# docs_fts_content

c1: EFTA00013373
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013373.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
evidence obtained as direct or indirect result of
873 F.Supp. 1177
illegal search.
United States District Court,
N.D. Illinois,
Eastern Division.
Cases that cite this headnote
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
V.
Christopher Richard MESSINO, et al., Defendants.
[2]
Criminal Law
No. 93 CR 294.
Causal nexus; independent discovery or basis
or source
Jan. 31, 1995.
When disputed evidence is attributable to source
independent of illegally obtained primary item,
independent source doctrine renders evidence
Synopsis
admissible despite primary taint.
Eight defendants, who were charged in connection with
alleged drug distribution and money laundering
conspiracy, and government filed pretrial motions in
Cases that cite this headnote
limine. The District Court, Alesia, J., held that: (1)
evidence and witnesses' testimony would not be
suppressed as result of having been derived from leads
attributable to suppressed evidence; (2) testimony
regarding statutory maximum penalty faced by
[3]
Criminal Law
government's witnesses was admissible; (3) government
Inevitable discovery
would be allowed to recall witnesses during its case in
chief; (4) evidence regarding weapons possession, taxes,
When disputed evidence inevitably would have
and dealings involving large amounts of cash was
been discovered by lawful means, inevitable
admissible; (5) district court would not grant additional
discovery doctrine renders evidence admissible
peremptory challenges to defendants; (6) government was
despite primary taint.
not required to put nondefendant participant in
conversation with one of defendants on stand in order to
play tape recordings of conversation; (7) court would
Cases that cite this headnote
reserve ruling on marital communications privilege; (8)
references to one of defendants in codefendants'
conversations did not implicate confrontation clause; and
(9) government could introduce evidence of incarceration
[4]
Criminal Law
of one of defendants.
Causal nexus; independent discovery or basis
Motions denied in part and granted in part.
or source
Defendants, who were charged in connection
with alleged drug distribution and money
laundering conspiracy, were not entitled to
West Headnotes (34)
suppression of first defendant's lease,
identification and place of purchase of second
defendant's boat, and witnesses' testimony, even
[1]
Criminal Law
though lease, boat information, and witnesses
Searches, seizures, and arrests
were derived from leads attributable to
Criminal Law
suppressed evidence; lease, boat information,
Search or seizure in general
and identification and use of witnesses were
attributable to independent source of discovery.
Exclusionary rule prohibits introduction of
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
1
EFTA00013373

=== Page 2 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
Cases that cite this headnote
2 Cases that cite this headnote
[5]
Criminal Law
[8]
Criminal Law
Inevitable discovery
Relevancy in General
Defendant, who was charged in connection with
Evidence as to defense counsel's prior
alleged drug distribution and money laundering
prosecution experience was not admissible as it
conspiracy, was not entitled to suppression of
was irrelevant. Fed.Rules Evid.Rules 401, 402,
bank and credit card records and prohibition of
28 U.S.C.A.
use of witness, even though records and witness
were derived from leads attributable to
suppressed evidence; records and identity and
Cases that cite this headnote
significance of witness would have been
inevitably discovered even absent utilization of
tainted leads.
[9]
Witnesses
Cases that cite this headnote
Competency of contradictory evidence
Draft transcript prepared by one witness could
not be used to impeach another witness.
[6]
Criminal Law
Motions in limine
Cases that cite this headnote
District court would deny government's motion
in limine seeking to preclude evidence and
argument, at trial on charges arising from
[10]
Criminal Law
alleged drug distribution and money laundering
Motions in limine
conspiracy, of lawfulness, noncorrupt conduct,
and outrageous government conduct; motion
could not be evaluated absent more specific
District court would deny government's motion
context provided at trial.
in limine regarding allegations of witness
wrongdoing not involving dishonesty;
government sought to regulate impeachment of
2 Cases that cite this headnote
its witnesses at trial and, without context, court
was required to reserve ruling.
Cases that cite this headnote
[7]
Criminal Law
Motions in limine
District court would deny as moot government's
[11]
Witnesses
motion in limine seeking to preclude, at trial on
charges arising from alleged drug distribution
Explanation of Testimony on
Cross-Examination
and money laundering conspiracy, evidence and
Witnesses
argument of entrapment; no defendant
responded to motion by asserting right to argue
Interest in Event of Witness Not Party to
Record
entrapment in opening statements.
Testimony regarding statutory maximum
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
2
EFTA00013374

=== Page 3 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
penalties faced by government's witnesses was
laundering
admissible, notwithstanding contention that such
numbers were misleading given realities of
Evidence of defendants' possession of weapons
sentencing under Sentencing Guidelines;
was admissible, at trial on charges arising out of
evidence was relevant as to issue of credibility,
alleged drug distribution and money laundering
and, to extent that statutory maximum did not
conspiracy, on a tool-of-the-trade theory.
tell whole story, government was free to explore
that on redirect examination. U.S.S.G. $ 1B1.1
et seq., 18 U.S.C.A.App.; Fed.Rules Evid.Rule
Cases that cite this headnote
401, 28 U.S.C.A.
Cases that cite this headnote
[15]
Conspiracy
Admissibility in general
Tax evidence was admissible, at trial on charges
[12]
Witnesses
arising from alleged drug distribution and
Recalling Witnesses
money laundering conspiracy, to show no
legitimate source of income.
District court has discretionary authority to
allow government to recall witnesses during its
case in chief.
Cases that cite this headnote
Cases that cite this headnote
[16]
Criminal Law
Evidence calculated to create prejudice
against or sympathy for accused
[13]
Witnesses
Recalling Witnesses
Evidence of defendants' use of prostitutes was
not admissible at trial on charges arising from
District court would allow government at trial of
alleged drug distribution and money laundering
eight defendants on charges arising from alleged
conspiracy; defendants' use of prostitutes was
drug distribution and money laundering
irrelevant and overly prejudicial, absent some
conspiracy to recall specific witnesses during its
special circumstances, which government did
case in chief; such recall would be beneficial to
not forward.
jury's following government's case.
1 Cases that cite this headnote
Cases that cite this headnote
[17]
Criminal Law
[14]
Criminal Law
Evidence calculated to create prejudice
Conspiracy, racketeering, and money
against or sympathy for accused
laundering
Criminal Law
Government could elicit, at trial on charges
Controlled substances
arising from alleged drug distribution and
Criminal Law
money laundering conspiracy, testimony that
Conspiracy, racketeering, and money
some of defendants might have had sexual
laundering
relationships with same witnesses; it might be
Criminal Law
difficult for each witness to tell her story of her
Conspiracy, racketeering, and money
relation to those defendants without discussing
WESTLAW
© 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
3
EFTA00013375

=== Page 4 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
fact that she dated them, and government
would reserve ruling.
intended to elicit information in
noninflammatory manner.
Cases that cite this headnote
Cases that cite this headnote
[21]
Criminal Law
Motions in limine
[18]
Conspiracy
Admissibility in general
District court would deny defendant's motion in
limine seeking to preclude testimony at trial on
Evidence of large cash loans made by defendant
charges arising from alleged drug distribution
was admissible, at trial on charges arising from
and money laundering conspiracy; government's
alleged drug distribution and money laundering
theory of admissibility was based on witness'
conspiracy, to show defendant's possession of
being unindicted coconspirator, and papers
such cash as evidence of conspiracy.
submitted could not supply enough context to
rule on issue.
Cases that cite this headnote
Cases that cite this headnote
[19]
Criminal Law
Motions in limine
[22]
Jury
Codefendants
District court would deny defendant's motion in
limine seeking to preclude, at trial on charges
Decision as to whether to grant additional
arising from alleged drug distribution and
peremptory challenges in multidefendant trial
money laundering conspiracy, testimony
lies within sound discretion of district court.
regarding aliases, carrying of briefcase
Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule 24(b), 18 U.S.C.A.
containing $10,000, and putting assets in other
persons' names; depending on context, those
incidents could be relevant, and any
1 Cases that cite this headnote
foundational issues were properly addressed at
trial. Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 401, 28 U.S.C.A.
Cases that cite this headnote
[23]
Jury
Codefendants
District court would not grant defendant's
request for additional peremptory challenges,
[20]
Criminal Law
allotting three peremptory challenges for each of
Motions in limine
eight defendants, but, rather, would collectively
allow defendants ten peremptory challenges
District court would deny defendant's motion in
with each defendant having sole authority over
limine seeking to preclude, at trial on charges
one challenge and joint authority over remaining
arising from alleged drug distribution and
challenges, even though length of trial might
money laundering conspiracy, evidence of debt
complicate jury selection process. Fed.Rules
owed to defendant; government's theory was
Cr.Proc.Rule 24(b), 18 U.S.C.A.
that debt would be linked up when viewed in
context of evidence at trial and, thus, court
1 Cases that cite this headnote
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
4
EFTA00013376

=== Page 5 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
demonstrative evidence
District court would exclude alleged references,
in tape-recorded conversation involving
[24]
Criminal Law
defendant, who was charged in connection with
Materiality and probable effect of information
alleged drug distribution and money laundering
in general
conspiracy, to potential intimidation or murder
of government witness; it was not clear that
Under Brady rule, prosecution is barred from
defendant was agreeing to or encouraging such
withholding evidence that is favorable to
intimidation, either through inaudibility or
defendant and material to issue at trial.
truncated transmission, transcripts were
incomplete, and subject matter was highly
inflammatory.
Cases that cite this headnote
1 Cases that cite this headnote
[25]
Criminal Law
Grand jury proceedings
[28]
Witnesses
Defendant was not entitled to disclosure, under
Incompetency for or Against Each Other in
Brady, of witness' grand jury testimony;
General
prosecution did not intend to call witness at trial,
and, although witness' testimony indicated
"Adverse spousal testimony privilege" gives
absence of knowledge of any illegality on part
person presently married to criminal defendant
of defendant, Brady materiality determination
right not to testify against his spouse.
was not search for mere possibilities.
Cases that cite this headnote
Cases that cite this headnote
[29]
Witnesses
[26]
Criminal Law
Objections to competency in general
Sound recordings
Criminal Law
Only testifying spouse can assert adverse
Sound recordings
spousal testimony privilege.
Government was not required, as foundational
matter or under Sixth Amendment, to place
Cases that cite this headnote
nondefendant participant in conversation with
defendant on stand in order to play tapes of
conversation, which participant transmitted on
behalf of government. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.
6.
[30]
Criminal Law
Motions in limine
1 Cases that cite this headnote
District court would deny defendant's motion in
limine seeking to preclude his spouse's
testimony based on confidential marital
communications privilege; defense counsel's
information indicated that spouse would assert
[27]
Criminal Law
adverse spousal testimony privilege, government
Introduction of documentary and
claimed that marriage was sham and would be
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
5
EFTA00013377

=== Page 6 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
required to prove that claim at trial, and adverse
spousal testimony privilege was threshold
matter.
[34]
Criminal Law
Motions in limine
Cases that cite this headnote
District court would deny defendant's motion in
limine to preclude, at trial on charges arising
from alleged drug distribution and money
laundering conspiracy, evidence regarding
isolated incidents of small controlled substance
[31]
Criminal Law
deliveries; government intended to prove that
Presence of jury during inquiry as to
defendant sold small amounts of cocaine during
admissibility
course of and in furtherance of conspiracy, and,
furthermore, defendant's motion was too vague
District court would require government, before
to warrant ruling that all incidents fitting into his
presenting attorney-client communications, to
description should be excluded.
establish out of hearing of jury that exception to
attorney-client privilege operated.
1 Cases that cite this headnote
Cases that cite this headnote
Attorneys and Law Firms
[32]
Criminal Law
Confessions or declarations of codefendants
*1180 L. Felipe Sanchez, Matthew Schneider, Kathleen
Murdock, Asst. U.S. Attys., Chicago, IL, for U.S.
Admission of references to defendant in
codefendants' conversations which took place
Marc William Martin, Chicago, IL, for Christopher
after alleged drug distribution and money
Richard Messino.
laundering conspiracy ended did not implicate
confrontation clause; references required
Douglas P. Roller, Naperville, IL, E.E. Edwards, III,
"linkage" to defendant before they implicated
Nashville, TN, for Clement A. Messino.
him. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
Linda Amdur, Chicago, IL, for Michael Homerding.
Cases that cite this headnote
Robert A. Loeb, Chicago, IL, for Donald Southern.
Donna Hickstein-Foley, Chicago, IL, for William
Underwood.
[33]
Conspiracy
Gerardo Gutierrez, Chicago, IL, for Christopher B.
Admissibility in general
Messino.
Government could introduce evidence of
Robert L. Gevirtz, Gevirtz, Born & Kissel, Northfield, IL,
for Blaise Messino.
defendant's incarceration at trial on charges
arising out of alleged drug distribution and
Joseph R. Lopez, Chicago, IL, for Paul Messino.
money laundering conspiracy; superseding
indictment specifically charged that defendant
Walter Jones, Jr., Chicago, IL, for Thomas Hauck.
directed coconspirators while incarcerated.
Edna Selan Epstein, Chicago, IL, for Gray Chrystall.
Cases that cite this headnote
Leland Shalgos, Chicago, IL, for Daniel C. Shoemaker.
Steven A. Greenberg, Chicago, IL, Richard Friedman,
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
6
EFTA00013378

=== Page 7 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
Chicago, IL, for Lawrence Thomas.
2. The lease between Nick Sula and Christopher Richard
Messino is attributable to an independent source of
discovery.
3. The government's identification and use of Jerry Haas
and Lisa Batts as witnesses are attributable to an
independent source of discovery.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ALESIA, District Judge.
Challenges from Clement A. Messino
Before the court are pretrial motions in limine as well as a
4. The government's identification of Clement A.
few remaining pretrial motions and matters. For
Messino's boat and place of purchase are attributable to
background on this case see United States V. Messino, 871
an independent source of discovery.
F.Supp. 1035 (N.D.III.1995), and other cases cited at 871
F.Supp. at 1037-38 of that opinion.
5. The government's identification and use of George
Thorpe, John Richard, Phillip Webb, Ed Cozzi, and Frank
Fuscone as witnesses are attributable to an independent
source of discovery.
6. The identity and significance of Chris Smith as a
I. TAINT ISSUES RELATED TO PREVIOUSLY
witness would have inevitably been discovered even
SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE
absent utilization of tainted leads.
On January 18, 1995, the court conducted a taint hearing
to determine what, if any, items would be suppressed as
6. Bank records from Interstate Bank of Oak Forest,
evidence because of their having been derived from leads
Chesterfield Bank, Beverly Bank, Thornridge State Bank,
attributable to already suppressed evidence. The hearings
Evergreen Plaza Bank, Heritage Bank of Crestwood, First
were on the motions of defendants Christopher Richard
National Bank of Harvey, and First National Bank of Blue
Messino and Clement A. Messino. Based upon the
Island, as well as any credit card records would, at the
credible evidence of record the court makes the following
very least, have been inevitably discovered even absent
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court
utilization of tainted leads.
considers now only those items challenged in defendants'
post-hearing submissions.
B. Conclusions of Law
[1] 1. The exclusionary rule prohibits "the introduction of
*1181 A. Findings of Fact
evidence obtained as the direct or indirect result of an
illegal search." United States V. Markling, 7 F.3d 1309,
1315 (7th Cir.1993) (citing Murray V. United States, 487
U.S. 533, 536, 108 S.Ct. 2529, 2532, 101 L.Ed.2d 472
Credibility Finding
(1988)).
1. Special Agent Michael Priess, the sole witness at the
hearing, was a credible witness in all respects. His
2. Various doctrines define whether evidence not
testimony demonstrated detailed recall of facts
primarily tainted was obtained as a result of the primary
surrounding the instant investigation.
illegality. See generally 4 WAYNE R. LAFAVE,
SEARCH & SEIZURE § 11.4(a) (2d ed. 1987).
[2] 3. When the disputed evidence is attributable to a
source independent of the illegally obtained primary item,
the independent source doctrine renders the evidence
Challenges from Christopher Richard Messino
admissible despite the primary taint. Markling, 7 F.3d at
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
7
EFTA00013379

=== Page 8 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
1314-18, 1318 n. 1.
*1182 D. Evidence and Argument of Entrapment
[7] No defendant has responded to this part of the motion
[3] 4. When the disputed evidence inevitably would have
by asserting a right to argue entrapment in opening
been discovered by lawful means, the inevitably
statements. Accordingly, in this regard the government's
discovery doctrine renders the evidence admissible
motion is denied as moot.¹
despite the primary taint. See United States V. Jackson,
901 F.2d 83, 84-85 (7th Cir.1990); Markling, 7 F.3d at
1318 n. 1.
E. Mention of Prior Prosecution Experience by
Defense Counsel
[8] Clement Messino's attorney, as far as the court is
C. Holding
aware, is the only person to whom this argument is
[4] [5] No further items are suppressed as evidence because
directed. Counsel represents he has no intention to
of tainted leads.
mention his prosecution experience. On the off chance
another attorney or a witness might introduce the fact of
counsel's prosecution experience, the court holds that the
subject is irrelevant, and accordingly grants the motion in
this regard. FED.R.EVID. 401, 402.
II. GOVERNMENT'S CONSOLIDATED
PRE-TRIAL MOTION IN LIMINE
The government's motion raises eight separate
evidentiary issues.
F. Evidence and Argument About Draft Transcripts
[9] The government does not appear to dispute that a draft
transcript prepared by a witness may be used to impeach
that witness. Rather the government objects to using the
draft against another witness, which would not be proper
A. Impeachment of Joseph Granata
impeachment. Accordingly, in this regard the
For reasons discussed under Clement Messino's motion in
government's motion is granted.²
limine, the government's motion in this regard is granted.
G. Allegations of Witness Wrongdoing Not Involving
B. Evidence and Argument of Lawfulness and
Dishonesty
Non-corrupt Conduct
[10] The government here seeks to regulate impeachment
[6] The government's motion in this respect cannot be
of its witnesses at trial. Without context, the court must
evaluated absent the more specific context provided at
reserve ruling, and accordingly in this respect the
trial. Accordingly, in this respect said motion is denied.
government's motion is denied.
C. Evidence and Argument of Outrageous
H. Maximum Penalties Faced by Witnesses
Government Conduct
[II] The government wants to exclude introduction of the
The government's motion in this respect cannot be
statutory maximum penalty, arguing that such a number is
evaluated absent the more specific context provided at
misleading given the realities of sentencing under the
trial. Accordingly, in this respect said motion is denied.
United States Sentencing Guidelines. Such evidence is
Rule 401 relevant to the issue of credibility. To the extent
the statutory maximum does not tell the whole story, the
government is free to explore that on re-direct
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
8
EFTA00013380

=== Page 9 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
examination. Accordingly, in this regard the
EVIDENCE REGARDING CHRISTOPHER
government's motion is denied.
RICHARD MESSINO'S EMPLOYMENT AS A
POLICE OFFICER
In conclusion, the Government's Motion in Limine is
Defendant Christopher Richard Messino's Motion in
granted in part, denied in part, and denied as moot in part.
Limine to Preclude Evidence Regarding Christopher
Richard Messino's Employment as a Police officer is
denied. FED.R.EVID. 401, 402, 403.
III. GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
RECALL CERTAIN WITNESSES DURING ITS
CASE IN CHIEF
VI. DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER RICHARD
[12] [13] In order to present its case in a "chronological,
MESSINO'S OMNIBUS MOTION IN LIMINE
coherent manner," the government asks to be able to
Defendant Christopher Richard Messino seeks to preclude
recall certain witnesses during its case in chief. The court
introduction of sixteen categories of evidence.
has the discretionary authority to allow the case in chief to
proceed as the government suggests. See United States V.
Dent, 984 F.2d 1453, 1463 (7th Cir.) (citing cases), cert.
denied, 510 U.S. 858, 114 S.Ct. 169, 126 L.Ed.2d 129,
and 510 U.S. 875, 114 S.Ct. 209, 126 L.Ed.2d 165 (1993);
FED.R.EVID. 611(a). The court agrees with the
A. Certain Events Pertaining to Clement Messino
government that, properly executed, its proposal would be
beneficial to the jury's following the government's case.
Accordingly, the Government's Motion for Leave to
1. Escape
Recall Certain Witnesses During Its Case in Chief is
granted.
The government does not intend to introduce such
evidence, and so the motion in this regard is denied as
moot.
IV. DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER RICHARD
MESSINO'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
INCOMPETENT LAW OPINION EVIDENCE,
EVIDENCE BASED UPON LACK OF PERSONAL
2. Granata Dealings
KNOWLEDGE AND EVIDENCE BASED UPON
HEARSAY
The court has previously ruled on the Granata
Defendant Christopher Richard Messino's motion,
transactions, and in this regard the motion is denied.
phrased as it is, seeks merely to enforce Rules 602, 701
and 802. As long as the court is careful to note that
defendant's examples of enforcement of these rules are
not necessarily valid, the motion may be granted.
*1183 Defendant Christopher Richard Messino's Motion
3. Gun
in Limine to Preclude Incompetent Law Opinion
Evidence, Evidence Based upon Lack of Personal
[14] Such evidence is admissible on a tool-of-the-trade
Knowledge and Evidence Based upon Hearsay is granted.
theory. See United States V. Ramirez, Nos. 93-4056 &
FED.R.EVID. 602, 701 and 802.
93-4059, 1995 WL 17808, at *7 (7th Cir. Jan. 19, 1995).
In this regard, the motion is denied.
V. DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER RICHARD
MESSINO'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
9
EFTA00013381

=== Page 10 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
4. Severance
*1184 E. Possession of Weapons
This evidence is admissible on a tool-of-the-trade theory,
The government is right. The severance issue has been
as discussed above. In this regard the motion is denied.
given its due. In this regard the motion is denied.
F. Loan Sharking
B. Tax Evidence for Years Other than 1986 and 1987
[18] All the government intends to do here is introduce
[15] This evidence may be admissible to show no
evidence of large cash loans to show defendant's
legitimate source of income. See United States V. Briscoe,
possession of such cash as evidence of the conspiracy.
896 F.2d 1476, 1500 (7th Cir.) ("It is well settled that in
This introduction is admissible. See United States V.
narcotics prosecutions, a defendant's possession and
James, 40 F.3d 850, 861 (7th 1994), cert. denied, No.
expenditure of large sums of money, as well as his or her
94-7225, 1995 WL 21671 (U.S. Jan. 23, 1995); see also
failure to file tax returns, are relevant to establish that, in
Briscoe, 896 F.2d at 1500. In this regard the motion is
all probability, the reason for the failure to report this
denied.
income is due to the defendant's participation in illegal
activities."), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 863, 111 S.Ct. 173,
112 L.Ed.2d 137 (1990). Accordingly, in this regard the
motion is denied.
G. Car Theft Activity
On this issue the court has previously reserved ruling. In
this regard the motion is denied.
C. Rumors Regarding Murders
The government has no intention of introducing any
murder issue, so in this regard the motion is denied as
moot.
H. Kim Forbes
Defendant seeks to bar introduction of confidential
marital communications. The government agrees with this
theory. In this regard the motion is granted, although fact
issues related to the privilege may arise at trial.
D. Sex Evidence/Use of Prostitutes
[16] [17] The motion and the government's response raise a
few issues here. First, any defendant's use of prostitutes is
irrelevant and overly prejudicial, absent some special
circumstances, which the government does not forward.
Second, defendant wants to avoid reference to the fact
I. Yvette Gifford
that some defendants may have had sexual relationships
[19] Defendant raises three objections to predicted
with the same women. The government is right, though,
testimony by Yvette Gifford regarding aliases, the
to note that it may be difficult for a witness to tell her
carrying of a briefcase full of $10,000, and putting assets
story of her relation to those defendants without
in other persons' names. Depending on context, these
discussing the fact that she dated them. The government
incidents could be Rule 401 relevant. Also, any
intends to elicit the information in a "non-inflammatory"
foundational issues are properly addressed at trial. In this
manner, a representation under which the introduction of
regard the motion is denied.
the evidence will not be unduly prejudicial.
In this regard the motion is granted in part and denied in
part.
J. Michael Homerding
Defendant seeks to bar evidence of Homerding being shot
at, which the government does not seek to introduce. In
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
10
EFTA00013382

=== Page 11 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
this regard the motion is denied as moot.
P. Terry Saberhagen
[21] The government's theory of the admissibility of
challenged testimony by Saberhagen is based on
Saberhagen's being an unindicted coconspirator. The
court reserves ruling until trial, as the papers cannot
supply enough context presently to rule. In this regard the
K. Timothy Larkin
motion is denied.
Two concerns are here. First is evidence of an accusation
by Christopher Richard Messino that Larkin stole money.
In conclusion, Defendant Christopher Richard Messino's
The government does not seek to introduce such
Omnibus Motion in Limine is granted in part, denied in
evidence. Second is evidence of large amounts of cash,
part, and denied as moot in part.
which the government is entitled to introduce. In this
regard the motion is denied as moot in part and denied in
part.
*1185 VII. DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER
RICHARD MESSINO'S MOTION FOR
ADDITIONAL PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
L. Mary Beth Maroulis
[22] Under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Here the motion raises foundational issues, reserved for
Procedure, in this non-capital case in which "the offense
trial. In this regard the motion is denied.
charged is punishable by more than one year, the
government is entitled to 6 peremptory challenges and the
defendant or defendants jointly to 10 peremptory
challenges." FED.R.CRIM.P. 24(b). However, where, as
here, "there is more than one defendant, the court may
M. Dawn Peco
allow the defendants additional peremptory challenges
Here the motion addresses a gun shot incident, which the
and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly." Id.
Both the language of Rule 24(b) and Seventh Circuit
government says it will not introduce. In this regard the
motion is denied as moot.
cases make clear that "[t]he decision whether to grant
additional peremptory challenges in multi-defendant trials
lies within the sound discretion of the district court."
United States V. Cochran, 955 F.2d 1116, 1121 (7th Cir.)
(citing United States V. Farmer, 924 F.2d 647, 653 (7th
Cir.1991)), cert. denied, - U.S. - 113 S.Ct. 460,
N. Pete Peco, Jr.
121 L.Ed.2d 368 (1992).
[20] Here defendant raises an issue of evidence of a debt
owed by Gray Chrystall to Christopher Richard Messino.
[23] Defendant Christopher Richard Messino argues that
The government's theory is that the debt will be linked up
because potential jurors in this case face a lengthy trial,
when viewed in the context of the evidence at trial.
additional peremptory challenges are necessary. At the
Accordingly, the court reserves ruling by denying the
time of the motion, eleven defendants were going to trial,
motion in this regard.
and defendant argued that each of the eleven defendants
going to trial should be allotted three peremptory
challenges. While the court is aware that the length of a
trial may complicate the jury selection process, the
peremptory challenge plan defendant proposes is not one
the court in its discretion will employ.
O. Pete Peco, Sr.
The government has agreed not to introduce the disputed
With eight defendants going to trial as the court writes,
evidence that Christopher Richard Messino asked this
the court collectively will allow the defendants ten
witness to beat up a certain "kid." Accordingly, in this
peremptory challenges. Each defendant will have sole
regard the motion is denied as moot.
authority over one challenge. The defendants should come
to agreement on exercising the remaining challenges.
Accordingly, Defendant Christopher Richard Messino's
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
11
EFTA00013383

=== Page 12 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
Motion for Additional Peremptory Challenges is denied.
A. Granata Transactions
[26] The government apparently has defendant Clement
Messino on tape with Joseph Granata, who was
transmitting the conversation on behalf of the
government. The government wants to play the tapes
without putting Granata himself on the witness stand.
VIII. DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER RICHARD
Clement Messino's motion in this regard seeks to prevent
MESSINO'S MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF
the government from playing the tapes unless Granata
EXCULPATORY OR IMPEACHING MATERIAL
testifies.
Defendant seeks material pursuant to Brady V. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and
The court finds the Seventh Circuit's decision in United
Giglio V. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31
States V. McClain, 934 F.2d 822 (7th Cir.1991),
L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). Specifically, defendant seeks
instructive. In McClain, the Seventh Circuit approved
information regarding three individuals: Fred Maleki,
admission of tapes even where the government did not put
Cindy Delapena and Patrick Tobin. Regarding Tobin, the
the non-defendant participant in the conversation on the
government represents that it has no written statements.
stand. Id. at 832. The district court also in that case
Regarding Maleki and Delapena, the government asserts
properly denied the opportunity of the defendant to
that (1) it does not intend to call those witnesses; and (2)
impeach the non-defendant should the defendant call him.
none of the material on them is exculpatory.
Id. The foundational and Sixth Amendment issues here
are no different than in McClain.
[24] [25] The court has verified through in camera
inspection that the government's files on Maleki and
This is not a ruling on foundation issues or any other
Delapena do not contain Brady material. Brady bars the
aspect of any Granata tapes. This is merely a ruling on
prosecution from withholding "evidence that is favorable
whether some per se requirement prevents the
to the defendant and material to an issue at trial." United
government from introducing the Granata tapes without
States V. Carson, 9 F.3d 576, 582 (7th Cir.1993), cert.
Granata. The court finds no such requirement, and so in
denied, 513 U.S. 844, 115 S.Ct. 135, 130 L.Ed.2d 77
this regard denies defendant's motion.
(1994). The Delapena Grand Jury testimony does not
meet this test. Stretching materiality to its limits, one
[27] Defendant has, however, noted transcript portions that
could argue that on some theory Delapena's absence of
the court agrees are objectionable and will exclude.
knowledge of any illegality on the part of Christopher
Specifically, defendant objects to September 15 and 16,
Richard Messino makes her testimony material. But a
1991, references potentially to intimidating or even
Brady materiality determination is not a search for mere
murdering a government witness. Both instances have two
possibilities. Id., 9 F.3d at 583. Under this analysis the
problematic aspects. First, it is not entirely clear that
court will not order production of the Delapena testimony.
Clement Messino in either instance is agreeing to or
encouraging such intimidation. Second, either through
Similarly, Maleki's testimony need not be produced by
inaudibility or truncated transmission the transcripts are
the government. The court's inspection of the testimony
incomplete. When the subject matter is so potentially
reveals no Brady material.
inflammatory, the better course is to exclude those
portions of the transcripts. In this regard, therefore,
*1186 Accordingly, Defendant Christopher Richard
defendant's motion is granted.
Messino's Motion to Produce Exculpatory or Impeaching
Information is denied.
B. Pamela Messino
There is no question that Pamela Messino and defendant
IX. DEFENDANT CLEMENT A. MESSINO'S
Clement Messino have been legally married since 1968.
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE CERTAIN
They are apparently married now and were married at all
EVIDENCE
times relevant to this case. Defendant's motion raises the
Defendant Clement Messino raises five issues.
implications of that fact for the evidence in this case,
based on the confidential marital communications
privilege. United States V. Keck, 773 F.2d 759, 767 (7th
Cir.1985).
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
12
EFTA00013384

=== Page 13 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
[28] [29] The court does not reach issues of the confidential
marital communications privilege, because there is a
threshold issue of whether the adverse spousal testimony
privilege will apply. See Keck, 773 F.2d at 767. By the
government's own description, this privilege gives a
1. January 7 and 28, 1992
person presently married to a criminal defendant the right
The court agrees that the January 7 and 28, 1992,
not to testify against his or her spouse. See United States
statements are, as a preliminary matter, admissible under
V. Fulk, 816 F.2d 1202, 1205 (7th Cir.1987). The
Rule 801(d)(2)(E).
government has two reasons why the adverse spousal
testimony privilege will not apply: first, Pamela Messino
is not asserting the privilege (as only she can assert it);
and second, the marriage is a sham.
[30] As far as the first point, Clement Messino's counsel's
information is that Pamela Messino will assert the
2. April 7, 1993
privilege. (See Defendant Clement Messino's Reply
Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine to Exclude
The government concedes that the April 7, 1993,
Certain Evidence at 9 n. 5.) Therefore, questions under
conversation should be redacted as in Exhibit E-5 to
this privilege may arise. As far as the second point, as the
defendant's motion.
strength of the marriage is contested by defendant, the
government would have to *1187 prove up any exception,
or at least present uncontested facts on which the
exception would be based. See generally United States V.
Clark, 712 F.2d 299 (7th Cir.1983). Such a prove up
would undoubtedly resolve many of the issues as to the
3. March 3 and 15, 1993
confidential marital communications privilege, which
Clement Messino himself can invoke. Nonetheless, the
As to the March 3 and 15, 1992, conversations, the
adverse spousal testimony privilege is a threshold matter.
government's position is that while those conversations
admittedly took place after the end of the charged
The court reserves the factual determinations necessary to
conspiracy (and therefore Rule 801(d)(2)(E) does not
rule on the privileges until trial, and accordingly denies
apply), the proposed redactions are too broad.
defendant's motion in this regard.
[32] Since this is not an 801(d)(2)(E) admission, issues
arise under Bruton V. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88
S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). "[A] defendant is
deprived of his rights under the Confrontation Clause
C. Michael Gubbins
when his nontestifying codefendant's confession naming
[31] As the briefing came to a close, all defendant wants
him as a participant in the crime is introduced at their
here is to obligate the government, before presenting
joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider that
attorney-client communications, to establish out of
confession only against the codefendant." Richardson V.
hearing of the jury that an exception to the privilege
Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 201-02, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 1704, 95
operates. This is a safe and reasonable request, so the
L.Ed.2d 176 (1987). The Richardson court makes clear
motion in this regard is granted.
that the references to Clement Messino that he notes do
not present a Bruton problem because those references
require "linkage" to Clement Messino before they
implicate him. Id. at 208, 107 S.Ct. at 1708. The
government is right here, and therefore the redactions
should be as the government proposes. Accordingly, in
D. "Post-conspiracy" Evidence
this regard defendant's motion is granted in part and
Defendant here challenges transcript portions from five
denied in part.
dates: January 7, 1992; January 28, 1992; March 3, 1992;
March 15, 1993; and April 7, 1993.
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
13
EFTA00013385

=== Page 14 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
E. Other Issues
denied in part, and denied as moot in part.
1. Incarceration
X. DEFENDANT DONALD SOUTHERN'S
[33] Defendant wishes to avoid introduction of any
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE VARIOUS
evidence of his incarceration. The government's most
INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS
important response, with which defendant never comes to
Defendant Donald Southern raises two evidentiary issues
grips, is that paragraph eleven of Count I of the
regarding (1) statements of presumption, guesses or
Superseding Indictment specifically charges that Clement
conclusions by lay witnesses, and (2) testimony of
Messino directed co-conspirators while incarcerated.
Southern's role without personal knowledge, unless
Introduction of evidence of incarceration is therefore hard
foundation is laid or Rule 801(d)(2)(E) applies. This is in
to avoid.
the category of motions to have the Federal Rules of
Evidence apply to the trial.
In this regard defendant's motion is denied.
Accordingly, Defendant Donald Southern's Motion in
Limine to Preclude Various Inadmissible Statements is
granted.
2. Escape
The government does not intend to introduce specific
XI. DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER B. MESSINO'S
evidence of defendant's escape, so the motion in this
MOTION IN LIMINE WITH REGARD TO
regard is denied as moot.
CERTAIN EVIDENCE
Christopher B. Messino raises two evidentiary issues.
3. Employment as Police Officer
A. Evidence of Violence of Christopher B. Messino
The motion in this regard is denied. FED.R.EVID. 401,
The government rightly points out that the court has
402.
reserved ruling here. Accordingly, in this respect the
motion is denied.
4. Organized Crime References
B. Evidence Regarding Isolated Incidents of Small
Controlled Substance Deliveries
The government does not intend to introduce references to
[34] The government will attempt to prove that defendant
organized crime, except perhaps for a statement by
sold small amounts of cocaine during the course of and in
Clement Messino that he is a good gangster because he
furtherance of the conspiracy. Furthermore, defendant's
used to be a police officer. The court has been provided a
motion is too vague to warrant a ruling that all incidents
paraphrased snippet of testimony from a witness about
fitting into defendant's description should be excluded.
whom it has heard little *1188 or nothing in the context of
Accordingly, in this respect the motion is denied.
this case. The court must therefore reserve ruling, and the
motion is accordingly denied.
Defendant Christopher B. Messino's Motion in Limine
with Regard to Certain Evidence is denied.
In conclusion Defendant Clement Messino's Motion in
Limine to Exclude Certain Evidence is granted in part,
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
14
EFTA00013386

=== Page 15 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
XII. DEFENDANT BLAISE MESSINO'S MOTION
C. Evidence of Violence
IN LIMINE REGARDING THE INTRODUCTION
In this respect defendant's motion is denied, the court
OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE
reserving ruling.
Defendant Blaise Messino raises two issues.
D. Evidence of Drug Deliveries Outside of Charged
A. Possession of Firearms
Conspiracy
At least as a preliminary matter, evidence of possession of
Defendant's cursory request here is too vague and
firearms is admissible on a tool-of-the-trade theory.
overbroad to support a ruling. *1189 Accordingly, the
motion in this respect is denied.
B. Violence
Issues regarding evidence of violence have been reserved
E. Evidence of Involvement with Stolen Vehicles
for trial.
The government correctly notes that the court has
previously reserved ruling on this issue. In this respect the
Defendant Blaise Messino's Motion in Limine Regarding
motion is denied.
the Introduction of Certain Evidence is denied.
F. Evidence that Paul Messino Traveled to Florida to
XIII. DEFENDANT PAUL MESSINO'S MOTION
Pick Up Cocaine for Clement Messino or Others
IN LIMINE REGARDING INTRODUCTION OF
Among other things, this conduct would seem to be part
CERTAIN EVIDENCE
of the heart of the case against Paul Messino. The motion
Paul Messino's motion in conclusory fashion raises seven
in this regard is without basis and is denied.
evidentiary issues.
G. Evidence that Defendant Sold Cocaine to
A. Evidence of Robberies or a Fight
Confidential Informant Unless Informant is Produced
The government either does not intend to introduce such
for Cross-examination
evidence or correctly notes the motion is not specific
The government argues that there is no such requirement.
enough to support a ruling. In this respect the motion is
However, any legal issue here is mooted because the
denied.
government intends to produce informants in that
category. In this regard the motion is denied as moot.
In conclusion, Defendant Paul Messino's Motion in
Limine Regarding Introduction of Certain Evidence is
denied in part and denied as moot in part.
B. Evidence Regarding His Possession of Weapons
In this respect defendant's motion is denied. The evidence
may be admissible on a tool-of-the-trade theory.
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
15
EFTA00013387

=== Page 16 ===
U.S. V. Messino, 873 F.Supp. 1177 (1995)
CONCLUSION
Produce Exculpatory or Impeaching Information is
denied. Defendant Clement Messino's Motion in Limine
No further items are suppressed as evidence because of
to Exclude Certain Evidence is granted in part, denied in
tainted leads. Government's Motion in Limine is granted
part, and denied as moot in part. Defendant Donald
in part, denied in part, and denied as moot in part.
Southern's Motion in Limine to Preclude Various
Government's Motion for Leave to Recall Certain
Inadmissible Statements is granted. Defendant
Witnesses During Its Case in Chief is granted. Defendant
Christopher B. Messino's Motion in Limine with Regard
Christopher Richard Messino's Motion in Limine to
to Certain Evidence is denied. Defendant Blaise
Preclude Incompetent Law Opinion Evidence, Evidence
Messino's Motion in Limine Regarding the Introduction
Based upon Lack of Personal Knowledge and Evidence
of Certain Evidence is denied. Defendant Paul Messino's
Based upon Hearsay is granted. Defendant Christopher
Motion in Limine Regarding Introduction of Certain
Richard Messino's Motion in Limine to Preclude
Evidence is denied in part and denied as moot in part.
Evidence Regarding Christopher Richard Messino's
Employment as a Police Officer is denied. Defendant
Christopher Richard Messino's Omnibus Motion in
All Citations
Limine is granted in part, denied in part, and denied as
moot in part. Defendant Christopher Richard Messino's
873 F.Supp. 1177
Motion for Additional Peremptory Challenges is denied.
Defendant Christopher Richard Messino's Motion to
Footnotes
1
The course of trial may raise other entrapment issues. For now, the court considers only opening statements.
2
Any attempt by defendants to use the drafts for other purposes would be evaluated at trial.
3
The government wants to preclude evidence that any of its witnesses once worked as prostitutes, but presents no motion. The
defendants therefore have not properly been afforded an opportunity to present a theory of relevance.
4
Length of trial is the only reason defendant offers for his jury selection plan. He does not raise the issue of conflicting trial strategy.
The court nonetheless has taken that danger into consideration and concludes that no conflicting trial strategy problem warrants the
plan defendant proposes. See Cochran, 955 F.2d at 1121.
5
Of course the government will have six challenges, as prescribed by Rule 24(b).
6
In McClain the Seventh Circuit discussed limiting instructions for this situation, 934 F.2d at 832, which the government should
proffer.
7
The court finds no waiver of the privilege on the record it now has.
End of Document
© 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
16
EFTA00013388


c1: EFTA00011426
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011426.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Fwd: Maxwell appeal
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 22:39:38 +0000
Stephen Brown at the News is asking if we can provide any guidance on his questions about the Maxwell
hearing yesterday and the denial of access for the Office to a civil case file he believes was the
case. His email is below.
Jim
James Margolin
Chief Public Information Officer
U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Brown, Stephen"
Date: October 14, 2020 at 5:18:37 PM EDT
To:
Subject: Maxwell appeal
Hi Jim,
I'm writing a story off of yesterday's Maxwell hearing before the 2nd Circuit. Sorry for late notice, this just came together.
I'm told that the "Court 2" that denied SDNY access to the case file was Judge Koetl on the
ase.
Can you offer any insight into what differentiates the
case from the
case?
I'm told Maxwell was deposed in the
case. And I note that
are defendants.
Is it fair to say that Koetl's ruling was a fortunate break for Maxwell,
Thanks,
Stephen Rex Brown
Manhattan Federal Court reporter
NY DAILY NEWS
EFTA00011426

