DataSet-10
Unknown
32 pages
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
x
OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL
IN SUPPORT OF HER SUPPLEMENTAL PRETRIAL MOTIONS
RELATING TO THE S2 SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
800 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone:
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone:
Bobbi C. Stemheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim
33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone:
Attorneysfor Ghislaine Maxwell
EFTA00103758
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
SUMMARY OF NEW ALLEGATIONS IN THE S2 INDICTMENT 4
ARGUMENT 5
I. The NPA Bars Ms. Maxwell's Prosecution on Counts One, Three, Five, and Six. 5
A. Counts Five and Six Allege the Same Offenses that Were Part of the Florida
Investigation and Are Covered by the Plain Terms of the NPA 6
B. The NPA Binds the Southern District of New York as to Counts Five and
Six. 11
C. Counts One and Three Must Also Be Dismissed 17
II. Prosecuting Ms. Maxwell on Counts Five and Six Would Violate Her Rights Under
the Double Jeopardy Clause 18
III. Counts Five and Six Are Time-Barred. 20
IV. The Court Should Dismiss Count Five and Either Count One or Count Three as
Multiplicitous 21
V. The Court Should Dismiss the S2 Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay. 22
VI. The Court Should Order a Bill of Particulars as to Counts Five and Six. 22
VII. The Court Should Order the Government to Produce Accuser-4's Prior Statements
as Brady Material 24
VIII. Ms. Maxwell Incorporates All of the Arguments Raised in Her Initial Pretrial
Motions and Reasserts Them as to the S2 Indictment. 26
CONCLUSION 26
EFTA00103759
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Clemmons v. Delo,
124 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 1997) 25
Jones v. Jago,
575 F.2d 1164 (6th Cir. 1978) 25
Ex Parte Lange,
85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (1873) 18
North Carolina v. Pearce,
395 U.S. 711 (1969) 18
United States v. Annabi,
771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) passim
United States v. Bortnovsky,
820 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1987) 22, 23
United States v. Brown,
No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) 16
United States v. Cambindo Valencia,
609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979) 20
United States v. Carter,
454 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1972) 17
United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez,
714 F.3d 306 (5th Cir. 2013) 21
United States v. Gebbie,
294 F.3d 540 (3rd Cir. 2002) 14, 15, 16, 17
United States v. Gonzalez,
93 F. App'x 268 (2d Cir. 2004) 14, 16
United States v. Harvey,
791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1986) 15
United States v. Korfant,
771 F.2d 660 (2d Cir.1985) 19
EFTA00103760
United States v. Lopez,
356 F.3d 463 (2d Cir. 2004) 18, 19, 20
United States v. Rooney,
37 F.3d 847 (2d Cir. 1994) 17, 18
United States v. Salameh,
152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 14, 16
United States v. Torres,
719 F.2d 549 (2d Cir. 1983) 25
United States v. Van Thournout,
100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 15
White v. Helling,
194 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 1999) 25
Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 371 21
18 U.S.C. § 1591 passim
18 U.S.C. § 2422 4
18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) 4
18 U.S.C. § 3282 20
18 U.S.C. § 3283 20, 21
Other Authorities
Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f) 22
U.S. Const., Amend. V 18
iii
EFTA00103761
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Omnibus Memorandum in Support of her
Supplemental Pretrial Motions Related to the S2 Superseding Indictment ("Motion"). For the
reasons set forth below, Ms. Maxwell moves the Court to:
I. Dismiss Counts One, Three, Five and Six for breach of the Non-Prosecution
Agreement;
2. Dismiss Counts Five and Six for violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause;
3. Dismiss Counts Five and Six as time-barred under the statute of limitations;
4. Dismiss Count Five and Either Count One or Count Three as multiplicitous;
5. Dismiss the S2 Indictment for pre-indictment delay;
6. Order a Bill of Particulars as to Counts Five and Six;
7. Order the government to produce Accuser-4's prior statements as Brady material.
The S2 Superseding Indictment ("S2 Indictment") demonstrates just how far the
government is willing to go to "get" Ms. Maxwell and disingenuously blame her for the crimes
of Jeffrey Epstein. No longer content to charge a 25-year-old case based on purported conduct in
the 1990s, the government now sweeps in the 2000s through the allegations of one person—
Accuser-4.1 But Accuser-4 is not a new witness; she first levied her accusations more than a
decade ago. The Palm Beach FBI and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") interviewed Accuser-4 in or around 2007 during their three-
year investigation of Epstein's alleged sexual abuse (the "Florida Investigation"). And
remarkably, although interviewed just a few years after she claims any misconduct occurred,
Accuser-4 never implicated Ms. Maxwell. Instead, she reported that Epstein's primary assistant
Accuser-4 is identified in the S2 Indictment as Minor Victim-4.
EFTA00103762
at the time, Sarah Kellen, facilitated her sexual abuse, and it was Kellen or Epstein himself—not
Ms. Maxwell—who purportedly called her to schedule massage appointments, sent her gifts, and
encouraged her to recruit other young females to provide massages to Epstein. Indeed, even
after interviewing Accuser-4, the USAO-SDFL never found "any specific evidence against" Ms.
Maxwell related to the subject of their investigation and thus determined she was not a target of
the Florida Investigation.2
Epstein, himself, was never charged with federal crimes in connection with the Florida
Investigation; nor was Kellen. Instead, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement
("NPA") in order to "resolve globally" his own criminal exposure and to immunize Kellen and
any other "potential co-conspirators.s3 As part of the NPA, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to
state prostitution offenses and register as a federal sex offender. He also agreed, in a novel
arrangement, to pay for attorneys to represent his victims in civil lawsuits against him and to
waive his right to contest damages up to an agreed-upon settlement amount. Accuser-4 took full
advantage of the NPA; she received both the benefit of experienced counsel and $446,000 to
resolve her claims against Epstein and his "potential co-conspirators."
Now, over 13 years later, Accuser-4 has surfaced again, except this time with apparently
brand-new allegations against Ms. Maxwell. Seemingly unconcerned with the gaping
inconsistency in Accuser-4's prior (and near contemporaneous) recollections, the government
has added two new counts charging Ms. Maxwell with sex trafficking offenses under 18 U.S.C. §
1591 (Counts Five and Six) and has dramatically expanded the timeframe of the Mann Act
2 Ex. A (Dep't of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of Florida's Resolution of its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its
Interactions with Victims during the Investigation, November 2020) ("OPR Report") at 167 (internal quotations
omitted).
3 A copy of the NPA is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
2
EFTA00103763
conspiracies (Counts One and Three) to 2004 based entirely on Accuser-4's allegations. But
these offenses are the exact same offenses that were the subject of the Florida Investigation and
resolved by the NPA, which covers "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein," including Ms.
Maxwell.
The Court ruled unequivocally that the NPA covers "any involvement of [Ms.] Maxwell
in offenses committed by Epstein from 2001 to 2007, other offenses that were the subject of the
FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office investigation, and any offenses that arose from the related grand
jury investigation." (Dkt. 207 at 7). Yet Counts Five and Six fall squarely within all three
categories of offenses for which the NPA immunizes Ms. Maxwell:
• The allegations of Accuser-4 fall within the 2001-2007 timeframe and the new
counts charge violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, a statute specifically
enumerated in the NPA.
• The Palm Beach FBI and the USAO-SDFL thoroughly investigated Accuser-
4's allegations as part of the Florida Investigation.
• Accuser-4's allegations were presented to the grand jury in that District and
formed the basis for a conspiracy charge and a sex trafficking charge in a
proposed 60-count federal indictment of Epstein that was dropped pursuant to
the terms of the NPA.
Because Counts Five and Six are based on the exact same evidence investigated and presented to
the SDFL grand jury in 2008, and are the exact same crimes included in the proposed SDFL
indictment against Epstein later abandoned pursuant to the NPA, the government cannot now
charge Ms. Maxwell with these offenses.
Further, the NPA binds the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
New York ("USAO-SDNY") as to the newly-indicted counts. We understand that the Court
previously ruled that under United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) and its progeny,
the language and drafting history of the NPA does not "affirmatively appear" to bind this District
3
EFTA00103764
as to the SI Indictment counts. However, Annabi, by its own terms, is inapposite to the
circumstances of this case, where one federal district has agreed that "the United States" will
abandon certain offenses as part of a negotiated agreement and then a second federal district later
seeks to charge those very same offenses based on the exact same conduct. Counts Five and Six
of the S2 Indictment are therefore barred by the NPA. The Court must dismiss these counts, as
well as the expanded Mann Act conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three, which
incorporate the same conduct charged in Counts Five and Six for which Ms. Maxwell has
immunity.
In addition, because the USAO-SDNY is seeking duplicative punishment for the same
offenses that were resolved by the NPA, prosecuting Ms. Maxwell on Counts Five and Six
violates her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court should also grant the other
relief Ms. Maxwell seeks for the reasons set forth below.
SUMMARY OF NEW ALLEGATIONS IN THE S2 INDICTMENT
Like the S1 Indictment, Counts One and Three of the S2 Indictment allege that Ms.
Maxwell conspired to violate two separate provisions of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422,
2423(a). Count One alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired to entice "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 18 U.S.C. § 2422. (S2 Indictment q¶ 11-13).
Count Three alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired to transport "an individual" in interstate and
foreign commerce to engage in "sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a
criminal offense" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). (Id. ¶¶ 16-19). In the SI Indictment, these
counts were based on conduct that occurred at unspecified times between 1994 and 1997. The
S2 Indictment expands the date range of these conspiracies into the 2000s based on the
4
EFTA00103765
allegations of Accuser-4, alleging conduct that occurred "[f]rom at least in or about 1994, up to
and including in or about 2004." (Id. ¶¶ II, 17).
The S2 Indictment also adds two new counts—Counts Five and Six—alleging that Ms.
Maxwell violated and conspired to violate the federal sex trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1591.
Count Five alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired with Epstein and others to recruit "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" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a). (Id. ¶¶ 23-24). Count Six charges Ms.
Maxwell with a substantive violation of § 1591(a), claiming she "did recruit, entice, harbor,
transport, provide, and obtain by any means" individuals who were under the age of 18,
including Accuser-4, "who were then caused to engage in at least one commercial sex act with
Jeffrey Epstein." (Id.1 27). Both counts are based on the allegations of Accuser-4 and allege
conduct that purportedly occurred "[f]rom at least in or about 2001, up to and including in or
about 2004." (Id. ¶¶ 23, 27).
ARGUMENT
I. The NPA Bars Ms. Maxwell's Prosecution on Counts One, Three, Five, and Six.
The NPA bars any prosecution of Ms. Maxwell for the offenses charged in Counts One,
Three, Five, and Six of the S2 Indictment. The Court has already concluded that the NPA bars
prosecution for "three specific categories of offenses" deriving from the Florida Investigation:
'the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2' of the NPA; namely, `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 five
enumerated offenses;
(2) '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'; and
(3) 'any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation.'
5
EFTA00103766
(Dkt. 207 at 6 (quoting NPA)). The Court has further concluded that the NPA's co-conspirator
provision covers "any involvement of [Ms.] Maxwell" in any of these same three categories of
offenses. (Id. at 7). There can be no serious dispute that the sex trafficking offenses charged in
Counts Five and Six were investigated as part of the Florida Investigation and fall squarely
within the three categories of immunized offenses that are covered by the NPA. Moreover,
because Counts Five and Six are based on the exact same allegations from the vet); same accuser
that were previously investigated and presented to the grand jury as part of the Florida
Investigation, Annabi and its progeny do not apply and the NPA is binding on the USA0-SDNY
as to these offenses. Accordingly, Counts Five and Six must be dismissed. Moreover, because
Counts One and Three incorporate the same conduct from Counts Five and Six for which Ms.
Maxwell cannot be prosecuted under the NPA, they must also be dismissed.
A. Counts Five and Six Allege the Same Offenses that Were Part of the Florida
Investigation and Are Covered by the Plain Terms of the NPA.
The plain terms of the NPA preclude Ms. Maxwell's prosecution on Counts Five and Six
because they allege conduct that falls within the date range specified in the NPA and charge
specifically enumerated offenses that were part of the Florida Investigation. Count Five alleges
that "[f]rom at least in or about 2001 up to and including in or about 2004," Ms. Maxwell
conspired with Epstein to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a), the law prohibiting sex trafficking of
minors. (S2 Indictment ¶¶ 22-25). Count Six alleges that during the same time period, Ms.
Maxwell committed a substantive violation of the same statute. (Id. ¶¶ 26-27). The NPA bars
prosecution for Ms. Maxwell's involvement in "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 five enumerated offenses." (Dkt. 207 at 6 (internal quotations omitted); see also id. at
7 (NPA covers, among other things, "any involvement of Maxwell in offenses committed by
6
EFTA00103767
Epstein from 2001 to 2007")). Thus, the time period alleged in both Counts Five and Six falls
squarely within the date range covered by the NPA for which Ms. Maxwell is immunized.
Moreover, 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) is one of the five enumerated offenses in the NPA. (Ex. B at 2 of
7). As such, Counts Five and Six are clearly offenses covered by the NPA.
Ms. Maxwell also cannot be prosecuted on Counts Five and Six because they are based
on the exact same allegations that were already thoroughly investigated by the Palm Beach FBI
and USAO-SDFL and were presented to a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida in
connection with the Florida Investigation. The allegations underlying Counts Five and Six (and
the expanded date range for Counts One and Three) come from a single accuser—Accuser-4—
who alleges that Epstein sexually abused her from approximately 2001-2004 and that Ms.
Maxwell allegedly facilitated that abuse. (S2 Indictment¶¶ 9d, 22-27). Based on our review of
the prior statements of non-testifying witnesses, which the government only recently produced to
the defense on April 13, 2021, we know that FBI Special Agent Elizabeth Nesbitt Kuyrkendall
interviewed the person we believe to be Accuser-4 in connection with the Florida Investigation.
(Ex. C at 22:1-17).4 We also know that Special Agent Kuyrkendall presented her allegations—
the very same allegations that form the basis for Counts Five and Six—to the grand jury in the
Southern District of Florida in support of a proposed 60-count federal indictment of Jeffrey
Epstein and Sarah Kellen. (Id. at 22:17-31:6). The indictment included a conspiracy count and a
substantive count alleging a sex trafficking offense involving Accuser-4. (Id. at 28:3-15
(Accuser-4's allegations formed the basis for "Overt Acts One through 18" and Count Two of
the proposed indictment charging Epstein and Sarah Kellen with "procur[ing] [Accuser-4] to
Exhibit C is a transcript of the March 18, 2008 grand jury testimony of Special Agent Kuyrlcendall, the lead case
agent in charge of the Florida Investigation, in which she summarizes her interview of Accuser-4 and other related
evidence.
7
EFTA00103768
engage in commercial sex acts knowing that [Accuser-4] was under 18")).5 Pursuant to the
terms of the NPA, the proposed indictment was never returned, and the USAO-SDFL did not
pursue it further, once Epstein pled guilty on June 30, 2008 to Florida state law charges of
solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution. (Ex. A, OPR
Report at i-ii).
The similarity of the allegations presented to the SDFL grand jury and those alleged in
Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment is striking and self-evident. The same overt acts,
including the allegations that form the basis for jurisdiction in SDNY over the crimes charged in
Counts Five and Six, were presented to both grand juries. Furthermore, the proof offered to
corroborate Accuser-4's allegations—e.g., cell phone records, FedEx records, message pad
notes, etc.—was identical. (See Ex. C at 56:21-57:10). The chart below highlights these
similarities:
S2 Indictment SDFL Grand Jury Testimony
Sexual Massages Sexual Massages
"On multiple occasions between approximately "[F]rom 2001 to 2004, [Accuser-4] provided
2001-2004, [Accuser-4] provided nude Mr. Epstein with ... over 100 massages and all
massages to Epstein at the Palm Beach but three of the massages were sexual[] in
Residence, during which Epstein engaged in nature." (Ex. C at 23:19-22).
multiple sex acts with [Accuser-4]." (S2
Indictment ¶ 9d; see also id. at ¶ 25a). The massages took place in Epstein's Palm
Beach residence and Accuser-4 was either nude
or partially nude. (Ex. C at 22:20-24:6).
Payment Payment
"Epstein or one of his employees ... paid "[Accuser-4] was paid between $200 and
[Accuser-4] hundreds of dollars in cash" for $400" for each massage. (Ex. C at 23:25-
each massage. (S2 Indictment ¶ 9d; see also id. 24:10).
5 The government previously denied Ms. Maxwell's request that it produce copies of the proposed 60-count SDFL
indictment and the related 82-page prosecution memo to the defense. To resolve any ambiguity about the charges in
the proposed SDFL indictment and the evidence underlying the counts related to Accuser-4, Ms. Maxwell requests
the Court to order the government to produce both of these documents to the defense.
8
EFTA00103769
at ¶ 25a).
Recruiting Others Recruiting Others
"Epstein ... encouraged [Accuser-4] to recruit "Mr. Epstein asked [Accuser-4] if she had any
other young females to provide sexualized friends that would be interested in performing
massages[.]" (S2 Indictment ¶ 9d; see also id. these massages ... that she could bring to
at ¶ 25b). him[.]" (Ex. Cat 26:12-16).
Gifts to Accuser-4 Gifts to Accuser-4
"On multiple occasions between approximately "Mr. Epstein provided [gifts] to [Accuser-4]....
2001 and 2004, Epstein's employees ... sent Epstein would provide her with lingerie.... He
[Accuser-4] gifts, including lingerie, from an would also send her [gifts] via FedEx packages
address in Manhattan, New York to [Accuser- to her residence." (Ex. C at 28:20-29:10)
4's] residence in Florida." (S2 Indictment ¶ 9d; (describing subpoenaed FedEx records).
see also id. at' 25c).
Scheduling Massage Appointments Scheduling Massage Appointments
"Epstein's employees ... called [Accuser-4], "[S]ometimes Sarah [Kellen] would be ... in
including from New York, to schedule New York and scheduled [Accuser-4] to come
appointments for [Accuser-4] to massage and work, but Sarah Kellen's primary role was
Epstein." (S2 Indictment ¶ 9d; see also id. at ¶ to schedule ... [Accuser-4] to come and
25d). perform the massages." (Ex. C at 25:2-6).
"For example, in or about April of 2004 and "[O]n or about April 23th, 2004, Defendant
May of 2004 another employee of Epstein's Sarah Kellen placed a telephone call to a
called [Accuser-4] to schedule such telephone used by [Accuser-4]." (Ex. C at
appointments." (S2 Indictment ¶ 25d). 17:18-19:4; see also id. at 56:24-25
(subpoenaed cell phone records "indicate
telephonic contact with Sarah Kellen")).
The one critical difference between the a legations in the S2 Indictment and the
allegations presented to the SDFL grand jury is this: Accuser-4 never implicated Ms. Maxwell in
the Florida Investigation. Ms. Maxwell is not mentioned even once in the grand jury testimony
concerning Accuser-4. Instead, the grand jury testimony reflects that Accuser-4 implicated
Epstein himself and Sarah Kellen, who was Epstein's primary assistant during the 2001-2004
timeframe charged in Counts Five and Six. According to Accuser-4, it was Kellen, not Ms.
9
EFTA00103770
Maxwell, who called Accuser-4 from New York to schedule massage appointments. (Ex. C at
17:18-22, 25:1-6). It was Epstein, not Ms. Maxwell, who encouraged Accuser-2 to recruit her
friends to give him massages. (Id. at 25:25-26:18). And it was Epstein, not Ms. Maxwell, who
provided lingerie and other gifts to Accuser-4 and sent FedEx packages to her residence. (Id. at
28:19-29:10). Furthermore, Accuser-4 alleged that Kellen led Accuser-4 upstairs to Epstein's
bedroom the first time she gave him a massage by herself (id. at 25:7-15) and that Kellen paid
Accuser-4 $500 to take nude photographs of her at the Palm Beach residence at Epstein's request
(id. at 27:1-10).
Ultimately, the proposed SDFL indictment sought to charge Epstein and Kellen, not Ms.
Maxwell, with a sex trafficking offense involving Accuser-4. (Id. at 28:11-14 (the evidence
relating to Accuser-4 formed "the basis for the allegation [in Count Two of the proposed SDFL
indictment] that Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen procured [Accuser-4] to engage in commercial
sex acts knowing that she was under 18")). This is entirely consistent with the language of the
NPA, which names Kellen, and not Ms. Maxwell, as one of the four named "potential co-
conspirators." (Ex. B at 5 of 7). In fact, the USAO-SDFL conceded that it never found "any
specific evidence against" Ms. Maxwell related to the subject of their investigation. (See Ex. A,
OPR Report at 167 (internal quotations omitted)).
Hence, it would not only be impermissible under the NPA to prosecute Ms. Maxwell for
the offenses charged in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment because they were "the subject
of the Florida Investigation and "the related grand jury investigation." (Dkt. 207 at 7). It would
also be entirely unjust to base a prosecution in this District on the same offenses related to the
same accuser who never mentioned Ms. Maxwell—and instead implicated Sarah Kellen—when
she first reported the allegations that form the basis of Counts Five and Six over thirteen years
10
EFTA00103771
ago when the events were still recent.6 Accordingly, because the USAO-SDNY is bound by the
terms of the NPA as to the offenses charged in Counts Five and Six for the reasons discussed
below, Ms. Maxwell cannot be prosecuted for those counts.
B. The NPA Binds the Southern District of New York as to Counts Five and Six.
Although the Court ruled that the NPA does not bind the USAO-SDNY as to the charges
in the S 1 Indictment (Dkt. 207 at 4-6), the NPA does bind the USAO-SDNY as to the sex
trafficking offenses charged in Counts Five and Six that were added to the S2 Indictment.
United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (1985) and its progeny, which the Court relied upon in its
earlier ruling, do not mandate a different result. In its prior ruling, the Court noted that Annabi
established "something akin to a clear statement rule" that a plea agreement binds only the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the district in which the plea is entered "unless it affirmatively appears that
the agreement contemplates a broader restriction." (Dkt. 207 at 4 (quoting Annabi, 771 F.2d at
672). That interpretive rule, however, only applies in situations where the district bringing the
second prosecution charges offenses different from the offenses resolved by the plea agreement
in the first prosecution. Annabi itself specifically noted that it was not addressing a situation
where the charges in the follow-on prosecution are "identical to the dismissed charges." Annabi,
771 F.2d at 672. Accordingly, the Court is not bound by the rule in Annabi because Counts Five
and Six are identical to the charges presented to the SDFL grand jury that were resolved by the
NPA. When examined without the overlay of Annabi, the terms and the drafting history of the
NPA indicate that the agreement should be read to preclude other districts, including the USAO-
6 Accuser-4's statements to the FBI, and any other prior statements in which she did not mention Ms. Maxwell, are
exculpatory Brady material that the government should immediately produce to the defense. (See Section VII infra).
11
EFTA00103772
SDNY, from prosecuting Epstein's "potential co-conspirators" for the offenses covered by the
NPA.'
In Annabi, the defendants were arrested at Kennedy Airport on November 23, 1982, in
possession of four kilograms of heroin and were charged in a three-count indictment in the
Eastern District of New York with (I) conspiracy to import heroin into the United States, (2) a
substantive offense of importing heroin, and (3) possession of heroin with intent to distribute. Id.
at 671. All three charges arose out of the defendants' arrest and the charged conduct was limited
to November 23, 1982. Id. The defendants agreed to plead guilty to the substantive importation
charge (Count Two) to resolve the case. Id. At the time of the plea, the prosecutor stated on the
record that "the only agreement that exists between the defendants and the Government is that at
the time of the imposition of sentence on Count Two, the Government would move to dismiss
the two open remaining counts as to each defendant." Id. Counts One and Three were dismissed
at sentencing. Id.
Approximately two-and-a-half years later, the defendants were charged in the Southern
District of New York in a multi-count indictment that included one count of conspiracy to
distribute heroin (Count One) and one count of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise
(Count Three). Id. Both counts alleged a broader period of criminal conduct occurring from
October 1982 until March 15, 1985. Id. The defendants argued that their plea agreement with
the Eastern District of New York barred their prosecution on Counts One and Three of the
7 As argued in our initial motion, Ms. Maxwell maintains that, even if the Court applies Annaba, the NPA precludes
the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Ms. Maxwell for any offense she allegedly committed with Epstein. (See Dkt.
142 at 18.25; Dkt. 223 at 7-13). We preserve that argument and reassert it with respect to Counts One through Six
of the S2 Indictment. However, in light of the Court's prior ruling that the NPA does not bind the USAO•SDNY as
to the charges in the SI Indictment, we argue here that the Court need not, and should not, apply Annabi to
determine whether the NPA bars the USAO-SDNY from charging the offenses in Counts Five and Six of the S2
Indictment.
12
EFTA00103773
Southern District of New York indictment because they arose out of "the same conspiratorial
agreement that underlay the charges dismissed in the Eastern District." Id. at 672.
The Second Circuit rejected this argument finding that, as a general rule, a plea
agreement only binds the prosecutor's office that entered into the agreement, unless it
"affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction." Id. However, the
Court highlighted the apparent anomaly of this rule, noting that an agreement with "the
Government" to dismiss counts of an indictment "might be thought to bar the United States from
reprosecuting the dismissed charges in any judicial district unless the agreement expressly limits
the scope of the agreement to the district in which the dismissed charges are initially brought."
Id. The Court further explained that application of the "affirmative appearance" rule was
nevertheless appropriate because it had not been presented with a situation where the counts in
the second prosecution were identical to the dismissed counts. Id. Although the defendants had
argued that the charges in Counts One and Three of the SDNY indictment "result[ed] from the
same conspiratorial agreement" as the dismissed counts in the EDNY indictment, the Court
found that the SDNY charges covered conduct "extending more than two years beyond the date
of the period covered by the dismissed charges," are were therefore "not the same as the charges
that were dismissed." Id. As a result, the Court found that the default rule could be applied in
that case. Id. ("[T]he new charges are sufficiently distinct at least to warrant application of the
... rule concerning construction of plea agreements.").
Annabi, therefore, did not hold that the "affirmative appearance" rule of construction
applies in cases, like this one, where one federal district has agreed that "the United States" will
abandon certain offenses as part of a negotiated agreement, and then a second federal district
later seeks to charge those very same offenses based on the exact same conduct. By its own
13
EFTA00103774
reasoning, Annabi does not apply in these circumstances, nor do subsequent Second Circuit cases
that applied the Annabi rule. See, e.g., United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 118-20 (2d Cir.
1998) (defendant pled guilty in EDNY to using the passport of another person to enter the United
States and later charged in SDNY with related, but distinct terrorism offenses); United States v.
Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268, 269-70 (2d Cir. 2004) (defendant pled guilty in the District of New
Mexico to drug conspiracy and later charged in the Western District of New York with related,
but distinct weapons possession offense). The Court should not apply them here.
Instead, the Court should follow the Third Circuit's approach in United States v. Gebbie,
294 F.3d 540 (3nd Cir. 2002), which involved a situation like this one where the charges in the
second prosecution were identical to the dismissed charges. In Gebbie, the defendants were
charged in a multi-count indictment in the Southern District of Ohio charging them with various
offenses related to a scheme to make false statements to the U.S. Postal Service. 294 F.3d at
542. As part of their plea agreement, the defendants pled guilty to misprision of a felony in
exchange for dismissal of the counts in the indictment. Id. at 543. The plea agreement further
provided that the agreement did not protect the defendants from prosecution for "other crimes or
offenses" which "the United States" discovers by independent investigation. Id. at 545-46. A
few months after entering their plea, the defendants were charged in the Western District of
Pennsylvania with "the same crimes and offenses that were at issue" in the Ohio prosecution. Id.
at 546 (emphasis in original). Because the plea agreement barred "the United States" from
prosecuting the defendants for the same crimes covered by the agreement, the question for the
Court was: "who is bound when a plea agreement refers to `the United States' or 'the
Government'?" Id. In other words, did the use of the term "the United States" in the Ohio plea
14
EFTA00103775
agreement bind the Western District of Pennsylvania and bar it from charging the same offenses
in a subsequent prosecution? The Court held that it did:
We hold, therefore, that when a United States Attorney negotiates
and contracts on behalf of "the United States" or "the
Government" in a plea agreement for specific crimes, that attorney
speaks for and binds all of his or her fellow United States
Attorneys with respect to those same crimes and those same
defendants.
Id. at 550 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Van Thournout, 100 F.3d 590, 594 (8th
Cir. 1996) ("Absent an express limitation, any promises made by an Assistant United States
Attorney in one district will bind an Assistant United States Attorney in another district.");
United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986) ("It is the Government at large—not
just specific United States Attorneys or United States `Districts'—that is bound by plea
agreements negotiated by agents of Government.").
This case presents the exact set of circumstances carved out by Annabi and directly
addressed in Gebbie. Here, the co-conspirator provision of the NPA provides that if Epstein
abides by the terms of the agreement, "the United States" will not institute any criminal charges
"against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein," which immunizes Ms. Maxwell for the
offenses covered by the NPA. (Ex. B at 5 of 7; see also Dkt. 207 at 7). As set forth above,
Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment are based on the same alleged conduct involving
Accuser-4 from 2001-2004 that was presented to the SDFL grand jury and formed the basis for
several overt acts of a conspiracy charge and a substantive sex trafficking offense against Epstein
in the proposed SDFL indictment. The prosecution of those offenses was abandoned as part of
the bargain struck in the NPA, which Epstein fully performed and from which Accuser-4
benefitted. In sum, the USAO-SDNY is trying to prosecute Ms. Maxwell in Counts Five and Six
for the identical charges that were resolved by the NPA. In these circumstances, Annabi and its
15
EFTA00103776
progeny do not control.8 The Court should instead follow Gebbie and find that NPA precludes
the USAO-SDNY from charging Counts Five and Six.
This result is consistent with the terms and the drafting history of the NPA. As noted in
our previous motion, the use of the phrase "the United States" in the co-conspirator immunity
provision of the NPA stands in stark contrast to Epstein's immunity provision, which is
expressly limited to the SDFL. (Dkt. 223 at 9-10). The broad language of the co-conspirator
provision reflects Epstein's desire, which his attorneys communicated to the USAO-SDFL, that
he would be "the only one who takes the blame for what happened" (Ex. A, OPR Report at 167
(internal quotations omitted)). Furthermore, it is consistent with Epstein's goal "to resolve
globally his state and federal criminal liability," which is set forth in the factual recitals of the
NPA. (Ex. B at 2 of 7; see also Ex. D ¶ 5 (declaration of AUSA A. Marie Villafaiia noting that
Epstein "sought a global resolution of the matter"). Epstein and his counsel were clearly aware
that the investigation had extended beyond the SDFL and involved New York-based witnesses.
Indeed, we now know from discovery recently produced by the government that the government
interviewed at least three New York-based witnesses in connection with the Florida
Investigation, two of whom implicated other potential co-conspirators of Epstein. (Exs. E-G).
Hence, these provisions of the NPA reflect Epstein's desire to ensure that he would not become
embroiled in subsequent prosecutions of his "potential co-conspirators" in any other districts.
(Dkt. 223 at 11).
Moreover, this result is consistent with fundamental fairness. Allowing a federal district
to prosecute a defendant for an offense that is identical to one that was already resolved as part of
8 For the same reasons, the Court is not bound by subsequent Second Circuit decisions interpreting Annabi, which
have found that the use of phrases like "the United States" or "the government" in a plea agreement does not create
an "affirmative appearance" to bind other districts. See Salameh, 152 F.3d at 120; Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x at 270;
United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994, at •2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002).
16
EFTA00103777
a non-prosecution agreement with another district would be a miscarriage of justice. See United
States v. Caner, 454 F.2d 426, 427-28 (4th Cir. 1972) (federally prosecuting defendant a second
time for the same charges previously resolved by a plea agreement with a different federal
district puts at stake "the honor of the government[,] public confidence in the fair administration
of justice, and the efficient administration of justice in a federal scheme of government");
Gebbie, 294 F.3d at 550 ("United States Attorneys should not be viewed as sovereigns of
autonomous fiefdoms. They represent the United States, and their promises on behalf of the
Government must bind each other absent express contractual limitations or disavowals to the
contrary."). For these reasons, the NPA bars the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Ms. Maxwell
for the offenses charged in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment. They must therefore be
dismissed.
C. Counts One and Three Must Also Be Dismissed.
Because Counts Five and Six must be dismissed, the expanded Mann Act conspiracies
charged in Counts One and Three must also be dismissed. In the S1 Indictment, the conspiracies
charged in Counts One and Three were confined to a four-year period from 1994-1997, which
the Court found was not covered by the NPA. (Dkt. 207 at 6-7). In the S2 Indictment, by
contrast, the conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three cover a much broader timeframe
from 1994-2004 because they incorporate the same conduct from 2001-2004 involving Accuser-
4 charged in Counts Five and Six. As previously discussed, the NPA bars the government from
prosecuting Ms. Maxwell for these offenses. Hence, as currently charged, the government could
offer inadmissible evidence excluded by the NPA as proof of Counts One and Three. It would
be impermissible for the jury to consider such evidence in connection with Counts One and
Three and any guilty verdict based on proof related to Accuser-4, or any other conduct covered
by the NPA, might require reversal. See United States v. Rooney, 37 F.3d 847, 855-56 (2d Cir.
17
EFTA00103778
1994) (reversal of conviction may be required due to "prejudicial spillover" in cases in which the
jury relies on inadmissible evidence related to an invalidated count to convict on the remaining
counts). Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Counts One and Three as well.
H. Prosecuting Ms. Maxwell on Counts Five and Six Would Violate Her Rights Under
the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Prosecuting Ms. Maxwell on Counts Five and Six would also violate her rights under the
Double Jeopardy Clause. The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person shall "be subject
for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." U.S. Const., Amend. V. The
Clause protects criminal defendants against "a second prosecution for the same offense after
acquittal," "a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction," and "multiple
punishments for the same offense." United States v. Lopez, 356 F.3d 463, 467 (2d Cir. 2004)
(quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969) overruled on other grounds by
Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (1989)). The Supreme Court first established the principle that
the Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense almost
150 years ago in Ex Parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (1873), and it is equally important as
the protection against a successive prosecution for the same offense.
If there is anything settled in the jurisprudence of England and
America, it is that no man can be twice lawfully punished for the
same offence. And ... there has never been any doubt of (this
rule's) entire and complete protection of the party when a second
punishment is proposed in the same court, on the same facts, for
the same statutory offense.
(T)he Constitution was designed as much to prevent the
criminal from being twice punished for the same offense as from
being twice tried for it.
Pearce, 395 U.S. at 717-18 (quoting Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) at 168) (emphasis added).
Here, it is beyond dispute that Epstein was already punished for the offenses covered by
the NPA. The NPA states that, in return for an agreement not to prosecute him for the offenses
18
EFTA00103779
specified in the NPA, Epstein had to fulfill a series of terms and conditions. These included: (1)
pleading guilty in Florida state court to one count of solicitation of prostitution and one count of
solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, (2) registering as a federal sex offender, (3)
paying for an attorney to represent his victims to sue him for personal injuries, and (4) waiving
his right to contest any damages awarded in those lawsuits up to an agreed-upon amount. (Ex. B
at 2-5 of 7). One of the government's "key objectives" in the NPA was "to preserve a federal
remedy" for Epstein's alleged victims. (Ex. D ¶ 5). Epstein fully performed these conditions
and paid over $12.5 million in settlements to multiple alleged victims. (Ex. H). Indeed, Epstein
paid $446,000 to the person we believe to be Accuser-4 and her attorneys. (Id.; Ex. I).
DataSet-10
Unknown
23 pages
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 1 of 23
PRIVILEGE LOQ
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "CORR RE GJ 6(e)
P-000001 SUBPOENAS" containing correspondence Work Product
thru related to various rand jury subpoenas and
P-000039 attorney handwritten notes
Box #1 Operation Leap Year Grand Jury Log 6(e)
P-000040 containing subpoenas OLY-01 through OLY-81, Work Product
thru correspondence and research related to Contains documents subject
P-000549 enforcement of same, documents produced in to investigative privilege
response to some subpoenas; and attorney Also contains documents
( ) handwritten notes subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Ritz Compact Flash SW" 6(e)
P-000550 containing copies of a sealed search warrant Contains information subject
thru application, warrant, and supporting documents to investigative privilege
P-000621 Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "PNY Technologies Compact 6(e)
P-000622 Flash SW" containing copies of a sealed search Contains information subject
thru warrant application, warrant, and supporting to investigative privilege
P-000693 documents Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "JE Corporations" containing Work Product
P-000694 attorney research on Epstein-owned corporations Contains information subject
thru and prior litigation to investigative privilege
P-000781
Box #1 File folder entitled "Capital One" 6(e)
P-000782 containing subpoena and correspondence
thru
P-000803
Box #1 File folder entitled "DTG Operations/Dollar 6(e)
P-000804 Rent-a-Car" containing subpoena and responsive Contains documents and
thru documents information subject to
P-000854 investigative privilege
Also contains documents and
information subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 1 of 23
EFTA00065065
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 2 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "JP Morgan Chase" 6(e)
P-000855 containing subpoena, correspondence, and Contains documents and
thru responsive documents information subject to
P-000937 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Washington Mutual" 6(e)
P-000938 containing subpoena, correspondence, and Contains documents and
thru responsive documents information subject to
P-000947 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Computer Search &" Work Product
P-000948 containing legal research on computer search and Attorney-Client
thru handwritten notes on indictment preparation Contains information subject
P-000982 to investigative privilege.
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Attorney Notes from Work product
P-000983 Document Review" containing typed and 6(e)
thru handwritten attorney a notes, target Contains information subject
P-001007 letters, correspondence re grand jury subpoena to investigative privilege.
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Notes from Fed Ex Records" Work Product
P-001008 containing handwritten and typed attorney 6(e)
thru notes and screen shots of FedEx Contains information subject
P-001056 subpoena response electronic file to investigative privilege.
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Colonial Bank Records" 6(e)
P-001057 containing records received in response to grand Contains information subject
thru jury subpoena to investigative privilege
P-001959
Box #1 File folder entitled "OLY Grand Jury Log Vol 2: 6(e)
P-001960 OLY-51 THROUGH" containing subpoenas Contains information subject
Thru numbered OLY-51 through OLY-81 with related to investigative privilege.
P-002089 correspondence Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Page 2 of 23
EFTA00065066
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 3 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "Epstein Corporate Records: 6(e)
P-002090 OLY-51, OLY-52, OLY-53, OLY-54" containing Contains information and
Thru subpoenas, records received in response to documents subject to
P-002169 subpoenas, and related correspondence investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Colonial Bank" containing 6(e)
P-002170 subpoenas, correspondence related to subpoenas, Contains information and
Thru records received in response to subpoenas documents subject to
P-002246 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "JEGE & Hyperion from 6(e)
P-002247 Goldberger OLY-46 & OLY-47" containing Contains information and
Thru documents received in response to subpoenas documents subject to
P-002265 investigative privilege
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing: Work product
P-002266 Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity 6(e)
Thru summary chart, witness/victim names and contact Contains information and
P-002386 list, attorney a handwritten notes, 302s, documents subject to
rtions of state investigative file, attorney investigative privilege. Also
typed notes, of individuals listed as contains information and
"Additional victims" documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing: Work product
P-002387 Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity 6(e)
Thru summary chart, witness/victim names and contact Contains information and
P-002769 list, attorney (=. handwritten notes, 302s, documents subject to
'lions of state investigative file, attorney investigative privilege. Also
yped notes, relevant pieces of grand contains information and
jury materials, telephone records/flight records documents subject to privacy
analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, rights of victims who are not
records, NCICs, and related materials for parties to this litigation
persons identified as Jane Does #15, 16, 17, 18,
19, Past Employees, Misc. Witnesses
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing: Work product
P-002770 witness/victim list with identifying information, 6(e)
Thru sexual activity summary, telephone call summary Contains information and
P-003211 chart, attorney ( ) handwritten notes, documents subject to
302s, portions of state investigative file, attorney investigative privilege. Also
( (t) typed notes, relevant pieces of grand contains information and
jury materials, telephone records/flight records documents subject to privacy
analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, rights of victims who are not
records, NCICs, and related materials for parties to this litigation
persons identified as Jane Does #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8
Page 3 of 23
EFTA00065067
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 4 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing meta- Work product
P-003212 analysis charts of telephone/flight/grand jury 6(e)
Thru information for a number of victim/witnesses, Contains information and
P-003545 and documents subject to
investigative privilege. Also
contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 FBI Reports of March 2008 interviews of Work product
P-003546 additional witness/victim located in New York 6(e)
Thru Contains information and
P-003552 documents subject to
investigative privilege. Also
contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 Printout of filenames from Federal Express Work product
P-003553 subpoena response with Attorney notations 6(e)
Thru
P-003555B
Box #1 Document entitled "Identified Numbers" with Work product
P-003556 accompanying handwritten attorney list compiled 6(e)
Thru from grand jury materials and attorney analysis of Contains information subject
P-003562 records to investigative privilege
Box #1 Folder entitled "Flight Manifests" containing 6(e)
P-003563 manifests received pursuant to grand jury Contains information and
Thru subpoena documents subject to
P-003629 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Recent Attorney Notes" Work product
P-003630 containing handwritten attorney ( ) notes 6(e)
Thru regarding document review an case strategy Investigative privilege
P-003633 Deliberative process
Box #1 File folder bearing victim name containing FBI Work product
P-003634 interview report from May 2008, telephone Attorney-client privilege
Thru activity report with attorney I ) 6(e)
P-003646 handwritten notes, related grand jury material Investigative privilege
Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 4 of 23
EFTA00065068
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 5 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "Summary of Sexual Activity" Work product
P-003647 containing chart bearing handwritten title "Sexual 6(e)
Thru Activity — Summary" with meta-analysis of Investigative privilege
P-003651 information, sorted by name of each Deliberative process
victim/witness, including name and identifying Also contains information and
information of each victim/witness documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Victim Civil Suits" Not privileged.
P-003652 Produced to counsel for
Thru Petitioners
P-003663
Box #1 File folder entitled "Research re JE Websites" Work product
P-003664 containing attorney research
Thru
P-003678
Box #1 File folder entitled " (N.Y. AUSA)" Work product
P-003679 containing attorney ( ) handwritten notes
Thru
P-003680
Box #1 File folder entitled "Dr. containing Work product
P-003681 attorney ) memo to expert witness and Investigative privilege
Thru handwritten attorney notes
P-003687
Box #1 File folder entitled " Interview" containing Work product
P-003688 attorney handwritten notes of interview, and Investigative privilege
Thru attorney handwritten notes regarding potential Also contains information
P-003693 charges subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Research re Travel for Work product
P-003694 Prostitution" containing attorney (MM.) 6(e)
Thru handwritten notes regarding grand jury Investigative privilege
P-003711 presentation, chart entitled "Brought to Epstein's Also contains information and
House" with handwritten notes, Message Pad documents subject to privacy
meta-analysis chart, summary of evidence related rights of victims who are not
to one victim/witness, and relevant grand jury parties to this litigation
information
Box #1 Empty file folder bearing name of victim/witness Investigative privilege
P-003712 Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victim who is not a party to
this litigation
Page 5 of 23
EFTA00065069
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 6 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled " ' containing grand 6(e)
P-003713 jury subpoenas, motion order to compel Documents under seal
Thru testimony, and correspondence regarding same pursuant to court order
P-003746
Box #1 File folder entitled containing 6(e)
P-003747 subpoena and correspondence regarding same
Thru
P-003751
Box #1 File folder entitled "PBPD Investigative File" 6(e)
P-003752 obtained via subpoena Investigative privilege
Thru Also contains information and
P-004295 documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-004296 containing meta-analysis chart showing telephone 6(e)
Thru calls, travel, and grand jury materials relevant to Investigative privilege
P-004350 possible charges Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
arties to this liti ation
Box #1 File folder entitled " ocuments Work product
P-004351 53909-004" containing attorney research related
Thru to bias issue
P-004381
Box #1 File Folder entitled "FEDEX" containing 6(e)
P-004382 documents obtained via subpoena Investigative privilege
Thru
P-004478
Box #1 File Folder entitled "State of Delaware Records" 6(e)
P-004479 containing documents obtained in preparation for Investigative privilege
Thru indictment Work product
P-004551
Box #1 File folder entitled "Jet Blue Records" containing 6(e)
P-004552 documents obtained via subpoena Work product
Thru Investigative privilege
P-004555 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "FL EMPLOYMENT Investigative privilege
P-004556 RECORDS" containing FDLE records on targets Work product
Thru and witnesses obtained at attorney request
P-004560
Page 6 of 23
EFTA00065070
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 7 of 23
Bates Ran e Descri tion Privile s Asserted
ff
Box #1 Filed folder entitled " Work product
P-004561 containing attorney ( handwritten notes Investigative privilege
Thru of interview
P-004565
Box #1 File folder entitled " 6(e)
P-004566 RECORDS 23-0001 THROUGH 23-" containing Work product
Thru documents obtained via subpoena Investigative privilege
P-004716 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled ' Work product
P-004717 containing attorney research regarding witness Investigative privilege
Thru
P-004722
Box #1 File folder entitled "BEAR STEARNS Work Product
P-004723 RESEARCH" containing attorney research Investigative privilege
Thru regarding potential witness and subpoena
P-004725 recipient
Box #1 File folder entitled "LAWSUITS INVOLVING Work Product
P-004726 EPSTEIN CORP'S" containing attorney research Investigative privilege
Thru regarding Epstein's past personal and business
P-004819 litigative practices
Box #1 Filed folder entitled "SEC RECORDS" Work Product
P-004820 containing attorney research regarding Epstein Investigative privilege
Thru financial relationships
P-004959
Box #1 File folder entitled "Message Pads" containing Work Product
P-004960 selected items from evidence obtained via 6(e)
Thru subpoena Investigative privilege
P-005059 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work Product
P-005060 containing correspondence with counsel for 6(e)
Thru victim/witness, attorney witness outline with Investigative privilege
P-005081 attorney handwritten notes, attorney handwritten Also contains information and
notes regarding witness reports and case documents subject to privacy
preparation rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "New York Trip" containing Work product
P-005082 attorney notes re witness interview Investigative privilege
Thru
P-005083
Page 7 of 23
EFTA00065071
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 8 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
P-005084 thru P-005107 are non responsive
documents and have been removed
Box #1 File folder entitled " containing Work product
P-005108 attorney research on select expert, use of experts Investigative privilege
Thru at trials in child exploitation cases, and additional
P-005193 research materials on offenders and victims
Box #1 File folder entitled "Extra Copies" containing Work product
P-005194 meta-analysis chart and 302's of victim/witnesses 6(e)
Thru used in preparing indictment package Investigative privilege
P-005300 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
arties to this liti ation
Box #1 File folder entitled 6(e)
P-005301 STATEMENT' containing transcript obtained via Investigative privilege
Thru subpoena
P-005331
Box #1 File folder entitled ' ' containing Work product
P-005332 attorney research on select expert, including Investigative privilege
Thru attorney handwritten notes
P-005341
Box #1 File folder entitled "Info re Planes" containing 6(e)
P-005342 correspondence regarding subpoenas and Investigative privilege
Thru documents received in response to subpoenas
P-005387
Box #1 File folder entitled "Police Reports & PC Work product
P-005388 Affidavit" containing portions of police reports 6(e)
Thru with attorney notes, related phone records, a list Investigative privilege
P-005442 entitled "Victims" with identifying information Also contains information and
and attorney handwritten notes, photographs and documents subject to privacy
Ma information, and additional attorney rights of victims who are not
research regarding Epstein sexual activity parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "[Victim name] Transcript of 6(e)
P-005443 Interview & GJ Transcript" Investigative privilege
Thru Also contains information and
P-005496 documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Bear Stearns Subpoena 6(e)
P-005497 Resp." containing material received in response Investigative privilege
Thru to subpoena
P-005556
Page 8 of 23
EFTA00065072
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 9 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 U.S. Attorney's Office Criminal Case File Jacket Work product
P-005557 containing file opening documents, expert Deliberative process
Thru witness payment documents
P-005576
Box #1 U.S. Attorney's Office Asset Forfeiture Case File Work product
P-005578 Jacket containing file opening and file closing Deliberative process
Thru documents
P-005583
Box #1 File folder entitled "6001 Immunity Request" 6(e)
P-005584 containing internal memoranda seeking witness Work product and
Thru immunity and correspondence with counsel for deliberative process (as to
P-005606 witness regarding same internal memoranda)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "MASTER PHONE Work product
P-005607 RECORDS" containing meta-analysis of all 6(e)
Thru phone, travel, and grand jury data for all Investigative privilege
P-005914 victim/witnesses for indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-005915 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 6(e)
Thru grand jury data related to that victim/witness for Investigative privilege
P-005977 indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-005978 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 6(e)
Thru grand jury data related to that victim/witness for Investigative privilege
P-006050 indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-006051 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 6(e)
Thru grand jury data related to that victim/witness for Investigative privilege
P-006065 indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 9 of 23
EFTA00065073
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 10 of
23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #2 File folder entitled "JANE DOE #4" containing Work product
P-006066 meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury 6(e)
Thru data related to that victim/witness for indictment Investigative privilege
P-006220 preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled 'JANE DOE #12" containing Work product
P-006221 meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury 6(e)
Thru data related to that victim/witness for indictment Investigative privilege
P-006222 preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "CORRECTED PHONE Work product
P-006223 RECORDS 5/31/07" containing meta-analysis of 6(e)
Thru all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to all Investigative privilege
P-006522 victims/witnesses for indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim Name) Phone Work product
P-006523 Records" containing telephone records received 6(e)
Thru in response to subpoena Investigative privilege
P-006802 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "Lists of Identified Phone Work product
P-006803 Numbers" containing charts of information culled 6(e)
Thru from grand jury materials, interviews, and other Investigative privilege
P-006860 investigation, with attorney handwritten notes, Also contains information and
and information to issue follow-up grand jury documents subject to privacy
subpoena rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "EPSTEIN CELL Work product
P-006861 PHONE RECORDS" containing documents 6(e)
Thru received via subpoena with attorney handwritten Investigative privilege
P-007785 notes and highlighting Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 10 of 23
EFTA00065074
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 11 of
23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #2 Folder entitled "OLY GRAND JURY LOG: Work product
P-007786 OLY-01 THROUGH OLY-50" containing 6(e)
Thru subpoenas, correspondence regarding same, 6(e) Investigative privilege
P-008120 letters, attorney handwritten notes regarding Also contains information and
records received in response to subpoenas documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 Handwritten flight logs received in response to 6(e)
P-008121 subpoena Investigative privilege
Thru
P-008139
Box #2 Grand jury presentation folder containing Work product
P-008140 attorney handwritten notes, typed outline with 6(e)
Thru additional handwritten notes, complete indictment Investigative privilege
P-008298 package dated 2/19/2008, victim list with Also contains information and
identifying information, photographs, and documents subject to privacy
summary of activity rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "FINAL AGREEMENTS"
P-008299 containing subfolder entitled "Agrmts Filed in
Thru State Court" (P-008300-P-008327 [not being
P-008363 withheld as privileged — have been produced to
opposing counsel]); signed Non-Prosecution
Agreement, Addendum, and operative portion of
12/19/2007 letter (P-008328-P-
008343 [not being withheld as privileged — have
been produced to opposin counsel]); subfolder
entitled "12/19/07
containing unredacted copies of that letter (P-
008344-P-008363 [pursuant to Court's Order, not
being withheld as privileged — will be produced
to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11'"
Circuit])
Box #2 File folder entitled ")'Immunity Request" 6(e)
P-008364 containing internal memoranda, Justice Work Product
Thru Department documentation, and subpoena Deliberative Process
P-008382 regarding immunity request Investigative privilege
Box #2 File folder containing March 18, 2008 grand jury Work product
P-008383 presentation materials, including "Operation Leap 6(e)
Thru Year Revised Indictment Summary Chart (by Investigative privilege
P-008516 victim)," grand jury materials, draft indictments, Deliberative process
victim reference list, grand jury subpoena log Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 11 of 23
EFTA00065075
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 12 of
23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #2 6/25/2007 Letter from
P-008517
Thru [pursuant to Court's Order, not being withheld as
P-008535 privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel
upon lift of stay by 11'" Circuit]
Box #2 Handwritten attorney notes to prepare for Work product
P-008536 interview of Jane Doe #2 Investigative Privilege
Thru Contains information subject
P-008542 to privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this suit
Box #2 Handwritten attorney notes regarding May 8, Work product
P-008543 2007 grand jury presentation 6(e)
Thru Investigative privilege
P-008549 Contains information subject
to privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this suit
Box #2 File folder entitled "Most Recent Indictment & Work product
P-008550 Good Cases" containing draft indictment and 6(e)
Thru legal research Investigative privilege
P-008615 Deliberative process
Contains information subject
to privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this suit
Box #2 File folder entitled "FBI Summary Charts" Work product
P-008616 containing chart prepared at direction of AUSA, Attorney-Client Privilege
Thru containing victim names, identifying information, 6(e)
P-008686 summary of activity, and other information Investigative privilege
relevant to indictment Contains information subject
to privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this suit
Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #4" Work product
P-008687 containing phone records and meta-analysis of all 6(e)
Thru phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that Investigative privilege
P-008776 victim/witness for indictme
DataSet-10
Unknown
23 pages
1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
3
4
5
6
ORIGINAL
7 RE: OPERATION LEAP YEAR
8
9
10
1 1
12 TESTIMONY
13 OF
14 SPECIAL AGENT
15
16
17
18 Federal Grand Jury 07-103
Federal Building
19 U.S. Courthouse
West Palm Beach, Florida
20 Tuesday, March 20, 2007
21
22 APPEARANCES:
23
Assistant United States Attorney
24
HELENA JOSETTE JONES-PARSONS,
25 Foreperson
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LI.0
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179366
2
1 The sworn testimony of SPECIAL AGENT
2 was taken before the Federal
3 Grand Jury, West Palm Beach Division, Federal
4 Building, U.S. Courthouse, Palm Beach County,
5 State of Florida, on Tuesday, March 20, 2007.
6 Certified Court
7 Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida,
8 Official Reporting Service, LLC, 524 South Andrews
9 Avenue, Suite 302N, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
10 33301 , was authorized to and did report the sworn
11 testimony.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179367
3
1 (Witness enters the Grand Jury Room.)
2 THE FOREPERSON: You do solemnly swear
3 that the testimony you give will be .the
4 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
5 truth, so help you God?
6 THE WITNESS: I do.
7 THE FOREPERSON: Thank you. Please be
8 seated.
9 EXAMINATION
10 BY MS.
11 Q Special Agent could you
12 please state and spell your name for the record?
13 A It's It's
14
15 Q Now Special Agent last week
16 or the last time that we met, we discussed two
17 girls, correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Who visited Mr. Epstein's home?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And those were and
22 A Yes.
23 Q Did you obtain photographs of those
24 girls?
25 Yes, I did.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179368
4
1 Q And do you know approximately when those
2 photographs were taken?
3 A They were taken during the same time
4 period that we are investigating, '04 and '05.
5 There may have been a few in '03, but it was
6 within a year's time of six months within the
7 activity that we are investigating.
8 Q All right. Let me show you what has
9 been marked as Grand Jury Exhibits 1 and 2, and
10 can you tell us what Exhibit 1 is?
11 A Exhibit 1 is and it's a
12 photograph of her with her date of birth listed.
13 Q And what is Exhibit 2?
14 A A photograph of with her date
15 of birth as well on it.
16 MS. And I will just pass
17 those to the grand jury.
18 BY MS.
19 Q Now the last time that we were here, you
20 had described how Haley R. had brought
21 to Mr. Epstein's home?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Did Haley R. bring other girls to I I
24 Epstein house?
25 A Yes, she did.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179369
5
1 Q And is one of those girls
2 A Yes.
3 Q And what is the date of birth of
4
5 A She was born June 6, 1987.
6 Q And where did go to high
7 school?
8 A Royal Palm Beach High School.
9 Q And is that the same school that
10 went to?
1 1 A Yes.
12 Q And was ever a student at that
13 school?
14 A Yes, she was.
15 Q Tell us a little bit about -- well,
16 first of all, did the Palm Beach Police Department
17 have a chance to interview
18 A Yes, they did.
19 Q And what about yourself?
20 A And I did as well.
21 Q Okay. Tell us, if you will, how
22 started going to Mr. Epstein's house?
23 A Haley was the one who brought to
24 Mr. Epstein's house. Haley told that she
25 may have to remove her clothing and that she could
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179370
6
1 makes $200 if she performed a massage for Mr.
2 Epstein.
3 She also was told by that he may
4 try to touch you, but if you are uncomfortable,
5 just tell him no, and she also said that if
6 Epstein asked her age, she was to say she was 18.
7 Q Now that information that you just
8 relayed, who provided that information?
9
10 Q And what did
11 A I'm sorry. provided in the
12 interview to me that information.
13 Q Did Haley also admit that she brought
14 Mr. Epstein's home?
L o
15 A Yes.
16 Q When did this first occur?
17 A This occurred in -- we believe the first
18 time period was when was 16.
19 Q And is there any telephone records that
20 show communications between and
21
22 A Yes.
23 • And when are those phone records?
24 A Those phone records show up in March of
25 '04 when would be 16.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179371
7
1 Q Let me show what has been marked as
2 Grand Jury Exhibit Number 3, and what is Exhibit
3 3?
4 A This is a photograph of . with
5 her date of birth,
6 Q Now you mentioned that in March of 2004
7 and April of 2004, there are these records of
8 phone calls and did say how old she was
9 when she first went to Mr. Epstein's house?
10 A I'm sorry. Did say how old she
11 was?
12 Q Did she tell you or the police officers
13 how old she was?
14 A Yes. I'm sorry. I thought your
15 question was did she tell Mr. Epstein.
16 She told me that she was 16 when she
17 went to Mr. Epstein's house.
18 Q Okay. That is consistent with those
19 phones calls?
20 A Yes, it is.
21 Q Okay. Now during her first visit with
22 Mr. Epstein, what happened?
23 A She went to Mr. Epstein's house. MENEM
24 took her there. told her she didn't have
25 her driver's license at that time, which she told
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179372
8
1 her she got her driver's license when she was 17.
2 So drove her to Mr. Epstein's
3 house. She provided Mr. Epstein with a few
4 massages. She remained clothed both times that
5 she gave him a massage. At this time, she kept
6 her clothes on.
7 I think one time she was wearing shorts
8 and a T-shirt, maybe the second time she was
9 wearing jeans and a T-shirt. That he constantly
10 grabbed and pulled at her during the massage
11 trying to draw her closer to him, but at that
12 time, you know, there was no sexual activity other
13 than the grabbing and pulling.
14 There was no sexual activity that took
15 place on those first couple of massages, and she
16 remained clothed at that time.
17 Q Now after those first few massages, was
18 there a break in time before returns to
19 the Epstein house?
20 A told us that she and had
21 had some kind of a fight or a disagreement, a
22 breakup in their relationship, so there was a time
23 period where she did not go back to Mr. Epstein's
24 house.
25 Q And when -- did there then come a time
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179373
9
1 when she returned to the Epstein house?
2 A Yes. We have phone activity between
3 beginning in December
4 of '04.
5 Q And how old was in December
6 of '04?
7 A She had turned 17 at that time. In
8 fact, through the course of the phone records
9 beginning in December of '04 to October of 2005,
10 we have over 150 phone calls between Z.
11 and , Mr. Epstein's assistant.
12 Q What did . tell you about the
13
14 in late '04?
15 A When she started giving Mr. Epstein
16 massages after that break, the massages became
17 much more sexual in nature. Mr. Epstein continued
18 to push and there were many times when
19 would perform massages completely nude.
20 Several times, she would stay in her
21 underwear with no bra on, but stated to me that
22 many occasions she performed the massages to Mr.
23 Epstein in the nude.
24 Q In addition to being unclothed, was
25 there other sexual activity?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179374
10
1 A Yes, there was. during my
2 interview with she became very upset when
3 discussing the sexual activity that took place at
4 that time.
5 She stated that Mr. Epstein had
6 digitally penetrated her. It began first by
7 rubbing her on the outside of her vagina and then
8 on more than one occasion actually penetrating her
9 with his fingers.
10 He would request her to pinch his
11 nipples. He rubbed her breasts as well. She
12 stated that there was a vibrator that was used on
13 her vagina as well, did not penetrate her, but
14 that she described the vibrator as being a white
15 vibrator with a gray head, and several of the
16 other victims have said the same thing, described
17 it similar to that.
18 Q And just before I forget, when you
19 testified about . , did . also report
20 having a vibrator used on her?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And, again, so the record is clear, when
23 you are talking about these vibrators, they are
24 the large back massager type vibrator?
25 A We have had some girls just describe
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179375
11
1 them as a vibrator. We have had some girls just
2 describe them as a back massager and then we also
3 had girls describe them as both, because of the
4 size of it, I think some girls are more aware of
5 what a vibrator would look like due to their ages.
6 You know, I don't know that everybody
7 knew exactly what a sexual vibrator looked like,
8 but they all vibrated, and we have actually had
9 that described, and described it as both,
10 a vibrator slash massager, saying that it was, you
11 know, large in nature.
12 Q Okay. Now in addition to using that
13 massager and digitally penetrating , was
14 there other sexual activity?
15 A Yes. Several times during the massages,
16 Mr. Epstein would have straddle him while
17 he laid on his stomach and then he would reach
18 between her legs and masturbate and
19 occasionally --
20 Q And this is when he was laying on his
21 back not his stomach?
22 A I'm sorry. Did I say that?
23 Q You said on his stomach.
24 A He is laying on his back. She's on top
25 of him straddled, and he is reaching between her
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179376
12
1 masturbating, and he has attempted to put his
2 penis on her vagina, never penetrating her, but
3 that was what was described to us by
4 Q Now when was first interviewed
5 by the Palm Beach Police?
6 A She was interviewed October 6th of 2005.
7 Q And at that time, did she say when her
8 last visit was to Mr. Epstein's house?
9 A Yes, she said October 1st, 2005, was the
10 last massage that she had given Mr. Epstein.
11 Q Is there any other evidence that was
12 recovered from Mr. Epstein's or his household
13 items that would confirm that statement?
14 A We have a message pad. During the
15 search warrant, several of the message pads - I
16 don't know if we referred to them at this stage.
17 We may not have.
18 We recovered -- well, I shouldn't say
19 we, the Palm Beach Police Department recovered
20 several message pads. They were carbon copy
21 message pads.
22 So we have several of those books from
23 their search warrant and in there, there is a
24 message on October 1st confirming
25 appointment for the massage as well as another
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179377
13
1
2 Q And is there also evidence that
3 and Kellen actually spoke on October 1st
4 before that message?
5 A We have cell phone calls between
6 Kellen and as well as the message which
was from to Jeffrey regarding -- confirming
8 the appointment for , but we have a cell
9 phone call I believe it was a little bit earlier
10 from to or maybe it was to
11 , but it is definitely between the two . of
12 them on that same day.
13 Q All right. When was interviewed
14 by the Palm Beach Police Department, did she
15 describe all of the sexual activity?
16 A No, she did not. She did not tell them
17 about the vibrator or the -- she didn't tell them
18 about the vibrator or the penetration.
19 Q And, again, you said that when you
20 brought up -- did you sort of confront her with
21 the idea that more had occurred?
22 A I did, and she was very embarrassed
23 about the vibrator. I asked her at one point if
24 Mr. Epstein had given her any gifts and she got
25 very red in the face and began to tear up and you
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179378
14
1 could see that she was very embarrassed.
2 So we took a little bit of a break, but
3 then she was able to say that Mr. Epstein had
4 provided her as a birthday present a vibrator. So
5 not only was there a vibrator back massager used
6 on her, but at this time -- and I think that's
7 kind of what got talking about the sexual
8 activity that she was able to tell me that, and
9 she was very, very embarrassed, but that Mr.
10 Epstein had given her for her eighteenth birthday
11 a vibrator.
12 Q Now you mentioned that that happened on
13 her eighteenth birthday?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And was she able to tell you whether Mr.
16 Epstein knew it was her eighteenth birthday?
17 A She stated that Mr. Epstein provided to
18 her on her eighteenth birthday the vibrator and
19 shortly -- well --
20 Q So before you had said that Haley had
21 instructed to tell everyone that she was
22 18; do you remember that?
23 A Yes.
24 Q But at some point, the people in the
25 Epstein household learned that she hadn't turned
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179379
1
1 18 yet and her birthday was coming up?
2 A Her birthday was coming up.
3 Q And at some point, was a car provided
4 for
5 A Yes. In October. of '05, was
6 having asked Mr. Epstein is she could
7 borrow one of his cars to go to Orlando and he
8 stated that -- at first he said yes, and then he
9 said he would get her a rental car.
10 So contacted a few days
11 later and said that a car had been rented for
12 and that the house manager used the
13 company credit card and picked up that
14 car, and actually when the police interviewed her
15 on October 6th, which was five or six days after
16 the last massage, they were able to see that that
17 Nissan Sentra that had been rented by Mr. Epstein,
18 had that in her possession for at least
19 through January 1st of 2006 and that car was
20 rented by Mr. Epstein for at least that amount of
21 time.
22 Q Did describe how the massage
23 appointments would be made?
24 A Yes, she did.
25 Q And how was that?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179380
1 A She stated that Kellen, that
2 , Jeffrey's assistant, would call her and set
3 up appointments, and that sometimes she would call
4 her on her cell phone from New York, from the
5 Islands, and say that they were coming into town,
6 was she available.
7 She would also call while they
8 were in town to see if she was available for
9 massages, to give massages to Mr. Epstein, and
10 stated that Nadia, who we have identified as Nadia
11 Marcinkova, called her a few times as well to set
12 appointments up.
13 Q And when those appointments were made
14 how would reach
15 A By phone.
16 Q All right. And whether she was in town
17 or out of town, she would call cell
18 phone?
19 A Yes.
20 Q All right. Now was there any -- during
21 the interview with the police department, did the
22 police department ask about what she
23 discussed with Jeffrey Epstein during the
24 massages?
25 A I would have to check the police reports
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179381
1 to give specifics on that.
2 Q All right.
3 A My answer to your question is yes.
4 Q Okay. And what did she say were some of
5 the topics of discussion?
6 A Mr. Epstein asked her questions about
7 herself, asked her if she was a soccer player or
8 that -- Jeffrey knew that she was a soccer player
9 and asked questions about her college, about where
10 she was going to school.
11 is currently going to
12 , and she had advised Mr. Epstein that
13 she would be attending college at
14 Q So that was a -- but that was her future
15 plan?
16 A Yes.
17 Q So in other words, did Mr. Epstein know
18 that she was in high school at the time?
19 A Yes, he did. And the Palm Beach Police
20 asked if Jeffrey knew her age and
21 told the Palm Beach Police Department, he didn' t
22 care what my age was.
23 Q Now did describe either to you
24 or to the police department how she would be paid
25 for these massages?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179382
18
1 A She stated she was paid $200 and that
2 she received anywhere from two to $300.
3 Q With every visit?
4 A With each visit.
5 Q Okay. Did she say who would provide her
6 with that money?
7 A She said that Jeffrey paid her at the
8 end of the massage.
9 Q All right. You mentioned the gift of
10 the vibrator. Were there other gifts that were
11 given to
12 A Yes. The time period is unclear, but
13 the vibrator was given to her for her eighteenth
14 birthday. There were three sets of bra and
15 underwear, panties, Victoria Secret bra and
16 underwear sets that were also given to as
17 gifts from Mr. Epstein.
18 Q Now I know that we talked earlier about
19 the fact that Haley is the person who brought
20 to Mr. Epstein's house. Did ever
21 bring anyone to Mr. Epstein's house?
22 A brought a female by the name of
23 M. and that was a friend of
24 Q And let me show you what has been marked
25 as Grand Jury Exhibit 4, and what is Grand Jury
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179383
19
1 Exhibit 4?
2 A It's a photograph of M. with a
3 date of birth of 6-1-1986.
4 Q How old was M. when took
5 her to Mr. Epstein's house?
6 A took her there in the spring of
7 2005 and was 18 at that time.
8 Q Now can you tell us now went
9 about bringing to the house?
10 A told that she could make
11 some money giving a massage to Mr. Epstein and
17. and went to Mr. Epstein's house
13 together.
14 The first time that went there,
15 she did not go upstairs and give him a massage.
16 was working that day. But in talking to
17 further, stated that she probably
18 over the period of time between the spring of '05
19 and October of '05, performed around five to ten
20 massages for Mr. Epstein.
21 The first few of those he did not do
22 anything as far as no masturbating, no sexual
23 activity. She would just perform a massage.
24 Q And did that change over time?
25 A Yes, it did. She stated that she
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179384
20
1 performed two to three massages out of those five
2 or ten and in her underwear and bra only, and
3 that he would push her each time.
4 He would just push her to do more and on
S the third -- I believe she stated the third or
6 fourth massage, he told her that she could make
7 more money if she removed her clothing, because
8 she stayed clothed during the first few massages,
9 and she was paid $200 for each of those massages.
10 On the third or fourth massage, Mr.
11 Epstein said that she could make more money if she
12 removed her clothing. So around the fourth or
13 fifth time, she did start taking off her clothing
14 down to her underwear and bra only.
15 Q And then what happened when she was at
16 that point of being unclothed?
17 A She would perform the massage. He
18 attempted to touch her, but she always would say
19 no. At one point, her bra does get undone by Mr.
20 Epstein, but she does keep it up.
21 Q Now that was the extent of his touching
22 At some point, did he begin masturbating
23 in front of her?
24 A Yes, he did. Not in the very beginning,
25 but throughout this he did. Now I should tell you
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179385
21
1 that stated to us that because she was kind
2 of reserved or held back as he made advances
3 towards her, she was able to see Mr. Epstein's
4 penis and that he was masturbating, but that he
5 never finished, that he never ejaculated. She did
6 not feel that Mr. Epstein liked her very much.
7 Q But just to sort of compare what
8 said with what said, they both said that
9 at the beginning they remained clothed?
10 A Yes.
1 1 Q And that Mr. Epstein progressively
12 pushed and pushed and pushed for more sexual
13 activity?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Now what was the period of time that
16 went to Mr. Epstein's home?
