EFTA01080086

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50c1A w Estnepeop FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 2 
• 
( 
eir-7( r eZewirli 
• 
AND ASSOCIATES 
October 9, 2008 
Dexter Lee, AUSA 
United States Attorney's Office 
99 N.E. 4th Street 
Miami, Florida 33132 
Re: 
Jane Doe # and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America 
Case No.: 
08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Dear Mr. Lee: 
I am writing to call to your attention two potentially false statements that the Government 
made, albeit inadvertently, in a sworn declaration submitted to the Court in connection with the 
above-captioned case. I request that your office file a corrected declaration and accompanying 
explanation. 
The first statement is found at page 3 to 4 of the July 91h, 2008 declaration of Marie 
Villafaita. There a provision in a plea agreement with Mr. Jeffrey Epstein is recounted. As we 
understand the Govenunent's current position in this case, it is that this provision is not in fact 
part of the plea agreement in this case. If our understanding is correct, then Ms. Villafafta has 
filed a false affidavit with the court, albeit inadvertently. We respectfully request that she file a 
new affidavit that corrects this false information, along with all other information relevant to 
understanding how the false information came to be provided to the court — and to the victims in 
this case. This correction should, in my view, include more details about how Epstein and his 
attorneys approved a submission of false information to the victims as you stated on Page 5, n.2 
in your October 8, 2008 filing "Respondent's Opposition to Victims' Motion to Unseal Non-
Prosecution Agreement" — presumably knowing that litigation surrounding the victims' rights 
issues was on-going and that such false information might be ultimately presented to the court. 
Such information is highly relevant to what remedy the victims might ultimately choose to seek 
for violations of their rights in this case. 
The second statement may or may not be false, but may need some clarification. At page 
4 of Ms. Villafafta declaration, she states that "[i]n October 2007, shortly after the agreement was 
signed, four victims [including C.W.] were contacted and these provisions were discussed' 
(emphasis added). Similarly at page 5, the declaration states: "After C.W. had been notified of 
the terms of the agreement 
" (emphasis added). I write to inquire whether, in view of the fact 
that the provision noted above is not in fact (according to the Government's current view) part of 
the plea agreement, whether this was the provision that the government (inaccurately) discussed 
with the victims. Put another way, I am wondering whether the Government will now stipulate 
that it, at most, discussed with the victims a provision in the plea agreement that never was 
actually part of the plea agreement. 
2028 HARRISON STREET.SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 
OFFICE, 954-414-8033/306-935-2011 
7 
EFTA01080206

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50-1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 2 
Dexter Lee, AUSA 
United States Attorney's Office 
October 9, 2008 
Page Two 
I continue to be interested in working out a joint stipulation of proposed facts in this case 
with the Government. If you would like to proceed in that direction, please give me a call. If, 
however, the Government is not willing to work out a joint stipulation of facts, then I need to 
have the record be as clear as possible, and at a minimum would request that the Government 
correct the inaccurate information it has provided to the court and clarify precisely how such 
inaccurate information came to be made a part of the record and the extent to which Mr. Epstein, 
through his attorneys, was culpable. 
Sincerely, 
BE/sg 
Brad Edwards 
2028 HARRISON STRERT,SUITE 202, 
HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 
OFFICE, 954- 414 - 8033/306-935-2011 
FAX, 954-924-1530/306-935-4227 
EFTA01080207

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 2 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson 
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 
v. 
UNITED STATES 
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR 
ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD 
RELEVANT EVIDENCE 
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Order 
Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence, filed March 21, 2011. 
It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. 
1. 
The government shall reveal to the victims and permit inspection and copying of all 
infonnation and material known to the government which may be "favorable" to the victims, see 
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (discussing evidence "favorable" to defendants); United 
States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (same), on issue of possible violations of their rights under 
CVRA and remedy for such violations, including any impeachment information under Giglio v. 
United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). 
2. The parties shall make every possible effort in good faith to stipulate to all facts or points of 
law the truth and existence of which is not contested and the early resolution of which will 
expedite the proceedings. 
1 
EFTA01080208

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 2 
3. 
The parties shall make to each other the disclosures required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 
26(a)(1)(A). 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, 
this 
day of March, 2011. 
KENNETH A. MARRA 
United States District Judge 
2 
EFTA01080209