=== Page 2 ===
EFTA00011427


c1: EFTA00013712
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013712.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: FW: Epstein
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:23:59 +0000
Importance: Normal
- This is the e-mail chain with
The only sources of the information are our Office and the FBI.
is requesting the information, and I am responding accordingly.
Please let me know how you want to proceed. I find this very demoralizing.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
From:
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:47 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Epstein
Yep, something short and sweet with no names. The date is Dec. 21.
From:
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 3:36 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Epstein
Hi
-
I can put something together. I assume something short and sweet? And has a date been set?
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
From:
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 3:05 PM
To:
Subject: Epstein
Could you please outline what factual basis you think fits the procuring statute for the plea conference. I am trying to
finalize the paperwork.
EFTA00013712


c1: EFTA00011096
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011096.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
:
S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
V.
:
:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
:
Defendant.
:
:
:
X
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S
MOTION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEQUESTERED JUROR VOIR DIRE
AND LIMITED COUNSEL-CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022
212-957-7600
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
303-831-7364
Bobbi C. Sternheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
225 Broadway -Suite 715
New York, NY 10007
212-243-1100
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
EFTA00011096

=== Page 2 ===
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell submits this memorandum of law in support of her motion
for individual sequestered voir dire of prospective jurors and limited attorney-conducted voir
dire.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Court has already determined that a juror questionnaire is appropriate in this case.
Pursuant to the Court's order, the parties recently submitted, under seal, a joint proposed jury
questionnaire. The Court has scheduled three days for prospective jurors to complete the final
Court-approved questionnaire, and four days to conduct examination of prospective jurors.
But a questionnaire by itself is not sufficient in this case to root out potential juror bias
and to permit the attorneys to exercise intelligent peremptory challenges. Supplementing a
robust questionnaire with individual sequestered voir dire and limited examination of jurors by
counsel is necessary in this case because of the sensitive subject matter of the charges and two
types of unfairly prejudicial media attention: (i) the pretrial publicity that this case has received
and will continue to receive throughout the duration of the trial and (ii) the extensive prior
negative publicity concerning Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
The intense negative media coverage of Ms. Maxwell and Epstein, most profoundly in
the aftermath of his death in August 2019 and the arrest of Ms. Maxwell in July 2020, has
significantly increased the likelihood that prospective jurors will report to jury selection with
preconceptions, impressions, and opinions about the conduct at issue in the trial and those
accused of the charges in the indictment: Ms. Maxwell and Epstein An unprecedented amount of
media coverage has focused on this case, Ms. Maxwell and Epstein. The publicity includes
extensive coverage in the press, including newspapers, magazines, and on-line sites; in broadcast
media, including regular and cable television stations, radio, and streaming platforms, such as
1
EFTA00011097

=== Page 3 ===
Netflix, Peacock, and Amazon; in podcasts and YouTube recordings; in social media sites, such
as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter; in online sites, chat rooms and blogs. The publicity has
covered a wide range of topics including and beyond those that will be presented at trial.
Prospective jurors may also have a strong reaction to the sensitive nature of the charges
and some of the evidence that to be adduced at trial. Epstein's arrests and prior conviction for
sexual misconduct, allegations of his sexual misconduct of minors over the course of two
decades, and his untimely death awaiting his federal trial will be front and center during Ms.
Maxwell's upcoming trial.
The standard voir dire typically conducted by the Court is insufficient for this case and
will be redundant to questions posed in the proposed jury questionnaire. A written questionnaire
coupled with sequestered voir dire of individual prospective jurors and limited open-ended
questioning by counsel will assist the Court and parties in determining whether prospective
jurors have developed prejudicial preconceptions regarding this case, Ms. Maxwell, and Epstein
due to this intense media coverage and pretrial publications and broadcasts.
2
EFTA00011098

=== Page 4 ===
ARGUMENT
I. THE APPLICABLE LAW
A prospective juror may be excused for cause based on many forms of bias or partiality.
As the Second Circuit has explained, juror partiality can be actual, implied, or inferred:
Actual bias is "bias in fact," generally evidenced by "express proof,"
such as a juror's admission to "a state of mind prejudicial to a party's
interest." Implied bias is "bias conclusively presumed as a matter of
law" from circumstances in which an average person in the position
of the prospective juror would be prejudiced. Inferred bias exists
"when a juror discloses a fact that bespeaks a risk of partiality
sufficiently significant to warrant granting the trial judge discretion
to excuse the juror for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory
a presumption of bias."
United States V. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 301 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting United States V. Haynes,
398 F.2d 980, 984 (2d Cir. 1968) and United States V. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 45 (2d Cir. 1997)).
All types of bias can properly form the basis to excuse a juror for cause. See id. Thus, the jury
selection process should screen for each type. See id.
Voir dire plays an important role in ensuring that juries are fair and impartial by allowing
the Court and parties to uncover unfair actual, implied, or inferred bias. It serves to protect the
Constitutional right of a fair trial "by exposing possible biases, both known and unknown, on the
part of potential jurors." United States V. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006). For these
reasons, district courts routinely use their broad discretion to issue written jury questionnaires in
conducting voir dire, particularly in cases involving extensive pretrial publicity or hot-button
issues. See, e.g., Skilling V. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2919 (2010) (approving district
court's use of questionnaire in trial of former Enron executive, Jeffrey Skilling); United States V.
Robert Sylvester Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (EDNY) ("R. Kelly case"); United States V. Elizabeth
Holmes, 18 Cr. 258 (EJD) (NDCA) ("Theranos case"); United States V. Keith Rainier, 18 Cr. 204
(NGG) (EDNY) ("Nexium case").
3
EFTA00011099

=== Page 5 ===
Individual voir dire is appropriate and within the court's discretion in cases like this
where the potential jury pool has been exposed to extensive pretrial publicity and may harbor
prejudice against the defendant, and where the allegations touch on issues that are potentially
inflammatory. See Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303; see also United States V. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 122
(2d Cir. 1999). Using individual voir dire, in addition to a juror questionnaire, is necessary in
this case (i) to expose potential biases by maximizing the likelihood that members of the venire
will respond honestly to questions, and (ii) to avoid contaminating unbiased members of the
venire when other members disclose prior knowledge of prejudicial information or blurt out a
prejudicial remark. As the Supreme Court has stated:
It may sometimes be necessary to question on voir dire prospective
jurors individually or in small groups, both to maximize the
likelihood that members of the venire will respond honestly to
questions concerning bias, and to avoid contaminating unbiased
members of the venire when other members disclose prior
knowledge of prejudicial information.
Nebraska Press Ass 'n V. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 602 (1976).
II. THE JURY POOL HAS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO
SUBSTANTIAL PRETRIAL PUBLICITY ABOUT GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, AND THIS CASE
A. A Tsunami of Pretrial Publicity About this Case
Countless articles, books, podcasts, television shows, and docuseries from various
sources have been published and broadcast concerning this case since it was filed in July 2020.
This followed closely on the heels of an avalanche of media reports preceding and following
Epstein's arrest in July 2019 and following his death in August 2019. A tsunami of reporting in
every conceivable form - newspapers, magazines, books, television, radio, video streaming
services, podcasts, social media platforms - has broadcast this case locally, nationally, and
globally. Without a doubt, and without any credible evidentiary basis, Ms. Maxwell has been
4
EFTA00011100

=== Page 6 ===
tried, convicted, and condemned in the court of public opinion. Based on widespread coverage of
her extraordinary and miserable conditions of pretrial detention, unsworn "jurors" likely believe
sentence has already been imposed. The pretrial publicity and publications are far too extensive
to list. As of this writing, a simple Internet search by Google yields the following:
Ghislaine Maxwell: "about 4,590,000 results (0.77 seconds)"
Jeffrey Epstein: "about 25,800,000 results (0.87 seconds)"
Neither Ms. Maxwell nor her undersigned defense team has ever spoken to the media and have
not contributed to the polluting effect of this unprecedented coverage.
In addition, there have been numerous books, podcasts, and documentaries published and
broadcast about Ms. Maxwell, Epstein, and the allegations in this case. The following is just a
small sample of recent publications concerning Ms. Maxwell:
Documentaries
Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich (Netflix)
Notorious: Ghislaine Maxwell (ABC 20/20)
Epstein's Shadow: Ghislaine Maxwell (Peacock)
Podcasts:
Chasing Ghislaine: The Untold Story of the Woman in Epstein's Shadow
(Vicky Ward)
Hunting Ghislaine (John Sweeney)
The Ghislaine Maxwell Spiral (Audible)
Books:
Ghislaine Maxwell (Steve H. Dwight)
Relentless Pursuit: My Fight for the Victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine
Maxwell (Bradley Edwards)
Trash: Encounters with Ghislaine Maxwell (Christina Oxenberg)
Perversion of Justice (Julie K. Brown)
5
EFTA00011101

=== Page 7 ===
Ghislaine Maxwell: The Rise and Fall of Manhattan's Most Famous Socialite
(Nigel Cawthorne)
The Spider: Insider the Criminal Web of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell
(Barry Levin)
Jeffrey Epstein's Other Women: Behind Ghislaine Maxwell (Lisa Tait)
The Jeffrey Epstein Case: What We Do and Don't Know About Jeffrey Epstein
and Ghislaine Maxwell (Stephen Wright)
Much of the pretrial reporting, publications, and broadcasts refer to Epstein's 2008 case
in Florida and the public outrage over his charges, plea deal, the leniency he received. The
aftermath of this coverage resulted in the resignation of Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, former
U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of Florida, whose office was the subject of an inquiry
conducted by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility ("OPR")
concerning the federal criminal investigation of Epstein and its interactions with victims. OPR
released a report of its investigation in November 2020, which again led to a series of media
articles about Epstein's conduct and the appropriateness of the deal he received. The effect of
such recurring reporting regarding Epstein has had an incalculable spillover effect that has
indelibly stained Ms. Maxwell and significantly impacted her ability to receive a fair trial by an
impartial jury.
B. Allegations of Sex Abuse Abound in New York
Ms. Maxwell approaches trial under the cloud of massive negative publicity focused on
one of the most sensational, hot-button social issues in recent years - sexual harassment and
abuse of females of all ages, including inappropriate sexual contact with minors. High-profile
investigations, prosecutions, and trials involving politicians, moguls and celebrities are daily
occurrences. New York has been the venue for some of the most notorious events, including but
hardly limited to the recent investigation and resignation of Governor Andrew Cuomo and trials
and convictions of Harvey Weinstein and R. Kelly. These are not rare occurrences. Consider the
6
EFTA00011102

=== Page 8 ===
downfall of other prominent New Yorkers due to sex scandals: former Governors David Paterson
and Andrew Spitzer, former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, former U.S.
Congressman Andrew Wiener, not to mention the many New York-based television celebrities
against whom serious allegations of sexual abuse have been alleged: Matt Lauer, Roger Ailes,
Bill O'Reilly.
The fact that a woman now stands trial for charges almost exclusively alleged against
men heightens the interest and intrigue of this case. There are literally hundreds if not thousands
of negative articles about Ms. Maxwell and Epstein in the very newspapers, television stations,
and streaming platforms to which the jury pool in this case are regularly exposed (New York
Daily News, New York Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NY 1, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox,
Netflix, Peacock).
The jury pool from which the jury in this case will be selected has been exposed to more
than its fair share of media coverage fomenting public outrage at individuals accused of sex
crimes, like Ms. Maxwell. The negative publicity has been so pervasive, vitriolic, and extreme
that Ms. Maxwell has been demonized in the press. While the Court has no power to protect Ms.
Maxwell from such public contempt, it can exercise its supervisory powers and discretion and
implement protocols designed to obtain an open-minded jury sworn to return a verdict based
solely on evidence presented at trial.
III. A ROBUST JURY QUESTIONNAIRE AND INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE ARE
NECESSARY FOR THIS CASE
A. A Questionnaire Alone Is Insufficient to Uncover Potential Juror Bias
In cases like this-where there has been pervasive media exposure that inflames passions
about the underlying events and demonizes a party-prospective jurors can form biases long
before they appear for jury service. Once a pretrial judgment is made, the concepts of "belief
7
EFTA00011103

=== Page 9 ===
persistence" and "confirmation bias" are at work. Belief persistence occurs when an opinion
formed is resistant to change even when proven wrong. Confirmation bias occurs when an
individual forms an opinion early in the decision-making process and then evaluates new
information in a way that supports the earlier decision. 1 The jury questionnaire is the first
opportunity jurors have to tell the lawyers and the Court what they are thinking and, more
importantly, what influenced them to think that way.
Given the likelihood intense media scrutiny of this trial, it is critical to use both a robust
written jury questionnaire and individual sequestered voir dire to inquire about the extent to
which each potential juror has been exposed to pretrial publicity and to what extent each juror
has formed an opinion of Ms. Maxwell and Epstein
Because there is always the fear that a discussion of pretrial publicity in front of the entire
jury pool will contaminate those few jurors who have not been subjected to the publicity, a jury
questionnaire and individual voir dire in a case such as this is particularly warranted. If the Court
were to engage in public questioning of the venire panel en masse, answers could infect the
entire panel. Alternatively, concerns about a panel member's unanticipated answer may render
the questions too carefully worded to uncover the problem. Further, questions asked pose privacy
concerns that would require constant side bars. A questionnaire can solve some, but not all, of
these issues.
Individual sequestered voir dire would encourage jurors to answer questions more
completely and more honestly because the jurors would not be influenced by (or influence) the
answers given by fellow jurors or fear embarrassment in giving an honest response. Jurors avoid
the pressure to give "right" or socially acceptable answers in front of a large group or to parrot
I See Hope, Memon & McGeorge, Understanding Pretrial Publicity: Predecisional Distortion of Evidence by Mock
Jurors, 10 J. Experimental Psych. Applied, 111-119 (2004).
8
EFTA00011104

=== Page 10 ===
answers that seem acceptable to the Court and counsel. For example, in this case it is necessary
to ask jurors if they or a family member have ever been a victim of sexual abuse-a question that
most jurors will not be inclined to answer in public. In a case that has received media attention or
involves a well-known defendant, a larger jury panel is often assembled in an attempt to increase
the odds of obtaining a fair jury. The paradox is that a larger panel can mean that jurors are even
less inclined to speak up in front of a large group. Accordingly, in a high-publicity case such as
this, q questionnaire alone is insufficient.
B. Individual Sequestered Voir Dire is Necessary Due to the Sensitive Nature
of the Charges
The nature of the charges in this case poses special problems for jury selection rarely
encountered in the average federal jury trial. The crimes charged (concerning sexual abuse of
minors) are particularly inflammatory and of great concern to communities from which jurors are
drawn. The charges tap into strongly held moral, ethical, and religious beliefs concerning
appropriate, inappropriate, and immoral behavior and conduct, and can produce visceral and
emotional reactions leading to more severe judgments based on preconceived viewpoints rather
than on admissible evidence presented at trial As such, prospective jurors' opinion and beliefs
regarding the nature of the crimes charged will need to be addressed through procedures that
maximize juror openness, honesty, and candor.
It is only through in-depth questioning and exploration of jurors' views on these issues
that both the defense and prosecution can uncover what is needed to pursue challenges for cause
and to intelligently exercise peremptory challenges. The experiences and backgrounds of jurors
could have significant bearing on the potential biases that they have. A variety of potential
experiences, both general (e.g., being a victim of a crime or closely related to a victim) and
specific (e.g., harassment, molestation, unwanted sexual contact, sexual assault, rape, domestic
9
EFTA00011105

=== Page 11 ===
violence, etc.) are relevant to the subject matter of this case. Such experiences are of a highly
personal nature, the revelation of which in a public courtroom could lead to embarrassment and
emotional distress. As a result, issues relevant to this case need to be addressed in a sensitive
and private setting.
The jury selection procedures normally used by this Court - i.e., group voir dire with
questioning exclusively by the judge - pose heightened problems to an effective and informative
voir dire in a case involving topics that are difficult to discuss, let alone in a large public forum.
It is typically anxiety producing and discomforting for jurors to make public disclosures. This
case amplifies the likelihood that jurors will be more apprehensive and constrained to respond
openly and honestly in open court within earshot of other jurors, members of the public, and the
media.
IV. ATTORNEY-CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE PERMITS A MORE INFORMED
EXERCISE OF FOR CAUSE AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure grants the Court broad discretion in
conducting the voir dire examination. The Court has the right to control who conducts the voir
dire and has the discretion to allow attorneys to conduct some, or all, of the voir dire. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 24(a)(1) and (2) ("The court may examine prospective jurors or may permit the attorneys
for the parties to do so.").
The Court should grant a limited period of attorney-conducted voir dire after the Court's
general voir dire because it will yield more complete information about the potential jurors for
the proper exercise of peremptory challenges. For a peremptory challenge to serve its purposes, it
must be intelligently exercised. This requires that the parties obtain sufficient information from
the potential jurors upon which to base their challenges. United States V. Ledee, 549 F.2d 990,
993 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902 (1977) ("Peremptory challenges are worthless if trial
10
EFTA00011106

=== Page 12 ===
counsel is not afforded an opportunity to gain the necessary information upon which to base such
strikes."). Without the opportunity for counsel to effectively probe for hidden prejudices, it
would be difficult to accomplish the goal of exercising sensitive and intelligent peremptory
challenges.
A. The Attorneys Have More In-Depth Knowledge of the Case
It is counsel, not the Court, who is in the best position to obtain the information necessary
to exercise intelligent peremptory challenges through attorney-conducted voir dire. The
attorneys have more in-depth knowledge of the case than the Court. See, e.g., United States V.
Cleveland, 1997 WL 2554 at *3 (E.D. LA. Jan. 2, 1997). Important follow-up questions are more
likely to occur to an advocate than a judge for several reasons, including the fact that a judge
"does not have the advocate's awareness that soon [s]he will be making peremptory challenges
based on inferences from what prospective jurors have said" and the fact that "the judge does not
know the case of either party in detail, so that [s]he cannot realize when responses have opened
areas for further inquiry."2 As the Fifth Circuit has recognized:
A judge cannot have the same grasp of the facts, the complexities
and nuances as the trial attorneys entrusted with the preparation of
the case. The court does not know the strength and weaknesses of
each litigant's case. Justice requires that each lawyer be given an
opportunity to ferret out possible bias and prejudice of which the
juror himself may be unaware until certain facts are revealed.
Ledee, 549 F.2d at 993 (citing Frates and Greer, Jury Voir Dire: The Lawyer's Perspective, 2
A.B.A. Litigation No. 2 (1976)). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit later amplified this concept, stating
that "voir dire may have little meaning if it is not conducted at least in part by counsel."
While Federal Rules [sic] of Criminal Procedure 24(a) gives wide
discretion to the trial Court, voir dire may have little meaning if it is
not conducted at least in part by counsel. The "federal" practice of
almost exclusive voir dire examination by the Court does not take
2 Babcock, Voir Dire: Preserving "Its Wonderful Power", 27 Stan. L. Rev. 545, 549 (1975).
11
EFTA00011107

=== Page 13 ===
into account the fact that it is the parties, rather than the Court, who
have a full grasp of the nuances and the strength and weaknesses of
the case Experience indicates that in the majority of situations
questioning by counsel would be more likely to fulfill this need [for
information upon which to base the intelligent exercise of
peremptory challenges] than an exclusive examination in general
terms by the trial Court.
United States V. Ible, 630 F.2d 389, 395 (5th Cir. 1980).
In this case, voir dire conducted solely by the Court will interfere with the intelligent
exercise of peremptory challenges. Attorneys have been working on this case well over a year.
They are most likely to know the areas of questioning that must be explored to further uncover
the prejudices that are most pertinent to the evidence that will be presented at trial. They also act
with an awareness that they will have to base peremptory challenges on the juror's answers.
Permitting attorney-conducted voir dire in addition to Court voir dire will therefore maximize the
information obtained in voir dire.
B. The Extensive Pretrial Publicity Related to This Case Necessitates Attorney-
Conducted Voir Dire
The possibility of prejudice in this case due to the extensive pretrial publicity is so great
that specific voir dire questions by counsel are necessary. In United States V. Davis, the Fifth
Circuit held that the district court erred in not undertaking a more thorough examination of panel
members exposed to publicity ("[W]here the nature of the publicity as a whole raised a
significant possibility of prejudice, the cursory questioning by the court was not enough."). A
district court is required, under Davis, to determine what each juror may have heard or read and
how it may have affected his attitude toward the trial, and whether any juror's impartiality had
been destroyed. Id; see also Silverthorne V. United States, 400 F.2d 627, 638 (9th Cir. 1968)
("[I]n the absence of an examination designed to elicit answers which provide an objective basis
12
EFTA00011108

=== Page 14 ===
for the court's evaluation, "merely going through the form of obtaining jurors' assurances of
impartiality is insufficient [to test that impartiality]") (citation omitted).
Because it is extremely likely that prospective jurors have been exposed to potentially
prejudicial pretrial publicity, specific, individual voir dire is required. Davis, 583 F.2d at 196-97.
To increase the likelihood that any hidden prejudices of the jurors will be uncovered, to
accomplish the goal of exercising sensitive and intelligent peremptory challenges, and to ensure
that a fair and impartial jury is empaneled in this case, counsel should be given an opportunity to
individually examine prospective jurors.
Individual sequestered voir dire conducted jointly by counsel and the Court has a variety
of benefits. It invites a conversation rather than posing an interrogation. It eliminates the pressure
on jurors to provide socially desirable or acceptable answers in a group setting, reduces
conformity pressures that can diminish candor, and removes the risk of other jurors being
influenced by statements made during group voir dire that enable them to either stay on the jury
or be removed for cause. It increases juror comfort, minimizes the anxiety of public speaking,
encourages candor, and promotes honesty.
Furthermore, questioning conducted exclusively by the Court further hampers the ability
to uncover important information about jurors because it places jurors in a subordinate position
heightening their reluctance to be candid. Attorney-conducted questioning bridges the status gap
between the humble layperson and the honorable judicial officer exalted high above the venire.
Research indicates that expansive voir dire yields greater revelations of juror bias;3 and in-depth
attorney-conducted voir dire combined with individual sequestered voir dire elicits greater
3 See, e.g., Moran, Cutler & Loftus. Jury Selection in Major Controlled Substance Trials: The Need for Extended
Voir Dire, 3 Forensics Reports 331(1990).
13
EFTA00011109

=== Page 15 ===
admissions of bias on the part of jurors.4 In-depth voir dire including limited open-ended
questions posed by counsel also helps to attack the minimization effect, whereby jurors often
seek to decrease the extremity of their opinions in addition to their exposure to and the impact of
pretrial publicity.⁵
C. The Court Can Reasonably Limit the Scope of Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire
The Court can also fairly and reasonably limit the time and scope of the attorney-
conducted voir dire and prevent any abuse of the process. For example, the Court can direct
demand that the attorneys restrict themselves to new or proscribed areas of examination or
relevant follow-up examination to ferret out bias and prejudice. In addition, the Court can
legitimately place a specific time limit on attorney-conducted voir dire. Permitting each party
one minute per juror (expanded to three minutes if there is basis to pursue a cause challenge) is
eminently justifiable after basic voir dire has been conducted by the Court. An attorney who is
given mere minutes for additional voir dire examination is unlikely to waste that precious time.
Permitting each party a mere minute of attorney-conducted voir dire will increase the possibility
of rooting out prejudice and bias in this unique case.
D. The Uniqueness of This Case Warrants Limited Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire
The conventional voir dire procedures utilized in this district are inadequate to screen
venire members for bias and prejudice due to the nature of the charges and the extensive pretrial
publicity and exposure. This case presents unique issues that require an expansion of traditional
voir dire protocols.
4 Johnson & Haney, Felony Voir Dire: An exploratory Study of its Contents and Effect, 18 Law and Human
Behavior 309 (1994).
5 Vidmar, Case Studies of Pre- and Midtrial Prejudice in Criminal and Civil Litigation, 26 Law and Human
Behavior 73 (2002).
14
EFTA00011110

=== Page 16 ===
This application is not seeking to conduct unduly invasive questioning, to "pre-try" the
case to the venire, to create impressions or sympathies which will help either party during the
trial, or to unreasonably extend the time for jury selection. The Court can restrict attorneys to
posing open-ended questions to identify bias, prejudice and preconceptions, subject to reasonable
time limits.
Long ago, the Supreme Court observed:
Impartiality is not a technical conception. It is a state of mind. For
the ascertainment of this mental attitude of appropriate indifference,
the Constitution lays down no tests and procedure is not chained to
any ancient and artificial formula.
United States V. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 145-146 (1936). Like impartiality, bias, prejudice, and
preconceptions are mental states, making them all the more difficult to identify and assess when
a prospective juror is not forthcoming in revealing these mental attitudes. Limited attorney-
conducted voir dire will help uncover any potential bias in the jury pool.
CONCLUSION
Voir dire is a mutual search between lawyers and the Court to determine whether a
particular individual can ensure integrity of the trial process in each case. In the words of a
federal appeals judge:
We would, as judges, have to ignore what we know as men to
assume that only the law and the naked facts carry the burden of
persuasion. Psychology governs human affairs even in the
courtroom Our system of justice is deprived of its fullest potential
when the lawyer is denied the right to examine veniremen in an
adversary setting.
Honorable Donald P. Lay (8th Cir.) "In a Fair Adversary System, the Lawyer Should Conduct
the Voir Dire of the Jury."
15
EFTA00011111

=== Page 17 ===
Considering the sensitive nature of the charges and the pervasive pretrial publicity and
exposure of this case, the Court should grant the request for individual sequestered voir dire and
limited questioning by counsel.
Dated: October 13, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Bobbi C. Sternheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
16
EFTA00011112


c1: EFTA00013877
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013877.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: Roy BLACK <RBLACK@royblack.com>, Jack Goldberger <jgoldberger@agwpa.com>
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:16:04 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear Roy and Jack:
I have been reviewing the deferred prosecution agreement and wanted to remind you that the agreement states:
"Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all proposed agreements with the State Attorney's
Office prior to entering into those agreements." Please provide me with any proposed agreements at your
earliest opportunity, and also please provide me with the date and time of the change of plea.
Thank you.
EFTA00013877


c1: EFTA00010377
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010377.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANH)"
Cc:
USANH)"
Subject: RE: Ghislaine Maxwell Triggerfish
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 20:56:55 +0000
No need to extend the seal, thanks very much for checking.
Hope you and the rest of the
had a wonderful Christmas and have a Happy New Year!
From:
(USANH)
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 2:42 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANH)
Subject: FW: Ghislaine Maxwell Triggerfish
do you need the seal on the DNH triggerfish warrant extended?
Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Mr.
From:
(USANH)
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 10:20 AM
To:
(USANH)
Subject: Ghislaine Maxwell Triggerfish
1
The seal on this triggerfish is set to expire soon.
Am I correct in assuming we can go ahead and let this lapse?
EFTA00010377


c1: EFTA00013514
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013514.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
IN RE:
INVESTIGATION OF
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
/
ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
IT APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 of the
Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"), that agreement is modified as follows:
A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility for
consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney
representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the United States elects to assign
this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the United States and Epstein retain the right to
make good faith objections to the attorney representative suggested by the independent third-party prior
to the final designation of the attorney representative.
B. The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party regarding
the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney
representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the
provisions of paragraph C, infra.
C. Pursuant to additional paragraph A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative
selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the
fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, if after consideration of potential
settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 2255 or
elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the
costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable
attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in S 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney
representative, shall cease.
By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained
to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-Prosecution Agreement
and agrees to comply with them.
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Dated:
By:
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
Dated:
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Dated:
GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.
COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Dated:
LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ.
ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN
EFTA00013514


c1: EFTA00011187
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011187.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Exhibit S
EFTA00011187

=== Page 2 ===
Sparta Security Services Ltd
Berrington House
Hereford
HR4 0BQ
Sparta Security Services
www.securitybysparta.com
STATEMENT OF
SECURITY CONSULTANT
1. I,
,
served for 25 years in the United Kingdom military. For 15 of those years, I
served in the United Kingdom Special Forces. I have worked in the security industry for ten
years and have gained a level 6 Security Risk Management Consultants (SRMC) qualification,
working towards a master's degree in Risk Management. I hold numerous instructional and
operational licenses qualifying me to deliver several types of security services under the UK
Security Industry Authority, including a certification to provide close protection services for
individuals facing physical threats. I am a member of the Academy of Security Intelligence and
Risk Studies and have owned and operated security companies in all capacities in a number of
different countries.
2. As part of my security portfolio, I have secured global assets and have protected numerous high
value persons. As an example, I was contracted to guard the UKs third richest person,
according to Forbes, after he broke his agreed bail conditions with another consultant. Under
my protection never escaped again and completed his high-profile court appearances to
cessation.
3. I have provided security consultation and services for the Maxwell family for a number of years
in both the United Kingdom and United States. I provided security services for Ghislaine
Maxwell from approximately July 2019 through up to the time of her arrest on July 2, 2020.
4. Ms. Maxwell faced a number of security issues. For example, I was aware that she received a
number of death threats connected to her relationship with Jeffery Epstein some 20 years
previously. She was also the target of aggressive behavior by members of the press who were
trying to achieve a 'scoop.' This kind of behavior is not only harassing, but can be life
threatening. A good example is the case of Princess Diana, who unfortunately lost her life due to
EFTA00011188

=== Page 3 ===
Sparta Security Services Ltd
Berrington House
Hereford
HR4 0BQ
Sparta Security Services
www.securitybysparta.com
press intrusion into her personal space. My consultants conduct meticulous planning and
preparation to avoid such instances.
5. After the announcement of Epstein's death on the 10th August 2019, my risk assessment showed
that Ghislaine Maxwell was at substantial risk. It was therefore paramount for her safety that we
implement certain security protocols, which we did.
6. On the morning of July 2, 2020, my operative/consultant
, was providing
security and administrative support for Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell at a residence in Bradford, New
Hampshire. He had been assigned to Ms. Maxwell since approximately May 2020. I had
informed
that Ms. Maxwell needed security because she was being harassed by the press
and had been the target of physical threats by unknown third parties.
7.
was on duty alone on the morning of July 2, 2020. He called me twice after being
disturbed at approximately 6:30am. He had heard and noticed a helicopter flying above the
general area of the property. He assumed it was members of the press. He telephoned me and
informed me of the situation. At this stage, we believed the press had discovered the property. I
instructed that Ms. Maxwell be informed and she should be prepared to move into a safe room if
any perimeters were breached.
8. At approximately 8:30am,
noticed and subsequently reported to me that vehicles were
coming up the driveway and that he had approached the vehicles to check what was happening.
9.
again assumed it was members of the press. He reported to me that he called Ms.
Maxwell on the radio to alert her that the press was on the grounds and approaching the house.
10. There was an established security protocol in place that Ms. Maxwell was to follow in the event
that her security was threatened while she was inside the house. This protocol was
communicated to
when he was assigned to Ms. Maxwell, and he had reviewed it
with Ms. Maxwell when he started.
EFTA00011189

=== Page 4 ===
Sparta Security Services Ltd
Berrington House
Hereford
HR4 0BQ
Sparta Security Services
www.securitybysparta.com
11. According to the protocol, Ms. Maxwell was to move away from the windows, if possible, and
move into a safe room inside the house. This is normal protocol in these situations. A safe room
typically has water, food and communications. It is also able to be locked and barricaded from
the inside to ensure it gives enough time for a 911 call to be placed and the police to arrive
before exposure to the threat.
12.
reported to me immediately after Ghislaine Maxwell's arrest. He confirmed to me that
after radioing Ms. Maxwell, one or two vehicles pulled up and stopped near where
was
standing. He was told to stop and move no further by a number of individuals who got out of
the vehicles. At that time, he could see that they were federal agents because they were wearing
FBI jackets and had weapons visible. The agents physically searched
and questioned
him.
13.
was later taken to a vehicle where Ms. Maxwell was sitting. She asked him if he would
look after the dogs and the cat, which he agreed to do.
14. I understand that, as part of her renewed bail application, Ms. Maxwell is proposing a
substantial bail package that will include the following conditions, among others: (i) Ms.
Maxwell will surrender all of her travel documents, and (ii) she will be subject to home
confinement with electronic GPS monitoring. I also understand that, upon release, Ms.
Maxwell will be monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by our security teams.
15. In light of the proposed bail package and the strict conditions of her confinement post-release,
as well as our long-standing relationship with Ms. Maxwell, my company will be posting a $1
million bond in support of her bail application.
16. I have never once posted a bond for a client in the past. I am happy to post a bond for Ms.
Maxwell in light of the factors discussed above and my relationship with her, because I am
confident that she will not try to flee.
EFTA00011190

=== Page 5 ===
Sparta Security Services Ltd
Berrington House
Hereford
HR4 0BQ
Sparta Security Services
www.securitybysparta.com
All of the above is true and to the best of my knowledge
Signed:
refreen
25/11/2020
EFTA00011191


c1: EFTA00013175
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013175.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: FW: Request
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 20:02:50 +0000
Other than Epstein, we would have
Anything else?
From:
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2019 4:01 PM
Cc:
Subject: RE: Request
Please respond by the end of the day. Thanks!
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2019 12:37 PM
Subject: Request
Chiefs,
If you could reach out to your unit and find out, on average, about how many unique victims or potential victims of
human trafficking (adult or minor) your unit has interviewed in the past year we would appreciate it. It doesn't matter if
the case was charged. We are trying to get a sense of volume. We realize the answer will be rough and likely zero for
some units. If you could get back to us by COB Friday we would appreciate it.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Human Trafficking Co-Coordinator
Money Laundering & Transnational Criminal Enterprise Unit
Southern District of New York
EFTA00013175


c1: EFTA00009886
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009886.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
To:
)"
Subject: Accepted: Call with Geoff on Epstein
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 18:18:05 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00009886


c1: EFTA00010138
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010138.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(NY) (FBI)"
(USANYS)"
i
Cc:
Subject: RE: Subpoena request for birth certificate - Massachusetts
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 20:49:27 +0000
Attachments: 2021.07.19_Court_Subpoena_-_Registry_of_Vital_Records.pdf
Attached - thanks!
From:
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 3:02 PM
To:
(USANYS)
>;
Cc
Subject: Subpoena request for birth certificate - Massachusetts
Could we get subpoena addressed to the following for ML:
Registry of Vital Records and Statistics
150 Mt. Vernon Street
1st Floor
Dorchester, MA 02125
DOB:
Thanks,
Special Agent
FBI New York Field Office
Child Exploitation/Human Trafficking
Desk:
EFTA00010138


c1: EFTA00014026
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014026.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USAFLS)"
To: "ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG"
"KATHERINE W.
EZELL"
Cc:
(USAFLS)"
Bcc:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:41:33 +0000
Importance: Normal
Not exactly. Mr. Epstein is only supposed to go directly from jail to work and back. If he deviates from that
route, right now no alarms will go off unless, during that deviation, he enters an exclusionary zone. If, for
example, his driver breaks the rules and takes him for a tour of Royal Palm Beach while en route to Mr.
Goldberger's office, and that tour takes him near one of the programmed addresses, the alarm will go off. I don't
know what the radius is for the exclusionary zone, but, if the alarm were to go off, Mr. Epstein would know that
he is near one of the prohibited places, but wouldn't know whose address it was and whether the address was
their home, place of work, or place of study.
If you need more detail, I will need to reach out to Captain Sleeth, and I am happy to do so.
Thank you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
From: ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG [mailto:
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 5:32 PM
To:
(USAFLS); KATHERINE W. EZELL;
Cc:
(USAFLS)
Subject: Re: Jeffrey Epstein
If I understand you, Epstein will know "the exclusionary zone" - he has to know it in order to stay away from it - but he won't know
whose home, office, or hangout it is. Am I correct ?
Original Message
From:
(USAFLS)
To: ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG; KATHERINE W. EZELL; Brad Edwards
Cc:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Mon Dec 29 17:16:03 2008
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein
EFTA00014026

=== Page 2 ===
Dear Messrs. Josefsberg, Edwards, Scarola, Herman, Kuvin, Dutko, and Willits and Ms. Ezell:
Ms. Ezell contacted me to inquire whether Mr. Epstein will be told of the names or addresses of any victims who ask to be added to Mr.
Epstein's "exclusionary zones" on his GPS system. Captain Sleeth from the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office informs me that the
information will remain confidential and will not be provided to Mr. Epstein.
Captain Sleeth has asked that all such requests go through me rather than directly to him. If any of your clients would like to have their
work, school, or home addresses added to the list of exclusionary zones, please let me know.
Thank you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
EFTA00014027


c1: EFTA00013568
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013568.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Well, our victim notification letter has been filed in court
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:48:47 +0000
Importance: Normal
Our victim notification letter has been filed in court in connection with one of the federal civil suits against
Epstein.
About 10 letters have gone out so far. The FBI's victim coordinator is updating the addresses on the rest and
they will go out on Monday.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
EFTA00013568


c1: EFTA00014102
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014102.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Bcc:
Subject: Fw: Notice of Non-Compliance
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:14:01 +0000
Importance: Normal
Jack Goldberger's response below.
Original Message
From: Jack Goldberger
To:
Sent: Sat Jun 28 15:38:23 2008
Subject: RE: Notice of Non-Compliance
not a problem.
From:
Sent: Sat 6/28/2008 11:31 AM
To: Jack Goldberger
Cc:
Subject: Re: Notice of Non-Compliance
Dear Jack:
I have conferred with a state court practitioner who stated that there is nothing that prohibits you from agreeing to a consecutive six-month
sentence of incarceration followed by one year of community control as specified in the non-prosecution agreement.
If you elect to proceed with the plea agreement as currently drafted, we ask that you insert the word "imprisoned" following the words "six
months" in the second sentencing paragraph.
Please confirm that this change is acceptable. Thank you.
Original Message
From: Jack Goldberger
To:
Cc: Jack Goldberger
Sent: Sat Jun 28 08:49:55 2008
Subject: RE: Notice of Non-Compliance
Dear Ms
please allow this e-mail to confirm our telephone conference of 6:30 pm on June 27 wherein we discussed the Epstein plea agreement and
we agreed that the Epstein state plea agreement was in compliance with the September 2007 non-prosecution agreement entered into
between Mr. Epstein and the USAO for the Souhern District of Florida.
Jack Goldberger
EFTA00014102

