# docs_fts_content

c1: EFTA00013307
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013307.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States of America,
-v-
20-CR-330 (AJN)
Ghislaine Maxwell,
OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant.
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of conspiracy
to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 371; enticing a
minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2; conspiracy
to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 371; transporting
minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2; and two charges
of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 1623. The Court held a lengthy bail hearing on July 14,
2020. After extensive briefing and argument at the hearing, the Court concluded that the
Defendant was a clear risk of flight and that no conditions or combination of conditions would
ensure her appearance. Bail was therefore denied.
The Defendant has now filed a renewed motion for release on bail pending trial, which
the Government opposes. In her renewed motion, the Defendant attempts to respond to the
reasons that the Court provided in denying bail and proposes a substantially larger bail package.
But by and large, the arguments presented either were made at the initial bail hearing or could
have been made then. In any event, the new information provided in the renewed application
only solidifies the Court's view that the Defendant plainly poses a risk of flight and that no
1
EFTA00013307

=== Page 2 ===
combination of conditions can ensure her appearance. This is so because: the charges, which
carry a presumption of detention, are serious and carry lengthy terms of imprisonment if
convicted; the evidence proffered by the Government, including multiple corroborating and
corroborated witnesses, is strong; the Defendant has substantial resources and foreign ties
(including citizenship in a country that does not extradite its citizens); and the Defendant, who
lived in hiding and apart from the family to whom she now asserts important ties, has not been
fully candid about her financial situation. Thus, for substantially the same reasons that the Court
denied the Defendant's first motion for release on July 14, 2020, the Court DENIES the
Defendant's renewed motion for release on bail.¹
I.
Background
On June 29, 2020, a grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a six-count
Indictment against the Defendant, charging her with facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of
multiple minor victims between approximately 1994 and 1997. See Dkt. No. 1. On July 2, 2020,
the Indictment was unsealed, and that same day, the Defendant was arrested in New Hampshire.
On July 8, 2020, the Government filed a Superseding Indictment, which contained only small
ministerial corrections. Dkt. No. 17.
On July 14, 2020, this Court held a hearing regarding the Defendant's request for bail.
After a thorough consideration of all of the Defendant's arguments and of the factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. $ 3142(g), the Court concluded that no conditions or combination of conditions could
reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance, determining as a result that the Defendant was a
flight risk and that detention without bail was warranted under 18 U.S.C. $ 3142(e)(1). The
1 This Opinion & Order will be temporarily sealed in order to allow the parties to propose
redactions to sensitive or confidential information.
2
EFTA00013308

=== Page 3 ===
Defendant did not appeal the Court's determination that detention was required, and she has been
incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center since that time.
II.
Legal Standard
Pretrial detainees have a right to bail under the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, which prohibits the imposition of "[e]xcessive bail," and under the Bail Reform
Act, 18 U.S.C. $ 3141, et seq. The Bail Reform Act requires the Court to release a defendant
"subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that [it]
determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any
other person and the community." 18 U.S.C. $ 3142(c)(1)(B). Only if, after considering the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concludes that "no condition or combination
of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of
any other person and the community," may the Court order that the defendant be held without
bail. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).
If there is probable cause to find that the defendant committed an offense specifically
enumerated in § 3142(e)(3), a rebuttable presumption arises "that no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure" the defendant's appearance or the safety of the community or
others. 18 U.S.C. $ 3142(e)(3). In such circumstances, "the defendant 'bears a limited burden of
production to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose
a danger to the community or a risk of flight." United States V. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d
Cir. 2011) (quoting United States V. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001)); see also
United States V. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1991) ("[A] defendant must introduce some
evidence contrary to the presumed fact in order to rebut the presumption."). Nonetheless, "the
government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion by clear and convincing evidence that the
3
EFTA00013309

=== Page 4 ===
defendant presents a danger to the community,' and 'by the lesser standard of a preponderance of
the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight." English, 629 F.3d at 319 (quoting
Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436); see also United States V. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986)
("The government retains the burden of persuasion [in a presumption case]."). Even when "a
defendant has met his burden of production," however, "the presumption favoring detention does
not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district
court." United States V. Mattis, 963 F.3d 285, 290-91 (2d Cir. 2020).
After a court has made an initial determination that no conditions of release can
reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required, the Court may reopen the bail
hearing if "information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and
that has a material bearing on the issue" of whether pretrial detention is warranted. 18 U.S.C. $
3142(f). But the Court is not required to reopen the hearing or to conduct another hearing if it
determines that any new information would not have a material bearing on the issue. See United
States V. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202, at *2 n.7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec.
5, 2018) (noting that "[a]s the court has already held one detention hearing, it need not hold
another" the standards set forth in 18 U.S.C. $ 3142(f)(2) are met); United States V. Havens, 487
F. Supp. 2d 335, 339 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (electing not to reopen a detention hearing because the
new information would not have changed the court's decision to detain the defendant until trial).
III.
Discussion
The Defendant bases her renewed motion for bail on both 18 U.S.C. $ 3142(f) and the
Court's inherent powers to review its own bail decisions. See Def. Mot. at 7-9. As already
noted, $ 3142(f) provides that a bail hearing "may be reopened at any time before trial if the
judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the
4
EFTA00013310

=== Page 5 ===
hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that
will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other
person and the community." A court may also revisit its own decision pursuant to its inherent
authority, even where the circumstances do not match $ 3142(f)'s statutory text. See, e.g.,
United States V. Rowe, No. 02-CR-756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21,
2003) (noting that "a release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on
reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing."); United States V.
Petrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting the
"Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's previous bail decision").
In line with this, the Defendant's new motion aims to address the reasons that the Court
provided when it originally determined that no conditions could reasonably assure her
appearance and that pretrial detention was warranted. First, the Defendant proposes a more
expansive set of bail conditions that she claims addresses any concerns regarding risk of flight.
The newly proposed conditions include a $28.5 million bail package, which consists of a $22.5
million personal recognizance bond co-signed by the Defendant and her spouse and secured by
approximately $8 million in property and $500,000 in cash, along with six additional bonds-
five co-signed by the Defendant's friends and family members and the sixth posted by the
security company that would provide security services to the Defendant if she were granted bail
and transferred to home confinement. See Def. Mot. at 2. The proposed conditions also provide
that the Defendant would be released to the custody of a family member, who would serve as her
third-party custodian under 18 U.S.C. $ 3142(c)(1)(B)(i); that she would be placed in home
confinement with GPS monitoring and that her travel would be restricted to the Southern and
Eastern Districts of New York and would be limited to appearances in Court, meetings with
5
EFTA00013311

=== Page 6 ===
counsel, medical visits, and upon approval by the Court or Pretrial Services. Id. at 2-3.
Furthermore, the Defendant would have on-premises security guards that she would pay for who
would prevent her from leaving the residence at any time without prior approval by the Court or
Pretrial Services and who would escort her when she is authorized to leave. Id. at 3.
The motion also presents new information that, according to the Defendant, addresses the
concerns that the Court articulated when it determined that detention was warranted. This newly
presented information, most of which was available to the Defendant at the time of the initial bail
hearing, includes evidence of the Defendant's family ties in the United States, see Def. Mot. at
10-14; a detailed financial report that provides a more comprehensive outlook on the
Defendant's financial conditions and assets, see id. at 15-18; evidence that according to her
rebuts the Government's original contention that she attempted to evade law enforcement prior
to her arrest, see id. at 18-25; waivers of her right to contest extradition from the United
Kingdom and France, along with expert opinions claiming that the Defendant would not be able
to resist extradition if she were to execute the waivers, see id. at 25-29; and evidence that she
argues lays bare the weakness of the Government's case against her, see id. at 30-34.
Finally, the Defendant argues that the conditions of her confinement, including as a result
of the COVID-19 pandemic, present an additional factor favoring release. She claims that the
conditions imposed are punitive and that those conditions interfere with her ability to participate
in her defense, and she asserts that these factors further militate in favor of release. See id. at 34-
38.
Having carefully considered all of the Defendant's arguments, the Court again concludes
that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure her appearance and that
6
EFTA00013312

=== Page 7 ===
detention without bail is warranted under 18 U.S.C. $ 3142(e)(1). The Court accordingly denies
Defendant's request to reopen the original bail hearing and denies her renewed motion for bail.
A. The presumption in favor of detention applies
The Court is required to presume that no condition or combination of conditions of
pretrial release will reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance. The Bail Reform Act
provides that if a defendant is charged with committing an offense involving a minor victim
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423, "it shall be presumed that no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the
community if the judicial officer finds that there is probable cause to believe that the person
committed." 18 U.S.C. $ 3142(e)(3)(E). The Defendant's indictment by a grand jury suffices to
establish that there is probable cause to believe that she committed the offenses charged in the
indictment. See, e.g., United States V. Contreras, 776 F.2d 51, 53-54 (2d Cir. 1985) (noting that
that an indictment returned by a properly constituted grand jury "conclusively determines the
existence of probable cause" and that "the return of an indictment eliminates the need for a
preliminary examination at which a probable cause finding is made by a judicial officer pursuant
to Rule 5(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." (citations omitted)). In light of the
crimes charged in the indictment, the Court begins with the presumption that no condition or
combination of conditions of pretrial release will reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance.
When the presumption applies, the Defendant bears a limited burden of production
"tending to counter the $ 3142(e) presumption of flight," Contreras, 776 F.2d at 53 n.1. The
Defendant's burden of production only requires that she "introduce a certain amount of evidence
contrary to the presumed fact." United States V. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 380 (1st Cir. 1985),
7
EFTA00013313

=== Page 8 ===
abrogated on other grounds by United States V. O'Brien, 895 F.2d 810 (1st Cir. 1990). That
burden is "limited." United States V. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001). The
Defendant's proffer of evidence and information-including information relating to her financial
conditions and her family ties to the United States, among other things-satisfies this limited
burden. As the Court discussed at the July 14, 2020 hearing, these factors bear on the question
of whether the Defendant poses a flight risk. And the evidence she advances in her renewed
motion for bail reasonably disputes the presumption that she poses a flight risk. In that sense,
this evidence is relevant to the ultimate determination and satisfies the relatively low threshold
imposed by the burden of production.
The presumption of flight does not disappear entirely, however, and it "remains a factor
to be considered among those weighed by the district court." United States V. Mercedes, 254
F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144). As a result, "[a] judicial officer
conducting a detention hearing should, even after a defendant has come forward with rebuttal
evidence, continue to give the presumption of flight some weight by keeping in mind that
Congress has found that these offenders pose special risks of flight, and that 'a strong probability
arises' that no form of conditional release will be adequate to secure their appearance." Martir,
782 F.2d at 1144 (citation omitted).
B. The new information does not alter the Court's initial determination
When determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the
appearance of the person as required, courts are required to consider the factors outlined in 18
U.S.C. $ 3142(g). Thus, the Court considers (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense
charged, including whether the offense involves a minor victim, (2) the weight of the evidence,
(3) the defendant's history and characteristics, and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to
8
EFTA00013314

=== Page 9 ===
any person or the community posed by pre-trial release. See Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436; see also
18 U.S.C. $ 3142(g).
At the July 14, 2020 bail hearing, the Court considered these factors before concluding
that no conditions of release could reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required.
And the first and fourth factors remain unchanged. As already noted, the Defendant is charged
with offenses involving minor victims, and it is undisputed that the nature and circumstances of
the offenses charged in the Superseding Indictment weighs in favor of continued detention. On
the other hand, the Government has not advanced any evidence that the Defendant poses a
danger to any person or to the community, a factor that weighs against detention. The
Defendant's arguments therefore focus on the second and third factors.
As explained below, neither the arguments put forth in the Defendant's renewed motion
for bail nor the evidence she submitted in conjunction with her motion rebut the Court's
conclusions, and the Court continues to find, after again applying these factors, that no
conditions of release will reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance at future proceedings.
1. The Weight of the Evidence
The Court will address the strength of the Government's case first. The Defendant
argues that the Government lacks any meaningful documentary corroboration of the witness
testimony and that the discovery produced to date has included only a "small number of
documents from the time period of the conspiracy." Def. Mot. at 5. And she claims, as a result,
that the Government overstated the strength of its case in advance of the July 14, 2020 bail
hearing. See id. at 30-33. So she argues that the second § 3142(g) factor supports release.
The Court disagrees. Arguing that the case against her "is based almost exclusively on
the recollections of the three accusers, who remain unidentified," the Defendant contends that the
9
EFTA00013315

=== Page 10 ===
weight of the evidence is weak. Def. Reply at 2. But she too easily discredits the witness
testimony. According to the Government, and as reflected in the indictment, it is anticipated that
the three witnesses will provide detailed and corroborating accounts of the Defendant's alleged
role in enticing minors to engage in sex acts. See Gov't Opp'n at 10; see also Dkt. No. 17, S1
Superseding Indictment, " 7, 11, 13, 17. Moreover, the Government proffers that additional
evidence, including flight records and other witnesses' corroborating testimony, will further
support the main witnesses' testimony and link the Defendant to Epstein's conduct. Gov't
Opp'n at 10-11. And while the Defendant contends that much of this evidence focuses on
Epstein, not the Defendant, the nature of the conspiracy charge (along with the evidence linking
the Defendant to Epstein) renders this evidence relevant to the Government's charges against
her. As the Court stated in the July 14, 2020 hearing, although the Court does not prejudge the
merits of the Government's case or of the Defendant's defenses, for purposes of the bail
determination stage, the Government's proffered case against the Defendant remains strong. See
Dkt. No. 93 ("Tr.") at 83:4-83:10. The Court again concludes that the Defendant's awareness of
the potential strength of the government's case against her creates a risk of flight, and none of the
Defendant's new arguments meaningfully alter that conclusion. As a result, the second factor
supports detention.
2. The Defendant's History and Characteristics
At the July 14, 2020 bail hearing, the Court determined that the Defendant was a flight
risk in part because of her substantial international ties, including multiple foreign citizenships
and familial and personal connections abroad and her ownership of at least one foreign property
of significant value. See Tr. at 83:13-83:18. And the Court further noted that the Defendant's
extraordinary financial resources could provide her the means to flee the country even despite
10
EFTA00013316

=== Page 11 ===
COVID-19 related travel restrictions. Id. at 83:21-83:25. The Court also observed that the
Defendant had family and personal connections to the United States but concluded that the
absence of any dependents, significant family ties, or employment in the United States also
supported the conclusion that flight would not pose an insurmountable burden for her. Id. at
84:4-84:9. While the Defendant's renewed motion for bail addresses some of these factors, it
does not alter the Court's conclusion.
The first few considerations remain relatively unchanged. The Defendant continues to
have substantial international ties and multiple foreign citizenships, and she continues to have
familial and personal connections abroad. None of the evidence presented in support of the
present motion fundamentally alters those conclusions. To address the Court's concern that the
Defendant's French citizenship presented the opportunity that she could flee to France and that
she would be able to resist extradition on that basis, see Tr. at 83:18-83:20, the Defendant now
offers to waive her right to extradition from both the United Kingdom and France, along with
expert opinions reports claiming that such waivers would likely make it possible to resist an
extradition request from the United States to either country. See Def. Mot., Exs. T, U, V. As the
Government points out in its brief, however, the legal weight of the waivers is, at best, contested.
The French Ministry of Justice, for instance, indicated in a letter submitted in conjunction to the
Government's opposition that the French Code of Criminal Procedure "absolutely prohibits" the
extradition of a French national. See Gov't Opp'n, Ex. B. And while the Defendant's own
expert attempts to rebut the Ministry of Justice's letter, see Def. Reply, Ex. A, even the
Defendant's own experts use probabilistic, rather than absolute, language, leaving open the
possibility that extradition would be blocked. See, e.g., Def. Mot., Ex. U at 2 ("On the basis of
the information currently known, it is highly unlikely that Ghislaine Maxwell would be able
11
EFTA00013317

=== Page 12 ===
successfully to resist extradition to the United States in relation to the charges in the superseding
indictment dated 7 July 2020."); Def. Mot., Ex. V 1 76 ("It would
become a matter for the
French government to decide on whether or not to issue an extradition decree against Ms.
Ghislaine Maxwell."); id. "I 77 ("[I]t is highly unlikely that the French government would refuse
to issue and execute an extradition decree against Ms Maxwell. "). Nor has the Defendant
presented any cases where courts addressed the question of whether an anticipatory waiver of
extradition is enforceable; while she cites cases where defendants offered to waive extradition,
the reasoning in those cases turned on other factors and the courts did not dwell on the
enforceability of such waivers. See, e.g., United States V. Cirillo, No. 99-1514, 1999 WL
1456536, at *2 (3d Cir. July 13, 1999); United States V. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115, 119
(N.D.N.Y. 2004); United States V. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129, 132-33 (D.D.C. 2004); United
States V. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1212 (N.D. Cal. 1992). In those cases, the courts included
such waivers as one among several conditions of release, but they did not make any express
determination that such waivers are enforceable. On the other hand, some courts have expressly
opined that such waivers are unenforceable. See, e.g., United States V. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d
306, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (describing the "Defense proposal to give advance consent to
extradition and waiver of extradition rights" as "an empty gesture."); United States V. Morrison,
No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016) ("Although the defendants
have signed a waiver of extradition, such a waiver may not become valid until an extradition
request is pending in Canada and may be subject to withdrawal."); United States V. Stroh, No.
396-CR-139 (AHN), 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000) ("[I]t appears that there
is a substantial legal question as to whether any country to which he fled would enforce any
waiver of extradition signed under the circumstances presented in this case. At any event,
12
EFTA00013318

=== Page 13 ===
extradition from Israel (or any other country) would be, at best, a difficult and lengthy process
and, at worst, impossible.").
Having carefully reviewed the experts' reports and the cases cited by the Defendant, 2 the
Court's analysis of the relationship between the Defendant's French citizenship and the risk of
flight remains fundamentally unchanged. Its reasoning is guided in part by the substantial legal
questions regarding the legal weight of anticipatory extradition waivers and the likelihood that
any extradition would be a difficult and lengthy process (including, for instance, the likelihood
that the Defendant would contest the validity of those waivers and the duration it would take to
resolve those legal disputes). The likelihood that the Defendant would be able to frustrate any
extradition requests-even if she were correct that she would be unable to stop extradition
entirely-weighs strongly in favor of detention.
In addition, the Defendant's extraordinary financial resources also continue to provide
her the means to flee the country and to do so undetected. To be sure, this factor alone does not
by itself justify continued detention. But as the Court noted at the initial bail hearing, the
Defendant's financial resources, in combination with her substantial international ties and
foreign connections and her experience avoiding detection (whether from the government, the
press, or otherwise), do bear significantly on the flight risk analysis. See Tr. at 88:6-88:23
(distinguishing this case from United States V. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018),
2 The Defendant also argues that "a defendant's waiver of the right to appeal an extradition order
has been recognized as an indication of the defendant's intent not to flee." Def. Mot. at 27
(citing United States V. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1052 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). The Court places
little weight on this argument. Under the Defendant's theory, a defendant could strategically
offer to waive the right to extradition while intending to resist any subsequent extradition that
might result. The Court is unpersuaded.
13
EFTA00013319

=== Page 14 ===
United States V. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States V. Madoff, 586
F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)).
The Court's concerns regarding the absence of any dependents, significant family ties, or
employment in the United States, meanwhile, apply with somewhat less force in light of the
evidence submitted in support of this motion. See id. at 84:4-84:9. The Defendant has
submitted a litany of letters of support written by friends and family members. See Def. Mot.,
Exs. A-N, W-X. These letters, according to the Defendant, support her claim that she has
significant ties to the United States and attest to the Defendant's character. The Defendant
places particular emphasis on the letter written by her spouse, whose identity and connection to
the Defendant was withheld from the Court at the initial bail hearing. See Def. Mot. at 11-13.
In that letter, her spouse expounds on the lives they led before her arrest, noting in particular that
the Government's characterization of the Defendant's "transient" lifestyle, Dkt. No. 4 at 9, was
belied by the "quiet family life" that they had enjoyed. Def. Mot. at 11; see also Def. Mot, Ex. A
4-5. Other letters similarly highlight that the Defendant's family and affective ties in the
United States are stronger than was originally presented to the Court in the initial bail hearing.
These letters substantiate the Defendant's claim that she has important ties to people in
the United States, but they leave unaltered the Court's conclusion that flight would not pose an
insurmountable burden for the Defendant. Among other things, the Defendant now argues that
her newly revealed relationship with her spouse signals her deep affective ties in the country, but
at the time she was arrested, she was not living with him and claimed to be getting divorced. See
Pretrial Services Report at 3. Indeed, she does not propose to live with him were she to be
released on bail, undercutting her argument that that relationship would create an insurmountable
burden to her fleeing. Furthermore, the fact that she has friends and family in the United States
14
EFTA00013320

=== Page 15 ===
does not mean that those people would be unable to visit her were she to flee to another country.
In addition, the Defendant continues to lack any employment ties to the United States-another
factor weighing in favor of detention. Furthermore, it is apparent from the letters that the
Defendant has significant ties to family and friends abroad. In light of this, nothing in the
renewed motion for bail alters the Court's fundamental conclusion that flight would not pose an
insurmountable burden to the Defendant.
Other factors that similarly speak to the Defendant's history and characteristics weigh in
favor of detention. Most notably, the Defendant's pattern of providing incomplete or erroneous
information to the Court or to Pretrial Services bears significantly on the Court's application of
the third factor to the present case. Among other things, in July 2020 the Defendant represented
to Pretrial Services that she possessed around $3.5 million worth of assets (while leaving out her
spouse's assets and assets that had been transferred to trust accounts) and the representation that
the New Hampshire property was owned by a corporation and that she was "just able to stay
there." See Pretrial Services Report at 2. The Defendant now claims that she "was detained at
the time and had no access to her financial records and was trying to piece together these
numbers from memory. According to the Macalvins report, [the financial figures] are a close
approximation of the value of the assets that Ms. Maxwell held in her own name at the time of
her arrest.
For the reasons already discussed, Ms. Maxwell was reluctant to discuss anything
about her [spouse] and expressed that to Pretrial Services." Def. Mot. at 16 n.5. Even if the
Defendant was unable to provide an exact number, however, the difference between the number
she originally reported to Pretrial Services and the number now presented to the Court in the
Macalvins report, a report on the Defendant's finances prepared by a prominent accounting firm
for purposes of this motion, see Def. Mot., Ex. O, makes it unlikely that the misrepresentation
15
EFTA00013321

=== Page 16 ===
was the result of the Defendant's misestimation rather than misdirection. And while the
Defendant's concerns regarding her spouse's privacy are not insignificant, she fails to furnish
any explanation as to why those concerns led her to misrepresent key facts to Pretrial Services
and, by extension, the Court. In sum, the evidence of a lack of candor is, if anything, stronger
now than in July 2020, as it is clear to the Court that the Defendant's representations to Pretrial
Services were woefully incomplete. That lack of candor raises significant concerns as to
whether the Court has now been provided a full and accurate picture of her finances and as to the
Defendant's willingness to abide by any set of conditions of release.
For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the third factor continues to weigh
in favor of detention.
C. Pretrial detention continues to be warranted
In light of the reasons stated above, the Government has again met its burden of
persuasion by "a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight."
English, 629 F.3d at 319 (quoting Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436). Taking the $ 3142(g) factors into
account, the Court concludes that the presumption in favor of detention, the nature and
characteristics of the charged offenses, the weight of the evidence, and the history and
characteristics of the Defendant all weigh in favor of detention. Along similar lines, the
Government has also shown, and the Court concludes for the reasons outlined below, that the
Defendant's proposed bail package cannot reasonably assure her appearance. Thus, the Court's
original conclusion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that no set of conditions can
reasonably assure her future appearance remains unaltered.
As already noted, the Defendant now proposes a $28.5 million bail package, which
includes a $22.5 million personal recognizance bond co-signed by the Defendant and her spouse
16
EFTA00013322

=== Page 17 ===
and secured by approximately $8 million in property and $500,000 in cash, along with six
additional bonds-five co-signed by the Defendant's friends and family members and the sixth
posted by the security company that would provide security services to the Defendant if she were
granted bail and transferred to home confinement. See Def. Mot. at 2. At the initial hearing, the
Court noted that the opaqueness of the Defendant's finances rendered it difficult to set financial
bail conditions that could reasonably assure her appearance in court. The financial information
that the Defendant presented to the Court at the initial bail hearing was undisputedly incomplete,
and as the Court noted, the Court lacked "a clear picture of Ms. Maxwell's finances and the
resources available to her." Tr. at 86-87.
The Defendant has now presented to the Court what is perhaps a more thorough report on
her finances prepared by Macalvins, an accounting firm in the United Kingdom. Macalvins
analyzed the Defendant's assets and finances for the past five years, basing its analysis on,
among other things, bank statements, tax returns, and FBAR filings, providing a summary of
the assets held by the Defendant and her spouse as well as the assets held in trust for the
benefit of the Defendant for the period stemming from 2015 to 2020. See Def. Mot., Ex. O.
In addition, the Defendant retained a Certified Fraud Examiner and a former IRS Special
Agent, who reviewed the Macalvins report and the underlying documents and determined that
report accurately represents the assets held by the Defendant and her spouse. See Def. Mot., Ex.
P. The Defendant's new bail proposal is based on the numbers derived from the Macalvins
report.
But even assuming that the financial report provides an accurate analysis of the
Defendant's finances, the Court is unpersuaded by her argument that the bail package reasonably
assures her appearance. As the Government argues, the bail package would leave unrestrained
17
EFTA00013323

=== Page 18 ===
millions of dollars and other assets that she could sell in order to support herself. See Gov't
Opp'n at 23. Furthermore, the proposed bond is only partially secured. Taking into account the
vast amounts of wealth left relatively unrestrained by the bail package, that amount, standing
alone, cannot reasonably assure that she would appear before the Court. Nor is the Court's
conclusion altered by the fact that a number of third parties have pledged to support her bond;
the amount of wealth that she would retain were she to flee, in addition to contingent assets and
future income streams that are not accounted for in the bail package, would plausibly enable her
to compensate them, in part or in full, for their losses. And while the Defendant argues that she
has procured "significant loans on the basis of a negative pledge" over a property and that $4
million is invested in an "illiquid hedge fund that could only be liquidated with considerable
difficulty," see Def. Reply at 6, these arguments do not alter the Court's ultimate conclusion
that the financial package does not meaningfully mitigate the possibility of flight.
The proposed conditions also provide that the Defendant would be released to the
custody of a family member, who would serve as the Defendant's third-party custodian under 18
U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(i); that the Defendant would be placed in home confinement with GPS
monitoring and that her travel would be restricted to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New
York and would be limited to appearances in Court, meetings with counsel, medical visits, and
upon approval by the Court or Pretrial Services; that she would be under the strict supervision of
Pretrial Services; and that she would surrender all travel documents. Id. at 2-3. Furthermore,
the Defendant would have on-premises security guards who would prevent her from leaving the
residence at any time without prior approval by the Court or Pretrial Services and who would
escort her when she is authorized to leave. Id. at 3.
18
EFTA00013324

=== Page 19 ===
None of these conditions would reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance. Here,
too, the Court's original determination applies with equal force. As the Court noted at the
original hearing, the Defendant has demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to evade detection,
"[e]ven in the face of what the Defense has acknowledged to be extreme and unusual efforts to
locate her." Tr. at 87:4-87:19. Indeed, regardless of whether the Defendant sought to evade the
press, rather than law enforcement, in the months leading up to her arrest, her sophistication in
evading detection reveals the futility of relying on any conditions, including GPS monitoring,
restrictive home confinement, and private security guards, to secure her appearance. See Tr. at
87:4-88:2. As other courts have observed, "home detention with electronic monitoring does not
prevent flight; at best, it limits a fleeing defendant's head start." United States V. Zarger, No. 00-
CR-773-S-1 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000). Furthermore, while the
Defendant now represents that she would be released to the custody of a family member, who
would serve as the Defendant's third-party custodian under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(i), and
that she secured a residence in the Eastern District of New York, see Def. Mot. at 3, that does not
outweigh the other significant factors weighing in favor of detention. And finally, the
Defendant's argument that private security guards could ensure her appearance at future
proceedings runs afoul of the Bail Reform Act, which the Second Circuit has held "does not
permit a two-tiered bail system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial
while wealthy defendants are released to self-funded private jails." United States V. Boustani,
932 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 2019). As in Boustani, the Defendant in the present case would be
detained regardless of her wealth, and "if a similarly situated defendant of lesser means would be
detained, a wealthy defendant cannot avoid detention by relying on his personal funds to pay for
private detention." Id.
19
EFTA00013325

=== Page 20 ===
In light of the above, the Court again concludes that the Government has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight and that the
Defendant's proposed conditions are insufficient to reasonably assure her appearance. The
presumption in favor of detention, the weight of the evidence, and the history and characteristics
of the Defendant all support that conclusion, and none of Defendant's new arguments change the
Court's original determination.
D. The Defendant's conditions of confinement do not justify release
Lastly, the Court is unpersuaded by the Defendant's argument that the conditions of her
confinement are uniquely onerous, interfere with her ability to participate in her defense, and
thus justify release. See Def. Mot. at 35-38. Indeed, the Defendant does not meaningfully
dispute that she has received "more time than any other inmate at the MDC to review her
discovery and as much, if not more, time to communicate with her attorneys." Gov't Opp'n at
29. To the extent that the Defendant has concerns regarding some of the measures taken by
BOP, including a recent lockdown due to COVID-19 that curtailed in-person legal visitations,
the Defendant provides no authority to conclude that this, standing alone, violates her
constitutional right to participate in her defense. And while the Court acknowledges the
Defendant's concerns regarding the conditions of her confinement, the Defendant has failed to
provide any basis to conclude that release is warranted on those grounds-even after the Court
has determined that she continues to pose a flight risk.3
3 The Court will continue to ensure that the Defendant has the ability to speak and meet regularly
with her attorneys and to review all necessary discovery materials to prepare for her defense.
Defense counsel shall confer with the Government on any specific requests. To the extent they
are not reasonably accommodated, an application may be made to the Court.
20
EFTA00013326

=== Page 21 ===
Finally, as the Court expressed at the initial bail hearing, it has deep concerns about the
spread of COVID-19 at BOP facilities, including at the MDC. Indeed, in recent weeks, the
incidence of COVID-19 among the inmate population where the Defendant is housed is truly
alarming. See COVID-19: Coronavirus, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/
coronavirus/ (last visited Dec. 28, 2020) (noting that the MDC currently has 99 inmates and 11
staff members who have tested positive for COVID-19). It could be argued that in the face of
this, only those defendants who pose a danger to the community ought to be detained pending
trial. If that were the law and in light of the increasing positivity rate, the Court would not
hesitate to reopen the detention hearing and release the Defendant on bail since the Government
rests none of its arguments on dangerousness. But that is not the law. Moreover, as the Court
found at the initial bail hearing, the Defendant has no underlying health conditions that put her at
heightened risk of health impacts were she to contract COVID. The pandemic, including
increasing positivity numbers in the MDC, is not a basis for release in this case where the Court
finds that the Defendant poses a substantial and actual risk of flight and that no combination of
conditions could reasonably assure her appearance.
E. A hearing is unnecessary
Having carefully reviewed the parties' arguments, the Court determines that a hearing is
unnecessary and that it can resolve the motion on the papers. The briefing from both sides
comprehensively lays out the parties' respective arguments For the reasons stated above, none
of the new information has a material bearing on the Court's determination that the Defendant
poses a flight risk. Indeed, many of the reasons that the Court provided at the July 14, 2020
hearing continue to apply with equal, if not greater, force. The Court need not hold another
21
EFTA00013327

=== Page 22 ===
hearing to evaluate Maxwell's motion, and it declines to do so. See United States V. Raniere, No.
18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202, at *2 n.7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018).
IV. Conclusion
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 97, is
DENIED.
so ORDERED.
Alim D. Netto
Dated: December 28, 2020
New York, New York
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
22
EFTA00013328


c1: EFTA00013766
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013766.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
)"
Subject: RE: RE: Epstein settlement agreement
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:16:16 +0000
Importance: Normal
Hello and belated holiday greetings.
Sorry, I have been out of touch with the world in the mountains of North Carolina. Now traveling
back to West Palm so have internet access. I will call you when I am back in town on Monday the
31st.
Original message from
)"
:
Could you call me when you have a moment? Thanks,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:25 PM
To:
Subject: RE: RE: Epstein settlement agreement
The plea and sentence will both occur on the same date and that date will be before January 4th.
From:
Sent: Mon 11/5/2007 5:31 AM
To:
Subject: FW: RE: Epstein settlement agreement
Forwarded Message:
From:
To:
Cc:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: RE: Epstein settlement agreement
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 13:58:13 +0000
Dear
I was just informed that a case disposition conference has been set in the Epstein case on
January 7, 2008. Our agreement with Mr. Epstein contemplated a simultaneous plea and
sentencing for October (or, as we later agreed, November), followed by Mr. Epstein self-
surrendering to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008. From your last e-
EFTA00013766

=== Page 2 ===
mail, it appeared that the judge was under the impression that Mr. Epstein could not be
sentenced before January 2008. We are hoping that Judge McSorley would consider
conducting the simultaneous plea and sentencing some time before January 4, 2008, so that
Mr. Epstein can comply with the terms of our agreement and begin serving his sentence on
January 4, 2008.
I also would appreciate it if you could send me a copy of the plea agreement, the Information
that you plan to file (if it hasn t been filed already), and any factual proffer or other documents
related to the plea. Please also let me know the date and time of the plea and sentencing so
that someone from our office can attend and insure Mr. Epstein 's compliance with the terms of
his federal non-prosecution agreement.
If you need any information regarding the federal investigation, or if you have any questions
about the terms of the federal non-prosecution agreement, please do not hesitate to contact me
at the number below or
in the West Palm Beach office.
Thank you,
First Assistant United States Attorney
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33132
Phone
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
From:
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 9:22 PM
To:
Subject: Epstein settlement agreement
Good evening. I am the ASA with the Epstein case in Palm Beach County. The negotiated
settlement is a definite go. A difficulty arose last week at a conference with the judge on the
case. She wants the plea and sentence to occur concurrently; not a plea with a sentencing at a
later date. Therefore, the case was set for the first week of January, but the plea and sentence
will definitely occur before the January 4th date that was agreed on by all for the sentencing.
If you have any questions, please contact me at
EFTA00013767


c1: EFTA00010105
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010105.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
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
November 18, 2021
BY E-MAIL
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Re:
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Dear Judge Nathan:
The Government respectfully submits this letter regarding birth certificates that are marked
as Government Exhibits for trial. 1 By way of background, the Government has obtained and
produced to the defense certified copies of the birth certificates for each of the Minor Victims.
(See GX-11-16). Although the Government has asked the defense to stipulate to the authenticity
of these records, and although the defense has identified no reason to doubt the authenticity of
these records, the defense has not agreed to a stipulation. Accordingly, the Government seeks the
relief in the instant motion, to which it is entitled under the law, and to avoid calling records
custodians from five state agencies with custody over the birth certificates. 2
1
The Government moves to file a redacted version this letter motion. The proposed redactions
are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch V. Pyramid Co.
of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this letter motion is a judicial document
subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored
to protect the privacy interests of victims, including victims who have not been publicly identified,
and who are a subject of the Court's order granting the motion to let certain victims and witnesses
testify under pseudonyms, and third parties.
2 The Government is coordinating with Department of Justice Office of International Affairs to
further establish the predicates for self-authentication of Witness-3's birth certificate and will
make the appropriate motion when it is ripe. See Fed. R. Evid. 902(3).
EFTA00010105