17 A March of I'm sorry, spring of '05 is
18 when said that she went there and around,
19 you know, the investigation is heating up with
20 Palm Beach, so we know that in September of '05,
21 there was a trash pull done, and in that trash
22 pull there was a message and that was found and it
23 stated -- it had phone number on it and
24 it stated, for a good time call and
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179386
22
1 Q And whose stationery was that?
2 A It was on Jeffrey Epstein's stationery.
3 Q And had Jeffrey Epstein been in a Palm
4 Beach resident close to those dates?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Now is there evidence of telephone calls
7 between and Kellen?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And how many phone calls have you been
10 able to identify?
11 A At this time, there have been 14 phone
12 calls.
13 Q All right. And just to compare that to
14 the number of phone calls with
15 A With , there was over 150 phone
16 calls between and Kellen.
17 Q And that is sort of consistent with the
18 number of massages that did versus the
19 number of massages that did?
20 A It is consistent with especially the
21 activity that was providing Mr. Epstein
22 compared to the activity that would
23 provide.
24 (Thereupon, knocking is heard at the
25 Grand Jury door.)
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179387
23
1 MS. Let me just step out for
2 one moment.
3 (Ms. exits the Grand Jury
4 Room.)
5 (Ms. enters the Grand Jury
6 Room.)
7 MS. Ladies and gentlemen, I
8 am going to have to take a break now and we
9 will be back either next week or the
10 following week. Thank you very much. You
11 are done for the day.
12 (Witness was excused.)
13
14
15 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
16
17 , Certified Court
18 Reporter and Notary Public, do certify that the
19 transcript is a true and correct transcription of
20 my stenotype notes of the testimony of
21 SPECIAL AGENT I. , taken before
22 the Federal Grand Jury, West Palm Beach, Florida.
23
24 Certified Co rt Reporter
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00179388
DataSet-10
Unknown
39 pages
EXHIBIT B
EFTA00090773
SOD-NY-3027571 Serial 168
-1 of 1 -
FD-302 (Rev 5410)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
natatory 07/23/2019
MMOMMA MOW, date of birth (DOB) , residence
address , was interviewed at her
residence. Aterbeing advised o teientity of the interviewing Agent,
Task Force Officer and the nature of the interview, Inns provided the
following information:
When questioned why she thought AGENTS from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) were at her residence, she responded "JEFFREY EPSTEIN".
Imp immediately advised that she had counsel and she wanted to speak with
her counsel before any questioning. was served the Grand Jury Subpoena.
provided her attorney name, JOSEPH E NASCIMENTO, of Ross Amsel, Raben
and Nascimento Law Firm, telephone number
AGENTS immediately terminated the interview served 'lir with a Federal
Grand Jury Subpoena. date of birth was present
and witnessed the service of the Federal Grand Jury Subpoena. IOW provided
the AGENTS with a Florida Driver's License as form of
identification.
'mongolian on 07/06/2019 at Miami, Florida, United States (In Person)
Aka 31E-NY -3027571 Dale drafted 07/1B /2C19
by moor 'I'll.- 0-
Tits document coolants headier mamma:mons not conclusions of the FBI II u the many of me FIJI and is loaned to your ataxy; a and as eaalme ate not
to be dishbated outside you agency
3524-007
Page I of I
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9110, 15, and 17
EFTA00090774
FO.S02(Rey s.lik)
-1 of 11 -
FEDERAL BUREAU OFINVESTIGATION 0 °mkt% 1#000no
Dmedemq 11/26/2919
date of birth (DOE) was interviewed
pursuant to a proffer agreement at Nest Palm Beach,
Florida. Present for the interview was s a Conley Joseph
Nascimento, along with AUSA , AUSA Special Agent
I'm III'', and Detective M. IIIII. After being advised of the identity
of the interviewing Agents and the nature of the interview, provided
the following information:
was born in Poland; she graduated high school in Poland.
traveled as a model and arrived in the United States at the end of 2002.
left Poland when she was approximately 29/20 years old. met
het first husband, IIII, in Monaco. was a model on a
television show called "Model Flat". had a connection with a model
agency in Miami named "Elite Models'. helped ROSS; was a
photographer and was a model. Some of the places modeled in
were Taiwan and Miami, Florida. t had a friend who had a small CPA
firm where she worked for approximately 2 to 2.5 years. worked at
this CPA firm while working towards her associate's degree. married
in approximately July 2003 and they divorced in approximately 2011.
earned her associate's degree frog_ and her
bachelor's degree in accounting and her master's degree in taxation from
1 . is presently the current manager
in travels frequently for
work and has been employed by them for approximately two years. is
currently married to m. mit
and became a United States citizen on May
17, 2019.
left modeling when she took a job offered by JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
started working for EPSTEIN in approximately 2005 and left in early
2006. traveled on trips with EPSTEIN to help as his assistant. A
lawmpoieses 01/12/2019 g west Palm Math, rlorida, United Stares (In pa. reon)
Hk# 3111-NY-3027571 Dalednited 01 /:2/:019
by AmAndA m1en14. YOung, KY RNK PAUL WILSON
Ilte tamed coma= rater reoseneadstua Dar combats:at of the FBI /I u the properly oe'tbe FBI r d u loam:Rey= apecry no] gt massage room and
had hor lay down, took a "vibrating thing" and rubbed it on her.
told him to stop. IIIIIMR described the massage room as a small, very dark
room on the same floor as the master bedroom. A driver took home and
she remembered being tearful in the car.
The next morning or a day later, recalled that EPSTEIN called
her. IIIIIII was unsure how everything progressed from there. EPSTEIN may
have offered her an English class, which MIMI= attended. EPSTEIN offered
3524-009
Page ? of11
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA00090776
FD-1012 (Rev 54-10)
31E-NY-3027571
(U) Prosier of S
co„,,ra,„„,„„rFD302 Interview 11 07/12/2019 ,R40 3 of 11
her a job approximately at the end of 2004. EPSTEIN offered .111111 an
apartment in New York on 66th Street in Manhattan. E?STEIN offered a
job with victoria's Secret, which was a photo shoot. EPSTEIN told
that she needed to work out to be a model and told her to go to a specific
gym.
immismp had traveled to Florida with EPSTEIN on h s plane. 'gimp did
not have a driver's license.
gilt gimp went with mgr. to the floor of Wall Street on a trip
organized by EPSTEIN.
'gimp met GHISLAINE MAXWELL at her house around the end of 2004.
MAXWELL told to purchase items like toiletries prior to getting
offered the job. The job responsibilities included running errands, and
helping who was EPSTETN's personal assistant. la was
's immediate supervisor. MAXWELL gave MEW direction.
had intimate relations with EPSTEIN, but did not have
intercourse. EPSTEIN had multiple sexual encounters with Immisep. =mg'
felt this was personal.
mit described as having big brown eyes and chin length blonde
hair. IIIIIMV helped I with errands, traveled with them, called pilots,
and purchased things for EPSTEIN's plane. In Palm Beach, IONISE, answered
calls and confirmed massage appointments. was given this
responsibility shortly after beginning to work for EPSTEIN. Imp mainly
stayed in Palm Beacn, while 's home was in Miami. Mien MIMS stayed
in Palm Beach, she slept in EPSTEIN's house in one of the bedrooms.
Typically, had to travel with EPSTEIN. When they traveled to
EPSTEIN's island, stayed with him on the island. They traveled a lot
to Boston, specifically visiting Harvard. They met with MARTIN NOVACK and
ALAN DERSHOWITZ. iggiggp traveled to New Mexico and Paris with EPSTEIN.
spent the most time in the Virgin Islands with EPSTEIN so EPSTEIN
could count his time in the island to establish for tax residency.
Other people that traveled regularly with EPS:EIN besides MAXWELL,
3524-009
Page 3 of I I
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA00090777
fn-342a(Rev 5444)
31E—NY-3027571
(U) Proffer of a aA R
f,,,,,,,,,,rm.302„( interview 41 .n, 07/12/2019 4 of 11
, and Sal were Ssl, ISM NMI, SSA Ste, JEAN LUC
BRUNEL, IGOR, and a chef. =Imo was EPSTEIN's girlfriend. 'lig 'mini had
a casual relationship with EPSTEIN. was introduced by imp
g igleggr. IGOR was EPSTEIN's personal trainer.
In New York, gillimp ran errands, bought things, went to EPSTEIN's house
and sat in on meetings. EmmEmmp worked in MAXWELL'S house on the ground
floor in New York. limit was given an apartment in the same building as
MAXWE1T" spent most of her time in New York at MAXWELL's home.
glow did not recall it she had made phone calls from New York.
LESLIE GROFF was EPSTEIN's assistant in EPSTEIN's Madison Avenue office
who scheduled his appointments for people coming to his house, including
massage appointments. GROFF made those phone calls to schedule appointments.
Fairly early on after working for EPSTEIN, began helping schedule
massage appointments. In reference to knowing what occurred during the
massages, stated, "It happened to me in the Virgin Islands, so I
assumed that was happening to everyone else during their massages."
SS saw women in his New York house that she understood were there to
give massages. emir was at his New York residence a lot and would bring
other girls. Another girl named illir would also bring other girls. Ss
brought two girls who were dancers/ballerinas, who stated that they were 16
years old. 'lilt' and O may have beer. there. EPSTEIN told them that
he would buy them dancing shoes.
At the time, was not sure if the girls who massaged EPSTEIN were
underage but it seemed consensual and SS knew it was a sexual massage.
'MEW had MEMMEMP research girls on Twitter. One girl named III. was 17
in New York.
Imp was approximately 21 years old. EPSTEIN's massages were
approximately twice a day everyday in New York and Palm Beach. In New York,
EPSTEIN also had a lot of meetings.
met in approximately 2004. 'ming was 's
roommate who may have assisted.
3524-009
Page 4 of I I
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA00090778
FD-302a(Rev 5-8-1M
31E-NY-302/571
101 Proffer of a
andantino amain Interview 41 .0„ 07/12/2019 .Ng 5 of 11
In Palm Beach, was responsible for answering phones and
confirming massage appointments if I wasn't around. EPSTEIN, as well as
IIIIMP, would ask to do this. showed girls tO the massage
room and set up the table for them. IIIIIII also bought tickets for comedy
clubs for EPSTEIN. limit was also responsible for researching things for
EPSTEIN and running errands.
When traveling from New York to Palm Beach, Imp set up the schedule
for massages or gave SINEW a list of people to call for appointments.
IIIIIII may have called from New York to make appointments for Palm Beach,
but mostly made those calls.
Part of the regular routine for was to check in with EPSTEIN in
the morning. EPSTEIN would be in his office, gym, or by the pool.
would see who EPSTEIN wanted her to call; EPSTEIN gave her a list.
III'S.' was someone EPSTEIN commented on. EPSTEIN commented on
S's SAT score. massaged EPSTEIN and hung out at the Palm Beach
house, then went to New York. EPSTEIN helped get 'III's; an internship.
was told how to make calls and told what to say. When
called to confirm appointments she said, "This is IIIIIII calling on behalf
of Jeffrey Epstein...calling to confirm the massage appointment." EPSTEIN
was upset when she used his name when confirming massage appointments.
EPSTEIN told her to never use his name when calling people. On the calls,
IIIIIII discussed what time they would come. EPSTEIN pushed her to call and
confirm appointments. IIIIIms had to call multiple times to confirm
appointments. 'Imp did not remember ever calling men to confirm massage
appointments.
EPSTEIN wanted III'S. to put eye cream on him. EPSTEIN became upset with
her if she missed a day. If OININOR missed a phone call for a massage
appointment, EPSTEIN became very upset. and left her a nasty voincemail.
EPSTEIN raised his voice to
thought that EPSTEIN was originally going to teach her about
finance. EPSTEIN sent her to one to two business meetings but then was
different after she started working for him. EPSTEIN became stressed with
her, asking her, "Do you want to work?" when referring to her calling girls.
3524-009
Page 5 all
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA00090779
M-Wea ate 5-840)
31E-NY-302/571
(U) Proffer of R A
foRtiRWORR amain Interview 11 mu 07/12/2019 J.,0, 6 of IA
Immelet often called and asked the girls about another girl. asked
her to do this. recalled calling mit and asked her to bring
another girl. mit called and asked her to bring another girl.
MM../ was upset with 'MOW because Millign called MINIV's home where her
parents lived. Girls had mentioned to limit that they could not come
because they had school.
The girls would come in from the rear of the house, near the kitchen.
swim offered them water. IIIIIIF told them to go upstairs. The massage
room was attached to his master bathroom with sauna, steam room, and closet,
with the massage table inside the closet. may have put a towel on
the table. EPSTEIN told gignmeg to give the girls a hair band.
was present one time when a girl massaged EPSTEIN.
massaged EPSTEIN in Palm Beach. left during most massages, going
about her tasks around the house. The massages took approximately an hour.
Sometimes EPSTEIN called downstairs and sometimes during the massage he
would call other people. gime knew the massage was done when the girl
would come downstairs. EPSTEIN paid the girls; he always had a huge amount
of money in his bag. He paid the girls approximately $200.
and typically stayed a bit longer after the massage.
If a girl brought another girl, one would go upstairs while the one who
brought the girl hung our. downstairs. Me brought girls. EPSTEIN may have
asked K to pay the girls for him. 'I'll.. was instructed to bring
girls from Miami to Palm Beach; these girls were associated with Ideal
Models. 'Imp talked about a time where one girl was sitting on the couch
visibly upset and EPSTEIN had a friend who was a doctor there who told them
that the girl did not feel well. EPSTEIN had a car service take the girl
home.
Palm Beach massages happened twice a day everyday. IIIIIIpt typed up a
list of girls to call in Palm Beach and printed a few copies. threw
these away. This list was specific to massages.
'Imp recalled one girl calling and talking about college. The girls
were young women. 'gimp did not know their exact age. Thinking back on it,
felt that she should have had the impression that they were
3524-009
Page 6 of
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA00090780
fli-N2a(Rev 54-10)
31E—NY-3027571
(U1 Proffer of a a R
Coeneweionorpoarta Interview 41 sk, 07/12/2019 " ego 7 of ll
underage. She was used to young women being around older men in the modeling
industry.
MIMS recalled , me, and traveling on EPSTEIN's plane
from New York to Palm Beach. recalled other girls names that were at
EPSTEIN's house, including IIIIIIMM. IIIIIMM. II and
'Iglu There were more girls but 'MIME could not recall all of their
names. The girls were students, not models. Some may have been in a horse
back riding club. The girls asked for assistance to go to college.
may have had a personal relationship in the past with EPSTEIN but
R had not heard anything. assumed because EPSTEIN was always
with a girl.
took a lot of photographs. took photographs of in
the Virgin Islands. EPSTEIN had told that it was Ok to undress.
There were a lot of nude photographs in EPSTEIN's home. There were also nude
photographs in the gym in the New York house.
In Palm Beach, was in the living room and started stripping when
Imp started taking photographs. kept the photographs in binders in
MAXWELL's house.
felt that took advantage of her because she had do
"nasty tasks" and had her constantly running. felt that made
her do the heavy li±ting. and were friendly with each other
but did not like how I treated her.
When called to confirm appointments, she sometimes left a
voicemail with her cell number for a call back.
could not remember if she and talked about what happened
with the massages or if made comments about the girls.
In the Virgin Islands, they would travel to the island by boat. §§§§§Mft
had to give EPSTEIN massages. A girl named IIIIIMON would come Lo Lhe island
to give EPSTEIN massages. In the morning, MEOW would go to his office.
There were different beach huts on the island. EPSTEIN would take a golf
cart around the island. EPSTEIN worked out a lot on the island. When they
3524-009
Page 7 of I I
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA00090781
FD-302. (Rev 5-8-10;
31E-NY-3027571
(u) Proffer Of a a a
ComMmimeofFDJO2of Interview #1 07/12/20:9 Jon,: 8 of 11
were on the island, it was more leisure time. There was a room by the
kitchen where they all watched TV. Some of 's tasks included
researching things online and making online purchases. There was a house
manager who would ask people about allergies and they would have to fill out
a card.
Other tasks was responsible for were buying furniture.
was also instructed to buy sex toys from a sex shop in New York, but could
not recall who had told her to buy them. thought the sex toys she
had to buy were vibrators. recalled having to go to some building
with an upstairs.
In Palm Beach, 'gimp ordered books for a girl. The books were not sent
in time and EPSTEIN was upset with . MISR thought the books may
have been for 11.1. stayed more in the house. DAVID COPPERFIELD was at
the house one time and 'lir may have met him. Egg' was one of the girls who
came for massages. EMMEN told MENEM. to get gge a tutor. EPSTEIN wanted
to give ming more. IIII may have brought a picture of her artwork.
Milli and brought girls. purchased a lot of gifts for
MI's baby. thought MS was older but was unsure how old Ns
was.
When IIIIIMP traveled with EPSTEIN to New Mexico, it was a long drive to
the house. It was a big house with a guest house. glimp felt that she was
likely doing the to do list from New York. IIIIIMP had to give EPSTEIN
facials. There was horse back riding with disclaimers. 'gimp recalled that
they barely traveled to New Mexico; they were maybe there twice.
Somtimes there was a chiropractor who came after the massages and girls
would get adjustments.
mow was paid every two weeks. Her starting salary was $36,000 and
eventually was paid approximately $40,000 - $41,000.
The individuals who traveled with EPSTEIN, including Imp and
were given massages. ALAN DERSHOWITZ received a massage from =gm's' - she
had a tattoo. .111111.1, and gigging Egli'', gave massages. lg.=
understood these massages to be more professional massages. These massages
3524-009
Page 8 of II
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA00090782
Fn-1022 (Rev 5-8-10
31E —NY —3027571
11.11 Protect'. of S
comi„asimo(Frianot. Interview II O„ 07/12/2019 ,pas, 9 of ii
were different than the massages the girls gave. gmlIggp did not think the
girls were professional masseuses.
immeggr was EPSTEIN's girlfriend. mow heard them exchange "I love
you". I was a model. • was associated with Karin Models and/or
MC2. 'III'. was under the impression that EPSTEIN was a co-owner. eggigggio
traveled with EPSTEIN and did not. model. O slept in the bedroom with
EPSTEIN. went back to modeling when she needed to renew her visa.
and had an intimate relationship. =NW talked about a
time where LARRY SUMMERS was sitting in the waiting room and having a
lengthy meeting with EPSTEIN. IIIII§k saw ggigggsp, who looked like she came
from an event, and told her that she had been looking for girls. =gm
described and EPSTEIN's relationship as a strong love relationship.
stated there was no alcohol around uniess a guest wanted it.
IIIIIII resigned from working for EPSTEIN. mop did not want to be
around EPSTEIN anymore. felt that there was something weird going on
with the complete situation. It took §§§§§§11 a while to make the decision to
quit.
IIIIIIR stated they used a citrix based system. LESLIE GROFF put messages
in the system. These were messages that were on the computer in New York.
They eventually stopped using this system. There were small directory books.
Phone books were outdated. There were print outs of messages.
In approximately October 2005, IIIIIMP. MINIS. and EPSTEIN flew
to Miami. En, along with her dog she traveled with, went to
house. EPSTEIN went with and NM later met up with them at
Soho House in Miami Beach. 'gimp dropped off egggr and was told to go to
Palm Beach to meet with someone. EPSTEIN told that something was
stolen and gems had to travel to give computers to be examined. The
person met was alone. This happened the day before
birthday. EPSTEIN and egg'. told 'gime to take the books, which were
personal contact phonebooks - the black ones were MAXWELL's and the colorful
ones were EPSTEIN's. could not remember if she took both. There were
a lot of books by each phone. These were copy pads that people would put
messages on and tear out to give to EPSTEIN. There were also white pads with
3524-009
Page ()Orli
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA00090783
F1)-3010(Rev 5-840)
31E—NY-302/571
(U) Proffer of a A
Continumen ofFD-302:e Interview 11 me 07/12/2019 ,pwe 10 of 1:
EPSTEIN and MAXWELL'S names throughout the houses. JANUSZ BANASIAK helped
gather the items together. There was a computer that 'SEIM and 'EISEN
used, EPSTEIN's computer, and potentially MAXWELL'S computer that they
collected. turned these items over to a person that seemed to be a
law enforcement type person. She took an inventory of things that she gave
to this individual, who she believed to be DETECTIVE BLACK.
There was a specific computer that and t used in Palm Beach.
recalled a girl saying something about social profiles.
also asked 'Imp to bring books from the Virgin Islands and meet
her in MAXWELL's office. NIEMEN told to shred an updated list of
names of girls. IIIIII had a notebook with the investigative agency sticker
on it.
EPSTEIN told that there was an investlgatiOn and that It had
something to do with visas. EPSTEIN told IIIIIIR that they were asking about
her parents. EPSTEIN had surprised IIIIIMP with a visit from her parents.
knew that EPSTEIN was lying about how her parents got their visas.
recalled a time where she was on the island and EPSTEIN told her,
"Do you see the camera? They're watching me".
III'S. did not recall how she had learned about the actual reason for
the initial investigation. KPSTKIN's counsel called her into
his office and told her not to talk to law enforcement.
In approximately October 2005, Millint resigned to . MINION took it
as a joke. had called her about an issue with MAXWELL; Millie cried
and told that she did not want to be there. 4.1.1.1 gave notice, but
still worked for EPSTEIN until early 2006.
EPSTEIN promised Mille a car. IIIIIII told him to cancel giving her the
car. EPSTEIN gave a car, which she kept and it stayed in her name.
felt that she had to stay in contact with EPSTEIN because the car
was in his name and was under his insurance. In Early 2008,
contacted either GROFF or someone else and asked to return the car. mill=
and her husband drove to Palm Beach to return the car.
3524-009
Page Mall
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA00090784
FD-3O2a(Rev 54-10)
31E—NY-3O2/571
(U) Proffer of A
Gyminwman orman of Interview 41 07/12/2019 .hw, 11 of 1:
After IIIIIMP left, MINIM approached her at Club Monaco and asked her if
she wanted to come to the Virgin Islands to work. told her no.
Attorneys reached out to IIIIIIR asking questions. There was a woman in
New York named S that reached out, and told her that her
attorney was BRYCE LYONS. milk called the office asking if she could
speak to LYONS. IIIIIII thought. FBI agents may want to talk with her.
spoke with an FBI agent and she told the agent to call her attorney.
later hired her own attorney.
IIIIIIR saw EPSTEIN looking at pornography on the computer that she and
used. EPSTEIN said that porn websites have the best poses for models.
EPSTEIN said that he did not have an email address but he did. Email
addresses that EPSTEIN used were jepstein@yahoo.com and joepstein@yahoo.com.
IIIIIIR saw an email of pictures of girls that EPSTEIN said were ugly.
told MINIM to send photographs of girls to JEAN LUC BRUNEL for
the purposes of casting/scouting for his agency.
EPSTEIN did not carry a cell phone. EPSTEIN would take one of their cell
phones and dial who he wanted.
INIMMIF has received random Calls and texts from New York numbers. When
she left EPSTEIN's employment, she felt fearful that someone was following
her.
Not all details were covered during this interview. ISM= agreed to
meet again at another date.
3524-009
Page I I of I I
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA00090785
rfit010trt sttio) -1 of 12-
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
.....,.
.•_
Dm *fancy 03/31/2020
, date of birth (DOB) was interviewed
pursuant to a proffer agreement at West Palm Beach,
Florida. Present for the interview Wes =III:. attorney Joseph Nesciment.o,
along with AUSA , AUSA , and Special Agent
I'm 'III!. After being advised of the identities of the above listed
individuals and the nature of the interview, provided the following
information:
spoke about two messages she recalled writing down. One cf which
had identifier SA03008 on the message pad dated 4/1/05. This message was
from JEAN LUC BRUNEL and read, "He has a teacher for you to teach you how to
speak Russian. She is 2x6 years old not blunde. Lessons are free and you can
have 1st today if you call." knew this to mean it referenced a
teenage girl. wrote this message. GHISLAINE MAXWELL was in the
house and stated, "Oh, this is a funny message". Either MAXWELL made
rewrite it or MAXWELL rewrote it herself. The message meant that
there was a potential teenage girl for EPSTEIN to meet.
The other message had identifier SA01446 on the message pad dated
2/28/05. This message referenced school. remembered taking this
call. did not know the name, but knew the call was in reference to
scheduling a massage.
would have used the initial "II" when initialing her name back
then.
MEI saw on Twitter that ALAN DERSHOW:TZ stated that he was with his
wife and kids when he was at EPSTETN's hone. mat DERSHOWTTZ and he
was alone in the house with no wife and no kids when he received a massage.
was shown a series of copies of messages and asked about her
recollection of each, all of which are attached in a 1A.
Lawless:mot 09/10/2019 d Went Palm ROAM., rlorlda, Unfree Staten (In Perenn)
Filet 5)D NY-3027571 Dineen:Id 10/03/2019
by AMAndA nirnle young
Ths 6scament combat mete recommeadatax tor combust& of the FBI Mu the properly oftbe FBI sad u loaned to yaw art.-yams] x MESSAGES - Page 1
On this page, "AR" initials are written. wimp advised those initials
could have been ALFRED RODRIGUEZ. 'gimp recalled that he had message
books in his room when he left. I'm ....Mr and §....MF saw them;
took them from the room.
MESSAGES - Page 2
IIIIIII did not recognize the handwriting of these messages. MENMOMF did
know aggist-. mow known to law enforcement as mom gimp, lived in New
York and shared an apartment with IIIMI =Imp. 'limp did not know
§§§§, well. IIIIIII thought that had been volunteering building a
house in Costa Rica or something similar. In the New York residence, there
was a gift left from MEM; it was a female picture of her bottom. MEM
abruptly left. had heard stories that she was throwing up, had an
eating disorder, and she had lied. MIIIIIMP traveled to Puerto Rico because
IIIII was pregnant and 11111111 was helping • met ms 's
older sister milli., known to law enforcement as on
EPSTEIN's island. gligimp thought MEM was of age. MEMMEW did not have
much interaction with 'gimp. recognized in the news recently.
MESSAGES - Page 3
i recognized the name ".......1". EPSTEIN came downstairs with
milger thought gam was present. mow recalled iggimmy
telling a story of driving fast and being pulled over by the police and her
dad had to get her.
MESSAGES - Page 4
The upper left message, with the name On it, Ill'''. thought may
have been written by l had "loopy" handwriting. In reference
to the message with MARK EPSTEIN on it, at the time EPSTEIN had a
disagreement with his brother about a hospital bill or something similar.
MESSAGES - Page 5
3524-011
Page 2 of 12
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA00090787
Fn-302a(lkev 54-10)
SOD-NY-3027571
comemiteurfo-Bnor (U) Proffer of a a JAI 09/10/2019 .pnv 3 of 17
MINIM recognized the name "NOMMEr", known to law enforcement as gimp
'gig'', as one of EPSTE1N's attorneys in New York. imeggp recognized the
name and stated that it could be mow amp or a different
. flew on EPSTEIN's plane from New York to Palm Beach. The
other had a neck injury.
MESSAGES - Page 6
▪ did not recognize the names on these messages.
MESSAGES - Page 7
SINEW recognized the name " gligmt- and thought it could be
egging' Egging.. M§§§§§§V recruited girls in New York. MIIIIIMV traveled
with JEAN LUC BRUNEL to Russia. gigging/ shared an apartment with egging.
imp who had stated that she was helping V find girls.
'gimp talked about HENRY JARECKI as someone EPSTEIN thought of as a
friend. §§§§§§1R heard that he had a girlfriend named " ".
saw a picture online of JARECKI with and
MESSAGES - Page 8
The messages are titled "Mr. Epstein". The house staff was more formal.
Everyone in his personal life referred to EPSTEIN as "Jeffrey".
MESSAGES - Page 9
The message with "Eggggsr" on it, thought was in reference to
011111./. remembered ell'''. did not remember
Y had a girl with her or not. Koriginally thought the
messages were written by but on closer look did not think it was her
because the number "7" in the messages was written in a very European way.
MESSAGES - Page 10
Message pad with "Jeffrey E. Epstein" on it. EPSTEIN had these notepads
with his name on them throughout all of his different residences. These
3524-011
Page 3 of 12
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA00090788
PD-3022(Rev
50D-NY-3027571
Coolinuation of FD-302 or ) Proffer of a a a On 09/1C/2079 pyye 4 of 12
notepads were kept stored in New York. MAXWELL had notepads with her name
on them as well. There were also notepads with "Little St. James" or
"Little St. Jeff" on them. The name nigger on the notepad could have been
a girl who massaged EPSTEIN. 'Imp remembered wanting to speak to
EPSTEIN about college.
MESSAGES - Page 11
thought the writing of these messages could have been hers.
engine would leave messages in the kitchen for him and/or the transitional
pantry area.
MESSAGES - Page 12
mow engine was
recognized these messages as her own handwriting.
told to confirm appointments. lei see was an individual who traveled
with EPSTEIN. giiiiige and lime gave messages to 'giggle, or
whoever was traveling with EPSTEIN.
MESSAGES - Page 13
=III' did not recognize the handwriting of these messages.
MESSAGES - Page 14
Nigger recognized the name as the girl who was pregnant.
mile recognized the name ' as the girl that had a neck
injury who also traveled from New York to Palm Beach.
MESSAGES - Page 15
limit recognized these messages as her handwriting. gees was either
confirming the massage appoinLrents or this was a to-do list on who to call.
MESSAGES - Page 16
limp did not recognize the handwriting, but did state that she felt it
was someone with a European background due to the way the number 7 was
3524-011
Page 4 of 12
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA00090789
FD-302a (Rev Ma 0)
50D-NY-3023571
ContintetimollTD-3020( (U) Proffer of S A 0A 09/10/2019 m e, 5 of I2
written.
Both EPSTEIN and MAXWELL's stationary was in different places throughout
the houses. MAXWELL'S stationary was by a large desk that she used or was
in an area near the computer.
When in New York preparing to travel to Palm Beach, fl would be the
one who would primarily call to schedule massages. I'll.. gave MINIM a
list of things to do. EPSTEIN wanted to confirm the night before or
the morning of a scheduled massage. EPSTEIN would be in front of the
computer in Palm Reach or his island when he gave a list of things
to do and people to call. Sometimes EPSTEIN would let sit on
meetings and LESLEY GROFF would be there in New York.
was trained on how to make calls from le. reported
direct
DataSet-10
Unknown
200 pages
Case Number:
Case Summary:
EFTA01684602
SOD-NY-3027571
Child Sex Trafficking investigation into Epstein, opened 12/08/2018. Epstein was indicted on
07/02/2019 and arrested on 07/06/2019. On 08/10/2019, FBI NY was notified Epstein committed
suicide in his jail cell. Maxwell was indicted on 06/29/2020 and arrested on 07/02/2020. The
Maxwell trial began on 11/28/2021. Maxwell was convicted on 12/29/2021 on S out of 6 counts.
Maxwell was sentenced on 06/28/2022 to 20 years. In November 2024, the U.S. appeals court
rejected Maxwell's request for en banc review. Maxwell requested an appeals extension to
04/10/2025. This investigation remains in Pending Inactive status.
EFTA01684603
Evidence Report for Case: 50D-NY-3027571
Filtering on: 1A
Type g Acquired On Serial g
1A 317 2025-03-10 706
1A ilfi 2025-03-10 225
1A al 2025-03-10 706
1A 314 2025-02-27 704
1A 313 2024-08-01 702
1A 312 2022-11-02 696
1A 311 2022-05-26 692
1A 310 2022-03-07 687
1A 309 2021-12-11 686
1A Eli 2021-11-24 Q14
1A Igi 2021-11-22 ila
1A 306 2021-11.23 677
1A 305 2021-11-05 674
1A 304 2021-10-19 672
1A 303 2021-11-02 671
1A 302 2021-10-11 670
lA 301 2021-10-14 669
1A 3Q2 2021-06-23 02
lA Z9.2 2021-10-08 01
lA 298 2021-10-08 665
1A 297 2021-10-08 665
lA 336 2021-10-08 §61
lA 295 2021-10-08 665
1A 294 2021-10-08 664
lA 293 2021-10-08 663
1A 292 2021-10-08 662
lA Z91. 2021-10-08 01
1A 290 2021-10-08 660
lA 289 2021-10-08 659
lA 221 2021-10-08 552
1A 287 2021-06-23 657
lA 286 2021-10-07 657
Lk 285 2021-10-07 656
lA 294 2021-09-02 653
Lk 214 2021-09-17 ga
lA 282 2021-05-18 651
1A 281 2021-09-20 650
lA 224 2021-09-20 552
1A Z7_2 2021-05-20 M./
1A 278 2021-09-27 6413
1A 277 2021-08-19 647
1A 276 2021-07-23 646
1A 275 2021-07-23 646
EFTA01684604
LA 274 2021-09-21 645
IA 273 2021-09-01 643
m M 2021-09-01 a
IA M 2021-06-02 442
1A 270 2021-06-02 642
lA 2.62 2021-04-27 al
1A M 2021-08-20 aQ
1A 267 2021-08-12 639
LA 266 2021-08-19 638
1A 265 2021-05-14 637
LA 264 2021-05-14 637
lA 263 2021-09-02 636
lA 262 2021-08-30 635
lA ai 2021-08-31 04
1A 102 2021-09-15 01
1A 259 2021-09-02 632
1A 258 2021-09-02 632
1A M 2021-09-02 632
1A 256 2021-09-08 632
1A 255 2021-07-27 631
1A 254 2021-08-11 630
lA 334 2021-09-14 412
lA M 2021-04-01 421
lA 251 2020-11-30 627
1A 250 2021-06-30 626
lA 242 2021-06-30 42k
lA 248 2021-08-04 624
LA 247 2021-06-28 623
lA 246 2021-06-23 623
LA 245 2021-06-23 623
lA 244 2021-03-23 M
1A 243 2021-07-06 616
lA 242 2021-07-14 615
1A 241 2021-07-14 41E
1A 240 2020-02-14 613
lA 239 2021-06-29 610
LA 238 2021-05-20 607
IA 237 2021-04-13 605
LA 231 2021-04-13 445
lA 235 2021-04-01 604
1A 234 2021-03-30 603
lA M 2021-05-17 W.2
1A M 2021-03-19 596
1A 231 2021-01-29 588
1A 230 2021-03-03 586
1A 229 2021-03-03 586
1A 228 2021-01-21 585
EFTA01684605
IA 227 2021-01-21 585
IA 226 2021-01-19 584
M 22.1 2021-02-24 al
IA 224 2021-02-11 53/
1A 223 2021-02-08 581
lA 222 2020-10-14 514
1A 221 2020-10-15 512
1A 220 2020-10-14 580
Lk 219 2021-01-27 579
1A 218 2021-02-01 578
Lk 217 2021-01-20 573
lA 216 2021-01-14 M
1A 215 2020-09-25 571
lA 2,14 2021-02-02 57.4
1A all 2021-01-12 522
lA 212 2020-10-28 568
1A 211 2021-01-27 567
1A 210 2020-02-07 566
lA 209 2020-10-07 566
Lk 208 2021-01-13 565
1A 207 2020-09-10 564
lA 2 2020-10-09 522
1A 205 2021-01-19 558
lA 204 2020-10-15 556
lA lca 2020-11-04 555
1A 202 2020-10-29 554
Lk 201 2020-08-13 552
M 200 2020-06-19 551
LA 199 2020-08-21 550
lA ag 2020-08-22 itia
1A Di 2020-08-21 .5
lA 196 2020-10-09 547
lA 125 2020-08-17 24_6
IA ISA 2020-10-09 545
lA 193 2020-08-21 543
LA 192 2020-11-18 542
IA 191 2020-08-24 541
1A 192 2020-10-21 525
lA 189 2020-10-22 535
1A 188 2020-10-09 535
lA 16/ 2020-06-19 522
1A 1.4¢ 2020-08-26 5_2A
lA 185 2020-08-19 513
1A 184 2020-08-11 512
lA 183 2020-08-12 511
1A 182 2020-07-17 500
EFTA01684606
LA 181 2020-07-07 499
lA 180 2020-07-15 496
1A n2 2020-07-15 1. 81
lA al 4 2020-07-27 MA
1A in 2020-08-04 488
1A 1.7.fi 2020-07-28 VI
1A iza 2020-07-28 4Z
1A 174 2020-07-28 477
1A 173 2020-07-28 477
1A 172 2020-07-28 476
lA M 2020-07-28 476
lA n_Q 2020-07-27 171
lA 1O 2020-07-21 01
lA 168 2020-07-14 468
1A 167 2020-07-02 467
1A 1.61 2020-07-02 4Z
1A 165 2020-07-08 450
1A 164 2020-07-13 449
1A 163 2020-07-13 445
LA 162 2020-07-11 443
lA 101. 2020-07-10 g_42
1A 160 2020-07-10
IA 159 2020-07-10 439
1A 15A 2020-06-19 OA
lA 157 2020-07-06 433
lA 156 2020-06-25 428
LA 155 2020-07-07 422
lA 154 2020-07-02 412
lA 151 2019-07-17 O.5
lA 152 2019-10-25 404
1A 151 2020-03-04 403
1A 152 2020-04-10 222
1A 2,42 2020-02-07 22A
1A 148 2020-02-07 398
1A 147 2019-07-22 397
1A 146 2019-11-21 396
1A 145 2019-09-18 395
EFTA01684607
1A 144 2019-10-23 394
IA 143 2019-10-23 393
1A 142 2019-09-12 ila
IA 141 2019-08-26 331.
1A 140 2019-10-18 390
1A 122 2019-10-18 39.2
1A al 2019.09-12 222
1A 137 2020-02-28 388
1A 136 2019-10-23 387
IA 135 2020-02-26 386
Lk 134 2019-10-24 385
lA 133 2019-10-24 385
1A 132 2019-12-04 384
2019-11-26 222
1A 1 2019-10-11 27
1A 129 2020-02-05 380
1A 128 2019-11-04 379
1A 127 2020-02-05 378
1A 126 2020-02-27 377
Lk 125 2019-08-13 376
lA 124 2019.08-13 376
m al 2020-02-05 ill
IA 122 2020-01-14 M
IA 121 2019.09-10 373
1A 120 2020-02-19 372
1A 112 2020-01-16 222
1A 118 2019-12-17 366
1A 117 2019-07-26 365
1A 116 2019-07-26 365
Lk 115 2019-12-15 359
IA 114 2019-12-15 252
1A 113 2019-12-15 359
lA 112 2020-01-17 356
1A 111 2020-01-08 3.55
IA 110 2019.08-28 54
IA 109 2019-09-18 353
Lk 108 2019-10-23 352
IA 107 2019-09-09 351
IA 1.9.¢ 2019-11-01 ESQ
IA 105 2019-09-18 349
IA 104 2019-08-09 348
IA isl 2019.08-12 liz
1A 12Z 2019.08-12 II&
1A 101 2019.08-28 345
1A 100 2019-08-01 344
1A 99 2020-01-08 343
1A 98 2019-12-30 343
EFTA01684608
LA 97 2019-12-30 343
IA 96 2019-12-02 343
1A 21 2019-10-01 al
IA a 2019-10-15 3a
1A 93 2019-12-17 339
1A 22 2019-12-17 laa
1A a 2019.09-19 331
1A 90 2019-10-16 334
1A 89 2019-10-16 333
1A 88 2019-10-15 332
1A 87 2019-09-18 330
1A 86 2019.09-19 329
1A 85 2019-11-14 327
1A M 2019-09-28 321
1A $.5 2019-07-31 315
1A 82 2019-07-12 324
1A 81 2019-11-13 322
1A N 2019.08-28 316
1A n 2019-08-27 315
Lk 78 2019-08-29 306
lA 77 2019-08-29 306
m 16 2019-08-06 30
IA Z5 2019.09-24
IA 74 2019-07-05 300
1A 73 2019.08-27 298
1A 22 2019-07-11 22Z
1A 71 2019-07-12 296
1A 70 2019-08-13 294
1A 69 2019-09-16 289
LA 68 2019-07-12 286
lA §.2 2019-09-05 /8.5
1A a 2019-09-05 283
lA 65 2019.09-14 281
1A 0 2019-08-13 2Z/
IA 63 2019.08-24 272
IA 62 2019-08-28 271
LA 61 2019-08-27 270
IA 60 2019-08-13 269
LA 52 2019-08-12 2.0
IA 58 2019-08-12 268
IA 57 2019-08-12 268
LA a 2019.08-12 211
1A II 2019.08-12 268
1A sit 2019.08-11 268
1A 53 2019-08-20 264
1A 52 2019-08-13 261
1A 91 2019-08-28 258
EFTA01684609
1A 50 2019-08-27 257
IA 49 2019-08-07 252
1A g 2019-07-11 2g
1A 47 2019.08-16 /31
1A 46 2019-07-24 216
1A 4.5. 2019-08-09 214
1A 44 2019-07-29 212
1A 43 2019-07-31 208
1A 42 2019-07-31 207
1A 41 2019-08-02 206
1A 40 2019-07-11 203
1A 39 2019-07-11 202
1A 38 2019-07-06 194
1A az 2019-07-17 M
1A 3..¢ 2019-07-13 MI
1A 35 2019-07-13 187
1A 34 2019-07-14 186
1A 33 2019-07-11 185
1A 32 2019-07-02 183
1A 31 2019-07-16 175
ia 30 2019-07-17 171
m as 2019-07-06 MI
IA a 2019-07-12 16_¢
IA 27 2019-07-19 159
IA 26 2019-07-17 153
IA 22 2019-07-17 M
IA 24 2019-07-11 151
1A 23 2019-07-06 150
ia 22 2019-07-07 14/
1A 21 2019-07-12 127
1A 20 2019-07-11 116
1A 12 2019-05-29 142
IA 18 2019-07-06 2
IA 17 2019-07-08 49
IA 16 2019-06-24 30
IA 15 2019-05-29 26
IA 14 2019-05-08 25
ia 13 2019-05-23 24
1A 12 2019-05-02 21
1A fl 2019-04-24 2Q
1A 14 2019.04-26 12
1A 9 2019.04-11 17
1A 8 2019-03-22 16
1A 7 2019-03-22 14
1A 6 2019-03-20 13
EFTA01684610
LA 5 2019-03-19 12
IA 4 2019-03-25 11
m A 2019-03-19 12
IA 2 2019-03-04 I
IA 1 2019-01-30 5
EFTA01684611
Serial Title
(U) Transport of Evidence Items 16136, 16144, 16145, and 1B146
(U) Transport of Evidence Items 1B136, 16144, 16145, and 16146
(U) Transport of Evidence Items 16136, 16144, 16145, and 1B146
(U) Transfer of Case Documents from the New York Field Office to the Washington Field Office
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U//FOUO) Identification of [REDACTED] as a possible associate of JEFFREY EPSTEIN
(U) Mail Received from Epstein Residence
(U) Phone Interview with [REDACTED]
(U) Defense Notes for [REDACTED]
(U) Telephonic Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Telephonic interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Phone conversation with [REDACTED]
(U) Call with [REDACTED]
(U) Reimbursement of expenses incurred for trial
(U) Reimbursement of expenses incurred for trial
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Materials from Palm Beach Police Department
(U) Materials from Palm Beach Police Department
(U) Materials from Palm Beach Police Department
(U) Materials from Palm Beach Police Department
U//FOUO NTOC2021 E-Tip Additional Victim Reports Being Human Trafficked By Gislaine Maxwell M A Child (7
U NTOC2020 352mtr01Information on a Possible Accountant of Jeffrey Epstein. (NY)
U//FOUO NTOC2020 024srm01 E-Tip: Possible Human Trafficking in New York, NY. (NY)
U USPS Mail Tipster - Information Related to Jeffrey Epstein
U NTOC2020 195hmb02 Potential Sex Trafficking by [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] in New York, NY (NY)
U Email regarding information for sale about the Epstein Zorro Ranch
U//FOUO NTOC2021Conceming Comments by (REDACTED]. (NY)
(U) Reimbursement of expenses incurred for trial
(U) Reimbursement of expenses incurred for trial
(U) Fed-Ex Delivery Confirmation
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]- September 2, 2021
(U) Meeting with [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Proffer of [REDACTED]
(U) Proffer of [REDACTED]
EFTA01684612
(U) Service of subpoena.
(U) Interview of [REDACTED] - September 1, 2021
(U) Interview of [REDACTED) - September 1, 2021
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview/Proffer of [REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Proffer of [REDACTED)
(U) Proffer of [REDACTED)
(U) interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED] - August 30, 2021
(U) Interview of [REDACTED] - August 31, 2021
(U) Request to serve three trial subpoenas
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED) - July 27, 2021
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) [REDACTED] Interview 8/4/2021
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Locate and Serve witness (REDACTED)
(U) Missouri Birth Certificate Identified and obtained
(U) Missouri Birth Certificate Identified and obtained
(U) Device Extraction - MDUS 13768
(U//FOUO) Collection of evidence in Austin, Texas
(U) lA Lab Report Material: Lab it (REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Introductory conversation with [REDACTED)
(U) 2021-00585-2 Questioned Documents
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED] - Day 3
EFTA01684613
(U) Interview of [REDACTED) - Day 3
(U) Interview of [REDACTED] - Day 1
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Virtual Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Telephonic Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of[REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Introductory Conversation with [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED] - Day 2
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Proffer of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview/Proffer of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview/Proffer of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U f
(U) Call received from [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Victim Services Division - Case Support Unit Assistance
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Fund Reimbursement - Five 2TB Hard drives
(U) Fund Reimbursement - Five 2TB Hard drives
(U) Fund Reimbursement - Five 2TB Hard drives
(U) Fund Reimbursement - 12 TB External Hard Drive
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
EFTA01684614
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U//FOUO) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U//FOUO) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Lead Request to Serve REDACTED]
(U) Lead Request to Serve REDACTED]
(U) Lead Request to Serv= DACTED]
(U) Lead Request to Serve REDACTED]
(U) Lead Request to Serve REDACTED]
(U) Lead Request to Serve REDACTED]
(U) Date Submitted: 07/25/2020 10:08:31AM ET Transaction Number: 4D291278-35FF-489A-A26C
(U) On 07/21/2020, at 2:17 a.m. Eastern Time, [REDACTED], date of birth [REDACTED],
(U//FOUO) Telephone Interview Of [REDACTED]
(U) Arrest of GHISLAINE MAXWELL
(U) Arrest of GHISLAINE MAXWELL
(U//FOUO) Impersonation of FBI Agent
(U//FOUO) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) On 07/12/2020, at 3:12:08 PM Eastern Time, [REDACTED], date of birth [REDACTED],
(U) On 07/11/2020, at 10:02 a.m. Eastern Time, an anonymous tipster, Internet Protocol
(U) On 07/09/2020, at 9:47 p.m. Eastern Time, [REDACTED], email address [REDACTED]
(U) On 07/10/2020, at 9:44 a.m. Eastern Time, an anonymous tipster, Internet Protocol (IP
(U) On 07/10/2020, at 9:22 a.m. Eastern Time, an anonymous tipster, Internet Protocol (IP
(U) Fund Reimbursement
(U) On 07/06/2020, at 10:19 AM Eastern Time, the FBI Office of Public Affairs (OPA)
(U//FOUO) Aerial photos of [REDACTED]
(U) On 07/06/2020, at 12:33:51PM Eastern Time, an anonymous complainant, Email account
(U//FOUO) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Information provided by [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED] on 10/25/19
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED] on 11.21.19
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
EFTA01684615
(U) interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Proffer of [REDACTED] interview #2
(U) Proffer of [REDACTED] Interview B1
(U) interview of[REDACTED] on 10/11/2019
(U) Pass information to Swedish authorities for informational purposes.
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Share information with Swedish Authorities
(U) interview of [REDACTED]
(U) interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Proffer of[REDACTEDI
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Epstein Breifing EVAF Expenditures
(U) Phone conversation with [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Phone call with Attomey[REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U)[REDACTED] interview
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Epstein Breiflng EVAF Expenditures
(U) Epstein Breifing EVAF Expenditures
EFTA01684616
(U) Epstein Breifing EVAF Expenditures
(U) Epstein Breifing EVAF Expenditures
(U) Epstein Breifing EVAF Expenditures
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Emergency Victim Funds and Budget Matters, Office of the Director
(U) Emergency Victim Funds and Budget Matters, Office of the Director
(U)[REDACTED] interview
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED] on 9/19/2019
(U) Interview of [REDACTED] on 11/14/2019
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED] on 7/31/19
(U) Proffer of (REDACTED) Interview #1
(U) Victim Services Division - Victim Meeting
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) (REDACTED] Interview
(U) Lead Forwared to Legat Mexico City, Mexico
(U) Lead Forwared to Legat Mexico City, Mexico
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Emergency Victim Funds and Budget Matters, Office of the Director
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U)(REDACTED] interview
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Device Unlock and Extraction - MDUS 10398
(U) Device Unlock and Extraction - MDUS 10399
(U) On 09/14/2019, at 2:58 p.m. Eastern Time, (REDACTED], date of birth (REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) FBI New York - Jeffrey Epstein - Child Sex Trafficking - 190904-175728
(U) Follow-Up Law Enforcement Inquiries Pertaining to [REDACTED]
(U) Interview Of [REDACTED]
(U) (REDACTED]
(U) Search Warrant Execution - Little Saint James
(U) Search Warrant Execution - Little Saint James
(U) Search Warrant Execution - Little Saint James
(U) Search Warrant Execution - Little Saint James
(U) Search Warrant Execution - Little Saint James
(U) Search Warrant Execution - Little Saint James
(U//FOUO) [REDACTED] (PROTECT SOURCE) Interview #3
(U) Phone interview of (REDACTED]
U (REDACTED] - financial connection to JEFFREY EPSTEIN
EFTA01684617
U NTOC2019 1971(103 E-Tip: Information Regarding Multiple Criminal Allegations such as Human Sex Traffi
(U//FOUO) [REDACTED] Interview 42
(U) Inventory of Two Suite Cases (black/blue) for JEFFREY EPSTEIN
(U) On 8/15/19, at 11:15 a.m. Eastern Time, the FBI Office of Public Affairs (OPA)
(U//FOUO) [REDACTED] Interview One
(U) On 08/08/2019, at 9:02 a.m. Eastern Time, [REDACTED], date of birth [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Return of Property to [REDACTED] on 08/02/2019
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED) on 07/11/2019
(U) Post Arrest Spontaneous Utterances made by Defendant JFFREY E. EPSTEIN
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Arrest of JEFFREY EPSTEIN
(U) Jeffrey Epstein
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interivew of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED] on 07/15/2019
(U) Provide information to SEATTLE FO for conducting interview
(U) On 07/17/2019, at 3:43 p.m. Eastern Time, the FBI's Office of Public Affairs (OPA)
(U) On 07/17/2019, at 3:51p.m. Eastern Time, the FBI Office of Public Affairs (OPA)
(U) Search Warrant Executed- 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York 10021
(U) Interivew of [REDACTED]
(U) Attempted Interview of GHISLAINE MAXWELL
(U//FOUO) On 07/11/2019, at 10:56 p.m. Eastern Time, tipster email address [REDACTED]
(U) On 07/11/2019, at 2:31a.m., Eastern Time, the FBI Office of Public Affairs (OPA)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED) on 5/29/2019
(U) Search Warrant Executed- 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York 10021
(U//FOUO) On 07/08/2019, at 1:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, the Office of Public Affairs
(U) 31E-NY-3027571
(U) Interview of [REDACTED] on 5/29/2019
(U) Interview of [REDACTED) on 5/8/2019
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED] on 5/2/2019
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U//FOUO) TECS Silent Hit Notification
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED)
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
EFTA01684618
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
(U) Interview of [REDACTED]
EFTA01684619
Summary
(U) Chains of Custody
(U) Ending Transport Photographs
(U) Starting Transport Photographs
(U) Photos and Photo Logs
(U) Agent Notes
(U//FOUO) Email from [REDACTED] and attachments from Null
(U) letter from former Epstein Estate; fake NY State Driver's license
(U) [REDACTED) interview notes
(U//FOUO) Defense notes for [REDACTED]
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) interview notes
(U) digital notes
(U) Digital notes, household manual
(U) Notes
(U) [REDACTED] notes
(U) 794
(U) Receipt
(U) [REDACTED) interview notes
(U) Property receipt
(U) Trash pull
(U) Digital case files
(U) Subpoena
U 755162_NY
U 696289_NY
U 708478_NY
U 664501_NY
U 658904_NY
U 603998_NY
U 751864_NY
(U) Receipt
(U) FD-794
(U) Fed-Ex Delivery Confirmation, #1864 0967 1500
(U) [REDACTED] Interview notes - 9.2.21& Scan shown to NB
(U) Notes - [REDACTED]
(U) notes & doncuments
(U) Emails from [REDACTED]
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) Notes
(U) Notes
(U) Notes
(U) Documents shown to [REDACTED)
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
EFTA01684620
(U) Drivers license information for each individual.
(U) News article shown to [REDACTED]
(U) Notes
(U) Documents shown to [REDACTED]
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) [REDACTED) Interview notes
(U) Notes
(U) Notes
(U) Notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) Documents shown to [REDACTED]
(U) Notes
(U) Notes
(U) Notes
(U) Trial Subpoenas
(U) photobook
(U) Nude photo of [REDACTED]
(U) Items shown to [REDACTED) during interview
(U) Notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) Notes
(U) notes
(U) Notes
(U) Notes
(U) Messages pads
(U) notes
(U) Notes
(U) Transcript
(U) Epstein phone contact
(U) Notes
(U) Notes
(U) Trial Subpoena - [REDACTED]
(U) Copy of FedEx shipment with tracking number 774263190664
(U)[REDACTED] Farmer Certified Birth Certificate
(U) Legal Authority for Device
(U//FOUO) FD-597
(U) Lab # [REDACTED): 1 disk
(U) Photo provided by [REDACTED]
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) [REDACTED) Interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] notes
(U) 2021-00585-2 QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Photographs provided via email by [REDACTED)
(U) Photo from Myspace account
EFTA01684621
(U) Interview notes day 3
(U) Interview notes day 1
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Emails
(U) Statement referenced in interview
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Notes
(U) Interview notes day 2
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] flight log
(U) interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] involvement in U.S. Presidential pardon petitions and influences
from Russia and Israel on [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]
(U) notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] Interview notes
(U) Latest contact information tracked and updated by ODAG partners.
(U) Interview notes
(U) 10.21HD Receipt
(U) 10.22 HD Receipt
(U) 10.9 HD Receipt
(U) Receipt
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
EFTA01684622
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U//FOUO) Notes Re: Interview of [REDACTED] on July 27, 2020.
(U//FOUO) City of Maricopa Police Department Officer Report for D.R. 200722037
(U) Subpoena
(U) Accurint
(U) Subpoena
(U) Accurint
(U) Subpeona
(U) Accurint
(U) (U//FOUO) THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY
THE FBI TO BE PERTINENT TO & WITHIN THE SCOPE OF AN AUTHORIZED LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY & SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
ASSESSMENT OR PREDICATED INVESTIGATION TO WHICH THE INFORMATION
RELATES. PARTICULAR ATTENTION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE AUTHORIZED
PURPOSE FOR COLLECTING & RECORDING THIS INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S GUIDELINES FOR DOMESTIC FBI OPERATIONS & THE
DOMESTIC INVESTIGATION & OPERATIONS GUIDE. THAT PURPOSE MAY BE SET
FORTH IN THE FILE'S OPENING ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION OR OTHER RELATED
DOCUMENTS.
(U) Screenshot of Reddit post by user [REDACTED)
(U//FOUO) NYPD SVD Hotline Worksheet
(U) Photo
(U) Arrest warrant, arrest paperwork, notes
(U//FOUO) Document and audio recording from Bradford (NH) Police
(U//FOUO) Interview notes of [REDACTED]
(U) Graphic Capture of Viral Video.
(U) screenshot of [REDACTED] Quora page
(U) Screenshots of Epstein's alleged employee's confession on YouTube and 4chan
(U) Website [REDACTED]
(U) Screenshots from [REDACTED]
(U) Receipt
(U) Reported Tweets to NTOC
(U//FOUO) Aerial photos of [REDACTED]
(U) Screen shot of Imgur capture of the comment made by[REDACTED)
(U//FOUO) Notes from [REDACTED]
(U) Photographs provided by [REDACTED]
(U) (REDACTED] interview notes
(U) Interview notes & documents provided by [REDACTED]
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) Flight logs
(U) [REDACTED] Interview notes
(U) (REDACTED] interview notes
(U) (REDACTED) interview notes
(U) (REDACTED] interview notes
EFTA01684623
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) Two boxes of papers and media from PBPD
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Interview Notes & police report
(U) Interview notes
(U) Photo provided by [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] attorneys
(U) Interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] 302
(U) Interview Notes
(U) [REDACTED] 302
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) Photo Book
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) Interview notes and Message pad copies shown
(U) [REDACTED] Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Facebook Profile Screenshots
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) Photos
(U) Emails
(U) Interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] W Hotel charges, approval to accept charge, and proof of refund.
(U) [REDACTED] phone call notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) (REDACTED] Notes
(U) Interview Notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] Interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] Lodging
(U) [REDACTED] Lodging
EFTA01684624
(U) [REDACTED] Lodging
(U) [REDACTED] Reimbursement
(U) Receipts of EVAF Expenditures for Epstein Victims
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Receipts
(U) Receipts
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes and photos provided by [REDACTED]
(U) Interview notes
(U) RSVP/potential victim list, templates, reminders and overviews
(U) interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) VA DMV image of [REDACTED)
(U) DMV images of [REDACTED], [REDACTED) and [REDACTED], [REDACTED).110 reports concerning [REDA
(U) Interview notes
(U) Receipts
(U)[REDACTED]
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] Notes
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Administrative Documents
(U) Administrative Documents
(U) Screenshot of YouTube Video, [REDACTED]
(U) Interview notes
(U) Enclosed are the IC3 complaints
(U) Police Records from Cranston RI Police Department
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Receipt for Property (FD-597)
(U) Charlie and Delta Zone, with Bravo's Building 6, Search Paperwork
(U) Bravo Zone Search Paperwork
(U) Alpha Zone Search Paperwork
(U) Evidence Log, Sign•in Log, map, notes
(U) Search Warrant Little Saint James
(U//FOUO) Interview Notes
(U) Interview Notes
U S79223_CV
EFTA01684625
U 566318_PH
(U//FOUO) Interview Notes, images provided
(U) two (2) property receipts, one (1) inventory log, 1 (one) ERT photographic log and one CD with photogral
(U) Twitter screenshots of the links provided.
(U//FOUO) Interview Notes and photograph of (REDACTED]
(U) [REDACTED] NCIC
(U) Notes
(U) Notes
(U) Notes
(U) (1) DVD of photos, (2) original signed receipt for property forms FD-597, (1) business card
(U) original handwritten notes of [REDACTED] interview on 07/11/2019
(U) copy of Handwritten contact information for [REDACTED), his attorney [REDACTED], and property manal
(U) Photocopy of working folder pertaining to arrest paperwork of JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Interview Notes
(U) Epstein arrest warrant
(U) Arrest paperwork, search warrant, photographs disc
(U//FOUO) Interview Notes [REDACTED] 7/17/2019
(U) [REDACTED] Florida Identification
(U) Original Handwritten Interview Notes of [REDACTED] on 07/12/2019
(U) TLO report and WASHINGTON STATE DL image of potential victim to be interviewed.
(U) Twitter screenshots - [REDACTED]
(U) Twitter Post.
(U) Search warrant execution log, FBI Sign in log, Evidence Collected item log, copy
of search warrant, (1) FD-597 Forms, (1) DVD disk of Search photos
(U) [REDACTED] Notes
(U) Documents from UPS
(U) Attachments from tipster.
(U) twitter screenshot
(U) [REDACTED] Interview notes
(U) original search logs, copy of search warrant, (1) signed FD-597, (1) DVD disk of Search photos
(U//FOUO) Twitter Username [REDACTED]
(U) Fed-EX signature confirmation page.
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes 5.29.19
(U) Interview notes 5/8/19
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes 5.2.19, Photos 1 through 19 and A through F
(U) [REDACTED] Interview Notes
(U//FOUO) TECS silent hit entered
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) (REDACTED] Interview notes
(U) (REDACTED). Interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] Interview notes
EFTA01684626
(U)[REDACTED]Interview Notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) [REDACTED] interview notes
(U) Interview notes
(U) Interview notes
EFTA01684627
EFTA01684628
p 2021-00585-2 IA.4 CASE COMMUNICATION LOG: Con
EFTA01684629
EFTA01684630
EFTA01684631
EFTA01684632
EFTA01684633
EFTA01684634
EFTA01684635
EFTA01684636
tmunicadonLog2021-00585.pdf CASE NOTE INTERFACE REPORT: CNI Questioned Documents (AF)
EFTA01684637
EFTA01684638
EFTA01684639
EFTA01684640
EFTA01684641
EFTA01684642
EFTA01684643
EFTA01684644
ase Note (143683).p CASE FILES: 2021-00585 #1, Lead 17.pdf 2021-00585 Shipping Invoice C
EFTA01684645
EFTA01684646
EFTA01684647
EFTA01684648
EFTA01684649
EFTA01684650
EFTA01684651
EFTA01684652
ntainer C.pdf 2021-00585 #1 LER, Seria 575.pdf 2021-00585 Shipping Invoice Container B.p
EFTA01684653
EFTA01684654
EFTA01684655
EFTA01684656
EFTA01684657
EFTA01684658
EFTA01684659
EFTA01684660
if 2021-00585 Al Check-In Notes.rtf CASE CHAIN OF CUSTODY: Chain0Kustody2021-005854
EFTA01684661
EFTA01684662
EFTA01684663
EFTA01684664
EFTA01684665
EFTA01684666
EFTA01684667
EFTA01684668
df CASE RECORD REPORT: CaseReport2021-00585 Record #2.pdf CASE COMMUNICATION LOG FIL
EFTA01684669
EFTA01684670
EFTA01684671
EFTA01684672
EFTA01684673
EFTA01684674
EFTA01684675
EFTA01684676
S: 2021-00585_UNCLASS.pdf CASE REPORT: CaseReport2021-00S8S.pdf CASE RECORD FILES
EFTA01684677
EFTA01684678
EFTA01684679
EFTA01684680
EFTA01684681
EFTA01684682
EFTA01684683
EFTA01684684
2021-00585 Item 3 Matchmaker Images.pdf
EFTA01684685
EFTA01684686
EFTA01684687
EFTA01684688
EFTA01684689
EFTA01684690
EFTA01684691
EFTA01684692
EFTA01684693
Evidence Report for Case: 50D-NY-3027571
Filtering on: Type(s):1B
Item # Collected On
1B146 7/22/2022 10:00
1B145 5/25/202214:00
1B144 5/25/2022 14:00
1B143 7/7/2019 3:00
1B142 10/8/202113:00
1B141 10/8/202113:00
1B140 10/8/202113:00
1B139 6/29/202116:15
18138 8/12/2019 19:20
1B137 8/28/2006 11:50
1B136 1/26/202116:00
1B135 6/6/2019 12:00
1B134 8/28/2006 11:00
1B133 8/28/2006 11:00
1B132 8/28/2006 11:50
18131 8/28/2006 11:50
1B130 8/28/2006 11:50
1B129 8/28/2006 11:50
1B128 8/28/200611:50
18127 8/28/2006 11:50
18126 8/12/2019 19:20
1B125 8/12/2019 19:20
1B124 8/12/2019 19:20
1B123 8/12/2019 19:20
1B122 8/12/2019 19:20
1B121 8/12/2019 19:20
1B120 8/12/2019 19:20
1B119 8/12/2019 19:20
1B118 8/12/2019 19:20
1B117 8/12/2019 19:20
1B116 8/12/2019 19:20
1B115 8/12/2019 19:20
1B114 8/12/2019 19:20
1B113 8/12/2019 19:20
18112 8/12/2019 19:20
1B111 8/12/2019 19:20
1B110 8/12/2019 19:20
1B109 8/12/2019 19:20
1B108 8/12/2019 19:20
1B107 8/12/2019 19:20
18106 8/12/2019 19:20
11105 8/12/2019 19:20
1B104 8/12/2019 19:20
EFTA01684694
18103 8/12/2019 19:20
1B102 8/12/2019 19:20
18101 8/12/2019 19:20
1B100 8/12/2019 19:20
1B99 8/12/2019 19:20
1898 8/12/2019 19:20
1B97 8/12/2019 19:20
1B96 8/12/2019 19:20
1B95 8/12/2019 19:20
1B94 8/12/2019 19:20
1893 8/12/2019 19:20
1B92 8/12/2019 19:20
1691 8/12/2019 19:20
1690 8/12/2019 19:20
1889 8/12/2019 19:20
1888 8/12/2019 19:20
1887 8/12/2019 19:20
1886 8/12/2019 19:20
1685 8/12/2019 19:20
1884 8/12/2019 19:20
1683 8/12/2019 19:20
1682 8/12/2019 19:20
1881 8/12/2019 19:20
1680 8/12/2019 19:20
1679 7/11/2019 15:35
1B78 7/11/2019 15:35
1B77 7/11/2019 15:35
1B76 7/11/2019 15:35
1B75 7/11/2019 15:35
1B74 7/11/2019 15:35
1B73 7/11/2019 15:35
1872 7/6/2019 18:15
1871 7/6/2018 18:15
1870 7/11/2019 19:28
1869 7/11/2019 19:28
1B68 7/11/2019 19:28
1867 7/11/2019 19:28
1B66 7/11/2019 19:28
1865 7/11/2019 19:28
1B64 7/11/2019 19:28
1B63 7/11/2019 19:28
1862 7/11/2019 19:28
1B61 7/11/2019 19:28
1860 7/11/2019 19:28
1B59 7/11/2019 19:28
1658 7/11/2019 19:28
1857 7/11/2019 19:28
EFTA01684695
1856 7/11/2019 19:28
1B55 7/11/2019 19:28
1B54 7/11/2019 19:28
1653 7/11/2019 19:28
1B52 7/11/2019 16:28
1B51 7/11/2019 16:28
1B50 7/11/2019 16:28
1849 7/11/2019 16:28
1848 7/11/2019 16:28
1847 7/11/2019 16:28
1846 7/11/2019 16:28
1845 7/11/2019 19:28
1844 7/11/2019 19:28
1843 7/11/2019 19:28
1842 7/11/2019 19:28
1841 7/11/2019 19:28
1840 7/11/2019 19:28
1B39 7/11/2019 19:28
1B38 7/11/2019 19:28
1837 7/11/2019 19:28
1B36 7/11/2019 19:28
1835 7/11/2019 19:28
1B34 7/11/2019 19:28
1833 7/11/2019 19:28
1B32 7/11/2019 19:28
1B31 7/11/2019 19:28
1B30 7/11/2019 19:28
1B29 7/11/2019 19:28
1B28 7/11/2019 19:28
1827 7/7/2019 3:00
1826 7/7/2019 3:00
1825 7/7/2019 3:00
1824 7/7/2019 3:00
1823 7/7/2019 3:00
1822 7/7/2019 3:00
1821 7/7/2019 3:00
1B20 7/7/2019 3:00
1819 7/7/2019 3:00
1818 7/7/2019 3:00
1817 7/7/2019 3:00
1816 7/7/2019 3:00
1815 7/7/2019 3:00
1B14 7/7/2019 3:00
1813 7/7/2019 3:00
1812 7/7/2019 3:00
1811 7/7/2019 3:00
1810 7/7/2019 3:00
EFTA01684696
1B9 7/7/2019 3:00
188 7/7/2019 3:00
1B7 7/7/2019 3:00
1B6 7/7/2019 3:00
1B5 7/6/2019 0:00
1B4 5/29/201918:00
1B3 5/29/201918:00
1B2 5/29/2019 18:00
1B1 5/29/201918:00
EFTA01684697
Description
(U) ONE CELLOPHANE containing: NYC032395 - One (1)DVD-R containing image log files and FTK reports for systel
(U) Red Rope Containing;NYC032391- Three (3) LTD 6 tape cartridges containing an Arcserve backup of all digital
(U) Red Rope Containing;NYC032392 - Two(2) LTO 6 tape cartridges containing an Arcserve backup of all digital evi
(U) one (1) CD labelled "girl plcs nude book 4"
(U) ONE REDROPE CONTAINING: (1) Envelope containing 1 VHS tape, 2 cassette tapes & 4 micro cassette tapes
(U) ONE REDROPE CONTAINING: (1) Envelope containing 4 CD's
(U) (2) Bankers box containing various EPSTEIN related case materials
(U) ONE BOX CONTAINING: One pair of black women's cowboy boots, size 8
(U) ONE CELLOPHANE containing: Disk containing images of Matchmaker shred reconstruction
(U) ONE CELLOPHANE CONTAINING: (1) un-framed photo.
(U//FOUO) ONE RED ROPE containing: Highly confidential responsive material to include nude and semi nude ima
(U) Box containing Ten yearbooks collected by FBI West Palm Beach Resident Agency
(U) One (1) peach massage table.
(U) One (1) green massage table (PBPD0S-1024).
(U) One (1) beige massage table.
(U) One (1) brown massage table.
(U) One flat box containing one (1) large framed photo.
(U) One box containing four (4) framed photos.
(U) One box containing twelve (12) framed photos.
