EFTA00285423.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 21 pages

Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, COMPLAINT VS. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JEFFREY EPSTEIN GHISLAINE CASE NO.: MA3CWEL LESLEY GROFF, AND Defendants. Plaintifl by and through her undersigned counsel, for her claims against Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Lesley Grog and alleges upon personal knowledge with respect to her own acts and status and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: 1. This cause of action arises under federal statutes and jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 2. Plaintiff files this Complaint under a pseudonym in order to protect her identity because this Complaint makes allegations of a sensitive sexual nature and disclosure of Plaintiffs name publicly will cause further harm to her. 3. At all times material to the events alleged in this cause of action the Plaintiff was 1 EFTA00285423  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 2 of 21 4. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein had multiple residences, including in New York, New York and the United States Virgin Islands. He is currently a citizen of the United States and a resident of New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 5. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was an adult male born in 1953. 6. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell was residing in in New York, New York and was a citizen of Great Britain and France. 7. At all times material to this cause of actior was residing in and, on information and belief, was a citizen of 8. At all times material to this cause of action Lesley Groff was residing in New York, New York and, on information and belief, was a citizen of the United States. 9. At all material times, was residing in and, on information and belief, was a citizen of 10. Including because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this cause of action occurred in the Southern District of New York, venue is proper in that District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) 2 EFTA00285424  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 3 of 21 11. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Lesley Groff, and owed a duty to Plaintiff to treat her in a non-negligent manner and not to commit or conspire to commit intentional or tortious illegal acts against her. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 12. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was an adult male over 50 years old. Defendant Epstein is known as a billionaire who uses his extraordinary wealth to commit illegal sexual crimes in violation of federal and state statutes and to employ numerous others, including the named Defendants, to conspire and assist in committing those crimes and additional torts as well as to protect and conceal his crimes and torts from being discovered. 13. Defendant Epstein displays his enormous wealth, power and influence to his employees; to the victims procured for sexual purposes; and to the public in order to advance and carry out his crimes and torts. At all relevant times, Defendant Epstein owned and continues to own, directly or through nominee individuals used to conceal his interests, a fleet of airplanes, motor vehicles, boats and one or more helicopters. He owned and owns numerous properties and homes, including a 51,000-square-foot mansion in Manhattan; a $30 Million, 7,500-acre ranch in New Mexico; a 70-acre private island formerly known as Little St. James in or near St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands; a mansion in London, England; a home 3 EFTA00285425  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 4 of 21 in Paris, France; and a mansion in Palm Beach County, Florida. The allegations herein primarily concern the defendant's conduct while at his townhouse in New York; on one or more of his private airplanes; and on his private island in the United States Virgin Islands. 14. Defendant Epstein has a compulsive sexual preference for young females as young as 13 and as "old" as 25. Defendant had sex with young females virtually every day and assisted in the development and execution of a sex trafficking scheme designed to fulfill his sexual desires. 15. Defendant Maxwell was for decades the highest-ranking employee of the Defendants' sex trafficking enterprise. She herself recruited young females; oversaw and trained other recruiters on how best to recruit girls for sex; developed and executed schemes designed to recruit young females; and ensured that all participants of the Defendants' sex trafficking scheme acted in certain specific ways in order to advance the purposes of the scheme and conceal it from law enforcement. 16. Defendant recruited young females and maintained Epstein's sex schedule in order to ensure that he was not without the sexual favors of young females for any extended period of time. Defendant also handled travel arrangements for the various females being exploited for sexual purposes. 4 EFTA00285426  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 5 of 21 Defendant reported directly up the enterprise's line of authority to Defendant Maxwell. 17. Defendant Epstein employed many recruiters of young females. The nature of the Defendants' sex trafficking scheme enabled victims themselves, such as Defendant to elevate their status to that of a paid recruiter of other victims. Recruiters were taught by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell to inform targeted victims that Epstein possessed extraordinary wealth, power, resources and influence; that he was a philanthropist who would help female victims advance their careers and lives; and that the recruits needed only to provide Epstein with body massages in order to avail themselves of his financial assistance and influence. In fact, however, these representations were fraudulent. The vast majority of girls were required to perform intimate sexual acts at the Defendants' direction and the Defendants did not help or intend to help advance the victims' careers. 18. Defendant Groff coordinated schedules between Defendant Epstein and the various young females used for sex; made travel arrangements for the girls; tended to their living needs; and communicated with them in order to maintain their compliance with the rules of behavior imposed upon them by the enterprise. 19. The Defendants, led primarily by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell, fulfilled Epstein's compulsive need for sex with young females by preying on their 5 EFTA00285427  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 6 of 21 personal, psychological, financial, and related vulnerabilities. The Defendants' tactics included promising the victims money, shelter, transportation, employment, admission into educational institutions, educational tuition, and other things of value in exchange for sex. 20. Defendants' sex trafficking venture and enterprise operated in a hierarchal structure with Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the top and underlings below. Underlings included the other named Defendants as well as unnamed co-conspirators such as various housekeepers and butlers; an airplane pilot; and various employees, assistants and associates. Wittingly and unwittingly, such underlings performed their respective roles with the purpose and effect of insuring that the enterprise supplied young females to Defendant Epstein and others for sexual purposes. At all times materials to this complaint, the venture and enterprise was a group of two or more individuals associated in fact and deed. 21. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell, with help from assistants, associates and underlings, recruited and procured hundreds of girls over the decades of the operation of their scheme. Such recruitment and procurement included fraud, coercion, the threat of coercion, and a combination of these and similar tactics. Following the Defendants' recruitment and procurement of the females to join Epstein in New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Defendants used fraudulent 6 EFTA00285428  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 7 of 21 promises, coercion, and threats of coercion in order to entice young females into sex and, once sexual activities ensued, to cause them to remain in the enterprise. The Defendants also transported females in interstate and foreign commerce and in ways that affected interstate and foreign commerce. 22. Defendants specifically targeted underprivileged, emotionally vulnerable and/or economically disadvantaged young females to join the Defendants' enterprise. 23. It is unknown exactly how long Defendant Epstein and Maxwell's aforementioned criminal and illegal enterprise operated, although it was at least continuously and actively in operation from the mid-1990's through and including the calendar year 2007. 24. Defendant Epstein has continued the enterprise and conspiracy up to the present time. 25. In 2005, Defendant Epstein and numerous co-conspirators within the enterprise were the subjects of a Palm Beach, Florida Police Department criminal investigation which revealed that Defendant Epstein had engaged in sexual activities with dozens of young teenage children. Each child was lured into Defendant Epstein's Palm Beach mansion with a promise that she would receive money for providing him with a body massage, although once there, each child was made to engage in a sex act in order to receive the promised compensation. 7 EFTA00285429  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 8 of 21 Several were also made to engage in sex with another of Defendant Epstein's female sexual traveling companions. 26. In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department investigation was turned over to the FBI and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The United States Attorney's Office investigated Defendant Epstein and his co-conspirators for their violations of numerous federal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. *1591, one of the statutory bases for this complaint. 27. The United States Attorney's investigation continued from 2006 through September 2007, at which time a Non-Prosecution Agreement was signed between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office deferring federal prosecution of Defendant Epstein and his numerous co-conspirators for identified federal sex crimes against more than 30 minors. 28. From late 2006 through September 2007, Epstein's team of lawyers negotiated with the federal government in an effort to avoid the filing of the fifty- three-page draft indictment of Epstein. During these negotiations, Defendant Epstein decamped from Palm Beach to New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands in order to convey an image to prosecutors that he and his co-conspirators had stopped committing sex crimes. 29. Remarkably, however—as this case will highlight—Defendant Epstein and his co-Defendants, including the other defendants named herein, did 8 EFTA00285430  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 9 of 21 not abandon their sex trafficking enterprise even while they were under state and federal investigation for crimes committed in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, among other laws, and even as Defendants and their attorneys were busy arguing Epstein's innocence and publicly defaming his victims as liars. Rather, Defendants merely changed their style. Instead of targeting local Palm Beach Florida high school girls, the Defendants transported young females from other places in the U.S. and abroad and brought them to Defendant Epstein's mansion in New York and his private island in the Virgin Islands. 30. In June of 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to Florida state felony sex offenses for procuring a minor for prostitution and soliciting prostitution by minors. 31. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell developed and implemented a sophisticated system designed to insulate them from criminal and civil liability by protecting them from potential testimony of knowledgeable subordinates. The system included requiring subordinates to sign confidentiality agreements covering civil and criminal activity; requiring subordinates and victims to refrain from speaking with law enforcement officials; requiring them to notify Defendant Epstein's lawyers in the event they (subordinates and victims) were contacted by law enforcement officials; requiring them to accept the representation of attorneys paid for by Defendant Epstein; requiring them to invoke the Fifth Amendment in 9 EFTA00285431  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 10 of 21 response to questions they might be asked by investigators and prosecutors; requiring them to invoke the Fifth Amendment in order to refuse to turn over incriminating and non-incriminating evidence to law enforcement officers; requiring them to destroy evidence or refuse to reveal knowledge of destroyed evidence; and requiring them generally to refuse all cooperation with law enforcement officials or investigations. 32. In 2005, Defendant Epstein and other co-conspirators, aware that law enforcement officials were preparing imminently to execute a search warrant of his home, removed computer systems that logged information about Epstein and his co-conspirators' illegal and criminal conduct; the identities of witnesses; nude photographs of young females; scheduling books; message pads; tangible items such as vibrators and toys; and other incriminating matter. 33. Commencing in approximately October 2006 and continuing through April 2007, Defendants recruited Plaintiff into their sexual enterprise by fraudulently promising to use their connections and resources to secure her admission to an institution of higher education at the expense of Defendant Epstein. 34. Defendan was working as one of the enterprise's recruiters of young females when she approached and recruited Plaintiff. 10 EFTA00285432  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 11 of 21 35. Defendant informed Plaintiff that she would introduce Plaintiff to Defendant Epstein, whom she described as a wealthy philanthropist who regularly used his wealth, influence and connections to help financially poor females like Plaintiff achieve their personal and professional goals and aspirations. 36. Defendant reported to her superiors, Defendants =, Groff and Maxwell, and was paid for her recruitment of young females, including the recruitment of Plaintiff. 37. Defendant r introduced Plaintiff to Defendant Epstein, who confirmed to Plaintiff that he would use his wealth and influence to have Plaintiff admitted into or into a similar institute of higher learning offering a curriculum of Defendants Maxwell and Groff each confirmed this promise to Plaintiff many times. 38. Defendant Maxwell told Plaintiff she would need to provide Defendant Epstein with body massages in order to reap the benefits of his and Maxwell's connections. Maxwell and Epstein also threatened Plaintiff that, while they had the ability to advance her education and career, they also had the ability to make sure that she would obtain no formal education or if she failed to provide the sexual favors desired by Defendant Epstein or abide by the instructions given her by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell. II EFTA00285433  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 12 of 21 39. Plaintiff reasonably believed that her compliance with Defendants' demands was crucial to her physical, psychological, financial, and reputational survival. 40. Defendant Maxwell instructed Plaintiff how to massage Epstein using the techniques that he preferred. During Plaintiff's first massage, Defendant Epstein converted it into a sexual act and made it known to Plaintiff that further sex would be required in order for her to obtain the assistance he promised and to avoid Defendants' threatened retaliation if Plaintiff did not perform as demanded. 41. Defendants Maxwell and Epstein informed Plaintiff that other young females in Defendant Epstein's company were there not only to provide massages, but also sexual acts. 42. Plaintiff was instructed dozens of times to provide body massages to Defendant Epstein, both at his townhouse in New York and on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Each time she was so instructed she was also required to perform a sexual act with Defendant Epstein. The Defendants transported Plaintiff in interstate and foreign commerce, and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, for these sexual purposes. 43. During many sexual encounters, Defendant Epstein gave Plaintiff no option, opportunity or choice not to participate in the prescribed sexual acts. 12 EFTA00285434  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 13 of 21 44. Defendant Maxwell frequently controlled the assignment, or "rotation," of Plaintiff and the other young females concerning the time, place and manner of the sex acts they were told to provide to Defendant Epstein. Defendants Maxwell and Epstein also required Plaintiff to engage in sex acts with other females. 45. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell intimidated, threatened, humiliated and verbally abused Plaintiff in order to coerce her into sexual compliance. These Defendants threatened Plaintiff with serious harm, as well as serious psychological, financial, and reputational harm, with the purpose and effect of compelling Plaintiff to perform and continue performing the demanded commercial sexual activity. 46. On one occasion, after suffering verbal abuse and threats by Defendants Epstein, Maxwell, and Plaintiff attempted to escape from Defendant Epstein's private island. A search party led by Defendant Epstein located her and physically returned her to the main house on the island. Through these and other actions, the Defendants intended to cause, and did cause, Plaintiff to believe that failure to perform the actions they requested would result in physical restraint and potential harm to her person, as well as harm to her reputation, employability, and stable state of mind. 13 EFTA00285435  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 14 of 21 47. Defendant Epstein's wealth, influence, power and connections were used both as an inducement to provide sex (in exchange for promises of support), and as a means of threatening punishment (should Plaintiff refuse to comply with Defendants' instructions). 48. In addition to Plaintiffs being trafficked on Defendant Epstein's private plane, Defendants Groff, Maxwell an with the knowledge of and instruction by Defendant Epstein, arranged Plaintiffs commercial air travel on numerous occasions for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to commit commercial sex acts. 49. Defendants provided living quarters for Plaintiff at a car service for Plaintiff to use as needed; a cell phone; and other valuable consideration in order to maintain Plaintiffs sexual compliance. 50. The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants Epstein and Maxwell was defined and characterized by Defendant Epstein's and Defendant Maxwell's frequent and persistent fraudulent representations that they would provide Plaintiff with a formal education and career advancement if she provided sex to Defendant Epstein and others in the times, places and manners demanded by Defendants. Plaintiff reasonably relied on those representations. In fact, however, those representations were knowingly false, were not acted upon, and were made by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell solely for the purpose of maintaining 14 EFTA00285436  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 15 of 21 Plaintiffs financial dependence on, emotional vulnerability to, and sexual compliance with Defendants Epstein and Maxwell and their demands. The other Defendants intentionally repeated those representations and intentionally attempted to convince Plaintiff that the representations were true and could be relied upon. 51. In January 2007, Defendants sent Plaintiff from the United States to in part to recruit, for a promised fee, one or more aspiring female models supposedly for Defendant Epstein to use as an alleged personal assistant. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell continuously and frequently demanded that Plaintiff fulfill this task as a condition of her receiving the education, career and related benefits promised by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell. Based upon Plaintiffs experience with Defendants, however, she did not believe that the requested model would be placed in a legitimate position of employment with Defendant Epstein but would, instead, be forced into sexual servitude. As a result, Plaintiff deliberately refused to perform the recruitment assignment. 52. As part of their ongoing scheme, Defendants inflicted serious emotional and psychological harm on Plaintiff as a means of coercing her to continue engaging in commercial sex acts. While Plaintiff was in Defendants Epstein and Maxwell informed Plaintiff that she would not be permitted to return to the United States to receive her promised education unless she underwent a diet and lowered her body weight from 15 EFTA00285437  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 16 of 21 to Believing she had no practical choice in the matter, Plaintiff attempted to comply with the order but, given her physical height and structure and her existing low body weight, the diet imposed upon her placed her in serious physical jeopardy, including 53. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell called Plaintiffs parents in to tell them that Defendants would take good care of Plaintiff when she returned to the United States and that they would use their connections and influence to have her admitted to or another well-regarded=school. 54. In February of 2007, Plaintiff returned to New York and was promptly ordered by Defendant Maxwell to have sex with Defendant Epstein. Defendants Maxwell and Epstein fraudulently promised her again that her sexual compliance would be rewarded with admission t' a comparable college, a promise which they knew to be false. Plaintiff knew that if she did not comply, Defendants Maxwell and Epstein would use their power, influence and connections in order to ensure that Plaintiff was unable to gain admission to or a comparable school, and that they would destroy her career as they had destroyed the careers of others who had failed to comply. 55. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell continued to provide Plaintiff with things of value in exchange for Plaintiffs continued compliance with Epstein's 16 EFTA00285438  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 17 of 21 sexual demands; however, they failed and refused to perform their promises to help Plaintiff be admitted taor another school, or to provide financial support for college admission or on-going education, false promises they repeatedly made in order to coerce her into commercial sex acts. 56. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell's sexual demands on Plaintiff continued while she was in New York or other geographic proximity to the Defendants. In addition to their requiring Plaintiff to provide Defendant Epstein with sex acts, Defendants continued to pressure her to lose excessive amounts of body weight and offered her no opportunity to decline or resist their instructions. 57. In May, 2007, Plaintiff left the United States and did not return. 58. Defendants' representations and promises were all false and fraudulent. Their threats were considered by Plaintiff to be real and credible. All such representations, promises and threats were made solely for the purpose of coercing and otherwise inducing Plaintiff into prolonged sexual compliance. Defendants knowingly benefitted financially and received things of value as a result of their participating in their illegal enterprise. COUNT I CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 4 1595 59. Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 58 above. 17 EFTA00285439  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 18 of 21 60. Defendants individually and together, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, maintained, patronized, solicited, threatened, forced, and coerced Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. Such actions by Defendants were undertaken with knowledge and/or reckless disregard of the fact that their threats of force, fraud, coercion, and combinations of such means would be used, and were in fact used, in order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In so doing, Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. §§1591 through 1594 and are subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595. 61. Defendants additionally profited from the sex trafficking of Plaintiff; obstructed investigations of the violations; attempted and conspired to violate, and succeeded in violating, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 through 1595, by the commission of the torts and crimes described in this complaint. 62. Certain property of Defendant Epstein's was essential to the commission of the federal crimes and torts described herein, including the use of multiple private aircraft including a Boeing aircraft (of make and model B-727- 31H with tail number N908JE) and a Gulfstream aircraft (of make and model G- 1159B with tail number N909JE). Such aircraft, along with other of Defendants' 18 EFTA00285440  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 19 of 21 property, were used as means and instruments of Defendants' tortious and criminal offenses and, as such, are subject to forfeiture. 63. Additionally, Defendant Epstein's New York mansion, located at 9 East 71st street, New York, New York, and his private island located in the United States Virgin Islands, were used as means and instruments of Defendants' tortious and criminal offenses and, as such, are subject to forfeiture. 64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' commission of the aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in Title 18 U.S.C. § 1591 et. seq. and the civil remedies provided in § 1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue to suffer injury and pain; emotional distress; psychological and psychi- atric trauma; mental anguish; humiliation; confusion; embarrassment; loss of self- esteem; loss of dignity; loss of enjoyment of life; invasion of privacy; and other damages associated with Defendants' actions. Plaintiff will incur medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will do so in the future. 19 EFTA00285441  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 20 of 21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, attomey's fees, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. Dated: January 26, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ David Boies David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP Alex Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP Sigrid McCawley Meredith Schultz Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP E: Pro Hoc Vice to befiled 20 EFTA00285442 Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 21 of 21 Bradley J. Edwards Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. T: E: Pro Hoc Vice to befiled J. Stanley Pottinger J. Stanley Pottinger PLLC 21 EFTA00285443

EFTA00594577.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 21 pages

Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE 43, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JEFFREY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE CASE NO.: MAXWELL, LESLEY GROFF, AND Defendants. Plaintiff Jane Doe 43, by and through her undersigned counsel, for her claims against Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Lesley Groff, and la alleges upon personal knowledge with respect to her own acts and status and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: 1. This cause of action arises under federal statutes and jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 2. Plaintiff files this Complaint under a pseudonym in order to protect her identity because this Complaint makes allegations of a sensitive sexual nature and disclosure of Plaintiffs name publicly will cause further harm to her. 3. At all times material to the events alleged in this cause of action the Plaintiff was a citizen of South Africa residing in New York, New York. EFTA00594577  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 2 of 21 4. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein had multiple residences, including in New York, New York and the United States Virgin Islands. He is currently a citizen of the United States and a resident of New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 5. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was an adult male born in 1953. 6. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell was residing in in New York, New York and was a citizen of Great Britain and France. 7. At all times material to this cause of action was residing in New York, New York, and, on information and belief, was a citizen of the United States. 8. At all times material to this cause of action Lesley Groff was residing in New York, New York and, on information and belief, was a citizen of the United States. 9. At all material times, was residing in New York, New York and, on information and belief, was a citizen of the United States. 10. Including because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this cause of action occurred in the Southern District of New York, venue is proper in that District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) EFTA00594578  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 3 of 21 11. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, , Lesley Groff, and owed a duty to Plaintiff to treat her in a non-negligent manner and not to commit or conspire to commit intentional or tortious illegal acts against her. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 12. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was an adult male over 50 years old. Defendant Epstein is known as a billionaire who uses his extraordinary wealth to commit illegal sexual crimes in violation of federal and state statutes and to employ numerous others, including the named Defendants, to conspire and assist in committing those crimes and additional torts as well as to protect and conceal his crimes and torts from being discovered. 13. Defendant Epstein displays his enormous wealth, power and influence to his employees; to the victims procured for sexual purposes; and to the public in order to advance and carry out his crimes and torts. At all relevant times, Defendant Epstein owned and continues to own, directly or through nominee individuals used to conceal his interests, a fleet of airplanes, motor vehicles, boats and one or more helicopters. He owned and owns numerous properties and homes, including a 51,000-square-foot mansion in Manhattan; a $30 Million, 7,500-acre ranch in New Mexico; a 70-acre private island formerly known as Little St. James in or near St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands; a mansion in London, England; a home 3 EFTA00594579  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 4 of 21 in Paris, France; and a mansion in Palm Beach County, Florida. The allegations herein primarily concern the defendant's conduct while at his townhouse in New York; on one or more of his private airplanes; and on his private island in the United States Virgin islands. 14. Defendant Epstein has a compulsive sexual preference for young females as young as 13 and as "old" as 25. Defendant had sex with young females virtually every day and assisted in the development and execution of a sex trafficking scheme designed to fulfill his sexual desires. 15. Defendant Maxwell was for decades the highest-ranking employee of the Defendants' sex trafficking enterprise. She herself recruited young females; oversaw and trained other recruiters on how best to recruit girls for sex; developed and executed schemes designed to recruit young females; and ensured that all participants of the Defendants' sex trafficking scheme acted in certain specific ways in order to advance the purposes of the scheme and conceal it from law enforcement. 16. Defendant recruited young females and maintained Epstein's sex schedule in order to ensure that he was not without the sexual favors of young females for any extended period of time. Defendant also handled travel arrangements for the various females being exploited for sexual purposes. 4 EFTA00594580  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 5 of 21 Defendant reported directly up the enterprise's line of authority to Defendant Maxwell. 17. Defendant Epstein employed many recruiters of young females. The nature of the Defendants' sex trafficking scheme enabled victims themselves, such as Defendant to elevate their status to that of a paid recruiter of other victims. Recruiters were taught by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell to inform targeted victims that Epstein possessed extraordinary wealth, power, resources and influence; that he was a philanthropist who would help female victims advance their careers and lives; and that the recruits needed only to provide Epstein with body massages in order to avail themselves of his financial assistance and influence. In fact, however, these representations were fraudulent. The vast majority of girls were required to perform intimate sexual acts at the Defendants' direction and the Defendants did not help or intend to help advance the victims' careers. 18. Defendant Groff coordinated schedules between Defendant Epstein and the various young females used for sex; made travel arrangements for the girls; tended to their living needs; and communicated with them in order to maintain their compliance with the rules of behavior imposed upon them by the enterprise. 19. The Defendants, led primarily by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell, fulfilled Epstein's compulsive need for sex with young females by preying on their 5 EFTA00594581  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 6 of 21 personal, psychological, financial, and related vulnerabilities. The Defendants' tactics included promising the victims money, shelter, transportation, employment, admission into educational institutions, educational tuition, and other things of value in exchange for sex. 20. Defendants' sex trafficking venture and enterprise operated in a hierarchal structure with Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the top and underlings below. Underlings included the other named Defendants as well as unnamed co-conspirators such as various housekeepers and butlers; an airplane pilot; and various employees, assistants and associates. Wittingly and unwittingly, such underlings performed their respective roles with the purpose and effect of insuring that the enterprise supplied young females to Defendant Epstein and others for sexual purposes. At all times materials to this complaint, the venture and enterprise was a group of two or more individuals associated in fact and deed. 21. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell, with help from assistants, associates and underlings, recruited and procured hundreds of girls over the decades of the operation of their scheme. Such recruitment and procurement included fraud, coercion, the threat of coercion, and a combination of these and similar tactics. Following the Defendants' recruitment and procurement of the females to join Epstein in New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Defendants used fraudulent 6 EFTA00594582  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 7 of 21 promises, coercion, and threats of coercion in order to entice young females into sex and, once sexual activities ensued, to cause them to remain in the enterprise. The Defendants also transported females in interstate and foreign commerce and in ways that affected interstate and foreign commerce. 22. Defendants specifically targeted underprivileged, emotionally vulnerable and/or economically disadvantaged young females to join the Defendants' enterprise. 23. It is unknown exactly how long Defendant Epstein and Maxwell's aforementioned criminal and illegal enterprise operated, although it was at least continuously and actively in operation from the mid-1990's through and including the calendar year 2007. 24. Defendant Epstein has continued the enterprise and conspiracy up to the present time. 25. In 2005, Defendant Epstein and numerous co-conspirators within the enterprise were the subjects of a Palm Beach, Florida Police Department criminal investigation which revealed that Defendant Epstein had engaged in sexual activities with dozens of young teenage children. Each child was lured into Defendant Epstein's Palm Beach mansion with a promise that she would receive money for providing him with a body massage, although once there, each child was made to engage in a sex act in order to receive the promised compensation. 7 EFTA00594583  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 8 of 21 Several were also made to engage in sex with another of Defendant Epstein's female sexual traveling companions. 26. In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department investigation was turned over to the FBI and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The United States Attorney's Office investigated Defendant Epstein and his co-conspirators for their violations of numerous federal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §1591, one of the statutory bases for this complaint. 27. The United States Attorney's investigation continued from 2006 through September 2007, at which time a Non-Prosecution Agreement was signed between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office deferring federal prosecution of Defendant Epstein and his numerous co-conspirators for identified federal sex crimes against more than 30 minors. 28. From late 2006 through September 2007, Epstein's team of lawyers negotiated with the federal government in an effort to avoid the filing of the fifty- three-page draft indictment of Epstein. During these negotiations, Defendant Epstein decamped from Palm Beach to New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands in order to convey an image to prosecutors that he and his co-conspirators had stopped committing sex crimes. 29. Remarkably, however—as this case will highlight—Defendant Epstein and his co-Defendants, including the other defendants named herein, did 8 EFTA00594584  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 9 of 21 not abandon their sex trafficking enterprise even while they were under state and federal investigation for crimes committed in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, among other laws, and even as Defendants and their attorneys were busy arguing Epstein's innocence and publicly defaming his victims as liars. Rather, Defendants merely changed their style. Instead of targeting local Palm Beach Florida high school girls, the Defendants transported young females from other places in the U.S. and abroad and brought them to Defendant Epstein's mansion in New York and his private island in the Virgin Islands. 30. In June of 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to Florida state felony sex offenses for procuring a minor for prostitution and soliciting prostitution by minors. 31. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell developed and implemented a sophisticated system designed to insulate them from criminal and civil liability by protecting them from potential testimony of knowledgeable subordinates. The system included requiring subordinates to sign confidentiality agreements covering civil and criminal activity; requiring subordinates and victims to refrain from speaking with law enforcement officials; requiring them to notify Defendant Epstein's lawyers in the event they (subordinates and victims) were contacted by law enforcement officials; requiring them to accept the representation of attorneys paid for by Defendant Epstein; requiring them to invoke the Fifth Amendment in 9 EFTA00594585  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 10 of 21 response to questions they might be asked by investigators and prosecutors; requiring them to invoke the Fifth Amendment in order to refuse to turn over incriminating and non-incriminating evidence to law enforcement officers; requiring them to destroy evidence or refuse to reveal knowledge of destroyed evidence; and requiring them generally to refuse all cooperation with law enforcement officials or investigations. 32. In 2005, Defendant Epstein and other co-conspirators, aware that law enforcement officials were preparing imminently to execute a search warrant of his home, removed computer systems that logged information about Epstein and his co-conspirators' illegal and criminal conduct; the identities of witnesses; nude photographs of young females; scheduling books; message pads; tangible items such as vibrators and toys; and other incriminating matter. 33. Commencing in approximately October 2006 and continuing through April 2007, Defendants recruited Plaintiff into their sexual enterprise by fraudulently promising to use their connections and resources to secure her admission to an institution of higher education at the expense of Defendant Epstein. 34. Defendant was working as one of the enterprise's recruiters of young females when she approached and recruited Plaintiff. 10 EFTA00594586  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 11 of 21 35. Defendant informed Plaintiff that she would introduce Plaintiff to Defendant Epstein, whom she described as a wealthy philanthropist who regularly used his wealth, influence and connections to help financially poor females like Plaintiff achieve their personal and professional goals and aspirations. 36. Defendant reported to her superiors, Defendants ME, Groff and Maxwell, and was paid for her recruitment of young females, including the recruitment of Plaintiff. 37. Defendant introduced Plaintiff to Defendant Epstein, who confirmed to Plaintiff that he would use his wealth and influence to have Plaintiff admitted into The Fashion Institute of Technology, known as "F.I.T.", in New York City, or into a similar institute of higher learning offering a curriculum of fashion industry training. Defendants Maxwell, and Groff each confirmed this promise to Plaintiff many times. 38. Defendant Maxwell told Plaintiff she would need to provide Defendant Epstein with body massages in order to reap the benefits of his and Maxwell's connections. Maxwell and Epstein also threatened Plaintiff that, while they had the ability to advance her education and career, they also had the ability to make sure that she would obtain no formal education or modeling agency contracts if she failed to provide the sexual favors desired by Defendant Epstein or abide by the instructions given her by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell. II EFTA00594587  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Piled 01/26/17 Page 12 of 21 39. Plaintiff reasonably believed that her compliance with Defendants' demands was crucial to her physical, psychological, financial, and reputational survival. 40. Defendant Maxwell instructed Plaintiff how to massage Epstein using the techniques that he preferred. During Plaintiff's first massage, Defendant Epstein converted it into a sexual act and made it known to Plaintiff that further sex would be required in order for her to obtain the assistance he promised and to avoid Defendants' threatened retaliation if Plaintiff did not perform as demanded. 41. Defendants Maxwell and Epstein informed Plaintiff that other young females in Defendant Epstein's company were there not only to provide massages, but also sexual acts. 42. Plaintiff was instructed dozens of times to provide body massages to Defendant Epstein, both at his townhouse in New York and on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Each time she was so instructed she was also required to perform a sexual act with Defendant Epstein. The Defendants transported Plaintiff in interstate and foreign commerce, and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, for these sexual purposes. 43. During many sexual encounters, Defendant Epstein gave Plaintiff no option, opportunity or choice not to participate in the prescribed sexual acts. 12 EFTA00594588  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 13 of 21 44. Defendant Maxwell frequently controlled the assignment, or "rotation," of Plaintiff and the other young females concerning the time, place and manner of the sex acts they were told to provide to Defendant Epstein. Defendants Maxwell and Epstein also required Plaintiff to engage in sex acts with other females. 45. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell intimidated, threatened, humiliated and verbally abused Plaintiff in order to coerce her into sexual compliance. These Defendants threatened Plaintiff with serious harm, as well as serious psychological, financial, and reputational harm, with the purpose and effect of compelling Plaintiff to perform and continue performing the demanded commercial sexual activity. 46. On one occasion, after suffering verbal abuse and threats by Defendants Epstein, Maxwell, and =, Plaintiff attempted to escape from Defendant Epstein's private island. A search party led by Defendant Epstein located her and physically returned her to the main house on the island. Through these and other actions, the Defendants intended to cause, and did cause, Plaintiff to believe that failure to perform the actions they requested would result in physical restraint and potential harm to her person, as well as harm to her reputation, employability, and stable state of mind. 13 EFTA00594589  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 14 of 21 47. Defendant Epstein's wealth, influence, power and connections were used both as an inducement to provide sex (in exchange for promises of support), and as a means of threatening punishment (should Plaintiff refuse to comply with Defendants' instructions). 48. In addition to Plaintiff's being trafficked on Defendant Epstein's private plane, Defendants Groff, Maxwell and with the knowledge of and instruction by Defendant Epstein, arranged Plaintiffs commercial air travel on numerous occasions for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to commit commercial sex acts. 49. Defendants provided living quarters for Plaintiff at 301 East 66 Street, New York; a car service for Plaintiff to use as needed; a cell phone; and other valuable consideration in order to maintain Plaintiffs sexual compliance. 50. The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants Epstein and Maxwell was defined and characterized by Defendant Epstein's and Defendant Maxwell's frequent and persistent fraudulent representations that they would provide Plaintiff with a formal education and career advancement if she provided sex to Defendant Epstein and others in the times, places and manners demanded by Defendants. Plaintiff reasonably relied on those representations. In fact, however, those representations were knowingly false, were not acted upon, and were made by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell solely for the purpose of maintaining 14 EFTA00594590  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 15 of 21 Plaintiffs financial dependence on, emotional vulnerability to, and sexual compliance with Defendants Epstein and Maxwell and their demands. The other Defendants intentionally repeated those representations and intentionally attempted to convince Plaintiff that the representations were true and could be relied upon. 51. In January 2007, Defendants sent Plaintiff from the United States to South Africa in part to recruit, for a promised fee, one or more aspiring female models supposedly for Defendant Epstein to use as an alleged personal assistant. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell continuously and frequently demanded that Plaintiff fulfill this task as a condition of her receiving the education, career and related benefits promised by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell. Based upon Plaintiff's experience with Defendants, however, she did not believe that the requested model would be placed in a legitimate position of employment with Defendant Epstein but would, instead, be forced into sexual servitude. As a result, Plaintiff deliberately refused to perform the recruitment assignment. 52. As part of their ongoing scheme, Defendants inflicted serious emotional and psychological harm on Plaintiff as a means of coercing her to continue engaging in commercial sex acts. While Plaintiff was in South Africa, Defendants Epstein and Maxwell informed Plaintiff that she would not be permitted to return to the United States to receive her promised education unless she underwent a diet and lowered her body weight from 57 kilograms 15 EFTA00594591  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 16 of 21 (approximately 125 pounds) to 52 kilograms (approximately 1 14 pounds). Believing she had no practical choice in the matter, Plaintiff attempted to comply with the order but, given her physical height and structure and her existing low body weight, the diet imposed upon her placed her in serious physical jeopardy, including kidney malfunction and extreme emotional and psychological distress. 53. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell called Plaintiffs parents in South Africa to tell them that Defendants would take good care of Plaintiff when she returned to the United States and that they would use their connections and influence to have her admitted to F.I.T. or another well-regarded fashion school. 54. In February of 2007, Plaintiff returned to New York and was promptly ordered by Defendant Maxwell to have sex with Defendant Epstein. Defendants Maxwell and Epstein fraudulently promised her again that her sexual compliance would be rewarded with admission to F.I.T. or a comparable college, a promise which they knew to be false. Plaintiff knew that if she did not comply, Defendants Maxwell and Epstein would use their power, influence and connections in order to ensure that Plaintiff was unable to gain admission to F.I.T. or a comparable school, and that they would destroy her career as they had destroyed the careers of others who had failed to comply. 55. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell continued to provide Plaintiff with things of value in exchange for Plaintiffs continued compliance with Epstein's 16 EFTA00594592  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 17 of 21 sexual demands; however, they failed and refused to perform their promises to help Plaintiff be admitted to F.I.T. or another school, or to provide financial support for college admission or on-going education, false promises they repeatedly made in order to coerce her into commercial sex acts. 56. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell's sexual demands on Plaintiff continued while she was in New York or other geographic proximity to the Defendants. In addition to their requiring Plaintiff to provide Defendant Epstein with sex acts, Defendants continued to pressure her to lose excessive amounts of body weight and offered her no opportunity to decline or resist their instructions. 57. In May, 2007, Plaintiff left the United States and did not return. 58. Defendants' representations and promises were all false and fraudulent. Their threats were considered by Plaintiff to be real and credible. All such representations, promises and threats were made solely for the purpose of coercing and otherwise inducing Plaintiff into prolonged sexual compliance. Defendants knowingly benefitted financially and received things of value as a result of their participating in their illegal enterprise. COUNT I CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 4 1595 59. Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 58 above. 17 EFTA00594593  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 18 of 21 60. Defendants individually and together, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, maintained, patronized, solicited, threatened, forced, and coerced Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. Such actions by Defendants were undertaken with knowledge and/or reckless disregard of the fact that their threats of force, fraud, coercion, and combinations of such means would be used, and were in fact used, in order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In so doing, Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. §§1591 through 1594 and are subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595. 61. Defendants additionally profited from the sex trafficking of Plaintiff; obstructed investigations of the violations; attempted and conspired to violate, and succeeded in violating, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 through 1595, by the commission of the torts and crimes described in this complaint. 62. Certain property of Defendant Epstein's was essential to the commission of the federal crimes and torts described herein, including the use of multiple private aircraft including a Boeing aircraft (of make and model B-727- 311-I with tail number N908JE) and a Gulfstream aircraft (of make and model G- 1159B with tail number N909JE). Such aircraft, along with other of Defendants' 18 EFTA00594594  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 19 of 21 property, were used as means and instruments of Defendants' tortious and criminal offenses and, as such, are subject to forfeiture. 63. Additionally, Defendant Epstein's New York mansion, located at 9 East 71st street, New York, New York, and his private island located in the United States Virgin Islands, were used as means and instruments of Defendants' tortious and criminal offenses and, as such, are subject to forfeiture. 64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' commission of the aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in Title 18 U.S.C. § 1591 et. seq. and the civil remedies provided in § 1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue to suffer injury and pain; emotional distress; psychological and psychi- atric trauma; mental anguish; humiliation; confusion; embarrassment; loss of self- esteem; loss of dignity; loss of enjoyment of life; invasion of privacy; and other damages associated with Defendants' actions. Plaintiff will incur medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will do so in the future. 19 EFTA00594595  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 20 of 21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. Dated: January 26, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ David Boies David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armon New York 10504 T: E: Alex Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 575 Lexington Ave., 7th Fl. New York New York 10022 T: Sigrid McCawley Meredith Schultz Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 T: E: E: Pro Hac Vice to be filed 20 EFTA00594596 Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 21 of 21 Bradley J. Edwards Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Fort Lauderdale. Florida 33301 T: E: Pro Hoc Vice to be filed J. Stanley Pottinger J. Stanley Pottinger PLLC Suite 100 49 Twin Lakes Road South Salem New York 10590 T: 21 EFTA00594597