=== Page 2 ===
Page 2
For the reasons set forth below, the birth certificates are self-authenticating under Rule 902
of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and no records custodian should be required to testify. The
exhibits should be determined to be self-authenticating.
I.
Applicable Law
Rule 902 contains a list of items that are "self-authenticating," that is "they require no
extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted." Fed. R. Evid. 902. Under Rule 902(4),
that list includes:
Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record
- or a copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public
office as authorized by law - if the copy is certified as correct by:
(A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the
certification; or
(B) a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), a
federal statute, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.
Rule 902(1), in turn, provides for self-authentication of the following:
Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A
document that bears:
(A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state,
district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of
the United States; the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political subdivision of
any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer of
any entity named above; and
(B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation.
Finally, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 27 permits a party to "prove an official record
in the same manner as in a civil action." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44(a)(1), in turn,
permits proof of a domestic "official record" that is "otherwise admissible and is kept within the
United States, any state, district, or commonwealth, or any territory" through
EFTA00010106

=== Page 3 ===
Page 3
a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the record-or
by the officer's deputy-and accompanied by a certificate that the
officer has custody. The certificate must be made under seal:
(ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and with official
duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept.
Fed. R Civ. P. 44(a)(1); see Fed. R. Evid. 902 Advisory Committee Notes ("Rule 44(a) of the
Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 27 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure have provided
authentication procedures of this nature for both domestic and foreign public records.").
II.
Discussion
The Minor Victims' birth certificates are certified and sealed by the appropriate officials,
and are therefore self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902(4). See Ball V. A.O. Smith Corp.,
451 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2006) ("The original transcript, which includes a certification by the court
reporter, is self-authenticating. See Fed. R. Evid. 902(4)."); United States V. McGee, 439 F. App'x
837, 839 (11th Cir. 2011) ("We have held that to satisfy the requirements of Rule 902(4), a
certification need only identify the legal custodian's position of authority, and that the copy is true
and correct.").
At the threshold, domestic birth certificates are "public records" within the meaning of
Federal Rule of Evidence 902(4). See Fed. R. Evid. 803(9) (providing a hearsay exception for
"Public Records of Vital Statistics," including "[a] record of a birth
if reported to a public
office in accordance with a legal duty.").
Pursuant to Rule 902(4)(A), a copy of such a record is self-authenticating if "certified as
correct by:
the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification." Fed. R. Evid.
902(4)(A). That is the case for each of the birth certificates:
EFTA00010107

=== Page 4 ===
Page 4
The Registrar of Rhode Island Department of Health has signed and certified that
Government Exhibit 12, Minor Victim-1's birth certificate, is a "true and exact copy of the
document officially registered and placed on file in the issuing office."
The Registrar of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services has signed and
certified that Government Exhibit 13, Minor Victim-2's birth certificate, is an "exact
reproduction of the certificate for the person named therein as it now appears in the
permanent records of the Bureau of Vital Records of the Missouri Department of Health
and Senior Services."
The Registrar of the Town of North Hempstead, Nassau County, New York, has signed
and certified that Government Exhibit 11, Minor Victim-4's birth certificate, is a "true and
correct copy of the original Certificate of Birth on file in the Office of the Registrar."
The County Clerk/Recorder of Sacramento County, California, has signed and certified
that Government Exhibit 14, Minor Victim-5's birth certificate, is a "true and exact
reproduction of the document officially registered and placed on file in the office of the
Sacramento County Clerk/Recorder."
The Registrar of Vital Records and Statistics for the Massachusetts Department of Public
Health Registry of Vital Records and Statistics has signed and certified that Government
Exhibit 15, Minor Victim-6's birth certificate, is a "true copy" from the Registrar's records
"of birth, marriage, and death required by law to be kept in my office."
Each of these certifications is a certification by a custodian sufficient to satisfy the Rule. See
Ratajack V. Brewster Fire Dept., 178 F. Supp. 3d 118, 128 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (concluding that
a transcript was self-authenticating based on a court reporter's certification that it contained a "true
record").
EFTA00010108

=== Page 5 ===
Page 5
The birth certificates are also self-authenticating under Rule 902(4)(B). That rule permits
self-authentication based on "a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), a federal
statute, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court." This rule is satisfied in two ways.
First, the certifications comply with Rule 902(1). Each certification bears "a seal
purporting to be that of
any state
; a political subdivision
; or a department, agency, or
officer of" a state. Fed. R. Evid. 902(1)(A). And each certification bears a "signature purporting
to be an execution or attestation." Fed. R. Evid. 902(1)(B). The certifications on the birth
certificates therefore meet the requirements of Rule 902(4)(B).
Second, as noted above, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) explains that the evidence
necessary to "evince[] an official record" that is "kept within the United States[ or] any state" is
"a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the record and accompanied by a certificate
that the officer has custody." Fed. R. Civ. P. 44(a)(1)(B); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 27 (incorporating
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this subject). That certification must be "made under seal
by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or political
subdivision where the record is kept." Fed. R. Civ. P. 44(a)(1)(B)(ii). Each of the certifications
described above is by a public officer with official duties in the location where the birth certificate
is kept, as stated in the certification, and each is sealed. That is sufficient. See United States V.
Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluding that records of prior convictions,
fingerprints, and other materials from prison were self-authenticating under Rules 902(2) and
902(4) and that "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44(a)(1), incorporated into Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 27, accords with our analysis.").
EFTA00010109

=== Page 6 ===
Page 6
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should determine that the Minor Victims' birth
certificates are self-authenticating.
Respectfully submitted,
DAMIAN WILLIAMS
United States Attorney
by:
/s/
Assistant United States Attorneys
cc:
Counsel of Record (by email)
EFTA00010110


c1: EFTA00013471
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013471.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Deadline to file response in Doe V. Epstein
Start Date: 2009-05-29 13:00:00 +0000
End Date: 2009-05-29 14:00:00 +0000
Organizer:
Class: X-PERSONAL
Date Created: 2015-03-27 13:43:14 +0000
Date Modified: 2015-07-22 20:34:48 +0000
Priority: 5
EFTA00013471


c1: EFTA00014144
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014144.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 820-8711
Facsimile: (561) 820-8777
August 26, 2008
DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Citigroup Center
153 East 53rd Street
New York, New York 10022-4675
Roy Black, Esq.
Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300
Miami, FL 33131
Re: Jeffrey Epstein
Dear Jay and Roy:
Thank you for your letter of August 22nd. I write to follow up on some of the points that
you raised.
The list of thirty-two victims that was provided to Mr. Goldberger via certified mail on
July 10, 2008 is the final list. As I mentioned, copies of the notification letters to each victim will
be carbon-copied to an attorney for Mr. Epstein and Mr. Josefsberg. I asked you to advise me
whether Mr. Goldberger should continue to be listed as the contact person for the civil litigation
in the amended victim notification letters and whether he should receive the carbon copies of
those letters as they are sent.
I also asked you to provide me with written confirmation of your agreement to pay Mr.
Josefsberg's fees. Please provide me with that confirmation so that Mr. Josefsberg can begin his
representation.
I have conferred with the lead AUSA in the case of Jane Doe 1 and 2 V. United States and
he agrees that, based upon the discussion with Judge Marra during the hearing on the plaintiffs'
motion, a notification of the judge's ruling is required. I will, however, change the language
slightly to direct the victims to discuss the matter with Mr. Josefsberg.
With regard to your concerns with my "open-ended description of Mr. Epstein's
responsibilities regarding civil restitution," I agree that the resolution of civil damages claims is
as stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement and Addendum. That is why the language in the
notification is taken verbatim from paragraphs 7, 8, and 7C of the Agreement and Addendum,
except that the victim's name is used in place of "identified individual." As I mentioned in my
earlier letter, if you have any proposed substantive changes, please provide them to me.
Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Tein explicitly approved the language in my earlier victim
notification letter, even though they apparently were taking the position that the December 19,
2007 letter was not part of the Agreement, so that misinformation was provided to the victims
with the approval of Mr. Epstein's attorneys.
With regard to your sixth and seventh points, I reiterate that it is the Office's position that
the Agreement and Addendum speak for themselves. Let me also reiterate that, while the Office
does not intend to involve itself in any civil negotiations or litigation, if it comes to our attention
EFTA00014144

=== Page 2 ===
that Mr. Epstein has breached the terms of the Agreement, the Office intends to enforce its right
to indict Mr. Epstein.
I would appreciate a prompt response to the question regarding which of Mr. Epstein's
attorneys should be named in and receive copies of the notification letters, as well as
documentation of your commitment to paying Mr. Josefsberg's fees so that I may begin
distributing the revised victim notifications on Wednesday morning.
Sincerely,
R. Alexander Acosta
United States Attorney
By:
Assistant United States Attorney
cc:
,
Chief, Northern Division
EFTA00014145


c1: EFTA00013289
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013289.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 17:19:35 +0000
Embedded: following_up.msg
Hi
Our chiefs let us know that you're planning to reach out to defense counsel, and that you had a few questions for us about
the current status. Below is the contact information for defense counsel, as well as a brief recap of where we are in our
discussions with counsel. Please let us know if any additional information would be useful.
n) is represented by three attorneys, all of whom have been on our calls over the past
months. I don't have direct numbers for them, as I believe they're all working remotely. We emailed them to let them
know you were planning to reach out. Here is their contact information:
Susan Necheles:
Kate Cassidy:
Samidh Guha:
We have not heard from them since that
date. We emailed them on Monday to check in and have not heard back. Regarding deadlines, we of course defer to your
judgment, and have no issue if you decide to extend it when you speak with them.
Thanks very much,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00013289


c1: EFTA00013258
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013258.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
Cc:
)"
)"
Subject: Re: Epstein SW returns
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:52:15 +0000
Hi
Thanks- from what I remember, the estate communicated with you directly about this, so I don't remember
getting a list.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2020, at 12:38 PM,
)
wrote:
Hi
Hope you're well too. Did Epstein's lawyers also give you the list of attorneys? And can you remind me who they are?
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2020 11:50 AM
To:
)
Cc:
(
Subject: Re: Epstein SW returns
Hi
Hope you're doing well, and thanks very much for your help with privilege issues for this review. In our review of this
database, we have come across some communications (emails and reports)from private investigators- among others,
an investigator named Roy Black. We are generally aware that Epstein hired private investigators in connection with a
criminal investigation and related civil litigation in Florida.
We don't know whether these materials are privileged. Could you possibly confer with the estate attorneys to
determine whether they are asserting a privilege over communications by private investigators? In the meantime, we
will stop reviewing the database unless we hear from you otherwise.
Thanks very much,
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2020, at 10:53 AM,
>
wrote:
Thanks very much,
EFTA00013258

=== Page 2 ===
From:
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2020 10:51 AM
To:
Cc:
(
is
)
Subject: RE: Epstein SW returns
The Goldberger hits have been moved out.
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2020 5:14 PM
To:
Cc:
(
i
)
Subject: RE: Epstein SW returns
That is
email address. l'll ask to have the Goldberger hits pulled now and will let you know when
they are moved out.
From:
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2020 12:52 PM
To:
)
Cc:
(
i
-
Subject: Epstein SW returns
Hi
For the Epstein search warrant database, I saw an email from the following email address that I wanted to flag for
further privilege review, because it may belong to Jack Goldberger, who represented Epstein:
Thanks,
EFTA00013259


c1: EFTA00009935
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009935.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: GM memo
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 14:39:43 +0000
Attachments: 2020-03-12_GM_prosecution_memo.RC.docx
Here is my markup
EFTA00009935


c1: EFTA00013300
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013300.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
)"
)"
Subject: FW: Judge Nathan Order re Maxwell
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:32:48 +0000
Attachments: Ltr_to_Hon_Nathan_04.29.21_--pdf
I'll plan to send this to AJN chambers with our standard email cover language by 6:30
Original Message
From:
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 4:10 PM
To:
Cc:
)
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Judge Nathan Order re Maxwell
Please see attached for filing.
Best,
)"
4/29/2021 11:18
AM
Hi all,
Attached please find an order that Judge Nathan just issued on the docket in Maxwell's case, which directs the
MDC to take certain steps by April 30, 2021.
As always, we are happy to have a call to discuss if that would be useful.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00013300


c1: EFTA00013761
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013761.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: FW: Epstein
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:37:04 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: 11-08-07_Ltr_to_JHS_from_JPL.pdf
From: Jay Lefkowitz
Sent: Thursday November 08, 2007 6:01 PM
To:
Subject: Epstein
As requested, attached is our response to your November 5 letter.
Regards,
Jay
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
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments.
EFTA00013761


c1: EFTA00010102
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010102.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Redaction
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 20:55:50 +0000
Attachments: 12021.10.27_Maxwell_Reply_ISO_Motns_In_Limine_corrected_redactions].pdf
Chambers,
Attached please find a corrected version of Dkt. No. 453. The Government has added one redaction, covering the name
on page 11.
Respectfully submitted,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 Saint Andrews Plaza
New York New York 10007
From: Nathan NYSD Chambers <
Sent: Thursday. November 18. 2021 11:40 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Redaction
Counsel:
Chambers has instructed criminal docketing to remove Dkt. No. 453. Please submit a corrected version by
today.
Sincerely,
Chambers of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan
From
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 11:26 AM
EFTA00010102

=== Page 2 ===
To: Nathan NYSD Chambers <
Cc:
Subject: Redaction
CAUTION - EXTERNAL:
Chambers,
The Government has been alerted that the filing at Dkt. No. 453 contains a redaction error in which the name of a witness
whose identity has been redacted appears. (See Dkt. No. 453 at 11). If the Court would direct the Clerks Office to remove
the filing from ECF for the moment, the Government can submit a corrected version today.
Thank you,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 Saint Andrews Plaza
New York, New York 10007
CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking on links.
EFTA00010103


c1: EFTA00013476
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013476.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Hearing on Epstein Motn to Stay (AMV)
Start Date: 2009-06-12 14:00:00 +0000
End Date: 2009-06-12 16:00:00 +0000
Organizer:
Location: J. Marra
Class: X-PERSONAL
Date Created: 2015-03-27 13:43:27 +0000
Date Modified: 2015-07-22 20:34:48 +0000
Priority: 5
EFTA00013476


c1: EFTA00013694
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013694.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Epstein
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:08:10 +0000
Importance: Normal
Hi
I had an unproductive conversation with Jay and Guy. They want to talk again on Monday at 10:00.
Can we talk this weekend or early Monday morning? Were you or Alex ever able to connect with
to get
his feelings on this? Thank you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Fax
EFTA00013694


c1: EFTA00014138
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014138.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "
(USAFLS)"
To: "
(USAFLS)"
Bcc:
"
(USAFLS)"
Subject: Re: Epstein
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:39:53 +0000
Importance: Normal
Thanks. I'll be there in 15 minutes and I'll fill you in on what
found out.
From:
(USAFLS)
To:
- (USAFLS)
Sent: Fri Nov 21 09:29:54 2008
Subject: Epstein
Remember (not that you would forget) the grand jury expires the end of Jan.
EFTA00014138


c1: EFTA00013552
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013552.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Epstein
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 15:28:45 +0000
Importance: Normal
In response to the possible further delay in the prosecution of Mr. Epstein, we have listed below the reasons why this would
have a negative impact on the Government's case:
The statute of limitations issue is the state statute of limitations. According to Detective
the statute of limitations is
three years from the time of reporting. The statute of limitations will begin to expire in Fall 2008 for five of the 16 victims
listed in the indictment. The issue is implicated in two ways. First, because of the state's leniency for the first set of girls, the
additional girls have been presented only to us for prosecution. If we cannot go forward, then there will be no prosecution of
those crimes. (In response to the argument that Joe should just present them now, we believe that some of the victims are
unknown to the defense and disclosing them further weakens our case by allowing them to depose and harass those
victims.) Second, our "state resolution" of the case requires Mr. Epstein to plead to something that hasn't been charged yet
so further delay will allow him to escape one of the terms of the deal he signed several months ago. (There is also a statute
of limitations on the private cause of action under 2255 pursuant to which he must pay damages to the girls. The delay will
allow him to escape responsibility for that term, too.)
Other reasons:
The victims are getting older. Clearly one of Mr. Epstein's arguments will be that he did not know they were minors. The older
they are when they testify the more plausible Epstein's argument becomes.
Several of the victims have relocated to other areas of the country which may become difficult should the case proceed to
trial.
The girls deserve swift justice so they can move on with their lives. The continued delay has had profound effects upon many
of their lives
is just one example).
The delay so far has led many of the victims to reach out to private lawyers which, in turn, let's Mr. Epstein's counsel argue
that they are only in it for money.
The grand jury we are using will expire soon. We have already presented more than a dozen hours of testimony and the
grand jury is invested and wants to indict.
Why give him more time? He has already been afforded more than a year's delay. This is not a white collar or other non-
violent crime. This is a child exploitation crime with more than 20 known child victims. We are mandated by statute and DOJ
policy to prosecute those cases vigorously and in a timely fashion - whether the children were prostitutes or unwilling victims.
the state trial for Mr. Epstein is set for early July 2008. I'm unsure of the legal issues that may arise from the
state prosecution and the effect they may have on the federal prosecution. Thank you for the updates and please let us know
if we can be of further assistance.
EFTA00013552


c1: EFTA00013920
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013920.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USAFLS)"
To:
(USAFLS)"
(USAFLS)"
Cc:
"
(USAFLS)"
Subject: RE: Epstein
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 19:24:50 +0000
Importance: Normal
are you back ? We need to spend some time together on the indictment. I was planning on Monday because I thought you were
back that day but if you're already back let me know. By the way,
and Alex have been very clear that we are not negotiating with this
guy any more in any way.
Thx.
Original Message
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:54 PM
To:
(USAFLS);
(USAFLS)
Cc:
(USAFLS)
Subject: Epstein
Hi
sent me an email about epstein wanting to do less time. I hope that his request will be denied. The original deal was
supposed to be 2 years so he has already gotten a big break. Plus we have identified more victims since we agreed to the 18 months. Please
keep me posted. Thanks.
EFTA00013920


c1: EFTA00010496
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010496.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
PLEA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
THE FOLLOWING IS TO REFLECT ALL TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT
Name: Jeffrey E. Epstein
Plea: Guilty X
Case No.
Charge
Count Lesser
Degree
06CF009454AMB
Felony Solicitation of Prostitution
1
No
3 FEL
08CF009381AMB
Procuring Person Under 18 for Prostitution 1
No
2 FEL
PSI: Waived/Not Required X
Required/Requested
ADJUDICATION:
Adjudicate [x ]
SENTENCE:
On 06CF009454AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 12 months in the Palm Beach County
Detention Facility, with credit for 1 (one) day time served.
On 08CF009381AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 6 months in the Palm Beach County
Detention Facility, with credit for 1 (one) day time served. This 6 month sentence is to be
served consecutive to the 12 month sentence in 06CF009454AMB. Following this 6
month sentence, the Defendant will be placed on 12 months Community Control 1 (one).
The conditions of community control are attached hereto and incorporated herein.
OTHER COMMENTS OR CONDITIONS:
As a special condition of his community control, the Defendant is to have no unsupervised
contact with minors, and the supervising adult must be approved by the Department of
Corrections.
The Defendant is designated as a Sexual Offender pursuant to Florida Statute 943.0435 and
must abide by all the corresponding requirements of the statute, a copy of which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
The Defendant must provide a DNA sample in court at the time of this plea.
Assistant State Attorney
Attorney for the Defendant
Date of Plea
Defendant
03/25/2015
Page 20 of 114
Public Records Request No.: 16-268
EFTA00010496

=== Page 2 ===
948.101 Terms and conditions of community control and criminal quarantine community
control.-
(1) The court shall determine the terms and conditions of community control. Conditions
specified in this subsection do not require oral pronouncement at the time of sentencing and
may be considered standard conditions of community control.
(a) The court shall require intensive supervision and surveillance for an offender placed into
community control, which may include but is not limited to:
1. Specified contact with the parole and probation officer.
2. Confinement to an agreed-upon residence during hours away from employment and public
service activities.
3. Mandatory public service.
4. Supervision by the Department of Corrections by means of an electronic monitoring device
or system.
5. The standard conditions of probation set forth in S. 948.03.
(b) For an offender placed on criminal quarantine community control, the court shall require:
1. Electronic monitoring 24 hours per day.
2. Confinement to a designated residence during designated hours.
(2) The enumeration of specific kinds of terms and conditions does not prevent the court from
adding thereto any other terms or conditions that the court considers proper. However, the
sentencing court may only impose a condition of supervision allowing an offender convicted of
S. 794.011, S. 800.04, 5. 827.071, or S. 847.0145 to reside in another state if the order
stipulates that it is contingent upon the approval of the receiving state interstate compact
authority. The court may rescind or modify at any time the terms and conditions theretofore
imposed by it upon the offender in community control. However, if the court withholds
adjudication of guilt or imposes a period of incarceration as a condition of community control,
the period may not exceed 364 days, and incarceration shall be restricted to a county facility,
a probation and restitution center under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections, a
probation program drug punishment phase I secure residential treatment institution, or a
community residential facility owned or operated by any entity providing such services.
(3) The court may place a defendant who is being sentenced for criminal transmission of HIV in
violation of S. 775.0877 on criminal quarantine community control. The Department of
Corrections shall develop and administer a criminal quarantine community control program
emphasizing intensive supervision with 24-hour-per-day electronic monitoring. Criminal
quarantine community control status must include surveillance and may include other measures
normally associated with community control, except that specific conditions necessary to
monitor this population may be ordered.
03/25/2015
Page 21 of 114
Public Records Request No.: 16-268
EFTA00010497

=== Page 3 ===
'943.0435 Sexual offenders required to register with the department; penalty.--
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a)1. "Sexual offender" means a person who meets the criteria in sub-subparagraph a., sub.
subparagraph b., sub-subparagraph c., or sub-subparagraph d., as follows:
a.(I) Has been convicted of committing, or attempting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit, any
of the criminal offenses proscribed in the following statutes in this state or similar offenses in
another jurisdiction: S. 787.01, S. 787.02, or S. 787.025(2)(c), where the victim is a minor and
the defendant is not the victim's parent or guardian; S. 794.011, excluding S. 794.011(10); S.
794.05; S. 796.03; S. 796.035; S. 800.04; S. 825.1025; S. 827.071; S. 847.0133; S. 847.0135,
excluding S. 847.0135(4); S. 847.0137; S. 847.0138; S. 847.0145; or S. 985.701(1); or any similar
offense committed in this state which has been redesignated from a former statute number to
one of those listed in this sub-sub-subparagraph; and
(II) Has been released on or after October 1, 1997, from the sanction imposed for any
conviction of an offense described in sub-sub-subparagraph (I). For purposes of sub-sub-
subparagraph (I), a sanction imposed in this state or in any other jurisdiction includes, but is
not limited to, a fine, probation, community control, parole, conditional release, control
release, or incarceration in a state prison, federal prison, private correctional facility, or local
detention facility;
b. Establishes or maintains a residence in this state and who has not been designated as a
sexual predator by a court of this state but who has been designated as a sexual predator, as a
sexually violent predator, or by another sexual offender designation in another state or
jurisdiction and was, as a result of such designation, subjected to registration or community or
public notification, or both, or would be if the person were a resident of that state or
jurisdiction, without regard to whether the person otherwise meets the criteria for registration
as a sexual offender;
c. Establishes or maintains a residence in this state who is in the custody or control of, or
under the supervision of, any other state or jurisdiction as a result of a conviction for
committing, or attempting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit, any of the criminal offenses
proscribed in the following statutes or similar offense in another jurisdiction: S. 787.01, S.
787.02, or S. 787.025(2)(c), where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim's
parent or guardian; S. 794.011, excluding S. 794.011(10); 5. 794.05; S. 796.03; S. 796.035; S.
800.04; S. 825.1025; S. 827.071; S. 847.0133; S. 847.0135, excluding S. 847.0135(4); S.
847.0137; S. 847.0138; S. 847.0145; or S. 985.701(1); or any similar offense committed in this
state which has been redesignated from a former statute number to one of those listed in this
sub-subparagraph; or
d. On or after July 1, 2007, has been adjudicated delinquent for committing, or attempting,
soliciting, or conspiring to commit, any of the criminal offenses proscribed in the following
statutes in this state or similar offenses in another jurisdiction when the juvenile was 14 years
of ago or older at the time of the offense:
(I) Section 794.011, excluding S. 794.011(10);
(II) Section 800.04(4) where the victim is under 12 years of age or where the court finds
sexual activity by the use of force or coercion;
(III) Section 800.04(5)(c)1. where the court finds molestation involving unclothed genitals; or
03/25/2015
Page 22 of 114
Public Records Request No.: 16-268
EFTA00010498

=== Page 4 ===
(IV) Section 800.04(5)(d) where the court finds the use of force or coercion and unclothed
genitals.
2. For all qualifying offenses listed in sub-subparagraph (1)(a)1.d., the court shall make a
written finding of the age of the offender at the time of the offense.
For each violation of a qualifying offense listed in this subsection, the court shall make a
written finding of the age of the victim at the time of the offense. For a violation of S.
800.04(4), the court shall additionally make a written finding indicating that the offense did or
did not involve sexual activity and indicating that the offense did or did not involve force or
coercion. For a violation of S. 800.04(5), the court shall additionally make a written finding
that the offense did or did not involve unclothed genitals or genital area and that the offense
did or did not involve the use of force or coercion.
(b) "Convicted" means that there has been a determination of guilt as a result of a trial or the
entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld,
and includes an adjudication of delinquency of a juvenile as specified in this section.
Conviction of a similar offense includes, but is not limited to, a conviction by a federal or
military tribunal, including courts-martial conducted by the Armed Forces of the United States,
and includes a conviction or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere resulting in a sanction
in any state of the United States or other jurisdiction. A sanction includes, but is not limited
to, a fine, probation, community control, parole, conditional release, control release, or
incarceration in a state prison, federal prison, private correctional facility, or local detention
facility.
(c) "Permanent residence" and "temporary residence" have the same meaning ascribed in S.
775.21.
(d) "Institution of higher education" means a career center, community college, college, state
university, or indopendent postsecondary institution.
(e) "Change in enrollment or employment status" means the commencement or termination of
enrollment or employment or a change in location of enrollment or employment.
(f) "Electronic mail address" has the same meaning as provided in S. 668.602.
(g) "Instant message name" means an identifier that allows a person to communicate in real
time with another person using the Internet.
(2) A sexual offender shall:
(a) Report in person at the sheriffs office:
1. In the county in which the offender establishes or maintains a permanent or tomporary
residence within 48 hours after:
a. Establishing permanent or temporary residence in this state; or
b. Being released from the custody, control, or supervision of the Department of Corrections
or from the custody of a private correctional facility; or
2. In the county where he or she was convicted within 48 hours after being convicted for e
qualifying offense for registration under this section if the offender is not in the custody or
03/25/2015
Page 23 of 114
Public Records Request No.: 16-268
EFTA00010499

=== Page 5 ===
control of, or under the supervision of, the Department of Corrections, or is not in the custody
of a private correctional facility.
Any change in the sexual offender's permanent or temporary residence, name, any electronic
mail address and any instant message name required to be provided pursuant to paragraph
(4)(d), after the sexual offender reports in person at the sheriffs office, shall be accomplished
in the manner provided in subsections (4), (7), and (8).
(b) Provide his or her name, date of birth, social security number, race, sex, height, weight,
hair and eye color, tattoos or other identifying marks, occupation and place of employment,
address of permanent or legal residence or address of any current temporary residence, within
the state and out of state, including a rural route address and a post office box, any electronic
mail address and any instant message name required to be provided pursuant to paragraph
(4)(d), date and place of each conviction, and a brief description of the crime or crimes
committed by the offender. A post office box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical
residential address.
1. If the sexual offender's place of residence is a motor vehicle, trailer, mobile home, or
manufactured home, as defined in chapter 320, the sexual offender shall also provide to the
department through the sheriffs office written notice of the vehicle identification number; the
license tag number; the registration number; and a description, including color scheme, of the
motor vehicle, trailer, mobile home, or manufactured home. If the sexual offender's place of
residence is a vessol, live-aboard vessel, or houseboat, as defined in chapter 327, the sexual
offender shall also provide to the department written notice of the hull identification number;
the manufacturer's serial number; the name of the vessel, live-aboard vessel, or houseboat; the
registration number; and a description, including color scheme, of the vessel, live-aboard
vessel, or houseboat.
2. If the sexual offender is enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at an institution of
higher education in this state, the sexual offender shall also provide to the department through
the sheriffs office the name, address, and county of each institution, including each campus
attended, and the sexual offender's enrollment or employment status. Each change in
enrollment or employment status shall be reported in person at the sheriffs office, within 48
hours after any change in status. The sheriff shall promptly notify each institution of the sexual
offender's presence and any change in the sexual offender's enrollment or employment status.
When a sexual offender reports at the sheriffs office, the sheriff shall take a photograph and a
set of fingerprints of the offender and forward the photographs and fingerprints to the
department, along with the information provided by the sexual offender. The sheriff shall
promptly provide to the department the information received from the sexual offender.
(3) Within 48 hours after the report required under subsection (2), a sexual offender shall
report in person at a driver's license office of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor
Vehicles, unless a driver's license or identification card that complies with the requirements of
S. 322.141(3) was previously secured or updated under S. 944.607. At the driver's license office
the sexual offender shall:
(a) If otherwise qualified, secure a Florida driver's license, renew a Florida driver's license, or
secure an identification card. The sexual offender shall identify himself or herself as a sexual
offender who is required to comply with this section and shall provide proof that the sexual
offender reported as required in subsection (2). The sexual offender shall provide any of the
information specified in subsection (2), if requested. The sexual offender shall submit to the
taking of a photograph for use in issuing a driver's license, renewed license, or identification
card, and for use by the department in maintaining current records of sexual offenders.
03/25/2015
Page 24 of 114
Public Records Request No.: 16-268
EFTA00010500

=== Page 6 ===
(b) Pay the costs assessed by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for issuing
or renewing a driver's license or identification card as required by this section. The driver's
license or identification card issued must be in compliance with S. 322.141(3).
(c) Provide, upon request, any additional information necessary to confirm the identity of the
sexual offender, including a set of fingerprints.
(4)(a) Each time a sexual offender's driver's license or idontification card is subject to renewal,
and, without regard to the status of the offender's driver's license or identification card, within
48 hours after any change in the offender's permanent or temporary residence or change in the
offender's name by reason of marriage or other legal process, the offender shall report in
person to a driver's license office, and shall be subject to the requirements specified in
subsection (3). The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall forward to the
department all photographs and information provided by sexual offenders. Notwithstanding the
restrictions set forth in S. 322.142, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is
authorized to release a reproduction of a color-photograph or digital-image license to the
Department of Law Enforcement for purposes of public notification of sexual offenders as
provided in this section and SS. 943.043 and 944.606.
(b) A sexual offender who vacates a permanent residence and fails to establish or maintain
another permanent or temporary residence shall, within 48 hours after vacating the permanent
residence, report in person to the sheriff's office of the county in which he or she is located.
The sexual offender shall specify the date upon which he or she intends to or did vacate such
residence. The sexual offender must provide or update all of the registration information
required under paragraph (2)(b). The sexual offender must provide an address for the residence
or other location that he or she is or will be occupying during the time in which he or she fails
to establish or maintain a permanent or temporary residence.
(c) A sexual offender who remains at a permanent residence after reporting his or her intent
to vacate such residence shall, within 48 hours after the date upon which the offender
indicated he or she would or did vacate such residence, report in person to the agency to which
he or she reported pursuant to paragraph (b) for the purpose of reporting his or her address at
such residence. When the sheriff receives the report, the shoriff shall promptly convey the
information to the department. An offender who makes a report as required under paragraph
(b) but fails to make a report as required under this paragraph commits a felony of the second
degree, punishable as provided in S. 775.082, S. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(d) A sexual offender must register any electronic mail address or instant message name with
the department prior to using such electronic mail address or instant message name on or after
October 1, 2007. The department shall establish an online system through which soxual
offenders may securely access and update all electronic mail address and instant message
name information.
(5) This section does not apply to a sexual offender who is also a sexual predator, as defined in
S. 775.21. A sexual predator must register as required under S. 775.21.
(6) County and local law enforcement agencies, in conjunction with the department, shall
verify the addresses of sexual offendors who are not under the care, custody, control, or
supervision of the Department of Corrections in a manner that is consistent with the provisions
of the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and any other federal
standards applicable to such verification or required to be met as a condition for the receipt of
federal funds by the state. Local law enforcement agencies shall report to the department any
failure by a sexual offender to comply with registration requirements.
03/25/2015
Page 25 of 114
Public Records Request No.: 16-268
EFTA00010501

=== Page 7 ===
(7) A sexual offender who intends to establish residence in another state or jurisdiction other
than the State of Florida shall report in person to the sheriff of the county of current residence
within 48 hours before the date he or she intends to leave this state to establish residence in
another state or jurisdiction. The notification must include the address, municipality, county,
and state of intended residence. The sheriff shall promptly provide to the department the
information received from the sexual offender. The department shall notify the statewide law
enforcement agency, or a comparable agency, in the intended state or jurisdiction of residence
of the sexual offender's intended residence. The failure of a sexual offender to provide his or
her Intended place of residence is punishable as provided in subsection (9).
(8) A sexual offender who indicates his or her intent to reside in another state or jurisdiction
other than the State of Florida and later decides to remain in this state shall, within 48 hours
after the date upon which the sexual offender indicated he or she would leave this state,
report in person to the sheriff to which the sexual offender reported the intended change of
residence, and report his or her intent to remain in this state. The sheriff shall promptly report
this information to the department. A sexual offender who reports his or her intent to reside in
another state or jurisdiction but who remains in this state without reporting to the sheriff in
the manner required by this subsection commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as
provided in S. 775.082, S. 775.083, or S. 775.084.
(9)(a) A sexual offender who does not comply with the requirements of this section commits a
felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in S. 775.082, S. 775.083, or S. 775.084.
(b) A sexual offender who commits any act or omission in violation of this section may be
prosecuted for the act or omission in the county in which the act or omission was committed,
the county of the last registered address of the sexual offender, or the county in which the
conviction occurred for the offense or offenses that meet the criteria for designating a person
as a sexual offender.
(c) An arrest on charges of failure to register when the offender has been provided and advised
of his or her statutory obligations to register under subsection (2), the service of an
information or a complaint for a violation of this section, or an arraignment on charges for a
violation of this section constitutes actual notice of the duty to register. A sexual offender's
failure to immediately register as required by this section following such arrest, service, or
arraignment constitutes grounds for a subsequent charge of failure to register. A sexual
offender charged with the crime of failure to register who asserts, or intends to assert, a lack
of notice of the duty to register as a defense to a charge of failure to register shall
immediately register as required by this section. A sexual offender who is charged with a
subsequent failure to register may not assert the defense of a lack of notice of the duty to
register.
(d) Registration following such arrest, service, or arraignment is not a defense and does not
relieve the sexual offender of criminal liability for the failure to register.
(10) The department, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, the Department
of Corrections, the Department of Juvenile Justice, any law enforcement agency in this state,
and the personnel of those departments; an elected or appointed official, public employee, or
school administrator; or an employee, agency, or any individual or entity acting at the request
or upon the direction of any law enforcement agency is immune from civil liability for damages
for good faith compliance with the requirements of this section or for the release of
information under this section, and shall be presumed to have acted in good faith in compiling,
recording, reporting, or releasing the information. The presumption of good faith is not
overcome if a technical or clerical error is made by the department, the Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vohicles, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Juvenile
03/25/2015
Page 26 of 114
Public Records Request No.: 16-268
EFTA00010502