=== Page 2 ===
From:
Sent: Fri 6/27/2008 5:45 PM
To: Jack Goldberger; Roy BLACK
Cc:
/
Subject: Notice of Non-Compliance
Dear Messrs. Goldberger and Black:
Please see the attached Notification Letter.
<<080627 Goldberger Black notification Itr.pdf>>
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax 561 820-8777
EFTA00014103


c1: EFTA00011365
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011365.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Sigrid McCawley
To:
Subject: FW: Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Transcript in slip and fall case (readers digest version)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 21:28:16 +0000
Attachments: Maxwell_Dep._Tr._(Slip_and_Fall_Case).pdf
Inline-Images: image009.png; image022.png; image037.png; image064.png; image008.png; image001.jpg;
image002.jpg; image003.jpg; image004.jpg; image005.jpg; image006.jpg; image007.jpg;
image010.jpg; image011.jpg; image012.jpg; image013.jpg; image014.jpg; image015.jpg;
image016.jpg; image017.jpg; image018.jpg; image019.jpg; image020.jpg; image021.jpg;
image023.jpg
Hi
- my paralegal found this. Not sure if you have it so I wanted to pass it along. It's a 2019 depo of Maxwell in a slip
and fall case in NYC. There are some clips below and the full version is attached.
Best,
Sigrid
Sigrid McCawley
Partner
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33301
From: Sandra Perkins
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 5:13 PM
To: Sigrid McCawley
Sabina Mariella
Subject: Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Transcript in slip and fall case (readers digest version)
Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Transcript in slip and fall case (readers digest version)
Note the File # has an AIG PRIV prefix (this has to mean that AIG is her insurance carrier on this case).
CUOMO, LLC.
Attorney for Defendant
Mineola, New York 11501
BY: MATTHEW CUOMO, ESQ.
FILE NO.: AIGPRIV 17007
EFTA00011365

=== Page 2 ===
1
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
X
SHELDON BARR and THOMAS GARDNER,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
CITY OF NEW YORK and
Defendants,
INDEX NO.: 159225/2010
X
New York, New York
April 9, 2019
10:07 a.m.
EXAMINATION BEFORE TRIAL of the Defendant,
by GHISLAINE MAXWELL, in
the above-entitled action, held at the above time
and place, taken before a Notary Public of the State
of New York, pursuant to Order and Stipulations
between Counsel.
Page 9 (Primary residence as of 9/2015 NY)
EFTA00011366

=== Page 3 ===
Q.
What was your primary residence back in
September of 2015?
A.
Q.
Can you tell me how much time you spent
there, say, back in 2015 from January 1st through
September 9, 2015?
A. A lot of time. I lived there. That's my
primary residence.
Page 10 (Maxwell is a US Citizen as well as citizen of France and England)
Q.
Where were you born?
A.
Paris, France.
Q.
What is your date of birth?
A.
Q.
Are you a U.S. Citizen at this time?
A. Yes.
Q.
When did you become a U.S. Citizen?
A.
I don't recall. But it was some time in
è late '90s, mid '90s. I'm not sure. I don't
member.
Q.
Are you a citizen of any other country?
A. Yes.
l.
What other countries?
A.
France and England.
Page 11 Education and Licenses
EFTA00011367

=== Page 4 ===
Q.
Do you have any professional degrees or
licenses?
A. I do.
Q.
In what?
A.
I'm a registered emergency technician,
first responder, EMT. I'm a helicopter pilot.
d. Sorry?
A.
Helicopter pilot.
Q.
Is your certification as an EMT in the
United States or another country?
A. In the U.S.
Page 12 - Ellmax
10
Q.
What is Ellmax?
11
A.
It's no longer in existence.
12
Q.
What was it?
13
A. It was a company I started to advise other
14
businesses on board placement, placing board of
15
directors, and any other questions they might have,
16
conferences, locations for conferences, speakers at
17
conferences.
18
a
What is the primary business? Is it
19
Ellmax, LLC.?
20
A. I think SO.
21
a
Is that a Florida Limited Liability
22
Company?
23
A.
Whatever paperwork I have. I don't recall.
24
Whatever it says on the paperwork.
EFTA00011368

=== Page 5 ===
Page 16 -
personal assistant for more than 10 years (beginning 2001 or 2002) and
Maxwell paid
herself not through Ellmax.
(Proof of payments?)
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
a
Who is
A.
my personal assistant.
Q.
How long was
your personal assistant?
A.
More than ten years.
a
More than ten years from today?
A.
No.
doesn't work for me anymore.
&
When did you start working for you?
A.
Again, some time in 2001, 2002. Something
like that.
a
Was
your personal assistant for the
next ten years?
A.
Yeah.
&
Was
paid by Ellmax, LLC.?
-
A.
I paid
myself.
a
Did you pay
out of a different company
or different funds or what source?
A.
I don't recall where T paid
from
exactly.
was not an employee of -- I was the
only person that did any work for Ellmax.
was
my personal assistant.
was able --
would do
Page 18 (Ellmax Florida Corporation - - Maxwell stated that she lived in number of place in Florida)
EFTA00011369

=== Page 6 ===
9
Q.
Was there a reason you chose a Florida
10
Limited Liability Company for Ellmax, LLC.?
11
A.
I don't know why. I don't remember.
12
a
Were you also a Florida resident back in
13
2016?
14
A.
I lived in Florida at certain times since I
15
moved to the states.
16
a
What is your address in Florida?
17
A.
I lived in a number of different places in
18
Florida.
19
Q.
Do you own real estate in Florida?
20
A.
No.
21
a
At any point did you maintain a residence
22
in Florida?
23
A.
I've never owned a home in Florida.
24
Q.
Did you rent the same residence in Florida?
25
A.
No.
Page 23 (Communicated with her personal assistant via email, text or phone)
Where are the records?
EFTA00011370

=== Page 7 ===
1
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
2
a
You said
was your personal assistant.
3
A.
1 did.
4
a
Was that a remote job or did
live with
5
you or lived nearby?
6
A.
never lived in my home. I can't
7
recall. Wherever
lived I don't know. I'm
8
sorry.
9
Q. Was it a full-time or part-time job?
10
A. It was full-time.
11
Q. How would you communicate with
.2
A.
Via, email, text, or phone.
Page 25: Darren Indyke helped Maxwell create Ellmax
EFTA00011371

=== Page 8 ===
Page 25
April 9, 2019
1
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
2
Q.
Was there ever any other members?
3
A.
I don't believe 50.
4
Q.
Could you tell me who Darren Indyke, Esq.
5
at
New York, New York is? Could
6
you tell me who he is?
7
A.
He is a lawyer.
8
a.
What is his connection with the LLC?
9
A.
He helped create it.
10
a
Did you hire him to create it?
11
A.
I don't recall how it went down exactly.
12
How he came to do it. But, he was the lawyer. And
13
he helped create it.
14
Q.
Was he referred to you by somebody?
15
A.
He worked for a friend of mine.
16
Q.
Who is that?
17
A.
A gentlemen called Mr. Epstein.
Page 31 (Miami Beach address in 2014)
9
2.
What is the address at
10
Miami Beach, Florida 33139?
11
A.
That was a home that I rented for a short
12
while, and I stayed at the address.
13
Q.
When did you rent it?
14
A.
I don't recall the dates. I am sorry.
15
Q.
Was it in the year 2014.
16
A.
I honestly don't remember.
Page 32 (Douglas Elliman was broker for sale of NY home)
EFTA00011372

=== Page 9 ===
11
a
Was that based on your accountant or a
12
legal advise or on your own?
13
A.
I'm sure that was based on legal advise.
14
a
Did you have a Lawyer that formed it for
15
you?
16
A.
You are asking things to go back over 20
17
years. I don't recall exactly how it went down.
18
a
Did you utilize the services of a broker in
19
purchasing
20
A.
I don't remember.
21
a
Did you utilize the services of a broker
22
when selling
23
A.
1 did.
24
Q.
Was that Douglas Elliman?
25
A.
It was.
Page 40 (Odd that she says not married at the time
could she be married now)?
EFTA00011373

=== Page 10 ===
Page 40
April 9, 2019
1
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
2
A.
No.
3
Q.
Who lived in
on
4
September 9, 2015?
5
A.
Excuse me?
6
Q.
Are you married?
7
A.
I was not married at the time of this.
8
Q.
Do you have any children?
9
A.
No.
10
Q.
Did you have any help that lived in the
11
house with you?
12
A.
No.
13
Q.
Did you have a housekeeper?
14
A.
I did have a housekeeper, yes.
15
Q.
Live out or live in?
16
A. Out.
Page 47 (says she used a MAC or laptop in 2015)
(for ESI)
15
Q.
Were there computers kept in that office?
16
A.
There was a computer in that office.
17
Q.
What kind of computer was it?
18
A.
I think it was a Mack.
19
0.
Was it a laptop or desktop?
20
A.
I think it was a desk top. It could have
21
been a laptop. I don't know.
22
Q.
Who owned that desktop?
23
A.
Well, if it was a desk top it would have
24
been me. Actually 1 think it was laptop in 2015.
25
a
Back in September of 2015, was there a desk
EFTA00011374

=== Page 11 ===
Maxwell had a filing cabinet (hard copy records)
A.
I didn't have business records.
&
Where did you keep the records for Ellmax,
LLC.?
A.
1 use to move my -- : had a file cabinet
wherever I was sitting. I had a filing cabinet.
a
Where would that be kept? On what floor in
the building?
A. It moved. I frequently moved my desk. I
couldn't decide where I would sit. There was a
period of time in the dining room became a place
where I would sit and the library. When I moved my
desk my little filing system cop come with me.
Page 52-53 (Tax returns reflect Maxwell claiming to work 60 hour weeks for Terramar)
EFTA00011375

=== Page 12 ===
15
a
Referring to the bottom portion next to the
16
yellow label of Plaintiff's Exhibit 10. Directing
17
your attention to Page 8 of the tax return. Do you
18
see this page?
19
A.
I do.
20
a
Did you indicate in this tax return that
21
you worked 60 hours a week on the Terramar Project?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
Did you have other officers at that time
24
that worked for the Terramar Project?
25
A. Well,
done 23 hours.
DEITZ Court Reporting A Lexitas Company
800-678-0166
YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM
INDEX NO. 159224/2016
113
RECEIVED NYSCRF: 03/05/2020
Page 53
April 9, 2019
1
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
2
Q.
Is that accurate?
3
A.
I'm sure it is.
Page 54-55 Claims only "contract contractors" who paid for work - but she and other board members
did not receive compensation.
EFTA00011376

=== Page 13 ===
25
A. These are just all directors and none of
DEITZ Court Reporting. A Lexitas Company
800-678-0166
YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM
INDEX NO. 159224/2016
- 113
RECEIVED NYSCRF: 03/05/2020
Page 55
April 9, 2019
1
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
2
them were renumerated. Nobody was paid. But,
3
Terramar Project did have work called contract
4
contractors who did do work for it. A contract
5
employee or contract person that worked for the
6
company is not the same as a regular employee. They
7
wouldn't come to work.
8
Q. Who was that?
9
A. I have had a number of -- I had a number of
10
different people. We also have one person who did
11
work for Terramar Project. They were always
12
offsite, because they would never come to work.
13
They would be remote.
Page 55: Robert Foos was a contracted employee for Terramar (Director of Development)
Who paid him?
EFTA00011377

=== Page 14 ===
14
Q.
Were there any contracting employees back
15
in 2015 for Terramar Project, Inc.?
16
A.
There were, yes.
17
a
Who were they?
18
A.
One. I believe it was Robert Foos.
19
2.
In what position did he hold?
20
A.
I think his official title was Director of
21
Development.
22
a.
Does the additional data sheet indicate
23
that you were also working 60 hours a week for
24
Terramer Project back in 2013?
25
A. Yes.
DEITZ Court Reporting. A Lexitas Company
800-678-0166
YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM
INDEX NO. 159224/2016
113
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2020
Page 56
April 9, 2019
1
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Page 57-58 (Mark, Paneth & Shron prepared her taxes for Terramar)
EFTA00011378

=== Page 15 ===
23
Q.
Was the accountant that prepared it Mark,
24
Paneth & Shron, LLP.,
New York,
25
New York 100017, as indicated on Plaintiff's Exhibit
DEITZ Court Reporting.. A Lexitas Company
800-678-0166
YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM
INDEX NO.
113
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
Page 58
April 9, 2019
1
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
2
10?
3
A.
It may have been.
4
a
Were they your accountants?
5
A.
They were.
6
Q.
Do they always file your personal tax
7
returns and the tax returns for the Terramar
8
Project?
Page 66 (Discussed deed being titled as
15
Q.
When it was purchased in 2000, do you
16
recall if you purchased it using
17
LLC.?
18
A.
I believe I did.
19
O.
Were you the sole member of
20
LLC.?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q.
Were you advised either by a lawyer or an
23
accountant to purchase the home through an LLC?
24
A.
I don't recall, but I'm sure I was.
Page 70
EFTA00011379

=== Page 16 ===
NO. 113
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2020
Page 70
April 9, 2019
1
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
2
Q.
When in town is that where you would sleep?
3
A. Yes.
4
a
You had your master bedroom in the house at
5
?
6
A. Yes.
7
Q.
That was all the time between 2000 thru
8
2016?
9
A. Yes.
10
a
With respect to the Terramar Project, did
11
you ever collect or have you ever collected any
12
salary as the president of the Terramar Project?
13
A. No.
Page 73-74
14
Q.
Have you received any remuneration of any
15
kind from the Terramar Project for your service for
16
that not-for-profit entity?
17
A. No.
18
Q.
Is there any place in the home, at
19
that is set aside for use solely by the
20
Terramar Project?
21
A. No.
EFTA00011380

=== Page 17 ===
25
Q. When you worked for a particular company,
DEITZ Court Reporting A Lexitas Company
800-678-0166
YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM
INDEX NO. 159:
. 113
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03,
Page 74
April 9, 2019
1
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
2
did you work with them at their premises?
3
A. Yes.
4
Q. Did you ever had them come to your
5
business, to
to do that work?
6
A. No.
EFTA00011381

=== Page 18 ===
7
Q.
During the period of time that Ellmax
8
functioned, did it generate revenue?
9
A.
A small amount.
10
Q.
Did you ever collect a salary for Ellmax?
11
A.
No.
12
Q.
Were you ever disbursed any profits from
13
Ellmax?
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
What happened to the revenue that Ellmax
16
generated during that period of time, from 2010 to
17
2013?
18
A.
It just was used to defer cost such as
19
traveling and travel mostly.
20
a
What were the costs of travel related to
21
Ellmax where you were going?
22
A.
Sorry, most of the companies I would have
23
worked for were from Los Angeles. I went to LA and
24
also to London multiple times.
Page 76-77 (Monte Albers De Leon closing lawyer for house/Maxwell did not attend closing).
EFTA00011382

=== Page 19 ===
19
Q.
Did you attend the closing when you sold
20
the building at
21
A.
No.
22
Q.
Did you authorize somebody to attend the
23
closing for you?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Who was that?
DEITZ Court Reporting A Lexitas Company
800-678-0166
YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM
INDEX NO. 159224/:
. 113
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/:
Page 77
April 9, 2019
1
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
2
A.
The lawyer that is on that. I don't
3
remember his name. Monte Albers De Leon.
4
&
Who is he? Is he your lawyer?
5
A.
He was a lawyer that I used.
Sandra Perkins Borger
Case Manager
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contain information that,
among other protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this
electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1 08201831BSF
EFTA00011383


c1: EFTA00013842
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013842.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Read: Epstein Press Coverage
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:23:44 +0000
Importance: Normal
EFTA00013842


c1: EFTA00013430
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013430.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: US V. Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Joint Proposed Juror Questionnaire and Voir Dire
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 23:53:59 +0000
Attachments: 2021.10.11_Letter_re_Jury_Questionnaire_and_Voir_Dire_[to_Court].pdf;
Joint_Proposed_Voir_Dire_[to_Court].pdf;
Joint_Maxwell_Jury_Questionnaire_[to_Court].pdf
Good evening,
Attached please find the parties' joint proposed juror questionnaire and voir dire. Per the attached letter, the parties
respectfully request that the Court accept the joint proposed juror questionnaire and voir dire under seal.
In addition, the Government has produced Jencks Act material and exhibits to the defense today. If the Court would like a
copy, we would be happy to provide it.
Respectfully submitted,
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
New York. New York 10007
Tel
EFTA00013430


c1: EFTA00010144
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010144.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
June 24, 2021
prep
AUSA
Det.
Prepared for trial testimony
previously undisclosed, clarifying, or different recollections
below
loes not remember exactly how much she was paid when
took photos of her
thought
looked between 28 and 34
IE would shower or steam before massages, sometimes invited
to join him
believes she received up to $500 for some massages
EFTA00010144


c1: EFTA00013727
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013727.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
=
(USAFLS)"
To: "Jay Lefkowitz"
Cc:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:58:54 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear Jay and Ken:
I communicated your message to Messrs. Acosta and
The U.S. Attorney reiterated that he would like
me to handle all communications and inquiries related to the Epstein matter, so he does not intend to return your
call unless I advise him that neither I nor my Chief in West Palm Beach,
,
is able to answer your
question.
If you would like to arrange a conference call with
and myself, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Fax 561 820-8777
EFTA00013727


c1: EFTA00010195
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010195.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject:
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:28:25 +0000
Attachments: 127128077929.pdf; ATT00001.txt
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/doc1/127128077929?caseid=539612&de_seq_num=273&magic_num=12984963
EFTA00010195


c1: EFTA00011413
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011413.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Subject: Supervisory Conflict Check
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:44:50 +0000
Attachments:
Supervisor_Financial_Interests_Check_COVID_version.pdf
requested my help in sending this out:
This should only take around 5 minutes:
Please review the list of assets on the last page of the attached (criminal or civil, depending on your
division) and type in the asset code number(s) next to any case of yours that may affect that asset or
involve a given law firm). (Use Adobe's Type Text Comment tool to type.)
If you have no hits, please type "nothing to report" at the top of the form.
Save the annotated report and email it back to my secretary, Jeanette Grayeb,
Thanks!
Intern
U.S. Attorney's Office I
SDNY
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 1000
EFTA00011413


c1: EFTA00013678
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013678.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)"
To:
Subject: FW: Epstein pleads guilty in state court
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:01:47 +0000
Importance: Normal
Pls put in Epstein binder.
From:
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:55 PM
To:
Cc:
; Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Epstein pleads guilty in state court
Thank you,
Your support was (and is) greatly appreciated.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
From:
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:19 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Epstein pleads guilty in state court
Congratulations,
- at long last! Your work on this matter was truly exceptional, and you obtained a very significant
result that will serve the victims well. Please pass on my congratulations to the rest of your team.
EFTA00013678


c1: EFTA00013219
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013219.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
STATE
STATES
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
October 2, 2020
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
MDC-Metropolitan Detention Center
Legal Department
80 29th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11232
Re:
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
The password for the drive containing discovery materials pertinent to Ghislaine Maxwell
(02879-509) is USAOsdny1!
Very truly yours,
AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney
by:
Assistant United States Attorneys
EFTA00013219


c1: EFTA00010285
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010285.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Letter
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 13:26:21 +0000
Attachments: 2020.10.02_Maxwell_Discovery_Letter.pdf
Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002.jpg
Received. We have been working with the MDC to get complete answers to all of the issues you raised in your prior letter.
We will send you a formal written response when we can do so in a complete manner.
In the meantime, your copy of the new discovery production is ready for pickup at 1 St. Andrews. Attached please find the
accompanying cover letter. We have also sent a copy of this new production to the MDC, along with replacement files of
the materials your client had difficulty reviewing at the MDC.
The production of 40,000 images is still being prepared by our IT department, and we will let you know when that
production is ready to load onto drives. To answer one of the questions you asked on a previous call, the FBI seized
approximately 3,500 nude images and 40,000 non-nude images during the New York and Virgin Islands searches. The FBI
is preparing all approximately 43,500 images to be viewable on a secure laptop that can reviewed at the MDC. The FBI
expects that process will be complete and the laptop ready for transport next week. We are still waiting on permission
from the BOP for an FBI agent to bring the laptop into the facility. Once we have that, we will reach out to you to schedule
a meeting at the MDC.
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 11:11 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Letter
Please see the attached letter.
Regards,
EFTA00010285

=== Page 2 ===
EFTA00010286


c1: EFTA00011362
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011362.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From
To:
Subject: current draft (just in case)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 21:18:52 +0000
Attachments: 2020-03-10,prosecution_memo,
docx
EFTA00011362


c1: EFTA00013845
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013845.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Read: RE: Jane Does V USA/Epstein
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:18:34 +0000
Importance: Normal
EFTA00013845


c1: EFTA00010143
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010143.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 22:03:24 +0000
Embedded: [EXTERNAL_EMAIL]-_Re:_Federal_Trial_Subpoena.msg
FYI
Special Agent
FBI New York Field Office
Child Exploitation/Human Trafficking
Desk
EFTA00010143


c1: EFTA00013720
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013720.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
=
(USAFLS)"
To:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: Epstein thought
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:35:09 +0000
Importance: Normal
Hi
- Only one obsessive thought last night. When you talk to Lanna, you might want to convince her that
(assuming she agrees with my analysis) the evidence in the state case is enough to support the charge, especially
the taped statement of
and others who talked about recruiting other girls. I definitely do not want
Epstein's camp to use this as an excuse to view all of our evidence, then withdraw from the plea, and then go to
trial.
Thanks.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone 561 209-
Fax 561 820-8777
EFTA00013720


c1: EFTA00009798
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009798.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
$ 2635.704 Use of Government property., 5 C.F.R. § 2635.704
Code of Federal Regulations
Title 5. Administrative Personnel
Chapter XVI. Office of Government Ethics
Subchapter B. Government Ethics
Part 2635. Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (Refs & Annos)
Subpart G. Misuse of Position
5 C.F.R. $ 2635.704
§ 2635.704 Use of Government property.
Currentness
(a) Standard. An employee has a duty to protect and conserve Government property and shall not use such property, or allow
its use, for other than authorized purposes.
(b) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
(1) Government property includes any form of real or personal property in which the Government has an ownership,
leasehold, or other property interest as well as any right or other intangible interest that is purchased with Government funds,
including the services of contractor personnel. The term includes office supplies, telephone and other telecommunications
equipment and services, the Government mails, automated data processing capabilities, printing and reproduction facilities,
Government records, and Government vehicles.
(2) Authorized purposes are those purposes for which Government property is made available to members of the public
or those purposes authorized in accordance with law or regulation.
Example 1: Under regulations of the General Services Administration at 41 CFR 101-35.201, an employee may make a personal
long distance call charged to her personal calling card.
Example 2: An employee of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission whose office computer gives him access to a
commercial service providing information for investors may not use that service for personal investment research.
Example 3: In accordance with Office of Personnel Management regulations at part 251 of this title, an attorney employed by
the Department of Justice may be permitted to use her office word processor and agency photocopy equipment to prepare a
paper to be presented at a conference sponsored by a professional association of which she is a member.
Credits
[62 FR 48748, Sept. 17, 1997]
SOURCE: 57 FR 35041, Aug. 7, 1992; 62 FR 48747, Sept. 17, 1997, unless otherwise noted.
WESTLAW © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
1
EFTA00009798

=== Page 2 ===
$ 2635.704 Use of Government property., 5 C.F.R. $ 2635.704
AUTHORITY: 5 U.S.C. 7301, 7351, 7353; 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3
CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.
Notes of Decisions (6)
Current through Nov. 14, 2022, 87 FR 68310. Some sections may be more current. See credits for details.
End of Document
© 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
WESTLAW © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
2
EFTA00009799


c1: EFTA00011414
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011414.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - Images from Epstein devices
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 03:26:51 +0000
Amazing, thank you so much,
Very, very grateful for the extraordinary effort.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
New York. NY 10007
From:
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 11:21 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - Images from Epstein devices
Hey
I was in the office all weekend. I am done with all but 5 or 6 machines. I will be able to get you what I have
tomorrow afternoon and the remaining as I get them.
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
On Oct 13, 2020 11:18 PM,
wrote:
Hi
Hope you enjoyed the long weekend. I'm checking in to see whether you have a sense of when our office might begin
receiving copies of the images from all of the Epstein devices from the New York and Virgin Island searches. Any sense of
timing would be much appreciated.
Thanks very much,
EFTA00011414

=== Page 2 ===
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
New York NY 10007
EFTA00011415


c1: EFTA00013604
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013604.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" <AAcosta@usa.doj.gov>
To: "
Subject: Read: RE: Epstein's Court Filings
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:11:50 +0000
Importance: Normal
EFTA00013604


c1: EFTA00011530
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011530.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Unit Update Reports
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 18:31:10 +0000
Attachments: Public_Corruption_Unit_Septembet_2021.docx
Here is the PC update.
From:
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 10:23 AM
To:
Subject: Unit Update Reports
Last month I sent you all a new template for monthly reports. With apologies for those who have sent in their
reports without using that template, please kindly resubmit using the new template. The new template also
includes a section on specially allocated FTE. Here is the specially allocated FTE report for the last two months.
Associate U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
(o)
(m)
EFTA00011530


c1: EFTA00010370
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010370.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Re: Ghislaine Maxwell custody
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 15:04:57 +0000
I will try. Can I start with
- he may be in the best position to get it done?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 3, 2020, at 10:23 AM,
wrote:
Thanks very much for passing this along. The permitted attorney contact on the list below only includes Vogelman
without reference to her New York counsel. Would it be possible to add her two New York attorneys-Chris Everdell and
Mark Cohen-to the list of people Maxwell can speak with on the phone, please?
Ideally, we would like to get them added today so that they can speak with their client over the weekend to facilitate our
discussions with them about next steps in the case.
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 3:47 PM
To:
Subject: Fwd: Ghislaine Maxwell custody
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: July 2, 2020 at 3:43:43 PM EDT
To: "NHD-SUPERVISORS (USMS)" <USMS-NHD-SUPERVISORS@usms.doj.gov>
Cc:
Subject: Ghislaine Maxwell custody
To all:
EFTA00010370

=== Page 2 ===
Below are the restrictions we have put in place regarding Ms. Maxwell during her stay at Merrimack DOC. I. If you have
any questions please feel free to call or email me.
Due to the high profile status of this case Inmate Maxwell will be closely monitored. The following
directives apply and shall not be deviated from without express permission from
myself or
1.
Inmate Maxwell will be housed in M1
2.
SRT personnel will be posted in medical and will only be relieved only by SRT personnel
3.
Staff will not converse with the inmate outside of the standard communication required related to the
inmate's health and safety
4.
Inmate Maxwell will remain on a 15 minute observation watch
5.
All rounds, and touch probe rounds will be conducted and documented in XJail
6.
Third Shift Supervisors will download the touch probe rounds and camera footage from the previous
day at 0000 hours each day. The video from the medical cell DVR will be downloaded onto a USB drive and
will be tracked via the designated tracking form provided. Supervisors are directed to deliver this
documentation and video to
Monday July 6th
7.
Inmate Maxwell will be authorized to communicate with her legal counsel, Lawrence Vogelman. This
contact is only authorized after Atty Vogelman provides the appropriate PIN
8.
Any and all requests from Inmate Maxwell are to be directed to
only
At no time are staff authorized to make statements to the press regarding this matter or our SOP regarding this
inmate.
Supervisory Deputy United States Marshal
District of New Hampshire
Concord, New Hampshire
office
This e-mail is property of U.S. Marshals Service. It is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Distribution or
copying of this e-mail or the information contained herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately and destroy all electronic and paper copies of this
e-mail.
EFTA00010371


c1: EFTA00013961
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013961.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "
(USAFLS)"
To: Roy BLACK
Cc:
(USAFLS)"
Bcc:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:43:11 +0000
Importance: Normal
Can
and I call you on your cell at 4:00 Florida time? I just need your number. Or you can call us at
desk
Thank you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
Original Message
From: Roy BLACK [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:38 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: Re: Jeffrey Epstein
Ok. I am on the road in california and can call in about an hour or so.
Original Message
From:
(USAFLS)"
To: Roy BLACK
Sent: 7/30/2008 2:31:56 PM
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein
Hi Roy -- It relates to the performance of the criminal Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
Original Message
From: Roy BLACK [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:18 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: Re: Jeffrey Epstein
I am out of town. What is it about?
>>>
(USAFLS)"
07/30/08 11:44 AM
Dear Roy: Are you available this afternoon to discuss the Epstein
EFTA00013961

=== Page 2 ===
matter? Please let me know what time works best for you.
Thank you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
EFTA00013962


c1: EFTA00011180
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011180.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Exhibit P
EFTA00011180

=== Page 2 ===
PRESTON
¡IATES INC.
FOR
ING
22
TEL
Statement of Preston Faro
1. I, Preston M. Faro, am a forensic accountant and private investigator, and the
owner of Preston M. Faro & Associates Inc. I received a BA in Economics from
Lehman College in 1973 and an advanced degree in Personal Financial Planning
from Lehman College in 1997. I have been a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE)
since receiving that designation in 1997.
2. Prior to entering the private sector, I was a Special Agent with the Internal
Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CID) from 1973 until
my retirement in 1998. As a Special Agent, I worked on numerous financial
fraud investigations, including several with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of New York. In addition, during the last five years of my
employment with the IRS, I received the designation of Cross-Designation
Authority from the FBI while being a member of the joint task force with the
FBI and the NYPD whose responsibilities were to investigate the federal
money laundering statutes on a national and international scale.
3. I have over forty years of experience in complex financial fraud
investigations, including: income tax violations, white collar crime, and
securities fraud. I also have extensive field experience in the tracing of assets
and reviewing books and records to recognize, identify, and trace suspicious
1
EFTA00011181

=== Page 3 ===
financial activity. I have also conducted numerous forensic investigative
audits.
4. I have been hired by federal and state law enforcement agencies on numerous
occasions to serve as a forensic accountant/investigator for corporate
monitorships and other compliance programs. For example, I was a member
of the World Trade Center Integrity Compliance Program administered by the
New York City Department of Investigation. My responsibilities included
preventing and detecting wasteful or abusive practices by contractors at the
World Trade Center site. My work consisted of reviewing the books and
records, including workers payroll records and invoices, and detailing any
fraud discovered in final summary reports.
5. For this engagement, I was hired by Cohen & Gresser LLP to conduct an
independent review of a Financial Condition Report prepared by Macalvins
Accountants summarizing the financial condition and assets of Ghislaine
Maxwell for the time period 2015-2020. I was asked to verify the accuracy of
the representations contained in the Independent Accountants' Commentary
and the accompanying Statement of Financial Condition including related
Excel schedules documenting the findings.
6. I reviewed the Independent Accountants' Commentary, the Statement of
Financial Condition, and the Excel schedules. To complete my review, I was
given access to all of the underlying documents relied upon by Macalvins to
prepare the Financial Condition Report, and I reviewed these underlying
documents to the extent necessary to verify the representations in the
2
EFTA00011182

=== Page 4 ===
Financial Condition Report. I also posed questions to the Macalvins
accountants and requested additional documents that I required to confirm the
amounts listed in the Financial Condition Report and accompanying
schedules. At all times, I was given complete access to the relevant
documents and allowed to ask any questions I thought pertinent to my
analysis.
Conclusion
7. Based on my review, I believe that the Financial Condition Report represents
a complete and accurate summary of the assets held by Ms. Maxwell and her
husband, as well as assets that were, or are currently, held in trust for the
benefit of Ms. Maxwell, for the time period from 2015-2020.
PRESTON M. FARO & ASSOCIATES INC.
FORENSIC ACCOUNTING.
Preston M Faro (CFE)
3
EFTA00011183


c1: EFTA00013172
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013172.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: protective order
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:20:25 +0000
Attachments: 20cr330_Sealed_Opinion_Order_6.25.21.pdf
Attached is Judge Nathan's opinion on this issue. The relevant cases here are Martindell and Chemical Bank, which are
discussed in the opinion.
EFTA00013172


c1: EFTA00013839
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013839.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: Read: Epstein Case
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:48:06 +0000
Importance: Normal
EFTA00013839


c1: EFTA00009881
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009881.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(USANYS)"
To:
)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
Subject: Epstein
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 18:49:06 +0000
Importance: Normal
Can you send us contact info for the National trafficking coordinator who reached out to you yesterday?
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00009881


c1: EFTA00010698
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010698.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
AMENDMENT TO STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REGISTRATION OF A UNITED STATES CIVIL
AIRCRAFT IN THE NAME OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS OF 6-2619 TO CHANGE THE
MEMBER AND THE MANAGER OF THE LLC
1. The full name of the Applicant LLC is: JEGE, LLC.
Accepted LE Aug/01/2019
2. The state in which this LLC is lawfully organized is: United States Virgin Islands.
3. The effective date of the LLC is: October 19, 2012.
4. The name of each of the members of the LLC and the type of entity of each member (i.e.:
individual, corporation, partnership, etc.)
Name: Aviation Development Group, LLC Type of Entity Limited Liability Corporation U.S. Citizenship Verification Yes
Name:
Type of Entity
U.S. Citizenship Verification
-
Name:
Type of Entity
U.S. Citizenship Verification
Name:
Type of Entity
U.S. Citizenship Verification
Additional Members Listed on additional pages:
5. This LLC is managed by X a Manager its Members
Officers
6. The Managers, Members or officers of this LLC may act independently: Y X N
.
7. The name of the Manager of this LLC:
The Manager is a (n) individual X corporation
partnership
other
The undersigned certifies that it/she/he understands that an LLC is eligible to register aircraft in its name provided
that (1) the President and at least 2/3rds of the Board of Directors officers, managers or managing members, are 'U.S.
Citizens" within the meaning of 49U.S.C Section 40102 (a) (15) and (II) at least 75% of the voting interest or units is
owned or controlled by persons who are "U.S.Citizens" or citizens of one of its possessions. (NOTE: AN LLC
CANNOT REGISTER AS A NON-CITIZEN CORPORATION)
If any member of this LLC is not a United States Citizen as defined in 40102(a)(15) an explanation appears below to support the
certification that this LLC is a "U.S.Citizen"as required by 49U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(15)(c).
JEGE, LLC
By:
Its: Manager
(Title)
PROVIDED BY INTERNATIONAL AIRCRAFT TITLE & ESCROW
CAR
COPY
EFTA00010698

=== Page 2 ===
EFTA00010699
FILED WITH FAA
AIRCRAFT
REGISTRATION BR
2019 JUN 26 PM 1: 42
OKLAHOMA CITY
OKLAHOMA


c1: EFTA00013676
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013676.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" <AAcosta@usa.doj.gov>
To:
Subject: Read: Just got back from Epstein hearing
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:00:45 +0000
Importance: High
Priority: Urgent
EFTA00013676


c1: EFTA00010302
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010302.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: draft MCC press release
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 17:02:04 +0000
Attachments: MCC_Press_Release_v1.docx
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
One St. Andrew's Plaza
New York New York 10007
EFTA00010302


c1: EFTA00010474
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010474.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 1 of 20
Appendix B
EFTA00010474

=== Page 2 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 2 of 20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2,
Petitioners,
vs.
UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
/
UNITED STATES' SEALED MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The United States hereby requests that this Court enter an order dismissing these
proceedings and the Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
3771 (DE 1, the "Petition"), through which Petitioners Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have
advanced claims pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"), for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. 1 This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition because
1
See, e.g., Grupo Dataflux V. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571 (2004)
("Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction can of course be raised at any time prior to final
judgment."); United States V. Giraldo-Prado, 150 F.3d 1328, 1329 (11th Cir. 1998) (recognizing
that "a party may raise jurisdiction at any time during the pendency of the proceedings"); Harrell
& Sumner Contracting Co. V. Peabody Petersen Co., 546 F.2d 1227, 1229 (5th Cir. 1977)
("[U]nder Rule 12(h)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., the defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be
raised at any time by motion of a party or otherwise."); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In the
present motion, the United States seeks dismissal of Petitioners' claims based on both a legal and
factual challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. This Court may properly consider
and weigh evidence beyond Petitioners' allegations when evaluating such a challenge to the
Court's subject matter jurisdiction:
Factual attacks [on a Court's subject matter jurisdiction] "challenge subject
matter jurisdiction in fact, irrespective of the pleadings." In resolving a factual
attack, the district court "may consider extrinsic evidence such as testimony and
affidavits." Since such a motion implicates the fundamental question of a trial
1
EFTA00010475

=== Page 3 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 3 of 20
Petitioners lack Article III standing and because the claims raised by Petitioners in these
proceedings are not constitutionally ripe.
I.
The Claims Raised in the Petition Must Be Dismissed for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction Because the Petitioners Lack Standing to Bring Those Claims.
These proceedings pursuant to the CVRA must be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because Petitioners lack standing to pursue the remedies that they are seeking for
alleged CVRA violations. As the Supreme Court has explained,
to satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1) it has
suffered an "injury in fact" that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Friends of the Earth, Inc. V. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81
(2000); see also, e.g., Young Apartments, Inc. V. Town of Jupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1038 (11th Cir.
2008) (quoting Harris V. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc)). Moreover, "a
plaintiff must demonstrate standing separately for each form of relief sought." Friends of the
Earth, 528 U.S. at 185.
Here, the record incontrovertibly demonstrates that Petitioners cannot satisfy the third
prong of the standing test, and the Petition and these proceedings must accordingly be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. E.g., Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. V. South Florida
court's jurisdiction, a "trial court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as
to the existence of its power to hear the case" without presuming the truthfulness
of the plaintiff's allegations.
Makro Capital of America, Inc. V. UBS AG, 543 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2008) (citations
omitted); see also, e.g., McMaster V. United States, 177 F.3d 936, 940 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[W]e
determine whether this lawsuit survives the government's factual attack [on subject matter
jurisdiction] by looking to matters outside the pleadings, and we do not accord any presumptive
truthfulness to the allegations in the complaint."); Scarfo V. Ginsberg, 175 F.3d 957, 960-61
(11th Cir. 1999).
2
Although Petitioners also fail to satisfy the first and second prongs of the standing test,
2
EFTA00010476

=== Page 4 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 4 of 20
Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011) ("If at any point in the litigation
the plaintiff ceases to meet all three requirements for constitutional standing, the case no longer
presents a live case or controversy, and the federal court must dismiss the case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction."); Phoenix of Broward, Inc. V. McDonald's Corp., 489 F.3d 1156, 1161 (11th
Cir. 2007) ("[T]he issue of constitutional standing is jurisdictional "); National Parks
Conservation Ass'n V. Norton, 324 F.3d 1229, 1242 (11th Cir. 2003) ("[B]ecause the
constitutional standing doctrine stems directly from Article III's 'case or controversy'
requirement, this issue implicates our subject matter jurisdiction, and accordingly must be
addressed as a threshold matter regardless of whether it is raised by the parties.") (citation
omitted).
In these proceedings, the only identified legal relief that Petitioners have sought pursuant
to the CVRA is the setting aside of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into
between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida
("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek "is to
invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo that Petitioners' rights
under the CVRA were violated when Epstein and the USAO-SDFL entered into the Non-
Prosecution Agreement, constitutional due process guarantees do not allow either the Non-
Prosecution Agreement - which by its terms induced Epstein to, inter alia, plead guilty to state
criminal charges and serve an 18-month sentence of state incarceration3 - or the governmental
this Court need not reach or address those issues because an analysis of the third prong of the
standing test incontrovertibly establishes the Petitioners' lack of standing. Nonetheless, the
circumstances which demonstrate Petitioners' lack of a concrete injury traceable to government
conduct are explored infra in Section II of this memorandum, which addresses how Petitioners'
claims and these proceedings lack constitutional ripeness.
3 See also July 11, 2008 Hr'g Tr. at 20-21 (Petitioners' acknowledgement that Epstein's
reliance on promises in Non-Prosecution Agreement led to his guilty plea to state charges and his
3
EFTA00010477