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 
Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 10 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson 
JANE DOE #1 and JANDE DOE #2 
v. 
UNITED STATES 
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION TO USE CORRESPONDENCE TO 
PROVE VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHT ACT AND TO HAVE 
THEIR UNREDACTED PLEADINGS UNSEALED 
COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and 
through undersigned counsel, to move this Court to allow use of correspondence between the 
U.S. Attorney's Office and counsel for Jeffrey Epstein to prove violations of the Crime Victims' 
Rights Act. Because this Court has already ruled that the correspondence is not privileged — and 
because it is highly relevant to the victims' case — the motion should be granted. The victims' 
unredacted pleading quoting the correspondence should also be unsealed, particularly in light of 
the intense, international public interest in Epstein's controversial plea deal. 
BACKGROUND 
As the Court is aware, beginning 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 pursued civil 
litigation against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. During the course of that litigation, 
in June 2001, they obtained correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey 
Epstein's legal counsel. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ultimately settled their civil suits in July 
2010. During the settlement discussions, they informed Epstein's legal counsel that they would 
1 
EFTA01080210

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 10 
be using the correspondence in this CVRA action. Epstein requested advance notice of such 
filing. Jane Doe AI and Jane Doe #2 saw no basis for any objection to their using the materials, 
but agreed to give advance notice to Epstein so that he could make whatever arguments he 
wished. Accordingly, as part of their settlement, the victims agreed with Epstein that they would 
file under seal the correspondence so that Epstein would have an opportunity to object if he so 
desired: 
Counsel for [Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2] have received, as part of discovery in 
this lawsuit, certain correspondence between Epstein's agents and federal 
prosecutors. 
[Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2] may desire to use this 
correspondence to prove a violation of [their] right to notice by the government 
and to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect during criminal investigations 
and prosecutions under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 
section 3771, and to seek remedies for any violation that [they] may prove. The 
parties agree that Epstein will receive at least seven days advance notice, in 
writing, of intent to so use the correspondence in any CVRA case . . . [Jane Doe 
#1 and Jane Doe #2] agree to . . . file the documents . . . under seal until a judge 
has ruled on any objection that Epstein may file." 
On August 26, 2010, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 provided the specified advance notice 
to Epstein of their intent to use the correspondence. The notice specifically covered this CVRA 
action: 
[A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under 
the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, in which two victims 
of sexual assault by [you] allege they were deprived of their rights under the Act. 
For example, the victims allege that there were deprived of notice of pending plea 
bargain arrangements and an opportunity to be heard as well as the right to 
meaningfully confer with prosecutors. The correspondence provided to us is 
compelling evidence in support of their claims, as it demonstrates that federal 
prosecutors were conducting plea discussions with Epstein months before they 
alerted the victims to any possible plea bargain. 
The correspondence also 
demonstrates a willful plan to keep the victims in the dark about the plea 
discussions. In light of these facts, we intend to make use of this correspondence 
in the [CVRA] 
lawsuit[] 
2 
EFTA01080211

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 10 
Letter from Bradley J. Edwards to Robert D. Critton, Jr., Case No. 9:08-CV-80893, Doc. #214 
(attachment 2). 
On September 2, 2010, Epstein filed a motion for a protective order, seeking to bar 
disclosure of the U.S. Attorney's correspondence in both a pending state court case and the 
CVRA case. Case No. 9:08-CV-80893, Doc. #214. 
On September 13, 2010, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's responded, explaining that 
Epstein had already litigated — and lost — the claim that the information was somehow protected. 
They also explained that Epstein could not object to use of the information in the CVRA case 
unless he intervened in the CVRA case. Doc. #217. 
One day later, on September 14, 2010, the Court (Magistrate Judge Johnson) denied the 
motion for a protective order. Doc. #218. The Court explained that "[t]he Court agrees with 
[Jane Doe) . . . that if [Epstein] believes he has a valid basis for preventing disclosure of the 
subject documents in the subject state court proceeding, he should file a motion to that effect in 
the appropriate state court." 
On September 28, 2010, Epstein filed an appeal of the Magistrate Judge's order. Epstein 
argued that because the Magistrate Judge had ruled so rapidly, he had been precluded from filing 
a reply brief. 
On October 7, 2010, Jane Does' legal counsel filed a response (Doc. #221), explaining 
that no basis existed for barring use of the documents and that, in any event, Epstein needed to 
intervene in the CVRA case if he was going to have standing to object to use of the documents 
there. 
3 
EFTA01080212