EFTA00798522.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 39 pages

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION - FIRST DEPARTMENT x THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW App. Div. No. 6081 YORK, Respondent, AFFIRMATION OF JOHN M. BROWNING IN SUPPORT OF - against - MOTION TO UNSEAL JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, On Appeal from New York Supreme Court, Defendant-Appellant. : New York County, Index No. 30129/10 (Pickholz, J.) x John M. Browning, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the following under penalties of perjury: 1. I am an associate of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, attorneys for non-party movant NYP Holdings, Inc., publisher of the New York Post (the "Post") and I submit this affirmation in support of the Post's motion to unseal the briefs filed by the parties in the above-captioned appeal. 2. The grounds for unsealing the appeal briefs in this action are set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law. I submit this affirmation to annex relevant documents and to state facts that are relevant to this motion, of which I have personal knowledge. 3. Annexed hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an article written by Julie K. Brown and published by the Miami Herald on November 28, 2018, entitled "Cops worked to put serial sex abuser in prison. Prosecutors worked to cut him a break." 4. Annexed hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an article written by Rebecca Rosenberg and Danika Fears, which was published by the Post on January 7, 2015, entitled "DA's office `went easy' on sex offender Epstein." 1 4840-5788-8644v.I 3930033-000039 EFTA00798522  5. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an article written by Rebecca Rosenberg, Larry Celona, Susan Edelman and Isabel Vincent, which was published by the Post on December 1, 2018, entitled "Manhattan DA sided with pedophile billionaire after botching investigation." 6. On or about December 4, 2018, Post reporter Susan Edelman contacted Danny Frost, Director of Communications for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., and requested copies of the briefs filed by the District Attorney's office in the above-captioned appeal. Ms. Edelman stated that names of victims could be redacted before the briefs were disclosed. 7. Mr. Frost responded that he could not provide Ms. Edelman with copies of the briefs because they were filed under seal pursuant to N.Y. Civil Rights Law 50-b and that the District Attorney's office could only release the briefs, even with victims' names redacted, if this Court ordered the briefs to be unsealed. 8. Mr. Frost further indicated by email that "[i]f the Post petitions the court, and the court asks the People for our position, we will not oppose the petition for a redacted brief' (emphasis in original). 9. On or about December 18, 2018, I contacted Jay Lefkowitz, who represented appellant Jeffrey Epstein in the above-captioned appeal. Mr. Lefkowitz told me that he no longer represents Mr. Epstein and referred me to Martin Weinberg, who currently acts as counsel for Mr. Epstein. 10. On or about December 20, 2018, I spoke with Mr. Weinberg and explained the nature of the Post's motion to unseal the redacted briefs and the position taken by the Manhattan 2 4840-5788-8644v.I 3930033-000039 EFTA00798523 District Attorney. Mr. Weinberg told me that he was unable to take a position on the Post's motion without first reviewing it and reserved the right to file an opposition, if necessary. Dated: New York, New York December 21, 2018 3 4840-57884644v.1 3930033-000039 EFTA00798524 EXHIBIT A EFTA00798525  Cops worked to put serial sex abuser in prison. Prosecutors worked to cut him a break BY JUL IE K. BROWN NOV. 28. 2018 PERVERSION ofJUSTICE A decade before #MeToo, a multimillionaire sex offender from Florida got the ultimate break. EFTA00798526  Palm Beach, Florida November 2004 Jane Doe climbed a narrow, winding staircase, past walls covered with photographs of naked girls. At the top of the stairwell was a vast master bed and bath, with cream-colored shag carpeting and a hot pink and mint green sofa. The room was dimly lit and very cold. There was a vanity, a massage table and a timer. A silver-haired man wearing nothing but a white towel came into the room. He lay facedown on a massage table, and while talking on a phone, directed to rub his back, legs and feet. is one of the over 100 middle school and high school-aged girls that Palm Beach billionaire, Jeffrey Epstein, is accused of sexually assaulting. , now an adult living near Nashville, recalls her experience with EFTA00798527 Epstein at his Palm Beach mansion while she was a sophomore at Royal Palm Beach High School. EMILY MICHOT EMICHOT@MIAMIHERALOCOM After he hung up, the man turned over and dropped his towel, exposing himself. He told to get comfortable and then, in a firm voice, told her to take off her clothes. At 16, had never before been fully naked in front of anyone. Shaking and panicked, she mechanically pulled off her jeans and stripped down to her underwear. He set the timer for 30 minutes and then reached over and unsnapped her bra. He then began touching her with one hand and masturbating himself with the other. "I kept looking at the timer because I didn't want to have this mental image of what he was doing," she remembered of the massage. "He kept trying to put his fingers inside me and told me to pinch his nipples. He was mostly saying `just do that, harder, harder and do this. ..: " After he ejaculated, he stood up and walked to the shower, dismissing her as if she had been in history class. It wasn't long before a lot of fellow students at Royal Palm Beach High School had heard about "a creepy old guy" named Jeffrey who lived in a pink waterfront mansion and was paying girls $200 to $300 to give him massages that quickly turned sexual. Eventually, the Palm Beach police, and then the FBI, came knocking on door. In the police report, was referred to as a Jane Doe in order to protect her identity as a minor. EFTA00798528 Palm Beach home of registered sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. PEDRO PORTAL PPORTAL@MIAMIHERALD.COM There would be many Jane Does to follow: Jane Doe No. 3, Jane Doe No. 4, Jane Does 5, 6, 7, 8 — and as the years went by — Jane Does 1O2 and 1O3. Long before #MeToo became the catalyst for a women's movement about sexual assault — and a decade before the fall of Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and U.S. Olympic gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar — there was Jeffrey Edward Epstein. Epstein, a multimillionaire hedge fund manager whose friends included a constellation of entertainers, politicians, business titans and royalty, for years Jured teenage_girls to his Palm Beach mansion as part of a cult-like sex pyramid scheme, police in the town of Palm Beach found. The girls arrived, sometimes by taxi, for trysts at all hours of the day and night. Few were told much more than that they would be paid to give an old man a massage — and that he might ask them to strip down to their underwear or get naked. But what began as a massage often led to masturbation, oral sex, EFTA00798529  intercourse and other sex acts, police and court records show. The alleged abuse dates back to 2001 and went on for years. Palm Beach multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein is a free man, despite sexually abusing dozens of underage girls according to police and prosecutors. His victims have never had a voice, until now. BY EMILY MICHOT ■ I JULIE K. BROWN ii In 2007, despite ample physical evidence and multiple witnesses corroborating the girls' stories, federal prosecutors and Epstein's lawyers quietly put together a remarkable deal for Epstein, then 54. He agreed to plead guilty to two felony prostitution charges in state court, and in exchange, he and his accomplices received immunity from federal sex-trafficking charges that could have sent him to prison for life. He served 13 months in a private wing of the Palm Beach County stockade. ilia alleged co-conspirators, who helped schedule his sex sessions, were never prosecuted. The deal, called a federal non-prosecution agreement, was sealed so that no one — not even his victims — could know the full scope of Epstein's crimes and who EFTA00798530  else was involved. The U.S. attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, was personally involved in the negotiations, records, letters and emails show. Acosta is now a member of President Donald Trump's Cabinet. As U.S. secretary of labor, he has oversight over international child labor laws and human trafficking and had recently been mentioned as a possible successor to former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who resigned under pressure in early November. It was reported on Thursday, a day after this story posted online, that he was no longer in the running. Alex Acosta, Federal Attorney, speaks during a press conference celebrated during the opening sesion of South Florida Anti-Gang Summit at Miami Hilton Hotel on Sept. 29, 2008 in Miami, Fl. (Cristobal Herrera/Sun Sentinel/INS) CRISTOBAL HERRERA TNS The Miami Herald analyzed thousands of pages of court records and lawsuits, witness depositions and newly released FBI documents, and also identified more than 80 women who say they were victimized. They are scattered around the EFTA00798531  country and abroad. Until now, those victims — today in their late 20s and early 30s — have never spoken publicly about how they felt shamed, silenced and betrayed by the very people in the criminal justice system who were supposed to hold Epstein accountable. "How come people who don't have money get sent to jail — and can't even make bail — and they have to do their time and sit there and think about what they did wrong? He had no repercussions and doesn't even believe he did anything wrong," said now 30. is one of the over 100 middle school and high school-aged girls that Palm Beach billionaire, Jeffrey Epstein, is accused of sexually assaulting. now an adult living near Nashville, recalls her experience with M, Epstein at his Palm Beach mansion while she was a sophomore at Royal Palm Beach High School. EMILY MICHOT EMICHOT@MIAMIHERALD.COM is among 36 women who were officially identified by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office as victims of Epstein, now 65. But after the FBI case was closed EFTA00798532 in 2008, witnesses and alleged victims testified in civil court that there were hundreds of girls who were brought to Epstein's homes, including girls from Europe, Latin America and former Soviet Republic countries. But Acosta and Epstein's armada of attorneys — Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, Jay Lefkowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Jack Goldberger, Roy Black, Guy Lewis and former Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr — reached a consensus: Epstein would never serve time in a federal or state prison. READ NEXT LOCAL Sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein was surrounded by powerful people. Here's a sampling NOVEMBER 28, 2018 8:00 AM POLICE UNDER PRESSURE There were really just two people willing to risk their careers to go after Epstein: Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter and Detective Joseph Recarey. For Reiter, business tycoon Jeffrey Epstein wasn't any more formidable than any of the other 8,000 or so wealthy and powerful people living on the island. Police had handled sensational cases involving wealthy residents before — from the murders of heiresses to the rape case involving William Kennedy Smith, of the Kennedy family. The easternmost town in Florida, Palm Beach is a 10.4-square-mile barrier island between the Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean populated by some of the richest people in the country. President Trump has his "winter White House" in Palm Beach, and the town makes news as much for its glitz as it does for its unusual efforts to preserve its well-mannered image, like banning shirtless joggers. But it was a little surprising, even to Reiter, to learn that one of its residents had a revolving door of middle and high school girls coming to his gated compound throughout the day and night. EFTA00798533  In their first on-the-record media interviews about the case, Reiter and Recarey revealed new details about the investigation, and how they were, in their view, pressured by then-Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer to downgrade the case to a misdemeanor or drop it altogether. Former Palm Beach County Police Detective Joe Recarey was the lead detective on the solicitation-of-minors case against billionaire Jeffrey Epstein. EMILY MICHOT EMICHOT@MIAMIHERALD.COM Between March of 2005 — when the case was opened — and seven months later, when police executed a search warrant at Epstein's home, Recarey had identified 21 possible victims, according to a copy of the unredacted police report obtained by the Herald. By the time police felt they had enough evidence to arrest Epstein on sex charges, they had identified about 35 possible underage victims and were tracking down at least a dozen more, the police report said. EFTA00798534 "I was surprised at how quickly it snowballed. I thought at some point there would be a last interview, but the next victim would supply me with three or four more names and the next one had three or four names and it just kept getting bigger and bigger," Recarey said. By then, word had gotten back to Epstein from some of the girls that they had been questioned by police. Epstein hired famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz. "Alan Dershowitz flew down and met privately with Krischer," Recarey said. "And the shenanigans that happened, I don't think I've ever seen or heard of before." Police reports show that Epstein's private investigators attempted to conduct interviews while posing as cops; that they picked through Reiter's trash in search of dirt to discredit him; and that the private investigators were accused of following the girls and their families. In one case, the father of one girl claimed he had been run off the road by a private investigator, police and court reports show. Support investigative journalism The Miami Herald obtained thousands of FBI and court records, lawsuits, and witness depositions, and went to federal court in New York to access sealed documents in the reporting of "Perversion of Justice? The Herald also tracked down more than 60 women who said they were victims, some of whom had never spoken of the abuse before. Your digital subscription, starting at $0.99 for the first month, supports investigative journalism like this. CLICK TO SUBSCRIBE Several of the girls said they felt intimidated and frightened by Epstein and the millionaire's assistant and alleged scheduler of massages, who warned them not to talk to police, according to the police report. Dershowitz, in an interview with the Herald, said he had nothing to do with gathering background on the girls — or in directing anyone to follow the police, or the girls and their families. EFTA00798535 "I'm not an investigator. My only job was to negotiate and try the case when it comes to trial," he said. He nevertheless convinced Krischer that the girls would not be credible on the witness stand, according to Reiter and Recarey. The defense team's investigators compiled dossiers on the victims in an effort to show that Epstein's accusers had troubled pasts. Dershowitz met with Krischer and Recarey, sharing with them the results of an investigation into one of the girls, described by Dershowitz as "an accomplished drama student" who hurled profanities at his investigator at "a furious pace." EFTA00798536 10/27/99 - OPINION - Barry Krischer; P.B.Co. State Attorney. (AM) "Our investigation had discovered at least one of her websites and I am enclosing some examples ... the site goes on to detail, including photos, her apparent fascination with marijuana, " Dershowitz wrote in an undated letter to Recarey. He also disputed the claim that one of the defense team's private investigators had misrepresented himself as a police officer. Recarey stood his ground. "His attorneys showed us a MySpace page where one of the girls was holding a beer in her hand, and they said, `oh look, she is underage drinking,' " Recarey recalled. "Well, tell me what teenager doesn't? Does that mean she isn't a victim because she drank a beer? Basically, what you're telling me is the only victim of a sexual battery could be a nun." Krischer and the lead state prosecutor on the case, Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek, began to dodge Recarey and Reiter's phone calls and emails, and they dragged their feet on approving subpoenas, Reiter and Recarey said. EFTA00798537 "Early on, it became clear that things had changed, from Krischer saying, `we'll put this guy away for life,' to `these are all the reasons why we aren't going to prosecute this,' " Reiter said. Krischer, who is now retired and in private practice, did not respond to multiple requests from the Herald for comment. Belohlavek also did not respond to an email sent to her office. "It became apparent to me that some of our evidence was being leaked to Epstein's lawyers, who began to question everything that we had in our probable cause affidavit," Reiter said. The day of the search on Oct. 20, 2005, they found that most of Epstein's computer hard drives, surveillance cameras and videos had been removed from the house, leaving loose, dangling wires, according to the police report. But the girls' description of the house squared with what detectives found, right down to the hot pink couch and the dresser drawer of sex toys in Epstein's bathroom. Reiter said his own trash was disappearing from his house, as his life was put under Epstein's microscope. Private investigators hired by Epstein's lawyers even tracked down Reiter's grade school teachers, the former chief said. Questions were raised about donations that Epstein had made to the police department, even though Reiter had returned one of the donations shortly after the investigation began. Recarey, meanwhile, said he began to take different routes to and from work, and even switched vehicles because he knew he was being tailed. "At some point it became like a cat-and-mouse game. I would stop at a red light and go. I knew they were there, and they knew I knew they were there. I was concerned about my kids because I didn't know if it was someone that they hired just out of prison that would hurt me or my family," Recarey said. Despite relentless political pressure, Reiter and Recarey soldiered on, and their determination yielded evidence that supported most of the girls' allegations, the former cops said. They had phone records that showed Epstein and his assistant, EFTA00798538  had called many of the girls. Epstein's flight logs showed that the calls were made when Epstein was in Palm Beach. They obtained dozens of message pads from his home that read like a who's who of famous people, including magician David Copperfield and Donald Trump, an indication of Epstein's vast circle of influential friends. There were also messages from girls, and their phone numbers matched those of many of the girls Recarey had interviewed, Recarey said. They read: "Courtney called, she can come at 4," or "Tanya can't come at 7 p.m. tomorrow because she has soccer practice." They also found naked photographs of underage girls in Epstein's closet, Recarey said. There were also witnesses: Two of Epstein's butlers gave Recarey sworn interviews, confirming that young girls had been coming and going at the house. One of the butlers, Alfredo Rodriguez, told Recarey that when he was tasked with cleaning up the master bath after Epstein's sessions with the girls, he often discovered sex toys. Once, he accidentally stumbled on a high school girl, whom he identified, sleeping naked in Epstein's spa, he testified in a 2009 court deposition. Rodriguez said he was given the job of paying the girls, telling Recarey that he was "a human ATM machine" because he was ordered by Epstein to keep $2,000 on him at all times. He was also assigned to buy the girls gifts. Rodriguez gave Recarey copies of pages from a book that Epstein and his staff kept with the names and phone numbers for many of the Palm Beach County girls, Recarey said. Rodriguez, however, held onto the bulk of Epstein's "little black book," and in November 2009 tried to sell it for $50,000 to an undercover FBI agent posing as a victim's lawyer. He was arrested and sentenced in 2012 to federal prison, and died three years later following an illness. The book — listing personal phone numbers for a cavalcade of Epstein's powerful friends and celebrities — eventually became public as part of a civil lawsuit. It listed more than 100 female names and phone numbers under the headings "massage" in every city where Epstein had homes. EFTA00798539 In May 2006, Recarey drew up probable cause affidavits, charging Epstein, two of his assistants and one recruiter with sex-related crimes. Instead, Krischer took what Recarey said was the unusual step of referring the case to a state grand jury. Epstein was indicted in state court on a minor charge of solicitation of prostitution. Recarey said Krischer told him he didn't believe Epstein's accusers, and only two of them were called before the state grand jury investigating the case — even though police had lined up more than a dozen girls and witnesses at that time. Believing that the case had been tainted, Reiter — that same month, May 2006 — took a very public stance against Krischer, writing a letter, which was released to the news media, calling on Krischer to remove himself from the case. The chief then referred it to the FBI, which opened its own investigation in July 2006, FBI records show. Reiter said he was effectively blackballed in some Palm Beach circles as a result of going over Krischer's head, and their relationship, once strong, would never be the same. Reiter has no regrets about what he did. "There are challenges here that don't exist in a lot of other places because of the affluence in the community, but the only way I could approach this case was that none of that matters. The truth is still the truth. The facts are the facts. Everybody is treated the same." In the years that followed, several of the victims obtained lawyers and filed civil lawsuits against Epstein. About two dozen lawsuits were filed, starting in 2008. The early cases were particularly brutal for his victims, the court records show. The girls faced fierce grilling from another pack of Epstein's civil attorneys, who questioned them about their boyfriends, drinking, drug use, social media posts, their parents and even their medical histories. One girl was asked about her abortions, and her parents, who were Catholic and knew nothing about the abortions, were also deposed and questioned. EFTA00798540  said the questions from Epstein's civil lawyers were so intimate that she became paranoid that people were following her. "His lawyers were just in my life inside and out. They asked if I had a baby, if I had an abortion, `did you sleep with 30 different guys' and `do you think that played a part?' I said, `you're going to come at me like that when you represent a guy who is doing this to hundreds of girls? How do you sleep at night?' " BROOKLYN TO PALM BEACH Jeffrey Epstein was born in Brooklyn, the son of a New York parks department worker. In one of several depositions he gave as part of the lawsuits filed against him, he said he attended the Cooper Union school for the advancement of science and art and then studied physics at New York University. But he never obtained a degree, instead going on to teach at the Dalton School, an elite K-12 private academy on Manhattan's Upper East Side. Various news profiles over the years have speculated about how he made his vast fortune, calling him an "International Moneyman of Mystery" and "The Talented Mr. Epstein." He then struck out on his own, opening J. Epstein & Co. His fortunes improved when he became a financial advisor for Leslie Wexner, founder of The Limited stores and owner of Victoria's Secret brands. Later, Epstein would boast that he would manage the portfolios of only those clients who had $1 billion or more.This much is known: He got his start on Wall Street after being offered a job by the father of one of his students. At Bear Stearns, he became a derivative specialist, applying complex math formulas and computer algorithms to evaluate financial data and trends. Through Wexner, he acquired a seven-story stone mansion that is considered the largest private residence in Manhattan — a 21,000-square-foot fortress with heated sidewalks that spans the entire block on 71st Street between Fifth and Madison Avenues. He also owns a 10,000-acre ranch, named "Zorro," in New Mexico, a private island called "Little St. James" in the Virgin Islands, the $13 million house in Palm Beach, a Gulfstream jet and, at one point, owned a Boeing 727. EFTA00798541 EFTA00798542  .11 AS_ says she was used as a sex slave for Jeffrey Epstein for years starting at the age of 16. says that Epstein also lent her out to some of his wealthy, powerful acquaintances for sex. COURTESY OF He has never been in the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans, largely because the magazine has never been able to determine the source or the size of his wealth. He has been dogged by questions about his financial dealings. A former business partner, Steven Hoffenberg, sued him in 2016, claiming that Epstein was the mastermind behind a $500 million Ponzi scheme that Hoffenberg was imprisoned for in 1995. Hoffenberg served 18 years for the scam, but he later dropped the lawsuit against Epstein. In August, two of Hoffenberg's former investors rekindled the lawsuit against Epstein, but the case was dropped in October. Epstein and his associate, British-born socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, were also accused in a 2015 federal civil suit of organizing underage sex parties on his private plane, nicknamed "The Lolita Express," and at Epstein's various homes. Maxwell, who has never been charged with wrongdoing, has denied allegations made in the lawsuit that she was Epstein's "madam." The suit, filed by victim was settled in 2017. EFTA00798543  was working at Mar-a-Lago when she was recruited to be a masseuse to Palm Beach hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein. She was lured into a life of depravity and sexual abuse. BY EMILY AUCHOT a I JULIE K. BROWN IS It was Epstein's contacts with powerful and famous people that first propelled him into the public spotlight. In 2002, he flew former President Bill Clinton, actor Kevin Spacey, comedian Chris Tucker and others to South Africa on his private jet as part of a fact-finding AIDS mission in support of the Clinton Foundation. But Epstein, a Clinton donor who contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates and causes, realized that his Democratic connections weren't going to help him in 2006, when the federal prosecutor was Acosta, a conservative Republican appointed during the George W. Bush administration. ENTER KENNETH STARR Epstein's tactic: hire the most aggressive and politically connected lawyers that his money could buy. At the top of his list: Kenneth Starr, a Republican icon because of his pursuit of Bill Clinton during the Whitewater investigation, which led to the impeachment (but not conviction) of the president after it was revealed he'd had sex with a young White House intern. Like Acosta, Starr had worked at the prestigious law firm Kirkland & Ellis. Epstein also tapped Jay Lefkowitz, also of Kirkland, who worked as a domestic policy advisor and later as a special envoy to North Korea during the George W. Bush presidency. EFTA00798544 EFTA00798545 Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr speaks to the San Antonio Bar Association in San Antonio, Friday afternoon, May 1,1998. With his own fight over executive privilege raging in secret, Starr today drew parallels between his plight and Watergate prosecutors. (AP Photo/Eric Gay) ERIC GAY AP Epstein also hired Bruce Reinhart, then an assistant U.S. attorney in South Florida, now a U.S. magistrate. He left the U.S. Attorney's Office on Jan. 1, 2008, and went to work representing Epstein's employees on Jan. 2, 2008, court records show. In 2011, Reinhart was named in the Crime Victims' Rights Act lawsuit, which accused him of violating Justice Department policies by switching sides, implying that he leveraged inside information about Epstein's investigation to curry favor with Epstein. Reinhart, in a sworn declaration attached to the CVRA case, denied the allegation, saying he did not participate in Epstein's criminal case and "never learned any confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter." The U.S. Attorney's Office has since disputed that, saying in court papers that he did possess confidential information about the case. Contacted for this story, Reinhart, in an email, said he never represented Epstein — only Epstein's pilots; his scheduler, and ) described by some victims as Epstein's sex slave. Reinhart also pointed out that a complaint filed against him by victims' lawyer Paul Cassell was dismissed by the Justice Department. EFTA00798546 Bruce E. Reinhart, Member, McDonald Hopkins LLC. (PRNewsFoto/McDonald Hopkins LLC) PR NEWSWIRE EFTA00798547 That same year, 2011, more girls continued to come forward, including who claimed in a British tabloid story that Epstein directed her — while she was underage by Florida standards — to have sex, not only with him, but with other powerful men, including his attorney, Alan Dershowitz, and Prince Andrew. Dershowitz and Andrew denied her claims, but after she filed a sworn affidavit in federal court in Miami, the ensuing news media firestorm forced Acosta, then dean of the law school at Florida International University, to explain why he'd declined to prosecute Epstein. In a written, public statement on March 20, 2011, Acosta asserted that the deal he struck with Epstein's lawyers was harsher than it would have been had the case remained with the state prosecutor, Krischer, who favored charging Epstein with only a misdemeanor prostitution violation. Acosta also described what he called a "year-long assault" on prosecutors by Epstein's "army of legal superstars" who, he said, investigated individual prosecutors and their families, looking for "personal peccadilloes" to disqualify them from Epstein's case. Dershowitz, in an interview, denied that Epstein's lawyers would ever investigate prosecutors. Documents nevertheless show that Acosta not only buckled under pressure from Epstein's lawyers, but he and other prosecutors worked with them to contain the case, even as the FBI was uncovering evidence of victims and witnesses in other states, FBI and federal court documents show. A 53-page federal indictment had been prepared in 2007, and subpoenas were served on several of Epstein's employees, compelling them to testify before a federal grand jury. The court records reveal that emails began to fly back and forth between prosecutors and Epstein's legal team. Those emails show that federal prosecutors kept acquiescing to Epstein's demands. Prosecutors allowed Epstein's lawyers to dictate the terms of each deal that they drew up, and repeatedly backed down on deadlines, so that the defense essentially controlled the pace of the negotiations, the emails and letters show. EFTA00798548 It's clear, from emails and other records, that prosecutors spent a lot of time figuring out a way to settle the case with the least amount of scandal. Instead of charging Epstein with a sex offense, prosecutors considered witness tampering and obstruction charges, and misdemeanors that would allow Epstein to secretly plead guilty in Miami instead of in Palm Beach County, where most of the victims lived, thereby limiting media exposure and making it less likely for victims to appear at the sentencing. "I've been spending some quality time with Title 18 [the U.S. criminal code] looking for misdemeanors," the lead prosecutor, A. Marie Villafaiia, wrote to Epstein's lawyers on Sept. 13, 2007, adding that she was trying to find "a factual basis" for one or more non-sex-related crimes to charge him with. The email chain shows that prosecutors sometimes communicated with the defense team using private emails, and that their correspondence referenced discussions that they wanted to have by phone or in person, so that there would be no paper trail. "It's highly unusual and raises suspicions of something unethical happening when you see emails that say `call me, I don't want to put this in writing.' There's no reason to worry about putting something in writing if there's nothing improper or unethical in the case," said former federal prosecutor Francey Hakes, who worked in the Justice Department's crimes against children unit. On Sept. 24, 2007, another agreement was reached, but Epstein still wasn't happy with it, emails show. Lefkowitz continued to pressure the U.S. Attorney's Office to keep the agreement secret, even though under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, prosecutors were required to inform the victims that a plea deal had been signed. "We ... object to your sending a letter to the alleged victims," Lefkowitz wrote on Nov. 28. "... Any such letter would immediately be leaked to the press, your actions will only have the effect of injuring Mr. Epstein and promoting spurious civil litigation directed at him. We also request that if your office believes that it must send a letter to go to the alleged victims ... it should happen only after Mr. Epstein has entered his plea." 2 EFTA00798549 The girls who were abused by Jeffrey Epstein and the cops who championed their cause remain angry over what they regard as a gross injustice, while Epstein's employees and those who engineered his non-prosecution agreement have prospered. BY MARTA OLIVER CRAVIOTTO u I EMILY MICHOT u I JULIE K. BROWN BE By December, Epstein had still not agreed to a date for his plea hearing, and was technically in violation of the September agreement, which required him to appear in court by November, Acosta noted in a letter to Kenneth Starr in December 2007. "The [U.S. attorneys] who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team," Acosta wrote. "It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. ... Some in our office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions to the agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind." And that's exactly what happened. EFTA00798550 Villafaria frequently showed her frustration. "I thought we had worked very well together in resolving this dispute. ... I feel that I bent over backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement would have on Mr. Epstein," Villafaria wrote to Epstein attorney Lefkowitz on Dec. 13, 2007. EFTA00798551 By then the deal had been signed for two months, and Jeffrey Sloman, Acosta's top assistant, told Lefkowitz he intended to begin notifying Epstein's victims. An indignant Leflcowitz wrote to Acosta: "You ... assured me that your office would not ... contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter." As the months went on, with the agreement still in limbo, federal prosecutors once again began to prepare indictments against Epstein, court records show. The FBI investigation briefly resumed, and additional witnesses were interviewed in New York and New Mexico, the records show. In January 2008, several Epstein victims were sent letters informing them that the FBI investigation was "ongoing" as negotiations to finalize the plea bargain continued behind the scenes. Starr finally appealed to the Justice Department in Washington, challenging federal jurisdiction of the case, but in May 2008, the Justice Department affirmed Acosta's right to prosecute. `STILL AFRAID OF EPSTEIN' In recent court filings, the government was forced to answer questions about its negotiations, finally admitting in 2013 that federal prosecutors had backed down under relentless pressure by Epstein's attorneys. "The government admits that, at least in part as a result of objections lodged by Epstein's lawyers to victim notifications, the [United States Attorney's Office] reevaluated its obligations to provide notification to victims and Jane Doe #1 was EFTA00798552 thus not told that the USAO had entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein until after it was signed," wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee. Said Hakes, the former federal prosecutor: "I have never heard of a case where federal prosecutors consult with a defense attorney before they send out standard victim notification letters. To negotiate what the letters would say and whether they would be sent at all suggest that the victims' rights were violated multiple times." Starr's aggressive advocacy for Epstein against allegations of improper sexual behavior was in stark contrast to the path he took investigating then-President Clinton. The Starr Report, the summary of his findings in the Whitewater investigation, which started as a probe of a land deal gone sour and veered into an investigation of sexual misconduct, savaged the president for his involvement with White House intern Monica Lewinsky and was the basis for impeachment. Starr himself would face criticism in 2016 — he stepped down as president of Baylor University amid allegations that he and other university officials mishandled sexual assault allegations brought by female students against members of the school's football team. The Herald reached out to Starr, through certified letter and through a spokesman for his current law firm, the Lanier Firm, but did not receive a response for this story. Palm Beach police detective Recarey, one of the most highly decorated officers on the Palm Beach Police Department, called the Epstein case the most troubling of his 23-year career. "Some of the victims were — and still are — afraid of Epstein," he said as part of a series of interviews with the Herald earlier this year. Privately, Reiter and Recarey said, they held onto a hope that Epstein would be brought to trial someday, but they said that that notion had faded. "I always hoped that the plea would be thrown out and that these teenage girls, who were labeled as prostitutes by prosecutors, would get to finally shed that label and see him go to prison where he belongs," Recarey said. EFTA00798553 Recarey died in May after a brief illness. He was 50 years old. More from the series How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime EFTA00798554 EXHIBIT B EFTA00798555 DA's office `went easy' on sex offender Epstein By Rebecca Rosenberg and Danika Fear, January 7.2015 I 2:38am Jeffrey Epstein Gloomy P. mango Jeffrey Epstein may be a convicted pedophile and accused sex- slave master — but that didn't stop him from getting some tender loving treatment from the Manhattan (Ws Office. Prosectors went to bat for the billionaire pervert at a 2011 legal hearing, asking a judge to cut the filthy- rich felon a break on the severity of his sex- offender status, according to court documents. ADA Jennifer Gaffney supported a request by Epstein — who allegedly peddled $15,0O0-a-night teen "sex slaves" to rich men like Britain's Prince Andrew — that he only be listed as a Level 1 pervert during a hearing in Manhattan Supreme Court, according to legal transcripts. The sicko Investment magnate has just finished serving 13 months of an 18-month sentence in Florida for soliciting a minor girl for prostitution. The hearing was to determine what kind of offender status he would have in New York. where he keeps a vacation home. The city ADA argued that since "there was only an indictment for one victim," Epstein shouldn't have to register as Level 3 — which would require he travel to New York every 90 days and check in with cops. EFTA00798556 Judge Ruth Pickholz was flabbergasted. She couldn't understand why the DA would want to go easy on Epstein, after the New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended the Level 3 status because there was more than just the one victim for which he pleaded guilty. "I have to tell you, I'm a little overwhelmed because I have never seen the prosecutor's office do anything like this: the judge said at the hearing. Despite the DA's arguments, Pickholz slapped Epstein with Level 3 status, which was upheld on appeal. "The strong evidence that the offenses against the other victims did occur outweighs any inferences to be drawn from the manner in which this case was prosecuted in Florida," the New York Court of Appeals said in its ruling. When asked for comment, the DA's Office referred The Post to court documents stating that the prosecution's position was based largely on the mistaken notion' that only the formal charges against Epstein could be factors In the decision. The jetsetting financier has been making headlines in recent days afters 3O, claimed he pimped her to Britain's Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew has denied the accusations against him. FILED UNDER JEFFREY EPSTEIN, PRINCE ANDREW, Reccenrnonded by EFTA00798557 EXHIBIT C EFTA00798558 METRO Manhattan DA sided with pedophile billionaire after botching investigation By Reb-c c., L ;fig CtIona, Senor Ed•-nron ono I Viric• Decenibk,r 1.2018 8.47orn I 0Pclateci Jeffrey Epstein The Manhattan DA's office once went to bat for billionaire pervert Jeffrey Epstein, after botching a review of his sex crimes and swallowing his lawyers' claim that "there are no real victims here," records obtained by the Post show. Assistant DA Jennifer Gaffney. then-deputy chief of Cyrus Vance Xs sex-crimes unit, in January 2011 asked a Manhattan judge to downgrade Epstein's status in the New York sex-offender registry from the most-dangerous Level 3 to least-restrictive Level 1, The judge was stunned. "I have never seen the prosecutor's office do anything like this." Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Ruth Pickholz told Gaffney. 1 have done many [cases] much less troubling than this one where [prosecutors] would never make a downward argument like this." Pressed by the judge, Gaffney admitted that she never spoke to the Florida U.S. Attorney who handled a sprawling sex-crime Investigation into the financier. EFTA00798559 "I don't think you did much of an investigation here," Pickholz said. "I am shocked." Vance's mishandling of the Epstein hearing has come under new scrutiny after a Miami Herald report last week revealed a secret "non- prosecution agreement" in Florida that buried evidence Epstein had allegedly pimped out 80 girls and young women to his rich and powerful pals. The DA's office insists Vance "was not aware" of the hearing until years later and had nothing to do with it. "Our prosecutor made a mistake: Vance spokesman Danny Frost said of Gaffney. Gaffney. a prosecutor working in the Harvey Weinstein probe, left the DA's office in September. She declined to comment. A DA insider said the office was unaware of Epstein's secret plea deal in Florida, and never investigated his sexcapades in NYC. Some law enforcement sources don't believe Vance had no clue that his office had a sex-offender case involving a Manhattan mogul with close ties to Democrats. "This Is very unusual:* one said. "There is no way Vance didn't know. The question is why — and who asked for the favor." The FBI found Epstein recruited girls as young as 13, many runaways, from Florida, New Mexico, the Caribbean and New York, and paid them for nude massages that often led to sex, the Herald reported. Some girls worked for a Manhattan modeling agency and lived in a nearby apartment owned by Epstein. But Miami U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta — now President Trump's labor secretary — sealed a 53-page federal Indictment that could have sent Epstein to prison for life, the Herald reported. Instead, Acosta let Epstein plead guilty to procuring a person under 18 for prostitution. Sentenced to 18 months, he served just 13 — most of it in his tony Palm Beach office. Epstein was required to register as a sex offender In New York because one of his many homes is in Manhattan. In the Jan. 18, 2011 hearing. Gaffney argued the evidence didn't justify the harshest status. "There is only an indictment for one victim,: she said. "If an offender is not indicted for an offense, it is strong evidence that the offense did not occur." Pickholz rejected Gaffney's arguments and gave Ep

EFTA00596325.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 20 pages

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO.: P.C. Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, LPSLEY R FF AND Defendants. COMPLAINT Plaintiff P.C., by and through her undersigned counsel, sues the Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Lesley Groff and a and alleges as follows: 1. This cause of action arises under federal statute and jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. section 1331. 2. Plaintiff files this Complaint under a pseudonym in order to protect her identity because this Complaint makes allegations of a sensitive sexual nature and disclosure of Plaintiffs name publicly will cause further harm to her. EFTA00596325  3. At all times material to the events alleged in this cause of action the Plaintiff was a citizen of South Africa residing in New York, New York. 4. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein had multiple residences, including in New York, New York and the United States Virgin Islands. He is currently a citizen of the United States and a resident of the U.S. Virgin Islands. 5. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was an adult male born in 1953. 6. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell was residing in in New York, New York and was a citizen of Great Britain and France. 7. At all times material to this cause of action_was residing in New York, New York, and, on information and belief, was a citizen of New York. 8. At all times material to this cause of action Lesley Groff was a residing in New York, New York and, on information and belief, was a citizen of New York 9. At all material times, was residing in New York, New York and, on information and belief, was a citizen of New York. 10. Because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this cause of action occurred in the Southern District of New York, venue is proper in that District. 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b)b(2) 2 EFTA00596326  11. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, .,esley Groff, and owed a duty to Plaintiff to treat her in a non-negligent manner and not to commit or conspire to commit intentional or tortious illegal acts against her. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 12. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was an adult male over 50 years old. Defendant Epstein is known as a billionaire who uses his extraordinary wealth to commit illegal sexual crimes in violation of federal and state statutes and to employ numerous others, including the named Defendants, to conspire and assist in committing those crimes and additional torts as well as to protect and conceal his crimes and torts from being discovered. 13. Defendant Epstein displays his enormous wealth, power and influence to his employees; to the victims procured for sexual purposes; and to the public in order to advance and carry out his crimes and torts. At all relevant times, Defendant Epstein owned and continues to own, directly or through nominee individuals used to conceal his interests, a fleet of airplanes, motor vehicles, boats and one or more helicopters. He owned and owns numerous properties and homes, including a 51,000-square-foot mansion in Manhattan; a $30 Million, 7,500-acre ranch in New Mexico; a 70-acre private island formerly known as Little St. James in or near St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands; a mansion in London, England; a home in Paris, 3 EFTA00596327 France; and a mansion in Palm Beach County, Florida. The allegations herein primarily concern the defendant's conduct while at his townhouse in New York; on one or more of his private airplanes; and on his private island in the United States Virgin Islands. 14. Defendant Epstein has a compulsive sexual preference for young females as young as 13 and as "old" as 25. Defendant had sex with young females virtually every day and assisted in the development and execution of a sex trafficking scheme designed to fulfill his sexual desires. 15. Defendant Maxwell was for decades the highest-ranking employee of the Defendants' sex trafficking enterprise. She herself recruited young females; oversaw and trained other recruiters on how best to recruit girls for sex; developed and executed schemes designed to recruit young females; and ensured that all participants of the Defendants' sex trafficking scheme acted in certain specific ways in order to advance the purposes of the scheme and conceal it from law enforcement. 16. Defendant recruited young females and maintained Epstein's sex schedule in order to ensure that he was not without the sexual favors of young females for any extended period of time. Defendant also handled travel arrangements for the various females being exploited for sexual purposes. 4 EFTA00596328 Defendant reported directly up the enterprise's line of authority to Defendant Maxwell. 17. Defendant Epstein employed many recruiters of young females. The nature of the Defendants' sex trafficking scheme enabled victims themselves, such as Defendant to elevate their status to that of a paid recruiter of other victims. Recruiters were taught by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell to inform targeted victims that Epstein possessed extraordinary wealth, power, resources and influence; that he was a philanthropist who would help female victims advance their careers and lives; and that the recruits needed only to provide Epstein with body massages in order to avail themselves of his financial assistance and influence. In fact, however, these representations were fraudulent. The vast majority of girls were required to perform intimate sexual acts at the Defendants' direction and the Defendants did not help or intend to help advance the victims' careers. 18. Defendant Groff coordinated schedules between Defendant Epstein and the various young females used for sex; made travel arrangements for the girls; tended to their living needs; and communicated with them in order to maintain their compliance with the rules of behavior imposed upon them by the enterprise. 19. The Defendants, led primarily by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell, fulfilled Epstein's compulsive need for sex with young females by preying on their 5 EFTA00596329 personal, psychological, financial and related vulnerabilities. The Defendants' tactics included promising the victims money, shelter, transportation, employment, admission into educational institutions, educational tuition, and other things of value in exchange for sex. 20. Defendants' sex trafficking venture and enterprise operated in a hierarchal structure with Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the top and underlings below. Underlings included the other named Defendants as well as unnamed co-conspirators such as various housekeepers and butlers; an airplane pilot; and various employees, assistants and associates. Wittingly and unwittingly, such underlings performed their respective roles with the purpose and effect of insuring that the enterprise maximized the number of young females made available for sexual purposes to Defendant Epstein and others. At all times materials to this complaint, the venture and enterprise was a group of two or more individuals associated in fact and deed. 21. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell, with help from assistants, associates and underlings, recruited and procured hundreds of females over the decades of the operation of their scheme. Such recruitment and procurement included fraud, coercion, the threat of coercion, and a combination of these and similar tactics. Following the Defendants' recruitment and procurement of the females to join Epstein in New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Defendants used fraudulent 6 EFTA00596330 promises, coercion, and threats of coercion in order to entice young females into sex and, once sexual activities ensued, to cause them to remain in the enterprise. The Defendants also transported females in interstate and foreign commerce and in ways that affected interstate and foreign commerce. 22. Defendants specifically targeted underprivileged, emotionally vulnerable and/or economically disadvantaged young females to join the Defendants' enterprise. 23. It is unknown exactly how long Defendant Epstein and Maxwell's aforementioned criminal and illegal enterprise operated, although on information and belief Plaintiff alleges that it was at least continuously and actively in operation from the mid-1990's through and including the calendar year 2007. 24. Plaintiff also alleges on information and belief that Defendant Epstein has continued the scheme up to the present time. 25. In 2005, Defendant Epstein and numerous co-conspirators within the enterprise were the subjects of a Palm Beach, Florida Police Department criminal investigation which revealed that Defendant Epstein had engaged in sexual activities with dozens of young teenage children. Each child was lured into Defendant Epstein's Palm Beach mansion with a promise that she would receive money for providing him with a body massage, although once there, each child was made to engage a sex act in order to receive the promised compensation. 7 EFTA00596331 Several were also made to engage in sex with another of Defendant Epstein's female sexual traveling companions. 26. In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department investigation was turned over to the FBI and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The United States Attorney's Office investigated Defendant Epstein and his co-conspirators for their violations of numerous federal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. Section 1591, one of the statutory bases for this complaint. 27. The United States Attorney's investigation continued from 2006 through September 2007, at which time a Non-Prosecution Agreement was signed between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office deferring federal prosecution of Defendant Epstein and his numerous co-conspirators for identified federal sex crimes against more than 30 minors. 28. From late 2006 through September 2007, Epstein's team of lawyers negotiated with the federal government in an effort to avoid the filing of the fifty- three-page draft indictment of Epstein. During these negotiations, Defendant Epstein decamped from Palm Beach to New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands in order to convey an image to prosecutors that he and his co-conspirators had stopped committing sex crimes. 29. Remarkably, however—as this case will highlight—Defendant Epstein and his co-Defendants, including the other defendants named herein, did not abandon 8 EFTA00596332 their sex trafficking enterprise even while they were under state and federal investigation for crimes committed in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1591, among other laws, and even as Defendants and their attorneys were busy arguing Epstein's innocence and publicly defaming his victims as liars. Rather, Defendants merely changed their style. Instead of targeting local Palm Beach Florida high school girls, the Defendants transported young females from other places in the U.S. and abroad and brought them to Defendant Epstein's mansion in New York and his private island in the Virgin Islands. 30. In June of 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to Florida state felony sex offenses for procuring a minor for prostitution and soliciting prostitution by minors. He avoided state prison and, instead, served part of an 18-month "soft" jail sentence consisting primarily of day-time release to a nearby private office where, among other liberties, he surfed the internet and communicated with past victims. 31. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell developed and implemented a sophisticated system designed to insulate them from criminal and civil liability by protecting them from potential testimony of knowledgeable subordinates. The system included requiring subordinates to sign confidentiality agreements covering civil and criminal activity; requiring subordinates and victims to refrain from speaking with law enforcement officials; requiring them to notify Defendant Epstein's lawyers in the event they (subordinates and victims) were contacted by 9 EFTA00596333 law enforcement officials; requiring them to accept the representation of attorneys paid for by Defendant Epstein; requiring them to invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to questions they might be asked by investigators and prosecutors; requiring them to invoke the Fifth Amendment in order to refuse to turn over incriminating and non-incriminating evidence to law enforcement officers; requiring them to destroy evidence or refuse to reveal knowledge of destroyed evidence; and requiring them generally to refuse all cooperation with law enforcement officials or investigations. 32. In 2005, Defendant Epstein and other co-conspirators, aware that law enforcement officials were preparing imminently to execute a search warrant of his home, removed computer systems that logged information about Epstein and his co-conspirators' illegal and criminal conduct; the identities of witnesses; nude photographs of young females; scheduling books; message pads; tangible items such as vibrators and toys; and other incriminating matter. SPECIFIC FACTS 33. Commencing in approximately October 2006 and continuing through April 2007, Defendants recruited Plaintiff into their sexual enterprise by promising to use their connections and resources to secure her admission to an institution of higher education at the expense of Defendant Epstein. I0 EFTA00596334  34. Defendant was working as one of the enterprise's recruiters of young females when she approached and recruited Plaintiff. 35. Defendant informed Plaintiff that she would introduce Plaintiff to Defendant Epstein, whom she described as a wealthy philanthropist who regularly used his wealth, influence and connections to help financially poor females like Plaintiff achieve their personal and professional goals and aspirations. 36. Defendant reported to her superiors, Defendants Groff and Maxwell, and was paid for her recruitment of young females, including the recruitment of Plaintiff. 37. Defendant introduced Plaintiff to Defendant Epstein, who confirmed to Plaintiff that he would use his wealth and influence to have Plaintiff admitted into The Fashion Institute of Technology, known as "F.I.T.", in New York City, or into a similar institute of higher learning offering a curriculum of fashion industry training. Defendants Maxwell, and Groff each confirmed this promise to Plaintiff many times. 38. Defendant Maxwell told Plaintiff she would need to provide Defendant Epstein with body massages in order to reap the benefits of his and Maxwell's connections. Maxwell and Epstein also made known to Plaintiff that, while they had the ability to advance her education and career, they also had the ability to make sure that she would obtain no formal education or modeling agency contracts 11 EFTA00596335 if she failed to provide the sexual favors desired by Defendant Epstein or abide by the instructions given her by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell. 39. Plaintiff reasonably believed that her compliance with Defendants' demands was crucial to her physical, psychological, financial and reputational survival. 40. Defendant Maxwell instructed Plaintiff how to massage Epstein using the techniques that he preferred. During Plaintiff's first massage, Defendant Epstein converted it into a sexual act and made it known to Plaintiff that further sex would be required in order for her to obtain the assistance he promised. 41. Maxwell and Epstein informed Plaintiff that other young females in Epstein's company were there not only to provide massages, but also sexual acts. 42. Plaintiff was instructed dozens of times to provide body massages to Epstein, both at his townhouse in New York and on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Each time she was so instructed she was also required to perform a sexual act with Epstein. The Defendants transported Plaintiff in interstate and foreign commerce, and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, for these sexual purposes. 43. During many sexual encounters, Defendant Epstein gave Plaintiff no option, opportunity or choice not to participate in the prescribed sexual acts. 44. Defendant Maxwell frequently controlled the assignment, or "rotation," of Plaintiff and the other young females concerning the time, place and manner of the 12 EFTA00596336 sex acts they were told to provide to Defendant Epstein. Defendants Maxwell and Epstein also required Plaintiff to engage in sex acts with other females. 45. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell intimidated, threatened, humiliated and verbally abused Plaintiff in order to coerce her into sexual compliance. These Defendants threatened Plaintiff with serious harm, including psychological, financial, and reputational harm, in ways and means that, under the surrounding circumstances, would have compelled any reasonable person of the same or similar background and circumstances as Plaintiff's to perform and continue performing the demanded commercial sexual activity. 46. On one occasion, after suffering verbal abuse and threats by Defendants Epstein, Maxwell, and Plaintiff attempted to escape from Defendant Epstein's private island. A search party led by Defendant Epstein located her and returned her to the main house on the island. Through these and other actions, the Defendants intended to cause, and did cause, Plaintiff to believe that failure to perform the actions they requested would result in physical restraint and potential harm to her person, as well as harm to her reputation, employability, and stable state of mind. 47. Defendant Epstein's wealth, influence, power and connections were used both as an inducement to provide sex (in exchange for promises of support), and as 13 EFTA00596337 a means of threatening punishment (should Plaintiff refuse to comply with Defendants' instructions). 48. In addition to Plaintiff's being trafficked on Epstein's private plane, Defendants Groff, Maxwell and , with the knowledge of and instruction by Defendant Epstein, arranged Plaintiffs commercial air travel on numerous occasions for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to commit commercial sex acts. 49. Defendants provided living quarters for Plaintiff at 301 East 66 Street, New York; a car service for Plaintiff to use as needed; a cell phone; and other valuable consideration in order to maintain Plaintiffs sexual compliance. 50. The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants Epstein and Maxwell was defined and characterized by Defendant Epstein's and Defendant Maxwell's frequent and persistent representations that they would provide Plaintiff with a formal education and career advancement if she provided sex to Defendant Epstein and others in the times, places and manners demanded by Defendants. Plaintiff reasonably relied on those representations. In fact, however, those representations were knowingly false, were not acted upon, and were made by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell solely for the purpose of maintaining Plaintiffs financial dependence on, emotional vulnerability to, and sexual compliance with Defendants Epstein and Maxwell and their demands. The other Defendants intentionally repeated those 14 EFTA00596338 representations and intentionally attempted to convince Plaintiff that the representations were true and could be relied upon. 51. In January 2007, Defendants sent Plaintiff from the United States to South Africa in part to recruit, for a promised fee, one or more aspiring female models supposedly for Epstein to use as an alleged personal assistant. Epstein and Maxwell continuously and frequently demanded that Plaintiff fulfill this task as a condition of her receiving the education, career and related benefits promised by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell. Based upon Plaintiff's experience with Defendants, however, she did not believe that the requested model would be placed in a legitimate position of employment with Defendant Epstein but would, instead, be forced into sexual servitude. As a result, Plaintiff deliberately refused to perform the recruitment assignment. 52. As part of their ongoing scheme, Defendants inflicted serious emotional and psychological harm on Plaintiff as a means of coercing her to continue engaging in commercial sex acts. While Plaintiff was in South Africa, Defendants Epstein and Maxwell informed Plaintiff that she would not be permitted to return to the United States to receive her promised education unless she underwent a diet and lowered her body weight from 57 kilograms (approximately 125 pounds) to 52 kilograms (approximately 114 pounds). Believing she had no practical choice in the matter, Plaintiff attempted to comply with the order but, given her physical height and 15 EFTA00596339 structure and her existing low body weight, the diet imposed upon her placed her in serious physical jeopardy, including kidney malfunction and extreme emotional and psychological distress. 53. Epstein and Maxwell called Plaintiffs parents in South Africa to tell them that Defendants would take good care of Plaintiff when she returned to the United States and that they would use their connections and influence to have her admitted to F.I.T. or another well-regarded fashion school. 54. In February of 2007, Plaintiff returned to New York and was promptly ordered by Defendant Maxwell to have sex with Defendant Epstein. Defendants Maxwell and Epstein fraudulently promised her again that her sexual compliance would be rewarded with admission to F.I.T. or a comparable college, a promise which they knew to be false. Plaintiff knew that if she did not comply, Defendants Maxwell and Epstein would use their power, influence and connections in order to ensure that Plaintiff was unable to gain admission to F.I.T. or a comparable school, and that they would destroy her career as they had destroyed the careers of others who had failed to comply. 55. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell continued to provide Plaintiff with things of value in exchange for Plaintiffs continued compliance with Epstein's sexual demands; however, they failed and refused to perform their promises to help Plaintiff be admitted to F.I.T. or another school, or to provide financial support for 16 EFTA00596340 college admission or on-going education, false promises they repeatedly made in order to coerce her into commercial sex acts. 56. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell's sexual demands on Plaintiff continued while she was in New York or other geographic proximity to the Defendants. In addition to their requiring Plaintiff to provide Defendant Epstein with sex acts, Defendants continued to pressure her to lose excessive amounts of body weight and offered her no opportunity to decline or resist their instructions. 57. In May, 2007, Plaintiff left the United States and did not return. 58. Defendants' representations and promises were all false and fraudulent. Their threats were considered by Plaintiff to be real and credible. All such representations, promises and threats were made solely for the purpose of coercing and otherwise inducing Plaintiff into prolonged sexual compliance. Defendants knowingly benefitted financially and received things of value as a result of their participating in their illegal enterprise. COUNT I CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1595 59. Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 58 above. 60. Defendants individually and together, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce 17 EFTA00596341 and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, maintained, patronized, solicited, threatened, forced, and coerced Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. Such actions by Defendants were undertaken with knowledge and/or reckless disregard of the fact that their threats of force, fraud, coercion, and combinations of such means would be used, and were in fact used, in order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In so doing, Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. §§1591 through 1594 and are subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595. 61. Defendants additionally profited from the sex trafficking of Plaintiff; obstructed investigations of the violations; attempted and conspired to violate, and succeeded in violating, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 through 1594, by the commission of the torts and crimes described in this complaint. 62. Certain property of Defendant Epstein's was essential to the commission of the federal crimes and torts described herein, including the use of multiple private aircraft including a Boeing aircraft (of make and model B-727-31H with tail number N908JE) and a Gulfstream aircraft (of make and model G-1159B with tail number N909JE). Such aircraft, along with other of Defendants' property, were used as means and instruments of Defendants' tortious and criminal offenses and, as such, are subject to forfeiture. 18 EFTA00596342  63. Additionally, Defendant Epstein's New York mansion, located at 9 East 71st street, New York, New York, and his private island located in the United States Virgin Islands, were used as means and instruments of Defendants' tortious and criminal offenses and, as such, are subject to forfeiture. 64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' commission of the aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in Title 18 U.S.C. § 1591 et. seq. and the civil remedies provided in § 1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue to suffer injury and pain; emotional distress; psychological and psychi- atric trauma; mental anguish; humiliation; confusion; embarrassment; loss of self- esteem; loss of dignity; loss of enjoyment of life; invasion of privacy; and other damages associated with Defendants' actions. Plaintiff will incur medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will do so in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. Dated: January 2016. Respectfully Submitted, 19 EFTA00596343  BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ David Boies David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 20 EFTA00596344

EFTA00223910.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 22 pages

1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 2 WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN RE: OPERATION LEAP YEAR 9 10 / 11 12 Grand Jury #07-103 (WPB) west Palm Beach, Florida 13 Tuesday, February 6, 2007 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 APPEARANCE: 22 23 24 25 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 Exhibit 17 EFTA00223910  2 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 3 The sworn testimony of was taken 4 before the Federal Grand Jury, west Palm Beach Division, 5 701 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, 6 State of Florida, on the 6th day of February, 2007. 7 NANCY SIEGEL, Registered Merit Reporter and Notary 8 Public was authorized to and did report the sworn 9 testimony. 10 Thereupon, 11 E. 12 a witness of lawful age, having been first duly sworn by 13 the foreperson, testified on her oath as follows: 14 BY MS. 15 Q Special Agent please state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 A It is and I work for 18 the FBI in Palm Beach County. 19 Q Can you spell your last name, please. 20 A I'm sorry, it is 21 Q And I know we have some people in the back 22 having trouble hearing you. You said that you work for 23 the FBI. Can you tell the Grand Jury what particular 24 group you are employed with? 25 A I am with the violent Crimes Squad here in OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223911  3 1 Palm Beach County, I work primarily crimes against 2 children, but have been an agent for the last 3 approximately 10 years. 4 Q Have you received specialized training in the 5 area of crimes against children? 6 A Yes, I have. 7 Q As part of your employment with the FBI have 8 you been involved in an investigation of Jeffrey 9 Epstein? 10 A Yes, I have. 11 Q And can you tell us who Jeffrey Epstein is? 12 A Jeffrey Epstein is an investment advisor who 13 has a part-time residence in the town of Palm Beach, he 14 has got multiple residences across the country to 15 include a ranch in New Mexico, an island in the virgin 16 Isles, and multiple aircrafts, two airplanes and a 17 helicopter to be exact, and -- 18 Q And where is his primary residence? 19 A His primary residence, he has an office in New 20 York, but his primary residence I believe is the island. 21 Q In the virgin Islands? 22 A Yes. 23 Q He also has a home in New York, correct? 24 A Yes. 25 Q How is it that you started investigating OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223912  4 1 Mr. Epstein? 2 A The Palm Beach Police Department in March of 3 2005 initiated an investigation on mr. Epstein involving 4 multiple underage females that had visited Mr. Epstein's 5 residence and had performed sexual massages or massages 6 for Mr. Epstein of a sexual nature. 7 Mr. Epstein paid the underage females anywhere 8 from 200 to $400, that investigation was around an 8 to 9 10-month investigation, and at that point we became 10 involved in about July of 2006. 11 Q And once the case was presented to you by the 12 Palm Beach Police Department did the FBI open its own 13 investigation? 14 A Yes, yes, we initiated our investigation in 15 July of 2006, we took a look at focusing in on the 16 underage minors and in our investigation we interviewed 17 many of the girls that were underage and we did an 18 independent investigation issuing Grand Jury subpoenas 19 as well as administrative subpoenas getting different 20 documents of financial records, telephone analysis, 21 flight manifests, looking to see if Mr. Epstein engaged 22 in sexual activity with these females. 23 Q All right. And just so the Grand Jury is 24 clear, were some of the girls who went to Mr. Epstein's 25 house 18 or older? OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223913  5 1 A Yes. 2 Q And then there were some that were under the 3 age of 18, correct? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And as part of the federal investigation did 6 you have to investigate what we call the interstate 7 nexus aspect of the case? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And can you explain to the Grand Jury what 10 that is? 11 A we looked at -- Mr. Epstein, as I mentioned 12 earlier, has two aircrafts, and we focused in on the 13 year 2004, 2005, he took approximately 60 trips to his 14 residence in Palm Beach, the majority of that time 15 focusing in on his assistant's cell phone, which his 16 assistant's name is we took a look at her 17 cell phone records and the majority of the times that 18 Mr. Epstein would fly into Palm Beach mrs. 19 would contact many of our underage victims either prior 20 to coming into Palm Beach, the day of, the day before, 21 even the day after, and certainly throughout the time 22 that Mr. Epstein was at his residence in Palm Beach. 23 Q And from the interviews of the girls that have 24 been conducted, what was the subject of those telephone 25 calls? OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223914  6 1 A can you restate the question? 2 Q Sure. From the interviews of the girls that 3 have been conducted, what was the subject matter of the 4 telephone calls from 5 A would schedule the underage girls 6 to come and work, perform the massages for mr. Epstein, 7 so she was responsible, she as well as another 8 assistant, they were his personal 9 assistants who would set up appointments for Mr. Epstein 10 for the girls to come and perform their sexual massages. 11 Q All right. Is also considered a 12 target of this investigation? 13 A Yes, she is. 14 Q And I will just -- I will spell 15 for the Grand Jury. The first name is 16 and the last name is spelled 17 and does ms. have a new last 18 name? 19 A Yes, she does, she is married and her name is 20 21 Q Is ms. at least a subject of 22 this investigation, in other words, you are 23 investigating her activity? 24 A we are looking at that. 25 Q In addition to those two assistants, from the OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223915  7 1 interviews of the girls, is there anyone else who is 2 associated with Mr. Epstein who is thought to be 3 involved in this activity? 4 A as been referred to as his 5 companion, girl friend, personal assistant, she through 6 the testimony of the girls has engaged in sexual 7 activity with at least three of the underage minors. 8 Q And . So Ms. 9 is also at least a subject of the 10 investigation, correct? 11 A yes, she is. 12 Q Now, as part of this investigation you 13 mentioned that subpoenas were issued on behalf of either 14 the old Grand Jury or this Grand Jury. 15 Can you run through what subpoenas have been 16 issued and what documents have been received in response 17 to that? 18 A Sure. We issued a Grand Jury subpoena to 19 Colonial Bank and we received financial records on 20 credit card accounts and individuals. 21 We subpoenaed washington Mutual and they did a 22 search and were unable to locate records at this time. 23 we issued a Grand Jury subpoena for Capital One and 24 served that and that is still unresolved at this time as 25 far as them providing documents to us. OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223916  8 1 we have subpoenaed Chase Credit Card and we 2 have received documents from Chase. we have subpoenaed 3 two businesses that Mr. Epstein has at least partial 4 ownership or associated to, Hyperion Air, Inc. and JEGE, 5 Inc., they were issued subpoenas and they have provided 6 documentation to us. 7 we have subpoenaed Mr. David Rogers, who is a 8 pilot of mr. Epstein's, and we have received 9 documentation from Mr. Rogers. we have subpoenaed DTG 10 Operations, who is doing business as Dollar Rent-A-Car, 11 and we have received car rental agreements and financial 12 records from that business. 13 we have subpoenaed Royal Palm Beach High 14 school and have received documentation regarding the 15 students' records. We have subpoenaed three or four of 16 the victims, being the first, and we have 17 received a bathing suit from 18 we issued a Grand Jury subpoena to Tatum 19 Miller, we actually have issued Tatum three subpoenas, 20 and we are still working on resolving her Grand Jury 21 material as well as testimony. 22 we have issued subpoena, we 23 have issued -- she also is one of our underage victims. 24 we've issued Reimer Employment Agency a Grand Jury 25 subpoena and we have received documentation, that is an OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223917  9 1 employment agency located on the island of Palm Beach. 2 we have subpoenaed the Palm Beach Police 3 Department for their evidence in this case and we have 4 received that. By the way, that is the only thing that 5 I did not bring with me today, I brought everything 6 else, but it is rather a lot of evidence, so we will 7 probably be bringing that to you another time. 8 we have issued the Clerk of Courts of the 9 State of Florida for Grand Jury transcripts in the state 10 matter and we have received those. we have issued the 11 Good Samaritan Hospital for billing records and we have 12 received those. 13 we have issued a Grand Jury subpoena to the 14 Dalton School located in New York and at this time they 15 do not have the records we have requested or could not 16 locate those. 17 we have issued a Grand Jury subpoena to Extra 18 Touch Flowers located here in west Palm Beach and we 19 have received documentation from them. We issued a 20 Grand Jury subpoena to Bill Hammond, another pilot for 21 Mr. Epstein, we have spoken with him. 22 we have issued a Grand Jury subpoena to Larry 23 visoski, another one of Mr. Epstein's pilots, and we 24 have received documentation as well as spoken to him. 25 we have issued a Grand Jury subpoena to Janusz OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223918  10 1 Banasiak, who is the property manager currently for 2 Mr. Epstein at his Palm Beach residence, and we have 3 received documentation as well as spoken to him, and we 4 have issued a Grand Jury subpoena to 5 and have received some documentation and are still 6 awaiting a response. 7 Q Now, you mentioned that you didn't bring with 8 you the evidence that you received from the Palm Beach 9 Police Department, but did you bring with you all of the 10 other evidence that was received in response to the 11 subpoenas? 12 A i have. 13 Q And is that evidence in the two boxes that are 14 here in the front? 15 A Yes. 16 Q we will bring all of this back to you when we 17 present the indictment, but would anyone like to look at 18 any of the documentation today? 19 A GRAND JUROR: what does the documentation 20 constitute, basically, the subpoenas? 21 THE WITNESS: It is primarily business 22 records, flight manifests, stuff that came from him 23 traveling to and from Palm Beach, credit card 24 records, the businesses as far as the rental 25 agreement which involves some of the underage girls OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223919  11 1 with the rental cars, and flower shop, you know. 2 A GRAND JUROR: will we have an opportunity 3 later to go through these if we need to? 4 MS. Yes, we will bring them when 5 we present the indictment. Yes, ma'am. 6 A GRAND JUROR: If i should hold this for 7 later let me know, she mentioned the hospital 8 records were subpoenaed, could more information 9 about why they were subpoenaed be provided at this 10 time? 11 BY MS. 12 Q You can answer that. 13 A One of the girls that was an underage that 14 was underage at the time that is involved with 15 Mr. Epstein has had a baby and we were interested and 16 wondering if possibly he was the father of that baby, 17 which at this time we do not believe he was. 18 A GRAND JUROR: Thank you. 19 MS. A question? 20 A GRAND JUROR: Did the flight manifest show 21 passengers on the plane? 22 THE WITNESS: Yes, they do. 23 A GRAND JUROR: Were any of the passengers the 24 underage girls that were a target of the 25 investigation? OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223920  12 1 THE WITNESS: At this time we have not 2 associated any of these underage girls as being the 3 passengers. The flight manifests, sometimes the 4 pilot if they did not know who the passenger was 5 would put one passenger or one female, one male, 6 these were private planes and they, you know, may 7 not have felt like they can go up and ask, but we 8 don't have any evidence at this time to believe 9 that they were any of our victims. 10 MS. Any follow-up? Any other 11 questions from the Grand Jury? Yes, ma'am. 12 A GRAND JUROR: The records that you 13 subpoenaed from the high school, what were they 14 used for or why were they instrumental in the 15 investigation? 16 THE ITNESS: Those are the girls' school 17 records and we are just looking at the girls' 18 records. 19 A GRAND JUROR: Absenteeism? 20 THE WITNESS: Just looking at some of their 21 grades and performances and how they did in school. 22 MS. Ladies and gentlemen, before 23 we continue, the witness has mentioned a few names 24 of the minors and that is confidential information, 25 obviously everything that you hear within these OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223921  13 1 walls is confidential. 2 BY MS. 3 Q Now, special Agent after -- in 4 addition to issuing the subpoenas, you mentioned that 5 one of the subpoenas was to the Palm Beach Police 6 Department. Did you review any of the evidence that 7 they collected? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And can you, for example, did the Palm Beach 10 Police Department interview any girls? 11 A Yes, they did, they interviewed several of the 12 girls, most of the girls, they took taped statements 13 from the girls either in the form of a tape-recorder or 14 through video. 15 Q And you have reviewed some of those 16 interviews, correct? 17 A Yes, we have. 18 Q And has the FBI performed any interviews? 19 A Yes, we have, we have performed interviews of 20 past and current employees of Mr. Epstein as well as 21 focusing in on the girls, the girls that were underage 22 at the time of the sexual activity, we wanted to 23 determine with these girls, again, the sexual activity 24 that took place with Mr. Epstein as well as how old they 25 were at the time, if they traveled with Mr. Epstein, any OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223922  14 1 gifts that they may have gotten, so we did reach out to 2 several of the underage minors and gathered more 3 information from them. 4 Q And through the FBI'S investigation has the S FBI identified additional victims that perhaps the state 6 police officers did not know about? 7 A Yes, we are still trying to identify, get 8 first names of girls and going back and looking through 9 school yearbooks and attempting to try to locate friends 10 of friends, so we are still in the process, when you 11 interview one of the girls and you ask if any of their 12 friends went, they sometimes will give you other names, 13 so we are in the process of still uncovering victims and 14 reaching out and interviewing additional girls that we 15 believe possibly were underage at the time of this 16 sexual activity. 17 Q If I could ask you to step outside. 18 (The witness was excused from the Grand Jury 19 room.) 20 (Questions posed by the Grand Jury.) 21 (The witness was recalled to testify before 22 the Grand Jury.) 23 BY MS. 24 Q Special Agent one of the Grand 25 Jurors asked whether there was any evidence of force or OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223923  15 1 coercion. 2 A when talking to the girls they were told that 3 they may have to -- they were going there to perform a 4 massage, possibly model lingerie, they went there 5 sometimes on multiple occasions and they may start off 6 wearing their clothing and then he would instruct them 7 to remove their clothing, the girls either performed 8 these massages in the nude or keeping their underwear 9 on. 10 As they went back again and again on some of 11 the occasions the girls would take off more and more of 12 their clothing, so when they first started they may be 13 fully clothed and then when they came back he would 14 instruct them to remove more of their clothing, so as 15 far as coercion, they were paid $200 to $400 to perform 16 these massages. 17 They are not trained in performing massages, 18 they don't -- they are not masseuses, but yet if you ask 19 if they were coerced, they were paid quite a bit of 20 money for 30 to 45 minutes work. 21 Some of the girls, being that they were minors 22 going to his residence, got in over their heads and did 23 not always return or come back, some of our Iictims did 24 not come back after, you know, they did go down to their 25 thong underwear and Mr. Epstein did perform sexual acts OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223924  16 1 either by -- and I didn't get into that, but either by 2 stroking their vagina on the outside of their panties or 3 sometimes inside their panties as well as fondling them, 4 and the girls, many of our victims did not realize that 5 that was what was going to happen. 6 Q And was there one instance where Mr. Epstein 7 actually engaged in vaginal intercourse with a girl 8 against her will? 9 A Yes, he did, one of our victims who had been 10 going there over a lengthy period of time had told 11 Mr. Epstein on several occasions that he was not to do 12 that and he did turn her around, threw her on the 13 massage table and penetrated her. 14 Q A Grand Juror asked how old Mr. Epstein is. 15 A He was 45 at the time that we are looking at 16 him at that time period. 17 Q A Grand Juror asked if you know the proportion 18 of girls who were underage versus 18 or older. 19 A The majority of the girls that we are looking 20 at are victims, well, all of our victims that we are 21 looking at were under the age of 18. 22 As far as all of the girls that have been 23 interviewed, the majority definitely were under 18. To 24 give you a number, I would have to go and count, but I 25 would say in the state investigation there were over 25 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223925  17 1 girls identified and more than a majority would have 2 been under the age of 18. 3 Q A Grand Juror asked whether we have obtained 4 mr. Epstein's DNA and whether there was any DNA testing 5 of the baby that you spoke of earlier. 6 A No, we have not. 7 Q A Grand Juror asked how Mr. Epstein would make 8 contact with the girls, was this done via computer or in 9 some other method? 10 A I am sorry, his personal 11 assistant, would contact, or on some occasions Adriana 12 mucinska would also contact the girls via their cell 13 phone and we have message pads from the residents that 14 also indicate the girls calling the home in response to 15 some of those phone calls, so they would call, 16 would call, the majority of the calls were made 17 by to the girls arranging for these, you 18 know, can you come at this time, can you come at that 19 time. 20 Q And is the cellular telephone a facility of 21 interstate commerce? 22 A yes, it is. 23 Q And then one of the Grand Jurors asked whether 24 the assistants knew that the girls were underage or 25 committed sex acts. OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223926  18 1 Did anybody, have you interviewed pnyhntiv who 2 affirmatively told you that they told heir 3 age or what was going on behind closed doors? 4 A No, no, not at this time, not at this time. 5 And what leads you to believe that she, for 6 example, knew or should have known what was 7 going on? 8 A There are so many girls that 9 contacted to give Mr. Epstein massages that have no 10 training in massages, and that was aware 11 that girls were bringing other girls, you know, their 12 friends to do these massages. 13 IIIIIIIpas also making appointments for 14 legitimate massages for Mr. Epstein from legitimate 15 masseuses that would come and give him massages, so the 16 number of girls, their appearances at the time would 17 lead us to believe that had knowledge that 18 these girls were underage. 19 Q All right. Thank you very much. Those were 20 all the questions from the Grand Jury. 21 A GRAND JUROR: Actually, I have two more, 22 but. 23 MS. VILLAFANA: Okay. 24 A GRAND JUROR: what was the actual age range 25 of these girls? OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223927  19 1 THE WITNESS: 14 to I mean. 2 A GRAND JUROR: The other one was, how did Ms. 3 Kellen actually originally get these girls, how 4 were they brought in, I mean how were they, you 5 know, because you said she called them when he was 6 arriving, but how did these girls come into this in 7 the first place? 8 A GRAND JUROR: Could she speak louder? 9 Special Agent Kuyrkendall, we 10 just had a request that you speak louder. 11 A GRAND JUROR: 14 and what? 12 THE WITNESS: Our victims were 14 to 17, but 13 we have girls that are 18, we have girls that are 14 20, we have girls that are in their early 20s, and 15 your question was? 16 A GRAND JUROR: How did she originally get 17 them in in the first place? 18 THE WITNESS: We are focusing in on 2004, 19 2005, we have some evidence to show that this 20 activity was taking place even earlier than that, 21 certainly to include 2003 if you look at the 22 message pads, but focusing in on 2004, 2005, the 23 chain started with one of our minors and from that 24 minor who goes to the house, Mr. Epstein tells 25 her -- sees that she is maybe not comfortable with OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223928  20 1 doing the massage the way he would like it and 2 tells her that she could bring other girls to do 3 the massages and she in fact if she brought another 4 girl she would be paid S200 for just bringing 5 another girl, so there starts the chain, and 6 Mr. Epstein would ask the girls or would ask 7 the girls for their phone numbers so each time, you 8 know, if one of the girls brought a girl and he 9 liked her he would ask for her phone number, ask 10 her to leave the phone number, or 11 would get the phone number and then that girl would 12 maybe bring, because if you brought somebody you 13 didn't have to do the massage, but you also got 14 paid for bringing a new person, so not only if you 15 did the massage would you get anywhere from 200 to 16 400, but if you brought a new female you would 17 receive 200 or $400. 18 A GRAND JUROR: Do you know how she solicited 19 that original minor? 20 THE WITNESS: I don't. well, I know that 21 minor was approached by two individuals and we have 22 interviewed one of those individuals who we can 23 connect back to Mr. Epstein four years, possibly, 24 prior to this, and stated that his job was actually 25 to drive some of the girls to the residence and OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (9S4) 467-8204 EFTA00223929  21 1 that's pretty much where we start off. 2 the Grand Jury like 3 o maintain the records 4 that we received in response to the subpoenas? 5 A GRAND JUROR: Maintain versus what? 6 A GRAND JUROR: What is our choice? 7 MS. VILLAFANA: I don't know that there is. I 8 guess I could maintain them, but I don't believe we 9 have secure storage in here. 10 would you like Special Agent to 11 maintain custody? 12 A GRAND JUROR: Yes. 13 MS. You should have something to 14 swear her in as a custodian. 15 (The witness was sworn in as the custodian of 16 records.) 17 MS. Thank you, ladies and 18 gentlemen, I am the last person for today, so you 19 guys are free to go and we will see you probably in 20 a couple of weeks, we will be seeing a lot of you. 21 (The witness was excused from the Grand Jury 22 room.) 23 (The testimony of the witness concluded 24 before the Grand Jury.) 25 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223930  22 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 3 4 I certify pages 2 through 21 are a true 5 transcript of my shorthand notes of the testimony of 6 before the Federal Grand Jury, 7 west Palm Beach, Florida on the 6th day of February, 8 2007. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00223931

