East 53rd Street 
New York, New York 10022-4675 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Jay: 
SOO S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 
West Palos Beach, FL 33401 
December 13, 2007 
I am writing not to respond to your asserted "policy concerns" regarding Mr. Epstein's Non-
Prosecution Agreement, which will be addressed by the United States Attorney, but the time has 
come for me to respond to the ever-increasing attacks on my role in the investigation and 
negotiations. 
It is an understatement to say that I am surprised by your allegations regarding my role 
because I thought that we had worked very well together in resolving this dispute. I also am 
surprised because I feel that I bent over backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement 
would have on Mr. Epstein and to make sure that you (and he) understood the repercussions of the 
agreement. For example, I brought to your attention that one potential plea could result in no gain 
lime for your client; I corrected one of your calculations of the Sentencing Guidelines that would 
have resulted in Mr. Epstein spending far more time in prison than you projected; I contacted the 
Bureau of Prisons to see whether Mr. Epstein would be eligible for the prison camp that you desired; 
and I told you my suspicions about the source of the press "leak" and suggested ways to avoid the 
press. Importantly, I continued to work with you in a professional manner even after I learned that 
you had been proceeding in bad faith for several weeks — thinking that I had incorrectly concluded 
that solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution was a registrable offense and that you would 
"fool" our Office into letting Mr. Epstein plead to a non-registrable offense. Even now, when it is 
clear that neither you nor your client ever intended to abide by the terms of the agreement that he 
signed, I have never alleged misconduct on your part. 
The rust allegation that you raise is that I "assiduously" hid from you the fact that Bert 
Ocariz is a friend of my boyfriend and that I have a "longstanding relationship" with Mr. Ocariz. 
I GOVERNMENT 
EXHIBIT 
EFTA00799652

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 49 of 
176 
JAY P. LEFKOWFTZ, ESQ. 
DECEMBER 13, 2007 
PAGE 2 OF S 
I informed you that I selected Mr. Ocariz because he was a friend and classmate of two people 
whom I respected, and that I had never met or spoken with Mr. Ocariz prior to contacting him about 
this case. All of those facts are true. I still have never met Mr. Ocariz, and, at the time that he and 
I spoke about this case, he did not know about my relationship with his friend. You suggest that I 
should have explicitly informed you that one of the referrals came from my "boyfriend" rather than 
simply a "friend," which is the term I used, but it is not my nature to discuss my personal 
relationships with opposing counsel. Your attacks on me and on the victims establish why I wanted 
to find someone whom I could trust with safeguarding the victims' best interests in the face of 
intense pressure from an unlimited number of highly skilled and well paid attorneys. Mr. Ocariz 
was that person. 
One of your letters suggests a business relationship between Mr. Ocariz and my boyfriend. 
This is patently untrue and neither my boyfriend nor I would have received any financial benefit 
from Mr. Ocariz's appointment. Furthermore, after Mr. Ocariz learned more about Mr. Epstein's 
actions (as described below), he expressed a willingness to handle the case pro bono, with no 
financial benefit even to himself. Furthermore, you were given several other options to choose from, 
including the Podhurst firm, which was later selected by Judge Davis. You rejected those other 
options. 
You also allege that I improperly disclosed information about the case to Mr. Ocariz. I 
provided Mr. Ocariz with a bare bones summary ofthe agreement's terms related to his appointment 
to help him decide whether the case was something he and his firm would be willing to undertake. 
I did not provide Mr. Ocariz with facts related to the investigation because they were confidential 
and instead recommended that he "Google" Mr. Epstein's name for background information. When 
Mr. Ocariz asked for additional information to assist his firm in addressing conflicts issues, I 
forwarded those questions to you, and you raised objections for the first time. I did not share any 
further information about Mr. Epstein or the case. Since Mr. Ocariz had been told that you 
concurred in his selection, out of professional courtesy, I informed Mr. Ocariz of the Office's 
decision to use a Special Master to make the selection and told him that the Office had made contact 
with Judge Davis. We have had no further contact since then and I have never had contact with 
Judge Davis. I understand from you that Mr. Ocariz contacted Judge Davis. You criticize his 
decision to do so, yet you feel that you and your co-counsel were entitled to contact Judge Davis to 
try to "lobby" him to select someone to your liking, despite the fact that the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement vested the Office with the exclusive right to select the attorney representative. 
Another reason for my surprise about your allegations regarding misconduct related to the 
Section 2255 litigation is your earlier desire to have me perform the role of "facilitator" to convince 
the victims that the lawyer representative was selected by the Office to represent their interests alone 
and that the out-of-court settlement of their claims was in their best interests. You now state that 
doing the same things that you had asked me to do earlier is improper meddling in civil litigation. 
Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective Recarey's investigation that have 
EFTA00799653