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 10 
On October 20, 2010, this Court (Marra, J.), entered an order (Doc. #222) remanding to 
the magistrate judge to give Epstein an opportunity to file a reply brief. 
On November 1, 2010, Epstein filed a reply to the response to his motion for protective 
order. Doc. #223. 
On January 5, 2011, this Court (Johnson, J.) entered an order (Doc. #226) resolving 
Epstein's objection. The Order began by stating: "To the extent Epstein's Counsel ask the Court 
to find the subject correspondence privileged and on that basis prohibiting Plaintiffs' Counsel 
from disclosing it in either of the two proceedings, said request is denied." Id. at 3. The Order, 
however, indicated that Jane Does' counsel should file the correspondence under seal with "the 
appropriate institution" so that the institution could "make the determination of admissibility as it 
relates to their respective cases." Id. at 3.1
DISCUSSION 
1. 
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2 SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO USE THE 
CORRESPONDENCE, AS IT IS HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THEIR CASE. 
Under the Magistrate Judge's Order, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are directed to submit 
the correspondence to "the appropriate institute" for a "determination of admissibility." The 
victims have done that, filing only a redacted version of their pleading in the public court file, 
1 At one point, the Magistrate Judge appeared to think that the "appropriate institution" 
for the CVRA was the Justice Department, as the Magistrate Judge thought that Jane Doe was 
proceeding by way of an "internal Justice Department Complaint procedure." Of course, Jane 
Doe is not proceeding here by way of the internal Justice Department procedure, but rather the 
statutorily authorized procedure for filing a motion in the district court. See 18 U.S.C. § 
3771(d)(3). 
4 
EFTA01080213

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 5 of 10 
submitting an unredacted version to the Court. The victims have also submitted all of the 
correspondence to the Court under seal as well. 
The only remaining issue for the Court under the Magistrate Judge's Order is a 
"determination of admissibility as it relates" to the CVRA case. The correspondence is plainly 
admissible, as it is highly relevant to the victims' argument that the Justice Department has 
intentionally concealed the existence of the non-prosecution agreement from them. 
The 
correspondence specifically shows that the U.S. Attorney's Office reached a firm non-
prosecution agreement with Epstein in September 2007, but subsequently deliberately decided to 
conceal the existence of that agreement from the victims. The correspondence further shows that 
the U.S. Attorney's Office was aware of its statutory obligation to inform the victims of the non-
prosecution agreement. Indeed, some of the correspondence involves specific discussion of the 
CVRA and victim notices. 
All relevant evidence is admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 402. Relevant evidence is 
"broadly defined," United States v. Glasser, 773 F.2d 1553, 1560 (1 1 lh Cir. 1985), as evidence 
that has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the 
determination of the action more probably or less probable than it would be without the 
evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 401. Much of the correspondence bears directly on points that the U.S. 
Attorney's Office has already discussed in its pleadings. The Government's Response to the 
Victim's Petition, for example, contains an extensive discussion of the background of the 
investigation, the plea negotiations, and the U.S. Attorney's Office's understanding of its 
obligations under the CVRA. See Government's Resp. to Victim's Emergency Petition for 
Enforcement of Crime Victims Rights Act at 3-6 (doc. 413) (citing Declaration of Asst. U.S. 
EFTA01080214

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 10 
Attorney Marie Villafafia). 
These same subjects were also discussed at length at the Court's 
July II, 2008, hearing on the matter. See, e.g., Tr. July II, 2008, at 3-4, 18-19, 22-29. The 
correspondence provides far more detailed information on this subject than was previously 
available to the victims. More important, the correspondence also shows a concerted effort by 
the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein to conceal the non-prosecution agreement from the 
victims. 
The victims should therefore be allowed to use the correspondence, as it sheds important 
light on the events surrounding the non-prosecution agreement, which are central to the victims' 
arguments that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated their rights. 
II. 
THE VICTIMS' PLEADINGS SHOULD BE UNSEALED. 
The victims' pleadings should also be unsealed. The victims have, of course, filed only a 
redacted version of their pleading in the court public file, thereby ensuring full compliance with 
the Court's order that they give Epstein a chance to object. But there is no underlying reason for 
sealing of these documents. 
The Court has already ruled that the correspondence is not 
privileged. Accordingly, no good reason exists for keeping the pleadings confidential, and 
accordingly they should be made part of the Court's public file. 
In addition, no sealing order could be justified in this case. The Eleventh Circuit has 
instructed that the district courts must make substantial findings before sealing records in cases 
before it. For instance, in United States v. Oehoa-Masque, 428 F.3d 1015 (11d' Cir. 2005), it 
reversed an order from this Court that had sealed pleadings in a criminal case, emphasizing the 
importance of the public's historic First Amendment right of access to the courts. To justify 
6 
EFTA01080215