EFTA00234517.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 53 pages

Memorandum Subject Date Re: Operation Leap Year May 1, 2007 (Revised 9/13/07) (2nd Revision 2/19/08)' To From R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney First Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division MAUSA, Northern Region , Chief, Northern Region I. Introduction This memorandum seeks approval for the attached indictment char in Jeffrey Epstein, Min a/k/a' JEGE Inc., and Hyperion Air, Inc. The proposed indictment contains 60 counts and seeks the forfeiture of Epstein's Palm Beach home and two airplanes? The FBI has information regarding Epstein's whereabouts on May 16th and May 19th and they would like to arrest him on one of those dates. Epstein is considered an extremely high flight risk' and, from information we have received, a continued danger 'The second revision amends the Jane Doe numbering system to correspond with the most recent indictment. It also removes the references to the overt acts and substantive allegations related to each Jane Doe because the indictment has been revised to group the overt acts related to each Jane Doe. 'Each of the airplanes is held in a separate "shell corporation," JEGE, Inc., and Hyperion Air, Inc. Epstein is the sole shareholder in both of these corporations and they serve no purpose other than to hold and maintain the airplanes for Epstein's personal use. Because these assets are not held as personal property in Epstein's name, I have indicted the two corporations, which will be named as co-conspirators and as aiders and abettors in the relevant offenses. 3Epstein's resources are virtually limitless. In addition to the two airplanes, one of which cost $42,000,000, he has homes around the world, and a fortune estimated to exceed $1 billion. EFTA00234517  to the community based upon his continued enticement of underage girls. For these reasons, we would like to present a sealed indictment to the Grand Jury on May 15, 2007, and we would like the presentation of that indictment and the status of the investigation to remain confidential. Epstein's crimes are considered crimes of violence and negotiation with his attorneys may undermine our arguments for pretrial detention. The investigation initially was undertaken by the City of Palm Beach Police Department in response to a complaint received from the parents of a 14-year-old girl,' IP, from Royal Palm Beach. When and another girl began arguing at school because the other girl accusedlingi of being a prostitute, one of the school principals intervened. The principal search purse and found $300 cash. The principal asked gal where the money came from. initiall claimed that she earned the money working at "Chik-Fil-A," which no one believed. en claimed that she made the money selling drugs; no one believed that either. finally admitted that she had been paid $300 to give a massage to a man on Palm Beach Islands'', parents approached the Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") about pressing charges. PBPD be an investigating the recipient of the massage, Jeffrey Epstein, and two of his assistants, and . PBPD identified approximately 27 girls who went to Epstein's house to perform "sexual massages" (not including one licensed massage therapist) or who recruited girls to do the same. The girls' ages ranged from 14 years' old to 23 years' old. Some girls saw Epstein only once and some saw him dozens of times. The "sexual massages" performed also varied. Some girls were fully clothed while they massaged Epstein; some wore only their underwear; and some were fully nude. During all of these massages, Epstein masturbated himself and he would touch the girl performing the massage, usually fondling their breasts and touching their vaginas - either over their clothing or on their bare skin. Epstein often used a vibrator to masturbate the girls and digitally penetrated a number of them. For the girls who saw him more often, Epstein dusted to oral sex and vaginal sex. Epstein sometimes brought his assistant/girlfriend, into the sexual activity. On October 18, 2005, PBPD obtained a search warrant with the assistance of the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office ("PBSAO"). By this time, PBSAO had already been contacted by Epstein's cadre of lawyers. When PBPD arrived at Epstein's home two days later (10/20/05) to execute the search warrant, they found several items conspicuously missing. For example, computer monitors and keyboards were found, but the CPUs were 2 EFTA00234518 gone.° Similarly, surveillance cameras were found, but they were disconnected and the videotapes were gone. Nonetheless, the search did recover some evidence of value, including message pads showing messages from many girls over a two-year span. The messages showgirls rnin hone calls to confirm ap intments to "work." Messages were taken by r and s The search also recovered numerous photos of Epstein sifting with naked girls whose ages are undetermined. Photographs taken inside the home show that the girls' descriptions of the layout of the home and master bedroom/bathroom area are accurate. PBPD also found massage tables and oils, the high school transcript of one of the girls, and sex toys. In sum, the PBPD investigation showed that girls from a local high school6 would be contacted by one of Epstein's assistants to make an appointment to "work." Up to three appointments each day would be made. The girls would travel to Epstein's home in Palm Beach where they would meet Epstein's chef and Epstein's assistant—usually an the kitchen. The assistant normally would escort the girls upstairs to the master bedroom/bathroom area and set up the massage table and massage oils. The assistant would leave and Epstein would enter the room wearing a robe or a towel. He would remove the clothing and lie face down and nude on the massage table. Epstein would then instruct the girl on what to do and would ask her to remove her clothing. After some time, Epstein would turn over, so that he was lying face up. Epstein would masturbate himself and fondle the girl performing the massage. When Epstein climaxed, the massage was over. The girl was instructed to get dressed and to go downstairs to the kitchen while Epstein showered. Epstein would pay the girl—usually $200—and if it was a "new" girl, would ask for the girl's phone 'During a meeting, Epstein's current attorneys, Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Ann Sanchez, admitted that attorney Roy Black instructed Epstein to have the CPUs removed, but they insisted that those instructions were given well in advance of the execution of the search warrant — not in response to a "leak." maiden name was ' " which was the name she used during the relevant period. 'Of the 12 underage girls who are the subject of the indictment, 9 attended High School, 1 attended' High School, 1 attendedetligh School, 1 attendedinSHigh School, and 1 was home schooled. There are ten other girls whose telephone records are still being analyzed, some of whom will probably be the subject of a superseding indictment. Some of those girls came forward following the press coverage of the state investigation. We anticipate that more girls will come forward after Epstein's arrest. 3 EFTA00234519 number to contact her in the future.' Girls were encouraged to find other girls to bring with them. If a girl brought another girl to perform a "massage," each girl would receive $200. The PBPD investigation consists primarily of sworn taped statements from the girls. When PBPD began having problems with PBSAO, they approached the FBI. The investigation was formally presented to FBI and to me after PBSAO "presented" the case to a state grand jury and that grand jury returned an indictment charging Epstein with three counts of solicitation of prostitution.' Once I determined that there were federal statutes violated, FBI, ICE, and I opened files. The federal investigation has focused on the interstate nexus required for all of the federal violations, so a number of grand jury subpoenas were issued for telephone records, flight manifests, and credit card records. The federal agents also re-interviewed some of the girls, but limited their questions to "new" topics, such as the specific means of contact, to avoid creating inconsistent Jencks materials. The agents also delved into Epstein's history and interviewed others and obtained records to corroborate the girls' stories. FBI also interviewed girls who came forward after the PBSAO indictment was reported in the papers, and additional girls identified through those interviews. I will first address the different crimes with which Epstein can be charged, setting forth the elements of those offenses and the types of evidence that I intend to use to satisfy those elements. Second, I will summarize the evidence related to each girl who has been identified as a potential victim in this case. Following the discussion of the girls' statements and evidence, there is a discussion of the evidence from other witnesses, including corroborating evidence and information related to Epstein's background. The last section discusses forfeiture. 'Usually Epstein made the payment and asked for the phone number, but sometimes it was the assistant. and 'The presentation consisted almost entirely of cross-examination of the girls who testified Jane Doe #16) using the materials presented by Epstein's attorneys (discussed below). (t1 We were unable to obtain the tape of the State Attorney's instructions on the law and presentation of the indictment, so we do not know whether the grand jury was told that lack of knowledge of age in not a defense under Florida law or the charges that they chose from. The grand jury only heard about the two girls who testified. An indictment was returned charging Epstein with three counts of solicitation of prostitution - two are misdemeanors, a third conviction (even simultaneously) is a felony. Our information is that Epstein is negotiation a misdemeanor plea. 4 ......!.r EFTA00234520  II. The Law of the Offenses Charged' Epstein's conduct violates a number of federal statutes, all of which are discussed herein. None of the statutes or their penalties changed during the time period charged (early 2004 through mid-2005), although many have changed since then. I use the language of the statutes as they appeared while Epstein was committing the offenses. In addition to conspiracy charges, there are five statutes related to sexual activity that have been violated. First, Epstein traveled in interstate commerce with the intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). Second, Epstein and his assistants used a facility of interstate commerce to induce or entice minors to engage in prostitution and sexual activity for which anperson can be charged, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 ird, Epstein transported in interstate commerce with the intent that engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421. For these three offenses, knowledge of the victim's age does not need to be proven, although a reasonable belief that a person is over 18 is an affirmative defense to a limited portion of § 2423(b).1° In those instances where Epstein and/or the assistants knew the ages of the girls (or had reason to know their ages but willfully blinded themselves to that knowledge), they can iar ed with sex trafficlthiSolation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1). In such instances, S , and also can be charged with benefitting from their participation in a venture engaged in human sex trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(2). 'Attached as Appendix A are materials received from counsel for Epstein, including their legal analysis. The points they raise are addressed in this memo. 'Section 2421 was originally referred to as the Mann Act. Sections 2422 and 2423 are more recent additions, which focus on children. All three sections are sometimes jointly referred to as the Mann Act. 5 EFTA00234521  A. Violations of the Mann Act: 18 U.S.C. 8§ 2421-2423 1. Knowledge of Age Is Not Required. The Mann Act criminalizes traveling in interstate commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct," (§ 2423(b)), using a facility of interstate commerce to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity or prostitution (§ 2422(b)), and transporting a person to engage in sexual activity (§ 2421). Sections 2423(b) and 2422(b) require a minor victim, but they do not require that the defendant know that the victim is a minor. For example, in December, the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in United States. Jones, 471 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2006). Jones was charged with transporting a minor across state lines for sexual purposes, in violation of Section 2423(a), which reads: A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce ... with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years. Jones argued that the term "knowingly" in that section required the Government to prove that Jones knew the age of the victim. The Fourth Circuit soundly rejected the argument, citing the other circuits reaching the same conclusion. Jones, 471 F.3d at 538-39 (citing United States I. Griffith, 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States, Taylor, 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States I Scisum, 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States Hamilton, 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Government need only prove that the defendant "knowingly transported" someone. The Government must also prove that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that the Government must prove only that the defendant knowingly distributed the narcotics to someone who happened to be underage. While the Eleventh Circuit has not addressed the question posed by Jones, it has addressed 21 U.S.C. § 861(a)(3) and has reached the same conclusion in approving the district court's instructions to the juty: 6 EFTA00234522  Section 845 of 21 U.S.C.A. provides that anyone who knowingly or intentionally distributes controlled substances to a person under twenty-one is subject to enhanced penalties. . . . [T]he court instructed the jury that it is not an essential element of the crime that the person who distributes be knowledgeable that the person to whom he distributes is under twenty-one years old; it is the distribution that must be knowing, although it is an essential element that the person to whom the distribution is made is under twenty-one. United Stalest Pruitt, 763 F.2d 1256, 1261 (11th Cir. 1985). In reaching this decision, the Eleventh Circuit relied upon the Third Circuit's Hamilton decision, supra: There is, however, a precise analogue to this statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2421 et seq. (White Slave Traffic Act), which prohibits the interstate transportation of persons in order to engage in immoral practices including prostitution, and which provides enhanced penalties for the knowing transportation of persons under the age of eighteen years. Under this statute, knowledge of the victim's age is not an element of the crime; the "knowing" component applies to the transportation itself. Id. at 1262 (citing Hamilton). See also United States'. Williams, 922 F.2d 737, 739 (11th Cir. 1991) (using same rationale to decide that Government need not prove knowledge of age for a charge of knowingly employing, using, persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a person under eighteen years of age in the commission of a drug offense). In United States. Taylor, 239 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit addressed a defendant's assertion that knowledge of minority is required to convict him of transporting a minor for purposes of prostitution. The Ninth Circuit held that the "more natural reading of the statute, however, is that the requirement of knowledge applies to the defendant's conduct of transporting the person rather than to the age of the person transported." Id. at 997. In Taylor, the defendant argued that the court should analogize the statute to the transportation of hazardous waste, which requires a showing that the defendant knew the waste was hazardous. The Ninth Circuit rejected that suggestion: in contrast, the transportation of any individual for purposes of prostitution or other criminal sexual activity is already unlawful under federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 2421. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), the fact that the individual being transported is a minor creates a more serious crime in order to provide heightened protection against sexual exploitation of minors. As Congress 7 EFTA00234523  intended, the age of the victim simply subjects the defendant to a more severe penalty in light of Congress' concern about the sexual exploitation of minors. Cf. United States I. Figueroa, 165 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 1998) (noting that, if a criminal statute's language is unclear, its scienter requirement is presumed to be met once an individual forms the requisite intent to commit some type of crime). • • • .. . Ignorance of the victim's age provides no safe harbor from the penalties in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). If someone knowingly transports a person for the purposes of prostitution or another sex offense, the transporter assumes the risk that the victim is a minor, regardless of what the victim says or how the victim appears. Id. (emphasis added; additional internal citations omitted). Cf. United States'. Wild, 143 Fed. Appx. 938, 942 (4th Cir. 2005) (the parties agreed that, to prove a violation of § 2423(a), the United States had to show that (1) the defendant transported the victim in interstate commerce; (2) the defendant did so knowingly and with the intent that the victim engage in prostitution; and (3) the victim was under the age of 18 at the time she was transported). This reading finds additional support in the Mann Act itself using the doctrine of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of the other). Section 2423(g) creates an affirmative defense to one portion of a violation of Section 2423(b). For purposes of that subsection alone, a defendant may raise an affirmative defense, which he must prove, that the defendant "reasonably believed that the person with whom the defendant engaged in the commercial sex act had attained the age of 18 years." 18 U.S.C. § 2423(g). The inclusion of that affirmative defense shows that Congress considered the issue and decided that the United States does not have to make an initial showing of knowledge of age for violations of 2423(b). Congress likewise considered the same issue for the other portions of the Mann Act and reached the same conclusion. If Congress had intended to place the burden of proving age on the United States — or if it had decided that it should create an affirmative defense to those charges — it could have done so. Congress' use of similar offense language for the other sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson" Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical words used in different parts of the 8 EFTA00234524 same act are intended to have the same meaning"). In United States I. Scott, 999 F.2d 541, 1993 WL 280323 (6th Cir. 1993), the defendant argued that the Mann Act was unconstitutional for failing to include a requirement that the Government prove the defendant's knowledge of the age of the minor. The Sixth Circuit rejected the argument. First, it found that "[k]nowledge that a girl is under 18 years of age when transported interstate is not part of the proof required of the government in order to sustain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2423. The government proved, as it must, that [the victim] was in fact a minor at the time of the interstate transportation ... The Mann Act does not require more." Id., 1993 WL 280323 at *6 (citation omitted). The Sixth Circuit then stated: it does not offend due process for Congress to draft a statute that does not require the prosecution to show that a defendant believed the victim to be under the age of 18 when she was transported interstate, because the law has traditionally afforded minors substantial protection from others.... Similarly, the Constitution does not require that a defendant be provided a defense of mistake of age when accused of a Mann Act violation involving a minor. Id. (citations omitted). This approach is consistent with the law of statutory rape, which generally holds that a defendant's good faith mistake as to the victim's age is no defense. In United States'. Ransom, 942 F.2d 775 (10th Cir. 1991), the Tenth Circuit addressed a federal statutory rape provision, which provides: "Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both." Id. at 775 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c)). The defendant asserted that a "reasonable mistake as to age defense" should be read into the statute or, alternatively, that the statute was unconstitutional for failing to include such a defense. The Tenth Circuit rejected the arguments, noting that "the majority of courts that have considered the issue have rejected the reasonable mistake of age defense to statutory rape absent some express legislative directive." Id. (citations omitted). Further, the "Supreme Court has recognized that the legislature's authority to define an offense includes the power 12 exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition." Id. (quoting Lambert. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228 (1957)). The Tenth Circuit also agreed with the legislative history, finding that the statute "protects children from sexual abuse by placing the risk of mistake as to a child's age on an older, more mature person who chooses 9 EFTA00234525 to engage in sexual activity with one who may be young enough to fall within the statute's purview." Id. at 777 (citing Nelson" Moriarty, 484 F.2d 1034, 1035 (1st Cir. 1973)). The Ninth Circuit addressed similar arguments in United States'. Juvenile Male, 211 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2000), and reached the same conclusions. As discussed in Ransom, Epstein and his assistants were the "older, more mature person[s]" who chose to engage in sexual activity and prostitution with young girls. The risk of mistake regarding the ages of those victims should lie with the targets. 2. Coercion and Enticement: 18 § 2422 Wounts 5 to 161 Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate . . . commerce, ... knowingly persuades, induces, [or] entices ... any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years. 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The United States must show either: Ekt That the Defendant knowingly used a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, or entice a person to engage in prostitution; and Second: That the person so persuaded was under the age of 18; or First: That the Defendant knowingly used a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, or entice a person to engage in sexual activity; Second: That the person so persuaded was under the age of 18; and Dug That the Defendant could have been charged with a criminal offense 10 EFTA00234526  under the law of Florida based upon the sexual activity." The statute does not define "facility or means of interstate commerce" or "prostitution." a. A telephone is a "facility of interstate commerce." The Eleventh Circuit has ruled that evidence of the use of a telethone satisfies the element of using a facility or means of interstate commerce. United States.. Drury, 396 F.3d 1303, 1311 (11th Cir. 2005) (the term "facility of interstate commerce ... establishes federal jurisdiction whenever any "facility of interstate commerce" is used in the commission of [the] offense, regardless of whether the use is interstate in nature (Le., the telephone call was between states) or purely intrastate in nature (Le., the telephone call was made to another telephone within the same state)."). In Drury, the defendant used his land-line telephone to call an undercover agent's cellular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Georgia, the signals to the agent's cell phone had to pass through VoiceStream's Jacksonville, Florida switching center. The defendant argued that he did not know or intend that the call pass in interstate commerce. The Eleventh Circuit was unpersuaded: The calls were not accidentally or incidentally placed, but rather were made knowingly to further a scheme. . . . Accordingly, whether Drury knew or intended that they would travel across state lines is immaterial. Id. at 1313. In Drury, the Eleventh Circuit did not address whether the district court erred by instructing the jury that telephones are "facilities in interstate commerce." In an unpublished decision from last year, the Eleventh Circuit wrote, in dicta, that there was no error in instruging a jury that "the telephone system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States'. Roberts, 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United "Note that there is an Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction for attempted enticement of a minor. In that instruction, the Eleventh Circuit included a willfulness requirement — including a requirement that the defendant believe that the individual was under eighteen. Those additional requirements apply to a charge of attempted enticement because attempt is a specific intent offense that requires the United States to prove that the defendant "knowingly and willfully intended to commit the offense" — i.e., that he intended to commit the crime. 11th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr., Special Instr. 11 ("Attempt(s)") (2003). Where, as here, the offense is completed, the statutory language requires only that the defendant knowingly persuade, induce, or entice someone to engage in prostitution or criminal sexual activity. 11 EFTA00234527 States'. Strevell, 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to arrange his sexual encounter" was sufficient to prove the use of a facility and means of interstate and foreign commerce). Earlier this year, the Eleventh Circuit found that the United States adequately proved the jurisdictional element of § 2422(b) when evidence was introduced that the defendant used both a cellular telephone and a land-line telephone to entice a minor to engage in prostitution, even though no evidence was introduced that the calls were routed through interstate channels. United States I. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2007). The Eleventh Circuit then held: Telephones and cellular telephones are instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Evans's use of these instrumentalities of interstate commerce alone, even without evidence that the calls he made were routed through an interstate system, is sufficient to satisfy § 2422(b)'s interstate-commerce element. Id. at 1180-81 (citations omitted). b. "Prostitution" As noted above and discussed more thoroughly below, almost none of the girls engaged in traditional sexual intercourse with Epstein. The common activity included allowing Epstein to fondle the girl while he masturbated himself, Epstein's digital penetration of the girl, and Epstein's use of a vibrator on the girl while he masturbated himself. It is clear that this activity was done in exchange for money, but the defense will likely argue that some of the activity was not "sexual enough" to qualify as "prostitution." Title 18 carries no definition of "prostitution." In United States I. Prince, the Fifth Circuit approved of the generic definition "sexual intercourse for hire". Prince, 515 F.2d 564, 566 (5th Cir. 1975).12 In 1946, the Supreme Court defined prostitution as the "offering of the body to indiscriminate lewdness for hire." Cleveland'. United States, 329 U.S. 14, 17 (1946). Black's Law Dictionary contains several definitions of prostitution: '=In Bonner'. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206 (1 1 th Cir. 1981), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 12 EFTA00234528  Prostitution: Act of performing, or offering or agreeing to perform a sexual act for hire. Engaging in or agreeing or offering to engage in sexual conduct with another person under a fee arrangement with that person or any other person. Includes any lewd act between persons for money or other consideration. Within meaning of statute proscribing prostitution, comprises conduct of all male and female persons who engage in sexual activity as a business. Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990) at 1222. The term "lewd" is especially broad, and probably covers all of the acts described below. The district court may decide to limit the term to the definition contained in Florida law. The Florida Statutes define prostitution as "the giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire ..." Fl. Stat. § 796.07(1)(a) (2004).'3 Sexual activity, in turn, means "oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another, anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; or the handling or fondling of the sexual organ of another for the purpose of masturbation . . ." Fl. Stat. § 796.07(1)(d). If this definition is used, those instances where the girls remained clothed and where Epstein did not fondle the girls' vaginas would probably fall outside the definition of "prostitution."' In light of the Mann Act's legislative history, the broadest definition should apply, and I have used that in my charging decisions.15 c. "Any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense" Section 2422 outlaws both the use of a facility of interstate commerce to entice a minor to engage in prostitution and the use of that facility to entice a minor to engage in "any 13I have used the Florida Statutes in effect at the time that the offenses occurred. They have not changed since then although, as shown below, amendments are currently pending. "There currently is legislation pending before the Florida Legislature increasing the penalties related to child prostitution. The section defining "prostitution" has been renumbered but the language remains the same. That chapter also has an offense of obtaining a person for "lewdness," (Proposed Fl. Stat. 796.07), which is defined as "any indecent or obscene act." (Proposed Fl. Stat. 796.011(4)) 13If we restricted charges to instances where Epstein stroked a girl's vagina or digitally penetrated her, we would need to drop the counts related to Jane Doe #5 and Jane Doe #6. 13 EFTA00234529 sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense." According to the Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction, the determination of what sexual activity is criminal is governed by Florida law. Florida law bars a person from procuring anyone under the age of 18 to engage in prostitution or to cause a minor to be prostituted. Fl. Stat. § 796.03 (2004). Florida also defines four categories of lewd or lascivious offenses that criminalize behavior between adults and children under the age of 16: 1. "Lewd or lascivious battery" occurs when an adult "[e]ngages in sexual activity16 with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age." Fl. Stat. § 800.04(4)(a) (2004). 2. "Lewd or lascivious molestation" occurs when an adult "intentionally touches in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or entices a person under 16 years of age to so touch the perpetrator." Fl. Stat. § 800.04(5Xa) (2004). 3. "Lewd or lascivious conduct" occurs when a person intentionally touches a person under 16 years of age in a lewd or lascivious manner or solicits a person under the age of 16 to commit a lewd or lascivious act. Fl. Stat. § 800.04(6)(a) (2004). 4. "Lewd or lascivious exhibition" occurs when a person intentionally masturbates or exposes his genitals in a lewd or lascivious manner in the presence of a victim who is less than 16 years of age. Fl. Stat. § 800.04(7)(a) (2004)." 'Sexual activity" is defined as "the oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose." Fl. Stat. § 800.04(1)(a). The only girl under 16, Saige, was digitally penetrated, which satisfies this definition. "The Florida Legislature currently is amending § 800.04(7) making it a second-degree felony to commit lewd or lascivious exhibition in front of any victim, regardless of the victim's age. 14 EFTA00234530 All of these offenses are classified as second degree felonies when perpetrated by an adult. Fl. Stat. §§ 800.04, 800.04(5)(c)(2), 800.04(6)(b), 800.04(7)(c) (2004). Section 800.04 affirmatively bars two defenses to these charges. First, "[n]either the victim's lack of chastity nor the victim's consent is a defense to the crimes proscribed by this section." Fl. Stat. § 800.04(2) (2004). Second, the "perpetrator's ignorance of the victim's age, the victim's misrepresentation of his or her age, or the perpetrator's bona fide belief of the victim's age cannot be raised as a defense in a prosecution under this section." Fl. Stat. § 800.04(3) (2004). Florida law also bars "sexual activity" between adults over the age of 24 and minors who are 16 or 17 years' old. Fl. Stat. § 794.05(1) (2004). In those cases, "sexual activity" is defined as "oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another." Id. With this offense, ignorance of the victim's age, misrepresentation of the victim's age, and a bona fide belief that the victim is over the age of 17 are not defenses. Fl. Stat. § 794.021 (2004). d. Charging Decisions All of the girls were enticed into committing prostitution and some were also enticed into engaging in criminal sexual activity. I have charged the defendants with enticing each girl into prostitution or criminal sexual activity. e. Conspiracy to Violate Section 2422(b) (Count II Unlike most of the other statutes discussed herein, Section 2422(b) does not include its own conspiracy prohibition. Accordingly, a conspiracy to violate Section 2422(b) requires the allegation of a Section 371 conspiracy. While, generally speaking, it is nice to avoid the trouble of alleging a 371 conspiracy, in this case it actually may work to our benefit. First, it allows us to set forth in the indictment, in painstaking detail, the scope of the conspiracy. Second, it allows us to allege as "overt acts," items that might otherwise be excluded pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). For example, if Epstein and his assistants engaged the services of an eighteen-year-old girl ("A") to perform a sexual massage on Epstein, that could not be charged as a substantive offense. But, if A was asked to bring additional girls and A later brought Epstein girls who were under eighteen, then the activities 15 EFTA00234531 with A were overt acts in the conspiracy.18 1. Penalties and Forfeiture The charged offenses occurred before the enactment of the Adam Walsh Act, so each count carries a sentence of 5 to 30 years in prison, supervised release of up to life, and a $250,000 fine. The current version of 18 U.S.C. § 2428 states that the Court, in imposing sentence, "shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed . . . that such person shall forfeit to the United States — (1) such person's interest in any property, real or personal, that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of such violation[.]" Applying this language, Epstein's Palm Beach home and the two airplanes that he used to travel to West Palm Beach are subject to forfeiture. Section 2428 went into effect on January 10, 2006, so unless we can show activity continuing past that date, it will not apply. For the relevant time period (2004 to late 2005), criminal forfeiture was governed by 18 U.S.C. § 2253(a), which states: [a] person . . . who is convicted of an offense under section 2421, 2422, or 2423 of chapter 117, shall forfeit to the United States such person's interest in — ... (3) any property, real or personal, used or intended to be used to commit or to promote the commission of such offense. This language also should apply to Epstein's Palm Beach home and the two airplanes. The charge of conspiracy to violate Section 2422 carries a penalty of only 5 years in prison because it must be charged as a Section 371 conspiracy. Forfeiture of the relevant property is still available through enabling provisions. 3. Traveling with Intent to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) [Counts 17 to 50] A person who travels in interstate commerce ... for the purpose of engaging "'An 'overt act' is any transaction or event, even one which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy." 11th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr., Offense Instr. 13.1 (2003). 16 EFTA00234532  in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). Thus, the United States must prove that Epstein knowingly traveled in interstate commerce and that he did so for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined below. a. Proof of intent to travel In apparent anticipation of this charge, In Appendix A, Epstein's attorneys assert that Epstein's trips to Florida were not undertaken for the sole purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct—he traveled just to visit his home and attend meetings, etc.— and, therefore, he lacked the requisite intent to violate Section 2423(6). The Eleventh Circuit has held that, in order to be convicted of violating Section 2423(b), the United States must prove that the defendant "had formed the intent to engage in sexual activity with a minor19 when he crossed state lines." United States' Hersh, 297 F.3d 1233, 1246 (11th Cir. 2002). See also United States I Han, 230 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000) (defendant could be convicted of violating Section 2423(b) even though no sexual activity occurred and "minor" was really an undercover officer because the defendant had formed the necessary intent by developing a plan to cross state lines to engage in sexual acts with the minor); United States I Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1231-32 (11th Cir. 2002). Just a few weeks ago, the Eleventh Circuit addressed for the first time the issue of a "combined motive" for traveling, and approved the following instruction: the Government [] does not have to show that engaging in criminal sexual activity with a minor was the Defendant's only purpose, or even his primary purpose, but the Government must show it was one of the purposes for transporting the minor or for the travel. In other words, the Government must show that the Defendant's criminal purpose was not merely incidental to the travel. 19Although Hersh specifically mentions "sexual activity with a minor," knowledge of age is not required, as discussed above. 17 EFTA00234533 United States Hoschouer, F.3d 2007 WL 979931, *1 (11th Cir. Apr. 3, 2007). The decision of the Eleventh Circuit was consistent with every other circuit that has addressed the issue: It is not necessary for the government to prove that the illegal sexual activity was the sole purpose for the transportation. A person may have several different purposes or motives for such travel, and each may prompt in varying degrees the act of making the journey. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that a significant or motivating purpose of the travel across state or foreign boundaries was to have the individual transported engage in illegal sexual activity. In other words, the illegal sexual activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States I. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States Garcia-Lopez, 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in instructing the jury that "it was sufficient for the Government to prove that one of the [the defendant's] motives in traveling was to engage in a sexual act with a minor."); United States Yang, 128 F.3d 1065, 1072 (7th Ci/.1997); United States 1. Meacham, 115 F.3d 14882.1495 (10th Cir.1997); United States Sirois, 87 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.1996); United States' Campbell, 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th Cir.1995) ("[I]t is not necessary to a conviction under the [Mann] Act that the sole and single purpose of the trans rtation of a female in interstate commerce was such immoral practices."); United States Ellis, 935 F.2d 385, 389-90 (1st Cir.1991) (jury could consider that defendant's personal motive for bringing minor on interstate family vacations and business trips was to have her available for sexual abuse even though there were other purses for the trips); United States. Snow, 507 F.2d 22, 24 (7th Cir.1974); United States Harris, 480 F.2d 601, 602 (6th Cir.1973); United States. Cole, 262 F.3d 704, 709 (8th Cir. 2001) ("The illicit behavior must be one of the purposes motivating the interstate transportation, but need not be the dominant purpose," and a defendant's intent may be inferred from all of the circumstances) (citations omitted). For each substantive count of violating § 2423(b), we have evidence that Epstein or one of his assistants called a girl a day or two before traveling to Florida, and called again while he was in Florida. The evidence consists of cell phone records from the assistants and the girls, the message pads recovered from the search of Epstein's home and from trash pulls, the flight manifests from Epstein's private lanes, and testimony from the girls about how the appointments were made. So, if called Jane Doe #8 to make an appointment on January 1st; Epstein traveled to Florida on January 2nd; and called Jane Doe #12 on 18 EFTA00234534 January 3rd (when they were already in Florida) to make an appointment, I have charged a travel count but have listed only Jane Doe #8 as the victim of that offense.2° b. Illicit Sexual Conduct The United States must prove that one of the purposes of the defendant's travel was to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" "Illicit sexual conduct" means: (1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (2) any commercial sex act (as defined in section 1591) with a person under 18 years of age. 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f). (I) A "sexual act" Title 18, United States Code, Section 2246(2) defines "sexual act" as: (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however, slight; (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus; (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another by a hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,

EFTA00158236.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 4 pages

FD-302 (Rev. 10-6-95) • • FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION' Date itnestrifdan 02/04/2007 JANUSZ BANASIAK was interviewed in West Palm Beach, Florida regarding a federal investigation involving the sexual exploitation of minors. Also present during the interview was BANASIAK's Attorney MICHAEL SALNICK of the LAW OFFICES OF SALNICK RTISCH, P.A. and Assistant United States Attorney of the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. After being a vise of the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, BANASIAK provided the following information: BANASIAK met JEFFREY EPSTEIN in November 2004 when an employment agency in Maryland, DEA (DOMESTIC EMPLOYMENT AGENCY), arranged for an interview with EPSTEIN in New York. EPSTEIN did not provide BANASIAK with a written contract but paid him a monthly salary. Due to the fact that EPSTEIN dealt with a lot of financial records, BANASIAK stated that he.was required to sign Confidentiality Agreement. In February 2005, BANASIAK began working for EPSTEIN as the Property Manager of EPSTEIN's Palm Beach residence. His responsibilities included ensuring that everything was in order and running properly; household maintenance, lawn maintenance, and the grocery shopping were completed. BANASIAK was provided with written instructions, approximately a twenty page booklet, on how to manage the property. According to BANASIAK, EPSTEIN traveled to Palm Beach via EPSTEIN's aircrafts, the Gulfetream or the Boeing 727. BANASIAK was not aware of EPSTEIN ever flying a commercial airline to Palm Beach. EPSTEIN visited his residence in Palm Beach once, twice and sometime0 even three times a month. EPSTEIN would stay for three: or four days at a time. EPSTEIN traveled less to his Palm Beach residence in the summer months. EPSTEIN spent the most time at his Palm Beach and U.S. Virgin Islands residences. EPSTEIN has another residence in New Mexico and an apartment in Paris. BANASIAK stated that EPSTEIN primarily traveled to Palm Beach withal, , and a Chef, currently LANCE CALLOWAY. BANASIAK said that the Chef prior to CALLOWAY was DAVID LNU. BANASIAK said that the Chef would stay in the Guest House with him. and Investiption on 02/02/2007 a West Palm Beach, Florida MN 31• —MM-108062 Date dictated 02/02/2007 by SA This document .. mains neither recommendations ow conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your matey. it and its comas no not to be distributed outside yam matey. Sic M #4- 0 ra.r -76 3507-006 Page I of4 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00006477 EFTA00158236 FD-302. (Rev. 10-6-93) • 31E-MM-108062 Contimuiondfl)402of Janusz BANASIAK ,On 02/02/2007 .h. 2 would stay upstairs in the main house. According to the main house has six bedrooms and the Guest House has three bedrooms. Another individual that would come on a regular basi esidence was . BANASIAK believed that was no longer employed by EPSTEIN. EPSTEIN would, on occasion, bring other guests with him when traveling to Palm Beach. If BANASIAK had any questions concerning his job he would contact or the NY Office. BANASIAK maintained a Petty Cash fund of $1500.00 for household expenditures. The account was with Colonial Bank located on Worth Avenue in Palm Beach. The signatures on the account were EPSTEIN, MAXWELL and BANASIAK. BANASIAK was aware that many females would come to EPSTEIN's residence to provide EPSTEIN with massages. BANASIAK stated that EPSTEIN would receive one or two massages a day, sometimes even three. The massage times would be spread throughout the day. BANASIAK would assist with the clean up after EPSTEIN received a massage. He would fold up the massage table which was set up in EPSTEIN's upstairs master bathroom. He would collect towels and wipe down massage equipment. BANASIAK described one of the massagers as white/grey, approximately twenty inches long, a round handle and rubber plastic end. BANASIAK said that he had never seen any sex toys or used condoms when cleaning up after a massage. BANASIAK said that none of the females providing EPSTEIN with a massage ever appeared upset. BANASIAK stated that he believed EPSTEIN's assistants, and , arranged EPSTEIN's appointments for massages wit t e fema es. BANASIAK said some of the females who provided massages to EPSTEIN would leave messages. Messages were taken on message pads. On one occasion, when EPSTEIN and were in town, asked BANASIAK to rent a car for one of the girls. She told BANASIAK that the female would be coming by the residence to pick up ' le. On another occasion BANASIAK delivered a gift bag to . B id he took the gift to a trailer park located off of BANASIAK stated that EPSTEIN has a chiropractic table, as well as, a massage table. The chiropractic table would be set up in the living room. 3507-006 Page 2 of4 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00006478 EFTA00158237 FD-102. (Rev. 10-641) • • 31E-MM-108062 OmWmationdfl/Mad Janusz BANASIAK .On 02/02/2007 INK 3 BANASIAK said that his predecessor was named ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ. According to BANASIAK, he was let go because 'they" did not like the way RODRIGUEZ conducted himself. BANASIAK continued stating that RODRIGUEZ could not remember to finish one task if he were asked to complete another task at Cr during the same time. BANASIAK stated EPSTEIN had two guns and two shot guns that he kept in the safe. When EPSTEIN came to town, BANASIAK would place one of the guns in a holster that was between the mattresses of EPSTEIN's bed located upstairs in the EPSTEIN's master bedroom. Pursuant to a Grand Jury Subpoena, BANASIAK supplied the interviewing agents with a copy of his Petty Cash reports. Upon review of the report with BANASIAK, he provided the following information: 9) 2/27/2005 All Star Taxi $22.00 Taxi fare - on occasion BANASIAK would use a taxi and other times the females would arrive/depart by taxi. 15) 3/1/2005 - STEIN, told BANA o pay . Neither EPSTEIN nor were present when picked up the money. 14) 3/14/2004 $400.00 Cash for called and asked BANASIAK to pay the money. 7) 3/15/2005 300.00 Cash req. by JE - EPSTEIN asked BANASIAK for cash to pay 4) 3/30/2005 2 . Cash req. by JE - EPSTEIN asked BANASIAK for cash to pay 25) 4/20/2005 BANASIAK for cash "'III' o pay 300.00 Cash req. by JE - EPSTEIN asked . 1) 5/7/2005 $200.00 Cash - BANASIAK sap_d that probably called requesting him to pay 17) 6/13/2005 iiiiiiiiiirsh - EPSTEIN or requested BANASIAK to pay 17) 6/20/2005 $100.00 Cash - EPSTEIN or requested BANASIAK to pay 3507-006 Page 3 of 4 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00006479 EFTA00158238 FD-302. (Rev. 10-6-95) 318-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of Janusz BANASIAK .On 02/02/2007 .hp 4 40) 6/26/2005 $200.00 Cash req. by GM - BANASIAK stated that the name should have been and GHISLAINE MAXWELL requested that he pay 4) 9/26/2005 IlL=I 200.00 Cash - EPSTEIN or requested BANASIAK o pay . 12) 12/12/2005 Jerome $500.00 Bonus - JEROME PIERRE performed heavy work outside the house. 16) 3/19/2006 Toys R us $21.29 Toys for - see next entry. 17) 3/19/2006 Babies R us $15.97 Toys for - According to BANASIAX, called and asked BANASIAK to buy a baby gift. told BANASIAK that she would let him ow whether to deliver them or not. To date, the gifts have not been delivered. Note: Other entries inquired about but not limited to included airline entries - BANASIAK's personal business; taxi entries - BANASIAK and unidentified females utilized to come and go from the residence; Bed Bath and Beyond - Household goods; Francis - extra cleaning service; vehicle entries - maintenance and s ecified amounts of monies kept in vehicles at all time. was a cleaning lady and LUBA LNU was a possible Russian Masseuse. BANASIAK stated that EPSTEIN has only returned to Palm Beach once for an overnight stay to attend State court. According to BANASIAK, the last time EPSTEIN was at the Palm Beach residence was prior to the execution of the State search warrant. BANASIAK also said that approximate) three weeks before the execution of the State search warrant warrant and PAUL LNU came to the residence and removed al one of the computer towers. 3507-006 Page 4 of 4 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00006480 EFTA00158239