=== Page 8 ===
Justice, the personnel of those departments, or any individual or entity acting at the request
or upon the direction of any of those departments in compiling or providing information, or if
information is incomplete or incorrect because a sexual offender fails to report or falsely
reports his or her current place of permanent or temporary residence.
(11) Except as provided in S. 943.04354, a sexual offender must maintain registration with the
department for the duration of his or her life, unless the sexual offender has received a full
pardon or has had a conviction set aside in a postconviction proceeding for any offense that
meets the criteria for classifying the person as a sexual offender for purposes of registration.
However, a sexual offender:
(a)1. Who has been lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or sanction, whichever is
later, for at least 25 years and has not been arrested for any felony or misdomoanor offense
since release, provided that the sexual offender's requirement to register was not based upon
an adult conviction:
a. For a violation of S. 787.01 or S. 787.02;
b. For a violation of S. 794.011, excluding S. 794.011(10);
c. For a violation of S. 800.04(4)(b) where the court finds the offense involved a victim under
12 years of age or sexual activity by the use of force or coercion;
d. For a violation of S. 800.04(5)(b);
e. For a violation of S. 800.04(5)c.2. where the court finds the offense involved unclothed
genitals or genital area;
f. For any attempt or conspiracy to commit any such offense; or
g. For a violation of similar law of another jurisdiction,
may petition the criminal division of the circuit court of the circuit in which the sexual
offender resides for the purpose of removing the requirement for registration as a sexual
offender.
2. The court may grant or deny relief if the offender demonstrates to the court that he or she
has not been arrested for any crime since rolease; the requested relief complies with the
provisions of the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and any other
federal standards applicable to the removal of registration requirements for a soxual offender
or required to be met as a condition for the receipt of federal funds by the state; and the court
is otherwise satisfied that the offender is not a current or potential threat to public safety. The
state attorney in the circuit in which the petition is filed must be given notice of the petition
at least 3 weeks before the hearing on the matter. The state attorney may present evidence in
opposition to the requested relief or may otherwise demonstrate the reasons why the petition
should be denied. If the court denies the petition, the court may set a future date at which the
sexual offender may again petition the court for relief, subject to the standards for relief
provided in this subsection.
3. The department shall remove an offender from classification as a sexual offender for
purposes of registration if the offender provides to the department a certified copy of the
court's written findings or order that indicatos that the offender is no longer required to
comply with the requirements for registration as a sexual offender.
03/25/2015
Page 27 of 114
Public Records Request No.: 16-268
EFTA00010503

=== Page 9 ===
(b) As defined in sub-subparagraph (1)(a)1.b. must maintain registration with the department
for the duration of his or her life until the person provides the department with an order issued
by the court that designated the person as a sexual predator, as a sexually violent predator, or
by another sexual offender designation in the state or jurisdiction in which the order was
issued which states that such designation has been removed or demonstrates to the
department that such designation, if not imposed by a court, has been removed by operation of
law or court order in the state or jurisdiction in which the designation was made, and provided
such person no longer meets the criteria for registration as a sexual offender under the laws of
this state.
(12) The Legislature finds that sexual offenders, especially those who have committed offenses
against minors, often pose a high risk of engaging in sexual offenses even after being released
from incarceration or commitment and that protection of the public from sexual offenders is a
paramount government interest. Sexual offenders have a reduced expectation of privacy
because of the public's interest in public safety and in the effective operation of government.
Releasing information concerning sexual offenders to law enforcement agencies and to persons
who request such information, and the release of such information to the public by a law
enforcement agency or public agency, will further the governmental interests of public safety.
The designation of a person as a sexual offender is not a sentence or a punishment but is simply
the status of the offender which is the result of a conviction for having committed certain
crimes.
(13) Any person who has reason to believe that a sexual offender is not complying, or has not
complied, with the requirements of this section and who, with the intent to assist the sexual
offender in eluding a law enforcement agency that is seeking to find the sexual offender to
question the sexual offender about, or to arrest the sexual offender for, his or her
noncompliance with the requirements of this section:
(a) Withholds information from, or does not notify, the law enforcement agency about the
sexual offender's noncompliance with the requirements of this section, and, if known, the
whereabouts of the sexual offender;
(b) Harbors, or attempts to harbor, or assists another person in harboring or attempting to
harbor, the sexual offender; or
(c) Conceals or attempts to conceal, or assists another person in concealing or attempting to
conceal, the sexual offender; or
(d) Provides information to the law enforcement agency regarding the sexual offender that the
person knows to be false information,
commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in S. 775.082, 5. 775.083, or S.
775.084.
(14)(a) A sexual offender must report in person each year during the month of the sexual
offender's birthday and during the sixth month following the sexual offender's birth month to
the sheriffs office in the county in which he or she resides or is otherwise located to reregister.
(b) However, a sexual offender who is required to register as a result of a conviction for:
1. Section 787.01 or S. 787.02 where the victim is a minor and the offender is not the victim's
parent or guardian;
03/25/2015
Page 28 of 114
Public Records Request No.: 16-268
EFTA00010504

=== Page 10 ===
2. Section 794.011, excluding S. 794.011(10);
3. Section 800.04(4)(b) where the court finds the offense involved a victim under 12 years of
age or sexual activity by the use of force or coercion;
4. Section 800.04(5)(b);
5. Section 800.04(5)(c)1. where the court finds molestation involving unclothed genitals or
genital area;
6. Section 800.04(5)c.2. where the court finds molestation involving unclothed genitals or
genital area;
7. Section 800.04(5)(d) where the court finds the use of force or coercion and unclothed
genitals or genital aroa;
8. Any attempt or conspiracy to commit such offense; or
9. A violation of a similar law of another jurisdiction,
must reregister each year during the month of the sexual offender's birthday and every third
month thereafter.
(c) The sheriff's office may determine the appropriate times and days for reporting by the
sexual offender, which shall be consistent with the reporting requirements of this subsection.
Reregistration shall include any changes to the following information:
1. Name; social security number; age; race; sex; date of birth; height; weight; hair and eye
color; address of any permanent residence and address of any current temporary residence,
within the state or out of state, including a rural route address and a post office box; any
electronic mail address and any instant message name required to be provided pursuant to
paragraph (4)(d); date and place of any employment; vehicle make, model, color, and license
tag number; fingerprints; and photograph. A post office box shall not be provided in lieu of a
physical residential address.
2. If the sexual offender is enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at an institution of
higher education in this state, the sexual offender shall also provide to the department the
name, address, and county of each institution, including each campus attended, and the sexual
offender's enrollment or employment status.
3. If the sexual offender's place of residence is a motor vehicle, trailer, mobile home, or
manufactured home, as defined in chapter 320, the sexual offender shall also provide the
vehicle identification number; the license tag number; the registration number; and a
description, including color scheme, of the motor vehicle, trailer, mobile home, or
manufactured home. If the sexual offender's place of residence is a vessel, live-aboard vessel,
or houseboat, as defined in chapter 327, the sexual offender shall also provide the hull
identification number; the manufacturer's sorial number; the name of the vessel, live-aboard
vessel, or houseboat; the registration number; and a description, including color scheme, of
the vessel, live-aboard vessel or houseboat.
4. Any sexual offender who fails to report in person as required at the sheriffs office, or who
fails to respond to any address verification correspondence from the department within 3
weeks of the date of the correspondence or who fails to report electronic mail addresses or
03/25/2015
Page 29 of 114
Public Records Request No.: 16-268
EFTA00010505

=== Page 11 ===
instant message names, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in S.
775.082, S. 775.083, or S. 775.084.
(d) The sheriff's office shall, within 2 working days, electronically submit and update all
information provided by the sexual offender to the department in a manner prescribed by the
department.
03/25/2015
Page 30 of 114
Public Records Request No.: 16-268
EFTA00010506


c1: EFTA00010331
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010331.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
86 Chambers Street
New York, New York 10007
January 6, 2020
By Electronic Mail and U.S. Mail
Roberta A. Kaplan
Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110
New York, NY 10118
Re:
Request for Information Relating to Jeffrey Epstein
Dear Ms. Kaplan:
I am the Assistant U.S. Attorney ("AUSA") who will be handling the request you
discussed with AUSA
for certain information relating to Jeffrey Epstein.
Because your request seeks information from Department of Justice (the "Department")
employees acquired during and as part of their performance of their official duties, your request
is governed by certain Department regulations-commonly referred to as Touhy regulations-
which, inter alia, prohibit any Department employee from disclosing such information "without
prior approval of the proper Department official in accordance with §§ 16.24 and 16.25 of this
part." 28 C.F.R. $ 16.22(a); see also United States ex rel. Touhy V. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951);
28 C.F.R. $ 16.21 et seq. The "proper official" in this case is Geoffrey S. Berman, the United
States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The Touhy regulations provide a set of
procedures for the United States Attorney to follow when considering such requests. See 28
C.F.R. §§ 16.22(b), 16.24.
A party seeking to obtain records or employee testimony from the Department must first
submit a written demand. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.22. To assist the United States Attorney in
evaluating your request, we ask that this demand provide a detailed statement of the information
sought; the litigation for which you seek this information; the pertinence of the information
sought to your litigation; and the availability (or absence) of means in that litigation, including
discovery, to obtain the information in question. See id. $ 16.22(d).
The U.S. Attorney will reach a determination regarding your request in light of the
considerations codified at 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.24, 16.25, and 16.26. Such considerations include,
inter alia, "[w]hether such disclosure is appropriate under the rules of procedure governing the
case or matter in which the demand arose," 28 C.F.R. $ 16.26(a)(1), and "[w]hether disclosure is
appropriate under the relevant substantive law concerning privilege," including law enforcement
privilege. 28 C.F.R. $ 16.26(a)(2). Disclosure will not be made when, inter alia, "[d]isclosure
would violate a statute or a rule of procedure, such as the grand jury secrecy rule," 28 U.S.C.
§ 16.26(b)(1), "[d]isclosure would reveal a confidential source or informant," 28 U.S.C. $
16.26(b)(4), or "[d]isclosure would reveal investigative records compiled for law enforcement
purposes, and would interfere with enforcement proceedings or disclose investigative
techniques," 28 U.S.C. $ 16.26(b)(5). Applying these considerations, the Department will make
appropriate disclosures when warranted. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.26(c).
EFTA00010331

=== Page 2 ===
Page 2
My understanding is that you may intend to make a formal written request pursuant to the
above-described regulations. If you choose to submit a written request, please send it directly to
me. We will act upon an application made pursuant to the Department's regulations.
Please contact me once you have had a chance to review this letter if you would like to
discuss the issues herein further.
Sincerely,
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
By:
Assistant United States Attorney
Telephone:
Facsimile:
E-mail:
EFTA00010332


c1: EFTA00010750
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010750.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Chris Dilorio
To:
Subject: FW: Apollo/ Epstein/Kushner connection
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 11:59:31 +0000
Attachments: IMG_7021.jpg
Inline-Images: image.png
So:
Leon Black/ Apollo/Schwarzman: Trump Kushner
Black/Apollo/Schwarzman: Epstein
Black/Apollo/Schwarzman: Putin/RU
https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-putin-fund-idUSL5E7KG0SI20110916
EFTA00010750

=== Page 2 ===
UPDATE 2-Putin gets SWF, PE backing for
Russia fund
* Apollo's Black shares platform with Putin
www.reuters.com
https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/33645/u-s-treasury-sanctions-russian-direct-investment-fund/amp
Black/Apollo/Schwarzman: money laundering shells
https://www.businessinsider.com/blackstone-dodged-a-bullet-with-knight-capital-2012-8
Blackstone Dodged A Bullet With Knight
Capital - Business Insider
A trader consulted by Business Insider said that Blackstone envied
Knight Capital's market-making team, which executed an average
of more than $20 billion trades last year and is designated market
www.businessinsider.com
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1082278/000092242313000183/0000922423-13-000183-index.htm
Knight/Trimark/Optimark born out of "worthless paper"/ Russian/US Mafia/ money laundering shell: Ashton
Technologies
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?
action=getcompany&CIK=0001003740&owner=exclude&count=40&hidefilings=0
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/us-attorney-lynch-and-nys-attorney-general-spitzer-announce-20-defendants-
indicted-50
U.s. Attorney Lynch And N.y.s. Attorney General Spitzer Announce 20
Defendants Indicted In $50 Million Boiler Room Stock Fraud Scheme | New
York State Attorney General
LORETTA E. LYNCH, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, ELIOT SPITZER, New York
State Attorney General, BARRY W. MAWN, Assistant Director-in-Charge of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation in New York, and RICHARD H. WALKER, Director of the Division of Enforcement of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, today announced the unsealing of an indictment charging 20
ag.ny.gov
Spitzer taken down by RUSSIAN hooker
https://nypost.com/2016/02/16/spizter-accuser-a-young-jobless-ex-hooker-who-lives-a-life-of-luxury/
EFTA00010751

=== Page 3 ===
Spitzer accuser was a $5K-a-night hooker
who lives life of luxury - New York Post
The Russian vixen who accused Eliot Spitzer of choking her at The
Plaza hotel is a divorced, globe-trotting beauty who once bared
all the dirty details of her life as a $5,000-a-night hooker, The
nypost.com
Any questions?
Cheers traitorous scumbags!
Christopher Dilorio
From: Chris Dilorio
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2019 8:03 AM
Subject: Fw: Apollo/ Epstein/Kushner connection
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
EFTA00010752

=== Page 4 ===
manipulate stock prices down). He said, over and over, that the crime was destroying public companies and
had the notential 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:
Subject: Fw: Apollo/ Epstein/Kushner connection
From: Chris Diloric
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 11:27 AM
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/Glas/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 Olkovóu, born 1953) is a Greek billionaire
shipowner, CEO of DryShips Inc. and Ocean Rig, and the owner of Cardiff Marine.Economou owns oil
EFTA00010753

=== Page 5 ===
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/nevs/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
Very Strong Court Case Against DryShips And
Kalani - DryShips Inc. (NASDAQ:DRYS)
|
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
EFTA00010754

=== Page 6 ===
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.htm
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.
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/vorld/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
I
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/
EFTA00010755

=== Page 7 ===
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
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
EFTA00010756

=== Page 8 ===
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
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
EFTA00010757

=== Page 9 ===
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
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
EFTA00010758

=== Page 10 ===
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
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
EFTA00010759

=== Page 11 ===
Subject: Fw: Apollo/ Epstein/Kushner connection
ESWW: A money laundering NASDAQ/OTCM shell
Milken degenerate Leon Black/Joshua Harris: Apollo
AND
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 | 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
EFTA00010760

=== Page 12 ===
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!
Christopher Dilorio
From: Chris Dilorio
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 1:04 PM
Subject: Fw: Apollo/ Epstein/Kushner connection
A little Steffie Avakian//Heiss/O'Melveny/Wilmer Hale/ Apollo/Kushner Home Cooking!
https://www.omm.com/professionals/howard-e-heiss/
EFTA00010761

=== Page 13 ===
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 | WilmerHale
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-ii-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
EFTA00010762

=== Page 14 ===
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
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?
EFTA00010763

=== Page 15 ===
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
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
EFTA00010764

=== Page 16 ===
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
$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 I 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!
EFTA00010765

=== Page 17 ===
Fucking A
I am good
Cheers!
Christopher Dilorio
EFTA00010766


c1: EFTA00011429
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011429.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Cc:
)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: FW: Defense powerpoint
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 18:15:43 +0000
Attachments: 2021.09.23_GM_defense.pptx
Hey
and
Apologies for the short notice -- we're trying to finalize the slides ASAP so Sunny has time to print copies before the end of
the day. Would you mind signing off on this soon if you have a few minutes?
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 11:03 AM
To:
(USANYS)
is
Cc:
Subject: Defense powerpoint
Hi
and
Attached is a draft powerpoint to go along with the defense closing. It's mostly just some summary slides, but there are a
couple exhibits (including a fake photo as
suggested).
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
New York, New York 10007
EFTA00011429


c1: EFTA00011048
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011048.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS) 1"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)
[Contractor]"
(USANYS) 6"
Subject: RE: Press release for tomorrow
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:30:40 +0000
Thanks. Sorry to bother, but do you have any indication as to when? (Our SEC counterparts have been continuously
asking.)
And for what it's worth (I realize this is out of our control) anything after Ghislaine Maxwell's arraignment at 2:30 won't
get much attention.
From:
(USANYS) 1
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 12:25 PM
To:
USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
(USANYS) [Contractor]
(USANYS) 6
Subject: Re: Press release for tomorrow
I will. I understand there is a delay in the presentment.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 23, 2021, at 10:58 AM,
(USANYS)
wrote:
Great.
you'll let us know when this is ready to be issued? Thanks.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 10:11 AM
To:
(USANYS)
(USANYS) [Contractor]
(USANYS) 1
Cc:
(USANYS) 6
Subject: RE: Press release for tomorrow
Looks good to me. Thanks!
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:10 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
(USANYS) 1
Cc:
(USANYS)
(USANYS) 6
Subject: RE: Press release for tomorrow
EFTA00011048

=== Page 2 ===
Attaching the
approved draft (with very minor edits) for final unit approval. Thanks.
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:02 AM
To:
(USANYS) 1
Cc:
(USANYS)
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS) 6
Subject: Re: Press release for tomorrow
SEC says they think they'll be ready shortly after 11.
Chief Public Information Officer
U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY
(office)
(cell)
On Apr 22, 2021, at 6:25 PM,
(USANYS) 1
wrote:
USPIS made an unexpectedly early arrest this afternoon in a securities case. The defendant will be presented
tomorrow morning in Florida and we'd like to release simultaneously with the SEC, which is filing a parallel complaint,
shortly after the presentment if possible. Attached is a PR, approved by
I took a stab at the
quote, but
happy to have you work your magic. Sorry for the tight turn on this one. Please let me know of any
comments/questions.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
P:
F:
<Franzone Arrest PR amg approved.docx>
<21 MAG 4261 SEALED
2021.04.19 Complaint Final.pdf>
EFTA00011049


c1: EFTA00014060
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014060.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Jay Lefkowitz
To:
(USAFLS)"
"Roy Black"
Cc:
(USAFLS)"
(USAFLS)"
Subject: Re: Jane Does V. United States
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:39:43 +0000
Importance: Normal
Thank you for sending this.
Jay
From:
(USAFLS)"
Sent: 10/08/2008 02:37 PM AST
To:
>; Jay Lefkowitz
Cc:
(USAFLS)"
i
(USAFLS)"
Subject: Jane Does V. United States
Dear Roy and Jay:
I am attaching the United States' Response to the Petitioners' Motion to Unseal the Non-Prosecution Agreement,
which was filed in the victims' rights suit filed against the United States by Attorney Brad Edwards on behalf of
two of the victims. In his motion to unseal, Attorney Edwards stated that he would provide notice of his motion
to counsel for Mr. Epstein. I do not know if he actually did so.
In our response, we oppose the Petitioners' motion, and point out that Mr. Edwards has filed a civil suit against
Mr. Epstein and that litigation regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement is more appropriate in that forum
where the real party in interest (Mr. Epstein) is a party to the suit.
<<DE29_081008_Resp to Motn Unseal.pdf>>
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Fax
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
EFTA00014060

=== Page 2 ===
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments.
EFTA00014061


c1: EFTA00013878
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013878.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Facsimile:
July , 2008
NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIMS
On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstein) entered a plea of
guilty to violations of Florida Statutes Sections 796.07 (felony solicitation of prostitution) and
796.03 (procurement of minors to engage in prostitution), in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for
Palm Beach County (Case Nos. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB and 2008-
) and
was sentenced to a term of eighteen months' imprisonment to be followed by years of
probation.
In light of the entry of the guilty plea and sentence, and pursuant to the terms of the
deferred prosecution agreement between Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "the Office"), the Office hereby provides
notice to Epstein that the following is a list of individuals whom the Office was prepared to name
as victims in an Indictment charging Epstein with violations of federal statutes enumerated in
Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255 (hereinafter referred to as "identified individuals").
The terms of the deferred prosecution agreement provide that the identified individuals
shall have the same right to seek damages pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255,
as they would have had if Mr. Epstein had been tried and convicted of those enumerated offenses
in a federal court. Section 2255 provides, in relevant part:
Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section
2422,
or
2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation,
regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue
in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual
damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable
attorney's fee. Any person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed
to have sustained damages of no less than $150,000 in value.
Thus, pursuant to the deferred prosecution Agreement between the Office and Epstein, the
Office hereby provides Notice to the 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. 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
EFTA00013878

=== Page 2 ===
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
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
EFTA00013879


c1: EFTA00011495
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011495.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: OPR Epstein Final Report
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:33:11 +0000
Hi
- I hope this finds you well. Do you have some time to connect early next week on this matter? If
there's a good time Monday morning, in particular, please let us know. Thanks,
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 12, 2020, at 10:06 AM,
(OPR) wrote:
Attached please find OPR's final Report in the Jeffrey Epstein matter, and a transmittal letter.
EFTA00011495


c1: EFTA00013467
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013467.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Updated: Conference Call re: Epstein
Start Date: 2007-09-27 19:45:00 +0000
End Date: 2007-09-27 20:00:00 +0000
Organizer: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)
Location: Alex's Office
Class: X-PERSONAL
Date Created: 2015-03-27 13:42:57 +0000
Date Modified: 2015-07-22 20:34:49 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2007-09-27 15:18:50 +0000
Attendee:
)
i
(USAFLS)
>;
EFTA00013467


c1: EFTA00011444
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011444.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Maxwell motions 1 of 3
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 23:08:35 +0000
Attachments: 1.25.2021_Filing_1.zip; 2021.1.25_Cover_Letter_to_Judge_Nathan_re_Pretrial_Motions.pdf
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00011444


c1: EFTA00011025
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011025.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 55 Filed 09/04/19 Page 1 of 1
FORDHAM
University
School of Law
Lincoln Center, 150 West 62nd Street New York, NY 10023-7485
Bruce A. Green
USDC SDNY
Phone: 212-636-6851
Louis Stein Chair
DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Fax: 212-636-6899
bgreen@law.fordham.edu
DOC DATE #: FILED: 9/4/19
Aug 30, 2019
Hon. Richard M. Berman
U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York
RECEIVED
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
CHAMBERS OF
RICHARD M. BERMAN
New York, NY 10007-1312
U.S.D.J.
re:
United States V. Epstein, 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
Dear Judge Berman:
Yesterday, I was provided a partial transcript of the August 27, 2019 hearing in the above-
captioned case, and I am writing to clarify the record.
As you know, I co-authored a New York Law Journal article before the hearing. The transcript
quotes the court, in pertinent part, as follows with reference to me and the article: "On a somewhat more
serious note, don't quote me on this, but it is my understanding that one of the authors of that article is
himself counsel in one of the Epstein-related cases. I was surprised to learn that very recently. I'm
certain it is true. I was also surprised that that aspect was not disclosed in the Law Journal." Later in the
hearing, attorney David Boies made comments consistent with those of the court.
Just to clear up the evident misunderstanding: I have never been counsel to Epstein or his estate
or to anyone in an Epstein-related case. I did serve as an expert witness, by way of expert declaration, in
support of Professor Dershowitz's motion to disqualify Mr. Boies and his law firm in
V.
Dershowitz, 1:19-cv-03377 (SDNY), a pending defamation case that might be described as "Epstein-
related." My work as an expert witness, which concluded in June, did not involve my representation of,
or advocacy on behalf of, Professor Dershowitz. I did not serve as counsel or as an advocate on
anyone's behalf in co-authoring the law journal article.
Very truly yours,
Bas
Bruce A. Green
cc: AUSA
Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.; Reid Weingarten, Esq.; David Boies, Esq.
EFTA00011025


c1: EFTA00009924
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009924.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
@bop.gov>
Cc:
@bop.gov>
@bop.gov>
)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: Re: Laptop for Ghislaine Maxwell (Reg. No. 02879-509)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 13:59:22 +0000
Good morning,
We will have a new hard drive with a new discovery production for Maxwell ready tomorrow. Would it be alright
if I brought both the laptop and hard drive to the MDC tomorrow instead of just the laptop today, please?
Thank you,
On Nov 16, 2020, at 2:01 PM,
) wrote:
Will do, thank you very much.
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From:
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 1:59 PM
To:
Cc:
);
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Laptop for Ghislaine Maxwell (Reg. No. 02879-509)
Drop it off anytime between 600 am and 1200 pm.
>>>
From:
To:
@bop.gov>
CC:
@bop.gov>,
@bop.gov>
i
i
)"
(USANYS)"
Date:
11/16/2020 1:58 PM
Subject: Laptop for Ghislaine Maxwell (Reg. No. 02879-509)
Good afternoon,
I am planning to bring a laptop and charger for inmate Ghislaine Maxwell (Reg. No. 02879-509) to use when
reviewing discovery produced from my office. Attached please find the accompanying cover letter, which I will
hand deliver with the laptop. I am available to make this delivery tomorrow. Would you please let me know what
time I should arrive with the laptop?
EFTA00009924

=== Page 2 ===
My understanding from
is that I should bring the laptop to the East Building, located on 29th
Street near 3rd Avenue and that I should go to the front lobby and ask for
who will then come and
retrieve the laptop. Please let me know if that is correct, or if I should take any different steps.
As always, I can be reached on my cellphone at
with any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00009925


c1: EFTA00013628
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013628.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
=
)"
</O=USA/OU=FLS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=
To: "
)"
Subject: Re: Epstein Follow Up
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:02:20 +0000
Importance: Normal
No.
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Original Message
From:
)
To:
)
Sent: Wed Nov 07 12:01:54 2007
Subject: Epstein Follow Up
Hi
- Any word from the defense, the State Attorney's Office, or Judge Davis?
Also,
just told me that two of the girls who were approached by private investigators are girls who were not part of
the state's case. Has the list of girls names been distributed to anyone?
Thank you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave,
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
EFTA00013628


c1: EFTA00014071
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014071.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "
(USAFLS)"
To:
(USAFLS)"
Bcc: "
(USAFLS)"
Subject: RE: Two things
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:14:02 +0000
Importance: Normal
Aaah, yes. I knew that it was coming, so I wasn't that surprised.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Fax
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 12:13 PM
To:
- (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Two things
The one about the turning over the agreement
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 12:12 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Two things
Which order?
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Fax
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 12:11 PM
To:
- (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Two things
Sure, have a nice weekend. I saw the Order (OMG). Sorry!
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 12:10 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: Two things
EFTA00014071

=== Page 2 ===
Hi
- Can you keep your eye out for any faxes for me from our Epstein friends and if one comes in, can
you scan and fax it to me?
Also, can you reserve the big conference room for Monday morning from 10:00 to noon for the
case?
Thank you!
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Fax
EFTA00014072


c1: EFTA00013869
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013869.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:23:26 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear Roy:
Jeff Sloman contacted me and asked me to return your call regarding the Epstein matter. I am forwarding to you
an e-mail that I sent to Jay Lefkowitz last night.
and I can call you at 3:30 to speak about your list of issues. If that time does not work, please let me
know what times you are available.
Thank you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Phone
Fax
From:
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 5:55 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein
Dear Mr. Lefkowitz:
I understand that the Deputy Attorney General has completed his review of the Epstein matter and has
determined that federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein's case is appropriate.
Accordingly, Mr. Epstein has until the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and
conditions of the agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein (as modified by the U.S. Attorney's
December 19th letter to
), including entry of a guilty plea, sentencing, and surrendering to begin his
sentence of imprisonment.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the number shown below.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
EFTA00013869

=== Page 2 ===
Phone
Fax


c1: EFTA00011438
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011438.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"The Invisible Man" <aace@dial.pipex.com>
To:
"G. Max" <gmax1@mindspring.com>
Subject:
RE: Re:
Sent:
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:30:20
I am overwhelmed at the kindness and generosity of the offers that are
being made for me.
I would love to do them all but fear that there would not be enough
time! However I am afraid that horses and I do not mix particularly
well but the trip to see the Lines sounds really interesting. As far as
food is concerned I am very easy and will fit in with whatever he plans
and I don't mind what time it is at all. As for girls well I leave that
entirely to you and Juan Estoban!
I am going to have more time after tomorrow to know what will happen and
when in Peru so I will be in touch again on Friday.
Masses of love A XXX
Original Message
From: G. Max [mailto:gmax1@mindspring.com]
Sent: 28 February 2002 00:30
To: abx17@dial.pipex.com
Subject: Fwd: Re:
>What do you think
Gx
From: "Juanesteban Ganoza" <jganoza@terra.com.pe>
>To: "G. Max" <gmax1@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re:
>Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:48:10
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
>
>Ok, before we speak on the phone...
>
>There are several things we could do on Sunday, depending on what he
feels
>like doing:
>
>We could ride Peruvian Paso horses in the morning > I would organize a
small
>group of friends and get a few horses and go either to the beach or the
>fields. Then we can go to a nice summer home and do a small / private
lunch
>in front of the sea, and at night we can go to a local restaurant. The
>night time on Sunday is not going to be so "active," as a lot of the
>restaurants are closed, and on Sunday nites people do not go out much
except
>to go to a movie ( so no night club going).
>
>Instead of the Peruvian Pasos, we could also organize a Polo game if he
>plays polo and would rather ride that type of horse.
V
>Or we can rent a small plane and go to see the Nazca Lines, and then go
to
>another place that is in the area called Paracas and go water-skiing
EFTA00011438

=== Page 2 ===
still
>in the morning. Paracas is a very special bay for water-skiing, very
flat
>in the early morning and very windy latter on. We can then have lunch
in a
>very nice private Hacienda near by or come back to Lima to have lunch
by the
>sea. Lunches in Lima on the summer time are late, around 3:30 pm or 4
pm
>(after lots of wine and beach).
>
>
>About the girls how old is he ? I doubt it that he will find
someone
>here, but we can try.
>| am leaving now to go to the gym. I will be back to my office early
>tomorrow; if you prefer to talk to me tonight you can reach me at my
mobile
>(511) 735 2000
>Besos
>JE
V
>
>
EFTA00011439


c1: EFTA00010619
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010619.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
)"
=
Subject:
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 00:14:50 +0000
Attachments: USGME00444198_native.pdf
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00010619


c1: EFTA00009800
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009800.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: MCC: AP sources: Feds investigate contraband flow at Epstein jail
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 22:36:45 +0000
AP sources: Feds investigate contraband flow at Epstein jail
By MICHAEL BALSAMO and MICHAEL R. SISAK March 5, 2020 GMT
AP sources: Feds investigate contraband flow at Epstein jail
FILE- This March 12, 2009 photo shows the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City. The federal jail in New York
City where wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein took his own life is on lockdown as authorities try to determine whether
someone smuggled a gun inside one of the most secure federal jails in the country. That's according to two people
familiar with the matter who spoke Friday to The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into potential misconduct by guards as
officials keep inmates locked down at the federal jail in New York where financier Jeffrey Epstein killed himself over the
summer, people familiar with the matter told The Associated Press.
The investigation at the Metropolitan Correctional Center is focusing on the flow of contraband into one of the most
secure jails in America and is being led by federal prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan, the people
said. They were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The criminal investigation comes as inmates have remained locked in their cells without access to their lawyers a week
after authorities began tossing cells in search of a possible gun that so far they've been unable to find. The investigation
started after jail officials received information that a gun may have been smuggled into the Manhattan lockup. Since then,
officials have canceled all visitation at the jail, which houses about 700 inmates. There are no signs of the lockdown
ending anytime soon.
The lockdown is just the latest crisis at the jail where Epstein died by suicide in August. Federal prosecutors allege that the
two correctional officers assigned to watch Epstein's unit were snoozing and shopping on the internet, and later forged
records to make it look like they checked in on him.
All visitors and inmates are searched before entering the facility and go through metal detectors. They are supposed to
leave personal belongings outside the jail. All mail is also screened by correctional staff. A gun smuggled inside would be a
major security breach.
In the past few days, officers have searched the facility and uncovered a sizable amount of contraband, including
cellphones, but no gun has not been found, the people said. Investigators are trying to determine how the contraband has
been entering into the facility.
The Bureau of Prisons said the jail is on "modified operations" because of the investigation. The bureau provided no
estimate for when normal operations could resume, raising legal concerns because the jail houses pretrial inmates while
EFTA00009800

=== Page 2 ===
their cases are ongoing.
In a statement to the AP, the agency said it must "take the time needed to complete a thorough investigation while
actively working to return the facility to normal operations as soon as possible."
David Patton, executive director and chief attorney of the Federal Defenders of New York, said it's a violation of inmates'
constitutional rights to deny them visits with their lawyers. He also said it has affected legal proceedings.
"Sentencings are being delayed. Hearings are being delayed," Patton said. "But the MCC acts as though it's perfectly fine
for them to just shut down the entire institution to look for contraband. It's just not acceptable. They've got to be able to
walk and chew gum at the same time."
Patton said federal prison officials have refused to provide information about what has prompted the current lockdown,
other than saying it is for "security concerns." They have not told the federal defenders that they are searching for a gun,
he said.
Patton said the chief judge in the Southern District of New York has been working with the U.S. Marshals Service to bring a
small number of people to the courthouse for individual meetings with lawyers, but they're capped at just five per day.
"It's just not nearly sufficient to deal with the need," he said.
The agency said Thursday that it arranged for additional staff from other parts of the U.S. to assist in the investigation and
ensure there is appropriate staffing at the jail. The agency said it "has maintained communication with stakeholders as
needed" and held a meeting with the chief federal judge and pubic defender in Manhattan, along with prosecutors, the
Marshals Service and probation officials.
The agency also said it has discussed a plan to resume legal visits at the jail on Friday and expects to allow full legal
visitation by next week. Visits with family members could resume as soon as this week, officials added.
"The Bureau has been working closely with the stakeholders throughout this period to ensure those defendants with
imminent court deadlines have the legal visits with their legal counsel as needed," the statement said.
Inmates are being locked down for 24 hours a day and lawyers have been told that on some units the prisoners are being
denied showers and being given cold meals in their cells. One inmate reported receiving peanut butter and jelly
sandwiches for every meal since last Thursday.
The bureau said inmates are on a periodic shower rotation, except for those in special housing units, who remain on a
regular schedule.
"All inmates have access to medical care and appointments and medical staff continue normal rounds on every floor," BOP
said.
Public Affairs
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of New York
EFTA00009801


c1: EFTA00013235
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013235.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 21:06:11 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.jpg
I can inquire with the vendor regarding the documents, but it could have been a lot of system files on the hard drive as
well as duplicate files on the hard drive as well.
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 4:57 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
is
(USANYS)
is
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
Hey
I leave it up to the AUSAs on your question regarding native files. The productions look good to me but I do have one
question. The drive that we sent to be uploaded contained about 41,000 files. In these two productions I only see a total
of about 22,000. Is that because there are some natives that couldn't be imaged and are thus not viewable on the
database?
Thanks,
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 3:10 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
i
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
i
(USANYS)
is
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
Hello,
All of the documents from this production has been bates stamped an is now available in Relativity for review. Please use
the following links below to review the production:
US V Epstein - SDNY_PROD008 - VOL-008 - https://d1pe.nss.pae.com/Relativity/go?id=1420850-2720682
US V Epstein - SDNY_PROD009 - VOL-009 - https://d1pe.nss.pae.com/Relativity/go?id=1420850-2731891
Please let me know if there are any issues with the production. Also, for this production please let me know if you would
like to produce all of the native files or only the native files that could not be imaged. Please note that for the native files
that could not be imaged there is a slip-sheet that says document produced natively and the file will be provided in native
format. Please let me know if there are any questions.
EFTA00013235