=== Page 5 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 5 of 20
obligations undertaken therein to be set aside.4 See, e.g., Santobello V. New York, 404 U.S. 257,
262 (1971) ("[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the
prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise
must be fulfilled."); United States V. Harvey, 869 F.2d 1439, 1443 (11th Cir. 1989) ("Due
process requires the government to adhere to the terms of any plea bargain or immunity
agreement it makes."). Indeed, even if this Court were somehow to set aside the Non-
Prosecution Agreement on the authority of the CVRA, and even if after consultation with
Petitioners the United States determined that it would be proper and desirable to institute a
criminal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida against Epstein on the criminal charges
contemplated in the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the United States would still be
constitutionally required to adhere to the negotiated terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
See, e.g., Santobello, 404 U.S. at 262; Harvey, 869 F.2d at 1443.
Due process considerations further bar this Court from setting aside a non-prosecution
agreement that grants contractual rights to a contracting party (Epstein) who has not been made a
party to the proceedings before the Court. See, e.g., School Dist. of City of Pontiac V. Secretary
of U.S. Dept. of Educ., 584 F.3d 253, 303 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hornbook law that all parties to a
contract are necessary in an action challenging its validity "); Dawavendewa V. Salt River
Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[A] party to a contract is
necessary, and if not susceptible to joinder, indispensable to litigation seeking to decimate that
subsequent 18-month state incarceration).
4
To the extent that the Petitioners' requested invalidation of the Non-Prosecution
Agreement would implicitly reject and nullify the correctness of both the state court's acceptance
of Epstein's guilty plea and the resulting judgment of conviction -which were induced in part by
the Non-Prosecution Agreement - such judicial action might raise additional questions about this
Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale V. Tillman, 558 F.3d
1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell V. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996).
4
EFTA00010478

=== Page 6 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 6 of 20
contract."); Lomayaktewa V. Hathaway, 520 F.2d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir. 1975) ("No procedural
principle is more deeply imbedded in the common law than that, in an action to set aside a lease
or a contract, all parties who may be affected by the determination of the action are
indispensable."); see also National Licorice Co. V. NLRB, 309 U.S. 350, 362 (1940) ("It is
elementary that it is not within the power of any tribunal to make a binding adjudication of the
rights in personam of parties not brought before it by due process of law.").⁵
Additionally, a "favorable ruling" from this Court will not provide Petitioners with
anything for the alleged CVRA violations that is not already available to them. For the due
process reasons already discussed above, the United States must legally abide by the terms of the
Non-Prosecution Agreement even if this Court should somehow set the agreement aside for
Petitioners to consult further with the government attorney handling the case. Moreover, as will
be explained in greater detail below, see infra at 8-12, Petitioners already have the present ability
to confer with an attorney for the government about a federal criminal case against Epstein -
whether or not the Non-Prosecution Agreement is set aside - because the investigation and
potential federal prosecution of Epstein for crimes committed against the Petitioners and others
remains a legally viable possibility.
The present proceedings under the CVRA must accordingly be dismissed for lack of
standing because Petitioners simply have no injury that is likely to be redressed by a favorable
ruling in these proceedings. See, e.g., Scott V. Taylor, 470 F.3d 1014, 1018 (11th Cir. 2006)
(holding that there was no standing where it was speculative that remedy that Plaintiff sought
5
Significantly, it is Epstein's contractual rights under the non-prosecution agreement that
Petitioners seek to void through these proceedings.
6
Petitioners' present, as well as past, ability to confer with an attorney for the government
also demonstrates that Petitioners fail to satisfy the first two prongs of the standing test:
Petitioners have simply not suffered a concrete injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged
government conduct.
5
EFTA00010479

=== Page 7 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 7 of 20
would redress claimed injury).
II.
The Claims Raised in the Petition Are Not Constitutionally Ripe, and These
Proceedings Must Thus Be Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
This Court must also dismiss these proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
because the Petitioners' claims are not constitutionally ripe.
Ripeness, like standing, "originate[s] from the Constitution's Article III requirement that
the jurisdiction of the federal courts be limited to actual cases and controversies." Elend V.
Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1204-05 (11th Cir. 2006). "The ripeness doctrine keeps federal courts
from deciding cases prematurely,' Beaulieu V. City of Alabaster, 454 F.3d 1219, 1227 (11th Cir.
2006), and "protects [them] from engaging in speculation or wasting their resources through the
review of potential or abstract disputes,' Digital Props., Inc. V. City of Plantation, 121 F.3d 586,
589 (11th Cir.1997)." United States V. Rivera, 613 F.3d 1046, 1050 (11th Cir. 2010); see also
Pittman V. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001) ("The ripeness doctrine prevent[s] the
courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract
disagreements ") (quoting Coalition for the Abolition of Marijuana Prohibition V. City of
Atlanta, 219 F.3d 1301, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000) (citations and quotations omitted))). Under the
ripeness doctrine, a court must therefore determine "whether there is sufficient injury to meet
Article III's requirement of a case or controversy and, if so, whether the claim is sufficiently
mature, and the issues sufficiently defined and concrete, to permit effective decisionmaking by
the court." In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cheffer V. Reno, 55 F.3d
1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995)).
When evaluating whether a claim is ripe, a court considers: "(1) the fitness of the issues
for judicial decision, and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration." Id.
(quoting Cheffer, 55 F.3d at 1524 (citing Abbott Labs. V. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967)));
6
EFTA00010480

=== Page 8 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 8 of 20
see also, e.g., Association For Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc. V. Conger, 899 F.2d
1164, 1165 (11th Cir. 1990). Under the doctrine, "[a] claim is not ripe when it is based on
speculative possibilities," In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011), such as if the claim
"rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur
at all," Atlanta Gas Light Co. V. FERC, 140 F.3d 1392, 1404 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting Texas V.
United States, 523U.S. 296, 300 (1998)). Indeed, "[t]he ripeness doctrine is designed to prevent
federal courts from engaging in such speculation and prematurely and perhaps unnecessarily
reaching constitutional issues." Pittman, 267 F.3d at 1280.
In these proceedings, the Petitioners have sought to set aside the Non-Prosecution
Agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL so that Petitioners can "confer with the
attorney for the Government" about the possible filing of federal criminal charges against
Epstein and the potential disposition of any such charges. See, e.g., July 11, 2008 Hr'g Tr. at 6-7
(seeking an "[o]rder that the [non-prosecution] agreement that was negotiated is invalid" so that
Petitioners can exercise the right to confer with the government); id. at 19-20, 24; 18 U.S.C.
$ 3771(a)(5); see also DE 1 at 295 (claiming that Petitioner was "denied her rights" under the
CVRA because she "received no consultation with the attorney for the government regarding the
possible disposition of the charges").
Notwithstanding the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Petitioners are and have been free to
confer with attorneys for the government about the investigation and potential prosecution of
Epstein. At least one attorney for the government (Assistant United States Attorney Villafaña
from the USAO-SDFL) had spoken to Petitioners about the offenses committed against them by
Epstein prior to the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, see, e.g., July 11, 2008 Hr'g Tr.
at 22 (acknowledging that prosecutors spoke to Petitioners "about what happened" to them); DE
7
EFTA00010481

=== Page 9 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 9 of 20
48 at 6 1 8; see also DE 99 at 3, and government attorneys have on multiple occasions offered to
confer with Petitioners, see, e.g., July 11, 2008 Hr'g Tr. at 13 ("I will always confer, sit down
with Jane Doe 1 and 2, with the two agents and Ms. Villafana. We'll be happy to sit down with
them."). Indeed, on December 10, 2010, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
Florida, accompanied by supervisory and line prosecutors from the USAO-SDFL, personally
conferred with Petitioners' counsel and with Petitioner Jane Doe #1 and entertained discussion
about Petitioners' desires to see Epstein criminally prosecuted on federal charges.⁷ The United
States Attorney and prosecutors in the USAO-SDFL have also corresponded with Petitioners'
counsel on multiple occasions about Petitioners' desires to have Epstein criminally prosecuted on
federal charges.
Additionally,
a number of districts outside the Southern District of Florida (e.g., the Southern
District of New York and the District of New Jersey) share jurisdiction and venue with the
Southern District of Florida over potential federal criminal charges based on the alleged sexual
acts committed by Epstein against the Petitioners. Epstein is thus subject to potential
prosecution for such acts in those districts. Furthermore, because of the nature of the allegations
against Epstein, the filing of such potential charges against Epstein still remains temporally
viable; charges for such sexual activities involving minors are not barred by the applicable
7
The United States Attorney also offered to confer with Jane Doe #2, but Jane Doe #2
declined the invitation and did not attend the meeting that was scheduled with the United States
Attorney.
8
Since that time, the USAO-SDFL has been recused by the Department of Justice from
prospective responsibility for any criminal investigation or potential prosecution relating to
Epstein's alleged sexual activities with minor females. The Department of Justice has reassigned
responsibility for the investigation and potential prosecution of such criminal matters in the
Southern District of Florida to the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of
Florida for consideration of any prosecutorial action that may be authorized and appropriate.
8
EFTA00010482

=== Page 10 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 10 of
20
statutes of limitations. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3283, 3299. Petitioners are free to contact the United
States Attorney's Office in those districts and seek to confer with government attorneys in those
offices about investigating and potentially prosecuting Epstein based on the alleged federal
crimes committed against them.⁹
Petitioners nonetheless have appeared to contend throughout these proceedings that the
many opportunities that they have been given to consult with the attorneys for the government
about Epstein's offenses and the potential charges against Epstein - opportunities which continue
to be available to Petitioners - are not meaningful under the CVRA due to the existence of the
Non-Prosecution Agreement. According to Petitioners, the Non-Prosecution Agreement has
given Epstein a "free pass" on federal criminal charges for the offenses he committed against
Petitioners and others. See, e.g., DE 9 at 15 (characterizing Non-Prosecution Agreement as "a
"free pass' from the federal government"), 2 (contending that the Non-Prosecution Agreement
"allowed [Epstein]
to escape all federal prosecution for dozens of serious federal sex offenses
against minors"), 7 ("the wealthy defendant has escaped all federal punishment"), 12 ("[T]he
agreement prevents federal prosecution of the defendant for numerous sex offenses."); DE 77 at
2 (describing Non-Prosecution Agreement as "an agreement that blocked federal prosecution of
Epstein for the multitude of sex offenses he committed again [sic] the victims"), 17 ("The [Non-
9
The USAO-SDFL has no present knowledge about whether the United States Attorney's
Offices in those districts have opened any investigations into the allegations that have been made
against Epstein, whether those offices are even aware of those allegations or the evidence
supporting them, or what investigative or prosecutorial actions, if any, those offices might take in
the future. Nonetheless, should any investigation be underway or should any investigation be
initiated involving such allegations, the evidence gathered
in the Southern
District of Florida could be disclosed to federal prosecutors and federal grand juries in New York
or New Jersey. See
9
EFTA00010483

=== Page 11 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 11 of
20
Prosecution Agreement] barred prosecution of the federal sexual offenses that Epstein had
committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 "). 10 That is simply not so.
Contrary to Petitioners' contentions, there has been no disposition by the government of
any federal criminal charges against Epstein. No federal charges involving Petitioners have ever
been brought against Epstein, and no such federal charges have been resolved. The Non-
Prosecution Agreement about which Petitioners complain disposes of no federal criminal
charges against Epstein, and that agreement does not bar the United States from bringing federal
criminal charges against Epstein. Instead, when addressing potential federal criminal charges
against Epstein, the USAO-SDFL merely agreed in the Non-Prosecution Agreement that:
on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern
District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred
in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the
following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below.
and that
After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no
prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any
other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses
that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this
District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed.
Non-Prosecution Agreement at 2 (emphasis added).
Thus, the Non-Prosecution Agreement simply obligated the government not to prosecute
Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution
10
This Court has also previously described the Non-Prosecution Agreement as "an
agreement
under which the U.S. Attorney's Office would agree not to prosecute Epstein for
federal offenses." DE 99 at 2-3. That description of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, however,
was not based on the Court's interpretation of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, but
was instead based on "allegations" by Petitioners that the Court concluded were "not yet
supported by evidence" but upon which the Court nonetheless relied "solely to provide the
context for the threshold issues addressed in" its September 26, 2011 Order. Id. at 2 n.2.
10
EFTA00010484

=== Page 12 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 12 of
20
Agreement. The Non-Prosecution Agreement does not bar the United States from bringing
federal criminal charges against Epstein for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution
Agreement in any other district in the nation. 11 See, e.g., United States V. Cain, 587 F.2d 678,
680
(5th
Cir. 1979) ("Where the prosecutor is not found to have made promises relating to
nonprosecution of charges in another district and the [defendant] is not found to have relied on
such alleged promises, this Court will affirm the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss the
subsequent prosecutions."). Neither does the Non-Prosecution Agreement bar prosecution in any
district for offenses not identified in the agreement.
Petitioners contend that the CVRA gives a victim the right to confer with the attorney for
the government before there is a disposition of contemplated, but-not-yet-filed federal criminal
charges arising from offenses against the victim. But, although the government disputes that the
CVRA creates such a right, 12 the Petitioners have never been denied any such right. The
Petitioners have had and still have the ability confer to with the attorney for the government
about potential federal criminal charges against Epstein and about the potential disposition of
any such charges, should they be filed. In fact, Petitioners are free to approach the United States
Attorney's Offices in districts such as the Southern District of New York and the District of New
Jersey - whose authority to institute criminal charges against Epstein in their districts has not
11 Significantly, under the governing provision of the United States Attorney's Manual, the
USAO-SDFL did not have the authority to unilaterally bar Epstein's prosecution in any other
district in the country:
No district or division shall make any agreement, including any agreement not to
prosecute, which purports to bind any other district(s) or division without the
express written approval of the United States Attorney(s) in each affected district
and/or the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division.
USAM 9-27.641 (Multi-District (Global) Agreement Requests).
12
The government acknowledges that this Court has nonetheless ruled that "as a matter of
law the CVRA can apply before formal charges are filed," DE 99 at 10; see also id. at 6-9, but
has not yet determined "whether the particular rights asserted here attached," id. at 10.
11
EFTA00010485

=== Page 13 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 13 of
20
been curtailed by the Non-Prosecution Agreement - to discuss the possibility of pursuing federal
criminal charges against Epstein. 13 Nothing precludes Petitioners from doing so, and there is
nothing to indicate that Petitioners' wishes to confer with government attorneys in those districts
would be rebuffed in any way. Indeed, it would be rank speculation by Petitioners to contend
otherwise.
Here, Petitioners have acknowledged that the best relief they can hope to obtain through
these proceedings is the ability to confer with the attorneys for the government. See, e.g., July
11, 2008 Hr'g Tr. at 7 (agreeing that "the best [Petitioners] can get" is the "right to confer").
Yet, under the circumstances, a claim that Petitioners have been denied the opportunity to confer
with the attorney for the government about the filing and disposition of criminal charges against
Epstein is premature and constitutionally unripe. "This is plainly the type of hypothetical case
that [a court] should avoid deciding." Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc.
V. Conger, 899 F.2d 1164, 1166 (11th Cir. 1990). Any speculation by Petitioners that they might
prospectively be denied the opportunity to confer with the government about still-legally-viable
federal charges against Epstein simply cannot ripen Petitioners' claims. See id. (recognizing that
courts "do not generally decide cases based on a party's predicted conduct").
For these reasons, Petitioners' claims in these proceedings should be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011)
(holding that claims that are "based on events that may take place in the future" are to be
"dismissed for lack of jurisdiction") (citing Greenbriar, Ltd. V. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570,
1574 n.7 (11th Cir. 1989) ("[R]ipeness goes to whether the district court had subject matter
13
Petitioners could also approach the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle
District of Florida, but, due to that office's recusal-based derivative prosecutorial responsibilities
in the Southern District of Florida, see supra note 8, the Non-Prosecution Agreement would
constrain the possible filing of federal charges by that office in the Southern District of Florida.
12
EFTA00010486

=== Page 14 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 14 of
20
jurisdiction to hear the case.")); Reahard V. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1415 (11th Cir. 1994)
("The question of ripeness 'goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.")
(quoting Greenbriar, 881 F.2d at 1573); see also Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n, Inc. V. City
of Jacksonville, 635 F.3d 1266, 1276 (11th Cir. 2011) (concluding that when plaintiffs ask a
court "to issue a declaration on an issue that might never impact their substantive rights," they
are "asking th[e] court either to issue an impermissible advisory opinion, or to decide a case that
is not yet ripe for decision"), reh'g & reh'g en banc denied, Case No. 09-15629, - Fed. App'x
(11th Cir. Jun. 29, 2011) (Table).
-
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the United States respectfully requests that this Court
enter an order dismissing the Petitioners' claims and these proceedings for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
13
EFTA00010487

=== Page 15 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 15 of
20
Respectfully submitted,
WIFREDO A. FERRER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By:
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0936693
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33132
Tel: (305) 961-9320; Fax: (305) 530-7139
Email: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov
Eduardo I. Sánchez
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar No. 877875
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33132
Tel: (305) 961-9057; Fax: (305) 536-4676
Email: eduardo.i.sanchez@usdoj.gov
A. Marie Villafaña
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0018255
500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Tel: (561) 820-8711; Fax: (561) 820-8777
Email: ann.marie.c.villafana@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Respondent
14
EFTA00010488

=== Page 16 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 16 of
20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing United States' Sealed
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction was served via United States Mail this
7th day of November, 2011, upon Counsel for Petitioners Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2,
accompanied by a copy of the November 7, 2011 Sealed Order Granting Government's Motion
for Limited Disclosure of Grand Jury Matter. Pursuant to the Order regarding the disclosure of
Grand Jury Information, a copy was not served upon the proposed intervenors.
Assistant Willillane States Attorney
15
EFTA00010489

=== Page 17 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 17 of
20
SERVICE LIST
Jane Does 1 and 2 V. United States,
Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Brad Edwards, Esq.,
The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC
2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202
Hollywood, Florida 33020
(954) 414-8033
Fax: (954) 924-1530
Paul G. Cassell
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
(801) 585-5202
Fax: (801) 585-6833
E-mail: casselp@law.utah.edu
Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2
16
EFTA00010490

=== Page 18 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 18 of
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
IN RE:
GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS
FEDERAL GRAND JURY 05-02(WPB) AND
FEDERAL GRAND JURY 07-103(WPB)
/
Sealed Order Granting
Government's Motion for Limited Disclosure of Grand Jury Matter
UNDER SEAL
EFTA00010491

=== Page 19 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 19 of
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
IN RE:
S.D. S. D. of FLA W.P.B. P.B.
CLERK U. S. DIST CT
STEVEN M. LARIMORE
NOV 07 2011
FILED by
GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS
D.C.
FEDERAL GRAND JURY 05-02(WPB) AND
FEDERAL GRAND JURY 07-103(WPB)
/
Sealed Order Granting
Government's Motion for Limited Disclosure of Grand Jury Matter
This cause comes before the Court on the Government's Sealed Ex Parte Motion for
Limited Disclosure of Grand Jury Matter Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i). After
careful consideration of the grounds raised in said motions, and the Court being otherwise
advised in the premises,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government's Motion for Limited Disclosure of
Grand Jury Matter Pursuant 10 Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i) is GRANTED. The Government
is authorized to disclose in Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 V. United States, Case No. 08-
80736-Civ-Marra (S.D. Fla.),
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i)
shall be conditioned on the following:
EFTA00010492

=== Page 20 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 20 of
20
(1) the disclosure of the aforementioned grand jury information shall be limited to filings
made under seal in Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra;
(2) the service of filings containing the aforementioned grand jury information shall be
limited to counsel for Petitioners Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 and for the
government in Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra, and shall be accompanied by a copy of
this Order; and
(3) further dissemination by any person or entity receiving disclosure of the grand jury
information authorized to be disclosed by this Order shall be limited to the individual
Petitioners in Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra, and any dissemination of such grand
jury information shall be accompanied by a copy of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 7 day of
November, 2011.
DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
file
Date 11/7/11/21 City
2
EFTA00010493


c1: EFTA00013913
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013913.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: Jack Goldberger
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:52:50 +0000
Importance: High
Priority: Urgent
Dear Jack:
Special Agent
minded me that I failed to include one of our identified victims. She is still a
minor, and her initials are
Please let me know when you are available, and I will provide you with the revised list. I would like to receive
the signed notification by tomorrow so that I can begin distributing them to the victims.
Thank you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Phone
Fax
EFTA00013913


c1: EFTA00009747
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009747.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 1 of 20
JUDGE TORRES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
ORIGINAL
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
INDICTMENT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
19 Cr
- V. -
:
19 CRIM 830
TOVA NOEL and
:
MICHAEL THOMAS,
:
Defendants.
X
INTRODUCTION
1.
On or about August 10, 2019, TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL
THOMAS, the defendants, in dereliction of their duties as
correctional officers at the Metropolitan Correctional Center
("MCC"), repeatedly failed to perform mandated counts of prisoners
under their watch in the MCC's Special Housing Unit ("SHU").
Instead, for substantial portions of their shifts, NOEL and THOMAS
sat at their desk, browsed the internet, and moved around the
common area of the SHU. To conceal their failure to perform their
duties, NOEL and THOMAS repeatedly signed false certifications
attesting to having conducted multiple counts of inmates when, in
truth and in fact, they never conducted such counts. As a result
of those false statements, the MCC believed prisoners in the SHU
were being regularly monitored and accounted for when, in fact, as
a result of the defendants' conduct, no correctional officer
conducted any count or round of the SHU from approximately 10:30
EFTA00009747

=== Page 2 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 2 of 20
p.m. on August 9 until approximately 6:30 a.m. on August 10, at
which time, as alleged herein, NOEL and THOMAS discovered the body
of an MCC inmate, Jeffrey Epstein, who had committed suicide
overnight while unobserved.
RELEVANT INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES
2. The MCC is a federal administrative detention
facility located in Manhattan that is run by the Federal Bureau of
Prisons ("BOP"). The MCC is one of several facilities used to
house inmates who have been charged with federal crimes in the
Southern District of New York and are awaiting trial. The MCC
employs correctional officers, whose primary duty is to ensure the
care, custody, and control of the inmate population of the MCC.
3. TOVA NOEL, the defendant, has been employed as a
correctional officer at the MCC since approximately 2016. As of
August 2019, NOEL's primary assignment was the SHU. On August 9,
2019, NOEL worked a regular shift from 4 p.m. to 12 a.m. in the
SHU, and then worked an overtime shift from 12 a.m. to 8 a.m. on
August 10, 2019, also in the SHU. NOEL had also worked a regular
shift in the SHU the day before, August 8, 2019, from 12 p.m. to
8 p.m.
4. MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendant, has been employed as
a correctional officer at the MCC since approximately 2007.
Beginning in approximately 2013, THOMAS was assigned to work as a
2
EFTA00009748

=== Page 3 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 3 of 20
materials handler supervisor, although THOMAS regularly worked
overtime shifts as a correctional officer, including in the SHU.
THOMAS worked an overtime shift in the SHU on August 10, 2019,
from 12 a.m. to 8 a.m. THOMAS did not work his regular shift on
August 8 or August 9, 2019, but did work an overtime shift in the
SHU on August 9, 2019 from 12 a.m. to 8 a.m.
5. As detailed herein, Jeffrey Epstein was
incarcerated at the MCC between his arrest on July 6, 2019, and
his suicide on August 10, 2019. Epstein was detained pending
trial in the Southern District of New York on sex trafficking
charges.
THE MCC AND INSTITUTIONAL COUNTS
6. The MCC, which houses approximately 750 inmates at
any given time, assigns inmates to various housing units within
the MCC. The SHU is a housing unit within the MCC where inmates
are securely separated from the general inmate population to ensure
their own safety as well as the safety of staff and other inmates.
The SHU is located on the ninth floor of the MCC, and access to
that floor is controlled by a locked door that can be opened
remotely only by an officer in the MCC's centralized control center
(the "Control Center"), which is located on the first floor of the
MCC. Access into the SHU is also controlled by a second locked
door to which only correctional officers assigned to the SHU have
3
EFTA00009749

=== Page 4 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 4 of 20
keys while on duty. Within the SHU, inmates are assigned to six
separate tiers, each of which can be accessed only via a single
locked door to which the correctional officers assigned to the SHU
have keys while on duty. Each tier has eight cells, each of which
can house either one or two prisoners, and each individual cell -
which is made of cement and metal - is accessed only through a
single locked door, to which only correctional officers assigned
to the SHU have keys while on duty.
7. The BOP requires correctional officers assigned to
guard inmates at the MCC to conduct institution-wide counts of
inmates at regular, scheduled intervals to ensure that each inmate
is alive and accounted for within the MCC (the "institutional
count"). On weekdays, the MCC conducts five institutional counts
at 4 p.m., 10 p.m., 12 a.m., 3 a.m., and 5 a.m. Performing an
institutional count is one of the most basic and essential aspects
of a correctional officer's job, and the count is one of the most
basic and essential functions of daily operation of the MCC. Two
officers are required to perform the institutional count for each
housing unit, including the SHU, and are further required to
document their performance of the count on an official MCC form
called a count slip. To perform the institutional count in the
SHU, two officers must walk from tier to tier to observe and count
each individual inmate.
4
EFTA00009750

=== Page 5 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 5 of 20
8. On the count slip, both correctional officers are
required to fill in the date and time the count was performed,
write the total number of inmates physically present in the unit
counted, and then sign the count slip. Once the correctional
officers have completed and signed the count slips, the count slips
are then collected and delivered to the Control Center, where
officers within the Control Center are responsible for comparing
the count slips from each housing unit to the institution's inmate
roster to ensure that each inmate is accounted for. Only after
all the count slips are collected from each housing unit, and the
numbers on the slips are matched to the institution's inmate
roster, can the institutional count be deemed "cleared" or
completed. If a housing unit's count slip is incorrect or
incomplete, then the institution cannot "clear" the count.
Instead, the count must be completely redone in that housing unit
via a more-intensive version of the institutional count called a
"bed book count," in which officers must compare every individual
inmate to the institution's inmate roster. Records of each
institutional count, including the count slips, are provided to a
supervising official and retained by the MCC.
9. In addition to the institutional count, the BOP
requires correctional officers assigned to the SHU to walk each of
the tiers of the SHU - which is called a "round" - every thirty
5
EFTA00009751

=== Page 6 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 6 of 20
minutes ("30-minute rounds").
Like the institutional counts,
correctional officers conduct 30-minute rounds to ensure that each
inmate is alive and accounted for within his cell. Correctional
officers working in the SHU are required to complete a form, which
is reviewed and signed by their supervisor, documenting the date
and time of each 30-minute round in each tier of the SHU.
EPSTEIN'S PRIOR APPARENT SUICIDE ATTEMPT
10. On July 6, 2019, inmate Jeffrey Epstein was
arrested and detained at the MCC on sex trafficking charges. On
July 10, 2019, Epstein was assigned to the SHU due to, among other
things, risk factors for suicidality and safety concerns relating
to housing him with the MCC's general population.
11. On July 23, 2019, while Epstein was housed in the
SHU, MCC officers responded to an emergency call, and found Epstein
on the floor of his cell with a strip of bedsheet around his neck.
MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendant, was one of the MCC officers who
responded to the incident. Epstein was subsequently transferred
out of the SHU and was placed on suicide watch. Inmates placed
on suicide watch are housed in a cell on the hospital wing floor
of the MCC, and are watched twenty-four hours a day by a staff
member or a specially trained inmate companion.
12. Epstein remained on suicide watch for approximately
twenty-four hours, and then was transferred to psychological
6
EFTA00009752

=== Page 7 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 7 of 20
observation, until July 30, 2019. Psychological observation is
less restrictive than suicide watch, but inmates are still housed
in the hospital wing of the MCC and watched twenty-four hours a
day.
13. On July 30, 2019, Epstein was transferred back to
the SHU, and, at the direction of the MCC's psychological staff,
was required to have an assigned cellmate. Epstein was also
assigned to the cell closest to the correctional officers' desk in
the common area of the SHU, which was approximately fifteen feet
from the cell. Conducting the required institutional counts and
thirty-minute rounds in the SHU were also part of the MCC's
procedures for ensuring the safety of inmates, including Epstein.
EVENTS OF AUGUST 9-10, 2019
14. On August 9, 2019, Epstein's cellmate was
transferred out of the MCC in a routine, pre-arranged transfer at
approximately 8 a.m. Despite the MCC's psychological staff's
direction that Epstein have a cellmate, no new cellmate was
assigned to Epstein's cell.
15. TOVA NOEL, the defendant, was one of the assigned
officers on duty in the SHU from 4 p.m. on August 9, 2019 to 8
a.m. on August 10. From 4 p.m. to 12 a.m., two other officers
were on duty with NOEL in the SHU: one officer was assigned to
work from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. ("Officer-1"), and one officer was
7
EFTA00009753

=== Page 8 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 8 of 20
assigned to work from 4 p.m. to 12 a.m. ("Officer-2"). MICHAEL
THOMAS, the defendant, started his shift in the SHU at 12 a.m. on
August 10. From 12 a.m. until 8 a.m. on August 10, NOEL and THOMAS
were the only two officers on duty in the SHU.
16. During the time period from 4 p.m. on August 9 to
8 a.m. on August 10, the officers on duty in the SHU, including
TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants, were responsible for
conducting five institutional counts: 4 p.m. and 10 p.m. on August
9; and 12 a.m., 3 a.m., and 5 a.m. on August 10. NOEL, THOMAS and
the other officers on duty were also responsible for completing
paperwork attesting to each of those counts. While, as detailed
herein, count slips were completed for each institutional count,
in fact, not a single one of those institutional counts was done.
17. TOVA NOEL, the defendant, and Officer-1 were
responsible for conducting the 4 p.m. institutional count in the
SHU. As video from the MCC's internal video surveillance system
makes clear, NOEL and Officer-1 did not perform the 4 p.m. count.
Nonetheless, NOEL and Officer-1 completed and signed a count slip
that falsely stated that the 4 p.m. institutional count had been
performed. In reliance on that falsified count slip, at
approximately 5:03 p.m., the Control Center cleared the 4 p.m.
count.
8
EFTA00009754

=== Page 9 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 9 of 20
18. That evening, Epstein returned to the SHU from his
attorney visit and was escorted into his cell by TOVA NOEL, the
defendant, and another officer at approximately 7:49 p.m. NOEL
and the other officer left the tier in which Epstein was housed
immediately thereafter.
19. By or before 10 p.m., all inmates in the MCC were
locked in their cells for the night. At or around that time, TOVA
NOEL, the defendant, and Officer-2 were responsible for conducting
the 10 p.m. institutional count in the SHU. However, video from
the MCC's internal video surveillance system shows that NOEL and
Officer-2 did not perform the 10 p.m. count. Nonetheless, NOEL
and Officer-2 completed and signed a count slip falsely stating
that the 10 p.m. institutional count had been performed. In
reliance on that falsified count slip, at approximately 10:36 p.m.,
the Control Center cleared the 10 p.m. count.
20. As reflected on video obtained from the MCC's
internal video surveillance system, at approximately 10:30 p.m. on
August 9, 2019 - after TOVA NOEL, the defendant, had signed and
submitted the 10 p.m. count slip and the institutional count had
been completed - NOEL briefly walked up to, and then walked back
from, the door to the tier in which Epstein was housed. As
confirmed by the video obtained from the MCC's internal video
surveillance system, this was the last time anyone, including any
9
EFTA00009755

=== Page 10 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 10 of 20
correctional officer, walked up to, let alone entered, the only
entrance to the tier in which Epstein was housed until
approximately 6:30 a.m. on August 10.
21. Officer-1's shift ended at approximately 10 p.m.,
and at approximately 12 a.m., MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendant,
replaced Officer-2, joining TOVA NOEL, the defendant, as the only
two correctional officers on duty in the SHU. NOEL and THOMAS
were responsible for conducting the 12 a.m. institutional count in
the SHU. As confirmed by video from the MCC's internal video
surveillance system, NOEL and THOMAS did not perform the 12 a.m.
count. Nonetheless, NOEL and THOMAS completed and signed a count
slip for the 12 a.m. count that falsely stated that the
institutional count had been performed. In reliance on that
falsified count slip, at approximately 12:49 a.m., the Control
Center cleared the 12 a.m. count.
22. TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants, were
additionally responsible for conducting the 3 a.m. and 5 a.m.
institutional counts in the SHU. As confirmed by video from the
MCC's internal video surveillance system, NOEL and THOMAS did not
perform either the 3 a.m. or the 5 a.m. counts. NOEL and THOMAS
nonetheless completed and signed count slips for both counts that
falsely stated that they had performed the 3 a.m. and 5 a.m.
institutional counts. In reliance on those falsified count slips,
10
EFTA00009756

=== Page 11 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 11 of 20
at approximately 3:24 a.m. and 5:30 a.m., the Control Center
cleared the 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. counts, respectively.
23. Moreover, despite the requirement that officers on
duty in the SHU conduct and document regular, 30-minute rounds,
TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants, did not perform any
of the required 30-minute rounds during their shift between
approximately 12 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. Nonetheless, NOEL completed
and signed more than 75 separate 30-minute round entries falsely
affirming that they had, in fact, conducted such rounds.
24. During the night, instead of completing the
required counts and rounds, TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the
defendants, were seated at the correctional officers' desk in the
SHU common area (as noted above, approximately 15 feet from
Epstein's cell), used the computers, and moved around the SHU
common area. For a period of approximately two hours, NOEL and
THOMAS sat at their desk without moving, and appeared to have been
asleep. NOEL used the computer periodically throughout the night,
including to search the internet for furniture sales and benefit
websites. THOMAS used the computer briefly around 1 a.m., 4 a.m.,
and 6 a.m. to search for motorcycle sales and sports news.
25. At approximately 4 a.m., the overnight supervisor
briefly visited NOEL and THOMAS in the SHU, and conferred with
NOEL and THOMAS, who were seated at and around the officers' desk,
11
EFTA00009757

=== Page 12 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 12 of 20
before leaving. At approximately 5:30 a.m., another correctional
officer briefly walked through the SHU common area. Aside from
those two officers, as confirmed by video surveillance, no one
else entered the SHU, no one conducted any counts or rounds
throughout the night, and no one entered the tier in which Epstein
was housed.
26. Shortly after 6 a.m. on August 10, 2019, MICHAEL
THOMAS and TOVA NOEL, the defendants, received a delivery of
breakfast carts into the SHU, after which time they were again the
only officers in the SHU. Shortly after 6:30 a.m., NOEL and THOMAS
walked up to and entered the tier in which Epstein was housed to
serve breakfast. At approximately 6:33 a.m., an alarm was
activated in the SHU. Epstein was alone in his cell and not
responsive, with a noose around his neck. A supervisor who had
just started his shift ("Supervisor-1") responded to the alarm
almost immediately thereafter, and as NOEL approached the door to
the SHU to open the door for Supervisor-1, NOEL told Supervisor-1
that "Epstein hung himself." After arriving in the SHU,
Supervisor-1 spoke with THOMAS and NOEL. NOEL told Supervisor-1
"we did not complete the 3 a.m. nor 5 a.m. rounds." THOMAS stated,
"we messed up," and "I messed up, she's not to blame, we didn't do
any rounds."
12
EFTA00009758

=== Page 13 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 13 of 20
27. Epstein was transferred to a local hospital where
he was declared dead shortly thereafter. The Office of the Chief
Medical Examiner of the City of New York conducted an autopsy and
determined that Epstein had committed suicide by hanging himself.
STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS
COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy)
The Grand Jury charges:
28. The Grand Jury incorporates the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Indictment as though
fully set forth herein.
29. In or about August 2019, in the Southern District
of New York, TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants,
knowingly conspired with each other to:
a. Knowingly defraud the United States by
impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of a
department or agency of the United States, to wit, the MCC's
function to ensure the care, custody, and control of its inmate
population.
b. Knowingly make and use a false writing or
document knowing the same to contain a materially false,
fictitious, and fraudulent statement and entry with the intent to
impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper
administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any
13
EFTA00009759

=== Page 14 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 14 of 20
department or agency of the United States, in violation of Title
18, United States Code, Section 1001 (a) (3).
30. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the
illegal objects thereof, TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the
defendants, committed the following overt acts, among others, in
the Southern District of New York:
a. On August 10, 2019, NOEL and THOMAS falsely
certified, on an MCC count slip, that they had performed the 12
a.m. institutional count of the SHU, when they had not in fact
done SO.
b. On August 10, 2019, NOEL and THOMAS falsely
certified, on an MCC count slip, that they had performed the 3
a.m. institutional count of the SHU, when they had not in fact
done SO.
C. On August 10, 2019, NOEL and THOMAS falsely
certified, on an MCC count slip, that they had performed the 5
a.m. institutional count of the SHU at MCC, when they had not in
fact done SO.
d. On August 10, 2019, NOEL falsely certified that
she and THOMAS had performed a series of 30-minute rounds of the
SHU between 12 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., when they had not in fact done
SO.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371)
14
EFTA00009760

=== Page 15 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 15 of 20
COUNT TWO
(False Records - 4 p.m. Count)
The Grand Jury further charges:
31. The Grand Jury incorporates the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Indictment as though
fully set forth herein.
32. On or about August 9, 2019, in the Southern District
of New York, TOVA NOEL, the defendant, willfully and knowingly did
make and use a false writing or document knowing the same to
contain a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement
and entry with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the
investigation or proper administration of any matter within the
jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States, and
did attempt to do the same, to wit, NOEL created, signed, and
submitted to the MCC a materially false count slip indicating that
she had performed the 4 p.m. institutional count of the SHU, when
she had not in fact done SO.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 (a) (3) and 2)
COUNT THREE
(False Records - 10 p.m. Count)
The Grand Jury further charges:
33. The Grand Jury incorporates the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Indictment as though
fully set forth herein.
15
EFTA00009761

=== Page 16 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 16 of 20
34. On or about August 9, 2019, in the Southern District
of New York, TOVA NOEL, the defendant, willfully and knowingly did
make and use a false writing or document knowing the same to
contain a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement
and entry with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the
investigation or proper administration of any matter within the
jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States, and
did attempt to do the same, to wit, NOEL created, signed, and
submitted to the MCC a materially false count slip indicating that
she had performed the 10 p.m. institutional count of the SHU, when
she had not in fact done SO.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 (a) (3) and 2)
COUNT FOUR
(False Records — 12 a.m. Count)
The Grand Jury further charges:
35. The Grand Jury incorporates the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Indictment as though
fully set forth herein.
36. On or about August 10, 2019, in the Southern
District of New York, TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants,
willfully and knowingly did make and use a false writing or
document knowing the same to contain a materially false,
fictitious, and fraudulent statement and entry with the intent to
impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper
16
EFTA00009762

=== Page 17 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 17 of 20
administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any
department or agency of the United States, and did attempt to do
the same, to wit, NOEL and THOMAS created, signed, and submitted
to the MCC a materially false count slip indicating that they had
performed the 12 a.m. institutional count of the SHU, when they
had not in fact done SO.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 (a) (3) and 2)
COUNT FIVE
(False Records - 3 a.m. Count)
The Grand Jury further charges:
37. The Grand Jury incorporates the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Indictment as though
fully set forth herein.
38. On or about August 10, 2019, in the Southern
District of New York, TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants,
willfully and knowingly did make and use a false writing or
document knowing the same to contain a materially false,
fictitious, and fraudulent statement and entry with the intent to
impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper
administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any
department or agency of the United States, and did attempt to do
the same, to wit, NOEL and THOMAS created, signed, and submitted
to the MCC a materially false count slip indicating that they had
17
EFTA00009763

=== Page 18 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 18 of 20
performed the 3 a.m. institutional count of the SHU, when they had
not in fact done so.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 (a) (3) and 2)
COUNT SIX
(False Records - 5 a.m. Count)
The Grand Jury further charges:
39. The Grand Jury incorporates the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Indictment as though
fully set forth herein.
40. On or about August 10, 2019, in the Southern
District of New York, TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants,
willfully and knowingly did make and use a false writing or
document knowing the same to contain a materially false,
fictitious, and fraudulent statement and entry with the intent to
impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper
administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any
department or agency of the United States, and did attempt to do
the same, to wit, NOEL and THOMAS created, signed, and submitted
to the MCC a materially false count slip indicating that they had
18
EFTA00009764

=== Page 19 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 19 of 20
performed the 5 a.m. institutional count of the SHU, when they had
not in fact done SO.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 (a) (3) and 2)
Tracy FOREPERSON
GEOFFREY S BERMAN
Geoffing S. Bermor
United States Attorney
19
EFTA00009765