(U) One box containing five (5) framed photos
(U) One red rope containing: LSJ logbook
(U) One red rope containing:Daily Vessel Trip logs Feb 2, 2017 - Feb 16, 2017
(U) HP Tower S/N: CNV74213M3 Model: 570-p056
(U) Lenovo Tower S/N: 153306G2USAIXEKGX
(U) Lenovo Tower S/N: M107YG6U Machine type: 90J0
(U) Mac DesktopS/N: W89524C2SPJ model A1312
(U) HP TowerS/N: CNV716004YModel #: 260-a010
(U) HP Desktop TowerS/N: CNV7160050Model #: 260-a010
(U) Silver Mac desktop
(U) 6 Bay with 146GB drivesS/N: MXQ824A1R
(U) One box containing Panasonic KX-TDE100S/N: KX-TDA01049LCCD005398
(U) HP server with (4) 500 GB drivesS/N: MXQ3220187
(U) Blue prints
(U) One cellophane containing:Boat trip log & employee lists
(U) Unifi serverMacID: 1735K788A20463234-8uuu9FFCCID: SWX-UASPRO
(U) Unifi videoM/N: UVC-NVR-2TBMacID: 1829FB4FBE426EA90
(U) One cellophane containing:Paper with passwords on both sides
(U) Unifi Cloud keyM/N: UN-CKFCCID: SWX-UCCKIC 6545A-UCCKMac ID: 1843KB4FBE4D30C69-dcRgm9
(U) CELLOPHANE containing Olympus Digital Voice Recorder
(U) Silver Mac desktopModel #: A1311S/N: W804736DDA5
(U) Dell Inspiron tower with power cordReg Model: D19MQCHFA335
(U) One red rope contalning:LSJ & GSI Boat Log 2019
(U) Box containing Shredded paper
EFTA01684698
(U) ONE CELLOPHANE CONTAINING; Apple iPod shuffle on watch band
(U) Silver Macbook Desktop with keyboard
(U) One cellophane containing:Photograph
(U) One cellophane containing:Employee contact list
(U) One red rope containing:Red Nikon Camera
(U) One box containing: Silver Desktop Mac with keyboard
(U) HP Laptop with chargerS/N: CND81368V5
(U) Toshiba Laptop with charger
(U) One red rope containing:Remodeling documents for Island
(U) One cellophane containing:Handwritten notes on LSJ notepad
(U) One flat FedEx box containing: Photos, Photo negatives, letter
(U) One red rope containing:lsland blueprints, island photos, and documents
(U) One red rope containing:photo album of girl & Epstein
(U) One red rope containing:letter, photo album of girls, photos of island
(U) One cellophane containing:Document with names
(U) One cellophane containing:Employee contact list
(U) Silver Mac Desktop
(U) One red rope containing: Notepads with notes - LSJ stationary with handwritten notes
(U) Silver Mac Desktop with mouse & keyboardS/N: C02NM1MOFY14
(U) Silver iPad Model A15675/N: DMPQL1RMG5Yin case
(U) CELLOPHANE containing Silver iPad Model A15675/N: DMPQL25NGSYPYin case
(U) RED ROPE containing Silver MacBook ProS/N: C02QMOGUGWDP
(U) Silver Mac Laptop labeled "JE BIG LAPTOP" "BLACK BAG" in black bag S/N: W89111772QT
(U) Mac Desktop labeled "Kitchen Mac" - grey
(U) One heat-sealed bag containing one yellow envelope marked "SK" dated 08/27/08 containing multiple smaller
(U) RED ROPE CONTAINING: 4 binders with 68 discs inside
(U) One heat-sealed bag containing one small white envelope with writing "2000-SK" containing $4,400 USC (44 x
(U) ONE CELLOPHANE CONTAINING; Austrian Passport with Epstein photograph
(U) RED ROPE CONTAINING: Two blue binders with 58 discs inside
(U) CELLOPHANE containing Black hard drive
(U) CELLOPHANE containing Black hard drive
(U) One (1) silver IPad with serial number DLXQGM3KGMW3.
(U) ONE CELLOPHANE CONTAINING :One (1) black iPhone with IMEI number 357201093322785.
(U) One box containing: 1 Apple Desktop computer
(U) 1 Silver IPAD - 64GB
(U) 1 Space Gray Apple IPAD
(U) 1 Space Gray Apple IPAD
(U) One cellophane containing 1 Black Radioshack recorder
(U) One cellophane containing 1 Silver Olympus recorder
(U) One cellophane containing 1 Sony BM-560 Recorder
(U) Box containing 45 Assorted Cd's
(U) One red rope containing 1 Sony Vaio Laptop
(U) 1 Dell Precision Tower 5810
(U) One red rope containing:1Seagate Barracuda 7200 harddrive 80GB
(U) 1 MSI PC Computer IN A BROWN BOX
(U) One red rope containing:1Sony Camera with black case
(U) 1 Gray Apple Desktop Computer with keyboard and mouse
EFTA01684699
(U) One cellophane containing 1 Seagate Backup Plus Portable Drive - 1TB
(U) One cellophane containing one (1) White Apple (Phone 5, 64GB.
(U) 1 Apple Desktop Computer with keyboard and mouse
(U) 1 Apple Desktop Computer with keyboard and mouse
(U) One cellophane containing:1SPIEF 2014 Silver USB
(U) One cellophane containing 1 Cruzer Guide 32GB USB
(U) One cellophane containing 1 Cruzer Guide 32GB USB
(U) One cellophane containing 1 Cruzer Guide 32GB USB
(U) One cellophane containing 1 Cruzer Guide 32GB USB
(U) One cellophane containing 1 Blue EMTEC 16 GB USB
(U) One cellophane containing 1 EMTEC 16 GB USB
(U) One red rope containing:10 assorted cd's
(U) One cellophane containing 3. Silicone Power Micro SD Adapter with 16GB SD Card
(U) 1 DELL Machine
(U) 1 Cube 9000 Siteserver, (BLACK/SILVER)
(U) 1 HP Compaq Machine
(U) One cellophane containing one (1) Mentor Media 32GB USB.
(U) One cellophane containing one (1) Data Traveler 4GB USB.
(U) One cellophane containing one (1) Data Traveler 4GB USB.
(U) One red rope containing:1Seagate Path/100 Hard Drives
(U) One red rope containing:1Seagate Path/100 Hard Drives
(U) One red rope containing:1Seagate Path/100 Hard Drives
(U) One red rope containing:1Seagate Path/100 Hard Drives
(U) One red rope containing:1Seagate Path/100 Hard Drives
(U) One red rope containing:1Seagate Path/100 Hard Drives
(U) One red rope containing:1Seagate Path/100 Hard Drives
(U) One red rope containing:1Seagate Path/100 Hard Drives
(U) One red rope containing:1Seagate Path/100 Hard Drives
(U) Silver Apple Desktop
DataSet-10
Unknown
75 pages
: Age: 16
***AGE is the age the Victim first encountered Epstein, 6a..r vh.aiso (A C
(1141S ak Or $1‘) CeSCAoal
EFTA01702617
MERGED FLIGHT MANIFESTS
FLIGHTS TO/FROM PBI
Date From Departure Time To Arrival Time Aircraft
1/2/2004 TIST 4:17PM PBI 5:55PM Hyperion
1/3/2904 PBI 10:24AM ISM 10:57AM Hyperion
1/3/2004 ISM 7:56PM PBI 8:26PM Hyperion
1/5/2004 PBI 4:56PM TBB 7:04PM Hyperion
1/8/2004 TEB 10:15PM PBI 12:37AM Hyperion
1/15/2004 JFK 9:16PM PBI 11:29PM JEGB
1/20/2004 PBI 6:21PM JFK 8:39PM • JEGE
1/23/2004 JFK 8:41PM PBI 10:57PM JEGE
1/26/2004 PBI 5:03PM TSB 7:18PM Hyperion
2/5/2004 TEB 8:22PM PBI 10:46PM Hyperion
2/9/2004 PBI 4:52PM JFK 6:56PM JEGE
2/19/2004 JFK 8:19PM PBI 10:27PM • JEGE
2/22/2004 PBI 7:08PM JFK 9:18PM MB
3/3/2004 JFK 9:10PM PBI 11:23PM • JEGE
3/7/2004 PBI 5:42PM TEB 8:18PM Hyperion
3/11/2004 TBB 8:55PM PBI 11:20PM Hyperion
3/13/2004 PBI 11:50AM TIST 3:06PM Hyperion
3/19/2004 TIST 2:01PM PBI 3:42PM Hyperion
3/25/2004 PBI 2:44PM TBB 5:17PM Hyperion
3/25/2004 TEB 9:40PM PBI 11:53PM Hyperion
3/31/2004 PBI 11:55AM JFK 1:58PM JEGE
4/2/2004 JFK 8:49PM. PBI 11:03PM - JBGE •
4/6/2004 PBI 10:51AM TIST 1:00PM Hyperion
4/10/2004 TIST 10:38AM PM 1:23PM Hyperion
4/11/2004 PM 2:17PM JFK 4:23PM JEGE
4/16/2004 BED 6:48PM PBI 9:08PM ' ME
4/19/2004 PBI 3:45PM JFK 6:06PM JBGE
4/22/2004 JFK 8:09PM PBI 10:21PM JEGE
4/27/2004 PBI 11:07AM JFK 1:04PM . JEGE
5/1/2004 • JFK 8:53PM • PM 11:07PM MB
5/4/2004 PBI 4:45PM JFK 6:51PM JEGE
5/14/2004 CYQX 7:56AM PBI 10:26AM JEGB
5/17/2004 PBI 4:22PM TEB 7:19PM Hyperion
5/21/2004 TBB 8:00PM PBI 10:13PM Hyperion
5/24/2004 PBI 9:31AM TIST 11:57AM Hyperion
6/4/2004 HVN 12:29PM PBI 2:59PM Hyperion
6/7/2004 PBI 10:19AM TBB 12:47PM • Hyperion
6/11/2004 MDW 10:25AM PBI 1:51AM • Hyperion
6/13/2004 PM 4:08PM JFK 6:18PM JEGE
6/20/2004 TIST 3:58PM PBI 6:15PM IBM
Copy of Flight Nlanifests.xls Page 1
EFTA01702618
MERGED FLIGHT MANIFESTS
FLIGHTS TO/FROM PBI
Date From Departure Time To Arrival Time Aircraft
6/21/2004 PBI 11:23AM TBB 1:47PM Hyperion
7/4/2004 ASB 4:45PM PBI 10:20PM Hyperion
7/11/2004 PBI 10:47AM MB 1:10PM Hyperion
7/16/2004 TEB 7:38PM PBI 10:02PM Hyperion
7/19/2004 PBI 5:35PM TIST 7:58PM MGR
7/22/2004 TIST 7:26PM PBI 9:50PM JEGB
7/25/2004 PBI 4:35PM JFK 6:36PM JEGE
8/6/2004 TIST 8:I2PM PBI 10:25PM JEGE
8/10/2004 PBI 10:23AM JFK 12:28PM JEGB
8/19/2004 VNY 9:24PM PBI 4:50PM JEGB
8/24/2004 PBI 10:51AM SBGU 1:44PM JEGB
8/25/2004 SEGU 12:23PM PBI 5:31PM JEGE
9/1/2004 PBI 5:56PM TIST 8:56PM JEGE
9/16/2004 JFK 8:05PM PBI 10:16PM JBGB
9/19/2004 PBI 7:36AM PHL 9:49AM MGR
10/2/2004 TIST 7:32PM PBI . 9:49PM JEGE
10/5/2004 PBI 8:02AM JFK 10:07AM MGR
10/8/2004 JFK 6:05PM • PBI 8:05PM IBM
10/10/2004 PBI 6:00PM JFK 8:12PM MB
10/16/2004 TIST 5:54PM PBI 8:08PM JEGE
10/17/2004 PBI 8:04AM JFK 10:15AM JEGE
10/29/2004 TBB 10:31PM PBI 12:36AM Hyperion .
11/1/2004 PBI 7:50PM TIST 11:14PM Hyperion
11/5/2004 TEB 8:19PM PBI 10:46PM Hyperion
11/9/2004 PBI 5:32PM TBB 7:59PM Hyperion '
11/10/2004 TEB 10:08PM PBI 12:21AM Hyperion
11/14/2004 PBI 12:13PM ABY 1:18PM Hyperion
11/18/2004 TEB 10:01PM FBI 12:10AM Hyperion
11/23/2004 PBI 2:35PM TIST 5:45PM Hyperion
12/3/2004** JFK 5:04PM PBI 7:34PM JEGE
12/13/2004 TIST 4:35PM PBI 6:11PM Hyperion
12/14/2004' PBI 10:12PM TEB 12:22PM Hyperion
12/17/2004 . TEB 8:10PM PBI 10:35PM Hyperion
12/21/2004 PBI 8:44AM TIST 11:53AM Hyperion
1/1/2005 TQPF 2:11PM PBI 4:09PM Hyperidn
1/3/2005 PBI 4:04PM TEB 6:32PM Hyperion
1/6/2005 TEB 9:22PM PBI 11:50PM Hyperion
I/11/2005 PBI 8:03PM TIST 11:14PM
1/14/2005 TIST ' 4:44PM PBI 6:18PM ' JEGB
1/17/2005 PBI 5: lOPM JFK 7:39PM JIM
Copy of Flight Manifests.xls Page 2
EFTA01702619
MERGED FLIGHT MANIFESTS
FLIGHTS TO/FROM PEI
Date From Departure Time To Arrival Time Aircraft
1/19/2005 JFK 9:39PM PBI 11:52PM JEGB
1/27/2005 PBI 7:46PM TIST 10:53PM JEGB
2/3/2005 CMH 10:53PM PBI 12:40AM JBGB '
2/7/2005 PBI 5:39PM JFK 7:54PM JEGB
2/10/2005 JFK 9:41PM PBI 11:54PM JEGB
2/15/2005 PBI 5:42PM JFK 7:00PM JEGE
2/21/2005 TIST 6:41PM PBI 8:05PM JBGE
2/22/2005 PBI 10:37AM TBB 12:56PM Hyperion
2/24/2005 TEB 1:04PM PBI 3:40PM Hyperion
3/1/2005 PBI 10:50AM JFK 12:53PM JBGE
3/4/2005 JFK 9:28PM PBI 11:45PM JEGE
3/8/2005 PBI 11:42AM TIST 2:50PM JEGE
3/18/2005 JFK 10:02AM PBI 12:48PM JEGE
3/22/2005 PBI 1:07PM JFK 3:16PM JBGB
3/31/2005 JFK 8:43AM PBI 11:10AM JEGE
4/6/2005 PBI 10:54AM JFK 1:05PM JBGB
4/8/2005 TBB 7:41PM PBI 10:02PM Hyperion
4/12/2005 PBI 6:20PM TIST 8:26PM Hyperion
4/27/2005 TBB 9:17AM PBI 11:58AM Hyperion
4/29/2005 PBI 8:22PM TIST 10:28PM . Hyperion
5/6/2005 TBB 9:10PM PBI 11:27PM Hyperion
5/10/2005 PBI 4:34PM TBB 6:57PM Hyperion
5/19/2005 TBB 7:51PM PBI 10:12PM Hyperion
5/24/2005 PBI 11:14AM TBB 1:38PM Hyperion
5/29/2005 TIST 3:37PM PBI 6:07PM Hyperion
6/1/2005 PBI 4:31PM TEB 7:50PM Hyperion
6/8/2005** JFK 8:24PM PBI 10:33PM JEGE •
6/18/2005 TBB 8:19AM PBI 10:35AM Hyperion
6/20/2005 PBI 4:39PM TEB 6:55PM Hyperion
6/30/2005 TEB 7:50PM PBI 10:01PM Hyperion
7/5/2005 PBI 11:29AM TEB 1:45PM Hyperion
7/15/2005 TEB 10:07PM PBI 12:19AM Hyperion
7/18/2005 PBI 1:49PM TBB 4:15PM Hyperion
7/22/2005 TEB 9:11PM PBI 11:26PM Hyperion
7/25/2005 PBI 5:09PM MB 7:34PM Hyperion
8/18/2005 TEB 1:11PM PBI 3:19PM Hyperion
8/22/2005 PBI 3:57PM TBB 6:16PM Hyperion
9/3/2005 TIST • 11:48AM PBI 2:12PM Hyperion
9/5/2005 PBI 3:59PM TBB 6: I IPM Hyperion
9/9/2005 TEB 10:00PM • PBI 12:22AM , Hyperion
Copy of Flight Manifests.xls Page 3
EFTA01702620
MERGED FLIGHT MANIFESTS
FLIGHTS TO/FROM PHI
Date From Departure Time To Arrival Time Aircraft
9/11/2005 PBI 2:06PM TIST 4:30PM Hyperion
9/18/2005 HPN 7:22PM PBI 9:36PM Hyperion
9/20/2005 PBI 8:16PM TIST 10:36PM Hyperion
9/29/2005 TEB 8:56PM PBI 11:12PM Hyperion
10/4/2005 PBI 11:41AM TSB 2:11PM Hyperion
10/6/2005 TBB 11:21AM MIA 1:48PM Hyperion
10/6/2005 MIA 7:34PM TIST 10:00PM Hyperion
Copy of Flight Manifests.xls Page 4
EFTA01702621
EFTA01702622
b 7tr
£°f7 A0/O1 #7/
soli 4. op
bb -4b
1,-.31V)
Co Vatrt. -S
sr 2 Ap .1•3 hi
I.3
91.
91.
96
So/A0
LL
9I.
OZ
b1
9
.;_c202 /1 /./.9
LL
(14 3 btl i)
i t, 12- SL
h eoz LL
hoen LL
/,A LL
h LL
hO/1 9L
-bort/ 91
heib 91'
5o/7.7 91
suit L
o/L LL
LL
I, O/ /I LL
ia 91.
fr /h9
cd- hc'/zl
(
S oft PI.
ho/€ LI.
•
17
14
16'
16
17
17
17
17
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
15
17
16 cao.4.5 9
18
18 lo lift o4
20
18
17 -wait, c O,7
17 o
18
18
18
21
cl 09 I" stoy mi
111
15
EFTA01702623
VICTIMS
- DOB: Age: 14
Sexual Contact with Epstein:
- DOB: Age: 17
Sexual Contact with Epstein:
- DOB: Age: 17
Sexual Contact with E stein:
EFTA01702624
- DOB: Age: 16
lexantact with E stein:
- DOB: II= Age: 17
Sexual Contact with E stein:
- DOB: Age: 14
Sexual Contact with Epstein:
ME=
EFTA01702625
- DOB: Age: 17
■
Sexual Contact with Epstein:
- DOB Age: 16
Sexual Contact with Epstein:
a im
BM - DOB: MB Agc: 16
Sexual Contact with Epstein:
tein)
EFTA01702626
Age: 16
L..C.ta -cD
tO
vrth:
- DOB: Age: 15
Sexual Contact with Epstein:
Epstein)
- DOB: Age: 17
exua ontact with Epstein:
Epstein
EFTA01702627
- DOB: Age: 16
Sexual Contact with Epstein:
Epstein
- DOB: Age: 15
Liti.act with Epstein:
- DOB: IIIMAge: 17
Sexual Contact with Epstein:
Epstein)
EFTA01702628
- DOB: Age: 17
ille.eact with Epstein:
E tein
- DOB: Age: 16
I
Sexual Contact with Epstein:
Epstein)
- DOB: Age: 15
Sexual Contact with Epstein:
E ..tein)
EFTA01702629
Ila - DOB: Age: 16
exual Contact with Epstein:
E tein
***AGE is the age the Victim first encountered Epstein. All females listed above were underage
when the sexual activity occurred.
EFTA01702630
A B C
VICTIM WITNESS
DOB
AGE AT FIRST -4 lb
2 CONTACT
3 HIGH SCHOOL
BROUGHT BY
4
DATES OF 03 12 04 - 02/05/2005 - 04/2005 12/06/04 -10127/2005
CONTACT/ SOURCE 07/24/2005 Telephone Telephone
Telephone telephone
5
GIRLS RECRUITED (18)
6
NUMBER OF Unknown/Multiple
MASSAGES
7
ENTICEMENT
8 Title 18 USC 2422(b)
Interstate Commerce Telephone records Telephone reccrds Telephone reccrds
Connection between
0
Phone calls with From 33 0 From. 77 Total
Total er 50 (70) Over (166)
MEM
10
Phone calls with
11
Phone calls with Total - 28
ri S( alt—>
12
Under 18 at time of yEs
sexual activity
13
Advised if asked to YES -
yLs
state they were over
18/Advised by S
14 whom? "Th
Knowledge or told JE she was 18 .:old JE she was 18 Neyeftold JE her age.
Discussion of Age ut she said that she and a Senior Discussed Soccer and would
with JE? thought he knew better. High School. be attendingli
stated that J n't care,
when it came to her age.
told0 she was worried b(c
she had mentionecirom to
JE.) and good
friends and they went to same
school and in same class..
iris frdshp.•a
and JE discussedh/c
of
told JE she
15 I sa Jr.)
rie7
SG il-e1
4/14( Arnd
bur ex5--
EFTA01702631
A B C
VICTIM WITNESS
DOB
Payment for YES iz oo scro YESS300 00 YES/$200.00
sorvIces?/Amount
16
Payment for $200.00 per girl NO YES
17 recruitment
Payments made by !tete:in Epstein Epstein
18
Taken upstairs by Unknown female ass stant
o
19
Clothing worn
during massage
20
Sexual activity
21
YES
yes
22
Yes
23
EFTA01702632
A F B C
1
VICTIM WITNESS
DOB
Statements made by I'll pay'II
you I 0 for
MIN
Epstein every g rl you bring to
me. Make sure they
know what is expected.
The younger the better.
24
NOi
Askod to bring YES! Epstein ntrolled cal to
others/By whom? Sister)
25
Gifts NO NO YES - VS Bra & Panty sets,
Vibrator, and Rental Car
20
Physical Evidence Confession Controlled call to - 09/2112005, -
04/08/2005. /04/2005,M-1 07/2005.
(i.e. Message Pads,
Trash Pulls, Search
irk5h Pitt
1
Warrant, Payment
Documentation, etc.)
44"€-P "
27 i(co) (441,
28 Counts (() rr-/ t* Chan.14
29 2-As -
TRAVEL Title
30 18 USC 2423(b)
Dates of
31 Travel/Aircraft
32
TRANSPORTATION
33 Title 18 USC 2421
EFTA01702633
A C
VICTIM WITNESS
1 DOB .=
Dates of N/A N/A N/A
34 TraveUAircraft
Sexual activity with No No No
35
36 Counts
37
HUMAN SEX
TRAFFICKING
38 Title 18 USC 1591(a)
Who Scheduled • vial
Appointments?
39
40 Counts
41
Interviewed by PBPD Yes Yes Yes
42
43 Interviewed by FBI No Yes Yes
Miscellaneous
44
I told that JE
sn't do that
JE offered to fly. and Rto
his island aroun and for t eir
(referring to sex) he June birthdays* knew
plays around with them about JE providing • with VS
lingerie for birthday, vibrator
and rental car.
45
EFTA01702634
At 41-1
A F G
1
VICTIM WITNESS
DOB
AGE AT FIRST 1/
AIL 17
2 CONTACT
3
4
HIGH SCHOOL
BROUGHT BY rim
DATES OF 4125/2004 - 10/06/2005 Sometime between 11/4/2004 - 03/29/2005
CONTACT/ SOURCE Telephone 04/2004 - 07/2004 via el hone
&INTelephones -Sta t-2•1•246.-i -
3 Date only. "''3 z oo q
GIRLS RECRUITED N/A
p_A 100 e_.L
`94
NUMBER OF 3-4 tknes So-t)z- 3-4 times 5-6 times ftfkiudniart
MASSAGES • I,
7 t-, • (2A,go-v,
ENTICEMENT
8 Title 18 USC 242203)
Interstate Commerce Telephonefirds unidentified Telephone Records
Connection saii-a. 6-vv-)"" Number i f 5a - et-e•-44-
9 S AP
uter-J,_
Phone calls with Frrfre'51
Rst e
-U
/0 yr r 707 00,
Phone calls with
11
Phone calls with To4e4-4.5-
12 1
Under 18 at time of YES - 16 YES - 17 YES - 17
sexual activity
13
Advised if asked to YESAi - WS( Ill A
state they were over 0,,__ • on racr to
18/Advised by tn•d•->s s.
14 whom?
Knowledge or a while, somebody ts.1 ev...t• • i—
,
Discussion of Age Junior at yvaSncirft-
with JE? nigt ctoo ha- Ord.11-- Aa t-S ,Skcs
to d JE mat she and --reCct t4t-"PM
a va
were gooc trends an v t-t ,e-
went to same school and mobs .cAsyus,T° r
in same class. and JE eistAray?1. Vss, f
+n VIA-
discussed b/c of girls yokes-4
SLt. Sra.:14
frdshp.
kt
iStlamai . 4-
ow. 1.•
mentionveprom-IQJ
15
Pit
te
EFTA01702635
A F G
VICTIM WITNESS
DOB
Payment for YES/S2
1-110
1
YES/3300.00 max YES/5300.1
services?/Amount
16
Payment for $200.00 per girl IYES.stated $200.00 INO
17 recruitment
Payments made by Epstein and Epstein jEpstein
18
Taken upstairs by MEM
19
Clothing worn
during massage
20
Sexual activity
21
22
23
EFTA01702636
A
VICTIM WITNESS
DOB
Statements made by
Epstein Told her she
could make more money E tried to talk to
if she would do more. just to make her
Told her she could make comfortable with the
more money if she situation. "Flow much
brought her pretty friends. money do you make at
You should know what to work, you could make
expect when , ou come more with me." During
here. the first rnassa•e JE
24
Asked to bring YES/ and Epstein Unknown N/A
others/By whom?
25
Gifts NO NO knew. was YES - Western Union -
offs more money and 12/23/2004
Meceived a blue $200.00 Christmas
I Dodge.) present.
Cia a utir-- if\
c) r ,t4ivi -‘ptit
26
Physical Evidence N/P - 1 MP - 1 MP - 3
(i.e. Message Pads, Western Union -
Trash Pulls, Search 12/23/2004
Warrant, Payment $200.00 Christmas
Documentation, etc.) present.
27
28 Counts
29
TRAVEL Title
30 18 USC 2423(b)
Dates of
31 Travel/Aircraft
32
TRANSPORTATION
33 Title 18 USC 2421
EFTA01702637
A S F G
VICTIM WITNESS
1 DOB
Dates of NA, N/A N/A
34 Travel/Aircraft
Sexual activity with No No No
35
36 Counts
37
HUMAN SEX
TRAFFICKING
38 Title 18 USC 1591(a)
Who Scheduled called and •
Appointments? Rile did not wan to
39 do it anymore.
40 Counts
41
Interviewed by PBPD Yes Yes Yes
42
43 Interviewed by FBI Yes No No
44 Miscellaneous
. believed. told her
about the vibrator
I observed pictures of Third time,
naked people while going
ared
prov ded to nor to up the stairs at JE's E asked
Spring 200ph . knew of residence. JE asked lit'Why do you kee.
JE's offer to take. and fo tele hone looking at the clock?
. to New York or his num er. stopped replied "Because my
island knew of gifts going because she was boyfriend is going to come
JE provi ed to. i.e. VS scared JE was going to do pick me up." JE said,
lingerie, birthday owers, something. told to "Well your supposed to be
viorator and rental car. say she was if as ed. making me enjoy my
massage right now,
please do not keep
looking at the clock." JE
stated, 'If you don't want
to do this then you don't
have to do it."
45
EFTA01702638
A H
VICTIM WITNESS
DOB Jane
Jane oe 6 oe #7 Jane Doe #8
1
AGE AT FIRST 17 17 17
2 CONTACT
3 HIGH SCHOOL
BROUGHT BY
4
DATES OF 07/15/2004 - 09/01/2005 07/22/2004 - 11,02/2005 0225/2005 - 10/032005
CONTACT/ SOURCE Telephone Telephone III Telephone
5
GIRLS RECRUITED pl. ■ N/A 20
NUMBER OF multiple tines stated Approx. 15 Approx. 15
MASSAGES hundreds of times
ENTICEMENT
8 Title 18 USC 2422(b)
Interstate Commerce Telephone Records Telephone Records telephone Records
Connection
9
Phone calls with From - 90 From From I- 42 Total
Total - ver 225 calls Total - is - Over (70)
'0 (233) (420) i 0- 1
Phone calls with From -4 Total - f l Total calling.
Total -
1
Phone calls with Tote - 3 Total - is' Tote4, --80
L' 5
12
Under 18 at time of YES - 17. slated 16 YES YES - 17
sexual activity and 16/1
13
Advised if asked to
state they were over
18/Advised by
whom?
14
EFTA01702639
A H J
VICTIM WITNESS
DOB Jane
Jane Doe #6 oe #7 Jane Doe #8
1
Knowledge or told JE she was 18. Ilioriginally told JE she told JE she was 17
Discussion of Age responded that he was 18, but on her age and she stated he
with JE? knew she was not 18. E leighteenth birthday JE was well aware of her
sent roses to r gave her four tickets t age.
Efor her pe Orman in See David Copperfield:
a school play. N Fort Lauderdale, nor'
provided JE a school 'it•oral ua
transcript in hopes he
u4 • •
would help her fnano./
p k...as A 4,-ti.e
and obtain ertry into . , ts.r.valk
.flown to NY for her
At Al 'to ii,IVJZ4,"
18th Birthday.
te•
15
Payment for YES/$200-. - 1st time, YES/3200.00 YES/$200.00 for
services?/Amount $300.00 - $600.00 and massages, $350.00 for
$1000.00 paid after Intercourse.
16
Payment for YES -it stated• NO NO
17 recruitment recvd 0.00
Payments made by Epstein GPs "
18
Taken upstairs by
s koa.,
. 11
$ fet' t
19 ,s
Clothing worn
during massage
20
EFTA01702640
A hH
VICTIM WITNESS
DOB Jane
MA IM
I ir
ane oe 6 Doe #7 Jane Doc #8
Sexual activity
21
YES YES YES
22
YES YES
23
Statements made by [On more than one
Epstein occasion, JE asked
asked ■ about he
attending college in the
is
future. JE provided
advice on bad
credit,
dealing wit er parents
and school.
24
EFTA01702641
A H J
VICTIM WITNESS
DOB Jane
1 Jane Doe #6 ane uoe
Asked to bring N/A
others/By whom?
25
Gifts YES - Multiple Victoria's YES - Brazilian bathing YES - Victoria's Secret
Secret underwear sets. suit, Western Urion - Bra and Panties sets,
Bathing suit and Louis Cancun S350.00 Rec. Digital camera and
Vuitton purse. Movie 06/02/2005 Western photography book
tickets/show tickets ie. Union - San Diego
David Copperfield (FL) $200.00 Rec
and Phantom of the 07/13/2005
Opera (NY). Plane ticket David Copperfield Tickets
to NY. $2000.00
Christmas bonus. 2005
Dodge Neon. •
believed JE would pay for
26 her t0 attend..
Physical Evidence
(i.e. Message Pads,
-6
-H.S. Transcript
-10
21/2005
OE 7 ■
Trash Pulls, Search Petty Cash Receipt etty Cash Receipt
Warrant, Payment Photo Lineup.. ID Brazilian bathing snit,
Documentation, etc.) Palm Beach ort- Western Union - Cancun
taken when. went to $350.00 Recvd
pick up Christmas bonus. 06/02/2005 Western
2005 Dodge Neon rental Union - San Diego
car. $200.00 Recvd
27 07/13/2005
28 Counts
29
TRAVEL Title
30 18 USC 2423(b)
Dates of
31 Travel/Aircraft
32
TRANSPORTATION
33 Title 18 USC 2421
Dates of
34 Travel/Aircraft
Sexual activity with
35
36 Counts
37
HUMAN SEX
TRAFFICKING
30 Title 18 USC 1591(a)
EFTA01702642
A H
VICTIM WITNESS
1
DOB
Jane Doee 6 Doe #7
Jane
J
ane Doc 8
39
Who Scheduled
Appointments?
.E
ri Ir.lessPc -4),
ssPd -1)
40 Counts
41
Interviewed by PBPD Yes No/Contact made Yes
42
43 Interviewed by FBI Yes 'Yes Yes
44 Miscellaneous
wrote her cellular stated. received
telephone number for JE 200 00 for bringing to
on a notepad described JE.
as having JE's name on
the bottom of the pad.
1 r...M
.PvirieN FIN
CC c..)-tU GS
it.4lI W-t -t I n 4oAn
45
EFTA01702643
A K L
4r IM
VICTIM WITNESS
1 DOB
AGE AT FIRST 16 a
2 CONTACT
3 HIGH SCHOOL
BROUGHT BY
4
DATES OF
CONTACT/ SOURCE Illinaestimony
. via=
Start date only.
-
-
to
Testimony -
ate only.
5
GIRLS RECRUITED N/A N/A
6
NUMBER OF 2 times 1 massage 2 1
MASSAGES more residence visits
7
ENTICEMENT .
8 Title 18 USC 2422(b) . _ ____ _ . _
Interstate Commerce Telephone Records Telephone Records
Connection b n~& between
9 & IIII
Phone calls with 0 Fro 0 0
10
Phone calls with 0 0 0
11
Phone calls with 0 0 0
12
Under 18 at time of YES - 16 and possible YES - 17 YES - 16
sexual activity turned 17 by the second
13 visit
Advised if asked to YES -_e
state they were over
18/Advised by
14 whom? .
Knowledge or tated that JE asked None never told JE her age.
Discussion of Age ems questions like "What stated that JE knew
with JE? do you do?" or "Whido s e was in High School
you go to School?
stated she believed she
she wento
15
EFTA01702644
A
VICTIM WITNESS I
1 DOB
Payment for YES/$200.00 each time YES/$200.00 YES/$200.00 (Epstein
services?/Amount gave $100.00 to give
to. or bringing her.)
16
Payment for NO YES/$100.00 YES/$100.00 to.
17 recruitment
Payments made by Epstein Epstein Epstein
18
Taken upstairs by 1st time - White female, Ion. blonde
2nd time - hair identified
19
Clothing worn Cropped tank top that
during massage exposed her belly and
20 blue jeans
Sexual activity
21
YES YES YES
22
YES YES YES
23
EFTA01702645
A
VICTIM WITNESS
1 DOB
Statements made by an pe ormed
Epstein first massif together.
JE asked to I e
room. JE asked
24
Asked to bring NO NO
others/By whom?
25
Gifts NO NO NO
26 •
Physical Evidence Testimony/Telephone Testimony Testimony
(i.e. Message Pads, Records
Trash Pulls, Search
Warrant, Payment
Documentation, etc.)
27
28 Counts
29
TRAVEL Title
30 18 USC 2423(b)
—
Dates of
31 Travel/Aircraft
32 _ . .
TRANSPORTATION
33 Title 18 USC 2421
EFTA01702646
1 •
•
A K I L I M
VICTIM W
DataSet-10
Unknown
34 pages
Page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
-vs- VOLUME I OF II
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
Related cases:
08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
DEPOSITION OF
DETECTIVE JOSEPH RECAREY
Friday, March 19, 2010
9:37 - 5:12 p.m.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1500
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Reported By:
Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, FPR
Notary Public, State of Florida
Prose Court Reporting
Job No.: 1509
PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
EFTA00298259
EFTA00298260
Page 2
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL 1 APPEARANCES
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 On behalf or Ole Plaintiffs, BE, CL:
3 SPENCER T. KUVIN, ESQUIRE
2 CASE No.502008CA0373150000TMB AB LEOPOLD KUVIN
3 2925 PGA Boulevard
B.B. State 200
5 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Plaintiff, Phone:
5 6
6 -vs- VOWME 1 OF11 On behalf of the Plaint", L.M., SW. and
7 Jane Doe:
e
~SI 9 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS. ESQUIRE
8
FARMER. LOW, WEISSRM. EDWARDS
Defendants. 10 195 Kra & LEHRMAN, P.L
9 425 North Andrews Avenue
10 11 Suite 2
11 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
12 Mom'
12 DEPOSMON OF 13 On lzhalf Ø6h 8:
DETECTIVE JOSEPH RECAREY 14 JESSICA ARBOUR, ESQUIRE
13 MERMELSIEN 8cHOROWITZ,P.A.
14 Friday, March 19, 2010 25 18205 Biscayne Boulevard
15 937- 5:12 pm. Suite 2218
16 250 Australian Avenue South 16 Miami, Florida 33160
Plasm.
Suite 1500 17 E-mail:
17 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 18 0815~0 o K i , 488
18 103:
19 19
20 20 KATHERJHE W. EZELL ESQUIRE
21 PODHURST ORSECK
22 Reported By: 21 25 West Elegier Street
Suil4 800
Cynthia Ilepldns, RPR, FPR 22 Minne- FØ 33130
23 Notary Public, State of Florida Phonc~
Prose
ØQØ Reporting 23 MESSAGE PAD 196
PLAINTIFFS ER 7 Moue MESSAGE 204 5 Thereupon,
PIA/MPS EX 8 PHONE MESSAGE 205 6 (DETECTIVE JOSEPH RECAREY)
PLAINTIFFS DC 9 PHONE MESSAGE 208
PLAINTIFFS DC 10 PHONE MESSAGE 209 7 Having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was
PLAINTUTS EX 11 PHONE MESSAGE 210 8 examined and testified as follows:
PLAINTIFFS EC 12 PHONE MESSAGE 212
4 PLAINTIFFS EC 13 PHONE MESSAGE 213 9 THE WITNESS: I do.
PLAINTEFFS DC 14 PHONE MESSAGE 215
10 PLAINTIFFS Et. 15 PHONE MESSAGE 215
10 DIRECT EXAMINATION
PLAINTIFF'S DC 16 PHONE MESSAGE 217 11 MR. KUVIN: All right. Just as a
11 PLAINTIFFS DC 17 PHONE MESSAGE 219
PLAINTIFFS DC 18 PHONE MESSAGE 220 12 stipulation on the record so that we have it
12 PLMNTIFFS DC. 19 PHOLE MESSAGE 221 3 all clear, what we have discussed prior to
PLAINTIFFS DC 20 PHONE MESSAGE 222
13 PLAINTIFF'S DC 21 PHONE MESSAGE 223 14 starting the deposition is, is that since we're
14
PLAINTIFFS EX. 22 PHONE MESSAGE
PLAINTIFFS Et 23 AND 24 PHOTOS
225 15 discussing girls which were under the age of
227
PLAIN EC 25 PH E 230 16 18, minors at the time of the incidents
15 PlAINTIFFS EX. 26MS. 240 17 involved in this case, we're going to be using
CELLPHONE LOG
16 pLAEMPFS EX. 27 LEITER DATED JULY 24, 241 18 their names as previously agreed to in all the
2006
17 PLAINTIFFS DC 28 INTELLIGENCE REPORT 243 19 other depositions in the case pursuant to court
DATED 112804 20 order.
18
19 21 The names will be used in the
20
21
22 deposition, but they will not be used in
22 23 the official transcript. There will be a
23 24 key at the end of the transcript which
24
25 25 will be sealed and confidential onl for
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
EFTA00298262
Page 10 Page 12
1 the eyes only of the attorneys involved in 1 Q. All right. We're going to be talking to
2 this litigation. 2 you today about incidents that occurred back in
3 Therefore, Detective Recarey should 3 roughly 2005,'6, and 7. During that period of
4 feel free to discuss names with the 4 time were you a detective?
5 understanding that those names shall not 5 A. Yes.
6 be made public outside the lawsuits that 6 Q. Okay. All right. And lets just
7 are currently pending in both state and 7 summarize briefly what you're going to talk about
B federal court. But that way hopefully it 8 first and then we'll get down into the details of
9 will avoid confusion and I just want to 9 it.
10 make sure we get agreement from all 10 Did you have occasion to begin an
11 counsel sitting around the table that that 11 investigation with respect to a gentleman by the
12 is the understanding. And if there is any 12 name of Jeffrey Epstein?
13 clarification on that issue, please let us 13 A. Yes, I did.
14 know. 14 Q. And when did that investigation begin
15 MR. PIKE: Agreed. 15 roughly?
16 MR. EDWARDS: Agreed. 16 A. That case was assigned to me on September. ]
17 MR. GARCIA: Agreed. 17 believe, of 2005.
18 MS. ARBOUR: Agreed. 18 Q. And what were you assigned to investigate?
19 MR. KUVIN: Katherine, agreed? 19 A. There was an allegation of an underaged female
20 MS. P7RII • Yes, I am here. 20 that had went to the home of Mr. Epstein and was asked
21 MR. KUVIN: Did you hear my stipulation? 21 to perform a massage at which time it became sexual in
22 MS. P7Pli : Yes. 22 nature and she was paid for her services.
23 MR. KUVIN: Do you agree with that? 23 Q. All right.
24. MS. WPM: Yes. 24 MR. PIKE: fin going to object to fomi as
25 MR. KUVIN: Okay. 'just wanted to make 25 speculation and hearsay and move to strike.
Page 11 Page 13
1 it clear. 1 BY MR. KUViN:
2 MS. EZELL: Thank you. 2 Q. With respect to the investigation that you
3 BY MR KUVIN: 3 performed, how long roughly did that investigation
4 Q. Why don't you give us your full name, if 4 last? in other words what period of time are we
5 you would, please. 5 looking at here from beginning to end? And if it
6 A. Joseph Recarey. 6 helps you, I have the incident report.
7 Q. Detective Recarey, could you please tell 7 A. It was approximately, I believe, a year.
8 us what you do fora living. 8 Q. Okay. Could you summarize for us
9 A. I am a detective with the Town ofPalm Beach 9 generally, and like 1said we'll get into details by
10 Police Department. 10 going through it, but generally what did you do
11 Q. How long have you been a detective for the 11 during the investigation?
12 Town ofPalm Beach? 12 MR. PIKE: Form.
13 A. Approximately 15 years. 13 THE WITNESS: Conducted interviews,
14 Q. And what is your exact title there for the 14 executed a search warrant, issued subpoenas.
15 Town ofPalm Beach? 15 continued with interviews.
16 A. Detective or a police officer. 16 BY MR. KUVIN:
17 Q. Do you work in a particular unit? 17 Q. When you did the interviews, are we
18 A. The — currently assigned to the Organized 18 talking about any interviews with Mr. Epstein?
19 Crime/Vice and Narcotics. 19 A. No, there was no interviews with Mr. Epstein.
20 Q. How long have you been assigned to that 20 Q. Did he ever agree to talk to you?
21 unit? 21. A. Originally when I was speaking with attorney
22 A. Approximately three years. 22 Guy Fronstin, there was a mention that he would be
23 Q. Okay. What did you do before that for the 23 available for an interview. However, that never came to
24 town? 24 be.
25 A. I was a general detective. 25 Q. Why not?
4 (Pages 10 to 13)
PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
EFTA00298263
Page 14 Page 16
1 MR. PIKE: Same objection. 1 with either In Mend who were
2 THE WITNESS: It was discussed that he 2 minors at the time of the incidents that
3 would not appear to, for any interview. 3 occurred.
4 BY MR. KUVIN: 4 MR. PIKE: Move to strike.
5 Q. All right. Eventually a probable cause 5 BY MR. ICUVIN:
6 affidavit was filled out in and around May of 2006; 6 Q. Did you feel there was sufficient possible
7 is that coned? 7 cause to charge Mr. Epstein at that time and if so
8 A. Correct. 8 with what?
9 Q. And what was the basis of the probable 9 MR. PIKE: Font
10 cause affidavit if you could summarize for it for 10 NE WITNESS: Yes, I did, and it was with
11 us? What were — what did you find after doing your 11 four counts of Unlawful Sexual Activity with a
12 investigation? 12 Minor, and one count of Lewd and Lascivious
13 MR. PIKE: Form. 13 Molestation.
14 THE WITNESS: There were several victims 14 BY MR. KUVIN:
15 that had been interviewed based on their age, 15 Q. All right. The lewd and lascivious
16 the acts that occurred at the residence. There 16 molestation charge, could you explain that a little
17 was enough probable cause to request a warrant 17 more as well?
18 for Mr. Epstein. 18 MR. PUCE: Form.
19 BY MR. KUVIN: 19 THE WITNESS: The victim, that was the
20 Q. All right. And for those that might not 20 initial victim that came forward, it was a
21 understand, a warrant means what? 21 14-year-old minor at the time of the incident.
22 A. An arrest warrant. 22 She had gone to the house. This was the
23 MR. KUVIN: Okay. I would like to show 23 initial report that was taken by Officer Pagan.
24 you what we'll mark as Exhibit 1. Why don't 24 14 at the time. Was brought over to perform a
25 you give me a shed 25 massage. The incident turned into a, sexual in
Page 15 Page 17
1 (Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 1 was marked for 1 nature, and it was at the time she was paid for
2 identification.) 2 her services and left.
3 BY MR. KUVIN: 3 MR. PIKE: Move to strike.
4 Q. All right. What we have marked as 4 MR. KUVIN:
5 Exhibit 1, is that the probable cause affidavit that 5 Q. Okay. Now, this personM,col ou come
6 you filled out with respect to Mr. Epstein? 6 to learn that her name at the time was
7 A. Correct. 7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. And does your signature appear on each and 8 Q. All right And according to the
9 every page of this probable cause affidavit? 9 information you had, she was how old at the time
10 A. Correct. 10 that she came over to Mr. Epstein's house for the
11 Q. And is that your signature at the bottom 11 sexual contact?
12 left corner? 12 MR. PIKE: Form.
13 A. Yes, bottom right 13 THE WITNESS: Fourteen.
14 Q. Bottom right. I apologize. 14 BY MR. KUVIN:
15 All right: Let's go to, if we could, 15 Q. All right Was she the youngest that you
16 Page 22 of 22. And the last paragraph, could you 16. were able to determine came to Mr. Epstein's home
17 explain to us the conclusions in the probable cause 17 during your investigation?
18 affidavit and exactly what Mr. Epstein was being 18 A. Coned.
19 arrested for at the time? 19 MR. PIKE: Form.
20. MR. PUCE: Form. 20 BY MR. KUVIN:
21 THE WITNESS: Based on the interviews 21 Q. All right. With respect to the others,
22 conducted, it was determined that Mr. Epstein, 22 justso we have it on the record and we're clear,.
23 who at the time of the incident was 23 would have been whom?
24 approximately 51 years of age, did have vaginal 24 A. Jane Doe No. 103.
25 intercourse either with his penis or 25
5 (Pages 14 to 1 7)
• PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. '
EFTA00298264
Page 18 Page 20
1 A. Jane Doe No. 2. 1 A. So many things occurred with the State
2 MR. PIKE: I am going to object to form 2 Attorneys Office. Originally it was determined that it
3 through these series of questions so we don't 3 was going to.be a grand jury.
4 have to keep repeating with regard to the 4 Q. Okay.
5 information. 5 A. And then the case was going to be presented to
6 MR. KUVTN: Yeah, well, I want to make 6 the grand jury. That was later retracted and they
7 sure I understand what is the form objection. 7 wanted a probable cause affidavit
8 MR. PIKE: Your, your questions are 8 Q. Okay.
9 relating back to opinion and hearsay evidence 9 A. I submitted the probable cause affidavit
10 and the investigation. So, actually just go 10 Shortly thereafter I was told we're going back to the
11 ahead and I will put it on the record. Go 11 grand jury.
12 ahead. 12 Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you this: After
13 MR. KINN: All right. I just wanted to 13 the probable cause affidavit was issued, did you
14 make sure I knew because I wanted to fix them 14 institute the search of the home at that point or
15 if there was something that I could do to fix 15 you institute the search of the home before the
16 them. 16 davit was —
17 MR. PIKE: I don't think you can unless 17 A. Prior, prior to theMaffidavit.
18 you want to start the depo over. 18 Q. Okay. All right. Let's go back. Why
19 MR. ICUV1N: No, but I can start from now. 19 don't you give us, if you would, briefly your
20 MR. PIKE: Let's go. 20 training and experience as an officer. Just start
21 BY MR. KUVIN: 21 with, you know, where you went to the academy and
22 Q. All right. During your investigation did 22 where you started working and then kind of work us
23 you identify who III was, and if so who? 23 through to when you got your job at Palm Beach
24 MR. PIKE: Form. 24 County or Palm Beach.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. I identified 25 A. I went to the police academy back in 1990 --
Page 19 Page 21
S 1 Q. Okay.
2 BY MR. KUVIN: 2 A. -- down here in Palm Beach County. I was
3 Q. is who? 3 hired by Palm Beach in 1991 where 1 did three years on
CA
4 the, as a patrol officer.
: Same objection. 5 Q. Okay.
6 BY MR. KUVIN: 6 A. I was transferred then to the detective
7 Q. Okay. Now, these girls that you 7 bureau.
8 identified in your probable cause affidavit here at 8 Q. Roughly when?
9 the conclusion, did you find that all of these girls 9 A. '94.
10 were under the age of 18 at the time they went to 10 Q. Okay.
1.1 Mr. Epstein's home? 11 A. From the detective bureau, I went to the
12 MR. PIKE: Form. 12 Organized Crime/Vice and Narcotics Unit where I spent
13 THE WITNESS: Correct. 13 about five, six years.
14 BY MR. KUVIN: 14 Q. When did you get into that unit roughly?
15 Q. And how old were they? 15 A. I would say *96, '95, '96.
16 A. They were approximately 16, 15, 16 and/or up 16 Q. Okay. And you spent how long there?
17 to 17 years of age. 17. A. About roughly five to six years.
18 MR. PIKE: Form. 18 Q. All right. Then where did you go?
19 BY MR. KUVIN: 19 A. Back to the detective bureau.
20 Q. Okay. All right: Do you recall how old 20 . Q. So we're looking at like 2000 and 2001?
21 C.L. was? 21 A. Correct
22 A. I believe she was 16. 22 Q. All right
23 Q. After filling out and signing the probably 23' . A. I was there for up to 2006, I believe, 2000 --
24 cause affidavit, could you explain to us what 24 2006.
25 reared next? 25 Okay. And then in 2006?
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY.,. INC..
EFTA00298265
Page 2._ Page 24
1 A. They created another, a unit from the 1. Department Incident Report which appears to be
2 Organized Crime/Vice and Narcotics Unit. Made it 2 numbered, thankfully, and consists of 87 pages plus
3 special investigations. Went over to there where Pm -- 3 one. It looks like there is 87 consecutively
it was renamed back to the Organized Crime/Vice and 4 numbered pages and then a single page again numbered
5 Narcotics. 5 as Page I, just for the record.
Q. Okay. 6 All right. First of all, do you
A. That's basically what we would operate on. 7 recognize what we have marked as Exhibit 2?
8 Q. Gotcha. And you've been in that unit 8 A. Yes, !do.
9 since then to the present day? 9 Q. And could you describe for us what that
10 A. Correct 10 is?
11 Q. Okay. Have you ever worked in any other 11 A. It is the Palm Beach Police Department's
12 department? 12 Incident Report.
13 A. I worked for the State Attorney's Office as a 13 Q. AM right. When this investigation first
14 process server for five years. 14 began, were your, were you the first one that was
15 Q. Okay. And that was before going to the 15 contacted regarding potential allegations against
16 academy in 1990? 16 Mr. Epstein?
17 A. Correct. 17 MR. PIKE: Form.
18 Q. Okay. High school graduate? 18 THE WITNESS: No, I was not.
19 A. Correct. 19 BY MR. KLIVIN:
20 Q. Any secondary schooling, college? 20 Q. Who was the first one that was actually
21 A. College credits and specialized training with 21 contacted, and could you explain to us if you NNW IL.
22 the police department. 22 how they were contacted?
23 Q. Okay. Did you get an AA in college or no? 23 A. It was Officer Michele Pagan.
24 A. No. 24 Q. Okay. And do you blow as you sit her:
25 Q. Okay. Where did you get your college 25 today under what circumstances she was contacted?
Page 23 Page 25
1 credits? A. I believe it was telephonicalliiitelephone.
2 A. PBCC. 2 Q. Okay. Was she contacted by herself
3 Q. Are you from here locally, Palm Beach? 3 or her parents, do you remember?
4 A. No. 4 MR. PIKE: Form.
5 Q. Where from? 5 THE WITNESS: I totally believe it was the
6 A. New York City. 6 step-mother that called her.
7 Q. When did you come down here? 7 BY MR.. KUVIN:
8 A. 1980. 8 Q. Okay. When Ms. Pagan took down that
9 Q. Okay. All right Let's walk through kind 9 inforMation, how soon after were you actually
10 of chronologically what occurred in this particular 10 brought into the investigation?
11 case. And just so that it's easier for you, let me 11 A. I believe she took the report in March, and I
12 give you the incident report. What I will do is I 12 took, I took possession of the case in September.
13 am going to ask you questions. 13 Q. Do you know why the break in time between
14 If you need to refresh your 14 March and September when you actually get it? In
15 recollection at any point with the incident report, 15 other words do you know why you got the case some
16 just let us know that you're using it to refresh 16 months later?
17 your recollection which is fine. I just want to 17 A. She was transferred to patrol.
18 make sure that we can distinguish between what you 18 Q. Okay. So, Ms. Pagan was originally
19 may recall indepcudendy versus what you may be 19 investigating this case —
20 using to refresh your recollection. 20 A. Correct.
21 (Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 2 was marked for 21 Q. -- until she got transferred to patrol?
22 identification.) 22 A. Yes.
23 BY MR. KUVIN: 23 Q. Did her transfer to patrol have anything
24 Q. All right. I'm going to give what you we 24 to do with this case?
25 have marked as Exhibit 2 as the Palm Beach Police 25 A. No.
.7crodrol.16
7 (Pages 22 to 2 5)
PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
EFTA00298266
Page 26 Page 28
1 Q. Okay. When you take over the 1 the investigation early on --
2 investigation in September — and just so we're MR. KUVIN: Okay.
3 clear we're talking about September of 2005? THE WITNESS: — as bringing ill
4 A. Correct. 4 BY MR. KUVIN:
5 Q. When you take over that case, do you take 5 Q Okay. Any other minors that you can
6 any particular action to bring yourself up to speed 6 recall came up at that point; in other words the
7 on what's going on? 7 point between when Ms. Pagan starts the
8 A. I reviewed her reports and listened to the 8 investigation until when you take it over?
9 interviews and what she had already evidentiary-wise. 9 MR. PIKE: Object to the fonn.
10 Q. Okay. Let's go to, if you would, Page 22 10 THE WITNESS: No, not that I can recall.
11 of the incident report. Just so we can make sure 11 BY MR. KUVIN:
12 that we have an accurate chronology here, it appears 12 Q. Okay. Where is Ms. Pagan today? Is she
13 right in the middle of the page we have got the date 13 here locally?
14 of September 8, 2005. And it states: I reviewed 14 A. Yes, she's still with the police department.
15 the case notes of this file as the case will be 15 She rides the bicycle.
16 turned over to Detective Recarey. Do you see that? 16 Q. Okay. If you would, can you turn to
17 A. Yes, I do. 17 Page 17 for me of the Incident Report. Towards the
18 Q. Was that roughly the dale that the 18 bottom, third paragraph from the bottom, it
19 investigation was turned over to you? 19 tefetwces a cross-reference of Epstein's residence.
20 A. No. It was turned over officially I think the 20 Do you see that?
21 19th. 21 A. Uh-huh.
22 Q. Okay. And we see that in Narrative 2 at 22 Q. What was the residence that you found for
23 the bottom of the same page? 23 Mr. Epstein, the address, the physical address?
24 A. Correct 24 A. 358 El Brillo.
25 Q. All right. And the first entry there says 25 Q. Palm Beach Island?
Page 27 Page 29
1 on September 19, 2005, you met with Officer Pagan 1 A. Correct.
2 and received the information pertaining to the case? 2 Q. Okay. And it states there that a
3 A. Correct. 3 cross-reference of that address revealed certain
4 Q. All right. When you received that 4 affiliated names. Could you give us those names?
5 information, is it safe to assume that you reviewed 5 MR. PIKE: I am sorry, Counsel, what
6 the investigation materials that Michelle Pagan had 6 paragraph?
7 collected up until that date? 7 MR. KUVIN: Third from the bottom starting
8 A. Yes, I believe so. 8 with the cross-reference.
9 Q. Okay. At this point in time do you know 9 MR. PIKE: Appreciate it.
10 bow many potential victims there were of 10 MR. KUVIN: S
11 Mr. Epstein? 11 TILE WITNESS Mark
12 MR. PIKE: Form. 12 Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell.
13 THE WITNESS: No, we didn't know the 13 BY MR. KINN:
14 octant of how many victims at that point. 14 Q. Okay. How is it those affiliated names
15 BY MR. KUVIN: 15 came up? In other words what database were you
16 Q. All right. We 'mow that 16 looking at to reference those names?
17 step-mother had called in and there as an 17 A. If she cross-referenced it, she used the Town
18 investigation regarding her. Were there any other 18 of Palm Beach CAD system.
19 minors at that point that had come into the 19 Q. And just for those that may not know, what
20 investigation? 20 is the CAD system?
21 MR. PIKE: Fonts. 21 A. The CAD system is basically if someone is, is
22 WITNESS: We knew of a girl by name of 22 we had a 911 hangup or an slant) call or any kind of
23 23 incident that accrues within the Town of Palm Beach,
24 MR. KUVIN: Okay. 24 when the officer responds and they encounter someone at
25 THE WITNESS: That her name had come up in 25 the home, whatever the reason, whether it be a false
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
EFTA00298267
Page 30 Page 32
1 alarm, 911 hangup, you get their information. That 1 point during the massage Mr. Epstein - this is
2 information gets put into the CAD system as to who, who 2 all off recollection by the way.
3 the officer encountered on that property. 3 MR. KUVIN: If you want to use the
4 Q. Okay. Is it regular practice for you as a 4 incident report, what we're referring to would
5 detective when taking over a file from another 5 be on Pages 11 through roughly 15 of the
6 detective to review all the materials that they have 6 incident report —
7 put together? 7 MR. PIKE: Just --
B A. Yes. 8 MR. KUVIN: — if you need it to help
9 Q. All right. And are these records 9 refresh your recollection.
10 contained within the Palm Beach Police Department? 10 MR. PIKE: Just so the record is clear,
11 In other words are these the regular business 11 we're still on the one question. There is a
12 records of the department -- 12 form objection on the same answer.
13 A. Yes. 13 THE WITNESS: It was — I haven't found
14 Q. -- the information contained within the 14 exactly where she goes into the story, however
15 investigation that Ms. Pagan had put together? 15 I know —
16 A. It is no longer in the department if that's 16 MR. KUVIN: I think ifs at Page 14.
17 what you're asking. 17 THE WITNESS: — where there was some
18 Q. No, I mean at the time, when you take over 18 touching involved, and Mr. Epstein then, I
19 sometime in September. 19 believe, introduced a massager.
20 A. Yes, correct. It would be. 20 BY MR. KUVIN:
21 Q. Okay. 21 Q. A vibrator?
22 A. It would be. 22 A. Correct.
23 Q. All the information is contained within 23 Q. Okay. Was she asked to take her clothes
24 the Town of Palm Beach investigative unit? 24 off according to what she told the police
25 A. Correct. 25 department?
Page 31 Page 33
1 Q. I understand. Now, it's obviously not 1 MR. PIKE: Font
2 public at that point. You're keeping the 2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 investigation private? 3 BY MR. KUVIN:
4 A. Correct 4 Q. And how old was she at the time?
5 Q. But nonetheless all those documents that 5 MR. PIKE: Form.
6 you would have reviewed front Ms. Pagan would have 6 THE WITNESS: Fourteen.
7 been business records of the police department at 7 BY MR.. KUVIN:
8 the time? 8 Q. Was there an investigation as to howl.
9 A. Correct. 9 actually was taken to the home? In other words did
10 Q. I understand. Now, when you reviewed this 10 you determine who took her there?
11 information from Detective Pagan, could you walk us 11 A. Correct
12 through exactly what■ had explained occurred to 12 Q. Who was that?
13 her? 13 A.
14 MR. PIKE: Form. 14
15 THE WITNESS: She was taken to 15 BY MR. KUVIN:
16 Mr. Epstein's house for the purpose of making 16 Q. Did Ms. Pagan interview Ms. MI?
17 money, providing a massage. 17 A. No, she did not.
18 MR. KUVIN: Okay. 18 Q. Not at this point?
19 THE WITNESS: Once she got there, she was 19 A. No.
20 taken upstairs to the bedroom area At that 20 Q. Did you ultimately interview Ms. IM
21 time what my understanding was is they were 21 A. Yes, I did.
22 taken to the bedroom area through the stairwell 22 Q. With respect to whatMxplained. I
23 where Mr. Epstein was awaiting to do a massage. 23 would like to walk through this if I could for a
24 MR.. KUVIN: Okay. 24 minute.
25 THE WITNESS: The massage began. At some 25 MR. PIKE: What sage are vou on?
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
EFTA00298268
Page 34 Page 36
1 MR. KUVIN: Fourteen. 1 THE WITNESS: He told her to remove, take
2 BY MR. KUVIN: 2 off her clothe's.
3 Q. Was there another woman that she described 3 BY MR. ICUVIN:
4 in the home at Epstein's house? 4 Q. Okay. And she's 14 at this point?
5 MR. PIKE: Form. 5 MR. PIKE: Form.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes. She described a tall 6 THE WITNESS: Cared.
7 blonde female which I believe was 7 BY MR. KUVIN:
8 8 Q. What did explain was his demeanor,
BY MR. KUM: 9 Mr. Epstein's demeanor with respect to asking her to
10 Q. Okay. And what did IIIM.10 10 take off her clothes?
11 MR. PIKE: Form. 11 MR. PIKE: Form.
12 BY MR. KUVIN: 12 THE WITNESS: I believe he was stern when
13 Q. -- as far as what she described to you? 13 he instru
DataSet-10
Unknown
23 pages
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 1 of 23
PRIVILEGE LOG
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "CORR RE GJ 6(e)
P-000001 SUBPOENAS" containing correspondence Work Product
thru related to various rand jury subpoenas and
P-000039 attorney handwritten notes
Box #1 Operation Leap Year Grand Jury Log 6(e)
P-000040 containing subpoenas OLY-01 through OLY-81, Work Product
thru correspondence and research related to Contains documents subject
P-000549 enforcement of same, documents produced in to investigative privilege
response to some subpoenas; and attorney Also contains documents
( handwritten notes subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Ritz Compact Flash SW" 6(e)
P-000550 containing copies of a sealed search warrant Contains information subject
thru application, warrant, and supporting documents to investigative privilege
P-000621 Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "PNY Technologies Compact 6(e)
P-000622 Flash SW" containing copies of a sealed search Contains information subject
thru warrant application, warrant, and supporting to investigative privilege
P-000693 documents Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "JE Corporations" containing Work Product
P-000694 attorney research on Epstein-owned corporations Contains information subject
thru and prior litigation to investigative privilege
P-000781
Box #1 File folder entitled "Capital One" 6(e)
P-000782 containing subpoena and correspondence
thru
P-000803
Box #1 File folder entitled "DTG Operations/Dollar 6(e)
P-000804 Rent-a-Car" containing subpoena and responsive Contains documents and
thru documents information subject to
P-000854 investigative privilege
Also contains documents and
information subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 1 of 23
EFTA00104265
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 2 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "JP Morgan Chase" 6(e)
P-000855 containing subpoena, correspondence, and Contains documents and
thru responsive documents information subject to
P-000937 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Washington Mutual" 6(e)
P-000938 containing subpoena, correspondence, and Contains documents and
thru responsive documents information subject to
P-000947 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Computer Search &" Work Product
P-000948 containing legal research on computer search and Attorney-Client
thru handwritten notes on indictment preparation Contains information subject
P-000982 to investigative privilege.
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Attorney Notes from Work product
P-000983 Document Review" containing typed and 6(e)
thru handwritten attorney ( ) notes, target Contains information subject
P-001007 letters, correspondence re grand jury subpoena to investigative privilege.
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Notes from Fed Ex Records" Work Product
P-001008 containing handwritten and typed attorney 6(e)
thru ) notes and screen shots of FedEx Contains information subject
P-001056 subpoena response electronic file to investigative privilege.
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Colonial Bank Records" 6(e)
P-001057 containing records received in response to grand Contains information subject
thru jury subpoena to investigative privilege
P-001959
Box #1 File folder entitled "OLY Grand Jury Log Vol 2: 6(e)
P-001960 OLY-51 THROUGH" containing subpoenas Contains information subject
Thru numbered OLY-51 through OLY-81 with related to investigative privilege.
P-002089 correspondence Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Page 2 of 23
EFTA00104266
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 3 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "Epstein Corporate Records: 6(e)
P-002090 OLY-51, OLY-52, OLY-53, OLY-54" containing Contains information and
Thru subpoenas, records received in response to documents subject to
P-002169 subpoenas, and related correspondence investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Colonial Bank" containing 6(e)
P-002170 subpoenas, correspondence related to subpoenas, Contains information and
Thru records received in response to subpoenas documents subject to
P-002246 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "JEGE & Hyperion from 6(e)
P-002247 Goldberger OLY-46 & OLY-47" containing Contains information and
Thru documents received in response to subpoenas documents subject to
P-002265 investigative privilege
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing: Work product
P-002266 Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity 6(e)
Thru summary chart witness/victim names and contact Contains information and
P-002386 list, attorney ( D handwritten notes, 302s, documents subject to
'lions of state investigative file, attorney investigative privilege. Also
) typed notes, of individuals listed as contains information and
"Additional victims" documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing: Work product
P-002387 Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity 6(e)
Thru summary charta_witness/victim names and contact Contains information and
P-002769 list, attorney ( handwritten notes, 302s, documents subject to
as of state investigative file, attorney investigative privilege. Also
( D typed notes, relevant pieces of grand contains information and
jury materials, telephone records/flight records documents subject to privacy
analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, rights of victims who are not
DAVID records, NCICs, and related materials for parties to this litigation
persons identified as Jane Does #15, 16, 17, 18,
19, Past Employees, Misc. Witnesses
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing: Work product
P-002770 witness/victim list with identifying information, 6(e)
Thru sexual activity summ telephone call summary Contains information and
P-003211 chart, attorney handwritten notes, documents subject to
3CSsfions of state investigative file, attorney investigative privilege. Also
( typed notes, relevant pieces of grand contains information and
jury materials, telephone records/flight records documents subject to privacy
analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, rights of victims who are not
DAVID records, NCICs, and related materials for parties to this litigation
persons identified as Jane Does #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8
Page 3 of 23
EFTA00104267
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 4 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing meta- Work product
P-003212 analysis charts of telephone/flight/grand jury 6(e)
Thru information for a number of victim/witnesses, Contains information and
P-003545 , and documents subject to
investigative privilege. Also
contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 FBI Reports of March 2008 interviews of Work product
P-003546 additional witness/victim located in New York 6(e)
Thru Contains information and
P-003552 documents subject to
investigative privilege. Also
contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 Printout of filenames from Federal Express Work product
P-003553 subpoena response with Attorney notations 6(e)
Thru
P-003555B
Box #1 Document entitled "Identified Numbers" with Work product
P-003556 accompanying handwritten attorney list compiled 6(e)
Thru from grand jury materials and attorney analysis of Contains information subject
P-003562 records to investigative privilege
Box #1 Folder entitled "Flight Manifests" containing 6(e)
P-003563 manifests received pursuant to grand jury Contains information and
Thru subpoena documents subject to
P-003629 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Recent Attottes" Work product
P-003630 containing handwritten attorney ) notes 6(e)
Thru regarding document review and case strategy Investigative privilege
P-003633 Deliberative process
Box #1 File folder bearing victim name containing FBI Work product
P-003634 interview report from May 2008, telephone Attorney-client privilege
Thru activity report with attorney ( ) 6(e)
P-003646 handwritten notes, related grand jury material Investigative privilege
Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 4 of 23
EFTA00104268
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 5 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "Summary of Sexual Activity" Work product
P-003647 containing chart bearing handwritten title "Sexual 6(e)
Thru Activity — Summary" with meta-analysis of Investigative privilege
P-003651 information, sorted by name of each Deliberative process
victim/witness, including name and identifying Also contains information and
information of each victim/witness documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this liti ation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Victim Civil Suits" Not privileged.