=== Page 2 ===
Thank you.
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 10:20 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
>;
(USANYS) [Contractor]
^
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
Oh and would you also please save them here once they're exported
\\Usa.doj.gov\cloud\NYS\StAndrews\Shared\USvEpstein-2018R01618\Discovery\GM\05 Fifth Production\T0 BE
PRODUCED
Thank you.
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 9:43 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
Thank you
Would you please start at bates number SDNY_GM_00328864 and mark all the documents confidential.
Thanks,
Will
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 9:37 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
>;
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
The below data has been loaded to Relativity and is available for review:
US V Epstein
FBI Case File
Images Seized During Search
2020-09-18
+
Evidence - Images
Can you please let me know what bates number you want to use for this production and let me know if there will be a
confidential stamp placed on these documents.
Thank you.
EFTA00013236

=== Page 3 ===
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 4:09 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
Hey
Is there a timeframe for when these materials will be uploaded? And in turn, stamped and downloaded?
is
looking for an update.
Thanks,
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 9:25 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
>;
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
The data will be loaded to Relativity. I will take care of everything from this point forward regarding the drive and let you
know if I have any questions.
Thank you.
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 9:22 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
Hi
I hope you had a wonderful weekend! I was wondering if you had a chance to look over the hard drive that
made on
Friday. Do you have any ideas for how we should best proceed for producing? Is Relativity still our best bet?
Thanks so much!
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 10:26 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
is
(USANYS)
is
)
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
1. Yes, we want to mark all of them confidential
2. We are working on that.
3.
I suppose database load files? We want to retain the files as they are currently formatted as best we can.
EFTA00013237

=== Page 4 ===
4. That won't be an issue. I don't think we will be searching through them; the purpose is just to be able to stamp
them.
Thanks!
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 10:10 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
>;
>;
(USANYS)
>;
)
Subject: RE: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
I know you want to produce these documents can you please tell me the following:
1.
Will you placing a Confidential stamp on these documents?
2. What bates number do you wish to use on the documents?
3. How do you want to produce the documents (single page tiff images, database load files or PDF production).
4. Also please note that once the documents have been loaded to Relativity there is no way to run any searches for
these images since they are mostly images and video.
Please let me know if there are any questions.
Thank you.
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 4:54 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
>;
(USANYS)
>;
Subject: Epstein/Maxwell Upload
Hey
We have some materials that we need uploaded to Relativity to the Epstein database for the purpose of stamping them.
The files in question number about 40,000 and are about 300GB in size. They are currently copying onto a drive to be sent
to Relativity and should be ready by tomorrow. Do you want to see them first or can they go directly to PAE?
Folder/Subfolder in Relativity: US V. Epstein
FBI Case File
Images Seized During Search
Thanks,
Paralegal Specialist
U.S. Attorney's Office SDNY
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Office:
Cell:
EFTA00013238


c1: EFTA00013592
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013592.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USAFLS)"
To:
Subject: Read: Conversation with Florida Bar Ethics Counsel re Epstein matter
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:17:15 +0000
Importance: Normal
EFTA00013592


c1: EFTA00010320
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010320.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: Gary Bloxsome
Cc:
Daniel Cundy
Jennifer Richardson
Bcc: "USAHUB-USAJournal111"
Subject: RE: Reference materials further to our call
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 22:37:41 +0000
Embedded: RE:_Reference_materials_further_to_our_call.msg
Sender:
Subject: RE: Reference materials further to our call
Message-Id:
<CY1P110MB0342CD55B72F34BC1B7D8A8892380@CY1P110MB0342.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.CO
M>
Cc:
Cc:
Cc:
EFTA00010320


c1: EFTA00009958
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009958.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
-1 = of 3-
FD-302 (Rev. 5-8-10)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date of entry
08/30/2019
Senior Officer Specialist, at Bureau of Prison's (BOP)
METROPOLITAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER (MCC), 150 Park Row, New York, New York,
date of birth (DOB)
was interviewed at the United States
Attorneys Office (USAO), Southern District of New York (SDNY), 1 St. Andrews
Plaza, New York, New York. Present for the interview were FBI Special Agent
(SA)
FBI Task Force Officer (TFO)
Office of
the Inspector General (OIG) SA
, Assistant United States Attorney
(AUSA)
and
S attorney, Natali
Todd. AUSA
advised
that the interview was in lieu of an
appearance before the Federal Grand Jury and is voluntary. AUSA
also
went over a standard proffer agreement. After being advised of the identity
of the interviewing investigators and the nature of the interview,
provided the following information:
started working for the BOP in February 2011 at Allenwood.
transferred to MCC in October 2013.
is a Senior Officer Specialist
(SOS) but also serves as a Lieutenant. This usually happens when
is
working overtime and is in the capacity of an acting activities Lieutenant.
stated that in order to do a round, an officer has to physically
go inside the area that is occupied by inmates. As an activities Lieutenant,
makes a round through the Special Housing Unit (SHU) and asks the
officers in the SHU if things are good. She is usually called numerous times
to the SHU for certain issues like when an inmate complains that he hasn't
received something, i.e. property.
then takes note of the issue and
advises the Captain.
As an activities Lieutenant,
sees a sampling of tiers at MCC
during her shift.
uses her PIV Card at a computer terminal to log
rounds. Each unit at MCC has a different log.
Investigation on 08/20/2019 at New York, New York, United States (In Person)
File # 90A-NY-3151227
Date drafted 08/23/2019
by
This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not
to be distributed outside your agency.
EFTA00009958

=== Page 2 ===
FD-302a (Rev. 5-8-10)
90A-NY-3151227
Continuation of FD-302 of (U) Interview of
,On 08/20/2019 , Page 2 of 3
works as an SOS during her normal shift, which is usually the day
watch, 8am-4pm. If
works overtime, she acts as activities Lieutenant
from 4pm-10pm.
has worked as a Corrections Officer in the SHU,
usually on overtime and on evening watch. During her shifts in the SHU,
has responsibilities pertaining to the inmates such as phone calls,
showers, and the library. The 30 minute rounds are recorded in TruScope and
on paper logs.
stated that she has not worked with anyone who didn't
do the rounds.
participates in the 10am count on the weekends but
during the week, a count is not done during her regular shift, 8am-4pm.
During the week,
leaves before the 10pm count is conducted.
During a count, all inmates have to be seen. The inmates are counted by
one officer, then another officer. If there are only two officers working
during a count, one officer will count the inmates, then the officers switch
and the other officer will count the inmates. The officers are to only count
inmates that are physically in their unit.
In the Control Center, an employee gets information from the person that
he or she relieves. While in the control center, one has various
responsibilities such as a fire security check, equipment and key checks,
and watching the cameras. The person that is designated as Control #2 is
responsible for preparing the paperwork for the count.
On August 9, 2019,
worked in the capacity of Lieutenant from 4pm-
10pm. During this time,
stopped by the SHU. She recalled that regular
activities and operations were occurring at the time of her visit.
fed inmates in G Tier and in 10 South, the high security unit.
recalled seeing JEFFREY EPSTEIN earlier on August 9 around 9am at the
attorney conference area. EPSTEIN was there with 3 or 4 attorneys who were
in and out of the facility.
recalled there being 2 females and 1
male. At one point, EPSTEIN had to get an officer's attention to use the
restroom.
was not in the SHU when EPSTEIN came back from attorney
conference. Usually EPSTEIN would be cuffed to go back to the SHU from
attorney conference around 7:20pm-8pm.
doesn't remember anyone talking about a phone call that EPSTEIN
made on August 9, 2019. She also is not aware of how either of EPSTEIN's
cellmates were selected.
only heard things in passing regarding
EPSTEIN's alleged suicide attempt in July.
EFTA00009959

=== Page 3 ===
FD-302a (Rev. 5-8-10)
90A-NY-3151227
Continuation of FD-302 of (U) Interview of
,On 08/20/2019 1 Page 3 of 3
does not know the particular procedures or guidelines regarding an
inmate who comes off suicide watch. She stated that usually that inmate is
put with a cellmate, but she does not know if this is policy or just general
practice. According to
as an SOS, she wouldn't know if EPSTEIN was
supposed a cellmate. A decision such as an inmate needing a cellmate would
be made at SHU meetings and/or department head meetings.
doesn't know
if EPSTEIN had a cellmate the day she was acting Lieutenant.
advised that the count paperwork stays in Control for 30 days.
After 30 days, the paperwork is shredded.
EFTA00009960


c1: EFTA00014129
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014129.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Letter re Epstein work release
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:32:28 +0000
Importance: Normal
is not in yet. We'll discuss as soon as he gets here.
Original Message
From:
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:19 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Letter re Epstein work release
Hi guys. Any comments on the Epstein work release letter?
is all ready to hand deliver it. Thanks.
EFTA00014129


c1: EFTA00010037
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010037.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
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
November 12, 2021
BY ECF
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Re:
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Dear Judge Nathan:
The Government respectfully submits this letter seeking clarification on two items from
the November 1, 2021 pretrial conference.
First, when describing the defendant's ability to cross-examine witnesses who will be
testifying under pseudonyms, the Court explained that:
All lines of inquiry the defense outlined in its response are available without
disclosing specific names of employers or other specifically identifying
information. For example, the defense can probe the genre, nature, and trajectories
of witnesses' careers without eliciting the specific employer name, but the defense's
cross-examination should not include specifically identifying information, and
counsel must act responsibly doing so.
(11/01/21 Tr. at 11:20-12:2). The Government seeks clarification before trial about the line
between permissible and impermissible cross-examination about the "genre" of witnesses' careers.
Specifically, the Government agrees that the witnesses can be cross examined about their
professions (e.g. that they are actors), and the general arcs of those careers (e.g. that they had work,
or they did not; on a TV show or in a movie). (See Gov't Reply ISO Mot. in Limine, Dkt. No. 393,
EFTA00010037

=== Page 2 ===
Page 2
at 17-18)
But there is no "particularized need" to identify the type of movie or TV show (e.g.,
an action movie as opposed to a soap opera).
(11/01/21 Tr. at 10:8-11). That information has no
impeachment value-the notion that an actor works on one type of show rather than another says
nothing about her credibility.
But it creates significant risk of identifying the relevant Minor
Victims and witnesses by narrowing the field of people whose careers match the description
elicited by the defense at the times elicited by the defense, and in combination with the other
information about them that will be available at trial.
Second, the Government seeks clarification that the Court's November 1, 2021 order
permitting witnesses to testify using pseudonyms or first names includes an order barring
courtroom sketch artists from drawing the exact likeness of those individuals. (See Gov't Mot. in
Limine, Dkt. No. 380, at 16 n.7 (making this request)); see May 6, 2019 Text Order, Raniere, 18
Cr. 204 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y.) ("Sketch artists
may not draw exact likenesses of jurors or witnesses
other than co-defendants should they testify
"). It would defeat the purpose of the Court's
order if the exact likeness of those witnesses could be drawn and subsequently publicized in the
media. Although courtroom sketch artists might voluntarily elect not to sketch these witness's
faces, the Government seeks an order so it can provide certainty to these witnesses in advance of
their testimony.
1 The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the
Second Circuit in Lugosch V. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although
this letter is a judicial document subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed
redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of the witnesses whom the Court
has authorized to testify using pseudonyms or their first names.
EFTA00010038

=== Page 3 ===
Page 3
Respectfully submitted,
DAMIAN WILLIAMS
United States Attorney
By: s/
Assistant United States Attorneys
Southern District of New York
Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF)
EFTA00010039


c1: EFTA00013543
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013543.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Re: Epstein
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:11:19 +0000
Importance: Normal
Do u think
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Original Message
From
To:
Sent: Wed Dec 12 07:48:03 2007
Subject: RE: Epstein
Yes! I originally nominated Bert, and then Jay asked if he could have a list of people from which to choose. We exchanged
lists of acceptable people (including two people from Podhurst) and he said "Well, we probably should just stick with Bert."
The problem only started when Bert sent a laundry list of questions that he and the firm's conflicts counsel had and we
started trying to set up a conference call. You then raised the Special Master issue, and I agreed that was best. Then
got involved and there was radio silence as they started communicating only with you.
Original Message
From
Sent: Wednesday, 12 2007 7:43 AM
To:
Subject.
1 question: page 2, 3rd par. states "since mr. Ocariz had been told that you concurred in his selection I informed (him) of
the office's decision to use a special master. "
I'm a little confused - did Jay originally concur with Ocariz?
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Original Message
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent: Tue Dec 11 17:20:55 2007
Subject: RE: Epstein
I am out today, but I will start pulling everything together tomorrow. We don't have transcripts of all of the state interviews,
but we have audio or videotapes of all of them.
I drafted the attached letter, which I would like to send to Jay.
<<071211
Ltr to Lefkowitz.pdf>>
EFTA00013543

=== Page 2 ===
From:
Sent: Tuesday, December 11 2007 5:17 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Epstein
In light of the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence, I've asked
to conduct a de novo review of the evidence
underlying the proposed indictment. I've provided
with the proposed indictment package but can you make copies of
the 302s, state GJ and interview transcripts, and any other underlying investigative information that
an review
a.s.a.p.? Thanks,
EFTA00013544


c1: EFTA00014076
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014076.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USAFLS)"
To:
(FBI)"
Bcc:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: RE:
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:57:45 +0000
Importance: Normal
Hey
- What addresses should I put on
and
letters?
Assistant U.S. Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
From:
. (FBI)
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:28 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject:
,
Hey take a deep breath!!!!!! I had not read your latest email or Tein's letter. I'm speechless but we must deal with
only one issue at a time. We need to, as u say, digest and disect. As I write this, the pain in my gut intensifies. I hope it
is only something I ate and not an ulcer from Epstein. Anyways, take a deep breath!!!!!!
Our legat has located what we believe to be a good address for
I need to come by and get her letter from you so
it can be included with the lead to Bogata.
address is:
Carrollton, Va 23314
Let me know what time to come by and also dont hestitate to call if you need something done. Hang in there(THIS IS
CRAZY)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EFTA00014076


c1: EFTA00011349
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011349.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Call
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 03:54:20 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002.jpg; image005.jpg
Hi
I checked with the public corruption supervisors and, at least based on what we know now, we don't intend to move
forward with criminal charges on any of the people you mentioned on the call, so you should go ahead with your
interviews.
From:
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 1:11 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Call
Can we do 1:30 pm today?
Special Agent
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
New York Field Office
US
New York, NY 10004
From:
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 12:38 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Call
Hi - Want to talk today? When are you free?
From:
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 9:15 AM
To:
Subject: Call
Good Morning
Please let me know if you have a few minutes to speak with myself and SSA
regarding the Epstein case.
Thank you.
Special Agent
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
New York Field Office
New York, NY 10004
EFTA00011349

=== Page 2 ===
DEPARTMENT
JUSTICE
US
SPECIAL AGENT
HOLDER
EFTA00011350


c1: EFTA00009807
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009807.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE:
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 19:50:30 +0000
Hi
- looping in
you can send to him. Thanks!
From:
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 3:39 PM
To:
Subject:
Hi
Can you let me know who's handling the Epstein investigation? I want to forward a letter we received.
Thanks,
EFTA00009807


c1: EFTA00013595
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013595.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
LAW OFFICE
Brad Edwards
AND ASSOCIATES
July 17, 2008
AUSA
United States Attorney's Office
500 South Australian Avenue
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Re: Proposed Stipulated Facts for In Re Jane Doe
Dear Ms.
:
Thank you for your recent proposed stipulation of facts in this case. I believe that we
have considerable common ground. At the same time, however, it appears to me that a few areas
of potential disagreement are arising. In view of that, and to avoid any misunderstandings, I
thought it might be useful to send a short letter outlining several requests and issues for
resolution before I send you back my proposed stipulated facts.
1.
I am working with two other attorneys on this case - Jay Howell in Jacksonville,
Florida, and Professor Paul Cassell in Salt Lake City, Utah. Because they were not in court for
the hearing last Friday, they will need to review a transcript of the hearing before our legal team
can agree to any stipulated facts. I have requested a transcript, but the preparation of it will
apparently take several weeks. Do you have any way of expediting the preparation of the
transcript by requesting it yourself? Also, as you know, my clients are indigent. As part of the
Government's responsibility to use its "best efforts to see that crime victims are ... accorded[]
the rights" in the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), I was wondering whether the Government
would be willing to pay for the transcript.
2.
Your proposed stipulation indicates that in September 2007 the U.S. Attorney's
Office reached an agreement with Epstein to resolve the case, which was then modified in
October and December of that year. While this seems plausible, to stipulate to the facts, I would
obviously need to see copies of those three agreements. Moreover, because the circumstances
surrounding the initial agreement and its later modification are now the subject of litigation, my
client is entitled to see them. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8) (victim's right to "be treated with
fairness"). In addition, your proposed stipulation states that: "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." I am puzzled by this
proposed stipulation, as your July 9 letter explicitly noted that it was covering only some of the
provisions in the agreement. Perhaps the fact that I have not yet received the agreement is all
just an oversight on your part, and you had intended to give me the "full terms" of the plea
agreement that was ultimately reached. In any event, the simplest way to proceed at this point is
for the plea agreement - and the earlier versions -- to be provided to me so that I can review
2028 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020
OFFICE:
2011
FAX: 954-924-1530/305-935-4227
EFTA00013595

=== Page 2 ===
AUSA
United States Attorney's Office
Page 2
them with my clients. Of course, no possible harm to the Government can come from the release
of the documents, as this criminal matter is now concluded - at least from the Government's
perspective.
3. I am wondering about your position on the confidentiality provision in the
agreement. As I understand things from your proposed stipulation, in September 2007 you
"reached" an agreement with Epstein's attorneys that "contained an express confidentiality
provision." Are you taking the position that this "express" provision barred disclosure of the
substance of the agreement to my clients? And, if so, would you stipulate that the FBI agents
and your office complied with the provision up through June 30 when, I assume, the confidential
provision expired as Epstein entered his guilty plea in open court?
4.
Your proposed stipulation indicates:
On October 26, 2007, Special Agents
and
met in person with Jane Doe #1. The Special Agents explained that the
investigation had been resolved, that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges,
he would be required to register as a sex offender for life, and he had made certain
concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims, including Jane Doe
#1. During this meeting, Jane Doe #1 did not raise any objections to the
resolution of the matter.
From the drafting of this proposed stipulation, it appears that you may be working from a Report
of Interview with my client (i.e., an FBI 302). My client has a differing recollection of some
aspects of that meeting. Of course, she did not take notes of the meeting. Therefore, I ask that
you provide me (the relevant parts of) any report of this meeting as well as reports of any other
meetings relevant to the matters at hand.
I believe that my client is entitled to a copy of (the relevant parts of) the reports of
interviews with her. Of course, a criminal defendant would be entitled to such documents. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A) & (B). As an innocent victim in this matter, my client 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").
5.
I am hoping that the Special Agents' and my client's recollections about one point
of the October 26th meeting coincides: that she was never told that the agreement blocked all
federal prosecution for the crimes at hand. Is a stipulation on that point agreeable?
2028 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020
OFFICE:
2011
FAX: 954-924-1530/305-935-4227
EFTA00013596

=== Page 3 ===
,
AUSA
United States Attorney's Office
Page 3
6.
You mention your assistance in securing pro bono counsel for Jane Doe #1 to help
prevent harassment. I trust that you would be willing to stipulate that you did not mention the
federal non-prosecution agreement to this counsel and that you did not mention that a plea
agreement had already been reached. Professor Cassell has spoken to Meg Garvin, Esq., at the
National Crime Victims' Law Institute, and that is her recollection of the events.
7.
I think that your proposed stipulation regarding my contact with the office is
somewhat abbreviated. I wonder what you would think about the following:
In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted AUSA
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
and Mr. Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being
filed. At the end of the call, AUSA
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 that existed in the plea agreement, Mr. Edwards was not informed that,
in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had reached an agreement not to
file federal charges. Mr. Edwards was also not informed that any resolution of the
criminal matter was imminent.
On July 3, 2008, Mr. Edwards sent to AUSA
a letter, a true and
correct copy of which is attached. 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
was still unaware that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached with
Epstein. Mr. Edwards first learned of this fact 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.
8.
I trust that you will agree that the Government had probable cause to file a
multiple count federal indictment against Epstein, including an indictment charging crimes
2028 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020
OFFICE:
2011
FAX: 954-924-1530/305-935-4227
EFTA00013597

=== Page 4 ===
1, AUSA
United States Attorney's Office
Page 4
against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. In asking for this stipulation, I realize that you have taken
the position that you would not have filed an indictment involving Jane Doe #2, presumably
because you thought that you could not carry the Government's burden of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. At the same time, though, I trust you will concede that the evidence in that
case was strong enough to pass the probable cause standard.
9.
Finally, in light of the fact that you have been sending letters to Jane Doe #2,
which was obviously done because you believed her to be a "victim" in this case, and since she
has been added in this matter as a victim, we would like some assurances that she will be
protected, as the other victims have been, in your agreement with Mr. Epstein.
Thank you very much for considering these issues and concerns. I look forward to
working with you to reach a stipulation that covers as much common ground as possible in this
case. If you think that further discussions might be helpful, I would like to try and set up a
conference call with you and my co-counsel to discuss these issues further.
Sincerely,
BSEL
BE/sg
Brad Edwards
Enclosure
cc:
, AUSA
United States Attorney's Office
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33132
EFTA00013598

=== Page 5 ===
LAW OFFICE
Brad Edwards
AND ASSOCIATES
July 3, 2008
AUSA
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
United States Attorney's Office
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
500 South Australian Avenue
7007 2680 0002 5519 8503
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Dear Ms.
As you are aware, we represent several of the young girls that were victimized
and abused by Jeffrey Epstein. While we are aware of his recent guilty plea and
conviction in his State Court case, the sentence imposed in that case is grossly inadequate
for a sexual predator of this magnitude. The information and evidence that has come to
our attention in this matter leads to a grave concern that justice will not be served in this
cause if Mr. Epstein is not aggressively prosecuted and appropriately punished. Based on
our investigation and knowledge of this case, it is apparent that he has sexually abused
more than 100 underage girls, and the evidence against him is overwhelmingly strong.
As former Assistant State Attorneys with seven years' prosecution experience, we
believe that the evidence against Mr. Epstein is both credible and deep and that he may
be the most dangerous sexual predator of children that our country has ever seen. The
evidence suggests that for at least 4 years he was sexually abusing as many as three to
four girls a day. It is inevitable that if he is not confined to prison, he will continue to
manipulate and sexually abuse children and destroy more lives. He is a sexual addict that
focused all of his free time on sexually abusing children, and he uses his extraordinary
wealth and power to lure in poor, underprivileged little girls and then also uses his wealth
to shield himself from prosecution and liability. We are very concerned for the health
and welfare of the girls he has already victimized, and concerned that if justice is not
properly served now and he is not imprisoned for a very long time, he will get a free pass
to sexually abuse children in the future. Future abuse and victimization is obvious to
anyone who really reviews the evidence in this case, and future sexual abuse of minors is
inevitable unless he is prosecuted, tried and appropriately sentenced. Money and power
should not allow a man to make his own laws, and he has clearly received preferential
treatment at every step up to this point. If he were a man of average wealth or the abused
girls were from middle or upper class families, then this man would spend the rest of his
life in prison. In a country of true, blind justice, those distinctions are irrelevant, and we
really hope he does not prove the point that a man can commit heinous crimes against
children and buy his way out of it.
If the Department of Justice's recent commitment to the protection of our children
from child molesters is to be more than rhetoric, then this is the time and the case where
the Department must step forward. We urge the Attorney General and our United States
2028 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020
OFFICE:
2011
FAX: 954-924-1530/305-935-4227
EFTA00013599

=== Page 6 ===
AUSA
United States Attorney's Office
Page Two
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 perpetrator. We will help you to do this in any way possible to ensure that true
Justice is served in this case.
Sincerely,
BSD
Brad Edwards, Esquire
Jay Howell, Esquire
2028 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020
OFFICE:
2011
FAX: 954-924-1530/305-935-4227
EFTA00013600

=== Page 7 ===
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
Item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired.
A E-We Signature
X
Agent
Print your name and address on the reverse
Addressee
so that we can return the card to you.
Attach this card to the back of the maliplece,
ENGLISH Name)
or on the front if space permits.
C. 7/7/08 Dateyof Delivery
D. is delivery address different from Item 17
Yes
1. Article Addressed to:
If YES, enter delivery address below:
No
AUSA
United States Attorney's Office
500 South Australian Avenue
3. Service Type
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Certified Mail
Express Mail
Registered
Return Receipt for Merchandise
Insured Mall
C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)
Yes
2. Article Number
7007 2680 0002 5519 8503
(Transfer from service label)
PS Form 3811, February 2004
Domestic Return Receipt
102595-02-M-1540
U.S. Postal Service
CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only: No Insurance Coverage Provided)
For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com
OFFICIAL USE
7007 2680 0002 5519 8503
Postage
$
Certified Fee
Postmark
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Here
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees
$
Sent To
Street A No.;
or PU Box No.
City, State, ZIP+4
PS Form 3800. August 2005
Sex Reverse for Instructions
EFTA00013601


c1: EFTA00010327
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010327.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: Nolle
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 16:06:25 +0000
Attachments: Nolle_letter.pdf; Proposed_Nolle.pdf
Hi! Hope you're doing well. Here's what we filed in the Epstein case
EFTA00010327


c1: EFTA00010451
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010451.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com" <etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com>
To:
Subject: Travel Authorization 11164814 approved by
, now awaiting further
approval
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 12:28:46 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Travel authorization 11164814 has been approved by
, now awaiting further approval.
Trip ID: 11164814
Traveler name:
Purpose: R20NYS13444 - Epstein Investigation - Witness interview
Destination: Santa Monica, CA, United States
Dates: 2019-12-15 - 2019-12-18
Current status: Pending Authorization Approval
E2 Single Sign On Login (within DOJ Network Only):
E2 Manual Login (User ID and Password):
Thank you for using E2Solutions. Help and support is available online by selecting the 'Online Help' link.
Please note: Replies to this mailbox are not monitored.
Some E2 email notifications are optional. To manage your email notifications, go to E2 Solutions to change your
email settings. Click 'Profile' on the task bar and then click the 'Edit Email Notifications' link to manage the
emails that you receive from us.
Reference ID# T0007
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you received this e-
mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail and any attachments;
any further use of such e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited.
EFTA00010451


c1: EFTA00010575
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010575.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: Accepted: Epstein Op Meeting with FBI
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:56:10 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00010575


c1: EFTA00013460
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013460.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Subject: Accepted: Epstein Call
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 21:43:04 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00013460


c1: EFTA00010203
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010203.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
(286$ Division MEGA4 Automated Litigation Support System
Account Request and Approval Form
For (286$ Division Users
To be used for DOJ (286$ Division employees and authorized
0 (*$ FRQMDFVRUVWIIIII
&DVH3 URMIFWQIRUP DMRQ
DJ NUMBER: 2442-0129
CASE NAME: US V. Epstein
LEAD (286$ DIVISION ATTORNEY NAME AND PHONE NUMBER:
(286$ CASE MANAGER NAME AND PHONE NUMBER:
iCONECT
s
RELATIVITY
LIST OF SPECIFIC CASES/PROJECTS FOR WHICH ACCESS IS REQUIRED:
US V. Epstein
End User Information:
FULL NAME:
EOUSA SECTION:
POSITION/TITLE:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
BUILDING/LOCATION:
EMAIL ADDRESS:
APPROVED BY
Date:
6,*1$785(
I
MEGA4 System Access - - EOUSA
Page 1 of 8
EFTA00010203

=== Page 2 ===
Department of Justice
Information Technology (IT) Security
Rules of Behavior (ROB) for General Users
Version 7.0
January 3, 2014
I. Introduction
The Rules of Behavior (ROB) for General Users pertain to the use, security, and acceptable level of risk
for Department of Justice (DOJ) systems. The rules highlight that taking personal responsibility for the
security of an information system and its data is an essential part of your job. As a user of the DOJ
Information Technology (IT) data and systems, you are the first line of defense in support of DOJ's IT
security.
The intent of the ROB is to acknowledge users' receipt and understanding of applicable IT security
requirements from various Federal and DOJ policies and procedures. These requirements include, but
are not limited to, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, OMB M-07-16, OMB
M-05-08, the Privacy Act of 1974, DOJ Order 2640.2 (series), DOJ Order 2740.1 (series), and the DOJ
IT Security Standard.
Who is covered by these rules?
These rules apply to all personnel (government employees and contractors) who perform general non-
privileged duties on DOJ information systems, access or use DOJ information, or provide IT services
to DOJ - hereafter referred to as users. All users are required to review and provide signature or
electronic verification acknowledging compliance with these rules to their respective Component IT
Security representative.
Certain authorized personnel may obtain limited exemptions for specific occurrences when performing
official duties. These individuals must document situations where equipment and software limitations
listed below prevent mission operations. In addition to this ROB, the user shall also agree to and
provide signature or electronic verification acknowledging compliance for the Privileged User ROB.
The system Authorizing Official (AO) will issue an exemption if the accepted risk(s) and justification
is documented and appropriate¹.
What are the penalties for noncompliance?
Non-compliance with requirements will be enforced through sanctions commensurate with the level of
infraction. Actions may include a verbal or written warning, temporary suspension of system access or
permanent revocation, reassignment to other duties, or termination, depending on the severity of the
violation. In addition, activities that lead to or cause disclosure of classified information may result in
criminal prosecution under the U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 798, and other applicable statutes.
Unauthorized browsing or inspection of Federal Taxpayer Information (Internal Revenue Code Sec.
7213A) is punishable with a fine of up to $1,000 and/or up to one year imprisonment. Unauthorized
disclosure of Tax Return information (Internal Revenue Code Sec. 7213) is a felony punishable with a
fine of up to $5,000 and up to five years in prison. In addition to these penalties, any Federal employee
convicted under Sec. 7213 or Sec. 7213A will be dismissed from employment.
I For additional information on mobile device exemptions, please refer to the Department of Justice Mobile Device and Mobile
Application Security Policy Instruction v2 (http://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/irm/itsecurity/documents/FINAL-
DOJ_Mobile_Device_and_Application_Security_Policy_Instruction_v2.pdf).
1
MEGA4 System Access - EOUSA
Revised March 2014
Page 2 of 8
EFTA00010204

=== Page 3 ===
Department of Justice
Information Technology (IT) Security
Rules of Behavior (ROB) for General Users
Version 7.0
January 3, 2014
II. User Responsibilities
A. General
1. Comply with all Federal laws and Department and Component policies and requirements,
including DOJ Orders and Standards. Use DOJ information and information systems for lawful,
official use, and authorized purposes only.
2. Do not generate, download, store, copy, or transmit offensive or inappropriate information
in any medium, to include e-mail messages, documents, images, videos, and sound files.
3. Limit distribution of e-mail to only those with a "need to know."
4. Do not open e-mails from suspicious sources (e.g., people you don't recognize, know, or
normally communicate with) and do not visit untrusted or inappropriate websites (unless
authorized). Only download permissible files from known and reliable sources and use virus-
checking procedures prior to file use.
5. Protect and safeguard all DOJ information, including personally identifiable information
(PII), commensurate with the sensitivity and value of the data at risk. Protect and safeguard
all DOJ information and information systems from unauthorized access, unauthorized or
inadvertent modification, disclosure, damage, destruction, loss, theft, denial of service,
improper sanitization, and improper use.
6. Verify that each computer-readable data extract containing sensitive PII data has been erased
within 90 days of origination or that its use is still required.
7. Upon discovery of a known or suspected security incident, report the incident to your Help Desk,
Incident Response Representative, Justice Security Operations Center, Security Manager, or
Supervisor.
8. Immediately report lost or stolen devices (e.g., laptop, phone, tablet, thumb drive) to your Help
Desk, Incident Response Representative, Justice Security Operations Center, Security Manager,
or Supervisor.
9. Encrypt all DOJ Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) data on authorized mobile computers, laptops,
tablets, and removable media (e.g., removable hard drives, thumb drives, and DVDs) using
Department-approved solutions unless a waiver or policy exemption exists. For classified
environments, follow the procedures required for those networks for data storage and transport.
All data is considered sensitive unless designated as non-sensitive by the Component
Director/Head/Office Head.
10. Read and understand the DOJ security warning banner that appears prior to logging onto the
system or mobile device.
11. Screen-lock or log off your computer when leaving the work area, and remove your PIV card, if
utilized. Log off when departing for the day.
12. Keep all government-furnished equipment (GFE) mobile devices assigned to you in your
2
MEGA4 System Access - EOUSA
Page 3 of 8
EFTA00010205