EFTA01101060.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 43 pages

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.:50 2009 CA 040800XXXXIMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Defendant Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., offers the following specific facts as the undisputed material facts in this case. Each of the following facts is numbered separately and individually to facilitate Epstein's required compliance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) ("The adverse party shall identify . . . any summary judgment evidence on which the adverse party relies."). All referenced exhibits and attachments have previously been filed with the Court and provided to Epstein. Sexual Abuse of Children By Epstein I. Defendant Epstein has a sexual preference for young children. Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, Mar. 17, 2010, at 110 (hereinafter "Epstein Depo.") (Deposition Attachment #1).' When questioned about this subject at his deposition, Epstein invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent rather than make an incriminating admission. Accordingly, Edwards is entitled to the adverse inference against Epstein that, had Epstein answered, the answer would have been unfavorable to him. "Mt is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to EFTA01101060  2. Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted more than forty (40) young girls on numerous occasions between 2002 and 2005 in his mansion in West Palm Beach, Florida. These sexual assaults included vaginal penetration. Epstein abused many of the girls dozens if not hundreds of times. Epstein Depo. at 109 ("Q: How many times have you engaged in oral sex with females under the age of 18?" A: [Invocation of the Fifth Amendment]); Deposition of Jane Doe, September 24, 2009 and continued March 11, 2010, at 527 (minor girl sexually abused at least 17 times by Epstein) (hereinafter "Jane Doe Depo") (Deposition Attachment #2); id. 564-67 (vaginal penetration by Epstein with his finger), 568 (vaginal penetration by Epstein with a massager); Deposition of September 24, 2009, at 73 (hereinafter In Depo") (Deposition Attachment #3) (describing the manner in which Epstein abused her beginning when LM was 13 years old, touching her vagina with his fingers and vibrator) at 74, line 12-13 (she was personally molested by Epstein more than 50 times), at 164, line 19-23 and 141, line 12-13 and 605, line 3-6 (describing that in addition to being personally molested by Epstein she was paid $200 per underage girl she brought Epstein and she brought him more than seventy (70) underage girls - she told him that she did not want to bring him any more girls and he insisted that she continue to bring him underage girls); Deposition of ■., May 6, 2010 (hereinafter Depo") (Deposition Attachment #4) at 115-116, 131 and 255 (describing Epstein's abuse of her beginning at age 14 when he paid her for touching her vagina, inserting his fingers and civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Paintigiatto, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege — at least not in a civil setting." Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. App. 1993). 2 EFTA01101061 using a vibrator and he also paid her $200 for each other underage female brought him to molest. She brought him between 20 and 30 underage females); Deposition of Jane Doe #4, date (hereinafter "Jane Doe #4 Depo") (Deposition Attachment #5) at 32-34, and 136 (she describes first being taken to Epstein at 15 years old, "Being fingered by him, having him use a vibrator on (me], grabbing my nipples, smelling my butt, jerking off in front of me, licking my clit, several times."). 3. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to conclude and did conclude2 that Epstein was able to access a large number of underage girls through a pyramid abuse scheme in which he paid underage victims $200-$300 cash for each other underage victim that she brought to him. See Palm Beach Police Incident Report at 87 (hereinafter "Incident Report") (Exhibit "A").3 The Palm Beach Police Incident Report details Epstein's scheme for molesting underage females. Among other things, the Incident Report outlines some of the experiences of other Epstein victims. When ■, a 14 year old minor at the time, was brought to Epstein's home, she was taken upstairs by a woman she believed to be Epstein's assistant. The woman started to fix up the room, putting covers on the massage table and bringing lotions out. The "assistant" then left the room and told that Epstein would be up in a second. Epstein walked over to ■. and told her to take her clothes off in a stem voice. ■. states in the report she did not know what to do, as she was the only one there. ■. took off her shirt, leaving her bra on. Epstein, then in a towel told her to take off everything. ■. removed her pants leaving 2 In support of all assertions concerning the actions Edwards took, what Edwards learned in the course of his representation of his clients, Edwards's good faith beliefs and the foundation for those beliefs, see Edwards Affidavit and specifically paragraphs 25 and 25 of that Affidavit. 3 For clarity, depositions attached to this memorandum will be identified numerically as attachments #1, #2, #3, etc., while exhibits attached to this memorandum will be identified alphabetically as exhibits A, B, C, etc. 3 EFTA01101062 on her thong panties. Epstein then instructed ■ to give him a massage. As gave Epstein a massage, Epstein turned around and masturbated. M. was so disgusted, she did not say anything; Epstein told her she "had a really hot body." Id. at 14. In the report, M. admitted seeing Jeffrey Epstein's penis and stated she thought Epstein was on steroids because he was a "really built guy and his wee wee was very tiny." Id. at 15. 4. The exact number of minor girls who Epstein assaulted is known only to Epstein. However, Edwards had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epstein's victims were substantially more than forty (40) in number. In addition to the deposition excerpts from two of his many victims above about the number of underage girls brought to Epstein and the Palm Beach incident report, there is overwhelming proof that the number of underage girls molested by Epstein through his scheme was in the hundreds. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein, (hereinafter Jane Doe 102 complaint) (Exhibit "B"); see also Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, April 14, 2010, at 442, 443, and 444 (Epstein invoking the 5th on questions about his daily abuse and molestation of children) (Deposition Attachment #6). 5. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epstein and his attorneys knew of the seriousness of the criminal investigation against him and corresponded constantly with the United States Attorney's Office in an attempt to avoid the filing of numerous federal felony offenses, which effort was successful. See Correspondence from U.S. Attorney's Office to Epstein (hereinafter "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence") (Composite Exhibit "C) (provided in discovery during the Jane Doe v. Epstein case). 4 EFTA01101063  6. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that, more specifically, Epstein's attorneys knew of Epstein's scheme to recruit minors for sex and also knew that these minors had civil actions that they could bring against him. In fact, there was much communication between Epstein's attorneys and the United States Prosecutors in a joint attempt to minimize Epstein's civil exposure. For example, on October 3, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafaila sent an email (attached hereto as Exhibit "D") to Jay Lefkowitz, counsel for Epstein, with attached proposed letter to special master regarding handling numerous expected civil claims against Epstein. The letter reads in pertinent part, "The undersigned, as counsel for the United States of America and Jeffrey Epstein, jointly write to you to provide information relevant to your service as a Special Master in the selection of an attorney to represent several young women who may have civil damages claims against Mr. Epstein. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (jointly referred to as the "United States") have conducted an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein regarding his solicitation of minor females in Palm Beach County to engage in prostitution. Mr. Epstein, through his assistants, would recruit underage females to travel to his home in Palm Beach to engage in lewd conduct in exchange for money. Based upon the investigation, the United States has identified forty (40) young women who can be characterized as victims pursuant to 18 USC 2255. Some of those women went to Mr. Epstein's home only once, some went there as much as 100 times or more. Some of the women's conduct was limited to performing a topless or nude massage while Mr. Epstein masturbated himself. For other women, the conduct escalated to full sexual intercourse. As part of the resolution of the case, Epstein has agreed that he would not contest jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida for any victim who chose to sue him for damages pursuant to 18 USC 2255. Mr. Epstein agreed to provide an attorney for victims who elected to proceed exclusively pursuant to that section, and agreed to waive any challenge to liability under that section up to an amount agreed to by the parties. The parties have agreed to submit the selection of an attorney to a Special Master...." 7. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that M. was, in fact, a victim of Epstein's criminal abuse because M. was one of the 5 EFTA01101064 minor females that the United States Attorney's Office recognized as a victim. M's sworn deposition testimony and the adverse inference drawn from Epstein's refusal to testify confirm that Epstein began sexually assaulting.. when she was 13 years old and continued to molest her on more than fifty (50) occasions over three (3) years. Epstein Depo., Attachment #1, at 17 ("Q: Did you . . . ever engage in any sexual conduct with M.?" A: [Invocation of the Fifth Amendment].); see also Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 456 ("Q: LM was an underage female that you first abused when she was 13 years old; is that correct?" A: [Invocation of Fifth Amendment].) 8. Epstein was also given ample opportunity to explain why he engaged in sexual activity with.. beginning when ■. was 13 years old and why he has molested minors on an everyday basis for years, and he invoked his 5th amendment right rather than provide explanation. See Epstein Deposition, February 17, 2010, at 11-12, 30-31 (Deposition Attachment # 7). 9. Epstein also sexually assaulted.., beginning when she was 14 years old and did so on numerous occasions. See.. Depo., Attachment #4 at 215-216. 10. Another of the minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was Jane Doe; the abuse began when Jane Doe was 14 years old. Rather than incriminate himself, Epstein invoked the 5th amendment to questions about him digitally penetrating Doe's vagina, using vibrators on her vagina and masturbating and ejaculating in her presence. Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 420, 464, 468. 11. When Edwards's clients ■.,.., and Jane Doe were 13 or 14 years old, each was brought to Epstein's home multiple times by another underage victim. Epstein engaged in 6 EFTA01101065 one or more of the following acts with each of the then-minor girls at his mansion: receiving a topless or completely nude massage; using a vibrator on her vagina; masturbating in her presence; ejaculating in her presence; touching her breast or buttocks or vagina or the clothes covering her sexual organs; and demanding that she bring him other underage girls. Epstein and his co-conspirators used the telephone to contact these girls to entice or induce them into going to his mansion for sexual abuse. Epstein also made ■. perform oral sex on him and was to perform sex acts on (Epstein's live-in sex slave) in Epstein's presence. See Plaintiff Jane Doe's Notice Regarding Evidence of Similar Acts of Sexual Assault, filed in Jane Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2010), as DE 197, (hereinafter "Rule 413 Notice") (Exhibit "E"); Jane Doe Depo., Attachment #2, at 379-380; ■. Depo., Attachment #3, at 416; M. Depo, Attachment #4, at 205. 12. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that yet another of the minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was C.L. When she was approximately 15 years old, C.L. was brought to Epstein's home by another underage victim. While a minor, she was at Epstein's home on multiple occasions. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with her while she was a minor at his house - topless or completely nude massage on Epstein; Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her presence; Epstein ejaculated in her presence; Epstein also demanded that she bring him other underage girls. See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit "E"; Incident Report, Exhibit "A." 13. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that yet another girl Epstein sexually assault was A.H. When she was approximately 16 years old, she was brought to Epstein's home by another underage victim. While a minor, she 7 EFTA01101066 was at Epstein's home on multiple occasions. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with her while she was a minor at his house - topless or completely nude massage on Epstein; Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her presence; Epstein ejaculated in her presence; Epstein touched her breast or buttock or vagina or the clothes covering her sexual organs; was made to perform sex acts on Epstein; made to perform sex acts on in Epstein's presence. Epstein also forcibly raped this underage victim, as he held her head down against her will and pumped his penis inside her while she was screaming "No". See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit "E"; Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 41 (specifically discussing the rape): remembered that she climaxed and was removing herself from the massage table. OM asked for a sheet of a er and drew the massage table in the master bathroom and where Epstein, and she were. Epstein turned on to her stomach on the massage bed and inserted his penis into her vagina. stated Epstein began to pump his penis in her vagina. IM became upset over this. She said her head was being held against the bed forcibly, as he continued to pump inside her. She screamed no, and Epstein stopped ...." "M] advised there were times that she was so sore when she left Epstein's house. advised she was ripped, torn, in her vagina area. a advised she had difficulty walking to the car after leaving the house because she was so sore." 14. Without detailing each fact known about Epstein's abuse of the many underage girls, Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe at all relevant times that Epstein also abused other victims in ways closely similar to those described in the preceding paragraphs. Epstein's additional victims include the following (among many other) young girls: These girls were between the ages of 13 and 17 when Epstein abused them. See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit E; Deposition of Deposition Attachment #4. 8 EFTA01101067  15. One of Mr. Epstein's household employees, Mr. Alfredo Rodriguez, saw numerous underage girls coming into Epstein's mansion for purported "massages." See Rodriguez Depo. at 242-44 (Deposition Attachment #8). Rodriguez was aware that "sex toys" and vibrators were found in Epstein's bedroom after the purported massages. Id. at 223-28. Rodriguez thought what Epstein was doing was wrong, given the extreme youth of the girls he saw. Id. at 230-31. 16. Alfredo Rodriguez took a journal from Epstein's computer that reflected many of the names of underage females Epstein abused across the country and the world, including locations such as Michigan, California, West Palm Beach, New York, New Mexico, and Paris, France. See Journal (hereinafter "The Journal" or "Holy Grail") (Exhibit "F") (identifying, among other Epstein acquaintances, females that Rodriguez believes were underage under the heading labeled "Massages"). 17. Rodriguez was later charged in a criminal complaint with obstruction of justice in connection with trying to obtain $50,000 from civil attorneys pursuing civil sexual assault cases against Epstein as payment for producing the book to the attorneys. See Criminal Complaint at 2, U.S. v. Rodriguez, No. 9:10-CR-80015-KAM (S.D. Fla. 2010) (Exhibit "G"). Rodriguez stated he needed money because the journal was his "property" and that he was afraid that Jeffrey Epstein would make him "disappear" unless he had an "insurance policy" (i.e., the journal). Id. at 3. Because of the importance of the information in the journal to the civil cases, Mr. Rodriguez called it "The Holy Grail." 18. In the "Holy Grail" or "The Journal," among the many names listed (along with the abused girls) are some of the people that Epstein alleges in his Complaint had "no connection 9 EFTA01101068 whatsoever" with the litigation in this case. See, e.g., Journal, Exhibit F, at 85 (Donald Trump); at 9 (Bill Clinton phone numbers listed under "Doug Bands"). Federal Investigation and Plea Azreenzent With Epstein 19. In approximately 2005, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida learned of Epstein's repeated sexual abuse of minor girls. They began a criminal investigation into federal offenses related to his crimes. See U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "C". 20. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that to avoid the Government learning about his abuse of minor girls, Epstein threatened his employees and demanded that they not cooperate with the government. Epstein's aggressive witness tampering was so severe that the United States Attorney's Office prepared negotiated plea agreements containing these charges. For example, in a September 18, 2007, email from AUSA to Lefkowitz (attached hereto as Exhibit "H"), she attached the proposed plea agreement describing Epstein's witness tampering as follows: "UNITED STATES vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN PLEA PROFFER" On Au st 21, 2007, FBI Special Agents traveled to the home of Leslie Groff to serve her with a federal grand jury subpoena with an investigation pending in the Southern District of Florida. Ms. Groff works as the personal assistant of the defendant. Ms. Groff began speaking with the agents and then excused herself to go upstairs to check on her sleeping child. While upstairs, Ms. Groff telephoned the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and informed him that the FBI agents were at her home. Mr. Epstein instructed Ms. Groff not to speak with the agents and reprimanded her for allowing them into her home. Mr. Epstein applied pressure to keep Ms. Groff from complying with the grand jury subpoenas that the agents had served upon her. In particular, Mr. Epstein warned Ms. Groff against turning over documents and electronic evidence responsive to the subpoena and pressured her to delay her 10 EFTA01101069  appearance before the grand jury in the Southern District of Florida. This conversation occurred when Mr. Epstein was aboard his privately owned civilian aircraft in Miami in the Southern District of Florida. His pilot had filed a flight plan showing the parties were about to return to Teterboro, NJ. After the conversation with Ms. Groff, Mr. Epstein became concerned that the FBI would try to serve his traveling companion, , with a similar =rand jury subpoena. In fact, the agents were preparing to serve Ms. with a target letter when the flight landed in Teterboro. Mr. Epstein then redirected his airplane, making the pilot file a new flight plan to travel to the US Virgin Islands instead of the New York City area thereb keeping the Special Agents from serving the target letter on During the flight, the defendant verbally harassed Ms. harassing and pressuring her not to cooperate with the grand jury's investigation, thereby hindering and dissuading her from reporting the commission of a violation of federal law to a law enforcement officer namely, Special Agents of the FBI. Epstein also threatened and harassed against cooperating against him as well. 21. Edwards learned that the Palm Beach police department investigation ultimately led to the execution of a search warrant at Epstein's mansion in October 2005. See Police Incident Report, Exhibit "A". 22. Edwards learned that at around the same time, the Palm Beach Police Department also began investigating Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls. They also collected evidence of Epstein's involvement with minor girls and his obsession with training sex slaves, including pulling information from Epstein's trash. Their investigation showed that Epstein ordered from Amazon.com on about September 4, 2005, such books as: SM101: A Realistic Introduction, by Jay Wiseman; SlaveCraft: Roadmaps for Erotic Servitude - Principles, Skills, and Tools, by Guy Baldwin; and Training with Miss Abernathy: A Workbook for Erotic Slaves and Their Owners, by Christina Abernathy. See Receipt for Sex Slave Books (Exhibit "I"). 23. The Palm Beach incident reports provided Edwards with the names of numerous witnesses that participated in Epstein's child molestation criminal enterprise and also provided 11 EFTA01101070 Edwards with some insight into how far-reaching Epstein's power was and how addicted Epstein was to sex with children. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A". 24. The Palm Beach Police Department also collected Epstein's message pads, which provided other names of people that also knew Epstein's scheme to molest children. See Message Pads (Exhibit "J") (note: the names of underage females have been redacted to protect the anonymity of the underage sex abuse victims). Those message pads show clear indication that Epstein's staff was frequently working to schedule multiple young girls between the ages of 12 and 16 years old literally every day, often two or three times per day. Id. 25. In light of all of the information of numerous crimes committed by Epstein, Edwards learned that the U.S. Attorney's Office began preparing the filing of federal criminal charges against Epstein. For example, in addition to the witness tampering and money laundering charges the U.S. Attorney's Office prepared an 82-page prosecution memo and a 53- page indictment of Epstein related to his sexual abuse of children. On September 19, 2007, at 12:14 PM, AUSA Wrote to Epstein's counsel, Jay Lefkowitz, "Jay - I hate to have to be firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by Monday. I will not miss my indictment date when this has dragged on for several weeks already and then, if things fall apart, be left in a less advantageous position than before the negotiations. I have had an 82-page pros memo and 53- page indictment sitting on the shelf since May to engage in these negotiations. There has to be an ending date, and that date is Monday." These and other communications are within the correspondence attached as Composite Exhibit "C." 26. Edwards learned that rather than face the filing of federal felony criminal charges, Epstein (through his attorneys) engaged in plea bargain discussions. As a result of those 12 EFTA01101071 discussions, on September 24, 2007, Epstein signed an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Under the agreement, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to an indictment pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County charging him with solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution. Epstein also agreed that he would receive a thirty month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of community control. In exchange, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein. See Non-Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit "K"). 27. Part of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that Epstein negotiated was a provision in which the federal government agreed not to prosecute Epstein's co-conspirators. The co- conspirators procured minor females to be molested by Epstein. One of the co-conspirators - -even participated in the sex acts with minors (including..) and Epstein. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 40-42, 49-51; Deposition of April 13, 2010, (hereinafter Depo.") at 11 (Deposition attachment #9). 28. Under the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Epstein was to use his "best efforts" to enter into his guilty pleas by October 26, 2007. However, Edwards learned that Epstein violated his agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office to do so and delayed entry of his plea. See Letter from U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta to Lilly Ann Sanchez, Dec. 19, 2007 (Exhibit "L"). 29. On January 10, 2008 and again on May 30, 2008 M. and M. received letters from the FBI advising them that "[t]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Letters attached at Composite Exhibit "M". This document is evidence that the FBI did not notify.. and.. that a plea agreement had already been reached that would 13 EFTA01101072 block federal prosecution of Epstein. Nor did the FBI notify ■. and of any of the pans of the plea agreement. Nor did the FBI or other federal authorities confer with ■. and ■. about the plea. See id. 30. In 2008, Edwards believed in good faith that criminal prosecution of Epstein was extremely important to his clients and and that they desired to be consulted by the FBI and/or other representatives of the federal government about the prosecution of Epstein. The letters that they had received around January 10, 2008, suggested that a criminal investigation of Epstein was on-going and that they would be contacted before the federal government reached any final resolution of that investigation. See id. Edwards Azrees to Serve as Legal Counsel for Three Victims of Epstein's Sexual Assaults 31. In about April 2008, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., was a licensed attorney in Florida, practicing as a sole practitioner. As a former prosecutor, he was well versed in civil cases that involved criminal acts, including sexual assaults. Three of the many girls Epstein had abused — , ■., and Jane Doe — all requested that Edwards represent them civilly and secure appropriate monetary damages against Epstein for repeated acts of sexual abuse while they were minor girls. Two of the girls (E. and ■.) also requested that Edwards represent them in connection with a concern that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Attorney's Office might be arranging a plea bargain for the criminal offenses committed by Epstein without providing them the legal rights to which they were entitled (including the right to be notified of plea discussions and the right to confer with prosecutors about any plea arrangement). See 14 EFTA01101073 Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. at ¶1 - 2, ¶4 (hereinafter "Edwards Affidavit") (Exhibit "N"). 32. On June 13, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent M.; on July 2, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent Jane Doe; and, on July 7, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent ■. in connection with the sexual assaults committed by Epstein and to insure that their rights as victims of crimes were protected in the criminal process on-going against Epstein. Mr. Edwards and his three clients executed written retention agreements. See id. at ¶2. 33. In mid June of 2008, Edwards contacted AUSA to inform her that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. AUSA did not advise that a plea agreement had already been negotiated with Epstein's attorneys that would block federal prosecution. To the contrary, AUSA = mentioned a possible indictment. AUSA did indicate that federal investigators had concrete evidence and information that Epstein had sexually molested many underage minor females, including ■, and Jane Doe. See id. at ¶4. 34. Edwards also requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office the information that they had collected regarding Epstein's sexual abuse of his clients. However, the U.S. Attorney's Office, declined to provide any such information to Edwards. It similarly declined to provide any such information to the other attorneys who represented victims of Epstein's sexual assaults. At the very least, this includes the items that were confiscated in the search warrant of Epstein's home, including dildos, vibrators, massage table, oils, and additional message pads. See Property Receipt (Exhibit "O"). 15 EFTA01101074  35. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA =received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. AUSA called Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. AUSA did not tell Attorney Edwards that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at ¶6. 36. Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, victims of federal crimes — including ■. and M. — are entitled to basic rights during any plea bargaining process, including the right to be treated with fairness, the right to confer with prosecutors regarding any plea, and the right to be heard regarding any plea. The process that was followed leading to the non-prosecution of Epstein violated these rights of ■. and ■. See Emergency Petn. for Victim's Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights, No. 9:08-CV-80736- KAM (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Exhibit "P"). 37. Because of the violation of the CVRA, on July 7, 2008, Edwards filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736, seeking to enforce the rights of and ■. That action alleged that the U.S. Attorney's Office had failed to provide ■. and ■. the rights to which they were entitled under the Act, including the right to be notified about a plea agreement and to confer with prosecutors regarding it. See id. 38. On July 11, 2008, Edwards took and ■. with him to the hearing on the CVRA action. It was only at this hearing that both victims learned for the first time that the plea deal was already done with Epstein and that the criminal case against Epstein had been 16 EFTA01101075 effectively terminated by the U.S. Attorney's office. See Hearing Transcript, July 11, 2008 (Exhibit "Q"). 39. Edwards learned that Jane Doe felt so strongly that the plea bargain was inappropriate that she made her own determination to appear on a television program and exercise her First Amendment rights to criticize the unduly lenient plea bargain Epstein received in a criminal case. 40. The CVRA action that Edwards filed was recently administratively closed and Edwards filed a Motion to reopen that proceeding. See No. 9:08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.). Epstein's Entry of Guilty Pleas to Sex Offenses 41. Ultimately, on June 30, 2008, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, defendant Epstein, entered pleas of "guilty" to various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution. See Plea Colloquy (Exhibit "R"). 42. As a condition of that plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant, Epstein additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government acknowledging that approximately thirty-four (34) other young girls could receive payments from him under the federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse, 18 U.S.C. § 2255. As had been agreed months before, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not prosecute Epstein federally for his sexual abuse of these minor girls. See Addendum to Non-Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit "S") (in redacted form to protect the identities of the minors involved). 17 EFTA01101076  43. Because Epstein became a convicted sex offender, he was not to have contact with any of his victims. During the course of his guilty pleas on June 30, 2008, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo ordered Epstein "not to have any contact, direct or indirect" with any victims. She also expressly stated that her no-contact order applied to "all of the victims." Similar orders were entered by the federal court handling some of the civil cases against Epstein. The federal court stated that it "finds it necessary to state clearly that Defendant is under this court's order not to have direct or indirect contact with any plaintiffs . . . ." Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80119 (S.D. Ha. 2008), [DE 238] at 4-5 (emphasis added); see also Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80893, [DE 193] at 2 (emphasis added). Edwards Files Civil Suits Against Epstein 44. Edwards had a good faith belief that his clients felt angry and betrayed by the criminal system and wished to prosecute and punish Epstein for his crimes against them in whatever avenue remained open to them. On August 12, 2008, at the request of his client Jane Doe, Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of Jane Doe. See Edwards Affidavit, "N" at ¶7. Included in this complaint was a RICO count that explained how Epstein ran a criminal conspiracy to procure young girls for him to sexually abuse. See Complaint, Jane Doe v. Epstein (Exhibit "T"). 45. On September 11, 2008, at the request of his client ■., Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of ■. See Complaint, v. Epstein (Exhibit "U"). 18 EFTA01101077  46. On September 11, 2008, at the request of his client ■.., Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of See Complaint, v. Epstein, (Exhibit "V"). 47. Jane Doe's federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than $50,000,000. Listing the amount of damages sought in the complaint was in accord with other civil suits that were. filed against Epstein (before any lawsuit filed by Edwards). See Complaint, Jane Doe #4 v. Epstein (Exhibit "W") (filed by Herman and Mermelstein, PA). 48. At about the same time as Edwards filed his three lawsuits against Epstein, other civil attorneys were filing similar lawsuits against Epstein. For example, on or about April 14, 2008 another law firm, Herman and Mermelstein, filed the first civil action against Epstein on behalf of one of its seven clients who were molested by Epstein. The complaints that attorney Herman filed on behalf of his seven clients were similar in tenor and tone to the complaint that Edwards filed on behalf of his three clients. See id. 49. Over the next year and a half, more than 20 other similar civil actions were filed by various attorneys against Epstein alleging sexual assault of minor girls. These complaints were also similar in tenor and tone to the complaint that Edwards filed on behalf of his clients. These complaints are all public record and have not been attached, but are available in this Court's files and the files of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 50. In addition to the complaints filed against Epstein in Florida, a female in New York, filed a lawsuit against Epstein in New York making similar allegations - that Epstein paid her for a massage then forced her to give him oral sex and molested her in other ways when she was only 16 years old. was born a male, and in her complaint she 19 EFTA01101078 alleges that Epstein told her during the "massage", "I love how young you are. You have a tight butt like a baby". See Jeff Epstein Sued for "Repeated Sexual Assaults" on Teen, New York Post, October 17, 2007, by Dareh Gregorian, link at: htto://www.nvoost.com/p/news/regional/item 44z1WyLUFH7R1OUtKYGPbPjsessionid=6CA3 EBF1BEF68F5DE14BFB2CAA5C37E0. See Article attached hereto as Exhibit "X". 51. Edwards's three complaints against Epstein contained less detail about sexual abuse than (as one example) a complaint filed by attorney Robert Josephsberg from the law firm of Podhurst Orseck. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein (Exhibit "B"). As recounted in detail in this Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was 15 years old when Ghislaine Maxwell discovered her and lured her to Epstein's house. Maxwell and Epstein forced her to have sex with both of them and within weeks Maxwell and Epstein were flying her all over the world. According to the Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was forced to live as one of Epstein's underage sex slaves for years and was forced to have sex with not only Maxwell and Epstein but also other politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians, etc. She was even made to watch Epstein have sex with three 12-year-old French girls that were sent to him for his birthday by a French citizen that is a friend of Epstein's. Luckily, Jane Doe 102 escaped to Australia to get away from Epstein and Maxwell's sexual abuse. 52. Edwards learned that in addition to civil suits that were filed in court against Epstein, at around the same time other attorneys engaged in pre-filing settlement discussions with Epstein. Rather than face filed civil suits in these cases, Epstein paid money settlements to more than 15 other women who had sexually abused while they were minors. See articles regarding settlements attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "Y." 20 EFTA01101079  Epstein's Obstruction ofNormal Discover), and Attacks on His Victims 53. Once Edwards filed his civil complaints for his three clients, he began the normal process of discovery for cases such as these. He sent standard discovery requests to Epstein about his sexual abuse of the minor girls, including requests for admissions, request for production, and interrogatories. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at ¶¶11-19 and 25. Rather than answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse and his conspiracy for procuring minor girls for him to abuse, Epstein invoked his 5th amendment right against self- incrimination. An example of Epstein's refusal to answer is attached as Composite Exhibit "Z" (original discovery propounded to Epstein and his responses invoking 5th amendment). 54. During the discovery phase of the civil cases filed against Epstein, Epstein's deposition was taken at least five times. During all of those depositions, Epstein refused to answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse of minor girls. See, e.g., Deposition Attachments 1, 6 and 7. 55. During these depositions, Epstein further attempted to obstruct legitimate questioning by inserting a variety of irrelevant information about his case. As one of innumerable examples, on March 8, 2010, Mr. Horowitz, representing seven victims, Jane Doe's 2-8, asked, "Q: In 2004, did you rub Jane Doe 3's vagina? A: Excuse me. I'd like to answer that question, as I would like to answer mostly every question you've asked me here today; however, upon advice of counsel, I cannot answer that question. They've advised me I must assert my Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Rights against self--excuse me, against--under the Constitution. And though your partner, Jeffrey Herman, was disbarred after filing this lawsuit [a statement that was untrue], Mr. Edwards' partner sits in jail for 21 EFTA01101080 fabricating cases of a sexual nature fleecing unsuspecting Florida investors and others out of millions of dollars for cases of a sexual nature with--I'd like to answer your questions; however if I--I'm told that if I do so, I risk losing my counsel's representation; therefore I must accept their advice." Epstein deposition, March 8, 2010, at 106 (Deposition attachment #10). 56. When Edwards had the opportunity to take Epstein's deposition, he only asked reasonable questions, all of which related to the merits of the cases against Epstein. All depositions of Epstein in which Mr. Edwards participated on behalf of his clients are attached to this motion. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶11 and Deposition attachments #1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Cf. with Deposition of Epstein taken by an attorney representing BB (one in which Edwards was not participating), httn://www.voutube.com/watch?v=V-dqoEyYXx4; and http://www.youtube.corn/watch?v=YCNiYRW-r0 57. Edwards's efforts to obtain information about Epstein's organization for procuring young girls was also blocked because Epstein's co-conspirators took the Fifth. Deposition of March 24, 2010 (hereinafter '1= Depo.") (Deposition attachment #14); Deposition of , April 13, 2010, (Deposition attachment #9); Deposition of March 15, 2010 (hereinafter ')epo.") (Deposition attachment #15). Each of these co-conspirators invoked their respective rights against self- incrimination as to all relevant questions, and the depositions have been attached. 58. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe was an employee of Epstein's and had been identified as a defendant in at least one of the complaints against Epstein for her role in bringing girls to Epstein's mansion to be abused. At the deposition, she was represented by Bruce Reinhart. She invoked the Fifth on 22 EFTA01101081 all substantive questions regarding her role in arranging for minor girls to come to Epstein's mansion to be sexually abused. Reinhart had previously been an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida when Epstein was being investigated criminally by Reinhart's office. Reinhart left the United States Attorney's Office and was immediately hired by Epstein to represent Epstein's pilots and certain co- conspirators during the civil cases against Epstein. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶11. 59. Edwards also had other lines of legitimate discovery blocked through the efforts of Epstein and others. For example, Edwards learned through deposition that Ghislaine Maxwell was involved in managing Epstein's affairs and companies. See deposition of Epstein's house manager Janusz Banziak, February 16, 2010 at page 14, lines 20-23 (Deposition Attachment #16); See deposition of Epstein's housekeeper October 20, 2009, page 9, lines 17-25 (Deposition Attachment #17); See deposition of Epstein's pilot Larry Eugene Morrison, October 6, 2009, page 102-103 (Deposition Attachment #18); See deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez, August 7, 2009, page 302-306 and 348 (Deposition Attachment #8); See also Prince Andrew's Friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, Some Underage Girls and A Very Disturbing Story, September 23, 2007 by Wendy Leigh, link at http://www.redicecreations.comiarticle.php?id=1895OHANNA SJOBERG. Exhibit "AA". 60. Alfredo Rodriguez testified that Maxwell took photos of girls without the girls' knowledge, kept the images on her computer, knew the names of the underage girls and their respective phone numbers and other underage victims were molested by Epstein and Maxwell together. See Deposition of Rodriguez,

EFTA00304713.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 21 pages

Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE 43, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT VS. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JEFFREY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE CASE NO.: MAXWELL, Defendants. Plaintiff Jane Doe 43, by and through her undersigned counsel, for her claims against Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and , alleges upon personal knowledge with respect to her own acts and status and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: 1. This cause of action arises under federal statutes and jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 2. Plaintiff files this Complaint under a pseudonym in order to protect her identity because this Complaint makes allegations of a sensitive sexual nature and disclosure of Plaintiffs name publicly will cause further harm to her. 3. At all times material to the events alleged in this cause of action the Plaintiff was a citizen of South Africa residing in New York, New York. EFTA00304713  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 2 of 21 4. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein had multiple residences, including in New York, New York and the United States Virgin Islands. He is currently a citizen of the United States and a resident of New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 5. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was an adult male born in 1953. 6. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell was residing in in New York, New York and was a citizen of Great Britain and France. 7. At all times material to this cause of action was residing in New York, New York, and, on information and belief, was a citizen of the United States. 8. At all times material to this cause of action was residing in New York, New York and, on information and belief, was a citizen of the United States. 9. At all material times, was residing in New York, New York and, on information and belief, was a citizen of the United States. 10. Including because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this cause of action occurred in the Southern District of New York, venue is proper in that District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) 2 EFTA00304714  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 3 of 21 11. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and owed a duty to Plaintiff to treat her in a non-negligent manner and not to commit or conspire to commit intentional or tortious illegal acts against her. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 12. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was an adult male over 50 years old. Defendant Epstein is known as a billionaire who uses his extraordinary wealth to commit illegal sexual crimes in violation of federal and state statutes and to employ numerous others, including the named Defendants, to conspire and assist in committing those crimes and additional torts as well as to protect and conceal his crimes and torts from being discovered. 13. Defendant Epstein displays his enormous wealth, power and influence to his employees; to the victims procured for sexual purposes; and to the public in order to advance and carry out his crimes and torts. At all relevant times, Defendant Epstein owned and continues to own, directly or through nominee individuals used to conceal his interests, a fleet of airplanes, motor vehicles, boats and one or more helicopters. He owned and owns numerous properties and homes, including a 51,000-square-foot mansion in Manhattan; a $30 Million, 7,500-acre ranch in New Mexico; a 70-acre private island formerly known as Little St. James in or near St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands; a mansion in London, England; a home 3 EFTA00304715  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 4 of 21 in Paris, France; and a mansion in Palm Beach County, Florida. The allegations herein primarily concern the defendant's conduct while at his townhouse in New York; on one or more of his private airplanes; and on his private island in the United States Virgin Islands. 14. Defendant Epstein has a compulsive sexual preference for young females as young as 13 and as "old" as 25. Defendant had sex with young females virtually every day and assisted in the development and execution of a sex trafficking scheme designed to fulfill his sexual desires. 15. Defendant Maxwell was for decades the highest-ranking employee of the Defendants' sex trafficking enterprise. She herself recruited young females; oversaw and trained other recruiters on how best to recruit girls for sex; developed and executed schemes designed to recruit young females; and ensured that all participants of the Defendants' sex trafficking scheme acted in certain specific ways in order to advance the purposes of the scheme and conceal it from law enforcement. 16. Defendant recruited young females and maintained Epstein's sex schedule in order to ensure that he was not without the sexual favors of young females for any extended period of time. Defendant also handled travel arrangements for the various females being exploited for sexual purposes. 4 EFTA00304716  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 5 of 21 Defendant reported directly up the enterprise's line of authority to Defendant Maxwell. 17. Defendant Epstein employed many recruiters of young females. The nature of the Defendants' sex trafficking scheme enabled victims themselves, such as Defendant to elevate their status to that of a paid recruiter of other victims. Recruiters were taught by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell to inform targeted victims that Epstein possessed extraordinary wealth, power, resources and influence; that he was a philanthropist who would help female victims advance their careers and lives; and that the recruits needed only to provide Epstein with body massages in order to avail themselves of his financial assistance and influence. In fact, however, these representations were fraudulent. The vast majority of girls were required to perform intimate sexual acts at the Defendants' direction and the Defendants did not help or intend to help advance the victims' careers. 18. Defendant coordinated schedules between Defendant Epstein and the various young females used for sex; made travel arrangements for the girls; tended to their living needs; and communicated with them in order to maintain their compliance with the rules of behavior imposed upon them by the enterprise. 19. The Defendants, led primarily by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell, fulfilled Epstein's compulsive need for sex with young females by preying on their 5 EFTA00304717  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 6 of 21 personal, psychological, financial, and related vulnerabilities. The Defendants' tactics included promising the victims money, shelter, transportation, employment, admission into educational institutions, educational tuition, and other things of value in exchange for sex. 20. Defendants' sex trafficking venture and enterprise operated in a hierarchal structure with Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the top and underlings below. Underlings included the other named Defendants as well as unnamed co-conspirators such as various housekeepers and butlers; an airplane pilot; and various employees, assistants and associates. Wittingly and unwittingly, such underlings performed their respective roles with the purpose and effect of insuring that the enterprise supplied young females to Defendant Epstein and others for sexual purposes. At all times materials to this complaint, the venture and enterprise was a group of two or more individuals associated in fact and deed. 21. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell, with help from assistants, associates and underlings, recruited and procured hundreds of girls over the decades of the operation of their scheme. Such recruitment and procurement included fraud, coercion, the threat of coercion, and a combination of these and similar tactics. Following the Defendants' recruitment and procurement of the females to join Epstein in New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Defendants used fraudulent 6 EFTA00304718  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 7 of 21 promises, coercion, and threats of coercion in order to entice young females into sex and, once sexual activities ensued, to cause them to remain in the enterprise. The Defendants also transported females in interstate and foreign commerce and in ways that affected interstate and foreign commerce. 22. Defendants specifically targeted underprivileged, emotionally vulnerable and/or economically disadvantaged young females to join the Defendants' enterprise. 23. It is unknown exactly how long Defendant Epstein and Maxwell's aforementioned criminal and illegal enterprise operated, although it was at least continuously and actively in operation from the mid-1990's through and including the calendar year 2007. 24. Defendant Epstein has continued the enterprise and conspiracy up to the present time. 25. In 2005, Defendant Epstein and numerous co-conspirators within the enterprise were the subjects of a Palm Beach, Florida Police Department criminal investigation which revealed that Defendant Epstein had engaged in sexual activities with dozens of young teenage children. Each child was lured into Defendant Epstein's Palm Beach mansion with a promise that she would receive money for providing him with a body massage, although once there, each child was made to engage in a sex act in order to receive the promised compensation. 7 EFTA00304719  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 8 of 21 Several were also made to engage in sex with another of Defendant Epstein's female sexual traveling companions. 26. In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department investigation was turned over to the FBI and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The United States Attorney's Office investigated Defendant Epstein and his co-conspirators for their violations of numerous federal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §1591, one of the statutory bases for this complaint. 27. The United States Attorney's investigation continued from 2006 through September 2007, at which time a Non-Prosecution Agreement was signed between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office deferring federal prosecution of Defendant Epstein and his numerous co-conspirators for identified federal sex crimes against more than 30 minors. 28. From late 2006 through September 2007, Epstein's team of lawyers negotiated with the federal government in an effort to avoid the filing of the fifty- three-page draft indictment of Epstein. During these negotiations, Defendant Epstein decamped from Palm Beach to New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands in order to convey an image to prosecutors that he and his co-conspirators had stopped committing sex crimes. 29. Remarkably, however—as this case will highlight—Defendant Epstein and his co-Defendants, including the other defendants named herein, did 8 EFTA00304720  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 9 of 21 not abandon their sex trafficking enterprise even while they were under state and federal investigation for crimes committed in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, among other laws, and even as Defendants and their attorneys were busy arguing Epstein's innocence and publicly defaming his victims as liars. Rather, Defendants merely changed their style. Instead of targeting local Palm Beach Florida high school girls, the Defendants transported young females from other places in the U.S. and abroad and brought them to Defendant Epstein's mansion in New York and his private island in the Virgin Islands. 30. In June of 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to Florida state felony sex offenses for procuring a minor for prostitution and soliciting prostitution by minors. 31. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell developed and implemented a sophisticated system designed to insulate them from criminal and civil liability by protecting them from potential testimony of knowledgeable subordinates. The system included requiring subordinates to sign confidentiality agreements covering civil and criminal activity; requiring subordinates and victims to refrain from speaking with law enforcement officials; requiring them to notify Defendant Epstein's lawyers in the event they (subordinates and victims) were contacted by law enforcement officials; requiring them to accept the representation of attorneys paid for by Defendant Epstein; requiring them to invoke the Fifth Amendment in 9 EFTA00304721  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 10 of 21 response to questions they might be asked by investigators and prosecutors; requiring them to invoke the Fifth Amendment in order to refuse to turn over incriminating and non-incriminating evidence to law enforcement officers; requiring them to destroy evidence or refuse to reveal knowledge of destroyed evidence; and requiring them generally to refuse all cooperation with law enforcement officials or investigations. 32. In 2005, Defendant Epstein and other co-conspirators, aware that law enforcement officials were preparing imminently to execute a search warrant of his home, removed computer systems that logged information about Epstein and his co-conspirators' illegal and criminal conduct; the identities of witnesses; nude photographs of young females; scheduling books; message pads; tangible items such as vibrators and toys; and other incriminating matter. 33. Commencing in approximately October 2006 and continuing through April 2007, Defendants recruited Plaintiff into their sexual enterprise by fraudulently promising to use their connections and resources to secure her admission to an institution of higher education at the expense of Defendant Epstein. 34. Defendant was working as one of the enterprise's recruiters of young females when she approached and recruited Plaintiff. 10 EFTA00304722  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 11 of 21 35. Defendant informed Plaintiff that she would introduce Plaintiff to Defendant Epstein, whom she described as a wealthy philanthropist who regularly used his wealth, influence and connections to help financially poor females like Plaintiff achieve their personal and professional goals and aspirations. 36. Defendant reported to her superiors, Defendants M, IM and Maxwell, and was paid for her recruitment of young females, including the recruitment of Plaintiff. 37. Defendant introduced Plaintiff to Defendant Epstein, who confirmed to Plaintiff that he would use his wealth and influence to have Plaintiff admitted into in New York City, or into a similar institute of higher learning offering a curriculum of fashion industry training. Defendants Maxwell, and each confirmed this promise to Plaintiff many times. 38. Defendant Maxwell told Plaintiff she would need to provide Defendant Epstein with body massages in order to reap the benefits of his and Maxwell's connections. Maxwell and Epstein also threatened Plaintiff that, while they had the ability to advance her education and career, they also had the ability to make sure that she would obtain no formal education or modeling agency contracts if she failed to provide the sexual favors desired by Defendant Epstein or abide by the instructions given her by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell. 11 EFTA00304723  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 12 of 21 39. Plaintiff reasonably believed that her compliance with Defendants' demands was crucial to her physical, psychological, financial, and reputational survival. 40. Defendant Maxwell instructed Plaintiff how to massage Epstein using the techniques that he preferred. During Plaintiff's first massage, Defendant Epstein converted it into a sexual act and made it known to Plaintiff that further sex would be required in order for her to obtain the assistance he promised and to avoid Defendants' threatened retaliation if Plaintiff did not perform as demanded. 41. Defendants Maxwell and Epstein informed Plaintiff that other young females in Defendant Epstein's company were there not only to provide massages, but also sexual acts. 42. Plaintiff was instructed dozens of times to provide body massages to Defendant Epstein, both at his townhouse in New York and on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Each time she was so instructed she was also required to perform a sexual act with Defendant Epstein. The Defendants transported Plaintiff in interstate and foreign commerce, and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, for these sexual purposes. 43. During many sexual encounters, Defendant Epstein gave Plaintiff no option, opportunity or choice not to participate in the prescribed sexual acts. 12 EFTA00304724  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 13 of 21 44. Defendant Maxwell frequently controlled the assignment, or "rotation," of Plaintiff and the other young females concerning the time, place and manner of the sex acts they were told to provide to Defendant Epstein. Defendants Maxwell and Epstein also required Plaintiff to engage in sex acts with other females. 45. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell intimidated, threatened, humiliated and verbally abused Plaintiff in order to coerce her into sexual compliance. These Defendants threatened Plaintiff with serious harm, as well as serious psychological, financial, and reputational harm, with the purpose and effect of compelling Plaintiff to perform and continue performing the demanded commercial sexual activity. 46. On one occasion, after suffering verbal abuse and threats by Defendants Epstein, Maxwell, and M, Plaintiff attempted to escape from Defendant Epstein's private island. A search party led by Defendant Epstein located her and physically returned her to the main house on the island. Through these and other actions, the Defendants intended to cause, and did cause, Plaintiff to believe that failure to perform the actions they requested would result in physical restraint and potential harm to her person, as well as harm to her reputation, employability, and stable state of mind. 13 EFTA00304725  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 14 of 21 47. Defendant Epstein's wealth, influence, power and connections were used both as an inducement to provide sex (in exchange for promises of support), and as a means of threatening punishment (should Plaintiff refuse to comply with Defendants' instructions). 48. In addition to Plaintiff's being trafficked on Defendant Epstein's private plane, Defendants =, Maxwell and with the knowledge of and instruction by Defendant Epstein, arranged Plaintiffs commercial air travel on numerous occasions for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to commit commercial sex acts. 49. Defendants provided living quarters for Plaintiff a New York; a car service for Plaintiff to use as needed; a cell phone; and other valuable consideration in order to maintain Plaintiffs sexual compliance. 50. The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants Epstein and Maxwell was defined and characterized by Defendant Epstein's and Defendant Maxwell's frequent and persistent fraudulent representations that they would provide Plaintiff with a formal education and career advancement if she provided sex to Defendant Epstein and others in the times, places and manners demanded by Defendants. Plaintiff reasonably relied on those representations. In fact, however, those representations were knowingly false, were not acted upon, and were made by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell solely for the purpose of maintaining 14 EFTA00304726  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 15 of 21 Plaintiffs financial dependence on, emotional vulnerability to, and sexual compliance with Defendants Epstein and Maxwell and their demands. The other Defendants intentionally repeated those representations and intentionally attempted to convince Plaintiff that the representations were true and could be relied upon. 51. In January 2007, Defendants sent Plaintiff from the United States to South Africa in part to recruit, for a promised fee, one or more aspiring female models supposedly for Defendant Epstein to use as an alleged personal assistant. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell continuously and frequently demanded that Plaintiff fulfill this task as a condition of her receiving the education, career and related benefits promised by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell. Based upon Plaintiffs experience with Defendants, however, she did not believe that the requested model would be placed in a legitimate position of employment with Defendant Epstein but would, instead, be forced into sexual servitude. As a result, Plaintiff deliberately refused to perform the recruitment assignment. 52. As part of their ongoing scheme, Defendants inflicted serious emotional and psychological harm on Plaintiff as a means of coercing her to continue engaging in commercial sex acts. While Plaintiff was in South Africa, Defendants Epstein and Maxwell informed Plaintiff that she would not be permitted to return to the United States to receive her promised education unless she underwent a diet and lowered her body weight from 57 kilograms 15 EFTA00304727  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 16 of 21 (approximately 125 pounds) to 52 kilograms (approximately 114 pounds). Believing she had no practical choice in the matter, Plaintiff attempted to comply with the order but, given her physical height and structure and her existing low body weight, the diet imposed upon her placed her in serious physical jeopardy, including kidney malfunction and extreme emotional and psychological distress. 53. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell called Plaintiffs parents in South Africa to tell them that Defendants would take good care of Plaintiff when she returned to the United States and that they would use their connections and influence to have her admitted to or another well-regarded fashion school. 54. In February of 2007, Plaintiff returned to New York and was promptly ordered by Defendant Maxwell to have sex with Defendant Epstein. Defendants Maxwell and Epstein fraudulently promised her again that her sexual compliance would be rewarded with admission to or a comparable college, a promise which they knew to be false. Plaintiff knew that if she did not comply, Defendants Maxwell and Epstein would use their power, influence and connections in order to ensure that Plaintiff was unable to gain admission to . or a comparable school, and that they would destroy her career as they had destroyed the careers of others who had failed to comply. 55. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell continued to provide Plaintiff with things of value in exchange for Plaintiffs continued compliance with Epstein's 16 EFTA00304728  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 17 of 21 sexual demands; however, they failed and refused to perform their promises to help Plaintiff be admitted to or another school, or to provide financial support for college admission or on-going education, false promises they repeatedly made in order to coerce her into commercial sex acts. 56. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell's sexual demands on Plaintiff continued while she was in New York or other geographic proximity to the Defendants. In addition to their requiring Plaintiff to provide Defendant Epstein with sex acts, Defendants continued to pressure her to lose excessive amounts of body weight and offered her no opportunity to decline or resist their instructions. 57. In May, 2007, Plaintiff left the United States and did not return. 58. Defendants' representations and promises were all false and fraudulent. Their threats were considered by Plaintiff to be real and credible. All such representations, promises and threats were made solely for the purpose of coercing and otherwise inducing Plaintiff into prolonged sexual compliance. Defendants knowingly benefitted financially and received things of value as a result of their participating in their illegal enterprise. COUNT I CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 4 1595 59. Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 58 above. 17 EFTA00304729  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 18 of 21 60. Defendants individually and together, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, maintained, patronized, solicited, threatened, forced, and coerced Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. Such actions by Defendants were undertaken with knowledge and/or reckless disregard of the fact that their threats of force, fraud, coercion, and combinations of such means would be used, and were in fact used, in order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In so doing, Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. §§1591 through 1594 and are subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595. 61. Defendants additionally profited from the sex trafficking of Plaintiff; obstructed investigations of the violations; attempted and conspired to violate, and succeeded in violating, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 through 1595, by the commission of the torts and crimes described in this complaint. 62. Certain property of Defendant Epstein's was essential to the commission of the federal crimes and torts described herein, including the use of multiple private aircraft including a Boeing aircraft (of make and model B-727- 31H with tail number N908JE) and a Gulfstream aircraft (of make and model G- 1159B with tail number N909JE). Such aircraft, along with other of Defendants' 18 EFTA00304730  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 19 of 21 property, were used as means and instruments of Defendants' tortious and criminal offenses and, as such, are subject to forfeiture. 63. Additionally, Defendant Epstein's New York mansion, located at 9 East 71st street, New York, New York, and his private island located in the United States Virgin Islands, were used as means and instruments of Defendants' tortious and criminal offenses and, as such, are subject to forfeiture. 64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' commission of the aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in Title 18 U.S.C. § 1591 et. seq. and the civil remedies provided in § 1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue to suffer injury and pain; emotional distress; psychological and psychi- atric trauma; mental anguish; humiliation; confusion; embarrassment; loss of self- esteem; loss of dignity; loss of enjoyment of life; invasion of privacy; and other damages associated with Defendants' actions. Plaintiff will incur medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will do so in the future. 19 EFTA00304731  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 20 of 21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. Dated: January 26, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: Ls/ David Boies David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street A 4 Alex Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 575 Lexington Ave., 7'1' Fl. New York, New York 10022 T: E: Sigrid McCawley Meredith Schultz Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200 Foil . a - 4.1 01 T: E: E: Pro ac we t° se i e 20 EFTA00304732 Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 21 of 21 Bradley J. Edwards Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 T: E: Pro ac ice to e z e J. Stanley Pottinger J. Stanley Pottinger PLLC Suite 100 49 Twin Lakes Road South alem New York 10590 T: E: 21 EFTA00304733

EFTA00590725.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 21 pages

Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE 43, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT VS. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JEFFREY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE CASE NO.: MAXWELL, LESLEY GROFF, AND Defendants. Plaintiff Jane Doe 43, by and through her undersigned counsel, for her claims against Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, M, Lesley Grog and , alleges upon personal knowledge with respect to her own acts and status and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: 1. This cause of action arises under federal statutes and jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 2. Plaintiff files this Complaint under a pseudonym in order to protect her identity because this Complaint makes allegations of a sensitive sexual nature and disclosure of Plaintiffs name publicly will cause further harm to her. 3. At all times material to the events alleged in this cause of action the Plaintiff was a citizen of South Africa residing in New York, New York. I EFTA00590725  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 2 of 21 4. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein had multiple residences, including in New York, New York and the United States Virgin Islands. He is currently a citizen of the United States and a resident of New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 5. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was an adult male born in 1953. 6. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell was residing in in New York, New York and was a citizen of Great Britain and France. 7. At all times material to this cause of action was residing in New York, New York, and, on information and belief, was a citizen of the United States. 8. At all times material to this cause of action Lesley Groff was residing in New York, New York and, on information and belief, was a citizen of the United States. 9. At all material times, was residing in New York, New York and, on information and belief, was a citizen of the United States. 10. Including because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this cause of action occurred in the Southern District of New York, venue is proper in that District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) 2 EFTA00590726  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 3 of 21 11. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, M, Lesley Groff, and owed a duty to Plaintiff to treat her in a non-negligent manner and not to commit or conspire to commit intentional or tortious illegal acts against her. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 12. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was an adult male over 50 years old. Defendant Epstein is known as a billionaire who uses his extraordinary wealth to commit illegal sexual crimes in violation of federal and state statutes and to employ numerous others, including the named Defendants, to conspire and assist in committing those crimes and additional torts as well as to protect and conceal his crimes and torts from being discovered. 13. Defendant Epstein displays his enormous wealth, power and influence to his employees; to the victims procured for sexual purposes; and to the public in order to advance and carry out his crimes and torts. At all relevant times, Defendant Epstein owned and continues to own, directly or through nominee individuals used to conceal his interests, a fleet of airplanes, motor vehicles, boats and one or more helicopters. He owned and owns numerous properties and homes, including a 51,000-square-foot mansion in Manhattan; a $30 Million, 7,500-acre ranch in New Mexico; a 70-acre private island formerly known as Little St. James in or near St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands; a mansion in London, England; a home 3 EFTA00590727  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 4 of 21 in Paris, France; and a mansion in Palm Beach County, Florida. The allegations herein primarily concern the defendant's conduct while at his townhouse in New York; on one or more of his private airplanes; and on his private island in the United States Virgin Islands. 14. Defendant Epstein has a compulsive sexual preference for young females as young as 13 and as "old" as 25. Defendant had sex with young females virtually every day and assisted in the development and execution of a sex trafficking scheme designed to fulfill his sexual desires. 15. Defendant Maxwell was for decades the highest-ranking employee of the Defendants' sex trafficking enterprise. She herself recruited young females; oversaw and trained other recruiters on how best to recruit girls for sex; developed and executed schemes designed to recruit young females; and ensured that all participants of the Defendants' sex trafficking scheme acted in certain specific ways in order to advance the purposes of the scheme and conceal it from law enforcement. 16. Defendant recruited young females and maintained Epstein's sex schedule in order to ensure that he was not without the sexual favors of young females for any extended period of time. Defendant also handled travel arrangements for the various females being exploited for sexual purposes. 4 EFTA00590728  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 5 of 21 Defendant reported directly up the enterprise's line of authority to Defendant Maxwell. 17. Defendant Epstein employed many recruiters of young females. The nature of the Defendants' sex trafficking scheme enabled victims themselves, such as Defendant to elevate their status to that of a paid recruiter of other victims. Recruiters were taught by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell to inform targeted victims that Epstein possessed extraordinary wealth, power, resources and influence; that he was a philanthropist who would help female victims advance their careers and lives; and that the recruits needed only to provide Epstein with body massages in order to avail themselves of his financial assistance and influence. In fact, however, these representations were fraudulent. The vast majority of girls were required to perform intimate sexual acts at the Defendants' direction and the Defendants did not help or intend to help advance the victims' careers. 18. Defendant Groff coordinated schedules between Defendant Epstein and the various young females used for sex; made travel arrangements for the girls; tended to their living needs; and communicated with them in order to maintain their compliance with the rules of behavior imposed upon them by the enterprise. 19. The Defendants, led primarily by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell, fulfilled Epstein's compulsive need for sex with young females by preying on their 5 EFTA00590729  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 6 of 21 personal, psychological, financial, and related vulnerabilities. The Defendants' tactics included promising the victims money, shelter, transportation, employment, admission into educational institutions, educational tuition, and other things of value in exchange for sex. 20. Defendants' sex trafficking venture and enterprise operated in a hierarchal structure with Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the top and underlings below. Underlings included the other named Defendants as well as unnamed co-conspirators such as various housekeepers and butlers; an airplane pilot; and various employees, assistants and associates. Wittingly and unwittingly, such underlings performed their respective roles with the purpose and effect of insuring that the enterprise supplied young females to Defendant Epstein and others for sexual purposes. At all times materials to this complaint, the venture and enterprise was a group of two or more individuals associated in fact and deed. 21. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell, with help from assistants, associates and underlings, recruited and procured hundreds of girls over the decades of the operation of their scheme. Such recruitment and procurement included fraud, coercion, the threat of coercion, and a combination of these and similar tactics. Following the Defendants' recruitment and procurement of the females to join Epstein in New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Defendants used fraudulent 6 EFTA00590730  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 7 of 21 promises, coercion, and threats of coercion in order to entice young females into sex and, once sexual activities ensued, to cause them to remain in the enterprise. The Defendants also transported females in interstate and foreign commerce and in ways that affected interstate and foreign commerce. 22. Defendants specifically targeted underprivileged, emotionally vulnerable and/or economically disadvantaged young females to join the Defendants' enterprise. 23. It is unknown exactly how long Defendant Epstein and Maxwell's aforementioned criminal and illegal enterprise operated, although it was at least continuously and actively in operation from the mid-1990's through and including the calendar year 2007. 24. Defendant Epstein has continued the enterprise and conspiracy up to the present time. 25. In 2005, Defendant Epstein and numerous co-conspirators within the enterprise were the subjects of a Palm Beach, Florida Police Department criminal investigation which revealed that Defendant Epstein had engaged in sexual activities with dozens of young teenage children. Each child was lured into Defendant Epstein's Palm Beach mansion with a promise that she would receive money for providing him with a body massage, although once there, each child was made to engage in a sex act in order to receive the promised compensation. 7 EFTA00590731  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 8 of 21 Several were also made to engage in sex with another of Defendant Epstein's female sexual traveling companions. 26. In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department investigation was turned over to the FBI and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The United States Attorney's Office investigated Defendant Epstein and his co-conspirators for their violations of numerous federal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §1591, one of the statutory bases for this complaint. 27. The United States Attorney's investigation continued from 2006 through September 2007, at which time a Non-Prosecution Agreement was signed between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office deferring federal prosecution of Defendant Epstein and his numerous co-conspirators for identified federal sex crimes against more than 30 minors. 28. From late 2006 through September 2007, Epstein's team of lawyers negotiated with the federal government in an effort to avoid the filing of the fifty- three-page draft indictment of Epstein. During these negotiations, Defendant Epstein decamped from Palm Beach to New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands in order to convey an image to prosecutors that he and his co-conspirators had stopped committing sex crimes. 29. Remarkably, however—as this case will highlight—Defendant Epstein and his co-Defendants, including the other defendants named herein, did 8 EFTA00590732  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 9 of 21 not abandon their sex trafficking enterprise even while they were under state and federal investigation for crimes committed in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, among other laws, and even as Defendants and their attorneys were busy arguing Epstein's innocence and publicly defaming his victims as liars. Rather, Defendants merely changed their style. Instead of targeting local Palm Beach Florida high school girls, the Defendants transported young females from other places in the U.S. and abroad and brought them to Defendant Epstein's mansion in New York and his private island in the Virgin Islands. 30. In June of 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to Florida state felony sex offenses for procuring a minor for prostitution and soliciting prostitution by minors. 31. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell developed and implemented a sophisticated system designed to insulate them from criminal and civil liability by protecting them from potential testimony of knowledgeable subordinates. The system included requiring subordinates to sign confidentiality agreements covering civil and criminal activity; requiring subordinates and victims to refrain from speaking with law enforcement officials; requiring them to notify Defendant Epstein's lawyers in the event they (subordinates and victims) were contacted by law enforcement officials; requiring them to accept the representation of attorneys paid for by Defendant Epstein; requiring them to invoke the Fifth Amendment in 9 EFTA00590733  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 10 of 21 response to questions they might be asked by investigators and prosecutors; requiring them to invoke the Fifth Amendment in order to refuse to turn over incriminating and non-incriminating evidence to law enforcement officers; requiring them to destroy evidence or refuse to reveal knowledge of destroyed evidence; and requiring them generally to refuse all cooperation with law enforcement officials or investigations. 32. In 2005, Defendant Epstein and other co-conspirators, aware that law enforcement officials were preparing imminently to execute a search warrant of his home, removed computer systems that logged information about Epstein and his co-conspirators' illegal and criminal conduct; the identities of witnesses; nude photographs of young females; scheduling books; message pads; tangible items such as vibrators and toys; and other incriminating matter. 33. Commencing in approximately October 2006 and continuing through April 2007, Defendants recruited Plaintiff into their sexual enterprise by fraudulently promising to use their connections and resources to secure her admission to an institution of higher education at the expense of Defendant Epstein. 34. Defendant was working as one of the enterprise's recruiters of young females when she approached and recruited Plaintiff. 10 EFTA00590734  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 11 of 21 35. Defendant informed Plaintiff that she would introduce Plaintiff to Defendant Epstein, whom she described as a wealthy philanthropist who regularly used his wealth, influence and connections to help financially poor females like Plaintiff achieve their personal and professional goals and aspirations. 36. Defendant reported to her superiors, Defendants M, Groff and Maxwell, and was paid for her recruitment of young females, including the recruitment of Plaintiff. 37. Defendant introduced Plaintiff to Defendant Epstein, who confirmed to Plaintiff that he would use his wealth and influence to have Plaintiff admitted into The Fashion Institute of Technology, known as "F.I.T.", in New York City, or into a similar institute of higher learning offering a curriculum of fashion industry training. Defendants Maxwell, and Groff each confirmed this promise to Plaintiff many times. 38. Defendant Maxwell told Plaintiff she would need to provide Defendant Epstein with body massages in order to reap the benefits of his and Maxwell's connections. Maxwell and Epstein also threatened Plaintiff that, while they had the ability to advance her education and career, they also had the ability to make sure that she would obtain no formal education or modeling agency contracts if she failed to provide the sexual favors desired by Defendant Epstein or abide by the instructions given her by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell. 11 EFTA00590735  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 12 of 21 39. Plaintiff reasonably believed that her compliance with Defendants' demands was crucial to her physical, psychological, financial, and reputational survival. 40. Defendant Maxwell instructed Plaintiff how to massage Epstein using the techniques that he preferred. During Plaintiff's first massage, Defendant Epstein converted it into a sexual act and made it known to Plaintiff that further sex would be required in order for her to obtain the assistance he promised and to avoid Defendants' threatened retaliation if Plaintiff did not perform as demanded. 41. Defendants Maxwell and Epstein informed Plaintiff that other young females in Defendant Epstein's company were there not only to provide massages, but also sexual acts. 42. Plaintiff was instructed dozens of times to provide body massages to Defendant Epstein, both at his townhouse in New York and on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Each time she was so instructed she was also required to perform a sexual act with Defendant Epstein. The Defendants transported Plaintiff in interstate and foreign commerce, and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, for these sexual purposes. 43. During many sexual encounters, Defendant Epstein gave Plaintiff no option, opportunity or choice not to participate in the prescribed sexual acts. 12 EFTA00590736  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 13 of 21 44. Defendant Maxwell frequently controlled the assignment, or "rotation," of Plaintiff and the other young females concerning the time, place and manner of the sex acts they were told to provide to Defendant Epstein. Defendants Maxwell and Epstein also required Plaintiff to engage in sex acts with other females. 45. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell intimidated, threatened, humiliated and verbally abused Plaintiff in order to coerce her into sexual compliance. These Defendants threatened Plaintiff with serious harm, as well as serious psychological, financial, and reputational harm, with the purpose and effect of compelling Plaintiff to perform and continue performing the demanded commercial sexual activity. 46. On one occasion, after suffering verbal abuse and threats by Defendants Epstein, Maxwell, and M, Plaintiff attempted to escape from Defendant Epstein's private island. A search party led by Defendant Epstein located her and physically returned her to the main house on the island. Through these and other actions, the Defendants intended to cause, and did cause, Plaintiff to believe that failure to perform the actions they requested would result in physical restraint and potential harm to her person, as well as harm to her reputation, employability, and stable state of mind. 13 EFTA00590737  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 14 of 21 47. Defendant Epstein's wealth, influence, power and connections were used both as an inducement to provide sex (in exchange for promises of support), and as a means of threatening punishment (should Plaintiff refuse to comply with Defendants' instructions). 48. In addition to Plaintiff's being trafficked on Defendant Epstein's private plane, Defendants Groff, Maxwell and with the knowledge of and instruction by Defendant Epstein, arranged Plaintiffs commercial air travel on numerous occasions for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to commit commercial sex acts. 49. Defendants provided living quarters for Plaintiff at 301 East 66 Street, New York; a car service for Plaintiff to use as needed; a cell phone; and other valuable consideration in order to maintain Plaintiffs sexual compliance. 50. The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants Epstein and Maxwell was defined and characterized by Defendant Epstein's and Defendant Maxwell's frequent and persistent fraudulent representations that they would provide Plaintiff with a formal education and career advancement if she provided sex to Defendant Epstein and others in the times, places and manners demanded by Defendants. Plaintiff reasonably relied on those representations. In fact, however, those representations were knowingly false, were not acted upon, and were made by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell solely for the purpose of maintaining 14 EFTA00590738  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 15 of 21 Plaintiffs financial dependence on, emotional vulnerability to, and sexual compliance with Defendants Epstein and Maxwell and their demands. The other Defendants intentionally repeated those representations and intentionally attempted to convince Plaintiff that the representations were true and could be relied upon. 51. In January 2007, Defendants sent Plaintiff from the United States to South Africa in part to recruit, for a promised fee, one or more aspiring female models supposedly for Defendant Epstein to use as an alleged personal assistant. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell continuously and frequently demanded that Plaintiff fulfill this task as a condition of her receiving the education, career and related benefits promised by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell. Based upon Plaintiffs experience with Defendants, however, she did not believe that the requested model would be placed in a legitimate position of employment with Defendant Epstein but would, instead, be forced into sexual servitude. As a result, Plaintiff deliberately refused to perform the recruitment assignment. 52. As part of their ongoing scheme, Defendants inflicted serious emotional and psychological harm on Plaintiff as a means of coercing her to continue engaging in commercial sex acts. While Plaintiff was in South Africa, Defendants Epstein and Maxwell informed Plaintiff that she would not be permitted to return to the United States to receive her promised education unless she underwent a diet and lowered her body weight from 57 kilograms 15 EFTA00590739  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 16 of 21 (approximately 125 pounds) to 52 kilograms (approximately 114 pounds). Believing she had no practical choice in the matter, Plaintiff attempted to comply with the order but, given her physical height and structure and her existing low body weight, the diet imposed upon her placed her in serious physical jeopardy, including kidney malfunction and extreme emotional and psychological distress. 53. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell called Plaintiffs parents in South Africa to tell them that Defendants would take good care of Plaintiff when she returned to the United States and that they would use their connections and influence to have her admitted to F.I.T. or another well-regarded fashion school. 54. In February of 2007, Plaintiff returned to New York and was promptly ordered by Defendant Maxwell to have sex with Defendant Epstein. Defendants Maxwell and Epstein fraudulently promised her again that her sexual compliance would be rewarded with admission to F.I.T. or a comparable college, a promise which they knew to be false. Plaintiff knew that if she did not comply, Defendants Maxwell and Epstein would use their power, influence and connections in order to ensure that Plaintiff was unable to gain admission to F.I.T. or a comparable school, and that they would destroy her career as they had destroyed the careers of others who had failed to comply. 55. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell continued to provide Plaintiff with things of value in exchange for Plaintiffs continued compliance with Epstein's 16 EFTA00590740  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 17 of 21 sexual demands; however, they failed and refused to perform their promises to help Plaintiff be admitted to F.I.T. or another school, or to provide financial support for college admission or on-going education, false promises they repeatedly made in order to coerce her into commercial sex acts. 56. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell's sexual demands on Plaintiff continued while she was in New York or other geographic proximity to the Defendants. In addition to their requiring Plaintiff to provide Defendant Epstein with sex acts, Defendants continued to pressure her to lose excessive amounts of body weight and offered her no opportunity to decline or resist their instructions. 57. In May, 2007, Plaintiff left the United States and did not return. 58. Defendants' representations and promises were all false and fraudulent. Their threats were considered by Plaintiff to be real and credible. All such representations, promises and threats were made solely for the purpose of coercing and otherwise inducing Plaintiff into prolonged sexual compliance. Defendants knowingly benefitted financially and received things of value as a result of their participating in their illegal enterprise. COUNT I CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 4 1595 59. Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 58 above. 17 EFTA00590741  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 18 of 21 60. Defendants individually and together, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, maintained, patronized, solicited, threatened, forced, and coerced Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. Such actions by Defendants were undertaken with knowledge and/or reckless disregard of the fact that their threats of force, fraud, coercion, and combinations of such means would be used, and were in fact used, in order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In so doing, Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. §§1591 through 1594 and are subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595. 61. Defendants additionally profited from the sex trafficking of Plaintiff; obstructed investigations of the violations; attempted and conspired to violate, and succeeded in violating, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 through 1595, by the commission of the torts and crimes described in this complaint. 62. Certain property of Defendant Epstein's was essential to the commission of the federal crimes and torts described herein, including the use of multiple private aircraft including a Boeing aircraft (of make and model B-727- 31H with tail number N908JE) and a Gulfstream aircraft (of make and model G- 1159B with tail number N909JE). Such aircraft, along with other of Defendants' 18 EFTA00590742  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 19 of 21 property, were used as means and instruments of Defendants' tortious and criminal offenses and, as such, are subject to forfeiture. 63. Additionally, Defendant Epstein's New York mansion, located at 9 East 71st street, New York, New York, and his private island located in the United States Virgin Islands, were used as means and instruments of Defendants' tortious and criminal offenses and, as such, are subject to forfeiture. 64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' commission of the aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in Title 18 U.S.C. § 1591 et. seq. and the civil remedies provided in § 1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue to suffer injury and pain; emotional distress; psychological and psychi- atric trauma; mental anguish; humiliation; confusion; embarrassment; loss of self- esteem; loss of dignity; loss of enjoyment of life; invasion of privacy; and other damages associated with Defendants' actions. Plaintiff will incur medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will do so in the future. 19 EFTA00590743  Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 20 of 21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. Dated: January 26, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ David Boies David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, New York 10504 T: E: Alex Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 575 Lexington Ave., 76 Fl. New York, New York 10022 T: E: Sigrid McCawley Meredith Schultz Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 T: E: E: Pro Hoc Vice to befiled 20 EFTA00590744 Case 1:17-cv-00616 Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 21 of 21 Bradley J. Edwards Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 T: E: Pro Hoc Vice to befiled J. Stanley Pottinger J. Stanley Pottinger PLLC Suite 100 49 Twin Lakes Road South Salem, New York 10590 T: E: 21 EFTA00590745