P-003652 Produced to counsel for
Thru Petitioners
P-003663
Box #1 File folder entitled "Research re JE Websites" Work product
P-003664 containing attorney research
Thru
P-003678
Box #1 File folder entitled ' Y. AUSA)" Work product
P-003679 containing attorney ( handwritten notes
Thru
P-003680
Box #1 File folder entitled "Dr. ' containing Work product
P-003681 attorney ( ) memo to expert witness and Investigative privilege
Thru handwritten attorney notes
P-003687
Box #1 File folder entitled "I[] G[] Interview" containing Work product
P-003688 attorney handwritten notes of interview, and Investigative privilege
Thru attorney handwritten notes regarding potential Also contains information
P-003693 charges subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Research re Travel for Work product
P-003694 Prostitution" containing attorney ( ) 6(e)
Thru handwritten notes regarding grand jury Investigative privilege
P-003711 presentation, chart entitled "Brought to Epstein's Also contains information and
House" with handwritten notes, Message Pad documents subject to privacy
meta-analysis chart, summary of evidence related rights of victims who are not
to one victim/witness, and relevant grand jury parties to this litigation
information
Box #1 Empty file folder bearing name of victim/witness Investigative privilege
P-003712 Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victim who is not a party to
this liti ation
Page 5 of 23
EFTA00104269
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 6 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "T[] M[]" containing grand 6(e)
P-003713 jury subpoenas, motion and order to compel Documents under seal
Thru testimony, and correspondence regarding same pursuant to court order
P-003746
Box #1 File folder entitled ' ' containing 6(e)
P-003747 subpoena and correspondence regarding same
Thru
P-003751
Box #1 File folder entitled "PBPD Investigative File" 6(e)
P-003752 obtained via subpoena Investigative privilege
Thru Also contains information and
P-004295 documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-004296 containing meta-analysis chart showing telephone 6(e)
Thru calls, travel, and grand jury materials relevant to Investigative privilege
P-004350 possible charges Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
arties to this liti ation
Box #1 File folder entitled ' Documents Work product
P-004351 53909-004" containing attorney research related
Thru to bias issue
P-004381
Box #1 File Folder entitled "FEDEX" containing 6(e)
P-004382 documents obtained via subpoena Investigative privilege
Thru
P-004478
Box #1 File Folder entitled "State of Delaware Records" 6(e)
P-004479 containing documents obtained in preparation for Investigative privilege
Thru indictment Work product
P-004551
Box #1 File folder entitled "Jet Blue Records" containing 6(e)
P-004552 documents obtained via subpoena Work product
Thru Investigative privilege
P-004555 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "FL EMPLOYMENT Investigative privilege
P-004556 RECORDS" containing FDLE records on targets Work product
Thru and witnesses obtained at attorney request
P-004560
Page 6 of 23
EFTA00104270
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 7 of 23
Bates Ran e Descri tion Privile s Asserted
Box #1 Filed folder entitled ' Work product
P-004561 containing attorney ( handwritten notes Investigative privilege
Thru of interview
P-004565
Box #1 File folder entitled' 6(e)
P-004566 RECORDS 23-0001 THROUGH 23-" containing Work product
Thru documents obtained via subpoena Investigative privilege
P-004716 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled ' Work product
P-004717 containing attorney research regarding witness Investigative privilege
Thru
P-004722
Box #1 File folder entitled "BEAR STEARNS Work Product
P-004723 RESEARCH" containing attorney research Investigative privilege
Thru regarding potential witness and subpoena
P-004725 recipient
Box #1 File folder entitled "LAWSUITS INVOLVING Work Product
P-004726 EPSTEIN CORP'S" containing attorney research Investigative privilege
Thru regarding Epstein's past personal and business
P-004819 litigative practices
Box #1 Filed folder entitled "SEC RECORDS" Work Product
P-004820 containing attorney research regarding Epstein Investigative privilege
Thru financial relationships
P-004959
Box #1 File folder entitled "Message Pads" containing Work Product
P-004960 selected items from evidence obtained via 6(e)
Thru subpoena Investigative privilege
P-005059 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work Product
P-005060 containing correspondence with counsel for 6(e)
Thru victim/witness, attorney witness outline with Investigative privilege
P-005081 attorney handwritten notes, attorney handwritten Also contains information and
notes regarding witness reports and case documents subject to privacy
preparation rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "New York Trip" containing Work product
P-005082 attorney notes re witness interview Investigative privilege
Thru
P-005083
Page 7 of 23
EFTA00104271
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 8 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
P-005084 thru P-005107 are non responsive
documents and have been removed
Box #1 File folder entitled' ' containing Work product
P-005108 attorney research on select expert, use of experts Investigative privilege
Thru at trials in child exploitation cases, and additional
P-005193 research materials on offenders and victims
Box #1 File folder entitled "Extra Copies" containing Work product
P-005194 meta-analysis chart and 302's of victim/witnesses 6(e)
Thru used in preparing indictment package Investigative privilege
P-005300 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
arties to this liti ation
Box #1 File folder entitled ' 6(e)
P-005301 STATEMENT' containing transcript obtained via Investigative privilege
Thru subpoena
P-005331
Box #1 File folder entitled' ' containing Work product
P-005332 attorney research on select expert, including Investigative privilege
Thru attorney handwritten notes
P-005341
Box #1 File folder entitled "Info re Planes" containing 6(e)
P-005342 correspondence regarding subpoenas and Investigative privilege
Thru documents received in response to subpoenas
P-005387
Box #1 File folder entitled "Police Reports & PC Work product
P-005388 Affidavit" containing portions of police reports 6(e)
Thru with attorney notes, related phone records, a list Investigative privilege
P-005442 entitled "Victims" with identifying information Also contains information and
and attorney handwritten notes, photographs and documents subject to privacy
DAVID information, and additional attorney rights of victims who are not
research regarding Epstein sexual activity parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "[Victim name] Transcript of 6(e)
P-005443 Interview & GI Transcript" Investigative privilege
Thru Also contains information and
P-005496 documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Bear Stearns Subpoena 6(e)
P-005497 Resp." containing material received in response Investigative privilege
Thru to subpoena
P-005556
Page 8 of 23
EFTA00104272
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 9 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 U.S. Attorney's Office Criminal Case File Jacket Work product
P-005557 containing file opening documents, expert Deliberative process
Thru witness payment documents
P-005576
Box #1 U.S. Attorney's Office Asset Forfeiture Case File Work product
P-005578 Jacket containing file opening and file closing Deliberative process
Thru documents
P-005583
Box #1 File folder entitled "6001 Immunity Request" 6(e)
P-005584 containing internal memoranda seeking witness Work product and
Thru immunity and correspondence with counsel for deliberative process (as to
P-005606 witness regarding same internal memoranda)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "MASTER PHONE Work product
P-005607 RECORDS" containing meta-analysis of all 6(e)
Thru phone, travel, and grand jury data for all Investigative privilege
P-005914 victim/witnesses for indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-005915 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 6(e)
Thru grand jury data related to that victim/witness for Investigative privilege
P-005977 indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-005978 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 6(e)
Thru grand jury data related to that victim/witness for Investigative privilege
P-006050 indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-006051 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 6(e)
Thru grand jury data related to that victim/witness for Investigative privilege
P-006065 indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 9 of 23
EFTA00104273
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 10 of
23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #2 File folder entitled "JANE DOE #4" containing Work product
P-006066 meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury 6(e)
Thru data related to that victim/witness for indictment Investigative privilege
P-006220 preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled 'JANE DOE #12" containing Work product
P-006221 meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury 6(e)
Thru data related to that victim/witness for indictment Investigative privilege
P-006222 preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "CORRECTED PHONE Work product
P-006223 RECORDS 5/31/07" containing meta-analysis of 6(e)
Thru all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to all Investigative privilege
P-006522 victims/witnesses for indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim Name] Phone Work product
P-006523 Records" containing telephone records received 6(e)
Thru in response to subpoena Investigative privilege
P-006802 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "Lists of Identified Phone Work product
P-006803 Numbers" containing charts of information culled 6(e)
Thru from grand jury materials, interviews, and other Investigative privilege
P-006860 investigation, with attorney handwritten notes, Also contains information and
and information to issue follow-up grand jury documents subject to privacy
subpoena rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "EPSTEIN, CELL Work product
P-006861 PHONE RECORDS" containing documents 6(e)
Thru received via subpoena with attorney handwritten Investigative privilege
P-007785 notes and highlighting Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 10 of 23
EFTA00104274
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 11 of
23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #2 Folder entitled "OLY GRAND JURY LOG: Work product
P-007786 OLY-01 THROUGH OLY-50" containing 6(e)
Thru subpoenas, correspondence regarding same, 6(e) Investigative privilege
P-008120 letters, attorney handwritten notes regarding Also contains information and
records received in response to subpoenas documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 Handwritten flight logs received in response to 6(e)
P-008121 subpoena Investigative privilege
Thru
P-008139
Box #2 Grand jury presentation folder containing Work product
P-008140 attorney handwritten notes, typed outline with 6(e)
Thru additional handwritten notes, complete indictment Investigative privilege
P-008298 package dated 2/19/2008, victim list with Also contains information and
identifying information, photographs, and documents subject to privacy
summary of activity rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "FINAL AGREEMENTS"
P-008299 containing subfolder entitled "Agrmts Filed in
Thru State Court" (P-008300-P-008327 [not being
P-008363 withheld as privileged — have been produced to
opposing counsel]); signed Non-Prosecution
Agreement, lii I . gg . st es r tive portion of
12/19/2007 (P-008328-P-
008343 [not . mg wit e as privileged — have
been produced to opposing counsel]); subfolder
entitled "12/19/07 Acosta-Sanchez Ltr"
containing unredacted copies of that letter (P-
008344-P-008363 [pursuant to Court's Order, not
being withheld as privileged — will be produced
to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11th
Circuit
Box #2 File folder entitled ' Immunity Request" 6(e)
P-008364 containing internal memoranda, Justice Work Product
Thru Department documentation, and subpoena Deliberative Process
P-008382 regarding immunity request Investigative privilege
Box #2 File folder containing March 18, 2008 grand jury Work product
P-008383 presentation materials, including "Operation Leap 6(e)
Thru Year Revised Indictment Summary Chart (by Investigative privilege
P-008516 victim)," grand jury materials, draft indictments, Deliberative process
victim reference list, grand jury subpoena log Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 11 of 23
EFTA00104275
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 12 of
23
Bates Ran e Descri tion Privile e s Asserted
Box #2 6/25/2007 Letter from to
P-008517 and
Thru [pursuant to Court's Order, not being withheld as
P-008535 privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel
upon lift of stay by 11'" Circuit]
Box #2 Handwritten attorney notes to prepare for Work product
P-008536 interview of Jane Doe #2 Investigative Privilege
Thru Contains information subject
P-008542 to privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this suit
Box #2 Handwritten attorney notes regarding May 8, Work product
P-008543 2007 grand jury presentation 6(e)
Thru Investigative privilege
P-008549 Contains information subject
to privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this suit
Box #2 File folder entitled "Most Recent Indictment & Work product
P-008550 Good Cases" containing draft indictment and 6(e)
Thru legal research Investigative privilege
P-008615 Deliberative process
Contains information subject
to privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this suit
Box #2 File folder entitled "FBI Summary Charts" Work product
P-008616 containing chart prepared at direction of AUSA, Attorney-Client Privilege
Thru containing victim names, identifying information, 6(e)
P-008686 summary of activity, and other information Investigative privilege
relevant to indictment Contains information subject
to privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this suit
Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #4" Work product
P-008687 containing phone records and meta-analysis of all 6(e)
Thru phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that Investigative privilege
P-008776 victim/witness for indictment preparat
DataSet-10
Unknown
23 pages
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 1 of 23
PRIVILEGE LOG
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "CORR RE GJ 6(e)
P-000001 SUBPOENAS" containing correspondence Work Product
thru related to various grand jury subpoenas and
P-000039 attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes
Box #1 Operation Leap Year Grand Jury Log 6(e)
P-000040 containing subpoenas OLY-01 through OLY-81, Work Product
thru correspondence and research related to Contains documents subject
P-000549 enforcement of same, documents produced in to investigative privilege
response to some subpoenas; and attorney Also contains documents
(Villafafia) handwritten notes subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Ritz Compact Flash SW" 6(e)
P-000550 containing copies of a sealed search warrant Contains information subject
thru application, warrant, and supporting documents to investigative privilege
P-000621 Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "PNY Technologies Compact 6(e)
P-000622 Flash SW" containing copies of a sealed search Contains information subject
thru warrant application, warrant, and supporting to investigative privilege
P-000693 documents Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "JE Corporations" containing Work Product
P-000694 attorney research on Epstein-owned corporations Contains information subject
thru and prior litigation to investigative privilege
P-000781
Box #1 File folder entitled "Capital One" 6(e)
P-000782 containing subpoena and correspondence
thru
P-000803
Box #1 File folder entitled "DTG Operations/Dollar 6(e)
P-000804 Rent-a-Car" containing subpoena and responsive Contains documents and
thru documents information subject to
P-000854 investigative privilege
Also contains documents and
information subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 1 of 23
EFTA00591958
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 2 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "JP Morgan Chase" 6(e)
P-000855 containing subpoena, correspondence, and Contains documents and
thru responsive documents information subject to
P-000937 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Washington Mutual" 6(e)
P-000938 containing subpoena, correspondence, and Contains documents and
thru responsive documents information subject to
P-000947 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Computer Search &" Work Product
P-000948 containing legal research on computer search and Attorney-Client
thru handwritten notes on indictment preparation Contains information subject
P-000982 to investigative privilege.
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Attorney Notes from Work product
P-000983 Document Review" containing typed and 6(e)
thru handwritten attorney (Villafafia) notes, target Contains information subject
P-001007 letters, correspondence re grand jury subpoena to investigative privilege.
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Notes from Fed Ex Records" Work Product
P-001008 containing handwritten and typed attorney 6(e)
thru (Villafafia) notes and screen shots of FedEx Contains information subject
P-001056 subpoena response electronic file to investigative privilege.
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Colonial Bank Records" 6(e)
P-001057 containing records received in response to grand Contains information subject
thru jury subpoena to investigative privilege
P-001959
Box #1 File folder entitled "OLY Grand Jury Log Vol 2: 6(e)
P-001960 OLY-51 THROUGH" containing subpoenas Contains information subject
Thru numbered OLY-51 through OLY-81 with related to investigative privilege.
P-002089 correspondence Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Page 2 of 23
EFTA00591959
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 3 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "Epstein Corporate Records: 6(e)
P-002090 OLY-51, OLY-52, OLY-53, OLY-54" containing Contains information and
Thru subpoenas, records received in response to documents subject to
P-002169 subpoenas, and related correspondence investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Colonial Bank" containing 6(e)
P-002170 subpoenas, correspondence related to subpoenas, Contains information and
Thru records received in response to subpoenas documents subject to
P-002246 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "JEGE & Hyperion from 6(e)
P-002247 Goldberger OLY-46 & OLY-47" containing Contains information and
Thru documents received in response to subpoenas documents subject to
P-002265 investigative privilege
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing: Work product
P-002266 Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity 6(e)
Thru summary chart, witness/victim names and contact Contains information and
P-002386 list, attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes, 302s, documents subject to
portions of state investigative file, attorney investigative privilege. Also
(Villafafia) typed notes, of individuals listed as contains information and
"Additional victims" documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing: Work product
P-002387 Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity 6(e)
Thru summary chart, witness/victim names and contact Contains information and
P-002769 list, attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes, 302s, documents subject to
portions of state investigative file, attorney investigative privilege. Also
(Villafafia) typed notes, relevant pieces of grand contains information and
jury materials, telephone records/flight records documents subject to privacy
analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, rights of victims who are not
DAVID records, NCICs, and related materials for parties to this litigation
persons identified as Jane Does #15, 16, 17, 18,
19, Past Employees, Misc. Witnesses
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing: Work product
P-002770 witness/victim list with identifying information, 6(e)
Thru sexual activity summary, telephone call summary Contains information and
P-003211 chart, attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes, documents subject to
302s, portions of state investigative file, attorney investigative privilege. Also
(Villafafia) typed notes, relevant pieces of grand contains information and
jury materials, telephone records/flight records documents subject to privacy
analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, rights of victims who are not
DAVID records, NCICs, and related materials for parties to this litigation
persons identified as Jane Does #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8
Page 3 of 23
EFTA00591960
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 4 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing meta- Work product
P-003212 analysis charts of telephone/flight/grand jury 6(e)
Thru information for a numbe ' ' ' Contains information and
P-003545 , an documents subject to
investigative privilege. Also
contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 FBI Reports of March 2008 interviews of Work product
P-003546 additional witness/victim located in New York 6(e)
Thru Contains information and
P-003552 documents subject to
investigative privilege. Also
contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 Printout of filenames from Federal Express Work product
P-003553 subpoena response with Attorney notations 6(e)
Thru
P-003555B
Box #1 Document entitled "Identified Numbers" with Work product
P-003556 accompanying handwritten attorney list compiled 6(e)
Thru from grand jury materials and attorney analysis of Contains information subject
P-003562 records to investigative privilege
Box #1 Folder entitled "Flight Manifests" containing 6(e)
P-003563 manifests received pursuant to grand jury Contains information and
Thru subpoena documents subject to
P-003629 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Recent Attorney Notes" Work product
P-003630 containing handwritten attorney (Villafafia) notes 6(e)
Thru regarding document review and case strategy Investigative privilege
P-003633 Deliberative process
Box #1 File folder bearing victim name containing FBI Work product
P-003634 interview report from May 2008, telephone Attorney-client privilege
Thru activity report with attorney (Villafanafia) 6(e)
P-003646 handwritten notes, related grand jury material Investigative privilege
Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 4 of 23
EFTA00591961
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 5 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "Summary of Sexual Activity" Work product
P-003647 containing chart bearing handwritten title "Sexual 6(e)
Thru Activity — Summary" with meta-analysis of Investigative privilege
P-003651 information, sorted by name of each Deliberative process
victim/witness, including name and identifying Also contains information and
information of each victim/witness documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
arties to this liti ation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Victim Civil Suits" Not privileged.
P-003652 Produced to counsel for
Thru Petitioners
P-003663
Box #1 File folder entitled "Research re JE Websites" Work product
P-003664 containing attorney research
Thru
P-003678
Box #1 File folder entitled "Serene Cano (N.Y. AUSA)" Work product
P-003679 containing attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes
Thru
P-003680
Box #1 File folder entitled "Dr. Anna Salter" containing Work product
P-003681 attorney (Villafafia) memo to expert witness and Investigative privilege
Thru handwritten attorney notes
P-003687
Box #1 File folder entitled "I[] G[] Interview" containing Work product
P-003688 attorney handwritten notes of interview, and Investigative privilege
Thru attorney handwritten notes regarding potential Also contains information
P-003693 charges subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Research re Travel for Work product
P-003694 Prostitution" containing attorney (Villafafia) 6(e)
Thru handwritten notes regarding grand jury Investigative privilege
P-003711 presentation, chart entitled "Brought to Epstein's Also contains information and
House" with handwritten notes, Message Pad documents subject to privacy
meta-analysis chart, summary of evidence related rights of victims who are not
to one victim/witness, and relevant grand jury parties to this litigation
information
Box #1 Empty file folder bearing name of victim/witness Investigative privilege
P-003712 Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victim who is not a party to
this liti ation
Page 5 of 23
EFTA00591962
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 6 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "T[] M[]" containing grand 6(e)
P-003713 jury subpoenas, motion and order to compel Documents under seal
Thru testimony, and correspondence regarding same pursuant to court order
P-003746
Box #1 File folder entitled ' containing 6(e)
P-003747 subpoena and correspondence regarding same
Thru
P-003751
Box #1 File folder entitled "PBPD Investigative File" 6(e)
P-003752 obtained via subpoena Investigative privilege
Thru Also contains information and
P-004295 documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-004296 containing meta-analysis chart showing telephone 6(e)
Thru calls, travel, and grand jury materials relevant to Investigative privilege
P-004350 possible charges Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
arties to this liti ation
Box #1 File folder entitled ' ocuments Work product
P-004351 53909-004" containing attorney research related
Thru to bias issue
P-004381
Box #1 File Folder entitled "FEDEX" containing 6(e)
P-004382 documents obtained via subpoena Investigative privilege
Thru
P-004478
Box #1 File Folder entitled "State of Delaware Records" 6(e)
P-004479 containing documents obtained in preparation for Investigative privilege
Thru indictment Work product
P-004551
Box #1 File folder entitled "Jet Blue Records" containing 6(e)
P-004552 documents obtained via subpoena Work product
Thru Investigative privilege
P-004555 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "FL EMPLOYMENT Investigative privilege
P-004556 RECORDS" containing FDLE records on targets Work product
Thru and witnesses obtained at attorney request
P-004560
Page 6 of 23
EFTA00591963
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 7 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 Filed folder entitled "JANUSZ BANASIAK" Work product
P-004561 containing attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes Investigative privilege
Thru of interview
P-004565
Box #1 File folder entitled "JANUSZ BANASIAK 6(e)
P-004566 RECORDS 23-0001 THROUGH 23-" containing Work product
Thru documents obtained via subpoena Investigative privilege
P-004716 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "IGOR ZINOVIEV" Work product
P-004717 containing attorney research regarding witness Investigative privilege
Thru
P-004722
Box #1 File folder entitled "BEAR STEARNS Work Product
P-004723 RESEARCH" containing attorney research Investigative privilege
Thru regarding potential witness and subpoena
P-004725 recipient
Box #1 File folder entitled "LAWSUITS INVOLVING Work Product
P-004726 EPSTEIN CORP'S" containing attorney research Investigative privilege
Thru regarding Epstein's past personal and business
P-004819 litigative practices
Box #1 Filed folder entitled "SEC RECORDS" Work Product
P-004820 containing attorney research regarding Epstein Investigative privilege
Thru financial relationships
P-004959
Box #1 File folder entitled "Message Pads" containing Work Product
P-004960 selected items from evidence obtained via 6(e)
Thru subpoena Investigative privilege
P-005059 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work Product
P-005060 containing correspondence with counsel for 6(e)
Thru victim/witness, attorney witness outline with Investigative privilege
P-005081 attorney handwritten notes, attorney handwritten Also contains information and
notes regarding witness reports and case documents subject to privacy
preparation rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "New York Trip" containing Work product
P-005082 attorney notes re witness interview Investigative privilege
Thru
P-005083
Page 7 of 23
EFTA00591964
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 8 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
P-005084 thru P-005107 are non responsive
documents and have been removed
Box #1 File folder entitled "ANNA SALTER" containing Work product
P-005108 attorney research on select expert, use of experts Investigative privilege
Thru at trials in child exploitation cases, and additional
P-005193 research materials on offenders and victims
Box #1 File folder entitled "Extra Copies" containing Work product
P-005194 meta-analysis chart and 302's of victim/witnesses 6(e)
Thru used in preparing indictment package Investigative privilege
P-005300 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "JUAN ALESSI 6(e)
P-005301 STATEMENT' containing transcript obtained via Investigative privilege
Thru subpoena
P-005331
Box #1 File folder entitled "KEN LANNING" containing Work product
P-005332 attorney research on select expert, including Investigative privilege
Thru attorney handwritten notes
P-005341
Box #1 File folder entitled "Info re Planes" containing 6(e)
P-005342 correspondence regarding subpoenas and Investigative privilege
Thru documents received in response to subpoenas
P-005387
Box #1 File folder entitled "Police Reports & PC Work product
P-005388 Affidavit" containing portions of police reports 6(e)
Thru with attorney notes, related phone records, a list Investigative privilege
P-005442 entitled "Victims" with identifying information Also contains information and
and attorney handwritten notes, photographs and documents subject to privacy
DAVID information, and additional attorney rights of victims who are not
research regarding Epstein sexual activity parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "[Victim name] Transcript of 6(e)
P-005443 Interview & GJ Transcript" Investigative privilege
Thru Also contains information and
P-005496 documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Bear Stearns Subpoena 6(e)
P-005497 Resp." containing material received in response Investigative privilege
Thru to subpoena
P-005556
Page 8 of 23
EFTA00591965
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 9 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 U.S. Attorney's Office Criminal Case File Jacket Work product
P-005557 containing file opening documents, expert Deliberative process
Thru witness payment documents
P-005576
Box #1 U.S. Attorney's Office Asset Forfeiture Case File Work product
P-005578 Jacket containing file opening and file closing Deliberative process
Thru documents
P-005583
Box #1 File folder entitled "6001 Immunity Request" 6(e)
P-005584 containing internal memoranda seeking witness Work product and
Thru immunity and correspondence with counsel for deliberative process (as to
P-005606 witness regarding same internal memoranda)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "MASTER PHONE Work product
P-005607 RECORDS" containing meta-analysis of all 6(e)
Thru phone, travel, and grand jury data for all Investigative privilege
P-005914 victim/witnesses for indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-005915 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 6(e)
Thru grand jury data related to that victim/witness for Investigative privilege
P-005977 indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-005978 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 6(e)
Thru grand jury data related to that victim/witness for Investigative privilege
P-006050 indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-006051 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 6(e)
Thru grand jury data related to that victim/witness for Investigative privilege
P-006065 indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 9 of 23
EFTA00591966
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 10 of
23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #2 File folder entitled "JANE DOE #4" containing Work product
P-006066 meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury 6(e)
Thru data related to that victim/witness for indictment Investigative privilege
P-006220 preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled 'JANE DOE #12" containing Work product
P-006221 meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury 6(e)
Thru data related to that victim/witness for indictment Investigative privilege
P-006222 preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "CORRECTED PHONE Work product
P-006223 RECORDS 5/31/07" containing meta-analysis of 6(e)
Thru all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to all Investigative privilege
P-006522 victims/witnesses for indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim Name] Phone Work product
P-006523 Records" containing telephone records received 6(e)
Thru in response to subpoena Investigative privilege
P-006802 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "Lists of Identified Phone Work product
P-006803 Numbers" containing charts of information culled 6(e)
Thru from grand jury materials, interviews, and other Investigative privilege
P-006860 investigation, with attorney handwritten notes, Also contains information and
and information to issue follow-up grand jury documents subject to privacy
subpoena rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "EPSTEIN, CELL Work product
P-006861 PHONE RECORDS" containing documents 6(e)
Thru received via subpoena with attorney handwritten Investigative privilege
P-007785 notes and highlighting Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 10 of 23
EFTA00591967
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 11 of
23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #2 Folder entitled "OLY GRAND JURY LOG: Work product
P-007786 OLY-01 THROUGH OLY-50" containing 6(e)
Thru subpoenas, correspondence regarding same, 6(e) Investigative privilege
P-008120 letters, attorney handwritten notes regarding Also contains information and
records received in response to subpoenas documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 Handwritten flight logs received in response to 6(e)
P-008121 subpoena Investigative privilege
Thru
P-008139
Box #2 Grand jury presentation folder containing Work product
P-008140 attorney handwritten notes, typed outline with 6(e)
Thru additional handwritten notes, complete indictment Investigative privilege
P-008298 package dated 2/19/2008, victim list with Also contains information and
identifying information, photographs, and documents subject to privacy
summary of activity rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "FINAL AGREEMENTS"
P-008299 containing subfolder entitled "Agrmts Filed in
Thru State Court" (P-008300-P-008327 [not being
P-008363 withheld as privileged — have been produced to
opposing counsel]); signed Non-Prosecution
Agreement, Addendum, and operative portion of
12/19/2007 Sanchez-Acosta letter (P-008328-P-
008343 [not being withheld as privileged — have
been produced to opposing counsel]); subfolder
entitled "12/19/07 Acosta-Sanchez Ltr"
containing unredacted copies of that letter (P-
008344-P-008363 [pursuant to Court's Order, not
being withheld as privileged — will be produced
to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11ih
Circuit
Box #2 File folder entitled ' Immunity Request" 6(e)
P-008364 containing internal memoranda, Justice Work Product
Thru Department documentation, and subpoena Deliberative Process
P-008382 regarding immunity request Investigative privilege
Box #2 File folder containing March 18, 2008 grand jury Work product
P-008383 presentation materials, including "Operation Leap 6(e)
Thru Year Revised Indictment Summary Chart (by Investigative privilege
P-008516 victim)," grand jury materials, draft indictments, Deliberative process
victim reference list, grand jury subpoena log Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 11 of 23
EFTA00591968
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 12 of
23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #2 6/25/2007 Letter from Gerald Lefcourt to Jeffrey
P-008517 Sloman and Andrew Lourie
Thru [pursuant to Court's Order, not being withheld as
P-008535 privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel
upon lift of stay by 11'" Circuit]
Box #2 Handwritten attorney notes to prepare for Work product
P-008536 interview of Jane Doe #2 Investigative Privilege
Thru Contains information subject
P-008542 to privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this suit
Box #2 Handwritten attorney notes regarding May 8, Work product
P-008543 2007 grand jury presentation 6(e)
Thru Investigative privilege
P-008549 Contains information subject
to privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this suit
Box #2 File folder entitled "Most Recent Indictment & Work product
P-008550 Good Cases" containing draft indictment and 6(e)
Thru legal research Investigative privilege
P-008615 Deliberative process
Contains information subject
to privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this suit
Box #2 File folder entitled "FBI Summary Charts" Work product
P-008616 containing chart prepared at direction of AUSA, Attorney-Client Privilege
Thru containing victim names, identifying information, 6(e)
P-008686 summary of activity, and other information Investigative privilege
relevant to indictment Contains information subject
to privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this suit
Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #4" Work product
P-008687 containing phone records and meta-analysis of all 6(e)
Thru phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that Investigative privilege
P-008776 victim/witness for indictment preparation Contains info
DataSet-10
Unknown
16 pages
(lev.01-314W3)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Precedence: ROUTINE Date: 06/11/2007
To: Miami Attn: Palm Beach Count RA
SA
SA
From: Criminal Investigative
Violent Crimes Section (VCS)/crimes Against Children Unit
(CACU)/Room 3999
Contact: IA John C. Hauger 202-324-6363
Approved By: N
Drafted By: C:jch
Case ID #: 31E-MM-108062 (Pending)
Title: JEFFREY EPSTEIN;
GHISLANE MAXWELL;
WSTA - CHILD PROSTITUTION
GRAND JURY MATERIAL - DISSEMINATE PURSUANT TO RULE 6(e)
Synopsis: Details analysis conducted on captioned child exploitation
investigation.
Enclosure(s): Fifteen Microsoft Excel spreadsheets detailing all
pertinent calls between the individual victims and the subjects,
as well as calls between victims; Five timelines detailing
individual trips to the Palm Beach Area by the subjects and the
calls/events which occurred during those trips; one 12 Analyst
Notebook chart depicting the calls to and from the subjects and
victims; and one I2 Analyst Notebook chart detailing all of the
victims and what additional victims each one brought to subject's
house.
Details: From March 2005 through February 2006, the Palm Beach
County, FL, Police Department conducted an investigation
involving multi-millionaire Jeffreiliiiiein, hispersonal
assistant IIIIII, and . has since
been named a victim in caption investigation. Mu tiple
underage females were recruited and brought to Epstein's
residence for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity with
Jeffrey Epstein. FBI Miami, Palm Beach RA (PBRA) opened a White
Slave Trafficking Act - Child Prostitution investigation after
Palm Beach County requested an FBI investigation.
A
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000001
3501.055-091
Page 1 of 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00058410
EFTA01245726
To: Miami From: Criminal Investigative
Re: 31E-MM-108062, 06/11/2007
Once the underage females arrived at the Epstein
residence at 358 El Brillo Waiiiiiim Beach, Florida, they were
introduced to the girls' names and
phone numbers...1i underage females were then taken to Epstein's
bedroom where they were instructed by Epstein to remove all or
most of their clothing and provide him with a massage. In some
cases, as the minor provided the massage, Epstein fondled the
minor either on their breasts or vagina. Epstein also introduced
a vibrator/massager and used it to rub the minor's vagina. On
numerous occasions, Epstein had intercourse with the girl as well
as digitally penetrated the minor's vagina. At the conclusion of
the sexual activity, the minors were paid cash sums ranging from
$200.00 - $1,000.00.
Epstein sometimes provided gifts to the minors for
special occasions, such as birthdays. These gifts included bra
and panty sets from Victoria's Secret, vibrators, tickets to
shows, books, and cash, among other things.
The extent of Epstein's wealth can only be estimated,
however he does own two private jets, a single family home in
Manhattan-New York City, NY, a ranch in New Mexico, a private
Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as his house in Palm
Beach, Florida.
Also named as subjects of captioned investigation are
another live-in assistant of Epstein's,
Ghislane Maxwell Epstein's supposed socialite girlfriend, and
a model and former assistant to Epstein.
Through the course of the FBI investigation, case agent
identified over 25 minor females who provided Jeffrey Epstein
with a massage at his Palm Beach residence. Case agent obtained
phone records for 13 victims for the times they were allegedly at
the Epstein residence, throw h administrative sub ena along
with the •hone records for and
. Phone recor s were obta ned for
DOB DOB
The PBRA also obtained, through their investigation,
copies of the flight manifests from Jeffrey Epstein's two private
jets. Over the course of the two year period for which this
2
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000002
3501.055-091
Page 2 of 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00058411
EFTA01245727
To: Miami. From: Criminal Investigative
Re: 31E-MM-108062, 06/11/2007
investigation covers, Jeffrey Epstein made 127 trips in and out
of the West Palm Beach Airport (PBIA), using his two personal
aircraft. The two aircraft Epstein owns are a Boeing 727, and a
Gulfstream G-1159B. Epstein made a total of 284 flights around
the world between 01/2004 and 12/2005. Overall, most of the.
flights were between West Palm Beach Airport and the New York
Metropolitan area, however there were a number of flights to the
U.S. Virgin Islands; Paris, France; London, UK; as well as
several other U.S. and International destinations. Jeffrey
Epstein was on every flight documented on the manifests, with the
exception 15 regular flights and 27
repositioning/maintenance training flights. Of the flights into
and out of PBIA, was on 80 flights,
was on 80 fli hts'ilis aineMaxwell was on 16 flig ts, an
Rill, was on at least eight flights, although the
RIM o her name varies according to whomever wrote it down.
Also present on one of the flight manifests was the name of Alan
Derschowitz, and a separate manifest with an individual with the
name "Barok" who traveled with two body guards.
During a search of Epstein's residence, investigating
Agents obtained several books of message pad carbon copies.
According to the house manager, who was interviewed by PBRA
Agents, Epstein required all phone calls to the Palm Beach
residence to be documented. There were hundreds of carbon copy
message pads obtained during the search. Of the carbon copy
message pads, over 120 messages were from the victims previously
mentioned. A good portion of the message pads were date and time
stamped by the message taker. Of particular interest on the
message pads were calls from notable celebrities and ublic
figures such as Donald Trump, David Copperfield, - Duchess
of York, and Halle Barry, indicating the social s atus of Jeffrey
Epstein.
During the initial investigation there were several
trash pulls conducted by the local Palm Beach County Police
Department on the Epstein residence on El Brillo Way in Palm
Beach. These trash pulls yielded several pieces of scratch
paper, along with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell
stationery with handwritten notes pertaining to the victims. The
trash pulls started in April of 2005, and continued through
September 2005. Some of the pertinent notes from the trash pulls
are: " on Friday around 2 o'clock", " cannot come
tomorrow a pm b c of soccer", and " Tues -
0 9 PM, 12". Victim high school
transcripts were a so ound in the tras rom Je rey Epstein's
residence.
3
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000003
3501.055-091
Page 3 of 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00058412
EFTA01245728
To:
Re:
Miami From: Criminal Investigative
31E-MM-108062, 06/11/2007
1
Western Union was sent an administrative subpoena for
all transactions concerning Jeffrey Epstein. There was three
Western Union transactions between Epstein and the victims. The
first one was in December, 2004 from Jeffrey Epstein to
for $200.00. The second and third transactions were
..LMm Jeffrey igiag to , one for $350.00 and
one for $200.00. later confirmed that she received
a Western Union TrriTITTmlfrom Epstein when she was on vacation in
Cancun, MX and San Diego, CA. According to the Western Union
receipts, received her money in Cancun, MX and San Diego,
CA.
Writer completed Microsoft Excel chronological charts
to show the call activity in relation to the message pad carbon
copies, trash pulls, Western Union transactions, and the travel
of Jeffrey Epstein and associates. One chart was completed for
each of the 13 victims whose phone records were obtained by PBRA.
The PBRA obtained toll records for from
12/15/2003 through 10/03/2005. During that time period,
made over 21,360 calls. Of the 21,360 total calls made, 962 wr_L
between other victims and subjects of captioned investigation.
called three times. received ill s
six text messages rom,m, and placed 139 calls to .
maintained the most contact with of any of the other
v ctims. first contacted on 07/15/2004, when
was 17-years-old. Based on the flight manifests, most of
lr
i calls
i between and were placed at a time
when Epstein was in the Palm Beach area. There is a high
concentration of calls between and in the two days
prior to Epstein's arrival at the PBIA. There are also several
instances of phone calls which occur one or two days after
Epstein de arted the Palm Beach area. The average call time
between and the subjects was 1.25 minutes, with a longest
call of ive minutes.
had seven message carbon copies
pertaining to her. The first instance dated 12/4/2004 one day
after Epstein arrived at PBIA. The message states " is
scheduled for 5:00 today". The next message concerning
occurs on 01 25/2005 at 12:45 PM, five minutes after there is a
call from to the Epstein residence, and two days before
Epstein departs PBIA. The message states that "She called again
about working toda " the message was from " " and left the
phone number of Ililil cell phone. The next two messages occur
on Wednesday, 01 26 2005, one day before Epstein departs PBIA.
4
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000004
3501.055-091
Page 4 of 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00058413
EFTA01245729
To: Miami From: Criminal Investigative
Re: 31E-MM-108062, 06/11/2007
The first message is at 12:00 am, from ' " with the text: "She
is asking if you want her to work today? the best time will be
2pm or 9:45 pm". The second message, dated 01/26/2005, occurs at
1:20 pm from " " with the text: "She said that instead of
1:45, she'll be here at 2:00pm." The next message pad occurred
on Monday, 02 28 2005, one day before Epstein departs PBIA, from
a ", with cell phone number, with the text: "She is
wondering if 2:30 is ok cuz she needs to stay in school." The
next two messages both occur on 09/04/2005, one
B daI after Epstein
arrived at PBIA. Both messages simply state "
telephoned. The final message pertaining to occurred
M on
09/1 05 from " ' to "J.E." with the text: "I got a car
for L•"
There were five different pieces of paper found in
stein's trash with handwritten notes pertaining to IIII.
high school transcripts were also found in Epstein's
ras . Of the five pieces of paper found in Epstein's trash, the
two most pertinent contained a sketch with a handwritten notation
"Drawn by ", the second contained the text " tomorrow or.
Sunday". The remaining pieces of paper just ment oned
name. Since it is impossible to determine when the notes found
in the trash were actually written, they are inserted into the
spreadsheets on the day the Palm Beach Police Department found
them.
The PBRA obtained phone records for from
12/12/2004 through 09/14/2005. During that time peri ,
made 8,490 total calls. Of the 8,490 calls made, 768 cal s were
between either subjects or victims of captioned investigation.
only called one time, however there were
29 cal s an three text messages from and 29 calls to
first contacted N I on 0225 2005, when
was 17 Jilt. Most of the calls between and •
occurred at a time when Jeffrey Epstein was in the Palm Beach
area. Of the calls that didn't occur after an Epstein flight
landed and before an Epstein flight departed, most were in the
day or two leadingmp o Epstein arriving at PBIA. The average
call time between IIIII and the subjects was 1.12 minutes, with a
longest call of three minutes.
From 8/19/2005 throw h 10 3 2005, there were six
message pads pertaining to . The first message pad
occurred on 8/19/2005 from to "J.E." with the text
will be here tomorrow at 11:00am". The time on this
message is 7:55pm, approximately one hour after
called at 5:59pm. The second message pad occurs on
5
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000005
3501.055-091
Page 5 of 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00058414
EFTA01245730
To: Miami From: Criminal Investigative
Re: 31E-MM-108062, 06/11/2007
8/21/2005 from " " to "Mr. J. Epstein" with the text '
cannot work today and will be here at 4:00 m". This
message occured at 11:39am, three minutes after
called at 11:36am on the same day. The next two message
pads occurred on 9/3/2005 and 9/4/2005. Both message pads were
from " ' to "J.E.". The first message stated "I text
message or to confirm for llooam and for 4:30pm",
the next message on 9/4/2005 stated " -confirmed at 11:00am
-4:30pm". Corres ondin 1 , on 9 Q 2005, three phone calls
occurred between and . The last two
message pads pertaining to occurred on 10/1/2005 and
10/3/2005. Both messaces were rom to "J.E.". The first
message text was " confirmed at llam and
The 10/1/2005 message occurs at 9:50 am. Mil
on 9/30/2005 at 7:06pm. The second message pad
'li .
2005) states " will be 1/2 hour late". This message
ad occurred at 4:10 pm, nine minutes after a call from
to at 4:01 pm on 10/3/2005.
There were three separate pieces of paper pertaining to
pulled from trash at the Epstein residence. The
i.rst trash pull occurred on 4 12/2005 with the text "I
have left messages this morning for - to confirm 100-
The next trash pull pertaining to occurred on
4 15 2005. The text contained multiple girls names, along with
"Ash". The final trash pull occurred on 9/23/2005 with the text
atM 1pm IIIIII 4:30pm/Tues - IIIIIII..." . All of the
entione
occurred when
hone calls, message pa s, and trash pulls,
was 17-years-old.
1/1/2004 through 12/31/2005. During that timepert
The ?BRA obtained phone records for
made
18,059 calls. Of the 18,059 calls made, 199 calls were etween
f rom
either subjects or victims of captioned investigation.
called 50 times and sent five text messages to , and
called 48 times. There were 34 calls from an 24
calls to the Epstein residence; five calls from and one to
; and seven calls from . Most of the
.ca..
il s colicided with Epstein's trIIIIIIIMPit of PBIA. The
average call length between III" and the target numbers was one
minute, with the longest call o 4 minutes.
From 10/9/2005 through 9/10 2005, there were nine
message carbon copiespertaining to . Four of the messages
were simply to return call, with either cell or
home ilia number reference . On 12/4/2004, there was a message
from to Jeffrey with the first part of the text stated
6
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000006
3501.055-091
Page 6 of 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00058415
EFTA01245731
To: Miami From: Criminal Inyestigative
Re: 31E-MM-108062, 06/11/2007
would like to work @4:00 PM if possible...". Another
message pad on 8/20/2005 from to J.E. stated "-
confirmed at 4 PM Who is scheduled for Morning?". The next day,
8/21/2005, at 11:39 AM (one minute after a call from to
) a message pad from to Mr. J. Epstein states
cannot work today an will be here at 4:00 PM".
On 9 4 2005, there was a message from to J.E. with the
text "she would like to reschedule her time". The remaining
message is on 9/10/2005 from to J.E. ' will be at 11
AM Do you want me to change ?".
There were five separate pieces of paper pertaining to
pulled from the trash at the Epstein residence.
tillilist trash pull occurred on 4/1/2005 with t text
"10:30 / on Fri around 2 O'clock". The next
trash oul was on471A/2005 with the pertinent text of '
or ...". The next trash pull was on 4/15/2005 containing
multiple girls' names, along with "* " On 7/23/2005 there
was another trash pull pertaining to , the text red "
- off at 5 pm". Coincidentall on 7 23 2005 a call was place
from the Epstein esidence to at 9:58 am. The final
trash pull occurred on 9/23/2005 with the text " 12".
In addition to the phone calls, message pads, and trash
pulls connecting to the targets, there were two
Western Union transactions, obtained thriiiilsubpoena, in which
money was wired from Jeffrey Epstein to . The first Western
Union transaction was on 6/1/2005 for $350.00 to
who was in Cancun, MX. The second transaction was or 200.00 to
IIIII in San Diego CA on 7 13/2005. mentioned to
interviewing agents that had wired her money while
was in San Diego visit ng friends.
Epstein mandated his hired housekeeper to keep detailed
and accurate records pertaining to the petty cash fund at the
Palm Beach residence. There were two payment records in the
petty cash fund to I one on 5/7/2005 for $200.00 and
one on 6/20/2005 for $100.00.
The PBRA obtained phone records for from
01/01/2004 through 12/30/2005. During that time period,
made a total of 15,284 phone calls. Of the 15,284 calls made,
1476 calls were between either the sub'ects or victims of
captioned investigation called 59 times,
and called 40 times. Twenty cal,. placed from
7
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000007
3501.055-091
Page 7 of 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00058416
EFTA01245732
To: Miami From: Criminal Investigative
Re: 31E-MM-108062, 06/11/2007
the Epstein residence to , and called the residence
seven times. only ca e one time.
first ca e on 04/25/2004 when was 16-
years-old. state in her interview would
call to arrangei lle massages for Epstein most o tetme,
however (UM) called her once to arrange for a massage.
Most of t e calls between and the subjects occurred at a
time when Epstein was in town, or one or two days rior to his
arrival at PBIA. The average call length between and the
subjects was 1 minute and 30 seconds, with a longest ca 1 of four
minutes.
There was only one message pad pertaining to
pr i from 01/1/11104 to 12/30/2005. The message is on
005 from
on the same day
to Jeffrey at 4:21 PM. The message occurred
stein at PBIA. The text of the message
is "Is it ok if will come at 5?"
There were three trash pulls with I'll name on them.
The trash pulls occurred on 04/12/2005, 04/13 200 , and
04/15/2005. The 4/12/2005 trash pulls contained the text "I have
left a messages this morning for - to confirm 1:00". The
4/13/2005 and 4/15/2005 trash pulls s mply have " " along
with several other girls' names.
The PBRA obtained phone records for
05/27/2004 through 12/30/2005. During that till."' olli , llOom
made a total of 12,990 calls, 828 of which were between eit er
the sub sects or victims of captioned investigation.
called 76 times and sent her one text messa e.
led 12 times. called , t.e Epstein
residence, and 78, 13 and three times
respectively. first contacted on 12/06/2004 when
she was 17-years-old. As with all of he other victims, most of
the calls between the subjects and occurred at a time in
which Epstein was either in the Palm Beach area or on the day or
two lead. . to his arrival at PBIA. The average call time
between and the subjects was 1.36 minutes with a longest
call of six minutes.
There were three message pads found at the Epstein
residence pertaining to The first message pad was dated
9/3/2005 at 8:50 PM from to J.E. with the text "I text
message for to confirm for 1100 am and for 4:30
PM". Twenty- ive minutes after the 8:50 PM messa e ad at 9:15
PM, there is a phone call from to . There
is another phone call at 9:23 PM again rom
8
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000008
3501.055-091
Page 8 01 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00058417
EFTA01245733
To: Miami From: Criminal Investigative
Re: 31E-MM-108062, 06/11/2007
The next message pad was 09/04/2005 at 9:05 AM
to J.S. with the text " - confirmed at 11:00
4:30 PM". The final message d is on 10/1/2005 at
to J.E. with the text " confirmed at 11
4 PM". Prior to the 9:50 AM message pad there was
a text message from to at 8:56 AMa2all from
"III to IIIII at 9:32 AM and a call from to IIIIII at 9:35
There were seven trash pulls with name
written on pieces of paper found in Epstein's trash. The first
is on 04/-1/2005 with the text "10:30 the next is on
07/23/2005 with the text ' - Tues @ 8:00 PM", then two
separate pieces of a er on 21/2005 with the text "3247996 for
a good time call cell number) 'heart'
Lauren" and " cannot come at 7pm tomorrow b/c of soccer".
The final three trash pulls occurred on 09/23/2005 witiiiiiiiexts
"Toes - @ 9pm", ' 8pm",and "Cancelled of
The PBRA obtained phone records for IIIIIII IIIIIIII
from 03 27/2004 through 05/03/2005. During that time period
made 3,409 calls, of which 194 were between either the
su ects or other victims in ca tioned investigation.
made 30 calls to and made 31 calls to
received 25 calls from the Epstein residence
anc seven ca s rom called
one time during the period ohw ichher records were obtained.
first made telephonic contact with on 11/12/2004
igeM. was 17-years-old.' Most of the call activity between
..
Bea and the subjects took place when Epstein was in the Palm
xea. or in the days leading up to Epstein's arrival in Palm
Beach, with several exceptions. The average call time between
and the subjects was under one minute, with a. longest
I I II 4.85 minutes.
There were two messa pads found at the Epstein
residence pertaining to The first message pad was
dated 1/26/2005 at 1:30 PM from with the text
"She is confirming for 5:30 PM" subsequently
made two phone calls to three hours after the
aforementioned message pad at 4:11 PM and 4:26 PM. The other
message pad is dated 04/08/2005 at 8:20 Pm from to J.E.
with no message.
There were three separate pieces of scratch paper found
in the trash at the Epstein residence. Two of the trash pulls
were recovered on 04/08/2005 with the text of " confirmed
9
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000009
3501.055-091
Page 9 of 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00058418
EFTA01245734
To: Miami From: Criminal Investigative
Re: 31E-MM-108062, 06/11/2007
at 5:30" and "I have left messages for - (sic) - to
confirm 5:30 PM (it went straight to voicemail]. The third trash
pull was recovered on 04/15/2005 with several girls' names, most
notably ' Friday 5:30 Pm".
The PBRA also obtained all Western Union transactions
with Jeffrey Epstein's name on them. There was one Western Union
transaction on 12 23 2004 at 12:05 PM from "Jeffrey Epstein (New
York, NY)" to " (West Palm Beach, FL) for
$200.00. There were co nc entally two calls from
to on the evening of 12/22/2004 around 6:00 PM. Epstein
was a so not in the Palm Beach area during the time of the
Western Union transaction.
The PBRA obtained phone records for from
08/01/2004 through 10/21/2005. During that time period,
made 14,855 calls, of which 70 were between subjects or victims
in ca tinned investi ation. called 16 times,
and called 31 times. called
six times, all on 08 19/2005. a so called t e Epstein
residence seven times. irst contacted on 08/21/2004
when she was 17-years-ol . phone bill does not show
incoming calls, so it is unknown whether the calls were placed
from the Epstein residence. As is the pattern with all of the
other victims, most of the calls to and from IIIII and to the
Epstein residence occurred while Epstein was in t e Palm Beach
area. The remainder of the calls occurred one to three days
prior to the arrival of Epstein to PBIA. The average call time
between and the subjects was 1.13 minutes with a longest
call of two minutes.
There was only one message pad pertaining to
The messaiiid is dated on 08/02/2004 at 12:45 PM from
( robably , a previously identified victim) and
to Jeffrey with the text "They are available all weekend
ianl ik
may e too".
The PBRA obtained phone records for
from 11 26/2004 through 09/01/2005. During that time period,
made 14968 calls, of which 144 were between either the
s jects or victims of captioned investigation. and
the Epstein residence called 13 and 11 t mes
respectively. called 14 times and called
the Epstein resti 20 times. first telephonically
contacted on 08/19/2004 when she was 17-years-old.
10
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000010
3501.055-091
Page 10 of 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00058419
EFTA01245735
To: Miami From: Criminal Investigative
Re: 31E-MM-108062, 06/11/2007
There are three message pads pertaining to
found in the Epstein residence: is dated
08/02/2004 at 12:45 PM from " " ligif frey with the
text "They are available all weekendand maybe too". The
essage pad is dated 01/06/2005 at 8:30 AM from "Ms.
" to "Mr. J.E." with the text "Please call her 561-644-
er listed on the aforementioned message pad
is cell phone. 'nal meAAAgig pad is
date 2005 at 9:45 AM from " " to "IIIII" with the
text "Please call her".
The PBRA obtained phone records for from
05 through 04/01/2005, when she was 14-years-old.
is only believed visited the Epstein residence
uring this time ' only pertinent phone calls
and from of which there were 21 calls.
never directly contacted or w cted by mil the
s jects 'oned investigation. stated
arranged to provide Epstein with massages. All of the
to ' in close proximity to calls between
e ana or the Epstein residence.
There are two separate pieces o ulled from the
Epstein residence trash which pertain to Both pieces
of pape foi iii,Friday, 04/08/2005, with the text on the
first "with on Satin/at 10:30" and the text on the
second n on Saturday with at 10:30". .
The PBRA obtained phone records f
for the month of July, 2004. According to she provided
Epstein with three massages, all during the ly 20 4 e
There are hone calls betty
fi and three from first
contacted on 07 04/2004 when she was 16-years-old. Five
of the calls occurred during the day prior and the day of
Epstein's arrival at PBIA, with three calls occurr i er
bi n arrival. The average call time between and
was 1.3 minutes, with a longest call of two minutes.
There were two message pads. pertaining to II ' found
at the Epstein ' ce. Theist pad is dated 07 17 2004 at
6:45 PM from " L" to " or Mr. Epstein" with the text
"Was in a car accident on her way so cannot come. She just got
11
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000011
3501.055-091
Page 11 of 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00058420
EFTA01245736
To: Miami From: Criminal Investigative
Re: 31E-MM-108062, 06/11/2007
back (IIIIIIIIIIII". The sgiapla message pad is also dated on
07/17/ 6:55 PM from "IIIII" to "Mr. Ep " with the text
can come tomorrow any time or aloiiiii
state to interviewing agents that her friend had
intro uced her to Epstein and also persuaded her not to call
police when she felt violated after giving Epstein a massage.
One trash pull mentions " datedt05,
it is unknown if the paper is referring to
as there is another potential victim named
associated with captioned case.
The PBRA obtained phone records for
01/01/2005 through 5. During that time period,
made 2,927 calls. stated to interviewi
never gave her phone number to either Epstein or as
such there are no phone records indicating sh - in
contact with the subjects of captioned case. further
s brought to the Epstein residence by her friend
with whom she had 419 c e
a orementioned time period. As with , several
of calls occurred in which talked till.,
was followed by a call by to either
or the Epstein resid re were a ]Iiiiiiilar
sequences of the talked to
to Epstein fohinved by
itsli ought
or the Epste n residence.
calling'
stated she had only
provided Epstein with two massages around the time of her 17th
bir ere no message pads or trash pulls pertaining
to found at the Epstein residence.
has been considered both a subject and
victim in cap asc. During an interview with the Palm
Beach Police, commenteiliwas "like a Heidi Fleiss"
providing girls to Epstein. has since been classified as
a victim by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office, since she too
prow'' ssages to Epstein. The PBRA obtained phone records
for 01/01/2004 through 04/05/2005. During that time
pert , made 8,203 calls, of betty
. which 767 were
subjects or other victi ' ed investigation.
Ma" from three calls from
made 37 calls to to the
Epstein residence and three calls to from her
cell phone ( home phone has also been used in
communication with subjects and victims, however records could
12
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000012
3501.055-091
Page 12 of 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00058421
EFTA01245737
To: Miami From: Criminal Investigative
Re: 31E-MM-108062, 06/11/2007
not be located). first contacted on 03/12/2004
when she was 17-years-old. th the other victims,
most of the calls between and occurred in the time
leading up to Epstein's arrival at PSI ter he had already
landed. The average call time between and the subjects
was 1.25 minutes, with a longest call of three minutes.
There were fiv sage s found at the Epstein
residence pertaining to The first message pad was
dated 2/14/2004 a o Jeffrey with the text
called ph: cell #)". Concurrently,
t ere was a phone call from to the Epstein Residence on
12/14/2004 at 3: . Tugawct message pad was dated 02/20/2005
at from to IIIII with the text "Left her
'. The next pad was date 005 from to
with the text "Left her cell #
message pads occur on 05/30/2005 and 06/02/
12:35 PM respectively. Both pads are from
t
to
lair
The final two
and
with
the first pad's text of "Please call" and no text on the second.
There were also five pieces of c n the
Epstein residence trash which pertain to The first
three separate pieces of paper were all found on 04 08/2005, two
on Jeffrey E. Epstein stationery, and one on Ghislaine Maxwell
eery. text for the first (Epstein stationery )is
with aturday at 10:30" second (also Epstein
stationery) is " on Saturday wi at 10:30", and
third (Maxwell stationery) "(Friday) tomorrow or Sun.
- 11 Am". Another piece of paper was foundyaapstein's trash on
04/15/2007 with multiple names and times, 'mg.. appears next to
"Shas Thur + Mon". The final piece of paper was pulled from
Epstein's trash on 09/23/2005 and was a two sided notepad page
with m le girls' names and f were crossed
out. " " appeared next to "
was added as a victim later in the
investigation, mainly due to her cell phone records being
unava . PBRA was able to obtain the long disciiii
from house, whi w all of calls to
New York cell phone. called times from 01/13/2005
+ 10/02/2005, during which time was 17- old.
long distance records indicate she called 11 times
uring the months of January-Febuary, 2005. As with all of the
other victims, most of the call activity was at a time when
Epstein was in the Palm Beach area. The exceptions were either
one to two days before Epstein arrived or one or two days after
13
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000013
3501.055 091
Page 13 of 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00058422
EFTA01245738
To: Miami From: Criminal Investigative
Re: 31E-MM-108062, 06/11/2007
he departed. The average call length between Illh and was
1.31 minutes, with a longest call of three minutes.
There were nine messages pertaining to
found at the Epstein residence (Since there are two
as victims, writer only attributed messages to
dr if their was an accompanying phone number or if the last
name was written on message). Seven of the messages were
simply either that "telephoned", "would like to speak with
you", or to "call her back (as soon as possible)". The remaining
two message pads, taken on 01/29/2005 and an unknown date state:
"I have a female for him" and "She has a female friend for you.
Please call back as soon as possible" respectively.
Conclusion
The telephone". ' ducted for captioned case
yielded the pattern of calling one or more of the
victims one to three days before Jeffrey Epstein was set to
arrive Ili Beach, as well as during his stay. Call activity
between and the victims significantly decreased or did not
occur during the times when Epstein was known to not be in the
Palm Beach area. Most of the victims interviewed by
investigating Agents stated they were brought to Epstein's El
Brill° Way house in Palm Beach by ' were introduced to
a female they later identified as . The vi
further stated they gave their phone numbers to either IIIIII or
Epstein himself at the conclusion of the massage/sexual activity.
Another patt . l be asce i the
telephone analysis is IMIMIll calling the day
before or day of Epstein's ft in Palm Beach. According to
interyiews of the victims, y brought eight victims
to Epstein. Of the eight victims tintroduced to Epstein,
ten mor s were brought to Epstein through the original
eight. has said to local investigators that shim like
" Fleiss", arranging victiiii Epstein. Thus,
Ili!' could have been calling in order to line up
appointments for Epstein.
made a total of 418 calls and 15 text messages
from her cell phone to the victims. The three numbers belonging
to the Epstein residence combined for a total of 105 calls to the
victims. Of note, the calls from the Epstein residence were
calculated from the four victim's cell phone records which show
incoming calls, thus there may hav from the
Epstein residence to the victims. made a total
14
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000014
3501.055-091
Page 14 of 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00058423
EFTA01245739
To: Miami From: Criminal Investigative
Re: 31E-MM-106062, 06/11/2007
of 46 calls, and made seven calls to the
victims.
Indictments of the main subjects of captioned
investigation are anticipated in early September 2007.
Prosecutors plan to charge Jeffrey Epstein with several child
exploitation/prostitution charges, and to charge the others as
co-conspirators.
15
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000015
3501.055-091
Page 15 of 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA_00058424
EFTA01245740
To: Miami From: Criminal Investigative
Re: 31E-MM-108062, 06/11/2007
LEAD(S):
Set Lead 1: (Info)
MINI
AT PALM BEACH COUNTY RA
Read and Clear.
••
16
MM22-31E-MM-108062 EC-000016
3501.055-091
Page 16 of 16
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA_00058425
EFTA01245741
DataSet-10
Unknown
23 pages
1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
3
4
5
6
COPY
7 RE: OPERATION LEAP YEAR
8 /
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Federal Grand Jury 07-103
Federal Building
19 U.S. Courthouse
West Palm Beach, Florida
20 Tuesday, March 20, 2007
21
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE,
(954) 467-8204
Exhibit 20
EFTA00223938
2
1 'estimony of SPECIAL AGENT E.
2 as taken before the Federal
3 Grand Jury, West Palm Beach Division, Federal
4 Building, U.S. Courthouse, Palm Beach County,
5 State of Florida, on Tuesday, March 20, 2007.
6 Certified Court
7 Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida,
8 Official Reporting Service, LLC, 524 South Andrews
9 Avenue, Suite 302N, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
10 33301 , was authorized to and did report the sworn
11 testimony.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223939
3
1 (Witness enters the Grand Jury Room.)
2 THE FOREPERSON: You do solemnly swear
3 that the testimony you give will be the
4 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
5 truth, so help you God?
6 THE WITNESS: I do.
7 THE FOREPERSON: Thank you. Please be
8 seated.
9 EXAMINATION
10 BY MS. VILLAFANA:
1 1 , could you
12 please state and spell your name for the record?
13
14
15 Q Now Special Agent 1, last week
16 or the last time that we met, we discussed two
17 girls, correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Who visited Mr. Epstein's home?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And those were and
22 A Yes.
23 Q Did you obtain photographs of those
24 girls?
25 Yes, I did.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223940
4
1 Q And do you know approximately when those
2 photographs were taken?
3 A They were taken during the same time
4 period that we are investigating, '04 and '05.
5 There may have been a few in '03, but it was
6 within a year's time of six months within the
7 activity that we are investigating.
8 Q All right. Let me show you what has
9 been marked as Grand Jury Exhibits 1 and 2, and
10 can you tell us what Exhibit 1 is?
11 A Exhibit 1 is and it's a
12 photograph of her with her date of birth listed.
13 Q And what is Exhibit 2?
14 A A photograph of with her date
15 of birth as well on it.
16 MS. And I will just pass
17 those to the grand jury.
18
19 Q Now the last time that we were here, you
20 had described how had brought Saige G.
21 to Mr. Epstein's home?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Did bring other girls to the
24 Epstein house?
25 A Yes, she did.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223941
5
1 Q And is one of those girls
2 A Yes.
3 Q And what is the date of birth of
4 Vanessa Z.?
5 A She was born June 6, 1987.
6 Q And where did go to high
7 school?
8 A Royal Palm Beach High School.
9 Q And is that the same school that
10 went to?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And was ever a student at that
13 school?
14 Yes, she was.
15 Q Tell us a little bit about well,
16 first of all, did the Palm Beach Police Department
17 have a chance to interview
18 A Yes, they did.
19 Q And what about yourself?
20 A And I did as well.
21 Q Okay. Tell us, if you will, how
22 started going to Mr. Epstein's house?
23 A was the one who brought to
24 Mr. Epstein's house. told that she
25 may have to remove her clothing and that she could
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223942
6
1 makes $200 if she performed a massage for Mr.
2 Epstein.
3 She also was told by that he may
4 try to touch you, but if you are uncomfortable,
5 just tell him no, and she also said that if
6 Epstein asked her age, she was to say she was 18.
7 Q Now that information that you just
8 relayed, who provided that information?
9 A
10 Q And what did
11 A I'm sorry. provided in the
12 interview to me that information.
13 also admit that she brought
14 o Mr. Epstein's home?
15 A Yes.
16 Q When did this first occur?
17 A This occurred in -- we believe the first
18 time period was when was 16.
19 Q And is there any telephone records that
20 show communications between nd
21 Haley R. and and
22 A Yes.
23 Q And when are those phone records?
24 A Those phone records show up in March of
25 '04 when would be 16.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223943
7
1 Q Let me show what has been marked as
2 Grand Jury Exhibit Number 3, and what is Exhibit
3 3?
4 A This is a photograph of with
5 her date of birth, 6-6-1987.
6 Q Now you mentioned that in March of 2004
7 and April of 2004, there are these records of
8 phone calls and say how old she was
did111111111
9 when she first went to Mr. Epstein's house?
10 A I'm sorry. Did say how old she
11 was?
12 Q Did she tell you or the police officers
13 how old she was?
14 A Yes. I 'm sorry. I thought your
15 question was did she tell Mr. Epstein.
16 She told me that she was 16 when she
17 went to Mr. Epstein's house.
18 Q Okay. That is consistent with those
19 phones calls?
20 A Yes, it is.
21 Q Okay. Now during her first visit with
22 Mr. Epstein, what happened?
23 A She went to Mr. Epstein's house. Haley
24 took her there. told her she didn't have
25 her driver's license at that time, which she told
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223944
8
1 her she got her driver's license when she was 17.
2 So drove her to Mr. Epstein's
3 house. She provided Mr. Epstein with a few
4 massages. She remained clothed both times that
5 she gave him a massage. At this time, she kept
6 her clothes on.
7 I think one time she was wearing shorts
8 and a T-shirt, maybe the second time she was
9 wearing jeans and a T-shirt. That he constantly
10 grabbed and pulled at her during the massage
11 trying to draw her closer to him, but at that
12 time, you know, there was no sexual activity other
13 than the grabbing and pulling.
14 There was no sexual activity that took
15 place on those first couple of massages, and she
16 remained clothed at that time.
17 Q Now after those first few massages, was
18 there a break in time before Vanessa returns to
19 the Epstein house?
20 A told us that she and had
21 had some kind of a fight or a disagreement, a
22 breakup in their relationship, so there was a time
23 period where she did not go back to Mr. Epstein's
24 house.
25 Q And when -- did there then come a time
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223945
9
1 when she returned to the Epstein house?
2 A Yes. We have phone activity between
3 beginning in December
4 of '04.
5 Q And how old was in December
6 of '04?
7 A She had turned 17 at that time. In
8 fact, through the course of the phone records
9 beginning in December of '04 to October of 2005,
10 we have over 150 phone calls between
11 and Kellen, Mr. Epstein's assistant.
12 Q What did tell you about the
IIIIIIIIIIII
13 activity that occurred when she started returning
14 in late '04?
15 A When she started giving Mr. Epstein
16 massages after that break, the massages became
17 much more sexual in nature. Mr. Epstein continued
18 to push and there were many times when Vanessa Z.
19 would perform massages completely nude.
20 Several times, she would stay in her
21 underwear with no bra on, but stated to me that
22 many occasions she performed the massages to Mr.
23 Epstein in the nude.
24 Q In addition to being unclothed, was
25 there other sexual activity?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223946
10
1 A Yes, there was. uring my
2 interview with she became very upset when
3 discussing the sexual activity that took place at
4 that time.
She stated that Mr. Epstein had
6 digitally penetrated her. It began first by
7 rubbing her on the outside pf her vagina and then
8 on more than one occasion actually penetrating her
9 with his fingers.
10 He would request her to pinch his
11 nipples. He rubbed her breasts as well. She
12 stated that there was a vibrator that was used on
13 her vagina as well, did not penetrate her, but
14 that she described the vibrator as being a white
15 vibrator with a gray head, and several of the
16 other victims have said the same thing, described
17 it similar to that.
18 Q And just before I forget, when you
19 testified about , did also report
20 having a vibrator used on her?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And, again, so the record is clear, when
23 you are talking about these vibrators, they are
24 the large back massager type vibrator?
25 A We have had some girls just describe
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223947
11
1 them as a vibrator. We have had some girls just
2 describe them as a back massager and then we also
3 had girls describe them as both, because of the
4 size of it, I think some girls are more aware of
5 what a vibrator would look like due to their ages.
6 You know, I don't know that everybody
7 knew exactly what a sexual vibrator looked like,
8 but they all vibrated, and we have actually had
9 that described, an -described it as both,
10 a vibrator slash massager, saying that it was, you
1 1 know, large in nature.
12 Q Okay. Now in addition to using that
13 massager and digitally penetrating Vanessa, was
14 there other sexual activity?
15 A Yes. Several times during the massages,
16 Mr. Epstein would have straddle him while
17 he laid on his stomach and then he would reach
18 between her legs and masturbate and
19 occasionally --
20 Q And this is when he was laying on his
21 back not his stomach?
22 A I'm sorry. Did I say that?
23 Q You said on his stomach.
24 A He is laying on his back. She's on top
25 of him straddled, and he is reaching between her
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223948
12
1 masturbating, and he has attempted to put his
2 penis on her vagina, never penetrating her, but
3 that was what was described to us by
4 Q Now when was first interviewed
5 by the Palm Beach Police?
6 A She was interviewed October 6th of 2005.
7 Q And at that time, did she say when her
8 last visit was to Mr. Epstein's house?
9 A Yes, she said October 1st, 2005, was the
10 last massage that she had given Mr. Epstein.
11 Q Is there any other evidence that was
12 recovered from Mr. Epstein's or his household
13 items that would confirm that statement?
14 A We have a message pad. During the
15 search warrant, several of the message pads --
16 don't know if we referred to them at this stage.
17 We may not have.
18 We recovered -- well, I shouldn't say
19 we, the Palm Beach Police Department recovered
20 several message pads. They were carbon copy
21 message pads.
22 So we have several of those books from
23 their search warrant and in there, there is a
24 message on October 1st confirming
25 appointment for the massage as well as another
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223949
13
1
2 Q And is there also evidence that
3 actually spoke on October 1st
4 before that message?
5 A We have cell phone calls between
6 as well as the message which
7 was from to Jeffrey regarding -- confirming
8 the appointment for but we have a cell
9 phone call I believe it was a little bit earlier
10 from or maybe it was to
11 , but it is definitely between the two of
12 them on that same day.
13 Q All right. When was interviewed
14 by the Palm Beach Police Department, did she
15 describe all of the sexual activity?
16 A No, she did not. She did not tell them
17 about the vibrator or the -- she didn't tell them
18 about the vibrator or the penetration.
19 Q And, again, you said that when you
20 brought up -- did you sort of confront her with
21 the idea that more had occurred?
22 A I did, and she was very embarrassed
23 about the vibrator. I asked her at one point if
24 Mr. Epstein had given her any gifts and she got
25 very red in the face and began to tear up and you
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223950
14
1 could see that she was very embarrassed.
2 So we took a little bit of a break, but
3 then she was able to say that Mr. Epstein had
4 provided her as a birthday present a vibrator. So
5 not only was there a vibrator back massager used
6 on her, but at this time -- and I think that's
7 kind of what got talking about the sexual
8 activity that she was able to tell me that, and
9 she was very, very embarrassed, but that Mr.
10 Epstein had given her for her eighteenth birthday
1 1 a vibrator.
12 Q Now you mentioned that that happened on
13 her eighteenth birthday?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And was she able to tell you whether Mr.
16 Epstein knew it was her eighteenth birthday?
17 A She stated that Mr. Epstein provided to
18 her on her eighteenth birthday the vibrator and
19 shortly -- well --
20 Q So before you had said that had
21 instructed to tell everyone that she was
22 18; do you remember that?
23 A Yes.
24 Q But at some point, the people in the
25 Epstein household learned that she hadn't turned
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223951
15
1 18 yet and her birthday was coming up?
2 A Her birthday was coming up.
3 Q And at some point, was a car provided
4 for
5 A Yes. In October of '05, was
6 having asked Mr. Epstein is she could
7 borrow one of his cars to go to Orlando and he
8 stated that -- at first he said yes, and then he
9 said he would get her a rental car.
10 contacted L a few days
1 1 later and said that a car had been rented for
12 and that the house manager used the
13 company credit card and picked up that
14 car, and actually when the police interviewed her
15 on October 6th, which was five or six days after
16 the last massage, they were able to see that that
17 Nissan Sentra that had been rented by Mr. Epstein,
18 Vanessa had that in her possession for at least
19 through January 1st of 2006 and that car was
20 rented by Mr. Epstein for at least that amount of
21 time.
22 Q Did describe how the massage
23 appointments would be made?
24 A Yes, she did.
25 Q And how was that?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223952
16
1 A She stated that that
2
OM Jeffrey's assistant, would call her and set
3 up appointments, and that sometimes she would call
4 her on her cell phone from New York, from the
5 Islands, and say that they were coming into town,
6 was she available.
7 She would also call while they
8 were in town to see if she was available for
9 massages, to give massages to Mr. Epstein, and
10 stated that I'll.' who we have identified as
11 called her a few times as well to set
12 appointments up.
13 Q And when those appointments were made
14 how would reach
15 A By phone.
16 Q All right. And whether she was in town
17 or out of town, she would call ; cell
18 phone?
19 A Yes.
20 Q All right. Now was there any -- during
21 the interview with the police department, did the
22 police department ask about what she
23 discussed with Jeffrey Epstein during the
24 massages?
25 A I would have to check the police reports
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223953
17
1 to give specifics on that.
2 Q All right.
3 A My answer to your question is yes.
4 Okay. And what did she say were some of
Q
5 /the topics of discussion?
6 A Mr. Epstein asked her questions about
7 herself, asked her if she was a soccer player or
8 that Jeffrey knew that she was a soccer player
9 ;and asked questions about her college, about where
t
10 she was going to school.
11 t currently going to Lynn
IIIIIIIIIIIs
12 )University, and she had advised Mr. Epstein that
13
\she would be attending college at Lynn University.
14 i Q So that was a -- but that was her future
15 )plan?