=== Page 4 ===
Department of Justice
Information Technology (IT) Security
Rules of Behavior (ROB) for General Users
Version 7.0
January 3, 2014
physical presence whenever possible. When it is necessary for you to be away from your GFE,
particularly at a non-secure location, secure all your portable electronic devices and removable
media, preferably out-of-sight (e.g. in a locked container).
13. Do not use Peer-to-Peer (P2P) technology on the Internet, such as Skype, BitTorrent, etc. P2P is
forbidden throughout the Department unless the Department's Chief Information Officer (CIO) or
designee approves a waiver.
14. Do not auto-forward emails from your DOJ email account to your personal email account
(e.g., Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail).
15. Ensure that individuals have the proper clearance, authorization, and need-to-know before
providing access to any DOJ information.
16. Consent to monitoring and search of any IT equipment that is brought into, networked to, or
removed from DOJ owned, controlled, or leased facilities consistent with employee and
contractor consent obtained through log-on banners and DOJ policies.
17. Properly mark and label classified and sensitive documents, electronic equipment, and media in
accordance with the DOJ Security Program Operating Manual (SPOM) and DOJ Order 2620.7.
18. Adhere to Separation of Duties principles. Understand conflict of interest in responsibilities,
roles, and functions within a system or application (e.g., duties of the System Administrator
and Information System Security Officer (ISSO) should not be combined).
19. Do not change any configurations or settings of the operating system and security-related
software, or circumvent and test the security controls of the system unless authorized.
20. Do not bypass native mobile device operating system controls to gain increased privileges (i.e.,
jailbreaking or rooting the device).
21. Do not use anonymizer sites on the Internet and bypass the Department security mechanisms
designed to protect systems from malicious Internet sites.
B. Classified Systems/Information
22. Do not process classified information on an unclassified system unless authorization is
obtained to support a specific job function.
23. Send classified email only on systems authorized for that purpose and for the highest level of
the classified data involved.
24. When in use, operate IT systems only in those areas or facilities certified for the highest
classification or sensitivity level of the information involved. When not in use, store a
classified computer, hard drive, removable media, etc. in an approved security container or in a
facility approved for open storage.
25. Use classified laptops and similar devices in accordance with the DOJ Removable Media
Requirements for Classified Systems, dated April 25, 2011.
3
MEGA4 System Access - EOUSA
Page 4 of 8
EFTA00010206

=== Page 5 ===
Department of Justice
Information Technology (IT) Security
Rules of Behavior (ROB) for General Users
Version 7.0
January 3, 2014
C. Passwords
26. Adhere to at least the minimum password requirements for the system on which you are
working.
27. Change the default password upon receipt from system administrator.
28. Do not share account passwords with anyone.
29. Avoid using the same password for multiple accounts.
D. Mobile Computing & Remote Access Users
30. Use mobile GFE (e.g., laptop, tablet, smartphone) for official business and authorized uses.
Mobile GFE is for use by DOJ personnel only (no spouses or relatives) and shall only connect
through an authorized DOJ remote access network when accessing the Internet.
31. Only authorized applications and software for mobile GFE can be downloaded and installed on
DOJ devices, and only from DOJ-authorized sources.
32. The use of Short Message Service (SMS) must be approved by the Authorizing Official. SMS
messages are be limited to non-sensitive information.
33. Only install DOJ-provided removable media, including memory and subscriber identity
module (SIM) cards, on mobile GFE.
34. Only connect to secure wireless networks where possible and take precautionary measures to
prevent the compromise of DOJ data when insecure wireless networks must be used. 2
35. Follow these guidelines unless explicitly authorized by the Authorizing Official to do
otherwise:
a. Do not connect non-DOJ mobile devices and/or accessories to DOJ networks. This includes
mobile phones, tablets, laptops, Bluetooth devices, and other devices requiring both wired
and wireless communication access.
b. Do not enable mobile device tethering via Bluetooth, Universal Serial Bus (USB), or Wi-Fi
hotspots on mobile GFE.
c. Do not access non-Government cloud-based services-such as DropBox and iCloud-from
mobile GFE.
d. Do not connect mobile GFE to non-DOJ information systems, to include personal
computers.
E. Virtual Conferencing
36. Hosts and presenters must provide participants with advance notice if the virtual conference
session is being recorded.
2 For additional information, please refer to the Department of Justice Secure Use of Wireless Networks FAQ at
http://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/irm/itsecurity/ises_team.php.
4
MEGA4 System Access - EOUSA
Page 5 of 8
EFTA00010207

=== Page 6 ===
Department of Justice
Information Technology (IT) Security
Rules of Behavior (ROB) for General Users
Version 7.0
January 3, 2014
37. Do not access a virtual conference presentation using an account with elevated privileges.
38. Limit presentation information to only that which is authorized for dissemination.
39. Delete all DOJ information on a provider's web site immediately upon the end of a virtual
conference.
40. Do not install any agents or other software designed to enhance or aid in virtual conferencing.
41. Employ strong participant authentication mechanisms (i.e., multi-factor authentication,
creating a pin, unique login credentials, etc.).
42. Enable logging and archiving to provide auditability of participant and host activity, as well as
enable/disable meeting functions (e.g., upload, download, desktop sharing).
F. Hardware
43. Do not add, modify, or remove hardware, or connect unauthorized accessories or
communications connections to DOJ IT resources unless specifically authorized.
44. Do not access the internal components of the computer, or remove the computer or its hard
drive from DOJ facilities unless specifically authorized.
45. Wipe all devices prior to reissue. There is no expectation of maintaining any personal
information, data, or applications on these devices.
G. Software
46. Do not copy or distribute intellectual property - including music, software, documentation,
and other copyrighted materials - without permission or license from the copyright owner.
Use DOJ-licensed and authorized software only.
47. Do not install or update any software unless specifically authorized.
48. Do not attempt to access any electronic audit trails that may exist on the computer unless
specifically authorized.
H. Remote Web Access
49. Follow your organization's telework guidelines when working remotely and/or accessing DOJ
information remotely.
50. Ensure the confidentiality of government information when using remote web access (e.g.,
OWA) from a non-GFE client (public or private). This includes the following:
a. When downloading attachments to registered non-GFE private computers, immediately
remove any extraneous attachments, encrypt them locally, or transfer them to an approved
encrypted USB drive.
b. Delete attachments when finished on registered non-GFE private computers.
c. Do not download attachments on unregistered non-GFE public computers.
5
MEGA4 System Access -EOUSA
Page 6 of 8
EFTA00010208

=== Page 7 ===
Department of Justice
Information Technology (IT) Security
Rules of Behavior (ROB) for General Users
Version 7.0
January 3, 2014
51. Do not print emails in public areas and with public non-GFE printers. Users may print with
non-GFE private printers at home. Users will be held responsible for the compromise of
Government information through negligence or a willful act.
52. Maintain a reasonable security posture (i.e., updated antivirus, local firewall, updated os and
software patch levels) on registered non-GFE private computers used for remote access.
I. Traveling Users
53. The Component Mobile Computing Operations Manager, or equivalent, shall notify the JSOC,
or an equivalent authorized SOC in advance, if you intend to travel to a foreign country with a
DOJ laptop that will accompany you during any portion of travel with the intended dates and
location(s) of travel. For travel to countries designated as high-risk counter-intelligence, the
use of mobile devices must be approved by the DOJ CISO prior to travel. Requests are
processed via email to both the DOJ ITSS Director and the DOJ ITSS Deputy Director.
54. Minimize the information on your IT system to what is required to perform a particular
mission while travelling and destroy copies of sensitive data when no longer needed.
55. Shut down IT devices when not in use or no longer needed. If the IT device is needed but not
the associated network capability, turn off/disable the network/wireless network functionality.4
56. Assume all communications (including cellular services) are being intercepted and read when
on travel in a foreign country.
57. Keep your remote access token separate from the laptop/tablet (preferably on you) when
possible.
J. Personally Identifiable Information
58. Safeguard against breaches of information involving PII, which refers to information that can
be used alone or combined with other information that can distinguish or trace an individual's
identity-such as a name, social security number, biometric records, the date and place of
birth, mother's maiden name, etc.
59. Report all breaches of information involving PII to JSOC through your Component's standard
procedures.
3 For additional information on foreign travel requirements, please refer to the Foreign Travel Laptop Use and Foreign Travel
Laptop Use Waiver Request forms (http://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/irm/itsecurity/jsoc-cyber-defense.php). For additional
information on the use of mobile devices during foreign travel, please refer to the Mobile Device and Mobile Application
Security Policy Instruction http://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/irm/itsecurity/documents/FINAL-
DOJ_Mobile_Device_and_Application_Security_Policy_Instruction_v2.pdf.
4 For additional information, please refer to the Department of Justice Secure Use of Wireless Networks FAQ at
http://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/irm/itsecurity/ises_team.php.
6
MEGA4 System Access - EOUSA
Page 7 of 8
EFTA00010209

=== Page 8 ===
Department of Justice
Information Technology (IT) Security
Rules of Behavior (ROB) for General Users
Version 7.0
January 3, 2014
60. Access, maintain, store, or transmit PII that you are given explicit authorization to and ensure
you meet required security controls. 5
61. Disclose PII in accordance with appropriate legal authorities and the Privacy Act of 1974.
62. Dispose of and retain records in accordance with applicable record schedules, National
Archives and Records Administration guidelines and Department Policies. 6
63. Do not perform unauthorized querying, review, inspection, or disclosure of Federal Taxpayer
Information. 7 (See Internal Revenue Code Sec. 7213 and 7213A at
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part11/irm_11-003-001.html#d0e176)
I acknowledge receipt and understand my responsibilities as identified above. Additionally, this
acknowledgment accepts my responsibility to ensure the protection of PII that I may handle. I will
comply with the DOJ IT Security ROB for General Users, Version 7.0, dated January 3, 2014.
Signature
Date
Printed Name
Component and Sub-Component
Note: Statement of acknowledgement may be made by signature if the ROB for General Users is
reviewed in hard copy or by email/electronic acknowledgement if reviewed online. All users are
required to review and provide their signature or electronic verification acknowledging compliance
with these rules. Users with privileged accesses and permissions shall also agree to and sign the ROB
for Privileged Users. If you have questions related to this ROB, please contact your Help Desk,
Security Manager, or Supervisor.
The Department has the right, reserved or otherwise, to update the ROB to ensure it remains compliant
with all applicable laws, regulations, and DOJ Standards. Updates to the ROB will be communicated
through the Department's ISES Team Lead and Component Training Coordinators.
5 For additional guidance on PII, please refer to Information Technology Security, DOJ Order 2640.2F
(https://portal.doj.gov/sites/dm/dm/Directives/2640.2F.pdf).
6 For disposal guidance, please refer to Records Management, DOJ Order 2710.11
(https://portal.doj.gov/sites/dm/dm/Directives/2710.11.pdf).
7
For additional information on disclosure of federal taxpayer information, please refer to Internal Revenue Code Sec. 7213 and
7213A (http://www.irs.gov/irm/part11/irm_11-003-001.html#d0e176).
7
MEGA4 System Access - EOUSA
Page 8 of 8
EFTA00010210


c1: EFTA00009923
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009923.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To: BOBBI C STERNHEIM <bcsternheim@mac.com>,
i
Cc:
)"
i
)"
Bcc:
"
Subject: RE: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:06:59 +0000
Embedded: RE:_Ghislaine_Maxwell_02879-509.msg
Sender:
Subject: RE: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509
Message-Id:
<SN5P110MB0542D558E0A3C80FEA96353E92E30@SN5P110MB0542.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
>
To:
To:
Cc:
Cc:
EFTA00009923


c1: EFTA00014152
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014152.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: Roy BLACK <RBLACK@royblack.com>
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:28:31 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: 081124
ltr_to_Black.pdf
Dear Roy:
Please review the attached letter.
Thank you.
<<081124 Villafana Itr to Black.pdf>:
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Phone
-
Fax
EFTA00014152


c1: EFTA00013538
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013538.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. Department of Justice
USA
United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
December 11, 2007
DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Citigroup Center
153 East 53rd Street
New York, New York 10022-4675
Re:
Jeffrey Epstein
Dear Jay:
I am writing not to respond to your asserted "policy concerns" regarding Mr. Epstein's Non-
Prosecution Agreement, which will be addressed by the United States Attorney, but the time has
come for me to respond to the ever-increasing attacks on my role in the investigation and
negotiations.
It is an understatement to say that I am surprised by your allegations regarding my role
because I thought that we had worked very well together in resolving this dispute and because I had
described you to others as a man of integrity. I also am surprised because I feel that I bent over
backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement would have on Mr. Epstein and to make
sure that you (and he) understood the repercussions of the agreement. For example, I brought to
your attention that one potential plea could result in no gain time for your client; I correct one of
your calculations of the Sentencing Guidelines that would have resulted in Mr. Epstein spending far
more time in prison than you projected; I contacted the Bureau of Prisons to see whether Mr. Epstein
would be eligible for the prison camp that you desired; and I told you my suspicions about the
source of the press "leak" and suggested ways to avoid the press. Importantly, I continued to work
with you in a professional manner even after I learned that you had been proceeding in bad faith for
several weeks - thinking that I had incorrectly concluded that solicitation of minors to engage in
prostitution was a registrable offense and that you would "fool" our Office into letting Mr. Epstein
plead to a non-registrable offense. Even now, when it is clear that neither you nor your client ever
intended to abide by the terms of the agreement that he signed, I have never alleged misconduct on
your part.
The first allegation that you raise is that I "assiduously" hid from you the fact that Bert
EFTA00013538

=== Page 2 ===
JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, EsQ.
DECEMBER 11, 2007
PAGE 2 OF 5
Ocariz is a friend of my boyfriend and that I have a "longstanding relationship" with Mr. Ocariz.
I informed you that I selected Mr. Ocariz because he was a friend and classmate of two people
whom I respected, and that I had never met or spoken with Mr. Ocariz prior to contacting him about
this case. All of those facts are true. I still have never met Mr. Ocariz, and, at the time that he and
I spoke about this case, he did not know about my relationship with his friend. You suggest that I
should have explicitly informed you that one of the referrals came from my "boyfriend" rather than
simply a "friend," which is the term I used, but it is not my nature to discuss my personal
relationships with opposing counsel. Your attacks on me and on the victims establish why I wanted
to find someone whom I could trust with safeguarding the victims' best interests in the face of
intense pressure from an unlimited number of highly skilled and well paid attorneys. Mr. Ocariz
was that person.
One of your letters suggests a business relationship between Mr. Ocariz and my boyfriend.
This is patently untrue and neither my boyfriend nor I would have received any financial benefit
from Mr. Ocariz's appointment. Furthermore, after Mr. Ocariz learned more about Mr. Epstein's
actions (as described below), he expressed a willingness to handle the case pro bono, with no
financial benefit even to himself. Furthermore, you were given several other options to choose from,
including the Podhurst firm, which was later selected by Judge Davis. You rejected those other
options.
You also allege that I improperly disclosed information about the case to Mr. Ocariz. I
provided Mr. Ocariz with a bare bones summary of the agreement's terms related to his appointment
to help him decide whether the case was something he and his firm would be willing to undertake.
I did not provide Mr. Ocariz with facts related to the investigation because they were confidential
and instead recommended that he "Google" Mr. Epstein's name for background information. When
Mr. Ocariz asked for additional information to assist his firm in addressing conflicts issues, I
forwarded those questions to you, and you raised objections for the first time. I did not share any
further information about Mr. Epstein or the case. Since Mr. Ocariz had been told that you
concurred in his selection, out of professional courtesy, I informed Mr. Ocariz of the Office's
decision to use a Special Master to make the selection and told him that the Office had made contact
with Judge Davis. We have had no further contact since then and I have never had contact with
Judge Davis. I understand from you that Mr. Ocariz contacted Judge Davis. You criticize his
decision to do so, yet you feel that you and your co-counsel were entitled to contact Judge Davis to
try to "lobby" him to select someone to your liking, despite the fact that the Non-Prosecution
Agreement vested the Office with the exclusive right to select the attorney representative.
Another reason for my surprise about your allegations regarding misconduct related to the
Section 2255 litigation is your earlier desire to have me perform the role of "facilitator" to convince
the victims that the lawyer representative was selected by the Office to represent their interests alone
and that the out-of-court settlement of their claims was in their best interests. You now state that
doing the same things that you had asked me to do earlier is improper meddling in civil litigation.
EFTA00013539

=== Page 3 ===
JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, EsQ.
DECEMBER 11, 2007
PAGE 3 OF 5
Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective
investigation that have
already been submitted to the Office on several occasions and you suggest that I have kept that
information from those who reviewed the proposed indictment package. Contrary to your
suggestion, those submissions were attached to and incorporated in the proposed indictment
package, so your suggestion that I tried to hide something from the reviewers is false. I also take
issue with the duplicity of stating that we must accept as true those parts of the
eports and
witness statements that you like and we must accept as false those parts that you do not like. You
and your co-counsel also impressed upon me from the beginning the need to undertake an
independent investigation. It seems inappropriate now to complain because our independent
investigation uncovered facts that are unfavorable to your client.
You complain that I "forced" your client and the State Attorney's Office to proceed on
charges that they do not believe in, yet you do not want our Office to inform the State Attorney's
Office of facts that support the additional charge nor do you want any of the victims of that charge
to contact Ms.
or the Court. Ms.
opinion may change if she knows the full
scope of your client's actions. Also, it has always been my intention to have Mr. Epstein plead to
federal, not state, charges. You and I spent several weeks trying to identify and put together a plea
to federal charges that your client was willing to accept. Yet your letter now accuses me of
"manufacturing" charges of obstruction of justice, making obscene phone calls, and violating child
privacy laws. When Mr.
told you that those charges would "embarrass the Office," he meant
that the Office was unwilling to bend the facts to satisfy Mr. Epstein's desired prison sentence - a
statement with which I agree.
I hope that you understand how your accusations that I imposed "ultimatums" and "forced"
you and your client to agree to unconscionable contract terms cannot square with the true facts of
this case. As explained in letters from Messrs. Acosta and
the indictment was postponed
for more than five months to allow you and Mr. Epstein's other attorneys to make presentations to
the Office to convince the Office not to prosecute. Those presentations were unsuccessful. As you
mention in your letter, I-a simple line AUSA - handled the primary negotiations for the Office, and
conducted those negotiations with you, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Lewis, and a host of other highly skilled
and experienced practitioners. The agreement itself was signed by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Sanchez, and
Mr. Lefcourt, whose experience speaks for itself. You and I spent hours negotiating the terms,
including when to use "a" versus "the" and other minutiae. When you and I could not reach
agreement, you repeatedly went over my head, involving Messrs
and
Acosta in the negotiations at various times. In any and all plea negotiations the defendant
understands that his options are to plead or to continue with the investigation and proceed to trial.
Those were the same options that were proposed to Mr. Epstein, and they are not "persecution or
intimidation tactics." Mr. Epstein chose to sign the agreement with the advice of a multitude of
extremely noteworthy counsel.
You also make much of the fact that the names of the victims were not released to Mr.
Epstein prior to signing the Agreement. You never asked for such a term. During an earlier
EFTA00013540

=== Page 4 ===
JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, EsQ.
DECEMBER 11, 2007
PAGE 4 OF 5
meeting, where Mr. Black was present, he raised the concern that you now voice. Mr. Black and
I did not have a chance to discuss the issue, but I had already conceived of a way to resolve that
issue if it were raised during negotiations. As I stated, it was not, leading me to believe that it was
not a matter of concern to the defense. Since the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the
agents and I have vetted the list of victims more than once. In one instance, we decided to remove
a name because, although the minor victim was touched inappropriately by Mr. Epstein, we decided
that the link to a payment was insufficient to call it "prostitution." I have always remained open to
a challenge to the list, so your suggestion that Mr. Epstein was forced to write a blank check is
simply unfounded.
Your last set of allegations relates to the investigation of the matter. For instance, you claim
that some of the victims were informed of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough
investigation of their allegations against Mr. Epstein. This also is false. None of the victims was
informed of the right to sue under Section 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three
victims were notified shortly after the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement of the general
terms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further
notifications were done. Throughout this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as
though it would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility of damages claims prior
to concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case. If my reassurances are
insufficient, the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein should assure you of
the integrity of the investigation.
With respect to Ms
I contacted her attorney - who was paid for by Mr. Epstein and
was directed by counsel for Mr. Epstein to demand immunity - and asked only whether he still
represented Ms.
and if he wanted me to send the victim notification letter to him. He asked
what the letter would say and I told him that the letter would be forthcoming in about a week and
that I could not provide him with the terms. With respect to Ms.
status as a victim, you
again want us to accept as true only facts that are beneficial to your client and to reject as false
anything detrimental to him. Ms.
made a number of statements that are contradicted by
documentary evidence and a review of her recorded statement shows her lack of credibility with
respect to a number of statements. Based upon all of the evidence collected, Ms.
is classified
as a victim as defined by statute. Of course, that does not mean that Ms.
considers herself
a victim or that she would seek damages from Mr. Epstein. I believe that a number of the identified
victims will not seek damages, but that does not negate their legal status as victims.
I understand that you and your co-counsel perceive a strategic advantage to removing me
from the case, and that perhaps my willingness to allow others to speak for me emboldened your
There are numerous other unfounded allegations in your letter about document demands,
the money laundering investigation, contacting potential witnesses, speaking with the press, and the
like. These allegations have been raised and disproven earlier and need not be readdressed.
EFTA00013541

=== Page 5 ===
JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, EsQ.
DECEMBER 11, 2007
PAGE 5 OF 5
criticisms. I hope that you now understand that your accusations are unfounded, and that you can
no longer continue unchecked your attack on the credibility of myself and the agents. In the future,
I recommend that you address your accusations to me so that I can correct any misunderstandings
before you make false allegations to others in the Department.
Sincerely,
R. Alexander Acosta
United States Attorney
By:
cc:
R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney
EFTA00013542


c1: EFTA00010507
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010507.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 1 of 33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA
JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2,
Petitioners,
vs.
UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court upon Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (DE 361); the United States's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE
408); Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion to Compel Answers (DE 348) and Jane Doe 1 and
Jane Doe 2's Motion for Finding Waiver of Work Product and Similar Protections by
Government and for Production of Documents (DE 414). The Motions are fully briefed and ripe
for review. The Court has carefully considered the Motions and is otherwise fully advised in the
premises.
I. Background
The facts, as culled from affidavits, exhibits, depositions, answers to interrogatories and
reasonably inferred, for the purpose of these motions, are as follows:
From between about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor
girls, including Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (hereinafter, "Petitioners"), at his mansion
in Palm Beach, Florida, and elsewhere in the United States and overseas. (Government Resp. to
Petitioner's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (hereinafter, "DE 407" at 1.) Because
EFTA00010507

=== Page 2 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 2 of 33
Epstein and his co-conspirators knowingly traveled in interstate and international commerce to
sexually abuse Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 and others, they committed violations of not only Florida
law, but also federal law. (DE 407 at (2.) In addition to his own sexual abuse of the victims,
Epstein directed other persons to abuse the girls sexually. (DE 407 at 3.) Epstein used paid
employees to find and bring minor girls to him. Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain
minors not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others.
(DE 407 at 8.)
In 2005, the Town of Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") received a complaint
from the parents of a 14 year old girl about her sexual abuse by Jeffery Epstein. The PBPD
ultimately identified approximately 20 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 who were sexually
abused by Epstein. (DE 407 at 4.) In 2006, at the request of the PBPD, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation ("FBI") opened an investigation into allegations that Epstein and his personal
assistants used the facilities of interstate commerce to induce girls between the ages of 14 and 17
to engage in illegal sexual activities. (DE 407 at 5.) The FBI ultimately determined that both
Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were victims of sexual abuse by Epstein while they were minors. Jane
Doe 1 provided information about her abuse and Jane Doe 2's abuse to the FBI on August 7,
2007. (DE 407 at 1 6.)
From January of 2007 through September of 2007, discussions took place between the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("the Office") and Jeffrey Epstein's
attorneys. (DE 407 at 9.) On February 1, 2007, Epstein's defense team sent a 24-page letter to
the Office going over what they intended to present during a meeting at the Office the same day.
(DE 407 at 1 10.)
2
EFTA00010508

=== Page 3 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 3 of 33
By March 15, 2007, the Office was sending letters to victims informing them of their
rights pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"). (DE 407 at 1 11.) By May of 2007,
the Office had drafted an 82-page prosecution memorandum and a 53-page indictment outlining
numerous federal sexual offenses committed by Epstein. (DE 407 at 1 12.) On or about June 7,
2007, FBI agents had delivered to Jane Doe 1 a standard CVRA victim notification letter. The
notification letter promised that the Justice Department would make its "best efforts" to protect
Jane Doe 1's rights, including "the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United
States in the case" and " to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving [a] plea." The notification further stated that, "[a]t this time, your case is under
investigation." (DE 407 at 1 13.) Jane Doe 1 relied on those representations and believed that the
Government would protect those rights and keep her informed about the progress of her case.
(DE 407 at 1 14.)
On July 6, 2007, Epstein's lawyers sent a 23-page letter lodging numerous arguments to
persuade the Office that no federal crimes had been committed by him. (DE 407 at "I 15.) By
August 3, 2007, the Government had rejected Epstein's various arguments against federal
1
On or about August 11, 2006, Jane Doe 2 received the same CVRA letter. (DE 407 at "I
7.)
Initially, Jane Doe 2 was unwilling to provide any information to the FBI or the Office
unless she was assured her statements would not be used against her. She also described Epstein
as "an awesome man" and stated that she hoped "nothing happens to" him. (DE 415 at " 14-
15.) This was during the time period where Jane Doe 2 had obtained counsel paid for by Epstein.
(Jane Doe 2 Decl. 11 5-7.)
Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA")
("line prosecutor"
") testified that both Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 received letters describing their rights
under the CVRA. Although Jane Doe 1 and 2 were given
and the FBI agent's
name and phone number, neither contacted either of them.
-
Decl. 1 5, DE 403-19.)
3
EFTA00010509

=== Page 4 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 4 of 33
charges and sent a letter to Epstein's counsel stating, "[w]e would reiterate that the agreement to
Section 2255 [a civil restitution provision] liability applies to all of the minor girls identified
during the federal investigation, not just the 12 that form the basis of an initial planned charging
instrument." (DE 407 at 1 17.) On September 10, 2007, multiple drafts of a non-prosecution
agreement ("NPA") had been exchanged between Epstein's counsel and the Office. (DE 407 at 1
18.)
On September 12, 2007, while attempting to create alternative charges against Epstein,
the Office expressed concern about "the effect of taking the position that Mr. Epstein's house is
in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" because the Government
had "no evidence of any assaults occurring either on Mr. Epstein's plane or offshore from his
residence." (DE 407 at 1 19.) On September 13, 2007, the line prosecutor emailed Epstein's
counsel indicating an effort to come up with a solution to the aforementioned concern and she
stated that she had been "spending some quality time with Title 18 looking for misdemeanors."
The line prosecutor further indicated, "I know that someone mentioned there being activity on an
airplane. I just want to make sure that there is a factual basis for the plea that the agents can
confirm." Epstein's counsel responded, "[a]lready thinking about the same statutes." (DE 407 at
20.)
On September 14, 2007, after having spoken on the telephone about the subject matter
of the September 13 emails, Epstein's counsel and the line prosecutor exchanged emails
including a proposed plea agreement for Epstein to plead guilty to assaulting one of his
coconspirators. (DE 407 at 21.) On September 15, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an email to
the Epstein defense team raising concerns about a resolution that would not involve one of
4
EFTA00010510

=== Page 5 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 5 of 33
Epstein's minor victims and stating:
I have gotten some negative reaction to the assault charge with [a
co-conspirator] as the victim, since she is considered one of the main
perpetrators of the offenses that we planned to charge in the
indictment. Can you talk to Mr. Epstein about a young woman named
[Jane Doe]? We have hearsay evidence that she traveled on Mr.
Epstein's airplane when she was under 18, in around the 2000 or
2001 time frame.
(DE 407 at 22.)
On September 16, 2007, the line prosecutor corresponded with Epstein's counsel
about having Epstein plead guilty to obstruction of justice for pressuring one of his co-conspirators
not to turn over evidence or complying with a previously-served grand jury subpoena. (DE 407 at
[23.) The Office also stated, "On an 'avoid the press' note, I believe that Mr. Epstein's airplane was
in Miami on the day of the [co-conspirator] telephone call. If he was in Miami-Dade County at the
time, then I can file the charge in the District Court in Miami, which will hopefully cut the press
coverage significantly." They also discussed having Epstein plead guilty to a second charge of
assaulting a different co-conspirator. (DE 407 at 24.)
On September 16, 2007, the line prosecutor wrote to Epstein's counsel indicating that
the Office did not like the factual basis for the proposed charges as the Office was "not
investigating Mr. Epstein [for] abusing his girlfriend." (DE 407 at 25.) The correspondence
further stated:
Andy [i.e., AUSA
recommended that some of the timing issues be
addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that we are
trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes.
I will include our standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability and I
will mention 'co-conspirators,' but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all
of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge. Also, we do not
5
EFTA00010511

=== Page 6 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 6 of 33
have the power to bind Immigration
there is no plan to try to proceed on any
immigration charges against either Ms. [co-conspirator] or Ms. [coconspirator]
(Ex. 7, DE 361-7.)
In the same email, the line prosecutor wrote to defense counsel about a meeting
outside the U.S. Attorney's Office: "Maybe we can set a time to meet. If you want to meet 'off
campus' somewhere, that is fine." (DE 407 at 1 27.) On about September 16, 2007, Epstein's
counsel provided a proposed NPA to the Government that extended immunity from federal
prosecution not only to Epstein, but also to certain co-conspirators. (DE 407 at 28.)
On September 17, 2007, the line prosecutor wrote to defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz:
"Please send [a document] to my home e-mail address - [redacted] and give me a call on my cell
[redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions tomorrow." (DE 407 at 29.) On September 17,
2007, Lefkowitz responded: "[D]o you have another obstruction proffer I can review that you have
drafted? Also, if we go that route, would you intend to make the deferred prosecution agreement
public?" (DE 407 at 1 30.)
On September 18, 2007, the Office responded: "A non-prosecution agreement would
not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part of our case file. It probably
would be subject to a FOIA request, but it is not something that we would distribute without
compulsory process." (DE 407 at 31.) On September 20, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office wrote:
"On the issue about 18 USC 2255, we seem to be miles apart. Your most recent version not only had
me binding the girls to a trust fund administered by the state court, but also promising that they will
give up their 2255 rights In the context of a non-prosecution agreement, the office may be more
willing to be specific about not pursuing charges against others." (DE 407 at 1 32.)
6
EFTA00010512

=== Page 7 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 7 of 33
On September 21, 2007, Palm Beach County State Attorney
Krischer wrote the line
prosecutor about the proposed agreement and added: "Glad we could get this worked out for reasons
I won't put in writing. After this is resolved I would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a
conversation." (DE 407 at 1 33.) On September 21, 2007, the line prosecutor emailed Epstein's
counsel stating, "I think that the attached addresses the concerns about having an unlimited number
of claimed victims, without me trying to bind girls whom I do not represent." (DE 407 at 1 34.) On
September 23, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an email to Lefkowitz stating: "It is factually
accurate that the list we are going to give you are persons we have identified as victims. If we did
not think they were victims, they would have no right to bring suit." (DE 407 at 35.)
On September 24, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an e-mail to a prospective representative for
the Epstein victims, entitled "Conflict Check." The email confirmed the girls' status as victims,
stating: "Please keep this confidential because these are minor victims. This is a preliminary list."
Later on September 24, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an email to Lefkowitz stating: "I have
compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors." (DE 407 at 1 36.) As correspondence continued on
September 24, 2007, and the NPA was being executed, Lefkowitz sent an email to the line
prosecutor stating:
- Please do whatever you can to keep this [i.e., the NPA] from becoming
public." (DE 407 at 37.)
On September 24, 2007, Epstein and the Office formally reached an agreement whereby the
United States would defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida.
Epstein and the Office accordingly entered into a NPA reflecting such an agreement. (DE 407 at 1
38.) The NPA provided that "the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith
approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for [the victims], who shall be
7
EFTA00010513

=== Page 8 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 8 of 33
paid for by Epstein." The NPA also provided that if any of the victims elected to bring suit under
18 U.S.C. $ 2255, they must agree to waive any other claim for damages. As part of the NPA,
Epstein would not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court and waived his right
to contest liability and damages. (NPA, DE 361-62.)
Among other provisions, the NPA expanded immunity to any "potential coconspirator"
of Epstein's: "In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation
in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this
agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any
potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to
" (DE 407 at 1 40.) The NPA also provided that: "The parties
anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives
a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the
agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure." (DE 407 at "I 41.)
From the time the FBI began investigating Epstein until September 24, 2007-when
the NPA was concluded-the Office never conferred with the victims about a NPA or told the
victims that such an agreement was under consideration. (
Decl. 7, DE 361-64; DE
407 at 1 43.) Many, if not all, other similarly-situated victims received standard CVRA victim
notification letters substantively identical to those sent to Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. (DE 407 at
1 44.) The Office did not consult or confer with any of the victims about the NPA before it was
signed. (DE 407 at 11 45-46.)
Epstein's counsel was aware that the Office was deliberately keeping the NPA secret from
the victims and, indeed, had sought assurances to that effect. (DE 407 at 1 48.) After the NPA was
8
EFTA00010514

=== Page 9 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 9 of 33
signed, Epstein's counsel and the Office began negotiations about whether the victims would be told
about the NPA. (DE 407 at 49.) It was a deviation from the Government's standard practice to
negotiate with defense counsel about the extent of crime victim notifications. (DE 407 at 50.)
On September 24, 2007, the Office sent an email to Lefkowitz:
Thank you, Jay. I have forwarded your message only to [United States Attorney]
Alex [Acosta],
I don't anticipate it going any further than that.
When I receive the originals, I will sign and return one copy to you. The other will
be placed in the case file, which will be kept confidential since it also contains
identifying information about the girls.
When we reach an agreement about the attorney representative for the girls, we can
discuss what I can tell him and the girls about the agreement. I know that
promised Chief
an update when a resolution was achieved
Rolando
is
calling, but Rolando knows not to tell Chief
about the money issue, just about
what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and the amount of time that has been
agreed to. Rolando also is telling Chief
not to disclose the outcome to anyone.
(DE 407 at 52.)
On September 25, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz stating: "And
can we have a conference call to discuss what I may disclose to
the girls regarding the
agreement." (DE 407 at 1 53.) Also on September 25, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an email to
Lefkowitz which stated in part: "They [Ted Babbitt, Stuart Grossman, Chris Searcy, [L]ake
Lytal] are all very good personal injury lawyers, but I have concerns about whether there would
be an inherent tension because they may feel that THEY might make more money (and get a lot
more press coverage) if they proceed outside the Terms of the plea agreement. (Sorry - I just
have a bias against plaintiffs' attorneys.) One nice thing about Bert is that he is in Miami where
there has been almost no coverage of this case." (DE 407 at 54.)
On September 26, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz in which she
9
EFTA00010515

=== Page 10 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 10 of 33
stated: "Hi Jay - Can you give me a call at 561-[xxx-xxxx] this morning? I am meeting with the
agents and want to give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls." (DE
407 at "I 55.) On September 27, 2007, the attorney representative for the victims emailed the
Office and asked whether he could get a copy of the indictment or plea agreement to find out
"exactly what Epstein concedes to in the civil case." (Sept. 27, 2007 email, DE 362-2.) Upon
inquiry from the Office, Lefkowitz responded by stating that the attorney representative
"certainly [] should not get a copy of any indictment." (DE 407 at 1 57.) That same day, the line
prosecutor informed Epstein's counsel of concerns raised by the attorney representative for the
girls. Specifically, "[t]he concern is, if all 40 girls decide they want to sue, they don't want to be
in a situation where Mr. Epstein says this is getting too expensive, we won't pay anymore
attorneys' fees." (DE 407 at 1 58.)
Also on that same day, the line prosecutor sent an email to state prosecutors Lanna
Belohlavek and
Krischer: "Can you let me know when Mr. Epstein is going to enter his
guilty plea and what judge that will be in front of? I know the agents and I would really like to
be there, "incognito." (DE 407 at 59.)
On October 3, 2007, the Office sent a proposed letter that would have gone to a special
master for selecting an attorney representative for the victims under the NPA's compensation
procedure. The letter described the facts of the Epstein case as follows: "Mr. Epstein, through his
assistants, would recruit underage females to travel to his home in Palm Beach to engage in lewd
conduct in exchange for money. Based upon the investigation, the United States has identified 40
young women who can be characterized as victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 2255. Some of those
women went to Mr. Epstein's home only once, some went there as many as 100 times or more. Some
10
EFTA00010516