EFTA00158454.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 7 pages

-1 of 7- FD-302 (Rev 5-8-10) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION mtommq 11/11/2021 JANUSZ BANASIAK (BANASIAK), was interviewed at . Present or t is interview was Assistant United States Attorney , along with Special Agent and Detective After being advised of the identity of the above listed individual and the nature of the interview, BANASIAK provided the following information: BANASIAK wants to make correction on a previous statement he made about the phone book with black cover. He states it's not black, it's maybe silver or metal square on the front and back. He had previously mentioned that it was black because he remembers people saying someone was trying to sell the black book. The pages were in between the metal squares. BANASIAK applied for a job with JEFFREY EPSTEIN through an employment agency. BANASIAK got a call about the job and then he interviewed with GHISLAINE MAXWELL. That interview was in MAXWELL's New York house. This house was between Lexington Avenue and Park Avenue. It was a regular townhouse. Her office was on the first floor. The interview was about 30 minutes. MAXWELL asked BANASIAK where he worked before. MAXWELL tells BANASIAK that he will next be interviewing with EPSTEIN. BANASIAK then interviewed with EPSTEIN about 2-3 days later. He interviewed with EPSTEIN in his office on Madison Avenue. It was about a 20 minute interview. They had told BANASIAK that the job opportunity is in Florida. Sometime later BANASIAK receives a call from the agency telling him that he got the job. He takes his belongings and moves to Florida. BANASKIAK lives in a small house on EPSTEIN's property. This house had about 3 bedrooms. BANASIAK lived there by himself. Investigational 10/19/2021 at United States (In Person) file• SOD—NY-3027571 nmearafted 10/26/2021 by ibis document coatams nett tecommeadanotts not conclusions of the FBI II is the wormy of the FBI and is loaned to your agency, at and in C0OltIILS are not lo be dist:anted outside yotu agency 3507-017 Pagelof7 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00006879 EFTA00158454 ED.302a (Rev 54.10) 50D-NY-3027571 Conti:maim of ED.302 of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK .O, 10/19/2021 . pas, 2 of 7 BANASIAK's job was to make sure the house was ready for when they arrived. He would make sure the pool was clean, would garden, shop, buy flowers and clean windows. BANASIAK would drive EPSTEIN and his assistants including MAXWELL. When BANASIAK started working for EPSTEIN, there was a manual. He doesn't remember who gave it to him but he did read it. The manual explains how to prepare the house. There was also another person working named had mentioned something to BANASIAK about what EPSTEIN likes but most of the information BANASIAK got was from MAXWELL. MAXWELL tells BANASIAK what EPSTEIN's favorite foods are, what flowers he likes, where to buy groceries, how to answer the phone and what he likes. BANASIAK remembers meeting with the FBI previously and he gave them the receipts of purchases he made for the house using petty cash. It was either MAXWELL or the accountant that told BANASIAK how to use the petty cash. BANASIAK would remove money from the bank for gas, groceries and such ($2000 at a time). BANASIAK would make a report on the computer of all the expenses. BANASIAK was taught how to do this when he first got hired. After he spends the $2000 BANASIAK would take out another $2000 cash. This was prior to them moving to credit card purchases. SANASIAK IS SHOWN A COPY OF THE HOUSEHOLD MANUAL. BANASIAK states "Yes I recognize this, this is the manual that I mentioned to you guys." BANASIAK states this is what he had previously described to "you" I over the phone. BANASIAK read this on his first day while in bed. BANASIAK does not remember if it was a bound book. BANASIAK thinks it may have just been paper like this and stapled together. BANASIAK recognizes the text in the manual, for example how to answer the phone and how to maintain the bathrooms. EPSTEIN did not answer the phones. MAXWELL tells BANASIAK to answer the phones and what to say. BANASIAK is told to introduce himself and say this is EPSTEIN residence. BANASIAK is not allowed to tell that person on the phone if EPSTEIN is there or not. BANASIAK would take a message and then write it down in a message book. If it was a short message BANASIAK would write it down right away while still on the phone. If it was a long message BANASIAK might write it after he hangs up. Either way the message was to be 3507-017 Page 2 of 7 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFFA_00006880 EFTA00158455 F D•302a (Rev 5-11-10) 500—NY-3027571 ComthumWeofFU.Xnot (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK O, 10/19/2021 p,s, 3 of 7 written right away and never the next day. BANASIAK IS THEN SHOWN MESSAGE PADS 31E-MM-108062 ITEM 42 1B1-2A (government exhibit 1) BANASIAK states this is the message book that they would write all the messages in when people call. BANASIAK recognized his handwriting and signature on the following messages: 2/2/05 2,3,4 2/5/05 2 2/13/05 3,4 2/16/05 1,2 2/18/05 2,4 2/24/05 1,2 31E-MM-108062 ITEM 42 1B1-2C (government exhibit 3) BANASIAK does not recognize his handwriting in this book. 31E-MM-108062 1B2-36 (government exhibit 4) BANASIAK recognized his handwriting and signature on the following messages: 2/4/05 2,3,4 2/4/05 1(CHELA),2,3,4 2/12/05 3,4 2/15/04 1,2,3 2/22/05 1,2,3,4 3507-017 Page 3 of 7 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_0000688 I EFTA00158456 FD•302a (Rev 5•&10) 500—NY-3027571 ComthumiomofFD402of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK O, 10/19/2021 pn, 4 of 7 2/26/05 3 2/28/05 1,2,3,4 2/28/05 1(-),2 3/1/05 3 3/5/05 1,3 3/8/05 1,2,3,4 3/9/05 1(_),2,3,4 2/18/05 1(DR GARECKI),2,4 3/18/05 2(JEFF STELY),4 3/22/05 3,4 3/29/05 1,2,3,4 4/1/05 1,2,3,4 4/10/05 1,2,3,4 4/10/05 l(GEORGE DAWSON),2,3,4 4/11/05 1,2,3,4 4/20/05 1,3,4 5/7/05 1,2,4 5/5/05 2,3 5/21/05 1,2,3,4 5/23/05 1,2,3,4 5/29/05 1,2,3 6/10/05 1,2,4 6/12/05 1,3 3507-017 Page 4 of 7 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00006882 EFTA00158457 ED.3023 (Rev 54.10) 50D-NY-3027571 Contuntal ion of ED-302 of CU) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK .O, 10/19/2021 . pas, 5 of 7 6/18/O5 3,4 6/22/O5 1,2,3,4 7/1/05 1 7/7/05 1,2,4 7/17/O5 1,2,3,4 7/23/O5 1,3,4 8/15/O5 1,2,4 8/18/O5 2,4 8/2O/O5 1,2,3,4 8/2O/O5 1(TONY),2,3,4 9/3/05 1,2,3,4 When EPSTEIN would arrive with the girls BANASIAK would try to give them space or privacy so he wouldn't answer as many phone calls during that time. BANASIAK started working for EPSTEIN in 2005 and stopped in 2O17. BANASIAK is asked if he ever learned that there was an investigation into EPSTEIN. BANASIAK states that one day police showed up with a search warrant at the house. That's when BANASIAK learned that there was an investigation. BANASIAK was sitting at his computer in the home on the property that he was living in. He saw 4-S guys show up through the window. They stepped in and introduced themselves, showed and read BANASIAK the search warrant. They told him they had to search the house. BANASIAK was present for the search. There was also a designer for the house present as well. They put everyone aside during the search. BANASIAK then learned what EPSTEIN was accused of in the newspapers. BANASIAK lived in that small house on the property until 2017. BANASIAK was 3507-017 Page 5 of 7 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00006883 EFTA00158458 ED.302a (Rev 54.10) 50D-NY -3027571 Contsnual ion of ED.302 of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK .O, 10/19/2021 . ftsc 6 of 7 asked if he ever came to understand what was going on with EPSTEIN's case. BANASIAK remembers that EPSTEIN wasn't present on the day of the search warrant. BANASIAK called the New York office. They called him back and wanted BANASIAK to deliver the warrant papers to EPSTEIN's lawyer. BANASIAK believes he called after the warrant was done because police asked them to not make any calls. After the warrant, BANASIAK learned about what EPSTEIN was accused of in the papers and on TV. BANASIAK never talked to EPSTEIN about it. EPSTEIN didn't talk very friendly with the staff. If EPSTEIN wanted something to be done in the house he would tell the office and then they would tell BANASIAK. EPSTEIN spent the whole year traveling from one house to another (New York, New Mexico, Paris and Florida). EPSTEIN never stayed in Palm Beach for more than a week. After the warrant, they renovated the house. They rebuilt the walls and floor and EPSTEIN was not there during this time which was about 6-8 months. BANASIAK did not talk to EPSTEIN during this time. BANASIAK thought maybe EPSTEIN was in New York or other places. EPSTEIN showed up one day to appear in court in Palm Beach. This is the time BANASIAK saw him after the warrant. Since then BANASIAK learns that EPSTEIN pleads guilty and goes to jail. BANASIAK had picked EPSTEIN up at the airport. EPSTEIN stayed for 2-3 days prior to his court date. BANASIAK knew he was going to court because BANASIAK drove him to the court. BANASIAK read in the news that EPSTEIN plead guilty to solicitation of underage prostitution. BANASIAK was shocked when he learned this. BANASIAK has not seen anything that what EPSTEIN was accused of. BANASIAK knew they were coming and going but didn't see anyone being forced. If he would have known something was going on he would have said something. BANASIAK thought about changing his job. He even looked and called around. BANASIAK thought it was better to stay than to find another job. There wasn't a lot of work for BANASIAK to do with EPSTEIN because he was in jail. As time went on BANASIAK couldn't find anything better to work. BANASIAK was disappointed with EPSTEIN in what he was accused of. BANASIAK thinks it was wrong but he was settled down with his situation. After EPSTEIN got arrested, 3507-017 Page6of7 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00006884 EFTA00158459 FI:4302a (Rev 54-10) 50O-NY-3027571 ComthumiomofFD4402of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK O, 10/19/2021 " me 7 of 7 BANASIAK was told EPSTEIN cut 10% from everyone's pay. After EPSTEIN finished his sentence, he did not raise the employees back 10%. BANASIAK then seriously considered changing his job but nothing came up. The household manual was maybe given to BANASIAK by someone in the house but he is not sure who. BANASIAK doesn't know who wrote it. BANASIAK shared this manual with his coworkers. BANASIAK IS THEN SHOWN THE CHECKLISTS WITHIN THE HOUSEHOLD MANUAL BANASIAK recognizes the date and the signature portion. BANASIAK does not remember if he was ever asked to fill these out. BANASIAK remembers a copy of the manual being in the house but he is not sure where it was kept. 3507-017 Page 7 of 7 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00006885 EFTA00158460

EFTA00585420.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 25 pages

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JUDGE: HAFELE vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OMNIBUS MOTION IN LIMINE Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, herein moves for an Order in Limine precluding Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards") and his Counsel from making any mention or use of the below-listed items/matters/witness testimony at trial'. In support thereof, Epstein states: INTRODUCTION The pleadings in this matter establish that Mr. Edwards is intent on avoiding the actual facts he must prove to establish his sole remaining claim of Malicious Prosecution against Mr. Epstein. Instead, Edwards is seeking to present to the jury prior alleged bad acts of Epstein, completely separate and apart from the accusation made against Epstein in this lawsuit. Plaintiff has no evidence, nor can he prove, that Mr. Epstein lacked probable cause at the time he filed his lawsuit against Mr. Edwards. In its place, Edwards is creating a different case that relates, not to 1 This Motion only includes items known to Epstein as of the date of filing this Motion pursuant to this Court's Order in open Court on September 15, 2017, as them are still outstanding Discovery Motions and depositions scheduled for which an order in limine precluding evidence may be required. EFTA00585420 what information Mr. Epstein had or relied upon in filing suit, or any other element of his cause of action, but instead to irrelevant and unproven allegations made by others against Mr. Epstein; allegations or cases that have no bearing on the issues or elements of Malicious Prosecution. This motion in limine seeks to prohibit any reference to evidence at trial by first having its inadmissibility determined outside the presence of the jury. Rosa v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 636 So. 2d 60, 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The purpose of this motion in limine is to prevent Edwards from offering improper evidence at trial, the mere mention of which would be prejudicial. Buy-Low Save Ctrs., Inc. v. Glinert, 547 So. 2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Dailey v. Multicon Dev., Inc., 417 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Accordingly, a motion in limine is proper to exclude any irrelevant and immaterial evidence when its probative value is outweighed by prejudice. Devoe v. Western Auto Supply Co., 537 So. 2d 188, 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). A motion in limine is especially appropriate to preclude inadmissible evidence that will be highly prejudicial to the moving party and, if referenced in a question or by counsel, would unlikely be disregarded by the jury despite an instruction by the court to do so. Fischman v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).Consequently, in the case at hand, Epstein requests that this Court enter an Order precluding any reference to the below-listed matters/items in each sub-category. A. All of the Exhibits listed below. The items listed below that appear on Edwards's Trial Exhibit List are irrelevant to the case at hand pursuant to § 90.401 of the Florida Statutes, and to the extent that Edwards could argue that any are relevant, any alleged "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403 FLA. STAT. (2016); Dailey v. Multicon Development, Inc., 417 2 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585421 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). 'Unfair prejudice' has been described as 'an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.' This rule of exclusion 'is directed at evidence which inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions."' Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009). Additionally, it is well-settled law that evidence of prior convictions, acquittals or arrests is irrelevant in a civil action and thus inadmissible. Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Company, 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1956); Kelley v. Mutnich, 481 So. 2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). As such, Epstein's conviction, as well as any testimony or evidence of any other criminal investigation, is inadmissible. Here, the below-listed items undeniably have no bearing on Edwards's Malicious Prosecution claim against Epstein. In fact, the repeated references to "victim" in the list below prove that; as the only alleged victim in this matter is Mr. Edwards. While it is clear from Edwards's Exhibit List that Edwards would like to re-litigate his previous cases against Epstein, every other case in which Mr. Epstein was sued, and attempt to prejudice and infame the jury with criminal accusations, these items listed below are clearly intended to do little more than unfairly inflame and prejudice the jury with irrelevant information; none of which is necessary to a Malicious Prosecution case, or germane to the elements that Edwards must prove in this case to prevail. Finally, the below-listed items should also be excluded on the following grounds: Relevance; Prejudice; Confusion; Misleading; Hearsay; Impermissible/Inadmissible Character Evidence; and Impermissible/Inadmissible Evidence of other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts; Confidential Information of Third Parties; Confidential Financial Information; Vague; and Overbroad. 1. All applicable criminal statutes. 4. Video of Jeffrey Epstein's home and route from victim to Epstein's home. 3 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585422 5. Order confirmation from Amazon.com for purchase of books "SM 101: A Realistic Introduction," "Slave Craft: Roadmap for Erotic Servitude-Principles, Skills and Tools" and "Training Miss Abernathy: A Workbook for Erotic Slaves and TheirOvvners." 6. Non-Prosecution Agreement. 7. Jane Doe 102 Complaint. 8. Messages taken from message pads found at Epstein's home. 9. Documents related to Jeffrey Epstein produced by Alfredo Rodriguez. 24. Jeffrey Epstein flight logs. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 10. Jeffrey Epstein's phone records. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 11. phone records. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 12. Jail Visitation Logs. 13. Jeffrey Epstein's probation file. 14. All probable cause affidavits related to criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. 15. All evidence, information and documents taken or possessed by FBI related to criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. 16. Victims' statements to the FBI related to criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. 17. Video of Search Warrant of Jeffrey Epstein's home being executed. 18. Application for Search Warrant of Jeffrey Epstein's home. 19. All records of homes, properties, bank accounts and any and all records related to Jeffrey Epstein's assets. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. 20. List of corporations owned by Jeffrey Epstein. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. 25. All documents evidencing relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Jean Luc Brunel. 4 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• EFTA00585423  26. All documents evidencing relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and MC2 or any modeling agencies. 27. Yearbooks of Jane Doe. 28. 29. 30. 31. Affidavit and Application for Search Warrant on Jeffrey Epstein's home. 32. Tape recording or transcript of recording of conversation between Jeffrey Epstein and George Rush. 33. Notepads found in Jeffrey Epstein's home and/or during trash pulls outside of his home during criminal investigation. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. 34. The Palm Beach State Attorney's Criminal file against Jeffrey Epstein. 35. All documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's 6/30/08 conviction. 36. Jeffrey Epstein's criminal plea colloquy. 37. Public records from the Department of Corrections related to Jeffrey Epstein. 38. Records from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement related to Jeffrey Epstein. 39. All statements made by Jeffrey Epstein. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 40. List of properties and vehicles in Larry Visoski's name. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 41. All of Jeffrey Epstein's Responses to Requests for Production, Requests for Admission, Answers to Interrogatories in cases 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08- 80381, 08-80994, 08- 80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. 42. All discovery related responses of Jeffrey Epstein in cases 08-80119, 08-80232, 08- 80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09- 81092 43. Jeffrey Epstein's Answers and Affirmative Defenses in all civil cases against him. This 5 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• EFTA00585424  is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 44. All Complaints in which Jeffrey Epstein was a plaintiff or defendant. 45. Jeffrey Epstein's Deposition testimony and discovery responses in cases 08- 80119, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09- 80591, 09-80656, 09-80802,09-81092. 46. Jeffrey Epstein's Deposition testimony and discovery responses in State Court cases LM v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB and v. Jeffrey Epstein, M. Case No. 502008CP003626XXXXMB. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 47. Jeffrey Epstein's Deposition testimony and discovery responses in State Court case Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, et al. CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 48. Any and all newspaper articles, online articles or publications related to Jeffrey Epstein. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 49. Report and Analysis of Jeffrey Epstein's assets. Also objected to as irrelevant, Improper/Confidential financial information. 50. Video footage (DVD) of walk through site inspection of Jeffrey Epstein's home. Also objected to as irrelevant, Improper/Confidential financial information. 51. Photos of all of Jeffrey Epstein's properties, cars, boats and planes. Also objected to as irrelevant, Improper/Confidential financial information. 52. Probable Cause Affidavits prepared against Jeffrey Epstein and 53. Audio tape of 54. Photographs, videos and books taken in the search warrant of Jeffrey Epstein's home. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. 55. Documents related to or evidencing Jeffrey Epstein's donations to law enforcement. 56. Victim Notification Letter from US Attorney's Office to Victim. This is also so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case. 6 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7d. Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• EFTA00585425  57. Expert Dr. L. Dennison Reed's Report of Victim. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case, and this doctor is not listed as Edwards's doctor or as an expert witness in this matter. 58. Palm Beach Police Department Incident Report dated 4/20/06. 59. All reports and documentation generated by Palm Beach Police Department related to Jeffrey Epstein. 60. All Witness Statements generated by Palm Beach Police Department relating to Jeffrey Epstein. 61. Passenger Manifests of Jeffrey Epstein's aircraft and private plane flight logs. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 62. Passenger lists for flights taken by Jeffrey Epstein. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 63. Letter from Jeffrey Epstein to Alberto Pinto regarding house island project. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. 64. Jeffrey Epstein's bank statements. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. .* Jeffrey Epstein's tax returns (this item not numbered on Edwards's Trial Exhibit List). 65. MC2 emails involving communications of Jeffrey Epstein, Jeff Puller Pappas Suat, Jean Luc Brunel and Amanda Grant. 66. DVD of plea and colloquy taken on 6-30-08. 67. Transcript of plea and colloquy taken on 6-30-08. 68. Massage Table. 69. Lotions taken from Jeffrey Epstein's home during search warrant. 70. Computers taken from Jeffrey Epstein's home during search warrant. 71. Vibrators, dildos and other sex toys taken from Jeffrey Epstein's home during search warrant. 72. No Contact Orders entered against Jeffrey Epstein. 7 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• EFTA00585426  73. Criminal Score Sheet regarding Jeffrey Epstein. 74. Documents evidencing Jeffrey Epstein's Community Control and Probation. 75. Jeffrey Epstein's Sex Offender Registration. 76. Jeffrey Epstein's Booking photograph. 77. CAD calls 78. List of Jeffrey Epstein's House contacts. 79. Documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's investments. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. 80. Letter from Chief Michael Reiter to Barry Krischler. 81. List of planes owned by Jeffrey Epstein. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. 82. Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 1-11-06. 83. Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 1-13-06. 84. Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 2-17-06. 85. Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated4-6-06. 86. Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated4-10-06. 87. Letter from Goldberger dated 6-22-06. Also objected to as possible attorney/client privilege as there is no other identifying information regarding this letter, such as its addressee. 88. All subpoenas issued to State Grand Jury. 89. Documents related to the rental of a vehicle fot 90. Documents. 91. Documents related to property searches of Jeffrey Epstein's properties. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. 92. Arrest Warrant of 93. Police report regarding picking up money dated 11-28-04. 94. List of Trilateral Commission Members of 2003. 8 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• EFTA00585427  95. Alan Dershowitz Letter dated 4-19-06 and Statute 90.410. Also objected to as possible attorney/client privilege. 96. Guy Fronstin letter dated 4-17-06. Also objected to as possible attorney/client privilege. 97. Jeffrey Epstein Account Information. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. 98. Jeffrey Epstein Criminal Closeout Sheet. 99. Jeffrey Epstein Polygraph Test and Results. 100. Victim's GED testing information and results. Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case. 101. JEGE, Inc. Passenger Manifest. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 102. Hyperion Air Passenger Manifest. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 103. Flight information for 104. Passenger List Palm Beach flights 2005. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 105. Jeffrey Epstein notepad notes. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 106. Pleadings of Jane Doe 1 and 2 v. US case. 107. Jeffrey Epstein 5th Amendment Speech. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 108. Reiter letter to ICrisher dated 5-1-06. 109. Jail receipts of Jeffrey Epstein. 110. Police Report dated 11-28-04. 1 1 1. Compulsory Medial Examination of victim, CMA. Edwards is the only alleged victim 9 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7" Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• EFTA00585428  in this case. 112. Victim's school records and transcripts. Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case. 113. Victim Notification letter dated 7-9-08. Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case. 114. Victim's employment records from IHOP. Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case. 115. Police report of Juan Alessi theft at Jeffrey Epstein's home. 116. Victim's Medical Records from Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case. 117. Victim's Medical Records from Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case. 118. Victim's Medical Records from Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case. 119. Victim's Medical Records from . Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case. 120. Victim's Medical Records fro Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case. 121. All surveillance conducted by law enforcement on Jeffrey Epstein's home. 122. Emails received from Palm Beach Records related to Jeffrey Epstein. 123. All items listed on the Palm Beach Police Property Report Lists. 124. All items taken in the execution of the search warrant of Jeffrey Epstein's home: 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach FL 33480. 125. All copies of convictions related to Jeffrey Epstein. 126. Jeffrey Epstein criminal records. 127. All documents produced by Palm Beach Police Department prior to the deposition of Detective Recarey. 128. Photographs of all persons listed on Victims' Witness Lists Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case. 10 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• EFTA00585429  129. Statements, deposition transcripts, videotaped depositions and transcripts taken in connection with this and all related cases and exhibits thereto. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 130. Any and all expert witness reports and/or records generated in preparation for this litigation by any party to this cause. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 131. Curriculum vitae of Dr. Ryan Hall. 132. Any articles or publications of Dr. Ryan Hall. 133. Any articles or publications of Dr. Richard Hall. 134. Any articles or publications of Dr. L. Dennison Reed. 135. All items and documentation review by Dr. L. Dennison Reed. 136. Transcript and video (DVD) of IME of Victims. 137. All exhibits to Dr. L. Demlison Reed's Deposition. 138. All exhibits to Dr. Richard Hall's Deposition. 139. All items and documents reviewed by Dr. Richard Hall. 136. All items and documents reviewed by Dr. Ryan Hall. 137. Demonstrative aids and exhibits including, but not limited to, anatomical charts, diagrams and models, surveys, photographs and similar material including blow-ups of the foresaid items. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 138. All pleadings and attachments in the action under the Crime Victims Rights Act prosecuted by Bradley Edwards on behalf of victims of Epstein's criminal molestations. 139. All attachments to Edwards's Motion for SummaryJudgment. 140. All time records and hourly billing documentation produced in discovery. Also objected to unless and until such time as liability for attorneys' fees is determined. 141. All deposition testimony and discovery responses by Epstein submitted in this action. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. I Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7d. Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585430 142. All pleadings filed by Epstein in the Rothstein Bankruptcy Proceeding. 143. All submissions by Epstein in connection with the Rothstein deposition. 144. All Settlement Agreements between Epstein and victims of his sexual molestations. 145. Phone journal taken from Epstein's home and produced to the FBI by Alfredo Rodriguez. 146. Photo depicting Ghislaine Maxwell, and Prince Andrew. 147. Al flight logs for any Epstein owned or controlled aircraft. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 148. Epstein emails or correspondence with anyone related in any way to this case or related cases. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 149. Evidence of contributions to the Palm Beach Police Department. In addition to being irrelevant to the case at bench, many of the documents/items listed above are inadmissible hearsay. "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." § 90.801(c) FLA. STAT. (2014). Next, even assuming that Edwards could get past the hearsay nature of the documents themselves, the information contained within the documents listed above is also hearsay, for which there is not an exception, as many of them contain contents that are entirely based upon prior statements made by individuals and other extrinsic documents; all of which undeniably do not fall into an exception. See Reichenberg v. Davis, 846 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ("[t]he problem here is that, in both reports, the authors simply related the substance of what the witnesses had told the authors. These witness's statements, even though contained within the business records, do not fall within the exception, because they were not based upon the personal knowledge of an agent of the "business." Id. at 1234). See also Harris v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Com'n, 495 So. 2d 806, 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Van 12 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585431 Zant v. State, 372 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Accordingly, any hearsay documents, and any reference or testimony related thereto, should be excluded. Next, these documents listed above irrefutably contain opinion statements about Epstein who is party to, and possible witness in, this case, rendering it improper opinion testimony about the credibility of a witness. Alvarado v. State, 521 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), the court was faced with a similar issue, and in denying the admission of the information/documents, avowed: admission of the notice would have been similar to admitting an opinion by the State concerning Junior's character, truthfulness, and credibility. Such opinion testimony regarding a witness' reputation for truthfulness is clearly inadmissible. See Antone v. State, 382 So.2d 1205, 1213-14 (Fla. 1980) (holding improper a question of a witness which sought "to elicit the individual and personal view of the witness."); Hernandez v. State, 575 So.2d 1321, 1322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (holding that it was reversible error to admit testimony of police officers and teacher that sexual abuse victim was truthful. "A witness invades the jury's exclusive province when that witness gives his or her personal views of the credibility of another witness."); Alvarado v. State, 521 So.2d 180, 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (holding that an opinion of a witness concerning his or her belief as to the truthfulness of another witness "was clearly inadmissible."); Morrison v. State, 818 So.2d 432, 451 (Fla.2002) (holding that it was improper to allow personal opinion to establish reputation for truthfulness without laying a foundation based on knowledge of the witness' reputation in community for truthfulness); Wyatt v. State, 578 So.2d 811, 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding that section 90.405, Florida Statutes, does not permit opinion testimony regarding evidence of character); Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 405.2 at 258 ("Opinion testimony concerning a person's character has traditionally been inadmissible on the basis that it is too unreliable; it will be tainted by the underlying prejudice and bias of the person expressing the opinion."). Id. at 595-96. Finally, the above-listed documents would cause unfair prejudice. "'Unfair prejudice' has been described as `an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.' This rule of exclusion 'is directed at evidence which inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions.' Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 13 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585432 (Fla. 2009); Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 26 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). See also Canales v. Compania De Vapores ReaIma, S.A., 564 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (Any probative value of testimony about marriage proposal plaintiff purportedly made offering money to woman to many him so that he could avoid deportation, on issue of plaintiffs credibility, was far outweighed by its prejudicial effect); DeSantis v. Acevedo, 528 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (Probative value of the defendant's cross-examination of the plaintiff and his main witness about prior unrelated incidents that insinuated that both the plaintiff and the witness had been dishonest was outweighed by prejudicial nature of questions (emphasis added)). Consequently, the above referenced items should be excluded. B. Any Argument, Statement, Evidence, or Comment Related to the Criminal Charges to which Epstein Plead or any Alleged Criminal Investigation(s). Since it is inadmissible, irrelevant, and immaterial to this suit, Epstein requests that Edwards be precluded from using any pleading, testimony, remarks, questions, documents, exhibits, items, investigation results, or arguments related in any way to any criminal investigations, accusations, or criminal charges as related to Epstein that might inform the jury of such facts and that Edwards further instruct his witnesses to omit such facts from their testimony. It is rudimentary that evidence of prior convictions, acquittals or arrests are inadmissible; especially in a civil action. Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Company, 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1956); Kelley v. Mutnich, 481 So. 2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). As such, Epstein's conviction, as well as any testimony or evidence of any other criminal investigation, is inadmissible, as it is impermissibly being offered as "relevant solely to prove bad character" and would unduly inflame and prejudice the minds of the jury against Epstein. § 90.404(2) (a) FLA. STAT. (2016). "'Unfair prejudice' has been described as 'an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.' This rule of exclusion 'is directed at 14 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585433 evidence which inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions.' Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009); Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 26 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). "[E]ven if relevant, a trial court may not permit the collateral crime evidence to become an impermissible feature of the trial." Jacobs v. At!. Coast Ref, Inc., 165 So. 3d 714, 718 (Fla. 4th DCA. 2015), reh'g denied (June 9, 2015) (citing Durousseau v. State, 55 So.3d 543, 551 (Fla. 2010)). "Collateral crimes evidence becomes a feature of the trial when inquiry into the collateral crimes transcends the bounds of relevancy to the charge being tried and the prosecution devolves from development of facts pertinent to the main issue of guilt or innocence into an assault on the character of the defendant." Id. (citing Seavey v. State, 8 So. 3d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted)). As this Court is aware, this is a Malicious Prosecution case that Edwards is prosecuting against Epstein. As such, this information has no probative value whatsoever to the elements necessary to prove either Edwards's claim or Epstein's defense. Furthermore, the criminal charges to which Epstein plead are not related to the underlying cases that Edwards was prosecuting against Epstein, as Edwards's clients were not alleged victims in the criminal case. Moreover, the criminal charges had no bearing whatsoever on the undertakings by Edwards and his law partner Scott Rothstein while RRA was prosecuting the cases. Accordingly, any pleading, testimony, remarks, questions, documents, exhibits, items, investigation results, or arguments related in any way to any criminal investigations, accusations, or criminal charges related to Epstein should be precluded from trial. C. Any reference to Epstein's Assertion of his Fifth Amendment Privilege to Questions that were not Directly Related to the Elements or Defenses to this Cause of Action. Epstein did not assert any privilege or otherwise refuse to answer any question related to why he filed a lawsuit against Edwards. Rather, Epstein asserted his Fifth Amendment Privilege in response to discovery and deposition questioning in this matter when the requested 15 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585434 information concerned allegations of sexual exploitation of minors. While these questions were clearly designed to inflame and prejudice this case, said allegations are undeniably irrelevant to the case at hand pursuant to § 90.401 of the Florida Statutes, and to the extent that Edwards could possibly try to establish that this line of discovery is relevant, any alleged "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403 FLA. STAT. (2013); Dailey v. Multicon Development, Inc., 417 So.2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). "'Unfair prejudice' has been described as 'an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.' This rule of exclusion 'is directed at evidence which inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions.' Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009); Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 26 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Were any of the above facts made known to the jury, it would be highly improper and prejudicial to Epstein. Moreover, this evidence is being offered, impermissibly, "solely to prove bad character." Finally, the law is clear that a party cannot be found liable solely upon the basis of reliance on Fifth Amendment; there must be other evidence. Baxter v. Pahnigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976); Lasalle Banks Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 1995); National Acceptance Co.of America v. Bathalter, 705 F.2d 924 (7th Cir. 1963) (assertion of Fifth Amendment in an answer to a complaint does not constitute an admission of the allegations and does not relieve the plaintiff of the need to adduce proof). Here, Edwards is suing Epstein for Malicious Prosecution. When asked in deposition why he filed suit and upon what facts he based this decision, Epstein answered Edwards's questioning; he did not invoke his rights as to the issues germane to this litigation. See Deposition Transcript of Jef•ey Epstein. When Edwards's inquiry turned to questions regarding Epstein's criminal case and the facts surrounding any allegations made by 16 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585435 females against Epstein, which are irrefutably not an issue in this civil case (or even necessary to an element of Edwards's causes of action), Epstein asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege. Furthermore, as this Court is aware, Edwards is, and throughout this litigation has been, actively pursuing a quasi-criminal matter, Doe v. United States, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In the Doe Case, claimants, through Edwards, are seeking to rescind Mr. Epstein's non-prosecution agreement. Mr. Edwards's stated goal in the Doe case is to expose Mr. Epstein to comprehensive criminal liability. It is readily apparent from the pleadings, discovery requests, witness list, and exhibit list filed in this matter, that Edwards is doing, and has done, little more in this case than use it as a tool through which to re-litigate closed cases or attempt to circumvent rules and constitutional privileges afforded to Epstein in an effort to further his motives in the Doe case. In the instant action, Edwards also seeks to deflect attention away from the glaring deficiencies in his case in chief with immaterial and irrelevant depiction of Mr. Epstein as someone culpable of numerous federal criminal offenses involving sexual misconduct with minor females, several of whom Mr. Edwards intends to call as witnesses in his case-in-chief. See Exhibit and Witness list. As such, any reference to Epstein's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege regarding questions concerning these immaterial and irrelevant issues should not be admitted. D. The Use of any Derogating Adjectives when Referencing Epstein. Edwards has continually referenced Epstein by the use of provoking and offensive misnomers, such as "billionaire pedophile" or "convicted child molester." Such commentary is inappropriate, and if Edwards did so at trial it would irrefutably be done solely to impermissibly "inflame() the jury or appeal() improperly to the jury's emotions."' Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009). Such name-calling constitutes improper conduct by counsel and reversible 17 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• EFTA00585436 error. Schubert v. Allstate Ins. Co., 603 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (defense counsel's inflammatory and improper remarks to jury about plaintiff, his witnesses, and counsel warranted new trial.). Improper comments by trial counsel, even when not objected to at trial, constitute reversible error if they impair the jury's calm and dispassionate consideration of the evidence and result in an unfair trial. Moore v. Taylor Concrete & Supply Co., Inc., 553 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Nelson v. Reliance Insurance Co., 368 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). As such, preventing Edwards from doing so at the outset can avoid such issues. Likewise, Epstein's criminal conviction, and status as a registered sex offender, is inadmissible by law. Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Company, 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1956); Kelley v. Mutnich, 481 So. 2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). As such, Epstein's conviction, as well as any testimony or evidence of any other criminal investigation, is inadmissible, as it is impermissibly being offered as "relevant solely to prove bad character" and would unduly inflame and prejudice the minds of the jury against Epstein, as would any pejorative that Edwards may choose to use. § 90.404(2) (a) FLA. STAT. (2016). As explained above, Edwards seeks to depict Mr. Epstein as someone culpable of numerous federal criminal offenses involving sexual misconduct with minor females to further his pursuits in this case and in the Doe case. Consequently, such inapposite commentary from Edwards, his counsel, or his witnesses, is impermissible. Any Reference to any Cases Against Epstein Which were not Prosecuted by Bradley J. Edwards. While it foreseeable that a limited amount of the information regarding Edwards's prosecution of the three cases against Epstein could potentially be germane to the issues in this case, it would be impermissible to use any such information solely to impermissibly "inflame[] the jury or appeal[] improperly to the jury's emotions,"' or "solely to prove bad character." IS Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585437 Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009); Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 26 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Moreover, any mention of or use of information from any other case is absolutely improper, as such information is unfairly prejudicial. Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. Guilder, 23 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Long Term Care Found., Inc. v. Martin, 778 So. 2d 1100, 1102-03 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (allegations in a different lawsuit against defendant were not relevant and were highly prejudicial "under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, any relevance the complaint might have had was outweighed by the unfair prejudice against the center. The complaint contained bare allegations against the center in the form of rank hearsay."). "It is inconsistent with the notions of fair trial for the state to force a defendant to resurrect a prior defense against a crime for which the defendant is not on trial." Jacobs v. AtL Coast Ref, Inc., 165 So. 3d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA. 2015) (finding that "because the prior case was settled, none of the allegations therein were proven."). As seen from Edwards's trial witness list, and his exhibit list items above, it is apparent that he intends to use as much information from other cases as possible solely to impermissibly "inflame[] the jury or appeal[] improperly to the jury's emotions,"' or "solely to prove bad character." Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009); Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 26 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). "(I)f the introduction of the evidence tends in actual operation to produce a confusion in the minds of the jurors in excess of the legitimate probative effect of such evidence if it tends to obscure rather than illuminate the true issue before the jury then such evidence should be excluded." City of Miami v. Calandro, 376 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (citing Perper v. Edell, 44 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1949)). See also Agrofoliajes, S.A. v. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 48 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect when evidence improperly becomes focus of trial); Maldonado v. Allstate Ins. 19 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585438 Co., 789 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (probative value of bicyclist's status as an illegal alien was outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading of the jury, as the evidence and instruction concerning status as an illegal alien improperly changed the focus of the jury's attention). Indeed, Edwards has not even listed his own three clients for whom he was prosecuting the cases against Epstein while a partner at RRA as witnesses in his case in chief; further establishing his intent. ] A trial court's discretion in determining the relevancy of evidence "is limited by the rules of evidence and applicable case law." Thigpen v. United Parcel Servs., Inc., 990 So. 2d 639, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Johnston v. State, 863 So.2d 271, 278 (Fla.2003); Hayes v. Wal- Mart Stores, Inc., 933 So. 2d 124, 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Deville v. State, 917 So. 2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Dixon v. State, 911 So. 2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Reed v. State, 883 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice...." § 90.403 FLA. STAT. (2016). Here, these extrinsic cases are not relevant to the cause of action that Edwards has brought against Epstein and are merely intended to do little more than mislead the jury. F. Testimony From Any Witness Without Direct, Firsthand Knowledge And Relevant Testimony Relating To The Elements Of The Cause Of Action And Defense In This Case. It is evident from Edwards's discovery responses and pleadings filed in this matter that he would like to re-litigate his previous cases against Epstein, and by doing so attempt to inflame and unfairly prejudice the jury. Further evidence of this fact is readily ascertainable from Edwards's witness list, as many persons listed thereon have no connection to Edwards's Malicious Prosecution claim and their testimony is clearly irrelevant to the elements of such a claim. Their testimony is obviously intended to do little more than unfairly inflame and prejudice the jury with irrelevant information from Epstein's criminal case and prior civil cases; 20 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585439 not one of which is either a Malicious Prosecution case or a case in which Edwards was counsel of record. Moreover, the above-mentioned witnesses do not have personal knowledge of this matter as required by § 90.604 of the Florida Statutes, which states in pertinent part that "a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced which is sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter." § 90.401 Fla. Stat. (2014). Likewise, the Collateral Matter Rule states that litigation of purely collateral matters for the sole purpose of impeaching a party or witness is improper. Dempsey v. Shell Oil Co., 589 So. 2d 373, 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). A matter is considered collateral if it is not material and would not be admitted for any purpose other than the contradiction. Id. Thus, unless these witnesses have knowledge and can speak to what Epstein believed when he filed suit against Edwards, their testimony would be irrelevant and collateral. Nearly all of the witnesses listed by Edwards were involved in other cases, including the criminal case, against Epstein; cases that have no bearing on the issues in this matter. Accordingly, any information and testimony about such cases would be collateral and inadmissible. As such, Epstein seeks to exclude testimony from the following witnesses, as any testimony to be offered by these witness would be irrelevant, misleading, confusing, and prejudicial, as they lack any knowledge regarding the issue at hand in this matter; to wit: whether or not Jeffrey Epstein had the requisite cause to file suit against Edwards for his actions taken in cases Edwards and RRA were prosecuting against Epstein when the same cases were known to have been used by Rothstein and other then unnamed partners at RRA to perpetuate, and further, RRA's Ponzi Scheme: 2. 21 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585440  3. 4. 5. 6. 7. • 8. Detective Joseph Recarey 9. Chief Michael Reiter 10. John Connolly II. Charles Lichtman, Esquire 12. Antonio Figueroa (Tony) 13. Records Custodian of Palm Beach Police Department 14. Records Custodian of United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida 15. Records Custodian of the Federal Bureau of Investigations 16. Spencer Kuvin, Esquire 17. Theodore Leopold, Esquire 18. Rinaldo Rizzo 19. Adam Horowitz, Esquire 20. Isidro M. Garcia, Esquire 21. All of the Lawyers who Represented Victims of Jeffrey Epstein. This is so overbroad that