16 A Yes.
17 Q So in other words, did Mr. Epstein know
18 that she was in high school at the time?
19 A Yes, he did. And the Palm Beach Police
20 asked if Jeffrey knew her age and
21 told the Palm Beach Police Department, he didn't
22 care what my age was.
23 Q Now did describe either to you
24 or to the police department how she would be paid
25 for these massages?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223954
18
1 A She stated she was paid $200 and that
2 she received anywhere from two to $300.
3 Q With every visit?
4 A With each visit.
5 Q Okay. Did she say who would provide her
6 with that money?
7 A She said that Jeffrey paid her at the
8 end of the massage.
9 Q All right. You mentioned the gift of
10 the vibrator. Were there other gifts that were
11 given to
12 A Yes. The time period is unclear, but
13 the vibrator was given to her for her eighteenth
14 birthday. There were three sets of bra and
15 underwear, panties, Victoria Secret bra and
16 underwear sets that were also given to as
17 gifts from Mr. Epstein.
18 Q Now I know that we talked earlier about
19 the fact that is the person who brought
20 to Mr. Epstein's house. Did ever
21 bring anyone to Mr. Epstein's house?
22 A brought a female by the name of
23 and that was a friend of
IMM IIIM
24 Q And let me show you what has been marked
25 as Grand Jury Exhibit 4, and what is Grand Jury
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223955
19
1 Exhibit 4?
2 A It's a photograph of with a
3 date of birth of 6-1-1986.
4 Q How old was 111111111 when took
Eni
5 her to Mr. Epstein's house?
6 A took her there in the spring of
7 2005 and was 18 at that time.
8 Q Now can you tell us now went
9 about bringing to the house?
10 A old hat she could make
1 1 some money giving a massage to Mr. Epstein and
12 ent to Mr. Epstein's house
13 together.
14 The first time that ent there,
15 she did not go upstairs and gives massage.
16 was working that day. But in talking to
17
IIIIIIIfurther, stated that she probably
18 over the period of time between the spring of '05
19 and October of '05, performed around five to ten
20 massages for Mr. Epstein.
21 The first few of those he did not do
22 anything as far as no masturbating, no sexual
23 activity. She would just perform a massage.
24 Q And did that change over time?
25 A Yes, it did. She stated that she
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223956
20
1 performed two to three massages out of those five
2 or ten and in her underwear and bra only, and
3 that he would push her each time.
4 He would just push her to do more and on
5 the third -- I believe she stated the third or
6 fourth massage, he told her that she could make
7 more money if she removed her clothing, because
8 she stayed clothed during the first few massages,
9 and she was paid $200 for each of those massages.
10 On the third or fourth massage, Mr.
11 Epstein said that she could make more money if she
12 removed her clothing. So around the fourth or
13 fifth time, she did start taking off her clothing
14 down to her underwear and bra only.
15 Q And then what happened when she was at
16 that point of being unclothed?
17 A She would perform the massage. He
18 attempted to touch her, but she always would say
19 no. At one point, her bra does get undone by Mr.
20 Epstein, but she does keep it up.
21 Q Now that was the extent of his touching
22 . At some point, did he begin masturbating
23 in front of her?
24 A Yes, he did. Not in the very beginning,
25 but throughout this he did. Now I should tell you
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223957
21
1 that stated to us that because she was kind
2 of reserved or held back as he made advances
3 towards her, she was able to see Mr. Epstein's
4 penis and that he was masturbating, but that he
5 never finished, that he never ejaculated. She did
6 not feel that yr. Epstein liked her very much.
7 Q But just to sort of compare what
8 said with what Vanessa said, they both said that
9 at the beginning they remained clothed?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And that Mr. Epstein progressively
12 pushed and pushed and pushed for more sexual
13 activity?
14 A Yes.
15 • Now what was the period of time that
16 went to Mr. Epstein's home?
17 A March of I'm sorry, spring of '05 is
18 when said that she went there and around,
19 you know, the investigation is heating up with
20 Palm Beach, so we know that in September of '05,
21 there was a trash pull done, and in that trash
22 pull there was a message and that was found and it
23 stated -- it had phone number on it and
24 it stated, for a good time call and
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223958
22
1 Q And whose stationery was that?
2 A It was on. Jeffrey Epstein's stationery.
3 Q And had Jeffrey Epstein been in a Palm
4 Beach resident close to those dates?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Now is there evidence of telephone calls
7 between and
8 A Yes.
9 Q And how many phone calls have you been
10 able to identify?
1 1 A At this time, there have been 14 phone
12 calls.
13 Q All right. And just to compare that to
14 the number of phone calls with
15 A With__' there was over 150 phone
16 calls between and
17 Q And that is sort of consistent with the
18 number of massages that did versus the
19 number of massages that Vanessa did?
20 A It is consistent with especially the
21 activity that Vanessa was providing Mr. Epstein
22 compared to the activity that would
23 provide.
24 (Thereupon, knocking is heard at the
25 Grand Jury door.)
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223959
23
1 MS. Let me just step out for
2 one nmnnf
3 F exits the Grand Jury
4 Room.)
5 ters the Grand Jury
6 Room.)
7 MS. Ladies and gentlemen, I
8 am going to have to take a break now and we
9 will be back either next week or the
10 following week. Thank you very much. You
1 1 are done for the day.
12 (Witness was excused.)
13
14
15 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
16
17 I, Paula E. Angelocci, Certified Court
18 Reporter and Notary Public, do certify that the
19 transcript is a true and correct transcription of
20 my stenotype notes of the testimony of
21 taken before
22 the Federal Grand Jur West Palm Beach Fl ri a.
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(954) 467-8204
EFTA00223960
DataSet-10
Unknown
35 pages
12/11/2007 11 .37 FAX 002/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
ANSI µq Iwo 11 nail... rani , .
777 South Ftepoorno SWAM
LOn AWS:14.$4. Caldwria 90017
xnnnum W Stan
I u Call Miler Direct ty (TIS) 680.8400 Enct:undo
171316W-8440 (Pin) 880.8500
ktlarrOlutklietti cam www luiluse0 corn
December I I. 2IHY7
VIA 17At IMI1.17 30a 5;i0-6444
I lonorable R. Alexander Acosta
United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of Florida
99 NE 4111Stnan
Miami, FL 33132
Rc Jeffrey Epstein
Dear Alex:
As we discussed during our telephone conversations on both Friday and Monday
(yesterday), we are submitting Iwo separate letters that address our broad areas of deep concern
in this matter: First. the cluster of fundamental policy issues surrounding the use and
implementation of 2255. a richly policy-laden but uncharted area of federal law: and second. our
profound concerns as to the background and conduct of the investigation. Consistent with our
conversations. we submit these letters with the assurance and understanding Thai our doing w in
no manner constitutes a breach of the Non-Persecution Agreement or unwinds that Agreement.
We arc grateful for your courtesy in agreeing to receive and consider these submissions. and then
to meet to discuss them.
As you undertake your study and reflection, kindly allow me to make this pivotal point:
In the combined 250 years experience ofJeffrey's defense team, we have together and
individually concluded that this ease is not only extraordinary and unprecedented. ii is deeply
and uniquely troubling. the constellation of issues. large and small, renders Jeffreys mutter
entirely sal genesis. We say this not lightly. Indeed, as you will glean from our two letters. we
are gravely concerned that, in addition to its odd conceptualization and genesis. the matter in its
day-to-day implementation has been handled in a manner that raises deeply troubling questions
with respect to both federal policy and individual judgment in a system that is, at its hest.
assiduously devoted to the rule of law. The latest episodes involving 2255 notification to the
alleged victims put illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice. time and
aµain. are nut being served. Hy way of illustration. hut ii is only one among a cascading list of
grave concerns. we now understand that the Assistant United States Arta •conduct has
troubled us from day one has quite recently reached out to the attorney and
fur
Chicago Hong Kong London Munich Now York Sun rtanctoco Washington. D.C.
EFTA00214291
12/11/2007 11 37 FAX
/003/088
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Honorable K. Alexander Acosta
December I I. 2007
Page 2
provided oral notification of the victim notification letter. This notification, as we have slated
time and again. is profoundly unthir. Rut guile apari from our substantive concerns, which are
abiding and which had prompted our appeal to the Assistant Attorney General in the first
instance. we had thought that the notification process had been held in abeyance until completion
of our ongoing discussions with respect to that process. That appears not to be so. This latest in
a baleful line of prosecutorial actions is drip in with irony. We respectfully cull your attention
to the transcript or she interview with and guide you -- as the duly confirmed
Executive Branch official charged wit a making judgments consistent with our constitutional
order -- to the telling fact that did not in any manner view herself as u victim. Quite to
the contrary. She is not alone.
We draw attention to this episode as but a recent indication of the deepening need for
your thoughtful and independent review. And for your agreeing to pmvide that review, our
defense team is very grateful.
RespectIlilly Submitted.
Kenneth W. Star•
EFTA00214292
12/11/2007 11:37 FAX 004/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS L LP
nap MInIARD 'Armen-.
Cinarmap Conte,
153 Emit 530 Strout
Jay P I otternWs, P C. New Yolk, New 'An k 10027.4611
Feciannle.
loP 11Wr r ly
blk Orland can
www.►1rkljnd rem
December I I. 2007
VIA FACSIMILE (303) SM1-4444
Honorable R. Alexander Acosta
united States Attorney
United Slates Attorney's ()filet
Southern District of Florida
99 NE itlh Street
Miami. Fla 33132
Re • Jetty Pinkie;
Dear Alex:
I appreciate the opportunity you have provided to review some of the issues and concerns
of Mr. Epstein's defense team. Importantly. I appreciate your agreement that this submission
would neither be understood by you as constituting a breach or the Non-Prosecution Agreement
(- Agreement- ) nor result in any unwinding of the Agreement by your Mice. Implicit in this
agreement is the understanding that I can share with you our concerns and request a review on
the basis fur these concerns. while at the same time assure my client that this submission will not
in any respect result in Ibrmal or informal repercussions or attempts by any member or the
prosecution or investigative team to involve themselves to Mr. Epstein's detriment in any matter
related to the Agreement. particularly in the state prosecution. This letter is intended to support
our assertion to you that the manner in which both the investigation of allegations against Mr.
Epstein and the resolution thereof were highly irregular and warrant a full review. We appreciate
your willingness to consider the evidence. We respectfully request that you review Judge Stern's
letter to Alan Dershowitz faxed to you on December 7. 2007. in connection with the concerns
we set forth in this submission.
1. F1CDF.RAL INVESTIGATORS RELIED UPON TAINTED EVIDENCE.
We have serious concerns that the summaries of the evidence that have been presented to
you have been materially inaccurate. As you may know. the principal witnesses in this case were
first interviewed by Detective of the Palm Reach Police Department (the "PRPD") and
other state law enforcement officers. 'these interviews (the -*witness statements") were ollen
tape-recorded thus providing a verbatim and detailed record of the recollections of the witnesses
at a point in timeprior to any federal involvement. ttnibrtunately. the police report authored by
Detective and certain affidavits executed by him contained both material misstatements
Chicago Hong Kong I nnAnn LOU Artvelet Munch San Francesco Waggingion. D.C.
EFTA00214293
13/11/2007 11:37 FAX e 005/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
R. Alexander Acosta
Decemher II. 2(N07
Page 2
regarding the specifics of what he was told by his witnesses and also contained omissions of
critical and often exculpatory information that was recorded verbatim during the taped interview
sessions. The federal investigation involved interview. with many of the same witnesses. We
are aware that at least one federal interview) was recorded.
We understand that Weenie provided his police report and certain a0idavits to
the federal authorities hut did not provide the actual witness statements of the taped interviews to
your Office or to the FRI. These witness statements constitute the hest evidence available (they
arc verbatim and earlier in time to the federal interviews), and they contain statements that are
highly exculpatory to Mr. Epstein. Because understanding the compromised nature of the
"evidence" against Mr. Epstein is key to a proper view of this ease. we summarize it in detail
below.
A. The Witness Statements Establish That Mr. Epstein Ilid Not Tame
Masseuses Under IS.
Indeed, the witness slaleincots demonstrate that Mc opposite is
rw hat the many of ‘•• • •
VC%
and
visit‘ r. Epstein's home. Also, there is su canna cvr case, found in the sworn statements of
the women themselves, which indicate that, to the extent others were in fact under the age of
ei hteen, man affirmatively lied about her age. As herself told the PRPD:
told me to say I was IS because sat . . . t you're not then he [Epstein'
won't really let you in his house. So I said I was Ig". Detective !M. however. largely
ignored these critical admissions in his Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit.
Q: At any time. did he speak to you and does he know how old you are? Did he know
how old you were?
A: . . .As a mater of feet. told me to say I was IS because said
tell him you're IS because ilyou're nut. then he won't really let you in his house. So
I said I was IS. As I was giving him a massage. he's like, how old arc you? And
then I was like IS. But 1 kind of said it really fast because I didn't want to make it
sound like I was lying or anything. (Sworn Statement of 3/15/05).
•
t): Did he ask you your age?
A: Yeah. I told him I was I S. (Sworn Statement of I0/05/05).
EFTA00214294
12/11/2007 11 '38 FAX oos/098
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
K. Alexander Acosta
December 11. 2007
Page 3
Q: Did he know your age?
A: I don't think -- I think he did. Downstairs was like oh. well if they ask
you how old arc you just say you're I R hut he never asked me how old I wax. 1
thought you had to be IX to give a massage (inaudible). (Sworn Statement of
12/13/05)
•
A: We were supposed m say we were IR.
0: Who told you that, to nty that?
A: (Sworn Statement of I I /X./05).
• S
A: I told him 1 was IS. (Sworn Statement of I0/3/05).
• concerning
Well with I I don't know how old she is because she lied about her
age. She lied to me when I first met her. When I was IS she told me she was IS.
(Inaudible.) Well she tell her purse at my house and she told me to make sure that I
didn't look in her purse. When I went through her purse I found her state license that
said she was 16 so she lied to me about her age. (Sworn Statement of 10/03/051.'
•
Q: Now. how old were you when you lint started going there?
A: Eighteen. I'm 19 now this last Mareh.n (Sworn Statement of 10/12/05).
•
Q: And all this occurred when you were IS though?
In addition to giving a soorn statement at the PAP() St: tion. 5 conversations with Detective
while being transported to mid from the station were also recorded. This excerpt i. taken from the recording of
raveling from the slat tint.
EFTA00214295
12/11/2007 11 .38 FAX gP 007/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
R. Alexander Acosta
Uceember I I. 2007
Page 4
A: I Ih-huh. I had been 18 for like 8 months. nine months already. My birthday is in
June su I had been 18 for a while. (Sworn Statement of 2/3/05).
0: Okay. How old are you now? You're. -
A: I'm 20
Q: You're 20. So a couple months ago you would have been what. 19?
A: Ith-huh.
0: Alright. So July, August you would have licen 19, 20. On the verge of 20?
A: Ulithuh. (Sworn Statement of 11/4/05)
We believe that other witnesses have similarly told the FBI that Mr. Epstein attempted to
monitor the ages of the masseuses who came to his home. We further believe that these
transcripts would show that the federal interest in prosecuting Mr. Epstein fur paradigmatic state
°Mimes was far less compelling than the inaccurate pollee reports suggest.
B. pcteetive I= Made Crucial Misstatements in the Police Report and
Probable Cause Affidavits.
We have reviewed the sworn and recorded witness statements of many of the individuals
who were interviewed (conducted in person or by telephone) as well as a number of the
controlled calls cited in the Police Report. 'lime Mier time, we found statements in the Police
Report attributed to statements made in the sworn recordings that either simply were nut said. or
in sonic instances. are flatly contradicted, by the witness who purportedly mu • • tement. In
fact, they often stand in stark contrast to representations made by Detective in both the
official Police Report and in affidavits signed by him under oath . We highlight the most
significant ones identified to date:
• aDiel Not Report that Epstein Told Her to Lie About her Age
the Probable Cause Affidavit indicates that during her sworn statement "-advised
that during her frequent visits Epstein asked for her real age. IM stated she was
sixteen land that' Epstein advised her not in tell anyone her real age." Arrest
Probable Cause Affidavit at I I. That statement appears nowhere in Ms sworn
statement.
EFTA00214296
12/11/2007 11:38 FAX la 008/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
R. Alexander Acosta
December I I. 2007
Page
Did Not State that Epstein Photographed Her Having Sex
Detective also reports as claiming that iipstein would photograph
and her naked and having sex and proudly dis the photographs
within the home." Id at 12. Again, this statement is not in ='s swam statement.
To the contrary, the transcript reflects that stated: "I was just like, it was me
standing in front of a big white marble bathtub .. . in the guest bathroom in his master
suite. And it wasn't like I was you know spreading my legs or anything for the
camera, I was like. I was standing up. I think I WILS standing up and I just like, it was
me kind of looking over my shoulder kinds smiling. and that was that." Sworn
Statement of 10/11/05 at 35. 2
Said Epstein Did Not Touch Her Inappropriately
Detective recounts that advised that "Epstein grabbed her
buttocks and pulled her close to him." Probah e 'new Affidavit at 6. See also, Police
Report (10/07/05 at 30 (some). never made this statinnem. In fact, when
Detective sked. "He did not touch you inappropriately?" responded.
"No." Swum Statement of 10/04/05 at I I.
• if Nut Sixteen When She First When to Epstein's llome.
Detective states: ' also stated she was sixteen years old when she
first went to Epstein's house . ncident Report at 52. However.
affimustively states that she was seventeen when she first went to Epstein's home:
- Q: Okay. How old were you when you first went there? A: Seventeen. Q:
Seventeen. A: And I was 17 the last time I went there ton. I turned I$ this past
June". Sworn Statement of I I/14/05.
• Told Detective Rccarcy that Epstein Did Nu/Takeout Sex Tays.
I he Probable Cause Affidavit indicates ilia staled, "Epstein would
use a antasager/vibrator, which she described as white in color and a large head.
Epstein would rub the vibrator/massager on her vaginal area as he would masturbate."
Pmbable Cause Affidavit at 14: sot a/sa Police Report f I/10/05) at 49 ("Epstein
would use a massager/vibrator, which she described as white in color with a large
head, on her."). This statement appears nowhere in the transcript of 's swum
■ was interviewed by Detectiva twice, once by telephone, and once in The portions of the
Police Report to which we refer specilicalb cite tiw imNrson interview of ads the source for the
information reported. We have reviewed the retooling of that interview and hese the comparison on that
review, We have never heard n recording or die telephone interview,
EFTA00214297
12/11/2007 11:39 FAX a 009/099
KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP
December 11. 2007
l'age 6
statement. In fact. when Dctectiv' asked whether Mr. Epstein had - ever
take[n] out any toys," responded. - No." Sworn Statement of 11/08/05 at 17.
• Did Not Recall Mr. Epstein Masturbating
Detective -counts that -advised she was cure [Mr. Epstein]
was mastur aunt based on his hand movements going up and down on his penis
area." Probable Cause Affidavit at 8. See oho Police Report (10/07/05 al 33 sante).
Detectives account is in direct contradiction to true
statement. specifically:
Q: Okay did he ever take off— did he ever touch himself?
A: !don't think so.
Q: No. Did he ever masturbate himself in fmnt of you?
A: I don't remember him doing that. Ile might have hut I really don't
remember. (Sworn Statement of 1(/05/05 at 7).
• Stated that Only One Girl Looked Young
Police Report at 57: stoical that towards the end of his employment. the
masseuses were younger an younger. However, he said no such thing:
Q: Did they seem young to you?
A. No. sir. Mostly no. We saw one or two young ones in the last year. Hefore that.
it was all adults . . . I remember one girl was young. We never asked how old she
was. It was not in my job . . . But I imagine she was 16. IT'. (Sworn Statement of
I1/21/05)
C. Defective Made Material Omissions in the Police Report.
In addition to the misstatements in the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit as to
the evidentiary record, there were also material omissions. both of facts known to the PBPD and
also of facts nut known to the MOD, though known by the State Attorney. In the latter instance.
the lack of knowledge was the result of the PBPD's refusal to receive the exculpatory evidence.
In last. they refused to attend a meeting called by the State Attorney specifically to provide the
relevant evidence. 1 has, the Police RCM* and Probable Cause Affidavit only oiler a skewed
view of tlx: facts material to this matter. Examples follow.
I. The Video Surveillance Equipment Located in Mr. Epstein!r Office and Garage.
Ruth the Police Report (at 43) and the Probable Cause Affidavit (at 18) make
EFTA00214298
12/11/2007 11:39 FAX e 010/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
December 11. 2007
['Age 7
particular mention of the "discovery" of video surveillance equipment (or "covert
cameras" as they are called) in Epstein's garage and library/office. Inclusion of this
information insinuates a link bow • • • • airman and the events at issue: in the
Probable Cause Affidavit Detective states, "on the first floor of the 'Epstein'
residence I [Detective found two covert cameras hidden within clocks. One
was kwatal in the garage and the other located in the library area on a shell behind
Epstein's •• • • computer's hard drive was reviewed which showed several
images of and other witnesses that have been interviewed. All of these
images appeared to come from the camera positional behind Epstein's desk". See
Probable Cause Affidavit at IR.
Clearly omitted from both the Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the
fact that the MK). and specifically Detective Rccarey. knew about the cameras since
they way installed in 2003. with the help al the PAPA to address the theft of cash
from E.pstein's home. This fact is detailed in a PaInt Beach Police Report prepared in
October 2003 dual • Is, the installation of video equipment. the video
recording capturing (Mr. Epstein's then house manager) "red handed".
and he incriminating statements made by when he was confronted at the time.
See Police Report at 5. R. The annemporanani, report confirms the
tat that the video footage was turned over to IX:waive himself.
2. Polygraph £raatiaatian and Report. On May 2. 2006. Mr. Epstein submitted to a
polygraph examination by George Slattery. a highly respected polygraph examiner
who is regularly used by thc State Attorney. The examination was done ai".
-• , were told that the sole locus of the investigation was the conduct witl
Mr. Epstein was asked (a) whether ct with (h)
whether he "in anyway threatenledi (c) whet t • was to d by
"that she was IR years old"; an ( ) whether he "believed
. was IR years old". As set forth in the Report of the examination. the term
"sexual contact" was given an extremely broad meaning in order to capture any
inappropriate conduct that could have occurred.} 11w results of the examination
uch conduct occurred: (ii) Mr. Epstein never threatened
told Mr. Epstein she was IS years old: and (iv) Mr. Epstein
felievc was I R years old.
I lw definition inclothal: "sexual intercourse. oral WA acts (penis in mouth ur mouth on vagina). linger ri.monoion
of the vaging linger penetration or the anus. muching or th4: vagina for sexual grailtiention purposes, touching
of the penis for scsual t ratiticatiott purpnws. masturbation by or to another. tosichine or rubhins or thy breams.
or any other physical contact involving sexual thoughts native desires with another person".
EFTA00214299
12/11/2007 11:39 FAX la011/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLi
R. Alexander Acosta
December I I. 2007
Page 8
3. Broken **Sex Taw" in Mr. Epstein's Trash. The Police Report details the police
finding in Mr. Epstein's trash what is described as broken pieces of a "sex tor and
that this "discovery" purportedly corroborated witness statements. Omitted from both
the Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the fact that during the course
of' executing the search warrant in Epstein's home, the police discovered the other
piece of that key "sex tor and realized it was in !het only the broken handle of a
salad server. Though "sex toys" play a prominent role in the Police Report and
Probable Cause Affidavit. the Police Report was never amended to reflect the
discovery of this new and highly relevant evidence.
4. Failure to Consider Erculpatory or Impeaching Evidence. Other exculpatory and
impeaching evidence known by the PBPD was omitted from the Police Report and
Probable Cause Affidavit by. in our view, manipulating the date the investigation was
allegedly closed. According W the Police Report (at 85). Detective
"explained Ito ASA that the PBPD had concluded its ease in December
of 2005". That assertion, which is false. conveniently resulted in the omission of all
information adduced subsequent to that date. Thus. though the Police Report in fact
contains information obtained after December 2005. the PBPD purported to justify its
refusal to consider, or even to include, in the Police Report, the Probable Cause
Affidavit or what it released to the public, all the exculpatory and evidence
impeaching the witnesses submitted on behalf of Mr. Epstein. most of which was
provided alter December 2005. That evidence is listed below.
5. Unreported Criminal Histories and Mental Health Problems of the Witnesses
Relied an In the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit Evidence obtained
concerning the witnesses relied upon to support the Probable Cause Affidavit casts
significant doubt on whether these witnesses ore sufficiently credible to support a
finding of probable cause, let alone to sustain what would he the prosecution's burden
of proof at a trial' Though such evidence was submitted to the PLIPD. none of it was
included in the Police Report or the Probable Cause Affidavit.
• While the Police Report (at 57) and the Probable Cause Affidavit (at
21) contain assertions by which allegedly support bringing a criminal charge.
the evidence revealing evident mental instability: prior criminal conduct
against Epstein: and bias tc. ,t.lt s Epstein is notably omitted. As detailed above. in
2003nas filmed taking money from Epstein's home. After being caught on
videotape unlawfully entering Epstein's home and stealing cash front a briefcase,
I Whik We have never intender.110 and do not here seek to east aspersions on any of the witnesses. in
previously asking the State and now asking you to evaluate the strength of this ease. we have been constrained
to point ow the fact that the alleged v. 'n a C se to present themselves to the world through MySpace profiles
with self-selected monikers such a. and ' or with nude piton-is.
EFTA00214300
12/11/2007 11:40 FAX el 012/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
R. Alexander Acosta
December I I. 2007
Page 9
admitted to the PHPD that he entered the house unlawfiilly on numerous
occasions, stealing cash and attempting to steal Epstein's licensed handgun to commit
suicide. Although this information was known by Deteetiveat the time the
Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit were prepared. and is clearly material to
an • determination of credibility, it was omitted.
was the source of the vast majority of the serious
a legations made against Epstein. While the Police Report and Probable Cause
Affidavit rely on numerous assertions. there arc two significant problems with
that reliance. First there is no mention of certain critical admissions made by=
during her interview. as well as on her MySpace wehpage (discovered by defense
investigators and turned over to the State Attorney). Setanid.M hut omitted fmn) the
Police Report is an • reference to the fads known about her by the MD. specifically,
that at the aim was making these assertions she had been arrested by the PAM
and was hats prosecutedjar "'accession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia We
lake each in tuna.
• Admits Voluntary Sexual Conduct With Epstein.
Refuses to Disclose the Disposition of the Monies Site Earn and
Lies About Being "Given' a Car by Epstein: Detective
failed to include in the Police Report —admission that on one
occasion she engaged in sexual conduct with Epstein'sgirlfriend us
her birthday "gill" to Epstein. Nor does Detective include the
fact that flatly refused to discuss with him the disposition of the
thousands of dollars she said she was given by Epstein. or that she
falsely claimed that she did not use drugs. despite her MySpace entries
in which she exclaims "I can't wait to buy some weedumn-
Deteetial was aware the car had been rented. not purchased.
and only it was only leased on a monthly basis for two months. While
fanciful claim that she was given a car appears in the Pollee
Report, it is never corrected.
• Vas Arrestedfor Possession ofMediana and Drug
arap terns to. As noted. on September I I. 2005.Mwas arrested
for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. In response to
this arrest. I tall - came forward- (as the Probable Cause Affidavit
implies at I0- l), claiming she had knowledge of - sexual activity
taking place" at Epstein's residence and misconduct by Epstein. Obis
- coming forward" a ors no where in the Police Report.) Thus. it
becomes clear that assertions of misconduct by Epstein were
motivated by a desire to avoid the repercussions of her own criminal
conduct, which should have been taken into account when assessing
her credibility as a witness.
EFTA00214301
12/11/2007 11.40 FAX 0013/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
R. Alexander Acosta
December 11.2007
Page 10
• Steals Front a Victoria's Secret Store. An
investigation y private investigators working for the defense revealed
that in lute 2005 was employed at a Victoria's Secret store in
Florida. Three days afier her ;liana ease was terminated. IIMIwas
caught by a stop: manager as attempted to leave the store with
merchandise in her purse, the security tag Mill attached. Seeing the
manager.M:laimcd "someone is trying to set me up". Following an
internal investigation. which disclosed additional thefts from both the
store and a customer. she was fired. In a recorded interview.
admitted to stealing and asserted that her reason liw doing so was that
"she was not getting paid enough". "Ibis information and supporting
documentation was presented to the PBPL). but was never included in
the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit.
• Lies on *Space About Victoria's Secret Store
Ternanallon. Also uncovered by defense investigators is
dissembling version of the Victoria's Secret debacle on r
"MySpace" wchpage. There. announced that she ". . . forgot to
let everyone know I quit my job at V.S. They said they suspected me
of 'causing losses to their company' which by tlx: way is bullshit.
was 'hy the honk' on EVERYTHING!!! . . . I got so fed up in that
office that I handed the Loss Prevention lady back my keys and
walked out". This information and supporting documentation was
provided by the defense to the PUPD. but was not included in the
Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit.
• Lies en her Victoria's Secret Job Applicatian.
Additional information on MySpace wehpage casts further
doubt on her credibility. For example. she boasts to having engaged in
a fraudulent scheme to get hired by Victoria's Secret. explaining. "Oh,
it was s' funny I used [my boyfriend' as one of my references for
• ' • • rd job and the lady called me back and told me that
gave me such an outstanding reference that she did
not need to call anyone else back.. . . he got me the job! Just like that .
.. I lied and said he was the old stock manager at Holister she bought
it. . ." This inthrmation and supporting documentation was provided
by the defense to the PRPD, hut was not included in the Police Report
or Probable Cause Affidavit.
Boasts About Her Marijuana Use. Also on her
y pace we page can he Mum admissions of purchasing and
using marijuana and marijuana Ixtraphentalia. Stales
she "can't wait to buy some weed!!! . . . I can't wait!!! . . . (I MId on:
EFTA00214302
12/11/2007 11:40 FAX 0014/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
R. Alexander Acosta
Decemher 1 1.2007
Page 11
let me say that again) I can't wait to buy some weed!!!. . . I also want
to get a vaporizer so I can smoke in my room because apparently there
are 'narcs' everywhere-.=also posted a photograph of a marijuana
cigarette and labeled it at heaven looks like to me". This
information and supporting documentation was provided by the
defense to the Pall), was not included in the Police Report or
Probable Cause Affidavit (although there is both a fleeting reference in
the Police Report to use of marijuana with her boyfriend lat 671
and in the Probable Cause Affidavit to marijuana arrest (at lo-
ll)).
• While the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit contain
numerous assertions intended to negate taped admission that she clear! •
told Epstein she was IR, omitted from these documents is reference to
MySpace webpage. presented to the State Attorney's Office. where . in no connection
to this case, she qffirtnatively represented to the world that she was IS, thereby
corroborating her lie to Epstein. Also omitted is any reference to her long history of
run-ins with law enforcement. Among those arc multiple runaway complaints by her
parents and her assignment to a special high school for drug abusers.
• 'I/Apace Webpage States She Drinks, Uses Drugs, Gets
into Trouble, Has Deafen Someone Up, Shoplifts. Has Lost her
Virginity, Earns 5250,000 and Higher, and Contains Naked and
Provocative Photographs. The first image seen on
MySpace webpage, the photo echo se to represent her. Is ih4t
of a naked woman provocatively king on the beach. The illuminating
webpage also contains -assertions that of all her body pans.
she "lovelsi her ass". she drinks to excess. uses drugs, "gets into
trouble, has beaten someone up. has shoplifted "lots", "already lost"
her virginity, and cams "$250,000 and higher". As with tlx: other
impeaching infbnnation. this material, vital to determining credibility,
was provided by the defense to the PRPD but was never included in
the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit.
• Prior Recurs! — Drugs, Alcohol, Running Away From
Home. has a history of running away/turning up missing
from her parents various homes; of using drugs and alcohol; and of
associating with individuals of questionable judgment. For example, a
Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Report details how only two days
after she returned to Florida to live with her father, on March 31, 2006.
police were called to the home in response to her father's report that
she and her twin sister were missing. The Police Report describes her
as "under the influence of a narcotic us Ishel could barely stand up,
EFTA00214303
12/11/200? 11:41 FAX 11015/009
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
R. Alexander Acosta
December I I, 2007
Page 12
u teri eyes were bloodshot. and 'her uails were diluted [Niel'. It
flintier documents that had stayed out all night
and were returned home by a - drug dealer. This event coincided with
having been found at an "ina ro riate location" by Georgia
police in response to a call taboo disappearance. Although
this information. material to determining credibility. was provided by
the defense and known to the PBPD. it was never included in the
Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit.
While the Police Re port and Probable Cause
va rely on statements of
his federal hank mu convic on. w is c mix
investigators discovered and influd over to the PBPD during the
course al' the investigation. was omitted. served 21 months
in federal prison for his offense.
• While the Police Report and Probable Cause
AI ie ova re y on statements
stepmother. omitted is sta a comae ion Ur 1identity
fraud. This information. uncovered by defense investigators, was also
turned over to the PBPD during the course of the investigation.
D. In Unlit Of The Compromised Nature Of The Evidence—A Fulsome Review
Should Re Conducts.
These tainted and inaccurate reports compromised the ledend inv.:Nagaiion.4 As you may
know, the PBPD took the unprecedented and highly unethical step of releasing these reports to
the media as well. These reports spread across the Internet, and were undoubtedly read by the
other individuals who were later interviewed by the FBI for giving Mr. Epstein massages. As we
have shown, these reports contain multiple fabrications, omissions. and outright misstatements of
fact. Moreover. the evidence and the allegations were undeniably misrepresented to the MI.
with no inclusion of the evidence exposing the deficiencies of the "proor and the exculpatory
evidence upon which the State relied. Furthermore. it should he noted that many of these same
individuals were also interviewed by the FBI after their state interviews but prior to Mr.
Epstein's counsel providing the government with the transcripts of the recorded interviews. The
4 Although we have been informal that the FBI identified and then inicrsiessi:d addit. - I riflemenl witnesses, many
of their discoveries arc hclieved to have emanated from message pad% roniaininit contain in forma ion that were
scion! mini Mr hpuyin% home pursuant to a state search warrant thai was deeply and constillii tonally flawed by
Iniiisstateinents and omissions as well as other facial deliskinks
EFTA00214304
12/11/2007 11:41 FAX ON018/089
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
R. Alexander Acosta
December I I. 2007
DataSet-10
Unknown
25 pages
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman
JANE DOES #1 AND #2,
Petitioners,
I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent,
UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING PRIVILEGE LOG
Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United
States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives
notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto.
The documents referenced in the Privilege Log are being delivered today to the Chambers
of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex pane in camera review, pursuant to the Court's
Omnibus Order.
Respectfully submitted,
WIFREDO A. FERRER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By:
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar No.
500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach. FL 33401
EFTA00223825
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 19, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel for all parties
are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system.
Assistant United States Attorney
SERVICE LIST
Jane Does 1 and 2 United States,
Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Brad Edwards, Esq.,
Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman
425 N Andrews Ave Ste 2
Fort Lauderdale FL 33301-3268
Paul G. Cassell
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake Cit Utah 84112
Fax:
E-mail:
Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2
2
EFTA00223826
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 1 of 23
PRIVILEGE LOG
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "CORR RE GJ 6(e)
P-000001 SUBPOENAS" containing correspondence Work Product
thru related to various rand jury subpoenas and
P-000039 attorney handwritten notes
Box #1 Operation Leap Year Grand Jury Log 6(e)
P-000040 containing subpoenas OLY-01 through OLY-81, Work Product
thru correspondence and research related to Contains documents subject
P-000549 enforcement of same, documents produced in to investigative privilege
response to some subpoenas; and attorney Also contains documents
( handwritten notes subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this liti ation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Ritz Compact Flash SW" 6(e)
P-000550 containing copies of a sealed search warrant Contains information subject
thru application, warrant, and supporting documents to investigative privilege
P-000621 Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this liti ation
Box #1 File folder entitled "PNY Technologies Compact 6(e)
P-000622 Flash SW" containing copies of a sealed search Contains information subject
thru warrant application, warrant, and supporting to investigative privilege
P-000693 documents Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "JE Corporations" containing Work Product
P-000694 attorney research on Epstein-owned corporations Contains information subject
thru and prior litigation to investigative privilege
P-000781
Box #1 File folder entitled "Capital One" 6(e)
P-000782 containing subpoena and correspondence
thru
P-000803
Box #1 File folder entitled "DTG Operations/Dollar 6(e)
P-000804 Rent-a-Car" containing subpoena and responsive Contains documents and
thru documents information subject to
P-000854 investigative privilege
Also contains documents and
information subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 1 of 23
EFTA00223827
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 2 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "JP Morgan Chase" 6(e)
P-000855 containing subpoena, correspondence, and Contains documents and
thru responsive documents information subject to
P-000937 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Washington Mutual" 6(e)
P-000938 containing subpoena, correspondence, and Contains documents and
thru responsive documents information subject to
P-000947 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Computer Search &" Work Product
P-000948 containing legal research on computer search and Attorney-Client
thru handwritten notes on indictment preparation Contains information subject
P-000982 to investigative privilege.
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Attorney Notes from Work product
P-000983 Document Review" containing typed and 6(e)
thru handwritten attorney ( ) notes, target Contains information subject
P-001007 letters, correspondence re grand jury subpoena to investigative privilege.
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Notes from Fed Ex Records" Work Product
P-001008 containing handwritten and typed attorney 6(e)
thru ) notes and screen shots of FedEx Contains information subject
P-001056 subpoena response electronic file to investigative privilege.
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Colonial Bank Records" 6(e)
P-001057 containing records received in response to grand Contains information subject
thru jury subpoena to investigative privilege
P-001959
Box #1 File folder entitled "OLY Grand Jury Log Vol 2: 6(e)
P-001960 OLY-51 THROUGH" containing subpoenas Contains information subject
Thru numbered OLY-51 through OLY-81 with related to investigative privilege.
P-002089 correspondence Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Page 2 of 23
EFTA00223828
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 3 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "Epstein Corporate Records: 6(e)
P-002090 OLY-51, OLY-52, OLY-53, OLY-54" containing Contains information and
Thru subpoenas, records received in response to documents subject to
P-002169 subpoenas, and related correspondence investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Colonial Bank" containing 6(e)
P-002170 subpoenas, correspondence related to subpoenas, Contains information and
Thru records received in response to subpoenas documents subject to
P-002246 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "JEGE & Hyperion from 6(e)
P-002247 Goldberger OLY-46 & OLY-47" containing Contains information and
Thru documents received in response to subpoenas documents subject to
P-002265 investigative privilege
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing: Work product
P-002266 Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity 6(e)
Thru summary chart witness/victim names and contact Contains information and
P-002386 list, attorney ( handwritten notes, 302s, documents subject to
'lions of state investigative file, attorney investigative privilege. Also
) typed notes, of individuals listed as contains information and
"Additional victims" documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing: Work product
P-002387 Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity 6(e)
Thru summary charta_witness/victim names and contact Contains information and
P-002769 list, attorney ( handwritten notes, 302s, documents subject to
as of state investigative file, attorney investigative privilege. Also
( typed notes, relevant pieces of grand contains information and
jury materials, telephone records/flight records documents subject to privacy
analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, rights of victims who are not
DAVID records, NCICs, and related materials for parties to this litigation
persons identified as Jane Does #15, 16, 17, 18,
19, Past Employees, Misc. Witnesses
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing: Work product
P-002770 witness/victim list with identifying information, 6(e)
Thru sexual activity summ telephone call summary Contains information and
P-003211 chart, attorney handwritten notes, documents subject to
3CSsfions of state investigative file, attorney investigative privilege. Also
( typed notes, relevant pieces of grand contains information and
jury materials, telephone records/flight records documents subject to privacy
analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, rights of victims who are not
DAVID records, NCICs, and related materials for parties to this litigation
persons identified as Jane Does #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8
Page 3 of 23
EFTA00223829
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 4 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing meta- Work product
P-003212 analysis charts of telephone/flight/grand jury 6(e)
Thru information for a number of victim/witnesses, Contains information and
P-003545 and documents subject to
investigative privilege. Also
contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 FBI Reports of March 2008 interviews of Work product
P-003546 additional witness/victim located in New York 6(e)
Thru Contains information and
P-003552 documents subject to
investigative privilege. Also
contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 Printout of filenames from Federal Express Work product
P-003553 subpoena response with Attorney notations 6(e)
Thru
P-003555B
Box #1 Document entitled "Identified Numbers" with Work product
P-003556 accompanying handwritten attorney list compiled 6(e)
Thru from grand jury materials and attorney analysis of Contains information subject
P-003562 records to investigative privilege
Box #1 Folder entitled "Flight Manifests" containing 6(e)
P-003563 manifests received pursuant to grand jury Contains information and
Thru subpoena documents subject to
P-003629 investigative privilege
Box #1 File folder entitled "Recent Attibites" Work product
P-003630 containing handwritten attorney ) notes 6(e)
Thru regarding document review and case strategy Investigative privilege
P-003633 Deliberative process
Box #1 File folder bearing victim name containing FBI Work product
P-003634 interview report from May 2008. telephone Attorney-client privilege
Thru activity report with attorney ( ) 6(e)
P-003646 handwritten notes, related grand jury material Investigative privilege
Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 4 of 23
EFTA00223830
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 5 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "Summary of Sexual Activity" Work product
P-003647 containing chart bearing handwritten title "Sexual 6(e)
Thru Activity — Summary" with meta-analysis of Investigative privilege
P-003651 information, sorted by name of each Deliberative process
victim/witness, including name and identifying Also contains information and
information of each victim/witness documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Victim Civil Suits" Not privileged.
P-003652 Produced to counsel for
Thru Petitioners
P-003663
Box #1 File folder entitled "Research re JE Websites" Work product
P-003664 containing attorney research
Thru
P-003678
Box #1 File folder entitled "Serene Cano (N.Y. AUSA)" Work product
P-003679 containing attorney (IIIIII) handwritten notes
Thru
P-003680
Box #1 File folder entitled "Dr. Anna Salter" containing Work product
P-003681 attorney ( ) memo to expert witness and Investigative privilege
Thru handwritten attorney notes
P-003687
Box #1 File folder entitled "In G[] Interview" containing Work product
P-003688 attorney handwritten notes of interview, and Investigative privilege
Thru attorney handwritten notes regarding potential Also contains information
P-003693 charges subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not parties to
this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Research re Travel for Work product
P-003694 Prostitution" containing attorney ( ) 6(e)
Thru handwritten notes regarding grand jury Investigative privilege
P-003711 presentation, chart entitled "Brought to Epstein's Also contains information and
House" with handwritten notes, Message Pad documents subject to privacy
meta-analysis chart, summary of evidence related rights of victims who are not
to one victim/witness, and relevant grand jury parties to this litigation
information
Box #1 Empty file folder bearing name of victim/witness Investigative privilege
P-003712 Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victim who is not a party to
this litigation
Page 5 of 23
EFTA00223831
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 6 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 File folder entitled "T[] M[]" containing grand 6(e)
P-003713 jury subpoenas, motion and order to compel Documents under seal
Thru testimony, and correspondence regarding same pursuant to court order
P-003746
Box #1 File folder entitled ' ' containing 6(e)
P-003747 subpoena and correspondence regarding same
Thru
P-003751
Box #1 File folder entitled "PBPD Investigative File" 6(e)
P-003752 obtained via subpoena Investigative privilege
Thru Also contains information and
P-004295 documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-004296 containing meta-analysis chart showing telephone 6(e)
Thru calls, travel, and grand jury materials relevant to Investigative privilege
P-004350 possible charges Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
arties to this liti ation
Box #1 File folder entitled ' Documents Work product
P-004351 53909-004" containing attorney research related
Thru to bias issue
P-004381
Box #1 File Folder entitled "FEDEX" containing 6(e)
P-004382 documents obtained via subpoena Investigative privilege
Thru
P-004478
Box #1 File Folder entitled "State of Delaware Records" 6(e)
P-004479 containing documents obtained in preparation for Investigative privilege
Thru indictment Work product
P-004551
Box #1 File folder entitled "Jet Blue Records" containing 6(e)
P-004552 documents obtained via subpoena Work product
Thru Investigative privilege
P-004555 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "FL EMPLOYMENT Investigative privilege
P-004556 RECORDS" containing FDLE records on targets Work product
Thru and witnesses obtained at attorney request
P-004560
Page 6 of 23
EFTA00223832
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 7 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 Filed folder entitled "JANUSZ BANASIAK" Work product
P-004561 containing attorney ( ) handwritten notes Investigative privilege
Thru of interview
P-004565
Box #1 File folder entitled "JANUSZ BANASIAK 6(e)
P-004566 RECORDS 23-0001 THROUGH 23-" containing Work product
Thru documents obtained via subpoena Investigative privilege
P-004716 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "IGOR ZINOVIEV" Work product
P-004717 containing attorney research regarding witness Investigative privilege
Thru
P-004722
Box #1 File folder entitled "BEAR STEARNS Work Product
P-004723 RESEARCH" containing attorney research Investigative privilege
Thru regarding potential witness and subpoena
P-004725 recipient
Box #1 File folder entitled "LAWSUITS INVOLVING Work Product
P-004726 EPSTEIN CORP'S" containing attorney research Investigative privilege
Thru regarding Epstein's past personal and business
P-004819 litigative practices
Box #1 Filed folder entitled "SEC RECORDS" Work Product
P-004820 containing attorney research regarding Epstein Investigative privilege
Thru financial relationships
P-004959
Box #1 File folder entitled "Message Pads" containing Work Product
P-004960 selected items from evidence obtained via 6(e)
Thru subpoena Investigative privilege
P-005059 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work Product
P-005060 containing correspondence with counsel for 6(e)
Thru victim/witness, attorney witness outline with Investigative privilege
P-005081 attorney handwritten notes, attorney handwritten Also contains information and
notes regarding witness reports and case documents subject to privacy
preparation rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "New York Trip" containing Work product
P-005082 attorney notes re witness interview Investigative privilege
Thru
P-005083
Page 7 of 23
EFTA00223833
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 8 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
P-005084 thru P-005107 are non responsive
documents and have been removed
Box #1 File folder entitled "ANNA SALTER" containing Work product
P-005108 attorney research on select expert, use of experts Investigative privilege
Thru at trials in child exploitation cases, and additional
P-005193 research materials on offenders and victims
Box #1 File folder entitled "Extra Copies" containing Work product
P-005194 meta-analysis chart and 302's of victim/witnesses 6(e)
Thru used in preparing indictment package Investigative privilege
P-005300 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "JUAN ALESSI 6(e)
P-005301 STATEMENT' containing transcript obtained via Investigative privilege
Thru subpoena
P-005331
Box #1 File folder entitled "KEN LANNING" containing Work product
P-005332 attorney research on select expert, including Investigative privilege
Thru attorney handwritten notes
P-005341
Box #1 File folder entitled "Info re Planes" containing 6(e)
P-005342 correspondence regarding subpoenas and Investigative privilege
Thru documents received in response to subpoenas
P-005387
Box #1 File folder entitled "Police Reports & PC Work product
P-005388 Affidavit" containing portions of police reports 6(e)
Thru with attorney notes, related phone records, a list Investigative privilege
P-005442 entitled "Victims" with identifying information Also contains information and
and attorney handwritten notes, photographs and documents subject to privacy
DAVID information, and additional attorney rights of victims who are not
research regarding Epstein sexual activity parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "[Victim name] Transcript of 6(e)
P-005443 Interview & GJ Transcript" Investigative privilege
Thru Also contains information and
P-005496 documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #1 File folder entitled "Bear Stearns Subpoena 6(e)
P-005497 Resp." containing material received in response Investigative privilege
Thru to subpoena
P-005556
Page 8 of 23
EFTA00223834
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 9 of 23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #1 U.S. Attorney's Office Criminal Case File Jacket Work product
P-005557 containing file opening documents, expert Deliberative process
Thru witness payment documents
P-005576
Box #1 U.S. Attorney's Office Asset Forfeiture Case File Work product
P-005578 Jacket containing file opening and file closing Deliberative process
Thru documents
P-005583
Box #1 File folder entitled "6001 Immunity Request" 6(e)
P-005584 containing internal memoranda seeking witness Work product and
Thru immunity and correspondence with counsel for deliberative process (as to
P-005606 witness regarding same internal memoranda)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "MASTER PHONE Work product
P-005607 RECORDS" containing meta-analysis of all 6(e)
Thru phone, travel, and grand jury data for all Investigative privilege
P-005914 victim/witnesses for indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-005915 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 6(e)
Thru grand jury data related to that victim/witness for Investigative privilege
P-005977 indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-005978 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 6(e)
Thru grand jury data related to that victim/witness for Investigative privilege
P-006050 indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product
P-006051 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 6(e)
Thru grand jury data related to that victim/witness for Investigative privilege
P-006065 indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 9 of 23
EFTA00223835
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document IMI-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 10 of
23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #2 File folder entitled "JANE DOE #4" containing Work product
P-006066 meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury 6(e)
Thru data related to that victim/witness for indictment Investigative privilege
P-006220 preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled 'JANE DOE #12" containing Work product
P-006221 meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury 6(e)
Thru data related to that victim/witness for indictment Investigative privilege
P-006222 preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "CORRECTED PHONE Work product
P-006223 RECORDS 5/31/07" containing meta-analysis of 6(e)
Thru all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to all Investigative privilege
P-006522 victims/witnesses for indictment preparation Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim Name] Phone Work product
P-006523 Records" containing telephone records received 6(e)
Thru in response to subpoena Investigative privilege
P-006802 Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
arties to this liti ation
Box #2 File folder entitled "Lists of Identified Phone Work product
P-006803 Numbers" containing charts of information culled 6(e)
Thru from grand jury materials, interviews, and other Investigative privilege
P-006860 investigation, with attorney handwritten notes, Also contains information and
and information to issue follow-up grand jury documents subject to privacy
subpoena rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "EPSTEIN, CELL Work product
P-006861 PHONE RECORDS" containing documents 6(e)
Thru received via subpoena with attorney handwritten Investigative privilege
P-007785 notes and highlighting Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 10 of 23
EFTA00223836
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document IM -1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 11 of
23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #2 Folder entitled "OLY GRAND JURY LOG: Work product
P-007786 OLY-01 THROUGH OLY-50" containing 6(e)
Thru subpoenas, correspondence regarding same, 6(e) Investigative privilege
P-008120 letters, attorney handwritten notes regarding Also contains information and
records received in response to subpoenas documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 Handwritten flight logs received in response to 6(e)
P-008121 subpoena Investigative privilege
Thru
P-008139
Box #2 Grand jury presentation folder containing Work product
P-008140 attorney handwritten notes, typed outline with 6(e)
Thru additional handwritten notes, complete indictment Investigative privilege
P-008298 package dated 2/19/2008, victim list with Also contains information and
identifying information, photographs, and documents subject to privacy
summary of activity rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Box #2 File folder entitled "FINAL AGREEMENTS"
P-008299 containing subfolder entitled "Agrmts Filed in
Thru State Court" (P-008300-P-008327 [not being
P-008363 withheld as privileged — have been produced to
opposing counsel]); signed Non-Prosecution
Agreement, Addendum, and operative portion of
12/19/2007 Sanchez-Acosta letter (P-008328-P-
008343 [not being withheld as privileged — have
been produced to opposing counsel]); subfolder
entitled "12/19/07 Acosta-Sanchez Ltr"
containing unredacted copies of that letter (P-
008344-P-008363 [pursuant to Court's Order, not
being withheld as privileged — will be produced
to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11ih
Circuit
Box #2 File folder entitled ' Immunity Request" 6(e)
P-008364 containing internal memoranda, Justice Work Product
Thru Department documentation, and subpoena Deliberative Process
P-008382 regarding immunity request Investigative privilege
Box #2 File folder containing March 18, 2008 grand jury Work product
P-008383 presentation materials, including "Operation Leap 6(e)
Thru Year Revised Indictment Summary Chart (by Investigative privilege
P-008516 victim)," grand jury materials, draft indictments, Deliberative process
victim reference list, grand jury subpoena log Also contains information and
documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Page 11 of 23
EFTA00223837
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 12 of
23
Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted
Box #2 6/25/2007 Letter from Gerald Lefcourt .
P-008517
Thru [pursuant to Court's Order, not being withheld as
P-008535 privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel
upon lift of stay by 11'" Circuit]
Box #2 Handwritten attorney notes to prepare for Work product
P-008536
DataSet-10
Unknown
29 pages
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
x
11ENIORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF
II E:R OB JECTIONS TO THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
Bobbi C. Stemheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
Attorneysfor Ghislaine Maxwell
EFTA00156337
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. The 2003 Guidelines Apply to the Offense Conduct 1
A. A Jury Must Determine the End Date of Criminal Conduct that Dictates
Which Guidelines Book Applies Consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause. 3
B. The Trial Record Is Insufficient to Support a Finding that the Offense
Conduct Continued Past November I, 2004 4
C. The Goals of Sentencing Are Not Served by Applying the More Onerous
2004 Guidelines Based Solely on Epstein's Conduct 8
II. The Five-Point Adjustment Under USSG § 4B1.5 Does Not Apply 10
A. Ms. Maxwell Does Not Present a Continuing Danger to the Public. 11
B. Applying § 4BI.5 Would Lead to Absurd Results. 14
III. Ms. Maxwell Does Not Qualify for an Aggravating Role Adjustment Under USSG
§ 3B1.1 16
A. Ms. Maxwell Did Not Supervise Another Criminal Participant 16
B. The Criminal Activity Was Not "Otherwise Extensive" 19
IV. The Two-Point "Undue Influence" Enhancement Under USSG § 2G I.3(b)(2)(B)
Does Not Apply. 20
V. The Correct Sentencing Range is 51-63 Months Under the 2003 Guidelines 22
CONCLUSION 23
EFTA00156338
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000) 4
Blakely v. Washington,
542 U.S. 296 (2004) 4
Kimbrough v. United States,
552 U.S. 85 (2007) 15
Peugh v. United States,
569 U.S. 530 (2013) 1, 4
Stinson v. United States,
508 U.S. 36 (1993) 14
United States v. Bennett,
37 F.3d 687 (1st Cir. 1994) 8
United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005) 4
United States v. Bronneyer,
699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012) 12, 13
United States v. Cavern,
550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) 15
United States v. Cordoba-Murgas,
233 F.3d 704 (2d Cir. 2000) 7
United States v. Dorvee,
616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) 15
United States v. Gigante,
94 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 1996) 7
United States v. Harris,
79 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 1996) 3
United States v. Julian,
427 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005) 3, 4
EFTA00156339
United States v. McGrain,
No. 6:20-cr-06113 (EAW), 2022 WL 287350 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2022) 13
United States v. Patterson,
576 F.3d 431 (7th Cir. 2009) 21
United States v. Pope,
554 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 2009) 14
United States v. Reuter,
463 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2006) 9, 10
United States v. Sanchez,
30 F.4th 1063 (11th Cir. 2022) 13
United States v. Santos,
No. 21-10381, 2022 WL 1196761 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2022) 13
United States v. Skys,
637 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2011) 16
United States v. Suarez,
No. 21-1721, 2022 WL 1449174 (3d Cir. May 9, 2022) 13
United States v. Torres,
901 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1990) 3
United States v. Tykarsky,
446 F.3d 458 (3d Cir. 2006) 3
United States v. Watkins,
667 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2012) 20
Statutes
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998 12
Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 11, 12, 14
Other Authorities
Meriam-Webstercom Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/coerce (accessed June 15, 2022) 20
United States Sentencing Guidelines (2003) passim
United States Sentencing Guidelines (2004) passim
iii
EFTA00156340
Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this memorandum in support of her objections to
the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") and her claim that the correct sentencing range
under the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("USSG" or the "Guidelines") is 51-63 months,
not the 292-365 month range calculated by the U.S. Probation Office ("Probation") in the PSR.
As set forth more fully below, the lower range is correctly calculated because (1) the 2003
Guidelines apply to Ms. Maxwell's offense conduct, not the 2004 Guidelines; and (2) the
enhancements under § 4B1.5 (repeat and dangerous sex offender against minors), § 3B1.1
(aggravating role), and § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) (use of undue influence) do not apply.'
ARGUMENT
I. The 2003 Guidelines Apply to the Offense Conduct
Before determining the applicable sentencing range, the Court must first resolve the
threshold issue of whether the 2003 Guidelines or the 2004 Guidelines applies to the criminal
conduct in this case. It is well-settled that it is a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause for a
sentencing court to apply a version of the Guidelines that did not come into effect until after the
criminal conduct was complete if it provides for a higher sentencing range. See Peugh v. United
States, 569 U.S. 530, 532-33 (2013) ("Mhere is an ex postfacto violation when a defendant is
sentenced under Guidelines promulgated after he committed his criminal acts and the new
version provides a higher applicable Guidelines sentencing range than the version in place at the
time of the offense.").
There is no dispute that the 2004 Guidelines, which took effect on November 1, 2004,
call for a much harsher sentence than the 2003 Guidelines. If the Court applied all of the same
This memorandum sets forth arguments concerning the proper Guidelines calculation. Ms. Maxwell's arguments
for why the Court should grant a substantial downward variance from the advisory Guidelines range are addressed in
a separate submission entitled Sentencing Memorandum on Behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell.
EFTA00156341
enhancements that were applied in the PSR, the recommended sentencing range under the 2003
Guidelines would be roughly 75% less than the recommended sentencing range under the 2004
Guidelines: 168-210 months based on a Combined Adjusted Offense Level of 35 under the 2003
Guidelines versus 292-365 months based on a Combined Adjusted Offense Level of 40 under
the 2004 Guidelines.2 The parties dispute, however, whether the offense conduct ended before
or after November 1, 2004, and whether a court or a jury must make that finding. See USSG §
1B1.11, cmt. n.2 (the "last date of the offense of conviction" is the "controlling date for ex post
facto purposes").
Probation and the government assert that the 2004 Guidelines apply because the second
superseding indictment (the "S2 Indictment") generally alleges that the criminal conduct ended
"in or about 2004" and the Court should find based on the trial testimony and other evidence that
the offense conduct continued "through the end of 2004." See PSR at 58. That is legally and
factually incorrect. For the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court must apply the 2003
Guidelines in this case because (1) the jury, not the Court, must determine the end date of the
criminal conduct when that fact dictates which Guidelines book applies consistent with the Er
Post Facto Clause; (2) even if the Court may make that determination, the trial record is
insufficient to find that the offense conduct continued past November 1, 2004, the effective date
of the 2004 Guidelines; and (3) it would not serve the goals of sentencing to apply the harsher
2004 Guidelines in this case when the record is clear that Ms. Maxwell was no longer actively
participating in the offense conduct by 2002 or 2003 at the latest.
2 The five-point difference in the total offense level is driven by the base offense level. Under the 2003 Guidelines,
the applicable base offense level is 19. See UM § 2O1.1(a)(I) (2003). Under the 2004 Guidelines, the applicable
base offense level is 24. See USSG § 261.3(a) (2004). Ms. Maxwell disputes the application of many of the
enhancements as discussed in Sections 11-IV, infra.
2
EFTA00156342
A. A Jury Must Determine the End Date of Criminal Conduct that Dictates
Which Guidelines Book Applies Consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause.
As set forth above, it would be a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause for the Court to
sentence Ms. Maxwell under the 2004 Guidelines absent a finding that the offense conduct
continued past November 1, 2004. That finding must be made by a jury, not the sentencing
court. Because the jury never made such a finding here, the Court cannot apply the 2004
Guidelines and must instead apply the 2003 Guidelines.
Several appellate courts, including the Second Circuit, have held that if the end date of
the offense conduct dictates whether, consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause, a harsher penalty
may apply to the defendant, then that fact must be resolved by a jury. See United States v.
Julian, 427 F.3d 471, 480-482 (7th Cir. 2005) ("As it is the lifespan of the conspiracy that
determines whether, consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause, the defendant may be subject to
the enhanced penalty [of 18 U.S.C. § 2423], the question whether the alleged conspiracy
continued beyond the effective date of the new penalty is one that must be submitted to the
jury."); United States v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 478-480 (3d Cir. 2006) ("[B]ecause the
communications spanned two different versions of the statute [18 U.S.C. § 2422] with different
minimum penalties, the question of whether the violation extended beyond the effective date of
the amended version was one that had to be resolved by the jury."); United States v. Harris, 79
F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 1996) (noting that when the offense conduct for a continuing criminal offense
is alleged to straddle the date when the applicable penalty increased, the jury must determine
whether the criminal conduct continued past the date of the change for purposes of the Ex Post
Facto Clause); United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 226-27 (2d Cir. 1990) (same), overruled
on other grounds as recognized by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2010).
3
EFTA00156343
In each of these cases, the ex postfacto violation resulted from an increase in the
applicable statutory penalty, as opposed to the applicable sentencing range under the Guidelines.
However, the Supreme Court has clearly held that it is also a violation of the Ex Post Facto
Clause to apply a later version of the Guidelines that increases the recommended sentencing
range if the criminal conduct was complete before the later version took effect. See Peugh, 569
U.S. at 532-33 ("[T]here is an ex postfacto violation when a defendant is sentenced under
Guidelines promulgated after he committed his criminal acts and the new version provides a
higher applicable Guidelines sentencing range than the version in place at the time of the
offense."). An ex postfacto violation is an ex post facto violation regardless of whether the
increased penalty resulted from a change in the statute or a change in the Guidelines. Hence, if
the end date of the offense conduct dictates whether it is permissible to apply a later Guidelines
book consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause, the jury must find that fact.
Here, the S2 Indictment alleges only that the criminal conduct ended "in or about 2004"
and does not specify whether the conduct continued into November and December 2004. Nor
was the jury asked to make a specific finding as to the end date of the offense conduct. Because
the jury did not make the necessary factual finding, the Court cannot apply the 2004 Guidelines
and must instead apply the 2003 Guidelines.'
B. The Trial Record Is Insufficient to Support a Finding that the Offense
Conduct Continued Past November 1, 2004.
Even if the Court can determine the end date of the offense conduct for Guidelines
purposes, the record does not support a finding that the conduct extended past November 1,
3 Although the issue is properly framed as an ex post facto issue, it would also violate Ms. Maxwell's Sixth
Amendment rights for the Court, and not the jury, to determine when the offense conduct ended. See Apprendi v.
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005); see also Julian, 427 F.3d at 482 (failure to have the _uy determine the end date of the conspiracy for a
postfacto purposes was a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights).
4
EFTA00156344
2004, as the government asserts. The government's claim is based solely on (I) vague
recollection that she stopped performing sexualized massages for Epstein in 2005 when she was
18 years old (Tr. 1525, 1549), and (2) two message pad slips that were never admitted in
evidence. (GX 4-B, GX 4-F). Such meager and unreliable evidence is insufficient to support a
finding that the offense conduct continued into the last two months of 2004, especially when that
determination has such a significant effect on the recommended sentencing range. Instead, the
credible evidence in the trial record established, at most, that Epstein was receiving sexualized
massages in his Palm Beach residence through the summer of 2004, before the 2004 Guidelines
took effect.
recollection that she was 18 when she stopped seeing Epstein cannot be
credited. (Tr. 1525, 1549). memory of the timeline of events—in particular, her age
at the time of the relevant events—was demonstrably inconsistent and unreliable. For example,
initially testified that she was 14 years old when first took her to
Epstein's Palm Beach residence, which would have been in 2001. (Tr. 1518-19, 1525; GX-11).
However, when was confronted on cross-examination with her prior deposition
testimony in 2009, she agreed that first took her to Epstein's house in May or June 2002
when she was 15 years old, as she stated in her deposition. (Tr. 1570-73). Then on redirect
changed her testimony yet again and testified that she first went to Epstein's house when
she was 13 years old, which would have been in 2000. (Tr. 1693). also testified that
she was "15, going to be 16" when she recruited her friend to give Epstein massages,
which would have been towards the end of 2002 or early 2003. (Tr. 1544). However, according
to the message pad slips that were admitted in evidence, the earliest of which dates to January
2003, did not begin calling the Palm Beach residence until April 2004 when was
5
EFTA00156345
17. (GX-3-B). further testified that she had trouble remembering details of the events
in question and affirmed that she "[doesn't] remember the times and dates" of her visits to
Epstein's Palm Beach residence. (Tr. 1525, 1559).
The government asserts that recollection can be credited because even if she
cannot recall the year that an event took place, she has been consistent about how old she was
when the event took place. (PSR at 53). As set forth above, this claim is flatly contradicted by
the record. If could not accurately remember how old she was when she first met
Epstein, the Court should not credit her recollection of how old she was when she last saw him.
memory of when she stopped seeing Epstein was not only unreliable, but also
contradicted by the other evidence in the record. herself testified that her last
interactions with Epstein were when she returned from Georgia after giving birth to her son on
March 14, 2004. (Tr. 1548-49). stated that she went back to Epstein "four or five
times" because she needed money to buy things for her son, but eventually gave up when it
became clear that she was too old for Epstein. (Tr. 1549).4 The message pads that were
admitted in evidence corroborate that these interactions occurred from approximately late spring
through summer 2004, when was 17 years old. (See GX-3-E (undated message from
"=M "; surrounded by messages dated April 29 and May 2 and included in a book
of messages from 2004); GX-3-I (July 6 message from a '; included in a book
of messages from 2004); GX-1-B (July 30 message from a a"; next to a message
dated August 12, 2004 and included in a book of messages from 2004). Accordingly, the trial
memory ofher interactions with Epstein around the time of the Georgia interlude was also inconsistent
and contradictory. On the one hand, testified that she left Florida in 2003 "to escape the traumatic events"
that had happened in Palm Beach and traveled to Georgia where she became pregnant with her child. (Tr. 1548-49,
1617, 1668). On the other hand, testified that she continued to visit Epstein in Palm Beach while she was
pregnant. (Tr. 1549).
6
EFTA00156346
evidence indicates that stopped performing sexualized massages for Epstein at the latest
in the summer of 2004, not in 2005.5
The two message pad slips cited by the government (GX 4-B, GX 4-F) do not support a
finding that the offense conduct lasted beyond November 1, 2004. Although these two messages
were labeled as government exhibits along with the rest of the message slips in the same book
(GX 4-A-K), these messages were never admitted in evidence. The Court admitted the message
slips from three other message books (GX 1-3) because and recognized
their signatures and/or handwriting in those books and could establish a business records
foundation for their admission. (Tr. 877-889, 1772-1790). The government presumably did not
have anyone who could do the same for GX 4 or it would certainly have admitted the message
slips from that book as well. The Court should not rely on two isolated, unauthenticated
documents in determining when the offense conduct ended, especially when they would almost
single-handedly increase the recommended sentencing range by over 10 years. Cl United States
v. Cordoba-Murgas, 233 F.3d 704, 708 (2d Cir. 2000) (acknowledging that enhancements based
on relevant conduct may result in sentences that are "excessive, inappropriate, and unintended
under Sentencing Guidelines" when imposed "without regard to the weight of the evidence
proving the relevant conduct"); United States v. Gigante, 94 F.3d 53, 56 (2d Cir. 1996) (holding
that, for sentencing purposes, "the preponderance standard is no more than a threshold basis for
adjustments and departures, and the weight of the evidence, at some point along a continuum of
sentence severity, should be considered") (emphasis in original).
5 In her 2007 interview with the FBI, which the government cites in its own objections to the PSR, stated
that she went to Epstein's residence "over 100 times for proximately three years beginning when she was 14 years
old." See PSR at 54. According to that timeline, last visited Epstein when she was 17.
7
EFTA00156347
Furthermore, it would be improper for the Court to rely on recollection and the
message slips to find that the offense conduct lasted until 2005 because the government alleged
in the S2 Indictment that the offense conduct ended "in or about 2004," not "in or about 2005."
The initial indictment charged Ms. Maxwell with offenses that lasted "up to and including in or
about 1997." (Ind. ¶¶ 9, 13, 15, 19). The S2 Indictment, which the government filed after it had
located and interviewed =0, charged offense conduct that lasted "up to and including in or
about 2004." (S2 Ind. ¶¶ 11, 17, 23, 27). The expanded end date of the S2 Indictment was based
solely on anticipated testimony and corroborating evidence. Yet the government
alleged that the offense conduct ended in 2004, even though the government knew
recollection of when she last visited Epstein and was aware of the two message slips when it
filed the S2 Indictment. The Court should hold the government to its allegations and not allow it
to expand the end date of the offense conduct for purposes of sentencing. See United States v.
Bennett, 37 F.3d 687, 700 (1' Cir. 1994) ("In determining 'the last date of the offense of
conviction' for ex postfacto purposes and ... Application Note [2 of § 1B1.11], it is only
reasonable to hold the Government to its own alleged dates.").
For these reasons, the record is insufficient for the Court to find that the offense conduct
continued past November 1, 2004, the effective date of the 2004 Guidelines. The Court must
therefore apply the 2003 Guidelines to avoid an ex postfacto violation.
C. The Goals of Sentencing Are Not Served by Applying the More Onerous
2004 Guidelines Based Solely on Epstein's Conduct.
If the Court finds that the offense conduct continued past November 1, 2004, it should
nevertheless vary downwardly and sentence Ms. Maxwell as if the 2003 Guidelines apply. The
variance would account for the fact that Ms. Maxwell had stopped actively participating in the
offense conduct by 2003 at the latest, when the earlier Guidelines were in effect. Such a
8
EFTA00156348
variance would provide just punishment for the offense and promote respect for the law because
it would punish Ms. Maxwell only for the conduct for which she was directly responsible, rather
than artificially inflating her sentence based on two months' worth of Epstein's criminal conduct
in which she was not involved.
There is no evidence in the record that Ms. Maxwell did anything in furtherance of the
conspiracy in November or December 2004. In fact, the evidence clearly showed that by that
time, Ms. Maxwell was in a committed relationship with another man and had
taken over responsibility for scheduling the massage appointments at the Palm Beach residence.
Ms. Maxwell's assistant testified that by 2002 Ms. Maxwell had "moved
on" from Epstein, had stopped coming to the office, and had begun a long-term relationship with
Ted Waitt. (Tr. 2370-71, 2374, 2378-80). testified that whom he
recalled seeing for the first time towards the end of his employment in 2002, "immediately took
over" responsibility for answering the phones and scheduling the massage appointments at the
Palm Beach residence as soon as she was hired. (Tr. 832-33). testified that Ms.