=== Page 11 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 11 of 33
of the women's conduct was limited to performing a topless or nude massage while Mr. Epstein
masturbated himself. For other women, the conduct escalated to full sexual intercourse." (DE 407
at 1 60.)
On October 10, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta stating, in
pertinent part: "Neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified
individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case, including appointment of the attorney
representative and the settlement process. Not only would that violate the confidentiality of the
agreement, but Mr. Epstein also will have no control over what is communicated to the identified
individuals at this most critical stage. We believe it is essential that we participate in crafting
mutually acceptable communication to the identified individuals." The letter further proposed
that the attorney representative for the victims be instructed that "[t]he details regarding the
United States's investigation of this matter and its resolution with Mr. Epstein is confidential.
You may not make public statements regarding this matter." (DE 407 at 1 61.)
U.S. Attorney Acosta then met with Lefkowitz for breakfast and Lefkowitz followed up with
a letter stating, "I also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me during our October
12 meeting in which you
assured me that your Office would not
contact any of the identified
individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this
matter." (DE 407 at 1 63.)
On October 24, 2007, AUSA Jeff
sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, proposing an
addendum to the NPA clarifying the procedures for the third-party representative for the victims
under the NPA's compensation provisions. (DE 407 at 64.) On October 25, 2007, AUSA
sent a letter to Retired Judge Davis about selecting an attorney to represent the victims under the
11
EFTA00010517

=== Page 12 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 12 of 33
NPA's compensation procedure. (DE 407 at 65.)
On about October 26 or 27, 2007, Special Agents
and Jason Richards
met in person with Jane Doe 1. They explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges, he
would be required to register as a sex offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related
to the payment of damages. (DE 407 at 70.) According to Jane Doe 1, the Agents did not explain
that the NPA had already been signed. (Jane Doe 1 Decl. 1 5, DE 361-26.) Jane Doe 1's
understanding was that the federal investigation would continue. (Jane Doe 1 Decl. 1 6.) In contrast,
Special Agent
stated that the meeting with Jane Doe 1 was to advise her of the main
terms of the NPA.²
(
Decl. "I 8, DE 403-18.) After the meeting, Special Agent
became concerned about what would happen if Epstein breached the NPA, and thought
that if the victims were aware of the NPA, the provision about monetary damages could be grounds
for impeachment of the victims and herself.
(
Decl. 1 9.) According to Special Agent
,
the investigation of Epstein continued through 2008.
(
Decl. 1 11.)
In addition to Jane Doe 1, FBI agents only talked to two other victims out of the 34
identified victims about the "general terms" of the NPA, including the provision providing a
federal civil remedy to the victims. (DE 407 at 1 76.) After these meetings with three victims,
Epstein's defense team complained. (DE 407 at 77.)
On about November 27, 2007, AUSA
sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz, (with a
copy to U.S. Attorney Acosta) stating that the Office had a statutory obligation to notify the victims
about Epstein's plea to state charges that was part of the NPA:
2
Special Agent
also stated that on August 7, 2007, Jane Doe 1 never asked to
confer with anyone from the government about charging decisions or any resolution of the
matter.
(
Decl. 7.)
12
EFTA00010518

=== Page 13 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 13 of 33
The United States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the
victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the
agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion.
Tomorrow will make one full week since you were formally notified of the selection.
I must insist that the vetting process come to an end. Therefore, unless you provide
me with a good faith objection to Judge Davis's selection [as special master for
selecting legal counsel for victims pursuing claims against Epstein] by COB
tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification of the victims.
Should you give me the go-head on [victim representative]
selection by COB
tomorrow, I will simultaneously send you a draft of the letter. I intend to notify the
victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29th.
(DE 407 at 1 79.)
On November 28, 2007, the Government sent an email to Lefkowitz attaching a letter
dated November 29, 2007 (the apparent date upon which it was intended to be mailed) and
explained that "I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has
been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement
containing the following terms." The proposed letter then spelled out a number of the provisions
in the NPA, including that because Epstein's plea of guilty to state charges was "part of the
resolution of the federal investigation," the victims were "entitled to be present and to make a
statement under oath at the state sentencing." (DE 407 at " 80.)
On November 29, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Acosta objecting to the
proposed victim notification letter, stating that it is inappropriate for any letter to be sent to the
victims before Epstein entered his plea or had been sentenced. Lefkowitz also told the Government
that the victims should not be invited to the state sentencing, that they should not be encouraged to
contact law enforcement officials, and that encouraging the attorney representative to do anything
other than get paid by Epstein to settle the cases was to encourage an ethical conflict. (DE 407 at 1
13
EFTA00010519

=== Page 14 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 14 of 33
82.)
On about November 30, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta sent a letter to one of Epstein's
defense attorneys, Kenneth Starr, stating: "I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim
notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options
with your client." The letter also explained that the line prosecutor had informed U.S. Attorney
Acosta "that the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 relief during the
investigation phase of this matter" despite the fact that the "[r]ule of law
now requires this
District to consider the victims' rights under this statute in negotiating this Agreement." (DE 407 at
1 83.) On December 5, 2007, Starr sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Acosta (with copy to AUSA
) asking about issuance of victim notification letters and stating: "While we believe that it
is wholly inappropriate for your Office to send this letter under any circumstances, it is certainly
inappropriate to issue this letter without affording us the right to review it." (DE 407 at 1 85.)
On about December 6, 2007, AUSA
sent a letter to Lefkowitz stating in part:
[E]ach of the listed individuals are persons whom the Office identified as victims.
[T]he Office is prepared to indict Mr. Epstein based upon Mr. Epstein's 'interactions'
with these individuals. This conclusion is based upon a thorough and proper
investigation - one in which none of the victims was informed of any right to receive
damages of any amount prior to the investigation of her claim.
[T]he Office can say, without hesitation, that the evidence demonstrates that each
person on the list was a victim of Mr. Epstein's criminal behavior.
Finally, let me address your objections to the draft Victim Notification Letter. You
write that you don't understand the basis for the Office's belief that it is appropriate
to notify the victims. Pursuant to the "Justice for All Act of 2004,' crime victims are
entitled to: "The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court
proceeding involving the crime' and the 'right not to be excluded from any such
public court proceeding 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(a)(2) & (3). Section 3771 also
commands that "employees of the Department of Justice engaged in the detection,
investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime
14
EFTA00010520

=== Page 15 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 15 of 33
victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a).' 18
U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1)
With respect to notification of the other information that we propose to disclose, the
statute requires that we provide a victim with the earliest possible notice of: the status
of the investigation, the filing of charges against a suspected offender, and the
acceptance of a plea. 42 U.S.C. 10607(c)(3). Just as in 18 U.S.C. 3771, these sections
are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non-Prosecution
Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a
state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be
appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the
U.S. Attorney's Office to forego its legal obligations. [T]he Office believes that it has
proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each listed individual was a victim of Mr.
Epstein's criminal conduct while the victim was a minor. The law requires us to treat
all victims "with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." 18
U.S.C. 3771(a)(8).
The letter included a footnote stating: "Unlike the State's investigation, the federal investigation
shows criminal conduct by Mr. Epstein at least as early as 2001, so all of the victims were
minors at the time of the offense." (DE 407 at 1 83.)
On December 7, 2007, defense attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez sent a letter to AUSA
, requesting "that the Office hold off on sending any victim notification letters." No letters
were sent in December of 2007. (DE 407 at 1 88.) On December 13, 2007, the line prosecutor sent
a letter to Lefkowitz stating that "You raised objections to any victim notification, and no
further notifications were done." (DE 407 at 1 89.) On December 19, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta
sent a letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez stating, "I understand that the defense objects to the victims being
given notice of time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. We intend to provide
victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the discretion of
the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notices of the state
proceedings. (DE 407 at 1 90.)
15
EFTA00010521

=== Page 16 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 16 of 33
In January of 2008, any requirement that Epstein carry out his obligations under the NPA was
delayed while he sought higher level review within the Justice Department. (DE 407 at 92.) On
January 10, 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were sent victim notification 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." (DE 407 at 1 93.)
The January 10, 2008 notification letters did not disclose that the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 case
in the Southern District of Florida was the subject of the NPA entered into by Epstein and the Office,
or that there had been any potentially binding resolution. (DE 407 at 1 94.) Other victims received
the same letters as sent to Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. (DE 407 at 95.)
According to the declaration of Jane Doe 1, she believed that criminal prosecution of Epstein
was important and she wanted to be consulted by prosecutors before any resolution. Based on the
letters received, she believed the Government would contact her before reaching any final
resolution. (Jane Doe 1 Decl. 9.) On January 31, 2008, Jane Doe 1 met with FBI Agents and an
AUSA from the U.S. Attorney's Office. She provided additional details of Epstein's sexual abuse
of her. The AUSA did not disclose to Jane Doe 1 at this meeting that they had already negotiated
a NPA with Epstein. (DE 407 at 1 97.) According to the declaration of Jane Doe 2, while she
recognizes she did not initially help the investigation, she later tried to cooperate with the
investigation but was never given an opportunity to cooperate with the investigation.3 (Jane Doe 2
3
The Government believed that a negotiated resolution was in the best interest of the
Office and the victims as a whole based on information obtained from the victims and the agents
assigned to the case.
-
Decl.
1 19.) The Government also believed that Epstein was
trying to set aside the NPA and therefore the Government needed to be prepared for a
prosecution. (
Decl. 34.) Petitioners object to this evidence, claiming the Government
previously claimed work product and similar protections over internal materials. Given that the
Court is ruling in favor of Petitioners on the present motions, the Court need not address this
16
EFTA00010522

=== Page 17 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 17 of 33
Decl.
11 13-14, DE 361-27.)
On March 19, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a lengthy email to a prospective pro bono
attorney for one of Epstein's victims who had been subpoenaed to appear at a deposition. The email
listed the attorneys representing Epstein, the targets of the investigation, and recounted in detail the
investigation that had been conducted to that point. The email did not reveal the fact that Epstein had
signed the NPA in September 2007. (DE 407 at 98.)
On May 30, 2008, Jane Doe 5, who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the Office,
received a letter from the FBI advising her 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." (DE 407 at " 99.) The May 30, 2008 victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged
the victims' rights under the CVRA (DE 407 at 1 100.)
In mid-June of 2008, Mr.
,
the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line
prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2.
asked to
meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims.
The line prosecutor and
discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed in the future.
was led to believe federal charges could still be filed, with no mention whatsoever of the
existence of the NPA or any other possible resolution to the case. (DE 407 at " 101.)
At the end of the call, the line prosecutor asked
to send any information
that he wanted considered by the Office in determining whether to file federal charges. The line
prosecutor did not inform
about the NPA. (DE 407 at 102.) On June 19, 2008,
issue. To the extent it might have an impact on future rulings, Petitioners may reassert this
argument if and when appropriate.
17
EFTA00010523

=== Page 18 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 18 of 33
sent an email to the line prosecutor requesting to meet and discuss plans. (DE 407 at 1 103.)
On June 23, 2008, the line prosecutor sent an email to Lefkowitz stating that the
Deputy Attorney General had completed his review of the Epstein matter and "determined that
federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein's case [wa]s appropriate. Accordingly, Mr. Epstein ha[d] until
the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and conditions of the
agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." (DE 407 at 1 105.)
On or about June 27, 2008, the Office called
to provide notice to his clients
regarding the entry of Epstein's guilty plea in state court. (DE 407 at 107.) According to
,
the line prosecutor only told him that Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prosecution.
He was not told that the state plea was related to the federal investigation or that the state plea would
resolve the federal crimes.
claims he was not told his clients could address the state court.
(
Decl. 17-18, DE 416-1.) In contrast, the line prosecutor claims she told
that
his clients could address the state court.
(
Decl. 38, DE 403-19.)
On or before June 30, 2008, the Office prepared a draft victim notification to be sent
to the victims. The notification was designed to inform the victims of the provisions of the deferral
of federal prosecution in favor of state charges. The notification letter began by describing Epstein's
guilty plea in the past tense: "On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein entered a plea of guilty to
violations of Florida statutes forbidding the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution and
felony solicitation of prostitution." Later, a substantively identical letter was prepared for Epstein's
and his counsel's review. (DE 407 at 1 110.)
On June 30, 2008, the Office sent an e-mail to Epstein's counsel: "The FBI has received
several calls regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement. I do not know whether the title of the
18
EFTA00010524

=== Page 19 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 19 of 33
document was disclosed when the Agreement was filed under seal, but the FBI and our office are
declining comment if asked." (DE 407 at 1 111.) That same day, Epstein pled guilty to state law
solicitation of prostitution charges. (DE 407 at 1 112.) Immediately following the June 30, 2008
hearing, the line prosecutor told one of the victims' attorneys that Epstein had "pled guilty today in
state court." (DE 407 at " 113.) Also after the plea, the line prosecutor emailed the assistant state
attorney a copy of the NPA to be filed under seal. (July 1, 2008 email, DE 362-38.)
On June 30, 2008, based on what she had been told by the Government, Jane Doe 1
thought that the Office was still investigating and pursuing her case. She did not receive notice
that Epstein's state guilty plea affected her rights in any way. If she had been told that the state
plea had some connection to blocking the prosecution of her case, she would have attended and
tried to object to the judge to prevent that plea from going forward. (Jane Doe 1 Decl. 1 13.)
According to the line prosecutor,
did not tell her that Jane Doe 1 wanted to meet with her
before a resolution was reached.
(
Decl. " 37, DE 403-19.)
On July 3, 2008, as specifically directed by the Office,
sent a letter to the Office
communicating the wishes of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 5 that federal charges be filed
against Epstein: "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." (DE 407 at 118.)
On July 7, 2008, the line prosecutor corresponded with Epstein's counsel seeking his signed
agreement concerning a notification letter to the victims before beginning the distribution of that
19
EFTA00010525

=== Page 20 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 20 of 33
letter. (DE 407 at 120.) That same day, Jane Doe 1 filed an emergency petition for enforcement
of her rights under the CVRA. (DE 407 at 126.) On July 9, 2008,
saw the first reference
to the NPA when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition.
(
Decl. 21.)
On July 8, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a letter to Epstein's counsel stating that
victims would be informed about the civil compensation provision of the NPA the next day:
In accordance with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, on June 30,
2008, the United States Attorney's Office provided you with a list of thirty-one
individuals "whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an
enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein."
In deference to your vacation, we
allowed you a week to provide us with any objections or requested modifications
of the list and/or the Notification language. Yesterday, I contacted you via
telephone and e-mail, but received no response. Accordingly, the United States
hereby notifies you that it will distribute the victim notifications tomorrow, July 9,
2008, to each of the thirty-two identified victims, either directly or via their
counsel.
(DE 407 at 127.)
On July 9, 2008, Epstein's counsel sent a letter to the line prosecutor raising concerns
about the notifications, and suggesting modifications to the notification letter. Epstein's counsel
also objected to the victim notification letters containing certain information about the NPA. (DE
407 at
128.) The line prosecutor responded: "Without such an express Acknowledgment by
Mr. Epstein that the notice contains the substance of that Agreement, I believe that the victims
will have justification to petition for the entire agreement, which is contrary to the confidentiality
clause that the parties have signed." (DE 407 at 129.) That same day, the U.S. Attorney's
Office sent victim notification letters to Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 5, via their attorney,
,
and to other identified victims of Epstein. That notification contained a written explanation of
20
EFTA00010526

=== Page 21 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 21 of 33
some of the civil compensation provisions of the NPA. The notification did not provide the full
terms of the NPA.
On July 10, 2008, Epstein's counsel continued to protest victim notification as
evidenced by an email to the line prosecutor stating, "we respectfully request a reasonable
opportunity to review and comment on a draft of the modified notification letter you intend to
mail before you send it." (DE 407 at 131.)
On August 10, 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed a motion seeking release of the
NPA. (DE 407 at 136.) On August 14, 2008, the line prosecutor emailed Epstein's counsel
stating that the court has "ordered us to make the Agreement available to the plaintiffs." (DE 407
at 1 141.)
On August 18, 2008, Lefkowitz wrote the line prosecutor that Epstein objected to
disclosure of the terms of the NPA, but that Epstein would "cooperate with the government to
reach an agreement as to substance of the notification to be sent to the government's list of
individuals. Based on the Agreement, the information contained in the notification should be
limited to (1) the language provided in the Agreement dealing with civil restitution (paragraphs
7-10) and (2) the contact information of the selected attorney representative. We object to the
inclusion of additional information about the investigation of Mr. Epstein, the terms of the
Agreement other than paragraphs 7-10 and the identity of other identified individuals." (DE 407
at 1 143.) On August 21, 2008, the Government sent a letter to Epstein's counsel stating that,
"[c]opies of the victim notifications will continue to be provided to counsel for Mr. Epstein."
Jane Doe 2 was not informed of the contents of the NPA until August 28, 2008, when the
line prosecutor provided a copy to
(DE 407 at 1 146.) On September 2, 2008, the line
21
EFTA00010527

=== Page 22 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 22 of 33
prosecutor sent an email to Epstein's counsel stating, "I will start sending out the victim
notifications today. In accordance with your request, I have changed the language regarding the
victims' right to receive a copy of the Agreement." (DE 407 at 1 147.) On September 2 and 3,
2008, the Office sent to Jane Doe 1 and other identified victims amended notification letters,
stating "the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and
sentence." (Sept. 3, 2008 letter, DE 363-66; (DE 407 at 1 148.)
On September 16, 2008, attorney Jeffrey Herman, who represented several Epstein
victims, wrote to the line prosecutor to object to the restitution procedures established in the
NPA after learning that another attorney, established through the NPA, would be making
unsolicited contacts to the victims. Mr. Herman explained that the notification letters were
"misleading" because they referred generally to a waiver of "any other claim for damages,"
without informing them that this waiver might include a valuable punitive damages claim against
an alleged billionaire. (DE 407 at 1 152.) On September 17, 2008, the line prosecutor sent an
email to State Attorney
Krischer, explaining that the NPA "contain[ed] a confidentiality
provision that require[ed] us to inform Mr. Epstein's counsel before making any disclosure."
(DE 407 at 1 153.)
Around this same time period, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed actions in Palm Beach
County, seeking money damages from Epstein from sexually abusing them. (Petitioners' Resp. to
Gov't's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (hereinafter "DE 415") at 8-9.) Eventually,
they received monetary settlements of their lawsuits. (DE 415 at 1 12.)
In moving for summary judgment, the Petitioners make the following arguments in
support of their contention that the Government violated their CVRA rights. The Government
22
EFTA00010528

=== Page 23 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 23 of 33
violated Petitioners' right to confer under the CVRA: (1) when the Government was negotiating
and signing the NPA; (2) when the Government sent letters telling Petitioners to be patient while
the Government completed its investigation and (3) when the Government did not tell the victims
that the state plea would extinguish the federal case. Petitioners also claim the Government
violated their right to be treated with fairness under the CVRA by concealing the negotiations of
the NPA. Additionally, Petitioners contend the Government violated their rights to reasonable
and accurate notice when it concealed that the NPA and the federal investigation were implicated
in the state court proceeding.
In moving for and responding to summary judgment, the Government contends that there
is no right to notice or conferral about a NPA; it was reasonable for the Government to send
letters to victims while continuing to investigate the case because the Government could not
assume that Epstein would plead guilty; and the line prosecutor contacted Petitioners' attorneys
about the state court plea hearing. The Government also claims it did not violate the right to
reasonable, accurate and timely notice because the CVRA does not create any right to notice of
state court proceedings and, in any event, the Government gave notice. The Government asserts
it did not treat the victims unfairly and used its best efforts to comply with the CVRA, including
complying with the Attorney General's guidelines for victim assistance. Furthermore, the
Government argues that Petitioners are equitably estopped from challenging the NPA because
they relied upon the NPA in their state court civil actions against Epstein. Lastly, the
Government contends that Petitioners are judicially estopped from challenging the validity of the
NPA because they have asserted mutually inconsistent positions; namely, that the NPA is invalid
in federal court but was binding on Epstein in state court.
23
EFTA00010529

=== Page 24 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 24 of 33
II. Summary Judgment Standard
The Court may grant summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a). The stringent burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact lies with the moving party. Celotex Corp. V. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court
should not grant summary judgment unless it is clear that a trial is unnecessary, Anderson V.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), and any doubts in this regard should be resolved
against the moving party. Adickes V. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970).
The movant "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for
its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. To discharge this
burden, the movant must point out to the Court that there is an absence of evidence to support the
nonmoving party's case. Id. at 325.
After the movant has met its burden under Rule 56(a), the burden of production shifts and
the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as
to the material facts." Matsushita Electronic Industrial Co. V. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
586 (1986). "A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the
assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record
or showing that the materials
cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party
cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) and (B).
Essentially, so long as the non-moving party has had an ample opportunity to conduct
discovery, it must come forward with affirmative evidence to support its claim. Anderson, 477
24
EFTA00010530

=== Page 25 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 25 of 33
U.S. at 257. "A mere 'scintilla' of evidence supporting the opposing party's position will not
suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party."
Walker V. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990). If the evidence advanced by the non-
moving party "is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, then summary judgment may
be granted." Anderson, 477 U.S. 242, 249-50.
III. Discussion
The CVRA was designed to protect victims' rights and ensure their involvement in the
criminal justice process. United States V. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234 (4th Cir. 2007); Kenna
V. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) ("The [CVRA] was enacted to make
crime victims full participants in the criminal justice system."). The statute enumerates the
following ten rights:
(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court
proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape
of the accused.
(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the
court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the
victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that
proceeding.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.
(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and
25
EFTA00010531

=== Page 26 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 26 of 33
privacy.
(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred
prosecution agreement.
(10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the services
described in section 503(c) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 10607(c)) and provided contact information for the Office of the Victims'
Rights Ombudsman of the Department of Justice.
18 U.S.C. $ 3771(a).
This Court previously held the following with respect to the CVRA: First, the rights
under the CVRA attach before the Government brings formal charges against a defendant. Does
V. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1341 (S.D. Fla. 2011). Second, the CVRA authorizes the
rescission or "reopening" of a prosecutorial agreement, including a non-prosecution agreement,
reached in violation of a prosecutor's conferral obligations under the statute. Doe V. United
States, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1267 (S.D. Fla. 2013). Third, section 3771(d)(5) of the CVRA
authorizes the setting aside of pre-charge prosecutorial agreements, despite the fact that the
particular statutory enforcement provision expressly refers to the reopening of a plea or sentence.
Id. at 1267. Fourth, the "reasonable right to confer
in the case" extends to the pre-charge
state of criminal investigations and proceedings. Id. Fifth, the federal sex offense crimes
involving minors allegedly committed by Epstein renders these Petitioners crime victims under
the CVRA. Id. at 1269. Sixth, "questions pertaining to [the] equitable defense[s] are properly
left for resolution after development of a full evidentiary record." Id. at 1269 n. 6.
Here, it is undisputed that the Government entered into a NPA with Epstein without
conferring with Petitioners during its negotiation and signing. Instead, the Government sent
letters to the victims requesting their "patience" with the investigation even after the Government
26
EFTA00010532

=== Page 27 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 27 of 33
entered into the NPA. At a bare minimum, the CVRA required the Government to inform
Petitioners that it intended to enter into an agreement not to prosecute Epstein. Although the
binding effect of the NPA was contingent upon Epstein pleading guilty to the state charges, that
contingency was out of the control of the Government. The Government's hands were
permanently tied if Epstein fulfilled his obligations under the NPA. Thus, Petitioners and the
other victims should have been notified of the Government's intention to take that course of
action before it bound itself under the NPA. Had the Petitioners been informed about the
Government's intention to forego federal prosecution of Epstein in deference to him pleading
guilty to state charges, Petitioners could have conferred with the attorney for the Government and
provided input. In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008) (there are rights under the CVRA
including the "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government"). Hence, the
Government would have been able to "ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of the
[non-prosecution agreement]." Id. Indeed, it is this type of communication between prosecutors
and victims that was intended by the passage of the CVRA. See United States V. Heaton, 458 F.
Supp. 2d 1271 (D. Utah 2006)(government motion to dismiss charge of using facility of
interstate commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted
until government consulted with victim); United States V. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO,
2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that
the contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their input was
conferral with the prosecutor concerning any critical stage or disposition of the case).
Particularly problematic was the Government's decision to conceal the existence of the
27
EFTA00010533

=== Page 28 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 28 of 33
NPA and mislead the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility.4 When
the Government gives information to victims, it cannot be misleading. While the Government
spent untold hours negotiating the terms and implications of the NPA with Epstein's attorneys,
scant information was shared with victims. Instead, the victims were told to be "patient" while
the investigation proceeded.
The Government, however, interprets the CVRA as only obligating the prosecutor to
answer inquiries by a crime victim and does not impose a duty on the prosecutor to give notice
about case developments, other than what is required in section 3771(a)(2). Such an
interpretation is in direct contravention of the intent of the CVRA. See Ingrassia, 2005 WL
2875220, at *17 n.11 (Senate debate explaining the right to confer is "intended to be expansive"
including the right of victim to confer "concerning any critical state of disposition of the case").
In any event, no meaningful conferral could take place as long as the Government chose to
conceal the existence of the NPA from the victims.5
Nor does the Court agree with the Government that the 2015 amendment to the CVRA,
section 3771(a)(9), which gave victims the "right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea
4 Even if the Court accepted the Government's version of the facts relative to the Agent
having told Jane Doe 1 the "main terms" of the NPA (which is left undefined), the victims were
not told about it until after it was signed and the Government was bound. This precluded the
Government from obtaining any input from the victims.
5 The Government devotes time to distinguishing between the words "confer" and
"notice" and suggesting that "confer" is more limited in scope than "notice." Nothing about the
definition of confer, however, suggests it is limited to one party bearing the burden of
communication. See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary (last visited January 7, 2019) ("to compare views or take counsel"); Blacks Law
Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) ("to hold a conference, to consult with one another").
28
EFTA00010534

=== Page 29 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 29 of 33
bargain or deferred prosecution agreement" specifically excluded the right of victims to be
informed of a non-prosecution agreement. Prior to this amendment, this Court held that the right
to confer extended to the pre-charge state of criminal investigations and proceedings. Doe, 950
F. Supp. 2d at 1267; see also 157 Cong. Rec. S7060-01, 157 Cong. Rec. S7060-01, S7060
(CVRA co-sponsor Senator Jon Kyl's 2011 letter to the Attorney General, explaining that
"Congress intended the CVRA to broadly protect crime victims throughout the criminal justice
process-from the investigative phases to the final conclusion of a case.")
The 2015 amendment did not serve to repeal or restrict the obligations of the Government
to confer with victims in the early stages of a case. Instead, the 2015 amendment clarified that
certain events, such as plea agreements or deferred prosecution agreements, must be conveyed to
the crime victim. Put another way, the 2015 amendment codified what the courts had been
interpreting the CVRA to require, such as entitlement to notice of a plea bargain. See In re Dean,
527 F.3d at 394 ("the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims
of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of
a plea bargain"); United States V. Okun, No. CRIM. 3:08CR132, 2009 WL 790042, at *2 (E.D.
Va. Mar. 24, 2009) (the statutory language of the CVRA gives the victims' rights before the
accepting of plea agreements).
To the extent the Government relies upon the "interpretive canon, expressio unius est
exclusio alterius, 'expressing one item of [an] associated group or series excludes another left
unmentioned" the Court is not persuaded. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. V. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 80
(2002) (quoting United States V. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 65 (2002)). "The force of any negative
implication depends on context." Marx V. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 381 (2013).
29
EFTA00010535

=== Page 30 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 30 of 33
"[T]he expressio unius canon does not apply unless it is fair to suppose that Congress considered
the unnamed possibility and meant to say no to it, and that the canon can be overcome by
contrary indications that adopting a particular rule or statute was probably not meant to signal
any exclusion." Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The expansive context of the CVRA lends itself to only one interpretation; namely, that
victims should be notified of significant events resulting in resolution of their case without a
trial. See Kenna V. U.S. Dist. Court for C.D.Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) ("[t]he
statute was enacted to make crime victims full participants in the criminal justice system");
Heaton, 458 F. Supp. 2d at 1273 (the right to confer is "not limited to particular proceedings" but
is "expansive" and applies broadly to "any critical stage or disposition of the case"). Reading
into the statute a negative implication that victims need not be informed of non-prosecution
agreements, and only informed of the more common events of plea bargains or deferred
prosecution agreements, would be inconsistent with the goal of the CVRA.6 In the context of
plea agreements, the CVRA provides victims with rights prior to the acceptance of plea
agreements. See In re Dean, 527 F.3d at 394; United States V. Okun, No. CRIM. 3:08CR132,
2009 WL 790042, at *2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2009). Furthermore, victims obtain rights under the
CVRA even before prosecution. Okum, 2009 WL 790042, at *2 (citing In re Dean, 527 F.3d at
394). Based on this authority, the Court concludes that the CVRA must extend to conferral about
non-prosecution agreements.
6 A NPA entered into without notice has a more damaging impact on the victims than a
plea agreement entered into without notice. When a plea agreement is entered into without
notice, the victims will at least have an opportunity to provide input to a judge at sentencing.
Once a NPA is entered into without notice, the matter is closed and the victims have no
opportunity to be heard regarding any aspect of the case.
30
EFTA00010536

=== Page 31 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 31 of 33
Next, the Government claims it did not violate the right to confer when, in January of
2008, it sent letters to the victims counseling patience because, at that time, Epstein's attorneys
were seeking review of the NPA at higher levels within the Department of Justice. As indicated
previously, however, at this point, the Government had bound itself to the terms of the NPA
unless Epstein failed to comply with its terms. It was a material omission for the Government to
suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had
already bound itself not to prosecute. While Epstein was within his rights to attempt to persuade
higher authorities within the Department of Justice to overrule the prosecutorial decisions of the
U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, the CVRA was designed to give the
victims the same opportunity to attempt to affect prosecutorial decisions before they became
final. Instead, the Office engaged in lengthy negotiations with Epstein that included repeated
assurances that the NPA would not be "made public or filed with the Court." (DE 407 at 1 31.)
Nor did the Justice Department guidelines create an exemption from the CRVA's
statutory requirements. Although the Government points to guidelines that conflicted with the
requirements of the CVRA (by restricting CVRA rights until after a formal indictment), the
Court is not persuaded that the guidelines were the basis for the Government's decision to
withhold information about the NPA from the victims. If that had been the case, the Government
would not have sent the victim letters telling them that they had rights protected under the
CVRA. Nor would they have told Epstein's attorneys that it had obligations to notify the victims.
In any event, an agency's own "interpretation" of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen
by Congress." Mohasco Corp. V. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980).
Next, the Court rejects the Government's contention that Jane Doe 2 is not protected by
31
EFTA00010537

=== Page 32 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 32 of 33
the CVRA because she made statements favorable to Epstein early in the investigation.⁷ There is
no dispute that Epstein sexually abused Jane Doe 2 while she was a minor. Therefore, regardless
of her comments to the prosecutor, she was a victim. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e) (the CVRA
defines a victim as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a
Federal offense"); In re Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285, 1288 (11th Cir. 2008) ("to determine a crime
victim, then, first, we identify the behavior constituting "commission of a Federal offense.'
Second, we identify the direct and proximate effects of that behavior on parties other than the
United States. If the criminal behavior causes a party direct and proximate harmful effects, the
party is a victim under the CVRA.").
The Court need not resolve the factual questions surrounding what and when the victims
were told about the state court proceeding and whether a state court proceeding is covered by the
CVRA. Under the facts of this case, once the Government failed to advise the victims about its
intention to enter into the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred.
Nor does the Court need to consider the Government's estoppel arguments at this time.
These arguments relate only to the remedy, and not the determination of whether there was a
CVRA violation. Therefore, the Court will address this issue at the appropriate juncture.
Lastly, the Court will address the Government's argument that its prosecutorial discretion
permitted it to enter into the NPA. The Government correctly notes that the CVRA provides that
"[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney
General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C.A. $ 3771(d)(6). The Court is not ruling
7 In fact, the Office considered Jane Doe 2 a victim as early as August of 2006 when it
sent her a CVRA letter.
32
EFTA00010538

=== Page 33 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 33 of 33
that the decision not to prosecute was improper. The Court is simply ruling that, under the facts
of this case, there was a violation of the victims rights under the CVRA.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1)
Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE 361) is
GRANTED to the extent that Petitioners' right to conferral under the CVRA was
violated.
2)
The United States's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 408) is DENIED.
3)
Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion to Compel Answers (DE 348) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4)
Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Finding Waiver of Work Product and
Similar Protections by Government and for Production of Documents (DE 414) is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
5)
The parties should confer and inform the Court within 15 days of the date of
entry of this Order how they wish to proceed on determining the issue of what
remedy, if any, should be applied in view of the violation.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
Florida, this 21st day of February, 2019.
Kn
KENNETH A. MARRA
United States District Judge
33
EFTA00010539


c1: EFTA00013860
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013860.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: 20090917 Epstein Article.pdf
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:10:03 +0000
Importance: Normal
To the extent that we do want to say anything, I think (based upon earlier conversations with
Alex) that our Office's position was that this started as a state case and Alex wanted it to stay a
state case, but to provide for minimum protections for the victims, both in terms of jail time and
compensation - in other words, this was a floor, not a ceiling. My personal opinion was that
Alex wanted Barry Krischer to save face, but Alex never said that openly to me.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of Florida
500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394
Fax
From:
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 12:56 PM
To:
Subject: Re: 20090917 Epstein Article.pdf
Thanks
From:
To:
Sent: Thu Sep 17 12:41:37 2009
Subject: Re: 20090917 Epstein Article.pdf
I plan to refer everyone to
I am not sure what, if anything,
wants to say.
From:
To:
Sent: Thu Sep 17 12:25:26 2009
Subject: RE: 20090917 Epstein Article.pdf
What are we going to say, if anything, tomorrow when contacted about this. I'm sure we will get a bunch of
calls. Are we directing everything to
I presume ?
From:
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:05 AM
To:
Subject: 20090917 Epstein Article.pdf
EFTA00013860