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLED Docket 06/02/2017 Page 50 of 
176 
JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
DECEMBER 13, 2007 
PAGE 3 OF 5 
already been submitted to the Office on several occasions and you suggest that I have kept that 
information from those who reviewed the proposed indictment package. Contrary to your 
suggestion, those submissions were attached to and incorporated in the proposed indictment 
package, so your suggestion that I tried to hide something from the reviewers is false. I also take 
issue with the duplicity of stating that we must accept as true those parts of the Recarey reports and 
witness statements that you like and we must accept as false those parts that you do not like. You 
and your co-counsel also impressed upon me from the beginning the need to undertake an 
independent investigation. It seems inappropriate now to complain because our independent 
investigation uncovered facts that are unfavorable to your client. 
You complain that I "forced" your client and the State Attorney's Office to proceed on 
charges that they do not believe in, yet you do not want our Office to inform the State Attorney's 
Office of facts that support the additional charge nor do you want any of the victims of that charge 
to contact Ms. Belohlavek or the Court. Ms. Belohlavek's opinion may change if she knows the full 
scope of your client's actions. You and I spent several weeks trying to identify and put together a 
plea to federal charges that your client was willing to accept. Yet your letter now accuses me of 
"manufacturing" charges of obstruction of justice, making obscene phone calls, and violating child 
privacy laws. When Mr. Lourie told you that those charges would "embarrass the Office," he meant 
that the Office was unwilling to bend the facts to satisfy Mr. Epstein's desired prison sentence — a 
statement with which I agree. 
I hope that you understand how your accusations that I imposed "ultimatums" and "forced" 
you and your client to agree to unconscionable contract terms cannot square with the true facts of 
this case. As explained in letters from Messrs. Acosta and Sloman, the indictment was postponed 
for more than five months to allow you and Mr. Epstein's other attorneys to make presentations to 
the Office to convince the Office not to prosecute. Those presentations were unsuccessful. As you 
mention in your letter, I —a simple line AUSA — handled the primary negotiations for the Office, and 
conducted those negotiations with you, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Lewis, and a host of other highly skilled 
and experienced practitioners. As you put it, your group has a "combined 250 years experience" to 
my fourteen. The agreement itself was signed by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. Lcfcourt, 
whose experience speaks for itself. You and I spent hours negotiating the terms, including when to 
use "a" versus "the" and other minutiae. When you and I could not reach agreement, you repeatedly 
went over my head, involving Messrs. Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta in the negotiations at 
various times. In any and all plea negotiations the defendant understands that his options are to 
plead or to continue with the investigation and proceed to trial. Those were the same options that 
were proposed to Mr. Epstein, and they are not "persecution or intimidation tactics." Mr. Epstein 
chose to sign the agreement with the advice of a multitude of extremely noteworthy counsel. 
You also make much of the fact that the names of the victims were not released to Mr. 
Epstein prior to signing the Agreement. You never asked for such a .term. During an earlier 
meeting, where Mr. Black was present, he raised the concern that you now voice. Mr. Black and 
I did not have a chance to discuss the issue, but 1 had already conceived of a way to resolve that 
EFTA00799654