Maxwell called her to schedule massage appointments only in "the first year or two" and that
called her thereafter. (Tr. 1527). In sum, the record is clear that by 2002 or 2003 at
the latest Ms. Maxwell had stopped actively participating in the offense conduct and had been
replaced by
Applying the 2004 Guidelines would significantly increase Ms. Maxwell's sentencing
range based on a finding by a mere preponderance that her co-conspirator Epstein engaged in
offense conduct in the final two months of 2004 that Ms. Maxwell had nothing to do with and
was not personally responsible for. That result would be fundamentally unjust and contrary to
the purposes of sentencing. See United States v. Reuter, 463 F.3d 792, 793 (7th Cir. 2006)
9
EFTA00156349
(Posner, J.) ("A judge might reasonably conclude that a sentence based almost entirely on
evidence that satisfied only the normal civil standard of proof would be unlikely to promote
respect for the law or provide just punishment for the offense of conviction."). Accordingly, the
Court should exercise its discretion to vary from the 2004 Guidelines and sentence Ms. Maxwell
under the 2003 Guidelines. See id. (the § 3553(a) sentencing factors "are broad enough and
loose enough to allow the judge to dip below the guidelines range if he is justifiably reluctant to
impose a sentence most of which rests entirely on a finding of fact supported by a mere
preponderance of the evidence").
II. The Five-Point Adjustment Under USSG & 4B1.5 Does Not Apply.
Probation and the government seek to substantially increase Ms. Maxwell's Guidelines
range by adding a five-point adjustment under USSG § 4B1.5 applicable to a "Repeat and
Dangerous Sex Offender Against Minors." That one adjustment increases Ms. Maxwell's
advisory sentencing range from 168-210 months to 292-365 months — a roughly 75% increase.
But § 4B1.5 was intended to apply only to habitual sexual offenders who present a high risk of
recidivism and pose "a continuing danger to the public." USSG § 4B1.5, cmt. background. The
facts of this case fall far outside the scenarios that Congress and the Sentencing Commission
were trying to address with § 4B1.5. Here, the government concedes that the defendant is not a
danger to the public, there is no evidence that the defendant herself is sexually attracted to
minors, the conduct that gives rise to the adjustment ended almost 20 years ago, and there is no
evidence that the defendant has re-offended and no concern that she will ever re-offend.
Moreover, the application of § 4B1.5 to Ms. Maxwell would lead to absurd results that the
Sentencing Commission did not contemplate. Section 4B1.5 therefore does not apply.
10
EFTA00156350
A. Ms. Maxwell Does Not Present a Continuing Danger to the Public.
It is clear from the Guidelines commentary and the Congressional intent underlying the
creation of § 4B1.5 that the adjustment does not apply to Ms. Maxwell. The Sentencing
Commission created § 4B1.5 after the passage of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Predators Act of 1998 (the "Act"). See Pub. Law 105-314 (Oct. 30, 1998). As part of the Act,
Congress directed the Sentencing Commission to review and amend the Sentencing Guidelines
applicable to several offenses involving child sexual abuse and exploitation, including the
enticement and transportation offenses charged in the S2 Indictment, to ensure they were
"appropriately severe." Id., Section 502. Congress also specifically directed the Sentencing
Commission to review the guidelines applicable to these and other sexual abuse offenses and
promulgate amendments "to increase penalties applicable to the[se] offenses ... in any case in
which the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of
a minor." Id., Section 505. In response, the Sentencing Commission created § 4B1.5, which was
added to the Sentencing Guidelines on November 1, 2001. See USSG, App's C, amend. 615.
The legislative history of the Act makes clear that the purpose of the law, and § 4B1.5
specifically, was to protect children from habitual sexual predators and to inflict severe
punishments on repeat (and often violent) offenders who present a significant risk of recidivism.
Congress was particularly concerned about the danger these defendants pose to the community
because they are typically far more likely to re-offend than other criminal defendants — a fact
which numerous members of Congress cited as a primary justification for the passage of the Act.
• "Constituents deserve to be protected from society's worst offender-- the repeat
sexual predator.... [T]he recidivism rates of sex offenders are astonishingly
high — released rapists are 10 times more likely to repeat their crime than other
criminals. The Congress has a responsibility to address the issue by passing a
bill that would put an end to this cycle of violence repeated by a single
perpetrator." Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998,
Hearing Before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, 105th
11
EFTA00156351
Cong. (Apr. 30, 1998) (testimony of Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)), available
at 1998 WL 210930.
• "These strong sentencing provisions are important because the recidivism rates
for sex offenders and pedophiles are 10 times higher than that of other
criminals. Frankly, chances are that these predators will strike again." Child
Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998, Proceedings and
Debates Before the House of Representatives, 1056 Cong., 2 nd Session (Jun. II,
1998) (comments of Rep. Deborah Pryce of (R-OH)), available at 144 Cong.
Rec. H4491-03, 1998 WL 306835.
• "Sentences for child abuse and exploitation offenses will be made tougher. In
addition to increasing the maximum penalties available for many crimes against
children and mandating tough sentences for repeat offenders, the bill will also
recommend that the Sentencing Commission reevaluate the guidelines
applicable to these offenses and increase them where appropriate to address the
egregiousness of these crimes." Protection of Children from Sexual Predators
Act of 1998, Proceedings and Debates Before the Senate, 1056 Cong., 2nd
Session (Sept. 17, 1998) (statement of Sen. Orrin Hatch of (R-UT)), available
at 144 Cong. Rec. SI0518-02, 1998 WL 636904.
The Congressional intent underlying the Act was clear: the criminal statutes and the Sentencing
Guidelines needed to be amended to impose harsher sentences on these sorts of dangerous,
repeat sexual offenders to make sure that they do not "strike again."
The Sentencing Commission adopted this rationale in promulgating § 4B1.5. The
commentary to the guideline explains that the adjustment should only apply to defendants who
present a continuing danger to the community because there is a significant risk that they will re-
offend if they are released from prison. See USSG § 4B1.5, cmt. background ("This guideline is
intended to provide lengthy incarceration for offenders who commit sex offenses against minors
and who present a continuing danger to the public." (emphasis added); see also United States v.
Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265, 285 (2d Cir. 2012) ("We further note that this guideline [§4B1.5] is
intended to identify `repeat sex offenders,' who pose `a continuing danger to the public." (citing
USSG § 4B1.5 cmt. background)). The title of the enhancement itself reflects that it should only
be applied to "Repeat and Dangerous" sex offenders. USSG § 4B1.5.
12
EFTA00156352
The case law bears this out. The adjustment is typically applied to defendants (virtually
all of whom are male) who repeatedly and often violently sexually abuse or exploit children for
their own sexual gratification and who are caught soon after or while still engaging in that
behavior. See, e.g., Broxnzeyer, 699 F.3d at 284-88; United States v. Suarez, No. 21-1721, 2022
WL 1449174, at *1-*2 (3d Cir. May 9, 2022); United States v. Santos, No. 21-10381, 2022 WL
1196761, at *1-*3 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2022); United States v. Sanchez, 30 F.4th 1063, 1067-76
(11th Cir. 2022); United States v. McGrain, No. 6:20-cr-06113 (EAW), 2022 WL 287350, at *1-
*6 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. I, 2022).
In sharp contrast, Ms. Maxwell has never been accused of any sex offenses—or any
crimes, for that matter—in the almost 20-year period since the conduct at issue in this case
ended. There is absolutely no evidence that Ms. Maxwell is attracted to minors or has the sort of
uncontrollable impulses that would compel her to re-offend. According to the trial record, it was
Epstein who had such proclivities, whereas Ms. Maxwell's role was to facilitate Epstein's sexual
abuse. Indeed, after she moved on from Epstein in the early 2000s, Ms. Maxwell was involved
in two long-term relationships with men who had young children and was actively involved in
their lives without even the slightest hint of impropriety. Most importantly, the government
concedes that Ms. Maxwell is not a danger to the community. The government never made that
assertion in connection with Ms. Maxwell's numerous bail applications and there is no evidence
whatsoever to support such a claim. Put simply, Ms. Maxwell is not "dangerous" and there is no
risk that Ms. Maxwell will ever "repeat" the offense. Accordingly, there is no basis to apply
§ 4B1.5, which is meant to apply only to "Repeat and Dangerous" sex offenders.
The government asserts that § 4B1.5 should apply as long as the offense conduct fits
within the text of the guideline, to which it claims to be faithfully adhering. See PSR at 60. It is
13
EFTA00156353
not. The government ignores the background commentary to § 4B1.5, which explicitly states
that the adjustment only applies to sex offenders "who present a continuing danger to the
public." USSG § 4B1.5, cmt. background (emphasis added). In doing so, the government
rejects an authoritative statement from the Sentencing Commission about the proper
interpretation and application of § 4B1.5. See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993)
("[C]ommentary in the Guidelines Manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative
unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly
erroneous reading of, that guideline."). The government is not at liberty to reject the Sentencing
Commission's instructions, and neither is the Court.
Applying § 4B1.5 to Ms. Maxwell would directly contradict the intent of Congress and
the explicit instructions of the Sentencing Commission and would improperly add over 10 years
to her sentencing range. It was not meant to be applied in cases where the defendant is not a
danger to the community and poses no risk of recidivism. It should not be applied here.
B. Applying § 4B1.5 Would Lead to Absurd Results.
Applying § 4B1.5 would also yield a sentencing range for Ms. Maxwell that is
significantly higher than the range for a proven recidivist sex offender — i.e., the type of
defendant that Congress and the Sentencing Commission were so clearly targeting with § 4B1.5.
The Court should not interpret a guideline in such a way that it would lead to such obviously
absurd results. See United States v. Pope, 554 F.3d 240, 246 (2d Cir. 2009).
Section 4B1.5 contains two prongs — one that applies to defendants who have been
convicted of at least one prior sex offense (USSG § 4B1.5(a)) and one that applies to defendants
who have not been convicted of a prior sex offense (USSG § 4B1.5(b)). As discussed above, the
purpose of the Act and § 4B1.5 was to increase the sentences given to repeat sex offenders. It
follows that convicted sex offenders who re-offend after being released from prison should
14
EFTA00156354
receive more serious punishment than those defendants who have never been convicted of a sex
offense. In this case, the reverse would happen. If we assume for the sake of argument that Ms.
Maxwell had been convicted of a prior sex offense and that § 4B1.5(a) therefore applied, Ms.
Maxwell's recommended sentencing range under the 2004 Guidelines would be 262-327 months
based on a Combined Adjusted Offense Level of 35 and a criminal history category of V. See
USSG §§ 4B1.5(a)(1)(A) & (a)(2)(B) (2004). By contrast, if we assume the facts—La, that Ms.
Maxwell has never been convicted of a prior sex offense and § 4B1.5(b) therefore applies—her
recommended sentencing range under the 2004 Guidelines is 292-365 months based on a
Combined Adjusted Offense Level of 40 and a criminal history category of I. See USSG §§
4B1.5(b)(1) & (b)(2) (2004). Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell is subject to a substantially higher
Guidelines range than a defendant who had been previously convicted of a sex offense. Such a
result would be unjust and contrary to the express purpose of § 4B1.5.6
Furthermore, by applying § 4B1.5 Ms. Maxwell would face the same sentencing range
that Jeffrey Epstein would face for the same offenses, even though he was indisputably the more
culpable offender. It would be fundamentally unjust and contrary to the goals of sentencing for
the Court to apply the Guidelines in a way that would create no meaningful distinction between
the most serious offenders and those with lesser culpability. See United States v. Dorvee, 616
F.3d 174, 186-87 (2d Cir. 2010) ("[A]dherence to the Guidelines results in virtually no
distinction between the sentences for [less culpable] defendants ... and the sentences for the most
dangerous offenders.... This result is fundamentally incompatible with § 3553(a)."); see also
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Kimbrough v. United States,
6 A similar disparity would occur under the 2003 Guidelines, which should apply in this case for the reasons already
discussed.
15
EFTA00156355
552 U.S. 85, 108-09 (2007) ("[A] district court may vary from the Guidelines range based solely
on a policy disagreement with the Guidelines, even where that disagreement applies to a wide
class of offenders or offenses."). Section 4B1.5 should therefore not apply.
III. Ms. Maxwell Does Not Qualify for an Aggravating Role Adjustment Under USSG §
3B1.1.
A. Ms. Maxwell Did Not Supervise Another Criminal Participant.
Under the plain language of USSG § 3B1.1 and its commentary, Ms. Maxwell does not
qualify for an aggravating role enhancement. The Guidelines are clear that for any of the three
aggravating role enhancements to apply, the Court must first find that Ms. Maxwell supervised at
least one other criminal participant in the offense. USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2 ("To qualify for an
adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or
supervisor of one or more other participants." (emphasis added)); United States v. Skys, 637 F.3d
146, 156 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2). A "participant" is defined as "a person
who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been
convicted." USSG § 3B1.1 cmt. n.1; Skys, 637 F.3d at 156.
There is no evidence in the trial record that Ms. Maxwell supervised another criminal
participant in the offenses against '=" , or which form the basis for the
three offense groups in the PSR. See PSR ¶¶ 89-90.7 According to the trial testimony, the only
criminal participants in the offenses involving ``M'' and were Epstein and Ms.
Maxwell. There is certainly no support in the record that Ms. Maxwell supervised Epstein. In
fact, the record is clear that the opposite is true: Epstein directed and managed Ms. Maxwell,
7 Because the Court ruled that is not a victim of the offenses of conviction, Probation and the government
agree that the conduct related to ' ' cannot be treated as a separate offense group and is not subject to a
Guidelines analysis. See PSR at 58-59. We therefore do not address the application of any enhancements or
adjustments based on evidence related to M." Regardless, there is no evidence in the record that Ms. Maxwell
supervised another criminal participant in her offense conduct.
16
EFTA00156356
who was his employee. According to the record, there were several people employed by Epstein
who interacted with "M" and and whom Ms. Maxwell supervised in her role as
manager of Epstein's properties in the mid-late 1990s — e.g., in Palm Beach and
various unnamed employees at Zorro Ranch. The record also reflects that Ms. Maxwell had
some role in coordinating payroll and expenses for Epstein pilots, and
ME, who transported "M" on Epstein's private planes. But these people had no
knowledge of the criminal conduct and do not qualify as criminally responsible participants for
the purposes of the aggravating role enhancement.
Similarly, there is no evidence in the trial record that Ms. Maxwell supervised another
criminal participant in the offenses against Apart from Epstein, was the
only other person identified in the trial record as a criminal participant in the offenses against
. Among other things, testified that scheduled massage
appointments for her and took nude pictures of her at the Palm Beach residence on one occasion.
(Tr. 1527-28; 1538-39). The record is clear, however, that Ms. Maxwell did not supervise
. Rather, was hired by Epstein as his assistant to replace Ms. Maxwell and take
over responsibility for scheduling massage appointments and other property management tasks at
a time when Ms. Maxwell was moving on from Epstein and was no longer actively managing the
day-to-day affairs of his residences.
For example testified that was hired sometime between 2000-
2002 to be Epstein's assistant and that she, and not =, was Ms. Maxwell's assistant
from when she was hired in 1996 up through the end of her employment in 2002. (Tr. 2332-33,
2376-77).8 Espinosa further testified that in the last two years of her employment (2000-2002),
s-
initially testified that he thought was Ms. Maxwell's assistant. (Tr. 139-40). But he
later clarified on cross-examination that he "didn't know what her exact job" was and did not know whether
17
EFTA00156357
Epstein and Ms. Maxwell ended their romantic relationship and "went their separate ways": Ms.
Maxwell "moved on" from Epstein, stopped coming into the office, started dating other men, and
eventually entered a long-term, committed relationship with Ted Waitt. (Tr. 2370-71, 2374,
2378-80). testified that "immediately took over" responsibility for answering
the phones and scheduling the massage appointments at the Palm Beach residence as soon as she
was hired. (Tr. 833). herself testified that there was a clear break in time between when
Ms. Maxwell called her to schedule massage appointments and when called her.
(Tr. 1527) (Ms. Maxwell called her in roughly "the first year or two" of her visits to the Palm
Beach residence-2001-2002, according to and called her thereafter).
recalled seeing Ms. Maxwell in the kitchen office of the Palm Beach residence during the period
when scheduled her massage appointments. (Tr. 1527). But nothing in her testimony
indicates that Ms. Maxwell supervised or directed or that Ms. Maxwell had anything to
do with the massage appointments at that time. (Id.). Accordingly, there is no basis in the trial
record to conclude that Ms. Maxwell supervised in connection with the offense
conduct and therefore no basis to apply the aggravating role enhancement.
Both Probation and the government contend that the aggravating role enhancement
applies because Ms. Maxwell was the organizer or leader of criminal activity relevant to each
victim that was "otherwise extensive." (PSR at 58-59). But this position ignores the first step in
the analysis. Regardless of whether the criminal activity was "otherwise extensive," no
aggravating role enhancement applies unless Ms. Maxwell supervised another criminal
participant in the offense. USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2. The record does not contain any evidence
was iin's assistant or Ms. Maxwell's assistant. (Tr. 204). He further conceded that his best recollection was
that was "an employee who worked with Epstein." (Id.).
18
EFTA00156358
that she did so in connection with the offense conduct related to "M,", M, or
. The aggravating role enhancement therefore does not apply to any of the three offense
groups.
B. The Criminal Activity Was Not "Otherwise Extensive"
Even if the Court finds that Ms. Maxwell supervised another "participant," the record
does not support a finding that the criminal activity related to "M,' , M, or
was "otherwise extensive," as the government contends.' Under the Guidelines, the Court must
treat each minor victim separately and consider whether the enhancement applies based so
DataSet-10
Unknown
49 pages
Page 130
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
-vs- VOLUME II OF II
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
Related cases:
08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
DEPOSITION OF
DETECTIVE JOSEPH RECAREY
Friday, March 19, 2010
9:37 - 5:12 p.m.
-250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1500
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Reported By:
Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, FPR
Notary Public, State of Florida
Prose Court Reporting
Job No.: 1509
au&
PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
Electronically signed by eynthla hopkins (601
Electronically signed by cynthia bodkins (601
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601 ea2stiddbfaB1-4f16-b3b7deda51494142
EFTA00298293
EFTA00298294
Page 131 Page 133
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL t APPEARANCES
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 On bead( cflbe Plaintiffs, B3.CL
2 CASE No.502038CA0373I9/000CMB AB 3 SPENCER T. KUM!. ESQUIRE
3 LEOPOLD KUVIN
4 2925 PGA Bodevard
B.B. Suite 200
4 5 Pam flaida 33410
Plaintiff Phone.
S 6
6 -vs- VOLUMBIIOFII 7 On behalf et the Pin:dirk Ltd E.W and
7 Jane Doe:
A
j121.11 9 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQUIRE
8 FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS
Defendants. 10 FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
9 425 Rath Anikens Avenue
10 11 Stile 2
11 Fat 33301
12 DEPOSITION OF 12 Maw
13 On behalf ace a I Drench 8.
DETECTIVE JOSEPH RECAREY 14 JESSICA ARDOUR. ESQUIRE
13 MERMELS1131N k HOROW112., P.A.
14 Friday, March 19, 2010 15 16205 Biscayne Boulevard
15 9:37 - 5:12 p.m. Suite 2218
16 250 Australian Avenue South 16 Miami, 3 60
Suite 1500 nom
17 West Palm Beach, Florida33401 17 &mad
18 18 Onbelsalf, t e 3Ulli..S s , and
103.
19 19
20 20 KAI/691M W EZELL, ESQUIRE
21 PODHURST ORSEOC
22 Reported By. 21 25 Wen Hagler Street
Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, FPR SAC 800
23 Notary Public, State ofFlorida 22
Prose Court Reporting Moe:
24 23 (Via one)
Job No.: 1509 24
25 25
Page 132
1 Appearances oonimued
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 On behalf of the FlairditT, Ina Doe No.11:
3 IDDRO MANUEl. °ARM, ESQUIRE
SOUITIIRN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GARCIA ELKINS& BOEHRINCER
3 4 224 Diva Ann, Sale 900
CASE NO. 10.80309 Wen PUS& 33401
4 5 Phe
6 and
5 JANE DOE NO. 103, 7 TARA A FDDILGAN, ESQUIRE
6 Plabtiff, TARA A MINICAR. P A
7 -vs- VOLUMEII OF II 8 224 Dina Street
8 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Suite 900
9 Defendant. 9 West tide 3340!
Mae:
10
10 1/. Cte tehalfof the Defendant inlay Epstein:
11 12 MICHAEL PIKE, ESQUIRE
12 DEPOSITION OF BURMAN, ORITTON, LUIT1ER & COLEMAN, U.1)
DETECTIVE JOSEPH RECAREY 13 303 Barn Bouienad
Suite 4t0
13 14 West tads. 33401
14 Friday, March 19, 2010 Phone-
IS 9-37 - 5:12 pm. 15
16 250 Australian Avenue South 16 and
17 AO; ALAN GOUAERGER, ESQUIRE
Suite 1500 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WELSS, PA
17 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 10 250 AttuWine Avenue Sash
18 Suite 1400
19 19 west P • 'dm 334014012
20 Phan'
20
21 21 and
22 Reported By: 22 lifiLTON G. wrgramo. ESQUIRE
Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, FPR LAW OFFICE OF MILTON 0. WEIMER°
23 Notary Public, State ofFlorida 23 20 Pat Plaza
Sine I COO,
Prose Court Reporting 24 Boston. 02116
24 Mb No.: 1509 Phone
25 25
2 (Pages 131 to 134)
PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601 na2a6ddb.fa81-41f6-b3b7-deda61494142
EFTA00298295
Page 135 Page 137 g
Appearances continued... CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION
2 On behalf of the Witness: BY MR. KUVIN:
3 JOANNE M. O'CONNOR. ESQUIRE 3 Q. All right. We were going over the
JONES,}vs eft, JOHNSON & STUBBS, P.A. 4 property receipts for the search warrant when we
4 505 South Elegies Drive, Suite 1100
West Nitride 33401 5 left off. And specifically we were at Page 2. We
5 Phone: 6 were looking at some of the things that you took in.
6 7 Each item that you took dining the search warrant
7 Also Present: Jeffrey Epstein 8 was numbered; is that correct?
8. 9 A. Correct
9 INDEX 10 MR. PIKE: Foram.
10
11 BY MR. KUVIN:
12 EXAMINATION DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT 12 Q. And the item number appears where?
13 CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY 13 MR. PIKE: Form.
14 het ICUVIN 134 14 THE WITNESS: Under item number.
15 BY MR. EDWARDS 243 15 BY MR. KUVIN:
16 16 Q. All right And this is a standard form
17 •
18 EXHIBITS 17 wed by the police department?
19 18 A. That's correct.
20 19 MR. PIKE: Fonm
21 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE 20 BY MR. KUVIN:
22 21 Q. All right If we look at Item Number 24,
23 PLARTI1FF'S EX. S SUPPLEMENT FOR CHAIN 151 22 what MS that?
OF CUSTODY LOG 23 MR. PIKE: Form.
24 PLAINTIFFS EX. 6 PAGE FROM MESSAGE PAD 196
PLAINTIFFS EX. 7 PHONE MESSAGE 204 24 THE WITNESS: It was a twin torpedo in a
25 25 brown box.
Page 136 Page 138
1 BY MR. KUVIN:
EXHIBITS CCeITINUED
2 2 Q. What is that?
3 MONT DESCRIPTION PAGE 3 MR. PIKE: Form.
4 PLANETS EX S PHONE MESSAGE 205
PLAINTIFFS Ex 9 PHONE MESSAGE 208 4 THE WITNESS: It is a synthetic penis,
$ PLAINTIFFS EC 10 PHONE MESSAGE 209 5 double, double sided.
PLAINTIFFS EC 11 PHONE MESSAGE 211
6 PLAINTIFFS EX 12 PHONE MESSAGE 212 6 BY MR. KUVIN:
PLAINTIFFS EX 13 PHONE MESSAGE 213 7 Q. Okay. Double sided meaning it has, what,
7 PLAINTIFF'S EX 14 PHONE MESSAGE 215
PLA/NIIFF'S EC 15 PHONE MESSAGE 215 8 two heads on it?
8 FIAINTIFFS EC 16 PHONE MESSAGE 217' 9 A. Yes.
PLAINTIFFS EX 17 PHONE MESSAGE 219
9 PLAINTIFFS EX IS PHONE MESSAGE 220 10 MR. PIKE: Fonm.
PLAINTIFFS EC. I9 PHONE MESSAGE 221 11 BY MR. KUVIN:
10 PLAINTIFFS DC 20 PHONE MESSAGE 222
PLAINTIFFS DC 21 PHONE MESSAGE 223 12 Q. How big is this?
11, PLAINTIFFS EC 22 PHONE MESSAGE 22$ 13 A. About 12 inches, 10, 12 inches.
PLAINTIFFS DC. 23 AND 24 PHOTOS 227
12 PLAINTIFFS EX. 2$ PHo GE 230 14 MR. PIKE: Objection to the form of that
PLABTTIFFSFX. 26MS. 240 15 question.
13 CELLINIONE LOG
PLAINTIFF'S EC 27 LETTER DATED JULY 24, 241 16 BY MR KUVIN:
14 2006 17 Q. Do you know where it was taken from?
PLAINTIFFS DC 28 INTELLIGENCE REPORT 243
15 DATED maw 18 MR. PIKE: Form.
16 19 THE WITNESS: It was in one of the
17
18 20 bedrooms.
19 21 BY MR. KUVIN:
29
• 21
22 Q. Do you know if any DNA analysis was done
22 23 on that?
23
24
24 MR. PIKE: Form.
25 25 THEE WITNESS: Not that I am aware of.
r.), 1,1 .f7
01.1•1•11W*1 CFA,
3 (Pages 135 to 138
PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
Electronically signed by cynthla hopkins (601
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601 aa2Mddb-fal31-4116-b3b7-dcda51494142
EFTA00298296
Page 139 Page 141
1 (Mr. Epstein returned the deposition 1 THE WITNESS: I believe so.
2 mom.) MR. PIKE: Move to strike.
3 BY MR. KUVIN: BY MR.!MIN:
4 Q. All right. Let's take a look at the next 4 . Q. Where in the house was this transcript
5 page. Item 27, what was that? 5 kelt
6 A. It was a high school transcript — 6 MR. PIKE: Form.
7 MR. PIKE: Form. 7 THE WITNESS: In the desk, the desk drawer
8 THE WITNESS: that was located in the 8 of the — there was a desk in the master
9 master bedroom. 9 bedroom.
10 ' BY MR. KUVIN: 10 BY MR. KUVIN:
11 Q. Appears to be something blacked out. What 11 Q. Okay; So, in the master bedroom?
12 is blacked out? 12 MR. PUCE: Form.
13' . A. The name of Jane Doe No. 103. 13 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
14 MR. PIKE: Form. 14 BY MR. KUVIN:
15 BY MR. KUVIN: 15 Q. Was there an office downstairs as well?
16 Q. Okay. Did you actually see this? 16 A. Yes.
17 A. Yes, I did. 17 Q. It was not found in the office?
18 Q. And can you describe for me what it was? 18 MR. PIKE: Form.
19 MR. PIKE: Form. 19 THE WITNESS: No..
20 THE WITNE • was h hi school 20 BY MR. KUVIN:
21 transcript from High School. 21. . Q. The next thing, Item 28, what was that?
22 BY MR. KUVIN: .. 22. A. That was a bottle ofJoy Jelly.
23 Q. Now, it says "VALUE not" What does that• 23 Q Did you determine what that is?
24. mean? 24 MR. PIKE: Form.
25 MR. PIKE: Form. 25 THE WITNESS: It's a lubricant
Page 140 Page 142
THE WITNESS: That was written by Greg 1 MR. KUVIN: Sexual lubricant?
Parkinson, our crime scene manager, who was 2 MR. PUCE: Form.
3 filling the form as to, when we identified the •3 • THE WITNESS: That's correct
4 object we wanted to take, you would put it on . 4 BY MR. KUVIN:
5 the property receipt 5 Q. Where was that found?
6 BY MR. KUVIN: 6 A. In the credenza in the master bedroom.
7 Q. Okay. With respect to this particular 7 MR. PIKE Form.
8 transcript, was this taken by the FBI when they took' 8 BY MR. KUVIN:
9 all the evidence? 9 Q. Item 29 appears to be a bunch of
10 A. Yes. 10 videotapes?
11 MR. PIKE: Form. 11 A. Yes.
12 BY MR. KUVIN: 12 Q. There is one there called "I Love Lesbians
13 Q. Did you ever determine why her high school 13 Four." Do you see that?
14 transcript was found in Mr. Epstein's home? 14 A. Yes.
15 MR. PIKE: Form. 15 Q. Where was that found?
16 ME WITNESS: During my interview with' , 16 MR. PUCE: Form.
17 : het, she claimed that Mr. Epstein had said that 17 THE WITNESS: The master bedroom.
18. he was going to help her get into a good • 18 BY MR. KUVIN:
19. college and when she graduated to give him a 19 Q. Did you find massage tables during the
20 copy of the transcript to assist her in getting 20 search of the home?
21'. into a college. 21 MR. PIKE: Form. .
22 BY MR. KUVIN: 22 THE. WITNESS: Yes, we did. We found a
23 Q. Did the high school transcript show her 23 couple ofmassage tables.
24 date ofbirth? 24 BY MR. KUVIN:
25 MR. PIKE: Form. 25 Eyhere?
4 (Pages 139 to 142)
(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601
Electronically signed by Cynthia hopkins (601
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601 ea2a6ddb-fa81.4lf6•b3b7•dcda51494142
EFTA00298297
Page 143 Page 145
MR. PIKE: Form. 1 in any format that you felt was useful evidence for
THE WITNESS: One was in the master 2 Mr. Epstein's prosecution that was currently being
3 bedroom area. There was another one found in 3 investigated?
4 another bedroom area. There were different .4 MR. PIKE: Form.
colors. There was like a green one, a white '5 THE WITNESS: There was a CPU that was in
one, a peach one but -- 6. an office like the assistant's office.
7 BY MR. KUVIN: 7 MR. KUVIN: Okay.
8 Q. Okay. Did you, yourself, personally see 8 THE WITNESS: That was not connected. It
9 the massage tables in the home when you were-there 9 was an Older CPU which was taken to the
10. for the warrant? 10 Sheriffs Office for — to be analyzed.
11 MR. PIKE: Form. 11 MR. KUVIN: Okay.
12 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 12 THE WITNESS: They were able to retrieve
13 BY MR. KUVIN: 13 some images off that computer from that covert
14 Q. It appears that Item 34 was a number of 14 camera in the living room, in that office
15 CD's? 15 living room area.
16 A. Correct. 16 BY MR. KUVIN:
17 Q. Did you ever determine what was on them? 17 Q. And what did those images show?
18 A. Everything was viewed, some of the CD's were 18 MR. PIKE: Form.
19 empty. But at the time we didn't know, we just had to 19. THE WITNESS: It showed Mr. Epstein
20 take it and view it. 20 sitting at his desk. It was basically motion
21 Q. Items 34 through 40 on the list appears to 21 activated. When there was motion, it would
22 be a bunch of different medias such as ZIP CD's and 22 start to record. So, there was, there were
23 eight millimeter video, flash cards, ZIP CD's and 23 images of Epstein at his desk. There was
24 CD's. Did you view all those materials? 24 images of his assistant with Mr. Epstein
25 A. That is correct. 25 sitting at the desk. There were images of what
Page 144 Page 14.
1 MR. PIKE: Form. 1. I believe to be also shown as
2 BY MR. KUVIN: 2 well.
3 Q. Was there anything on these materials that 3 Again, the lighting was poor so a, I
4 are listed on here, 34 through 40, that showed any 4 couldn't positively say 100 percent, okay,
5 girls that you determined to be underage? 5 that's so-and-so. I could say that was
6 MR. PIKE: Form. 6 Mr. Epstein because I have seen Mr. Epstein. I
7 THE WITNESS: Some of the items that we 7 know what he looks like. You know I can say
8 took from the guesthouse area were determined the female did appear to be one
9 to be Janusz's, the houseman, live-in houseman, 9 of the assistants appeared to be
10 items which was returned to him once we 10 You know, that kind of thing.
11. determined that it was his. 11 BY MR. KUVIN:
12 BY MR. KUVIN: 12 Q. All right. Did you see any other girls in
13 Q. Okay. Anything else that you found on 13 that video that was on the CPU?
14 there that you felt was of value for the prosecution 14 MR. PIKE: Form.
15 of Mr. Epstein? 15 THE WITNESS: There was someone else but
16 MR. PIKE: Form. 16 just can't recall who it was.
17 BY MR. KUVIN: 17 BY MR. KUVIN:
18 Q. That you can recall. 18 Q. Where is that CPU now if you knovfl
19 MR PIKE: Same. 19 A. With the FBI.
20 THE WITNESS: From the guesthouse? 20 Q. Was there any other digital information
21 BY MR. KUVIN: 21 that was seized that you were able to see that you
22 Q. Well let me ask it this way, a little bit 22 felt was helpful in any way to the investigation?
23 broader: Based on the information that you 23 MR. PIKE: Form.
24 confiscated from the home during the warrant, search 24 THE WITNESS: Not off the computer.
25 warrant, did you find any cons uterized r nf
5 (Pages 143 to 146)
(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING'AGENCY, INC.
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601 aa2a5ddb-fa81-4116-b3b7-dcda51494142
EFTA00298298
Page 147 Page 149
1 BY MR. KUVIN: 1 BY MR. KUVIN:
2 Q. What about on any of the CD's or 2 Q. I want to come back to that fora minute.
3 flashcards that were taken? 3 How many CPU's did it appear to you were missing?
4 MR. PIKE: Form. 4 MR. PIKE: Form and speculation.
5 THE WITNESS: There was a video. It 5 THE WITNESS: There was one missing from
6 appears to be, it appears to be in the private 6 the desk area in the living room with the power
7 island of Mr. Epstein when you see a helicopter 7 cords — all the cords were there. The CPU was
8 coming in, and there was some females there gone.
9 dancing 9 MR KUVIN: Okay.
10 BY MR KUVIN: 10 THE WITNESS: There was one from the pool
11 Q. Was this on a computer format like a CD or 11 house where the cords were there, the monitor
12 a flash drive or — 12 was there, the keyboard, the mouse. The CPU
13 A.. I believe it was an — 13 was gone. I would say two.
14 Q. — an eight millimeter? 14 BY MR. KUVIN:
15 A. I might have been an — 15 Q. Okay. Did you ever come to team during
16 MR. PIKE: Form. 16 the investigation where those CPU units were?
17 THE WITNESS: Eight millimeter. 17 MR. PIKE: Form.
18 BY MR. KUVIN: 18 THE WITNESS: I believe I was told that
19 Q. Okay. Any other media information that 19 those CPUs were actually sitting in an
20 you can recall after having reviewed all of the 20 attorneys safe.
21 things that you confiscated from the home that you 21 BY MR. KUVIN:
22 found was helpful in the investigation? 22 Q. Okay. Did you come to learn that they,
23 MR. PIKE: Form. 23 that Guy Fronstin had actually taken possession of
24 THE WITNESS: Not that I can recall. 24 those? Does that refresh your recollection at all,
25 25 or was it another attorney?
Page 148 Page 150
1 BY MR. KUVIN: 1 MR. PIKE: Forst
2 Q. Now, it appears that you confiscated as 2 THE WITNESS: I was told it was Roy
3 part of the search warrant a number of CPUs and 3 Black's office that had them.
4 their power cords; is that correct? 4 BY MR. KUVIN:
5 A. Yes. 5 Q. Gotchat. All right. Let's keep going
6 MR. PIKE: Form. What page are you on? 6 here. Item 58 was another massage table that was
7 MR. KUVIN: It looks like 43 and 44. 7 taken as evidence?
8 Items 43 and 44 are the first power cords and 8 A. Correct.
' 9 CPU. Items 54 and 55 are the second power cord 9 MR_ PIKE: Form.
10 and CPU. 10 BY MR. KUVIN:
11 BY MR. KUVIN: 11 Q. You saw that massage table?
12 Q Do you recall how many CPUs you took into 12 A. Yes, sir.
13 custody? 13 Q: Okay. La look at the next page, six of
14 • A. We took a couple but obviously one of them 14 six. It says a green photograph with a naked girl.
15 was positive that it belonged to Janusz because it had 15 Do you recall where that was taken from?
16 all his personal stuff; his personal photographs of he 16 A. That was taken out of the, I believe, master
17 and his wife. So those were returned to him. 17 bedroom.
18 Q. Okay. 18 MR. PIKE: Form.
19 MR. PIKE: Form to that question. 19 BY MR. KUVIN:
20 BY MR. KUVIN: 20 ' Q. Could you tell by looking at the
21 Q You mentioned at the beginning when you 21 photograph whether it was an underage girl?
22 executed the search warrant that you felt in your 22 MR. PIKE: Form.
23. opinion the house had been sanitized because you 23 BY MR. KUVIN:
24 noticed things that appeared to be missing. 24 Q. I mean, was it a young girl, a mature
25 MR. PIKE: Form. 25 girl, old?
•••••••••••sts•n eV1---, 204aV vie lS4LS .o.,...,
6 (Pages 147 to 150 )
PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY,' INC.
Electronically signed by cynthla hopkins (601
Electronically signed by eyntiga hopkins (601
Electronically signed by cynthla hopkins (601 aa2a6ddb-fal11-4116-b3b7-dcda61494142
EFTA00298299
Page 151 Page 153
A. No, it was a young girl. 1 touched on this briefly in the beginning, but what
2 MR. PIKE: Same objection. 2 happened with the investigation once you filed the
3 THE WITNESS: Very young girl. 3 probable cause affidavit and got the warrant? At
4 BY MR. KUVIN: 4 what point did you turn it over to the State
5 Q. Could you tell the age from the photo? 5 Attorney's Office?
MR. PIKE: Form. 6 A. Once I filed the arrest warrant for
.7 THE WITNESS: Younger than ten. 7 Mr. Epstein, there were actually three warrant requests
8 BY MR. KUVIN: to be honest with you. There was a warrant raLmt for
Q. Could you find any photographs of girls 9 Je in, I want to say =, and
10 that were victims during the investigation? Did you 10
11 find any photographs of girls that were victims 11 Q. Okay. What happened with those arrest
12 during the investigation? 12 warrants for all three of them?
13 MR. PIKE: FOUR 13 MR. PIKE: Form.
14 THE WITNESS: There were photographs taken 14 THE WITNESS: Once they were turned over
15 during the search warrant, topless females that 15 to the State Attorney's office, I was notified
16 were taken. But no, I did not locate one of 16 several days later that they were going to be
17 the victims in the photos. 17 requesting a grand jury to listen to the case.
18 MR. KUVIN: Okay. If we look at what 18 BY MR. KUVIN:
19 we'll mark as Exhibit 5, appears to be a 19 Q. Okay. And did a grand jury hear the case
20 supplement of the chain of custody log. two 20 as far as you know?
21 pages. Make sure I have got it. Ifs three 21 A. Eventually they did.
22 pages actually. 22 Q. And do you know what occurred after the
23 (Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 5 was marked for 23 grand jury heard the case?
24 identification.) 24 MR. PIKE: Form.
25 25 THE WITNESS: It was true bill.
Page 152 Page 154
1 BY MR. KUVIN: 1 BY MR. KUVIN:
2 Q. We have got what appears to be a four-page Against?
3 document which happens to be called a chain of 3 A. Mr. Epstein.
4 custody. I just have a couple quick questions about 4 Q Just for people that may not know what a
5 this. 5 true bill is, can you explain briefly what that
If you would look at the last entry in the 6 means?
7 • chain of custody, I just wanted to coafum where all 7 A. Grand jury found sufficient evidence to charge
8 the evidence went according to the documentation. 8 Mr. Epstein.
9 A. Everything went TOT, to the FBI. 9 Q What was he charged with?
10 Q. I am sorry, what were the initials? 10 MR. PIKE: Form.
11 A. TOT. THE WITNESS: I think it was, it was a
12 Q. What does that mean? 12 procurement for prosecution.
13 A. Given to the FBI. 13 BY MR. KUVIN: ' .
14 Q Okay. So the chain of custody which we 14 Q. Have to do with minors?
15 have marked as Exhibit 5 shows that all the evidence 15 A. Yes.
16 you had in this case was given over to the FBI; is 16 MR. PIKE: Form.
17 that correct? 17 BY MR. KUVIN:
18 MR. PIKE: Form. 18 Q All right. After the execution of the
19 THE WITNESS: The items that were returned 19 search warrant, your investigation continued; is
20 to Janusz were returned to Janusz (sic). The 20 that correct?
21 items that were not returned were given to the 21 A. Correct
22 FBI. 22 Q. And during the investigation, did you have
23 BY MR. KUVIN: 23 occasion to speak with or meet with a gentleman by
24 Q. Okay. Great. All right. Ultimately what 24 the name of Juan Alessi?
25 happened with respect to the investigation, and I 25 A. Juan Alessi, yes.
7 (Pages 151 to 154)
PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601 aa2a5ddbifa81-4116-b3b7-dcda51494142
EFTA00298300
Page 155 Page 157
1 Q. Who was that? 1 THE W/TNESS: No.
2 A. He was the former houseman of Mr. Epstein. 2 BY MR. KUVIN:
3 MR. PIKE: Form. 3 Q. Narrative 18, it looks like you matte
4 BY MR. KUVIN: 4 telephone contact with another white, looks like WF,
5 Q. Did he give you information that you felt 5 I assume it means white female, on November 8. Do
6 was helpful in the prosecution of Mr. Epstein? 6 you recall which girl that may have been?
7 MR. PIKE: Form. 7 MR. PIKE: Form.
8 THE WITNESS: He described, he described 8 BY MR. KUVIN:
9 washing off the vibrator massagers after the 9 Q. Let me ask it this way: Was this a
10 massage incidents. He recalled having young 10 recounting of the incident with Ms. Jane Doe No.
11. girls coming in to do the massages. 11 103?
12 BY MR. KUVIN: 12 A. No.
13 Q. Did he mention that he, whether he 13 Q. This is a different girl?
14 witnessed that? 14 A. Ibis is a different girl.
15 MR. PIKE: Move to strike witness's last 15 MR. PACE: Form to both questions.
16 statement pending hearsay and form. 16 THE WITNESS: This was a different girl
17 Mr. Kuvin, next question if he has 17 and I am trying to remember who it was.
18 completed it. 18 BY MR. KUVIN:
19 BY MR KUVIN: 19 Q. Do you recall the name M?
20 Q. Did he mention whether or not he had 20 A. Yes.
21 witnessed young girls coming to the house? 21 Q. Is that who this was?
22 MR. PIKE: Same objection. 22 MR. PIKE: Form.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes. 23 THE WITNESS: Yes, it was.
24 BY MR. KUVIN: 24 BY MR. KUVIN:
25 Q. If we look back at the incident report 25 Q. Okay. And apparently she had reported
Page 156 Page 158
1 Page 47 — got it there — it looks like you made 1 sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein?
2 contact, telephone contact with another girl on 2 A. That is correct.
3 November 7 of 2005, and took another taped 3 MR. PIKE: Form, leading.
4 statement, sworn taped statement. Can you determine 4 BY MR. KUVIN:
by looking at your swnmary there in Narrative 16 of 5 Q. Did she report any sexual contact with
6 November 7,2005, which girl that was? 6 Mr. Epstein?
7 MR. PIKE: Form. 7 A. Yes, she did.
8 THE WITNESS: I believe that was■ 8 Q. What type?
9 MR. KUVIN: 9. MR. PIKE: Form.
10 THE WITNESS: 10 THE WI NESS: She was paid to have vaginal
BY MR. KUVIN: 11 intercourse.
11
12 Q. Do you recall wha.s state of mind or 12 MR. PIKE: Form, move to strike.
13 emotional condition was when she spoke to you about 13 BY MR. KUVIN:
14 this event? 14 Q. Did you determine how old she was when she
15 MR. PIKE: Form. 15 reported having this vaginal intercourse with
16 THE WITNESS: I can't recall. 16 Mr. Epstein?
17 BY MR. KUVIN: 17 MR. PIKE: Form.
18 Q. Let's take a look at Narrative 17. It 18 THE WITNESS: Sixteen years of age.
19 looks like you made contact with someone else, you 19 MR. PIKE: Spencer, can you hold on?
20 along with Detective Dawson made contact with 20 MR. KUVIN: Yes, sir.
21 somebody and left a business card at the front door. 21 MR. PIKE: Letts go off the record for a
22 Do you see that? 22 second.
23 A. Yes. Yes,' do see it. 23 (A discussion was held off the record.)
24 Q. Do you recall which girl that was? 24 MS. EZELL: If I could interject, I was
25 MR. PIKE: Form. 25 fumblin on mute and I wanted to move to strike
•••••••••••••
8 (Pages 155 to 158)
PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
Electronically signed by cynthla hopkins (601
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601
Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601 aa2a6ddb•fa81-4ff6•b3b7-dcda51494142
EFTA00298301
Page 159 Page I(_
1 the witness's comment that she was paid to have 1 MR. PIKE: Form.
2 vaginal intercourse with Mr. Epstein. 2 BY MR. KUVIN:
3 MR. KUVIN: Okay. 3 Q. Does she describe whether or not she had
4 BY MR. KUVIN: 4 gone to Mr. Epstein's home?
5 Q. Do you recall the demeanor ofM when 5 A. Yes.
6 she was recounting this for you? 6 MR. PIKE: Form.
7 MR. PIKE: Form. 7 BY MR. KUVIN:
8 BY MR. KUVIN: 8 Q. Did she describe whether or not she
9 Q. Was she upset, calm? How did she appear brought anyone with her during that time?
10 to you? 10 MR. PIKE: Form.
11 MR. PIKE: Form. 11 THE WITNESS: If I can read —
12 THE WITNESS: She did — I recall her 12 MR. KUVIN: Yes. You can refer back to it
13 being upset, talking to me. Occasionally 13 if you need to.
14 crying. It wasn't like a hysterical cry but MR. PIKE: For the record you're referring
15 she was visibly upset 15 back to Exhibit 1, correct?
16 BY MR. KUVIN: 16 THE WITNESS: Correct. Yes, she did.
17 Q. Okay. Do you recall Ms. Ms date of 17 BY MR. KUVIN:
18 birth? 18 Q. Okay. Now, if we look at Page 16 of 22
19 A. Not off the top of my head. 19 there with respect to Ms.■ it mentions
20 MR. KUVIN: All right. Let me see if I 20 something about a Christmas bonus. Do you see that?
21 can help you here. It looks like we have an 21 A. Yes.
22 unredacted copy of the PC affidavit That will 22 Q Can you explain to us what she told you
23 help. This document will remain sealed 23 about that?
24 pursuant to all previous agreements in the case 24 MR. PIKE: Form.
25 with respect to any documents that we referred 25 THE WITNESS: She received a wire, a
Page 160 Page 162
to. 1 Western Union wire to what she referred to as a
2 THE WITNESS: That's Exhibit 1? 2 Christmas bonus.
3 MIt KUVIN: Bingo. Do you have a copy? 3 Q. Who did it come from?
4 MR. PIKE: Than
DataSet-10
Unknown
8 pages
From: ' [=.
To: a" . NY) (FBI)" <1
Cc: " '' 1 II
,
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Discovery questions
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 22:22:08 +0000
Hey —
Any update from CART on the paperwork, please?
I'm working through the other stuff and will give you a call if I have more questions.
Thanks,
From: (NY) (FBI) < >
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 4:21 PM
To: >; <
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery questions
We are working on exporting and copying over the images to a drive today to get over to you. It's taking a while to
transfer, but it is processing. When is someone in the office next that we can drop off to one of you?
Still working on CART.
We were not able to play the GJ audio files either. We tried a couple different programs. We can see if someone can
attempt to recover it.
The scans all came from Reiter who said he took possession of them after passed...these were all turned over in
hard copy form to us and scanned.
"Items from Reiter-disks"
• The ones that were empty are empty disks but were labeled as labeled in the folder
• All of these are from JE residence and were copies of PBPD property. Are there ones in particular that you noticed
don't seem to be from JE investigation?
From:
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 10:49 PM
To: (NY) (FBI) 4: >; )
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: (EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Discovery questions
Hi
EFTA00079380
Thanks again so much for getting these materials to us. I've got a few follow up questions on discovery issues below. Feel
free to give me a call to talk through these if that's easier.
• Any update on the status of the scanning and disc reviews?
• Any update from CART on the paperwork?
• I'm a bit confused about some of the files on the thumb drive you provided:
o None of the audio files in the folder entitled "Grand Jury Testimony 7.19.06" are playing for me. Are you
able to play them?
o In the folder entitled "Additional scans PBPD" and the folder entitled "Scans from reiter" — where did these
documents come from?
o In the folder entitled "Items from Reiter — disks" — There are a bunch of subfolders that seem empty or to
have files that have nothing to do with the Epstein investigation, or that won't open. Can you let me know
where these came from and what they are?
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
l St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From: (NY) (FBI)
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 6:17 PM
To:
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery questions
Hey all,
Just wanted to send a quick email to detail what is being given today. There is a box of media, including VHS, cassette,
and microcassettes, and newspaper articles that were provided by Reiter.
On the thumbdrive is a spreadsheet outlining what is included; items highlighted in blue are included. You will notice a
comment "see disk tracking spreadsheet" in items not highlighted; this spreadsheet will be included in the disk copies we
send over that will detail how many images total and how many removed.
There are loose disks which include 1B evidence scans, 1D1-1D5 evidence items, LSJ 3D imaging, and the FBI file.
Separately, we will keep you updated as we continue to work on the redactions and will let you know as soon as we finish
with the disks.
Let us know you have any questions.
EFTA00079381
Special Agent
FBI New York Field Office
Child Exploitation/Human Trafficking
C:
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:43 PM
To:
Cc: (NY) (FBI) <1. 1>;
(USANYS)
Subject: (EXTERNAL EMAIL] - Re: Discovery questions
I'll be in the office tomorrow.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 19, 2020, at 8:18 PM, )< > wrote:
Great, thanks very much. I'm not in the office right now, but hopefully someone from the team can grab these. If not, I
can find a paralegal to take them.
From: • (N1(FBI) ca
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 7:24 PM
To:
Cc: (USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery questions
Sure no problem. I can bring those over tomorrow as well.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 7:22 PM
To: (NY) (FBI)
Cc: (USANYS)
Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Discovery questions
Perfect, thanks! Yes, I think we should take the vhs tapes and microcassettes to get them converted, if that's ok.
From: • (N1(FBI) 'c l>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 7:20 PM
To:
Cc: (USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery questions
That sounds great. Thank you. We are definitely open to them scheduling a time if need be.
I will check in with CART again and get back to you.
EFTA00079382
As far as the paper evidence and case file, we can drop that off to your office sometime tomorrow evening. Just working
on putting it all on a disk/thumbdrive for you. Also, FYI, included in the boxes from Reiter are vhs tapes and
microcassettes. Would you like us to turn these over to you as well? Let me know your thoughts on this.
Thanks!
From: <
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 7:01 PM
To: (NY) (FBI)
Cc: (USANYS)
Subject: (EXTERNAL EMAIL) - RE: Discovery questions
Thank you so much for these —very helpful (and sorry I didn't realize the message pad scans also had the same pages
without post-its!)
On these:
• Yes, please send over the copy of the gj transcript disc when you can.
• Found the original scans from the FL file—thank you!
• Yes, please get us the paper evidence from NY, VI, and Reiter as soon as you can.
• We'll take the FBI file whenever you can get it to our office.
• My understanding from past FBI cases is that CART completes some sort of paperwork documenting the dates on
which they conduct data extractions. We need that for all of the extractions in this case, please (It may not be
302s).
• On the evidence from disks, understood. In order to give you more time, we are going to tell the defense
attorneys that the materials are available for them to review in-person if they want to schedule a time to come
down to the FBI office, but that in the meantime we are still working on getting copies of non-nude images to
produce to them.
From: . (NY) (FBI) •c >
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 2:21 PM
To: c
c >
Cc: (USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery questions
Hey all, below is a summary of the discovery items you've requested.
Message Pad Scans: The message pads were scanned with the post it notes on them and the very next page is the page
without the post it note, so the pages are back to back.
Papers from Miami case file (grand jury testimony): This is a disk — I can copy it and send it over to you.
Evidence scans: Are you referring to the scans from the FL file? We sent those over with the original message pad scans
last year. If you need that again, let us know and we can get another copy over to you. As far as paper evidence from
EFTA00079383
the NY and VI searches, and the paper provided by Reiter, we can get that over to you by the end of the week.
FBI file: We have that ready for you.
CART: There are no 302s regarding the extraction of devices.
Evidence from disks: This is a large volume and we've been working on this and removing nude/semi nude images. This
is the only thing that would be difficult to complete by Friday. If we could have a little more time to pull this together,
that would be very helpful.
If it's helpful to talk through some of this via phone, we are happy to do that as well.
Special Agent -
FBI New York Field Office
Child Exploitation/Human Trafficking
C:
From: <
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 6:41 PM
)
Cc: (NY) (FBI) < >-,
(USANYS)
Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Discovery questions
Thanks so much, M. Really appreciate all the work you and are putting in on this. Let's touch base tomorrow
to figure out the timeline for the discovery issues.
From: <
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 6:40 PM
To: <
Cc: (NY) (FBI) >;
(USANYS) c
Subject: Re: Discovery questions
Hey guys,
Apologies but today I was out In the field on surveillance and was also out of the office so we've not
been able to connect on these discovery questions. We will be back in the office tomorrow and will dive into
this as best we can. We have several calls tomorrow, one of which is with Tony Figuero but well do our best to
get on this list. That being said I don't want to make you any promises that everything will be compiled by
tomorrow and that we will have an answer to all of your questions but we can jump on a call tomorrow if you
like to square some of this away.
I did receive your "pages from Miami_case_docs" PDF.
EFTA00079384
Detective
NYPD / FBI
Child Exploitation Human Trafficking Task Force
Office:
Cell:
Fax:
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 6:03 PM
To:
Cc: (NY) (FBI) < >',
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery questions
Hi and
Sorry to pester, but would you be able to let us know whether it is realistic to expect that you'll be able to get us these
materials tomorrow or Thursday?
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 4:41 PM
To:
Cc: (NY) (FBI) < >;
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery questions
Hi and
The drive you provided us has some scans on it (looks like they're scans of the message pads). As I recall, there was a
larger scanning project, during which the FBI scanned all of the paper that was vouchered in evidence. Are you able to
provide us with all of those scans this week?
With respect to the message pads in particular, I think you mentioned that they were scanned both with post-it notes on
them and also without the post-it notes. The version on this drive just looks like it has the post-it note scans.
Thanks,
From: <
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 4:45 AM
Cc: (NY) (FBI)
'c e; (USANYS) <
Subject: RE: Discovery questions
EFTA00079385
Sorry, got a bounceback for too. I'm just attaching the one page I referenced in my email below. Hopefully that
will go through.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 4:40 AM
Cc: (NY) (FBI) ;
(USANYS)
Subject: FW: Discovery questions
I got a bounceback from your account for the below email because the attachment was too big. Hopefully it went
through for so she can see it. If not, please let me know.
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 4:33 AM
(NY) (FBI) < >
Cc: < =>;
(USANYS)
Subject: Discovery questions
Hi and
Thanks so much for your help with the Maxwell discovery so far. I have some follow-up questions about the most recent
batch you provided, and wanted to check in on the longer term tasks we discussed last month.
Below are some questions regarding the discovery dropped off a few days ago with requests for additional items:
• The last page of the attached appears to be a photograph of a disc. The label on the disc seems to suggest it
contains grand jury transcripts. Have you given us those transcripts?
• The message pad scans you provided still have post-it notes on top of several of the message pad pages. I think
mentioned that each pad had been scanned twice, but I'm only seeing one copy of each pad—and those
copies all of post-its on them. That's true of nearly every "Notebook" pdf you provided in the "Message pad
scans" folder. Would you please get us a scans of these without post-its on them?
• It looks like we're still missing SW returns for the 20 mag 6719 warrant and for the NH premises warrant.
Would you please get us copies of those returns?
Following up on our conversation last month, I think we're still waiting on the below items from you guys. Would you
please be able to get us these this week?
• Full FBI sentinel file
• CART paperwork regarding the extraction of data from all devices seized during the investigation
• All 302s regarding the extraction of data from any seized devices and the review of images (both digital and
hard copy) seized during the investigation, including from Epstein's properties.
• Scans of the files Reiter provided to the FBI and provide us with all of those scanned materials
• Scans of all hard copy documents, including photos, in the possession of the FBI that have not yet been
scanned, including anything seized during any searches. Please produce to SDNY all of those scans, except any
nude or partially nude images. For nude or partially nude images, please provide us with a log detailing how
many such images were scanned, where they were from, and where they are being stored.
EFTA00079386
• Copies of the contents of all the discs that were seized and searched pursuant to search warrants to a platform
for review. Then please produce to SDNY a copy all of those materials, except any nude or partially nude
images. For nude or partially nude images, please provide us with a log detailing how many such images were
located, where they were from, and where they are being stored.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if it would be useful to hop on a call.
Thanks very much,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
I St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00079387
giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
69 pages
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 55-21 Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 69
EXHIBIT 13
PART 1
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 55-21 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 69
Page 1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
2
3 JANE DOE NO. 2, Case No: 08-CV-80119
4 Plaintiff,
5 Vs
6 JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
7 Defendant.
___________________/
8
JANE DOE NO. 3, Case NO: 08-CV-80232
9
Plaintiff,
10 Vs
11 JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
12 Defendant.
___________________/
13
JANE DOE NO. 4, Case No: 08-CV-80380
14
Plaintiff,
15
Vs.
16
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
17
Defendant.
18 ___________________/
19 JANE DOE NO. 5, Case No: 08-CV-80381
20 Plaintiff,
21 Vs
22 JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
23 Defendant.
___________________/
24
25
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 55-21 Filed 03/14/16 Page 3 of 69
Page 2 Page 4
1 JANE DOE NO. 6, Case No: 08-CV-80994 1 VIDEOTAPED
2 Plaintiff, 2 DEPOSITION
3 Vs 3 of
4 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 4 ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ
5 Defendant. 5
___________________/ 6 taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs pursuant
6 7 to a Re-Notice of Taking Deposition (Duces Tecum)
JANE DOE NO. 7, Case No. 08-CV-80993 8
7 9 ---
Plaintiff, 10 APPEARANCES:
8 11
Vs MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A.
9 12 BY: STUART MERMELSTEIN, ESQ.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 18205 Biscayne Boulevard
10
13 Suite 2218
Defendant.
Miami, Florida 33160
11 ___________________/
14 Attorney for Jane Doe 2, 3, 4, 5,
12 C.M.A., Case No: 08-CV-80811
6, and 7.
13 Plaintiff,
15
14 Vs
15 JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
16 ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER
16 Defendant. BY: BRAD J. EDWARDS, ESQ., and
___________________/ 17 CARA HOLMES, ESQ.
17 Las Olas City Centre
JANE DOE, Case No: 08-CV-80893 18 Suite 1650
18 401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Plaintiff, 19 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
19 Attorney for Jane Doe and E.W.
Vs 20 And L.M.
20 21
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, PODHURST ORSECK
21 22 BY: KATHERINE W. EZELL
Defendant. 25 West Flagler Street
22 ___________________/ 23 Suite 800
23 Miami, Florida 33130
24 24 Attorney for Jane Doe 101 and 102.
25 25
Page 3 Page 5
1 JANE DOE NO. II, Case No: 08-CV-80469 1
2 Plaintiff, APPEARANCES:
3 Vs 2
3 LEOPOLD-KUVIN
4 JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
ADAM J. LANGINO, ESQ.
5 Defendant. 4 2925 PGA Boulevard
___________________/ Suite 200
6 5 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
JANE DOE NO. 101, Case No: 09-CV-80591 Attorney for B.B.
7 6
Plaintiff, 7 RICHARD WILLITS, ESQ.
8 2290 10th Avenue North
Vs 8 Suite 404
Lake Worth, Florida 33461
9
9 Attorney for C.M.A.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 10
10 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER &
Defendant. 11 COLEMAN, LLP
11 ___________________/ BY: ROBERT CRITTON, ESQ.
12 JANE DOE NO. 102, Case No: 09-CV-80656 12 515 North Flagler Drive
13 Plaintiff, Suite 400
14 Vs 13 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein.
15 JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
14
16 Defendant. 15
___________________/ 16
17 ALSO PRESENT:
18 17
19 JOE LANGSAM, VIDEOGRAPHER
20 1031 Ives Dairy Road 18
Suite 228 19
- - -
21 North Miami, Florida
20
July 29, 2009
21
22 11:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 55-21 Filed 03/14/16 Page 4 of 69
Page 6 Page 8
1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION 1 Doe right here on the copy you gave me. I'm
2 2 missing which Jane Doe this is.
WITNESS DIRECT CROSS
3
3 They're all different case numbers. Do
ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ 4 you want me to go through each case number?
4 5 MR. CRITTON: I'm going to note my
(By Mr. Mermelstein) 12 6 objection. Obviously if this deposition
5 7 gets played -- not obviously, I'm going to
(By Mr. Edwards) 157
6
8 object to the litany of each one so I don't
(By Mr. Langino) 260 9 know how we can separate it out. Maybe if
7 10 and when at the time of trial and depending
8 11 on how the Court determines what comes in
9 12 and what doesn't with regard to the
10 INDEX OF EXHIBITS
11 EXHIBITS PAGE
13 consolidated aspects of this. I have no
12 1 Message pad 72 14 great idea other than just saying Jane Doe
13 2 Documents 115 15 versus Epstein, et al, or something like
14 16 that, or Jane Doe, et al.
15 17 MS. EZELL: Couldn't we just say and
16
17
18 those cases which have been consolidated
18 19 with it for Discovery purposes?
19 20 MR. EDWARDS: Although there is cases
20 21 here that have cross noticed this from state
21 22 court that haven't been consolidated so that
22
23
23 may not work. You may have to read them
24 24 all, if it works out your way that will just
25 25 get edited out, at least he will have read
Page 7 Page 9
1 Deposition taken before MICHELLE PAYNE, Court 1 that caption, every caption. Right? Is
2 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of 2 there a better suggestion?
3 Florida at Large, in the above cause. 3 MR. CRITTON: No. There may be a better
4 - - - 4 suggestion if he starts this is such and
5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the case of 5 such day, it's the deposition of Mr.
6 Jane Doe No. 2, plaintiff, versus Jeffrey 6 Rodriguez in the case such and such, and we
7 Epstein, defendant. Jane Doe No. 3, 7 can almost fill it in depending on which
8 plaintiff, versus Jeffrey Epstein, 8 tape it goes, how it fills in, at least
9 defendant. Jane Doe No. 4, plaintiff, 9 we'll have the context of the first and
10 versus Jeffrey Epstein, defendant. And Jane 10 depending on whether the Judge reads it in
11 Doe No. 5, plaintiff, versus Jeffrey 11 from a consolidated or they all come
12 Epstein, defendant. Jane Doe No. 6, 12 related, I have no great idea.
13 plaintiff, versus Jeffrey Epstein, 13 MR. EDWARDS: I was thinking if he read
14 defendant. Jane Doe No. 7, plaintiff, 14 every one of them and it was the seventh in
15 versus Jeffrey Epstein, defendant. CMA, 15 line then you just would edit it so you
16 plaintiff, versus Jeffrey Epstein, 16 would only read that one.
17 defendant. And Jane Doe, plaintiff, versus 17 MR. CRITTON: I'm okay with that too.
18 Jeffrey Epstein, et al, defendant. And Jane 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On page number three
19 Doe -- is there a shorter thing that we can 19 there is something missing on the top here.
20 do here? It's also missing this one right 20 Do you want me to read each case number
21 here. 21 separately?
22 MR. MERMELSTEIN: Do we have a problem 22 MR. MERMELSTEIN: I don't think it's
23 with saying Jane Doe 2 and the Epstein and 23 necessary.
24 related cases? 24 MR. EDWARDS: I don't think it's
25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I'm missing this Jane 25 necessary either.
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 55-21 Filed 03/14/16 Page 5 of 69
Page 10 Page 12
1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: So just go through 1 Jeffrey Epstein.
2 just the names. 2 MR. WILLITS: Richard Willits on behalf
3 MR. MERMELSTEIN: That's sufficient. And 3 of plaintiff C.M.A.
4 there is a cross notice for one of the state 4 MR. EDWARDS: And Brad Edwards on behalf
5 cases? 5 of plaintiffs E.W. and L.M.
6 MR. LANGINO: That would be our case. 6 Thereupon,
7 MR. MERMELSTEIN: So he's got that 7 ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ,
8 notice? Off the record. 8 having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was
9 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the 9 examined and testified as follows:
10 record.) 10 DIRECT EXAMINATION
11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the case of 11 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
12 Jane Doe No. 2, plaintiff, versus Jeffrey 12 Q. Can you state your full name for the
13 Epstein, defendant. Jane Doe No. 3, 13 record, please?
14 plaintiff, versus Jeffrey Epstein, 14 A. My name is Alfredo Rodriguez.
15 defendant. Jane Doe No. 4, plaintiff, 15 Q. And where do you live?
16 versus Jeffrey Epstein, defendant. Jane Doe 16 A. I live in Kendall, 11349 Southwest 86
17 No. 5, plaintiff, versus Jeffrey Epstein, 17 Lane, Miami, Florida 33173.
18 defendant. Jane Doe No. 6, plaintiff, 18 Q. Are you currently employed?
19 versus Jeffrey Epstein, defendant. Jane Doe 19 A. No.
20 No. 7, plaintiff, versus Jeffrey Epstein, 20 Q. Okay. When was the last time you were
21 defendant. CMA, plaintiff, versus Jeffrey 21 employed?
22 Epstein, defendant. Jane Doe, plaintiff, 22 A. December of 2008.
23 versus Jeffrey Epstein, et al, defendant. 23 Q. Was there a time you were employed in
24 Jane Doe 3, plaintiff, versus Jeffrey 24 Palm Beach, Florida?
25 Epstein, et al, defendant. Jane Doe No. 25 A. Yes, I was.
Page 11 Page 13
1 101, plaintiff, versus Jeffrey Epstein, 1 Q. When was that?
2 defendant. Jane Doe No. 102, plaintiff, 2 A. I began on September of 2004.
3 versus Jeffrey Epstein defendant. B.B., 3 Q. And where were you employed?
4 plaintiff, versus Jeffrey Epstein, 4 A. I work -- well, I have several employers
5 defendant. 5 in Palm Beach. One of them was Jeffrey Epstein.
6 This is in the Circuit Court of the 15th 6 Q. By several employers in Palm Beach you
7 Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach 7 mean --
8 County, Florida. 8 A. Different employers.
9 This is the deposition of Alfredo 9 Q. At the same time?
10 Rodriguez. Today is July the 29th, starting 10 A. No, different times. From 2005 to 2006 I
11 time -- the year 2009, starting time 11 was employed by Dana Hammond.
12 approximately 11:16 a.m. 12 Q. Donna Hammond?
13 Will attorneys please state their 13 A. D-A-N-A, Hammond. Or Aimes is her single
14 appearance? 14 name. Dana Aimes Hammond.
15 MR. MERMELSTEIN: Stuart Mermelstein for 15 Q. Dana Aimes Hammond?
16 plaintiffs Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 16 A. Yeah.
17 4, Jane Doe 5, and Jane Doe 6, and Jane Doe 17 Q. That was in Palm Beach?
18 7. 18 A. Yes.
19 MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards for plaintiff 19 Q. And in September 2004 you were employed
20 Jane Doe. 20 by whom?
21 MR. LANGINO: Adam Langino on behalf of 21 A. Jeffrey Epstein.
22 plaintiff, B.B. 22 Q. Did Mr. Epstein employ you as an
23 MS. EZELL: Cathy Ezell on behalf of Jane 23 individual or through any business or corporate
24 Doe 101 and 102. 24 entity?
25 MR. CRITTON: Bob Critton on behalf of 25 A. As an individual.
4 (Pages 10 to 13)
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 55-21 Filed 03/14/16 Page 6 of 69
Page 14 Page 16
1 Q. And what was your position with Jeffrey 1 A. I moved to Florida in 1996.
2 Epstein? 2 Q. Between 1996 and 2006 when you started to
3 A. I was the household manager. 3 work for Mr. Epstein did you have household
4 Q. And what does the household manager do? 4 management jobs in that period?
5 A. Oversees all aspects of the maintenance 5 A. On and off, yes, in Fisher Island,
6 of the estate, payroll of the gardeners, 6 Florida.
7 scheduling staff and security, food, coordinating 7 Q. Fisher Island?
8 activities with the chef, and pilots, etc. 8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. I'm sorry, what was the last one? 9 Q. I take it that Barbara Goldberg
10 A. Activities with the pilots. 10 specializes in placing employees for wealthy
11 Q. Oh pilots. 11 households?
12 A. Yes. 12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What kind of activities do you coordinate 13 Q. Did you know Mr. Epstein before you began
14 with the pilots? 14 to work for him?
15 A. What time Mr. Epstein will arrive, how 15 A. No.
16 many cars will I need and so on and so forth. 16 Q. Did you interview with him?
17 Q. Was there a particular place that you 17 A. Yes, I did.
18 were employed? 18 Q. And what did the interview entail?
19 A. Yeah, I was employed by 358 El Brillo 19 A. He asked me what I did before, and he
20 Way. 20 wanted to know where my capabilities of running
21 Q. Did you have any other duties other than 21 his estate, and what was my salary potentials, we
22 what you've mentioned? 22 discuss the time he was going to be in the Island,
23 A. Driving. Well, I used to prepare coffee 23 et cetera.
24 for Mr. Epstein every morning, 6:30 in the 24 Q. What did he tell you at that time as to
25 morning. Other than that is little problems 25 the time he was going to be in the Island?
