# docs_fts_content

c1: EFTA00013422
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013422.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: RE: 3500
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2021 16:36:06 +0000
Attachments: US_v_Ghislaine_Maxwell_3500_Index_(Internal)_-_SD_working_copy.xlsx
Totally fine, just let us know what documents you delete pages from so we can restamp. The index for her files can be
found in the attached if that's useful.
From:
Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 12:35 PM
To:
Subject: RE: 3500
Sounds good. For some documents I'm going to be deleting pages and redacting. Is that ok?
From:
Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 12:34 PM
To:
is
Subject: RE: 3500
If you could review the stamped versions and let us know what needs to be pulled, then we can restamp to fill any gaps if
there are any. Sorry again.
From:
Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 12:33 PM
To:
is
Subject: RE: 3500
No worries. What's the best way to do this, should we delete the stamped versions and I should review the originals, or
should I be reviewing the stamped versions?
From:
Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 12:32 PM
To:
is
Subject: RE: 3500
Shoot, I'm sorry that's my bad, I stamped
this morning and missed that it hadn't been reviewed.
The stamped ones are just in her folder but if you want to review the originals they are here:
\Usa.doj.gov\cloud\NYS\StAndrews\Shared\USvEpstein-2018R01618\!Trial\3500\1.Testifying), 3\3524
We'll make any changes or edits of course. Sorry again-I didn't read the folder right.
EFTA00013422

=== Page 2 ===
From:
Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 12:29 PM
To:
is
Subject: 3500
The
and
folder are still being reviewed today, can you hold off on stamping please? Thanks!
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00013423


c1: EFTA00014110
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014110.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
ENT
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Facsimile:
November 24, 2008
DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Roy Black, Esq.
Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf P.A.
Miami, FL 33131
Re:
Jeffrey Epstein
Dear Roy:
On Thursday I learned that Mr. Epstein applied for and was admitted to the Palm
Beach County Sheriff's Office's work release program and that he has been on work release
for the past few weeks. For the following reasons, the Office believes that Mr. Epstein's
application to and participation in the work release program is a material breach of the Non-
Prosecution Agreement. Accordingly, the United States demands that Mr. Epstein withdraw
his application to participate in the program and complete his eighteen-month term of
imprisonment in accordance with the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
The Non-Prosecution Agreement provides that Epstein "shall be sentenced to
consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges,
without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and probation or
community control in lieu of imprisonment." I have more than a dozen e-mails between
myself and Jay Lefkowitz discussing the U.S. Attorney's insistence on eighteen months of
incarceration. You will recall that at one meeting you and Ms. Sanchez raised the idea of Mr.
Epstein hiring Sheriff's Deputies to guard him as equivalent to imprisonment. Mr. Acosta
specifically rejected that suggestion. It is our understanding from the Sheriff's Office that
Mr. Epstein is paying off-duty Sheriff's Deputies to guard him while he "works" at Mr.
EFTA00014110

=== Page 2 ===
ROY BLACK, ESQ.
NOVEMBER 24, 2008
PAGE 2 OF 4
Goldberger's office building each day.
As you remember, shortly before Mr. Epstein's change of plea, Mr. Goldberger sent
me a copy of the proposed plea agreement with the state. On June 27, 2008, I sent a letter
containing the following language to you and Mr. Goldberger:
The U.S. Attorney's Office hereby provides Notice that the proposed sentencing
provision does not comply with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
The second sentencing paragraph of the proposed plea agreement reads:
On 08CF009381 AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 18 months Community Control
1 (one). As a special condition of this Community Control, the Defendant must serve
the first 6 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility
The Non-Prosecution Agreement specifically provides:
Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6)
months in county jail for all charges,
without probation or community control in
lieu of imprisonment.
Thus, the proposed plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office does not comply
with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. To comply with the Agreement,
Mr. Epstein must make a binding recommendation of eighteen months imprisonment,
which means confinement twenty-four hours a day at the County Jail, and the judge
must accept that recommendation. Community control must follow that term of
incarceration.
(Emphasis in original.)
As I specified in that letter, the Non-Prosecution Agreement calls for "confinement
twenty-four hours a day." In response to that letter, Mr. Goldberger agreed that he would
revise the state plea agreement to include the word "imprisonment" to make clear that Mr.
Epstein would be incarcerated for the full eighteen months and would change the language
of the state agreement to match the language of the federal agreement. Mr. Goldberger and
I also discussed the situation and he made clear that Mr. Epstein would not be asking for or
receiving work release and would remain in jail "around the clock."
In early August,
and I raised the same issue with you when we heard
EFTA00014111

=== Page 3 ===
ROY BLACK, ESQ.
NOVEMBER 24, 2008
PAGE 3 OF 4
that Mr. Epstein was considering applying for work release. On August 6, 2008, Ms.
and I had a conference call with you wherein you again stated that Mr. Epstein
would not apply for or receive work release and would spend his eighteen months
incarcerated twenty-four hours a day at the Palm Beach County Stockade.
In preparation for this letter, I obtained a certified copy of Mr. Epstein's state court
file. On June 30, 2008, on the procurement of minors charge, Judge Pucillo entered the
following sentence:
The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Sheriff of Palm Beach
County, Florida for a term of 6 mos. It is further ordered that the Defendant
shall be allowed a total of 1 days [sic] as credit for time incarcerated prior to
imposition of this sentence. It is further ordered that the composite term of all
sentences imposed for the counts specified in the order shall run consecutive
to the following: Specific sentences: 2006CF9454AXX.
the following provisions apply to the sentence imposed:
Followed by
a period of 12 mos on community control 1 under the supervision of the
Department of Corrections
As I learned on Friday when I received the state court file, you neglected to inform
our Office that, on July 21, 2008, Judge McSorley modified the judgment nunc pro tunc to
an "Order of Community Control I." This same language was the basis for the objection in
my letter of June 26, 2008 and directly contradicts the language of the Non-Prosecution
Agreement. I also note that, on the state plea agreement, Mr. Goldberger did not insert the
word "imprisonment" as agreed prior to the change of plea, instead the words "jail sentence"
are included.
The Office's Agreement not to prosecute Mr. Epstein was based upon its
determination that eighteen months' incarceration (i.e., confinement twenty-four hours a day)
was sufficient to satisfy the federal interest in Mr. Epstein's crimes. Accordingly, the U.S.
Attorney's Office hereby gives notice that Mr. Epstein has violated the Non-Prosecution
Agreement by failing to remain incarcerated twenty-four hours a day for the eighteen-month
EFTA00014112

=== Page 4 ===
ROY BLACK, ESQ.
NOVEMBER 24, 2008
PAGE 4 OF 4
term of imprisonment. The United States will exercise any and all rights it has under the
Non-Prosecution Agreement unless Mr. Epstein immediately ceases and desists from his
breach of this Agreement.
Sincerely,
R. Alexander Acosta
United States Attorney
By:
Assistant United States Attorney
cc:
,
Chief, Northern Division
EFTA00014113


c1: EFTA00013908
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013908.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Bec:
Subject: Corrected third supplement to pros memo
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:23:33 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: Third_Supplement_Pros_Memo_2-13-08_corrected_6-27-08.wpd
Hi
Here it is. My assistant,
is going to send you the corrected penalty sheets. Nothing else
changes.
Thanks.
<<Third Supplement Pros Memo 2-13-08 corrected 6-27-08.wpd>>
EFTA00013908


c1: EFTA00009961
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009961.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
To:
Cc:
Subject:
302
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:51:39 +0000
Attachments:
pdf
Finalized 302 for
Special Agent
FBI New York Field Office
Violent Crimes Task Force
EFTA00009961


c1: EFTA00013886
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013886.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc
Subject: RE: Epstein
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 13:29:03 +0000
Importance: Normal
No telling how long the DAG's office will take to decide. Tuesday is off.
Original Message
From:
Sent: Thursday May 29 2008 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Epstein
Hi
and
I received
e-mail stating that the DAG agreed to meet with epstein's people. Does this mean that Tuesday is off? I
need to let the gj coordinator know.
Also, I am sure that remember
She was the person whom we initially classified as a victim until epstein's attorneys
complained. Well,
has just interviewed a girl who was 14 or 15 when she first went to epstein's house who reports that epstein told
her that he had sex with
probably would have been 15 or 16 when this conversation occurred.) The girl also reports that she
told epstein her true age and epstein told her that he doesn't care about age.
I know that epstein's people will, no doubt, continue to tell the dag and others that epstein didn't know about the girls' ages so I thought you
should know.
Please let me know about tuesday so I don't needlessly spoil
unday. And, any chance the case was discussed with the ag when he
was in town?
Thanks.
EFTA00013886


c1: EFTA00013353
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013353.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Meet re Epstein
Start Date: 2019-04-25 14:00:00 +0000
End Date: 2019-04-25 14:30:00 +0000
Organizer:
(USANYS)
Class: X-PERSONAL
Date Created: 2019-04-25 13:34:10 +0000
Date Modified: 2019-04-25 13:34:10 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2019-04-25 13:24:04 +0000
Attendee:
)
i
Alarm: Display the following message 15m before start
I
Reminder
EFTA00013353


c1: EFTA00010993
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010993.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
:
SEALED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
INDICTMENT
:
- V. -
:
20 Cr.
:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
:
:
20 Cr. 330
Defendant.
:
:
X
COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in
Illegal Sex Acts)
The Grand Jury charges:
OVERVIEW
1.
The charges set forth herein stem from the role
of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation
and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In
particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including
at least in or about 1997, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and
contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among
other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately
abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age
of 18. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were
groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew
that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18.
2. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to
abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and
Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to
EFTA00010993

=== Page 2 ===
Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and
intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to
sexual abuse. Moreover, in an effort to conceal her crimes,
MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct,
including in relation to some of the minor victims described
herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3.
During the time periods charged in this
Indictment, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, had a personal and
professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and was among his
closest associates. In particular, between in or about 1994 and
in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate relationship with
Epstein and also was paid by Epstein to manage his various
properties. Over the course of their relationship, MAXWELL and
Epstein were photographed together on multiple occasions,
including in the below image:
2
EFTA00010994

=== Page 3 ===
4.
Beginning in at least 1994, GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
the defendant, enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to
engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, through a variety of
means and methods, including but not limited to the following:
a. MAXWELL first attempted to befriend some of
Epstein's minor victims prior to their abuse, including by
asking the victims about their lives, their schools, and their
families. MAXWELL and Epstein would spend time building
friendships with minor victims by, for example, taking minor
victims to the movies or shopping. Some of these outings would
involve MAXWELL and Epstein spending time together with a minor
victim, while some would involve MAXWELL or Epstein spending
time alone with a minor victim.
b.
Having developed a rapport with a victim,
MAXWELL would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim
by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in
front of the victim, being present when a minor victim was
undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor
victim and Epstein.
C.
MAXWELL'S presence during minor victims'
interactions with Epstein, including interactions where the
minor victim was undressed or that involved sex acts with
Epstein, helped put the victims at ease because an adult woman
was present. For example, in some instances, MAXWELL would
3
EFTA00010995

=== Page 4 ===
massage Epstein in front of a minor victim. In other instances,
MAXWELL encouraged minor victims to provide massages to Epstein,
including sexualized massages during which a minor victim would
be fully or partially nude. Many of those massages resulted in
Epstein sexually abusing the minor victims.
d. In addition, Epstein offered to help some
minor victims by paying for travel and/or educational
opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept
Epstein's assistance. As a result, victims were made to feel
indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to
help them.
e.
Through this process, MAXWELL and Epstein
enticed victims to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. In
some instances, MAXWELL was present for and participated in the
sexual abuse of minor victims. Some such incidents occurred in
the context of massages, which developed into sexual encounters.
5. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated
Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims knowing that he had a
sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to
engage in sexual activity with those victims. Epstein's
resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things,
touching a victim's breast, touching a victim's genitals,
placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim's genitals,
4
EFTA00010996

=== Page 5 ===
directing a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and
directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals.
MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS
6.
Between approximately in or about 1994 and in or
about 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated
Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims by, among other
things, inducing and enticing, and aiding and abetting the
inducement and enticement of, multiple minor victims. Victims
were groomed and/or abused at multiple locations, including the
following:
a.
A a multi-story private residence on the
Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York owned by Epstein (the
"New York Residence"), which is depicted in the following
photograph:
5
EFTA00010997

=== Page 6 ===
b.
An estate in Palm Beach, Florida owned by
Epstein (the "Palm Beach Residence"), which is depicted in the
following photograph:
C.
A ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico owned by
Epstein (the "New Mexico Residence"), which is depicted in the
following photograph:
6
EFTA00010998

=== Page 7 ===
d.
MAXWELL's personal residence in London,
England.
7. Among the victims induced or enticed by GHISLAINE
MAXWELL, the defendant, were minor victims identified herein as
Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. In
particular, and during time periods relevant to this Indictment,
MAXWELL engaged in the following acts, among others, with
respect to minor victims:
a.
MAXWELL met Minor Victim-1 when Minor
Victim-1 was approximately 14 years old. MAXWELL subsequently
interacted with Minor Victim-1 on multiple occasions at
Epstein's residences, knowing that Minor Victim-1 was under the
age of 18 at the time. During these interactions, which took
place between approximately 1994 and 1997, MAXWELL groomed Minor
Victim-1 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein through multiple
means. First, MAXWELL and Epstein attempted to befriend Minor
Victim-1, taking her to the movies and on shopping trips.
MAXWELL also asked Minor Victim-1 about school, her classes, her
family, and other aspects of her life. MAXWELL then sought to
normalize inappropriate and abusive conduct by, among other
things, undressing in front of Minor Victim-1 and being present
when Minor Victim-1 undressed in front of Epstein. Within the
first year after MAXWELL and Epstein met Minor Victim-1, Epstein
began sexually abusing Minor Victim-1. MAXWELL was present for
7
EFTA00010999

=== Page 8 ===
and involved in some of this abuse. In particular, MAXWELL
involved Minor Victim-1 in group sexualized massages of Epstein.
During those group sexualized massages, MAXWELL and/or Minor
Victim-1 would engage in sex acts with Epstein. Epstein and
MAXWELL both encouraged Minor Victim-1 to travel to Epstein's
residences in both New York and Florida. As a result, Minor
Victim-1 was sexually abused by Epstein in both New York and
Florida. Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel across state
lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein, and
MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with
Minor Victim-1 after Minor-Victim-1 traveled to Epstein's
properties, including in the context of a sexualized massage.
b. MAXWELL interacted with Minor Victim-2 on at
least one occasion in or about 1996 at Epstein's residence in
New Mexico when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18. Minor
Victim-2 had flown into New Mexico from out of state at
Epstein's invitation for the purpose of being groomed for and/or
subjected to acts of sexual abuse. MAXWELL knew that Minor
Victim-2 was under the age of 18 at the time. While in New
Mexico, MAXWELL and Epstein took Minor Victim-2 to a movie and
MAXWELL took Minor Victim-2 shopping. MAXWELL also discussed
Minor Victim-2's school, classes, and family with Minor Victim-
2. In New Mexico, MAXWELL began her efforts to groom Minor
Victim-2 for abuse by Epstein by, among other things, providing
8
EFTA00011000

=== Page 9 ===
an unsolicited massage to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor
Victim-2 was topless. MAXWELL also encouraged Minor Victim-2 to
massage Epstein.
C.
MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor
Victim-3 in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995,
including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that
Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18. Among other things,
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor
Victim-3. MAXWELL introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and
arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim-3 and
Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged Minor
Victim-3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage
in sex acts with Minor Victim-3 during those massages. Minor
Victim-3 provided Epstein with the requested massages, and
during those massages, Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3.
MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with
Minor Victim-3 on multiple occasions, including at times when
Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, including in the context
of a sexualized massage.
MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT
8. In or around 2016, in the context of a deposition
as part of civil litigation, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant,
repeatedly provided false and perjurious statements, under oath,
regarding, among other subjects, her role in facilitating the
9
EFTA00011001

=== Page 10 ===
abuse of minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein, including some of the
specific events and acts of abuse detailed above.
STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS
9.
From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey
Epstein, 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, enticement, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 2422.
10. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others
known and unknown, would and did knowingly persuade, induce,
entice, and coerce one and more individuals to travel in
interstate and foreign commerce, to engage in sexual activity
for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422.
Overt Acts
11. 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:
10
EFTA00011002

=== Page 11 ===
a.
Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
participated in multiple group sexual encounters with Epstein
and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida.
b.
In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was
under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from
Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the
New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section
130.55.
C.
In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was
under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an
unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2
was topless.
d.
Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in
London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse
Minor Victim-3 during those massages.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)
COUNT TWO
(Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts)
The Grand Jury further charges:
12. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
11
EFTA00011003

=== Page 12 ===
13. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did
persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual to travel in
interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for
which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and
attempted to do the same, and aided and abetted the same, to
wit, MAXWELL persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced Minor
Victim-1 to travel from Florida to New York, New York on
multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would
engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in
violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2.)
COUNT THREE
(Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to
Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity)
The Grand Jury further charges:
14. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
15. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey
Epstein, 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
12
EFTA00011004

=== Page 13 ===
wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 2423 (a)
16. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others
known and unknown, would and did, knowingly transport an
individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and
foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in
sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a
criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 2423 (a)
Overt Acts
17. 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.
Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
participated in multiple group sexual encounters with EPSTEIN
and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida.
b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was
under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from
Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the
13
EFTA00011005

=== Page 14 ===
New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section
130.55.
C. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was
under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an
unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2
was topless.
d.
Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in
London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse
Minor Victim-3 during those massages.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)
COUNT FOUR
(Transportation of a Minor with Intent to
Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity)
The Grand Jury further charges:
18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
19. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did
transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in
interstate and foreign commerce, with the intent that the
individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be
charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do so, and
14
EFTA00011006

=== Page 15 ===
aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL arranged for Minor
Victim-1 to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on
multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would
engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in
violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423 (a) and 2.)
COUNT FIVE
(Perjury)
The Grand Jury further charges:
20. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
21. On or about April 22, 2016, in the Southern
District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having
taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in
connection with a case then pending before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under
docket number 15 Civ. 7344, knowingly made false material
declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined
false testimony:
Q.
Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit
underage girls for sexual massages? If you know.
A.
I don't know what you're talking about.
15
EFTA00011007

=== Page 16 ===
Q.
List all the people under the age of 18 that you
interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties?
A.
I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with,
other than obviously [the plaintiff] who was 17
at this point.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.)
COUNT SIX
(Perjury)
The Grand Jury further charges:
22. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
23. On or about July 22, 2016, in the Southern
District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having
taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in
connection with a case then pending before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under
docket number 15 Civ. 7344, knowingly made false material
declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined
false testimony:
Q:
Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or
devices used in sexual activities in Mr.
Epstein's Palm Beach house?
A:
No, not that I recall.
a
Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex
toys or devices used in sexual activities?
A. No.
16
EFTA00011008

=== Page 17 ===
Q.
Other than yourself and the blond and brunette
that you have identified as having been involved
in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr.
Epstein have sexual activities?
A.
I wasn't aware that he was having sexual
activities with anyone when I was with him other
than myself.
Q.
I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your
testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were
not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual
activities with anyone other than yourself and
the blond and brunette on those few occasions
when they were involved with you?
A.
That is my testimony, that is correct.
Q.
Is it your testimony that you've never given
anybody a massage?
A.
I have not given anyone a massage.
Q. You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that
your testimony?
A.
That is my testimony.
Q.
You never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage is your
testimony?
A.
I never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.)
FOREPERSON
AUDREY Audy STRAUSS Straws
Acting United States Attorney
17
EFTA00011009

=== Page 18 ===
Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
INDICTMENT
(18 U.S.C. $$ 371, 1623, 2422, 2423 (a),
and 2)
AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney
Foreperson
18
EFTA00011010


c1: EFTA00013732
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013732.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Epstein
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:02:18 +0000
Importance: Normal
Would you guys be available Friday morning by telephone to discuss?
EFTA00013732


c1: EFTA00010180
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010180.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 11, 2021
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Christian Everdell, Esq.
Mark Cohen, Esq.
Cohen & Gresser LLP
Laura Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
Bobbi Sternheim, Esq.
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
Re:
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Dear Counsel:
Today we are producing the materials listed in the below index. These materials are
stamped with control numbers SDNY_GM_02771981 through SDNY_GM_02771983.
Please note that both this letter and the enclosed materials are governed by the July 31,
2020 Protective Order in this case. This letter is itself designated as "confidential," because it
includes information regarding records designated as "confidential" under the Protective
Order. The Department of Justice directed this office to cease the dissemination of materials
marked with the word "confidential" in order to avoid potential confusion with markings reserved
for classified documents. Accordingly, in order to note the appropriate designation of this
production under the operative Protective Order in this case, the materials being produced today
are marked with the following label: "SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7,
8, 9, 10, 15, and 17." This marking directly refers to the specific paragraphs of the Protective
Order that govern today's production.
An index of the materials contained in this production is below:
EFTA00010180

=== Page 2 ===
Page 2
Bates Start
Bates End
Summary Description
Confidential Designation
SDNY GM 02771981
SDNY GM 02771983
Amazon records
Although the Government believes that all of these materials are also located in the Florida
FBI file and were previously produced to you from that file in the fall of 2020, out of an abundance
of caution, the Government is producing these records to you in the form in which they were stored
in the files maintained by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The
Government recognizes that its discovery obligations are ongoing and will promptly produce any
additional discoverable material of which it becomes aware. Please do not hesitate to reach out if
you have any difficulty accessing these materials.
Very truly yours,
United States Attorney
by:
s/
Assistant United States Attorneys
EFTA00010181


c1: EFTA00013425
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013425.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Subject:
Epstein HDs
Date:
Friday, October 9, 2020 3:05:06 PM
Thank you.
-
On Oct 9, 2020 3:04 PM,
Already discussed that with
That is how I am doing it.
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
On Oct 9, 2020 2:40 PM,
rote:
One request from SDNY
Can each device have its own folder so that the images/files you pull out on the device go in
its own folder?
-
On Oct 9, 2020 1:16 PM,
wrote:
Thanks.
tor
On Oct 9, 2020 1:02 PM,
wrote:
Steve,
I just dropped them off. I put them on your chair.
Thanks,
Mandy
-
On Oct 9, 2020 12:55 PM
Sounds good
Steve is on top of this and will take care of it. If there are any other
issues or concerns, don't hesitate to reach out.
EFTA00013425

=== Page 2 ===
On Oct 9, 2020 12:39 PM,
wrote:
Good talking to you today Frank.
is getting 3 - 2TB External HDs today and will leave them on
will Email everyone when they are there for him. If you don't need the 3rd drive you can send
it back to us.
On a rolling basis, can Steve let
know when the HDs are done so we can alert SDNY
and coordinate getting them over there. Given the attention this case is getting from EM we
want to ensure there are no delays/issues.
is OCONUS next week on this case so pls
copy me on any update Steve has.
Appreciate everyone's help on this as usual.
Call or email with any questions
EFTA00013426


c1: EFTA00013857
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013857.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: Epstein issue with State Attorney's Office
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:13:18 +0000
Importance: Normal
I am out of the office and will not return until Monday, August 10. You may contact my assistant,
at
should you require assistance.
EFTA00013857


c1: EFTA00014117
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014117.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(USAFLS)"
To: Roy BLACK
Bcc: "
(USAFLS)"
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:31:56 +0000
Importance: Normal
Hi Roy -- It relates to the performance of the criminal Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
Original Message
From: Roy BLACK [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:18 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: Re: Jeffrey Epstein
I am out of town. What is it about?
(USAFLS)"
07/30/08 11:44 AM
Dear Roy: Are you available this afternoon to discuss the Epstein
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
EFTA00014117


c1: EFTA00009966
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009966.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
)"
)"
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
Subject: RE: 'I never touched the man,' Jeffrey Epstein's former cellmate insists in letter to Daily News
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 18:11:39 +0000
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-donated-8-9-million-to-harvard-university-says/
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 1:49 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
i
>;
is
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
(USANYS)
Subject: 'I never touched the man,' Jeffrey Epstein's former cellmate insists in letter to Daily News
'I never touched the man,' Jeffrey Epstein's former cellmate insists in letter to Daily News
NY Daily News
By Stephen Rex Brown
9/12/19
Jeffrey Epstein's former cellmate proclaimed "I never touched the man" in a letter to the Daily News Thursday
as a probe into the multimillionaire perv's suicide continues.
Nick Tartaglione, a former Briarcliff Manor cop facing the death penalty for quadruple murder, insisted in a two-
page handwritten note that he shared a cell at Metropolitan Correctional Center with Epstein because he posed
no threat to the accused sex trafficker of underage girls.
"As far as Jeff Epstein is concerned, I never touched the man. I despise anyone who hurts children but whatever
was going to happen to him, I was not going to be a part of it," Tartglione, 51, wrote from an 8-by-10-foot cell he
called The Box.
"The prison told Epstein they were putting him in a cell with me because they knew I would neither hurt nor
extort him. The staff here at MCC had hundreds of inmates to choose from yet I was their first choice,"
Tartglione wrote.
Epstein's first attempted suicide on July 23 in the cell he shared with Tartaglione. Sources previously told The
News that Tartaglione believed he may have saved Epstein's life by quickly alerting jail staff to the attempted
hanging.
[More New York] State comptroller's annual MTA finance review warns of possible layoffs, growing budget
gaps »
Epstein, 66, was moved to suicide watch, separating him from Tartaglione. Sources said at the time that
investigators were trying to determine whether Tartaglione had assaulted Epstein.
EFTA00009966

=== Page 2 ===
The sex offender was subsequently taken off of suicide watch and hanged himself on Aug. 10 in a cell he
occupied alone. He was awaiting trial on charges that carried a maximum sentence of 45 years in prison.
"At or around the time of his death we did not see a despairing or despondent person," Epstein's attorney Reid
Weingarten said at a recent hearing for the financier's victims.
The probe of how the perv with powerful friends managed to kill himself includes an examination of the first
attempt, prosecutors have said in court. Tartaglione's attorney Bruce Barket said he has not been interviewed by
investigators since Epstein's death.
"(Tartaglione) has not been questioned by any law enforcement official since July 23," Barket said.
"I can't imagine how they can claim a complete investigation without speaking to the person who was in the cell
in that first event."
A spokesman for the Southern District of New York declined comment.
Attorney General William Barr said "irregularities" have been uncovered at the nightmarish lockup. The jail staff
on duty at the time of Epstein's hanging were reportedly exhausted from working multiple overtime shifts and
failed to follow protocol. The MCC is also coping with longstanding staff shortages.
"I still have some faith in the justice system," Tartaglione wrote. "Every person in this country has the right to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty. To anyone who reads this I only ask for that presumption because I
haven't felt it yet in the past 33 months."
Tartaglione, who has long complained about conditions at MCC, is seeking to be transferred to another federal
lockup due to threats he says were made by jail staff after Epstein's suicide.
"It just doesn't seem appropriate that he be housed and guarded by the very people who are under investigation
given his proximity to the investigation," Barket said at a recent hearing.
"My client shouldn't have to fear for his life."
[More New York] Man found wrapped in a carpet was shot before being tossed outside Harlem Starbucks: cops »
The attorney said he did not know his client had sent the letter until after it was in the mail. "It's a product of the
frustration at the entire situation," Barket said.
The musclebound ex-cop is charged with killing Martin Luna, 41, Hector Santiago, 32, Miguel Luna, 25, and
Hector Gutierrez, 43, in April 2016, as well as conspiring to distribute over five kilos of cocaine. Prosecutors say
two of the victims had ties to a Mexican drug cartel.
The four men's bodies were found buried on Tartaglione's sprawling animal rescue farm in Otisville, Orange
County. Tartaglione has been locked up since December 2016 and still does not have a trial date.
EFTA00009967


c1: EFTA00013488
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013488.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Epstein Pre-Meet
Start Date: 2007-12-14 17:15:00 +0000
End Date: 2007-12-14 17:45:00 +0000
Organizer: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)
Location: Alex's Office
Class: X-PERSONAL
Date Created: 2015-04-04 00:21:58 +0000
Date Modified: 2015-07-22 20:34:54 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2007-12-13 22:12:41 +0000
Attendee:
)
>;
(USAFLS)
<AVillafana@usa.doj.gov>
EFTA00013488


c1: EFTA00014033
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014033.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Jack Scarola
To:
Subject: Re: Confidential -- Non Prosecution Agreement
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:15:02 +0000
Importance: Normal
Thank you. I will follow your instructions.
Original Message
From:
To: Jack Scarola
Sent: Tue Dec 09 19:09:35 2008
Subject: Confidential -- Non Prosecution Agreement
Dear Mr. Scarola: I have attached the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Please restrict its disclosure only to those who have reviewed and
signed the Protective Order. If any other staff members or attorneys need to see this document, please have them review and sign the
Protective Order and send it to me. Thank you.
<<Epstein NonProsecution Agrmt W Addendum.pdf>>
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Phone
Fax
*** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content ***
*** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***
EFTA00014033


c1: EFTA00013459
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013459.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc:
)"
(USANYS)
[Contractor]"
(USANYS)"
)"
Subject: Re: Epstein Call Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 13:32:40 +0000
Either works for me. Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 21, 2020, at 9:27 AM,
(USANYS)
wrote:
Me too.
From:
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 9:27 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
is
(USANYS)
is
Subject: Re: Epstein Call Tomorrow
Either works for me, thanks.
On May 21, 2020, at 09:17,
(USANYS)
wrote:
1 would be better for me but I can make 11 work if it's better for others.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 21, 2020, at 9:11 AM,
)
wrote:
Both work for me, thanks.
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 9:10 AM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
i
)
is
is
;
Subject: Epstein Call Tomorrow
All,
I've been asked to set up a call with all of you and the brass for tomorrow. 11am or 1pm would work best for them.
Do either work for all of you?
Thanks,
EFTA00013459


c1: EFTA00010075
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010075.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
HOMELAND SECURITY
TECS- Person Encounter List
01/23/2020 14:45 EST
Generated By:
Page 1 of 3
Last Name
First Name
DOB
Doc
Document
Date - Time
Carrier
Carrier
I/O
Site
Insp
Type
Status
Ref
Arr
Dep
Type
Number
(Eastern)
Code
Num.
Loc
Loc
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
09/19/2000
BA
113
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
21:29
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
06/23/2000
BA
1
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
04/16/2000
ZZ
733TA
I
A523
AIRLINE
21:01
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
04/01/2000
AF
2
I
4701
APIS
JFK
CDG
08:12
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/21/2000
00
505LS
I
A523
AIRLINE
23:35
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
12/18/1999
PV
1
I
A511
AIRLINE
16:25
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
12/11/1999
PV
1
I
A511
AIRLINE
17:09
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
08/14/1999
PV
908JE
I
A511
AIRLINE
19:25
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/29/1999
BA
1
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
09:40
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
11/06/1998
BA
3
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
17:59
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
10/01/1998
00
1
I
A523
AIRLINE
14:00
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
05/30/1998
AF
8
I
4701
APIS
JFK
CDG
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
03/20/1998
BA
1
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
02/28/1998
00
90
I
A523
AIRLINE
20:30
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
01/18/1998
BA
1
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
09:31
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
12/25/1997
00
1
I
A523
AIRLINE
18:13
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
12/23/1997
00
908G
I
A523
AIRLINE
17:34
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
12/06/1997
RG
0000868
I
A472
AIRLINE
18:33
(NOT
API)
SDNY_GM_00000812
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00010075

=== Page 2 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
SECURITY
TECS - Person Encounter List
01/23/2020 14:45 EST
Generated By:
Page 2 of 3
Last Name
First Name
DOB
Doc
Document
Date - Time
Carrier
Carrier
I/O
Site
Insp
Type
Status
Ref
Arr
Dep
Type
Number
(Eastern)
Code
Num.
Loc
Loc
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
06/19/1997
BA
1
I
A472
AIRLINE
09:19
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
06/19/1997
BA
1
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
05/31/1997
I
A523
AIRLINE
18:52
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
05/24/1997
I
A472
AIRLINE
09:20
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
03/17/1997
I
A523
AIRLINE
18:37
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
02/06/1997
BA
3
I
A472
AIRLINE
18:03
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
01/25/1997
I
A523
AIRLINE
18:56
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
12/23/1996
I
A523
AIRLINE
15:21
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
06/17/1996
BA
3
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
17:57
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
01/14/1996
I
A523
AIRLINE
17:38
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
12/22/1995
OF
107
I
2720
APIS
LAX
SYD
17:11
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
09/10/1995
BA
1
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
09:24
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
05/14/1995
I
A523
AIRLINE
14:40
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
12/08/1994
BA
3
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
08/06/1994
I
A471
AIRLINE
09:34
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
07/04/1994
I
A471
AIRLINE
09:14
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
05/20/1994
I
A471
AIRLINE
09:03
(NOT
API)
SDNY_GM_00000813
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00010076

=== Page 3 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
HOMELAND SECURITY
TECS - Person Encounter List
01/23/2020 14:45 EST
Generated By:
Page 3 of 3
Last Name
First Name
DOB
Doc
Document
Date - Time
Carrier
Carrier
I/O
Site
Insp
Type
Status
Ref
Arr
Dep
Type
Number
(Eastern)
Code
Num.
Loc
Loc
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
04/10/1994
I
A321
AIRLINE
14:48
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
04/10/1994
UA
822
I
APIS
HNL
NRT
00:00
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
03/10/1994
I
A471
AIRLINE
09:11
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
P
02/01/1994
I
A471
AIRLINE
09:05
(NOT
API)
EPSTEIN
JEFFREY
01/20/1953
11/08/1992
BA
3
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
00:00
Total Number of Records: 40
Legend
Loc
Codes
Value
NRT
NARITA, TOKYO
LAX
LOS ANGELES, CA INTL
LHR
LONDON / HEATHROW INTL
CDG
PARIS, CH. DE GAULLE
HNL
HONOLULU INT'L
JFK
JOHN F KENNEDY INTL
SYD
KINGSFORD SMITH-SYDNEY
Doc Type
Codes
Value
P
P - PASSPORT
Site Code
Codes
Value
A472
A472 = NEW YORK, JFK AIRPORT, TERM 7
A471
A471 - NEW YORK, JFK AIRPORT, TERM 4
2720
2720 - 2720
A511
A511 = CBP-CYRIL E KING, INTL AIRPORT
A523
A523 - CBP-PALM BEACH, INTERNATIONAL
4701
4701 - 4701
A321
A321 = CBP-HONOLULU, AIRPORT
SDNY_GM_00000814
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00010077


c1: EFTA00011192
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011192.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Exhibit U
EFTA00011192

=== Page 2 ===
IN THE MATTER OF AN OPINION
ON THE EXTRADITION LAW OF ENGLAND AND WALES
RE GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Overview
1. This Opinion is provided pursuant to instructions from Peters and Peters Solicitors LLP¹ dated 12
August 2020 in the context of bail proceedings relating to Ms Ghislaine Maxwell before the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York. Subsequent instructions have confirmed that Ms
Maxwell will execute a waiver of her right to extradition that could be exhibited to a future extradition
request made by the United States and relied upon in any extradition proceedings. The specific
questions asked by Peters and Peters are attached at Annex A. A summary of counsel's relevant
experience is attached at Annex B. The waiver is attached at Annex C.
2. In summary:
(a) Extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom are governed by the Extradition Act 2003
('the 2003 Act') and, in general, comprise; (i) a hearing before a designated "appropriate
judge' (the extradition hearing); and (ii) an appeal, subject to a leave requirement.
(b) In proceedings under the 2003 Act, a requested person may consent to their extradition
which has the effect of removing the need for an extradition hearing and waiving the
person's statutory appeal rights.
(c) In the majority of cases, proceedings in England and Wales in relation to US extradition
requests are concluded in under two years². The process is significantly shorter if the
requested person consents to their extradition and in those cases the timescales are
approximately between one and three months.
(d) It is extremely unlikely that bail would be granted in an extradition case in circumstances
where the requested person had absconded from criminal proceedings in the United States
prior to trial and in breach of bail.
I The following documents were annexed to the instructions: (a) Superseding Indictment, United States V Ghislaine
Maxwell, dated 8 July 2020; (b) a transcript of the arraignment and bail hearing that took place on 14 July 2020; (c) the
Motion to Detain the Defendant dated 2 July 2020; (d) the Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Detention dated
10 July 2020; (e) and the Government Reply Memorandum in Support of Detention dated 13 July 2020.
2
There is no data as to the duration of extradition proceedings in Northern Ireland and Scotland but it may be inferred
that the timescales are similar.
1922623.1
1
EFTA00011193

=== Page 3 ===
(e) On the basis of the information currently known, it is highly unlikely that Ghislaine
Maxwell would be able successfully to resist extradition to the United States in relation to
the charges in the superseding indictment dated 7 July 2020.
1922623.1
2
EFTA00011194