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLED Docket 06/02/2017 Page 51 of 
176 
JAY P. LEFKOvirTZ, ESQ. 
DECEMBER 13, 2007 
PAGE 4 OF 5 
issue if it were raised during negotiations. As I stated, it was not, leading me to believe that it was 
not a matter of concern to the defense. Since the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the 
agents and I have vetted the list of victims more than once. In one instance, we decided to remove 
a name because, although the minor victim was touched inappropriately by Mr. Epstein, we decided 
that the link to a payment was insufficient to call it "prostitution." I have always remained open to 
a challenge to the list, so your suggestion that Mr. Epstein was forced to write a blank check is 
simply unfounded. 
Your last set of allegations relates to the investigation of the matter. For instance, you claim 
that some of the victims were informed of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough 
investigation of their allegations against Mr. Epstein. This also is false. None of the victims was 
informed of the right to sue under Section 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three 
victims were notified shortly after the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement of the general 
terms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further 
notifications were done. Throughout this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as 
though it would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility of damages claims prior 
to concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case. If my reassurances are 
insufficient, the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein should assure you of 
the integrity of the investigation.' 
'There are numerous other unfounded allegations in your letter about document demands, 
the money laundering investigation, contacting potential witnesses, speaking with the press, and the 
like. For the most part, these allegations have been raised and disproven earlier and need not be 
readdressed. However, with respect to the subpoena served upon the private investigator, contrary 
to your assertion, and as your co-counsel has already been told, I did consult with the Justice 
Department prior to issuing the subpoena and I was told that because I was 
subpoenaing an 
attorney's office or an office physically located within an attorney's office, and because the business 
did private investigation work for individuals (rather than working exclusively for Mr. Black), I 
could issue a grand jury subpoena in the normal course, which is what I did. I also did not 
"threaten" the State Attorney's Office with a grand jury subpoena, as the correspondence with their 
grand jury coordinator makes perfectly clear. 
With regard to your allegation of my filing the Palm Beach Police Department's probable 
cause affidavit "with the court knowing that the public could access it," I do not know to what you 
arc referring. All documents related to the grand jury investigation have been filed under seal, and 
the Palm Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit has never been filed with the Court. 
If, in fact, you are referring to the Ex Parte Declaration of Joseph Recarey that was filed in response 
to the motion to quash the grand jury subpoena, it was filed both under seal and ex parte, so no one 
should have access to it except the Court and myself. Those documents are still in the Court file 
only because yaLhave violated one of the tenns of the Agreement by failing to "withdraw 
[Epstein's] pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas." 
EFTA00799655

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 52 of 
176 
JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
DECEMBER 13, 2007 
PAGE 5 OF 5 
With respect to Ms. K
 I contacted her attorney — who was paid for by Mr. Epstein and 
was directed by counsel for Mr. Epstein to demand immunity — and asked only whether he still 
represented Ms. MMand if he wanted me to send the victim notification letter to hint. He asked 
what the letter would say and I told him that the letter would be forthcoming in about a week and 
that I could not provide him with the terms. With respect to Ms. Ives status as a victim, you 
again want us to accept as true only facts that are beneficial to your client and to reject as false 
anything detrimental to him. Ms. NM made a number of statements that are contradicted by 
documentary evidence and a review of her recorded statement shows her lack of credibility with 
respect to a number of statements. Based upon all of the evidence collected, Ms. MMis classified 
as a victim as defined by statute. Of course, that does not mean that Ms. M_considers herself 
a victim or that she would seek damages from Mr. Epstein. I believe that a number of the identified 
victims will not seek damages, but that does not negate their legal status as victims. 
I hope that you now understand that your accusations against myself and the agents are 
unfounded. In the future, I recommend that you address your accusations to me so that I can correct 
any misunderstandings before you make false allegations to others in the Department. I hope that 
we can move forward with a professional resolution of this matter, whether that be by your client's 
adherence to the contract that he signed, or by virtue of a trial. 
Sincerely, 
IL Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
By: 
s/A. Marie Villafaffa 
A. Marie Villafafia 
Assistant United States Attorney 
cc: 
It Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney 
Jeffrey Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
You also accuse me of "broaden[ing] the scope of the investigation without any foundation 
for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money transmitting business 
to the investigation." Again, I consulted with the Justice Department's Money Laundering Section 
about my analysis before expanding that scope. The duty attorney agreed with my analysis. 
EFTA00799656

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 53 of 
176 
Exhibit 8 
EFTA00799657

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 54 of 
176 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 304-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2015 Page 1 of 3 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA 
JANE DOE N I and JANE DOE //2, 
Petitioners, 
vs. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Respondent. 
DECLARATION OF FBI SPECIAL AGENT TIMOTHY R. SLATER 
TIMOTHY R. SLATER declares as follows: 
I. I am a Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), currently assigned as a 
Section Chief at FBI Headquarters, Washington, D.C. I was appointed a Special Agent in May 
1999. Upon graduation from the FBI Academy at Quantico, Virginia, in September 1999, I was 
assigned to the Detroit Field Office. I was subsequently transferred to the FBI Miami Field 
Office in May 2006. 
2. In 2006. I was assigned to work on an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, who was 
accused of sexually abusing many young girls under the age of 18. In the course of our 
investigation, the FBI identified many potential victims asexual abuse by Epstein. We obtained 
names by speaking to other victims, who frequently knew of friends who had also been paid 
money by Epstein to provide sexual services to him. 
3. One of the victims identified was—In 
January — February 2007,1 
used various computer indices to try and locate Ms. 
By using these indices and other 
means, I found two international phone numbeis which I believed were being used by Ms. 
GOVERNMENT 
EXHIBIT 
Case 
g
EFTA00799658