Page 15 Page 17
1 arise, you know, the maintenance, the 1 A. He will say he will be traveling on and
2 electricians, I have to deal with the contractors 2 off, and like when he's in the Island he needs a
3 on a daily basis. 3 lot of attention but when he's off I will be more
4 Q. Now, what is located at 358 El Brillo Way 4 relaxed.
5 in Palm Beach? 5 MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry, Stuart, I'm
6 A. It's called the estate section of Palm 6 missing some of this just because the noise
7 Beach. It's off North Ocean Boulevard. 7 on the other end of Richard's phone.
8 Q. So is it a single-family residence? 8 Richard, do you have a mute or anything?
9 A. Yes, it is. 9 MR. WILLITS: I'm sorry?
10 Q. When you say you were a household 10 MR. EDWARDS: Do you have a mute or
11 manager, you were managing that residence? 11 anything? We're getting a lot of noise
12 A. Yes, sir. 12 coming out of the phone.
13 Q. And how did you come about obtaining this 13 MR. WILLITS: I'm sorry.
14 position as household manager? 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Do you want to go off
15 A. Through an employment agency. 15 the record?
16 Q. Do you know which employment agency it 16 MR. EDWARDS: Sure.
17 was? 17 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the
18 A. Barbara Goldberg. She has an agency 18 record.)
19 called Regal Domestics. 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the
20 Q. Had you worked in household services 20 record.
21 before September of '04? 21 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
22 A. Yes. 22 Q. So Mr. Epstein told you that when he
23 Q. Did you work in Palm Beach before that? 23 wasn't there you would be more relaxed but when he
24 A. Long Island. 24 was there it would be more intense, I assume?
25 Q. When did you move from Long Island? 25 A. Yes.
5 (Pages 14 to 17)
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 55-21 Filed 03/14/16 Page 7 of 69
Page 18 Page 20
1 Q. And how often did he indicate he would be 1 A. We have guests that particular day and
2 in Palm Beach? 2 arrange, coordinate with the chef if I have to go
3 A. He will say once a month, like two weeks 3 buy the groceries, gas the cars. That was a
4 out of the month, something like that. This is a 4 routine everyday. Relay instructions to the
5 long time ago so I'm trying to remember the words. 5 housekeepers and the gardeners and the pool
6 Q. That's all right. You can only answer to 6 people. Arrange meals. This was done by the chef
7 the extent that you recall the information that's 7 but I was trying to be sure Mr. Epstein was fed at
8 asked for in the question. 8 his lunch time. And then of course through the
9 By the way, have you had your deposition 9 day he will give me instructions.
10 taken before? 10 Q. So he would give you instructions himself
11 A. I was subpoena by the State Attorney in 11 personally?
12 Palm Beach but not here. 12 A. Secretary.
13 Q. Did you give a transcribed statement to 13 Q. Okay. Now, let's go through who the
14 the State Attorney? 14 household staff was at the time that you started.
15 A. I believe it was recorded. I don't know 15 Who would you say worked under your
16 with this method but it was recorded. 16 supervision as the household manager?
17 Q. With a tape machine? 17 A. It was a Filipino lady by the name of
18 A. Yeah. 18 Louella. I don't recall her last name.
19 Q. Now, after you were interviewed did he 19 Q. Louella Rabuyo?
20 give you the job on the spot or did he call you 20 A. Yes, exactly, yes.
21 afterward? 21 Q. What did she do?
22 A. He hired me on the spot. 22 A. She would be the housekeeper in charge of
23 Q. What was your salary? 23 the laundry, cleaning the household, everything
24 A. 55,000. 24 inside the house.
25 Q. And when did you start to work for him? 25 Q. And who else?
Page 19 Page 21
1 A. I believe it was the last week of August 1 A. Jerome. Jerome Pierre was the gardener.
2 of 2004. 2 Q. And he was full-time?
3 Q. Now, I take it your day to day job duties 3 A. Full-time, yes.
4 were different from when he was there to when he 4 Q. Who else?
5 wasn't there. Correct? 5 A. And then we have a young lady who used to
6 A. Yes. 6 take care of the pool but I don't recall her name
7 Q. Let's take a day when he's there. What 7 right now. She used to come three times a week,
8 would your -- what would be your routine, what 8 sometimes four times. Most every day we used to
9 would your day entail? 9 have John Cassidy air conditioner came to the
10 A. Well, coffee at 6:30 in the morning. 10 house because it's hot and it's humid. What
11 Check the cars, you know, see -- he like the 11 contractor that's almost on a daily basis there.
12 cabana to be in his computer, I would be sure that 12 Q. Because there was problems with the air
13 the cabana was clean and, you know, tidy. 13 conditioner?
14 Q. I'm sorry, what does that have to do with 14 A. Well, the house is big, and all the house
15 the computer? 15 in Palm Beach need constant attention.
16 A. He would like to work in the cabana so I 16 Q. Okay.
17 would pay attention to that. 17 A. That's the full -- and the chef, David, I
18 Q. So he would go to the computer in the 18 can't remember his last name.
19 cabana and you would make sure that the cabana was 19 Q. Was it Mullen?
20 clean? 20 A. I don't recall, sir, right now.
21 A. Yes, sir. 21 Q. Muller. But his first name was David?
22 Q. So he had coffee at 6:30 a.m. Did he 22 A. David, yes.
23 start working immediately after that? 23 Q. Was there a butler as well?
24 A. Yes. 24 A. Well, I used to double as household
25 Q. Continue. What did you do then? 25 manager slash butler.
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 55-21 Filed 03/14/16 Page 8 of 69
Page 22 Page 24
1 Q. Was there a Michael Liffman that was 1 garlic, maybe something like that, you know,
2 hired as a butler at some point? 2 personal things.
3 A. That was before me. 3 Q. You mentioned Ms. Maxwell?
4 Q. Okay. Who was the household manager 4 A. Yes.
5 before you? 5 Q. Who is she?
6 A. I understand there were several in one 6 A. She was her companion.
7 year. There was Mike Friedman, there is Joe 7 Q. Whose companion?
8 Alessi. There was a couple of Filipino girls -- 8 A. Mr. Epstein.
9 no, they were from Bangladesh. I can't remember. 9 Q. By companion what do you mean?
10 I used to send his -- I used to forward his mail 10 A. Well, in the beginning I assume they were
11 to Maryland but I can't recall right now, sir. 11 husband and wife but, you know, they were not
12 Q. Okay. And at the time you took the job 12 married, but I treated her as such. Mrs. Maxwell
13 it was open, he didn't have anyone in that 13 was like the lady of the house.
14 position. Is that correct? 14 Q. Okay. So it was your understanding they
15 A. What I find is the staff from his house 15 were in a romantic relationship?
16 in Manhattan they gave me the briefing on what he 16 MR. CRITTON: Form.
17 likes and what he doesn't like. Belinda Retta 17 THE WITNESS: Something like that.
18 from Mrs. Maxwell, they were due to give me an 18 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
19 inside look because it was too much to learn in 19 Q. But they just weren't married?
20 48 hours so they were there handling the house 20 A. No, sir.
21 before me, so there were two couples. 21 Q. So you took instructions from Ms. Maxwell
22 Q. Two couples. All right. Let's walk 22 as well as Mr. Epstein?
23 through that. So the first day you come to work 23 A. She gave me the instructions of how to
24 you're basically you received some training? 24 run the household directly. In other words, she
25 A. Exactly. 25 likes the towels, the sheets and all that so I
Page 23 Page 25
1 Q. And tell us who provided that training? 1 give the instructions to Louella how to proceed
2 A. Joe-Joe is his nickname but he runs Mr. 2 with the cleaning and the upkeep of the house.
3 Epstein's estate in Manhattan as well as his wife. 3 Q. You went through the employees who worked
4 They were very nice people telling me because you 4 under you as household manager. Who would you say
5 have to understand, there is a lot of specifics, 5 was your direct supervisor, was it both
6 where to park the car, here and there, if the 6 Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein?
7 plane lands here you have to park the Mercedes, 7 A. Mrs. Maxwell.
8 you know, very specific details, and he gave me an 8 Q. Was your supervisor?
9 inside of all of that. 9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. Okay. So you would pick up Mr. Epstein 10 Q. I think I interrupted you. You were
11 at the airport? 11 going through the daily routine, and I'm not sure
12 A. Yes. 12 you had completed going through what you would do
13 Q. And how long did this training last? 13 in a day.
14 A. Two or three days. 14 A. Until noon we have all the -- we knew
15 Q. Okay. And it was Joe-Joe and his wife? 15 that the food that was going to be served for
16 A. Joe-Joe, yes. 16 lunch and dinner. And then in the afternoon it
17 Q. You don't remember the last name or full 17 was open to shopping, maybe have to drive him to
18 names? 18 the airport to pick up somebody, or answering the
19 A. No, sir. 19 phones.
20 Q. Anything else you can remember that you 20 Q. Was there a procedure or protocol for
21 were told specifically regarding his preferences? 21 answering the phones?
22 A. He likes Columbian coffee, that's the 22 A. Yes, there was.
23 only type of coffee he drinks, and it was shipped 23 Q. And what was that?
24 from New York from Balducci's, stuff like that. 24 A. I couldn't relay the message directly to
25 Where to buy the groceries. And he's allergic to 25 Mr. Epstein but take message on a piece of paper
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 55-21 Filed 03/14/16 Page 9 of 69
Page 26 Page 28
1 with a copy. 1 A. Yes. Sometimes very short notice but,
2 Q. Were you the only one who was allowed to 2 yes, I was.
3 answer the phone? 3 Q. So that varied?
4 A. Yes. 4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I'm sorry, what would you do -- 5 Q. Who would give you that notice?
6 A. I would leave it on the counter next to 6 A. Mrs. Maxwell or Sarah or Larry, the
7 the kitchen so when I find that piece all crumbled 7 pilot.
8 I knew that Mr. Epstein saw the message, so we 8 Q. And then you would drive to pick them up
9 communicated like that. 9 at the airport?
10 Q. Now, you mentioned Mr. Epstein would give 10 A. Yes.
11 you instructions during the course of the day. 11 Q. And who traveled with him?
12 A. Through his assistant. 12 A. The three pilots and some guests.
13 Q. And his assistant was whom? 13 Q. What do you mean by guests?
14 A. Sarah Kellen. 14 A. He will have some friends from Harvard,
15 Q. But you didn't view her as your 15 he will have -- well, very important people that,
16 supervisor? 16 you know, friends, acquaintances from New York or
17 A. She take orders from Mrs. Maxwell but she 17 Europe because I was just told the number of
18 will tell me, Alfredo, we need to buy this, we 18 people was coming on the plane.
19 need to do this, and so and so was coming. I 19 Q. Were there people who were employed by
20 couldn't talk directly to Mr. Epstein. 20 him who came regularly?
21 Q. Okay. So any communications from Mr. 21 A. Yes.
22 Epstein always came through Ms. Kellen? 22 Q. And who would they be?
23 A. Or from the office in New York. Lesley, 23 A. Like I said, they were the pilots, Larry
24 his secretary, or somebody else, the comptroller, 24 Bisosky, George, and I don't remember the flight
25 the architect, any lawyer. 25 engineer, and he will have two girlfriends.
Page 27 Page 29
1 Q. Lawyer, what kind of instructions would 1 Q. The pilot would have two girlfriends?
2 you get from lawyers? 2 A. Mr. Epstein. This is all people coming
3 A. We used to have a lot of time, for 3 in the plane together.
4 instance, the dock construction, you need to have 4 Q. Right. What do you mean by girlfriends?
5 a lot of permits in Palm Beach so they were there 5 A. Friends, you know, that he was always
6 for that reason. 6 having friends that he will befriend in New York,
7 Q. Okay. Now, so you would interact with 7 I don't know, or some other places.
8 the staff from New York and that would include I 8 But I was just told -- my concern was how
9 think you said Lesley? 9 many people I have to feed, how many cars do I
10 A. Lesley, Bella. 10 need to transport these people from the airport to
11 Q. What was Lesley's position? 11 the house, and to arrange accommodations in the
12 A. Lesley is the secretary, secretary to Mr. 12 house.
13 Epstein. 13 Q. What about Sarah Kellen, did she travel
14 Q. Okay. Is that Lesley Groff? 14 with him?
15 A. I believe it was, I don't remember the 15 A. Yes.
16 last name. 16 Q. So she was on the plane?
17 Q. Bella, who was Bella? 17 A. Yes.
18 A. Bella was the assistant comptroller. 18 MR. CRITTON: Form.
19 Q. Anyone else that you dealt with in New 19 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
20 York? 20 Q. And Ms. Maxwell?
21 A. Doug Shadow was the architect and he used 21 MR. CRITTON: Form.
22 to come to the house in a regular basis because we 22 THE WITNESS: No, she will have different
23 used to have a lot of projects going on. 23 plane.
24 Q. Okay. Would you get advance notice when 24 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
25 Mr. Epstein was going to arrive in Palm Beach? 25 Q. Okay.
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 55-21 Filed 03/14/16 Page 10 of 69
Page 30 Page 32
1 A. She will rent and Mr. Epstein will fly 1 movies.
2 his own plane. 2 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
3 Q. Did you also go to the airport to pick up 3 Q. Did you drive them to the movies?
4 Ms. Maxwell? 4 A. Yes. Or sometimes they would take one of
5 A. Yes. 5 the cars. Comedy clubs.
6 Q. Did she travel with anyone on a regular 6 Q. Comedy clubs?
7 basis when she came in? 7 A. In Palm Beach, West Palm Beach.
8 A. No. 8 Q. What did they do in the house?
9 Q. She was usually alone? 9 A. They will be on the internet most of the
10 A. (Shakes head.) 10 time, by the pool. I think they were having a
11 Q. Now, going back to Mr. Epstein when he 11 good time.
12 traveled, these girlfriends that Mr. Epstein had, 12 Q. Could they use any of the computers in
13 you said there were usually two? 13 the house?
14 A. Two, three, you know. 14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And did you know who they were or did you 15 Q. About how many computers did he have?
16 ever talk to them? 16 MR. CRITTON: Form.
17 A. No, I never seen them before. 17 THE WITNESS: Five or six and plus
18 Q. So each time he came it would be 18 laptops, you know, more or less.
19 different girls? 19 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
20 MR. CRITTON: Form. 20 Q. What about Sarah Kellen, did she stay in
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, sometimes it's the 21 the house during that two week period as well?
22 same. 22 A. Yes.
23 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: 23 Q. And they all had their own bedroom?
24 Q. Do you remember any of their names? 24 A. Yes.
25 A. No, sir. 25 Q. How many bedrooms were in the house?
Page 31 Page 33
1 Q. And would they stay at the El Brillo Way 1 A. Master bedroom plus I think it was four
2 residence until he left? 2 extra bedrooms.
3 A. Yes. 3 Q. And when Ms. Maxwell, she would arrive at
4 Q. So they were given a bedroom? 4 some point during this two week period?
5 A. Yes. 5 MR. CRITTON: Form.
6 Q. Did you know how old these girls were? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes.
7 A. No, sir. 7 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
8 Q. Did they appear to be young to you? 8 Q. But she would come and leave at different
9 MR. CRITTON: Form. 9 times?
10 THE WITNESS: They were young but, you 10 A. Yes.
11 know, I have two daughters so I believe they 11 Q. And where would she sleep?
12 were over 20. 12 A. Sometimes in the master bedroom,
13 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: 13 sometimes in the yellow room.
14 Q. Did you at any point get to know how Mr. 14 Q. Other room?
15 Epstein came to know any of these girls? 15 A. Yellow room.
16 A. No, sir. 16 Q. What's the yellow room?
17 Q. You had no idea? 17 A. We used to give them colors because they
18 A. No. 18 will all have different bathrooms so we need to
19 Q. And so Mr. Epstein would typically stay 19 take care of towels and stuff like that.
20 for two weeks or so? 20 Q. So each of the four other bedrooms had a
21 A. I will say that. 21 color?
22 Q. And what did these girls who came with 22 A. Yes. Blue room, yellow room, pink room,
23 him, what did they do during that two week period? 23 some other, I don't remember.
24 MR. CRITTON: Form. 24 Q. Now, were there individuals who didn't
25 THE WITNESS: They would go to the 25 stay in the house but came to the house during the
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 55-21 Filed 03/14/16 Page 11 of 69
Page 34 Page 36
1 course of the day? 1 leave.
2 MR. CRITTON: Form. 2 Q. How far in advance would she tell you so
3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 and so is coming?
4 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: 4 A. One hour, sometimes half an hour.
5 Q. And who would these be? 5 Q. Okay. And would she tell you the
6 A. The architect, Doug Shadow, some lawyer 6 person's name or would she just say a masseuse?
7 like I said for some business, masseuse, sometimes 7 A. She will say Johanna is coming, so I will
8 we have masseuse. We have guests, you know, 8 meet Johanna at the door and I will show her
9 sometimes David Copperfield would go to the house 9 inside the house because we used to have a code to
10 and have dinner. 10 get inside the house and I would leave and go to
11 Q. David Copperfield. So David Copperfield 11 the staff house or do my duties.
12 obviously is a famous person. Right? 12 Q. Is Johan
giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
15 pages
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
________________________________/
PLAINTIFF, VIRGINIA GIUFFRE’S REPLY IN RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO IMPROPER OBJECTIONS
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
David Boies
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
Ellen Brockman
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
575 Lexington Ave
New York, New York 10022
(212) 446-2300
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................... ii
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................................1
II. ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................2
A. Ms. Giuffre’s Relevant Period Is Appropriate...............................................................2
1. Defendant is Taking a Disingenuous Position Regarding Her Objections to
Plaintiff’s Time Period .........................................................................................2
2. Ms. Giuffre’s Post-2002 Discovery Requests Are Narrowly Tailored To
Seek Specific, Relevant Evidence Of Defendant’s Continued Involvement In
Jeffrey Epstein’s Underage Sex Trafficking .......................................................3
B. Defendant’s Objections Are Improper. .........................................................................5
C. Defendant’s Specific Objections Are Inappropriate......................................................6
1. Request No. 1, Request No. 10, and Request No. 11 ...........................................6
2. Request No. 3. ......................................................................................................7
3. Request No. 6. ......................................................................................................8
4. Request No. 37. ....................................................................................................8
5. Request No. 7 and Request No. 15.......................................................................9
6. Request No. 17. ..................................................................................................10
7. Request No. 8, Request No. 33, and Request No. 39. ........................................10
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................10
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd.,
982 F. Supp. 2d 260 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .........................................................................................1
Civil Aeronautics Bd. of Civil Aeronautics Auth. v. Canadian Colonial Airways,
41 F. Supp. 1006 (S.D.N.Y. 1940) ..............................................................................................4
In re A2P SMS Antitrust Litig.,
972 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .........................................................................................1
In re 650 Fifth Ave.,
No. 08 CIV. 10934 KBF, 2013 WL 1870090 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2013)....................................6
ii
Plaintiff Virginia L. Giuffre, respectfully submits this Reply in Response to Defendant’s
Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Production of Documents Subject to
Improper Objections [D.E. 45]. For the reasons set forth below, this Court should grant Ms.
Giuffre’s Motion to Compel in its entirety.
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT1
After sitting on Ms. Giuffre’s First Request for Production for four months, Defendant
only produced two documents. Defendant acknowledges that she has other responsive
documents, but she is withholding them from production.2
Flight logs demonstrate the incredibly close relationship between Defendant and
convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein during the time they were abusing Ms. Giuffre and, then,
other minors: Defendant flew on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane no less than 360 times, and over
20 times with Ms. Giuffre when Ms. Giuffre was a minor child.3 Message pads from Law
Enforcement’s trash pull of Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion show Maxwell in regular
contact with him, including Defendant arranging for Epstein to meet with underage girls. This
evidence alone rebuts Defendant’s specious objections that seeking documents relating to
Defendant’s trafficking of other underage girls is merely a “fishing expedition.” Indeed, over
thirty underage girls were recruited for Epstein’s sex abuse, most of which were recruited after
1
Ms. Giuffre views Defendant’s “Supplemental Responses” (D.E. 45 and 46) as impermissible sur-replies.
Defendant already filed a Response, and her “supplemental” responses were filed after Ms. Giuffre filed her Reply
to Defendant’s Response. See In re A2P SMS Antitrust Litig., 972 F. Supp. 2d 465, 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (striking
sur-reply because it does not respond to “new issues which are material to the disposition of the question before the
[C]ourt,”); Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 982 F. Supp. 2d 260, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“the Court notes that
Plaintiffs' letter is a sur-reply filed without permission of the Court and does not identify new controlling law, and
therefore will not be considered.”). To the extent that this Court has not yet made a sua sponte ruling to strike them
from the docket to date, Ms. Giuffre hereby files her reply briefs within the time allotted under the Local Rules.
2
She is also adamantly refusing to sit for her deposition. Most recently, Defendant is attempting to hold hostage Ms.
Giuffre’s effort to take Defendant’s deposition by refusing to agree on a basic privilege log production parameters
unless Ms. Giuffre agrees to cancel the most critical deposition in this case – that of the Defendant.
3
These numbers are based only upon the partial and incomplete flight logs available to Ms. Giuffre at this time.
1
Ms. Giuffre escaped.4 Therefore, discovery requests concerning Defendant’s continued
trafficking of minors, and continued contact with her co-conspirators (including payments from
Epstein), are relevant and discoverable.
II. ARGUMENT
A. Ms. Giuffre’s Relevant Period Is Appropriate
1. Defendant is Taking a Disingenuous Position Regarding Her Objections to
Plaintiff’s Time Period
Defendant argues that, “[g]iven the nature of her claim, the time period chosen by the
Plaintiff [17 years] is grossly overbroad.” (See D.E. 45 at 3.)5. However, Defendant’s own
document requests belie this contention. Defendant requested documents from an even greater
period of time, and many requests have no date restrictions (“NDR”) whatsoever:
Defendant’s Requests:
Request Years Request Years Request Years Request Years
No. 1 18 No.11 N/A No. 21 5 No. 31 NDR
No. 2 18 No. 12 18 No. 22 16 No. 32 NDR
No. 3 NDR No. 13 4 No. 23 16 No. 33 NDR
No. 4 NDR No. 14 18 No. 24 14 No. 34 NDR
No. 5 18 No. 15 18 No. 25 NDR No. 35 18
No. 6 NDR No. 16 6 No. 26 NDR No. 36 NDR
No. 7 4 No. 17 18 No. 27 NDR No. 37 NDR
No. 8 4 No. 18 16 No. 28 NDR
No. 18 No. 19 NDR No. 29 NDR
No. 10 N/A No. 20 NDR No. 30 NDR
For example, Defendant’s Request No. 26 seeking “All Documents concerning any
prescription drugs taken by You,” has no date restrictions. Defendant, therefore, must believe
that every prescription drug Ms. Giuffre has taken - from infancy - will likely be helpful to prove
4
See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley (“McCawley Decl.”) at Exhibit 1, Palm Beach Police Report.
5
Defendant disregarded Ms. Giuffre’s requested date range of 1999 to the present and unilaterally limited her
production to the years 1999 – 2002 and for one month from December 31, 2014 to January 31, 2015.
2
or disprove the claim in this case.6 Defendant cannot hold the position that documents relevant
to the claim in this case arise solely from a self-serving fraction of the requested date range if
collected from her, while concomitantly holding the position that documents from an even larger
date rage are relevant when collecting from Ms. Giuffre. With her briefing in one hand, and her
requests for production in the other, Defendant is engaging in double-speak. Accordingly, this
Court cannot take Defendant’s argument regarding the Relevant Period at face value, and should
reject it.
2. Ms. Giuffre’s Post-2002 Discovery Requests Are Narrowly Tailored To
Seek Specific, Relevant Evidence Of Defendant’s Continued Involvement
In Jeffrey Epstein’s Underage Sex Trafficking
As articulated in Ms. Giuffre’s moving brief and her consolidated reply (D.E. 35, and
43), Ms. Giuffre has shown the relevance of her narrowly-tailored requests seeking certain
documents from the period of time after Ms. Giuffre escaped Defendant’s abuse. To recount,
Defendant continued to recruit underage girls for sex with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein
after Ms. Giuffre escaped.7 This fact is established by documentary evidence, sworn testimony,
and other statements by third parties. Indeed, flight logs show Defendant traveling on the
convicted sex offender’s plane up to at least 2005; and police reports in the Palm Beach
investigation reveal the abuse occurred into the mid-2000s.8 In addition, message pads from law
enforcement trash pulls from Jeffrey Epstein’s home show that Defendant arranged to have
underage girls come over for “training.”9
6
Despite issuing multiple requests like the one quoted above, Defendant’s “Supplemental Response” brief
complains of a “fishing expedition” by Ms. Giuffre seven times.
7
Indeed, over thirty underage girls were recruited for Epstein’s sex abuse. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1.
8
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Flight Logs from Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane and Exhibit 1, Palm Beach
Police Report.
9
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Message Pads from Law Enforcement trash pulls of Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm
Beach home.
3
Documents showing Defendant recruiting underage girls from that time period are
relevant because they help establish Ms. Giuffre’s contention that Defendant recruited her while
she was underage. Again, over thirty underage girls were recruited for Epstein’s sex abuse in
Florida alone, most of which were recruited after Ms. Giuffre escaped.10 Such documents would
show a pattern and practice of Defendant’s behavior and also show Defendant’s role within
Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal enterprise. That Ms. Giuffre was in Australia while Defendant
continued her illegal activities does not lessen the weight of that evidence.11 To the contrary, the
fact that Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein recruited other girls for abuse gives more weight to Ms.
Giuffre’s allegations.
Furthermore, for the period after Epstein was indicted for sex crimes against children,
documents showing Defendant’s continued communications with Epstein and his associates,
documents showing receipt of payments from Epstein, and documents showing her attempts to
cover up her wrongful sexual abuse of minors are relevant.
There are already materials implicating Defendant’s post-2008 involvement with Epstein
and the related cover-up. For example, Defendant dodged a deposition in 2009 to avoid
answering questions about the abuse of Ms. Giuffre and others.12 Additionally, since 2005, when
the investigation started, to the present, Defendant has been engaged in a joint defense agreement
with Jeffrey Epstein.13 And, Defendant has continued to communicate with convicted sex
offender Jeffrey Epstein, at least, through 2015, when she made her defamatory statement.14
10
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1.
11
“If it be that defendant has violated the provisions of law, and continues so to do, there is no good reason why the
plaintiff may not produce evidence of defendant's continuing wrongful conduct.” Civil Aeronautics Bd. of Civil
Aeronautics Auth. v. Canadian Colonial Airways, 41 F. Supp. 1006, 1008 (S.D.N.Y. 1940).
12
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Notice of Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell, Subpoena and Cancellation
Payment Notice, and January 13, 2015 Daily Mail Article.
13
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, January 12, 2016 Deposition Transcript of Alan Dershowitz at 527; see also
March 7, 2016 Affidavit of Ghislaine Maxwell, attached at Exhibit E to D.E.47-5.
14
This is evidenced by Defendant’s privilege log, McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6.
4
Documents evidencing these acts and occurrences after Epstein’s indictment show her continued
involvement in the conspiracy.
Defendant states that “this lawsuit presents one relatively simple question: is Plaintiff’s
claim that she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein between 1999 and 2002 ‘with the
assistance and participation of’ Ms. Maxwell true?” (D.E. 45 at 1). She cannot claim that
evidence of her involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of other girls, after 2002, does not tend to
prove the allegations that Defendant was involved in the abuse of Ms. Giuffre.15 In short,
evidence of Defendant trafficking other girls, and evidence of Defendant covering up the abuse
after the fact, is relevant to proving that she was involved in the abuse and trafficking of Ms.
Giuffre. Defendant has admitted she has responsive documents for this period. Therefore, this
Court should direct that she produce them.
B. Defendant’s Objections Are Improper
Defendant’s argument against Ms. Giuffre’s use of the phrase “all documents” or
“relating to” is disingenuous because she uses those phrases in her requests to Ms. Giuffre.
Defendant argues that the terms, “all documents” and “relate,” are too broad to be employed in
Requests for Production, thus making all of Ms. Giuffre’s requests “fatally flawed.” At the same
time she makes this argument, Defendant has propounded 37 requests for production on Ms.
Giuffre. Twenty-five of them seek “all documents” or “any documents.” Twenty of them seek
documents “relat[ing] to” or “reflecting” various topics. Only 8 of her 37 requests are free of
these “obtuse” terms that she claims are “fatal defect[s].” Presumably, Defendant is neither
conceding that the majority of her Requests for Production are “fatally flawed,” nor is she
15
Accordingly, Defendant’s objections to Request Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, and 27 are improper.
5
withdrawing the 29 of them. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests the Court reject this
argument.16
C. Defendant’s Specific Objections Are Inappropriate
1. Request No. 1: All documents relating to communications with Jeffrey
Epstein from 1999-Present.
Request No. 10: All documents relating to payments made from Jeffrey
Epstein or any related entity to you from 1999-present, including
payments for work performed, gifts, real estate purchases, living expenses,
and payments to your charitable endeavors including the TerraMar
Project.
Request No. 11: All documents relating to or describing any work you
performed with Jeffrey Epstein, or any affiliated entity from 1999-Present.
Jeffrey Epstein’s message pads, pulled from trash by law enforcement, show that
Defendant arranged for a minor child to come over to Jeffrey Epstein’s house for “training”.17
The Palm Beach Police Department collected these incriminating message pads from Epstein’s
home. A member of Jeffrey Epstein’s household staff, Juan Alessi, testified under oath that
Defendant lived with Epstein, and ran his household.18 These are just some examples of
evidence showing that Defendant was employed by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to
traffic minor children for him.
Despite this evidence, Defendant claims that discovery requests seeking evidence of work
she performed for Epstein, the payments she received from Epstein,19 and the communications
she had with and about Epstein, constitutes a “fishing expedition.” (D.E. 45 at 6.) These
requests are not merely “reasonably calculated” to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,
16
In discovery disputes, “[w]hat is good for the goose is good for the gander.” In re 650 Fifth Ave., No. 08 CIV.
10934 KBF, 2013 WL 1870090, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2013) (requiring that the government produce a privilege
log in order to persist in its allegations that the defendants’ privilege logs are inadequate).
17
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Message Pads from Jeffrey Epstein’s house.
18
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Deposition Transcript of Juan Alessi.
19
Indeed, substantial payments received from Epstein at key times during the Government investigation can show if
he paid her in exchange for her silence. Evidence of Epstein (or Epstein’s attorney, see McCawley Decl. at Exhibit
8, February 2, 2015 Page Six Article) paying for her New York home (recently listed at $19M), and evidence of
Epstein’s continued payments throughout the Relevant Period, are also indicative of Maxwell’s ongoing
involvement with Epstein.
6
but they zero-in on exactly the type of admissible evidence that would directly support Ms.
Giuffre’s claim of being sexually abused.
Defendant argues she should not have to produce communications related to Jeffrey
Epstein and “rice pudding.” Ms. Giuffre disagrees. Communications revealing Defendant’s
frequent and constant contact with Epstein, particularly regarding the minutia of his life, shows
the depth of her access to, and involvement with, Epstein. Indeed, frequent communications
showing how Defendant was the intimate caretaker of Epstein’s private life - from rice pudding
recipes to his predilection for underage girls - reveal her role as a participant in the trafficking
and, importantly, thoroughly refute any affirmative defense she might make that she was
unaware of the abuse.
2. Request No. 3: All Documents Relating To Communications With
Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke Of York (A.K.A Prince Andrew)
From 1999-Present.
Ms. Giuffre has alleged that Defendant trafficked Ms. Giuffre to Andrew while she was a
minor child. Ms. Giuffre has a photograph of Andrew’s arm around her bare waist in the
presence of Defendant, in Defendant’s London apartment, while Ms. Giuffre was under age.
Defendant has never answered the question: what was this child doing in her London townhouse
with them? Another witness has supplied some of the details on Ms. Giuffre’s trafficking to
Andrew. Johanna Sjoberg reported that “Virginia, another girl there, sat on a chair and had the
puppet on her lap. Andrew sat on another chair, I sat on his lap and he put his hand on my
breast. Ghislaine puppet’s hand on Virginia’s breast, then Andrew put his hand on mine . . .”.20
Accordingly, communications with Andrew are relevant, and they would likely show
Defendant’s arrangements to traffic Ms. Giuffre to him, and possibly the trafficking of other girls
to him.
20
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, September 23, 2007 Red Ice Creations Article.
7
3. Request No. 6: All Documents Relating To Communications With Any
Of The Following Individuals From 1999 -The Present: Emmy Taylor,
Sarah Kellen, Eva Dubin, Glen Dubin, Jean Luc Brunel, And Nadia
Marcinkova
Both Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege when
asked under oath about Defendant’s involvement in trafficking underage girls.21 For example,
co-conspirator Nadia Marcinkova testified:
Q. Isn’t it true that yourself, Ghislaine Maxwell and Sarah Kellen had access to a master
of list of underage minor females names and phone numbers so they could be called for
the purpose of coming to Jeffrey Epstein’s house to be sexually molested? . . .
A. Fifth.. . .
Q. And also typical of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein to prostitute or pimp out
underage minors to friends? . . .
A. Fifth.22
Co-conspirator Jean Luc Brunel left a note for Epstein on a message pad saying he had a
sixteen-year-old girl who could “teach Russian” to Epstein for “free.”23 Finally, Emmy Taylor,
is photographed with Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein on a trip to Europe with Ms. Giuffre when she
was a minor, and the Dubins are on flight logs with Defendant and Epstein.24 Therefore, the
communications with these individuals are relevant, and show the sexual trafficking.
4. Request No. 37: All Documents Reflecting Communications You Have
Had With Bill Or Hillary Clinton (Or Persons Acting On Their Behalf),
Including All Communications
Defendant has a history of avoiding deposition in relation to sex abuse claims. In 2009,
Maxwell’s deposition was sought in connection with various sexual abuse allegations. Maxwell
avoided her deposition, claiming her mother was ill, so she would be traveling outside the
country with no plans of returning. Despite this claim to avoid her deposition, she was
21
Contrary to Defendant’s claims, Sarah Kellen did not assert her Fifth Amendment rights in response to every
question in her deposition. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 11, March 24, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Sarah
Kellen.
22
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 10, April 13, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Nadia Marcinkova at 34 and 48.
23
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 10, April 13, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Nadia Marcinkova.
24
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 12, Picture taken by Ms. Giuffre of Defendant Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, and
Emmy Taylor while she is in Europe. See also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Flight logs.
8
photographed shortly thereafter in the United States at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding in Rhinebeck,
New York.25 Most recently, when Ms. Giuffre attempted to meet and confer on the procedure
for the production of her privilege log, Defendant refused to reach any agreement relating to the
procedural issue unless Ms. Giuffre would cancel the Defendant’s deposition.
Further, other communications Defendant has had with the Clintons about Ms. Giuffre or
the allegations in this case are also highly relevant, particularly given that former President
Clinton travelled with Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein and others on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane a number
of times, including a trip to Thailand. Maxwell admits that she has documents responsive to this
request, and this Court should require her to produce them.
5. Request No. 7: All Video Tapes, Audio Tapes, Photographs Or Other
Print Or Electronic Media Relating To Females Under The Age Of 18
From The Period Of 1999-Present.
Request No. 15: All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs or any other
print or electronic media taken at a time when you were in Jeffrey
Epstein’s company or inside any of his residences or aircraft.
Regarding Request No. 7, Alfredo Rodriguez, Epstein’s former house manager, testified
that Defendant kept naked pictures of girls on her computer.26 As explained in her moving brief,
Ms. Giuffre is not seeking mainstream, legally available depictions of minors. She is seeking the
photos described by Mr. Rodriguez and any other (non-family) under-age girls, including Ms.
Giuffre, photographed or otherwise recorded by Defendant. Regarding Request No. 15, media
depicting individuals in Epstein’s company or inside his residences or aircraft are relevant to Ms.
Giuffre’s claims that she was trafficked to others.
25
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Maxwell Deposition Notice; Subpoena and Cancellation Payment Notice, and
January 13, 2015 Daily Mail Article with photograph.
26
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 13, Deposition Transcripts of Alfredo Rodriguez.
9
6. Request No. 17: All Documents Relating To Communications With You
And Ross Gow From 2005 – Present.
Defendant’s defamatory statements to the press were issued by Ross Gow, and it is the
genesis of this action. Accordingly, requests seeking Defendant’s communications with Gow are
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Additionally, Ms. Giuffre only seeks
documents from Ross Gow from 2005 - present, because Defendant had not been publically
implicated in an underage sex trafficking ring prior to 2005. Therefore, any other
communications with Mr. Gow prior to that time are irrelevant.
7. Request No. 8: All Documents Relating To Your Travel From The Period
Of 1999- Present, Including But Not Limited To, Any Travel On Jeffrey
Epstein’s Planes, Commercial Flights, Helicopters, Passport Records,
Records Indicating Passengers Traveling With You, Hotel Records, And
Credit Card Receipts.
Request No. 33: All Travel Records Between 1999 And The Present
Reflecting Your Presence In: (A) Palm Beach Florida Or Immediately
Surrounding Areas; (B) 9 E. 71st Street, New York , NY 10021; (C) New
Mexico; (D) U.S. Virgin Islands; (E) Any Jet Or Aircraft Owned Or
Controlled By Jeffrey Epstein.
Request No. 39: All documents reflecting training to fly a helicopter or
experience flying a helicopter, including any records concerning your
operation of a helicopter in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
These requests seek information about Defendant’s sexually trafficking of minors,
including documents relating to her flying girls to be with Epstein.27 Related to the trafficking,
Epstein’s Caribbean property is only reachable via helicopter or boat, and Defendant’s records of
transporting underage girls or other individuals to that property are relevant to Ms. Giuffre’s
claims of Defendant’s sexually trafficking her.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant her Motion to Compel.
27
Ms. Giuffre is in possession of some of Epstein’s private aircraft flight logs, but they are incomplete.
10
Dated: March 14, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
David Boies
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Ellen Brockman
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
575 Lexington Ave
New York, New York 10022
(212) 446-2300
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 14, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices
of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley
12
podesta-emails
Unknown
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----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=5a6T
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
HRC Clips
March 14, 2015
HRC
Emails Clinton Said Were Kept Could Be Lost (The New York Times)........................................... 3
Hillary Seems Tired, Not Hungry (The Wall Street Journal)............................................................. 6
Will Hillary Clinton Follow Democrats on Capital Gains? (The New York Times).......................... 9
Hillarynomics: Big Policy Questions for Clinton (The New York Times)....................................... 11
Hillary Clinton’s fear of the trail (Politico)..................................................................................... 14
Hillary Clinton staffs up in New Hampshire (The Washington Post)............................................. 17
Clinton Takes Campaign Step With New Hampshire Hiring (The New York Times)..................... 18
Clinton Said to be Close to Choosing Brooklyn for Campaign Headquarters (The New York Times) 20
Hillary Clinton set on Brooklyn HQ, eyes April launch (CNN)...................................................... 21
Jeb Bush, a Clinton Critic, Took Time Releasing His Own Emails (The New York Times)............ 23
Jeb Bush: I’m No Hillary Clinton When it Comes to Email (ABC News)....................................... 25
Hillary Clinton’s secret mess; The e-mail saga is a reminder that the Clintons rarely play by the same rules as everyone else. (The Washington Post) 27
Public’s right to know lost in email; State Dept. fails to practice the transparency it preaches (Boston Herald) 29
Hillary Clinton’s Questionable Process for Sorting Work Emails (The Atlantic)............................ 31
Judge Orders State Dept. to Release Records From Clinton Trips (The New York Times)........... 34
Is Hillary Clinton Vulnerable? (The Wall Street Journal)................................................................ 35
How Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Became Media Control Freaks (Daily Beast)................... 39
Here’s what a real Democratic presidential primary might look like (The Washington Post)......... 42
Hillary Clinton isn’t running unopposed. She’s just crushing the competition. (Vox)..................... 44
Poll Shows Younger Americans Tuning Out Clinton Story (The Wall Street Journal).................... 47
Top State Dept. officials’ work emails not automatically archived before February (Politico)....... 49
Why the email controversy probably hasn’t dented Hillary Clinton’s public image (The Washington Post) 51
Poll: the only presidential contender more popular than Hillary Clinton is Ben Carson (Vox)........ 53
You Won’t Be Surprised To Hear That Hillary Clinton’s Emails Are More Divisive Than Ever (Huffington Post) 54
Jerry Brown says challenging Hillary Clinton is like challenging Jerry Brown (The Washington Post) 56
Jerry Brown: Leave Hillary Clinton alone (Politico)....................................................................... 58
8 Must-Know Stats About Women’s Rights Around The World From Hillary Clinton’s “No Ceilings” Report (Bustle) 59
Emails Clinton Said Were Kept Could Be Lost (The New York Times)
By Michael S. Schmidt and Julie Hirschfeld Davis
March 14, 2015
The New York Times
WASHINGTON -- As Hillary Rodham Clinton this week defended her use of a personal email account to conduct State Department business, she emphasized that because she was corresponding frequently with other department officials on their government accounts, the messages were preserved on government servers.
But the State Department disclosed on Friday that until last month it had no way of routinely preserving senior officials’ emails. Instead, the department relied on individual employees to decide if certain emails should be considered public records, and if so, to move them onto a special record-keeping sever, or print them out and manually file them for preservation.
This patchwork system, reflecting a broader confusion and slowness throughout the government as federal agencies struggle to catch up with the digital age, raises the possibility that some emails from Mrs. Clinton to other State Department officials may have been lost altogether.
In a briefing with reporters on Friday, Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for the State Department, acknowledged that the system in place under Mrs. Clinton was ‘‘imperfect,’’ and said the department was still trying to establish a comprehensive document retention program.
In February, the State Department began using a system that automatically keeps the emails of the department’s highest ranking officials -- like the deputy secretary of state, and under and assistant secretaries. Secretary of State John Kerry’s emails have been automatically retained since around the time he took office in 2013.
Regulations issued by the National Archives in October 2009 said that agencies where employees were free to use private email systems ‘‘must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.’’
In a news conference she held on Tuesday, and backup documents that her staff circulated the same day, Mrs. Clinton argued that she had complied with those record-keeping rules.
‘‘It was my practice to communicate with State Department and other government officials on their dot-gov accounts so those emails would be automatically saved in the State Department system to meet record-keeping requirements, and that, indeed, is what happened,’’ Mrs. Clinton said at the news conference. She said she had used the personal account for convenience because she did not want to carry two cellphones.
The State Department disclosure is likely to bring intense scrutiny to the process that Mrs. Clinton and her lawyers used in deciding late last year which of the roughly 60,000 emails from her personal account should be considered work-related and turned over to the State Department. That is because the State Department servers -- given the system that was in place -- appear to lack comprehensive backup records of the former secretary of state’s correspondence with other officials.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton did not return an email, call or text seeking comment.
An Obama administration directive in 2012 mandates that agencies must devise a system for retaining and preserving email records electronically by the end of 2016, but many agencies’ current practice is to save emails by printing them out and storing them in files.
The Department of Health and Human Services began automatically archiving and saving the emails of all senior officials and political appointees only in December, said Kevin Griffis, a spokesman for the department.
There is also no consistent system throughout the federal agencies for determining which emails should be saved. The White House has strict requirements dating back two decades that no emails be discarded, but federal agencies are in charge of setting their own policies for determining which emails constitute government records worthy of preservation and which ones may be deleted.
‘‘It really is chaos across the government in terms of what agencies do, what individuals do, and people understand that they can decide what they save and what they don’t,’’ said Patrice McDermott, the director of the transparency watchdog group OpenTheGovernment.org. ‘‘If you leave it up to the agency, some are going to behave properly and take it seriously, and some are going to see it as carte blanche to whitewash the record.’’
What is clear is that email poses a unique problem for government agencies, which are required under the law to preserve anything that relates to official business. ‘‘It doesn’t matter on what medium or in what form it occurs,’’ said Gary M. Stern, the general counsel for the National Archives and Records Administration, the agency in charge of preserving federal documents.
But, he said, ‘‘There’s such a challenge with email, because everyone gets a couple of hundred a day and nobody has the time to go through and say, ‘Is this a record, or is it not?’ ‘‘
President Obama signed legislation late last year requiring government officials who use personal email addresses for official business to bring those records into the government within 20 days. Before that, the National Archives and Records Administration simply required those messages at some point to be provided to the government.
The vagueness of federal guidelines have caused agencies, cabinet members and other senior officials to forge their own policies and practices, sometimes getting them into trouble.
Lisa P. Jackson, Mr. Obama’s first Environmental Protection Agency administrator used ‘‘Richard Windsor’’ -- a combination of her dog’s name and a New Jersey town -- for her electronic alias. Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee charge that she had created the alias to ‘‘hide’’ her actions, part of what they described in a September 2013 report as a pattern of ‘‘obfuscation’’ and a ‘‘culture of secrecy and evasion.’’
Ms. Jackson said the alias was a matter of convenience and practicality, arguing that she had complied with requirements that any message relating to E.P.A. business would be captured on the agency’s system.
‘‘You’ll find this with any cabinet head,’’ Tom Reynolds, an E.P.A. spokesman, said of generic government email addresses. ‘‘You just can’t use those because you’d just get inundated with emails. It’s not pragmatic.’’
The White House adopted its strict email rules during the Clinton administration after a federal court determined that White House emails -- until then considered the same as disposable sheets on a phone-message pad -- should be treated as government records.
As part of a settlement in that case, a little-known staff secretary to President Bill Clinton drafted a memo laying out the new policy: Emails had to be preserved and external networks should not be used because those messages would not be retained.
The aide’s name was John D. Podesta. ‘‘Podesta helped push the White House essentially into the digital age and created electronic archiving,’’ said Thomas S. Blanton, of the National Security Archive.
In January, Mr. Podesta left his post as a senior counselor to Mr. Obama. His anticipated new job: chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s expected presidential campaign.
Hillary Seems Tired, Not Hungry (The Wall Street Journal)
By Peggy Noonan
March 14, 2015
The Wall Street Journal
Maybe we’re not stuck in Scandal Land.
For a while I’ve assumed Hillary Clinton would run for her party’s nomination and be a formidable candidate in the general election. After Tuesday’s news conference I’m not so sure.
Did she seem to you a happy, hungry warrior? She couldn’t make eye contact with her questioners, and when she did she couldn’t sustain it. She looked at the ceiling and down at notes, trying, it seemed, to stick to or remember scripted arguments. She was shaky. She couldn’t fake good cheer and confidence. It is seven years since she ran for office. You could see it.
Her claims -- she stayed off the State Department email system for “convenience,” she thought “it would be easier to carry just one device,” her server “contains personal communications from my husband and me” -- were so transparent, so quickly disprovable. Minutes later journalists were posting earlier statements in which she said she carries two devices, and The Wall Street Journal’s report saying Bill has sent only two emails in his life.
This wasn’t high-class spin. These were not respectable dodges. They didn’t make you grudgingly tip your hat at a gift for duplicity. I could almost feel an army of oppo people of both parties saying, “You can do better than that, Hillary!”
This wasn’t the work of a national, high-grade political-response team, it was the thrown-together mess of someone who knew she was guilty of self-serving actions, who didn’t herself believe what she was saying, who didn’t think the press would swallow it, and who didn’t appear to care.
She didn’t look hungry for the battle, she looked tired of the battle.
Everyone knows what the scandal is. She didn’t want a paper trail of her decisions and actions as secretary of state. She didn’t want to be questioned about them, ever. So she didn’t join the government’s paper-trail system, in this case the State Department’s official email system, which retains and archives records. She built her own private system and got to keep complete control of everything she’d done or written. She no doubt assumed no one outside would ask and no one inside would insist -- she’s Hillary, don’t mess with her.
She knew the story might blow but maybe it wouldn’t, worth the chance considering the payoff: secrecy. If what she did became public she’d deal with it then. When this week she was forced to, she stonewalled: “The server will remain private.”
Is it outrageous? Of course. Those are U.S. government documents she concealed and destroyed. The press is not covering for her and hard questions are being asked because everyone knows what the story is. It speaks of who she is and how she will govern. Everyone knows it.
She knows it too.
At the news conference she seemed like a 20th-century figure in a 21st-century world. Her critics complain it’s the 1990s returning but it isn’t, it’s only the dark side of the ‘90s without the era’s peace and prosperity.
Mrs. Clinton is said to be preparing to announce her candidacy for the presidency in three to four weeks. But did that look like the news conference of a candidate about to announce? It lacked any air of confidence or certitude. For a year the press has been writing about the burgeoning Clinton Shadow Campaign. Where’s the real one?
Defenses of Mrs. Clinton were ad hoc, improvised, flat-footed. It all looks disorderly, as if no one’s in charge, no one has drawn clear lines of responsibility or authority. We hear about loyalists, intimates, allies, pals, hangers-on, Friends of Hill. People buzz around her like bees on random paths to the queen.
In 2008 Barack Obama had impressive, disciplined people around him -- David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, David Plouffe. I remember thinking at the time that they were something unusual in politics: normal. Hillary has people like David Brock, a right-wing hit man who became a left-wing hit man. Who’s he supposed to do outreach to, the other weirdos?
Is this thing really happening? Is the much-vaunted campaign coming together?
After the news conference I thought what I never expected to think: Maybe she doesn’t really want this. Maybe that’s what this incompetence is meant to be signaling.
Here I will speculate, but imagine being Hillary Clinton right now:
Her mother, the rock of her life, died in 2011. In the past years she’s had health issues. She’s tired, having worked at the highest levels of American life the past 25 years. She’s in the middle of a scandal and, being Hillary, knows that others might pop along the way.
Add this: Maybe she thought her ideological hunger, which was real, would sustain her throughout her life, and it hasn’t.
Maybe what happened to her, in part, is the homes of her Manhattan mega-donors. She’s been in the grand townhouses and Park Avenue apartments since 1992. She’d go in and be met and she saw what they had. Beauty. Ease. Fine art of a particular, modern sort, the kind that is ugly, that reminds its owners that just because they’re rich doesn’t mean they don’t understand that life is hard, painful, incoherent. It is protective, cautionary, abstract and costs $20 million a picture.
But what lives they have! Grace and comfort and they don’t have to worry about the press, they don’t have to feel on the run, they don’t have to press the flesh with nobodies.
She’d like those things! But she went into “public service” and had to live on some bum-squat-Egypt Southern governor’s salary.
She wanted what they have. They’re her friends, no more talented than she. But they went to Wall Street and are oozing in dough. She stayed in the lane she was in. And she figures she missed out on the prosperity her husband presided over.
She has her causes -- women’s rights, income inequality. But she can advance them in other ways.
Maybe she isn’t really hungry enough for the presidency anymore. And maybe she doesn’t have illusions anymore. She’s funded by Wall Street. Her opponent will be funded by Wall Street.
Maybe she’s of two minds about what she wants. But it’s not really hunger that’s propelling her now, its Newton’s law of inertia: Objects in motion tend to stay in motion.
Maybe she thinks about another line of work, a surprising fourth act. She likes to be served, be admired, be taken care of by staff. But you can get those things without being president. If you are wealthy, and she is now -- and maybe that was the purpose of all those six-figure speeches -- you can get those things easily.
Maybe she doesn’t, really, want to run. Maybe she’s not sure she can. Or maybe she’ll go for it: It’s what she’s been going toward all her life.
Maybe Democrats who saw that news conference will sense an opening and jump in. There’s the myth of the empty bench, but it won’t be empty if she leaves it. That’s another law of physics: Nature abhors a vacuum.
We all talk so much about the presidency and who’s got the best chance. Maybe it’s not Hillary. Maybe that’s over and no one knows, even her.
License this article from Dow Jones Reprint Service
Will Hillary Clinton Follow Democrats on Capital Gains? (The New York Times)
By Josh Barro
March 14, 2015
The New York Times
As my colleague David Leonhardt notes, one of the big policy questions for Hillary Clinton is how eager she is to tax the rich. But this isn’t just a question of the top rate on wages. If she runs for president, it will be very interesting to see whether Mrs. Clinton takes a position substantially to Barack Obama’s right on capital gains taxes, as she did in 2008.
In a debate in April of that year, Mrs. Clinton said she would not raise the capital gains rate above 20 percent “if I raised it at all.” At the time, the top rate was 15 percent, as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Ms. Clinton’s position was in line with the economic policies of Bill Clinton’s administration, which called for much higher tax rates on wage income than capital income for high earners. In 1997, Mr. Clinton signed a law that cut the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20; in 1993, he had raised the top tax rate on ordinary income from 31 percent to 39.6 percent, and imposed a Medicare tax on high earners that effectively pushed their top tax rates above 40.
Mr. Obama ran in 2008 as an advocate of a large capital gains tax increase. In a 2007 speech, he said he would “adjust the top dividends and capital gains rate to something closer to — but no greater than — the rates Ronald Reagan set in 1986.” The rate set in 1986 was 28 percent, so this position left the door open to a near-doubling of the top capital gains tax rate.
President Obama has delivered on that promise: The Affordable Care Act created an additional 3.8 percent tax on capital gains for high earners, and the so-called fiscal cliff deal of 2013 added another 5 points to the rate, so the top tax rate on capital gains has gone from 15 percent in 2008 to 23.8 percent today, higher than the red line Mrs. Clinton set. In his most recent budget, Mr. Obama proposed to further increase the rate to 28 percent.
Economists tend to advocate lower taxes on capital on the grounds that investors are more likely to be driven away by high taxes than workers are, and because much capital income is subjected to corporate income tax before the capital gains tax is applied.
But the shift among Democrats toward supporting higher taxes on capital isn’t surprising, given the party’s increased skepticism of Wall Street and the focus on inequality. While high taxes on the salaries of high earners can increase collections from law firm partners and senior business executives (and collect a lot of revenue in the process), the wealthiest Americans tend to draw their income from investments. So tax policies that aim at the extreme top of the income distribution will have to focus on capital.
Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who formerly served as Vice President Joe Biden’s top economic adviser, attributed the shift among Democrats to increased frustration with income shifting: labor income being recharacterized as capital income in order to take advantage of tax preferences.
“The only tax rule of thumb I’m 100 percent certain of is if your tax code provides preferential treatment to any kind of income, that’s the kind of income a lot of rich people will all the sudden have a lot more of,” he said in an email.
Since Marco Rubio has endorsed a plan that would cut capital gains taxes to zero, the 2016 campaign may offer a very sharp divide on the question of how investment should be taxed and how progressive the tax code should be, especially if Mrs. Clinton follows Mr. Obama’s lead on the issue. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton declined to comment about whether her views had changed since 2008.
Hillarynomics: Big Policy Questions for Clinton (The New York Times)
By David Leonhardt
March 14, 2015
The New York Times
Barring an unexpected economic boom over the next year and a half, the 2016 Democratic nominee for president will probably not base her campaign around being President Obama’s heir.
The economic picture remains too muddled and the country too polarized. A candidate who can claim to fix Washington will be in a better position than one who tries to explain or defend the last eight years.
Hillary Clinton — still the overwhelming favorite to be that nominee, in spite of the recent mess over her use of a private email account while she was secretary of state — will especially need to find ways to project freshness. And pundits will no doubt scour her remarks and campaign proposals looking for such differences.
So it’s worth acknowledging something now: Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have far more similarities than differences, especially on economic matters.
They both consider the stagnant incomes of recent decades to be a defining national issue. They both want to address the stagnation through a combination of government programs and middle-class tax cuts. They both see climate change as a serious threat. They both think workers have too little power and corporations too much.
They both are to the political left of every single Republican in Congress. They are also to the right of many liberals — friendlier to markets and global trade, more comfortable with incremental change.
Yet for all their similarities, Hillarynomics (the phrase “Clintonomics” is already taken) and Obamanomics will not be identical.
In the coming months, Mrs. Clinton is likely to begin releasing her economic policy proposals. They will no doubt be devised to address the fact that, as she has said, “it feels harder and harder to get ahead.”
Along the way, she will need to deal with some thorny policy questions that don’t have obvious answers for a Democrat. My goal here is to lay out the biggest of those questions. Mrs. Clinton’s answers to them will begin to define Hillarynomics.
Taxing the rich. For two decades, Democrats have been largely united on taxes. Bill Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate (which now applies to couples making more than $450,000) to 39.6 percent. Mr. Obama spent years fighting — and ultimately succeeding — to raise it back to that level, from a 35 percent rate.
But now the issue gets trickier for Democrats.
Total federal taxes on top earners are already near the top of their narrow range over the last 35 years. But pretax inequality has soared during that time. And federal tax rates are still much lower than they were in the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s.
Have the politics of inequality changed to the point that Mrs. Clinton will propose a top marginal rate above 40 percent? Or will she instead propose more subtle tax increases, such as reducing tax breaks, as Mr. Obama recently has?
Either way, she seems likely to push for middle- and low-income tax cuts. As a result, she will need either to propose further tax increases on high earners — or to acknowledge that her plan would increase the budget deficit.
Bargaining power. Top Democrats spent much of the 1990s moving to the right on economics. They have spent the last decade inching back to the left. The move isn’t really about the personal views of Mr. Obama and the Clintons. Instead, it’s a reaction to the great wage slowdown of the last 15 years, which has left the party looking for more aggressive ways to address inequality.
Take the party’s stance toward labor unions. Democrats who previously were wary of aligning too closely with unions are now searching for ways to strengthen workers’ bargaining power. The Commission on Inclusive Prosperity, a group with close ties to Mrs. Clinton, recently made “expanding worker voice” one of its centerpiece recommendations. “If you made it less easy for employers to fire union organizers, you would meaningfully impact the amount of collective bargaining,” Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury secretary, said.
Although labor leaders support many of Mr. Obama’s decisions, they also hope that the next Democratic nominee will go further — on enacting overtime-pay rules, on using the bully pulpit to criticize corporations and on appointing labor-friendly advisers. “We have learned through bitter experience that it really matters who makes up a president’s economic team,” said Damon Silvers, a top A.F.L.-C.I.O. official.
Schools and tests. Mr. Obama and his education secretary, Arne Duncan, have pursued a decidedly centrist course, pushing states to demand more accountability from schools. The approach can claim significant successes, including a rising high school graduation rate.
Yet many students, parents and teachers have also grown frustrated by the amount of standardized testing. Some of this frustration stems from the fact that accountability isn’t fun. Many school officials would rather be left alone to judge their own performance. Other aspects of the frustration, though, are more substantive.
A central challenge for the post-Obama Education Department will be finding a way to make accountability more popular. The obvious answer probably involves fewer, better tests — but creating such tests isn’t easy. The next president will have some big decisions to make.
Medical costs. The sharp slowdown in the growth rate of health spending — which has reduced the federal deficit — has been one of the happiest economic surprises of the Obama years. It stems in part from efforts within medicine that predated his presidency and in part from the 2010 health care bill. But the battle to reduce wasteful medical spending is still in its very early stages.
Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the secretary of health and human services, has set a goal that at least 50 percent of Medicare payments be based on quality, not quantity, of care by 2018 — which is two years into the next administration.
Right now, many outcome-based payment systems are voluntary. To get to 50 percent, notes Peter Orszag, the former Obama budget director, Washington will probably need to force more hospitals and doctors into such systems. And because accountability isn’t fun, many are sure to squawk about it.
If you want to judge how serious Mrs. Clinton is about the long-term budget deficit, keep an eye on the signals she sends about health costs. Nothing affects the deficit more than health spending.
Style. This list obviously is not an exhaustive one. Ultimately, though, the biggest differences between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama may revolve around style.
In the 2008 campaign, she criticized him for his naïveté about the potential for major bipartisan compromises. “We’ve got to be really clear that this is a struggle, and this is just not a moment where everybody will see the world the way it should be seen and come together to solve these problems,” she told me then. “There are powerful forces at work in our society.”
Mr. Obama has since moved toward Mrs. Clinton’s view, more willing simply to defy Republicans when compromise isn’t an option. But many Democrats continue to believe that if the party holds the White House in 2016, it will be better served by a harder-edged approach to leadership and negotiation. (And many Obama advisers roll their eyes at such criticism as vague wishful thinking.)
Whatever the truth, Mrs. Clinton’s view about these questions now matters more than anyone else’s in the Democratic Party. The most influential critic of a president is the one who succeeds him, and she still seems to be the only Democrat with a good chance to do so.
Hillary Clinton’s fear of the trail (Politico)
By Glenn Thrush
March 13, 2014
Politico
This was the week when Hillary Clinton’s highest aspiration, being president, collided with her deepest fear — actually running for president.
It’s not that Clinton craves a coronation, people close to her say, it’s just that she wants to forestall her leap into the sulfurous political lava as long as possible. The chaotic indignity of Tuesday’s press conference on her use of a private email server as Secretary of State did nothing to change that opinion, or convince her to push up the campaign start date.
The firestorm over the emails – and earlier stories about the solicitation of foreign donations at the Clinton family charitable foundation have rattled the expanding crew of new operatives signing up for 2016 who haven’t experienced the maelstrom of a Clinton presidential campaign before. But the only two opinions that really count come from Hillary and Bill Clinton, and – despite the carping of Democrats inside and outside their own circle — they harbor few regrets about the way things have gone down so far.
“Eighteen months ago who would imagined Hillary Clinton would have zero competition in the primaries? That’s pretty good, right?” said one longtime Clinton insider, reflecting the prevailing view in the no-rush camp, which includes the Clintons and their longtime consigliore Cheryl Mills.
“Everybody has an incentive to start this campaign – the staff, the consultants who are working for nothing and want to get paid, you guys in the media – everybody except Hillary Clinton,” the person added. “The goal here is to make this the shortest campaign possible. The emails thing didn’t change that.”
The danger, of course, is that the 20th Century political victors are ignoring 21st Century political reality and inviting the American body politic play by their idiosyncratic set of rules — as they did by deciding to use Bill Clinton’s private server as a conduit for Hillary Clinton’s government correspondence. Moreover, as the press conference proved, it’s put her in the familiar — and bizarre — position of entering the 2016 campaign as both the strongest non-incumbent ever to seek the office and a wounded, vulnerable frontrunner.
“She’ll get past these sort of little dust-ups, but we really have to start having a conversation,” says Iowa Democratic operative Tavis Hall, expressing the growing anxiousness of battleground Democrats eager for Clinton to hoist a flag to rally around.
The response to the emails controversy was hampered by the lack of a campaign team — and the candidate’s reluctance to share details of her personal email server with the people who could defend her; Clinton’s people were rebuffed by surrogates who refused to appear on TV because they weren’t given details about the system, according to two potential surrogates interviewed by POLITICO. Moreover, it took eight days for Clinton to reluctantly agree to appear before the media — and only then at the urging of her young campaign manager Robbie Mook and eminence-grise campaign chairman John Podesta.
“It’s clear they lack an apparatus. She’s a candidate without a campaign.” Robert Gibbs, a former White House press secretary under President Obama told The Washington Post. And former Obama strategist David Axelrod told MSNBC he thought the campaign’s sluggish response on the emails story was the result of a “lack of answers from the Clinton campaign, or the nascent campaign.”
Last September, another Obama stalwart, 2008 campaign manager David Plouffe, was summoned to Clinton’s home in Washington for a consultation with the would-be candidate. His advice? Start assembling a campaign apparatus as quickly as possible, set them to work immediately — and more, importantly, settle on a robust rationale for the campaign not based merely on her celebrity or gender.
She’s mostly ignored that advice — and details about her personnel moves have proven far more plentiful than details about her policy plans, or her rationale for seeking the job, apart from vague references to her experience and a new willingness to emphasize her role as a gender trailblazer.
Yet, in some respects, Clinton has showed a willingness to change her basic approach as a candidate. Late last year, she enlisted another Obama mainstay, pollster Joel Benenson, to oversee a sprawling polling operation, supervise messaging and hire a communications team. Benenson’s philosophy in assembling the team was to avoid the hard-edged, confrontational approach of the Clinton 2008 war room — and he enlisted current White House Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, a veteran Democrat operative with deep relationships in the media, to head the team. “She’s hiring people who believe in engaging reporters, not beating the shit out of them,” said one person close to Clinton.
But campaigns invariably reflect the attitude of the candidate, and Clinton — scarred deeply by the Whitewater and Lewinsky battles of the 1990s — still thinks of the press corps as hostile adversaries who often carry the water of GOP opposition researchers. “Look, she hates you. Period. That’s never going to change,” a 2008 Clinton veteran told me when I asked if her attitude towards the media had evolved.
All of this has fostered a deep reluctance to formally jump into the 2016 fray, even as the political and journalistic bullets have started whizzing past. As recently as December, people close to her say, Clinton was still seriously considering not running in 2016 — at least that what she was telling friends. And she didn’t start reading the pile of campaign memos aides and would-be staffers had compiled for her until Christmas, when she started telling people she would probably take the plunge, according to several aides I spoke to.
She approached the press conference with a sense of even-tempered resignation, they told POLITICO, with little of the finger-pointing from staff, or the cold silences on conference calls that characterized her reactions to bad news in 2008. Mostly, she was ticked off that the email story overshadowed the release of a report, partly funded by the Clinton foundation, on the educational and economic progress of woman around the world (Tellingly, she was particularly annoyed that The New York Times, a paper she believes she has battled for decades, didn’t write about the “No Ceilings” report more extensively).
Yet for close observers of Clinton, Tuesday’s performance offered the glimmer of a new more conciliatory approach, and a little more ease in the campaign klieg lights.
“Looking back, it would’ve been better for me to use two separate phones and two email accounts,” she told reporters with a sheepish smile. “I thought using one device would be simpler, and obviously, it hasn’t worked out that way.”
Several people close to Clinton pointed out that those remarks — widely criticized for garbling the technical details in question — represented a change from her behavior in 2008, when Clinton was almost universally unwilling to admit fault for fear of being labeled indecisive (In the last campaign, it took her months, for instance, to concede that she had not actually flown into a live-fire zone during a trip to the Balkans in the 1990s).
But this week Clinton agreed, without complaint, when advisers suggested she concede that she made a mistake in using her private email account. To one veteran of Hillaryland, it was part of a welcome trend of humanizing contrition: Last summer she issued a semi-apology last summer for suggesting she was “dead broke” upon leaving the White House in 2000.
“Maybe things will be different this time when she finally gets in,” the person said. “Or maybe not.”
Hillary Clinton staffs up in New Hampshire (The Washington Post)
By Anne Gearan
March 13, 2015
Washington Post
Hillary Rodham Clinton has lined up three Democratic staffers credited with helping New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) win re-election last fall to lead the emerging Clinton campaign operation in that state, Democratic officials said.
Clinton is expected to formally announce her presidential campaign next month, but top staff are already unofficially on the job in at least two states with early primaries, as well as in New York City where Clinton plans to house her campaign headquarters.
In New Hampshire, which has the nation’s second nominating contest, Democrats familiar with the hires said Clinton has selected Mike Vlacich, who ran Shaheen’s 2014 reelection, to be the state director. Harrell Kirstein, who was Shaheen’s 2014 communications director, will reprise that role for Clinton, and Shaheen political director Kari Thurman will be a senior political aide in New Hampshire, the Democrats said.
Democrats who confirmed the hires asked not to be identified because Clinton has not yet announced her candidacy.
The three New Hampshire hires were first reported Friday by the Associated Press, the Boston Globe and WMUR.
Shaheen’s victory was a bright spot in an otherwise bleak midterm year for Democrats. The race was closer than expected, with Brown taking 51 percent of the vote to former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown’s 48 percent.
Shaheen is close to Clinton and the two are longtime political allies. The governor expected to play a big role in Clinton’s New Hampshire campaign. Clinton campaigned for Shaheen, including a rally the weekend before the election that marked Clinton’s final stump appearance for the cycle.
In Iowa, which holds the first contest of 2016, Clinton’s campaign is expected to be headed by Matt Paul, a political adviser to former Gov. Tom Vilsack. Brenda Cole, a seasoned Iowa campaign aide, will also play a senior role, CNN reported Friday.
Clinton Takes Campaign Step With New Hampshire Hiring (The New York Times)
March 13, 2015
New York Times
CONCORD, N.H. — In a direct step toward a run for the presidency, Hillary Rodham Clinton is hiring political staff to guide her Democratic primary efforts in the early voting state of New Hampshire.
The team-in-waiting is made up of senior operatives in Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s successful re-election bid in 2014, when she survived a Republican wave that knocked out many other Democrats. Mike Vlacich, Shaheen’s campaign manager, will serve as Clinton’s state director, said a New Hampshire Democrat with knowledge of the move. The Democrat spoke on condition of anonymity because people will not be officially hired until Clinton announces a campaign.
Clinton is expected to announce her 2016 White House bid in the next few weeks, a race that presents few primary rivals at this point, in contrast to the crowded Republican contest.
The former secretary of state has been trying to dig out from a controversy over her use of a private email account and server after acknowledging days ago that she should have avoided relying exclusively on personal email while at the State Department. Word of her hirings in New Hampshire came as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, expected to be a leading contender for the Republican nomination, is in the state on his first visit in years.
In addition to Vlacich, Clinton is turning to Kari Thurman, Shaheen’s political director, and Harrell Kirstein, Shaheen’s campaign communications director, to serve in the same functions for her, the source said. Shaheen on Friday wished the three of them well “in their next venture,” praised their service to her and described Vlacich as “a dedicated public servant and a brilliant political strategist.”
Clinton won the 2008 New Hampshire primary and many prominent Democrats in the state are already backing her assumed campaign. Democrats recently told The Associated Press that she has begun retaining staff in the early voting states of Iowa and South Carolina as well.
Clinton returned to New Hampshire last fall for the first time since 2008, campaigning for Shaheen and Gov. Maggie Hassan before the 2014 midterm election. She and her husband, Bill, have maintained friendships and political alliances in New Hampshire that date to the early 1990s.
Vlacich emerged from the 2014 election as one of the most successful Democratic operatives in the country, helping Shaheen beat back a challenge from Republican Scott Brown, a former senator from Massachusetts, when Democrats lost competitive races across the country. Vlacich’s wife, Liz Purdy, is also a Clinton confidante, serving as a top adviser to Clinton’s 2008 bid in the state.
“Mike is the kind of person who can just pull activists together,” said Peter Burling, a former Democratic National Committeeman from New Hampshire. “I think that’s going to be an essential part of this next campaign, getting Democrats to come out and participate.”
Robby Mook, Clinton’s likely campaign manager, also has ties to Shaheen, serving as her 2008 campaign chief.