=== Page 4 ===
A. Extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States
The extradition arrangements
3. Extradition relations between the United Kingdom and the United States of America are governed by
an extradition treaty signed on 31 March 2003³, which is given effect in the domestic law of the
United Kingdom by the 2003 Act⁵.
Overview of the extradition process
4. The United States of America has been designated as a 'Part 2 territory' (also referred to as a
"Category 2 territory') for the purposes of the 2003 Act6. The effect of this designation is that
extradition requests from the United States fall to be considered under Part 2 of the 2003 Act', and the
United States is exempted from the requirement to provide evidence sufficient to make a case to
answer against the requested person ('the prima facie case requirement").
5. Once a valid9 request for extradition is made by a Part 2 territory, the Secretary of State must, subject
to very limited exceptions¹ not applicable here, issue a certificate under section 70. Once a certificate
is issued, the Secretary of State must send the request and certificate to the appropriate judge. In
practice, it is extremely rare for the Secretary of State to refuse to issue a certificate under section 70.
6. Under Part 2 of the 2003 Act, a requested person may be arrested pursuant to either a full extradition
request¹, or a provisional request pending the service of a full extradition request¹². In both cases,
there is an "initial hearing' at which the requested person is produced before 'the appropriate judge'¹³
3 Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, signed 31 March 2003 and ratified on 26 April 2007.
4 The Extradition Act 2003 governs extradition to and from the United Kingdom. The Act applies in the three
jurisdictions within the United Kingdom: (a) England and Wales; (b) Scotland; and (c) Northern Ireland. There are
limited regional variations of which the only one of relevance to this Opinion is that the forum bar in S. 83A of the 2003
Act (see para. [34] below) is not yet in force in Scotland.
5 Extradition Act 2003, c.41, given Royal Assent on 20 November 2003.
6 Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003/3334, Art. 2.
7 Extradition Act 2003, S. 69.
8 Extradition Act 2003, SS. 84(7) and 86(7).
9 The conditions governing whether a request is valid are in SS. 70(3)-(4A) and (7) of the 2003 Act.
10 These relate to cases where: (a) there is a competing extradition request from another state (ss. 70(2)(a) and 126); and
(b) the requested person has been granted refugee status or humanitarian protection in the UK (s. 70(2)(b) and (c)).
11 Extradition Act 2003, S. 71.
12 Extradition Act 2003, S. 73.
13 As defined in S. 139 of the Extradition Act 2003.
1922623.1
3
EFTA00011195

=== Page 5 ===
who must consider, amongst other things, whether to remand the person in custody or on bail¹⁴. In
cases where the person appears before the court pursuant to a full extradition request, the judge must
set a date for the extradition hearing to begin¹⁵. In provisional arrest cases, this date is set after the full
request is served which, in US extradition cases, must be within 65 days of arrest¹⁶.
7. At the extradition hearing, the appropriate judge must decide: (a) whether the extradition request
meets certain technical requirements¹; (b) whether the person appearing before the judge is the
person whose extradition is requested¹⁸; (c) whether the offence(s) specified in the extradition request
are extradition offence(s)19; (d) whether there are any bars to extradition²⁰; (e) whether extradition
would be compatible with the person's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights
("ECHR') within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 199821; and, where applicable, (f) whether
extradition would be oppressive by reason of the person's mental or physical condition²
8. If the appropriate judge decides all the statutory questions in favour of the requesting government,
then they must send the case to the Secretary of State23 who must decide whether any of the bars to
extradition that she must consider²⁴ apply. These bars are different to those considered by the
appropriate judge. The Secretary of State has no power to consider any human rights objections to
extradition² If she decides that no bars apply, she must order the person's extradition, subject to
very limited exceptions which are not applicable here2⁷.
14 Extradition Act 2003, SS. 72(7)(c) and 74(7)(c).
15 Extradition Act 2003, S. 75.
16 Extradition Act 2003, S. 74(11)(b) and Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003/3334, Art.
4.
17 Extradition Act 2003, S. 78(2). The request must contain: (a) the documents specified in S. 70(9) (the extradition
request and the Secretary of State's certificate); (b) particulars of the offence(s) specified in the request; (c) an arrest
warrant or a certificate of conviction and, where applicable, sentence. The judge must also decide whether the relevant
documentation has been served on the requested person: S. 87(4)(c).
18 Extradition Act 2003, S. 78(4)(a).
19
Extradition Act 2003, S. 78(4)(b).
20
The bars to extradition are: (a) the rule against double jeopardy (s. 80); (b) extraneous considerations (s. 81); (c)
passage of time (s. 82); (d) hostage-taking considerations (s. 83); and (e) forum (s. 83A). The bars to extradition are
considered further at paras. 26 to 35 below.
21
Section 87. The rights under the ECHR apply to every person within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom: ECHR,
Art. 1.
22 Extradition Act 2003, S. 91.
23
Extradition Act 2003, S. 87(3).
24
The bars to extradition that the Secretary of State must consider are: (a) the death penalty (s. 94); (b) speciality (s. 95);
(c) earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from another territory (s. 96); and (d) earlier transfer to the United
Kingdom from the International Criminal Court (s. 96A).
25 Extradition Act 2003, S. 70(11).
1922623.1
4
EFTA00011196

=== Page 6 ===
9. A requested person may appeal the decision of the appropriate judge to send the case to the Secretary
of State, the decision of the Secretary of State to order extradition, or both28, except in consent cases
where the person is deemed to have waived their rights of appeal²⁹. Where the requested person is
discharged at the extradition hearing or by the Secretary of State, the requesting government may
appeal the decision to discharge³⁰. Extradition appeals are heard by the High Court. An appeal may be
brought on a question of law or fact and may not be brought unless the court grants leave to appeal
which requires the Appellant to establish that there is a reasonably arguable ground of appeal³¹.
10. Either party may appeal a decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court, but only where the High
Court has certified that the decision involves a point of law of general public importance, and either
the High Court or the Supreme Court concludes that the point is one that ought to be considered by the
Supreme Court32. Where leave is granted, the Supreme Court may either grant the appeal, or dismiss
it³³. In practice, such appeals are extremely rare; in the past ten years, only one US extradition case
has been considered by the Supreme Court³⁴.
11. In some cases, a requested person may apply to the European Court of Human Rights and seek an
injunction to prevent the extradition from taking place until the application is determined³⁵. Such
applications, which must be based on an alleged violation of a right under the ECHR³⁶, are also very
rare.
26 Extradition Act 2003, S. 93(4).
27 The exceptions are: (a) that the Secretary of State is informed that the request has been withdrawn (s. 93(4)(a)); (b)
there is a competing claim for extradition from another state (ss. 93(4)(b), 126(2) and 179(2)); (c) the person has been
granted asylum or humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom (s. 93(4)(c) and 6(A)); or (d) extradition would be
against the interests of UK national security (s. 208).
28
Extradition Act 2003, SS. 103 and 108.
29 Extradition Act 2003, SS. 103(2) and 108(2).
30 Extradition Act 2003, SS. 105 and 110.
31
Extradition Act 2003, SS. 103(4), 105(4), 108(3) and 110(4) and Criminal Procedure Rules ("CrimPR'), r. 50.17(4)(b).
32
Extradition Act 2003, S. 114(4).
33 Extradition Act 2003, S. 115(1).
34
Norris V Government of the United States of America [2010] 2 AC 487.
35 ECHR, Art. 34 and European Court of Human Rights, Rules of the Court, r. 39.
36
ECHR, Art. 34.
1922623.1
5
EFTA00011197

=== Page 7 ===
An overview of the timeframes in relation to US extradition requests
12. The timescales applicable to extradition proceedings are defined by statute and are set out in Annex D,
along with the circumstances in which the time-limits can be extended.
13. There are few publicly available figures with respect to the timescales in Part 2 extradition cases in
general, and none with respect to US extradition cases. In July 2013, the UK Government estimated that,
on average, Part 2 extradition cases took approximately 10 months to conclude37. In practice, contested
US extradition cases can take longer than 10 months, although the majority conclude within two years.
14. These timescales are significantly reduced in cases such as this one where the requested person consents
to his or her extradition at an early stage in the process. In those cases, extradition would be likely to take
place within three months.
B. Consent to extradition
15. At the initial hearing where a requested person is first produced before the court, the appropriate judge is
required to give them "the required information about consent"38. This information is: (a) that the person
may consent to extradition; (b) an explanation of the effect of consent and the procedure that will apply if
consent is given; and (c) that consent must be given in writing and is irrevocable³⁹.
16. Where consent is given before the case has been sent to the Secretary of State, it must be given at a
hearing before the appropriate judge⁴⁰. Once the case has been sent to the Secretary of State, consent must
be given to the Secretary of State⁴¹.
17. Where consent is given before the case is sent to the Secretary of State, the consequences are as follows:
(a) If the appropriate judge has not fixed a date for the extradition hearing, they are not required to do
so⁴²;
(b) If the extradition hearing has begun, the appropriate judge is no longer required to proceed with
it⁴³;
37 HM Government, Decision pursuant to Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, July 2013, Cm 8671, page 94.
38 Extradition Act 2003, SS. 72(7)(b) and 74(7)(b).
39 Extradition Act 2003, SS. 72(8) and 74(8).
40 Extradition Act 2003, S. 127(4), (6)-(7).
41 Extradition Act 2003, s.127(5).
42 Extradition Act 2003, S. 128(2).
43 Extradition Act 2003, S. 128(3).
1922623.1
6
EFTA00011198

=== Page 8 ===
(c) The appropriate judge is required to send the case to the Secretary of State44;
(d) The speciality bar to extradition no longer applies⁴⁵.
18. In all extradition cases, a requested person who consents to extradition loses the right to appeal against
either the decision to send the case to the Secretary of State or the order for extradition46
19. The main effect of a decision by a requested person to consent to extradition is that the overall extradition
procedure is substantially shortened. In the context of US extradition cases, this means that removal can
take place within months, sometimes weeks, as compared to the longer timescales considered above.
C. Bail in extradition cases
20. Where extradition is sought for the purpose of prosecuting the requested person for an offence, the person
has the same right to bail as a defendant in domestic criminal proceedings, namely there is a presumption
that bail will be granted unless one of the exceptions in Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976 applies⁴⁷. The
three exceptions in Schedule 1 that most commonly apply in extradition proceedings are where there are
substantial grounds to believe that the requested person, if released on bail, would: (a) fail to surrender to
custody; (b) commit an offence while on bail; or (c) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the
course of justice48.
21. In considering whether to grant bail in an extradition case, the appropriate judge must have regard to as
many of the statutory considerations as appear to be relevant Those considerations are: (a) the nature
and seriousness of the offence and the likely sentence; (b) the character, antecedents, associations and
community ties of the requested person; (c) the requested person's record as respects the fulfilment of
their obligations under previous grants of bail in criminal proceedings; (d) the strength of the evidence
against the requested person; and (e) any risk that the requested person may cause physical to mental
injury to another person.
22. The approach taken by the High Court in a number of recent US bail appeals gives an indication as to the
way in which the statutory considerations are approached in practice. In all five cases bail was refused⁵⁰.
44 Extradition Act 2003, S. 128(4).
45
Extradition Act 2003, s.95(2). The principle of specialty is a rule of extradition law that is intended to ensure that an
extradited person is not dealt with in the requesting state for any offence other than that for which they have been
extradited.
46 Extradition Act 2003, SS. 100(2), 103(2) and 108(2).
47 Bail Act 1976, S. 4(2A). There is no presumption of bail where extradition is sought in a conviction case: S. 4(2B).
48 Bail Act 1976, Schedule 1, para. 2(1).
49 Bail Act 1976, Schedule 1, para. 9.
50
Adeagbo V Government of the United States of America, 5 August 2020 (unreported) (wire fraud, money laundering
and identity theft); Singh V Government of the United States of America [2019] EWHC 1800 (Admin) (drug trafficking);
1922623.1
7
EFTA00011199

=== Page 9 ===
In three of the five cases the applicant was either a British citizen or had significant community and
family ties to the UK⁵¹ but these were outweighed by the risk of flight, and in the other case, the lack of
substantial community ties was cited as a factor in refusing bail52.
23. As to the question in Peters and Peters' instructions, namely whether a person who absconded from US
criminal proceeding in breach of bail would be likely to be granted bail in any subsequent UK extradition
proceedings, such a person is extremely unlikely to be granted bail. While every bail application falls to
be considered by reference to all the circumstances that are relevant at the time that the application is
made, in practice evidence of both a clear desire to evade prosecution for the offences in the extradition
request, and a previous history of failure to comply with bail conditions, would militate strongly against
the grant of bail in almost all factual circumstances.
D. The bars to extradition that may conceivably be open to Ms Maxwell should she face extradition to
the US in relation to the charges on the superseding indictment dated 7 August 2020
24. The offences in the superseding indictment are extradition offences within the meaning of section 137
of the Extradition Act 200353.
25. On the basis of the information available, there does not appear to be any arguable basis upon which
the bars of double jeopardy54; hostage-taking considerations death penalty⁵⁶; speciality57; or earlier
extradition or transfer could be engaged58.
26. On the information available, the remaining bars - abuse of process/political motivation; passage of
time; forum; and mental and physical condition - would almost certainly fail in this case.
Perry, fn 44, (kidnapping); Abdullah V Government of the United States of America [2018] EWHC 2609 (Admin) (fraud);
Government of the United States of America V Panovas [2018] EWHC 921 (Admin) (fraud).
51 Abdullah; Panovas: Perry; and Adeagbo.
52
Singh.
53 Had the conduct alleged occurred in the United Kingdom it would have amounted offences that include: (a) conspiracy
to commit indecent assault contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1967; (b) aiding and abetting or inciting
indecent assault contrary to common law; (c) indecent assault contrary to section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1957;
and (d) perjury contrary to section I of the Perjury Act 1911.
54 Extradition Act 2003, S. 80. This bar is engaged "if (and only if) it appears that [the person] would be entitled to be
discharged under any rule of law relating to previous acquittal or conviction if he were charged with the extradition
offence in the part of the United Kingdom where the judge exercises his jurisdiction".
55
Extradition Act 2003, S. 83. One of the requirements of this bar is that the act or omission constituting the extradition
offence also constitutes an offence under S. 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 which prohibits the taking of hostages
in the context of international terrorism.
56 Extradition Act 2003, S. 94.
57 Extradition Act 2003, S. 95. See fn 46 above for a definition of "specialty'.
58 Extradition Act 2003, SS. 96 and 96A.
1922623.1
8
EFTA00011200

=== Page 10 ===
Abuse of process/political motivation
27. Extradition requests are rarely discharged on the basis that the case in the requesting state is politically
motivated or abusive. It is well established that there is a presumption of good faith in relation to a
requesting state, such as the US, which has a long history of respect for democracy, human rights and
the rule of law, and which has longstanding extradition arrangements with the United Kingdom59
28. It is highly unlikely that Ms. Maxwell would be able to establish that the US prosecutor had acted in
bad faith, for example by seeking her extradition for a collateral motive in circumstances where they
knew there was no real case against her60.
29. It is also highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to establish that her extradition was sought
for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing her on account of her political opinions, or that she might
be prejudiced at her trial or punished, detained or restricted in her personal liberty by reason of those
opinions61.
Passage of time
30. Notwithstanding the date of the allegations in the superseding indictment, a judge is unlikely to
conclude that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite Ms Maxwell by reason of the passage of
time since the alleged commission of the offences62. The courts have upheld orders for extradition in
cases with similar timescales to those in Ms Maxwell's case, including two cases involving historic
allegations of sexual offending where the relevant time period was 20 and 33 years. In both cases, the
courts placed emphasis on the public interest in ensuring that extradition arrangements were honoured
and in ensuring that serious allegations were tried⁶³.
31. As to oppression, the graver the offence the higher the threshold for oppression⁶⁴. Given the
seriousness of the offences in Ms Maxwell's case, it is unlikely that she would be able to establish that
any personal or family hardship that might be caused by the extradition65 should outweigh the public
59 Ahmad V United Kingdom (2010) 51 EHRR SE6, para. 105.
60 R (Bermingham) V Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2007] QB 727, para. 100.
61 Extradition Act 2003, S. 81.
62 Extradition Act 2003, S. 82. The date range for the offences in the superseding indictment is 1994-1997.
63 Short V Falkland Islands [2020] 1 WLR 1644, paras. 41-49 and Henderson V Government of Australia [2015] EWHC
1421 (Admin), paras. 19-26.
64 Kakis V Government of the Republic of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779 at 784.
65 Oppression requires personal or family hardship greater than that inevitably inherent in the act of extradition when
facing what is likely to be long criminal trial process in another country Gomes V Government of Trinidad and Tobago
[2009] I WLR 1038, para. 36; Norris V Government of United States of America [2007] 1 WLR 1730.
1922623.1
9
EFTA00011201

=== Page 11 ===
interest in these offences being tried⁶. Similarly, there is a high threshold in relation to injustice⁷,
and it is very unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to meet it. There is a general presumption that
justice will be done despite the passage of time and the burden is on the requested person to establish
the contrary68. In assessing injustice, the appropriate judge would have regard to the procedural
safeguards that exist under US domestic law⁶⁹. Further, the judge is very likely to place weight on the
fact that Ms Maxwell had, in the hypothetical scenario under consideration, absconded from ongoing
proceedings that would otherwise have resulted in her trial in the US. As the English High Court
expressed it in Tollman "the very fact that the accused invokes justice to prevent [their] extradition
requires consideration of the circumstances which have led to the fact that [they are] not facing
justice in the country from which [they have] fled"70. In those circumstances it is very unlikely that
Ms Maxwell would be able to rely on the bar of passage of time to defeat extradition.
Forum
32. It is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to rely on the bar of forum, which applies where
extradition would not be in the interests of justice because: (a) a substantial measure of the requested
person's "relevant activity occurred in the UK; and (b) having regard to 'the specified matters'72
relating to the interests of justice (and only those matters), the extradition should not take place⁷³.
33. Although some of the conduct alleged in the superseding indictment is said to have occurred in
London⁷⁴, three of the "specified matters' are likely to weigh heavily against a finding that extradition
would be barred by forum. First, it appears that the majority of the harm caused by the offending
alleged in the superseding indictment occurred in the United States. An extradition judge would treat
66 Kakis at 784. Although the passage of time bar was successfully relied on in the US extradition case of Eason V
Government of the United States of America [2020] EWHC 604 (Admin) the case-law is clear that a fact-specific
enquiry is required, and that authorities are of "very limited value" when considering the facts of individual cases:
Steblins V Government of Latvia [2006] EWHC 1272 (Admin), para. 13.
67 Gomes. para. 36 and Lisowski-v-Regional Court of Bialystock (Poland) [2006] EWHC 3227 (Admin), para. 9.
68 Gomes. para. 36.
69 Woodcock V Government of New Zealand [2004] 1 WLR 47, para. 29; Gomes. para. 32; Linkevicius V Prosecutor
General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania [2006] EWHC 3481 (Admin) at para. 17; and Crean V Government of
Ireland [2007] EWHC 814 (Admin) at para. 21; Henderson, paras. 19-26.
70 Government of the United States of America V Tollman [2008] EWHC 184 (Admin), para. 53.
71 'Relevant activity' means activity which is material to the commission of the extradition offence and is alleged to have
been performed by the requested person: Extradition Act 2003, S. 83A(6).
72 As defined in S. 83A(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.
73
Extradition Act 2003, S. 83A(1) and (2).
74 Superseding indictment dated 7 August 2020, para. 6.
75 Extradition Act 2003, S. 83A(3)(a).
1922623.1
10
EFTA00011202

=== Page 12 ===
this as a weighty factor⁷⁶. Second, a court would be likely to consider that the interests of the
victims⁷⁷ would be best served by a trial in the United States. The High Court has held that the
interests of victims78 "will be in having a trial at a place where, if they do give evidence or wish to be
present, they can be so" 79 Third, Ms Maxwell's connections to the UK80 do not appear to be of a
type likely to be considered substantial in this context.
Mental and physical condition
34. It is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to establish that her physical or mental condition
is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite her81. In order to rely on her physical or
mental health in opposition to extradition, Ms Maxwell would need to serve evidence sufficient to
meet the statutory test. Most cases in the 'unjust' category relate to the persons' fitness to plead to
otherwise to participate in trial proceedings. Oppression is a high threshold, not easily surmountable82
and stress and hardship, which occur in most extradition cases, are not sufficient83. Even in cases
where the requested person suffers from a serious medical conditions, it is often possible for the
requesting state gives an assurance as to the medical care that will be provided⁸⁴, or an undertaking to
return an individual if they are later found to be unfit to plead⁸, and thus ensure that extradition is
possible notwithstanding the requested person's medical problems.
76 Love V United States [2018] 1 WLR 2889, para. 28.
77 Extradition Act 2003, S. 83A(3)(a).
78 Extradition Act 2003, S. 83A(3)(a).
79 Shaw V United States [2014] EWHC 4654 (Admin), paragraph 61. It is to be noted in this regard that, at Ms Maxwell's
bail hearing on 14 July 2020, one of the victims made a statement in person and another provided a written statement that
was read to the court by the prosecutor: United States of America V Ghislaine Maxwell, Transcript of hearing, 14 July
2020, pp. 38-40.
80 Extradition Act 2003, S. 83A(3)(g).
81 Extradition Act 2003, S. 91.
82 Love V Government of the United States, para. 122.
83
Dewani V Govenrment of South Africa [2012] EWHC 842 (Admin), para. 73.
84 Miao V Government of the United States of America [2020] EWHC 2178 (Admin), para. 37.
85 Dewani.
1922623.1
11
EFTA00011203

=== Page 13 ===
E. The human rights objections that may conceivably be open to Ms Maxwell should she face
extradition to the US in relation to the charges on the superseding indictment dated 7 August 2020
35. Finally, it is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to demonstrate that her extradition would
be incompatible with her rights under the ECHR86 The human rights grounds that might potentially
be relied upon by Ms Maxwell are considered in the paragraphs that follow87.
Article 3 (prison conditions)
36. Article 3 protects the right not to be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The test is
whether substantial grounds have been shown that, if extradited, the person faces a "real risk" of
treatment contrary to Article 3⁸⁸. The test is a stringent one and a strong case is required to make
good a violation of Article 3⁸⁹. Mistreatment must attain a minimum level of severity before Article 3
is engaged. Prison conditions can meet that test although, whether they do, depends on all the
circumstances, including the personal characteristics of the detainee90. Although Article 3 complaints
based on prison conditions are not uncommon in US cases, the courts have repeatedly rejected such
submissions 92 Further, even if there were to be a case where the systemic conditions at one or more
US detention facilities were found to give rise to a serious risk that Article 3 would be breached by
extradition, such difficulties are capable of being surmounted by the provision of assurances that the
requested person will not be detained in those particular prisons, or by giving guarantees in relation to
86 Extradition Act 2003, S. 87.
87 There does not appear to be any basis upon which it could be said that the following rights are engaged: (a) Art. 2 (the
right to life); (b) Art. 4 (freedom from slavery); (c) Art. 5 (unlawful detention); Art. 7 (no punishment without law); Art.
9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion); Art. 10 (freedom of speech); Art. 11 (freedom of assembly); Art. 12 (the
right to marry); Art. 14 (discrimination); Arts. 1-3 of the First Protocol (protection of property; right to education; right to
free elections); and Art. I of the Thirteenth Protocol (abolition of the death penalty).
88 Soering V United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439, paras. 88 and 91.
89 Elashmawy V Court of Brescia, Italy and Ors [2015] EWHC 28 (Admin), para. 49.
90 Ireland V United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25, para. 162.
91 Including: Ahmad V United Kingdom (2013) 56 EHRR 1, paras. 207-210; Pham V Government of the United States of
America [2014] EWHC 4167 (Admin), paras. 44-51; Bedwell V Government of the United States [2019] EWHC 3131
(Admin), para. 36; Dempsey, paras. 35-50; Sanchez V Government of the United States of America [2020] EWHC 508
(Admin); and Miao, para. 41.
92 The conditions at the New York detention facilities, MDC and MCC were a factor in the court's conclusion in Love
(see fn 76 above) that extradition would be oppressive in light of Mr Love's "rather particular circumstances" which
included a serious health condition (paras 102 and 106-108). The decision in Love was based on section 91 of the 2003
Act, and the court made no finding under Article 3 (para 123). In Hafeez, which was decided in January 2020, the High
Court received the same evidence as has been before the court in Love, and concluded that "the evidence in this case falls
well short of the necessary threshold" to prove a breach of Article 3 based on the conditions at MDC and MCC (see
Hafeez V Government of the United States of America [2020] EWHC 155 (Admin), para. 66).
1922623.1
12
EFTA00011204

=== Page 14 ===
specific concerns, such as access to medical care93. In those circumstances, it is highly unlikely that
Ms Maxwell would be able to rely on Article 3 to defeat a request for her extradition.
Article 6 (fair trial)
37. Article 6 ECHR protects the right to a fair trial, and the European Court of Human Rights has noted
that Article 6 is "strikingly similar" to the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution An issue may
exceptionally be raised under Article 6 in an extradition case in circumstances where the requested
person risks suffering a flagrant denial of justice in the requesting country95. The test of "flagrant
denial' is particularly high, requiring a court to find not only that the trial would be unfair, but that
there would be "a total nullification of the right to a fair trial"96 In practice, this threshold is rarely
overcome in extradition cases and it has never been met in a US extradition case. In those
circumstances, it is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to successfully invoke Article 6 to
resist her extradition.
Article 8 (private and family life)
38. Article 8 ECHR protects the right to private and family life. In assessing Article 8, the court is
required to conduct a balancing exercise where factors in favour of extradition, including the
"constant and weighty" public interests in honouring extradition treaties and ensuring that people
accused of crimes should be brought to trial, are weighed against any personal or other factors that
would render extradition an interreference with private or family life. The test is whether any
interference would be disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued by extradition⁹⁷ In practice, the
more serious the offence, the more difficult it is to establish that extradition would be
disproportionate. Given the nature of the charges that she faces, it is highly unlikely that such an
argument would succeed in Ms Maxwell's case.
Conclusion
39. In conclusion, if the United States were to request Ms Maxwell's extradition in circumstances where
she had absconded to the United Kingdom in breach of bail conditions imposed in the United States, it
is extremely unlikely that she would be granted bail and highly unlikely that she would be able
93 See, for example, Miao at para. 37 where the court stated that: "Assurances are commonly given in extradition cases in
order to mitigate risks which might otherwise bar extradition. It is common for assurances to be given in respect of
conditions of detention and the treatment of physical and mental illness (and associated suicide prevention) and they
form an important part of extradition law".
94
Ahmad V United Kingdom 51 EHRR SE6, para. 133.
95 Othman V United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 1, para. 258.
96 Othman, para. 260.
97 R (on the application of HH) V Westminster City Magistrates' Court [2013] 1 AC 338, para. 30.
1922623.1
13
EFTA00011205

=== Page 15 ===
successfully to resist the request for her extradition. Further, the waiver of her right to extradition
(Annex C) would be admissible in any extradition proceedings and, in cases, such as this one, where
the requested person consents to their extradition, the extradition process is likely to take between one
and three months to complete.
David Perry QC
6KBW College Hill
8 October 2020
1922623.1
14
EFTA00011206

=== Page 16 ===
Annex A
EFTA00011207

=== Page 17 ===
Annex A - Questions set out in the Peters and Peters instructions dated 12 August 2020
Counsel is instructed to prepare an expert opinion in respect of the following:
(a) Outline the extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United
States, including an overview of the general manner in which the arrangements work
and the general timeframe for UK extradition proceedings in relation to requests from
the US. Address any means by which UK extradition proceedings may be expedited.
(b) Describe the manner in which a requested person may consent to extradition (at all
stages of the extradition process), and the impact of any such consent on the process
by which the requested person may be subsequently removed.
(c) Outline the arrangements in respect of bail pending extradition, and whether a
requested person is likely to be remanded on bail pending the hearing of an extradition
request by the US, and any subsequent removal of that person from the UK. In a case
where a person, subject to prosecution in US criminal proceedings, flees to the UK in
breach of bail conditions imposed by a US court, outline the likelihood of that person
being remanded on bail in the UK pending the hearing of the extradition request, and
their subsequent removal from the UK.
(d) Outline the bars to extradition, and identify those which might, based on current
instructions, be conceivably open to Ms Maxwell were she to be arrested in the UK
and subject to UK extradition proceedings pursuant to a request from the US, such as
passage of time (section 82), forum (section 83A) and physical or mental condition
(section 91). Address, in general terms, the prospects of Ms Maxwell successfully
availing herself of any such bars, given the current approach in UK extradition case-
law and the general thresholds required.
(e) Outline the nature of the obligation for any extradition to be compatible with the
requested person's human rights (section 87) and identify those arguments that might
conceivably be open to Ms Maxwell in any future extradition proceedings, such as
Article 3 and Article 6. Address, in general terms, the prospects of Ms Maxwell
successfully availing herself of any such bars, given the current approach in UK
extradition case-law and the general thresholds required.
EFTA00011208

=== Page 18 ===
Annex B
EFTA00011209

=== Page 19 ===
Annex B - CV of David Perry QC
1.
David Perry QC
1.1. David Perry QC is a barrister and former head of chambers at 6KBW College Hill. From
1991 to 1997, he was one of the Standing Counsel to the Department of Trade and
Industry. From 1997 to 2001, he was Junior Treasury Counsel to the Crown at the Central
Criminal Court and Senior Treasury Counsel from 2001 until 2006, when he 'took silk'
(i.e. was appointed Queen's Counsel). He is a deputy High Court Judge and a judge of
the Court of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey.
1.2. Mr Perry prosecutes and defends and has extensive experience of extradition and mutual
legal assistance cases, both in the United Kingdom and overseas. He is a member of the
Editorial Board of the Criminal Law Review and a joint editor of Blackstone's Criminal
Practice, a leading practitioners' work.
2.
Extradition - Experience and Expertise
2.1. Mr Perry is widely considered one of the UK's pre-eminent extradition practitioners and
is listed as such in the leading industry journals. He has acted on behalf of many overseas
governments and appeared in the High Court, House of Lords and Supreme Court in the
leading cases. He has acted as an expert consultant to the Commonwealth Secretariat on
international co-operation and has advised overseas governments on the drafting and
implementation of their domestic legislation.
3.
Independent review of the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements
3.1. In 2011/12, together with Lord Justice Scott Baker and Anand Doobay, Mr Perry was
appointed by the UK Government to conduct the Home Office's Independent Review of
the UK's extradition arrangements. The review formed the basis of changes to the
Extradition Act 2003.
3.2. The year-long review looked in detail at the following five areas:
the Home Secretary's discretionary powers to stop extradition.
the operation of the European Arrest Warrant, which deals with extradition
requests between European countries.
where a crime is mainly committed in the UK, whether the person should be tried
in the UK.
whether the US-UK Extradition Treaty is unbalanced.
whether requesting countries should be required to provide sufficient evidence to
prove an allegation.
3.3. The report, totalling 488 pages and presented to the Home Secretary on 30 September
2011, made a series of recommendations in respect of the UK's extradition arrangements.
Part 7 of the report looked specifically at extradition arrangements between the United
States and United Kingdom under the 2003 UK-US Treaty on Extradition. It assessed the
effectiveness of the tests used in each jurisdiction and laid out the authors' observations
on the procedures under the treaty. Their conclusion was that the 2003 treaty was
operating fairly and there was no basis to seek its renegotiation.
EFTA00011210

=== Page 20 ===
4.
Practical Experience
4.1. Mr Perry has acted for governments and individuals in the most important and high-
profile extradition matters, including extradition requests between the United Kingdom
and the United States:
USA V Mackellar: Acted on behalf of the Governor of the Cayman Islands in
extradition proceedings brought on behalf of the Government of the United States.
USA V Brian Dempsey [2020] EWHC 603 (Admin): Appeared for the Government
of the United States in relation to an extradition request for an individual who had
travelled to Syria as part of the on-going conflict.
Russia V Alexander Zmikhnovskiy Westminster Magistrates Court, 15 April 2019
(unreported): Extradition request of former CEO of Oboronenergosbyt JSC, who
was alleged to have been involved in fraud by the Russian Federation, his
extradition was refused on several grounds.
Russia V Yurov, Westminster Magistrates Court, 28 September 2018 (unreported):
Appeared for Ilya Yurov, former Chairman of a large Russian bank and previously
accused of fraud, to successfully resist an extradition request from Russia.
Russia V A: Instructed to advise A in respect of a prospective extradition request
from Russia. The issues in the case relate to prison conditions, health, and fair trial.
R (HH) V Westminster Magistrates' Court [2012] UKSC 25; [2012] 3 WLR 90:
one of the leading cases on the application of Article 8 ECHR in extradition
proceedings
Norris V Government of the United States of America [2010] UKSC 9; [2010] 2
AC 487: Represented the Government of the United States in the Supreme Court
in the leading case on the application of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention in
extradition proceedings.
Norris V Government of the United States of America [2008] UKHL 16, [2008] 1
AC 920: Represented the Government of the United States in the House of Lords
in the leading case on cartels and competition law, and the requirement of double
criminality in extradition proceedings.
R (Bermingham) V Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2006] EWHC 200
(Admin); [2007] QB 727: the extradition of the 'Natwest Three', one of the first
cases US cases to proceed under the Extradition Act 2003.
EFTA00011211

=== Page 21 ===
Annex C

=== Page 22 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Docket No. 20-CR-330 (AJN)
- against -
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
AFFIDAVIT AND WAIVER OF
EXTRADITION
Defendant.
Ghislaine Maxwell, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1.
I am the named defendant in the above-captioned case. I am a citizen of the
United States, the United Kingdom, and France. I have resided in the United States since
approximately 1991. I am currently incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in
Brooklyn, New York.
2.
I have reviewed with my counsel, Mark S. Cohen and Christian R. Everdell of
Cohen & Gresser, LLP, the charges contained in the superseding indictment in the above-
captioned case (the "Indictment"). In addition, I have been informed by United States and
United Kingdom counsel, with whom I am satisfied, of my rights under the United Kingdom's
Extradition Act 2003 (the "Act"), which gives effect to the Extradition Treaty between the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government
of the United States of America (the "Treaty"). I understand that, in proceedings in the United
Kingdom under the Act in respect of an extradition request by the United States under the Treaty
in connection with the Indictment, I would be entitled to argue that I should not be extradited to
the United States. I understand that in the absence of my consent to extradition, I cannot be
EFTA00011213

=== Page 23 ===
surrendered to the United States authorities unless and until a court in the United Kingdom issues
a ruling finding that there are no bars to my extradition.
3.
If I am released on bail in connection with the Indictment, I hereby voluntarily
and irrevocably waive any rights to contest any extradition request by the United States under the
Treaty with respect to the offenses charged in the Indictment. Specifically, I consent to
extradition pursuant to Part 2 sections 127 and 128 of the Act in connection with the offenses
charged in the Indictment. In addition, to the extent that it might be relevant, I waive any rights
to assert that any bars to extradition apply, and I confirm that no such bars apply.
4.
In the event that I violate my bail conditions after being released, I understand
that the purpose of this affidavit is for the government to offer it to the authorities in the United
Kingdom when my extradition is sought by the United States government in relation to the
charges in the Indictment. I understand that the United Kingdom authorities may use this
affidavit to assist in determining my extraditability.
5.
I make this waiver freely and voluntarily, after having consulted with counsel.
Dated this
day of December 2020.
Ghislaine Maxwell
I hereby certify that on this
day of December 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell personally appeared
before me and made his oath in due form of law that the statements herein are true.
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
2
EFTA00011214

=== Page 24 ===
Annex D
EFTA00011215

=== Page 25 ===
Annex D - time-limits in relation to US extradition requests under the Extradition Act
2003
Stage
Time-limit
Preliminary stages
Certification of the
No statutory time-limit¹
extradition request
Comment [1]: there is no consistent practice as to the length
of time that it takes to certify an extradition request. Some
requests are certified within days; in other cases, certification
takes several months. Requests are certified more quickly in
cases where the US authorities request expedition
The sending of the request
No statutory time-limit²
and the certificate to the
extradition judge
Comment [2]: in practice, the documents are usually sent to
the appropriate judge on the same day that the request is
certified
Arrest under a provisional
The requested person must be brought before the extradition
warrant
judge "as soon as practicable" after arrest, unless bail is
granted by the arresting officer³
The full extradition request must be served within 65 days⁴
Comment [3]: bail is rarely granted prior to the requested
person's production in court and never in cases where the
Crown Prosecution Service objects to bail
Arrest pursuant to a full
The requested person must be brought before the extradition
extradition request
judge "as soon as practicable" after arrest, unless bail is
granted by the arresting officer5
Comment [4]: see Comment [3]
1 Extradition Act 2003, S. 70(1).
2 Extradition Act 2003, S. 70(9).
3 Extradition Act 2003, S. 74(3).
4 Extradition Act 2003, S. 74(11)(b) and Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order
2003/3334, Art. 2.
5 Extradition Act 2003, S. 72(3).
EFTA00011216