=== Page 20 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 20 of 20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- V. -
TOVA NOEL and
MICHAEL THOMAS,
Defendants.
INDICTMENT
19 Cr.
Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 371, 1001 (a) (3), and 2.
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
A TRUE BILL
hay Muth Foreperson.
2 ARREST warrants
Indictment Filed
Assigned to Judge TORRES
Hon. Sarah Netburiu, USMJ
@
X
11/19/19
EFTA00009766


c1: EFTA00014082
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014082.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
JANE DOE
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/
DECLARATION OF A.
1.
I,
do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar
of the State of Florida. I graduated from the University of California at Berkeley School of Law
(Boalt Hall) in 1993. After serving as a judicial clerk to the
in Sacramento,
California, I was admitted to practice in California in 1995. I also am admitted to practice in all
courts of the states of Minnesota and Florida, the Eighth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuit Courts of
Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of Florida, the District of Minnesota,
and the Northern District of California. My bar admission status in California and Minnesota is
currently inactive. I am currently employed as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern
District of Florida and was so employed during all of the events described herein.
2.
I am the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the investigation of Jeffrey
Epstein. The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). The federal
investigation was initiated in 2006 at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD")
into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein and his personal assistants had used facilities of interstate
commerce to induce young girls between the ages of thirteen and seventeen to engage in prostitution,
amongst other offenses. PBPD had asked for federal assistance because of concerns regarding the
manner in which the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office ("State Attorney's Office") had
handled the case.
3.
Throughout the investigation, when a victim was identified, victim notification letters
were provided to her both from your Affiant and from the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist. Attached
hereto are copies of the letters provided to Bradley Edwards' three clients,
F1
Your Affiant's letter to
was hand-delivered by the FBI agents (Ex. 1). Your Affiant's letter to
was hand-delivered by myself to
at the time that she was interviewed (Ex. 2). Both
and
also received letters from the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist, which were dispatched on
January 8, 2008 (Exs. 3 & 4).
was initially identified in the PBPD's investigation. Her status as
EFTA00014082

=== Page 2 ===
a victim of a federal offense was confirmed when she was interviewed by federal agents on May 28,
2008. The FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist sent a letter to
on May 30, 2008 (Ex. 5).
4.
Throughout the investigation, the FBI agents, the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist, and
your Affiant had contact with
Attorney Edwards' other client,
was represented
by counsel and, accordingly, all contact with
was made through that attorney. That attorney was
James Eisenberg, and his fees were paid by Jeffrey Epstein, the target of the investigation. F2
5.
In the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of Florida ("the Office") entered into negotiations to resolve the investigation. At that time,
Mr. Epstein had been charged by the State of Florida with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida
Statutes § 796.07. Mr. Epstein's attorneys sought a global resolution of the matter. The United States
subsequently agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, so long as
certain basic preconditions were met. One of the key objectives for the Government was to preserve a federal
remedy for the young girls which Epstein had sexually exploited. Thus, one condition of that agreement,
notice of which was provided to the victims on July 9, 2008, is the following:
"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in
Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under
Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted
of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States
shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to
name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial
authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which
evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the
parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had
Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less."
An agreement was reached in September 2007. The Agreement contained an express confidentiality
provision.
6. Although individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement, several had
expressed concerns regarding the exposure of their identities at trial and they desired a prompt
resolution of the matter. At the time the agreement was signed in September 2007,
was openly
hostile to the prosecution of Epstein, and
had refused to speak with federal investigators. None of
Attorney Edwards' clients had expressed a desire to be consulted prior to the resolution of the federal
investigation.
7. As explained above, one of the terms of the agreement deferring prosecution to the State of
Florida was securing a federal remedy for the victims. In October 2007, shortly after the agreement was
EFTA00014083

=== Page 3 ===
signed, four victims were contacted by telephone and these provisions were discussed. One of those
victims was
.
who, at the time, was not represented, was given notice of the agreement. Notice was
also provided of an expected change of plea in October 2007. When Epstein's attorneys learned that
some of the victims had been notified, they complained that the victims were receiving an incentive to
overstate their involvement with Mr. Epstein in order to increase their damages claims. While your
Affiant knew that the victims' statements had been taken and corroborated with independent evidence
well before they were informed of the potential for damages, the agents and I concluded that informing
additional victims could compromise the witnesses' credibility at trial if Epstein reneged on the
agreement.
8. In mid-June, Attorney Edwards contacted your Affiant to inform me that he represented
and
and asked to meet to provide me with information regarding Epstein. I invited Attorney
Edwards to send to me any information that he wanted me to consider. Nothing was provided. I also
advised Attorney Edwards that he should consider contacting the State Attorney's Office, if he so
wished. I understand that no contact with that office was made. Attorney Edwards had alluded to
,
so I advised him that, to my knowledge,
-
was still represented by Attorney James Eisenberg.
9. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximate 4:15 p.m., your Affiant received a copy of the proposed
state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008.
Your Affiant, the agents, and the Palm Beach Police Department all attempted to provide notification to
the victims, and your Affiant specifically called Attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients
regarding the hearing. Your Affiant believes that it was during this conversation that Attorney Edwards
notified me that he represented
and I asked him to pass on the notice to her, as well. Attorney
Edwards informed your Affiant that he could not attend but that someone would be present at the
hearing. Your Affiant attended the hearing, but none of Attorney Edwards' clients was present.
10. On today's date, your Affiant provided the attached victim notifications to
via their
attorney, Bradley Edwards. A notification was not provided to
because the U.S. Attorney's
modification limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an
indictment. In light of
prior statements to law enforcement, your Affiant could not in good faith
include
as a victim in an indictment and, accordingly, could not include her in the list provided to
I
Epstein's counsel.
EFTA00014084

=== Page 4 ===
11. Furthermore, with respect to the Certification of Emergency, Attorney Edwards did not ever contact
me prior to the filing of that Certification to demand the relief that he requests in his Emergency
Petition. On the afternoon of July 7, 2008, after your Affiant had already received the Certification of
Emergency and Emergency Petition, I received a letter from Attorney Edwards that had been sent, via
Certified Mail, on July 3, 2008. While that letter urges the Attorney General and the United States
Attorney to consider "vigorous enforcement" of federal laws with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, it contains
no demand for the relief requested in the Emergency Petition.
12. I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1746 that the foregoing is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed this
day of July, 2008.
A. Marie Villafaña, Esq.
Attorney Edwards filed his Motion on behalf of "Jane Doe," without identifying which of his clients is
the purported victim. Accordingly, I will address facts related to
All three of those clients
were victims of Jeffrey Epstein's while they were minors beginning when they were fifteen years old.
F2The undersigned does not know when Mr. Edwards began representing
or whether
ever
formally terminated Mr. Eisenberg's representation.
EFTA00014085


c1: EFTA00009796
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009796.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
$ 2635.705 Use of official time., 5 C.F.R. § 2635.705
Code of Federal Regulations
Title 5. Administrative Personnel
Chapter XVI. Office of Government Ethics
Subchapter B. Government Ethics
Part 2635. Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (Refs & Annos)
Subpart G. Misuse of Position
5 C.F.R. $ 2635.705
§ 2635.705 Use of official time.
Currentness
(a) Use of an employee's own time. Unless authorized in accordance with law or regulations to use such time for other purposes,
an employee shall use official time in an honest effort to perform official duties. An employee not under a leave system, including
a Presidential appointee exempted under 5 U.S.C. 6301(2), has an obligation to expend an honest effort and a reasonable
proportion of his time in the performance of official duties.
Example 1: An employee of the Social Security Administration may use official time to engage in certain representational
activities on behalf of the employee union of which she is a member. Under 5 U.S.C. 7131, this is a proper use of her official
time even though it does not involve performance of her assigned duties as a disability claims examiner.
Example 2: A pharmacist employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs has been granted excused absence to participate
as a speaker in a conference on drug abuse sponsored by the professional association to which he belongs. Although excused
absence granted by an agency in accordance with guidance in chapter 630 of the Federal Personnel Manual allows an employee
to be absent from his official duties without charge to his annual leave account, such absence is not on official time.
(b) Use of a subordinate's time. An employee shall not encourage, direct, coerce, or request a subordinate to use official time
to perform activities other than those required in the performance of official duties or authorized in accordance with law or
regulation.
Example 1: An employee of the Department of Housing and Urban Development may not ask his secretary to type his personal
correspondence during duty hours. Further, directing or coercing a subordinate to perform such activities during nonduty hours
constitutes an improper use of public office for private gain in violation of $ 2635.702(a). Where the arrangement is entirely
voluntary and appropriate compensation is paid, the secretary may type the correspondence at home on her own time. Where
the compensation is not adequate, however, the arrangement would involve a gift to the superior in violation of the standards
in subpart C of this part.
SOURCE: 57 FR 35041, Aug. 7, 1992; 62 FR 48747, Sept. 17, 1997, unless otherwise noted.
AUTHORITY: 5 U.S.C. 7301, 7351, 7353; 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3
CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.
Notes of Decisions (1)
WESTLAW © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
1
EFTA00009796

=== Page 2 ===
§ 2635.705 Use of official time., 5 C.F.R. § 2635.705
Current through Nov. 14, 2022, 87 FR 68310. Some sections may be more current. See credits for details.
End of Document
© 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
WESTLAW © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
2
EFTA00009797


c1: EFTA00010069
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010069.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
SECURITY
TECS - Person Encounter List
04/22/2019 19:25 EDT
Generated By:
Page 1 of 6
Last Name
First Name
DOB
Doc
Document
Date - Time
Carrier
Carrier
I/O
Site
Insp
Type
Status
Ref
Arr
Dep
Type
Number
Code
Num.
Loc
Loc
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
04/19/2019
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KTEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
04/14/2019
*GA
N212JE
I
A523
APIS
PASSENGER
CUSTOMS
KPBI
TIST
13:08
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
04/02/2019
*GA
N212JE
I
A461
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
LFPB
18:45
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
03/19/2019
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KTEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
03/15/2019
*GA
N212JE
I
A523
APIS
PASSENGER
CUSTOMS
KPBI
TIST
EDWARD
17:34
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
03/14/2019
*GA
N212JE
o
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
02/19/2019
*GA
N212JE
I
A523
APIS
PASSENGER
CUSTOMS
KPBI
MDPP
EDWARD
16:41
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
02/19/2019
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
MDPP
TIST
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
02/08/2019
*GA
N212JE
I
A523
APIS
PASSENGER
CUSTOMS
KPBI
TIST
16:44
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
02/08/2019
*GA
N212JE
I
APIS
PASSENGER
KPBI
TIST
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/30/2019
*GA
N212JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
LFPB
12:56
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/22/2019
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/16/2019
*GA
N212JE
I
A523
APIS
PASSENGER
CUSTOMS
KPBI
TIST
17:11
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/08/2019
*GA
N212JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
TIST
15:02
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/06/2019
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KBCT
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
12/14/2018
*GA
N212JE
I
A523
APIS
PASSENGER
CUSTOMS
KPBI
TIST
08:49
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
12/14/2018
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
KPBI
TIST
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
11/28/2018
*GA
N212JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
TIST
15:27
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
11/28/2018
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
KTEB
TIST
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
11/25/2018
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KBCT
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
11/24/2018
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KBCT
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
11/11/2018
*GA
N212JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
LFPB
08:24
SDNY_GM_00000806
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00010069

=== Page 2 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
HOMELAND SECURITY
TECS - Person Encounter List
04/22/2019 19:25 EDT
Generated By:
Page 2 of 6
Last Name
First Name
DOB
Doc
Document
Date - Time
Carrier
Carrier
I/O
Site
Insp
Type
Status
Ref
Arr
Dep
Type
Number
Code
Num.
Loc
Loc
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
11/02/2018
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KTEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
10/30/2018
*GA
N212JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
TIST
EDWARD
15:36
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
10/28/2018
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
10/11/2018
*GA
N212JE
o
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
10/10/2018
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
09/30/2018
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KTEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
09/22/2018
*GA
N120JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
TIST
EDWARD
17:52
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
09/22/2018
*GA
N120JE
I
APIS
PASSENGER
KTEB
TIST
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
09/20/2018
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
09/13/2018
*GA
N120JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
LFPB
18:11
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
09/06/2018
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KTEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
08/29/2018
*GA
N120JE
I
A523
APIS
PASSENGER
CUSTOMS
KPBI
TIST
EDWARD
17:44
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
08/25/2018
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KTEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
08/15/2018
*GA
N120JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
KTEB
TIST
22:03
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
08/14/2018
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
08/06/2018
*GA
N120JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
TIST
EDWARD
21:13
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
08/05/2018
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
07/29/2018
*GA
N212JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
LFPB
13:18
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
07/21/2018
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KTEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
07/10/2018
*GA
N212JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
TIST
17:48
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
07/07/2018
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
06/27/2018
*GA
N212JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
LFPB
11:47
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
06/20/2018
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KTEB
00:00
SDNY_GM_00000807
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00010070

=== Page 3 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
SECURITY DISTON
TECS - Person Encounter List
04/22/2019 19:25 EDT
Generated By:
Page 3 of 6
Last Name
First Name
DOB
Doc
Document
Date - Time
Carrier
Carrier
I/O
Site
Insp
Type
Status
Ref
Arr
Dep
Type
Number
Code
Num.
Loc
Loc
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
06/15/2018
*GA
N212JE
I
A523
APIS
PASSENGER
CUSTOMS
KPBI
TIST
EDWARD
19:11
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
06/15/2018
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
06/02/2018
*GA
N212JE
I
A47E
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KISP
TIST
EDWARD
21:21
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
06/02/2018
*GA
N212JE
o
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
05/27/2018
*GA
N212JE
I
A523
APIS
PASSENGER
KPBI
TIST
EDWARD
18:07
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
05/22/2018
*GA
N212JE
I
A47E
APIS
PASSENGER
KISP
LFPB
15:42
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
05/13/2018
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KTEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
04/27/2018
*GA
N120JE
I
A523
APIS
PASSENGER
CUSTOMS
KPBI
TIST
EDWARD
19:57
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
04/27/2018
*GA
N120JE
o
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KTEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
04/20/2018
*GA
N212JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
TIST
22:03
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
04/20/2018
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
04/09/2018
*GA
N212JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
LFPB
13:22
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
03/31/2018
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KTEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
03/27/2018
*GA
N212JE
I
A512
APIS
EDWARD
17:39
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
03/27/2018
*GA
N212JE
I
APIS
PASSENGER
KPBI
TIST
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
03/13/2018
*GA
N120JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
LFPB
EDWARD
14:02
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
03/08/2018
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KTEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
03/03/2018
*GA
N120JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
TIST
20:36
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
03/03/2018
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
02/21/2018
*GA
N120JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
TIST
19:53
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
02/21/2018
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KFXE
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
02/07/2018
*GA
N120JE
I
A523
APIS
PASSENGER
CUSTOMS
KPBI
TIST
EDWARD
19:14
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
02/07/2018
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
SDNY_GM_00000808
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00010071

=== Page 4 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
SECURITY
TECS - Person Encounter List
04/22/2019 19:25 EDT
Generated By:
Page 4 of 6
Last Name
First Name
DOB
Doc
Document
Date - Time
Carrier
Carrier
I/O
Site
Insp
Type
Status
Ref
Arr
Dep
Type
Number
Code
Num.
Loc
Loc
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/27/2018
*GA
N120JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
CYYR
16:39
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/27/2018
*GA
N120JE
I
APIS
PASSENGER
KTEB
CYYR
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/21/2018
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KTEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/20/2018
*GA
N120JE
o
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KTEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/16/2018
*GA
N120JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
TIST
20:06
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/16/2018
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/07/2018
*GA
N120JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
TIST
20:08
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/07/2018
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
12/20/2017
*GA
N120JE
I
A523
APIS
PASSENGER
CUSTOMS
KPBI
TIST
EDWARD
19:20
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
12/20/2017
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
12/12/2017
*GA
N120JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
LFPB
16:56
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
12/08/2017
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KTEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
12/05/2017
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
11/26/2017
*GA
N120JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
KTEB
TIST
EDWARD
20:19
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
11/26/2017
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
11/07/2017
*GA
N120JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
TIST
21:03
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
11/07/2017
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
11/03/2017
*GA
N120JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
TIST
KPBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
10/20/2017
*GA
N415LM
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
LFPB
EDWARD
09:43
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
10/09/2017
*GA
N415LM
O
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KTEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
10/05/2017
*GA
N415LM
I
A47E
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KISP
TIST
21:21
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
09/13/2017
*GA
N415LM
I
A47E
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KISP
LFPB
09:07
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
09/02/2017
*GA
N415LM
O
APIS
PASSENGER
LFPB
KTEB
00:00
SDNY_GM_00000809
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00010072

=== Page 5 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
HOMELAND SECURITY
TECS - Person Encounter List
04/22/2019 19:25 EDT
Generated By:
Page 5 of 6
Last Name
First Name
DOB
Doc
Document
Date - Time
Carrier
Carrier
I/O
Site
Insp
Type
Status
Ref
Arr
Dep
Type
Number
Code
Num.
Loc
Loc
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
08/29/2017
*GA
N120JE
A514
APIS
EDWARD
08:33
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
08/29/2017
*GA
N120JE
I
APIS
PASSENGER
TEB
XXX
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
08/02/2017
*GA
N212JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
TIST
11:02
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
07/20/2017
B
P515
VEHICLE
EDWARD
08:32
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
07/20/2017
*GA
N212JE
I
APIS
PASSENGER
TEB
XXX
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
07/16/2017
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
XXX
PBI
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
07/11/2017
*GA
N212JE
I
A10D
APIS
PASSENGER
INS
KTEB
LFPB
08:45
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
07/02/2017
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
XXX
TEB
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
07/01/2017
*GA
N212JE
O
APIS
PASSENGER
XXX
TEB
00:00
Total Number of Records: 100
Legend
Loc
Codes
Value
CYYR
CYYR
TEB
TETERBORO
TIST
TIST
MDPP
MDPP
KTEB
KTEB
PBI
WEST PALM BEACH
KISP
KISP
XXX
UNKNOWN AIRPORT (USED ONLY WHEN THE AIRPORT CODE IS UNKNOWN)
KBCT
KBCT
KFXE
KFXE
LFPB
LFPB
KPBI
KPBI
Doc Type
Codes
Value
P
P - PASSPORT
Site Code
SDNY_GM_00000810
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00010073

=== Page 6 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
HOMELAND SECURITY
TECS - Person Encounter List
04/22/2019 19:25 EDT
Generated By:
Page 6 of 6
Codes
Value
A461
A461 - CBP-TETERBORO, AIRPT HANGER 2
A514
A514 - CBP-ST THOMAS, GAF PREDEPART
A10D
A10D - CBP-TETERBORO, JET AVIATION
A523
A523 - CBP-PALM BEACH, INTERNATIONAL
A512
A512 - CBP-ST THOMAS, VI PREDEPARTURE
P515
P515 - CBP-CYRIL KING GAF, PRE-FLIGHT
A47E
A47E - CBP-LONG ISL, MAC ARTHUR APT
SDNY_GM_00000811
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00010074


c1: EFTA00013445
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013445.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Subject: Fast track
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 18:51:16 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: Fast_Track_Meeting_1Q__Pipeline_Update.docx
Thoughts? MG, in particular, might benefit from your far better knowledge of the underlying facts.
Deputy Chief, Public Corruption Unit
U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of N
EFTA00013445


c1: EFTA00013837
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013837.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Black
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:08:15 +0000
Importance: Normal
Do you want us to call him re Epstein?
EFTA00013837


c1: EFTA00010696
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010696.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Apr 10 2013 3:24PM Agilis Management Inc.
p.5
LLC STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
OF REGISTRATION
JEGE, LLC
, a limited liability company of a United
Accepted BM May/30/2013
States Citizen and is eligible to register aircraft in its name. In this regard, we make the following
representations:
The full name of the Applicant LLC is JEGE, LLC
.
The state in which the LLC is lawfully organized is United States Virgin Islands
.
The effective date of the LLC is October 19. 2012
.
The name of each of the members of the LLC and the type of cutity of each member(i.e.: individual.
corporation, partnership. etc.
NAME
TYPE OF ENTITY
U.S. CITIZENSHIP
Jeffrey Epstein
INDIVIDUAL
VERIFICATION
1.
YES
NO
INDIVIDUAL
2.
YES
NO
INDIVIDUAL
3.
YES
NO
This LLC is managed by: a Manager
The managers, members or officers of this LLC may act independently YES
NO
****IF THE LLC IS MANAGED BY MEMBERS STOP HERE AND SIGN AT THE BOTTOM OF
THE FORM***
The name of each of the Managers of the LLC and the type of entity of each manager:
NAME
TYPE OF ENTITY
U.S. CITIZENSHIP
VERIFICATION
Lawrence Visoski
INDIVIDUAL
YES
NO
1.
INDIVIDUAL
2.
YES
NO
INDIVIDUAL
3.
YES
NO
The undersigned certifies that he/she/it understands that an LLC is eligible to register aircraft in Its name provided
that:
at least 2/3rds of the managers or managing members are "U.S. Citizens" within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. Section
40102(a)(15)(C) and:
at least 75% of the voting Interest or units is owned or controlled by persons who are "U.S. citizens" or citizens of
one of its possessions: and specifically that AN LLC CANNOT REGISTER AS A NON-CITIZEN CORPORATION
If any member of this LLC is not A United States Citizen as defined in 40102(a)(15)(C) au explanation appears below
to support the certification that this LLC is a "U.S. Citizen" as required by 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(15)(C).
The undersigned hereby also certifies that the information given herein is true and correct and meets all citizenship
specifications as required by the Federal Aviation Administration.
By JEGE. LLC
Title Manager
CAR
COPY
EFTA00010696

=== Page 2 ===
EFTA00010697
FILED WITH FAA
AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION BR
2013 MAY 3 PM 3 23
OKLAHOMA CITY
OKLAHOMA


c1: EFTA00013783
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013783.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USAFLS)" </O=USA/OU=FLS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=
To:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: FW: Epstein - On behalf of Jay Lefkowitz and Ken Star
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:37:14 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments:Letter_to_J_Roth_from_S._Thacker.pdf;Response_to_FAUSA
Letter.pdf;
Summary_Of_Misconduct.pdf; Principal_Submission.pdf
fyi
From: Roth, John (ODAG) (SMO)
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 1:56 PM
To:
(USAFLS);
t (USAFLS)
Subject: FW: Epstein - On behalf of Jay Lefkowitz and Ken Star
This was just dropped on me. Given the volume of material, I think it will be best to wait until Monday to call Lefkowitz. Let
me know if that upsets your plans too much.
From: Ami Sheth [mailto:
]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 12:26 PM
To: Roth, John (ODAG)
Cc: Jay Lefkowitz; Kenneth Starr; Ken Starr
Subject: Epstein - On behalf of Jay Lefkowitz and Ken Star
Dear Mr. Roth,
As promised in yesterday's letter to you, we have attached the following documents to this email: (1) Principal Submission,
(2) Summary of Misconduct, (3) Response to FAUSA
Letter and (4) Response to CEOS's Letter by Stephanie
Thacker.
We respectfully request and would greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak with you in person about this matter.
Kind Regards,
Kenneth W. Starr and Jay P. Lefkowitz
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
The information contained in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the property of
Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP.
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or by e-mail to postmaster@kirkland.com, and
EFTA00013783

=== Page 2 ===
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments.
EFTA00013784


c1: EFTA00013752
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013752.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: "Jay Lefkowitz"
Subject: Epstein
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:33:23 +0000
Importance: Normal
Jay,
Your understanding from Jack Goldberger conforms to my understanding that Mr. Epstein's plea and sentence
will take place on the same day. I understand that the plea and sentence will occur on or before the January 4th
date.
EFTA00013752


c1: EFTA00013494
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013494.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USAFLS)" </O=USA/OU=FLS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=
To: "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)"
Subject: FW: Epstein
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:01:10 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: Conf_Plea_Negotiations_final.wpd
fyi
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:47 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Epstein
Hi
- Funny you should ask. I have been wondering the same thing. Here is the term sheet and guidelines calculation
that we provided at the last meeting. You and
and I had also discussed a possible federal plea to an Information
charging a 371 conspiracy, with a Rule 11 plea with a two-year cap, but I think
must have asked Alex about it and it
was nixed. Just to be prepared for tomorrow, I was just starting to draft a Rule 11 plea agreement in case Alex changes his
mind and a formal non-prosecution agreement containing the state plea terms. As soon as those are ready, I will e-mail
them to you.
There are three concerns that I hope we can address tomorrow. First, that there is an absolute drop-dead date for accepting
or rejecting because it is strategically important that we indict before the end of September, which means presenting the
indictment on September 25th. Second, the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as
politely reminded me, is required under the law. And third, I do not want to make any promises about allowing
Epstein to self-surrender because I still believe that we have a good chance of getting him detained.
On another note, Junior got a call today from the Palm Beach Police Chief because he got information that there will be an
article released tomorrow about our meeting and that Epstein is going to plead to a state charge and the Chief wanted to
know if the victims had been consulted about the deal. There has been some coverage in the New York press about Ken
Starr, but I haven't seen anything local yet.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:35 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: Epstein
Please refresh my recollection. What is the "deal" on the table?
EFTA00013494


c1: EFTA00013333
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013333.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS) 1"
(USANYS)"
,
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Disparities in Counsel and Discovery Access for Ghislaine Maxwell and Justin Rivera
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 15:38:58 +0000
Attachments: 2020.12.31_Letter_on_Rivera_and_Maxwell_discovery_and_counsel_acces_(v.2)
docx
Just a couple small things from me and
Thanks for putting this together.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 11:38 PM
To:
Cc:
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
is
>;
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS) 1
is
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Disparities in Counsel and Discovery Access for Ghislaine Maxwell and Justin Rivera
Thanks to you all!
Assistant United States Attorney
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 30, 2020, at 10:09 PM,
)
wrote:
Thanks very much,
and I have reviewed, and from the Maxwell team's perspective, these
documents are accurate and would not present issues in our case if filed.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 5:29 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
>;
is
(USANYS)
is
)
Cc:
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
i
(USANYS) 1
>;
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: FW: Disparities in Counsel and Discovery Access for Ghislaine Maxwell and Justin Rivera
Hey everyone: Here's the latest draft of our letter and declaration on this issue. We are still
confirming a few things, but they shouldn't impact the substance of the Maxwell discussion. There is
EFTA00013333

=== Page 2 ===
also a chance that there's a separate declaration from the MDC; if there is, it should contain the same
substance re: Maxwell that's in the attached draft.
Our response is due tomorrow. I'm generally around later this evening or tomorrow if there's
anything you'd like to discuss.
Thanks very much.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 2:40 PM
To:
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
is
)
is
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS) 1
Subject: RE: Disparities in Counsel and Discovery Access for Ghislaine Maxwell and Justin Rivera
:
We are in the process of finalizing our response to the Maxwell/Rivera issue. We intend to
explain that the discovery and counsel access accommodations that have been provided to Maxwell
and Rivera, respectively, result from the specific circumstances of their cases, the specific requests of
their lawyers, and their individual housing circumstances. On all of these factors, there are several
important differences, including:
-
The Maxwell case has multiple times more discovery than the Rivera case. Hence, the need
for such expanded discovery access is greater in the Maxwell case.
-
At the MDC, Maxwell has a unique housing situation, as she is in protective custody outside
the general population. She therefore has sole access to a room to use a computer and phone
for approximately 13 hours a day. Rivera, by contrast, is housed in the general population.
-
There are approximately 80 other inmates at the MCC in Rivera's unit that use the same VTC
room for court appearances, probation interviews, and attorney meetings. By contrast,
Maxwell shares access to the MDC VTC room with substantially fewer inmates. The MDC can
therefore provide 15 hours of VTC meetings with her attorneys without compromising access
for other MDC inmates. The same is not true for Rivera at the MCC.
Going forward, even though Rivera's counsel have asked (and the Court has ordered) that Rivera
receive three hours of laptop access each day, the MCC is now leaving the laptop with him all day
long, and only takes it back at night to charge it. Therefore, the MCC is now providing the same
amount of electronic discovery access to Rivera that Maxwell receives at the MDC.
As for providing Rivera with up to 15 hours of VTC access, we will explain that doing so will
compromise access for other inmates. If defense counsel expresses a need for additional time, the
MCC will continue to find ways to accommodate those requests as best as they can.
Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss this further.
Best,
EFTA00013334

=== Page 3 ===
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 4:42 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
in
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
i
is
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
^
is
(USANYS) 1
>
Subject: RE: Disparities in Counsel and Discovery Access for Ghislaine Maxwell and Justin Rivera
Thanks,
Can you keep me posted on what we think will be the substance of the draft declaration when you
know (that is, before we are submitting anything on 12/31)? And how much of this is attributable to differences
between MCC and MDC, as well as specific differences in their housing situations?
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 4:35 PM
To:
(USANYS)
V.
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
is
)
is
)
V.
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
V.
(USANYS)
y.
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS) 1
>
Subject: Disparities in Counsel and Discovery Access for Ghislaine Maxwell and Justin Rivera
All:
I wanted to bring to your attention a recent issue that's surfaced in United States v. Rivera et al., a
sex trafficking case pending before Judge Engelmayer. As I'll describe in more detail below, Judge
Engelmayer has asked us to submit a declaration from the BOP explaining why the discovery and
counsel access accommodations provided to Ghislaine Maxwell (detained at the MDC outside the
general population) cannot be extended to Justin Rivera (detained at the MCC in the general
population).
Justin Rivera was charged in February 2019 with sex trafficking conspiracy. He's been detained at
the MCC since April 2019 on consent (he's also serving a state sentence). His trial, which was
originally scheduled for April 2019, is expected to start on February 16, 2020. In July 2020, he had
new counsel appointed, citing an irreconcilable breakdown with his former counsel.
Since this fall, Judge Engelmayer has become increasingly frustrated with the MCC's treatment of
Rivera. In particular, he's cited their failure to provide Rivera with adequate accommodations to
review discovery and meet with his lawyers, who refuse to visit Rivera at the MCC for personal health
concerns. We have two court orders in place to address these issues: (1) a laptop order, which
requires the MCC to provide Rivera access to a laptop for three hours per day; and (2) a
videoconference order, which requires the MCC to make available four hours of videoconferencing
each week, in addition to any telephone or videoconference calls obtained through the Federal
Defenders.
At the moment, there's not a concern, at least from Judge Engelmayer, that the amount of time
Rivera has for videoconferences and electronic discovery review is insufficient for trial preparation,
EFTA00013335

=== Page 4 ===
although defense counsel has stated that they may request more time in the future. However, in a
letter last night and during a court conference this morning (transcript attached), defense counsel
cited the accommodations that the MDC has provided to Maxwell, describing them as "strikingly
different and far superior" to those afforded to Rivera. Defense counsel further suggested that Rivera
was being treated differently on account of his race, gender and class. Judge Engelmayer stated that
the disparity in access "jumped off the page" and that the optics were "terrible," and asked us to
explain the rationale for the differing treatment. After conferring with
and
before our conference, we explained our understanding that the disparity comes down to
the fact that Maxwell and Rivera have very different housing situations, with Maxwell's situation
being more amenable to greater access to electronic discovery review and legal visits.
Judge Engelmayer asked us to submit a declaration, from an appropriate person at the BOP,
explaining in more detail why the accommodations provided to Maxwell cannot be extended to
Rivera. Based on the recent bail opposition in the Maxwell case, I believe the differences in
counsel/discovery access are as follows:
Accommodation
Maxwell
Rivera
Review of electronic
13 hours per day/7 days per
3 hours per day/7 days per
discovery (NB: each
week (91 hours total)
week (21 hours total)
defendant has laptop access)
Counsel visits (by video)
3 hours per day/5 days per
Four hours per week (plus an
week (15 hours total)
additional two hours
scheduled through the
Federal Defenders) (6 hours
total)
Weekend legal calls
As needed
Not available
The declaration is due by December 31. Because Judge Engelmayer's request implicates at least two
criminal cases, and potentially the ongoing civil litigation with the MCC, we wanted to make sure that
you were all aware of this issue. We are also happy to set up a call to discuss this further. In the
meantime, we are working with
to identify the appropriate declarant and draft an
explanation for the Court.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Tel:
EFTA00013336


c1: EFTA00010581
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010581.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Accepted: Epstein Press Meeting
Start Date: 2019-07-01 20:00:00 +0000
End Date: 2019-07-01 21:00:00 +0000
Organizer: Berman, Geoffrey (USANYS)
Location: 8th Floor Library
Class: X-PERSONAL
Comment:
Date Created: 2019-06-28 15:20:31 +0000
Date Modified: 2019-06-28 15:20:31 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2019-06-28 15:08:49 +0000
EFTA00010581


c1: EFTA00009901
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009901.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 214 Filed 04/19/21 Page 1 of 3
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DATE FILED: 4/19/21
United States of America,
-v-
20-CR-330 (AJN)
Ghislaine Maxwell,
ORDER
Defendant.
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
An arraignment on the S2 Superseding Indictment is scheduled to take place on April 23,
2021 at 2:30 p.m. The proceeding will take place in Courtroom 24B of the Daniel Patrick
Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY.
Given significant public interest, a video feed of the proceeding will be available for
viewing in the Jury Assembly Room and Courtroom 9C at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Courthouse. The use of any electronic devices during the proceeding in either the
Courtroom or the overflow rooms is strictly prohibited.
Due to social distancing requirements, seating will be limited to approximately 100
members of the public. If capacity is reached, no additional persons will be admitted. Per the
S.D.N.Y. COVID-19 Courthouse Entry Program, anyone who appears at any S.D.N.Y.
courthouse must complete a questionnaire on the date of the proceeding prior to arriving at the
courthouse. All visitors must also have their temperature taken when they arrive at the
courthouse. Please see the attached instructions. Completing the questionnaire ahead of time
will save time and effort upon entry.
Only persons who meet the entry requirements established by the questionnaire and
whose temperatures are below 100.4 degrees will be allowed to enter the courthouse. All visitors
EFTA00009901

=== Page 2 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 214 Filed 04/19/21 Page 2 of 3
must wear either (i) a properly fitted disposable mask under a cloth mask, with the outer edges of
the inner mask pushed against the face, or (ii) a properly fitted FDA-authorized N95 or KN95
mask. Anyone who fails to comply with the COVID-19 protocols that have been adopted by the
Court will be required to leave the courthouse. There are no exceptions. For more information,
see https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/covid-19-coronavirus.
In order to ensure additional public access, the Court will also open a public
teleconference line so that members of the public may listen to the audio of the proceeding.
Members of the public may call into the public teleconference line by dialing 844-291-6362 and
entering access code 2921822. This phone line can accommodate approximately 4,000 callers
on a first come, first serve basis. Any photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting of federal
court proceedings is prohibited by law. Violation of these prohibitions may result in fines
or sanctions, including being held in contempt of court, removal of court issued media
credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any
other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), the Government must "make their best efforts to see
that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights" provided to them in that section.
This includes "[t]he right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court
proceeding
involving the crime or of any release
of the accused." Id. § 3771(a)(2). So
that appropriate logistical arrangements can be made, the Government shall inform the Court's
Chambers by email by April 21, 2021 whether any alleged victims wish to attend the proceeding
and whether they will attend in person or by phone. The Court will ensure access.
EFTA00009902

=== Page 3 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 214 Filed 04/19/21 Page 3 of 3
In addition, defense counsel shall inform the Court's Chambers by email by April 21,
2021, whether any of the Defendant's family members wish to attend the proceeding and
whether they will attend in person or by phone. The Court will ensure access.
so ORDERED.
Dated: April 19, 2021
New York, New York
Alim D. Netto
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
EFTA00009903


c1: EFTA00010379
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010379.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: envelope
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 17:16:24 +0000
Hi
For whenever you're reviewing the paralegal file: I dropped off an envelope that can go in the para file. I didn't want to go
into your office, so I put it in the doorway.
It's the discovery drive that Epstein's attorney's returned to us (consistent with the terms of the protective order)
following his death.
Thanks!
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00010379


c1: EFTA00013968
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013968.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: Epstein Case
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:44:52 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
I just wanted to let you know that
and I spoke with Roy Black yesterday regarding the Epstein case. Roy
asked whether there was a way to resolve the federal and state litigation simultaneously and mentioned your
desire to wrap up the case before you retired. We informed him that the Office's position is that if Epstein
promptly abides by the terms of the signed non-prosecution agreement entered into by the Office and Mr.
Epstein, we will end our investigation. If Mr. Epstein chooses to go forward with a different plea in the State,
that is his prerogative, but we will consider it a breach of the federal non-prosecution agreement and will proceed
accordingly.
The federal non-prosecution agreement signed by Mr. Epstein and his counsel requires Mr. Epstein to plead
guilty to the current state indictment and also to an information charging a state offense that requires sex offender
registration, specifically the charge of procuring minors to engage in prostitution, at least 18 months
imprisonment, and an agreement that the victims can pursue damages claims as though Mr. Epstein had been
convicted of the federal offenses. Our agreement does not address probationary periods following the term of
incarceration. Those are statutorily set on the federal side, so we have left that issue to the defense to negotiate
with you.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax 561 820-8777
EFTA00013968


c1: EFTA00013830
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013830.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: I know you are on vacation
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:26:30 +0000
Importance: Normal
But do you have a minute to talk? I just found out something very disturbing in the Epstein case.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
EFTA00013830


c1: EFTA00013442
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013442.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Meet re: Epstein
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 14:56:05 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00013442


c1: EFTA00014028
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014028.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(FBI)"
To:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: Re: Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:20:59 +0000
Importance: Normal
I'll C if
is available as well for our meeting on fri. As it stands now we r coming to u. Nothing re Epstein.
From:
(USAFLS)
To: ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG ; KATHERINE W. EZELL ; Brad Edwards
;
Cc:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Mon Dec 29 17:16:03 2008
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein
Dear Messrs. Josefsberg, Edwards, Scarola, Herman, Kuvin, Dutko, and Willits and Ms. Ezell:
Ms. Ezell contacted me to inquire whether Mr. Epstein will be told of the names or addresses of any victims who
ask to be added to Mr. Epstein's "exclusionary zones" on his GPS system. Captain Sleeth from the Palm Beach
Sheriff's Office informs me that the information will remain confidential and will not be provided to Mr. Epstein.
Captain Sleeth has asked that all such requests go through me rather than directly to him. If any of your clients
would like to have their work, school, or home addresses added to the list of exclusionary zones, please let me
know.
Thank you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
EFTA00014028


c1: EFTA00010136
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010136.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Re: Alexander Acosta gave Jeffrey Epstein the deal of a lifetime | Miami Herald
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 03:48:37 +0000
Importance: Normal
Tomorrow I am pretty open. Let me know what works for you.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 28, 2018, at 10:11 PM,
wrote:
Discuss tomorrow? Might be worth calling
instead. I'm at JTTF until around noon. Feel free to call
without me if that's better for you!
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
On Nov 28, 2018, at 10:06 PM
wrote:
You read my mind.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 28, 2018, at 10:02 PM,
wrote:
Woah, we should talk to
about how to pursue this. Maybe we can ask
if he can do some
digging.
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
On Nov 28, 2018, at 9:38 PM
wrote:
WTF?
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: November 28, 2018 at 9:37:02 PM EST
EFTA00010136