EFTA00229667.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 31 pages

Front Sent August 29, 20111:58 PM To: Subject RE: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) Hello Benjamin, Yes, that is correct. The investigations concerning Epstein, personally, arc the matters your office is recused. The CVRA matters, while stemming from matters involving Epstein, arc matters brought be other individuals and those matters may remain with your office. Please let me know if you would like to further discuss or if you have any questions, Thank you, Assistant General Counsel General Counsel's Office Executive Office for United States Attorneys 501 Third Street NW, Room 5500 Washington, D.C. 20530 Phone: 202.252.1576 - New Phone Number Fax: 202.252.1650 - New En Number Email: aMP4821' From: Sent: Monde Au u 11 12:26 PM To: Subject RE: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) Hi Richard, I hope the storms and Irene haven't affected you too badly. I wanted to make sure I am correct that this recusal from any new criminal investigation into does not affect SDFL's handling of the CVRA civil case pending before Judge Marra. I believe that Lee had discussed the potential for recusal in the CVRA matter with GC a while back and I am fairly certain that I discussed this with Jay earlier this year at the Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013248 EFTA00229667 NAC. In both instances, the resolution was that our Office could and should handle the CVRA matter. I wanted to make sure that is still the case. Thanks Richard. From: Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:32 PM To: Ferrer, Mired() A. (USAFLS); O Cc: Subject: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) MEMORANDUM FOR: Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida Robert E. O'Neill United States Attorney Middle District of Florida First Assistance United States Attorney Middle District of Florida THROUGH: General Counsel Executive Office for United States Attorneys FROM: Assistant General Counsel Executive Office for United States Attorneys 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013249 EFTA00229668 RE: Office-Wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida from the Investigation and Potential Prosecution of Mr, Jeffery Epstein (GCO File No. REC-I1-4159) THIS IS FORMAL NOTICE that David M, Associate Deputy Attorney General (ADAG), approved the office-wide recusal of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) from all matters, to include the investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual activities with minor females. The ADAG authorized this recusal in accordance with United States Attorney's Manual (USAM) 3-2,170 and United States Attorney's Procedures (USAP) 3-2.170.001 based upon existing conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest pertaining to the matter. ADAG has assigned this matter to the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 515(a), has directed and authorized United States Attorney Robert E. O'Neill to conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida is authorized by law to conduct regarding this matter. See USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(C)(2)(b). Each office should communicate directly with each other concerning the investigations related to this matter in accordance with the procedures outlined in USAP - . 70.001(6)(C)(2Xb)(3). The point of contact for the Middle District of Florida is Criminal Chief who can be contacted at (81 274-6000. The oint of contact for the Southern District of Florida is First Assistant United States Attorney who can be reached at (305) 961-9029. All Assistant United States Attorneys subsequently assigned to this matter must be appointed as Special Attorneys in order to appear on behalf of the government in the Southern District of Florida. See USAM. 3- 2.300 and USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(C)(21(b). Please contact Nicole West, EOUSA Personnel Staff, Policy and Special Programs Division, at (202) 252-5625 to obtain the appointments. In accordance with USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(CX21(b)(3), any Special Attorney assigned the matter or case should sign any pleadings or documents using the signature block of the Middle District of Florida, with the addition of the Attorney General's name preceding that of the United States Attorney. is If have any questions relating to this recusal matter, please contact Assistant General Counsel General Counsel's Office, EOUSA, at (202) 252-1576. Thank you. Thank you, Assistant General Counsel General Counsel's Office Executive Office for United States Attorneys 501 Third Street NW, Room 5500 Washington, D.C. 20530 Phone: 202.252.1576 - New Phone Number 3 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013250 EFTA00229669 Fax: 202.252.1650 - New Fax Number Email: 4 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013251 EFTA00229670  From: Sent: Wednesda Au ust 24 2011 7:29 PM To: Subject: RE: Recusal matter Thanks Richard. I appreciate it. Ben From: Seniaiiiiii 24, 2011 :11 PM To: Subject: RE: Recusal matter 1 kilo Benjamin, I just wanted to update you on the recusal matter involving the matter with Mr. Epstein. The MDFL has agreed to take the case. I will send out the formal notice shortly. n Tha From: Sent: Wednesd A st 03, 2011 10:20 AM To: Subject: RE: Hello We have analyzed facts of your recusal inquiry and sent a recusal request to the ADAG. I will keep you updated on the status of the request. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Thanks FrOr liMr Sent: Thursda Jul 28 20 1 6:52 PM To: Subject: Hi Richard, 1 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013252 EFTA00229671 Attached is a memo outlining (probably in exponentially more detail than you wanted) the background of the Jeffrey Epstein case and some of the reasons why it would probably be best for another district to handle any future investigation. As I mentioned, venue may lie in multiple districts, which may make it easier on whichever district ultimately handles the investigation. Thanks as always. First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 (305) 961-9029 « File: Epstein Conflict Memo amended.wpd » 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013253 EFTA00229672 From: Sent: Monde , Au ust 29, 2011 2:08 PM To: Subject: RE: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) Great. Thanks Richard. From: Sent: Monde Au ust 29, 2011 1:58 PM To: Subject: RE: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) Hello Benjamin. Yes, that is correct. The investigations concerning Epstein. personally, are the matters your office is recused. The CVRA matters, while stemming from matters involving Epstein, are matters brought be other individuals and those matters may remain with your office. Please let me know if you would like to further discuss or if you have any questions. Thank you, Assistant General Counsel General Counsel's Office Executive Office for United States Attorneys 501 Third Street NW. Room 5500 Washington. D.C. 20530 Phone: 102.252.1576 - New Phone Number Fax: 202.252.1650 - New Fax Number Email• vh A! 4c (41'64S' From: (USAFLS) Sent: Mon y, August 29, 2011 12:26 PM 1 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013254 EFTA00229673 To: Sub : RE: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) Hi I hope the storms and Irene haven't affected you too badly. I wanted to make sure I am correct that this recusal from any new criminal investigation into E stein does not affect SDFL's handling of the CVRA civil case pending before Judge Marra. I believe that a had discussed the potential for recusal in the CVRA matter with GC a while back and I am fairly certain that I discussed this with lay earlier this year at the NAC. In both instances, the resolution was that our Office could and should handle the CVRA matter. I wanted to make sure that is still the case. Thanks {Metro. el. From: Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:32 PM To: Ferrer Wifredo A. (USAFLS); O' • aniagi) Cc: David (WAG) OMD); Subject: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) MEMORANDUM FOR: Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida Robert E. O'Neill United States Attorney Middle District of Florida First Assistance United States Attorney Middle District of Florida THROUGH: General Counsel 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013255 EFTA00229674  Executive Office for United States Attorneys FROM: Assistant General Counsel Executive Office for United States Attorneys RE: Office-Wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida from the Investigation and Potential Prosecution of Mr. Jeffery Epstein (GCO File No. REC-1I 4159) THIS IS FORMAL NOTICE that David M, Associate Deputy Attorney General (ADAG), approved the office-wide recusal of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) from all matters, to include the investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual activities with minor females. The ADAG authorized this recusal in accordance with United States Attorney's Manual (USAM) 3-2.170 and United States Attorney's Procedures (USAP) 3-2.170.001 based upon existing conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest pertaining to the matter. ADAG has assigned this matter to the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 4 515(a), has directed and authorized United States Attorney Robert E. O'Neill to conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida is authorized by law to conduct regarding this matter. See USAP 3-2.170.001(61(O(2)(b). Each office should communicate directly with each other concerning the investigations related to this matter in accordance with the procedures outlined in - 0.001(6XO(21(b)(3). The point of contact for the Middle District of Florida is Criminal Chief who can be contacted at (813 274-6000. The oint of contact for the Southern District of Florida is First Assistant United States Attorney who can be reached at (305) 961-9029. All Assistant United States Attorneys subsequently assigned to this matter must be appointed as Special Attorneys in order to appear on behalf of the government in the Southern District of Florida. See USAM. 3- 2.300 and USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(CX2)0). Please contact Nicole West, EOUSA Personnel Staff, Policy and Special Programs Division, at (202) 252-5625 to obtain the appointments. In accordance with USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(CX2)(bX3), any Special Attorney assigned the matter or case should sign any pleadings or documents using the signature block of the Middle District of Florida, with the addition of the Attorney General's name preceding that of the United States Attorney. iis have any questions relating to this recusal matter, please contact Assistant General Counsel General Counsel's Office, EOUSA, at (202) 252-1576. Thank you. Thank you, Assistant General Counsel 3 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013256 EFTA00229675 General Counsel's Office Executive Office for United States Attorneys 501 Third Street NW, Room 5500 Washington, D.C. 20530 Phone: 202.252.1576 - New Phone Number Fax: 202.252.1650 - New Fax Number Email: 2usikisgoy 4 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013257 EFTA00229676 From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesda , Au ust 03, 2011 12:47 PM To: Cc: Sanchez, Eduardo (USAFLS); Stamm, Edward (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS); Nucci, Edward (USAFLS); IMI ■ a Subject: Re: Great. Thanks Richard. From: Sent: Wedn 03, 2011 10:20 AM To: (USAFLS) Sub ect: RE: Hello Benjamin, We have analyzed facts of your recusal inquiry and sent a recusal request to the ADAG. I will keep you updated on the status of the request. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Thanks From: (USAFLS) Sent: urs 1 6:52 PM To: Subject: Hi Richard, Attached is a memo outlining (probably in exponentially more detail than you wanted) the background of the Jeffrey Epstein case and some of the reasons why it would probably be best for another district to handle any future investigation. As I mentioned, venue may lie in multiple districts, which may make it easier on whichever district ultimately handles the investigation. Thanks as always. Ben First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 1 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013258 EFTA00229677 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 (305) 961-9029 « File: Epstein Conflict Memo amended.wpd » 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013259 EFTA00229678 From: Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:32 PM To: Ferrer, Wifredo A. (USARS); O'Neill, Robert (USAFLM); (USARS); (USAFLM) Cc: David (ODAG) (JMD); Subject: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) MEMORANDUM FOR: Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida Robert E. O'Neill United States Attorney Middle District of Florida First Assistance United States Attorney Middle District of Florida THROUGH: General Counsel Executive Office for United States Attorneys FROM: Assistant General Counsel 1 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013260 EFTA00229679  Executive Office for United States Attorneys RE: Office-Wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida from the Investigation and Potential Prosecution of Mr. Jeffery Epstein (GC° File No. REC-I14159) THIS IS FORMAL NOTICE that David MI, Associate Deputy Attorney General (ADAG), approved the office-wide recusal of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) from all matters, to include the investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual activities with minor females. The ADAG authorized this recusal in accordance with United States Attorney's Manual (USAM) 3-2.170 and United States Attorney's Procedures (USAP) 3-2.170.001 based upon existing conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest pertaining to the matter. ADAG has assigned this matter to the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 515(a), has directed and authorized United States Attorney Robert E. O'Neill to conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida is authorized by law to conduct regarding this matter. See USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(C)(2)(b). Each office should communicate directly with each other concerning the investigations related to this matter in accordance with the procedures outlined in - 0.001(6)(C)(2X6)(3). The point of contact for the Middle District of Florida is Criminal Chief who can be contacted at ( t of contact for the Southern District of Florida is First Assistant United States Attorney who can be reached at (305) 961-9029. All Assistant United States Attorneys subsequently assigned to this matter must be appointed as Special Attorneys in order to appear on behalf of the government in the Southern District of Florida. See USAM. 3- 2.300 and USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(C)(2)(14 Please contact Nicole West, EOUSA Personnel Staff, Policy and Special Programs Division, at (202) 252-5625 to obtain the appointments. In accordance with USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(O(2)(b)(3), any Special Attorney assigned the matter or case should sign any pleadings or documents using the signature block of the Middle District of Florida, with the addition of the Attorney General's name preceding that of the United States Attorney. have any questions relating to this recusal matter, please contact Assistant General Counsel is , General Counsel's Office, EOUSA, at (202) 252-1576. Thank you. Thank you, Assistant General Counsel General Counsel's Office Executive Office for United States Attorneys 501 Third Street NW, Room 5500 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013261 EFTA00229680 Washington, D.C. 20530 Phone: 202.252.1576 - New Phone Number Fax: 202.252.1650 - New Fax Number Email: 3 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013262 EFTA00229681 From: Sent Frida . Ju 29, 2011 4:35 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject Re: Thank you, I am out of the office today and will review this on Monday. Thanks again. Rich From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda Ju 28 2011 06:52 PM To: Subject: Hi Richard, Attached is a memo outlining (probably In exponentially more detail than you wanted) the background of the Jeffrey Epstein case and some of the reasons why it would probably be best for another district to handle any future investigation. As I mentioned, venue may lie in multiple districts, which may make it easier on whichever district ultimately handles the investigation. Thanks as always. Ben First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 (305) 961-9029 «Epstein Conflict Memo amended wpd» Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013263 EFTA00229682 From: (USAFLS) Sent Frida , Ju 29, 20114:43 PM To: Subject: RE: Great. Have a good weekend. From: Sent Ju 29 2011 4:35 PM To: (USAFLS) Sub : Re: Thank you, I am out of the office today and will review this on Monday. Thanks again. Rich From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda Jul 28 2 I 06:52 PM To: Subject: Hi Richard, Attached is a memo outlining (probably in exponentially more detail than you wanted) the background of the Jeffrey Epstein case and some of the reasons why it would probably be best for another district to handle any future investigation. As I mentioned, venue may lie in multiple districts, which may make it easier on whichever district ultimately handles the investigation. Thanks as always. Ben First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 (305) 961-9029 «Epstein Conflict Memo amended.wpd» 1 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013264 EFTA00229683 From: (USAFLS) Sent Thursda Jul 28 2011 6:52 PM To: Attachments: Epstein Conflict Memo amended.wpd Hi Richard, Attached is a memo outlining (probably in exponentially more detail than you wanted) the background of the Jeffrey Epstein case and some of the reasons why it would probably be best for another district to handle any future investigation. As I mentioned, venue may lie in multiple districts, which may make it easier on whichever district ultimately handles the investigation. Thanks as always. Ben First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 (305) 961-9029 «Epstein Conflict Memo amended.wpd» Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013265 EFTA00229684 Memorandum Subjccl Dale Re: Jeffrey Epstein Investigation July 26, 2011 To From , First Assistant U.S. Attorney I. Introduction This memorandum summarizes the conflict of interest related to the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") of additional crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). The memo begins with a brief overview of the original investigation of Epstein, dubbed "Operation Leap Year"; summarizes the resolution of Operation Leap Year by the Southern District of Florida; and addresses the events following the resolution of Operation Leap Year, including the basis for the conflict. Lastly, the memo briefly addresses the additional crimes that the FBI wants to investigate. II. "Operation Leap Year" The investigation of Jeffrey Epstein initially was undertaken by the City of Palm Beach Police Department in response to a complaint received from the parents of a 14-year- old girl, from Royal Palm Beach. Whe and another girl began fighting at school because the other girl accused of being a prostitute, one of the school principals intervened. The principal searched urse and found $300 cash. The principal asked where the money came from. initial! claimed that she earned the money working at "Chik-Fil-A," which no one believed. then claimed that she made the money selling drugs; no one believed that either. finiliinitted that she had been paid $300 to give a massage to a man on Palm Beach island. parents approached the Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") about pressing charges. PBPD be an investi atin t e ' • e massage, Jeffrey Epstein, and two of his assistants, and . PBPD identified 27 girls who went to Epstein's house to perform "massage services" (not including one licensed massage therapist). The girls' ages ranged from 14 years' old to 23 years' old. Some girls saw Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013266 EFTA00229685 Epstein only once and some saw him dozens of times. The "massage services" performed also varied. Some girls were fully clothed while they massaged Epstein; some wore only their underwear; and some were fully nude. During all of these massages, Epstein masturbated himself and he would touch the girl performing the massage, usually fondling their breasts and touching their vaginas — either over their clothing or on their bare skin. Epstein often used a vibrator to masturbate the girls and digitally penetrated a number of them. For the girls who saw him more often, Epstein duated to oral sex and vaginal sex. Epstein sometimes brought his assistant/ irlfriend, into the sexual activity. One of the girls described as Epstein's "sex slave". On October 18, 2005, PBPD obtained a search warrant with the assistance of the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office ("PBSAO"). By this time, PBSAO had already been contacted by Epstein's cadre of lawyers. When PBPD arrived at Epstein's home two days later (10/20/05) to execute the search warrant, they found several items conspicuously missing. For example, computer monitors and keyboards were found, but the CPUs were gone.' Similarly, surveillance cameras were found, but they were disconnected and the videotapes were gone. Nonetheless, the search did recover some evidence of value, including message pads showing messages from many girls over a two year span. The messages show girls returning phone calls to confirm appointments to "work." Messages were taken by three of Epstein's "personal assistants." Photographs taken inside the home showed that the girls' descriptions of the layout of the home and master bedroom/bathroom area were accurate. PBPD also found massage tables and oils, the high school transcript of one of the girls, and sex toys. In sum, the PBPD investigation showed that girls from Royal Palm Beach High School would be contacted by one ofEpstein's assistants to make an appointment to "work." Up to three appointments each day would be made. The girls would travel to Epstein's home in Palm Beach where they would meet Epstein's chefand Epstein's assistant—usually - --in the kitchen. The assistant would escort the girls upstairs to the master bedroom/bathroom area and set up the massage table and massage oils. The girl sometimes was instructed to remove her clothing. The assistant would leave and Epstein would enter the room wearing a robe. He would remove the robe and lie face down and nude on the 'During a meeting, two of Epstein's attorneys, Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Ann Sanchez, admitted that attorney Roy Black instructed Epstein to have the CPUs removed although they insisted that those instruction were given well in advance of the execution of the search warrant — not in response to a "leak." 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013267 EFTA00229686 massage table. Epstein would then instruct the girl on what to do and would ask her to remove her clothing. After some time, Epstein would turn over, so that he was lying face up. Epstein would masturbate himselfand fondle the girl performing the massage. WhenEpstein climaxed, the massage was over, and the girl was instructed to get dressed and to go downstairs to the kitchen while Epstein showered. Epstein's assistant would be in the kitchen and the girl would be paid—usually $200—and if it was a "new" girl, the assistant would ask for the girl's phone number to contact her in the future.' Girls were encouraged to find other girls to bring with them. If a girl brought another girl to perform a "massage," each girl would receive $200. Each time a girl returned to the house, Epstein would pressure the girl to go further sexually, advancing to oral sex and sexual intercourse. Epstein would pay more for these acts — in the words of one girl, "the more you do, the more you make." The PBPD investigation consisted primarily ofsworn taped statements from the girls. When PBPD began having problems with PBSAO, they approached the FBI. The investigation was formally presented to the FBI and to the U.S. Attorney's Office after PBSAO "presented" the case to a state grand jury and the state grand jury returned an indictment chargingEpstein only with one felony count ofsolicitation of[adult) prostitution. After the matter was presented to the U.S. Attorney's Office and there was a determination that federal statutes had been violated, FBI, ICE, and the U.S. Attorney's Office opened files. The federal investigation focused on the interstate nexus required for all of the federal violations, so a number of grand jury subpoenas were issued for telephone records, flight manifests, and credit card records. The federal agents also re-interviewed some of the girls. The agents delved into Epstein's history and interviewed other girls and obtained records to corroborate the girls' stories. FBI also interviewed girls who came forward after the PBSAO indictment was reported in the papers and the additional girls identified through those interviews. The attempt to handle secretly the federal case was doomed from the start when the Chief of the Palm Beach Police Department gave a letter to each of the victims identified through his investigation telling them that, because ofhis disappointment in the way that the PBSAO had handled the case, the matter had been referred to the FBI. Almost immediately, Epstein's attorneys began calling to request a meeting with the U.S. Attorney's Office. When one attorney was unable to schedule a meeting, Epstein hired another attorney who called up the chain of command until someone agreed to a meeting. 'Sometimes Epstein made the payment and asked for the phone number, sometimes it was the assistant. 3 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013268 EFTA00229687  Between January and May 2007, an indictment package was prepared, charging Epstein and three ofhis personal assistants with a number ofchild exploitation offenses. The case agent made several appearances before the grand jury. Attorneys for Epstein made several presentations to the U.S. Attorney's Office to convince the Office not to prosecute, and made allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against the line Assistant and the First Assistant U.S. Attorney. Epstein also challenged the legal analysis behind the prosecution, both within the U.S. Attorney's Office (up to the U.S. Attorney) and to the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section at the Justice Department. All of Epstein's challenges were considered and rejected. HI. The Resolution of "Operation Leap Year" On September 24, 2007, Epstein signed a Non-Prosecution Agreement wherein the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District ofFlorida promised not to prosecute Epstein for the crimes that were the subject ofthe grandjury investigation if: (1) he pled guilty to two crimes in state court — the state felony prostitution charge and a state charge of procuring minors into prostitution, which would require Epstein to register as a sex offender; (2) he were sentenced to at least 18 months' imprisonment, and (3) he agreed to pay damages to the victims ofhis offenses. After signing this Agreement, Epstein and his counsel decided that they were dissatisfied with its terms, and again complained to the Justice Department, seeking review to the Deputy Assistant Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. After those attempts also failed, on June 30, 2008, Epstein entered his guilty plea in state court and began serving his sentence. IV. Post-Resolution Events A few days before the plea and sentencing (in state court those occur on the same day), the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the matter contacted counsel for three ofEpstein's identified victims and informed him of the upcoming court date, encouraging his clients to attend and be heard. They did not appear. On July 7, 2008, two of those victims filed suit against the United States in federal court claiming that their rights had been violated under the Crime Victims' Rights Act because they had not been consulted before the Office entered into the Non-Prosecution Agreement. (This will be referred to as the "CVRA Action.") After an initial flurry of activity, the Petitioners obtained a copy of the confidential Non-Prosecution Agreement, and the Court ordered that it be shared with all of the identified victims. After it was provided, the Petitioners and most ofEpstein's victims focused on their 4 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013269 EFTA00229688 civil suits against him. In 2009, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Fort Lauderdale initiated an investigation into a Ponzi scheme operated by Scott Rothstein through his law firm. As part of his Ponzi scheme, Rothstein told investors that his law firm represented several of Epstein's victims and that Epstein was willing to pay huge sums of money to avoid exposing his criminal activities. The attorney representing the victims in the CVRA Action, Brad Edwards ("Edwards"), worked at the Rothstein firm. Epstein sued Edwards, alleging that Edwards was part of the Ponzi scheme, and alleging that Edwards' attempts to subpoena some of Epstein's high-powered friends were done to increase the value of the Ponzi scheme, rather than for legitimate discovery purposes. In the summer of 2010, most of the civil suits against Epstein were settled, including the suits filed by the two victims in the CVRA Action. All of the settlements were confidential, so it is unknown how much each of the victims received. In September 2010, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra, who handled most ofthe civil cases and the CVRA Action, issued an Order closing the CVRA Action. Almost immediately thereafter, the Petitioners filed a Motion to Reopen, stating that they had obtained discovery through their civil suits against Epstein that showed that the U.S. Attorney's Office had violated their rights as victims. For several months, attempts were made to resolve the matter. In short, the victims have asked that the U.S. Attorney's Office disavow the Non-Prosecution Agreement, on the basis that the CVRA was violated, and bring charges against Epstein. Edwards has said that one of his clients repeatedly calls and asks him when Epstein is going to jail. One of the other attorneys on the case has suggested that emails he considers to be embarrassing to the Office will not be disclosed if we re-open our investigation of Epstein and prosecute him. Herein lies the conflict. If the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida re-initiates a grand jury investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, it will be perceived — correctly or incorrectly — as having been done at the insistence of the victims in the CVRA Action. And Epstein will allege that any prosecution arising therefrom will have been undertaken in an effort to resolve the CVRA Action, not based upon the merits of the investigation itself. I. The FBI's Current Investigation 5 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013270 EFTA00229689  The main focus of the FBI's current investigation is a victim, =, who refined to speak with agents during the "Operation Leap Year" investigation. Based upon her debriefing, Epstein engaged in several additional crimes in the Southern District of Florida and, more important! in several other Districts, with and other minor females. Epstein transported n his private airplanes to engage in sexual activity with him. Epstein also "pimped" to several of his other important friends, and transported her to those sexual encounters. This activity was not part of the initial investigation. also reported that, during the "Operation Leap Year" investigation, she was contacted by Epstein's investigators, lawyers, and Epstein himself, and offered payment to remain silent when contacted by the police. FBI agents are seeking grand jury subpoenas at this time to corroborate statement. They also are asking for permission to approach one of Epstein's "personal assistants," who was served with a target letter during the "Operation Leap Year" investigation, to give her a "de-target" letter and interview her. There are several other Districts that may have jurisdiction over the additional crimes under investigation. Epstein lived and still lives in the Southern District of New York; he engaged in sexual activity with in the S.D.N.Y.; and it is believed that he made the calls from the S.D.N.Y. to wherein he offered to pay her to keep her from speaking to law enforcement. When Epstein would fly into and out of New York, however, he used the airport in Teterboro, New Jersey, so the District of New Jersey also has jurisdiction over charges related to traveling in interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct and transporting minors in interstate commerce. reported that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with her on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands and also had her engage in sexual activity with one of his friends on that island, so the District of the Virgin Islands also would have jurisdiction. also reported frequent sexual activity with Epstein in the District of New Mexico and the Central District ofCalifornia. In both of those Districts there is evidence (from or other witnesses) of Epstein engaging in illegal sexual activity with other underage victims, as well. 6 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013271 EFTA00229690 From: Sent Frida , December 17, 2010 12:45 PM To: Subject: RE: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation As your office is, from my understanding, will be looking to have this CVRA suit dismissed, consistent with DoJ's position in other similar cases, under 12(b)(6) or equivalent because the plaintiffs did not have rights under the CVRA as no formal charge was filed, there is not, at present, a need for your office to be recused. If/when this changes and more substantive work may be involved (e.g. if a judge does not dismiss under this procedural bar), we can revisit. Have a good holiday. - Peter From: 16, 2010 4:28 PM To: Subject: Re: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation Peter, That is correct. From: 16, 2010 02:43 PM To: Subject: RE: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation I take it by your schedule, that nothing is pressing on this allowing it to be handled, if recusal is necessary, the week leading up to New Year's (27-30'1 )? - Peter From: USAEO-GCO Duty Sent: Thursda Decem r 16, 2010 11:15 AM To: Cc: Subject FW: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013272 EFTA00229691 Peter- Please see duty matter below. Thank you. Lorene Th Froa p... Sent: urs ay, ember 16, 2010 10:38 AM To: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Jacobus, Wendy (USAFLS) or Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation We are seeking guidance and advice from EOUSA General Counsel on whether this Office can continue to represent the government in the defense of a Crime Victims Rights Act lawsuit, Jane Does 1 and 2'. United States, Case No. 08.80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.), in light of a request by Paul Cassell, counsel for the victims, asking for an investigation of this office into what they claim is a "suspicious" criminal case and potential improper influence of this Office. In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein, a multi- millionaire investor living in Palm Beach, was enticing underage girls into prostitution. Epstein was alleged to have paid underage girls to provide him with massages, while the young girls were unclothed. The case was referred to the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office, and the FBI began its own investigation. Epstein hired a number of highly-paid attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, to attempt to stave off criminal charges. Ultimately, in 2007, Epstein was charged in state court with soliciting minors for prostitution. In September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein, in which he agreed to plead guilty to the state criminal charge, and serve a sentence of 18 months. Epstein also agreed that, in any civil action under 18 U.S.C. 2255 by the underage victims, he would not raise the lack of a federal sex offense as a defense. In July 2008, Epstein plead guilty, and was sentenced to serve six months at the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, followed by 12 months in home detention. In July 2008, after the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been executed, two victims, TM and CW, filed an action under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. They claimed that the government was obligated, under 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(5), to speak with the victims prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. An emergency hearing was held on July 11, 2008, before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra. Since Epstein had entered his state court plea and been sentenced already, the court found there was no emergency. He directed the parties to meet and determine if there were any factual disputes and whether an evidentiary hearing would be necessary. Attorney Brad Edwards initially represented the victims. Soon, he was joined by Paul Cassell, a University of Utah law professor, and former federal judge who served in the District of Utah from 2002-2007. Cassell is a victims' rights advocate who has appeared in many cases throughout the United States. The victims' rights suit was inactive for the next two years, with Edwards and Cassell using the civil suit as a means to attempt to gain access to information helpful in their civil actions for damages against Epstein. They were able to obtain a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement through the civil litigation. In August 2010, the district court, noting that the last civil suit had been settled, entered an order closing the case. Edwards and Cassell immediately filed documents with the court, advising that the case should not be closed or dismissed, and they wanted to pursue final action by the court. Since September 2010, AUSA and I have been dealing with Cassell and Edwards on how to resolve the case. They claim the victims had a right to be consulted prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and that we 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013273 EFTA00229692 violated the CVRA by not consulting them. The remedy they seek is a set aside by the court of the Non- Prosecution Agreement, and a prosecution of Epstein. On December 10, 2010, United States Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer, First Assistant M e and I, met with Cassell, Edwards, and CW, one of the victims. We discussed the posture of the case, and CW told us her views of what occurred and her desire to see Epstein receive justice for what he did. Cassell presented U.S. Attorney Ferrer a four-page letter, requesting an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. A copy of Cassell's letter is attached. He claims there may have been improper influence exercising by Epstein, noting that Epstein is a "politically-connected billionaire." Cassell cites to an alle ed ti off to Epstein that a search warrant on his residence was to be executed; that a former AUSA, left the West Palm Beach office and soon began appearing on behalf of individuals aligned with Epstein; and an unprecedented level of secrecy between the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, where the FBI was purportedly kept in the dark about the impending Non-Prosecution Agreement. He also claims that the victims were deceived regarding the existence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Cassell's request for an investigation was referred to DOJ OPR on December 16, 2010. We are concerned whether the victims' allegations of potential misconduct by our office, that we were improperly influenced by a wealthy individual into granting an extremely generous agre

EFTA00729910.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 38 pages

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.: 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMEAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Defendant Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., offers the following specific facts as the undisputed material facts in this case. Each of the following facts is numbered separately and individually to facilitate Epstein's required compliance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) ("The adverse party shall identify . . . any summary judgment evidence on which the adverse party relies."). Sexual Abuse of Children By Epstein 1. Defendant Epstein has a sexual preference for young children. Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, Mar. 17, 2010, at 110 (hereinafter "Epstein Depo.") (Deposition Attachment #1).1 2. Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted more than forty (40) young girls on numerous 1 When questioned about this subject at his deposition, Epstein invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent rather than make an incriminating admission. Accordingly, Edwards is entitled to the adverse inference against Epstein that, had Epstein answered, the answer would have been unfavorable to him. "[I]t is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege — at least not in a civil setting." Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. App. 1993). EFTA00729910 occasions between 2002 and 2005 in his mansion in West Palm Beach, Florida. These sexual assaults included vaginal penetration. Epstein abused many of the girls dozens if not hundreds of times. Epstein Depo. at 109 ("Q: How many times have you engaged in oral sex with females under the age of 18?" A: [Invocation of the Fifth Amendment]); Deposition of Jane Doe, September 24, 2009 and continued March 11, 2010, at 527 (minor girl sexually abused at least 17 times by Epstein) (hereinafter "Jane Doe Depo") (Deposition Attachment #2); id. 564-67 (vaginal penetration by Epstein with his finger), 568 (vaginal penetration by Epstein with a massager); Deposition of a, September 24, 2009, at 73 (hereinafter "El Depo") (Deposition Attachment #3) (describing the manner in which Epstein abused her beginning when was 13 years old, touching her vagina with his fingers and vibrator) at 74, line 12-13 (she was personally molested by Epstein more than 50 times), at 164, line 19-23 and 141, line 12-13 and 605, line 3-6 (describing that in addition to being personally molested by Epstein she was paid $200 per underage girl she brought Epstein and she brought him more than seventy (70) underage girls - she told him that she did not want to bring him any more girls and he insisted that she continue to bring him underage girls); Deposition of a May 6, 2010 (hereinafter "El Depo") (Deposition Attachment #4) at 115-116, 131 and 255 (describing Epstein's abuse of her beginning at age 14 when he paid her for touching her vagina, inserting his fingers and using a vibrator and he also paid her $200 for each other underage female brought him to molest. She brought him between 20 and 30 underage females); Deposition of Jane Doe #4, date (hereinafter "Jane Doe #4 Depo") (Deposition Attachment #5) at 32-34, and 136 (she describes first being taken to Epstein at 15 years old, "Being fingered by him, having him use a vibrator on [me], grabbing my nipples, smelling my butt, jerking off in front of me, licking my clit, several times."). 2 EFTA00729911  3. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to conclude and did conclude2 that Epstein was able to access a large number of underage girls through a pyramid abuse scheme in which he paid underage victims $200-$300 cash for each other underage victim that she brought to him. See Palm Beach Police Incident Report at 87 (hereinafter "Incident Report") (Exhibit "A").3 The Palm Beach Police Incident Report details Epstein's scheme for molesting underage females. Among other things, the Incident Report outlines some of the experiences of other Epstein victims. When a 14 year old minor at the time, was brought to Epstein's home, she was taken upstairs by a woman she believed to be Epstein's assistant. The woman started to fix up the mom, putting covers on the massage table and bringing lotions out. The "assistant" then left the room and told e. that Epstein would be up in a second. Epstein walked over to s. and told her to take her clothes off in a stem voice. states in the report she did not know what to do, as she was the only one there. D. took off her shirt, leaving her bra on. Epstein, then in a towel told her to take off everything. removed her pants leaving on her thong panties. Epstein then instructed S.G to give him a massage. As gave Epstein a massage, Epstein turned around and masturbated. gt. was so disgusted, she did not say anything; Epstein told her she "had a really hot body." Id. at 14. In the report, fl. admitted seeing Jeffrey Epstein's penis and stated she thought Epstein was on steroids because he was a "really built guy and his wee wee was very tiny." Id. at 15. 4. The exact number of minor girls who Epstein assaulted is known only to Epstein. However, Edwards had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epstein's victims were substantially more than forty (40) in number. In addition to the deposition excerpts from two of his many victims above about the number of underage girls brought to Epstein and the Palm Beach 2 In support of all assertions concerning the actions Edwards took, what Edwards learned in the course of his representation of his clients, Edwards's good faith beliefs and the foundation for those beliefs, see Edwards Affidavit and specifically paragraphs 25 and 25 of that Affidavit. For clarity, depositions attached to this memorandum will be identified numerically as attachments #1, #2, #3, etc., while exhibits attached to this memorandum will be identified alphabetically as exhibits A, B, C, etc. 3 EFTA00729912 incident report, there is overwhelming proof that the number of underage girls molested by Epstein through his scheme was in the hundreds. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein, (hereinafter Jane Doe 102 complaint) (Exhibit "B"); see also Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, April 14, 2010, at 442, 443, and 444 (Epstein invoking the 5th on questions about his daily abuse and molestation of children) (Deposition Attachment #6). 5. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epstein and his attorneys knew of the seriousness of the criminal investigation against him and corresponded constantly with the United States Attorney's Office in an attempt to avoid the filing of numerous federal felony offenses, which effort was successful. See Correspondence from U.S. Attorney's Office to Epstein (hereinafter "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence") (Composite Exhibit "C) (provided in discovery during the Jane Doe v. Epstein case). 6. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that, more specifically, Epstein's attorneys knew of Epstein's scheme to recruit minors for sex and also knew that these minors had civil actions that they could bring against him. In fact, there was much communication between Epstein's attorneys and the United States Prosecutors in a joint attempt to minimize Epstein's civil exposure. For example, on October 3, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney- _ sent an email (attached hereto as Exhibit "D") to Jay Lefkowitz, counsel for Epstein, with attached proposed letter to special master regarding handling numerous expected civil claims against Epstein. The letter reads in pertinent part, "The undersigned, as counsel for the United States of America and Jeffrey Epstein, jointly write to you to provide information relevant to your service as a Special Master in the selection of an attorney to represent several young women who may have civil damages claims against Mr. Epstein. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (jointly referred to as the "United States") have conducted an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein regarding his solicitation of minor females in Palm Beach County to engage in prostitution. Mr. Epstein, through his assistants, would recruit underage females to travel to his home in Palm Beach to 4 EFTA00729913  engage in lewd conduct in exchange for money. Based upon the investigation, the United States has identified forty (40) young women who can be characterized as victims pursuant to 18 USC 2255. Some of those women went to Mr. Epstein's home only once, some went there as much as 100 times or more. Some of the women's conduct was limited to performing a topless or nude massage while Mr. Epstein masturbated himself. For other women, the conduct escalated to full sexual intercourse. As part of the resolution of the case, Epstein has agreed that he would not contest jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida for any victim who chose to sue him for damages pursuant to 18 USC 2255. Mr. Epstein agreed to provide an attorney for victims who elected to proceed exclusively pursuant to that section, and agreed to waive any challenge to liability under that section up to an amount agreed to by the parties. The parties have agreed to submit the selection of an attorney to a Special Master...." 7. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that was, in fact, a victim of Epstein's criminal abuse because Owas one of the minor females that the United States Attorney's Office recognized as a victim. Ms sworn deposition testimony and the adverse inference drawn from Epstein's refusal to testify confirm that Epstein began sexually assaulting d when she was 13 years old and continued to molest her on more than fifty (50) occasions over three (3) years. Epstein Depo., Attachment #1, at 17 ("Q: Did you . . . ever engage in any sexual conduct with MP?" A: [Invocation of the Fifth Amendment].); see also Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 456 ("Q: ■ was an underage female that you first abused when she was 13 years old; is that correct?" A: [Invocation of Fifth Amendment].) 8. Epstein was also given ample opportunity to explain why he engaged in sexual activity with MI beginning when ■[. was 13 years old and why he has molested minors on an everyday basis for years, and he invoked his 5th amendment right rather than provide explanation. See Epstein Deposition, February 17, 2010, at 11-12, 30-31 (Deposition AttaclunEnt # 7). 9. Epstein also sexually assaulted a, beginning when she was 14 years old and did so on numerous occasions. See W. Depo., Attachment #4 at 215-216. 10. Mother of the minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was Jane Doe; the abuse began 5 EFTA00729914 when Jane Doe was 14 years old. Rather than incriminate himself, Epstein invoked the 5th amendment to questions about him digitally penetrating Doe's vagina, using vibrators on her vagina and masturbating and ejaculating in her presence. Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 420, 464, 468. 11. When clients d N., and Jane Doe were 13 or 14 years old, each was brought to Epstein's home multiple times by another underage victim. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with each of the then-minor girls at his mansion: receiving a topless or completely nude massage; using a vibrator on her vagina; masturbating in her presence; ejaculating in her presence; touching her breast or buttocks or vagina or the clothes covering her sexual organs; and demanding that she bring him other underage girls. Epstein and his co-conspirators used the telephone to contact these girls to entice or induce them into going to his mansion for sexual abuse. Epstein also made perform oral sex on him and was to perform sex acts on (Epstein's live- in sex slave) in Epstein's presence. See Plaintiff Jane Doe's Notice Regarding Evidence of Similar Acts of Sexual Assault, filed in Jane Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2010), as DE 197, (hereinafter "Rule 413 Notice") (Exhibit "E"); Jane Doe Depo., Attachment #2, at 379-380; fl Depo., Attachment #3, at 416; a Depo, Attachment #4, at 205. 12. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that yet another of the minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was When she was approximately 15 years old, R. was brought to Epstein's home by another underage victim. While a minor, she was at Epstein's home on multiple occasions. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with her while she was a minor at his house - topless or completely nude massage on Epstein; Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her presence; Epstein ejaculated in her presence; Epstein also demanded that she bring him other underage girls. See Rule 413 Notice, 6 EFTA00729915 Exhibit "E"; Incident Report, Exhibit "A." 13. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that yet another girl Epstein sexually assault wasIMWhen she was approximately 16 years old, she was brought to Epstein's home by another underage victim. While a minor, she was at Epstein's home on multiple occasions. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with her while she was a minor at his house - topless or completely nude massage on Epstein; Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her presence; Epstein ejaculated in her presence; Epstein touched her breast or buttock or vagina or the clothes covering her sexual organs; was made to perform sex acts on Epstein; made to perform sex acts on in Epstein's presence. Epstein also forcibly raped this underage victim, as he held her head down against her will and pumped his penis inside her while she was screaming "No". See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit "E"; Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 41 (specifically discussing the rape): remembered that she climaxed and was removing herself from the massage table. asked for a sheet of a er and drew the massage table in the master bathroom and where Epstein, and she were. Epstein turned on to her stomach on the massage bed and inserted his enis into her vagina. MI stated Epstein began to pump his penis in her vagina. became upset over this. She said her head was being held against the bed forcibly, as he continued to pump inside her. She screamed no, and Epstein stopped ...." advised there were times that she was so sore when she left Epstein's house. advised she was ripped, torn, in her vagina area. advised she had difficulty walking to the car after leaving the house because she was so sore." 14. Without detailing each fact known about Epstein's abuse of the many underage girls, Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe at all relevant times that Epstein also abused other victims in ways closely similar to those described in the preceding paragraphs. Epstein's additional victims include the following (among many other) young girls These girls were between the ages of 13 and 7 EFTA00729916 17 when Epstein abused them. See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit E; Deposition of 4, Deposition Attachment #4. 15. One of Mr. Epstein's household employees, Mr. Alfredo Rodriguez, saw numerous underage girls coming into Epstein's mansion for purported "massages." See Rodriguez Depo. at 242- 44 (Deposition Attachment #8). Rodriguez was aware that "sex toys" and vibrators were found in Epstein's bedroom after the purported massages. Id. at 223-28. Rodriguez thought what Epstein was doing was wrong, given the extreme youth of the girls he saw. Id. at 230-31. 16. Alfredo Rodriguez took a journal from Epstein's computer that reflected many of the names of underage females Epstein abused across the country and the world, including locations such as Michigan, California, West Palm Beach, New York, New Mexico, and Paris, France. See Journal (hereinafter "The Journal" or "Holy Grail") (Exhibit "F") (identifying, among other Epstein acquaintances, females that Rodriguez believes were underage under the heading labeled "Massages"). 17. Rodriguez was later charged in a criminal complaint with obstruction of justice in connection with trying to obtain $50,000 from civil attorneys pursuing civil sexual assault cases against Epstein as payment for producing the book to the attorneys. See Criminal Complaint at 2, U.S. v. Rodriguez, No. 9:10-CR-80015-KAM (S.D. Fla. 2010) (Exhibit "G"). Rodriguez stated he needed money because the journal was his "property" and that he was afraid that Jeffrey Epstein would make him "disappear" unless he had an "insurance policy" (i.e., the journal). Id. at 3. Because of the importance of the information in the journal to the civil cases, Mr. Rodriguez called it "The Holy Grail." 18. In the "Holy Grail" or "The Journal," among the many names listed (along with the abused girls) are some of the people that Epstein alleges in his Complaint had "no connection whatsoever" with the litigation in this case. See, e.g., Journal, Exhibit F, at 85 (Donald Trump); at 9 8 EFTA00729917 (Bill Clinton phone numbers listed under "Doug Bands"). Federal Investigation and Plea ARreement With Epstein 19. In approximately 2005, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida learned of Epstein's repeated sexual abuse of minor girls. They began a criminal investigation into federal offenses related to his crimes. See U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit 20. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that to avoid the Government learning about his abuse of minor girls, Epstein threatened his employees and demanded that they not cooperate with the government. Epstein's aggressive witness tampering was so severe that the United States Attorney's Office prepared negotiated plea agreements containing these charges. For example, in a September 18, 2007, email from AUSA to Lefkowitz (attached hereto as Exhibit "H"), she attached the proposed plea agreement describing Epstein's witness tampering as follows: "UNITED STATES vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN PLEA PROFFER" On August 21, 2007, FBI Special Agents and traveled to the home of to serve her with a federal grandnsu poena with an investigation pending in the Southern District of Florida. Ms. MI works as the personal assistant of the defendant. Ms. began speaking with the agents and then excused herself to go upstairs to check on her sleeping child. While upstairs, Ms. telephoned the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and informed him that the FBI agents were at her home. Mr. Epstein instructed Ms. not to speak with the agents and reprimanded her for allowing them into her home. Mr. Epstein applied pressure to keep Ms. from complying with the grand jury subpoenas that the agents had served upon her. In particular, Mr. Epstein warned Ms. against turning over documents and electronic evidence responsive to the subpoena and pressured her to delay her appearance before the grand jury in the Southern District of Florida. This conversation occurred when Mr. Epstein was aboard his privately owned civilian aircraft in Miami in the Southern District of Florida. His pilot had filed a flight plan showing the parties were about to return to Teterboro, NJ. After the conversation with Ms. Mr. lin became concerned that the FBI would try to serve his traveling companion, with a similar grand jury subpoena. In fact, the agents were 9 EFTA00729918  preparing to serve Ms. with a target letter when the flight landed in Teterboro. Mr. Epstein then redirected his airplane, making the pilot file a new flight plan to travel to the US Virgin Islands instead of the New York City area, thereby keeping the Special Agents from serving the target letter on During the flight, the defendant verbally harassed Ms. ,harassing an pressuring her not to cooperate with the grand jury's investigation, thereby hindering and dissuading her from reporting the commission of a violation of federal law to a law enforcement officer, namely, Special Agents of the FBI. Epstein also threatened and harassed against cooperating against him as well. 21. Edwards learned that the Palm Beach police department investigation ultimately led to the execution of a search warrant at Epstein's mansion in October 2005. See Police Incident Report, Exhibit "A". 22. Edwards learned that at around the same time, the Palm Beach Police Department also began investigating Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls. They also collected evidence of Epstein's involvement with minor girls and his obsession with training sex slaves, including pulling information from Epstein's trash. Their investigation showed that Epstein ordered from Amazon.com on about September 4, 2005, such books as: SM101: A Realistic Introduction, by Jay Wiseman; SlaveCraft: Roadmaps for Erotic Servitude - Principles, Skills, and Tools, by Guy Baldwin; and Training with Miss Abernathy: A Workbook for Erotic Slaves and Their Owners, by Christina Abernathy. See Receipt for Sex Slave Books (Exhibit "I"). 23. The Palm Beach incident reports provided Edwards with the names of numerous witnesses that participated in Epstein's child molestation criminal enterprise and also provided Edwards with some insight into how far-reaching Epstein's power was and how addicted Epstein was to sex with children. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A". 24. The Palm Beach Police Department also collected Epstein's message pads, which provided other names of people that also knew Epstein's scheme to molest children. See Message Pads (Exhibit "J") (note: the names of underage females have been redacted to protect the anonymity 10 EFTA00729919 of the underage sex abuse victims). Those message pads show clear indication that Epstein's staff was frequently working to schedule multiple young girls between the ages of 12 and 16 years old literally every day, often two or three times per day. Id. 25. In light of all of the information of numerous crimes committed by Epstein, Edwards learned that the U.S. Attorney's Office began preparing the filing of federal criminal charges against Epstein. For example, in addition to the witness tampering and money laundering charges the U.S. Attorney's Office prepared an 82-page prosecution memo and a 53-page indictment of Epstein related to his sexual abuse of children. On September 19, 2007, at 12:14 PM, AUSA _wrote to Epstein's counsel, Jay Lefkowitz, "Jay - I hate to have to be firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by Monday. I will not miss my indictment date when this has dragged on for several weeks already and then, if things fall apart, be left in a less advantageous position than before the negotiations. I have had an 82-page pros memo and 53-page indictment sitting on the shelf since May to engage in these negotiations. There has to be an ending date, and that date is Monday." These and other communications are within the correspondence attached as Composite Exhibit "C." 26. Edwards learned that rather than face the filing of federal felony criminal charges, Epstein (through his attorneys) engaged in plea bargain discussions. As a result of those discussions, on September 24, 2007, Epstein signed an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Under the agreement, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to an indictment pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County charging him with solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution. Epstein also agreed that he would receive a thirty month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of community control. In exchange, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein. See Non-Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit "K"). 11 EFTA00729920  27. Part of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that Epstein negotiated was a provision in which the federal government agreed not to prosecute Epstein's co-conspirators. The co-conspirators procured minor females to be molested by Epstein. One of the co-conspirators - even participated in the sex acts with minors (including and Epstein. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 40-42, 49-51; Deposition of April 13, 2010, (hereinafter Depo.") at 11 (Deposition attachment #9). 28. Under the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Epstein was to use his "best efforts" to enter into his guilty pleas by October 26, 2007. However, Edwards learned that Epstein violated his agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office to do so and delayed entry of his plea. See Letter from U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta to Lilly Ann Sanchez, Dec. 19, 2007 (Exhibit "L"). 29. On January 10, 2008 and again on May 30, 2008 ar. and MI received letters from the FBI advising them that "[t]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Letters attached at Composite Exhibit "M". This document is evidence that the FBI did not notify and =that a plea agreement had already been reached that would block federal prosecution of Epstein. Nor did the FBI notify M. and of any of the parts of the plea agreement. Nor did the FBI or other federal authorities confer with and IN about the plea. See id. 30. In 2008, Edwards believed in good faith that criminal prosecution of Epstein was extremely important to his clients fl and Ell and that they desired to be consulted by the FBI and/or other representatives of the federal government about the prosecution of Epstein. The letters that they had received around January 10, 2008, suggested that a criminal investigation of Epstein was on-going and that they would be contacted before the federal government reached any final resolution of that investigation. See id. 12 EFTA00729921  Edwards Agrees to Serve as Legal Counsel for Three Victims of Epstein's Sexual Assaults 31. In about April 2008, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., was a licensed attorney in Florida, practicing as a sole practitioner. As a former prosecutor, he was well versed in civil cases that involved criminal acts, including sexual assaults. Three of the many girls Epstein had abused — 4., and Jane Doe — all requested that Edwards represent them civilly and secure appropriate monetary damages against Epstein for repeated acts of sexual abuse while they were minor girls. Two of the girls (II and ) also requested that Edwards represent them in connection with a concern that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Attorney's Office might be arranging a plea bargain for the criminal offenses committed by Epstein without providing them the legal rights to which they were entitled (including the right to be notified of plea discussions and the right to confer with prosecutors about any plea arrangement). See Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. at ¶1 - 2, ¶4 (hereinafter "Edwards Affidavit") (Exhibit "N"). 32. On June 13, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent 0; on July 2, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent Jane Doe; and, on July 7, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent Min connection with the sexual assaults committed by Epstein and to insure that their rights as victims of crimes were protected in the criminal process on-going against Epstein. Mr. Edwards and his three clients executed written retention agreements. See id. at ¶2. 33. In mid June of 2008, Edwards contacted AUSA to inform her that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. AUSA =did not advise that a plea agreement had already been negotiated with Epstein's attorneys that would block federal prosecution. To the contrary, AUSA mentioned a possible indictment. AUSA did indicate that federal investigators had concrete evidence and information that Epstein had sexually molested many underage minor females, including and Jane Doe. See id at ¶4. 13 EFTA00729922  34. Edwards also requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office the information that they had collected regarding Epstein's sexual abuse of his clients. However, the U.S. Attorney's Office, declined to provide any such information to Edwards. It similarly declined to provide any such information to the other attorneys who represented victims of Epstein's sexual assaults. At the very least, this includes the items that were confiscated in the search warrant of Epstein's home, including dildos, vibrators, massage table, oils, and additional message pads. See Property Receipt (Exhibit "CP). 35. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. AUSA nailed Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. AUSA did not tell Attorney Edwards that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at 36. Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, victims of federal crimes — including and MP — are entitled to basic rights during any plea bargaining process, MI including the right to be treated with fairness, the right to confer with prosecutors regarding any plea, and the right to be heard regarding any plea. The process that was followed leading to the non- prosecution of Epstein violated these rights of and See Emergency Petri. for Victim's N Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights, No. 9:08-CV-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Exhibit "P"). 37. Because of the violation of the CVRA, on July 7, 2008, Edwards filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736, seeking to enforce the rights of El and That action alleged that the U.S. Attorney's Office had failed to provide Sandal the rights to which they were entitled under the Act, including the right to be notified 14 EFTA00729923 about a plea agreement and to confer with prosecutors regarding it. See id. 38. On July 11, 2008, Edwards took NB and with him to the hearing on the CVRA action. It was only at this hearing that both victims learned for the first time that the plea deal was already done with Epstein and that the criminal case against Epstein had been effectively terminated by the U.S. Attorney's office. See Hearing Transcript, July 11, 2008 (Exhibit "Q"). 39. Edwards learned that Jane Doe felt so strongly that the plea bargain was inappropriate that she made her own determination to appear on a television program and exercise her First Amendment rights to criticize the unduly lenient plea bargain Epstein received in a criminal case. 40. The CVRA action that Edwards filed was recently administratively closed and Edwards filed a Motion to reopen that proceeding. See No. 9:08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.). Epstein's Entry ofGuilty Pleas to Sex Offenses 41. Ultimately, on June 30, 2008, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, defendant Epstein, entered pleas of "guilty" to various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution. See Plea Colloquy (Exhibit "R"). 42. As a condition of that plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant, Epstein additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government acknowledging that approximately thirty-four (34) other young girls could receive payments from him under the federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse, 18 U.S.C. § 2255. As had been agreed months before, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not prosecute Epstein federally for his sexual abuse of these minor girls. See Addendum to Non- Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit "5") (in redacted form to protect the identities of the minors involved). 15 EFTA00729924  43. Because Epstein became a convicted sex offender, he was not to have contact with any of his victims. During the course of his guilty pleas on June 30, 2008, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo ordered Epstein "not to have any contact, direct or indirect" with any victims. She also expressly stated that her no-contact order applied to "all of the victims." Similar orders were entered by the federal court handling some of the civil cases against Epstein. The federal court stated that it "finds it necessary to state clearly that Defendant is under this court's order not to have direct or indirect contact with any plaintiffs . . .." Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80119 (S.D. Fla. 2008), [DE 238] at 4-5 (emphasis added); see also Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80893, [DE 193] at 2 (emphasis added). Edwards Files Civil Suits Against Epstein 44. Edwards had a good faith belief that his clients felt angry and betrayed by the criminal system and wished to prosecute and punish Epstein for his crimes against them in whatever avenue remained open to them. On August 12, 2008, at the request of his client Jane Doe, Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of Jane Doe. See Edwards Affidavit, "N" at ¶7. Included in this complaint was a RICO count that explained how Epstein ran a criminal conspiracy to procure young girls for him to sexually abuse. See Complaint, Jane Doe v. Epstein (Exhibit "T"). 45. On September 11, 2008, at the request of his client Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of MO See Complaint, IME v. Epstein (Exhibit "U"). 46. On September 11, 2008, at the request of his client Brad Edwards filed a civil suit , against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of EP See Complaint, v. Epstein, (Exhibit "V"). 47. Jane Doe's federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than $50,000,000. 16 EFTA00729925 Listing the amount of damages sought in the complaint was in accord with other civil suits that were filed against Epstein (before any lawsuit filed by Edwards). See Complaint, Jane Doe #4 v. Epstein (Exhibit "W") (filed by Herman and Mermelstein, PA). 48. At about the same time as Edwards filed his three lawsuits against Epstein, other civil attorneys were filing similar lawsuits against Epstein. For example, on or about April 14, 2008 another law firm, Herman and Mermelstein, filed the first civil action against Epstein on behalf of one of its seven clients who were molested by Epstein. The complaints that attorney Herman filed on behalf of his seven clients were similar in tenor and tone to the complaint that Edwards filed on behalf of his three clients. See id. 49. Over the next year and a half, more than 20 other similar civil actions were filed by various attorneys against Epstein alleging sexual assault of minor girls. These complaints were also similar in tenor and tone to the complaint that Edwards filed on behalf of his clients. These complaints are all public record and have not been attached, but are available in this Court's files and the files of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 50. In addition to the complaints filed against Epstein in Florida, a female in New York, Ava Cordero, filed a lawsuit against Epstein in New York making similar allegations - that Epstein paid her for a massage then forced her to give him oral sex and molested her in other ways when she was only 16 years old. Cordero was born a male, and in her complaint she alleges that Epstein told her during the "massage", "I love how young you are. You have a tight butt like a baby". See Jeff Epstein Sued for "Repeated Sexual Assaults" on Teen, New York Post, October 17, 2007, by Dareh Gregorian, link at: http://www.nypost.com/n/news/regionallitem 44z1WvLUFH7RIOUtKYGPbP:isessionid=6CA3EBF1 BEF68F5DE14BFB2CAA5C37E0. See Article attached hereto as Exhibit "X". 17 EFTA00729926  51. Edwards's three complaints against Epstein contained less detail about sexual abuse than (as one example) a complaint filed by attorney Robert Josephsberg from the law firm of Podhurst Orseck. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein (Exhibit "B"). As recounted in detail in this Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was 15 years old when Ghislaine Maxwell discovered her and lured her to Epstein's house. Maxwell and Epstein forced her to have sex with both of them and within weeks Maxwell and Epstein were flying her all over the world. According to the Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was forced to live as one of Epstein's underage sex slaves for years and was forced to have sex with not only Maxwell and Epstein but also other politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians, etc. She was even made to watch Epstein have sex with three 12-year-old French girls that were sent to him for his birthday by a French citizen that is a friend of Epstein's. Luckily, Jane Doe 102 escaped to Australia to get away from Epstein and Maxwell's sexual abuse. 52. Edwards learned that in addition to civil suits that were filed in court against Epstein, at around the same time other attorneys engaged in pre-filing settlement discussions with Epstein. Rather than face filed civil suits in these cases, Epstein paid money settlements to more than 15 other women who had sexually abused while they were minors. See articles regarding settlements attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "Y." Epstein's Obstruction ofNormal Discovery and Attacks on His Victims 53. Once Edwards filed his civil complaints for his three clients, he began the normal process of discovery for cases such as these. He sent standard discovery requests to Epstein about his sexual abuse of the minor girls, including requests for admissions, request for production, and interrogatories. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at ¶¶l 1-19 and 25. Rather than answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse and his conspiracy for procuring minor girls for him to abuse, Epstein invoked his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. An IS EFTA00729927 example of Epstein's refusal to answer is attached as Composite Exhibit "Z" (original discovery propounded to Epstein and his responses invoking 5th amendment). 54. During the discovery phase of the civil cases filed against Epstein, Epstein's deposition was taken at least five times. During all of those depositions, Epstein refused to answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse of minor girls. See, e.g., Deposition Attachments 1, 6 and 7. 55. During these depositions, Epstein further attempted to obstruct legitimate questioning by inserting a variety of irrelevant information about his case. As one of innumerable examples, on March 8, 2010, Mr. Horowitz, representing seven victims, Jane Doe's 2-8, asked, "Q: In 2004, did you rub Jane Doe 3's vagina? A: Excuse me. I'd like to answer that question, as I would like to answer mostly every question you've asked me here today; however, upon advice of counsel, I cannot answer that question. They've advised me I must assert my Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Rights against self--excuse me, against--under the Constitution. And though your partner, Jeffrey Herman, was disbarred after filing this lawsuit [a statement that was untrue], Mr. Edwards' partner sits in jail for fabricating cases of a sexual nature fleecing unsuspecting Florida investors and others out of millions of dollars for cases of a sexual nature with--I'd like to answer your questions; however if I--I'm told that if I do so, I risk losing my counsel's representation; therefore I must accept their advice." Epstein deposition, March 8, 2010, at 106 (Deposition attachment #10). 56. When Edwards had the opportunity to take Epstein's deposition, he only asked reasonable questions, all of which related to the merits of the cases against Epstein. All depositions of Epstein in which Mr. Edwards participated on behalf of his clients are attached to this motion. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶11 and Deposition attachments #1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Cf. with Deposition of Epstein taken by an attorney representing ■ (one in which Edwards was not 19 EFTA00729928 participating), http://www.voutube.com/watch?v=V-dqoEvflx4; and h //www outube com/watch9v=YCNiY1tW-r0 57. Edwards's efforts to obtain information about Epstein's organization for procuring young girls was also blocked because Epstein's co-conspirators took the Fifth. Deposition of ., March 24, 2010 (hereinafter `4= Depo.") (Deposition attachment #14); Deposition of i., April 13, 2010, (Deposition attachment #9); Deposition of March 15, 2010 (hereinafter Depo.") (Deposition attachment #15). Each of these co- conspirators invoked their respective rights against self-incrimination as to all relevant questions, and the depositions have been attached. 58. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe was an employee of Epstein's and had been identified as a defendant in at least one of the complaints against Epstein for her role in bringing girls to Epstein's mansion to be abused. At the deposition, she was represented by Bruce Reinhart. She invoked the Fifth on all substantive questions regarding her role in arranging for minor girls to come to Epstein's mansion to be sexually abused. Reinhart had previously been an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida when Epstein was being investigated criminally by Reinhart's office. Reinhart left the United States Attorney's Office and was immediately hired by Epstein to represent Epstein's pilots and certain co-conspirators during the civil cases against Epstein. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶11. 59. Edwards also had other lines of legitimate discovery blocked through the efforts of Epstein and others. For example, Edwards learned through deposition that Ghislaine Maxwell was involved in managing Epstein's affairs and companies. See deposition of Epstein's house manager Janusz Banziak, February 16, 2010 at page 14, lines 20-23 (Deposition Attachment #16); See 20 EFTA00729929 deposition of Epstein's housekeeper October 20, 2009, page 9, lines 17-25 (Deposition Attachment #17); See deposition of Epstein's pilot Larry Eugene Morrison, October 6, 2009, page 102-103 (Deposition Attachment #18); See deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez, August 7, 2009, page 302-306 and 348 (Deposition Attachment #8); See also Prince Andrew's Friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, Some Underage Girls and A Very Disturbing Story, September 23, 2007 by Wendy Leigh, link at http://www.redicecreations.corn/article.php?id=189 Exhibit "AA". 60. Alfredo Rodriguez testified that Maxwell took photos of girls without the girls' knowledge, kept the images on her computer, knew the names of the underage girls and their respective phone numbers and other underage victims were molested by Epstein and Maxwell together. See Deposition of Rodriguez, Deposition attachment # 8 at 64, 169-170 and 236. 61. In reasonable reliance on this and other information, Edwards served