=== Page 26 ===
Cases where the requested person consents to extradition
Sending the case to the
No statutory time-limit⁶
Secretary of State
Comment [5]: in practice, where the requested person
consents to extradition, the case is sent to the Secretary of
State straight away
Order for extradition
Two months of the date on which the case is sent to the
Secretary of State⁷
Comment [6]: where the requested person consents to
extradition, the Secretary of State does not need to wait four
weeks to consider any representations from the requested
person before ordering extradition: section 93(7)
Removal
28 days of the order for extradition8
Cases where there is an extradition hearing
The date of the extradition
Two months from the date on which the Secretary of State
hearing (provisional arrest)
sends the documents to the extradition judge. That date can be
extended by the extradition judge on application by one of the
parties where the judge considers it to be "in the interests of
justice" to fix a later date. The time-limit can be extended
more than once9
Comment [7]: in practice, the extradition judge often
"opens" the extradition hearing at the initial hearing with the
effect that this time-limit ceases to run
The date of the extradition
Two months from the initial hearing. That date can be
hearing (arrest pursuant to a
extended by the extradition judge on application by one of the
full request)
parties where the judge considers it to be "in the interests of
justice" to fix a later date. The time-limit can be extended
more than once10
Comment [8]: in practice, the extradition judge often
"opens" the extradition hearing at the initial hearing with the
effect that this time-limit ceases to run
6 Extradition Act 2003, S. 128.
7 Extradition Act 2003, S. 99(3).
8 Extradition Act 2003, S. 117(2)(a).
9 Extradition Act 2003, S. 76(3)-(4).
10 Extradition Act 2003, S. 75(2)-(3).
EFTA00011217

=== Page 27 ===
Sending the case to the
No statutory time-limit¹
Secretary of State
Comment [9]: in practice, the judge sends the case to the
Secretary of State straight away
Order for extradition
Two months of the date on which the case is sent to the
Secretary of State¹²
Extradition may not be ordered during the first four weeks of
this period ('the permitted period') to allow the requested
person to make representations¹³
Cases where there is no appeal
Removal
28 days starting with: (a) the day on which the requested
person is informed that an order for extradition has been made
(in cases where no in-time appeal is lodged); or (b) the day on
which leave to appeal is refused by the High Court14
Cases where there is an appeal
Lodging an application for
Notice of application for leave to appeal must be lodged
permission to appeal a
within 14 days of the day on which the requested person was
decision to send the case to
informed of the Secretary of State's decision to order
the Secretary of State
extradition¹⁵
This time-limit may be extended if the person "did everything
reasonably possible to ensure that the notice was given as
soon as it could be given
Lodging an application for
Notice of application for leave to appeal must be lodged
permission to appeal against
within 14 days of the day on which the requested person was
an order for extradition
informed of the Secretary of State's decision to order
extradition¹⁷
11 Extradition Act 2003, S. 87.
12 Extradition Act 2003, S. 99(3).
13 Extradition Act 2003, S. 93(5)-(6).
14 Extradition Act 2003, S. 117(1)-(2).
15 Extradition Act 2003, S. 103(9).
16 Extradition Act 2003, S. 103(10).
17 Extradition Act 2003, S. 108(4)(b).
EFTA00011218

=== Page 28 ===
An application may be lodged out of time only where
it appears to the High Court that (a) the appeal is necessary to
avoid real injustice, and the circumstances are exceptional and
make it appropriate for the appeal to be heard; or (b) the
person did everything reasonably possible to ensure that the
notice was given as soon as it could be given¹⁸
Lodging an application for
Notice of application for leave to appeal must be lodged
permission to appeal against
within 14 days of the day on which the order for discharge
discharge at the extradition
was made¹⁹
hearing
This time-limit may not be extended
Lodging an application for
Notice of application for leave to appeal must be lodged
permission to appeal against
within 14 days of the day on which the requesting government
discharge by the Secretary
is informed of the order for discharge²⁰
of State
This time-limit may not be extended
Lodging an application for
14 days, starting on the day on which the court makes it
leave to appeal to the High
decision on the appeal to it²¹
Court
Lodging an application to
14 days, starting on the day on which the High Court refuses
the Supreme Court for leave
leave to appeal²²
to appeal
Lodging an appeal if leave it
28 days starting on the day on which leave is granted²³
granted
Extradition following appeal
Removal
28 days starting with: (a) the day on which the decision of the
relevant court becomes final, or (b) the day on which
proceedings on the appeal are discontinued²⁴.
18 Extradition Act 2003, S. 108(7A) and (8).
19 Extradition Act 2003, S. 105(5).
20 Extradition Act 2003, S. 110(5).
21 Extradition Act 2003, S. 114(5).
22 Extradition Act 2003, S. 114(6).
23 Extradition Act 2003, S. 114(7).
24 Extradition Act 2003, S. 118(2).
EFTA00011219

=== Page 29 ===
In cases where there is no appeal to the Supreme Court, the
relevant court is the High Court and the decision becomes
final when the period for applying for permission to appeal
ends and there is no such application, or leave to appeal is
refused²⁵.
In cases where there is an appeal to the Supreme Court, the
relevant court is the Supreme Court and the decision becomes
final when it is made²⁶.
25 Extradition Act 2003, S. 118(3) and (4).
26 Extradition Act 2003, S. 118(3) and (6).
EFTA00011220


c1: EFTA00011254
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011254.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Exhibit B
EFTA00011254

=== Page 2 ===

=== Page 3 ===

=== Page 4 ===

=== Page 5 ===


c1: EFTA00010414
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010414.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 310 Filed 07/02/21 Page 1 of 3
800 Third Avenue
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
New York, NY 10022
Christian R. Everdell
July 2, 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, NY 10007
Re: United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Dear Judge Nathan:
We respectfully submit this letter to bring to the Court's attention the recent decision by
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania V. William Henry Cosby
Jr., J-100-2020 (Jun. 30, 2021), in which the Court vacated Mr. Cosby's conviction and sentence
because the District Attorney's Office that prosecuted him failed to live up to its express promise
not to prosecute Mr. Cosby for the same crimes for which he was later convicted.¹ Ms. Maxwell's
case presents a similar situation. As we argued in our supplemental pretrial motions currently
pending before the Court (Dkt. 293), the government has failed to abide by its promise not to
prosecute Ms. Maxwell for the offenses for which she was immunized by the Epstein Non-
Prosecution Agreement ("NPA"). We submit that this decision provides support for Ms.
Maxwell's supplemental motion to dismiss Counts One, Three, Five, and Six of the S2 Indictment
for violation of the NPA.
In Cosby, Andrea Constand alleged that Mr. Cosby sexually assaulted her in his residence
in January 2004. (Op. 4-5). Ms. Constand did not immediately report the assault to law
enforcement authorities and continued to have contact with Mr. Cosby in the following months.
(Id. at 5-7). In January 2005, approximately one year after the assault, Ms. Constand reported Mr.
Cosby's conduct to the police. (Id. at 6). The Montgomery County District Attorney's Office
investigated the allegations, but then-District Attorney Bruce Castor determined that "there was
insufficient credible and admissible evidence" to bring criminal charges against Mr. Cosby. (Id. at
7-10). Among the factors weighing against bringing charges were that (i) Ms. Constand had
waited a year to file her complaint, which diminished the reliability of Ms. Constand's
recollections; (ii) Ms. Constand's statements about the events were inconsistent; (iii) there was a
lack of corroborating evidence; (iv) Ms. Constand continued to speak to and meet with Mr. Cosby
I The opinion ("Op.") is attached to this letter as Exhibit A.
EFTA00010414

=== Page 2 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 310 Filed 07/02/21 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
July 2, 2021
Page 2
after the assault; and (v) Ms. Constand had contacted civil attorneys to pursue financial
compensation through a lawsuit against Mr. Cosby. (Id. at 9-10).
DA Castor issued a signed public statement declining to prosecute Mr. Cosby, which he
viewed as, and Mr. Cosby's lawyers understood to be, an agreement that Mr. Cosby would never
be prosecuted for the events involving Ms. Constand. (Id. at 10-13, 16-18). Believing that he no
longer had a basis to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, Mr. Cosby testified at several depositions
in a civil suit brought against him by Ms. Constand and made inculpatory admissions. (Id. at 13-
15). Ten years later, the successor District Attorney, Risa Vetri Ferman, used those admissions to
charge Mr. Cosby with the same crimes related to the sexual assault of Ms. Constand that were
covered by DA Castor's promise. (Id. at 18). Mr. Cosby was convicted of those charges at trial.
(Id. at 38).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that DA Castor's promise was enforceable and that
DA Ferman's prosecution of Mr. Cosby ten years later on the same charges violated his Due
Process rights. (Id. at 78-79). As a result, the Court vacated Mr. Cosby's conviction. (Id. at 79).
In so holding, the Court noted the following:
Interactions between a prosecutor and a criminal defendant, including
circumstances where the latter seeks enforcement of some promise or
assurance made by the former, are not immune from the dictates of due
process and fundamental fairness.
(Id. at 55).
The same principle applies to Ms. Maxwell's case. As in Cosby, the government is trying
to renege on its agreement and prosecute Ms. Maxwell over 25 years later for the exact same
offenses for which she was granted immunity in the NPA. Indeed, the principle applies even more
strongly in Ms. Maxwell's case because the NPA was a formal written agreement, as opposed to
an informal promise like the one in Cosby. This is not consistent with principles of fundamental
fairness.
Accordingly, for the reasons already set forth in our supplemental pretrial motions, and the
principles discussed in Cosby, the Court should hold the government to its agreement and dismiss
Counts One, Three, Five, and Six of the S2 Indictment.
EFTA00010415

=== Page 3 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 310 Filed 07/02/21 Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
July 2, 2021
Page 3
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Christian Everdell
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, New York 10022
cc:
All Counsel of Record (By ECF)
EFTA00010416


c1: EFTA00013277
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013277.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: Fwd: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 00:34:54 +0000
FYI
Begin forwarded message:
From: BOBBI C STERNHEIM
Date: January 4, 2021 at 7:09:14 PM EST
To: BRO/Exec Assistant~
Cc:
)"
Christian Everdell
>, "Mark S. Cohen"
Subject: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509
Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell (02879-509) write to report that she was physically mistreated
and verbally threatened by MDC staff over the weekend.
Officer
(sp) performed a body search of Ms. Maxwell inside her isolation cell with her back to the
handheld camera.
During the search, Officer
squeezed Ms. Maxwell's breast with vice-like pressure equivalent to a
mammography.
Ms. Maxwell physically recoiled in response to pain caused by Officer
Another guard, Officer
(sp)
threatened to charge Ms. Maxwell with "assaulting an officer" should she move again during a search of her
person.
Ms. Maxwell reported the physical incident to a staff psychologist and to an associate warden and was
examined by
medical staff. In addition to written reports, the physical and verbal incidents should have been captured on the
hand-held
camera, used constantly to surveil Ms. Maxwell.
This is not the first time Ms. Maxwell has been touched inappropriately by MDC staff, as MDC records should
reflect.
Counsel for Ms. Maxwell make this report to put the MDC on notice:
Should Ms. Maxwell be further assaulted and threatened, we will file an official complaint with the Attorney
General's Office
and notify the Court. This will further blemish the BOP's reputation, already tarnished by negligence
resulting in the death of Jeffrey Epstein. The restrictive conditions of Ms. Maxwell's detention in the MDC
correlate directly to the Epstein debacle in the MCC, making unprovoked rough treatment of Ms. Maxwell
baffling.
Be further advised, should Ms. Maxwell face any retaliation as a result of this email,
this too will be promptly reported.
EFTA00013277

=== Page 2 ===
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ.
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
Main:
Cell:
Fax:
**Covid-19 Notice: The West 19th Street office is currently closed but we continue to work remotely.
Please use email or fax, instead of regular mail, for all correspondence during this time.
We continue to work regular business hours throughout this situation.
Thank you for your consideration. Our best wishes for your good health and well being.
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.
EFTA00013278


c1: EFTA00010362
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010362.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Ghislaine Maxwell custody
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 15:13:18 +0000
Thanks. I think it's fine to speak with
about it, but my sense is that we would also need USMS approval, based on
the email from
If you think it would be ok, I'm happy to reach out to
directly to discuss.
From:
Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 11:05 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Ghislaine Maxwell custody
I will try. Can I start with
- he may be in the best position to get it done?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 3, 2020, at 10:23 AM,
wrote:
Thanks very much for passing this along. The permitted attorney contact on the list below only includes Vogelman
without reference to her New York counsel. Would it be possible to add her two New York attorneys-Chris Everdell and
Mark Cohen-to the list of people Maxwell can speak with on the phone, please?
Ideally, we would like to get them added today so that they can speak with their client over the weekend to facilitate our
discussions with them about next steps in the case.
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 3:47 PM
To
Subject: Fwd: Ghislaine Maxwell custody
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: July 2, 2020 at 3:43:43 PM EDT
To: "NHD-SUPERVISORS (USMS)" USMS-NHD-SUPERVISORS@usms.doj.gov>
EFTA00010362

=== Page 2 ===
Cc:
Subject: Ghislaine Maxwell custody
To all:
Below are the restrictions we have put in place regarding Ms. Maxwell during her stay at Merrimack DOC. I. If you have
any questions please feel free to call or email me.
Due to the high profile status of this case Inmate Maxwell will be closely monitored. The following
directives apply and shall not be deviated from without express permission from
myself or
1.
Inmate Maxwell will be housed in M1
2.
SRT personnel will be posted in medical and will only be relieved only by SRT personnel
3.
Staff will not converse with the inmate outside of the standard communication required related to the
inmate's health and safety
4.
Inmate Maxwell will remain on a 15 minute observation watch
5.
All rounds, and touch probe rounds will be conducted and documented in XJail
6.
Third Shift Supervisors will download the touch probe rounds and camera footage from the previous
day at 0000 hours each day. The video from the medical cell DVR will be downloaded onto a USB drive and
will be tracked via the designated tracking form provided. Supervisors are directed to deliver this
documentation and video to
Monday July 6th
7.
Inmate Maxwell will be authorized to communicate with her legal counsel, Lawrence Vogelman. This
contact is only authorized after Atty Vogelman provides the appropriate PIN
8.
Any and all requests from Inmate Maxwell are to be directed to
only
At no time are staff authorized to make statements to the press regarding this matter or our SOP regarding this
inmate.
Supervisory Deputy United States Marshal
District of New Hampshire
Concord, New Hampshire
office
This e-mail is property of U.S. Marshals Service. It is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Distribution or
copying of this e-mail or the information contained herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately and destroy all electronic and paper copies of this
e-mail.
EFTA00010363


c1: EFTA00013616
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013616.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USAFLS)" </O=USA/OU=FLS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=
To: "Jay Lefkowitz"
Subject: RE: Confidential - for settlement purposes only
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:00:00 +0000
Importance: Normal
Jay,
The below is exactly the same as yours, except for deletion of "Other than the joint written submission, neither the United
States nor Epstein's counsel shall communicate with the independent third party nor shall the United States communicate
with the attorney representative selected by him" in your 1(a).
1. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility for consulting with and, subject
to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the
Agreement. If the United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the United States
and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative suggested by the independent
third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative.
2. The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party regarding the role of the
attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her regular
customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph 3, infra.
3. Pursuant to additional paragraph 1, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by the
independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation
filed against him. Thus, if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a contested
lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the
Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay
reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in S 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative,
shall cease.
Original Message
From: Jay Lefkowitz [mailto:
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 10:53 AM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: Confidential - for settlement purposes only
- pls let me know if you want to discuss this
later today. I should be free after 330 pm.
1(a). The United States has the right to assign to an
independent third-party the responsibility for
consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval
of Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney
representative for the individuals identified under the
Agreement. The parties will jointly prepare a short
written submission to the independent third-party
regarding the role of the attorney representative and
regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney
representative his or her regular customary hourly rate
for representing such victims subject to the provisions
of paragraph 2, infra. Further, if the United States
elects to assign this responsibility to an independent
third-party, both the United States and Epstein retain
the right to make good faith objections to the attorney
representative suggested by the independent third-party
EFTA00013616

=== Page 2 ===
prior to the final designation of the attorney
representative. Other than the joint written
submission, neither the United States nor Epstein's
counsel shall
communicate with the independent third party nor shall
the United States communicate with the attorney
representative selected by him.
2(b). Pursuant to paragraph 1, Epstein has agreed to
pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by
the independent third party. This provision, however,
shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of
contested litigation filed against him. Thus, if after
consideration of potential settlements, an attorney
representative elects to file
a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 2255 or
elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the
paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the
costs of the attorney representative,as opposed to any
statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable
attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in S
2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative,
shall cease.
Written Submission
The United States and Jeffrey E. Epstein have
executed an Agreement one section of which obligates
Epstein not to contest jurisdiction nor liability as to
any of 40 potential complainants whose identities are
on a list compiled by the United States to the extent
that such persons have a cause of action against
Epstein under 18 USC 2255 based on a good faith showing
of injury under that statute and who negotiate an
agreed settlement for damages pursuant to that statute
with Epstein's counsel. The attorney representative
selected by the independent third party shall each be
paid his or her normal hourly fee to discharge his or
her functions under this paragraph. The independent
third party's role will be to select an attorney
representative for the group of 40 potential
complainants as detailed above. The attorney
representative's role will be to consult with the
complainants and determine whether each or any of them
intend to negotiate a settlement with Epstein and waive
any other state or federal cause of action against him
(and if so, to facilitate such a settlement), or
whether each or any of them intend, instead, to
litigate a cause of action.
EFTA00013617


c1: EFTA00013862
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013862.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Epstein
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 19:26:52 +0000
Importance: Normal
As she is leaving DOJ shortly, has there been any decision from DC yet? Thanks,
EFTA00013862


c1: EFTA00010164
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010164.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To: Christian Everdell
)"
(USANYS)"
,
)"
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca
>, Laura Menninger
'BOBBI C STERNHEIM'
Subject: RE: Pseudonyms
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 01:33:57 +0000
Attachments: 2021-11-10,_letter_re_pseudonyms_and_sealing.pdf; Exhibit_A.pdf
Inline-Images: image001.gif; image003.jpg
All,
Attached is a draft of the letter regarding the logistics relating to pseudonyms. There is a section for your position, so if
you could please send us the language you'd like us to add by tomorrow evening, we can finalize and file it.
Thanks,
From: Christian Everdell
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 11:23 AM
To:
is
is
(USANYS)
is
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca
>; Laura Menninger
>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM'
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Pseudonyms
Yes, let's do that. I'll put them to the attention of
From:
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 11:16 AM
To: Christian Everdell
i
)
is
(USANYS)
is
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca
>; Laura Menninger
>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM'
Subject: RE: Pseudonyms
Thanks, Chris. Since I'm not sure exactly where we'll be in the morning, and I don't want to delay you at all in the morning,
it mike make sense to just drop them at the security tent at our office, which is next door. Would that work?
From: Christian Everdell
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 10:52 AM
To:
is
)
is
(USANYS)
is
)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca
>; ; Laura Menninger
>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM'
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Pseudonyms
EFTA00010164

=== Page 2 ===
Thanks,
I can try to bring the hard drives to the hearing (we have 4 to give you). I should be able to bring them in,
but maybe it's better to have a paralegal meet me in front of the side entrance of 40 Foley at 8:30am. I can hand them
off.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 10:42 AM
To: Christian Everdell
i
i
(USANYS)
is
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca
>; Laura Menninger
>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM'
Subject: RE: Pseudonyms
Hi Chris,
Not a problem, we're aiming to send you the letter later today that addresses all of those issues. Separately, could you
please bring extra drives to the hearing, along the lines we've discussed? If it's easier to mail them (or if it would be an
issue to bring them past security), that's fine too.
Thanks,
From: Christian Everdell
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 10:40 AM
To:
is
is
(USANYS)
is
)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca
>; Laura Menninger
>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM'
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pseudonyms
and
-
According to my notes, the following three joint letters regarding pseudonyms are due to the court tomorrow:
1. Joint letter (filed under seal) re: pseudonyms used by witnesses
2. Joint letter (filed on ECF) re: limiting instruction re: pseudonyms
3. Joint letter (filed on ECF) re: procedures w/r/t pseudonyms to be used at voir dire and sealing/redacting exhibits at
trial
Please send us your proposals by COB today. Jeff and Laura are traveling today for the hearing and we need the chance to
discuss your proposals with them tonight when they arrive.
Thanks,
Chris
Christian R Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
EFTA00010165

=== Page 3 ===
800 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
view bio
www.cohengresser.com
New York
Paris
Washington DC
London
OG
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended to be reviewed initially by only
the individual named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or a representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, dissemination or copying of this e-mail or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify
the sender by telephone and permanently delete this e-mail. Thank you.
PRIVACY: A complete copy of our privacy policy can be viewed at: https://www.cohengresser.com/privacy-policy.
EFTA00010166


c1: EFTA00010612
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010612.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
)"
Subject:
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 18:00:42 +0000
Inline-Images: IMG_0013.PNG; IMG_0012.PNG
Verizon LTE
1:59 PM
12
room service I don't understand
why I would have to pay for the
food and then have it reimburse
to me
Like a sweet for me and
and then an adjoining room like
a regular room that is a decent
size for everybody to sleep
I will get you a suit with an
attached room for the kids. | will
get mom a separate regular
room.
Okay awesome
Are we going to have room
service
| am not permitted to approve
room service
A
Text Message
EFTA00010612

=== Page 2 ===
Verizon LTE
1:58 PM
12
just woke me up to tell me
about the New York trip I would
like to have my own personal
sweet that's bigger than my
mom's because my mom is just
doing this to see my
grandmother I am doing this
because I have been through a
situation and want to help out
other people and I don't think
it's right that my mom gets
some illusory is room and I
don't and I would like to have
room service I don't understand
why I would have to pay for the
food and then have it reimburse
to me
Like a sweet for me and
and then an adjoining room like
a regular room that is a decent
size for everybody to sleep
A
Text Message
A
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00010613


c1: EFTA00010273
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010273.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com" <etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com>
To:
Subject: Final Voucher 10643456-2(1) has received final approval
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 21:05:38 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Final voucher 10643456-2(1) has received final approval.
Trip ID: 10643456-2
Voucher ID: 1
Voucher type: Final
Traveler name:
Minor Customer name: OBD-USA-USANYS-NEW YORK SOUTHERN (UNYS) (JO2104)
Purpose: R19NYS13842 - U.S. V. Epstein - Witness Interviews
Destination: Santa Monica, CA, United States
Dates: 2019-09-17 - 2019-09-20
Current status: Voucher Awaiting Payment
Voucher total expenses: 2152.79
Estimated trip cost: 2489.21
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# V0008
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.
EFTA00010273


c1: EFTA00011433
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011433.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
35 looks 27. Sexy and lots of fun
25 sexy half Asian. Big breasts- bar tender wild
23 Huge breasts Very wild - one to come to the hotel room
25 V pretty wants to leave Sweden - works for Elle mag -
Plse advise if you want me to pre set up any apts with these girls - time and
place
EFTA00011433


c1: EFTA00013548
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013548.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Epstein
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:01:57 +0000
Importance: Normal
Hi
- I think
spoke to the lawyer before he called you. I have notes and can fill you in. I am sitting in the office
next to
on 6. Thanks.
EFTA00013548


c1: EFTA00014122
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014122.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Notice of Non-Compliance
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:02:49 +0000
Importance: Normal
Gr8
Original Message
From:
(USAFLS)
To:
Sent: Sat Jun 28 17:14:01 2008
Subject: Fw: Notice of Non-Compliance
Jack Goldberger's response below.
Original Message
From: Jack Goldberger
To:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Sat Jun 28 15:38:23 2008
Subject: RE: Notice of Non-Compliance
not a problem.
From:
Sent: Sat 6/28/2008 11:31 AM
To: Jack Goldberger
Cc:
Subject: Re: Notice of Non-Compliance
Dear Jack:
I have conferred with a state court practitioner who stated that there is nothing that prohibits you from agreeing to a consecutive six-month
sentence of incarceration followed by one year of community control as specified in the non-prosecution agreement.
If you elect to proceed with the plea agreement as currently drafted, we ask that you insert the word "imprisoned" following the words "six
months" in the second sentencing paragraph.
Please confirm that this change is acceptable. Thank you.
Original Message
From: Jack Goldberger
To:
Cc: Jack Goldberger <j
Sent: Sat Jun 28 08:49:55 2008
Subject: RE: Notice of Non-Compliance
EFTA00014122

=== Page 2 ===
Dear Ms
please allow this e-mail to confirm our telephone conference of 6:30 pm on June 27 wherein we discussed the Epstein plea agreement and
we agreed that the Epstein state plea agreement was in compliance with the September 2007 non-prosecution agreement entered into
between Mr. Epstein and the USAO for the Souhern District of Florida.
Jack Goldberger
From:
Sent: Fri 6/27/2008 5:45 PM
To: Jack Goldberger; Roy BLACK
Cc:
(USAFLS)
Subject: Notice of Non-Compliance
Dear Messrs. Goldberger and Black:
Please see the attached Notification Letter.
<<080627 Goldberger Black notification Itr.pdf>>
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax 561 820-8777
EFTA00014123


c1: EFTA00010579
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010579.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: Automatic reply: Epstein; JMD Media Guideline
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:47:00 +0000
Importance: Normal
I am out of the office today, Friday, June 28. If you need assistance today, please contact
at
or
-
Thank you.
EFTA00010579


c1: EFTA00010118
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010118.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 motion to quash the defendant's Rule
17(c)(3) subpoena to
the administrator of the Epstein Victims' Compensation
Program (EVCP). For the reasons set forth below, the subpoena should be quashed.¹
I.
Applicable Law
As the defendant acknowledges, she bears the burden of satisfying the standard in United
States V. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). (Def. Mot. at 1). Pursuant to that standard, the "party
seeking issuance of [a Rule 17(c)] subpoena must clear three hurdles: (1) relevancy; (2)
admissibility; (3) specificity." United States V. Cole, 2021 WL 912425, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10,
2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). The proponent must also establish that the records
sought "are not otherwise procurable." Id. (quoting Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699-700).
1
For sake of simplicity, the Government uses the term "Minor Victims" to include Witness-3. The
Government acknowledges the Court's order that Witness-3 should not be referenced at trial as a
victim.
EFTA00010118

=== Page 2 ===
Page 2
The Nixon test is enforced strictly. As the Supreme Court has explained, "[i]t was not
intended by Rule 16 to give a limited right of discovery, and then by Rule 17 to give a right of
discovery in the broadest terms." Bowman Dairy Co. V. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951);
see also United States V. Purin, 486 F.2d 1363, 1368 (2d Cir. 1973) ("A subpoena duces tecum in
a criminal case is not intended as a means of discovery."). It is not sufficient for a party to show
only that the subpoenaed documents "are potentially relevant or admissible." United States V.
Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United
States V. Skelos, No. 15 Cr. 317, 2018 WL 2254538, at *2 ("The materials sought under Rule 17
must themselves be admissible at trial; it is not enough that they contain information which could
be admissible." (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)); United States V. RW Prof'l
Leasing Servs. Corp., 228 F.R.D. 158, 162 (E.D.N.Y 2005) (explaining that it is "insufficient" for
a party to show only that the subpoenaed documents "are potentially relevant or may be
admissible"). Similarly, the party requesting the subpoena must also show that the "the application
is made in good faith and is not intended as a general fishing expedition." United States V. Ulbricht,
858 F.3d 71, 109 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699-700) (internal quotation marks
omitted), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by United States V. Chambers, 751 F. App'x
44, 46 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order).²
II.
Discussion
The defendant has subpoenaed four categories of information: (1) copies of any payments
to the Minor Victims and their counsel, and (2) "[a]ny and [a]ll [r]eleases executed by the [Minor
2 Although generally "production of impeaching evidence pursuant to Rule 17(c) is not required
until after the witness testifies," Skelos, 2018 WL 2254538, at *2, in this case the Government
expects each of the Minor Victims named in the subpoena to testify at trial. Accordingly, if the
Court permits enforcement of the subpoena, the Government does not object to production of the
records to the Court before the Minor Victims actually testify for the sake of efficiency.
EFTA00010119

=== Page 3 ===
Page 3
Victims];" (3) "[a]ny and all" material "submitted by each [Minor Victim]" to the EVCP; and (4)
"communications" between the EVCP and the Minor Victims or their counsel. (Def. Mot.
Attachment A). The subpoena should be quashed as to each of these categories.
A. Payment Records
The first category-copies of payments made to the Minor Victims-concerns information
already in the defendant's possession. Indeed, the defendant's motion cites the amounts received
by the Minor Victims, which is reflected in their 3500 material (Def. Mot. at 3), and the
Government expects the Minor Victims to testify to those amounts at trial.
Accordingly, this information is "otherwise procurable." United States V. Pena, No. 15 Cr.
551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016). The subpoena should therefore
be quashed. At most, the Court should order production of that information to the Court so that it
may be provided to the defense in the unlikely event that the Minor Victims testify inconsistently
with their prior statements at trial.
B. Claim Release Forms
The defendant makes no argument for the relevance of the release forms executed by the
Minor Victims, and none is apparent to the Government. The Court should therefore quash the
subpoena insofar as it calls for that category of information, at least until the defendant explains
what relevant and admissible evidence is contained in the release forms.
3 The Government has standing to challenge the subpoena because it targets information about
anticipated Government witnesses, "based on the Government's 'interest in preventing any undue
lengthening of the trial, any undue harassment of the witness and [her] family, and any prejudicial
over-emphasis on the witness's credibility." United States V. Ray, 337 F.R.D. 561, 571 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 25, 2020) (quoting United States V. Giampa, No. 92 Cr. 437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992)). The Government has provided notice of this subpoena to the Minor
Victims and is informed that at least two victims expect to file submissions regarding the subpoena.
EFTA00010120

=== Page 4 ===
Page 4
C. Any and All Material Submitted to the EVCP
The defendant makes a further request for any and all submissions by the Minor Victims
to the EVCP. This request would not generate relevant, admissible evidence for two reasons.
First, the defendant has not identified a theory by which these materials are relevant and
admissible. The defendant argues primarily that the materials contain relevant impeachment
information because "[f]ull and complete cross-examination is impossible without understanding
the complete terms of the agreement with the Epstein Fund, including the claims concerning
Maxwell, as well as others." (Def. Mot. at 6). Materials are not relevant and admissible at trial,
as required by Nixon, simply because they aid the defendant's "understanding." And the defendant
articulates only one theory by which EVCP materials may be admitted to show bias. According
to the defendant, the May 2020 Protocol governing the EVCP states that claims are evaluated
depending on whether "there exists any information and/or pertinent findings offered by the
appropriate United States Attorneys' Office or other law enforcement agency." (Def. Mot. at
5). If this "prosecution against [the defendant] went forward," the argument goes, the Minor
Victims and their lawyers would "benefit." (Id.)
The defendant already has the information relevant to this argument. She has the protocol
for the EVCP. The Government has "offered" no "information" or "findings" to the EVCP about
the Minor Victims; to the extent the EVCP relied on publicly available information about this case
to make its determination, such as the charging instruments in this case, that information is in the
public record. And the Government has already disclosed to the defendant the settlement
EFTA00010121

=== Page 5 ===
Page 5
amounts-which the defendant cites in her motion. (Def. Mot. at 5). Thus, if these records are
relevant at all, they are "otherwise procurable." Pena, 2016 WL 8735699, at *2.4
The defendant also argues that the subpoenaed records contain prior statements of the
Minor Victims, presumably suggesting that they may be admissible as prior inconsistent
statements. (Def. Mot. at 4). This argument misses the mark. Any statements in the EVCP's files
are unlikely to be inconsistent in light of the context in which they were made. See United States
V. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 123 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing United States V. Strother, 49 F.3d 869, 875
(2d Cir. 1995) for the proposition that an omission in a prior statement "should have been admitted
as an inconsistent statement because it would have been natural for the witness to include the fact"
(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). In order to initiate a proceeding with the
Epstein Victims Compensation Fund, a victim must articulate a claim "directed against Epstein."
(Indep. Epstein Victims' Compensation Program Protocol, Def. Mot. Ex. 1 Attachment A Ex. 1 at
3 (emphasis added)). And in that context, it would be wholly unsurprising if victims spoke at
times about their experience with Epstein without discussing the defendant.⁵ Further, if it were
true (as the defendant argues above) that EVCP funds will reveal the Minor Victims' bias because
their recovery from the EVCP was aided by the Government's continued case against the
defendant, one would expect that any statements by the Minor Victims to the EVCP regarding the
defendant would be consistent with their statements to the Government and at trial. If the Minor
4 Indeed, because all four Minor Victims identified in the subpoena have resolved their claims with
the EVCP, there is no reason to think their trial testimony will be biased in order to advance their
claims in a now-completed settlement process.
5 Consider, for instance, if a victim met Epstein and the defendant together on a certain date. It
would be entirely consistent for the victim to testify as much on the stand, and to tell the EVCP
that she "met Epstein"-without mentioning the defendant-on that date.
EFTA00010122

=== Page 6 ===
Page 6
Victims' submissions to the EVCP did not discuss the defendant, a criminal case against the
defendant would not advance their claims.
Second, even if these subpoenas yielded marginally relevant impeachment material or
marginally inconsistent statements notwithstanding their context, such evidence would not be
admissible under Rule 403. At the November 1, 2021 conference, the defendant sought to preclude
the Government from arguing that the Minor Victims' settlements with the EVCP reflects an
endorsement of their claims, which "would be confusing to the jury" and "open the door to an
explanation from the defense about what really happened in those proceedings," a request to which
the Court and Government agreed. (11/01/21 Tr. at 43:7-46:3). It remains the Government's
position that cross-examination highlighting the fact that the Minor Victims received large
settlements for their claims would not open the door to a broader discussion of the Epstein Victims
Compensation Program.
If, however, the defendant engages in significant cross-examination about what Minor
Victims did and did not say to the EVCP, and the reasons for those statements, it would create just
that confusion and open just that door. If the defendant argues that a Minor Victim should have,
but did not, make statements about the defendant to the EVCP, the Government will have to
explain to the jury the purpose of the EVCP and its adjudicative process in order to contextualize
that omission. Similarly, if the defendant argues that the Minor Victims' testimony was biased by
some interrelationship between the EVCP and this case, the Government will have to explain to
the jury the absence of such an interrelationship, including the timeline of the Minor Victims'
statements relative to the timeline of the EVCP. Indeed, it appears that the defendant anticipates
arguing that some Minor Victims' bias is shown by the fact that their counsel was involved in
structuring the EVCP, which would require further response from the Government about the
EFTA00010123

=== Page 7 ===
Page 7
operations of the EVCP. (Def. Mot. at 5 ("Lawyers for Accuser-2 and Witness-3 were instrumental
in creating and structuring the terms of the Protocol.")). The risk of confusing the issues and
wasting time at trial substantially outweigh any probative value in the evidence the defendant
might obtain.
This is not a trial about the scope and adjudicative process of the EVCP. All of this should
be precluded, and therefore none of it is admissible under Nixon. The defendant is able to make
arguments about bias and consistency without issuing a subpoena that is unlikely to yield relevant
information-information that would be precluded at trial in any event.6
D. Communications
Finally, the subpoena calls for communications between EVCP and the Minor Victims and
their counsel. The term "communications" is defined broadly, covering "all forms of
correspondence, including regular mail, email, text messages, memorandum, or other written
communication of information of any kind."
This subpoena request is a classic fishing expedition that the Court should quash. There is
no reason to believe that the Minor Victim or their counsel would make substantive statements,
which might be inconsistent, in emails and text messages. The defendant offers no reason why
their theory of bias would find support in correspondence. Nor is one supported by logic: the
theory is that the Minor Victims told false stories to the Government to advance the prosecution,
not that they did or said biased things to the EVCP. This subpoena does not seek to "obtain
identified evidence" but rather to engage in "a general "fishing expedition' that attempts to use the
6 The defendant defines "EVCP Material" to include information regarding compensation received
by Minor Victims and releases signed by them. (Def. Mot. Ex. 1 Attachment A). Those items
should be treated identically to the specific requests for them, as discussed above.
EFTA00010124

=== Page 8 ===
Page 8
rule as a discovery device." United States V. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 144 (3d Cir. 1980); see
Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 109. Such an expedition is precluded by Nixon. 418 U.S. at 700.
III.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should quash the defendant's subpoena.
Respectfully submitted,
DAMIAN WILLIAMS
United States Attorney
by:
/s/
Assistant United States Attorneys
cc:
Counsel of Record (by email)
7 In the event the Court does not quash the subpoena, the Government notes that it is returnable to
the Court for in camera review. (Def. Mot. at 1). To the extent the Court releases any records
from the EVCP to the defendant, it should only release those records that comply with the Nixon
standard. See Skelos, 2018 WL 2254538, at *2 ("To avoid delay in trial, courts sometimes require
production of impeaching material to the court (but not to counsel), with the court reviewing these
documents in camera and then disclosing any admissible documents only after the witness
testifies."). For instance, if the Court identifies a prior inconsistent statement in only one
document, no other records should be released to the defendant. And, in addition to evaluating
whether any statement is relevant to show bias or as a prior inconsistent statement, the Court should
consider whether it is precluded under Rule 403, for the reasons described above. See supra pp.
6-7.
EFTA00010125


c1: EFTA00009877
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009877.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject:
FW
Date:
Friday, November 30, 2018 4:01:53 PM
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 12:28 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE
-
If you haven't already seen it, the Post reported today on Jeffrey Epstein's continued
relationships with young women.
http://pagesix.com/2016/03/08/jeffrey-epsteins-east-side-mansion-houses-russian-
playmates/
Best,
From:
Sent: Monday, February 29 2016 10:13 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re
I am adding
to this email chain as well. As we mentioned earlier today,
is one of the
lead attorneys on the case and knows both
and the facts very well. Please include
in any
follow-up that you may.
Best,
From:
Date: Monday. February 29. 2016 at 10:03 PM
To:
EFTA00009877