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 55 of 
176 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 304-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2015 Page 2 of 3 
NIB 
4. Sometime during January — February 2007, I called the one of the numbers, in an 
attempt to speak to Ms. 
Also in my office was FBI Special Agent Nesbitt E. 
Kuyrkendall, the lead agent for the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. I was not using a 
speakerphone when I spoke with Ms. 
I asked S/A Kuyrkendall to be present because 
she, as the lead agent, was thoroughly versed in the details of the entire investigation, and I might 
need her assistance to respond to a question posed by Ms 
that I was unable to answer. 
5. When I dialed the number, a young woman answered the phone. I told her my name, 
identified myself as a Special Agent with the FBI, and asked if she was 
She 
said yes. I used a technique which I employ when speaking to people on the phone, who might 
question whether I am truly an FBI agent. I provided her with the phone ntunber of the FBI 
Field Office in Miami, Florida, and told•her she could hang up and verify the number. She 
could then call me back at the ntunber, and her call would be routed to inc. Ms. 
said that 
would not be necessary. 
6. I told Ms. 
about our investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, and the allegations that 
Epstein had sexually abused many underage young girls. I told her we believed she might be a 
victim of sexual abuse by Epstein. 
7. Ms. 
answered basic questions, telling me that she did know Jeffrey Epstein. 
She quickly became uncomfortable, telling me she moved away to distance herself from this 
situation, and expressing her desire to "let this be in my past." She asked that I not bother her 
with this again. 
8. I thanked Ms. 
and told her I appreciated her time. I provided my name and 
encouraged her to call the FBI Miami Field Office, if she had any questions or needed assistance. 
2 
Govt Exhibit I) 
Case No. 06-60736-CIV-MARRA 
EFTA00799659

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 56 of 
176 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 304-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2015 Page 3 of 3 
The entire phone conversation only last several minutes. 
9. I did not hear from Ms. 
again. In mid-March 2007, I reported for my new 
assignment at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. 
10. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 
Executed on January 26, 2015. 
TIMOTHY R. SLATER 
Section Chief 
Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Washington, D.C. 
3 
Gov't Exhibit D 
Case No. 08.80736-0N-MARRA 
EFTA00799660

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 57 of 
176 
Exhibit 9 
EFTA00799661

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 58 of 
176 
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
ent 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 27 of 100 
nsor & Associates 
Rernnin,aud TranscrimIce, lac. 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 
CASE NO. 2006 CF09454AXX 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
-VS-
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
DEPOSITION OF 
Wednesday, February 20, 2008 
2:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
205 North Dixie Highway 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Reported By: 
Judith F. Consor, FPR 
COPY' 
Notary Public, State of Florida 
Consor & Associates Reporting and Transcription 
Phone - 561.682.0905 
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682,1771 
1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
1! GOVERNMENT 
EXHIBIT 
I 
tr W )I
08-80736-C V-MARRA 
001233 
EFTA00799662

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 59 of 
176 
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
ent 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/2112008 
Page 28 of 100 
nsor & Associates 
Repartins and TraeseripSon, inc. 
Page 2 
1 
APPEARANCES: 
2 
On behalf of the State: 
3 
LANNA BELOHLAVEK, ESQ. 
ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY 
4 
401 North Dixie Highway 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
5 
561.355.7100 
6 
On behalf of the Defendant: 
MICHAEL R. TEIN, ESQ. 
7 
KATHRYN A. MEYERS, ESQ. 
LEWIS TEIN, PL 
8 
3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340 
COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
On behalf of the Defendant: 
JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. 
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS 
250 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE SOUTH 
SUITE 1400 
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 
561.659.8300 
ALSO PRESENT: 
ON BEHALF OF THE WITNESS: THEODORE J. LEOPOLD, ESQ. 
15 
KEITH J. BRETT, DIRECTOR OF MULTIMEDIA DIVISION, 
LEGAL-EZE 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 
1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
21 /4311 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
001234 
EFTA00799663

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 60 of 
176 
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 
ent 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 
Page 29 of 100 
nsor & Associates 
Repnronp and ItanicrIpcinn, Inc. 
1 
2 
3 
WITNESS: 
INDEX 
Page 3 
PAGE: 
DIRECT EXAMINATION 
4 
4 
BY MR. TEIN: 
5 
6 
7 
NOEXHIBITS 
MARKED 
8 
9 
 
CERTIFIED QUESTIONS 
10 
Page 
Line 
53 
22 
11 
55 
1 
59 
2 
12 
111 
14 
112 
2 
13 
14 
)5 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
- 
- 
- 
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 
1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
29 oral 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
001235 
EFTA00799664