EFTA01688746.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 71 pages

FD-302a (Rev. 104-95) • 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD•302 of .On 11/27/2006 .Page 3 monies in cash and later clarified the bonuses came by company check. Visoski stated he had only had two disagreements with Epstein and both were over maintenance for the aircrafts. Visoski provided Epstein's cellular telephone, (646) 541- 1751, and email, JEEPROJECT@Yahoo.com. The below list of current and past employees were provided by Visoski: - Personal Assistant (Black Berry, T Mobi e), email - net Lesley LNU - Secretary in New York Office Miles Alexander - Island Manager (U.S.V.I.) Bryce LNU - Ranch Manager (New Mexico) Ghislaine Maxwell - Business Manager/Best Friend Bruce White - Boat Captain (U.S.V.I.) s - House Staff (PB) Egor Zinoview - Russian fitness instructor Lance Callaway - Current Chef Roberto LNU - Prior Chef David Mullen - Prior Chef - Prior Chef Adam Perrylang - Prior Chef - Personal Assistant - Personal Assistant EFTA01688746 FD-302a (Rev. 10-695) 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of .0611/27/2006 .Page _I_ EFTA01688747  1E-MM-108062 1 Pursuant to a federal egarding the sexual exploitation of m. a victim, was interviewed by the FBI. i en i ying nformation is recorded below: Name Race White Sex Female DOB SSAN Home Address "It n, Texas Residence telephone Cellular telephone Parents telephone (Phoenix) 210 -b-1,4"..1°8.66 42 -4 EFTA01688748  1E-MM-108062 1. Pursuant to a federa egarding the sexual exploitation of m' a victim, was interviewed by the FBI. identifying information is recorded below: Name Race White Sex Female DOB SSAN Home Address AUStin. Texas Residence telephone Cellular telephone Parents telephone (Phoenix) • 104S /143/E- wim --/08.06,2- its?' EFTA01688749  (Rev. l-M400” • • FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Precedence: PRIORITY Date: 12/06/2006 To: Albuquerque Santa Fe RA Jacksonville Pensacola RA San Juan St. Thomas RA From: Miami Squad PB-2 PBCRA Contact: Approved By: Drafted By: Case ID #: 31E-MM-108062 (Pending) Title: JEFFREY EPSTEIN; GHISLAINE N. MAXWELL WSTA - CHILD PROSTITUTION Synopsis: To set leads for captioned investigation. Details: On 07/24/2006 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Palm Beach County Resident Agency (PBCRA), began investigating Jeffrey Epstein, a part-time resident of Palm Beach, along with his personal assistants, and Ghislaine Maxwell. PBCRA obta ne n orma on from e y of Palm Beach Police Department (PBPD) that a fourteen- year-old girl who lives in Loxahatchee Florida, in the Southern District of Florida, and who attended Mlt , provided Epstein "sexual massages . e our een-year- rl informed PBPD that she had been paid $300.00 by Jeffrey Epstein to perform a "sexual massage", which entailed providing a massage to Epstein while he was naked and the . During the massa Following the receipt of the case files from the PBPD, PBCRA began interviewing a series of girls, ranging in age from fourteen through mid to early twenties, who reported a similar series of events. In particular, the gi how contact was made via telephone, primarily with Epstein's , g-toef.se_ zie- KR- i0800.2- EFTA01688750 • To: Albuquerque AIM: Miami • Re: 31E-MM-108062, 12/06/2006 assistant, to arrange times for the girls to "work" at Epstein's home in Palm Beach. The girls would travel to Epstein's residence, usually in the company of another girl. The girls would enter Epstein's home via the kitchen, where they would be met by Epstein and/or The girls would be escorted up to Epstein's bedroom where a massage table was accessible. The girls were told to undress - some undressed only partially and some undressed completely. Epstein would enter the room partially dressed, usually wearing only a towel. He would get onto the massage table face down. While lying face down, Epstein instructed the girl how to massage him. After a period of time when the girl massaged Epstein's back, he would turn over and lie face up. While lying face up, Epstein would continue to instruct the •irl on how to conduct the massage. Epstein also would and occasionall n most an e "massage was over an• t e g r was nstruc e• to get •ressed and to return to the downstairs area of the residence. The girls received between $200 and $300 for the sexual massages. In addition to these sexual massages, some of the girls were paid additional sums to perform more sexual activity, for example, engaging in sexual activity with another female Epstein employee, while Epstein watched. During the course of PBPD's investigation, a search warrant for Epstein's home was obtained and executed. Many of Epstein's belongings were removed from the home prior to the execution of the search warrant - for example, the computer processing units (CPUs) were removed from the house but the computer screens, keyboards, cords, etc. were left behind. The missing CPU's were never recovered. During the search, several telephone message pads were recovered. These message pads show messages taken from several of the girls who were interviewed and admitted to engaging in sexual massages or other sexual activity with Epstein. The messages contained text such as "I have a female for him" and "has girl for tonight." Some of the messages from the irls were addressed to Epstein and others were addressed to Epstein's assistant. Additional messages recovered ur ng e search contained text confirming appointment times. Durin the PBCRA's investigation, the 21L12 related that would contact the girls while IIIIII and 2 EFTA01688751 •, To: Albuquerque Atm: Miami • Re: 31E-MM-108062, 12/06/2006 Epstein were still in New York or elsewhere, in order to arrange "massage" times upon his arrival in Palm Beach. The PBCRA's investigation has collected the flight manifest for Epstein's two private planes during the period of January 2004 through December 2005 as well as cellular phone records for Epstein, and the majority of girls. The igation revea e that prior to the flights to Palm Beach, would contact some of the girls via cell phone. The massage pa s show evidence that the girls responded to those telephone calls and in some instances appointment confirmations were left for Epstein. In addition to the home in Palm Beach, Epstein also maintains a residence in the U.S. Virgin Islands, New York and New Mexico. To date, the PBCRA continues-to develop witnesses and victims from across the United States. Due to the media coverage, unknown status of the state investigation, vulnerability of the young female victims, and political influences, the AUSAs and Case.Agents have a target date of January 2007 for indictment. Based on the ongoing criminal investigation, the PBCRA is requesting the assistance in establishing Epstein's criminal activity utilizing interstate commerce and the travel in interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct and prostitution. Prior to conducting captioned leads it is requested that the lead a ent s contact SA 4e 1 or for investigative ion and questions. 3 EFTA01688752 • 1 To: Albuquerque At: Miami • Re: 31E-MM-108062, 12/06/2006 LEAD(s): Set Lead 1: (Action) ALBUOUEROUE AT SANTA FE , NM Interview , ranch manager for Jeffrey Epstein's, Zorro Ranc , orro Ranch Road, Stanley, New Mexico. Set Lead 2: (Action) SAN JUAN AT ST. THOMAS, U.S.V.I. rview IIIIIIIIIIIIII, cellul leohone number of , residence e ep one number , house manager rey Epstein located on the s an o i le St. James. was born in Capetown, South Africa. Set Lead 3: (Action) SAN JUAN AT ST. THOMAS. U.S.V.I. Locate a n , boat captain, telephone number ( is is he only information FBI Miami currently has on Set Lead 4: (Discretionary) JACKSONVILLE AT PENSACOLA, FL Intervi housekeeper, W/F, DOB , SSAN , , Milton, Set Lead 5: (Action) 4 EFTA01688753  To; Albuquerque Fiom: Miami • .Se: 31E-MM-108062, 12/06/2006 JACKSONVILLE AT PENSACOLA, FL Tri tArvii= housekeeper, W/F, DOB SSAN , Cantonment, .• EFTA01688754 r (Rev.01.313003) • FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION • Precedence: ROUTINE Date: 12/20/2006 To: Miami From: Miami FIG-5 Contact: Ia Approved By: Drafted By: Case ID #: 41E-MM-108062 (Pending) 800A-MM-C102437-AS34 (Pending) Title: CREATION OF i2 ANALYST NOTEBOOK CHARTS Synopsis: To document assistance provided to Intelligence Analyst (IA) in the creation of i2 Analyst Notebook Charts. Details: Intelligence Assistant (Ia) provided assistance in the creation of i2 Analyst Notebook Charts for the above-mentioned case. The charts were produced according to the specifications of Special Agent and did not require any research or analysis on the part of Ia . The charts depicted the arrival and departure dates of the target and included the phone calls that were made the day prior to his arrival, during his stay and the day after his departure. Ia created a total of 16 charts. The charts ranged in date from 02/10/2005 through 10/06/2005. 44. --mm- logt)(00-SD 31E EFTA01688755 FD-302 (Rev. 10-6-95) • -I- FEDERAL BUREAU O1? INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 08/22/2006 was interviewed at her residence in West Palm Beach, Florida regarding a federal investigation involving the sexual exploitation of minors. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: was employed as the House Manager for JEFFREY EPSTEIN's rest ence on the island of Palm Beach, Florida. She began working for EPSTEIN approximate, ree years ago. stated GHISLAINE MAXWELL(believed by to be EPSTEIN's girlfrie he time) e nwohired her. It was through sister, and her association with MAXWELL W an illTEIN that came o be emp at the EPSTEIN residence. According to it was while was working at f the salons lm eac she met both MAXWELL and EPSTEIN. iiili stated that provided massages to EPSTEIN. While employed at the EPSTEIN residence, primary responsibilities were to have the house ready t e arrival of either EPSTEIN or MAXWELL and their guests. ensured ta m house was stocked with food, beverages, and res flowers. would also help in the arrangement of transportation to and !!!!' the airport. stated that there was a high rate of turnover among the staff employed at the EPSTEIN residence because EPSTEIN MAXWELL, and others were not very nice to the hired help. stated EPSTEIN was nice in the beginning but became believed she was fired because she got married. was given $3000.00 in severance pay. was never at the residence when EPSTEIN was having a massage.— r stated she had taken many messages from girls who wanted to work for EPSTEIN. The girls would want to know when EPSTEIN was coming to town and they would want to take a message, so EPSTEIN could return their call. would leave the messages on the counter so that when EPSTEIN wou ve in from out of town he could review them. One Christmas, was asked to call 5 or 6 of EPSTEIN's "massage girls" and redo them that they could stop to pick up their Christmas gift. Although not Investigation on 08/17/2006 at West Palm Beach, Florida Fike -10 Due didWd 08/17/2006 by This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. are- Hit - a9062 EFTA01688756  .‘„, FDxtuatev.m..6-9* • • 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of .0n08/17/2006 .Page 2 positive, believed she was asked to do this task around Christmas 004. told the interviewing agent of an incident that occurre t t c EPSTEIN's residence either late summer or early fall. was unsure of the year but • must have been in 2003 2 or 2005. The cleaning crew, AND were working at the time of the inci ent as ew lt uni entified female(UF), who looked under the age of eighteen, entered the residence dema money. She had arrived at the residence in i cab. described her as trashy and desperate. told the she was unaware of any money that had been left for t e UF, but that ld call the New York Office. The UF stated that she thought was going to be at the residence toda . contacte t e New York Office and they instructed to pay the UF. The New York Office stated that coul Ina $200.00 in EPSTEIN's desk draw and she was to use that to pay the . Once the UF received the money she departed the residence. stated to the interviewing agents, that at one point she to e UP she was going to call the police if the UP did not leave, but the UF responded that she would call the police if she did not get her money. believed that EPSTEI w sign to help girls it big in Illilodeling industry. sister, told that EPSTEIN would give money to lr to.!!Trhem go to college or get them started in modeling. stated that she may have been naive but she thought he was rying to help these girls. W tated that she knew EPSTEIN liked women and that he residence even when MAXWELL was not there. n would believed there were naked photographs of women throughout t e residence. ct information as the following: , Jupiter, Florida, tele hone nu er ephone number Accor ing mbers are ce u ar e ephone number also provided to the interviewing agents a copy of some of the our he worked at residence as some notes made by I'li at her time o emp-oyment with Those documents have leen placed in a FD-340, a 1-A envelope, an are maintained with the case file. EFTA01688757 FD-302(Rev.10-6-95) • • -1- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DMoftmiscription 08/22/2006 was interviewed at her residence in West Palm Beach, Florida regarding a federal investigation involving the sexual exploitation of minors. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: was employed as the House Manager for JEFFREY EPSTEIN's rest ence on the island of Palm Beach, Florida. She began working for EPSTEIN approximate) three years ago. stated GHISLAINE MAXWELL(believed by to be EPSTEIN's girlfrie he time) ' e nwohired her. It was through sister, and her association with MAXWELL an THIN that came o be emp at the EPSTEIN residence. According to it was while was working at f the salons lm eac she met both LL and EPSTEIN. stated that provided massages to EPSTEIN. While employed at the EPSTEIN residence, primary responsibilities were to have the house ready f t e arrival of either EPSTEIN or MAXWELL and their guests. ensured t' house was stocked with food, beverages, and res flowers. would also help in the arrangement of transportation to and rom the airport. stated that there was a high rate of turnover among the staff emp oyed at the EPSTEIN residence because EPSTE:N MAXWELL, and others were not very nice to the hired help. stated EPSTEIN was nice in the beginning but beca ilean." believed she was fired because she got married. was given $3000.00 in severance pay. was never at the residence when EPSTEIN was having a massage. stated she had taken many messages from girls who wanted to work for EPSTEIN. The girls would want to know when EPSTEIN was i to town and they would want to take a message, so could return thei would leave the messages on t e counter so that when wou arrive in from out of town he could review them. One ristmas, "III was asked to call 5 or 6 of EPSTEIN's "massage girls" and re ay to them that they could stop to pick up their Christmas gift. Although not Investigation on 08/17/2006 at West Palm Beach, Florida Files 3 Date dictated 08/17/2006 by S Lac, ,302_ :3,c:rt.H._ A, ,o,,,,,,z, This document contains neither recommendations nor conc:usions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is :caned to your agency; it and Its contests arc not to be distributed outside your agency. EFTA01688758 FD-302o (Rev. 10-6.95) • • 31E-MM-108062 Continuation ofFD-302 of .On 08/17/2006 2 positive, Will believed she was asked to do this task around Christmas 4. told the interviewing agent of an incident that occurre a EPSTEIN's residence either late summer or early fall. was unsure of the year but knew it must have been in 2863 2 or 2005. The cleaning crew, , were working at the-time of-the entified female(UF), who looked under the age of eighteen, entered the residence dema money. She had arrived at the residence in i cab. described her as trashy and desperate. told the she was unaware of any money that had been left for the UF, but that she would call the New York Office. The UF stated that she thought EPSTEIN was going to be at the residence t contacted the New York Office and they instructed to pay the UF. The New York Office stated that could find $200.00 in EPSTEIN's desk draw and she was to use to pay the Once the UF received the money she departed the residence. stated to the interviewing agents, that at one point she to e UF she was going to call the police if the UF did not leave, but the UF responded that she would call the police if she did not get her money. believed that EPST to help girls it big in Illilodeling industry. sister, told that EPSTEIN would give money to to e p them go t ollege or get them started in modeling. stated that she have been naive but she thought he was rying to help these gir s. stated that she knew EPSTEIN liked women and that n would visa the residence even when MAXWELL was not there. believed there were naked photographs of women throughout t e residence. t information as the following: Jupiter, Florida, tel hone n r. splesirturralar-- According --- •eta are eglarair telephone number - • •---- - also provided to the interviewing agents a copy of some of J. he worked at EPSTEIN's residence as well as some notes made by at her time of employment with EPSTEIN. Those documents have een placed in a FD-340, a 1-A envelope, and are maintained with the case file. EFTA01688759  t A FD-302(Rev.10495) • -1- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Damoftransthpaan 12/13/2006 Pursuant to a federal investigation regarding the sexual exploitation of minors, David Richard Mullen, was interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and purpose of the interview, Mullen voluntarily provided the following information: Mullen was formerly employed as a chef at Daniel, a four star restaurant in New York, New York. He was also formerly employed as a chef by Jeffrey Epstein. Mullen was seeking employment and obtained the opportunity for employment with Epstein from a headhunter. Mullen's pre-employment interview for the position was conducted by Epstein and Ghislaine.Maxwell .approximately three years ago. Mullen was employed by Epstein for approximately one year and five months before he sought employment elsewhere. Mullen signed a confidentiality clause at the termination of his employment with Epstein. Mullen worked at Epstein's New York residence and was on stand-by to travel at request. He prepared meals for Epstein's guests more frequently than he prepared meals for Epstein. Epstein's favorite food item was a toasted peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Mullen was responsible for keeping food available on the various properties where Epstein traveled. One item that Mullen was required to have available at all times was Eli's seven grain bread purchased from 63rd or 65th Street in New York. Mullen used Epstein's vehicles, including a Mercedes Benz and a Chevrolet Suburban, to obtain food as needed for preparation at Epstein's Palm Beach, Florida r ' ence v. P en with a residence located at , New York, New York, as a component o u en s sa ary. Mullen traveled frequently with Epstein to his properties in Palm Beach, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), New Mexico and New York. Mullen also traveled to Paris, France with Epstein. Epstein owned a Gulfstream aircraft and a larger Boeing 727 aircraft. The Boeing 727 had a kitchen onboard that Mullen used to prepare food for Epstein and his guests. During Mullen's travels, the most notable guests to travel on Epstein's aircraft were John Kerry and Aaron Barak. Epstein instructed Mullen to refrain from socializing with any guests on the aircraft. Investigation on. 12/13/2006 m West Palm Beach, Florida Filets 31E- M-10806 Das dictated 12/13/2006 SA by SA This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; It and its contents arc not to be distributed outside your agency. 3/6 - tiff - /080L0-4.0.- EFTA01688760 .• FD-302a (Rev. 10-695) 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of David Richard Mullen .0;112/13/2006 .Page 2 Young females frequently traveled on the two private aircraft with Epstein. Mullen believed most of the females were from Spain or Russia and were 18 years of age or older, although some of their ages were questionable. les lived in the apartment building located at , New York, New York. Mullen believed the ema es trave e with Epstein so they could be associated with a person of wealth. The majority of the females were aspiring models who met Epstein through Jean Luc and his modeling agency. Epstein was controlling toward the females and would not allow them to associate with other individuals. Mullen described the women as "not very bright" referring to their intelligence. Mullen believed w ersonal assistant to Maxwell and Epstein. Mu escri e as an attractive, nice girl in her 20's. was response e for preparing Epstein's travel arrangemen s. III Last Name Unknown (LNU) was another individual who worked as an assistant to Maxwell. Mullen believed Maxwell and Epstein's relationship was nothing more than friendship. Mullen believed Epstein had feelings for Maxwell but they frequently did not get along. Mullen provided Maxwell's contact information stored in his cellular telephone: email comaxlemindsorinct.com, work telephone 212-750-9895, home telephone 212-879-9366, mobile telephone 917-520-3106 and PIN 202268F98. Mullen was unaware of what the PIN represented. One unknown male, 20's in age, frequently brought local teenaged females to Epstein's residence in Palm Beach, Florida. Mullen believed the unknown male drove a red Honda Accord. Mullen estimated that approximately four or five teenaged females would visit Epstein's Palm Beach residence daily. Sometimes the females at the residence would go upstairs with Epstein and sometimes they would gather and talk in the living room area. Mullen was aware that Epstein received massages every day. In addition to massages provided by massage therapists (masseuses), local teenaged females also gave Epstein massages. Mullen explained that it was easy to distinguish between the masseuses and the local teenaged females based on their appearance and demeanor. Mullen was unaware of what occurred between the teenaged females and Epstein behind closed doors, but opined that Epstein was receiving more than just massages based on the number of teenaged females that were going upstairs with him. Mullen did EFTA01688761  L 1: FD-3024 (Rev. 10-6-95) 31E-MM-108062 onwiwthmam-02or David Richard _Mullen on 12L1312006 ,rase -3_ not know of the local teens to ever stay at Epstein's Palm Beach residence overnight. Mullen did not have conversations with the teenaged females beyond being polite and asking if they needed anything. Mullen did not engage in relationships with the females associated with Epstein. Mullen reviewed a series of images and was asked if he reco nized the individuals depicted. He recognized an assistant to Eps in who is married man in Mi mi, on a He also recognized and believed to be Epstein s gir ,_rien . IIIIIIIIIIIIII, owner of a barbeque restaurant in New Y r ' was emp oye as a chef for Epstein prior to Mullen. was a former line cook at Daniel Restaurant, New York, iew ori Mullen was aware that Epstein had other chefs before and after his employment but he was unable to recall their names. manages Epstein's St. Thomas, USVI property. Eistein raves to St. Thomas on his private aircraft and then takes a helicopter to his property. He also owns a four- engine speed boat he purchased at auction. The boat is used as a pleasure craft and is also used as a shuttle for Epstein's staff. III LNU and LNU. a Filipino couple, m 's New York residence.. and IIII may reside in the apartment buil ing. is'responsib security at Epstein's New York rest ence. n one occasion, gave Mullen a tour of Epstein's New York residence which Mul en e ieved was a former high school. LNU and Epstein's illilexico a Russian man named ilili LNU are the property managers of cated near Santa Fe. Mullen recalled (phonetic) LNU who worked at Epstein's Palm Beach residence. stein also had a cleaning crew for the Palm Beach residence but Mullen was unaware of the crew member's names. Mullen heard stories of girls who attempted to steal items from Epstein's residence and were sent home and not allowed to return. Mullen did not observe or hear any disturbances during his employment for Epstein. EFTA01688762  2. 302. A FD-302 (Rev. I0-6-95) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 12113/2006 Pursuant to a federal investigation regarding the sexual exploitation of minors, David Richard Mullen, was interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and purpose of the interview, Mullen voluntarily provided the following information: Mullen was formerly employed as a chef at Daniel, a four star restaurant in New York, New York. He was also formerly employed as a chef by Jeffrey Epstein. Mullen was seeking employment and obtained the opportunity for employment with Epstein from a headhunter. Mullen's pre-employment interview for the position was conducted by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell approximately three years ago. Mullen was employed by Epstein for approximately one year and five months before he sought employment elsewhere. Mullen signed a confidentiality clause at the termination of his employment with Epstein. Mullen worked at Epstein's New York residence and was on stand-by to travel at request. He prepared meals for Epstein's guests more frequently than he prepared meals for Epstein. Epstein's favorite food item was a toasted peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Mullen was responsible for keeping food available on the various properties where Epstein traveled. One item that Mullen was required to have available at all times was Eli's seven grain bread purchased from 63rd or 65th Street in New York. Mullen used Epstein's vehicles, including a Mercedes Benz and a Chevrolet Suburban, to obtain food as needed for preparation at Epstein's Palm Beach, Florida r ' " 'th a residence located at New York, New York, as a componen o u en s sa ary. • Mullen traveled frequently with Epstein to his properties in Palm Beach, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), New Mexico and New York. Mullen also traveled to Paris, France with Epstein. Epstein owned a Gulfstream aircraft and a larger Boeing 727 aircraft. The Boeing 727 had a kitchen onboard that Mullen used to prepare food for Epstein and his guests. During Mullen's travels, the most notable guests to travel on Epstein's aircraft were John Kerry and Aaron Barak. Epstein instructed Mullen to refrain from socializing with any guests on the aircraft. Investigation on 12/13/2006 at West Palm Beach, Florida HON 31E- -1 2 Datedictated 12/13/2006 SA by SA This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; It and Its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 3/e- HH- to &bp - Sa EFTA01688763 • FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95) • • 31E-MM-108062 ContelvatamoataX0of David Richard Mullen .0'1 32/13/2006 Jar 2 Young females frequently traveled on the two private aircraft with Epstein. Mullen believed most of the females were from Spain or Russia and were 18 years of age or older, although some of their ages were questionable. Several of the f males lived in the apartment building located at , New York, New York. Mullen believed the ema es rave e wi h Epstein so they could be associated with a person of wealth. The majority of the females were aspiring models who met Epstein through Jean Luc and his modeling agency. Epstein was controlling toward the females and would not allow them to associate with other individuals. Mullen described the women as "not very bright" referring to their intelligence. Mullen believed ersonal assistant to Maxwell and Epstein. Mu escr e as an attractive, nice girl in her 20's. was response e for preparing Epstein's travel arrangements. III Last Name Unknown (LNU) was another individual who worked as an assistant to Maxwell. Mullen believed Maxwell and Epstein's relationship was nothing more than friendship. Mullen believed Epstein had feelings for Maxwell but they frequently did not get along. Mullen provided exc./O11's contact ' rmatio stored in his cell ar tel en was unaware of represen e One unknown male, 20's in age, frequently brought local teenaged females to Epstein's residence in Palm Beach, Florida. Mullen believed the unknown male drove a red Honda Accord. Mullen estimated that approximately four or five teenaged females would visit Epstein's Palm Beach residence daily. Sometimes the females at the residence would go upstairs with Epstein and sometimes they would gather and talk in the living room area. Mullen was aware that Epstein received massages every day. In addition to massages provided by massage therapists (masseuses), local teenaged females also gave Epstein massages. Mullen explained that it was easy to distinguish between the masseuses and the local teenaged females based on their appearance and demeanor. Mullen was unaware of what occurred between the teenaged females and Epstein behind closed doors, but opined that Epstein was receiving more than just massages based on the number of teenaged females that were going upstairs with him. Mullen did EFTA01688764 ea FD-302a (Rev. 10445) 31E-MM-108062 ComlusWonolltand David Richard Mullen .0:112/13/2006 .Page a l, not know of the local teens to ever stay at Epstein's Palm Beach residence overnight. Mullen did not have conversations with the teenaged females beyond being polite and asking if they needed anything. Mullen did not engage in relationships with the females associated with Epstein. Mullen reviewed a series of images and was asked if he rec ized the individuals depicted. He recognized an assistant to spsi iiimiimwa an e also recognized and believed to be Epstein's!!!!!!rien . , owner of a barbeque restaurant in New was emp oye as a chef for Epstein prior to Mullen. was a former line cook at Daniel Restaurant, New York, Mullen was aware that Epstein had other chefs before and after his employment but he was unable to recall their names. manages Epstein's St. Thomas, USVI property. s ein rave s to St. Thomas on his private aircraft and then takes a helicopter to his property. He also owns a four- engine speed boat he purchased at auction. The boat is used as a pleasure craft and is also used as a shuttle for Epstein's staff. III LNU and Filipino couple, irk residence. and may reside in the iiiii apartment buil ing. is responsib security at Epstein's New York rest ence. n one occasion, il gave Mullen a tour of Epstein's New York residence which MulOen lil e ieved was a former high school. LNU and Epstein's Mexici lioll a Russian man named Illi LNU are the property managers of cated near Santa Fe. Mullen recalled (phonetic) LNU who worked at Epstein's Palm Beach residence. stein also had a cleaning crew for the Palm Beach residence but Mullen was unaware of the crew member's names. Mullen heard stories of girls who attempted to steal items from Epstein's residence and were sent home and not allowed to return. Mullen did not observe or hear any disturbances during his employment for Epstein.

EFTA00085745.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 18 pages

J78repsc 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 x 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4 v. 19 CR 490 (RMB) 5 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Conference 6 Defendant. x New York, N.Y. July 8, 2019 2:00 p.m. 9 Before: 10 HON. RICHARD M. BERMAN 11 District Judge 12 13 APPEARANCES 14 15 GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney for the 16 Southern District of New York 17 18 Assistant United States Attorneys 19 REID H. WEINGARTEN 20 MARTIN G. WEINBERG MARC FERNICH 21 Attorneys for Defendant 22 Also Present: 23 - Special Agent FBI 24 - NYPD - Probation Officer 25 - Probation Officer SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085745  J78repsc 1 (Case called) 2 THE COURT: Good afternoon. 3 I think I'm pretty much up to speed as to where you 4 are in the sense that I am aware that you have been before 5 Magistrate Judge Pitman earlier this morning and up to some few 6 minutes ago for purposes of presentment, arraignment, and some 7 preliminary discussion of bail. Is that accurate? That's correct, your Honor. I don't 9 want to speak for defense counsel, but my understanding is they 10 expect to put in some sort of written submission and return to 11 argue the rest of the bail hearing on Thursday before Judge 12 Pitman at 2:00. That is, if your Honor refers the bail hearing 13 to Judge Pitman on that basis as well. 14 THE COURT: I might just take that bail application 15 before me. We'll figure out a time when that would be 16 comfortable for all of you. How is that? 17 MR. WEINGARTEN: That's fine with the government, your 18 Honor. 19 THE COURT: I have a few items on my list. I want to 20 make mention, I'm sure Magistrate Judge Pitman did, of our 21 presumption of innocence. Even though in some of these 22 discussions, and probably more so when we get to bail, it may 23 sound like we are talking about merits of the case, it's 24 important that we underscore that the presumption of innocence 25 pertains to Mr. Epstein, now and until such time, if it comes, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085746  J78repsc 3 1 that there is a guilty determination by a jury or by the Court, 2 that he is presumed to be innocent. 3 I did have these questions. One has to do with 4 persons who are categorized as victims. I want to get some 5 assurance from the U.S. Attorney's office that they have been 6 notified about this case and that you will keep them abreast of 7 developments in this case. Yes, your Honor, we are acutely aware 9 of our obligations to the victims in this case. We have 10 notified them and we expect to continue to do so as the case 11 moves forward. 12 THE COURT: Second, for my background, I am aware that 13 there are certain conditions that attach to Mr. Epstein's sex 14 offender status resulting from his Florida state prosecution in 15 or about 2008. One result is that under New York law -- 16 correct me if I'm wrong about any of this -- he is considered 17 to be at high risk of committing another sex crime with minors. 18 Is that a fair characterization of his sex offender status? 19 Your Honor, as the government set 20 forth in its submission to Judge Pitman, and we copied this 21 Court, it is our understanding that the defendant is a tier 3 22 sex offender in New York and that that is characterized as 23 high-risk individual. 24 THE COURT: The question that I have is what are the 25 implications, if any, of the search conducted by the U.S. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085747  J78repsc 4 1 Attorney's office over the weekend of Mr. Epstein's residence 2 on East 71st Street for the terms and conditions of his sex 3 offender status, if any? Are there any consequences or 4 relationship between what was uncovered and what he is obliged 5 to do? 6 May I have one moment, your Honor? 7 THE COURT: Yes. 8 Your Honor, in response to that 9 question, at the outset I should say that we don't have 10 particular interaction with state authorities with respect to 11 those types of notifications. We are, I would say, in the 12 early stages of reviewing those materials. With respect to the 13 defendant's obligations or potential consequences in the New 14 York State system, we certainly will notify whichever 15 authorities are appropriate. I don't think that we have a role 16 other than that. 17 I will say that they are extremely concerning with 18 respect to bail here, with respect to the conduct here, and 19 expect we will get into that more in our submissions and bail 20 argument. 21 THE COURT: By the way, if defense counsel wants to 22 jump in at any point, feel free to do that? 23 MR. WEINGARTEN: On that, we have not seen the 24 pictures. 25 THE COURT: I haven't either. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085748  J78repsc 5 1 MR. WEINGARTEN: I understand. It is our expectation 2 that they are ancient, that they are pre his spending time in 3 prison, and/or they are erotic pictures of adults who 4 voluntarily engaged in that conduct. 5 THE COURT: I have a question about the Southern 6 District of Florida nonprosecution agreement dated probably in 7 2008 -- is that correct? It's dated in 2007, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Is that a public document? 10 MR. WEINGARTEN: It is, your Honor. It's been 11 publicly filed in connection with other civil litigation. 12 THE COURT: Does that agreement bear on in any way the 13 search and results of the search that were conducted at Mr. 14 Epstein's townhouse over the weekend? 15 Not in ways that I am aware of now, 16 your Honor. Again, we are very much in progress on the search. 17 We will continue to consider any other implications beyond this 18 case as we continue to review those materials. 19 On a separate note, your Honor, I want to add the 20 government noted it is aware of its victim obligations. In 21 terms of notification, we have made notification to individuals 22 that we are in particular aware of. We also have listed a 23 phone number for victims to be in touch with the FBI, with the 24 U.S. Attorney's office. We have also put a website up and have 25 asked victims to be in touch with us through those sources as SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085749  J78repsc 6 1 well. That is just to round out the notification that the U.S. 2 Attorney's office has made. 3 MR. WEINGARTEN: May I be heard briefly on that? 4 THE COURT: Sure. 5 MR. WEINGARTEN: For us, your Honor, the NPA is the 6 center of the universe for everything, search included, because 7 the NPA was the result of an extensive 3-year investigation by 8 law enforcement in Florida. In essence, the Feds made Mr. 9 Epstein plead to a state offense and they declined prosecution 10 federally, and that is translated in the NPA. Mr. Epstein did 11 his time, Mr. Epstein is on the registration list, and Mr. 12 Epstein paid the alleged victims. 13 As I am sure you have noted from the indictment, that 14 conduct too is an ancient history. That conduct is 2002 to 15 2005. It is our belief that this is basically a re-do. This 16 is basically the Feds today, not happy with what happened in 17 the decision that led to the NPA, redoing the same conduct that 18 was investigated 10 years ago and calling it, instead of 19 prostitution, calling it sex trafficking. We think that is the 20 heart of everything, and that will be the centerpiece of our 21 defense, at least legally. 22 THE COURT: My understanding of what the government is 23 asserting is that the episodes that occurred in Manhattan were 2.1 not included in the nonprosecution agreement in Florida and 25 that there is a separate basis not only for a sex trafficking SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085750  J78repsc 1 count but also for a sex trafficking conspiracy count. 2 MR. WEINGARTEN: We have had good conversations with 3 the prosecutors, and we like and respect them. We are looking 4 forward to getting discovery. We are interested to see whether 5 the prosecutors in Florida, who are now under severe criticism 6 10 years later, steered the alleged victims to New York, 7 whether or not they violated their responsibilities under the NPA. 9 THE COURT: Whether the federal prosecutors in Florida 10 violated their terms and conditions? 11 MR. WEINGARTEN: That will certainly be germane. 12 THE COURT: Is that the point? 13 MR. WEINGARTEN: Yes. 14 THE COURT: Got it. 15 Your Honor, if I could very briefly 16 respond to those points? 17 THE COURT: Sure. 18 I expect this will be briefed and 19 argued on Thursday. I don't intend to go into extensive 20 details about that. I just want to flag for the Court that 21 defense counsel is saying that this conduct is ancient. What 22 he is not saying is it is beyond the statute of limitations, 23 because it is not. 24 Second, the allegation that this is some kind of a 25 conspiracy within the Department of Justice is just false. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085751  J78repsc 1 There is no evidence to support that. The investigation was 2 begun and conducted entirely separate from any other district. 3 It began in the Southern District of New York. 4 Certainly there is evidence that was gathered that is 5 consistent with and even overlapping with the prior 6 investigation. But as the Court noted, in particular an entire 7 count of this indictment is with respect to New York victims. And that is before we even get to the fact that the 9 nonprosecution agreement does not bind the Southern District of 10 New York. 11 THE COURT: I was going to ask you about that too. 12 Now that you have mentioned the topic, explain that, would you. 13 Yes, your Honor. I do expect that we 14 can brief this, but the short version is that this prosecution 15 is not precluded by the nonprosecution agreement entered into 16 by the defendant in the Southern District of Florida. That 17 agreement expressly referred to that federal district. It 18 didn't purport to bind any other office or district. 19 It is well-settled in the Second Circuit that a plea 20 agreement in one U.S. Attorney's office does not bind another 21 unless otherwise stated. That is even if, based on case law, 22 the agreement refers generally to "the government." Again, 23 additionally, as set forth in the indictment returned by the 24 grand jury, the substantive count alleges acts occurring in New 25 York and alleges New York-based victims. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085752  J78repsc 1 That is in spite of the fact that the Southern 2 District is not bound, is not a signatory to, and otherwise has 3 no connection to the NPA. And there is no evidence that we 4 have come across that the Southern District of New York was 5 consulted, asked, involved, notified as far as we have seen. 6 For those reasons and others I'm sure we will brief, 7 we don't think the NPA applies to us. MR. WEINBERG: If I may reply briefly, your Honor? 9 THE COURT: Yes. 10 MR. WEINBERG: I have been one of Mr. Epstein's 11 counsel through the CVRA litigation which started in 2008 and 12 continues. In fact, our briefing is today. The NPA provided 13 him with immunity for any offenses arising from a joint 14 FBI/grand jury/U.S. Attorney investigation that led to a 15 decision by Mr. Epstein to plead to a higher state offense than 16 the state prosecutors contemplated. He went to jail, signed an 17 agreement, and has lived up to its terms 100 percent. 18 We have seen in the paperwork of the CVRA, in the 19 Southern District of Florida, in writing at docket 205-2 the 20 government's motion to dismiss CVRA, urging that the witnesses 21 there go to the Southern District of New York and essentially 22 try to motivate them to prosecute for the very same conduct, in 23 other words, the conduct that Mr. Epstein was immunized, 24 including travel between two states, telephonic communications 25 between two states. Florida immunized him for the same travel SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085753  J78repsc 1 and telephonic communications as well as the 1591 category. 2 In addition, the Department of Justice reviewed the 3 NPA on several occasions in 2008 and essentially confirmed that 4 the exercise of discretion shown in Florida was appropriate. 5 But the most important thing is that there was communication 6 between the prosecutors in Florida, perhaps through prosecutors 7 in Georgia that took over the case because the Florida 8 prosecutors were recused as a result of Judge Marrah's 9 decisions in the CVRA case. 10 We know the government is relying in part on evidence 11 that was generated by the Southern District of Florida case 12 back in 2007. They have talked about message pads, telephone 13 records. They are the same message pads and telephone records 14 that reflect conduct that was exclusively 15, 16, 17 years ago. 15 So we do have a principal position that we will put to the 16 Court at the appropriate time regarding the legality of this 17 prosecution and whether or not it is appropriately barred. 18 I can say as a criminal defense lawyer of 45 years, 19 when there is an interstate wire, mailing, travel, and there is 20 one district that is conducting an investigation, you negotiate 21 with that district and count on the Department of Justice to 22 what it does every day decade after decade after decade, which 23 is not to go to the second jurisdiction that received the mail 2.1 that was sent from the immunizing jurisdiction and have a 25 prosecution on the very same conduct. We will be briefing SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085754  J78repsc 1 that. 2 THE COURT: Do you anticipate that there is going to 3 be any discussion here about the legality of the NPA? 4 MR. WEINBERG: Not the legality of the NPA. I th_-k 5 the discussion here is going to be about its scope. 6 THE COURT: From the defense, yes. You don't think 7 you expect to hear anything from the government, for example? 8 MR. WEINBERG: In the Southern District case, the CVRA 9 case, maybe two weeks ago the Northern District of Georgia 10 prosecutors, who are proxy for the Southern District of 11 Florida, filed the submission before District Judge Marrah in 12 the CVRA case totally supporting the constitutionality and 13 legality of the NPA, their discretion to enter into it, and 14 that there absolutely has never been a charge that Mr. Epstein 15 ever did anything other than fully perform his end as a citizen 16 who is expecting the benefits of a contract that he lived up 17 to. 18 THE COURT: I thought there had been some contention 19 that the way that the victims vis-a-vis the Florida NPA were 20 dealt with or not dealt with was one basis for attacking the 21 legality of that arrangement. 22 MR. WEINBERG: The petitioners are vigorously and have 23 vigorously for many years challenged, many years starting quite 2.1 frankly after Mr. Epstein performed his obligations to go to 25 jail and challenged it, claiming that there was no consultation SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085755  J78repsc 1 prior to the government's entering the agreement. 2 The Department of Justice at the time did not believe 3 the CVRA extended absent a federal charge. The predicate is a 4 federal crime that harms a victim. The petitioners have 5 vigorously asserted a different position. Judge Marrah, in a 6 summary judgment motion, agreed with the petitioners as to the 7 fault of the government in not conferring. The issue of remedy is before Judge Marrah at the present time, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 Your Honor, if I may very briefly? 11 THE COURT: Yes. 12 The crux of the defense argument here 13 I think cuts precisely the other way. They are arguing that 14 the Southern District of Florida has sort of sent up a flag 15 that these prosecutions could be undertaken elsewhere. That's 16 true. The Southern District of Florida has argued in papers 17 that they believed, the Southern District of Florida believed, 18 that the nonprosecution agreement was limited to that district. 19 They have said that out loud and in public and in their 20 positions in filing. 21 So certainly this investigation was not shoveled to 22 the Southern District of New York from anywhere else, including 23 the Department of Justice. We expect that the nonprosecution 24 agreement will not be an impediment, in particular because the 25 defendant certainly did not lack for sophisticated counsel in SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085756  J78repsc 1 negotiating that agreement, which again did not include the 2 Southern District of New York. We don't expect that to be any 3 impediment at all here. 4 THE COURT: Got it. 5 This is a small item. In the pretrial services report 6 which was prepared today -- how many, if more than one, 7 passports does Mr. Epstein have? 8 MR. WEINGARTEN: Mr. Epstein reported today one. 1. 9 others were rescinded. As we understand it, there is one 10 effective passport today. 11 I would like to make one other point about the 12 pretrial that is extremely important. 13 THE COURT: Go ahead. 14 MR. WEINGARTEN: The way it reads is that we have 15 refused to provide information about income and assets. 16 THE COURT: I didn't really read it that way myself. 17 I thought it was incomplete in some places and I thought it 18 could be beefed up, so to speak. But I imagine that in the 19 bail application those matters may be dealt with. 20 MR. WEINGARTEN: Exactly. 21 THE COURT: For : In your letter you 22 describe some obstruction or harassment, witness tampering, 23 alleged, by Mr. Epstein. That, I take it, is going to be 24 included in any response or any bail submission made by the 25 government? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085757  J78repsc 14 1 Your Honor, I think we addressed that 2 in our initial submission. To the extent defense counsel has a 3 response to it, we will evaluate that response and see whether 4 additional submission from the government is required or 5 appropriate. 6 THE COURT: I think that's it for me in terms of 7 questions that I might have had. There is, of course, a conspiracy charge here, one of 9 the two counts. It may be early in your investigation to know. 10 Do you anticipate that there may be other defendants in this 11 proceeding? 12 Your Honor, we don't expect any 13 imminent superseding indictments in this case. It certainly is 14 possible down the road. 15 MR. WEINGARTEN: May I make one point, your Honor? 16 These obstruction allegations we find very nettlesome and 17 bothering. My understanding is that the Feds and Mr. Epstein's 18 attorneys back in the early 2000s, or 2007 and 8, when they 19 were negotiating were looking desperately for an appropriate 20 statute. They finally settled on a state statute that Mr. 21 Epstein pled to. We all know how unusual that is. There was 22 some consideration of a federal statute, including obstruction. 23 So lawyers in good faith were having discussions back 24 and forth whether or not they could squeeze Mr. Epstein's 25 conduct into a particular statute, and they concluded they SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085758  J78repsc 1 couldn't because the facts didn't fit. That is my 2 understanding of how those obstruction discussions arose. 3 THE COURT: Got it. 4 In terms of bail application, it would be helpful, and 5 maybe this is your anticipation, to file written submissions. 6 If you could do that. What I'm getting to is Thursday 7 afternoon is not a good time, in my opinion. I would prefer to 8 do it, if you would go along with this, Monday morning at, say, 9 9:30. That would give everybody more time to make these 10 submissions and to study them. Is that agreeable? 11 MR. WEINGARTEN: Yes. 12 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 13 THE COURT: Why don't we say Monday at 10:00. Have 14 you arranged written submissions on any time schedule with 15 Magistrate Judge Pitman? 16 May we have just a moment, your 17 Honor, with defense counsel? 18 THE COURT: Yes, would you. And also determine if one 19 party or the other is going first and that the other is 20 responding or they are simultaneous. 21 Yes, your Honor. Thank you. 22 (Pause) 23 Your Honor, the government is 24 prepared to rely on its initial submission at least for its 25 first argument. I expect defense counsel will respond to that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085759  J78repsc 1 and propose a package. Then the government would like an 2 opportunity to reply to that submission. 3 The parties would be happy to make those deadlines 4 Thursday and Saturday respectively. However, we are also happy 5 to back that up a little bit if the Court prefers not to 6 receive the government's submission over the weekend. We could 7 do an earlier deadline on Thursday for defense and a late Friday deadline for the Court from the government, depending on 9 what the Court prefers. 10 THE COURT: I was going to propose defense Thursday at 11 noon. Is that okay to get your submission in? 12 MR. WEINBERG: We can do that, your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Thanks. 14 And if you could respond Friday by 5:00 p.m. 15 We will, your Honor. Thank you. 16 THE COURT: Then we can have oral presentations. I 17 take it everybody wants to have oral presentations in addition 18 to the written. I'll set aside as much time as we need on the 19 15th at 10:00. 20 I ask the government if there is a speedy trial issue 21 or application that takes us to Monday at 10:00 a.m. 22 Yes, your Honor. The government asks 23 that speedy trial time be excluded until Monday. We do expect 24 to begin the process of working on producing discovery, to 25 include discussions with defense counsel about a protective SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085760  J78repsc 17 1 order. I think, frankly, the outcome of that will be effected 2 by the coming week. But we do expect to have those 3 conversations and therefore request that speedy trial time be 4 excluded until Monday. 5 THE COURT: I am going to find under 18 United States 6 Code 3161 that the request for adjournment, joined in by both 7 sides, to and including Monday the 15th at 10:00 a.m., is appropriate and warrants exclusion of the adjourned time from 9 speedy trial calculations. 10 I further find that the exclusion is designed to 11 prevent any possible miscarriage of justice to facilitate these 12 proceedings and, initially at least, so that counsel has time 13 to prepare written bail submission and to guarantee effective 14 representation of and preparation by counsel for both sides. 15 Thus, the need for exclusion and the ends of justice outweigh 16 the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial 17 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B). 18 Does anybody want to add anything to today's session? 19 Your Honor. May we have one more 20 moment with defense counsel? 21 THE COURT: Sure. 22 (Pause) 23 : Nothing from the government. Your 24 25 THE COURT: Defense? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085761  J78repsc 1 MR. WEINBERG: Nothing from the defense, your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Nice to see you all. See you on Monday. 3 Thank you. 4 (Adjourned) 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00085762

EFTA01098622.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 16 pages

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant EFTA01098622 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 2 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant JANE DOE NO. 6. CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant 2 EFTA01098623 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 3 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, Vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendant. DOE II, CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendants. 3 EFTA01098624 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 4 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant / JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant / PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Plaintiff Jane Doe, hereby moves this Court for an order compelling defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, to answer her first request for production or, in the alternative, to prove that his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege is proper. Jane Doe also requests production of a privilege log. Jane Doe has propounded 16 requests for production, including such straightforward requests as requests for production of: 4 EFTA01098625 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 5 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAAJOHNSON Request No. 1: Copies of all telephone records; Request No. 2: Photos of the inside of your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, that depict the room(s) where massages took place (including massage table). Request No. 10: Correspondence between Epstein and federal prosecutors; Request No. 12: Personal tax returns; Request No. 13: Photocopies of Epstein's passport; Request No. 14: A statement of net worth; and Request No. 16: Medical records. In response to each and every one of these requests, Epstein has given the following response (with only minor variations here and there): Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. This Court should order Epstein to provide all of the requested information or, in the alternative, prove that his Fifth Amendment invocations are valid. It is for the court, not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). "A court must make a particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the 5 EFTA01098626 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 6 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAMONNSON questioning party wishes to explore, whether or not the privilege is well-founded." Id. Typically this is done in an in camera proceeding wherein the person asserting the privilege is given the opportunity "to substantiate his claims of the privilege and the district court is able to consider the questions asked and the documents requested by the summons." Id. Here Epstein has made boilerplate invocation of the Fifth Amendment to each and every request propounded by Jane Doe, including for example the request for correspondence with federal prosecutors and for production of federal tax returns. This obviously is not a request with Fifth Amendment implications, as the information has already been fully disclosed to the Government. For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the requests or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation with regard to each request. Epstein's "cut and paste" response to the request for production also blatantly disregards the requirements for invoking privilege under the Court's local rules. Local rule 26.1.G very specifically requires the preparation of a privilege log with respect to all documents and oral communications (among other things) that are withheld on the basis of privilege. Epstein has failed to prepare such a log, making it impossible for Jane Doe to effectively challenge his generic assertions. Indeed, with respect to a few requests, Epstein has stated: "Further, the request may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege." Of course, the whole purpose of forcing a defendant to prepare a privilege log is to force the defendant to decide whether or not 6 EFTA01098627 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 7 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAMONNSON information is privileged. An assertion that something "may" be privileged is obviously woefully deficient. The Local Rules do not permit this tactic, and Epstein should be (at a minimum) promptly required to produce a privilege log. For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to provide a privilege log and to answer the interrogatories or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation with regard to each request. It should be noted that (with minor exceptions) the only grounds on which Epstein can refuse to answer the request for production is proof of a valid Fifth Amendment privilege. This the only objection Epstein has asserted (with minor exceptions). As a result, any other objections to production are deemed waived. See Local Rule 26.1G.3.(a) ("Any ground [for an objection] not stated in an objection within the time provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any extensions thereof, shall be waived."). SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION For the convenience of the court — and in compliance with Local Rule 26.1 H (party filing motion to compel shall list specific requests in succession) — Jane Doe's requests for production and Epstein's objections are as follows: Request No. 1: Copies of all telephone records in your or your attorney's possession from 2002 through 2005 that in any way relate to you (including all phone lines owned by you or that were used to contact girls for the purposes of scheduling massages for you.) Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective 7 EFTA01098628 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 8 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Request No. 2: All massage appointment books, diaries, computer calendars or scheduling entities, scheduling books or any other writing or correspondence that contains the names of any of the girls that were called, contacted, scheduled or who otherwise went to your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, for the purpose of giving you a massage. Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Request No. 3: Any and all documentation in your possession that contains Plaintiff's name or that refers to Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, (includes e-mails, letters, message pads, diaries, appointment books, computer print outs). Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Request No. 4: Any and all photos, videos, downloaded digital prints or any other visual depiction of Plaintiff, or of any other known or suspected minor females introduced to you, directly or indirectly, by Plaintiff. 8 EFTA01098629 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 9 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Request No. 5: Photos of the inside or your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, that depict the room(s) where the massages too place (including massage table). Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Request No. 6: Any and all documentation of cancelled checks or evidence of payment to Plaintiff of any kind and for any reason whatsoever. Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 9 EFTA01098630 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 10 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Request No. 7: All discovery information obtained by you or your attorneys as a result of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you or the Federal investigation against you. Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and § 90.410, Fla. Stat.' Further, the request may including information subject to work product or an attorney- client privilege. Request No. 8: All financial documents evidencing asset transfers from 2005 to present for you personally or any company or corporation owned by you. Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Jane Doe does not intend to use these materials to draw a forbidden inference of guilt from the mere fact that information was provided to law enforcement officials as part of plea discussions, but rather for other purposes. These materials are also quite clearly likely to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence, as they relate to the same subject matter as this lawsuit. To the extent that Epstein relies on the non-prosecution agreement, nothing in that agreement bars discovery of information relevant to this lawsuit. 10 EFTA01098631 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 11 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Request No. 9: Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided to local, state, or federal law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal prosecutors investigating your sexual activities with minors. Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and § 90.410, Fla. Stat. 2 Further, the request may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege. Request No. 10: All correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, letters to and from the States Attorney's office or any agents thereof). Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, 2 Jane Doe does not intend to use these materials to draw a forbidden inference of guilt from the mere fact of plea discussions, but rather for other purposes. These materials are also likely to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence. To the extent that Epstein relies on the non-prosecution agreement. nothing in that agreement bars discovery of information relevant to this lawsuit. 11 EFTA01098632 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 12 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAMONNSON Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and § 90.410, Fla. Stat. 3 Further, the request may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege. Request No. 11: Any and all documents reflecting your current net worth. Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Request No. 12: Personal tax returns for all years from 2002 through the present. Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution; overly broad. Request No. 13: A photocopy of your passport, including any supplemental pages reflecting travel to locations outside the 50 United States between 2002 and 2008, including any documents or records regarding plane tickets, hotel receipts, or transportation arrangements. 3 Jane Doe does not intend to use these materials to draw a forbidden inference of guilt from the mere fact of correspondence in connection with plea discussions, but rather for other purposes. These materials are also likely to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence. To the extent that Epstein relies on the non-prosecution agreement, nothing in that agreement bars discovery of information relevant to this lawsuit. 12 EFTA01098633 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 13 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAMONNSON Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional protections and privileges, the scope of information is so overbroad that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; compiling such information over a six year period would be unduly burdensome and time consuming.4 Request No. 14: A sworn statement of your net worth (including a detailed financial statement depicting all current assets and liabilities). Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Request No. 15: All financial statements or affidavits produced by you for any reason, to any person, company, entity or corporation since 2005. Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United 4Jane Doe believes that Epstein used overseas travel as a means of obtaining underage girls for sexual purposes and for avoiding criminal prosecution for such activities. Also. providing a copy of a passport is hardly 'burdensome." Also, given the fact that Epstein is likely to have used the services of a travel agent or another intermediary, it should not be difficult for him to provide evidence of his overseas travels from such intermediaries. 13 EFTA01098634 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 14 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAMONNSON States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution; overly broad. Request No. 16: All medical records of Defendant Epstein from Dr. Stephan Alexander. Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. CONCLUSION For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the request for production, or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation with regard to each request. Epstein should also be required to provide a privilege log. Counsel for Jane Doe have conferred with opposing counsel on the issues raised in this motion, and no resolution was possible. DATED July 20, 2009 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 522-3456 Facsimile (954) 527-8663 Florida il r N E-mail: 14 EFTA01098635 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 15 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 20, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards 15 EFTA01098636 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 16 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON SERVICE LIST Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldber er Esq. Robert D. Critton, Esq. Isidro Manual Garcia isidroqarcia(abellsouth.net Jack Patrick Hill Katherine Warthen Ezell Michael James Pike Paul G. Cassell Richard Horace Willits Robert C. Josefsbera A m D. H r wiz Stuart S. Mermelstein William J. Ber er 16 EFTA01098637