=== Page 2 ===
Subject
Thank you again for meeting with us today. We very much appreciate your time. I am attaching the
following documents for your review:
1. Complaint in the defamation case against Ghislaine Maxwell (just today, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's
motion to dismiss today);
2. Declarations that
filed in the CVRA case;
3. The Rule 56.1 statement recently filed in the CVRA case;
4. The redacted 302
Please let us know what other information we can provide or if you have any further questions.
Best,
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and
may contain information that, among other protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible
to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this
communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately
notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1]
EFTA00009878


c1: EFTA00013184
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013184.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Reports from July 23 Incident
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 21:13:16 +0000
Thanks, this is helpful. I don't think we need this yet but we'll reach back out if we do.
From:
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2019 3:48 PM
To:
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
Subject: RE: Reports from July 23 Incident
Expanding on this a little, I believe her name is
- or at least that's how she's listed on travel records. We
have a breakdown of airline tickets purchased with any AmEx card associated with Epstein, which is how he primarily
booked flights for others (which he did constantly; we have records of more than 4,800 flights that he purchased in the
past ten years). There are hundreds of flight ticket records for
dating from 2011 up to as recently as last month.
Let us know if you want those records; the file is too big to email, but we can add you to the share drive or I can put it in
the share of a case that
and I have together so you can pull it over to your share if you have a different one and want
a separate copy.
From:
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2019 07:24
To:
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: Reports from July 23 Incident
Here are the incident reports from the last incident.
came up during arrest planning- remember the agents
telling me she was flying with Epstein recently, but I don't remember if they sent me records. I just took a look at the
travel docs we have, and I'm not seeing anything.
Do you have a name for the ex-wife? Nothing comes to mind immediately.
From:
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2019 7:02 AM
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
)
is
Subject: Re: Reports from July 23 Incident
In addition, could you forward anything you have (travel records, etc) about
?
And do you know who her
ex-wife is? She is supposedly also connected to Epstein. Thanks.
On Aug 10, 2019, at 11:31 PM,
(USANYS)
wrote:
EFTA00013184

=== Page 2 ===
Did you receive any reports from BOP relating to the July 23 incident, or any documentation afterward regarding suicide
watch? Any notes of communications with anyone at BOP regarding the incident? If so, can you forward?
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
07
Tel:
EFTA00013185


c1: EFTA00013623
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013623.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
(561) 820
Facsimile: (561) 820-8777
October , 2007
DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE
The Hon. Edward B. Davis (Ret.)
Akerman Senterfitt
One Southeast Third Avenue, 25th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131
Re: Service as a Special Master
Dear Judge Davis:
Thank you for agreeing to serve as a Special Master and for assisting the United States
Attorney's Office in the selection of an attorney representative to represent a group of identified
victims. This letter is meant to assist you in performing your duties by providing you with
background information regarding the agreement between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein
and the duties that the attorney representative will have to perform.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office conducted an
investigation of Mr. Epstein. As a result of that investigation, the U.S. Attorney's Office and Mr.
Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement and an Addendum that contains, inter alia
the following terms:
7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the
responsibility for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of
Epstein's counsel, selecting the attorney representative for the individuals identified
under the Agreement. If the United States elects to assign this responsibility to an
independent third-party, both the United States and Epstein retain the right to make
good faith objections to the attorney representative suggested by the independent
third-party prior to the final designation of the attorney representative.
7B. The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent
third-party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's
Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly
rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph 7C, infra.
7C. Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the
attorney representative selected by the independent third party. This provision,
however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation
filed against him. Thus, if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney
representative elects to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 2255 or
elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the
Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any
statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as
those contained in $ 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall
cease.
8.If any of the individuals referred to [in the paragraphs above] elects to file suit
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the
subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his
EFTA00013623

=== Page 2 ===
right to contest damages up to an amount agreed to between Epstein and the
identified individual, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed
exclusively under 18 U.S.C. $ 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for
damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this
waiver, with respect to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided
by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures
to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an
admission of any criminal or civil liability.
Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed admission of
civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any
person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States.
10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C.
$ 2255, as set forth in [the above paragraphs], neither Epstein's signature on this
agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to
be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of
any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name
appears on the list provided by the United States.
The most recent version of the statute referenced above, 18 U.S.C. $ 2255, provides that:
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. F1
Section 2422 prohibits the use of a facility of interstate commerce to induce minors to
engage in sexual activity and prostitution, and section 2423 prohibits interstate travel for the
purpose of engaging in sexual activity or prostitution with minors The United States has
identified 34 victims as defined by this statute. The United States takes no position as to the
validity of any such claim under this statute.
Due to the circumstances of the case and the number and caliber of the attorneys who
represent Mr. Epstein, in selecting the victims' attorney representative, the United States suggests
that you consider the following criteria:
1. Experience doing both plaintiffs' and defense litigation.
1. Experience with state and federal statutory and common law tort claims.
1. The ability to communicate effectively with young women.
1. Experience litigating against large law firms and high profile attorneys who may test the
veracity of the victims' claims.
1. Sensitivity to the nature of the suit and the victims' interest in maintaining their privacy.
1. Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida.
1. The resources to hire experts and others, while working on a contingency fee basis, in
order to prepare for trial, if a settlement cannot be reached (defense counsel has reserved
the right to challenge such litigation).
1. The ability to negotiate effectively.
Pursuant to this letter, the United States assigns to you the responsibility for consulting
with and selecting the attorney representative for the individuals. The United States and Epstein
retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney representative you select prior to the
final designation of the attorney representative. In that regard, after you have reached a decision
EFTA00013624

=== Page 3 ===
regarding the attorney representative, please provide me with his or her name and contact
information.
If I can provide you with any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me
and/or the U.S. Attorney and/or Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. on behalf of Epstein. Mr. Lefkowitz can be
reached at
- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Citigroup Center, 153 East 53 rd Street, New
York, New York 10022-4611. Thank you again for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
R. Alexander Acosta
United States Attorney
By:
First Assistant United States Attorney
cc: AUSA
F1
An earlier version of this statute deems that any person described in the preceding sentence shall have
sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value.
EFTA00013625


c1: EFTA00013997
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013997.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Fw: SDFL - Epstein
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:47:45 +0000
Importance: Normal
Fyi
Original Message
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent: Tue Jun 03 13:29:39 2008
Subject: RE: SDFL - Epstein
thanks. We will be in touch.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:53 PM
To:
Cc
Subject: SDFL - Epstein
<<Epstein Itr Ofc of DAG 06 03 08.pdf>> Sent on behalf of First Assistant U.S. Attorney
SDFL. Original signed letter
with attachments to follow via Fed Ex.
Staff Assistant
U.S. Attorney's Office
S.D. of Florida
EFTA00013997


c1: EFTA00013242
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013242.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To
Subject: JE passenger manifest
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2020 05:04:09 +0000
Attachments: 2006-08-15_JEGE_MANIFEST_&_HYPERION_MANIFEST.pdf
My section of doc review included the attached, which appears to be some portion of the long lost passenger manifests.
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00013242


c1: EFTA00010357
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010357.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com" <etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com>
To:
Subject: Travel Authorization 10892303 approved by
now awaiting further
approval
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 20:53:09 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Travel authorization 10892303 has been approved by
now awaiting further approval.
Trip ID: 10892303
Traveler name:
Purpose: R20NYS13197 - U.S. V. Epstein - Witness Interview (California)
Destination: Santa Monica, CA, United States
Dates: 2019-12-15 - 2019-12-17
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.
EFTA00010357


c1: EFTA00010421
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010421.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: FW: U.S. V. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), letter motion for order of nolle prosequi
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:59:05 +0000
Attachments: U.S._v._Epstein,_19_Cr_490,_letter_requesting_nole_order_(with_proposed_order)pdf
As discussed, docketed version of our letter (and proposed order) attached.
From:
)
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 15:57
To: "bermannysdchambers@nysd.uscourts.gov' <bermannysdchambers@nysd.uscourts.gov>
Cc:
>; 'Martin Weinberg'
>;
>; 'Michael Miller'
>;
Subject: RE: U.S. V. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), letter motion for order of nolle prosequi
To the Chambers of Judge Berman:
Attached please find a courtesy copy of the Government's letter motion requesting that the Court approve the enclosed
proposed order of nolle prosequi, in connection with the above-captioned case, filed this afternoon. Defense counsel is
copied.
Thank you,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00010421


c1: EFTA00010386
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010386.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To: Joe Nascimento
Cc:
(USANYS)"
)"
Subject: RE:
)
- Epstein
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 21:39:49 +0000
Attachments: SDNY_COVID-19_Visitor_Screening_Form_05_04_21.pdf
Thanks! Could you please both fill out the attached form? There's a mask mandate in federal buildings regardless of
vaccination status (our team is vaccinated), so we'll all be wearing masks tomorrow. I should mention that the water
fountains at our office don't work (a contamination issue), so you may want to bring water bottles.
For places near the office, I like a small coffee shop called Blue Spoon
which has breakfast.
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 5:26 PM
To:
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
Yes, we are both vaccinated. She has her card, I have a picture of mine. Any recommendations for breakfast in
the morning near your office?
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Aug 19, 2021, at 5:22 PM,
)
wrote:
Hi Joe,
We're sorting out some logistics for tomorrow related to pandemic protocols. Could you please let me know whether
you and your client are vaccinated?
Thanks,
EFTA00010386

=== Page 2 ===
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 11:18 AM
To:
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
)
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Good morning,
We are set to be there this Friday. Please let me know what time you want to start and where we should go.
Thanks,
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Aug 5, 2021, at 2:49 PM,
)
wrote:
Thanks, that sounds like a plan. Could you please send me the information below for
travel?
Her full name as it appears on her government-issued ID
Her date of birth
Her home address, cellphone number, and email address
Once I have these details, I can pass them along to our witness coordinator, who can reach out to
to make
arrangements.
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 1:18 PM
To:
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
)
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Great, thanks for working around our schedules. Let's reserve Friday 8/20. Hopefully you can fly
up Thursday
night and she can take a late night flight home Friday to give you all day with her.
EFTA00010387

=== Page 3 ===
Let me know what you need from us. If its easier, feel free to communicate directly with
(
) to
make travel arrangements.
Thanks,
Joe
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami, FL 33129
p.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
From:
)"
Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 10:11 PM
To: Joe Nascimento
Cc:
(USANYS)"
,
)"
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
Hi Joe,
I've confirmed with the agents, and either of those days would work for us. Do you have a preference on
scheduling? Happy to work around whatever works best for your travel schedule.
Thanks,
On Aug 3, 2021, at 7:47 PM, Joe Nascimento
wrote:
Hi
,
I spoke with
and she hopes we can schedule the meeting for the 19th or 20th.
Thanks,
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
EFTA00010388

=== Page 4 ===
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Aug 3, 2021, at 10:03 AM, Joe Nascimento
wrote:
Of course, what time works best for you?
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Aug 3, 2021, at 10:02 AM,
)
wrote:
Hi Joe,
Hope you're doing well. Are you available for a brief call this afternoon?
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 9:53 AM
To:
>
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
Perfect, I received the invite with the link. Unfortunately (or fortunately sometimes) WebEx has been a
part a daily part of my life the past year, so we should be OK. See you all then, let me know if you need
anything further from us in the meantime.
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
EFTA00010389

=== Page 5 ===
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Apr 26, 2021, at 9:31 AM,
)
wrote:
Hi Joe,
Thanks very much. Let's plan for May 14th at 12 p.m., if that works for you. I'll send a WebEx link for the
videoconference shortly. Please let us know if you have any tech issues/questions about WebEx.
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 1:53 PM
To:
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Good afternoon,
I spoke with
and she can make herself available the following dates:
May 3, 4 (before 2pm), 5, 6, 12, 13 or 14.
She is going to take the day off of work, so no need to do it after-hours (thank you for the offer). Let me know if
you need additional availability.
Thanks,
Joe
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
<image001.jpg>
EFTA00010390

=== Page 6 ===
From:
Date: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 1:31 PM
To: Joe Nascimento
Cc:
(USANYS)
i
)
Subject: RE:
)
- Epstein
Thanks very much - let's plan for 9:30 a.m. on Monday, if that works for you. Should I just call your desk line, or
would you prefer a different number?
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 1:00 PM
To:
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Hi
,
Yes, I'm free Monday morning between 9:30 and 12 or Tuesday between 11-3. If that doesn't work for
you, I can try to move something around. Let me know.
Have a nice weekend,
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Apr 16, 2021, at 11:58 AM,
)
wrote:
EFTA00010391

=== Page 7 ===
Hi Joe,
Hope you're doing well. Are you available for a call sometime early next week? Nothing urgent, but we wanted
to talk with you about potentially scheduling an interview (by video conference) with your client for sometime
in early May.
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 1:54 PM
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
Yes, 10:30 works for me. Thank you!
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
From:
)
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 at 1:32 PM
To: Joe Nascimento
Cc:
i
)
Subject: RE:
)
- Epstein
Hi Joe,
Thanks, hope all is well with you. We're free for a call at 10:30 tomorrow morning, would that work for you?
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 1:24 PM
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
Hi
,
EFTA00010392

=== Page 8 ===
I hope you are well. Please let me know if you have 5 min for a quick call.
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Jul 2, 2020, at 11:09 AM,
)
wrote:
Hi Joe,
Thanks for reaching out, we were planning to email you. We continue to appreciate your client's cooperation
with our investigation, and her status from our perspective has not changed. We'll be in touch going
forward,
All the best,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 11:07 AM
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Good morning,
Hope you are all well. Just wanted to check in after seeing the reports of Ghislaine's arrest
If you need
anything from us, let us know.
-Joe
EFTA00010393

=== Page 9 ===
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Feb 21, 2020, at 3:53 PM,
)
wrote:
Joe,
We very much appreciated that, and we just wanted to let you know that the lack of communication
separate from that discussion shouldn't be interpreted in any way negatively. We'll certainly be in touch
again when we're able.
thanks again,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 15:03
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
We really appreciate this email. I was able to speak with
a few weeks ago and gave the green light to
share
name and information provided with anyone necessary in your investigation. We will wait
to hear from you if you need anything further.
Thanks,
Joe
EFTA00010394

=== Page 10 ===
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami, FL 33129
p.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
From:
)"
Date: Monday, February 17, 2020 at 3:40 PM
To: Joe Nascimento
Cc:
)"
i
)"
Subject: RE:
)
- Epstein
Joe,
We just wanted to check in very briefly-we had been hopeful that we'd be able to circle back with you
earlier, but our investigation is currently still ongoing, so at the very least we wanted to let you know that
we continue to appreciate both your client's prior assistance and her willingness to assist in the future.
Nothing in our investigation since we were last substantively in touch has changed our view of your client,
and we hope to be able to be in touch with you in the coming weeks with an update. In the interim, we do
continue to view her status as we've previously conveyed, and please let us know if any issues arise on
your end.
thank you,
From:
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 14:42
To: Joe Nascimento
Cc:
)
is
)
Subject: Re:
-
- Epstein
Hi Joe,
Thanks for checking in
so no issues on our end, but we
appreciate your following up.
Thanks,
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 30, 2019, at 8:54 AM, Joe Nascimento
wrote:
EFTA00010395

=== Page 11 ===
Good morning,
Just wanted to check-in as
Please let us know if you need anything from us.
Thanks,
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Sep 9, 2019, at 9:47 PM,
)
wrote:
Joe,
We will meet tomorrow at the same place as last time- the Hilton in West Palm Beach, on
Okeechobee Blvd. My cell is
when you arrive. My colleague,
will be joining us, and he can be reached at
Thanks,
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00010396

=== Page 12 ===
On Sep 4, 2019, at 10:46 PM, Joe Nascimento
wrote:
Yes, we will be there.
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Sep 4, 2019, at 5:32 PM,
)
wrote:
Hi Joe,
Thanks for letting us know. Let's plan to meet on Tuesday. Would 11:30 work?
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 10:13 AM
To:
Cc:
is
)
^
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Good morning,
Yes, we had to hunker down for 2 days but were spared. Thanks. For next week, the 10th,
11th or 13th work best for me. Look forward to hearing from you.
-Joe
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00010397

=== Page 13 ===
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Sep 4, 2019, at 10:04 AM,
)
wrote:
Hi Joe,
Hope the storm missed you this week, and that you and your client are doing okay.
Our team is working out some scheduling issues today, and we should know more by this
afternoon. I'll plan to reach out then to discuss scheduling, if that's okay.
Thanks,
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Joe Nascimento
wrote:
Good morning,
Just wanted to check in to see if you still planned to travel south given the storm. Current
estimates show a landing (somewhere) Tuesday with very bad weather on Wednesday.
Airports might close (which will answer my question), but that's a guess.
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
EFTA00010398

=== Page 14 ===
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Aug 21, 2019, at 2:40 PM,
)
wrote:
Hi Joe,
Thanks very much, we'll plan to see you then. We'll most likely meet at a conference space at a
hotel in West Palm Beach, and I'll let you know closer in time which location.
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 6:37 PM
To:
Cc:
>;
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Hi
,
Both the time and date work for us. Let me know the location when you have it
confirmed.
Thanks,
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
EFTA00010399

=== Page 15 ===
On Aug 19, 2019, at 11:11 AM,
)
wrote:
Joe,
Following up on scheduling, we were wondering if your client is available for a proffer on
September 4th. We're flexible on timing that day, but we would propose meeting at 12:30
p.m., if that works.
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:53 PM
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
Hi
I just wanted to follow up re the August 14th meeting. Is it possible to schedule for early
afternoon (anytime after 1)? I have proactive cooperation ongoing in another case involving
multiple jurisdictions, and they are looking to meet the morning of 8/14. I understand if your
schedule is already set, and will work around it.
Thanks,
Joe
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami, FL 33129
p.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
From:
)"
Date: Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:34 PM
To: Joe Nascimento
Cc:
)"
Subject: RE:
)
- Epstein
Joe,
EFTA00010400

=== Page 16 ===
Thanks, much appreciated. If possible, it would be helpful to hold August 14th for a meeting,
and we'll follow up to firm up plans as we get closer. If there are any conflicts with that date,
please let us know, we're happy to be flexible.
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 8:10 PM
To:
Cc:
>;
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Hi
I do not have any travel plans during the month of August, nor does
September is a
busy month with two trials set, and I will be traveling out of the country from Sept 17-30, but
I will do everything to be as flexible as possible.
Thanks,
Joe
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami, FL 33129
p.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
From:
)"
Date: Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 6:10 PM
To: Joe Nascimento
Cc:
)"
,
EFTA00010401

=== Page 17 ===
)"
Subject: RE:
)
- Epstein
Joe,
As we start thinking about scheduling a next meeting with
we were wondering if
you could please let us know if there are any particular weeks that would not work for you or
your client for a meeting in Florida (in particular, we don't want to interfere with anyone's
summer vacation plans).
We will of course be in touch to talk about a next meeting in more detail, but in the first
instance it would be helpful to get a sense of your schedules, for planning purposes.
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 6:25 PM
To:
Cc:
>;
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Hi
,
That works for me. Please call me on my cell
(
). Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Jul 17, 2019, at 5:58 PM,
)
wrote:
EFTA00010402

=== Page 18 ===
Hi Joe,
Following up, we were wondering if you were available for a call to discuss next steps.
We're available on Friday at 2:30, if that works, but let us know if there are other times that
would be more convenient for you.
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2019 12:39 PM
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Good afternoon,
It was a pleasure to meet you yesterday. In light of the recent filing and media reports,
As always, feel free to contact me at any time if we can be of further assistance. Look
forward to meeting again.
-Joe
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami, FL 33129
p.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
From:
)"
Date: Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:07 PM
To: Joe Nascimento
Cc:
)"
,
)"
Subject: RE:
)
- Epstein
Hi Joe,
EFTA00010403

=== Page 19 ===
We will be at the Hilton in West Palm Beach, at
Please call me when
you are here, and we will meet you in the lobby.
Thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 9:02 PM
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Re:
- Epstein
Good evening,
Have you set a location for our meeting tomorrow?
Thanks,
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami Florida 33129
t.
f.
e.
www.crimlawfirm.com
On Jul 10, 2019, at 12:03 PM,
)
wrote:
Thank you, we will plan to see you then in West Palm Beach. We are still
coordinating logistics, and we will let you know that morning the address where we
should meet.
Since we will be traveling, please feel free to call my cell if you need to reach us
EFTA00010404

=== Page 20 ===
for any reason:
Thanks,
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 10, 2019, at 11:39 AM, Joe Nascimento
<mailto:
wrote:
Of course
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
<x-apple-data-detectors.//2/01
x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>rd<x-
Ptapple-data-detectors://2/0><x-apple-data-detectors.//2/0>
<x-apple-data-
detectors://2/0>
<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>Miami Florida 33129<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
t.
<tel:
f.
<tel:
e.
<mailto:
www.crimlawfirm.com<http://www.crimlawfirm.com/>
On Jul 10, 2019, at 11:34 AM,
<mailto:
wrote:
Joe,
Would it be possible to meet earlier, perhaps at noon on Friday? Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 9, 2019, at 10:51 PM, Joe Nascimento
<mailto:
<mailto:
wrote:
Can we meet Friday, early afternoon (around 1-1:30)? Please send me your proffer
letter.
Thanks,
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
EFTA00010405

=== Page 21 ===
<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>rd<x-
aple-data-detectors://2/0><x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
<x-apple-data-
detectors://2/0>
<x-apple-data-detectors:.//2/0>Miami Florida 33129<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
t.
<tel:
f.
<tel:
e.
<mailto:
<mailto:
www.crimlawfirm.com<http://www.crimlawfirm.com
<http://www.crimlawfirm.com/>
On Jul 9, 2019, at 4:56 PM,
<mailto:
<mailto:
A
wrote:
Joe,
We ended up slotting in a few things in the interim, but we're still good for 6:30 for
sure.
thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
<mailto:
<mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 16:43
To:
<mailto:
<mailto:
Cc:
<mailto:
<mailto:
)
<mailto:
<mailto:
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
Hi
,
I got done a little earlier today - do you want to bump up our call time?
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
etectors://2/0>rd<x-apple-data-detectors.//2/0>
Avenue<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
Miami Florida 33129<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
t.
<tel:
f.
<tel:
e.
<mailto:
<mailto:
www.crimlawfirm.com<http://www.crimlawfirm.com>
EFTA00010406

=== Page 22 ===
<http://www.crimlawfirm.com/>
On Jul 9, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Joe Nascimento
<mailto:
<mailto:
wrote:
Hi
,
Are you still free for a call?
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
Miami, FL 33129
p.
f.
e.
<mailto:
<mailto:
www.crimlawfirm.com<http://www.crimlawfirm.com
<http://www.crimlawfirm.com>
From:
)"
<mailto:
<mailto:
^
Date: Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 10:19 PM
To: Joe Nascimento
<mailto:
<mailto:
Cc:
)"
<mailto:
<mailto:
)"
<mailto:
<mailto:
Subject: RE:
)
- Epstein
Joe,
Sure, thanks - and yes, quite the weekend. If it's alright with you, let's do 10:00
a.m. on Tuesday - you can reach us at
, or we can also call you then
if that's easier, whatever you prefer.
thanks,
From: Joe Nascimento
<mailto:
<mailto:
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2019 18:51
To:
<mailto:
<mailto:
Cc:
<mailto:
EFTA00010407

=== Page 23 ===
<mailto:
<mailto:
<mailto:
Subject: Re:
)
- Epstein
Hi
,
No need to take any more time out of what I'm sure was a busy weekend for you.
Let's set a time for Tuesday morning (the earlier the better for me). Let me know
what works for you.
Thanks,
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
detectors://2/0>rd<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
Avenue<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
Miami Florida 33129<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
t.
<tel:
f.
<tel:
e.
<mailto:
<mailto:
www.crimlawfirm.com<http://www.crimlawfirm.com
<http://www.crimlawfirm.com/>
On Jul 7, 2019, at 4:04 PM,
)
<mailto:
<mailto:
wrote:
Joe,
Thank you for reaching out, and we would be happy to schedule a time to speak
with you. I expect our schedules may be somewhat unpredictable tomorrow;
would it work to set a time to talk on Tuesday? We can schedule it for before you
meet with
,
if that's helpful. Or if you'd like to talk sooner, we could
schedule a time later today, or check in tomorrow about a possible afternoon
discussion. Please let us know what you prefer, and we look forward to being in
touch.
thank you,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
From: Joe Nascimento
EFTA00010408

=== Page 24 ===
<mailto:
<mailto:
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2019 22:55
To:
<mailto:
<mailto:
Subject:
)
- Epstein
Begin forwarded message:
From:
<mailto:
<mailto:
Date: July 6, 2019 at 10:51:09 PM EDT
To:
<mailto:
<mailto:
<mailto:
<mailto:
<mailto:
<mailto:
Cc:
<mailto:
>mailto:
Subject:
) - Epstein
My former partner, Alan Ross, represented
prior to his passing in 2018. Agent
served
with a grand jury
subpoena earlier today, and as Alan's former partner and FL Bar appointed
inventory attorney, she has contacted me. Unfortunately, I am unable to meet with
her until Tuesday, but I would appreciate a few minutes of your time at your
convenience as I am getting up to speed. Please let me know what day/time is best
for you.
Look forward to speaking with you.
Best,
Joe
Joseph E. Nascimento, Esq.
ROSS AMSEL RABEN NASCIMENTO, PLLC
letectors://2/0>rd<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
Avenue<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
Miami Florida 33129<x-apple-data-detectors://2/0>
t.
<tel:
f.
<tel:
e.
<mailto:
<mailto:
www.crimlawfirm.com<http://www.crimlawfirm.com
<http://www.crimlawfirm.com/>
EFTA00010409


c1: EFTA00013946
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013946.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Bcc:
Subject: Are these alright to send out to Jay and Roy?
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:29:05 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: Amended Final Victim_Notification_- --
080820
Ltr_to_Lefkowitz_and_Black.wpd
<<Amended Final Victim Notification --
final.wpd>> <<080820
Ltr to Lefkowitz and Black.wpd>>
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Phone
Fax
EFTA00013946


c1: EFTA00013293
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013293.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: RE: portal access (v2)/US V. Epstein
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 21:24:22 +0000
Thanks very much.
From:
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 4:24 PM
To:
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:
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.
EFTA00013293

=== Page 2 ===
Thank you.
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
EFTA00013294

=== 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.
EFTA00013295


c1: EFTA00010040
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010040.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,
EFTA00010040

=== Page 2 ===
Page 2
at 17-18).¹ 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.
EFTA00010041

=== 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)
EFTA00010042


c1: EFTA00011499
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011499.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: RE: USVI AG
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 20:18:58 +0000
Embedded: RE:_USVI_AG.msg
Sender:
Subject: RE: USVIAG
Message-Id:
<CY1P110MB048672F5D86F98761FC45EB884330@CY1P110MB0486.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
>
To:
To:
Cc:
Cc:
EFTA00011499


c1: EFTA00014001
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014001.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USAFLS)"
To:
(USAFLS)"
Cc:
(USAFLS)"
Bcc:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: RE: Jane Doe Hearing
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:16:43 +0000
Importance: Normal
Hi
- I haven't heard any more from Jack and I haven't received any faxes, so perhaps the storm has
passed. If you would like to call him, his phone number is
Assistant U.S. Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 10:20 AM
To:
. (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Jane Doe Hearing
I left early on Friday since I had to take care of some matters before my Air Force reserve duty at Homestead
AFB this weekend. If you want me to participate in a conference with Mr. Goldberger, I will be happy to do so.
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 3:04 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Jane Doe Hearing
Hi
- I really think you should be on this call with Jack Goldberger, if you feel a response is required.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 2:33 PM
EFTA00014001

=== Page 2 ===
To:
(USAEO);
(USAEO);
(USAFLS);
(USAFLS)
Cc:
(USAFLS);
(USAFLS)
Subject: Jane Doe Hearing
Colleagues,
The hearing this morning lasted 45 minutes. Judge Marra first heard argument from Brad Edwards, who
harangued the government for permitting Epstein to get off with a light sentence in state court. He argued
that the victims were entitled to be consulted before this agreement was reached, and the court should set the
agreement aside. Edwards again argued that the rights in section 3771(a) accrue prior to the filing of any
charges.
In my portion of the argument, I advised the court of the status of Epstein's state case: (1) he entered pleas of
guilty to two state charges on June 30, 2008; (2) he was sentenced to 18 months' incarceration and 1 year of
community control; and (3) he was serving his sentence of incarceration. The court queried me on the Dean
case and the government's position on when the rights in section 3371(a) applied. I distinguished Dean and
argued that rights under 3771(a) does not accrue until a charge is filing in district court. I noted that the
A/G's guidelines are applied with common sense, such that a victim claiming they were being threatened by a
perpetrator would not be turned away since an indictment had not been returned. I also argued that 18
U.S.C. 3771 did not grant authority to the court to set aside the agreement in the instant case, since it was not a
plea agreement filed with court, which it had the discretion to accept or reject. The court had questions
regarding the completion of the agreement in September 2007, but the plea was not entered until June 30,
2008. I advised the court that Epstein's attorneys sought higher review of the agreement within the DOJ.
As to the motion to seal the government's response, the court asked if that was necessary any more, since a
public hearing had been held and much of what was filed had been discussed. I argued that the government
had two bases for sealing: (1) protection of the privacy of the minor victims; and (2) confidentiality of
negotiations with Epstein's attorneys and the confidentiality clause in the Agreement. Edwards waived any
protection for his clients, two of whom were present in court
)
As to the confidentiality, the
court found that the discussions regarding the potential impeachment of the victims because of the availability
of relief under 18 U.S.C. 2255 had already been discussed at the hearing. I argued that the exact clause in the
agreement pertaining to section 2255 had been cited in the notification letters to
which were
filed, and the government had agreed to notify Epstein before making any disclosure.
The court stated that
the disclosure was being done pursuant to its order, not by the government's action.
I told the court the
government wanted to register its objection.
The court ordered the government's response,
declaration, and the attachments, unsealed. Also,
Edwards filed a reply, which is also a public record document.
The court noted that, since Epstein had entered his plea and was sentenced, this was no longer an emergency.
Both parties agreed. The court wanted to know if any evidentiary hearing need to be held. Since there is a
dispute over what the FBI agents told
in September 2007, I asked the court to permit the parties to speak
to determine if there are any factual disputes which require a hearing. The court agreed.
There was a reporter from the Sun Sentinel present in the audience.
EFTA00014002


c1: EFTA00009870
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009870.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
EXHIBIT M
EFTA00009870

=== Page 2 ===
From:
To:
Subject:
Fwd: Next week - meet re: Jeffrey Epstein
Date:
Sunday, February 24, 2019 8:18:01 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: March 3, 2016 at 5:09:55 PM EST
To:
Subject: RE: Next week - meet re: Jeffrey Epstein
Cool. Talk to you then.
From:
Sent: Thursday March 03 2016 5:05 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Next week - meet re: Jeffrey Epstein
Tuesday at 4 is good. Thanks.
From:
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 10:24 AM
To
Subject: RE: Next week - meet re: Jeffrey Epstein
Sure. Sounds both intriguing and complicated. Tuesday is better for me than
Wednesday. How's Tuesday at 4 pm?
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 10:08 AM
To:
(USANYS) 2
Subject: Next week - meet re: Jeffrey Epstein
Hi
SDNY_GM_02742758
EFTA00009871

=== Page 3 ===
Thanks,
Senior Litigation Counsel
Human Trafficking & Project Safe Childhood Coordinator
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
SDNY_GM_02742759
EFTA00009872


c1: EFTA00009928
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009928.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc
Subject
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:55:48 +0000
She's done another
in it she's said the following: 1) She was interviewed by
FBI in 2011 by a
in the interview she gave the names of all the girls she helped to traffic (2) she
was also interviewed by SDNY (no timeframe) (3) two other women also tell DOJ that Epstein specifically
trafficked them to "other men"
(4) there are cameras in the NYC house and others where he could watch people in bathrooms and elsewhere.
They plan to air it on the
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00009928


c1: EFTA00013183
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013183.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Fwd: Requested Documents
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 15:01:55 +0000
Attachments:30_MINUTE_ROUNDS_8-8-19.pdf;30_MINUTE_ROUNDS_8-9-19.pdf;
0_MINUTE_ROUNDS_8-10-19.pdf; PHOTOGRAPHS_OF_EPSTEIN_8-10-2019.pdf;
TRU-SCOPE_LOGS.pdf;Staff_Roster_8-9-19.pdf; Staff_Roster_8-10-19.pdf;
Staff_Emergency_Contacts.pdf;_Sentry_Documentation.pdf
-
Forwarded message
From:
Date: Aug 10, 2019 10:54 PM
Subject: Requested Documents
To:
Cc:
EFTA00013183


c1: EFTA00013245
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013245.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: case records scanning
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:51:09 +0000
Been a while - hope you're well. This was from a while ago, but we need to follow up on the below questions I asked
about last year when you scanned in a number of boxes relating to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, now that discovery is
underway in the Maxwell case.
The first question is on the discs from the boxes, which you mentioned you did not extract but which you made copies of.
Can you please tell us how those discs were marked? We're not sure that we can tell them apart from the other DVDs we
received that contain the hard-copy scans. Did the copied discs get transmitted with those DVDs, or were the sets of four
discs kept in the boxes themselves? (And either way, what would their labeling be?)
And second, you mentioned that there were some pornographic images that were not scanned, and said you would
follow up to see if a notation was made as to where those images were located or if they could be readily found in output.
The issue is that if we don't know which specific items weren't scanned in a set of 20-something boxes, we may have no
choice but to just do the entire project over again, rather than trying to go page by page comparing the hard copies to the
scans to see what's missing.
Please let us know as soon as possible? And either I or
cc'd here, will follow up on whatever the next
steps are.
thanks,
From:
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 04:10
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: case records scanning
Please see my responses below.
From:
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2019 3:56 PM
To:
Subject: RE: case records scanning
That's great, thanks very much for all your and your team's work and for the update. That makes sense regarding the 1As,
thanks.
With respect to the images that were not scanned, is there any way to flag them in the original hard copies somehow, so
that we can easily find them and refer to them when the hard copy documents are sent back to New York? Just to avoid
needing to try to flip through all the original documents to find them. Let me check and see if a notation was made as to
where these images were located or if I can readily/easily find them in output.
Regarding the discs, I'm not sure I totally understand - when you say four copies each, were there just four discs total? Or
possibly I'm just misunderstanding the explanation. And related, is it right that those discs were not processed (just
copied) so we'll need to look at those separate for our review? Sorry I should have been clearer. We just copied the discs
not processed and made four copies each which is our standard. The thought being when we burn output we always give
a complete set that in theory would go to the defense, AUSA, and two copies to the Agent (one for him/and a back-up).
The discs we found in the files contain pdfs (searchable), jpgs, gifs, and tif files
EFTA00013245

=== Page 2 ===
And final question is just how all the scanned materials will be transmitted, so we can plan how most efficiently to receive
them and get them processed here. We will send everything back to you on dvds.
thanks again,
From:
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 13:59
To:
Subject: RE: case records scanning
Good Afternoon!
Here is the latest. We have finished scanning!
In the course of going through the paper it was discovered that at some point in time (perhaps between 2013 and 2015
when it was last digitized) three 1As failed to make it back into their respective file jackets. It's not clear what happened or
who is at fault. I can tell you that we were able to conduct a search of our local network and retrieve the images. I spoke
with our Field Evidence Unit who recommended that prior to inserting the images we create a cover sheet that reflected
that the images were not a part of the "original" paper rather they were regenerated from a digital copy. The 1As in
questions are 1A10, 1A28, 1A84 as well as two missing serials in 31E-MM-108062-GJ SEC 001 SER 1-45. My digital team is
addressing this matter and has assured me I'll be able to burn the output first thing Monday so that we can get everything
returned to you.
A few other items to point out. There were some pornographic images of young girls. These were not imaged per our
protocols. You As you review the content anywhere these images may have been you will see a DocLab kicksheet that
states "possible child pornography" DO NOT SCAN. The original documents are still in their original location - they were
just not scanned.
Finally, there were a number of discs scattered throughout. We made physical copies - one for one ratio of each (four
copies each) to go along with the physical paper scanned. These will be sent along with the discs we will generate.
Please let me know if you have any questions. l'll be in bright and early Monday morning.
From
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 11:13 PM
To
Subject: RE: case records scanning
Thanks very much for letting us know, that's extremely helpful and we appreciate it! Looking forward to being in touch as
it continues, and thanks again.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 15:55
To
Cc:
Subject: RE: case records scanning
Gentlemen:
I just wanted to give you a quick update.
We finished inventorying all 22 boxes and released everything to DocLab last evening for scanning. As of this writing we
are looking good for meeting the original deadline - give or take a day. We still have a few things to tweak, but I'm
confident that things are looking good and we'll have this wrapped up within the next day or two. I'll send you a more
detailed email tomorrow morning when I get in.
Take care and have a good evening.
EFTA00013246