=== Page 2 ===
To:
Subject: Alexander Acosta gave Jeffrey Epstein the deal of a lifetime I Miami Herald
Alexander Acosta gave Jeffrey Epstein the deal of a lifetime I Miami Herald
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html
EFTA00010137


c1: EFTA00009888
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009888.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: call with USA of NDGA re: Epstein
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 21:28:46 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00009888


c1: EFTA00009859
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009859.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Mark Epstein Meeting
Start Date: 2019-11-07 15:00:00 +0000
End Date: 2019-11-07 16:00:00 +0000
Organizer:
Location: 863
Class: X-PERSONAL
Date Created: 2019-10-29 00:01:21 +0000
Date Modified: 2019-10-29 00:01:21 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2019-10-28 23:42:11 +0000
Attendee:
Alarm: Display the following message 15m before start
Reminder
EFTA00009859


c1: EFTA00013493
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013493.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Jr. Ortiz
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:36:01 +0000
Importance: Normal
Can you /
explain to him what the status/game plan? He called and said Epstein rejected our proposal so when do
we indict? I told him it's a tad more complicated. This guy is killing me.
Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)
EFTA00013493


c1: EFTA00010221
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010221.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Fact Witness Travel Request (Domestic Witness Travel)
AUSA, see instructions below.
To:
SDNY Victim/Witness Unit
From: AUSA
Date: November 14, 2021
Re:
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell
Court Docket No: 20 Cr. 330
USAO No: 2018R01618
Witness Name:
Witness DOB:
(Name/DOB as printed here will be forwarded to travel agency and then to TSA and must exactly
match the witness's driver's license or other travel ID or TSA will not permit the witness to fly.)
Witness Address:
Witness TelNos (mobile):
Witness e-mail:
Witness Needed to Appear in SDNY on
Date: December 5, 2021
Time: 5 PM
Witness Needed to Appear for:
Trial ( )
Date: December 5, 2021
Grand Jury ( )
Date:
Trial/GJ Prep (X)
Date:
Estimated Dates Witness will Arrive: December 5, 2021
Depart: December 8, 2021
Is the person a Fact Witness and not an Expert Witness?
(Yes/No):
Yes
Current Federal Civilian or Military Employee?
(Yes/No):
No
Is the Witness Facing Criminal Charges?
(Yes/No):
No
Does the Witness Reside Outside the Continental United States?
(Yes/No):
No
Is this Witness a Victim-Witness?
(Yes/No):
No
Hotel Required?
(Yes/No):
Yes
Has the Witness advised you of any unusual travel expenses?
(Yes/No):
No
Unusual expenses of fact witnesses can include
special travel arrangements
rev. 2019.11.19
EFTA00010221

=== Page 2 ===
care for dependent child or incapacitated family member left at home
kennel fees for pets
necessary travel companion
extra baggage (more than one bag)
Please describe the unusual expense:
For Victim-Witness Coordinator:
1. (For UEFW other than travel, which must be itemized and approved in advance:) This UEFW
is apparently within VWC approval authority and tentatively approved pending receipt(s) for
UEFW expenses (Yes/No):
2. Other VWC comments:
VWC Initials and Date:
Instructions to AUSA:
Use this form for all fact witnesses within the U.S. except government employees and military
personnel, for whom a Request for Armed Forces or Government-Employee Witness should
be used.
For foreign witnesses, use the International Witness Travel Request. Complete an Early or
Extended stay memo if the witness is being brought in more than 3 business days prior to
court/GJ testimony.
Witnesses may only be brought in under the FEWS appropriation for grand jury testimony that
has been scheduled and where the witness is expected to testify before the grand jury; court
testimony; or preparation for same. Any other witness travel, e.g., for investigative interviews,
must be covered by the investigating component from litigative funds. See
See generally DOJ Instruction 1300.01.01 (approved 9/28/2018) and sources referenced
therein.
rev. 2019.11.19
EFTA00010222


c1: EFTA00010586
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010586.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(USANYS)"
To:
"
,
"
(USANYS)"
,
)"
Subject: Epstein Team Meeting
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2019 18:54:55 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00010586


c1: EFTA00013671
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013671.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)"
To:
Subject: Read: FW: State V. Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:50:35 +0000
Importance: Normal
EFTA00013671


c1: EFTA00010305
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010305.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Chris Dilorio <
To:
EFTA00010305

=== Page 2 ===
Subject: Fw: Apollo/ Epstein/Kushner connection
Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 14:03:25 +0000
Attachments: IMG_7021.jpg
Inline-Images: image.png
I reiterate:
The SEC is a grossly corrupt criminal organization bought and paid for by criminals who threaten the integrity of
our markets to the clear and very egregious detriment of the investing public it is sworn to protect.
http://www.marketrap.com/article/view_article/9152/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-the-friends-of-michael
milken
Bernard Madoff, the Mafia, and the Friends of Michael Milken - Market Rap
- The Investor Empowerment Community
In 2005, Patrick Byrne, the CEO of Overstock.com and future Deep Capture investigative reporter, began a
public crusade against illegal naked short selling (hedge funds and brokers creating phantom stock to
manipulate stock prices down). He said, over and over, that the crime was destroying public companies and
had the potential to trigger a systemic meltdown of our financial markets.
www.marketrap.com
Cheers!
Christopher Dilorio
From: Chris Dilorio
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 6:22 AM
To: FRC@fincen.gov
Subject: Fw: Apollo/ Epstein/Kushner connection
From: Chris Dilorio <
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 11:27 AM
EFTA00010306

=== Page 3 ===
Subject: FW: Apollo/ Epstein/Kushner connection
Today (5/15/19) the grossly corrupt scumbags at the SEC approved ANOTHER massive fraud on the investing
public:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1665300/999999999519001111/xslEFFECTX01/primary_doc.xml
The "genius f'n quant" AQR/Greek shipping
/Economou/DRYS/ORIG/Astra/Nautilus/Navios/Gerber/AIPAC/Nordlicht/Glass/1MDB/Knitowski/Caneum/Trym
etris/Liquid etc etc etc money laundering shell.
Well done!
BTW, HOW is the George Economou/ Georgios EKONOMOU SEC "investigation" coming along anyway?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Economou_(shipbuilder)
George Economou (shipbuilder) - Wikipedia
George Economou or Georgios Ekonomou (Гешруюс Oikovójiou, born 1953) is a Greek billionaire
shipowner, CEO of DryShips Inc. and Ocean Rig, and the owner of Cardiff Marine.Economou owns oil
tankers as well as dry bulk ships and manages them through Cardiff Marine. He was on the Forbes
Magazines list of the world's billionaires on place 707.
en.wikipedia.org
What a coincidence:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/03/andrew-ekonomou-donald-trump-legal-team/amp
Trump's Last Line of Defense Against Mueller
Is an Obscure Medieval Historian
Andrew Ekonomou had a "mid-life crisis" and became an expert
on Byzantium. Now he's helping lead the president's legal team in
the Russia investigation.
www.vanityfair.com
Dude is DEFINITELY not getting the attention he deserves
Then again,
WHO actually believes Marc Bistricer of Toronto Canada was INVESTING in the $$$ laundering Ekonomou
shell known as DryShips?
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4096781-strong-court-case-dryships-kalani
EFTA00010307

=== Page 4 ===
Very Strong Court Case Against DryShips And
Kalani - DryShips Inc. (NASDAQ:DRYS)
I
Seeking Alpha - Stock Market Insights
|
Seeking Alpha
Source: rgrdlaw.com (court document) In 2012, DRYS generated
$1.23 billion in total revenue, yet posted a $246 million loss. In
fact, the company has been posting losses every year for the last
seekingalpha.com
"Charity not the motive"
https://www.tradewindsnews.com/legal/1738610/kalani-claims-charity-not-a-motive-for-dryships-aid
Kalani claims charity not a motive for DryShips
aid | TradeWinds
Kalani claims charity not a motive for DryShips aid Marc Bistricer-
led investment house says it had risk and profit in mind lending
to George Economou's struggling public company, not attempt to
www.tradewindsnews.com
The Toronto connection runs MUCH deeper though
The overlap with AQR blank check shells and Polar Asset Mgmt Toronto
The Toronto based Bistricer and EKONOMOU
Bistricers in New Jersey TOO!
AND
DAVID Bistricer happens to be a real estate developer
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?
action=getcompany&CIK=0001649096&owner=exclude&count=40&hidefilings=0
1 Bistricer/Clipper "investor"
Toronto based C I Investments
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1649096/000116364819000009/0001163648-19-000009-index.htn
Check out this Reg D offering Bistricer/ Clipper did in Jan 2016
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1649096/000161577416004014/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml
$130,000 Reg D offering for this Bistricer/Clipper publicly traded "real estate" company was done with an
Atlanta based firm called H&L Equities
Atlanta is home of the obscure Trump Russia Counsel Andrew EKONOMOU
Nothing to see here.
EFTA00010308

=== Page 5 ===
Of Course, then there's the Hail Mary pass Kushner threw on his Toronto based Brookfield deal for 666 5th
Avenue
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/03/12/toronto-based-brookfield-faces-scrutiny-from-democrats-
over-deal-with-kushner-company.html
Toronto-based Brookfield faces scrutiny from
Democrats over deal with Kushner company
|
The Star
The real estate giant says politics were not at all involved in its
decision to acquire a New York office tower from the family of
Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior
aide.
www.thestar.com
which was brokered by Apollo/Epstein Degenerate Black/Harris/Rowan
https://therealdeal.com/2018/11/15/brookfield-turns-to-apollo-for-666-fifth-financing/
666 Fifth | Brookfield | Apollo Global
Management
Private equity company Apollo Global Management is funding
Brookfield Property Partners' redevelopment of 666 Fifth Avenue
with a $300 million-plus mezzanine loan, sources told The Real
Deal
therealdeal.com
Apollo and other Kushner financing pal Blackstone just happen to be BOTH granted free reign on the US
insurance/annuity industry.
Crazy shit huh?
Greek shipping Bag man Georgios Ekonomou meets Jared Kushner
But it gets better still:
Stephen Feinberg: Cerberus
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-11/trump-chooses-cerberus-s-feinberg-to-lead-spy-
advisory-panel
EFTA00010309

=== Page 6 ===
Trump Chooses Cerberus's Stephen Feinberg
to Lead Spy Advisory Panel - Bloomberg
President Donald Trump has chosen billionaire investor Stephen
Feinberg to lead his intelligence advisory board, the White House
said Friday. Trump intends to appoint Feinberg, the co-founder
and
www.bloomberg.com
Bawag/Refco
Virtu first bid for Knight post "glitch"
and now: Money Laundering Bank HSH
Stephen Feinberg: Scum of the Earth meet Georgio EKONOMOU
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?
action=getcompany&CIK=0001369241&owner=exclude&count=40&hidefilings=0
Janey, IG update my various pending TCR's and complaints
Yours VERY TRULY
And INFINITELY smarter than anyone on this e mail list
Christopher J Dilorio
Whistleblower
From: Chris Dilorio
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 5:41 AM
To:
Subject: Fw: Apollo/ Epstein/Kushner connection
From: Chris Dilorio
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 8:00 AM
To:
Subject: Fw: Apollo/ Epstein/Kushner connection
From: Chris Dilorio
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 6:38 AM
EFTA00010310

=== Page 7 ===
Subject: Fw: Apollo/ Epstein/Kushner connection
Greetings grossly corrupt SEC et al scumbags
As with ALL of my allegations: beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100% accurate
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp17673.htm
Complaint: SEC V.
COMPLAINT. Plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") alleges as
follows: SUMMARY. 1. This case involves a $15 million "pump and dump" scheme involving the securities
of Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. ("Environmental"), a public company whose common stock is
registered with the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and is
www.sec.gov
ESWW was a money laundering shell.
The SEC knows it. The degenerate Epstein knows it. The Degenerate Leon Black/Kushner BFF/ Milken
proteges/Marc Rowan/Apollo knows it.
The DOJ/IRS knows it.
IG, I have repeatedly offered to come to SEC DC HQ to have the brightest minds at the SEC totally humiliate me
by refuting my allegations 1 by 1. The grossly corrupt SEC scumbags have never taken me up on my generous
offer. For the very simple reason that ALL of my allegations are accurate and true.
So, I again put the offer out there:
refute my claims OR go to jail for the criminal obstruction ACTIVELY being facilitated by your office and the SEC.
So, let's give these scumbags the insurance/annuities market.
This will NOT end well for tens of thousands of Americans.
Who "green lighted" this take over of the insurance industry by PE/Hedge funds?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2018/02/01/apollo-and-blackstone-pick-insurance-as-their-next-
bet-to-disrupt-wall-street/#5d647dbe7689
EFTA00010311

=== Page 8 ===
Apollo And Blackstone Pick Insurance As Their
Next Bet To Disrupt Wall Street - Forbes
For decades, Wall Street's gambit in insurance was to write
policies and use the float as a source of capital for new
investments. It's a staple of Berkshire Hathaway and copycats like
Markel and
www.forbes.com
Cheers!
Christopher Dilorio
Whistleblower
From: Chris Dilorio
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 3:35 PM
Subject: Fw: Apollo/ Epstein/Kushner connection
IG,
This was a blatant attempt to intimidate a whistleblower. "HE" (I think a male although very effeminate voice)
was an anonymous, coward, scumbag who threatened me. AND then called me another 11/12 times after that.
This is a VERY serious matter. Felony. I intend to see "him" prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Within
weeks of filing a complaint against the SEC and you.
I obviously have hit a nerve.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/white-house-tells-official-who-gave-kushner-security-
clearance-don-n997476
EFTA00010312

=== Page 9 ===
White House whistleblower speaks out on
security clearance controversy
Carl Kline was supposed to appear before House committee staff
Tuesday to face questions related to his handling of White House
security clearances.
www.nbcnews.com
Cheers!
Christopher Diiorio (no L's scumbag)
From: Chris Dilorio
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 6:27 AM
Subject: Fw: Apollo/ Epstein/Kushner connection
ESWW: A money laundering NASDAQ/OTCM shell
Milken degenerate Leon Black/Joshua Harris: Apollo
AND
EFTA00010313

=== Page 10 ===
Jeffrey Epstein
The SEC has known for years that Epstein is running a extortion/Ponzi/Slush Fund
My Claims AGAIN
https://seekingalpha.com/article/3715526-environmental-solutions-worldwide-revisiting-holding-gone-dark
can-sleep-better-night?mod=mw_quote_news
Environmental Solutions Worldwide: Revisiting
A Holding That's Gone Dark, So I Can Sleep
Better At Night - Environmental Solutions
Worldwide, Inc. (OTCMKTS:ESWW) | Seeking
Alpha - Stock Market Insights I Seeking Alpha
New CEO and recent trading activity warranted a review of a
holding that no longer files. Based on the environment, difficult
y/y comparisons and results from competitors, 2015 is likely a
down year.
seekingalpha.com
"Not credible"???
How about the SEC's OWN words?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/sec-spots-a-way-to-starve-the-most-suspicious-penny-
stocks
SEC Spots a Way to Starve the Most
Suspicious Penny Stocks - Bloomberg
"If a company is a dark company and listed in the OTC market
and hasn't put out financials for six months, maybe it shouldn't
be quoted or offered to retail investors," Redfearn said
www.bloomberg.com
See my comment letters on this subject.
The SEC INTENTIONALLY puts the investing public at risk of frauds like this and thousands others like it.
The core biz at NITE/VIRT, CDEL etc and the reason WHY the OTCM exists: Abusive naked shorting publicly
traded shells to facilitate money laundering.
Shells go dark only AFTER a massive fraud has been perpetrated on the investing public: Main Street
ANOTHER "genius" degenerate: Apollo
the grossly corrupt SEC: Bought and paid for by common criminals and degenerates
IG, I have time for that REQUIRED 3rd party cc today
Call me
Cheers!
Dilorio
EFTA00010314

=== Page 11 ===
From: Chris Dilorio
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 1:04 PM
Subject: Fw: Apollo/Epstein/Kusnner connection
A little Steffie Avakian//Heiss/O'Melveny/Wilmer Hale/ Apollo/Kushner Home Cooking!
https://www.omm.com/professionals/howard-e-heiss/
Howard E. Heiss - O'Melveny & Myers
Howard Heiss has an extensive litigation practice focused on
government regulatory investigations and enforcement actions,
grand-jury investigations, and the defense of clients in criminal
cases, with a particular emphasis on securities matters.
www.omm.com
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1411494/000119312508077312/ds1.htm
Form S-1 - SEC.gov
Table of Contents. The information in this prospectus is not complete and may be changed. The securities
may not be sold until the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is
effective.
www.sec.gov
https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/people/jamie-gorelick
Jamie Gorelick I WilmerHale
EFTA00010315

=== Page 12 ===
Jamie Gorelick's career has spanned the legal, policy and corporate landscapes. As one of Washington's
best-known litigators, Ms. Gorelick has represented corporations and individuals in a wide array of matters,
particularly in the regulatory and enforcement arenas, involving issues as diverse as antitrust,
environmental regulation, securities enforcement, national security regulation, etc.
www.wilmerhale.com
https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/news/former-director-of-the-fbi-robert-mueller-i-joins-wilmerhale.
Former Director of the FBI Robert Mueller III
Joins WilmerHale
WilmerHale is pleased to announce that Robert S. Mueller III is
joining the firm as a partner after serving as the sixth Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a position he took one
week prior to the September 11 attacks and held for 12 years
under two presidents.
www.wilmerhale.com
https://www.sec.gov/biography/avakian-stephanie
SEC.gov
| Stephanie Avakian
Stephanie Avakian was named Co-Director of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of
Enforcement in June 2017, after serving as Acting Director since December 2016.
www.sec.gov
SEC drops Apollo investigation after Kush Jr met with Harris at the WH
and Apollo gives Kush's some $$$$
And, Apollo gets $60 bil+ in inflows in 2018
Did I miss something?
Cheers!
You corrupt fucking scumbags
Christopher Dilorio
From: Chris Dilorio
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2019 11:30 AM
EFTA00010316

=== Page 13 ===
Subject: Apollo/ Epstein/Kushner connection
Find a shell
Find a fraud
Enviromental Solutions Worldwide Inc
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?
action=getcompany&CIK=0001082278&owner=exclude&count=40&hidefilings=0
Florida?
Pennsylvania?
or
Canada?
Welcomed on Cromwell/Wimpfheimer OTCM
De registered in 2015 and Frozen in time
Literally
http://eswgroup.com/esw-group-corporate/our-board/
Our Board - ESW Group®
MARK YUNG Mr. Yung is Co-Founder and Managing Principal of
OCV Management, LLC ("OCV"), an investor, owner and operator
of technology and life science companies based in Los Angeles.
Previously, Mr. Yung was a Managing Director at Orchard Capital
Corp., a firm he joined in 2006. Through his affiliation with [...]
eswgroup.com
Dozens of filings by former Milken (ahem) right hand man Leon Black, Apollo, his family Trust, et al
Then,
There's this:
Has anyone (anyone) ever seen Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein on the other side of a trade?
The ONLY SEC filing of Epsteins' Financial Trust Company Inc is in
wait for it
Leon Black/Apollo Environmental Solutions Worldwide
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1082278/000090901211000390/0000909012-11-000390-index.htm
Enter the Amicus blocking release of Epstein docs
EFTA00010317

=== Page 14 ===
Krieger, Kim and Lewin
https://www.kkllp.com/
Krieger Kim & Lewin LLP
We are committed to providing the highest level of partner-driven representation in order to efficiently
achieve client objectives. Over the last decade, we have conducted and supervised dozens of federal
criminal trials involving some of the highest profile and most sensitive matters prosecuted by the United
States Government.
www.kklllp.com
Financial fraud appears to be a specialty of this recently formed/SDNY Alum firm
Now,
it gets VERY interesting
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/28/apollo-citigroup-loaned-kushner-companies-millions-new-york-times.html
Trump: Kushner's security clearance is up to
Kelly
Kushner even discussed the possibility of a White House job for
the founder of private equity firm Apollo, the New York Times
reported on Tuesday.
www.cnbc.com
Where another Milken protégé/Apollo founding partner Josh Harris was considered for a White House job
"Coindences"
https://nypost.com/2018/03/02/sec-dropped-probe-month-after-firm-aided-kushner-company/
SEC dropped probe month after firm aided
Kushner company
The feds last year dropped an investigation into a financial
company a month after the firm gave Jared Kushner's family real
estate business a $180 million loan, a new report said Friday.
There
nypost.com
Oh, baby
EFTA00010318

=== Page 15 ===
$60 billion+ inflows in 2018 for Apollo
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180802005343/en/Apollo-Global-Management-LLC-Reports-
Quarter-2018
Apollo Global Management, LLC Reports
Second Quarter 2018 Results
|
Business Wire
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Apollo Global Management, LLC
(NYSE:APO) (together with its consolidated subsidiaries, "Apollo")
today reported results for the second quarter ended June 30,
2018.
www.businesswire.com
Mr's Krieger,Kim,Boltz et al:
Discovery will be a hoot!
Fucking A
I am good
Cheers!
Christopher Dilorio
EFTA00010319


c1: EFTA00013914
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013914.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: Non-Prosecution Agreement in Epstein Case
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:50:45 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: Epstein_Agrmt001.pdf
Hi
- I am attaching the agreement, with addenda, for filing with the Court under seal.
We also noticed a couple of "misstatements" during the change of plea and wanted to call them to your
attention. First, the Division of Corporations' documents show that the Florida Science Foundation was
incorporated in November 2007, not a "couple of years ago" as reported by Mr. Epstein. The address provided
for the "office" of the Florida Science Foundation is Jack Goldberger's office suite, and neither the office
building directory nor the office suite door reflects that such a business is located there, and neither the security
guard nor any building tenant that FBI questioned knows of the existence of such a business. And, of course,
Mr. Epstein could not have been working there "every day" when he hasn't been in Palm Beach County in the
past six months.
We will leave it to your discretion as to whether this should be brought to the Court's attention.
<<Epstein Agrmt001.pdf>>
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax 561 820-8777
EFTA00013914


c1: EFTA00009825
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009825.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
>, ,
(USANYS)"
Subject: Epstein FOIA Next Steps - Noel Team
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:08:38 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
please let me know if this time doesn't work
has availability tomorrow as well. Thanks.
Please use dial in
with passcode
EFTA00009825


c1: EFTA00013729
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013729.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
"Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)"
Subject: Epstein
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:35:30 +0000
Importance: Normal
FYI - There was an article in Sunday's Palm Beach Post about Epstein's state case. Epstein's attorney is quoted
as saying that Epstein is being "treated more harshly because he is wealthy."
Any word from DC? Can we push for an answer today so I can present on the 15th? (one week from tomorrow)
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
EFTA00013729


c1: EFTA00010988
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010988.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USAFLS)"
(USAFLS)"
Subject: RE: Scanning project for SDNY
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:32:40 +0000
Thanks so much, and no problem. I'll send an email connecting
with
shortly. And yes, if that's ok, our
preference would be to let them pick up the materials, so thank you very much for that.
Best,
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:31 AM
To:
is
(USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Scanning project for SDNY
Let me loop
Weddle in.
has been handling the files on our end. If your preference is that we have them
pick up the materials, we can arrange a time for them to meet at the office.
Sorry, I did not get back to you earlier.
Best regards,
From:
)
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:28 AM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Scanning project for SDNY
Good morning,
from Melkin Solutions will be the point of contact for this project. Who should I connect her with in
your office to coordinate the scanning project?
Thanks very much,
S Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00010988

=== Page 2 ===
From:
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 8:23 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: Scanning project for SDNY
Hi
Our budget office has approved payment from SDNY to Melkin Solutions to complete the scanning of the 28 Epstein-
related boxes in SDFL. How should I go about coordinating so that the vendor can get access to the boxes to scan them?
The vendor indicated that it would be much faster if they could be permitted to take the boxes to their office for
processing. Would your office be willing to permit that? We are hoping to get these scans completed as soon as possible,
so we would be very grateful if there's any way to help expedite the process.
Please feel free to call my cell at
if it would be useful to discuss over the phone.
Thanks so much for your help.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY
EFTA00010989


c1: EFTA00013348
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013348.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Transition Team Request for Significant, Publicly Filed Cases
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 16:21:16 +0000
Attachments: Publicly_Filed_SDNY_Cases_for_Transition.docx
Inline-Images: image004.png
I've attached a document with all three case write ups we discussed. As you can see below, it's supposed to be sent to
EOUSA paralega
by tomorrow. I'm happy to send it to her once you've
signed off.
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: December 22, 2020 at 12:42:33 PM EST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Transition Team Request for Significant, Publicly Filed Cases
Reply-To:
All FAUSAs, Criminal Chiefs, and Civil Chiefs:
EOUSA just received a request from the incoming administration's transition team for a list of
pending, significant cases on public dockets. Accordingly, we ask that you send information
about your top TWO criminal cases and ONE civil case by Tuesday, January 5, 2021. You
should select cases that your leadership deems the most significant and impactful for your
district. For each case, please provide the following information:
Case name
Docket number
Brief description of the charges/claims
Current case status
Link to most recent press release (if applicable)
Please send your information to Paralega
at
Thank
you for your prompt attention to this important matter.
Chief Legal Programs
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
EFTA00013348

=== Page 2 ===
EOUSA
EFTA00013349


c1: EFTA00009791
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009791.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 65 Filed 01 03/22 Page 1 0f 3
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DOC #:
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DATE FILED: 1/3/2022
X
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
NOLLE PROSEQUI
:
-V.- -
:
19 Cr. 830 (AT)
:
TOVA NOEL and
:
MICHAEL THOMAS,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
X
1. The filing of this nolle prosequi will dispose of
this case with respect to TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the
defendants.
2. On or about November 19, 2019, a grand jury sitting
in this District returned Indictment 19 Cr. 830 (AT), which charged
TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants, with committing
offenses against the United States, to wit, conspiring to knowingly
defraud the United States and to knowingly make and use a false
writing or document, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and knowingly
making and using a false writing or document, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1001.
3. On or about May 20, 2021, TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL
THOMAS, the defendants, entered into deferred prosecution
agreements with the Government. Under the agreements, prosecution
was deferred for a period of six months during the term of NOEL's
and THOMAS's good behavior, completion of community service, and
EFTA00009791

=== Page 2 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 65 Filed 01/03/22 Page 2 of 3
satisfactory compliance with the terms of the agreement. The United
States Pretrial Services Office has informed the Government that
NOEL and THOMAS have complied with the terms of the agreement
during the period of deferral, which expired on November 20, 2021.
4. In light of the foregoing, the Government
recommends that an order of nolle prosequi be filed as to TOVA
NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants, with respect to Indictment
19 Cr. 830 (AT).
Murd
Nicolas Roos
Assistant United States Attorney
(212) 637-2421
Dated:
New York, New York
December 13, 2021
2
EFTA00009792

=== Page 3 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 65 Filed 01/03/22 Page 3 of 3
Upon the foregoing recommendation, I hereby direct, with
leave of the Court, that an order of nolle prosequi be filed as to
defendants TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS with respect to Indictment
19 Cr. 830 (AT).
Damian X
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
Dated:
New York, New York
December 13, 2021
so ORDERED.
as
Dated: January 3, 2022
ANALISA TORRES
New York, New York
United States District Judge
3
EFTA00009793


c1: EFTA00011011
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011011.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF
)
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
)
PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-80
)
19 NOV 14 AM 9:02
(IF I THE VIRGIN ISL ANDS
SUPERIOR COURT
Deceased.
)
ACTION FOR TESTATE
)
ADMINISTRATION
EXPEDITED MOTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF
A VOLUNTARY CLAIMS RESOLUTION PROGRAM
COME NOW the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate"),
DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, and move this Honorable Court for an
expedited order to establish an independent and voluntary claims resolution program (the
"Program") for purposes of resolving sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey E. Epstein, deceased, as
more fully described infra. As contemplated by the Co-Executors, the Program would provide all
eligible claimants an opportunity to receive compensation and voluntarily resolve their claims of
sexual abuse against Mr. Epstein through a confidential, non-adversarial alternative to litigation.
To be designed and implemented by independent, nationally recognized claims administration
experts, with input from interested parties including claimants and their representatives, the
Program would seek to timely resolve these claims through a process that is sensitive to the
experiences and concerns of claimants and treats them with compassion, dignity and respect.
I.
BACKGROUND
As widely reported in the news media, multiple individuals have asserted or expressed their
intent to assert claims of sexual abuse by Mr. Epstein (collectively, the "Sexual Abuse Claims").
To date, twelve lawsuits involving Sexual Abuse Claims have been filed in the state and federal
courts of the State of New York, where claimants assert some of the complained-of conduct
occurred, and which recently amended its statute of limitations to permit such claims. These
EFTA00011011

=== Page 2 ===

=== Page 3 ===

=== Page 4 ===

=== Page 5 ===

=== Page 6 ===

=== Page 7 ===

=== Page 8 ===

=== Page 9 ===

=== Page 10 ===

=== Page 11 ===

=== Page 12 ===

=== Page 13 ===


c1: EFTA00013744
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013744.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: "Lilly Ann Sanchez"
Cc:
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:09:00 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: 071009_Sanchez_Ltr.pdf
Dear Lilly: Enclosed please find a response to your letter to
You can reach me at
Thank you.
EFTA00013744


c1: EFTA00013482
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013482.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Epstein/call in from John Roth
Start Date: 2008-06-13 14:00:00 +0000
End Date: 2008-06-13 14:30:00 +0000
Organizer:
Location:
ofc.
Class: X-PERSONAL
Date Created: 2015-04-04 00:21:51 +0000
Date Modified: 2015-07-22 20:34:54 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2008-06-11 15:27:38 +0000
Attendee:
EFTA00013482


c1: EFTA00009899
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009899.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: tomorrow
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:12:03 +0000
Attachments: 2021.04.19_Scheduling_Order.pdf
Hi
Attached is the scheduling order with the public dial in information (there is no video). In addition to the public access
line, the Court has set up a different access line for victims who want to attend-- if you'd like me to, I can let the Court
know you plan to dial in, so that I can send you the victim access line. Just let me know your preference.
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 6:05 PM
To:
Subject: tomorrow
Hi
can you send me the link to watch tomorrow's hearing? Thanks.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution
or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please
contact the sender by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete all copies of this message.
EFTA00009899


c1: EFTA00010127
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010127.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To: "Stoddart, Allison"
Subject: Accepted: United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 18:40:15 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00010127


c1: EFTA00010709
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010709.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: RE: Epstein ODAG update
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 18:51:18 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: 2019-06-19,_JE,_status_memo_for_ODAG.docx
The chiefs asked us to draft and circulate an ODAG update memo, which is attached (and reflects their input), following up
on the two prior such memos we've done. Please let us know if any questions, or if any other information would be
useful, and thanks.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00010709


c1: EFTA00011149
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011149.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
CLEARED THROUGH ITS
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY
OFFICE SERVICING YOUR ACCOUNT
Bear, Steams Securities Corp.
BEAR
Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.
STEARNS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE
STATEMENT PERIOD August 1, 2006
TELEPHONE
THROUGH
August 31, 2006
VISIT OUR WEBSITE
www.bearsteams.com
ACCOUNT NUMBER
What's In This Statement
TAXPAYER NUMBER On File
LAST STATEMENT July 31, 2006
Financial Summary
3
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Your Portfolio Holdings
4
Transaction Detail
7
Fund Activity
7
Your Portfolio at a Glance
Market Value of Your Portfolio
14,745,856
Cash & Equivalent
$56,359
TOTAL VALUE OF SECURITIES THIS PERIOD
$54,664
LONG ACCRUED INTEREST
8,134
Equities
$13,045,856
$14,195,631
MONEY MARKET FUND BALANCE
56,359
Fixed
$1,700,000
Income
$14,810,349
$1,700,000
NET EQUITY THIS PERIOD
Current market value
NET EQUITY LAST STATEMENT
15,955,311
Last statement's market value
CHANGE SINCE LAST STATEMENT
-1,144,962
There are no "Stop Loss" orders or other pending buy
or sell open orders on file for your account.
Please report any difference or non-receipt of checks or stocks, indicated as delivered to you,
to Client Services at 800-634-1428; or write to Client Services at Bear, Steams Securities
STPC
This summary is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as a tax document
This statement should be retained for your records. See reverse side for important information
Corp., One Metrotech Center North, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201-3859
027
09/01/06:07:58 001
V914
Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase
JPM-SDNY-00055745
EFTA00011149

=== Page 2 ===
CLEARED THROUGH ITS
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY
Bear, Steams Securities Corp.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
2 of 8
GUIDE TO YOUR STATEMENT
Market Prices/Bond Ratings.
Customer free credit balances may be used in this firms
PLEASE PROMPTLY NOTIFY YOUR ACCOUNT
Your statement may contain the following sections
The market value of your holdings are as of the last business
business subject to the limitation of 17CFR Section 240.15c3-3
EXECUTIVE INWRITING OF ANY MATERIAL
day of the statement period. Prices for determining market
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. You have the right
CHANGES IN YOUR FINANCIAL
values represent estimates These estimates are obtained from
to receive from US in the course of normal business operation
CIRCUMSTANCES OR INVESTMENT
Your Portfolio at a Glance: Reflects the net equity of
multiple sources, including Bear Steams, its affiliates and
upon demand, the delivery of:
OBJECTIVES
your account at the close of the statement period, the net equity
outside services Pricing estimates may be based on bids,
a)
any free credit balances to which you are entitled
of your last statement and any change since the last statement
prices within the bid/offer spread, closing prices or matrix
b)
any fully-paid securities to which you are entitled
methodology that uses data relating to other securities whose
c)
any securities purchased on margin upon full payment of
Market Value of Your Portfolio: A graph reflecting
prices are more ascertainable to produce a hypothetical price
any indebtedness to us
the change in the market value of your account portfolio from the
based on the estimated yield spread relationship between the
If this is a margin account and we maintain a special
market value reflected on your last statement (Cash/Cash
securities. Pricing estimates do not constitute bids for any
memorandum account for you, this is a combined statement of
securities. Actual prices realized at sale may be more or less
your general account and special memorandum account
Equivalent Equities, Mutual Funds, Fixed Income, Other).
than those shown on your statement Bond ratings are received
maintained for you under Section 220.6 of Regulation T issued
from outside sources. While we believe our sources for market
by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The
permanent record of this separate account. as required by
Statement Frequency: Statements will be mailed to
Cash Flow Analysis and Cash Balance
values and bond ratings to be reliable, we cannot guarantee
their accuracy.
Regulation T, is available for your inspection.
customers whose account has activity during the statement
Summary: Both show your opening and closing balances.
The total cost basis for each security position and the unrealized
period affecting money balances and/or security positions
Cash Flow Analysis reflects the categories of cash activity.
gainfloss are provided solely as a general indication of
Delivery Versus Payment customers whose account has
Cash Balance Summary refects the cash balances by account
performance and should not be used for tax purposes or
For Option Accounts: Further information with respect
activity will receive statements on a quarterly basis that will
type Opening Balance is the credit or debit carried over from
otherwise relied upon without the assistance of your tax advisor
to commissions and other charges related to the execution of
reflect all activity during the quarter. All other customers will
the previous period's closing balance. Closing balance is the
With respect to security positions received into your account,
listed options transactions has been included on confirmations
be sent statements at least four times a calendar year
combination of the total debits and credits for the statement
cost basis information if any, has been provided by you.
of such transactions previously furnished to you and such
provided their account contains a money balance or
period together with the opening cash balance A debt balance
Cost basis information relating to securities positions consisting
information will be made available to you promptly upon written
security position.
(money you owe us) is indicated by a minus sign in these
of more than twenty tax lots (purchases and re-investments) is
request
sections.
displayed in the aggregate as one short term and one long term
Information Available Upon Request: The date
and time of the transaction and the name of the person from
tax lot. Further information is available from your broker.
Bearer Bonds: If any securities held by us for your
Cost basis information has been provided by you or by a third
whom the security was purchased or to whom it was sold
Income Summary: Reflects the total dividend, interest
account are bearer obligations which have been issued since
will befurnished upon request
party on your behalf and not by Bear Steams
December 31, 1982 with original maturities of more than one
and other income amounts for the statement period and year to
Cost basis information relating to your mutual funds holdings,
date. Any tax withheld margin interest and miscellaneous
year, we agree that we will satisfy the conditions set forth in
Please promptly notify the office servicing your account in
regardless of the number of tax lots, is displayed in the
subdivisions (i). (ii) and (ii) of Treasury Regulation Section
charges are included here if applicable.
writing of any change of address. The office servicing your
aggregate as one short term tax lot and one long term tax lot.
1.165-12 (c) (3) and covenant that we will comply with the
account can be found on page 1.
Further information is available from your broker.
requirements of Treasury Regulation Section 1.165-12(c) (1) (ii)
Distribution Summary: Reflects returns on capital,
concerning the delivery of such bearer obligations.
Kindly include your account number(s) on all correspondence.
liquidations, and other income for the statement period and
§ The original cost basis of this position has been adjusted to
current year.
reflect amortization or accretion
Financial Statement: A financial statement of our firm
Bear, Steams Securities Corp. ("BSSC"), a member of the
is available for your personal inspection at our office, or a copy
Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC"),
Retirement Plan: Reflects the contributions received and
will be mailed to you upon written request.
provides account protection for the net equity of a
distributions paid during this statement period as well as for the
Transaction Detail: Reflects all transactions settling or
customer's funds and securities positions. SIPC provides
previous year.
processed for your account this statement period
$500,000 of primary net equity protection, including
Custody: Whether we are your broker or act as a clearing
$100,000 for claims for cash ("SIPC Coverage"). Visit
agent for your broker we carry your account and act as your
Trades Executed But Net Yet Settled: This
www.sipc.org for more information about SIPC Coverage.
Your Portfolio Allocation: A pie chart defining your
custodian for funds and securities once received by us, which
BSSC provides the additional protection ("Excess SIPC")
asset allocations (Cash/Cash Equivalent, Equities, Mutual
section will reflect any trades not yet settled by the statement
have been deposited directly with us through your broker or
through Customer Asset Protection Company ("CAPCO"),
Funds, Fixed Income Other).
closing date. The settlement date is indicated in the first column
otherwise or as a result of transactions we process for your
a New York licensed insurance company. Account
account. Inquiries concerning the positions and balances in
protection applies when a SIPC member firm fails
Portfolio Composition: Reflects a summary of
IMPORTANT NOTES
your account may be directed to our Client Services
financially and is unable to meet its obligations to its
Department at 347-643-2578 If your account is introduced by
securities customers, but does not apply to losses from the
cash/cash equivalent, equities, mutual functs, and fixed income
Dividend Income: Dividends credited to your account may
another broker, all other inquiries regarding your account and
rise or fall in the market value of investments or to SIPC
for the statement period.
include capital gains, non-taxable dividends and/or dividends on
the activity therein should be directed to such broker.
ineligible assets such as futures, options on futures,
foreign stock You may wish to consult your tax advisor with
foreign exchange transactions, or any investment
Bonds with 60 - Day Horizon: Reflects bonds that
regard to your tax liability on these dividend credits.
contracts that are not registered as securities.
will mature or are subject to redemption within the next 60 days.
Reportable to the Internal Revenue Service: As
required by law, at year end, we will report to you and to
The USA PATRIOT Act requires that all financial
the Internal Revenue Service and to certain states. certain
institutions obtain certain identification documents or other
Your Portfolio Holdings: Refects cash and all
Methods of Computing Interest on Debit
information on sales (including short sales), dividends, and
information in order to comply with their customer
securities in your account. Estimated annual income is based
Balances:
various types of interest that have been credited to your
identification procedures. Until you provide the required
on the dividend or income expected to be received annually.
Interest is charged on a day by day basis for any day that there
account
information or documents, we may not be able to open or
Accrued interest represents interest earned but not yet paid or
collected on fixed income securities since the last coupon date.
is a net debt balance in your overall account The calculation is
maintain an account or effect any transactions for you.
There is no guarantee that this interest will be paid by the issuer.
made on a 360-day basis at the rate or rates shown on the
Current yield is calculated by dividing the estimated annual
statement Interest rates may be changed from time to time with
income by the market value of the securities and represents an
fluctuating money market rates or for other reasons
estimated current yield only.
02/28/06
027
09/01/06:07:58 001
V914
Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase
JPM-SDNY-00055746
EFTA00011150

=== Page 3 ===
CLEARED THROUGH ITS
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY
OFFICE SERVICING YOUR ACCOUNT
Bear, Steams Securities Corp.
BEAR
Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.
STEARNS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
3 of 8
STATEMENT PERIOD August 1, 2006
THROUGH
August 31, 2006
ACCOUNT NUMBER
Cash Flow Analysis
Income Summary
TAXPAYER NUMBER On File
THIS PERIOD
THIS PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
LAST STATEMENT July 31, 2006
$0.00
Dividends
250.36
Opening Balance
85,765.37
Muni Bond Int.
1,444.28
41,012.58
Money Fund
250.36
Credit Balance Int.
0.00
2.44
Dividends/Interest
1,444.28
Total
$1,694.64
$126,780.39
Amount Credited
$1,694.64
Bond Purchase Int.
0.00
-310.52
Money Fund
-1,694.64
Amount Debited
$-1,694.64
Portfolio Composition
Closing Balance
$0.00
Cash/Cash Equivalent
56,359
Equities
13,045,856
Fixed Income
1,700,000
Total
$14,802,215
Your Portfolio
Allocation
Cash & Equivalent
<1%
Fixed Income
11%
Equities
88%
Unshaded portions denote debit balance and/or short
market values. The allocation percentage is derived
from the absolute market value of your portfolio.
027
09/01/06:07:58 001
V914
Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase
JPM-SDNY-00055747
EFTA00011151