=== Page 2 ===
FYI - The Palm Beach Post is counting down to the release of the deal tomorrow.
« File: 20090917 Epstein Article.pdf >>
EFTA00013861


c1: EFTA00011431
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011431.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Uncalled Witnesses - Equally Available to Both Sides
There are people whose names you heard during the course of the trial but did not appear
to testify. I instruct you that each party had an equal opportunity or lack of opportunity to call
any of these witnesses. Therefore, you should not draw any inferences or reach any conclusions
as to what they would have testified to had they been called. Their absence should not affect your
judgment in any way.
In a criminal case, however, the law does not impose on the defendant the burden or duty
of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.
EFTA00011431


c1: EFTA00009809
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009809.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 14
ORIGINAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
:
SEALED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
INDICTMENT
:
- V. -
:
19 Cr.
:
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
:
19 CRIM 490
:
Defendant.
:
:
USDC
X
COUNT ONE
(Sex Trafficking Conspiracy)
The Grand Jury charges:
OVERVIEW
7/2/14
1.
As set forth herein, over the course of many
years, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, sexually exploited and
abused dozens of minor girls at his homes in Manhattan, New
York, and Palm Beach, Florida, among other locations.
2.
In particular, from at least in or about 2002, up
to and including at least in or about 2005, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the
defendant, enticed and recruited, and caused to be enticed and
recruited, minor girls to visit his mansion in Manhattan, New
York (the "New York Residence") and his estate in Palm Beach,
Florida (the "Palm Beach Residence") to engage in sex acts with
him, after which he would give the victims hundreds of dollars
in cash. Moreover, and in order to maintain and increase his
supply of victims, EPSTEIN also paid certain of his victims to
recruit additional girls to be similarly abused by EPSTEIN. In
EFTA00009809

=== Page 2 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 2 of 14
this way, EPSTEIN created a vast network of underage victims for
him to sexually exploit in locations including New York and
Palm Beach.
3.
The victims described herein were as young as 14
years old at the time they were abused by JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the
defendant, and were, for various reasons, often particularly
vulnerable to exploitation. EPSTEIN intentionally sought out
minors and knew that many of his victims were in fact under the
age of 18, including because, in some instances, minor victims
expressly told him their age.
4. In creating and maintaining this network of minor
victims in multiple states to sexually abuse and exploit,
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, worked and conspired with
others, including employees and associates who facilitated his
conduct by, among other things, contacting victims and
scheduling their sexual encounters with EPSTEIN at the New York
Residence and at the Palm Beach Residence.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5.
During all time periods charged in this
Indictment, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, was a financier with
multiple residences in the continental United States, including
the New York Residence and the Palm Beach Residence.
6.
Beginning in at least 2002, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the
defendant, enticed and recruited, and caused to be enticed and
2
EFTA00009810

=== Page 3 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 3 of 14
recruited, dozens of minor girls to engage in sex acts with him,
after which EPSTEIN paid the victims hundreds of dollars in
cash, at the New York Residence and the Palm Beach Residence.
7. In both New York and Florida, JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
the defendant, perpetuated this abuse in similar ways. Victims
were initially recruited to provide "massages" to EPSTEIN, which
would be performed nude or partially nude, would become
increasingly sexual in nature, and would typically include one
or more sex acts. EPSTEIN paid his victims hundreds of dollars
in cash for each encounter. Moreover, EPSTEIN actively
encouraged certain of his victims to recruit additional girls to
be similarly sexually abused. EPSTEIN incentivized his victims
to become recruiters by paying these victim-recruiters hundreds
of dollars for each girl that they brought to EPSTEIN. In so
doing, EPSTEIN maintained a steady supply of new victims to
exploit.
The New York Residence
8. At all times relevant to this Indictment, JEFFREY
EPSTEIN, the defendant, possessed and controlled a multi-story
private residence on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York,
i.e., the New York Residence. Between at least in or about 2002
and in or about 2005, EPSTEIN abused numerous minor victims at
the New York Residence by causing these victims to be recruited
to engage in paid sex acts with him.
3
EFTA00009811

=== Page 4 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 4 of 14
9.
When a victim arrived at the New York Residence,
she typically would be escorted to a room with a massage table,
where she would perform a massage on JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the
defendant. The victims, who were as young as 14 years of age,
were told by EPSTEIN or other individuals to partially or fully
undress before beginning the "massage." During the encounter,
EPSTEIN would escalate the nature and scope of physical contact
with his victim to include, among other things, sex acts such as
groping and direct and indirect contact with the victim's
genitals. EPSTEIN typically would also masturbate during these
sexualized encounters, ask victims to touch him while he
masturbated, and touch victims' genitals with his hands or with
sex toys.
10. In connection with each sexual encounter, JEFFREY
EPSTEIN, the defendant, or one of his employees or associates,
paid the victim in cash. Victims typically were paid hundreds
of dollars in cash for each encounter.
11. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, knew that many of
his New York victims were underage, including because certain
victims told him their age. Further, once these minor victims
were recruited, many were abused by EPSTEIN on multiple
subsequent occasions at the New York Residence. EPSTEIN
sometimes personally contacted victims to schedule appointments
at the New York Residence. In other instances, EPSTEIN directed
4
EFTA00009812

=== Page 5 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 5 of 14
employees and associates, including a New York-based employee
("Employee-1"), to communicate with victims via phone to arrange
for these victims to return to the New York Residence for
additional sexual encounters with EPSTEIN.
12. Additionally, and to further facilitate his
ability to abuse minor girls in New York, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the
defendant, asked and enticed certain of his victims to recruit
additional girls to perform "massages" and similarly engage in
sex acts with EPSTEIN. When a victim would recruit another girl
for EPSTEIN, he paid both the victim-recruiter and the new
victim hundreds of dollars in cash. Through these victim-
recruiters, EPSTEIN gained access to and was able to abuse
dozens of additional minor girls.
13. In particular, certain recruiters brought dozens
of additional minor girls to the New York Residence to give
massages to and engage in sex acts with JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the
defendant. EPSTEIN encouraged victims to recruit additional
girls by offering to pay these victim-recruiters for every
additional girl they brought to EPSTEIN. When a victim-
recruiter accompanied a new minor victim to the New York
Residence, both the victim-recruiter and the new minor victim
were paid hundreds of dollars by EPSTEIN for each encounter. In
addition, certain victim-recruiters routinely scheduled these
5
EFTA00009813

=== Page 6 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 6 of 14
encounters through Employee-1, who sometimes asked the
recruiters to bring a specific minor girl for EPSTEIN.
The Palm Beach Residence
14. In addition to recruiting and abusing minor girls
in New York, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, created a similar
network of minor girls to victimize in Palm Beach, Florida,
where EPSTEIN owned, possessed and controlled another large
residence, i.e., the Palm Beach Residence. EPSTEIN frequently
traveled from New York to Palm Beach by private jet, before
which an employee or associate would ensure that minor victims
were available for encounters upon his arrival in Florida.
15. At the Palm Beach Residence, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the
defendant, engaged in a similar course of abusive conduct.
When a victim initially arrived at the Palm Beach Residence, she
would be escorted to a room, sometimes by an employee of
EPSTEIN's, including, at times, two assistants ("Employee-2" and
"Employee-3") who, as described herein, were also responsible
for scheduling sexual encounters with minor victims. Once
inside, the victim would provide a nude or semi-nude massage for
EPSTEIN, who would himself typically be naked. During these
encounters, EPSTEIN would escalate the nature and scope of the
physical contact to include sex acts such as groping and direct
and indirect contact with the victim's genitals. EPSTEIN would
also typically masturbate during these encounters, ask victims
6
EFTA00009814

=== Page 7 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 7 of 14
to touch him while he masturbated, and touch victims' genitals
with his hands or with sex toys.
16. In connection with each sexual encounter, JEFFREY
EPSTEIN, the defendant, or one of his employees or associates,
paid the victim in cash. Victims typically were paid hundreds
of dollars for each encounter.
17. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, knew that certain
of his victims were underage, including because certain victims
told him their age. In addition, as with New York-based
victims, many Florida victims, once recruited, were abused by
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, on multiple additional
occasions.
18. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, who during the
relevant time period was frequently in New York, would arrange
for Employee-2 or other employees to contact victims by phone in
advance of EPSTEIN's travel to Florida to ensure appointments
were scheduled for when he arrived. In particular, in certain
instances, Employee-2 placed phone calls to minor victims in
Florida to schedule encounters at the Palm Beach Residence. At
the time of certain of those phone calls, EPSTEIN and Employee-2
were in New York, New York. Additionally, certain of the
individuals victimized at the Palm Beach Residence were
contacted by phone by Employee-3 to schedule these encounters.
7
EFTA00009815

=== Page 8 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 8 of 14
19. Moreover, as in New York, to ensure a steady
stream of minor victims, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, asked
and enticed certain victims in Florida to recruit other girls to
engage in sex acts. EPSTEIN paid hundreds of dollars to victim-
recruiters for each additional girl they brought to the Palm
Beach Residence.
STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS
20. From at least in or about 2002, up to and
including in or about 2005, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, and others known
and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire,
confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an
offense against the United States, to wit, sex trafficking of
minors, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
1591 (a) and (b).
21. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, and others known and unknown,
would and did, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce,
recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, and obtain, by any
means a person, and to benefit, financially and by receiving
anything of value, from participation in a venture which has
engaged in any such act, knowing that the person had not
attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a
8
EFTA00009816

=== Page 9 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 9 of 14
commercial sex act, in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 1591 (a) and (b) (2).
Overt Acts
22. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect
the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among
others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and
elsewhere:
a. In or about 2004, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the
defendant, enticed and recruited multiple minor victims,
including minor victims identified herein as Minor Victim-1,
Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3, to engage in sex acts with
EPSTEIN at his residences in Manhattan, New York, and Palm
Beach, Florida, after which he provided them with hundreds of
dollars in cash for each encounter.
b. In or about 2002, Minor Victim-1 was
recruited to engage in sex acts with EPSTEIN and was repeatedly
sexually abused by EPSTEIN at the New York Residence over a
period of years and was paid hundreds of dollars for each
encounter. EPSTEIN also encouraged and enticed Minor Victim-1
to recruit other girls to engage in paid sex acts, which she
did. EPSTEIN asked Minor Victim-1 how old she was, and Minor
Victim-1 answered truthfully.
C. In or about 2004, Employee-1, located in the
Southern District of New York, and on behalf of EPSTEIN, placed
9
EFTA00009817

=== Page 10 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 10 of 14
a telephone call to Minor Victim-1 in order to schedule an
appointment for Minor Victim-1 to engage in paid sex acts with
EPSTEIN.
d. In or about 2004, Minor Victim-2 was
recruited to engage in sex acts with EPSTEIN and was repeatedly
sexually abused by EPSTEIN at the Palm Beach Residence over a
period of years and was paid hundreds of dollars after each
encounter. EPSTEIN also encouraged and enticed Minor Victim-2
to recruit other girls to engage in paid sex acts, which she
did.
e. In or about 2005, Employee-2, located in the
Southern District of New York, and on behalf of EPSTEIN, placed
a telephone call to Minor Victim-2 in order to schedule an
appointment for Minor Victim-2 to engage in paid sex acts with
EPSTEIN.
f. In or about 2005, Minor Victim-3 was
recruited to engage in sex acts with EPSTEIN and was repeatedly
sexually abused by EPSTEIN at the Palm Beach Residence over a
period of years and was paid hundreds of dollars for each
encounter. EPSTEIN also encouraged and enticed Minor Victim-3
to recruit other girls to engage in paid sex acts, which she
did. EPSTEIN asked Minor Victim-3 how old she was, and Minor
Victim-3 answered truthfully.
10
EFTA00009818

=== Page 11 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 11 of 14
g. In or about 2005, Employee-2, located in the
Southern District of New York, and on behalf of EPSTEIN, placed
a telephone call to Minor Victim-3 in Florida in order to
schedule an appointment for Minor Victim-3 to engage in paid sex
acts with EPSTEIN.
h.
In or about 2004, Employee-3 placed a
telephone call to Minor Victim-3 in order to schedule an
appointment for Minor Victim-3 to engage in paid sex acts with
EPSTEIN.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)
COUNT TWO
(Sex Trafficking)
The Grand Jury further charges:
23. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 19 and 22 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged
as if fully set forth within.
24. From at least in or about 2002, up to and
including in or about 2005, in the Southern District of New
York, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, willfully and knowingly,
in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, did recruit,
entice, harbor, transport, provide, and obtain by any means a
person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18
years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, and
did aid and abet the same, to wit, EPSTEIN recruited, enticed,
harbored, transported, provided, and obtained numerous
11
EFTA00009819

=== Page 12 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 12 of 14
individuals who were less than 18 years old, including but not
limited to Minor Victim-1, as described above, and who were then
caused to engage in at least one commercial sex act in
Manhattan, New York.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591 (a),
(b) (2), and 2.)
FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS
25. As a result of committing the offense alleged in
Count Two of this Indictment, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant,
shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1594 (c) (1), any property, real and
personal, that was used or intended to be used to commit or to
facilitate the commission of the offense alleged in Count Two,
and any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from
any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of
the offense alleged in Count Two, or any property traceable to
such property, and the following specific property:
a. The lot or parcel of land, together with its
buildings, appurtenances, improvements, fixtures, attachments
and easements, located at 9 East 71st Street, New York, New
York, with block number 1386 and lot number 10, owned by
Maple, Inc.
12
EFTA00009820

=== Page 13 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 13 of 14
Substitute Asset Provision
26. If any of the above-described forfeitable
property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant:
(a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
(b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a
third person;
(c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;
(d) has been substantially diminished in value; or
(e) has been commingled with other property which cannot
be subdivided without difficulty;
it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
$ 853 (p) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461 (c), to seek forfeiture of any
other property of the defendant up to the value of the above
forfeitable property.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1594; Title 21,
United States Code, Section 853 (p); and
Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461.)
June 105
Hoppy S. Bum
FOREPERSON
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
13
EFTA00009821

=== Page 14 ===
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 14 of 14
Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
INDICTMENT
(18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1591 (a), (b) (2),
and 2)
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
Foreperson
14
EFTA00009822


c1: EFTA00011050
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011050.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: USANYS-CRIMINAL AUSAS
"USANYS-
CRIMINAL PARALEGALS"
USANYS-
INVESTIGATORS
Subject: Second Circuit oral arguments this week (April 26-30, 2021)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:34:31 +0000
The Office has two oral arguments in criminal cases scheduled before the Second Circuit this week. They will be argued by
phone/zoom, and you can listen to the livestream at this link. Also, you can click on the hyperlinks below to access our
briefs.
Monday, April 26, 2021
(Leval, Lohier, Sullivan)
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell
arguing
Bail appeal
First on calendar; scheduled to start at 10:00 am
EFTA00011050


c1: EFTA00010329
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010329.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Accepted: Call w/ DOJ re. Epstein SDNY Investigation
Start Date: 2020-10-05 18:45:00 +0000
End Date: 2020-10-05 19:15:00 +0000
Location:
,4279915#
Class: X-PERSONAL
Comment:
Date Created: 2020-10-05 12:29:57 +0000
Date Modified: 2020-10-05 12:29:57 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2020-10-05 12:20:14 +0000
Attendee: Singer, Linda
EFTA00010329


c1: EFTA00009980
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009980.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: BOBBI C STERNHEIM
To:
Cc: Christian Everdell
, , Laura Menninger
Jeff Pagliuca
Subject: [EXTERNAL] U.S. V. Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 16:33:05 +0000
Attachments: Suggestion_to_Dkt_404.pdf.
Courtesy copy of today's ECF fling
Please note my new office address and preferred email address:
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ.
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
This message and any attached documents contain information from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
that may be confidential and/or privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information.
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
then delete this message. Thank you.
EFTA00009980


c1: EFTA00014120
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014120.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USAFLS)"
To:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: RE: Two things
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:11:10 +0000
Importance: Normal
Sure, have a nice weekend. I saw the Order (OMG). Sorry!
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 12:10 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: Two things
Hi
- Can you keep your eye out for any faxes for me from our Epstein friends and if one comes in, can
you scan and fax it to me?
Also, can you reserve the big conference room for Monday morning from 10:00 to noon for the
case?
Thank you!
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Fax
EFTA00014120


c1: EFTA00013240
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013240.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
)"
Bcc:
"
Subject: RE: Maxwell
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 18:22:29 +0000
Embedded: RE:_Maxwell.msg
Sender:
Subject: RE: Maxwell
Message-Id:
<SN5P110MB0542DCCB2FF2A16CC20B7A9592080@SN5P110MB0542.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.CO
M>
To:
To:
To:
To:
EFTA00013240


c1: EFTA00013995
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013995.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Accepted: Epstein/call in from
Start Date: 2008-06-13 14:00:00 +0000
End Date: 2008-06-13 14:30:00 +0000
Location:
ofc.
Class: X-PERSONAL
Comment: Hi
- I have an 8:30 sentencing with Judge Hurley and then I am
headed down to Miami. If Mr.
is available later in the morning I could be there live.
Otherwise, please call me on my cell,
Date Created: 2006-05-09 15:59:01 +0000
Date Modified: 2006-05-09 15:59:01 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2008-06-11 15:47:46 +0000
EFTA00013995


c1: EFTA00011515
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011515.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Cite-checked omnibus MOL
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:07:40 +0000
Attachments: 2021.02.26,_GM,_Omnibus_Opposition_to_Defense_Motions.docx
Attached please find the cite-checked omnibus memorandum of law in opposition to Maxwell's motions. The team will be
working with the paralegals tomorrow to proofread (which will include cleaning up the TOA), get out the discovery that
we reference in the MOL, and deal with redactions before filing. You'll see that we have highlighted portions that we
tentatively expect to redact in
green.
Thanks,
EFTA00011515


c1: EFTA00010355
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010355.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com" <etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com>
To:
Subject: Travel Authorization 10810414-1 approved by
now awaiting further
approval
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:09:46 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Travel authorization 10810414-1 has been approved by
, now awaiting further approval.
Trip ID: 10810414-1
Purpose: R20NYS13179 - U.S. V. Epstein - Witness Interview
Destination: Santa Monica, CA, United States
Dates: 2019-11-13 - 2019-11-15
Current status: Pending Authorization Approval
E2 Single Sign On Login (within DOJ Network Only):
https://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/fs/e2-redirect.html
E2 Manual Login (User ID and Password):
https://e2.gov.cwtsatotravel.com
Thank you for using E2Solutions. Help and support is available online by selecting the 'Online Help' link.
Please note: Replies to this mailbox are not monitored.
Some E2 email notifications are optional. To manage your email notifications, go to E2 Solutions to change your
email settings. Click 'Profile' on the task bar and then click the 'Edit Email Notifications' link to manage the
emails that you receive from us.
Reference ID# T0007
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you received this e-
mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail and any attachments;
any further use of such e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited.
EFTA00010355


c1: EFTA00013186
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013186.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(OIG)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
>, , "
,
(USANYS)"
Cc:
(OIG)"
(OIG)"
Bcc:
Subject: MCC NY - Epstein Matter
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:40:55 +0000
Good Morning,
I tried calling
but his message indicates he is out. Can one of you please call me to briefly
discuss the interviews planned for today? I am currently on my cell phone and my contact information is below.
Thank you.
Special Agent in Charge
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
New York Field Office
One Battery Park Plaza, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10004
(Office)
(Cell)
EFTA00013186


c1: EFTA00010384
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010384.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Prince Andrew
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 18:50:40 +0000
We've been asked and will decline about the statement released by Andrew a short time ago:
ROYAL COMMUNICATIONS
Statement by His Royal Highness The Duke of York KG
It has become clear to me over the last few days that the circumstances relating to my former
association with Jeffrey Epstein has become a major disruption to my family's work and the
valuable work going on in the many organisations and charities that I am proud to support.
Therefore, I have asked Her Majesty if I may step back from public duties for the foreseeable
future, and she has given her permission.
I continue to unequivocally regret my ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein. His suicide has
left many unanswered questions, particularly for his victims, and I deeply sympathise with
everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure. I can only hope that, in time,
they will be able to rebuild their lives. Of course, I am willing to help any appropriate law
enforcement agency with their investigations, if required.
Wednesday 20th November, 2019
Public Affairs
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of New York
EFTA00010384


c1: EFTA00013536
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013536.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Bcc: "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" <AAcosta@usa.doj.gov>
Subject: Epstein
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:16:31 +0000
Importance: Normal
In light of the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence, I've asked
to conduct a de novo review of the evidence
underlying the proposed indictment. I've provided
with the proposed indictment package but can you make copies of
the 302s, state GJ and interview transcripts, and any other underlying investigative information that
can review
a.s.a.p.? Thanks,
EFTA00013536


c1: EFTA00013944
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013944.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM
Document 26
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
IN RE: JANE DOES 1 AND 2,
Petitioners.
/
ORDER TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Petitioners' ore tenus motion seeking the
production of the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of Florida ("USAO") and Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). After consideration of the
Motion, the arguments of the parties, and the record, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the
Petitioners' Motion is GRANTED. The USAO shall produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement,
including any modifications and addenda thereto, in accordance with the following procedures:
(a)
The USAO shall produce a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement,
including any modifications and addenda thereto (collectively referred to as the "Agreement"), to
the attorneys for Petitioners.
(b)
Petitioners and their attorneys shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms
to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's
counsel to be heard.
(c)
Before counsel for petitioners show the Agreement to their clients or discuss
the specific terms with them, they must provide a copy of this Order to petitioners, who must review
and acknowledge their receipt of, and agreement to abide by, the terms of the Order. Counsel for
petitioners must promptly provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO.
(d)
If any individuals who have been identified by the USAO as victims of
EFTA00013944

=== Page 2 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008 Page 2 of 2
Epstein and/or any attorney(s) for those individuals request the opportunity to review the
Agreement, then the USAO shall produce the Agreement to those individuals, so long as those
individuals also agree that they shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms to any third party
absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard
(e) Prior to producing the documents to any other individuals who have been
identified by the USAO as victims of Epstein and/or any attorney(s) for those individuals, a copy
of this Order must be provided to said individuals, who must review and acknowledge their receipt
of, and agreement to abide by, the terms of this Order. Counsel for petitioners must promptly
provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida,
this 21st day of August, 2008.
Kn
KENNETH A. MARRA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: all counsel of record
By signing below, I certify that I have reviewed and agree to be bound by the terms of this
Order.
Dated:
Signed by:
Printed Name:
2
EFTA00013945


c1: EFTA00014003
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014003.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USAFLS)"
To:
(USAFLS)"
Bcc:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: RE: Government's Motion to Seal
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:52:06 +0000
Importance: Normal
Everything is out. Copies will be sent to you via inter-office. Thank you,
as usual, you came to the
rescue!
Can I ask one more favor? Will you e-file a notice of appearance? That way notices of hearings will come to
both of us. I have to run to an appointment, but you can get me on the cell phone.
Thanks.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:13 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Government's Motion to Seal
Yes, both the response, your declaration, and the attachments to your declaration, are to be sealed.
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:06 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Government's Motion to Seal
Hi
- You want to seal my declaration as well, right? Please let me know and I will change accordingly.
Thanks.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 1:47 PM
To:
. (USAFLS)
Subject: Government's Motion to Seal
EFTA00014003

=== Page 2 ===
In preparation for this afternoon's filing, I have prepared a motion to seal, which is attached. I did not include
Epstein's name and made general assertions regarding the confidentiality of the negotiations. Please have
someone sign both the motion to seal, and the government's response, for me. We then need to prepare a
sealed document tracking sheet, to accompany the motion.
An original and one copy of the sealed document should be placed in two separate envelopes, with the case
number written on the outside. An original and one copy of the motion to seal should be filed with the Clerk.
Thanks.
« File: victim_Mot_seal.wpd >>
EFTA00014004


c1: EFTA00013469
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013469.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: 2015-03-27 13:43:05 +0000
Date Modified: 2015-07-22 20:34:49 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2008-06-11 15:27:38 +0000
Attendee:
EFTA00013469


c1: EFTA00011512
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011512.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
To:
Subject: FW: Epstein
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 02:22:15 +0000
FYI, below is the attorney for the possible girlfriend. He's going to call back tomorrow.
From:
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 6:19 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Epstein
The attorney is Maurice Secarz,
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 6:05 PM
To:
Cc:
>;
is
is
is
is
in
(USANYS)
(
Subject: Re: Epstein
Thanks,
please feel free to give me a call on my cell to discuss at your convenience.
On Aug 10, 2019, at 5:58 PM,
)
wrote:
- thanks very much for being in touch, and it turns out that the primary point of
contact from our Office will be
who is copied here but also her full contact info is:
(office)
(cell)
Anything at all we can do, please don't hesitate to let us know, and I'll defer to
to reach out to follow up
separately. And thanks very much for all of your work today-not how any of us expected to spend this Saturday so we
really appreciate everybody jumping in right away and making so much progress.
thanks again,
From:
(
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 17:15
To:
Cc:
is
is
is
is
EFTA00011512

=== Page 2 ===
is
Subject: Epstein
It was nice speaking with all of you and I appreciate the offer of assistance on this.
Please see the AUSA team copied here and reach out to them for any assistance you may need from SDNY.
Thanks,
Supervisory Special Agent
FBI/NYPD
Violent Crimes Task Force
Office
Cell
On Aug 10, 2019 4:50 PM,
wrote:
-
I am cc'ing our team for you to connect them with the relevant agents on your side.
Thanks very much,
EFTA00011513


c1: EFTA00013181
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013181.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
)"
Cc:
Subject: Re: Epstein enquiry
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 15:57:21 +0000
I'll handle. Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 11, 2019, at 11:03 AM,
)
wrote:
See below from a reporter, thanks.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nick Allen
Date: August 11, 2019 at 10:25:22
Subject: Epstein enquiry
Hello Miss
Sorry to bother you on a Sunday. I'm a journalist with the UK's Daily Telegraph.
Is it possible to say, on background, whether you want to question Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell
[both British citizens.. ]
There is also a report in the New York Post that Ms Maxwell is "cooperating with authorities". Can you
confirm, on background, if that is true?
Many thanks
Nick Allen
Nick Allen
Washington Editor
The Daily Telegrap
EFTA00013181

=== Page 2 ===
The contents of this message and any attachments to it are private, confidential and may be the subject of legal privilege. Telegraph
Media Group Limited is registered in England and Wales (company number 451593) at 111 Buckingham Palace Road, London,
SWIW 0DT. If you are not the intended recipient of this email please inform us and the sender immediately. You must not take any
action based upon the contents of this email, nor copy it or show it to anyone. Any unauthorised disclosure, use or dissemination of
the whole or part of the message contained in such email is prohibited. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily
represent those of Telegraph Media Group Limited. It is the recipient's responsibility to carry out any virus checking.
EFTA00013182


c1: EFTA00013626
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013626.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: "Jay Lefkowitz"
Cc:
=
Subject: Epstein
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:42:08 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: epstein_addendum_10_30.pdf
Jay,
Here is an executed version of the addendum. Please Fed Ex the original signature pages to me. Thanks,
EFTA00013626


c1: EFTA00010045
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010045.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
EXHIBIT 1

=== Page 2 ===
AO 89B (07/16) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects in a Criminal Case
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Southern District of New York
United States of America
)
Ghislaine V. Maxwell
)
)
Case No. 20CR330 (AJN)
)
Defendant
)
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR
OBJECTS IN A CRIMINAL CASE
To:
(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed)
YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following books, papers,
documents, data, or other objects:
See Attachment A
Place: United States District Court
Date and Time:
11/29/2021 8:30 am
Southern District of New York, Courtroom 318
40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007
Certain provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 17 are attached, including Rule 17(c)(2), relating to your ability to file a
motion to quash or modify the subpoena; Rule 17(d) and (e), which govern service of subpoenas; and Rule 17(g),
relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.
(SEAL)
Date:
CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party)
Ghislaine Maxwell
, who requests this subpoena, are:
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Haddon, Morgan & Foreman P.C.,
Notice to those who use this form to request a subpoena
Before requesting and serving a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c), the party seeking the subpoena is advised to
consult the rules of practice of the court in which the criminal proceeding is pending to determine whether any local rules
or orders establish requirements in connection with the issuance of such a subpoena. If no local rules or orders govern
practice under Rule 17(c), counsel should ask the assigned judge whether the court regulates practice under Rule 17(c) to
1) require prior judicial approval for the issuance of the subpoena, either on notice or ex parte; 2) specify where the
documents must be returned (e.g., to the court clerk, the chambers of the assigned judge, or counsel's office); and 3)
require that counsel who receives produced documents provide them to opposing counsel absent a disclosure obligation
under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16.
Please note that Rule 17(c) (attached) provides that a subpoena for the production of certain information about a victim
may not be issued unless first approved by separate court order.
EFTA00010046

=== Page 3 ===
AO 89B (07/16) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects in a Criminal Case (Page 2)
Case No. 20CR330 (AJN)
PROOF OF SERVICE
This subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)
.
I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:
on (date)
; or
I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also
tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$
My fees are $
for travel and $
for services, for a total of $
0.00
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server's signature
Printed name and title
Server's address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:
Print
Save As...
Add Attachment
Reset
EFTA00010047

=== Page 4 ===
AO 89B (07/16) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects in a Criminal Case (Page 3)
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/08)
(c) Producing Documents and Objects.
(1) In General. A subpoena may order the witness to produce any books, papers, documents, data, or other objects the subpoena
designates. The court may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial or before they are to be offered in
evidence. When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them.
(2) Quashing or Modifying the Subpoena. On motion made promptly, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance
would be unreasonable or oppressive.
(3) Subpoena for Personal or Confidential Information About a Victim. After a complaint, indictment, or information is filed, a
subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may be served on a third party only by court
order. Before entering the order and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the court must require giving notice to the victim so that
the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object.
(d) Service. A marshal, a deputy marshal, or any nonparty who is at least 18 years old may serve a subpoena. The server must deliver a copy
of the subpoena to the witness and must tender to the witness one day's witness-attendance fee and the legal mileage allowance. The server
need not tender the attendance fee or mileage allowance when the United States, a federal officer, or a federal agency has requested the
subpoena.
(e) Place of Service.
(1) In the United States. A subpoena requiring a witness to attend a hearing or trial may be served at any place within the United
States.
(2) In a Foreign Country. If the witness is in a foreign country, 28 U.S.C. $ 1783 governs the subpoena's service.
(g) Contempt. The court (other than a magistrate judge) may hold in contempt a witness who, without adequate excuse, disobeys a subpoena
issued by a federal court in that district. A magistrate judge may hold in contempt a witness who, without adequate excuse, disobeys a
subpoena issued by that magistrate judge as provided in 28 U.S.C. $ 636(e).
EFTA00010048

=== Page 5 ===
ATTACHMENT A
DEFINITIONS
1. "You" or "Your" means any owner, shareholder, partner or employee of the Epstein Victim's
Compensation Program ("EVCP"), and any former owner, shareholder, partner or employee
of the EVCP.
2. "Accusers" or "Accuser" means
and
3. Attorneys means legal counsel for any Accuser or the EVCP.
4. "Communication" means all forms of correspondence, including regular mail, email, text
message, memorandum, or other written communication of information of any kind.
5. "EVCP Material" refers to any submission to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program
made by an Accuser, including any claims on behalf of persons who have accused Jeffrey
Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell of any misconduct, any releases signed by an Accuser or their
Attorneys, and any compensation received by an Accuser.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Production of documents and items requested herein shall be made in person to United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007,
Courtroom 318.
2. This Request calls for the production of all responsive Documents in Your possession,
custody or control without regard to the physical location of such documents.
3. If any Document was in your possession or control, but is no longer, state what disposition
was made of said Document, the reason for the disposition, and the date of such disposition.
4. In producing Documents, if the original of any Document cannot be located, a copy shall be
produced in lieu thereof, and shall be legible and bound or stapled in the same manner as the
original.
5. Any copy of a Document that is not identical shall be considered a separate document.
6. All Documents shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained by You in
the ordinary course of business.
7. Responsive electronically stored information (ESI) shall be produced in its native form; that
is, in the form in which the information was customarily created, used and stored by the
native application employed by the producing party in the ordinary course of business.
8. Defendant does not seek and does not require the production of multiple copies of identical
Documents.
9. This Request is deemed to be continuing. If, after producing these Documents, you obtain or
EFTA00010049

=== Page 6 ===
become aware of any further information, Documents, things, or information responsive to
this Request, you are required to so state by supplementing your responses and producing
such additional Documents to Defendant.
DOCUMENTS OR THINGS TO BE PRODUCED
1. Any and all EVCP Material submitted by each Accuser, not limited to Claim Forms and
supporting submissions made by each Accuser;
2. Communications between the EVCP to each of the Accusers and/ or their Attorneys;
3. Copies of any payments to the Accusers and their Attorneys;
4. Any and All Releases executed by the Accusers.
EFTA00010050

=== Page 7 ===
EXHIBIT 1

=== Page 8 ===
Independent
Epstein Victims' Compensation Program
PROTOCOL
May 29, 2020
I.
PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW
The Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program") is a voluntary, independent Program that
has been established to compensate and resolve the claims of victims-survivors of sexual abuse by
Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein").
The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (the "Estate") has retained the services of nationally recognized claims
administration experts
and
to design the
Program.
will also serve as the Administrator of the Program (the "Administrator"). This
Protocol reflects input from victims-survivors, their lawyers, other potentially interested parties, and
representatives of the Estate.
Through the Program, the Estate wishes to acknowledge the wrongs endured by victims-survivors and
offer them an opportunity to voluntarily resolve their individual claims for such sexual abuse.
The Program is governed by the following non-exclusive guiding principles:
The Program is purely voluntary. It does not affect any rights a Claimant may have
unless and until the Claimant accepts the offered compensation and executes a
Release. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop
participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to execution
of the Release.
The Program is independent and will in no way be administered, controlled or
overseen by the Estate. The Administrator is responsible for all decisions relating to
the review, processing and evaluation of individual claims submitted to the
Program. The Administrator will have final, binding and exclusive authority to
determine Claimant eligibility and the valuation of each eligible individual claim.
Decisions of the Administrator made pursuant to this Protocol are not subject to
review or modification in any way by the Estate or any other party or entity.
There is no cap or limitation on the aggregate amount of funds available to
compensate all eligible Claimants or on the amount of compensation to be made to
each individual Claimant. Each individual claim will be evaluated separately by the
Administrator. The Administrator will determine, in her sole and exclusive
discretion, issues of eligibility and the amount of compensation and the Estate will
pay all eligible claims based on the Administrator's determination.
1 I Page
EFTA00010052