=== Page 3 ===
From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2019 11:16 AM
To:
Subject: RE: case records scanning
Thanks very much for the update - I think unless you guys can confirm that any prior scans were absolutely 100% done
correctly (and separated by document, etc.), we'd prefer to have them just done in one full set now-particularly knowing
that this will all be the subject of discovery, which definitely wouldn't have been the case in 2013.
thanks again,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2019 11:10
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: case records scanning
Happy 4th of July Eve. We just received 22 boxes about 5 minutes ago. We discovered that the Miami Field Office had
requested DocLab to scan a number of them back in 2013. I'm hoping (fingers crossed) that the images are available on
our internal network so that I can access them and just simply reprocess the digital output, if not we'll re-prep and scan
accordingly. We will keep you posted.
Take care and have a great holiday.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 2:10 PM
To
Cc:
Subject: RE: case records scanning
We're under time pressure but I think the most important thing is that your folks have the time you need to do the job in
a way you're comfortable with-being able to scan each document separately, dealing with any random scraps of paper,
post-its, etc etc. If doing the best possible job requires an extra few days that's totally understandable, especially given the
holiday. Thanks again for the focus on it, and for following up.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 14:06
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: case records scanning
I got the scan request thanks.
How much wiggle room can I get on the deadline we originally talked about of 7/10? I'm concerned that with the boxes
going from 15 to 22 and now not showing up until sometime tomorrow and Thursday a holiday the 10th is going to be
extremely tight. Can I extend out at all to the 16th? If not I understand and we'll work to make it work somehow.
From:
Sent: Tuesday July 02 2019 10:39 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: case records scanning
EFTA00013247

=== Page 4 ===
My apologies, appartently with a Fedex pickup this size an appointment had to be setup. The pickup was scheduled for
today and will arrive in VA tomorrow, tracking number 4744 7647 0418.
Thanks,
Squad C-20
VCAC/Human Trafficking
FBI New York
From:
Sent:
DM.
To
Cc
Subject: RE: case records scanning
Quickly following up on this, can we confirm the boxes went out last week?
From:
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 11:23
Tq
C
Subject: RE: case records scanning
I just want to follow-up that the boxes were shipped. Fedex is not showing anything in-bound for us today.
From
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 12:02 PM
To
Cc:
Subject: RE: case records scanning
The boxes will be shipped via Fedex this afternoon.
From:
Sent: Friday lune 28 2019 8:28 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: case records scanning
Let me know as soon as the boxes ship. Thanks!
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 2:16 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: case records scanning
Thanks very much for chatting earlier today, and as promised wanted to send an email so you have our full contact info.
My colleague
and I are the prosecutors working on the investigation - she's also copied here, and we're
available anytime via email, or by phone at:
(office),
(cell)
(office)
(cell)
It's our understanding that there are approximately 23 boxes of papers, give or take, and that they include approximately
two boxes from FBI case file 72-MM-113327 and the remainder from FBI case file 31E-MM-108062. Please don't hesitate
to reach out if anything comes up at all, or if we can be of any help, and thanks very much for putting this at the top of
your list, we really appreciate it.
thanks again,
EFTA00013248

=== Page 5 ===
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00013249


c1: EFTA00011510
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011510.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
U.S. Department of Justice
TELERAL
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Office of the Warden
Metropolitan Correctional Center
August 10, 2019
SENT VIA EMAIL
The Honorable Colleen McMahon, Chief Judge
The Honorable Richard M. Berman, District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse
Re:
EPSTEIN, Jeffrey, Federal Register No. 76318-054
United States V. Jeffrey Epstein, 19-cr-00490-RMB
Dear Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Berman:
I am writing to notify the Court of the death of Jeffrey Epstein, who passed away Saturday,
August 10, 2019, at around 7:37 a.m.
Mr. Epstein had been found unresponsive in his cell in the Special Housing Unit at around
6:30 am from an apparent suicide at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New
York, New York. Responding staff immediately initiated life-saving measures and
requested emergency medical services (EMS), by whom Mr. Epstein was transported to a
local hospital for treatment of life-threatening injuries. Mr. Epstein was pronounced dead at
the New York Presbyterian-Lower Manhattan Hospital in New York, New York.
At this time, there are no preliminary reports identifying the exact cause of death. An
autopsy is pending, and we expect to have more information as to the cause of death from the
medical examiner in the near future. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is actively
investigating the incident. In addition to the FBI's investigation, the Attorney General has
requested that the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General look into the matter
as well.
EFTA00011510

=== Page 2 ===
MCC New York will provide an update to the Court as soon as the autopsy is completed and
the official cause of death is determined. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel
free to call me at
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Warden
MCC New York
cc:
EFTA00011511


c1: EFTA00010426
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010426.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc:
"
(USANYS)"
)"
Subject: Call re Epstein FOIA case
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 02:08:35 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00010426


c1: EFTA00011266
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011266.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To: Christian Everdell
m>
Cc: "Mark S. Cohen"
N
, Bobbi Sternheim
m>, 'Laura Menninger'
>, "Jeff Pagliuca"
Subject: US V. Maxwell - discovery production
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 20:49:11 +0000
Attachments: 2021.02.02_Maxwell_Discovery_Letter.pdf
Chris,
We have an additional discovery production ready to send to you today. Attached please find the accompanying cover
letter. The production is small enough to produce via the FTP site. Would you please send us a link if that is how you
would like us to make the production to you?
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00011266


c1: EFTA00013533
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013533.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
ESPIRITO SANTO PLAZA
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
FROWLERWHITE
I 395 BRICKELL AVENUE
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
BURNETT
WWW.FOWLER-WHITE.COM
MIAMI
FORT LAUDERDALE
WEST PALM BEACH
ST. PETERSBURG
ANN SANCHEZ
December 7, 2007
First Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of Florida
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Re: Jeffrey Epstein
Dear
Pursuant to your letter dated December 6, 2007, attached is a signed
Affirmation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to same dated
October 30, 2007 (collectively "Agreement") signed by my client Jeffrey E. Epstein
(see attached).
Moreover, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, please note that the plea
and sentencing hearing have been scheduled for January 4, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. before
Judge Sandra McSorley (please see attached notice of hearing). In addition, as
expressed in my voicemail message to you earlier, I would request that the Office
hold off on sending any victim notification letters until we can further discuss the
contents therein. Please call me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
&
Lilly Ann Sanchez
cc. Alex A. Acosta
Judge Kenneth Star
[jmb] W:\71200ALETTR782-sloman.LAS{12/77-15:51)
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A.
EFTA00013533

=== Page 2 ===
Affirmation
I, Jeffrey E. Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to
same dated October 30, 2007.
x Jeffrey E. Epstein
12/7/07
Date
EFTA00013534

=== Page 3 ===
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH
COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 2006CF009454AXX
STATE OF FLORIDA
VS.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
/
NOTICE OF HEARING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned has called up for hearing the following:
JUDGE:
Sandra McSorley
DATE:
January 4, 2008
TIME:
8:30 a.m.
PLACE:
Room 11F, Palm Beach County Courthouse
MATTER:
Plea Conference
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by mail to Lanna
Belohlavek, Esquire, State Attorney's Office, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida
33401 this 7th day of December, 2007.
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West 33401
(561)659-8300 JACK/A. Florida 222 GOLDBERGER,
ESQUIRE
cc: The Honorable Sandra McSorley
EFTA00013535


c1: EFTA00013865
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013865.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Roy BLACK
To:
Subject: RE: FW: Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:13:07 +0000
Importance: Normal
yes.
Hi Roy -- Is this the best number to call?
Original Message
From: Roy BLACK
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:02 PM
Cc: jack goldberger
Subject: Re: FW: Jeffrey Epstein
Marie that is a good time. I also want to conference Jack Goldberger
into the call. This will be a wrap up call. Roy
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.
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 5:55 PM
To:
Jay Lefkowitz
EFTA00013865

=== Page 2 ===
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.
EFTA00013866


c1: EFTA00011084
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011084.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Chris Dilorio
To:
EFTA00011084

=== Page 2 ===
Subject: Fw: Apollo/ Epstein/Kushner connection
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 12:27:36 +0000
Inline-Images: image.png
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 I Seeking Alpha
New CEO and recent trading activity warranted a review of a
holding that no longer files. Based on the environment, difficult
y/y comparisons and results from competitors, 2015 is likely a
down year.
seekingalpha.com
"Not credible"???
How about the SEC's OWN words?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/sec-spots-a-way-to-starve-the-most-suspicious-penny-
stocks
EFTA00011085

=== Page 3 ===
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
To:
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/
EFTA00011086

=== Page 4 ===
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-i-joins-wilmerhale
Former Director of the FBI Robert Mueller III
Joins WilmerHale
WilmerHale is pleased to announce that Robert S. Mueller III is
joining the firm as a partner after serving as the sixth Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a position he took one
week prior to the September 11 attacks and held for 12 years
under two presidents.
www.wilmerhale.com
https://www.sec.gov/biography/avakian-stephanie
EFTA00011087

=== Page 5 ===
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
To:
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?
EFTA00011088

=== Page 6 ===
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
EFTA00011089

=== Page 7 ===
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!
EFTA00011090

=== Page 8 ===
Fucking A
I am good
Cheers!
Christopher Dilorio
EFTA00011091


c1: EFTA00011434
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011434.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
To:
doug.band@gsa.gov
From:
"G. Max" <gmax1@mindspring.com>
Philip just e mailed me your contact info.
When we are all back in NY the plan is to do a dinner - we'll have the sluty Spanish girl which will be
nicely counter balanced by the cool poised Swedish type.
Let me know when you next go to Europe as I do have some interesting and fun friends that you could
hook up with.
Hopefully we will meet up again soon
Ghislaine
EFTA00011434


c1: EFTA00010274
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010274.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com" <etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com>
To:
Subject: Final Voucher 10894369(1) prepared by a travel arranger is pending your review
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 22:29:27 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Final voucher 10894369(1) has been prepared by your travel arranger and is ready for your review. Please log
into E2 Solutions to review the document.
-
Trip ID: 10894369
Voucher ID: 1
Voucher type: Final
Traveler name:
Purpose: R20NYS13261 - U.S. V. Epstein - Witness Interviews
Destination: Santa Monica (City), CA, United States
Dates: 2019-12-15 - 2019-12-17
Current status: Pending Voucher Approval
Voucher total expenses: 1296.43
Estimated trip cost: 1662.95
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# V0012
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.
EFTA00010274


c1: EFTA00009954
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009954.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
LLC STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
OF REGISTRATION
HYPERION AIR, LLC is a limited liability company of a United States Citizen and is eligible to
register aircraft in its name. In this regard, we make the following representations:
Accepted CK Sep/06/2013
1. The full name of the Applicant LLC is HYPERION AIR, LLC (the "LLC").
2. The jurisdiction in which the LLC is lawfully organized is the United States Virgin Islands.
3. The effective date of the LLC is October 19, 2012.
4. The name of each of the sole Member of the LLC and the type of entity of the sole Member (i.e.,
individual, corporation, partnership, etc.) is:
U.S. CITIZENSHIP
NAME
TYPE OF ENTITY
VERIFICATION
Jeffrey E. Epstein
Individual
YES X NO
5. The LLC is managed by a Manager.
6. The managers, members or officers of this LLC may act independently YX N
7. The name of the sole Manager of the LLC and the type of entity of the sole Manager (i.e., individual,
corporation, partnership, etc.) is:
U.S. CITIZENSHIP
NAME
TYPE OF ENTITY
VERIFICATION
Lawrence Visoski
Individual
YES X NO
The undersigned certifies that he understands that an LLC is eligible to register aircraft in its name provided that:
(1) at least 2/3rds of the managers or managing members are "U.S. Citizens" within the meaning of 49 U.S.C.
Section 40102(a)(15)(C) and:
(2) at least 75% of the voting interest or units is owned or controlled by persons who are "U.S. citizens" or citizens
of one of its possessions; and specifically that AN LLC CANNOT REGISTER AS A NON-CITIZEN
CORPORATION.
If any member of this LLC is not a United States Citizen as defined in 40102(a)(15)(C) an explanation appears below to
support the certification that this LLC is a "U.S. Citizen" as required by 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(15)(C).
The undersigned hereby also certifies that the information given herein is true and correct and meets all citizenship
specifications as required by the Federal Aviation Administration.
HYPERION By AIR, LLC
242 Lawrence Visoski
Manager
EFTA00009954

=== Page 2 ===
EFTA0000
FILED WITH FAA
AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION BR
2013 AUG 13 AM 7 39
OKLAHOMA CITY
OKLAHOMA


c1: EFTA00013239
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013239.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Question re emails
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2020 01:05:07 +0000
Chiefs,
Today, we spoke with SA
one of the original FBI agents from the Florida investigation of Epstein.
told
us he has a number of emails with AUSA
regarding the case. Our view is that we do not need to collect those
emails from
because we have already received thousands of
emails, which were collected by OPR and
should encompass any emails with the FBI about the Epstein case.
is going to send us any emails he received from
victims or witnesses. We also discussed other documents
has in his possession from the Epstein investigation and
asked him to send us any that sounded potentially discoverable.
Please let us know if this approach sounds right to you or if you would like to discuss.
Thanks,
EFTA00013239


c1: EFTA00013689
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013689.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
IN RE:
INVESTIGATION OF
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
IT APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7
of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"), that agreement is modified as
follows:
7A.
The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility
for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting
the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the
United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the
United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney
representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of
the attorney representative.
7B.
The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party
regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to
pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing
such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra.
7C.
Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney
representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not
obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus,
if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a
contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested
remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney
representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable
attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in S 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney
representative, shall cease.
EFTA00013689

=== Page 2 ===
By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and
explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-
Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Dated: 10/30/07
By:
FAUSA
for
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
Dated: 10/29/07
X JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Dated:
GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.
COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Dated:
LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ.
ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN
EFTA00013690

=== Page 3 ===
By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and
explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-
Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Dated: 10/30/07
By:
FAUSA
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
Dated:
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Dated: 10/29/07
GERALD LEFCOURT ESQ.
COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Dated:
LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ.
ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN
EFTA00013691

=== Page 4 ===
By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and
explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-
Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Dated: 10/30/07
By:
FAUSA
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
Dated:
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Dated:
GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.
COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Dated: 10-29-07
LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ.
ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN
EFTA00013692


c1: EFTA00009985
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009985.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Christian Everdell
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca
>, , Laura Menninger
"bcsternheim
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Defense Rule 16 Disclosure
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2021 02:32:24 +0000
Attachments: 2021.11.08_Letter_to_Government_re_Rule_16_Disclosure.PDF;
Ex._A_AT&T_Certification.pdf,Ex_B_FedEx_Certification.pdf;
Ex_C_List_of_Certified_FedEx_Invoices.pdf;_Ex_D_Interlochen_Records.pdf;
Ex_E_AFarmer_Release_(Redacted).pdf; Ex._F_Epstein_NPA.pdf
Inline-Images: image001.gif; image002.gif
Attached is the defense Rule 16 disclosure.
Regards,
Chris
Christian R Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
New York Paris Washington DC London
GG
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended to be reviewed initially by only
the individual named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or a representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, dissemination or copying of this e-mail or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify
the sender by telephone and permanently delete this e-mail. Thank you.
PRIVACY: A complete copy of our privacy policy can be viewed at: https://www.cohengresser.com/privacy-policy.
EFTA00009985


c1: EFTA00014125
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014125.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Aug. 1. 2008 12:30PM
No. 1774 P. 2
LAW OFFICE
Brad Edwards
AND ASSOCIATES
August 1, 2008
AUSA
VIA FACSIMILE
United States Attorney's Office
Miami, Florida 33132
Dear Mr.
I have received your July 25, 2008 letter indicating a change of course by the U.S.
Attorney's Office and an apparent decision not to attempt to work out the undisputed
facts in this case. If you would like to continue trying to work out the agreed facts then,
of course, we are willing to continue to work with you towards that goal. If, as you
suggested, that would be unproductive given the limited issues the Court needs to decide,
then please consider some additional points below that may help to expedite this matter
for the Court.
As indicated in your letter, your current position is that the victims' rights were
not yet triggered because no case was filed against Jeffrey Epstein. Consequently, your
letter indicates that you will be presenting only two facts to the Court, namely:
(1) there are no charges in the District Court filed against Jeffrey Epstein; and
(2) Jeffrey Epstein entered pleas of guilty in Florida State Court on June 30,
2008, was sentenced, and is now imprisoned in Palm Beach County.
We can certainly agree to those two facts. I am writing to see whether you would
also be willing to include two additional uncontested facts in your Notice to the Court.
The facts we would like you to include are:
(3) As a result of the guilty pleas in Florida State Court entered on June 30,
2008, there is currently in place a "non-prosecution" agreement between Jeffrey Epstein
and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida that precludes filing of
federal criminal charges against Jeffrey Epstein for federal sex crimes committed against
the victims in this matter.
(4) While this non-prosecution agreement was negotiated between the U.S.
Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein in September 2007 (and amended twice more
during that year), the victims and their attorneys were not told about the non-prosecution
agreement until after June 30, 2008, because of an express confidentiality provision in the
agreement that the U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and other federal agents all complied
with.
HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020
EFTA00014125

=== Page 2 ===
Aug. 1. 2008 12:30PM
No. 1774 P. 3
AUSA
United States Attorney's Office
Page Two
In suggesting these stipulations, I am not foreclosing presenting other facts on
behalf of the victims if the Court determines that other facts are necessary to have before
the Court in order to effectively rule on these issues. It just seems to me that points (3)
and (4) are so obviously uncontested, that your office would be willing to stipulate to
them and make those facts available to the Court for consideration.
It is unclear from your recent letter whether you intend to give the victims the
courtesy of seeing the full and complete non-prosecution agreement that was signed by
the parties and that now covers their case. Your previous proposed stipulation of
undisputed facts stated: "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." While it appears by
this statement to have been your intent to provide the victims with a true and accurate
copy of that non-prosecution agreement, that agreement has not yet been produced to
them. While it is likely a mere oversight on your part, we would again request a true and
accurate copy of the complete non-prosecution agreement that apparently bars federal
prosecution of the man who committed sexual crimes against my clients.
Additionally, we would request again that if statements of my clients were taken
by FBI agents or your office, that those interview reports containing those statements be
produced to us. Finally, I continue to request that you assist the victims in this case by
securing a transcript of the hearing on their petition. Your letter did not address that
request, and we would hope that your office would assist the innocent and indigent
victims in this case by providing that transcript.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns.
Sincerely,
she
BE/sg
Brad Edwards
2, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020
EFTA00014126


c1: EFTA00011497
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011497.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
To:
"
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
Cc:
)"
(USANYS)"
,
)"
Subject: RE: Maxwell testifying witness 3500
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:59:16 +0000
Thanks!
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 8:56 AM
To:
)
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
is
Subject: RE: Maxwell testifying witness 3500
These materials are all set as well.
From:
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2021 4:37 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
is
Subject: Maxwell testifying witness 3500
Hi
Would you please save the attached pdfs in the respective witness and 3500 folders for the testifying witnesses in each
pdf's file name on the Epstein share drive?
Thanks,
EFTA00011497


c1: EFTA00013465
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013465.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Mw epstein defense team
Start Date: 2007-07-31 18:00:00 +0000
End Date: 2007-07-31 20:00:00 +0000
Organizer:
(USAFLS) /O=USA/OU=FLS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=AVILLAFANA>
Class: X-PERSONAL
Date Created: 2015-03-27 13:42:55 +0000
Date Modified: 2015-07-22 20:34:49 +0000
Priority: 5
EFTA00013465


c1: EFTA00010111
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010111.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).
EFTA00010111

=== 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
EFTA00010112

=== 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:
EFTA00010113

=== 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").
EFTA00010114

=== 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.").
EFTA00010115

=== 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)
EFTA00010116


c1: EFTA00013772
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013772.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Billionaire solicited prostitutes 3 times, indictment says
Page 1 of 2
PRINT THIS
PalmBeachPost.com
Billionaire solicited prostitutes 3 times, indictment
says
UPDATED
WEEKLY
By Larry Keller
Browse
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Specials
& Deals
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
From Local
Dealerships
Billionaire money manager and Palm Beach part-time resident Jeffrey Epstein
solicited or procured prostitutes three or more times between Aug. 1 and Oct. 31 of
Autos
last year, according to an indictment charging him with felony solicitation of
PalmBeachPost.com
prostitution.
Epstein, 53, was booked at the Palm Beach County jail at 1:45 a.m. Sunday. He was released on $3,000
bond.
Jeffrey Epstein
Epstein's case is unusual in that suspected
Billionaire
prostitution johns are usually charged with
financier
a misdemeanor, and even a felony charge is
Jeffrey
typically made in a criminal information -
Epstein has
an alternative to an indictment charging a
been indicted
person with the commission of a crime.
for felony solicitation of
prostitution by a grand
His attorney, Jack Goldberger, declined to
jury following
discuss the charge.
accusations by teen girls.
Past headlines
State attorney's office spokesman Mike
Edmondson also had little to say.
More crime coverage
"Generally speaking, there is a case that has
a number of different aspects to it,"
Most recent headlines
Edmondson said of a prostitution-related
Fugitives Sex offenders
charge being submitted to a grand jury.
"We first became aware of the case months
Behind
crime
reporters
The Yellow Tape
ago by Palm Beach police."
Post
crime blog
Prosecutors and police worked together to
More local news
http://palmbeachpost.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Billionairetsolicited. 1/2/2008
EFTA00013772

=== Page 2 ===
Billionaire solicited prostitutes 3 times, indictment says
Page 2 of 2
Latest breaking news, photos and all of today's Post stories. bring the case to the grand jury, he said.
Share This Story
Palm Beach police confirmed that and said
the department will release a report today regarding its investigation.
Epstein has owned a five-bedroom, 7 1/2 -bath, 7,234-square-foot home with a pool and a boat dock on
the Intracoastal Waterway since 1990, according to property records. A man answering the door there
Monday said that Epstein wasn't home. A Cadillac Escalade registered to him was parked in the
driveway, which is flanked by two massive gargoyles.
Epstein sued Property Appraiser Gary Nikolits in 2001, contending that the assessment of his home
exceeded its fair market value. He dismissed his lawsuit in December 2002.
A profile of Epstein in Vanity Fair magazine said he owns what are believed to be the largest private
homes in Manhattan - 51,000 square feet - and in New Mexico - a 7,500-acre ranch. Those are in
addition to his 70-acre island in the U.S. Virgin Islands and fleet of aircraft.
Epstein's friends and admirers, according to the magazine, include prominent businessmen, academics
and scientists and famed Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.
Find this article at:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2006/07/25/m4b_EPSTEIN_0725.htm
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
http://palmbeachpost.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Billionaire+solicited. 1/2/2008
EFTA00013773


c1: EFTA00009926
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009926.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: Maxwell discovery productions & laptop
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 14:25:45 +0000
Embedded: Maxwell_discovery_productions_&_laptop.msg
Sender:
Subject: Maxwell discovery productions & laptop
Message-Id:
To:
EFTA00009926


c1: EFTA00009767
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009767.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
MGC new TORK
mcc new YORK
MCC NEW YORK
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
30 MINUTE CHECK SHEET
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
SPECIME HOUSING UNIT
L-TIER
DATE: 08/09/2019
TIME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
TIME FRAME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
TIME FRAME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
START
END
START
END
START
END
FRAME
12:00-12:30 AM
1201
202
8:00-8:30 AM
208
red
4:00-4:30 PM
401
4°2
12:30- 1:00 AM
1233
1234
8:30- 9:00 AM
836
83
4:30-5:00 PM
433
43
1:00-1:30 AM
103
hol
9:00-9:30 AM
908
909
5:00-5:30 PM
503
500
1:30-2:00 AM
13'
132
9:30-10:00 AM
960
941
5:30-6:00 PM
531
53
2:00-2:30 AM
201
202
10:00-10:30 AM
10"
1012
6:00-6:30 PM
Col
60
2:30-3:00 AM
235
236
10:30-11:00 AM
10th
10
6:30-7:00 PM
635
Fw
3:00-3:30 AM
301
302
11:00-11:30 AM
1108
11
7:00-7:30 PM
701
70
3:30-4:00 AM
333
34
11:30-12:00 AM
1138
1)39
7:30-8:00 PM
733
ofse
4:00-4:30 AM
416
407
12:00-12:30 PM
1713
hill
8:00-8:30 PM
806
80
4:30-5:00 AM
430
431
12:30- 1:00 PM
1238
self
8:30-9:00 PM
830
80
5:00-5:30 AM
500
501
1:00-1:30 PM
108
109
9:00-9:30 PM
900
90
5:30-6:00 AM
533
30
1:30-2:00 PM
180
141
9:30-10:00 PM
938
of
6:00-6:30 AM
60
603
2:00-2:30 PM
you
go?
10:00-10:30 PM
1002
10°
6:30-7:00 AM
632
633
2:30-3:00 PM
10:30-11:00 PM
1032
103
7:00-7:30 AM
702
703
3:00-3:30 PM
11:00-11:30 PM
1102
1102
7:30-8:00 AM
731
732
3:30-4:00 PM
11:30-12:00 PM
1131
1139
MORNING WATCH
DAY WATCH
EVENING WATCH
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
LIEUTENANT
LIEUTENANT
LIEUTENANT
A staff member must observe all inmates confined in a continuous locked down status, such as administrative
detention or disciplinary segregation, at least once in the first 30 minute period of the hour (example, 12:00
a.m. - 12:30 a.m.) followed by another round in the second 30 minutes period of the same hour (example,
12:30 am - 1:00 a.m.), thus ensuring an inmate is observed at least twice per hour. These rounds are to be
conducted on an irregular schedule and no more than 40 minutes apart. All observations must be
documented.
REVIEWED BY MORNING WATCH LIEUTENANT
CAPTAIN
EFTA00009767

=== Page 2 ===
mcc new YORK
mcc new YORK
MCC NEW YORK
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
30 MINUTE CHECK SHEET
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
M-TIER
DATE: 08/09/2019
TIME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
TIME FRAME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
TIME FRAME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
START
END
START
END
START
END
FRAME
12:00-12:30 AM
1203
1204
8:00-8:30 AM
8"
8R
4:00-4:30 PM
403
4
12:30- 1:00 AM
1235
D36
8:30-9:00 AM
8.8
839
4:30-5:00 PM
435
4se
1:00-1:30 AM
105
106
9:00-9:30 AM
910
911
5:00 -5:30 PM
505
50
1:30-2:00 AM
133
134
9:30-10:00 AM
946
94
5:30-6:00 PM
583
534
2:00-2:30 AM
2c3
204
10:00-10:30 AM
1010
10"
6:00-6:30 PM
600
6°4
2:30-3:00 AM
237
238
10:30-11:00 AM
1037
1038
6:30-7:00 PM
637
638
3:00-3:30 AM
303
304
11:00-11:30 AM
1108
1109
7:00-7:30 PM
703
704
335
34
11:30-12:00 AM
1'50
3:30-4:00 AM
1.151
7:30-8:00 PM
sets
736
4:00-4:30 AM
408
yea
12:00-12:30 PM
200
10"
8:00-8:30 PM
808
809
4:30-5:00 AM
432
433
12:30- 1:00 PM
238
1739
8:30-9:00 PM
832
833
5:00-5:30 AM
5(2
503
1:00-1:30 PM
108
605
9:00-9:30 PM
902
903
5:30-6:00 AM
535
36
1:30-2:00 PM
137
38
9:30-10:00 PM
seb
88
6:00-6:30 AM
600
605
2:00-2:30 PM
2"
712
10:00-10:30 PM
1004
1005
6:30-7:00 AM
630
635
2:30-3:00 PM
10:30-11:00 PM
1034
1030
7:00-7:30 AM
704
75
3:00-3:30 PM
11:00-11:30 PM
1104
1105
7:30-8:00 AM
733
734
3:30-4:00 PM
11:30-12:00 PM
1133
1130
MORNING WATCH
DAY WATCH
EVENING WATCH
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
LIEUTENANT
LIEUTENANT
LIEUTENANT
A staff member must observe all inmates confined in a continuous locked down status, such as administrative
detention or disciplinary segregation, at least once in the first 30 minute period of the hour (example, 12:00
a.m.- — 12:30 a.m.) followed by another round in the second 30 minutes period of the same hour (example,
12:30 am - 1:00 a.m.), thus ensuring an inmate is observed at least twice per hour. These rounds are to be
conducted on an irregular schedule and no more than 40 minutes apart. All observations must be
documented.
REVIEWED BY MORNING WATCH LIEUTENANT
CAPTAIN
EFTA00009768

=== Page 3 ===
acc new YORK
MCC NEW YORK
mcc new YORK
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
30 MINUTE CHECK SHEET
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
ZA
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
TIER-J
DATE: 08/09/2019
TIME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
TIME FRAME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
TIME FRAME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
START
END
START
END
START
END
FRAME
12:00-12:30 AM
1205
1266
8:00-8:30 AM
806
80
4:00-4:30 PM
405
406
12:30- 1:00 AM
1237
1238
8:30-9:00 AM
859
880
4:30-5:00 PM
437
438
1:00-1:30 AM
107
108
9:00-9:30 AM
9"
912
5:00 -5:30 PM
507
5°5
1:30-2:00 AM
135
134
9:30-10:00 AM
941
942
5:30-6:00 PM
535
53
2:00-2:30 AM
205
206
10:00-10:30 AM
10"
1012
6:00-6:30 PM
605
COOL
2:30-3:00 AM
239
240
10:30-11:00 AM
031
1038
6:30-7:00 PM
639
648
3:00-3:30 AM
305
3C4
11:00-11:30 AM
1106
107
7:00-7:30 PM
too
706
3:30-4:00 AM
337
338
11:30-12:00 AM
1149
es../
7:30-8:00 PM
737
73
4:00-4:30 AM
410
4"
12:00-12:30 PM
b"
1212
8:00-8:30 PM
810
8"
4:30-5:00 AM
434
435
12:30- 1:00 PM
1950
10st
8:30-9:00 PM
884
835
5:00-5:30 AM
504
555
1:00-1:30 PM
108
109
9:00-9:30 PM
94
90s
5:30-6:00 AM
537
538
1:30-2:00 PM
18
6t/1
9:30-10:00 PM
637
938
6:00-6:30 AM
606
607
2:00-2:30 PM
110
"
10:00-10:30 PM
1004
100
6:30-7:00 AM
636
637
2:30-3:00 PM
10:30-11:00 PM
1030
1037
7:00-7:30 AM
707
706
3:00-3:30 PM
11:00-11:30 PM
7:30-8:00 AM
735
736
3:30-4:00 PM
11:30-12:00 PM
MORNING WATCH
DAY WATCH
EVENING WATCH
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
LIEUTENANT
LIEUTENANT
LIEUTENANT
A staff member must observe all inmates confined in a continuous locked down status, such as administrative
detention or disciplinary segregation, at least once in the first 30 minute period of the hour (example, 12:00
a.m. - 12:30 a.m.) followed by another round in the second 30 minutes period of the same hour (example,
12:30 am - 1:00 a.m.), thus ensuring an inmate is observed at least twice per hour. These rounds are to be
conducted on an irregular schedule and no more than 40 minutes apart. All observations must be
documented.
REVIEWED BY MORNING WATCH LIEUTENANT
CAPTAIN
EFTA00009769

=== Page 4 ===
MCC new YORK
mpc new YORK
MCC NEW YORK
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
30 MINUTE CHECK SHEET
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
ZA
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
TIER-K
DATE: 08/09/2019
TIME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
TIME FRAME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
TIME FRAME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
START
END
START
END
START
END
FRAME
12:00-12:30 AM
1707
1208
8:00-8:30 AM
805
806
4:00-4:30 PM
407
408
12:30- 1:00 AM
1239
1240
8:30-9:00 AM
80
838
4:30-5:00 PM
489
440
109
110
9"
5½
1:00-1:30 AM
9:00-9:30 AM
5:00 -5:30 PM
509
5'ᵈ
1:30-2:00 AM
137
3E1
9:30-10:00 AM
938
555
5:30-6:00 PM
537
508
2:00-2:30 AM
207
208
10:00-10:30 AM
10"
1012
6:00-6:30 PM
687
608
2:30-3:00 AM
241
242
10:30-11:00 AM
10th
V4
6:30-7:00 PM
641
(042
3:00-3:30 AM
307
308
11:00-11:30 AM
1115
r/ll
7:00-7:30 PM
LOLO
708
3:30-4:00 AM
339
340
11:30-12:00 AM
68,11
-98
7:30-8:00 PM
739
940
4:00-4:30 AM
42
413
12:00-12:30 PM
D"
1212
8:00-8:30 PM
812
813
4:30-5:00 AM
434
437
12:30- 1:00 PM
198
1749
8:30-9:00 PM
836
839
5:00-5:30 AM
500
507
1:00-1:30 PM
111
142
9:00-9:30 PM
906
got
5:30-6:00 AM
539
540
1:30-2:00 PM
150
'si
9:30-10:00 PM
989
940
6:00-6:30 AM
68
69
2:00-2:30 PM
7%
you
10:00-10:30 PM
1008
1000
6:30-7:00 AM
USE
639
2:30-3:00 PM
10:30-11:00 PM
1035
108
7:00-7:30 AM
708
3:00-3:30 PM
11:00-11:30 PM
707
7:30-8:00 AM
737
738
3:30-4:00 PM
11:30-12:00 PM
MORNING WATCH
DAY WATCH
EVENING WATCH
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
LIEUTENANT
LIEUTENANT
LIEUTENANT
A staff member must observe all inmates confined in a continuous locked down status, such as administrative
detention or disciplinary segregation, at least once in the first 30 minute period of the hour (example, 12:00
a.m. - 12:30 a.m.) followed by another round in the second 30 minutes period of the same hour (example,
12:30 am - 1:00 a.m.), thus ensuring an inmate is observed at least twice per hour. These rounds are to be
conducted on an irregular schedule and no more than 40 minutes apart. All observations must be
documented.
REVIEWED BY MORNING WATCH LIEUTENANT
CAPTAIN
EFTA00009770

=== Page 5 ===
mcc new TORK
mcc new YORK
MCC NEW YORK
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
30 MINUTE CHECK SHEET
SPECIAL HOUSING WAIT
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
ZA
TIER-G
DATE: 08/09/2019
TIME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
TIME FRAME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
TIME FRAME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
START
END
START
END
START
END
FRAME
12:00-12:30 AM
1204
12'0
8:00-8:30 AM
sed
588
4:00-4:30 PM
409
410
12:30- 1:00 AM
1241
1242
8:30-9:00 AM
850
&
4:30-5:00 PM
441
442
1:00-1:30 AM
I"
112
9:00-9:30 AM
9"
912
5:00-5:30 PM
5"
is
1:30-2:00 AM
134
140
9:30-10:00 AM
0146
(4)
5:30-6:00 PM
537
is
2:00-2:30 AM
2ch
210
10:00-10:30 AM
1010
10"
6:00-6:30 PM
609
6'9
2:30-3:00 AM
243
244
10:30-11:00 AM
1040
104
6:30-7:00 PM
1013
64
3:00-3:30 AM
3c9
310
11:00-11:30 AM
4/18
//19
7:00-7:30 PM
709
710
3:30-4:00 AM
341
342
11:30-12:00 AM
cs , ll
1151
7:30-8:00 PM
741
74
4:00-4:30 AM
414
415
12:00-12:30 PM
I'll
Dr
8:00-8:30 PM
814
8'5
4:30-5:00 AM
438
439
12:30- 1:00 PM
10$3
1744
8:30-9:00 PM
838
839
5:00-5:30 AM
508
5c9
1:00-1:30 PM
108
109
9:00-9:30 PM
908
909
5:30-6:00 AM
541
5"2
1:30-2:00 PM
38
139
9:30-10:00 PM
Q41
94
6:00-6:30 AM
610
6"
2:00-2:30 PM
7"
12
10:00-10:30 PM
1010
10"
6:30-7:00 AM
6/0
641
2:30-3:00 PM
10:30-11:00 PM
1040
104
7:00-7:30 AM
709
710
3:00-3:30 PM
11:00-11:30 PM
7:30-8:00 AM
B9
740
3:30-4:00 PM
11:30-12:00 PM
MORNING WATCH
DAY WATCH
EVENING WATCH
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
LIEUTENANT
LIEUTENANT
LIEUTENANT
A staff member must observe all inmates confined in a continuous locked down status, such as administrative
detention or disciplinary segregation, at least once in the first 30 minute period of the hour (example, 12:00
a.m. - 12:30 a.m.) followed by another round in the second 30 minutes period of the same hour (example,
12:30 am - 1:00 a.m.), thus ensuring an inmate is observed at least twice per hour. These rounds are to be
conducted on an irregular schedule and no more than 40 minutes apart. All observations must be
documented.
REVIEWED BY MORNING WATCH LIEUTENANT
CAPTAIN
EFTA00009771