=== Page 4 ===
CLEARED THROUGH ITS
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY
OFFICE SERVICING YOUR ACCOUNT
Bear, Steams Securities Corp.
BEAR
Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.
STEARNS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
4 of 8
STATEMENT PERIOD August 1, 2006
THROUGH
August 31, 2006
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TAXPAYER NUMBER On File
Your Portfolio Holdings
LAST STATEMENT July 31, 2006
CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS
MARKET
ESTIMATED
CURRENT
DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL/CUSIP
QUANTITY
PRICE
VALUE
ANNUAL INCOME
YIELD (%)
DREYFUS CASH MANAGEMENT-CL A
DICXX
56,359.13
1.0000
56,359
2,987
5.3000
INSTITUTIONAL SHARES
EST. 30 DAY AVG YIELD 5.2300%
TOTAL CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS
$56,359
$2,987
EQUITIES
Equities & Options
The research ratings for Bear Stearns (BSC) are shown for certain securities covered by the BSC Equity Research Department. The first rating represents the stock's total return
relative to the other stocks covered by that Analyst. The key for the stock rating values is as follows: 0 = Outperform; P = Peer Perform; U = Underperform. The second rating
represents the rating of the coverage universe relative to the regional broader market index. The key for the sector rating is as follows: MO = Market Overweight; MW = Market
Weight; MU = Market underweight. In cases where the BSC rating is present, the name of an independent, third-party research provider and their rating may also be displayed,
where such research is available. The various providers use different ratings systems and have normalized them as follows: B = Buy; H = Hold; S = Sell (this may not always
correspond directly to the underlying rating system used by each provider or BSC). The ratings information contained herein is for informational purposes only and is not intended
to provide tax, legal, or investment advice. Bear Steams is neither soliciting any action based on such information, nor endorsing any recommendation or opinion expressed by
any independent, third-party research provider. The symbol ~ indicates that continuing coverage of the subject company is temporarily not available due to legal reasons.
Independent, third-party research on certain companies covered by the Firm's research is available to customers of Bear Stearns at no cost. Customers can access this research
at www.bearsteams.com or can call (800) 517-2327 to request that a copy of this research be sent to them.
ACCT
MARKET
ESTIMATED
CURRENT
DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL/CUSIP
TYPE
QUANTITY
PRICE
VALUE
ANNUAL INCOME
YIELD (%)
BP PLC ORD (UK)
BPAQF
CASH
18
11.3720
205
7
3.4146
USD0.25
BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES INC
BSC
CASH
100,000
130.3500
13,035,000
112,000
0.8592
GLAXOSMITHKLINE
GLAXF
CASH
1
28.3410
28
ORD GBP0.25
BSC RATING: STOCK P/SECTOR MO
ARGUS FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH
RATING: B
027
09/01/06:07:58 001
V914
Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase
JPM-SDNY-00055748
EFTA00011152

=== Page 5 ===
CLEARED THROUGH ITS
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY
OFFICE SERVICING YOUR ACCOUNT
Bear, Steams Securities Corp.
BEAR
Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.
STEARNS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
5 of 8
STATEMENT PERIOD August 1, 2006
THROUGH
August 31, 2006
Your Portfolio Holdings (continued)
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TAXPAYER NUMBER On File
LAST STATEMENT July 31, 2006
Equities & Options (continued)
ACCT
MARKET
ESTIMATED
CURRENT
DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL/CUSIP
TYPE
QUANTITY
PRICE
VALUE
ANNUAL INCOME
YIELD (%)
LIVEPERSON INC
LPSN
CASH
2,000
5.2000
10,400
VISTEON CORP
VC
CASH
26
8.5700
223
Total Equities & Options
$13,045,856
$112,007
TOTAL EQUITIES
$13,045,856
$112,007
FIXED INCOME
Municipal Bonds
ACCT
ACCRUED
ESTIMATED
CURRENT
DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL/CUSIP
TYPE
QUANTITY
PRICE
MARKET VALUE
INTEREST
ANNUAL INCOME
YIELD (%)
NEW YORK CITY NY G/O SER B-8
649660RT6
CASH
100,000
100.0000
100,000
274
3,400
3.4000
WKLY FLTR
DATED DATE 11/16/94
BOOK ENTRY ONLY
DUE 08/15/2024 3.400%
RATING: MOODY AAA S&P AA
TRIBOROUGH BRDG & TUNL AUTH
896033QR1
CASH
400,000
100.0000
400,000
2,267
13,600
3.4000
NY SPL RFDG-SER A
DATED DATE 10/25/00
BOOK ENTRY ONLY
FSA INSURED
DUE 01/01/2031 3.400% JJ 01
RATING: MOODY AAA S&P AAA
TRIBOROUGH BRDG & TUNL AUTH
896033QS9
CASH
800,000
100.0000
800,000
4,533
27,200
3.4000
NY SPL RFDG-SER B
DATED DATE 11/02/00
BOOK ENTRY ONLY
FSA INSURED
DUE 01/01/2031 3.400% JJ 01
RATING: MOODY AAA S&P AAA
027
09/01/06;07:58 001
V914
Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase
JPM-SDNY-00055749
EFTA00011153

=== Page 6 ===
CLEARED THROUGH ITS
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY
OFFICE SERVICING YOUR ACCOUNT
Bear, Steams Securities Corp.
BEAR
Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.
STEARNS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
6 of 8
STATEMENT PERIOD August 1, 2006
THROUGH
August 31, 2006
Your Portfolio Holdings (continued)
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TAXPAYER NUMBER On File
LAST STATEMENT July 31, 2006
Municipal Bonds (continued)
ACCT
ACCRUED
ESTIMATED
CURRENT
DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL/CUSIP
TYPE
QUANTITY
PRICE
MARKET VALUE
INTEREST
ANNUAL INCOME
YIELD (%)
METROPOLITAN TRANSN AUTH NY
59259RED2
CASH
100,000
100.0000
100,000
272
3,370
3.3700
REV RFDG-SER D-2
DATED DATE 05/30/02
BOOK ENTRY ONLY
FSA INSURED
DUE 11/01/2032 3.370%
RATING: MOODY AAA S&P AAA
METROPOLITAN TRANSN AUTH NY
59259RTD6
CASH
300,000
100.0000
300,000
788
10,110
3.3700
G/O SUB SER A-1
DATED DATE 06/24/04
BOOK ENTRY ONLY
DUE 11/01/2034 3.370%
RATING: MOODY AAA S&P AAA
Total Municipal Bonds
$1,700,000
$8,134
$57,680
TOTAL FIXED INCOME
$1,700,000
$8,134
$57,680
YOUR PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS ACCRUED INTEREST
$8,134
YOUR PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCOME
$172,674
YOUR PRICED PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS
$14,802,215
027
09/01/06;07:58 001
V914
Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase
JPM-SDNY-00055750
EFTA00011154

=== Page 7 ===
CLEARED THROUGH ITS
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY
OFFICE SERVICING YOUR ACCOUNT
Bear, Steams Securities Corp.
BEAR
Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.
STEARNS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
7 of 8
STATEMENT PERIOD August 1, 2006
THROUGH
August 31, 2006
Transaction Detail
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TAXPAYER NUMBER On File
MONEY FUND ACTIVITY
LAST STATEMENT July 31, 2006
DATE
MO/DAY
TRANSACTION
DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL/CUSIP
QUANTITY
PRICE
DEBIT AMOUNT
CREDIT AMOUNT
08/01/06
OPENING BALANCE
54,664.49
08/01/06
BOUGHT
DREYFUS CASH MANAGEMENT-CL A
DICXX
1,444.28
1.0000
1,444.28
INSTITUTIONAL SHARES
08/01/06
DIVIDEND
DREYFUS CASH MANAGEMENT-CL A
DICXX
250.36
INSTITUTIONAL SHARES
MONTHLY DIVIDEND
08/01/06
REINVEST
DREYFUS CASH MANAGEMENT-CL A
DICXX
250.36
250.36
INSTITUTIONAL SHARES
DIVIDEND REINVEST
08/31/06
CLOSING BALANCE
56,359.13
TOTAL
$-1,694.64
$250.36
INTEREST
DATE
DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL/CUSIP
QUANTITY
RATE (%)
DEBIT AMOUNT
CREDIT AMOUNT
08/01/06
METROPOLITAN TRANSN AUTH NY
59259RTD6
300,000
3.5800
853.73
G/O SUB SER A-1
DUE 11/01/2034 3.580
REG INT ON 300000 BND
REC 07/31/06 PAY 08/01/06
08/01/06
NEW YORK CITY N Y G/O SER B-8
649660RT6
100,000
3.6000
306.33
WKLY FLTR
DUE 08/15/2024 3.600
REG INT ON 100000 BND
REC 07/31/06 PAY 08/01/06
027
09/01/06:07:58 001
V914
Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase
JPM-SDNY-00055751
EFTA00011155

=== Page 8 ===
CLEARED THROUGH ITS
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY
OFFICE SERVICING YOUR ACCOUNT
Bear, Steams Securities Corp.
BEAR
Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.
STEARNS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
8 of 8
STATEMENT PERIOD August 1, 2006
THROUGH
August 31, 2006
Transaction Detail (continued)
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TAXPAYER NUMBER On File
INTEREST (continued)
LAST STATEMENT July 31, 2006
DATE
DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL/CUSIP
QUANTITY
RATE (%)
DEBIT AMOUNT
CREDIT AMOUNT
08/01/06
METROPOLITAN TRANSN AUTH NY
59259RED2
100,000
3.5800
284.22
REV RFDG-SER D-2
DUE 11/01/2032
3.580
REG INT ON 100000 BND
REC 07/31/06 PAY 08/01/06
TOTAL
$1,444.28
STOP
****** End of Statement ******
027
09/01/06;07:58 001
V914
Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase
JPM-SDNY-00055752
EFTA00011156


c1: EFTA00009834
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009834.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Joe Nascimento
To:
)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
)"
=
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:36:55 +0000
My cell phone is best
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Apr 16, 2021, at 12:31 PM,
)
wrote:
Thanks very much - let's plan for 9:30 a.m. on Monday, if that works for you. Should I just call your desk line, or would
you prefer a different number?
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 1:00 PM
To:
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Hi
,
Yes, I'm free Monday morning between 9:30 and 12 or Tuesday between 11-3. If that doesn't work for you, I
can try to move something around. Let me know.
Have a nice weekend,
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00009834

=== Page 2 ===
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Apr 16, 2021, at 11:58 AM,
)
wrote:
Hi Joe,
Hope you're doing well. Are you available for a call sometime early next week? Nothing urgent, but we wanted to talk
with you about potentially scheduling an interview (by video conference) with your client for sometime in early May.
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 1:54 PM
To:
Cc:
>;
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Yes, 10:30 works for me. Thank you!
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
From:
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 at 1:32 PM
To: Joe Nascimento
Cc:
)
)
Subject: RE:
)
- Epstein
Hi Joe,
EFTA00009835

=== Page 3 ===
Thanks, hope all is well with you. We're free for a call at 10:30 tomorrow morning, would that work for you?
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 1:24 PM
To:
Cc:
V.
)
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Hi
,
I hope you are well. Please let me know if you have 5 min for a quick call.
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Jul 2, 2020, at 11:09 AM,
)
wrote:
Hi Joe,
Thanks for reaching out, we were planning to email you. We continue to appreciate your client's cooperation with
our investigation, and her status from our perspective has not changed. We'll be in touch going forward,
All the best,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 11:07 AM
To:
Cc:
is
)
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
EFTA00009836

=== Page 4 ===
Good morning,
Hope you are all well. Just wanted to check in after seeing the reports of Ghislaine's arrest.
If you need anything from us,
let us know.
-Joe
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Feb 21, 2020, at 3:53 PM,
)
wrote:
Joe,
We very much appreciated that, and we just wanted to let you know that the lack of communication separate from
that discussion shouldn't be interpreted in any way negatively. We'll certainly be in touch again when we're able.
thanks again,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 15:03
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
We really appreciate this email. I was able to speak with
a few weeks ago and gave the green light to share
name and information provided with anyone necessary in your investigation. We will wait to hear from
you if you need anything further.
Thanks,
EFTA00009837

=== Page 5 ===
Joe
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami, FL 33129
p.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
From:
)"
Date: Monday, February 17, 2020 at 3:40 PM
To: Joe Nascimento
Cc:
)"
)"
Subject: RE:
)
- Epstein
Joe,
We just wanted to check in very briefly-we had been hopeful that we'd be able to circle back with you earlier, but
our investigation is currently still ongoing, so at the very least we wanted to let you know that we continue to
appreciate both your client's prior assistance and her willingness to assist in the future. Nothing in our
investigation since we were last substantively in touch has changed our view of your client, and we hope to be able
to be in touch with you in the coming weeks with an update. In the interim, we do continue to view her status as
we've previously conveyed, and please let us know if any issues arise on your end.
thank you,
From:
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 14:42
To: Joe Nascimento
Cc:
is
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Hi Joe,
Thanks for checking in-
,
so no issues on our end, but we appreciate
your following up.
Thanks,
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00009838

=== Page 6 ===
On Nov 30, 2019, at 8:54 AM, Joe Nascimento
wrote:
Good morning,
Just wanted to check-in as
Please let us know if you need anything from us.
Thanks,
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Sep 9, 2019, at 9:47 PM,
)
wrote:
Joe,
We will meet tomorrow at the same place as last time- the Hilton in West Palm Beach, on Okeechobee
Blvd. My cell is
when you arrive. My colleague,
will be joining us,
and he can be reached at
Thanks,
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 4, 2019, at 10:46 PM, Joe Nascimento
wrote:
Yes, we will be there.
EFTA00009839

=== Page 7 ===
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Sep 4, 2019, at 5:32 PM,
)
wrote:
Hi Joe,
Thanks for letting us know. Let's plan to meet on Tuesday. Would 11:30 work?
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 10:13 AM
To:
Cc:
>;
)
Subject: Re:
-
- Epstein
Good morning,
Yes, we had to hunker down for 2 days but were spared. Thanks. For next week, the 10th, 11th or
13th work best for me. Look forward to hearing from you.
-Joe
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami Florida 33129
EFTA00009840

=== Page 8 ===
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Sep 4, 2019, at 10:04 AM,
)
wrote:
Hi Joe,
Hope the storm missed you this week, and that you and your client are doing okay.
Our team is working out some scheduling issues today, and we should know more by this
afternoon. I'll plan to reach out then to discuss scheduling, if that's okay.
Thanks,
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Joe Nascimento
wrote:
Good morning,
Just wanted to check in to see if you still planned to travel south given the storm. Current
estimates show a landing (somewhere) Tuesday with very bad weather on Wednesday. Airports
might close (which will answer my question), but that's a guess.
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Aug 21, 2019, at 2:40 PM,
)
wrote:
Hi Joe,
Thanks very much, we'll plan to see you then. We'll most likely meet at a conference space at a hotel in
West Palm Beach, and I'll let you know closer in time which location.
Thanks,
EFTA00009841

=== Page 9 ===
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 6:37 PM
To:
Cc:
)
is
^
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
Hi
,
Both the time and date work for us. Let me know the location when you have it confirmed.
Thanks,
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Aug 19, 2019, at 11:11 AM,
)
wrote:
Joe,
Following up on scheduling, we were wondering if your client is available for a proffer on September
4th. We're flexible on timing that day, but we would propose meeting at 12:30 p.m., if that works.
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:53 PM
To:
Cc:
is
EFTA00009842

=== Page 10 ===
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
Hi
I just wanted to follow up re the August 14th meeting. Is it possible to schedule for early afternoon
(anytime after 1)? I have proactive cooperation ongoing in another case involving multiple
jurisdictions, and they are looking to meet the morning of 8/14. I understand if your schedule is
already set, and will work around it.
Thanks,
Joe
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami, FL 33129
p.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
From:
)"
Date: Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:34 PM
To: Joe Nascimento
Cc:
)"
,
)"
Subject: RE:
)
- Epstein
Joe,
Thanks, much appreciated. If possible, it would be helpful to hold August 14th for a meeting, and we'll
follow up to firm up plans as we get closer. If there are any conflicts with that date, please let us
know, we're happy to be flexible.
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 8:10 PM
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
EFTA00009843

=== Page 11 ===
Hi
I do not have any travel plans during the month of August, nor does
September is a busy
month with two trials set, and I will be traveling out of the country from Sept 17-30, but I will do
everything to be as flexible as possible.
Thanks,
Joe
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami, FL 33129
p.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
From:
)"
Date: Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 6:10 PM
To: Joe Nascimento
Cc:
)"
Subject: RE:
)
- Epstein
Joe,
As we start thinking about scheduling a next meeting with
we were wondering if you
could please let us know if there are any particular weeks that would not work for you or your client
for a meeting in Florida (in particular, we don't want to interfere with anyone's summer vacation
plans).
We will of course be in touch to talk about a next meeting in more detail, but in the first instance it
would be helpful to get a sense of your schedules, for planning purposes.
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 6:25 PM
EFTA00009844

=== Page 12 ===
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
Hi
,
That works for me. Please call me on my cell
(
). Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Jul 17, 2019, at 5:58 PM,
)
wrote:
Hi Joe,
Following up, we were wondering if you were available for a call to discuss next steps. We're
available on Friday at 2:30, if that works, but let us know if there are other times that would be
more convenient for you.
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2019 12:39 PM
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Good afternoon,
It was a pleasure to meet you yesterday. In light of the recent filing and media reports
EFTA00009845

=== Page 13 ===
As always, feel free to contact me at any time if we can be of further assistance. Look forward to
meeting again.
-Joe
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami, FL 33129
p.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
From:
)"
Date: Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:07 PM
To: Joe Nascimento
Cc:
)"
,
Subject: RE:
)
- Epstein
Hi Joe,
We will be at the Hilton in West Palm Beach, at 600 Okeechobee Blvd. Please call me when you are
here, and we will meet you in the lobby.
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 9:02 PM
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Good evening,
Have you set a location for our meeting tomorrow?
Thanks,
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00009846

=== Page 14 ===
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Jul 10, 2019, at 12:03 PM,
)
wrote:
Thank you, we will plan to see you then in West Palm Beach. We are still coordinating
logistics, and we will let you know that morning the address where we should meet.
Since we will be traveling, please feel free to call my cell if you need to reach us for any
reason:
Thanks,
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 10, 2019, at 11:39 AM, Joe Nascimento
<mailto:
wrote:
Of course
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>2250 S.W. 3<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>rd<x-apple-data-
detectors://2/0><x-apple-data-detectors://2/0> Avenue<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>Miami Florida 33129<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
t.
<tel:
f.
<tel:
e.
<mailto:
www.crimlawfirm.com<http://www.crimlawfirm.com/>
On Jul 10, 2019, at 11:34 AM,
<mailto:
wrote:
EFTA00009847

=== Page 15 ===
Joe,
Would it be possible to meet earlier, perhaps at noon on Friday? Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 9, 2019, at 10:51 PM, Joe Nascimento
<mailto:
<mailto:
wrote:
,
Can we meet Friday, early afternoon (around 1-1:30)? Please send me your proffer letter.
Thanks,
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>2250 S.W. B<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>rd<x-apple-data-
detectors://2/0><x-apple-data-detectors://2/0> Avenue<x-apple-data-detectors:.//2/0>
<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>Miami Florida 33129<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
t.
<tel:
f.
<tel:
e.
<mailto:
<mailto:
www.crimlawfirm.com-http//www.crimlawfirm.com -http:/www.crimlawfirm.com/
On Jul 9, 2019, at 4:56 PM,
)
<mailto:
<mailto:
wrote:
Joe,
We ended up slotting in a few things in the interim, but we're still good for 6:30 for sure.
thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
<mailto:
<mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 16:43
To:
<mailto:
<mailto:
Cc:
<mailto:
<mailto:
<mailto:
EFTA00009848

=== Page 16 ===
<mailto:
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
Hi
,
I got done a little earlier today - do you want to bump up our call time?
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>rd<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>. Avenue<x-
apple-data-detectors://2/0>
Miami Florida 33129<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
t.
<tel:
f.
<tel:
e.
<mailto:
<mailto:
www.crimlawfirm.com <http://www.crimlawfirm.com<http/www.crimlawfirm.com/
On Jul 9, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Joe Nascimento
mailto:
<mailto:
wrote:
Hi
,
Are you still free for a call?
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Miami, FL 33129
p.
f.
e.
<mailto:
<mailto:
www.crimlawfirm.com<http://www.crimlawfirm.com-<http://www.crimlawfirm.com.
From:
)"
<mailto:
<mailto:
Date: Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 10:19 PM
To: Joe Nascimento
<mailto:
<mailto:
Cc:
)"
<mailto:
<mailto:
)"
<mailto:
<mailto:
Subject: RE:
)
- Epstein
EFTA00009849

=== Page 17 ===
Joe,
Sure, thanks — and yes, quite the weekend. If it's alright with you, let's do 10:00 a.m. on
Tuesday - you can reach us at
or we can also call you then if that's easier,
whatever you prefer.
thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
<mailto:
<mailto:
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2019 18:51
To:
<mailto:
<mailto:
Cc:
<mailto:
<mailto:
<mailto:
<mailto:
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
Hi
,
No need to take any more time out of what I'm sure was a busy weekend for you. Let's set
a time for Tuesday morning (the earlier the better for me). Let me know what works for
you.
Thanks,
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>rd<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0> Avenue<x-
apple-data-detectors://2/0>
Miami Florida 33129<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
t.
<tel:
f.
<tel:
e.
<mailto:
<mailto:
www.crimlawfirm.com<http://www.crimlawfirm.com><http:/www.crimlawfirm.com/
On Jul 7, 2019, at 4:04 PM,
)
<mailto:
<mailto:
wrote:
Joe,
Thank you for reaching out, and we would be happy to schedule a time to speak with you.
EFTA00009850

=== Page 18 ===
I expect our schedules may be somewhat unpredictable tomorrow; would it work to set a
time to talk on Tuesday? We can schedule it for before you meet with
if that's
,
helpful. Or if you'd like to talk sooner, we could schedule a time later today, or check in
tomorrow about a possible afternoon discussion. Please let us know what you prefer, and
we look forward to being in touch.
thank you,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
From: Joe Nascimento
<mailto:
<mailto:
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2019 22:55
To:
mailto:
<mailto:
Subject:
)
- Epstein
Begin forwarded message:
From:
<mailto:
<mailto:
Date: July 6, 2019 at 10:51:09 PM EDT
To:
<mailto:
<mailto:
<mailto:
<mailto:
<mailto:
<mailto:
Cc:
<mailto:
<mailto:
Subject:
)
- Epstein
Mr. Rossmiller, Ms. Moe and Ms. Comey,
My former partner, Alan Ross, represented
), prior to
his passing in 2018. Agent
served
with a grand jury subpoena earlier
today, and as Alan's former partner and FL Bar appointed inventory attorney, she has
contacted me. Unfortunately, I am unable to meet with her until Tuesday, but I would
appreciate a few minutes of your time at your convenience as I am getting up to speed.
Please let me know what day/time is best for you.
Look forward to speaking with you.
Best,
Joe
EFTA00009851

=== Page 19 ===
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Lawyer's Plaza I 4th Floor
2250 S.W. 3<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>rd<x-apple-data-detectors:/2/0> Avenue<x-
apple-data-detectors://2/0>
Miami Florida 33129<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
t.
<tel:
f.
<tel:
e.
<mailto:
<mailto:
www.crimlawfirm.com<http://www.crimlawfirm.com http//www.crimlawfirm.com/>
EFTA00009852


c1: EFTA00013738
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013738.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
\(USAFLS\)"
To: "Gerald Lefcourt"
Cc:
\(USAFLS\)"
>,
\(USAFLS\)"
>,
\(USAFLS\)"
Subject: Revised Agreement re Epstein
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:15:25 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: 070911_Epstein_Non-Prosecution_Agreement.pdf
Dear Gerry: I have attached a revised version, as per Mr. Acosta's request. The operative terms have not
changed. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Also, please confirm your receipt of this e-
mail.
Thank you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
EFTA00013738


c1: EFTA00013359
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013359.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPA OFFICE * OF PROFESSIONAL OF WASHINGTON JUSTICE *
OFFICE OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPORT
Investigation into the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's
Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of
Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation
November 2020
EFTA00013359

=== Page 2 ===
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Justice (Department) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
investigated allegations that in 2007-2008, prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of Florida (USAO) improperly resolved a federal investigation into the criminal
conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by negotiating and executing a federal non-prosecution agreement
(NPA). The NPA was intended to end a federal investigation into allegations that Epstein engaged
in illegal sexual activity with girls. 1 OPR also investigated whether USAO prosecutors committed
professional misconduct by failing to consult with victims of Epstein's crimes before the NPA was
signed or by misleading victims regarding the status of the federal investigation after the signing.
I.
OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Palm Beach (Florida) Police Department (PBPD) began investigating Jeffrey Epstein
in 2005, after the parents of a 14-year-old girl complained that Epstein had paid her for a massage.
Epstein was a multi-millionaire financier with residences in Palm Beach, New York City, and
other United States and foreign locations. The investigation led to the discovery that Epstein used
personal assistants to recruit girls to provide massages to him, and in many instances, those
massages led to sexual activity. After the PBPD brought the case to the State Attorney's Office, a
Palm Beach County grand jury indicted Epstein, on July 19, 2006, for felony solicitation of
prostitution in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07. However, because the PBPD Chief and the
lead Detective were dissatisfied with the State Attorney's handling of the case and believed that
the state grand jury's charge did not address the totality of Epstein's conduct, they referred the
matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in West Palm Beach for a possible federal
investigation.
The FBI brought the matter to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA), who opened a file with
her supervisor's approval and with the knowledge of then U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta.
She worked with two FBI case agents to develop a federal case against Epstein and, in the course
of the investigation, they discovered additional victims. In May 2007, the AUSA submitted to her
supervisors a draft 60-count indictment outlining charges against Epstein. She also provided a
lengthy memorandum summarizing the evidence she had assembled in support of the charges and
addressing the legal issues related to the proposed charges.
For several weeks following submission of the prosecution memorandum and proposed
indictment, the AUSA's supervisors reviewed the case to determine how to proceed. At a July 31,
2007 meeting with Epstein's attorneys, the USAO offered to end its investigation if Epstein pled
guilty to state charges, agreed to serve a minimum of two years' incarceration, registered as a
sexual offender, and agreed to a mechanism through which victims could obtain monetary
damages. The USAO subsequently engaged in additional meetings and communications with
Epstein's team of attorneys, ultimately negotiating the terms of a state-based resolution of the
federal investigation, which culminated in the signing of the NPA on September 24, 2007. The
I
As used in this Report, including in quoted documents and statements, the word "girls" refers to females who
were under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged conduct. Under Florida law, a minor is a person under the age
of 18.
EFTA00013360

=== Page 3 ===
NPA required Epstein to plead guilty in state court to the then-pending state indictment against
him and to an additional criminal information charging him with a state offense that would require
him to register as a sexual offender-specifically, procurement of minors to engage in prostitution,
in violation of Florida Statute § 796.03. The NPA required Epstein to make a binding
recommendation that the state court sentence him to serve 18 months in the county jail followed
by 12 months of community control (home detention or "house arrest"). The NPA also included
provisions designed to facilitate the victims' recovery of monetary damages from Epstein. In
exchange, the USAO agreed to end its investigation of Epstein and to forgo federal prosecution in
the Southern District of Florida of him, four named co-conspirators, and "any potential
co-conspirators." Victims were not informed of, or consulted about, a potential state resolution or
the NPA prior to its signing.
The signing of the NPA did not immediately lead to Epstein's guilty plea and incarceration,
however. For the next nine months, Epstein deployed his extensive team of prominent attorneys
to try to change the terms that his team had negotiated and he had approved, while simultaneously
seeking to invalidate the entire NPA by persuading senior Department officials that there was no
federal interest at issue and the matter should be left to the discretion of state law enforcement
officials. Through repeated communications with the USAO and senior Department officials,
defense counsel fought the government's interpretation of the NPA's terms. They also sought and
obtained review by the Department's Criminal Division and then the Office of the Deputy Attorney
General, primarily on the issue of federal jurisdiction over what the defense insisted was "a
quintessentially state matter." After reviewing submissions by the defense and the USAO, on
June 23, 2008, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General informed defense counsel that the
Deputy Attorney General would not intervene in the matter. Only then did Epstein agree to fulfill
his obligation under the NPA, and on June 30, 2008, he appeared in state court and pled guilty to
the pending state indictment charging felony solicitation of prostitution and, pursuant to the NPA,
to a criminal information charging him with procurement of minors to engage in prostitution.
Upon the joint request of the defendant and the state prosecutor, and consistent with the NPA, the
court immediately sentenced Epstein to consecutive terms of 12 months' incarceration on the
solicitation charge and 6 months' incarceration on the procurement charge, followed by 12 months
of community control. Epstein began serving the sentence that day, in a minimum-security Palm
Beach County facility. A copy of the NPA was filed under seal with the state court.
On July 7, 2008, a victim, identified as "Jane Doe," filed in federal court in the Southern
District of Florida an emergency petition alleging that the government violated the Crime Victims'
Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. $ 3771, when it resolved the federal investigation of Epstein
without consulting with victims, and seeking enforcement of her CVRA rights.2 In responding to
the petition, the government, represented by the USAO, revealed the existence of the NPA, but did
not produce it to the petitioners until the court directed it to be turned over subject to a protective
order; the NPA itself remained under seal in the federal district court. After the initial filings and
hearings, the CVRA case was dormant for almost two years while the petitioners pursued civil
cases against Epstein.
2
Emergency Victim's Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's [sic] Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771,
Doe V. United States, Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Another victim subsequently joined
the litigation as "Jane Doe 2."
ii
EFTA00013361

=== Page 4 ===
Soon after he was incarcerated, Epstein applied for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's work
release program, and the Sheriff approved his application. In October 2008, Epstein began
spending 12 hours a day purportedly working at the "Florida Science Foundation," an entity
Epstein had recently incorporated that was co-located at the West Palm Beach office of one of
Epstein's attorneys. Although the NPA specified a term of incarceration of 18 months, Epstein
received "gain time," that is, time off for good behavior, and he actually served less than 13 months
of incarceration. On July 22, 2009, Epstein was released from custody to a one-year term of home
detention as a condition of community control, and he registered as a sexual offender with the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement. After victims and news media filed suit in Florida courts
for release of the copy of the NPA that had been filed under seal in the state court file, a state judge
in September 2009 ordered it to be made public.
By mid-2010, Epstein reportedly settled multiple civil lawsuits brought against him by
victims seeking monetary damages, including the two petitioners in the CVRA litigation. During
the CVRA litigation, the petitioners sought discovery from the USAO, which made substantial
document productions, filed lengthy privilege logs in support of its withholding of documents, and
submitted declarations from the AUSA and the FBI case agents who conducted the federal
investigation. The USAO opposed efforts to unseal various records, as did Epstein, who was
permitted to intervene in the litigation with respect to certain issues. Nevertheless, the court
ultimately ordered that substantial records relating to the USAO's resolution of the Epstein case
be made public. During the course of the litigation, the court made numerous rulings interpreting
the CVRA. After failed efforts to settle the case, the parties' cross motions for summary judgment
remained pending for more than a year.
In 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. At his
March 2017 confirmation hearing, Acosta was questioned only briefly about the Epstein case. On
April 17, 2017, the Senate confirmed Acosta's appointment as Labor Secretary.
In the decade following his release from incarceration, Epstein reportedly continued to
settle multiple civil suits brought by many, but not all, of his victims. Epstein was otherwise able
to resume his lavish lifestyle, largely avoiding the interest of the press. On November 28, 2018,
however, the Miami Herald published an extensive investigative report about state and federal
criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that Epstein had coerced
girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach estate.3 The Miami Herald
reported that in 2007, Acosta entered into an "extraordinary" deal with Epstein in the form of the
NPA, which permitted Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison
sentence by pleading guilty in state court to "two prostitution charges." According to the Miami
Herald, the government also immunized from prosecution Epstein's co-conspirators and
concealed from Epstein's victims the terms of the NPA. Through its reporting, which included
interviews of eight victims and information from publicly available documents, the newspaper
painted a portrait of federal and state prosecutors who had ignored serious criminal conduct by a
wealthy man with powerful and politically connected friends by granting him a "deal of a lifetime"
that allowed him both to escape significant punishment for his past conduct and to continue his
3
Julie K. Brown, "Perversion of Justice," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. https://www.miamiherald.com/
news/local/article220097825.html
iii
EFTA00013362

=== Page 5 ===
abuse of minors. The Miami Herald report led to public outrage and media scrutiny of the
government's actions.
On February 21, 2019, the district court granted the CVRA case petitioners' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, ruling that the government violated the CVRA in failing to advise the
victims about its intention to enter into the NPA. The court also found that letters the government
sent to victims after the NPA was signed, describing the investigation as ongoing, "mislead [sic]
the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility." The court also highlighted
the inequity of the USAO's failure to communicate with the victims while at the same time
engaging in "lengthy negotiations" with Epstein's counsel and assuring the defense that the NPA
would not be "made public or filed with the court." The court ordered the parties to submit
additional briefs regarding the appropriate remedies. After the court's order, the Department
recused the USAO from the CVRA litigation and assigned the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Northern District of Georgia to handle the case for the government. Among the remedies sought
by the petitioners, and opposed by the government, was rescission of the NPA and federal
prosecution of Epstein.
On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York obtained
a federal grand jury indictment charging Epstein with one count of sex trafficking of minors and
one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. The indictment alleged that from
2002 until 2005, Epstein created a vast network of underage victims in both New York and Florida
whom he sexually abused and exploited. Epstein was arrested on the charges on July 6, 2019. In
arguing for Epstein's pretrial detention, prosecutors asserted that agents searching Epstein's
Manhattan residence found thousands of photos of nude and half-nude females, including at least
one believed to be a minor. The court ordered Epstein detained pending trial, and he was remanded
to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in
Manhattan.
Meanwhile, after publication of the November 2018 Miami Herald report, the media and
Congress increasingly focused attention on Acosta as the government official responsible for the
NPA. On July 10, 2019, Acosta held a televised press conference to defend his and the USAO's
actions. Acosta stated that the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office "was ready to allow Epstein to
walk free with no jail time, nothing." According to Acosta, because USAO prosecutors considered
this outcome unacceptable, his office pursued a difficult and challenging case and obtained a
resolution that put Epstein in jail, forced him to register as a sexual offender, and provided victims
with the means to obtain monetary damages. Acosta's press conference did not end the
controversy, however, and on July 12, 2019, Acosta submitted to the President his resignation as
4
See, e.g., Ashley Collman, "Stunning new report details Trump's labor secretary's role in plea deal for
billionaire sex abuser," The Business Insider, Nov. 29, 2018; Cynthia McFadden, "New Focus on Trump Labor
Secretary's role in unusual plea deal for billionaire accused of sexual abuse," NBC Nightly News, Nov. 29, 2018; Anita
Kumar, "Trump labor secretary out of running for attorney general after Miami Herald report," McClatchy Washington
Bureau, Nov. 29, 2018; Emily Peck, "How Trump's Labor Secretary Covered For A Millionaire Sex Abuser,"
Huffington Post, Nov. 29, 2018; Julie K. Brown, et al., "Lawmakers issue call for investigation of serial sex abuser
Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal," Miami Herald, Dec. 6, 2018.
5
Doe V. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019) (Opinion and Order, 9:08-80736-CIV-
Marra).
iv
EFTA00013363

=== Page 6 ===
Secretary of Labor. In a brief oral statement, Acosta explained that continued media attention on
his handling of the Epstein investigation rather than on the economy was unfair to the Labor
Department.
On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found hanging in his cell and was later pronounced dead.
The New York City Chief Medical Examiner concluded that Epstein had committed suicide.
As a result of Epstein's death, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
New York filed a nolle prosequi to dismiss the pending indictment against Epstein. On
August 27, 2019, the district court held a hearing at which more than a dozen of Epstein's
victims-including victims of the conduct in Florida that was addressed through the NPA-spoke
about the impact of Epstein's crimes. The court dismissed the Epstein indictment on
August 29, 2019.
After Epstein's death, the federal district court in Florida overseeing the CVRA litigation
denied the petitioners their requested remedies and closed the case as moot. Among its findings,
the court concluded that although the government had violated the CVRA, the government had
asserted "legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation," and therefore had
not litigated in bad faith. The court also noted it expected the government to "honor its
representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper
treatment of crime victims," as well as honoring its promise to meet with the victims.
On September 30, 2019, CVRA petitioner "Jane Doe 1" filed in her true name a petition
for a writ of mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, seeking
review of the district court's order denying all of her requested remedies. In its responsive brief,
the government argued that "as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach
prior to the government charging a case" and thus, "the CVRA was not triggered in [the Southern
District of Florida] because no criminal charges were brought." Nevertheless, during oral
argument, the government conceded that the USAO had not been "fully transparent" with the
petitioner and had "made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in
fact the NPA had been signed." On April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals denied
the petition, ruling that CVRA rights do not attach until a defendant has been criminally charged.
On August 7, 2020, the court granted the petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the panel's
opinion; as of the date of this Report, a briefing schedule has been issued, and oral argument is set
for December 3, 2020.
II.
THE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION
After the Miami Herald published its investigative report on November 28, 2018,
U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency
Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, sent a December 3, 2018 letter to OPR, citing the Miami
Herald's report and requesting that OPR "open an investigation into the instances identified in this
reporting of possible misconduct by Department of Justice attorneys." On February 6, 2019, the
Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs advised Senator Sasse that OPR had opened
<
EFTA00013364

=== Page 7 ===
an investigation into the matter and would review the USAO's decision to resolve the federal
investigation of Epstein through the NPA.
After the district court issued its ruling in the CVRA litigation, on February 21, 2019, OPR
included within the scope of its investigation an examination of the government's conduct that
formed the basis for the court's findings that the USAO violated the CVRA in failing to afford
victims a reasonable right to confer with the government about the NPA before the agreement was
signed and that the government affirmatively misled victims about the status of the federal
investigation.
During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands
of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department components, including the Office of
the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.
The records included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected
and reviewed materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein. OPR also
examined extensive publicly available information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and
other court records, and reviewed media reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books
relating to the Epstein case.
In addition to this extensive documentary review, OPR conducted more than 60 interviews
of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel;
current and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former Department attorneys and senior
managers, including a former Deputy Attorney General and a former Assistant Attorney General
for the Criminal Division; and the former State Attorney and former Assistant State Attorney in
charge of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed several victims and attorneys
representing victims, and reviewed written submissions from victims, concerning victim contacts
with the USAO and the FBI.
OPR identified former U.S. Attorney Acosta, three former USAO supervisors, and the
AUSA as subjects of its investigation based on preliminary information indicating that each of
them was involved in the decision to resolve the case through the NPA or in the negotiations
leading to the agreement. OPR deems a current or former Department attorney to be a subject of
its investigation when the individual's conduct is within the scope of OPR's review and may result
in a finding of professional misconduct. OPR reviewed prior public statements made by Acosta
and another subject. All five subjects cooperated fully with OPR's investigation. OPR requested
that all of the subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement in the federal
investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim
notification and consultation. OPR received and reviewed written responses from all of the
subjects, and subsequently conducted extensive interviews of each subject under oath and before
a court reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel and had access to relevant
contemporaneous documents before the subject's OPR interview. The subjects reviewed and
provided comments on their respective interview transcripts and on OPR's draft report. OPR
6
The federal government was closed from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019. After initiating its
investigation, OPR also subsequently received other letters from U.S. Senators and Representatives inquiring into the
status of the OPR investigation.
vi
EFTA00013365