In Iowa, Clinton’s campaign is expected to be run by Matt Paul, a longtime adviser to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, a former Iowa governor. South Carolina Democrats have told AP that Clinton will again hire Democratic consulting firm Sunrise Communications, owned by Darrell Jackson, a state senator and pastor.
Clinton Said to be Close to Choosing Brooklyn for Campaign Headquarters (The New York Times)
By Maggie Haberman
March 13, 2015
New York Times
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s aides are close to locking in space for a campaign headquarters in Brooklyn, people familiar with the decision confirmed.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides are looking at the Metro Tech complex in Brooklyn Heights, two people with knowledge of the plans said. Other options, including one in the Long Island City section of Queens, fell through.
Mrs. Clinton’s team initially looked at space in White Plains, nearer to her home in Chappaqua. They then moved their focus to New York City, in part because the commute for many of her top advisers to Westchester County seemed prohibitive. Options in Manhattan were considered, but ultimately they chose Brooklyn. The selection was first reported by CNN.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton did not immediately respond to an email.
Brooklyn is where the city’s progressive mayor, Bill de Blasio, used to work as a city councilman, and his administration tried to bring the 2016 Democratic National Convention to the borough (losing out to Philadelphia). But Brooklyn has also become almost as expensive to find affordable housing as Manhattan, something many potential staff members are surely worried about.
Hillary Clinton set on Brooklyn HQ, eyes April launch (CNN)
By Dan Merica and Jeff Zeleny
March 13, 2015
CNN
Washington (CNN)As Hillary Clinton’s expected April presidential launch nears, her already sizable campaign apparatus is moving into place and getting close to signing a lease for office space in Brooklyn.
Clinton and her team have recently coalesced around the New York borough, according to multiple sources, and are nearing a deal for office space at the MetroTech complex in Brooklyn Heights.
A lease has not been signed yet, according to a source with knowledge, but very serious negations are ongoing and the Clinton team settled on Brooklyn after eying other locations around New York City. She ran her 2008 presidential campaign from Virginia, just across the Potomac river from Washington.
The Clinton team is still preparing for an April announcement, several top Democratic aides, donors and supporters say, although the precise date still remains up for discussion. Dozens of campaign staffers, who have been sworn to secrecy after being notified that they were being hired, have been told to report to New York by late March.
Clinton has been conducting personal interviews with several potential advisers at her home in Chappaqua, while her top aides have been assembling a communications, fundraising, political and social media team.
Clinton supporters see a number of benefits in Brooklyn, including ease of attracting talent to the New York area and the fact that it’s known for ethnic and socio-economic diversity.
On the downside, some Clinton supporters have expressed concern with being closely associated with New York City, and in particular Wall Street, which is only two subway stops away.
The campaign headquarters also creates a logistical challenge for staffers in a city of high rents. The campaign is asking supporters in New York if anyone who can open their doors and take in young workers.
The email controversy that has engulfed the Clinton operation for nearly two weeks did not accelerate the timing of her presidential announcement, several top Democrats said, but it did underscore the need for a full-scale campaign apparatus to deal with the incoming criticism.
“I think folks are realizing now more than ever that they need to announce earlier rather than later,” a source with knowledge told CNN. “The whole argument that she is left undefended without an official apparatus around her just became magnified 100 times over with this email issue.”
The scale and scope of the campaign will ultimately reach into the hundreds, but aides said it would grow gradually.
A larger grassroots operation is planned for Iowa, site of the first-in-the nation caucuses, where campaign workers will train over the next several months before being dispatched to battleground states. New Hampshire, home of the first Democratic primary, will also be used as a training ground for field and political staffers.
While Clinton isn’t expecting an aggressive Democratic primary contest, advisers said they realized they have little time to waste and are approaching the race as though they already have a dozen challengers -- namely the prospective Republican candidates who are trying to distinguish themselves by forcefully criticizing Clinton.
Because of that undisputed frontrunner status, though, Clinton and her team have had their pick of top talent around the country without having to fight with other campaigns.
In New Hampshire, the nascent presidential campaign plans to hire three advisers to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s reelection bid in 2014 to lead Clinton’s New Hampshire operation, according to Granite State Democrats.
Mike Vlacich, a longtime New Hampshire operative, will be Clinton’s state director, Kari Thurman, the Shaheen campaign’s political director, will fill the same role for Clinton, and Harrell Kirstein, the Shaheen campaign’s communications director, will run Clinton’s communications shop.
The all-but-announced campaign has also tapped Iowa leadership.
Matt Paul, a longtime adviser to former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, will lead the Clinton’s Hawkeye operation. Paul, who currently serves as a top adviser to Vilask at the department of Agriculture, is returning to Iowa for the job and is expected to place in place by the end of the month, according to Democrats in the state.
Joining Paul in Iowa will be Brenda Cole, a longtime Iowa operative, and Lily Adams, currently the deputy communications director at the Democratic National Committee, according to Democrats in the state. Adams will runs Clinton’s communications shop in the Hawkeye State and Cole will be her political director.
As CNN reported on Thursday, Clinton has started to line up a press operation, too, an effort that became a priority when the former secretary of state was seemingly left undefended during a recent controversy over her exclusive use of a private email system.
Jeb Bush, a Clinton Critic, Took Time Releasing His Own Emails (The New York Times)
By Michael Barbaro
March 14, 2015
The New York Times
Jeb Bush has rebuked Hillary Rodham Clinton for her use of a private email account as secretary of state, holding up his own conduct as an example of transparency in government.
But it took Mr. Bush seven years after leaving office to fully comply with a Florida public records statute requiring him to turn over emails he sent and received as governor, according to records released Friday.
Mr. Bush delivered the latest batch of 25,000 emails in May 2014, seven and a half years after leaving the Statehouse and just as he started to contemplate a potential run for the White House, according to a newly disclosed letter written by his lawyer.
A Florida statute governing the preservation of public records requires elected officials, including the governor, to turn over records pertaining to official business “at the expiration of his or her term of office.”
“If they’ve been adding to it, it’s a technical violation of the law,” said Barbara A. Petersen, president of the First Amendment Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group in Florida that advocates access to government information.
She added, “The law clearly says you’re supposed to turn everything over at the end of your term in office.”
Aides to Mr. Bush, an avid user of email, said they had provided many of his messages to his successor’s office as they were being reviewed for inclusion in the state archives, a process that dragged on for years because of the large volume.
“At the conclusion of Gov. Bush’s time in office, aides worked with the Executive Office of the Governor to continue to fulfill public records requests, as well as provide a full set of his official emails to the state for historical and archival purposes,” Kristy Campbell, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bush, said in a written statement.
Mr. Bush on Friday offered no detailed explanation for the seven-year delay in completing the search for his emails. Mr. Bush used a private email address, jeb@jeb.org, throughout his eight-year term as governor and encouraged constituents to write to him.
After it was revealed that Mrs. Clinton had relied exclusively on a private email account during her time as secretary of state, raising questions about her compliance with public records rules, Mr. Bush’s aides gleefully pointed to their handling of electronic correspondence as a model.
Mr. Bush, they recalled, had publicly advertised his personal email address and had promptly released tens of thousands of the emails to the public on a website.
“Transparency matters,” Mr. Bush wrote in a message on Twitter. Mrs. Clinton’s “emails should be released.”
The newly disclosed documents, made available after a request from The New York Times on Friday afternoon, suggest that Mr. Bush delivered his emails to state archives in several waves starting in 2007. New batches arrived in 2009, 2010 and 2011 as Mr. Bush and his aides reviewed whether they were subject to disclosure.
But in 2014, they discovered a new set of 25,000 emails, which represents about 9 percent of the 280,000 emails that he has turned over to the state from his private account. Until then, public records requests seeking emails to or from Mr. Bush would not have captured those messages, Ms. Petersen said.
In a letter explaining the delay, a lawyer for Mr. Bush, Raquel A. Rodriguez, wrote that the new messages were discovered when “we recently reviewed Gov. Bush’s records and came across some additional email messages that may be public records.” The letter did not elaborate on where or how the messages were found.
Ms. Petersen said she gave Mr. Bush credit for turning over emails as he found them but said the yearslong delay was curious.
“I can see how it might take six months or so, a year maybe to locate all these records,” she said. “But we are talking, what now, seven years?”
Jeb Bush: I’m No Hillary Clinton When it Comes to Email (ABC News)
By Meghan Keneally
March 14, 2015
ABC News
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush dedicated his return to New Hampshire after a 15-year-long absence to defining himself outside of his family’s shadow and distancing himself from any similarities to another likely presidential candidate with legacy ties: Hillary Clinton.
Speaking after a business roundtable with the Nashua Chamber of Commerce on Friday, Bush said that his use of a private email server was “totally different” than that of the former Secretary of State, adding that he had been “totally transparent” about his communication habits.
While Clinton said this week that she used a private account out of “convenience” and later went through a “thorough process” to deliver her work-related messages to the State Department, Bush said he regularly complied with Freedom of Information Act requests during his tenure as governor and later posted a trove of thousands of emails online.
“I had a Blackberry. It was part of my official portrait for crying out loud,” he said Friday. “There was nothing to hide.”
“We complied with the law and … long before Mrs. Clinton’s issues came up, we made them public for you to see, so it’s totally different,” he said.
Though Bush, who left the governor’s mansion in 2007, maintained that his office has been dedicated to being “totally transparent” for years, a trove of his emails from his term were only handed over last summer, according to American Bridge, a liberal super PAC.
American Bridge released a report Saturday saying the Florida Department of State confirmed that an undisclosed amount of emails concerning “policy discussion” from 2002 to 2003 were not sent to the Florida State Archives until June of last year. That would give him, like Clinton, years where he had access to his personal email server but the government did not.
Though Bush declined to comment on what the scandal may mean for Clinton, he said he wasn’t surprised that her team would suggest that his actions were similar to hers.
“That’s standard operating procedure for them,” he said of the allegations.
Later Friday, after Bush left his first public event in Hudson and stopped at a closed-door fundraiser, the former governor attended a house party hosted by former New Hampshire GOP Chairman Fergus Cullen, where he was happier to talk about his connections to some other former White House residents.
After working his way through the jammed dining and living rooms of the Cullens, Bush talked about how his family members have defined him for many years, saying how he’s long-been known as “George’s boy, or Barbara’s boy, or George’s brother.”
That wasn’t a problem for some in the hundred-strong crowd, including Brad Ludington, an endodontist who said that he had been waiting more than a decade to shake Bush’s hand.
“The last two people I shook the hands of became president,” Ludington said of Bush’s father and brother.
Ludington said he was excited to hear the former governor speak, and though he liked the other Bush politicians, they were “totally different people.”
Bush is one of a handful of likely 2016 presidential candidates to sweep the Granite State this week. Former Texas governor Rick Perry met voters at a series of smaller events in VFW halls upstate Friday, while Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker will headline a training session for volunteers and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has several events scheduled for Sunday.
While Perry found support in New Hampshire during the 2012 primaries, some state activists appear to be making an effort to change the tenor of the upcoming primary politicking. On Friday night, Cullen introduced Bush by taking a swipe at the earlier field, saying they “didn’t have enough serious, credible candidates” in 2012.
“Governor Bush would be a one-person antidote to that problem,” Cullen said.
Bush repeatedly shied away from the conclusion that he is formally running for president. When asked about how he would address the spread of ISIS, Bush said that he would only answer the question as a third-person hypothetical because he is only “considering the possibility of running.”
But that’s enough for supporters. Before the potential candidate even started addressing the group at the house party, Ludington felt that he had done his part to get another Bush in the White House.
“I gave him my lucky handshake,” he said.
Hillary Clinton’s secret mess; The e-mail saga is a reminder that the Clintons rarely play by the same rules as everyone else. (The Washington Post)
By Kathleen Parker
March 14, 2015
The Washington Post
On March 2, the story broke that Hillary Clinton had possibly violated e-mail regulations while secretary of state.
You could almost hear the collective gasp in Washington: Oh, no, here we go again.
But the next evening, Clinton was feted at the Emily’s List 30th-anniversary gala dinner as though nothing had happened. Only the trumpets were missing from what felt like her coronation as the Democratic presidential nominee and, possibly, the next president of the United States.
Fast-forward a dozen days and Clinton’s position in the presidential sweepstakes seems less assured, her inevitability not so inevitable.
The most perplexing question isn’t about the e-mails themselves but why she put everything at risk over such a small detail, declining to segregate her personal and business e-mail.
There can only be one answer, and it isn’t “convenience,” as Clinton claims. Think of another word that begins with the letter “C”: control.
Clinton claims she opted for the convenience of one cellphone and a personal server — rather than use a government-issued phone for business and another device for personal matters. Too much stuff to lug around?
So the whole question of her conduct as secretary of state boils down to a few ounces of electronic equipment. Hate to say it, but only a woman could come up with such an excuse. It’s all about the purse.
Plainly, Clinton didn’t want anyone snooping around her virtual file cabinet. Who does? But this isn’t the point. When you are secretary of state and are mulling a run for president, you steer clear of anything and anyone remotely questionable. No one should know this better.
Questions that merit serious consideration include whether the Clinton server was secure. Clinton insists that it was because her New York home, where the server lives, is protected by the Secret Service. Given the optional sobriety of agents these days, this is less than reassuring. Then, too, hacking doesn’t require on-site handling.
Here’s the real muddle for Clinton. Whether her server suffered no breaches — and whether there’s nothing in those 32,000 deleted personal e-mails — matters little. In politics, you’re guilty as perceived. It looks bad.
Most likely this error (rather than crime) is a function of remoteness more than dishonesty. The Clintons have been around so long, they are the essence of bubble life. Removed from the hubbub of ordinary existence — escorted, driven, valeted, catered to, styled, fluffed and obeyed — being Clinton means never having to hear the word “no.” It must be easy to forget that you have to live by the same rules as everyone else.
This is a concept the Clintons have never fully accepted. One can understand, given their extended public life — and the hyper-scrutiny under which they live — that they might seek to erect high walls around their private lives. Fame and celebrity breed not just insularity but also paranoia.
Maybe there’s nothing of interest in those personal e-mails, but how would we know? Team Clinton handpicked the “personals” and now they’re deleted, thus creating the impression that she is hiding something. The Clintons always seem to be hiding something. Not so much holding their cards close to the chest as kicking the body back behind the dust ruffle.
Even though investigations into every “gate” associated with them in the past — Travelgate, Filegate, Troopergate, you-name-it-gate — failed to produce much more than a blue dress, there seemed to be something not quite right. And now there’s this. Not illegal per se but not quite right.
Clinton says she figured that, because all her communications to State Department staff went to the dot-gov server, they automatically would have gone into storage as required. True, but what about the rest? What’s in those deleted e-mails? Don’t we imagine that personal and business often overlap in the Clinton Rolodex?
Adding to the suspicion is that the 55,000 pages of e-mails that Clinton did turn over to the State Department surfaced only after the House select committee investigating Benghazi requested her correspondence about the attack. Would she have turned them over anyway?
Maybe. Still and again, it doesn’t look good. And the entire mess serves as a reminder of a movie we’ve seen before — and it wasn’t so great the first time. Whether this episode proves fatal remains to be seen, but we won’t hear the end of it until every note of condolence, yoga date and wedding plan is known to someone other than Hillary.
Public’s right to know lost in email; State Dept. fails to practice the transparency it preaches (Boston Herald)
By Rachelle Cohen
March 13, 2015
Boston Herald
Each year the U.S. State Department hosts thousands of public officials from around the world under its International Visitor Leadership Program. It is one of the better things our government does, bringing the best and the brightest from distant lands — public officials, judges, journalists — and giving them a taste of how we operate here.
I know this because several times a year I get to host such groups at the Herald where the topic du jour is usually transparency — government transparency — everything from the cameras and Tweets from inside the Aaron Hernandez trial to the lengthy and detailed “Statement of Financial Interests” filed by every high-ranking state and local official, to the public payrolls we put up on our website. The latter is always a crowd pleaser — especially if we can look up the salary of some state official who might be in the room at the time.
For government officials from the Ukraine, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, or journalists from Latin America or the Middle East this is eye-opening stuff — scary too, but they are universally quick to realize that transparency is at the heart of preventing the kind of corruption that eats away at public trust.
Many of their countries are right at that critical juncture — knowing where they need to be, but measuring progress in inches.
Now make no mistake, I always include a segment on how less than perfect we as a nation are, and how journalists are constantly fighting to push the envelope to keep government honest and open.
So what the hell do I tell them now? How do I explain Hillary Rodham Clinton and her private email server and her deletion of more than half of the emails she sent or received during her four years as secretary of state?
And there is the delicious irony of the State Department — which brings all of these smart up-and-coming officials here to worship at the American altar of transparency — now finding itself being sued by The Associated Press to force the release of Clinton’s government emails.
The AP announced this week it was filing the suit after years of filing fruitless requests under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act — including at least one request that dates back five years and others pending since the summer of 2013.
The FOIA requests sought Clinton’s emails regarding the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices and correspondence between Clinton and top aides who might be expected to be part of a future presidential campaign, such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.
“State’s failure to ensure that Secretary Clinton’s government emails were retained and preserved by the agency, and its failure to timely seek out and search those emails in response to AP’s requests, indicate at the very least that State has not engaged in the diligent, good-faith search that FOIA requires,” the AP suit says.
And even as Clinton herself was trying to tap dance around the possible destruction of government documents (in the all-too-likely event that some of those 30,000 “private” emails weren’t about Chelsea’s wedding or yoga routines at all), the inspector general for the department released his own well-timed report this week.
In fact the IG found that of more than a billion emails sent in 2011, State Department employees created only 61,156 official “record emails” that would be preserved in the system. In 2013 that figure was down to 41,749.
“Some employees do not create record emails because they do not want to make the email available in searches or fear that this availability would inhibit debate about pending decisions,” the IG wrote.
Really? Who would have guessed?
So if Hillary Clinton set the standard, the rest of the crew at State was all too eager to follow her lead.
Guess it’s true what they say about the fish rotting from the head the down.
Rachelle Cohen is editor of the editorial pages.
Hillary Clinton’s Questionable Process for Sorting Work Emails (The Atlantic)
By Conor Friedersdorf
March 13, 2015
The Atlantic
Hillary Clinton asked the public to trust her during a recent press conference at the United Nations, when she stated that she has already complied with transparency laws by turning over all public records she generated as Secretary of State.
She had no business making that claim. A Time magazine report about the process used to identify public records in her possession shows that she cannot possibly know if she is in compliance with the law. And juxtaposing her process with the words used in her press conference shows her core claim to be misleading.
Unless she can disprove the story, her credibility can only suffer from the comparison.
* * *
To understand the impression Hillary Clinton created at her press conference, before additional facts were available, it is best to begin with her words. What follows are the parts of the event where she characterized the emails she has turned over.
She began:
... after I left office, the State Department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work-related emails from our personal accounts. I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totalled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though I knew that the State Department already had the vast majority of them. We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails and deliver them to the State Department.
A reporter at the press conference followed up, asking, “Can you explain how you decided which of the personal e-mails to get rid of, how you got rid of them and when? And how you’ll respond to questions about you being the arbiter of what you release?”
Her reply:
In going through the e-mails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half were work-related and went to the State Department and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work. I had no reason to save them, but that was my decision because the federal guidelines are clear and the State Department request was clear. For any government employee, it is that government employee’s responsibility to determine what’s personal and what’s work-related. I am very confident of the process that we conducted and the e-mails that were produced.
Later still, she added, “I have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department.”
And she said this:
... my direction to conduct the thorough investigation was to err on the side of providing anything that could be possibly viewed as work related. That doesn’t mean they will be by the State Department once the State Department goes through them, but out of an abundance of caution and care, you know, we wanted to send that message unequivocally. That is the responsibility of the individual and I have fulfilled that responsibility, and I have no doubt that we have done exactly what we should have done. When the search was conducted, we were asking that any email be identified and preserved that could potentially be federal records, and that’s exactly what we did ... I trust the American people to make their decisions about political and public matters. And I feel that I’ve taken unprecedented steps to provide these work-related emails.
To review, she asserted 1) a thorough investigation that included “going through” roughly 60,000 emails; 2) a standard of erring on the side of disclosing “anything” that could “possibly” be viewed as work related; 3) a “thorough” process robust enough to warrant “absolute confidence” in its results; 4) a process to turn over emails that could plausibly be characterized as “unprecedented.”
Nearly everyone listening to these assurances came away with the impression that a person or team of people went through those 60,000+ emails and sorted them into two categories: work or personal. On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart mocked the notion that sorting through tens of thousands of emails was more “convenient” than maintaining both work and personal email accounts. Most criticism of the approach focused on the fact that Hillary Clinton confidantes, rather than neutral arbiters, were making the judgment calls about these 60,000+ emails.
But it turns out that no one was “going through” each email to sort work from personal correspondence or to error on the side of disclosure when the line was blurry.
According to David Von Drehle of Time, the process used was actually as follows:
She commissioned a review of the 62,320 messages in her account only after the department—spurred by the congressional investigation—asked her to do so.
And this review did not involve opening and reading each email; instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache—31,830 emails—did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be “private, personal records.”
The idea that such a process could produce “absolute confidence” that all public records were identified is as curious as the notion that Bill Clinton never inhaled.
Here is a made up email to illustrate the point:
To: Bill Clinton
From: Hillary Clinton
Subject: Ugh
Assume you saw the latest. This could blow up in our faces if we don’t get out in front of it ... and frankly, the WH isn’t helping matters much. I’m tempted to reverse course but wonder if it would affect your latest ask. What does SB think?
A keyword search would not flag messages where (for example) official business is rendered in pronouns, “White House” is rendered as an abbreviation, and “Sidney Blumenthal” is rendered in shorthand. Or consider an email that concerns Benghazi, but that was typed on a smart phone in a moment of distraction, causing an unintententional misspelling: “Benhgazi.” A key-word search would miss that email. The process described would label it a “private, personal record.”
As for creating a list of names, that would doubtless flag a lot of relevant work emails, but no busy professional remembers the name of every person who emails them for work over a multi-year period encompassing tens of thousands of messages.
And those problems apply even if we assume that Team Clinton made an earnest effort to use search terms that would flag all relevant emails, while it could be the case that they knew what they hoped to hide and crafted the search accordingly. Had the technology existed in an earlier era Richard Nixon’s attorneys presumably wouldn’t have included “Watergate” or “burglary” in the search terms.
This revelation ought to harm Hillary Clinton insofar as it shows her earlier statements to be misleading. It also suggests what question she ought to be asked next: What list of names and key words were included in the email-archive search? It’s easy to imagine search terms that would suggest an earnest effort at identification, the shortcomings of the method notwithstanding, and equally easy to imagine search terms so self-evidently inadequate or with such glaring omissions that, like the private server itself, they suggest that official business was being hidden.
Even if Hillary Clinton’s server was wiped clean and her email archive is unrecoverable, she can further reveal the specific details of her inadequate process.
Will she?
Judge Orders State Dept. to Release Records From Clinton Trips (The New York Times)
By Amy Chozick
March 13, 2015
The New York Times
A federal judge on Friday ruled on behalf of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, in its lawsuit against the State Department for documents related to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure there.
Judge Gladys Kessler of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the State Department to produce passenger manifests from 47 overseas trips that Mrs. Clinton made as secretary of state. Citizens United requested the manifests last July through a Freedom of Information Act Request.
The State Department, the judge wrote, must release the first batch of records by April 3, with more being released every two weeks; all the documents must be given to the group no later than Aug. 1.
The group requested the flight manifests to examine whether Clinton Foundation donors had accompanied Mrs. Clinton on State Department trips.
“Clearly, the State Department is not getting the benefit of the doubt from judges anymore,” David N. Bossie, president of Citizens United. said Friday.
A State Department spokeswomen did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Citizens United has made 18 FOIA requests for information, none of which have not been fulfilled. The group said it planned to file a lawsuit next week that would seek to gain access to documents that show any existing correspondence between senior State Department officials and donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Requests for public records requests have been complicated or made impossible because of Mrs. Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email address while she was at the State Department. The Associated Press filed a lawsuit this week against the State Department to force the release of outstanding documents requested through FOIA.
Citizens United has a history of litigation involving projects designed to portray Mrs. Clinton in a negative light. A lawsuit the group brought against the Federal Election Commission over its 2008 anti-Clinton documentary, “Hillary: The Movie,” reached the Supreme Court and led to a 2010 decision that overhauled campaign finance rules.
Is Hillary Clinton Vulnerable? (The Wall Street Journal)
By James Taranto
March 13, 2015
The Wall Street Journal
More details are emerging about Hillary Clinton’s private email server, and they don’t look good from either a transparency or security standpoint. Time reports on how she determined which emails to print out for the State Department:
For more than a year after she left office in 2013, she did not transfer work-related email from her private account to the State Department. She commissioned a review of the 62,320 messages in her account only after the department—spurred by the congressional investigation—asked her to do so. And this review did not involve opening and reading each email; instead, [Mrs.] Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache—31,830 emails—did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be “private, personal records.”
In Tuesday’s press conference Mrs. Clinton claimed to have undertaken “a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails” and to have “provided [printouts of] all my emails that could possibly be work-related.” If Time’s account is accurate, the process was not thorough, and the claim that the printouts included all work-related emails is almost certainly untrue. The search terms the lawyers employed were narrow enough to exclude more than half (51.1%) of all the emails on the server. Are we supposed to believe the terms were also broad enough to include every single email that involved official business?
Moreover, if Time’s account of the lawyers’ method is comprehensive, then they made no effort to shield from disclosure those personal emails that happened to include the selected keywords. Given Mrs. Clinton’s penchant for privacy, does that seem likely? One wonders if perhaps there was a second set of search terms flagging emails to be withheld—and, since she said she “chose not to keep” them, destroyed.
“Hillary Clinton Is More Vulnerable in 2016 Than You Think” read a New York Times headline early this week. The article was an analysis of her approval and disapproval ratings in opinion surveys, but her use of a private server to conduct sensitive official business raises the prospect of another kind of vulnerability—questions even Vox.com raised after the press conference in a piece titled “Clinton Says She Had No Email Security Breaches. But She Doesn’t Know That.”
At the press conference, the former secretary laughably claimed that the server was secure because “it was on property guarded by the Secret Service.” Maybe she’s been watching “House of Cards,” whose second season has a hacking subplot that involves obtaining physical access to a server farm. But of course that’s not how hackers typically operate in the real virtual world.
In a Sunday article for GeekWire.com, Christopher Budd, a specialist in both computer security and public relations, argues that Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private server while secretary of state may “represent one of the most serious breaches in data handling that we’ve ever heard of.” He lists three reasons:
1. The Secretary of State is a very “high value target” from the standpoint of nation-state threat actors. The President, Secretary of Defense and the head of the CIA would also qualify in this top tier. These individuals handle the most important, most sensitive, most dangerous and therefore most interesting information to foreign intelligence.
2. Nation-state threat actors represent the top of the food chain in terms of adversaries in information security. Nation-states can bring the most talent and resources to bear in this arena. For all the worry about cybercriminals and terrorists, everyone in information security looks at nation-state threat actors as the most advanced and sophisticated threat to defend against.
3. Take #1 and #2 together and you have a situation where the very high value targets are threatened by the most advanced and sophisticated offensive information security capabilities out there. Put another way, the best of the best are gunning for those people to get their information.
The third point is critical: if the best of the best are after your information, you need the best of your best protecting it. And there is simply no way that a “homebrew” server is EVER going to have the security and resources appropriate to defend it adequately.
Since Budd wrote, experts and reporters have fleshed out some of these concerns. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that according to Venafi, an Internet security company, “the Clinton server was encrypting data it sent and received as of March 29, 2009.” But “during the first two months of her tenure . . . it doesn’t appear that Mrs. Clinton’s email had such protections.”
In a Wednesday blog post, Venafi’s vice president for security strategy and threat intelligence, Kevin Bocek, explains what this means: “During the first 3 months of Secretary Clinton’s term in office, web browser, smartphone, and tablet communications would not have been encrypted. Attackers could have eavesdropped on communications. As well, the server would not have been uniquely identified as being clintonemail.com and therefore could have been spoofed—allowing attackers to more easily trick an unsuspecting user of the site to hand over their [sic] username and password or other sensitive information.”
Even the belated security measures might not have been enough, Bocek explains:
Obtaining the cryptographic key and digital certificate for clintonemail.com would be an important step for attackers seeking to compromise Secretary of State Clinton or others [who] might access the server. With them, bad guys could masquerade as the legitimate site or decrypt what was thought to be private communications. As a standalone Microsoft Windows Server, the site is very vulnerable. In 2013, over 800 trojans were known to steal keys and certificates—and that number has swelled since then. The use of digital certificates on clintonemail.com provides users with the confidence that they are connecting to the real site and communications cannot be inspected. But when on government networks, anyone accessing the site and depending on the certificate needs to be highly suspicious. The site has received tremendous attention and its contents and certificate are likely targets for compromise and misuse.
Fox’s James Rosen reports that “a determined band of hackers, IT bloggers, and systems analysts have trained their specialized talents and state-of-the-art software on clintonemail.com . . . and uncovered serious lapses in security, according to data shared with Fox News”:
Perhaps most concerning, private analysts determined that clintonemail.com has been running an older model of Microsoft Internet Information Services, or IIS—specifically version 7.5, which has been documented to leave users exposed on multiple fronts. The website CVEDetails.com, which bills itself as “the ultimate security vulnerability datasource,” is awash with descriptions of serious security vulnerabilities associated with version 7.5, including “memory corruption,” “password disclosure vulnerability,” and the enabling of “remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service.”
The cyberlab technician who discovered the Clintons’ use of version 7.5 marveled at “the vulnerabilities the Clintons are ignoring” in an email to Fox News. “This is a big deal and just the thing real-world hackers look for in a target and will exploit to the max,” the source said.
“Several of these vulnerabilities have been known since 2010 and yet HRC is running official State comms through it.”
Mrs. Clinton insisted during her press conference that “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.” Even if true, there are three reasons that is not reassuring.
First, as the Journal notes in a Wednesday editorial, “emails between a Secretary of State and others in government don’t have to be classified to be valuable to foreign hackers.” Second, as the Journal points out in a Thursday editorial, “Mrs. Clinton didn’t say she never received classified information via email.”
Third, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy argues at National Review Online, it depends on what the meaning of “material” is:
In the government, classified documents are maintained on separate, super-highly secured systems. Yes, if security gets lax or you have a determined Ed Snowden type with sufficient expertise, the protections can be defeated. But in general, Mrs. Clinton would not have been able to access classified documents even from a .gov account, much less from her private account—she’d need to use the classified system. In fact, many government officials with security clearances read “hard copies” of classified documents in facilities designed for that purpose rather than accessing them on computers.
That said, there are two pertinent caveats. First, since we’re dealing with Clintonian parsing here, we must consider the distinction between classified documents and classified information—the latter being what is laid out in the former. It is not enough for a government official with a top-secret clearance to refrain from storing classified documents on private e-mail; the official is also forbidden to discuss the information contained in those documents.
The fact that Mrs. Clinton says she did not store classified documents on her private server, which is very likely true, does not discount the distinct possibility that she discussed classified matters in private e-mails. We would not be able to judge that absent reviewing the e-mails. If any of the 31,830 withheld e-mails from the private, non-secure system—involving America’s top diplomat who was in constant discussions with other important diplomats, top military and national-security officials, her trusted advisers, and even the president of the United States—touched on classified matters, that could land Mrs. Clinton in very hot legal water. It would be a powerful incentive to hit the “delete” key.
A frequent complaint from journalists and other advocates of government transparency is that agencies dealing with national security classify far too much material. “I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified,” a “former senior State Department official who served before the Obama administration” tells the New York Times. “Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine.” (The official requested and was granted anonymity “because he did not want to seem ungracious to Mrs. Clinton.”)
In light of all this, it’s fair to say Mrs. Clinton’s press conference raised more questions than it answered. About the only thing we know for sure is that she is determined “the server will remain private.”
How Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Became Media Control Freaks (Daily Beast)
By Lloyd Grove
March 13, 2015
Daily Beast
mbattled former secretary of state Hillary Clinton can console herself with the knowledge that she’s not alone.
The presumptive presidential candidate and email deleter—whose apparent reluctance to release public records and documents prompted the Associated Press to sue the State Department this week—is by no means unique in her wish to starve the insatiable media, or at least restrict ravenous reporters to a bland diet of happy news.
It has been the desire of politicians and government agencies through history to manipulate the Fourth Estate into publishing their press releases and ignoring their missteps and scandals. Technological advances, meanwhile, have cut both ways, allowing not only instantaneous public distribution of official government spin but also massive leaks of political and national security secrets, digitally downloaded from cyberspace.
“The basic narrative [of the latest Clinton controversy] is consistent with what we have seen from the Pentagon Papers through Watergate to the fundamental tension between the media and the political establishment,” said Frank Sesno, director of George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs and former Washington bureau chief of CNN.
“It centers on secrecy and any suggestion of a cover-up. And what technology has changed is there is more demand for more information, more rapidly and more transparently shared. So that creates a collision course between the media and, in this case, Hillary Clinton.”
President Barack Obama’s minions, obsessed with preventing unauthorized disclosures, have turned this understandable impulse into an overpowering imperative, say journalism advocates who deal with them daily.
“These folks are control freaks,” said longtime media lawyer Lucy Dalglish, dean of the University of Maryland’s Phillip Merrill College of Journalism and former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “To a certain degree, I can understand when it comes to sensitive information that can just be put on a thumb drive and flown to Russia. That’s scary, and they do need those controls. But that doesn’t mean you have to control all access.”
Dalglish was among the First Amendment advocates who attended a quarrelsome high-level meeting in November 2013 between President Obama’s communications staff, led by then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, and aggrieved and angry representatives of the White House press corps.
“The topic of that particular meeting at the White House was, ‘You’re not allowing independent photography; you only allow [Obama’s personal photographer] Pete Souza to take pictures. This is insane!’” Dalglish recalled.
“And they started going into their song and dance. ‘We’re the most transparent White House in history!’ ‘We post things on Facebook!’ ‘You don’t want us to have Facebook. You don’t want us to have Twitter and Instagram. Isn’t that hypocritical?’”
Dalglish continued: “Our response was ‘Hold it! Time out! You guys can blog. You guys can tweet. You guys can post photos. Good for you! Go do it. God bless. But it’s not the same thing as journalism. A series of photos you posted from Pete Souza are not the same as photos shot by independent professionals. And the fact that you don’t recognize that is troubling.’ Carney didn’t seem to understand.”
Amazed that Carney, a former Time magazine Washington bureau chief, would argue that White House-approved and edited photos were just as valid journalistically as those taken for independent news organizations—”Don’t get me started,” Dalglish said—she could barely believe her ears.
Carney remembers the encounter somewhat differently. “I’ve never said, and do not believe, that official photos are journalistically equivalent to photos take by independent photo journalists,” he emailed The Daily Beast. “What I did say, and believe, is that official photos have value, and that it’s a good thing to give the public access to them.”
The former White House press secretary acknowledged, however, that technology has inevitably placed the administration’s PR juggernaut in direct competition with news outlets.
“There were issues of access, which was something we could address and improve,” he emailed. “And there were issues of distribution, which were more difficult. Back in the 1980s, say, the official White House photographers took photos, decided which ones to distribute, developed them and then physically handed them out in the press room. The wires, the papers and the networks got to decide which, if any, the public would get to see.”
Carney continued: “The Internet has changed that. The early part of the process is the same now as it was then, but now the images are digitized and distribution is direct. The White House can simply post official photos online. More people get to see them, and see them sooner. I think that’s a good thing. But it doesn’t replace independent photography, and neither I nor anyone I worked with believed that it should or could.”
Photography aside, however, Dalglish listed a series of new limits demonstrating that the Obama administration’s relationship with the media is even more restrictive—arguably paranoid—than that of George W. Bush, hardly known as a press-friendly president.
“For instance, journalists can’t talk without pre-approval to any of the scientists at a scientific agency, whether it be NASA, the National Institutes of Health or the National Weather Service,” she said. “They’re cracking down on their experts, not allowing their actual scientists to speak to reporters. They make you go through ‘information specialists’ who translate the scientists for you. I’m sorry, but that’s insulting, unnecessary, and exhibits the mindset of a terrified control freak.”
In another instance, Dalglish said members of the intelligence community are required to file reports on even their most casual encounters with University of Maryland professor Dana Priest, a Pulitzer Prize-winning former Washington Post reporter who specializes in national security issues.
“Every time they see her they have to report it,” Dalglish said. “She was telling me that there was a meeting of the crew team of her daughter’s school, and there was a parent, the father of another kid, who works for one of the intelligence agencies. And he just came up to her and said, ‘Just so you know, every time I see you, I have to report that I saw you. I’m not trying to be rude, but they’re watching.’ “ Priest didn’t respond to email and voicemail messages from The Daily Beast.
Still, law professor Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago—who has studied the institutional tensions between the media and government secret-keepers—defended the intelligence community’s legitimate interests in holding the press at arm’s length.
Citing the massive and potentially harmful disclosures of classified material—by Chelsea Manning to Wikileaks and by Edward Snowden to The Guardian and other outlets—Stone said there’s little doubt that the resulting news stories damaged national security.
“The people in the intelligence community see the media as self-interested and superficial, reckless with information and a genuine danger to the nation, who do not understand what they’re doing, and, frankly, don’t care,” said Stone, who interviewed both spies and reporters as a member of the President’s Review Group on NSA Surveillance.
“The journalists tend to see the people in the intelligence community as being much more interested in protecting themselves from criticism than they are in allowing the public to be informed on matters on which the public should be informed. The truth is, they’re both right.”
The Associated Press’s lawsuit to obtain emails, calendars, phone logs and other material from Hillary Clinton’s four years at the State Department is the latest battleground of these opposing attitudes.
The central clearing house of U.S. diplomacy—which takes an average of 450 days to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request, according to a 2012 inspector general’s report—is by far the worst performer of any government agency. Even the CIA is seven times faster in responding, and the Treasury Department is even quicker—30 times faster than State.
AP General Counsel Karen Kaiser filed the current lawsuit on behalf of the non-profit wire service—which represents 1,700 member news outlets—after one of the AP’s Clinton-related FOIAs languished for five years at the State Department without a response.
She said it’s possible that after negotiations with the Justice Department’s civil division there could be arguments before a federal judge, and some of the requested documents could be forthcoming within a few months.
At which point, Hillary Clinton—likely to be in smack-dab in the middle of her campaign for the Democratic nomination—will either be facing a pesky new scandal or a collective media yawn.
Here’s what a real Democratic presidential primary might look like (The Washington Post)
By Greg Sargent
March 13, 2015
Washington Post
The other day, I noted that it might be time to start hoping for a real Democratic presidential primary. Not solely because Hillary Clinton’s handling of the email mess shows she might benefit from being challenged, but also because there are real differences among Democrats that would benefit from an airing.
Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, who has been talking about challenging Hillary Clinton from the left, has given an interview to Salon’s Joan Walsh that provides a preliminary glimpse into what such an intra-Dem debate might look like.
O’Malley seems to throw his lot in with what is widely being called the “Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.” The divide on economic policy between the Warren-ites and the more moderate Democrats tends to be exaggerated — there’s probably more consensus on these matters among Democrats than there has been in many years — but there are real differences, and they matter.
For instance, O’Malley comes out for expanding Social Security (Obama has flirted with cutting it), arguing: “Right now we’re facing a looming retirement crisis in our country. People who used to have personal savings, or pensions, don’t have them. More and more people are going to be relying solely on Social Security.” Some high profile Democrats, such as Warren, have endorsed this idea, which would be funded by lifting the cap so higher earners pay more into the system, while re-indexing for inflation to boost benefits. This goal is shared by some Dem constituencies, such as organized labor and activist groups. To my knowledge Clinton has not said whether she favors this.
O’Malley also declares his support for reinstating Glass-Steagall, i.e., separations between commercial and investment banks. This goal has also been championed by Warren, on the grounds that it could minimize the risks to the financial system posed by Wall Street “high stakes gambling.” O’Malley mocks fellow Democrats for “supporting Dodd Frank lite,” suggesting that they are mostly doing so because “we have monied interests tying Congress in knots,” an apparent effort to speak to Democratic voters who believe their party is too beholden to Wall Street.
The original Glass-Steagall, of course, was repealed under a president also named Clinton, which is one of the reasons many claim Hillary Clinton is “too cozy with Wall Street.” I’m a bit skeptical of that claim, but there are plainly differences among core Democratic constituencies over how far to go in regulating Wall Street, and a debate on this topic would be helpful and clarifying for Democratic voters.
O’Malley also brings up a topic we rarely hear about these days: Raising the income threshold for workers to qualify for overtime pay. The Obama administration will soon announce a rules change raising the threshold, and some liberal economists expect him to set it lower than he might. This is not a small matter: Going big on overtime pay might be the single most dramatic thing a Democratic president might do unilaterally to help the middle class — and if a Dem is elected in 2016, he or she will face a GOP House. O’Malley also talks about the need to boost the collective bargaining power of workers, which would be key to any serious effort to combat inequality. Clinton, too, is reportedly thinking along these lines, but still, debate on these topics would be great for the Democratic audience.
Then there’s the possible nuclear deal with Iran, a topic on which Clinton has been vague, and the argument over the proper parameters of the conflict with ISIS, a topic on which Obama and many Democrats disagree.
Yes, there is a lot of consensus among Democrats on the broad economic strokes: Higher taxes on capital gains and inherited wealth to fund middle class tax relief. More investments in infrastructure and education, particularly subsidized community college. Universal child care and early education; national family leave and sick leave policies designed to enhance workplace flexibility. A minimum wage hike. But there are remaining disagreements among core Dem constituencies and among party actors.
Can anyone force a real primary? Should anyone try? There has been a lot of snickering about how O’Malley can’t possibly mount a serious challenge to Clinton, and for all I know, that may be right. But as Jonathan Bernstein has explained, even if Clinton’s nomination appears close to inevitable, there really are a number of serious Democrats out there, and even the effort to compel a contested primary might help the party:
It’s good for the party to have competition, because it gives party actors leverage over the candidates, and therefore helps force the nominee, if elected, to be loyal to the party as president.
In other words, the debate itself is a worthy goal, even if it might have little chance of changing the outcome.
Hillary Clinton isn’t running unopposed. She’s just crushing the competition. (Vox)
By Ezra Klein
March 13, 2015
Vox
Jonathan Bernstein and Reihan Salam have written two smart articles on the Democratic presidential primary — or lack thereof — that are best read in tandem. Bernstein’s article is meant to explain why it looks like Democrats don’t have a bench even though they do, and Salam’s article is meant to show who’s sitting on it.
Bernstein’s argument is related to the “invisible primary” theory of presidential elections. Hillary Clinton, he says, “has earned the support of the bulk of Democratic party actors, and gained the acquiescence of other Democrats who aren’t as enthusiastic about her.” The result is that the Democratic Party’s “perfectly viable other candidates either dropped out or never seriously considered the race.”
Perhaps a slightly clearer way to put it is this: in the invisible primary, when the contest is as much a draft as it is a campaign, Clinton is “opposed” by essentially every Democrat fit for the presidency. If the party’s powerbrokers didn’t want to support Clinton and instead really wanted Sen. Michael Bennet to run, or Gov. Andrew Cuomo to lead the field, they would be working toward that outcome. Instead, they’re lining up behind Clinton. In this telling, Clinton isn’t winning by default. She’s winning by winning. The absence of competition is the product of Clinton’s strong, successful campaign to win over Democratic Party elites.
Hillary’s strength is evident in public polling, too. Gallup has a useful favorability-familiarity index, the upshot of which is that Clinton is both better known than anyone else in the race and viewed more favorably than almost anyone else in the race (Ben Carson is viewed very favorably too, but as he becomes better known among Democrats, my guess is that his negatives will rise quickly):
[Description: clinton favorability familiarity]
This is the context for Hillary’s dominance on the Democratic side: she’s in a much stronger position not just than any Democrat going into 2016, but also than any Republican. These are early polls and the numbers can and will change, but look where Clinton is compared to Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. That’s a big deal to Democrats, and a big reason they’re supporting her rather than looking for an alternative.
The Democratic bench
Salam offers a “wish list of Democratic presidential contenders.” His list excludes possible candidates like ex-Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley or ex-Virginia Senator Jim Webb. Rather, it includes plausible candidates who seem to have no interest in becoming actual candidates.
“Any contest for the Democratic presidential nomination needs an earnest, nerdy liberal technocrat who appeals to the intelligentsia,” writes Salam, and he nominates Sen. Ron Wyden, a favorite of wonks (and civil libertarians) everywhere:
His steadfast opposition to dragnet surveillance has won him many friends among civil libertarians, and that’s no small thing in a Democratic primary, particularly in dovish, independent-minded states like New Hampshire. A Pew survey from January found that 31 percent of Democrats hold an unfavorable view of the National Security Agency, which is not a bad little foundation for a Wyden campaign. Moreover, Wyden has proposed a universal health care plan more ambitious than Obamacare, and he’s championed the idea of allowing states like Vermont and Oregon to build their own single-payer health systems.
Salam goes on to push Sen. Sherrod Brown as a liberal champion, ex-Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick for his ability to speak to the post-Ferguson moment in the post-Obama Democratic Party, ex-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as the grave centrist, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar as a Midwest problem-solver.
The point isn’t that any of these candidates will run. The point is that they could run, and they would be, in theory, at least as credible as a Scott Walker or a Jeb Bush. They may not seem like presidential contenders now, but as Bernstein writes, “the way those solid politicians become Serious Presidential Candidates and not just random governors and senators — I’m talking here about folks such as Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Bobby Jindal — is to start running, and visibly enough so the press notices. “
Which is all to say that Bernstein is right: the Democratic Party has a bench. It’s just that Clinton is running so strongly in the invisible primary that no one on it thinks it’s worth getting in the game.
The question for the Democratic Party is whether Clinton is going to be as strong in the visible primary — and the visible election — as she is in the invisible one. The skills necessary to win over Democratic Party elites may not be the skills necessary to win the election — and if Hillary doesn’t face serious opposition in the visible primary, Democrats may not find that out until too late.
Poll Shows Younger Americans Tuning Out Clinton Story (The Wall Street Journal)
By Dante Chinni
March 13, 2015
Wall Street Journal
As Washington gauges the political fallout of the Hillary Clinton email story, the impact among the electorate may hinge one crucial aspect: the age of the voters in question.
A poll from the Pew Research Center shows a sharp partisan divide over interest in the story, but if you look at the numbers by partisan leaning and age, much of that partisan divide disappears.
This chart shows the percentage of people who say they are following the Clinton story closely.
[Description: http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-HJ484_pewcha_G_20150312112731.jpg]
Among Republicans overall (including “leaners”), 50% saying they are following very closely or somewhat closely the story about how Mrs. Clinton used a private account to conduct official business when she was secretary of State. For Democrats the overall figure is 36%. That’s a 14-point gap. (Note: the poll was conducted before Mrs. Clinton’s press conference Tuesday.)
But if you look at Democrats and Republicans younger than 50, the data look very different. The numbers are much lower, and closer together. Among those younger Democrats, only 27% say they are following closely. Among Republicans it is only 32%.
The partisan divide nearly disappears when you look at the percentage of those younger Democrats and Republicans who say they aren’t following the story “closely at all.” Among Democrats, that number is 55%. Among Republicans, it is a nearly identical 53%.
Is this just how young people feel about the news in general? That is, are 18- to 49-year-olds just less interested in the news?
That’s part of it. The numbers for following all news events are lower for that age group. But the numbers are weakest for the email story – slightly more people uninterested in it than in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress.
[Description: http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-HJ473_pewcha_G_20150312111338.jpg]
There are several possible ways younger people see the story different than older people. Younger people, particularly those under 35, may see Mrs. Clinton and the Clinton name in general differently. Their awareness of Mrs. Clinton as a politician came while she was a popular senator and secretary of state, not during her time as first lady.
Also, Mrs. Clinton’s explanation that she used one email account (and one device) for convenience may resonate with some younger people — or strike others as unsatisfying. In any case, Americans who have grown up with social trails that live forever, as well as with self-destructing messages on services like Snapchat, may continue to see the Clinton email story differently.
The Pew poll surveyed 1,000 adults from March 5 to March 8.
Top State Dept. officials’ work emails not automatically archived before February (Politico)
By Josh Gerstein
March 13, 2015
Politico
Hillary Clinton’s explanation for her use of a personal email account while she served as secretary of state suffered another blow Friday as the State Department disclosed that the email accounts of senior department officials were not automatically archived until last month.
Clinton said at a news conference Tuesday that she believed the vast majority of work-related emails she sent or received from her private account were “preserved” because she was in correspondence with other officials using “.gov” accounts.
However, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters Friday that archiving of the work email boxes of senior State Department officials besides the secretary did not begin until “February of this year.” She previously said Secretary of State John Kerry uses an official account and his emails have been archived since soon after he succeeded Clinton.
Psaki said the automatic archiving began last month for “dozens” of top officials — such as the deputy secretary, under secretaries and assistant secretaries. “Our goal is to apply this to all employee mailboxes by the end of 2016,” she said.
A Clinton spokesman had no comment on the department’s disclosure.
Psaki also revealed that the department had “recently” requested copies of work-related emails some current and former State officials had sent or received on private accounts. She said she believed the letter requesting such records was sent earlier this week and was related to investigations underway on Capitol Hill.
“There have obviously been requests from Congress for certain information,” Psaki said. She did not immediately have details on how widely the department’s request for current and former officials was distributed.
Clinton sent copies of 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department in December in response to a letter sent in October to her and three other former secretaries seeking copies of work-related records held in private accounts.
Psaki declined to answer reporters’ repeated questions about whether the department was satisfied with Clinton’s explanation for her use of a private email account as secretary.
Later in the briefing, however, Psaki suggested that there was confusion among some State Department employees about what was and was not being automatically saved.
“I assume some assumed that was happening at the time as well,” Psaki said. “We’re updating it because it’s an imperfect system.”
Speaking without reference to Clinton, Psaki said the duty was on individual employees to save records that met standards for permanent archiving. “Clearly, individuals — any top officials — would also be expected to preserve their documents,” she said.
Psaki said the move last month to begin archiving senior officials’ emails was not triggered by concerns about Clinton’s email practices. “They have long been planning to do this. It’s just something that it took some time to put in place,” she said.
Despite the State Department’s practice of not archiving top officials’ emails until recently, some of the emails were saved when employees printed them and put them in permanent files, saved them in electronic folders, or — in a specific agency system — marked them as permanent records.
“Obviously, this [automatic archiving] is a more efficient way — a way that will require less human effort….We have quite a bit going on here at the State Department,” Psaki said. “There were ways to preserve [emails] and employees and individuals were expected to do that prior to this new process.”
Psaki also noted that it might not be accurate to say that all the unarchived email messages were gone, because it was possible some might be retrievable.
“I wouldn’t state it’s ‘lost to history’ because there are technical means of gaining access to past information,” Psaki said. “I’m not an expert on the technical capabilities.”
Why the email controversy probably hasn’t dented Hillary Clinton’s public image (The Washington Post)
By Paul Waldman
March 13, 2015
Washington Post
The first polls taken since the news of Hillary Clinton’s email controversy broke are beginning to trickle in, and they aren’t likely to make Republicans particularly happy. According to the Pew Research Center, only 17 percent of people said they were following the story closely (though that included 34 percent of Republicans). Starved as we are for campaign news, we in Washington may have found it riveting, but voters weren’t nearly so interested.
And it doesn’t seem to have affected how they think of her: A new Gallup poll, taken between last Monday and Wednesday (the story broke last Monday), shows Clinton’s approval rating at 50 percent, with 39 percent disapproving, not too different from what it was before. That +11 net positive is higher than any of the Republican candidates with the exception of Ben Carson (who comes in at 20-8 approval, for a net of +12).
The fact that she’s so much better known than any of her potential Republican opponents highlights the difficulty of the task they face. When a candidate is new and unfamiliar, a negative story like this one can comprise a large part of what people know about them. For instance, what the average voter knows about Scott Walker is that he fights with unions (if they know even that). If we find out that he’s running a dog-fighting ring, he’d become the guy who fights with unions and runs a dog-fighting ring; the latter would loom very large in his public image. But even a real scandal about Hillary Clinton would be one of a hundred things voters know and think about her.
That isn’t to say that opinions of Clinton can’t change, because they’ve changed before. Over the last twenty years, her favorability ratings have waxed and waned according to how much she was perceived as a partisan political figure. It was high during her quieter times as First Lady, dipped when she ran for Senate, rose when she was quietly doing legislative work, dipped again when she ran for president, rose when she was Secretary of State, and has now settled back in what we might think of as the partisan zone of around 50 percent. The vast majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents view her favorably, while the vast majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents don’t. Any change will come only at the margins.
Right now, both Clinton and her detractors are probably thinking there’s something unfair about this email story. Clinton probably thinks it’s been overblown, just like so many fake scandals she’s suffered through before, while her opponents probably think the public isn’t taking it as seriously as they should. There are ways in which they may both have a point.
Consider that when the story broke, many in the media justified the blanket coverage it received on the basis that it “plays into a narrative” — in other words, before they could determine whether it had any merit, they would run with it because it dovetailed with stories of the past.
But in fact, there’s another narrative at work. It’s a narrative in which she or her husband get accused of something, it gets a lot of coverage, Republicans express outrage, and then in the end it turns out to be somewhere between unimportant and completely meaningless, both substantively and politically. The public is quite familiar with that narrative, too.
Does that mean she’ll get off relatively easy for things that would torpedo a different politician’s candidacy? It could. But right or wrong, there will be an awfully high bar to clear before a controversy has a real impact on what the voters think of her.
Poll: the only presidential contender more popular than Hillary Clinton is Ben Carson (Vox)
By Andrew Prokop
March 13, 2015
Vox
As the 2016 presidential hopefuls move closer to officially announcing, a new Gallup poll explores 16 top contenders’ favorability ratings. Hillary Clinton is near the front of the pack, with net favorability of +11 — topped only by Dr. Ben Carson, who gets +12.
The major difference between Clinton and Carson, as you can see in this chart, is that Clinton is extremely well known — 89 percent of the public says they know enough to have an opinion on her. Carson, however, is one of the least-known candidates, with only 28 percent. The other candidates fall in the middle. Theoretically, this means the other candidates have more room to grow, since views on Clinton are set.
But often, potential candidates who aren’t well known to the public start out with very few people disliking them. What’s striking about this chart is that so few of the less well-known candidates this year start off with strongly positive net favorability.
For comparison, in a 2007 CBS poll taken as candidates were preparing to officially announce, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all had net favorability exceeding +13, as you can see below.
This time around, no Republican except Carson scores even close to there, and the others fall into two groups. One batch starts off with slightly positive net favorability — this is Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, and Bobby Jindal. Candidates in the other group — Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry — start off with more Americans disliking them than liking them, a tough hurdle to surmount.
Potential rivals to Clinton get little good news here. Even Elizabeth Warren starts out with a meager +3 net favorability, well behind Obama’s +18 rating in 2007. The others — Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Jim Webb — don’t manage positive ratings at all.
It is worth noting that only part of Gallup’s poll was conducted after the Clinton email story broke, so it’s at least possible that a newer poll would find her ratings have sunk. But a Pew poll found that only 17 of respondents said they were following the email story very closely — and those were overwhelmingly Republicans and conservatives, who already dislike Clinton.
You Won’t Be Surprised To Hear That Hillary Clinton’s Emails Are More Divisive Than Ever (Huffington Post)
By Ariel Edwards Levy
March 13, 2015
Huffington Post
After a week of stories about Hillary Clinton’s use of email during her time as secretary of state, the controversy is more polarizing than ever. A new poll shows that Republicans are increasingly convinced of the issue’s importance and Democrats are increasingly sure that the media is overhyping things, while independents remain somewhere in between.
In the aftermath of Clinton’s press conference Tuesday, during which she fielded a number of questions about her use of a personal email account, attention to the story has continued to grow, a new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds. Sixty-five percent of Americans now say they’re following the story at least somewhat closely, up from 53 percent in a survey last week. The percent of Americans who call the issue at least somewhat serious has also ticked up, from 47 percent to 54 percent.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the gulf between Republicans’ and Democrats’ views of the situation has grown as well.
In the earlier poll, Republicans were 27 points more likely than Democrats to consider the email issue “very serious.” That partisan gap now stands at 52 points, with members of the two parties moving in opposite directions.
Democrats, many of whom were convinced during the 2008 campaign that the media was biased against Clinton, are becoming more likely to view the controversy over the emails as overhyped. Seventy-one percent now say the media is making too big a deal out of the story, up 9 points from last week. A majority of Republicans, by contrast, continue to think the story isn’t getting enough attention. Independents, who were closely divided last week in their opinions about the media response, are now more 8 points more likely to say the media is overhyping the controversy than to say it’s being under-reported.
That doesn’t mean independents aren’t at all concerned. Thirty-four percent of political independents now say Clinton’s use of a personal account is very serious, up 8 points since last week. But those independents are also the least likely to be paying much attention, with 57 percent saying they’re following the email story at least somewhat closely, compared to 78 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of Democrats.
There’s not yet much data to indicate whether the saga has affected Clinton’s ratings, but the numbers that are available suggest it may have taken a small toll. In the latest HuffPost/YouGov poll, the former secretary of state is just underwater, with 44 percent rating her positively and 45 percent negatively. That’s near the bottom of where’s she’s stood since the 2014 midterm elections, according to a series of YouGov/Economist polls using the same question and methodology. Those polls have found Clinton’s favorable rating ranging between 43 percent and 52 percent.
The HuffPost/YouGov poll consisted of 1,000 completed interviews conducted March 11-13 among U.S. adults using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population.
The Huffington Post has teamed up with YouGov to conduct daily opinion polls. You can learn more about this project and take part in YouGov’s nationally representative opinion polling. Data from all HuffPost/YouGov polls can be found here. More details on the poll’s methodology are available here.
Most surveys report a margin of error that represents some, but not all, potential survey errors. YouGov’s reports include a model-based margin of error, which rests on a specific set of statistical assumptions about the selected sample, rather than the standard methodology for random probability sampling. If these assumptions are wrong, the model-based margin of error may also be inaccurate.
Jerry Brown says challenging Hillary Clinton is like challenging Jerry Brown (The Washington Post)
By Phillip Rucker
March 13, 2015
The Washington Post
On paper, Jerry Brown looks like he could give Hillary Rodham Clinton a scare. He’s a governor with a compelling record of fixing California’s budget and reviving the biggest state’s economy. He’s admired by liberals for his work to combat climate change and address immigration laws. And he caught the presidential bug long ago, running for the White House three times.
So why is Brown not stepping forward to challenge Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016?
“Running against Hillary is like running against Jerry Brown in California,” Brown, 76, said in an interview Friday at The Washington Post. “In the Democratic Party, it’s not going to happen. You reach a certain point of party loyalty and it’s very powerful.”
In a wide-ranging interview with Post reporters, Brown said Clinton enjoys “the power of incumbency” as President Obama’s former secretary of state and heir apparent. A primary challenge to her, he said, “doesn’t look like a fruitful use of my time.”
“I would say she’s extremely formidable and it doesn’t appear that there’s anything that would block her path,” Brown added.
Brown disagreed with some leading Democrats who believe a strong primary challenge would actually benefit Clinton by helping her get into fighting strength before she faces the eventual Republican nominee in the general election.
“Primary oppositions are not helpful,” Brown said, recalling his own 2010 race for governor when former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman was wounded after veering right in her rhetoric and positions to fend off a primary challenge from Steve Poizner.
“Some people think that strengthens the process or helps the candidate go through his or her paces,” Brown said. But, he said, “the truth is it’s not helpful. The real competition has to start right away with a Republican-Democratic difference. There’s plenty there to create conflict and debate and do whatever you have to do to get ready for the November election. You can do that facing off against the Republican opponents, of which there’s so many, and there’s so many stupid things they’re saying. That’s a far better place than cutting nuanced differences with some Democratic insurgent.”
That Brown is advocating an unobstructed glide path for Clinton to the Democratic nomination might come as a surprise given his own history. In 1992, Brown was Bill Clinton’s most persistent and pesky Democratic primary opponent and for months refused to endorse him.
Asked in Friday’s interview about the state of his relationship with the Clintons, Brown said very little. “It’s all been written about,” he said. An aide reminded Brown that he had met with Bill and Hillary several times over the past few years.
“We come from different parts of the country,” Brown said. “I think I occupy a unique part of the party, and I don’t find too many people in the same place....It’s a very small part of the party, unfortunately.”
Brown is in his second stint as California governor, after serving between 1975 and 1983, and has also been state attorney general and mayor of Oakland. He said he has more of a “western sensibility,” especially on environmental issues.
When asked about the recent controversy over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail account as secretary of state, Brown said he is not convinced the issue is a passing storm, as many other Democrats contend.
“I don’t know that,” Brown said. “With these things, what makes a difference, you often don’t know until it unfolds because nothing is just what it is. It’s always in part of a larger context. Things unfold and things happen.”
Jerry Brown: Leave Hillary Clinton alone (Politico)
By Edward-Isaac Dovere
March 13, 2015
Politico
Jerry Brown ran against Bill Clinton in the 1992 Democratic primaries. Now he doesn’t think anyone should run against Hillary Clinton when she seeks the nomination next year.
“I can’t think of anything I’d rather have less if I were running for president than to have a competitor in the primary,” the California governor said, speaking to reporters at the White House on Friday afternoon following a series of meetings with staff about climate change.
Brown said he didn’t see the need for an internal party fight. What he wants, he said, is Clinton knocking the GOP field on immigration reform, Obamacare, climate change and other differences.
“The primaries get into all the little nuances and small differences of candidates of the same party,” Brown said. “What Hillary needs is a good debate drawing the distinctions between where she stands and where all these Republicans, these wannabes running around.”
He took particular aim at the lawsuit from many Republican governors and attorneys general challenging President Barack Obama’s immigration executive actions, calling their position “at best troglodyte, and at worst, un-Christian.”
All the more reason, Brown said, to focus on the fight with the other party, and not within his own.
“There’s some big differences, and they’re more with the Republicans. So let’s have the debate and let’s see where America wants to be,” Brown said. “I don’t think running some couple of Democrats would illuminate the process.”
Brown didn’t meet with Obama, who was in Los Angeles on Friday, or with Vice President Joe Biden, who’s vacationing in the Virgin Islands.
8 Must-Know Stats About Women’s Rights Around The World From Hillary Clinton’s “No Ceilings” Report (Bustle)
By Kristen Sollee
March 13, 2015
Bustle
Although Hillary Clinton’s email account has been making headlines, her foundation’s “No Ceilings” report on the status of women’s rights around the world is in dire need of the spotlight. Twenty years ago at the United Nations’ 4th World Conference On Women in Beijing, First Lady Clinton famously said, “If there is one message that echoes from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.” This simple yet radical statement bears repeating (and repeating), and so the Clinton Foundation along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation compiled The Full Participation Report to flesh out all the ways women’s rights have changed since the former Secretary of State’s 1995 pronouncement.
The weighty report is packed with statistics on the health, occupation, education and safety of women around the world, from America to Zimbabwe to Pakistan and Brazil. Although it includes a dizzying array of facts and charts, the entire compendium is worth reading, if only to get a sense of how far women have come over the past twenty years — and how very far we still need to go.
These are 8 vital facts of many that you should know about global women’s rights today.
1. Rates of Death During Childbirth Have Decreased
Let’s start with some good news: according to the report, the rate of women who die in childbirth has gone down by 40 percent in 76 countries and by almost 60 percent in South Asia from 1995 to 2013. This rate is directly linked to education, as the more education a woman has, the less likely she or her child is to die during childbirth.
2. The Wage Gap Ranges From 10-40%
In high-income countries, men make around 15 percent more than women do. The wage gap is as low as 6 percent in Belgium and as high as 37 percent in South Korea. The gap tends to increase during a woman’s childbearing and childrearing years, which the report calls a “motherhood penalty.”
3. 1 In 3 Women Experience Sexual or Physical Violence
And you thought the campus rape statistics in the United States were horrifying. Of these 1 in 3 women who experience sexual and physical violence, a majority of them suffer at the hands of their partner.
4. Spousal Abuse Is Still Considered Acceptable
Cultural attitudes greatly shape how men and women view spousal abuse. According to data collected in the report, more than half the men in Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, India, Iraq, Nigeria, the Philippines, Rwanda, South Africa, and Zimbabwe believe beating their wives is sometimes acceptable. In addition, a recent U.N. study of 10,000 men in Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Papua New Guinea felt it was their right to have sex regardless of whether a woman provides consent.
5. More Women Are Enrolled In College and Universities Than Men
Women have made major gains around the world in tertiary education since 1995. In regions across Europe, North America, and Latin America, women are lapping men in college enrollment — but not necessarily in all majors. The STEM fields remain a problem, and in 2010, women in the U.S. earned approximately 18 percent of computer science bachelor degrees, down from a high of 37 percent in 1984.
6. 2/3 of Illiterate People In The World Are Women
As women have made gains in education, their literacy rates have also risen globally, reaching a high of 80 percent in 2012. However, of those that remain illiterate in the world, 2/3 are women.
7. Women Are Majorly Underrepresented in STEM Fields
It’s no secret that women are majorly underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and math, and there is still an uphill battle ahead. The report suggests that “gender stereotypes, cultural barriers, and poor-quality education have contributed to low participation rates for women in STEM In 2010.”
8. Women Are Living Longer Than Ever
As The Full Participation Report emphasizes, there are many challenges facing women around the world— but longevity isn’t one of them. Since 1995, a woman’s life expectancy has risen from 69 years to 73 years in 2012. Even in developing nations, there has been a 14 percent increase in life expectancy across the board.
DataSet-10
Unknown
4 pages
From: ' USANYS) [Contractor)"
To: "Ini (NY
Cc: " (USANYS)"
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Maxwell To-dos
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:19:30 +0000
That works for me.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 20214:18 PM
To: (USANYS) [Contractor] <
Cc: (USANYS) <
Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Maxwell To-dos
I can bring them over now if that still works.
Special Agent
FBI New York Field Office
On Jul 6, 20212:35 PM, ' (USANYS) [Contractor]" .c. > wrote:
I have not. S I'll be around the rest of the day today and the whole week. Let me know when you're free to drop the
files off.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 20212:06 PM
To: (USANYS) [Contractor] (NY) (FBI)
Cc: (USANYS) <
Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos
Checking in on this—M, were you able to get these files from
From: (USANYS) [Contractor] <
Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 10:03 AM
To: < >; (NY) (FBI) < >;
Cc: (USANYS) <
Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos
Sure thing! — I'll be around until 230 today if you're available to drop them off.
From:
Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 9:55 AM
To: (NY) (FBI) sc )'; (USANYS) [Contractor]
c M>
Cc: (USANYS) <
Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos
EFTA00040696
Thanks
IM would you please coordinate getting these from S then circle up with me to discuss prepping for production?
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 3:23 PM
To: >; (USANYS) (Contractor)
Cc: c ; (USANYS) <
Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos
We have the files from CART.
let me know a good time to coordinate to turn them over to you.
Special Agent -
FBI New York Field Office
Child Exploitation/Human Trafficking
Desk:
From:
Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 12:47 PM
To: (NYPD) <
Cc: (NY) (FBI) < )<
(USANYS) <
Subject: (EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Maxwell To-dos
Thanks!
From:
Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 10:12 AM
To:
Cc: (NY) (FBI) < >; <->;
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Maxwell To-dos
Sure let me check on that today when I'm in.
On Jun 3, 2021, at 21:57, > wrote:
Hi M,
Checking in again on the .avi files from CART. Any update?
Thanks,
EFTA00040697
From:
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 2:40 PM
To: < =3; (NY) (FBI)
Cc: c ; (USANYS)
Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos
Hi M,
Any update from CART regarding the .avi files, please? And any luck with the review of images for
Thanks,
From: <
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 1:24 PM
To: < ; . (NY) (FBI) < ).
Cc: <->; (USANYS) < >
Subject: Re: Maxwell To-dos
Hey guys,
To answer your questions:
• you should have 302's from by now.
• These photos are still under review.
• We have not forgotten about the .avi files they are also still being processed.
• Palm Beach PD Captain is the P0C for this task. His phone number is (cell)
(office) and email is
We. let you know as soon as the photo and video tasks are completed. Let us know if there's anything
else.
Detective
NYPD / FBI
Child Exploitation Human Trafficking Task Force
Office:
Cell:
Fax: 212-384-8289
From: <
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 4:03 PM
To: (NY) (FBI) < :*;
EFTA00040698
Cc: (USANYS) <
Subject: Maxwell To-dos
ands,
Just wanted to check in on a few tasks for Maxwell. Not a huge rush, but wanted to make sure these stay on your radar:
• Please send me the draft 302s from the 1/20 and 1/21 interviews of for review
• Review of images in FBI office for photos of
• The .avi files from Reiter (M, I know CART has been under water with the Capitol investigation, but wanted to
ping on this to make sure we don't forget it)
• Finding PBPD witness who can authenticate the message pads and other items that were seized from Epstein's
Palm Beach residence. On this, I've gone through the reports, and below are the PBPD personnel who I think
might be able to provide this testimony. If you could please get me contact information for a point of contact at
PBPD, I'm happy to hound them for contact info for these individuals (ranked in order of how likely they are to
be useful witnesses for these purposes):
o Evidence Specialist (inventory return, documentation of property receipts, and collection
and bagging of evidence — ideally we could just call her to authenticate everything that was seized from
the property)
(searched garage, towel closet and pantry off the kitchen, kitchen phone message
book, office room, green bathroom on first floor, closet by green bathroom, two bedrooms on second
floor with sex toys, pool cabana, living quarters)
(searched garage, towel closet and pantry off the kitchen, kitchen phone message book,
officer room, green bathroom on first floor, closet by green bathroom, two bedrooms on second floor
with sex toys, pool cabana, living quarters)
(read warrant, video scene)
o CSI (photographer)
(pantry next to kitchen, yellow and blue room with photos, main entrance, blue
room with photos, sliding glass door room, cars)
o Detective (pantry next to kitchen, yellow and blue room with photos, main entrance, blue
room with photos, sliding glass door room, cars)
o (electronic devices)
Thanks very much,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
I St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00040699