EFTA01689427.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 100 pages

4 (Rev. 0644-2001 S FEDERAL BUREAU.OF INVESTIGATION Precedence: ROUTINE Date: 11/07/2007 To: Miami Attn: Third Party Draft,' From: Miami PB-2, PBCRA Contact: SA E. Approved By: Drafted By: Case ID #: 31E-MM-108062 Title: JEFFREY EPSTEIN; ELL WSTA - CHILD PROSTITUTION Synopsis: To request funds for expenses associated to the above captioned case. Enclosure(sj: Enclosed for the Miami Third Party Draft is an original bill from American Express dated October 10, 2007 and the associated FD-794. Details: SA requests Third Party Draft provide payment in the amount o $306.50 to American Express/DATAMARK for financial records that provided pertinent information on the individuals of interest in the ongoing federal investigation. This expense incurred due to labor and the extensive time spent in the reproduction of records. 3/E - t4f4-10S'Obz-/3z EFTA01689427 r • October 10, 2007 Federal Bureau of Investigation SIA 0 American Express I DATAMARK West Palm Beac 334 923 Attention: Subpoena Compliance 43 Butterfield Circle El Paso. TX 79906 2ND Notice RE: Account No. Oar File No: 07143MQR10001534 Dear Sir/Madam: Receipt of the subpoena for records with regard to the above reference matter is hereby acknowledged and the during available documents are enclosed. Please be advised statements are not generated when there is no activity those months. The cost relating to production of the records requested is as follows: HOURS WORKED S 99.00 rS 17.00 'prima 9.00 An REPRODUCTION COST $ 207.50 s.25 panox ma no, LESS PAYMENT RECEIVED S -0 TOTAL DUE S 306.50 DUE DATE August 9, 2007 Please return a copy of this letter by the due date along with your remittance for the above amount payable to: American Express I DATAMARX Attention: Subpoena Compliance 43 Butterfield Circle El Paso, TX 79906 Our TAX ID NUMBER is Cordially. American ress Subpoena Compliance Department EFTA01689428  97”77. a .POST/IlISERYICri"' :c ITEDSTATES- , fit 111:111:1I igR'pUoir •;t LC '• ..20 13;;WEILU cr. 111 • EFTA01689429  FD-794 (Rev. 2-7-00) I. Classification 0 (AC) Criminal Cue 0 (CF) Asset 0 (0A) SOO 0 (AD) Criminal OCDETF 0 (DC) Group II UCO 0 (08)0PS CI (AF) Fa Case 0 (DD) OCDSTF Group It 0 (GC)Air Operation . 0 (BC)InfounnotIV 0 (8) Group I 0 (H) SSG o (BD) Infonnent/OF Providing Drug ink. 0 (F) MI tICO 0 (1) FCI Lookout Draft Request 2. Date Mi l l i ! 3. Request for: ( ) Advance ( ) Expense 4. Social Security No: i i i i i i i i 1 5. Payee Name: 6. Fire No: I I I I I I I I I I I I 18. Cat Item No 7. Description 8. Amount . • •. • 03: .• . : • ' t 7, - :.. -08:I;• ii::'— i•4LL-i- lif rfr. .: ,..,. A.- -.1.%,•-• • • ::...: ,... • • r .., --•• • • , •••••V .14 9. Total $ 10. Justification: Assetanformant File No. Symbol No. Payment/Code Name Period Covered to One Time Non-symbol Source Payment: True Name: DOB: / / SSAN: _.. Date of Waiver: --- / / 11. Payment for reimbursable expense - forfeiture or drug related? Yes No 12. Requested by: 13. Telephone No: 14. Approval Date Supervisor Initials: SAC / ASAC / AO / SAS Approval: I i • Supply Technician Approval. Draft Approval Officer: Procurement Authorization: No. . 15. Yend4ihNo. ••••• ‘. 'Group .. •17 ' Obligationitt. • ,:- •• I . , - -. -t A I. e l I I •1 r il`Wtt i •• • :-18. OS Center: ..c.: 1. .1s1, SQratYFiiA, .. 20i: Follow-up Date:. : •'' : C 1• .' - 21. Docuinent.No. ..•• • , . • n • .- . . .22. CONF _ COMM ; . ,•••. ,. . i . - _ I' .1 • ..t . • I. :!..lt .1.• ' . Li 1 ••• • ,.t.: . I. /. I . 23. Drafthitg . 24. Date: :' 25. ()wittier" 28. SettleMent ofAaVellne: 'PdOr Month AdvanceSalance: $ ' This Advance' ' $ ...'`.• ' ''• • . . . Less: Fleceipts: $ l'i rtf -,,::i.- ,., Funds Returned Send/ or Cash on Hand: t ..„.1,1 -- :• • Amount-to be fleimburSed4' . • 2T.. Docurrient-No • 28:: :Draft No: '.) 3Q reattei: LI areas for start once use only Classification: Classified By: Blue Copy- Administrative/Case File Declassify on: 3/C ^ M H /6$062 — /32 EFTA01689430  DRAFT REQUEST FORM INSTRUCTIONS REQUESTING EMPLOYEE - Complete blocks I to 13 as follows: I - Enter Budget Category Classification to which expenses will be charged. 2 - Current date. 3 - Check the box to indicate if this request is for an advance of fluids or for payment of an expense. 4 - Your Social Security Account Number. 5 - The name of the person or company that should appear on the check. 6 - The substantive file number, or the Me number of the case benefitted by a payment to an informant, asset or cooperative Mtness. (If more than one case, see No. 10 below) 7- Brief description of the type of expense to be paid. 8 • Amount requested for each type of expense. 9 - Total amount requested. 10 - Enter a brief justification for expense or advance requested. Indicate multiple cases benefuted by asset/inforrnation/CW payment if applicable. For Field Office Use Only: A justification electronic communication must be completed for informant/asset/CW expenses and placed in the applicable informant/ameUCW file, maintained in the field office. I - Check the proper answer to indicate if the requested expense is reimbursable as asset forfeiture related or as a payment for drug information. 12 - Your name. 13 - Your telephone number or extension. APPROVAL: 14 - Each request should be reviewed by the employee's direct supervisor, who should initial the form to indicate review. Confidential expenses must be approved by signature of an ASAC or abovee. Expense/Advance requests for the purchase of supplies or equipment must be approved by the Supply Technician prior to payment. Commercial expenses must be approved by signature of an AOSM or above prior to payment. The Draft Approval Officer may approve commercial expenses under $50.00. Indicate the name of the PRIMO procurement officer and telephonic authorization number (T- number), if appropriate. All advances and expenses must be approved by the Draft Approval Officer, who will complete the following parts of this form: APPROVAL OFFICER: 15 - Vendor Number and Vendor Group Number. 16 - Classify the expense using Catalog Number (CAT) and Item Number. 17 - Obligation number if an advance is issued. 18 - Your cost center. 19 - Squad/RA code, if applicable. 20 - Follow•up date for advance liquidation. DRAFT CASHIER: 21 - Document Number assigned to this transaction. 22 - Cheek if this transaction is confidential (CONF) or commercial (COMM). 23 - Draft Number. 24 - Date issued. 25 - Cashier initials. 26 - Enter advance settlement information when receipts am presented and the matching expense transaction is entered. If a supplemental draft is issued, complete Clocks 27 to 30. 27 - Document Number issued to this transaction. 28 - Draft Number. 29 - Date issued. 30 - Cashier initials. EFTA01689431  (AC) Criminal Sass O (CP) Assoc O (GA) SC0 O (AD) Criminal °CUTE O (DC) Group II UCO O (GB) OPS O (AP) ea Casa ❑ (DD) OCDETF Group H o (GC) Air Operation ' P (BC) Infounint/CW O (E) Group I ▪ 60 sso • 0 (BD) Infonnant/CW Providing Drug info. o (F) FCI UCO O (8 FC.I Lookout Draft Request 2. Date 0 07 3. Request tor: ( ) Advance ense 4. Social Secur ty No: 5. Payee Name 6. File No: 13 it le- Yvv00-i yI Floic, 16. Cat Item No Description 8. Amount • tces,,wv irtarLe Qetionewk/ O ,rottca,d rte s ' t...S:•444:4 .... •L k.. k .. r1.11 ., 4, eflqa.:frir i)ev" , ::,1: IPrin. L-taiS ............. t;. ‘ ...441a n 1:54W ri "'nil •< !:.....)! ''' of ""-Itt41-.ea. ?IS thltria 9. Total $ 3ptd,jc 10. Justificatl n: t- C.a.e.cSACsata. (Luce) 4 a -S ('Q Of sos.c0 " n,M.Y' Oti seas ke. ct.‘81 4/ .. r. Asset/Informant No. Symbol No. Payment/Code Name Period Covered to One 7ime Non-symbol Source Payment: True Name: DOB: / / SSAN: Date of Waiver: / / 11. Payment for reimbursable expense - forfeiture or drug related? Yes PC—Na 14. Supervisor Initials: SAC /ASAC / AO / SAS Approval: Supply Technician Approval: Draft Approval Officer. Proc N6' *ea • •7'#i ?•if Classification: C assified By. White Original - Submitted to Confidential Services Unit by Draft Office Declassify on: EFTA01689432 (26.064)4-2007) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Precedence: ROUTINE Date: 02/06/2008 To: New York Attn: SSA Squa From: Miami Ort PB-2/PBCRA Contact: SA Approved By: Drafted By: Case ID #: 31E-MM-108062t," (Pending) Title: D 7 N; GHISLAINE N. MAXWELL; WSTA - CHILD PROSTITUTION Synopsis: To set leads for captioned investigation. Reference: 31E-MM-108062 Serial 125 Enclosure(s): Enclosed for New York is a copy of referenced serial, FD-302 of Details: On 07/24/2006 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Palm Beach County Resident Agency (PBCRA), began investigating Jeffrey Epstein, a part-tim re iden o . B h lnwi h his ersonal assistants, and Ghislaine Maxwe . PB RA o acne in orma Ion rom e ity of Palm Beach Police Department (PBPD) that a fourteen- year-old girl who lives in Loxahatchee, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida, and who attended Royal Palm Beach High School, provided Epstein "sexual massages". The fourteen-year-old girl informed PBPD that she had been paid $300.00 by Jeffrey Epstein to perform a "sexual massage", which entailed providing a massage to Epstein while he was naked and the fourteen-year-old was wearin onl her thou antie . Durina the massage, Epstein • Following the receipt of the case files from the PBPD, PBCRA began interviewing a series of girls, ranging in age from fourteen through mid to early twenties, who reported a similar - 101-0b2- isy 037ier OI, ee- EFTA01689433 To: Re: New York Fre Miami 31E-MM-108062, 02/06/2008 • series of events. In particular, the gi ' how contact was made via telephone, primarily with Epstein's assistant, to arrange times for the girls o wor at Epstein's home in Palm Beach. The girls would travel to Epstein's residence, usually in the company of another girl. The girls would enter Epstein's the kitchen, where they would be met by Epstein and/or aThe girls would be escorted up to Epstein's bedroom where a massage table was accessible. The girls were told to undress - some undressed only partially and some undressed completely. Epstein would enter the room partially dressed, usually wearing only a towel. He would get onto the massage table face down. While lying face down, Epstein instructed the girl how to massage him. After a period of time when the girl massaged Epstein's back, he would turn over and lie face up. While lying face up, Epstein would continue to instruct a so use• a . When Epstein , the massage was over. e g r s received between $20' for the sexual massages. In addition to these sexual massages, some of the girls were paid additional sums to perform more sexual activity, for example, e activity with another female Epstein employee, while Epstein watched. During the course of PBPD's investigation, a search warrant for Epstein's home was obtained and executed. Many of Epstein's belongings were removed from the home prior to the execution of the search warrant - for example, the computer processing units (CPUs) were removed from the house but the computer screens, keyboards, cords, etc. were left behind. The missing CPU's were never recovered. During the search, several telephone message pads were recovered. These message pads show messages taken from several of the girls who were interviewed and admitted to engaging in sexual massages or other sexual activity with Epstein. The messages contained text such as "I have a female for him" and "has girl for tonight." Some of the messages from the irls were addressed to Epstein and others were addressed to Epstein's assistant. Additional messages recovere uring t e search contained text confirming appointment times. the PBCRA's investigation, the silagrelated that would contact the girls while IIIIII and 2 EFTA01689434 To: Re: New York Fre Miami 31E-MM-108062, 02/06/2008 • Epstein were still in New York or elsewhere, in order to arrange "massage" times upon his arrival in Palm Beach. The PBCRA's investigation has collected the flight manifest for Epstein's two private planes during the period of January 2004 through December 2005 as well as cellular phone records for Epstein and his assistants. The_lauatigation revealed that prior to the flights to Palm Beach, IIIIII would contact some of the girls via cell phone. The massage pads show evidence that the girls responded to those telephone calls and in some instances appointment confirmations were left for Epstein. In addition to the home in Palm Beach, Epstein also maintains residences in the U . it in Islands, New Mexico and his New York residence, , New York, NY 10021. Based on the ongoing criminal investigation, the PBCRA is requesting assistance in establishing Epstein's criminal activity utilizing interstate commerce and the travel in interstate commerce to engage ual conduct and prostitution. 05/2007, was telephonically interviewed. advised ditional minor females had par icipated in similar activity with Epstein in the New York area. Epstein utilized the same modus operandi which has been documented in multiple interviews of minor females in the Palm Beach, Florida area. Prior to conducting captio ds lea re uest d th the lead agent(s) contact SA for investigative direction an questions. 3 EFTA01689435  ti To: New York Fri, Miami 0 Re: 31E-MM-108062, 02/06/2008 LEAD(s): Set Lead 1: (Action) NEW YORK AT NEW YORK, NY Locate and interview DOB cellular telephone atabase reflects her most recent address as New York, NY. Determine from any ac itiona minor emales who may have interacted- with captioned subjects. Set Lead 2: (Action) NEW YORN AT MASTIC, NY Locate and interview DOB telephone a -•-se re ec s ter most ent address as , Mastic, NY. Determine from any additional manor ema es w o may have interacted with captioned subjects. •• 4 EFTA01689436  , Ps4m(Rev.104-9s) • FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Daze of transcription 10/09/2007 date of birth was telephonica y in erviewe regarding a federal investigation involving the sexual exploitation of minors. After being advised of the iden f the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, provided the following information: believe first met JEFFREY EPSTEIN during the end of her ..Dr Year. was attending the Professional Performing School loca e near 48th Str d 8th or 9th Avenue. Last Name Unknown(LNU) told she could make a lot of money providing a quit age. was taken by LNU to EPSTEIN's residence. onl v ed EPSTEIN witli! li massage on one occasion. EPS o d that he would pay her to find and bring him other girls. elieved she was. paid $200.00. stated that there were other girls she wa ware of that ha provided EPSTEIN with massages prior to her. LNU attended Queens High School, stor'a, New York. 'III LNU w o was at least a r younger than also attendedQueens Hi h School. LNU, who was tau m home, brought LNU and f th old cellular .e ephone number li e , was also being taught from home state that wou d go to EPSTEIN's residence weekly. stated that would be paid more by EPSTEIN. believed the amount was $300.00. told the interviewing agents that III has had a difficult time ealing with her past contacts with EPSTEIN. Lap. stated that they would telephone LNU or E assistants, to schedule appoirJs nt with IIIIIN. LNU would a ntact to set up appointments. EPSTEIN told could trust her to find new girls. EPSTEIN would also as "When are you getting more girls?" . Investigation on 10/05/2007 of (telephonically) Fuel 31E-MM-108062 Daze dictated 10/05/2007 by SAE. This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents am not to be disraibuted outside your agency. EFTA01689437 •Oty.06.04-2W” FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Precedence: PRIORITY Date: 03/05/2008 To: Miami Attn: MR. Draft Attn: From: Miami PB-1/PBCRA Contact: AFI Approved By: Drafted By: Case ID #: E-MM-106062 (Pending) Title: IIN; illiiiiIIIII PROSTITUTION Synopsis: This EC was originally submitted on 5/1/07 but not uploaded or filed and is therefore being resubmitted. Request advance of S946.00 to pay for certified copies of corporate records regarding Hyperion Air, Inc. reference captioned case. Enclosure(s): Enclosed for Third Party Draft is a copy of a certification request sheet for corporate records to be submitted to the State of Delaware, Division of Corporations. On 4/27/07, Assi requested that AFI o ain certified copies of all corpora e recor s or yperion Air, Inc. for the purpose of prosecution of captioned case and potential seizure of aircraft registered to Hyperion Air, Inc. 5/1/07, AFI elephonically contacted the State of Delaware, Div s ono Corporations (DEDOC) regarding the procedure for obtaining certified corporate records. The DEDOC representative advised that a check must be sent with the request sheet for corporate records and that no invoice could be provided to the FBI in advance of their receipt of the request. The representative advised that an invoice would accompany the certified copies of the records which would be provided to the FBI upon request on the certification request sheet. The DEDOC representative also confirmed that no taxes 3M.7- kit+4 (76, 043- /35 EFTA01689438 To: Re: Miami From: gland 31E-MM-108062, 03/05/2008 • are charged for these records (as the FBI is a tax exempt entity). The DEDOC indicated that a "Priority 7" day certification request would take approximately two weeks to process. In addition, the DEDOC gave a quote for the various records and a total amount for the corporate records to be requested outlined as follows: Certified Copy of All Charter Documents: $102.00 Short Form Good Standing: $30.00 Certified Copies of All Annual Reports: $814.00 Total: 5946.00 ' Draft is requested to issue•AFI an advance check in the amount of ma e pays e to "Delaware Secretary of State" in order to obtain certified co ies of corporate records for Hyperion Air, Inc. AFI will provide an invoice for these records once obta ned from the Delaware Secretary of State. It should be noted that the receipt of the invoice will take 14 to 20 days. For information of Third Party Draft in order to create a vendor account for the DEDOC: Delaware Secretary of State Division of Corporations John G. Townsend Building 401 Federal Street Suite 4 Dover, tel: 2 EFTA01689439 To: Re: Miami From: 31E-MM-108062, 03/05/2008 • LEAD(s): Set Lead 1: (Info) MIAMI AT MIAMI. FL Party Draft is requested to issue AFI an advance check in the amount of 11111.1a e pays e to "Delaware Secretary of State" in order to obtain certified co ies of corporate records for Hyperion Air, Inc. AFI will provide an invoice for these records once ob a ne rom the Delaware Secretary of State. It should be noted that the receipt of the invoice will take 14 to 20 days. •• 3 EFTA01689440  (Rev,p6-04.2007) • FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Precedence: PRIORITY Date: 03/05/2008 To: Miami Attn: Third Party Draft Attn: From: Miami PB-1/PBCRA Contact: AFI Approved By: Drafted By: Case ID #: E-MM-108062 (Pending) Title: IN; PROSTITUTION Synopsis: This EC was originally submitted on 5/1/07 but not uploaded or filed and is therefore being resubmitted. Request advance of $340.00 to pay for certified copies of corporate records regarding JEGE, Inc. reference captioned case. Enclosure(s): Enclosed for Third Party Draft is a copy of a certification request sheet for corporate records to be submitted to the State of Delaware, Division of Corporations. Details: On 4/27/07, Assi requested that AFI obtain certified copies of all corporate records JEGE, Inc. for the purpose of prosecution of captioned case and potential seizure of aircraft registered to JEGE, Inc. 5/1/07, AFI IIIIIIIItelephonically contacted the State of Delaware, Div s ono Corporations (DEDOC) regarding the procedure for obtaining certified corporate records. The DEDOC representative advised that a check must be sent with the request sheet for corporate records and that no invoice could be provided to the FBI in advance of their receipt of the request. The representative advised that an invoice would accompany the certified copies of the records which would be provided to the FBI upon request on the certification request sheet. The DEDOC representative also confirmed that no taxes 3/E-#4,1-itorp442-)3‘. EFTA01689441 a To: Re: Miami From:'Ltd 31E-MM-108062, 03/05/2008 • are charged for these records (as the FBI is a tax exempt entity). The DEDOC indicated that a "Priority 7" day certification request would take approximately two weeks to process. In addition, the DEDOC gave a quote for the various records and a total amount for the corporate records to be requested outlined as follows: Certified Copy of All Charter Documents: $34.00 Short Form Good Standing: $30.00 Certified Copies of All Annual Reports: 8276.00 Total: $340.00 ' Draft is requested to issue AFI an advance check in the amount of 11111.na e paya e to "Delaware Secretary of State" in order to obtain certified copies of corporate records for JEGE, Inc. AFI will provide an invoice for these records once obtain., the Delaware Secretary of State. It should be noted that the receipt of the invoice will take 14 to 20 days. For information of Third Party Draft in order to create a vendor account for the DEDOC: Delaware Secretary of State Division of Corporations John G. Townsend Building 401 Federal Street Suite 4 Dover, tel: EFTA01689442 To: Re: Miami Froth: Oiami 31E-MM-108062, 03/05/2008 • LEAD(s): Set Lead 1: (Info) MIAMI AT MIAMI, FT, Party Draft is requested to issue AFI an advance check in the amount of payable to "Delaware Secretary of State" in order to c tified copies of corporate records for JEGE, Inc. AFI 4111 provide an invoice for these records once obtainec .lom the Delaware Secretary of State. It should be noted that the receipt of the invoice will take 14 to 20 days. •• 3 EFTA01689443 nmu(Rw.m..6.95) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Om of wmcripcon 09/04/2007 Stuart Pivar, date of birth was interviewed at his residence New York, New York. Pivar was advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the purpose of the interview. Pivar voluntarily provided the following information: Pivar has known Jeffrey Epstein since the 1980's when they were both associated with the New York Academy of Arts. Epstein left the New York Academy of the Arts when he believed inappropriate financial activity was occurring. Epstein is a strong supporter of scientific research and has donated 15 to 30 million dollars to Harvard. He has also funded approximately 150 additional scientists including Nobel Prize winner John Watson, co-founder of DNA. Epstein's scientific interests include the functioning of the brain, life creation and eternal life. Pivar believes Epstein is plotting to monopolize scientific research. Epstein is an owner of Seed Media Group which maintains an internet scientific web log(blog). On the blog, a scientist who reviewed Fiver's book "Lifecode" referred to Pivar as a "crackpot scientist." Pivar is suing Epstein and Seed Media Group for libel and is seeking 15 million dollars in damages. Pivar indicated that journalist John Connolly may be able to provide more information regarding Epstein. Connolly is an independent journalist who had formerly written a Vanity Fair magazine article about Epstein. Pivar stated Epstein does not always tell the truth and lacks a "guilt gene." He stated Epstein is not a good person and described him as a contrarian. Pivar mentioned that Epstein had recently suffered a financial loss of approximately 130 million dollars with a Bear Stearns hedge fund. Investigation on 08/23/2007 at New York, NY File II by This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it aad its contents are not to be distributed °wide your agency. - Mt" - 10,TO b _a EFTA01689444 FD-302 (Rev. 10-6-95) • 0 2 4eljer Oa. 3oot FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of [tense/intim 09/04/2007 Stuart ivar, dat interviewed at h's residence York. Pivar was advised of the i entity of the interviewing agents 1.71- a—the purpose of the interview. Pivar voluntarily provided the following information: Pivar has known Jeffrey Epstein since the 1980's when they were both associated with the New York Academy of Arts. Epstein left the New York Academy of the Arts when he believed inappropriate financial activity was occurring. Epstein is a strong supporter of scientific research and has donated 15 to 30 million dollars to Harvard. He has also funded approximately 150 additional scientists including Nobel Prize winner John Watson, co-founder of DNA. Epstein's scientific interests include the functioning of the brain, life creation and eternal life. Pivar believes Epstein is plotting to.monopolize scientific research. Epstein is an owner of Seed Media Group which maintains an internet scientific web log(blog). On the blog, a scientist who reviewed Pivar's book "Lifecode" referred to Pivar as a "crackpot scientist." Pivar is suing Epstein and Seed Media Group for libel and is seeking 15 million dollars in damages. Pivar indicated that journalist John Connolly may be able to provide more information regarding Epstein. Connolly is an independent journalist who had formerly written a Vanity Fair magazine article about Epstein. Pivar stated Epstein does not always tell the truth and lacks a "guilt gene." He stated Epstein is not a good person and described him as a contrarian. Pivar mentioned that Epstein had recently suffered a financial loss of approximately 130 million dollars with a Bear Stearns hedge fund. Investigation on 08/23/2007 at New York, NY This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it ad its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 3/4. 2—• MN- 105-062-/37 EFTA01689445  t FD-302 (Rey. 10-6-95) • • -1- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dgeofmmuripicm 09/11/2007 Pursuant to a federal investigation regarding the sexual exploitation of minors, Eileen Guggenheim was interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI). Present during the interview was Guggenheim's Wilkinson, and Assistant United States Attorney . After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agen s and purpose of the interview, Guggenheim voluntarily provided the following information: Guggenheim, current Chairman of the New York Academy of Arts(NYAA) board, met Jeffrey Epstein through NYAA functions. In the 1990's, the time period she met Epstein, Guggenheim was lecturing and working with student services at the NYAA. Epstein was a former NYAA board member. Guggenheim stated her husband, Russell Wilkinson, could provide additional information regarding Epstein and his association to the NYAA at which time Wilkinson engaged in conversation with the interviewing agents. Wilkinson advised that Epstein was a NYAA board member in the 1980's into the early 1990's. Epstein was a social acquaintance with artist Andy Warhol. Epstein allowed the board to have meetings at his apartment as well as his office space located in the Villard House, corner of Madison Avenue and 53rd Street, New York, New York. Epstein attended NYAA parties and supported the school financially but he was not considered to be part of the "inner cirle." Wilkinson stated Epstein was in the "social orbit of the school" meaning Epstein was more involved socially with the school than intellectually. Epstein frequently purchased artwork at the NYAA auctions and sponsored benefit tables. Epstein was consistent in his support of NYAA events. Epstein left the NYAA in the 1990's. The founder of the school, Stuart Pivar, "got out of hand" and did not get reelected to the board. Wilkinson opined that Epstein resigned because his main contact with the board, Pivar, was not reelected to the NYAA board. Epstein's long time girlfriend was Ghislaine Maxwell. Following the information provided by Wilkinson, Guggenheim then continued the interview. Guggenheim estimated Epstein's contributions to the NYAA at $5,000-$20,000 per year. Epstein showed no particular interest in any type of art. Epstein had a patron relationship with Guggenheim's former babysitter, investigational 09/06/2007 at West Palm Beach, Florida (telephonically) NftdmW 09/11/2007 0111111 This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency, it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 3/ C- 14 N - 108062-tali. EFTA01689446 FD-302a (Ka. 104-95) • 31E-MM-108062 Coninmiomo(FD•302of Eileen Guggenheim M 09/06/2007 .Page Epstein was a "sponsor patron" providing for so s.e cou a finish her education and paint. She traveled to Epstein's residence in Ohio and returned very upset. Guggenheim did not know the details but believed she was hurt possibly by a verbal suggestion made by Epstein. painted portraits of Guggenheim's daughter, uggen eim stated she was viewing one of the paintings of as she was talking interviewing agents. The painting s e was viewing depicted crouched up in her underwear. She d bed the painting as odd, silghlly risque but well done. had taken photographs of IIIIII and used them for her gs. Guggenheim stated that Epstein had no interaction with gill Guggenheim traveled to Santa Fe, New Mexico in approximate) 1 . A group of approximately six students, including Jeff Lauren and Robin Buxton, traveled to Santa Fe to attend an art workshop on the human figure. The instructor for the workshop was Eric Fisher(phonetic). Guggenheim believed the students were selected to attend the workshop based on merit. Guggenheim visited Epstein at his residence. Architect Jack Robertson built the town where Epstein's New Mexico residence is located and the town is the entrance to Epstein's property. Guggenheim provided her email address, EFTA01689447  • u RP/ •rr 0/.30Z FD-302 (Rev. 10-6-95) -1- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transaiption 09/11/2007 Pursuant to a federal investigation regarding the sexual exploitation of minors, Eileen Guggenheim was interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI). Present during the interview was Guggenheim's Wilkinson, and Assistant United States Attorney . After being advised of the identity of the nterviewing agen s and purpose of the interview, Guggenheim voluntarily provided the following information: Guggenheim, current Chairman of the New York Academy of

EFTA00066350.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 14 pages

EPSTEIN BOX INVENTORY Box 1: Redwell with different files for each Jane Doe v. Epstein case Cd's with Documents on 2" Supplemental Privilege Log (2) and Bates#s 002111-002266 Redwell with printout of Documents in the 2" Supplemental Privilege Log 6001 Orders 6001Immunity Request folder Jane Doe v. U.S. 6/23/15 production (redwell) with documents Box 2: Data Demonstratives Kirkland & Ellis LLP— 6 bound copies and 1 color copy Plea Negotiations (redwell) — folders: Non Prosecution Agreement — Final; Attorney Notes re Revised Indictment; Research re Boehm case; Research re possible misdemeanors; Notes re Plea Negotiations; Plea Agreement drafts; Draft Non Prosecution Agreements; Information Packet drafts Corr w. Nathan Dershowitz (file folder) Golderberger Corr (green file folder) Lefcourt Corr. Re: Epstein Corp. Records (green file folder) Non Pros Agrmt & Addendum (file folder) Mtgw/ Ken Starr (file folder) MTarget Letter (file folder) Notes re Post Agreement Communications (file folder) Bert Ocariz (file folder) 6/19/08 Starr Submission to the DAG (file folder) 6/3/08 Sloman Submission to the DAG (file folder) 5/27/08 Starr Submission to the DAG (file folder) 5/15/08 Oosterbaan-Lefkowitz Ltr (file folder) Draft It r from Sloman to Lefkowitz re termination (file folder) Redwell — Folders: 5/22/07 Lefcourt to Lourie; 6/18/07 to Lefcourt; 6/25/07 Lefcourt to Sloman & Lourie; 7/6/07 Lefcourt & Dershowitz to Sloman; 7/25/07 Lefcourt & Dershowitz to Menchel; 8/2/07 EFTA00066350 Sanchez to Menchel; 8/3/07 Menchel to Sanchez; 9/17/07 to Lekowitz; 10/25/07 Sloman Itr to Davis; 11/8/07 Lefkowitz to Sloman; 11/13/07 Sloman to Lefkowitz (was this sent?); 11/28/07 Starr to Fisher; 11/29/07 Starr to Acosta; 11/30/07 Acosta to Lefkowitz; 12/4/07 Acosta to Starr; 12/5/07 Starr to Acosta; 12/6/07 Sloman to Lefkowitz; 12/7/07 Sanchez to Sloman; 12/7/07 Starr to Acosta; 12/11/07 Starr, Lefkowitz & Lefkowitz to Acosta; 12/13/07 Lefkowitz to 12/21/07 Lefkowitz to Acosta; 12/26/07 Lefkowitz to Acosta Redwell — Folders: 11/15/16 Sanchez to ; 11/16/06 to Sanchez; 11/21/06 Sanchez to ; 11/29/06 to Sanchez; 12/1/06 Sanchez to 1/5/07 Sanchez to 1/8/07 to Sanchez; 1/17/07 Lourie to Sanchez; 1/18/07 Sanchez to ; 1/22/07 Sanchez to Lourie; 1/23/07 to Sanchez; 2/1/07 Lefcourt to 2/5/07 Lefcourt to 2/12/07 Sanchez to ; 2/23/07 Lefcourt to Box 3: White binder with correspondence filed by Janes Does with Court — clipped section of documents with notes White binder labeled Leap YearJ Marra Issue with notes and opinion and filed documents Redwell labeled Telephone Charts with a post it saying Duplicate White binder with additional documents filed in Jane Doe case White binder with CVRA Research White binder labeled Duplicate Box 4: Empty brown file folder Jane Does v. U.S. Standing/Ripeness Research & 6(e) & Due Process Confidentiality Research (redwell) Jane Does v. US Supplemental Briefing (redwell) Redwell with notes; transcript of 8/14/08 hearing in Jane Doe case (DE27); DE 99 Order; Westlaw research on Obstruction of Justice Charges can be based on false statements in state depositions, including Civil depo, if it is likely to be turned over to federal investigation; DE15-2 Exhibit A; "Prince's friendship with pedophile causes furor across the pond" 3/9/11article from Palm Beach Post; additional notes; highlighted Federal Register notices; draft letter from to Captain ,BSO re Epstein's Work Release Application; CVRA research with notes and Westlaw printouts; CVRA Research (green file folder) Jane Does v. U.S. Misc (green file folder) Florida Bar (redwell) with Self Report folder and 9/16/08 Herman Ltr to EFTA00066351 Box 5: (green file folder) Motion to Quash (file folder) Motion to Quash Subpoenas (red file folder) Stolen Globe — (red file folder) Lefcourt Cases (file folder) Research (green file folder) Westlaw case printouts Box 6: Jane Does Litigation (redwell) with 2 email printouts, Sealed Document Tracking Form with Motion to Seal Opposition to Petitioner's Motion Requesting an Order Directing the Government to File Redacted Pleadings in the Public Court File, and Red File Folder with documents filed in Jane Doe case Jane Does 1 & 2 v. U.S. (redwell) with CD inside mailing from and original redacted documents from Clipped research with Attachment to Subpoena NES, LLC; article titled "Working for Top Bosses on Wall St. Has Its Perks"; Jean-Luc Brunel research; Robert Maxwell; Jeffrey Epstein Leslie Wexner (file folder) Kastigar Letters (file folder) 2703 Motion & Order-Cingular (red file folder) Grand Jury Transcripts (redwell) with folders Pros Memo (file folder) labeled Duplicate Proposed Jury Instructions for Violations of 18 USC 2423(b) (Travel in Interstate or Foreign Commerce to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct) Pages 1-6 (of 7 pages) of Non-Prosecution Agreement with highlighted portions Brown file folder with 6/23/08 letter from John Roth (DAG) to Lefkowitz and Starr; 11/2/2010 Privileged Communication letter re Litigation Hold; clipped Non-Prosecution Agreement Doe IM) v. Epstein, 08-80893-CV-KAM (red file folder) EFTA00066352 Box 7: (labeled al Presentation Materials) Federal Criminal Code and Rules 2006 Edition with multiple post-its File folder with Testimony 5/8/07; Testimony 4/24/07; _Testimony 5/8/07; Testimony 2/6/07; 2/27/07 (post it says All About ); Testimony 4/24/07; Testimony 5/15/07 Testimony 3/20/07 5/8/07 estimony (file folder) 5/15/07 Testimony (file folder) 2/6/07 Testimony (file folder) 2/27/07 Testimony (file folder) 5/8/07 Testimony (file folder) 4/24/07 Testimony (file folder) 5/22/07 Testimony (file folder) 3/20/07 Testimony (file folder) 4/24/07 Testimony (file folder) US Attorneys' Bulletin: Crafting Helpful Indictments Box 8: Green file folder with Grand Jury Subpoena Log— Operation Stolen Globe 12/19/07 Acosta-Sanchez letter with post it — to be produced after stay is lifted 2009R02690 Criminal Complaint folder for Op. Stolen Globe Empty redwell — Additions to Items to be Produced after stay is lifted from privileged items Op Stolen Globe (redwell) 4/29/2008 Grand Jury Presentation for Operation Leap Year with Indictment OLY cd Jane Does v. U.S. Bates Nos 000670-002110 cd Jane Does v. U.S. 0001-1652 cd Redwell with multiple copies of 4/29/2008 indictment Orange Composition notebook with notes EFTA00066353 Redwell with documents provided to on cd (000670-002110) Redwell with correspondence between Epstein's attorney's and USAO 10/21/2009 letter to from Black Additional correspondence between Epstein's attorneys and USAO 12/9/2009 Black Ltr re Rothstein Complaints (green file folder) Epstein redwell with correspondence Printout of 'MI arrest Yellow Notepad with notes Enforcing Victim'sRights — April 26, 2012 Index of Victim Notification Letters Box 9: White binder with Victim information Witness/Victim Names Contact List (green file folder) Flight Manifests (file folder) Recent Atty Notes (file folder) Ile folder) Summary of Sexual Activity (file folder) White binder with Victim information — Past Employees — White Binder with Victim Information — White binder with victim call records Box 10: Redwell with no label — contains (front section) Email titled Fw: Epstein Letter; 5/15/2008 letter to Jay Lefkowitz from handwritten list of victims; 2 copies of Privilege Log; (middle section) copies of privileged documents EFTA00066354 Jane Doe (redwell) — contains green file folder with Sealed Document Tracking Form with Government's Sealed Ex Parte Motion for Modification; Order and Motion to Seal Motion to Disclose Grand Jury Information; Sealed Document Tracking Form with Motion to Seal Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject MatterJurisdiction; Sealed Order Granting Government's motion for Limited Disclosure of Grand Jury Material; Sealed Document Tracking Form with Motion to Seal Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling Upon Respondent's Motion to Dismiss; printed stickers with "Privileged Documents Submitted Ex Parte By the United States for in Camera Review Pursuant to DE 190"; printed stickers with "Jane Doe #1& Jane Doe #2 v. United States, 08-80736-CV-Ma rra/Matthewma n; DE 216 and DE 219— Notice of Filing Supplemental Privilege Log; Notepad with notes; Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2's Appellee Brief (red cover); Florida Law Review from Daily Business Review Thursday, August 29, 2013; Printout of Opinion from In Re: Stake Center Locating, Inc.; DE 224; DE 225; DE 226; DE 230; email from Dexter Lee to and Ed Sanchez; Draft Respondent's Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Compel Production of Documents that are not Privileged; printout of brief regarding Alvin F. Aguirre-Gonzalez; Westlaw printouts Redwell with emails from 2007-2008 Box 11: FBI Palm Beach County RA, Jeffrey E. Epstein, 31E-MM White binder with PBPD Reports Palm Beach Police/SAO Records Redwell with post it that says "This whole stack is for opposing counsel" — includes file folders Req for Warr.; Probably Cause Aff.; Req for Epstein Warr; Request for Warr; Incident Report; State Indictment Work Release Notification (green file folder) 12/11/08 Ltr to PBSO re work release (brown file folder) 6/12/09 Breach Ltr (brown file folder) — post it says Epstein Defense 3 7/29/11 Letter to from Lefkowitz regarding NPA being a confidential document 9/1/2009 Letter to Jeffrey Sloman from Roy Black regarding compliance with NPA 2/18/10 Letter to from Black regarding attorney's fees 3/20/11 Letter from Acosta Transcript of 6/12/09 Motion Hearing in Jane Doe case Notice of Removal (DE#1) in 08-CV-8084-KAM Jane Doe case Redwell with Epstein's Motion to Seal Non-Pros Agreement Epstein New York Case (Redwell) 12/10/10, 3/1/11, and 9/29/11 letters from Paul G. Cassell to Wifredo A. Ferrer EFTA00066355 Box 12: Redwell with Notes and Jeffrey Epstein deposition documents and cds Redwell with Breach Memo documents and documents filed by Final Contact (file folder) with Non Prosecution Agreement vil Complaints (green file folder) White binder with Westlaw cases Box 13: - Not applicable — is actually Operation Sledgehammer Box 14: 10/15/2008 letter from to Dexter Lee Epstein — Docs provided by Critton (redwell) Certified Copy of State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein Plea Conference Epstein v. State of Florida Order 6/27/2008 letter from to Goldberger and Black rega rding not receiving copy of proposed plea agreement Palm Beach Post printout 9/4/2009 "Appeals court backs unsealing of Epstein's 07 deal with feds" 6/27/2008 letter from to Goldberger and Black rega rding the plea agreement does not comply with the NPA 7/17/2008 letter to Michael Tein from State of Florida v. Epstein Order Releasing Documents Under Seal Copies of multiple news stories OLY Grand Jury Log Vol. 2 Redwell — State Court Criminal Pleadings; State Motion to Unseal NPA; Supplemental Appendix to Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. Response to Emergency Petition for Writ of Certiorari Redwell with Post DC Correspondence, Epstein Attorney's Fees Correspondence Redwell with Correspondence with Victims Box 15: White Binder — Operation Leap Year Response to Motion to Quash Research EFTA00066356 CDs: 4/24/2007 nterview; PBPD U6-1078 Interview witl= PBPD 061078 Interview with Cassette tapes: Interview wit 2; PBPD Voicemail from PBPD Voicemail PBPD Conversation wi D Statement of ; PBPD Follow-up phone call wit VHS: PBPD Interview o Interview w Interview w Interview vit/ Interview w/ ; Statement Private Island Helicopter Box of Cassette tapes: Statement o tatement of Statement of Voicemail message C work; Statement o Box of cassette tapes: Statement o Control cal ; Conversation of drive to station; Statement o Phone call MIN Statement a :; Statement tatement of-empty of case Box 16: Settlement Negotiations & Settlement Statements (brown redwell) including 5/16/2016 Settlement Conference Summary letter to Honorable Dave Lee Brannon from ; Confidential Memorandum on Behalf of Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 Regarding Mediation; printout of docket for 08-CV- 80736; printout of Crime Victims' Services for AttorneyGeneral Pam Bondi Empty file folder SORNA and Victims' Services Info Clean Copies of Agreement without App D & E (file folder) Relevant Privileged Docs (brown redwell) — 2 copies clipped with Bates Numbers P-003713-P-003746; P- 008516; P-009105-P-009111; P-012624-P-012642; P-012646; P-014011-P-014025; P-014059-P-014061; P-014440; P-014444; P-014521-P-014522; P-014559-P-014562; P-014569-P-014573; P-014666-P- 014693; P-014712-P-014716; P-014866-P-014883 Privilege Logs (brown redwell) — all privilege logs clipped together Jane Does Intervenors at Mediation (file folder) — includes notes and Westlaw printouts Victim List (file folder) — includes 7/10/2008 Final Notification of Identified Victims Victim List (file folder) — includes 7/5/2016 letter to Wells Fargo, 6/16/2016 email from to and 7/10/2008 Notification of Identified Victims to Jack Goldberger Declarations (file folder) — includes 3 printouts of Declaration in Suppport of United States' Response to Victim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. 3771 EFTA00066357 Yellow envelope from to Dexter Lee with Jane Doe #1and Jane Doe #2's Supplemental Request for Production to the Government Regarding "Victim" Status Jane Doe case (Redwell)— includes Draft letters and settlement agreements, Jane Doe Mediation (file folder), and Jane Does Settlement Agreement and Apology Letter (file folder) Jane Doe Document Production (redwell) — includes 3 cds, and documents Order Closing Case & Timeline (file folder) Jane Does — Writ Ad Test (file fodler) includes Westlaw printout of U.S. v. Louis Rinchack Box 17: 6/2/2017 Declaration (brown redwell) Second Declaration of E. (file folder) Jane Doe v. U.S. Summary Judgment prep (brown redwell) — light green file folder with notes, bright green file folder with notes and documents, and rubber-banded exhibits Motion to Disclose Grand Jury Material (brown redwell) —with Copy of Motion, light green file folder with signed sealed Orders, and light green file folder with Exhibits to Motion to Unseal Grand Jury Materials White binder with Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Consolidated Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with Incorporated Memorandum of Law Box 18: Corr re Subpoenas (file folder) File folders for individual subpoenas: OLY-01 through OLY-81 Ritz Compact Flash SW (file folder) PNY Technologies Compact Flash SW (flash drive) JE Corporations (green file folder) Capital One (green file folder) DTG Operations/Dollar Rent-a-Car (green file folder) JP Morgan Chase (green file folder) Washington Mutual (green file folder) Redwell with folders — Computer Search; Attorney Notes from Doc Review; Notes from FedEx Records Colonial Bank Records (redwell) with folders: JEGE, Inc.; NES, LLC EFTA00066358 Epstein Corporate Records OLY-51, OLY-52, OLY-53, OLY-54 (red folder) Colonial Bank (green file folder) JEGE & Hyperion from Goldberger OLY-46 & 0LY-47 (file folder) Box 19: Research re JE websites (file folder) Victim Civil Suits (file folder) NY AUSA) - (file folder) Dr. Anna Salter (file folder) Interview (file folder) Research re Travel for Prostitution (file folder) Transcript (empty file folder) (green file folder) PBPD Investigative File (redwell) (redwell) FedEx (file folder) subpoena response with Certification Documents 53909-004 (green file folder) State of Delaware records (file folder) Jet Blue records (file folder) FL Employment Recs (file folder) (green file folder) Records (green file folder) (file folder) Bear Sterns Research (file folder) Lawsuits involving Epstein Corps (file folder) New York Trip (file folder) (green file folder) SEC records (green file folder) Message Pads (file folder) EFTA00066359 Anna Salter (green file folder) Redwell wit Statement (file folder), (green file folder) and Info Re Planes (green file folder) Police Reports & PC Affidavit (file folder) Bean Sterns Subpoena Response (file folder) Ira nscript of Interview and al Transcript (file folder) 2006R01181Operation Leap Year Criminal Complaint folder with Expert Witness Forms (green file folder) and asset forfeiture folder Extra Copies (green file folder) Box 20: (labeled Legal Research) Epstein Redwell — folders titled: 1591 & Money Laundering; 18 USC 2425; Knowledge of Age; 2423(b) Constitutionality and Purpose of Travel; Immunity; Mistake not a defense; Research re "pandering"; Research re Grand Jury Instructions; Telephone=Facility of Commerce; Def of Prostitution; Research re Crime Victims Rights; Relevant Florida Statutes; Unit of Prosecution Research Research re GrandJury Transcript (file folder) 18 USC 2255 (file folder) Research re Grand Jury Transcript (file folder) Original proposed Ind (file folder) — includes original indictment Research re Overt Acts and Witness Testimony (green file folder) Extradition (green file folder) Corporate Liability Research (green file folder) Research re Knowledge of Age Unnecessary (file folder) 1960 & Aiding/Abetting (green file folder) Money Laundering (green file folder) Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance May 2005 Purpose of Travel Cases (green file folder) Redwell with folders titled: Interstate Commerce Cases; Attorney Conflict Research; Ma nn Act/Travel to Have Sex with a Minor; Travel Act; Florida Prostitution/Lewdness Statutes EFTA00066360 Box 21: Folder with notes =subpoena (green file folder) Research re State Incarc (redwell) with Epstein's Motion to Return Property (file folder) and State Docket Sheets (file folder) Redwell with CD with nothing written on it and OLY cd; Notes and Westlaw printouts Leap Year Filing (redwell) I.Vork Release (file folder) Protective Order Samples (green file folder) Press Coverage re Work Release (green file folder) FOIA Requests (redwell) with nIA Request to FBI folder and Ricci-Leopold Ltr to FBI Demanding Case File folder Docs from Civil Suits (file folder) Dershowitz SARS (file folder) Signed Protective Orders (file folder) Herman Corr Re Ethics Issue (file folder) Willits Signed Protective Order (green file folder) Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Quash (green file folder) Research re Florida Procurement and Sentencing Guidelines Operation Leap Year Revised Indictment Summary Chart (by Victim) Research re FL DOC Regs (file folder) Research re BOP Regs (file folder) Supervised Release Rules (green file folder) al Transcripts redwell Redwell with Newspaper Articles and Press Coverage Box 22: (labeled Phone Records) Redwell with phone records for Jane Doe #4, Jane Doe #12 EFTA00066361 Redwell Corrected Phone Records 5/13/07 phone records (file folder) Lists of Identified Phone Numbers (file folder) Redwell with Master Phone Records Redwell with Epstein/.Phone Records Box 23: Redwell with 8/3/2015 Doc Production Jane Doe v. U.S. Relevant Jane Doe v. U.S. Items(Redwell) — Reinhart review (file folder), Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance May 2005, United States of America's Response to Petitioners' Request for Production, Items marked as removed as non-responsive 12-7-2007 draft Crime Victims' Rights — Notification of Resolution of Epstein Investigation with envelopes (redwell) Redwell with Items Produced to 7/19/2013 and cd copies (1for and 1 for Judge) Redwell with Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, Stipulation, and Intervenors' Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law Black binder with Doe case documents CDs: 2n° supplemental privilege log P-013970 thru P-014923; Epstein- P-013279 thru P-013969; OLY pictures and summaries; Lit Hold; Lit Hold PST; Reinhart Sealed yellow envelope to Dexter Lee and A. Marie from Redwell with Already Produced documents 2 yellow Note pads with notes Redwell with Copies of Victim Notification Letters Blue folder with Intervenor documents Box 24: West's Florida Statutes Annotated Sections 934.08 to 944.29 White binder with tax returns Epstein State Court File (redwell) with PBSO Inmate Rules and Work Release Regulations PTO Research (redwell) EFTA00066362 Supreme Court case The Florida Bar vs. Jeffrey Marc Herman Brown Box (unlabeled by #): -Mound when she was packing to leave 6(e) application and Order Sealed in Red Interoffice envelope Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance 2000 11 additional books re statutes and victims with notes OPR Prep Box 1 Emails and other documents OPR Prep Box 2 Timelines, notes, and emails OPR Prep Box 3 Marked Exhibits to Response EFTA00066363

EFTA00155131.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 4 pages

From: ' (NY) (FBI)" wrote: That works for me. From: *c . > Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 20214:18 PM To: (USANYS) [Contractor] < ; (USANYS) Cc: =, (USANYS) (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]" < 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: In= (USANYS) Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 2:06 PM To: (USANYS) [Contractor] (NY) (FBI) Cc: =, (USANYS) < :>; (USANYS) Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos Checking in on this—Will, were you able to get these files from From: (USANYS) [Contractor] < Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 10:03 AM To: (USANYS) < .%; (NY) (FBI) < >; Cc: =, (USANYS) (USANYS) < Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos Sure thing! — I'll be around until 230 today if you're available to drop them off. From: MM (USANYS) Sent: Friday, July 2, 20219:55 AM EFTA00155131 To: (NY) (FBI) < MI )'; (USANYS) [Contractor] Cc: =, (USANYS) (USANYS) < ; Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos Thanks Will, 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: I= (USANYS) >; (USANYS) [Contractor] Cc: =, (USANYS) < >; (USANYS) < Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos We have the files from CART. Will, 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: 212-384-8241 From: (USANYS) Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 12:47 PM To: Byrne, MI (NYPD) Cc: (NY) (FBI) 't )*; (USANYS) ; (USANYS) • Subject: (EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Maxwell To-dos Thanks! From: BYRNE, Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 10:12 AM To: (USANYS) Cc: (NY) (FBI) < 1/>; (USANYS) < >; (USANYS) Subject: Re: Maxwell To-dos Sure let me check on that today when I'm in. On Jun 3, 2021, at 21:57, (USANYS) < > wrote: Hi M, EFTA00155132 Checking in again on the .avi files from CART. Any update? Thanks, From: (USANYS) Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 2:40 PM To: BYRNE, I= N. (NY) (FBI) < > Cc: M, (USANYS) ; (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 POC for this task. His phone number is (cell) (office) and email is We will 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: EFTA00155133 From: (USANYS) < Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 20214:03 PM To: M, N. (NY) (FBI) .; BYRNE, I= Cc: (USANYS) < (USANYS) < > Subject: Maxwell To-dos Hi 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 (In 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, Banasiak's 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, Banaskiak's living quarters) (read warrant, video scene) o CSIE (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 1 St. Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 EFTA00155134