=== Page 8 ===
carefully considered the comments and made changes, or noted comments, as OPR deemed
appropriate; OPR did not, however, alter its findings and conclusions.
Finally, OPR reviewed relevant case law, statutes, regulations, Department policy, and
attorney professional responsibility rules as necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case
and to determine whether the subjects committed professional misconduct.
As part of its investigation, OPR examined the interactions between state officials and the
federal investigators and prosecutors, but because OPR does not have jurisdiction over state
officials, OPR did not investigate, or reach conclusions about, their conduct regarding the state
investigation.⁷ Because OPR's mission is to ensure that Department attorneys adhere to the
standards of professional conduct, OPR's investigation focused on the actions of the subject
attorneys rather than on determining the full scope of Epstein's and his assistants' criminal
behavior. Accordingly, OPR considered the evidence and information regarding Epstein's and his
assistants' conduct as it was known to the subjects at the time they performed their duties as
Department attorneys. Additional evidence and information that came to light after June 30, 2008,
when Epstein entered his guilty plea under the NPA, did not affect the subjects' actions prior to
that date, and OPR did not evaluate the subjects' conduct on the basis of that subsequent
information.
OPR's investigation occurred approximately 12 years after most of the significant events
relating to the USAO's investigation of Epstein, the NPA, and Epstein's guilty plea. As a result,
many of the subjects and witnesses were unable to recall the details of events or their own or
others' actions occurring in 2006-2008, such as conversations, meetings, or documents they
reviewed at the time. 8 However, OPR's evaluation of the subjects' conduct was aided significantly
by extensive, contemporaneous emails among the prosecutors and communications between the
government and defense counsel. These records often referred to the interactions among the
participants and described important decisions and, in some instances, the bases for them.
III.
OVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
OPR's primary mission is to ensure that Department attorneys perform their duties in
accordance with the highest professional standards, as would be expected of the nation's principal
law enforcement agency. Accordingly, OPR investigates allegations of professional misconduct
against current or former Department attorneys related to the exercise of their authority to
7
In August 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced that he had directed the Florida Department of
Law Enforcement to open an investigation into the conduct of state authorities relating to Epstein. As reported, the
investigation focuses on Epstein's state plea agreement and the Palm Beach County work release program.
8
OPR was cognizant that Acosta and the three managers all left the USAO during, or not long after resolution
of, the Epstein case, while the AUSA remained with the USAO until mid-2019. Moreover, as the line prosecutor in
the Epstein investigation and also as co-counsel in the CVRA litigation until the USAO was recused from that
litigation in early 2019, the AUSA had continuous access to the USAO documentary record and numerous occasions
to review these materials in the course of her official duties. Additionally, in responding to OPR's request for a written
response, and in preparing to be interviewed by OPR, the AUSA was able to refresh her recollection with these
materials to an extent not possible for the other subjects, who were provided with relevant documents by OPR in
preparation for their interviews.
vii
EFTA00013366

=== Page 9 ===
investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.9 OPR also has jurisdiction to investigate allegations
of misconduct against Department law enforcement agents when they relate to a Department
attorney's alleged professional misconduct.
In its investigations, OPR determines whether a clear and unambiguous standard governs
the challenged conduct and whether a subject attorney violated that standard. Department
attorneys are subject to various legal obligations and professional standards in the performance of
their duties, including the Constitution, statutes, standards of conduct imposed by attorney
licensing authorities, and Department regulations and policies. OPR finds misconduct when it
concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that a subject attorney violated such a standard
intentionally or recklessly. Pursuant to OPR's analytical framework, when OPR concludes that
(1) no clear and unambiguous standard governs the conduct in question or (2) the subject did not
intentionally or recklessly violate the standard that governs the conduct, then it concludes that the
subject's conduct does not constitute professional misconduct. In some cases, OPR may conclude
that a subject attorney's conduct does not satisfy the elements necessary for a professional
misconduct finding, but that the circumstances warrant another finding. In such cases, OPR may
conclude that a subject attorney exercised poor judgment, made a mistake, or otherwise acted
inappropriately under the circumstances. OPR may also determine that the subject attorney's
conduct was appropriate under the circumstances. 10
IV.
ISSUES CONSIDERED
In this investigation, OPR considered two distinct sets of allegations. The first relates to
the negotiation, execution, and implementation of the NPA. The second relates to the USAO's
interactions with Epstein's victims and adherence to the requirements of the CVRA. The two sets
of issues are described below and are analyzed separately in this Report.
A.
The Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA
In evaluating whether any of the subjects committed professional misconduct, OPR
considered whether any of the NPA's provisions violated a clear or unambiguous statute,
professional responsibility rule or standard, or Department regulation or policy. In particular, OPR
considered whether the NPA violated standards relating to (1) charging decisions, (2) declination
of criminal charges, (3) deferred or non-prosecution agreements, (4) plea agreements, (5) grants
9
28 C.F.R. $ 0.39a(a)(1). OPR has authority to investigate the professional conduct of attorneys occurring
during their employment by the Department, regardless of whether the attorney left the Department before or during
OPR's investigation. Over its 45-year history, OPR has routinely investigated the conduct of former Department
attorneys. Although former Department attorneys cannot be disciplined by the Department, OPR's determination that
a former Department attorney violated state rules of professional conduct for attorneys could result in a referral to an
appropriate state attorney disciplinary authority. Furthermore, findings resulting from investigations of the conduct
of Department attorneys, even former employees, may assist Department managers in supervising future cases.
10
In some instances, OPR declines to open an investigation based upon a review of the initial complaint or after
a preliminary inquiry into the matter. In December 2010, one of the attorneys representing victims in the CVRA
litigation raised allegations that Epstein may have exerted improper influence over the federal criminal investigation
and that the USAO had deceived the victims of Epstein's crimes about the existence of the NPA. Pursuant to its
standard policy, OPR declined to open an investigation into those allegations at that time in deference to the
then-pending CVRA litigation.
viii
EFTA00013367

=== Page 10 ===
of immunity, or (6) the deportation of criminal aliens. The potentially applicable standards that
OPR considered as to each of these issues are identified and discussed later in this Report. OPR
also examined whether the evidence establishes that any of the subjects were influenced to enter
into the NPA, or to include in the NPA terms favorable to Epstein, because of an improper motive,
such as a bribe, political consideration, personal interest, or favoritism. OPR also examined and
discusses in this Report significant events that occurred after the NPA was negotiated and signed
that shed additional light on the USAO's handling of the Epstein investigation.
B.
The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA
To address the district court's adverse judicial findings, OPR assessed the manner, content,
and timing of the government's interactions with victims both before and after the NPA was
signed, including victim notification letters issued by the USAO and the FBI and interviews
conducted by the USAO. OPR considered whether any of the subject attorneys violated any clear
and unambiguous standard governing victim consultation or notification. OPR examined the
government's lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed, as well as the
circumstances relating to the district court's finding that the USAO affirmatively misled Epstein's
victims about the status of the federal investigation after the NPA was signed.
V.
OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
OPR evaluated the conduct of each subject and considered his or her individual role in
various decisions and events. Acosta, however, made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal
investigation of Epstein through a state-based plea and either developed or approved the terms of
the initial offer to the defense that set the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led
to the NPA. Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he participated in its drafting and approved
it, with knowledge of its terms. During his OPR interview, Acosta acknowledged that he approved
the NPA and accepted responsibility for it. Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for
the NPA and for the actions of the other subjects who implemented his decisions. Acosta's overall
responsibility for the government's interactions or lack of communication with the victims is less
clear, but Acosta affirmatively made certain decisions regarding victim notification, and OPR
evaluates his conduct with respect to those decisions.
A.
Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA
With respect to all five subjects of OPR's investigation, OPR concludes that the subjects
did not commit professional misconduct with respect to the development, negotiation, and
approval of the NPA. Under OPR's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a
subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard governing
the conduct at issue. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict
Epstein on federal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state.
Furthermore, none of the individual terms of the NPA violated Department or other applicable
standards.
As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under established federal law and
Department policy to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his
decision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors. Acosta's decision to decline to
initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority, and OPR did not
ix
EFTA00013368

=== Page 11 ===
find evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations,
such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense
efforts to have the matter returned to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed
appropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration
requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's "breakfast meeting" with one
of Epstein's defense counsel in October 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier,
or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records show
that USAO managers' concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of a trial on
the victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta's concerns about the proper
role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a
state-based resolution. Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional
misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or that the other
subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta's decisions.
Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation
through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this decision was within the scope of
Acosta's broad discretion and OPR does not find that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA
was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its
investigation of Epstein. In Acosta's view, the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein
was limited by principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the state should
be recognized, and the federal responsibility in this situation was to serve as a "backstop" to state
authorities by encouraging them to do more. However, Acosta failed to consider the difficulties
inherent in a resolution that relied heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he had
no authority; he resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were
completed; and he agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the
consideration required under the circumstances. In sum, Acosta's application of federalism
principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too
narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use
the NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the
NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other
jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination
and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a
unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided.
B.
Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions with
Victims
OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional
misconduct with respect to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not have
a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA to consult with victims before entering into the
NPA because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without a federal criminal
charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department did not interpret CVRA
rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal courts had not
established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal charges were
brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation was for the purpose
of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series of government
interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's
X
EFTA00013369

=== Page 12 ===
treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the
Department's mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure.
OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to
certain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as "under investigation" and that
failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who
was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the
FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects.
Moreover, the statement that the matter was "under investigation" was not false because the
government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill
the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim
frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the
investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies
responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and
oversight regarding communication with victims.
After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision
whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim's rights
requirements. Although Acosta's decision was within his authority and did not constitute
professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to
make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal
investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important
proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had
communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the
Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were
made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure
that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity.
OPR concludes that the decision to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA
after it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and
conversations with victims' attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct.
Contemporaneous records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating
impeachment evidence that Epstein's victims had financial motives to make claims against him,
evidence that could be used against victims at a trial, and were not for the purpose of silencing
victims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and
discussions with victims' attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to
victims' feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them.
After examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims,
OPR concludes that the government's lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to
victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the
misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret
from the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The
overall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims
feeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. In sum, OPR concludes
that the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the
Department.
xi
EFTA00013370

=== Page 13 ===
VI.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
The Report is divided into three chapters. In Chapter One, OPR describes the relevant
federal, state, and local law enforcement entities involved in investigating Epstein's criminal
conduct, as well as the backgrounds of the five subjects and their roles in the events in question.
OPR provides a brief profile of Epstein and identifies the defense attorneys who interacted with
the subjects.
In Chapter Two, OPR sets forth an extensive account of events relating to the federal
investigation of Epstein. The account begins with the initial complaint in March 2005 by a young
victim and her parents to the local police-a complaint that launched an investigation by local law
enforcement authorities-and continues through the mid-2006 opening of the federal
investigation; the September 2007 negotiation and signing of the NPA; Epstein's subsequent
efforts to invalidate the NPA through appeals to senior Department officials; Epstein's June 2008
guilty plea in state court; and, finally, efforts by the AUSA to ensure Epstein's compliance with
the terms of the NPA during his incarceration and until his term of home detention ended in July
2010. After describing the relevant events, OPR analyzes the professional misconduct allegations
relating to the decisions made regarding the development and execution of the NPA. OPR
describes the relevant standards and sets forth its findings and conclusions regarding the subjects'
conduct.
Chapter Three concerns the government's interactions with victims and the district court's
findings regarding the CVRA. OPR describes the relevant events and analyzes the subjects'
conduct in light of the pertinent standards.
OPR sets forth the extensive factual detail provided in Chapters Two and Three, including
internal USAO and Department communications, because doing so is necessary for a full
understanding of the subjects' actions and of the bases for OPR's conclusions.
xii
EFTA00013371


c1: EFTA00010948
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010948.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
)"
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 22:57:23 +0000
Importance: Normal
Thanks
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 15:28
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Approved.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 2:51 PM
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Again in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618), we'd like to please request permission to travel next
week for a victim interview in Los Angeles. As of now we tentatively expect to fly down Wednesday and return no later
than Friday (and will keep the timeframe as short as scheduling allows). The trip will be some combination of me,
and/or
as previously. And also same as last time, we'd like to ask permission to reserve a conference room at
the hotel on Thursday for the interview, please.
thanks very much,
From:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 14:57
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Again in connection with the Epstein investigation, we'd like to please request permission to travel for approximately
three days next week for meetings and interviews in West Palm Beach, Florida. As of now we tentatively expect to fly
down Tuesday night and return on Wednesday or Thursday (and will keep the timeframe as short as scheduling allows).
EFTA00010948

=== Page 2 ===
Unfortunately we're still trying to pin down timing for interviewing the victims, so depending on the timing it will either
be me and
or
and
but we wanted to ask for permission now either way so we weren't doing it
super last minute after the holiday on Tuesday. And also same as last time, we'd like to ask permission to reserve a
conference room at the hotel for the interviews, please.
thanks very much,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 20:57
To:
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Thank you
From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 20:46
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: travel approval request
Approved
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 3, 2019, at 8:02 PM,
wrote:
For the same case as below, United States V. Epstein, 2018R01618, an investigation relating to enticement of minors for
sexual activity,
and I would like to please request permission to travel for approximately three days next week for
meetings and interviews in West Palm Beach, Florida. As of now we tentatively expect to fly down Tuesday night and
return on Friday, though we will shorten the timeframe if scheduling allows.
Please let us know if any other information would be helpful, and thanks very much.
From:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 18:32
To:
Cc:
Subject: travel approval request
and I would like to please request permission for travel for United States V. Epstein, 2018R01618, an
investigation relating to enticement of minors for sexual activity, for two days of meetings and interviews in West Palm
Beach and/or Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As of now we're hoping to fly down next Wednesday night and return on
Saturday.
Please let us know if any other information would be helpful, and thanks as always.
EFTA00010949

=== Page 3 ===
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00010950


c1: EFTA00013905
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013905.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to the Agreement between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
Florida (hereinafter referred to as "the Office") and Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstein"), the
Office hereby provides Notice to the individuals listed below (hereinafter referred to as "identified individuals")
that each of them is a person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title
18, United States Code, Section 2255, committed by Epstein, and whom the Office was prepared to name as a
victim in an Indictment charging Epstein with an enumerated offense. The Office further provides Notice to the
identified individuals that, pursuant to the Agreement between the Office and Epstein, a copy of this document
may be introduced in a judicial proceeding between any such identified individual and Epstein, and that any
judicial authority interpreting this Notification, including any authority determining what evidentiary burdens, if
any, a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of Epstein and the Office to place the identified
individuals in the same position as they would have been had Epstein been convicted of those federal offenses.
Identified Individuals
Jane Doe #1
Jane Doe #2
Jane Doe #3
Jane Doe #4
Jane Doe #5
Jane Doe #6
Jane Doe #7
Jane Doe #8
Jane Doe #9
Jane Doe #10
Jane Doe #11
Jane Doe #12
Jane Doe #13
Jane Doe #14
Jane Doe #15
Jane Doe #16
Jane Doe #17
EFTA00013905

=== Page 2 ===
Jane Doe #18
Jane Doe #19
Jane Doe #20
Jane Doe #21
Jane Doe #22
Jane Doe #23
Jane Doe #24
Jane Doe #25
Jane Doe #26
Jane Doe #27
Jane Doe #28
Jane Doe #29
Jane Doe #30
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Dated:
By:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I have received this Notification from my attorney, Roy Black, Esquire, have read it and discussed it with
my attorney, and I hereby acknowledge that it accurately sets forth my understanding and agreement with the
Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. I understand that an exact copy of this
Notification will be provided to each identified individual, except that the names of all other identified
individuals will be redacted, and I hereby waive any evidentiary challenges to the introduction of a copy of this
document-even in redacted form-in any judicial proceeding between any identified individual and myself.
Dated:
Jeffrey Epstein
Witnessed by:
Roy Black, Esquire
EFTA00013906


c1: EFTA00010462
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010462.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Draft Analysis Of 2019 Tax Return
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 22:15:37 +0000
Attachments:2019_Tax_Return_Analysis_V1_12-11-20.pdf
Please provide me a time for tomorrow that I can call you to walk you through the analysis.
Best
Forensic Accountant
FBI New York Field Office
NYC, NY 10278
Office:
EFTA00010462


c1: EFTA00011135
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011135.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From
To
Cc
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Joint Proposed Juror Questionnaire and Voir Dire
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:57:31 +0000
Attachments: Joint_Maxwell_Jury_Questionnaire_[to_Court].docx;
Joint_Proposed_Voir_Dire_[to_Court].docx
Chambers,
Please see attached.
Respectfully,
From: Nathan NYSD Chambers
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 9:36 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: US V. Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Joint Proposed Juror Questionnaire and Voir Dire
Counsel:
The Court requests that counsel provide Word doc versions of the proposed juror questionnaire and voir dire.
Sincerely,
Chambers of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan
From:
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 7:53 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: US V. Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Joint Proposed Juror Questionnaire and Voir Dire
CAUTION - EXTERNAL:
Good evening,
EFTA00011135

=== Page 2 ===
Attached please find the parties' joint proposed juror questionnaire and voir dire. Per the attached letter, the parties
respectfully request that the Court accept the joint proposed juror questionnaire and voir dire under seal.
In addition, the Government has produced Jencks Act material and exhibits to the defense today. If the Court would like a
copy, we would be happy to provide it.
Respectfully submitted,
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
One St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Tel
CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking on links.
EFTA00011136


c1: EFTA00013660
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013660.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Epstein
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:28:25 +0000
Importance: Normal
Hi
- I did not hear from you last week, which probably means that you did not hear from DOJ. We
have to get an answer today or I may not be able to indict Epstein before I leave on my 3-week vacation in May,
and we cannot put this off that long.
On the issue of assigning another AUSA, I know that
talked with you about assigning
someone from Miami, but
in Fort Pierce is my first choice. In Miami, my first choice is
I am just worried about the travel for
Thank you!
I am off to Mag Court but should be back around noon.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
EFTA00013660


c1: EFTA00014093
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014093.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: Re: Epstein Investigation
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:46:24 +0000
Importance: Normal
No luck yet getting in touch with
mother.
Original Message
From:
(USAFLS)
To:
Sent: Fri Jul 04 11:29:08 2008
Subject: RE: Epstein Investigation
Strange, huh? Did you get to go away? Have a great weekend.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
Original Message
From:
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 11:26 AM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: Re: Epstein Investigation
No
Original Message
From:
(USAFLS)
To:
;
Sent: Fri Jul 04 11:24:41 2008
Subject: FW: Epstein Investigation
Hi guys — Have we ever heard of
(below)?
Assistant U.S. Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
EFTA00014093

=== Page 2 ===
Phone
Fax
From: Ted Leopold [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 4:25 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Cc: Spencer Kuvin
Subject: RE: Epstein Investigation
Our two client names are:
1.
2.
if you need any other information please let me know.
Ted
Original Message
From:
(USAFLS) [mailto:
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 5:00 PM
To: Ted Leopold
Subject: Epstein Investigation
Dear Ted: Here is my e-mail address and contact information.
Thank you for your assistance.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
EFTA00014094

=== Page 3 ===
Fax
EFTA00014095


c1: EFTA00013428
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013428.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Amanda
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Re: PBPD Trash Pull & Records
Date:
Mon, 11 Oct 2021 14:44:48 +0000
Attachments:
Materials from Sgt
DRAFT_302.docx
Attached is a draft 302 for case files that I picked up on Friday.
Detective
NYPD/FBI
Child Exploitation Human Trafficking Task Force
Office:
From: Amanda
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 10:30 PM
To:
is
>;
is
Cc:
Subject: PBPD Trash Pull & Records
CAUTION! EXTERNAL SENDER
STOP WHEN UNSURE. Never click on links or open attachments if sender is unknown, and never provide
user ID or password. Suspicious? Please report to this email address: reportphishing@nypd.org
Hey guys,
Attached is the PBPD Trash Pull along with the records
received today.
EFTA00013428


c1: EFTA00013570
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013570.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM
Document 19
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008
Page 1 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2,
Petitioners,
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
VICTIMS' RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S "NOTICE TO COURT REGARDING
ABSENCE OF NEED FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING" AND MOTION FOR
PRODUCTION OF NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND OF REPORT OF
INTERVIEW
COME NOW the Petitioners, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (the "victims"), by and
through their undersigned attorneys to file this Response to the Government's document styled as
"Notice to Court Regarding Absence of Need for Evidentiary Hearing" as follows:
INTRODUCTION
At the conclusion of the oral argument on the victims' petition, victims Jane Doe #1 and
Jane Doe #2 joined the Government in expressing to the Court a desire to work out a set of
stipulated facts regarding this case. Towards that end, the Government sent a proposed set of
stipulated facts to the victims' counsel (Exhibit 1 to this pleading) and, in turn, the victims' sent
a responsive letter raising concerns about some of the Government's proposed stipulated facts
and suggesting some additions and modifications (Exhibit 2 to this pleading). The victims also
requested copies of two relevant documents from the Government: (1) the Non-Prosecution
1
EFTA00013570

=== Page 2 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM
Document 19
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008
Page 2 of 16
Agreement with defendant Epstein that is at the center of this litigation and (2) the FBI's report
of interview concerning a meeting with Jane Doe #1. These requests were also made in several
telephone conversations with the attorney for the Government. Remarkably, rather than respond
to the victims' suggestions, the Government has now suddenly reversed course and filed a terse
document claiming an "absence of a need" for an evidentiary hearing. If anything, however, the
victims' discussions with the Government have made clear that the Court should not enter
judgment for the Government but rather should enter immediate judgment for the victims that the
Government violated their rights under the CVRA. The Court should then schedule a hearing to
determine the proper remedy for the violation of the victims' rights.
In particular, the Government now apparently admits that the Non-Prosecution
Agreement it struck with Epstein in September 2007 contained an "express confidentiality
provision." See Exhibit 1 to this pleading, Government's Proposed Stipulated Facts, at page 3,
paragraph 6. Assuming that the Government honored its agreement with the defendant (a fact
that the victims have proposed to stipulate to), the Government could not have "conferred" with
the victims about the proposed arrangement over the next nine months because doing so would
have violated its confidentiality obligations with the defendant. As a result, the Government
plainly has not afforded the victims' their right to "confer" about the proposed arrangement under
the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). In addition, the Government
effectively misled the victims that it had reached a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein,
plainly violating the victims' rights to be treated with "fairness" under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C.
371(a)(8)(8). The Court should therefore find that the victims' rights have been violated.
The Court should also order the Government to produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement
2
EFTA00013571

=== Page 3 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 3 of 16
to the victims. The victims are entitled to know what disposition has been made in their case.
Moreover, that Agreement purportedly contains provisions pertaining to the civil liability of
Epstein for crimes he has committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. Epstein obviously
knows what those provisions are. The victims are entitled to see those provisions and the
surrounding document as well.
The Court should also order the Government to produce a report of interview with Jane
Doe #1 from about October 26, 2007, during which the Government apparently claims that it
discussed the plea arrangement with the victims.
Finally, after these documents are produced to the victims and the Court enters judgment
that the victims' rights have been violated, the Court should schedule a hearing to determine the
appropriate remedy for the violations of the victims' rights.
THE VICTIMS' PROFFERED FACTS
The Government's latest submission takes the position that "after consideration" it is now
unnecessary to hold an evidentiary hearing. The Government apparently believes that the Court
could rule in its favor based on just two submitted undisputed facts. In taking this position, the
Government apparently believes that there are no set of facts that could sustain judgment for the
victims. To the contrary, however, the available facts require judgment for the victims that their
rights under the CVRA have been violated.
Having attempted to confer with the Government about the facts in this case, counsel for
the victims respectfully submit the following - and more complete -- set of facts that, on
information and belief, they could establish if given the opportunity to do so:
In 2006, at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Federal Bureau of
3
EFTA00013572

=== Page 4 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 4 of 16
Investigation opened an investigation into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had used facilities of
interstate commerce to induce young girls between the ages of thirteen and seventeen to engage
in prostitution (among other offenses). The case was presented to the United States Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of Florida, which accepted the case for investigation. Jane Doe
#1 and Jane Doe #2 were victims of sex crimes committed by Epstein while they were minors.
The U.S. Attorney's Office's investigation soon revealed that Epstein had committed
federal sex crimes against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. This made Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe
#2 "victims" protected by the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. $ 3771. Accordingly, the
U.S. Attorney's Office arranged to have victim notification letters sent to Jane Doe #1 and Jane
Doe #2. For example, on about June 7, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney
ent a
letter to Jane Doe #1 that began: "Pursuant to the [CVRA], as a victim and/or witness of a federal
offense, you have a number of rights." The letter then listed the various rights of victims under
the CVRA. The U.S. Attorney's Office would not have sent such a letter to Jane Doe #1 if it did
not believe that she was a victim and was protected by the CVRA.
By mid-2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had ample information to file an indictment
against Epstein charging multiple federal sex offenses. It elected not to file an indictment but
instead to engage in pre-indictment plea discussions with Epstein.
In September 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office reached an agreement
blocking any federal prosecution of the federal offenses he had committed. This Non-
Prosecution Agreement barred federal charges for Epstein's sex offenses in favor of prosecution
by Florida, so long as several preconditions were met. Those included a conviction on a state
sex offense that reflected that the victims were minors at the time the crimes occurred and that
4
EFTA00013573

=== Page 5 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 5 of 16
would require sex offender registration. While the Agreement barred federal criminal
prosecution, it envisioned that the victims would pursue a civil rights action against Epstein for
his sexual offenses against them. Most important for present purposes, the Agreement contained
an express confidentiality provision, which prevented the Government from disclosing the terms
of the Agreement to the victims or others before it was consummated. The Agreement was
subsequently modified in October and December 2007. The Agreement has several addenda that
are relevant to the Agreement. (To date, although requested to do so, the Government has
refused to provide to the victims the final Non-Prosecution Agreement or any of its earlier
versions.) Through his attorneys, Epstein was aware of the confidentiality provision and of the
fact that it would block the Government from conferring with the victims about the plea
arrangement.
On about October 26, 2007, FBI Special Agents E
and
met in person with Jane Doe #1 at a restaurant. The Special Agents explained that there
had been discussions with Epstein about a possible resolution of the charges against him.
Consistent with the express confidentiality provision in the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the
Special Agents did not disclose that the arrangement would bar any federal prosecution of
Epstein. Nor did the Agents disclose that the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been finalized.
Jane Doe #1's reasonable perception of the meeting was that only the State part of the Epstein
investigation had been resolved, and that the federal investigation would continue, possibly
leading to a federal prosecution. (While the Government has a report of interview regarding this
meeting with the victim that could confirm the victims' understanding of the facts, the
Government has refused Jane Doe #1's request to see the report.)
5
EFTA00013574

=== Page 6 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 6 of 16
Following the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and the modifications thereto
by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, Epstein received an unusual
benefit that the Government does not ordinarily provide to other criminal defendants: his
performance was delayed while he was given an opportunity to seek higher level review within
the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.
On around January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI
advising them that "[t]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process
and we request you continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." The FBI
sent these letters, under the direction of the U.S. Attorney's Office, because it believed that the
CVRA applied to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. The FBI did not notify Jane Doe #1 or Jane
Doe #2 that the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been concluded four months earlier. Jane Doe
#1 and Jane Doe #2 reasonably understood that a federal criminal investigation of Epstein was
on-going and that federal criminal charges were possibility. At the time, Jane Doe #1 and Jane
Doe #2 believed that criminal prosecution of Epstein was extremely important. They also
desired to be consulted by the FBI and/or other representatives of the federal government about
the prosecution of Epstein. In light of the letters that they had received around January 10
(among other things), they reasonably believed that they would be contacted before the federal
government reached any final resolution of that investigation.
In the spring 2008, Jane Doe #1 contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was
attempting to take her deposition and private investigators were harassing her. Assistant U.S.
Attorney
secured pro bono counsel to represent Jane Doe #1 and several other
identified victims in connection with the criminal investigation. Pro bono counsel was able to
6
EFTA00013575

=== Page 7 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 7 of 16
assist Jane Doe #1 in avoiding the improper deposition. AUSA Villafaña secured pro bono
counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the National Crime Victims' Law Institute in
Portland, Oregon, which is based in the Lewis & Clark College of Law. During the call, Ms.
Garvin was not advised about the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted Assistant U.S. Attorney
to inform her
that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. Mr. Edwards asked to meet to provide
information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein, hoping to secure a significant federal
indictment against Epstein. AUSA
a
and Mr. Edwards discussed the possibility of federal
charges being filed. At the end of the call, AUSA Villafe asked Mr. Edwards to send any
information that he wanted considered by the U.S. Attorney's Office in determining whether to
file federal charges. Because of the confidentiality provision in the Non-Prosecution Agreement,
Mr. Edwards was not informed of the Agreement's existence. Mr. Edwards was also not
informed that any resolution of the criminal matter was imminent.
On July 3, 2008, Mr. Edwards sent to AUSA Villafana a letter, a true and correct copy of
which is attached as Exhibit 3. In the letter, Mr. Edwards indicated his desire that federal
charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his clients: "We
urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the fundamental import of
the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional
indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed,
and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this very
dangerous sexual predator." When Mr. Edwards wrote this letter, he still had not been made
aware that a Non-Prosecution Agreement had been reached with Epstein.
7
EFTA00013576

=== Page 8 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 8 of 16
On about July 3, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 learned, through telephones
conversations had between Mr. Edwards and AUSA Villafana, that the U.S. Attorney's Office
and Epstein might be in the process of finalizing some sort of plea arrangement. Accordingly,
they filed an emergency motion seeking to protect their rights under the CVRA, including in
particular their right to confer about the proposed plea arrangement.
Mr. Edwards - and thus his clients -- first learned of the Non-Prosecution Agreement on
or after July 9, 2008, when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's
emergency petition. That pleading was the first public mention of the non-prosecution agreement
and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards and his clients. Epstein, through his attorneys, knew that
the victims had not been informed about the plea arrangement.
On July 9, 2008, AUSA Villafafia sent a victim notification to Jane Doe #1 via her
attorney, Mr. Edwards, which is attached as Exhibit 6 to the
Declaration. That
notification contains a written explanation of some of the terms of the Non-Prosecution
Agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office. A full copy of the terms was not
provided. This was the first time that Jane Doe #1 was told that the arrangement blocked any
possibility of federal criminal charges being filed against Epstein. A notification was not
provided to Jane Doe #2 because the agreement limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the
United States was prepared to name in an indictment.
On July 11, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the victims' emergency motion. During the
hearing, the Government discussed in open court various provisions of the Non-Prosecution
Agreement. At the conclusion of the hearing, victims' counsel and the Government agreed to
8
EFTA00013577

=== Page 9 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 9 of 16
confer in an effort to determine the undisputed facts of the fact. The Court took the motion under
advisement.
On July 16, 2008, the Government sent to Mr. Edwards a proposed set of undisputed
facts, which is attached to this pleading as Exhibit 1.
On July 17, 2008, Mr. Edwards sent a response to the Government, which is attached to
this pleading as Exhibit 2. The response made various suggestions to the proposed undisputed
facts. The response also requested a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and the Report of
Interview with Jane Doe #1.
On July 29, 2008, rather than attempt to work with victims' counsel to draft a set of
undisputed facts, the Government filed its "Notice to Court Regarding Absence of Need for
Evidentiary Hearing."
At all times material to this statement of facts, it would have been easily practical and
feasible for the Federal Government to inform Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 of the details of any
proposed plea agreement with Epstein, including in particular the details of the Non-Prosecution
Agreement. The reason that AUSA
and the FBI agents acting with her did not provide
this information to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 was because of the express confidentiality
provision that had been entered into by the Federal Government and Epstein. This provision
was requested by Epstein. The Government was under no obligation to enter into such an
arrangement and would have been statutorily forbidden from entering into such an arrangement
by the CVRA's requirement that it "confer" with the victims about any disposition of their cases.
9
EFTA00013578

=== Page 10 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM
Document 19
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008
Page 10 of 16
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO CONFER WITH THE VICTIMS
REGARDING THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE
The Government should be directed to confer with the victims about the facts in this case,
rather than allowed to obscure the facts with its proposed "notice" that an evidentiary hearing is
unnecessary. The reason that the Government abruptly terminated discussions about the facts
with the victims seem obvious: The facts, if revealed, would plainly demonstrate that the victims
did not receive their right under the CVRA to confer with the Government and to be treated
fairly. The victims will not repeat all of their arguments from their earlier pleadings but would
simply highlight for the Court the point that this case already reeks of favored treatment for a
billionaire sex offender who has substantial influence. Regardless of how the Court proceeds, it
should at least do so on the basis of fully developed factual record so that the victims and the
public can be assured that justice has been done.
If anything, the facts in this case now call for immediate judgment in favor of the victims.
Based on the Government's proposed stipulated facts (Exhibit 1 to this pleading), it is now
obvious that the Government could not have fulfilled its statutory obligations to confer with the
victims. As now admitted by the Government, in September 2007, it had entered into a Non-
Prosecution Agreement with Epstein containing what it describes as "an express confidentiality
provision." While the Government has refused to disclose the text of this provision (or, indeed,
the Non-Prosecution Agreement itself), it is apparent that the Government could not have
conferred with the victims about the Agreement while abiding by the confidentiality provision.
Likewise it is now apparent that the Government has not fulfilled its statutory obligation
to treat the victims with fairness. The Government reached the Non-Prosecution Agreement with
10
EFTA00013579

=== Page 11 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 11 of 16
Epstein in September 2007, yet affirmatively concealed that Agreement from the victims through
a series of misleading statements and representations over the next nine months. For example,
on around January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI advising
them that "[t]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we
request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." As the Government
well knew, however, a Non-Prosecution Agreement had already been reached with Epstein at that
time - a fact not disclosed in the letter.
The victims therefore request judgment in their favor that their rights under the CVRA
have been violated. In the alternative, the victims request that the Court direct that the
Government confer in good faith with the victims to attempt to reach a set of stipulated facts that
might form the basis for a final ruling in this case. As part of this conference, the victims request
that the Government indicate which (if any) of the proposed facts set forth above it disputes.
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE
THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
Remarkably, the Government has yet to disclose to the victims the very Non-Prosecution
Agreement that lies at the heart of this case. This failure becomes even more curious when
assessed against the Government's proposed stipulation of facts, which included the proposed
fact that the victims had been told about the "full terms" of the Agreement. The proposed
stipulated facts that the Government sent to the victims included this proposed stipulation:
On July 9, 2008, AUSA sent a victim notification to Jane Doe #1 via her
attorney, Bradley Edwards, which is attached as Exhibit 6 to the
Declaration. That notification contains a written explanation of the full terms of
the agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Contrary to its own proposed stipulation, the Government has never disclosed to the victims the
11
EFTA00013580

=== Page 12 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 12 of 16
"full terms" of its Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein. To protect the victims' right to be
treated with fairness, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8), it should be required to do so now.
Congress' main concern in passing the CVRA was that crime victims were "treated as
non-participants in a critical event in their lives. They were kept in the dark by prosecutors too
busy to care enough and by a court system that simply did not have a place for them." 150
CONG. REC. S4262 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein). To remedy this problem,
Congress gave victims "the simple right to know what is going on, to participate in the process
where the information that victims and their families can provide may be material and relevant
Id. To date, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 do not know what has happened to their case,
because they have not been told how it has been resolved. Of course, no possible harm to the
Government can come from the release of the Agreement, as this criminal matter is now
concluded - at least from the Government's perspective.
Production of the Non-Prosecution Agreement is also warranted because it has provisions
in it that are designed to benefit Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. As described by the Government,
the Agreement contains provisions in it that preclude Epstein from contesting civil liability for
the sex offenses committed against a number of the victims, including Jane Doe #1. Obviously,
Jane Doe #1 cannot take advantage of this provision if her attorneys are not able to review it.
Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 intend to file civil suits against Epstein within the next few days.
Epstein knows what is in the Non-Prosecution Agreement that may be helpful to him. Jane Doe
#1 and Jane Doe #2 are entitled to see the Agreement for items that may be helpful to them.
Finally, Epstein is apparently taking advantage of provisions in the Non-Prosecution
Agreement to stall civil suits against him. For example, in Jane Doe V. Epstein et al., No. 08-
12
EFTA00013581

=== Page 13 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 13 of 16
80804-MARRA/JOHNSON (S.D. Fla. 2008), on July 25, 2008, Epstein filed a motion for a stay.
That motion claims that the civil action is "a counterpart to a pending federal criminal action."
The basis for that claim, so far as Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 can tell, is the federal Non-
Prosecution Agreement. Epstein should not be permitted to use provisions in the Agreement to
his advantage in private litigation without disclosing those provisions to the parties he is
opposing. Indeed, as a simple matter of fairness to the victims, see 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(a)(5)
(victims right to "fairness"), the provisions should be disclosed.
In sum, the Court should direct the Government to reveal to the victims what it has done
to resolve the case by ordering production of the full Non-Prosecution Agreement and any
accompanying addenda to the agreement.
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE REPORT OF
INTERVIEW WITH JANE DOE #1
The Government apparently has a report of interview indicating that two named FBI
agents met with Jane Doe #1 on about October 26, 2007. The Government, however, has
declined to produce it.
The Government should be directed to produce this information to Jane Doe #1. Of
course, a criminal defendant would be entitled to such a report. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A)
& (B). As an innocent victim in this matter, Jane Doe #1 should be treated with at least the same
consideration. See 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(a)(8) (victim's right to "be treated with fairness"). Jane
Doe #1 requested this report in her letter regarding the proposed stipulated facts (see Exhibit 2 to
this filing), a request that the Government has simply ignored.
13
EFTA00013582

=== Page 14 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM
Document 19
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008
Page 14 of 16
AFTER ENTERING JUDGMENT FOR THE VICTIMS' ON THE VIOLATION OF THEIR
RIGHTS, THE COURT SHOULD SCHEDULE A HEARING ON THE APPROPRIATE
REMEDY
For the reasons just explained, the Court should enter judgment for Jane Doe #1 and Jane
Doe #2 on the violations of their rights under the CVRA and order the Government to produce
the Non-Prosecution Agreement and the report of interview with Jane Doe #1. After doing that,
the question then arises as to what is the proper remedy for the violations of victims' rights.
To be clear, at this time, the victims seek two things: (1) a judicial declaration that the
Government violated their rights under the CVRA and an apology from the Government; and (2)
a hearing to discuss the appropriate remedy under the circumstances. At the same time, the
victims are not asking to have any provision in the Non-Prosecution Agreement establishing
liability in a civil suit to be vacated or declared invalid. Because the possible connection
between these two things raises complex legal issues, the victims respectfully request that the
Court order a hearing at which the appropriate remedy can be discussed. The victims also need
to review the full text of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and any accompanying addenda to
make an appropriate determination about the remedy that they wish to pursue.
CONCLUSION
The Court should find that the Government violated Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's
rights under the CVRA to confer and to be treated with fairness during the negotiation and
consummation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. In the alternative, the Court should direct the
Government to confer with the victims regarding what facts are undisputed in this matter and,
should material facts actually be disputed, hold an evidentiary hearing regarding those facts. So
that the victims can discuss these matters with the Government, the Court should order the
14
EFTA00013583

=== Page 15 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 15 of 16
Government to provide to the victims the full Non-Prosecution Agreement (and accompanying
addenda) that is central to this litigation as well as a report of interview with Jane Doe #1 from
about October 26, 2007. The Court should then hold a hearing on the proper remedy for the
violations of the victims' rights.
DATED this 1st day of August, 2008.
Respectfully Submitted,
THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS &
ASSOCIATES, LLC
By:
s/ Brad Edwards
Brad Edwards, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioners
Florida Bar No. 542075
2028 Harrison Street
Suite 202
Hollywood, Florida 33020
Telephone:
Facsimile:
E-Mail:
Paul G. Cassell
Attorney for Petitioners
Pro Hac Vice
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone:
Facsimile:
E-Mail:
15
EFTA00013584

=== Page 16 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM
Document 19
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008
Page 16 of 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 1, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.
s/ Brad Edwards
Brad Edwards, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Florida Bar No. 542075
SERVICE LIST
Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2
Case No.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Assistant U.S. Attorney
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33132
Telephone:
Facsimile:
16
EFTA00013585