=== Page 6 ===
mcc new YORK
MGC new YORK
MCC NEW YORK
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
30 MINUTE CHECK SHEET
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
ZA
TIER-H
DATE: 08/09/2019
TIME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
TIME FRAME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
TIME FRAME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
START
END
START
END
START
END
FRAME
12:00-12:30 AM
12"
1212
8:00-8:30 AM
813
8'4
4:00-4:30 PM
4"
412
12:30. 1:00 AM
1243
1244
8:30-9:00 AM
852
863
4:30-5:00 PM
443
444
1:00-1:30 AM
113
114
9:00-9:30 AM
9"
9R
5:00 -5:30 PM
513
514
1:30-2:00 AM
14
142
9:30-10:00 AM
946
94)
5:30-6:00 PM
541
52
2:00-2:30 AM
2"
212
10:00-10:30 AM
1012
1013
6:00-6:30 PM
101
612
2:30-3:00 AM
2115
246
10:30-11:00 AM
1038
103r
6:30-7:00 PM
UD
1816
3:00-3:30 AM
3"
312
11:00-11:30 AM
81/
11A
7:00-7:30 PM
711
712
3:30-4:00 AM
343
344
11:30-12:00 AM
cell
138
7:30-8:00 PM
Este
944
4:00-4:30 AM
416
tin
12:00-12:30 PM
718
719
8:00-8:30 PM
8"6
8ʳᵈ
4:30-5:00 AM
400
441
12:30- 1:00 PM
1044
195
8:30-9:00 PM
840
841
5:00-5:30 AM
5.0
is
1:00-1:30 PM
89/
of
9:00-9:30 PM
Q10
a
5:30-6:00 AM
5.13
544
1:30-2:00 PM
37
1'38
9:30-10:00 PM
943
944
6:00-6:30 AM
6'2
65
2:00-2:30 PM
208
209
10:00-10:30 PM
102
1013
6:30-7:00 AM
602
643
2:30-3:00 PM
10:30-11:00 PM
10+2
1043
7:00-7:30 AM
712
3:00-3:30 PM
11:00-11:30 PM
7"
7:30-8:00 AM
7"
3:30-4:00 PM
11:30-12:00 PM
702
MORNING WATCH
DAY WATCH
EVENING WATCH
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
LIEUTENANT
LIEUTENANT
LIEUTENANT
A staff member must observe all inmates confined in a continuous locked down status, such as administrative
detention or disciplinary segregation, at least once in the first 30 minute period of the hour (example, 12:00
a.m. - 12:30 a.m.) followed by another round in the second 30 minutes period of the same hour (example,
12:30 am - 1:00 a.m.), thus ensuring an inmate is observed at least twice per hour. These rounds are to be
conducted on an irregular schedule and no more than 40 minutes apart. All observations must be
documented.
REVIEWED BY MORNING WATCH LIEUTENANT
CAPTAIN
EFTA00009772

=== Page 7 ===
MGC new TORK
mcc new YORK
MCC NEW YORK
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
HOUSING VAIT
30 MINUTE CHECK SHEET
SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
ZB
DATE: 8-9-19
TIME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
TIME FRAME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
TIME FRAME
TIME
TIME
SIGNATURE
RAME
START
END
START
END
START
END
12:00-12:30 AM
12:00AM
1203
8:00-8:30 AM
8:13
8:15
4:00-4:30 PM
405
401
12:30- 1:00 AM
12:30
12:33
8:30- 9:00 AM
8:48
8:50
4:30-5:00 PM
432
435
1:00-1:30 AM
1:00
103
9:00-9:30 AM
9:08
9:10
5:00-5:30 PM
501
504
1:30-2:00 AM
130
133
9:30-10:00 AM
9:36
9:38
5:30-6:00 PM
536
538
2:00-2:30 AM
200
203
10:00-10:30 AM
10:12
10:14
6:00-6:30 PM
603
606
2:30-3:00 AM
230
233
10:30-11:00 AM
10:47
10:49
6:30-7:00 PM
631
633
3:00-3:30 AM
300
303
11:00-11:30 AM
11:22
11:24
7:00-7:30 PM
707
709
3:30-4:00 AM
330
333
11:30-12:00 AM
11:57
11:59
7:30-8:00 PM
735
738
4:00-4:30 AM
400
403
12:00-12:30 PM
12:11
12:13
8:00-8:30 PM
802
804
4:30-5:00 AM
430
433
12:30- 1:00 PM
12:36
11:38
8:30-9:00 PM
839
842
5:00-5:30 AM
500
5703
1:00-1:30 PM
1:24
1:20
9:00-9:30
PM
910
913
5:30-6:00 AM
530
533
1:30-2:00 PM
1:41
1:43
9:30-10:00 PM
943
946
6:00-6:30 AM
600
603
2:00-2:30 PM
2:03
2:05
10:00-10:30 PM
1014
1017
6:30-7:00 AM
630
633
2:30-3:00 PM
2:23
2:25
10:30-11:00 PM
1046
1049
7:00-7:30 AM
3:00-3:30 PM
3:09
11:00-11:30 PM
700
703
3:11
1119
1121
7:30-8:00 AM
730
733
3:30-4:00 PM
11:30-12:00 PM
3:49
3:51
1778
1152
MORNING WATCH
DAY WATCH
EVENING WATCH
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
LIEUTENANT
LIEUTENANT
LIEUTENANT
A staff member must observe all inmates confined in a continuous locked down status, such as administrative
detention or disciplinary segregation, at least once in the first 30 minute period of the hour (example, 12:00
a.m. - 12:30 a.m.) followed by another round in the second 30 minutes period of the same hour (example,
12:30 am - 1:00 a.m.), thus ensuring an inmate is observed at least twice per hour. These rounds are to be
conducted on an irregular schedule and no more than 40 minutes aport
documented.
REVIEWED BY MORNING WATCH LIEUTENANT
CAPTAIN
EFTA00009773

=== Page 8 ===
and
71
Da
my
pm
118
1.70 123RF
BYN $5,
are SERIES & <01
joe
# ***


c1: EFTA00014073
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014073.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Brad Edwards
To:
(USAFLS)"
, Paul Cassell
Cc:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: RE: Draft Protective Order - slight tweak
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:49:17 +0000
Importance: Normal
It looks ok. Go ahead and submit it. While we would disagree with your statement that our proposed order goes well beyond
what is at issue, since it actually covers very thoroughly the ruling by Judge Marra yesterday, at this point we feel that time is
of the essence and we will agree with you submitting your proposed order as is. I think we all heard Judge Marra and are thus
all clear as to the terms of the protective order and what is required.
I would prefer that there is some language that the protective order is entered without prejudice to petitioners (seems like it
would go in paragraph b), but if you are unable to incorporate it in your order, then I am sure there is a record from yesterday
that could be used to help us get relief from the protective order at a later hearing. Anyway, thanks for preparing the order.
We will look out for the "agreement". Thanks
From:
(USAFLS) [mailto:
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 1:24 PM
To: Paul Cassell; Brad Edwards
Cc:
(USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Draft Protective Order - slight tweak
Judge Cassell and Brad,
I have incorporated the change suggested by Judge Cassell to paragraph (c). I also added language in paragraph (e),
referring to other victims, which also provides for petitioners' counsel to promptly provide a copy of the acknowledgment
to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The government has no doubts that counsel for petitioners will ensure the authorized
recipients are aware of the protective order and agree to abide by it, prior to disclosure. We do not require the
acknowledgment in writing prior to the non-prosecution agreement being disclosed to an authorized recipient.
We believe the petitioners' proposed protective order goes well beyond what is at issue, the government's disclosure of
the non-prosecution agreement, conditioned on limited dissemination of the document upon receipt by petitioners.
Consequently, we believe the attached proposed order, incorporating your revisions, is appropriate for the task at
hand. Thanks.
From: Paul Cassell [mailto:
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 12:21 PM
To: Brad Edwards;
(USAFLS)
Cc:
(USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Draft Protective Order - slight tweak
Hello
and
,
First, I don't know if we've been formally introduced. Nice to meet you electronically at least.
EFTA00014073

=== Page 2 ===
Second, on the language -- As Brad mentioned, we need to see this document quite quickly in view of
the Government's representations yesterday that Epstein is trying to ignore the agreement. As a result --
and in view of the difficulty of making immediate contact with our clients -- I propose one change.
Instead of this:
Prior to producing the documents to Petitioners' counsel, a copy of this Order must be provided to
counsel and their clients, who must review and acknowledge their receipt of and agreement to abide by
the terms of this Order, and who must provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO.
How about this:
Before counsel for Petitioner's 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 this Order. Counsel for Petitioner's must promptly
provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO.
I assume that the USAO is not concerned about us as attorneys somehow ignoring the Court's protective
order, so this change would focus in on the non-law trained clients.
Paul G. Cassell
Ronald M. Boyce Presidential Professor of Law
S. J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
EFTA00014074


c1: EFTA00009802
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009802.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Cc:
)"
)"
Subject: FW: Epstein search warrant documents
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 16:01:54 +0000
Notwithstanding their many promises to us about quick and effective processing of the 60+ devices they seized, the FBI is
completely fucking us on this.
From:
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2020 12:00
To:
)'
is
(USANYS)
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
>;
>;
is
>;
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Unfortunately I don't think this is very helpful to us. Did you take a look at the example spreadsheet I sent on 2/24? The
excel file you sent has descriptions that don't match up to the items listed in the search warrant returns (that we sent on
2/23), and we don't have the 1B or CART numbers to be able to cross-reference. We also can't tell what you mean by
"loose media" without a specific comparison to what was seized, we don't know which items you're referring to as
"Windows machines," and we can't tell whether the entirety of any particular item has been transferred, or just partial.
For example, it looks like we have gotten very, very few image files, which is surprising.
We have also encountered some very significant problems in trying to review the more than 1 million documents we
recently received:
-
The data we've received has no way to put any emails and attachments together. So if an email says, "see the
attached flight records," for example, we have no way of linking that up with the records themselves. Not only is
that a big problem for us in review, it's going to be a huge problem for producing the documents to defense
counsel.
The load file has no link to the native file, so when we load the data to the database, there's no way to have the
native files show up in the database. Because many of the files are too large to open in the viewer, it effectively
means that there are many files that are completely invisible to us.
-
Related, the control numbers in the load file don't match up to the native files. So we have two sets of numbers
and no way to match up anything-that is, even if we were to try to go hunt down every individual large file in the
native files, it would be impossible.
So the data that we most recently got, we need to get in a form that addresses those issues, and we likely will need to get
a similar reproduction of the data we received a couple months ago. Otherwise we're sifting through more than a million
documents without much rhyme or reason.
EFTA00009802

=== Page 2 ===
I've re-attached the spreadsheet we sent last week - I think that's a good place to start in terms of our necessary record-
keeping, and we need that info at the very least, as well as anything else you think would be useful. Also attaching the SW
returns for reference. And again, we're happy to meet up anytime and hash all this out in person if that's useful.
thanks,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2020 16:36
To:
is
(USANYS)
>;
y.
(USANYS)
Cc:
>;
is
i
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Here is a listing of what I have already handed over in load files to the US Attorney's Office for taint review. Some points of
clarification: There were 9 IDE hard drives found in the Manhattan apartment, they turned out to be 3 copies of 3 drives
(9 drives in total) from a July 2007 search on one of his properties. I only processed 3 (as they were all copies). All the
loose media from the NY apartment is included. All the Windows machines from the NY apartment are included. Only 2
Macs from NY and 1 from the Island are included.
I will have to more closely coordinate with whoever is loading up Relativity with the remaining Macs as the tool
they have to be processed with does not easily re-name the load files.
Spreadsheet is attached.
(office)
(cell)
From:
[mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2020 12:25 PM
To:
is
(USANYS)
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
<Christopher.Rozier@usdoj.gov>;
i
is
is
)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I could do Thursday morning, but I think it would be helpful for us to get the accounting in advance of the meeting so we
can figure out in advance what (if any) additional steps we need - is that possible?
From:
)
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2020 09:59
To:
(USANYS)
is
>;
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
is
is
is
EFTA00009803

=== Page 3 ===
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Can we do Thursday morning? My network should be back by then and I can give you a good accounting.
cell
desk
On Mar 2, 2020 11:15 AM,
)"
wrote:
Doing the weekly check in on this - is there a time this week when everyone can meet on this?
thanks,
From:
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 17:38
To:
>;
(USANYS)
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
V.
i
>;
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Totally understand about the network issues-we can relate. I do still think it will be helpful to all sit down together to
have an in-person discussion, to make sure everybody is on the same page. Are folks available for that next week? And
what I think would be most helpful to facilitate that would be a spreadsheet of each separate device referenced in the two
search warrant returns, with columns for whether we've dumped the contents, whether they've been reviewed and/or
transferred, what portions were transferred, etc.
Something roughly like the attached, with any other categories you think would be useful - and the info on the attached is
mostly hypothetical, obviously, just as examples. That will help us fully understand what's been reviewed, transferred,
and received so far, and what remains.
(Also just on the pictures, we do want copies of those as well, please including from the discs and the devices - I think FBI
was going to do an initial screen to make sure no CP, and since I think the answer was no, we'll need to get those to be
able to review them as well.)
many thanks,
From:
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 09:24
To:
(USANYS)
is
)
V.
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
V.
is
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
EFTA00009804

=== Page 4 ===
Sorry for the delayed response. They are tearing out our old network and giving us a new one, they mandated we
delete old stuff (about 400 TB worth). Now that they are working on replacing the network, we can do only local
work. I should be able to give you an accounting of what is what. I can say, off the top of my head, that all
windows based items from the NY search have been handed over as well as all loose media. The CDs from NY
only contained pictures, no documents. There are still some Apple items from NY that need to be produced. As
far as the Island stuff goes, the 1st item on your spreadsheet, the "kitchen" mac has been produced. Still working
on the rest.
cell
desk
On Feb 23, 2020 12:21 AM,
)"
wrote:
Team,
Following up on the below from last weekend, I'm still not sure how we're addressing this so I thought it would make
sense for us to all schedule a (hopefully relatively brief) meeting to all get on the same page? We didn't hear back on
which files had previously been provided, but our tech folks did their best to differentiate, and we got access to the
materials yesterday and its well over a million documents, and we don't have any idea what we're looking at - i.e., which
devices the materials came from, whether it's full or partial results, how many more devices we have coming, etc.
Based on the attached search warrant returns, it looks like from the New York mansion (the PDF) there are approximately
40 devices that would have storage (computers, hard drives, thumb drives, etc.) and that's not even counting at least 60+
CDs. And then from the Virgin Islands (the Excel spreadsheet), at least more than 25 devices, including multiple servers /
server racks.
So we gotta know what we've already received, what remains, anticipated schedule, etc, and I know it's a lot of moving
pieces on all sides so wanted to loop in everybody at once. The case team will be in California this coming week from
Tuesday through Friday, but then I think generally around the first week of March, which will hopefully be plenty of time
to schedule a productive meeting.
thanks all,
From:
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 16:30
To:
is
Cc:
is
is
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I'm not sure who's the exact right person to ask this, so wanted to get everybody on one email chain about it - I have the
hard drive that
dropped off that has new Epstein search warrant materials, but it looks like there are also old
materials (that I think we had previously received and uploaded??) on the hard drive, and so I'm not sure what's new.
Just generally, and
and I talked about this last week too, but it's basically impossible for us to keep track of what
we're getting, and what has been completed, without some kind of identification or labeling system, along with a list of
which devices have been extracted and downloaded.
EFTA00009805

=== Page 5 ===
So for example on the hard drive currently, there are 38 folders labeled "loadFiles" through "37loadFiles" with a modified
date of 11/14/19, which I think we may have already previously received - but I'm not sure, because we haven't gotten
any info on which folders match up to which devices, etc. And then there's another folder titled "NYC024362" that has a
modified date of 1/27/20, so I think that may be the materials we hadn't previously received? That folder by itself has
more than 600,000 items.
I don't want to give
anything that we've already previously received and uploaded, and I can't tell from the folder or
file names whether everything on the drive is new, or whether just additional materials were saved onto it in addition to
what we already have.
are you able to give us some guidance on this? Ultimately what we really need is a
spreadsheet of every device, whether it's been dumped (or partially dumped), and then identifying that same info -
which device, and what materials from it - are being given to us with each data transfer. Otherwise I think
organizationally and for review purposes it will be a total disaster for us.
We're happy to have a meeting on this if that's helpful - and thanks everybody for the assistance.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00009806


c1: EFTA00013656
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013656.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Follow up
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:15:19 +0000
Importance: Normal
Hi
Here is the info that I have. Jeopardy attaches at the start of the presentation of evidence at trial,
so that should not be an issue.
The bigger problem is the statute of limitations. A defendant can waive his right to challenge the statute under
Florida law, but I don't think that Epstein will be willing to do so.
At this point he also could demand a speedy trial. Once he has done so, if the trial is not held very quickly, he
can move for "discharge." Once "discharged," Epstein cannot be prosecuted on the crime charged or any other
crimes that could have been charged as a result of the same conduct or criminal episode. The State cannot avoid
this bar by filing a "Nolle Prosequi" and then trying to re-file the same or different charges based on the same
conduct or criminal episode.
Please let me know if you need anything else.
From:
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 11:51 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Follow up
One more question - do you know when double jeopardy attaches under Florida law? More specifically, if the
state charges were dropped now, could they be dropped without prejudice?
From:
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:39 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Follow up
Hi
The state indictment is related to two girls. One of those girls is included in the federal
indictment, the other is not. The state indictment charges solicitation of adult prostitution, it does not charge any
child exploitation offense, despite the fact that, under Florida law, neither lack of knowledge of age nor
affirmative misrepresentation of age by the victim is a defense.
EFTA00013656

=== Page 2 ===
The victim from the state case who is referenced in the federal indictment told Epstein her true age and
he engaged in full sexual intercourse with her a few days shy of her 18th birthday. For that birthday, he gave her
a series of gifts, including lingerie. The other 18 girls named in the current indictment are not part of the state
indictment.
The state case currently has a trial date set for July. Before we got involved, the police were told that
Epstein was going to plead to a misdemeanor and get no jail time. (That is one of the reasons why they asked
the FBI to step in.) Since the federal investigation began, Epstein's counsel have continued the case repeatedly
on the basis that they cannot resolve that case until the federal case is resolved. As part of the non-prosecution
agreement that the Office put together with Epstein, the federal case was supposed to be resolved if Epstein
agreed to three main terms: (1) he had to plead to a state offense for which sex offender registration was
required, specifically, the procurement of minors to engage in prostitution; (2) he had to agree to an 18-month
term of incarceration; and (3) he had to agree to pay restitution and damages to the victims. After the agreement
was signed, he then tried to escape all three requirements.
He objected to pleading to the state charge, claiming that the facts did not apply, and asked to plead to a
non-registrable offense instead. When we responded that there were four other registrable offenses where the
facts certainly fit, those were rejected because (1) they required registration and (2) the state sentencing
guidelines for those offenses were too high.
He tried to arrange to get out on work release, which would allow him to "work" anywhere he liked
during the day and sleep in a halfway house, rather than a jail, at night. When he learned that sex offenders
weren't allowed to be a part of the work release program, he started complaining about the jail time. He now
wants to get a "suspended sentence" and/or home confinement, instead.
He complained that he should be able to fully litigate the issues of liability and damages with regard to
the third term of the agreement, despite his agreement directly to the contrary.
With respect to the current status of the state case, other than the new trial date, all that I know is that
Epstein is now subpoenaing victims for depositions who are not included in the state indictment. (Under Florida
law, defense counsel are allowed to depose witnesses, including victims, prior to trial.) He seems to be trying to
use that process to get information about the federal investigation. I do not know whether Epstein's
misdemeanor deal is back on the table because the defense demanded that we have no contact with the State
Attorney's Office, so I haven't spoken with the ASA in over 6 months.
I wish I had more information to give you. If you would like me to reach out to either the local detective
on the state case or the Assistant State Attorney, please let me know. Or, if you would like their contact info, I
can forward that to you, too.
Thank you. I will be back in the office tomorrow and you can call me there with any other questions.
From:
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 11:49 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Follow up
EFTA00013657

=== Page 3 ===
Two quick questions: Could you clarify whether any of the victims that are included in the state indictment
would also be included in any federal indictment? If you know, what is the status of the state case?
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:17 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Follow up
I'm running out the door, but I wanted to get a response off. Sorry for not updating you sooner. The meeting went well -
enough. They wanted to "complete the record" with some written material, which we expect to have by Monday. We're
putting together our response to their arguments and we should be ready to issue it as soon as we get and digest their final
submissions. Assuming we get the submissions by Monday, I expect to have our position to you by the middle of next
week.
So far we've not had any questions we couldn't answer with the materials at hand, but we'll reach out to you promptly if we
need to.
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 6:30 PM
To:
Subject: Follow up
Hi
- Sorry to bother you. I know you had mentioned that you might have some questions for me after
your meeting. I am going to be out most of the day tomorrow and then back on Friday and then I will be out for
a week, so I wanted to get stuff to you before I leave. Do you need anything from me or the investigators?
Thanks.
EFTA00013658


c1: EFTA00013590
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013590.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(USAFLS)" </O=USA/OU=FLS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=
To:
(USAFLS)"
"
i
(USAFLS)"
>,
(USAFLS)"
Cc: "
(FBI)"
>, "
(FBI)"
Subject: Emailing: 081208 Capt
Ltr.wpd -- Ltr re Epstein work release
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:45:33 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: 081208_Capt
Ltr.wpd
Hi everyone -- Can you please review and comment on the attached? I wanted to give you one more piece of info that will
blow your minds.
I finally heard back from Epstein's work release supervisor. She had told
that even though Epstein's paperwork
shows a late September release date (with credit for gain time), he will actually be eligible for release on July 23rd. I called
to ask why and this is the answer. The September date just takes into account statutorily mandated gain time. For each
week that he is on work release, he gets an additional two days off of his sentence. Yes, not only does Mr. Epstein get to
spend 12 hours each day lounging in his high-rise office building, but he also gets to shorten his sentence by two months in
doing so!
So, please let me know what you think. I would like to send it out asap. Thanks.
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
081208 Capt
Ltr.wpd
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file
attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
EFTA00013590


c1: EFTA00010454
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010454.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
December 31, 2019
VIA EMAIL
FirstBank Puerto Rico
P.O. Box 9046
Attn: Legal Division
San Juan, PR 00908
Email: customercare@1firstbank.com
Re:
Grand Jury Subpoena
Please be advised that the accompanying grand jury subpoena has been issued in
connection with an official criminal investigation of a suspected felony being conducted by a
federal grand jury. The Government hereby requests that you voluntarily refrain from disclosing
the existence of the subpoena to any third party. While you are under no obligation to comply
with our request, we are requesting you not to make any disclosure in order to preserve the
confidentiality of the investigation and because disclosure of the existence of this investigation
might interfere with and impede the investigation.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
By:
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00010454

=== Page 2 ===
Grand Jury Subpoena
United States District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TO:
FirstBank Puerto Rico
P.O. Box 9046
Attn: Legal Division
San Juan, PR 00908
Fax: 787-729-8027
GREETINGS:
WE COMMAND YOU that all and singular business and excuses being laid aside, you appear and attend
before the GRAND JURY of the people of the United States for the Southern District of New York, at
the United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Room 220, 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:
January 15, 2020
Appearance Time: 10 a.m.
to testify and give evidence in regard to alleged violations of federal criminal law, including:
18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1594(c), 2422(b), 371
and not to depart the Grand Jury 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:
SEE ATTACHED RIDER. Personal appearance is not required if the requested records are (1)
produced by on or before the return date to Assistant U.S. Attorney
at: U.S. Attorney's
Office, Southern District of New York, 1 St. Andrew's Plaza, New York, NY 10007, telephone:
or via email at
,
; and (2) accompanied by an executed copy
of the attached Declaration of Custodian of Records. PLEASE PROVIDE IN ELECTRONIC
FORMAT IF POSSIBLE.
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
August 11, 2019
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
MASSACHUSETTS UNITED COURT
FOR
Assistant United States Attorney
THE
YORK
One St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Telephone:
EFTA00010455

=== Page 3 ===
RIDER
(Grand Jury Subpoena to FirstBank Puerto Rico, dated December 31, 2019)
Please provide the following information for open or closed individual, joint, or
commercial accounts, or related or affiliated accounts, associated with the entities, individuals,
social security numbers, and/or account numbers identified below, for the period January 1, 2005,
to the present:
Individual:
Jeffrey Epstein
Date of Birth: 01/20/53
SSN:
Entity:
LSJE LLC
NOTE: When producing results for multiple accounts in electronic form, please produce
records for each account on a SEPARATE disk.
Please include in your response related or affiliated accounts identified by name, address, Social
Security Number(s), Employer Identification Number(s), driver's license number(s), financial
account number(s), corporate/d.b.a records, Tax Identification Number(s), internal investigative
findings or other means, for the period January 1, 2005, to the present.
Any and all records in your care, custody, possession or control, including but not limited to:
1. Records relating to "Know Your Customer" filings, submissions, forms, requests,
supplements, and questions and answers;
2. Records relating to the opening and/or closing of accounts, including account
applications, signature cards, proof of identification, corporate resolutions, and related
records (to be included even if dated outside the above-specified time period);
3. All account monthly or other periodic statements and/or transcripts;
4. Signature cards, and any other documents reflecting the identities of individuals
authorized to conduct transactions in, or have access to, the accounts;
5. Records relating to or reflecting the names, addresses, social security numbers, and /or
employer identification numbers of all account holders;
6. Loan and/or lines of credit applications and files;
7. All account deposit and withdrawal items;
3
EFTA00010456

=== Page 4 ===
8. Deposit records including deposit slips, items deposited, and all documents and records
or information indicating sources of deposited funds;
9. Withdrawal and deposit records including withdrawal and deposit applications, drafts,
wire transfers, and all other documents showing any record or information relating to the
destination or disposition of withdrawn or wired funds;
10. Cancelled checks (both front and back);
11. Debit and credit memoranda and related documents;
12. Records of and relating to all cashier's checks, bank checks, teller checks, certified
checks, money orders, traveler's checks, and/or other official checks issued to, or on
behalf of, any account holder;
13. Credit card accounts;
14. Loan files, including all applications and supporting documentation, to include financial
statements, credit reports, and appraisals, loan approval records, promissory notes,
mortgages, security agreements, and loan repayment records, to include any records or
information relating to payment sources;
15. Safe deposit records, including applications, signature cards, and any records relating to
access;
16. Currency transactions reports (IRS Forms 4789) and other required reports made to any
regulatory or law enforcement authority;
17. Account opening documents to include photocopies if ID, SSN card etc.;
18. Any correspondence to, from, or relating to accounts, account-holders, or other
individuals associated with accounts, including any recorded customer service telephone
calls, and including correspondence with any regulatory or law enforcement authority;
19. Memoranda, notes or other records of telephone conversations associated with accounts
or individuals associated with accounts (including conversations with any regulatory or
law enforcement authority);
20. Internal memoranda and reports;
21. Computer records / logs of any communication or attempted communication with the
customer;
22. Customer service call logs;
23. Trust accounts;
24. Any email addresses associated with the accounts/account holders;
25. All surveillance video and/or photographs of transactions;
26. Any and all corporate resolutions, certifications of incorporation, business certificates
and/or partnership agreements; and
27. Any and all correspondence, electronic or otherwise, including memoranda, emails and
text messages, that reference or concern items (1) through (26), above, and/or any
financial interests involving the individuals and/or entities identified in Section A.
4
EFTA00010457

=== Page 5 ===
N.B.: Personal appearance is not required if the requested records are (1) produced by on or
before the return date to Assistant U.S. Attorney
at: U.S. Attorney's Office,
Southern District of New York, 1 St. Andrew's Plaza, New York, NY 10007, telephone:
-
, or via email at
and (2) accompanied by an
executed copy of the attached Declaration of Custodian of Records. PLEASE PROVIDE IN
ELECTRONIC FORMAT IF POSSIBLE.
IMPORTANT: REQUEST FOR NON-DISCLOSURE
Due to the ongoing nature of the investigation, it is requested that you do not
disclose any information relating to this Grand Jury subpoena request to any third party.
5
EFTA00010458

=== Page 6 ===
Declaration of Custodian of Records
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1746, I, the undersigned, hereby declare:
My name is
.
(name of declarant)
I am a United States citizen and I am over eighteen years of age. I am the custodian of
records of the business named below, or I am otherwise qualified as a result of my position with
the business named below to make this declaration.
I am in receipt of a Grand Jury Subpoena, dated December 31, 2019, and signed by
Assistant United States Attorney
,
requesting specified records of the business
named below. Pursuant to Rules 902(11) and 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, I hereby
certify that the records provided herewith and in response to the Subpoena:
(1) were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth in the records,
by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters;
(2) were kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity; and
(3) were made by the regularly conducted business activity as a regular practice.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on
.
(date)
(signature of declarant)
(name and title of declarant)
(name of business)
(business address)
Definitions of terms used above:
As defined in Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), "record" includes a memorandum, report, record, or data
compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses. The term, "business"
as used in Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) and the above declaration includes business, institution,
association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.
EFTA00010459


c1: EFTA00010035
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010035.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: 2021-11-10 GM letter re GX 52.v4.docx
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 18:08:13 +0000
Attachments: 2021-11-10_GM_letter_re_GX_52.v4.docx
Comments in attached.
EFTA00010035


c1: EFTA00013546
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013546.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Jeffrey Epstein plea hearing moved to March
Page 1 of 2
PRINTTHIS
PalmBeachDailyNews.com THE SHINY SHEET
Powered by
Clickability
Jeffrey Epstein plea hearing moved to March
By MICHELE DARGAN
Daily News Staff Writer
Thursday, January 03, 2008
A plea hearing for part-time Palm Beacher Jeffrey Epstein will be rescheduled to March, his
New York attorney confirmed Wednesday.
The Manhattan money manager is expected to plead guilty to a felony charge of solicitation of
prostitution. The hearing originally was scheduled for Friday.
Sources have confirmed that the deal will put Epstein in prison for 18 months, followed by
house arrest.
"The plea conference will be moved to March, but it will be resolved, we believe," attorney
Gerald Lefcourt said by phone.
Although he declined to give a reason, Lefcourt said the date change was agreed to by both
the defense and the prosecution.
Mike Edmondson, spokesman for State Attorney Barry Krischer, declined to comment.
"It's a matter of policy we don't comment on active cases," Edmondson said.
In exchange for his guilty plea, federal authorities are expected to drop their probe into
whether Epstein broke any federal laws, sources have said.
Epstein, 54, was indicted in July 2006 on a felony charge of solicitation of prostitution. After
completing an 11-month investigation, Palm Beach police said Epstein paid five underage
girls for massages and sometimes sex at his El Brillo Way home.
The investigation began after police received a call from a woman who said her 14-year-old
stepdaughter might have been molested by a man in Palm Beach.
Investigators watched Epstein's 7,234-square-foot waterfront home and private jet, and
rummaged through his trash to build their case. They took sworn statements from five alleged
victims and 17 witnesses.
http://cox.printhis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Jeffrey+Epsteintpleathearing. 1/3/2008
EFTA00013546

=== Page 2 ===
Jeffrey Epstein plea hearing moved to March
Page 2 of 2
Find this article at:
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/news/epstein0103.html
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
Copyright 2007 Palm Beach Daily News. All rights reserved.
http://cox.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Jeffrey+Epstein+pleathearin. 1/3/2008
EFTA00013547


c1: EFTA00013680
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013680.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
IN RE:
INVESTIGATION OF
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
/
NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State
Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter,
the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey
Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein");
IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment
with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07;
IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any
offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or
around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including:
(1)
knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to
commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means
of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice
minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
371;
(2)
knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel
in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as
defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Section 2423(e);
(3)
using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly
persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2;
(4)
traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual
conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females; in violation
Page 1 of 7
EFTA00013680

=== Page 2 ===
of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and
(5)
knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting,
enticing, and obtaining 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 as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title
18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and
IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal
liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits
provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain
actions with the State Attorney's Office;
IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by
both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State
Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the
Defendant will be served by the following procedure;
THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for
the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be
deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the
following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below.
If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that,
during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this
Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the
expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely
notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its
prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any
notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the
United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of
the Agreement.
After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution
for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have
been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury
investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be
dismissed.
Page 2 of 7
EFTA00013681

=== Page 3 ===
Terms of the Agreement:
1.
Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to the Indictment as
currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for
Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB) charging
one (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. §
796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed
by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that
requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of
minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section
796.03;
2.
Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a
thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows:
(a)
Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12)
months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without
any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and
without probation or community control in lieu of
imprisonment; and
(b)
Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of
community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail
as described in Term 2(a), supra.
3.
This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit
accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State
Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this
agreement.
4.
The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose
Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend
any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or
incarceration.
5.
Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State
Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and
sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph
(2), supra.
6.
Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all
Page 3 of 7
EFTA00013682

=== Page 4 ===
proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering
into those agreements.
7.
The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of
individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C.
§ 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced.
Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation
with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall
select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for
by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals
through that representative.
8.
If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to
file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 2255, Epstein will not contest the
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives
his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages
up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and
Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed
exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other
claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law.
Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names
appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on
this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such
damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any
criminal or civil liability.
9.
Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an
admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional
or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the
list provided by the United States.
10.
Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under
18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's
signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or
settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of
civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other
defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list
provided by the United States.
11.
Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be
Page 4 of 7
EFTA00013683

=== Page 5 ===
sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no
objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not
later than January 4, 2008.
12.
Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to
gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other
inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit
based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of
Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an
accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of
incarceration.
13.
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.
Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the
State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that
it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his
best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary
to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use
his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding
recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to
do so will be a breach of the agreement.
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
or
Further, upon execution of this
agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury
investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held
in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The
defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain
grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence
requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and
including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have
been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all
outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn.
Page 5 of 7
EFTA00013684

=== Page 6 ===
By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is
material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach
of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement
and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all
federal offenses.
By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that
the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal
prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further
is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court
may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting
a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein
hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such
prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to
the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be
deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such
prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute
of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this
agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the
grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the
Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all
felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees
and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the
subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed
by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as
to any such offense.
111
111
111
Page 6 of 7
EFTA00013685

=== Page 7 ===
By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read
and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-
Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Dated:
By:
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
Dated: 9/24/07
JEFFREY S EPSTEIN
Dated:
GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.
COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Dated:
LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ.
ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Page 7 of 7
EFTA00013686

=== Page 8 ===
By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read
and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-
Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Dated:
By:
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
Dated:
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Dated: 9/24/07
GERALD LEFCOURT ESQ.
COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Dated:
LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ.
ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Page 7 of 7
EFTA00013687

=== Page 9 ===
By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read
and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-
Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Dated:
By:
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
Dated:
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Dated:
GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.
COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Dated: 9-24-07
LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ.
ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Page 7 of 7
EFTA00013688


c1: EFTA00010577
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010577.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Epstein NPA Appendix
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 20:24:29 +0000
Importance: Normal
I've provided the document to
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 10:54 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Epstein NPA Appendix
OPR will be able to help with this. Copying
who is lead counsel on our investigation.
will respond
separately.
Best,
Director and Chief Counsel
Office of Professional Responsibility
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
www.justice.gov/opr
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 10:37 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Epstein NPA Appendix
I do not have it, but OPR should. I have copied
Thanks
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 10:34 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Epstein NPA Appendix
Hi
EFTA00010577

=== Page 2 ===
There is non-public appendix to the Epstein NPA that includes a list of victims entitled to receive compensation. Does
ODAG have a copy of it or would you be able to help us retrieve it?
Thank you,
Chief, Public Corruption Unit
United States Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of New York
EFTA00010578


c1: EFTA00013462
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013462.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
) 1"
(USANYS)
Subject:
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 16:41:59 +0000
Importance: Normal
Let me know when you have a minute just to put a forfeiture case on your radar involving Epstein.
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00013462


c1: EFTA00014008
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014008.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USAFLS)"
To:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: RE: Ted Leopold
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:48:00 +0000
Importance: Normal
I appreciate you passing the message to me from Ted. Coincidentally, I will be seeing him this evening at a
function. Congratulations on Epstein. This case only resolved with the filthy rich bad guy going to jail because
of your dedication and determination. Much respect.
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 5:20 PM
To:
(USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)
Subject: Ted Leopold
Told Ted the news about Epstein. He says he represents three girls now, and he was happy with the news. He
asked me to send his regards along to the two of you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
EFTA00014008


c1: EFTA00009879
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00009879.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Cc:
)"
)"
Subject: FW: 21-770 United States of America V. Maxwell "Reply to Opposition FILED"
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 22:09:07 +0000
Attachments: 2021.04.19_GM_bail_reply.pdf
Attached is Maxwell's bail reply.
From: cmecf@ca2.uscourts.gov <cmecf@ca2.uscourts.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 10:48 AM
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: 21-770 United States of America V. Maxwell "Reply to Opposition FILED"
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of
record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents
filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other
users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.
Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was filed on 04/19/2021
Case Name:
United States of America V. Maxwell
Case Number: 21-770
Document(s): Document(s)
Docket Text:
REPLY TO OPPOSITION [40], on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell in 21-770, 21-58, FILED. Service
date 04/19/2021 by CM/ECF.[3080288][57] [21-770, 21-58]
Notice will be electronically mailed to:
Tammy Torres, Deputy Clerk:
@ca2.uscourts.gov
Mr.
, Assistant U.S. Attorney:
Ms. Bobbi C. Sternheim, -
sistant U.S. Attorney:
@usdoj.gov
Assistant U.S. Attorney:
Ms
Assistant U.S. Attorney:
EFTA00009879