=== Page 9 ===
All Claimants will be treated with respect, dignity and fairness without regard to
race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, gender or disability. To
ensure claims will be adjudicated fairly, the Administrator will manage the process
so that all Claimants can equally access the Program's claim process. Individuals
with disabilities will be given the opportunity to effectively communicate their
claims and to request special process accommodations.
The Program is available to all victims-survivors regardless of where they were harmed, when they were
harmed, whether the claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and whether they
have previously filed a lawsuit against or settled with Epstein and/or the Estate.
The exclusive claims period for filing a claim pursuant to this Protocol shall commence on the to-be-
determined Effective Date and shall conclude nine (9) months after that date ("Filing Deadline"). All
individual claims filed with the Program must be filed within this period.
To complement the Program's resources, the Administrator will, at her discretion and with the consent
of the Claimant, consult with Professor
, a nationally recognized sexual abuse expert,
leading legal academic and advocate of victims' rights. Ms.
role will be to further inform the
Administrator and her staff about the dynamics of sexual abuse, common responses to sexual abuse,
and the impact of sexual abuse on victims; to serve as a resource for the Administrator in developing or
updating policies and procedures; to advise the Administrator regarding sensitivities involved in
interactions with victims; and to serve as a referral source for the Administrator in providing post-
determination information to claimants who seek guidance, counseling or other services. The
Administrator may, at her discretion and with the Claimant's prior written consent, request that Ms.
review an individual claimant file. The Administrator will determine on a case-by-case basis, in
her discretion, the need to anonymize individual claimants' files before sharing them with Ms.
As set forth above, the Administrator is solely responsible for all decisions relating to the administration
of the Program, including the review, processing, evaluation, and determination of individual claims
submitted to the Program.
During the term of the Program, Ms.
will not meet or speak with a Claim
representatives concerning any aspect of the Program without the Administrator present. M
will maintain in strict confidence and will not disclose outside the Program any information she obtains
through her participation in the Program, including individual Claimants' submissions.
2 I Page
EFTA00010053

=== Page 10 ===
II.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
A. Eligibility Criteria
The persons eligible to participate in this Program are individuals who allege they were sexually abused
by Epstein. In addition, the following criteria apply:
The claim of sexual abuse must be directed against Epstein.
An individual whose claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations may
participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met.
An individual who previously entered into a settlement agreement resolving a claim of sexual
abuse against Epstein may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are
met.
An individual who allegedly assisted Epstein in procuring other victims-survivors may
participate in the Program where there is a credible basis to determine that the individual
acted under duress as a result of her own sexual abuse by Epstein, provided that other
eligibility criteria are met.
If the Claimant chooses to accept the offered compensation, the Claimant must dismiss with
prejudice any existing lawsuits, legal actions or claims filed against the Estate or related entities
and/or related individuals. The Claimant must provide proof of such dismissal along with or
prior to the signed acceptance of the compensation determination offer letter and executed
Release in order to receive payment.
B. Legal Representatives of Claimants
An individual may file a claim on a victim's behalf where that individual has been granted legal authority
to act in a representative capacity pursuant to appropriate law. The "Legal Representative" of an
individual Claimant shall mean: (1) in the case of a Claimant who is currently a minor, a parent or legal
guardian authorized by law to serve as the minor's legal representative; (2) in the case of an
incompetent or legally incapacitated Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed as the Claimant's
legal representative in accordance with applicable law; (3) in the case of a deceased Claimant, a person
who has been duly appointed to act as the personal representative of the Claimant's estate by a court of
competent jurisdiction and is authorized to file and compromise a claim; or (4) an attorney authorized to
represent the Claimant for purposes of pursuing a claim through this Program.
Legal Representatives must provide proper documentation demonstrating representative capacity. Such
proof may include a power of attorney; documentation showing the individual's appointment as
guardian or guardian ad litem; documentation showing the individual's appointment as personal
representative of the Claimant's estate (such as letters of administration); a copy of a retainer
3 I Page
EFTA00010054

=== Page 11 ===
agreement showing legal representation signed by both the Claimant and the attorney or a signed
statement by an adult Claimant and the attorney that a licensed/admitted attorney is acting on her
behalf.
III.
CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - SUBMISSION, EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION
A. Claims Submission Process
Individuals who have filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have
otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the
Effective Date will be sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information, including Instructions
for completion and submission of the Claim Form and a copy of this Protocol. Individuals who have filed
a lawsuit need not agree to a stay of litigation or make any other concession in any pending litigation to
be eligible to participate in the Program. Likewise, individuals who have not yet filed a lawsuit remain
free to file a lawsuit and engage in litigation concurrently with participation in the Program. Individuals
must, however, dismiss with prejudice any and all existing lawsuits, legal actions and claims prior to or at
the time of acceptance of a compensation determination offer in order to receive payment.
Individuals who have not filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have
not otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before
the Effective Date may register to participate in this Program on the Program's website at
www.EpsteinVCP.com. To register, such individuals must complete a questionnaire setting forth their
name, contact information, a summary description of the nature of the claim and other requested
information. Upon registration, the Administrator will perform a preliminary review to consider if the
individual is eligible to participate in the Program. If the Administrator deems that the individual is
eligible to participate in the Program, she will then send that individual a Claim Form and other relevant
Program information.
Note: The fact that an individual is sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information indicates
that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to participate in the Program. It
does not indicate that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to receive
compensation. That determination is made only after a Claim Form and all required documentation has
been submitted and evaluated by the Administrator.
Registrations for individuals who have not filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the
Estate or have not otherwise been identified as a victim of Jeffrey Epstein by their attorney to the
Administrator on or before the Effective Date will be accepted by the Administrator from the Effective
Date through a date that is 45 days prior to the Filing Deadline ("Registration Deadline"). It is important
to note that the Registration Deadline is separate from, and precedes, the Filing Deadline. As explained
above, all claims must be filed by the Filing Deadline.
4 | Page
EFTA00010055

=== Page 12 ===
All Claim Forms must be completed to the best of a Claimant's ability and filed no later than the Filing
Deadline. Claim Forms should be uploaded to the Program website at www.EpsteinVCP.com, or mailed
via overnight courier (a pre-paid courier voucher will be included with each packet) to the Administrator
at the following address:
Epstein Victims' Compensation Program
Attn:
Administrator
1050 Connecticut Ave., NW
#65488
Washington, D.C. 20035
Claimants are invited to provide documentation identified in the Claim Form, and any other
corroborating or supporting information sufficient to substantiate the claim, satisfy eligibility
requirements, and allow the Administrator to review, process and evaluate the claim. If the claim is
being presented by a Legal Representative, then the Legal Representative will be responsible for
submitting the necessary documentation relating to the represented Claimant.
Additional documentation may be requested at the discretion of the Administrator. Both the Claimant
and the Estate will be afforded the opportunity to submit to the Administrator any information deemed
relevant to the Administrator's evaluation and determination of the claim before the Administrator's
final disposition of the claim.
If a Claimant submits an incomplete or deficient claim, the Administrator will notify the Claimant,
explain the additional information that is needed, and work with the Claimant or the Claimant's Legal
Representative (where applicable) to assist in submitting a complete claim.
B. Claims Evaluation and Determination
Claims will be evaluated in the order in which they are received, with the Administrator evaluating each
submitted individual claim in a prompt and fair manner. Claims will only be determined once all
required documentation has been submitted to the Administrator, with due consideration granted to
Claimant's good faith explanations for delays and/or absence of documentation.
1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims
As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the
information available, whether the allegations of sexual abuse are credible. The Administrator will
consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to:
The level of documentation, corroboration or other circumstantial evidence regarding the
nature and extent of the abuse, the frequency, location and other details of the abuse, and the
age of the victim at the time of the abuse. Non-exhaustive examples of such evidence include
(i) medical or psychiatric counseling/therapy records relevant to the abuse, and
(ii) contemporaneous written notification or other correspondence (e.g., letters, emails) of the
abuse by the Claimant to law enforcement authorities, parents, friends or others. The
5 I Page
EFTA00010056

=== Page 13 ===
Administrator acknowledges that some Claimants may not be able to provide any
documentation to corroborate their Claim based on the nature and circumstances of Epstein's
conduct. If a Claimant's written and oral presentation is deemed to be credible by the
Administrator, the Claimant may still be eligible for compensation under the Program.
Whether there exists any information and/or pertinent findings offered by the appropriate
Office of the District Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, or other law enforcement
agency.
Whether the Administrator finds the claims of the individual to be credible after complete
review of all relevant documentation and other evidence provided by the Claimant and the
Estate.
As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the
information available, the amount of compensation that should be offered to each eligible Claimant.
The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited
to:
The nature, duration and extent of the sexual abuse suffered by the Claimant.
The age of the Claimant at the time of the sexual abuse.
The nature and extent of the Claimant's physical or psychological damage resulting from the
sexual abuse, and the effect of the sexual abuse on the Claimant.
The credibility of the claim based upon all of the facts and circumstances, supporting
documentation and corroborating evidence.
Whether the Claimant previously entered into a settlement agreement with Epstein and
received a payment pursuant to such agreement.
The Administrator will confidentially send the Claimant a compensation determination offer letter
including the following: (1) the Administrator's eligibility decision regarding the claim; (2) the amount of
compensation offered; (3) a Release to be signed by the Claimant if the Claimant accepts the offered
compensation; and (4) a Payment Option Form. The Administrator's offer shall be valid for 60 days from
the date of the compensation determination offer letter.
The Administrator's determinations in this Program will not be binding on any potential criminal
investigation involving Claimant's claims.
2. Opportunities to be Heard
The Claimant will be afforded an opportunity to be heard, either before or after the Administrator
renders her determination. Upon request by the Claimant, the Administrator will be available to meet in
person (as practicable in light of the COVID-19 pandemic), by video conference, or by teleconference to
6 I Page
EFTA00010057

=== Page 14 ===
further discuss the claim. These meetings are completely optional and voluntary. Requests to meet
with the Administrator should be sent by email to ClaimantServices@EpsteinVCP.com and will be
scheduled at a mutually convenient time and location. The Administrator may also request a meeting
with a Claimant or her Legal Representative at a reasonable mutually convenient time and location,
though the Claimant is not obligated to attend any such meeting.
3. Release
By submitting a claim to the Program, a Claimant is seeking to resolve all claims relating to allegations
of sexual abuse against Epstein and/or the Estate, and related entities and individuals as set forth in the
Release. If a Claimant chooses to accept the offer of compensation pursuant to the Program, the
Claimant will be required to sign and execute a full Release, in a form satisfactory to the Estate, of all
past and future claims (including lis pendens, writs of attachment, etc.) relating to such allegations of
sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals. A Claimant may reject the
offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time
prior to the execution of the Release.
The Release will waive any rights the Claimant and her heirs, descendants, legatees or beneficiaries
may have to assert any claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related
entities and/or related individuals, to file an individual legal action relating to such allegations, or to
participate in any civil legal action associated with such allegations, except as a witness. However,
the Release will not operate to preclude or limit the Claimant's ability to report and discuss
allegations of sexual abuse with law enforcement officials or anyone else. In other words, the
Release will not impose any rules of confidentiality on claimants, who are expressly permitted to
discuss their allegations without restriction, should they choose.
Before signing a Release, the Claimant must consult with an attorney selected by the Claimant. If the
Claimant is not represented by an attorney, the Program will provide an attorney to provide free legal
counseling to the Claimant for the sole purpose of advising the Claimant concerning the language and
binding nature of the Release.
No one affiliated with the Program will provide tax or legal advice to those receiving payments under
the Program. Claimants are urged to consult with a tax advisor concerning any questions regarding
tax liability for payments pursuant to the Program.
4. Payments
Upon the Claimant's acceptance of the Administrator's determination, the Administrator's receipt of
the Claimant's executed Release and, where applicable, dismissal with prejudice of any existing
lawsuit, legal actions or claims against the Estate or related entities and/or related individuals, the
Administrator will initiate payment by check or electronic funds transfer to each eligible Claimant as
directed by the Claimant. Checks will be sent to Claimants via overnight courier service. All
7 I Page
EFTA00010058

=== Page 15 ===
payments made under the Program shall be for a Claimant's physical injuries, physical sickness and
resulting emotional distress within the meaning of Section 104(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
C. Program Integrity
For the purpose of protecting both the integrity of the Program and financial resources for eligible
Claimants, the Administrator will institute all necessary measures to prevent payment of fraudulent
claims, including taking steps to verify claims and analyze submissions for inconsistencies,
irregularities or duplication.
Each Claimant who signs the Claim Form at the time of submission certifies that the information
provided in the Claim Form is true and accurate to the best of the Claimant's knowledge, and that the
Claimant understands that false statements or claims made in connection with such submission may
result in fines, imprisonment and/or any other remedy available by law. Claims that appear to be
potentially fraudulent or to contain information known by the Claimant to be false when made will be
forwarded to federal, state or local law enforcement agencies and/or the appropriate Office of the
District Attorney and/or United States Attorney's Office for possible investigation and prosecution.
D. Confidentiality/Privacy
The Program is confidential.¹ By filing a claim with the Program, the Claimant or her Legal
Representative (where applicable) agrees that information submitted by the Claimant pursuant to
the Program will be used and/or disclosed by the Administrator and her designees only for the
following purposes:
1) Processing and evaluating the Claimant's claim;
2) Administering the Program and other Program-related work; and
3) Reports to law enforcement where appropriate, related to potentially fraudulent claims.
When documents or other information maintained or submitted by the Estate become part of a
Claimant's file for purposes of the Program, such materials will be reviewed by the Administrator to
assist in processing and evaluating the claim, but will otherwise remain confidential. No information
provided by Claimants will be provided to the Estate except for the Claimant's name and the date(s)
and location(s) of the alleged abuse, for the sole purpose of processing and evaluating the claim and,
for purposes of the Release, the names of any other individual(s) to whom or by whom the Claimant
alleges she was trafficked or sexually abused. The Estate has agreed that no information obtained
solely through the Program will be disclosed publicly or used by the Estate in defending itself from any
claim, regardless of forum. The Program's files are not available for inspection, review or copying by
the Estate or the Claimant or her representatives during or after the Program, and all pertinent
1 All parties agree that they are using the services of a third-party administrator to help reach a resolution of individual claims
of sexual abuse, and that this Program is entitled to confidentiality, privileges (mediation, settlement and all other pertinent
privileges), and protection from disclosure under applicable law.
8 I Page
EFTA00010059

=== Page 16 ===
mediation privileges, settlement privileges and other privileges apply.
To protect the privacy of Claimants participating in the Program, all personal information provided by
the Claimant during this process will be returned or destroyed within one year after the conclusion of
the Program.
Individual Claimants are not bound through the Program by any rules of confidentiality. Claimants may,
at their sole and voluntary option, disclose information in their possession regarding their claim, their
compensation and their experience with the Program.
All confidentiality requirements are subject to law, regulation and judicial process.
E. Reporting
The Administrator shall, on a monthly basis, confidentially provide reports regarding the number and
total value of claims paid each month to the Probate Court of the United States Virgin Islands and the
Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands. Such reports will report on an aggregate level
only. No individual Claimant information will be published or disclosed in a way that compromises
Claimant confidentiality.
9 I Page
EFTA00010060


c1: EFTA00010383
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010383.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Court Subpoena
United States District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TO:
GREETINGS:
WE COMMAND YOU that all and singular business and excuses being laid aside, you appear and attend
before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, in the
Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York, in the Southern District of New York, at the
following date, time and place:
Appearance Date:
November 29, 2021
Appearance Time: 9:00 a.m.
Appearance Place:
40 Foley Square, Courtroom 906
to testify and give evidence in the following matter:
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
and not to depart the Court without leave thereof, or of the United States Attorney, and that you bring
with you and produce at the above time and place the following:
PERSONAL APPEARANCE IS REQUIRED
Failure to attend and produce any items hereby demanded will constitute contempt of court and will
subject you to civil sanctions and criminal penalties, in addition to other penalties of the Law.
DATED: New York, New York
July 13, 2021
audrey
AUDREY STRAUSS
United States Attorney for the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
STATE
FOR
THE
Assistant United States Attorney
RICT
YORK
One St. Andrew's Plaza
New York. New York 10007
Email
Telephone:
Rev. 02.01.12
EFTA00010383


c1: EFTA00013943
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013943.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USAFLS)"
To:
, Roy BLACK
Cc:
(USAFLS)"
Bcc:
"
(USAFLS)"
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:31:45 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: 080821
_ltr_to_Lefkowitz_and_Black.pdf;
DE26_080821_Protective_Order.pdf
Dear Jay and Roy - I have attached a letter in response to Jay's letter of August 18, 2008, and an Order we
received today in the Jane Doe V. United States litigation.
<<080821
Itr to Lefkowitz and Black.pdf>>
<<DE26_080821_Protective Order.pdf>>
Assistant U.S. Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
EFTA00013943


c1: EFTA00013531
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013531.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "Williams, Joyce"
To:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: Epstein
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:12:06 +0000
Importance: High
Priority: Urgent
Please call Judge Davis as soon as you can -
Thank you.
Joyce L. Williams
Legal Administrative Assistant to
Hon. Edward B. Davis, Mia R. Martin, Esq.
& Stacy J. Harrison, Esq.
Akerman Senterfitt
One Southeast Third Avenue, 25th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131-1714
main:
direct dial:
facsimile: (305) 374-5095
www.akerman.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained
in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
EFTA00013531


c1: EFTA00013296
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013296.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: FW: portal access (v2)/US V. Epstein
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 21:24:37 +0000
This means it's not happening for weeks.
From:
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 4:24 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: portal access (v2)/US V. Epstein
The vendor has the data and is working on the upload. We had to remove the old data first. As soon as the data has been
uploaded I will let you know.
Thank you
From:
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 4:07 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: portal access (v2)/US V. Epstein
HI
Any update on the status of this upload? Our team is hoping to start reviewing these documents ASAP.
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 10:46 AM
To:
Subject: RE: portal access (v2)/US V. Epstein
Great, thank you.
From:
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 10:46 AM
To:
Subject: RE: portal access (v2)/US V. Epstein
Not a problem. I will have the vendor remove the data from Relativity and replace it with this new data set. I will let you
know if there are any questions.
Thank you.
EFTA00013296

=== Page 2 ===
From:
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 9:52 AM
To:
Subject: RE: portal access (v2)/US V. Epstein
Yes please, thanks very much.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 2:04 PM
To:
Subject: FW: portal access (v2)/US V. Epstein
Hello
It took a while to get this data off of their FTP site but I was able to download all of this data from the vendor. I am
assuming that you would like to remove the Florida scanned data that is currently in Relativity and replace it with the new
data that the vendor sent to us correct?
Thank you.
From:
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: portal access (v2)
has shared the
folder SDNY with you.
Note From
:
Good morning
,
I'm trying to send you the portal access again. I
went ahead and had all of the data uploaded
into this portal for you - please let me know if
you don't prefer this access and I will add to a
hard drive and overnight it instead.
> Click here to view this folder
EFTA00013297

=== Page 3 ===
ShareFile is a tool for
sending, receiving, and
organizing your business
files online. It can be used as
a password-protected area
for sharing information with
clients and partners, and it's
an easy way to send files
that are too large to e-mail.
Trouble with the above link? You can copy and paste the following URL into your
web browser:
You may now get this email twice but this is the portal access to see all of the uploaded data. Please let me know
if you have any access problems.
CFO & Director of Operations
Melken Solutions, LLC I
Oviedo, FL 32765
Success For Your Mission Is Our Mission!
The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without
a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not
occur in the future.
EFTA00013298


c1: EFTA00013867
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013867.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Jack Goldberger
To:
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:31:43 +0000
Importance: Normal
I'm ok with 3;30 please conference me into the call
Jack
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:23 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein
Dear Roy:
Jeff Sloman contacted me and asked me to return your call regarding the Epstein matter. I am forwarding to you
an e-mail that I sent to Jay Lefkowitz last night.
and I can call you at 3:30 to speak about your list of issues. If that time does not work, please let me
know what times you are available.
Thank you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Phone
Fax
From:
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 5:55 PM
To:
Jay Lefkowitz
Cc:
Subject: Jenrey Epstem
Dear Mr. Lefkowitz:
I understand that the Deputy Attorney General has completed his review of the Epstein matter and has
determined that federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein's case is appropriate.
Accordingly, Mr. Epstein has until the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and
conditions of the agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein (as modified by the U.S. Attorney's
EFTA00013867

=== Page 2 ===
December 19th letter to
), including entry of a guilty plea, sentencing, and surrendering to begin his
sentence of imprisonment.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the number shown below.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Phone
Fax
EFTA00013868


c1: EFTA00010276
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010276.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: ITINERARY ONLY
Ref: JXCKWJ
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:55:23 +0000
Attachments: Questionnaire_for_Official_Foreign_Travel,_Stockholm,_2020,
pdf
I'm also attaching my updated questionnaire. Thanks!
Original Message
From:
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:38 AM
To:
Subject: FW: ITINERARY ONLY -
Ref: JXCKWJ
Hi
-- here's my new itinerary. Thanks!
Original Message
From:
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:33 AM
Subject: ITINERARY ONLY
Ref: JXCKWJ
This is an automated email notification. Please do not respond to this email address. This mailbox is not
monitored and emails sent to this box will not be received or worked. Did you know we can also book your
hotels and rental cars? ** This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary
information. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete
the e-mail and any attachments; any further use of such e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited.
EFTA00010276


c1: EFTA00009956
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009956.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. Department
Aviation Safety
of Transportation
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125-0082
WEB Address:
Federal Aviation
Administration
Accepted MC Dec/09/2020
10/12/2020
Civil Aviation Registry
Aircraft Registration Branch
Oklahoma City, OK 73125-0504
Dear Sir or Madam:
I would like to have 722JH reserved to the undersigned at the following address:
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
Sincerely,
HYPERION AIR
Ref: This request was made from the Registry's Web site. Fee paid: $10 (202010121254592484NN)
EFTA00009956


c1: EFTA00014127
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014127.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Roy BLACK
To: "
(USAFLS)"
Subject: Re: Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:17:54 +0000
Importance: Normal
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
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
EFTA00014127


c1: EFTA00009896
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009896.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 28 Filed 07/23/20
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATE FILED: 7/23/2020
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States of America,
-v-
20-CR-330 (AJN)
Ghislaine Maxwell,
ORDER
Defendant.
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
The Defense has moved for an order "prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel
for witnesses from making extrajudicial statements concerning this case." Dkt. No. 27 at 1.
The Court firmly expects that counsel for all involved parties will exercise great care to
ensure compliance with this Court's local rules, including Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and the
rules of professional responsibility. In light of this clear expectation, the Court does not believe
that further action is needed at this time to protect the Defendant's right to a fair trial by an
impartial jury. Accordingly, it denies the Defendant's motion without prejudice. But the Court
warns counsel and agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses that going forward it
will not hesitate to take appropriate action in the face of violations of any relevant rules. The
Court will ensure strict compliance with those rules and will ensure that the Defendant's right to
a fair trial will be safeguarded.
so ORDERED.
Dated: July 23, 2020
New York, New York
Alim D.Netto
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
EFTA00009896


c1: EFTA00010128
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010128.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Accepted: United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Start Date: 2021-11-22 23:00:00 +0000
End Date: 2021-11-23 00:00:00 +0000
Location: Zoom Meeting - Meeting ID Below
Class: X-PERSONAL
Comment:
Date Created: 2021-11-19 19:38:19 +0000
Date Modified: 2021-11-19 19:38:19 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2021-11-19 18:40:15 +0000
Attendee: Stoddart, Allison </
EFTA00010128


c1: EFTA00011251
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011251.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: FW: Request re Maxwell Relativity
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 21:46:21 +0000
Inline-Images: image002.jpg
As we discussed on our call with
and
on Friday, my understanding is that the FBI has ceased reviewing all
content from Epstein's devices and will limit their review of the devices to (a) documents tagged Responsive on Relativity,
(b) images and videos identified as Responsive during the review conducted by the FBI and SDNY this fall, and (c) portions
of iPads and the iPhone that SDNY identified responsive during our review this fall.
We should plan to do the same going forward. If you guys encounter anything that appears to come from any of Epstein's
devices that you believe was not identified responsive, please let me know, and we can take action to confirm and lock off
any nonresponsive material from review.
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 10:07 AM
To:
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Request re Maxwell Relativity
Hello
Can you please confirm that the below search is the correct data to secure:
US V. Epstein (SW Returns) - Potentially Non-Responsive - https://d1pe.nss.pae.com/Relativity/go?id=2370462-4350955
Can you also please confirm that the Potentially Non-Responsive data will be placed in two subfolders under the following
parent folders:
Search Warrant Returns
New_Search Warrant Returns_FBI
USVE_20200728
Thank you.
From:
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 10:55 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: Request re Maxwell Relativity
EFTA00011251

=== Page 2 ===
Now that we have completed our responsiveness review in the "US V Epstein (SW Returns)" database, we need to lock off
access to any non-responsive materials in that database. Would it be possible to please lock off access to the 397,365
documents in that database that are NOT currently tagged "Identified Responsive"? That should leave just the 1,218,719
documents that are tagged "Identified Responsive" accessible to the team for use in our case.
Happy to have a call to discuss if that would be useful.
Thanks very much,
EFTA00011252


c1: EFTA00013976
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013976.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.:
IN RE: JANE DOE,
Petitioner.
VICTIM'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 3771
COMES NOW the Petitioner, JANE DOE (hereinafter "Petitioner"), by and through her
undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771
("CVRA"), and files this Petition for Enforcement in the above styled action as follows:
1.
Petitioner, an adult, as a minor child was a victim of federal crimes committed by
JEFFREY EPSTEIN (hereinafter "Defendant"). These crimes included sex trafficking of
children by fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 1591, use of a means of interstate commerce to
entice a minor to commit prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422, as well as wire fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The Defendant committed these crimes within the jurisdiction of
the Southern District of Florida in Palm Beach County, Florida.
2.
Upon information and belief, the Defendant is the subject of a federal criminal
investigation conducted by the United States of America in the Southern District of Florida. The
Defendant has recently been prosecuted and pleaded guilty, on June 30, 2008, in the Circuit
Court for Palm Beach County to various similar state offenses including solicitation of minors
for prostitution.
3.
Upon information and belief, the Defendant is engaged in plea negotiations with
the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida concerning federal
1
EFTA00013976

=== Page 2 ===
crimes which he is alleged to have committed against minor children, including the Petitioner.
Such negotiations may likely result in a disposition of the charges in the next several days.
4.
Under the CVRA, before any charges are filed against the Defendant, the
Petitioner has the rights (among others) to notice of her rights under the CVRA, to confer with
the prosecutors, and to be treated with fairness. As soon as charges are filed, the Petitioner has
the rights (among others) to timely notice of court proceedings, the right not to be excluded from
such proceedings, the right to be heard at such public proceedings regarding conditions of
release, any plea, and any sentence, the right to confer with the attorney for the government, the
right to restitution, and the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for her dignity and
privacy.
5.
The Petitioner has been denied her rights in that she has received no consultation
with the attorney for the government regarding the possible disposition of the charges, no notice
of any public court proceedings, no information regarding her right to restitution, and no notice
of rights under the CVRA, as required under law.
6.
The Petitioner is in jeopardy of losing her rights, as described above, if the
government is able to negotiate a plea or agreement with the Defendant without her participation
and knowledge.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner respectfully requests this
Court to grant her Petition, and to order the United States Attorney to comply with the provisions
of the CVRA prior to and including any plea or other agreement with the Defendant and any
attendant proceedings.
2
EFTA00013977

=== Page 3 ===
MEMORANDUM
I.
THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT MAKES CRIME VICTIMS
INDEPENDENT PARTICIPANTS THROUGHOUT THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS.
In October 2004, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Crime Victims'
Rights Act, Pub. L. No. 108-405, 118 Stat. 2251 (codified at 18 U.S.C. $ 3771). Because this
appears to be the first case involving the Act to come before this Court, a bit of background may
be in order.
A.
The CVRA Gives Crime Victims Rights to Participate in the Criminal Justice
Process.
Congress passed the CVRA "to give crime victims enforceable rights to participate in
federal criminal proceedings." Opinion at 14. Congress was concerned that in the federal system
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.
The CVRA gives victims of federal crimes a series of rights, including the right to notice
of court proceedings, to be heard at plea and sentencing hearings, and to reasonably "confer with
the attorney for the Government in the case." 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(a). Victims also have a "right
of access to the terms of a plea agreement ." In re Interested Party 1, 530 F.Supp. 2d 136,
2008 WL 134233 at *7 (D.D.C. 2008). The CVRA also assures victims broadly that they will
"be treated with fairness." 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(a)(8).
3
EFTA00013978

=== Page 4 ===
Of course, these rights would be of little use to most crime victims unless they were told
about them. To ensure that victims are notified of their rights, the CVRA directs employees of
the Justice Department "and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the
detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime" to use their "best efforts to see that crime
victims are notified of the rights described [in the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) (emphasis
added).1
B.
The CVRA Gives Victims Rights During the Investigation of a Crime.
The CVRA gives victims rights during the investigation of a crime. The Fifth Circuit
recently reached this conclusion, holding:
The district court acknowledged that "[t]here are clearly rights
under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway."
BP Prods., 2008 WL 501321 at *11, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12893,
at *36. Logically, this includes the CVRA's establishment of
victims' "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the
Government." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). At least in the posture of
this case (and we do not speculate on the applicability to other
situations), the government should have fashioned a reasonable
way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and
to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of a plea
bargain.
In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008).
The position that CVRA rights apply before charges have been filed is consistent with the
Justice Department regulations under the CVRA, which explain that government officials "must
advise a victim [about their rights under the CVRA] at the earliest opportunity at which it may
be done without interfering with an investigation." A.G. GUIDELINES FOR VICTIM AND WITNESS
1 Further supporting this requirement is another statute, 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)(3), which directs government officials
to provide victims with "the earliest possible notice of," among other things, "the filing of charges against a
suspected offender."
4
EFTA00013979

=== Page 5 ===
ASSISTANCE 23 (May 2005). And the plain language of the CVRA undergirds this conclusion, as
it applies not simply to prosecutors but to government agencies "engaged in the detection [and]
investigation of crime ." 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(c)(1). Indeed, if there were any doubt, the plain
language of the CVRA extends victims' right to situations "in which no prosecution is
underway." 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(d)(3).
II.
PETITIONER IS A "VICTIM PROTECTED BY THE CVRA.
Under the CVRA the crime victim is defined as "a person directly and proximately
harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense ." 18 U.S.C. Section 3771(e). In
particular, Defendant called Petitioner when she was a minor over a telephone (a means of
interstate communication) requesting that she perform a massage in exchange for payment. As
Defendant well knew, that request was fraudulent, as he not only intended to receive a massage,
but also intended to have her perform sexual acts in exchange for a cash payment to Petitioner.
Only when Petitioner arrived at a Defendant's mansion as directed by Defendant, did Defendant
reveal his true purpose of obtaining sexual favors in exchange for payment. This conduct
violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422, which forbids using a means of interstate commerce to knowingly
"induce" or "entice" a minor "to engage in prostitution." In addition, this conduct was both a use
of "fraud" to obtain a commercial sex act, in violation of 18 U.S.C $ 1591, and use of wire
communications to perpetrate a "scheme and artifice to defraud," in violation of 18 U.S.C. $
1343.
It appears obvious that Petitioner was "directly and proximately" harmed by these crimes,
thereby making her a victim under the CVRA. It should be emphasized that the CVRA "was
designed to be a 'broad and encompassing' statutory victims' bill of rights." United States V.
5
EFTA00013980

=== Page 6 ===
Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d 1341, 1342 (D. Utah 2005) (quoting 150 Cong. Rec. S4261 (daily
ed. Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein)). Congress intended the CVRA to dramatically
rework the federal criminal justice system. In the course of construing the CVRA generously, the
Ninth Circuit observed: "The criminal justice system has long functioned on the assumption that
crime victims should behave like good Victorian children -- seen but not heard. The Crime
Victims' Rights Act sought to change this by making victims independent participants in the
criminal justice process." Kenna V. U.S. Dist. Court for C.D. Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir.
2006). Accordingly, because the CVRA is remedial legislation, courts should interpret it
"liberally to facilitate and accomplish its purposes and intent." Elliott Industries Ltd.
Partnership V. BP America Production Co., 407 F.3d 1091, 1118 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting
remedial legislation should be "interpreted liberally to facilitate and accomplish its purposes and
intent"). The CVRA itself suggests this conclusion by requiring that courts must treat crime
victims with "fairness." United States V. Patkar, 2008 WL 233062 at *3 (D. Haw. 2008) (citing
United States V. Turner, 367 F.Supp.2d 319, 335 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)).
Not only must the CVRA as a whole be interpreted liberally, but its definition of "crime
victim" requires a generous construction. After reciting the direct-and-proximate-harm language
at issue here, one of the Act's two co-sponsors -- Senator Kyl -- explained that "[t]his is an
intentionally broad definition because all victims of crime deserve to have their rights protected
" 150 Cong. Rec. S10912 (Oct. 9, 2004) (emphasis added). The description of the victim
definition as "intentionally broad" was in the course of floor colloquy with the other primary
sponsor of the CVRA and therefore deserves significant weight. See Kenna, 435 F.3d at 1015-16
(discussing significance of CVRA sponsors= floor statements).
6
EFTA00013981

=== Page 7 ===
The definition of "crime victims" must thus be construed broadly in favor of Petitioner.
She obviously qualifies as a "victim" under the CVRA.
III.
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO NOTICE OF HER RIGHTS, AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITH THE PROSECUTORS AND
TO BE TREATED WITH FAIRNESS.
Because Petitioner is a "victim" under the CVRA, she has certain protected rights under
the Act. Most important, the Act promises that she will have an opportunity to "confer with the
attorney for the Government in the case." To date, Petitioner has not been given that right. This
raises that very real possibility that the Government may negotiate and conclude a plea agreement
with the Defendant without giving Petitioner her protected rights.2
Petitioner is entitled to have this conference with prosecutors before any final plea
agreement is reached. The Fifth Circuit reached exactly this conclusion in a very recent case. In
In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008), the Government negotiated a plea agreement with the
well-heeled corporate defendant without conferring with the victims. When the Government's
failure was challenged in the Fifth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Government had
indeed violated the CVRA. The Fifth Circuit observed: "In passing the [CVRA], Congress
made the policy decision-which we are bound to enforce-that the victims have a right to inform
the plea negotiation process by conferring with prosecutors before a plea agreement is reached."
Id. at 394.
This Court is obligated to protect the rights of Petitioner. The CVRA directs that "[i]n
any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the
2 On information and belief, roughly the same crimes were committed against several other young females. These
victims, too, are in danger of losing their right to confer under the CVRA.
7
EFTA00013982

=== Page 8 ===
crime victim is afforded the rights described in [the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1). The
CVRA also confers on crime victims the right to "assert the rights described in [the CVRA]." 18
U.S.C. § 3771(d)(1). Therefore, this Court has its own independent obligation to intercede and
ensure that the Government respects the rights of Petitioner under the CVRA.
CONCLUSION
The Petitioner requests the intervention of this Court to ensure that her rights are
respected and accorded, as promised in the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
DATED this 7th day of July, 2008.
Respectfully Submitted,
THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS &
ASSOCIATES, LLC
BOD
Brad Edwards, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Florida Bar #542075
Hollywood, Florida 33020
Telephone:
Facsimile:
8
EFTA00013983

=== Page 9 ===
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been
provided by United States mail and via facsimile to:
AUSA,
United States Attorney's Office,
West Palm Beach,
Florida 33401, this 7th day of July, 2008.
Broo
Brad Edwards, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Florida Bar No. 542075
9
EFTA00013984