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 
Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 7 of 10 
sealing, "a court must articulate the overriding interest along with findings specific enough that a 
reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered." Id. at 1030. 
Here there is no overriding interest in keeping the pleadings secret. To the contrary, there 
is an overriding interest in having these matters exposed to public light. There is considerable 
public interest in the question of how a serial pedophile could arrange such a lenient plea 
agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office. There has long been suspicion that Jeffrey Epstein 
was receiving favorable treatment in the criminal investigation because of his wealth and power. 
See, e.g., Abby Goodnough, Questions of Preferential Treatment Are Raised in Florida Sex 
Case, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 3, 2006, at 19 (noting questions that the public had been left "to wonder 
whether the system tilted in favor of a wealthy, well-connected alleged perpetrator and against 
very young girls who are alleged victims of sex crimes"). Indeed, the interest in the matter is 
strong enough that the widely-viewed television program Law and Order: Special Victim Unit 
devoted an episode to it last month, suggesting in its plot that federal government had intervened 
improperly to prevent effective prosecution. See Law & Order Commemorates Jeffrey Epstein's 
Taste for Teen Hookers, http://gawker.com/M5751094/law--order-commemorates-jeffrey-
epsteins-taste-for-teen-hookers. Also, there is strong current media interest in the case. "British 
tabloids have gone berserk the past two weeks with the growing scandal over the friendship that 
Prince Andrew, 51, fourth in line for the throne, has maintained with the multimillionaire, a 
registered sex offender [Jeffrey Epstein)." Jose Lambiet, Prince's• Friendship with Pedophile 
Causes Furor Across the Pond, PALM BEACII PosT, Mar. 9, 2011, at 2B. There are also current 
reports that the FBI is reopening its investigation into the matter. See Sharon Churcher, FBI Will 
Reopen Case Against Prince's Friend, SUNDAY MAIL (UK), Mar. 6, 2011. 
7 
EFTA01080216

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 8 of 10 
Of course, the Court is not being asked in this pleading to decide the wisdom of the non-
prosecution agreement entered into by the U.S. Attorney's Office. The public can make up its 
own mind on that subject — but only if it is allowed to review the facts surrounding the 
negotiation of the agreement and the treatment of crime victims during the negotiation process. 
The Court should accordingly unseal the victims' pleading. 
III. 
EPSTEIN HAS NO "STANDING" TO RAISE ANY OBJECTIONS WITHOUT 
INTERVENING IN THE CVERA CASE. 
As a courtesy to Epstein, we have provided copies of all these pleadings to defendant 
Epstein. It should be noted, however, that while Epstein is well aware of this CVRA action, he 
has chosen not to intervene. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (providing procedures for intervention). 
Without intervening in the case, he cannot raise any objections to use of the correspondence in 
this case — or to any relief that the Court might grant to the victims. 
The victims have no objection to Epstein intervening in this case — at this time. If, 
however, Epstein delays intervention until after a reasonable period of time, the victims will 
argue that his motion to intervene is untimely. The victims will argue that any attempted 
intervention by Epstein after the date on which the Government must respond to the victims' 
motion for a finding of violation of the CVRA is untimely, as that is when the victims must 
begin drafting reply pleadings. See United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (1 1th
Cir. 1983) (listing factors to be considered in determining whether motion to intervene is timely). 
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 
8 
EFTA01080217

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 
Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 9 of 10 
The Government has no objection to the motion to unseal. On August 26, 2010, Epstein 
was given notice of the victims' intent to use these materials in this case. He has yet to intervene 
in this case, let alone interpose any objection in this case. 
CONCLUSION 
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should allow Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 to use 
the U.S. Attorney's correspondence in this CVRA action. The Court should therefore unseal the 
victims redacted pleading, entering the full pleading — and the attached correspondence — as 
publicly accessible records. 
DATED: March 21, 2011 
Respectfully Submitted, 
s/ Bradley J. Edwards 
Bradley J. Edwards 
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, 
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 
Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 
Telephone 
Facsimile 
Florida Bar No. 
E-mail 
and 
Paul G. Cassell 
Pro Hac Vice 
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the 
University of Utah 
332 S. 1400 E. 
Salt Lake Cit , UT 84112 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
E-Mail: 
Attorneys or ane 
an 
ane Doe #2 
9 
EFTA01080218

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 10 of 10 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
The foregoing document was served on March 21, 2011, on the following using the Court's 
CM/ECF system: 
A. Marie Villafaila 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Fax: 
E-mail: 
Attorney or t he 
overnmen 
Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. 
Fowler White Burnett PA 
777 S. Flagler Drive, West Tower, Suite 901 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein 
(courtesy copy of pleading via U.S. mail) 
10 
EFTA01080219