=== Page 2 ===
David Oscar Markus, -
Notice will be stored in the notice cart for:
Tammy Torres, Deputy Clerk
Quality Control 1
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document Description: Reply to Opposition FILED
Original Filename: Reply in Support of Her Motion for Pretrial Release Final with Exhibits.pdf
Electronic Document Stamp:
[STAMP acecfStamp_ID=1161632333 [Date=04/19/2021] [FileNumber=3080288-0]
[31a91354c92f38b5844b12be4aa6383509e0a7b624ca84775d6781ecdea6068544a7bcf7450b09dd3c389d181ad8
46d5ef69808398d138a71095bac40ed0ebed]]
EFTA00009880


c1: EFTA00013775
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013775.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
(USAFLS)"
À
Subject: Epstein Lawsuit -- You may want to call Jay
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:01:39 +0000
Importance: Normal
mother has filed a motion to intervene and to stay the civil proceedings against Epstein until
18th
birthday.
mother says that
has been "estranged" from her father since Thanksgiving and she did
not consent to the filing of the lawsuit.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
EFTA00013775


c1: EFTA00011441
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011441.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"The Invisible Man" <aace@dial.pipex.com>
To:
"G. Max" <gmax1@mindspring.com>
Subject:
RE:
Sent:
Sun, 3 Mar 2002 15:27:59 -0000
Got it I will ring him today if I can.
Love you A XXX
Original Message
From: G. Max [mailto:gmax1@mindspring.com]
Sent: 03 March 2002 05:36
To: The Invisible Man
Subject:
Thought you would like to see what I sent
- Have a great time
Gx
I just gave Andrew your telephone no. He is interested in seeing the
Nazca
Lines. He can ride but it is not his favorite sport ie pass on the
horses.
Some sight seeing some 2 legged sight seeing (read intelligent pretty
fun
and from good families) and he will be very happy. I know I can rely on
you
to show him a wonderful time and that you will only introduce him to
friends that you can trust and rely on to be friendly and discreet and
fun.
He does not want to read about any trip in the papers whom or what he
saw.
Call me if you have any questions - otherwise you can expect a very
English
sounding gentleman on the phone to call up and say hi. I told him it
would
be best if he made his plans directly with you.
The only part that I am jealous about is that he will get to see you and
that he will be in Peru and have you as his tour guide for a day
Besos
Gx
EFTA00011441


c1: EFTA00011519
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011519.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
To:
From:
[/O=USA/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=SNAKANO-02]
Sent:
Thur 6/14/2007 5:23:41 PM (UTC)
Subject:
RE: A question regarding a very old case
COMPLAIN.03.wpd
EJECT2.BRF.wpd
DECISION.02.wpd
DECISION.01.wpd
,
Attached is a copy of the complaint, summary judgment brief and court's decisions. Please let me know if you need any
further info. Good luck!
From:
) [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:40 PM
To:
Subject: A question regarding a very old case
Hi
- I saw that you were the AUSA who worked on a case several years ago against Jeffrey Epstein involving the
lease of a former embassy. Do you remember anything about the case that you might be willing to share?
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
EFTA00011519


c1: EFTA00013999
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013999.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USAFLS)"
To:
(USAFLS)"
Subject: Re: Notification of Possible Compelled Disclosure of theNon-Prosecution Agreement
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:42:48 +0000
Importance: Normal
Good.
Original Message
From:
(USAFLS)
To: Roy BLACK
Sent: Thu Aug 07 16:36:05 2008
Subject: RE: Notification of Possible Compelled Disclosure of theNon-Prosecution Agreement
Thank you, Roy. Your help is greatly appreciated.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
Original Message
From: Roy BLACK [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 4:34 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Subject: Re: Notification of Possible Compelled Disclosure of theNon-Prosecution Agreement
I am working on this and will get back to you.
Original Message
From:
(USAFLS)"
To: Roy BLACK
Cc:
(USAFLS)
Cc:
(USAFLS)
Sent: 8/7/2008 3:57:52 PM
Subject: Notification of Possible Compelled Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement
Dear Roy:
In accordance with paragraph 13 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, I am providing notice of possible compulsory process commanding
the disclosure of the Agreement. As I'm sure you know, two of Mr. Epstein's victims have filed suit against the United States alleging that
the government violated their rights as victims by not consulting them prior to entering into the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
As part of their response to one of the government's filings, the victims asked the Court to order the production of the Non-Prosecution
Agreement. The deadline for the government to respond is August 15th and we intend to oppose the motion based upon the confidentiality
provision. I have attached a copy of the victims' pleading for your review.
In connection with this, we want to make certain that we are making consistent representations to the judiciary regarding the contents of
the Agreement. I know that Jack Goldberger filed the Agreement under seal in the state court in accordance with the state judge's order.
Can you provide us with a copy of what Jack filed, so that, if we are ordered by the federal court to disclose the agreement, it is exactly the
same as what has been filed in the state court?
EFTA00013999

=== Page 2 ===
Thank you again for your assistance.
Regards,
<<DE19_080801_Victims' Resp to Notice.pdf>>
Assistant U.S. Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
EFTA00014000


c1: EFTA00014150
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00014150.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: "RBlack
Bcc:
Subject: Re: Epstein
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:25:48 +0000
Importance: Normal
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us yesterday.
Original Message
From: Roy BLACK
To: JLefkowitz
;
Cc:
Sent: Fri Dec 05 18:22:16 2008
Subject: Re: Epstein
Thanks for the notice
Original Message
From:
To: <JLefkowitz
To: Roy BLACK
Cc:
Sent: 12/5/2008 6:17:23 PM
Subject: Epstein
Dear Roy and Jay:
This afternoon Brad Edwards filed the Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Court in the Jane Does V USA case. He filed it under seal and
then asked the Court to unseal it.
I will fax his papers to you on Monday.
EFTA00014150


c1: EFTA00013557
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013557.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" <AAcosta@usa.doj.gov>,
Cc
Subject: Letter received from Epstein's counsel
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:57:56 +0000
Importance: Normal
Hi all - I received one line from Jack Goldberger, which reads: "I am out of the office today. I will response [sic] to your
fax of July 8, 2008 by return of fax tomorrow."
EFTA00013557


c1: EFTA00011115
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00011115.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 1 of 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
:
S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
V.
:
:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
:
Defendant.
:
:
:
X
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S
MOTION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEQUESTERED JUROR VOIR DIRE
AND LIMITED COUNSEL-CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022
212-957-7600
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
303-831-7364
Bobbi C. Sternheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
225 Broadway -Suite 715
New York, NY 10007
212-243-1100
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
EFTA00011115

=== Page 2 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 2 of 17
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell submits this memorandum of law in support of her motion
for individual sequestered voir dire of prospective jurors and limited attorney-conducted voir
dire.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Court has already determined that a juror questionnaire is appropriate in this case.
Pursuant to the Court's order, the parties recently submitted, under seal, a joint proposed jury
questionnaire. The Court has scheduled three days for prospective jurors to complete the final
Court-approved questionnaire, and four days to conduct examination of prospective jurors.
But a questionnaire by itself is not sufficient in this case to root out potential juror bias
and to permit the attorneys to exercise intelligent peremptory challenges. Supplementing a
robust questionnaire with individual sequestered voir dire and limited examination of jurors by
counsel is necessary in this case because of the sensitive subject matter of the charges and two
types of unfairly prejudicial media attention: (i) the pretrial publicity that this case has received
and will continue to receive throughout the duration of the trial and (ii) the extensive prior
negative publicity concerning Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
The intense negative media coverage of Ms. Maxwell and Epstein, most profoundly in
the aftermath of his death in August 2019 and the arrest of Ms. Maxwell in July 2020, has
significantly increased the likelihood that prospective jurors will report to jury selection with
preconceptions, impressions, and opinions about the conduct at issue in the trial and those
accused of the charges in the indictment: Ms. Maxwell and Epstein An unprecedented amount of
media coverage has focused on this case, Ms. Maxwell and Epstein. The publicity includes
extensive coverage in the press, including newspapers, magazines, and on-line sites; in broadcast
media, including regular and cable television stations, radio, and streaming platforms, such as
1
EFTA00011116

=== Page 3 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 3 of 17
Netflix, Peacock, and Amazon; in podcasts and YouTube recordings; in social media sites, such
as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter; in online sites, chat rooms and blogs. The publicity has
covered a wide range of topics including and beyond those that will be presented at trial.
Prospective jurors may also have a strong reaction to the sensitive nature of the charges
and some of the evidence that to be adduced at trial. Epstein's arrests and prior conviction for
sexual misconduct, allegations of his sexual misconduct of minors over the course of two
decades, and his untimely death awaiting his federal trial will be front and center during Ms.
Maxwell's upcoming trial.
The standard voir dire typically conducted by the Court is insufficient for this case and
will be redundant to questions posed in the proposed jury questionnaire. A written questionnaire
coupled with sequestered voir dire of individual prospective jurors and limited open-ended
questioning by counsel will assist the Court and parties in determining whether prospective
jurors have developed prejudicial preconceptions regarding this case, Ms. Maxwell, and Epstein
due to this intense media coverage and pretrial publications and broadcasts.
2
EFTA00011117

=== Page 4 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 4 of 17
ARGUMENT
I. THE APPLICABLE LAW
A prospective juror may be excused for cause based on many forms of bias or partiality.
As the Second Circuit has explained, juror partiality can be actual, implied, or inferred:
Actual bias is "bias in fact," generally evidenced by "express proof,"
such as a juror's admission to "a state of mind prejudicial to a party's
interest." Implied bias is "bias conclusively presumed as a matter of
law" from circumstances in which an average person in the position
of the prospective juror would be prejudiced. Inferred bias exists
"when a juror discloses a fact that bespeaks a risk of partiality
sufficiently significant to warrant granting the trial judge discretion
to excuse the juror for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory
a presumption of bias."
United States V. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 301 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting United States V. Haynes,
398 F.2d 980, 984 (2d Cir. 1968) and United States V. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 45 (2d Cir. 1997)).
All types of bias can properly form the basis to excuse a juror for cause. See id. Thus, the jury
selection process should screen for each type. See id.
Voir dire plays an important role in ensuring that juries are fair and impartial by allowing
the Court and parties to uncover unfair actual, implied, or inferred bias. It serves to protect the
Constitutional right of a fair trial "by exposing possible biases, both known and unknown, on the
part of potential jurors." United States V. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006). For these
reasons, district courts routinely use their broad discretion to issue written jury questionnaires in
conducting voir dire, particularly in cases involving extensive pretrial publicity or hot-button
issues. See, e.g., Skilling V. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2919 (2010) (approving district
court's use of questionnaire in trial of former Enron executive, Jeffrey Skilling); United States V.
Robert Sylvester Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (EDNY) ("R. Kelly case"); United States V. Elizabeth
Holmes, 18 Cr. 258 (EJD) (NDCA) ("Theranos case"); United States V. Keith Rainier, 18 Cr. 204
(NGG) (EDNY) ("Nexium case").
3
EFTA00011118

=== Page 5 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 5 of 17
Individual voir dire is appropriate and within the court's discretion in cases like this
where the potential jury pool has been exposed to extensive pretrial publicity and may harbor
prejudice against the defendant, and where the allegations touch on issues that are potentially
inflammatory. See Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303; see also United States V. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 122
(2d Cir. 1999). Using individual voir dire, in addition to a juror questionnaire, is necessary in
this case (i) to expose potential biases by maximizing the likelihood that members of the venire
will respond honestly to questions, and (ii) to avoid contaminating unbiased members of the
venire when other members disclose prior knowledge of prejudicial information or blurt out a
prejudicial remark. As the Supreme Court has stated:
It may sometimes be necessary to question on voir dire prospective
jurors individually or in small groups, both to maximize the
likelihood that members of the venire will respond honestly to
questions concerning bias, and to avoid contaminating unbiased
members of the venire when other members disclose prior
knowledge of prejudicial information.
Nebraska Press Ass n V. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 602 (1976).
II. THE JURY POOL HAS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED TO
SUBSTANTIAL PRETRIAL PUBLICITY ABOUT GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, AND THIS CASE
A. A Tsunami of Pretrial Publicity About this Case
Countless articles, books, podcasts, television shows, and docuseries from various
sources have been published and broadcast concerning this case since it was filed in July 2020.
This followed closely on the heels of an avalanche of media reports preceding and following
Epstein's arrest in July 2019 and following his death in August 2019. A tsunami of reporting in
every conceivable form - newspapers, magazines, books, television, radio, video streaming
services, podcasts, social media platforms - has broadcast this case locally, nationally, and
globally. Without a doubt, and without any credible evidentiary basis, Ms. Maxwell has been
4
EFTA00011119

=== Page 6 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 6 of 17
tried, convicted, and condemned in the court of public opinion. Based on widespread coverage of
her extraordinary and miserable conditions of pretrial detention, unsworn "jurors" likely believe
sentence has already been imposed. The pretrial publicity and publications are far too extensive
to list. As of this writing, a simple Internet search by Google yields the following:
Ghislaine Maxwell: "about 4,590,000 results (0.77 seconds)"
Jeffrey Epstein: "about 25,800,000 results (0.87 seconds)"
Neither Ms. Maxwell nor her undersigned defense team has ever spoken to the media and have
not contributed to the polluting effect of this unprecedented coverage.
In addition, there have been numerous books, podcasts, and documentaries published and
broadcast about Ms. Maxwell, Epstein, and the allegations in this case. The following is just a
small sample of recent publications concerning Ms. Maxwell:
Documentaries
Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich (Netflix)
Notorious: Ghislaine Maxwell (ABC 20/20)
Epstein's Shadow: Ghislaine Maxwell (Peacock)
Podcasts:
Chasing Ghislaine: The Untold Story of the Woman in Epstein's Shadow
(Vicky Ward)
Hunting Ghislaine (John Sweeney)
The Ghislaine Maxwell Spiral (Audible)
Books:
Ghislaine Maxwell (Steve H. Dwight)
Relentless Pursuit: My Fight for the Victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine
Maxwell (Bradley Edwards)
Trash: Encounters with Ghislaine Maxwell (Christina Oxenberg)
Perversion of Justice (Julie K. Brown)
5
EFTA00011120

=== Page 7 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 7 of 17
Ghislaine Maxwell: The Rise and Fall of Manhattan's Most Famous Socialite
(Nigel Cawthorne)
The Spider: Insider the Criminal Web of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell
(Barry Levin)
Jeffrey Epstein's Other Women: Behind Ghislaine Maxwell (Lisa Tait)
The Jeffrey Epstein Case: What We Do and Don't Know About Jeffrey Epstein
and Ghislaine Maxwell (Stephen Wright)
Much of the pretrial reporting, publications, and broadcasts refer to Epstein's 2008 case
in Florida and the public outrage over his charges, plea deal, the leniency he received. The
aftermath of this coverage resulted in the resignation of Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, former
U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of Florida, whose office was the subject of an inquiry
conducted by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility ("OPR")
concerning the federal criminal investigation of Epstein and its interactions with victims. OPR
released a report of its investigation in November 2020, which again led to a series of media
articles about Epstein's conduct and the appropriateness of the deal he received. The effect of
such recurring reporting regarding Epstein has had an incalculable spillover effect that has
indelibly stained Ms. Maxwell and significantly impacted her ability to receive a fair trial by an
impartial jury.
B. Allegations of Sex Abuse Abound in New York
Ms. Maxwell approaches trial under the cloud of massive negative publicity focused on
one of the most sensational, hot-button social issues in recent years - sexual harassment and
abuse of females of all ages, including inappropriate sexual contact with minors. High-profile
investigations, prosecutions, and trials involving politicians, moguls and celebrities are daily
occurrences. New York has been the venue for some of the most notorious events, including but
hardly limited to the recent investigation and resignation of Governor Andrew Cuomo and trials
and convictions of Harvey Weinstein and R. Kelly. These are not rare occurrences. Consider the
6
EFTA00011121

=== Page 8 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 8 of 17
downfall of other prominent New Yorkers due to sex scandals: former Governors David Paterson
and Andrew Spitzer, former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, former U.S.
Congressman Andrew Wiener, not to mention the many New York-based television celebrities
against whom serious allegations of sexual abuse have been alleged: Matt Lauer, Roger Ailes,
Bill O'Reilly.
The fact that a woman now stands trial for charges almost exclusively alleged against
men heightens the interest and intrigue of this case. There are literally hundreds if not thousands
of negative articles about Ms. Maxwell and Epstein in the very newspapers, television stations,
and streaming platforms to which the jury pool in this case are regularly exposed (New York
Daily News, New York Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NY 1, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox,
Netflix, Peacock).
The jury pool from which the jury in this case will be selected has been exposed to more
than its fair share of media coverage fomenting public outrage at individuals accused of sex
crimes, like Ms. Maxwell. The negative publicity has been so pervasive, vitriolic, and extreme
that Ms. Maxwell has been demonized in the press. While the Court has no power to protect Ms.
Maxwell from such public contempt, it can exercise its supervisory powers and discretion and
implement protocols designed to obtain an open-minded jury sworn to return a verdict based
solely on evidence presented at trial.
III. A ROBUST JURY QUESTIONNAIRE AND INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE ARE
NECESSARY FOR THIS CASE
A. A Questionnaire Alone Is Insufficient to Uncover Potential Juror Bias
In cases like this-where there has been pervasive media exposure that inflames passions
about the underlying events and demonizes a party-prospective jurors can form biases long
before they appear for jury service. Once a pretrial judgment is made, the concepts of "belief
7
EFTA00011122

=== Page 9 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 9 of 17
persistence" and "confirmation bias" are at work. Belief persistence occurs when an opinion
formed is resistant to change even when proven wrong. Confirmation bias occurs when an
individual forms an opinion early in the decision-making process and then evaluates new
information in a way that supports the earlier decision. 1 The jury questionnaire is the first
opportunity jurors have to tell the lawyers and the Court what they are thinking and, more
importantly, what influenced them to think that way.
Given the likelihood intense media scrutiny of this trial, it is critical to use both a robust
written jury questionnaire and individual sequestered voir dire to inquire about the extent to
which each potential juror has been exposed to pretrial publicity and to what extent each juror
has formed an opinion of Ms. Maxwell and Epstein
Because there is always the fear that a discussion of pretrial publicity in front of the entire
jury pool will contaminate those few jurors who have not been subjected to the publicity, a jury
questionnaire and individual voir dire in a case such as this is particularly warranted. If the Court
were to engage in public questioning of the venire panel en masse, answers could infect the
entire panel. Alternatively, concerns about a panel member's unanticipated answer may render
the questions too carefully worded to uncover the problem. Further, questions asked pose privacy
concerns that would require constant side bars. A questionnaire can solve some, but not all, of
these issues.
Individual sequestered voir dire would encourage jurors to answer questions more
completely and more honestly because the jurors would not be influenced by (or influence) the
answers given by fellow jurors or fear embarrassment in giving an honest response. Jurors avoid
the pressure to give "right" or socially acceptable answers in front of a large group or to parrot
I See Hope, Memon & McGeorge, Understanding Pretrial Publicity: Predecisional Distortion of Evidence by Mock
Jurors, 10 J. Experimental Psych. Applied, 111-119 (2004).
8
EFTA00011123

=== Page 10 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 10 of 17
answers that seem acceptable to the Court and counsel. For example, in this case it is necessary
to ask jurors if they or a family member have ever been a victim of sexual abuse-a question that
most jurors will not be inclined to answer in public. In a case that has received media attention or
involves a well-known defendant, a larger jury panel is often assembled in an attempt to increase
the odds of obtaining a fair jury. The paradox is that a larger panel can mean that jurors are even
less inclined to speak up in front of a large group. Accordingly, in a high-publicity case such as
this, q questionnaire alone is insufficient.
B. Individual Sequestered Voir Dire is Necessary Due to the Sensitive Nature
of the Charges
The nature of the charges in this case poses special problems for jury selection rarely
encountered in the average federal jury trial. The crimes charged (concerning sexual abuse of
minors) are particularly inflammatory and of great concern to communities from which jurors are
drawn. The charges tap into strongly held moral, ethical, and religious beliefs concerning
appropriate, inappropriate, and immoral behavior and conduct, and can produce visceral and
emotional reactions leading to more severe judgments based on preconceived viewpoints rather
than on admissible evidence presented at trial As such, prospective jurors' opinion and beliefs
regarding the nature of the crimes charged will need to be addressed through procedures that
maximize juror openness, honesty, and candor.
It is only through in-depth questioning and exploration of jurors' views on these issues
that both the defense and prosecution can uncover what is needed to pursue challenges for cause
and to intelligently exercise peremptory challenges. The experiences and backgrounds of jurors
could have significant bearing on the potential biases that they have. A variety of potential
experiences, both general (e.g., being a victim of a crime or closely related to a victim) and
specific (e.g., harassment, molestation, unwanted sexual contact, sexual assault, rape, domestic
9
EFTA00011124

=== Page 11 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 11 of 17
violence, etc.) are relevant to the subject matter of this case. Such experiences are of a highly
personal nature, the revelation of which in a public courtroom could lead to embarrassment and
emotional distress. As a result, issues relevant to this case need to be addressed in a sensitive
and private setting.
The jury selection procedures normally used by this Court - i.e., group voir dire with
questioning exclusively by the judge - pose heightened problems to an effective and informative
voir dire in a case involving topics that are difficult to discuss, let alone in a large public forum.
It is typically anxiety producing and discomforting for jurors to make public disclosures. This
case amplifies the likelihood that jurors will be more apprehensive and constrained to respond
openly and honestly in open court within earshot of other jurors, members of the public, and the
media.
IV. ATTORNEY-CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE PERMITS A MORE INFORMED
EXERCISE OF FOR CAUSE AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure grants the Court broad discretion in
conducting the voir dire examination. The Court has the right to control who conducts the voir
dire and has the discretion to allow attorneys to conduct some, or all, of the voir dire. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 24(a)(1) and (2) ("The court may examine prospective jurors or may permit the attorneys
for the parties to do so.").
The Court should grant a limited period of attorney-conducted voir dire after the Court's
general voir dire because it will yield more complete information about the potential jurors for
the proper exercise of peremptory challenges. For a peremptory challenge to serve its purposes, it
must be intelligently exercised. This requires that the parties obtain sufficient information from
the potential jurors upon which to base their challenges. United States V. Ledee, 549 F.2d 990,
993 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902 (1977) ("Peremptory challenges are worthless if trial
10
EFTA00011125

=== Page 12 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 12 of 17
counsel is not afforded an opportunity to gain the necessary information upon which to base such
strikes."). Without the opportunity for counsel to effectively probe for hidden prejudices, it
would be difficult to accomplish the goal of exercising sensitive and intelligent peremptory
challenges.
A. The Attorneys Have More In-Depth Knowledge of the Case
It is counsel, not the Court, who is in the best position to obtain the information necessary
to exercise intelligent peremptory challenges through attorney-conducted voir dire. The
attorneys have more in-depth knowledge of the case than the Court. See, e.g., United States V.
Cleveland, 1997 WL 2554 at *3 (E.D. LA. Jan. 2, 1997). Important follow-up questions are more
likely to occur to an advocate than a judge for several reasons, including the fact that a judge
"does not have the advocate's awareness that soon [s]he will be making peremptory challenges
based on inferences from what prospective jurors have said" and the fact that "the judge does not
know the case of either party in detail, so that [s]he cannot realize when responses have opened
areas for further inquiry."2 As the Fifth Circuit has recognized:
A judge cannot have the same grasp of the facts, the complexities
and nuances as the trial attorneys entrusted with the preparation of
the case. The court does not know the strength and weaknesses of
each litigant's case. Justice requires that each lawyer be given an
opportunity to ferret out possible bias and prejudice of which the
juror himself may be unaware until certain facts are revealed.
Ledee, 549 F.2d at 993 (citing Frates and Greer, Jury Voir Dire: The Lawyer's Perspective, 2
A.B.A. Litigation No. 2 (1976)). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit later amplified this concept, stating
that "voir dire may have little meaning if it is not conducted at least in part by counsel."
While Federal Rules [sic] of Criminal Procedure 24(a) gives wide
discretion to the trial Court, voir dire may have little meaning if it is
not conducted at least in part by counsel. The "federal" practice of
almost exclusive voir dire examination by the Court does not take
2 Babcock, Voir Dire: Preserving "Its Wonderful Power", 27 Stan. L. Rev. 545, 549 (1975).
11
EFTA00011126

=== Page 13 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 13 of 17
into account the fact that it is the parties, rather than the Court, who
have a full grasp of the nuances and the strength and weaknesses of
the case Experience indicates that in the majority of situations
questioning by counsel would be more likely to fulfill this need [for
information upon which to base the intelligent exercise of
peremptory challenges] than an exclusive examination in general
terms by the trial Court.
United States V. Ible, 630 F.2d 389, 395 (5th Cir. 1980).
In this case, voir dire conducted solely by the Court will interfere with the intelligent
exercise of peremptory challenges. Attorneys have been working on this case well over a year.
They are most likely to know the areas of questioning that must be explored to further uncover
the prejudices that are most pertinent to the evidence that will be presented at trial. They also act
with an awareness that they will have to base peremptory challenges on the juror's answers.
Permitting attorney-conducted voir dire in addition to Court voir dire will therefore maximize the
information obtained in voir dire.
B. The Extensive Pretrial Publicity Related to This Case Necessitates Attorney-
Conducted Voir Dire
The possibility of prejudice in this case due to the extensive pretrial publicity is so great
that specific voir dire questions by counsel are necessary. In United States V. Davis, the Fifth
Circuit held that the district court erred in not undertaking a more thorough examination of panel
members exposed to publicity ("[W]here the nature of the publicity as a whole raised a
significant possibility of prejudice, the cursory questioning by the court was not enough."). A
district court is required, under Davis, to determine what each juror may have heard or read and
how it may have affected his attitude toward the trial, and whether any juror's impartiality had
been destroyed. Id; see also Silverthorne V. United States, 400 F.2d 627, 638 (9th Cir. 1968)
("[I]n the absence of an examination designed to elicit answers which provide an objective basis
12
EFTA00011127

=== Page 14 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 14 of 17
for the court's evaluation, "merely going through the form of obtaining jurors' assurances of
impartiality is insufficient [to test that impartiality]") (citation omitted).
Because it is extremely likely that prospective jurors have been exposed to potentially
prejudicial pretrial publicity, specific, individual voir dire is required. Davis, 583 F.2d at 196-97.
To increase the likelihood that any hidden prejudices of the jurors will be uncovered, to
accomplish the goal of exercising sensitive and intelligent peremptory challenges, and to ensure
that a fair and impartial jury is empaneled in this case, counsel should be given an opportunity to
individually examine prospective jurors.
Individual sequestered voir dire conducted jointly by counsel and the Court has a variety
of benefits. It invites a conversation rather than posing an interrogation. It eliminates the pressure
on jurors to provide socially desirable or acceptable answers in a group setting, reduces
conformity pressures that can diminish candor, and removes the risk of other jurors being
influenced by statements made during group voir dire that enable them to either stay on the jury
or be removed for cause. It increases juror comfort, minimizes the anxiety of public speaking,
encourages candor, and promotes honesty.
Furthermore, questioning conducted exclusively by the Court further hampers the ability
to uncover important information about jurors because it places jurors in a subordinate position
heightening their reluctance to be candid. Attorney-conducted questioning bridges the status gap
between the humble layperson and the honorable judicial officer exalted high above the venire.
Research indicates that expansive voir dire yields greater revelations of juror bias;3 and in-depth
attorney-conducted voir dire combined with individual sequestered voir dire elicits greater
3 See, e.g., Moran, Cutler & Loftus. Jury Selection in Major Controlled Substance Trials: The Need for Extended
Voir Dire, 3 Forensics Reports 331(1990).
13
EFTA00011128

=== Page 15 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 15 of 17
admissions of bias on the part of jurors.4 In-depth voir dire including limited open-ended
questions posed by counsel also helps to attack the minimization effect, whereby jurors often
seek to decrease the extremity of their opinions in addition to their exposure to and the impact of
pretrial publicity.⁵
C. The Court Can Reasonably Limit the Scope of Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire
The Court can also fairly and reasonably limit the time and scope of the attorney-
conducted voir dire and prevent any abuse of the process. For example, the Court can direct
demand that the attorneys restrict themselves to new or proscribed areas of examination or
relevant follow-up examination to ferret out bias and prejudice. In addition, the Court can
legitimately place a specific time limit on attorney-conducted voir dire. Permitting each party
one minute per juror (expanded to three minutes if there is basis to pursue a cause challenge) is
eminently justifiable after basic voir dire has been conducted by the Court. An attorney who is
given mere minutes for additional voir dire examination is unlikely to waste that precious time.
Permitting each party a mere minute of attorney-conducted voir dire will increase the possibility
of rooting out prejudice and bias in this unique case.
D. The Uniqueness of This Case Warrants Limited Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire
The conventional voir dire procedures utilized in this district are inadequate to screen
venire members for bias and prejudice due to the nature of the charges and the extensive pretrial
publicity and exposure. This case presents unique issues that require an expansion of traditional
voir dire protocols.
4 Johnson & Haney, Felony Voir Dire: An exploratory Study of its Contents and Effect, 18 Law and Human
Behavior 309 (1994).
5 Vidmar, Case Studies of Pre- and Midtrial Prejudice in Criminal and Civil Litigation, 26 Law and Human
Behavior 73 (2002).
14
EFTA00011129

=== Page 16 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 16 of 17
This application is not seeking to conduct unduly invasive questioning, to "pre-try" the
case to the venire, to create impressions or sympathies which will help either party during the
trial, or to unreasonably extend the time for jury selection. The Court can restrict attorneys to
posing open-ended questions to identify bias, prejudice and preconceptions, subject to reasonable
time limits.
Long ago, the Supreme Court observed:
Impartiality is not a technical conception. It is a state of mind. For
the ascertainment of this mental attitude of appropriate indifference,
the Constitution lays down no tests and procedure is not chained to
any ancient and artificial formula.
United States V. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 145-146 (1936). Like impartiality, bias, prejudice, and
preconceptions are mental states, making them all the more difficult to identify and assess when
a prospective juror is not forthcoming in revealing these mental attitudes. Limited attorney-
conducted voir dire will help uncover any potential bias in the jury pool.
CONCLUSION
Voir dire is a mutual search between lawyers and the Court to determine whether a
particular individual can ensure integrity of the trial process in each case. In the words of a
federal appeals judge:
We would, as judges, have to ignore what we know as men to
assume that only the law and the naked facts carry the burden of
persuasion. Psychology governs human affairs even in the
courtroom Our system of justice is deprived of its fullest potential
when the lawyer is denied the right to examine veniremen in an
adversary setting.
Honorable Donald P. Lay (8th Cir.) "In a Fair Adversary System, the Lawyer Should Conduct
the Voir Dire of the Jury."
15
EFTA00011130

=== Page 17 ===
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 17 of 17
Considering the sensitive nature of the charges and the pervasive pretrial publicity and
exposure of this case, the Court should grant the request for individual sequestered voir dire and
limited questioning by counsel.
Dated: October 13, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Bobbi C. Sternheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
16
EFTA00011131


c1: EFTA00013640
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013640.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery
He's pals with a passel of Nobel Prize-winning scientists, CEOs like Leslie
Wexner of the Limited, socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, even Donald Trump.
But it wasn't until he flew Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, and Chris Tucker to
Africa on his private Boeing 727 that the world began to wonder who he is.
By Landon Thomas Jr.
He comes with cash to burn, a fleet of airplanes, and a keen
eye for the ladies -- to say nothing of a relentless brain that
challenges Nobel Prize-winning scientists across the
country -- and for financial markets around the world. Ever
since the Post's "Page Six" ran an item about the president's
late-September visit to Africa with Kevin Spacey and Chris
Tucker -- on his new benefactor's customized Boeing 727 --
the question of the day has been: Who in the world is Jeffrey
Epstein?
Cash Casual: Epstein
It's a life full of question marks. Epstein is said to run $15
dresses down.
billion for wealthy clients, yet aside from Limited founder
Leslie Wexner, his client list is a closely held secret. A
former Dalton math teacher, he maintains a peripatetic salon of brilliant scientists yet
possesses no bachelor's degree. For more than ten years, he's been linked to Manhattan-
London society figure Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the mysteriously deceased media
titan Robert Maxwell, yet he lives the life of a bachelor, logging 600 hours a year in his
various planes as he scours the world for investment opportunities. He owns what is said
to be Manhattan's largest private house yet runs his business from a 100-acre private
island in St. Thomas.
Power on Wall Street has generally accrued to those who have made their open bids for
it. Soros. Wasserstein. Kravis. Weill. The Sturm und Drang of their successes and failures
has been played out in public. Epstein breaks the mold. Most everyone on the Street has
heard of him, but nobody seems to know what the hell he is up to. Which is just the way
he likes it.
"My belief is that Jeff maintains some sort of money-management firm, though you won't
get a straight answer from him," says one well-known investor. "He once told me he had
300 people working for him, and I've also heard that he manages Rockefeller money. But
one never knows. It's like looking at the Wizard of Oz -- there may be less there than
meets the eye."
Says another prominent Wall Streeter: "He is this mysterious, Gatsbyesque figure. He
likes people to think that he is very rich, and he cultivates this air of aloofness. The whole
thing is weird."
EFTA00013640

=== Page 2 ===
The wizard that meets the eye is spare and fit; with a long jaw and a carefully coiffed
head of silver hair, he looks like a taller, younger Ralph Lauren. A raspy Brooklyn accent
betrays his Coney Island origins. He spends an hour and fifteen minutes every day doing
advanced yoga with his personal instructor, who travels with him wherever he goes. He is
an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign
Relations.
He dresses casually -- jeans, open-necked shirts, and sneakers -- and is rarely seen in a
tie. Indeed, those close to him say the reason he quit his board seat at the Rockefeller
Institute was that he hated wearing a suit. "It feels like a dress," he told one friend.
Epstein likes to tell people that he's a loner, a man who's never touched alcohol or drugs,
and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a
different Epstein emerges. "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump booms
from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful
women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it --
Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
But beautiful women are only a part of it. Because here's the thing about Epstein: As
some collect butterflies, he collects beautiful minds. "I invest in people -- be it politics or
science. It's what I do," he has said to friends. And his latest prize addition is the former
president. In his eyes, Clinton as a species represents the highest evolutionary form of the
political animal. To be up close to him, as he was during the African journey, is akin to
seeing the rarest of beasts on a safari. As he put it to a friend upon his return from Africa,
"If you were a boxer at the downtown gymnasium at 14th Street and Mike Tyson walked
in, your face would have the same look as these foreign leaders had when Clinton entered
the room. He is the world's greatest politician."
"Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist with a keen
sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science,"
Clinton says through a spokesman. "I especially appreciated his insights and generosity
during the recent trip to Africa to work on democratization, empowering the poor, citizen
service, and combating HIV/AIDS."
Before Clinton, Epstein's rare appearances in the gossip columns tended to be speculation
as to the true nature of his relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. While they are still
friends, the English tabloids have postulated that Maxwell has longed for a more
permanent pairing and that for undetermined reasons Epstein has not reciprocated in
kind. "It's a mysterious relationship that they have," says society journalist David Patrick
Columbia. "In one way, they are soul mates, yet they are hardly companions anymore. It's
a nice conventional relationship, where they serve each other's purposes."
Friends of the two say that Maxwell, whose social life has always been higher-octane
than Epstein's, lent a little pizzazz to the lower-profile Epstein. Indeed, at a party at
EFTA00013641

=== Page 3 ===
Maxwell's house, her friends say, one is just as apt to see Russian ladies of the night as
one is to see Prince Andrew. The Oxford-educated Maxwell, described by many as a
man-eater (she flies her own helicopter and was recently seen dining with Clinton at
Nello's on Madison Avenue), lives in her own townhouse a few blocks away. Epstein is
frequently seen around town with a bevy of comely young women but there has been no
boldfaced name to replace Maxwell. "You may read about Jeffrey in the social columns,
but there is much more to him than that," says Jeffrey T. Leeds of the private equity firm
Leeds Weld & Co. "He's a talented money manager and an extremely hardworking
person with broad interests. Most unusual, though, is that in this media-obsessed age he is
not in any sense a self-promoter."
Born in 1953 and raised in Coney Island, Epstein went to Lafayette High School.
According to his bio, he took some classes in physics at Cooper Union from 1969 to
1971. He left Cooper Union in 1971 and attended NYU's Courant Institute, where he took
courses in mathematical physiology of the heart, leaving that school, too, without a
degree. Between 1973 and 1975, Epstein taught calculus and physics at the Dalton
School.
By most accounts, he was something of a Robin Williams-in-Dead Poets Society type of
figure, wowing his high-school classes with passionate mathematical riffs. So impressed
was one Wall Street father of a student that he said to Epstein point-blank: "What are you
doing teaching math at Dalton? You should be working on Wall Street -- why don't you
give my friend Ace Greenberg a call."
Epstein was in many respects the perfect candidate for Greenberg's consideration.
Greenberg, a senior partner at Bear Stearns at the time and a legendary trader in his own
right, has long made it clear that it's the hungry, brilliant guys lacking the fancy degrees
that he favors at Bear. They even have an acronym: PSDs -- poor, smart, and a deep
desire to be rich. It was a description that fit Epstein to a T. He was a Brooklyn guy with
a motor for a brain, and while he did love teaching, this close-up view of the rarefied
Upper East Side life of his students' gave him a taste for the big time.
So in 1976, he dropped everything and reported to work at Bear Stearns, where he started
off as a junior assistant to a floor trader at the American Stock Exchange. His ascent was
rapid.
At the time, options trading was an arcane and dimly understood field, just beginning to
take off. To trade options, one had to value them, and to value them, one needed to be
able to master such abstruse mathematical confections as the Black-Scholes option-
pricing model. For Epstein, breaking down such models was pure sport, and within just a
few years he had his own stable of clients. "He was not your conventional broker saying
'Buy IBM' or 'Sell Xerox,' says Bear Stearns CEO Jimmy Cayne. "Given his
mathematical background, we put him in our special-products division, where he would
advise our wealthier clients on the tax implications of their portfolios. He would
EFTA00013642

=== Page 4 ===
recommend certain tax-advantageous transactions. He is a very smart guy and has
become a very important client for the firm as well."
In 1980, Epstein made partner, but he had left the firm by 1981. Working in a
bureaucracy was not for him; what's more, in rubbing up against ever greater sums of
money during his time at Bear, he began to feel the need to grab his own piece of the
action.
In 1982, according to those who know Epstein, he set up his own shop, J. Epstein and
Co., which remains his core business today. The premise behind it was simple: Epstein
would manage the individual and family fortunes of clients with $1 billion or more.
Which is where the mystery deepens. Because according to the lore, Epstein, in 1982,
immediately began collecting clients. There were no road shows, no whiz-bang
marketing demos -- just this: Jeff Epstein was open for business for those with $1 billion-
plus.
His firm would be different, too. He was not here just to offer investment advice; he saw
himself as the financial architect of every aspect of his client's wealth -- from investments
to philanthropy to tax planning to security to assuaging the guilt and burdens that large
sums of inherited wealth can bring on. "I want people to understand the power, the
responsibility, and the burden of their money," he said to a colleague at the time.
As a teacher at Dalton, he had witnessed firsthand the troubled attitudes of some of the
poor little rich kids under his charge; at Bear, he had come to the realization that,
counterintuitively, the more money you had, the more anxious you became. For a middle-
class kid from Brooklyn, it just didn't make sense.
From the get-go, his business was successful. But the conditions for investing with
Epstein were steep: He would take total control of the billion dollars, charge a flat fee,
and assume power of attorney to do whatever he thought was necessary to advance his
client's financial cause. And he remained true to the $1 billion entry fee. According to
people who know him, if you were worth $700 million and felt the need for the services
of Epstein and Co., you would receive a not-so-polite no-thank-you from Epstein.
It's nice work if you can get it. Epstein runs a lean operation, and those close to him say
that his actual staff -- based here in Manhattan at the Villard House (home to Le Cirque);
New Albany, Ohio; and St. Thomas, where he reincorporated his company seven years
ago (now called Financial Trust Co.) -- numbers around 150 and is purely administrative.
When it comes to putting these billions to work in the markets, it is Epstein himself
making all the investment calls -- there are no analysts or portfolio managers, just twenty
accountants to keep the wheels greased and a bevy of assistants -- many of them
conspicuously attractive young women -- to organize his hectic life. So assuming,
conservatively, a fee of .5 percent (he takes no commissions or percentages) on $15
billion, that makes for a management fee of $75 million a year straight into Jeff Epstein's
pocket. Nice work indeed.
EFTA00013643

=== Page 5 ===
It has been rumored that Linda Wachner and David Rockefeller have been clients, too,
but both parties deny any such relationship. What's more, who ever heard of a financial
adviser turning down $500 million accounts? All the speculation and mystery has proved
fertile ground for some alternative Jeffrey Epstein stories -- the most bizarre of which has
him playing the piano (he is classically trained) for high rollers in a Manhattan piano bar
in the mid-eighties.
Another focus of curiosity is the relationship that Epstein has with his patron and mentor
Leslie Wexner, founder and chairman of the Columbus, Ohio-based Limited chain of
women's-clothing stores. Wexner, who is said to be worth more than $2.5 billion by
Forbes, became an Epstein client in 1987. "It's a weird relationship," says another Wall
Streeter who knows Epstein. "It's just not typical for someone of such enormous wealth to
all of a sudden give his money to some guy most people have never heard of." The
Wexner-Epstein relationship is indeed a multifaceted one.
Given the secrecy that envelops Epstein's client list, some have speculated that Wexner is
the primary source of Epstein's lavish life -- but friends leap to his defense. "Let me tell
you: Jeffrey Epstein has other clients besides Wexner. I know because some of them are
my clients," says noted m&a lawyer Dennis Block of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.
"I sent him a $500 million client a few years ago and he wouldn't take him. Said the
account was too small. Both the client and I were amazed. But that's Jeffrey."
Epstein's current residence in Manhattan -- a 45,000-square-foot eight-story mansion on
East 71st Street -- was originally bought by Wexner for $13 million in 1989. Wexner
poured many millions into a full gut renovation, then turned it over to Epstein in 1995
after he got married. One story has Epstein paying only a dollar for it, though others say
he paid full market price, which would have been in the neighborhood of $20 million.
Epstein then undertook his own $10 million gut renovation (special features: closed-
circuit TV and a heated sidewalk in front of the house for melting snow), saying to
friends: "I don't want to live in another person's house."
There are other houses as well, including a sweeping villa in Palm Beach and a custom-
built 51,000-square-foot castle in Santa Fe. Said to be the largest house in the state, the
latter sits atop a hill on a 45,000-acre ranch. He had it built because of the month or so he
found himself spending there, talking elementary particle physics with his friend Murray
Gell-Man, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and co-chair of the science board at the Santa
Fe Institute.
Epstein also owned a grand house (he has since sold it) near Wexner's opulent manse at
the center of the Limited magnate's high-end housing development in New Albany, Ohio.
New Albany was a lush sprawl of farmland on the outskirts of Columbus that Wexner,
starting in 1988, turned into a rich village of multimillion-dollar Georgian homes
surrounding a Jack Nicklaus-designed golf course. It was a massive development project,
financed largely by Wexner himself. Epstein was a general partner in the real-estate
EFTA00013644

=== Page 6 ===
holding company, called New Albany Property, despite putting only a few million dollars
of capital into the project.
"Before Epstein came along in 1988, the financial preparations and groundwork for the
New Albany development were a total mess," says Bob Fitrakis, a Columbus-based
investigative journalist who has written extensively on Wexner and his finances. "Epstein
cleaned everything up, as well as serving Wexner in other capacities -- such as
facilitating visits to Wexner's home of the crew from Cats and organizing a Tony Randall
song-and-dance show put on in Columbus." Wexner declines to talk about his
relationship with Epstein, but it is clearly one that continues to this day. Not that it helped
Epstein in any way to land Clinton. Wexner is a staunch Republican donor, and Epstein,
aside from a small contribution to the president's legal-defense fund, has given more to
the likes of former senator Al D'Amato.
What attracted Clinton to Epstein was quite simple: He had a plane (he has a couple, in
fact -- the Boeing 727, in which he took Clinton to Africa, and, for shorter jaunts, a black
Gulfstream, a Cessna 421, and a helicopter to ferry him from his island to St. Thomas).
Clinton had organized a weeklong tour of South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Rwanda, and
Mozambique to do what Clinton does. So when the president's advance man Doug Band
pitched the idea to Epstein, he said sure. As an added bonus, Kevin Spacey, a close friend
of Clinton's, and actor Chris Tucker came along for the ride.
While Epstein got an intellectual kick out of engaging African finance ministers in
theoretical chitchat about economic development, the real payoff for him was observing
Clinton in his métier: talking HIV/aids policy with African leaders and soaking up the
love from Cape Town to Lagos.
Epstein brings a trophy-hunter's zeal to his collection of scientists and politicians. But the
real charge for him is in seeing these guys work it. Like former Democratic Senate leader
George Mitchell, for example. In Epstein's mind, Mitchell is the world's greatest
negotiator, based on his work in Ireland and the Middle East. So he wrote the senator a
bunch of checks. Says Mitchell: "He has supported some philanthropic projects of mine
and organized a fund-raiser for me once. I would certainly call him a friend and a
supporter."
But it is his covey of scientists that inspires Epstein's true rapture. Epstein spends $20
million a year on them -- encouraging them to engage in whatever kind of cutting-edge
research might attract their fancy. They are, of course, quite lavish in their praise in
return. Gerald Edelman won the Nobel Prize for physiology and medicine in 1972 and
now presides over the Neurosciences Institute in La Jolla. "Jeff is extraordinary in his
ability to pick up on quantitative relations," says Edelman. "He came to see us recently.
He is concerned with this basic question: Is it true that the brain is not a computer? He is
very quick."
EFTA00013645

=== Page 7 ===
Then there is Stephen Kosslyn, a psychologist at Harvard. Epstein flew up to Kosslyn's
laboratory in Cambridge this year to witness an experiment that Kosslyn was conducting
and Epstein was funding. Namely: Is it true that certain Tibetan monks are capable of
holding a distinct mental image in their minds for twenty minutes straight? "We
disproved the thesis," says Kosslyn. "Jeff was on his cell phone most of the time -- he
actually wanted to short the Tibetan market, because he thought the monk was so stupid.
He is amazing. Like a honeybee -- he talks to all these different people and cross-
pollinates. Just two months ago, I was talking to him about a new alternative to
evolutionary psychology. He got excited and sent me a check."
Epstein has a particularly close relationship with Martin Nowak, an Austrian biology and
mathematics professor who heads the theoretical-biology program at the Institute for
Advanced Study at Princeton. Nowak is examining how game theory can be used to
answer some of the basic evolutionary questions -- e.g., why, in our Darwinian society,
does altruistic behavior exist? Epstein talks to Nowak about once a week and flies him
around the country to his various homes to deliver impromptu lectures. Over the past
three years, he has written $500,000 worth of checks to fund Nowak's research. This past
February, Epstein had Nowak over for dinner at the 71st Street townhouse. It was just the
two of them (not including the wait staff), and Nowak, making use of a blackboard in the
formal dining room, delivered a two-hour highly mathematical description of how
language works.
After dinner, Epstein asked if Nowak wanted to meet up with his new friend President
Clinton, and off they went to a nearby deli, where Clinton regaled the starstruck former
Oxford professor with tales from his own Oxford days. "Jeffrey has the mind of a
physicist. It's like talking to a colleague in your field," says Nowak. "Sometimes he
applies what we talk about to his investments. Sometimes it's for his own curiosity. He
has changed my life. Because of his support, I feel I can do anything I want."
Danny Hillis, an MIT-educated computer scientist whose company, Thinking Machines,
was at the forefront of the supercomputing world in the eighties, and who used to run
R&D at Walt Disney Imagineering, thinks Epstein is actually using scientific knowledge
to beat the markets. "We talk about currency trading -- the euro, the real, the yen," he
says. "He has something a physicist would call physical intuition. He knows when to use
the math and when to throw it away. If I had acted upon all the investment advice he has
been giving me over the years, I'd be calling you from my Gulfstream right now."
On the 727 these days, he has been reading a book by E. O. Wilson, the eminent scientist
and originator of the field of sociobiology, called Consilience, which makes the case that
the boundaries between scientific disciplines are in the process of breaking down. It's a
view Epstein himself holds. He wrote recently to a scientist friend of his: "The behavior
of termites, together with ants and bees, is a precursor to trust because they have an
extraordinary ability to form relationships and sophisticated social structures based on
mutual altruism even though individually they are fundamentally dumb. Money itself is a
derivative of trust. If we can figure out how termites come together, then we may be able
to better understand the underlying principles of market behavior -- and make big
EFTA00013646

=== Page 8 ===
money."
So how do termite grouping patterns fare as an investment strategy? Again, facts are hard
to come by. A working day for Epstein starts at 5 a.m., when he gets up and scours the
world markets on his Bloomberg screen -- each of his houses, in New York, St. Thomas,
Palm Beach, and New Mexico, as well as the 727, is equipped with the necessary
hardware for him to wake up, roll out of bed, and start trading. He will put some calls in
to his private banker at JPMorgan to get a reading as to how wealthy investors -- the best
gauge of market sentiment, he believes -- are reacting to the market's movements. Then
he will call currency traders in Europe. On a given day, he will spend ten hours or so on
the phone -- after all, he is running $15 billion essentially by himself.
Strangely enough, given his scientific obsessions, he is a computer-phobe and does not
use e-mail. "I like to hear voices and see faces when I interact," he has said. Given the
huge sums he has to invest, he focuses on assets with extremely high liquidity, like
currencies -- though he dabbles in commodities and real estate as well. Those who know
him say he is an impulsive, quick-to-change-his-mind trader, still governed by Ace
Greenberg's trader's maxim: If the stock is down 10 percent, sell it. He has been on the
short side of the Brazilian real, and those close to him say bets there have paid off in
spades. He recently took a long position on the euro before its rebound on the basis that
Europeans were too proud to see their currency sink any lower against the dollar. His
next targets: an across-the-board short of the German stock exchange and a possible
attack on the Hong Kong dollar peg in light of the recent disclosure of North Korea's
nuclear-weapons program.
None of this is investment rocket science, but getting the direction and the timing right,
no matter how conventional the investment idea, can spin large money for an investor.
Before taking a big position, Epstein will usually fly to the country in question. He
recently spent a week in Germany meeting with various government officials and
financial types, and he has a trip to Brazil coming up in the next few weeks. On all of
these trips, he flies alone in his commercial-jet-size 727.
Friends of Epstein say he is horrified at the recent swell of media attention around him
(Vanity Fair is preparing a megaprofile, and the Villard House office has had a barrage of
calls from other media outlets). He has never granted a formal interview, and did not
offer one to this magazine, nor has his picture appeared in any publication. Yet for one so
obsessive about his privacy, one wonders -- didn't he realize that flying Clinton and
Spacey around Africa was going to blow his cover? As he said to a friend: "If my
ultimate goal was to stay private, traveling with Clinton was a bad move on the
chessboard. I recognize that now. But you know what? Even Kasparov makes them. You
move on."
Author E-mail: Landon Thomas Jr.
EFTA00013647

=== Page 9 ===
Find this article at:
http://www.nymag.com/nymetro/news/peoplein_7912lindex.html
Click to Print
SAVE THIS I EMAIL THIS Close
Top of Form
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
Bottom of Form
EFTA00013648


c1: EFTA00010334
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010334.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 19:56:23 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.jpg
Just resent (and sorry for the delay!)-please let me know if the email doesn't come through. Thanks.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 10:40 AM
To:
Subject: RE:
Can you send the photos again? Only the photo booth ones came through. I want to attach them to the 302.
Thanks!
From:
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2019 10:56 PM
To: Young,
Subject: Fwd:
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brittany Henderson
Date: September 30, 2019 at 9:49:58 AM PDT
To:
Cc: Brad Edwards
)"
)"
Subject: Re:
I have attached the two photographs that we have of
from the relevant time period. Brad and I are both currently out
of the office, but will get documents to you when we get back.
Thanks,
EFTA00010334

=== Page 2 ===
mag
-

=== Page 3 ===
Brittany Henderson, Esq.
Edwards Pottinger LLC
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
www.epllc.com
On Sep 30, 2019, at 9:48 AM,
> wrote:
Hi Brad,
Just following up on this- we're happy to take these by whatever method is easiest for you. One option would be to mail us
a CD or thumb drive, but please let us know what works for you. On the subject of documents relating to
do you have any photographs of her from the relevant time period? Or are you able to ask her if she has them?
Thanks,
From: Brad Edwards
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 2:32 PM
To:
>; Brittany Henderson
Cc:
Subject: RE:
We will send you all of the emails we have.
<image001.png>
Brad Edwards
Board Certified Trial Attorney
brad@epllc.com I www.epllc.com
From:
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 2:27 PM
To: Brittany Henderson
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Brittany,
We met with
last week in California, which was helpful. She mentioned that she had provided you with
a batch of emails relating to her encounters with Epstein. She indicated that she would be willing to share those with us, and
that we should contact you to coordinate. Are you able to share those documents with us? If you have any questions or if you
think a call would be helpful to discuss, please let us know.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00010336

=== Page 4 ===
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00010337


c1: EFTA00013586
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013586.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
</O=USA/OU=FLS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=
To: "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)"
>, "
)"
Subject: Tein's Reply Brief in the Epstein civil litigation
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:18:35 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: DE38_080812_Reply_re_Motn_to_Stay.pdf
The clerk's office finally unsealed Tein's reply brief in the Epstein civil litigation. While the agreement was not
filed with the court, Tein quotes extensively from the agreement. He also describes the agreement as "a highly
unusual and unprecedented deferred-prosecution agreement."
I still have not heard back from Roy Black regarding the agreement that the defense filed with the state court.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave,
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone
Fax
EFTA00013586


c1: EFTA00013718
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00013718.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Any follow up re Epstein?
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:54:24 +0000
Importance: Normal
Hi
anything that I or the agents should be doing?
And
is all worked up because another agent and
are the subject of an OPR
investigation for failing to properly confer with and notify victims. We seem to be in a Catch-22.
EFTA00013718


c1: EFTA00010968
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0001/EFTA00010968.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
INDICTMENT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
19 Cr.
- V. -
:
TOVA NOEL and
:
MICHAEL THOMAS,
:
Defendants.
X
The Grand Jury charges:
INTRODUCTION
1. On or about August 10, 2019, TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL
THOMAS, the defendants, in dereliction of their duties as
correctional officers at the Metropolitan Correctional Center
("MCC"), repeatedly failed to perform mandated counts of prisoners
under their watch in the MCC's Special Housing Unit ("SHU").
Instead, for substantial portions of their shifts, NOEL and THOMAS
sat at their desk, browsed the internet, and moved around the
common area of the SHU. To conceal their failure to perform their
duties, NOEL and THOMAS repeatedly signed false certifications
attesting to having conducted multiple counts of inmates when, in
truth and in fact, they never conducted such counts. As a result
of those false statements, the MCC believed prisoners in the SHU
were being regularly monitored and accounted for when, in fact, as
a result of the defendants' conduct, no correctional officer
EFTA00010968

=== Page 2 ===
conducted any count or round of the SHU from approximately 10:30
p.m. on August 9 until approximately 6:30 a.m. on August 10, at
which time, as alleged herein, NOEL and THOMAS discovered the body
of an MCC inmate, Jeffrey Epstein, who had committed suicide
overnight while unobserved.
RELEVANT INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES
2. The MCC is a federal administrative detention
facility located in Manhattan that is run by the Federal Bureau of
Prisons ("BOP"). The MCC is one of several facilities used to
house inmates who have been charged with federal crimes in the
Southern District of New York and are awaiting trial. The MCC
employs correctional officers, whose primary duty is to ensure the
care, custody, and control of the inmate population of the MCC.
3. TOVA NOEL, the defendant, has been employed as a
correctional officer at the MCC since approximately 2016. As of
August 2019, NOEL's primary assignment was the SHU. On August 9,
2019, NOEL worked a regular shift from 4 p.m. to 12 a.m. in the
SHU, and then worked an overtime shift from 12 a.m. to 8 a.m. on
August 10, 2019, also in the SHU. NOEL had also worked a regular
shift in the SHU the day before, August 8, 2019, from 12 p.m. to
8 p.m.
4. MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendant, has been employed as
a correctional officer at the MCC since approximately 2007.
2
EFTA00010969

=== Page 3 ===
Beginning in approximately 2013, THOMAS was assigned to work as a
materials handler supervisor, although THOMAS regularly worked
overtime shifts as a correctional officer, including in the SHU.
THOMAS worked an overtime shift in the SHU on August 10, 2019,
from 12 a.m. to 8 a.m. THOMAS did not work his regular shift on
August 8 or August 9, 2019, but did work an overtime shift in the
SHU on August 9, 2019 from 12 a.m. to 8 a.m.
5. As detailed herein, Jeffrey Epstein was
incarcerated at the MCC between his arrest on July 6, 2019, and
his suicide on August 10, 2019. Epstein was detained pending trial
in the Southern District of New York on sex trafficking charges.
THE MCC AND INSTITUTIONAL COUNTS
6. The MCC, which houses approximately 750 inmates at
any given time, assigns inmates to various housing units within
the MCC. The SHU is a housing unit within the MCC where inmates
are securely separated from the general inmate population to ensure
their own safety as well as the safety of staff and other inmates.
The SHU is located on the ninth floor of the MCC, and access to
that floor is controlled by a locked door that can be opened
remotely only by an officer in the MCC's centralized control center
(the "Control Center"), which is located on the first floor of the
MCC. Access into the SHU is also controlled by a second locked
door to which only correctional officers assigned to the SHU have
3
EFTA00010970

=== Page 4 ===
keys while on duty. Within the SHU, inmates are assigned to six
separate tiers, each of which can be accessed only via a single
locked door to which the correctional officers assigned to the SHU
have keys while on duty. Each tier has eight cells, each of which
can house either one or two prisoners, and each individual cell -
which is made of cement and metal - is accessed only through a
single locked door, to which only correctional officers assigned
to the SHU have keys while on duty.
7. The BOP requires correctional officers assigned to
guard inmates at the MCC to conduct institution-wide counts of
inmates at regular, scheduled intervals to ensure that each inmate
is alive and accounted for within the MCC (the "institutional
count"). On weekdays, the MCC conducts five institutional counts
at 4 p.m., 10 p.m., 12 a.m., 3 a.m., and 5 a.m. Performing an
institutional count is one of the most basic and essential aspects
of a correctional officer's job, and the count is one of the most
basic and essential functions of daily operation of the MCC. Two
officers are required to perform the institutional count for each
housing unit, including the SHU, and are further required to
document their performance of the count on an official MCC form
called a count slip. To perform the institutional count in the
SHU, two officers must walk from tier to tier to observe and count
each individual inmate.
4
EFTA00010971

=== Page 5 ===
8. On the count slip, both correctional officers are
required to fill in the date and time the count was performed,
write the total number of inmates physically present in the unit
counted, and then sign the count slip. Once the correctional
officers have completed and signed the count slips, the count slips
are then collected and delivered to the Control Center, where
officers within the Control Center are responsible for comparing
the count slips from each housing unit to the institution's inmate
roster to ensure that each inmate is accounted for. Only after
all the count slips are collected from each housing unit, and the
numbers on the slips are matched to the institution's inmate
roster, can the institutional count be deemed "cleared" or
completed. If a housing unit's count slip is incorrect or
incomplete, then the institution cannot "clear" the count.
Instead, the count must be completely redone in that housing unit
via a more-intensive version of the institutional count called a
"bed book count," in which officers must compare every individual
inmate to the institution's inmate roster. Records of each
institutional count, including the count slips, are provided to a
supervising official and retained by the MCC.
9. In addition to the institutional count, the BOP
requires correctional officers assigned to the SHU to walk each of
the tiers of the SHU - which is called a "round" - every thirty
5
EFTA00010972

=== Page 6 ===
minutes ("30-minute rounds"). Like the institutional counts,
correctional officers conduct 30-minute rounds to ensure that each
inmate is alive and accounted for within his cell. Correctional
officers working in the SHU are required to complete a form, which
is reviewed and signed by their supervisor, documenting the date
and time of each 30-minute round in each tier of the SHU.
EPSTEIN'S PRIOR APPARENT SUICIDE ATTEMPT
10. On July 6, 2019, inmate Jeffrey Epstein was
arrested and detained at the MCC on sex trafficking charges. On
July 10, 2019, Epstein was assigned to the SHU due to, among other
things, risk factors for suicidality and safety concerns relating
to housing him with the MCC's general population.
11. On July 23, 2019, while Epstein was housed in the
SHU, MCC officers responded to an emergency call, and found Epstein
on the floor of his cell with a strip of bedsheet around his neck.
MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendant, was one of the MCC officers who
responded to the incident. Epstein was subsequently transferred
out of the SHU and was placed on suicide watch. Inmates placed on
suicide watch are housed in a cell on the hospital wing floor of
the MCC, and are watched twenty-four hours a day by a staff member
or a specially trained inmate companion.
12. Epstein remained on suicide watch for approximately
twenty-four hours, and then was transferred to psychological
6
EFTA00010973

=== Page 7 ===
observation, until July 30, 2019. Psychological observation is
less restrictive than suicide watch, but inmates are still housed
in the hospital wing of the MCC and watched twenty-four hours a
day.
13. On July 30, 2019, Epstein was transferred back to
the SHU, and, at the direction of the MCC's psychological staff,
was required to have an assigned cellmate. Epstein was also
assigned to the cell closest to the correctional officers' desk in
the common area of the SHU, which was approximately fifteen feet
from the cell. Conducting the required institutional counts and
thirty-minute rounds in the SHU were also part of the MCC's
procedures for ensuring the safety of inmates, including Epstein.
EVENTS OF AUGUST 9-10, 2019
14. On August 9, 2019, Epstein's cellmate was
transferred out of the MCC in a routine, pre-arranged transfer at
approximately 8 a.m. Despite the MCC's psychological staff's
direction that Epstein have a cellmate, no new cellmate was
assigned to Epstein's cell.
15. TOVA NOEL, the defendant, was one of the assigned
officers on duty in the SHU from 4 p.m. on August 9, 2019 to 8
a.m. on August 10. From 4 p.m. to 12 a.m., two other officers were
on duty with NOEL in the SHU: one officer was assigned to work
from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. ("Officer-1"), and one officer was assigned
7
EFTA00010974

=== Page 8 ===
to work from 4 p.m. to 12 a.m. ("Officer-2"). MICHAEL THOMAS, the
defendant, started his shift in the SHU at 12 a.m. on August 10.
From 12 a.m. until 8 a.m. on August 10, NOEL and THOMAS were the
only two officers on duty in the SHU.
16. During the time period from 4 p.m. on August 9 to 8
a.m. on August 10, the officers on duty in the SHU, including TOVA
NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants, were responsible for
conducting five institutional counts: 4 p.m. and 10 p.m. on August
9; and 12 a.m., 3 a.m., and 5 a.m. on August 10. NOEL, THOMAS and
the other officers on duty were also responsible for completing
paperwork attesting to each of those counts. While, as detailed
herein, count slips were completed for each institutional count,
in fact, not a single one of those institutional counts was done.
17. TOVA NOEL, the defendant, and Officer-1 were
responsible for conducting the 4 p.m. institutional count in the
SHU. As video from the MCC's internal video surveillance system
makes clear, NOEL and Officer-1 did not perform the 4 p.m. count.
Nonetheless, NOEL and Officer-1 completed and signed a count slip
that falsely stated that the 4 p.m. institutional count had been
performed. In reliance on that falsified count slip, at
approximately 5:03 p.m., the Control Center cleared the 4 p.m.
count.
8
EFTA00010975

=== Page 9 ===
18. That evening, Epstein returned to the SHU from his
attorney visit and was escorted into his cell by TOVA NOEL, the
defendant, and another officer at approximately 7:49 p.m. NOEL
and the other officer left the tier in which Epstein was housed
immediately thereafter.
19. By or before 10 p.m., all inmates in the MCC were
locked in their cells for the night. At or around that time, TOVA
NOEL, the defendant, and Officer-2 were responsible for conducting
the 10 p.m. institutional count in the SHU. However, video from
the MCC's internal video surveillance system shows that NOEL and
Officer-2 did not perform the 10 p.m. count. Nonetheless, NOEL
and Officer-2 completed and signed a count slip falsely stating
that the 10 p.m. institutional count had been performed. In
reliance on that falsified count slip, at approximately 10:36 p.m.,
the Control Center cleared the 10 p.m. count.
20. As reflected on video obtained from the MCC's
internal video surveillance system, at approximately 10:30 p.m. on
August 9, 2019 - after TOVA NOEL, the defendant, had signed and
submitted the 10 p.m. count slip and the institutional count had
been completed - NOEL briefly walked up to, and then walked back
from, the door to the tier in which Epstein was housed. As
confirmed by the video obtained from the MCC's internal video
surveillance system, this was the last time anyone, including any
9
EFTA00010976

=== Page 10 ===
correctional officer, walked up to, let alone entered, the only
entrance to the tier in which Epstein was housed until
approximately 6:30 a.m. on August 10.
21. Officer-1's shift ended at approximately 10 p.m.,
and at approximately 12 a.m., MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendant,
replaced Officer-2, joining TOVA NOEL, the defendant, as the only
two correctional officers on duty in the SHU. NOEL and THOMAS were
responsible for conducting the 12 a.m. institutional count in the
SHU. As confirmed by video from the MCC's internal video
surveillance system, NOEL and THOMAS did not perform the 12 a.m.
count. Nonetheless, NOEL and THOMAS completed and signed a count
slip for the 12 a.m. count that falsely stated that the
institutional count had been performed. In reliance on that
falsified count slip, at approximately 12:49 a.m., the Control
Center cleared the 12 a.m. count.
22. TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants, were
additionally responsible for conducting the 3 a.m. and 5 a.m.
institutional counts in the SHU. As confirmed by video from the
MCC's internal video surveillance system, NOEL and THOMAS did not
perform either the 3 a.m. or the 5 a.m. counts. NOEL and THOMAS
nonetheless completed and signed count slips for both counts that
falsely stated that they had performed the 3 a.m. and 5 a.m.
institutional counts. In reliance on those falsified count slips,
10
EFTA00010977

=== Page 11 ===
at approximately 3:24 a.m. and 5:30 a.m., the Control Center
cleared the 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. counts, respectively.
23. Moreover, despite the requirement that officers on
duty in the SHU conduct and document regular, 30-minute rounds,
TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants, did not perform any
of the required 30-minute rounds during their shift between
approximately 12 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. Nonetheless, NOEL completed
and signed more than 75 separate 30-minute round entries falsely
affirming that they had, in fact, conducted such rounds.
24. During the night, instead of completing the
required counts and rounds, TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the
defendants, were seated at the correctional officers' desk in the
SHU common area (as noted above, approximately 15 feet from
Epstein's cell), used the computers, and moved around the SHU
common area. For a period of approximately two hours, NOEL and
THOMAS sat at their desk without moving, and appeared to have been
asleep. NOEL used the computer periodically throughout the night,
including to search the internet for furniture sales and benefit
websites. THOMAS used the computer briefly around 1 a.m., 4 a.m.,
and 6 a.m. to search for motorcycle sales and sports news.
25. At approximately 4 a.m., the overnight supervisor
briefly visited NOEL and THOMAS in the SHU, and conferred with
NOEL and THOMAS, who were seated at and around the officers' desk,
11
EFTA00010978

=== Page 12 ===
before leaving. At approximately 5:30 a.m., another correctional
officer briefly walked through the SHU common area. Aside from
those two officers, as confirmed by video surveillance, no one
else entered the SHU, no one conducted any counts or rounds
throughout the night, and no one entered the tier in which Epstein
was housed.
26. Shortly after 6 a.m. on August 10, 2019, MICHAEL
THOMAS and TOVA NOEL, the defendants, received a delivery of
breakfast carts into the SHU, after which time they were again the
only officers in the SHU. Shortly after 6:30 a.m., NOEL and THOMAS
walked up to and entered the tier in which Epstein was housed to
serve breakfast. At approximately 6:33 a.m., an alarm was
activated in the SHU. Epstein was alone in his cell and not
responsive, with a noose around his neck. A supervisor who had
just started his shift ("Supervisor-1") responded to the alarm
almost immediately thereafter, and as NOEL approached the door to
the SHU to open the door for Supervisor-1, NOEL told Supervisor-1
that "Epstein hung himself." After arriving in the SHU,
Supervisor-1 spoke with THOMAS and NOEL. NOEL told Supervisor-1
"we did not complete the 3am nor 5 am rounds." THOMAS stated, "we
messed up," and "I messed up, she's not to blame, we didn't do any
rounds. "
12
EFTA00010979

=== Page 13 ===
27. Epstein was transferred to a local hospital where
he was declared dead shortly thereafter. The Office of the Chief
Medical Examiner of the City of New York conducted an autopsy and
determined that Epstein had committed suicide by hanging himself.
STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS
COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy)
The Grand Jury further charges:
28. The Grand Jury incorporates the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Indictment as though
fully set forth herein.
29. In or about August 2019, in the Southern District of
New York, TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants, knowingly
conspired with each other to:
a. Knowingly defraud the United States by
impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of a
department or agency of the United States, to wit, the MCC's
function to ensure the care, custody, and control of its inmate
population.
b. Knowingly make and use a false writing or
document knowing the same to contain a materially false,
fictitious, and fraudulent statement and entry with the intent to
impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper
administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any
13
EFTA00010980

=== Page 14 ===
department or agency of the United States, in violation of Title
18, United States Code, Section 1001 (a) (3).
30. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the
illegal objects thereof, TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the
defendants, committed the following overt acts, among others, in
the Southern District of New York:
a. On August 10, 2019, NOEL and THOMAS falsely
certified, on an MCC count slip, that they had performed the 12
a.m. institutional count of the SHU, when they had not in fact
done SO.
b. On August 10, 2019, NOEL and THOMAS falsely
certified, on an MCC count slip, that they had performed the 3
a.m. institutional count of the SHU, when they had not in fact
done SO.
C. On August 10, 2019, NOEL and THOMAS falsely
certified that they had performed the 5 a.m. institutional count
of the SHU at MCC, when they had not in fact done SO.
d. On August 10, 2019, NOEL falsely certified that
she and THOMAS had performed a series of 30-minute rounds of the
SHU between 12 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., when they had not in fact done
SO.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371)
14
EFTA00010981

=== Page 15 ===
COUNT TWO
(False Records - 4 p.m. Count)
The Grand Jury further charges:
31. The Grand Jury incorporates the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Indictment as though
fully set forth herein.
32. On or about August 9, 2019, in the Southern District
of New York, TOVA NOEL, the defendant, willfully and knowingly did
make and use a false writing or document knowing the same to
contain a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement
and entry with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the
investigation or proper administration of any matter within the
jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States, and
did attempt to do the same, to wit, NOEL created, signed, and
submitted to the MCC a materially false count slip indicating that
she had performed the 4 p.m. institutional count of the SHU, when
she had not in fact done SO.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 (a) (3) and 2)
COUNT THREE
(False Records - 10 p.m. Count)
The Grand Jury further charges:
33. The Grand Jury incorporates the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Indictment as though
fully set forth herein.
15
EFTA00010982

=== Page 16 ===
34. On or about August 9, 2019, in the Southern District
of New York, TOVA NOEL, the defendant, willfully and knowingly did
make and use a false writing or document knowing the same to
contain a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement
and entry with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the
investigation or proper administration of any matter within the
jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States, and
did attempt to do the same, to wit, NOEL created, signed, and
submitted to the MCC a materially false count slip indicating that
she had performed the 10 p.m. institutional count of the SHU, when
she had not in fact done SO.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 (a) (3) and 2)
COUNT FOUR
(False Records - 12 a.m. Count)
The Grand Jury further charges:
35. The Grand Jury incorporates the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Indictment as though
fully set forth herein.
36. On or about August 10, 2019, in the Southern
District of New York, TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants,
willfully and knowingly did make and use a false writing or
document knowing the same to contain a materially false,
fictitious, and fraudulent statement and entry with the intent to
impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper
16
EFTA00010983

=== Page 17 ===
administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any
department or agency of the United States, and did attempt to do
the same, to wit, NOEL and THOMAS created, signed, and submitted
to the MCC a materially false count slip indicating that they had
performed the 12 a.m. institutional count of the SHU, when they
had not in fact done SO.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 (a) (3) and 2)
COUNT FIVE
(False Records - 3 a.m. Count)
The Grand Jury further charges:
37. The Grand Jury incorporates the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Indictment as though
fully set forth herein.
38. On or about August 10, 2019, in the Southern
District of New York, TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants,
willfully and knowingly did make and use a false writing or
document knowing the same to contain a materially false,
fictitious, and fraudulent statement and entry with the intent to
impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper
administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any
department or agency of the United States, and did attempt to do
the same, to wit, NOEL and THOMAS created, signed, and submitted
to the MCC a materially false count slip indicating that they had
17
EFTA00010984

=== Page 18 ===
performed the 3 a.m. institutional count of the SHU, when they had
not in fact done SO.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 (a) (3) and 2)
COUNT SIX
(False Records - 5 a.m. Count)
The Grand Jury further charges:
39. The Grand Jury incorporates the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Indictment as though
fully set forth herein.
40. On or about August 10, 2019, in the Southern
District of New York, TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, the defendants,
willfully and knowingly did make and use a false writing or
document knowing the same to contain a materially false,
fictitious, and fraudulent statement and entry with the intent to
impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper
administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any
department or agency of the United States, and did attempt to do
the same, to wit, NOEL and THOMAS created, signed, and submitted
to the MCC a materially false count slip that that reflected that
they had performed the 5 a.m. institutional count of the SHU, when
they had not in fact done SO.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 (a) (3) and 2)
18
EFTA00010985

=== Page 19 ===
FOREPERSON
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
19
EFTA00010986

=== Page 20 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- V. -
TOVA NOEL and
MICHAEL THOMAS,
Defendants.
INDICTMENT
19 Cr.
Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 371, 1001 (a) (3), and 2.
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
A TRUE BILL
Foreperson.
EFTA00010987


